Not just criticism. He actively decided to pursue an illegal activity.
At that point, he is just as guilty as the person who original put it in place.
Yes, that explains the absence of any prosecution in the matter.
MikeJ
1975
I guess both were equally prosecuted.
And yet, the city was successful sued because of Boykins actions so, a jury felt something was off.
Boykin lost his position because of his actions which I think is completely justified. The standard should not be whether you are prosecuted, the standard should be whether you can do the job. I think it was obviously that Boykin could not.
There was no jury. The four officers sued the city, Boykins sued the city, DePaepe sued the city, and all of the lawsuits were settled without ever coming to trial. If a settled lawsuit means the plaintiffs were right, then
Boykins was right, and DePaepe was right.
Boykins was demoted to captain, presumably under the theory that while it is wrong for a police chief to illegally wiretap anyone, it is perfectly OK for a police captain to illegally wiretap anyone. Or something like that /s. Or, maybe, nobody illegally wiretapped anyone, and civil suits don’t prove that anyone did, and the absence of prosecution shows no one thought they could make the case?
So, your point is that because there wasn’t a trial, nothing wrong could have happened, and that the pay outs mean nothing?
You already said it was fair to criticize the chief for continuing the actions he took, so you believe that he did something wrong. Wouldn’t that be enough to merit the demotion?
In isolation? Maybe. But in the broader context, Pete first tried to force the guy to resign using a threat of prosecution, then when the guy refused demoted him rather than firing him. That’s a very strange approach to dealing with someone you claim was illegally wiretapping other people. Since then he’s blamed the threat of prosecution on the DOJ, but the DOJ does not say they threatened prosecution; they say they only wanted to identify things the PD needed to do to come into compliance with the law.
For further context, Pete now says that his attempt to fire Boykins was his ‘first serious mistake’ as mayor. Is he wrong?
For more context, none of the white officers were ever disciplined for conspiring to get the black chief fired and making racists statements about him. Instead, two of them were promoted.
And, all of that aside, my chief objection is and has been this claim by you:
Your understanding is wrong. Even if it were right, you can’t fire someone for being under investigation and still claim to be defending people’s civil rights. Pete fucked up.
You can fire people for any damn reason you would like. I have been fired before without breaking any laws. Hell, you probably fired your fair share of people that weren’t under investigation.
I was even asked to resign at a job after college that wasn’t working out. So, none of that seems of place. Of course Pete would rather force someone to resign rather then fire them. It always looks better in the news when people step down.
Using the threat of the lawsuit is a tricky situation. The Mayor and the staff said they had an agreement, the prospectors said there wasn’t, but there is no evidence one way or another.
I think there was an agreement because that’s how shady are justice system is. They will cut deals to save on money and time, but I think it was a shady deal, so the Feds deny it now or risk getting into trouble. In the end, we know it’s illegal because the Judge Sealed the Tapes.
As for the police officers, on what grounds would they get fired on or even disciplined? Remember, the Police Union usually wins their cases and the tapes are sealed, so you can’t use them in court. Or use them anywhere else. What’s the Mayor going to say? The guys that were illegally wired taped said racist things, but we can’t provide you with the details or bring it up because it’s fruit from the Poisonous Tree, and so inadmissible? Seriously, I would love to see that argument.
Sure, it all went down really badly, but to assume some sort of plot to hire and reap a bunch of racists seems far fetched. This is a guy that interned with Renee Ferguson and stayed at her house, but secretly, he is a racist?
Come off it guy, you have made a decision a while back, and now are just looking for evidence to confirm your bias.
That’s funny, given that everything you’ve said about this has been inaccurate.
Like what?
There were inproper tapes made, some of them likely would be considered illegal. The chief was made aware of the improper tapes but continued to make them anyway. The chief was asked to stop, and he continued to do so anyway.
There was an investigation that may or may not have been stopped because the chief was demoted. This is a situation where we only have two sides to this story.
There was a lawsuit that was settled with all the victims getting paid, especially the white officers.
The tapes were sealed by a judge and we are almost certain it’s because they were made illegally, even if no one was charged.
