Bad news for LAPD image. Two officers got into fight outside what I think is an eating establishment of some sort in Whittier. They were off-duty and beat on a guy and pistol-whipped him. Whittier police came and arrested the cops and some reports say they were drinking. "LAPD officers involved in off-duty fight at Whittier bar on leave." Daily News Wire Services, Updated: 01/28/2010 08:09:25 AM PST - http://www.dailynews.com/news/ci_14279387
These were officers were no rookies, on the job since 2002, and they were in the Metro division, termed "elite" in the reports. They brought no pride to their group by their actions. My question for law enforcement is and has been for about 20 years since the topic was brought up at a training session on use of deadly force, simply is, "Why should police be allowed carry firearms when they drink alcohol while they are off-duty?"
City or County liability usually attaches when there's an off-duty bad shooting where an off-duty officer is involved. But sometimes that's a close call as to liability or a bad shooting. However, when you ALLOW or REQUIRE officers to be armed with a gun and you PERMIT (or do not prohibit) drinking off duty at the same time, it makes for a bad combination when something goes wrong. It may even be that it will BE A CAUSE of something going wrong. Past drinking and shooting cases have occurred so there is no shortage of examples.
The city here is on a cliff ready to fall into bankruptcy at any time as things are now. This is not a reasonable risk to take and allowing the condition creates a risk of more money down the drain in payouts for judgments and settlements that should not happen.
These cops will probably be out of the job before long and new recruits will have to fill the vacancies. A mess all around, but they did not help themselves out by jumping on this unarmed guy. Two against one? What did the guy do to get them P.O'd, you might wonder? Well, they blew it all around. Only the force needed to accomplish an arrest is permissible, if that's what they were trying to do. Beating the guy in the head with a gun just went over the top in terms of really bad judgment. They don't look like they were trying for an arrest as much as it looked like they wanted to do him some serious hurt. That they did. But win the battle and lose the war.
LAPD needs to work on a policy to cut liability with drinking and off duty guns. Cops may say that they need to be armed while off-duty- and so they should be allowed- but they don't have to be drinking at the same time. THAT is what should be prohibited. It's a choice that should be automatically made by the department, drink but put away your gun. Carry a gun while off duty but don't go into any bars or drink at a restaurant when you are doing that.
If police officers really want to do both, get an insurance policy for some heavy duty coverage and then the city will be off the hook- and that's still a "maybe"- that is, if they can afford the insurance premiums.
It's a simple thing to do- city council here in Los Angeles may find this above their ability to remedy, but then these days, most things seem to be just that. Meanwhile the cops are on Admin. leave, and getting paid. That's sounds wrong, but the presumption of innocence and the unproven allegations really need this condition to continue for now. Cutting off pay goes against these principles and would again be a different bad move by the employer, creating another liability for the city. It's a legal thing that's part of the whole package in employment law.
It brings to mind something said by Casey Stengel, former N.Y. Yankee manager when he managed the N.Y. Mets in 1962, their first year after the N.L. expansion, where losing (120 games) was a way of life for the Mets, "Can't anybody here play this game?" And for L.A. City government management, it appears they can't. Too bad there's no slaughter rule to save the city, and no pun remotely intended, considering the source story.
Posts
