LEO Buddy Scenario

Status
Not open for further replies.

Good Ol' Boy

Member
Joined
Apr 26, 2016
Messages
2,936
Location
Mechanicsville, VA
I know we have quite a few active/non active LE's on this site so I hope they will chime in. This hypothetical dabbles in S&T as well as a little legal but I put it here thinking not only is it more fitting but it would get more response.


So, you have a close buddy who is an LEO. You regularly do off duty firearms training together along with a host of other things buds do. He knows you always carry.

You're in a XYZ place of business and he's off duty and you're both armed. Suddenly a armed robbery starts. What happens from here is what I would like responses on.

Should the armed civilian stand down and not act at all while the off duty LE buddy does the dirty work? Would or should (both tactically and legally) your LE buddy ask for your assistance?
 
I know we have quite a few active/non active LE's on this site so I hope they will chime in. This hypothetical dabbles in S&T as well as a little legal but I put it here thinking not only is it more fitting but it would get more response.


So, you have a close buddy who is an LEO. You regularly do off duty firearms training together along with a host of other things buds do. He knows you always carry.

You're in a XYZ place of business and he's off duty and you're both armed. Suddenly a armed robbery starts. What happens from here is what I would like responses on.

Should the armed civilian stand down and not act at all while the off duty LE buddy does the dirty work? Would or should (both tactically and legally) your LE buddy ask for your assistance?

First off, without more information we can't know if any "dirty work" is called for. Often the best thing to do would be nothing and be a good witness. You don't know your friend's department's policy on taking LE action while off duty. They may not want him to act in certain circumstances.

What you are describing is every rookie cop's fantasy; he's standing in line at the bank or the local conenienve store when one or more armed robbers enter and he foils the robbery with his quick and decisive action. He gets his picture on the front page of the local paper and the chief pins a medal on him at the next city council meeting." Fortunately most officers who've been on the street for any length of time get a fast education in how things are in real life and how the courts work.

Drawing onto drawn guns is seldom the best choice to make.

If you are really that concerned, you should ask your friend how he would expect you to handle it before the situation arises.
 
The generic short answer would be to follow his/her lead, and do what they tell you to do. Yes if a gun fight kicks off, it would probably be appreciated for you to get involved. However as Jeff stated, most cops are going to try really hard to avoid that gun fight in the first place. Also as Jeff mentioned ASK, nothing wrong with a good discussion with pal about it. I certainly have had them with my friends.

-Jenrick
 
Yup, talk to your friends. Having some sort of plan, even a rudimentary one, is better discussed before a situation than in the middle of it.
 
First off, without more information we can't know if any "dirty work" is called for. Often the best thing to do would be nothing and be a good witness. You don't know your friend's department's policy on taking LE action while off duty. They may not want him to act in certain circumstances.



"Dirty work" probably wasn't the best use of words. "Get involved" is what I was getting at.

And I was under the assumption that all LEO's had a duty to intervene, even off duty, in something like an armed robbery if they were present during the accosting?
 
And I was under the assumption that all LEO's had a duty to intervene, even off duty, in something like an armed robbery if they were present during the accosting?

Nope! Some departments have the conditions set out in their policy manual on under what circumstances they should get involved when off duty. I know of at least one department that really discourages it.

Years ago my department upgraded the radios in the squad cars. The old radios were issued to any officer who wanted one to put in their POV. I had one in my truck for awhile and I often used it to report things I saw while driving around town. (This was before cell phones)

Once I encountered a vehicle that was wanted for a domestic battery while in my POV. I reported it's location and the shift supervisor asked me to stay a safe distance behind it until patrol cars arrived. When the first squad car passed me and initiated a stop I turned off and continued on to my destination. I could have stopped and assisted with the stop, but why?

The officers who were on duty were completely equipped and fully capable of handling the situation.

Going to your scenario of an armed robbery, an officer is going to weigh the danger to everyone before he decides to intervene. The best way to handle it might well be to comply, let the robbers leave the store and stay a safe distance behind them while directing on duty officers to their location.

The gunfight in the convenience store makes compelling TV but in the real world it's liable to result in the death or injury of innocent bystanders. Standard response to an armed robbery is to set up outside the location and wait for the robbers to come out.

An officer is most likely going to try to let them get out of the store before trying an arrest. The only time I can see taking action is if they started shooting or started herding the people in the store into the back room.

Every situation will be different, but in most cases pulling your off duty weapon and shouting "POLICE!! PUT DOWN YOUR WEAPONS!" is not going to be the best choice.
 
regardless if we had discussed anything,which we prob would not have.

I would take cover, wait for his reaction and "have his back", the LEO is more highly trained and should know what to do in this situation.

