General Forums >> General Discussions >> Poll: Should officers be required to cover their tattoos while on duty?

-3

Poll: Should officers be required to cover their tattoos while on duty?

9,760 Views
66 Replies Flag as inappropriate

Poll: Should officers be required to cover their tattoos while on duty?

Pl15_max50

36 posts

back to top

Posted about 5 years ago

 

Should officers be required to cover their tattoos while on duty?


The related story:


Dallas Police Department To Require That Officers Cover Tattoos

Product_thumb_max50

26 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted about 5 years ago

 

I dont think so.

Honorflag_max50

109 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted about 5 years ago

 

My Department - Oklahoma County Sheriffs Office, recently issued a notice to all officer that all tattoos must be covered. We have several Deputies that have tattoo "sleves" going down their arm to their wrist & some of their designs are rather disturbing.                           To me it did not project a professional appearence to the public.

-311 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted about 5 years ago

 

could not vote due to there needs to be a DEPENDS......  if you have a few, some on your forearm, and maybe the biceps area that comes down past the uniform sleeve, no... 


but there are persons/citz out there that would be offended with any tattoo, and some that would be scared to talk to an officer fully sleeved. 


but it also depends, there are a few officers i know that have full sleeves and there is nothing distrubing about the  tatts, but policy states that full sleeves must be covered. 


in a uniform you need to look professional, and wearing a class A short sleeve with a full sleeve of tatts, ehhhhh, i dont know.  80 yr old granny may not mind, but that one time that you really need info on something, they may see you tatts and clam up.


one or two or even three on the arms, ok....

Evil_max50

7070 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted about 5 years ago

 

I can to a certain degree see both sides of the argument.  Full sleeve/offensive tats should be covered.  A comment was made on that article making a valid point.  'Professional Image' being cited as the reason.  Should there then be a policy that over weight officers must shed some pounds and be under a certain boby fat %?


You have the rest of your life to solve the problem, how long your life lasts depends on how well you do it. -Clint Smith

Respect it

Photo_user_banned_big

136 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted about 5 years ago

 

I'm kinda torn on this one. I personally have all my tattoos where they can not be seen if I'm wearing a short sleeve shirt. For me, it's a personal preference. However, in todays society tattoos have become so common place that most people hardly even realize they are there. I do agree that some tattoos appear  unprofessional. The NCSHP wear Long sleeve shirts year round regardless of whether you have tatoos or not. Some rules are just a bit ridiculous in my opinion.


Yea though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil. For I have trained my whole life for that moment.
AWB- They Call me FLEX!!!!

Honeymoon_pictures_005_max50

1 post

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted about 5 years ago

 

 I definitely think that it's okay to ask officers to cover tattoos in the event that they are offensive to most people. I personally have a tattoo of a butterfly with my daughter's names on my ankle so it's almost always covered. Not to mention most people aren't looking at my ankles very often  I guess I can see asking officers to cover their sleeve tattoos just because it can tend to look unprofessional but on the other hand I lot of people's tattoos have great meaning behind them. 

Avatar_wild_max50

5501 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted about 5 years ago

 

Scurge says ...



I can to a certain degree see both sides of the argument.  Full sleeve/offensive tats should be covered.  A comment was made on that article making a valid point.  'Professional Image' being cited as the reason.  Should there then be a policy that over weight officers must shed some pounds and be under a certain boby fat %?



Agreed. I think offensive tats shouldn't be allowed, but I see no problem with other visible tattoos. As Scurge said, maybe they should start mandating that overweight officers get on a regular excericse program as it might offend people. How about officers that are slovenly dressed. Or for that matter, officers that wear gloves look kinda mean, maybe we should dictate that officers can not wear gloves in public. Sometimes, plain clothes officers are frightening to people, since they don't immediately know they are cops. Maybe we shouldn't allow them to run around without full uniforms. Regardless of what you do, someone out there is going to be offended.


Heroes Live Forever!

