CA Officer posts interesting Facebook comments about Open Carry

[teeroux]

1st amendment rights eh?

Im sure they would be kicking down the door of a citizen who posted they would shoot an officer on facebook. The good ole double standard in play IMHO.

[pichon]

After looking around the internet and watching some videos concerning the California open carry laws I have learned that many police officers know the law and are choosing to push their boundaries. Know your rights! You don't have to explain yourselves. They are bound by law just as much as you are whether they think so or not. I am not particularly interested in open carry for myself, but I highly respect those who do, especially in Cali where there is a standing order to harass law abiding citizens who do choose to carry openly.

Nothing bugs me more than the few LEO's who think they are above the law and represent law enforcement in a negative way. The public doesn't need to have their faith in law enforcement diminished even more.

Thanks to the LEO's who enforce the law and respect the rights of individuals.

[Glenn Dee]

It means that the police work for the people. The police derive their power from the people... NOT from the government.

[Sefner]

Originally Posted by Glenn Dee

It means that the police work for the people. The police derive their power from the people... NOT from the government.

Even if they derived their powers from the government, guess where the government gets their powers from?

[orangello]

That is pretty sad there. I hope they put this guy on parking enforcement, preferably with a flashlight & some pepper spray only, preferably a pretty pink barbie flashlight. This doesn't sound like the comment of a person i would want to enforce the laws of my community with a salary paid from my tax dollars. This guy needs some humble pie & i think a few years of unarmed parking enforcement work in some nasty neighborhoods should help him with that meal.

[Wagonman]

It means that the police work for the people. The police derive their power from the people... NOT from the government

Of course we do, what does that have to do with the OP?

[maestro pistolero]

My google alert for the "second amendment" just picked up the story, which means it's still getting bigger. it will be interesting to see how the MS media deals with it, if they don't just look the other way.

[The Canuck]

Well, Ricky,

Even if the MSM does look the other way, it's pretty much viral now. The "wurld.wyde.weeb."has him now and unless I miss my mark on this one, the bloggers won't let him go without worrying the wound for a bit...

[44 AMP]

But the comments to me show a man who revels in the power of his badge, uniform and his gun. He may be a supporter of the right to keep and bear arms, for himself, at least. But he considers people who open carry to be idiots, who need to be taught a lesson. Even though within the law, he thinks its a stupid thing to do, something that will cause him trouble, and possibly more work.

He's the "man" and if we do something he doesn't care for (even inside the law), he's going to flex his ego, and his authority, to teach us a lesson. To "prone us out". And if we give him justification, to shoot, for his own safety, of course. And he seems pretty confidant that after a couple weeks paid leave, he will be found blameless!

I don't know him, or anything about him, except what has been posted here, he may be a quite different person, especially to his friends and social group (most likely brother officers and family), who understand his humor, and share the "us vs them" mentality so prevalent in these communities. But thats not what I got from his comments, at all.

I agree this officer ought to suffer some form of punishment, socially. Not legally, he broke no laws. But some kind of crap job assignment, preferably one that does not involve dealing with the public, or being armed in the course of those duties. Not for what he said, as I understand the gallows humor cops and others use to deal with the stress of their jobs, it often becomes a way of life and intrudes into all their speech. HE should not be censured for that (if that's what it was), but he should be for being stupid enough to say it online!

That particular lapse of judgement calls all his other actions and decisions into question. Let us hope that this arrogant, trigger happy "officer of the law" doesn't get involved in a shooting, either on the job or off. He certainly has stacked the deck against himself, if he does.
Again, I am judging him by his own words, as presented here (and possibly out of context, although some context was included). But ask yourself, do we really need someone who talks like that in public, walking around in public with a badge and a gun, and the legal authority to use them at will?

[ratrodfink]

If he only gets 2 weeks off for a shooting then what will he get for his postings, 5 minutes in a time-out chair?

[Ricky]

I just went to the East Palo Alto Police department website and found the "Contact Us" page

http://www.ci.east-palo-alto.ca.us/contact.html

I mentioned that it is not a police officer's job to decide whether or not he agrees with the law, It is his duty to uphold the law and to protect the citizens of East Palo Alto. I suggested that perhaps a position in unarmed parking enforcement would be better suited for this particular officer.

Perhaps we should all have a say on this?

[zxcvbob]

That particular lapse of judgement calls all his other actions and decisions into question. Let us hope that this arrogant, trigger happy "officer of the law" doesn't get involved in a shooting, either on the job or off. He certainly has stacked the deck against himself, if he does.
Again, I am judging him by his own words, as presented here (and possibly out of context, although some context was included). But ask yourself, do we really need someone who talks like that in public, walking around in public with a badge and a gun, and the legal authority to use them at will?

Would a cop who said something like that ever be taken seriously on the witness stand again? Any good defense attorney would have a field day with that.

[Bud Helms]

If he only gets 2 weeks off for a shooting then what will he get for his postings, 5 minutes in a time-out chair?

Oh, please.

