2.212b Temporary seizure with reasonable suspicion.
An officer who reasonably suspects that an individual is or has been engaged
in crime may seize that person to investigate the suspicion.
Under appropriate circumstances force may be used to both stop and hold a
suspect. Since an officer who has a reasonable suspicion that a person is
engaged in wrongdoing may stop that person, he may use reasonable force to
do so.
Law Course for Customs Officers p.79
On December 6th, while we had guests in our home, my daughter was
assaulted by her boyfriend in the basement of our home. She was not seriously
hurt, but a law was violated. He slammed her up against the wall several
times.
As her boyfriend attempted to escape the scene, he ran directly into
me. I did not know what had happened. I did know after looking into his face
that he was extremely upset, was in effect in a panic and not fully in control
of his faculties. I did not know the reason for this, if he was upset because
he had ruined his relationship, or that I was going to hurt him, or that the
police were going to arrest him. I did believe that I could not let him
leave.
We struggled, we went to the floor, and while people were yelling at
me that he had assaulted my daughter, I decided to use my handcuffs (issued
by the federal government) to restrain him until the police got here.
The police got here, I told them that I had not arrested him, that I
had detained him and he was handcuffed for officer and public safety, and that
he had not been searched. The officers completed the on-site investigation,
removed my cuffs, replaced them with their own, and took him to jail. He had
not been hurt, and he later admitted that he would have committed suicide had
he been allowed to leave, probably by driving his car into a wall.
Now, nearly a year later, this incident may have cost me my job as an
inspector with Customs and Border Protection. I was green, out of FLETC only
two weeks before, and sure that what I had done was the correct thing, both
morally and legally.
I reported the incident to my superiors as required that night, then
I went to the Port and filled out a report the next day, on my own time, and
faxed it to Internal Affairs. Four months later, I received formal
counseling on this action, and was told that
use of restraints outside your role as an inspector, constitutes an arrest.
Your actions would be considered a Citizens Arrest. Use of government
property, outside of your official duties is not authorized. And a copy was
placed in my file.
Now, nearly a year later, It may have cost me my job.
I was called into my supervisors office yesterday and informed that
I was being dismissed. This and a record keeping error were listed in the
letter as the reasons. The record keeping error was purely statistical and
had nothing to do with any criminal case.
But they were enough to get me fired because I am still on probation.
I joined U.S. Customs in September of 2002, but I am still on probation
because they have changed the requirements from a one year to a two year
probation. There were only two items in my file after ten weeks of training
and over eleven months on the job.
The union is looking into whether I have any options, but basically,
if the two year probation stands, I am out of a job. Because I did what I
believed I was supposed to do, protect people and stop crim
So now I sit at home, updating the resume, filling out applications, and
getting ready for interviews, while the union looks at whether or not they
can represent me. The confusion is over whether I am on a one year or two
year probation. If I am on a one year, they have fired me without cause.
If I am on a two year, they need no reason to fire me, adn there is nothing
the union can do. So, to decide the matter, we need my records from
Washington, D.C., which will take about amonth to get here.
I am posting this because I made you all live thru work I went thru at FLETC,
I think you deserve to know what happens in the next chapter. I have already
placed an application with TSA, and recieved a reply to take the test. We
shall see what happens next.
196 responses total. This response has been erased.
This response has been erased.
Sounds like you got the shaft, Bruce. That sucks. WHat is TSA?
Transportation Security Agency, or some similar meaning. The new Federal agency in charge of airport security.
We have laws...but not justice.
Bruce, I am sorry to hear that actions you took with the best of intentions and reason have caused you the loss of a job you so obviously enjoyed and looked forward to continuing for a long time to come. It really sucks to be on the wrong end of a policy-based action that simply does not take into account such factors as those in your case. I hope you'll try to learn from this what you can and use it to benefit you along your path in life rather than dwelling on the injustice to which you've been subject. I hope also that this experience will help you appreciate the value of compassion in the formulation and application of law, in order that Justice be served to the greatest extent possible.
That sucks. :( You were just trying to protect him, your daughter, and yourself. I hope you can keep your job.
Dunno nothing 'bout the particulars other than what you enter, bru, but I have to note that most fathers I know would have no problem detaining daughter's boyfriend without cuffs in the situation as you relate it. I wonder why the cuffs were so handy? Sorry. Just seems odd to me. Most uniformed cops I know wive's complain about them leaving their 'batman belt' in the bathroom for the most part, or the bedroom (after a few beers there is frequently talk of cuffs as 'maritial aid'). I just wonder that the cuffs were so handy and that you would even think to use them two weeks out of boot camp (by your narrative) in that situation. Don't take it personally, maybe TSA is better suited for you - seems to me with your training you have a definate leg up. And if your union can get you the job back perhaps you should consider not accepting unless your management signs on and encourages you - who wants to work where they are not wanted for whatever reason even if totally stupid? Best of luck - when life hands you a lemon, make lemonade.
I used cuffs because that is what we are trained to do when a subject is combative. I could have just sat on him until the police arrived. First thing the dispatcher asked when I told them what had occured was "was there a gun involved." I had never even thought of going for the gun.
He had his stuff out 'cause we had company and he was showing it to them. Spiffy new equipment and all. Actually, since one of the people there was very willing to beat up Brad (at least that's what he was indicating in the heat of the moment), I think keeping him restrained so the other person would not do that was also a good idea. (It was a very confusing fifteen or so minutes.) It's not exactly fair, but it is what happened. And it's true that lemonade can come out of the weirdest lemons.
