bradley square mall, cleveland tn

[Fallguy]

imported post

tnshooter wrote:

Here in Cleveland, the cops are considered on duty 24/7. Our local sheriff is ex-secret service and he is all gung-ho. so when off duty and carrying concealed they are immune to the civilian do not carry laws.

Unless he is paying his people 24/7 one could push the issue if they wanted to.

Of course I've always wondered who are you gonna call if you saw an off-duty LEO carrying in a place that he isn't supposed to? His fellow officers?

 

[C-ya]

imported post

tnshooter wrote:

Here in Cleveland, the cops are considered on duty 24/7. Our local sheriff is ex-secret service and he is all gung-ho. so when off duty and carrying concealed they are immune to the civilian do not carry laws.

If that is the city's policy, that's fine. I wonder how many cities have that policy? I understand that just because you take off the uniform doesn't mean that you aren't a cop anymore. Same as being in the military. You are under the jurisdiction of the UCMJ 24/7, whether in or out of uniform.

The thing that I don't like is when an off-duty cop is given a free pass when a non-LEO wouldn't for carrying in a gun-free zone JUST because they are LEO. If they are not on duty or on official business, why do they have more rights than the rest of us?

 

[mdmoseley]

imported post

Reading this about off duty officers just irritates me. I'm about to start working for the Sherrif's Office. For those of you that think off duty officers should be no different than you let me pose this question. If someone comes into the store you happen to be at and tries to rob the placewhich places your life as well as others in danger and after it's all over you find out one of the patrons is an off duty officer. Are you going to be pissed and want to know why he/she didn't do anything to protect you and stop the person?

 

[Wiley]

imported post

mdmoseley wrote:

Reading this about off duty officers just irritates me. I'm about to start working for the Sherrif's Office. For those of you that think off duty officers should be no different than you let me pose this question. If someone comes into the store you happen to be at and tries to rob the placewhich places your life as well as others in danger and after it's all over you find out one of the patrons is an off duty officer. Are you going to be pissed and want to know why he/she didn't do anything to protect you and stop the person?

No, I'm not going to be upset since case law has established in the various states and federal levels that the police are NOT legally required to protect the individual. Put your irritation on hold until you research the law.

 

[Fallguy]

imported post

Well it would seem now by law that LEO's are on duty pretty much 24/7

T.C.A. 39-17-1350 Law enforcement officers permitted to carry firearms — Exceptions — Restrictions — Identification card for corrections officers.

(a) Notwithstanding any provision of law to the contrary, any law enforcement officer may carry firearms at all times and in all places within Tennessee, on-duty or off-duty, regardless of the officer's regular duty hours or assignments, except as provided by subsection (c), federal law, lawful orders of court or the written directives of the executive supervisor of the employing agency.

(b) The authority conferred by this section is expressly intended to and shall supersede restrictions placed upon law enforcement officers' authority to carry firearms by other sections within this part.

(c) The authority conferred by this section shall not extend to a law enforcement officer:

(1) Who carries a firearm onto school grounds or inside a school building during regular school hours unless the officer immediately informs the principal that the officer will be present on school grounds or inside the school building and in possession of a firearm. If the principal is unavailable, the notice may be given to an appropriate administrative staff person in the principal's office;

(2) Who is consuming beer or an alcoholic beverage or who is under the influence of beer, an alcoholic beverage, or a controlled substance;

(3) Who is not engaged in the actual discharge of official duties as a law enforcement officer while within the confines of an establishment where beer or alcoholic beverages are sold for consumption on-the-premises; or

(4) Who is not engaged in the actual discharge of official duties as a law enforcement officer while attending a judicial proceeding.
​

There is also a bill currently in the legislature SB3853 that would remove all the restriction in part (c) except for sub-part (2).

As a firefighter/emt I only have a duty to act when I am on the job or if my job policies required I could have a duty when off work, but still with in the area controlled by my job. A LEO is the same way, if you are city policeman or a county deputy, you only have a duty to act when within the city or county you serve. Now of course LEO's, firefighter and EMT's are all liable to act in any situation any where if they think there actions can help.

But just as above a person with a HCP may need to defend himselves anywhere and all I ask is we have the same tools available to us as a on off-duty LEO.

 

[tonyparson]

imported post

Fallguy wrote:

Well it would seem now by law that LEO's are on duty pretty much 24/7

T.C.A. 39-17-1350 Law enforcement officers permitted to carry firearms — Exceptions — Restrictions — Identification card for corrections officers.

(a) Notwithstanding any provision of law to the contrary, any law enforcement officer may carry firearms at all times and in all places within Tennessee, on-duty or off-duty, regardless of the officer's regular duty hours or assignments, except as provided by subsection (c), federal law, lawful orders of court or the written directives of the executive supervisor of the employing agency.

(b) The authority conferred by this section is expressly intended to and shall supersede restrictions placed upon law enforcement officers' authority to carry firearms by other sections within this part.

(c) The authority conferred by this section shall not extend to a law enforcement officer:

(1) Who carries a firearm onto school grounds or inside a school building during regular school hours unless the officer immediately informs the principal that the officer will be present on school grounds or inside the school building and in possession of a firearm. If the principal is unavailable, the notice may be given to an appropriate administrative staff person in the principal's office;

(2) Who is consuming beer or an alcoholic beverage or who is under the influence of beer, an alcoholic beverage, or a controlled substance;

(3) Who is not engaged in the actual discharge of official duties as a law enforcement officer while within the confines of an establishment where beer or alcoholic beverages are sold for consumption on-the-premises; or

(4) Who is not engaged in the actual discharge of official duties as a law enforcement officer while attending a judicial proceeding.
​

There is also a bill currently in the legislature SB3853 that would remove all the restriction in part (c) except for sub-part (2).

As a firefighter/emt I only have a duty to act when I am on the job or if my job policies required I could have a duty when off work, but still with in the area controlled by my job. A LEO is the same way, if you are city policeman or a county deputy, you only have a duty to act when within the city or county you serve. Now of course LEO's, firefighter and EMT's are all liable to act in any situation any where if they think there actions can help.

But just as above a person with a HCP may need to defend himselves anywhere and all I ask is we have the same tools available to us as a on off-duty LEO.

 

[swillden]

imported post

couplecoupleC-ya wrote:

kurtmax_0 wrote:

Huh? Unless the officer was conducting an official investigation, I don't see why he has any more rights to be there than anyone else.

Agreed! I have asked the question about whether the UT off-duty cop who was carrying in the mall which was posted gun-free got into any trouble. If you are an off-duty cop, you are no better than the rest of us and should have no different rights than a non-LEO.

He didn't get in trouble, and neither did any of the other citizens present that were concealing[1]. In Utah, signs on the doors prohibiting weapons have no legal force whatsoever, with two exceptions: private residences and churches. The mall would have been within its rights to order the OPD officer and the others never to return or be prosecuted for trespassing, but they aren't that dumb.

They are, however, dumb enough to still have the policy prohibiting weapons in place. I was there last night. I just shook my head and pulled my jacket down over my gun.

[1] There were at least three other armed citizens present during the shooting. They didn't involve themselves in the firefight but instead took up defensive positions. One armed couple was in a restaurant and they had the restaurant employees herd all of the patrons back into a storage room that had only one entrance and then the couple took up defensive positions where they had good cover and could protect that doorway. The other was in a clothing store and did something similar. Because the off-duty cop pinned the shooter down, he never entered either of these protected locations (and there may have been more; I only heard about two).