Kentucky Deputy Suspended Over ‘Muslim Holler Monkey’ Facebook Post

[MACS-24]

That and lack of resources for a formal education.

I'll edit your post for a more accurate picture then leave it at that.

 

[trouble13]

I already recounted that George McClellan once wrote a letter to a member of President Lincoln's cabinet, in which he cracked that a sweat stain he had noticed on the back of Lincoln's shirt one hot day was shaped like the continent of Africa, as if the missing link were wearing a sign to identify its origin. I suppose his calling that President an apelike creature was a racist remark. And I suppose the people who regularly delighted in calling President George W. Bush a monkey or ape and depicting him as such were also racists.

I think what really outrages most of the people attacking this deputy is that he dared to insult someone they admire and think deserves special protection. They miss their beloved Man Who Would Be King, and for them, any criticism of him is lese majeste.

I have been reading along and i agree with most of your argument. I think you nailed the motive behind this being more about it being viewed as sacrilege to criticize obama by his supporters. I also agree that it being intended as a racial slur is not the only thing he may of meant to convey. It may of been an attack on his intelligence as you have demonstrated by showing the same association was made toward white presidents.


Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

 

[year2late]

So the leftist crowd can have an excuse for firebombing another university. 1 Facebook post = 1 firebomb in today's world.

Do you believe that is the norm? It sounds as if you believe it.

 

[JasperL]

I respect what your saying but i do disagree with you about the threshold your using.

If there is evidence of anyone in a position of authority abusing it, they should ne disciplined if not terminated. Calling someone an ethnic slur (which is debatable here) can be evidence of a person being a bigot but it by itself is not proof of that. People who are not bigots sometimes use those slurs as a means to attack a person. While its not polite to say those things its not illegal to say it. I think its an over reaction to fire a civil servant for saying something that is admittedly offensive to the majority of us. I dont defend him saying that but i do defend his right to say it. I think forcing people to hide their feelings has dangerous consequences associated with it.

OK, but what you're asking the public to do, those who this guy can detain, arrest, and use deadly force against, is to somehow look into the man's soul to determine if he just uses offensive slurs against people he doesn't LIKE, or is in general a bigot/racist with a bias toward that minority group. IMO, that's unreasonable. Furthermore, anyone with the sense of a gnat knows better. If you're, say, a VP of sales and use that kind of language on your social media account, you better be updating your resume because you (if not a moron) should KNOW that what you're doing will likely cost you your job. We KNOW the public as a group is offended by that kind of language. Doesn't even matter if it's right or wrong, really, it's just reality, and employers are permitted to make decisions taking reality into account.

And he obviously has a "right" to say it. What he does not have is a "right" to use racial slurs on his social media accounts and remain a cop, just like in any ordinary job he has no "right" to offend the company's customer base and keep his job.

 

[JasperL]

I already recounted that George McClellan once wrote a letter to a member of President Lincoln's cabinet, in which he cracked that a sweat stain he had noticed on the back of Lincoln's shirt one hot day was shaped like the continent of Africa, as if the missing link were wearing a sign to identify its origin. I suppose his calling that President an apelike creature was a racist remark. And I suppose the people who regularly delighted in calling President George W. Bush a monkey or ape and depicting him as such were also racists.

I think what really outrages most of the people attacking this deputy is that he dared to insult someone they admire and think deserves special protection. They miss their beloved Man Who Would Be King, and for them, any criticism of him is lese majeste.

First of all, it's not clear whether the cop was referring to Obama, or to a local citizen getting actually evicted from his home. The local paper indicated at least early on that he was referring to someone in the local community, not Obama, but it doesn't matter.

And, no, there have been non-stop insults of Obama and I don't believe he deserves "special protection." But what matters in this case is the cop's boss in Kentucky, and the local community in Kentucky, and apparently his boss isn't a moron and is willing to recognize the obvious that he can't tolerate his officers spewing bigoted/racist bilge on their social media accounts and maintain an effective and orderly and respected police force.

 

[trouble13]

OK, but what you're asking the public to do, those who this guy can detain, arrest, and use deadly force against, is to somehow look into the man's soul to determine if he just uses offensive slurs against people he doesn't LIKE, or is in general a bigot/racist with a bias toward that minority group. IMO, that's unreasonable. Furthermore, anyone with the sense of a gnat knows better. If you're, say, a VP of sales and use that kind of language on your social media account, you better be updating your resume because you (if not a moron) should KNOW that what you're doing will likely cost you your job. We KNOW the public as a group is offended by that kind of language. Doesn't even matter if it's right or wrong, really, it's just reality, and employers are permitted to make decisions taking reality into account.

