Norfolk Police Officer Fired For Making Anonymous Donation To Kyle Rittenhouse

Norfolk Police Department

Sgt. William Kelly, the second highest-ranking official in the Norfolk Police Department’s internal affairs division, has been fired for making an anonymous donation to the defense fund for Kyle Rittenhouse. The donation (revealed after a security breach of the Christian crowdfunding site GiveSendGo was accompanied by a note saying that Rittenhouse did “nothing wrong.” Despite the obvious attack on free speech and associational rights, there has been little concern raised in the media or by legal experts.  Two days ago, a reporter in Utah went to the home of a paramedic to confront him on why he made a $10 donation of Rittenhouse, who is accused of killing two people during violent protests last summer in Wisconsin.

Kelly is an 18-year veteran of the department. He made an anonymous donation and was not publicly speaking as an officer.  He included a note “God bless. Thank you for your courage. Keep your head up. You’ve done nothing wrong.”

Norfolk City Manager Chip Filer said in a statement that Police Chief Larry Boon agreed the officer violated city and departmental policies against “egregious comments.”

Section 5.1 of the Norfolk Police Manual prohibits any conduct or comments, including off-duty, that would produce a “loss of respect” for the department or bring it into “disrespect.” It is the type of ambiguous standard that is anathema to free speech and associational rights.

Not only was Kelly fired, but Filer and Boon carried out the action in just 72 hours — leaving little time for a defense or full investigation.

If this was an anonymous contribution, it is hard to see how it violates any rule on public commentary. Reports indicate that Kelly was the victim of a security breach. It is also notable that Rittenhouse has not been found guilty and is entitled to a presumption of innocence.  Rittenhouse insists that he was acting in self-defense after he was attacked.  That is obviously a highly contested defense that has divided many. It is ultimately a matter for the court and the jury to decide.

Police officers (and paramedics) should be able to make donations to legal funds without being harassed by the media or fired by their departments. The fact that Kelly added a message anonymously to a legal defense fund does not implicate his department or fellow officers.  If the account of the breach is true, the comment was not intended to be made public. It would amount to the firing of an officer over a communication intended to be non-public — the same status as a private communication. The question is whether the department would fire an officer who made such a remark privately in an email to  friends that was later hacked.

In my view, the case raises very serious concerns over free speech and associational rights. The Utah case is particularly chilling as the media attempts to embarrass or harass public employees who donate to controversial causes or legal defense funds.

At a minimum, the department should have allowed for a reasonable period of investigation and consideration of these issues before terminating Kelly. Putting aside his 18 years of public service, Kelly remains a citizen with basic rights accorded to him under the First Amendment.

167 thoughts on “Norfolk Police Officer Fired For Making Anonymous Donation To Kyle Rittenhouse”

  1. I’m not sure what the article means by “security breach.” If the donation website was hacked, that’s a federal crime. Thus the fired cop is not only being punished because he is the victim of a crime, but the department is using the proceeds of the crime to punish him. Moreover, the department is furthering the crime by publicizing confidential communications which were illegally obtained. I don’t see any distinction between this, and the department burglarizing the cop’s house, reading his private papers, and then firing him for the contents. The cop’s next crowdfunding endeavor should be to raise a legal war chest to sue the department.

    1. It was also a federal crime for Russia to hack the DNC servers, but Wikileaks published the information anyway, and it would be entirely legal for the government to act on what Wikileaks published. Similarly, if some hackers publish info from the donations, there is nothing illegal about the government acting on it on what someone else publishes.

      Let him sue. He’ll learn that the hacking is illegal, but acting on information someone else makes public (even if obtained illegally by that person) is not illegal.

      1. cool story bro
        what other fantastical works of fiction do you have in store for us today

      2. “It was also a federal crime for Russia to hack the DNC servers, but Wikileaks published the information anyway…” — Anon @ 2:!5

        What is your proof that ‘Russia hacked the DNC servers’? There are some very reputable people who have said that the servers weren’t hacked — that there was, in fact, a leak…

        That said, we needed Wikileaks then, and we need Wikileaks now. (And FWIW: I don’t like Donald Trump and I didn’t vote for him.)

        What follows is a link to an interesting piece by Glenn Greenwald, if you haven’t read it. Americans need to be very, very careful what they believe…

        “Journalists, Learning They Spread a CIA Fraud About Russia, Instantly Embrace a New One”

        The most significant Trump-era alliance is between corporate outlets and security state agencies, whose evidence-free claims they unquestioningly disseminate.

        Glenn Greenwald

        Apr 16

        https://greenwald.substack.com/p/journalists-learning-they-spread

        “Let’s express this as clearly as it can be expressed. Any journalist who treats unverified stories from the CIA or other government agencies as true, without needing any evidence or applying any skepticism, is worthless. Actually, they are worse than worthless: they are toxic influences who deserve pure contempt. Every journalist knows that governments lie constantly and that it is a betrayal of their profession to serve as mindless mouthpieces for these security agencies: that is why they will vehemently deny they do this if you confront them with this accusation. They know it is a shameful thing to do.

        “But just look at what they are doing: exactly this. These are not journalists. They are obsequious spokespeople for the CIA and other official authorities. Even when they learn that they deceived millions of people by uncritically repeating a story that the CIA told them was true, they will — on the very same day that they learn they did this — do exactly the same thing, this time with a one-paragraph Treasury Department Press Release. These are agents of disinformation: state media. And when they speak, you should listen to them with the knowledge of what they really are, and treat them”

        — Glenn Greenwald

          1. The allegations of Russian hacking aren’t proof of Russian hacking. What proof is there that those allegations you cited are true? None.

