Rehire Norfolk Police Lt. Kelly. Fire Chief Boone.

Source: Kerry: Unemployed and Unedited.

Ms. Dougherty makes the relevant point:

No doubt city officials will argue that Kelly’s offense was sending a small donation through his work email. Sorry, that is NOT a fireable offense. It was the recipient of the donation that ticked off the highly partisan Police Chief Larry Boone and led to the loss of the job Kelly had held for 19 years.

Let’s be honest, 25 bucks sent to a save-the-puppies charity wouldn’t have ended a distinguished career in the Norfolk PD. It was the wrongheaded belief that Kelly was sending money to a guy who was a vigilante.

Another example of penumbra reasoning. This time at the local police department.

54 thoughts on “Rehire Norfolk Police Lt. Kelly. Fire Chief Boone.

  1. “It was the wrongheaded belief that Kelly was sending money to a guy who was a vigilante.”


    Uh, whether he was found guilty of murder or not has no impact on the fact that he was a vigilante.

    BTW, your use of “penumbra” again conveys nothing except that you are somehow unhappy with what is being expressed.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. RE: “Uh, whether he was found guilty of murder or not has no impact on the fact that he was a vigilante.”

      No. Whether or not Rittenhouse was a vigilantly is a matter of opinion and wholly irrelevant to the firing of Lt. Kelly, except to small-minded people who think their opinions are more important than truths.


      1. “Whether or not Rittenhouse was a vigilantly [sic] is a matter of opinion . . .”

        Uh, no. It is a matter of FACT that Rittenhouse was a vigilante.

        “vigilante: a member of a self-appointed group of citizens who undertake law enforcement in their community without legal authority, typically because the legal agencies are thought to be inadequate.”

        His being one of those vigilante shitheads is NOT irrelevant to the firing of Lt. Kelly. Opposition to and discouragement of vigilantism is sound policy by the police and doubly so when the vigilantes are white supremacists bringing guns to a protest on behalf of an oppressed minority which the police department is supposed to protect and serve. Just from a practical point of view, that officer has devalued ANY future testimony he might offer on any case that has any element of race connected to it.

        Liked by 1 person

        1. RE: “Uh, no. It is a matter of FACT that Rittenhouse was a vigilante.”

          Like I said: Only to small-minded people who think their opinions are more important than truths.


          1. RE: “Well, why wasn’t Rittenhouse a vigilante?”

            I don’t know whether he was or wasn’t. You are welcome to your opinion, but that’s all it is. One thing worth noting: Vigilantism is not illegal, and while the crimes Mr. Rittenhouse was charged with might be associated with vigilantism, he was found not guilty on all counts.


        2. Your chain of logic to justify firing Lt Kelly has some bizarre links.

          First, whether Rittenhouse was acting as a vigilante or not is a battle of semantics, not fact. In the traditional sense, a vigilante is literally one who keeps watch. There is nothing wrong with that.

          But you presume, without evidence, that Rittenhouse was a vigilante MOTIVATED by racism. (changing the name to White Supremacism doesn’t change the underlying accusation.) There is no indication Rittenhouse shot three white men who unlawfully attacked him based on racial animus, On the contrary the idea is ludicrous on its face.

          Even were that ridiculous premise possible, Kelly donating to his defense would not necessarily motivated by racism on his part.

          Yet you think he should be disqualified from police work because of a third degree assumption of racism.

          You’re going to have a very hard time finding policemen under that standard.


          1. “In the traditional sense, a vigilante is literally one who keeps watch.”

            What tradition?

            What nation honors vigilantes? Or are they by definition armed civilians acting extra-legally? Do they have powers of arrest. Are they legally permitted to use deadly force as are police?

            It is not a matter of semantics. It is a matter of liberty in the sense that I don’t have to worry about armed and self-appointed shooting up the streets.

            Liked by 2 people

          2. You don’t?

            People shoot up the streets in Norfolk every night.

            Traditional Vigilantes are much like a neighborhood watch, just prepared to defend themselves if necessary. There is nothing ‘extra legal’ about watching out for your neighbors or their homes and businesses.

            Obviously, they have no powers of arrest beyond that of any citizen. Arrests by citizens are legal but limited. A citizen can arrest someone committing a felony that he witnesses himself. He cannot arrest on hearsay. He can use proportional force to accomplish the arrest, but not deadly force unless he is in danger.

            So, if you tell me that Paul beat you up, I can refer you to a policeman, but I can’t arrest him. If I see Paul beating you up, I can arrest him and hold him for the police.

            I can lay hands on him, but i can’t shoot him, nor can I shoot him fleeing unless I am reasonably certain he will harm someone.

            If he in turn attacks me, rather than just runs away, then self-defense applies.

            But some day you might very much want someone to watch over you.


          3. “People shoot up the streets in Norfolk every night.”

            If that is what you believe, then don’t come to town.

            Yes, we have an inner city where crime is higher, just like Chesapeake, VB, etc.
            Yes, guns are prevalent and that should warm your heart.

            Vigilantes have a terrible history, but you either don’t know or most likely could not care less. Greenwood in Tulsa comes to mind. Or any number of other Black neighborhoods laid to waste by vigilantes in the last century.

            So perhaps we can be fortunate enough to see a resurgence of Rittenhouses to strut around hoping for a confrontation so he can have a drink with the boys after a few killings.

            That should be fun, don’t you think?

            Yes, I am being sarcastic. This topic deserves no less.

            Liked by 1 person

          4. You’re confusing a terrorist organization, the KKK, with neighborhood watch.

            The police have no obligation to protect you. You would do better to rely on your neighbors.


          5. It does not matter what motivated KR. The core issue is vigilantism itself. But we do know that he had expressed a desire to kill some black men he thought might be looters just two weeks earlier. And we do know that he was seen celebrating with the Proud Boys and flashing the white power signal. It is not any kind of a stretch to see the malignant hand of these domestic terrorists in the shaping of this dimwit.

            So, of course, there IS a racial dimension and that is that there is significant public sentiment in the city that employed him. The militia gathering was believed (rightfully, IMHO) to be about suppressing the BLM movement. A senior police official MUST be mindful of the views of the people he serves. If he wants to be employed by them.

            Never mind the racial aspect, the public support of vigilantism of any kind is in and of itself inappropriate behavior for a senior police official. Especially so when that vigilantism has lead to slaughter in the streets.

            Liked by 1 person

          6. “And we do know that he was seen celebrating with the Proud Boys and flashing the white power signal.”

            The Proud Boys are Western Civilization Chauvinists, not racists. They have Black members in leadership positions.

            Henry “Enrique” Tarrio

            and the OK sign is not White Power, you’ve been trolled by 4chan



          7. “…OK sign is not White Power.”

            And a swastika is just an Indian symbol and a Confederate battle flag is just about states rights and General Lee.

            Context is important.

            Liked by 2 people

          8. You really think the police behaved appropriately by not taking action against these armed militants?

            I don’t. And the proof is that people ended up dead because these armed shitheads were given free reign in a volatile situation. And, the actual killings occurred after the protests were over and the vigilantes went looking for more trouble.

            I promise you that if a group of black men in “bulletproof vests” and displaying AR15s had decided to patrol the streets, the reaction of the police would have been very different.

            Liked by 1 person

          9. Would it have been better if different people ended up dead? Rosenbaum and Huber were definitely out there to hurt people.

            In any case, I don’t make a practice of second guessing people on the ground. If the police welcomed the armed civilians, I will assume they had good reason. Perhaps they were overwhelmed or unable to to cover all parts of the city.

            In any case, they welcomed the help.


          10. For the record “Neighborhood Watch” is not the same as the Proud Boys (officially a terrorist organization in Canada) calling out their members with their guns. Neighborhood Watch programs are sanctioned by and work with local law enforcement to WATCH. They are NOT armed. They do not have police powers. They are not vigilantes.

            From the official manual of the national Neighborhood Watch program.

            “Patrol members should be trained by law enforcement. It should be emphasized to members that they do not possess police powers and they shall not carry weapons or pursue vehicles.”


            Liked by 1 person

          11. Lynching was also an American tradition. Whole town turned out, families with children included, postcards made, and a fun time was had by almost all.

            The difference between vigilantes and a lynch mob might be hard to appreciate if you were the “guest of honor”.

            Liked by 2 people

          12. I have NOT been pranked by 4Chan. You should double check before offering such an opinion.

            The Okay gesture STARTED as a prank on 4Chan, but it has now been adopted and used by those “European Civilization Chauvinists” like the Proud Boys.



            Liked by 1 person

          13. The ADL has its antenna tuned a bit too high. They see antisemitism behind every blade of grass.

            But more importantly, I reject the appropriation of innocent gestures. If the KKK starts telling people ‘Merry Christmas’ do the rest of us have to stop?

            My granddaughter likes to draw rainbows, does that now have to be a statement on gay rights?

            Sorry, but OK is OK.


          14. “I reject the appropriation of innocent gestures.”

            Uh, that is not how reality works. Sorry.

            And whatever you “reject” does not mean that I was pranked or that KR flashing this symbol while celebrating with fellow Proud Boys is not significant.

            Liked by 1 person

          15. Again, the Proud Boys is not a racist organization.

            Are there some racists who call themselves Proud Boys? Sure. There are plenty of racists who call themselves Democrats. does that make the Democratic Party racist? Of course not(it’s their policies that make them racist.)

            The Proud Boys are Western Civilization Chauvinists. They are certainly anti Islam and anti-Communist, but not anti Black, as they have Blacks in leadership positions.


          16. “The Proud Boys are Western Civilization Chauvinists.”


            BTW, you left out that they are misogynists. And January 6th insurrectionists. And Neo-fascists.

            Maybe they are not all racists but just see BLM protesters to be communists. So, okay to pack your gun and break up their protests, right. Comparing them to Neighborhood Watch is stupid and insulting to the decent citizens trying to make their neighborhoods safer.

            Liked by 1 person

          17. I believe they actually may have STARTED the riots. the protests were mostly people until idiots started the violence. Some of those idiots were quite probably PB’s. OK,s and other extremist groups wanting to damage the reputation of the social justice movement.


          18. “Western Civilization Chauvinists”.

            Yeah, we have seen that play before. The final curtain was not pretty.

            You want a revival?

            Liked by 2 people

          19. I have no idea what you are talking about,

            Western civilization has raised much of the world from poverty and is dominant in the world of trade. Even Chinese communists wear Western business suits.


          20. “No idea…”.

            What country believed in a superior race and started a world war to carry it out?

            It is one thing to study Western Civilization and it’s obvious impact on world affairs.

            Quite another to bash the rest. Racial and ethnic nationalism are a serious problem here and abroad.

            Liked by 2 people

          21. “Quite another to bash the rest.”


            Communism and theocratic authoritarian regimes deserve to be bashed.

            What is wrong with advocating capitalism and limited government?


          22. There are always bits and pieces that can improve things. Communism, which has never really taken hold anywhere as advertised, may not have much to offer.

            But social programs improving the lot of all citizens is a worthy goal. And still very possible to have a highly competitive capitalist market.

            Liked by 2 people

          23. “ They see antisemitism behind every blade of grass.”

            Odd. Losing 6 million brethren 75 years ago because anti-Semitism was ignored or, worse, acceptable, by most of the world including churches, must be the reason.

            The anti-Semitic attacks have increased here and in other regions. This too might generate a watchful eye on events before they get out of hand.

            Six pointed “sheriff’s badge” on campaign material notwithstanding.

            Growing up in a neighborhood that had more than a few folks with tattooed numbers, genocide is something few get used to and most never forget.

            Right wing gangs spouting White supremacy, European chauvinism or whatever label you chose were the forefront of the worst humanity has to offer.

            That they are gaining acceptability among some is either ignorance or savagery.

            Pick one. Or both.

            Liked by 2 people

          24. I sympathize with the horrors Jewish people have been subjected to, but I think the ADL is doing them a disservice. Crying wolf too many times dilutes their effectiveness.


          25. In your mind, perhaps. But I find it comforting to know that there is group looking out for my people and calling out dangers to them, real or imagined, and making ALL aware of what is out there.

            Are there some “swiings and misses”? Yep. But that is not just an ADL issue. Fox News, Brietbart, and people ion this forum do it all of the time.

            Liked by 1 person

          26. “Would it have been better if different people ended up dead?
            Rosenbaum and Huber were definitely out there to hurt people.”

            Utter nonsense.

            Funny, unlike KR, they did not bring guns to hurt people with. Their “deadly weapons” consisted of a plastic shopping bag with some hospital supplies in it and a skateboard. And, the skateboard only became a “weapon” when Huber tried to stop an active shooter with it.

            Liked by 1 person

          27. Active shooters shoot people who aren’t attacking them. KR refrained from shooting people who backed off when he raised his rifle, and only shot those who persisted in attacking him.

            The narrative that they were trying to stop an active shooter did not arise until almost a year after the fact, and was purely a prosecution talking point.

            Repeating a lie does not make it true,


          28. “Neighborhood watch is different when people are throwing fire bombs.”


            You do not get to besmirch the people who join in and serve in Neighborhood Watch by equating them with the gun-toting European Chauvinist pinheads who came to Kenosha looking for trouble.

            Liked by 1 person

          29. “KR refrained from shooting people who backed off when he raised his rifle”

            Not an active shooter even though he had already been seen firing his gun and shooting his first victim in the head when he was assaulted by a skateboard wielding maniac. He had to shoot him too. Yeah, right.

            You are so out of touch with reality that you do not see how damning your definition of “active shooter” is. If he does not shoot everybody he is not an “active shooter.” Laughable.

            Liked by 1 person

          30. If he does not shoot people trying to kill him, then no, he is not an active shooter.

            No one claimed that at the time, it only became a thing after the prosecution flailed around looking for an excuse for the attacks.


          31. “Peaceable carrying of arms is not aggression any more than having a penis makes one a rapist.”

            Cute, but walking around displaying either is going to elicit strong responses from the people you display it to.

            Your platitude does not work in most contexts. Try that Walmart experiment and see what happens. More so, in the context of a boisterous street confrontations, carrying and pointing a weapon IS an act of aggression. And even more so after shots have been fired.

            Liked by 1 person

          32. “What is wrong with advocating capitalism and limited government?”

            Ah, there is your problem. You equate your particular political and economic ‘druthers with “Western Civilization. ” Here is a heads up – “Western Civilization” is big and broad enough to encompass LOTS of ideas about how to best organize the economy and the role of government in our society.

            Liked by 1 person

        3. LOL!
          Small minded?
          Because I know what words mean and you don’t?

          Why do you people think you can change the definition of words to suit your purposes?

          “Vigilante” has a definition that was quoted above and that you can confirm in any dictionary. He meets every aspect of the definition. He was a vigilante. He “self-appointed” himself as did other like-minded people he worked with to travel to another state and to enforce the law against riot. He did so because he felt that the legal authorities were inadequate to the task. Textbook. Denying it is simply dumb.

          Liked by 1 person

          1. RE: “He meets every aspect of the definition.”

            You seem to think so, but that’s just you. A very flimsy basis for claiming to know an objective reality.

            Being a vigilante is not a crime, but you seem to think it is. In my opinion, that makes your commentary objectively disgusting.


          2. Mr. Roberts, you may not know this but over the millenia human beings have invented many useful things. One of those things is “words.” These “words” have meanings and those meanings are documented in another human invention called “books.” More specifically specialized books called “dictionaries.” Are you with me so far?

            Okay, get ready for it . . .”Vigilante” is one of those “words” and it denotes a person who takes the law into his own hands. You know, like those out-of-state Proud Boys did in Kenosha.

            Liked by 1 person

    2. Far left wing fanaticism, like yours, is what got two people killed. I certainly hope you contain your racist extremism to just ignorance in print and don’t go attacking others in your typically deranged state of mind. People you refer to as white supremacist vigilantes are indeed allowed to defend themselves from the likes of left wing criminals hell bend on destruction, arson, assault, anarchy and public chaos as a way of life.


      1. Yeah, only the left is violent.See January 6th, Washington, D.C. for context. Or Charlottesville.

        Your constant one way street rhetoric is one of the reason we don’t have peaceful discussions about real issues.

        Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s