Current Events > How a Not Racist Cop Arrested a Man for Walking While Black, Blamed It on

Topic List	Page List: 1, 2
FrisbeeDude 09/10/17 4:41:32 PM #51:	darkjedilink posted... A_Good_Boy posted... All that settling out of court means is that it's cheaper to pay her off than it is to go to trial. It's not an admission of guilt. You think it's cheaper in the long run to rehire a racist - whom they had to pay out a settlement of over a million dollars over for her racism - than to not rehire her? The "rehire" was a technicality so she could receive her pension in the settlement. Also helps if she wants to come out of "retirement" and find another job. Easier to pay the racist to go away than it would be to fight in court, especially after they had to pay out a million plus to the guy in the first place. --- No one gets in the way of my frisbee games! NO ONE! <cite>FrisbeeDude posted [p:886364291] in How a Not ... [t:75760676]...</cite> <quote><cite>darkjedilink posted...</cite> <quote><cite>A_Good_Boy posted...</cite> <quote>All that settling out of court means is that it's cheaper to pay her off than it is to go to trial. It's not an admission of guilt.</quote> You think it's cheaper in the long run to rehire a racist - whom they had to pay out a settlement of over a million dollars over for her racism - than to not rehire her?</quote> The "rehire" was a technicality so she could receive her pension in the settlement. Also helps if she wants to come out of "retirement" and find another job. Easier to pay the racist to go away than it would be to fight in court, especially after they had to pay out a million plus to the guy in the first place.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
darkjedilink 09/10/17 4:44:47 PM #52:	FrisbeeDude posted... darkjedilink posted... A_Good_Boy posted... All that settling out of court means is that it's cheaper to pay her off than it is to go to trial. It's not an admission of guilt. You think it's cheaper in the long run to rehire a racist - whom they had to pay out a settlement of over a million dollars over for her racism - than to not rehire her? The "rehire" was a technicality so she could receive her pension in the settlement. Also helps if she wants to come out of "retirement" and find another job. Easier to pay the racist to go away than it would be to fight in court, especially after they had to pay out a million plus to the guy in the first place. Easier, maybe, but certainly not cheaper, because the union means they can't just drum her out or force her to find a new job. She could stay right where she is, and there's nothing they can do about it. You really think they'd agree to such a possibility if she couldn't prove they were racist towards her in some way? --- 'It's okay that those gangbangers stole all my personal belongings and cash at gunpoint, cuz they're building a rec center!' - OneTimeBen <cite>darkjedilink posted [p:886364492] in How a Not ... [t:75760676]...</cite> <quote><cite>FrisbeeDude posted...</cite> <quote><cite>darkjedilink posted...</cite> <quote><cite>A_Good_Boy posted...</cite> <quote>All that settling out of court means is that it's cheaper to pay her off than it is to go to trial. It's not an admission of guilt.</quote> You think it's cheaper in the long run to rehire a racist - whom they had to pay out a settlement of over a million dollars over for her racism - than to not rehire her?</quote> The "rehire" was a technicality so she could receive her pension in the settlement. Also helps if she wants to come out of "retirement" and find another job. Easier to pay the racist to go away than it would be to fight in court, especially after they had to pay out a million plus to the guy in the first place.</quote> Easier, maybe, but certainly not cheaper, because the union means they can't just drum her out or force her to find a new job. She could stay right where she is, and there's nothing they can do about it. You really think they'd agree to such a possibility if she couldn't prove they were racist towards her in some way?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
A_Good_Boy 09/10/17 5:16:14 PM #53:	darkjedilink posted... FrisbeeDude posted... darkjedilink posted... A_Good_Boy posted... All that settling out of court means is that it's cheaper to pay her off than it is to go to trial. It's not an admission of guilt. You think it's cheaper in the long run to rehire a racist - whom they had to pay out a settlement of over a million dollars over for her racism - than to not rehire her? The "rehire" was a technicality so she could receive her pension in the settlement. Also helps if she wants to come out of "retirement" and find another job. Easier to pay the racist to go away than it would be to fight in court, especially after they had to pay out a million plus to the guy in the first place. Easier, maybe, but certainly not cheaper, because the union means they can't just drum her out or force her to find a new job. She could stay right where she is, and there's nothing they can do about it. You really think they'd agree to such a possibility if she couldn't prove they were racist towards her in some way? Not if doing so just results in a costly court battle. --- Posted with GameRaven 3.2.2 <cite>A_Good_Boy posted [p:886366198] in How a Not ... [t:75760676]...