• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

L.A. sheriff doesn't want off-duty deputies carrying guns while drinking!

ENGINEERS WIFE

Full Member
Inactive
Reaction score
0
Points
210
Sheriff to deputies: Don't mix drinking, guns
Several L.A. deputies have been accused of firing weapons while drunk
 

LOS ANGELES - The sheriff of Los Angeles County plans to prohibit his off-duty deputies from carrying their guns while drinking because several have been accused in recent years of firing weapons while intoxicated.

Sheriff Lee Baca said there has been a disturbing rise in alcohol-fueled misbehavior among his deputies.

Since 2004, more than a dozen deputies have been accused of brandishing or shooting a gun while under the influence of alcohol.


More than 60 have been arrested this year on alcohol-related charges, most for driving under the influence and most of them armed at the time.

The deputies' union opposes the restriction. Union leader Steve Remige said it would let criminals know that deputies who had put them away would at times be unarmed.

updated 7:33 a.m. MT, Tues., Nov. 11, 2008

 
  Okee dokee then....Ya think?  ::)
Does that make the world a safer place or what?
I just shook my head when I read this.
 
Define drinking..............I'm having a Fireball while typing this, should I lock everything up?

Ridiculous.

 
The article does say carying the gun.  I sure hope you don't have your 12 Gauge by your side, all loaded up :p
 
ENGINEERS WIFE said:
More than 60 have been arrested this year on alcohol-related charges, most for driving under the influence and most of them armed at the time.

And these are the same people arresting others for DUI's and Alcohol related offenses?? Wow! ::)
 
More than 60 have been arrested this year on alcohol-related charges, most for driving under the influence and most of them armed at the time.

So.... he's objecting to the drinking and driving part OR them drinking and shootin'

Shakes read.... (rattle!?!)
 
MAMS_933 said:
And these are the same people arresting others for DUI's and Alcohol related offenses?? Wow! ::)


No ! these are the same people who are on duty 24hrs a day and are required to intervene, apprehend and arrest persons committing breeches of the Law. "Wow" can you imagine a unarmed off duty Officer confronting a Armed Suspect in the act of Violently robbing a ShopKeeper.

And yes !, nobody should be DUI and if they are, that still doesn't give you License to.
 
FastEddy said:


No ! these are the same people who are on duty 24hrs a day and are required to intervene, apprehend and arrest persons committing breeches of the Law. "Wow" can you imagine a unarmed off duty Officer confronting a Armed Suspect in the act of Violently robbing a ShopKeeper.

And yes !, nobody should be DUI and if they are, that still doesn't give you License to.

Too bad this article isn't about officers just being out and apprehending criminals while off duty. It's about them being off duty, intoxicated, armed and some being dangerous with that weapon.

I'm sorry that I find it sad that this year 60, off duty, armed Deputies have been arrested for alcohol related charges most of which were DUI's. I must be crazy I guess. Alcohol and guns are a bad combination no matter who is in possession of it.
 
MAMS_933 said:
Too bad this article isn't about officers just being out and apprehending criminals while off duty. It's about them being off duty, intoxicated, armed and some being dangerous with that weapon.

I'm sorry that I find it sad that this year 60, off duty, armed Deputies have been arrested for alcohol related charges most of which were DUI's. I must be crazy I guess. Alcohol and guns are a bad combination no matter who is in possession of it.


Considering there are over 10,000  sworn Deputies in the LASD, 60 incidents represents a very small percentage. However this is no justification or excuse for their behavior or actions. Even though their numbers are fractional they reflect very badly on the rest of the Department and this behavior must be brought up short.

There is no excuse or defense for this behavior.

No ! your not crazy, its definitely a bad combination. The Sheriff plan sounds good but I can't see how the enforcement is going to work.

Cheers.


 
FastEddy said:


Considering there are over 10,000  sworn Deputies in the LASD, 60 incidents represents a very small percentage. However this is no justification or excuse for their behavior or actions. Even though their numbers are fractional they reflect very badly on the rest of the Department and this behavior must be brought up short.

