Sheriff Judd
Results 1 to 8 of 8
 

Thread: Sheriff Judd

  1. #1
    Unregistered
    Guest

    Sheriff Judd

    He seems like a decent sheriff to work for! What say anyone who does currently or in the past?

  2. #2
    Unregistered
    Guest
    He’s hard-nosed, fair, supports his people, but holds them accountable. Do your job and it’s a pretty good place to work. He continues to work at bringing us raises.

  3. #3
    Unregistered
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Unregistered View Post
    He’s hard-nosed, fair, supports his people, but holds them accountable. Do your job and it’s a pretty good place to work. He continues to work at bringing us raises.
    Sounds almost to good to be true. Enjoy it and I'm sure the raises will happen down the road.

  4. #4
    Unregistered
    Guest
    To the original poster, if you're looking for a job this is not the county to come to. Place is toxic under the rule of Grady Judd.

  5. #5
    Unregistered
    Guest
    I worked there in the late 80s and early 90s when he was a sgt/lt. He was a douche then.

  6. #6
    Unregistered
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Unregistered View Post
    To the original poster, if you're looking for a job this is not the county to come to. Place is toxic under the rule of Grady Judd.
    "What you see is NOT what you get". Two different mentalities between the camera and behind closed doors.

  7. #7
    Unregistered
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Unregistered View Post
    He seems like a decent sheriff to work for! What say anyone who does currently or in the past?
    If you like working for supervisors whose only goal is to lick the Sheriff's boots, then give it a shot.

  8. #8
    Unregistered
    Guest

    What no news conference on charging Peterson with crimes

    The media face of Sheriffs in Florida, Grady Judd seems to be silent on this issue. Why? Cops cop of all cops really think Peterson should have been arrested? What about command staff and other deps that didnt enter the school. Two very simple questions.......did Peterson violate BSO policy by not entering? Has nothing to do with whether most of us would or would not! Second question.........does Leo's have the duty to sacrifice themselves in a effort to protect the public? We get killed everyday doing this job, but up until now, our safety was above all else when it came to policy and training. Why now is it okay to write policies compelling us to enter a active shooter situation without backup, and no discretion? The kids! the Kids! Not about who we are attempting to save, most of us would enter willingly for kids. Peterson is the only example I know of that goes against the grain of what most of us would do. Because of Peterson, arbitrary polices with no discretion are being forced on all of us regardless of the situation, multiple subjects, active sniper, bombs going off etc. You cant tell me that guys like you couldnt make it very clear to the public that your deps are going to enter but not until they have a backup with them. Yea I get seconds potentially save lives.....since when was at least a backup requirement so difficult to defend? Your trading our safety because your not willing as leaders to fend off the public mobs, whom by the way, think we are suppose to get killed protecting them. Tell me that you truly dont think that getting killed doing this job is now a job requirement. The first three on scene, assemble and enter , provided us with mutual backup from each other, allowed for some tactics to be used, communicating with each other was better because we were together. The last thing it would make impossible to defend, would be not to enter when two other officers are with you. You got away from that concept because most leaders no longer have the balls to defend us first.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •