Lesbian sgt. discharged after police tell military

Royale said:
The Associated Press: Lesbian sgt. discharged after police tell military

I think it is very wrong for the cops to tattle on Air Force sarge over her sexual orientation. :mad2:
Click to expand...

Did you actually read the whole story?????????????

They tattled on her for a reason, her partner was a criminal and they filed discrimination against the police for doing there job......

That is so funny....kudos to the police department, she should have known her partner was a criminal and that when you piss the cops off stuff like this can happen.
 
cdaigle430 said:
Did you actually read the whole story?????????????

They tattled on her for a reason, her partner was a criminal and they filed discrimination against the police for doing there job......

That is so funny....kudos to the police department, she should have known her partner was a criminal and that when you piss the cops off stuff like this can happen.
Click to expand...

Doesn't make it right.
 
hhmmmm...... clearly an agenda going on there.
 
cdaigle430 said:
Did you actually read the whole story?????????????

They tattled on her for a reason, her partner was a criminal and they filed discrimination against the police for doing there job......

That is so funny....kudos to the police department, she should have known her partner was a criminal and that when you piss the cops off stuff like this can happen.
Click to expand...

It is wrong for police to tell military about her sex orientation so just like invaded her privacy.

I believe that police and military are supposed to be separate on issue. :roll:
 
Banjo said:
Doesn't make it right.
Click to expand...

Actually it does. It is required for law enforcement to notify the military when a service member either commits a crime or is known to associate with someone who commits a crime. Two of my military friends have gotten into trouble when their wives received a DWI even though it was off base and in a private car.
 
TXgolfer said:
Actually it does. It is required for law enforcement to notify the military when a service member either commits a crime or is known to associate with someone who commits a crime. Two of my military friends have gotten into trouble when their wives received a DWI even though it was off base and in a private car.
Click to expand...

in trouble.... like what? honorable discharge?
 
TXgolfer said:
Actually it does. It is required for law enforcement to notify the military when a service member either commits a crime or is known to associate with someone who commits a crime. Two of my military friends have gotten into trouble when their wives received a DWI even though it was off base and in a private car.
Click to expand...

That's a pity. So much for the "don't ask, don't tell" policy.
 
Jiro said:
in trouble.... like what? honorable discharge?
Click to expand...

One was discharged but he had other issues too. The other was questioned about it.....not sure what resulted.

BTW my answer is not for "don't ask don't tell" but simply should law enforcement notify the military about an association with a criminal.

Also this is HER side of the story. It could very well be that the Air Force believed there was a link between her and the thefts as well. We haven't heard the Air Force version yet.
 
TXgolfer said:
Actually it does. It is required for law enforcement to notify the military when a service member either commits a crime or is known to associate with someone who commits a crime. Two of my military friends have gotten into trouble when their wives received a DWI even though it was off base and in a private car.
Click to expand...

The military could have been notified of an association without disclosing her sexual orientation.

It is wrong, wrong, wrong.
 
jillio said:
The military could have been notified of an association without disclosing her sexual orientation.

It is wrong, wrong, wrong.
Click to expand...

Certainly it would be important for the military to know the nature of the association. Someone that was close? Wednesday night bowling partner?
 
TXgolfer said:
Certainly it would be important for the military to know the nature of the association. Someone that was close? Wednesday night bowling partner?
Click to expand...

No, it is not necessary to reveal one's sexual orientation. Simply "close relationship" covers it all. Sexual orientation is only for the individual to disclose.
 
jillio said:
No, it is not necessary to reveal one's sexual orientation. Simply "close relationship" covers it all. Sexual orientation is only for the individual to disclose.
Click to expand...

In fairness we have no idea what they revealed.....we are only hearing one side of the story. Mostly likely a close relationship with a thief that has warrants would have netted the same result. They also noted that she was uncooperative. Perhaps the AF let her go for that reason and she is just claiming her SO was the reason.

It's even possible that the police cut her a break for being uncooperative but of course they would still have to report it. I am not ready to judge the police or the Air Force soley on her story.
 
TXgolfer said:
In fairness we have no idea what they revealed.....we are only hearing one side of the story. Mostly likely a close relationship with a thief that has warrants would have netted the same result. They also noted that she was uncooperative. Perhaps the AF let her go for that reason and she is just claiming her SO was the reason.

It's even possible that the police cut her a break for being uncooperative but of course they would still have to report it. I am not ready to judge the police or the Air Force soley on her story.
Click to expand...

You're right...one sided and it could be that is just her claim. I am only saying IF they disclosed her sexual orientation, it was wrong of them to do so.
 
certain detail interests me -

Lesbian blames police for military discharge
The Rapid City Police Department says Newsome, an aircraft armament system craftsman who spent nine years in the Air Force, was not cooperative when they showed up at her home in November with an arrest warrant for her partner, who was wanted on theft charges in Fairbanks, Alaska.

Newsome was at work at the base at the time and refused to immediately come home and assist the officers in finding her partner, whom she married in Iowa — where gay marriage is legal — in October.

Police officers, who said they spotted the marriage license on the kitchen table through a window of Newsome's home, alerted the base, police Chief Steve Allender said in a statement sent to the AP. The license was relevant to the investigation because it showed both the relationship and residency of the two women, he said.
Click to expand...

few questions in mind -
1. Does the law require Newsome to come immediately and cooperate with the officers executing an arrest warrant?
2. why is their marriage license on kitchen table? who does that?
3. Wondering if the officers have some kind of agenda against gay people in military because I'm sure Rapid City in South Dakota isn't exactly a gay-friendly community.
 
jillio said:
The military could have been notified of an association without disclosing her sexual orientation.

It is wrong, wrong, wrong.
Click to expand...

It's not wrong if you really understood whats going on-those of you who say it's wrong shouldn't judge a book by it's cover.

I will give you an example which probably applied here. She probably had a top secret or secret clearance which is given to an airmen only after an extensive background check. You are also briefed on the conditions of being granted this responsibility which includes associating with a known felon.

She knew this and tried to keep it hidden which makes her a liar and therefore no longer trustworthy enough to keep the clearance. When you can no longer have a clearance(which is only given to you if your job requires it), then you can no longer do your job. if you can no longer do your job-why would they keep you?

The military did her a favor by using the "dont ask dont tell" to discharge her. This allowed them to give her an honorable, had they used the real reason which is,could not meet job "requirements" it would have been a dishonorable or other than honorable conditions.
 
cdaigle430 said:
It's not wrong if you really understood whats going on-those of you who say it's wrong shouldn't judge a book by it's cover.

I will give you an example which probably applied here. She probably had a top secret or secret clearance which is given to an airmen only after an extensive background check. You are also briefed on the conditions of being granted this responsibility which includes associating with a known felon.

She knew this and tried to keep it hidden which makes her a liar and therefore no longer trustworthy enough to keep the clearance. When you can no longer have a clearance(which is only given to you if your job requires it), then you can no longer do your job. if you can no longer do your job-why would they keep you?
Click to expand...

You really need to shut up, put up, and wait until the details are released. There's a lot of people out there that unaware they're living with a felon. I means right now, I got a roommate said she doesn't do drugs, yet I find traces of pot around the house; I also had a friend, who was going to be my roommate two years ago, who got busted for social security fraud; didn't know about it until the police showed up at his house. This case got nothing to do with whether or not it's a security risk. It's about her sexuality.

They could had said roommate which would possess just as much as a threat to security of a military base as a husband, a wife or any relatives would.
 
Her retirement pensions, benefits and everything that came with the career went *poof*. She worked for the military for nine years.

Like Souggy said, we'll find out eventually.
 
Back
Top