• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Illinois Detectives Booted from Denny's for OC.

LESGTINCT

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 24, 2012
Messages
127
Location
Connecticut
I suppose it begs the question...what's the REAL problem with requesting that police officers leave their sidearms in the car when they are eating? If it is "ok" to ask everyone else to be defenseless, why not the police? After all, this is what the British police do... :)

Really? We aren't in Britain. And, again, there is a difference between an LEO and a private citizen.
 

PFC HALE

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2012
Messages
481
Location
earth
Nope, disagree. There is a difference. If an OC'er was in the restaurant and a minor disturbance broke out, you, as an OCer can do very little nor are you obligated to, it's not your job. However, an LEO has to maintain the peace and intervene, and make an arrest if necessary, it's our job, not yours. You have no arrest authority, you are not an LEO, therefore you are different. It does not make you less of a citizen, that's not what I mean but there is a difference.

you missed my point. some officers think they are entitled to do as they please. i once heard that a cop has to show restraint when handling a situation but a civilian carrying a gun doesnt. and we do have arresting powers, citizens arrest. if i have overwhelming reason to subdue someone who is or has committed a crime i can do that.

you broke the argument into two separate situations. someone gets into a fiat fight, yeah im not gonna shoot them, neither are you. we both can intervene yes i do have the choice not to.

again i see entitlement to the argument from the other side...
 

LESGTINCT

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 24, 2012
Messages
127
Location
Connecticut
you missed my point. some officers think they are entitled to do as they please. i once heard that a cop has to show restraint when handling a situation but a civilian carrying a gun doesnt. and we do have arresting powers, citizens arrest. if i have overwhelming reason to subdue someone who is or has committed a crime i can do that.

you broke the argument into two separate situations. someone gets into a fiat fight, yeah im not gonna shoot them, neither are you. we both can intervene yes i do have the choice not to.

again i see entitlement to the argument from the other side...

Citizen's arrest? Can you show me the Illinois statute for that? And I didn't say you can't do anything however you have no formal authority.
 

PFC HALE

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2012
Messages
481
Location
earth
Really? We aren't in Britain. And, again, there is a difference between an LEO and a private citizen.

please sir enlighten us on your view of the difference aside from swearing to uphold the constitution, and a badge? im honestly lost on any other differences than these.
 

PFC HALE

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2012
Messages
481
Location
earth
Last edited:

carolina guy

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 21, 2012
Messages
1,737
Location
Concord, NC
Really? We aren't in Britain. And, again, there is a difference between an LEO and a private citizen.

:) Of course we are not in Britain, but that seems to be the way we are going, and our histories are rather inter-twined, dontchathink?

When not on-duty, what, perchance is the difference? Fair is fair, and since the police have no obligation/duty to protect us, then it leaves convenience and self-defense for them. Seems rather self-serving, eh? How is it that the police have a higher claim on self defense than the normal private citizen?
 

carolina guy

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 21, 2012
Messages
1,737
Location
Concord, NC

And yet, some police do make mistakes or commit crimes. So? If someone is not comfortable with police being armed in their establishment/home, they should have the right to demand they disarm, and the police should NOT be offended, or resist.
 
Last edited:

LESGTINCT

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 24, 2012
Messages
127
Location
Connecticut
:) Of course we are not in Britain, but that seems to be the way we are going, and our histories are rather inter-twined, dontchathink?

When not on-duty, what, perchance is the difference? Fair is fair, and since the police have no obligation/duty to protect us, then it leaves convenience and self-defense for them. Seems rather self-serving, eh? How is it that the police have a higher claim on self defense than the normal private citizen?

LEO have a seperate use of force statute than citizens

(720 ILCS 5/7-5) (from Ch. 38, par. 7-5)
Sec. 7-5. Peace officer's use of force in making arrest. (a) A peace officer, or any person whom he has summoned or directed to assist him, need not retreat or desist from efforts to make a lawful arrest because of resistance or threatened resistance to the arrest. He is justified in the use of any force which he reasonably believes to be necessary to effect the arrest and of any force which he reasonably believes to be necessary to defend himself or another from bodily harm while making the arrest. However, he is justified in using force likely to cause death or great bodily harm only when he reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or such other person, or when he reasonably believes both that:
(1) Such force is necessary to prevent the arrest from being defeated by resistance or escape; and
(2) The person to be arrested has committed or attempted a forcible felony which involves the infliction or threatened infliction of great bodily harm or is attempting to escape by use of a deadly weapon, or otherwise indicates that he will endanger human life or inflict great bodily harm unless arrested without delay.
(b) A peace officer making an arrest pursuant to an invalid warrant is justified in the use of any force which he would be justified in using if the warrant were valid, unless he knows that the warrant is invalid.
(Source: P.A. 84-1426.)
 

LESGTINCT

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 24, 2012
Messages
127
Location
Connecticut
And yet, some police do make mistakes or commit crimes. So? If someone is not comfortable with police being armed in their establishment/home, they should have the right to demand they disarm, and the police should NOT be offended, or resist.

