MassCops - Massachusetts Law Enforcement Network, A Mass Police Web Portal

Massachusetts Law Enforcement Network

Massachusetts Police News, Information and Discussions on MassCops



Pages: 1
Main Page

Refusal to issue vests

(Click here to view the original thread on the MassCops Message Board)

Posted by: mabk14

I work for a small town police department (less than 20). My chief refuses to supply officers with a bullet proof vest even upon being a new hire. Several months ago he even had the funding to supply us with them but refused to based on the following. The chief has a dispute with our union in which he says if he "buys us vests" he wants to be able to discipline us for not wearing them (including while on details). The union will not agree to his terms thus no one will receive a vest. Many of us are using vests from other jobs or from friends. Now, even though the government is the ones who pay for them, is he allowed to keep us from what is a very basic and necessary tool for the job?

I am writing to see if anyone else has had this sort of issue and if someone could give me information I use which would change the chief's decision.

In my opinion he is failing to provide for the members of his department and is opening up himself to a lawsuit God forbid anyone were to get injured because of his decision.

Signed,
A very angry patrolman.


Posted by: j809

Our new contract as of July 1, states that if the town purchases and issues you a bulletproof vest then you must wear it and it is a condition of employment up to and including termination. I got my own from the previous dept and I won't ask for one since now I have a choice when to where it.


Posted by: Wolfman

Sounds like someone in your union is being a crybaby when it comes to wearing this "basic and necessary tool for the job". THEY are the ones keeping you from getting vests. Be angry at your peers.

If you're issued a vest and you don't wear it, you're an ass, plain and simple. If it's so uncomfortable to wear a vest on a detail, then don't work details. You bring a gun and a set of cuffs out on a detail, right? There's a reason COPS work details in Mass, and it's not just the blinky lights on the car. Situations occur where you have to do honest-to-goodness police work. Otherwise why not just passs a flagman bill?

"But I'm an admin guy", "It's too hot", "It doesn't fit well", "It chafes me." Boo-Friggin'-Hoo.
Quote:
John DiNapoli, the victim, was a twenty-three year veteran of the Holyoke police force. On the morning of December 22, 1999, while driving in an unmarked police cruiser, DiNapoli heard a radio dispatch reporting a fight at the corner of Sargent and Walnut Streets. Unarmed and in plain clothes, he transmitted to the dispatcher that he would "see what was going on." On arriving at the scene, he saw the defendant whose appearance matched the dispatcher's description of one of the men involved in the altercation. As the defendant fled on foot, DiNapoli gave chase in the cruiser. At some point, the defendant stopped running and began firing a gun at the cruiser. DiNapoli put the cruiser in reverse and slowly backed away, but the defendant pursued the vehicle and continued to fire. DiNapoli had been shot five times and could not be resuscitated by paramedics who were called to the scene. (There were ten bullet holes in DiNapoli's vehicle.)
Quote:
8/14/04, Darby, PA: In what police are calling a classic "suicide by cop," a 22-year-old Upper Darby man was shot by police after he burst into Upper Darby police headquarters brandishing a .357 Magnum handgun early yesterday.
The unidentified man was killed and a police officer was wounded when gunfire erupted in the lobby of the building at 2:17 a.m. Police say they believe the wounded officer, Lt. Anthony Paparo, was struck by a ricocheting police bullet. The man never fired his gun.
Quote:
8/11/04, South Jersey: A 25-year-old township woman was charged with aggravated assault and weapons offenses after police said her handgun discharged during a struggle inside police headquarters.
Police said at the time, Beckett was being placed under arrest on charges related to gunshots being fired about 2:15 a.m. Thursday in the vicinity of J. Mason Tomlin School. There were no injuries or property damage in that shooting, police said.
"While being placed under arrest for the weapons offense, Ms. Beckett is alleged to have resisted and struggled with officers," according to a news release from the prosecutor's office. "During the physical altercation, the handgun which Ms. Beckett was alleged to be carrying, discharged."
Beckett is the daughter of township committeewoman Lorraine Beckett. The committeewoman did not immediately return a phone call for comment.
If the chief wants to discipline someone for not wearing an expensive piece of issued gear that could save your life so you can save someone elses, more power to him. Ostensibly, this should be a moot point, since there is no reason NOT to wear it. Agree to the terms and put the ball back in his court. It's not like he's making you wear a tutu or a Yankees hat.


