You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
CA Officer posts interesting Facebook comments about Open Carry
- Thread starter Sefner
- Start date
Doc Intrepid
New member
And if I were the chief, I'd take them up on their offer.
I don't see any downside, and at worst you've taken concrete steps on behalf of damage control.
But I'd make the detective sit in the front row of each class.....
I don't see any downside, and at worst you've taken concrete steps on behalf of damage control.
But I'd make the detective sit in the front row of each class.....
Tuason has as much right as anyone here to post what he wants on his Facebook page (or any other website for that matter). His 1st Amendment rights guarantee him the privilege of speaking his mind (well, the part that works, anyhow).
But that does not make him immune or privileged against the repercussions of his words. Nor does it guarantee he can't lose his job over it.
Does anyone else remember news articles about teachers being fired for "inappropriate" postings/images on their own internet pages? Or the guy who lost his job in a conservative corporation because he said the upper managment were [expletive]-heads? I see no real difference here. Tuason could be fired for unprofessional conduct and tainting the department.
However, as much satisfaction as that might bring, it might be better if he does not lose his job. If he's fired, these comments will be driven completely underground, depriving the 2A community of the opportunity for a "teaching moment" in other agencies.
I suspect it will be a while before he's eligible to make detective again, at the very least.
But that does not make him immune or privileged against the repercussions of his words. Nor does it guarantee he can't lose his job over it.
Does anyone else remember news articles about teachers being fired for "inappropriate" postings/images on their own internet pages? Or the guy who lost his job in a conservative corporation because he said the upper managment were [expletive]-heads? I see no real difference here. Tuason could be fired for unprofessional conduct and tainting the department.
However, as much satisfaction as that might bring, it might be better if he does not lose his job. If he's fired, these comments will be driven completely underground, depriving the 2A community of the opportunity for a "teaching moment" in other agencies.
I suspect it will be a while before he's eligible to make detective again, at the very least.
maestro pistolero
New member
I didn't know he had been demoted. Last I heard he was still in uniform, on duty, and carrying a gun. The smartest thing EPA could do at this point is 'process out' Det. Tuason.I suspect it will be a while before he's eligible to make detective again, at the very least.
I wouldn't want to be the DA defending EPA against a wrongful death suit if Tuason was the shooter. Even a clean shoot with Tuason is going to be costly, and I hear that EPA isn't exactly rolling in dough.
Maestro,
I have no information that says he's been fired or disciplined - as yet. However, given the gravity of the comments and the widespread publicity, I would think that the least the PD would do is remove him from his position as detective. Given that EPD isn't a large department and has a limited budget, putting him back on the street presents its own problems. No doubt if they retain him, he'll spend at least 6-9 months off the street in some other capacity, go through some kind of added training and be well supervised if he returns to street duty.
I have no information that says he's been fired or disciplined - as yet. However, given the gravity of the comments and the widespread publicity, I would think that the least the PD would do is remove him from his position as detective. Given that EPD isn't a large department and has a limited budget, putting him back on the street presents its own problems. No doubt if they retain him, he'll spend at least 6-9 months off the street in some other capacity, go through some kind of added training and be well supervised if he returns to street duty.
His career as a cop is over as I see it. Given his comments and apparent willingness to let his own biases influence his work, I can't see how every decision he makes could not be called into question (he only wrote me a ticket because I have an NRA bumper sticker). Take into accout the apparent racial undertones of his comments (I don't know who exactly a t-u-r-d refers to, but I'll take Al's word on it) and he's a defense attourney's dream. At the least, I see him doing desk work for the rest of his career, but his future in law enforcement probably lies as a mall security guard.
Last edited:
Doc Intrepid
New member
A recent ruling MAY alter the terrain to some limited extent; apparently a US magistrate has ruled that speech on Facebook is unequivocably protected, in what might be a precedent-setting decision:
http://www.cnn.com/2010/TECH/ptech/02/16/facebook.speech.ruling/index.html
I suspect that direct threats against specific parties would not be protected speech, however, I also suspect that it could be argued that the officer's postings did not constitute any direct threat against any specific party.
Apparently limitations and definitions continue to evolve regarding internet postings on public or social forums.
http://www.cnn.com/2010/TECH/ptech/02/16/facebook.speech.ruling/index.html
I suspect that direct threats against specific parties would not be protected speech, however, I also suspect that it could be argued that the officer's postings did not constitute any direct threat against any specific party.
