talltex wrote:Private property...they have the right to say yes or no. Sporting events and airports are not privately owned venues. He might want to take a look at the recent incident where a Temple TX officer, who was attending a CLEAT convention in El Paso, and had been drinking, fired off his weapon in a hotel hospitality ballroom after sexually harassing and touching a female bartender . Just because he's an LEO doesn't guarantee his behavior in a bar.
Or any number of recent incidents where a LEO left a gun laying around or shot himself accidentally.
I firmly believe that LEO's are responsible adults as a group, but there are individuals within that group that have no business carrying a weapon (as with CHL holders.)
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.
Taypo, for fire and EMS yes duty to act has been stricken from most laws and occupation codes in Texas if you are not "on duty", not in other states but here in Texas. I understand however for Police Officers I don't believe it has been. I think a LEO has a duty to act in Texas no matter if they are or are not "on duty". I do know that a person holding a peace officers certification and commission in Texas is an LEO no matter where they are in Texas and are able to effect an arrest on most class b misdemeanor and above crimes.
Countryside wrote: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.
I agree with Taypo...the courts have ruled that there is no "obligation to protect" on the part of the police. To address a couple of points, there most definitely is a difference between an officer on and off duty...take a look at "cop bars" in any city. They are not allowed to drink on duty...but many of them do when off duty...they get stopped for DWI pretty often in the cities....although they often aren't charged. I don't want a drunken officer trying to protect anyone in a crowded bar or anywhere else. The old motto "To Protect and Serve" has been replaced in many LEO's minds with "whatever it takes to make sure I don't get hurt". I think the vast majority of LEO's, particularly the older ones, still feel that obligation to protect, but the trend toward "militarization" of domestic LE has fostered a different attitude about dealing with "civilians" among many officers. Look at how common it has become for an officer to shoot any dog that runs up to him in someone's yard, just because he "felt threatened" by the same animal that the postmen, meter readers, and other repairmen deal with everyday.
"I looked out under the sun and saw that the race is not always to the swift, nor the battle to the strong" Ecclesiastes 9:11
"The race may not always go to the swift or the battle to the strong, but that's the way the smart money bets" Damon Runyon
Countryside wrote: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.
I believe the LEO choose to be disarmed he had a choice disarm or leave or am i missing something?
I don't think it was right to do to him or us, but that's HOB's policy. He should not have gone in if it upset him that much. I don't spend my money at grapevine mills mall for the same reason. (I'm not LEO)
Disclaimer: Anything I state can not be applied to 100% of all situations. Sometimes it's ok to speak in general terms.
Countryside wrote: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.
I believe the LEO choose to be disarmed he had a choice disarm or leave or am i missing something?
The discussion is that because he's a LEO, he's never off the clock and is serving and protecting the public 24-7-365. The theory is that he's got a legal obligation to step in to a problem regardless of his status, but the courts have repeatedly ruled that cops, even while on duty, do not have a legal obligation to protect or serve.
JP171 wrote:Taypo, for fire and EMS yes duty to act has been stricken from most laws and occupation codes in Texas if you are not "on duty", not in other states but here in Texas. I understand however for Police Officers I don't believe it has been. I think a LEO has a duty to act in Texas no matter if they are or are not "on duty". I do know that a person holding a peace officers certification and commission in Texas is an LEO no matter where they are in Texas and are able to effect an arrest on most class b misdemeanor and above crimes.
The Texas State CCP says there IS a duty to act to prevent criminal acts they are witness to. HOWEVER...The Supreme court has ruled in at least two separate cases that there is no obligation. In case #1 they stated: "Law enforcement has no duty to act or protect against third party violence" not perpetrated by officials themselves." In other words if they see another LEO or Government official harming someone they DO have a duty to try and prevent it. In case #2, they clarified the position of state mandates clearly..."Law enforcement has no duty to act or protect, even if the victim has a legal restraining order, and even if State law mandates that an officer make an arrest." And that absence of "duty" doesn't just apply to "off duty" but to "on duty" as well. Those are pretty clear cut rulings.
"I looked out under the sun and saw that the race is not always to the swift, nor the battle to the strong" Ecclesiastes 9:11
"The race may not always go to the swift or the battle to the strong, but that's the way the smart money bets" Damon Runyon
If it was mandated by his depertment that he carry off duty did the officer just out himself as violating department policy by entering unarmed?
“Some people spend an entire lifetime wondering if they made a difference in the world. But, an American Soldier doesn't have that problem". — President Ronald Reagan, 1985
I am in agreement with Deputy Stanley regarding a boycott. The House of Blues, or any other private establishment, has a right to refuse entry to LEOs and CHLs while carrying, but there should be a price to pay for their decision. Just my 2 cents.
