Topic

police officers

29 petitions

Update posted 4 days ago

Petition to Donald J. Trump, Donald J. Trump, Donald Trump, Kirsten E. Gillibrand, Charles E. Schumer, Peter T. King, Nita M. Lowey

Police Officers Right to Carry Firearms

We live in a society where terror attacks or mass shootings by disturbed people are almost common, everyday occurrences. Yet despite all these horrific events, we continue to disarm the very people who could be key in stopping some of these mass attacks. We train our police officers to respond to these types of incidents, yet in their off duty status we allow way too many private venues to ban them from carrying their weapons inside. In many police departments or other law enforcement agencies, officers are trained with a variety of weapons, including handguns, shotguns and rifles. We trust them with these weapons, and in fact even after they retire they can carry the weapons and have to qualify with them annually.  Eleven years ago, HR 218 was enacted into law. The Law Enforcement Officer’s Safety Act, simply known as the national carry law, allows sworn police officers, both active and retired, to carry a gun anywhere in the US. The intent of the act, and its subsequent revisions, is quite clear. Trained, armed police officers are a good thing, and there should be a consistent federal model rather than allowing individual states to set laws prohibiting off duty police officers from carrying weapons. Before the enactment of this law, many other police officers were actually in technical violation of the law by simply traveling to work. An example would be in the Northern NY suburbs where the direct route into New York City required 15 minutes or so of travel through New Jersey before crossing a bridge and reentering New York. The insanity of that was driven home to me late one night while traveling home from work in New York City after an evening shift. I found myself stuck in bumper to bumper traffic on a foggy parkway just over the George Washington Bridge in New Jersey. As we crawled along the parkway, several gunshots rang out. Needless to say as I crawled along I grabbed my gun and peered into the fog to see what was happening. As it turned out, there was a jeweler who was followed home from New York City, who was purposely rear-ended in his car by a group who then robbed him and during the course of the robbery fired several shots. By the time I got to where the robbery took place the suspects were gone, but it was a tense few minutes. It would have been more harrowing had I not carried my weapon with me, and so HR 218 takes issues like that off the table.  Unfortunately, there is another huge impediment to a true national law enforcement officer’s carry act. Although LEOSA preempts state and local laws, there are two notable exceptions built right into the law: State law permits private persons or entities to prohibit or restrict the possession of concealed firearms on their property (such as a bars, private clubs, amusement parks, etc.), and can prohibit or restrict the possession of firearms on any State or local government property, installation, building, base, or park. Additionally, LEOSA does not override the federal Gun-Free School Zone Act (GFSZA) which prohibits carrying a firearm within 1,000 feet of elementary or secondary schools. Although the GFSZA authorizes on-duty law enforcement officers to carry firearms in such circumstances, off-duty and retired law enforcement officers are still restricted from doing so unless they have a firearms license issued from the state in which they reside and then it is only good for the state in which they reside. Individuals must also obey any federal laws and federal agency policies that restrict the carrying of concealed firearms in certain federal buildings and lands, as well as federal regulations prohibiting the carriage of firearms on airplanes Of course, there are other venues where a police officer is not allowed to carry a weapon absent some special circumstances, such as planes and various federal facilities. Even some of these restrictions can use some further examination to see if they actually serve the purpose of both the law and the public at-large. A few years ago I went into New York City to attend a concert at the Nokia Theater. As is my usual practice, especially when traveling into NYC, I had my firearm with me. Security would not let me in, so I asked for a supervisor. The house manager came and spoke with me, and told me their policy was not to let anyone with firearms inside. I even spoke with several officers working the event, and they said even they can’t carry their firearms inside off duty. So now I was faced with what to do with my weapon. I let my wife go inside, while I ran several blocks to the nearest police precinct. They were kind enough to hold onto my weapon, although they had no facilities to do so and I suspect they get asked to do this fairly frequently. One of the officers at the desk was willing to hold the gun in his locker. Now as I head back to the theater, I am unarmed and my value as a trained law enforcement officer is diminished.  