An Important Question for the LEO's

[ktd1597 10]

OP:

 

Just using some deduction, I would think that most LE wouldn't want to "get involved" publicly with this no matter what they thought. When you see in the news various high ranking NJ LEO's standing lockstep with the Cryptkeeper and other politicians at anti-gun rights freak show circus events, it kinda makes sense. It never helps to be known as "that guy" to your superiors in your peer group. Definitely can be viewed as a career limiting move.

 

True if you are trying to climb the ladder. Someone mentioned that most are conservative. That observation is very correct. We don't talk much about our politics away from each other. The "top cops" running the show are usually a very far cry from us bottom feeders, both politically and philosophically.

[ktd1597 10]

Outrageous invasion of privacy.

 

 

If you invest a great deal of your adult life, time and blood in a career, you have to be careful when certain rules are brought up to the forefront. I should open up my work manual and read some of the rules that are still on the books just to remind myself.

 

Police discretion is being eroded by fear from above, knowing you can be (and ARE) second guessed at any moment doing a job that is a thousand shades of gray.

[BlueLineFish 615]

I would love to see them try and tell my co-workers and I that we can't have our phones. I keep a lot of work related stuff on there

[djg0770 481]

 

 

Cmon man, most police dont get shot at let alone draw their duty weapon in their entire careers.

 

I'll tell you this, their chance of injury is far greater than mine and I make a metric ton more and I don't have to deal w the underbelly of society.

 

Yeah yeah, they chose it and all that rot. I know.

[KpdPipes 388]

Outrageous invasion of privacy.

Part of the job..at one point because of politics when we were VERY shorthanded, and non-emergent calls were running 45-50 minutes, we were informed that telling anyone outside the dept how many people were working on a shift would be considered Insubordination, and charged Administratively that way. Even under Civil Service that qualifies as a Terminable offense.

[KpdPipes 388]

come from a family of cops and respectfully disagree. From townies to staties, there is way too much lock step and barrel going on in LE.

 

You know YOUR family..I know thousands of cops from hundreds of agencies across the country..

[Old School 611]

I'll tell you this, their chance of injury is far greater than mine and I make a metric ton more and I don't have to deal w the underbelly of society.

 

Yeah yeah, they chose it and all that rot. I know.

 

 

 

 

LMFAO

[Holeshot 3]

To the OP and everyone else reading - tell me one professional career where politics and personal beliefs don't matter. If everyone in your Accounting Office is a vegan, and you walk in eating a cheesesteak that's not going to have repercussions of some kind? Get real.

 

No one likes having anyone else's personal beliefs thrown in their face. Not about religion, sexuality, etc...

 

AMEN!

[ChrisJM981 924]

A fellow employee was fired for his expressing his feelings on his day off, because someone in upper management recognized him on the news. Actions have consequences, at work AND in your personal life. He got back his job and back pay, but it took almost a year.

 

I wouldn't be surprised if some departments have directives against certain activities. I know my employer does. Our rulebook clearly states we cannot speak ill of the company. Failure to comply is considered insubordination, which is a fireable offense.

[Holeshot 3]

I wonder how many forum members who attended the 2A rallies and who work for Corporate America walked in and told their boss "Hey I'm taking off from work to attend a rally to defend my 2A rights and also to defend my right to own AR/AK-type firearms in the state of NJ".

 

LOL, I'll tell you how many ZERO!

[Holeshot 3]

A fellow employee was fired for his expressing his feelings on his day off, because someone in upper management recognized him on the news. Actions have consequences, at work AND in your personal life. He got back his job and back pay, but it took almost a year.

 

I wouldn't be surprised if some departments have directives against certain activities. I know my employer does. Our rulebook clearly states we cannot speak ill of the company. Failure to comply is considered insubordination, which is a fireable offense.

 

And can I get a HALLELUJAH!

[smoe_picka 0]

I think it's terrible to have to provide passwords. The USMC was caught doing this about 2 years ago to it's basic trainees. It's a horrible double standard that the cops must but the mayor, prosecutor, zoning board and township administrator do not. I do support clarity in governance. I think it should be all or nothing across the board. I have seem some folks get completely shafted by having an episode of placing foot in mouth by sharing political, racial, religious or sexual views at work in the presence of the wrong people. You never know who believes what in the chain of command.

[jrfly3006 42]

I wonder how many forum members who attended the 2A rallies and who work for Corporate America walked in and told their boss "Hey I'm taking off from work to attend a rally to defend my 2A rights and also to defend my right to own AR/AK-type firearms in the state of NJ".

 

LOL, I'll tell you how many ZERO!

