PDA

View Full Version : I thought LEOs couldn't do political stuff...


jdberger
10-11-2011, 11:07 PM
Back a while ago, there was a heated thread (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=403927) in which I expressed the wish that rank-and-file LEOs who support the Second Amendment express those feelings publicly. To be honest, it wasn't a terribly pleasant conversation at the end. I wouldn't budge - and frankly, the LEOs on the forum repeated (often and vociferously) that the surest way for an LEO to lose his job was be overtly political.

For instance:

I cannot think of one department that would allow any on duty advocating of a political cause. Like it or not, those matters HAVE to remain seperated from our on-duty activities and as had already been said, we cannot (and should not) show a bias while performing on-duty activities. Departments also have policies governing on and off duty behavior and activities.

and
Not really. We are not allowed to use our status for the benefit of any political cause. So while I can get up and scream about how absurd gun control in California is, I would not use my badge to do so. One Officer merely took a picture with a politician in uniform and ended up getting suspended. Sheriffs and Police Chiefs are of course exempted because their position is a Political one.


OK.

How do we explain this? (http://sfappeal.com/news/2011/10/gun-advocates-react-to-open-carry-prohibition-promise-to-tote-long-guns-instead.php)

Livermore police Officer David Blake said that while he respects constitutional gun rights, the open carrying of guns has had a negative impact on the community, prompting numerous concerned calls from citizens.

"We can't prejudge what the intentions are--we treat all guns as if they are loaded," Blake said.


And that's not an isolated article either (http://www.google.com/search?q=Officer+David+Blake+livermore&rls=com.microsoft:en-us&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&startIndex=&startPage=1).

If you cannot (for the previously stated reasons) publicly support us, at the very least, don't publicly oppose us.

Don't take part in political gun control events. Don't appear in politician's background shots when they're displaying some new ominous piece of weaponry that needs to be banned immediately. Don't appear at "gun buybacks". Don't show up to anti-gun events. Don't speak to the media about the benefits of gun control legislation.

Call in sick. Blue flu. Don't be a part of the machine of oppression.

Now I'm gonna go put on my flame-suit.

wildhawker
10-11-2011, 11:15 PM
http://assets0.ordienetworks.com/images/GifGuide/clapping/golf-clap.gif

dantodd
10-11-2011, 11:19 PM
For those actually speaking out in support of such laws I believe that some are true gun grabbers and their hierarchy encourages that behavior. Others probably just don't want to damage their potential rise in the ranks to a place "where they can do some good," all the while not realizing that they are slowly being consumed by the anti-gun rhetoric which they are spouting off or being forced to support. And I'm sure some are just afraid of losing their job and pension.

Some situations, like standing behind a pol at a gun-burning is just part of their job and they might as well be having to stand behind a neo-nazi at a rally to make sure the idiot doesn't get hurt. I would never equate being on duty at an event with support.

AndrewMendez
10-11-2011, 11:25 PM
Wow, very nice. I never ever thought about this. A few elections back, a few Firefighters I knew slapped "Support 'this person" bumper stickers on the back of the County owned Fire engine. The County didn't seem too worried about it, as it was the person the Union was pushing for...I thought it was disgusting. Complete abuse of their position.

Falconis
10-12-2011, 1:22 AM
JD, again you miss the point. You were asking us to give a speech of some sort without the support of our command staff. Anyone that goes against their boss is likely to get fired. At no time did you ever state how you would protect the officer or compensate them should they be terminated. Instead you just insisted that legally the officer can't be fired if they piss off their boss under 1A clauses.

He really isn't saying anything in the statement he made either. It was neutral at best. Also there are times we are called to situations to stand by. That alone doesnt mean we support or oppose it either.

Now I will agree with Andrew Mendez as to his statement. He is correct wholly. Those stickers should never have been placed on the engines. God knows I would have been crucified if I placed McCain/Palin stickers on my city owned vehicle during the last major election.

But with you. you truly are trying to make a mountain out of a molehill. I honestly don't know if you are just trying to fan a fire that doesn't exist or are just pushing for ways to express your displeasure of LEO's in general. In reality, can you specifically name any officer here that has done any of those things you mentioned? I'll even let you name ones that were ordered to be at any of those events. You also realize there are police officers out there that are gun grabbers?

And now really, blu flu? machine of oppression? Really? I am not saying it has never happened before, but I don't recall any department calling in sick in recent years for political disagreements of any sort. You really want to try and revive those hippie years again? You would have a police officer not show up, fail to provide services to the community, and endanger his fellow officers by not being able to cover them all because of some fantasies of a by gone era? Maybe the training has changed from whenever to whenever. I don't know.

Let's take the statement made by the officer and break it down:

[/quote]Livermore police Officer David Blake said that while he respects constitutional gun rights, the open carrying of guns has had a negative impact on the community, prompting numerous concerned calls from citizens.[/quote] <-- More than likely stating what the general consensus of the department and community are. Didn't insult open carriers directly, although I admit the statement doesnt paint a pretty picture. Just states that they have had concerns from citizens who have witnessed the OC'ers and it wasn't in the best of light. Who knows what was actually said or edited.

[/quote]"We can't prejudge what the intentions are--we treat all guns as if they are loaded," Blake said. [/quote] <-- This is training. It's also survival. It's also not a simple issue that can be explained by even one paragraph. I know to you, the death or the termination of a cop probably doesn't mean anything.

What really pisses me off about your post is your insinuations about the LEO's on this board as well as what you perceive our intentions to be. With all the talk of divisiveness, you actually think your post helps with anything? Atleast you admit your faults now with that thread and want us to call in sick instead .... :rollseyes

Or do you still think that we are wrong in our legal reasoning as to why we won't get fired? Which is another thing that truly pisses me off. Do you actually think it is a small thing for anyone, not just police officers, to potentially lose their jobs? Especially those with small mouths to feed and care for? Especially for an action that won't amount to anything and be forgotten about the next week? I know you may not have done much to get hired where you are, except maybe fill out an application, but most cops I know endured years of testing and waiting to just even get their foot in the door. Despite what you may think and try to inflame, many of us actually do our jobs with dignity.

In the end, insubordination is a terminable offense. Especially if it is lawful.

Telling a cop that believes in anti gun policies not to do or do that sort of stuff is like telling the average cal gunner here to turn in their RAW because the lib tards don't like them. Your post is nothing more than an insult placed in a forum where you won't get banned from said forum.

Let's take the below statement apart:

Don't take part in political gun control events. < -- Most Police staff at those things are command staff.

