Burning_Ember

Those bits from the articles are facts. What I'm saying is events like these don't happen in a vacuum. If he grew up in an environment where racism and white supremacy was denounced as abhorrent and wrong, then I don't think he would've walked into a black church to commit an act of terrorism with a stated goal of trying to start a race war.

Demonic influence? I don't know..... I just find it odd that a major part of his problem was that people of color were raping white women...... what would possess him to kill Christians who were in a prayer service? Why would he think that a Christian group of any color is taking over the country. Maybe I've been watching to many episodes of "Criminal Minds" for this just doesn't add up to me. The guy is obviously messed up, why these people. Why go there for an hour before you strike.... Important highlights from this article; "A sparse Facebook page shows an image of Roof in a jacket with the flags of apartheid-era South Africa and Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe)." ... “I never heard him say anything, but just he had that kind of Southern pride, I guess some would say. Strong conservative beliefs,” he said. “He made a lot of racist jokes, but you don’t really take them seriously like that. You don’t really think of it like that.” ... But now, “the things he said were kind of not joking,” Mullins added." “He was big into segregation and other stuff,” Tyler said. “He said he wanted to start a civil war. He said he was going to do something like that and then kill himself.” http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/06/18/everything-known-about-charleston-church-shooting-suspect-dylann-roof.html If that does not clearly explain his motive then I don't know what does.

Responding to this. Go find some case law that supports your position. You'll be surprised to find that you can be fired for just about anything. For example, in some states, you can be fired if your employer knows that you went to a bar, after work, while not representing the company.

Go find some case law about how public and/or private sector employees cannot be punished at all for what they say.

I'm not really sure what anyone else might be expecting for this. Racism is learned. Not inherent. More people dead than the Boston Marathon Incident. It's a hate crime. The perpetrator is a domestic terrorist. Did people really think this guy was going to be Muslim or an atheist or something? People commit crimes out of hate and and anger. There is almost no other conceivable reason for this.

Well shiloh, if she was fired because she hated kids, and it was upheld by the court, then it seems that it does not mean you cannot get fired from your job, depending on what you say. It proves the point that the 1st amendment is a right to freedom of speech, not freedom of employment.

The principal is accountable not just to his employer, but he also works for his teachers, for his students, and for the parents of his students. I imagine he received some backlash. Key thing here, he got moved to a different position. Not fired. I've presented three other links on this subject as evidence. By all means, if you have evidence stating that in Florida, a school system would have no right to reassign (not fire, reassign) one of their employees for something they say publicly as a private citizen, I'm sure you have some kind of evidence to present for this. It might be good to note that Florida is a right to work state, so an employer can fire you for pretty much any reason they want.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/252565872/Graziosi-v-City-of-Greenville As this court decision states, speaking as a private citizen on facebook on a matter of public concern does not mean you cannot be fired. Maintaining discipline and leadership means that you can in fact, be fired. which the Principal was not. He was re-assigned. Whether you find his comments right isn't terribly relevant, as it's his position of leadership of the school full of minority students, what he says on hot button issues concerning race and law enforcement is pretty relevant in that context.

Comments on whether the officer was totally justified in his actions pointing weapons at people or taking down that 15 year old girl are probably a bit more relevant when you are the principal of a school with 99% minority students during a media storm about long unsolved race issues. Especially when you don't actually get fired but re-assigned.

She ended up getting roundly condemned for it.

The principal in this case was not fired, but reassigned to lesser administrative duties. http://www.mtv.com/news/2184336/alberto-iber-principal-fired/ In the private sector, with few excfeptions depending on the state, no real first amendment protections apply. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/monkey-cage/wp/2015/04/02/businesses-first-amendment-rights-dont-extend-to-their-employees/ Even in the public sector, it is not universal. http://www.workplacefairness.org/retaliation-public-employees

Uncertain is in the right here. The 1st Amendment means you have the right to say whatever you want, take photos of whatever you want, publish anything you want, record whatever you want... Unless you are breaking some kind of law by doing so. Examples would be threatening someone, or taking photos or video where specifically prohibited by law (which is very very few cases) or publishing something that breaks the law in some way, again, very rare instances. Now, your right to freedom of speech STOPS where anothers rights begin. Employment, for example, is generally not a right. If you work for a school, then proceed to say that segregation was a good idea, the employer also has rights. Namely, to fire you. If I worked for a phone company, then proceeded to go post videos saying I worked for that phone company, and how awful they were... I have every right to post those videos. I can say whatever I want. Unless they physically prevent me from engaging in freedom of expression, there is no violation of the First Amendment. They, however, can fire me.

Police men, or women, are just like you and me, B.E. They get stressed out, overwhelmed and overcome by adrenaline if they feel threatened. The one officer overreacted and needs to find other employment. But the majority of police officers are able to handle volatile situations like this. It's nothing to do with race; I've seen white kids slammed to the ground right here in Houston in the same way. It's just a sad commentary on our society today that respect for authority is sorely lacking in a lot of our younger citizens. I understand that. The post I made right after you posted in response to patriot should provide a bit more context. I don't think the police should have been called in the first place, I think the reasons for which the police were called were unnecessary... If someone lives in a neighborhood, holds a pool party, I think it's awful when they have racial slurs and insults thrown at them assaulted, have the police called on them, and their party gets ruined. The problem isn't just how the one Officer responded, it's why they had to be called in the first place.

