Quote:
Originally Posted by Maritime Q-Scout
Why did you keep your tattoos completely covered?
This thread seems to have shifted to whether getting a tattoo is a good idea, and would people you judge someone based on this?
This OP and article is asking about uncovered tattoos. Secondarily offensive uncovered tattoos.
Get a full sleeve, tattoo yourself blue like a Smurf if you want, as long as the tattoo is covered on a public servant who cares? If a police officer has a tattoo visible it shouldn't be of a swastica, a naked lady, a swear word, or a Van liver Canucks logo.
At the end of the day police officers have to testify in court, perhaps a non-offensive tattoo would negatively affect their testimony if it was visible to the court room. If it's not visible what difference does it make?
This thread isn't supposed to be about tattoos but visible tattoos on public servants and police officers.
|
They were covered at first because I worked in an office and wore dress clothes. Same reason I didn't wear a pair of sandals and cargo shorts. I was also a naive, new grad who thought that dress shirts vs something like a golf shirt would make a difference.
Uncovered tattoos? Who cares... Offensive tattoos? Different story I agree they shouldn't be visible.
Secondly this whole idea of a visible tattoo while testifying is RARELY ever going to be the case. Court is pretty formal and a simple solution would be mandating that a suit must be worn. If it's on the neck, there are ways that can be covered as well. When a cop is on the job otherwise, who cares if you can see the koi fish on his bicep.