            Seymour Hersh and common sense say the DNC emails came form Seth Rich.

            1. “Seymour Hersh and common sense say the DNC emails came form Seth Rich.”

              Let me get this straight: you want proof (not just evidence) that Russia hacked the DNC servers but you present no proof that the DNC emails came form Seth Rich. Double standards much?

          2. That Senate committee report says the following:

            Beginning in March 2016, officers of the Russian Main Intelligence Directorate, the GRU, successfully hacked computer networks belonging to the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC), and the email accounts of Clinton Campaign officials and employees, including Campaign Chairmap.John Podesta. Over the following months, these hackers carefully established persistent access in confidential areas of the victims’ systems and stole massive amounts of politically sensitive data and personal communications. The data was subsequently leaked by GRU personas and WikiLeaks at strategic moments during the 2016 election, as part of a coordinated hack–and-leak operation intended to damage the Clinton Campaign, help the Trump Campaign (the · “Campaign”), and undermine the U.S. democratic process.

            The Report does not refer to any evidence to support these assertions.

            1. “The Report does not refer to any evidence to support these assertions.”

              That’s false. Some of the evidence is presented in subsequent discussion, and some of the evidence came earlier in the discussion. Be certain to read the footnotes.

              We also cannot read some of the report, because it’s classified and redacted, so you can only make informed claims about what the report publicly refers to, not what it refers to in toto.

      3. Enough lying about Russia hacking the DNC servers. There is not one iota of public physical evidence that such occurred. All we have is statements from the IS that such is the case. If needs be I’ll post some of the biggest IS lies resulting in immense human suffering starting with the Bay of Pigs.

        Retired members of the IS also lied Re. Biden pre-election: they said the IS confirmed that Hunter’s laptop story is a Russian lie.

        It’s common for DNC trolls here to point out that Hunter never ran for Office. The fact that the IS lied to protect Hunter and Joe proves how damaging and relevant is Hunter’s laptop.

    2. It occurs to me that the PD’s actions in firing the officer has caused the department to lose a *lot* of respect.

  2. The government has access to virtually everything we do and illegally even pursues our communications without warrants.

    The Oligarchy has spoken. We will review everything you do and say. Then we will penalize you for anything but Newspeak.

    “‘Don’t you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought? In the end we shall make thoughtcrime literally impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it.’”

    “All beliefs, habits, tastes, emotions, mental attitudes that characterize our time are really designed to sustain the mystique of the Party and prevent the true nature of present-day society from being perceived.”

    ‘We do not destroy the heretic because he resists us. . . . We convert him, we capture his inner mind, we reshape him.’”

    Those that support the lefts actions have to deal with the entirety of 1984 and explain how what is being done today isn’t precisely what was warned of by George Orwell.

    1. SM,
      How many people dismiss Orwell’s 1984 simply because it’s deemed 237 pages of “fiction?” Below is the Executive Summary of 254 pages of a real world “intelligence assessment” of the Left’s strategy and tactics. This shouldn’t be dismissed.

      The political rhetoric driving American politics runs along well-trodden paths sustaining a political framework from a by-gone era incapable of coming to terms with the political movements threatening our constitutional system today.

      – Constrained by this archaic rhetoric, mainstream and conservative players are outmaneuvered in an information battle-space they hardly perceive; responding to current threats in under-inclusive manners.

      – The “otherism” strategy developed by Marxists to destroy America focuses on the systematic destruction of identity leading to the systematic disenfranchisement of Americans from America. It manipulates the issues of the “other”, yet it has nothing to do with the “other”. Rather, it forces a classic dialectical negation along Hegelian lines. This activity presents a clear and present danger that will succeed if not countered. As such, this analysis does not suggest that this is a way to understand the left, it argues that it is the only way to understand it; recognizing that it is 1) Marxist, and 2) dialectically driven.

      – The dominant cultural narratives of our time can best be summarized by the saying; “Political correctness is the enforcement mechanism of the multicultural narrative that implements Neo-Marxist objectives.” It is through these narratives that the left drives policy.

      Narratives that conservative leaders neither control nor understand drive national policy. When Republican leaders shrink from Constitutional principles for fear of being accused of racism, sexism, homophobia, etc., they are subordinating those principles to neo-Marxist narratives designed for that purpose. Though these narratives may have been initially imposed, Republicans will adopt them over time through usage. Subjective awareness of the role one plays in such a process is neither necessary nor required.

      o By submitting to these narratives, establishment Republicans first become pliant, and then obedient to the Left, accommodating it through “words that work” that create the illusion of opposition while actually signaling surrender in the information battle space. In that role, regardless of the mandates that got them elected, establishment Republicans will defend the issues that got them elected in deliberately under-inclusive manners that conditions those issues for dialectical negation while demoralizing their base. What Republicans demoralize, the Left then disenfranchises. In this role, establishment Republicans become the defeat mechanism of the Left.

      A strategic understanding of the Left recognizes that it is dialectically driven. As such, the Left is a teleologically informed movement that executes through history and thought, along an arc, with a trajectory. It is Hegelian. It defines everything that “is” as fuel for “becoming” in a dialectical process that compels it to negate. — “Change” “Perpetual Revolution” — Analysis of the Left that does not account for the dialectic will fail. The Left’s Strategy and Tactics to Tranform America. Pg. 7-8
      https://unconstrainedanalytics.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/Unconstrained-Analytics-Left-Strategy-Tactics-231120.pdf

      1. Olly, we have two moments on the left that both wish to destroy the nation as it exists. 1) the leftists described below 2)The Islamists that are aligned with the left despite their hate for leftist ideology. That is seen in the Muslim Brotherhood papers that want to destroy the US from within.

