smac97 Posted June 17, 2016 Author Posted June 17, 2016 2 minutes ago, california boy said: Thanks. What part of the military were you in?? Army National Guard (only 19 months active duty, though). Thanks, -Smac
california boy Posted June 17, 2016 Posted June 17, 2016 24 minutes ago, smac97 said: Army National Guard (only 19 months active duty, though). Thanks, -Smac Thank you for your service.
Scott Lloyd Posted June 17, 2016 Posted June 17, 2016 (edited) 3 hours ago, california boy said: I think that is a fair question. I am not the police chief, but I do know this about any police force. Like the military, strict discipline and following orders without question is fundamental to the safety of the officers and those they are sworn to protect. When you start having officers pick and choose what assignments they will take and what ones they want to pass on to others, there is a significant loss and breakdown of that discipline and chain of command. Let's say the police chief told officer Moutsos sure you can choose what assignments you want to do and how you want to execute them. Then next time, what happens when an officer goes to the police chief and says, I don't want to be partners with X officer because he is gay or Mormon. So I have arranged for someone else to be his partner. I think I would like to guard the capitol building instead. Or how about when one is assigned to go through the front door of a suspected arms dealer. Should the officer take it upon himself to tell the chief that he found someone else to cover for him? He would rather work crowed control out in front of the crime scene. Yes I think the chief was making an example out of officer Moutsos. It sent a clear message of how the chain of command works in the police force. When given an assignment, it is their DUTY to fulfill that assignment. If they don't want to do what is asked of them then they should be put on probation and yes, possibly police work is not the line of work they should be in. Yes a gay pride parade is not a life or death situation, but maintaining discipline and following orders should be maintained throughout ALL assignments and at all times. Otherwise you get officers confused about what assignments they may be in control of and what assignments the chief is in control of. The situation becomes even more egregious when the reason for not wanting to do what is asked is based on prejudice. It wasn't a parade officer Mouutsos had a problem with, it was because it was a gay parade that he had the problem. Your problem, CB, is that you are trying to make this out to be a case of insubordination. It is not. Officer Moutsos made a request. It was denied. He would have carried out the original assignment, but was prevented by an angry police chief who went way overboard, destroyed the officer's career at the department and humiliated the officer by putting out a false press release. This has never been cast as a case of insubordination. It was always about alleged discrimination. And by the way, it's ironic you should raise the matter of "strict discipline" and "following orders." Some months later, the mayor of the city, Ralph Becker, asked for Chief Burbank's resignation after the chief had, over a period of many months, stubbornly refused to comply with the mayor's directive that there be discipline administered in the department for a case of sex discrimination. The sequence of events suggests that the chief had a my-way-or-the-highway attitude and personality -- with superiors as well as subordinates -- that ultimately made him incompatible with his office. Quote Now can you answer the question that you avoided? I quite disagree that we have avoided the question. It's just that you don't like our answer. And it's a loaded, are-you-still-beating-your-wife kind of question in that it assumes a false premise: that Moutsos refused to obey a directive from his superior. He did not. Edited June 17, 2016 by Scott Lloyd 3
Scott Lloyd Posted June 17, 2016 Posted June 17, 2016 (edited) 20 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said: In a couple of weeks, I'll be departing on tour with the Mormon Tabernacle Choir (not singing; I'll be doing newspaper coverage). An event that occurs within my news beat, a history lecture at the Assembly Hall on Temple Square, will be occurring shortly before then. Knowing that I would probably be busy making tour preparations, some weeks ago, I arranged with a colleague to cover the lecture in my place. It was a provisional arrangement; we both knew the editor would have to bless it. We approached the editor and got her OK. If it had not been OK, I would have gone ahead and covered the lecture before departing on the tour. I don't see how this is materially different than what Officer Moutsos tried to do in arranging to trade assignments with a fellow officer. Except that he would still be working the same time and the same event, just in a different assignment. For that, merely trying, he was humiliated and ultimately hounded out of his job. 4 hours ago, california boy said: See my post above. I don't think being a newspaper reporter is the same as someone who is in the military or on the police force. Generally most jobs have more leeway. That said, I would love for you to go into your bosses office and tell him that you no longer want to cover the Mormon church because you do not agree with their lifestyle. Instead, you want to do sports from now on. Depending on your editor, he might very well point out to you that you were hired to cover the Mormon church, not sports. And if you want to do sports, start looking for another newspaper to work for. He might even