Armed, Off Duty--and Dangerous?

This week, a civil rights attorney plans to file for a court injunction requesting an order barring members of the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department from carrying guns when they are drinking.

Carol Watson represented the family of a former high school wrestling champ killed by an off-duty deputy outside a Rowland Heights bar in 1994. Watson won a $750,000 judgment against the county for wrongful death. She hopes that the case and her action will prompt other law enforcement agencies to review their off-duty gun policies. But police and community groups say training and existing policies are sufficient controls.

Should more restrictions be imposed on armed off-duty officers?

Michael Zinzun, chairman of the Coalition Against Police Abuse:

“Yes. The guidelines give them carte blanche. I think an independent [review] body would set down certain circumstances where they can’t carry a weapon. They can go into a bar and drink. They can get mad at their [mate] and carry a weapon. . . . Why can you drink and carry a weapon? . . . The result is that someone gets killed. . . . If we can’t do it, why do they have a right to do it?”

Al Angele, executive director of the California Organization of Police and Sheriffs:

“Most jurisdictions already require them to remove the weapon when they go into the bar to drink. . . . If you go in for a cocktail with dinner, that’s fine. But if you have five or six drinks, then you shouldn’t have it. . . . You have to make a determination, and if you have to leave it in the car, you leave it in the car. . . . I’d much rather have the officer go to the vehicle to get the weapon if needed.

Carol Watson, the lawyer who plans to file for the court injunction:

“I think a broader policy is needed. . . . I think that officers that carry guns when not in uniform expose themselves to significant danger. . . . There was an officer from Glendora off duty in a supermarket when there was a robbery in progress. No shots had been fired. He pulled his gun and a gunfight ensued and he was shot. . . . They should be permitted to get off the job just like the rest of us. . . . I think forbidding them from getting off the job contributes to burnout. I think the public is more in danger by off-duty officers having guns when they are intoxicated than they are protected by an off-duty officer.

Dave Hepburn, a director of the L.A. Police Protective League:

“No. I think it’s beneficial to society to have [armed] officers who are off-duty. It gives them the opportunity to prevent crimes and save lives and property when they are not working. And it offers them personal protection. Officers who come into contact with felons on the job often run into these people [off duty] out in the community. They need to be able to defend themselves. . . . [But] it’s just not a good idea to mix guns and alcohol. . . . Officers are already well aware that if they act improperly either with or without a gun, and either on or off duty, they are subject to the disciplinary action of their department. . . . That’s enough of an incentive to get the vast majority of officers to act responsibly.

On the Issue appears Tuesdays. Please send suggestions to On the Issue, Los Angeles Times, 20000 Prairie St., Chatsworth 91311. Or fax (818) 772-3338. Or e-mail them to [email protected] Please include your name and daytime phone number.