Lds Officer Says He Resigned Due To Religious Discrimination

[tonie]

Arranging an assignment swap with a co-worker and then asking management to OK it is not a refusal. It's a request.

 

I suppose you are welcome to quibble too.

Edited March 3, 2015 by tonie

[KevinG]

I don't think you understand the word phrase you used.

 

Scott's source, Dreher, made a false statement.  The false statement can not be even be given the benefit of personal interpretation.  Dreher statement is false, and anyone who took the time to INFORM themself of the issue would know that Drehers position is false.

 

Scott has taken issue, in this thread, with "characterization" or to be more specific, Scott has accused others of "mischaracterization".  Dreher's statement goes beyond mischaracterization. Dreher's statement is false.  But if Scott wants to post the false statements of others, he is free to do so. Scott, however, is not free from the reprocusions of posting the false statements of others.

Than address the content of the article without smearing the author. I am perfectly clear about ad hominem and your use of it.

[tonie]

Than address the content of the article....

 

I did.  I did so in the first comment I made about Dreher. Unfortunately for the Dreher, he placed his reliability and credibility on the line when he posted a false statement. Drehers content is the epitome of propaganda.  Dreher can not even get a basic fact correct even after copying and pasting an article from Deseret News. That Dreher can not even get a basic fact  correct, says much about his credibility and reliability.

 

 

 I am perfectly clear about ad hominem and your use of it.

 

One has to wonder if you do, otherwise you would not have started this diversion.

Edited March 3, 2015 by tonie

[Yirgacheffe]

 

 

 

'Have they been doing the choreographed maneuvers for the gay pride parade since 1997? Are they asked to do it every year? In any case, asking to be reassigned on occasion to a duty more related to public safety than performing entertainment in a parade is not unreasonable."

 

 

If they are choreographed then asking for a change is unreasonable.  Choreographed activities must be practiced in order to be done right, he must have practiced with the group and would have been the most qualified to carry out any choreographed maneuvers.  I wonder, does his resigning end the investigation by internal affairs or do they continue to investigate even though he no longer works there?

 

Edited March 3, 2015 by Yirgacheffe

[Scott Lloyd]

'Have they been doing the choreographed maneuvers for the gay pride parade since 1997? Are they asked to do it every year? In any case, asking to be reassigned on occasion to a duty more related to public safety than performing entertainment in a parade is not unreasonable."

 

 

If they are choreographed then asking for a change is unreasonable.  Choreographed activities must be practiced in order to be done right, he must have practiced with the group and would have been the most qualified to carry out any choreographed maneuvers.  I wonder, does his resigning end the investigation by internal affairs or do they continue to investigate even though he no longer works there?

I get the impression the man he was swapping with was capable enough, otherwise they wouldn't have proposed it. His capability has never been at issue as far as I can tell in anything I've read. Burbank got mad because he didn't like Moustos's reason for wanting to swap. That seems to be the long and short of it.

And why in the world would they continue an internal affairs investigation if he is no longer employed there? I'm puzzled you would even ask that. Termination would have been the stiffest penalty that could be imposed, and that was obviated when he resigned.

Of do you think it's a crime to hold an opinion? Heaven help us if <that> ever becomes the case. The tyranny of political correctness would no longer be a mere threat.

Edited March 3, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Anijen]

Of do you think it's a crime to hold an opinion?

This is the truth behind this facade. Some people feel if we can't agree with them, then it is a hate crime. Shame.

[sethpayne]

This is the truth behind this facade. Some people feel if we can't agree with them, then it is a hate crime. Shame.

 

Who said this???

[california boy]

I get the impression the man he was swapping with was capable enough, otherwise they wouldn't have proposed it. His capability has never been at issue as far as I can tell in anything I've read. Burbank got mad because he didn't like Moustos's reason for wanting to swap. That seems to be the long and short of it.

And why in the world would they continue an internal affairs investigation if he is no longer employed there? I'm puzzled you would even ask that. Termination would have been the stiffest penalty that could be imposed, and that was obviates when he resigned.