Don't appear in politician's background shots when they're displaying some new ominous piece of weaponry that needs to be banned immediately. <-- In my direct experience, most omnious pieces were recovered from gang bangers and lawful warrants. I have no control how the media spins the story or edits it. You can bet that I will continue to write lawful warrants to get them out of the hands of dangerous felons every chance I get.

Don't appear at "gun buybacks". Don't show up to anti-gun events. Don't speak to the media about the benefits of gun control legislation. <--Never have. Besides buybacks are events where people voluntarily show up, It's not like we force them. Also the last few my city held were jokes from the get go. 200 dollar gift certificates for 40 dollar guns I wouldn't trust as paperweights and the likes like that. I am not allowed to speak the media about anything in general per our directives about media information releases. I know I will get flamed for this one, but I actually agree with some gun control. Like the guy who has been released from prison 4 different times for crimes such as robbery, assault, and more robberies. Yeah, I actually support legislation that keeps guns out of his hands. Granted, the law doesn't stop him, but it's good to know I can take him to prison/jail if I even catch him with possession of a firearm.

In the end, are you really going to continue to twist stories and statements like these which honestly don't do any good?

lavgrunt
10-12-2011, 1:55 AM
FALCONIS.........My brutha.........

I'm not going to put words in JD's mouth or try to interpret his post, but I will tell you that I know him personally and consider him a friend and I can tell you firsthand that he is DEFINETLEY NOT anti-cop............

I kinda know where he was coming from in his post, based on what I know about the background issues and I will leave it at that................

But bottomline, he's a solid guy and I'm proud to vouch for him and his intentions........

Believe me, if I thought otherwise I would absolutely not back his play.....especially on an issue such as this............

Stay safe, Homie...........

Untamed1972
10-12-2011, 7:36 AM
Or do you still think that we are wrong in our legal reasoning as to why we won't get fired? Which is another thing that truly pisses me off. Do you actually think it is a small thing for anyone, not just police officers, to potentially lose their jobs? Especially those with small mouths to feed and care for? Especially for an action that won't amount to anything and be forgotten about the next week? I know you may not have done much to get hired where you are, except maybe fill out an application, but most cops I know endured years of testing and waiting to just even get their foot in the door. Despite what you may think and try to inflame, many of us actually do our jobs with dignity.


There always comes a hidden cost when one sells their soul to the Devil.

Do you uphold your oath to defend the constitution or do you keep quiet and protect your income stream?

This country was found by men who put EVERYTHING on the line, including their own families. I personally think they would look at your statements and :rolleyes: at pretty much all of it.

There is no way you can expect the citzenry to read statements such as your's and expect their trust and faith to be built up on LE. Because you make it plainly clear that to protect your own income stream you WILL follow any and all orders, cuz God forbid you hafta sacrifice all those years of testing and interviewing to do the right thing aye? :rolleyes: Your duty is to the people...NOT the gov't, dont forget that.

And the "Us vs. Them" casim just keeps getting deeper and wider. Oh well.....this whole shebang is in a death spiral anyway.

taperxz
10-12-2011, 7:40 AM
Simple proof that politics of the day rules law enforcement. It's a CYA attitude, when LE appears in public to be wrong, it's an unacceptable failure in their ranks.

LE is a unit, club/brotherhood. If one LEO speaks he speaks for them all and most LEOs should not speak for various reasons I won't say here. Their UNION however WILL speak for them. The same union that's in bed with the king and his court and surrounded by their jesters.

Suvorov
10-12-2011, 7:44 AM
Somewhere there is a puppet master laughing with glee at how well his efforts of pitting gun owners and cops against each other has worked.

They pull the strings while we dance.

Dance puppets, dance!

Hopalong
10-12-2011, 8:04 AM
JD, I'm with Falconis on this.

He's in a position to know what goes on inside, makes a reasonable argument, and perfect sense.

When he says guys need to tread lightly in these matters, I believe him.

Furthermore, I'd say he's on the 2A side of things, and already does the things that you threw out there.

On the other hand, Don Blake does what Don Blake does.

He speaks for himself, which is his right, just like anyone else.

He has information to offer as well.

I think it's fine that you threw a few thoughts out there for guys to ponder

And they can choose to do with it what they want.

I don't have a problem with either of these guys.

I'm old enough to know

That it would be unreasonable for me to think that anyone would behave in a script that I wrote

They get to script their own lives, just like anyone else.

Anyone who throws out general, inflammatory, blanket statements (OHW)

Either just doesn't get it, or has a hidden agenda

And certainly shows their inability to debate

eaglemike
10-12-2011, 8:18 AM
When I couldn't take the actions/positions/policies of my boss - I fired him. I did let him know long before that (in a professional way) that I didn't think he was doing the right thing.

Falconis - how many LEO do you know that have expressed discomfort/disagreement with the action/policies of their superior?

(no, I'm not anit-LEO)

IMHO, I think the OP is just asking LEO to stand for what they think is right, if they are indeed pro-2A.

Patrick Aherne
10-12-2011, 8:27 AM
Have OC advocates frightened the community and diverted police from handling other calls for service? Yes. Why, then is there a problem with the officer's statement. He did not say he was for or against 2nd amendment rights, just the impact of the exercise of those rights on the community or police department.

That is fundamentally different than advocating for one cause or another.

My agency just had to staff officers and supervisors for a possible protest/free speech exercise. Would it be wrong for me to say that this cost the taxpayer several thousand dollars of OT and disrupted the normal operations of the police department? No, it would not. Would it be wrong for me to state that some members of the community were upset by the protest? No, it would not because it is factual. It is the same thing as reporting the facts of an arrest and charges filed against a person. It's not advocating, one way or the other, and it's not campaigning in uniform.

Patrick Aherne
10-12-2011, 8:29 AM
When I couldn't take the actions/positions/policies of my boss - I fired him. I did let him know long before that (in a professional way) that I didn't think he was doing the right thing.

Falconis - how many LEO do you know that have expressed discomfort/disagreement with the action/policies of their superior?

(no, I'm not anit-LEO)

IMHO, I think the OP is just asking LEO to stand for what they think is right, if they are indeed pro-2A.

So, tomorrow, all of us pro-2A cops quit and there is NO ONE left at LE agencies doing education about OLL and OC and all of the other issues brought up by CGF and other pro-2A groups in the last few years? Sounds like a plan for success.

Werewolf1021
10-12-2011, 8:44 AM
I think the pro-2A police are doing what Calguns has been BEGGING the UOC community to do.... Acting discreetly behind the scenes and not making a huge stink.

What, exactly, would a huge uproar from the pro-2A beat cops accomplish? Possibly converting a few on the fence beat cops, but the REMFs would remain unchanged and little would change.

