Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 2/22/2006 6:32:31 PM EDT
Hope this ain't a dupe i did a search
saw a blub about this in gunlist and this is what a google search turned up
what a fucking joke you think they want to stop with just civilain disarmament ?

PROVIDENCE, R.I. -- An old police tradition of requiring off-duty officers to carry their weapons — "always armed, always on duty" — is being scaled back in police departments nationwide, increasingly being blamed for the deaths of officers shot by colleagues who thought they were criminals.

The policy requires officers to respond to crimes even when they're not on duty. Supporters also say that letting officers carry their guns off-duty protects them from crooks bent on revenge.

But critics point to the shooting of officers in Providence, R.I., Orlando, Fla., Oakland, Calif. and elsewhere.

The policy is at the center of a $20 million civil rights lawsuit being heard this month in Providence, where Sgt. Cornel Young Jr. was killed in 2000 while he was off duty and trying to break up a fight. He was dressed in baggy jeans, an overcoat and a baseball cap, and carrying a gun.

"Our situation is the extreme example of what can go wrong," said Sgt. Robert Paniccia, president of the Providence police union.

Young's mother, Leisa Young, says the rookie officer who shot him was not adequately trained to recognize off-duty or plainclothes officers.

The International Association of Chiefs of Police has called "always on duty" policies a costly tradition. The group, which has more than 20,000 members, recommends that off-duty officers who witness a crime call for assistance rather than pulling a weapon.

According to the FBI, 43 police officers have been killed since 1987 by friendly fire. Some were caught in crossfire, or killed by firearms mishaps. A handful, like Young, were mistaken for criminals and shot by fellow officers.

This year, an Orlando, Fla., police officer killed a man who had fired a gun outside the Citrus Bowl. The victim was a plainclothes officer working for the University of Central Florida. In 2001, two uniformed officers shot and killed an undercover detective when he trained his gun on a suspected car thief in Oakland, Calif.

In 1994, an off-duty police officer in New York City shot an undercover transit officer eight times in the chest. The transit officer survived.

In Providence, carrying a gun is now optional for off-duty officers, who are encouraged instead to be good witnesses if they see a crime, said Paniccia. The police union in Washington, D.C., won a similar concession after three off-duty officers were killed in separate incidents, said Officer Gregory Greene, the union's chairman.

The Los Angeles Police Department allows its officers to carry their weapons off duty, but doesn't require it, department spokeswoman April Harding said.

David Klinger, a professor of criminology at the University of Missouri-St. Louis, formerly worked as a Los Angeles police officer and said he usually carried a gun off duty. If police officers are properly trained, officers should have the option of carrying a gun for their own protection, he said.

"I don't want to be driving through the ghetto without a gun," he said. "What if some knucklehead I arrested spots me?"

Threatened officers instinctively focus on the perceived threat and tune out other information that could be crucial to split-second decision making, Klinger said. That's why it's important to have protocols in place to identify each other, he said.

"If an officer has this tunnel vision, and all he sees is the gun, he may not see the badge hanging on the detective's chest," Klinger said.

New York City officers now use standard challenges and responses to prevent friendly fire accidents, said James Fyfe, the department's former deputy commissioner for training. Fyfe died of cancer this month, shortly after testifying by videotape at the Young trial.

He said every time New York officers confront an armed suspect, they are trained to yell "Police, don't move!" Off-duty and plainclothes officers are told to respond "I'm on the job!" and to never turn their hand or gun toward a uniformed colleague.

"Unless police officers are trained, they do stupid things on both sides of the coin," Fyfe said
Link Posted: 2/22/2006 6:34:25 PM EDT
If they do then they are truely iddiots. That is the most retarded reason to stop police from carring off duty.
Link Posted: 2/22/2006 6:35:19 PM EDT
I think off duty cops should be under the same rules as everybody else in the state. That includes all ranks.
Link Posted: 2/22/2006 6:36:00 PM EDT


That makes a lot of sense.


