PoliceLink

...and NY doesn't accept any state anymore, lol. Bunch of liberals.

Ralph8119 says ...

Your both correct on swearing a complaint, and YES I do know New York!

Thanks on the come backs.........

You'll always be a fellow NY'er, regardless of where you lay your head at night.

Just to be clear, this is most likely a big part of why I am no longer a moderator. I did not suspend anyone for disagreeing with me, not one person. Those suspended, were suspended because of how they disagreed. They belittled, called names, and made it an argument not a debate. If they had read the site rules they would have read about disageeing with people and not disrespecting fellow members. I was called out publicly and my posts were attacked. There are many members civilian,and LEO alike who I had disagreed with but they were not suspended, that's because of how they went about it. Disagree with people all you want but do it with respect for their education, training, and background.

Clearout says ...

I followed this topic as close as I could while biting blood out of my lip, and I see where we as a profession have already lost.

Is there really a civilian officer here that would charge a military cop that was minding his own buisness and complying with you, not committing any other violation but carrying concealed? What kind of elitist prick would give our military MP's a hard time just because somebody on the hill who don't know squat about this profession left them out of HR218.

Even here, on the web, officers want to show off engaging in pissing contests with one another over who can carry concealed, whose job is more important. I submit that if you are a certified civilian law enforcement officer who is lying in wait to harass a MP because of your interpretation of 218, you need to take the chip down, grow up, and quit being overly enamored with yourself and your badge.

Just to add, I have never been military, but have MP's in the family and I would be ashamed for them to see this thread.

 Well Sir, I think part of the problem which may have not been made clear enough is this. If the question is, should MP's be covered under HR 218 then I think you would see a resounding yes they should. But if I understood the question right it is "are MPs covered" in which case most of us would say no. The lawmakers need to address the issue and make a statement one way or another so that we don't have to armchair quarterback this. And it is not an elitest attitude it's an attitude of we do not want to see our brothers and sistersin the Military get into trouble. Start a thread asking "Should MPs be covered" and see what happens. I don't think you read any posts here where anyone said anyone was more important. It is an issue in the law not with us. I think there are plenty of people here that have experience with reading and interpreting laws. Most of the people that have had the most input were both Military and civilian police. As i recommended earlier perhaps the issue is better suited for Military.com and not policelink.

Clearout says ...

If you were so clear about the question I doubt it would have taken you over 35 post in this one topic to make your point, I can see you are very proud of your opinions, but my question in this topic still stands. What kind of officer does not extend courtesy, and/or discretion to military police who are not in any other violation of the law? I suppose by your user name that you are of state police status, and I understand you might not be able to use as much discretion as some other police agencies, but still, would you personally make an arrest of an MP, not in violation of any other state of federal law?

Again I don't know where it was said that an officer wouldn't extend courtesy. I am not neccessarily proud of my opinions but having done both MP and civilian LEO and having dealt with this issue from both sides of the coin I was pretty comfortable speaking on the matter and trying to keep my brothers and the sisters in the military from getting into trouble. If I have been an MP for 11 1/2 years and a platoon sergeant I think that gives me a little understanding of Military Vs. Civilian LEOs I also advised them to contact their Commander or their JAG with the same question. And in answer to your question I would have to say it depends on the situation, if no other law was broken then I wouldn't know they were carrying a concealed weapon and just as all traffic and criminal charges it would depend on their demeanor.

jdilello57 says ...

Military Police are not authorized to carry a firearm off duty there fore I would have to say no they are not authorized under HR 218. MP's are only authorized to carry a weapon when in the performance of his or her duties as directed by the Provost Marshall but I am not sure about the CID. I was an MP back in the late 70's and that is what I am attesting to so unless something has changed since then.

UH OH now you are going to be the bad guy. Watch out.

Lulusgt says ...

Clearout says ...

If you were so clear about the question I doubt it would have taken you over 35 post in this one topic to make your point, I can see you are very proud of your opinions, but my question in this topic still stands. What kind of officer does not extend courtesy, and/or discretion to military police who are not in any other violation of the law? I suppose by your user name that you are of state police status, and I understand you might not be able to use as much discretion as some other police agencies, but still, would you personally make an arrest of an MP, not in violation of any other state of federal law?

This thread was not about "Professional Courtesy" as you are trying to make it out to be, why don't you go back and read the whole thread then make an educated comment! Until then you should stand down!

Well there's a lot of things about this thread that people don't get. From now on I'm just going to agree with everyone and tell them what they want to hear(not). When they do get arrested I'll just say, oops sorry.

To all.  I am a new member of this forum and a former DoD Police/Patrol Officer and I have read ad-nausim the threads everyone has written.  There is a great deal of truth to what everyone has written.  However, the ambiguity that exists in classification and common language with the position of GS-0083 and even some U.S. Military positions has/is changing. 

The reason I still keep apprised to all of the information posted is because there seems to be a high level of "ego smashing" and quite frankly I am getting tired of some using the language written in different laws for their benefit. 

The position 0083, is a civilian federal police officer and it holds a different level of authority than lets say a State, County or Local LEO.  I dont't remember seeing/hearing anywhere that State, County or Local LEOs could/can enforce federal law.  Whoever said that 0083s and MPs/MAs etc. don't take their weapons home is correct; however, that is not to say investigators don't and new laws have been written, such as the Law Enforcement Equity Act that should pass and would cover most or all civilian federal police officers. 