Apparently limitations and definitions continue to evolve regarding internet postings on public or social forums.
Your have a right to publish your opinions online and they may fall under "free speech rights", but that does not protect you from the consequences of those opinions.
While a student (and perhaps an employee) has the right to post negative comments about their teacher (employer) in a publicly viewable area, it does not protect them from many actions that can be taken once their teacher (employer) reads the page.
An employer could certainly decide your services are no longer required. A teacher could be less forgiving of minor mistakes.
Posting more dramatic content on the web -- i.e. racist or sexist comments - might go beyond getting fired or being unable to land a new job.
While a student (and perhaps an employee) has the right to post negative comments about their teacher (employer) in a publicly viewable area, it does not protect them from many actions that can be taken once their teacher (employer) reads the page.
An employer could certainly decide your services are no longer required. A teacher could be less forgiving of minor mistakes.
Posting more dramatic content on the web -- i.e. racist or sexist comments - might go beyond getting fired or being unable to land a new job.
OH.... You mean heinous civil rights violation? Sorta like "proning out" a 12 year old girl in a sun dress on her way to school?Posting more dramatic content on the web -- i.e. racist or sexist comments - might go beyond getting fired or being unable to land a new job.
Same as "proning out" any citizen who hasn't given probable cause for such behavior.
Brent
There's an article over at CNET about this by Declan McCullagh. He's usually a pretty fair minded reporter.
Side Note: It has also drawn some attention over at PoliceOne.com (same article as above, but with a few LE comments).
What is interesting is that the East Palo Alto Police Chief has been reported as "suggesting" that the screen-shot taken of the facebook page had been "altered to make Tuason look bad."
That "suggestion" doesn't sit well with "Oaklander" who took the screen-shot. Chief Estelle may be in for a surprise.
The basic problem with all of this is that Rod Tuason posts (well at least he used to - LOL) at CalGuns as .45 Shooter. He even replied to the main thread with a half-hearted apology and denied nothing in the screen-shot (his identity has been confirmed). The master thread at CalGuns is here, but be forewarned, it is currently standing at 900+ posts.
Side Note: It has also drawn some attention over at PoliceOne.com (same article as above, but with a few LE comments).
What is interesting is that the East Palo Alto Police Chief has been reported as "suggesting" that the screen-shot taken of the facebook page had been "altered to make Tuason look bad."
That "suggestion" doesn't sit well with "Oaklander" who took the screen-shot. Chief Estelle may be in for a surprise.
The basic problem with all of this is that Rod Tuason posts (well at least he used to - LOL) at CalGuns as .45 Shooter. He even replied to the main thread with a half-hearted apology and denied nothing in the screen-shot (his identity has been confirmed). The master thread at CalGuns is here, but be forewarned, it is currently standing at 900+ posts.
OH.... You mean heinous civil rights violation? Sorta like "proning out" a 12 year old girl in a sun dress on her way to school?
Same as "proning out" any citizen who hasn't given probable cause for such behavior.
Hogdogs,
My comment was generic. If you post comments, blogs or articles to the web that are inflammatory, expect your next potential employer to find them. Depending on the nature of the job, even a perfect record can be offset by the "insight" into your personal life.
For example; if you makes posts supporting the casual use of pot; have posts supporting, say NAMBLA or White Supremists, etc. etc. -- then your chances of landing many jobs can be greatly diminished.
Bill, That was the point of my post.... I have many skeletons in my closet I have not nor will not share on the WWW.idiotpress.com. Tee-rust me... I could spout off at the face for 5 minutes and ruin my life! And I would be banned from most of the forums I frequent.
Brent
Brent
Interesting about the ruling:
Because it appears the officer was advocating illegal and dangerous behavior, so maybe not protected?
"Evans' speech falls under the wide umbrella of protected speech," he wrote. "It was an opinion of a student about a teacher, that was published off-campus ... was not lewd, vulgar, threatening, or advocating illegal or dangerous behavior."
Because it appears the officer was advocating illegal and dangerous behavior, so maybe not protected?
