StantonCree
Watch your beer
- Jan 23, 2011
- 23,946
That would be SWEET karma.
Smells like Wrongful Termination to me.
Lol you’ve obviously never worked for a PD
That would be SWEET karma.
Smells like Wrongful Termination to me.
Not going to argue what he said but you don’t have freedom of speech without consequence when you are in your employers car and wearing your employers uniform, probably on your employers dime.
So by the Department terminating his employment , to me they are saying they do not believe in their oaths of office to follow the laws and constitution of the USA . That is what I read into it and that action supports my thoughts .
I think the concern is that if they allow one officer to make policy speeches from their cruiser, while in uniform (and thus invoking the department's, and thus the city/county/state government's tacit endorsement), then they are in no position to stop other officers from making their own agency-backed public statements about ... owning pit bulls, the whole spectrum of 2A positions, pro/anti religious sentiments, stock buying/selling advice, opinions about political parties, abortion, gay marriage, tax rates, foreign relations, military duty, public schools, or a thousand other hot-button topics.
The uniform invokes the agency. The agency has legal and public affairs officers for a reason. So no matter how righteous this cop's thoughts (and indeed, he's on the money), the issue is the agency-wide chaos that would ensue if every officer could publicly say whatever crosses their mind, under the color of their uniform's (and thus government's) authority.
Maybe the agency should have come out instead of just one officer. If they did that it would have let people think that there were more good apples in the bunch.
I think the concern is that if they allow one officer to make policy speeches from their cruiser, while in uniform (and thus invoking the department's, and thus the city/county/state government's tacit endorsement), then they are in no position to stop other officers from making their own agency-backed public statements about ... owning pit bulls, the whole spectrum of 2A positions, pro/anti religious sentiments, stock buying/selling advice, opinions about political parties, abortion, gay marriage, tax rates, foreign relations, military duty, public schools, or a thousand other hot-button topics.
The uniform invokes the agency. The agency has legal and public affairs officers for a reason. So no matter how righteous this cop's thoughts (and indeed, he's on the money), the issue is the agency-wide chaos that would ensue if every officer could publicly say whatever crosses their mind, under the color of their uniform's (and thus government's) authority.
I get the terms of his employment , but more important then employment is the oath they all took when signing up for the job .
It just shows to me there are more officers willing to follow orders , including the command staff that will come down on this officer .
We all seen or read about history of people just following orders , usually they are on the wrong side of the law in the long run .
This.
Say whatever you want. Say it as a representative of the Dept and you risk disciplinary action. That's pretty clear in any Social Media General Order that I've ever seen.
This.
Say whatever you want. Say it as a representative of the Dept and you risk disciplinary action. That's pretty clear in any Social Media General Order that I've ever seen.
My Kingdom for consistency in enforcement. Len Foxwell has been parading his vitriol around on Facebook, with "Chief of Staff, Comptroller of Maryland" emblazoned across the top of the landing page. If the Intro section said something benign, like "Concerned citizen, Father of several juvenile delinquents" I might be more concessional, but it's clear he's "wearing" his employer's uniform here. Is he subject to State regulations on reporting and data retention? AG Frosh's office doesn't seem to think so.
^^^^^This.He may be right when it comes to the message, but he effectively resigned the second he sent the message while in uniform. There's absolutely no defense of that from a legal standpoint.