This Officer was Made in America!

[YankeeSC 854]

20 hours ago, Underdog said:

How would you know if someone reaffirming their rights was actually a LEO unless you saw them in their Uniform.   

So anyone on youtube in a police uniform is validated as a cop?

I agree with your general point, just pointing out the fault in this logic.

[Underdog 1,320]

Whatever.  I would have listened to the valuable message if he was at home in his pjs.  

Kudos to this officer supporting our civil liberties at a crucial and timely moment for our nation.  Bridging that gap between law enforcement and the public is essential in this Republic faced with tyranny and a largely dangerous and propagandemic media.  

 

[NJ_Sig 27]

According to his police Chief

 

Port of Seattle Police Chief Rod Covey on Tuesday posted an explanation of the department’s response to Anderson’s video in a Facebook post.

“Greg has always had the ability to express his opinions on what is going on in the country like all other Americans,” Covey wrote. “However, he is not allowed to do so while on duty, wearing our uniform, wearing our badge and while driving our patrol car. Every police officer in the country understands that. I personally told this to Greg and told him that I would support his right to talk about these issues as long as he did so while not claiming any affiliation to our police department. Greg has chosen this course of action even after he and I spoke and while also knowing that his actions were outside of well-established policy.”

 

[USMC1341 21]

1 hour ago, NJ_Sig said:

According to his police Chief

 

Port of Seattle Police Chief Rod Covey on Tuesday posted an explanation of the department’s response to Anderson’s video in a Facebook post.

“Greg has always had the ability to express his opinions on what is going on in the country like all other Americans,” Covey wrote. “However, he is not allowed to do so while on duty, wearing our uniform, wearing our badge and while driving our patrol car. Every police officer in the country understands that. I personally told this to Greg and told him that I would support his right to talk about these issues as long as he did so while not claiming any affiliation to our police department. Greg has chosen this course of action even after he and I spoke and while also knowing that his actions were outside of well-established policy.”

 

That sounds like a politically correct, media facing way of saying "Greg failed to get in line."

Department policy or not, sometimes situations dictate that the "right" thing to do is to break a rule.

That said, if what the police chief stated is true, the officer knew exactly where he stood and did it anyway. He said what he thought he needed to say publicly and in uniform at great risk to himself, believing he needed to take some sort of stand and make a statement for the benefit of society. As a general rule the department policy makes sense. Hell, most corporations have similar policies for employees, and lots of people do things that get themselves fired. Many times its probably deserved, and people can even make the argument that in order to be a Seattle PD officer his firing was deserved, because he no longer represented the department. But, there are situations that are more extreme, that may require people to take more extreme measures.

He could have said everything sitting on his couch in his boxers, but then who would have listened? I have to applaud him for standing up for what he believes in.

[NJ_Sig 27]

3 minutes ago, USMC1341 said:

That sounds like a politically correct, media facing way of saying "Greg failed to get in line."

Department policy or not, sometimes situations dictate that the "right" thing to do is to break a rule.

That said, if what the police chief stated is true, the officer knew exactly where he stood and did it anyway. He said what he thought he needed to say publicly and in uniform at great risk to himself, believing he needed to take some sort of stand and make a statement for the benefit of society. As a general rule the department policy makes sense. Hell, most corporations have similar policies for employees, and lots of people do things that get themselves fired. Many times its probably deserved, and people can even make the argument that in order to be a Seattle PD officer his firing was deserved, because he no longer represented the department. But, there are situations that are more extreme, that may require people to take more extreme measures.

He could have said everything sitting on his couch in his boxers, but then who would have listened? I have to applaud him for standing up for what he believes in.

I agree and applaud him for standing up for what he believes in, especially with the risk of knowing that it could/would cost him his job

[Underdog 1,320]

6 hours ago, NJ_Sig said:

According to his police Chief

 

Port of Seattle Police Chief Rod Covey on Tuesday posted an explanation of the department’s response to Anderson’s video in a Facebook post.

“Greg has always had the ability to express his opinions on what is going on in the country like all other Americans,” Covey wrote. “However, he is not allowed to do so while on duty, wearing our uniform, wearing our badge and while driving our patrol car. Every police officer in the country understands that. I personally told this to Greg and told him that I would support his right to talk about these issues as long as he did so while not claiming any affiliation to our police department. Greg has chosen this course of action even after he and I spoke and while also knowing that his actions were outside of well-established policy.”

 

Why not?   Shouldn't this clown chief share his opinion?  Why not focus on the anti-Constitutional things that aren't allowed, Rod, instead of kneecapping a fellow Patriot.  He didn't bring an attack on his own department.  Or, was he reacting to something that was going on there?   I'd say some of the things he was concerned about were outside well-established Constitutional policy of this nation.   

What happens when nobody stands up to tyranny?  

[GRIZ 2,847]

I let this sit for a week before responding.  There are a lot of things people here are unaware or misinformed.

LEOs give up a lot of  rights when they take the job.  So does anyone going into the military.  LEOs and the military are supposed to be politically neutral.

There are not only department regulations but laws that govern the conduct of LEO's conduct in political activities.

The Hatch Act is the Federal law covers employees of the Executive Branch which includes all Federal LEOs and even state employees where Federal funds pay most of their salary.  It is designed to prevent government workers from being involved in partisan politics.

Using one's postion to endorse a political view is not allowed.  I have seen this interpreted to include making a public statement even if they don't mention their government position.

NJ has similar laws as do most states.  These laws don't apply to officials in elected positions like Sheriff Bianco.  His political position will be judged by his voters.

There are those that say the laws and regulations should be overlooked in Anderson's case.  I don't agree.  When the laws and regulations are overlooked and LE can be involved in partisan politics we wind up with phony "Russian Collusion" dossiers used to get FISA warrants. We get an attempted coup by a rogue AG and a corrupt FBI Director. 

Anderson was given several chances to take the video down.  His chief was trying to keep him out of trouble.  Anderson decided to do what he did.

He's losing his job as a police officer.  He got a payday anyway.

https://www.gofundme.com/f/support-officer-anderson/campaign/gallery/0

Over $436,000 in two weeks.  Pretty good severance package.  We'll see what he's going to do with it.  Fight in court to get his job back?  He violated regulations and probably some WA laws doing what he did so that seems like throwing the money away.  Maybe he'll take a couple years off and sail around the world as he said he'd like to in his video.

[GRIZ 2,847]

On 5/18/2020 at 6:55 AM, Underdog said:

 

You set me straight, Griz!

Apparently I didn't but I'm not giving up.

That is a load of crap.  Police don't need to show a force at ANY demonstration.    I am not trying to tell you how to do your job, but peaceful 2nd Amendment Gatherings are not the same as ANTIFA antics.  I completely realize that there could be some unintended guests showing up, though.  There is hardly ANY show of force needed in a peaceful public park in a playground...

Police need to show an appropriate show of force at any demonstration.  It can range from having a few cars in the area to having SWAT, armored vehicles, and a hundred cops in riot gear.

You are trying to tell cops how to do their job with no experience or expertise in the field.  Like me telling brain surgeons what they should be doing.

Specifically what 2A event areally you talking about? Hard for me to comment if I don't know the details.

There was the playground incident in what? Colorado?  Condemning all police for that incident is like the other side saying all ARS are " weapons of war".  Are their hundreds or even dozens of these incidents I'm not aware of?  If so, please enlighten me.

You would be the first to bitch about the police and their inability to respond.  Let's see. Trash can bombs in Seaside Park, gasoline bombs in Times Square, Jiadhist's assaults on night clubs or military installions,  were not the norm 25 years ago.  LE needs to adapt.  M4s have replaced 870s.  Cops wear fatigues instead of dress uniforms and nylon belt gear instead of leather. It saves the taxpayers a lot.

 

The level of threat perceived by a militarized law enforcement always scanning for and looking for a threats on beaches?

See my previous comment.

I am glad they were there.  Did they write any citations?  Were any nuns thrown to the ground, or handcuffed in front of their 3-year-old?

Don't know if they wrote any citations.  Don't act stupid.  A nun won't have a 3 year old.

 

No, I would have been OK with that, and in particular if their purpose was standing for the 1st Amendment.   I wouldn't have wanted drones and SWAT there, though, to frighten those blessed people.  And, I assume that they weren't needed.

You're grandstanding. There was no need for that and none of that was deployed.

 

No, I wouldn't.  How many police were there when Schumer actually made a real threat?  What was done about it, that fire in a movie-theater action...  Now back from your distraction.

Chucky Cheese Schumer said, "they'll pay for this".  That comment can mean a variety of things. Being the rule of law applies it was a baseless comment.

Absolutely!   Have you seen a lot of violence at the park with fathers playing ball with their kids?  Perhaps the threat of showing up in force just ups the ante?   I am not disagreeing with you that things could turn violent. I am disagreeing with the way you are looking at this saying "can't be bothered" and "let them sort it out in the courts".  

No I've not seen a lot of violence at parks.  If I'm wrong, enlighten me. 

Okay, let them "sort that out in courts" is outlined in the COTUS.  You didn't have Mr Golden for 9th grade Civics as I did.  Mr Golden was a WW2 vet. A German speaking Jew he served in the OSS.  There was no doubt about his patriotism.

There are 3 branches of government. They are and their duties are:

Legislative- makes the laws.

Executive- carries out the laws. This includes LEOS.

Judicial- interprets the laws.

Can't be bothered? My way of saying it's bs.

Let them sort it out in the courts?  That's outlined in the COTUS.

 

 

 

 

What part of the Constitution are you referring to?  Police power is exercised by the legislative and executive branches of the various states through the enactment and enforcement of laws. States have the power to compel obedience  to these laws through whatever measures they see fit, provided these measures do not infringe upon any of the rights protected by the United States Constitution their own state constitutions and are not unreasonably arbitrary or oppressive.   In my opinion and apparently the opinions of the LEOs mentioned, these sporadic instances are unreasonable and oppressive.  

NO they don't because they are Unconstitutional.  

NO.   It is the job of ALL government working in tandem (and for the people) creating checks and balances to uphold the Constitution and the right of the individual to his or her government.  It is the responsibility for the legislature to make Constitutional Laws and it is is the Executive Branch's responsibility to enforce those laws justly and through the lens of the Constitution.  Carrying that badge and that gun is a lot of responsibility and power and should be met judiciously (and thank God in most cases is).  The Court is suppose to be a safeguard, and those powers (Judicial Review) were not specifically granted within the Constitution, but assumed by the Court, itself.   Chief Justice Marshall took a big leap on that one, and there needs to be checks and balances on that self-granted power!  Just because it is a safeguard when used properly doesn't mean that it has to, or should be exercised to reach that level.  

This is where you are fundamentally wrong in claiming that YOU have no responsibility, and that was what I was essentially pointing out.  It is that view that is ultimately dangerous to a Republic and what I strongly disagree with.  

They have culpability and a duty and responsibility, but so does ANYONE that takes an oath and carries a badge and a gun, or a "civilian" citizen for that matter performing a duty.  

It is not a question of "being bothered".  They have a fundamental duty to protect the Constitutionally enumerated rights of the citizen, first and foremost before all of their other duties.  That is why it is that part of YOUR oath comes first.  

This has NOTHING to do with feelings in any way.  It has to do with conditioning of our law enforcement and the top-down structure that promotes this duality and in some cases, robotic militarization.    Unlike,  just as law enforcement has no duty to protect individuals, they have a moral duty, officers DO have a moral and legal duty to uphold the law of the land (The Constitution) to the best of their abilities.    

I am glad that you are good person with a good conscious.  My response has NOTHING to do with YOU personally.   It doesn't matter whether you have sympathy or not.  You are bound by your oath.  

Yes, I do, as law enforcement's PRIMARY duty is to protect the rights of its citizens (who law enforcement took an oath to protect and ultimately work for).  You don't work for the politicians.   You work on behalf of the people, just like those potentially self-serving politicians and administrators that sign your checks on yours and my behalves.  You aren't accountable for the actions of other individual cops (they are), but you are responsible for keeping them in check.  And, you have a duty to that respect, I would think, in educating fellow cops on these very principles and setting the right example in your departments and troops.  

I have a duty to do something about it and not look the other way, even if it is my LEO partner or, perhaps, my adult child. 

What are you talking about.  Please clarify so I can respond.

I want all cops to hold themselves accountable for their own choices and actions and I want them to make sure each other is on the same page and that they individually and collectively live up to their oaths and are worthy of the temporary and limited power that has been granted to them.  Their first and foremost duty is to uphold the Constitution and the rights of individuals they serve.  

No, actually in those places cops just did what they were told and let their betters sort it out.   

You haven't made it clear exactly what I don't understand.  I might add there are a few unlawful instances in which the police "eagerly" over-reacted rather gleeful or solemn that have recently emerged in the news, and it would be distasteful and dangerous to our Republic if it was to become a pattern.

In many of those instances those EOs are NOT legal and therefore should not be enforced.   Contrary to mine, and by your logic the police that have had the Constitution beat into them at the academy have no duty on their own to make that determination, or do they? 

 I say they do.  Do they have an ability to exhibit their own discretion?

I want them to hold themselves to a higher standard and hold themselves accountable.  With greater power comes greater responsibility.  I want the politicians to do the same... The executive, judicial and legislative government individuals all have that individual duty.  

What are you talking about, now?   What does this have to do with the discussion?   The Constitution came first.   It has precedence.  How does this apply to what we are friendly sparring with about?

You are almost comical.  I applaud those peace officers that they are not jackboot thugs and that they expound Constitutionally framed familiarity and common sense and that they are the mega-majority of law enforcement, and particular those that are the beat cops and not the politically-motivated higher-up politician cops.  

Maybe we are saying the same thing, but "bothered" to me is the wrong word.  It is not "bothered" but they are willfully standing up for liberty. 

 

[GRIZ 2,847]

9 hours ago, GRIZ said:

 

More later.  Your quote and my response exceeded the volume.

[Underdog 1,320]

Thank you for your thought-provoking response.   I still fundamentally disagree, and in particular with your notion that let the courts sort it out.  The courts have given themselves the power to interpret the Constitution, and it is as a last resort.  Just as some founding fathers disagreed with this potential power that was grasped on, I disagree, as there should be more checks and balances of lawyers in robes.  That power was not intended for them to interpret broadly, but rather on a case by case basis using the actual written laws to closely interpret the meaning.  That said, ALL members of government are expected to judiciously respect and carry forth the Constitution and its Bill of Rights.  Why, otherwise, is an oath taken?  Just like wrongful judges that legislate from the bench there are cops with that mindset... Some even toss in the notion of case law.  `

These examples illustrated of American Citizen and Constitutionally-framed police are commenting that they are noticing a trend moving away from this essential viewpoint, which I also believe in, and that cops in general are becoming more militarized and they are taught to just let it be sorted out later.  The police used to be called more often keepers of the peace and have moved much more dedicatedly from that to law enforcement, which in some few examples has possibly garnered the term of jack-booted thugs.  I am not arguing whether or not the police are needed and I am not arguing that the majority have entered the abusive realm, but I am suggesting that many do see themselves as law enforcement over peace keeper.  I am not arguing whether or not you or I feel that there is a felt need for that shift pointed out, but I AM pointing out that it has lead directly to the "Us and Them" mentality ON BOTH SIDES.   Due to the Chinese Flu response, it is becoming more apparent that our police, some of whom didn't have your Civics Teacher, but big-government propaganda taught by Leftists, don't have that mooring grounded in judicious force  tempered with their oaths.  

I do want to thank you personally for your service, Griz, and I will pray for your safety and others that put themselves in harms way to keep our society peaceful and safe.  Keep the faith and honor your oath.  

[Underdog 1,320]

Another American Patriot...

Sheriff Vows to Deputize Gun Owners to Protect Citizens from Rioters