And he obviously has a "right" to say it. What he does not have is a "right" to use racial slurs on his social media accounts and remain a cop, just like in any ordinary job he has no "right" to offend the company's customer base and keep his job.

So would you be ok if people started trolling teachers social media sites and got them fired for being vocally bias on some particular issue. I mean how could a liberal thinking student expect a fair grade from a conservative leaning teacher. Cant you see the problem with that kind of thinking?

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

 

[JasperL]

So would you be ok if people started trolling teachers social media sites and got them fired for being vocally bias on some particular issue. I mean how could a liberal thinking student expect a fair grade from a conservative leaning teacher. Cant you see the problem with that kind of thinking?

First of all the courts protect speech by civil servants of on matters of "public concern." So a teacher could, it would appear, advocate for political issues without fear of retribution.

But just in general, you're sort of insisting that we can't draw distinctions between calling someone a 'ni***er' on social media, versus being opposed to Betsy Davos and school vouchers, or in favor of that policy, or for or against Trump or Hillary, etc. I just don't buy it at all. Furthermore, it's actually a bit different for cops than for teachers. Police have a lot of discretionary power, and their testimony and the evidence they gather can put you in jail for up to LIFE, or subject you to the death penalty, and they have the discretion to use deadly force in apprehending you, etc. Our justice system really HAS to assume that those guys are doing their job in a fair, even handed manner, and if that assumption is threatened, the entire system breaks down, as it did in the South under Jim Crow. So it's entirely fair, IMO, to hold them to a very high standard when it comes to expressions of bigotry or racism, and a much higher standard than we would teachers or the clerk at DMV, etc.

 

[Fletch]

It's like asking how "ni****r" is racist, so I have no interest in demonstrating something like that. And it doesn't matter if by some objective measure, if that was possible, referring to a black person as a monkey IS "racist." It walks and quacks like it's racist/bigoted, so a big chunk of the public, including the vast majority of blacks I'm guessing, consider it as racist and if you want to keep your job as a cop, don't use it on your social media account or refer to your boss or coworkers or those you're arresting in those terms.

I guess the defense attorneys defending anyone arrested by a moron who regularly referred to various blacks as howler monkeys would be VERY happy, so there's that....

So you cant explain why its racist, you just feel that it is, so therefore it is. That's nonsense, you know. Since I had never heard of the term, I looked it up:

Howler monkey: any one of various mainly leaf-eating monkeys that live in trees and have a very loud booming call

You seem to be focused on the 'monkey' aspect since it will lead you to conclude what you wish to conclude--that there is racist intent behind the person using the term, when it fact, it may have more to do with noise that particular animal makes. But yes, I understand that it is far easier for the left to cry 'Racism' rather than engage in intelligent dialogue.

 

[trouble13]

First of all the courts protect speech by civil servants of on matters of "public concern." So a teacher could, it would appear, advocate for political issues without fear of retribution.

But just in general, you're sort of insisting that we can't draw distinctions between calling someone a 'ni***er' on social media, versus being opposed to Betsy Davos and school vouchers, or in favor of that policy, or for or against Trump or Hillary, etc. I just don't buy it at all. Furthermore, it's actually a bit different for cops than for teachers. Police have a lot of discretionary power, and their testimony and the evidence they gather can put you in jail for up to LIFE, or subject you to the death penalty, and they have the discretion to use deadly force in apprehending you, etc. Our justice system really HAS to assume that those guys are doing their job in a fair, even handed manner, and if that assumption is threatened, the entire system breaks down, as it did in the South under Jim Crow. So it's entirely fair, IMO, to hold them to a very high standard when it comes to expressions of bigotry or racism, and a much higher standard than we would teachers or the clerk at DMV, etc.

I agree with you that police officers should be held to the highest standard when it oertains to following the law. I hold the same opinion about judges and legislators.

When it comes to things like freedom of speech i think all civil servants should be held to the same standard.

Imo calling a black man a monkey is within his rights just like making fun of trump for being orange is fair game.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

 

[MACS-24]

And people wonder why so many blacks do not trust the police.

 

[JasperL]

So you cant explain why its racist, you just feel that it is, so therefore it is. That's nonsense, you know. Since I had never heard of the term, I looked it up:

Howler monkey: any one of various mainly leaf-eating monkeys that live in trees and have a very loud booming call

You seem to be focused on the 'monkey' aspect since it will lead you to conclude what you wish to conclude--that there is racist intent behind the person using the term, when it fact, it may have more to do with noise that particular animal makes. But yes, I understand that it is far easier for the left to cry 'Racism' rather than engage in intelligent dialogue.

I'm not arguing that there is racist intent actually. Maybe the guy is just a moron, and is an equal opportunity asshole. What I'm pointing out is the public WILL view it as racist/bigoted. Or, perhaps more importantly, the sheriff and his boss DID see it that way and gave the guy a long suspension. And this is in a county that's 96% white, and roughly 66% voted for Trump.

Anyway, any employee who thinks he can get away with, "But boss, referring to a black person as howler monkey is not racist!!" on social media is really disqualifyingly stupid for most jobs, and is sure as heck too dumb to be a cop.

 

[yankintx]

I'll edit your post for a more accurate picture then leave it at that.

Thats all you got, to be the grammer police, lol. Poor Trumpsters, its now dawning on them that there Dear Leader is mentally ill with NPD. C'mon Donny, lets see the proof of the voter fraud in NH, I will be waiting, as is the Director of Elections in the NH.

 

[Casca XV]

Why do imbeciles like this deputy keep posting racist **** on Facebook?

Do they think nobody's gonna read it?

Do you know what really says it all: How rare actual proven incidents of Leftist and Muslims being victims of any type of politically motivated crimes or violence. While Trump supporters are the proven victims of politically motivated crimes and violence everyday.

At least 99% of the reports of politically motivated hate crimes against Leftist/Muslims when PROVEN end up being false flag frauds. Trump Supporters usually don't need to report hate crimes against them, they are usually caught on video or the Leftist are openly brag about committing them.

 

[MACS-24]

Thats all you got, to be the grammer police, lol. Poor Trumpsters, its now dawning on them that there Dear Leader is mentally ill with NPD. C'mon Donny, lets see the proof of the voter fraud in NH, I will be waiting, as is the Director of Elections in the NH.

What in the world has any of this personal attack have to do with this thread?

so much for civil discussion. (By the way, my post had nothing to do with grammar.)

 

[JasperL]

Do you know what really says it all: How rare actual proven incidents of Leftist and Muslims being victims of any type of politically motivated crimes or violence. While Trump supporters are the proven victims of politically motivated crimes and violence everyday.

At least 99% of the reports of politically motivated hate crimes against Leftist/Muslims when PROVEN end up being false flag frauds. Trump Supporters usually don't need to report hate crimes against them, they are usually caught on video or the Leftist are openly brag about committing them.

Also, 99% of all stats on the internet are made up! :roll:

 

[yankintx]

What in the world has any of this personal attack have to do with this thread?

so much for civil discussion. (By the way, my post had nothing to do with grammar.)

Trump is the Pres, and mentally ill, no attack needed, truth sucks for Trumpsters, he is a very sick man, needs help.

 

[JasperL]

I agree with you that police officers should be held to the highest standard when it oertains to following the law. I hold the same opinion about judges and legislators.

When it comes to things like freedom of speech i think all civil servants should be held to the same standard.

Imo calling a black man a monkey is within his rights just like making fun of trump for being orange is fair game.

But you're conflating the right to say something (which the cop does have, even to BE a proud and public racist!) with a right to be immune from consequences for that speech, and really nothing in the 1A guarantees that.

Let's put it this way - anyone has a protected constitutional "right" to publicly join the KKK and to routinely call any black person he encounters a "n****r" including his boss, the mayor, criminal suspects, just citizens walking around on the street, but surely you'd agree no police department has a legal obligation to employ such a racist. Such a person would poison the entire department, cause the department to lose respect in the community, undermine trust, threaten the very legitimacy of the department as a trusted enforcer of the law. That cop arresting ANYONE not white would be a defense lawyer's dream come true!!

OK, so we're arguing about the line - n****er and being a proud white supremacist probably not OK, monkey/ape OK. But that's an odd thing for a court to decide, at least to me. And they don't. The first test is "does the speech touch on matters of public concern" and calling someone a monkey or a n... doesn't. In that case, the courts leave it up to the employer, and probably the union contract, etc. I don't see a problem with that any more than I KNOW any employer I've ever had would have fired me on the spot for using that kind of language in public, and Facebook IS public....

 

[matchlight]

First of all, it's not clear whether the cop was referring to Obama, or to a local citizen getting actually evicted from his home. The local paper indicated at least early on that he was referring to someone in the local community, not Obama, but it doesn't matter.

And, no, there have been non-stop insults of Obama and I don't believe he deserves "special protection." But what matters in this case is the cop's boss in Kentucky, and the local community in Kentucky, and apparently his boss isn't a moron and is willing to recognize the obvious that he can't tolerate his officers spewing bigoted/racist bilge on their social media accounts and maintain an effective and orderly and respected police force.

I don't know how any applicable civil service laws may complicate this matter. But to the extent it is just government suppression of a public employee's off-duty speech, I hope some of the brilliant First Amendment lawyers around the country who involve themselves in cases like this will take up the cudgel for this deputy.

 

[JasperL]

I don't know how any applicable civil service laws may complicate this matter. But to the extent it is just government suppression of a public employee's off-duty speech, I hope some of the brilliant First Amendment lawyers around the country who involve themselves in cases like this will take up the cudgel for this deputy.

You're ignoring the legal issues. From what I've read, I can't imagine it's protected speech. If he'd called either Obama or a local resident "ni**er" on a public forum, do you think he should still keep his job? If not, why not, and if so, all you're saying is a police department has a legal obligation to hire and employ obvious racists. No court has ever suggested such a stupid result. I quoted the SC saying that unless it's on a matter of public concern, it's essentially up to the employer, the police department, and NOT a matter for the courts.

 

[prometeus]

Why do imbeciles like this deputy keep posting racist **** on Facebook?

Better yet, why do such imbeciles get badges?

 

[Mr Person]

Why is it anytime someone posts something bigoted and hateful about Islam practitioners it's racist? Are people that dumb who right for the Huffington post??? It's not racist. Prejudiced, hateful and bigoted yes, racist NO Islam is not a race.

Because "religionist" would just sound stupid. You still know exactly what is being said, and that is the fundamental function of language.

 

[Excon]

Yes, origins. As I linked in my first post to you.

Oy vey. No. Not the origins of referring to another as an ape, monkey, chimp or baboon.
Your source did not even allege that.
Popularity, yep, but not origins.

The origins of the image of and calling blacks apes, are based in racism.

Your source did not even make that claim and is not something that can be proven.
What we do know is that humans have referred to other humans as animals for a very long time.

The intent then was to dehumanize them.

For some I am sure it was, but not for all.

It appears you are under the mistaken assumption that once used like that it is the only way it can be used. Such thought is illogical as it can be used with no racist intent.

Pretending those terms and images can be made clean by the "unknowable intentions" of people using them today is garbage.

Wrong as usual.
Pretending everyone has the same intent is as asinine as it is stupid.

There is no reason to use such a description as "Muslim holler monkey" except to demean that person based on their religion and race.

You were right until you got to the inclusion of race.
Anyone believed to be a muslim can be referred to as such, and all it is deprecation. The inclusion of monkey does not change that, nor does a persons race.

The intent of the sheriff was obvious. As was the slur he used indicating a transgender person.

The only thing that can be assumed was that it was meant to be deprecating, not racist.

---

Like his racist remarks?

I figured someone may try to make that stupid argument.
No that is not evidence, that is an assumption with no evidence to back it up.

 

[Bodi]

Oy vey. No. Not the origins of referring to another as an ape, monkey, chimp or baboon.
Your source did not even allege that.
Popularity, yep, but not origins.


Your source did not even make that claim and is not something that can be proven.
What we do know is that humans have referred to other humans as animals for a very long time.


For some I am sure it was, but not for all.

It appears you are under the mistaken assumption that once used like that it is the only way it can be used. Such thought is illogical as it can be used with no racist intent.


Wrong as usual.
Pretending everyone has the same intent is as asinine as it is stupid.


You were right until you got to the inclusion of race.
Anyone believed to be a muslim can be referred to as such, and all it is deprecation. The inclusion of monkey does not change that, nor does a persons race.


The only thing that can be assumed was that it was meant to be deprecating, not racist.

---

I figured someone may try to make that stupid argument.
No that is not evidence, that is an assumption with no evidence to back it up.

You need to learn what evidence is...

 

[Gina]

Oy vey. No. Not the origins of referring to another as an ape, monkey, chimp or baboon.
Your source did not even allege that.
Popularity, yep, but not origins.


Your source did not even make that claim and is not something that can be proven.
What we do know is that humans have referred to other humans as animals for a very long time.


For some I am sure it was, but not for all.

It appears you are under the mistaken assumption that once used like that it is the only way it can be used. Such thought is illogical as it can be used with no racist intent.


Wrong as usual.
Pretending everyone has the same intent is as asinine as it is stupid.


You were right until you got to the inclusion of race.
Anyone believed to be a muslim can be referred to as such, and all it is deprecation. The inclusion of monkey does not change that, nor does a persons race.


The only thing that can be assumed was that it was meant to be deprecating, not racist.

---

I figured someone may try to make that stupid argument.
No that is not evidence, that is an assumption with no evidence to back it up.

I can't say it any better than this:

You need to learn what evidence is...

Indeed.

 

[Fishking]

If they don't fire him, and he shoots an unarmed muslim, or any other brown person for that matter, there will be hell to pay. Why does law enforcement attract these kinds of people? I think it is because it lets them get their jollies off with impunity. Well at least it did before cameras and social media...

Islam is an idea, not a skin color.