I am sorry, the previous response was by me, ANDERYN. I stole Bruce's account to read this before going to work. Just in case people are wondering.
It seems kind of odd to fire someone in October for something that happened the previous December. Does the government really work that slowly? I hope the union can help you out. Thank goodness you have a union.
It does sound like a trumped up excuse to fire somebody... I wonder if there were some other issues involved.
My feeling is that there are office politics involved, but who knows? We'll have to wait and see what happens with the paperwork and everything else. Thanks for the good wishes.
This response has been erased.
This response has been erased.
The shoulder is much better, so that is not a problem. I don't even know how they would know I had a problem unless they have the insurance company forwarding them information. Policy dictates that I tell them ASAP, which I did. The Internal Affairs guys tossed it off as nothing to worry about. But they are in Chicago, and if I had done it after my probation was over, they could only reprimand me for it. It might be office politics. The one supervisor has given me trouble several times.
Havn't there been cutbacks in the numbers of customs agents at borders? If this is still ungoing I would expect them to cut anyone for whom they have the slightest excuse.
Why has that supervisor been giving you trouble? Rane is probably right though. If they are cutting back, they might have been told to let go of most of the folks on probation since they can be let go without union negotiated severence packages (assuming that those are in the contract).
no cut backs, we are still hiring inspectors.
bru, I know it's little consolation when facing loss of job, but regardless of the technicalities of the job rules (can't be using government issued handcuffs for civilian matters), you can know in your heart that you did the right thing.
I could not have done what bru did - attempt to physically restrain another person. I don't feel I have the *right*, as well as knowing that the potential consequences are so uncertain and dangerous that it cannot be justified unless it were my assigned responsibility. Therefore I cannot say that I think bru did the "right thing", since he had no such authority or responsibility in those circumstances.
This response has been erased.
Now I gotta stick up for bru. "My House, my rule". re#22: You, sir, are an idiot. If it were my daughter... hmm, things will be completely different. I would not need to exercise authority as a LEO but will do so as the alpha male. I will not need cuffs or any other sex tool but merely the assurance of the use of physical force backed up by Mr. Large Stick if necessary. And it is my stick and nobody else dare touch it. In thinking about it perhaps it is appropriate that bru choose a different line of work. It just strikes me as rather odd that bru had to resort to cuffs inside his own house and just maybe it struck his management similarly. Show and tell of ikons of authority just sorta seems wierd to me as well.
"Ikons of authority"? Never thought of them as that. They are tools. The cuffs are a tool. the gun is a tool. the flashlight is a tool. The belt is a tool. To those who wonder why I did it, need I remind you that it is a crime to assault a person? As an officer of the law, I could not let him just walk away. I could legally make a citizens arrest. And in fact that is what occured. But I could not use federally issued equipment to do so. I still don't know if I could use my own handcuffs to do so. The cuffs allowed me to turn my attention away from him and deal with the other problems with some certainty that neither he nor anyone else would suffer any further harm. There are a lot of people other than law enforcement officers who are allowed to use handcuffs. Store security officers are allowed to if the person attempts to leave or is a threat to people in the store. I know what I did was right in any number of ways, an I do not regret that I did it. He needed help. He wasn't going to get it on his own. Now the court has him getting straght, adn maybe my daughter and grandson are safer because of it. Even Brad is safer because of it. And as a whole, except for his driving, society is safer because of it. What I have found out is that the law is a curious and very malleable thing. What may be right may not be legal, what may be legal in one sense may not in another. Law enforcement officer have a lot of leeway, and a lot of restictions. Customs officers have a lot of power wher they work, but it gets tricky when they get home.
Yup, it's important when you have authority to know when & where the exceptions occur. Still, the firing sounds fishy.
I have a feeling that this incident isnt really the reason for the firing. I will say this, I dont think Bruce's actions really showed good judgement. But I dont think he should have been fired just because of that one particular incident. However, I find it hard to believe that he was. Sometimes management use tangible things like this incident to fire someone for completely different reasons. In this case, it doesnt even sound like they gave a reason. None of us here have any chance of getting the real story. Unfortunately, that includes Bruce who probably really wants to know what was going through the manager's heads.
I don't see that Bruce did a single thing wrong. If some guy roughs up my daughter and tries to hotfoot it outta there, I (and, I think, any other father in the world) would do whatever it took to stop and hold the lousy bastard. Indeed, I think Bruce demonstrated remarkable restraint (no pun intended) in not beating the holy snot out of the guy. And if he was really fired simply because he used govt-issued handcuffs instead of, say, his belt, or a roll of duct tape--well, that's just plain stupid.
This response has been erased.
Bru did not witness the altercation, by his own admission, and had only "presumptions" upon which to base his actions. Even then, the person he accosted was known and whatever incident that occurred could have been reported to the police, and whatever legal action to be taken against him could have been taken without the immediate use of forceful restraint. Too much harm is caused in our society by people "taking the law into their own hands".
I'd agree with your statement about "taking the law into their own hands" if bru had, say, roughed up the guy. But all he did is detain him until the police got there. That strikes me as a perfectly reasonable thing to do, and in fact I think it shows a certain amount of restraint. A lot of fathers probably would have punched the guy in the nose.
And if the person had had a knife - and pulled it to defend himself from bru accosting him? "Laying hands" on someone constitutes assault, except in self defense. This is how disagreements escalate to violence.