At this point, why would you even want the guy to be chief? He obviously bends the rules to his own ends.
So, faced with all that, you still want to make an argument that demoting the guy was improper?
This is tedious, so this is my last comment on it.
You said Boykins wiretapped people. He didn’t.
You said the jury in the civil suit must have thought he was guilty, but there was no jury in the civil suit.
You say that the existence of a settlement proves that Boykins was wrong and therefore it was right to fire them, but there was a settlement in Boykins’ favor, too. Settlements don’t necessarily prove anything.
You said Boykins could not be permitted to continue in that position of responsibility, but he was in fact permitted to continue in a position of great responsibility.
You say Pete can fire anyone for anything he wants, but you also say that the white officers can’t be fired or disciplined because they hadn’t done anything wrong. At the time Pete tried to fire Boykins, he had not under the law been found to have done anything wrong! If Pete could fire Boykins without cause, he could fire the white offices without cause. If he could demote Boykins and/or shunt him into a lesser role, he could do the same to the white officers.
You say Pete was right to do what he did, but Pete himself says he was wrong to do what he did.
He did wiretap people. you want to make up facts, fine, and make up your own facts, but when the cheif became aware of improper Wire tapping and decided to continue, as per what DePaepe, then he is responsible for the tapping. It’s his baby then. I don’t know how anyone can claim otherwise. It’s like if your friend robs a bank, and you find out, and for a portion of the money, you decide to help him drive away as the getaway driver, you are charged with robbing the bank. Sorry, you are at fault too.
Also, demoting a chief is very different from firing a police officer. In order to fire an officer, there would be a huge fight with the police union, which they would win in a heartbeat. Because the wire tapes are sealed. So, it’s easy to see why one is possible, but the other isn’t.
Heck, a quick Google shows that he can’t even fire police officers. That is the responsibility of the Board of Safety.
I don’t want the police to have the blanket ability to wire tap whoever they want. I am not sure if you are familiar with the Stasi, but I am. I have no interest in seeing it in the US
Anyway, I am not. This isn’t getting anywhere.
Nesrie
1985
The number of black individuals who are killed unarmed, doing nothing wrong, just being black is their guilt, is beyond acceptable and is a fact. It’s something that happens too often in the country, and too many people just don’t care. You pile on racism, discrimination and the the constant warfare made to make black people think their hair is not good, their skin is too dark, and everything about them is just not enough and the weight is heavy.
Here we are, in the Black Lives Matter topic talking about how well a white guy handled one issue.
I like Pete just fine. I wish he’d handled this differently because the way he handled it did not work. There is no denying that. This is going to follow him for the entirety of his campaign if he can’t figure out a different way to handle it. Hint Pete, stop listening to the white guys telling you you did nothing wrong.
Yes, you are undeniably the only person on earth interested in safeguarding civil rights, and of course every single question of civil rights is really about being pro- or anti- Stasi. Sigh.
Guap
1987
It totally sucks that “gorilla” and “monkey” and every other term like that has been captured by racists. We are all self aware apes, and you can see the parallels of our social groups and socialization. More than once I’ve wanted to call a bunch of people who are riled up “apes” or “monkeys” but it’s now a beleaguered term. Stupid racists!
It feels like yet another situation in which neither side is willing to admit that the other side has even the beginning of a point.
From my point of view it makes (made?) sense to give some form of consequence to the chief of police. He’s the person in charge. Was the recording illegal? Who knows but it was improper. Demote or fire; either seems appropriate.
On the other hand demoting and then firing does raise questions about targeting the police chief not because he was the person with ultimate responsibility but a more personal reason (personality, racism, or even just insecurity in the face of someone who could be a political rival) and that’s a problem.
That is also my feeling.
rowe33
1990
Wow, this (black, of course) guy is 40. Mississippi seems to think it’s fine to keep the guy in prison until he’s 52 because he had a cellphone used to text his wife. Insane.
ShivaX
1991
It’s on the cops. Of course they’re not in trouble for letting contraband into a correctional facility.