Link Posted: 2/22/2006 6:36:21 PM EDT
I'm sorry, the only thing that they should change, if they are going to change anything, is that cops shouldn't be required to respond off duty except for in extreme circumstances. They should ALWAYS be allowed to carry off duty. Someone wants revenge for being arrested/convicted, cops need that bit of protection. Not saying cops are better than everyone else, but they do tend to be forced into situations that most people would steer clear of.
Link Posted: 2/22/2006 6:37:03 PM EDT
I think a lot of the time IACP does not speak for the rank and file.
Link Posted: 2/22/2006 6:37:37 PM EDT
Fantastic.


Instead of focusing on more training, let's disarm our off-duty guys.


Fuck that noise.



Sheep
Link Posted: 2/22/2006 6:38:27 PM EDT

Originally Posted By rcoers:
I think a lot of the time IACP does not speak for the rank and file.



Try ALL THE TIME.

Fucking clowns.



Sheep
Link Posted: 2/22/2006 6:38:52 PM EDT

Originally Posted By XDBACKUPGUN:


That makes a lot of sense.





Actually, it DOES make sense. We either stick together or sink. I'm sick and tired of a double standard driving LEO and civis apart. In the end we are all US citizens.
Link Posted: 2/22/2006 6:39:01 PM EDT
IACP DOESN'T speak for the rank and file
Link Posted: 2/22/2006 6:46:05 PM EDT
Sounds good
Link Posted: 2/22/2006 6:54:31 PM EDT

Originally Posted By fxntime:

Originally Posted By XDBACKUPGUN:


That makes a lot of sense.





Actually, it DOES make sense. We either stick together or sink. I'm sick and tired of a double standard driving LEO and civis apart. In the end we are all US citizens.



Yeah but the solution is to arm the citizens not DISARM the cops!
Link Posted: 2/22/2006 7:00:53 PM EDT
Disarming the police? Yeah, that's a great idea.

Link Posted: 2/22/2006 7:01:38 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Danger_Close:

Originally Posted By fxntime:

Originally Posted By XDBACKUPGUN:


That makes a lot of sense.





Actually, it DOES make sense. We either stick together or sink. I'm sick and tired of a double standard driving LEO and civis apart. In the end we are all US citizens.



Yeah but the solution is to arm the citizens not DISARM the cops!



Exactly, however many cops think otherwise. Especially in the bigger cities. In a perfect world cops would not have a problem with law abiding citizens and CCW. I've talked to enough of them to know it may be at BEST 50% support of regular joe LEOs for citizens to carry. I doubt it's 25% in the large cities like Detroit and such. [HAH, 25%? more like 5%]

I just think every law abiding citizen should have the same right to self defense, [Yes I CCW] regardless of JOB.
Link Posted: 2/22/2006 7:18:07 PM EDT
IACP does not speak for me. As a 12 year LEO veteran, firearms instructor in Pistol, Shotgun, Patrol Rifle, Sub-gun, SIMS, and a SWAT Sniper, I think EVERYONE willing and capable to carry a firearm should.

I have met a few good people in my career who were carrying concealed without a permit. Of the ones I met, I felt they carried for their and their loved ones' safety, not to commit crimes. My response to them was "keep training and be safe."

As an instructor in my agency, I get the opportunity to poll our officers. I'm proud to say that just about every cop in my agency feels the same way I do.
Link Posted: 2/22/2006 7:20:50 PM EDT

Originally Posted By www-glock19-com:

The International Association of Chiefs of Police...



Well, there you have it. This "International" association, do they have any ties to the UN?
Link Posted: 2/22/2006 8:15:27 PM EDT

Originally Posted By fxntime:
I think off duty cops should be under the same rules as everybody else in the state. That includes all ranks.



Damn straight. Equality under the law-regardless of the blue line.
Link Posted: 2/22/2006 8:19:21 PM EDT
Imagine police officers turning in their firearms at the end of every shift.

In liberal cities, I don't think this is too far away.
Link Posted: 2/22/2006 8:24:34 PM EDT
The bureaucrats in blue sound like Canadian Customs. Run Forest Run..
Link Posted: 2/22/2006 8:25:15 PM EDT

Originally Posted By SS109:
Imagine police officers turning in their firearms at the end of every shift.

