LEOs who express dissent re: drug laws get FIRED

[yellowtail3]

I'm not making this up:
 
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/03/us/officers-punished-for-supporting-eased-drug-laws.html?_r=1
 
Police Officers Find That Dissent on Drug Laws May Come With a Price

PHOENIX — Border Patrol agents pursue smugglers one moment and sit around in boredom the next. It was during one of the lulls that Bryan Gonzalez, a young agent, made some comments to a colleague that cost him his career.

Stationed in Deming, N.M., Mr. Gonzalez was in his green-and-white Border Patrol vehicle just a few feet from the international boundary when he pulled up next to a fellow agent to chat about the frustrations of the job. If marijuana were legalized, Mr. Gonzalez acknowledges saying, the drug-related violence across the border in Mexico would cease. He then brought up an organization called Law Enforcement Against Prohibition that favors ending the war on drugs.

Those remarks, along with others expressing sympathy for illegal immigrants from Mexico, were passed along to the Border Patrol headquarters in Washington. After an investigation, a termination letter arrived that said Mr. Gonzalez held “personal views that were contrary to core characteristics of Border Patrol Agents, which are patriotism, dedication and esprit de corps.”

After his dismissal, Mr. Gonzalez joined a group even more exclusive than the Border Patrol: law enforcement officials who have lost their jobs for questioning the war on drugs and are fighting back in the courts.

In Arizona, Joe Miller, a probation officer in Mohave County, near the California border, filed suit last month in Federal District Court after he was dismissed for adding his name to a letter by Law Enforcement Against Prohibition, which is based in Medford, Mass., and known as LEAP, expressing support for the decriminalization of marijuana.

“More and more members of the law enforcement community are speaking out against failed drug policies, and they don’t give up their right to share their insight and engage in this important debate simply because they receive government paychecks,” said Daniel Pochoda, the legal director for the American Civil Liberties Union of Arizona, which is handling the Miller case.

Mr. Miller was one of 32 members of LEAP who signed the letter, which expressed support for a California ballot measure that failed last year that would have permitted recreational marijuana use. Most of the signers were retired members of law enforcement agencies, who can speak their minds without fear of action by their bosses. But Mr. Miller and a handful of others who were still on the job — including the district attorney for Humboldt County in California and the Oakland city attorney — signed, too.

LEAP has seen its membership increase significantly from the time it was founded in 2002 by five disillusioned officers. It now has an e-mail list of 48,000, and its members include 145 judges, prosecutors, police officers, prison guards and other law enforcement officials, most of them retired, who speak on the group’s behalf.

“No one wants to be fired and have to fight for their job in court,” said Neill Franklin, a retired police officer who is LEAP’s executive director. “So most officers are reluctant to sign on board. But we do have some brave souls.”

Mr. Miller was accused of not making clear that he was speaking for himself and not the probation department while advocating the decriminalization of cannabis. His lawsuit, though, points out that the letter he signed said at the bottom, “All agency affiliations are listed for identification purposes only.”

He was also accused of dishonesty for denying that he had given approval for his name to appear on the LEAP letter. In the lawsuit, Mr. Miller said that his wife had given approval without his knowledge, using his e-mail address, but that he had later supported her.

Kip Anderson, the court administrator for the Superior Court in Mohave County, said there was no desire to limit Mr. Miller’s political views.

“This isn’t about legalization,” Mr. Anderson said. “We’re not taking a stand on that. We just didn’t want people to think he was speaking on behalf of the probation department.”

Mr. Miller, who is also a retired police officer and Marine, lost an appeal of his dismissal before a hearing officer. But when his application for unemployment benefits was turned down, he appealed that and won. An administrative law judge found that Mr. Miller had not been dishonest with his bosses and that the disclaimer on the letter was sufficient.

In the case of Mr. Gonzalez, the fired Border Patrol agent, he had not joined LEAP but had expressed sympathy with the group’s cause. “It didn’t make sense to me why marijuana is illegal,” he said. “To see that thousands of people are dying, some of whom I know, makes you want to look for a change.”

I wonder how many LEOs quitely agree with LEAP, but stay silent to keep their jobs and get that pension?


