See query. NYC PD, my particular interest, but the subject is general. There’ve been a few threads lately on types of discharge papers, as a matter of fact.
Also, since I mentioned it, is the “(weapons-authorized)” redundant in the common understanding of LEO? For future reference.
My understanding (and I was a NYS LEO) is that you derive your authorization to carry a weapon through your status as a LEO (and the associated training). So as long as the agency is willing to hire you, it doesn’t matter if you are a non-veteran, an honorably discharged veteran, or a dishonorably discharged veteran.
Incorrect. A dishonorable discharge means the individual cannot possess a firearm under federal law. And with only some very rare exceptions pretty much all LEO’s in the USA are required to carry a firearm.
Bear in mind that there are gradients between “honorable discharge” and “dishonorable discharge.” Someone with a DD isn’t going to become an LEO, but there are other types of non-honorable discharge that wouldn’t automatically preclude them from going into that field.
Little Nemo is correct to a point- if the agency hires you and you pass the associated training, you will be a police/peace officer. But that “if” is a big one. The following is a list of what disqualifies a person from appointment as a police officer with the NYPD:
**Disqualifiers: Candidates will be disqualified if they have been convicted of a felony, domestic violence misdemeanor, or have been dishonorably discharged from the military. Candidates may also be disqualified if they demonstrate a history of disrespect for the law, a tendency toward violence, termination from a job for poor behavior, or not adjusting to discipline. **
So a dishonorable discharge disqualifies you, but to my understanding, there are other types of discharges besides only “honorable” and dishonorable**" **
Is “weapons authorized” redundant? If you are talking about “police officer”, it probably is. If you are including “peace officers”, probably not. If you look in section 2.1 of the NYS Criminal procedure law, you will see a lot people who qualify as peace officers who are not authorized to possess a firearm without a license.
It’s also possible for a vet to not have an honorable discharge by virtue of not having been discharged at all yet.
Although this was a side thought to OP, my housing complex rent-a-cops–some of them are peace officers, and have proudly dinged me with a full NYC ticket ($250–not just a tick relative to a lease compliant) for walking my dog off leash. One also told me he could handcuff me, if I wanted to go that way…
So he’s a LEO w/o a gun, for a varying interpretation of which Ls he can E and how.
ETA: Thanks for the answers.
I’m wondering if there’s mischief afoot about “discharge.” Otherwise, I don’t get it.
Besides Honorable and Dishonorable discharges, there are General, Medical, Administrative, and Bad Conduct discharges. Dishonorable and Bad Conduct discharges are rated as “Less Than Honorable.” The others are usually rated as “Under Honorable Conditions”. I doubt a police dept. would want to hire someone with a DD or BCD. Don’t know about a prison/jail that needed guards.
An Administrative Discharge is a procedure, but it can wind up as an Honorable, General, OTH, Bad Conduct or Dishonorable Discharge. A Medical Discharge is also a type of discharge that can be categorized by the other conditions (usually General or Honorable) but isn’t a condition of discharge itself.
A person can be still in the service, i.e., not discharged, and yet also be a police officer.
But not active duty military, right? I’m assuming Reserves or National Guard.
Well, not active duty in both at the same time, at least (unless the police force in question is military police). You could also have a cop who’s in the Reserves and who gets called up in time of war, and retains his police job in some inactive capacity while he’s Over There.
But your sentence started “It’s also possible for a vet…”
It might be that we’re disagreeing about the definition of “veteran”. I’m considering the term to include those who are still in the service, and it sounds like you’re not.
Correct. I believe that’s what caused Leo Bloom’s confusion in post 8. I doubt it’s common in the US for those currently serving to be called veterans even loosely, but nevertheless, it’s technically incorrect.
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=20550461&postcount=33
On the other hand, if someone was serving in Korea, after having been in the army for over a decade, one might reasonably say that they were a veteran of WWII. And one might refer to a unit which has seen a lot of action as being composed of veteran soldiers. And I doubt that anyone would say that active-duty soldiers are not among those honored on Veterans’ Day.
You win, Chronos. :rolleyes:
Since we’re here:
Wiki Military discharge.
And, as for history buffs, of WWII, Hedy Lamar, and US Military decisions actually censored until Reagan, and ultimately Clinton: The Ruptured Duck.