JSO lieutenant investigated for "online racism": Year

[coredumped]

Don't wait for Mikey to do anything, that guy is just a huge disappointment.

[coredumped]

Stephen, there's no doubt that you know more about him and his works recently than I, but call me skeptical. If he was doing good I doubt he would miss the opportunity for a photo op.
This is a bit off topic, but I haven't been impressed with him. He won't get my vote next time around. Hopefully hackney runs.

Still waiting for him to look into body cameras that many Florida cities have.

[AKIRA]

a question: what exactly is "online racism"?

[Adam White]

a question: what exactly is "online racism"?

http://bfy.tw/4FTw

[AKIRA]

refined question: what exactly is "online racism" as it relates to a violation of an employment standard? 

The google search is too far spread in terms of opinion to be useful.

[Non-RedNeck Westsider]

refined question: what exactly is "online racism" as it relates to a violation of an employment standard? 

The google search is too far spread in terms of opinion to be useful.

Probably nothing.... Yet.

http://www.geekwire.com/2015/seattle-police-dept-s-new-social-media-policy-cracks-down-on-officers-personal-posts/

5.125-POL 2 – Employee Personal Use of Social Media

This policy covers employee personal use of social media affecting the workplace and/or the Department's ability to perform its public mission.

The Department recognizes the role that social media plays in the personal lives of some Department employees. However, the personal use of social media can have bearing on employees in their official capacity as they are held to a high standard by the community.

Engaging in prohibited speech outlined in this policy may provide grounds for discipline and may be used to undermine or impeach an officer's testimony in legal proceedings.

Employees Shall Not Post Speech That Negatively Impacts the Department's Ability to Serve the Public
Employees may express themselves as private citizens on social media sites as long as employees do not:

– Make, share, or comment in support of any posting that includes harassment, threats of violence, or similar inappropriate conduct

– Make, share, or comment in support of any posting that ridicules, maligns, disparages, expresses bias, negative connotations, or disrespect toward any race, religion, sex, gender, sexual orientation, nationality, or any other protected class of individuals

– Make, share, or comment in support of any posting that suggests that Department personnel are engaged in behavior reasonably considered to be unlawful or reckless toward public safety

– Otherwise violate any law or SPD policy

Employees are responsible for the content of their social media accounts. Employees shall make reasonable efforts to monitor their accounts so that postings made by others on their accounts conform to this policy.

[AKIRA]

Using Seattle's template, "online racism" is mighty subjective.

Posting any clip from a better Mel Brooks movie can be perceived as a violation.

[Adam White]

Using Seattle's template, "online racism" is mighty subjective.

Posting any clip from a better Mel Brooks movie can be perceived as a violation.

But, should the allegations in the original post end up being true, she did far worse than that. It's not that difficult. I don't see how any rational person could argue in favour of a police officer doing the things that this woman reportedly did and being allowed to remain a police officer.

Edit:

The "Core Values" of the JSO are listed here:

http://www.coj.net/departments/sheriffs-office/about-the-jso

It's possible - and highly likely - that JSO officers are bound by an additional code of ethics or other policy/regulation(s). On its face, however, it would seem that the allegations, if proved, would amount to misconduct insofar as the officer in question's behavior clearly was at odds with the "community focused" and "worthy of trust" values.

I conduct disciplinary investigations for a professional membership organization (accountancy). It simply needs to be shown that, on the balance of probabilities, the person's actions amount to misconduct. "Misconduct" can be defined any number of ways (by different organizations), but tends to mean something along the lines of prejudicing your status as a member of the org, bringing the org into disrepute or bringing the wider profession into disrepute.

If the evidence is there, this seems an open-and-shut case for misconduct.