View Full Version : LEO fired over target choice
Target attached. Obviously patterned after Trayvon Martin? Yes. In really poor taste (regardless of where one stands on the events) in context of the current social climate? Yes. Worth a reprimand by his boss and a "WTF were you thinking?" discussion? Yes. Fired???
BREVARD COUNTY, Fla. (WFTV) -- Officials with Port Canaveral said a police sergeant has been fired after he brought Trayvon Martin shooting targets to a firearms training session.
Sergeant Ron King was terminated from the police department on Friday, according to officials.
Port officials said King brought two shooting targets which had an images resembling Trayvon Martin on them to a firearms training session on April 4.
King was supervising the training session and asked if anyone wanted to use them. Officials will not say if the targets were actually used.
"Whether his act was hatred or stupidity, none is tolerable," said John Walsh, CEO of Port Canaveral.
The firearms training was being held at a facility at the Brevard Community College campus in Cocoa. The officers who were participating in the training, as well as King, were on duty at the time.
"He had a target in the back of his car and offered it to two other officers with the port," Walsh said.
King had been employed with the Port Canaveral Police Department since January of 2011, officials said. Port officials told WFTV King purchased the targets on the internet.
In a statement from Benjamin Crump, the attorney for Trayvon Martin's family, he said "Using a dead child's image as target practice is reprehensible."
Officials said King has seven days to appeal his termination.
http://www.actionnewsjax.com/content/topstories/story/Police-sergeant-fired-for-Trayvon-Martin-shooting/dso2q3mi50iNyFhgziZMuA.cspx
Failure2Stop
04-14-13, 11:53
I'm not seeing the target, maybe it's just a Tapatalk error..
Typos brought to you via Tapatalk and autocorrect.
I'm not seeing the target, maybe it's just a Tapatalk error..
Typos brought to you via Tapatalk and autocorrect.
Says it was attached, but I don't see it either. Try again:
All in fun, as long as my personal photo is not on the target...:p
Failure2Stop
04-14-13, 12:00
Yeah, that's a rough one to justify.
There are quite a few "hoodie guy" targets that have been out there for a long time before the incident, figured it might be an over reaction to one of those. Nope.
Typos brought to you via Tapatalk and autocorrect.
http://www.actionnewsjax.com/media/lib/1/c/8/e/c8e95bd8-65d3-4e2c-889a-43103c132870/Story.jpg
He does look awfully tactical with his shemag on the shooting range...:D
Yeah, that's a rough one to justify.
There are quite a few "hoodie guy" targets that have been out there for a long time before the incident, figured it might be an over reaction to one of those. Nope.
Agreed. No denying that one. Fired however seems the over reaction to me, but he should have considered the totally over the top PC world he lives in of which I'm sure he's well aware.
Maybe on the appeal after the news cycle ends in 48 hours or so, he gets his job back.
GeorgiaBoy
04-14-13, 12:07
This is one of those moments where you just have to ask... "What the f#ck were you thinking?".
He claims it was a "no shoot" target to be set up amongst shoot targets, according to an article I read this morning.
CYA or truth? who knows?
--
There's probably more to the story.
Some who choose "personal expression lest the Heavens fall" sometimes fall on their own sword.
With all of the dynamics that hold society under threat I seriously question his maturity. Maybe he should have another job where his self-expression cannot add further stress to an already fragile, volatile mix.
NeoNeanderthal
04-14-13, 12:58
Saying it was a "no shoot" target is actually a good idea. Makes it sound a little less retarded.
Jeez. I fail to see the issue with the target. Good luck to him.
montanadave
04-14-13, 13:11
Life is hard.
It's even harder when you're stupid.
"No Shoot" target? Yeah, right. :rolleyes:
Seems a bit blown out if proportion to me.
Sent from my DROID X2 using Tapatalk 2
FromMyColdDeadHand
04-14-13, 13:17
Saying it was a "no shoot" target is actually a good idea. Makes it sound a little less retarded.
Never go full retard...
No shoot is a fast cover up. I'm thinking this may have been the last straw with this guy?
Cagemonkey
04-14-13, 13:35
The Target didn't have Skittles in the pocket for a reason did it? No, its not Trayvon.
Voodoo_Man
04-14-13, 13:50
Sounds like someone had it out for this guy.
He will sue and win his job back in arbitration.
On another note seeing a police officer wearing a shemagh while running some drills....that just really bothers me.
-Jax
GeorgiaBoy
04-14-13, 14:15
On another note seeing a police officer wearing a shemagh while running some drills....that just really bothers me.
-Jax
As was once told to me on this forum for saying essentially the same thing, you're just "sour grapes" for thinking its a little weird seeing police officers running around in shemaghs and tactic-cool flat-darth-earth uniforms and other LBE in suburban America.
:rolleyes:
As was once told to me here, you're just "sour grapes" for thinking its a little weird seeing police officers running around in shemaghs and tactic-cool flat-darth-earth uniforms and other LBE in suburban America.
I can understand the uniforms or the LBE for certain situations and environments but wearing something just to look all tactical and it adds nothing to make him safer, faster,.....I don't know it's just a pet peeve of mine. One guy on the local PD asked if he could wear a thigh rig on duty. Thankfully the Chief said uh uh.
-Jax
karmapolice
04-14-13, 14:30
Guy was an idiot, question for those scared of a cop wearing a shemgah: do you get frightened or bothered by regular joe civilians who are into training and guns wearing them?
Edited to add, I do not own nor will I ever. I think it's ghey but if you think a cop wearing one is scary because omg the polices be militarizing, really. Most class a police uniforms are way more military styled than wearing some cargo pants and plate carriers. I mean heck most if the now common pants and clothing was borrowed by the military from the outdoor sports/camping world. If it works and is comfortable to do your job in and or can save you life who cares?
GeorgiaBoy
04-14-13, 14:33
Who's scared? I just think it is silly.
This has been hashed ad nauseum on here. My humble personal opinion is many-not the majority though-try to emulate the military too closely. This, to me, shows me their inward philosophy towards their job. Which is misguided. This isn't all as I have stated and yes I do hold LEOs to a higher standard than other civilians. My two cents and enough on the topic that is drifting the thread.
-Jax
Nobody is scared of a shemag wearing cop......I'd suggest just the opposite.
theblackknight
04-14-13, 14:57
How exactly do some of you agree with this situation based on only the evidence given?
