-
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
No more off-duty carry?
- Thread starter Admin
- Start date
The leftists don't mess around. They push this b/s on everyone at once. More of the same in RI...
Link...
http://www.boston.com/news/local/rh...partments_scaling_back_always_armed_policies/
Excerpt...
Police departments scaling back 'always armed' policies
By Ray Henry, Associated Press Writer | November 26, 2005
PROVIDENCE, R.I. --Police departments nationwide are scaling back long-standing policies requiring officers to carry their weapons around the clock, and a civil rights lawsuit brought by the mother of a slain black officer could hasten the trend.
So-called "always armed, always on duty" policies require officers to respond to crimes even when they're not working, and keep their guns with them at all times. The policy has been blamed in recent years for the deaths of a handful of officers killed when their colleagues mistook them for suspects.
But supporters say the policy is one of policing's oldest traditions -- and that arming off-duty officers protects them from crooks bent on revenge.
Such a policy is at the center of a $20 million civil rights lawsuit being heard this month in Providence, where Sgt. Cornel Young Jr. was shot dead five years ago by two white colleagues while he was off duty and trying to break up a fight.
Young's mother, Leisa Young, says the rookie officer who shot her son was not adequately trained to recognize colleagues who were off duty or in plain clothes.
According to the FBI, 43 police officers since 1987 have been killed 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.
"Our situation is the extreme example of what can go wrong," said Sgt. Robert Paniccia, the president of the Providence police union.
Young was eating a sandwich in a late-night diner on Jan. 28, 2000, when a fight broke out between two women. After the fight moved outside, someone pulled a gun, and Young ran out to intervene.
At the same time, Officers Carlos Saraiva and Michael Solitro, an eight-day rookie, say they pulled into the parking lot and saw the gunman.
As the gunman surrendered, they noticed Young, who was wearing baggy jeans, an overcoat and a baseball cap. He was carrying a gun.
"Drop the gun!" Saraiva and his partner screamed three times, they testified earlier this month.
Young did not drop the gun, they said, and they shot him.
Within minutes, Solitro watched another officer pull a police badge from the dead man's pocket.
The shooting marked Providence's first fatal case of mistaken police identity, but similar accidents have claimed lives elsewhere.
This year, an Orlando, Fla., police officer saw a man fire his gun outside the Citrus Bowl and shot him dead. 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
Link...
http://www.boston.com/news/local/rh...partments_scaling_back_always_armed_policies/
Excerpt...
Police departments scaling back 'always armed' policies
By Ray Henry, Associated Press Writer | November 26, 2005
PROVIDENCE, R.I. --Police departments nationwide are scaling back long-standing policies requiring officers to carry their weapons around the clock, and a civil rights lawsuit brought by the mother of a slain black officer could hasten the trend.
So-called "always armed, always on duty" policies require officers to respond to crimes even when they're not working, and keep their guns with them at all times. The policy has been blamed in recent years for the deaths of a handful of officers killed when their colleagues mistook them for suspects.
But supporters say the policy is one of policing's oldest traditions -- and that arming off-duty officers protects them from crooks bent on revenge.
Such a policy is at the center of a $20 million civil rights lawsuit being heard this month in Providence, where Sgt. Cornel Young Jr. was shot dead five years ago by two white colleagues while he was off duty and trying to break up a fight.
Young's mother, Leisa Young, says the rookie officer who shot her son was not adequately trained to recognize colleagues who were off duty or in plain clothes.
According to the FBI, 43 police officers since 1987 have been killed 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.
"Our situation is the extreme example of what can go wrong," said Sgt. Robert Paniccia, the president of the Providence police union.
Young was eating a sandwich in a late-night diner on Jan. 28, 2000, when a fight broke out between two women. After the fight moved outside, someone pulled a gun, and Young ran out to intervene.
At the same time, Officers Carlos Saraiva and Michael Solitro, an eight-day rookie, say they pulled into the parking lot and saw the gunman.
As the gunman surrendered, they noticed Young, who was wearing baggy jeans, an overcoat and a baseball cap. He was carrying a gun.
"Drop the gun!" Saraiva and his partner screamed three times, they testified earlier this month.
Young did not drop the gun, they said, and they shot him.
Within minutes, Solitro watched another officer pull a police badge from the dead man's pocket.
The shooting marked Providence's first fatal case of mistaken police identity, but similar accidents have claimed lives elsewhere.
This year, an Orlando, Fla., police officer saw a man fire his gun outside the Citrus Bowl and shot him dead. 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
if you were a cop off duty and someother cops had the drop on you and told you to drop it. several times, wouldn't you?
Sorry but that cop was a dumb cop.
Sorry but that cop was a dumb cop.
The issue of whether or not police officers should be armed off duty is a controversial one. Personally, I have always favored the idea that the cops be armed 24/7. It makes sense, just like it makes sense for lawfully armed civilians to be armed 24/7. Now whether the police should be acting under the "color of authority" is entirely a different matter and is also related to officer survival.
Off-duty police officers are not as well armed, or as well equipped when they are on duty. They have been cases where police officers, off-duty have gone against multiple armed assailants with a five shot Chief's Special. Most often, if you are outgunned and your demise does not seem imminent, and no one is being assaulted, the best course of action is to be a reliable witness.
Perhaps some of you know the name of Evan Marshall. He was one of the first to study the effects of ammunition in police shootings and compiled an impressive data base in the 80's. He also served on the Detroit PD as a detective. I remember an account that he related once in an article: He was in a convenience store off-duty as it was being robbed by two gunmen. Marshall was carrying a Browning Hi-Power at the time. He said that as long as perps were taking money and there were no indicators that they were going to execute anyone, he felt the prudent thing to do was to let the robberty go down. Now Marshall had several gunfights under his belt, he just felt that the odds were not in his favor in this instance, so he became a good witness. None of us were there and we can play the role of Monday morning quarterback from now until next Tuesday, but nothing will really be resolved.
The incident in Providence is tragic with definite racial overtones. What Officer (posthumously promoted to Sgt) Young failed to realize is that he looked like the enemy i.e. the threat. When he (Young) was told to stand down, he ignored the commands of his fellow officers and for his trouble was shot down. It has less to do with the inexperience of the officer who shot him, than the fact that he violated THE basic tenet of law enforcement: Always do what the police say in a crisis situation. Don't move too quickly, don't move too slowly and ALWAYS MAKE SURE THE COPPERS CAN SEE YOUR HANDS !
Now this deal about having the police unarmed when off-duty is really a reaction to the new law that allows nation-wide CCW for all active and retired police. This raises the hackles of the gun grabbers. I understand that Mayor Daly in Chicago is one of the most vociferous opponents of this new law. I'm reasonably sure that there are upper echelon NYPD weenies who feel the same way.
The thing that anyone who carries must consider is: How will they react to the threat at hand ? Do they have the wepons, tactics, cover, conealment to prevail ? Do they have effective communications ? If the Hell's Angels are tearing up a town, and you are by yourself with a Kahr or a Chief's, then maybe the best thing to do is call the cavalry or go get help. The world is full of dead heroes, who with the best of intentions, failed to prevail because they were outgunned or outnumbered or both.
Regards,
Mark
Off-duty police officers are not as well armed, or as well equipped when they are on duty. They have been cases where police officers, off-duty have gone against multiple armed assailants with a five shot Chief's Special. Most often, if you are outgunned and your demise does not seem imminent, and no one is being assaulted, the best course of action is to be a reliable witness.
Perhaps some of you know the name of Evan Marshall. He was one of the first to study the effects of ammunition in police shootings and compiled an impressive data base in the 80's. He also served on the Detroit PD as a detective. I remember an account that he related once in an article: He was in a convenience store off-duty as it was being robbed by two gunmen. Marshall was carrying a Browning Hi-Power at the time. He said that as long as perps were taking money and there were no indicators that they were going to execute anyone, he felt the prudent thing to do was to let the robberty go down. Now Marshall had several gunfights under his belt, he just felt that the odds were not in his favor in this instance, so he became a good witness. None of us were there and we can play the role of Monday morning quarterback from now until next Tuesday, but nothing will really be resolved.
The incident in Providence is tragic with definite racial overtones. What Officer (posthumously promoted to Sgt) Young failed to realize is that he looked like the enemy i.e. the threat. When he (Young) was told to stand down, he ignored the commands of his fellow officers and for his trouble was shot down. It has less to do with the inexperience of the officer who shot him, than the fact that he violated THE basic tenet of law enforcement: Always do what the police say in a crisis situation. Don't move too quickly, don't move too slowly and ALWAYS MAKE SURE THE COPPERS CAN SEE YOUR HANDS !
Now this deal about having the police unarmed when off-duty is really a reaction to the new law that allows nation-wide CCW for all active and retired police. This raises the hackles of the gun grabbers. I understand that Mayor Daly in Chicago is one of the most vociferous opponents of this new law. I'm reasonably sure that there are upper echelon NYPD weenies who feel the same way.
The thing that anyone who carries must consider is: How will they react to the threat at hand ? Do they have the wepons, tactics, cover, conealment to prevail ? Do they have effective communications ? If the Hell's Angels are tearing up a town, and you are by yourself with a Kahr or a Chief's, then maybe the best thing to do is call the cavalry or go get help. The world is full of dead heroes, who with the best of intentions, failed to prevail because they were outgunned or outnumbered or both.
Regards,
Mark
I too think that LEO should be able to carry 24/7 in their state. At the same time, I think that they should have to have some more firearms training to include use out of uniform. (The worst pistol shooters in my Marine Reserve Platoon were all Police Officers, excpet one. He was outstanding.)
mark056 said:
I think that is the key issue. Because they are Off-Duty LEO's they feel obligated to stop a crime even when it may not be the right decision, just like in the above post.
Choosing when to fight is just as important of knowing how to fight.
I think it's a liberal trick to erode their 2nd amendment rights which has an end goal of eliminating our 2nd amendment rights.
BTW, any human being with compasion and feelings has an obligation to help someone in need, if they can.
BTW, any human being with compasion and feelings has an obligation to help someone in need, if they can.
They don't issue permits in Providence (unless you're related to somebody important), so I say let them fend for themselves like everybody else.
I disagree. I don't think he was a "dumb cop." What I think is that he was not well trained. I understand that he was not wearing his badge; his badge was found in his pocket. It was a dark night, man with a gun call, the responding officers got there and sure enough saw a man with a gun -- the off-duty cop who they did not recognize in the dark night.
What I suspect happened is that he may not have even seen or heard the responding officers. He was probably tunnel-visioned in on the perp. If he did hear the cops yelling "drop the gun", I suspect he thought they were yelling that to the perp, not him, so he did not drop his gun.
I think the deceased cop probably had not been properly trained about how to handle a call while in plain clothes. Unfortunately, he paid the ultimate price for that lack of training. But I don't blame him for that.
- Joined
- Feb 26, 2005
- Messages
- 57,033
- Likes
- 21,182
Coyote, that could be a problem. We had two FT POs that were always pickled, even on the job! Are you suggesting that they shouldn't have been armed while working? ![[wink]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/002.gif "Wink [wink]")
Perhaps I see this differently since I am not a drinker (I may occasionally have 1 or 2 drinks over several hours) and I have a deep respect for firearms and the damage they can do if not handled properly! I don't see a problem with officers having a drink (especially with dinner) armed, as long as they aren't getting drunk or unruly.
Perhaps I see this differently since I am not a drinker (I may occasionally have 1 or 2 drinks over several hours) and I have a deep respect for firearms and the damage they can do if not handled properly! I don't see a problem with officers having a drink (especially with dinner) armed, as long as they aren't getting drunk or unruly.
[lol] [lol] [lol]LenS said:Coyote, that could be a problem. We had two FT POs that were always pickled, even on the job! Are you suggesting that they shouldn't have been armed while working?