In liberal cities, I don't think this is too far away.



I think it happens in Australia and Canada
Link Posted: 2/22/2006 8:25:46 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/22/2006 8:26:59 PM EDT by TheKill]
The real problem is cops being trained that guns are automatically bad unless there is a badge and uniform attached to it. Gun = shoot.
Link Posted: 2/22/2006 8:31:04 PM EDT

According to the FBI, 43 police officers have been killed since 1987 by friendly fire. Some were caught in crossfire, or killed by firearms mishaps. A handful, like Young, were mistaken for criminals and shot by fellow officers.


And how many thwarted crimes or saved their own lives, those of others or those of their families?

In a way I am glad though. The Police Chiefs are showing their true side. That they fascists and that it is all about power and control. Maybe it will bring more mainstream LEOs over to our side. Not counting on it but it would be nice.
Link Posted: 2/22/2006 8:43:21 PM EDT
Sounds like the off duty cop might have been dressed in his ghetto best and got capped for it.

Here is an idea: Don't want to be mistaken for a gangbanger, don't dress like one...
Link Posted: 2/22/2006 8:46:52 PM EDT
The Police Chief's association are NOT fascists. It's worse than that.
THEY'RE BUREAUCRATS.

Few police chiefs were ever actually policemen. They're usually the climber types who joined up, and as soon as possible moved to some kind of inside job as far away from the street as they could get.
They then take the exams and get the promotions until they get appointed as a chief of a department.

In other words, if he has any actual police experience at all, it was 20 years ago for less than a year, or however long the probationary or training period was.
A surprising number of big city chiefs have never actually arrested anyone.

In short, most police chiefs are bureaucrats who just happen to have badges.
They are totally political creatures of the mayor of the city and owe their job to him.
Since most big city mayors are Democratic Liberals, the police chief follows liberal policies and is anti-gun.
Link Posted: 2/22/2006 8:49:26 PM EDT
IIRC, IACP = International Association of Communist Policemen. Off-duty response is a collective bargaining issue.
Link Posted: 2/22/2006 8:52:46 PM EDT
Go ahead...stop carrying.

Don't expect me to stop carrying though.
Link Posted: 2/22/2006 8:57:57 PM EDT
Link Posted: 2/22/2006 9:16:30 PM EDT

Originally Posted By TheKill:
The real problem is cops being trained that guns are automatically bad unless there is a badge and uniform attached to it. Gun = shoot.



Not true
Link Posted: 2/22/2006 9:21:19 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Wave:

Originally Posted By www-glock19-com:
Off-duty and plainclothes officers are told to respond "I'm on the job!"...



In regards to the NYPD - 100% Bullshit, not true.




You're just trying to hide the big secret so that every gangsta in brooklynn isn't hollering "I'm on the job!"


Don't you know how many times I've seen Sipowitz utter that phrase???
Link Posted: 2/22/2006 9:36:30 PM EDT
Well if that is true may I say "Fuck the International Association of Chiefs of Police"!
Link Posted: 2/22/2006 10:05:51 PM EDT

Originally Posted By NCPatrolAR:

Originally Posted By TheKill:
The real problem is cops being trained that guns are automatically bad unless there is a badge and uniform attached to it. Gun = shoot.



Not true




Oh yeah? I don't believe you. Perhaps your experience is colored by your pro 2nd mindset, or it's been a few years since you went through "indoctrination".

From this thread:

www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=1&f=5&t=439898&page=1


"I had a really good friend join the Sherifs department. Before joining he was as gung ho about firearm ownership as I am. After the academy, he is almost anti now.

I think they slam into your brain so much that guns are bad, guns kills you, and to be wary of everyone, that you start thinking that way. That your world would be better off without guns."


"Officer Safety" and all that. How does "Unintended Consequences" grab ya? As in, a militarized police force, with a national standard of training that has indoctrinated them all that guns = bad. Deny it all you want, between the ever evolving "Officer Safety" concepts and the decreasing acceptance of shooting and guns in the general population (from which PDs draw recruits), it's happening.
Link Posted: 2/22/2006 10:09:20 PM EDT
The IACP should do a study on LOP, and how it backfires.