I believe the "two weeks off" is intended to mean the time taken to fully investigate a shooting and return with a "justified" ruling so the officer can return to normal duty assignments. It's not punishment. He's reassigned and continues to draw a paycheck. It's supposed to be a safeguard. In the case it is ruled "not justified", the dept would need to explain why that officer was on duty, armed, in the same environment, during the time that passed between the shooting and the time the ruling was issued. They err on the side of caution.

[MTT TL]

It almost made the news. But it was on Fox anyway.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,...5:b30653910:z0

Gun rights advocates have a California police detective in their crosshairs after he apparently posted comments on Facebook advocating that "open carry" supporters should be shot.

East Palo Alto Police Det. Rod Tuason apparently posted the remarks on his Facebook page in response to a friend's status update, which suggested that gun advocates who carry unloaded weapons openly — which is legal in California — should do so in places like "Oakland, Richmond and East Palo Alto" and not just in "hoity toity" cities.

"Haha we had one guy last week try to do it!" Tuason replied. "He got proned out [laid face-down on the ground] and reminded where he was at and that turds will jack him for his gun in a heartbeat!"

Several comments later, the detective suggested shooting the gun rights advocates, some of whom have carried firearms openly in recent weeks in California's Bay Area, particularly at Starbucks locations.

"Sounds like you had someone practicing their 2nd amendment rights last night!" Tuason wrote. "Should've pulled the AR out and prone them all out! And if one of them makes a furtive movement … 2 weeks off!!!" -- referring to the modified duty, commonly known as desk duty, that typically follows any instance in which an officer is investigated for firing his weapon.

Those comments caught the attention of a California attorney and blogger, as well as a Virginia man who started a Facebook group calling for Tuason's termination.

John Taylor, whose Facebook group had 54 members as of midday Friday, said the Facebook thread confirmed gun owners' worst fears.

"Any sworn officer who suggests shooting law-abiding citizens for exercising their most basic constitutional rights deserves the full wrath of America's gun owners," Taylor told FoxNews.com. "It's an affront."

California's Penal Code makes it illegal to carry concealed weapons without a county-issued license. But it is legal to carry an unloaded weapon in plain view in a holster. In most cases, it is illegal for an unconcealed weapon to be loaded.

Taylor, of Arlington, Va., who has a concealed weapons permit in his home state, said he planned to write a letter to the East Palo Alto Police Department demanding that Tuason be fired.

"The targeting, harassment and intimidation of law-abiding citizens who are peacefully agitating for their rights by a police officer is an abomination to the Constitution, and is in fact the exact reason our Founding Fathers created the Second Amendment," Taylor said. "Police officers who think they are going to get between law-abiding Americans and their Second Amendment rights are going to find themselves in the line of fire."

Tuason's comments were first noticed by California attorney Kevin Thomason, who posted a screen grab of the detective's remarks on his Web site on Sunday.

"[Tuason] didn't realize that actual PRO-GUN people also read Facebook," Thomason wrote. "Amazingly, he posted the following comment about law abiding gun owners on a friend's page. Basically, he's saying 'prone them out' (face down on the ground), and if anyone moves, kill them. I don't make this crap up."

Thomason, a member of the National Rifle Association, wrote that Tuason's comments were "worth a call" to the East Palo Alto City Council, as well as to his superior officers.

Tuason, who has since removed his Facebook profile, did not return messages seeking comment on Friday. He is reportedly being investigated by the police department's professional standards division regarding the Facebook remarks.

East Palo Alto Police Sgt. Rod Norris said he was unable to comment on the matter, but Capt. Carl Estelle told the San Jose Mercury News that police officials must be careful not to violate Tuason's First Amendment rights, since the comments appeared on his personal Web site.

"In no way are his personal comments reflective of any policies or procedures here at the department nor does he speak for the police department," Estelle told the newspaper.

[Al Norris]

The CalGuns Foundation has stepped up to the plate and sent a letter to the EPAPD Chief, to turn this into a teaching moment. Here.

Considering what CGF has been doing lately, you folks from CA might want to help them out: CalGuns Foundation

[Tom Servo]

To facilitate corrective action in light of the current budgeting issues faced by the City, The Calguns Foundation is willing to fumish its own resources, which include the use of trained law enforcement officers, experienced firearms rights attorneys, training materials, and guides to the City free of charge. The Chairman of The Calguns Foundation, Inc., Mr. Gene Hoffrnan, is willing to meet with you to further discuss the details of the proposed assistance.

That's one of the most noble and civilized things I've read in quite some time.

[Doc Intrepid]

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.....

[sixgun67]

I'm very interested to see if a response is made by the PD, instead of 'sweeping it under the mat'. This could go a long way towards future actions/policies from local PD's in America

[BillCA]

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.

[maestro pistolero]

I suspect it will be a while before he's eligible to make detective again, at the very least.

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 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.

[BillCA]

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.

[Webleymkv]

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.

[Doc Intrepid]

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/0...ing/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.

[BillCA]

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.

[hogdogs]

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?

Same as "proning out" any citizen who hasn't given probable cause for such behavior.
Brent