The Nehor Posted March 3, 2015 Posted March 3, 2015 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.You don't understand! The GAY AGENDA is out for blood!!!! We must preemptively strike by defending someone who quit of his own accord.It is kind of like how some people defend noxious people like Ayn Rand because they feel that any supporter is a benefit no matter how repulsive.
Daniel2 Posted March 3, 2015 Author Posted March 3, 2015 (edited) Guilty until proven innocent -- from one who has not demonstrated a competent understanding of the known facts.If the officer genuinely believes he was wronged, I hope he stands by that conviction by pressing charges to re-open an investigation, rather than leave it open-ended. If he chooses not to pursue pressing charges further, it would seem he would be all talk and no substance. Should that be the case, I think it’s reasonable to conclude that the officer doesn’t believe he would prevail, and that his claim that he was a victim of religious discrimination is probably not be as strong as he’s now arguing. That would be disappointing, as it would seem he’s merely making hay in the realm of public opinion without pursuing it to it’s logical end.In my opinion, if the officer leaves it as is, and if the department doesn’t re-open an internal investigation of its own accord—despite the publicity and attention this has garnered, I suggest it’s safe to assume that the results of whatever internal investigation (or partial investigation) had already occurred determined that the chief’s actions were appropriate. Given that it’s been said that a substantial number of officers on the Salt Lake are also LDS and/or otherwise religious, I think such further inaction by the department would suggest that the department’s findings supported the chief’s actions and suspension of the officer. As such, I don’t think it’s accurate to characterize The Nehor’s conclusion as “guilty instead of proven innocent,” but rather his acceptance that any further inaction by the department suggests that it agrees that the chief’s actions were proper and appropriate. Edited March 3, 2015 by Daniel2
Scott Lloyd Posted March 3, 2015 Posted March 3, 2015 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.I think his reason for doing so is clear from his own statement (which I pasted in its entirety into a prior post on this thread). He had been falsely branded as a bigot in a pubic statement put out by the police department that had been carried nationwide. Can he be faulted for trying to salvage his reputation? And he's serving the greater good by being part of the public dialogue about preserving religious liberty as governments (such as the state of Utah) formulate legislation to support GLTB rights.
Daniel2 Posted March 3, 2015 Author Posted March 3, 2015 (edited) I think his reason for doing so is clear from his own statement (which I pasted in its entirety into a prior post on this thread). He had been falsely branded as a bigot in a pubic statement put out by the police department that had been carried nationwide. Can he be faulted for trying to salvage his reputation?And he's serving the greater good by being part of the public dialogue about preserving religious liberty as governments (such as the state of Utah) formulate legislation to support GLTB rights.But he hadn't been publicly branded as a bigot. The police department kept his identity confidential, and it was entirely his decision to come forward more than a year later in the one-sided realm of public opinion. Edited March 3, 2015 by Daniel2
Scott Lloyd Posted March 3, 2015 Posted March 3, 2015 (edited) If the officer genuinely believes he was wronged, I hope he stands by that conviction by pressing charges to re-open an investigation, rather than leave it open-ended. If he chooses not to pursue pressing charges further, it would seem he would be all talk and no substance. Should that be the case, I think it’s reasonable to conclude that the officer doesn’t believe he would prevail, and that his claim that he was a victim of religious discrimination is probably not be as strong as he’s now arguing. That would be disappointing, as it would seem he’s merely making hay in the realm of public opinion without pursuing it to it’s logical end.In my opinion, if the officer leaves it as is, and if the department doesn’t re-open an internal investigation of its own accord—despite the publicity and attention this has garnered, I suggest it’s safe to assume that the results of whatever internal investigation (or partial investigation) had already occurred determined that the chief’s actions were appropriate.Given that it’s been said that a substantial number of officers on the Salt Lake are also LDS and/or otherwise religious, I think such further inaction by the department would suggest that the department’s findings supported the chief’s actions and suspension of the officer. As such, I don’t think it’s accurate to characterize The Nehor’s conclusion as “guilty instead of proven innocent,” but rather his acceptance that any further inaction by the department suggests that it agrees that the chief’s actions were proper and appropriate.Moutsos has already made his case in the court of public opinion as he has endeavored to salvage his already damaged reputation. Unless and until the police department and police chief publicly contradict his rendition of events, and unless and until they confirm and sustain the initial statement put out to news media last summer, it is fair and just to conclude that they can't honestly contradict Officer Moutsos's account and that their initial statement was false. Edited March 4, 2015 by Scott Lloyd
tonie Posted March 3, 2015 Posted March 3, 2015 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.
