Intelligence or Inteligance?

SWATcybercop asked:

Please tell me how a retired Army Intelligence specialist somehow becomes a law enforcement officer?

============================

I would think that if someone spent enough time to retire as an SA in USA Intelligence that during that career they would have learned how to spell "intelligence", also "badge", "arresting", "apprehension", "authority", "purely", "researching".

I can't imagine reading those reports.

Last edited @ 9/15/2008 11:29 AM

Agree.

I would agree. The ability to communicate well in writing, including proper spelling, is the hallmark of any good investigator and intelligence specialist.

There is a world of difference between law enforcement and intel/counter-intel. Not to take anything away from Intel guys, because good ones are worth their weight in gold, but they are NOT LEO's. The skill set and body of knowledge are entirely different.

I don't understand how a retired Army Intel SA can assume he can qualify as a "qualified retired LEO" under LEOSA. He does not.

Inteligance? I don't think so.

I agree completely. I worked with a lot of intel and counter-intel people during my military and LEO career. They were some really good people and did a great job. But they were intel, not LEOs. 2 completely separate career fields.

I can't believe anyone who spent enough time to retire couldn't spell Intelligence if that was his MOS. If he wrote reports like he wrote that posting then he wouldn't have been working in intel very long before they would have dumped him.

Sounds to me like he's a wannabee. He wants to be in "inteligance" and, even more, he REALLY wants to carry a gun so he's MSU and thinking it's going to get him by. What it's going to get him is a night in jail and criminal charges.

RE: HR 218 and Military

Since this is a Federal Statute, I would think that any attempt to be prosecuted in a State court should be able to be transferred to a U.S. District Court, and subsequently dismissed. This statute should bar the States from pursuing prosecution, since the Federal Statute supercedes the State Statute. This will be interesting....

If we rely on the Federal Statute to protect us from a mindless and irresponsible prosecution by a state prosecutor, the U.S. District Courts should protect us. Yes, I am crossing my fingers. Better yet, I will have the name of a great - not just good - Attorney who practices law in U.S. District Court in my wallet.

RE: HR 218 and Military

Well, there is a great test case going on right now. Off duty Washington state officers involved in a shooting in Sturgis, ND during the bike rally. So far, all charges related to the shooting have been dropped EXCEPT the unlawfully carrying charge. I am trying to follow it and see what happens. I would think it would have been dismissed already too, but not yet.

Surgis, SD

Carrying without a permit is likely the only charge that will stand, assuming that the "under the influence" exclusion clause of LEOSA is that upon which the prosecution bases its case.

Carrying in a bar is prohibited for permit holders, and if they were carrying under LEOSA, that would not apply.

It will be interesting to see how they propose to prove intoxication.

Thanks for the info

Hey used this post as a point to ask questions on a profesional forum glad I came back. As for the spelling I have a profound level of deslexia and splelling is a thorn in my side. You can sit back and say I must be a dope or relize for me to work in the field and be able to write error free reports is an acomplishment. That ok I do not need to be judged. Thanks for the information I do agree that the LE and CI fields are polar opasits. I travel a lot with competive shooting and with my pending retirement I will no longer have orders to travel with firearms and ammo. To fall under LEOSA would be a logistical benafit. Thanks to those who kept it profesional, for the informatoin.

Sturgis, SD

I don't see any grounds for transferring this case to a USDC.

While this law provides statutory authority for carry, is quite narrow, and many items of definition are left to the states. SD defines intoxication as follows:

If the state can prove intoxication, LEOSA is moot.

The question is what standard is going to be used to prove they were under the influence.

Intel isn't LE no matter how much you want to carry

LE and Intelligence aren't "polar opasits". Anyone in either LE or Intel would know that. They're just different career fields. LE isn't Intel and Intel isn't LE. SIntel isn't LE therefore it isn't covered by LEOSA whether you think it would be a "logistical benafit" or not. That doesn't matter how much of a "benafit" to you that you might think it to be or wish it to be. Wishing doesn't make it so.

rngdoc also wrote in post # 47: " I travel a lot with competive shooting and with my pending retirement I will no longer have orders to travel with firearms and ammo."

Note the words "pending retirement". However, in post # 35: 'I am a retired Special Agent US Army Inteligance, retired military ID card, retired Bage and Credentials "

No pending retirement in post 35 but actually retired. A few days later it's "pending retirement".

I'm smelling a poser.

Last edited @ 9/22/2008 10:03 AM

Poser, Pretender, or Wannabee?

I agree.

Selection standards for CI SA's are pretty tight. I also find it hard to believe someone with such severe dislexia would qualify to be one.

I'm a member of an e-mail list of retired military personnel and LEO's. All too often, we get notifications of a poser, pretender or wannabee going around claiming to have earned high military decorations and awards. More often than not, these individuals never served a day in their life.