Cops must look uniform, including covering up tattoos they may have

Perhaps it shouldn’t be a surprise, but a federal court judge this week ruled that a police officer’s need to maintain a uniform appearance is more important than their desire to express themselves.

Which, in a lawsuit filed earlier this year by three Chicago patrol officers, would have meant easing up on uniform requirements telling them they have to cover up their tattoos – no matter how inconvenient that might be.

U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE Charles Kocoras was the official who threw their lawsuit out of court, ruling that the police department has a legitimate need to have a consistent appearance for its officers – even if the officers themselves feel their tattoos allow themselves to express their inner beings.

The Chicago Tribune and Chicago Sun-Times both reported Thursday that the officers in question have tattoos on their arms that refer to their military service. Which might not be the most off-beat image that one would expect to see on a cop.

Some people might even feel assured at the thought that someone who once wore the uniform of the United States Marines is now patrolling their block.

Then again, other people might feel all the more offended that a “jarhead” has the legal authority to determine probable cause to detain them for whatever imagined offense they may perceive.

YES, I COULD picture a cop’s tattoo offending someone enough to cause an outburst. When it comes to outbursts, there’s never any real sense of logic to them. Life has its share of stupidity.

Yet I can’t help but think that limiting a police officer’s tattoos in public isn’t the most outrageous thing that could happen. It’s not like a person’s ability to get hired as a police officer is limited by their tattoos.

Which, in the real world, isn’t the case. There are companies that would refuse to hire people who have tattoos that are totally garish and so publicly displayed that there’d be no way to use the flesh-colored (if you’re of a certain racial persuasion) tape that some people use to cover up their most public tattoos.

Tattoos can be a drawback in our society.

IT WOULD HAVE been a radical change for society if a judge had been permissive of a cop showing off his tattooed arms while on duty.

Now I realize this is a generational thing, and that there are those people just a little bit younger than I who are bewildered by the thought of people who have never got themselves tattooed. Even though I’m too willing to associate tattoos with prison inmates who use them to publicly mark their gang associations.

There are those people who have something on their back or perhaps on their ankle, some cute little design. I’m not about to start a rant about how tacky their designs are. It’s their own business.

But it isn’t something I have ever done, and honestly doubt I ever will. If you don’t believe me, I’d be willing to show you my hairy, un-tattooed behind. Which is something I doubt you really want to see.

SO I HAVE my own bias about tattoos – I don’t mind Judge Kocoras’ ruling, which said that permitting their public display “undermine(s) the Chicago Police Department’s ability to maintain the public trust and respect.”

I’m inclined to think that the legal fight over tattoos is something that was best put to rest.

But I do have to admit one part of the judge’s ruling that is questionable – it also supported the provisions that prevent police officers from wearing knit caps during the winter months.

Anybody who has ever experienced a Chicago winter knows that only an absolute fool goes out in the cold without some sort of covering for the head and ears. And only a knucklehead thinks cops would be better off wearing ear muffs during a snowy, cold day!

  -30-

Keeping ‘em covered; will we have more hot, sweaty cops during summer?

Why do I suspect we’re going to see a lot more police officers in long-sleeved shirts while on duty, regardless of how hot the temperatures become.

This is my reaction to learning of the fact that the Chicago Police Department is implementing a new policy this week concerning tattoos.

SPECIALLY, OFFICERS ON duty aren’t allowed to show off any tattoos they might have.

They’re not going to be forced to have them removed. But they’re going to have to cover them up. Either with their uniforms, or with matching skin tone adhesive bandages or tattoo cover-up tape.

The order, according to the Chicago Tribune, was issued Monday, and takes effect Friday. No official explanation was given, but considering that it also makes mention of “conservative business attire” I suspect that someone in the higher ranks thinks of tattoos as being unprofessional in appearance.

Perhaps they’re considered a bit thuggish. Almost as though tattoos ought to be on the people who get arrested by police, rather than by the law enforcement officers themselves.

I’LL HAVE TO admit that I find it a bit off-putting to see police officers with tattoos poking below their short-sleeve uniform shirts. It seems to go against the image that police try to create for themselves of a unified force of people.

Which may be why the top brass with the Chicago P.D. would want such a policy. Either that, or require all officers to have identical tattoos. That would probably create a bigger rebellion than the notion of having to cover up one’s tattoos.

Although I’ll also admit that the most heavily-tattooed police officers I have ever seen have been with certain suburban police departments.

And those officers won’t be impacted by this new policy. Perhaps it means that the Chicago officers who have a problem covering up their tattoos can go get jobs in those surrounding municipalities, where the need for qualified cops overrides a concern about appearance.
 

Let's hope Mayor Rahm never feels compelled

SO WHAT SHOULD we think about this new policy? Which also has a provision for headgear – no stocking caps or ball caps, even if they bear the Chicago Police Department logo. Be honest, a ball cap on anything other than a ballplayer during a game does look ridiculous. Think New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie in that recent photo from a charity ballgame in New York photo.

I’m sure some people are going to rant and rage about how this policy hits at what little individuality an officer might try to express. They also will complain about how monitoring an officer’s cap or tattoos does nothing to make them behave more professionally while on the job.

In fact, there already is (anonymous, of course) Internet commentary saying that officials ought to be more concerned about police brutality than about officer tattoos.

