• Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?

    Go here:

    Edit Account Details and Profile

NFL bans guns for off duty police

wink

War Hoover NFO.
None
Super Moderator
Contributor
I think I can understand the NFL decision from a different viewpoint. The NFL is a smoothly run big business, and the games are a big deal. There's a lot of security planning, in fact the NFL has its own security division (which I presume works with the local stadium venues to ensure that there is a comprehensive security & emergency plan in place for games - coordinated with the appropriate local LE agencies).
Yup. Knew one of the guys that worked for the NFL doing just that. He was retired local and federal LE. He never mentioned a concern over off duty cops with guns at games. He left the job a couple years ago though.

So if there is an incident (large or small) at a game that has to be handled in accordance with the security & emergency plan, do you really want an unbriefed, armed & possibly intoxicated off-duty LEO - whose intentions are unknown - wandering into the middle of the incident to do something? And by intentions unknown, I don't mean he/she's contemplating criminal action, I just mean planning to take some LEO action that's not unreasonable on it's own, but is unbriefed and throws a monkey wrench into the pre-established security and emergency plan. That has a real chance of not turning out well.
A very real concern. But that is something officers deal with all the time. It is always a possibility and even more dicey when it involves an armed citizen. There are some procedures that help reduce blue on blue. Even then, the risk is to the off duty guy intervening. He knows he is taking a risk and knows how to protect himself or communicate his intentions and ID. He poses virtually no risk to uniformed responders or the public. Off the top of my head I don't know what sort of grand security plan a single off duty guy could muck up. If he sees a guy blasting away and can take a shot he does. How does putting an active shooter on the deck ruin a preplanned security response? Drunken brawl? Probably stay out of that one without back up or proper uniform unless it get's deadly.

In the end it all comes back to alcohol. Clearly anyone with a gun should not be drinking. I just don't know why there is the assumption that every off duty cop that walks through the gates is going to get drunk. Can't you enjoy a game without getting blotto? I am quite sure their agency has a policy about drinking with a weapon. They know they expose themselves to huge liability and possible criminal penalty if they use a gun while intoxicated. But there is an assumption that they will drink. Where is the evidence this is a problem? I am very sure some guys drink, and to excess, when armed. They shouldn't. But I don't see evidence they are posing a uniform threat at NFL games. I suggest it is far more likely you will have armed citizens at NFL games that are not going to be as well trained or responsible as off duty cops. Even then, not exactly epidemic.
 

jcj

Registered User
And I should have said - I'm not at all suggesting it's a good, bad or "somewhere in between" decision. I'm not qualified to make that call from the LEO viewpoint. But I do a lot of risk management stuff, and I see "CYA for management" written all over this.

As you've mentioned, I am guessing that the NFL has some very high quality people in their security leadership. But I'm also guessing that this decision was pushed down on them by higher up. It wouldn't at all surprise me if the trigger for this policy was one or two high-visibility incidents. Unfortunately I've seen that happen more than once or twice - nonsensical risk management decisions made based on a recent high visibility incident or two rather than a careful analysis and thoughtful decision based on all of the important data points (of which high visibility is certainly one, but one of many).

This decision will probably be lauded by senior management as a "safe" approach because (assuming it's effectively enforced) there will be no more unfortunate "incidents" involving armed, off-duty LEO's. Hence no more problems = successful policy. What won't be reported, because it probably can't be measured accurately, is the loss of the beneficial effect of having additional armed (and sober) off-duty LEO's at the venue to deter the shenanigans that are bound to occur at any venue where there are large groups of people and alcoholic beverages.

Maybe a better approach would have been this:

1. Have one or two LEO desks (tables) in the tailgate area outside the venue. If you're an off duty LEO & you want to carry inside, you arrive early & stop there.

2. They write down your name & verify your creds, they read you in on any LEO sensitive/specific stuff for the venue, you initial the roster verifying that you remember not to drink while armed.

3. They either give you a numbered color-coded pass or a numbered color coded wrist band (maybe similar to the "I am 21 or older so I can drink!" wristbands), good for that day only, color released that day only, that identifies you as an armed LEO.

4. Said pass or wristband and a game ticket gets holder & their firearm past security & into the game. Maybe even gets them a special security/ticket check line. Another fan is in a seat, and another LEO (now a briefed and sober one) is in the venue if there's an issue. We all win!

I guess it was easier to just throw the banhammer. But there might be a bunch of stuff I don't know - so this is really all just conjecture.
 
Top