I Will Take My Uniform Off and Stand with Freedom Before I...

[hornadylnl]

First, let me say that the FOP is dead wrong on this issue, and that comes from a not-very happy member. The FOP, like many other collective bargaining units is not necessarily representative of its membership when it comes to political endorsements. I've never believed that the membership at the local level had a great deal of input into policy at the national level, especially with all the deal-making and arm twisting that goes on in Washington. Just like the UAW, Teamsters, and other labor-oriented organizations, the FOP's endorsement is probably a result of consideration being offered for something else that the FOP wants in other areas of discussion, like the elimination of the Social Security windfall penalty. In short, I suspect the national FOP leadership got bought off, but I just don't know what the payoff would be yet.

You still pay the dues?

 

[blamecharles]

They're voted in by those that choose to vote.
The FOP is no different than any other organization.
Some vote and some don't.
Just like those who didn't vote, or threw their vote away in a self satisfying futile "protest vote" for an alternative candidate, are just as responsible for "O" being reelected as those who actually voted for the butt hole.

So we should just vote for people we don't like is what you are saying? Can you explain how Romney would have been better?

 

[UncleMike]

So we should just vote for people we don't like is what you are saying? Can you explain how Romney would have been better?

Can't say one way or the other...
The dip sticks who voted for "O" and the "alternative" candidates made it a moot point.
AND...
As far as I'm concerned they can all stew in their own crap.
I'm just glad there are elected officials like this Sheriff mentioned in the OP who plan to stand up to the Washington tyranny.

 

[miguel]

I wish he would leave it on and fight for us from his position.

 

[Sarge470]

hornadylnl, I still belong to the lodge...primarily because the legal defense fund is not available to non-members. To me, membership is more of a "brotherhood" thing, since I'm not the least bit active in collective bargaining issues. The dues are a heck of a lot cheaper than they are in the patrolmen's union, which is the only other real legal recourse in the event that someone slings an allegation my way. I don't agree with the national leadership on this issue, any more than gun-owning UAW members agree with everything their union bosses do. If I found the "perfect" organization that believed in everything I do and mirrored my thoughts exactly, I'd probably fall over and die from shock.

 

[hornadylnl]

hornadylnl, I still belong to the lodge...primarily because the legal defense fund is not available to non-members. To me, membership is more of a "brotherhood" thing, since I'm not the least bit active in collective bargaining issues. The dues are a heck of a lot cheaper than they are in the patrolmen's union, which is the only other real legal recourse in the event that someone slings an allegation my way. I don't agree with the national leadership on this issue, any more than gun-owning UAW members agree with everything their union bosses do. If I found the "perfect" organization that believed in everything I do and mirrored my thoughts exactly, I'd probably fall over and die from shock.

So the legal defense fund is worth propping up the beast who supports bad cops?

 

[225646]

I would offer that the President and Congress know they can not win a direct assault against the second admendment. They will pass some regulations and over the next 4 years take more and more rights away.

 

[Sarge470]

I think you're injecting more into my statement than is accurate. Like any union, one of the FOP's purposes is to protect employees from "arbitrary and capricious practices" of management (in the case of cops, politically elected and appointed management). What you may define as a "bad cop" may or may not actually be "bad" according to law and its application through due process. Are there bad apples in law enforcement? Absolutely! Are they as pervasive as you seem to think (as evidenced by most of your posts)? Not in the least. Take for example the now-infamous Chris Dorner; you've been extremely critical of LAPD for not canning him before they did...do I need to remind you that he was an Naval reserve officer a lot longer than he was with LAPD, and served in command of other sailors due to his rank? He was allowed to keep his naval rank and position for almost four years after the LAPD gave him the boot, but I haven't heard you raising a ruckus about the navy yet...your consistent focus has been on finding fault with LE in every thread I've seen you post in. If there are bad apples, I want them gone just as much or more than you do, because they reflect negatively on me, whether we're even on the same department or not. Bad apples make my job harder, because they erode public trust in what I do, despite my best efforts to be courteous, honest, and ethical in my dealings with the tax-paying public. Keep in mind that I have immediate and extended family (non-LE)in various parts of the state and country that have to interact with law enforcement periodically, so I have to think about the quality of the services provided to them as well...I want their cops to be good, honest and hard-working just as much as anyone.

