It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Police Chief uses Social Media to shame fired/disciplined employees

page: 1
4

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 7 2014 @ 05:17 PM
link   
Well, this is a new one on me.


Dallas Police Chief David O. Brown has fired or disciplined 27 officers and employees in the last year. And every time he brings down the hammer, he announces it on Facebook and Twitter, specifying exactly who the men and women are and what they did. On Dec. 30, it was five officers and a 911 call operator.


The Dallas Police Chief is using Twitter and Facebook to name and shame fired or disciplined employees. At first, this seemed like a neat idea to me, as he stated,


The social media posts aren’t an official policy of the DPD, but rather a “push for transparency” initiative, in Lt. Geron’s words. “[It comes from] a desire to be more transparent and to get our message out to the greater community,” he says.


www.vocativ.com...

However, after reading some of the Twitter messages, then checking out the Facebook posts, then the comments, an opposite side to the argument presented itself.

Give praise in public, shame in private.

It is a complicated topic when you really stop to think about it. He is only presenting one side, though he never fails to post a reminder as well, that the disciplined or fired employee may file a grievance or appeal to the firing.

The obvious response is, the public damage to their reputation cannot be undone with a private appeal or grievance. Obviously, they can post their own response on Facebook or Twitter, but who is really going to delve that far into it?

His Facebook postings are paragraphs long, including details of the incidents leading up to the firings. There is also a spreadsheet available at the link, with a full listing of all of the firings or disciplinary actions.

So what say you, ATS? Is it okay to publically name and shame these wayward employees for DUI's, domestic violence, shooting an unarmed person that is being turned over for investigation to the DA? In a case like the last, for instance, it would be wise for the named and shamed to remain silent. All of them, in fact, until their cases are handled.


Interested in hearing your opinons.

Mods please move if necessary, couldn't really decide on a good forum, so chose this one.

And yes, I searched, and didn't find this posted.



edit on 7-1-2014 by Libertygal because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 7 2014 @ 05:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Libertygal
 


every time a civilian breaks the law they end up in a sheriffs blotter of the local news paper and there crimes are posted for anyone to look up. F the police they shouldn't get special treatment because they choose to work for the United corporation of America.

And dont get me started on facebook



posted on Jan, 7 2014 @ 05:42 PM
link   
As a business manager, I live and die by "Praise in public, punish in private". Although you don't "punish", it is snappier to say than "provide corrective redress in private".

As a citizen in the public, I think this is super swell. They are employees of the public, afterall.

And interesting juxtaposition.



posted on Jan, 7 2014 @ 05:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Libertygal
 

Great!!! Now, let's do the same with ALL public figures. They took a public job paid for by the citizens of their jurisdiction, therefore, those citizens are their boss', therefore, their boss should be aware of what type of problems their employees are causing. Period.



posted on Jan, 7 2014 @ 05:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Libertygal
 


The link did not come up for me but my internet is pretty weak where I live.

However...

I get the 'praise in public...' thing but there is another angle here. I may be wrong but this guy is trying to do a couple of things with this action:

1. Let the public know his agency will be help to a standard. Better yet, he is letting the public know THEIR servants are being held accountable.

2. He is putting his agency on notice in no uncertain terms, BS as usual will not be swept under the rug, painful as it might appear.

I spent my adult life in the Army. When Soldiers get in official trouble, I have known Commanders who will post what the crime/punishment are for the rest of the Soldiers to see. This let's everyone know justice and the law will be upheld.



posted on Jan, 7 2014 @ 06:04 PM
link   
reply to post by DocScurlock
 



And dont get me started on facebook


I couldn't agree with you more on this one!

I do agree about the blotter thing, too, that's a great point! I wouldn't have any issues with these fired cops being in the blotter, either, if they were arrested. That is, however, still a bit different than Twitter and Facebook.

Like I said, they are still welcome to present their side of the argument, but in most of the cases I saw listed, it would be terribly unwise of them to do so.

I don't know, I am seeing both sides of this coin, equally good, and equally bad. Looking for that decsion breaking point, and I can't seem to land anywhere.

Thanks for the reply!



posted on Jan, 7 2014 @ 06:09 PM
link   
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan
 


Yup, I agree as well. I always liked the punish in private aspect, but then, just as with anyone else, I feel that anyone that breaks the law loses a certain aspect of their rights, particularly the right to privacy. Such as, records in almost every state, if not every state, are public.

Barring that, the public shaming is the aspect that leaves a particular distaste in my mouth. The loss of a job, the sheer default of the public record, should be enough. Calling them out in public? I am just not so sure.

Like I said, it seemed kinda neat at first glance, but thinking a bit deeper brought out more aspects.

Thanks for your opinion. As always, I respect your thoughts.



posted on Jan, 7 2014 @ 06:10 PM
link   
reply to post by wirefly
 



They took a public job paid for by the
citizens of their jurisdiction,...


Excellent point! I have to agree with this aspect.

I really have no counter argument to it.



posted on Jan, 7 2014 @ 06:15 PM
link   
reply to post by ABNARTY
 

You bring one great aspect into it that I realky appreciate, and that is, it lets his agency know where he stands, no B.S., no taking anything. He makes himself very clear.

The funny thing is, 27 employees in a year, it doesn't seem they are taking him too seriously, or he has a crap hiring staff/policy, or, these people are really good liars! That seems like a really high turn over in one year for some corrupt employees, or, is it just me?