Rane, I refer you to the relevant portion of Bruce's story again: > As her boyfriend attempted to escape the scene, he ran directly > into me. I did not know what had happened. I did know after looking > into his face that he was extremely upset, was in effect in a panic and > not fully in control of his faculties. I did not know the reason for > this, if he was upset because he had ruined his relationship, or that I > was going to hurt him, or that the police were going to arrest him. I > did believe that I could not let him leave. > We struggled, we went to the floor, and while people were > yelling at me that he had assaulted my daughter, I decided to use my > handcuffs (issued by the federal government) to restrain him until the > police got here. Under those circumstances, Bruce's actions were quite reasonable. He made a judgement call with which you obviously disagree, but unless you've been faced with the purported perpetrator of violence against one of your loved ones and reacted with the same calm demeanor with which you argue Bruce's error, I think your criticism of his decision is without foundation. I agree with you in theory, but this is one of those cases in which the dividing line between theory and practice will be marked and distinct so long as humans remain human.
This response has been erased.
By the way, the above refers to the decision to restrain the alleged assailant, NOT the decision to use the handcuffs in the process. Those are two separate decisions, with separate logic and considerations, and it is only the latter for which Bruce's job is at stake. (Dan slipped in)
Yeah. He shoudda probably asked for a Security Council resolution befer taking action.
This response has been erased.
This response has been erased.
This response has been erased.
Where does it say that the kid's mom called his boss, Tod?
I hope this situation comes out all right for Bruce. I don't see any reason to believe he did anything worthy of firing.
Speaking of #0 again - doesn't 2.212b only apply when the customs officer is on duty as a custom's officer? I would not think it should apply to any situation not on duty, or at least not related to customs assignments.
This response has been erased.
it's just a good thing he didn't have his gun out, i guess. "Stop, or I'll SHOOT."
The scene was such that I still don't know if anyone could have made a better decision. Rhiannon had two of her friends over, we were all in the living room talking and Brad called several times, saying he wanted to come over and see her. Her one friend took the phone after he'd called one too many times and hung up on him. Brad came to the door, and asked Rhiannon to go down to the basement to talk to him in private. I stayed in teh living room with the friends and Griffin. Bruce went upstairs to do something for work the next day. Next thing I knew, Rhiannon was screaming, Brad was yelling, I heard a thump, and the guests were running towards the stairs, yelling. Bruce ran downstairs and into Brad, who'd run out and in again. The male friend was cursing and and saying he'd beat Brad up. In the situation, I think it was the best way to stop things from getting worse. At least, it didn't seem unreasonable at the time. About my work, well, I think he should have been allowed to come in and pick me up, gun or no gun, but I was polite and asked permission.
This response has been erased.
The friends were a couple, a guy and a girl. She's known them for about five years. They're friends of mine too. They havne't ever felt comfortable being named on Grex afaik, so I don't. Simple as that.
being a little weird: this debacle of being allowed in his wife's office with his gun on What debacle? I told my wife to ask her office manager if they would have a problem with me wearing my gun into the office. I asked as a courtesy. Instead of a thank you for ask, we would rather you did not wear it into the office. I get an order telling me I cannot wear it into the office. That was wrong. Legally, I have the right to wear it anywhere to or from work, or concealed if I so desired. (with a few exceptions) I asked, and I felt I was treated rudely because I was being polite. Didn't you say that you skipped the military because they wouldn't make you an officer? No, I skipped the military because I could not pass the physical, I had Migraine headaches. The navy wanted to make me an officer because I already had a degree but they do not accept people who have migraines 2.212b applies to customs officers in relation to federal crimes. If he had done this on federal property, no problem. If the assault was going to be prosecuted as a federal crime, no problem. As it occured on private property and is a local felony, it was a problem.
I dont believe even cops have a right to wear guns in private spaces if the owners or managers of those private spaces dont want them to. For instance, you would not be allowed into my home with a gun and that is perfectly legal.
This response has been erased.
I wouldn't ask. If I took the time to go through the training and was doing a job that was to "protect and serve", I wouldn't ask for permission.
Well, see, he drives straight FROM work (or did) to pick me up, so didn't have time to go home and change first. Very occasionally, it would have been nice to have him come in to get things I was taking home since I am not very good at carrying boxes downstairs (I get packages at work, for the curious, since I'm never home when the package people come) or for other similar reasons. I asked, Providence said no, so big whoop. He never came inside in uniform. I wouldn't call it a debacle. I was miffed that it had to go to Providence in the first place (they're our home office, but the office manager and the executive editor make most decisions right here) and a little grumpy about it, because it seemed like such a no-brainer that he could continue to come in as he'd always had... but so what? He didn't come in, I got over being grumpy (though not when I had big boxes to carry :-) and no one else really cares.. do they?
This response has been erased.
This response has been erased.
Well, I thought they were rude and being silly too. Why shouldn't he have come in as he'd done a thousand times before? (I mean, for God's sake, if they don't know him after twenty-three years! And him being at all the office functions and helping with them even, it's more like a family here than an office, in some ways, or it WAS. So it struck me as being a stupid rule. Everyone in the office who'd be there at the the time he *might* have come in have known him for ten or so years, if not longer. So it's not like they'd feel THREATENED by Bruce. Or anything like in an office that's not like mine. But oh well. )
This response has been erased.
You know. Every company I have ever worked for has had a policy of no firearms on the premisis. Obviously this didnt apply to on duty police officers but it certainly would apply to off-duty police officers.
This response has been erased.
