Leader

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Social media smackdown roils Chattanooga Police Department

Collapse

300x250 Mobile

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Social media smackdown roils Chattanooga Police Department

    http://www.timesfreepress.com/news/l...ls-cpd/277783/

    "... the request for Puckett's text messages, the recent focus on the social media policy and the internal affairs investigations have sparked a heated reaction from officers, who are worried about their rights to free speech and to privacy". Here is the thing- it is the officer's personal cell phone.



    #1 - Officer's posts were not, imo, inappropriate, based on their VERY vague policy.
    #2 - This case could be a good one to push all the way to the USSC, to protect officer privacy about text messaging on personal devices without violating departmental policy.
    Last edited by swat_op506; 12-12-2014, 12:04 PM.
    SUPPORT COP RUN BUSINESSES!!
    SUPPORT LEO BUSINESSES!



    In 2017, the sales of my LEO related decals allowed me to donate over $350. to LE/ Military related charities... THANK YOU!!! Check them out HERE...

  • #2
    Your link didn't work but this one should.

    http://www.timesfreepress.com/news/l...ls-cpd/277783/

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Ignite View Post
      Your link didn't work but this one should.

      http://www.timesfreepress.com/news/l...ls-cpd/277783/
      Thanks brother- fixed it
      SUPPORT COP RUN BUSINESSES!!
      SUPPORT LEO BUSINESSES!



      In 2017, the sales of my LEO related decals allowed me to donate over $350. to LE/ Military related charities... THANK YOU!!! Check them out HERE...

      Comment


      • #4
        Why would you ever send work-related anything from your personal phone, unless you really have a thing for having all your personal stuff subpoenaed. Didn't he have a department phone for work business?
        Originally posted by Michigan
        Now that you mention it, who are you?

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by swat_op506 View Post
          #1 - Officer's posts were not, imo, inappropriate, based on their VERY vague policy.
          Paragraph 1 in the "conduct unbecoming" policy looks pretty much like the one I was working under in the mid-'70s. It's specific in that it deals with effect (bringing the department into disrepute) rather than cause. It was made clear to me from day one that the public won't separate the officer from his office nor his personal opinion from department and city policy. I understood that watching my mouth, and my actions, even when I was off duty, was part of the job. Paragraph 2 is a reasonable reminder that "in public" includes social media.

          A comment like "Real men work, b*****s cheer from the sidelines." is an ad hominem. It adds nothing to a discussion and can drag it down to the level of a schoolyard squabble. Not a big deal ordinarily but in this case the Chief did warn his officers to be careful.

          #2 - This case could be a good one to push all the way to the USSC, to protect officer privacy about text messaging on personal devices without violating departmental policy.
          Once a message has a appeared on a social media site it isn't private, nor is there any reason to retrieve a copy from the sender's personal device. Things get sticky when public employees use personal devices to conduct official business, co-mingling public records with personal material.

          In Washington State a deputy sheriff is suing a county prosecutor over access to work-related text messages sent from the prosecutor's personal cell phone. That case is headed for the state supreme court.

          Comment


          • #6
            So he made an ad hominem attack. BFD. Debates don't always have to be intellectual exercises. Sometimes you have to tell a bitch that's he's just a bitch.
            Government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem. - Ronald Reagan

            I don't think It'll happen in the US because we don't trust our government. We are a country of skeptics, raised by skeptics, founded by skeptics. - Amaroq

            Comment


            • #7
              It was his phone but his dept paid for part of the bill, I have never been a fan of that! If my dept requires me to have a phone then they can issue me one. I refuse to use a personal phone for work.

              Comment


              • #8
                In school & the reserve academy it was drummed into us that officers need to be careful about what they write in their notepads, as a defense attorney could bring the whole pad into court. I think the same logic applies here. Keep work & play separate so that one's personal affairs doesn't become fodder for ambulance chasers.

                That said, Brooks needs to learn not to get his panties in a bunch over what's posted on the internet. Anyone who is ultra-sensitive has no business being online where public comments are posted if they can't deal with harsh comments (not including threats).
                This Space For Rent

                Comment


                • #9
                  In 26 years in law enforcement, including some time assigned as bailiff at 65 or 70 jury trials, and testifying at least 100 times, I have never seen an officer's field notes asked for during testimony.
                  Government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem. - Ronald Reagan

                  I don't think It'll happen in the US because we don't trust our government. We are a country of skeptics, raised by skeptics, founded by skeptics. - Amaroq

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by ateamer View Post
                    Debates don't always have to be intellectual exercises.
                    Yeah, they do. That's what distinguishes them from from mere arguments or shouting matches.

                    Sometimes you have to tell a bitch that's he's just a bitch.
                    No, you don't have to. "I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and besides, the pig likes it."

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Seventy2002 View Post
                      No, you don't have to. "I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and besides, the pig likes it."
                      Or, never argue with idiots- it's like playing chess with a pigeon. No matter what you do, the pigeon will knock over the pieces, crap on the board, and prance around like it won.
                      Originally posted by Michigan
                      Now that you mention it, who are you?

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Seventy2002 View Post
                        Ye
                        No, you don't have to. "I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and besides, the pig likes it."
                        Actually, yes sometimes you do have to be very blunt with certain people in certain circumstances. At times that bluntness might be VERY frank and base.

                        Originally posted by SamRudolph View Post
                        Or, never argue with idiots- it's like playing chess with a pigeon. No matter what you do, the pigeon will knock over the pieces, crap on the board, and prance around like it won.
                        I have heard that.
                        Since some people need to be told by notes in crayon .......Don't PM me with without prior permission. If you can't discuss the situation in the open forum ----it must not be that important

                        My new word for the day is FOCUS, when someone irritates you tell them to FOCUS

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          I look at it this way ... just my opinion ... somebody could be justified in saying something. Somebody could violate no rules by saying something. The question a person has to ask is, "Is it wise that I say this?" I'm not sure the officer here was.

                          There are people gleaning the Internet for stuff like this, just looking to further embarrass and hammer you guys. Somebody on a left-wing site posted a screen shot of a thread from Police One, where the discussion gets a little hotter than it is around here (mainly because they don't let civilians participate) crowing, "Here's what your police are really like."

                          I absolutely think you guys need to get your side of the story out there in the face of all the crap that's being circulated. I wish I could give that use of force article cited in the other thread a jillion "likes." But you're not going to achieve anything in Facebook arguments except blow off steam.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Maybe I can't brain this early, but how is the request for the officers text messages relevant to anything? He made what seems to be 2 single posts on a socia media site, he didn't send private text messages to this other guy. So where's the justification for anyone to be asking for this?
                            Last edited by JustAJ; 12-15-2014, 07:58 AM.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by JustAJ View Post
                              Maybe I can't brain this early, but how is the request for the officers text messages relevant to anything? He made what seems to be 2 single posts on a socia media site, he didn't send private text messages to this other guy. So where's the justification for anyone to be asking for this?
                              I'm glad I'm not the only one that can't figure out wtf his cell has anything to do with this.

                              Comment

                              MR300x250 Tablet

                              Collapse

                              What's Going On

                              Collapse

                              There are currently 3067 users online. 180 members and 2887 guests.

                              Most users ever online was 26,947 at 07:36 PM on 12-29-2019.

                              Welcome Ad

                              Collapse
                              Working...
                              X