What the fuck?
Yeah, gotta love that dedication. This quote was especially good:
I was going to mention the cop that got shot while trying to stop a carjacking outside a pizza place, but I see he was mentioned in the article’s last sentence.
In the spirit of fighting my own ignorance, can anyone clarify this?
Is it part of the police oath to continue to fight crime or protect the public even when not on duty (basically at all times)? If not, then I could understand the officer’s side of the story.
Before I get flamed, I am being very serious here. I do not see how, unless she vowed to fight crime at all times (which is VERY possible), she is obligated to jump into action. Or it may be possible that her rank obligated her to be “on the clock” at all times. I just don’t know. If not, then to me she is just another citizen when not “on the clock” and should not be expected to act. I would hope that an off duty officer would help to fight any crime they witness and to protect any civilians they come across in the course of thier day, but they may not be obligated to do so.
Do we have any police officers posting to the board or anyone else that may know for sure? I’d really like to know.
Thanks.
All persons trained in emergency services are required by law to act in an emergency (of the type for which they are trained), Greathouse. That includes paramedics, doctors, everyone. I’m pretty certain that’s universal in all jurisdictions.
Even if it would have been foolish for this cop to act alone in an armed robbery situation, there is a lot she could have done while waiting for backup.
Thank you, friedo, I did not know that. Score one for you in the fight against ignorance. 
Yes, at least that is what my step-pop tells me; He’s a retired Chicago cop.
[For the Chicago police anyway] there is no such thing as being ‘off duty’, or even to a lesser extent ‘out of jurisdiction’ within Illinois. They are trained by the state and have authority throughout it.
Friedo, as an EMT-B, I disagree strongly.
We spent a decent amount of time in my class covering what exactly amounted to patient abandonment and when you had a duty to act. Part of the criteria include identifying yourself as an EMT or agreeing explicitly to respond to the call.
Firefighters, EMT’s, paramedics, and doctors, in practice at least, routinely skip offering their abilities at EVERY freakin’ chance they get.
In other words, I think that we need more specifics. Recall, heinsight is 20/20, and it is possible that the bystanders or whatever possibly happened to understate the gravity of the crime.
Oh, please. And I don’t even like cops. But it’s a job, a shitty job, and I don’t blame her one bit for not wanting deal with it when she wasn’t on duty.
Being a cop is not a “shitty job”. My parents were both cops, as was my grandfather, and his father. It’s a job that respects loyalty and dedication, and if you don’t have it then you shouldn’t be in the field.
Being a cop isn’t something you pick up to do because you need some extra money, it’s a calling. You either love it or you don’t do it.
-foxy
toque, I would say that goes for things like jay walking and speeding, but a robbery? C’mon.
I’d imagine a doctor on the street would ignore someone saying ‘hey i’ve got this cough’ or ‘i’ve got this mole. could you look at it?’ but not someone who’s been shot or is having a heart attack.
What I’m trying to figure out is: the linked article states that the Officer parked her unmarked vehicle in the grocery pick up lane, and was in plainclothes. How then did the citizens identify her as a Police Officer? Did she identify herself as a Police Officer to the store security person?
As a Firefighter/Hazmat guy and former Paramedic, there are only two situations in which I won’t get involved to help my fellow citizen: one is if I am caring for my daughter and have no other trusted adult available to watch her, and the other is if I’ve had a few beers, as I’d run the risk of making a bad situation worse via entry into the dumbass dimension.
Not to nitpick (too much) toque but:
As I stated before (this is not my opinion by the way, but the fact of the matter) there is no such thing as being “off duty” to a Chicago cop. It isn’t as if she decided to ‘put off’ some filing until tomorrow; Chicago police are required to take action in all instances, for it may be that very action that saves lives. She failed to do so for an armed robbery and people could have been injured - that is why this is a big deal and she may be fired for it.
Moo, I think the doctor analogy is fatuous. It doesn’t exactly take 6 years of academically rigorous high-intensity training to be a po-lice. A cop’s your basic schmoe who didn’t do well in high school but has badge and gets to carry a gun. What would she do besides call 911? This was a robbery, no one got hurt, insurance covered whatever losses, I’m sure. She deals with lowlifes all day, I sure as hell wouldn’t while not getting paid for it.
It’s probably also important to mention that robberies of banks located inside supermarkets have been a growing problem, one that the police were supposed to be trying to work hard to counteract/solve/etc.
Well, there were these suggestions from the article:
Sounds to me like even a “schmoe who didn’t do well in high school” can do at least some of that, even when not on duty.
That’s the thing. Couldn’t she have lurked within sight of the bank to get a reasonable description of the robbers? Couldn’t she have called 911 one herself? I don’t know about Chicago, but most grocery stores around here have pay phones in them, usually near the entrance. I’ll admit that trying to arrest them may have resulted in people getting injured or killed, but the things Govern suggested probably wouldn’t have.
CJ
Once again, we have more questions than answers from the newpaper.
We have conflicting accounts as to whether the robbery was in progress or had already occured. Granted, her lawyer is the one who said it already occured.
Was she armed? I wouldn’t expect ANYONE that wasn’t packing a gun to try and foil an armed robbery, or even consider it .
What was the time frame here? She goes in to buy water(and water is all that is mentioned). Police responding to the 911 call find her in the checkout line. How much time could have elapsed between her going in and getting in the checkout line?
What’s the policy for cops who do police work off duty in situations like this? Would they get OT pay for it?
So it’s ok if no one gets hurt during the crime?
:rolleyes:
I was watching a discovery channel special about the history of the police. In one segment, one New York officer was discussing the guns issued to police officers. One gun was worn with the uniform, and one was given to the police for when they were in plainclothes, “offduty.” The police officer said then that all officers of the law are considered “onduty” at all hours of the day, and are obligated to fight crime even when not on the clock.
Of course this was the discovery channel, but I have heard similar things. A friend of mine was even arrested by an offduty cop for beligerience or something. (he was drunk). I was told that it was legal because even a civilian has a right to make a citizen arrest, it is just easier for an “offduty” cop to do so.
*interestingly enough, according to the discovery channel, cops are called thus because they used to wear copper badges, and the nickname “copper” came into being. Never new that till I saw this show.
I am a cop … copy editor. I edit copy. And if someone asks me to spell something for them while I’m not at work, I don’t say, “It’s not my problem.”
There’s no such thing as off-duty to a copy editor.