Anti LEO

[tyrist]

I believe that you've completely misunderstood everything that I've posted.

There are plenty of folks who stand up and make positive contributions toward gun rights every day. However, LEOs, by virtue of their positions in the community, have a bully pulpit that they can use. I'd simply like to see them use it.

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.

[jdberger]

Bullcrap.

I've seen plenty of LEOs (non-brass) appear in Proposition commercials shilling for increased revenue for "public safety".

[Falconis]

Bullcrap as that may be, we'll still get hosed in the end. Unless you can afford to pay all my expenses for 1 to 2 and half years, it's simply just not gonna happen. Like I said, there are policies in place and unless ALL the higher ups concur, it's going to be deemed illegal or out of policy

[jdberger]

Like we've discussed in our PMs - there may be a way to fix that.

[oaklander]

I go back and forth on the issue. I always judge a person by who that person is. That's the way I was taught when I was growing up.

So I think anyone who just says that "all LE sucks" or something like that - is totally an idiot - and I will say it to his face if he says that sort of crap in front of me.

MOST LE folks are fine people who do a dangerous job, for not as much money as they deserve.

The ONLY issue I have with California LE isn't even really an "LE" issue - it's a DOJ issue. The DOJ is dragging its feet with respect to the whole OLL thing. As you all know - OLLs are as common and legal as bacon and eggs.

Yet - the main "LE entity" in the state refuses to accept that fact, at least officially.

THIS IS MY ONLY MAIN COMPLAINT.

I think that there are individual men and women out there who should probably not be enforcing laws, because those people do not have the right "character" to do the job. But rank & file LE folks view those same people the same way I do - as a liability to the force and something that makes the rest of them look bad.

Again, I'm not above telling a "donut joke" now and then. But I also have to put up with "trailer trash" jokes (about me), so it's all good. Sometimes we are ALL too "thin skinned."

I'm saying this as a member of a family with a long LE tradition, at least on my mom's side. My dad's side, not so much. . . The opposite, really. . .



The point is that I'm not just opining here, this all is based on personal experience.

[tyrist]

An example

Wait till the end and see what that nice Officer in uniform is wearing. Have you caught what he is missing on his uniform?



No badge. I will admit that budget issues are specifically exempted from the policy.

[jdberger]

No badge.

Gotcha. Agreed.

You weren't privy to my PMs with Falconis so you wouldn't have seen that I suggested the same thing.

Something like, "I'm Officer _____. I've 14 years experience as a police officer...."

[Falconis]

It may work, that officer may still get in trouble. You're still gonna need a lot of people to agree to let that officer do what ever it is you are planning.

[jdberger]

Not CA - but how about this?

[tyrist]

As Police Officers we have a duty to protect the rights of everyone and treat them all equally; so we cannot be seen as taking one side against the other.

As I said we are allowed to ask the public for additional funding etc. We should be able to ask for funding for a dive team, new police cars, upgraded radios, cash overtime, and a wide range of other issues which directly relate to employment.

[jdberger]

It may work, that officer may still get in trouble. You're still gonna need a lot of people to agree to let that officer do what ever it is you are planning.

That's where the Unions come in.

"If you ding our boys for 1st Amendment protected speech, we'll....".

[tyrist]

Not CA - but how about this?

They pull that crap and the brass rationalizes it as security or crowd control. Did any of the Officers speak or promote it? Also that looks like upper management there as well. Stars and bars on the shoulders.

[jdberger]

We can quibble - or we can act.

If we can get a 1A exemption and Union backing, are you willing to act?

[Falconis]

Me, No. Primarily because a recent court decision stated that a person may be entitled to 1A but they are not entitled to their job. There is basically little wiggle room. I will continue to act as a private citizen, but as far as risking my job and paycheck and welfare of my family, I'll continue to quibble here. Besides I almost know for a fact this is something my union will probably sidestep.

[jdberger]

Me, No. Primarily because a recent court decision stated that a person may be entitled to 1A but they are not entitled to their job. There is basically little wiggle room. I will continue to act as a private citizen, but as far as risking my job and paycheck and welfare of my family, I'll continue to quibble here. Besides I almost know for a fact this is something my union will probably sidestep.

The difference here being that your employer is the Government which can't infringe on your 1A rights. (At least I think so)

Also, you're not purporting to represent your particular employer - only your profession.

Finally, the MEMBERSHIP is the Union. A concerted effort by the membership should be enough to get the Union to act - especially if there isn't any downside. What? The Union will piss off Management? That's their raison d'etre, anyway.