Glock Forum - GlockTalk banner

1 - 20 of 379 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,928 Posts
Why is it always the ones with the lax uniform policies making the stupid ass videos?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,723 Posts
Probably not the smartest to do a video of your views in your uniform on duty.
I don't understand, maybe I'm not brainwashed enough, but I can read and understand simple English of the Constitution oh the US. For those that can't, then they shouldn't swear an oath to something they can't comprehend.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
30,077 Posts
Officer G. Anderson may soon find himself better informed and acquainted with his agency's policies about making social media posts, let alone while in uniform and doing so on-duty ... criticizing agency policy while on-duty and in uniform ... violating a restriction against anyone but a designated PIO or superior officer making a "public statement" ... making political statements on-duty and in uniform (might want to check his state's Gov Code on that one, too) ... and improperly wearing his hat in public, in uniform. (And that's before his supervisor, management, command and executive staff might really roll up their sleeves and bring out the BIG magnifying glass, reviewing all the permutations and nuances of the old Conduct & Behavior pitfalls.)

I wonder if his agency's association representative is going to be getting a call for representation at a pending hearing?

:animlol:

Wouldn't be at all surprised if G. Anderson is known as "that guy" among his peers, supervisors and admin at his agency.

Just as an aside, I wouldn't be shocked to learn that Ofc G. Anderson hasn't been trained in public speaking, and that his courtroom testimony might be a bit arduous for jurors to follow.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
547 Posts
Officer G. Anderson may soon find himself better informed and acquainted with his agency's policies about making social media posts, let alone while in uniform and doing so on-duty ... criticizing agency policy while on-duty and in uniform ... violating a restriction against anyone but a designated PIO or superior officer making a "public statement" ... making political statements on-duty and in uniform (might want to check his state's Gov Code on that one, too) ... and improperly wearing his hat in public, in uniform. (And that's before his supervisor, management, command and executive staff might really roll up their sleeves and bring out the BIG magnifying glass, reviewing all the permutations and nuances of the old Conduct & Behavior pitfalls.)
I wonder if his agency's association representative is going to be getting a call for representation at a pending hearing?
:animlol:
Wouldn't be at all surprised if G. Anderson is known as "that guy" among his peers, supervisors and admin at his agency.
Just as an aside, I wouldn't be shocked to learn that Ofc G. Anderson hasn't been trained in public speaking, and that his courtroom testimony might be a bit arduous for jurors to follow.
https://www.monticello.org/site/research-and-collections/public-speaking

BTW, I think you take what officer Anderson says, too personally, huh?
 

·
Unfair Facist
Joined
·
27,024 Posts
For the uninformed,

It doesn't matter what anyone thinks about what the officer says one way or the other. ( Personally I only watched the video for a moment or two and had no problem with what he actually said during that brief time)

But here is the problem, what he did, (making a public statement in uniform and looks like he was on duty. Is a no no.)

This is a well litigated (all the way to SCOTUS) area of law, you don't get to make public statements while on duty, or at anytime while in uniform or even out of uniform while identifying yourself and your dept.

If his dept. Takes issue it can fire him and he will have no recourse. It is that simple.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,817 Posts
I endured two minutes of that video and his rationalization is painful to undergo. He violates the "theory of allness", he claims that we [police] take money from citizens - sorry, but that's the sole jurisdiction of the Courts, and we are violating Constitutional Rights.

Whenever you invoke the theory of allness, you show a complete lack of intellect and an inability to discern beyond classes or obvious groups of people/sets.

Magistrates and judges can and often do find people innocent, responsible, guilty, etc. but impose no fine and or no sanction. That is their responsibility and their right. We may not like it, but they interpret the Constitution - not the public, not the legislatures, not the police, etc.

Many laws extend well past what the Founding Fathers set forth. Building codes, traffic codes, social order codes, etc. are all beyond the scope of the Federal government; yet we see the Federal hand in much of it - building codes set to meet Federal insurance mandates, the 55 MPH speed limit, and the Federal Defense of Marriage Act.

Anderson is a III%er and if he feels that strongly about it, he should resign and work for change in the judicial branch. He is wasting his time in the executive branch of government.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
547 Posts
For the uninformed,
It doesn't matter what anyone thinks about what the officer says one way or the other. ( Personally I only watched the video for a moment or two and had no problem with what he actually said)
But here is the problem, what he did, (making a public statement in uniform and looks like he was on duty. Is a no no.)
This is a well litigated (all the way to SCOTUS) area of law, you don't get to make public statements while on duty, or at anytime while in uniform or even out of uniform while identifying yourself and your dept.
If his dept. Takes issue it can fire him and he will have no recourse. It is that simple.
Thankfully, officer Anderson loves his country so much so he doesn't care about such "litigations".
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,043 Posts
Well Technically he is correct in what he says. But I'm not a cop so I can't say the video was a good or bad idea. I think his department will make that decision!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
30,077 Posts
https://www.monticello.org/site/research-and-collections/public-speaking

BTW, I think you take what officer Anderson says too personally, huh?
Not at all.

