Anti-Gun rights Police Chief Has her Gun Stolen

[Jeff White]

I never said she shouldn't be disciplined. But the calls for her to lose her job are excessive. I don't think she's saying; "I'm the chief so it's ok." Last I read she had turned herself in for whatever discipline the rules call for.

Once again we don't have many facts.

To keep a gun in a car unattended and with the car doors unlocked is simply Gross Negligence.

Where is the documentation that the vehicle was unlocked? There isn't any, but of course many have taken

there was no sign of forced entry

to mean that the vehicle was unlocked. But it doesn't mean that at all. It means there was no sign of forced entry. It's pretty easy for someone with the right tools to access a locked vehicle and leave no sign of forced entry.

Should be an automatic dismissal.

Only if it was the same punishment proscribed in the policy manual for everyone else on the department.

 

[divemedic]

I think that "no signs of forced entry" coupled with the fact that:

1 nothing else is missing, other than what was in the bag- and that includes the GPS and the computer that were in the vehicle
2 she herself is not absolutely sure that the gun was in her vehicle
3 According to the OPD cop that called a local radio station today, OPD vehicles have a "black box" computer that records everything that happens to the vehicle- when it was locked, unlocked, if a key was used to do the unlocking, when it was opened, turned on, etc. If there were signs of a break in, the detectives would have found it

seems to indicate that the gun was LOST, not stolen.

 

[Jeff White]

So all this speculation about the gun being stolen is just that, speculation? So we don't know what happened to the gun, just that it's missing?

 

[wyk]

"Where is the documentation that the vehicle was unlocked? There isn't any, but of course many have taken"

"On Feb. 27, her gun was in a duffel bag inside and Demings discovered she failed to lock the vehicle's doors."
Please Sir, you could read it in this link. http://www.wesh.com/news/19008098/detail.html
Do read the entire article.
Secondly I cannot speak for jbBrown regarding his views. But I think that any member here who keeps his gun in an unlocked vehicle IS negligent with his firearm. period. Certainly, we have to look at the circumstances in each case. For example, someone who is at a place which do not firearms to be carried should be allowed to keep his gun in the car. But I would say that a responsible gun owner in this case would keep the gun concealed and out of sight and the car locked up and preferably parked in a safe and secure parking area. To keep a firearm in a car when you are at home is contrary to good sense especially if your car is NOT parked in the garage. I for one do not think that the theft through negligence warrants dismissal. As I have said she does deserve punishment for her negligence. But let the punishment fit the crime and I definitely am not for something that is overly harsh.

 

[Brian Dale]

I never said she shouldn't be disciplined. But the calls for her to lose her job are excessive.

I think of "Chief of Police in a major city" as a fairly exalted position among the various jobs that people do, and that it's appropriate to hold the people who do those jobs to a very high standard of performance. Fine, upstanding, decent professional sports coaches are fired routinely for nothing more than a simple failure to be the best in the world.

In the private sector, no one has the right to a particular job. You can be fired because your work doesn't generate enough profit, or because the market has changed, or just because it's Tuesday. Do I think that the Chief should be put in jail? Of course not. Do I think that Orlando might want someone else in that job? Yes, I think that they might.

 

[divemedic]

So all this speculation about the gun being stolen is just that, speculation? So we don't know what happened to the gun, just that it's missing?

The chief is claiming that since the gun is missing, it must have been stolen. There is not any proof that the weapon was stolen, beyond her assumption.
This article right here says:


When her gun disappeared on the night of Feb. 27, Demings did not discover it was missing until the next afternoon, according to a car burglary report she filed with the sheriff's office. At that time, Demings told deputies she noticed a black duffel bag holding her gun belt, pistol, three magazines holding 45 bullets, handcuffs and nightstick was missing from her city-issued Chevrolet Tahoe SUV. Thinking she must have left the canvas bag in her office, she drove to police headquarters in Orlando without finding the missing weapon.

then it says:

"[Demings] stated since her laptop computer, GPS, and her agency issued uniform were still in the car she believed she had left the canvas bag in her office at 100 South Hughey Ave.," according to the burglary report. "[Demings] stated she drove over to the office to check for the bag, and was unable to locate it."

then the report says:

Deputies examined Deming's car and "did not observe any forced entry."

since there was no forced entry, nothing else was taken, and she only deduced that it must have been stolen, because she says the gun and bag were there when she left work the night before, that sounds more like LOST than STOLEN to me. She herself isn't even SURE it was in the vehicle- she even drove to her office to look for it. By her own admission, she did not lock her department issued Tahoe.

