• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Fire capt. demoted for alleged Trayvon rant

cmakaioz said:
Actually, open expression of bigotry DOES have bearing on his job. He works in emergency services for the public. Open expression of ideological racism sends a rather clear message that he views certain people (urban = thinly veiled social code for "black") as being less worthy of attention/recognition/full acknowledgment than other human beings. Law enforcement and public safety personnel depend upon the public -- both in terms of funding as well as in terms of information, citizen cooperation, etc. -- in order to operate at their best. A fire department should not have to second-guess its interactions with the public because a mid-level leader within its ranks is known to harbor bigoted views of a significant portion of the public. Effective cooperation between fire departments, police departments, and the general public is made easy or difficult according to the relationship these institutions have with everyday people. This cooperation is undermined if and when the public has good reason to believe critical personnel have irrational prejudices towards people based upon imagined features.

If the man in question performed a job which didn't require or depend upon positive interaction with the public (like staying at the fire station and tinkering on/maintaining the fire engines and associated gear), then that mechanic/technician could indeed be as bigoted as he wanted to be, and it wouldn't have any direct bearing on his work role. Firefighters, however, DO interact with the public, and rely upon establishing a certain minimum baseline of trust, for the sake of the public's safety as well as their own.
Click to expand...

um.....urban youth does not equal black. White, brown, and yellow kids live in the city too.
 
muciti said:
um.....urban youth does not equal black.
Click to expand...

Never said it did. I pointed out that it is CODE.

Of course "urban" -- taken literally --doesn't mean "black." But coming from someone seeking to make a racist statement who expects backlash if he stated his bigotry openly, 'urban' is currently a functional code word for "black." It's similar in usage to "inner city."

The whole point of socially coded racist language is to be able to make racist statements while dodging some of the social flack for making racist statements. It depends upon listeners/readers/viewers being familiar with the relevant codes.

When white supremacists like David Duke or Jared Taylor make reference to an imagined unified "Western" or "Judeo-Christian" value system, this is codespeak as well...it's code for "white." Literally, of course, "Western" does not mean ("racially") white, and there are plenty of Jews and Christians who are not admitted into the club of whiteness, but such coded speakers hided behind such thin veils to take some of the edge off of the flack they'd get if they spoke plainly.

So of course, "urban" is not a synonym for "black," but *in the context of trying to come off as respectable while voicing a backwards and superstitious view, "urban" catches less hell than "black."

muciti said:
White, brown, and yellow kids live in the city too.
Click to expand...

Of course they do, but they have their own coded terms. The most common coded usage for "white" people in racist code language is to falsely treat "white" as an unmarked norm, by signifying nonwhite "races" of people in descriptions but leaving off any such signifier when describing "white" people. For example, when debating the ethics of chattel slavery, many participants in white supremacism (as action, with or without an accompanying ideological endorsement of white supremacy), make a statement like this:

"Chattel slavery is recognized today as an atrocious institution, but at the time most people [sic] regarded it as normal."

This statement is of course false, and obviously so...as soon as it is not evaluated from within the frame assigned by white supremacy. In other words, when you evaluate that statement in terms of people -- where "people" really means people in general and not just the "white" colonial population -- there are millions of obvious counterexamples of people in that time and place who indeed objected to chattel slavery in no uncertain terms...namely, the enslaved Africans.

Returning to the Trayvon Martin case, it is rather spectacular to note the degree to which the VICTIM of the shooting is often being portrayed as the center of suspicion rather than the man who shot and killed him. The fire captain's decision to go out of his way to promote suspicion of the victim in the shooting is quite telling. This was not a case of a spur-of-the-moment direct statement of his own...he relayed a racist statement made by someone else, as a sign of endorsing such a sentiment. To endorse the bigoted implication involved -- that regular people respond to unfair and harmful treatment with outrage, but "urban" (codeword) youth exaggerate the degree of their victimization -- sends a message to the public that not everyone's humanity, safety, or reasoning is regarded as being presumptively equal. As above (in my previous posts), this is a deeply prejudicial sentiment which undermines the basis of a positive working relationship between the fire department and the public (whose cooperation is a necessary element in effective service).
 
RadicalModerate said:
Off topic, but someone got fired for using their Facebook when they're sick? What are they supposed to do, sit on their hands? How ridiculous! Fired for using Facebook when your sick?! Does your place of business think that using Facebook involves an incredible amount of effort? It's the same thing if you saw them at a baseball game?

