| Author | Post |
|---|
echo6tango
Regular Member
| Joined: | Wed Jul 18th, 2007 |
| Location: | Maryland USA |
| Posts: | 227 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Apr 5th, 2009 06:32 pm |
|
Ironic isn't it...
http://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/Secret-Service-Versus-DC-Police.html
Secret Service Versus DC Police
No weapons order is an insult to rank-and-file police officers
Updated 1:15 PM EDT, Sun, Apr 5, 2009
Right before President Barack Obama watched the Washington Wizards hammer his hometown team, the Chicago Bulls, the Secret Service sent out an order to DC cops: if you're off-duty and packing heat, forget about getting into the game.
In an internal memo obtained by The Washington Examiner, the special agents said that "off-duty members attending the game will NOT be allowed to carry firearms into the arena. As such, members attending the game in an off-duty capacity and armed will be denied entry."
It's not clear how many officers were affected by the order for the February 27 game at the Verizon Center, but "the order is an insult to rank-and-file police officers," police union chairman Kris Baumann told The Examiner.
Officers must carry their guns, badges and identification with them at all times, unless they're attending religious events, participating in an athletic event or for some social occasions.
The Secret Service, however, said the order was simply a routine request and the agency has made similar such requests whenever the president has gone to a public venue, according to Secret Service spokesman Ed Donovan.
"Off-duty officers don't know what our security plan is," he told The Examiner. "We don't want a lot of people pulling guns who aren't identifiable as police officers."
There's only one problem: as noted on the memo, there were no lockers available for off-duty cops to check their weapons at February's game. So who's fooling who?
|
rscottie
Regular Member
|
Posted: Mon Apr 6th, 2009 02:46 am |
|
echo6tango wrote: <snip>
"Off-duty officers don't know what our security plan is," he told The Examiner. "We don't want a lot of people pulling guns who aren't identifiable as police officers." <snip>
In other words, they are liable to shoot first and ask questions later. Glad to know that they do not hold themselves to the standards that they hold us peons.
|
tito887
Regular Member
| Joined: | Sun Apr 6th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 139 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Apr 6th, 2009 04:20 am |
|
rscottie wrote:
echo6tango wrote: <snip>
"Off-duty officers don't know what our security plan is," he told The Examiner. "We don't want a lot of people pulling guns who aren't identifiable as police officers." <snip>
In other words, they are liable to shoot first and ask questions later. Glad to know that they do not hold themselves to the standards that they hold us peons.
Yea you pretty much described the problems with government. A violent monopoly that have soverign immunity from prosecution for making horrible mistakes. 
|
old dog
Regular Member
| Joined: | Thu Feb 5th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 284 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Apr 6th, 2009 07:12 am |
|
| The Praetorian Guard needs to be jerked up by the stacking swivel.
|
Pagan
Regular Member
|
Posted: Mon Apr 6th, 2009 06:45 pm |
|
| I wonder how the DC fuzz felt being treated as just an ordinary citizen, and not some special class of people with special priviliges over the other residents.
|
NightOwl
Regular Member
| Joined: | Sat Jul 26th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 374 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Apr 8th, 2009 02:56 am |
|
Pagan wrote: I wonder how the DC fuzz felt being treated as just an ordinary citizen, and not some special class of people with special priviliges over the other residents.
Well said.
|
Task Force 16
Campaign Veteran
|
Posted: Mon Apr 27th, 2009 03:15 am |
|
Pagan wrote: I wonder how the DC fuzz felt being treated as just an ordinary citizen, and not some special class of people with special priviliges over the other residents.
Was thinking the very same thing. 
|
ProtectedBy9mm
Regular Member
|
Posted: Wed Apr 29th, 2009 02:27 am |
|
Pagan wrote: I wonder how the DC fuzz felt being treated as just an ordinary citizen, and not some special class of people with special priviliges over the other residents.
+1,000
Well stated.
|
thejax
Regular Member
|
Posted: Sun May 10th, 2009 06:52 pm |
|
I think it makes sense honestly.
I am not for disarming an LEO at a public event as they have already gone through vigorous background checked and are currently sworn in a department.
Though they do have a good point. I have been to an Obama event. I mean lets say an off-duty LEO sees some guy with a gun that is like built into a camera or something so the LEO draws. No one knows that guy is an LEO. The SS would crap a brick when a gun becomes visible, the president will be rushed to safety and as the other poster said, the LEO will most likely get shot.