        1. SM,
          Conservatives have a fundamental weakness when dealing with the Left that is not much different from what police have to deal with relative to criminals. We are in a constant state of defense of something and they are always on offense. What we’re defending forces upon us rules of engagement. What they are attacking with exploits those rules. If conservatives violate those rules, they risk losing the legitimacy of what they are defending. The Left, at worst, notches another victory toward the decay of our system. Justice Robert H. Jackson famously stated:

          This Court has gone far toward accepting the doctrine that civil liberty means the removal of all restraints from these crowds and that all local attempts to maintain order are impairments of the liberty of the citizen. The choice is not between order and liberty. It is between liberty with order and anarchy without either. There is danger that, if the Court does not temper its doctrinaire logic with a little practical wisdom, it will convert the constitutional Bill of Rights into a suicide pact.

          If I understand his dissent correctly when analyzing our current situation, we are committing national suicide by allowing Leftists to hang us with our own Bill of Rights rope.

          1. Olly, on the whole active conservatives are smarter than the active leftist. Many conservatives wish to appear erudite and like to write in terms that are not understood by the average American. They are also afraid to get their hands dirty, to attack and to use Alinsky’s principles against the left. One cannot win a war unless one is willing to get their hands dirty and deal with people that are hard working but lack formal education. Trump did exactly that and he was criticized by conservatives on this blog and elsewhere. How many times did we hear from our own that Trump is too crude, he Tweets too much, he was too abrasive?

            Conservatives are afraid to defend Trump when Trump gets a bit excessive. That lack of unity cost Trump dearly and has potentially cost the nation its freedom.

            Now I will go back to insulting Anonymous the Stupid. That is a legitimate way to demonstrate Alinsky type warfare against the enemy. Some of my conservative friends might look down at that type of attitude but in the larger sense it actually works.

            1. “Some of my conservative friends might look down at that type of attitude but in the larger sense it actually works.”

              Only in that little mind of yours, S. Meyer.

            2. “Now I will go back to insulting Anonymous the Stupid. That is a legitimate way to demonstrate Alinsky type warfare against the enemy. ” -S. Meyer

              This guy — S. Meyer — really is a comic-book character — and certainly not the superhero type. Think Elmer Fudd.

            3. on the whole active conservatives are smarter than the active leftist.

              SM,
              That’s like saying U.S. forces in Vietnam, or Iraq or Afghanistan were superior to the enemy. On the whole, conservatives have no idea what they’re up against with the Left. Conversely, the Left absolutely knows their enemy. They are strategic, organized and fighting according to their rules. Conservatives are neither strategic nor organized, and they don’t realize they are defending within a narrative wargamed by the Left. Trump is a natural to fight this fight. DeSantis as well. The best tell on figuring out who is, is look at who the Left is targeting.

              1. “That’s like saying U.S. forces in Vietnam, or Iraq or Afghanistan were superior to the enemy.”

                They were. The powers to be at the time didn’t follow the golden rule. One doesn’t go to war unless they intend to win and even then war should be the last thing considered.

                1. They were.

                  So were the Soviets in Afghanistan. I believe Sun Tzu had it right:

                  If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.

                2. SM,
                  To be clear, this war for the survival of our constitutional republic isn’t going to be won because our “warriors” are principled and more intelligent. It’s being lost because our warriors are in an unconventional war that they are ill-equipped to fight. Trump was equipped, but while he recruited millions to this cause, he lacked leadership down ticket to put those millions into meaningful action.

                  1. “Trump was equipped, but while he recruited millions to this cause, he lacked leadership down ticket to put those millions into meaningful action.”

                    Trump didn’t lack leadership, he lacked leadership that were willing to get their hands dirty. Had he the support of the Republicans from the start all the hoax’s would have gone away but professional politicians are professional politicians and do what they think is in their best interest to get reelected and not serve the country,

                    The Republicans, except for a few, were afraid to get their hands dirty. That is in part because the voting public signed onto the stupidity that Trump had “morality” problems that had nothing to do with governing and were more honest than the morality problems seen in the Clintons. The voting public decided to sign in on the constant ranting of the MSM that Trump tweeted too much, was coarse etc, all the features that made Trump effective (though at times he went too far. Who doesn’t?) That scared Republicans.

                    Of course Republican leadership didn’t like Trump from the outset. He was an outsider who might take away their perks, upset their comfortable lives etc., so they were against him.

                    Here we are on this blog and we presumably have a brainless Marxist known as Anonymous the Stupid who doesn’t even know what a Marxist is and many treat his ideas as ideas when all he is doing is following a playbook. He is an idiot and should be treated as such. Too many are afraid to seem less than scholarly and call him what he is, Anonymous the Stupid. They are worried about what others will think.

                    Fortunately, or unfortunately, I have learned from history not to care what others think. Protect what is rightfully yours, be good to others and forget about worrying that some will think you don’t have the education you have. But do not yield to those who have no understanding of the rights of man.

                    1. Trump didn’t lack leadership, he lacked leadership that were willing to get their hands dirty.

                      That’s the lack of leadership down ticket I was referring to. It’s no different than having subordinates undermining your leadership.

                      Too many are afraid to seem less than scholarly and call him what he is, Anonymous the Stupid. They are worried about what others will think.