What would be the consequences of such actions? Less pro-2A beat cops that can influence other officer's opinions behind the scenes.


Politics. Its everywhere, for better or worse. Chess, not checkers.

jdberger
10-12-2011, 8:47 AM
...
Don't take part in political gun control events. < -- Most Police staff at those things are command staff.

Don't appear in politician's background shots when they're displaying some new ominous piece of weaponry that needs to be banned immediately. <-- In my direct experience, most omnious pieces were recovered from gang bangers and lawful warrants. I have no control how the media spins the story or edits it. You can bet that I will continue to write lawful warrants to get them out of the hands of dangerous felons every chance I get.

Don't appear at "gun buybacks". Don't show up to anti-gun events. Don't speak to the media about the benefits of gun control legislation. <--Never have. Besides buybacks are events where people voluntarily show up, It's not like we force them. Also the last few my city held were jokes from the get go. 200 dollar gift certificates for 40 dollar guns I wouldn't trust as paperweights and the likes like that. I am not allowed to speak the media about anything in general per our directives about media information releases. I know I will get flamed for this one, but I actually agree with some gun control. Like the guy who has been released from prison 4 different times for crimes such as robbery, assault, and more robberies. Yeah, I actually support legislation that keeps guns out of his hands. Granted, the law doesn't stop him, but it's good to know I can take him to prison/jail if I even catch him with possession of a firearm.

In the end, are you really going to continue to twist stories and statements like these which honestly don't do any good?

I honestly don't see why you're bellyaching.

You're doing everything I've suggested. As far as I'm concerned, you're one of the good guys.

You really should learn how to use the quote function, though.:D

eaglemike
10-12-2011, 8:50 AM
So, tomorrow, all of us pro-2A cops quit and there is NO ONE left at LE agencies doing education about OLL and OC and all of the other issues brought up by CGF and other pro-2A groups in the last few years? Sounds like a plan for success.
The first step is to let people know you don't agree - did you miss that part?
[sarcasm off]
I often see the LEO say they need to keep their head down, not disagree in order to succeed. Do you this any comments like this?

IMO people that stand up for what's right are respected.

When people don't stand up for what is right, well, that leads us down the wrong road.

BTW - I didn't see anyone calling for a great uproar.......

Tack
10-12-2011, 8:54 AM
Management-
UOC frightend police management, not the populace. I have not read of a neglagent discharges from UOC ever. It was a political positon between a police chief and his mayor to harass UOC. It was never an issue of "public safety" or police resouces. The chief could dedicate resources to follow every girlscout selling cookies, and therefore girlscouts are a drain on the department and should be outlawed. Saying it confesses the chief's bad judgement, but does not make it so.

Rank and file-
Like most union employees, LEOs can speak out as long as they advocate the position of their management. They signed up for it, but that must suck.

Liberty1
10-12-2011, 8:59 AM
I tell people restraining orders are pieces of paper that do not protect them. It just allows me to arrest the violator if I get there in time. Big IF. I then tell victims they have a second amendment right to gun possession for self defense and direct them to consider an LTC from the SO. (My county issues and my current chief supports carry).

Nothing but non political truth in the above...

Liberty1
10-12-2011, 9:09 AM
JD,

Where we'll see headway is as society changes / courts protect carry, our people will begin to take leadership/policy making rolls and feel more secure in coming out of the closet.

I'm not not sure I'll do much advancing. I don't play political games well.

eaglemike
10-12-2011, 9:10 AM
I tell people restraining orders are pieces of paper that do not protect them. It just allows me to arrest the violator if I get there in time. Big IF. I then tell victims they have a second amendment right to gun possession for self defense and direct them to consider an LTC from the SO. (My county issues and my current chief supports carry).

Nothing but non political truth in the above...
Thank you very much! :)

jdberger
10-12-2011, 9:10 AM
What really pisses me off about your post is your insinuations about the LEO's on this board as well as what you perceive our intentions to be. With all the talk of divisiveness, you actually think your post helps with anything? Atleast you admit your faults now with that thread and want us to call in sick instead .... :rollseyes



If you'd take a minute to redirect your anger, you'd see that I always suggested non-participation in anti-gun events. My statement above is a quote from the original thread.

I've never suggested that police do something outside of their comfort zone. However, I did suggest that they have 1st Amendment rights, if they choose to exercise them. I realize that you're relying on your legal training to dispute my assertion - thus we're not going to get anywhere on that matter.

TheExpertish
10-12-2011, 9:19 AM
"Livermore police Officer David Blake said that while he respects constitutional gun rights, the open carrying of guns has had a negative impact on the community, prompting numerous concerned calls from citizens.

"We can't prejudge what the intentions are--we treat all guns as if they are loaded," Blake said. "

Wow, you mean the police are following one of the cardinal rules of gun safety when dealing with firearms? For shame.

Call in sick. Blue flu. Don't be a part of the machine of oppression.

Look, as a former LEO and gun lover this is not one of those cases. I will be the first to admit CA's gun laws suck, but they still allow us to have guns. A blue flu for this cause would not work. Fixing our gun laws is a long term process. The "machine of oppression" in regards to this states views on 2A IMO, is really more a "machine of irritation". Oppression is a strong strong word coupled with your steam punk fascist vision of the "machine", and oppression meaning "the feeling of being heavily burdened, mentally or physically, by troubles, adverse conditions, anxiety, etc.".

If you're truly having these sorts of symptoms then I suggest medication and professional counseling.

Wow, very nice. I never ever thought about this. A few elections back, a few Firefighters I knew slapped "Support 'this person" bumper stickers on the back of the County owned Fire engine. The County didn't seem too worried about it, as it was the person the Union was pushing for...I thought it was disgusting. Complete abuse of their position.

Fire fighters are NOT burdened with enforcing the laws of the State and having to do so in an unbiased manner. They can get away with **** like that.

FALCONIS.........My brutha.........

I'm not going to put words in JD's mouth or try to interpret his post, but I will tell you that I know him personally and consider him a friend and I can tell you firsthand that he is DEFINETLEY NOT anti-cop............

I kinda know where he was coming from in his post, based on what I know about the background issues and I will leave it at that................

But bottomline, he's a solid guy and I'm proud to vouch for him and his intentions........

Believe me, if I thought otherwise I would absolutely not back his play.....especially on an issue such as this............

Stay safe, Homie...........

As a former LEO we get where he is coming from. I am glad you are willing to vouch for him not being anti-cop, but what he is failing to see is where WE are coming from. If we took positions on political issues and began to selectively enforce laws as we saw fit, then just try to guess what would happen? (answer: Police State)

There always comes a hidden cost when one sells their soul to the Devil.