If there is a target with a guy wearing a sweater vest, dose that mean it's a "Mr Rodgers'' target?
In our culture of constant offense, it really seems as tho people will go out of their way to be offended or find something offensive, and all we seem to do is reinforce it.
sent from mah gun,using my sights
If there is a target with a guy wearing a sweater vest, dose that mean it's a "Mr Rodgers'' target?
Wasn't the silhouette in the target holding a bag of Skittles? That's pretty unambiguous. I'm not "offended" in any way by it; I just think anybody who carries a gun for a living should have the common sense to know shooting at a Trayvon Martin target is going to start some shit. To me, it's indicative of a more general lack of judgement. But I don't know the guy. It's just a prima facie impression.
Nothing says tacti-cool poser more than a shemagh stateside. You might as well ask him what color is the boathouse at Hereford (with apologies to IG for recycling the same joke from a few years ago).
This target reminds me of the old LAPD associated "Running N-Word" big afro and big radio ones from the '70's and '80's that also got some other guys fired. Some guys never learn. Not a bright thing to do. You can do "hoodieman" without the Skittles and at least make him a real "threat".
This is one of those moments where you just have to ask... "What the f#ck were you thinking?".
Exactly.
It seems a little extreme to loose your job over something like that. I can see maybe being disciplined for it, written reprimand, suspension etc.
A department would have a lot invested in a sergeant in terms of pay and training. Maybe the toilet needed to be flushed, but something tells me its knee jerk admin bullshit.
Before everyone goes equally full retard on this scarf thing, who's to say where or when the picture was taken, or what the guy's background is.
Bottom line though, anyone that goes to the range wearing shit to play Johnny Plate Carrier just look like dorks.
In my experience, these are the same guys who can't shoot for a shit.
Five_Point_Five_Six
04-14-13, 15:51
He actually looks like a leo I recognize from another forum. I believe he also has a membership here with a very low post count.
GeorgiaBoy
04-14-13, 15:53
It seems a little extreme to loose your job over something like that. I can see maybe being disciplined for it, written reprimand, suspension etc.
A department would have a lot invested in a sergeant in terms of pay and training. Maybe the toilet needed to be flushed, but something tells me its knee jerk admin bullshit.
Before everyone goes equally full retard on this scarf thing, who's to say where or when the picture was taken, or what the guy's background is.
Bottom line though, anyone that goes to the range wearing shit to play Johnny Plate Carrier just look like dorks.
In my experience, these are the same guys who can't shoot for a shit.
Seems to me it was the better choice for the agency rather than try to defend the officers actions for a long, drug-out amount of time against outcry.
Most people don't like seeing people just "reprimanded", they like to see them fired, especially on a job like a police officer, which should be held to a very high standard. Offering a hoodie target from the back of your patrol car in FLORIDA shows character that I don't think a police officer should have, IMO.
FromMyColdDeadHand
04-14-13, 15:54
Who's scared? I just think it is silly.
UPS uniforms, or a Tommy Bahamas shirt over your body armor and gear so you just look like a normal fat American. The ninja black, contractor coyote or operator FDE ain't exactly camo in the burbs. Hey, if it gets you amped up for the raid, go for it. It's like a major extension of the cops with their pistol mags horizontal base plates facing their strong side, what kind of reload are you going to get off that set-up. There has to be a reason for it, I see it all over the place.
I've thought about painting my guns, especially my 3 gun rifle a bright color with sparkles. I'm not a ninja, operator or former mil and I think it is kind of disrespectful to play dress up.
theblackknight
04-14-13, 15:59
at a Trayvon Martin target is going to start some shit.
The power of sugjestion dosent seem to work on me, call me stubborn.
So does this mean that we should be mad at Magpul for their "Treyvon in a eskimo hoodie" target? What about the garment itself? Should "hoodie"be banned from the lexicon for "my trayvon"? Will TAD now make 400$ Trayvons to sell to rich weekend operators? Think of all the people who wear their Treyvons to FOF sim training are so insensitive as to be recreating this senseless shooting.
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3489/3984740106_fc4f8013f6.jpg
For reference, the target from the incident in question:
http://www.everydaynodaysoff.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Trayvon-Martin-Shooting-Target.jpg
The skittles and tea can make it a direct reference. This was a case of stupid hurts.
As for the shemagh... seriously, have you ever used one? Damn things are great in the desert (where I happen to live). I feel kind of silly wearing one to a class, until I get home and find myself not sunburned. Some of us burn at the drop of a hat, and a baseball cap and sunscreen just won't cut it over the course of a two-day class.
The power of sugjestion dosent seem to work on me, call me stubborn.
So does this mean that we should be mad at Magpul for their "Treyvon in a eskimo hoodie" target? What about the garment itself? Should "hoodie"be banned from the lexicon for "my trayvon"? Will TAD now make 400$ Trayvons to sell to rich weekend operators? Think of all the people who wear their Treyvons to FOF sim training are so insensitive as to be recreating this senseless shooting.
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3489/3984740106_fc4f8013f6.jpg
So you're aware that TM had just purchased a bag of Skittles and an Arizona iced tea before his encounter with Zimmerman, and you're aware that the silhouette in the target in question is holding a bag of Skittles and an Arizona iced tea, and you still don't see why that's any different from a generic hoodie target? It's not suggestion; it's explicit.
Again, I don't really give a **** about this or about Trayvon Martin, nor am I offended. But it should have been obvious to the LEO that he was going to cause a problem, and it should be obvious to you that there's a difference between this target and the one you posted.
Where I'm coming from has nothing to do with sensitivity. I just think the dude has bad judgement.
Might be more to the case than we're hearing... Such as, a history of racial insensitivity or issues at the dept he worked for, etc. This might have been the last straw in a string of incidents, who knows.
That said, I don't think the guy should have been fired, despite it being a truly stupid thing to do. Infraction, yes. But termination seems extreme.
It's gotta be hard for LEO's these days, especially in really urban areas like Chicago, LA, and NYC. The statistics don't lie, and they have to pretend like they do in the name of political correctness. I can understand how people would get frustrated and / or just slip up from time to time.