Scott Lloyd Posted March 3, 2015 Posted March 3, 2015 (edited) But he hadn't been publicly branded as a bigot. Thr police department kept his identity confidential, and it was entirely his decision to come forward more than a year later in the one-sided realm of public opinion.It matters little that they did not disclose his identity. There were many people close to the situation who knew his identity, and that was bound to get out. The Deseret News was able independently to discover his identity, and it was only after they did that that he agreed to come forward and be interviewed with his name and likeness publicized. The point is not whether they identified him in that statement last summer but whether what they said was true or false. Edited March 3, 2015 by Scott Lloyd
Scott Lloyd Posted March 3, 2015 Posted March 3, 2015 (edited) Just as you and others assumed the police chief was guilty until proven innocent. Unlike yours, my opinion was an informed one. Of course this is not a criminal trial so "innocent until proven guilty" is not applicable. Still doesn't make mob-think right -- or any the less contemptible. Edited March 3, 2015 by Scott Lloyd
tonie Posted March 3, 2015 Posted March 3, 2015 (edited) It matters little that they did not disclose his identity. There were many people close to the situation who knew his identity, and word was bound to get out.The Deseret News was able independently to discover his identity, and it was only after they did that he agreed to come forward and be interviewed.some 8 months later, the public did not know who the officer was.You protested against "mischaracterization", yet you engage in it and defend those who use it to champion your cause.he resigned, meaning he voluntarily made the choice to leave the SLC PD.given that it has been shown he has "mischaractetized" events, we have to take it all with a grain of salt.Anti-Discrimination laws do not protect religious based discrimination - limited to a few exceptions. Nor should his conduct be protected. An article i read mentioned a case against Bob Jones University, which defended its racism under the banner and name of God; the Univesities racism in the name of Jesus was rejected by the Supreme Court. Edited March 3, 2015 by tonie
tonie Posted March 3, 2015 Posted March 3, 2015 Still doesn't make mob-think right -- or any the less contemptible.neither mobs group think, yet you give back breakng deference to your mob
tonie Posted March 3, 2015 Posted March 3, 2015 for interested, you could always file a GRAMA (slc equivilent of FOIA) for the emails.it is interesting no emails, even those by Moutsos, have been made public. control the information, control the message, and control public opinion.
Scott Lloyd Posted March 3, 2015 Posted March 3, 2015 You don't understand! The GAY AGENDA is out for blood!!!! We must preemptively strike by defending someone who quit of his own accord. Kind of like the Mormon Pioneers left Nauvoo of their own accord.
ALarson Posted March 3, 2015 Posted March 3, 2015 But he hadn't been publicly branded as a bigot. Thr police department kept his identity confidential, and it was entirely his decision to come forward more than a year later in the one-sided realm of public opinion.That's what I think is a bit odd. The timing of this and also that the officer is now willing to put his name out there so long after the incident. Especially considering that he is currently working for another police department (if that is the case).
ALarson Posted March 3, 2015 Posted March 3, 2015 It matters little that they did not disclose his identity. There were many people close to the situation who knew his identity, and that was bound to get out. The Deseret News was able independently to discover his identity, and it was only after they did that that he agreed to come forward and be interviewed with his name and likeness publicized. Was the Deseret News going to reveal his identity? Is that really why he came forward now?
The Nehor Posted March 3, 2015 Posted March 3, 2015 Unlike yours, my opinion was an informed one. Still doesn't make mob-think right -- or any the less contemptible.As to your first statement I disrespectfully disagree.And this is not mob-think. This guy went to the media. He is not being vilified while simply doing his job. He put himself into the public sphere.