 

[Casull]

Wow, I'm shocked that the Border Patrol would have a problem with one of its officers having sympathy for illegal immigrants and illegal drugs.     

[Casull]

I wonder how many LEOs quitely agree with LEAP, but stay silent to keep their jobs and get that pension?

 
 
 
Well, inasmuch as LEAP has managed, in a scant nine years, to increase its membership of mostly retired judges, prosecutors, police officers, prison guards and other law enforcement types, from 5 to 145, I would imagine they must number in the millions.       

[powderman]

Wow, I'm shocked that the Border Patrol would have a problem with one of its officers having sympathy for illegal immigrants and illegal drugs.   

 
CASULL. YEP, I'm totally shocked too. I wonder how many of those criminals he has helped instead of arresting them?? POWDERMAN. 

[briarpatch]

We have to admit, if we back the Constitution, this man has every right to express his opinion on the issues. He did nothing wrong just expressed his opinion.
There is that Paragraph about... what is that called, the 1st, I believe.
The way they have been incarcerating and killing border patrol agents, something seem amiss here?

[Matt]

We have to admit, if we back the Constitution, this man has every right to express his opinion on the issues.

Problem is many here seem to think that the constitution only consists of the second amendment.


Matt

[Casull]

Problem is many here seem to think that the constitution only consists of the second amendment.

 
 
 
Well, that is not the only problem.  We also have those that think that if a right is noted in the Constitution, it is ABSOLUTE as to TIME, PLACE, and SITUATION.  It just ain't so.  You know, that whole thing about not shouting "fire in a crowded theater".  This guy was on the job, in his patrol vehicle and espousing contempt of the very laws he was hired to enforce.  I'd say his EMPLOYER has some say over how he conducts himself ON THE JOB. 

[Matt]

And I say that he has the right to his opinions and to express them without fear of reprisal.
It is just a difference in the understanding of the terms Liberty and Freedom. You feel they mean one thing and I another.
Personally I am sick of hearing how the LEO's are over stepping the law and breaking the oath they swore to uphold. When I do hear of one having compassion of any sort it gives me hope that there are a few good ones out there who want  to help others and not just collect a paycheck and beat people down.


Matt

[ironglow]

  Anyone who has served in our military, has long ago found that in certainn situations/jobs, portions of the constitution are suspended.  I.C.E. being basically a military organization, I have little doubt they are set up about the same way.  Perhaps someone here knows for sure.
   While in the military, I didn't like having to store my personal guns in the arms room, nor did I care for "curfews" when stationed in certain places overseas..shucks, I didn't even like needing a pass to travel XXX miles from post, when I was stationed in Europe.  ... But that is just the start of "rights loss" in certain jobs.
   I suppose you think we should be surprised that an agent stating that Illegal aliens and illegal drugs should be made legal, has run into "on the job" problems...
  Suppose a deputy sheriff told the sheriff he should not be arresting robbers, wife beaters and drug pushers any more !..
  Or suppose a Marine Sgt were to tell his superiors that he and his men were not going to fire on the enemy any more and the Corps is entirely wrong in doing so!!
  He is law enforcement (Judiciary), he is not a lawmaker (legislative)...his job is to ENFORCE the law he has been provided.

[yellowtail3]

Let me set some minds at ease; it may be I've caused unneccesary worry. Most LE/LEOs will continue to support the War on (some) Drugs, as it is their bread & butter, their gravy train, and their rice bowl. For a good many, it is their reason to be. Their jobs & pensions are #1; ideas which might endanger that aren't considered.

[Matt]

We also have those who read way more into something than is there. I did not see where he was refusing to do his job. But I too think the war on drugs is bogus and a total waste of tax dollars and it is an assault on personal liberty.


All I can say is my Great Grandfather and Grandfathers generations got us into this mess then my Fathers generation sit back and let it get worse and now that Mine and My Sons generation are trying to effect real change and bring this Nation back to Greatness we are met with resistance from the very people who sit idly by while it all went down hill. Where was your vigor when you choose the lessor of two evils all those years?


Matt

[Old Syko]

Matt you're beating a dead horse.  Most here only believe in freedom of speech if they're doing the talking, freedom of religion when it's their religion, and so on.  God forbid you would mention the failings of their generation or their elders!  All the failings of the world can be charged to the hippies of the 60s and the youngsters of today.

[powderman]

He has the right to say what he did, but he also cast doubt that he would do the job he was hired to do, at least in my opinion. His name of gonzalez might well affect his thoughts on the law. If any of you were the  head of border patrol and a man applied for work and made those statements would any of you hire him?? I wouldn't. POWDERMAN. 

[Mike38]

We have to admit, if we back the Constitution, this man has every right to express his opinion on the issues. He did nothing wrong just expressed his opinion.
There is that Paragraph about... what is that called, the 1st, I believe.
The way they have been incarcerating and killing border patrol agents, something seem amiss here?

Agree with it or not, there is no such thing as freedom of speech in the work place. Be it Law Enforcement, Military, Industry, you name it, say something bad about your employer, or say something in disagreement of policies, and you are history. Been that way for quite some time now, and it’s getting worse. Play the game, or be unemployed, the choice is yours.

[ironglow]

  Obviously when we go to vote, we MUST hold out for the perfect person to elect, and if the absolutely perfect candidate is not on the ballot..refuse to vote. Yeah, sure, that will show them !!
  oooooooooooooooo   
     Needless to say, only one perfect man was ever born...and He's not running for president of the U.S.!  So, we could not vote in the coming presidential election, since any current or future candidates would by necessity, be "less than perfect".  To vote for them would automatically be voting for "the lesser of two evils".  Refusing to vote would of course, would leave the field of battle to our political enemies, possibly what happened in the last presidential election.
 
        If you think I am wrong, please show me one example of past president or any other elected official of our nation who was or is "perfect in all his/her ways". Those who wrote our national constitution were far from perfect, and they would probably be the first to admit it.  They would and did however, admit their complete reliance upon the guidance of God.

[yellowtail3]

His name of gonzalez might well affect his thoughts on the law.

How so?

[Dee]

He has the right to say what he did, but he also cast doubt that he would do the job he was hired to do, at least in my opinion. His name of gonzalez might well affect his thoughts on the law. If any of you were the  head of border patrol and a man applied for work and made those statements would any of you hire him?? I wouldn't. POWDERMAN. 

Not necessarily powderman. I personally participated in that "war on drugs" for 20 years. Five of those years were "full time just on drugs", and I can tell you that the "war on drugs" does not exist. The "war on personal property" actually exists, but the drugs are only a pathway to the property.
I as an officer of over 20 years have always been against: meth, cocaine of any form, heroin, ect. But marijuana? While I have not smoked it, I have dealt with many whom not only smoked it, but continue to do so. I also to perhaps some's surprise do not consider it the "gateway drug" it is purported to be.
The only reason it is not legal today, is that the government cannot figure out how to tax something you can grow at home without special tools.
ALCOHOL IS A DRUG, but beer sure goes good with Mexican food, and gosh! A whiskey and coke, is good on the porch in the evening.
Gonzalez may be Mexican by descent but, that doesn't make him a supporter of the criminal element in drug trafficking. I am of American Indian decent, and I fully support the United States Military. Besides. If marijuana was legalized, it WOULD cut the trafficking down about 60%, as it would take the money out of it. Gonzalez is RIGHT. But stupid for speaking truth. That's why most officers don't say it. They want to keep their job. As far as "retired officers" coming out against marijuana laws. Perhaps they have seen both sides, that FEW OTHERS HAVE SEEN, AND ACTUALLY KNOW LITTLE ABOUT, BUT "THINK" THEY DO. YA RECKON?
I have seen far more drunks ruin their own lives, and those of others, than a pot smoker ever has.

P.S. IF they legalize marijuana? I still won't  be smokin it.

[jlwilliams]

  I'm amazed that his remarks were sent off to Washington instead of just dealt with by a supervisor.
 
  I'm not even going to get into my thoughts on the war on drugs, drugs themselves or immigration.  None of that is really important.  At least my opinion of that isn't important.  I'm just taken aback at the way this case of on the job griping was handled.
 