see your prejudice against the Mormon church to be a problem that would cause a lot of internal conflict and that alone would be important enough reason to reevaluate your position on the paper. That is a little different than arranging vacation time. Your analogy doesn't work, CB. If I hated Mormonism, I would never have sought employment in the first place with a publication (the LDS Church News) dedicated to promoting and disseminating information about Mormonism to a readership consisting almost exclusively of Mormons. If having done so and my hatred developed later, I would recognize that it was I who had changed and would probably tender my resignation. But if not, well, the management of the Deseret News is reasonable, and it is more than possible that they would have found something else for an employee in that position to do rather than dismissing him on the spot. But this is nothing like the matter we are discussing. The fundamental purpose of a municipal police department is not to provide entertainment for political and social interest groups. Its purposes are to provide and ensure public safety, to detect crime and to apprehend criminals. Everyone understands this when someone hires on to work for the department. There may be a little bit of the other once in a while for PR purposes, but on the rare occasion when such non-essential fluffery conflicts with an individual's conscience and values, reason and fairness would provide that there be some leeway and consideration granted to that individual. But if you will, I'll propose a substitute analogy, one that is closer to the mark: Suppose you, an avowed advocate of same-sex marriage, worked for a police agency. Suppose further that there was to be a rally or parade put on by activists calling for a constitutional amendment outlawing same-sex marriage and repealing Obergefell v. Hodges. This parade would have a festive atmosphere with a lot of eye-catching spectacle -- after all, these activists are trying to put themselves in the public eye and gather support for their cause. But present in all of the spectacle is an undercurrent of in-your-face anger, hostility and obnoxiousness. You, as an officer on the force, are called upon to help provide entertainment for the event -- entertainment that is not essential to public safety, but rather, has as its purpose to amuse and dazzle the participants and event-goers. This, understandably, conflicts with your deeply held opinions and values, so you go to your superior with a proposal that you still work the event but that you be put on a detail such as traffic or crowd control -- something more directly in line with what you were sworn to do. The superior not only denies your request but has a meltdown on the spot, and, even after you agree to fulfill the original assignment, summarily suspends you, puts out a press release containing lies about your behavior, and generally makes your continued employment with the department intolerable if not impossible. I do believe this analogy better illustrates the position in which the hapless Officer Moutsos found himself two years ago. Edited June 17, 2016 by Scott Lloyd
Storm Rider Posted June 17, 2016 Posted June 17, 2016 (edited) 1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said: Your analogy doesn't work, CB. If I hated Mormonism, I would never have sought employment in the first place with a publication (the LDS Church News) dedicated to promoting and disseminating information about Mormonism to a readership consisting almost exclusively of Mormons. If having done so and my hatred developed later, I would recognize that it was I who had changed and would probably tender my resignation. But if not, well, the management of the Deseret News is reasonable, and it is more than possible that they would have found something else for an employee in that position to do rather than dismissing him on the spot. But this is nothing like the matter we are discussing. The fundamental purpose of a municipal police department is not to provide entertainment for political and social interest groups. Its purposes are to provide and ensure public safety, to detect crime and to apprehend criminals. Everyone understands this when someone hires on to work for the department. There may be a little bit of the other once in a while for PR purposes, but on the rare occasion when such non-essential fluffery conflicts with an individuals conscience and values, reason and fairness would provide that there be some leeway and consideration granted to that individual. But if you will, I'll propose a substitute analogy, one that is closer to the mark: Suppose you, an avowed advocate of same-sex marriage, worked for a police agency. Suppose further that there was to be a rally or parade put on by activists calling for a constitutional amendment outlawing same-sex marriage and repealing Obergefell v. Hodges. This parade would have a festive atmosphere with a lot of eye-catching spectacle -- after all, these activists are trying to put themselves in the public eye and gather support for their cause. But present in all of the spectacle is an undercurrent of in-your-face anger, hostility and obnoxiousness. You, as an officer on the force, are called upon to help provide entertainment for the event -- entertainment that is not essential to public safety, but rather, has as its purpose to amuse and dazzle the participants and event-goers. This, understandably, conflicts with your deeply held opinions and values, so you go to your superior with a proposal that you still work the event but that you be put on a detail such as traffic or crowd control -- something more