</cite> <quote><cite>darkjedilink posted...</cite> <quote><cite>FrisbeeDude posted...</cite> <quote> <cite>darkjedilink posted...</cite> <quote> <cite>A_Good_Boy posted...</cite> <quote> All that settling out of court means is that it's cheaper to pay her off than it is to go to trial. It's not an admission of guilt. </quote> You think it's cheaper in the long run to rehire a racist - whom they had to pay out a settlement of over a million dollars over for her racism - than to not rehire her? </quote> The "rehire" was a technicality so she could receive her pension in the settlement. Also helps if she wants to come out of "retirement" and find another job. Easier to pay the racist to go away than it would be to fight in court, especially after they had to pay out a million plus to the guy in the first place.</quote> Easier, maybe, but certainly not cheaper, because the union means they can't just drum her out or force her to find a new job. She could stay right where she is, and there's nothing they can do about it. You really think they'd agree to such a possibility if she couldn't prove they were racist towards her in some way?</quote> Not if doing so just results in a costly court battle.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Bishop9800 09/10/17 5:18:35 PM #54:	darkjedilink posted... I'm saying that, clearly, she had a legitimate argument about being treated unfairly due to her white skin, otherwise there's no way in Hell that, after doing something like this and being fired, she could make such an argument and have it go her way. They had to re-hire her - think about that. She got her job back because of her argument! That doesn't happen unless she's got a point. And what was her point? (Even though you didn't answer my question) --- I don't have to insult you. I have proven that you are a hypocrite and a fool. That's not insulting you, that's exposing you. PSN-Bishop9800 <cite>Bishop9800 posted [p:886366321] in How a Not ... [t:75760676]...</cite> <quote><cite>darkjedilink posted...</cite> <quote>I'm saying that, clearly, she had a legitimate argument about being treated unfairly due to her white skin, otherwise there's no way in Hell that, after doing something like this and being fired, she could make such an argument and have it go her way. They had to re-hire her - think about that. She got her job back because of her argument! That doesn't happen unless she's got a point.</quote> And what was her point? (Even though you didn't answer my question)</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
darkjedilink 09/10/17 5:40:18 PM #55:	A_Good_Boy posted... darkjedilink posted... FrisbeeDude posted... darkjedilink posted... A_Good_Boy posted... All that settling out of court means is that it's cheaper to pay her off than it is to go to trial. It's not an admission of guilt. You think it's cheaper in the long run to rehire a racist - whom they had to pay out a settlement of over a million dollars over for her racism - than to not rehire her? The "rehire" was a technicality so she could receive her pension in the settlement. Also helps if she wants to come out of "retirement" and find another job. Easier to pay the racist to go away than it would be to fight in court, especially after they had to pay out a million plus to the guy in the first place. Easier, maybe, but certainly not cheaper, because the union means they can't just drum her out or force her to find a new job. She could stay right where she is, and there's nothing they can do about it. You really think they'd agree to such a possibility if she couldn't prove they were racist towards her in some way? Not if doing so just results in a costly court battle. By re-hiring her, they're going to go through a lot more costly court battles due to her racism. Like, do you not understand that at all, or what? --- 'It's okay that those gangbangers stole all my personal belongings and cash at gunpoint, cuz they're building a rec center!' - OneTimeBen <cite>darkjedilink posted [p:886367495] in How a Not ... [t:75760676]...</cite> <quote><cite>A_Good_Boy posted...</cite> <quote><cite>darkjedilink posted...</cite> <quote><cite>FrisbeeDude posted...</cite> <quote> <cite>darkjedilink posted...</cite> <quote> <cite>A_Good_Boy posted...</cite> <quote> All that settling out of court means is that it's cheaper to pay her off than it is to go to trial. It's not an admission of guilt. </quote> You think it's cheaper in the long run to rehire a racist - whom they had to pay out a settlement of over a million dollars over for her racism - than to not rehire her? </quote> The "rehire" was a technicality so she could receive her pension in the settlement. Also helps if she wants to come out of "retirement" and find another job. Easier to pay the racist to go away than it would be to fight in court, especially after they had to pay out a million plus to the guy in the first place.</quote> Easier, maybe, but certainly not cheaper, because the union means they can't just drum her out or force her to find a new job. She could stay right where she is, and there's nothing they can do about it. You really think they'd agree to such a possibility if she couldn't prove they were racist towards her in some way?</quote> Not if doing so just results in a costly court battle.</quote> By re-hiring her, they're going to go through a lot more costly court battles due to her racism. Like, do you not understand that at all, or what?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