  When a co-worker says something you take professional issue with, normal people may either say something on the spot or bring it up to a supervisor.  That would seem reasonable.  Then the boss may decide to have a word with the guy.  Bring up the issue and give the guy a chance to clarify.  What's his beef?  Does he have a problem with the job, or just spouting off?   This just seems more than a little out of proportion.  Why does a guy bitching about the percieved futility of his job get handled like this?  Why file a damn 'report' and jam this guy up when he should have had a conversation with the boss?  Then his boss could have told him that he should either shut up and do his job or, if he really thinks that his job and his employer are a waste of time, maybe offer him a transfer or a reccomendation to move into another field?  Why trash this guy's career because he thinks marijuana decriminalization would somehow improve the mission of his agency?  OK, that's contrary to the agency's position and maybe so far contrary to warrant a parting of ways. That should have been hashed over and dealt with in his supervisor's office, not in Washington DC.
 
 Beurocrats thousands of miles away from the reality of this guy and his co-worker's day to day job should not have been brought in.  they just couldn't have added value to the decision.

[Dee]

There is a Texas Border Patrolman of Mexican decent in jail right now, for forcing a smuggler whom had been cuffed onto the ground. The smuggler was released to go back to Mexico with no charges filed. He was then brought BACK  (at our expense) to the U.S. to testify at the Border Patrol Agents' trail for excessive force, and then allowed to go back to Mexico. Is anyone here really stupid enough to believe that this "war on drugs" is not a political game? Is anyone here so stupid, that they cannot see the comparisons of whiskey verses another drug such as marijuana, as being at least similar, but one being "politically motivated as illegal" as less easily controlled for political sake?

Like I said. Never smoked it! Don't intend to smoke it! Have arrested a bunch of folks for possessing it, because it's "against the law". But, REMEMBER THE VOLSTEAD ACT? Alcohol used to be illegal, until the revenue loss was realized in D.C.

[magooch]

I don't like having to stop at a red light when there isn't another vehicle within a mile, but that's the damned law.  Stupid, or not, we as individuals don't get to pick and choose which laws to obey unless we are ready to accept the consequences. 
 
If I had my choice between making pot legal, or making alcohol illegal, I would choose the latter.  But that's just me and I don't get to make the laws for other people and I'm sure that is appreciated.  It's good to be appreciated for something.

[Casull]

One thing most of you seem to have conveniently overlooked.  This guy was not just saying that marijuana should be decriminalized.  He was advocating an end to the war on drugs, which includes, yes, heroin, cocaine, etc.  AND, he was sympathizing with the illegal immigrants (you know, invaders).  Now, it seems to me that a BORDER PATROL agent who is siding with those attempting to illegally cross the border has issues with the main crux of his job.  But, maybe I'm just not seeing it right.     

[Dee]

Actually taking sides, (siding with), and expressing sympathy for, are two different things. I feel sorry for the drunk, but don't intend to aid in his self destructive choices. I Have not seen the crux of his actual statements, merely someones VERSION of what he said. On these very forums I myself have been construed to say something, that I didn't say, or imply.  The real cause of this border war with drug dealers is not this Border Agent, nor his remarks. The REAL AND ACTUAL CAUSE IS THE MILLIONS OF AMERICAN DOPE FIENDS PROVIDING THE MARKET DEMAND.
I do realize however, it is easier to lynch one Border Agent, than to admit that America's addiction to drugs is the real culprit.

[magooch]

It could well be that there is another side to this story and when you hear the whole thing, it might not be conspiratorial at all and it might even make some sense.  I doubt very much that the border agent was let go, because it was easier to fire him than to rid the country of drug addicts.
 
TM, by all means, please share with us and better yet, share with the authorities how you would eradicate illegal drugs and the trafficers.

[Dee]

Then if this is so concerning the fired Border Agent, why is the other Border Agent in jail, and the drug mule at home planning his next trip across the border?

[yellowtail3]

The REAL AND ACTUAL CAUSE IS THE MILLIONS OF AMERICAN DOPE FIENDS PROVIDING THE MARKET DEMAND.

Fiends... that sounds scary. Those must be some really bad, bad people. Does this include tobacco fiends, or only certain kinds of... fiends? Beer fiends, maybe, in dry counties?

