OFF DUTY

[CaptMike]

I am 830.5. A few in my dept are authorized to carry on duty, but the rest of us are not. Due to case law, the state authorizes us to carry of duty. To protect against civil liabiity, the dept does not authorize off duty carry. If I get in to an off duty shooting, all civil liabiliity rests on me. This is all politics. We have had two off duty shootings in the last few years and both were clean shoots. The officers had to get their own attorneys when they were sued.

[Notorious]

If your policy forbids off-duty carry and you do it anyway, wouldn't you be fired for that?

What case law are you talking about that nullifies all the Penal Code exemptions for Corporations or Real Estate investigators from carrying a firearm?

[ZombieTactics]

Mariam-Websters define civilian as someone not in LE or fire, in addition to the military. Look it up yourself. ...

Merriam-Websters offers this definition, as it has very recently become a commonly accepted connotation. If you go to a library with a good reference section, you'll see that this is a very recent change.

The definition of the word in Modern English was known for centuries to mean simply "someone not in the military". If you go back to Middle English it meant a person employed in a kind of paralegal sort of law practice or advocacy.

Words mean things. Many of us decry the creeping militarization of law enforcement, as it seems to be at the heart of a lot of negative "us vs. them" or "cop vs. little people" or "everyone not a cop is just another potential perp" attitudes.

I for one see this "cops aren't civilians" nonsense as part of that unfortunate trend.

This seems to be much more common in states which are "anti gun" and "nanny state" in their leanings. There's a lesson there for anyone choosing to see it.

[Notorious]

Merriam-Websters offers this definition, as it has very recently become a commonly accepted connotation. If you go to a library with a good reference section, you'll see that this is a very recent change.

The definition of the word in Modern English was known for centuries to mean simply "someone not in the military". If you go back to Middle English it meant a person employed in a kind of paralegal sort of law practice or advocacy.

Words mean things. Many of us decry the creeping militarization of law enforcement, as it seems to be at the heart of a lot of negative "us vs. them" or "cop vs. little people" or "everyone not a cop is just another potential perp" attitudes.

I for one see this "cops aren't civilians" nonsense as part of that unfortunate trend.

This seems to be much more common in states which are "anti gun" and "nanny state" in their leanings. There's a lesson there for anyone choosing to see it.

Yes, I know it fosters the us v. them mentality and whatever the argument is and if it's a recent development, then so be it, but we live in the present so that is what we live with.

If you want to keep subscribing to ye olde definitions, that's fine. But words change over time and it is what it is. I didn't make the rules, I am just telling you like it is.

[oddjob]

Most LEO agencies will defend/assist the off duty officer. Its why I always carried the dept issue ammo. This kinda puts them in the "food chain" in the event of a law suit. I would claim not only did the dept OK me for off duty CCW I used their ammo and they knew it.
If you carry the dept gun off duty it becomes even more easier, but the guns are usually too big. Being drunk or stupid and a shooting don't count.

[Notorious]

We are mandated to carry only department issued ammo for every gun we are authorized to carry, be it the duty gun, off-duty gun, backup gun, whatever. We qual with every gun we wish to carry for every occasion, then we get issued ammo for every gun according to its use.

3 full mags +1 for duty, 2 mags +1 for off-duty or backup, if it's a revolver, then it's 18 rounds.

[RollingCode3]

If your policy forbids off-duty carry and you do it anyway, wouldn't you be fired for that?

What case law are you talking about that nullifies all the Penal Code exemptions for Corporations or Real Estate investigators from carrying a firearm?

No. The penal code and case law give them the right to carry off duty even though the department doesn't want you to carry. You can't be fired because of that or else the union will get involved.

[RollingCode3]

I am 830.5. A few in my dept are authorized to carry on duty, but the rest of us are not. Due to case law, the state authorizes us to carry of duty. To protect against civil liabiity, the dept does not authorize off duty carry. If I get in to an off duty shooting, all civil liabiliity rests on me. This is all politics. We have had two off duty shootings in the last few years and both were clean shoots. The officers had to get their own attorneys when they were sued.

hey Mike

Do you have more info on these two shootings?

[TrailerparkTrash]

My original question, read carefully:

What agency in the state does NOT allow their officers under Penal Code 830.1 to carry a gun off duty??? Never heard of that one.

Your response:

You sure you want to know? Here goes! This is not a policy issue. This particular agency is PROHIBITED by law to carry off-duty. I know because I went to the academy with a few of these guys.

Penal Code 830.31. The following persons are peace officers whose authority extends to any place in the state for the purpose of performing their primary duty or when making an arrest pursuant to Section 836 as to any public offense with respect to which there is immediate danger to person or property, or of the escape of the perpetrator of that offense, or pursuant to Section 8597 or 8598 of the Government Code. These peace officers may carry firearms only if authorized, and under the terms and conditions specified, by their employing agency.
(a) A police officer of the County of Los Angeles, if the primary duty of the officer is the enforcement of the law in or about properties owned, operated, or administered by his or her employing agency or when performing necessary duties with respect to patrons, employees, and properties of his or her employing agency.
(b) A person designated by a local agency as a park ranger and regularly employed and paid in that capacity, if the primary duty of the officer is the protection of park and other property of the agency and the preservation of the peace therein.
(c) (1) A peace officer of the Department of General Services of the City of Los Angeles designated by the general manager of the department, if the primary duty of the officer is the enforcement of the law in or about properties owned, operated, or administered by his or her employing agency or when performing necessary duties with respect to patrons, employees, and properties of his or her employing agency.
(2) A peace officer designated pursuant to this subdivision, and authorized to carry firearms by his or her employing agency, shall satisfactorily complete the introductory course of firearm training required by Section 832 and shall requalify in the use of firearms every six months.
(3) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a peace officer designated pursuant to this subdivision who is authorized to carry a firearm by his or her employing agency while on duty shall not be authorized to carry a firearm when he or she is not on duty.
(d) A housing authority patrol officer employed by the housing authority of a city, district, county, or city and county or employed by the police department of a city and county, if the primary duty of the officer is the enforcement of the law in or about properties owned, operated, or administered by his or her employing agency or when performing necessary duties with respect to patrons, employees, and properties of his or her employing agency.

You did NOT read my question correctly, specifically refering to my question about PC 830.1. Nor did you answer my question as of yet.

I'm only talking about regular full time cops like Police officers for CA cities and deputy sheriff's of CA counties. I'm not talking about reserves, special deputies, airport security guards wearing "sheriff" type patches, park police guys, park rangers, LA County Police (which no longer exists anymore by the way) etc...

Again, read my question. It's about 830.1 PC cops. Not the other off shoot guys out there. 98% of cops in CA fall under 830.1 PC.

Still waiting for an answer to my original question.

[Notorious]

No. The penal code and case law give them the right to carry off duty even though the department doesn't want you to carry. You can't be fired because of that or else the union will get involved.

There are lots of things we can do by law but are forbidden by policy and we can be disciplined for it. Driving while talking on a cell phone is one. The law says we can do it, but policy says no.

If we TC and it's because of that cause, we are within the law but outside of policy, we are screwed.

Same as pursuits... we have every right and obligation to pursue a criminal but our pursuit policy sure limits when we can do it and if we violate policy on a pursuit, we can also be fired.

[Notorious]

My original question, read carefully:

Your response:

You did NOT read my question correctly, specifically refering to my question about PC 830.1. Nor did you answer my question as of yet.

I'm only talking about regular full time cops like Police officers for CA cities and deputy sheriff's of CA counties. I'm not talking about reserves, special deputies, airport security guards wearing "sheriff" type patches, park police guys, park rangers, LA County Police (which no longer exists anymore by the way) etc...

Again, read my question. It's about 830.1 PC cops. Not the other off shoot guys out there. 98% of cops in CA fall under 830.1 PC.

Still waiting for an answer to my original question.

Chill out, Undertaker... no need to get all aggro. I know of no 830.1 agency that has restrictions on their officers carrying. I am just pointing out there are a lot of agencies with strange rules even though they employ peace officers, the same as 830.1 officers.

All peace officers are the same, just defined differently under the separate 830 sections. What defines a peace officer is not the ability to carry a firearm, but rather, the authority to effect arrests and enforce the law above and beyond those of a citizen.

Okay? You're right, absolutely, but LT Mike is not with an 830.1 agency so I illustrated some other situations where a peace officer might be restricted in his ability to carry a firearm.

[CaptMike]

If your policy forbids off-duty carry and you do it anyway, wouldn't you be fired for that?

What case law are you talking about that nullifies all the Penal Code exemptions for Corporations or Real Estate investigators from carrying a firearm?

Hey There Notorious

There is existing case law that answers your questions. Here is an old explanation of mine with an attachment by the AG. Read the attached opinion and all questions will be answered. thanks

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showpost.php?p=1080380&postcount=35

[7222 Hawker]

Keep your head and do what you would otherwise do... you'll be fine.

[TrailerparkTrash]

Chill out, Undertaker... no need to get all aggro. I know of no 830.1 agency that has restrictions on their officers carrying. I am just pointing out there are a lot of agencies with strange rules even though they employ peace officers, the same as 830.1 officers.

All peace officers are the same, just defined differently under the separate 830 sections. What defines a peace officer is not the ability to carry a firearm, but rather, the authority to effect arrests and enforce the law above and beyond those of a citizen.

Okay? You're right, absolutely, but LT Mike is not with an 830.1 agency so I illustrated some other situations where a peace officer might be restricted in his ability to carry a firearm.

Aggro??? Undertaker? LMAO!
Back on topic, you answered my question by not answering it at all.

[masameet]

Whatever happened to that off-duty LAPD officer who chased after another driver and then shot him in a parking lot? The other driver was unarmed and in a pickup truck. He had sideswiped the officer's personal vehicle on a freeway and then acted like nothing happened. The cop's kid was strapped in the back seat of the Hummer and initial news reports gave the impression that the dead driver somehow had hurt that little boy.

Made the news in the Bay Area because the dead driver was from Napa and his estranged wife (now widow) and little girl were/are still in Napa. I remember getting the distinct impression that LAPD was going to do its own investigation as well, even though the shooting happened in Riverside County.