I agree, however they can't disarm so they will just leave.
 

carolina guy

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 21, 2012
Messages
1,737
Location
Concord, NC
LEO have a seperate use of force statute than citizens

(720 ILCS 5/7-5) (from Ch. 38, par. 7-5)
Sec. 7-5. Peace officer's use of force in making arrest. (a) A peace officer, or any person whom he has summoned or directed to assist him, need not retreat or desist from efforts to make a lawful arrest because of resistance or threatened resistance to the arrest. He is justified in the use of any force which he reasonably believes to be necessary to effect the arrest and of any force which he reasonably believes to be necessary to defend himself or another from bodily harm while making the arrest. However, he is justified in using force likely to cause death or great bodily harm only when he reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or such other person, or when he reasonably believes both that:
(1) Such force is necessary to prevent the arrest from being defeated by resistance or escape; and
(2) The person to be arrested has committed or attempted a forcible felony which involves the infliction or threatened infliction of great bodily harm or is attempting to escape by use of a deadly weapon, or otherwise indicates that he will endanger human life or inflict great bodily harm unless arrested without delay.
(b) A peace officer making an arrest pursuant to an invalid warrant is justified in the use of any force which he would be justified in using if the warrant were valid, unless he knows that the warrant is invalid.
(Source: P.A. 84-1426.)

So what? If they are eating and not actively on-duty, then they should not have a problem leaving their sidearm in the car, secured. Police are also trained (and supposed to be in good physical condition) in hand-to-hand combat. Most private citizens are not. The police need have no additional "right" to self defense than anyone one else in this society.

You miss the point. There should be NO special treatment for police officers in general society. None. If they are actively involved in a "police situation" then that is a little different. If they do not have a problem "rousting" a private citizen who is OC/CC, they should not have a problem with the same done to them. That is, unless everyone is "equal" but some are "more equal" than everyone else.
 
Last edited:

LESGTINCT

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 24, 2012
Messages
127
Location
Connecticut
So what? If they are eating and not actively on-duty, then they should not have a problem leaving their sidearm in the car, secured. Police are also trained (and supposed to be in good physical condition) in hand-to-hand combat. Most private citizens are not. The police need have no additional "right" to self defense than anyone one else in this society.

You miss the point. There should be NO special treatment for police officers in general society. None. If they are actively involved in a "police situation" then that is a little different. If they do not have a problem "rousting" a private citizen who is OC/CC, they should not have a problem with the same done to them.

Oh, we are talking about off duty now? That's a little different. Remember an LEO is on duty as soon as they ID themselves as LEO. If not, then yes, I agree. You either secure it or leave just like everyone else. I am not saying there should be special treatment however you have to realize there is a difference between an LEO and a private citizen.
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
Nope, disagree. There is a difference. If an OC'er was in the restaurant and a minor disturbance broke out, you, as an OCer can do very little nor are you obligated to, it's not your job. However, an LEO has to maintain the peace and intervene, and make an arrest if necessary, it's our job, not yours. You have no arrest authority, you are not an LEO, therefore you are different. It does not make you less of a citizen, that's not what I mean but there is a difference.

Non-sequitur arguments.

A minor disturbance breaks out and on OCer can do very little? He can do what anybody else can do, help the manager break it up or break it up himself. It doesn't take a cop to break up a minor disturbance. A cop is better equipped if it escalates. About the only thing a cop can do different is write the citation or arrest if the disturbers won't leave/knock it off. I've broken up stuff myself. Not every minor disturbance requires a cop. If it did, bouncers wouldn't have jobs. And, if it comes to it, I can swear out the warrant for the misdemeanor arrest or felony if it comes down to it.

I don't know about your state, but citizens got arrest authority for felonies in mine. Its not statutory. Its common law. Very old. And, while I think of it, your state as an original English colony has a common law tradition, too.

And, none of this has anything to do with police captain getting, as Hale put it, butt hurt that they got treated the same as anybody else. Says something about his expectation and attitude, don't it? "We expect to be treated different." Notice, the police captain didn't say, "Well, we're mad because we used to be allowed in there, but they changed the rules." No. He banned all his cops. Even the ones who would have been allowed under the misunderstood policy.

And, so far, none of your differences justify a police expectation that cops should be allowed special privileges. You're owed a paycheck. And, a thank you if the cop is one of those genuinely honest peace officers with a deep respect for rights. Nothing else.
 
Last edited:

carolina guy

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 21, 2012
Messages
1,737
Location
Concord, NC
Oh, we are talking about off duty now? That's a little different. Remember an LEO is on duty as soon as they ID themselves as LEO. If not, then yes, I agree. You either secure it or leave just like everyone else. I am not saying there should be special treatment however you have to realize there is a difference between an LEO and a private citizen.

Are they on patrol or responding to a call? If not, they are not in service and do not require the immediate use/access to their firearms. Just because their identify themselves as LEO, does not mean that a private citizen must surrender their property rights if it is not directly related to the enforcement of a law.

And no, there is no difference between LEO and private citizens when they are not ACTIVELY enforcing the law.
 

LESGTINCT

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 24, 2012
Messages
127
Location
Connecticut
Are they on patrol or responding to a call? If not, they are not in service and do not require the immediate use/access to their firearms. Just because their identify themselves as LEO, does not mean that a private citizen must surrender their property rights if it is not directly related to the enforcement of a law.

And no, there is no difference between LEO and private citizens when they are not ACTIVELY enforcing the law.

Then can you explain this?

720 ILCS 5/7-7) (from Ch. 38, par. 7-7)
Sec. 7-7. Private person's use of force in resisting arrest. A person is not authorized to use force to resist an arrest which he knows is being made either by a peace officer or by a private person summoned and directed by a peace officer to make the arrest, even if he believes that the arrest is unlawful and the arrest in fact is unlawful.

A private citizen does not have this right.
 
Top