My reference to the UCMJ was because your original statement: "I don't see any reason why the government, at any level, can't control the conduct of its employees, within reasonable limits, especially with a plausible reason for doing so." The military CAN do all that and more because of the UCMJ. You can't "quit your job" with them because you don't like it. You will do as you are told...when you are told...and how you are told. That's the deal you agreed to. However, the government at "any level" covers an enormous number of different types of employment whose employees are not subject to that type of control. The police department, according to Nightmare 69, told it's officers they couldn't work at HOB until the union got things worked out. THAT was what my original comment was in reference to...a "union" telling a taxpayer funded government agency what it's employees can or cannot do. That sounds to me like the officers complained to their union that they weren't allowed to carry off duty in HOB and the union is using it's leverage with the Chief to try and pressure HOB into changing it's policy.JALLEN wrote:Apparently the police are required to follow orders not to work at this bar. It has nothing to do with the UCMJ.talltex wrote:The military is a totally different situation from any civilian governmental agency. In the military you are REQUIRED to follow orders...whatever they may be...or potentially face legal charges that can result in imprisonment for failure to obey a direct order from a commanding officer with authority over you. They can tell you if and when you can leave the base and for how long. The Military Code of Justice does not apply to the civilian population. That's just part of the job description when you sign up. No where in the civilian world can an employer dictate to you what you can or cannot do on your own time as long as it is not directly related to your job. For instance, do you really think that the Texas DOT should be able to tell the guy repairing potholes what he can do next weekend? I know that's an exaggeration of what you mean, but when you say they should be able to control conduct...within reasonable limits...with some plausible justification...well, that is a really slippery slope. The government has expanded it's control over the civilian population at an alarmingly increasing rate over the last 15 years and it's always presented as being both reasonable and plausible, and necessary to protect us.
Search found 8 matches
Return to “Boycott House of Blues-Deputy disarmed”
- Wed Oct 07, 2015 6:27 pm
- Forum: Off-Topic
- Topic: Boycott House of Blues-Deputy disarmed
- Replies: 185
- Views: 22488
Re: Boycott House of Blues-Deputy disarmed
- Wed Oct 07, 2015 2:23 pm
- Forum: Off-Topic
- Topic: Boycott House of Blues-Deputy disarmed
- Replies: 185
- Views: 22488
Re: Boycott House of Blues-Deputy disarmed
The military is a totally different situation from any civilian governmental agency. In the military you are REQUIRED to follow orders...whatever they may be...or potentially face legal charges that can result in imprisonment for failure to obey a direct order from a commanding officer with authority over you. They can tell you if and when you can leave the base and for how long. The Military Code of Justice does not apply to the civilian population. That's just part of the job description when you sign up. No where in the civilian world can an employer dictate to you what you can or cannot do on your own time as long as it is not directly related to your job. For instance, do you really think that the Texas DOT should be able to tell the guy repairing potholes what he can do next weekend? I know that's an exaggeration of what you mean, but when you say they should be able to control conduct...within reasonable limits...with some plausible justification...well, that is a really slippery slope. The government has expanded it's control over the civilian population at an alarmingly increasing rate over the last 15 years and it's always presented as being both reasonable and plausible, and necessary to protect us.JALLEN wrote:Goldspurs wrote: A taxpayer funded organization has no place blacklisting a private business for practicing their rights.
The Navy puts businesses on the off limits list in San Diego from time to time, and Tijuana was off limits to Navy personnel at various times.
Your statement had to do with "a taxpayer funded organization (Navy) having no place blacklisting a business for practicing their rights."
I don't see why the government, at any level, can't control the conduct of its employees within reasonable limits, especially if there is some plausible justification for so doing.
- Tue Oct 06, 2015 5:19 pm
- Forum: Off-Topic
- Topic: Boycott House of Blues-Deputy disarmed
- Replies: 185
- Views: 22488
Re: Boycott House of Blues-Deputy disarmed
NO ONE on here said anything about "making them work" anywhere...this discussion has been about an off duty LEO wanting to be able to carry his weapon in a particular business that doesn't allow it. NO department "makes" it's officers work anywhere off duty...the officers consider working security off duty as a big perk and a lot of them choose to do so. That wasn't the case in this instance. The officer was just going out with his family and friends to a bar...not working there. Goldspurs' comments were made in reference to Nightmare 69's statement that the Police department put HOB on a "restricted list" that off duty officers couldn't work security there until "the union" works out an agreement with them. When any union representing a certain class or group gets a public taxpayer funded government agency to blacklist any business, I think that qualifies as "strong arm tactics" to most people.EEllis wrote:So you want to make police work liquor stores and topless bars? I am sure they have a long list of different places they can't work for any number of reasons but to you the refusal to work someplace off duty is strong arming?Goldspurs wrote:Wow. I never though I would side with a business that prohibits weapons, but the fact that government employees are strong arming them leaves me no choice. This is why people don't trust government officials. A taxpayer funded organization has no place blacklisting a private business for practicing their rights.nightmare69 wrote:No LEOs can work there anymore per department policy. They have been put on the restricted list. The union is working on negotiations with HOBs but it looks like a dead end.
