Why are police allowed to take their weapons home?

[primalclaws1974]

I do not understand why police do not have turn over their badge and gun at the end of their shift. Showing a badge and waving a gun around continues to give the officer power and authority even while off the clock. Off-duty police also arrest people. How can this be right? Are they not a civilian when they're not being paid? How many police in this country have committed crimes with their guns while off duty? I realize that the number of American police that abuse the badge and weapon while off the clock is small, but there are enough that it has made national news several times.

 

[ally79]

You might want to take that question in the other direction my friend. How many lives have been saved by off duty police officers? Google it and you will find that the answer is a lot. just because an officer is off duty they don't cease to be a cop, they are still obligated to uphold the law.

 

[ic3squid]

Well, I guess cops continue to fight and prevent crime in their spare time. They didn't take an oath for nothing, they have to live up to the standards and help the public. This is their sole duty and they have to obey this order until they turn in their badge.

 

[LitoLawless]

I really think it's a matter of safety. Being a cop means you have a target on your head at all times. People really take things such as arrests personally and will remember not only cop names, but badge numbers as well. This could even lead to someone hunting a cop down and catching them when they are off-duty (and possible unarmed). I really don't agree with some of the law enforcement's tactics as of late, but I do think that a job with the level of danger that being a cop has should come with some sort of assurance that they will always be protected.

 

[c9h2ua]

I think it is a very good argument because it is controversy!!
They are allowed to take the weapons home because they can protect us and themselves when there are emergence cases. However, it is hard to say would anyone take advantage on it...

 

[LitoLawless]

I think there are cops that ALREADY take advantage of it. I see so many cops on public transportation with their guns and badges on them. I always wonder if they are undercover or just off-duty. You would figure if a cop was undercover, he wouldn't be flashing he badge around all crazy. Therefore, I think they are off-duty cops that don't want to scare anyone. The thing is, I've seen some fake badges in my time as well.

 

[Rocky55119]

This is a controversial topic. I as one who is going to become a police officer when I am older, would feel very unprotected without my gun and badge.

As the citizens have the right to know our names and badge numbers, as Lito stated, we could get hunted down. While that scenario is very unlikely, it does happen. Now I feel the main reason, is to still protect and serve. If you were a police officer.... would you stand their freely while someone was being stabbed and attempt to arrest them saying, "im a cop dude trust me!!! its just my badge and gun are at work". You will probably need verification to make a proper arrest if you're off-duty and you witness a crime like that.

Now in the off chance that someone is hunting you down, having proper verification to things such as other police officers around the states showing you know how to use a weapon, you are properly trained for such actions, and you are aware how to defend yourself if someone is attempting to hunt you down, could help in the court of law against getting the suspect put into jail.

 

[missbishi]

Off-duty police also arrest people. How can this be right? Are they not a civilian when they're not being paid?

I understand your point but I'm willing to wager that no off-duty officer could simply stand back and let a crime happen. In fact, a good percentage of the general public would intervene. Certainly, if I was to witness an attack or similar, I would try to do what I could to stop things. I certainly wouldn't stand there thinking "well I'm not being paid so I won't do anything about it".

 

[admin]

Typically the longer the period of time someone has been in law enforcement the less likely they are to react or get involved in preventing a crime. What many experienced police officers will tell you, is that criminals more often than not have accomplices so they will stand back and just observe. As soon as they have a chance they will then report any information they can about the crime to help capture the suspects. It is the younger members who typically will react quicker to get involved.

 

[ally79]

When an off duty officer has cause to arrest someone they do it by detaining them and calling for an on duty officer to assist. Even when they are "off the clock" they are sworn to uphold the law. If they see a crime being committed they can arrest you and they will hold you until another officer arrives.

 

[Mackmax]

Many lives have been saved by off-duty cops. With power comes responsibility, so we have to trust that these cops use their guns responsibly on and off the clock. Cops do not become ordinary civilians just because they're not in uniform. They still have very high gun training and know how to use a gun and when to use a gun. There are cops that take advantage of this power, but that is a power issue, not a gun issue.

 

[ic3squid]

Being a cop is a lifestyle, therefore the bosses think that they should be fighting crime even when they are not on duty. Look at stories of how peoples lives were saved because of an off-duty cop who managed to stop whatever crime that was committed.

 

[Hengista]

Allowing police to take their weapons home brings many advantages. They can defend themselves and their families against criminals meaning to take revenge, and if they happen to see a crime in their neighbourhood they can readily intervene too, which can be even more effective at preventing crime than active duty.

 

[Kamarsun1]

Well citizens do have the power to arrest someone if they see a crime in action, so it's no different for police, now turning in your badge and gun, may not be a good idea. There is a chance those items can get into the hands of the wrong person. It should be the responsibility of the officer to keep and maintain his or her own gun and badge.

 

[Shimus]

If this was Roman times, would you ask the soldiers in the army to give up their sword/shield and/or spear when they went to bed or got done for the day, even in enemy territory?

I see this no different. Don't separate a warrior from their weapon of using, make them responsible for it. If they are, and it's registered to them - and something happens, they'll have to explain. That's just how it should be. Whether it got stolen or was used for shady business, a weapon is a fingerprint - it allows you be traced. They have to have a permit and conceal-open carry license. This alone puts you in the database.

Plus if you carry a weapon around it should be your responsibility to clean it and maintain it, as well. If it falls into the "wrong" hands or is used in a crime, then it's the owners responsibility to clear their own name if they're innocent. If not, it means guilty. It's really not a "Grey" area question, this is pretty black-and-white. Plus, a lot of people already said the reason #2: A lot of off duty cops do a fair chunk of saving people.

I'm fine with this.

 

[Laura Greenbrier]

Typically the longer the period of time someone has been in law enforcement the less likely they are to react or get involved in preventing a crime. What many experienced police officers will tell you, is that criminals more often than not have accomplices so they will stand back and just observe. As soon as they have a chance they will then report any information they can about the crime to help capture the suspects. It is the younger members who typically will react quicker to get involved.

When I initially read your answer, I found it counterintuitive. Some part of me assumed that the younger cop might be cautious whereas the experienced and confident officer might not hesitate to intervene. I can see your point, however. If I'm understanding you correctly, the younger cop might react in a more gung-ho manner, perhaps to prove him- or herself, whereas the more experienced officer would take a broader view and try to take in the entire situation for a more comprehensive understanding--and *then* act to get assistance.

 

[donnalynn47]

I for one am glad they continue to serve, and protect off the clock. This is how I feel about it. If you are a nurse at a hospital and on your way home you come up on a wreck people are hurt. As a nurse would you set in your car, and say well I've done my day I'm off the clock. I don't think so I think the nurse would spring into action to help, and assist the hurt people. It's more then a job it's a way of life. Same for a police officer it's in their blood to help 24/7.

 

[JoanMcWench]

I agree with something someone mentioned a few posts up. As a police officer I would be very concerned about defending myself on the clock AND off the clock. As well as the community at large. Besides, even if this person were no longer on the force I have a feeling (because of the level of being comfortable & their skill with the weapon) they would still be in possession of a gun.

 

[Patrick]

Personally I don't see it to be a big deal, both the badge and the gun are essential to the police officer to perform his job, should an emergency lead to him needing to make an off-duty arrest. Also, just as all citizens have to right to arm themselves for self-defense I feel that off-duty officers should have access to their sidearms instead of having to waste their money buying a second gun just for off-duty use.

 

[Gelsemium]

I think it's a matter of safety, a police officer is responsible for it's weapon, it's his responsibility and no one else, so I think it's a right thing to do, have the gun with them at all times.