Other State MA Police Chief tells officers with PTSD they can't have guns

[The Heretic]

Chief Tells 3 Cops Their Work-Related PTSD Makes Them Ineligible To Have Guns - Blue Lives Matter

Read More

 

[MannyGlocks]

I'm sure the 'chief' is anti-gun, which is rather oxy-moronic given his job...what a doosh,

many chiefs are like this, even in large cities in Texas.

How chiefs can be dem/commies is quite the puzzle, until you realize they're no longer 'police' but are instead 'politicians'.

 

[No_Regerts]

They try to pull that crap here. The department "provides" a staff psychologist to help adter a critical incident. The psychologist isn't there to help the staff, they are there to limit the liability to the agency. So, he is the most underworked employee and makes over $120,000. No one talks to him and if help is really needed, go outside the agency for it.

 

[No_Regerts]

I'm sure the 'chief' is anti-gun, which is rather oxy-moronic given his job...what a doosh,

many chiefs are like this, even in large cities in Texas.

How chiefs can be dem/commies is quite the puzzle, until you realize they're no longer 'police' but are instead 'politicians'.

The chief if a police department is appointed by the mayor and/or confirmed by the city council. In highly political cities like Portland and Seattle, the chief had better stay in step with the mayor if they want to keep their job. Most chiefs are chosen from outside the agency. The vast majority of the officers won't know them and won't agree with them. That's why they have unions.

 

[Andy54Hawken]

The stigma with how PTSD is viewed , can lead to the folks who suffer from it , to not seek the help they may need ...Or cost them their jobs and lives.
One can have PTSD and not be a danger to themselves or others.
Maybe the Chief here needs to look at his officers and not at some label they have been assigned....
Andy

 

[RetiredLEO]

Chief Tells 3 Cops Their Work-Related PTSD Makes Them Ineligible To Have Guns - Blue Lives Matter

Second Amendment issues aside there is, it seems to me, an entire backstory that we are not aware of here. These three officers are on paid, medical leave for a year and a half getting paid for sitting at home?!!! Can't get them unstuck from the rolls except by taking away their guns?!!!! They are politically active within their LE organization?!!! At what point does the city have to no longer continue to carry three empty slots that they can't fill which puts additional burden on officers who are working??? If they are actually disabled to the point of being fit for duty they should be granted a medical retirement and they should get the treatment they need. It sounds like a political, morale, supervision, vindictive, poor leadership cluster to me!!! No winners. Who would want to work for any LEA under those conditions anyway? Time to move on, exercise your options as certified LEOs. There are a myriad of great LEAs, large and small, north and south, city, county, state and federal that would love to hire a certified, trained, experienced, dedicated LEO. (Unless there is a legitimate, potentially serious PTSD problem with these three officers, of course which is a whole different part of the backstory in itself).
Semper Fi

 

[bbbass]

Chief Tells 3 Cops Their Work-Related PTSD Makes Them Ineligible To Have Guns - Blue Lives Matter

There's a real easy fix that my friends that worked at Pelican Bay Prison in Calif applied... permanent disability/retirement/settlement due to PTSD of working with prisoners, or even just at the prison. I know enough LEOs thru my former work that I can see how stressful the job is, and can imagine that some kind of traumatic incident could leave one unable to work.

IMO They should get off the dime, and sue for compensation/retirement, not sue to get their job related guns back. Although, isn't it traditional for off-duty officers to have weapons due to the dangers of being targeted? Wouldn't this decision then be endangering them?

Now if they are otherwise prohibited from having firearms once no longer a LEO, that is something different.

 

[The Heretic]

The real threat - IMO - is that anti-gunners will use whatever criteria they can to disarm anybody.

One criteria that resonates with the public in general is taking guns away from anybody with any kind of mental health issue. Any kind.

With increasing percentages of the population being diagnosed (or claiming) some kind of mental health issue (or being perceived as having some kind of issue), this is an opportunity for the anti-gunners and those in power.

I don't have any real mental health issues, but I am self-diagnosed borderline Aspergers (note that at least one mass shooter was supposed to have Asperger's syndrome, and the media made wide note of it), I have been officially diagnosed with RBD (REM Behavior Disorder - when I sleep I sometimes act out my dreams in a limited manner; I kick and hit and yell and talk, but I don't get up and sleepwalk, although that is a known effect of RBD).

Lots of people have mental health issues that should not disqualify them from owning guns, a very few do have issues that arguably should disqualify them. PTSD is not necessarily one such issue in and of itself - it depends on the effects on the person - it is a wide spectrum of problems, but we already observe the public perceive it as something to fear, especially with portrayals in media as someone with PTSD being unstable and possibly (maybe even probably) prone to violence, when in fact most people with PTSD are not violent.

 

[awshoot]

A) It is understandable that we don't want dangerous crazy people having guns.

B) It is comprehensible that informed/intelligent dangerous crazy people understand (A), and so intensionally refrain from getting the treatment they need to not be dangerous.