There is no excuse or defense for this behavior.

No ! your not crazy, its definitely a bad combination. The Sheriff plan sounds good but I can't see how the enforcement is going to work.

Cheers.

That's the worst of it. The actions of 60 fools makes 10,000 look like fools. It's sad but that's how it goes usually.

Hopefully they will get this all sorted out and can accomplish their goal. The easiest way to enforce it would be total control with the officers turning in their piece at the end of shift. But that doesn't seem like what they want. Their going to have to trust their Deputies to follow the rules and anyone caught has to be dealt with harshly.
 
Bruce Monkhouse said:
Ridiculous.

Really? I don't think it's that ridiculous that off-duty deputies not carry weapons while drinking. Drinking and firearms do not mix.

-C/D
 
Maybe I have left Mommy's basement and can handle a beer with my lunch before I head out to the golf course.

Just sayin'.......
 
Cognitive-Dissonance said:
Really? I don't think it's that ridiculous that off-duty deputies not carry weapons while drinking. Drinking and firearms do not mix.

-C/D



Neither does driving your 4000lb SUV.

There's one hell of a lot more Civilians killed by Drunken Civilians driving their SUV's than by Drunken Off Duty Fire Arm Carring LA Sheriff Deputies. Of the 30 some Deputies arrested on DUI, how many also resulted in Fatalities ?.

That fact does not excuse the behavior of those that do. But to Ban LEO's from carrying their side arms while off duty would be disastrous, not only to the LEO's but to the public in general.

If the reasons or circumstances escape you, you shouldn't even be commenting on the topic.
 
FastEddy said:

But to Ban LEO's from carrying their side arms while off duty would be disastrous, not only to the LEO's but to the public in general.

But the L.A. Sheriff doesn't want to ban LEOs carrying their side arms off duty. He wants to ban them from carrying them while drinking. I have no problem with LEOs carrying their side arms off duty, the problem is when they start drinking while carrying. I don't think there is anything wrong with limiting people carrying weapons, even if qualified personnel from drinking while doing so. I would be interested in hearing a justification whereby a LEO should be carrying his sidearm while drinking.

-C/D
 
Don't worry, when you have your first beer you will come to realize that Momma might have exaggerated the hallucinogenic effects of it......
 
Bruce Monkhouse said:
Don't worry, when you have your first beer you will come to realize that Momma might have exaggerated the hallucinogenic effects of it......

Bruce, I don't appreciate this kind of discussion. I have yet to hear a legitimate argument against the banning of LEOs carrying weapons while drinking. Please make one instead of simply trying to provoke a response.

-C/D
 
Cog-Dis do yourself a favour. Stop Posting! Serve out your Recorded Warning and refrain from posting because your on the ramp to be banned. You have next to no friends here, you have zero credibility and you post to invoke a negative response from other posters. Deny it all you want but this is whats occuring. You need to step back and reevaluate why you want to be here, because I can guarantee with the way you are going you won't be here that much longer.

Just some friendly advice...take of it what you will.
 
Ex-Dragoon said:
Cog-Dis do yourself a favour. Stop Posting! Serve out your Recorded Warning and refrain from posting because your on the ramp to be banned. You have next to no friends here, you have zero credibility and you post to invoke a negative response from other posters. Deny it all you want but this is whats occuring. You need to step back and reevaluate why you want to be here, because I can guarantee with the way you are going you won't be here that much longer.

Just some friendly advice...take of it what you will.

Thank you for the advice. I don't think refraining from posting will do me, or anyone else any good. Its better that I attempt to learn how to better project my views and opinions in a tone that will better suit this forum. There's no better time then the present. I appreciate any comments or advice how I can change the tone or style of my writing to suit this forum.