                      I’m not sure what ideas you believe he has. He doesn’t even qualify as a useful idiot. There’s no fear or worry to call him out. He’s not a threat, he’s a waste of time. But that’s just my opinion.

                    2. “That’s the lack of leadership down ticket”

                      Olly, actually, they represented leadership but not the desirable type.

                      ” He doesn’t even qualify as a useful idiot. There’s no fear or worry to call him out. He’s not a threat,”

                      Put a bunch of them together and you have ANTIFA and BLM rioting with the support of the idiots that surround us.

                      When there is no worry we can say no worry and that is what has happened since the 60’s getting us here today. When the person is surrounded by like people you are outnumbered so the response is what can I do except get myself killed. Isn’t that what we have seen happening over the past 60 years?

                      There has to be an uncomfortable response when the threat is small to demonstrate that others shouldn’t just go along with what they know isn’t right.

                    3. Olly, actually, they represented leadership but not the desirable type.

                      Huh? Thanks for the distinction without a difference.

                      There has to be an uncomfortable response when the threat is small to demonstrate that others shouldn’t just go along with what they know isn’t right.

                      He’s a gnat. A swarm of him doesn’t rise to the level of one Marxist useful idiot. But whatever. You do you.

                    4. “distinction without a difference.”

                      Olly, our leadership was moving in the wrong direction and that is because the public didn’t speak out. We all coasted along fat and happy. The difference is big. That is why there is a term Rino for many Republican leaders. The Rino and our apathy has led us to where we are today.

                      ATS is a gnat, and Stupid as well. But he has been told if you tell a story enough times it will suddenly become true. He has to be shown for the fool he is not because of him, but because of the others that watch and yourself. There are many ways to act. What I am seeing is apathy combined with words. That doesn’t suffice.

                    5. Olly let me add,

                      When I was younger an idiot would make a nasty remark about the BLACK KID in the class. People would look at the guy saying the remark came from an idiot who was not a threat. That meant others gravitated to his position rather than the proper one.

                      There has to be an uncomfortable response when the threat is small to demonstrate that others shouldn’t just go along with what they know isn’t right.

                    6. People would look at the guy saying the remark came from an idiot who was not a threat. That meant others gravitated to his position rather than the proper one.

                      Huh? Because people viewed the guy as an idiot, that was no threat, meant meant they also wanted to be considered an idiot? Alrighty then.

                    7. “Huh? Because people viewed the guy as an idiot, that was no threat, meant meant they also wanted to be considered an idiot? Alrighty then.“

                      I guess we should worry about appearance. How has that worked out? Is Trump President? Is the country moving in the right direction or towards a fascist oligarchy? Is it more important to keep your hands clean?

                      Anonymous the Stupid is an idiot and knows less than your big toe. But the question is not knowledge or appearance. The question is the direction of the nation and who is President. You are losing. Did you ever ask yourself why?

                    8. SM,
                      Every conservative on this blog, including yourself, has spent an enormous amount of time defending the system our founding generation gave us. What I failed to understand is what I posted yesterday from Sun Tzu: If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle. I’ve spent years learning our system, knowing myself, but until very recently, I didn’t know my enemy. At least from a deeply philosophical perspective. That naivete ended for me after watching the Yuri Bezmenov interview. Then I found the book from Unconstrained Analytics titled The Left’s Strategy and Tactics To Transform America. I’ve begun posting parts of it on this blog, primarily because it is the best source I’ve found to understand my enemy. Here’s an excerpt from the conclusion:

                      Political Warfare recognizes the role narratives play in overwhelming a rule of law society. Mass line movements and counter-state activities utilize narratives at the cultural level. The final objective is to power down into the political space. There, fidelity to the narrative will result in non-enforcement of the law. Over time, this non-enforcement will become institutionalized.

                      By imposing narratives on the opposition, the Left gains influence first and control later. Thus, the abuse of language results in a controlled opposition that then leads to an abuse of power. Political warfare strategies are intensely dialectical, seeking the isolation of American values that are then negated through a relentless process of dialectical negation—Aufheben der Kultur.

                      In sum, mainstream Americans and conservatives are incapable of mounting a strategic response. The Left has successfully positioned America to play the role it scripted for it. As such, this analysis recommends that a group be immediately assembled and resourced to fully develop the Left’s scheme of operation that executes strategic, operational, and tactical level responses. In this context, countering the Left must include responses directed at the dialectical engines, the inherent statism, the scientism, and the information dominance sustained by narratives. All of the above should be executed through the same political warfare lines of effort as counter mass line efforts.

                      We face an existential threat. As President Obama made clear, the Left is within 10 to 20 years of realizing the fruits of its long march through America. As a final recommendation: take the red pill now. The question is not whether it will be taken, but rather at what level of pain.

                      “We’ve got to do a better job of getting across that America is freedom—freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of enterprise. And freedom is special and rare. It’s fragile; it needs protection.”—Ronald Reagan farewell speech January 11, 1989. Pg 162
                      https://unconstrainedanalytics.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/Unconstrained-Analytics-Left-Strategy-Tactics-231120.pdf

                      Have you read any of this book?

                    9. “Every conservative on this blog, including yourself, has spent an enormous amount of time defending the system our founding generation gave us. “

                      …And we should, Olly, but based on what we are seeing that doesn’t seem to be enough. Look at what the dumb Gerbil does. He doesn’t have your intelligence so he keeps things simple with simple talking points and lies.

