Cop reassigned for eacting Chick-Fil-A?!?!?

reply to post by GogoVicMorrow


No it was actually two lesbian officers. The officer in question had his lunch from Chick fil A on August 1 (CFA appreciation day), so that's why their sexual orientation is mentioned.

Originally posted by murphy22
reply to post by LadyGreenEyes

 

This is what happens when emotionally unstable people are taken seriously. Scary thing is, they let them have jobs involving firearms. You would think a couple females, with such a job, would have thicker skin.

Use to see this in the service, Bad thing was, with them, you couldn't do "wall to wall counceling" to "square them away".

Such pettiness.

Is that something like the "blanket parties" that were not unheard of when I was in the service? Emotionally unstable, indeed! Someone looking at them is now "offensive"? Someone eating food from a restaurant they don't happen to like? The whole thing is juvenile, and the worst part is the cop being punished before they even determine if he actually said anything offensive! Of course, even if he came in, and said, "I ate at Chick-Fil-A, nyah-nyah-nyah-nyah naaayh nyah!". so what!!? Maybe before they put on the uniform, they should put on the big girl undies, and stop whining about some little silly thing. At this rate, it will get to where you have to pretend to be good buddies with everyone you work with, because disliking them will be seen as a crime!

reply to post by Domo1


Who knows, they might have had a personality clash in the past that we don't know about. This just added fuel to the fire if these people never liked each other from the beginning.

Just pure speculation of course.......

One can be a jerk without saying any words. And yet, some people can be a little touchy too.

"Kids no arguing.....play nice!!! "

Originally posted by Domo1
reply to post by LadyGreenEyes

 

Is it a punishment or a way of separating the two parties? Easier to move one person to a different shift than two. Makes sense to do that before an investigation. You don't just solve these problems in an hour.

Now I can totally see this going either way. Overly sensitive women, or incredibly foul mouthed tirade by good old boy. You can't have that kind of crap going on in a job like that. From my experience female cops are pretty raunchy and thick skinned. They give as good as they get and it would take something over the top. Then again this is a hot button issue.

Separating them, by sticking a guy on the overnight jail shift? Nope, they made the accusation; move them if moving someone is necessary, because otherwise it's punishing him, assuming he's guilty with no evidence.

If the tirade was that bad, we would have heard about it. Seems it was his having the food, and reading about a possible protest, and apparently looking at them while doing so. I think this IS because it's a hot button issue, and they are taking advantage to get someone in trouble that they don't like, because they don't think he's allowed to disagree with them.

Originally posted by murphy22
reply to post by LadyGreenEyes

 

I have read some of your post and I would like to say, you have it right. Just like in your OP
But you can not use reason or logic on these kind of people.
"They will call, evil good and good evil"

Yes, turning everything upside down, in SO many areas these days! Appreciated.

Will be interesting to see how this case plays out.

Originally posted by skepticconwatcher

Originally posted by LadyGreenEyes
This is beyond ridiculous! A 12-year veteran cop, reading a bulletin about a counter protest, and having the food for lunch, is moved to an overnight shift at a jail, all because a couple of lesbians got offended that he ate in front of them, and was "looking at them" while reading a bulletin, which is part of his job? Gee, the thought police are alive and well, and apparently cops aren't allowed to have opinions, or food that certain people don't approve. This makes me sick!

A baseless accusation can cause you issues now.....

*ahem*

From your article

and made comments they alleged were inappropriate.

I think THAT may have had more to do with his reassignment. Not just the fact that he ate the sandwich. When you have to use deception to make an argument , you lose.

They allege. They don't prove, no investigation, just move the guy to a crap assignment. The article even states he was reading a bulletin, which was part of his job, and supposedly looking at them while doing so, and they felt that was supposed to be some sort of "message" to them. That doesn't sound like there were actually any real comments made. It isn't deception to state what the article tells us. Or to state that since no actual comments were quoted, that there might not have BEEN any, and they were simply offended that he looked their way while discussing the protest (that was by all reports a total flop), and eating the food, or that he placed a bag near them.

Originally posted by Destinyone
reply to post by LadyGreenEyes

 

You haven't a clue, if he has a record of past behavior, that the decision to move him, was based on. Your whole diatribe is based on what you've read in this one article. Now, who's jumping the gun.....

Des

You are missing the point. He was moved to a crap assignment before any investigation was even done. "Guilty until proven innocent" isn't the way it's supposed to work in this country. If he had a past record, then investigate, and IF he did something actually against regs, then take action. Assuming he's at fault, just because they got offended, is beyond ridiculous. No one has a right to not be offended by the opinions of others. Freedom of speech, right?

Originally posted by hypervigilant
I live southeast of the DFW metroplex but pick up the network stations from there on satellite ... The police officer that was reassigned to the central division jail had made derogatory remarks to the two female officers and was reassigned pending an investigation... That is what was reported on the three major network channels...

