Boycott House of Blues-Deputy disarmed

[kurt]

I don't think that CHL or LE should be disarmed unless they are drinking or doing drugs. As for LE requirement to protect...

WASHINGTON, June 27, 2005 - The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that the police did not have a constitutional duty to protect a person from harm, even a woman who had obtained a court-issued protective order against a violent husband making an arrest mandatory for a violation.

The decision, with an opinion by Justice Antonin Scalia and dissents from Justices John Paul Stevens and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, overturned a ruling by a federal appeals court in Colorado. The appeals court had permitted a lawsuit to proceed against a Colorado town, Castle Rock, for the failure of the police to respond to a woman's pleas for help after her estranged husband violated a protective order by kidnapping their three young daughters, whom he eventually killed.

[Taypo]

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.

I absolutely express negativity about 30.06, as do a lot of folks.

The difference between us and him? We don't expect a free pass because we've got a badge.

And I'll be keeping my eye out for all those prosecutions of off duty cops.

[EEllis]

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.

I absolutely express negativity about 30.06, as do a lot of folks.

The difference between us and him? We don't expect a free pass because we've got a badge.

And I'll be keeping my eye out for all those prosecutions of off duty cops.

He made a facebook post. No one expects you to take police action when you are out with friends. And there are no laws that are violated by a cop carrying a gun so how can they be prosecuted? No, very even handed and fair. :/sarcasm:

[Taypo]

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.

I absolutely express negativity about 30.06, as do a lot of folks.

The difference between us and him? We don't expect a free pass because we've got a badge.

And I'll be keeping my eye out for all those prosecutions of off duty cops.

He made a facebook post. No one expects you to take police action when you are out with friends. And there are no laws that are violated by a cop carrying a gun so how can they be prosecuted? No, very even handed and fair. :/sarcasm:

If his LEGAL responsibilities continue even after he takes off the uniform, why shouldn't we expect him to take action while he's out with friends? Do one's legal obligations change depending on the circumstances? Should he not have to respond with friends present, but while he's alone its a requirement?

[MONGOOSE]

He is under no "obligation " to draw his gun. He can evaluate the situation first and determine if he wants to engage

[Goldspurs]

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.

He can express negativity just like the rest at being disarmed just like anyone else. As it has already been posted, he has no more legal obligation to act while off duty than you or me. Check out the many posts on the SCOTUS ruling. I don't think anyone on here is against an off duty cop being armed. I think the rub is that a person feels they deserve "more rights" because they are a special status.

[philip964]

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.

Boycott idea was mine not the officer's. I want to be clear. He did not suggest a boycott. I do not know the Deputy, I do not want him to get in trouble with his superiors.

When everyone including off duty LEO's are disarmed, only criminals will be armed.

Knowing this is their policy of only having armed criminals in their business. I will avoid at all costs. Thus my boycott.

[Goldspurs]

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.

Boycott idea was mine not the officer's. I want to be clear. He did not suggest a boycott. I do not know the Deputy, I do not want him to get in trouble with his superiors.

When everyone including off duty LEO's are disarmed, only criminals will be armed.

Knowing this is their policy of only having armed criminals in their business. I will avoid at all costs. Thus my boycott.

I agree for the most part. I just choose to avoid any place that prohibits the lawful carry of firearms. I don't take into account whether they allow select groups to carry while the general public is left defenseless.

[Taypo]

I'm sure you're safe from everything but a contact high at a Blues Traveller concert.

[flechero]

I am required to carry my weapon with me....

...I had to return to my vehicle and disarm myself to return to the facility.

So, was the concert was more important than the career? I guess he wanted to see the concert more than he wanted to be armed.


For the record, I don't agree with business on this but I also don't feel sorry for the deputy. It's a choice the rest of us have to make on a daily basis.

[Taypo]

I am required to carry my weapon with me....

...I had to return to my vehicle and disarm myself to return to the facility.

So, was the concert was more important than the career? I guess he wanted to see the concert more than he wanted to be armed.


For the record, I don't agree with business on this but I also don't feel sorry for the deputy. It's a choice the rest of us have to make on a daily basis.

[talltex]

He can express negativity just like the rest at being disarmed just like anyone else. As it has already been posted, he has no more legal obligation to act while off duty than you or me. Check out the many posts on the SCOTUS ruling. I don't think anyone on here is against an off duty cop being armed. I think the rub is that a person feels they deserve "more rights" because they are a special status.

I'll say it again...NOT just while OFF-DUTY...SCOTUS ruling applies to ON-DUTY as well...both the cases I referenced involved the failure of on-duty officers to take action.

[Countryside]

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.................

[EEllis]

If his LEGAL responsibilities continue even after he takes off the uniform, why shouldn't we expect him to take action while he's out with friends? Do one's legal obligations change depending on the circumstances? Should he not have to respond with friends present, but while he's alone its a requirement?

Huh? You're saying he should just shut up and disarm, when you would be upset with them posting a 30.06, but are questioning him not taking action against criminal activity when going someplace that had him disarm? What?

[EEllis]

He can express negativity just like the rest at being disarmed just like anyone else. As it has already been posted, he has no more legal obligation to act while off duty than you or me. Check out the many posts on the SCOTUS ruling. I don't think anyone on here is against an off duty cop being armed. I think the rub is that a person feels they deserve "more rights" because they are a special status.

And then people here can post negative comments about the officer for daring to express his feeling. That doesn't prevent me from saying my piece about those negative comments.

And you are not getting the point on the SCOTUS decisions. It isn't that there can't be a legal requirements to act. It's that there isn't a constitutional requirement for that action that would allow someone to sue and recover money. There can be legal, and policy requirements for officers to act as well as oaths they take on becoming sworn officers.