My uneducated guess is that confiscatory policies will exacerbate the problem. Those not smart enough to understand (A) are going to be nutty enough to get flagged even without harsh confiscation regimes. Those who fall into (B) are going to become more dangerous because they will make an educated decision to intentionally avoid treatment. This is why I think mere treatment should not be an excuse to take people's guns away -- the classic formulation where a therapist has a well founded belief that the person is actually going to do something violent to self or others in the near future should be the standard for confiscation. In this way, people who need treatment will be more likely to get treatment and public safety will be enhanced. Public safety is harmed if those who need treatment are driven from it.

 

[The Heretic]

"Crazy people"?

You mean like people who think wind turbines cause cancer?

 

[awshoot]

"Crazy people"?

You mean like people who think wind turbines cause cancer?

I'm OK with them so long as they don't go tilting at windmills and just post youtube rants. ;-)

 

[Stomper]

"Crazy people"?

You mean like people who think wind turbines cause cancer?

Or TDS....

 

[Howard1955]

A) It is understandable that we don't want dangerous crazy people having guns.

B) It is comprehensible that informed/intelligent dangerous crazy people understand (A), and so intensionally refrain from getting the treatment they need to not be dangerous.

My uneducated guess is that confiscatory policies will exacerbate the problem. Those not smart enough to understand (A) are going to be nutty enough to get flagged even without harsh confiscation regimes. Those who fall into (B) are going to become more dangerous because they will make an educated decision to intentionally avoid treatment. This is why I think mere treatment should not be an excuse to take people's guns away -- the classic formulation where a therapist has a well founded belief that the person is actually going to do something violent to self or others in the near future should be the standard for confiscation. In this way, people who need treatment will be more likely to get treatment and public safety will be enhanced. Public safety is harmed if those who need treatment are driven from it.

I have a good friend (now retired military) who told me that he would never ask for any psych help, because of the stigma attached to it. Fortunately, he's one of the most stable people I've ever known, and was able to make it through his rough patch on his own.

 

[dcfranzen]

There is a lot missing from this article. The most glaring element is what happened during the incident in July 2017 that has 3 officers so traumatized that they must be placed on medical leave and no longer a viable asset to the department. I suspect the city attorney had a great deal of input into this chief's decision.

 

[The Heretic]

I suspect this was mostly about workplace politics (i.e., their union activism/etc.) than the chief being anti-gun.

I don't doubt the chief is probably anti-gun, but I think he is using this as an excuse to punish/control these officers. Which goes to show how people in power abuse their power.

Also, I am sure the dept. cannot legally release any details about why these officers have PTSD or why they are off-duty - that is a confidential personnel matter and the dept. would get sued left and right if they said anything (although I would not put it past any bureaucracy to somehow manage to leak something like that in a way that they thought could/would not be proved or traced to them).

 

[surevaliance]

PTSD?
There is NO such thing.
No guts to work on streets? Apply at Walmart.

 

[dcfranzen]

PTSD?
There is NO such thing.
No guts to work on streets? Apply at Walmart.

PTSD is very real. I worked for 14 years as the EAP supervisor for a large metro PD and was on the state and regional critical incident stress teams. Comments like this are the reason too many sufferers don't seek support or learn the skills to manage their symptoms.

 

[surevaliance]

PTSD is very real. I worked for 14 years as the EAP supervisor for a large metro PD and was on the state and regional critical incident stress teams. Comments like this are the reason too many sufferers don't seek support or learn the skills to manage their symptoms.

None of WWII veterans claimed PTSD.
I had four trips to Chechnya in 90s when it was very ugly there. No logistics, no air support, no backup, no intel. We were on our own in the middle of nowhere, in the mountains - hunting bad men, doing the right things. We've lost our men there. I still have the steel core from 5.45 that stuck in my plate one day.
No PTSD.

 

[dcfranzen]

None of WWII veterans claimed PTSD.
I had four trips to Chechnya in 90s when it was very ugly there. No logistics, no air support, no backup, no intel. We were on own own in the middle of nowhere, in the mountains, hunting bad men, doing the right things. We've lost our men there. I still have the steel core from 5.45 that stuck in my plate one day.
No PTSD.

Your personal experiences and resiliency do not make your claim valid. There are too many veterans and LEOs taking their own lives to prove your belief false.

I will grant you that PTSD is over-diagnosed by psychologists who need a DSM code to justify continued treatment or get paid by an insurance company. For me, this is the real problem.

 

[Slobray]

There is a lot missing from this article. The most glaring element is what happened during the incident in July 2017 that has 3 officers so traumatized that they must be placed on medical leave and no longer a viable asset to the department. I suspect the city attorney had a great deal of input into this chief's decision.

Must have been this............ https://www.wpri.com/news/hopkinton...nsgender-journey_20180314124337817/1044183503 as that's pretty much the only thing in the news from that town that day.

Whatever it was, it took a few days before it stopped Officer Moran from working..................
Police: Brawl breaks out at underage birthday party in Hopkinton



Ray