Protesters to Push for Discipline for Firefighter Who Made Trayvon Martin Case Facebook Comment

[maddezmom]

Last edited Wed Apr 18, 2012, 10:12 AM - Edit history (1)

Source: NBC6

South Florida civil rights leaders are planning to protest Wednesday and demand discipline for a Miami-Dade Fire Rescue captain whose comments made about the Trayvon Martin case on his personal Facebook page set off a firestorm of controversy.

Demonstrators will gather at 11 a.m. at the Stephen P. Clark Center in downtown Miami to ask for formal discipline for Capt. Brian Beckmann.

Miami-Dade Fire Rescue has said the post, which appeared on Beckmann's Facebook page last week on the same day State Attorney Angela Corey announced that George Zimmerman would be charged with second-degree murder in the Martin shooting, is under investigation.

In it, Beckmann had disparaging words for the prosecutor, then pondered “whether our urban youths are victims of racist profiling or products of their failed, (expletive), ignorant, pathetic, welfare dependent excuses for parents, but like Mrs. Corey, we speak only the truth. They're just misunderstood little church going angels and the ghetto hoodie look doesn't have anything to do with why people wonder if they're about to get jacked by a thug,” he wrote in the post, obtained by thegrio.com. Thegrio.com is owned by NBC Universal.


Read more: http://www.nbcmiami.com/news/local/Protesters-to-Push-for-Discipline-for-Firefighter-Who-Made-Trayvon-Martin-Case-Facebook-Comment-147898515.html

---

edited to add a post from yesterday:

Social media, 1st amendment collide
But Miami-Dade Fire Department Captain Brian Beckmann, because his employer is county government, has more freedom in cyberspace ranting, and is legally protected from consequence unless he has violated a policy.

Beckmann's Facebook posting, in which he opines about welfare mothers, absent parents, and thugs relative to the Trayvon Martin murder case, has drawn both calls for his termination and messages of support from the community.

"Here we have this super controversial thing," said Julin. "Is that going to interfere with the ability to do his job or the Fire Department's ability to do its job?"

Therein lies some criteria for a public employer's decision about whether to mete out consequences. Legally, a government employer can take action if an employee's expression, even on personal time on personal social media accounts, if the message impedes job duties or performance, impairs relationships, or demeans the office or agency.

more: http://www.local10.com/news/Social-media-1st-amendment-collide/-/1717324/10934096/-/d4mktt/-/index.html

[joeglow3]

1. Another test of free speech

While his comments are disgusting, he is employed by the government. I have trouble celebrating a government punishing someone for free speech comments, no matter how objectionable I find the comments.

[lynne]

2. Exactly my thought -

- while I may not agree with his opinion, to reprimand him for expressing his opinion would be in violation of his free speech.

[Marzupialis]

5. Was it an opinion or a lie?

is suggesting that Trayvon's parents are on Welfare an opinion even though they're not on Welfare? Would it be an opinion if I claim the Earth is flat?

[4th law of robotics]

15. You really don't want to set that standard

"You are free to say whatever you want, unless the government deems it to be untrue".

I really can't stomach firing people for what they do in their free time.

A reprimand sure.

[ScreamingMeemie]

16. "I really can't stomach firing people for what they do in their free time."

Up to and including the (hypothetical) teacher who views child pornography on his/her home computer?

You might want to be just as careful with what you wish for.

Welcome to DU

[4th law of robotics]

17. That would be a crime

I guess I should have been more clear; anything *legal* they do on their spare time.

I wouldn't favor, for instance, firing a teacher who viewed legal pornography when they weren't at work. Or for being a stripper/porn actor (that's come up several times).

[SATIRical]

24. It's hard to be a teacher when locked in prison (nt)

[Civilization2]

6. no, racist hatred is not acceptable.

A public employ publicly making racist hate speech, is not acceptable. Does this fire-chief protect ALL the public, or only those of the race he he purports to be superior (white Europeans?) ? White-power racism is not free speech, it is hate speech, and should never be tolerated.

[prairierose]

7. Thank you for saying this..this is exactly...

the way that this needs to be framed. When public officials indulge in hate speech, we have to wonder what part of the public they serve? Do they serve only whites? Will they serve others as diligently?