NeoNeanderthal
04-14-13, 17:02
Shemahgs are not just for the millitary. If you lived in AZ and were camping or out riding i could totally understand having one. But in florida? Got lots of dust storms in florida do ya? Idiot.
Play stupid games win stupid prizes. :lol:
He should have his job back in no time flat.
As for the shemagh... seriously, have you ever used one? Damn things are great in the desert (where I happen to live). I feel kind of silly wearing one to a class, until I get home and find myself not sunburned. Some of us burn at the drop of a hat, and a baseball cap and sunscreen just won't cut it over the course of a two-day class.
+1000
I don't care what people think. I've worn them wrapped around my neck before, to classes, for exactly this reason. I don't do it all around my head like for real because 1: I don't know how, and 2: I have a hat for that, but I burn just by looking out the window on a sunny day, so I use it as a sun shield on my neck area.
---
So you're aware that TM had just purchased a bag of Skittles and an Arizona iced tea before his encounter with Zimmerman, and you're aware that the silhouette in the target in question is holding a bag of Skittles and an Arizona iced tea, and you still don't see why that's any different from a generic hoodie target? It's not suggestion; it's explicit.
Again, I don't really give a **** about this or about Trayvon Martin, nor am I offended. But it should have been obvious to the LEO that he was going to cause a problem, and it should be obvious to you that there's a difference between this target and the one you posted.
Where I'm coming from has nothing to do with sensitivity. I just think the dude has bad judgement.
The reference is obvious as it gets. I think there's many possible ways to spin it in the officers favor, and as stated by others, maybe more to the story than we know, but claiming one can't see the very obvious reference to Martin in that target is not one of the viable excuses unless you're f-ing blind.
Seems to me it was the better choice for the agency rather than try to defend the officers actions for a long, drug-out amount of time against outcry.
Most people don't like seeing people just "reprimanded", they like to see them fired, especially on a job like a police officer, which should be held to a very high standard. Offering a hoodie target from the back of your patrol car in FLORIDA shows character that I don't think a police officer should have, IMO.
I don't give two shits what people like seeing. Punishment fitting the offense is a fundamental principle of our country and/or society. You think a man should loose his job and livelihood over this?
The first we've heard of it is a story where the guy is fired, so I don't know where the long drawn out outcry comes into play.
I have issues with this imagined idea of there being different standards for people based on their status or job. I expect the same from everyone, regardless if they are a doctor or a bum on the street. You can't hold someone to a "very high standard" until you can articulate exactly what the standard is, and what separates it from this "very high standard".
So far, the only thing I'm getting is that upper imagined standard is don't make a mistake.
I don't give two shits what people like seeing. Punishment fitting the offense is a fundamental principle of our country and/or society. You think a man should loose his job and livelihood over this?
The first we've heard of it is a story where the guy is fired, so I don't know where the long drawn out outcry comes into play.
I have issues with this imagined idea of there being different standards for people based on their status or job. I expect the same from everyone, regardless if they are a doctor or a bum on the street. You can't hold someone to a "very high standard" until you can articulate exactly what the standard is, and what separates it from this "very high standard".
So far, the only thing I'm getting is that upper imagined standard is don't make a mistake.
And as always, we were not there:
A Florida police officer fired for bringing targets resembling Trayvon Martin to a gun range apologized to the shooting victim's family "for being used as a pawn in somebody's political agenda" but said the targets are a valuable training tool.
Police Sgt. Ron King denied claims by Port Canaveral Interim Chief Executive Officer John Walsh that King was leading target practice with two other officers and a civilian earlier this month when he asked the group if they wanted to shoot at the targets.
The Port Canaveral Police Department fired King on Friday following an internal investigation, according to port officials.
King, a firearms instructor, denied in a video posted on YouTube that he suggested anyone shoot at the target, which features a faceless silhouette of a person in a hoodie holding a beverage can, a pack of Skittles candy tucked in a pocket. A bull's eye appears on its chest.
Trayvon Martin, 17, was wearing a hoodie and carrying Skittles and a can of iced tea on Feb. 26, 2012, when he was fatally shot by neighborhood watch volunteer George Zimmerman, then 28, in a gated Sanford, Fla., community.
King, in his video, referred to the target as "no-shoot training aid" and said it should be used only as an example of a situation where an officer should not fire his gun.
"Using real-life situations as a training scenario is not uncommon," King said. King apologized to Trayvon's family and to any law enforcement professionals who may have been embarrassed by the publicity swirling around the incident. He accused an unnamed officer of inventing details of the incident to damage the credibility of the police department's leadership.
"I remain a professional law enforcement officer and a professional firearms instructor," said King, who can appeal his dismissal. "I refuse to sit by while others use the Martin family and myself as a way to further their own political and career agendas."
Walsh was unmoved. "I found the entire situation unacceptable," he said. "It is not the type of behavior that I want a police officer to have on both a personal and professional level."
Walsh also apologized to Trayvon's family, which has argued that the black teen was targeted and murdered. Zimmerman says he shot Trayvon in self-defense after being attacked. Zimmerman, who faces a second-degree murder charge, is set to go on trial June 10.
The shooting sparked protests and national conversations on race, gun laws, and the meaning of self-defense.
Benjamin Crump, an attorney for Trayvon Martin's parents, was highly critical of King.
"It is absolutely reprehensible that a high-ranking member of the Port Canaveral Police, sworn to protect and serve Floridians, would use the image of a dead child as target practice," Crump said. "Such a deliberate and depraved indifference to this grieving family is unacceptable. The citizens of Port Canaveral deserve better."
Contributing: Scott Gunnerson, Florida Today
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/04/14/travyon-martin-ron-king/2081467/
For me, the whole thing reeks of BS pandering PC nonsense and I'll give that LEO the benefit of the doubt before I give any at all to the others in that story running their ignorant self serving yaps.
Your mileage may vary...
theblackknight
04-14-13, 18:34
and you're aware that the silhouette in the target in question is holding a bag of Skittles and an Arizona iced tea, and you still don't see why that's any different from a generic hoodie target?
OH shit I didnt see that on my fone, This guy is a douche! Have fun being mall security dude!
Seems to me it was the better choice for the agency rather than try to defend the officers actions for a long, drug-out amount of time against outcry.
Most people don't like seeing people just "reprimanded", they like to see them fired, especially on a job like a police officer, which should be held to a very high standard. Offering a hoodie target from the back of your patrol car in FLORIDA shows character that I don't think a police officer should have, IMO.
in central florida, no less! Port Canaveral isn't that far from Orlando!
