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.
And then people here can post negative comments about the officer for daring to express his feeling. That doesn't prevent me from saying my piece about those negative comments.
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.
Ok. So I misunderstood. Is it the policy of his department? If not then your point is moot. If it is then does that policy trump property right?
You are also failing to understand my point. He is only being called out by me because he is choosing to highlight his status as a police officer as someone deserving to be armed at all times. It sends the wrong message, in my opinion. I am active duty army. I spent some time deployed to Afghanistan as a scout, although now I work in the aviation field. You can imagine I am familiar with a few different weapon systems. Even in light of this I would never advocate that I should receive "special rights" due my occupation. If my chosen profession required certain conduct, which it does, then I would stay away from any business that would prohibit me from doing that.
"We contend that for a nation to try to tax itself into
prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and trying
to lift himself up by the handle." -Sir Winston Churchill
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.
And then people here can post negative comments about the officer for daring to express his feeling. That doesn't prevent me from saying my piece about those negative comments.
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.
I see. What you're saying is that this Officer, being a sworn Officer of the Harris County Sheriff's Department, has a legal and policy requirement to remain armed and act as a LEO while off duty.
So, what policy and legal requirements did he violate when he willingly disarmed for a concert?
MONGOOSE wrote:He is under no "obligation " to draw his gun. He can evaluate the situation first and determine if he wants to engage
NO obligation is broad and speculative. Must I remind people of departmental obligations as well as moral obligations? Not that some people care, but I would hate to be at the scene of a murder or something of the such, and be found out that I did nothing to stop it or assist. Good by career! Some might no see it the same way us LEO's do, but I have people that would like to kill me because of my occupation, on top of any other reasons such as religious views. I know that not everybody agrees...
Sent from Iphone: Please IGNORE any grammatical or spelling errors. ALL of my statements are to be considered opinionated and not factual.
MONGOOSE wrote:He is under no "obligation " to draw his gun. He can evaluate the situation first and determine if he wants to engage
NO obligation is broad and speculative. Must I remind people of departmental obligations as well as moral obligations? Not that some people care, but I would hate to be at the scene of a murder or something of the such, and be found out that I did nothing to stop it or assist. Good by career! Some might no see it the same way us LEO's do, but I have people that would like to kill me because of my occupation, on top of any other reasons such as religious views. I know that not everybody agrees...
I get why you guys carry guns and I get that you're doing the dirty work that the public can't or won't do. I appreciate it immensely and I thank you for what you do.
Guys like this, however, are where I get angry. He's not a little snowflake that deserves special treatment. He's an off duty cop that's angry because he had to take his gun off, just like everyone else in the room.
MONGOOSE wrote:He is under no "obligation " to draw his gun. He can evaluate the situation first and determine if he wants to engage
NO obligation is broad and speculative. Must I remind people of departmental obligations as well as moral obligations? Not that some people care, but I would hate to be at the scene of a murder or something of the such, and be found out that I did nothing to stop it or assist. Good by career! Some might no see it the same way us LEO's do, but I have people that would like to kill me because of my occupation, on top of any other reasons such as religious views. I know that not everybody agrees...
A lot of people who are forced to be unarmed by their occupation are being targeted. Does the military recruiting station shooting ring any bells? In stead of advocating for special privileges I think your argument would be better served by asking for the end of "gun free zones". That being said, I will always believe private property should be left to the discretion of the owner, to include businesses. I f try choose to prohibit firearms I don't agree with their view, but I would rather not give them my business, instead of forcing my views on them through legislation.
"We contend that for a nation to try to tax itself into
prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and trying
to lift himself up by the handle." -Sir Winston Churchill
When a business has such a policy and you disarm anyway what message did you just send?
The business stood by its policy and the officer folded.
Don't complain if you are not willing to stick to your own principles and then support them by spending your time and money there. I don't even travel to states where my weapon is not allowed such as Vegas and New York.
"A man who is not willing to stand for something will fall for anything ".
MONGOOSE wrote:He is under no "obligation " to draw his gun. He can evaluate the situation first and determine if he wants to engage
NO obligation is broad and speculative. Must I remind people of departmental obligations as well as moral obligations? Not that some people care, but I would hate to be at the scene of a murder or something of the such, and be found out that I did nothing to stop it or assist. Good by career! Some might no see it the same way us LEO's do, but I have people that would like to kill me because of my occupation, on top of any other reasons such as religious views. I know that not everybody agrees...