Do you uphold your oath to defend the constitution or do you keep quiet and protect your income stream?

This country was found by men who put EVERYTHING on the line, including their own families. I personally think they would look at your statements and :rolleyes: at pretty much all of it.

There is no way you can expect the citzenry to read statements such as your's and expect their trust and faith to be built up on LE. Because you make it plainly clear that to protect your own income stream you WILL follow any and all orders, cuz God forbid you hafta sacrifice all those years of testing and interviewing to do the right thing aye? :rolleyes: Your duty is to the people...NOT the gov't, dont forget that.

And the "Us vs. Them" casim just keeps getting deeper and wider. Oh well.....this whole shebang is in a death spiral anyway.

I don't see enforcing current legally enacted laws as selling my soul. As an LEO that is the job the citizens entrust is with. As a citizen we "entrust" our legislators to legislate (aka, CREATE the laws.) From there we "entrust" the courts to interpret the laws. Creating, repealing, and interpreting the laws is not within our means, and nor should it be. The checks and balances our system has are in place for a reason. You guys are barking up the wrong tree here.

If you have a problem with how things are then do this:
1. Join the NRA, CRPA, and Calguns Foundation. Become a life member of all three so you can continue to debate the wrong things while they actually get things accomplished the correct way.

2. Register to vote and when an election comes around....VOTE. I can't tell how many times I've heard people *****ing about our elected officials and what a crap job their doing, and it turns out the *****er had no involvement in the last election, and/or isn't even registered to vote.

3. Take a political science 101 class to understand how our government works currently and/or doesn't work. This might help you better understand who's job is what and why.

eaglemike
10-12-2011, 9:25 AM
As a former LEO we get where he is coming from. I am glad you are willing to vouch for him not being anti-cop, but what he is failing to see is where WE are coming from. If we took positions on political issues and began to selectively enforce laws as we saw fit, then just try to guess what would happen? (answer: Police State)

I deleted most of your post, as I want to address this particular part. There is some degree of the part I highlighted going on now. Just how much is a matter of opinion.

Some of us have had poly-sci classes, and do belong to the various .org's you suggested.

Movement from within the ranks would be a wonderful thing, but would involve risk. I would hope the various LE unions would support this - but I doubt it.

TheExpertish
10-12-2011, 9:28 AM
If you'd take a minute to redirect your anger, you'd see that I always suggested non-participation in anti-gun events. My statement above is a quote from the original thread.

I've never suggested that police do something outside of their comfort zone. However, I did suggest that they have 1st Amendment rights, if they choose to exercise them. I realize that you're relying on your legal training to dispute my assertion - thus we're not going to get anywhere on that matter.

It goes beyond comfort zone. You see, when we are sworn into our position we cease to be citizens in the standard definition. Same goes for military. In a manner of speaking our 1A rights and many others are no longer the same as other people. Believe it or not our rights are diminished and we are held in higher expectations in almost every regard. It does not matter if we are off duty or not. We are still police officers. We do so willingly. Most do it out of obligation, a sense of duty, and a willingness to serve. Not a ****ing paycheck like those accusing us of selling our souls may suggest. Maybe understanding this will help you comprehend why we CAN NOT get involved in politics the way you want us to.

Untamed1972
10-12-2011, 9:29 AM
I don't see enforcing current legally enacted laws as selling my soul. As an LEO that is the job the citizens entrust is with. As a citizen we "entrust" our legislators to legislate (aka, CREATE the laws.) From there we "entrust" the courts to interpret the laws. Creating, repealing, and interpreting the laws is not within our means, and nor should it be. The checks and balances our system has are in place for a reason. You guys are barking up the wrong tree here.


The selling of the soul comes in when you choose a profession that requires you to act against your own values and beliefs in trade for being the political pawn of your CLEO and Union all for the sake of a paycheck.

And let's get real.....LEOs "selectively enforce" the law EVERYDAY, so don't tell me that justice if blind and dished out evenly.

Liberty1
10-12-2011, 9:35 AM
Thank you very much! :)

But its who I work for and that the county actually issues that makes it 'safer' for me to do so.

Untamed1972
10-12-2011, 9:36 AM
It goes beyond comfort zone. You see, when we are sworn into our position we cease to be citizens in the standard definition. Same goes for military. In a manner of speaking our 1A rights and many others are no longer the same as other people. Believe it or not our rights are diminished and we are held in higher expectations in almost every regard. It does not matter if we are off duty or not. We are still police officers. We do so willingly. Most do it out of obligation, a sense of duty, and a willingness to serve. Not a ****ing paycheck like those accusing us of selling our souls may suggest. Maybe understanding this will help you comprehend why we CAN NOT get involved in politics the way you want us to.


:rofl2: yeah right!

Got 2 words for you "qualified immunity".

The point you and others dont seem to get is YOU ARE INVOLVED in politics and are being USED for the agendas of those you claim not to support. I dont know how you can rectify that in your own mind other than to live in denial about the part you atually do play in all of this.

Some folks would choose a different profession rather than live such a dualistic existence.

eaglemike
10-12-2011, 9:37 AM
But its who I work for and that the county actually issues that makes it 'safer' for me to do so.
I understand that, too. But I want to thank you for acknowledging reality, and trying to make it plain to the general populace you meet.

Kosuki
10-12-2011, 9:38 AM
I am with both sides on this. JD and falcon have both great points. I do not want to risk someones family and income. It is true most of the time at these political gatherings it is mainly commanders and high brass at the functions.
If an officer gets an order to do something that is with in the law he has to follow it...
If it is unlawful, unconstitutional he/she has a better chance of resisting the order with the backing of his/her union and fellow officers. It is a very challenging and difficult world we all live in. Their is not one right and one wrong answer to solve issues that we have. What we do need to do is not attack each other, we need to stick together. If we start turning on each other, then we loose...

TheExpertish
10-12-2011, 9:40 AM
I deleted most of your post, as I want to address this particular part. There is some degree of the part I highlighted going on now. Just how much is a matter of opinion.

Some of us have had poly-sci classes, and do belong to the various .org's you suggested.

Movement from within the ranks would be a wonderful thing, but would involve risk. I would hope the various LE unions would support this - but I doubt it.

I agree that movement within the ranks would be wonderful as well, and yes it would involve risk. I had always hoped to stay on and become a chief myself, but I would have hated the politics, and that's usually what it comes down to. The problem as I see it is that many powers that be mistakingly feel that the more gun restrictions there are the less there is to worry about for the officer on the street. I disagree as do most everyone in this forum. LE unions do speak for the regular rank and file, but will usually only go as far as endorsing candidates. I think for many officer and brass who are on the job for many many years become jaded and have a general distrust for the general public. However, this is an old school form of thinking and I see many younger officers I know with more down to earth views. The training and mentality of officers is evolving and maybe in the near future we can see support coming from unions. What you will never see is it coming from active duty officers.