Again, this would have been after normal working hours. Like, five or five thirty. There might have been a couple of people in my department who met him, and that's about it. Like I said, I didn't see a problem, since the people who work that late all know Bruce well. It's not like he'd be striding around a big office where no one knew him or anything. (You have to remember that this place is small, and I've worked here for twenty-three years. It really is more like family than most other workplaces. That's probably what felt wrong to me and to Bruce about it, more than anything else. The reminder that it's not just the little cozy place I thought I worked for. Okay, there's seventy people here, but I know fifty-five of them well enough to write notes to their parents when they're sick.)
This response has been erased.
I had a coworker who collected lots of guns. He and my boss used to talk about them all the time, one desk away from me. It made me pretty uncomfortable, even though the coworker was a nice guy.
Why?
This response has been erased.
Re #62: Well, my coworker's wife was dying of cancer at the time, and even though he was a nice guy, he was under enough stress to break some men. But to some extent, that's beside the point: I know it would make some people uncomfortable if I, say, put up a Playboy calendar in my cubicle. Or talked all the time about hot babes. I had a similar reaction to the photo my boss had in his office of his wife holding a rifle and the head of a deer she had just shot. Likewise when he talked about guns with my coworker. I don't feel a lot of discomfort around pictures of naked ladies, but I respect the feelings of those who do. Likewise I'd hope people would respect my feelings about guns.
This response has been erased.
This response has been erased.
Well, sorry, but it was my workplace and I asked, in case there *might* be a problem, and then respected what I was told. So why in the world would that be a problem with anyone else? I was grumpy a little, because it was annoying that I couldn't get Bruce to come inside anymore when I needed the help to carry things, but I still don't get why anyone would think it was a debacle or anything so discussable. I don't think anyone at work gave it a second or third or more than a moment's thought.
This response has been erased.
My roommate my freshman year in college used to clean his rifles while sitting on the floor of our dorm room. Sometimes he'd invite his friends to do the same. He stored his ammo under my bed. I don't know if I'd say it exactly made me nervous, but I did find it just weird enough to be slightly disturbing.
I know this is a moot point now but... Couldnt Bruce have unloaded his gun and put it in a locked case in the trunk so he could come up and help you carry things?
The point being tha it was legal for me to carry the weapon wherever I needed to carry it. Either in uniform or concealed. They could not order me not to. My problem with the office was that I asked out of courtesy. I expected the same level of civility in the reply, not an order telling me no. No, I could not leave the weapon unloaded in the car. That would have been a violation of proceedure. While in uniform, the gear is considered to be part of the uniform. I put it on when I walked out the door in the morning, and took it off when I got home at night. The weapon is not supposed to be out of our control at any time, unless it is in a secure setting. The car is not believed to be a secure setting.
See, I think that is what people are up in arms about. Your attitude that your wife's work couldnt order you not to carry the weapon on their premisis. I know you respected what they said and that is great but if you had chosen not to, they could have had you removed and/or disiplined your wife. Being a law enforcement officer does not give one carte blanche to go *anywhere* with a weapon. But thank you for answering my question about leaving the gun locked in the car.
This response has been erased.
Actually, being some kinds of law enforcement officer *does* give one carte blanche to go anywhere with a weapon. I don't know if Bruce is one of those kinds, though.
I think everyone has missed the point: It's NOT *what* he was told, but
*HOW*. A little tact, on the part of the office, would have gone a long way.
("Tact is the ability to tell a man to go to hell and leave him happy to be
on his way.")
I think most of the people arguing a point here are doing so without a significant enough basis of information for so doing. You're making Federal cases out of a rather minimally detailed story told through the perception of only one interested party. Frankly, I think Bruce gives us enough material to work with in challenging his beliefs and practices without having to stretch this far. I vote we move on.
Charges are being filed against the Detroit Chief of Police for putting a loaded .22 in his checked baggage.
Was it loaded? I thought he'd just forgotten to declare it.
Bruce complied with the office's request, or order, or whatever it was and however it was presented. He asked, they said 'no', and he complied with their preference. I don't see how there is a problem here, or even a potential problem. So what if he didn't think he *had* to do what they wanted? He did it. That's what matters. He acted courteously and respectfully. Clearly, too, Bruce was proud of his new job and his position, his training, and as his role in fighting terrorism and protecting his country. He was proud of his uniform, and yes, of his gun. I don't see the slightest thing there to object to, or be bothered about. I'd sure rather have that kind of attitude than nonchalance. Btruce isn't Rambo or Dirty Harry. I think he's an honest and conscientous man.
You are not getting it cross. They have no "LEGAL" right to tell me not to wear my sidearm into their office. what made me upset is that they felt they had the right to "order" me not to wear it. No, we don't have armories at the office. If I was going to Canada, the supervisor has a safe where I could stow it. And there are places by law I cannot carry a gun when off duty, when I would be carrying concealed. Bars, stadiums, and schools come to mind. In uniform, there are very few places a Federal law enforcement officer cannot carry. In fact, the state of Michigan considers us to be Peace officers, with the rights and privelages extended to all state and local officers. So when I cuffed my daughters boyfreind, I was legally within my rights. It is U.S. Customs that does not recognize the authority the state does. It is a matter of violation of proceedure, not law. I am trying to get you to understand that I am speaking of the legality, not my attitude. If I had the atitude you keep putting on me, I would not have bothered to ask for permission. I would have just done it and said screw you. I didn't. I am proud of what I was doing for the country, of the job I held. I was proud to wear the uniform, and to do my job to the best of my ability. I believe I was doing it very well.
