First off, I have no problem at all with police officers or with them having second jobs. They have a hard job, and often get paid way to little for it.
Over in this pit thread, there is a discussion about a case of an off-duty police officer, working as a security officer, shooting someone during a crime.
Is a security officer, who happens to be an off-duty police officer, able to do things that a non-police security officer would not?
In the case listed above, a group of teens left a restaurant with out paying. The security officer, who happened to be an off-duty cop, followed them into the parking lot. The teens, in a Jeep, ended up driving AT the officer, who fired at the Jeep, killing one of the occupants.
If this had been a non-police security, would they have been justified to stand in the middle of a parking lot, placing themselves in a situation where they had to decide wheither or not to shoot? In the other thread, there are mentions that a police officer is allowed to shoot if they feel threatened. Fine, but this guy wasn’t on duty. He wasn’t threatened because he was a cop. He was threatened (by a Jeep) because he chose to stand in the middle of a parking lot.
Would this case have been dismissed if the security officer had been an average Joe-Blow. Would a moonlighting accountant have been able to claim justifable self-defense? Just how much special consideration is due to a police officer who is both off-duty?