Question for LEO's

[FortTom]

Although most of my information I'm getting is anecdotal, or 2nd hand, I hear about this often.

Is it true that many departments require officers to purchase their own gear? I've heard that some departments even require that officers buy their most basic equipment as far as belt rigs and firearm, flash light, etc., and then have to purchase only the firearm that is on the departments approved list.

Any of you LEO folks out there that can confirm that this is true? I could understand optional equipment being at the expense of the officer, but the majority or all of it? That sounds insane to me.

FT.

[Bikerdog]

Until recently I was required to purchase all of my gear myself. I am now issued my handgun and rifle and provided a new vest every 5 years. The rest of my duty gear I am required to buy myself.

I know a number of departments, especially the smaller ones, often times require officers to purchase their own gear.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[FortTom]

Until recently I was required to purchase all of my gear myself. I am now issued my handgun and rifle and provided a new vest every 5 years. The rest of my duty gear I am required to buy myself.

I know a number of departments, especially the smaller ones, often times require officers to purchase their own gear.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
That, to me, is like requiring fire fighters to buy their own fire trucks and SAR folks to purchase their own helicopters. I guess it really sounds alien to me, being retired military, that, of course, everything was provided, that I needed. We did have a few "options" that we could purchase on our own, but namely uniforms and the like. Certainly not gear and weapons. I see you mentioned smaller departments. I would think that those officers just starting out in a small town, limited budget department, would probably make lower salaries, than big town cops, and therefore would be the least likely to afford the upfront cost for their own gear.

Something I read in this forum made me think of this, that and stories I've heard from other LEO's, their friends, family members etc. I just couldn't think of what a load of crap it is to make an officer buy his own gear. Maybe pay for upgraded things like a better light or belt rig, other than issue, but not all of it. Since am not a member of the law enforcement community, maybe it's just me and my ignorance of the subject, but I believe that the taxpayers that the LEO's are paid to protect, should be, like the military, issued at least the minimum of the gear required to perform their jobs proficiently.

I do see how those who are privately contracted security would be required to bring their own "tools" to work with them, but I just don't understand how folks can require civil service type cops to purchase their own gear.

Just seemed strange to me.

FT

[voodoo_man]

some do, some do not.

my dept. gave me everything out of the academy. but it is super bare bones type stuff. I eventually went out and bought everything I wanted.

[MonkeyBomb]

It depends on the agency. My first agency(small) I bought everythign and we didn't get a clothing allowance. It wasn't cheap.

My current agency (large) gives us a clothing allowance but we buy everything but guns and the vest. Our neighboring agency supplies everything.

[cj5_dude]

My agency provides uniforms only and a one time stipened to buy a handgun. I had to buy my own duty belt, boots, etc.

[Soisauss]

That, to me, is like requiring fire fighters to buy their own fire trucks and SAR folks to purchase their own helicopters. I guess it really sounds alien to me, being retired military, that, of course, everything was provided, that I needed. We did have a few "options" that we could purchase on our own, but namely uniforms and the like. Certainly not gear and weapons. I see you mentioned smaller departments. I would think that those officers just starting out in a small town, limited budget department, would probably make lower salaries, than big town cops, and therefore would be the least likely to afford the upfront cost for their own gear.

Something I read in this forum made me think of this, that and stories I've heard from other LEO's, their friends, family members etc. I just couldn't think of what a load of crap it is to make an officer buy his own gear. Maybe pay for upgraded things like a better light or belt rig, other than issue, but not all of it. Since am not a member of the law enforcement community, maybe it's just me and my ignorance of the subject, but I believe that the taxpayers that the LEO's are paid to protect, should be, like the military, issued at least the minimum of the gear required to perform their jobs proficiently.

I do see how those who are privately contracted security would be required to bring their own "tools" to work with them, but I just don't understand how folks can require civil service type cops to purchase their own gear.

Just seemed strange to me.

FT


Up until recently, even the Army recruits are required to buy their own equipment (per my buddy in the Army currently stationed in Germany, he's supply and refuel specialist for a helo squadron out there). He sent me his list of items with their price accordingly and I thought those were all issued. Changing times perhaps or was it the military budget cut?
LEO and other agencies I'd imagine they be issued since taxpayers are "funding" it....should probably ask my leo buddy in town, we're close, as in he's looking out for me when my family business got hit with burglary and attempted armed robbery.

[JoshAston]

Up until recently, even the Army recruits are required to buy their own equipment (per my buddy in the Army currently stationed in Germany, he's supply and refuel specialist for a helo squadron out there). He sent me his list of items with their price accordingly and I thought those were all issued. Changing times perhaps or was it the military budget cut?

I had to buy my uniforms 15 years ago. Have to buy their replacements when needed also. The initial set is issued but taken out of your first paycheck. Deployment gear, to include uniforms, is issued and doesn't come out of your check.

