East Palo Alto Cop in trouble

[1911fan]

I would only be upset if he posted such sentiments while clearly labeling himself as a member of said police force, so that it would be read as somehow speaking with the authority of his PD.

[Paul]

I would only be upset if he posted such sentiments while clearly labeling himself as a member of said police force, so that it would be read as somehow speaking with the authority of his PD.

I agree with that... Even if that is the case though, it is still a private Facebook account for an individual.

Many departments take issue with personnel using media (pictures/patches/badges and so on) for personal use. That's a different issue I suppose... It all becomes a sticky situation.

If he comes out and says "As officer whoever of said police department I think we should do ________ ." that's one thing... If he made an off handed comment and it simply mentioned in his profile under the occupation tab that he was a police officer for whatever agency, I think you got to look at that a little differently.

[jgalt]

user842-

You replied while I was writing. I figured we basically agreed - glad to see that confirmed!

Also, the following is not directed at you personally - I'm simply using your post regarding "inalienable rights" as a jumping off point for a pet peeve of mine...

------------------------------------------------------

The 1st Amendment says "Congress shall make no law", not "no one can ever criticize anyone, ever, for the words that come out of their mouth" - or type of Facebook.

The guy made a very ill-advised and downright stupid statement. If he were applying for a job with me - any job - he would not be hired. He clearly has shown a lack of judgment in the extreme, and I could not trust that his judgment in any other area would be any better.

Now, why any other employer would trust this guy's judgment is beyond me. Saying so does not in any way infringe upon this guy's 1st Amendment rights, just as his statement in no way infringes upon any of my rights. Saying that I don't trust his judgment as someone who carries a gun - LEO or not - does not infringe upon his rights either. Questioning why a public entity - the EPA Police - would trust his judgment, regardless of whether or not he carries a gun, does not infringe upon anyone's rights.

My solution is to simply stay out of East Palo Alto. Easy to do now that I live 2000 miles away, but I did drive through there not infrequently when I lived in the Bay Area. If the department does not in some way publicly discipline this officer for his statements, then I would not have any reason to believe the judgment of the department as a whole could be trusted, and I would not voluntarily put myself under their jurisdiction.

The only folks who can legitimately demand that something be done are those folks who live &/or work in EPA - if they care that one of the folks sworn to uphold the law in their jurisdiction holds these views, then something will be done about it. If not, then it won't. Regardless, even such a demand would not violate anyone's Constitutional rights. Such a demand may very well run up against some contract rights - which is where the union would step in, and where most likely the department would have problems enforcing any discipline - but his fundamental / Constitutional rights will remain in tact.

[jgalt]

For those who couldn't / wouldn't / didn't click through the link, here is the story. Looks like the comments may have been made in jest, but they look to be worse than what the OP posted...

East Palo Alto cop takes heat for Facebook remarks

By Jessica Bernstein-Wax

Daily News Staff Writer
Posted: 02/09/2010 03:00:00 AM PST
Updated: 02/09/2010 02:45:54 PM PST

An East Palo Alto police detective is taking heat in online forums for allegedly posting comments from his Facebook account that advocate shooting Open Carry gun advocates.

Detective Rod Tuason apparently made the remarks in response to a friend's status update, which joked that gun advocates who carry unloaded weapons in plain view as a political statement should start doing so in places such as Oakland, Richmond and East Palo Alto "and not limit themselves to hoity toity cities."

"Haha, we had one guy last week try to do it!" Tuason replied, referring to a Redwood City man who strolled into the Mi Pueblo Food Center in East Palo Alto on Jan. 27 with a gun on his hip. "He got proned out and reminded where he was at and that turds will jack him for his gun in a heartbeat!"

After several more comments in the thread, Tuason apparently joked that officers should shoot the advocates, who have made recent headlines throughout the Bay Area for sipping coffee at cafes and performing other everyday acts with visible weapons.

"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!!!"

It's unclear when Tuason made the comments, but they attracted the attention of gun rights advocates after blogger and lawyer Kevin Thomason posted a screen grab of the thread and a link to Tuason's Facebook
Advertisement
page on his Web site Sunday.

"East Palo Alto, CA Detective Roderick Tuason didn't realize that actual PRO-GUN people also read Facebook," Thomason said in the post. "Amazingly, he posted the following comment about law abiding gun owners on a friend's page. Basically, he's saying 'prone them out' (on the ground), and if anyone moves, kill them."

Thomason urged his readers to contact East Palo Alto council members to complain. Reached by phone Monday, Thomason said he wanted to comment but couldn't because he works with a nonprofit foundation that wouldn't want him to speak publicly on the matter.

California Penal Code bars carrying concealed weapons without a county-issued license but says it isn't a crime to openly display a firearm in a belt holster. However, it remains illegal for the gun to be loaded in most cases.

