SA police can no longer have visible tattoos

[Still Waters]

Tattooed police officers in San Antonio are being ordered to cover up - or pay up.

From the start of this month, the city's police department is ordering officers with visible tattoos that cannot be hidden to have the body art medically removed at their own expense.

The move is part of an effort to make police officers at the Texas department appear more professional.

http://www.dailymail...l-removals.html

[Eldorado]

Police Officers with tattoos? Scandalous! I blame that Satan Moth.

http://www.unexplain...howtopic=271840

*prays for Texas*

Edited September 3, 2014 by Eldorado

[Imaginarynumber1]

Police Officers with tattoos? Scandalous! I blame that Satan Moth.

http://www.unexplain...howtopic=271840

*prays for Texas*

I'm sure this some nefarious plot by Satan to get Texans to satanically baptize themselves with the "ALS" satanic Satan loving Satan batizism.

Satan.

[jugoso]

The move is part of an effort to make police officers at the Texas department appear more professional.

Ridiculous! Appearances can be deceiving. If you want to know how professional someone is, look at their actions.

[Mikko-kun]

So they dont like the color of their skin and make them change it...

[Davros of Skaro]

How would you like to be pulled over by a Cop with a Teardrop Tat?

Good for the SA PD.

[Ashotep]

Tattoos make me think of thugs, maybe they should keep them.

[Neognosis]

Ridiculous! Appearances can be deceiving. If you want to know how professional someone is, look at their actions.

I think that a police agency and the community it serves have the right to require no visible tattoos.

I am heavily tattooed.

[+DieChecker]

Tattooed police officers in San Antonio are being ordered to cover up - or pay up.

From the start of this month, the city's police department is ordering officers with visible tattoos that cannot be hidden to have the body art medically removed at their own expense.

The move is part of an effort to make police officers at the Texas department appear more professional.

http://www.dailymail...l-removals.html

Or maybe those officers could Transfer to another PD?

I think it is kind of harsh to require this of all officers, even those who might be heavily tattooed, when they didn't sign up for that originally. I am fine with requiring it of all New recruits though.

That is like telling officers that if they have bad teeth, that they have to get them fixed, or else. Or officers with glasses need to get laser eye surgery or else.

[aztek]

Or maybe those officers could Transfer to another PD?

That is like telling officers that if they have bad teeth, that they have to get them fixed, or else. Or officers with glasses need to get laser eye surgery or else.

no, it is not like that, do not confuse health issues with tatoos.

[Eldorado]

You can't have cops looking like gang members, fgs. Even a humble postman has to shave, bathe and do his best to look 'nice'. Folks won't accept anything else. (Nice folks, that is)

[Bama13]

The daughter of a friend of mine wanted to become a Game warden in Florida and she was told that she had to remove all visible tattoos. She only had a small one on her neck but I think it was fairly expensive to have it removed.

[+DieChecker]

no, it is not like that, do not confuse health issues with tatoos.

Crooked teeth is not a health issue, it is a appearance issue, as is hair style.

Using glasses or contacts does affect your appearance. The whole argument here is about appearance.

[Neognosis]

It is about the appearance of professionalism. And for the police, appearing professional should mean wearing a goddamned uniform, instead of combat boots and tactical pants with a leg strap holster and a pair of black leather gloves.

The police should not have a look about them that scare some decent people, right or wrong.

That includes visible tattoos.

I don't want some cop covered in tattoos (like I am) trying to talk my frightened 80 year old grandmother if she ever needs a cop's help.

[+DieChecker]

I don't want some cop covered in tattoos (like I am) trying to talk my frightened 80 year old grandmother if she ever needs a cop's help.

So, is your 80 year old grandma scared of YOU? Because you are insinuating that "tattoos = scary".

[preacherman76]

I think that a police agency and the community it serves have the right to require no visible tattoos.

I am heavily tattooed.

Really? I never would have pictured it. Dont even really know why, it just stuck me strange. I got a couple myself from my younger years.

[Neognosis]

So, is your 80 year old grandma scared of YOU? Because you are insinuating that "tattoos = scary".

