# L.A. sheriff  doesn't want off-duty deputies carrying guns while drinking!



## ENGINEERS WIFE (11 Nov 2008)

Sheriff to deputies: Don't mix drinking, guns
Several L.A. deputies have been accused of firing weapons while drunk
  

LOS ANGELES - The sheriff of Los Angeles County plans to prohibit his off-duty deputies from carrying their guns while drinking because several have been accused in recent years of firing weapons while intoxicated.

Sheriff Lee Baca said there has been a disturbing rise in alcohol-fueled misbehavior among his deputies.

Since 2004, more than a dozen deputies have been accused of brandishing or shooting a gun while under the influence of alcohol. 


More than 60 have been arrested this year on alcohol-related charges, most for driving under the influence and most of them armed at the time.

The deputies' union opposes the restriction. Union leader Steve Remige said it would let criminals know that deputies who had put them away would at times be unarmed.

updated 7:33 a.m. MT, Tues., Nov. 11, 2008


----------



## ENGINEERS WIFE (11 Nov 2008)

Okee dokee then....Ya think?  :
Does that make the world a safer place or what?
I just shook my head when I read this.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (11 Nov 2008)

Define drinking..............I'm having a Fireball while typing this, should I lock everything up?

Ridiculous.


----------



## SupersonicMax (12 Nov 2008)

The article does say carying the gun.  I sure hope you don't have your 12 Gauge by your side, all loaded up


----------



## fire_guy686 (12 Nov 2008)

ENGINEERS WIFE said:
			
		

> More than 60 have been arrested this year on alcohol-related charges, most for driving under the influence and most of them armed at the time.



And these are the same people arresting others for DUI's and Alcohol related offenses?? Wow! :


----------



## geo (12 Nov 2008)

> More than 60 have been arrested this year on alcohol-related charges, most for driving under the influence and most of them armed at the time.



So.... he's objecting to the drinking and driving part OR them drinking and shootin'

Shakes read.... (rattle!?!)


----------



## FastEddy (18 Nov 2008)

MAMS_933 said:
			
		

> And these are the same people arresting others for DUI's and Alcohol related offenses?? Wow! :




No ! these are the same people who are on duty 24hrs a day and are required to intervene, apprehend and arrest persons committing breeches of the Law. "Wow" can you imagine a unarmed off duty Officer confronting a Armed Suspect in the act of Violently robbing a ShopKeeper.

And yes !, nobody should be DUI and if they are, that still doesn't give you License to.


----------



## fire_guy686 (18 Nov 2008)

FastEddy said:
			
		

> No ! these are the same people who are on duty 24hrs a day and are required to intervene, apprehend and arrest persons committing breeches of the Law. "Wow" can you imagine a unarmed off duty Officer confronting a Armed Suspect in the act of Violently robbing a ShopKeeper.
> 
> And yes !, nobody should be DUI and if they are, that still doesn't give you License to.



Too bad this article isn't about officers just being out and apprehending criminals while off duty. It's about them being off duty, intoxicated, armed and some being dangerous with that weapon. 

I'm sorry that I find it sad that this year 60, off duty, armed Deputies have been arrested for alcohol related charges most of which were DUI's. I must be crazy I guess. Alcohol and guns are a bad combination no matter who is in possession of it.


----------



## FastEddy (18 Nov 2008)

MAMS_933 said:
			
		

> Too bad this article isn't about officers just being out and apprehending criminals while off duty. It's about them being off duty, intoxicated, armed and some being dangerous with that weapon.
> 
> I'm sorry that I find it sad that this year 60, off duty, armed Deputies have been arrested for alcohol related charges most of which were DUI's. I must be crazy I guess. Alcohol and guns are a bad combination no matter who is in possession of it.




Considering there are over 10,000  sworn Deputies in the LASD, 60 incidents represents a very small percentage. However this is no justification or excuse for their behavior or actions. Even though their numbers are fractional they reflect very badly on the rest of the Department and this behavior must be brought up short.

There is no excuse or defense for this behavior. 

No ! your not crazy, its definitely a bad combination. The Sheriff plan sounds good but I can't see how the enforcement is going to work. 

Cheers.


----------



## fire_guy686 (18 Nov 2008)

FastEddy said:
			
		

> Considering there are over 10,000  sworn Deputies in the LASD, 60 incidents represents a very small percentage. However this is no justification or excuse for their behavior or actions. Even though their numbers are fractional they reflect very badly on the rest of the Department and this behavior must be brought up short.
> 
> There is no excuse or defense for this behavior.
> 
> ...



