What's Wrong With LEO Training for the Lawful Carry of Firearms?

If Seattle hires (they have) a officer out of say California, Chicago, WDC or NY, and those new hires do not go through the WA academy, they know less about WA Law then the local citizen that has lived in the area his whole life and has not gone through the academy.

If going through academy is so important, why do those out of state, and out of touch officers, get a free pass from going to the academy? Every LE department in the state has their own training departments that can do everything the academy can, and just as well, (or just as poorly), at a lot lower cost.

Just because you have a license to practice law in Oregon, does not mean you have a license to practice law in WA...You have to take the WA specific bar exam, and pass it, before you can practice law here. Why not the same for LE? IMHO: passing the state academy in NY or California should not automatically qualify you to be in LE in WA. The same as MP training in the Army does not make you eligable to to be in LE in WA.

I've surprised no one has chosen "Their training was good, but they forgot their training."

Really? It's inconceivable that an LEO received good training but merely forgot some of that training?

As an instructor, I've seen first-hand that well-motivated and highly intelligent people can be taught 100% of what they need to know but they still get less than 100% on the test, even though it's in their best interests to ace it.

hermannr said:

Just because you have a license to practice law in Oregon, does not mean you have a license to practice law in WA...You have to take the WA specific bar exam, and pass it, before you can practice law here. Why not the same for LE? IMHO: passing the state academy in NY or California should not automatically qualify you to be in LE in WA. The same as MP training in the Army does not make you eligable to to be in LE in WA.

Click to expand...

From what I understand, many departments already have cross-training programs designed to bring out-of-staters up to speed on local and state laws.

skidmark said:

I picked option #1 because that's what cop training is all about - what's illegal....

Click to expand...

I agree with skidmark, but I also picked #2, and to a much lesser extent #4.

I think skidmark hits it well with his reasoning, but I also believe that their judgment and knowledge of this matter suffers from a level of insulation from the very laws and "normalcy" that they are hired to enforce. LEOs by and large do not have to follow the very firearms laws they are trained to enforce on others. Overall, its an effect of the "privileged few" system, but it also will effect LE culture over time and will be a self consuming cycle of non-relevance in the daily life and job of your typical LEO.

If so few LACs in a given population actually carry (typically 5% or much much less), AND given the chances that they might encounter such LACs in a situation where the legality is at all in question, AND the chance that such a rare encounter would cause the LEO to question their own knowledge or belief about LAC carry, you can see the degrading chance of impact on any given LEO about the issue. In effect, if it doesn't effect them in any positive way, why pay it any attention?

One correction to this issue to make our LEOs "immunity" only active when in uniform, and/or on the job. If we hold them accountable to the same laws as the LACs they serve when it comes to the carry and use of firearms, and even the use of their civil authority, I think we would see a much greater understanding for the daily "plight" of the LAC.

FMCDH said:

One correction to this issue to make our LEOs "immunity" only active when in uniform, and/or on the job. If we hold them accountable to the same laws as the LACs they serve when it comes to the carry and use of firearms, and even the use of their civil authority, I think we would see a much greater understanding for the daily "plight" of the LAC.

Click to expand...

LEOs aren't immune on duty, either. Qualified immunity only protects them "insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known." - Source

On or off duty, they're still accountable for breaking the law. Most departments enforce the law. Some feel like they're more of a law unto themselves.