Navy vet gets fired for posting pics of DHS vehicles near Ferguson

originally posted by: hogstooth
a reply to: NavyDoc

Privacy? They're gov't employees on the taxpayer's dime. If anything the American taxpayers deserve to know when their gov't is dropping 150k on hotel rooms.

As other posters have pointed out though, his firing is not illegal and he probably won't win any lawsuits.

It begs the question however....

Why is Homeland Security sticking their...what seems to be...MAJOR noses into Ferguson, MO.?

The State and local police departments....together with the Missouri National Guard aren't sufficient?

The bottom line here is that the Obama administration has been poking the wasp nest over Ferguson for months.

They are guilty of inciting violence and having 150 Departmental SUVS all ready parked in a hotel garage speaks volumes of what's planned and what's going on here.

a reply to: ScientificRailgun

If Wilson is acquitted then the police need to protect the businesses and the non black communities that are not rioting and let the protesters burn their own neighborhoods. The police force in Ferguson is not up to the task but DHS has no reason or right to be there.

If DHS makes a move on the local police then I think the National Guard will stop their candy asses right in their tracks. The Governor will never go for that cause people all over that state will toss him out after they stop DHS at the border.

Not surprised to see a corporation getting money from the US government. Of course the corp has to play the government games to keep getting the easy money. I imagine the rate is inflated about 10 times.

I'm placing it on my crap corporation list.

So what we have here is...

Government hired employees brainwashing a civilian boss that is calling a veteran civilian employee a terrorist for taking a photo of a civilian publicly owned vehicle at a public hotel.

a reply to: sean

What you have is an idiot that got fired for breaking company policy and alleges certain things were said.

originally posted by: Domo1

Who can't dictate due process? The DHS or the local businesses? How is due process not being followed?

I am sorry if you're confused, I was talking about the protestors that will riot if the ruling does not go their way. You know the rule of Law, due process? Due Process: A constitutional guarantee that all legal proceedings will be fair, which is what the officer deserves right? Think about it again.

Could you be less vague and just state your opinion?

I apologize if you're having trouble comprehending my post. However I am not here to satisfy your criteria, whatever that may be.

Who do you think they are really there to help or support?

I believe in this case they are there to make sure that the city is not burned down, but that is just an assumption.

What lies should I be reading between? That just sounded like cryptic paranoid conspiracy mumbo jumbo.

Well first of all like Rummy once said, "as we know, there are known knowns, There are things we know we know. We also know that there are known unknowns. That is to say we know there are some things that we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns, the ones we don't know we don't know."

And second, you are on a Conspiracy Website, so that should be expected. Don't let it ruffle your feathers though, you will continue to experience it frequently here, and there will be absolutely nothing that you can do to avoid it. ~$heopleNation

got fired for breaking company policy

Where was company policy stated?

I don't doubt some people are there who have plans to stoke unrest and violence. Not just your typical rabble rousers and malcontents or even radicals. but professionals there on orders from the feds.
Look back at the George Zimmerman murder trial. The Justice Department was all over the district attorneys and the trial and their case collapsed. They picked the worst jury possible, one most likely favorable to Zimmerman. Why? They hoped that if Zimmerman walked they could use the unrest and racial division and violence to further their own agenda. Crack down on gun ownership, convince African americans that they really were being targeted and needed their help to ensure they got equal justice. It didn't happen, there was enough evidence to conclude Zimmerman acted in self defense. They could have sought a lesser charge against him and probably got it. But the feds would have none of that.
So now they are doing the same thing in Ferguson. Holder goes in and stokes unrest and racial division and now the African American American community is being told that they won't get justice again and they will riot. Whites are being told they have to prepare for riots and violence and the feds are there to strong arm everybody. Just watch, you'll have somebody target somebody and both sides will take the blame and they'll have the excuse to have a crackdown and exercise in a police state. I'm hoping the verdict is what it is and people accept it and refuse to be used as suckers to further the ends of the agitators. But keep a close eye on the people there to supposedly keep the peace, they're far more likely to be the source of trouble, not the protestors.

originally posted by: Domo1
a reply to: sean



What you have is an idiot that got fired for breaking company policy and alleges certain things were said.

So he's an idiot for taking pics of @100 DHS vehicles? Maybe he didn't read the small print of the confidentiality agreement of the Drury Hotel chain where it explicitly states an employee mustn't take pictures of cars in the parking garage? Is the parking garage even owned by the hotel? It could be a common city parking garage for the city. Mistake? Yes. Idiot? Might be a little harsh. I personally am interested him exposing the fact that the Feds are more involved to a greater degree in the situation in Ferguson than I had initially thought.

a reply to: UnBreakable

Look at his Facebook, he sure seems like an idiot...

He's an idiot based off the hashtag alone though. He used the rioters tag...

If you read the article he wasn't fired immediately. He was asked to take the images down and he did. Hotel security reviewed the case and fired him a day later.

There is no proof he was called a terrorist.

Those vehicles are labled Federal Protective Service ; I guarantee they were brought in to secure federal buildings ; And not to assist local law eforecement or the National Guard.