 

[Gniks18]

good sh*t right there. Unfortunately the interviewer is kind of a derp, but hey, take what ya can get.

 

[hornadylnl]

I think you're injecting more into my statement than is accurate. Like any union, one of the FOP's purposes is to protect employees from "arbitrary and capricious practices" of management (in the case of cops, politically elected and appointed management). What you may define as a "bad cop" may or may not actually be "bad" according to law and its application through due process. Are there bad apples in law enforcement? Absolutely! Are they as pervasive as you seem to think (as evidenced by most of your posts)? Not in the least. Take for example the now-infamous Chris Dorner; you've been extremely critical of LAPD for not canning him before they did...do I need to remind you that he was an Naval reserve officer a lot longer than he was with LAPD, and served in command of other sailors due to his rank? He was allowed to keep his naval rank and position for almost four years after the LAPD gave him the boot, but I haven't heard you raising a ruckus about the navy yet...your consistent focus has been on finding fault with LE in every thread I've seen you post in. If there are bad apples, I want them gone just as much or more than you do, because they reflect negatively on me, whether we're even on the same department or not. Bad apples make my job harder, because they erode public trust in what I do, despite my best efforts to be courteous, honest, and ethical in my dealings with the tax-paying public. Keep in mind that I have immediate and extended family (non-LE)in various parts of the state and country that have to interact with law enforcement periodically, so I have to think about the quality of the services provided to them as well...I want their cops to be good, honest and hard-working just as much as anyone.

Some are trying to say that it's the unions fault that it took 4 years to can Dorner. I'm trying to see the logic in supporting a union who protects guys like Dorner. If he was as bad an officer as the OP is trying to paint, I don't see why it was so hard to get rid of him.

 

[sepe]

They're voted in by those that choose to vote.
The FOP is no different than any other organization.
Some vote and some don't.
Just like those who didn't vote, or threw their vote away in a self satisfying futile "protest vote" for an alternative candidate, are just as responsible for "O" being reelected as those who actually voted for the butt hole.

So wait, you're saying that because the Republicans didn't field a candidate that many felt they could vote for without voting for someone far too similar to Obama, we're somehow responsible for the Republican party's failures?

As far as LEOs being for gun control, I've only personally met a couple and they were pretty much known by others in their departments as being losers or **** poor cops. Most that I know are all for the good guys having what they want and can afford.

 

[UncleMike]

So wait, you're saying that because the Republicans didn't field a candidate that many felt they could vote for without voting for someone far too similar to Obama, we're somehow responsible for the Republican party's failures?

As far as LEOs being for gun control, I've only personally met a couple and they were pretty much known by others in their departments as being losers or **** poor cops. Most that I know are all for the good guys having what they want and can afford.

Take it any way you want....
"O" is the problem and those who caused his reelection are to blame!!!

 

[sepe]

Take it any way you want....
"O" is the problem and those who caused his reelection are to blame!!!

Sounds good. I take it to mean that the Republican party wasn't trying to win by running a joke. Glad we can agree on that.

 

[Bunnykid68]

Some are trying to say that it's the unions fault that it took 4 years to can Dorner. I'm trying to see the logic in supporting a union who protects guys like Dorner. If he was as bad an officer as the OP is trying to paint, I don't see why it was so hard to get rid of him.

Because unions serve no real purpose any more other than lining the pockets of the union bosses, keeping union bosses employed because they cannot do real work, and do fund the political lefts coffers. Other than that they serve absolutely no purpose but to get people more money that they do not deserve

 

[sepe]

Because unions serve no real purpose any more other than lining the pockets of the union bosses, keeping union bosses employed because they cannot do real work, and do fund the political lefts coffers. Other than that they serve absolutely no purpose but to get people more money that they do not deserve

Hey now, the last 2 years I've been studying labor almost as much as I've been studying guns. There MIGHT be 2 or 3 unions out there that are still decent. They'll most likely end up just like all the others but I do remember reading about some that still try to do good for the people they serve.

 

[Sarge470]

hornadylnl, most of the difficulty in getting rid of poor officers is the due process rights afforded to them as a result of the reforms that took place several decades ago in an effort to professionalize policing. Once upon a time, there were wholesale changes in personnel every time a new administration or different political party took power...favors were repaid and people who had no business wearing a badge were brought on board to replace good, honest cops who just happened to be on the wrong side of the political fence. Those due process rights lay out the steps that have to be taken in order to dismiss a police officer, and the only real power that the unions have is in ensuring that those steps are followed to the letter. Once the attorneys get involved, the delays start, and what should be a straightforward process becomes a legal morass, with the usual peppering of discrimination claims ranging from race, ethnicity, gender, religion, and sexual preference tossed in to obscure the main issue: does the individual in question have the necessary skills, abilities and aptitudes to serve as a police officer. The question remains though; did the U.S. Navy recognize any of the performance deficiencies that led LAPD to fire him? I think it's unlikely, since he was commissioned and apparently promoted twice during his tenure there.

 

[hornadylnl]

hornadylnl, most of the difficulty in getting rid of poor officers is the due process rights afforded to them as a result of the reforms that took place several decades ago in an effort to professionalize policing. Once upon a time, there were wholesale changes in personnel every time a new administration or different political party took power...favors were repaid and people who had no business wearing a badge were brought on board to replace good, honest cops who just happened to be on the wrong side of the political fence. Those due process rights lay out the steps that have to be taken in order to dismiss a police officer, and the only real power that the unions have is in ensuring that those steps are followed to the letter. Once the attorneys get involved, the delays start, and what should be a straightforward process becomes a legal morass, with the usual peppering of discrimination claims ranging from race, ethnicity, gender, religion, and sexual preference tossed in to obscure the main issue: does the individual in question have the necessary skills, abilities and aptitudes to serve as a police officer. The question remains though; did the U.S. Navy recognize any of the performance deficiencies that led LAPD to fire him? I think it's unlikely, since he was commissioned and apparently promoted twice during his tenure there.

Looks like the reforms have taken us full circle.

I got a new boss this week. If he didn't like me, he could walk me right out the door. I don't have a right to a job.

I'm just trying to nail down this forever moving target of excuses. First it's because Dorner is a bumbling idiot. When asked why it takes 4 years to remove a bumbling idiot, it's the unions fault. When asked why good cops prop up the union, it's the due process in reforms fault.

Why is it that such a supposedly minuscule amount of bad cops can hold the entire system hostage while the majority are powerless to stop it? My take? Most are willing to accept the bad for their own slice of protection.

 

[Sarge470]

That's your take on it and you're entitled to it. The courts have determined that police officers actually do have a rightful claim to their jobs, so a department has to do things by the numbers in order to deprive someone of that right. When I was a patrolman, I wanted the slugs gone because I didn't feel like carrying them, didn't want to be associated with their stupid behavior, and didn't feel physically safe working with them. As a sergeant, I became responsible for the performance of others, and I had to add that to the list of reasons I wanted substandard officers terminated. The penalty for supervisors who fail to adequately supervise their officers is actually greater than poor performance is for patrolmen at my agency, so those guys with stripes have to understand that they're risking a lot by overlooking poor performance or misconduct. With a system of progressive discipline, subsequent offenses can have a compounding effect, so that unpaid suspension time stacks up in a hurry for guys who just don't get it. The true measure of a good leader/supervisor is not in his/her ability to supervise the ideal employee, but to improve the performance of all employees (especially those who under-perform) to the level where they all meet their obligations and serve the organization well. I don't get to choose who works for me, but I'm still responsible for what they do on the job in both an administrative and a legal sense, so you can bet I'm gonna address anything I see that doesn't measure up.

 

[VN Vet]

And the line in the sand is getting closer and closer of being drawn.

I hope and pray that sand will have Portland Cement mixed in with an appropriate amount of crushed rock and re-bar added in for good measure. A mixture to produce 4,000 psi Concrete will do.

 

[Sainte]

The dramatic majority of us feel the same way as this officer. Regardless of what you may read in other threads, the rank and file police officer has absolutely no intention of confiscating guns, whether ordered to do so or not. Most of us were gun enthusiasts before we got on the job, and remain so. I know that my oath was to uphold the Constitution, and the Second Amendment is a part of the picture.

You may want to ask the citizens of New Orleans about that....