I would just be there if his weapon malfunctions or runs dry.

if his weapon runs dry and there is still threats to him or me or strangers. its time to take action.

a single crook is easy choice but multiple armed subjects make for much harder decisions.

you see your LEO buddy engaging one suspect while another is aiming his gun at your buddy, I guess you have to shoot?

what you do in the next few seconds will effect you the rest of your life. either yu will shoot and save your buddy and regret killing a human or regret not shooting and your buddy is killed.

there is no hard and fast answer to such a situation.
 
On duty, yes we have a duty to based on policy at most agencies, and depending on the state the law. Off duty we may actually have policy that states we are not to get involved period (yes it's crazy, but that has never stopped police administrators).

In most armed robberies that aren't an immediate shooting/stabbing/beating, the assailant has the weapon as a tool of intimidation and does not use it. Think bank robberies, very rarely is violence used (heck a weapon isn't most of the time). Provided that the there is no particularized threat to anyone, besides the presences of a weapon, the smart thing to do may just be a very good witness, formulate an action plan, and be prepared to act upon it. What constitutes a "go signal" for you may be different then me, etc. Whatever it is though have it figured out ahead of time.

A real life example I can give you from personal experience. Suspect walked into the restaurant pulled his pistol out, held it about waist level and calmly told the cashier to open the register and hand over the money. Yes a firearm is involved, yes it does represent a deadly force threat, but do I really want to get into a shoot out in the middle of a crowded restaurant full of people and kids? There has been no threat with the weapon, it's not being particularly aimed at the cashier, and the suspects demeanor is very calm. Could I be justified in being involved in a shooting, most likely, would it be the best course of action? Probably not. World's best witness time. I certainly had a plan of action in mind, I took steps to get myself in the best position I was going to get surreptitiously in a crowded restaurant, and I knew what was going to be my "line in the sand" to act." However if at all possible, I wanted to avoid turning it into anything it didn't need to be.

Opposite end of the spectrum. Suspect walks into a major sporting goods store, goes to the customer service counter where they have a large amount of cash for returns. As he gets to the register, he produces a pistol, fires a round into the ceiling, and screams "it's a real ****'ing gun, and I aint afraid to ****ing use it!" Points it directly at the cashiers face and screams her to open the register all the while threatening to shoot her. Here we have a much different set of circumstances in specific, that overall are the same. I walked into the store about 60 seconds after the suspect bailed out through a side exit, didn't hear the shot from the parking lot. Not even my jurisdiction, and they were out of the caliber I was looking for ammo in. If I had been present though, there is a real possibility I would have felt that deadly force was the best option to handle the situation.

Not all armed robberies are the same. An experienced LEO has probably dealt with a lot them (if you live in an area where there is a risk of being present for one going down), and likely will have a very good idea seconds into the robbery if they are going to do anything and what.

-Jenrick
 
I think there are a number of variables involved. I was a street cop for over 22 years I liked working the streets. In the situation described by the OP I would be the best witness ever. I have a firm belief that when off duty unless there is a direct threat to me or mine I will be the best witness I am capable of being. In the current anti-cop enviroment I would avoid taking any action if possible, as no matter what you do or don't do it seems the Police are at fault. Just my two cents worth from the Big Sky Country.
 
Just remember, you're his buddy, not his partner. If your LEO friend decides to take action your priorities remain the same. Use deadly force only to protect yourself from imminent death or great bodily injury. If he intervenes be a good second set of eyes and communicate any potential threats that may arise. Get on your phone and call 911. Don't do a thing without his lead.

I'm willing to bet that unless things go really sideways your friend won't take action other than being a good witness.
 
This is going to vary SO very much, as each LEO is going to have to consider his agency's policies, and then, there is each LEO's level of preparation and confidence on any given day, in the particular scenario at hand, and his/her personal threshold or "line in the sand." Two important things come to mind: Do NOT force the LEO's hand, and do NOT get in the way. Well, OK, a very important third thing: Beware of one or more back-shooters, mingling among the customers. Do watch the LEO's back, if applicable.

If the armed robbery is only targeting the store's money, I think most LEOs, even if well-armed, are going to let the robbery run its course. This is especially true if any potential back-shooters might be among the apparent customers. I am not going to die, or endanger others, protecting cash or physical property. Yes, the person at the cashier's station may be in imminent danger, from a legal standpoint, but the odds are very much in favor of the employee surviving, and the business could, or should, have opted to issue body armor, to wear under an over-sized shirt or smock. Being a cashier is an assumed-risk activity, to put it bluntly, and if the cashier is the only person being threatened, well, let's see how it plays out.

The equation changes if the armed robber(s) actually do start shooting or otherwise harming individuals, including the cashier, but there are so very many variables.

