Ummm... People, read. The "time-bomb" was in an email to fellow officers. It is not in a report.
That is good to know. I would be disappointed if that kind of report writing was acceptable at this agency. The odds are then that statement may not even be admissible.
The thing still remains that a lot of the smear campaign doesn't matter. It all boils down to "was he removed from the zoo for carrying a handgun". This is why they are trying to say that he wasn't removed for that but instead for being a "disturbance".
The act of performing a lawful activity can not be made illegal by the "stretching" of another law. Oh you carry a gun openly but if you do you can be arrested for "disturbing" others who don't like to see it. Guess how many things that can be applied to.
If they aren't alleging he was yelling and screaming and waving his gun around (and then they would need witnesses other than just the officers who have a vested interest in CYA - essentially the officers have become "suspects" in an alleged civil violation of law) then the question is can the act of disagreeing with the officers' "opinion" on how he should carry his gun be considered a "disturbance". That should be interesting if the court rules in this manner. Can you imagine a ruling (even civil) that requires you to comply with all law enforcement "orders" whether lawful or otherwise?
It may prompt a statewide outrage like the recent case out of Vanderburgh that made it unlawful to resist illegal home entry by law enforcement (although the actual case itself wasn't about that).