- Fri Oct 02, 2015 9:55 am
- Forum: Off-Topic
- Topic: Boycott House of Blues-Deputy disarmed
- Replies: 185
- Views: 22488
Re: Boycott House of Blues-Deputy disarmed
The rulings by the SCOTUS are definitive and clear. You are correct that it is based on Constitutional law because those are the only cases that the SCOTUS deals with...issues of Constitutional law. In my OPINION, If the Court has ruled that you cannot file suit nor receive damages for an LEO's failure to act to protect or defend you, then there is no LEGAL requirement. There are certainly local and state policy requirements, but the SCOTUS specifically states that even if the State has such a requirement (which Texas does in its CCP), that their ruling supersedes any such legal requirement unless it is a State official that is causing the harm.EEllis wrote: And you are not getting the point on the SCOTUS decisions. It isn't that there can't be a legal requirements to act. It's that there isn't a constitutional requirement for that action that would allow someone to sue and recover money. There can be legal, and policy requirements for officers to act as well as oaths they take on becoming sworn officers.
- Thu Oct 01, 2015 5:38 pm
- Forum: Off-Topic
- Topic: Boycott House of Blues-Deputy disarmed
- Replies: 185
- Views: 22488
Re: Boycott House of Blues-Deputy disarmed
I'll say it again...NOT just while OFF-DUTY...SCOTUS ruling applies to ON-DUTY as well...both the cases I referenced involved the failure of on-duty officers to take action.Goldspurs wrote: He can express negativity just like the rest at being disarmed just like anyone else. As it has already been posted, he has no more legal obligation to act while off duty than you or me. Check out the many posts on the SCOTUS ruling. I don't think anyone on here is against an off duty cop being armed. I think the rub is that a person feels they deserve "more rights" because they are a special status.
- Thu Oct 01, 2015 12:14 pm
- Forum: Off-Topic
- Topic: Boycott House of Blues-Deputy disarmed
- Replies: 185
- Views: 22488
Re: Boycott House of Blues-Deputy disarmed
The Texas State CCP says there IS a duty to act to prevent criminal acts they are witness to. HOWEVER...The Supreme court has ruled in at least two separate cases that there is no obligation. In case #1 they stated: "Law enforcement has no duty to act or protect against third party violence" not perpetrated by officials themselves." In other words if they see another LEO or Government official harming someone they DO have a duty to try and prevent it. In case #2, they clarified the position of state mandates clearly..."Law enforcement has no duty to act or protect, even if the victim has a legal restraining order, and even if State law mandates that an officer make an arrest." And that absence of "duty" doesn't just apply to "off duty" but to "on duty" as well. Those are pretty clear cut rulings.JP171 wrote:Taypo, for fire and EMS yes duty to act has been stricken from most laws and occupation codes in Texas if you are not "on duty", not in other states but here in Texas. I understand however for Police Officers I don't believe it has been. I think a LEO has a duty to act in Texas no matter if they are or are not "on duty". I do know that a person holding a peace officers certification and commission in Texas is an LEO no matter where they are in Texas and are able to effect an arrest on most class b misdemeanor and above crimes.
- Thu Oct 01, 2015 11:53 am
- Forum: Off-Topic
- Topic: Boycott House of Blues-Deputy disarmed
- Replies: 185
- Views: 22488
Re: Boycott House of Blues-Deputy disarmed
I agree with Taypo...the courts have ruled that there is no "obligation to protect" on the part of the police. To address a couple of points, there most definitely is a difference between an officer on and off duty...take a look at "cop bars" in any city. They are not allowed to drink on duty...but many of them do when off duty...they get stopped for DWI pretty often in the cities....although they often aren't charged. I don't want a drunken officer trying to protect anyone in a crowded bar or anywhere else. The old motto "To Protect and Serve" has been replaced in many LEO's minds with "whatever it takes to make sure I don't get hurt". I think the vast majority of LEO's, particularly the older ones, still feel that obligation to protect, but the trend toward "militarization" of domestic LE has fostered a different attitude about dealing with "civilians" among many officers. Look at how common it has become for an officer to shoot any dog that runs up to him in someone's yard, just because he "felt threatened" by the same animal that the postmen, meter readers, and other repairmen deal with everyday.Countryside wrote:There is no such things as an "off duty" peace officer.
You and I as CHL carriers can protect ourselves. We are not legally obligated nor sworn to uphold the law. We are under no obligation to get involved (to interfere with or stop) in a crime that is being committed. If you see two guys pull knives on each other, you are not obligated to get involved. A peace officer is.
An officer may not be in his uniform and in his patrol car, but he is always on duty as far keeping the peace. He is sworn to interfere with crime and to protect people. His handgun is there to not just protect himself but those around him. It is a tool that is part of his job should he need it. To deprive him of it, and then if something happens, to expect him to fulfill his role if we have disarmed him is unfair and unreasonable.
Yes, they had the "right" to do it as far as it being their property.
But there is a right and a wrong way to exercise our rights. It was their right, but there was no wisdom in the way they did it.
If this is going to be permitted, then there needs to be a law that protects peace officers from any liability if something happens when they have been disarmed by a property owner. Liability is then passed on to the ones committing the crime and to the property owner who disarmed the peace officer. The presence of an armed peace officer, whether on or off duty, is free security for any establishment and the people there.
- Thu Oct 01, 2015 9:29 am
- Forum: Off-Topic
- Topic: Boycott House of Blues-Deputy disarmed
- Replies: 185
- Views: 22488
Re: Boycott House of Blues-Deputy disarmed
Private property...they have the right to say yes or no. Sporting events and airports are not privately owned venues. He might want to take a look at the recent incident where a Temple TX officer, who was attending a CLEAT convention in El Paso, and had been drinking, fired off his weapon in a hotel hospitality ballroom after sexually harassing and touching a female bartender . Just because he's an LEO doesn't guarantee his behavior in a bar.