This seems to be a continuing learning process for those radical
enough to believe free speech is not limited to corporate electioneering and
lobbying cash. Americans better get with the program. Free speech is not free,
and the price for the non-wealthy is steep.
An authoritarian
personality, in a St. Louis area police uniform, decided to go after a woman's
job because she dared to speak out against police brutality. This is what is seen as a threat to the authoritarian personalities in uniform, apart from being black, of course.
The cop said she
was "entitled" to her "opinion" against police brutality, but was not entitled to
her job apparently,
According to the St. Louis Post-Dispatch:
A woman who criticized
police on Twitter says an officer called her boss in an attempt to get her fired,
so she filed a formal complaint “to return the favor.”
Leigh
Maibes, a real estate agent who tweets under the alias “Short Stack” and has
been active on social media during the Ferguson protests, posted a link
Wednesday to a YouTube video of a phone conversation with Officer Keith Novara.
It's good
to know the corporate police state is on the job suppressing “bad speech” and protecting
the interests and "good speech" of those who matter most to a corporate police state.
If
you want to know who runs the place, notice the tolerance, and intolerance, to
hate or criticism.
Posts
30 comments:
"The cop [Keith Novaro] said [Leigh Maibes] was "entitled' to her 'opinion' against police brutality, but was not entitled to her job apparently."
I suppose as long as your opinion falls lockstep with the prevailing corporate-state's police tactics, your entitlement to your Constitutional rights remains intact. Otherwise, it's open-season.
I'd be interested in knowing whether there are any "officers of the law" reading this who agree with Officer Novara's unjustified and curious police actions.
Dave, aren't you as a prison guard not one in authority in uniform?
As for this case I know nothing about it. I suppose if the ifficer did this on his own time its a free country and you can call who you wish. However were I his supervisor and he did it on the clock I'd counsel the officer in writing to not misuse resources or paid time that doesn't further an investigation and instead can be taken as a harassment of a person engaging in a lawful activity.
Free0352: "I suppose if the [o]ifficer did this on his own time its a free country and you can call who you wish."
I totally disagree, and I know you don't believe this. Whether he was in or out of uniform, or "on his own time", if he's asserting his authority as an officer of the law, he's still libel for any actions while acting as an officer of the law.
According to the Saint Louis Post-Dispatch, in which Dave Dubya provided a link, "Novara says that he was giving the broker a 'heads up' and communicating with him as part of his responsibilities as a South Patrol officer."
The dumb-ass officer has sought legal counsel, so hopefully he'll have his nuts nailed to a tree.
if he's asserting his authority as an officer of the law
Exactly. If he says I'm "John Doe," and he's off the clock, its a free country. If he's saying "My name is Officer Doe," he's acting in conjunction with his job, and I'd counsel him in writing for that.
As for Dave's link, I'm going to need more info and understand the totality of the circumstances before I make up my mind.
Reporting can be one sided.
and I'd counsel him in writing for that.
And if he had a poor disciplinary record, I might fire him for that. Again, it would depend on the totality of the circumstances. On the one hand, if this were an isolated incident it isn't a firing offense, but in conjunction with other write ups it might be.
As of know, I don't know all the circumstances. However my instinct is this was inappropriate assuming the woman whose job was called was acting lawfully. For example if the officer was calling to ID a person who he suspected of committing a crime, this would be totally justified.
Free0352: "As for Dave's link, I'm going to need more info and understand the totality of the circumstances before I make up my mind."
Understandable, so let me help you. Watch and listen to the video link that Dave Dubya also provided, in particular 2:10 into the feed where Officer Navaro tells Ms. Maibes that he called her boss "because I deal with all the businesses in south patrol."
This, and then the totality of everything else that Officer Navaro said inferred that he was making his call[s] in an official capacity.
"Reporting can be one sided."
I agree, the corporate media are guilty of this frequently -- especially their sins of omission when it comes to telling the truth.
Video wouldn't load for me.
Seems this officer needs a counselling statement however. I don't think that goes as far as violating her 2nd Amendment rights, but bothering people engaged in a lawful activity because you disagree with it isn't what I'd want my officers doing on shift.
Bear in mind the police are allowed to lie to you... he may never have even made the call. I lied to suspects every day when I was a deputy. Literally every day. I'm positive Dave lies to inmates on a regular basis when he conducts investigations.
Just how it is.
Dave, aren't you as a prison guard not one in authority in uniform?
An authority figure is not the same as an authoritarian personality.
However my instinct is this was inappropriate assuming the woman whose job was called was acting lawfully.
Inappropriate would be the mildest term for this transgression. Slander, intimidation, official harassment, and violation of her First Amendment Rights are closer to the real act. The jerk was trying to get the woman fired. And he lied to do so. He was suggesting she was inciting violence.
if this were an isolated incident it isn't a firing offense
Betrayal of the public trust, and abuse of power by personal vendetta and falsehoods are more than reasonable cause for dismissal. He cannot be entrusted with a responsibility to the public. He is an embarrassment and disgrace to the profession. Several Ferguson/St. Louis thug cops have already been rightly fired for pointing weapons at civilians and making threats.
I don't think that goes as far as violating her 2nd Amendment rights, but bothering people engaged in a lawful activity because you disagree with it isn't what I'd want my officers doing on shift.
I think you mean First Amendment rights. This sounds like you would condone this behavior when the cop is off-duty?
Bear in mind the police are allowed to lie to you...
Do you mean to suspects, or everybody all the time? History shows that is not all they get away with, is it? They already have near immunity for torture and abuse. Then there’s legal theft by asset forfeiture, whether the victim is guilty or not.
he may never have even made the call.
He admitted it.
I lied to suspects every day when I was a deputy.
No wonder you still have the gift. However, this person was NOT a suspect, and he lied to her boss.
I'm positive Dave lies to inmates on a regular basis when he conducts investigations.
Never needed to lie in my line of work. It was more important to develop the instinct to know when I was being lied to.
I think it was Jack Nicholson who said, “The only people you NEED to lie to are the cops and your wife”. Funny, but there’s a grain of truth to it.
Just how it is. in a police state.
Yes, some authoritarian cops can be just as sociopathic as politicians and gangsters. Law enforcement, like private prisons, shouldn’t be a “necessary evil”, but that’s what they are becoming. As they become more militarized, and as we build a warrantless surveillance state, they all too often take an “us versus them” mentality.
This is how a police state is created. Their enabling politicians do the rest.
“You don’t have rights, you have owners”. – George Carlin
And more than ever, cops, like the military, work for the owners.
He admitted it.
I lied to suspects every day when I was a deputy.
Sure. I lied my ass off to sex offenders - my goal being to secure confessions and in turn secure convictions and take those people off the street. NOT SORRY.
you get right up next to them and put your arm around them… shed a tear or two. You tell them what they did isn’t quite legal, but if they just tell the truth you think the prosecutor will understand and plea way down. Keep them off the sex offender list. If you slap them around and beat them, you’re not going to get anywhere. But if you bold face lie to them that you understand… you get the confession.
I mean how else would it be possible for say -under cover operations - to work? You know, like the ones the FBI did to take down the terrorist organization that was the Klu Klux Klan?
Get off your High Horse Dave. Cops need to be able to lie to do their jobs.
An authority figure is not the same as an authoritarian personality.
You mean the kind of personality that refuses to keep an open mind, and instead based on something they read on the internet wants to destroy a person's career? Knee jerk authoritarianism is who you create a police state.
Yeah, once again I'm the reasonable guy in the room and you are ranting and raving.
they all too often take an “us versus them” mentality.
Are you really suggesting it isn't cons vs. CO's at your prison? Now who is lying?
shouldn’t be a “necessary evil”, but that’s what they are becoming
They are plain and simple a necessary evil. So are the armed forces, and for that matter so is the center for disease control. It would be nice if we didn't have criminals, hostile foreign enemies and the Ebola virus - but we do.
Get off your High Horse Dave. Cops need to be able to lie to do their jobs.
You obviously failed to comprehend my point. I wasn't condemning lies to suspects, was I? You have been on the same high horse about asset forfeiture. Remember that?
Yeah, once again I'm the reasonable guy in the room and you are ranting and raving.
The above whining and failure of comprehension strongly indicates otherwise.
Are you honestly equating the relationship between prisoners and guards with cops and the public?
This is what you call “reasonable”? Sad.
Are you honestly equating the relationship between prisoners and guards with cops and the public?
Every one of your prisoners got there because of a cop.
Think about it.
OK. That didn't require much thought or insight though.
Add a judge and prosecutor to the cop if you want the whole picture.
Nobody in a criminal case ever got so far as the DA's office without the cop.
And what I'm saying is, cops on the street need to be adversarial in many circumstances because... duh... they're dealing with the same exact people you are, just in a different setting.
Sometimes that gets taken too far (both by cops and COs - plenty of cases of both violating policy/rights), like PERHAPS in the case in your post.
What I'm saying is not to rush to judgement... because of how AUTHORITARIAN that is.
What I'm saying is not to rush to judgement... because of how AUTHORITARIAN that is.
LOL! Thanks.
I completely understand that the situation with SUSPECTS often requires such manipulation. Lying to the public or to a person's boss is just plain wrong. I think you grudgingly agree.
My judgment is based on news accounts and the video. Not sure what else I can go on here. Unlike the opinions and judgment on the far Right, mine are amenable to change upon overwhelming contradictory evidence.
It would be nice if your advice was taken by the angry authoritarian Right Wingers in this case of "vote fraud".
The wingnuts want to kill this poor Hispanic guy for legal behavior. And it is directly because they have been led, and lied, into ignorance fear and hate by the GOP.
If you ever go to Arizona, you best be ready for “Papers please”.
It is a rush on your part because your sources are definitely not unbiased and though you've only got 1/2 the story you're rushing to judge having made up your mind. Second, even if everything you suspect is true... the most we have here is a mean phone call. Hardly worthy of your breathless outrage - but its there none the less. How Authoritarian of you.
Me? I want to get all the facts and put things into context.
Me? I want to get all the facts and put things into context.
I'm glad you decided on this refreshing new outlook. So there will be no more "Dave hates America and Dave hates Jews" because I oppose the right wing politicians of both countries? Or is that too much context for you?
...And the cop admitted it. Now you have both sides.
I wonder if Free meant her call or the cop's.
If he meant the cop making the "mean phone call", yes, that's "all" we have.
It is enough. He needs a job driving a truck or as a night watchman instead of working with the public.
As for him being fired, you're not the chief. That would be up to him.
Free0352: "It doesn't even meet the grounds for misdemeanor harassment - which would require multiple calls."
Well, then, there are at least grounds for misdemeanor harassment -- assuming Missouri law allows it. In case you weren't aware, and it appears you're not, Novaro did make several calls to Maibes's employer. His intention? Probably to get her fired.
I'd guess it's enough to get him fired. It should be.
Well you're not the chief, and I'm still waiting for you to tell me what this lady's damages are. This officer made a mean call, and nothing came of it. Mountain meet mole hill.
I'd write this guy up, and be over it.
Free0352: "This officer made a mean call, and nothing came of it."
Which appropriately supports Dave Dubya's final paragraph of this post:
"If you want to know who runs the place, notice the tolerance, and intolerance, to hate or criticism."
Point made...
More of the same kind of suppression:
Former CIA analyst and activist Ray McGovern was arrested as he attempted to attend an event in New York City featuring former CIA director and retired military general, David Petraeus. He was charged with resisting arrest, criminal trespass and disorderly conduct.
“Ray, you’re not going in,” the guard said.
McGovern, who is 74 years-old, told the guards something to the effect that the Bill of Rights gave him the right to go into the event. McGovern had a ticket too. But the guards would not let him pass and soon New York police officers surrounded him.
Sorry, Ray, no “Free $peech” for you. We don’t like your kind around here asking questions.
The Bill of Rights is almost solely for corporations and the rich these days.
Private event. I don't have the right to exercise my 1st amendment rights in your living room either.
It was a ticketed event. He had a ticket. He was going to speak at the Q&A segment.
He was silenced. I bet he didn't get a refund, either.
As JG said:
Which appropriately supports Dave Dubya's final paragraph of this post:
"If you want to know who runs the place, notice the tolerance, and intolerance, to hate or criticism."
Point made...
It was a ticketed event. He had a ticket
A private ticketed event. They can throw you out of the movie theater too, and that is a ticketed event. You have zero rights to be at a private anything. Hence the "No shirt, no shoes no service" sign at the 711.
"If you want to know who runs the place... its apparently not the police.
The lady didn't lose her job. All that happened was a mean phone call, and apparently some guy got tossed out of a private event before he ever got into the door.
Boo-hoo. Its like Nazi Germany in here /sarcasm.
Its not that your right to free speech is being infringed on Dave, its that nobody cares what the extreme left has to say anymore. That's why nobody votes for socialists.
McGovern. Was. Silenced. No questions!
Free doesn't get that.
The woman's means of making a living was directly threatened by a rogue law enforcement officer in retaliation for her exercising her right to speech.
Free doesn't get that.
Wall Street's tools silenced OWS.
Free doesn't get that.
Phil Donahue's show was silenced for questioning the Bush war propaganda. What "Nukular" aluminum tubes? What meeting in Prague? What connections between Saddam and al-Qaeda?
SILENCED!
Free doesn't get that, either.
He has no clue that an increasingly smaller conglomerate owns American corporate media. (He thinks they're liberals.)
Free has no concept of the censoring, marginalization, and silencing of the opposition to his corporate military empire.
Just as he has no clue to the terrible economic consequences for working class Americans when all our national resources go to endless wars, a surveillance state, and more tax cuts for the rich.
Hell, one's boss gets a call from a cop, accusing you of inciting violence because you dare to protest police brutality.
This is the America of the far Right. Make no mistake.
As we sink into totalitarianism at home, terrible consequences await those who challenge the corporate empire.
So?
But after all, Free is free to say all he wants in support of it. And that's what freedom looks like in post Bush America.
Just wait until Free gets to be about seventy or eighty years old. No retirement benefits, except for the shrinking help he gets from the VA, after adding who knows how many tens or hundreds of thousands of poor, disabled vets to reward for their service to empire.
His Brave New World awaits. And he will be angry and blame the misery on liberals. The corporate media will tell him that those unpatriotic commies are to blame. Then the media will tell him who we need to invade next.
He will agree. Those who don't...
Free0352: "They can throw you out of the movie theater too, and that is a ticketed event.
They can't throw you out of a movie theater because they don't like your politics......well, not yet, anyway. I'm sure the day isn't far off.
I have a question for you: If you purchase a ticket and enter a theater, should the owners and/or management have the right to kick you out because you're Hispanic? It is, after all, a private facility.
Chicago Cop Who Tortured Over 100 Men Will Receive $4,000 Monthly Pension
It’s a “Free” country, after all. So he was a little "mean". Sheesh.
Post a Comment