Officer Einstein would have been better off with a Casey Anthony target.
GeorgiaBoy
04-14-13, 18:56
I don't give two shits what people like seeing. Punishment fitting the offense is a fundamental principle of our country and/or society. You think a man should loose his job and livelihood over this?
The first we've heard of it is a story where the guy is fired, so I don't know where the long drawn out outcry comes into play.
I have issues with this imagined idea of there being different standards for people based on their status or job. I expect the same from everyone, regardless if they are a doctor or a bum on the street. You can't hold someone to a "very high standard" until you can articulate exactly what the standard is, and what separates it from this "very high standard".
So far, the only thing I'm getting is that upper imagined standard is don't make a mistake.
1. Police officers, with the power and privileges that their position offers, should be held to a tighter code of conduct within their employment than other jobs. This is not exclusive to police officers, but their specific circumstances of employment mean that they are among the employable positions that require their conduct to be held to stricter standard.
2. A police officer in FLORIDA, the same state (and actually area) that Trayvon was killed, should NOT be making/buying and shooting targets that demonstrate a figure wearing a hoodie with a bag of skittles in the pocket and holding a ice tea, CLEARLY representing Trayvon Martin.
3. Any police officer that deems doing the prior point acceptable obviously should find another area of employment. Using a representative target of a dead 17 year old boy for your training is NOT permissible and is inexcusable.
I don't give two shits what people like seeing. Punishment fitting the offense is a fundamental principle of our country and/or society. You think a man should loose his job and livelihood over this?
The first we've heard of it is a story where the guy is fired, so I don't know where the long drawn out outcry comes into play.
I have issues with this imagined idea of there being different standards for people based on their status or job. I expect the same from everyone, regardless if they are a doctor or a bum on the street. You can't hold someone to a "very high standard" until you can articulate exactly what the standard is, and what separates it from this "very high standard".
So far, the only thing I'm getting is that upper imagined standard is don't make a mistake.
He exercised bad judgement. Maybe there is more story to come but based on current information, this was a very bad idea. If there is something to the no-shoot target argument (and there may well be), i'll hear it. But, IMHO, there was no reason for an leo to get mucked up in his kind of bs. Many other ways to set up threat discrimination training.
That le is held to a higher standard isn't an imagined construct. Doctors and the bum in the street are not holders of the PUBLIC TRUST. It's a part of the oath, he should have known better (and if ur on the job, so should you).
P.S. Do not read this to be anti le or even this particular officer. My point is simply that shoot or no-shoot target, it just defies good judgement. I absolutely give the officer the benefit of the doubt outside of that.
Heavy Metal
04-14-13, 19:45
Seems to me it was the better choice for the agency rather than try to defend the officers actions for a long, drug-out amount of time against outcry.
Most people don't like seeing people just "reprimanded", they like to see them fired, especially on a job like a police officer, which should be held to a very high standard. Offering a hoodie target from the back of your patrol car in FLORIDA shows character that I don't think a police officer should have, IMO.
Over-react and fire him knowing it won't stand. Controversy dies down and he gts his position back thru arbitration in a couple months with back-pay after things have cooled-down.
I have issues with this imagined idea of there being different standards for people based on their status or job. I expect the same from everyone, regardless if they are a doctor or a bum on the street. You can't hold someone to a "very high standard" until you can articulate exactly what the standard is, and what separates it from this "very high standard".
So far, the only thing I'm getting is that upper imagined standard is don't make a mistake.
With great power comes great responsibility. LEO's, judges, doctors, many CEO's, etc. all hold great power over the lives of others. Thus, we hold their judgement to a higher standard - particularly when it comes to the performance of their job. As for not making mistakes, well not all mistakes are equal. This one was a doozie.
1. Police officers, with the power and privileges that their position offers, should be held to a tighter code of conduct within their employment than other jobs. This is not exclusive to police officers, but their specific circumstances of employment mean that they are among the employable positions that require their conduct to be held to stricter standard.
2. A police officer in FLORIDA, the same state (and actually area) that Trayvon was killed, should NOT be making/buying and shooting targets that demonstrate a figure wearing a hoodie with a bag of skittles in the pocket and holding a ice tea, CLEARLY representing Trayvon Martin.
3. Any police officer that deems doing the prior point acceptable obviously should find another area of employment. Using a representative target of a dead 17 year old boy for your training is NOT permissible and is inexcusable.
Well said and I agree 100%.
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3489/3984740106_fc4f8013f6.jpg
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the model for this target is Chris Costa. And this target was in production WAY before the Marten case.
As for the cop. I can't answer for his character but it wasn't the brightest thing to do; however, it was done one on one at the trunk of his car. It's not like he taught a class with these targets. Police officers that have a bunch of time on tend to get a really dark sense of humor. Some guys just do really stupid things with this dark humor. This guy seems like one of those alpha type cops that think they are funny when they come up with this crap and they come across really stupid.
On another note seeing a police officer wearing a shemagh while running some drills....that just really bothers me.
-Jax
Agreed. Arm chair commando behavior. You have to wonder if the department has been laying for this guy waiting for an excuse to fire him.
Unfortunately it appears these targets have been available for about a year....and sold out quite quickly at first.:confused:
http://m.nydailynews.com/1.1076865
-Jax
GeorgiaBoy
04-14-13, 20:34
"My main motivation was to make money off the controversy," the seller told Local 6.
Yep. Totally inexcusable for the officer that was using them.
I'd suggest the targets are likely popular for two reasons. One is probably because many of the buyers are essentially racist and like the thought of shooting blacks, in particular this one.
But I'd also suggest that the majority have a different motive. They see Martin as a symbol of the new standard of injustice, the one now blatantly perpetrated by the media against white men. Most of those condemning Zimmerman wouldn't have wanted anything to do with Martin and likely would themselves have feared him, yet he was blindly and aggressively sympathized with regardless.
This baseless and deceptively motivated sympathy spawned resentment, especially among those who have to deal with the hard core criminal elements in their communities. May have been bad taste, but I honestly fail to see how this surprises anyone.
