Georgia Sheriff Posts snipers after mass firings

Stravo · Post by **Stravo** » 2005-01-04 08:40pm

Sheriff posts snipers after firing 27 workers
Georgia judge orders workers reinstated
Tuesday, January 4, 2005 Posted: 6:36 PM EST (2336 GMT)

JONESBORO, Georgia (AP) -- On his first day on the job, the new sheriff called 27 employees into his office, stripped them of their badges, fired them, and had rooftop snipers stand guard as they were escorted out the door.

The move Monday by Clayton County Sheriff Victor Hill provoked an angry reaction and prompted a judge to order him to rehire the employees.

"It appears ... that employees of the Sheriff were terminated without cause" and in violation of the county's civil service rules, Judge Stephen Boswell wrote in granting a 30-day restraining order.

Hill, 39, defended the firings and said the new sheriff has the right to shake up the department in whatever way he feels necessary. He told The Atlanta Journal-Constitution that he fired the employees to "maintain the integrity of the department."

"A lot of people are under the impression that the sheriff's office is under civil service laws," he said. "But my research shows the employees work at the pleasure of the sheriff."

The firings had a racial overtone. Hill was among a spate of black candidates elected last year in the county once dominated by rural whites. The county seat was the setting for the fictional plantation Tara in "Gone With The Wind."

The fired employees included four of the highest-ranking officers, all of them white. Hill told the newspaper their replacements would be black.

Another of the newly elected black officials, Eldrin Bell, called the move illegal and filed for the restraining order granted by the judge. Bell is the new county commission chairman and former Atlanta police chief.

Hill said the manner in which he fired the workers -- including taking some deputies home in vans normally used to transport prisoners because the deputies were barred from using county cars -- was necessary.

He cited the assassination of Sheriff Derwin Brown in neighboring DeKalb County in 2000. Brown was gunned down in the driveway of his home three days before he was to be sworn in. Former sheriff Sidney Dorsey was found guilty of plotting to kill him and sentenced to life in prison.

"Derwin Brown sent out letters to 25 to 30 people letting them know they would not be reappointed when he took office," Hill said.

The sheriff's department employs 345 workers.

Smell that sweet free New Sout----BAM----fuck me.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2005-01-04 08:43pm

Ah, reverse discrimination...

The Duchess of Zeon · Post by **The Duchess of Zeon** » 2005-01-04 09:01pm

Well, it's "nice" to see that Black racism has decided it needs to play catch-up against White racism in the South.

Wicked Pilot · Post by **Wicked Pilot** » 2005-01-04 09:11pm

If it could be shown that those fired had records of abuse, civil rights violations, or general unnecessary assholishness, then the sheriff's move could be considered legitimate. Unlike city cops who have unions to protect the bad apples, sheriffs can generally clean house with a free hand. Afterall, if they don't they get voted out of office next election. I reserve judgement until the sheriff's side comes out.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2005-01-04 10:20pm

Wicked Pilot wrote:If it could be shown that those fired had records of abuse, civil rights violations, or general unnecessary assholishness, then the sheriff's move could be considered legitimate. Unlike city cops who have unions to protect the bad apples, sheriffs can generally clean house with a free hand. Afterall, if they don't they get voted out of office next election. I reserve judgement until the sheriff's side comes out.

The sheriff in question has stated that he will hire on the basis of race. That shit is illegal, no matter what the white officers may or may not have done.

Wicked Pilot · Post by **Wicked Pilot** » 2005-01-04 11:24pm

Joe wrote:The sheriff in question has stated that he will hire on the basis of race. That shit is illegal, no matter what the white officers may or may not have done.

As presented I have very little doubt it was over race. Such a move could however be legitimate, and the guy deserves just as much due process as anyone else. I'm sure he'll get what's coming.

And um, Georgia sucks.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2005-01-04 11:27pm

And um, Georgia sucks.

45-16!
45-16!
45-16!
45-16!

Superman · Post by **Superman** » 2005-01-04 11:32pm

Hey that judge has the same last name as me.

Guy N. Cognito · Post by **Guy N. Cognito** » 2005-01-05 01:18pm

Jesus! How can he get away with being so blatantly racist! Up here in Canada, we get hell if there is even the slightest inclination of racism...... so much so, that many places give a higher priority to people from visible minorities.

