some things I can think of
1) why should the department restrict the ability of officers to go to the Dennys while on duty? I mean if an officer is on lunch time and wants to try to spend his paycheck there that shouldn't be an issue. the Chief is just being an ass, the decision to boycott dennys should be made the individual officers not the chief. WAY inappropriate IMO
2) man, if the Smith and Wesson 5609 is sooooo scary and terrifying.... I want one...
3) maybe it's better open carry isnt legal in IL, if they got hoplophobes THAT unreasonable....
1) Why should the department
not restrict their officers from eating somewhere that the "management" frustrated the officers to the point that they just left and ate elsewhere? I think the chances are excellent that this moratorium on Denny's will be
short-lived, and that the Chief (it was a Captain being interviewed) is
most likely (I am
not a mind reader) trying to teach a Denny's manager an object lesson in the 'manners of the
hospitality industry' ("If you don't want our
armed officers in your eating establishment, we can
fix that!"). A bit
childish? Yes. Effective? Who knows? The manager that caused the ruckus probably got a reprimand from Corporate. (Once upon a time, Denny's was a prime target for armed robberies - at least out here in the West. Corporate HQ probably remembers those days.)
2) Sign me up for one also.
3) You may be right about that... or, they need a law allowing OC by LACs. (LEO's don't need such a law since they are authorized to carry by the state, and [probably]
required by their department to be armed when on duty) Pax...