I say a good compromise to this would be to require the LEO to come in uniform if he was armed. Therefore, he is easily identifiable. And I don't mean a polo with the logo. I mean a duty uniform. Its not the best option but it would fix both problems. Let the LEO carry and let the SS indentify him.
|
Task Force 16
Campaign Veteran
|
Posted: Sun May 10th, 2009 07:18 pm |
|
thejax wrote: I think it makes sense honestly.
I am not for disarming an LEO at a public event as they have already gone through vigorous background checked and are currently sworn in a department.
Though they do have a good point. I have been to an Obama event. I mean lets say an off-duty LEO sees some guy with a gun that is like built into a camera or something so the LEO draws. No one knows that guy is an LEO. The SS would crap a brick when a gun becomes visible, the president will be rushed to safety and as the other poster said, the LEO will most likely get shot.
I say a good compromise to this would be to require the LEO to come in uniform if he was armed. Therefore, he is easily identifiable. And I don't mean a polo with the logo. I mean a duty uniform. Its not the best option but it would fix both problems. Let the LEO carry and let the SS indentify him.
So, how are the SS identified? Do they wear a uniform?
|
thejax
Regular Member
|
Posted: Sun May 10th, 2009 07:21 pm |
|
Task Force 16 wrote:
So, how are the SS identified? Do they wear a uniform?
Thats a good question. Actually the SS wear suits usually and some are plain clothes, yes. All of them wear a pin on their collar that is changed at different variable times during an event to prevent problems.
This is how they do it. Just answering your question.Last edited on Sun May 10th, 2009 07:22 pm by thejax
|
suntzu
Regular Member
| Joined: | Sun Jun 22nd, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 885 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jun 12th, 2009 05:26 am |
|
thejax wrote: I think it makes sense honestly.
I am not for disarming an LEO at a public event as they have already gone through vigorous background checked and are currently sworn in a department.
I am for disarming off duty leos any time we have to be disarmed. If for example, we are unable to carry into restaurants that serve alcohol--then by all means LEOs --off duty or not, should not be allowed to eat in the same establishments--reason being, they are no more trustworthy than us.
Second, if an entire city like Washington D.C forbids to the people the right to carry, then Off duty law enforcement should be required to leave their service weapons at work, and the only firearm they would be allowed to have after that would be those as authorized by the Communist party which "runs" the district of Columbia--meaning they have to abide by the SAME rules and regulations as everyone else....
Law enforcement seems to think--and all too often unfortunately, that they are a special class of citizen--and they are not. They should have to abide by the exact SAME rules as everyone else...and be subject to the exact same penalties as everyone else. Meaning if they come up on a building that is posted no firearms--and they are not on official police business answering a disturbance call, or investigating a complaint--then they should be subject to the firearms prohibition and be subject to the same penalties for violating it, regardless of whether they are on duty or off duty, in uniform or street clothes...
|
Tomahawk
Regular Member
|
Posted: Sat Jun 13th, 2009 04:12 am |
|
I am for disarming LEOs, period. At least for a few days. Starting with the secret surface. Go British bobbie-style for a while, and re-learn the skill of policing with manners instead of immediately resorting to force and intimidation.
Meanwhile, who cares if the DC cops don't like being disarmed? Welcome to the club.
One other note: am I the only one who thinks the secret surface needs a little reigning-in?
|
suntzu
Regular Member
| Joined: | Sun Jun 22nd, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 885 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Jun 14th, 2009 10:52 pm |
|
Tomahawk wrote: I am for disarming LEOs, period. At least for a few days. Starting with the secret surface. Go British bobbie-style for a while, and re-learn the skill of policing with manners instead of immediately resorting to force and intimidation.
Meanwhile, who cares if the DC cops don't like being disarmed? Welcome to the club.
One other note: am I the only one who thinks the secret surface needs a little reigning-in?
I think they all, without exception need to be reigned in, and severely hampered as to the limits of their authority and reminded once and for all exactly who they work for, and who they answer to, and it isn't the government.
The police have a job to do investigating crime--but they also need to be severely hampered and greater limits placed on their authority, and they need to be subjected to the same laws as everyone else for a change--and they actually should know the laws they are supposed to enforce instead of making them up as they go along and treating the people however they feel....
