By Elaine Magliaro
Julius Hatfield, the Southeast Bullitt Fire Chief, is reported to be under fire after footage of his racist comments were made public. In September, Hatfield “was recorded on a Bullitt County Sheriff deputy’s body camera during a response to a traffic accident…” Hatfield allegedly refused to help a family of stranded motorists because they were black.
WDRB:
Video from a Bullitt County Sheriff’s deputy’s body camera shows Hatfield’s department responding to a car accident on I-65, south of the Clermont exit in September.
“Well, I’ve got a family of four from Cincinnati, I got to do something with,” the Bullitt County deputy said in the video.
Hatfield replied, “We ain’t taking no n—— here.” Then he laughs.
Jenny Kuttner (Salon) reported that the footage also revealed Hatfield helping Loren Dicken, the other man who was involved in the traffic incident. According to WDRB, Hatfield went out of his way to assist Dicken with a tire issue.” The chief was also said to have had his firefighters pick the man up from the hospital when he was released.
Kuttner:
But Hatfield was reportedly less than helpful for the other driver involved in the accident, Chege Mwangi, who is black. Mwangi told WDRB reporter Valerie Chinn that Hartfield (sic) suggested he, his wife and two children contact Triple A for assistance, before asking for registration and proof of insurance. When Chinn, who is Asian-American, contacted Hartfield (sic) to ask about the alleged disparities in his treatment of the two families as well as possible mismanagement of his department, the fire chief offered a startling (also racist) response.
Chinn reported that “Hatfield later apologized for repeatedly asking her if she speaks English, and claimed that he did not remember using the N-word to describe the Mwangi family.”
Raw Story said that “Mwangi told WDRB that he noticed that the firefighters had provided assistance to other motorists, but his family wasn’t injured so he didn’t think much of it. However, he said that the sheriff’s department was helpful.”
The Courier-Journal has reported that Hatfiled said he “made a mistake” when he made a racist comment at the scene of a car accident …” The paper also reported that one member of the Southeast Bullitt Fire Protection District board said that an apology isn’t enough–and that Hatfield should be removed from his positions as chief and chairman of the board.
SOURCES
‘We ain’t taking no n*ggers here’: Kentucky fire chief refuses to help black family in traffic accident (Raw Story)
Kentucky Fire Chief: “We Ain’t Taking No Niggers Here” (Gawker)
Newly obtained video of Southeast Bullitt Fire Department chief raises questions of racism (WDRB)
Bullitt fire chief sorry for racist comment (Courier-Journal)
Nicole Plyler Fisk
Gene Howington
FFS Guest Blogger
Joy of Fishes
Chuck Stanley
shortfinals
Terry Welshans
ann li-summers
wordcloud9
Flowers For Socrates 
Chief Hatfield should offer his services to Chief Jackson. They can have a gabfest about “mistakes”.
Thanks, Elaine.
I rest my case.
“The Courier-Journal has reported that Hatfiled said he “made a mistake” when he made a racist comment at the scene of a car accident …” The paper also reported that one member of the Southeast Bullitt Fire Protection District board said that an apology isn’t enough–and that Hatfield should be removed from his positions as chief and chairman of the board.”
The mistake is exposing himself in public as a racist bigot. However, nothing should happen to him because as we know, just like police, all firefighters are good dogs.
“Hatfiled said he “made a mistake”
That is usually the case when you get caught.
Even in our sleep, pain which cannot forget
falls drop by drop upon the heart,
until, in our own despair, against our will,
comes wisdom through the awful grace of God.
— Aeschylus.
he is an old timer who hasnt gotten the message. Time for him to retire with his pension to some lake and smoke and drink the rest of his life away and think about what he said. Although I doubt a man like that will gain much wisdom.
Mike: The mistake is exposing himself in public as a racist bigot. However, nothing should happen to him because as we know, just like police, all firefighters are good dogs.
If that tries to take a stab at Bob’s comments then it just does not do it justice. Will we ever hear you explain your conclusion that Bob obviously is biased because he used the term unconditional obedience when comparing police to dogs?
I am still curious to understand your logic here.
“Will we ever hear you explain your conclusion that Bob obviously is biased because he used the term unconditional obedience when comparing police to dogs?”
NBC,
The opening paragraphs on Bob’s first Ferguson post expose his bias quite plainly. It is evidence every bit as damning as you can get. If you can’t understand my position than perhaps you are unable to assimilate ideas without your own bias.
Mike: The opening paragraphs on Bob’s first Ferguson post expose his bias quite plainly. It is evidence every bit as damning as you can get.
I showed that the opening paragraph mentioning ‘unconditional obedience’ is not evidence of bias against Bob because the term was not used to reflect his opinions about the police, but rather how he believes the police should treat him.
What exactly expose his bias? Be precise.
As to your accusation, until you have shown to be free from your own bias, it is not a very good argument to haphazardly accuse others.
That’s what got you into trouble the first place.
I understand that some people believe that repetition is a form of logical argument which serves to strengthen the argument, I believe it merely exposes its shallowness.
So can you be specific, especially about your focus on “unconditional love” which clearly reflects Bob’s expectations from his dogs.
So perhaps you can explain ? And it is not really the first paragraph but I get what you are saying and you may not have looked at it for a while.
I am not even sure if you understood the slight sarcasm and cynicism in the use of dogs and the police.
He even shows a very reasonable position
“So I tell the mob that if my dog attacked and killed a man without legal justification, then my dog should be held accountable. But if it turns out that my dog attacked and killed because he was justified in doing so—i.e., he did what he was trained to do—then you’ll have to pack up your torches and pitchforks and apologize to my dog.”
Bias? Really?…