directly in line with what you were sworn to do. The superior not only denies your request but has a meltdown on the spot, and, even after you agree to fulfill the original assignment, summarily suspends you, puts out a press release containing lies about your behavior, and generally makes your continued employment with the department intolerable if not impossible. I do believe this analogy better illustrates the position in which the hapless Officer Moutsos found himself two years ago. I think what causes me to pause the most is this is SLC - it is not San Francisco or Seattle or any other liberal city. If in SLC and a Latter-day Saint was excoriated for simply asking to switch functions. Where is there a safe place in the United States for making a request for to exchange a shift with another officer/employee? Where can a person follow their conscious if it conflicts with the tolerance liberal cities are supposed to exhibit? In the same city of Salt Lake, the headquarters of the Mormon Church, a police leader can demean, hate, and support despising and offending Mormons be allowed to keep his job and his position. What is the take away for everyone else that is not gay or, God forbid, who happens to be a Mormon? Pretty scary thoughts. Did the Church speak out against the hate filled diatribe of Stayner? Did they use their supposed influence and exact revenge? Nope. I have not heard a peep. Did any local mayors of the suburbs voice a concern? How about any human rights organization? How about the mayor of SLC city herself? The silence is deafening. Yup, tolerance is alive and well in Salt Lake City. Mormons beware because you have no value in SLC and no one has your back in government. In the land of the free and home of the brave it appears you must be gay to be protected. So much for all of the victim-hood for being gay. Edited June 17, 2016 by Storm Rider 1
jkwilliams Posted June 17, 2016 Posted June 17, 2016 1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said: Your analogy doesn't work, CB. If I hated Mormonism, I would never have sought employment in the first place with a publication (the LDS Church News) dedicated to promoting and disseminating information about Mormonism to a readership consisting almost exclusively of Mormons. If having done so and my hatred developed later, I would recognize that it was I who had changed and would probably tender my resignation. But if not, well, the management of the Deseret News is reasonable, and it is more than possible that they would have found something else for an employee in that position to do rather than dismissing him on the spot. But this is nothing like the matter we are discussing. The fundamental purpose of a municipal police department is not to provide entertainment for political and social interest groups. Its purposes are to provide and ensure public safety, to detect crime and to apprehend criminals. Everyone understands this when someone hires on to work for the department. There may be a little bit of the other once in a while for PR purposes, but on the rare occasion when such non-essential fluffery conflicts with an individual's conscience and values, reason and fairness would provide that there be some leeway and consideration granted to that individual. But if you will, I'll propose a substitute analogy, one that is closer to the mark: Suppose you, an avowed advocate of same-sex marriage, worked for a police agency. Suppose further that there was to be a rally or parade put on by activists calling for a constitutional amendment outlawing same-sex marriage and repealing Obergefell v. Hodges. This parade would have a festive atmosphere with a lot of eye-catching spectacle -- after all, these activists are trying to put themselves in the public eye and gather support for their cause. But present in all of the spectacle is an undercurrent of in-your-face anger, hostility and obnoxiousness. You, as an officer on the force, are called upon to help provide entertainment for the event -- entertainment that is not essential to public safety, but rather, has as its purpose to amuse and dazzle the participants and event-goers. This, understandably, conflicts with your deeply held opinions and values, so you go to your superior with a proposal that you still work the event but that you be put on a detail such as traffic or crowd control -- something more directly in line with what you were sworn to do. The superior not only denies your request but has a meltdown on the spot, and, even after you agree to fulfill the original assignment, summarily suspends you, puts out a press release containing lies about your behavior, and generally makes your continued employment with the department intolerable if not impossible. I do believe this analogy better illustrates the position in which the hapless Officer Moutsos found himself two years ago. Last night I had the latest in a recurring dream that I was back at my old job at the church office building. I knew they were depending on me for some big project, but I knew I couldn't pretend to believe. I knew my boss would be very upset if he knew I was a filthy apostate. It was a relief to wake up.
ERMD Posted June 17, 2016 Posted June 17, 2016 7 minutes ago, jkwilliams said: Last night I had the latest in a recurring dream that I was back at my old job at the church office building. I knew they were depending on me for some big project, but I knew I couldn't pretend to believe. I knew my boss would be very upset if he knew I was a filthy apostate. It was a relief to wake up. Of course there may be lunatic fringe exceptions, but do you really think people who knew/know you feel that way?
