Justice Department tells Ferguson police to stop wearing bracelets

[Eugene]

Source: Reuters

Justice Department tells Ferguson police to stop wearing bracelets

FERGUSON Mo. Fri Sep 26, 2014 8:41pm EDT

(Reuters) - The U.S. Justice Department asked the Ferguson, Missouri, Police Department on Friday to order its officers not to wear bracelets with the name of the white officer who shot and killed an unarmed black teenager last month, sparking protests.

In a letter to Ferguson Police Chief Tom Jackson, the Justice Department said residents had told federal investigators that officers policing protest sites on Tuesday in Ferguson were seen wearing "I am Darren Wilson" bracelets.

Wilson killed 18-year-old Michael Brown on Aug. 9, causing outrage in the mostly black St. Louis suburb of 21,000 people. Wilson has not been charged in the case.

[font size=1]-snip-[/font]

The DOJ said it had been assured by officials with the county and state police, which have been brought in to help in Ferguson, that their officers would not wear the bracelets.

[font size=1]-snip-[/font]

Read more: http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/09/27/us-usa-missouri-shooting-idUSKCN0HM01120140927

[NaturalHigh]

1. So much for the free speech thing, I guess.

[hlthe2b]

5. Are you really wanting to defend wearing name of this police officer on their wrists in solidarity?

But, no... free speech has no bearing here. THEY ARE IN UNIFORM and regulations apply to what they wear.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

6. Regulations may apply

We don't know. But if there aren't regulations against it, then IMO, it most certainly is a free speech issue.

[NaturalHigh]

10. If the uniform regulations prevent it...

why were they allowed to wear them in the first place? Now if those regulations simply weren't enforced, then I understand the department prohibiting them.

As for defending their right to wear the bracelets, yes, I will. I defend your right to say anything you want, and I feel the same about those police officers (or anyone else). Freedom of speech means nothing if it doesn't apply to speech we don't like.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

11. +1000

There is no need to defend popular speech.

[Generic Other]

12. Deliberately fanning the flames of racial tension

sounds a lot like falsely yelling fire in a crowded theater. Police are supposed to keep the peace not incite riots.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

14. If people riot over a bracelet

The the problem doesn't rest solely with police.

[Generic Other]

22. Public servants should then be free to taunt the public?

To race bait?

No one in Ferguson is rioting over a bracelet. But you know that.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

25. You need to read the post I was responding to

I never said that the citizens of Ferguson were rioting, but the poster before me said that the bracelets were an incitement to riot.

If the bracelets aren't prohibited by uniform codes, then it's free speech, even if citizens see it as something else.

[Generic Other]

62. You need to read the post you were responding to

because I am that poster.

[elehhhhna]

121. they only wore the bracelet b/c hte white hoods obstruct their vision.

[Generic Other]

125. SNAP!!

You nailed it.

[RKP5637]

126. Certainly seems that way! n/t

[hlthe2b]

13. "if the regulations simply weren't enforced"...

Are you kidding me? There is a tremendous pattern of behavior that should afford you an educated guess on that, unless you really do want to defend the police department--in which case, we are done.

[NaturalHigh]

16. Defend their right to free speech? Yes, I do.

I guess we're done.

[CatWoman]

40. actually

you've only just begun

[NaturalHigh]

46. LOL...I don't even know what that means.

Just insult me and get it over with while I go back to cheerfully ignoring you. I've been insulted by you enough in the past to let it roll gently off my back. Thanks kindly.

[daleanime]

87. Don't need any one else to insult you.....

doing a fine job by your self.

[NaturalHigh]

91. Okay.

The eyeroll was a particularly nice touch.

[Generic Other]

70. You go girl!

People are playing games on this thread and they know it. Wearing those bracelets amounts to hate speech in Ferguson, MO. There I said it. No more pussyfooting around.

[noiretextatique]

142. i could care less if they were them off-duty

they should not wear them on-duty.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

17. I'm not defending the police department's actions related to Michael Brown

But I am defending the free speech rights of everyone, even the police and even if the speech is offensive, so long as no uniform regulations are being violated.

[geek tragedy]

20. It interferes with their ability to do their job.

Duh.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

23. I disagree

I don't see how a bracelet has any bearing on their ability to do their job.

[geek tragedy]

26. So you think wearing Nazi insignia would also

not interfere with them doing their job?