Img_0338_max50

28 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted about 5 years ago

 

If it's offensive or has obvious meaning to the cop's life (ex. child's/spouse's/relative's name, etc), then the cop should cover it up, don't want perps to know your business anyways. If it's just a regular-type tatoo (tribal design, etc), then it's fine. It depends pretty much, don't force it. I say no to it being required.


"...There are the wolves, and the wolves feed on the sheep without mercy.
Then there are sheepdogs, and I'm a sheepdog. I live to protect the flock and confront the wolf."
LtCol. Dave Grossman (Ret. US Army Ranger)

T_weezy_141_max50

5 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted about 5 years ago

 

i say yes only because i wouldnt want the perp to recognize me based on my tattoos, i think it is more of a safety thing then trying to control others. there are plenty of products one can use to cover up a tattoo.

Basco-22_max50

180 posts

back to top
+1

Rated +1 | Posted about 5 years ago

 

I voted yes.  I think it's an unprofessional look. 


If you want tat's that's great 80%+ of your body is covered by your uniform so use that area for your tats. Arms (if a short sleeve shirt will cover it it's OK), neck, hands, face should all be off limits.  If you work bike patrol & wear shorts as part of your uniform then tat's on your legs are off limits.


Ever been to court and seen an officers tat's thru their white shirt? Is the department going to mandate that the officer wear a sport coat all the time?


Also who's to say that officer A's tat's are offensive while officer B's are not offensive?  That's how a department opens itself up to a discrimanation lawsuit.  What's the answer?  All tattoos must be covered.

Photo_user_blank_big

5 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted about 5 years ago

 

I think its the officer's decision especially If he/she had them prior to hiring.

0 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted about 5 years ago

 

jasonrose says ...



I dont think so.



You are so right because....the whole aurora police departments swat team has the whole back tatooed why cant a patrol officer show some of theirs

-61 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted about 5 years ago

 

BP348 says ...



I voted yes.  I think it's an unprofessional look. 


If you want tat's that's great 80%+ of your body is covered by your uniform so use that area for your tats. Arms (if a short sleeve shirt will cover it it's OK), neck, hands, face should all be off limits.  If you work bike patrol & wear shorts as part of your uniform then tat's on your legs are off limits.


Ever been to court and seen an officers tat's thru their white shirt? Is the department going to mandate that the officer wear a sport coat all the time?


Also who's to say that officer A's tat's are offensive while officer B's are not offensive?  That's how a department opens itself up to a discrimanation lawsuit.  What's the answer?  All tattoos must be covered.



I couldn't agree more...............

Photo_user_blank_big

3 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted about 5 years ago

 

No, I do not believe that tattoos should be covered. Many times, I have been in contact with police officers. I was never once intimindated. I believe that tattoos are another way for someone to express themselves and they are works of art. However, there are some tattoos that are inappropriate, regardless of the profession. Tattoos with violent, sexual or demonic images should not be allowed nor seen if you are trying to project a postive image to the public.

Mcgloughlin_01_max50

94 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted about 5 years ago

 

People seem to forget that police/corrections officers have lived their lives before becoming officers and contrary to popular belief they are not robots., leave it alone...

0 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted about 5 years ago

 

as much as I love my "ink"  ...I am a role model.....and example...and when I put the uniform on its time for buisness. Some tats are less tactful than others we have to admit.

Funny_pictures_56616_max50

375 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted about 5 years ago

 

NO ..................What Country is this anyhow ?


I care not what others think of what I do,
but I care very much about what I think of what I do !
That is character !
Theodore Roosevelt

Phone_pics_035_max50

43 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted about 5 years ago

 

I believe LEO's are role models for their communities and when they put on that uniform its time to be a professional and i dont mean just with their actions but appearance as well.

Justice-400_max50

137 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted about 5 years ago

 

I voted no just because it'd be more convenient not to have to cover mine when I get hired, but really it doesn't matter either way. Don't need to cover them? Cool. Have to cover them? Whatever - it'll look more professional.

