Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
Posted: 5/14/2003 5:01:37 AM EDT
Our guys that sat near the President in uniform were unarmed at the order of the Secret Service. I can't believe it. The SS apparently doesn't trust the police even though they are willing to allow them to be in range in the event of an attack against the President. I would have refused the detail. I feel that any officer who went along with it should be reviewed for fitness for duty. If this order came from President Bush, I'm certainly going to be deeply disappointed in him.
Link Posted: 5/14/2003 5:05:07 AM EDT
Were any other civilians who sat near the President allowed to be armed? Sounds like a reasonable precaution.
Link Posted: 5/14/2003 5:48:35 AM EDT
It's about time that someone put the "guns for me and not for you" [red]civilian[/red] cops in their place. Score one for the Secret Service!
Link Posted: 5/14/2003 6:03:37 AM EDT
I see no problem either. I'm sure that I wouldn't have been allowed to have my CCW on me if I were there. I agree that its good to hear that LEO's are being treated just liek any other regular "civilian".
Link Posted: 5/14/2003 6:05:12 AM EDT
The Secret Service detail is hand picked who knows where those cops came from.. [}:(]
Link Posted: 5/14/2003 6:09:03 AM EDT
Sorry, but I'll have to disagree with you guys. There is no reason to disarm police officers just because they are near the President or anyone else. They are carefully investigated before being sworn in as LEOs and they can be trusted. When I was a LEO, I served on a detail with the Secret Service and they treated us with respect and courtesy. I'm sorry to hear that they have lost that attitude.
Link Posted: 5/14/2003 6:10:11 AM EDT
Did the President have his dog with him? Maybe the Secret Service just didn't want the dog getting wasted on camera. Smart ass comment aside, I don't think I agree with this.
Link Posted: 5/14/2003 6:18:30 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/14/2003 10:09:53 AM EDT by jrzy]
Not cop basking here but when is the last time a secret service agent ever went wacky and shot innocent people? OK ,now in the last three years alone we have had two or three cops go nuts here in jersey and shoot people for no apparent no good reason,you tell me who can be 100 percent trusted? Cops aren't allowed to have thier guns near the President, boo Fucking hoo. [b]There's another reason you guys missed ,If there is an attack against the President the secret service knows all it's own guys and knows where they are in relation to the President and if a cop was to pull out his gun he would probably be shot as a threat.[/b]
Link Posted: 5/14/2003 6:20:12 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Old_Painless: Sorry, but I'll have to disagree with you guys.
View Quote
Well, think my points though first...
There is no reason to disarm police officers just because they are near the President or anyone else. They are carefully investigated before being sworn in as LEOs and they can be trusted.
View Quote
If that were true, then there would be no crooked cops, former LEO's into gun/drug dealing, and no cop homocides. How hard would it REALLY be to become a cop if you wanted to cause some trouble. I could become a cop in several weeks if I wanted an opportunity to snuff someone important.
When I was a LEO, I served on a detail with the Secret Service and they treated us with respect and courtesy. I'm sorry to hear that they have lost that attitude.
View Quote
It seems that times have changed, and I can't speak to that. It does seem that gun-phobia is much stronger today, but crime is also higher, and police aren't quite as trustworthy. These are just my non-cop-bashing thoughts. It seems prudent. You never know who is out there, or how they are dressed.
Link Posted: 5/14/2003 6:21:19 AM EDT
Didn't the police CHIEF in some town in Oregon just try to kill his wife and himself? And you think the Secret Service should trust these guys with guns beside the President?
Link Posted: 5/14/2003 6:23:01 AM EDT
Sworn in? So was the Jihad-weilding, grenade-tossing soldier during the war... If a cop drew his weapon torespond to a threat while the prez was anywhere near, they would be ventilated first, which would give the true perpetrator time to get off a few more shots.
Link Posted: 5/14/2003 6:23:43 AM EDT
I don't agree either. It shows me just what a gun grabber he is. I wrote Bush yesterday expressing my displeasure at his supporting an extension of the '94 SAW ban in direct conflict with his pre-election statements. It must be nice having swarms of machine gun toting guards to protect yourself and family. Too bad he doesn't feel everyone in his country has a right to protect their family they way they feel that is consistent with the constitution.
Link Posted: 5/14/2003 6:33:30 AM EDT
[b]There's another reason you guys missed ,If their is an attack against the President the secret service knows all it's own guys and knows where they are in relation to the President and if a cop was to pull out his gun he would probably be shot as a threat.[/b][/quote] Right on the money jrzy!
Link Posted: 5/14/2003 6:34:27 AM EDT
Didn't the police CHIEF in some town in Oregon just try to kill his wife and himself? And you think the Secret Service should trust these guys with guns beside the President?
View Quote
If that were true, then there would be no crooked cops, former LEO's into gun/drug dealing, and no cop homocides.
View Quote
Come on guys! Listen to yourselves. You sound just like the liberals we all can't stand. If two nuts in California use full-auto AKs to rob a bank and shoot up the neighborhood, does that mean that all of us shouldn't be allowed to own "Assault Rifles"? No, it means that those two nuts ought to get the electric chair. (Too bad, they were shot dead on the scene by the police. They ought to be strapped to the chair and electrocuted anyway.) A very few examples of "bad cops" doesn't tell us anything about the 99% that are good cops. And disarming sworn LEOs is just silly.
Link Posted: 5/14/2003 6:54:35 AM EDT
Just me...but I would have told them to fuck off I don't give up my gun to anyone.
Link Posted: 5/14/2003 6:58:14 AM EDT
The SS also roped-off the deck of the carrier when GWB flew in - did not see any armed Navy personnel either. In era of terrorism, how hard would it be for some radical to score a police uniform and work into the crowd and close to the detail? C'mon guys these things are done for a reason - it was not necessarily b/c the SS does'nt trust the police, it just makes the job easier to eliminate another potential threat.
Link Posted: 5/14/2003 6:59:17 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/14/2003 7:09:59 AM EDT by QuietShootr]
I agree...and I'm not a cop. Edited to clarify..I meant I'd have told whoever wanted me to disarm to fuck off.
Link Posted: 5/14/2003 7:03:05 AM EDT
Just because no Secret Service agent has tried to assasinate the President doesn't mean it can't happen. What ever some of you may think, we are sworn to protect life and property. Being at a public speaking event, standing very near the President, and in uniform makes that officer a target. A very visible one at that. Put yourself in their position and see how you feel. I fully support the second amendment and the rights of every citizen to lawfully carry a weapon for self defense. If some of you are upset with local ordinances or officers attempting to curtail your second amendment rights, look elsewhere. I am not that officer. As police officers, we have a duty to protect the President just like any other LEO. Whether we would be ventilated first should be our risk. Our department, while not perfect, has a very tough and lengthy screening process. We have rejects just like every other agency. That includes the Secret Service. I am disappointed in some of the responses I've seen here. I'll leave it at that.
Link Posted: 5/14/2003 7:07:52 AM EDT
Ok think of it this way- what would be the easiest way for someone to get a weapon in close to the target without coming under severe scrutiny? Dress like a police officer.
Link Posted: 5/14/2003 7:25:33 AM EDT
These are the same guys that drive their motorcycle drill team motorcycles into motel swimming pools! Good move disarming them!
Link Posted: 5/14/2003 7:30:18 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Old_Painless: Come on guys! Listen to yourselves. You sound just like the liberals we all can't stand. If two nuts in California use full-auto AKs to rob a bank and shoot up the neighborhood, does that mean that all of us shouldn't be allowed to own "Assault Rifles"? No, it means that those two nuts ought to get the electric chair. (Too bad, they were shot dead on the scene by the police. They ought to be strapped to the chair and electrocuted anyway.) A very few examples of "bad cops" doesn't tell us anything about the 99% that are good cops. And disarming sworn LEOs is just silly.
View Quote
No, sorry, your analogy is, to put it bluntly, full of shit. No one is saying cops shouldn't be allowed to own guns or use them on the job. What many of us are saying is that if private citizens are not allowed to carry guns around the President, neither should cops be allowed since they are just as likely as any other private citizen to misuse the gun.
Link Posted: 5/14/2003 7:37:09 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Old_Painless: They are carefully investigated before being sworn in as LEOs and they can be trusted.
View Quote
You obviously have never been to Hialeah or Miami-Dade County, Florida That just adds one more arguement to the cop = civilian thread a few weeks ago.
Link Posted: 5/14/2003 7:52:45 AM EDT
I am NOT anti-LEO. I have a lot of respect for the job they do. My thought is that as a civilian I would have been disarmed around the president. As a civilian I see no reason why an LEO shouldn't like-wise be disarmed. Not to say that the SS aren't civilians themselves. I'm just happy to hear that the same broad rules are being applied to local LEOs and local people. I've been given the "your a civilian" routine by an LEO before. It doesn't feel good, and it sounds like some of Indiana's finest just got that same curt message. Sucks, huh?
Link Posted: 5/14/2003 7:56:04 AM EDT
Link Posted: 5/14/2003 8:29:58 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Old_Painless: There is no reason to disarm police officers just because they are near the President or anyone else. They are carefully investigated before being sworn in as LEOs and they can be trusted.
View Quote
Dude, the background check that most police officers recieve is [b]nothing[/b] compared to a "Yankee White" clearance.
Originally Posted By FullAutoM4gery: I don't agree either. It shows me just what a gun grabber he is.
View Quote
While I share your displeasure with the president over his position on the AWB, that statement makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. The security decisions are made by the Secret Service, not the president.
Originally Posted By jadams951: Just me...but I would have told them to fuck off I don't give up my gun to anyone.
View Quote
Then you would have been asked to leave. If you refused to leave, you would have been forcibly removed, and probably subject to disciplinary action by your department.
Originally Posted By shotar: Those assigned to the detail are identified, properly screened and armed. Those not assigned to the detail are not and should stay clear of the area. As stated, it is recognized that someone with enough planning could get a replica police uniform and badge. Private security is never armed.
View Quote
We have a winner!! Any law enforcement officer assigned to a Presidential Security Detail has been thoroughly vetted and steps have been taken so that the Secret Service agents on the detail can readily identify them. I'm sure that if the shit hits the fan, the Secret Service has very simple Rules of Engagement: "Shoot anyone with a gun who isn't one of us." Are you sure that you want to standing around with your gun when that happens?
Link Posted: 5/14/2003 9:01:48 AM EDT
An agency where I used to work had frequent visits from folks under USSS protection. None of our officers were ever disarmed, nor was this ever mentioned in any of the training from the US Secret Service I had on this. In fact, in most instances, local LE are the ones who are tasked with using force, including deadly force, at these events. The Secret Service Agents' job is to get the President out of Dodge, ASAP. Local cops would likely not "get ventilated," becuase at Presidential visits, it is their job to DO the ventilating, and the Secret Service's job to shield and evacuate the President. The locals get to stay behind and duke it out. Being disarmed runs contrary to this doctrine. As a Police administrator, if the USSS wanted to disarm ANY of my officers at a Presidential visit, I would tell them firmly and clearly to get bent, and to find someone else to assist them. No outside governmental entity has any authority or rationale for disarming my officers, ever, with the sole exception of going into the secured areas of a jail or corrctional facility, and then our officers are only disarmed as a courtesy, and not because of any legal authority on the part of the jail. In my state, there are dueling state and federal laws and case law about officers being armed. Federal Courts have held that the only federal property in the state where the federal government may order Peace Officers disarmed are a few (I think 6) Post Offices built before the 1920s. The federal stautes on "weapons free" zones for Presidential visits have not been challenged, however, at least from the Peace Officer angle, and while there is a clear federal authority to exclude weapons from the presence of the President, there is a competing (and not necessarily overruled) state mandate that gives Peace Officers an absolute authority to carry weapons anywhere in state, period. Would a carpenter go to work without a hammer? Would a mechanic work without a wrench? A cop shouldn't be expected to work without weapon.
Link Posted: 5/14/2003 9:21:59 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/14/2003 9:30:14 AM EDT by Gator]
Originally Posted By sloth: I am NOT anti-LEO. I have a lot of respect for the job they do. My thought is that as a civilian I would have been disarmed around the president. As a civilian I see no reason why an LEO shouldn't like-wise be disarmed. Not to say that the SS aren't civilians themselves. I'm just happy to hear that the same broad rules are being applied to local LEOs and local people. I've been given the "your a civilian" routine by an LEO before. It doesn't feel good, and it sounds like some of Indiana's finest just got that same curt message. Sucks, huh?
View Quote
Excellent post. Police are civilians, just like us. In general they can be trusted more than someone off the street, but with the number of anti-bush liberal whackos you never know.
Link Posted: 5/14/2003 9:25:13 AM EDT
Originally Posted By shotar: Here's my take on it, having done a variety of pre employment screens for Police candidates, and having commanded our contingent at Presidential security details on several occaisions and two presidents. Those assigned to the detail are identified, properly screened and armed. Those not assigned to the detail are not and should stay clear of the area. As stated, it is recognized that someone with enough planning could get a replica police uniform and badge. Private security is never armed. As to hiring standards. Over the years I have seen people hired who I would trust with my children, and I have seen people hired who I wouldn't trust to walk my dog. The latter usually wash out in the Academy or on probation. A few squeek through, and that is why we have the nasty incidents described. As to someone going off the deep end, it happens. It will also continue to happen as long as we employ humans for this function.
View Quote
Good post.
Link Posted: 5/14/2003 9:42:23 AM EDT
Having been to a Bush Rally...I can attest that they take security very seriously...and that was before 9/11. You had to have a ticket and it took hours for the line of people waiting to get in to move 10 feet, because of the checks at the gate. Once you got in, there were SS everywhere. I looked around a little and I'll be damned if I didn't see at least 2 Sharpshooters stationed in the Reserved Box up top. God only knows where else they had sharpshooters. I garantee you that if anyone had started to pull a gun, he would have been ventelated before he got it completely out of his holster...
Link Posted: 5/14/2003 9:58:01 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Old_Painless: Sorry, but I'll have to disagree with you guys. There is no reason to disarm police officers just because they are near the President or anyone else. They are carefully investigated before being sworn in as LEOs and they can be trusted. When I was a LEO, I served on a detail with the Secret Service and they treated us with respect and courtesy. I'm sorry to hear that they have lost that attitude.
View Quote
Exactly Old_Painless if they would have asked me to disarm I would have told them to get bent and find someone else for their detail.
Link Posted: 5/14/2003 10:03:09 AM EDT
Originally Posted By RikWriter:
Originally Posted By Old_Painless: Come on guys! Listen to yourselves. You sound just like the liberals we all can't stand. If two nuts in California use full-auto AKs to rob a bank and shoot up the neighborhood, does that mean that all of us shouldn't be allowed to own "Assault Rifles"? No, it means that those two nuts ought to get the electric chair. (Too bad, they were shot dead on the scene by the police. They ought to be strapped to the chair and electrocuted anyway.) A very few examples of "bad cops" doesn't tell us anything about the 99% that are good cops. And disarming sworn LEOs is just silly.
View Quote
No, [red]sorry, your analogy is, to put it bluntly, full of shit.[/red] No one is saying cops shouldn't be allowed to own guns or use them on the job. What many of us are saying is that if private citizens are not allowed to carry guns around the President, neither should cops be allowed since they are just as likely as any other private citizen to misuse the gun.
View Quote
You might want to read what you write before you judge anyone's post or response.
Link Posted: 5/14/2003 10:17:49 AM EDT
Posted by Nimrod: "Then you would have been asked to leave. If you refused to leave, you would have been forcibly removed, and probably subject to disciplinary action by your department." Don't worry I'd gladly leave.
Link Posted: 5/14/2003 10:20:45 AM EDT
Originally Posted By nwatson99: You might want to read what you write before you judge anyone's post or response.
View Quote
I always read what I write. That's why my posts are always understandable.
Link Posted: 5/14/2003 10:26:44 AM EDT
Originally Posted By RikWriter:
Originally Posted By nwatson99: You might want to read what you write before you judge anyone's post or response.
