“This isn’t a 1A issue. Contract Law supersedes his right to speech when he is representing while in uniform and clearly in a department vehicle.”
Nope. Look at what he said. That he has seen some officers in other place violating the law. True.
That he has been in combat zones where war breaks down the police/citizen relationship. True.
That officers have a duty to not obey an illegal order. Also true, proven at Nuremberg.
He said that police operate with the consent of a far larger armed entity, the people. And that if they lose that consent it would not go well for the police. True again.
He said nothing to encourage law breaking or violence. He begged for fidelity to the constitution and its laws.
He showed deep respect for the concept of policing.
You are forgetting, his jury won’t be made of cops and police supervisors. It will be made of those he honored with his speech.
“You are forgetting, his jury won’t be made of cops and police supervisors. It will be made of those he honored with his speech.”
Of all the truth you spoke, that’s probably the most important part.
They got him for being in uniform and doing the video in a squad car: and the his why the police union had nothing to stand on. Contract Law. The employer decides the what and when is appropriate. This is the same issue with the NFL and the kneelers and their inability to get their heads around Contract Law.
He would lose in court.