Message To Fellow Police Officers

[BehindBlueI's]

Thanks. So, main points:

1) Was it political? In Anderson's case, it was not political. I watched the video twice. Keep in mind that restrictions of political activity for publics servants in the US comes from the Hatch Act of 1939. 'For purposes of the Hatch Act, political activity is defined as "an activity directed toward the success or failure of a political party, candidate for partisan political office or partisan political group".' I don't see how his video meets this definition. Granted, this is for federal public servants and local definitions could vary. It is the best encompassing definition we could get countrywide though.

2) Was it controversial? This is more difficult to pinpoint since it carries a higher degree of subjectivity, but I hope we would agree that a message in support of the constitution and of the oath he took is not a controversial topic. There was some irritation in his tone, but I don't see that necessarily making his message controversial.

3) Did it violate social media policy? I can't quite tell because I have not seen the department's policy. However, policy typically allows for discretion. In this case, his superiors liked the video. They came later and asked him to remove it. If the department policy prohibits speech that supports the constitution while allowing other speech, then I'd argue that the policy is crap. I understand that most departments have social media policies, but the existence of policies that prove that the policies are just or correct.

He could have just as easily done the video off duty and out of uniform and avoided every bit of that as a question. Nobody, including his department, is suggesting he can't have or broadcast an opinion.

So for his cheerleaders, why do it on duty and in uniform? Is his opinion somehow not valid if he does it in street clothes and on his own time? Or can you only patriot while on the clock?

 

[JettaKnight]

Thanks. So, main points:

1) Was it political? In Anderson's case, it was not political. I watched the video twice. Keep in mind that restrictions of political activity for publics servants in the US comes from the Hatch Act of 1939. 'For purposes of the Hatch Act, political activity is defined as "an activity directed toward the success or failure of a political party, candidate for partisan political office or partisan political group".' I don't see how his video meets this definition. Granted, this is for federal public servants and local definitions could vary. It is the best encompassing definition we could get countrywide though.

2) Was it controversial? This is more difficult to pinpoint since it carries a higher degree of subjectivity, but I hope we would agree that a message in support of the constitution and of the oath he took is not a controversial topic. There was some irritation in his tone, but I don't see that necessarily making his message controversial.

3) Did it violate social media policy? I can't quite tell because I have not seen the department's policy. However, policy typically allows for discretion. In this case, his superiors liked the video. They came later and asked him to remove it. If the department policy prohibits speech that supports the constitution while allowing other speech, then I'd argue that the policy is crap. I understand that most departments have social media policies, but the existence of policies that prove that the policies are just or correct.

I think a lot of the problem lies in "supports the constitution" - that's not a cut and dry thing, despite what you hear.

The problem is, the constitution isn't very specific, but specifically dictates a method for dealing with issues that arise for that lack of specificity.

A lot of these cries are focused on one portion of the constitution (e.g. the 1st adm.), and conveniently ignore vast portions of the rest. That's not to say that the 1st adm isn't highly important - it is, but there are defined methods for dealing with infringements on it.

So for his cheerleaders, why do it on duty and in uniform? Is his opinion somehow not valid if he does it in street clothes and on his own time? Or can you only patriot while on the clock?

Argument of authority. The same reason you'd attach "War Hero" or "Army Ranger" to the title of the video.

You get more Likes that way, you stand out from the crowd.


But, yeah, you know it's promoting the message.

 

[abnk]

He could have just as easily done the video off duty and out of uniform and avoided every bit of that as a question. Nobody, including his department, is suggesting he can't have or broadcast an opinion.

So for his cheerleaders, why do it on duty and in uniform? Is his opinion somehow not valid if he does it in street clothes and on his own time? Or can you only patriot while on the clock?

If being in uniform and on the clock are the deciding criteria, why were the singing officers in uniform and on the clock? Why were there officers playing soccer with kids in uniform and on the clock? Why are there officers buying shoes for bums in uniform and on the clock? They could all just as easily have done these things out of uniform and off the clock, right?

Note that I don't disagree with the examples I mentioned above. Just pointing out the inconsistency in your stated position.

 

[abnk]

I think a lot of the problem lies in "supports the constitution" - that's not a cut and dry thing, despite what you hear.

The problem is, the constitution isn't very specific, but specifically dictates a method for dealing with issues that arise for that lack of specificity.

A lot of these cries are focused on one portion of the constitution (e.g. the 1st adm.), and conveniently ignore vast portions of the rest. That's not to say that the 1st adm isn't highly important - it is, but there are defined methods for dealing with infringements on it.

I don't necessarily disagree with what you state, and the sake of the argument assume that we agree 100%. It seems that most, if not all, officers here agree with the content of his message and either implied or admitted that they are not enforcing these directives. Therefore, the only difference that remains is the fact that he spoke publicly against the same thing that they are not enforcing. Perhaps it is this courage that bothers them.

 

[JettaKnight]

If being in uniform and on the clock are the deciding criteria, why were the singing officers in uniform and on the clock? Why were there officers playing soccer with kids in uniform and on the clock? Why are there officers buying shoes for bums in uniform and on the clock? They could all just as easily have done these things out of uniform and off the clock, right?

Note that I don't disagree with the examples I mentioned above. Just pointing out the inconsistency in your stated position.

If they were on the clock, then I'd argue that it's a public relations activity; which is a valid, and sanctioned, expenditure.

 

[ljk]

If they were on the clock, then I'd argue that it's a public relations activity; which is a valid, and sanctioned, expenditure.

"On the clock" doesn't mean you are a robot, even robots have down times.

I wonder how much "work" does his chief actually do while "On the Clock".

 

[ljk]

 

[actaeon277]

How does one survive both used car salesman jokes AND lawyer jokes?