                      I would venture to say that at least a third of the nation looks for that rather than the more sophisticated approach. Those that are looking for more sophistication excluding those that are wedded to their ideology are small. The minds married to their ideology are hard to change unless they are bitten in the butt. That leaves you with the 1/3 plus.

                    10. “I didn’t know my enemy. At least from a deeply philosophical perspective. “

                      Olly, that in part is due to the appropriate desire to live in peace and enjoy the fruits of one’s labor. But that comes along with a serious risk that now has been revealed. I will tell you something personal that demonstrates the direction we are heading. My wife’s first jail sentence was at the age of 2. Likely you won’t believe that or a lot of other things she could tell you but it is true.

                      You asked if I have read Yuri Bezmenov. The answer is yes, years ago and more recently. Other than documenting a lot of things we should have known existed, he didn’t reveal anything unknown barring specific details.

                    11. “In sum, mainstream Americans and conservatives are incapable of mounting a strategic response.”

                      They dropped the ball and they are still dropping the ball long after Yuri released the information. A great part of such knowledge was clear in the ’60s though some Conservatives (actually a mixture of a lot of different ideologies) provided the warning signals. Even Democrats did. Today we are facing a media and academia that lies without paying any price whatsoever. We can continue doing the same or we can start getting our hands dirty.

                      If you remember quite a while back when I entered the blog as Allan (the name change had to do with a failure where my computer took all that information along with certain signals that WordPress probably sends and screwed up my inbox. The new name was intended to be temporary). I started writing with higher-level, more informative responses. You (I think it was you) even flattered me. Recognizing the blog has been in existence for years and seeing the stupidity of people like ATS unknowingly changing the focus of intelligent argument I decided to modify my responses.

                    12. When I asked ATS questions on nazism, socialism, and fascism he flubbed the answer because he is dumb. He even praised fascism saying it was good for the little people. He then had a poor understanding of capitalism.

                      His words mimic a lot of the words of the supposed Marxists (most of whom don’t know what Marxism is). That is how confused people are today.

                      Take note, none of them will discuss principles for if they discussed principles their arguments would fall or conflict with one another.

                      I am not criticizing you. I am frequently using the lowest form to provoke some sort of spirit to encourage discussion geared towards those who may not be as lucky as us. With that, I am looking to see if some can get a better understanding of what is happening.

                      When things get this bad a “fire” needs to be started. So far it seems there is a lot of wet tinder with too few pieces willing to be lit up.

                    13. ATS is dumb so he follows talking points that follow Alinsky rules:

                      “RULE 2: “Never go outside the expertise of your people.”

                      What expertise has ATS demonstrated? NONE

                      What is Alinsky’s answer? Ridicule the Gerbil.

                      RULE 5: “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.”

                      How many people read substantive books? Few. How many read cartoons and fiction that diminishes mental capacity rather than expanding it? A lot.

                      RULE 6: “A good tactic is one your people enjoy.”

                      They love bashing Trump orange hair and more ridicule with an aside of lying. The bashing is fun so people accept the lies.

                      Just look at all the lies they state and at the same time look at rule 10

                      RULE 10: “If you push a negative hard enough, it will push through and become a positive.”
                      1
                      They do that based on rule 12

                      RULE 12: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.”

                      The people we are dealing with on the blog are ignorant. A lot of people that do not comment and might occasionally read a comment are ignorant as well. Hardworking people frequently do not have enough time to educate themselves appropriately so I prefer to praise them rather than blame them.

                    14. S. Meyer is running off at the mouth, again, with his ‘gerbil’ and ‘Anonymous the Stupid’ garbage.

                      This could be his new gravatar:

                    15. Anonymous the Stupid, I see your brain power is limited to two cartoons so probably you didn’t understand the latter half of my post. To help you out I will repeat it here.

                      Here we are on this blog and we presumably have a brainless Marxist known as Anonymous the Stupid who doesn’t even know what a Marxist is and many treat his ideas as ideas when all he is doing is following a playbook. He is an idiot and should be treated as such. Too many are afraid to seem less than scholarly and call him what he is, Anonymous the Stupid. They are worried about what others will think.

                      Fortunately, or unfortunately, I have learned from history not to care what others think. Protect what is rightfully yours, be good to others and forget about worrying that some will think you don’t have the education you have. But do not yield to those who have no understanding of the rights of man.

  3. “That is obviously a highly contested defense that has divided many. It is ultimately a matter for the court and the jury to decide.”

    If the George Floyd video proves the Chauvin was guilty or murder (it clearly doesn’t, but mob justice warriors got what they demanded.. or else!) then the videos of Rittenhouse CLEARLY defending himself should have never even lead to charges. The prosecution is a political PERSECUTION. The charging documents in the case PROVE his innocence.

  4. Interesting ethics. A policeman donates to the defense fund of a 17 year old white kid who brought an AR-15 to a Black Lives Matter march, then killed 2 men & seriously wounded a third man. Turley defends the policeman’s free speech rights to anonymously tell Rittenhouse “You’ve done nothing wrong.”

    JT says Rittenhouse’s claim that he killed 2 protestors in self-defense to be “a highly contested defense that has divided many.” Divided many? Rittenhouse wasn’t a supporter of Black Lives Matter so why did he show up at a BLM march armed with an AR-15? He began shooting people when BLM marchers who felt threatened by a teenager carrying an AR-15 tried to take the rifle away.

    Turley is clearly right that it is ultimately a matter for the court and the jury to decide.

        1. Thanks for the correction.

          No thanks for your counterproductive name-calling, which reflects more on you than me.