Not only had he failed to declare it as required by federal law, he was not licensed to carry in the state of Michigan. Seems silly that the Chief of Police doesn't have a license to carry, doesn't it?
Seems silly, too, that he'd be carrying a .22. I mean, really! What'd he intend to use it for, squirrel? Pigeon?
resp:74 - even onto private property when they are off duty? What law gives off duty law enforcement officers the right to carry a weapon onto private property when the owners of the property specifically say not to? Would I have a right to prevent an off duty police officer from bringing a gun into my house? I think so.
But it doesn't matter now. I can have picknics at work now, with Bruce, if I want to. (Though there's the problem of it being too cold for picknics. :-)
Re #83: You have a right to refuse admittance to your house, period, under those circumstances. Twila's workplace - being a private business, not a place of public accommodation - would have the same right. So I'd think they were within their rights to refuse Bruce admittance if were wearing a gun and not engaged in the performance of his duty.
This response has been erased.
I believe that police or other law-enforcement agents have to get a warrant from a judge in order to enter private property if at first refused (I think there are some extrenuating circumstances if the police suspect there is a crime or some threats to life in progress). In any case, bru did not have a warrant and there were no crimes in progress, so I don't believe he had a *legal* right to disobey the request not to bring a gun onto the premises. Isn't this right, bru?
(It wasn't a request, though.)
In what sense is a denial or refusal to permit entrance not a request? Because it didn't start with "please"? Any law encorcement agent should know that a warrant would be required if anyone says "no", politely or othrwise (and there is no suspicion of a crime in progress).
Okay. I give up. Cross doesn't ever intend to understand. Slynne, if I came to your house and we were freinds, adn I was wearing the uniform, would you refuse me entry? rcurl, I would guess you are right. I have no right to enter non-public areas in my uniform if I do not suspect a crime is in progress, or unless invited, or I was on duty. The uniform does not give me the right to go anyplace not open to the pyublic just because I want to.
The difference is in the way they did it. I asked politely. I expected a polite request not to, which I would have obeyed. I did not expect an order telling me to stay out. Perhaps I am just a little thin skinned when people I know don't feel they can trust me. So I got my hackles up. big deal. I did not force the issue.
This response has been erased.
If you were carrying a gun as part of the uniform, then you wouldn't get past the porch, no matter how good a friend you were. While I fully believe in the right to bear arms, I also believe in my right to refuse having them in my private space. A friend wouldn't even ask that question (a friend would be made aware of my feelings as soon as he/she as I knew there was a possiblity of them "carrying").
Re #82: That's another interesting thing. It seems weapons of that small a calibre are not approved as off-duty weapons for Detroit Police officers. Re #91: I think the impression some people are getting, that bothers them a bit, is that this is a case of a "contempt of cop" attitude. You know, "How *dare* they tell me what to do while I'm wearing my uniform and carrying my gun! They owe me respect because of my position of power!" It's unfortunately common for law enforcement people to feel this way and it leads to a lot of abuse.
It seems to me that bru's "feelings" toward those people, as friends or acquaintances or strangers, is irrelevant, and their actions should not be taken as offensive. It was simply their right, and the rights of anyone, friend or stranger, should be respected without question. It is not too much different from the situation of people that will not allow smoking in their homes, no matter how good a friend a smoker may be. Perhaps some people would feel they cannot refuse admitting a friend that insists on smoking, out of some concept of politeness, but if they don't, does the smoker really have any grounds for complaint? I don't think so.
I think that it was in fact that whole "they know me" that got my back up. Bruce is Bruce no matter what he happens to be wearing or carrying, right? To me, that was what was important, not that fact that his uniform included a gun. I suspect that this is because I was viewing it as my "home away from home" and not as "this place of business", because *most* of the time, that is how people act in it (I mean, we do our jobs, and do them well, but we don't have to dress up and we don't usually have formal office-y things happening here) -- I mean, yesterday, Mark from downstairs was carrying a huge cleaver (real, from the kitchen) through the halls. No one blinked. I've been known to carry my paring knife (that I keep in my desk for peeling apples or cutting paper or whatever) to the kitchen and back. I'd probably feel the same about it if I was told I couldn't come to work with my pocket knife. I carry it as a tool. Not as a weapon. I don't even think about it as a possible weapon.
This response has been erased.
/can't seem to get the image of the cop from REPO MAN out of my noggin
resp:90 - Yes, if you had a gun, I would refuse you entry. I dont allow guns in my home. I like to think I would be polite but firm about it. I dont let people smoke tobacco in my house either.
For me, I think it would depend on whether my friend was on duty or not. If he was off duty, I'd probably let him into my house. But if a good friend of mine who was a cop showed up, on duty, and asked me to let him search my house, I wouldn't treat him any differently than any other cop. He'd have to have a warrant.
This response has been erased.
This response has been erased.
But I think that he's still Bruce. :) After all, I am married to him, which trumps seeing him as anything except himself. For goodness sakes, he had the gun in the house every day and night for over a year, and I was never worried about it. I *know* that there would never be a reason to worry. Of course, not everyone knows that, not the way I do. So I understand how other people could be nervous, but it's still very ridiculous to me, because I know how off-base that is.
This response has been erased.
