Originally posted by Bardock42oops....missed that.
Dude, I gave my interpretation in my first reply. You actually replied to it. Sadako and Schecter agreed with it. I'm not dodging, I already gave you my interpretation.
as far as your interpretation goes, it can indeed taken the way you are taking it, but lets be perfectly clear. You are saying that a uniform worn by an officer while he is off duty, working a second job, a uniform DIFFERENT than his HPD uniform, must be approved by his superiors?
Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
oops....missed that.as far as your interpretation goes, it can indeed taken the way you are taking it, but lets be perfectly clear. You are saying that a uniform worn by an officer while he is off duty, working a second job, a uniform DIFFERENT than his HPD uniform, must be approved by his superiors?
It seems to me that this law says that an uniform of a private agency has a) to be different from a real police uniform and b) be approved by the chief of police. That's how I'd interpret it. So, yeah, if a police officer wants to legally accept a job as a uniformed security guard the uniform has to be different than his Police uniform and must have been approved, coincidentally by his superiors.
Originally posted by Bardock42
It seems to me that this law says that an uniform of a private agency has a) to be different from a real police uniform and b) be approved by the chief of police. That's how I'd interpret it. So, yeah, if a police officer wants to legally accept a job as a uniformed security guard the uniform has to be different than his Police uniform and must have been approved, coincidentally by his superiors.
http://www.lmnc.org/pdfs/LMCITMemos/MoonlightingCityLiability.pdf
A bit outdated, but:
Originally posted by Rogue JediInteresting link:
http://www.lmnc.org/pdfs/LMCITMemos/MoonlightingCityLiability.pdf
"There are some common requirements and restrictions for departments that allow outside “independent contractor” employment. Among those are:
• Disclosure via written application to the police chief.
• Renewal or review of the application on a yearly or frequent basis.
• Prohibitions or restrictions on the use of the uniform.
• Identifying oneself as an officer with the department while working off-duty.
• Restrictions on police-type or police-related work.
CONCLUSIONS
Police departments can place restrictions on outside employment when such employment would be “detrimental to the mission and functions of the employer.” Police departments can and probably should place restrictions on outside employment that involves the use of police department uniforms and/or equipment. Police departments can also require those “hiring” police officers for off-duty or extra-duty employment to meet departmental requirements that include reasonable business-related restrictions on the events and venues at which the police officer may work, and restrictions on the number of “off-duty” hours a police officer may work within any pay period."
This makes me think that the officer or the department probably were operating outside the legal requirements, nonetheless your story is likely, and as I said before, I doubt you make stuff up.
But come on, dude, it's still funny, you are 37 years old and got asked for ID. One could file that under "lol"
Originally posted by Bardock42It struck me as funny, not "Haha" funny, just as "huh" funny. I got ID'd at the corner store thursday night for a case of beer, so it's really nothing new to me.
Interesting link:"There are some common requirements and restrictions for departments that allow outside “independent contractor” employment. Among those are:
• Disclosure via written application to the police chief.
• Renewal or review of the application on a yearly or frequent basis.
• Prohibitions or restrictions on the use of the uniform.
• Identifying oneself as an officer with the department while working off-duty.
• Restrictions on police-type or police-related work.
CONCLUSIONS
Police departments can place restrictions on outside employment when such employment would be “detrimental to the mission and functions of the employer.” Police departments can and probably should place restrictions on outside employment that involves the use of police department uniforms and/or equipment. Police departments can also require those “hiring” police officers for off-duty or extra-duty employment to meet departmental requirements that include reasonable business-related restrictions on the events and venues at which the police officer may work, and restrictions on the number of “off-duty” hours a police officer may work within any pay period."This makes me think that the officer or the department probably were operating outside the legal requirements, nonetheless your story is likely, and as I said before, I doubt you make stuff up.
But come on, dude, it's still funny, you are 37 years old and got asked for ID. One could file that under "lol"
Oh yeah, just to seal the win:
http://www.gazette.net/stories/070407/frednew25858_32364.shtml
Originally posted by RocasAtollBe that as it may, he certainly showed that in some states off-duty officers are allowed to wear their uniforms, which strongly supports his statement. I really doubt he would make that up. He might be someone that has to tell everything that happens to him on the Internet, but he's not really a liar as far as I can tell.
Ya. That was a great link. Because it was about Texas, not Maryland.
Originally posted by Bardock42This is as close to "RJ, you were right and we were wrong" as I am gonna get, isn't it?
Be that as it may, he certainly showed that in some states off-duty officers are allowed to wear their uniforms, which strongly supports his statement. I really doubt he would make that up. He might be someone that has to tell everything that happens to him on the Internet, but he's not really a liar as far as I can tell.
Originally posted by RocasAtollThe argument has turned to whether cops are allowed AT ALL to wear their uniforms while working extra jobs.
No, because he wasn't working as a bouncer (Which you said), and was most likely on duty to check ID's because of a complaint of minors.
And I pwned the argument. Maybe you should try and keep up.
And the fact remains that the cop who checked my ID was in fact in uniform. He was on extra duty, getting paid, in uniform. Believe it or not, I could care less. Maybe he was not a "bouncer", but he was checking ID's.
Anything else? Insert quarter for a new game.
Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
The argument has turned to whether cops are allowed AT ALL to wear their uniforms while working extra jobs.And I pwned the argument. Maybe you should try and keep up.
And the fact remains that the cop who checked my ID was in fact in uniform. He was on extra duty, getting paid, in uniform. Believe it or not, I could care less. Maybe he was not a "bouncer", but he was checking ID's.
Anything else? Insert quarter for a new game.
*Reinserts new credit*
*Resumes old game that RJ thought was over.*
But it wasn't because you look under 21.
No-ones attacking your age. As you note, Im in my 30s too.
And Im saying simply: and with NO offense intended, but there is no way you look anything less than 35+. Fact. Thats why its so unbelieveable to all here that you say seriously got pulled for age being under 21.
Its nothing personal, that lol- and if anyone seems to have a problem with your age, its you- judging from this debate. So you look mid thirties? So what..? No need to think it a bad thing.
Chicks aren't always into fetuses, are they...??! Hell, this is probably a time to look at life's pluses in that you have a balance of relative youth and life experience right now. Enjoy it. 🙂
Anyhow, like Bardock says: Your conclusion is of "PWNAGE" is both premature and over-self-asserted.