TheExpertish
10-12-2011, 9:47 AM
:rofl2: yeah right!

Got 2 words for you "qualified immunity".

The point you and others dont seem to get is YOU ARE INVOLVED in politics and are being USED for the agendas of those you claim not to support. I dont know how you can rectify that in your own mind other than to live in denial about the part you atually do play in all of this.

Some folks would choose a different profession rather than live such a dualistic existence.

Qualified immunity shields government officials from liability for the violation of an individual's federal constitutional rights. As the law is interpreted now there is NO violation according to the supreme court at this time. How many times do I have to say that it is not up to us to interpret the laws? Also, I was not aware that I served as a "tool of the machine".:facepalm:

I admit it is a dualistic existence, but not in the sense you suggest. Many many others do choose a different profession, even cops. That's why a very small percentage of this nations population is in law enforcement.

jdberger
10-12-2011, 9:54 AM
Look, as a former LEO and gun lover this is not one of those cases. I will be the first to admit CA's gun laws suck, but they still allow us to have guns. A blue flu for this cause would not work.

Why wouldn't "not showing up" to anti-gun political events not work?

Fixing our gun laws is a long term process. The "machine of oppression" in regards to this states views on 2A IMO, is really more a "machine of irritation". Oppression is a strong strong word coupled with your steam punk fascist vision of the "machine", and oppression meaning "the feeling of being heavily burdened, mentally or physically, by troubles, adverse conditions, anxiety, etc.".

Of course. I meant to say, "the minor irritation of not being allowed to exercise my civil rights". After all - they're really just fancy privileges, aren't they? :rolleyes: (I can't believe that statement came from someone with "Gadsden" in his screen name.)

If you're truly having these sorts of symptoms then I suggest medication and professional counseling.

Ad hominem.

As a former LEO we get where he is coming from. I am glad you are willing to vouch for him not being anti-cop, but what he is failing to see is where WE are coming from. If we took positions on political issues and began to selectively enforce laws as we saw fit, then just try to guess what would happen? (answer: Police State)

Actually, you have a duty to disobey unlawful orders. Also, police rightly exercise personal judgement when enforcing certain laws (giving warnings, etc). However, I never asked you or any other LEO to stop enforcing gun laws.

I don't see enforcing current legally enacted laws as selling my soul.

Nor do I.

If you have a problem with how things are then do this:
1. Join the NRA, CRPA, and Calguns Foundation. Become a life member of all three so you can continue to debate the wrong things while they actually get things accomplished the correct way.

Excellent idea. I'll get right on that. Especially the latter two.

2. Register to vote and when an election comes around....VOTE. I can't tell how many times I've heard people *****ing about our elected officials and what a crap job their doing, and it turns out the *****er had no involvement in the last election, and/or isn't even registered to vote.

Another excellent suggestion. Maybe I should see if I can get involved with efforts to influence City Councils and such.

3. Take a political science 101 class to understand how our government works currently and/or doesn't work. This might help you better understand who's job is what and why.

The hits keep coming - and they're all awesome! Any particular school I should consider? How about law school? Maybe I should do a little legal work, too - so I can better understand the inner workings of the system.

TheExpertish
10-12-2011, 10:01 AM
Okay, let me ask you this. If every LEO you have sought opinion from has told you that they won't and shouldn't get involved in political movements on an individual basis, but you say we should at risk to our jobs and livelyhoods that we love; who is right? We understand why you want us to. We wish we could. We can't. Every police officer has anywhere from 700-1200 hours of training just to UNDERSTAND what we can and cannot do, on and OFF the job. That's before we even get sworn in. You have an opinion. So who isn't understanding here?

Untamed1972
10-12-2011, 10:07 AM
Qualified immunity shields government officials from liability for the violation of an individual's federal constitutional rights. As the law is interpreted now there is NO violation according to the supreme court at this time. How many times do I have to say that it is not up to us to interpret the laws? Also, I was not aware that I served as a "tool of the machine".:facepalm:

I admit it is a dualistic existence, but not in the sense you suggest. Many many others do choose a different profession, even cops. That's why a very small percentage of this nations population is in law enforcement.

As I said, LEOs selectively enforce various laws everyday.....that IS a form of "interpreting the law". So I'm not buying that "passing of the buck".

When a see a TV commercial supporting a new law, propsition, or candidate and it shows it is supported by a LEO union, which is supported by YOUR contributions, then guess what......that makes you a tool of the machine. To try and claim anything else is simply to try and perpetuate the state of denial you must live in to sustain the dualistic life you have chosen.

You tell us to get more politically involved. But I would throw that back to you. Why dont you and your fellow pro-2A LEOs get more involved with your unions to ousta the anti's and quit having YOUR money used to support things you dont agree with? I assume you are allowed to be involved of the politics of your union are you not?

TheExpertish
10-12-2011, 10:22 AM
As I said, LEOs selectively enforce various laws everyday.....that IS a form of "interpreting the law". So I'm not buying that "passing of the buck".

When a see a TV commercial supporting a new law, propsition, or candidate and it shows it is supported by a LEO union, which is supported by YOUR contributions, then guess what......that makes you a tool of the machine. To try and claim anything else is simply to try and perpetuate the state of denial you must live in to sustain the dualistic life you have chosen.

You tell us to get more politically involved. But I would throw that back to you. Why dont you and your fellow pro-2A LEOs get more involved with your unions to ousta the anti's and quit having YOUR money used to support things you dont agree with? I assume you are allowed to be involved of the politics of your union are you not?

Choosing to enforce the "spirit of the law" or the "letter of the law" is determining whether the law has been broken and to what extent. It IS NOT interpreting if it is indeed a law or not. Big difference.

Every POA allows and encourages involvement. I stated before, but maybe I was not as clear, that the general mentality of those who call the shots are not as pro-2A as us on the forum are. I see that trend changing as younger officers rise through the ranks replacing the older ones who are jaded and less citizen gun friendly. The POA is like politics in general and not everyone participates as they should. However, my understanding is the OP wants us to stand up as individuals and speak out as a single person. As a former LEO I can all I want. While I wore the badge, not a chance.

jdberger
10-12-2011, 10:23 AM
Okay, let me ask you this. If every LEO you have sought opinion from has told you that they won't and shouldn't get involved in political movements on an individual basis, but you say we should at risk to our jobs and livelyhoods that we love; who is right? We understand why you want us to. We wish we could. We can't. Every police officer has anywhere from 700-1200 hours of training just to UNDERSTAND what we can and cannot do, on and OFF the job. That's before we even get sworn in. You have an opinion. So who isn't understanding here?

