|
Grex > Agora47 > #116: The next chapter in the life of a Customs Officer. | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 196 responses total. |
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).
|
bru
|
|
response 90 of 196:
|
Oct 28 18:33 UTC 2003 |
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.
|
bru
|
|
response 91 of 196:
|
Oct 28 18:40 UTC 2003 |
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.
|
cross
|
|
response 92 of 196:
|
Oct 28 18:44 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
glenda
|
|
response 93 of 196:
|
Oct 28 18:46 UTC 2003 |
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").
|
gull
|
|
response 94 of 196:
|
Oct 28 18:47 UTC 2003 |
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.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 95 of 196:
|
Oct 28 19:09 UTC 2003 |
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.
|
anderyn
|
|
response 96 of 196:
|
Oct 28 19:34 UTC 2003 |
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.
|
tod
|
|
response 97 of 196:
|
Oct 28 19:43 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
happyboy
|
|
response 98 of 196:
|
Oct 28 19:54 UTC 2003 |
/can't seem to get the image of the cop from REPO MAN out of my
noggin
|
slynne
|
|
response 99 of 196:
|
Oct 28 21:10 UTC 2003 |
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.
|