Current tattoo policies out dated?

[Bobby Ricigliano]

I know I'm probably going to get bashed for posting this... but I have recently thought about joining LASD/LAPD and the idea is quickly fading due to the tattoo policy...

I'm prior military, was raised in a military family, pretty much perfect record besides a speeding ticket in my teens. I think I have great morals still to this day. I work in the community right now and find I'm a very approachable person.
The idea that I would get passed up even if I was a better candidate because of my tattoos just really gets to me!!!! In this day and age I would think we would be moving pass this... I understand the "professional image" thing... but I think its becoming some what out dated... more and more "professionals" are getting ink every day.

For instance my wife is an RN and works for a state hospital and is pretty much covered... neck, chest, fingers, arms etc..... and it would actually be illegal for them not to hire her because of her ink or make her cover any of them up. It would be discrimination.

Sorry for my rant I just feel like venting... I just disagree with the current policy and feel that LE could be missing out on some great people just because of tattoos... especially here in CA!

i guess ill just have to wait 20 years maybe someone from a younger generation will be in charge and understand lol

I am a sworn LEO and I have tats (not visible in uniform). I feel your pain somewhat but your attitude is wrong. The fact that LE agency tattoo policies are not convenient for you does not allow you to dismiss them as antiquated or behind the times. The fact that it may exclude you does not invalidate it. I am personally fine with full sleeves or whatever, but the 65 year old burglary victim may read it a different way, and the perception of the public has to be considered.

[WyattandDoc]

I think ANY tattoos should be allowed for ANY govt job, including military.

Seems to be a basic 1st Amendment issue.

Have to treat it just like any other semi-permanent appearance altering aspect.

Can you decide to not hire someone for a govt job because they got a scar on their cheek from when they fell off a bike when they were 6yrs old? No.

So why is it OK for the same for a tat they got when also a minor?

You have it all wrong. When you sign on to the military or LE Agency, you lose most of your 1st Amendment Rights.

[hermosabeach]

Profile

I hope my post isn't leading you to believe i have PTSD.
do!

Noting in your post suggests PTSD or a tendacy to over react


With that said-

If a department has hired a former military, paid for the academy and had them wash out in the first year due to PTSD or being heavy handed, it can be in their mind at some level when hiring.


If you self sponsor and get your post on your own time and dime, it shows your commitment. It is also easier to hire as they can get you into the field to see how you work with out the time and cost of the academy.


Think of the questions they might ask in an interview?

Why do you want to be a police officer?
What cops do you know?
What is your understanding of the role?
What have you done to prep yourself for the role?



What are the answers-
I want a government job and a pension?

Well after learning about the role, I opted to self sponser for the academy. I also enrolled in the local community college or adult school and started taking Spanish lessons.


Again there are tons of departments in the LA basin currently hiring.

Find one that is a good fit.

[bonusweb]

You have it all wrong. When you sign on to the military or LE Agency, you lose most of your 1st Amendment Rights.

That goes for any job. Its not like you lose 1st amendment. Just that mostly there is no right to keep employment.

Military is bit different because you made a time commitment.

Actors etc have contracts, they can just put on a bunch if tattoos, while on contract, if it's in contract for movies for example.

[Che762x39]

I'm prior military, was raised in a military family, ..more and more "professionals" are getting ink every day.

For instance my wife is an RN and works for a state hospital and is pretty much covered... neck, chest, fingers, arms etc..... and it would actually be illegal for them not to hire her because of her ink or make her cover any of them up. It would be discrimination.

Interesting. I was a Marine and as a teenager the tattooist said if you ever was to become a cop he would have to put "USMC" and the "bulldog" where it would not be visible. In the barracks when we talked about tattoos the cop topic would come up.

Now what you might consider a "professional" and what others consider a "professional" might be something else.

Really you should consider becoming an RN. After 30+ years as a lawman I always thought that was a cool career.

[cop1211]

If you want to get hired, cover the tats. I've got a few that are not visible.
What's the big deal cover them for work, uncover on your time.

[echoThreeOneSix]

If you want to get hired, cover the tats. I've got a few that are not visible.
What's the big deal cover them for work, uncover on your time.

exactly... I believe that's called professionalism.