Of do you think it's a crime to hold an opinion? Heaven help us if <that> ever becomes the case. The tyranny of political correctness would no longer be a mere threat.

 

I will tell you what puzzles me.  Your claim is that the chief went wacky and started calling his officer a bigot and put his officer on leave for no other reason than the alleged fact that he asked to switch assignments with a fellow officer.  Yet the investigation is launched against the saintly officer who according to you did nothing wrong in the slightest.  Does that seem odd to you???

 

if your guess as to what took place at that meeting was simply I want to swap assignments with a fellow officer then why are their grounds for eternal affairs to investigate the officer.  And why are their not grounds to open up an investigation against the chief?  You don't know what the officer said at the meeting that resulted in the chief calling him a bigot after the meeting.  No one knows.  You are making a martyr out of a guy that you have no idea what actually occurred during that meeting.  If you could produce testimony about what actually was said in the meeting then we could decide if this guy is a bigot or not.  But you can't.  And that is the unvarnished truth.

 

by your own admission, it is not common in a lot of jobs to swap assignments.  People don't routinely get called bigots and put on leave because they want to swap assignments.  The officer has not related what he actually said in the meeting to the public.  Neither has the chief.  Yet internal affairs opens up its investigation, not over the incident, but on the officer.  

 

You aren't looking for the truth.  You are only interested in championing a cause.  And you, like others, are using the officer to do so without knowing all the facts.

[Daniel2]

I will tell you what puzzles me. Your claim is that the chief went wacky and started calling his officer a bigot and put his officer on leave for no other reason than the alleged fact that he asked to switch assignments with a fellow officer. Yet the investigation is launched against the saintly officer who according to you did nothing wrong in the slightest. Does that seem odd to you???

if your guess as to what took place at that meeting was simply I want to swap assignments with a fellow officer then why are their grounds for eternal affairs to investigate the officer. And why are their not grounds to open up an investigation against the chief? You don't know what the officer said at the meeting that resulted in the chief calling him a bigot after the meeting. No one knows. You are making a martyr out of a guy that you have no idea what actually occurred during that meeting. If you could produce testimony about what actually was said in the meeting then we could decide if this guy is a bigot or not. But you can't. And that is the unvarnished truth.

by your own admission, it is not common in a lot of jobs to swap assignments. People don't routinely get called bigots and put on leave because they want to swap assignments. The officer has not related what he actually said in the meeting to the public. Neither has the chief. Yet internal affairs opens up its investigation, not over the incident, but on the officer.

You aren't looking for the truth. You are only interested in championing a cause. And you, like others, are using the officer to do so without knowing all the facts.

Exceptional post, CaliforniaBoy.

After starting this thread, I have mostly sat back and read others' postings, mostly because the most glaring fact is that everyone seems to be jumping to conclusions, most of which are unsuportable with the available facts. One thing seems clear: the devil in this story is in the details, and we just don't know those details.

The officer is at an advantage in the realm of public opinion: because he already resigned, he can speak (and potentially spin) this story as much as he likes. The police chief does not have that luxury, in that he is likely bound by confidentiality regulations that prohibit him from publicly addressing any details of the internal investigation (regulations which, ironically, are likely designed protect the privacy rights of the officer who resigned as much as they protect the internal workings of anyone else).

Unless and until the findings of the internal investigation are made public, anything this officer says is one-sided and lacking context of the rationale of the police chief. We simply can't know what went on internally.

Edited March 3, 2015 by Daniel2

[The Nehor]

Who said this???

A bunch of straw men did. Don't worry. They are getting pounded to pieces for their audacity in saying it.

[sethpayne]

...  One thing seems clear: the devil in this story is in the details, and we just don't know those details.

The officer is at an advantage in the realm of public opinion: because he already resigned, he can speak (and potentially spin) this story as much as he likes. The police chief does not have that luxury, in that he is likely bound by congidentiality regulations that prohibit him from publicly addressing any details of the internal investigation (regulations which, ironically, are likely designed protect the privacy rights of the officer who resigned as much as they protect the internal workings of anyone else).

