Kerry speaks for LEO's

[rmcrobertson]

Sorry, but it is NOT automatically more, "real world and practical," to be on the proverbial street, though I agree that this is my prejudice too. Nor, given the context here, is it more, "real world and practical," to oppose a sane set of gun control laws--though a saner set would simply ban all handguns, and all guns easily convertible to automatic fire.

After all, any sane LEO will tell you that if you want a gun for home defense, nothing beats a 12-gauge.

 

[michaeledward]

Do all the soldiers in Iraq support the Presidents decisions?

Are you going to accuse them of not doing their duty anyways?


I dont enforce the Law because a Chief/Union/Politician tells me too. I enforce the Law because its my duty and I swore an oath to.

I find your implication that we would do otherwise offensive.

Please feel free to take offense.

While I understand that in your discussions on this board, you are not acting in your role as Law Enforcement Officer, however, I was always taught that Uniformed Officers of the Law are to be looked to for safety, security, and authority. The comments that I quoted above do nothing to reinforce those beliefs, and do quite a bit to counter those beliefs.

I have never looked at Law Enforcement Officers as 'The Enemy', the comments brought forth in this thread make that point of view more understandable to me.

Michael Atkinson

 

[Flatlander]

Sorry, but it is NOT automatically more, "real world and practical," to be on the proverbial street, though I agree that this is my prejudice too. Nor, given the context here, is it more, "real world and practical," to oppose a sane set of gun control laws--though a saner set would simply ban all handguns, and all guns easily convertible to automatic fire.

After all, any sane LEO will tell you that if you want a gun for home defense, nothing beats a 12-gauge.

Do you feel it's predjudicial thinking? I didn't mean to imply that street officers should automatically suggest anything, rather, that their opinions will be based on their daily dealings with firearms, as well as the application of the assault weapons law, whereas the organizational leaders would be making strategic statements based on other motives. Generally speaking. Of course, there will be no absolutes.

ETA - and yes, a 12 gauge would likely suffice, if my wife would let me keep one in the house.

 

[michaeledward]

ETA - and yes, a 12 gauge would likely suffice, if my wife would let me keep one in the house.

Good woman you got there ... I suggest you keep her

 

[loki09789]

Please feel free to take offense.

While I understand that in your discussions on this board, you are not acting in your role as Law Enforcement Officer, however, I was always taught that Uniformed Officers of the Law are to be looked to for safety, security, and authority. The comments that I quoted above do nothing to reinforce those beliefs, and do quite a bit to counter those beliefs.

I have never looked at Law Enforcement Officers as 'The Enemy', the comments brought forth in this thread make that point of view more understandable to me.

Michael Atkinson

First, people in America should have the freedom to an individual opinion and the right to express it, why should LEO (who generally think in terms of 'professional fraternity' but act in departmental and personal professional loyalty) be expected to subject themselves to a "hive mind" about gun control?

We have a thread about differing opinions about Tazers, legal/procedural soundness of LEO's in action where brother officers, former officers and civilians all express individual opinions.

How many times has anyone here done 'their job' even when, personally, they may have a different take on the issue?

I think the 'offense' that is being expressed is that your statements could be interpretted to mean that ALL officers will either rise up against the 'state' or that they will not do their appointed job because they don't agree with the laws/policies they are expected to enforce.

I don't agree with all the school policies/philosophies or standards that I have to use and assess myself and students by, but I do it. Why? Because I am a professional (as I was as an MP as well and as LEO are in general) and even though I don't 'like' or 'agree' with something, I can 'understand' what function it serves for the greater good.

THAT has always been my point about some of the dissent/"UnAmerican" comments that I have made. Are we working to improve the greater good or just complaining and bashing someone/something we don't like personally?

I would say that the original point of the thread was the idea that Kerry or anyone can speak for ALL LEO or ALL of any profession or group of any kind with any authority. He can't because there is no NATIONAL POLICE committee or a universal charter. We have departments and precincts and such. Pockets of people that are from the diverse communities that they serve. That would be like saying that all Californians are representative of the national trend or that opinions expressed by a poll taken of people walking on Wall Street represent the opinions of ALL New York City ... isn't true.