[nw_hunter]

  Anyone who has served in our military, has long ago found that in certainn situations/jobs, portions of the constitution are suspended.  I.C.E. being basically a military organization, I have little doubt they are set up about the same way.  Perhaps someone here knows for sure.
   While in the military, I didn't like having to store my personal guns in the arms room, nor did I care for "curfews" when stationed in certain places overseas..shucks, I didn't even like needing a pass to travel XXX miles from post, when I was stationed in Europe.  ... But that is just the start of "rights loss" in certain jobs.
   I suppose you think we should be surprised that an agent stating that Illegal aliens and illegal drugs should be made legal, has run into "on the job" problems...
  Suppose a deputy sheriff told the sheriff he should not be arresting robbers, wife beaters and drug pushers any more !..
  Or suppose a Marine Sgt were to tell his superiors that he and his men were not going to fire on the enemy any more and the Corps is entirely wrong in doing so!!
  He is law enforcement (Judiciary), he is not a lawmaker (legislative)...his job is to ENFORCE the law he has been provided.

I don't think he was brought up on charges of failing to carry out his duty, was he?
Just mentioning his personal views while on duty. Heaven forbid anyone doing that!

I don't know how anyone can compare the Military code with Civil! Law enforcement should never be ran like the military.His job is to enforce the laws on the books. In his case having to do with the border.Why shouldn't he have the right to free speech like any other citizen?

Did he fail to perform because of his opinion?If not, then he did no wrong!

[ironglow]

The REAL AND ACTUAL CAUSE IS THE MILLIONS OF AMERICAN DOPE FIENDS PROVIDING THE MARKET DEMAND.

Fiends... that sounds scary. Those must be some really bad, bad people. Does this include tobacco fiends, or only certain kinds of... fiends? Beer fiends, maybe, in dry counties?

''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
 Simple answer.. DUH!! "tobacco fiends" and "beer fiends" are NOT supporting the murderous cartels..
    If these 'tobacco and beer fiends' knew full well they were supporting an illegal industry that is seeking at this very hour, to destroy our country and are aiding and supporting terrorists who are killing our troops every day..I would feel the same about them...
    I have many years ago decided to eschew all those habits...but let's keep it straight; tobacco and beer are NOT illegal, and the money spent on them doesn't go to aid terrorists and cartel murderers.
 
   NOT TOO DIFFICULT TO FIGURE OUT !!!

[jlwilliams]

The REAL AND ACTUAL CAUSE IS THE MILLIONS OF AMERICAN DOPE FIENDS PROVIDING THE MARKET DEMAND.

Fiends... that sounds scary. Those must be some really bad, bad people. Does this include tobacco fiends, or only certain kinds of... fiends? Beer fiends, maybe, in dry counties?

''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
 Simple answer.. DUH!! "tobacco fiends" and "beer fiends" are NOT supporting the murderous cartels..
    If these 'tobacco and beer fiends' knew full well they were supporting an illegal industry that is seeking at this very hour, to destroy our country and are aiding and supporting terrorists who are killing our troops every day..I would feel the same about them...
    I have many years ago decided to eschew all those habits...but let's keep it straight; tobacco and beer are NOT illegal, and the money spent on them doesn't go to aid terrorists and cartel murderers.
 
   NOT TOO DIFFICULT TO FIGURE OUT !!!

  Lets not forget the 'gasoline fiends'.

[yellowtail3]

I wonder if maybe I'm a Marlin Fiend... after all, I've got two of them...

[Dee]

The REAL AND ACTUAL CAUSE IS THE MILLIONS OF AMERICAN DOPE FIENDS PROVIDING THE MARKET DEMAND.

Fiends... that sounds scary. Those must be some really bad, bad people. Does this include tobacco fiends, or only certain kinds of... fiends? Beer fiends, maybe, in dry counties?

yellowtail3, are you really that slow minded? Are you seriously impaired to the point, that you resort to comparing smokers and drinkers,  are buying tobacco and beer from Mexican cartels, or are you just offended by the word FIEND? It's in the dictionary I assure you, and it is a very accurate description of a dope head, or in this case, the term FIEND. You don't have to answer, I'm gonna go back to ignoring you anyway.