ETA: all gear that you need to do your job is issued. Most of it you aren't allowed to take home or use for other than official duty.

[Optimus Prime]

We're a tiny department, but get state funding, so just about everything is provided. Some of it is "lowest bidder quality" though, so I've dropped some cash on "good stuff" to augment the issue equipment.

[UWone77]

We get everything provided for us except socks, underwear, and boots. Our department is probably one of the best in that category in the entire state. We also have take home cars and all firearms provided (instead of an allowance)

[Calico Jack]

Smaller departments do that sometimes due to budget constraints. My initial agency provided me with:
4 LS shirts
4 SS shirts
1 sweater
1 coat
1 rain coat
a vest every five years
a 96D and the basics for a duty belt to include the belt.
They did give us gun safes which most agencies don't provide.

My current agency gives us everything to include free dry cleaning eight summer and eight winter uniforms. Any damaged issued equipment can be replaced at supply. Lost equipment can be replaced with a incident report.

[browcs]

My Fed agency provides weapons/mags/ammo, leather gear, body armor, handcuffs, radios, and some ancillary equipment like flashlights, shirts (polo and t-shirts with agency badge or other markings), and small gun safes. We also get take-home vehicles with UC plates, lights and sirens.

[FortTom]

Up until recently, even the Army recruits are required to buy their own equipment (per my buddy in the Army currently stationed in Germany, he's supply and refuel specialist for a helo squadron out there). He sent me his list of items with their price accordingly and I thought those were all issued. Changing times perhaps or was it the military budget cut?
LEO and other agencies I'd imagine they be issued since taxpayers are "funding" it....should probably ask my leo buddy in town, we're close, as in he's looking out for me when my family business got hit with burglary and attempted armed robbery.

There might be some confusion here. Also many things have changed since I retired, so I wouldn't stake my life on it but: Except for initial issue, I was always required to buy uniform items except for special "mission specific" items intended for short term or one time use. However, and this is the part I think most people not in the military don't hear. We got a clothing allowance each and every month, in our pay checks. Not much but it was intended for routine "maintenance" of uniforms. (generally replacing worn out items). Upgrade items, or optional uniform items that we were not required by regulation to keep and maintain, were always on our dime. Usually stuff like shoes, boots and other items that met regs but were not required.

I recently had this discussion with my uncles son-in-law, who separated from the Marines, after his second tour in Afghandyland, and he informed me that was still policy. Not sure.

Anyway, I never had to buy anything other than the aforementioned "upgrades".

But requiring a young officer, just new to the force to go into what could be some serious debt in order tow work for a county, state, city etc law enforcement agency, just sounded alien to me. I know this is a silly analogy, but it's actually the same thing, it's like requiring an EMT to purchase his/her own ambulance, equipment,, medical supplies and drug/medications. It just didn't make sense to me.

FT

[KevinBLC]

Sounds like some good write offs if you have to buy your own stuff. Especially for you gear queers!

[gatordev]

There might be some confusion here. Also many things have changed since I retired, so I wouldn't stake my life on it but: Except for initial issue, I was always required to buy uniform items except for special "mission specific" items intended for short term or one time use. However, and this is the part I think most people not in the military don't hear. We got a clothing allowance each and every month, in our pay checks. Not much but it was intended for routine "maintenance" of uniforms. (generally replacing worn out items). Upgrade items, or optional uniform items that we were not required by regulation to keep and maintain, were always on our dime. Usually stuff like shoes, boots and other items that met regs but were not required.

I recently had this discussion with my uncles son-in-law, who separated from the Marines, after his second tour in Afghandyland, and he informed me that was still policy. Not sure.

Anyway, I never had to buy anything other than the aforementioned "upgrades".

But requiring a young officer, just new to the force to go into what could be some serious debt in order tow work for a county, state, city etc law enforcement agency, just sounded alien to me. I know this is a silly analogy, but it's actually the same thing, it's like requiring an EMT to purchase his/her own ambulance, equipment,, medical supplies and drug/medications. It just didn't make sense to me.

FT

I can't speak for your gucci service or the Army, but under DoN, there's two "tiers" of items and who gets paid for what.

-For enlisted, they get a uniform allowance every year. I'm pretty sure this mostly pays for beer/baby room upgrades, but it's supposed to be for uniforms. For officers, they get nothing and are expected to buy their own new uniforms (like a newly issued serivce-wide uniform) or uniform replacements on their own dime. In the grand scheme of things, it's not an unfair expectation.

-For Organizational Clothing, items are issued at no expense. OC clothing includes BDUs, flight suits (and all associated flight gear), cold weather gear, etc. These are issued, so they're supposed to be owned and retained by the service member even after they get out.

