Disarming the police.... (merged)

noone

New member
By RAY HENRY, Associated Press Writer
57 minutes ago



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.

here is the link to the story.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051127/ap_on_re_us/armed_off_duty

wow there are all kinds of things I see wrong with this.
 

noone

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

seems like the simple solution would be more, and continuing training.

edit: is this the wrong area for this? If it is could someone please move it.
 

gdeal

New member
Off Duty Carry

Yes, it should be optional. And a good trained officer always calls for backup first anyway. It is just like a fire. U report it first before trying to put it out because what happens if the fire over takes U, who is going to report it? Yes, even a cop, off duty should call 911 if he can. Breaking up a fight does not seem to be a life or death situation. Neither does stealing a car. A cop's first weapon should be his intelligence.
 

Jack Malloy

New member
Disarming the police....

I just read this and it angered me.


I think the problem is not that off duty officers are armed. I think the problem is that some poorly trained or panic prone officers just are not cautious enough in these shoot/don't shoot situations.
Maybe more training would be the answer?
Not disarming an honest, law abiding off duty policeman......

Search Advanced


------------------------------------------------------------------------
Police Rethink 'Always Armed' Policy

By RAY HENRY, Associated Press Writer
Sun Nov 27, 1:56 PM ET




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.
 

gdeal

New member
Nobody is going to disarm the Police

The police in Camden, NJ are required to carry off duty while they are in Camden. Outside of Camden they don't have to carry. My brother-in-law who works for the NJ DOJ told me this. There is another thread that talks about this. All the article is saying is that they are not going to make it mandatory as much as before. But yes, the Police could and should do more training. Some cops just go to the range when they have to qualify. That is not good.
 

k9lwt

New member
I don't think LEO's should be required to carry while off duty. It should be personal preference. Many LEO's spend enough time doing overtime and details, they need some downtime away from the department now and then.
 

Garand Illusion

New member
None of my LEO friends, including those at Denver PD, HAVE to carry off duty. Some hardly ever do, in fact.

It's a good point to those of us civilians who CCW, though; I have this fear that if I had been at the Washington mall (or any of the other mass killings) and drew my gun to intercede the cops converging on the situation would automatically shoot me as well as the BG.

You shouldn't have to get shot for exposing a gun in a violent situation not of your making. On the other hand, the cops can't afford to hesitate when they believe they're taking action to defend themselves or others.

Not sure what a good answer is ... anybody?
 

Rob P.

Moderator
The problem as I see it is that off-duty police should not act like on-duty officers. But that's what they're doing and they get shot/killed because of it.
 

Jack Malloy

New member
I think there is something deeper here we need to be reading.
The reality is the people who are pushing this "disarm the police " baloney are the same people who want to disarm us.....

It's just more Bull$#!+from the Victim Disarmament (aka Gun Control) folks.
If they are successful, they will argue, "If off duty police do not need to be armed, why do civillians need to be armed."

Don't be blindsided like a bull with a matodor's cape, my brothers.

I do agree that most officers get crap forced on them. Years ago I read an article by an ex cop who pointed out that if officers were paid for qualifying expert, and if they were paid extra for range time, that it would encourage more of them to become better.
I agree.
If you have family members or friends in LE, then you have heard horror stories about guys walking around with guns that have cobwebs built up in barrels, etc....
Take a guy who practices as little as possible, is not really confident in his skills and put him in a nerve wracking situation , and you are just asking for trouble....

This should be aproached as a training issue. Instead it will become a tactic for the gun grabbers....
 

progunner1957

Moderator
I think there is something deeper here we need to be reading.
The reality is the people who are pushing this "disarm the police " baloney are the same people who want to disarm us.....

It's just more Bull$#!+from the Victim Disarmament (aka Gun Control) folks.
If they are successful, they will argue, "If off duty police do not need to be armed, why do civillians need to be armed."
You are absolutely 100% correct, sir!!
The policy requires officers to respond to crimes even when they're not on duty.
Will one of the "disarm the police" exhalted geniuses please explain how a police officer is supposed to do what he/she is required to do - in the event of an armed robbery, carjacking or hostage situation - without getting him/herself killed?