The reason military installations use civilians is because only civlians can enforce law on other civilians.  Whoever metioned earlier that MPs/MAs can not enforce law on civilians and only detain them is correct.  We could go on and on with different blurbs from the USC and other laws to gain perspective in interpreting what authority exist or doesn't exist. 

What I have learned is, most agencies have the authority to provide LEO pay and retirement status by completing a lengthly study through OPM; however, they do not because they (the agencies) do not wish to pay for good officers to stay.  The ones who have gotten tired of these types of debates leave and go to an agency (usually an outside agency) that doesn't play games with their officers/deputies. 

If anyone wishes for some documentation to support my statements, please say so and I'll provide some otherwise, lets talk about something else such as ways for DoD Cops to get equallity in the public sector.  Some agencies already make these steps and have MOUs with their local departments.  Additionally, HR-218 does cover you all.

I wish my best to you all and keep "policing" like it matters, so people start respecting you. 

Out for now.

Hell, why are you worried about HR218 anyway...it is only illegal if you're caught!

This literally seems like the ultimate touchy subject here on policelink. I mean people get downright touchy when the separation between military law enforcement and civilian law enforcement is made. Never figured out why exactly, its apples and oranges. Civilian America and the Military are two seperate societies that compromise the USA as a whole....and both societies have their own laws and culture.

This is what it comes down to- Our men and women in uniform (Military) over seas right now are doing the job that they swore to do..and the men and women here in uniform (Police)  are doing the job that they have sworn to do..

We are all just pawns in the game that we have chosen to play in, local or Military- we do not make the rules we just live by them.

Now some of my Brothers and Sisters on here, and I could name them but will not, will tell you that Military Police do not have the training they need to be the police,..well I say to them, come down off your high horse and get over yourself- they have been given the training that they need to do the job that they have been asked to do and that they have sworn to do. This is no different then if we took police officers and put them in military police uniforms and asked them to do that job- they would not have the tools/info they need to do that job as good as a "real" (MP) Military Police Officer.

No one is better then the other, we all play the roles that we have sworn to play-if we would all stop and think about it no one is better then the other and we all should stop thinking about it that way and remember why Sept.11 2001 was able to happen- because the F.B.I. and the C.I.A. would not play nice with each other as well as the D.E.A. and all the other groups at all levels, federal, state, local.

Now as for HR 218, it was written by law makers and passed as a result of Sept. 11 2001- but it was written for Civilian Law Enforcement and not for Military Police...if it had it would say and use the term Military Police in it. Do I feel that military police should be allowed to carry firearms while off duty state side- What I feel does not matter- the law is the law.

So I say to my Brothers and Sisters here on police link, pay the MP's the respect that they are due- and to the Military Police Officers here on Police Link I say this, "Becareful what you wish for" each day that I walk out that door with a weapon on both off duty and on there is a very large weight that comes with it. In the event that I were to use that weapon, even in the best of outcomes I still have to live with the fact that I had to use it on another human being,...God forbid that in that action someone else was hurt or killed,..like a child or the mother of a child- I would have to live with that for the rest of my days.

Do I think that it would help to have more armed officers on the street both off duty and on...YES. But I think that we all get caught up in the "John Wayne Macho Bullshit" and we forget what it means to have that weapon with us and why we have it....if the time comes again that I have to use it I will, I will do what I swore to do, to Serve and Protect...But I do it knowing that I am a Human Being and as a human being I could make a mistake that could cause others to get hurt, that I do not control everything that happens and even if I do EVERYTHING RIGHT the outcome could be something other then what I wanted it to be.

BeCareful What You Wish For-

TrubluTexan says ...

Well said Bluestar! 

I am a prior Air Force SP/LE and a local deputy.  Now I am with the Federal Govt.  I can atest to the level of training I recieved in the Air Force Police academy as being equal to and as modern as both non military LE academys I attended after.  That being said, I still do not like the idea of 17 or 18 yr old SP's/Mp's carrying concealed in the populace.  Most (MOST) of them lack the maturity to carry off duty in environments where they are not subject to the scrutiny of their NCO's.  I supervised some yahoos that were good kids and good SP's.  They probably have gone on to become good civilian cops somewhere.  But I would not trust all of them off duty with concealed weapons because their judgement skills weren't as refined as, say a 21 or 25 year old.  They is still too much of that teenage, hormone driven angst and impatience flooding through them.  Its not their fault, but we still can't place them in a position that they could hurt themselves or someone else.  My 2cents.

 

Tex 

 

 Thank You Tex- and just to add to what you were saying about 17 and 18 year olds carrying concealed- even if they were Military Police I think that the State would have a problem with them carrying when in most states you have to be 21 years old to be a Civilian Police Officers....

Same ole dead horse thread.

KSP494 says ...

Same ole dead horse thread.

Why would you belittle the comments of fellow LEO's after you yourself have placed 40plus comments in this thread yourself?? A very strange comment on your behalf,...do you not realize that what you may have seen a month ago some members may not have seen till just today. Reading the entire thread it sure does read as if you are just upset because you can not get your point of view across and get everyone to agree with you.... i do not think that it is a "Dead Horse"  what it seems to be is a point of view that you just can not sell. You need to learn that not all members will see things your way, that is what makes this country so great.

Please keep this thread open, as a military police member, I'd like to find out as much as I can about this topic.