That's Liability oriented policing.
Link Posted: 2/22/2006 10:18:30 PM EDT

Originally Posted By TheKill:
[
Oh yeah? I don't believe you. Perhaps your experience is colored by your pro 2nd mindset, or it's been a few years since you went through "indoctrination".

From this thread:

www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=1&f=5&t=439898&page=1


"I had a really good friend join the Sherifs department. Before joining he was as gung ho about firearm ownership as I am. After the academy, he is almost anti now.

I think they slam into your brain so much that guns are bad, guns kills you, and to be wary of everyone, that you start thinking that way. That your world would be better off without guns."


"Officer Safety" and all that. How does "Unintended Consequences" grab ya? As in, a militarized police force, with a national standard of training that has indoctrinated them all that guns = bad. Deny it all you want, between the ever evolving "Officer Safety" concepts and the decreasing acceptance of shooting and guns in the general population (from which PDs draw recruits), it's happening.

-

While it has been a few years since I went through the academy, I spend a good amount of time with the recruits doing DT work, "suspect encounters", building searches, etc. I can't speak for other agencies but with this one (certainly not a small one), officers aren't trained to be "anti-gun". Just because a person is taught to be wary of the people they encounter and that an armed subject is possibly a huge threat doesn't make that officer anti-gun or anti-2nd amend. It is merely teaching the officer that he needs to be safe in how he interacts with people.

On numerous occasions I, along with the guys I work with, have fielded questions concerning people buying/using guns to protect themselves. If the person is legit, I have no qualms about them buying and carrying a firearm so I give them the info they need to know. I have yet to meet an officer here that has said that a non-LEO shouldn't be able to own a firearm.

So with that said the bit about " As in, a militarized police force, with a national standard of training that has indoctrinated them all that guns = bad. " is false. What probably happened is that either the new deputy didn't know quite how to phrase his response to whatever question was asked of him in a logical manner or he is seeing the world through a safer perspective that doesn't quiet mesh with the poster's outlook.
Link Posted: 2/22/2006 11:17:11 PM EDT
I don’t have much use for the IACP.

But in fairness, I don’t think they’re saying cops should be prohibited from off-duty carry, but rather that off-duty cops should not be required to always get involved when they see a crime being committed.

And I agree.

Off-duty involvement is inherently exceptionally dangerous. No radio, no body armor, no back-up, a generally inferior selection of weapons, and the possibility of being rolled up on by on-duty officers who have no idea what’s going on.

Off-duty officers should be encouraged to use discretion in what situations they do or do not get involved in – both from the standpoint of the nature of the crime being committed, and of their ability to handle the situation.

As cowardly as it may sound, the “be a good witness” approach is sometimes the correct one.
Link Posted: 2/22/2006 11:45:36 PM EDT

Originally Posted By 199:
I don’t have much use for the IACP.

But in fairness, I don’t think they’re saying cops should be prohibited from off-duty carry, but rather that off-duty cops should not be required to always get involved when they see a crime being committed.

And I agree.

Off-duty involvement is inherently exceptionally dangerous. No radio, no body armor, no back-up, a generally inferior selection of weapons, and the possibility of being rolled up on by on-duty officers who have no idea what’s going on.

Off-duty officers should be encouraged to use discretion in what situations they do or do not get involved in – both from the standpoint of the nature of the crime being committed, and of their ability to handle the situation.

As cowardly as it may sound, the “be a good witness” approach is sometimes the correct one.



yep. Was wondering how long before people noticed this addressed mandatory off-duty carry.
Link Posted: 2/23/2006 12:54:17 AM EDT

Originally Posted By 199:
I don’t have much use for the IACP.

But in fairness, I don’t think they’re saying cops should be prohibited from off-duty carry, but rather that off-duty cops should not be required to always get involved when they see a crime being committed.

