I don’t fully agree. I think officers have a commitment that extends to off-duty, especially if there is a patrol vehicle parked on the property.
Regardless of what that commitment is, it very likely was explained during the course of her employment.
I sympathize with the position, really. I’d fly one if my subdivision allowed it. But there are rules and requirements that we all acquiesce by one way or another to continually.
Coming up, I used to hear the phrase “moral turpitude” a lot. Especially when it pertained to high-profile people like movie stars, spokespersons, etc. The catch-all firing language from lawyers.
“I sympathize with the position, really. I’d fly one if my subdivision allowed it. But there are rules and requirements that we all acquiesce by one way or another to continually.”
That may be the case today, but it never should have been allowed to happen. The problem is that we have stood by while our fundamental constitutional rights have been abrogated for all sorts of misguided and illegitimate reasons. As we’ve seen recently, the USSC has been given the authority by default to undermine and overturn our rights to such a degree that we now live in a tyrannical dictatorship with no guarantees of the courts securing our liberty as a free people. That police officer had every right to fly that flag on her personal property, regardless of whether she parked a patrol car near it, and should not have had her employment terminated for doing so. She has a strong case against the police department and city government for denying her rights, should she choose to pursue it. I hope she does.
I think officers have a commitment that extends to off-duty,....You THINK all you want except they work under a contract. If there is no citable, arrestable or punishable offense committed, Government can NOT make bullshit up to get rid of you, no matter HOW black the accuser is. How about working in a store and eying a beautiful woman who comes by where you are working? No crime, no basis for government retribution.