Recently I made several trips into New York City. I know now to call in advance to ascertain any venue’s policy on off duty law enforcement and firearms. More and more are banning weapons, and some tell you ridiculous things such as "lock it in your car". Unless your car is actually equipped with a lock box for weapons, being told to leave a weapon in a car is extremely naive and irresponsible, and just points out how ill-equipped these “security” personnel are. Frankly, when you arrive at most venues, their security is not equipped or trained to deal with armed intruders. Some have off duty officers moonlighting, but many have unarmed, and poorly trained security staff that they rely upon. For most people, that means leaving the weapon at home, the result being you have totally disarmed officers which to me defeats the intent of the LEOSA.  I assume most of those in charge of these large venues feel their security can handle any matters that occur, and if not the local police are just a phone call away. I have already expressed my opinion that most of the security at these venues are not trained or equipped to handle an active shooter situation. Even if there are armed personnel inside, their ability to intercede in an active shooter scenario depends on where everyone is situated if and when such an event occurs. It takes seconds for an armed individual to wreak havoc, especially in a crowded location. The closer an armed and trained law enforcement officer is the sooner the carnage may be terminated. Yet the very same people who you would hope would arrive when you call 911 are the people you don’t trust to bring their weapons inside? Does the training go away because you are off duty? I mentioned involvement in some off duty events earlier in this letter, and have made several off duty arrests during my career. I know that any of these situations could turn bad real fast, and if I were not armed I would be far less likely to act. That isn’t necessarily a bad thing, since most police departments now prefer off duty officers to observe and call for on duty help rather than taking enforcement action off duty, when possible. But no one in law enforcement, or the public for that matter, would mind an armed off duty officer terminating an active shooting event by being armed and in the right place at the right time. Just ask Trooper Edward Andersson, a 27-year veteran of the Arizona Department of Public Safety whose life was saved by an armed citizen passing by intervened. Imagine a trained officer was passing by but left his gun at home because he was going to an event at a facility that banned officers from carrying their weapons. In my opinion, the LEOSA needs to be amended to remove the right of private property owners that allows them to prohibit those officers covered under the act from carrying their firearms inside private premises. The provisions regarding Gun_free school zones should also not apply to those covered under the act. It is just a legal trap that an officer from out of state can easily fall prey to. I can understand retaining the right for government to prevent the carrying on government property, since most of those locations have trained, on duty law enforcement in place. But to give full force and effect to the spirit of the LEOSA, you need to allow officers to carry their weapons with them. Having officers leave their weapons home because at some point in their travel they are going to enter a private business that will not allow them in forces officers to disarm or to forgo enjoying concerns, sporting events, theater and the like. Please join me in getting these important changes to the LEOSA enacted. The safety of our citizens can not be understated, and we may now have a President who might be able to help make this happen. 