-C/D
 
Are you doing yourself any good? Really think about this....you are on a Recorded Warning yet you continue to to goad anyone with an opinion contrary to yours. How will getting Banned help you convey your views? Take the time and get to know the Forum, guage the mood, learn through reading how you can have an opposing view without being in danger of being Banned. Whether you realize it or not you are deliberately being confrontational, you are deliberately holding an opposing view to the majority of the forum members here.
 
Since the opening post does not include a link (nor any attribution) to the (rather limited) quoted article it's difficult to judge if there is more to the story.  But internet speculation is rarely hindered by a paucity of details.  However, the most important part of the story should be "prohibit his off-duty deputies from carrying their guns while drinking".  Since there is nothing to indicate that Sheriff Baca is planning on restricting all off-duty carry of weapons maybe there is more to the story that the opening post indicates.  A little google provides some more background.  This piece is from the LA Times. While a lot of it is examples of deputies involved in alcohol related incidents there are a few additional details about the reasoning behind Baca's decision and the extent of any restrictions that will be placed on deputies.  (the emphasis added is mine)

L.A. County sheriff vows crackdown on armed deputies drinking alcohol
Responding to a spate of shootings by allegedly intoxicated off-duty deputies, Lee Baca plans to implement a policy banning deputies from carrying firearms when they are drinking.

By Richard Winton November 11, 2008

To celebrate his return from a tour of duty in Iraq, Los Angeles County Sheriff's Deputy Chris Sullivan did what many young Marines do: He went out with a buddy to have a few drinks.

A few, however, became a few too many.

By the end of the evening, after consuming at least 11 drinks, Sullivan placed his loaded 9-millimeter Beretta into his longtime friend's mouth and pulled the trigger, prosecutors allege. Sullivan insists that they were horsing around and that the gun accidentally went off when the other man grabbed his arm. Regardless of how the gun was fired, Sullivan's friend was dead and his once promising law enforcement career was over.

As Sheriff Lee Baca looked back on the 2006 shooting, he said the main culprit was alcohol.

"This tragedy could have been prevented," Baca said. "Alcohol and guns don't mix."

As a result of that incident and several others, the sheriff said, he plans to implement one of the nation's toughest policies barring deputies from carrying firearms when they are under the influence of alcohol.

The deputies' union adamantly opposes any restrictions on a deputy's ability to carry a weapon while off-duty. But Baca said he's determined to get his way, noting that there has been a "very disturbing" rise in alcohol-related misconduct among his deputies. This year alone, 61 deputies have been arrested on alcohol-related charges. Of those, 39 were accused of driving under the influence, nearly twice the average of recent years. Many of those arrested were armed.

Since 2004, more than a dozen sheriff's deputies have been involved in incidents in which they were accused of displaying or shooting a gun while under the influence of alcohol.

An off-duty deputy who had been drinking at a party during the early hours of New Year's Day accidentally shot a man in the leg while trying to show off a new holster, law enforcement officials said. The deputy has been placed on leave. Prosecutors are reviewing the case for possible criminal charges.

An off-duty deputy, driving while under the influence in 2004, hit another vehicle and was accused of pointing his gun at men from the other vehicle when they approached him. The deputy pleaded guilty to drunk driving and was suspended from the Sheriff's Department for 15 days.

An off-duty deputy, who was drinking with friends at a bar in 2003, tussled with a security guard and then attempted to intimidate the guard by displaying a firearm in his waistband.

Merrick Bobb, special counsel to the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors on the Sheriff's Department, said Baca's proposed policy would place the department at the forefront of an issue that has long been recognized as a problem for law enforcement.

"It has not received the attention it deserves," said Bobb, who first raised the issue of off-duty shootings and alcohol in the mid-1990s, when he analyzed 28 shootings and found that six involved deputies who had been drinking.

"It is not only alcohol but prescription drugs and over-the-counter medications," Bobb said. "They can all hurt the ability of an officer to make judgments. I've consistently recommended if you have your gun and you're off duty and you know you're going to be drinking, then you need to lock up your weapon before you go in the bar."

