• There has been a recent cluster of spammers accessing BARFer accounts and posting spam. To safeguard your account, please consider changing your password. It would be even better to take the additional step of enabling 2 Factor Authentication (2FA) on your BARF account. Read more here.

off-duty FBI agent drops gun, accidentally shoots dude on dance floor

bojangle said:
The answer is a solid, it depends. Some states have laws prohibiting guns CCW in bars, etc., some don't. California does not. It is up go department policy. I believe most CA policies have language to the effect that off duty officers, while carrying a firearm, will not consume alcohol to the point it causes impairment. (Or something to that effect. ) This allows for one or two beers or so. However, the federal law that allows officers to CCW out of state is more restrictive as to prohibit alcohol consumption. This is in addition to the states that prohibit CCW in bars, which also applies to off duty LEOs.

So it's legal for me to CCW and have one or two drinks in a bar in California. It's not legal for me to do so out of state.
Click to expand...
Wiki claims that LEOSA doesn't override GFSZA which makes it sound essentially useless in urban areas (as you're almost always within 1000' of a school, and GFSZA requires state permits).

It prohibits you being under the influence of alcohol, but I don't see a definition of that - I wonder what case law there is, or if it's specified elsewhere.
 
bojangle said:
The answer is a solid, it depends. Some states have laws prohibiting guns CCW in bars, etc., some don't. California does not. It is up go department policy. I believe most CA policies have language to the effect that off duty officers, while carrying a firearm, will not consume alcohol to the point it causes impairment. (Or something to that effect. ) This allows for one or two beers or so. However, the federal law that allows officers to CCW out of state is more restrictive as to prohibit alcohol consumption. This is in addition to the states that prohibit CCW in bars, which also applies to off duty LEOs.

So it's legal for me to CCW and have one or two drinks in a bar in California. It's not legal for me to do so out of state.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the clarification! :thumbup

Most of the officers that I know always carry at least one when off duty and out in public. I don't know about FBI, the few I've known did carry though probably had less reason to do so.

My wife got shot at while she was leaving work in her civilian car, it lodged in the pillar between the windshield and her door frame. That was back in the wild days in Richmond, early 90's.
 
I suspect that the Denver DA, in saying whether the FBI agent is charged depends on his sobriety, is using a common law enforcement tactic to cover up for one of their own.

After all, how long does it take to figure that out? If this was JQ Public, they would probably require a blood draw right fricking now. Or if the FBI agent refused, the cops could release his name and say that was the case. There is absolutely no reason to withhold release of his name in such a high-profile case.

This is a good chance to let things cool off and hopefully allow the press to forget about it. We'll see if it works.

DA probably doesn't want pissed off FBI guys.
 
Climber said:
Thanks for the clarification! :thumbup

Most of the officers that I know always carry at least one when off duty and out in public. I don't know about FBI, the few I've known did carry though probably had less reason to do so.

My wife got shot at while she was leaving work in her civilian car, it lodged in the pillar between the windshield and her door frame. That was back in the wild days in Richmond, early 90's.
Click to expand...

Because no officer ever overestimated his ability to know when to say when in terms of sobriety. That only happens to regular ppl. :laughing
 
Map8 said:
Dancy Brasco coming to a theater near you.
Click to expand...

:applause

"I said NO PARKING ON THE DANCE FLOOR!"

He would nave not lost the gun if he was doing the worm.
 
enki said:
Because no officer ever overestimated his ability to know when to say when in terms of sobriety. That only happens to regular ppl. :laughing
Click to expand...
Balanced with that is the fact that officers can make some very bad enemies in the course of doing their duties.

If I was a LEO I would not want to venture into public within 50 miles of where I worked if I worked in a city as dangerous as Richmond. Now, working in a place like Lafayette or Danville, that would be a different story.
 
Climber said:
Balanced with that is the fact that officers can make some very bad enemies in the course of doing their duties.

If I was a LEO I would not want to venture into public within 50 miles of where I worked if I worked in a city as dangerous as Richmond. Now, working in a place like Lafayette or Danville, that would be a different story.
Click to expand...

Oh, I totally agree. I wouldn't want to be less than 100 percent sober if I was within 50 miles of where I worked as a cop. It does sound funny though, to say it's OK as long as it's "a couple of beers." C'mon now, that sends every cops antennae up when they've pulled some dude over. :laughing
 
Hoppalong said:
My guess is it was an FBI undercover operation targeting illegal dance-offs (Denver is a hotbed of illegal dance activities).

Now, unfortunately, the agent's cover is blown, along with months of work trying to get close to dancers, trying to infiltrate a dance troupe.

Hopefully Martin Scorsese will do the movie, starring Johnny Depp or Leonardo DiCaprio.
Click to expand...

This is pretty saddening. Imagine the lost opportunity to catch the illegal dance troupe.

Although maybe the troupe guys could've spotted the guy by the khakis with white socks already...


iu
 
enki said:
...

That's something I seriously wonder about. Why do agencies change guns? It's not like they wear out. The CHP has been rocking the 4006 S&W since the 80s.

BTW, FWIW, LASO's negligent discharges went up 40% when they went from the da/sa Beretta to the striker-type S&W M&P. http://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-sheriff-guns-20150614-story.html.
Click to expand...
Those big old DA/SA pistols have a hellaciously long and sometimes stiff DA pull. Striker-fired pistols have consistent pull length.

When the Illinois State Troopers went with the S&W 59 back in the 70s they had more than a few second-shot misses because of the automatic switch in trigger travel. Plus at least one Trooper shot because he missed getting the safety off.

NYPD Glocks have an artificially increased trigger pull weight with mixed results.

In the end training and common sense are the keys. Dancing agent is an anomaly; plenty of striker-fired pistols get toted all around all of us every day without being negligently mishandled.
 
Last edited:
mototireguy said:
Any idea what tune was playing on the jukebox?

Was it...

[youtube]YxvBPH4sArQ[/youtube]
Click to expand...

No, it was fucking obviously:

[youtube]eZOmsWovBGo[/youtube]

:laughing How the hell was I the first one with that?
 
2strokeYardSale said:
Stop making shit up.
Click to expand...
WTF you talking about?
Each state in this grand union has its own laws and regulations governing the specificity of where and when you can carry a concealed firearm. In order to really know which side of the law you're on, you're going to have to take a look at the laws for your state. For instance, in the state of Michigan, it is explicitly illegal to consume alcohol and possess a concealed handgun on your person or in your vehicle. And while states such as Alabama allow you to carry a concealed firearm on your person inside a restaurant that serves alcohol, you are legally not allowed to imbibe.. Continue reading at: http://aliengearholsters.com/blog/concealed-carry-and-alcohol/
Click to expand...
I'm not an expert on CCW, but I do know that each state has different prohibitions relating to ccw and alcohol.

Accusing me of making shit up was out of line.
 
Last edited:
bojangle said:
The FBI education requirements will weed out a lot of people from being applicants in the first place, but having a 4 year degree is not a good measure of whether or not a person is a good fit for LE.
Click to expand...

I remember one of my favorite CJ course professors in college, a retired Bay Area officer, starting off his course by saying that college degrees are absolutely not a guarantee of a better LEO and there's pretty much zero quantifiable evidence otherwise. He told us that most police departments use the education requirements that they do post on position qualifications as a tool to reduce the workload of potential candidates that they are then required to screen. Also, having a degree shows that you can start and finish major tasks. That said, back when Hoover began requiring his agents to have post-secondary degrees, it actually meant something to have one. These days, almost everyone has one or is in the process of completing one.

As an aside, I see the FBI as more of an analytical force than an enforcement force. YMMV
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top