Asked to Leave Logansport Mall for OCing Off Duty

[Bunnykid68]

Wasn't there a coffee shop somewhere that asked some officers to leave?

 

[Bunnykid68]

I agree with most of your logical arguments. There are probably some practical issues that work most of these issues out: how fast do you think the local department would respond to a call for help from the manager of a place that doesn't want cops around? I think the department would very much respect their "private property" rights by not killing themselves to get there. And maybe waiting in the street until they had permission to come on the property while the manager gets his head kicked in by the robbers. Just kidding, I'm sure the cops are more professional than that, but I certainly wouldn't adopt that business practice

But, what exactly does the law say? Specifically, what IC allows an officer to carry all the time (on-duty/off-duty) without a LTCH? Are there limitations to it? Any restrictions? Or does state law not differentiate between off/on duty?

If you cannot find it in the IC it does not exist. The police have no more right to hang out at the mall than they do my house without permission if asked to leave unless they have official business that requires them to be there.

 

[Hemingway]

No, they have a duty to enforce laws - they do not have a duty to protect you. It's an important distinction.

They are law enforcement officers and not 'save you from the bad guys officers'.

They have a duty to uphold the laws, that does not mean they can't choose to not enforce one or that they HAVE to get involved in any situation, no matter how dangerous. Think they HAVE to? Don't get upset next time they write you a ticket instead of a warning. There is such a thing as discretion. Domestic violence is probably an exception.

Not like they are REQUIRED to stop a bank robbery in progress if they're standing in line cashing a check.

For example, you won't see any off-duty officers getting involved in any crime being committed at Logansport mall, for sure. They're policy has ensured that

 

[MikeDVB]

how fast do you think the local department would respond to a call for help from the manager of a place that doesn't want cops around?

If they don't want officers around, I suppose they better come up with their own way to handle disturbances :shrug:.

I think the department would very much respect their "private property" rights by not killing themselves to get there.

Possibly - but I doubt it would happen over a single instance of an off-duty officer being asked to disarm and/or leave. If it happened regularly to enough officers I could definitely see it happening.

Just kidding, I'm sure the cops are more professional than that, but I certainly wouldn't adopt that business practice

I imagine most are but there are certainly bad apples in every profession.

But, what exactly does the law say? Specifically, what IC allows an officer to carry all the time (on-duty/off-duty) without a LTCH?

There are laws but, me not being an officer, I don't really care to look it up as it doesn't concern me. I've read it before and, as near as I can remember all it does is states that they *can* carry. Just as the LTCH gives you permission to carry - it doesn't override my property rights if I ask you to disarm or to leave property I own or control.

Are there limitations to it? Any restrictions? Or does state law not differentiate between off/on duty?

A law enforcement officer can carry regardless of whether they're on duty or not. Some departments, from what I've heard, do have specific policies in place but it's not law.

 

[Hemingway]

If you cannot find it in the IC it does not exist. The police have no more right to hang out at the mall than they do my house without permission if asked to leave unless they have official business that requires them to be there.

I'm not talking about private property, I'm talking about the IC code that allows officers to carry weapons without a LTCH. Yes, I get it. Cops have almost as much right as a regular citizen. They can do nothing right, I understand that. We can all tell cops that they are not welcome at any place at any time for any reason because they're going to shoot us dead or plant marijuana on us the first chance they get (unless we need them, then we want them there immediately).


What I'm asking is what does the law say about them carrying weapons? Are there any restrictions? For example, off-duty carry at a school: allowed or not allowed? Is there every a case where they need a LTCH?

 

[Hemingway]

If they don't want officers around, I suppose they better come up with their own way to handle disturbances :shrug:.

Possibly - but I doubt it would happen over a single instance of an off-duty officer being asked to disarm and/or leave. If it happened regularly to enough officers I could definitely see it happening.

I imagine most are but there are certainly bad apples in every profession.

There are laws but, me not being an officer, I don't really care to look it up as it doesn't concern me. I've read it before and, as near as I can remember all it does is states that they *can* carry. Just as the LTCH gives you permission to carry - it doesn't override my property rights if I ask you to disarm or to leave property I own or control.

A law enforcement officer can carry regardless of whether they're on duty or not. Some departments, from what I've heard, do have specific policies in place but it's not law.

Thanks, Mike.

I figured that most have department policies that are probably well established.

 

[MikeDVB]

They have a duty to uphold the laws, that does not mean they can't choose to not enforce one or that they HAVE to get involved in any situation, no matter how dangerous.

They certainly have discretion... They also have the discretion as to whether or not to even show up for work, whether or not to eat breakfast or to go drinking, whether or not to put their shoes on the right feet or not ...

I'm not sure how the individual's discretion really has anything to do with it. Their job is to enforce the laws - ultimately the buck stops with whoever it is that is responsible for supervising said officer.

Think they HAVE to? Don't get upset next time they write you a ticket instead of a warning. There is such a thing as discretion. Domestic violence is probably an exception.

There are certain situations where action is legally required, but I couldn't tell you what they are.

That said - don't misunderstand - I don't have anything against law enforcement officers and have a great many friends that are indeed officers. I am simply answering your questions regardless of whether you like the answers or not.

Not like they are REQUIRED to stop a bank robbery in progress if they're standing in line cashing a check.

I don't know, and won't comment on that.

For example, you won't see any off-duty officers getting involved in any crime being committed at Logansport mall, for sure. They're policy has ensured that

Again, I'm not fully apprised of what officers are legally required to do and not so I won't get into that discussion.

 

[Boonl1776]

No, they have a duty to enforce laws - they do not have a duty to protect you. It's an important distinction.

Please explain: What is the distinction and why is it important?

 

[MikeDVB]

Thanks, Mike.

I figured that most have department policies that are probably well established.

I imagine it varies from department to department and there is no blanket answer that covers everything.

 

[MikeDVB]

Please explain: What is the distinction and why is it important?

If you can't understand the plain English that you quoted, I'm not going to break it down further for you. Maybe somebody else will spend the time.

 

[Boonl1776]

If you can't understand the plain English that you quoted, I'm not going to break it down further for you. Maybe somebody else will spend the time.

MikeDVB, I understand the difference in the words you used, but I disagree that there is a distinction in their legal significance.

If you could rethink your decision to not spend the time to break it down further or perhaps even cite to a court case that makes the distinction you claim exists, we would all be the better for it.

 

[MikeDVB]

MikeDVB, I understand the difference in the words you used, but I disagree that there is a distinction in their legal significance.

If you could rethink your decision to not spend the time to break it down further or perhaps even cite to a court case that makes the distinction you claim exists, we would all be the better for it.

I'd sooner just agree to disagree. If you want to look it up, more power to you.

 

[jbombelli]

MikeDVB, I understand the difference in the words you used, but I disagree that there is a distinction in their legal significance.

If you could rethink your decision to not spend the time to break it down further or perhaps even cite to a court case that makes the distinction you claim exists, we would all be the better for it.

Castle Rock V. Gonzales. I think that's the one. SCOTUS says the police do not have a duty to protect the individual.

 

[Boonl1776]

I'd sooner just agree to disagree. If you want to look it up, more power to you.

= punt!

 

[Onebad06vtx]

One more reason I carry concealed.
What they dont know wont hurt you.
Question is though,if im carring concealed at say a mall where im not suppost to be carrying at all and this bad guy starts wacking people,I draw and shoot this guy and stop possible lots of people getting hurt or killed.
What happens to me?
I would ruth be judged by 12 then carried by 6!

 

[Bunnykid68]

They can do nothing right, I understand that. We can all tell cops that they are not welcome at any place at any time for any reason because they're going to shoot us dead or plant marijuana on us the first chance they get (unless we need them, then we want them there immediately).

What was that all about? Sorry I misunderstood what you were asking. I won't make that mistake again

 

[MikeDVB]

= punt!

Eh? I just have better things to do with my time - if you have the free time to research it, go for it. If you prove me wrong I'll gladly stand up and say I was wrong - I take no qualms with not being perfect.

 

[Hemingway]

Castle Rock V. Gonzales. I think that's the one. SCOTUS says the police do not have a duty to protect the individual.

Castle Rock v. Gonzales - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


This case seems to be a bit more specific because the issue at hand was whether or not the PD was legally required to enforce a restraining order since no law requiring that was on the books.

The larger concept it infers is that the police are not really there to protect us, but rather to enforce laws. It is a fine distinction and probably one that comes into play rarely as most of the time the laws are created to protect people so enforcing one accomplishes the other, but when they diverge, the police' responsibility is to the law, not the individual. I think that's what was trying to be said.

Or, maybe I have it all wrong

 

[Boonl1776]

Castle Rock V. Gonzales. I think that's the one. SCOTUS says the police do not have a duty to protect the individual.

Exaclty. An indivdual can't sue the police for a failure to protect them, (as the police have no legally recognized duty to do so, per the Supreme Court). Certainly an individual can't sue the police for breaching a duty to enforce the law.

Neither duty is recognized in American jurisprudence.

 

[Titanium_Frost]

If anyone even cares about the original post anymore I would like to clarify my position because I do not think the OP has.

I am not against cops, I am certainly not against cops who choose to OC off duty or in street clothes.

What I AM against are people who believe they are privledged above other "common" folk because of their vocation. If they are off duty they should behave the same as they would expect anyone else to including following or not following rules. If you carry onto private property that doesn't allow it and are caught, leave. Don't pull your badge or other ID and act like you can break the rules.

I can carry lots of places that are off limits and I walk right past stupid 'No Firearm' signs every day but I don't do it when I am off duty.

OP I hope it was a very bad misreading or you explained it in another part of the thread I missed.