By now, most of you are probably familiar with the name, Greg Anderson. This, soon to be former officer, was made famous when he posted a video encouraging officers to NOT uphold illegal orders to stay at home. Though the video was met with much praise, including from his department, that has quickly changed.
Anderson, three days after making the viral video, the department he worked for, began demanding the video to be removed. Using various claims, including equipment being identifiable and policy, the intimidation failed. Anderson, who held his ground, was ultimately suspended pending termination due to policy violation.
War on Corruption reached out multiple times to the department, asking what policy was violated. Though the department has read our messages, they blatently refused to reply. With that, we found alternative methods of obtaining their social media policies.
It didn’t take long for us to understand why they refused to respond. Starting at policy 5: 125-POL 2, we found it to be extremely vague. A portion of the policy reads as follows:
Engaging in prohibited speech outlined in this policy may provide grounds for discipline and may be used to undermine or impeach an officer’s testimony in legal proceedings.
The issue here is it leaves the department open to select what language is inapropriate speech. In fact, the closest we get is:
– Make, share, or comment in support of any posting that includes harassment, threats of violence, or similar conduct
– Make, share, or comment in support of any posting that ridicules, maligns, disparages, expresses bias, or disrespect toward any race, religion, sex, gender, sexual orientation, nationality, or any other protected class of individuals
– Make, share, or comment in support of any posting that suggests that Department personnel are engaged in behavior reasonably considered to be unlawful or reckless toward public safety
Even the above, in many aspects is vague, leaving it open for the department to utilize the policy as they see fit. Even so, the claims the department made for wanting the video removed seem invalid.
Through the department’s silence to clarify the policy violation, we are under the presumption that they are fully aware that no policy had been violated. In fact, you can read their social media policy Through the department’s silence to clarify the policy violation, we are under the presumption that they are fully aware that no policy had been violated. In fact, you can read their social media policy here.
Should the department decide to respond, we will place it within this article. Until then, it is to our opinion that what is being done is nothing short of an unethical removal of one of the few good officers this country has.