Taypo wrote:
The discussion is that because he's a LEO, he's never off the clock and is serving and protecting the public 24-7-365. The theory is that he's got a legal obligation to step in to a problem regardless of his status, but the courts have repeatedly ruled that cops, even while on duty, do not have a legal obligation to protect or serve.
That just is a misstatement of what the courts have said. The rulings have been if depts can be sued for not stopping specific crimes. Basicly if crime victims can sue because police didn't stop a particular crime. Those rulings have been about Liability not obligation. HOB can certainly bar any police officer from entering with a weapon if they are not on police business. That doesn't seem to be in question by anyone. The issue was that the officer that was disarmed felt it was disrespectful and insulting. Others also feel it's anti gun and more than a bit stupid because in general they think having an armed police officer nearby would be a good thing if there was an situation occurring that would benefit from having trained and armed personnel available to respond. I have to say that many of the responses seem to be along the lines of "If I can't then so what if he can" line and seem more than a bit petty. The whole "if I can't then I don't want anyone to be able" seems a bit childish to me. Considering the fit that so many throw when a business is posted 30.06 the "it's the businesses right" is a convenient response but more than a bit hypocritical and not really relevant. Sure they can but the question is should they. Ignoring legal liability that would hold officers responsible for not stopping criminal acts, many cops feel personal responsibilities to act and protect the public when off duty. Off duty cops do step up and get involved. Officers have been killed when trying to "protect and Serve" off duty. I really don't see disarming off duty cops as being a good thing and seeing people on this board seemingly defending such is just off.
Taypo wrote:
The discussion is that because he's a LEO, he's never off the clock and is serving and protecting the public 24-7-365. The theory is that he's got a legal obligation to step in to a problem regardless of his status, but the courts have repeatedly ruled that cops, even while on duty, do not have a legal obligation to protect or serve.
That just is a misstatement of what the courts have said. The rulings have been if depts can be sued for not stopping specific crimes. Basicly if crime victims can sue because police didn't stop a particular crime. Those rulings have been about Liability not obligation. HOB can certainly bar any police officer from entering with a weapon if they are not on police business. That doesn't seem to be in question by anyone. The issue was that the officer that was disarmed felt it was disrespectful and insulting. Others also feel it's anti gun and more than a bit stupid because in general they think having an armed police officer nearby would be a good thing if there was an situation occurring that would benefit from having trained and armed personnel available to respond. I have to say that many of the responses seem to be along the lines of "If I can't then so what if he can" line and seem more than a bit petty. The whole "if I can't then I don't want anyone to be able" seems a bit childish to me. Considering the fit that so many throw when a business is posted 30.06 the "it's the businesses right" is a convenient response but more than a bit hypocritical and not really relevant. Sure they can but the question is should they. Ignoring legal liability that would hold officers responsible for not stopping criminal acts, many cops feel personal responsibilities to act and protect the public when off duty. Off duty cops do step up and get involved. Officers have been killed when trying to "protect and Serve" off duty. I really don't see disarming off duty cops as being a good thing and seeing people on this board seemingly defending such is just off.
Im in no way, shape or form cop bashing here. I don't deny that many off duty cops step up to the plate and do a great job. So do countless civilians who don't have benefit of a badge to get them access to 30.06 location while armed.
He can gripe all he wants about being "forced" to disarm despite his department's policy, but it doesn't change the fact that they do not allow guns in that establishment. He's no better or no worse than anyone else once he takes that uniform off and is participating in an activity of his choosing at a location of his choosing.
Right2Carry wrote:If it was mandated by his depertment that he carry off duty did the officer just out himself as violating department policy by entering unarmed?
That isn't how it works. Depts know it just isn't possible to carry everywhere. Most do want their officer to carry as regularly as possible.
Taypo wrote:
Im in no way, shape or form cop bashing here. I don't deny that many off duty cops step up to the plate and do a great job. So do countless civilians who don't have benefit of a badge to get them access to 30.06 location while armed.
He can gripe all he wants about being "forced" to disarm despite his department's policy, but it doesn't change the fact that they do not allow guns in that establishment. He's no better or no worse than anyone else once he takes that uniform off and is participating in an activity of his choosing at a location of his choosing.
So you have never expressed any negativity about a business posting 30.06? You and others can "gripe" but he deserves derogatory comments when he dislikes being disarmed? It's not about being better, I don't believe someone is "better" than others because of their career choice, he however different that non-law enforcement. Different responsibilities, different legal standards, and yes that does LEGALLY continue even after he takes off his uniform.