1. Police officers, with the power and privileges that their position offers, should be held to a tighter code of conduct within their employment than other jobs. This is not exclusive to police officers, but their specific circumstances of employment mean that they are among the employable positions that require their conduct to be held to stricter standard.
2. A police officer in FLORIDA, the same state (and actually area) that Trayvon was killed, should NOT be making/buying and shooting targets that demonstrate a figure wearing a hoodie with a bag of skittles in the pocket and holding a ice tea, CLEARLY representing Trayvon Martin.
3. Any police officer that deems doing the prior point acceptable obviously should find another area of employment. Using a representative target of a dead 17 year old boy for your training is NOT permissible and is inexcusable.
Where can I get a printed copy of this standard?
GeorgiaBoy
04-14-13, 21:15
Where can I get a printed copy of this standard?
http://www.fdle.state.fl.us/Content/CJST/Menu/Officer-Requirements-Main-Page/LE-Ethical-Standards-of-Conduct.aspx
Principle Two
Police officers shall refrain from any conduct in an official capacity that detracts from the public's faith in the integrity of the criminal justice system.
I don't find shooting a representative target of Trayvon Martin, who's case is currently pending trial in Florida, is concurrent with the standards of conduct's principle of not detracting from public's faith of integrity.
I think you're playing it kind of fast and loose there.
"Official capacity" isn't providing a target on a shooting range.
If you don't think a guy made a mistake and lost his livelihood in the process and it was anything but political horseshit, I'd say you were wrong.
Shame on him, he's a toolbag, but its not worth taking a man's job.
http://www.fdle.state.fl.us/Content/CJST/Menu/Officer-Requirements-Main-Page/LE-Ethical-Standards-of-Conduct.aspx
I don't find shooting a representative target of Trayvon Martin, who's case is currently pending trial in Florida, is concurrent with the standards of conduct's principle of not detracting from public's faith of integrity.
You beat me to it. I found that EXACT link with a Google search for the terms, "Police Code of Conduct and Ethics." Funny how Google can answer a question in under 20 seconds when common sense fails.
GeorgiaBoy
04-14-13, 21:27
The officers were on duty during the training session. If that isn't "official capacity", then I don't know what is.
You admit the guy is a toolbag, but think he should stay on the force? Yes, its sad to see a man lose his job, but there are many more willing and qualified guys that can be on the force that won't be going around shooting Trayvon targets.
As has been said, the agency may know more about this guy than we do and determined this was a last straw in the officers actions.
I think you're playing it kind of fast and loose there.
"Official capacity" isn't providing a target on a shooting range.
If you don't think a guy made a mistake and lost his livelihood in the process and it was anything but political horseshit, I'd say you were wrong.
Shame on him, he's a toolbag, but its not worth taking a man's job.
Quite simply put, you don't have all the facts. No one on this forum does. Debating whether he should've been fired is about as useful as debating whether the sun should be yellow. :rolleyes:
FromMyColdDeadHand
04-14-13, 21:37
Quite simply put, you don't have all the facts. No one on this forum does. Debating whether he should've been fired is about as useful as debating whether the sun should be yellow. :rolleyes:
The sun is yellow because of its black body properties. Speaking of black bodies....
I don't get to do to many chemistry related jokes here... but when I do they kill...
The sun is yellow because of its black body properties. Speaking of black bodies....
I don't get to do to many chemistry related jokes here... but when I do they kill...
Well played Sir. Well played indeed.
The sun is yellow because of its black body properties. Speaking of black bodies....
I don't get to do to many chemistry related jokes here... but when I do they kill...
http://0.tqn.com/d/chemistry/1/0/n/i/1/chemcat_punelement.jpg
The officers were on duty during the training session. If that isn't "official capacity", then I don't know what is.
You admit the guy is a toolbag, but think he should stay on the force? Yes, its sad to see a man lose his job, but there are many more willing and qualified guys that can be on the force that won't be going around shooting Trayvon targets.
As has been said, the agency may know more about this guy than we do and determined this was a last straw in the officers actions.
So if I take a shit at work that's done in an official capacity?
Official capacity as your Google statute lists would be discharging the authority prescribed by the position held. IE, making an arrest or other like activities in the case of a LEO, enforcing the law.
I don't like a lot of people I work with and think quite a few are toolbags. But I wouldn't hang them out on a mistake, which is maybe a lapse in good judgment and more than likely a bold attempt at injecting humor in the situation.
I assume, for the limited purposes of this conversation, that you work with more than one person. Is every one of your co-workers as equally capable as you? Do they have the same dedication applied at a professional and personal level? Or do you have a couple of toolbags?
The problem is with your high standard, is that it isn't applied in a standard way. Without a doubt I would guarantee you in that particular agency there was and will be greater acts of tool committed, and those guys & gals will keep getting pay checks.
Those politically connected and on the right side of the decision making don't generally suffer such fates.
Lose the skittles, and it would've been totally fine; just a hoodie silhouette. So he was fired because his target had some candy in it, when you boil it down. And that's not OK
GeorgiaBoy
04-14-13, 22:42
Lose the skittles, and it would've been totally fine; just a hoodie silhouette. So he was fired because his target had some candy in it, when you boil it down. And that's not OK
Not really. That's a little bit of an oversimplification.
Not really. That's a little bit of an oversimplification.
It is, but . . . . it isn't too. A skittle-less hoodie would've been a non-issue I'd presume.
GeorgiaBoy
04-14-13, 22:52
It is, but . . . . it isn't too. A skittle-less hoodie would've been a non-issue I'd presume.
Well.. you'd have to lose the the canned tea too.
The hoodie target would mean nothing without the skittles and tea, but its the skittles and tea that make the target.
I honestly couldn't understand how anyone could get a kick out of shooting a target that you KNOW is supposed to be representative of a dead 17 year old boy. I'll be ambiguous regarding how I feel about the trial, but I don't think if Trayvon was innocent or not should he have a target essentially modeled after him being shot at by police officers in training.
Lose the skittles, and it would've been totally fine; just a hoodie silhouette. So he was fired because his target had some candy in it, when you boil it down. And that's not OK
It is, but . . . . it isn't too. A skittle-less hoodie would've been a non-issue I'd presume.
Not trying to start an argument here but this is crap logic broseph. The addition or subtraction of one small part to or from the whole can completely change the nature of a thing.