USU78 Posted June 17, 2016 Posted June 17, 2016 On 6/15/2016 at 1:39 PM, Daniel2 said: She wasn't active... she wasn't vocal or participating in any anti-LDS activities... she was simply actively involved in a same-sex relationship with her fiancé. So ... giving it quite another spin ... she was discovered by her Bishop to be engaged in an open, sinful, illicit same-sex relationship with demonstrated intent not only to continue in that relationship, but to enter into a covenant to continue in that relationship, whereupon she fled the state. Her Bishop then, concerned for her eternal soul, continued to invite her to repent and to discuss that with him, notwithstanding her reluctance. What a terrible man. 1
Scott Lloyd Posted June 17, 2016 Posted June 17, 2016 20 minutes ago, jkwilliams said: Last night I had the latest in a recurring dream that I was back at my old job at the church office building. I knew they were depending on me for some big project, but I knew I couldn't pretend to believe. I knew my boss would be very upset if he knew I was a filthy apostate. It was a relief to wake up. 12 minutes ago, ERMD said: Of course there may be lunatic fringe exceptions, but do you really think people who knew/know you feel that way? The only one I have ever seen apply the term "filthy apostate" to jkwilliams is jkwilliams himself. Ah well, at least he doesn't put it in quotation marks. Apparently he is writer enough to know that you don't enclose something in quotation marks unless you are quoting somebody or something. 1
jkwilliams Posted June 17, 2016 Posted June 17, 2016 21 minutes ago, ERMD said: Of course there may be lunatic fringe exceptions, but do you really think people who knew/know you feel that way? Feel what way? Has my disbelief upset some people? Sure, I have lost some friendships. After finding out I left, one of my mission companions, to whom I had been pretty close, cut off all contact. I had some major upheaval in my immediate family, too. Thankfully, I've worked things out with my family and learned to accept the loss of friends. And "filthy apostate" was meant facetiously.
ERMD Posted June 17, 2016 Posted June 17, 2016 46 minutes ago, jkwilliams said: Feel what way? Has my disbelief upset some people? Sure, I have lost some friendships. After finding out I left, one of my mission companions, to whom I had been pretty close, cut off all contact. I had some major upheaval in my immediate family, too. Thankfully, I've worked things out with my family and learned to accept the loss of friends. And "filthy apostate" was meant facetiously. Sorry to hear that. People being upset, dismayed, disillusioned, etc. does not necessarily mean they view you as a "filthy apostate." I think the dynamics involved with breaking off contact are likely complex and very subjective, based on who is asked and each individual point of view. 1
jkwilliams Posted June 17, 2016 Posted June 17, 2016 6 minutes ago, ERMD said: Sorry to hear that. People being upset, dismayed, disillusioned, etc. does not necessarily mean they view you as a "filthy apostate." I think the dynamics involved with breaking off contact are likely complex and very subjective, based on who is asked and each individual point of view. I know. I didn't handle things well in all cases, so I don't blame anyone. 2
USU78 Posted June 17, 2016 Posted June 17, 2016 5 minutes ago, jkwilliams said: I know. I didn't handle things well in all cases, so I don't blame anyone. Thanks for this. Your example should be followed. 1
jkwilliams Posted June 17, 2016 Posted June 17, 2016 12 minutes ago, USU78 said: Thanks for this. Your example should be followed. I wrote an essay a few years ago about how I am the poster child for how not to do things. I learned from my mistakes, thankfully. 1
california boy Posted June 18, 2016 Posted June 18, 2016 10 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said: Your analogy doesn't work, CB. If I hated Mormonism, I would never have sought employment in the first place with a publication (the LDS Church News) dedicated to promoting and disseminating information about Mormonism to a readership consisting almost exclusively of Mormons. If having done so and my hatred developed later, I would recognize that it was I who had changed and would probably tender my resignation. But if not, well, the management of the Deseret News is reasonable, and it is more than possible that they would have found something else for an employee in that position to do rather than dismissing him on the spot. If officer Moutsos had a problem working with ANY part of the community then perhaps choosing to be a police officer was also the wrong occupation for him. I think that is EXACTLY the point the police chief was making. And given his subsequent actions is probably the conclusion saint Moutsos came to as well. 10 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said: But this is nothing like the matter we are discussing. The fundamental purpose of a municipal police department is not to provide entertainment for political and social interest groups. Its purposes are to provide and ensure public safety, to detect crime and to apprehend criminals. Everyone understands this when someone hires on to work for the department. There may be a little bit of the other once in a while for PR purposes, but on the rare occasion when such non-essential fluffery conflicts with an individual's conscience and values, reason and fairness would provide that there be some leeway and consideration granted to that individual. You are wrong about this and shows how little you understand about police work in todays world. Of fundamental importance in police work is having a good relationship within the community and ESPECIALLY minority communities. If you don't understand this then you haven't been paying any attention to the news, especially