Jakebeth

In all seriousness (i.e. this is not meant as a snarky, polemic), if you really want to explore the point, I suggest asking a cop. Department policies actually differ from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, but in general, most are written such that an officer who legitimately fears for his/her life, or for the lives of others, is considered justified in using deadly force.

And again, this is a very different situation than one in which you've got someone barricaded inside a house negotiating through the window. The risk in this case is real and immediate.

Incidentally, we are, in fact, talking about a real-life situation, and per policy, the FAMs were absolved of any wrongdoing because they acted properly. Unfortunately, the fact that an "innocent" man died is not proof that something was done wrong by the FAMs. It doesn't work that way.

Old NFO

Actually they are under H.R. 218. That mandated nationwide carry for offduty LE personnel, regardless of the state laws. Of course the peoples republic of NY and NJ along with california don't think that applies to them as usual

FWIW, Military and LE personnel have carried guns on acft for YEARS... All it took was a letter from the Dept authorizing it. Also, FBI, US Marshals and Secret Service carry on any flight they are on. This thread has degenerated, yet again, into a cop bashing thread without a shred of evidence... All by what appear to be a bunch of armchair quarterbacks who had never had to face that situation themselves, but love to point out "failures" of others with perfect clarity.... sigh...

exerda

But how does that mesh with FAA rules on guns being permitted onto planes? That is the "national concealed carry for all cops, retired, off-duty, etc. notwithstanding" law, and it states that it does not authorize cops to carry onto school grounds and other places where they would not be allowed to carry except in cases of duty, and it would seem planes would fall under that categorization.


FBI, US Marshals, Secret Service, etc. are allowed to carry firearms onto planes whether on or off duty and do not need individual documentation as to their need to do so.

However, others (such as non-federal LEOs) must document their need via the described letter from their department. That letter must, to my knowledge, explain the need for such, and is not going to allow them to carry on each and every flight or when off-duty, but instead described why they need to carry in the line of duty for a given set of flights.


Some people may be "cop bashing," but most are disagreeing with how certain situations have been handled, which does not IMHO constitute "cop bashing."

andrzej

Couldn't have said it any better.... ^

Canarsie

...not according to the local news report that I watched last night that prompted me to launch this thread in the first place.

According to the local news report, Atlanta police officers will not need a reason to carry a gun on an airplane contingent upon successful completion of specialized training. They will be permitted to do so at any time. No reason related to law enforcement is necessary. They may carry a firearm on-board of an aircraft even if the purpose of the trip is to visit their family elsewhere in the United States.

I am not arguing the point; I am simply reiterating what was reported on the local news.

exerda

I understand; I am however curious if this represents some change to the rules. Back in post #46, bbc1969 laid the rules out pretty much as I understood them to be.

secretbunnyboy

IANAconsitutionalL, but to me that piece of Federal legislation would seem to interfere with the rights of states to regulate who may and may not carry weapons on the territory of those states.

FWAAA

HR 218 freed active and retired LEOs from the myriad concealed carry restrictions of local and state government nationwide. 218 did not authorize all police to carry firearms on airplanes.

Old NFO

That is EXACTLY why it was enacted... to override the states and set one standard for the entire US for LE personnel.

Bart

Deleted

PhlyingRPh

I have already defended my use of the word "American" in this thread. I will continue to use it when describing something that occurs in the U.S. (but not to annoy you, you understand). It might save you some grief to ignore it when you see it in one of my posts because there is no anti Americanism meant in my usage of the term.

You cannot compare the British and American police forces when it comes to firearms. Most of the time, when you encounter a British police constable, he or she will not be carrying a gun. Their American counterpart on the other hand will almost always have a firearm on them when you meet them.

Guns are still fairly new to the British police. In fact until fairly recently, the only protection most Bobby's had was a Truncheon in one hand and a reinforced Tit on their head.

J-M

If they followed proper procedure, then it wasn't a mistake. That's the first comment I made in this thread and I stand by it.

sjc_longhorn

Exactly. Had the FAMs who killed Alpizar been a couple of street cops dealing with a guy in an alley, all Hell would've broken loose. Instead, the FAMs gave their accounts of what happened, the accounts were taken largely at face value, and that was the end of it. I'd like to assume that their accounts were accurate, but neither I nor anyone here knows whether or not they were. FAMs have been busted smuggling drugs so they're obviously not all on the up-and-up.

For the poster who brought up Diallo, come on. That's a seven year-old case in which the officers weren't even found guilty. Using that case to indict LEOs across the country is ridiculous. LEOs, with a little bit of additional training, would probably be better equipped to handle aircraft situations than FAMs. Why? LEOs often deal with dangerous "close quarters" situations at least a couple of times each week. They're often called to deal with family violence calls (which can go violently south faster than just about other situation), burglaries-in-progress, and are expected to chase down suspects charged with everything from eluding to murder. In short, while FAMs are training and/or flying around the country on uneventful flights, LEOs are on the front lines dealing with just about every imaginable incident. Who do you want handling the firearms on your flight -- the guy who's been flying around for two years but has never had to draw his weapon in the course of his duties, or the guy whose job entails walking into businesses where the burglar alarm is blaring and it's unknown whether or not the suspect is hiding around the next corner? I'll take the second guy (or woman, whatever).

I'm not knocking FAMs. I don't think we're any better off with the program than without it. I think we'd probably see a difference if local law enforcement were eliminated.

Bart

Deleted

sjc_longhorn

And there are pharmacists who divert drugs, steal, etc. Should we assume you're a bad guy as a result of that?

The entire "local police can't be trusted with guns" argument is ridiculous. There's nothing mythical or magical about federal agents -- haven't you heard of Robert Hanssen? I think his actions were a little worse than the Rodney King officers' actions, but I haven't seen you berating the FBI or stating that they shouldn't be allowed to carry firearms on board aircraft because some of their S/As are corrupt.Please explain why one group of human beings (federal agents, and specifically FAMs) should be trusted to behave appropriately in this situation while another group of human beings (city and state cops) should not.

At least the second group actually has to deal with these kinds of situations in real life rather than relying on simulations and training for their proficiency.