You can try to make it sound absurd by saying "some candy" but I bet you know that you're not arguing in good faith here. The presence of a specific kind of candy implies a specific thing -- that the target is Trayvon Martin.
If it was a snickers bar or a book or a whistle or a cellphone or an infinite number of other things, the thing in his hand would have absolutely no significance. Then it would just be "some candy" or some something else.
Make it Skittles and Arizona iced tea, and all of the sudden the thing in his hand makes all the difference.
That's the problem with reductionist logic. You can say, for example, a "dog is just a whirling mass of atoms and molecules when you boil it down." In some sense that's true, but when you look at the whole package rather than its individual constituents, you get a pet with its own personality etc. This is not a precise analogy of what you're doing, but it's the same basic fallacy. Yeah it's a silhouette holding some candy, but when you look at the whole package rather than its individual constituents, you get an image with significance.
Details and scale matter.
Sure. A hoodie, skittles and AZ tea represent Trayvon Martin in a way that a hoodie, a twix and a snapple wouldn't. Understood.
I still think the whole thing is PC silliness and the guy shouldn't have lost his job.
Not trying to start an argument here but this is crap logic broseph. The addition or subtraction of one small part to or from the whole can completely change the nature of a thing.
You can try to make it sound absurd by saying "some candy" but I bet you know that you're not arguing in good faith here. The presence of a specific kind of candy implies a specific thing -- that the target is Trayvon Martin.
If it was a snickers bar or a book or a whistle or a cellphone or an infinite number of other things, the thing in his hand would have absolutely no significance. Then it would just be "some candy" or some something else.
Make it Skittles and Arizona iced tea, and all of the sudden the thing in his hand makes all the difference.
That's the problem with reductionist logic. You can say, for example, a "dog is just a whirling mass of atoms and molecules when you boil it down." In some sense that's true, but when you look at the whole package rather than its individual constituents, you get a pet with its own personality etc. This is not a precise analogy of what you're doing, but it's the same basic fallacy. Yeah it's a silhouette holding some candy, but when you look at the whole package rather than its individual constituents, you get an image with significance.
Details and scale matter.
Too much effort for too little reason. We all get it.
Failure2Stop
04-15-13, 07:39
How this is an argument at all escapes me.
How this is an argument at all escapes me.
Which part?! :shout:
For reference, the target from the incident in question:
http://www.everydaynodaysoff.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Trayvon-Martin-Shooting-Target.jpg
If Obama had a son, he would have been wearing that hood.....
It is, but . . . . it isn't too. A skittle-less hoodie would've been a non-issue I'd presume.
Little things can make a big difference i displaying the intent of what someone is doing.
If for example I look at your wife while scratching my calf and say "Man what an itch!" no harm.
Now if I did the same thing but said "Man, what a *itch!" I'd assume you and her would take offense and rightfully so.
Using your logic though all I have to say is "You man, you want to fight because of a single letter? That is stupid."
That said, as many have pointed out none of us have a all the details of the days shooting and the offices past. So we are all spitting in the wind if we say he is in the clear or not.
It all comes down to intent. The "little details" that include a bag of Skittles and an Arizona Iced Tea on the target are a rather obvious indication that the target was intended to represent Travon Martin. Thus, the officer was intending to shoot at a target representing a slain citizen, in public, and in front of other officers.
Now, you can argue that it is OK for the police to shoot at targets of slain citizens - it is you right to hold that opinion. I suppose something has to separate managers from worker bees.
Voodoo_Man
04-15-13, 12:24
It all comes down to intent. The "little details" that include a bag of Skittles and an Arizona Iced Tea on the target are a rather obvious indication that the target was intended to represent Travon Martin. Thus, the officer was intending to shoot at a target representing a slain citizen, in public, and in front of other officers.
Now, you can argue that it is OK for the police to shoot at targets of slain citizens - it is you right to hold that opinion. I suppose something has to separate managers from worker bees.
Normally that's common sense, the higher up you go, the less brain cells you have.
Failure2Stop
04-15-13, 12:53
Which part?! :shout:
That this:
For reference, the target from the incident in question:
http://www.everydaynodaysoff.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Trayvon-Martin-Shooting-Target.jpg
was a good idea.
The guy put out a statement that kinda clarifies the "why", and the circumstances of the event.
Further, the guy does go on to say that it is indeed a representation of Treyvon; as a "no-shoot" target.
However, in the end, if the target is supposed to be a "no-shoot" then it really shouldn't have a big bulls-eye in the chest (in my opinion, based on my target discrimination/determination training methodology).
Honestly, I kinda bought into the "the cop was wrong" before hearing the other side of the story. I still think that it was less than brilliant, but not as bad as it seemed.
RogerinTPA
04-15-13, 12:56
It all comes down to intent. The "little details" that include a bag of Skittles and an Arizona Iced Tea on the target are a rather obvious indication that the target was intended to represent Travon Martin. Thus, the officer was intending to shoot at a target representing a slain citizen, in public, and in front of other officers.
Now, you can argue that it is OK for the police to shoot at targets of slain citizens - it is you right to hold that opinion. I suppose something has to separate managers from worker bees.
Agreed. If you are a LEO or any other public servant, it is expected that you exercise and use sound judgement at all times. The minute he decided to obtain those targets he became a lightning rod for public opinion and his department. As far as wearing a shemagh, he was obviously going for the 'down range, operator, cool guy' look and was not seeking neck protection from hot brass or sun as some have asserted. It ain't that hot down here yet. That argument carries the same weight as this guy asserting that it was being utilized as a 'no shoot' target. Wearing it is beyond ridiculous and screams 'toolbag'. He might as well have worn a 'flowing red cape' with an 'S' on his chest or a Batman outfit, to complete the D-Bag look.
Seems a bit blown out if proportion to me.
Sent from my DROID X2 using Tapatalk 2
My thoughts too. Haven't read all the replies, but I have seen a number of much more controversial targets. Hell I know one department for a time their qual targets was a black guy in a hoodie holding a gun in an area was 80% of the local pop was black and no one fired over those.
GeorgiaBoy
04-15-13, 15:45
My thoughts too. Haven't read all the replies, but I have seen a number of much more controversial targets. Hell I know one department for a time their qual targets was a black guy in a hoodie holding a gun in an area was 80% of the local pop was black and no one fired over those.
