|
Grex > Agora47 > #116: The next chapter in the life of a Customs Officer. | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 196 responses total. |
tod
|
|
response 65 of 196:
| 
Oct 27 22:21 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
cross
|
|
response 66 of 196:
|
Oct 28 00:33 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
anderyn
|
|
response 67 of 196:
|
Oct 28 01:15 UTC 2003 |
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.
|
cross
|
|
response 68 of 196:
|
Oct 28 02:12 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
gull
|
|
response 69 of 196:
|
Oct 28 02:16 UTC 2003 |
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.
|
slynne
|
|
response 70 of 196:
|
Oct 28 02:29 UTC 2003 |
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?
|
bru
|
|
response 71 of 196:
|
Oct 28 04:09 UTC 2003 |
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.
|
slynne
|
|
response 72 of 196:
|
Oct 28 04:17 UTC 2003 |
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.
|
cross
|
|
response 73 of 196:
|
Oct 28 05:26 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 74 of 196:
|
Oct 28 05:27 UTC 2003 |
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.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 75 of 196:
|
Oct 28 06:00 UTC 2003 |
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.")
|
other
|
|
response 76 of 196:
|
Oct 28 06:31 UTC 2003 |
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.
|
gull
|
|
response 77 of 196:
|
Oct 28 14:09 UTC 2003 |
Charges are being filed against the Detroit Chief of Police for putting a
loaded .22 in his checked baggage.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 78 of 196:
|
Oct 28 14:13 UTC 2003 |
Was it loaded? I thought he'd just forgotten to declare it.
|
jep
|
|
response 79 of 196:
|
Oct 28 14:20 UTC 2003 |
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.
|
bru
|
|
response 80 of 196:
|
Oct 28 14:22 UTC 2003 |
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.
|
bru
|
|
response 81 of 196:
|
Oct 28 14:25 UTC 2003 |
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?
|
other
|
|
response 82 of 196:
|
Oct 28 14:28 UTC 2003 |
Seems silly, too, that he'd be carrying a .22. I mean, really! What'd
he intend to use it for, squirrel? Pigeon?
|
slynne
|
|
response 83 of 196:
|
Oct 28 15:15 UTC 2003 |
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.
|
anderyn
|
|
response 84 of 196:
|
Oct 28 16:33 UTC 2003 |
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. :-)
|
remmers
|
|
response 85 of 196:
|
Oct 28 16:55 UTC 2003 |
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.
|
cross
|
|
response 86 of 196:
|
Oct 28 17:13 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 87 of 196:
|
Oct 28 17:55 UTC 2003 |
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?
|
gelinas
|
|
response 88 of 196:
|
Oct 28 18:07 UTC 2003 |
(It wasn't a request, though.)
|
rcurl
|
|
response 89 of 196:
|
Oct 28 18:25 UTC 2003 |
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).
|