So tell use why the hacker of the database is not being pursued and punished? This person committed a felony. Where is the condemnation of the hacker. Shouldn't the donors have reasonable expectation of privacy being the donations are anonymous. If this cop had donated and boldly posted his statement all over social media bragging about his donation -- then I would say there is a fairly good case for firing him over the comments since the officer should not be publicly speaking for the police department. Based on this being an anonymous donation with a reasonable expectation of privacy I don't thing the firing will stick on appeal since his intent was not to publicly represent the department.
Tony Stark, ET troll idiot of the year. You got it clinched. When extreme liberals get their brain cells working, they always come out with some smart idea. Not really smart. Try dumb and dumber by the minute. Extreme liberal teachers unions thought they had US citizens by the balls and can do as they damn please. Guess what? Wait for the layoffs coming as enrollment has dropped a huge amount. https://www.yahoo.com/news/california-public-schools-see-sharp-191854773.html
These ET trolls are mentally handicapped, all of them afflicted by Trump Derangement Syndrome even now. Do not expect them to get better. Chances are good, they will get worst as we go along. Not to worry, they will destroy each other soon enough as extreme liberals are likely, to do. These guys get offended at every little thing their minds can think of.
Cite your source indicating that they are not being pursued. I suspect they can't be punished until they are caught. Bad hacker! There. Condemn all you like. That's your right. It's also your right to remain silent. Have you condemned every police shooting of a Black or Brown person. Did anyone ask you, "Hey! Why tf aren't you condemning this!" Everyone else has the same right to silence as you. If you want to know why a particular person remains silent, ask them. But there is not some conspiracy, by a group of people, to remain silent. Right? Just as you aren't part of a "remain silent after police shootings of Black and Brown people culture," right? The donors should expect the privacy that is laid out in the site's terms and disclaimers, which I'm sure donors must agree to, even if they don't read them. Those terms define exactly what the site means by 'anonymous.' If the site breached those terms, then the cop should consider recourse ... against the site. Maybe next time, before posting fireable shit, he'll use a VPN, or TOR, a disposable/dark-web email address, and an untraceable cryptocurrency. Depends on the language of the policy he broke. The policy may not indicate that dumb comments are OK, as long as the forum you post them in 'says' they'll be anonymous. How can it be truly anonymous, the website administrator can see all posts. I could create a fake, pro trump, honeypot forum; only to later reveal the identities and content of the participants. Company policies that allow for what the employee 'believes to be anonymous' postings, are stupid ... if they even exist.
It was a private website... the cop can take it up with the website if he wants to sue him but what case could he win getting fired for saying something fireable but having his comment be released when it was supposed to be anonymous.... hackers are usually anonymous themselves and hard to find. I am sure the charity filed its police report but thousands of sites get hacked, I doubt this case will be cracked more than any other hacking case out there. What is amazing is you are more concerned about the hacking than a cop claiming all cops are in full support of a felony murderer..... The cop is a big boy and he played a stupid game and lost.... he does not need you worrying about the hacker. He could have just donated the money and shut his fucking mouth but no.... most cops like him thankfully are stupid and pull shit like this and get caught.
I don't particularly support this cop. The problem is the slippery slope. Where is the line -- that establishes when a government employee be fired for donating to or supporting a private or political cause. We already see Democrats urging that anyone who donated to Trump should be fired. Nearly half this country would support a government employee being fired for donating to BLM. BLM supporters have murdered cops. So if a government administrator does not support BLM then should a cop or other government employee be fired for donating to them.
I'm not Ocho, but I'm sure you've seen my posts about the fallacy of the 'slippery slope' notion. The line is in the law, rules, regulations, handbooks, and manuals. Free speech. Your point? Donating to an organization, is not equivalent to donating to an individual. What?