darkjedilink 09/10/17 5:41:48 PM #56:	Bishop9800 posted... darkjedilink posted... I'm saying that, clearly, she had a legitimate argument about being treated unfairly due to her white skin, otherwise there's no way in Hell that, after doing something like this and being fired, she could make such an argument and have it go her way. They had to re-hire her - think about that. She got her job back because of her argument! That doesn't happen unless she's got a point. And what was her point? (Even though you didn't answer my question) Her point was that racism played a part in her firing. If that wasn't the case, there's no reason to settle with her. Even though it's not an admission of guilt, she's going to do stupid shit again, and the city's going to get sued again because of it. ONE case is going to cost the city more than the court battle will, so there's no reason to give her job back to her if racism didn't have any part in her firing. --- 'It's okay that those gangbangers stole all my personal belongings and cash at gunpoint, cuz they're building a rec center!' - OneTimeBen <cite>darkjedilink posted [p:886367587] in How a Not ... [t:75760676]...</cite> <quote><cite>Bishop9800 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>darkjedilink posted...</cite> <quote>I'm saying that, clearly, she had a legitimate argument about being treated unfairly due to her white skin, otherwise there's no way in Hell that, after doing something like this and being fired, she could make such an argument and have it go her way. They had to re-hire her - think about that. She got her job back because of her argument! That doesn't happen unless she's got a point.</quote> And what was her point? (Even though you didn't answer my question)</quote> Her point was that racism played a part in her firing. If that wasn't the case, there's no reason to settle with her. Even though it's not an admission of guilt, she's going to do stupid shit again, and the city's going to get sued again because of it. ONE case is going to cost the city more than the court battle will, so there's no reason to give her job back to her if racism didn't have any part in her firing.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Axiom 09/10/17 5:44:40 PM #57:	Good ole US of A. The place where racist cops get rewarded for being racist cops <cite>Axiom posted [p:886367754] in How a Not ... [t:75760676]...</cite> <quote>Good ole US of A. The place where racist cops get rewarded for being racist cops</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
cjsdowg 09/10/17 6:55:11 PM #58:	She didn't get rehired, the settlement made to unable to get another job in law enforcement . --- Bender: Well, everybody, I just saved a turtle. What have you done with your lives? <cite>cjsdowg posted [p:886371698] in How a Not ... [t:75760676]...</cite> <quote>She didn't get rehired, the settlement made to unable to get another job in law enforcement .</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
A_Good_Boy 09/10/17 7:01:11 PM #59:	darkjedilink posted... A_Good_Boy posted... darkjedilink posted... FrisbeeDude posted... darkjedilink posted... A_Good_Boy posted... All that settling out of court means is that it's cheaper to pay her off than it is to go to trial. It's not an admission of guilt. You think it's cheaper in the long run to rehire a racist - whom they had to pay out a settlement of over a million dollars over for her racism - than to not rehire her? The "rehire" was a technicality so she could receive her pension in the settlement. Also helps if she wants to come out of "retirement" and find another job. Easier to pay the racist to go away than it would be to fight in court, especially after they had to pay out a million plus to the guy in the first place. Easier, maybe, but certainly not cheaper, because the union means they can't just drum her out or force her to find a new job. She could stay right where she is, and there's nothing they can do about it. You really think they'd agree to such a possibility if she couldn't prove they were racist towards her in some way? Not if doing so just results in a costly court battle. By re-hiring her, they're going to go through a lot more costly court battles due to her racism. Like, do you not understand that at all, or what? So you've stopped arguing that she wasn't fired for being racist. Cute. --- Posted with GameRaven 3.2.2 <cite>A_Good_Boy posted [p:886372047] in How a Not ... [t:75760676]...