A Bridge to Truth - Part 2 - ELECTION DAY
When the "Government Watchdog" was watching the government dog.
In Part 1 of “A Bridge to Truth” we recounted how the curious way Mayoral candidate Amber Chambers got involved in Sugar Hill politics. At some point, she rebranded herself to “Government Watchdog”, which turned out to be amusing because the post that got her the most attention was literally watching a government dog.
What’s The Issue With Dogs?
There was that time last November she followed one of the city Marshal’s to the dog food store where they were getting food for the city’s therapy dog, Marshal Sanford. Marshal Parker, his handler, was going to Hollywood Feed just across the bridge over the river in Forsyth County to pick up dog food. Dog food that is donated by Hollywood Feed for free to Marshal Parker for Marshal Sanford. The “government watchdog” felt it necessary to follow the Marshal, take pictures, then post about it insinuating he had done something wrong. (Link to the original facebook post, if you’re not blocked.)
This blew up, as it should have, as an odd and rather outrageous thing to do. And, of course, there was plenty of public backlash. In usual Ms. Chambers fashion, the threat of blocking people was immediate.
This post predictably blew up within the community and the few people who hadn’t been blocked by her expressed their opinion on her post. So much so that she eventually shut off comments on the post.
And even though it still says 84 comments, when “ALL COMMENTS” are selected, far less than 84 comments are visible. Most of the dissenting comments are no longer visible - either they’re hidden or they’ve been deleted. Including ones from Marshal Parker’s wife explaining what was going on. Here’s a screengrab at the time of the original post when comments were open. The timestamps reflect when the screenshots were taken since Ms. Chambers is notorious for deleting comments and blocking anyone (as she herself stated above) with a dissenting view or, as in this case, refutes her incorrect assertions.
The post that Mrs. Parker is referring to is this post from Mayor Brandon Hembree who took issue with Ms. Chambers’ post and rightly called her out on it.
She recently posted complaining that the Mayor was “bullying” her over the above post from last year and labeling people who agreed with the Mayor that this behavior is odd as part of the “bully brigade”.
Naturally, Ms. Chambers’ article only mention of the actual facts of this situation that Marshal Parker was picking up free dog food for Marshal Sanford was the screenshot of Mayor Hembree’s post. Instead she focuses on procedural matters that have nothing to do with this situation as Marshal Parker was getting supplies, which Marshals occasionally have to leave the city to do. As they sometimes do to get lunch. As they sometimes do to attend functions on the city’s behalf. As they sometimes do even on patrol given the odd shape of the city limits. As they do for training.
She then accuses me of lying as well as “old reliable” - corruption.
In my comment, I was suggesting that she should have simply gone up to Marshal Parker and asked him why he’s at the pet store and outside city limits. I never implied that it was illegal to take a picture of a law enforcement officer - people post pictures of our Marshals all the time, take pictures and videos of LEOs all the time. What I did say is it’s weird to follow a LEO, take their picture doing a routine thing and post it on social media insinuating that they did something wrong. That if she just asked him why he left the city limits she wouldn’t have to make insinuations or baseless accusations about his actions. That’s what real “journalists” (her term for herself) do. Reading is fundamental.
Oh and, of course, she includes the usual self absorption and self congratulatory remark on her blog. I’ll leave it to you, dear reader, to come to your own conclusions about the quality of our work.
Perhaps the most amusing portion of her defense of her actions is citing the department’s “Standard Operating Procedures”. I said nothing about him being on-duty or off-duty. Of course he’s on-duty since he’s conducting Department business in a Marshal vehicle. She tries to say that an on-duty Marshal may not leave the city limits except in the case of pursuing someone who committed a crime in Sugar Hill, serving a warrant in another jurisdiction or if the Marshal believes a felony is about to happen and they need to take action to prevent serious injury to someone.
From her blog post.
Here’s where the real problem lies. This section only applies if they’re taking “official law enforcement action”. This defines when they can take action of law enforcement outside the city limits. The Marshals are not tethered to the city limits otherwise in their vehicle - they can and do travel outside city limits on duty for many reasons and that is OK as long as it’s done on “Department approved business” - a section she highlighted herself. Again, reading is fundamental.
The bottom line, Marshal Parker was on Department approved business by getting the city’s dog, Marshal Sanford, his food for free just across the river in Forsyth County for a total of 15 minutes. Pretty simple and very clear.
Ms. Chambers isn’t being “bullied” - she’s just wrong about so much so often while living in an echo chamber, any correction probably does feel like an attack. When you impugn the reputation and integrity of good people and have to delete and block dissents to such actions - well, there is definitely a bully here.
Today is Election Day in Sugar Hill
If you haven’t, please stop by City Hall today between 7 AM and 7 PM to cast your vote.
Vote FOR candidates that support our LEOs, our Marshals and Department of Public Safety. Our LEOs, and especially our Marshals, make us a Strong Community.
Those candidates are Mayor Brandon Hembree and Council Members Alvin Hicks and Samantha Piovesan.
Keep our city a Strong Community and continuing to find reasons to Love Where You Live.