The equation changes if the robbery becomes a total take-down robbery of every person present, especially if the robbers start searching each individual, and will be likely to discover weapons and police ID.

The equation changes if the robbers start herding everyone into a particular area. Again, there are so very many variables, here, but as the robber(s) expect movement, it presents an opportunity to flow into suddenly violent intervention/resistance.

The presence of children raises the stakes.

FWIW, I normally carry a duty-type handgun, and often, a second weapon, during personal time, so I can more effectively deal with armed violence, but just because I can, does not always mean that I should.

FWIW, my cash is not normally in a wallet, but folded, inside a pocket. My wallet, which is really just a plastic credit card holder, has no police ID or badge in it. These factors give me options.

I may have more to say, later. Out of time, for now.
 
"Dirty work" probably wasn't the best use of words. "Get involved" is what I was getting at.

And I was under the assumption that all LEO's had a duty to intervene, even off duty, in something like an armed robbery if they were present during the accosting?

We have a duty to "act." This does not necessarily mean actively intervening. I must act reasonably. I have sworn to protect the public, and starting a gunfight is not necessarily a wise/reasonable course of action; it may be stupid, depending upon the totality of the circumstances. Even if I draw a handgun, and I do normally pack heavy, I may choose to remain concealed, and observe.

Keep in mind that when on the clock, I am wearing Level IIIA armor, two pistols, a radio with which to coordinate actions with fellow officers, and have a Level IIIA helmet and Benelli M2 in the front seat area with me. Level IV armor is also in the vehicle. When out and about, during personal time, I am packing one or two serious pistols, but am probably wearing little or no armor, and may not have that radio with me. The shotgun is unlikely to be near enough to do any good. Fewer tactical tools means less tactical dominance, and fewer options.
 
Last edited:
I am friendly with many of the officers I work with. And I have gone weapons training on several occasions with one of them. In a situation like you described, I would absolutely NOT just sit and witness what goes on. Rule one is have a gun, rule 2 is bring friends who have guns. This is why many police officers have partners, someone to watch your back. Nearly everywhere in public is going to have more than 1 entrance/exit, windows, points of contact with potential additional assailants. If I am of my capabilities and armed, there is no way I would sit out and let a sole officer handle that situation, on duty or not.
 
I spent over 30 years as a LEO. "Duty to intervene" is not really descriptive of what a LEO is required to do. "Duty to take appropriate action" is. That really covers on and off duty. If you find yourself in a situation on or off duty, you are not required to die.

The overwhelming factor in appropriate action is no one gets hurt. Appropriate action can mean anything from being a witness to fighting it out.

I was a firearms and tactics instructor for most of my career. Ergo, it is difficult to place myself in the position someone who has never been a LEO in the scenario given. One thing I can guarantee is if my active duty LEO buddy winds up having to fight for whatever reason, I'm not going to just standby unless his or her gun jams or run out of ammo. No I'm not a cop anymore but morally I could not sit and watch people who don't deserve it get hurt.

I've also found that in most scenarios there is a best option, several good options, and a lot more bad options including "the worst".
 
I know we have quite a few active/non active LE's on this site so I hope they will chime in. This hypothetical dabbles in S&T as well as a little legal but I put it here thinking not only is it more fitting but it would get more response.


So, you have a close buddy who is an LEO. You regularly do off duty firearms training together along with a host of other things buds do. He knows you always carry.

You're in a XYZ place of business and he's off duty and you're both armed. Suddenly a armed robbery starts. What happens from here is what I would like responses on.

Should the armed civilian stand down and not act at all while the off duty LE buddy does the dirty work? Would or should (both tactically and legally) your LE buddy ask for your assistance?


LOL, been there and told ALL my friends who do EDC to not take ANY action unless I do.

Retired now for 10 years and still shoot and TRAIN often.

I do not want to have to back 'their actions' when in fact no action was required ,or of any use.
 
On duty, yes we have a duty to based on policy at most agencies, and depending on the state the law. Off duty we may actually have policy that states we are not to get involved period (yes it's crazy, but that has never stopped police administrators).

In most armed robberies that aren't an immediate shooting/stabbing/beating, the assailant has the weapon as a tool of intimidation and does not use it. Think bank robberies, very rarely is violence used (heck a weapon isn't most of the time). Provided that the there is no particularized threat to anyone, besides the presences of a weapon, the smart thing to do may just be a very good witness, formulate an action plan, and be prepared to act upon it. What constitutes a "go signal" for you may be different then me, etc. Whatever it is though have it figured out ahead of time.