this past year. It was in saint Moutsos's job description and he even trained for it. 10 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said: But if you will, I'll propose a substitute analogy, one that is closer to the mark: Suppose you, an avowed advocate of same-sex marriage, worked for a police agency. Suppose further that there was to be a rally or parade put on by activists calling for a constitutional amendment outlawing same-sex marriage and repealing Obergefell v. Hodges. This parade would have a festive atmosphere with a lot of eye-catching spectacle -- after all, these activists are trying to put themselves in the public eye and gather support for their cause. But present in all of the spectacle is an undercurrent of in-your-face anger, hostility and obnoxiousness. You, as an officer on the force, are called upon to help provide entertainment for the event -- entertainment that is not essential to public safety, but rather, has as its purpose to amuse and dazzle the participants and event-goers. This, understandably, conflicts with your deeply held opinions and values, so you go to your superior with a proposal that you still work the event but that you be put on a detail such as traffic or crowd control -- something more directly in line with what you were sworn to do. The superior not only denies your request but has a meltdown on the spot, and, even after you agree to fulfill the original assignment, summarily suspends you, puts out a press release containing lies about your behavior, and generally makes your continued employment with the department intolerable if not impossible. I do believe this analogy better illustrates the position in which the hapless Officer Moutsos found himself two years ago. If I was unwilling to do the job I was hired to do, then my obligation to myself and my employer would be to QUIT. As a police officer, it is not up to me to choose what part of my job description I choose to do and what part I pass on to someone else. I actually did have a similar experience. I was asked by one of my clients to design a wine label. I felt it was against my personal conviction to encourage others to drink wine. I resigned the account. Perhaps the police chief was quite aware of officer Moutsos's bad attitude towards the gay community and felt like this officer needed to interact more with the gay community in order to be an officer on the force. Having him participate in the gay pride parade may very well been the perfect opportunity for Moutsos to learn that the gay community also needs to know the SLC police force is there for them during times of trouble. Perhaps some of this past years conflicts between the black community and the local police force could have been avoided if their police chief had his officers work more with the black community and show support towards them. Especially those officers that have a problem working with the black community. The bottom line is, officer Moutsos was given a command that fit within his job description and one he was trained to d. Every other single officer complied with the assignments given them without question and without asking someone else to do THEIR job. He was the ONLY one who thought he could choose which assignments he had to do and which assignments he could pass on to another officer. This guy NEEDED to get over his prejudice towards the gay community. The police chief recognized that problem officer Moutsos had and assigned him to do a job he was trained to do. I have reread your posts, and I can not find the post where you answered my simple question. Perhaps you can point me to the post where you answered it. Here is the question again. Quote Simple question Scott or (SMAC). Why didn't officer Moutsos just do what he was assigned to do by his boss just like every other officer in the department? It has become perfectly clear why you will not answer this simple question. You too realize that officer Moutsos had a problem working with the gay community. A problem that his superior officer recognized and gave him a specific assignment to do to help him overcome his hostile attitude. Officer Moutsos took it upon himself to try and weasel out of that assignment. The police chief put him on review to determine if officer Moutsos was qualified to continue to work in the SLC police force. Subsequent events proved that the chief was exactly right. Officer Moutsos quit the force. Ended up quitting being in law enforcement all together and went to work for an organization that had no problems with his issues with gays. In fact, it probably helped him get the job.
california boy Posted June 18, 2016 Posted June 18, 2016 What?? You don't think it is important for the SLC police department show support for the gay community? Perhaps in any city in the entire country, SLC needs to visibly show that support. I think it is fair to say that many gays living in SLC feel that the LDS dominated area is extremely hostile to them, and for good reason. Allowing officers to avoid serving in minority communities because they have a problem with that community does not solve the problem. In fact, it only excellerate the problem. The only way to get over his attitudes towards the gay community is to be assigned to work with them. Has this lesson not been learned over and over again? It is not against the church's beliefs to work with the gay community. Heck, it is not even against the church's beliefs to participate in gambling when that is your job description. Officer Moutsos needed to get over his attitude towards gays. His superior officer recognized that. They gave him an assignment to help resolve his issues. He tried to get out of it. He was put on probation for doing that, and eventually left law enforcement entirely to work for an organization where he could maintain his attitudes towards gays.