It's not the specificity and particularity of the content that may get him in trouble (although that might be an issue, since it treads on political statements while acting in his peace officer role) ... but the sadly unprofessional method and manner, and likely doing it in violation of typical agency policies and procedures. Not the best example of conduct to present, regardless of the actual message.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,232 Posts
I was STRONGLY advised by my captain just how close I was to losing my job. I had e-mailed G. Gordon Liddy years ago when I used to listen to his radio show regularly, and I signed it with my official title and agency. I had signed it that way because he was very appreciative to vets, LE and other first responders. I can't remember the contents, but looking back, I can see how it wasn't a positive stance for my agency.

My wife and I were at home when I started hearing my e-mail being read by G. Gordon over the air. In no way, did I ever want nor think it was going to be read by him let alone be read by him to his entire listening audience. I was hoping that since it was nearing the end of his show close to 5:00 pm on a Friday that no one had heard it since they were running out to their vehicles.

A few months went by when my captain, who was cooking out at our station for us for either Thanksgiving or Christmas, grabbed me into the LT's office. There he told me just how angry our agency head was at me and how close I had come to losing my job. He told me that the agency head wanted to have all am/fm radios removed from the units so we couldn't listen to the radio while on duty. That was my lesson on not doing anything 'unofficial' while appearing 'official' just like the fella in the video.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
30,077 Posts
Thankfully, officer Anderson loves his country so much so he doesn't care about such "litigations".
"Loving your country" isn't an excuse for bad behavior. Nor does it justify civil transgressions, criminal, immoral and unethical conduct conduct.

You think all criminals and traitors may not love their country? :p
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
30,077 Posts
I was STRONGLY advised by my captain just how close I was to losing my job. I had e-mailed G. Gordon Liddy years ago when I used to listen to his radio show regularly, and I signed it with my official title and agency. I had signed it that way because he was very appreciative to vets, LE and other first responders. I can't remember the contents, but looking back, I can see how it wasn't a positive stance for my agency.

My wife and I were at home when I started hearing my e-mail being read by G. Gordon over the air. In no way, did I ever want nor think it was going to be read by him let alone be read by him to his entire listening audience. I was hoping that since it was nearing the end of his show close to 5:00 pm on a Friday that no one had heard it since they were running out to their vehicles.

A few months went by when my captain, who was cooking out at our station for us for either Thanksgiving or Christmas, grabbed me into the LT's office. There he told me just how angry our agency head was at me and how close I had come to losing my job. He told me that the agency head wanted to have all am/fm radios removed from the units so we couldn't listen to the radio while on duty. That was my lesson on not doing anything 'unofficial' while appearing 'official' just like the fella in the video.
How many of your acquired "atta' boys" did that use up? :)
 

·
Unfair Facist
Joined
·
27,024 Posts
Thankfully, officer Anderson loves his country so much so he doesn't care about such "litigations".
Uh huh, SCOTUS decisions are binding, and that is the way the Founders set things up.

And it would be more accurate to say he loves his own opinion so much he thinks it is supreme above all else.

No one's personal opinion on what the constitution says or means has legal value. The Founders delegated that authority to the Courts, specifically SCOTUS.

If enough citizens disagree with SCOTUS position on a ruling their remedy is to amend the constitution not take it upon themselves ti individually decide any ruling('s) they don't like arenull and void. (That is anarchy, something the Founding Fathers warned of)

Got it Comrade?
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
547 Posts
Uh huh, SCOTUS decisions are binding, and that is the way the Founders set things up.
And it would be more accurate to say he loves his own opinion so much he thinks it is supreme above all else.
No one's personal opinion on what the constitution says or means has legal value. The Founders delegated that authority to the Courts, specifically SCOTUS.
If enough citizens disagree with SCOTUS position on a ruling their remedy is to amend the constitution not take it upon themselves ti individually decide any ruling('s) they don't like arenull and void. (That is anarchy, something the Founding Fathers warned of)
Got it Comrade?
First of all, I am not your comrade.
Moreover, all your SCOTUS talks are baseless, unless you bring exact cases.
 
1 - 20 of 379 Posts
Top