Unless and until the findings of the internal investigation are made public, anything this officer says is one-sided and lacking context of the rationale of the police chief. We simply can't know what went on internally.

 

Words of wisdom, Daniel.  I am guilty of jumping to conclusions and believe that you are right, we can't really make any substantive evaluation without some additional, and very basic, facts.

[stemelbow]

I suppose you are welcome to quibble too.

Either he refused to do it, as you said, or he decided he'd do it when the requested swap was rejected. Seems like a big difference to me.

Your request is asking for the obvious. The issue arised out of Moutsos refusal of the assignment and after the refusal was denied, he agreed to the assignment. Read the various articles and/or listen to the podcast Scott linked too - I would suggest starting about about 23 minutes.

Well the way the officer tells it the issue arose out of nowhere (it seems like everyone is agreed that if it was only asking for a change of assignment, he did nothing wrong). So either he's not telling the truth, and if he is not then that will surely come out, or he is telling the truth for the most part and the matter was mishandled by his bosses. The problem we have, though, is it seems like those who think he is not telling the truth seem to have nothing to back up their claims. Like your claim of he refused to do it. There was no refusal but a request. The request was rejected whereupon he then agreed to do it.

Personally I'd still say riding his motorcycle at the front of the parade, even doing tricks, isn't him being a part of the parade at all. But that's my opinion. I grant people disagree. Even if he was considered part of the celebration I'm not sure how that would be against his religious beliefs. It doesn't quite square in my head. But, whatever. We're all individuals thinking for ourselves so if he feels participating in the parade was in conflict with his beliefs, then so be it. The most telling in this is his claim that he, upon having his request rejected, agreed to do it, even, as he says, went about preparing with everyone to do it. Then he finds out he was suspended. Seems odd. I grant the oddness may mean he did something or said something far more problematic. But we don't have a record of that. So we really can only go with what we have.

1. Officer Moustos was assigned to ride at the front of the parade

2. He worked out with another officer to change assignments and then asked his boss.

3. His request to change was rejected

4. He then agreed to do it

5. He was suspended and was told he is under investigation for discrimination

6. All these months later he and his attorney put out a statement describing the problem.

That seems to be the sum of what we know. I don't see where him refusing to do the assignment fits in there. Do you?

[Scott Lloyd]

It said Moutsos lost his job. That is in effect what happened, as he felt compelled to resign after being suspended and humiliated in public.

 

As for "marching" in the parade, I think Dreher was speaking figuratively there to convey that he was required to be part of the entertainment as opposed to providing security or crowd control.

 

 

Unbelieveable.  You really aren't looking for truth are you.

 

What? You think Dreher meant to be taken literally when he said "marching"?

 

:rofl:

 

What would Moutsos be doing while he was marching? Playing a piccolo? Beating a bass drum?

 

I can see it my mind's eye:

 

"Ladies and gentemen, here they are, the SLPD Drum and Bugle Corps.

 

"It's Chief Burbank's latest innovation for doing crowd control, clearing the streets and protecting the parade. The job was too big for the police department's crack precision motorcycle stunt team to handle on their own, so they are being augmented with musicians.

 

"Let's hear it for the police Drum and Bugle Corps!"

 

:clapping:

 

Think about it logically, california boy. Why would Dreher intend it to be taken literally, when right after that he excerpts the Deseret News story laying out the whole scenario with the choreographed motorcycle maneuvers, etc.? Dreher is not an idiot, even if he does disagree with your politics.

Edited March 4, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

 Dreher can not even get a basic fact correct even after copying and pasting an article from Deseret News. That Dreher can not even get a basic fact  correct, says much about his credibility and reliability.

 

 

The fact that he pasted in the Deseret News excerpt is what makes your supposition so bizarre that he meant to be taken literally when he said "marching."

 

As I just told california boy, Dreher is not an idiot.

[KevinG]

But Dreher used the word marching instead of riding, so...

 

...H8TR!