A lot of people who are forced to be unarmed by their occupation are being targeted. Does the military recruiting station shooting ring any bells? In stead of advocating for special privileges I think your argument would be better served by asking for the end of "gun free zones". That being said, I will always believe private property should be left to the discretion of the owner, to include businesses. I f try choose to prohibit firearms I don't agree with their view, but I would rather not give them my business, instead of forcing my views on them through legislation.
Please note that I have not entered an argument here, and I wish not to, as there are some who would bash law enforcement, and that I care not to read or respond to. I just added to somebody's post about the "obligations" an officer has. I don't believe any of us should get disarmed, but some people would like to take the time to argue about privileges and cops vs chl.
I am all for expanded rights, and I'm certain we all are, so why are people on here arguing about tis and dat? Lets push to have the playing field equal for both LEO and CHL. I am for that.
Sent from Iphone: Please IGNORE any grammatical or spelling errors. ALL of my statements are to be considered opinionated and not factual.
Taypo wrote:
Im in no way, shape or form cop bashing here. I don't deny that many off duty cops step up to the plate and do a great job. So do countless civilians who don't have benefit of a badge to get them access to 30.06 location while armed.
He can gripe all he wants about being "forced" to disarm despite his department's policy, but it doesn't change the fact that they do not allow guns in that establishment. He's no better or no worse than anyone else once he takes that uniform off and is participating in an activity of his choosing at a location of his choosing.
So you have never expressed any negativity about a business posting 30.06? You and others can "gripe" but he deserves derogatory comments when he dislikes being disarmed? It's not about being better, I don't believe someone is "better" than others because of their career choice, he however different that non-law enforcement. Different responsibilities, different legal standards, and yes that does LEGALLY continue even after he takes off his uniform.
I absolutely express negativity about 30.06, as do a lot of folks.
The difference between us and him? We don't expect a free pass because we've got a badge.
And I'll be keeping my eye out for all those prosecutions of off duty cops.
There won't be any prosecutions of off duty cops because they are exempt from 30.05 and 30.06 as it pertains to carrying.
4/13/1996 Completed CHL Class, 4/16/1996 Fingerprints, Affidavits, and Application Mailed, 10/4/1996 Received CHL, renewed 1998, 2002, 2006, 2011, 2016...). "ATF... Uhhh...heh...heh....Alcohol, tobacco, and GUNS!! Cool!!!!"
MONGOOSE wrote:He is under no "obligation " to draw his gun. He can evaluate the situation first and determine if he wants to engage
NO obligation is broad and speculative. Must I remind people of departmental obligations as well as moral obligations? Not that some people care, but I would hate to be at the scene of a murder or something of the such, and be found out that I did nothing to stop it or assist. Good by career! Some might no see it the same way us LEO's do, but I have people that would like to kill me because of my occupation, on top of any other reasons such as religious views. I know that not everybody agrees...
A lot of people who are forced to be unarmed by their occupation are being targeted. Does the military recruiting station shooting ring any bells? In stead of advocating for special privileges I think your argument would be better served by asking for the end of "gun free zones". That being said, I will always believe private property should be left to the discretion of the owner, to include businesses. I f try choose to prohibit firearms I don't agree with their view, but I would rather not give them my business, instead of forcing my views on them through legislation.
Please note that I have not entered an argument here, and I wish not to, as there are some who would bash law enforcement, and that I care not to read or respond to. I just added to somebody's post about the "obligations" an officer has. I don't believe any of us should get disarmed, but some people would like to take the time to argue about privileges and cops vs chl.
I am all for expanded rights, and I'm certain we all are, so why are people on here arguing about tis and dat? Lets push to have the playing field equal for both LEO and CHL. I am for that.
I only meant your position on the issue, not that you are arguing. Your post does seem to advocate for "special privileges" for LEOs. I apologize if I interpreted that wrong. I have not bashed any officer, nor have I seen anyone else in the thread speak ill of our law enforcement. Again, my only issue was that this off duty officer assumed his occupation trumped the property owner's rights and he felt he deserved special treatment. If he instead made the issue about EVERYONE not being able to carry I would of been sympathetic to his situation.