USU78 Posted June 18, 2016 Posted June 18, 2016 Well, that's that : reeducation camps for all Republicans, and all Christians, and especially all Mormons 1
Vanguard Posted June 18, 2016 Posted June 18, 2016 7 hours ago, california boy said: I have reread your posts, and I can not find the post where you answered my simple question. Perhaps you can point me to the post where you answered it. Here is the question again. It has become perfectly clear why you will not answer this simple question. You too realize that officer Moutsos had a problem working with the gay community. A problem that his superior officer recognized and gave him a specific assignment to do to help him overcome his hostile attitude. Officer Moutsos took it upon himself to try and weasel out of that assignment. The police chief put him on review to determine if officer Moutsos was qualified to continue to work in the SLC police force. Subsequent events proved that the chief was exactly right. Officer Moutsos quit the force. Ended up quitting being in law enforcement all together and went to work for an organization that had no problems with his issues with gays. In fact, it probably helped him get the job. Your question posed to S. Lloyd was - "Why didn't officer Moutsos just do what he was assigned to do by his boss just like every other officer in the department?" Though I'm sure this can has been kicked around already, I'll answer - he didn't do what he was assigned to do because his job description should not require him to "celebrate" over a life-style that he is fundamentally at odds with. Have I missed something about his job description? Does it state he is required to be a part of the celebratory choreography of any group who wishes it? 2
Analytics Posted June 18, 2016 Posted June 18, 2016 On 6/15/2016 at 11:10 AM, smac97 said: Hmm: So Officer Stayner A) publicly expresses contempt (hatred?) of Mormons and their church, with the calculated intent to offend, I disagree with this spin. The Church came out with a new policy that upset many people, especially people in the Church. Can you think of a single issue in your lifetime that upset as many Latter-day Saints as the new policy about the children of gays? I can't. Being upset about this policy doesn't mean he has hatred of Mormons. On 6/15/2016 at 11:10 AM, smac97 said: E) he is gay, and hence has carte blanche to publicly declare his prejudice against a large portion of the public he serves because of their religious affiliation and belief, and He removed the post "shortly" after putting it up. If he has carte blanche to publicly express his feelings about church policies that he and many Mormons dislike, he certainly didn't use it. He posted some feelings in the heat of the moment, and quickly thought better of it and corrected it. On 6/15/2016 at 11:10 AM, smac97 said: Something is rotten in the City of Salt Lake City. When you make generalizations off of two unrelated events, you can arrive at a wide variety of conclusions, none of which are necessarily valid. It would be just as easy to extrapolate that the PD learned its lesson from the Moutsos incident and is being more tolerant of the personal beliefs of its officers. 1
california boy Posted June 18, 2016 Posted June 18, 2016 4 hours ago, Vanguard said: Your question posed to S. Lloyd was - "Why didn't officer Moutsos just do what he was assigned to do by his boss just like every other officer in the department?" Though I'm sure this can has been kicked around already, I'll answer - he didn't do what he was assigned to do because his job description should not require him to "celebrate" over a life-style that he is fundamentally at odds with. Have I missed something about his job description? Does it state he is required to be a part of the celebratory choreography of any group who wishes it? Can you actually support your statement that his assignment was not part of his job description? Because actually it was apparently part of his job description. He trained to do the parade motorcyle manovers along with the other officers. And the purpose of doing that training was to create good will within the community. This past year many police forces have once again recommitted to working with minority groups within the community. If you don't think that police outreach to minorities in the community is important, then you haven't been reading the news lately. With the church presence in SLC, and it's attitudes towards gays, perhaps the police department realized the gay community needs that kind of reaching out more than other minority communities. It is not at all surprising that the police force would use it's trained motorcycle group in interacting wtih the gay community. What other purpose would that group be training for???