This is such an important idea and we need to frame hate speech and racism in this way.

[frylock]

11. he's not being jailed for what he said..

the first amendment should not be interpreted as say any stupid racist thing you want without consequence.

[JoeyT]

13. +1

If nothing else these threads bring out all the people with a second grade understanding of the first amendment. People that are apparently unaware google exists and incapable of typing, just as an example: "state official fired for remarks" and taking a look at the pages of dumbasses fired for racist comments.

[joeglow3]

19. -1

If nothing else, these threads bring out other people with a first grade understanding of logic. I can discriminate against gays in my state. Just because I can does not make it right.

I have a hard time with a government firing someone over protected speech in their own free time (even if it has been done before).

[JoeyT]

22. So you don't think this would hurt the

African Americans that work for this guy or the ones that have to rely on the people he's in charge of to come if there's a fire?

If I lived in his area, I wouldn't trust him for shit. His attitude is the problem. He's clearly demonstrated he thinks some citizens aren't worth the bother.

If he was a low level clerk, it would be an entirely different story.

[Marrah_G]

21. I think his opinion and rants do come into play for one reason

He is a public safety officer. He makes it very clear that he despises people of color and people without wealth. This same person is in charge of making sure that fires, recues and emergencies are handled correctly in a very, very diverse city. How can the general public there trust that he will do his job correctly and without prejudice when a call come in for certain areas of town where he regards the people with such disdain?

[marshall gaines]

3. glow

joeglow, this 'fire captain' is a pig feces eating racist with free speech rights that he should keep to himself. there are more young white kids without proper parental supervision based on drugs, irresponsibility ect than you will ever find in the minority community. this pig is just an idiot who will find his remarks need to be scrutinized.

[joeglow3]

4. I agree with everything you said except violating free speech

Who gets to decide what free speech gets to be violated? I think you would be very unhappy with the results if pugs controlled all 3 branches of the government.

[marshall gaines]

8. yes

yes, yes I would

[BlackX-068]

10. Really?!!

I'm pretty sure this gives a lot of comfort to all of those families of color that this man is coming to rescue you from your burning house or directing others to do so; or not, because all poor folks do not work or pay taxes?!! It wouldn't bother you if he stated on a plane "BOMB" or in a crowded theater "Fire". Free Speech! Come and GET IT!

With some folks, free speech is OK as long as comments are not directed in your area. I guess it wouldn't bother you for the fact that he is not within your community fire department. Jim Crow Attitude!!! Sad...get your head above ground and understand the consequences of profiling; WE LIVE IT!

Keep making excuses for this person...he is promoting public safety right?!! Or nonsense? Free Speech!

[uppityperson]

14. Is the problem that he is a racist asshole or that he said this? There is a difference between "bomb

on a plane and what he said. Yes, what he said was awful. It did show his racism. I find the fact that he is so racist the worst, his attitude is the worst, not the fact that he verbalized it.

Even though I disagree with what he says, he has the right to say it. I really wish he didn't believe it though.

Another thought for you, are you more comfortable with covert racism or with it being overt? I've lived mostly in areas where it isn't spoken about, is covert, but is still very present. When I visited the gulf coast I was appalled at what I heard. I kept expecting yet another, hidden layer. Friends their pointed out that there wasn't another hidden layer, that what I was hearing was what there was. It was appalling but also refreshing to not have to guess the true attitude.

I hope this makes some sense. Not excusing any racism, but musing about the expressions of it.

[JoeyT]

12. I guess I'm going to have to reread the first amendment.

I wasn't aware of the part of the first amendment that declares you have a right to work for the government. Guess I was wrong all these years. Wait, I just checked and it isn't there. Imagine that.

You can be fired for shit you say when you work for the government. There is no right to continue working for the government, nor is there a provision that states you can't be terminated for what you say. They can certainly demand your resignation.

[joeglow3]

20. Wow. You realize it is not 1950, right?

http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/publicemployees.htm

[JoeyT]

23. My mistake, with all the right wingers

insisting it was ok for public employees in leadership positions to be screaming racists, I must have gotten confused.

[jwirr]

18. Good he is a public servant and as of now I am not sure he does his job in the unbiased way it

should be done. Lose of confidence in job preformance is not good.