"We contend that for a nation to try to tax itself into
prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and trying
to lift himself up by the handle." -Sir Winston Churchill
Taypo wrote:
Im in no way, shape or form cop bashing here. I don't deny that many off duty cops step up to the plate and do a great job. So do countless civilians who don't have benefit of a badge to get them access to 30.06 location while armed.
He can gripe all he wants about being "forced" to disarm despite his department's policy, but it doesn't change the fact that they do not allow guns in that establishment. He's no better or no worse than anyone else once he takes that uniform off and is participating in an activity of his choosing at a location of his choosing.
So you have never expressed any negativity about a business posting 30.06? You and others can "gripe" but he deserves derogatory comments when he dislikes being disarmed? It's not about being better, I don't believe someone is "better" than others because of their career choice, he however different that non-law enforcement. Different responsibilities, different legal standards, and yes that does LEGALLY continue even after he takes off his uniform.
I absolutely express negativity about 30.06, as do a lot of folks.
The difference between us and him? We don't expect a free pass because we've got a badge.
And I'll be keeping my eye out for all those prosecutions of off duty cops.
There won't be any prosecutions of off duty cops because they are exempt from 30.05 and 30.06 as it pertains to carrying.
Yeah, I wasn't clear there. I meant the prosecutions of all these off duty cops that are being disarmed and unable to do their job. I'm well aware that cops get an exemption to 30.06 and not terribly pleased with it.
Taypo wrote:
I see. What you're saying is that this Officer, being a sworn Officer of the Harris County Sheriff's Department, has a legal and policy requirement to remain armed and act as a LEO while off duty.
So, what policy and legal requirements did he violate when he willingly disarmed for a concert?
Goldspurs wrote:
Ok. So I misunderstood. Is it the policy of his department? If not then your point is moot. If it is then does that policy trump property right?
You are also failing to understand my point. He is only being called out by me because he is choosing to highlight his status as a police officer as someone deserving to be armed at all times. It sends the wrong message, in my opinion. I am active duty army. I spent some time deployed to Afghanistan as a scout, although now I work in the aviation field. You can imagine I am familiar with a few different weapon systems. Even in light of this I would never advocate that I should receive "special rights" due my occupation. If my chosen profession required certain conduct, which it does, then I would stay away from any business that would prohibit me from doing that.
It is the policy and no it does not trump property rights. Of course he, and no one else here, ever made that claim. Talking about moot points your, or anyones, ability with firearms would be pretty high on the list. It's not even really about "special rights" I think. I have been speaking to the denigration of the man for daring to be upset when you can find threads on this board where people are upset that they must disarm at HOB. He was being, albet gently, bashed for doing the exact same thing others here have done but since he's a cop people are getting a bit of nasty satisfaction that he gets treated like "they" do. Really? Mind you I don't necessarily think everyone needs to get all worked up over it either. I just think the insults about the deputy are over the top. "Special Snowflake" because he didn't want to disarm and thought the fact that he was a cop should be taken into consideration. But oh no! No one is even slightly anti cop here.
I love how people keep mentioning the "special privileges" while leaving out the extra responsibilities that go along with it. There are long list of people who have stated definitively that their gun is for the protection of themselves and family only. That they are not cops or Batman and will not be involving themselves in anything they don't have to. Well that is not a stance many law enforcement in Texas can take.
I don't have a problem with him being upset about the policy. I would be too just as I am when I am required to disarm or not enter. I also think the business has the right to have that policy even though I think it is misguided and foolish. People have the right to be upset and disagree without additional laws or rules being made or changed. The guy is viewing the situation from his perspective, the business owner from his and we are from ours. Apparently, he didn't like the policy but weighed the idea of going unarmed with messing up the evening for his wife and friends. He decided to not mess up the evening but that doesn't mean he can't dislike it and speak up.
I tried to post something about the flap about the NFL banning off duty cops from carrying. Don't know if it was deleted or just didn't post. It was not intended as cop bashing. It was used as an example of a group standing up for themselves publicly. The cops put up a stink and the NFL aquiesced. It wasn't a boycott that accomplished this, it was making the case publicly and then common sense prevailed. If can't fault the cops for standing up for themselves.
Nothing says we all have to agree with everything. We all have our own perspectives from which we view things.
Note: Me sharing a link and information published by others does not constitute my endorsement, agreement, disagreement, my opinion or publishing by me. If you do not like what is contained at a link I share, take it up with the author or publisher of the content.