And how many on here have an absolute crap attack when their employers are contacted for verification when applying for FID or P2P

[1LtCAP 4,263]

I disagree. The local LEO who handled my last set of PP permits told me flat out he knows nothing about guns and all he does with his is qualify once every 6 months. He also thought our NJ laws were typical of what people hade to endure around the country. LEOs can be just as ignorant about guns or gun laws as anyone else.

uumm...yikes!! THAT is kinda scary. i would never hire a mechanic that lacked a basic skill necessary, even if it was only necessary once in awhile. in fact, i had a guy that i really liked apply to me for a part time job. had over 30 years experience. yet he'd never done a single front end alignment......he didn't get the job.

[Chvl67 0]

I wonder how many forum members who attended the 2A rallies and who work for Corporate America walked in and told their boss "Hey I'm taking off from work to attend a rally to defend my 2A rights and also to defend my right to own AR/AK-type firearms in the state of NJ".

 

LOL, I'll tell you how many ZERO!

Unfortunately you'd be wrong-I specifically told my boss why I took off on 2/8 and where I'd be. Of course he had to call me on my way there to ask about business continuity on account of the crappy snowstorm.

After the Assembly vote, I had a sit down with him to discuss a move to AZ in the next 4-5 years-even though I will continue the fight, he knows where I come down.

[JibbaJabba 7]

 

 

I'll tell you this, their chance of injury is far greater than mine and I make a metric ton more and I don't have to deal w the underbelly of society.

 

Yeah yeah, they chose it and all that rot. I know.

 

Hiring?

 

During our "informational meetings," the heavy hitters always seem to manage to throw in a small liberal video to help persuade those assembled. I throw up in my mouth a little. Sadly, It's the way of the world.

[Bob B 103]

Correct me if I am wrong, but, based on the feedback so far, there does not seem to be any kind of official policy prohibiting LEO's from participating in public hearings, town halls, committee hearings, etc. as long as they are not in uniform, it is done on their own time and they do not claim to represent the views of their department, only themselves. For the LEO's that responded, is the unofficial policy enough to dissuade you from participating, or do you feel like you can do so relatively freely?

[keithco88 3]

@OP - Not sure you objective here, but if you're trying to collect the information from those in a best position to give an informed opinion you'll need to get an anonymous survey method.

 

Unfortunately the only truly anonymous method would be an arduous in-person survey similar to our voting procedures, but with no electronic records directly produced because then you could tie responses to the officer with timestamps. My proposal would be a sign-in sheet with badge number (for authentication purposes) and PD/precinct filled in randomly to avoid that same timestamp issue and a simple survey (less than 10 questions) with yes/no or a 1-5 (Strongly Agree to Strongly Disagree) scale. No handwriting that could be matched to other samples.

 

End of the day, good luck getting approval to collect that information AND fighting the inevitable "how do we know you didn't cook the books" BS from people who will instantly slam you for NOT doing it electronically because it would be "safe and secure". Unless you want to invent a chunk of money in security and such something as simple as survey monkey isn't going to give your respondents the security & confidentiality they seem to need.

[mcbethr 42]

I disagree. The local LEO who handled my last set of PP permits told me flat out he knows nothing about guns and all he does with his is qualify once every 6 months. He also thought our NJ laws were typical of what people hade to endure around the country. LEOs can be just as ignorant about guns or gun laws as anyone else.

 

I'm not an LEO but serve in the Guard and about 10-20% % of the soldiers are LEO's, depending on the unit. It has been my experience that you can fit LEO's into two categories: Gun guys and tool guys. The LEOs who are gun guys gravitate towards the tactical teams and display a genuine interest in firearms. Other LEOs don't carry off duty - some don't even bring their guns home at the end of the day. It's just a tool they need to do their job, so it's not surprising that some would be uninterested in firearms or firearm rights.

[High Exposure 5,664]

Correct me if I am wrong, but, based on the feedback so far, there does not seem to be any kind of official policy prohibiting LEO's from participating in public hearings, town halls, committee hearings, etc. as long as they are not in uniform, it is done on their own time and they do not claim to represent the views of their department, only themselves. For the LEO's that responded, is the unofficial policy enough to dissuade you from participating, or do you feel like you can do so relatively freely?

 

There is no unofficial policy. It is plain common sense and it applies across the board to every profession out there.

 

If you are a union plumber, are you going to go to an anti-union rally and tell everyone at the hall you did so and still expect to get work?

 

If you work for PETA do you wear a leather jacket to work everyday?

 

Like physics, every action has a reaction. If you know you work in a pro 2A town for a vocally pro 2A administration in an openly Pro2A county sides, Good on ya! Wave the flag and let everyone know.

 

You need to "know your audience" so to speak and pick your battles appropriately in any job.

 

Bucking the system is not the way to get ahead. If you don't get ahead you can not affect any real change.

 

I do more good keeping my non-status quo beliefs to myself at work, but guiding my squad and educating them on the finer pionts of the 2A, NJ Gun laws, and appropriate use of discretion than wearing an NRA hat and throwing what I think is right in everyone's faces.