smac97 Posted June 18, 2016 Author Posted June 18, 2016 16 minutes ago, Analytics said: I disagree with this spin. The Church came out with a new policy that upset many people, especially people in the Church. Can you think of a single issue in your lifetime that upset as many Latter-day Saints as the new policy about the children of gays? I can't. Being upset about this policy doesn't mean he has hatred of Mormons. He removed the post "shortly" after putting it up. If he has carte blanche to publicly express his feelings about church policies that he and many Mormons dislike, he certainly didn't use it. He posted some feelings in the heat of the moment, and quickly thought better of it and corrected it. When you make generalizations off of two unrelated events, you can arrive at a wide variety of conclusions, none of which are necessarily valid. It would be just as easy to extrapolate that the PD learned its lesson from the Moutsos incident and is being more tolerant of the personal beliefs of its officers. Your comments our recent and potentially valid. But that's irritating to me, so I'm going to ignore them. Kidding, of course. I will think about what you have said. Thank you. 2
Vanguard Posted June 18, 2016 Posted June 18, 2016 5 hours ago, california boy said: Can you actually support your statement that his assignment was not part of his job description? Because actually it was apparently part of his job description. He trained to do the parade motorcyle manovers along with the other officers. And the purpose of doing that training was to create good will within the community. This past year many police forces have once again recommitted to working with minority groups within the community. If you don't think that police outreach to minorities in the community is important, then you haven't been reading the news lately. With the church presence in SLC, and it's attitudes towards gays, perhaps the police department realized the gay community needs that kind of reaching out more than other minority communities. It is not at all surprising that the police force would use it's trained motorcycle group in interacting wtih the gay community. What other purpose would that group be training for??? It seems the default position would be that these types of activities would be optional and would not be part of the job description requirement. That being the case, it would be your responsibility to evidence this requirement and not mine. Admittedly, even considering this participation to be optional, it does make my position to be a bit more difficult if indeed he had signed up only to have him now backing out of participation for groups that he doesn't support - you know, "I'd love to be a part of the motorcycle pageanty squad but here's my list of groups I won't do it for" kind of thing. Regardless, I still have a hard time accepting the notion that there was not an easy workaround for this man who in all other respects seems like a good guy. Didn't he even offer to take up the rear guard in the parade or some such? As for your commentary regards to "police outreach to minorities in the community", you seem to conflate these more trivial motorcop parade training exercises with real, substantive outreach into communities. Indeed, taking on the responsibility of actually working in the gay community for law enforcement outreach would be a responsibility and one that this officer should not have the discretion to turn down. It does seem kind of silly on your part to be suggesting that one of the better evidences of outreach is whether or not a motorcop would be willing to do figure-eights in parades... 1
california boy Posted June 19, 2016 Posted June 19, 2016 5 hours ago, Vanguard said: It seems the default position would be that these types of activities would be optional and would not be part of the job description requirement. That being the case, it would be your responsibility to evidence this requirement and not mine. Admittedly, even considering this participation to be optional, it does make my position to be a bit more difficult if indeed he had signed up only to have him now backing out of participation for groups that he doesn't support - you know, "I'd love to be a part of the motorcycle pageanty squad but here's my list of groups I won't do it for" kind of thing. Regardless, I still have a hard time accepting the notion that there was not an easy workaround for this man who in all other respects seems like a good guy. Didn't he even offer to take up the rear guard in the parade or some such? As for your commentary regards to "police outreach to minorities in the community", you seem to conflate these more trivial motorcop parade training exercises with real, substantive outreach into communities. Indeed, taking on the responsibility of actually working in the gay community for law enforcement outreach would be a responsibility and one that this officer should not have the discretion to turn down. It does seem kind of silly on your part to be suggesting that one of the better evidences of outreach is whether or not a motorcop would be willing to do figure-eights in parades... I actually don't disagree with anything that you wrote. But I also acknowledge that neither one of us is the chief. We really don't know if the chief was aware of other attitudes officer Moutsos showed towards the gay community. This may have been consistent with other comments he had made and the chief realized this officer needed to get over it. There is this quote from the Los Angeles Times that does give some insight to his attitude Quote Mostsos told The Times: “I asked my supervisor, ‘What if an African American officer didn’t want to ride in front of a KKK parade?’ And he said he’d have to do it. That’s when I knew in my heart it was wrong.” And this quote from the police chief. Quote Chief Burbanks also told reporters: “How can I then send that officer out to a family fight that involves a gay couple or a lesbian walking down the street?” We also know that it was officer Moutsos was the arresting officer when a gay couple were seen kissing on church property that had once been city property but had been traded with the city in 2003. Officer Moutsos arrested them and charged them with trespassing. The charges were later dropped by the DA's office. The result of that arrest lead to protests and a kiss-in by the gay community in SLC. That drew national attention to both the Mormon church and the police force. Here is the link. I also think it is revealing that officer Moutsos has since left police work entirely and is now employed by Sutherland Institute, an organization that worked to fight gay marriage and actively fought against the gay anti discrimination laws supported by the church. Whether the actions the police chief took against officer Moutsos was fair is really just speculation. But there are enough loose ends that indicate that there may very well been more to the story of officer Moutsos then simply refusing to do his job at the gay pride parade. What is clear is that any police officer needs to do his job without a negative attitude towards any minority group within a community. Doing so just leads to more tension and less trust. The results of which can blow up into the kinds of situations we have had recently across the country. All lives matter. I certainly am unwilling to make a saint out of him like some on this board have chosen to do.
