You are not logged in. Login Now
 0-24   25-49   50-74   75-99   100-124   125-149   150-174   175-196   
 
Author Message
25 new of 196 responses total.
bru
response 25 of 196: Mark Unseen   Oct 24 12:47 UTC 2003

"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.
scott
response 26 of 196: Mark Unseen   Oct 24 13:39 UTC 2003

Yup, it's important when you have authority to know when & where the
exceptions occur.

Still, the firing sounds fishy.
slynne
response 27 of 196: Mark Unseen   Oct 24 14:08 UTC 2003

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. 

johnnie
response 28 of 196: Mark Unseen   Oct 24 14:45 UTC 2003

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.    
jp2
response 29 of 196: Mark Unseen   Oct 24 15:07 UTC 2003

This response has been erased.

rcurl
response 30 of 196: Mark Unseen   Oct 24 17:41 UTC 2003

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". 
gull
response 31 of 196: Mark Unseen   Oct 24 18:51 UTC 2003

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.
rcurl
response 32 of 196: Mark Unseen   Oct 24 19:03 UTC 2003

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.
other
response 33 of 196: Mark Unseen   Oct 24 19:47 UTC 2003

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.
cross
response 34 of 196: Mark Unseen   Oct 24 19:47 UTC 2003

This response has been erased.

other
response 35 of 196: Mark Unseen   Oct 24 19:49 UTC 2003

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)
klg
response 36 of 196: Mark Unseen   Oct 24 19:59 UTC 2003

Yeah.  He shoudda probably asked for a Security Council resolution 
befer taking action.
tod
response 37 of 196: Mark Unseen   Oct 24 20:49 UTC 2003

This response has been erased.

cross
response 38 of 196: Mark Unseen   Oct 24 21:22 UTC 2003

This response has been erased.

tod
response 39 of 196: Mark Unseen   Oct 24 22:14 UTC 2003

This response has been erased.

jmsaul
response 40 of 196: Mark Unseen   Oct 25 16:18 UTC 2003

Where does it say that the kid's mom called his boss, Tod?
jep
response 41 of 196: Mark Unseen   Oct 26 00:26 UTC 2003

I hope this situation comes out all right for Bruce.  I don't see any 
reason to believe he did anything worthy of firing.
rcurl
response 42 of 196: Mark Unseen   Oct 26 06:39 UTC 2003

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. 

tod
response 43 of 196: Mark Unseen   Oct 26 12:57 UTC 2003

This response has been erased.

happyboy
response 44 of 196: Mark Unseen   Oct 26 18:41 UTC 2003

it's just a good thing he didn't have his gun out, i guess.


"Stop, or I'll SHOOT."
anderyn
response 45 of 196: Mark Unseen   Oct 27 00:30 UTC 2003

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. 
tod
response 46 of 196: Mark Unseen   Oct 27 13:37 UTC 2003

This response has been erased.

anderyn
response 47 of 196: Mark Unseen   Oct 27 14:37 UTC 2003

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. 
bru
response 48 of 196: Mark Unseen   Oct 27 15:08 UTC 2003

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.
slynne
response 49 of 196: Mark Unseen   Oct 27 15:51 UTC 2003

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. 

 0-24   25-49   50-74   75-99   100-124   125-149   150-174   175-196   
Response Not Possible: You are Not Logged In
 

- Backtalk version 1.3.30 - Copyright 1996-2006, Jan Wolter and Steve Weiss