"Burn down that gast-station sure, go ahead... Come near this Social Security office and we'll lay you out..."

That type of deal...

originally posted by: sean
So what we have here is...



Government hired employees brainwashing a civilian boss that is calling a veteran civilian employee a terrorist for taking a photo of a civilian publicly owned vehicle at a public hotel.

^^^THIS^^^

a reply to: UnBreakable

The Civilian boss never spoke to the Government. The head of a different division of the company got involved and fired the employee as a breach of security. Did you even read the article you linked?

Also, there is zero proof he was called a terrorist. I could say you just PM'ed me some very derogatory language, and you'd have nothing to prove you didn't say that...

This guy got fired from a job he has had for a year and a half. He was probably very upset.

Also, it isn't like he was fired on the spot. Again, he was reprimanded and asked for the photos to be removed one day and was told it would be discussed with upper management. Once it was discussed he was fired. Sounds like due process to me, not government tampering.

Edit: A hotel is NOT public. A hotel is PRIVATE PROPERTY! It isn't as if he took a picture in a park. He took a picture on private property in a garage. He was an employee of that hotel and as such bound by a different set of rules than a guest would have been.

originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: UnBreakable

Look at his Facebook, he sure seems like an idiot...

He's an idiot based off the hashtag alone though. He used the rioters tag...

If you read the article he wasn't fired immediately. He was asked to take the images down and he did. Hotel security reviewed the case and fired him a day later.

There is no proof he was called a terrorist.

This. It is very likely that he, as a disgruntled employee, has made all of that up.

Epic lols considering their intentions were clearly to surpress this information, and in firing him they garnered far more publicity than if they had simply said nothing...

Or maybe that was their intention?...

a reply to: Gh0stwalker

I think their intentions were to fire a bad employee...

originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: UnBreakable

The Civilian boss never spoke to the Government. The head of a different division of the company got involved and fired the employee as a breach of security. Did you even read the article you linked?

Also, there is zero proof he was called a terrorist. I could say you just PM'ed me some very derogatory language, and you'd have nothing to prove you didn't say that...

This guy got fired from a job he has had for a year and a half. He was probably very upset.

Also, it isn't like he was fired on the spot. Again, he was reprimanded and asked for the photos to be removed one day and was told it would be discussed with upper management. Once it was discussed he was fired. Sounds like due process to me, not government tampering.

Edit: A hotel is NOT public. A hotel is PRIVATE PROPERTY! It isn't as if he took a picture in a park. He took a picture on private property in a garage. He was an employee of that hotel and as such bound by a different set of rules than a guest would have been.

At the bottom of the Blaze link....

Editor’s note: This story has been updated to indicate DHS told Drury Hotels it would pull the $150,000 contract if the hotel did not terminate Paffrath’s employment. The original report stated DHS pulled the contract before Paffrath’s termination.

I wasn't talking about private property rights. It's a business open for the general public. Which means people can come and go. They made a mountain out of a mole hill. People take pictures at hotels all the time. So if a non-employee took this picture what is security going to do about? Not a damn thing. What is DHS going to do about it? Not a damn thing. So they fired him without good cause and he can probably open a case and get his unemployment. I doubt there is such a policy of employees taking photo's. How can you be breaking policy if you have no idea a policy even exists? Again, mumbo jumbo. I seriously doubt there is any policy signed. You also have to sign an agreement to those policies to have any legal weight. If you don't want trespassing, you have to POST a sign. If you don't want Cameras, or Filming you have POST a sign. Not just have some policy tucked away in some filing cabinet no one knows about.

a reply to: sean

If you really don't think that an employee of a hotel isn't allowed to take pictures of the patrons then IDK what to tell you.
On top of that, he cost the company MONEY IDK what society you think we live in but cash rules everything around me.
No company wants to lose a gov contract, and if an employee causes that, ya he prob won't be around much longer.
This man was an employee and more then likely broke policy that he agreed to regardless if he remembers or didn't pay enough attention in the hiring process to know it.

originally posted by: AgentShillington
This guy hasn't wasted any time trying to cash in on his termination. He is asking for 10,000 dollars on gofundme.

I was wrongfully fired from Drury Plaza Chesterfield for posting a picture and short video of homeland security vehicles. I will use the money for lawyer fees and personal expenses.

What a joke.

So being terminated because of his boss's political retardation and wrongful retaliation against him is no cause to pursue remediation?
10k isn't cashing in anyway, and the reasons he listed is hardly "cashing in"
So when someone is wronged in this manner and they defend themselves you call it cashing in?

Cashing in is more like when that old lady got 1 million because she was "anointed" with hot coffee from McDonalds. That is cashing in on her own stupidity. What the Vet did isn't even coming close to cashing in, and what happened to him is not even conducive to a situation that could be cashed in on anyways. If he received a big boatload of cash for this, it still wouldn't be cashing in, it would be called justice.

a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

That "OLD LADY" who got "Anointed" suffered permanent damage and lost several layers to the skin of her vagina and thighs...are you daft?

This guy got fired for being dumb.