GlockTalk Forum banner

21 - 40 of 72 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
174 Posts
I know that's "how it is." What I am wondering is whether it should be that way. The POTUS is a govt. official, and when he shows up to vote, it's obvious who he supports for POTUS. Yet no one gives him a "rip" (to use TV cop lingo) for doing so. I can see why it might be bad for cops to get together and hold a rally in front of the courthouse (peaceful demonstration) for one candidate or the other. But to show up alone with some detectable clue as to who they personally plan to vote for--I am less sure that's a venial sin, let alone a mortal one. But I confess that in my state, they don't want you even driving up to the parking spaces in front of the voting place with a bumper sticker for a candidate, IIRC.
POTUS is by definition a political position. Most departments are, by choice and good counsel, decidedly neutral as regards to politics. Individual officers on their own time and out of uniform can be pretty darn political, though even then there may be restrictions to some degree. However, when that uniform is on, you now represent the department as an entity, not yourself. You agreed to those rules when you signed on. If you no longer wish to abide by them, either resign or accept the consequences of violating policy.

If the officer voted on duty in his uniform and chose to wear a plain mask, or one that didn’t take a political opinion, this never would have come up, complete non issue. Just another guy participating in the process who happens to be a cop. But, he was looking for attention and he got it. Cause...effect. What form that attention will take is not entirely known by us, but I’m guessing it’ll be negative, at least to some degree.

His job, job while wearing that uniform, is to keep things calm, to protect and serve without regard to any circumstances including political affiliation. The department must be neutral. He just took a position on behalf of that department that irritates, offends, or gives pause to a big part of the population for no other reason than he just had to share his opinion with the world. Bad judgment that was entirely avoidable.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
386 Posts
The presumption of neutrality for judges, prosecutors, and LEO is being eroded to the point where nobody even fakes it anymore.

This is bad for democracy. There is value in at least faking it, especially when you work for the government.
 

·
NRA4EVR
Joined
·
11,458 Posts
Of course the handicapped space was within 100 feet of the door. I thought that was a little crass and someone should have volunteered to tape a piece of paper over or something. I was not on duty when it happened. My guys told me about it.
That would be an interesting one. Federal law (ADA) guaranteeing accommodation vs state law for fair elections. Which one takes precedence?
 

·
NRA4EVR
Joined
·
11,458 Posts
Devil's Advocate time: Maybe he needed to vote, since it's an obligation we have as citizens, and he needed to "mask" because he didn't want to break any laws against voting maskless, and the only mask he had access to at the time was a Trump mask. So he had to choose: Not vote, or vote without a mask and cause panic and disciplinary actions from his boss, or vote with a mask showing a candidate that his police union might even have officially endorsed.

What if a regular citizen showed up to vote wearing a mask that said "I support the Police" ? Would that be on the list of verboten political statements? If we can support the cops while voting, why can't they support the candidate who supports them while they are voting? :)
Election Day is not for a couple more weeks. He had ample time to go to the polls on his days off.
 

·
NRA4EVR
Joined
·
11,458 Posts
Dev. Adv. says: What if you work for Joe's Plumbing, or Frank's Towing--where employees are issued uniforms--and you show up to vote wearing that work uniform? Also not smart? Or is there a double standard that discriminates against cops? Heck, politicians show up to vote and don't disguise who they work for. Some make a media event out of it, in fact. How come cops seem to be pariahs in this regard? How about EMTs or firemen--would it be more "inappropriate" for them to vote in uniform? Or the same inappropriateness? Or would people think it's fine for those people to vote in uniform?

(As you might have guessed, I don't like double standards, so I try to explore an issue from the Devil's Advocate position to see how the standards measure up. )
Joe’s Plumbing is not a government agency that has the power to deprive people of their liberty and take life-altering actions, and is not under a public expectation of impartiality.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,097 Posts
Voting is in our building right outside our office door. Pretty easy to walk across the hall and vote especially since I can look out my window and see if there is much of a line. I almost always vote in uniform since I'm working. It took me about 5 minutes. Of course, I have sense enough to never wear anything political when in uniform ever. No bumper stickers on my issued Tahoe either even though it is unmarked. Does it seem like common sense is becoming uncommon?
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,486 Posts
POTUS is by definition a political position. Most departments are, by choice and good counsel, decidedly neutral as regards to politics. Individual officers on their own time and out of uniform can be pretty darn political, though even then there may be restrictions to some degree. However, when that uniform is on, you now represent the department as an entity, not yourself. You agreed to those rules when you signed on. If you no longer wish to abide by them, either resign or accept the consequences of violating policy.