LOL
An officer is an officer whether he is in uniform or not. The uniform only shows that authority when I am on duty. (I never thought of it that way before) You are expected to act as an officer whether in uniform or out. If a see a federal felony while walking down the street out of uniform that does not change my duty. I still haven't resolved the conflict that I could use my gun to defend myself or another officer, but not to defend my wife. Or why I could use my own handcuffs to detain the boyfriend without threat to my job, but not the ones issued by the government.
re #106, para 2:
The reasons are quite simple. The gun and the handcuffs are more
than tools. They are the literal means by which authority is conveyed to
the officer who carries them. That distinguishes that particular gun and
those particular handcuffs from any others. Because of the authority the
tools themselves represent, their use has to be tightly constrained to
instances in which the particular authority they represent is applicable
and appropriate.
Put differently, the guy is the officer, and the gun and cuffs are the
office. Your actions are your own business, but any actions involving
the gun and cuffs are automatically vested with the authority of the
office, and you don't have the right to vest your actions with that
authority unless those actions specifically part of your job.
Good luck in your new job.
This response has been erased.
when I was little, my dad not only didn't allow real guns into the house, he didn't allow toy guns. it was what guns represented. you shouldn't even "play" shooting other people, because it becomes easier to imagine "really" shooting other people
My parents didn't outright prohibit guns and "war toys", but they didn't buy them for me either.
Yeah, we werent allowed to have guns either except for those really fake looking neon plastic squirt guns. We used to get gun lectures *all* the time. Never touch a gun. If you go to someone's house and they have a gun, leave their house. etc etc.
Jim has a potato gun.
(This would explain a lot.)
Different times when I was growing up, I can recall people having toy guns to play cowboys with. I was not usually the cowboy. I found out mych later that my Dad had guns in the house the whole time I was growing up, although I never knew it. (And a good thing, too, 'cause my Dad was a rage addict, so I wonder sometimes why we never got shot in a murder suicide thing...) I don't particularly *like* guns, but I never forbade my kids to have toy ones. (Don't think they had any, though. Except the G.I. Joe minature ones.)
I grew up with unlimited access to toy guns - including "cap pistols" (which "fired" little packets of impact-detonated explosive, which came in rolls - in case anyone here never heard of them). "Water pistols" were also very popular. However *real* guns were seemingly impossible to obtain. Only police, soldiers, and city gangs had those. My father did have his army-reserve (mounted cavalry) issued revolver, which he fired into the ground once each 4th of July. My impression was, though, that deaths by civilian use of handguns were rather rare. Things had changed by the time I had children and guns were much more available, and shooting deaths had seemingly increased dramatically, either by accident or intent. Because of this I forbade toy guns in my home and admonished kids that appeared with them to never point them at a person. The only exceptions were "water guns" that didn't look like real guns (colorful "Super Soakers", for example).
My dad kept a shotgun in the garage, which he fired on rare occasions at animals who had gotten into my mom's garden. This accomplished nothing except proving what a bad shot he was. ;)
I got my first gun, a .22 caliber single shot rifle, when I was 9 years old. I got my first pistol when I was 25. never shot anybody, nevber considered using them for toys.
That hasn't stopped millions of others thinking and acting otherwise.
This response has been erased.
I remember cap-gun caps. We used to focus magnifying glasses on them to set them off with sunlight. Much more fun. Also useful for burning newsprint into interesting patterns.
I had this really cool heavy duty water ballon thingy which, when filled with water, worked like a water cannon with a very limited reserve. It got taken away from me because I kept using it on my brother.
You can "fire off a whole roll of caps at once, with the use of a hammer. I would like to point out that is, in fact *a hypothesis*.
(An hypothesis I tested many times, but never proved true.)
Until I was 14, we had a real gun in the house only once. A raccoon had invaded our attic. The World War II vet down the street made my dad borrow his handgun. Dad put it away somewhere, put the ammunition somewhere else, sternly warned my brother and I that if he even had an inkling that we might have had a notion to look for either, our lives as we knew them would change dramatically, and then called some county animal control place, who dealt with the raccoon. Dad was something of a conscientous objector when drafted in the Korean War, and as a result was a medic. He told me once he refused to carry a gun. However, he never made any attempt to pass that kind of attitude on to my brother and I. When I was 14, he bought a .22, took us out in the woods somewhere to shoot tin cans, and then we never used the gun again. My dad was and is an enigma to me in many ways, and this is one. Otherwise, my childhood experience with guns was exactly what Rane described. I did successfully blow up many caps at a time with a hammer. I don't think I ever got the whole roll to go off at once. My son has toy water guns, and has (or has had) pop guns and the like. I got his brother a BB gun when he was 8, I think, and lectured him heavy-handedly about using it in a strictly safe manner. I'll get John one, too, probably when he's 8, and deliver the same lectures. I expected to get my stepson a .22 when he turned 12, but then the divorce happened. I expect to get my son a .22 at about that age, and get him instruction on how to use it at the local conservation club. I consider guns to be an excellent means of teaching discipline and care. Kids know that a gun is "real", and that they are dangerous. They're dangerous in a controllable way, though; more so than cars.
This response has been erased.
We trap raccoons and release them somewhere else (probably to starve).
Nah, they'll eat anything.
We saw someone last year drive to the community garden area near Eberwhite woods to release a raccoon from a trap. That one won't starve. We biked our groundhog to Parker Mill. It was not happy.
I think katie used to let the Washtenaw County Sheriff Dept. release raccoons on her property. I always thought that was a terrible idea. Raccoons are horrendous, nasty, vicious pests which get positive publicity as "cute animals", thereby proving the lack of relationship between the ability to write and the ability to think. Raccoons are dangerous to have anywhere near people.
bastard raccoons, PESTS!!! i mean look at what they're doing to the ozone, all of the nuclear testing, and oil spills that they cause. THEY SHOULD ALL DIE.