Michael Gennaco, head of the Office of Independent Review, which monitors the Sheriff's Department, said common sense dictates that the new policy is a good idea, given the rise in alcohol-related incidents involving deputies. Under Baca's proposed policy, which law enforcement experts say is among the most restrictive in the nation, deputies would be banned from carrying a firearm when they are under the influence of alcohol, medication or controlled substance to the extent that they cannot exercise "reasonable care and control of a weapon."

That means deputies could not touch a gun if they have a blood alcohol level of 0.08% or greater, the state limit for driving a vehicle, the sheriff said.

Union leaders say the sheriff's plan would put deputies in danger.

"What Sheriff Baca wants to do is disarm the deputy and embolden the dangerous individual," said Steve Remige, president of the Assn. for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs. He argued that Baca's policy would leave deputies defenseless. "What should a deputy do when he is with his family and runs into a violent offender he incarcerated?" asks Remige, who recalls once walking down the Las Vegas Strip and hearing a man he knew from his work shouting out his name.

As the policy becomes known to the public, criminals will figure out that some deputies won't be armed when off duty, he said.

Baca dismissed Remige's criticism.

"What the union wants is to convince the public that alcohol use by deputies is of no consequence to public safety," he said.

Most departments limit on-duty alcohol consumption to those who need to drink because of undercover assignments. Few local agencies take a position about off-duty drinking. The Los Angeles Police Department, for example, has no policy restricting an officer's consumption of alcohol while carrying a weapon, said Deputy Chief Mark Perez. The Orange County Sheriff's Department does not have a specific policy, but officials said "common sense" would hold that deputies under the influence should not be in possession of firearms.

Geoffrey Alpert, professor of criminology at the University of South Carolina and an expert on police shootings, said a mishmash of policies exists across departments nationwide.

Occasionally, he said, an agency will toughen its stance on carrying a firearm and drinking after a high-profile incident.

The New York City Police Department, for example, adopted strict rules last year requiring officers to undergo breath testing after a shooting.

The move came after a controversial 2006 shooting outside a club in which officers shot and killed a man on his wedding day.

One of the undercover officers involved had consumed alcohol while trying to blend into the crowd at the bar.

In Sullivan's case, the San Bernardino County district attorney's office filed a voluntary manslaughter charge against the rookie deputy for the April 2006 shooting.

Sullivan and his buddy Cesar Valdez went from California Pizza Kitchen to Dave & Busters to a private party, drinking at each place, according to investigators.

"They were very intoxicated and emotional upon Mr. Sullivan's return from military duty," according to court papers.

At dawn, Valdez and his girlfriend drove Sullivan to his Upland home. As Sullivan walked up his driveway, he drew his department-issued Beretta, authorities said.

Valdez's girlfriend saw Sullivan point the weapon at his fellow Marine, according to her testimony at a preliminary hearing.

"He placed the gun in his friend's mouth and with a round in the chamber pulled the trigger," said Deputy Dist. Atty. Thomas Colclough. Valdez, 24, fell to the ground. The bullet had entered his mouth and exited his neck, according to the autopsy. Valdez was pronounced dead less than an hour later.

A three-quarters empty beer lay outside the Upland home, not far from Valdez's body, according to the prosecutor. Sullivan's blood-alcohol level exceeded the legal driving limit.

According to Sullivan's attorney, Valdez tried to wrestle the gun from the deputy and it discharged accidentally.

Colclough said the autopsy contradicts that statement.

Colclough said that as a deputy, Sullivan -- more than most people -- knew the dangers the firearm presented, making him more culpable.

"A nice young man is dead and the county is going to lose a deputy sheriff," he said. "It's a tragedy all the way round."

Baca said deputies have a duty to ensure a colleague who is intoxicated does not have access to a vehicle or a firearm until they've sobered up.

"I am not asking them to do what I wouldn't do myself," he said.


Winton is a Times staff writer.

 
Back
Top