To the extent the article can be believed, here is the only thing I can see that legitimately could have been responded to by the Sheriff's Department:
Quote:
|
... he argued with the public “while engaged in an activity that clearly identified him as a member of the Sheriff’s Office.”
|
... and that would only be a
possible violation of Sheriff's Department policy on conduct of off-duty officers.
re: all the other busy-bodies who got involved... I agree with Mike's rant.