Racoons have their place in the nations ecology. They do indeed serve a useful purpose. They make great road kill.
People are doing a lot more physical harm to raccoons than are raccoons to people. We just did not want them eating all the grapes, or ruining them before they were ripe, or living in the chimney with their families. People can be pretty horendous, nasty, and vicious to all creatures.
True, and they bother me sometimes, too.
I grew up with guns. I can remember going out in the woods and shooting my dads .22 revolver at the age of 5 or 6. I learned at an early age to respect guns because of this. As a kid I was never curious about the guns, and thinking back I remember that they were locked up ina cabinet, and even though I was a curious kid I would have *never* so muched as looked at the guns without my dad around. We would reload ammo with my uncle too. My Dad is quite the enthusiest, but not a gun 'nut' I had my first .22 semi-auto rifle at about age 12. Oh, one other weird thing, we were never allowed to have BB guns. I still keep all my guns at my folks place, since my dad has a shooting range and a vault. Though I did receive a shotgun as a gift from my folks a couple years ago that I keep at my house, unassembled in a box, and I have no ammmo for it. ;-)
My in-laws tried to give me a gun once. The boys were too young; I asked them to hang on to it and give it to me again when they're older.
i i am trained t use/implement certian tools for a specific result and an event transpires in which the use of these tools is the *shortest* peaceful (!!!) solution, that is the solution i have alwyas taken. waht i am trained/taught to use wil apply 24/7/365.25 - believe it. fwiw, those who didn;t lost everytime. bru is being persucuted for having competence. *wrong*!!
This response has been erased.
132 so do bible-barfer retards like you, stink-o.
Re #137: I'd say bru has been disciplined because he misused his "tool", though I sense there is something else behind the action, as I think a reprimand and perhaps a training review would have been more appropirate than dismissal.
Any discipline that bru should have gotten for that incident, should have happened immediately afterward. NOT several months later. And if he hired in with a 1 year probation period, it should stay 1-year for him.
Resp:140-141 WHY why Why doesnt grex have an OOCQ item!
Re #141: I'm with you on both of those.
reso:142 OOCQ? uh, I don't follow. "misused his tool"... hahaha
Exactly - OOCQ = Out of Context Quote. That "misused his tool" comment is perfect for such an item.
Wouldn't said misuse be Twila's concern, not the government's?
I think some people in this item have been kind of hard on a guy who just lost his job.
This response has been erased.
Re #147: the guy laid out his actions and problems here for all to read, inviting others to comment. I do not see that there is any reason why people should withhold their observations because they may be "hard on a guy". In fact, what some might take as "hard" comments could be more valuable to the guy than just commiserating pap.
This response has been erased.
I tend to side with gull.. Personally, I have been unwilling to share my thoughts on the matter because I think they're not highly likely to help Bruce. In general, I'm usually not a big believer in brutal honesty unless there's a very high likelihood that the advice I'm giving is going to make a big improvement in someone's situation or prevent them from making a terrible mistake. In my experience, such situations are very rare and for the rest of the time there's an appropriate time and manner to share hurtful news, even when another person asks for you opinion.
This response has been erased.
Keep in mind our primary mission here guys. To stop terrorism.
re #153: I assume you're making a point, but I'm not at all clear on what it is. Would you please elaborate?
This response has been erased.
It would explain much if Bruce was under the impression that his primary mission was to stop terrorism while just about everyone else (including his superiors) believed that his primary mission was to try to control the flow of goods coming into the country.
This response has been erased.
No, thta is our primary job at this point, hammered into us again and again at the briefings. Screw the revenue, stop te terrorists. And catch the drugs while you are at it. From one briefing. You have three primary responsibilities. 1. stop the terrorists 2. stop the terrorists 3. stop the terrorists and how did we go about stopping the terrorists? By interviewing truckers and processing their paperwork within 2.5 minutes and sending them on thir way. Believe it or not, you can get a lot of information out of someone in 2.5 minutes. They did not give me a gun and tell me I was a cop. they trained me for 12 weeks, made me pass every test with at least a 72%, ( graduated with 86%), an made me go thru a 12 month bacground check. Then they put me to work under a 2 year probation with teh understanding that even one entry into my B7 file could cost me my job. Think you can survive two years without making a single mistake on the job? I made two mistakes, both of which I informed them of, which had I not they may never have found out about. And then I pissed of a supervisor. I don't even know how I pissed him off other than he seemed tomake me jump thru hoops none of the other inspectors had to jump thru.
why are you posting all of this here, to *vent*? to get *back at them*?
Did you call in sick? Were you still in your probation period when you went on record with a disability (carpal tunnel)?
I missed two days sick in the past year. I had a repetative motion injury to my shoulder, but I never reported it as a work related injury, and it had cleared up within a short period. 158 was indeed a vent. But not at customs. It was aimed at people like you, happyboy.
Did you at any point have restrictions placed on your work activities to help the shoulder problem? Are you very sure your employer or other employees had no knowledge whatsoever that you had health issues that could be chronic?
No, he didn't have any restrictions put on him for the shoulder.
I never discussed the shoulder with anyone at work. The only way they could have learned of the problem was through my health insurance. I have no reason to believe they did so.