View Quote
I always read what I write. That's why my posts are always understandable.
View Quote
I'm going to have to take up for RikWriter here. His post [u]was[/u] understandable. It was wrong. But it was understandable.
Link Posted: 5/14/2003 10:40:54 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Old_Painless: I'm going to have to take up for RikWriter here. His post [u]was[/u] understandable. It was wrong. But it was understandable.
View Quote
Well, thanks all to hell there buddy. [:D] However, I wasn't wrong. You made an illogical leap from preventing people from OWNING guns due to the actions of a small percentage of bad apples to preventing people from carrying guns around the PRESIDENT! There simply is no comparison. Normal citizens are not allowed to carry guns around the President and police officers not specifically assigned to protect him shouldn't be either in that case.
Link Posted: 5/14/2003 10:50:33 AM EDT
The days of the salesman visiting Lincoln in the oval office to demonstrate a new Remington are over. Like it or not...
Link Posted: 5/14/2003 10:53:06 AM EDT
Yeah, that wascally pwesident Bush! Bet the G.W. stands for "Gun gWabber"! The man wants to keep us down! C'mon guys... this is a Secret Service matter and decision. Can you blame them? We've got a POLICE CHEIF who goes nuts and kills HIS OWN FAMILY (bet he loved them MORE than the President). And I'm willing to bet that THE POLICE CHEIF could pass security to get near the President. We also have one of our own servicemen going nuts and blowing up his fellow soldiers. Would YOU want to be the SS agent who let the President get killed? As far as those who've suggested that as an officer or Police Cheif that they would tell the SS where to stick it... give me a break. Do you think that YOU are the final authority in the event of a Presidential visit? No, you are not. Not EVEN if you THE CHEIF. The cheif answers to the City Manager/Mayor and City Council, among others. He can no more tell a Presidential Security detail where to stick it no more than his officers can. This whole thing reminds of the Bushmaster misquote -- lots of knee-jerking going on...
Link Posted: 5/14/2003 10:55:40 AM EDT
Okay, let's look at your argument. Do you really believe that the President should fear Old_Painless and RikWriter having firearms near him? I don't. Me and George could go quail hunting any time he wants too and he would be perfectly safe. I (and [b]every[/b] other honest citizen) am no threat to the President just because I carry a firearm. Likewise, honest police officers are no threat either. I was once near a Presidential candidate as a LEO with a 1911 on me, and he wasn't in any danger from me or any other LEO in my department. In fact, we were there to help protect him and anyone else threatened. I am confident that every LEO on the stage with the President would have gladly risked his life to defend the President from attack. But they couldn't have without their sidearm. Regardless of what the foaming-at-the-mouth-cop-haters on this site say, the overwelming majority of LEOs (99%+) are the good guys. They deserve our support.
Link Posted: 5/14/2003 10:57:24 AM EDT
Originally Posted By RikWriter:
Originally Posted By nwatson99: You might want to read what you write before you judge anyone's post or response.
View Quote
I always read what I write. That's why my posts are always understandable.
View Quote
You must have mis-understood me, I did not mean or say your post was not understandable. I said in a polite way your post was full of shit.[:D]
Link Posted: 5/14/2003 11:44:06 AM EDT
Originally Posted By rn45: Our guys that sat near the President in uniform were unarmed at the order of the Secret Service. I can't believe it. The SS apparently doesn't trust the police even though they are willing to allow them to be in range in the event of an attack against the President. I would have refused the detail. I feel that any officer who went along with it should be reviewed for fitness for duty. If this order came from President Bush, I'm certainly going to be deeply disappointed in him.
View Quote
"Lighten up Francis." The same thing happened back in '82, when Reagan was in Indy for the Goodwill Games. The only LEOs that were allowed to armed around the President, were ISP SWAT. Don't take it personally. The USSS calls the shots...period. Besides, i would hazard to guess that they are [b]MUCH[/b] better trained than the average Indianapolis cop, or Marion Cnty. Sheriff's Deputy.