</cite> <quote><cite>darkjedilink posted...</cite> <quote><cite>A_Good_Boy posted...</cite> <quote> <cite>darkjedilink posted...</cite> <quote> <cite>FrisbeeDude posted...</cite> <quote> <cite>darkjedilink posted...</cite> <quote> <cite>A_Good_Boy posted...</cite> <quote> All that settling out of court means is that it's cheaper to pay her off than it is to go to trial. It's not an admission of guilt. </quote> You think it's cheaper in the long run to rehire a racist - whom they had to pay out a settlement of over a million dollars over for her racism - than to not rehire her? </quote> The "rehire" was a technicality so she could receive her pension in the settlement. Also helps if she wants to come out of "retirement" and find another job. Easier to pay the racist to go away than it would be to fight in court, especially after they had to pay out a million plus to the guy in the first place. </quote> Easier, maybe, but certainly not cheaper, because the union means they can't just drum her out or force her to find a new job. She could stay right where she is, and there's nothing they can do about it. You really think they'd agree to such a possibility if she couldn't prove they were racist towards her in some way? </quote> Not if doing so just results in a costly court battle.</quote> By re-hiring her, they're going to go through a lot more costly court battles due to her racism. Like, do you not understand that at all, or what?</quote> So you've stopped arguing that she wasn't fired for being racist. Cute.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
darkjedilink 09/10/17 7:18:48 PM #60:	cjsdowg posted... She didn't get rehired, the settlement made to unable to get another job in law enforcement . Completely untrue. They rehired her, and paid her back wages in the amount of $105k as part of the rehire. That time off counts toward her pension. --- 'It's okay that those gangbangers stole all my personal belongings and cash at gunpoint, cuz they're building a rec center!' - OneTimeBen <cite>darkjedilink posted [p:886373063] in How a Not ... [t:75760676]...</cite> <quote><cite>cjsdowg posted...</cite> <quote>She didn't get rehired, the settlement made to unable to get another job in law enforcement .</quote> Completely untrue. They rehired her, and paid her back wages in the amount of $105k as part of the rehire. That time off counts toward her pension.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
darkjedilink 09/10/17 7:20:13 PM #61:	A_Good_Boy posted... darkjedilink posted... A_Good_Boy posted... darkjedilink posted... FrisbeeDude posted... darkjedilink posted... A_Good_Boy posted... All that settling out of court means is that it's cheaper to pay her off than it is to go to trial. It's not an admission of guilt. You think it's cheaper in the long run to rehire a racist - whom they had to pay out a settlement of over a million dollars over for her racism - than to not rehire her? The "rehire" was a technicality so she could receive her pension in the settlement. Also helps if she wants to come out of "retirement" and find another job. Easier to pay the racist to go away than it would be to fight in court, especially after they had to pay out a million plus to the guy in the first place. Easier, maybe, but certainly not cheaper, because the union means they can't just drum her out or force her to find a new job. She could stay right where she is, and there's nothing they can do about it. You really think they'd agree to such a possibility if she couldn't prove they were racist towards her in some way? Not if doing so just results in a costly court battle. By re-hiring her, they're going to go through a lot more costly court battles due to her racism. Like, do you not understand that at all, or what? So you've stopped arguing that she wasn't fired for being racist. Cute. That was never my argument. My argument always was that racism had to have played a part in her firing. --- 'It's okay that those gangbangers stole all my personal belongings and cash at gunpoint, cuz they're building a rec center!' - OneTimeBen <cite>darkjedilink posted [p:886373172] in How a Not ... [t:75760676]...</cite> <quote><cite>A_Good_Boy posted...</cite> <quote><cite>darkjedilink posted...</cite> <quote><cite>A_Good_Boy posted...</cite> <quote> <cite>darkjedilink posted...</cite> <quote> <cite>FrisbeeDude posted...</cite> <quote> <cite>darkjedilink posted...</cite> <quote> <cite>A_Good_Boy posted...