            1. Not only is he anonymous, but he is Anonymous the Stupid.

              “which reflects more on you than me.”

              I don’t know how many times he has used that phrase and then he wonders why one can pick him out of a crowd.

              No brains.

              1. “No brains.”

                Yep, that’s S. Meyer — a guy with “no brains” — and the one and only “Anonymous the Stupid.” He came up with that moniker because it’s who S. Meyer is.

                “he wonders why one can pick him out of a crowd”

                lol

                It’s certainly not S. Meyer. He can’t tell one anonymous commenter from the next. He pretends and misses.

                1. Anonymous the Stupid, you keep digging your hole deeper. You are desperate because what I say is hitting home and you can do nothing to prove me wrong.

                  You are one Stupid person.

                  Go run and hide so no one knows how frequently you post. You should actually be more concerned with how Stupid you sound.

                    1. I like Jethro. HE is rich whether in real life or on the show. Not a bad place to be. HE also has brains, something ATS lacks.

              1. Anonymous, that is such an intelligent statement. I call the shots and when I say Anonymous the Stupid is Stupid, I have hit the target. Thanks.

    1. Another low info comment from the new king of the genre, so let’s educate him:

      Rittenhouse has every right to carry his firearm for protection and whether he supports that gang of Marxists is irrelevant to that right. See 2nd Amendment. BTW he was defending himself and property of law abiding citizens at the time. See video

      1. The video is incomplete, and the video is not the only relevant evidence. Wait and listen to all of the evidence presented at the trial.

    2. ” AR-15 to a Black Lives Matter”

      BLM was rioting something you should recognize. The video’s of Rittenhouse shooting seems to demonstrate self defense. The courts will have to settle the problem.

      But while you try to hide the wrongs on the left you forget innocent until proven guilty. You forget a police officer has a right to anonymously provide $10 worth of support that was disclosed. Could that illegal disclosure come from the left?

      What is it that you seemingly support the left and Kamala Harris bailing out those that were breaking the law and were violent. I believe at least 1 murder occurred by those receiving the bail money. You don’t see the hypocrisy?

      I think you are too comfortable and safe in your home while other’s homes are being destroyed to put down the leftist BS and say enough to all criminal action.

        1. Here we are on this blog and we presumably have a brainless Marxist known as Anonymous the Stupid who doesn’t even know what a Marxist is and many treat his ideas as ideas when all he is doing is following a playbook. He is an idiot and should be treated as such. Too many are afraid to seem less than scholarly and call him what he is, Anonymous the Stupid. They are worried about what others will think.

          Excerpt from a post to Olly.

    3. Self-defense is never wrong. The Norfolk policeman is right. What is wrong with you?

      And he went to Kenosha to protect a co-worker’s family’s business. How do you imagine there is something wrong with that?

      1. “How do you imagine there is something wrong with that?”

        Because Anonymous the Stupid is Stupid. The left wishes to take away our guns and defund the police so that we have less police and most of the guns will be in the hands of criminals that can take what they want. Should a person stand up to defend his property as did the husband and wife they will be subjected to attacks from the legal system that spends any amount of money to put them in jail while they release criminals. Of course the leftist leaders will be protected by armed guards, walls and a legal system that will not prosecute them for their crimes.

  5. Turley, you didn’t even quote the entirety of his Kelly’s comment — which you might have known if you’d linked to the original source of the story, The Guardian (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/apr/16/us-police-officers-public-officials-crowdfunding-website-data-breach), instead of to a secondary source, WAVY. com

    According to the Guardian, Kelly’s “donation also carried a comment, reading: “God bless. Thank you for your courage. Keep your head up. You’ve done nothing wrong.” The comment continued: “Every rank and file police officer supports you. Don’t be discouraged by actions of the political class of law enforcement leadership.”

    Kelly was not fired for his donation but for the accompanying comment. You can certainly object to that, but at least describe it accurately.

    Do you think saying “Don’t be discouraged by actions of the political class of law enforcement leadership” “would produce a “loss of respect” for the department or bring it into “disrespect””? BTW, be honest about the Deparment’s manual too. It says “cause the Department or other officers to be brought into disrepute.”

    “Rittenhouse has not been found guilty and is entitled to a presumption of innocence.”

    Yep. But it is wholly appropriate to bring him to trial. Just what “actions of the political class of law enforcement leadership” is Kelly criticizing?

    “Rittenhouse insists that he was acting in self-defense after he was attacked.”

    For all we know, if Ma’Khia Bryant hadn’t been killed by LE, she’d be claiming the same.

    “Police officers (and paramedics) should be able to make donations to legal funds without being harassed by the media or fired by their departments.”

    Yep. But not all criticism is harassment. If an officer donates to a Neo-Nazi group, for example, media should be able to criticize him for that.

    “The fact that Kelly added a message anonymously to a legal defense fund does not implicate his department or fellow officers.” You seriously think that “Don’t be discouraged by actions of the political class of law enforcement leadership” doesn’t implicate other officers? Seriously?

    “In my view, the case raises very serious concerns over free speech and associational rights. ”

    Sure. But discuss it HONESTLY. Don’t ignore half of Kelly’s comment in order to make it easier to write your critique.

    1. There’s NOTHING appropriate about bringing him to trial. Evey second of him CLEARLY DEFENDING HIMSELF is on video. He made EVERY ATTEMPT to AVOID THE AGGRESSORS until one pedophile tried taking his gun from him after CHASING HIM DOWN. Pedo and other RIOTERS paid the ultimate price for attacking with someone who wasn’t going down without a fight! This is a political persecution.

