The Cop Fired for Supporting Kyle Rittenhouse Wants His Job Back

Former police lieutenant William Kelly is asking for his job back after the Kyle Rittenhouse acquittal. Norfolk, Virginia, police fired Kelly in April after he made an anonymous donation to a defense fund for Rittenhouse. Hackers outed what Kelly had wanted to be an anonymous donation, and the Norfolk police department then fired him.

It makes sense that Kelly would want his job back. It also brings up the real-life consequences of giving into an electronic mob. Kelly lost his job because of a $25 donation along with a short statement: “God bless. Thank you for your courage. Keep your head up. You’ve done nothing wrong.”

Regardless of what you personally think, the jury found Rittenhouse not guilty. Should the police have given into the hackers and the internet mob? Or should they have chalked it up to a difference of opinion?

It’s easy to sit around and discuss (or tweet) about someone else’s firing. But, what happens when your employee says or does something you disagree with? What happens when something happens that Twitter hates? Here are some steps to think through.

To keep reading, click here: The Cop Fired for Supporting Kyle Rittenhouse Wants His Job Back

Related Posts

18 thoughts on “The Cop Fired for Supporting Kyle Rittenhouse Wants His Job Back

  1. Forget the Internet mob. This was a law enforcement veteran not only supporting a self-styled vigilante — armed with an illegally-obtained assault weapon, whose injecting himself into an already volatile situation resulted in 2 deaths and 1 maiming — but claiming that every other officer supported him too? The fact that Rittenhouse walked doesn’t change Kelly’s fitness — or lack of same — to protect and serve the people of Norfolk.

    1. Neither illegally obtained, nor an assault weapon, which is why the judge dismissed the weapons charge without sending it to the jury. As far as him injecting himself into an already volatile situation – he put out a dumpster fire that was being pushed into a gas station, cleaned up graffiti, and had been treating injured from the actual BLM protestors previously that night. He fired after being assaulted multiple times from individuals intending to kill him who had announced their intentions to do so, as shown by the actual recordings of what happened, as put together initially by the NYT. The maimed individual admitted in his testimony that he only got shot after pointing his gun at Rittenhouse.

      1. The trial has nothing to do with Officer Kelly. He’s not Rittenhouse. HIs employer doesn’t have to prove anything beyond a reasonable doubt. Kelly’s entitled to his opinions. Where he crossed the line was in claiming that he spoke for his entire force.

        1. Where do you have that Officer Kelley claimed to speak for his entire force? Honest question, haven’t seen that. As far as beyond a reasonable doubt, that wasn’t the standard for the prosecution to dispel Rittenhouse’s self-defense case. In the event of an affirmative defense (yes I did what I’m accused of, but it wasn’t a crime because….) the burden of proof shifts to the defense to prove that what they are claiming is accurate. As far as the trial having nothing to do with Officer Kelley, it proved that Rittenhouse acted in self-defense, which is the reason Officer Kelley gave for donating, with the message “You’ve done nothing wrong.”

          1. Well, no, Rittenhouse’s trial didn’t prove he acted in self-defense. He was, simply, found not guilty, which never proves innocence. It just means that the jury found that the Prosecution didn’t prove the charges beyond a reasonable doubt. The civil lawsuits may well go the other way, with juries — using the preponderance of evidence burden of proof — finding that he was liable.

        2. Police officers have 1st amendment rights, too.

          And his donation was anonymous until someone else – who likely committed a federal crime in doing so – outed him.

          1. Yes, everyone has 1st Amendment rights. But, the 1st Amendment only protects against actions by the Federal government, not other entities. No one’s saying Kelly didn’t have the right to say what he did. He certainly did. But, he also suffered consequences — from a non-Federal entity — for doing so. Vigilantism is antithetical to law enforcement, and supporting vigilantes, of necessity, suggests that the duly-authorized authorities are insufficient for the job.

        3. I think this dispute raising an interesting shift in values in employment. The classical almost Libertarian model espoused by Grannybunny is based on employment at will, where if your employer doesn’t like what you say, you’re out (with some few protections in most places, at present). Get a new job. Capitalism, baby!

          Anonymous here is arguing for what I’ll call a more progressive view, held for example by the state of California which bans terminating employees for off-duty activities. This view is more employee-centric, although I wonder if in the long-term it really benefits anyone.

          I’m on the side of Grannybunny here. During the protests / riots / vandalism of 2020, we had to let go a lot of employees when they supported causes the owners didn’t. People tend to be down on capitalism, but Grannybunny is right; it’s what made our country so prosperous. Part of that means, piss off your employer for any reason, get fired.

          1. The problem with your argument is that Officer Kelley is not an at-will employee. He is a member of a union with contractual bargaining rights. He was also able to show that other members of the police supported BLM riots that occurred at the same time. Yes, in a non-union workplace, piss of the employer, get fired. In a case of a union workplace, that protection disappears. Additionally, public employees have a different set of protections, rules, and requirements.

            1. I didn’t realize that. I’d think even consevratives like Grannybunny must agree that you shouldn’t be able to fire unionized employees without cause

  2. I think the main point of this article is to not use politics of public opinion to evaluate circumstances that need reviewing in job workplaces. You already have a code of performance in place (call it the work contract). Everything required for the employee to have a position is in those papers given to each employee at the start when hired. So unless personal actions did prior to being hired were researched and part of the hiring process evaluation, an employer can’t fire an employee for actions outside of a job that has nothing to do with performance on the job, unless the employer had announced a new inclusive mandate for the job, prior to an employee doing it on personal time.
    Using the court of public opinion to set standards is eliminating all standards which mean everything is run on a chaos method with no standards.

  3. I’m with Grannybunny. The encroachment on employer’s rights in this country is horrendous. If I want to fire someone, I should be able to full stop. I’m sick of this so-called “progressive” attitude.

    1. I agree in principle. However, I think a wise employer looks at the bigger picture as well. Sure, I can fire you if you donate to a cause I disagree with–but what message does that send? If I’m in a non-profit charitable foundation, it’s probably a good one. If I’m running a fast food franchise and fire everyone I find out is a Democrat, that’s probably not a great message to send. And firing someone for a nominal, likely inconsequential donation after they were illegally doxed sends a VERY strong message: You don’t get to have political opinions, you will do as you are told. Firing someone at the first sign of internet drama sends an even stronger one: You are DISPOSABLE.

      The combination is even more disturbing. It’s saying: We own you, but care less about you than we do the furniture and will destroy your life, and those of your loved ones who rely on you, on a whim. No, I don’t care if that’s not the message you intend to send; that’s the message received. To quote Manager Tools: Communication is what the listener does.

      On the one hand, sure, technically my employer could fire me tomorrow because someone said something about me online, and morally I believe they have the right–I have no moral claim to my employer’s money (outside what they owe me for work already performed). But that’s not what good employers do. A good employer, a sane person in fact, would say “This is a nominal donation made on behalf of a private individual who does not represent the views of the organization. If you have any concerns with this individual’s actions, discuss those concerns with him.” Because unless the employee presented themselves as a representative of the organization (which is a whole separate issue, a violation of internal policies without a doubt) this is something private, not the concern of the company.

  4. You always can and should stand for what you think is right. Keeping quite because your employer will not approve of your perspective is no good. You grow on personal level as well when you face such situations in your career. Your opinions and your stand should not cost you your job.

  5. The man expressed an opinion.
    Unless he agreed to never express an opinion when he took the job there is no reason to fire him.
    It matters not at all if you agree with him.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.