It's a big deal because the target has a CLEAR depiction of who it is supposed to represent. A generic black guy in a hoodie target, which have predated the Trayvon/Zimmeran ordeal, does not have the same meaning and implication that this target does.
The target is question was meant, without a doubt, to represent Trayvon Martin. A 17 year old kid, who was shot and killed by George Zimmerman in which the trial hasn't even been started yet.
No American police officer should ever be engaging a target like that, much less "offering" the target to fellow officers in some sort of sick "kick" out of shooting a target representative of a dead boy. The ability to chose to do that shows a character not representative of what a police officer should have.
Failure2Stop
04-15-13, 16:08
My thoughts too. Haven't read all the replies, but I have seen a number of much more controversial targets. Hell I know one department for a time their qual targets was a black guy in a hoodie holding a gun in an area was 80% of the local pop was black and no one fired over those.
Big difference between a dude with a gun/knife/bat with a bullseye on his chest and one with skittles and an ice tea.
I frequently use photo-realistic targets of varying ages, races, and of both genders, for both shoot and no-shoot targets. It's all in the setup and context.
This was stupid and preventable, and he had to know it might bite him in the ass.
That this:
was a good idea.
LOl. Got it. :lol:
That this:
Further, the guy does go on to say that it is indeed a representation of Treyvon; as a "no-shoot" target.
However, in the end, if the target is supposed to be a "no-shoot" then it really shouldn't have a big bulls-eye in the chest (in my opinion, based on my target discrimination/determination training methodology).
Honestly, I kinda bought into the "the cop was wrong" before hearing the other side of the story. I still think that it was less than brilliant, but not as bad as it seemed.
I don't believe for a minute that it was supposed to be a no-shoot target. Like you, I've NEVER seen a no-shoot target with a bullseye on its chest. In addition, all of the reports that I've seen state that he was trying to pass them out to other officers to see if they wanted to actually shoot at the targets. Not only did he fail to find any takers, it appears that one of his own fellow officers turned him in for being a douche. This no-shoot excuse was proposed after the shit storm to explain away the indefensible. Thus, he appears to be a dishonest cop which is all the more reason to can his ass.
Magic_Salad0892
04-16-13, 17:01
I actually don't like it when both shoot or no shoot targets have bullseyes on them.
I'd prefer them both be blank, because a huge white bullseye is cheating.
Not that related, I know.
Kinda silly for anyone to seriously try ti defend this guy and if any of those defending him work in law enforcement......well I'll just bite my tongue at what I would really like to say. This isn't as simple as the guy made a poor choice, a bad joke, slip up, or whatever the hell you wanna call it. Its a pure and simple case of poor judgement which a person in his position should not be making....ever. Its a poor decision that makes it hard for me to believe that guy can do his job properly knowing when to exercise some sensitivity or just a tad bit of common sense such as avoiding issues such as a dead kid that sparked a huge controversy. Wouldn't surprise me if the guy has some shady arrest under his belt if they checked. See when you exercise that kinda poor judgement you can't be trusted to do the right thing.
Moose-Knuckle
04-16-13, 19:26
If I was going to get my panites in a wad over a paper target utilized by LE it would be one of these . . .
Law Enforcement Targets, Inc. "No More Hesitation" series contains seven targets in all, titled Pregnant Woman, Elderly Man 1, Elderly Man 2, Elderly Woman, Young Mother, Little Girl, and Little Brother. Each of the depicted subjects is armed.
http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a144/AKS-74/LittleBoytarget_zpse677c928.png (http://s10.photobucket.com/user/AKS-74/media/LittleBoytarget_zpse677c928.png.html)
http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a144/AKS-74/PregnantWomantarget_zpsd663fa49.png (http://s10.photobucket.com/user/AKS-74/media/PregnantWomantarget_zpsd663fa49.png.html)
Not the same since are actually made to simulate a real training scenario while the Trayvon targets were created to make a statement whether it be political or social.
If I was going to get my panites in a wad over a paper target utilized by LE it would be one of these . . .
http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a144/AKS-74/LittleBoytarget_zpse677c928.png (http://s10.photobucket.com/user/AKS-74/media/LittleBoytarget_zpse677c928.png.html)
http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a144/AKS-74/PregnantWomantarget_zpsd663fa49.png (http://s10.photobucket.com/user/AKS-74/media/PregnantWomantarget_zpsd663fa49.png.html)
Heavy Metal
04-16-13, 19:44
Kinda silly for anyone to seriously try ti defend this guy and if any of those defending him work in law enforcement......well I'll just bite my tongue at what I would really like to say. This isn't as simple as the guy made a poor choice, a bad joke, slip up, or whatever the hell you wanna call it. Its a pure and simple case of poor judgement which a person in his position should not be making....ever. Its a poor decision that makes it hard for me to believe that guy can do his job properly knowing when to exercise some sensitivity or just a tad bit of common sense such as avoiding issues such as a dead kid that sparked a huge controversy. Wouldn't surprise me if the guy has some shady arrest under his belt if they checked. See when you exercise that kinda poor judgement you can't be trusted to do the right thing.
I agree it was poor judgment on his part. It was stupid and not something I would have done. I do think firing a career officer over something of this nature was a little overboard assuming he was otherwise satisfactorily performing his assigned duties.
A reprimand and sensitivity training? Sure, but I believe unless he had other issues this was not, in and of itself, a firable offense and suspect ultimately he wil be reinstated. It wasn't like somebody was actually physically or materially harmed by his actions.
Moose-Knuckle
04-16-13, 20:01
Not the same since are actually made to simulate a real training scenario while the Trayvon targets were created to make a statement whether it be political or social.
And now we enter 1st Amendment territory.
GeorgiaBoy
04-16-13, 20:11
And now we enter 1st Amendment territory.
The creator of the target was well within his rights to make and sell the target..
A peace officer using that target for on-duty training is another matter entirely.
Moose-Knuckle
04-16-13, 20:35
The creator of the target was well within his rights to make and sell the target..
A peace officer using that target for on-duty training is another matter entirely.
When said peace officer is on duty does his Constitutional rights become null and void? This is not so much an issue of 1st Amendment rights as it about political correctness.
And just for the record I'm not defending this officer's actions as I think it was unprofessional to utilize those targets in commission of his duties as a departmental instructor. I just find all the hullabaloo over Trayvon Martin to be abysmal.
