Does the AG in Oklahoma get his picture in the paper 2 mos. before an
election?Does the AG in Oklahoma tout how great vests are to get all
the credit and turn around and force the working officer to purchase their
own?There are many differences between a department not having
funding to get new vests and an AG getting press time and camera time in an
election cycle about how he thinks he is the greatest AG in the world because he
thinks new vests are better than old vests. The point is its a bunch of bull
that the AG gets press time talking about how great vests are, but won't
purchase them for his own people. That is the point of the previous posters, and
that is my point too.Oklahoma, Utah, or wherever. Suit up your own.
Get them the best equipment you can. If you don't have funds, then don't get
press time. The press gave the AG a free ride on this one. He is the
leading law enforcement official in this state. He needs to put his money where
his mouth is. Officer safety costs money in Utah, Oklahoma, or wherever.
I know of at least one LE officer in Oklahoma that has to purchase their own
vest....be careful how you generalize!
Nothing is more important in any municipality or state than officer safety. And I would bet dollars to donuts that a tax hike would not be needed to
pay for officer safety. Effective money management is all that is needed.Regardless of whether a tax hike is needed or not, if you are not
suiting up and protecting your 'finest' then shame on you.There will
be a lot of whiners complaining about police. But when the crap hits the fan,
and who do they call? When you start to think, "Hey maybe we should take better
care of these people." It might be too late.I know officers in Utah
who have to purchase their own weapons. Their departments will only purchase
their sidearms. If they want a long gun (rifle, shotgun) in the car they have to
purchase it on their own. Well in a shoot-out at distance, a pistol won't do
jack. Everybody in LE knows that, except for Utah.It is tragic that
in Utah, a dead officer is cheaper than a vest and effective weapons.But, like the previous poster wrote, all your leaders want is their picture in
the paper in an election cycle.
"The question that I have...Is the AG going to pay for the vests for these
officers?"No, your question is "Will taxpayers agree to a tax hike
to pay for the vests for these officers?"And the answer is, "not too
The question that I have...Is the AG going to pay for the vests for these
officers?The tragedy in all this is that many (most) departments in
Utah make their 'own' pay for their vests. Many will pay halfsies. But on a
$500.00 vest, and a working salary, that still hurts.If he truly
cares about 'his' officers, buy them the new vests. That will show that he
really, really cares. Now, he gets his picture in the paper during an election
cycle, but the real question is, who will pay for these vests that he is
touting?Interesting that he did not address that in the article.Me? My department buys me a new one every five years. Where do I work?
Out of state.Something your AG won't tell you is that my department
has suit-up rooms with extra bullet proof vests (among other resources). We have
vehicles with extra vests (and other resources) in the trunk . Whenever I meet
officers from Utah they are blown away at what we get for officer safety. So, will your AG pay for the vests? Probably not. But he got his picture
in the paper 2 mos. from an election.