Off duty carry

[jsimmons]

It's sort of an unwritten rule that we always asked the judge's permission to have our off duty weapon on us. Usually the baliff will relay the request. Most judges will ask that you do carry it. Plus, this was just a civil suit.
I have had over 60 felony arrests and court trials and never had a court tell me not to carry my weapon.

I'm sorry, but that really has no impact on my opinion. Cops are humans too (and are subject to the same emotions as the rest of us), and courtrooms are often swirling in emotion and conflict. If someone goes into a courtroom, especially as a defendant, plaintiff, or is otherwise related to the matter before the bench, it's simply not a good idea to allow them to be armed - I don't care who they are or what their job is. If they're present to serve as security, then you would expect them to be armed, but not in any other capacity.

[jbirds1210]

[chuckybrown]

It's sort of an unwritten rule that we always asked the judge's permission to have our off duty weapon on us. Usually the baliff will relay the request. Most judges will ask that you do carry it. Plus, this was just a civil suit.
I have had over 60 felony arrests and court trials and never had a court tell me not to carry my weapon.

I'm sorry, but that really has no impact on my opinion. Cops are humans too (and are subject to the same emotions as the rest of us), and courtrooms are often swirling in emotion and conflict. If someone goes into a courtroom, especially as a defendant, plaintiff, or is otherwise related to the matter before the bench, it's simply not a good idea to allow them to be armed - I don't care who they are or what their job is. If they're present to serve as security, then you would expect them to be armed, but not in any other capacity.

Wow, gotta disagree as well. Any person can be "emotional", and clearly....any escalated situation where a weapon is drawn can be described as "confrontational".

I suggest, respectfully, that you re-think your opinion. This is the same argument made by the Anti's....no one can be trusted with a weapon.

My .02 cents, and I'm off to eat turkey.

Peace.

[jsimmons]

Cops are humans too (and are subject to the same emotions as the rest of us), and courtrooms are often swirling in emotion and conflict. If someone goes into a courtroom, especially as a defendant, plaintiff, or is otherwise related to the matter before the bench, it's simply not a good idea to allow them to be armed - I don't care who they are or what their job is.

Sir, emotion and conflict exist in a majority of things a police officers does in his/her daily duties. I have heard police described as "experienced confrontationalist" in the past and found that to be a good description. There are always exceptions no matter the job a person holds, but it is safe to say that most police with patrol experience have the ability to step out of the box and see things past raw emotion and stereotype. That said, there are many non-LE that share the same ability and give absolutely no reason to be disarmed in any setting. Just my two cents.

If they're present to serve as security, then you would expect them to be armed, but not in any other capacity.

I could not disagree with you more, but I respect your opinion. Just consider that the same LE person is armed in the bathroom, parking lot/garage, and might be the one to save your behind in the event of a felony. Just something to think about. Depending on the crime, their shift as security never ends.

Jason

Right - the police are "experienced confrontationalists", yet we continue to see examples of them letting their emotions get the better of them by piling on and beating the crap out of people they were chasing - AFTER that person was restrained. Yeah - experienced... totally trustworthy... cool-headed by their very nature... I sure don't mind these guys having guns in a courtroom when they're on one side or the other of a court case...

[jsimmons]

It's sort of an unwritten rule that we always asked the judge's permission to have our off duty weapon on us. Usually the baliff will relay the request. Most judges will ask that you do carry it. Plus, this was just a civil suit.
I have had over 60 felony arrests and court trials and never had a court tell me not to carry my weapon.

I'm sorry, but that really has no impact on my opinion. Cops are humans too (and are subject to the same emotions as the rest of us), and courtrooms are often swirling in emotion and conflict. If someone goes into a courtroom, especially as a defendant, plaintiff, or is otherwise related to the matter before the bench, it's simply not a good idea to allow them to be armed - I don't care who they are or what their job is. If they're present to serve as security, then you would expect them to be armed, but not in any other capacity.

Wow, gotta disagree as well. Any person can be "emotional", and clearly....any escalated situation where a weapon is drawn can be described as "confrontational".

I suggest, respectfully, that you re-think your opinion. This is the same argument made by the Anti's....no one can be trusted with a weapon.

My .02 cents, and I'm off to eat turkey.

Peace.

I'm not saying people can't be trusted to carry, I'm saying they shouldn't be allowed in a courtroom. Period. They don't allow civilians to carry for that very reason, yet cops are allowed to - simply because they're cops. I've been told time and again that CHL holders are held to an even higher standard than LEOs where carrying is concerned, yet we're not allowed to carry in the same situations - for the very reasons I'm citing. Somehow, everyone thinks LEOs are immune to emotional outbursts, but the reality is that NOBODY is immune to that (unless they're in a coma).

[jbirds1210]

Edited.

[CompVest]

Alright! It is time to cool this thread down!

[texasmr2]

I'm not saying people can't be trusted to carry, I'm saying they shouldn't be allowed in a courtroom. Period. They don't allow civilians to carry for that very reason, yet cops are allowed to - simply because they're cops.

One thing you must or will hopefully realize someday is that LEO's are NEVER off duty.

I've been told time and again that CHL holders are held to an even higher standard than LEOs where carrying is concerned, yet we're not allowed to carry in the same situations - for the very reasons I'm citing.

CHL holders are held to high standards simply because they are NOT LEO's and do not have the training but CHL's have been alloted the priviledge of carrying a deadly weapon.

Somehow, everyone thinks LEOs are immune to emotional outbursts, but the reality is that NOBODY is immune to that (unless they're in a coma).

Nobody here as far as I see are disagreeing with you as LEO's are only human. I'm not really sure if you can or ever will be able to comprehend the level of humanity and restraint that is required to be a LEO simply by the fact that you have issue's with LEO's option's of carry. I will be graduating a police academy in May and I cannot express in mere word's the thing's I have learned about becoming a LEO or myself. Law enforcement is not for everyone or for everyone to understand, either you get it or you don't.

Best Regards,
tex

PS,
I almost forgot to mention that by your assessment of LEO's lead's me to believe that you have had a bad experience in the past am I correct? If so you are carrying a grudge against all LEO's and cannot let go of the past, no LEO is perfect and I doubt you are either.

[WildBill]

One thing you must or will hopefully realize someday is that LEO's are NEVER off duty.

Then they should never have to work after-hours for private security or put in for overtime pay.

CHL holders are held to high standards simply because they are NOT LEO's and do not have the training but CHL's have been alloted the priviledge of carrying a deadly weapon.

CHLs have shown that they meet "high standards" by their lack of criminal record and clean background check. Most members of this forum would say that CHL is a constitutional right, which has no training criteria, rather than a privilege.

I'm not really sure if you can or ever will be able to comprehend the level of humanity and restraint that is required to be a LEO simply by the fact that you have issue's with LEO's option's of carry. I will be graduating a police academy in May and I cannot express in mere word's the thing's I have learned about becoming a LEO or myself. Law enforcement is not for everyone or for everyone to understand, either you get it or you don't.

And when did you finally "get it?" Before you entered the police academy, while you were at the academy, when you graduated from the academy, after you became a sworn member of law enforcement or after 10 years on the job?

I almost forgot to mention that by your assessment of LEO's lead's me to believe that you have had a bad experience in the past am I correct? If so you are carrying a grudge against all LEO's and cannot let go of the past, no LEO is perfect and I doubt you are either.

I am not perfect and that is why I carry a perpetual grudge against all LEOs who have a superiority complex towards "civilians" and those who have an impertinent and condescending attitude against law-abiding citizens.

[MD2595]

IMHO, anyone that is not directly serving in the capacity as a bailiff for that court should be required to disarm before entering the building - even (and especially) LEOs. This includes ANY weapon, lethal or less-than-lethal (mace, pepper spray, batons, etc). Cops are just as likely to lose control as anyone else involved in a trial. Even bailiffs should only be carrying less-than-lethal gear to avoid giving the bad guys the opportunity to somehow end up with a gun and start shooting the place up.

This is just wrong.

So as a police officer, if I go to testify and I'm in uniform, then I should leave my gun out in my car? By lour yogic, since I'm not a bailiff, then I shouldn't have a gun.

Have you seen most bailiffs? I'd say the majority of them are retirement age and can't bench press 100 lbs.

Rediculous....

[MD2595]

It's sort of an unwritten rule that we always asked the judge's permission to have our off duty weapon on us. Usually the baliff will relay the request. Most judges will ask that you do carry it. Plus, this was just a civil suit.
I have had over 60 felony arrests and court trials and never had a court tell me not to carry my weapon.

I'm sorry, but that really has no impact on my opinion. Cops are humans too (and are subject to the same emotions as the rest of us), and courtrooms are often swirling in emotion and conflict. If someone goes into a courtroom, especially as a defendant, plaintiff, or is otherwise related to the matter before the bench, it's simply not a good idea to allow them to be armed - I don't care who they are or what their job is. If they're present to serve as security, then you would expect them to be armed, but not in any other capacity.

Just elaborating here, but you'd place your entire safety on one bailiff's ability to respond to and eliminate a threat?

What if you have a defendant in the court that has a gang connection and several gang/family members in the court? You expect one elderly bailiff to control 20 angry people that might get out of control? So if there are 3 officers there to testify at the trial, you'd rather them all be unarmed?

[MD2595]

Right - the police are "experienced confrontationalists", yet we continue to see examples of them letting their emotions get the better of them by piling on and beating the crap out of people they were chasing - AFTER that person was restrained. Yeah - experienced... totally trustworthy... cool-headed by their very nature... I sure don't mind these guys having guns in a courtroom when they're on one side or the other of a court case...

So you are going to allow what you see on TV to taint your entire view of LEO? Please do me a favor, watch your 5pm news, 6pm news, and 10 pm news and see how many crimes are reported vs. the number of police brutality segments they have.

I'd bet that for every 1 over-zealous LEO encounter, there are 100+ violent crimes committed against every day citizens.

How many officers murdered citizens the day the 4 Washington officers were killed?

[MD2595]

I am not perfect and that is why I carry a perpetual grudge against all LEOs who have a superiority complex towards "civilians" and those who have an impertinent and condescending attitude against law-abiding citizens.

When you are looking for this attitude, you are more likely to find it.

[marksiwel]

Cops are "civilians too. I dont know why people say otherwise