Dan Weisberg
6,472 supporters
Update posted 2 months ago

Petition to adam.mcgough@dallascityhall.com , omar.navarez@dallascityhall.com , kevin.felder@dallascityhall.com , tennell.atkins@dallascityhall.com , mark.clayton@dallascityhall.com , casey.thomas@dallascityhall.com , rick.callahan@dallascityhall.com , scott.griggs@dallascityhall.com , carolyn.arnold@dallascityhall.com , lee.kleinman@dallascityhall.com , sandy.greyson@dallascityhall.com , jennifer.gates@dallascityhall.com , Philip.Kingston@dallascityhall.com , mike.rawlings@dallascityhall.com , ulysha.hall@dallascityhall.com , adam.medrano@dallascityhall.com

Dallas Police need backup!

Dallas does not need to spend millions of dollars for the police to be investigated by a board of citizens who have no training in police work. As it stands, complaints are thoroughly investigated by Internal Affairs and may also be investigated by the Public Integrity Division, and/or the DA’s office and the Texas Rangers. Beginning with Chief Brown, any time a complaint is severe enough to warrant administrative leave or firing, that information is immediately made public. There is no attempt by the Dallas Police Department to cover up for officers and allegations made against an officer are investigated thoroughly. Many investigations are conducted because of internal complaints, meaning someone within the Dallas Police Department initiated the investigation after seeing wrongdoing. There has been a “coalition” of groups meeting with Chief Hall for over a year. They are demanding the Citizens Police Review Board be given a multi-million dollar budget and the power to independently investigate complaints. They also want the CPRB to have the power to overturn the finding of internal affairs and to change policy in the police department. Right now, the CPRB can make recommendations, but the final decisions are left with the professionals who understand police policies. If you watch the videos over the past year of the CPRB hearings, you will see that on February 13, 2018, DPD asked the members to do some things that would help them understand police work, including Blue Team Training, Reality Based Training, Ride alongs and invited them to come to IAD to see their process. These things should be required, because when you see their case decisions on these videos, it is clear they do not care if an officer followed procedure and will vote to “not concur” with the internal affairs decision, simply because they do not understand police work or the policies they must obey. (2/12/19 and 1/8/19 CPRB videos on Swagit) https://dallastx.swagit.com/citizen-police-review-board Speaking for the coalition at public meetings including CPRB meetings, town halls and meeting with Chief Hall, you will find Dominique Alexander of Next Generation Action Group. He has convictions for Serious Bodily Injury to a Child as well as Falsifying a Police Report. Records can be found at https://www.dallascounty.org/services/record-search/ His next criminal trial, which is for theft, is in Denton County set for April 1, 2019. It was his protest in 2016 that cost the lives of 5 officers. He has led dozens of protests in downtown Dallas since that day, and Dallas police officers must show up to protect them, yet this is who the city and chief are taking advice from regarding the review of alleged police misconduct? Police and citizens should be extremely offended that he is being given an audience with the highest ranking officials in Dallas. It is time for the citizens to speak up on behalf of our police. They have been dragged through the mud repeatedly by the city and enough is enough! They are severely understaffed and giving people who have no clue what their job actually involves the power to investigate and mete out punishment, even if they did their jobs as directed, is unacceptable. Please sign the petition and let the Dallas Police know that citizens have their backs! Speakers in opposition were denied the opportunity to voice their concerns in a public meeting on February 11th. If you attended the town hall meetings and filled out the survey, in which they asked you not identify yourself, know that the same people from the ‘coalition’ attended every meeting and filled out surveys each time, making it appear that more citizens agree with their agenda. We cannot afford to lose any more officers, this time because they may be punished or fired by a board of non-trained citizens. PETITION-Dallas citizens are not in agreement with giving the Citizens Police Review Board power to change decisions made by the Dallas Police Department, nor should the city fund or allow independent investigations be made by the board, outside of current rules. Officers are already subject to investigations from Internal Affairs, Dallas District Attorney Investigators and the Texas Rangers, as well as a contracted investigator paid for by the city at the request of the CPRB, should they make that request. Instead, please consider the following. 1. Board members need to be vetted for bias (in either direction) before being allowed to sit on the board. No convicted criminals should sit on the board. 2. Board members need to be required to have Reality Based Training and participate in ride alongs before being allowed to vote. They should have easy access to current police policies as well as policies when alleged violation occurred. If they are too afraid to go on ride alongs, they clearly cannot comprehend what an officer deals with on a daily basis, and should not be allowed to sit on the board.3. Since transparency is one of the key demands by the coalition, the city should promote the existence of the CPRB on it’s pages and website, including links to the DPD pages that consistently announce when an officer is arrested or fired. Offer FULL transparency and publicize when an officer is exonerated and a false complaint was filed, as well.4. Implement an Early Warning System. This is beneficial to the police department as well as the citizens. 5. Ensure the CPRB members understand their current abilities, which include the ability to contract an independent investigator. Use the tools you have before claiming they do not work and spending millions of tax dollars.6. Allow citizens complaints to be sent through the CPRB if they are uncomfortable with going directly to the police.7. Have the Internal Affairs representative explain, in detail, why they came to a decision when reporting to the CPRB. Read the exact policy and don’t just say, “The officer followed or did not follow policy”. This would allow the board and complainant to understand why they came to their conclusion, hopefully eliminating the numerous times the board disagrees with their conclusion due to not understanding policy.8. Publish a list of the current training for officers such as de-escalation, use of force and chase policies. The speakers for the coalition have referred to cases from 20-30 years ago, before these policies were enacted. Using these as examples of the need today for oversight by non-police trained citizens is disingenuous. 9. Ensure body worn cameras are available for every officer, not just some. Cameras are the best evidence for investigators. 10. Allow mediation for complaints as long as all parties agree. 11. Create PSA’s explaining what to do and what not to do when encountered by police so citizens understand they have the ability to de-escalate a situation.12. Implement programs that teach our citizens and youth what to do and not do when interacting with police. If citizens fear the police, they need to understand basic respect and compliance is necessary to allow the police to do their jobs.  

