And Here's the Test Case

This is going to set precedent here in Chicago for the next generation, and may have national implications:

• Chicago's police oversight agency has cited a veteran officer for more than 60 rule violations, blasting him for repeatedly posting insensitive racial and religious comments on Facebook and promoting violence against police protesters, Muslims and others.

Sixty rule violations? A bunch of people have already noted that if you brought sixty violations to the Desk Sergeant, Watch Operations Lieutenant, Detectives or State's Attorney, you'd be laughed out of the station. But for COPA? Everything is game.

• In a 95-page report obtained by the Chicago Tribune through an open-records request, the Civilian Office of Police Accountability used unusually strong language to condemn [the officer's] actions, leaving little doubt that it favored his firing even though it publicly declined to give its position.
  
  In its conclusion to its findings, COPA made clear that it had no faith in [the officer] carrying out “fair and impartial” law enforcement to everyone in Chicago, regardless of their ethnic and sociological backgrounds.

Did you get that? He is being charged with what he may potentially do or not do (no faith in [the officer] carrying out “fair and impartial” law enforcement). That's real left-wing speech suppression type shit right there - shades of "Minority Report." And get this:

• But COPA, citing legal precedent, said police officers are subject to greater First Amendment restraints than most other citizens.
  
  Edwin Yohnka, a spokesman for the American Civil Liberties Union of Illinois, said government employees, including police officers, have the right to speak out on issues of public interest, especially when they’re doing so on their private time. But he said certain government employees critical to instilling public trust, such as police officers and teachers, can be disciplined for making statements — even while away from work — if their language undermines that trust.

We'd like to see that legal precedent - United States Supreme Court precedent? Or just one of the oft-overturned Appellate Courts? So now you are less than a citizen if you choose to enter the law enforcement field. How's that for the COPA opinion? And the ACLU supports that - welcome to the new Amerika, courtesy of the left wing socialists.

Now, we will say that reading the entire article, this officer seems to have brushed up against the line that the Department and various other entities have drawn in the sand, Hell, he leapt back and forth across it. Whether by accident or design, we don't know. But he has laid out a perfect textbook case.... to be a test case. As we said before, this has monumental implications to what you are allowed to do, say, or support - on AND off duty.