Leader

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Feds want local police to require body armor

Collapse

300x250 Mobile

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61
    I can certainly understand everyone's opposition to this. Bottom line: some employers make you wear a stupid hat and an apron. Some employers make you wear a suit and tie. Some employers make you wear a uniform and a ballistic vest. You can take it or leave it (just like the department can take or leave the fed $$, although it's easier to mandate vests than it is to trim a ****load of $$ from the budget)

    Originally posted by crass cop View Post
    especially since the fed will pay out to an officers family if involved in a LODD, (public safety officers benefits program)....the last training I went to a month ago advised over 300K, i think
    Probably not a factor in the decision. I think this is actually about keeping officers safe. I bet it is cheaper to pay out $300k every time someone dies, versus paying to outfit every single LEO in the nation with a vest. Luckily I do not think they used that logic.
    Last edited by Fëanor; 04-13-2011, 03:42 AM.

    Comment


    • #62
      Out on patrol, fooot or otherwise is not the time to not wear armor.


      Originally posted by M1garand View Post
      I get that, but there are times that officers just give up on their vests when weather gets beyond certain temperature (especially when these officers are on foot patrols). Go ahead and wear Level IIIA vest for an hour in 100 degree weather at none air conditioned environment and let me know how you did.

      You can't expect uniformed officers performing admin duties to wear vests in the office.

      Like I said before, I am all for it, but I think it should really be enforced by the departments, not the Feds.

      Comment


      • #63
        Still working through the thread. This may have already been pointed out. It's not an issue of the fed mandating wearing of vests. It's an issue of asking for funding for vests that then aren't used. Pure pork. If a department accepts the funds then there should be strings attached to ensure that the investment is being used. If a dept doesn't want such a policy, don't ask for (or accept) the fed money for the vests.

        Ah yes. It has been discussed. So +1 their observations.
        Last edited by Bounce; 04-13-2011, 12:09 PM.

        Comment


        • #64
          I read the headline and posted about the Feds blackmailing depts to do what they want. I had not read the entire article. I did not realize that the Federal aid was specifically for the p[urpose of buying the vest. SO I change my previous statement. If they are providing free vest or reimbursement for vest, then yeah, I have no problem with them only doing that for depts that have a mandatory vest policy.

          Comment


          • #65
            Originally posted by crass cop View Post
            BUT SERIOUSLY...tell me a GOOD reason why an officer would not want to wear a vest...please
            I think the main reason is the heat and humidity in the warm months. Its not that they shouldn't wear it, I just think its why some choose not to. Having sweat soak through to the uniform's surface (I'm not talking under the pits) looks very unprofessional, and when it dries you got salt lines. Very uncomfortable to be soaking wet for 12 hours and the fact the vest doesn't dry out until you get at least 2 days off. So now you work day in day out with a wet vest that stinks like *****

            Comment


            • #66
              I refuse to wear my vest in my cubicle when typing reports. And seldom will I wear it when out doing follow-ups.

              On the (very few) days I'm out taking calls, or when serving warrants- sure, I wear it. Otherwise NO. None of my agency's investigators do.
              I am concerned for the security of our great Nation; not so much because of any threat from without, but because of the insidious forces working from within.

              Douglas MacArthur

              Comment


              • #67
                What's the problem here? If the DOJ is giving money to an LE entity, it isn't wrong to require them to actually wear the body armor that will be bought with the money. If a department doesn't like the policy, the department doesn't have to accept Uncle Sam's donations.
                Chuck

                Comment


                • #68
                  If the Feds want to require something, they should require 2 man cars. Either way, I feel like alot of people here that they should mind their own business.

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    I would not want to work with someone in patrol who didn't wear a vest 100% of the time. By not wearing the vest you are putting other people in danger too.

                    But I will say this: like DOA said, the feds are the WORST about wearing vests. Customs and Border Patrol working the SWB I'm talking about you, not the paper pushers at the other three letter agencies.