Reported to have made remarks. Did any of those reports state what remarks he supposedly made? Plus, since when is a person not allowed to say something derogatory? How do we know what they did before this, or if they were against him because, maybe, they don't think he has a right to his beliefs? My point isn't that there should be no investigation (there should be), but that he should not be punished before one is finished, and before it's proven that he did anything wrong.

Heck, I have been in the workplace, and heard people make comments about others. So what? No one screamed lawsuit. No one demanded action. Sometimes people don't get along, and people of "protected classes" should not be able to disrupt the lives of others just because they can't grow up.

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by LadyGreenEyes

 

There is more to this story because the way you wrote it out doesn't make any sense.
"A couple of lesbians" is that fact or just you projecting?

Not projecting anything. That is what the article states. Did you check the link, and read the story? I am sure there is more to it, and I don't assume that someone making an accusation is always honest, either.

The article says:

Internal Affairs has launched an investigation. Meanwhile, Johnson has been reassigned to the overnight shift at the jail.

In reading the article I found no statement that this move is permanent. It is not uncommon in any business to separate employees who are having issues until the truth of a complaint can be determined. It is possible that this officer was merely taken out of the environment, temporarily, to avoid an escalating problem.

This could be a case of a bully/bigot who got caught in the act - or it could be that the offended parties were looking to be offended. Either way, I think that putting everybody in their separate corners is a very valid management move.

~Heff

Originally posted by Hefficide

The article says:

Internal Affairs has launched an investigation. Meanwhile, Johnson has been reassigned to the overnight shift at the jail.

In reading the article I found no statement that this move is permanent. It is not uncommon in any business to separate employees who are having issues until the truth of a complaint can be determined. It is possible that this officer was merely taken out of the environment, temporarily, to avoid an escalating problem.

This could be a case of a bully/bigot who got caught in the act - or it could be that the offended parties were looking to be offended. Either way, I think that putting everybody in their separate corners is a very valid management move.

~Heff

You are correct in that nothing states this is permanent, but a guy is moved to a crappy shift, for a crappy assignment, over this issue, and I don't think that's right. Move them, if moving anyone is necessary, or heck, tell them to not talk beyond work requirements until the matter is resolved. They are all supposed to be adults, and no one was, as far as we know, physically attacking anyone else. Seems like hurt feelings at the worst. I know, though, if my husband were accused of something like that, and stuck on a crappy overnight shift as a result, I would see that as a real problem. Moving the offended parties to a different shift (and come on, the jail?!?, how about same assignment, different hours?) would be better, and not seen as "guilty until proven innocent".

reply to post by LadyGreenEyes


You may have a valid point - then again you may not. The people who made the decision to move this officer theoretically had all of the relevant information and made the decision that best suited things. One thing I know from personal managerial experience - such decisions are not made lightly or frivilously as they open one up to litigation. IE it is unlikely that some hotheaded boss just made an arbitrary decision to move this officer. And if that is, indeed, what happened? Then this officers night shift time will be fondly remembered as he spends the money he'll get from his lawsuit.

I suspect, either way, that there is more to the story than one news article described.

~Heff

He should file a counter complaint that they were making him ugly faces while he was eating his chicken sandwich and reading the bulletin.




Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

Originally posted by LadyGreenEyes


No, it was that he MIGHT HAVE said something. If you read the article, he was reading a bulletin - his JOB - and they were offended that he looked at them during that reading.

I did read the article. Perhaps you should read it again yourself. Particularly this part...

Sgt. Mark Johnson, a 12-year veteran of the police force is accused of placing the sandwich bag in front of the two lesbian officers and making comments they found offensive.

"And making comments they found offensive"

Making comments and "looking at them" are two completely separate acts.

Now I agree he was not given a chance to tell his side, which is that he was simply doing his job and reading the bulletin but if that is all he was doing, where did the bag come from? Did the bulletin come with a chik fil a bag? I highly doubt it.

Originally posted by LadyGreenEyes
This is beyond ridiculous! A 12-year veteran cop, reading a bulletin about a counter protest, and having the food for lunch, is moved to an overnight shift at a jail, all because a couple of lesbians got offended that he ate in front of them, and was "looking at them" while reading a bulletin, which is part of his job? Gee, the thought police are alive and well, and apparently cops aren't allowed to have opinions, or food that certain people don't approve. This makes me sick!

A baseless accusation can cause you issues now.....

I know cops that have been reassigned for voting for someone other than their acting sheriff. I know cops that have been reassigned and eventually let go for putting up political signs in their yard. I know teachers that have been fired, because they used to be strippers while they were in college.

Employment is sometimes a political minefield. I don't agree with the firing, but then again I think it is the employer's right to do whatever they feel is appropriate.

I wonder if Chick Fil A had a security position they could give him!

reply to post by LadyGreenEyes


I see. A cop is allowed to have an opinion about other people sexual preferences but an obgyn doctor who performs abortion is not allowed to have an opinion about who he may think is ugly. I get it now. No need for a response.