 

My $0.02

 

ETA: It feels like you are fishing for a hidden agenda that just isn't there.

[Bob B 103]

Do you feel free to testify at a public hearing, like a Senate Law and Public Safety Committee hearing (off duty, not in uniform), or do you feel that there would be some kind of consequence?

[ktd1597 10]

Correct me if I am wrong, but, based on the feedback so far, there does not seem to be any kind of official policy prohibiting LEO's from participating in public hearings, town halls, committee hearings, etc. as long as they are not in uniform, it is done on their own time and they do not claim to represent the views of their department, only themselves. For the LEO's that responded, is the unofficial policy enough to dissuade you from participating, or do you feel like you can do so relatively freely?

 

I agree, I do not believe there is an official position as long as I do NOT represent myself as an Officer. I WOULD go regardless since I'm not going to be promoted any time soon. Keep in mind though sometimes "I" feel uncomfortable not belonging and somtimes not welcome by either side.

[Bob B 103]

I agree, I do not believe there is an official position as long as I do NOT represent myself as an Officer. I WOULD go regardless since I'm not going to be promoted any time soon. Keep in mind though sometimes "I" feel uncomfortable not belonging and somtimes not welcome by either side.

 

Thank you. That's an honest answer.

 

Do you think it would be okay to say something like "My name is xxxxxx. I am speaking for myself only as a concerned citizen. I have an opinion about this bill because I am a police officer with xx years of experience. I think this bill is good/bad because, based on my experience..."

 

In other words, your testimony is important precisely because of your background. To exclude that you have that background may lower the perceived importance of your opinion. Do you think that would be okay, again, as long you are not in uniform and you do not claim to be representing your department or the institution in general - that you declare up front that you are speaking only for yourself?

[Porthole 15]

The higher up you go in LE the more political it is so you can all figure what happens.

 

 

We call it FLS

[ktd1597 10]

Thank you. That's an honest answer.

 

Do you think it would be okay to say something like "My name is xxxxxx. I am speaking for myself only as a concerned citizen. I have an opinion about this bill because I am a police officer with xx years of experience. I think this bill is good/bad because, based on my experience..."

 

In other words, your testimony is important precisely because of your background. To exclude that you have that background may lower the perceived importance of your opinion. Do you think that would be okay, again, as long you are not in uniform and you do not claim to be representing your department or the institution in general - that you declare up front that you are speaking only for yourself?

 

this is just my opinion, but no to the 2nd part about my career. i'd have to think about it. this may be the reason you see a lot of retired cops speaking out.

[keithco88 3]

see TTAG article linked here for policeone.com survey asking questions about proposed gun laws, concealed carry, etc.

 

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2013/04/daniel-zimmerman/question-of-the-day-do-you-know-more-about-guns-than-15000-cops-mr-president/

[Soju 153]

There is no unofficial policy. It is plain common sense and it applies across the board to every profession out there.

 

Like physics, every action has a reaction. If you know you work in a pro 2A town for a vocally pro 2A administration in an openly Pro2A county sides, Good on ya! Wave the flag and let everyone know.

 

You need to "know your audience" so to speak and pick your battles appropriately in any job.

 

Bucking the system is not the way to get ahead. If you don't get ahead you can not affect any real change.

 

I do more good keeping my non-status quo beliefs to myself at work, but guiding my squad and educating them on the finer pionts of the 2A, NJ Gun laws, and appropriate use of discretion than wearing an NRA hat and throwing what I think is right in everyone's faces.

 

My $0.02

 

ETA: It feels like you are fishing for a hidden agenda that just isn't there.

 

I have to agree. It doesn't matter if there is a policy specifically stating you ARE allowed to do these things. If you are going to speak out on something and that something is not directly in line with your bosses (in any profession), or worse, is opposite, there are consequences and repercussions. You can be completely correct, it can be completely lawful, legal, and not a violation of any work policy. But guess what. Unless you are at the very top of the ladder, the people over you can make things difficult for you. It IS a matter of discresion. This is NOT an issue of right or wrong, sadly. What we are talking about is politics. There are a different set of rules.

 

With that sad, YOU need to figure out how far you will take things when it comes to standing up for your beliefs. For some people, the saying "shut up and color" is where they stand. They might not do anything to jeopardize their career, even if they think something is wrong. For others, they may push back a little, but go no further than, again as the saying goes, "how much your career can handle." Others more, might think their beliefs and convictions are more important than their career, and go past that line. Sometimes, if they are really right, and have legal standing, can get away with it. But it is almost always a battle. Sometimes, you might find yourself in a world of hurt.

 

I think why this may be directed towards LEO's, is because they, like many government employees, often have a shorter leash, and more rules/policies to deal with than others. I've seen and dealt with this first hand.