[cop1211]

When I joined the Marines in 1989 they had just came out with the policy that you weren't supposed to get any tats showing. I had plans on getting sleeves on both arms. I followed the policy even though I didn't like it.
Got a couple on my upper shoulders, inside and out, and a piece on my back.
Policy is policy, my police dept. now has a no show policy, but if new hires apply with showing tats they can still come aboard if they cover them. Either by wearing long sleeve shirt, which would suck here in Florida, or they can wear a tat cover sleeve.
Put your app in, and cover the tats, show'em when your off duty.
Don't let a tat policy stop you from trying to get into LE, we need good officers.
Once you get hired tats will be the least of your concerns

[ckim34]

I have a half sleeve on my right arm which is visable at times and a few other visible tattoos. My departments policy is that tattoos can be visable just as long as they are not "offensive". I've gone through 2 Chiefs and neither has told me to cover up my tattoos.

Just FYI but I work in the SF Bay Area where things are a bit more liberal. I also started LE at a young age (22) so I guess I have a different view on tattoos than someone who might be a bit more seasoned.

[bonusweb]

I have a half sleeve on my right arm which is visable at times and a few other visible tattoos. My departments policy is that tattoos can be visable just as long as they are not "offensive". I've gone through 2 Chiefs and neither has told me to cover up my tattoos.

Just FYI but I work in the SF Bay Area where things are a bit more liberal. I also started LE at a young age (22) so I guess I have a different view on tattoos than someone who might be a bit more seasoned.

What you doing describe it think most people are concerned police will start looking like gang members.




They are already a big problem in the military.

http://usmilitary.about.com/od/justicelawlegislation/a/gangs.htm

Members of nearly every major street gang, including the Bloods, Crips, Black Disciples, Gangster Disciples, Hells Angels, Latin Kings, The 18th Street Gang, Mara Salvatrucha (MS-13), Mexican Mafia, Nortenos, Surenos, Vice Lords, and various white supremacist groups, have been documented on military installations. Although most prevalent in the Army, the Army Reserves, and the National Guard, gang activity is pervasive throughout all branches of the military and across most ranks, but is most common among the junior enlisted ranks, according to the report. The extent of gang presence in the armed services is often difficult to determine since many enlisted gang members conceal their gang affiliation and military authorities may not recognize gang affiliation or may be inclined not to report such incidences

[five.five-six]

If your tats are visible while wearing a short sleeve t-shirt and long pants, I would not hire you. not for a cop not for a RN, not for a janitor. Not for anything.

How about if I just got a neon sign attached to my head stating: "I have poor life decision making skills" would you hire me then?

[sdfire]

Getting tattoos does not mean a person has made poor life decisions. But there should be more thought put into future employment when getting them in visible parts of the body. I have tattooed countless professionals that have gotten tattoos to distract ,or cover, from other scars and such that they did not choose. (women with cancer for instance). But having tattoos on the hands and face has even been looked down upon by most old school tattoo artists. If you see old pictures they would usually only tattoo what could be covered with a suit, so they could still go out into the world if they wanted to and not be judged. It wasn't until the turn of this century that more young people would get highly visible tattoos ,that were not affiliated with a gang or other organization, and think that everyone should just accept it. I have been involved in the tattoo industry for over 17 years, and the stigma still remains. But with so many valuable members of society having tattoos, eventually LE will run out of viable candidates if they do not adapt their policy at some point. The OP should just try and apply and see what happens. Policies only change when there are those that are willing to take a chance to change them.

[five.five-six]

Tattoo = poor life decision making skills. That's indisputable.

[WyattandDoc]

Tattoo = poor life decision making skills. That's indisputable.

Why?

[Country_Jim]

Tattoo = poor life decision making skills. That's indisputable.

That is an ignorant statement. I have ink and know numerous people with ink. We are all successful, family oriented people. Having tattoos does not mean a person has made poor decisions. That being said, if a person chooses to have their face, neck or hands tattooed, then he/she should take into consideration that he/she is limiting his/her career choices.