Elheru Aran · Post by **Elheru Aran** » 2005-01-05 01:42pm

In Savannah, GA, recently Mayor Otis Johnson (who happens to be black, incidentally) removed two portraits from the City Hall press conference room. These portraits were of Civil War-era Savannahians; I don't know any more than that, but I do know both were white. While I'm not saying anything here, I am reminded of my uncle's comment on the mayoral elections last year... "we've gotta choose between a black racist and a white crook?!"

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2005-01-05 01:45pm

This guy might be racist, but tell me this: would you reconsider your condemnations if (for example) it turned out that 100% of the high-ranking officers in this office were currently white? If you went into a sheriff's office of a county and discovered that hiring had obviously been conducted with a racist agenda for years, would you feel quite as strongly about the immorality of trying to correct this?

I'm not saying that this is necessarily the case here, but I see a lot of people sitting on a bandwagon without knowing that much about the situation.

Rogue 9 · Post by **Rogue 9** » 2005-01-05 01:50pm

We don't know if he was hiring on the basis of race or not. He said the replacements would be black. He didn't say that was the criteria; he could easily have picked out qualified replacements beforehand who were, in fact, black. Noting this fact doesn't mean it was among the criteria for hiring.

Of course, if he didn't already have replacements lined up but had decided that whoever they were, they would be black, then he's hiring on racist grounds. The article doesn't provide enough detail on that point to tell, though it's worded to lead you towards the latter conclusion without outright stating it.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2005-01-05 01:52pm

Darth Wong wrote:This guy might be racist, but tell me this: would you reconsider your condemnations if (for example) it turned out that 100% of the high-ranking officers in this office were currently white? If you went into a sheriff's office of a county and discovered that hiring had obviously been conducted with a racist agenda for years, would you feel quite as strongly about the immorality of trying to correct this?

If they were firing qualified and competent police officers soley because of their skin color, yes I would have a hell of a problem with that. I don't believe that it's right to correct racist policies is by punishing one's way to equality.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2005-01-05 01:57pm

Stormbringer wrote:I don't believe that it's right to correct racist policies is by punishing one's way to equality.

Why not, if the people in question got their jobs for the wrong reasons in the first place? Besides, you don't know what else is going on here; remember the knee-jerking that went on when people accused that school of censoring the Declaration of Independence for having the word "God' in it?

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2005-01-05 02:11pm

Darth Wong wrote:
Stormbringer wrote:I don't believe that it's right to correct racist policies is by punishing one's way to equality.
Why not, if the people in question got their jobs for the wrong reasons in the first place?

Because, provided they're competent, it's just as much racism to fire them for the color of their skin. The answer to racism hiring policies shouldn't be to institute racist firing policies. Instead they should look at ways of bringing on qualified minorities as they have the oppurtunity.

Darth Wong wrote:Besides, you don't know what else is going on here; remember the knee-jerking that went on when people accused that school of censoring the Declaration of Independence for having the word "God' in it?

Which has no bearing on my answer to your hypothetical question.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2005-01-05 02:20pm

Stormbringer wrote:
Darth Wong wrote:
Stormbringer wrote:I don't believe that it's right to correct racist policies is by punishing one's way to equality.
Why not, if the people in question got their jobs for the wrong reasons in the first place?
Because, provided they're competent, it's just as much racism to fire them for the color of their skin. The answer to racism hiring policies shouldn't be to institute racist firing policies. Instead they should look at ways of bringing on qualified minorities as they have the oppurtunity.

Ah, so wait for the racists to retire? Nice solution. So you don't believe in doing anything negative in order to correct a bad situation, eh? I'll have to keep that in mind the next time you reflexively defend an asinine Bush Administration "anti-terror" policy.

Darth Wong wrote:Besides, you don't know what else is going on here; remember the knee-jerking that went on when people accused that school of censoring the Declaration of Independence for having the word "God' in it?
Which has no bearing on my answer to your hypothetical question.

It bears on your assumption that one side of this story is enough to make a judgement.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2005-01-05 02:25pm

Ah, so wait for the racists to retire?