Or are they supposed to just step forward and soak up the thug's bullets?
Supporters also say that letting officers carry their guns off-duty protects them from crooks bent on revenge.
What people need to realize is that police officers who are forced to be unarmed off duty is this: Not only is his/her life at risk, but so are the lives of any family members or friends who is with the officer.

If I were a police officer and was told that I could not carry my gun off duty, I'd strip off my uniform, throw it on the floor and walk off the job in my underwear!!

In the military, we had "duress codes." It was one word which changed monthly, that you would work into a conversation with the guard when you were entering restricted/alert facilities. This word would alert the security personnel that you were being forced by an armed, unauthorized person to take them into a restricted/alert area.

Police departments need duress codes. When armed officers show up at the scene of a crime in progress and an off duty officer who has a gun drawn is present, he shouts the duress code at the uniformed officers who then recognize that he is a good guy and not to shoot him. The duress code could be changed on a weekly basis, or when it has been used, whichever comes first.

Duress codes are really not that complicated a procedure. It would beat the feces out of having unarmed, off duty officers and possibly their family members being killed by thugs they have arrested who are out on bail or parole.
 

gfen

New member
if I had been at the Washington mall...and drew my gun to intercede the cops converging on the situation would automatically shoot me as well

Which might be a fine thing to take into mind the next time one of those silly scenario threads start up.
 

progunner1957

Moderator
+1, gfen...

My reason for carrying concealed is so that my wife and I can survive a violent criminal assault.

If I jump in and try to be a hero at a mall shooting/bank robbery etc., if the bad guys don't kill me, the police will, thinking I'm a bad guy too.

No, thanks.
 

Kango

New member
The officers that are on duty are the ones doing the trigger happy killings, Im sure the off duty officers did not and would not ever point their gun at a officer that just arrived on scene.

In Canada, officers are not allowed to carry off duty. Usually they keep their pistols in the lockers at work.
 

Jack Malloy

New member
Massad Ayoob once pointed out that its a good idea to pack whatever the police in your area pack just in case they show up to a situation and you have your roscoe out.

If they don't see a cheap RG .22 or a cheesy Lorcin, Jennings or Hi Point they may not be as apt to view you as a suspect, especially if they are gun savvy....
 

Marko Kloos

New member
I figure that a smart cop won't give a rat's ass what's in your hand when he comes across a guy in street clothes holding a gun on someone. Besides, you're talking a high-adrenaline situation that involves split-second decisions...I doubt that too many cops would stop and pause to ascertain the make and model of the firearm in the hands of the suspicious person before them.
 

azurefly

Moderator
Jack Malloy said:
It's just more Bull$#!+from the Victim Disarmament (aka Gun Control) folks.
If they are successful, they will argue, "If off duty police do not need to be armed, why do civillians need to be armed."


I can see your point, and I agree that this is probably exactly as you said -- anti-gunners pushing the idea that really nobody actually "needs" a gun.

But I think this would be easily dispatched by saying, "The fewer actual COPS have guns around us, the MORE we need to have our own. Think about it: fewer of the cops who are off duty would be equipped to protect us from violent criminal predators. I'd say that such a situation leaves us, the public, needing to shoulder the responsibility for our own protection all the more."


-azurefly
 

azurefly

Moderator
Here is what gfen quoted:
if I had been at the Washington mall...and drew my gun to intercede the cops converging on the situation would automatically shoot me as well

To which he responded:

"Which might be a fine thing to take into mind the next time one of those silly scenario threads start up."


Here is the ENTIRE quote, from garand illusion:

It's a good point to those of us civilians who CCW, though; I have this fear that if I had been at the Washington mall (or any of the other mass killings) and drew my gun to intercede the cops converging on the situation would automatically shoot me as well as the BG.


Note how instead of simply STATING that the cops converging on the situation would automatically shoot him as well as the BG, he was stating that he FEARS that they would.

Hardly the same thing, yes?


Of course there is a danger of being the guy the cops shoot when they arrive. I thought that the major thrust of this kind of thing is that the cops AREN'T THERE; YOU are there; other innocents are there; the BG is shooting up the place; NO ONE is present to SAVE YOU; so you take out your CCW and use it defensively, which -- DUH -- is exactly why we have them.