I agree-disarm them all for a while and let them see what it is like to be on the other side of the fence for a change.
|
nukechaser
Regular Member
|
Posted: Fri Jun 19th, 2009 04:17 pm |
|
Speaking of the SS...
Is there a law against yelling "gun!" when you are near the President? (when you don't actually see one)
I know it is kinda like shouting "fire" in a crowded movie house... probably legal, but not a great idea.
Would it be protected speech?
I would imagine that the SS would go ape sh!t, tackle/cover POTUS, scurry him away, all the while drawing weapons and scanning for a threat.
Since POTUS would probably vacate the area, could you then sit in his seats at the game? I'm just wondering... 
/smarta$$edness off
|
ProguninTN
Regular Member
| Joined: | Sat May 27th, 2006 |
| Location: | Tennessee USA |
| Posts: | 404 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jun 26th, 2009 12:55 am |
|
suntzu wrote: thejax wrote: I think it makes sense honestly.
I am not for disarming an LEO at a public event as they have already gone through vigorous background checked and are currently sworn in a department.
I am for disarming off duty leos any time we have to be disarmed. If for example, we are unable to carry into restaurants that serve alcohol--then by all means LEOs --off duty or not, should not be allowed to eat in the same establishments--reason being, they are no more trustworthy than us.
Second, if an entire city like Washington D.C forbids to the people the right to carry, then Off duty law enforcement should be required to leave their service weapons at work, and the only firearm they would be allowed to have after that would be those as authorized by the Communist party which "runs" the district of Columbia--meaning they have to abide by the SAME rules and regulations as everyone else....
Law enforcement seems to think--and all too often unfortunately, that they are a special class of citizen--and they are not. They should have to abide by the exact SAME rules as everyone else...and be subject to the exact same penalties as everyone else. Meaning if they come up on a building that is posted no firearms--and they are not on official police business answering a disturbance call, or investigating a complaint--then they should be subject to the firearms prohibition and be subject to the same penalties for violating it, regardless of whether they are on duty or off duty, in uniform or street clothes...
Amen
Last edited on Fri Jun 26th, 2009 12:55 am by ProguninTN
|
Mr.Advocate
Campaign Veteran
| Joined: | Sat Feb 7th, 2009 |
| Location: | Mobile, Alabama USA |
| Posts: | 255 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Jul 15th, 2009 08:03 am |
|
| Hooah! to everyone in this room so far, awesome awesome awesome, couldn't have said more of these statements better myself, good job guys.
|
thejax
Regular Member
|
Posted: Mon Jul 20th, 2009 02:50 pm |
|
You guys aren't making sense. Whats with this "eye for an eye" attitude.
I can defninetly see your histility towards the crazy DC laws and the gun ban as well as how DC officers may have treated you.
I'm not a cop and I am not really pro or con on LEO's. Long story short, they are hired to do a job. Enforce laws, investigate crimes, etc. After all the background checks, they get to carry a gun on duty. So I mean why can't they carry while off duty?
I think you are being selfish because the laws are not in your favor. Across the US LEO's carry while off-duty for self-protection. LEO's regularly come in confrontations while on duty from arresting people, serving warrants, and giving tickets. Whether they were right in carrying out these dutys is another debate. But because of this somoene may see them in public and want to retaliate while they are with their family. This is why they carry. Another reason is if crap hits the fan and they are called to duty while at the store or out and about.
Listen, I don't agree with DC's law. But give me a break about disarming the LEO's. They are here to protect us. Some are asses and go one pwer trips and some are nice guys. They are here to protect us. So why all the anger? Should be mad at the people who refuse to change the laws. I say be rational about it.
|
jbird
Regular Member
| Joined: | Sat Dec 27th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 12 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Jul 20th, 2009 05:07 pm |
|
But give me a break about disarming the LEO's. They are here to protect us.
Actually, no they are not. The SCOTUS and several if not most state courts/legislatures have stated that law enforcement has no duty to protect you or even respond to your call for assistance.
Protection is the responsibility of the individual. The police do the paperwork afterwards.
Jay
|
rick900
Regular Member
|
Posted: Mon Jul 20th, 2009 05:13 pm |
|
thejax wrote: So why all the anger? Should be mad at the people who refuse to change the laws. I say be rational about it.
I agree that the anger should be focused at DC lawmakers. The majority of correction officers are not armed while they are on duty, but are allowed to carry off duty for protection, rightfully so.
|
Current time is 10:04 pm | Page: 1 2   |
|