 

[Scott Lloyd]

I will tell you what puzzles me.  Your claim is that the chief went wacky and started calling his officer a bigot and put his officer on leave for no other reason than the alleged fact that he asked to switch assignments with a fellow officer.  Yet the investigation is launched against the saintly officer who according to you did nothing wrong in the slightest.  Does that seem odd to you???

 

In every quote I've seen from Burbank on this matter, it is quite apparent that he thinks Moustos is a bigot for even raising the matter in the first place. So yes, it seems in character to me that, with that sort of jaundiced opinion, Burbank would go off half-cocked, suspend Moustos, take his badge and equipment, and allow a false statement to go out to the media regarding the reason for the suspension, probably thinking he would never be called to account for it.*

 

 

if your guess as to what took place at that meeting was simply I want to swap assignments with a fellow officer then why are their grounds for eternal affairs to investigate the officer.

 

In order to pin the charge of discrimination on him and facilitate his eventual termination from the department. The statement from the spokeswoman indicates it was already foregone in the minds of management that Moustos was bigoted and discriminatory; the investigation would be a formality to establish that.

 

 And why are their not grounds to open up an investigation against the chief?

 

That's never even been suggested, as far as I can tell. Perhaps it should be.

 

 You don't know what the officer said at the meeting that resulted in the chief calling him a bigot after the meeting.  No one knows.  You are making a martyr out of a guy that you have no idea what actually occurred during that meeting.  If you could produce testimony about what actually was said in the meeting then we could decide if this guy is a bigot or not.  But you can't.  And that is the unvarnished truth.

 

 

 

Burbank has been interviewed and made public statements essentially reiterating his opinion that Moustos is a bigot. He has had plenty of opportunity to detail what went on and to contradict Moustos's rendition of events if he can. He has failed to do so. As I said earlier, the reputation of his department is at stake. If something is being said that isn't accurate, you'd think the first thing he'd want to do is set the record straight.

 

by your own admission, it is not common in a lot of jobs to swap assignments.

 

Did you mean to say uncommon? And it was not an admission. It was an assertion.

 

 People don't routinely get called bigots and put on leave because they want to swap assignments.

 

Unless their reason for wanting to do so rubs the superior the wrong way, as it apparently did in this case.

 

The officer has not related what he actually said in the meeting to the public.

 

Not in detail. But he has given what is apparently a fairly thorough rendition of the chain of events. And in that, he has not been contradicted.

 

 Neither has the chief.  Yet internal affairs opens up its investigation, not over the incident, but on the officer.

 

Bizarre, yes. Such is life in the world of political correctness.

 

You aren't looking for the truth.  You are only interested in championing a cause.

 

 

I am looking to do both, actually. I believe the officer has been unjustly maligned, and his perspective needs to come out.

 

 

 And you, like others, are using the officer to do so without knowing all the facts.

 

As I said, the officer has been unjustly maligned in the national media for many months. It's time his story comes out. If he has not given an accurate rendition, let the police department set the record straight. So far they have not contradicted him, only reiterated that he is a bigot for his expressed reasons for not wanting to ride in the parade.

 

*Edited to add:

 

I've seen that sort of mind-made-up-don't-try -to-reason-with-me mentality displayed on this very thread.

Edited March 3, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

Exceptional post, CaliforniaBoy.

After starting this thread, I have mostly sat back and read others' postings, mostly because the most glaring fact is that everyone seems to be jumping to conclusions, most of which are unsuportable with the available facts. One thing seems clear: the devil in this story is in the details, and we just don't know those details.

The officer is at an advantage in the realm of public opinion: because he already resigned, he can speak (and potentially spin) this story as much as he likes. The police chief does not have that luxury, in that he is likely bound by confidentiality regulations that prohibit him from publicly addressing any details of the internal investigation (regulations which, ironically, are likely designed protect the privacy rights of the officer who resigned as much as they protect the internal workings of anyone else).

Unless and until the findings of the internal investigation are made public, anything this officer says is one-sided and lacking context of the rationale of the police chief. We simply can't know what went on internally.