 

[Tgace]

Very nice Paul....Funny how LEO's "doing their job" by enforcing "protest zones" is a whole other matter isnt it?

 

[MisterMike]

You mean you can't have it both ways? :uhyeah:

 

[Tgace]

Bingo!!!

Suprise! LEO's have political opinions. Never implied that they wouldnt do their duty regardless of them. Its called professionalism.

 

[PeachMonkey]

THAT has always been my point about some of the dissent/"UnAmerican" comments that I have made. Are we working to improve the greater good or just complaining and bashing someone/something we don't like personally?

Some people like to argue. However, just because some immature people will argue for the sake of argument does not mean that all dissent is "UnAmerican", or that it is not an attempt to improve the greater good.

In fact, a lack of dissent helps contribute to many evils. Any study of history will provide many examples to back this up.

 

[Tgace]

I know this thread is probably dead, but I found this interesting discussion about the AWB on a LEO forum. Interesting opinions if you are interested. It is a jump to another forum though...if you dont like doing that be forewarned.

http://www.policemag.com/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=300

Heres a good one too..

http://www.nationalreview.com/kerry/kerry200410172106.asp

FRATERNAL ORDER OF POLICE ASK KERRY TO STOP MISREPRESENTING THEIR SUPPORT

Note this release from the Fraternal Order of Police:

Today Chuck Canterbury, the President of the nation's largest police labor organization, called on John Kerry to stop making misleading statements regarding his support from the law enforcement community. Both on the campaign trail and in Wednesday night's debate in Tempe, AZ, Senator Kerry has alluded that he has the support of the majority of these brave men and women.


"As the elected leader of the largest organization representing America's Federal, State and local law enforcement officers, I believe it's important to point out yet again that we do not support his candidacy for President," Canterbury said. "And to be perfectly frank, the groups which do support him actually share the same membership rolls and, taken together, probably comprise less than one-quarter of our nation's police officers."

Canterbury further noted that unlike the organizations which Senator Kerry touts, F.O.P. members as a whole decided that the Fraternal Order of Police would endorse the reelection of President George W. Bush. They based their decision, he said, on the record of the Bush Administration in supporting America's first responders­-including helping to secure passage earlier this year of H.R. 218, the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act, the organization's top legislative priority. Bush also successfully fought to greatly enhance the benefits for the families of officers killed in the line of duty.

"While Kerry was flying around the country campaigning and leaving the actual work of the nation to his colleagues in the Senate, the President was out there working on our behalf," Canterbury said. "Senators Kerry and Edwards have missed so many crucial votes this Congress that I was beginning to believe there were only 98 members of the U.S. Senate."

Canterbury also said it was the height of irony that Kerry would use his position on the reauthorization of the assault weapons ban as a reflection of his support from police. "First, if a police officer is killed by an AK-47, Kerry would oppose the death penalty for the killer," Canterbury said. "In addition, where was he when this issue was being discussed in the 108th Congress? Where was he when we were working to pass H.R. 218? When it came time to help push for final passage of legislation important to law enforcement, Senator Kerry was regrettably A.W.O.L."

"Given the facts, I would greatly appreciate it if Senator Kerry would refrain from making similar whimsical assertions regarding his support from the law enforcement community," Canterbury said. "The real majority of my fellow officers are standing behind President Bush, because he has been there for us."

The Fraternal Order of Police is the nation's largest law enforcement labor organization, representing more than 318,000 members.



​

Do you ever get the feeling we're dealing with the first postmodern deconstructionist political campaign? Where the words themselves just don't have any meaning, because the candidate believes all truth is relative?

 

[rmcrobertson]

Hey, it's the darndest thing. I just did a quick Internet search, and, a) Mr. Canterbury has a number of hits in which he brags about getting the Bush admin to midify its recent sweeping overtime changes to benefit police officers, and b) Mr Canterbury is front-page on the Bush/Cheney website!!
Well, dog my cats. Fortunately, I feel sure that Mr. Canterbury would IN NO WAY play political games, or color his remarks to win something for his constituents.