In light of the above, could you please explain the comments of the Livermore officer in the OP? How does he get away with it? Why is he special? Either you can get involved - or you can't.

On a related note, would your former department restrict you from having a political candidate's sign in your front yard - or one related to a ballot proposition? What if you had a "take home" patrol car?

wildhawker
10-12-2011, 10:26 AM
Excellent idea. I'll get right on that. Especially the latter two.
***
Another excellent suggestion. Maybe I should see if I can get involved with efforts to influence City Councils and such.
***
The hits keep coming - and they're all awesome! Any particular school I should consider? How about law school? Maybe I should do a little legal work, too - so I can better understand the inner workings of the system.

Heh. :chris:

-Brandon

Untamed1972
10-12-2011, 10:29 AM
Choosing to enforce the "spirit of the law" or the "letter of the law" is determining whether the law has been broken and to what extent. It IS NOT interpreting if it is indeed a law or not. Big difference.

Every POA allows and encourages involvement. I stated before, but maybe I was not as clear, that the general mentality of those who call the shots are not as pro-2A as us on the forum are. I see that trend changing as younger officers rise through the ranks replacing the older ones who are jaded and less citizen gun friendly. The POA is like politics in general and not everyone participates as they should. However, my understanding is the OP wants us to stand up as individuals and speak out as a single person. As a former LEO I can all I want. While I wore the badge, not a chance.


So giving a stumbling drunk, at least twice the legal BA limit LEO a ride home vs. taking him to jail and impounding his car like you would a regular joe is "spirit of the law" vs. letter of the law aye? Quite frankly I find some of your responses a little disingenuous because you're trying to deny things most everyone here knows are plainly true.

As for POA involvement....then I ask you directly....."how involved ARE YOU with your POA, especially as it relates to 2A issues?" I accept that there are restrictions on what you can say publicly......but then are you taking full advantage of those avenues that are open and available to you?

TheExpertish
10-12-2011, 10:40 AM
In light of the above, could you please explain the comments of the Livermore officer in the OP? How does he get away with it? Why is he special? Either you can get involved - or you can't.

On a related note, would your former department restrict you from having a political candidate's sign in your front yard - or one related to a ballot proposition? What if you had a "take home" patrol car?

What is he getting away with? He's commenting on legislation that has been signed into law. He's commenting on a law, not a political opinion.

And yes, my departments Policies and Procedures prohibited me from displaying political signs in my yard. Doesn't matter if we have a take home car or not. You are a cop on or off duty.

So giving a stumbling drunk, at least twice the legal BA limit LEO a ride home vs. taking him to jail and impounding his car like you would a regular joe is "spirit of the law" vs. letter of the law aye?

Okay, really? We're talking law vs. not a law here. Over the legal limit even for a cop is against the law. Violating that is against the law and against department P&P. You can and will get fired. It's happened. Just because some cops get "let off" by other cops does not mean it's right, or that you even have an argument. You're talking the exception, not the rule and there are many cases of cops getting busted for DUI. Most recently and notably the Riverside PD Chief last year.

Untamed1972
10-12-2011, 11:07 AM
Okay, really? We're talking law vs. not a law here. Over the legal limit even for a cop is against the law. Violating that is against the law and against department P&P. You can and will get fired. It's happened. Just because some cops get "let off" by other cops does not mean it's right, or that you even have an argument. You're talking the exception, not the rule and there are many cases of cops getting busted for DUI. Most recently and notably the Riverside PD Chief last year.

No...I'm talking "selective enforcement" which is "yes...that was illegal but I'm going to ignore it." There could be numerous reasons a LEO would choose to overlook a violation, one of which could be "I dont agree with that law and choose not to enforce it."

My point is selective enforcement happens everyday and to try and act like you're just inescapably bound to enforce every violation of of law in every instance is absurd.

jdberger
10-12-2011, 11:13 AM
Okay, let me ask you this. If every LEO you have sought opinion from has told you that they won't and shouldn't get involved in political movements on an individual basis, but you say we should at risk to our jobs and livelyhoods that we love; who is right? We understand why you want us to. We wish we could. We can't. Every police officer has anywhere from 700-1200 hours of training just to UNDERSTAND what we can and cannot do, on and OFF the job. That's before we even get sworn in. You have an opinion. So who isn't understanding here?

You do realize that there's an active duty LEO who's the President of a pretty large gun rights organization, don't you?

Perhaps he's the exception to the rule?

...Or perhaps the rule isn't as ironclad as it's being made out to be.

TheExpertish
10-12-2011, 11:15 AM
No...I'm talking "selective enforcement" which is "yes...that was illegal but I'm going to ignore it." There could be numerous reasons a LEO would choose to overlook a violation, one of which could be "I dont agree with that law and choose not to enforce it."

My point is selective enforcement happens everyday and to try and act like you're just inescapably bound to enforce every violation of of law in every instance is absurd.

Okay, and as you just described "selective enforcement" in regards to a DUI is against the law, a departments P&P, and something you can get fired for. So you're saying because cops have looked the other way in regards to a DUI in a few instances that we all should now look the other way when we see someone UOC?

Falconis
10-12-2011, 11:18 AM
Way I was trained, there are guidelines to how an officer uses one's discretion.

Felony - Forget it, discretion is gone. There has to be extenuating circumstances.

Domestic Violence - Forget it, excluding extenuating circumstances, discretion is gone.

Misdeameanors - Assuming it's a perfect case, it all hinges on the complainant. If the officer is the complainant, discretion is allowed. It's basically the same as the complainant going I don't want anything done. Example is group of kids go into an empty parking lot with signs posted that say after so and so time, no entry and trash the lot while partying. Officer comes up and has the discretion of citing everyone for everything or asking them if they want to pick up their mess and citing them for one offense only. I know letting them off the hook completely is an option, but in my opinion not a viable one.

Infractions - Completely discretionary

The usual DUI scenario that is given here - I don't know about other parts of California, but in the SF Bay Area, it's pretty much SOP to arrest the officer and all that other stuff. I will agree with you untamed that selective enforcement happens to one extent or another. But for the most part there are guidelines that are followed. The guidelines aren't standard throughout the whole state either.

But the bottom line is that it is the individual officer's discretion to use and no one else's. Anyone that blows twice the legal limit with me gets taken to jail. The liability for not doing it is too great IMO, cop or not. I know in my department there have been officers fired for not taking other cops to jail for DUI after it was discovered. So the argument that every cop gets away with everything is also absurd.

TheExpertish
10-12-2011, 11:24 AM
You do realize that there's an active duty LEO who's the President of a pretty large gun rights organization, don't you?

Perhaps he's the exception to the rule?

...Or perhaps the rule isn't as ironclad as it's being made out to be.

Or perhaps your mind is made up and ALL of us a wrong and should see things you way. So for the sake of argument, I'll bite...

I'm not up on every gun rights organization and who it's run by, so who is he, with what department, and what organization does he run?

Way I was trained, there are guidelines to how an officer uses one's discretion.

Felony - Forget it, discretion is gone. There has to be extenuating circumstances.

Domestic Violence - Forget it, excluding extenuating circumstances, discretion is gone.

Misdeameanors - Assuming it's a perfect case, it all hinges on the complainant. If the officer is the complainant, discretion is allowed. It's basically the same as the complainant going I don't want anything done. Example is group of kids go into an empty parking lot with signs posted that say after so and so time, no entry and trash the lot while partying. Officer comes up and has the discretion of citing everyone for everything or asking them if they want to pick up their mess and citing them for one offense only. I know letting them off the hook completely is an option, but in my opinion not a viable one.

Infractions - Completely discretionary

The usual DUI scenario that is given here - I don't know about other parts of California, but in the SF Bay Area, it's pretty much SOP to arrest the officer and all that other stuff. I will agree with you untamed that selective enforcement happens to one extent or another. But for the most part there are guidelines that are followed. The guidelines aren't standard throughout the whole state either.

But the bottom line is that it is the individual officer's discretion to use and no one else's. Anyone that blows twice the legal limit with me gets taken to jail. The liability for not doing it is too great IMO, cop or not. I know in my department there have been officers fired for not taking other cops to jail for DUI after it was discovered. So the argument that every cop gets away with everything is also absurd.

Falconis is right. This is pretty much standard to how we all are trained. Trying to argue with us as to what laws we're "willing" to enforce and what political objective we're willing to stand up for are two completely different things, and isn't making for much other than a roundy round argument with a ton of holes in it.

Untamed1972
10-12-2011, 11:26 AM
Okay, and as you just described "selective enforcement" in regards to a DUI is against the law, a departments P&P, and something you can get fired for. So you're saying because cops have looked the other way in regards to a DUI in a few instances that we all should now look the other way when we see someone UOC?

Show me in the law where is says you are REQUIRED to arrest or cite that person for the offence? Show me where it says you MUST perform an "e"check?

If one of your LEO buddies showed you his new OLL and you realized it was improperly configured making it an AW.......would you arrest him on the spot or would you smack him on the back of the head and say "Hey dumb-***, you know you just built an AW right? Put a BB on that ASAP!"

If an otherwise law-abiding, non-prohibited person is carrying a weapon for personal protection w/o a CCW in a county where you know he can't get a CCW anyway, where is it written that you MUST arrest/cite that person?

If someone is unknowingly/unintentionally trasporting a firearm improperly, where it written that you MUST arrest that person and seize their weapon vs. just saying "hey, you know legally that needs to be a locked container"?

Get my drift?

moleculo
10-12-2011, 11:28 AM
First let me preface my comments by saying that I don't really have much of an opinion on either side of this debate. However, this statement:

You see, when we are sworn into our position we cease to be citizens in the standard definition. Same goes for military. In a manner of speaking our 1A rights and many others are no longer the same as other people. Believe it or not our rights are diminished and we are held in higher expectations in almost every regard.

I strongly disagree with. First, the metaphor comparison to military is a bad one. Secondly, this entire statement reeks of some nonsense that is fed into the minds of cadets at the academy then is continued to be preached on the job and believed on a daily basis. LEO's are citizens and have the same rights as every other citizen. You don't "cease to be citizens in the standard definition". Their 1A rights are no more diminished on their job as mine are on my job. A LEO may be held in higher expectations than other citizens in regard to certain aspects of the law, but that is part of the job. However, your constitutional rights are no less than any other citizen, and if anything in many States (like CA) are greater than other citizens, especially in the 2A arena.

A LEO is a person with a specific job, not a special class. Do the job that is asked and don't put on any false pretenses that your rights as a citizen are somehow different, better, or worse than any other citizen.

Falconis
10-12-2011, 11:33 AM
You do realize that there's an active duty LEO who's the President of a pretty large gun rights organization, don't you?

Perhaps he's the exception to the rule?

...Or perhaps the rule isn't as ironclad as it's being made out to be.

Who is he and which organization does he work for? One instance does not a practice make.

You say we, as in us two, are in agreement or something like that JD. You'll excuse me if I wonder what your angle is.

I also have to read through the whole thread to see who wrote what.

The problem I have with you JD is your apparent condescending tone and insulting manner in which you write things here when it pertains to LEO's in general. I will admit, I may be misreading things, but I can guarantee you that I am not the only one who sees it this way.

This post was written in the way it was because of the previous "discussion" we had. You pretty much cited the link in your OP. In that other discussion, you try every which way to convince us, as you are attempting to do now, to have us come out and make some grandiose stage performance where you know what the eventual outcome will be whether you admit it or not.

Your replies of sure, we have to work in our own comfort zone and do what we feel and all that other crap you spouted is nothing more than a condescending reply where you downplay our rightful concerns. The way and manner in which you write stuff indicates to me that you have no real care as to what happens to the cop afterwards.

Of course we all reply from knowledge and experience what will happen to us at our own individual departments, but you continue to barrage us with crap such as your deluded and twisted speeches and pictures of protests from 40 years ago and claims of our 1A protections.

I, as in myself, have told you that we do not have those 1A protections should our department decide to fire us. I specifically told you that a cop lost a recent court case when he tried to say he was protected under 1A for some of the actions he took while employed as an LAPD cop. You decided to inform me that I did not have a full understanding of my civil rights or something to that effect. Yet you want to continually barrage us with insults as you do now? I do find your OP insulting. I think the cops here do what we can without losing our livlihood.

The Livermore PD officer who gave that statement probably had departmental authorization to say what he did. At the very least it wasn't a political speech in the sense that he was lambasting the OC'ers. It may have had a negative overall effect on the appearance of OC'ers but it wasn't a direct attack on them. This was, again, your interpretation on this event.

I think you could have wrote it multiple ways, but you chose the path you did. Maybe your law degree and legal job only taught you one way to write things :). Either way, the path you chose was one that was set up for confrontation from the LE members on this board. Not the anti's that you probably should attack.

BigDogatPlay
10-12-2011, 11:37 AM
The question I have concerning the linked quoted from the Livermore PD officer in the OP.....

*** Was he speaking on behalf of the department in his official capacity?

The article is not clear on the context of that quote. If he is speaking with the department's blessing, then there you have the official position of the Livermore Police Department. And for the officer to be quoted exactly that way, my guess is that's what it is.

Otherwise it can be argued that he's not really saying something political but rather a statement of fact. At least the one brief sentence. What else he might have said in the interview we can't know.

moleculo
10-12-2011, 11:38 AM
I, as in myself, have told you that we do not have those 1A protections should our department decide to fire us. I specifically told you that a cop lost a recent court case when he tried to say he was protected under 1A for some of the actions he took while employed as an LAPD cop.

The free speech protection the 1A provides is from being imprisoned, arrested, etc. It does not necessarily protect you from being fired by your employer if you say something that can be viewed as detrimental to your employer. Big difference. A department policy against saying things that could cause the public to view those statements as an endorsement of a political position is not a violation of the 1A. Your 1A rights are NOT diminished.

Falconis
10-12-2011, 11:41 AM
Moleculo - You are right to a certain extent. We can exercise all our rights, like you, anytime we wish. Problem is (as stated before, and is apparently the theme once again) we may and probably will be fired for actions we take.

You're saying that we are held to a higher standard, yet we are like everyone else. I do agree that cops should be held to a higher standard in a lot of respects, but to say we are like everyone else (in the context of this thread) is disingenuous at best. I do agree at the end of the day cops, like everyone else kick off their shoes and do whatever it is everyone wants to do.

But the very nature of our jobs says we can and can not do this or that.

To give you an example, if I pull over for a citizen who's car broke down, I will be more than happy to call them a tow truck of their choosing. I can not, like anyone else, recommend any service per my departmental policies. This is to prevent certain things from happening. I am sure everyone here can imagine what they are. Hell, when I first started, some cops kept the yellow pages in the trunk of their patrol cars.

So you are right on 2 counts. We are fed that stuff at the academy, but we are also given all the reasons why.

and like I said, you are right, we can express our 1A anytime we want. Most of us better have a back up job planned should we decide to do it.

Falconis
10-12-2011, 11:43 AM
The free speech protection the 1A provides is from being imprisoned, arrested, etc. It does not necessarily protect you from being fired by your employer if you say something that can be viewed as detrimental to your employer. Big difference. A department policy against saying things that could cause the public to view those statements as an endorsement of a political position is not a violation of the 1A. Your 1A rights are NOT diminished.

Tell that to JD. He's the one under the impression we are protected. I am saying we are not.

TheExpertish
10-12-2011, 11:48 AM
Show me in the law where is says you are REQUIRED to arrest or cite that person for the offence? Show me where it says you MUST perform an "e"check?

If one of your LEO buddies showed you his new OLL and you realized it was improperly configured making it an AW.......would you arrest him on the spot or would you smack him on the back of the head and say "Hey dumb-***, you know you just built an AW right? Put a BB on that ASAP!"

If an otherwise law-abiding, non-prohibited person is carrying a weapon for personal protection w/o a CCW in a county where you know he can't get a CCW anyway, where is it written that you MUST arrest/cite that person?

If someone is unknowingly/unintentionally trasporting a firearm improperly, where it written that you MUST arrest that person and seize their weapon vs. just saying "hey, you know legally that needs to be a locked container"?

Get my drift?

I get your drift, BUT you still aren't getting the bigger picture, and I know that without being able to go through the academy and walk in my shoes you likely will not. I'd suggest going on some ride-alongs and seeing what we go through, and get first hand opinions. I'd suggest doing so with an open mind and be more of listener than a talker. Get my drift?

Falconis in this thread and the previous could not have been more clear. You guys have your opinion and we have ours. You want us to do something, we say we can't. You're not going to be able to convince us otherwise, and clearly we're getting about as far on our side.

I think at best we should remember that we are somewhat on the same "team" here at Calguns, and how we want to support 2A is an individual decision just like what gun to own. Maybe it's best to just leave it at that. Regardless, I'm done.

moleculo
10-12-2011, 11:53 AM
Moleculo - You are right to a certain extent. We can exercise all our rights, like you, anytime we wish. Problem is (as stated before, and is apparently the theme once again) we may and probably will be fired for actions we take.

You're saying that we are held to a higher standard, yet we are like everyone else. I do agree that cops should be held to a higher standard in a lot of respects, but to say we are like everyone else (in the context of this thread) is disingenuous at best. I do agree at the end of the day cops, like everyone else kick off their shoes and do whatever it is everyone wants to do.

But the very nature of our jobs says we can and can not do this or that.

To give you an example, if I pull over for a citizen who's car broke down, I will be more than happy to call them a tow truck of their choosing. I can not, like anyone else, recommend any service per my departmental policies. This is to prevent certain things from happening. I am sure everyone here can imagine what they are. Hell, when I first started, some cops kept the yellow pages in the trunk of their patrol cars.

So you are right on 2 counts. We are fed that stuff at the academy, but we are also given all the reasons why.

and like I said, you are right, we can express our 1A anytime we want. Most of us better have a back up job planned should we decide to do it.

We are basically agreeing, but your choice of words is probably my issue.

Saying your "rights" are diminished is a lot different than saying you can't just do whatever you want. Being held to a "higher standard" with regards to the various laws is still a different topic than what your "rights" are.

The only "rights" that we have as citizens are spelled out in the Constitution of the U.S. and the Constitution of the State we live in. Those rights are the same for all citizens, regardless of the job we have. Other standards that are applied to us with regards to our jobs are a different issue and usually need to be thought of separately from the "rights" that we as citizens enjoy. It's very common for people to confuse the two issues and intertwine them in their daily life, but it is an important concept to understand.

jdberger
10-12-2011, 11:54 AM
Or perhaps your mind is made up and ALL of us a wrong and should see things you way. So for the sake of argument, I'll bite...

I'm not up on every gun rights organization and who it's run by, so who is he, with what department, and what organization does he run?


Who is he and which organization does he work for? One instance does not a practice make.


You mean after all that hullaballoo about how LEOs who stood up for 2A rights would lose their jobs, sacrifice all the hard work that it took them to get there, families to provide for and mouths to feed - y'all are willing to throw a fellow brother in arms so quickly under the bus to try and prove a point?

You know that this forum is regularly reviewed by police brass. Why would you be so cavalier?

I sure won't.

Librarian
10-12-2011, 11:55 AM
Seems to me we're looping back through the same territory without actually getting anywhere.

Thanks for the (generally) polite ride folks.

Closed.