So what? That puts the racism on the white kids not the cops...which means people are blaming the wrong people, and the kids were still in the wrong to defy the cops. Period. An adult, not the kids, who lived in the neighborhood. She does not get arrested for assaulting someone elses kid, the guy who gets the gun pulled on him gets arrested for evasion, after he was already told to leave. (And of course, charges dropped.) It's not as though the problem I'm referring to is strictly problems with only certain police officers/departments. If people who live in a neighborhood have a problem because a bunch of teenagers who were not smoking, nor drinking, have a pool party... At which point one (or two people) go and use racial slurs, and assault other peoples children... That's a problem. There would likely be zero police intervention had that not happened. It's not as though this incident is just the officer using an inappropriate level of force. It's WHY that happened in the first place, what led up to it. And why this happened was really dumb. Address the root causes you solve the problems that result from them.

Two people, Grace Stone, and Tatiana Rose, who were both there, both saw it/heard it. If you have a problem with what I'm saying, that's too bad, because I'm citing two eyewitnesses. It's their testimony, not mine. They were children at a pool party, not "thugs who hate police". Keep the debate on the issue, not the person, shiloh.

It's more likely that The Chief of Police of McKinney lied to everybody, that Casebolt meeting with Internal Affairs was just some sort of elaborate ruse to fool everyone? Another person got fired for posting on facebook that she was "almost to the point of wanting them all segregated on one side of town", and that maybe the 50's and 60's were really on to something" in reference to "the blacks". So, do you think that there is no racism whatsoever involved with slapping a black teenager after telling using racial slurs and telling them to go back to section 8 housing, or do you think that maybe it;s possible that a few people had problems with black people being at their pool?

The fight started when when one of the white neighbors told one of the kids (who was black) to go back to their section 8 home, and used terms like "black *******", and assaulted the kid. Reportedly, that neighbor was not the only one saying stuff like that. If that hadn't happened, I doubt the police would have been called in the first place, resulting in a police officer pulling a gun on a bunch of kids at a pool party. Edited to add: The Chief of police for the McKinney, Conley, stated that there were 12 Officers on the scene, that 11 of them behaved appropriately, and that Officer Casebolt (the one in question) was "out of control".

There being no evidence, and not accepting overwhelming evidence are two different things.

In other related news, the Officer resigned, and protests, again, reached thousands of people in McKinney.

There have been plenty so far. Lots of crickets out there. They are talking about problems within Law Enforcement, some of which does affect some people more than others. The sheriff in the story in the OP had a history of corruption and got charged after conflicting evidence with his 911 call got brought up. Good. This means he's likely not going to hurt anyone else. I don't think of crimes such as these to be touted as some example to try win ideological points. These are cases with people lives, people with daughters, husbands, wives, brothers, sisters... Y'know, human beings. I can't discuss that like some sort of game of conservatism vs liberalism. The families of those deceased or injured deserve more respect than that, I think.

I imagine once there is an appropriate case where a white police officer kills a white man, there will be people who organize protests, it's a matter of the necessary local activist groups planning things and taking action. Give it a week or so.

In the case of Freddie Gray, this was West Baltimore (a great deal of historical background) where someone died. In this case someone was shot, survived, and the Sheriff was charged, after a history of corruption. The two situations are on two totally different levels of severity as far as the protesters are concerned. Bad? Yes. There's many other more severe cases they devote their time to. Oh I can cite other cases where it was a non white cop who hurt or killed someone else and they were not charged with anything. No looting, no riots, no doj investigations, no al sharpton etc. Thing is, even before this shooting there were a lot of problems. But no one protested. Black lives only matter if matter if it involves a white cop apparently. Everyones life matters. Protesters are devoting their energy towards a lot of other things. Activism isn't just about protesting and blocking off streets. It's about getting candidates elected, filing legal challenges, planning, resources, logistics... These aren't small organizations doing small things. It's probably hundreds of thousands of people working together or in parallel, in one fashion or another, devoting varying amounts of time to it. The case they are focused on protesting against/devoting their resources to Baltimore/Freddie Gray, among other things. There was chatter about that, but they may focus their energy on about four cases a month, and one or another will more likely get more effort put to it than others. Cases where people die, and cases that better exemplify the problems they see in society are going to be those that get more effort devoted to them.

In the case of Freddie Gray, this was West Baltimore (a great deal of historical background) where someone died. In this case someone was shot, survived, and the Sheriff was charged, after a history of corruption. The two situations are on two totally different levels of severity as far as the protesters are concerned. Bad? Yes. There's many other more severe cases they devote their time to.

There is an outcry about it on twitter. There is a lot of cases but I imagine the protesters have their a finite amount of power, it takes resources to get 10,000 people to protest in a city, and they are more likely focused on other cases. Freddie Gray is still getting attention and protests, a case where someone died in a fairly brutal way (among many other reasons) is going to get more attention than this case. In addition, the Sheriff in question has already been charged with reckless conduct.

Whether you think that doesn't really matter, because that is debating the person, not the subject. Go find some statistics and facts and neutral news sources if you want to present something for debate.