Quote:
Originally Posted by Razor
As a lieutenant (my department was founded in 1775, and had over 500k at the time  ), I expected my battalion and brigade commanders to be able to pass an APFT and qualify with their assigned weapon, even though they weren't expected to engage in direct combat unless things went very wrong. Fortunately, I wasn't disappointed.
I guess its a difference in cultures. I'm happy to hear these two chiefs can at least support their officers that are serving on two fronts. |
LOL. Understood.
In law enforcement, you kinda have to pick your battles. Im just saying that if I had a Chief who supported his Officers' decisions, backed them in the media, fought hard for them against city council budget cuts, etc., I really wouldn't be up in arms if I later found out that he didn't go to the range and qualify that year (with a weapon that he never carried anyway).
If I had one that was a douche bag, the fact that he didn't qualify woudl be one more nail in the coffin....
Like I said, you so rarely get a Chief that is "pro police" anymore that you are hesitatnt to attack one over what, considering their role, is a minor issue.
but I still understand what you are saying..