That's the worst of it. The actions of 60 fools makes 10,000 look like fools. It's sad but that's how it goes usually. 

Hopefully they will get this all sorted out and can accomplish their goal. The easiest way to enforce it would be total control with the officers turning in their piece at the end of shift. But that doesn't seem like what they want. Their going to have to trust their Deputies to follow the rules and anyone caught has to be dealt with harshly.


----------



## PAT-Platoon (24 Nov 2008)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Ridiculous.



Really? I don't think it's that ridiculous that off-duty deputies not carry weapons while drinking. Drinking and firearms do not mix.

-C/D


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (24 Nov 2008)

Maybe I have left Mommy's basement and can handle a beer with my lunch before I head out to the golf course.

Just sayin'.......


----------



## FastEddy (24 Nov 2008)

Cognitive-Dissonance said:
			
		

> Really? I don't think it's that ridiculous that off-duty deputies not carry weapons while drinking. Drinking and firearms do not mix.
> 
> -C/D





Neither does driving your 4000lb SUV.

There's one hell of a lot more Civilians killed by Drunken Civilians driving their SUV's than by Drunken Off Duty Fire Arm Carring LA Sheriff Deputies. Of the 30 some Deputies arrested on DUI, how many also resulted in Fatalities ?.

That fact does not excuse the behavior of those that do. But to Ban LEO's from carrying their side arms while off duty would be disastrous, not only to the LEO's but to the public in general. 

If the reasons or circumstances escape you, you shouldn't even be commenting on the topic.


----------



## PAT-Platoon (24 Nov 2008)

FastEddy said:
			
		

> But to Ban LEO's from carrying their side arms while off duty would be disastrous, not only to the LEO's but to the public in general.



But the L.A. Sheriff doesn't want to ban LEOs carrying their side arms off duty. He wants to ban them from carrying them _while drinking_. I have no problem with LEOs carrying their side arms off duty, the problem is when they start drinking while carrying. I don't think there is anything wrong with limiting people carrying weapons, even if qualified personnel from drinking while doing so. I would be interested in hearing a justification whereby a LEO should be carrying his sidearm while drinking.

-C/D


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (24 Nov 2008)

Don't worry, when you have your first beer you will come to realize that Momma might have exaggerated the hallucinogenic effects of it......


----------



## PAT-Platoon (24 Nov 2008)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Don't worry, when you have your first beer you will come to realize that Momma might have exaggerated the hallucinogenic effects of it......



Bruce, I don't appreciate this kind of discussion. I have yet to hear a legitimate argument against the banning of LEOs carrying weapons while drinking. Please make one instead of simply trying to provoke a response. 

-C/D


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (24 Nov 2008)

Cog-Dis do yourself a favour. Stop Posting! Serve out your Recorded Warning and refrain from posting because your on the ramp to be banned. You have next to no friends here, you have zero credibility and you post to invoke a negative response from other posters. Deny it all you want but this is whats occuring. You need to step back and reevaluate why you want to be here, because I can guarantee with the way you are going you won't be here that much longer.

Just some friendly advice...take of it what you will.


----------



## PAT-Platoon (24 Nov 2008)

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> Cog-Dis do yourself a favour. Stop Posting! Serve out your Recorded Warning and refrain from posting because your on the ramp to be banned. You have next to no friends here, you have zero credibility and you post to invoke a negative response from other posters. Deny it all you want but this is whats occuring. You need to step back and reevaluate why you want to be here, because I can guarantee with the way you are going you won't be here that much longer.
> 
> Just some friendly advice...take of it what you will.



Thank you for the advice. I don't think refraining from posting will do me, or anyone else any good. Its better that I attempt to learn how to better project my views and opinions in a tone that will better suit this forum. There's no better time then the present. I appreciate any comments or advice how I can change the tone or style of my writing to suit this forum.

-C/D


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (24 Nov 2008)

Are you doing yourself any good? Really think about this....you are on a Recorded Warning yet you continue to to goad anyone with an opinion contrary to yours. How will getting Banned help you convey your views? Take the time and get to know the Forum, guage the mood, learn through reading how you can have an opposing view without being in danger of being Banned. Whether you realize it or not you are deliberately being confrontational, you are deliberately holding an opposing view to the majority of the forum members here.


----------



## Blackadder1916 (24 Nov 2008)

Since the opening post does not include a link (nor any attribution) to the (rather limited) quoted article it's difficult to judge if there is more to the story.  But internet speculation is rarely hindered by a paucity of details.  However, the most important part of the story should be "_prohibit his off-duty deputies from carrying their guns while drinking_".  Since there is nothing to indicate that Sheriff Baca is planning on restricting all off-duty carry of weapons maybe there is more to the story that the opening post indicates.  A little google provides some more background.  This piece is from the LA Times. While a lot of it is examples of deputies involved in alcohol related incidents there are a few additional details about the reasoning behind Baca's decision and the extent of any restrictions that will be placed on deputies.  (the emphasis added is mine)

L.A. County sheriff vows crackdown on armed deputies drinking alcohol


> Responding to a spate of shootings by allegedly intoxicated off-duty deputies, Lee Baca plans to implement a policy banning deputies from carrying firearms when they are drinking.
> 
> By Richard Winton November 11, 2008
> 
> ...


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (24 Nov 2008)

Too late I see...all you had to do was sit back and read and listen to advice instead you wanted to be right and get the last word. :


----------



## 1feral1 (24 Nov 2008)

Cognitive-Dissonance said:
			
		

> provoke a response.
> 
> -C/D



?

His entire history was wanting to deliberatly prevoke members in good standing, and create an audience for his own pleasure.

Thankyou Mods for the final flush.

Justice comes to those who wait!

We can all get back to normal now.

Warm regards,

Wes


----------



## Niteshade (25 Nov 2008)

Well My opinion is that there is a couple of issues/problems with these police officers' handling firearms while intoxicated:

1. It's dangerous. If driving drunk is dangerous, I can only imagine that handling firearems is also dangerous while intoxicated. Hand/eye co-ordination are out, equilibrium/balance is out, judgement is gone.. The list of effects of alcohol on the human body are staggering and proven. Firearms and alcohol are not a safe combination.

2. These are persons of such moral fibre, that they SHOULD know better than to have a loaded weapon on their person while they consume alcohol. If anything, a LEO should be held more accountable for their actions than a "civvie"...

I understand the difference between drinking & firing, VS. carrying while drinking, however isnt the idea behind carrying, the expectation that you MAY have to shoot the weapon? (ergo, you are drunk and having to shoot?) Could the weapon be taken from the drunken person more easily than if they were sober?

I see a big can of worms with persons carrying while drinking...

Nites


----------



## Infanteer (25 Nov 2008)

We prohibit the consumption of alcohol 8 hours prior to going live on ranges, so why shouldn't there be an expectation for LEO's to abide by similar regulations?


----------



## Cleared Hot (25 Nov 2008)

I don't know, it's pretty simple in my mind.  We arm these individuals because they have been trained and we trust their judgement.  There is no debate that excess alcohol impares judgement ergo once they have passed that point (.08 or whatever)  their judgement should no longer be trusted and the requirement/privilege of carrying should be taken away.  We do the same thing with driving i.e. we train them to drive better/more aggressively/tactically (whatever you want to call it) but we still don't let them drive while intoxicated.  I'm not talking about responsibly having a beer or two with supper, but if you know in advance you are going on a bender just use that judgement we put so much faith in and leave the firearms at home.  As for those few nights that "just happen" and the next thing you know you are over the limit, chances are (looking at the stats quoted by others above - I'm no expert) nothing adverse will happen but if it does that is what the discipline system is for... I've never been a huge fan of group punishment.

-CH


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (25 Nov 2008)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> We prohibit the consumption of alcohol 8 hours prior to going live on ranges, so why shouldn't there be an expectation for LEO's to abide by similar regulations?



Not enough close to the same thing as you know that in less than 8 hours you will be shooting live ammo.[for FUN] 
I guess those LEO's who must carry due to gang threats, etc., on thier lives should just never be able to have another beer with their friends or a glass of wine with their family.

Sounds fair....................... :


----------



## Marshall (25 Nov 2008)

I do not see a huge need for a banning of Firearms.. Don't those guns have a hell of a time coming out of the holsters anyways? (like a secret set of manuevers to open it?) So i'd think if most officers were that drunk to pull out their gun, maybe they would not be able to get past the security on the holster? You'd think maybe if some of these men had enough clarity in their heads to open the holster they'd also have enough to know what they are doing?

But then again, I suppose its almost second nature to them to open the holsters since they do it day and night.  :-\


----------



## medaid (25 Nov 2008)

Have you heard of muscle memory Marshall? I can unholster a LvIII retention half asleep. It's not that difficult once you've done it more times then you can count.

I applaud the Sheriff for attempting to help things. Obviously it's not without cause. Deputies can have drinks, they just have to have self control. Self control is the key.


----------



## Infanteer (25 Nov 2008)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> I guess those LEO's who must carry due to gang threats, etc., on thier lives should just never be able to have another beer with their friends or a glass of wine with their family.
> 
> Sounds fair....................... :



I highly doubt if a LEO is getting trashed at a Christmas Party that he is going to be concerned about gang threats.

LEO, like soldiers, are technically on duty 24/7.  However, there are times when we are not "on duty" - I can reasonably believe that I can go out on the town when stood down.  I can't see it being different for LEOs.  If we can place a reasonable restriction like no driving while intoxicated then I don't see why it can't be extended to carrying a loaded weapon - if I can't drive I sure as hell probably shouldn't be crew commanding a LAV III.  Same goes for any member of society who is permitted to carry a firearm - if they can't legally drive, should we have an expectation of them to wield a firearm?


----------



## Marshall (25 Nov 2008)

MedTech said:
			
		

> Have you heard of muscle memory Marshall? I can unholster a LvIII retention half asleep. It's not that difficult once you've done it more times then you can count.



Yeah thats what I figured could happen. At work I am like a robot with certain things from repetition and its probably along the same lines?


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (25 Nov 2008)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> I highly doubt if a LEO is getting trashed at a Christmas Party that he is going to be concerned about gang threats.



Pardon??..............I'm just a pathetic guard [ie. not the ONE who TOOK their freedom] and I've even ran into "ex-clients" out of province who were more than happy to point me out.

Have your hypothetical Christmas party in Kabul and then get back to me.


----------



## KevinB (25 Nov 2008)

I think its stupid to ban.


 You trust them with keys to a car...


I've been drunk with armed - both in CF and other service - yeah not too too bright, sometimes it was required (and yes there are times that it really can be required) and other times its been social gatherings.

  However even in some pretty drunken times I have remembered guns are tools.  When I am armed I do my best to avoid where alcohol will be, not for what I would do, but people who are drunk can do.  When I drink -especially on Mil/LE only classes - I tuck the guns away for the evening.   


Being an armed professional means not getting shitfaced in public, let alone whe your armed.


----------



## Infanteer (26 Nov 2008)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Have your hypothetical Christmas party in Kabul and then get back to me.



Ahh...good call - cause an off-duty cop is like a Westerner downtown in a foreign, hostile country.  Haven't seen too many members of the Edmonton Police Service beheaded on the internet.



			
				Infidel-6 said:
			
		

> When I am armed I do my best to avoid where alcohol will be, not for what I would do, but people who are drunk can do.  When I drink -especially on Mil/LE only classes - I tuck the guns away for the evening.
> 
> Being an armed professional means not getting shitfaced in public, let alone whe your armed.



I've edited your comment to be applicable to anyone with a weapon - if we permitted a properly trained citizen to carry, which I support, I would expect the same.

And therein lies the crux of the debate - the Sheriff's department in question is concerned that those obligations of being an "armed professional" that you pointed out aren't being met.  A little common sense can go a long way - perhaps it's not being applied in this situation?  The Sheriff's department wants to prohibit the carry while drinking - not while out of uniform period.  If a LEO feels imminent danger when he steps out of his house, he should probably re-evaluate his decision to impair himself with alcohol.  Either that, or he can always hang out with the sober cop who's got the gun....


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (26 Nov 2008)

Lets carry on the silliness, shall we?



			
				Infanteer said:
			
		

> if I can't drive I sure as hell probably shouldn't be crew commanding a LAV III.





			
				Infanteer said:
			
		

> Haven't seen too many members of the Edmonton Police Service beheaded on the internet.



...nor LAV III commanders.


----------



## Infanteer (26 Nov 2008)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Lets carry on the silliness, shall we?
> 
> ...nor LAV III commanders.



You initiated the silliness with your logical fallacy of comparing a Canadian city and Afghanistan.

As for no beheaded Canadians - we've been lucky not to lose a guy to the other side, but there are enough videos from Iraq and Afghanistan to give an indication of what would happen should one of us be taken by the Taliban.

My point still stands.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (26 Nov 2008)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> You initiated the silliness with your logical fallacy of comparing a Canadian city and Afghanistan.



??LOS ANGELES??    [Gee, no wonder I dropped out of school] :-[

No, you made the completely unqualified and uncalled for comment,



			
				Infanteer said:
			
		

> I highly doubt if a LEO is getting trashed at a Christmas Party that he is going to be concerned about gang threats.



and I followed you right out of both our lanes......


----------



## Infanteer (26 Nov 2008)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> ??LOS ANGELES??    [Gee, no wonder I dropped out of school] :-[



The discussion had moved to generalities.



> No, you made the completely unqualified and uncalled for comment, and I followed you right out of both our lanes......



Not really - I don't see how discussing drinking and carrying weapons is beyond our lanes.

As I said, my comments on Reply 32 in reference to Kevin's statement still stands.  Unless there are compelling statisics indicating an unusually high amount of violent crimes against off duty police officers, then I see no compelling argument that LEOs absolutely need to be armed 24/7.  As well, if an officer is impaired beyond his ability to legally drive, I can't see him being suddenly called to duty.

In any case, this seems relatively moot to me - I have good friends in 3 different law-enforcement organizations, and I'm unsure of the actual policies for off-duty carriage of weapons, but they've never carried when we've went out to get merry.


----------



## FastEddy (26 Nov 2008)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> You initiated the silliness with your logical fallacy of comparing a Canadian city and Afghanistan.
> 
> As for no beheaded Canadians - we've been lucky not to lose a guy to the other side, but there are enough videos from Iraq and Afghanistan to give an indication of what would happen should one of us be taken by the Taliban.
> 
> My point still stands.



I don't know how the Sand Box got into the mix, but I think we should leave any mention or association to it other than the Praise and Efforts of our Troops there.

But "Infanteer", Before the Pot calls the Kettle Black, park outside any Officers Mess at closing hour !.


----------



## KevinB (26 Nov 2008)

Most US LEA require or allow 24/7 carry as they are always on duty as sworn officers.

 In Canada due to the sheeple mentality, very few police services allow off duty carry unless the member is under credible threat (as determined by the service's chief constable [chief])

Me, I carry going to Mac's milk to get the wife something she is craving, 1 x 1911w/ X300, 2x8rd mags, xSF G2 light, CCW permit, phone (well Blackberry) - #1 rule is dial 911 first, be a good witness, shoot if required.

* I dont get to carry in Canada sadly


----------



## GAP (26 Nov 2008)

Infidel-6 said:
			
		

> * I dont get to carry in Canada sadly



And such a target rich environment too...... ;D


----------



## Infanteer (26 Nov 2008)

FastEddy said:
			
		

> But "Infanteer", Before the Pot calls the Kettle Black, park outside any Officers Mess at closing hour !.



No kidding - however, the duty officer of the day isn't drinking - period.  Same goes if we're expecting some sort of balloon to go up - as happened in my organization a little earlier this year.



			
				Infidel-6 said:
			
		

> Most US LEA require or allow 24/7 carry as they are always on duty as sworn officers.
> 
> In Canada due to the sheeple mentality, very few police services allow off duty carry unless the member is under credible threat (as determined by the service's chief constable [chief])
> 
> Me, I carry going to Mac's milk to get the wife something she is craving



I would to if I could.

It's unfortunate we don't allow off-duty officers to carry in Canada.  Of course, it's unfortunate that we don't allow citizens with the proper certification to do so either.

As for LEO's being "always on duty" - I would be interested to see a case of an officer responding to a situation while he's clearly been drinking?  How about a shooting incident with an intoxicated off-duty officer?  Lord knows the defence (and the press) would have a field day with that....


----------



## KevinB (26 Nov 2008)

Infy  ;D

  I am not advocating getting involved in a shooting while drinking.  I would guess that if one was under the state's legal limit for intoxication one would be in the clear legally (well criminal law side - I would hate to be involved in a civil suit in that sort of light).

I've seen the 1VP, 3VP and Brigade Field Duty Officer in their cups on Duty -- making a blanket statement like "the duty officer isn't drinking" can be wrong.  "The Duty Officer is not allow to consume liquor during their period of duty" would be a better comment.


----------



## Infanteer (26 Nov 2008)

Infidel-6 said:
			
		

> I've seen the 1VP, 3VP and Brigade Field Duty Officer in their cups on Duty -- making a blanket statement like "the duty officer isn't drinking" can be wrong.  "The Duty Officer is not allow to consume liquor during their period of duty" would be a better comment.



Good point. Let's just say that I don't drink when I've got the magic bag.  8)


----------



## medaid (26 Nov 2008)

Can you pull out a CCW rabbit outta that magic bag Infanteer?


----------



## Greymatters (26 Nov 2008)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> As for LEO's being "always on duty" - I would be interested to see a case of an officer responding to a situation while he's clearly been drinking?  How about a shooting incident with an intoxicated off-duty officer?  Lord knows the defence (and the press) would have a field day with that....



I think most of them are smart enough to exclude themselves from emergency call-ups, or respond to an incident, when they know they have had enough to impair their judgement...


----------