Andrea Mendoza
361 supporters
Started 7 months ago

Petition to Mayor Sam liccardo, Councilmember Chappie Jones, Councilmember Johnny Khamis, Councilmember Magdalena Carrasco, Councilmember Sylvia Arenas, Councilmember Tam Nguyen, Councilmember Lan Diep, Councilmember Donald Rocha, Councilmember Dev Davis, Councilmember Raul Peralez, Councilmember Sergio Jimenez

Protect our Kids, Parks, and Environment - Equip Our SJ Park Rangers

Our trained San José Park Rangers have been ordered to suspend law enforcement in and around Coyote Creek, including our parks like the Tully Ballfields.  This has placed our Community in serious danger, is forcing our children to stay inside, and is destroying our environment. We are asking our Community to come together and support a cause that will have an immediate and positive impact on our quality of life in San José.  With your support, our children and families will be more able to enjoy our City parks without fear of assault or hurting themselves on syringes, condoms, biological hazards, or weapons.  Work crews will be able to cleanup and perform maintenance in our creeks, which will help prevent flooding.  Our natural ecosystem will have the opportunity to restore itself.  All of this is possible while we save tax dollars. Please sign this petition to demand our City Council provide our Park Rangers with the standard tools of law enforcement, including the ability to carry firearms, transport prisoners, and allow our Rangers to perform law enforcement duties in our riparian corridors (creeks) and parks while being subjected to the same accountability procedures as our Police Officers. San José Peace Officer Park Rangers are highly trained and thoroughly vetted law enforcement officers who undergo thorough background checks, polygraphs, psychological exams, medical exams, fingerprinting, and more.  Rangers complete a 700+ hour National Park Service Academy, the same academy used by armed National Park Service Rangers. The hours of this academy EXCEEDS Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST) minimum standards. Over 100 hours are spent training on firearms alone. Rangers also complete the CA specific laws of arrest course, PC 832, as well as the 40 hour Critical Incident Training and Principled Policing, a POST certified course on procedural justice and implicit bias. Public Safety By equipping our SJ Park Rangers, we will increase the number of trained and experienced Law Enforcement personnel allowed to respond to criminal activity by almost 20 officers overnight.  SJPD will be able to focus on their normal routine and not have to be called off a priority call to help with a routine park call. Currently, San José City Policy directs Rangers to call SJPD when they witness a crime, even though they are trained Law Enforcement and more than capable of performing their duties through the training received as described above. Our Creeks are non-patrolled highways for narcotics and other illegal distribution, including prostitution and illegal weapons.  Having this area patrolled with armed law enforcement will make our City a much safer place for us all. Environmental Protection and Flood Prevention Our Park Rangers have recovered numerous firearms from criminals in Coyote Creek resulting in their management ordering them to cease law enforcement duties.  The Criminal element has taken over certain areas of the creek which threatens city, county, and water district work crews from performing routine maintenance along the creek, such as trash pickup and the removal of overgrowth, both of which inhibit the waters ability to flow.  This was one of the factors responsible for the Coyote Creek President’s Day Flooding.  Had the area been maintained properly, water will have flowed normally which may have prevented the flooding occurring, or at least mitigated the level of devastation. Saves Tax payer Dollars Currently, the City has decided that two SJPD Officers need to accompany each team of Rangers in order for law enforcement to occur in the creeks and our parks.  This means that two SJPD Officers are paid overtime or double time to backup our Rangers.  Four law enforcement personnel are therefore required to do the job of two law enforcement personnel, at a cost of three or four SJPD salaries.  The funding for this comes out of the budget for our parks and other neighborhood services, meaning their maintenance will suffer. Equipping our Rangers eliminates the need for this excessive overtime spending, and allows SJPD to focus on their normal day to day duties while our parks are enforced by our Rangers.  

Jonathan Fleming
691 supporters