If the cops are racists, fire them. If they simply got their jobs and are doing them competently because of racial bias in hiring I don't believe that's sufficient reason to fire them.

It bears on your assumption that one side of this story is enough to make a judgement.

So in other words, despite answering the purley hypothetical question, you're now going to assume I was talking about the story in the article? Cute little strawman.

As a matter of fact, I think we should be waiting to hear both sides. But right now it does sound like the incoming sheriff simply wanted to retaliate in kind for racism, real or percieved.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2005-01-05 02:27pm

Stormbringer wrote:
Ah, so wait for the racists to retire?
If the cops are racists, fire them. If they simply got their jobs and are doing them competently because of racial bias in hiring I don't believe that's sufficient reason to fire them.

Why not?

It bears on your assumption that one side of this story is enough to make a judgement.
So in other words, despite answering the purley hypothetical question, you're now going to assume I was talking about the story in the article? Cute little strawman.

Sorry, I had you confused with some of the earlier responses.

As a matter of fact, I think we should be waiting to hear both sides. But right now it does sound like the incoming sheriff simply wanted to retaliate in kind for racism, real or percieved.

... and then you promptly undercut your own point by stating that you do think that one side of the story is enough to come to a conclusion.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2005-01-05 02:34pm

Why not?

Becuase the only justification for it would be the color of their skin?

Sorry, I had you confused with some of the earlier responses.

Thank you.

... and then you promptly undercut your own point by stating that you do think that one side of the story is enough to come to a conclusion.

I haven't come to a conclusion, I'm just saying that's what it looks like at this point. I do want to hear the sheriffs side because there might be some logic to this.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2005-01-05 02:37pm

I don't care what the problem is, or how racist the white cops might have been; the point is, this new guy has specifically stated that he will try to solve the proving by adopting ILLEGAL hiring practices. I can't imagine that resulting in anything good.

Though we're all engaging in quite a bit of speculation here, especially given that the original article wasn't particularly details-heavy.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2005-01-05 02:45pm

Stormbringer wrote:
Why not?
Becuase the only justification for it would be the color of their skin?

No, the justification would be that they should not have been hired in the first place. It's the same justification you use to fire someone when it turns out he lied on his resume; it doesn't matter if he's doing a good job now, or whether his corrected resume is still sufficiently qualified.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2005-01-05 02:48pm

Darth Wong wrote:No, the justification would be that they should not have been hired in the first place. It's the same justification you use to fire someone when it turns out he lied on his resume; it doesn't matter if he's doing a good job now, or whether his corrected resume is still sufficiently qualified.

Then it becomes a question of were they hired over my qualified applicants and are they competent. Assuming that they were equally qualified and have proved competent at their job, simply because they were hired for skin color, by some one else, is not sufficient grounds for firing.

Now if that's not true then it's not the same thing by any means. And in that case a different course of action should be looked at.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2005-01-05 02:52pm

I can agree with that. The biggest problem at this point is the lack of more detailed information on the situation here.

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2005-01-05 02:55pm

Joe wrote:I don't care what the problem is, or how racist the white cops might have been; the point is, this new guy has specifically stated that he will try to solve the proving by adopting ILLEGAL hiring practices. I can't imagine that resulting in anything good.

To nitpick, he didn't say that. All we have is a statement that he said the replacements were black.

Context is vital in this stuff. If his actual statement was 'I've got some experienced men lined up.' and it turned out they were all black, the statement in the article is true, but he is in no way using illegal hiring practices. This would be identical to the 'THEY'RE NOT TEACHING THE DECLARATION BECAUSE IT SAYS GOD' fisaco.

I'm inherently suspicious of the way that statement was reported. No actual quote given, and a severe lack of context. It could very easily be attempting to stir the shitpot.

Wicked Pilot · Post by **Wicked Pilot** » 2005-01-05 03:48pm

Joe wrote:45-16!
*snip the rest

1928: 13-12
1935: 13-0
1936: 47-7
1943: 34-27
1943: 27-6
1944: 15-7
1945: 32-0
1951: 7-0
1953: 14-6
1986: 23-14
1987: 26-23
1990: 18-13
2003: 17-10
2003 SEC Championship 34-13

14-10-1 overall, undefeated when it counts.