GunsAreGood
New member
If the state does not want people to open carry than they should not make it damn near impossible to get a concealed carry permit. Someone like that officer should have nothing to do with law enforcement.
bumpandrun
Inactive
Im a CA resident, proud gun owner, and a passionate supporter of 2nd Amendment rights. That said.....first, one must realize that while California has some strict gun control policies, they are in no way the worst, and I can tolerate most of them.(The 10-day waiting period is excessive, but an annoyance more than anything.) I've been around a lot of gun shops in NorCal, and had many conversations with gun owners. One thing that we all agree on for the most part is that Open Carrying is ONE OF THE STUPIDEST THINGS YOU CAN DO IN CA. The general consensus is: "Hey, we support your right to carry, but you look like a bunch of morons gathering at the local Starbucks packing unloaded guns. Stop embarrassing the rest of us." Now, again, dont get me wrong. I'm very pro-gun, and I support the PRINCIPLE of the O.C. crowd. Just not their actions. You may only carry an unloaded gun. That in it itself pretty much renders the weapon useless for defense. Secondly, with this latest movement, many of these folks are carrying just to prove a point. I believe this does a great disservice to responsible gun owners in that it tends to leave a bad taste in the mouth of the general public. Even if they respect your gun rights, they might not agree with them, and they dont want it crammed down their throats. For example, I dont agree with their following, but I respect the rights of Jehovahs Witnesses to be free to follow their religion. I just get extremely irritated when they're pounding on my door, shoving it down my throat. I picture the O.C. crowd in this sort of scenario. My thought is that one of three things should happen. A) Ban open carry altogether. I know that this is like surrendering one of our rights, but if its between no open carry and only being able to carry unloaded, for the sake of everybody involved, I would rather see it banned totally. B) A somewhat better choice (depending on your opinion of O.C. in general) would be to allow loaded O.C.. Now, of course this wouldnt change anyones opinion from the anti-gun side, but at this with this option, your gun still maintains its utility. Therefore, you actually have a reason to carry it, and dont look like such a tool carrying around an empty gun. C) Change CA from a "may-issue" state to a "shall-issue" state. California's CCW system is the one gun control aspect of this state that makes my blood start to boil. For those not privy, CA is similar to most states, except that in addition to the normal process, you must provide "good cause" and the final decision is left up to the discretion (but in most cases, the OPINION), of your local law enforcement. So pretty much....you aint gettin' one here. Oh, you can apply and donate the fees to the state, but in the end they keep your money, and you go home with nothing. A lot of those folks O.C. because its nearly impossible to obtain a CCW. Have a reasonable CCW program, and watch the O.C. problem disappear. I would think that this alone would solve problems not just for those wanting to carry, but for law enforcement officers as well that have to respond to the "man-with-gun" calls all the time. Just my opinion.........
OC is not a problem. Anyone who can legally posses a gun should be allowed to carry it openly or concealed. The next least objectionable is to have shall issue concealed permits but still unregulated open carry. Suggesting that open carry be banned because some people open carry in protest of loaded open carry bans and the extreme difficultly of getting concealed permits is the wrong wrong direction to proceed.
Welcome to TFL, bumpandrun.
You forgot that CA also requires that you be of "good moral character" in order to apply for a CCW. Between that and "good cause," shall we say that in any discretionary matter, you can/will be found wanting?
Nice screed though.
I have to ask, regardless of how you feel about UOC (Unloaded Open Carry), does that make what the officer say any less threatening? Are you really comfortable with an Officer saying he will prone an UOC'er and look for a "furtive" movement to justify murdering an innocent person?
Are you actually suggesting that those who UOC are asking for this type of behavior from LE? That the victim is is at fault?
You forgot that CA also requires that you be of "good moral character" in order to apply for a CCW. Between that and "good cause," shall we say that in any discretionary matter, you can/will be found wanting?
Nice screed though.
I have to ask, regardless of how you feel about UOC (Unloaded Open Carry), does that make what the officer say any less threatening? Are you really comfortable with an Officer saying he will prone an UOC'er and look for a "furtive" movement to justify murdering an innocent person?
Are you actually suggesting that those who UOC are asking for this type of behavior from LE? That the victim is is at fault?
Unloaded open carry does sound pretty dumb to me. Why not just strap on some cordless screwdrivers.....less the battery packs?
FWIW, I can understand the reason to require concealed carry as opposed to open carry in "shall issue" states. I figure it this way - individual States should be permitted to declare that either Open Carry, Concealed Carry, or both are permitted, but they should not dissalow both Open and Concealed Carry.
FWIW, I can understand the reason to require concealed carry as opposed to open carry in "shall issue" states. I figure it this way - individual States should be permitted to declare that either Open Carry, Concealed Carry, or both are permitted, but they should not dissalow both Open and Concealed Carry.