Posted by: girlcop21

I couldn't agree more with VOR... its a basic understanding that as police officers we take a risk on a daily basis that we will be thrown into a dangerous situation. The bad guys out there have an array of weapons to use against us, wouldn't you want to have as much, if not more, than them to protect yourself? My priority is to get home safe every day, from both a detail and or a regular work day. Tell your fellow officers to quit being selfish with regards to the union issue and to consider the feelings of the majority.


Posted by: SOT

If your union isn't smart enough to say yes...we support the fact that officers should wear vest while on duty and it's an essential part of the job...you've got a pretty bad union.

If you get a department issued vest, you wear it...EOD. If you don't get a department issued vest, you buy one and wear it.

Face it it's going to get worse for police as a whole if you get the funding, get the matching from the state or local funds, get a bunch of vests and they all end up staying in the locker...
When politicians start looking for things to cut, they'll say "hey we gave departments MILLIONS of dollars for BPvest programs...and the police didn't wear them, and death related to gsw's didn't go down"....lets cut that program first.

In this case your union is not helping you one bit.


Posted by: Jeep

Sure they're hot and uncomfortable, but which is more uncomfortable, wearing your vest on a 90 degree day or not wearing your vest and catching a bullet in your chest??


Posted by: mabk14

What my intent was in this thread was some suggests or information which would help those of us who DO want a vest and WOULD agree to wear them whenever. I for one am FOR wearing a vest all the time. I have NO objections to my chief's proposal. But as a member of a UNION (whole), I cannot be the only one to agree to it. There are some old timers who refuse to such a disciplinary clause. I don't agree that the chief has decided that this is the only way to give vests. What does he care, its not his money IF guys receive a new vest and don't wear them. Is it a waste, sure. But don't PENALIZE those guys who just want a basic life saving tool.

So, does anyone have any suggestions to "force the chief's hand" in this matter?
sincerely
"an old vest wearing" patrolman


Posted by: Wolfman

Again, it doesn't sound like it's the Chief's hand that needs to be forced - it's the stubborn old timers that are jamming you up. You say that you have borrowed / obtained vests from other sources, obviously you want to continue wearing them until the matter is resolved.

Use the union to your advantage, muster some support and put it to a vote. Does the majority want these things or not? The door swings both ways, you know. Identify the holdouts and ask them if they plan on taking the responsibility when someone catches a round due to their obstinance. If they don't want to wear the vests, then they can request not to be issued one and sign a release absolving the department from responsibility when someone opens them up. If you're outnumbered by the old timers, then it's time to talk to your financial advisor to see if the purchase of body armor would be deductible based on the circumstances.


Posted by: SOT

It's not the Chief that is the problem, it's the Union.

Here's what you do. Contact some departments that issue vests and find out their policies regarding department issued vests. If most towns that issue vest require that they be worn with threat of penalty if they are not, then you know it's your union. If more towns say, issue but have no policy about wearing...then it's your Chief that's the problem.
Now if you don't want to look all this stuff up I'll give you the short version:
If you take federal monies (and sometimes state monies) to purchase vests...the DOJ or the State normally includes a performance rider that says the departments must also have a policy the requires vest use. That's why some departments will say, take our vest...wear it all the time - buy your own vest do what you want. So again...this is such a common thing, it's sort of odd that your Union doesn't get it.


See the link for towns and contacts for the Federal BPV partnership program.
BPV Partnership Awards for MA


Here's the actual wording from the requirement:

(c) Preferential Consideration.--In awarding grants under this
part, the Director of the Bureau of Justice Assistance may give
preferential consideration, if feasible, to an application from a
jurisdiction that--
``(1) has the greatest need for armor vests based on the
percentage of law enforcement officers in the department who do
not have access to a vest;
``(2) has, or will institute, a mandatory wear policy that
requires on-duty law enforcement officers to wear armor vests
whenever feasible;

In human speak this means...wear policy or no vests the next time around...your Union is playing power games with your safety as the pawn. Now what may be happening is that your Union is reading the amendments to the BPV Act and thinking this requirement isn't there anymore, if that's true they are applying ammendments to the wrong section...and just can't read and in the end you suffer.
If it's the membership that's playing these games, give them the information and if they can't figure it out...buy and wear your vest ALL the time...and lead by example. In the end you'll be safer and maybe your example will save some lives.
If you need any help PM me. I may still have some policies laying around.

Some statistics to hand out:

(a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
(1) the number of law enforcement officers who are killed in
the line of duty would significantly decrease if every law
enforcement officer in the United States had the protection of
an armor vest;
(2) according to studies, between 1985 and 1994, 709 law
enforcement officers in the United States were feloniously
killed in the line of duty;
(3) the Federal Bureau of Investigation estimates that the
risk of fatality to law enforcement officers while not wearing
an armor vest is 14 times higher than for officers wearing an
armor vest;
(4) the Department of Justice estimates that approximately
150,000 State, local, and tribal law enforcement officers,
nearly 25 percent, are not issued body armor;
(5) according to studies, between 1985 and 1994, bullet-
resistant materials helped save the lives of more than 2,000 law
enforcement officers in the United States; and
(6) the Executive Committee for Indian Country Law
Enforcement Improvements reports that violent crime in Indian
country has risen sharply, despite a decrease in the national
crime rate, and has concluded that there is a ``public safety
crisis in Indian country''.


Posted by: MarkBoston

"Sounds like someone in your union is being a crybaby."

"If you're issued a vest and you don't wear it, you're an ass, plain and simple."

"If the chief wants to discipline someone for not wearing an expensive piece of issued gear that could save your life so you can save someone elses, more power to him."

"Tell your fellow officers to quit being selfish with regards to the union issue"

"Again, it doesn't sound like it's the Chief's hand that needs to be forced - it's the stubborn old timers that are jamming you up."

"It's not the Chief that is the problem, it's the Union."

Above sounds like a round table discussion at a MA. Chiefs of Police Association meeting.

Here is my personal point of view.

I guess if I could sit on my ass in my air conditioned cruiser for the vast majority of my details then wearing a vest would be no problem. Then I would not be a union crybaby ass then plain and simple. But unfortunately the average Officer does not have the luxury of having the majority of their details on the highways. Some of us actually have to interact with people more then the standard "Do you know how fast you were going?" We can't just sit there and watch DVD's, talk on the phone, or play with our computers. That's the fun part of the Big Dig watching all those boots get dirty when some actually have to climb out of those RV's with blue lights and wave their arms for a few minutes. But that's for another posting one day.

Lovely how some want to give the chief more power to screw the street cops in the ground. For those who know and understand the actual streets giving the chief even a bigger bat to beat his officers with is NOT the answer.

Those "stubborn old timers" are the same ones who fought tooth and nail for every F'ing benefit that the fresh paint now enjoy. While some were home playing pup tent with an old playboy under the covers as a teenager, these "selfish", "stubborn old timers", "plain and simple ass", men and women were fighting the battles that now make you fresh paint, brown nosers, 75K plus a year for just a HS education and even more because of the Quinn bill among other benefits.

If you cave in to the department forcing you to wear the vest whenever you wear the uniform then get ready for personal GPS systems installed on every single PO by order of the Chief. Nice to think of the radio going off advising you to change your location because you have not moved in the last 3 minutes.


Posted by: SOT

You can slice it and dice it anyway you want...vests save lives..a lot of funding for vests come from sources that attach conditions...don't want the money...don't take the money and buy your own vest...or not...it's your life.

I'm not a cop but I would think that when "Some of "you" actually have to interact with people more then the standard", that would be EXACTLY the time to have a vest.

But the original issue was
"several months ago he even had the funding to supply us with them but refused to based on the following. The chief has a dispute with our union in which he says if he "buys us vests" he wants to be able to discipline us for not wearing them (including while on details). "

That's the RULES of the FUNDING...so you can't say he had the funding without having the rules and the unions know that. Why might you ask? Because the program has been in effect for 6 or so years. It's not like he's saying "You officers must provide your own vests and I get to gig you for not wearing them."

So in the end...no rules = no funding...some rules = some funding...it's up to the membership and union to figure out which way they want to go...but a pissing match where the union knows there's no real wiggle room...is who's fault? The DOJ, the Chief? the line officer? nope none of them...so who could it be?

And yes I'd agree when and if you get a CISCOR system... the unions will freak out...it's an ego thing...



Here's what I think will be your best bet:

Have your union take a vote on wether or not they want the vests via funding.
If they do...then have them vote if they will accept the vests with diciplinary conditions or not.

