One of my favorite groups is LEAP, Law Enforcement Against Prohibition, an organization made up of former police officers, prosecutors and judges who understand the damage done by the war on drugs on people and on the entire nation. Needless to say, the government doesn’t like them very much. In fact, they fire people just for mentioning that they think the group has a point.
Border Patrol agents pursue smugglers one moment and sit around in boredom the next. It was during one of the lulls that Bryan Gonzalez, a young agent, made some comments to a colleague that cost him his career.
Stationed in Deming, N.M., Mr. Gonzalez was in his green-and-white Border Patrol vehicle just a few feet from the international boundary when he pulled up next to a fellow agent to chat about the frustrations of the job. If marijuana were legalized, Mr. Gonzalez acknowledges saying, the drug-related violence across the border in Mexico would cease. He then brought up an organization called Law Enforcement Against Prohibition that favors ending the war on drugs.
Those remarks, along with others expressing sympathy for illegal immigrants from Mexico, were passed along to the Border Patrol headquarters in Washington. After an investigation, a termination letter arrived that said Mr. Gonzalez held “personal views that were contrary to core characteristics of Border Patrol Agents, which are patriotism, dedication and esprit de corps.”
He’s not alone, many others have had the same thing happen to them — not because there is anything to indicate that they haven’t done their job well but because they think the laws should be changed to make their jobs much easier and to make the country better.
9 comments
Skip to comment form ↓
fifthdentist
December 6, 2011 at 11:54 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Over the years police chiefs I’ve come to know well will admit in private that they believe marijuana should be legalized. I’d say more than half of those I’ve dealt with have actually said it. None of them have ever been willing to say this on the record, however.
Aquaria
December 6, 2011 at 1:17 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Over the years police chiefs I’ve come to know well will admit in private that they believe marijuana should be legalized. I’d say more than half of those I’ve dealt with have actually said it. None of them have ever been willing to say this on the record, however.
I’ve heard it from the beat cops and detectives over the years, as well.
All I ever have to do even with the most intransigent of them is ask one question: Who would you rather be on the road with, and who is more dangerous for you to answer a domestic disturbance call for: someone who’s drunk, or someone who’s stoned?
Not a single one cop in 30 years of asking that question has told me a drunk would be safer for them or for the public.
Bronze Dog
December 6, 2011 at 1:45 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
I’m pretty interested in LEAP, myself. I hope they can make some sort of impact.
The patriotism part really irritates me. The corrupt parts of our society are really doing everything they can to make the word mean blind obedience to the government, not love for one’s country. There are multiple ways to express patriotism, and my favorite is a heartfelt desire to correct the government when it’s undermining the national values.
Of course, given what I know of police and how they handle their affairs, I suspect the esprit de corps remark is probably code for conformity and in-group protectionism. You can’t have honest cops policing the police, otherwise cops might be held to moral standards, and they might not get to use their military surplus toys every week.
sheila
December 6, 2011 at 5:53 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
I wonder if the name “Gonzalez” affected their decision at all?
Android B
December 6, 2011 at 8:59 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
This strikes me a textbook violation by the Border Patrol of the (former) officer’s First Amendment free speech rights. You have clearly protected political speech and direct government action with both the purpose and effect of chilling that speech.
Based on these facts its a slam dunk.
valhar2000
December 7, 2011 at 5:45 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Any chance he could file a lawsuit here?
blutexan
December 7, 2011 at 12:15 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Actually no. He has no such freedom while in uniform, just as a soldier in uniform cannot picket the whitehouse.
kermit.
December 7, 2011 at 12:37 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Bluetexan, a soldier on active duty, whether in or out of uniform, has very limited rights to speak his mind to the public. But *legally, he can say whatever damn thing he wants to his fellow soldiers. He might be charged with sowing dissension in the ranks, however, or something similar if he has an asshole commanding officer.
What bothers me about this (well, not the *only thing that bothers me) is that I do not demand that law enforcement officers think all of the laws they enforce are wise. If an officer only enforces laws because he thinks they are wise, what happens if he thinks somebody should be beaten up because they’re annoying, or that it’s OK to plant false evidence because that guy is “known” to be guilty of a whole bunch of stuff, but it’s hard to build a good case? I want politicians, law enforcement officers, judges, and dog catchers to enforce the law on the books and only the law on the books.
I note that it’s a diagnostic characteristic of biblical literalist authoritarians that they identify their own and other tribes largely by the beliefs that they hold, and not behavior or other appropriate markers. And by beliefs I mean assertions which looks like they should be conclusions, only no reason was ever involved in getting there.
Android B
December 7, 2011 at 6:17 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Bluetexan, you are incorrect. Law enforcement officials absolutely have First Amendment rights, and cannot be fired or discriminated against for exercising those rights. There is a limitation on public employees’ speech conducted pursuant to their “official duties,” but that appears to be unlikely to apply this situation. But the same First Amendment limitations that apply to any government employer apply to law enforcement.
This officer can and should sue the Border Patrol for violating his First Amendment rights.