While residents who carry unloaded, registered guns in plain view aren't breaking any laws, police have said the practice is dangerous because officers can't tell whether a gun is loaded and what an armed person's intentions are.

Tuason didn't return a phone message seeking comment Monday. But East Palo Alto police Capt. Carl Estelle said the department's professional standards division is looking into the Facebook remarks to see if they violate any rules or policies.

"We have to be careful because they're on his own personal private Web page," Estelle said. "We have to be careful not to violate his First Amendment rights."

The department hasn't taken action against Tuason, and the detective was working in uniform Monday, he said.

"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 said.

Meanwhile, Tuason's Facebook comments had sparked a 45-page thread on the Web site Calguns.net Monday afternoon. A user with the handle .45shooter claiming to be either Tuason or the detective's Facebook friend who posted the original status update — the identity wasn't clear from the post — apologized to site members and said he was a Second Amendment advocate himself.

"Sometimes sacastic or off color humor should be best kept in the confines of those you can confide in," the poster wrote. "I forgot the golden rule of whos watching and listenting to you! I know i ruffled alot of feathers by making that comment! But as a person i did not mean no harm to anyone. Those that know me know my form of humor after all i'm a former Marine!"

Mark Hudson, a San Mateo resident and Second Amendment supporter, said that while he isn't part of the Open Carry movement, he saw the post on Calguns and Tuason's comments offended him.

"The reason people are open carrying is because in San Mateo County they're unable to get concealed carry permits," Hudson said. "This East Palo Alto policeman basically said he would shoot you in the back — a law-abiding citizen exercising their Second Amendment rights. ... You're going to invite law enforcement into your life when you open carry. That's why I don't do it."

[Paul]

I'm with you... It's more that he spoke his mind, which he is entitled to do, which is what I find odd that people are upset about. Same deal as the anti's having issue with people here carrying guns, because they have issue with it, doesn't infringe on your ability to do so. It is what it is.

And you can find a million reasons not to hire a person... That's not the issue here. The issue is that the guy is already hired, and it's usually pretty difficult to fire cops without good cause. What I'm getting at... Did he break any laws? Did he break any of the conditions of his employment, or violate department police by making the statements? (based on your contract statement) I don't know, but if not... I don't see a whole lot that the department can do.

[Paul]

Thanks for posting the story.

Seems like they were comments/jokes made in poor taste than anything else.

Cops do have a twisted sense of humor.

[jgalt]

I'm with you... It's more that he spoke his mind, which he is entitled to do, which is what I find odd that people are upset about. Same deal as the anti's having issue with people here carrying guns, because they have issue with it, doesn't infringe on your ability to do so. It is what it is.

And you can find a million reasons not to hire a person... That's not the issue here. The issue is that the guy is already hired, and it's usually pretty difficult to fire cops without good cause. What I'm getting at... Did he break any laws? Did he break any of the conditions of his employment, or violate department police by making the statements? (based on your contract statement) I don't know, but if not... I don't see a whole lot that the department can do.

Exactly the right questions to ask - which the first few commenters where not doing. There is an argument that could be made that the people he has been hired to serve should have some way of demanding effective discipline for him, but not in an ex-post-facto way. If he hasn't broken any laws or rules of employment currently in place, then we agree, there is very little - probably nothing - that can, and I would argue should, be done.

[Paul]

And reading the story... You can open carry your gun, but just not loaded? That's beyond stupid.

[jgalt]

And reading the story... You can open carry your gun, but just not loaded? That's beyond stupid.

Welcome to California - one of the many reasons I didn't mind leaving...

[DeanC]

A poorly thought out joke didn't go so well for this Mankato cop.

[jgalt]

Thanks for posting the story.

Seems like they were comments/jokes made in poor taste than anything else.

Cops do have a twisted sense of humor.

No doubt - and it is one I tend to share...

[1911fan]

And reading the story... You can open carry your gun, but just not loaded? That's beyond stupid.

Welcome to California - one of the many reasons I didn't mind leaving...

State law says loaded open carry is legal. But each county and city have differing laws because the is no state law regarding pre-emption

[Norsesmithy]

Actually it is state law that mandates the firearm be unloaded (unless you have a permit, believe it or not, some of the "State of Jefferson" counties do issue significant numbers of concealed carry permits).

This law was written after the Black Panthers marched on the state capital back in the 60s, open carrying about 2 dozen M1 Carbines, loaded and ready to go.

[justaguy]

I think I speak for everyone here when I say cops shouldn't have the same right we do.

[justaguy]

I think I speak for everyone here when I say cops shouldn't have the same right we do.

And anyone with a facebook account is a Chach bag.