USU78 Posted June 19, 2016 Posted June 19, 2016 8 hours ago, california boy said: I actually don't disagree with anything that you wrote. But I also acknowledge that neither one of us is the chief. We really don't know if the chief was aware of other attitudes officer Moutsos showed towards the gay community. This may have been consistent with other comments he had made and the chief realized this officer needed to get over it. There is this quote from the Los Angeles Times that does give some insight to his attitude And this quote from the police chief. We also know that it was officer Moutsos was the arresting officer when a gay couple were seen kissing on church property that had once been city property but had been traded with the city in 2003. Officer Moutsos arrested them and charged them with trespassing. The charges were later dropped by the DA's office. The result of that arrest lead to protests and a kiss-in by the gay community in SLC. That drew national attention to both the Mormon church and the police force. Here is the link. I also think it is revealing that officer Moutsos has since left police work entirely and is now employed by Sutherland Institute, an organization that worked to fight gay marriage and actively fought against the gay anti discrimination laws supported by the church. Whether the actions the police chief took against officer Moutsos was fair is really just speculation. But there are enough loose ends that indicate that there may very well been more to the story of officer Moutsos then simply refusing to do his job at the gay pride parade. What is clear is that any police officer needs to do his job without a negative attitude towards any minority group within a community. Doing so just leads to more tension and less trust. The results of which can blow up into the kinds of situations we have had recently across the country. All lives matter. I certainly am unwilling to make a saint out of him like some on this board have chosen to do. Like I said, reeducation camps. Can't have people engaging in thought crimes
Vanguard Posted June 19, 2016 Posted June 19, 2016 13 hours ago, california boy said: I actually don't disagree with anything that you wrote. But I also acknowledge that neither one of us is the chief. We really don't know if the chief was aware of other attitudes officer Moutsos showed towards the gay community. This may have been consistent with other comments he had made and the chief realized this officer needed to get over it. There is this quote from the Los Angeles Times that does give some insight to his attitude If indeed this were Officer Moustos' position on doing his duty then I would agree with you. It remains to be seen in the LA Times article whether he referred to a motorcop parade entry or to the actual duty of protecting and keeping the peace. 13 hours ago, california boy said: We also know that it was officer Moutsos was the arresting officer when a gay couple were seen kissing on church property that had once been city property but had been traded with the city in 2003. Officer Moutsos arrested them and charged them with trespassing. The charges were later dropped by the DA's office. The result of that arrest lead to protests and a kiss-in by the gay community in SLC. That drew national attention to both the Mormon church and the police force. Here is the link. I also think it is revealing that officer Moutsos has since left police work entirely and is now employed by Sutherland Institute, an organization that worked to fight gay marriage and actively fought against the gay anti discrimination laws supported by the church. What exactly is your issue on this one? You don't believe there were a reasonable scenario where the gentlemen in question deserved to be arrested? Again, the default position should be to assume there were just cause unless evidenced to the contrary. I should remind you charges are regularly dropped by the DA though this is not always a commentary on whether an arrest should have been made. The fact that Moustos now is in the employ of Sutherland Institute is simply a commentary on his finding contstructive and legal ways of putting his beliefs into action. 13 hours ago, california boy said: Whether the actions the police chief took against officer Moutsos was fair is really just speculation. But there are enough loose ends that indicate that there may very well been more to the story of officer Moutsos then simply refusing to do his job at the gay pride parade. What is clear is that any police officer needs to do his job without a negative attitude towards any minority group within a community. Doing so just leads to more tension and less trust. The results of which can blow up into the kinds of situations we have had recently across the country. All lives matter. I certainly am unwilling to make a saint out of him like some on this board have chosen to do. I agree much of this is speculation and on both sides. And I would also agree there is probably more to it than is apparent to both of us. My inclination is to air on the side of the officer though I don't have a dog in the fight were I to find out he were everything you seem to be suggesting and/or outright accusing him of in this thread and others. Though your more tempered position of late is noted, IMO you would do well to moderate your commentary overall as I believe it to be too laden with partisan speculation.
Recommended Posts