Hmmmm. Bruce mentioning that the supervisor was pissed off says a lot to me. That might be it right there. Seriously. I could probably theorize about why a supervisor might not like Bruce but I dont think I will. I think it is ok to hire someone on a one year probation and then extend the probation to two years as long as the person is notified of the change. I have a feeling that those two incidents are not the real reason for the termination. Because if they were, he would have been out of there a while ago.
This response has been erased.
If the whole aim is stopping terrorists, why all the discussions about illegally-imported meat a few months ago?
A diversion...
This response has been erased.
It sounds to me like the company line is "Stop the terrorists", but that doesn't mean the inspectors don't have to do everything they had to do before, anyway. Kind of like an "unfunded mandate".
It seems pretty obvious to me that "Stop the Terrorists" is a message/ mission coming down from the political-level leadership in Washington, and should be read "don't ever get caught looking like you might have exposed even a sliver of the top brass's asses". It smells of small, stupid minds inside the beltway, but differing with top command's list of priorities is very definitely not entry-level Bruce's job. I think the Bruce was canned for failing to humor Supervisor Chip O. DeShulder. The reaction he reported from the Internal Affairs crew (who'd know how seriously his offenses were normally treated) supports this.
why did you get fired, bruce?
fired or on suspension?
DIDN'T i GO THRU THIS EARLIER? 1. I handcuffed and helda suspect for the police while off duty. This was a violation of Customs proceedure. 2. I missed a COMPEX (Computer Generated Exam) by failing to enter the information into the computer in a timely manner. (everything was done correctly, but just an hour later than it could have been)
Why were you late? The reason I ask is because it could be important. If you had a valid reason like you were sick or you had to rush someone to hospital, yes, they should have considered. If, however, it was more a matter of not thinking it urgent enough, like "I can get to this later, it ain't that important), I can see why your boss would have been peeved.
:)
I can see why the agency would be concerned about the illegal arrest, although I agree with those who suggest that if they viewed it as a basis for discipline they should have acted sooner. (And no, it was not a lawful citizen's arrest if no felony was involved. MCL 764.16.) However, I don't think it is particularly unusual for employers to utilize past violations, although not considered of sufficient import to justify termination at the time they were committed, as a basis to terminate a probationary employee whom they have decided (for whatever reason) they don't wish to retain.
bru, maybe you were singled out for other reasons, and whatever was in your file was simply used as the excuse to fire you. Were you expendable whereas others might not have been? Or to be more blunt, do you think if you were a woman or a younger male or a minority, that you'd still be on the payroll? Could you have been singled out not just because you had entries in your file, but because you were a white middle aged male with no seniority who had entries in his file? This "you can be fired during probation for any reason" seems to me to be horridly broad language. They can use that language to fire any people they need to get rid of in order to show higher ups the correct demographic breakdown on the roster. It seems like you give them permission to discriminate during the first year or two years of your employment if they so chose to do so. Of course they can't LEGALLY say that your age and race figured into your firing, but if they can fire you "for any reason", they don't have to say anything do they? Ask your union about the department's "firing" statistics, demographic breakdowns about who got let go in past years among new employees and why.
This response has been erased.
treating people as if they are robots - or robotic in activity - is how u.m. does thigns .. maybe u.m. has seeped into tsa/homeland robotics. some colonel west (sp) got into court matrial troubel for saving his paltoon/company/bataliion because he 'esceeded' teh ucmj limit for pursuading a captive just a tad beyond the book-limit for purwuation. policy is 95% of the rules, 5% are athe exceptions UNanticipated by the book. book-only is hitlerian.
Actually, it isn't. Officers and NCOs in the Wehrmacht had more latitude in the field than they did in most WWII armies.
Has bru talked with an attorney regarding the possibility of getting his job back? The technicalities that got him fired might be challengeable.
This response has been erased.
and the employee may be separated from the Service in accordance with this agreement and applicable regulations." This suggests the contract does indeed cover those of us on probation, and if so, there may have been several violations of the contract by my supervisors. I have forwarded this on to my union rep and she has forwarded it on to the union lawyer. I hope some good comes of it. Still waiting for the file from washington. Spoke with a lawyer about chances of fighting this, adn he said it would cost me $5000 + and he would have to have $2400 up front. He also said the odds of winning were less than 50% if I was on probation.
This response has been erased.
Does the attorney who quoted the "less than 50%" "odds of winning",
specialize in federal civil service law?
If not, you might try to find one who does, and who therefore might be
able to offer better odds.
A google search of:
attorney "federal civil service"
yielded:
"Results 1 - 100 of about 4,800" sites.
A google search of:
attorney "customs employees"
yielded:
"Results 1 - 100 of about 674" sites.
A search using the terms:
"federal civil service" firing probation
might also be interesting.
he is local and deals in federal employment law.
appealing throught the civil service commission usually results in favorable outcomes ... is that your chose venue?
bru if you get your job back, in the long term those legal fees will seem insigificant. you ought to think about retaining him. if you don't, you might always wonder "what if..." Don't walk away from this not knowing yo u fought it as hard as you could
yeah, so true. But I do not have the ability to come up with the 2500 he wants up front.
civil service commission doesn't take any where near taht amount of $$$
How would the civil service commission apply to my position?
well ... aren't you reqired to contribute to civil service retirement, nto social security?
I am just to stupid for this right now tsty. Too much going on. If you have a suggestion, Call me prior to the 21st. which is the deadline for me to file anything.
email a phoe number .. wil be glad to assist
313 663-5703
You have several choices: