I never meant I felt sorry for the deputy. My point was that having an armed officer there...even off duty...would have provided an element of security. I was in LE for over 10 years, and there was the expectation we would intervene in the event of something serious. I guess the law has changed. That supreme court ruling makes it even more evident we need to be ready to protect ourselves. The officer made his own choice, and yes, they had the right to have him disarm himself. My point was about the lack of wisdom being used by the establishment, and the way they used their right was not really in anyone's best interest. I don't think it was intentionally disrespectful...but it was dumb. And there was, I guess, a small degree of disrespect in the fact that the officer didn't just ignore their thoughts or feelings and just go on in. He showed respect by letting them know who he was and speaking to them before hand. He was open and up front to them. He wasn't asking for free admission. They would have a fully equipped, prepared peace officer there as well. The officer would not have benefitted or profited in any way, and they would have had some extra, free security. In a way they sort of dismissed him and did not return the equal respect and consideration he showed to them....but then again, they didn't have to. He didn't have to go in. Should he have his feelings terribly hurt...no. One thing that his post would do, however, is to alert people who might go to places like this as to how truly unprotected they are because of a businesses policy.
Now, had he been gay wanting someone to bake him a cake.................
Search found 2 matches
Return to “Boycott House of Blues-Deputy disarmed”
- Thu Oct 01, 2015 5:47 pm
- Forum: Off-Topic
- Topic: Boycott House of Blues-Deputy disarmed
- Replies: 185
- Views: 22490
- Thu Oct 01, 2015 10:39 am
- Forum: Off-Topic
- Topic: Boycott House of Blues-Deputy disarmed
- Replies: 185
- Views: 22490
Re: Boycott House of Blues-Deputy disarmed
There is no such things as an "off duty" peace officer.
You and I as CHL carriers can protect ourselves. We are not legally obligated nor sworn to uphold the law. We are under no obligation to get involved (to interfere with or stop) in a crime that is being committed. If you see two guys pull knives on each other, you are not obligated to get involved. A peace officer is.
An officer may not be in his uniform and in his patrol car, but he is always on duty as far keeping the peace. He is sworn to interfere with crime and to protect people. His handgun is there to not just protect himself but those around him. It is a tool that is part of his job should he need it. To deprive him of it, and then if something happens, to expect him to fulfill his role if we have disarmed him is unfair and unreasonable.
Yes, they had the "right" to do it as far as it being their property.
But there is a right and a wrong way to exercise our rights. It was their right, but there was no wisdom in the way they did it.
If this is going to be permitted, then there needs to be a law that protects peace officers from any liability if something happens when they have been disarmed by a property owner. Liability is then passed on to the ones committing the crime and to the property owner who disarmed the peace officer. The presence of an armed peace officer, whether on or off duty, is free security for any establishment and the people there.
You and I as CHL carriers can protect ourselves. We are not legally obligated nor sworn to uphold the law. We are under no obligation to get involved (to interfere with or stop) in a crime that is being committed. If you see two guys pull knives on each other, you are not obligated to get involved. A peace officer is.
An officer may not be in his uniform and in his patrol car, but he is always on duty as far keeping the peace. He is sworn to interfere with crime and to protect people. His handgun is there to not just protect himself but those around him. It is a tool that is part of his job should he need it. To deprive him of it, and then if something happens, to expect him to fulfill his role if we have disarmed him is unfair and unreasonable.
Yes, they had the "right" to do it as far as it being their property.
But there is a right and a wrong way to exercise our rights. It was their right, but there was no wisdom in the way they did it.
If this is going to be permitted, then there needs to be a law that protects peace officers from any liability if something happens when they have been disarmed by a property owner. Liability is then passed on to the ones committing the crime and to the property owner who disarmed the peace officer. The presence of an armed peace officer, whether on or off duty, is free security for any establishment and the people there.