Police ease rules on off-duty guns

The Washington Times ^ | November 28, 2005 | NA

[neverdem]

---

The Washington Timeswww.washingtontimes.com

---

Police ease rules on off-duty guns

Published November 28, 2005

---

PROVIDENCE, R.I. (AP) -- An old police tradition of requiring off-duty officers to carry their weapons -- "always armed, always on duty" -- is being scaled back in many police departments after the shootings of off-duty officers by colleagues who thought they were criminals.

    The policies require officers to respond to crimes even when they're not on duty, a requirement supporters say protects officers from criminals bent on revenge.

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

    Providence's policy is at the center of a $20 million civil rights lawsuit over the shooting of Sgt. Cornel Young Jr., who 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 he was carrying a gun.

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

    Sgt. 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 pull 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...

[Hawthorn]

So what about plainclothes detectives?

Do we understand that henceforth, it will be optional for them to carry concealed weaponry?

[mylife]

47 incidents in almost 20 years?

Its a regl'r epidemic!

We need new policies!

[TheErnFormerlyKnownAsBig]

My wife, literally, came running up to me this morning shaking this article in my face.

Actually she only read the headline and the first two paragraphs.

I pointed out to her that I have already been trained, and decided a while a go, that unless deadly force is required, that I would not intervene in something, but would just be a good witness.

And for the very reasons that the officer in this article was killed. No body armor, no uniform, no radio.... .

Too easy to get picked off by the friendlies in a stressfull situation.

[Flavius]

see, if police officers do not need them

general public certainly does not need them...

so it goes..

[TheErnFormerlyKnownAsBig]

Plainclothes duty usually has a radio unless they are working undercover.

This is not an everyday occurence but it is something that should be in training curricula for all depts..

[flashbunny]

The International Association of Chiefs of Police is anti-gun.

This just advances their agenda.

[dsc]

I could be wrong, but I have the impression that Chiefs of Police these days don't often come up through the ranks, but are college-educated types who step in at middle or upper management.

[dsc]

"47 incidents in almost 20 years?"

Well, no, if you read the rest of the article, it's "only a handful" of incidents like this. The rest were mishaps during gun battles or "firearms accidents," by which I presume they mean negligent discharges.

[kerryusama04]

I wonder how many CCW holders have gotten killed in the same span. I don't imagine that those who spend their days chasing violent criminals would be willing to leave their guns at the office.

[mylife]

I didnt wish to read more L0L
The thought of ND crossed my mind as I read the excerpt.
I also wondered how many officers succumbed to natural causes or common accidents in the same amount of time.

Liberals who think that they can legislate away the risk of life are fools.

[Bob Mc]

CCW holders do not have to feel compelled to restrain anyone until the police arrive.

They only have to defend themselves or family/friends, with deadly force as justified.

So when the shooting is over, and the police arrive, they are not as likely to have a weapon drawn, or be in any kind of physical or verbal altercation with a bad guy like a policeman would.

[dsc]

"Liberals who think that they can legislate away the risk of life are fools."

Yeah, but the ones who want to legislate away the second amendment are downright dangerous.

[mylife]

They are all dangerous. wrapping poison pills in good intentions

[dsc]

Yeah, that's true.

[clee1]

Exactly.

No off-duty officer is safe from accidental injury by uniformed officers during felony arrests. Officers working plainclothes assignments have realized this for generations. Why do SWAT and other raiding parties wear identifying "raid panels" on their outerwear otherwise?

Like you, I'll stand by and observe rather than interject myself in a situation; unless innocent life is threatened.

[dsc]

"So when the shooting is over, and the police arrive, they are not as likely to have a weapon drawn, or be in any kind of physical or verbal altercation with a bad guy like a policeman would."

I've been thinking about that. If a citizen is holding a criminal at gunpoint when the police arrive, how are the police supposed to know which is which?

[clee1]

Amen.

[mylife]

Great tagline and very sound advice

[clee1]

Often we don't.

We will draw down on anyone holding a weapon in a threatening manner. The citizen holding the perp will (usually) ID himself and put his/her weapon in a non-threatening position immediately. This will allow valuable seconds for an officer to assess the situation.

Very often, a perp will look like a perp - and an armed citizen will NOT look like a perp.