I am glad to see he is making a stance, though, and not being a *part* of the corruption.



posted on Jan, 7 2014 @ 07:06 PM
link   
It seems like this guy cares about public opinion of their "servants" in uniform. I would feel much safer around police under this guy than somewhere like some of the places I've lived where cops do dirty things and get away with it on a regular basis.

People get arrested and their pictures end up in newspapers and rag magazines so why should cops not be held to the same standard as everyone else?



posted on Jan, 7 2014 @ 07:50 PM
link   

Libertygal

So what say you, ATS? Is it okay to publically name and shame these wayward employees for DUI's, domestic violence, shooting an unarmed person that is being turned over for investigation to the DA? In a case like the last, for instance, it would be wise for the named and shamed to remain silent. All of them, in fact, until their cases are handled.


Interested in hearing your opinons.




edit on 7-1-2014 by Libertygal because: (no reason given)


They are public employees paid by, trained with and supplied by public funds. I think that right there removes the reasonable expectation of privacy from this equation. It's no different than reading about congressmen who get caught with hookers or drugs. They are also public servants who have yet to be charged in some cases or have yet to be tried in others but being that they are paid on our dime they should expect to give up some aspects of privacy. I think it's a good idea and it puts public servants on notice that there will finally be repercussions if they violate the law or their oath.



posted on Jan, 7 2014 @ 10:42 PM
link   
This guy is showing some integrity. And he cares about the deteriorating public opinion on cops.

Most states have a newspaper plastered with color photos of everyone arrested. usually sitting next to the cashier at gas stations where ALL see it.

Maybe more fixing things from within is a Baby Step?


And, how long before the Police Unions try and destroy this guy?



posted on Jan, 8 2014 @ 01:24 AM
link   
reply to post by HanzHenry
 



And, how long before the Police Unions try and destroy this guy?


Good question, but this is Texas. Most unions are in northern states, so Texas may not even have one. Something to check out, out of curiosity!




posted on Jan, 8 2014 @ 10:15 AM
link   

Libertygal
reply to post by ABNARTY
 

You bring one great aspect into it that I realky appreciate, and that is, it lets his agency know where he stands, no B.S., no taking anything. He makes himself very clear.

The funny thing is, 27 employees in a year, it doesn't seem they are taking him too seriously, or he has a crap hiring staff/policy, or, these people are really good liars! That seems like a really high turn over in one year for some corrupt employees, or, is it just me?

I am glad to see he is making a stance, though, and not being a *part* of the corruption.



We're in agreement - except for that 27 employees comment.
Dallas PD has 3600 officers, plus a bunch of employees.
Out of 3600, 27 (1.5%) doesn't look too bad does it?

Then again, several of those 27 were ousted for using "unjustifiable" deadly force, so while 27 out of 3600 (1.5%) doesn't seem alarming, the severity of their offenses spans much more than "public corruption". Could be that these 27 are just the high profile cases that the Chief needed to exert some serious "spin control".

I am not knocking transparency - just leery of it when offered voluntarily by a public official.
Usually you have to make an effort to peel back the veil of concealment to achieve any degree of "real" transparency.

ganjoa



posted on Jan, 8 2014 @ 11:16 AM
link   
reply to post by ganjoa
 


Ah, you bring more interesting facts to the table! Based on the stats you posted, then, no, I have to agree, his actions are not over the top. They do seem reasonable for that many employees.

I do understand your being a bit wary, as I am too, about the "transparency" claims. I need to look into it, but was this the department that was recently involved in the roadside cavity search controversy?

Thanks for adding some useful information, I was unable to take the time to look up those stats, so that was a tremendous help!

I suppose I am more on the side of supporting him now, than just being in the middle, or undecided.

I did look, am unable to find anything showing they are unionized, as an aside.

Thanks for the informative reply, and for bringing such useful info to the thread. I appreciate your contribution!

ETA: just a precursary check, but Texas State Troopers were the ones involved in the Body Cavity search issues.

edit on 8-1-2014 by Libertygal because: ETA comment



posted on Jan, 8 2014 @ 12:47 PM
link   
If an employee truly does something to deserve being fired and/or arrested and it has been PROVEN in an internal affairs investigation (for policy violations) and in court (for criminal acts) I have no issue with what he is doing.

We work for the public. They have every right to know what is going on.

Transparency is very important.

Technically they are allowed access to that information anyways.



posted on Jan, 12 2014 @ 01:57 PM
link   
reply to post by TorqueyThePig
 


Mate, if everyone who wore the badge was Thomas Jefferson like in respects to the constitution, I would carry the LARGEST pom poms.
I firmly believe that ALL problems can be fixed IN HOUSE.. the reluctance is largely due to the unions.

Imho, there should not be Unions for police. Or, any public servants for that matter.


the internal animosity by some of the 'Ol boy network officers, and the retired Big Players in the union will destroy this man. For simply, "harming our own".



posted on Jan, 12 2014 @ 02:18 PM
link   
Although I'd agree that public servants should be of the highest moral fiber, and thus be held to greater public account, I also worry that this can be abused to simply to work unpopular staff out of the system (which could be positive or corrupt).

Furthermore, even if people get fired for real crimes and offenses, everyone makes mistakes, and some people can redeem themselves through counseling or therapy.

But with public information like this they might never get another job, and simply swell the ranks of the angry, the unemployed and the homeless.



new topics

top topics



 
4

log in

join