Scott Lloyd Posted March 3, 2015 Posted March 3, 2015 (edited) some 8 months later, the public did not know who the officer was. You don't know the extent of the knowledge. Anyone acquainted with the situation well enough to know he was the one suspended could have heard the publicized statement and drawn the false conclusion from it. he resigned, meaning he voluntarily made the choice to leave the SLC PD. He was forced out by hostile conditions. Like one of the Mormon pioneers is reported to have said: "We left Nauvoo of our own free will -- because we had to." given that it has been shown he has "mischaractetized" events, we have to take it all with a grain of salt. I don't know what you're talking about with this. Anti-Discrimination laws do not protect religious based discrimination - limited to a few exceptions. Don't "protect" or don't forbid? Nor should his conduct be protected. As reflected in his statement, his conduct was not wrong. Edited March 3, 2015 by Scott Lloyd
Scott Lloyd Posted March 3, 2015 Posted March 3, 2015 That's what I think is a bit odd. The timing of this and also that the officer is now willing to put his name out there so long after the incident. Especially considering that he is currently working for another police department (if that is the case).I don't think the timing was odd. As I said earlier, his career was almost destroyed by a vindictive police chief and his reputation was damaged by a false statement to the media. Little wonder that he would be guarded. I think at first he just wanted to set the record straight and at length realized he could not do that effectively without disclosing his identity.
The Nehor Posted March 3, 2015 Posted March 3, 2015 Kind of like the Mormon Pioneers left Nauvoo of their own accord.The comparison is........hmmmmm.....insane just isn't strong enough. Unless you are arguing that the police department were going to loot his home and kick our his family if he tried to work within his job.
Scott Lloyd Posted March 3, 2015 Posted March 3, 2015 Was the Deseret News going to reveal his identity? Is that really why he came forward now?I don't know what they were going to do. I'm just going by what was in the story. I think they persuaded him to come forward after they found out who he was.
Scott Lloyd Posted March 3, 2015 Posted March 3, 2015 The comparison is........hmmmmm.....insane just isn't strong enough. Unless you are arguing that the police department were going to loot his home and kick our his family if he tried to work within his job.An analogy is a comparison drawn for illustrative purposes that applies only in limited respects. The point of my comparison is that it cannot honestly be said that one resigned voluntarily when the resignation was compelled by hostile conditions.
The Nehor Posted March 3, 2015 Posted March 3, 2015 An analogy is a comparison drawn for illustrative purposes that applies only in limited respects. The point of my comparison is that it cannot honestly be said that one resigned voluntarily when the resignation was compelled by hostile conditions.I think you would have to prove it was compelled to make the analogy valid.
Scott Lloyd Posted March 3, 2015 Posted March 3, 2015 As to your first statement I disrespectfully disagree.And this is not mob-think. This guy went to the media. He is not being vilified while simply doing his job. He put himself into the public sphere.He wanted to set the record straight after a department statement to the media falsely maligned him. What a scoundrel!
Scott Lloyd Posted March 3, 2015 Posted March 3, 2015 (edited) I think you would have to prove it was compelled to make the analogy valid.The analogy is valid. It is clear from his account -- and from Burbank's subsequent behavior -- that the foregone intent was to bring about his termination. He obviously left to avoid the painful travesty of an investigation. Edited March 3, 2015 by Scott Lloyd
Scott Lloyd Posted March 3, 2015 Posted March 3, 2015 control the information, control the message, and control public opinion.As the police department initially tried to do?
The Nehor Posted March 3, 2015 Posted March 3, 2015 He wanted to set the record straight after a department statement to the media falsely maligned him. What a scoundrel!I am not sure the charge was false. It could be.It does not make him a scoundrel. Not sure why he felt an obscure notation somewhere warranted bringing in the media but he seems to think it did. And that is his right but he also has to live with the consequences of his choice including the increased scrutiny.
Recommended Posts