If the officer voted on duty in his uniform and chose to wear a plain mask, or one that didn’t take a political opinion, this never would have come up, complete non issue. Just another guy participating in the process who happens to be a cop. But, he was looking for attention and he got it. Cause...effect. What form that attention will take is not entirely known by us, but I’m guessing it’ll be negative, at least to some degree.

His job, job while wearing that uniform, is to keep things calm, to protect and serve without regard to any circumstances including political affiliation. The department must be neutral. He just took a position on behalf of that department that irritates, offends, or gives pause to a big part of the population for no other reason than he just had to share his opinion with the world. Bad judgment that was entirely avoidable.
You made your argument well IMO. Thanks. Sincerely, The Devil's Advocate
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,486 Posts
This was not an accident or oversight or mistake. The was an intentional act to send a message, make a statement.
I agree that's exactly what it looks like. I just feel, for some reason, more like high-fiving the cop than dumping on him.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,486 Posts
.. I almost always vote in uniform since I'm working... Of course, I have sense enough to never wear anything political when in uniform ever. ..
But the Devil's Advocate would ask, as the cop's hypothetical appointed defense attorney: Isn't your uniform, by definition, political? Doesn't it stand for certain values, such as law and order, the enforcement of laws by which criminals are punished if they commit a crime, etc.?

To an anarchist or a militant BLM activist, your uniform is a political statement. It's as if you're saying that you support Trump, since he stands for law and order instead of "Empty the prisons and defund the police, amnesty for minority criminals, etc." that his political opponents want to transform the USA into.

So the only truly apolitical Election Poll clothing that would qualify as PC to all people in the Intersectionality Universe, would be plain, insignia-free, gender-free, neutral color, peasant clothing made from free-range, gluten-free, organic hemp. Any other option makes a political statement that could offend someone.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
386 Posts
I agree that's exactly what it looks like. I just feel, for some reason, more like high-fiving the cop than dumping on him.
I think cops and other government officials need to decide if they should be respected for their authority or just treated like regular joes. I would certainly high-five a regular joe - but unfortunately I have been trained to expect more from cops and people in positions of authority - despite their repeated attempts to shed any respect I have for them.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,486 Posts
I think cops and other government officials need to decide if they should be respected for their authority or just treated like regular joes. I would certainly high-five a regular joe - but unfortunately I have been trained to expect more from cops and people in positions of authority - despite their repeated attempts to shed any respect I have for them.
So, just to clarify your position: How about a firefighter showing up to vote while in uniform? Okay, or unacceptable?

How about the Air National Guardsmen who I see doing all kinds of normal things such as shopping, gassing up the POV, etc. while in uniform--Voting Booth Verboten? Or "I'm cool with THOSE people voting in uniform, but not cops" ?

(As you may have noticed, I have a problem with double standards unless there's a really valid reason for having them)
 

·
Unfair Facist
Joined
·
23,400 Posts
Dev. Adv. says: What if you work for Joe's Plumbing, or Frank's Towing--where employees are issued uniforms--and you show up to vote wearing that work uniform? Also not smart? Or is there a double standard that discriminates against cops? Heck, politicians show up to vote and don't disguise who they work for. Some make a media event out of it, in fact. How come cops seem to be pariahs in this regard? How about EMTs or firemen--would it be more "inappropriate" for them to vote in uniform? Or the same inappropriateness? Or would people think it's fine for those people to vote in uniform?

(As you might have guessed, I don't like double standards, so I try to explore an issue from the Devil's Advocate position to see how the standards measure up. )
Here is the problem, you are apparently trying to make a case that there is, or should be, some over reaching standard that applies to all agencies. That is simply not how it works. Each agency, ( or private employer for that matter) have their own policies and procedures which their employees must adhere to.

As it stands many, if not most, public employers have standing policies regarding political activity while on duty or even off duty if they identify themselves as a public employee and who their employer is. And wearing a uniform does just that.

No lawyer is likely to even take the case if the officer wanted to dispute the depts. action. Because, as stated earlier, the SCOTUS has covered this area numerous times and repeatedly held that a public employer has a legitimate vested interest in employee conduct on duty and off duty.
 
  • Like
Reactions: nrajeff

·
Pretty Ladies!
Joined
·
4,358 Posts
Devil's Advocate time: Maybe he needed to vote, since it's an obligation we have as citizens, and he needed to "mask" because he didn't want to break any laws against voting maskless, and the only mask he had access to at the time was a Trump mask. So he had to choose: Not vote, or vote without a mask and cause panic and disciplinary actions from his boss, or vote with a mask showing a candidate that his police union might even have officially endorsed.

What if a regular citizen showed up to vote wearing a mask that said "I support the Police" ? Would that be on the list of verboten political statements? If we can support the cops while voting, why can't they support the candidate who supports them while they are voting? :)
Coulda turned it inside out.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,486 Posts
Here is the problem, you are apparently trying to make a case that there is, or should be, some over reaching standard that applies to all agencies. That is simply not how it works. Each agency, ( or private employer for that matter) have their own policies and procedures which their employees must adhere to.

As it stands many, if not most, public employers have standing policies regarding political activity while on duty or even off duty if they identify themselves as a public employee and who their employer is. And wearing a uniform does just that.

No lawyer is likely to even take the case if the officer wanted to dispute the depts. action. Because, as stated earlier, the SCOTUS has covered this area numerous times and repeatedly held that a public employer has a legitimate vested interest in employee conduct on duty and off duty.
Some good analysis, IMO, thanks and I find myself agreeing with most or all of your post. But the D.A. (not District Attorney, the other D.A.--me) could make an argument that if some agencies or departments have ONE policy that contradicts the policy of OTHER agencies or departments, then it could constitute discrimination. When one employer allows something that other, analogous employers don't, there is the "appearance" of unfairness. And that's what some attorneys make good money finding "victims" to represent.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,486 Posts
Coulda turned it inside out.
That is of course true, just as it's true that a Jew could put the yarmulke in a pocket while voting. Some could argue that both are 1st-Amendment issues.
 

·
Pretty Ladies!
Joined
·
4,358 Posts
s-l400 (1).jpg


It appears that this is the model of Trump mask he was wearing. The profanity is unprofessional enough while in uniform, regardless of the political message or endorsement of a particular candidate. The guy's clearly a moron and has earned the internal disciplinary spanking he's about to get.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,486 Posts
View attachment 853430
It appears that this is the model of Trump mask he was wearing...
Okay, I will concede that he was out of line, if he can be allowed to keep wearing that mask as long as he turns it inside out...it's not his fault if the fabric allows the message to still be slightly visible, but of course reversed. :)
 

·
Unfair Facist
Joined
·
23,400 Posts
Some good analysis, IMO, thanks and I find myself agreeing with most or all of your post. But the D.A. (not District Attorney, the other D.A.--me) could make an argument that if some agencies or departments have ONE policy that contradicts the policy of OTHER agencies or departments, then it could constitute discrimination. When one employer allows something that other, analogous employers don't, there is the "appearance" of unfairness. And that's what some attorneys make good money finding "victims" to represent.
The “discrimination” would only apply if the same govt. agency handled the exact same thing differently in one case as opposed to another case.

Dept. policy and procedures are not law applicable to anyone outside of the agency. They only apply to employees of a particular agency.

Think of it this way. Agency A. Is the U.S. and Agency B is France. Nether agency is bound to apply the same laws to their citizens that the other country does. A citizen of the U.S. cannot claim discrimination because the U.S. takes action against them while a citizen of France has no such action against them over the same thing.

Each agency must comply with city, county, state, and federal laws
But they are free to create and apply their own policy and procedures as long as they do not violate any applicable city, county, state, or federal law.

Or in the private sector imagine a employee of McDonalds claiming discrimination because they violated a policy of McDonalds. But say the policy of McDonalds is discriminatory because Burger King does not have such a policy.
 
21 - 40 of 72 Posts
Top