If not then have them write a letter to the Chief:

We the members of X union, having reached a quroum and taken a vote as per our by-laws and regulations request that the Cheif Law Enforcement Officer, [name] apply for funding via the OJP BPVP and provide the officers in X department bullet proof vests with no restrictions as to use or lack there of. The union understands that funding for these vest may be contigent on accepting a use contract but feel that the use contract is an unacceptable compromise in consideration for the department providing BPV .

Signed
(your delegate or union President)

By having a vote and a union letter you Chief may be able to apply for the vests and get them with no conditions attached and your union goes on record supporting the vests but not punishment for not using them.

That will surely "force your Chiefs hand"...but more so it may force your Unions hand.
"We want the equipment but don't want to be forced to use them." , that's what they are saying...is it not?


Posted by: Wolfman

Well, allow me to retort:
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkBoston @ Fri 20 Aug, 2004 12:47
Above sounds like a round table discussion at a MA. Chiefs of Police Association meeting.

Here is my personal point of view.

I guess if I could sit on my ass in my air conditioned cruiser for the vast majority of my details then wearing a vest would be no problem. Then I would not be a union crybaby ass then plain and simple. But unfortunately the average Officer does not have the luxury of having the majority of their details on the highways. Some of us actually have to interact with people more then the standard "Do you know how fast you were going?" We can't just sit there and watch DVD's, talk on the phone, or play with our computers. That's the fun part of the Big Dig watching all those boots get dirty when some actually have to climb out of those RV's with blue lights and wave their arms for a few minutes. But that's for another posting one day.
If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen. If it's too hot for you to work details in a proper uniform, don't work them. No one's twisting your arm, find a nice part-time air conditioned job as a Wal-Mart greeter or the guy that rips the tickets in the movie theater.

Quote:
Lovely how some want to give the chief more power to screw the street cops in the ground. For those who know and understand the actual streets giving the chief even a bigger bat to beat his officers with is NOT the answer.
At the risk of starting yet another pissing match, I've worked streets long enough to not want to be there without protection. That's just plain common sense, something which your lack of air conditioning in your vehicle seems to have sapped. If the streets are as mean as you say, why the fvck would you want to go out there without body armor? This isn't about giving the chief the power to screw the workers, they have plenty of that anyhow. This is about giving a lifesaving tool to those smart enough to want to use it.
Quote:
Those "stubborn old timers" are the same ones who fought tooth and nail for every F'ing benefit that the fresh paint now enjoy. While some were home playing pup tent with an old playboy under the covers as a teenager, these "selfish", "stubborn old timers", "plain and simple ass", men and women were fighting the battles that now make you fresh paint, brown nosers, 75K plus a year for just a HS education and even more because of the Quinn bill among other benefits.
...and some of these are the same stubborn old timers who could once abstractly dispense justice at the end of a baton, who have allowed their bodies to deteriorate so badly that they run out of breath getting out of their car, who leave a cruiser full of cigarette ashes and fast-food wrappers, and who are so deeply rooted in the good old days that they don't have an accurate comprehension of the carnage that is occurring on the streets they are charged to patrol. This certainly doesn't describe ALL old timers - there are those on my job and likely on yours who could run rings around the best of us, go toe to toe with someone half their age and twice their size, who know their job and do it well...and these are the old timers you will see wearing their goddamn body armor. It's the fat miserable old bastards that can't be bothered, and have no qualms about dragging everyone else down with them. Nice to know that their obstinance could cost a hard working cop his life. Some consolation that the widow may get a portion of that Quinn Bill money, right?

Those who know me know I have no great love for administration or the way things tend to be run. I have a few years on my job, maybe more than some on this board and maybe less than others. I have a few years on this planet as well, maybe more than a few here and maybe less than others. I call them the way I see them, and this is how I see this one. Your inspired and passionate arguments fail to change my perspective.


Posted by: j809

Our contract does state that vests must be worn when working shifts not details. We have a detail uniform with polo shjrts and BDUs and its quite comfortable but it would have sucked if i had to wear a vest when i worked a paving detail today with 88F. I heard that if you get shot and did not wear a vest and one was issued to you, your family cannot collect any federal money and even departmen disability is questionable. It sucks, it should be at the discretion of the officer, besides the one I got is one of those on the recall list.


Posted by: SOT

You can get money towards a replacement. Does your whole department have them or just you? If you have any problems let me know...I don't sell vests... but I can help you get one.
If it's department level, theres some othe remedies.



http://www.secondchance.com/news.asp...&newsID=40


Posted by: MarkBoston

Let me guess...proper uniform equals command presence.