[SickOfTheOnePct]

28. The insignia itself?

No. But I'm guessing that there is a prohibition against wearing a visible swastika while in uniform.

[geek tragedy]

36. Why would such a prohibition exist and why

would it not similarly violate the constitution?

[SickOfTheOnePct]

41. I think you're missing the point

Police departments have every right to prohibit officers from wearing/displaying pretty much anything while in uniform, and I agree, such restrictions would not be a violation of free speech.

But in this case, there is no indication that the wearing of these bracelets was prohibited by uniform code or regulation. If, in fact, the uniform code does not prohibit the wearing of these bracelets, then the DoJ asking them to not wear them is, in fact, an attempt to stifle free speech, IMO.

I would have no issue with the Ferguson police department prohibiting them as part of uniform regulations. I have a big problem with the DoJ swooping in and asking them to prohibit the bracelets.

[geek tragedy]

49. You have a big problem with the DOJ swooping

in and telling cops not wearing bracelets that implicitly threaten black people.

Bet you have some real interesting ideas on the use of the national guard in little rock.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

52. Totally different situations

But of course you already knew that.

[geek tragedy]

57. No, not that different. You are saying that local officials

have a right to be racist while carrying out their job duties , and their right to carry out their job duties trumps the constitutional and civil rights of black people .

It seems very clear what you are.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

59. You're free to believe about me whatever you choose

Doesn't mean that you're right.

I don't agree that wearing a bracelet in support of a fellow police officer means that one is racist in carrying out their duties.

[geek tragedy]

63. What is obvious is obvious.

And your complete disregard and indifference towards members of Ferguson's African-American community is as obvious as can be.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

66. We can certainly agree to disagree n/t

[Dustlawyer]

67. Like the post said and even like you repeated, the DOJ ASKED them not to wear them!

How is ASKIN a violation of Free Speech? Wearing the bracelets on duty is in poor taste and is meant to be so in my opinion.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

76. Absolutely, the DoJ asked

I'm just of the opinion that they shouldn't have, since to me, asking that ostensibly free speech be infringed isn't something the DoJ should be doing.

To me, it would have been much more appropriate for the DoJ to state that some citizens were concerned about the bracelets, and make inquiries as to what uniform regulations, if any, pertained to the wearing of excess "jewelry" (for lack of a better term).

[RedCappedBandit]

82. You can't see how cops wearing swastikas would interfere with their duties?

LMFAO

[SickOfTheOnePct]

94. Tell me how then

Would they not be able to pull people over? Write tickets? Search vehicles? Arrest suspects?

How would a swastika keep a police officer from performing his duties? Disgusting and inappropriate? Sure.

[geek tragedy]

96. Part of their duties is not violating the rights

of those in the community. Speech stating or implying hatred or a desire to commit violence towards minority groups is a violation of that duty.

Also , fuck Ron Paul.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

98. Ron Paul?

Guess I missed something.

As for your first sentence, a bracelet with a cop's name on it doesn't imply racial hatred or desire to commit violence towards minority groups, nor is it a violation of any citizen's rights for a cop to wear such a bracelet.

[geek tragedy]

99. Spoken like someone with zero ability to see something

from the perspective of black people.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

101. How people see something can't be helped

No one is able to control how other people will perceive their actions or words, but just because something is perceived a certain way doesn't mean that it was intended that way.

As I said in earlier, if the government is going to start limiting all speech based upon other might perceive it, then we can toss out the First Amendment for all of us.

I'm all for the Ferguson PD enacting a regulation that says when in uniform, the only non-uniform items that can show are watches and rings (as an example). But if they're not going to put that in place, I'm not in favor of the DoJ stepping in, outside of their jurisdiction, and pressuring them to limit free speech based on perceptions.

[Oktober]

115. That is the biggest reach in this whole thread...

... And that's saying something.

[geek tragedy]

116. How is what I wrote a reach? nt

[RedCappedBandit]

100. Police exist to protect and serve the communities that employ them.

To do so, they need to build relationships with the people making up those communities.

That's impossible when wearing the insignia of hate groups or displaying hateful or threatening commentary on their uniforms.

You're being purposefully obtuse and it's exceedingly entertaining that you actually think you're presenting a valid argument.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

102. I've said previously

That I have no issue whatsoever, and would in fact encourage the Ferguson PD to put in place a policy that prohibits all non-uniform items, except for a watch and rings. But if they don't have such a policy in place, it isn't up to the DoJ to try to tell them what their officers should or shouldn't wear.