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Originally posted by Charlie Brown View Post
                      What's the problem here? If the DOJ is giving money to an LE entity, it isn't wrong to require them to actually wear the body armor that will be bought with the money. If a department doesn't like the policy, the department doesn't have to accept Uncle Sam's donations.
                      The problem is that the Feds shouldn't be giving out money in the first place. Talk about mission creep in Libya, the Federal government is pulling the ultimate mission creep in the US domestically. The Feds are the leviathan that Barry Goldwater warned us about.

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Originally posted by MagnumForce View Post
                        The problem is that the Feds shouldn't be giving out money in the first place. Talk about mission creep in Libya, the Federal government is pulling the ultimate mission creep in the US domestically. The Feds are the leviathan that Barry Goldwater warned us about.
                        What the heck are you talking about?

                        Do you want this money? OK. If you take this money, you have to require your officers to wear their body armor. You don't want to do that? OK. You don't get the money.

                        Again, what's the problem here?

                        Should the fed stop giving homeland security money to "sanctuary cities?" You bet your *** they should. This is no different.

                        If you get a federal grant to go to college, you must maintain a certain grade point average. If you want money from the federal government to buy body armor, you have to wear body armor. It is pretty silly to insist that somehow the government is out of bounds. If the government decided that they could somehow order departments to require the wearing of body armor even if they don't take the grants, we'd have a problem. But, that isn't the case.
                        Chuck

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Honestly I work in private security and I don't leave the house in uniform without wearing a vest. Vests don't just stop bullets, they can protect your internal organs in car accidents, prevent broken ribs from a kick or being hit with something and even help keep a knife from puncturing into your body. My vest has both hard and soft trauma plates front and back to protect me more. The back one completely covers my spine which means less chance of a spinal injury. It also helps force proper sitting / standing stature. You guys should wear one anytime you go to work unless the assignment doesn't allow for it (UC). You owe it to your family and friends to take any precaution available to go home at the end of your shift.
                          "I'm sorry, did you see my care face? Because I'm pretty sure I didn't show it to you becuase I DON'T care. Have a nice day. "

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            I took some condoms that were given out to people by the government agency. Should I be walking around with a condom on since it was funded by the government just in case I may get lucky?

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Originally posted by Charlie Brown View Post
                              What the heck are you talking about?

                              Do you want this money? OK. If you take this money, you have to require your officers to wear their body armor. You don't want to do that? OK. You don't get the money.

                              Again, what's the problem here?
                              I'm questioning where the Feds even get the authority to offer grants at all for education, local police, local roads, etc..Where in the enumerated powers of the constitution does the federal government get the power to offer grants at all? The Feds have been on an out of control power trip for over a century. Why should a citizen in Alaska be paying tax dollars for local police equipment in Chicago? Why should a citizen in Illinois be paying tax dollars for local roads in California?

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Originally posted by MagnumForce View Post
                                I'm questioning where the Feds even get the authority to offer grants at all for education, local police, local roads, etc..Where in the enumerated powers of the constitution does the federal government get the power to offer grants at all? The Feds have been on an out of control power trip for over a century. Why should a citizen in Alaska be paying tax dollars for local police equipment in Chicago? Why should a citizen in Illinois be paying tax dollars for local roads in California?
                                You don't think the feds should have control over the interstates? You don't think that would be a mess if we just let the states decide how and where to make their interstates?

                                Some cities and counties just don't have enough money to go around to provide all of the necessary equipment for public safety personnel... do you really think that just because the local government doesn't have the money that these guys don't deserve to be protected?

                                I get what you're saying, but you are taking it to the extreme.

                                Comment

                                MR300x250 Tablet

                                Collapse

                                What's Going On

                                Collapse

                                There are currently 4400 users online. 249 members and 4151 guests.

                                Most users ever online was 158,966 at 04:57 AM on 01-16-2021.

                                Welcome Ad

                                Collapse
                                Working...
                                X