Hi,
A former correction officer told me that he did not carry his firearm while off-duty for fear that if he did witness a violent crime in progress, he would be obligated to use it and, if he didn't, might be held liable. This just didn't sound right to me. The point he was making was that off-duty LEOs were putting themselves in potential legal jeopardy simply by carrying a firearm, unlike, say, a private citizen, who would be under no legal obligation (moral perhaps) to use his or her weapon to defend someone else.
So, I was wondering: is an LEO obligated to 1) intervene if a crime is being committed and 2) to use his firearm to prevent a crime, even if he felt that doing so might lead to a worse result? According to one source, James Warner (a police officer) "101 Reasons Why You Should Not Become a Cop," (really, a book for people thinking of becoming a cop),:
"Most police officers will tell you that the best advice when witnessing an off-duty incident is to be a good witness. When officers, dressed in plain clothing become involved in off-duty situations and identify themselves as police officers, the incident usually escalates. .... Although many officers believe that they are required to act in an official capacity on or off duty, courts have established that off-duty officers are not liable when they do not take official action when witnessing a criminal act. The US Supreme Court has ruled that off-duty officers do not have a legal obligation to respond to a criminal violation even when such violation could result in injury to another party."
That seems reasonable enough to me, and would seem to settle the issue. But I don't know. I also think it's reasonable law, too, especially if an LEO thinks that intervention would make the situation worse.
Anyway, this is not intended to begin a debate about why people, citizens or LEOs, should or should not carry, or why you can't count on the police to protect you. I just know that there are LEOs here who might be able to answer this. My own sense is that the claim that an off-duty LEO should NOT carry for fear of being held legally responsible for not using his/her firearm to prevent a (arguably preventable, but that's neither here nor there) crime is false. Is that so?
Thanks,
Bear
A former correction officer told me that he did not carry his firearm while off-duty for fear that if he did witness a violent crime in progress, he would be obligated to use it and, if he didn't, might be held liable. This just didn't sound right to me. The point he was making was that off-duty LEOs were putting themselves in potential legal jeopardy simply by carrying a firearm, unlike, say, a private citizen, who would be under no legal obligation (moral perhaps) to use his or her weapon to defend someone else.
So, I was wondering: is an LEO obligated to 1) intervene if a crime is being committed and 2) to use his firearm to prevent a crime, even if he felt that doing so might lead to a worse result? According to one source, James Warner (a police officer) "101 Reasons Why You Should Not Become a Cop," (really, a book for people thinking of becoming a cop),:
"Most police officers will tell you that the best advice when witnessing an off-duty incident is to be a good witness. When officers, dressed in plain clothing become involved in off-duty situations and identify themselves as police officers, the incident usually escalates. .... Although many officers believe that they are required to act in an official capacity on or off duty, courts have established that off-duty officers are not liable when they do not take official action when witnessing a criminal act. The US Supreme Court has ruled that off-duty officers do not have a legal obligation to respond to a criminal violation even when such violation could result in injury to another party."
That seems reasonable enough to me, and would seem to settle the issue. But I don't know. I also think it's reasonable law, too, especially if an LEO thinks that intervention would make the situation worse.
Anyway, this is not intended to begin a debate about why people, citizens or LEOs, should or should not carry, or why you can't count on the police to protect you. I just know that there are LEOs here who might be able to answer this. My own sense is that the claim that an off-duty LEO should NOT carry for fear of being held legally responsible for not using his/her firearm to prevent a (arguably preventable, but that's neither here nor there) crime is false. Is that so?
Thanks,
Bear