Would I draw my firearm if there was a phalanx of black-garbed SWAT teamers shuffling down the mall promenade toward me and the shooter? Prolly not. :rolleyes: That'd get me shot. But if I heard gunfire in a Sam Goody and saw the guy at the mouth of the store, you bet your ass I would have my gun out and try for a back exit and if there was none, I'd be aiming to fire if he got anywhere near me, and hopefully I'd also have my phone out and dialed to 911 so they could at least hear the goings-on, if not me describing the situation, myself, what I'm wearing, what I look like, where I am, and whether it looks like I may have to engage the BG.


-azurefly
 

gfen

New member
One of the things I thought about when switching from an automatic to a snub nosed revolver was the perspective of those who may see it.

With names like "Cheif's Special" and "Detective Special," and a time honoured tradtion of being carried by the Joe Fridays and Lenny Briscoes of TV fame, I truly believe that if its flashed in everyday life, or a police officer should see it that all the conditioning over the year to think of snubnosed revolvers as "good guy" guns might give them pause.

I thought that the major thrust of this kind of thing is that the cops AREN'T THERE; YOU are there; other innocents are there; the BG is shooting up the place; NO ONE is present to SAVE YOU; so you take out your CCW and use it defensively

Look, I'm all for helping out the innocents, but I'm one, too. When I got the little piece of laminated paper that says I can carry a gun, I wasn't deputized. I wasn't given a badge. And, as many others in these threads can silently attest, I (or they) weren't given any common sense. Its not MY job to leap to the defense of people, I'm not trained, armed, armoured, or even put in effective contact with those who are. I won't swear out what I might do, if fate and luck presented the option to me, but my first thoughts, gun or not is, "where's my wife, where's the door." I have better things to do than kill or be killed, and my primary defensive tool is my brain which tells me to seek cover and report.

However, this isn't about that or me. Its about the police. I don't think this is a gun control issue, as much as many like tot hink it is. Its about lawsuits, and the fear of them. Its about cops who shoot first, and ask questions later. Its about some bad training and some bad decisions and how the fear of dying in the line of duty takes away some discrestion.

I think the police officers are the problem, but I don't blame them for their actions, I can't imagine how hard it is to function in that situation. I wonder if its in the selection and training of these individuals, or if its hopeless considering the constant escalation in the pursuit and eradication of crimes.
 

FirstFreedom

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

WTH? So if a civilian with a gun tried to do a good deed and break up the fight, it woulda been ok to shoot him simply because he was armed, but not 'recognizable' as an off-duty cop? The problem is NOT the officer's not being trained to recognize off-duty cops (not sure how they'd do that anyway in a split-second situation), but rather, the problem is they are not adequately trained to NOT SHOOT PEOPLE that who are not imminently threatening any 'good guys', just because they have a gun! Stupidity abounds!

Off-duty and plainclothes officers are told to respond "I'm on the job!"

Good, at leat now I know what to see if I ever help a threatened family member or fellow citizen with a gun.

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

Or, similarly, a female perspective: "I don't want to be driving through my crazy stalker ex-boyfriend's neighborhood without a gun. What if that knucklehead spots me?"
 

azurefly

Moderator
Off-duty and plainclothes officers are told to respond "I'm on the job!"


Good, at leat now I know what to see if I ever help a threatened family member or fellow citizen with a gun.


Yep.

A few thoughts about this:

If you say, "I'm on the job," they may start looking at you later on as someone who was "impersonating a police officer," because you said what a cop would say when accosted.

One defense against being accused of this: "All I meant was, 'I'm taking care of the situation.' I wasn't trying to act or sound like a police officer, I was only trying to tell the officer who responded that I had the offender under control."

Another defense: "Yeah, why shouldn't I say the thing I have come to understand that cops themselves say to keep other cops from accidentally shooting them when they're the good guy?!" :mad: "I have read that cops keep themselves from being shot by their colleagues by saying, 'I'm on the job' -- which tells me that anyone who doesn't say it is identified by cops responding to the scene as NOT being a cop, and shoot-worthy."


-azurefly
 
Top