Cpusey-001_max50

49 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted about 5 years ago

 

I only think they should be covered if it is a discrimatory or derogative type tattoo. Other than that, I see no reason for them to be covered.

Us_federal_reserve_system_max50

13 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted about 5 years ago

 

As a fellow "tatted" officer I agree with the previous that they should only be covered if they promote some form of profanity, racist agenda, nudity, or other forms of degradation. You must remember that tattoos have come a long way and it is now the minority that doesn't have them. I'm willing to bet that almost 70% of Americans have a tattoo. Now visible piercings is another story!

-249 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted about 5 years ago

 

For years my agency tolerated, much like most in LA County. Then, we saw the increase in forearm tatts and sleeves, and there was no policy in place for this, but it looked bad. I can't imagine what a citizen might think when handed a cite by someone who's arms were covered in ink. I have 7, but something told me to keep them covered in uniform.


Then, an agency challenged current protocol, and of course after having it taken to the supreme court, was upheld. Now, just about all agencies require no tattoos exposed while working. Some guys wear long sleeves no matter the weather, I can't imagine what that's like on a day when it's 105.  So, personal opinions aside, even though ink is certainly more tolerated and less taboo than once thought, it's not ok to have them show....Not my personal opinion, but that of admin, and of course, the supreme court. So, it's up to you when you get that sleeve. Is it something that you can live with exposed, or can you put it somewhere where it can't be seen while working.


Of course, now I'm retired I can put them everywhere.....I just can't afford it anymore, they're so flippin expensive...I liked it better when only a few members of society got them and you paid 40 bucks for one....lol

Socrates_max50

194 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted about 5 years ago

 

I am mixed about this one, I respect the right to get tattoos but by the same token I understand the impact that appearance can make as a proffessional. I worked with a guy who had a "SHIRT AND SHORTS" in tattoos. he refused to where long sleeves. This guy was with out doubt one of the best officers I ever worked with. BUT my innitial responce when I first met him, which was mirrored by several others - "OH MY GOD THEY GAVE A CONVICT A BADGE AND GUN!"


I do know even though everyone who worked with him knew he was the best candidate for promotion he never was promoted because he refused to conform to that proffessional image.


They may not make you cover them up but you'll pay for it in the end.


When people ask me what I do I tell them I'm a PROCTOLOGIST specializing in Rectal-Cranial-Ectomies.

Morrison_max50

16 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted about 5 years ago

 

I think that if the tattoo is not vulgar or obscene then you should not have to cover it.

Ck_max50

1 post

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted about 5 years ago

 

If the tattoo depicts a naked woman or other not so public friendly image it should be coverd, if the tattoo is just a tribal design it should be ok. the department should judge it on a officer by officer account


 

-1 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted about 5 years ago

 

with today's economy the way it is ... if it means a paycheck-I'll wear a turtleneck!

Patch

1 post

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted about 5 years ago

 

dlbeck107 says ...



...To me it did not project a professional appearence to the public.


I agree, I have nothing against a person with tattoos or their personal right to have one, I just don't think it projects a positive image to the public.


Explorer_mourning_badge_max50

159 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted about 5 years ago

 

I think tattoos are cool if you want them. My brother has a couple and my mother HATES them.  With that said, covering them while on duty is something that needs to be done to cut down on complaints.  There are still people around who feel they are wrong ( mommy is one of 'em).  However, if someone is going to take the time to file a complaint about the tattoos being unprofesional, its gonna be tough to please them.  So simply to avoid conflict i would say covering them is an easier solution than have them removed.  They are good for UC work though!


"Live every day like its a good stopping point"
_WNP '89-05

Fallenherobadge-3-1_max50_max50

13 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted about 5 years ago

 

One can understand both sides of this discussion.  The Officers have rights as human beings and the Departments have their rights and responsiblities to the public in which they protect.  Some have stated some tattoos are ok while others offend and they should be covered up.  The question would be by what standard are they going to decide if the tattoo is ok or better yet by who's standard?  I have a tattoo and it is covered up by my boots so I am lucky this does not really affect me.

Next Page >