RedPill: Crypto Speech re 2ndA, Black Community Flips to Support Trump, Kyle Rittenhouse Defends from Thugs

[grarpamp]

> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NKus9Euv7UI  Kyle Rittenhouse Defends Self
> 1x
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iryQSpxSlrg  Kyle Rittenhouse Defends Self
> 2x 3x
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qKlmbM03IQI  Trump Remarks on Kyle Case
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v_4r_3D5TVI  Internet Summary via
> ClownWorld
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=twSYsZfL5QY  Kyle Speaks From Jail via
> @CaliKidJMP
>
> Rittenhouse Defense
> https://fightback.law/
> https://mobile.twitter.com/LLinWood
> https://mobile.twitter.com/CaliKidJMP
> https://mobile.twitter.com/michellemalkin
> https://mobile.twitter.com/MarinaMedvin
> https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2020/08/kyle-rittenhouse-working-lifeguard-kenosha-day-shooting-went-clean-vandalism-school-work/

> https://sputniknews.com/us/202009231080544958-kyle-rittenhouses-lawyer-releases-new-video-showing-kenosha-shooting-says-it-was-self-defence/
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E4dhPM99i4I


https://jonathanturley.org/2021/04/22/norfolk-police-officer-fired-for-making-anonymous-donation-to-kyle-rittenhouse/
https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/549413-norfolk-police-officer-fired-after-investigation-into-kyle-rittenhouse
https://www.foxnews.com/media/rittenhouse-utah-reporter-condemned
https://www.wavy.com/news/local-news/norfolk/norfolk-pd-officer-fired-after-anonymous-donation-to-kyle-rittenhouse-defense-fund/
https://www.norfolk.gov/DocumentCenter/View/62179/Police-Officers-Manual

Norfolk Police Officer Fired For Making Anonymous Donation To Kyle Rittenhouse

Authored by Jonathan Turley,

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.