Expecting a gun owner to know where their firearms are at all times, and holding them accountable when they LOSE them is not hypocrisy. There is no evidence here to support that it was stolen. Sounds lost to me. There should be a reprimand. Heck, as a government employee, if I lose a LAPTOP or a portable radio, I get a reprimand (usually to include some time off without pay), this woman lost a FIREARM.

 

[Jeff White]

Expecting a gun owner to know where their firearms are at all times, and holding them accountable when they LOSE them is not hypocrisy.

Then you support the laws that assess criminal penalties for not reporting a firearm stolen within a certain amount of time?

 

[Ky Larry]

IIRC, I read a newspaper article a couple of years ago about the FBI "losing" hundreds of govt, issued laptops and firearms. Sounds like a case of pure irresponsibility. Let's all just hope these missing weapons aren't used to commit violent crimes.

 

[divemedic]

Then you support the laws that assess criminal penalties for not reporting a firearm stolen within a certain amount of time?

Good question. Reproting a loss is not the same thing as taking reasonable steps to prevent a loss. I don't think so, but I would support a law that would make it a crime to not reasonably secure your weapon, such as Florida's law requiring you to keep firearms locked up if they are not on your person.

My guns are in a safe. I do not store guns in my vehicle overnight, unless the vehicle itself is in a secure area, like a garage or fenced lot. (Even then, I only do so because the law does not allow me to bring the weapon with me, so I lock it in the car, and lock the car in a secure area.)

Then again, my father always taught me that the person who doesn't lock his stuff away is partially to blame when the thief takes it.

 

[Brian Dale]

Are criminal penalties the only way of holding someone accountable, Jeff? {/rhetorical Q}

 

[rbernie]

my father always taught me that the person who doesn't lock his stuff away is partially to blame when the thief takes it.

I have to say, with all due respect to you dear ol' dad - I hate this statement. My analogy is that it's like blaming a rape victim because they wore a low-cut dress instead of blaming the animal that couldn't control his impulses and understand that NO really meant NO.

 

[Jeff White]

Here's where I see the hypocrisy in this thread. Every time a gun storage law is discussed here it's treated as an outrage. Every time a reporting law is discussed here, it's an outrage.

Now the membership is outraged that a police chief loses a weapon and demands sanctions against her that they would not support if the same sanctions were being proposed for a private citizen who did something equally as irresponsible. Is it because she is anti gun? Is it because she's a police officer? Who knows...but in the end it doesn't matter. The same folks who cry foul at every real or perceived differences in the treatment of public employees and private citizens are now demanding sanctions that they would never support if they were applied to a private citizen.

Personally, I think the loss of a weapon by any officer or other public servant is a serious incident and a thorough investigation is warranted to find out if any negligence was involved or any policy or procedure is in need of revision. If negligence is found then the person who was negligent should be sanctioned in proportion to how much the negligent act contributed to the loss.

But it's hypocrisy to state that there should be no differences between how private citizens and public employees are treated in regard to firearm laws and then demand that public employees be treated differently.

 

[jbrown50]

No hypocrisy? Really? What about these posts:

jbrown50 said;


Quote:
The Chief was at home. There was no legitimate reason for her to leave the gun in the car. It's not like she had driven to a place that wouldn't allow her to take the gun inside and therefore she had no choice but to leave it in the car. Both her and her husband make enough money together that they could afford a safe. If she was really that "worried" then she should have left the gun locked up at work.

I would ask jbrown is he would support a law requiring a safe in a car if you were going to leave a firearm in it?


Keeping guns in a vehicle seems to be pretty popular among THR members given the number of threads we have on the subject:


We have a lot of members here who are interested in keeping guns in their vehicles. Would any of them receive the same treatment if one of their weapons was stolen out of their vehicle? I noticed no one who posted in this thread has posted to the thread on the Texas Senate approving a law to force employers to allow their employees to keep weapons in their vehicles on company parking lots.

It sure looks like there is a double standard here.

What I meant was that they should be able to afford a safe at home.
If she was that worried about unauthorized visitors having access to her gun then she'd been able to just stick it in the safe at home.

and

The difference between her situation and the Texas law is that her employer doesn't ban the possession of her gun on their premisses.

She voluntarily left the gun in her SUV and admittedly left the vehicle unlocked "therefore" the surveillance system was not activated.

and......who said there should be a gun storage law? It's common sense to take reasonable measures to protect your firearms from theft and unauthorized access. She didn't do that.

 

[divemedic]

But it's hypocrisy to state that there should be no differences between how private citizens and public employees are treated in regard to firearm laws and then demand that public employees be treated differently.

To me it is more important that she lost an item that does not belong to her, and it was her responsibility to safeguard. Again, if I lost a department radio or a department computer. If her GPS or laptop had been stolen instead of her weapon, I would still be in favor of discipline.

I have to say, with all due respect to you dear ol' dad - I hate this statement. My analogy is that it's like blaming a rape victim because they wore a low-cut dress instead of blaming the animal that couldn't control his impulses and understand that NO really meant NO.

I respectfully disagree- in a way. I once had a 16 year old patient who was gang raped at a party that she attended after she sneaked out of her bedroom window. She got drunk, and the boys there raped her while she was passed out.

Had she not 1- sneaked out, 2- drank underage, this would not have happened. Does that excuse what the boys did? No, but that doesn't mean she was blameless.

Same here- even if the gun WAS stolen, placing a firearm (or any valuable item) in an unlocked vehicle is not a responsible way to treat your stuff. or mine. Chief Demmings did not properly safeguard the items that she was entrusted with.

 

[TAB]

I agree with Jeff... lots of people here are big time hypocrits.


Rather the car was locked or not, means nothing... some one entered it and took something(assuming it was actually stolen) is it less of a crime if I walk in your house thru your open front door and rob it, vs me 'breaking in"?

 

[wyk]

"I agree with Jeff... lots of people here are big time hypocrits.


Rather the car was locked or not, means nothing... some one entered it and took something(assuming it was actually stolen) is it less of a crime if I walk in your house thru your open front door and rob it, vs me 'breaking in"?"

Well TAB, at the end of the day, would you leave your firearm in your house with your front door wide open? Would you leave a firearm in a place where you know it is entirely possible for felons and minors to have access to them? Sure, the Chief has done no wrong by legally by leaving her car doors unlocked and keeping her gun there. But is it wise or responsible to do so, did she excercise adequate care and discretion in storage of her service firearm? I would draw the line at criminal or even overly harsh penalties but should there be any penalties imposed? Yes, I think there should be. Just as I think that laws mandating "reasonable care and discretion" be excercised in preventing unauthorized access to a firearm is reasonable if enforced wisely and with discretion.

 

[jbrown50]

I agree with Jeff... lots of people here are big time hypocrits.


Rather the car was locked or not, means nothing... some one entered it and took something(assuming it was actually stolen) is it less of a crime if I walk in your house thru your open front door and rob it, vs me 'breaking in"?

Yes, criminals are responsible for crime. It's their irresponsible acts that cause crime. The key phrase is "irresponsible acts". If you don't take the time to secure your guns, and you're able to do so, then you're committing an irresponsible act. It doesn't matter how you try to twist it, cut it, slice it or disguise it.

We in the gun community often complain about the stoooopid acts of criminals but then when something like this happens some of us are quick to defend our carelessness and complacency as our "right".

Is it your right to leave your gun in your unlocked car in the driveway? Yes.
Is it a stupid thing to do? Yes.

Yes.......hypocrisy abounds.