And I agree.
<<Likewise.>>

Off-duty involvement is inherently exceptionally dangerous. No radio, no body armor, no back-up, a generally inferior selection of weapons, and the possibility of being rolled up on by on-duty officers who have no idea what’s going on.

Off-duty officers should be encouraged to use discretion in what situations they do or do not get involved in – both from the standpoint of the nature of the crime being committed, and of their ability to handle the situation.

As cowardly as it may sound, the “be a good witness” approach is sometimes the correct one.


In other words, they should conduct themselves as would any other law-abiding, armed, citizen.
Right?
Works for me.

Btw & fwiw, a detective from our local PD recently conducted the training class for my wife's CCW license. And he did an EXCELLENT job of it. Kudo's to the officers that support a lawfuly armed community.
Link Posted: 2/23/2006 2:48:17 AM EDT

Originally Posted By TheKill:
The real problem is cops being trained that guns are automatically bad unless there is a badge and uniform attached to it. Gun = shoot.


Exactly! They don't even like them when they're legally locked in a glove compartment. I'll never understand why people that hate guns so much become cops. If you hate guns, why take a job where you have to be around them all of the time?z
Link Posted: 2/23/2006 3:42:51 AM EDT
What else should we expect from that brain trust that is the IACP? Does anyone actually expect them to have a practical solution to the problem? They are not trained to think of workable solutions. All they know how to do is make gross oversimplification.

If off duty cops are getting shot because on duty cops can't recognize them, then the obvious solution is to take away the off duty cops' guns!

Some training and procedural changes could solve the problem pretty well. But that costs money we don't have because we need our budget to fund cultural sensitivity programs and gun buy backs, so lets just disarm the off duty officers.

Link Posted: 2/23/2006 3:43:49 AM EDT

Originally Posted By OLY-M4gery:
The IACP should do a study on LOP, and how it backfires.

That's Liability oriented policing.



They wouldn't be able to comprehend the results of such a study.

Link Posted: 2/23/2006 3:44:48 AM EDT

Originally Posted By motown_steve:
Go ahead...stop carrying.

Don't expect me to stop carrying though.


+1
Link Posted: 2/23/2006 4:47:15 AM EDT

Originally Posted By rcoers:
I think a lot of the time IACP does not speak for the rank and file.



They don't the same for the FOP.
Link Posted: 2/23/2006 4:48:10 AM EDT
If you're off duty, carrying a gun and inclined to use it to intercede in an in-progress crime, it would behoove you NOT to dress like a gangbanger.
Link Posted: 2/23/2006 4:50:03 AM EDT

Originally Posted By www-glock19-com:


the rookie officer who shot him was not adequately trained to recognize off-duty or plainclothes officers.




THERE is the problem
Link Posted: 2/23/2006 4:57:08 AM EDT

Originally Posted By CRC:

Originally Posted By SS109:
Imagine police officers turning in their firearms at the end of every shift.

In liberal cities, I don't think this is too far away.



I think it happens in Australia and Canada



Yep. I remember working in a place in the centre of Sydney, and I had to call the police to evict a sleeping drunk homeless guy. Two cops showed up. They had just come on duty, and the younger bloke wasn't properly dressed, and had FORGOTTEN HIS GLOCK! The moron had left it in the armoury.
Link Posted: 2/23/2006 5:00:32 AM EDT

Originally Posted By fla556guy:
I'm sorry, the only thing that they should change, if they are going to change anything, is that cops shouldn't be required to respond off duty except for in extreme circumstances. They should ALWAYS be allowed to carry off duty. Someone wants revenge for being arrested/convicted, cops need that bit of protection. Not saying cops are better than everyone else, but they do tend to be forced into volunteer for situations that most people would steer clear of.

Link Posted: 2/23/2006 5:03:25 AM EDT

Originally Posted By NCPatrolAR:

Originally Posted By TheKill:
[
Oh yeah? I don't believe you. Perhaps your experience is colored by your pro 2nd mindset, or it's been a few years since you went through "indoctrination".

From this thread:

www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=1&f=5&t=439898&page=1


"I had a really good friend join the Sherifs department. Before joining he was as gung ho about firearm ownership as I am. After the academy, he is almost anti now.