No, she's not scared of me. But I think she would be pretty reluctant to trust a police officer with a gun, a pair of tactical combat pants with a combat style leg holster and combat boots and full sleeves of tattoos.

I'm also not a cop. And when I am at work, where I have to teach technical courses, I cover my tattoos. Because people are small minded. That's just a fact. I could lose my job if a client complains I was unprofessional. That's just a reality. And people will be intimidated by cops who are heavily tattooed. That's also just a fact. The police have enough problems with people feeling intimidated by them just by their behavior alone, they don't need to be making it worse.

[jugoso]

So where do we draw the line then?? Just police??

[Shiloh17]

[Neognosis]

The line is already drawn. Public employees that must win the public's trust should not appear intimidating, and visible tattoos are intimidating to some people.

Private companies can hire and fire whoever they want, for whatever reasons they want, barring some protected classes. I don't think that being tattooed should make you a protected class.

[jugoso]

The line is already drawn. Public employees that must win the public's trust should not appear intimidating, and visible tattoos are intimidating to some people.

Private companies can hire and fire whoever they want, for whatever reasons they want, barring some protected classes. I don't think that being tattooed should make you a protected class.

So do are all public servants banned from having visible tatoos (it´s a real question as I don´t know)

It is about the appearance of professionalism. And for the police, appearing professional should mean wearing a goddamned uniform, instead of combat boots and tactical pants with a leg strap holster and a pair of black leather gloves.

The police should not have a look about them that scare some decent people, right or wrong.

That includes visible tattoos.

I don't want some cop covered in tattoos (like I am) trying to talk my frightened 80 year old grandmother if she ever needs a cop's help.

As for Granny, i would point out

I agree that cops shouldn´t look like gansters. I kinda like the Grandfather clause idea. Making them remove it at their own expense after they have worked as a police officer seems prejudicial to me.

[Agent0range]

The line is already drawn. Public employees that must win the public's trust should not appear intimidating, and visible tattoos are intimidating to some people.

Private companies can hire and fire whoever they want, for whatever reasons they want, barring some protected classes. I don't think that being tattooed should make you a protected class.

The Police Department IS NOT a private company. Sure, they can make their rules, but there are laws protecting people that are already hired. If they want to make it a rule not to have tattoos, that is fine. BUT, they need to include a grandfather clause for current employees. This isn't the 1950's. If someone thinks having a tattoo makes you unprofessional, they are an absolute fool.

[+DieChecker]

One thing I think that is being overlooked is the style of tattoos. My sister in law has tattoos on her neck, which is a bit of Biblical scripture written there.

I don't think an officer with a tattoo of his wife's name and scrolled flowers would really be Terrifying to me. I'd be more likely to assume he is a man that loves his wife.

I do agree that having tattoos covered is more professional. But changing the expectation and forcing people to spend their own money is a Donkey thing to do.

[toyomotor]

Tattooed police officers in San Antonio are being ordered to cover up - or pay up.

From the start of this month, the city's police department is ordering officers with visible tattoos that cannot be hidden to have the body art medically removed at their own expense.

The move is part of an effort to make police officers at the Texas department appear more professional.

http://www.dailymail...l-removals.html

It will take more than tattoo removal to make some police appear more professional.

[Neognosis]

So do are all public servants banned from having visible tatoos (it´s a real question as I don´t know)

No, I don't think so.

The Police Department IS NOT a private company. Sure, they can make their rules, but there are laws protecting people that are already hired. If they want to make it a rule not to have tattoos, that is fine. BUT, they need to include a grandfather clause for current employees.

I don't think that they need to do anything of the sort. Where are you getting that idea from? There are unions involved and contracts. Police departments, to the contrary, are essentially private companies that have contracts with towns or municipalities. Depending on the type of contract they have, a municipality can fire the entire police force and hire a new agency if they wish.

This isn't the 1950's. If someone thinks having a tattoo makes you unprofessional, they are an absolute fool.

That really doesn't matter. The fact is that there are people who feel intimadated by police officers who have visible tattoos.