I have my own opinion unlike some who have their opinions issued by their departments. I have found that if you give management an inch they'll be in your face even more then before. But that is just the voice of 20 plus years dealing with management. I could of towed the management line and gone on to having all the little perks of the average house mouse brown noser. But I want to be able to look at myself in the mirror when I shave.


Posted by: Gil



Off topic posts deleted. Keep it on topic please. This issue is about vests not "How much I hate the MSP" !!


Posted by: RPD931

here... If issued by dept. you are "expected" wear it... All but 1 guy (old timer) wears a vest. During details we are NOT required to wear the vest. During the details most guys just wear their off-duty holster and a set of cuffs with their uniform. makes it alot lighter than duty belt and vest. My Chief is a "Cop" not just an administrator


Posted by: SOT

That sounds like a very fair policy...

Quote:
Originally Posted by RPD931 @ Sat 21 Aug, 2004 21:05
here... If issued by dept. you are "expected" wear it... All but 1 guy (old timer) wears a vest. During details we are NOT required to wear the vest. During the details most guys just wear their off-duty holster and a set of cuffs with their uniform. makes it alot lighter than duty belt and vest. My Chief is a "Cop" not just an administrator



Posted by: metrowestblues

This is outrageous. This chief has no right to play with your safety.
Here's an idea - do you know anyone on the town's governing body? If you do, tell them about this on the Q-T. If not, have your union head write them a letter...

Inform them of the liability issue, and the potentially huge cost to the town in the event one of you gets hurt. Remember, they appropriated that money to the police dept. -- and there is probably a line item for equipment.

If your chief is using this money for something OTHER than an equipment expense, that could be called misappropriation of funds. If he is NOT using it at all...most towns demand that unused funds be returned to the town's general fund at the end of the year.
Is he returning those funds every year? Probably not.

Go to the source of the power -- the people that hold the purse strings! Good Luck!


Posted by: Killjoy

Quote:
Let me guess...proper uniform equals command presence
If the shoe fits kid, wear it. I can't believe you would argue with this....maybe you should go on patrol and to details dressed in a tank top and flip flops with a gun tucked into your shorts. A few months ago I went to show and the detail cop outside directing traffic (on a four lane road) was dressed like a bike officer with shorts and polo shirt and no traffic vest. People were not stopping or obeying him because they didn't know who he was...he was supposed to be stopping traffic so people could take a left and pedestrians could cross...instead chaos ensued. On details, private entities pay you for your command presence, you should at least feel the obligation to show up in a proper uniform (and on time, but that's another issue). You go out on patrol assuming nothing and anticipating trouble (plan for the worst, hope for the best), why go out on a detail assuming less? Nothing makes me madder than officers saying "it's never happened before, so it will never happen". Well, most officers have never been in a shootout, why carry a gun?

Sorry to get off topic, mabk14, but I had to vent....as far as your vest problem is concerned, I agree with metrowest...see if you can go to a selectman or the mayor, or, failing that, see if you can get the press on your side. Neither side would like the bad publicity that's bound to ensue. Good luck.


Posted by: MarkBoston

Thank you for calling me "kid" I'll be 44 in October and I am hoping you were calling me a human "kid" and not the goat type.

Command Presence...I love that term.
But a uniform is just clothing and the sooner all PO’s realize that the safer this job will be. Certain agencies train their people to dress like recruitment posters and treat their recruits like dog shit in an effort to mold them into a collective. That era of training is long over, but some feel that if they had to go through the torture, then the new people should also. Just think if every amputee thought the same way, we would all be limping around.


Posted by: PBC FL Cop

I'm looking forward to see how this one comes out. Give them alittle leeway on this topic Gil, because I fight this battle on a daily basis down here in S Florida - image vs. comfort. Its north vs. south all over again


Posted by: SOT

A lot of folks are missing the point.

A gun is an essential piece of law enforcement equipment in the US. 50 years ago pepper spray wasn't...now it is...same thing with a bullet proof vest. Would you go on patrol without a gun, what if the gun were too heavy...you didn't like the way it felt in your holster, it made you look fat, it was too hot to wear.

You don't want to wear one, don't make the tax payers buy you one- and leave the money for departments that do plan to use them. It's that simple.

You want to wear it at your leisure, buy one for yourself.