 

[HoughMade]

 

[Sigblitz]

2) Was it controversial?

The chief said he can't be an officer if he defies the governor.

There is officer discretion, but he wanted to die on a hill. He also wants to pay for two houses and sail around the world without a job.

Passionate, but not the brightest bulb.

 

[abnk]

The chief said he can't be an officer if he defies the fuehrer.

There is officer discretion, but he wanted to die on a hill. He also wants to pay for two houses and sail around the world without a job.

Passionate, but not the brightest bulb.

Made a modification to your post to highlight the problem with the chief's position. Mind that I am not calling the WA governor Hitler, but pointing out that the office does not the grant the elected official moral or ethical superiority.

 

[Sigblitz]

Made a modification to your post to highlight the problem with the chief's position. Mind that I am not calling the WA governor Hitler, but pointing out that the office does not the grant the elected official moral or ethical superiority.

Or maybe the state has laws for public safety.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

If being in uniform and on the clock are the deciding criteria, why were the singing officers in uniform and on the clock?

They weren't on the clock. At least for us.

They were in uniform because they asked for, and received, permission to do so.

Why were there officers playing soccer with kids in uniform and on the clock? Why are there officers buying shoes for bums in uniform and on the clock?

I don't know what you're talking about there with the soccer. The IMPD officer who gave the guy boots, I don't know if he was on the clock or not. But he didn't film himself doing it, a bystander did. Some athlete who I don't recall, and that athlete posted it. I don't know that the officer ever came forward to be identified. If you're trying to say people filming me doing my job is the same as me showboating on social media, that's not tracking for me. I don't get to control what other people film and post, and my motivation wasn't to be filmed and posted.

 

[abnk]

Or maybe the state has laws for public safety.

Of course, and for good reason. That is not what he said though.

 

[abnk]

If they were on the clock, then I'd argue that it's a public relations activity; which is a valid, and sanctioned, expenditure.

That makes sense. Judging by the overall response, Anderson's public relations activity turned out to be pretty popular too. The public overwhelmingly loved it. Even his boss liked it. By contrast, the department's decision to terminate him turned out to be very unpopular.

 

[abnk]

They weren't on the clock. At least for us.

They were in uniform because they asked for, and received, permission to do so.



I don't know what you're talking about there with the soccer. The IMPD officer who gave the guy boots, I don't know if he was on the clock or not. But he didn't film himself doing it, a bystander did. Some athlete who I don't recall, and that athlete posted it. I don't know that the officer ever came forward to be identified. If you're trying to say people filming me doing my job is the same as me showboating on social media, that's not tracking for me. I don't get to control what other people film and post, and my motivation wasn't to be filmed and posted.

I don't have an index of LEO videos; I mentioned some that I seemed to recall. The guy singing Shake it off is one example. He appeared to be on duty, but I don't know that for a fact. Similarly, Anderson appeared to be on duty, but I don't know that for a fact. He could have been on a break or at the beginning of a shift.

Regardless, my intent was to reply to your specific point that he could have made a video just not in uniform and not on the clock. If we split those two criteria:

If he cannot do anything on the clock that is not active law enforcement within his beat, then sure discipline him for it. Of course, you'd also have to hold that standard for everyone, including someone checking his personal email or posting on INGO. Obviously, few employer would enforce "the clock" to such a rigid standard.

If the problem was him appearing in a video in uniform, as we covered, there are plenty of other videos of officers in uniform who suffered no punishment.

This leaves to what I mentioned earlier: the content of his message. If someone can sign a stupid song in uniform, Anderson certainly can affirm his oath and speak in favor of the constitution. As I also mentioned earlier, it seems that most, if not all, officers here agree with the content of his message and either implied or admitted that they are not enforcing these directives. Therefore, the only difference that remains is the fact that he spoke publicly against the same thing that they are not enforcing.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

This leaves to what I mentioned earlier: the content of his message. If someone can sign a stupid song in uniform, Anderson certainly can affirm his oath and speak in favor of the constitution. As I also mentioned earlier, it seems that most, if not all, officers here agree with the content of his message and either implied or admitted that they are not enforcing these directives. Therefore, the only difference that remains is the fact that he spoke publicly against the same thing that they are not enforcing.

No. You're cherry picking pieces of the argument while eliminating the totality of the circumstances and I'm not really interesting in rehashing it all again. Not a single officer here has said the issue is with him speaking out publicly. The opposite, actually. I'm not interesting in rehashing it for you again, but you're welcome to re-read the posts I've already made.

 

[abnk]

No. You're cherry picking pieces of the argument while eliminating the totality of the circumstances and I'm not really interesting in rehashing it all again. Not a single officer here has said the issue is with him speaking out publicly. The opposite, actually. I'm not interesting in rehashing it for you again, but you're welcome to re-read the posts I've already made.

Based on the totality of the circumstances, I didn't understand the disdain for the guy; therefore, I broke it down into components to isolate the problem.

 

[KLB]

Maybe it is because he did something he knew he wasn't supposed to do in order to get attention for himself, then portrayed himself as a victim when he received punishment for the act in question.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Based on the totality of the circumstances, I didn't understand the disdain for the guy; therefore, I broke it down into components to isolate the problem.

That's literally the opposite of totality of the circumstances and your conclusion was contraindicated by some of the components you chose to ignore.

You remind me of the guy acting as his own attorney in a deposition who kept asking me what one thing lead me to arrest him. "The contents of this case file". Same thing.

Maybe it is because he did something he knew he wasn't supposed to do in order to get attention for himself, then portrayed himself as a victim when he received punishment for the act in question.

Maybe it depends on what your definition of "is" is...