No offense, but you seem to work for an insane company!
Click to expand...

muciti said:
I think he meant when you call in sick then post how much fun you are having at disney world or something similar.
Click to expand...

muciti is correct. It wasn't quite as extreme as Disney World; but this was an individual who had called in at 5:30 am to say they were sick and would not be in yet who was posting on Facebook about being in Boston at a certain attraction at 8:30am, where they were having lunch at noon, and a photo from their seat at Fenway Park just before first pitch that evening.

The company I work for does not utilize the concept of "sick days" like many others do. Instead we have "sick instances". An "instance" is one or more consecutive days lost to health issues. Three or more consecutive days requires a doctor's note to return to work. More than one "instance" in a 6 month period, or three total in a year can lead to disciplinary action by your supervisor.

This individual knew they were being watched regarding sick days and not only chose to take another one, they were stupid enough to post on Facebook where they were and what they were doing.
 
Well, he didn't say anything racist. Politically incorrect, but nothing racist. Considering I believe he is a county/state employee, he should sue for having his rights infringed upon. A private company can fire you for almost any reason they want, including things that aren't politically correct, but not a public one.
 
vendur said:
Well, he didn't say anything racist. Politically incorrect, but nothing racist. Considering I believe he is a county/state employee, he should sue for having his rights infringed upon. A private company can fire you for almost any reason they want, including things that aren't politically correct, but not a public one.
Click to expand...

If we accept Beckmann's account at face value, he copied-and-pasted a racist statement instead of coming up with it from himself. He did, however, go out of his way to relay that racist statement, so no, he's not off the hook, and both the outrage and the call for penalty against him are perfectly appropriate.

Since you seem to be either unwilling or unable to decipher the thinly-veiled codespeak and/or to grasp what is racist about it:

The statement re-posted by Beckmann essentially implies that black people just make things up about racial profiling being a problem, and that the disproportionate degree of problems and strained relationships with law enforcement in black communities is something they bring entirely upon themselves. (Blaming the victim). This is clearly a racialized statement because it is raised as a presumptive counterpoint to an anticipated charge of racial profiling of "blacks" by a predominantly "white" law enforcement system. (In other words, if "urban" in Beckmann's reposted usage was really only intended to mean something like "of the city," there'd be no mention of/ attempt to minimize objections based upon racist profiling).
 
Last edited:
cmakaioz said:
If we accept Beckmann's account at face value, he copied-and-pasted a racist statement instead of coming up with it from himself. He did, however, go out of his way to relay that racist statement, so no, he's not off the hook, and both the outrage and the call for penalty against him are perfectly appropriate.

Since you seem to be either unwilling or unable to decipher the thinly-veiled codespeak and/or to grasp what is racist about it:

The statement re-posted by Beckmann essentially implies that black people just make things up about racial profiling being a problem, and that the disproportionate degree of problems and strained relationships with law enforcement in black communities is something they bring entirely upon themselves. (Blaming the victim). This is clearly a racialized statement because it is raised as a presumptive counterpoint to an anticipated charge of racial profiling of "blacks" by a predominantly "white" law enforcement system. (In other words, if "urban" in Beckmann's reposted usage was really only intended to mean something like "of the city," there'd be no mention of/ attempt to minimize objections based upon racist profiling).
Click to expand...

Show me exactly the logic of what you claim. How did he say "black people just make things up about racial profiling?" What he actually conveyed is the sacrosanct leftist trope that we are products of our environment. The loony left should love this guy. He's right up their moronic, denial-paved alley.
 
Last edited:
muciti said:
Zyphlin, i pose the same questions to you as I did PD. Why should a persons personal opinion on a public matter or even a political position or any other personal view cause them to lose a job or a position? Regardless of whether or not FB can be viewed by anyone it is our right to say it.
Click to expand...

It shows bias, as such it could bring into question whether he or the people under his command show preference in the performance of their public duties, give preferential treatment in the administration of their duties at the "house", follow policy etc. There simply is no good end to voicing personal and quite frankly, derogatory remarks by public servants.
 
muciti said:
Fire capt. demoted for alleged Trayvon rant - CBS News





More and more Facebook and personal opinions are being used to punish people in their place of business. There is nothing wrong with what he said. He broke no laws. He had every right to say it. Yet this happens.
Click to expand...


Well, imagine that. The Fireman was speaking his mind and got fired for it. 'Ya know, he is in a public sector union, which is going to fight that firing. But I forgot. You are against public sector unions.
 