A real life example I can give you from personal experience. Suspect walked into the restaurant pulled his pistol out, held it about waist level and calmly told the cashier to open the register and hand over the money. Yes a firearm is involved, yes it does represent a deadly force threat, but do I really want to get into a shoot out in the middle of a crowded restaurant full of people and kids? There has been no threat with the weapon, it's not being particularly aimed at the cashier, and the suspects demeanor is very calm. Could I be justified in being involved in a shooting, most likely, would it be the best course of action? Probably not. World's best witness time. I certainly had a plan of action in mind, I took steps to get myself in the best position I was going to get surreptitiously in a crowded restaurant, and I knew what was going to be my "line in the sand" to act." However if at all possible, I wanted to avoid turning it into anything it didn't need to be.

Opposite end of the spectrum. Suspect walks into a major sporting goods store, goes to the customer service counter where they have a large amount of cash for returns. As he gets to the register, he produces a pistol, fires a round into the ceiling, and screams "it's a real ****'ing gun, and I aint afraid to ****ing use it!" Points it directly at the cashiers face and screams her to open the register all the while threatening to shoot her. Here we have a much different set of circumstances in specific, that overall are the same. I walked into the store about 60 seconds after the suspect bailed out through a side exit, didn't hear the shot from the parking lot. Not even my jurisdiction, and they were out of the caliber I was looking for ammo in. If I had been present though, there is a real possibility I would have felt that deadly force was the best option to handle the situation.

Not all armed robberies are the same. An experienced LEO has probably dealt with a lot them (if you live in an area where there is a risk of being present for one going down), and likely will have a very good idea seconds into the robbery if they are going to do anything and what.

-Jenrick

Thanks for the detailed reply.

My friend who is also a previous roommate before he got married, is a retired Marine and active LEO. We usually go out together at least once a month and do have an understanding that we are both armed. Sometimes we go to bars or places that does not allow firearms legally. I usually always ask if he's armed, or he will tell me. There are places that he chooses not to carry even if he was allowed as a LE (personal choice I suppose) but I'm very confident of his hand-to-hand skills as he is a black belt anyway.

In any scenario, I will let him take the lead since he has the skills and experience to handle it better than I do. But I would not hesitate to assist him if needed.
 
If I am of my capabilities and armed, there is no way I would sit out and let a sole officer handle that situation, on duty or not.
So, what would you do?

Would you expect the community to come in and support you in terms of legal representation, defrayment of civil liabilities, medical care, or income replacement, should the necessity arise?
 
If I am of my capabilities and armed, there is no way I would sit out and let a sole officer handle that situation, on duty or not.
As long as you are aware that a different standard will be applied in the courts if you injure or kill any innocent bystanders. Or possibly even damage property. (This is not expert opinion, only my opinion and is one of the things that would drive my decision-making).
 
Would you expect the community to come in and support you in terms of legal representation, defrayment of civil liabilities, medical care, or income replacement, should the necessity arise?

Yes. My department and police officers both fall under the County Sheriff office. In a pure chain of command scenario they outrank us in public and we outrank them inside the incarceration facilities. So if a deputy I am having lunch with orders me to assist in intervention of an incident, I would be employment bound to do so. We also have the same health insurance plans and same legal team. Also many of my co workers become POST certified within the first year of working.
 
Yes. My department and police officers both fall under the County Sheriff office. In a pure chain of command scenario they outrank us in public and we outrank them inside the incarceration facilities. So if a deputy I am having lunch with orders me to assist in intervention of an incident, I would be employment bound to do so. We also have the same health insurance plans and same legal team. Also many of my co workers become POST certified within the first year of working.
Of course, that means nothing to a citizen who is not a police officer.
 
As long as you are aware that a different standard will be applied in the courts if you injure or kill any innocent bystanders. Or possibly even damage property. (This is not expert opinion, only my opinion and is one of the things that would drive my decision-making).
I have been given legal opinions both ways. In a class given by a lawyer who represents police officers in use-of-force cases, I was told that I would be criminally liable for injuries or death resulting from missed shots even if it were undeniable that my actions saved others. Andrew Branca, author of The Law of Self Defense, disagrees. According to Branca, if I were justified in shooting at the bad guy and I made reasonable efforts not to hit innocent bystanders, I would not be criminally liable. Civil liability would be a separate issue.
 
I'd probably just start screaming, raise my hands as high as I could, and run right through the middle of the situation yelling, " HANDS UP, DON'T SHOOT!!, HANDS UP DON'T SHOOT!!!", over and over... Chances are that everyone in the immediate area would start laughing uncontrollably, pissing their pants......Then the only charge applicable would be public urination........
 
We have been told from Day 1 in the Academy, do NOT interfere with street LE in anyway. If we are REQUESTED to assist we will do so, but our authority is inside the wire only. Outside just another fat old man.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top