I think they slam into your brain so much that guns are bad, guns kills you, and to be wary of everyone, that you start thinking that way. That your world would be better off without guns."


"Officer Safety" and all that. How does "Unintended Consequences" grab ya? As in, a militarized police force, with a national standard of training that has indoctrinated them all that guns = bad. Deny it all you want, between the ever evolving "Officer Safety" concepts and the decreasing acceptance of shooting and guns in the general population (from which PDs draw recruits), it's happening.

-

While it has been a few years since I went through the academy, I spend a good amount of time with the recruits doing DT work, "suspect encounters", building searches, etc. I can't speak for other agencies but with this one (certainly not a small one), officers aren't trained to be "anti-gun". Just because a person is taught to be wary of the people they encounter and that an armed subject is possibly a huge threat doesn't make that officer anti-gun or anti-2nd amend. It is merely teaching the officer that he needs to be safe in how he interacts with people.

On numerous occasions I, along with the guys I work with, have fielded questions concerning people buying/using guns to protect themselves. If the person is legit, I have no qualms about them buying and carrying a firearm so I give them the info they need to know. I have yet to meet an officer here that has said that a non-LEO shouldn't be able to own a firearm.

So with that said the bit about " As in, a militarized police force, with a national standard of training that has indoctrinated them all that guns = bad. " is false. What probably happened is that either the new deputy didn't know quite how to phrase his response to whatever question was asked of him in a logical manner or he is seeing the world through a safer perspective that doesn't quiet mesh with the poster's outlook.



I think for the most part, that is true. but do they all feel that way about concealed carry?

Just curious.

TXL
Link Posted: 2/23/2006 5:06:35 AM EDT
Hmm...

Sounds good.

But how bout this... as a first step. Let's stop Police Chiefs from promoting a policy or agenda "off duty".

Link Posted: 2/23/2006 5:08:11 AM EDT

Originally Posted By fight4yourrights:

Originally Posted By www-glock19-com:


the rookie officer who shot him was not adequately trained to recognize off-duty or plainclothes officers.




THERE is the problem



That is a significant issue. Officers (off duty) may get shot by regular officers because the off-duty officer, though not recognized as such, is taking an aggressive stance in the incident: for example, wading in to break up a fight. The officers, whether from sworn responsibility or personal morality, do not have an option I do. They go in, while I'll show troublemakers just how fast an old guy can run. (their mistake if they choose to continue the attack, however)

The idea of making them follow the same rules as we (non LEOs) do seems attractive on the surface and, as a practical matter may appear to offer leverage. But, it is a danger to officers, as above, who feel or are required by duty to respond to a situation while not on the clock. I do not consider the sitaution in which an officer may be subject to vengeance o any other criminal activity while not on the clock, because that is not different from the rest of us: any one of us may be subject to criminal activity based on a wide variety of motives.
Link Posted: 2/23/2006 5:13:45 AM EDT

Originally Posted By npd233:
If you're off duty, carrying a gun and inclined to use it to intercede in an in-progress crime, it would behoove you NOT to dress like a gangbanger.



Exactly...the officer in Providence, didn't act until the uniformed officers were on scene, held his gun gangsta style and didnt put his weapon down when ordered to do so. What were the uniformed officers supposed to do?
Link Posted: 2/23/2006 5:17:12 AM EDT
.
Link Posted: 2/23/2006 5:17:15 AM EDT
They are looking to blame someone for the shooting of a black officer by his white brothers in arms.
The Young case has made a mockery of Providence's police and court systems.

The fact that in extreme situations, men can and do die as a result of poor training, crossfire scenarios or just plain stupidity has been lost in the legal "MUST BLAME SOMEONE>>>SOMEONE MUST PAY!!!!" game.

Cornell Young may or may not have properly identified himself to his fellow LEO's. His fellow LEO's may have not properly understood Young's shouted ID of himself.

Regardless, if we (not US necessarily, but Americans in general) agree to this sort of thing, we are doomed. For if the Police cannot carry off duty, you know that armed citizens will be a thing of the past as well.

Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top