If you are married or have kids, tell them daddy or mommy is too inconvenienced to wear that hot sweaty vest. Tell them that you don't care enough about yourself, them, or your partner to make sure you can do your job as safely as possible and come home at night.

If a perp pulls a gun on you, ask him or her to wait while you drive back to your department get your vest out of you locker and come back.

I think going to the press is a good idea...tell them you want your department to spend money on something you don't want to use. Tell them it could save your life but it might not be comfortable enough to wear while working so you'll plan to get in a gunfight on days that it's cool enough to wear the vest. On hot days...you'll leave your gun and vest at the station because you don't plan to use it. While your at it, maybe leave the radio too...that's sort of heavy...


Posted by: Pinkos307

I can't believe this is even a discussion.

If you are wearing your weapon, while in full uniform, then you should be wearing a vest.


Posted by: RPD931

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pinkos307 @ Thu Aug 26, 2004 10:47 pm
I can't believe this is even a discussion.

If you are wearing your weapon, while in full uniform, then you should be wearing a vest.
Yes, in today's Law Enforcement realm, they (gun & vest) go hand in hand.


Posted by: Killjoy

Quote:
But a uniform is just clothing
Sure its just clothing, so why not go out on patrol in overalls? Or a T-shirt and jeans? Your uniform is a representation of your city and department....to walk around looking like a bag a crap is a disservice to citizens you protect and city you serve (remember you are a PUBLIC servant.) Some officers actually take pride in their appearance, but do what suits you..... As far as being MORE safe by looking like crap, what's the logic to that? Interviews with criminals indicate that they take the appearance of the officer into account when they are trying to decide in their evil little minds whether or not to try to fight/escape or cause other mayhem. If some perp is looking a fat, out of shape, joe-bag-o-donuts cop with coffee stains all over his shirt and his hat cocked back at a jaunty angle, and an in shape, squared away, neatly attired cop, who do you think he's going to try to get one over on? Sure there are some lunatics who will fight no matter what the cop looks like, but why not stack the odds in your favor?

Sorry for getting so off subject.....


Posted by: MarkBoston

So this is your idea of "COMMAND PRESENCE"?



Posted by: Gil

Cute Mark, useless but.... ahh never mind

I know that more than half my department does not wear vest on details myself included on the rare occasion that I take one. The department did supply us with them but there is no policy on when and and if we have to wear them.

Bay State Gas, Verizon, MECO, DPW and a few others like cable and tree trimming services most of the guys will not wear a vest. Unless going right from shift work to the detail.

Tweeter, Foxboro and retail details they will wear a vest.


Posted by: RPD931

Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkBoston @ Sat Aug 28, 2004 1:23 am
So this is your idea of "COMMAND PRESENCE"?
CampusOfficer... you know what this reminds me of??? lol..


Posted by: j809




Posted by: bstrawse

Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkBoston @ Fri 20 Aug, 2004 12:47
If you cave in to the department forcing you to wear the vest whenever you wear the uniform then get ready for personal GPS systems installed on every single PO by order of the Chief.

I'm trying to see where this would be a bad thing.

Nope, can't think of one.

Bryan


Posted by: MarkBoston

Quote:
Originally Posted by bstrawse @ Sat Aug 28, 2004 10:03 am
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkBoston @ Fri 20 Aug, 2004 12:47
If you cave in to the department forcing you to wear the vest whenever you wear the uniform then get ready for personal GPS systems installed on every single PO by order of the Chief.

I'm trying to see where this would be a bad thing.

Nope, can't think of one.

Bryan
So your way would be if a PO stops for a quick bite to eat but does not call it in on the radio the GPS system would "rat" him out. So you don't think this is a bad idea? You'll make a great Chief or at the very least the new Captain Good.


Posted by: PBC FL Cop

There is NOT one agency in this area that has GPS (Trunk Sergeants) that likes it. All those become is IA on patrol with you. "JUST SAY NO"


Stay Safe!!


Posted by: bstrawse

[quote="MarkBoston @ Sat 28 Aug, 2004 10:23"]
Quote:
Originally Posted by bstrawse @ Sat Aug 28, 2004 10:03 am
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkBoston @ Fri 20 Aug, 2004 12:47
If you cave in to the department forcing you to wear the vest whenever you wear the uniform then get ready for personal GPS systems installed on every single PO by order of the Chief.
So your way would be if a PO stops for a quick bite to eat but does not call it in on the radio the GPS system would "rat" him out. So you don't think this is a bad idea? You'll make a great Chief or at the very least the new Captain Good.
I'm thinking of this more in terms of major incident command and control than the example that you're citing. If a vehicle was equipped with GPS tracking and tied to a dispatch or emergency operations center software system that could monitor vehicle locations - you'd end up with faster response times and more efficient dispatch - particularly in a major incident.

Some of the software I've seen used for major events - such as the DNC (WebEOC was the software being used) - tied directly into GPS tracking that some agencies had - the amount of intelligence information that this generated for them in response to what incidents did occur was pretty impressive.

Are you supposed to call in if you stop for a quick bite to eat? I've no idea how your agency works.

If your department's leadership has nothing better to do than sit around and see where people are all of the time - then the issue isn't a GPS systems - your department has a leadership problem.

In my own world, we use GPS tracking for some truck shipments. Granted the trucks have more than $100k of freight on them at times - so I have a pretty strong vested interest in knowing where they are all of the time.

Bryan


Posted by: stm4710

Your union is not acting the best interest of the people they represent and frankly are idiots. Your Chief is in the right here.The squeaky wheel should not get the grease in this situation.

The town buys us turnout gear and fire helmets..........why? CAUSE IT PROTECTS US DOING THE JOB!!!!!!! Do they have a reason to bitch if we dont,dam right. It costs about $2000 to properly equip each firefighter. Yeah TO gear is real basterd to wear on hot days and it also weighs about 70 pounds and if we dont like it .....................tough noogies busta we shouldnt be in the fire service!

If you dont want to wear a vest,your endangering your life and the life of fellow officers. You also are putting your familys future in jeporady. Dont give me that heat stress crap.......its called Gatorade.
Isnt the point to come home the same way you went to work?


Posted by: SOT

No because they were too stupid to wear their vests.


Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkBoston @ Sat 28 Aug, 2004 01:23
So this is your idea of "COMMAND PRESENCE"?



Posted by: dcs2244

I haven't worked a detail in about five years: I stopped in anticipation of being allowed to wear shorts, polo shirts and the ubiquitous baseball hat! Nothing like being comfortable, and those damned vest just get in the way of comfort!

I have noticed a trend in recent years toward casual, to put it politely, apparel amongst the young. Slovenly would be a more descriptive term. Guess what. If you want comfort, more power to you! Go work a job where slovenly attire is allowed...the DPW, or perhaps septic tank cleaner.

Appearance is very important in our line of work. Get squared away, it lets the lemmings know you mean business!

Yes the vest is not comfortable. I sweat like a pig without a vest...but I always wore it anyway.

If you decide to not wear your gun or sam browne belt to work, chances are that the chief is going to discipline you. So why the big deal about the vest. If it is issued, then wear it. If you buy your own, do as you will. The only problem I see with the issue under discussion is if the chief requires you to accept the issued vest, and compels you to wear it under threat of disciplinary action. That would be a union problem. If you have the option to accept/decline the vest, the question is moot and it is not a union issue. I began my career in law enforcement back when Moses was a corporal. The vest was not issued...you bought your own. Yes they are expensive...work a few details and buy one: they are worth it. If you are using details to make ends meet, you are living above your means(subject for another day).

In any event: if you want the option of wearing/not wearing the vest, BUY YOUR OWN! If you want a vest but don't want to pay for it, take the issued vest AND LIVE WITH THE STIPULATIONS REGARDING IT! But please, please, just suck-it-up and cut the whine fest!


Posted by: CampusOfficer

Quote:
Originally Posted by RPD931 @ 28 Aug 2004 05:01
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkBoston @ Sat Aug 28, 2004 1:23 am
So this is your idea of "COMMAND PRESENCE"?
CampusOfficer... you know what this reminds me of??? lol..

Good one Keith. Ahh, the memories.


Posted by: MarkBoston

"Appearance is very important in our line of work. Get squared away, it lets the lemmings know you mean business!"

More Command Presence by neat uniform BS.

Let's discuss demeanor, attitude, confidence, and professional ability and how it applies to urban police work. It is not a neat and sharp uniform and looking like Ponch and John. It is being a COP...I can show you mindless robots in pretty uniforms who can write V's all day and who could not deal with inner city scumbags unless they had backup behind them. Being a COP is not just polishing your boots to a high shine before each shift. You want the scumbags to know you mean business? Then be ready to do whatever is needed to win not just the battle for the day, but the war...within the legal limits of the law of course. I could explain more but if you are on the inside you know...if you are on the outside then 11Mary6 call the dry cleaners your pretty uniform is ready!


Posted by: SOT

Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkBoston @ Sat 28 Aug, 2004 23:11
"

Then be ready to do whatever is needed to win not just the battle for the day, but the war...within the legal limits of the law of course.!
Yeah like wearing your vest on a hot day, go figure.


Posted by: MarkBoston

Quote:
Originally Posted by SOT_II @ Sat Aug 28, 2004 11:15 pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkBoston @ Sat 28 Aug, 2004 23:11
"

Then be ready to do whatever is needed to win not just the battle for the day, but the war...within the legal limits of the law of course.!
Yeah like wearing your vest on a hot day, go figure.
So Mr. Salesman of Law Enforcement items...what exactly is your cut on all this?
You might not currently sell vests...but tomorrow is another day. So keep your civilian opinion to yourself about what a cop needs...because I ain't buying.
Commission based salesmen and hookers are the same, each of them wil bang you for a buck.


Posted by: SOT

I'm just repeating your opinion and it seems you can't even take your own advice so ones got to wonder. The money for the vests come with restrictions, don't want the restrictions - don't take the vests simple.
I really don't think that management is out to get you...you may think so, but you've got all kinds of issues a vest and a lot of funding couldn't fix but that's just life.


Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkBoston @ Sat 28 Aug, 2004 23:37
Quote:
Originally Posted by SOT_II @ Sat Aug 28, 2004 11:15 pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkBoston @ Sat 28 Aug, 2004 23:11
"

Then be ready to do whatever is needed to win not just the battle for the day, but the war...within the legal limits of the law of course.!
Yeah like wearing your vest on a hot day, go figure.
So Mr. Salesman of Law Enforcement items...what exactly is your cut on all this?
You might not currently sell vests...but tomorrow is another day. So keep your civilian opinion to yourself about what a cop needs...because I ain't buying.
Commission based salesmen and hookers are the same, each of them wil bang you for a buck.



Posted by: MarkBoston

After you start wearing pounds and pounds of equipment on your person each and everyday you work. Then I'll be more willing to listen to your opinion. Until then all you are trying to do on this board is drum up some business for yourself. Like I said kind of like a hooker in a short skirt so to speak.


Posted by: Gil

Ok enough....another topic that wandered off and has been beat to death...




ma police, boston ma police, massachusetts police, massachusetts police, mass state police, mass police, ma, mass, massachusetts, massachusetts, massachutes, massachusetts law, massachusetts polece, police, officer, police officer, cops, police gear, law enforcement, police duty gear, state police, sheriff, law, police supply, police agency directory, police agency, police department, traffic officer, police dept, state trooper, dispatcher, massachusetts county sheriff, massachusetts sheriff, massachusetts department of corrections, ma doc, doc, dept of corrections, police information, civil service, ma civil service, massachusetts crime, police training, police academy, ma police academy, massachusetts officers, masscop, masscops, mpa, bpa, ibpoa, police association, massachusetts police news, massachusetts crime news, mass most wanted, police career information, police patrol, police administration, police books, crime scene training, police discussion, crime discussions, cops

About MassCops, the home for Massachusetts law enforcement.

The Massachusetts Law Enforcement Network opened in 1998 and is now a part of the New England Police Network The site is a pro-police discussion forum intended for sworn police officers and civilian law enforcement officials as well as those interested in pursuing a career in law enforcement here in Massachusetts.

The goal of The Massachusetts Law Enforcement Network is to provide an informal network of law enforcement officials here in Massachusetts for educational and informational purposes.

The forum covers many topics such as Police Related News Articles, Agency & Profession Discussions, Police Training as well as Law Enforcement Career Information.

The Massachusetts Law Enforcement Network and The New England Police Network (NEPN) and it's network sites are privately owned websites/domains and are not affiliated with or endorsed by any government association or agency.

MassCops (masscops.com) and (masscop.com) are privately owned are not affiliated with or endorsed by the Massachusetts Coalition of Police (masscop.org)



vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Limited.
vB Easy Archive Final ©2000 - 2008 - Created by Stefan "Xenon" Kaeser

3 4 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 49 50 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108