    2. “According to the Guardian, Kelly’s “donation also carried a comment, reading: “God bless. Thank you for your courage. Keep your head up. You’ve done nothing wrong.” The comment continued: “Every rank and file police officer supports you. Don’t be discouraged by actions of the political class of law enforcement leadership.”””

      Tell us why you believe this is a reason for him to have been fired.

      1. I didn’t claim “this is a reason for him to have been fired.”

        Tell us why you assume I believe something I didn’t say.

        1. Anonymous the Stupid there is enough reason for one to assume that. Reread what you wrote.

            1. I guess you reread what you said and now realize you are Stupid. Get an education Anonymous the Stupid.

      1. No, it’s not a stretch. I was quoting from the Deparment’s manual when I noted it says “cause the Department or other officers to be brought into disrepute.”

        The Department’s manual quite explicitly doesn’t limit the comments to those that only bring the Department into disrepute.

        “Don’t be discouraged by actions of the political class of law enforcement leadership” brings officers into disrepute.

  6. The Constitutional Rights for Police, Military, Asians, Whites, Conservatives and anyone else who offers dissent horse has left the burning barn a long time ago. To even discuss such things is moot nowadays when the standard mindset of most of the Country is the same as the Black Minnesota woman who was asked her opinion of the Guilty verdict in the Derek Chauvin case.
    She said “There shouldn’t even be a trial. He should be convicted just as is.”
    Those around nodded in agreement.
    .
    It’s 11:59 PM in The Constitutional Republic.
    Do you know where your guns are?

    1. Dawn:

      “It’s 11:59 PM in The Constitutional Republic.
      Do you know where your guns are?”
      **********************************
      Oiled, loaded, practiced and accessible. How’s that?

      1. And hopefully most of them stored in a quickly accessible, warrant proof off site area.
        The FBI still considers Waco their finest hour.

              1. I’m not sure what sex you are attracted to but you do have a significant attraction to Gerbils. Go for it!

                1. Allan, given that you told an Anonymous “You are my Gerbil,” I’d say that you’re the one who feels attracted to gerbils.

                  1. Anonymous the Stupid, you are right. I am attracted to Gerbils and Hamsters. Recently got one for the kids, however, that one is smarter than you.

                    1. To the Gerbil in the maze looking upward through the glass it might seem that way, but you know better being the Gerbil doing the looking.

                      ATS, you are such a fool.

                    2. It took you 2 days to figure out that response? Anonymous the Stupid fits you fine.

                    3. and a total idiot, to boot, judging by the response at 11:25

                      he has a screw loose

                    4. “he has a screw loose”

                      You are right and the loose screw permitted the Fighting Gerbil to escape from one part of his cage to another.

  7. Regardless of what one feels about Kyle Rittenhouse, he has a right to a defense and fair trial. He also has a right to raise a defense fund. Anyone has the right to donate as they see fit. William Kelley donated anonymously. That says he did not want it publicly known. It can be argued he was hiding his identity and that is fine. However, if he is hiding his identity, how does that reflect upon his department if it is neither mentioned nor donated in the name of?

    Kyle Rittenhouse is an unfavored defendant and anyone that shows any support faces backlash. This happens unfortunately because even the worst of us deserve a robust defense. This is backlash and it easier to rid of a potential problem than it is to take on the public.

    I expect this firing to end up in court with William Kelley to be reinstated. Unless there is more than originally reported, I do not see how this stands.

    More importantly, what one side does not understand is that there will be a day coming for them when they will not be favored and then they will wish to have to same free speech protections they are trying to take away now from the other side.

    Be careful for what you wish.

    1. More importantly, what one side does not understand is that there will be a day coming for them when they will not be favored and then they will wish to have to same free speech protections they are trying to take away now from the other side.

      The Left understands the rules all too well. The problem is conservatives don’t understand that the Left has to defend nothing. They risk nothing. This is political warfare and the Left is in attack mode 24/7, while conservatives are in defense mode 24/7. When the Left fails at something, they don’t lose anything. When conservatives fail to stop the Leftist’s, we lose big time. The Left really is functioning as political, domestic terrorists. Like as the IRA said after a failed attempt to assassinate Prime Minister Thatcher: You have to be lucky all the time. We only have to be lucky once. Russiagate is a perfect example. What did the Left lose for that soft coup attempt?

      1. “The Left really is functioning as political, domestic terrorists. “

        What is the right doing, nothing. Take note. most of the conservative leadership is in hiding.

        What are most conservative people doing? Nothing. Many will be fired if they say something or don’t act as if they are in agreement with the leftists.

        1. I had a discussion recently with a colleague about the different roles conservatives and Leftist’s play in our system. He described conservatives as the father in the household. Strict, rules oriented, always holding the line on what the children are permitted to do because he knows what they need to learn to become adults living in our civil society. The mother is the nurturer, more likely to be concerned with the children’s feelings and thus they are enabled to defy the rules of the father. I suggested that both parents are the conservatives, using different techniques to raise their children. Conservatism isn’t sexy, it isn’t exciting. In many ways it feels limiting to personal freedom and liberty. Of course that is true, if you’re what Kant described as stuck in self-incurred tutelage. Actually, it’s the crazy uncle that is the Leftist in the family. He’s undermining the parents at every turn. He’s encouraging them to defy the parents. He knows what the parents will do next and he’s secretly plotting ways to encourage the children to follow their feelings, regardless of how destructive they may be for their future.

          What are most conservative people doing?