When said peace officer is on duty does his Constitutional rights become null and void?
Only in the sense that you can't tell your manager to piss off then claim 1A protection. But really, the 1A doesn't apply to that situation anyway. That's not how it works or what it's meant to protect.
When said peace officer is on duty does his Constitutional rights become null and void? This is not so much an issue of 1st Amendment rights as it about political correctness.
And just for the record I'm not defending this officer's actions as I think it was unprofessional to utilize those targets in commission of his duties as a departmental instructor. I just find all the hullabaloo over Trayvon Martin to be abysmal.
The 1st Amendment keeps the government from throwing someone in jail for their statements. It says nothing about protecting their employment from their own stupidity.
Moose-Knuckle
04-16-13, 21:56
The 1st Amendment keeps the government from throwing someone in jail for their statements. It says nothing about protecting their employment from their own stupidity.
Negative.
The first thing to know about the First Amendment is that it is a limit only on government. It prohibits the federal government from making laws that infringe on the rights of religion, speech, press, assembly and petition. Through the Fourteenth Amendment, state and local governments are also prohibited from infringing on these rights. Yet, one of the most powerful restraints on individual freedom is the power of employers to discharge workers. People are dependent on their jobs because they need their income, their health insurance, and their economic security for retirement. If your employer is a private entity, the First Amendment offers you no protection from being fired on account of what you say. (You may still have protection from other sources described below, or in the one state that abolished employment-at-will, Montana.)
Public employees, by definition, work for the government. So, public employees do have protection from retaliation for exercising certain First Amendment rights.
Then there is the matter of this.
Many, but not all, public employees have other protections. If you belong to a union, you are likely to be protected from any discharge that is without "just cause." This right is protected by binding arbitration. Similarly, many state and local governments have civil service laws that promise continued employment during good behavior. The civil service laws typically create a government agency to conduct hearings on whether there is sufficient evidence to justify a discharge or long suspension. Public employees with these rights will want to carefully consider whether to pursue these protections with an administrative agency, or alternatively a First Amendment case in court.
While I work in an “employment-at-will” state my agency is civil service and we have a FOP lodge. If the officer in question is a member of just one of these he has a leg to stand on.
http://www.workplacefairness.org/retaliationpublic?agree=yes#1
Larry Vickers
04-16-13, 22:35
I've had Ron in several classes; he was always a very good student and I had no issues with him whatsoever
Obviously he made a serious error in judgement in this case as there is no way to really justify using a target such as this in any capacity but from my experiences with him he is a good guy and just plain screwed up- hopefully he can recover and drive on with a new job; I'm not sure if I were him I would even want this particular job back even if I could get it
Everyone steps on it on occasion - no one if perfect by a long shot; just got to live and learn
I've had Ron in several classes; he was always a very good student and I had no issues with him whatsoever
Obviously he made a serious error in judgement in this case as there is no way to really justify using a target such as this in any capacity but from my experiences with him he is a good guy and just plain screwed up- hopefully he can recover and drive on with a new job; I'm not sure if I were him I would even want this particular job back even if I could get it
Everyone steps on it on occasion - no one if perfect by a long shot; just got to live and learn
I honestly made a negative comment towards him earlier in thread Larry but your post made me think some more. This is one snap shot of one occurrence in this man's life. If one bad thing I've done were the only topic brought forth to the public then I would be labeled a douche as well.
Not saying what he did was right and I think he did have bad judgement but one mess up does not make the man no matter what he did. Be it wrong or right.
-Jax
GeorgiaBoy
04-16-13, 23:37
I still don't think that the 1st Amendment has anything to do with this situation. If your choice of target at a training session is protected by the 1A, does this mean that the officer could go around and shoot targets of his chief, the governor, or the president?
It may be political correctness but it is good political correctness. Shooting at a target of a dead teenager is abhorrent.
Moose-Knuckle
04-16-13, 23:55
It may be political correctness but it is good political correctness.
I for one believe there is no such thing as "good" political correctness.
Shooting at a target of a dead teenager is abhorrent.
The target is in fact a silhouette of several inanimate objects; a hooded sweatshirt, a can that implies an Arizona ice tea, and a bag of Skittles. It does not have a photo of Trayvon Martin.
GeorgiaBoy
04-17-13, 00:06
I for one believe there is no such thing as "good" political correctness.
Yeah, that's not a surprise.
The target is in fact a silhouette of several inanimate objects; a hooded sweatshirt, a can that implies an Arizona ice tea, and a bag of Skittles. It does not have a photo of Trayvon Martin.
Oh please MK..... :suicide2:
The target is clearly and undeniably a representative target of Trayvon Martin. You are playing semantics by trying to play the "its just a hoodie holding a ice tea" card.
I can only image the conversation the officer in question was having with his fellow officers when he was "offering" the target to them....
Moose-Knuckle
04-17-13, 01:45
Yeah, that's not a surprise.
Tell me about it . . .
Oh please MK..... :suicide2:
The target is clearly and undeniably a representative target of Trayvon Martin. You are playing semantics by trying to play the "its just a hoodie holding a ice tea" card.
So just how more offended would you be if it had his photo on the head?
I can only image the conversation the officer in question was having with his fellow officers when he was "offering" the target to them....
Well you know I don't know that they had all that much time to converse between their Klan meeting, lynch party, and range trip. :rolleyes:
Here is a question or two to ponder,
Did the the good Sergeant's actions reflect negatively upon his employer, while engaged in "county" business, on county time?
Is the Sergeant, while on county time, a representative of the county, and could his actions and/or words uttered on county time be construed as to represent the department and the county for which he works?
Wearing a uniform carries responsibilities and liabilities that working for oneself or for a private sector employer does not. Creating a negative nexus to one's employer is frequently grounds for termination.
Moose-Knuckle
04-17-13, 16:06
Did the the good Sergeant's actions reflect negatively upon his employer, while engaged in "county" business, on county time?
Is the Sergeant, while on county time, a representative of the county, and could his actions and/or words uttered on county time be construed as to represent the department and the county for which he works?
Wearing a uniform carries responsibilities and liabilities that working for oneself or for a private sector employer does not.
Which is why I stated in post #95 on the previous page; "I think it was unprofessional to utilize those targets in commission of his duties as a departmental instructor".
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.