[RedCappedBandit]

103. That's very nice. Would you like a pat on the head?

I was responding to your comment that wearing a swastika would not in any way interfere with a cop's ability to do his or her job.

[gollygee]

32. What if they wore a bracelet that said

"I like to kill black people."

The issue isn't the bracelet, it's what is on it. The message is threatening to African Americans, which means a majority of people living in Ferguson, whom the police officers should not be making feel more threatened than they already feel.

You think it's a violation of free speech for someone to tell them how completely inappropriate it is? Their uniform is to wear what they're told to wear and to not wear anything that distracts from or interferes with their job. My kid in school doesn't get to wear whatever she wants, and if she wore a bracelet that said, "I am (name of someone who killed a teacher)" she'd be told to take off the damn bracelet.

I can't believe people a) see this as a free speech issue - it's a police officer's uniform, and they don't get free speech in regard to clothing when they're in uniform (or even complete free speech in general - lots of regulation over how they talk to people when on duty); and b) don't see how horribly inappropriate and insensitive these bracelets are. They're supposed to be serving and protecting the public. The public is freaking out about a member of their community getting shot, and they're visibly saying, "Yeah I would have done the same thing" when they don't have enough information about the case to know he didn't just shoot Michael Brown even just for sport.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

34. Would I think it's appropriate?

No.

Would I support their right to wear it so long as it wasn't violating uniform regulations? Yes.

Because I believe in free speech, even when it's unpopular or downright disgusting.

[geek tragedy]

37. There is no free speech when one is an on- duty cop.

When you are an on- duty cop, you do not get to wear bracelets that say "I kill unarmed black kids."

[SickOfTheOnePct]

45. Unless there is a uniform regulation against it

They certainly could.

[geek tragedy]

53. You apparently don't care so much about black folks'

rights to not be threatened by racist ass cops.

Their civil rights mean less to you than the privileges of cops.

And you obviously know jack shit about the constitution if you think cops wearing "I like to shoot black kids " wouldn't be a violation of civil rights of the community members.

[gollygee]

38. Police officers give up a great deal of their right to free speech when on duty

and there's a good reason for that. They're representatives of the city, and in a sensitive relationship with the people they're in contact with when they're doing their job. They can wear the bracelet when they aren't on duty, and they have every right to, although I still think it's disgusting, but then yes that's a free speech issue.

[Cha]

72. Exactly, gollygee.. the DOJ also sent them a letter that said they were violating PD rules for not

wearing their name tags.

"In a separate letter sent to Jackson earlier this week, the Justice Department said its investigators had observed Ferguson police officers not wearing, or obscuring, their name tags on their uniforms, a violation of the police department's rules."

They will wear these fucking bracelets but they won't wear their name tags.. see a trend here, yet?!

[gollygee]

47. I want to make sure I understand.

You would support the right of an on-duty police officer to wear a bracelet that said, "I like to kill black people." And you appear to think they have that right.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

56. I wouldn't like it

I would think it was inappropriate, and I would be raising hell at the local level to have it prohibited by regulation.

But absent a uniform regulation against it, I support it as an expression of free speech, even though the speech would be disgusting.

[NaturalHigh]

42. What if they're not in uniform?

Is this really about what is appropriate to wear while in uniform, or do you think they should be prohibited from wearing the bracelets period? What about the general public? Should they get free speech, or is it time for us to crack down on all of that?

[gollygee]

48. Just answered in 38

[NaturalHigh]

54. Okay. Thank you for the response.

[noiretextatique]

143. it is NOT a free speech issue

they are free to wear those idiotic bracelets off-duty.

[Raine1967]

58. You should probably stop, Just giving you a heads up.

You are not helping yourself.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

61. While you may not like what I'm saying

I'm breaking no DU rules, but your concern is duly noted.

[Ikonoklast]

120. Fuck Libertarians, and Fuck Ron Paul.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

122. I agree, fuck Ron Paul

But what does that have to do with anything being discussed on this thread?

[Ikonoklast]

136. I am exercising my right to free speech, within the confines of the posted TOS.

As absolute free speech exists only in the minds of those who think it does, and nowhere else on this planet.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

139. OK

Because I've seen no one on this thread that claims the right to free speech is absolute.

[GitRDun]

39. IMO

The issue is not whether or not the officers are free to legally wear the bracelets.

The legality is irrelevant.

The point is in light of the racial tensions that exist in the officers' community, does it make sense to wear the bracelets.

It's the same issue as using tear gas. While the police may have had a right to use it, how does its use on their citizens help?

The reality is that those that wear the bracelets put support of the officer ahead in their priority list over the pain suffered by a community over a slain child.

Just because you CAN do something does not mean you should.

[Cha]

44. Really. thank you hlthe2b!

[geek tragedy]

24. Wearing those bracelets is an implicit threat to

every black person in Ferguson.

Do you think cops should be able to wear
"White Power" bracelets too?

[NaturalHigh]

29. LOL...no. To all of what you wrote.

1) No they shouldn't be allowed to wear bracelets that say white power, at least not while in uniform. I'm pretty sure the regulations prohibit that.

2) Wearing a bracelet identifying with a fellow officer who has already been convicted by many, skewered in the press, and threatened to the point where he had to leave his home and go into hiding is hardly the same as the first scenario.

[geek tragedy]

68. Your pro-Darren Wilson talking points

confirms suspicions.

[NaturalHigh]

74. Have a pleasant evening.

[stevenleser]

111. Jury Results: 5-2 to keep

On Fri Sep 26, 2014, 08:48 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

LOL...no. To all of what you wrote.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5590094

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

Remember all of the loathsome George Zimmerman apologists. This guy is the Darren Wilson version .

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Fri Sep 26, 2014, 08:54 PM, and the Jury voted 2-5 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Maybe but s/he didn't insult anyone personally and while I get that there's a reactionary theme lurking here I don't think DU juries are meant to thought police every freakin' post. Point out the suspicious assumptions and challenge them. If poster openly defends them, I'll gladly hide that.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I sympathize alerter. I hate what this person is saying. But unfortunately its not hideworthy, and I wish it was because I really wish I could vote to hide.
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Nothing alertable about the post itself. It's a reasoned reply, which is more than I can say about the
"Your pro-Darren Wilson talking points confirms suspicions" BS reply. Really, please try to harder to stay in the intellectual ring fighting, instead of resorting to a lamely supported alert.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I don't understand what it is you are asking to be hidden. If you mean to hide "this guy", then you have your work cut out for you. Alerts are for POSTS. This person believes there is a distinction between the two listed things. You can agree or disagree with this post by using the "reply" link. There is nothing disruptive etc. about this post.

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[Oktober]

117. Alerter slapped around by the jury... Nice...

[stevenleser]

118. I'm not sure that qualifies as "slapped around" but ok. nt

[Oktober]

119. YMMV...

Frivolous alerts speak to weak arguments and is nice to see it reflected the comments.

[NaturalHigh]

128. Plenty of people have posted their disagreements with me.

I honestly don't understand why someone felt that my post was worthy of a hide. Thanks to the five "leave" votes on the jury for not penalizing me for simply stating my view.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

33. The DoJ disagrees with you

They acknowledged in their letter that how the bracelets are being received by some of the public is not the message that many officers are trying to convey.

[geek tragedy]

71. What matters is how they are perceived in the

community.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

78. If how speech is determined in the community

is going to be the new standard for free speech, we might as well just repeal the First Amendment for all of us.

[geek tragedy]

79. Cops have no free speech right when in uniform .

They sure as shot don't get to make the local citizens afraid they'll get shot because of the color of their skin.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

90. Unless you have the uniform code of Ferguson PD in your hand

You really have no idea what free speech rights the police there have when it comes to this bracelet.

Extraneous "jewelry" may well be prohibited while in uniform, in which case you are 100% correct - they have no right to wear the bracelets.

But absent that, I would argue that they do.

[geek tragedy]

95. That's because you don't understand

the 1st and 14th amendments.

[rhett o rick]

104. I think you are a bit confused. The police officers are free per the Constitution to say what

they want. Their employer is free to fire them if they are blatantly racist. In other words, the police officers can say what they like, but the department doesn't have to employ them. Let's say a McDonalds employee exercises her right to tell customers that Burger King has a better burger. McDonalds has the right to tell the employee they are fired.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

7. when you are at work, there are restrictions on clothing

its not a violation of free speech

[SickOfTheOnePct]

8. You may well be right

But we really don't know whether there are rules against it or not. One would assume that since it was permitted, there were no uniform regulations that prohibited it. Perhaps there are rules against it that weren't being enforced. We don't know.

If it's against uniform regulations, then absolutely, prohibit it. But if it isn't, then I think the DoJ is out of line to make the request, because at that point, IMO it is a free speech issue.

[noiretextatique]

144. he is right. they should not be advocating any position

while on duty, especially not THIS one. they may as well wear "i shoot black men in the back" bracelets.

[NaturalHigh]

15. IF that's the case (uniform code prohibitng the bracelets)...

then I can understand it. I spent six years in the military, so I understand that part. The article didn't mention that, though. All it talks about is how the justice department doesn't want the police officers to wear them. I'm pretty sure the justice department doesn't get to set the police department's uniform regulations. The justice department people don't like it because the protesters don't like it. That's not a valid reason to prohibit them.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

19. Exactly n/t

[geek tragedy]

27. Sounds like rw talking points to me.

You think racist thug cops should be able to taunt members of the community with this implicit threat.

As someone who is neither a badge-sniffer or an extreme libertarian I must disagree.

[NaturalHigh]

30. Fine. Then you come up with what speech you want to ban.

Personally, I like that whole first amendment thing.

[geek tragedy]

77. Repeated red herring. Cops don't have any free speech rights

when in uniform. They can't wear political, religious etc propaganda.

[NaturalHigh]

83. In all fairness, you didn't really make it clear...

that you only want them prohibited from wearing the bracelets while in uniform. If I was mistaken about that point, I apologize.

[geek tragedy]

86. Yes. While on duty, and wearing a gun.

Cops say all kinds of horrible racist shit off duty. But on duty no tolerance for that.

[Generic Other]

127. A few years ago the military made soldiers

remove racist Nazi tattoos from their bodies not simply cover them up. I guess they didn't give a flying fuck about free speech rights when it came to soldiers sporting SS symbols and swastikas while representing the American military or the people of the United States. You don't have free speech when you wear a uniform with your nametag on the front.

[nomorenomore08]

80. Not as if these cops are being charged with a crime. They're not even being threatened with

termination so far as I know. Merely being told to remove something judged inappropriate for the workplace. They can still say whatever they want on their own time.

I don't know what your workplace is like, but I'm sure there are things you could say (or wear) that would easily get you fired. And that has nothing to do with the First Amendment.

[NaturalHigh]

81. "They can still say whatever they want on their own time."

Thank you for that. I get the impression that some people don't really even think that is appropriate.

[nomorenomore08]

84. Well, they're angry and frustrated. And I don't blame them for that.

But even the worst scumbag in America still has the same First Amendment rights we all do.

[tuhaybey]

18. On duty cops have a greatly limited free speech right

The first amendment restricts the government's ability to restrict the people's free speech. But, the government-acting-as-employer rather than as a government is kind of a different story. The police are both the government itself and a subject of the government at the same time, so it is a much more complicated scenario that if the government told a civilian not to wear the bracelets.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

21. I agree 100% that the Ferguson police department

has every right to set uniform restrictions that prohibit such bracelets.

But absent such a uniform regulation or restriction, the DoJ has no right to prohibit them wearing the bracelets, and IMO, is out of line for asking for the prohibition.

[billhicks76]

69. Are You Joking?

It's not free speech as they have a uniform to wear at a job...and it requires not publicly displaying what side you take on an issue...especially when it's being determined if a crime was committed by said officer. And it obvious to most Michael Brown was murdered in cold blood by someone who was probably have a rage fit. The witnesses on tape said his hands were up and he was executed.

[markpkessinger]

92. NOBODY has unfettered free speech rights while at work . . .

. . . I mean they do, but their employer has every right to fire them. What they do when off duty is another matter, but while on duty, their department can certainly issue a ban on the wearing of such bracelets.

[Live and Learn]

106. Free speech is limited during working hours as a public employee (and

in fact in mots private employment).

Every public employee recognizes that and is told so. Why should these officers be exempt?

[madokie]

124. LOL

shaking head smilie needed here

[99Forever]

129. WTF?

You really said that shit?

"Freedom of speech" to defend a murdering scumbag cop?

That's what important to you?

Really?

[NaturalHigh]

131. Yes, freedom of speech is that important to me.

I think it's a shame that so many people seem so offended by that concept.

[99Forever]

132. I'm more offended by those sworn to "Protect and Serve" gunning down...

... unarmed citizens in the street and the assholes that try to justify it.

[NaturalHigh]

133. If you're referring to me...

I'm not trying to justify anything. Let the facts all come out to the grand jury, and let the chips fall where they may.

[99Forever]

134. The scumbags wearing those braclets...

... are sure as fuck trying to justify their murderous, bigoted, authoritarian shit, under the guise of "free speech."

We know all too fucking well how "justice" is dished out when it comes to murdering cops. Save it for the badge sniffers.

[NaturalHigh]

135. Respectfully, whatever you might think about justice...

as it applies to the police really has nothing to do with everyone's right to express their opinions about the situation. Free speech shouldn't be a concept only applied to popular expression.

[roody]

138. I don't have free speech at work.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

2. Meh

IMO, unless wearing the bracelets is against the uniform code, this is a free speech issue.

The DoJ can ask all they want, but I doubt they can force them to stop wearing them.

[Narkos]

3. Not in uniform

Sorry, that just does not fly for a public servant

[SickOfTheOnePct]

4. It depends on what the uniform rules are

If the uniform rules state that they can't wear something like that with a uniform, then they can't. If the uniform code doesn't prohibit it, then they can.

And that applies whether the DoJ likes it or not. They don't get to determine local uniform regulations.

[Narkos]

43. Agree, but that's not the point

What if a cop wore a bracelet that said "I hate liberals" would u think differently?

[SickOfTheOnePct]

50. No, I wouldn't

I don't have to like what someone is saying in order to defend their right to say it.

[bhikkhu]

109. The police are representatives of the state

and, at least while on the job, free speech doesn't apply. The same goes for teachers in the classroom and a variety of other public officials. Its something that people don't think about very often as it very seldom comes up, but it is how things are. Any number of examples could be constructed as to why its a necessary and good arrangement.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

112. Agree 100% that free speech doesn't apply

But how far speech is restricted is up to the Ferguson PD, not the DoJ. If the Ferguson PD allows them to wear the bracelets, inappropriate as they may be, it's none of the DoJ's business.

[onenote]

114. It's not nearly that cut and dried

As the Supreme Court has said, public employees also are citizens and don't lose all of the rights of citizenship, including free speech, when they accept public employment. The difficult issue is determining whether they are acting as a public official or a private citizen when they speak. Sending a letter to the editor: private citizen. Giving testimony as a public official: public official.

In this instance, those suggesting that a "uniform regulation" would make the difference between whether the bracelets could be banned or not are wrong. Even a "uniform regulation" cannot completely foreclose the exercise of free speech completely. But those arguing that the police can be banned from expressing themselves while in uniform also probably overstate matters.

The test has two parts 1) does the speech concern a matter of public interest, and (2) does the speech create a situation that would cause a diminution of the discipline by superiors or disharmony among coworkers.

In the Ferguson situation, the wearing of the bracelet probably meets the test of being speech concerning a matter of public interest. But it loses its protection because it likely would cause disharmony among co-workers and/or a diminution of the discipline by superiors who are trying to manage a racial powder keg.

[pkdu]

9. On the other hand ( no pun intended)seeing which ones actually wear them

might be quite useful to know as a member of the public.

Maybe they would also like to admit they would have done the same and immediately resign if Wilson is found guilty?

[Live and Learn]

31. Wow, if they want to admit being murdering, racist, authoritative, aholes

then I don't see why we should stop them from doing so. In fact, they should tattoo it on their foreheads so we can all be forewarned ahead of time.

[nomorenomore08]

88. That's another way of looking at it.

[Beringia]

35. I agree they should not be allowed to wear them

And if the law is not on the books, regarding advertising your biases, then it should be put on the books.

I would not trust a policeman wearing a bracelet saying "I am Darren Wilson"

[nomorenomore08]

89. I see it as comparable to inflammatory t-shirts being prohibited in schools or workplaces.

On your own time, you have the right to say what you want. But that doesn't apply to work or school.

[Rex]

51. I wonder if some of the reason Holder is resigning is for what he found

in this instance with entire PDs covering for each other. Seems like the area is overflowing with racism and corruption.

[Raine1967]

55. Good.

Police Departments should be showing bias.

Period. The very fact that Ferguson PD employees are wearing "I am Darren Wilson" bracelets is abhorrent. AS LEO people they should not be biased. Glad the DOJ did this.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

64. You should be glad that the PD agreed to prohibit the bracelets

Because they certainly didn't have to - the DoJ has no jurisdiction regarding uniform issues.

[Cha]

60. It's stupid to wear them in the first place . but that's the Feruguson MO police Dept for ya.. and

their mentality under Chief Thomas Jackson.

From your link, Eugene..

"The letter said the bracelets had "upset and agitated" people and "reinforce the very 'us versus them' mentality that many residents of Ferguson believe exists."

The DOJ said it had been assured by officials with the county and state police, which have been brought in to help in Ferguson, that their officers would not wear the bracelets."

snip// also from your link, Eugene.. thank you..

"In a separate letter sent to Jackson earlier this week, the Justice Department said its investigators had observed Ferguson police officers not wearing, or obscuring, their name tags on their uniforms, a violation of the police department's rules."

[SickOfTheOnePct]

65. The name tag issue is a big deal

I've never heard of uniformed police officers being permitted to operate anonymously.

[Rex]

73. They are not allowed to hide their name and badge, but hey who does that today anyway?

Also detaining the press is rather illegal. Don't worry this dilemma will be moot when they go fully to robots.

[Live and Learn]

105. Good Gawd, they do look like robots.

I wonder if they realize how silly they look? Peace officers?

[Generic Other]

130. And deadly

I can't help compare them to the Soviet era soldiers who refused to shoot their own citizens and thus brought down the USSR. I am not sure US cops would treat our citizens the same way. In fact all the evidence says they would brutalize us on command.

[Cha]

75. Exactly, SOTOP.. they will wear these fucking bracelets but they won't wear their name tags.

[gvstn]

97. Yeah

Asking a police office for his badge number will get you a seriously ugly look and no reply. But they do wear name badges, the ugly look sort of tells you that if you want to complain about them get their name (from their tag) and go through the process. Despite teevee telling you differently, they may not be required to explicitly give you a badge number.

[onecaliberal]

85. I hope the good people of ferguson

Show up massively to vote the racist murdering bastards out of office and off the force.
The cops wearing those bracelets may as well wear bracelets supporting murder. That is exactly what they are doing. You can call that free speech. I call it the worst America has to offer. If you put on a uniform to protect and serve people, you have NO business supporting a murderer. Everyone with half a brain knows Michael
Brown was murdered in cold blood because he was walking while black. Darren Wilson should be arrested and put on trial.

[daleanime]

93. K&R....

Simply no call for it.

[Schema Thing]

107. seems to me an officer wearing such a wristband is threatening to shoot you

[Kalidurga]

108. I think it's disgusting that any officer would think this is okay.

BOTOH it serves as a warning when they out and out tell you that they think the police have the right to murder you in cold blood. The DOJ is right public servants don't get to say they would rather shoot you than talk to you.

[TorchTheWitch]

110. Good

They can wear them on their own time but not while in uniform. As far as I know every police department has rules about wearing anything with their uniform that can be construed as offensive to the population. Hell, they have pretty strict rules about uniforms that have nothing to do with offense, and you can add to that hairstyles, facial hair, jewelry, etc. My local department even still has to always wear their hats which is a bit unfortunate because it's a rather silly looking style of hat. From what I hear the chief is also rather fussy about ironing and undershirts. Though my local department is generally really good anyway it can definitely be said that they're always spick and span and freshly laundered.

[woo me with science]

113. Can't have outward shows of what the police have really become.

The concern here needs to go well beyond bracelets.

[bigwillq]

123. That's insane.

The officers should be able to wear whatever they want.

And, no, I don't support Mr. Wilson's actions, but I see nothing wrong with the officers wearing the bracelets.

[jwirr]

137. About time. Day one we learn that they are wearing them. Day two the chief apologizes to the victims

Day three the JOD tells them to take off the bracelets. There is little reason to think that the actual police force is making any effort to change for the better. The chief has lost total control.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

140. The DoJ can't tell them to take them off

They can ask, and the Ferguson PD can choose to comply or not.

[jwirr]

141. Well as I see it they will refuse. They are still acting just like before.