          Their doing exactly what the Left expects them to do. We talk about principles, ethics, morality, rule of law, civil society, rights and so on. All reasonable and rational if one has the maturity to understand the dangers we face if we abandon them. Conservatives approach these ideas like lecturing teenagers on getting a good education, the dangers of drugs, alcohol, safe sex and so on, all the while the parents might not have had a good education, have used or are using drugs, alcohol, etc. On top of that, they have the crazy uncle doing his thing, educators telling them to ignore the parents, social media, television and other “adults” in the entertainment & sports industries defying the parent’s messaging. Relatively speaking, conservatism is boring. What’s left for the conservatives to do other than treat the leftists like they would unruly teenagers, and eliminate those outside influences in their lives?

  8. He worked in the Internal Affairs division. Despite the obvious abuse of his first amendment rights, I’d look closely at the possibility of retribution for investigations he was working or had worked.

  9. Turley– “Putting aside his 18 years of public service, Kelly remains a citizen with basic rights accorded to him under the First Amendment.”
    ****

    Apparently no longer true. You have to be a terrorist or Democrat to qualify for ‘rights’.

    1. We no longer live under the rule of law. The federal government can be said to be functioning in the manner of a fascist oligarchy.

  10. It is the people who are doing the firing that need to be fired. In fact, “wokeness” is one of the best grounds for firing I’ve ever heard of.

  11. “In my view, the case raises very serious concerns over free speech and associational rights.”

    In my view this officer has demonstrated a clear bias and should be fired. This officer has the power of life and death over people he meets. It has been proven in court over many many cases that officers can kill anyone they want if they feel “threatened”. This officers donation and comment clearly indicate to me he has a disdain for those who disagree with him. Fired is exactly what was needed. We need at least 30% of our police force in this country to be fired because they have proven themselves over and over again that they think they are the rule of law, not citizens.

    1. BT, Should Kamala Harris be fired for supporting violent protestors and being part of a group that provided bail money to let violent people out so they could riot , loot, burn and kill again?

    2. Great job of making a claim and then just babbling.

      He should be fired because he “demonstrated a clear bias”? What the hell? Bias? No one has anyone idea what you’re talking about!

  12. Being an ex USN vet I’m not surprised that that the officer was treated like dirt. Been there know what its like.

  13. Lefties feeling their oats.

    And in spite of their frequent use of the courts, Lefties don’t respect the law.

    To them, law is a tool to be used or discarded as needed.

    Obviously we need to fight those who are tearing down the country.

    Problem is, we become like those we fight since we are seeing how effective the Dems are.

    Are we (and the Dems) opening the door to a third way?

    Look at Napoleon.

    1. “Look at Napoleon.”

      ***
      Odd. I was thinking about him too. Given the opportunity he showed he knew how to deal with a vicious mob. Just a whiff he said. Mob gone. At the moment I think I prefer a Napoleon to the feral savages in the streets and the corruptocrats in government.

      What happens when those who most believe in the rule of law lose faith in its ministers?

  14. WOKE DEM SOCIALIST TOTALITARIAN action against anyone who opposes their rules. The firing was way over the top, violation of the officer’s rights/free speech and etc. I hope he sue them/City of Norfolk for lots of $$$$$$$.The country is being torn apart by the Radical Left/Pelosi/Dem’s, AOC and etc. This will cause people to think where they live and move to places where they are free vs the Dictators of DEM controlled cities/states.

  15. Atlas is continuing to shrug at news like this. How many First Amendment rights will be violated today?

  16. Democrats empowered this malevolent faction of their party. Democrats are now part and parcel of this un-American group of Leftists who have clawed their way into the Democrat party and the rest of Democrats have bowed and kneeled in obeisance.

    And if you continue to vote for a party that supports this Maoist, Stalinist, Marxist approach, YOU are the problem. Individual Democrats elected to office have no will against the malevolent mob. The rest of us will fight these evil people – but don’t expect us to come to your aid when they come for you. It’s truly disgusting. Who have we become as a nation?

  17. I’ve stated in the past that the persecution of anyone or anything that is perceived as opposing the cultish totalitarian hive mind will get worse, well folks, my prediction is coming to pass.

    1. We have to wonder what the next era will look like, whether it will be dominated by this cult-like authoritarianism or the backlash that is coming which might also be authoritarian. I don’t see an advancement of liberal democracy on the horizon.

  18. I made a donation and I use my name and a note. Just like on FASCISTBOOK I do. I would love it if one of these black pieces of garbage tried to harass me by laying there their hands on me. Because I would enjoy shooting them dead right in the head. On or off any acre of our land here in
    All WHITE-VILLE, NW Montana.

    And here not 1 of our 2 revolving Judges would find me guilty of anything. Hell, I wouldn’t even be arrested. And let the left try to silence me. Bring it. Please dear God bring it. They pick on the ones they can intimidate. In closing, I really hope this officer gets a real good lawyer and sue them so fast.

    1. I appreciate your speaking up on these matters professor Turley but you cannot vote for the people who constantly violate our civil liberties, and be held blameless.
      As unpalatable as some on the other side may seem, they don’t seem to exhibit the same tendencies towards autocracy as the “liberal” side. They will definitely be held to stricter standards.

      Time to leave the Left. At least for now.

    2. Wow! How are you able to operate a computer or tablet? Let alone access the internet?
      Stop giving inbreeding a bad name.

    3. No one is impressed. Raise your comment level to something resembling a coherent and constructive comment, or please stop commenting.

Leave a Reply

Res ipsa loquitur – The thing itself speaks
%d bloggers like this: