Ammo For Sale

« « Protecting your junk | Home | Correlation » »

Officer retaliated against for telling his SWAT members that maybe they should look into that gun safety business

An interesting case, and sad if true:

Three Eugene police officers testified in federal court Monday that they believe former colleague Brian Hagen was removed from the police departmentís K-9 unit in 2008 in retaliation for raising safety concerns about working with its SWAT team.

The testimony came on the first day of a jury trial in Hagenís $600,000 civil rights lawsuit against the city. Hagen alleges that supervisors violated his free speech rights by transferring him from his dream job working with a police dog after he persistently questioned the departmentís response to multiple, inadvertent discharges of high-≠powered weapons by SWAT team members.

Well, if they had multiple, inadvertent discharges, looking into basic gun safety would be a good idea. Sure, it’s not all tacticool ninja but if it saves a life . . .

10 Responses to “Officer retaliated against for telling his SWAT members that maybe they should look into that gun safety business”

  1. Bubblehead Les Says:

    So the Police threw their fellow LEO under the Bus because he kept calling out the Fact that SWAT is Dangerous to Themselves and Society?

    Gee, the Emperor HATES it when He’s told He’s Naked.

  2. bluesun Says:

    “Saves a life”? Have you been reading the same news stories about SWAT teams that I’ve been reading?

  3. MichaelDGale Says:

    Shouldn’t that have been “but if it saves just one life…”
    SWAT is a good example of why gun control laws should start and stop with controlling government use of firearms.

  4. comatus Says:

    Dog Lover!

  5. Kristopher Says:

    Tacticool Barney Fifes.

    They were probably afraid they might be forced to do SWAT stuff with only one round of ammo in their shirt pocket.

  6. Chris L. Says:

    Amen.

  7. JKB Says:

    You can have an inadvertent discharge, although I consider, unintentional a better description. But once you get multiple inadvertent discharges, negligent is a better description.

    And once you retaliate against officers who try to bring attention to the discharges, well, I would think lawyers are lining up for the first inadvertent discharge that causes injury or harm to someone. I believe they term that willful negligence. As in tactical Tommy threw at tantrum when told he shouldn’t handle his rifle like his handles his gun, which he keeps touching till he has an inadvertent discharge.

  8. Cameron Says:

    In the Marine Corps a negligent discharge means, without question, losing rank.

  9. Jerry Says:

    Soooo, SWAT Teams are shooting themselves in the ass with there what?

  10. Barrett Says:

    I believe that one of the other K-9 officers also quit the SWAT team to become K-9 after his experiences with these ADs. I believe he was one of the ones to testify.

    Eugene Police are stuck between a rock and a hard place – they have no jail of their own, the county jail has about 50 beds for a county population of 300,000(hug and release), and the city government(Miss Kitty Piercy) is so left-wing it’s not even funny. Doesn’t excuse what they did to Brian Hagen.

Remember, I do this to entertain me, not you.

Uncle Pays the Bills

Find Local
Gun Shops & Shooting Ranges


bisonAd

Categories

Archives