Last edited:
vendur said:
Show me exactly the logic of what you claim. How did he say "black people just make things up about racial profiling?" What he actually conveyed is the sacrosanct leftist trope that we are products of our environment. The loony left should love this guy. He's right up their moronic, denial-paved alley.
Click to expand...

Some people deny racism because they are unable to see it...some deny it because they are unwilling to see it. Based upon your post, your perspective involves some combination of both.

The racism in the statement lies in the clear implication that -- unlike some imagined normal human baseline, in which people would raise major complaints about a big issue because it really is a serious problem -- "black" people exaggerate or even fabricate the significance of racist profiling, and that their disproportionate challenges with regards to law enforcement are problems which they bring upon themselves.

This is racist on at least two obvious fronts: 1) it adopts the bigoted premise (bigotry being the attribution of an exceptionalist causality to a group) that "black" people respond to systematic mistreatment in a manner different from the rest of humankind, and 2) this in turn implies that racist profiling perpetrated against "black" people is a made-up problem/non-issue.
 
cmakaioz said:
Some people deny racism because they are unable to see it...some deny it because they are unwilling to see it. Based upon your post, your perspective involves some combination of both.
Click to expand...


Well, there's some undeniably spectacular logic there. Getting off to a great start.


cmakaioz said:
The racism in the statement lies in the clear implication that -- unlike some imagined normal human baseline, in which people would raise major complaints about a big issue because it really is a serious problem -- "black" people exaggerate or even fabricate the significance of racist profiling, and that their disproportionate challenges with regards to law enforcement are problems which they bring upon themselves.

This is racist on at least two obvious fronts: 1) it adopts the bigoted premise (bigotry being the attribution of an exceptionalist causality to a group) that "black" people respond to systematic mistreatment in a manner different from the rest of humankind, and 2) this in turn implies that racist profiling perpetrated against "black" people is a made-up problem/non-issue.
Click to expand...


No, he was only saying that if these kids didn't come from such crappy families, they wouldn't commit so many crimes; therefore, it wouldn't be logical to profile them. It's a lefty canard that would be applauded in any another situation by the same people criticizing him in this case. His premise is a classist one, but not a racist one.
 
Last edited:
Our freedom of speech is disappearing about as quickly as the ice shelves.
 
vendur said:
No, he was only saying that if these kids didn't come from such crappy families, they wouldn't commit so many crimes; therefore, it wouldn't be logical to profile them.
Click to expand...

Racist profiling is ALREADY illogical, because someone's "race" not only does not have any influence upon criminal activity, but indeed cannot have any influence upon it. RacISM, however, can and does have a heavy influence on whose criminal activity is seized upon, who is charged, the severity of the charges, etc.

In any case, if the statement (according to your theory) isn't racist, kindly explain then why the statement mentioned racist profiling at all?!? If the originator of the statement (whether Beckmann or anyone else) was making a general socioeconomic statement unrelated to "race", why on earth would the charge of racist profiling be explicitly and preemptively dismissed?

vendur said:
His premise is a classist one, but not a racist one.
Click to expand...

LOLZ...oh, RIIIGHT...so the originator of the statement explicitly defended against anticipated claims of racist profiling for what...fun?
 
Connery said:
It shows bias, as such it could bring into question whether he or the people under his command show preference in the performance of their public duties, give preferential treatment in the administration of their duties at the "house", follow policy etc. There simply is no good end to voicing personal and quite frankly, derogatory remarks by public servants.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that's how I see it too. Leaders are held by a higher standard as well. I don't know if he had one, but there are moral and conduct clauses in most contracts these days.
 
cmakaioz said:
Racist profiling is ALREADY illogical, because someone's "race" not only does not have any influence upon criminal activity, but indeed cannot have any influence upon it. RacISM, however, can and does have a heavy influence on whose criminal activity is seized upon, who is charged, the severity of the charges, etc.
Click to expand...

ROFLMAO. What a bunch of BS.I don't have 10 years to teach a pig to sing, though. Enjoy your fantasy world.
 
sharon said:
His job is to lead.. and firefighters are black and white.

He was a fool to undermine discipline, good order and teamwork to go off on a stupid rant trashing Trayvon's parents
Click to expand...

