Second City Cop hits the "Only Ones" attitude between the eyes

Hmm . . . . Second City Cop hit a nerve with the President of the Fraternal Order of Police, and it looks like they're going to bicker in public for a bit. That would normally be something I might read about with interest, but wouldn't make the front page here . . . except that the issue they've decided to debate about is right-to-carry. Specifically, SCC noted a few days ago that the Fop is nearly the lone holdout among major law enforcement organizations. The political appointees in charge of the Chicago Police Department are opposed to the Family and Personal Protection Act, of course, and the political appointee in charge of the Illinois State Police is unlikely to go beyond keeping the ISP quiet and staying neutral on the issue, but there are four other major law enforcement organizations in this state, and they're all in favor. Why, SCC wondered, doesn't the FOP poll its members and, if they're in favor, come out in favor of right-to-carry?

FOP President Mike Shields responded that the Chicago FOP is neutral (which I hadn't realized. . . I've always considered them to be opposed to RTC, but maybe that's my mistake?) and that he saw no reason to lose focus on pensions and money and the like. The FOP, after all, is a labor union before it's anything else.

SCC isn't buying that, but I'll let them explain why:

What better way to start making a name for yourself than uniting behind something that's already legal in 48 other states and tracks with the Constitution of the FOP in being good Americans. Oh wait, you've already decided the police are better than the citizens we serve. We quote:

=====
"Chicago Police Officers already have that right"
=====

That certainly seems to run contrary to the FOP Constitution. We aren't better than the citizens we serve. We are entrusted with certain duties and privileges to ensure domestic tranquility and help preserve the rights of all citizens. Driving a wedge between the public and the police will serve to undermine your stated agenda to protect benefits, wages and pensions by alienating those whose support we need to pass legislation, but we suppose you missed that.

Well said! The rest is worth reading, especially if you find the swirling currents of Chicago PD internal politics as interesting as I do. Read the whole thing.