badge0913

Editors note: This story was originally published in 2013.  We have brought it back to show some things never change! – BW

I must be more of an old-school Neanderthal than most people say, because the voices which once spoke for police leaders in this country no longer speak for me. It concerns me when organizations of so-called police chief executives ramble in such a manner it sounds like they’re choking on a mouthful of left-wing Kool-Aid. It’s bad enough when individual police leaders grab headlines through statements that make it clear they’ve forgotten their oath of office. When organizations such as the IACP and the California Police Chiefs Association go off the deep end, I fear for the future of our profession.

The major issue causing me heartburn with these two organizations, and others like them, is their position on how to control gun violence; it’s not the only issue however. When dealing with gun-related issues, these organizations have adopted, without reservation or modification, President Obama’s position — certain types of weapons and magazines of certain capacity will, if made illegal, bring an end to such things as school shootings.

Any street cop worth his salt knows that is patently false.

The truth is it’s not the tool, but the fool who uses it, at the root of the problem. A nut job intent on harming someone will use whatever weapon or device is available. Similarly, nut jobs or hard-core criminals will not eliminate “assault weapons” (whatever those are) or hi-cap magazines from their arsenals. In fact, only the law abiding who wouldn’t commit a random mass murder in the first place will be penalized. You would think organizations at least theoretically composed of honest, objective, ethical, experienced “leaders” would tell it like it is, not like they think others would prefer they tell it. That appears to not be the case.

Hands-Off

In addition to “gun control” — which frankly, I view as being more about “law-abiding citizen control” — there are other issues major law enforcement associations have taken positions about that would have been unheard of just a decade ago.
In case no one has noticed, unlawful entry into the United States across our international borders is still a crime. Yet not only do many individual police chiefs (very few sheriffs, thank goodness) adamantly refuse to enforce the laws against illegal entry appropriately, they have adopted a hands-off posture on just about any enforcement related to illegal aliens. They certainly wouldn’t want to be accused of being insensitive or, much worse, engaging in racial profiling.

Some police chiefs have gone so far as to provide special treatment toward the “undocumented,” refusing to enforce state motor vehicle registration and insurance laws (Los Angeles) if the offenders happen to be illegal aliens. They, of course, have no reluctance to enforce those same laws against US citizens. Where I come from that’s known as discrimination, and was once something police leaders and the associations representing them would have done anything to avoid. No longer the case.

Organizational Advantages

So — and I’m not alone in this regard — what is a police leader to do if the associations and organizations which once responsibly represented them no longer do so? Remain the “Lone Ranger” without any organizational memberships? Some will choose that path though, and I’ve found over the years belonging to the proper sort of organization or association has several advantages. One distinct advantage is the fact there’s strength in numbers, and that can be extremely important when there’s a need. One need might be to push legislation truly needed by the profession and the public we serve.

Second, collegial relationships among police leaders are a good thing. Others with more experience or expertise in a particular area can be networked with via mutual organizational membership. I know in my career as a chief I’ve use the knowledge possessed by others on more than one occasion, to the benefit of my department and the people I serve.

I try to stay abreast of what options are out there in terms of representing what I view as the mainstream of policing philosophy. Frankly, the associations once fitting the bill in that regard no longer do so. There are only two organizations related to leadership within the profession that, philosophically, I can advocate. One is composed not only of law enforcement, but military members as well as others, and is focused on adherence to the oaths of office we took (which some of us actually remember and try to adhere to). The other is primarily, but not exclusively, an association of sheriffs. There are, however, a number of us non-sheriff types who proudly belong.

Alternative Thoughts

I must clearly note my recommendations represent my opinion and do not state or imply the endorsement of American COP Magazine or its publisher. Oathkeepers (www.oathkeepers.org) and the Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association (www.cspoa.org) are the only two professional organizations focusing on organizational leadership I’ve found which adhere to the ethics, duties and responsibilities upon which our profession has historically been based. I commend them to your attention, and at the same time invite readers who may know of other reputable police leadership-related associations to please let me know of their existence.
By Jerry Boyd

Questions, comments and suggestions for future columns can be sent to Jerry via email at [email protected].

Read More From The Chief Articles

View The American COP Magazine September 2013 Issue Now!

GUNS

HOLSTERS

SOFT SKILLS

OFFICER SURVIVAL

WEAPONS TRAINING

EXPERTS

TAC-MED

KNIVES

STREET TACTICS

LESS LETHAL

FOLLOW US ON INSTAGRAM