Leader

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Statutory Powers of Arrest for MP's?

Collapse

300x250 Mobile

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #76
    Originally posted by statebear View Post
    ^^What he said.

    I didn’t feel safe around some of knuckleheads I had to work along side with being armed “on-duty”, let alone having them armed off-duty. The mixture of young immature service members consuming alcohol and having access to guns in the dorms/barracks is a recipe in itself for disaster.

    Off duty carry for active MPs/SPs/MAs will never happen.........hell from what I have read on here CID and OSI have all sorts of regulations on when and if they can carry off duty and what involvement their respective agencies would support with them intervening in off base/post criminal activity. Being a good witness is what most have expressed their agencies would want them to be......

    So to what end would it benefit the military, the public or an active military police service member to be armed off-duty?
    The “benefit” of LEOSA (18 USC 926B and 926C) is to allow LEOs the ability to carry a firearm for their protection without having to navigate the complex patchwork of varying state and local laws related to firearms, magazine capacity and ammunition.

    Given the seemingly distorted interpretation of what LEOSA is and what it is not, the implications and potential liabilities, I would like to provide some important notes regarding the law:

    -LEOSA was not nor is it intended to provide a public benefit. It was implemented to provide for an officer to have the means of protection; thus the Title: Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act.

    While anecdotal comments have been made regarding the derivative benefit that comes with officers being able to carry, this is not the intent of the law.

    -LEOSA does not provide extraterritorial police powers.

    -Employing agency liability under 18 USC 926B is significantly reduced when they have contemporary firearm and use of force training, SOPs that articulate scope of authority when off duty and more so out of the respective jurisdiction.

    In regards to the federal government and specifically DOD and the respective services, sovereign immunity and the tort reform act provide a near impenetrable barrier of protection.

    Generally, a litigable liability only comes into play when the agency is and/or employee is negligent beyond the scope of employment. Being that LEOSA is not an extension of duties, the ability to sue an agency is significantly reduced. Granted you can sue for anything, the success of a LEOSA to agency tied liability would likely need to demonstrate a failure on the agencies part to: train and maintain policy.

    -Former agency liability is near zero under 18 USC 926C in regards to separated/retired officers provided the agency follows the vetting processes which are part of the law. An additional layer of protection is provided by policies and procedures that cover the extent of LEOSA as it applies to retired/separated officers.

    -As for personnel on a base; the commander retains the inherent right and authority to proscribe enforceable regulations for conduct on and about areas under their command. The possession of weapons is one of many that they currently dictate.

    So to answer your question: The benefit is to the officer (be they an MP, SP, MAA, a state, municipal or federal cop) in that they have the means to protect themselves off duty. Irrespective of statistics related to off duty assaults tied to on-duty interactions, I believe that a law enforcement officer should always have the means of self defense.
    Originally posted by SSD
    It has long been the tradition on this forum and as well as professionally not to second guess or Monday morning QB the officer's who were actually on-scene and had to make the decision. That being said, I don't think that your discussion will go very far on this board.
    Originally posted by Iowa #1603
    And now you are arguing about not arguing..................

    Comment


    • #77
      Originally posted by sgt jon View Post
      So to answer your question: The benefit is to the officer (be they an MP, SP, MAA, a state, municipal or federal cop) in that they have the means to protect themselves off duty. Irrespective of statistics related to off duty assaults tied to on-duty interactions, I believe that a law enforcement officer should always have the means of self defense.
      Yes. You are correct. No doubt the officer benefits by having a means of self defense. The point I was trying to make is, that society, (whether it was LEOSA's intent or not), also expects an off-duty officer, if armed to take certain actions to protect them. With that said, what good would it serve to have armed officers, observe a crime in progress and due their agency specific polices, or LEOSA’s intent, not take any action?

      You can quote the law's meaning and intent all day, but when Joe Citizen's business is getting robbed and your sitting in there eating your burger and do absolutely nothing to stop or prevent said crime, the fact that " -LEOSA was not nor is it intended to provide a public benefit. It was implemented to provide for an officer to have the means of protection; thus the Title: Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act." isn't going to get you very many brownie points.

      Whether we like it or not, the public expects to benefit by having an off-duty LEO in their presence.

      Furthermore, while I understand where you’re coming from on the reasons for arming off-duty active military LE members as a means of self protection, I highly doubt it will ever happen. Besides the issues of them not being able to take action or enforce laws off-duty, you would have age issues, maturity/screening and training issues.
      I’m not to sure I would want 17 year old Johnny, with no life experiences and only the services MP/SF/MA academy training under his belt packing heat off base.

      Just saying...

      Comment


      • #78
        Originally posted by statebear View Post
        Yes. You are correct. No doubt the officer benefits by having a means of self defense. The point I was trying to make is, that society, (whether it was LEOSA's intent or not), also expects an off-duty officer, if armed to take certain actions to protect them. With that said, what good would it serve to have armed officers, observe a crime in progress and due their agency specific polices, or LEOSA’s intent, not take any action?

        You can quote the law's meaning and intent all day, but when Joe Citizen's business is getting robbed and your sitting in there eating your burger and do absolutely nothing to stop or prevent said crime, the fact that " -LEOSA was not nor is it intended to provide a public benefit. It was implemented to provide for an officer to have the means of protection; thus the Title: Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act." isn't going to get you very many brownie points.

        Whether we like it or not, the public expects to benefit by having an off-duty LEO in their presence.

        Furthermore, while I understand where you’re coming from on the reasons for arming off-duty active military LE members as a means of self protection, I highly doubt it will ever happen. Besides the issues of them not being able to take action or enforce laws off-duty, you would have age issues, maturity/screening and training issues.
        I’m not to sure I would want 17 year old Johnny, with no life experiences and only the services MP/SF/MA academy training under his belt packing heat off base.

        Just saying...
        I certainly appreciate your take on things and the inflection on how the general public would view a officers failure to act. Allow me to respond.

        While a completely hypothetical and vague scenario and one that could quickly expand to a thousand what-if offshoots, if an off-duty officer witnesses a crime such as this and without an obvious and imminent need to step in, the best course of action would be to observe. I add to this by reminding the uninitiated that carrying concealed means concealed. If you are following proper protocol, no one would even know you are armed. If and only if the situation dictated an active engagement should an off-duty officer intervene. The potential for a blue-on-blue or armed citizen engagement is very grave in cases such as these. Again, this and similar hypothetical scenarios are far too nebulous to try and pick apart in a forum such as this.

        Trying not to get too far into the weeds, I will delve into the matter of taking action off-duty and in the case of a military LEO; out of their jurisdiction. Should they intervene in the hypothetical situation you describe, they would be doing so as a private citizen. (Yes, I appreciate the fact that Title 10 service members are always on-duty) Granted they would have the implement most commonly associated with law enforcement, but the courts and wise legal minds have already opined that “military law enforcement officers may intervene in an extraterritorial situation where life is imperiled and before such intervention the military LEO need not shed their accoutrements”

        As for age, maturity levels, life experience and an impression as to the quality of their basic training. Well, we trust them to charge into battle, to protect some of our most sensitive assets and patrol our bases in a law enforcement role, why then would that level of trust evaporate at the end of their shift ? I would also point out that some civilian agencies employ LEOs at the same age and with potentially less training.
        Originally posted by SSD
        It has long been the tradition on this forum and as well as professionally not to second guess or Monday morning QB the officer's who were actually on-scene and had to make the decision. That being said, I don't think that your discussion will go very far on this board.
        Originally posted by Iowa #1603
        And now you are arguing about not arguing..................

        Comment


        • #79
          Originally posted by sgt jon View Post
          Again, this and similar hypothetical scenarios are far too nebulous to try and pick apart in a forum such as this.
          Agreed.


          Originally posted by sgt jon View Post
          Trying not to get too far into the weeds, I will delve into the matter of taking action off-duty and in the case of a military LEO; out of their jurisdiction. Should they intervene in the hypothetical situation you describe, they would be doing so as a private citizen. (Yes, I appreciate the fact that Title 10 service members are always on-duty) Granted they would have the implement most commonly associated with law enforcement, but the courts and wise legal minds have already opined that “military law enforcement officers may intervene in an extraterritorial situation where life is imperiled and before such intervention the military LEO need not shed their accoutrements”
          I think your statement about “the courts and wise legal minds have already opined that military law enforcement officers may intervene in an extraterritorial situation where life is imperiled and before such intervention the military LEO need not shed their accoutrements” ...... is geared to an on-duty(in uniform/armed/with all accoutrements) type situation, for instance, maybe a MLEO may be in transit off base such as checking on off-base sites or housing and encounters a “extraterritorial situation where life is imperiled.” But that’s just me......maybe I’m wrong.

          Every service member regardless of MOS can carry as a private citizen off base with the proper permits issued by the State. So in reality Cook Joe and MP Joe can pack heat if they so desire. No need for LEOSA in that case. In the end, the arming of MPs/SFs/MAs in an off duty capacity isn't going to happen in either one of our lifetimes. The services are currently fighting tooth and nail to prevent/restrict their respective civilian LEOs from carrying off-duty; I highly doubt they will allow active military personnel to carry under the LEOSA umbrella.


          Originally posted by sgt jon View Post
          As for age, maturity levels, life experience and an impression as to the quality of their basic training. Well, we trust them to charge into battle, to protect some of our most sensitive assets and patrol our bases in a law enforcement role, why then would that level of trust evaporate at the end of their shift ? I would also point out that some civilian agencies employ LEOs at the same age and with potentially less training.
          The level of trust evaporates at the end of their shift, because at that point they are to a large extent “unsupervised." All I can speak from is my experience Sarge and quite frankly some of the folks I served with had no business being in the military, let alone packing a gun in an unsupervised, off-base, non-duty status. Where there a lot of these folks, no. But there were enough.....

          I don’t know what civilian agencies you are referring to, but I can honestly say the two that I have worked for more then screened, trained and vetted you before you came close to getting a badge, and commission. With all due respect, a military recruiter trying to make quota, the MEPS, basic training and military LE school, does not even come close to comparing to what a potential applicant gets put through to get on my job or "most" other LE job out in the civilian world. Does an immature, undesirable or unethical person slip through the cracks every once and while. Yes. But after doing this outside the gates going on 12 years now, there is no way you can tell me that the military vets their members better or even closely to what a "reputable" civilian LE agency does.

          Unlike the military...........you don’t join civilian LE..........you apply.

          Comment


          • #80
            I agree!

            This is not capitulation but agreement. I respect your point of view and expereince. Given my role I avoid passing a wide reaching judgement on the group being discussed, but I see your point.
            Originally posted by SSD
            It has long been the tradition on this forum and as well as professionally not to second guess or Monday morning QB the officer's who were actually on-scene and had to make the decision. That being said, I don't think that your discussion will go very far on this board.
            Originally posted by Iowa #1603
            And now you are arguing about not arguing..................

            Comment


            • #81
              Same here!

              Stay safe Sarge....

              Comment


              • #82
                I would also point out that some civilian agencies employ LEOs at the same age and with potentially less training.
                I can't agree with this...Every state I have ever lived in required LEO's to 21YOA. I did 6yrs Active USAF Security Forces and I know of at least 3 SF that were 17yrs old, Most are 18-20. I also did 3yrs DoD Police which did require a person to 21 as well. The big thing keeping us DoD's from carrying off duty (without a CCW) was the fact that the agency REFUSED to issue us an ID card identifying us as a Police Officer. That was done specifically to DENY us the right to carry under LEOSHA. This is the Main reason I am currently in a TX TCLEOSE academy (come on Oct 7th). I love being a cop, but I just got tired of the lack of respect/rights for Fed Cops...Can't wait to be a Civillian Peace Officer. All that Said, I have learned more since I started the Academy back in the Spring than I did in the entire 9+ yrs I was a Military & DoD cop. I will say the Military and DoD is a good starting point for someone wanting to get into LEO work, but its just that a starting point to "Get your feet wet", it looks good on a resume, but doesn't hold an immense amount of weight with an agency considering me with my 9yrs of MIL/FED LEO and another Certified officer with say 5yrs Civillian Leo and both of us have sparkly clean records...He would get the job, not me. And I have to say if I ever got to that point that I was in the Administrators shoes and task to make that decision, as much as I love the Military and their Sacrifices to this country...I would make the same choice.
                Dear Mr. Borelli (Site Admin), PRESS HARD 4 COPIES, HAVE A NICE DAY!!!

                Comment


                • #83
                  Originally posted by JEFFSGTP View Post
                  I can't agree with this...Every state I have ever lived in required LEO's to 21YOA. I did 6yrs Active USAF Security Forces and I know of at least 3 SF that were 17yrs old, Most are 18-20. I also did 3yrs DoD Police which did require a person to 21 as well. The big thing keeping us DoD's from carrying off duty (without a CCW) was the fact that the agency REFUSED to issue us an ID card identifying us as a Police Officer. That was done specifically to DENY us the right to carry under LEOSHA. This is the Main reason I am currently in a TX TCLEOSE academy (come on Oct 7th). I love being a cop, but I just got tired of the lack of respect/rights for Fed Cops...Can't wait to be a Civillian Peace Officer. All that Said, I have learned more since I started the Academy back in the Spring than I did in the entire 9+ yrs I was a Military & DoD cop. I will say the Military and DoD is a good starting point for someone wanting to get into LEO work, but its just that a starting point to "Get your feet wet", it looks good on a resume, but doesn't hold an immense amount of weight with an agency considering me with my 9yrs of MIL/FED LEO and another Certified officer with say 5yrs Civillian Leo and both of us have sparkly clean records...He would get the job, not me. And I have to say if I ever got to that point that I was in the Administrators shoes and task to make that decision, as much as I love the Military and their Sacrifices to this country...I would make the same choice.



                  The Sarge is actually correct "some" civilian agencies hire LEOs at the same age......

                  I believe the Iowa State Patrol/Capital Patrol hires 18 year olds to work at the Capital Patrol. Not sure what their laws are concerning peace officer's age, over there.

                  Maybe, Iowa #1603 can chime in.....I remember discussing this on the Iowa forums with some Troopers there a while back.

                  But I'll venture to say it is few and far between, most States require LEOs to be 21.

                  Either way, the training and vetting is far beyond what an active duty military LEO gets IMO and experience. You are correct, about the services being a starting point and a good place to get one's feet wet in LE. I also agree having it on your resume isn't enough to instantly get you hired when you get out and try to apply with civilian agencies. Maturity, common sense and an all around sense of what is right and wrong are big virtues civilian LE agencies look at when hiring folks. With that said, if I had to do it over, I would not have done anything differently, my time in the AF gave me good experiences and I was fortunate enough get hired on after I ETSed and being prior service gave me a good foundation to be trained from. Unfortunately it's been my experience too may former service members ETS with the arrogant mindset that, that they will automatically get hired and end up running and gunning on the streets with only whatever training they received in the military. What they fail to realize , is that 's its a whole different ball game outside he gates and some end up finding that out he hard way.....

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Florida hires @ 19. To go to the police academy in PA you only need to be 18. Philly hires @ 19.
                    I don't answer recruitment messages....

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      Louisiana hires at 18 and I have never heard of "DOD" requiring one to be 21. Certain Federal agencies have hired those under 21 before.
                      "An excuse is worse and more terrible than a lie, for an excuse is a lie guarded."

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        Interesting.....

                        Did not know about PA, LA and FL.......

                        Kind of young IMO to be out doing the job......I wonder how many they actually hire that are that age?

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          Almost no difference in the military giving a 17yr old a gun to shoot/carry?

                          I agree with it being too young as well...
                          "An excuse is worse and more terrible than a lie, for an excuse is a lie guarded."

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            Originally posted by irishlad2nv View Post
                            Almost no difference in the military giving a 17yr old a gun to shoot/carry?

                            I agree with it being too young as well...
                            I agree to an extent as well......

                            But to answer your question........

                            I can only speak towards the LE aspect of it, due to never having served in an infantry unit or held any kind of combat MOS during my time in...in case you are also referring to the arming of young combat soldiers.

                            In the military you are closely supervised for the most part. Does that mean a young MP can't go postal, or violate a military member's rights or civilian employee's rights, be corrupt or unethical, while being closely supervised? I guess not......But the propensity just isn't there in my opinion. Maybe it's because the criminal elements on a post/base aren't as prevalent as they are outside the gates or maybe because of the close supervision by the NCOs or the fact that for the most part on post/base you are dealing with Officers and NCOs who also have the power of apprehension and therefore a young MLEO can only get away with so much.....

                            I will say this, having worked at a medium size PD in the past, having an 18 year old in that type of LE setting may work. The level supervision is about par with the military's and the beats tend to small, thus allowing for easier management by supervisors. However in a County or State agency, it could be problematic, for the simple reason of size and jurisdiction and availability of supervision. For example, at my gig, I cover two whole counties daily. Some nights I'm also assigned a part of a third county.....There are no beats or assigned areas within these counties, I pretty much go where I please, when I please, when I'm not on a call. I peform my duties with the help of two or three fellow Troopers........depending on the circumstances/shift, I may cover the area stated, by myself, relying on the SO or a nearby city for back-up. With that said, I couldn't see a 18 year old with no life experiences or any meaning full prior employment experience being cut loose in that kind of work environment. The propensity for being confronted with a situation needing experience or a certain sort of seasoning, without the option of supervisory or veteran fellow LEO guidance is enormous, compared to say a military setting or a city PD where supervisors or fellow veteran officers are always available to assist for the most part.

                            I joined the AF when I was 21 and even at that age with only the life experiences I had at the time, I was no where close to being ready or capable of being out in a LE capacity without some sort of supervision and help......saying I was naive about LE at that time would have been an understatement.

                            Just my two cents.....
                            Last edited by statebear; 06-29-2011, 02:00 PM. Reason: added content

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              Originally posted by statebear View Post
                              Interesting.....

                              Did not know about PA, LA and FL.......

                              Kind of young IMO to be out doing the job......I wonder how many they actually hire that are that age?
                              I'm not sure if they're are tons out there in Louisiana. I know there are some, also, some may advertise as a minimum req 18yrs of age, but rarely if ever hire that young. Kind of a just keeping options open minimum requirement. My current agency hires at 18 but thats jail only (no weapon) you must be 21 to go to the road, even then and we are a large dept we may have only 2-3 on the road that are 21 or came on at 21. The average youngest age on the road here I'd have to say is 24. The ones that came on at 21 were carefully selected after showing a great deal of maturity while working in the jail since they were 18. They were hired and although young had years of observation before selected once they were 21 for the road. Needless to say we don't have really any issues with our young road guys, we have a darn good vetting process, unlike the military who throws a gun and badge at an 18yr old with some keys and says get after it.

                              My first dept hired at 18, and have since moved away from under 21, the older the better idea they have adopted. They ended up firing when I was there quite a few that were all 20 or younger just to immature, not ready for a real career job yet. I believe the website still says 18, but I know for an absolute fact they will NOT seriously consider you unless you are 21 or older. The entire dept now is over 21 and they plan to keep it that way. So while Louisiana POST will allow an officer under 21, I'd say unless you are going to work in a jail, or you know someone reeeeaaally good, you likely are fighting an uphill battle trying to get on under 21.
                              Ignored: Towncop, Pulicords, TacoMac, Ten08

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                Originally posted by creolecop View Post
                                So while Louisiana POST will allow an officer under 21, I'd say unless you are going to work in a jail, or you know someone reeeeaaally good, you likely are fighting an uphill battle trying to get on under 21.
                                That's what I was thinking......if States have in on paper that 18 year olds can be LEOs, thats one thing, but I couldn't see many agencies actually hiring them at that age. The jail is one thing, the road is another.....

                                Comment

                                MR300x250 Tablet

                                Collapse

                                What's Going On

                                Collapse

                                There are currently 3539 users online. 160 members and 3379 guests.

                                Most users ever online was 26,947 at 07:36 PM on 12-29-2019.

                                Welcome Ad

                                Collapse
                                Working...
                                X