</cite> <quote> All that settling out of court means is that it's cheaper to pay her off than it is to go to trial. It's not an admission of guilt. </quote> You think it's cheaper in the long run to rehire a racist - whom they had to pay out a settlement of over a million dollars over for her racism - than to not rehire her? </quote> The "rehire" was a technicality so she could receive her pension in the settlement. Also helps if she wants to come out of "retirement" and find another job. Easier to pay the racist to go away than it would be to fight in court, especially after they had to pay out a million plus to the guy in the first place. </quote> Easier, maybe, but certainly not cheaper, because the union means they can't just drum her out or force her to find a new job. She could stay right where she is, and there's nothing they can do about it. You really think they'd agree to such a possibility if she couldn't prove they were racist towards her in some way? </quote> Not if doing so just results in a costly court battle.</quote> By re-hiring her, they're going to go through a lot more costly court battles due to her racism. Like, do you not understand that at all, or what?</quote> So you've stopped arguing that she wasn't fired for being racist. Cute.</quote> That was never my argument. My argument always was that racism had to have played a part in her firing.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
cjsdowg 09/10/17 8:10:28 PM #62:	darkjedilink posted... Completely untrue. They rehired her, and paid her back wages in the amount of $105k as part of the rehire. That time off counts toward her pension. You clearly don't know much about this case, you are literally just defending this racist woman to defend her. n exchange, Whitlatch agreed not to seek another job with the city or as a commissioned law-enforcement officer, the agreement says. http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/crime/police-commission-questions-payout-to-fired-officer-in-golf-club-arrest/ --- Bender: Well, everybody, I just saved a turtle. What have you done with your lives? <cite>cjsdowg posted [p:886375593] in How a Not ... [t:75760676]...</cite> <quote><cite>darkjedilink posted...</cite> <quote> Completely untrue. They rehired her, and paid her back wages in the amount of $105k as part of the rehire. That time off counts toward her pension.</quote> You clearly don't know much about this case, you are literally just defending this racist woman to defend her. <quote> n exchange, Whitlatch agreed not to seek another job with the city or as a commissioned law-enforcement officer, the agreement says.</quote> http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/crime/police-commission-questions-payout-to-fired-officer-in-golf-club-arrest/</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
darkjedilink 09/10/17 8:30:12 PM #63:	cjsdowg posted... darkjedilink posted... Completely untrue. They rehired her, and paid her back wages in the amount of $105k as part of the rehire. That time off counts toward her pension. You clearly don't know much about this case, you are literally just defending this racist woman to defend her. n exchange, Whitlatch agreed not to seek another job with the city or as a commissioned law-enforcement officer, the agreement says. http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/crime/police-commission-questions-payout-to-fired-officer-in-golf-club-arrest/ Or, maybe, the article posted initially - which was written with a very strong bias - didn't make it clear that she was still unemployed. I have yet to "defend" her in any way, only saying that there must have been some racism involved in her firing. The article you link to clearly states she was wrongfully terminated. Of course, we can't expect our resident black supremacist to know how to read - if he did, he'd have read the article he linked to and saw that she was definitely terminated wrongfully. --- 'It's okay that those gangbangers stole all my personal belongings and cash at gunpoint, cuz they're building a rec center!' - OneTimeBen <cite>darkjedilink posted [p:886376543] in How a Not ... [t:75760676]...</cite> <quote><cite>cjsdowg posted...</cite> <quote><cite>darkjedilink posted...</cite> <quote> Completely untrue. They rehired her, and paid her back wages in the amount of $105k as part of the rehire. That time off counts toward her pension.</quote> You clearly don't know much about this case, you are literally just defending this racist woman to defend her. <quote> n exchange, Whitlatch agreed not to seek another job with the city or as a commissioned law-enforcement officer, the agreement says.</quote> http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/crime/police-commission-questions-payout-to-fired-officer-in-golf-club-arrest/</quote> Or, maybe, the article posted initially - which was written with a very strong bias - didn't make it clear that she was still unemployed. I have yet to "defend" her in any way, only saying that there must have been some racism involved in her firing. The article you link to clearly states she was wrongfully terminated. Of course, we can't expect our resident black supremacist to know how to read - if he did, he'd have read the article he linked to and saw that she was definitely terminated wrongfully.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1, 2

Current Events > How a Not Racist Cop Arrested a Man for Walking While Black, Blamed It on (+) Yeah! (+)

Current Events > How a Not Racist Cop Arrested a Man for Walking While Black, Blamed It on