Link Posted: 5/14/2003 11:48:11 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Old_Painless: Okay, let's look at your argument. Do you really believe that the President should fear Old_Painless and RikWriter having firearms near him? I don't. Me and George could go quail hunting any time he wants too and he would be perfectly safe. I (and [b]every[/b] other honest citizen) am no threat to the President just because I carry a firearm.
View Quote
OK [b]I[/b] believe you that your harmless and would not take a shot at the pres.. But the secret Ser does not. I firmly believe its thier [b]job [red]not[/red][/b] to believe you. < or me just cause I say "trust me" :) ...> Its sad to say but ... Yes time have changed.. Cops are no longer the pillars of socity they once were. HR Depts needing to fill quotas have changed the needs of the the PD's from filling the ranks with good people to " we better hire so and so over there cause his lawyer is threanting to sue < due to color, sexual prefrence, fact that he has no arms .. does not matter .. point is they fill slots in part to avoid lawsiuts and create "diviersity" > to the LEO's here.. be honest.. each of you know at least one of your co-workers that you would'nt want next to you when they are having a bad day.. I see it as the Sec Ser assumes everyone is having a bad day untill they can can prove your OK... The USSS is doing thier job.. Protecting the Pres. the fact that you dont like it doesnt make it wrong. on a side note.. is the pres REQUIRED to accept the protection of the USSS ?
Link Posted: 5/14/2003 12:08:33 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Old_Painless: Okay, let's look at your argument. Do you really believe that the President should fear Old_Painless and RikWriter having firearms near him?
View Quote
What I think is that it's the job of the Secret Service to protect the President and it only makes sense for them not to allow people they don't know around him with loaded guns. I think the fact that some people are arguing otherwise is incredibly silly.
Link Posted: 5/14/2003 12:10:46 PM EDT
Originally Posted By nwatson99: You must have mis-understood me, I did not mean or say your post was not understandable. I said in a polite way your post was full of shit.[:D]
View Quote
And I was telling you that your post was not understandable, unlike mine.
Link Posted: 5/14/2003 12:42:46 PM EDT
I would let any of you next to the president while armed. None of you can shoot worth shit anyway![nana] I just couldn't help myself.
Link Posted: 5/14/2003 1:18:39 PM EDT
reread what natez said and insert armed citizen where he said officer...that's my opinion///read my sig line......if he can't trust the people who can he trust......and don't start with the bloody shirt arguments....if a man is going to shot, I prefer to be in a bunch of people able to shoot back......or has everyone here been brainwashed into the unarmed masses.....serfs.....not citizens
Link Posted: 5/14/2003 1:40:54 PM EDT
We should also let casual pilots climb into F/A-18 Hornets and with the President of the US on the wing, save the earth from aliens! [rolleyes] Although, I suppose if that were the only option, it would have to do.
Link Posted: 5/14/2003 1:44:08 PM EDT
Originally Posted By hound: reread what natez said and insert armed citizen where he said officer...that's my opinion///read my sig line......if he can't trust the people who can he trust......and don't start with the bloody shirt arguments....if a man is going to shot, I prefer to be in a bunch of people able to shoot back......or has everyone here been brainwashed into the unarmed masses.....serfs.....not citizens
View Quote
Yeah, let's let anyone who comes along carry a loaded gun next to the President! Look how well that worked out with Fromme and Hinkley! Hell, why bother having a Secret Service at all? I'm sure the armed citizens nearby would stop any potential assassins, right? [%|]
Link Posted: 5/14/2003 1:47:44 PM EDT
I work with a nice lady who is a member of the USAF security force. She tells me when the POTUS flies in to the local airport they get to pull guard detail. Now you would think a military security detail would be armed. NOT! Not only do they not get any ammo but they turn into show ponies. They are ordered to do exactly what the SS tells them, they have no function other than warm bodies filling uniforms for the big show. Sometime I will have to tell the story about when klinton came to town, arrived at the train stop just outside the shop. The SS was there and no one was allowed to even go to that side of the building. Yup, a president for the people.....
Link Posted: 5/14/2003 1:51:23 PM EDT
Apparently the feds forgot that we're all part of the same nationwide law enforcement conspiracy to disarm all you fu@kers.
Top Top