Although I’m not convinced about the latter. There are some people who manage to make it through the police hiring process even though they have character flaws that make it likely they will use their law enforcement authority poorly. Some of society’s bullies wind up becoming cops – just like some wind up becoming crooks.

WHILE OTHERS WHO get into law enforcement are those who have some noble aspects of their character and use police powers to benefit our society. I’m sure that some of those people, particularly amongst the younger types who now are of age to apply for police positions, are tattooed.

So perhaps this is an issue that needs to be addressed, even though some people who want to complain about everything will now choose to rant and rage about this.

Such a policy may be needed because of the prevalence of younger people who felt compelled to get something drawn on their bodies in their youth (or the youth-like years that they’re refusing to give up on).

And as for those people who managed to get something put on their face? Perhaps those cops will have to go around with cover-up bandages, forevermore telling people that they “cut myself shaving” that morning.

  -30-

A DAY IN THE LIFE (of Chicago): Poll says 54 to 32. What else is new?

Those numbers represent a new poll – one that shows Rep. Jesse Jackson, Jr., D-Ill., solidly leading his Democratic primary challenger – former Congresswoman Debbie Halvorson, whose bid for a political comeback isn’t looking too good these days.

JACKSON: Rigged in his favor



This poll was done by a group called We Ask America, which in its own analysis makes extensive mention of all the “controversies” that are supposed to be capable of  taking down Jackson come March 20. But then in giving us the figures, it says that voters in the far South Side and surrounding suburbs district “aren’t buying into conventional wisdom.”

AS THOUGH IF they were likely to vote the way they’re supposed to, Jackson would lose. It sounds a bit biased to me, almost as though the poll-taker wants to believe that this is another “Dewey Defeats Truman” in the making.

Personally, the results don’t surprise me in the least. They strike me as being completely in line with the people who live in Illinois’ Second Congressional district in the second decade of the 21^st Century.

Which is to say that this is a district with a significant African-American population – even though its southern edge is in Kankakee County. It’s not really a fair game. This district is rigged in Jackson’s favor.

I have no doubt that Halvorson, the former state legislator who served one term in Congress before losing in 2010 because those Will County voters thought her “too liberal,” is working her hardest to draw out the vote for herself. I’ll even give her credit for not blatantly playing racial politics in the model of a 1980s-style “Fast Eddie” Vrdolyak.

BUT IT WILL be a factor, and I don’t just mean black people voting for Jackson because he’s black.

HALVORSON: Could be doing worse



That We Ask America poll shows that only 21 percent of African-American people want Halvorson (compared to 65 percent who want Jackson). Among white people, 62 percent want Halvorson, compared to 29 percent for Jackson.

Considering how many more black people there are in this particular congressional district, that’s a huge advantage. When one also notes the Latino and Asian votes also swing in Jackson’s favor, one only wonders how badly Halvorson would be doing in the polls if she weren’t taking so many white votes.

What else is notable about life these days from the southwestern shores of Lake Michigan?

WHO REMEMBERS APARTHEID?: I felt a blast from the past, so to speak, when I heard the Rev. Jesse Jackson refer to the reform package being contemplated by the Chicago Public Schools as little more than “educational apartheid.”

He, and many hundreds of activists who protested the public schools Wednesday morning, said they fear the plan to close some schools and redo others will only benefit select students – with the masses being left for refuse.

“It’s a type of segregation when, within the same school system, you have an upper tier and a lower tier. It is apartheid,” Jackson said, with the reference to the one-time South African setup that relegated the nation’s black majority to minority status within their own nation.

He has a point, although I’d argue it already has taken place with the way many people with children of school age go out of their way to avoid certain school districts that contain too many “undesirable” elements. The question I’d have is to wonder how many of the Chicago Public School children even know what “apartheid” was.

WANT TO WIN AN ELECTION? CALL A CHICAGO MAYOR: President Barack Obama made the announcement about his re-election committee, formally making 30 individuals co-chairmen of the efforts.

Included among those, the Chicago Tribune reported, were the Chicago-tied (and former White House chief of staffed) Rahm Emanuel and William Daley.

Which means Obama expects the current Chicago mayor, and brother of the former Chicago mayor, to use all their skills and powers to ensure that he does not become unemployed next January.

Particularly with the involvement of Daley, whose father is alleged by the ideologues to have “stolen” the 1960 elections for John F. Kennedy, I’m just wondering how long until we get similar conspiracy theories spewed for Obama. Which may be the best evidence of how frayed the Republican presidential efforts will be. The opposition will look for excuses, rather than victory.

A NEW LOOK FOR A BALLPLAYER: It doesn’t surprise me at all to see the modern-day ballplayer bearing tattoos. But Chicago Cubs outfielder Marlon Byrd now has one all over his right arm (the one he throws with) that definitely stands out.

For what he did was had a portion of the “Man in the Arena” speech given by Theodore Roosevelt (as in former U.S. president) back in 1910 inked up and down his arm.

You can check out ESPN if you really care to read what Byrd likely will read every time he gives his arm a look. But political statements from Teddy Roosevelt usually aren’t what one expects from a professional athlete at any level.

Most ballplayers I have encountered would hear the name “Teddy” and think “Ballgame,’ which was the nickname that one-time Boston Red Sox star Ted Williams liked to use to refer to himself.

  -30-