This rant did not mention, nor did it refer to, nor (probably) was he even thinking about Trayvon Martin's parents when he wrote that post. Those types of invalid conclusions are what causes things like this to become "news" stories. While it is probable that the fireman's thought process was tangential to the controversy surrounding Trayvon, his comments had to do with parents of inner city youth in general, and racial profiling. While it was probably dumb of him to post that, he was just speaking the truth. Placing the blame for a lot of the violence and hardships faced by inner city youth on their parents and their upbringing. This is something most policemen and firefighters KNOW is fact. They see it every day.
 
missypea said:
Yeah, that's how I see it too. Leaders are held by a higher standard as well. I don't know if he had one, but there are moral and conduct clauses in most contracts these days.
Click to expand...

It does not matter whether the employee was on duty or off duty. He agreed to conduct himself in a particular fashion and to uphold a particular standard . He breached his agreement and standard, there are consequences for his actions.

According to the Collective Bargaining Agreement the following are grounds for discipline:

"Any employee may be reprimanded, suspended, reduced in grade or dismissed by the head of his department, or designee as approved in Administrative Order 7-16, for any good and sufficient reason which will promote the efficiency of the County service. Negligence, dishonesty, insubordination, or conduct unbecoming a public employee are among such good and sufficient reasons."
http://www.miamidade.gov/aopdfdoc/aopdf/pdffiles/ao7-3.pdf
http://www.miamidade.gov/hr/library/labor_relations_iaff_1403.pdf


The following is a definition of Conduct Unbecoming A Public Employee (CUPE) Definition: Conduct, whether on or off the job, that adversely affects the employee's ability to continue to perform his or her current job, or that adversely affects the agency's ability to carry out its assigned mission.
 
I wish I could use the search function better and pull up the posts about others getting fired for what they post on facebook and should an employer be able to use face book postings against an employee.

Now this fireman wasn't fired, he was demoted. There are rules for most ranked services, to include firefighters. But as another poster mentioned he has a UNION, the UNION will fight this travesty, they stand FOR the worker!

Must be sand in some conservative's craw, a UNION is going to step up to right a social injustice, well as the conservatives see it...

If the firefighter's Union is anything like the Cop's, well hell, this guy will be chief with back pay by the time the review is done!

Gawd Bless the Unions of America!
 
muciti said:
Zyphlin, i pose the same questions to you as I did PD. Why should a persons personal opinion on a public matter or even a political position or any other personal view cause them to lose a job or a position? Regardless of whether or not FB can be viewed by anyone it is our right to say it.
Click to expand...

Because I don't believe anyone is entitled to a job or has some universal right to it. The individual was in a position of leadership. Things he says publicly and makes public...not necessarily his private positions held amongst friends or spoken privately but spoken in what I view as a public forum no different than the middle of the street...I believe are legitimate for a boss to look at, but not necessarily perhaps look FOR (if that makes sense), in terms of determining if that individual will either harm his business or damage his ability to lead. If a business owner or boss feels such actions could cause those type of issues in most cases...not all, its something that is somewhat case by case...I can understand giving leeway to the employer.

We have the right to freedom of speech. We do not have a right to be free of repercussions of that speech from other private citizens as long as they are lawful repercussions.
 
Before returning to work Beckmann will have to undergo a psychological examination by a county doctor and be required to take diversity training courses.
Click to expand...

manchurian_4.jpg


And am I the only one left in the world without a facebook account?
 
Last edited:
danarhea said:
Well, imagine that. The Fireman was speaking his mind and got fired for it. 'Ya know, he is in a public sector union, which is going to fight that firing. But I forgot. You are against public sector unions.
Click to expand...

He wasnt fired he was demoted. And when the hell did I say i was against public sector unions?
 
Enola said:
Our freedom of speech is disappearing about as quickly as the ice shelves.
Click to expand...

And don't forget that Obama promised to end erosion of our freedoms. What did he actually do? He became Bush on steroids.
 
Enola said:
Our freedom of speech is disappearing about as quickly as the ice shelves.
Click to expand...

danarhea said:
And don't forget that Obama promised to end erosion of our freedoms. What did he actually do? He became Bush on steroids.
Click to expand...

This is not about Obama or Free Speech. The fireman contractually agreed refrain from acting in a manner which may act to compromise his ability to perform in his former capacity or interfere with the "agency's ability to carry out its assigned mission".
 
sangha said:
And the FD broke no laws when demoting him
Click to expand...

Depends on the state, actually, mister Gerry Spence. And his contract, of course.
 
danarhea said:
And don't forget that Obama promised to end erosion of our freedoms. What did he actually do? He became Bush on steroids.
Click to expand...

And what was Obama supposed to do in this situation? This is a state issue, not federal.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom