Thanks Officer Greg Anderson

[kickstand]

During this COVID19 lockdown, I think that we're all aware of some of the abuses that some communities and states have endured, allowed, and even ordered it's Law Enforcement Officers to carry out. All too often, the officers involved are "Just following Orders", just like all of the underlings in NAZI Germany. This has really been weighing on me, and I've been wondering why we haven't heard much from the Oath Keepers.

Let me be clear, the last thing that I want to see is a Citizen Against LEO war in the streets of America. It won't be pretty for either side. Well, let me rephrase that. It's the next to the last thing that I want to see. The truly last thing that I would want to see is the average citizenry under the tyrannical thumb of an out of control government and Law Enforcement machine.

This is why this video gives me great hope that all is not lost. Officer Greg Anderson says exactly what I have been thinking, and hopefully his brothers and sisters in Law Enforcement will pay attention before it's too late. Please watch, listen and share if it speaks to you as much as it does to me.

Thank you Officer Anderson, for standing up and following you oath.

[airdrop]

One sane voice , I hope he's listened to . The problem with a lot of departments , they'll have a bully boy on staff with complaints than a dog has fleas and they still keep them . Clean your own house and keep good men like this guy then we'll all get along .

[kickstand]

Absolutely correct. I'm typically a big supporter of LEOs. There's no doubt that they are doing a tough job that I don't want. However, honest cops absolutely, unequivocally MUST stop circling the wagons around criminal cops like this guy.

In case you're not going to watch the video, Sacramento police have a man at gunpoint who they believe has a warrant for his arrest. Spoiler, they don't. The suspect is compliant, standing still with his hands on top of his head. The cop in the white hat first shoots him him with a taser. That obviously doesn't have much effect, so the same cop takes a running start and gives the innocent, compliant man a flying kick in the back. This sends him jerking forward, which the other cop takes as trying to run, which draws an additional violent takedown. After they find out that they have the wrong man, they STILL arrest him for Resisting Arrest.

Yes, I'm aware that we don't see much before the tasing, and little afterwards because the other responding officers feel that it is their duty to shield and protect their comrade from that most dangerous weapon, a camera. In my opinion, this public servant is more of a public disgrace, and should not only be relieved of duty, but also charged with Abuse of Power and Assault. He should also be barred from ever being a cop again.

I can only imagine how it would have turned out if it wasn't on video.

[kickstand]

Although it's not confirmed yet, it looks like Officer Anderson was fired for making and releasing the video, proving that his department is on the wrong side of Constitution.

[kickstand]

[kickstand]

If you care to help:

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

[redman2006]

That sucks, but I wondered if that would not happen.

[0utlaw]

Yep, posting something while you're in uniform and in your patrol vehicle is just inviting repercussions. While I agree with his position I am not at all shocked that they're coming after him as he most likely has violated department policy.

[knotReally]

Yep, posting something while you're in uniform and in your patrol vehicle is just inviting repercussions. While I agree with his position I am not at all shocked that they're coming after him as he most likely has violated department policy.

Exactly. That policy is extremely commonplace. Its the only way a company can maintain the information that is shared with others.

[0utlaw]

An officer is also considered to have a "Veil of authority " which gives his statements the appearance of an official position. If they want to make a public statement you can't use any reference or indication of your position or make or imply any connection to the Department.

[kickstand]

Until he was reprimanded and on the road to being terminated, he gave no indication of what State, County, City or Department he was in. He made sure that his Department patch was off camera.

Don't get me wrong, by no means am I disagreeing with you. I'm not surprised that the NAZIs in charge don't like it when one of their underlings has a mind of their own and won't enforce draconian policies, especially in the communist bastion of Washington state.

[0utlaw]

Like I said I agree wholeheartedly with what he said but he knew the policy going in I assure you.

[redman2006]

Just because he is a cop, he did not give up his first amendment. I really think some of this needs to be challenged by the ACLU. Many departments fail to fire for very racist comments on social media, this seems much more reasonable than those.

I understand policy, but just because it is policy does not make it constitutional. I can not control my employees off the clock. There are rafts of laws that prevent it. If he was off the clock, I question their right to fire him. If it was on the clock, they have him for theft of time/time clock fraud, or whatever that state calls it.

[0utlaw]

Just because he is a cop, he did not give up his first amendment

No, but I'd be willing to bet he signed for receipt of and acknowledged understanding of department policy when he was hired.

Employers do have a right to terminate or discipline employees if a social media post causes harm to their business or reputation. My previous employer just won a wrongful dismissal case for that exact thing. A mechanic got pulled off of a job and posted on FB that the company did it to put a lower paid unqualified mechanic on the job so they would make more money. Company fired him, he sued and lost and, to add insult to injury, ended up posting a public acknowledgement that his original post was false to settle a libel suit the company filed against him.


First amendment guarantees the freedom of speech but not freedom from it's repercussions