I've heard from Army guys in the past that they would have to buy their own flight helmets, but I heard that from a pretty unreliable source, so I don't put a whole lot of stock in it. If true (and it may be), one more check in the box on why not to be in the Army.


I keed!

[tappedandtagged]

I supply my own handcuffs and boots. Everything else is provided.

[John7]

I was a reserve for six years in a small town, they have three full time officers. Each officer gets a check once a year to buy whatever gear they want or think they need. All firearms and vests are bought buy the department, they also buy the vests for the reserves but not your sidearm. The reserves are not paid, but get $100 a quarter to buy gear with.

[greenlineaz]

I work at a large Federal Agency. We were given working and dress uniforms and a duty belt at the academy. I replaced the issued SERPA holster with a Safariland, bought a X300 for the duty gun, bought the Safariland open top double mag-holder, suspenders, and a FastMag to store one rifle mag. The issue Danners are OK, but I am looking at trying some Lowas or Salomons, now that they come in all black. I still want to set up a plate carrier, and I could also use some comms stuff.

ETA: On the bright side, buying this stuff helps out in tax season.

[DutyUse]

Been meaning to ask this for awhile but didn't want to start a new thread. I need some advice on advancement. Can any of you older guys share some hard lessons learned when it comes to moving up the ranks in a department?

I'm 3 years into my job and not where I want to be professionally, problem I'm running into personally is there are very limited positions and the guys in them almost always stay until retirement. Any recommendations?

[WHSmithIV]

DutyUse, in any profession the problems are similar. Generally, the best way to advance is to be willing to move to a new place and take a new job there. Get the job first where there is a place who needs you. Then move to the job. It's takes a bit of a leap of faith in yourself to do so. In a 10 year period I tripled my salary by doing that 3 times.

[UWone77]

Been meaning to ask this for awhile but didn't want to start a new thread. I need some advice on advancement. Can any of you older guys share some hard lessons learned when it comes to moving up the ranks in a department?

I'm 3 years into my job and not where I want to be professionally, problem I'm running into personally is there are very limited positions and the guys in them almost always stay until retirement. Any recommendations?

If your ultimate goal is to rise up the ranks to administration, I would leave your current department.

I work in a medium sized agency, and the last 4 years I've been on the verge of a promotion, but it never happened due to various reasons, budgetary being the main one. Generally, you have to have several factors work in your favor, doing well on civil service tests is the first. Then you need some turnover, timing, and of course a little luck never hurts.

For me, it's been timing. While I've been on my department, I've seen the promotion lists go down 16 deep in a 2 year period. I finished the last list I was on that expired at #2. Never even sniffed a promotion. I don't think was meant to be in my situation, due to timing and some other shit I won't get into.

I think to have a shot, you need a larger department, or if your department is smaller, all the guys ahead of you are close to retirement age. 3 years is nothing though, personally, I don't have any respect for guys trying to supervise that have less than 10 years experience on the road. That's just my personal opinion, not saying there isn't some competent supervisors with less experience. If you want to move up fast, you should just take the tests as soon as you're eligible, and not care what guys like me may think.

[DutyUse]

DutyUse, in any profession the problems are similar. Generally, the best way to advance is to be willing to move to a new place and take a new job there. Get the job first where there is a place who needs you. Then move to the job. It's takes a bit of a leap of faith in yourself to do so. In a 10 year period I tripled my salary by doing that 3 times.

That is what everyone tells me and it's solid advice. After I graduated college and was a year in I had an offer in a desirable position.

However my family and I have to much invested in our land and home. I can't walk away from it.. It's a generational farm that I could never give up, so unfortunately I'm stuck commuting at the moment with little hope of advancement in the near future. That's why I need tips on standing out amongst my peers without being seen as a KA

[DutyUse]

If your ultimate goal is to rise up the ranks to administration, I would leave your current department.

I work in a medium sized agency, and the last 4 years I've been on the verge of a promotion, but it never happened due to various reasons, budgetary being the main one. Generally, you have to have several factors work in your favor, doing well on civil service tests is the first. Then you need some turnover, timing, and of course a little luck never hurts.

For me, it's been timing. While I've been on my department, I've seen the promotion lists go down 16 deep in a 2 year period. I finished the last list I was on that expired at #2. Never even sniffed a promotion. I don't think was meant to be in my situation, due to timing and some other shit I won't get into.

I think to have a shot, you need a larger department, or if your department is smaller, all the guys ahead of you are close to retirement age. 3 years is nothing though, personally, I don't have any respect for guys trying to supervise that have less than 10 years experience on the road. That's just my personal opinion, not saying there isn't some competent supervisors with less experience. If you want to move up fast, you should just take the tests as soon as you're eligible, and not care what guys like me may think.

I have the opposite problem unfortunately, I'm stuck in a managerial position but want to be in the field. Without divulging to much I'd rather be on the beat then where I am currently pushing papers and assisting field agents.