I will let the response I just made to california boy stand for this too, except to add this:

 

What makes you think there is still an internal affairs investigation going on? I don't get that idea from anything that has come out. What would be the purpose of a continued investigation after the officer has already resigned and the intent of the investigation in the first place, presumably, was to determine whether he should be terminated or otherwise disciplined for alleged discrimination?

 

He is no longer there to investigate, hence, case closed as far as the department is concerned. Except that they seem determined to keep branding him as a bigot.

[Daniel2]

I will let the response I just made to california boy stand for this too, except to add this:

What makes you think there is still an internal affairs investigation going on? I don't get that idea from anything that has come out. What would be the purpose of a continued investigation after the officer has already resigned and the intent of the investigation in the first place, presumably, was to determine whether he should be terminated or otherwise disciplined for alleged discrimination?

He is no longer there to investigate, hence, case closed as far as the department is concerned. Except that they seem determined to keep branding him as a bigot.

I never said I thought an internal investigation was still open--I said the investigation (however far it got and whatever form it toook) hasn't been made public, so we really don't know.

I also stand by my last post.

If either the officer presses charges or the department feels the chief acted inappropriately, I'm sure a new investigation will be launched. I imagine the details won't be discussed until the findings are complete and a determination has been made.

Either way, whatever we discuss in this thread is speculation relying on the one-sided account by the officer. In so saying, I'm not suggesting the officer's account is false... I'm simply saying we don't know the details of the chief's point of view, so what we know is simply incomplete.

Edited March 3, 2015 by Daniel2

[stemelbow]

I never said I thought an internal investigation was still open--I said the investigation (however far it got and whatever form it toook) hasn't been made public, so we really don't know.

I also stand by my last post.

If either the officer presses charges or the department feels the chief acted inappropriately, I'm sure a new investigation will be launched. I imagine the details won't be discussed until the findings are complete and a determination has been made.

Either way, we discuss in this thread is speculation, or relies on the one-sided account by the officer. In so saying, I'm not suggesting the officer's account is false... I'm simply saying we don't know the details of the chief's point of view, so what we know is simply incomplete.

Well there is the possibility that it is complete based on the officer's side. But we shall see, I guess.

[Scott Lloyd]

...  so what we know is simply incomplete.

Well, there's something to be said for that recognition at least. Up until recently, the officer had already been convicted in the minds of most people who were even aware of the incident.

 

Edited to add:

 

In retrospect, I view my role on this thread as having been to ensure that Officer Moustos's perspective gets fair consideration and to prevent it from being figuratively shouted down by mob group-think.

Edited March 3, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[The Nehor]

Well, there's something to be said for that recognition at least. Up until recently, the officer had already been convicted in the minds of most people who were even aware of the incident.

Still convicted in my mind unless something comes forth to exonerate him.

[Scott Lloyd]

Still convicted in my mind unless something comes forth to exonerate him.

Guilty until proven innocent -- from one who has not demonstrated a competent understanding of the known facts.

 

Sounds like typical mob psychology at play.

[Daniel2]

Well there is the possibility that it is complete based on the officer's side. But we shall see, I guess.

I admitted that was the case in my previous post when I said, "In so saying, I'm not suggesting the officer's report is false..."

[ALarson]

If he is working for another police department now (I think I read that he was?), I wonder how wise it is for him to speak out now.

 

The internal investigation halted when he resigned, is that correct?  So unless he files a lawsuit, will the facts ever come out?  Even he states that he could have been more "diplomatic in his conversations with superiors", so maybe he did say some things that he now regrets.

 

Either way, why publicize this now if he's not going to file a lawsuit?  I guess time will tell.

[The Nehor]

Guilty until proven innocent -- from one who has not demonstrated a competent understanding of the known facts.

 

Sounds like typical mob psychology at play.

Just as you and others assumed the police chief was guilty until proven innocent.

Of course this is not a criminal trial so "innocent until proven guilty" is not applicable. I am sure to some it might seem like an easy way to score rhetorical points though.