While it might seem unfair to call a female firefighter a “cultural arsonist” for figuratively torching what she can’t have, I’m appreciative that Tara Walker is doing what she’s doing to the awful men who made her time at the Hamilton Rural Fire Department so very bad by doing things like not sitting next to her at a training, or not backing her up when an angry wife said something mean to her.
Walker’s elation was short-lived. She said that at the very first training she attended, everyone was sitting as far away from her as possible.
“I could tell that I was not going to be welcomed into the department like other firefighters were,” said Walker.
But she started training, working really hard. “They saw that I could do the job,” she said.
Then, last summer at an appreciation dinner, Walker said one of the firefighters’ wives verbally harassed her. She reported it to the fire chief, and she says the incident was turned around on her.
“That’s when I learned they did not have my back… They were more concerned about their image.”
Another serious issue occurred for Tara Walker when the “team” photo became a collage of individual photos because the men, she claims, didn’t want to be near her, perhaps worrying the proximity to a professional victim could put them in legal jeopardy.
Among other things, the new complaint, which was submitted on April 2, 2026, mentions an incident regarding a department photo. This time, all the firefighter photos were taken individually and then put together into a collage format. The finished photo product is dark, and it’s hard to make everyone out. Walker alleges that this was done because the other men did not want to stand with her for a group photo or even be seen with her.
Woods disputes Walker’s claim that the annual photo was planned in a way to minimize her membership on the force.
“We usually try to do a group photo,” said Woods. “But there was no planning made. The night of the photo was windy and rainy, so we had to move inside. It had nothing to do with her.
Actually, when it comes to women like Tara Walker–who leveraged her status as a sexual abuse victim in order to get legislation passed–EVERYTHING that occurs in their orbit is about them and, when there’s a problem, it’s ONLY because of how awesome they are, which, of course, makes everyone else around them jealous.
“I have not shared anything about this for a year… I’ve been so conservative with information over the last year, I’ve just kept my mouth shut about everything, just because I wanted to gain their trust and be part of the department, but now I just want everyone to see what I’ve gone through, what I’ve endured,” said Walker. “I think one of the main reasons they didn’t want me on the department is because they saw I’m someone people listen to when I speak, and that’s probably one of the reasons why I was a danger to their scheme. This is a conscious effort. They’ve been keeping women off the department this whole time. If we don’t change things, they’re going to continue to do so.”
Although I’ve never been a firefighter, I’m pretty sure the skill of charismatic talking isn’t a firefighting characteristic that’s as valued as, say, being able to PHYSICALLY do a very PHYSICALLY DEMANDING job.
Another aspect of being a first responder is the immense psychological impact that exists from putting your own life at risk in order to assist people in crisis situations, so having a person on your team who undermines team cohesion is a SERIOUS RISK, which might have been a contributing factor in the confrontation Tara had with a firefighter’s wife.
In contrast, when confronted with a comment in the comment section of the newspaper article Walker got printed about her noble struggle for all the women out there clamoring to be firefighters, Tara Walker did herself NO FAVORS by engaging with the commenter, who appears to be the Father of her two kids.
If this was all there was to Tara Walker’s series of complaints, then I probably wouldn’t have allowed the Facebook algorithm to lure me into commenting on this rage-bait, but reading through her Google Docs filing (PDF) I found something that made this girl-boss bullshit worth my time, and that’s the role of Lexipol in developing Hamilton’s “Policy 005”:
When I went looking for information about Lexipol and this company’s impact on developing policies for law enforcement I found a Mother Jones article from six years ago, when the country was pretty busy learning how important “policies” could be with regards to that little pandemic we had.
Amidst that confusion, a cop shot and killed a black man who was dangling from a window because he looked aggressive and the cop lied about a gun.
Turns out, this police department has, as its official policy, the ability to kill aggressive black men, even IF they’re dangling from a motel window!
Early one morning in June 2015, after Kris Jackson had been fighting loudly with his girlfriend, a police officer knocked on the door to their motel room a few blocks from California’s Lake Tahoe. Jackson, a Black 22-year-old who was on probation for a drug offense, did not stick around to deal with the cops. Wearing only a pair of shorts, he hoisted himself partway out of the bathroom window into the cool, dark air of the motel’s back alley. That’s when another officer, Joshua Klinge, rounded the corner of the building, spotted Jackson hanging out the window, and shot him from several feet away. Klinge later claimed that Jackson looked “aggressive” and had a gun. No gun was found. Jackson died at the hospital a few hours later.
As in the majority of police killings, the local district attorney did not charge Klinge, who was placed on paid leave before being allowed to retire quietly. Jackson’s parents filed a federal lawsuit against the officer, several police department staff, and the city of South Lake Tahoe, arguing that not only had Klinge used excessive force against their son, but that the police department had an illegal policy allowing him to do so. That policy, written by a company called Lexipol, stated that officers could use deadly force to protect themselves or others from any “imminent” threat of serious injury or death. An “imminent” threat, the policy explained, was broader than an “immediate” threat such as someone pointing a gun. It included any situation in which a “reasonable officer” would believe a suspect had a weapon and intended to use it.
Closer to home–and just two months after Tara Walker filed her Federal discrimination tantrum–the female victimhood mentality combined with the “reasonable officer” standard to kill, as a matter of policy, Ross Robertson, who was in a mental health crisis at the time.
Despite KNOWING the mental health history of the REAL victim here (the dead white guy), Matt Jennings led a performative Coroner’s Inquest where he joked about body weight and allowed the SCARED WOMAN rationale to set-up the justifiable death narrative these “public safety” officers will ALWAYS hide behind when they kill one of us.
One of the CORE POLICIES that makes America so kick-ass is the FIRST and, I would argue, the BEST amendment of the Constitution, which I’ll post in case the hate-readers reading this forgot what it says:
Who might need to hear this? Oh, I don’t know, maybe a Montana lawyer/legislator who supported legislation last year to STOP allegedly “frivolous” lawsuits regarding those First Amendment rights:
A bipartisan effort to prevent frivolous lawsuits regarding 1st Amendment rights continues moving through the legislature with no opposition.
After clearing the House unanimously in mid-February, House Bill 292, known as the Establish the Uniform Public Expression Protection Act, passed the Senate Judiciary Committee 8-0 less than an hour after its hearing.
State Reps. Tom Millett (R-Marion) and James Reavis (D-Billings) are both sponsoring the bill.
What could this mean? I don’t know, I’m not a lawyer, but it sounds like there’s also a legislation mill that reproduces legislation from state to state just like Lexipol reproduces its copyrighted “policies” from town to town.
Hmmm.
It is considered Anti-SLAPP legislation, and mirrors what seven other states have already put into law and a handful of others are actively considering, which the sponsors say is a safeguard to protect Montanans against meritless lawsuits that are used to silence critics.
Silencing critics? Wow, there’s a RICH IRONY in this statement, but it’s not one I’m legally able to expound on.
Yet.
Thanks for reading!
