Neb. tries to oust trooper linked to KKK

 

By NELSON LAMPE

ASSOCIATED PRESS WRITER

 

OMAHA, Neb. -- Robert Henderson was not fired as a state trooper because he belonged to the Ku Klux Klan and another white supremacist group, authorities said. Instead, he was ousted because he could not uphold public trust while participating in such groups, they said.

 

An arbitrator disagreed, ordering the State Patrol to reinstate Henderson within 60 days and pay him back wages. The state went to court Friday to keep him off the force.

 

"The integrity of Nebraska's law enforcement is at risk," Attorney General Jon Bruning said at news conference in Lincoln. "The Constitution does not require law enforcement to employ anyone tied to the KKK."

 

In a summary of the causes for firing Henderson in March, the State Patrol said membership in the KKK "seriously compromised" Henderson's ability to do his job.

 

Henderson and the state troopers union appealed and, under its contract, went to binding arbitration, to get his job back.

 

Arbitrator Paul J. Caffera, a New York lawyer, last week overturned the firing.

 

He said Henderson was entitled to his First Amendment rights of free speech and that the state violated the troopers' contract, in part when it fired Henderson "because of his association with the Knights Party ... and the Ku Klux Klan."

 

According to a copy of Caffera's ruling, Henderson was interviewed by a patrol captain in February. He confirmed he had been a member of the Knights Party since June 2004 and made postings on its members-only Web site while off-duty.

 

Henderson also said he had joined the KKK, according to the arbitrator's report. He did so, he said, for two reasons: His wife had "divorced him for a minority" and the KKK gave him an avenue to vent his frustration.

 

Attempts to reach Henderson on Friday were unsuccessful. The state troopers union refused to comment, referring calls to its attorney, Vincent Valentino.

 

Valentino said Henderson has resigned his Knights Party membership and apologized to the State Patrol commander, Col. Bryan Tuma. The attorney also said Bruning and Tuma blew Henderson's membership and activities out of proportion.

 

"Bob Henderson wasn't running around in a sheet and hood," he said.

 

Besides, Valentino said, "State employees have a right to think in private what they think."

 

Tuma said a review of Henderson's record showed no pattern of bias or misconduct against minorities.

 

"There were no concerns whatsoever that he was engaged in any profiling or any biased treatment of any minority," he said.

 

Nonetheless, Bruning said, "This trooper can join the KKK, but he can't remain a trooper while he is a member."

Soure (via digg)

What's wrong with that? I wouldn't want a guy like that regulating my city with discriminatory eyes.

I wouldnt want him there either, but it is against his civil rights

Perfectly fine...can't be a known rasist cop.

I wouldnt want him there either, but it is against his civil rights

It is but the most he could get out of this is a lawsuit. The employer has every discretion of whether to fire an employee or not.

 

 

I don't see whats wrong with the employer thinknig that its employee can't uphold its standards due to extremist groups he's involved with.

I have no prob with that. All those racist f**cks can go to hell

I wouldnt want him there either, but it is against his civil rights

It is but the most he could get out of this is a lawsuit. The employer has every discretion of whether to fire an employee or not.

 

 

I don't see whats wrong with the employer thinknig that its employee can't uphold its standards due to extremist groups he's involved with.

 

Well, it's a federal job, so wouldn't the rules be different?

I wouldnt want him there either, but it is against his civil rights

It is but the most he could get out of this is a lawsuit. The employer has every discretion of whether to fire an employee or not.

 

 

I don't see whats wrong with the employer thinknig that its employee can't uphold its standards due to extremist groups he's involved with.

 

Well, it's a federal job, so wouldn't the rules be different? No, not really. I've picked up on a few things since my mom is an employment lawyer.

I wouldnt want him there either, but it is against his civil rights

 

Are you kidding me? It's not a violation of his civil rights. If a teacher was a known member of the KKK, would they still be allowed in the classroom? Absolutely not, and a police officer is no different.

 

His job description is to protect and serve the community, and when you're a member of a hate group that has committed domestic terrorism, you cannot perform these duties. Police officers are public servants who need to be completely impartial, and this man is anything but that.

 

If his firing is infact reversed, there is no way he'll be back patrolling the streets. He'll be stuck in some sh*tty desk job, never be promoted, and his job will just plain suck - but he'll still be on the payroll so all the ACLU morons will be happy.

There is no evidence, at least according to this article, that this officer let his membership in the KKK get in the way of his job at all. In fact, it mentions that he made all his postings on their website during off duty hours.

 

If his views are not getting in the way of his job, he should be retained in his position. The force shouldn't care that their members are part of the KKK unless they start doing things they're not supposed to do - then they can act. Unless he starts lynching people or beating up minority suspects, he's done nothing wrong and he should have his post.

 

Anyone honestly think this would be the case if this police officer was a member of the Black Panthers?

Subject to firing someone based on race, sex, national origin etc, any government agency, state or federal, and any private agency can fire someone for any cause or no cause at all. Obviously the government is also limited by the bill of rights. The only one implicated here is the freedom of speech. But government employee get less freedom of speech protection because nobody is forcing them into this job. Here is what the law is on this:

 

The government may not fire an employee based on his views if-

 

1. The speech is a matter of public concern-ie critcal of a public official(prosecuter who complained about boss sucking got no protection but did when complaining about being forced to work in political campaigns by boss) .

AND

2. The damage caused by the to the efficiency of the government operation does not outweigh the value of the speech to the employee and the public.

 

If the speech is a matter of private concern, the government can do what it pleases. Likewise, if the government prevails on the above balance, then it also prevails.

 

 

Following this, Im pretty sure that being a member of the KKK is not a matter of public concern. And even if it was, I think the adverse affect it would have on the public's ability to put trust in him would fail the second test.

 

Now I think going to Juanky's point on whether they should have fired him at all, I disagree. How can you be sure that he isnt letting his personal views seep into his practice, especially in light of the extreme and hate filled nature of those views? The organization's agenda is to treat blacks as differently and adversely as possible. So you think, especially in light of the amazing power that cops have, would seriously be objective? Id say the same thing if the black panther cop always talked about how much he hated whitey.

As far as we know, there have been no complaints lodged in this police officer's name. Not a single blemish, again as far as we know, for treating certain races different than others. Nothing of the sort.

 

The government's position, and all agencies that are involved with the government, should take the position that thinking anything is fine as long as you don't act on it. Granted, I'm also of the opnion that if you want to be a pot smoker that's fine as long as you don't bring it out of your house, but I think in this case (and all similar instances) an can't harm anyone as long as it doesn't become action.

 

If he's part of the KKK he should be looked at more closely if there is a race complaint, but otherwise there should be a no harm no foul policy.

As far as we know, there have been no complaints lodged in this police officer's name. Not a single blemish, again as far as we know, for treating certain races different than others. Nothing of the sort.

 

The government's position, and all agencies that are involved with the government, should take the position that thinking anything is fine as long as you don't act on it. Granted, I'm also of the opnion that if you want to be a pot smoker that's fine as long as you don't bring it out of your house, but I think in this case (and all similar instances) an can't harm anyone as long as it doesn't become action.

 

If he's part of the KKK he should be looked at more closely if there is a race complaint, but otherwise there should be a no harm no foul policy.

 

But the problem is that one, something may not have risen to the level of a complaint. Maybe the day after his wife left him for a minority he pulled over black guys who were driving 7mph over the speed limit and not white guys. And maybe he gave them no leeway or gave them heavier fines. This stuff doesnt show up. But how can the public be trusting of him at all? Imagine if you got legitimately pulled over for going 7 mph when cops dont usually pull people over. Then he won't cut you any slack on the ticket. Then you find out he was a member of the klan. In the back of your mind, don't you think that you got screwed because of his views? It's the mere potential and the public affect that make it a legit firing.

 

Also, every legit action he does that involves a minority comes under question. Especially when you take into account the rocky relationship between cops and minorities which is already pretty bad. Two words-Mark Furman.

 

You can think whatever you want. But if there is no guarentee that you can do your job objectively even with your assurances, then there is solid reason. A judge who has some conflict of interest or a juror who has a conflict of interest wouldnt see the light of a courtroom. We need absolute trust in public officials. Cops especially.

The example of pulling over every black guy who goes 7 over and not a single white guy who goes 7 over is unlikely. Something like that would be noticed when you look at police statistics. That's exactly what I'm saying though, if he does something like that (which can be pointed out rather easily just by looking at stats) then he should be sent off. But until he does, it shouldn't be an issue.

 

Here's the thing - if we assume that people won't be able to do their job due to an opinion, instead of watching them and then when they mess up kicking them off, we in essence cancel out the opinions we don't like. And that's exactly what's not supposed to be allowed.

The example of pulling over every black guy who goes 7 over and not a single white guy who goes 7 over is unlikely. Something like that would be noticed when you look at police statistics. That's exactly what I'm saying though, if he does something like that (which can be pointed out rather easily just by looking at stats) then he should be sent off. But until he does, it shouldn't be an issue.

 

Here's the thing - if we assume that people won't be able to do their job due to an opinion, instead of watching them and then when they mess up kicking them off, we in essence cancel out the opinions we don't like. And that's exactly what's not supposed to be allowed.

 

Police officers, and especially state troopers pull over hundreds, if not thousands of cars per year. They do not enter the persons race they pulled over into a logbook after every stop, there is no such statistic that exists.

 

And F_M's example was just one of an endless amount of scenarios where his membership in the KKK could effect his discretion and job performance. Let's say he gets a robbery-in-progress call at the "Kareem Jackson" household, will he go there and do his job? Sure, nobody is going to doubt that. But will he take the long route in getting there and not go as fast as possible to the scene? Mabye. And that's a chance the state of Nebraska cannot afford to take. There are a countless number of scenarios just like this one.

 

You cannot sit there with a straight face and tell me that you do not have a problem with a member of a violent domestic terrorist organization being a member of the state police.

ok...while i agree that the cop should be repremanded or disciplined somehow for his affiliation with the KKK, i dont believe it warrants him being fired...i mean would you fire someone from a police job just because he is muslim? no...and personally...there are cops that on a racist level on a scale of 1 to 10 are probably far worse than this guy and have documented offenses of their racist tendencies but who still arent fired...so basically...if the guy does his job and doesnt give him a reason to be fired, his opinions and off-duty activities dont warrant him losing his job

Im not sure where everyone stands on this or what exactly the argument is but.............

 

 

There's no way a police officer can be a known member of the KKK.

 

 

 

The first reason that pops in to my head would be it would be impossible for him/her to testify in court.

 

 

The officers motives would constantly be brought up in depositions and motions to suppress.

 

 

Im not even quite sure how him being a KKK member is within his department policy.

would you fire someone from a police job just because he is muslim? no

 

:blink:

 

There he goes again :lol :lol :lol

 

There is a difference between muslim and being an active member of the KKK, i'm glad you were able to make this distinction... oh wait...

Here's something I got from the House episode I'm watching:

 

A nun came in for treatment. One of the doctors loudly made it aware that he hated nuns, and has found every place possible to have a quip that berates nuns or religion. Should he be on the case?

Here's something I got from the House episode I'm watching:

 

A nun came in for treatment. One of the doctors loudly made it aware that he hated nuns, and has found every place possible to have a quip that berates nuns or religion. Should he be on the case?

 

The chances of a racist cop getting away with doing something racist on the job is much greater than a nun hating doctor getting away with doing something bad. Second, if the hospital felt like he could not uphold the hippocratic oath, they probably wouldnt retain him.

 

Look at it another way Juanky. A lot of black people in America feel like cops are already out to get them. It's a pretty strong sentiment. I'm sure it exists in Nebraska and I'm sure it exists in this city. So can the department that lets the KKK cop run around build any trust with the black community? It would only reinforce the fears. Why should the black community by the "he hasnt done anything wrong or at least we havent caught him yet" argument?

 

In addition, like someone said before, this cop can never testify against a black suspect and not be immediately impeached. We don't know if OJ did it or not. But a lot of people believe he got away with it because of Furman.

I wouldn't let him keep his job, not as a federal employee.

 

Maybe he can go work somewhere else where people wouldn't care about it.

Safety > Hurting someone's feelings.

I wouldn't let him keep his job, not as a federal employee.

 

Maybe he can go work somewhere else where people wouldn't care about it.

 

 

LAPD?

Look at it another way Juanky. A lot of black people in America feel like cops are already out to get them. It's a pretty strong sentiment. I'm sure it exists in Nebraska and I'm sure it exists in this city. So can the department that lets the KKK cop run around build any trust with the black community? It would only reinforce the fears. Why should the black community by the "he hasnt done anything wrong or at least we havent caught him yet" argument?

So a governmental agency has to pander to one community over another just because said community doesn't like them?

 

Smells pretty fishy to me.

Look at it another way Juanky. A lot of black people in America feel like cops are already out to get them. It's a pretty strong sentiment. I'm sure it exists in Nebraska and I'm sure it exists in this city. So can the department that lets the KKK cop run around build any trust with the black community? It would only reinforce the fears. Why should the black community by the "he hasnt done anything wrong or at least we havent caught him yet" argument?

So a governmental agency has to pander to one community over another just because said community doesn't like them?

 

Smells pretty fishy to me.

 

NO! It is of utmost importance for the police department to build and maintain trust levels thoughout all communities in their city. They need that trust and respect from the communities in order to protect and serve. Having this guy on the job, especially since know everyone in that town probably knows about this, would deteriorate that trust for the department. Not just from the black community, but from other minorities and many whites as well.