I disagree and it's obvious you have a problem with LEO's. To group us all into one category is ignorant. To judge every officer and me is ignorant. There are officers getting arrested every day for criminal offenses and they don't get breaks. <snip>
Citizens who commit crimes are criminals. Their employment status is irrelevant. However, it has been cited here on OCDO repeatedly that cops who commit crimes are far less likely to be placed in the same legal jeopardy as a non-LEO. Laws have been enacted that contain verbiage that protects (exempts) cops from legal sanction for a variety of crimes while they are "on-duty" where a non-LEO citizen would be held to account.
You act as though Police Officers are like any other person and you are wrong. We are not like private citizens carrying guns. <snip>
Your firearm is a tool this is required to be carried as a condition of employment. A policy infraction only if not complied with. Unless CT statute explicitly states that a on-duty peace officer must be armed.
I agree, let the officers choose. Maybe what the Captain did was not the best decision, does that mean he is an arrogant elitist? It seems that you are quick to assume the worst in people. Is it because he is a cop?
I believe that that Chief is a arrogant elitist.
This was an insult, a slap in the face, to those detectives and to all of the men and women who proudly wear the uniform or badge and serve in law enforcement. - Clay said in a statement, according to the News-Democrat.
You may or may not recognize the irony in the Chief's statement.
Nope, disagree. There is a difference. If an OC'er was in the restaurant and a minor disturbance broke out, you, as an OCer can do very little nor are you obligated to, it's not your job. However, an LEO has to maintain the peace and intervene, and make an arrest if necessary, it's our job, not yours. You have no arrest authority, you are not an LEO, therefore you are different. It does not make you less of a citizen, that's not what I mean but there is a difference.
Well, considering that SCOTUS has ruled that cops don't have to intervene at that exact moment, if you will, your argument fails. Cops do intervene because that is what they are paid to do. Maybe CT is different, but in MO I do have arrest powers as a citizen. What I
do not have is the immunities (that a cop enjoys) that go along with that arrest power if I make a mistake in my good and
reasonable judgement.
Oh, we are talking about off duty now? That's a little different. Remember an LEO is on duty as soon as they ID themselves as LEO. If not, then yes, I agree. You either secure it or leave just like everyone else. I am not saying there should be special treatment however you have to realize there is a difference between an LEO and a private citizen.
Where does it state in CT statute that the act of presenting ID while off-duty instantly places you back on duty. This is commonly referred to as a cite request.
Then can you explain this?
720 ILCS 5/7-7) (from Ch. 38, par. 7-7)
Sec. 7-7. Private person's use of force in resisting arrest. A person is not authorized to use force to resist an arrest which he knows is being made either by a peace officer or by a private person summoned and directed by a peace officer to make the arrest, even if he believes that the arrest is unlawful and the arrest in fact is unlawful.
A private citizen does not have this right.
Again, I am disappointed in your ability to understand the above statute. In Illinois a citizen can not use force to prevent their own arrest. Nor can another citizen use force to prevent the arrest of another citizen by LE.
Originally Posted by carolina guy
Are they on patrol or responding to a call? If not, they are not in service and do not require the immediate use/access to their firearms. Just because their identify themselves as LEO, does not mean that a private citizen must surrender their property rights if it is not directly related to the enforcement of a law.
And no, there is no difference between LEO and private citizens when they are not ACTIVELY enforcing the law.
First part, not true. Like I said a firearm is part of the uniform, without it the LEO is not in uniform and is in violation of policy. Not to mention that there is probably a policy about disarming.
Once again you describe a condition of employment. Please provide a legal requirement, CT statute, that CT peace officers must be armed to perform their duties. Then please provide the legal requirement, CT statute, that a off-duty peace officer must be armed in case he must show his "ID" which then instantly places him on-duty.
You can defend yourself just not on private property.
:shocker:.....uh, you may wish to rephrase this. At a minimum please confirm for us that CT citizens are permitted to defend themselves on their own private property.
I honestly had no idea that a LEO could hold the views that you hold. Or, maybe I subconsciously refused to accept that a LEO would hold such views. Unfortunately, I must confess, I fear that your views are likely held by a vast majority of LE professionals.