Bureaucracy at its "finest".

[Tgace]

An interesting paper by the Canadian Gvt. regarding "On Duty/Off Duty" issues.

http://www.opcc.bc.ca/Reports/2000/Off%20Duty%20Police%20Conduct%20--%20Ceyssens.html

While the case law isnt pertinent to US LEO's, many issues are the same.

Looks like they get it right...

In Love v. Saanich (District), a police officer investigated a noise outside his home late in the evening, and discovered that someone was attempting to remove a stereo from an automobile parked in his driveway. He was casually dressed and was armed only with a bamboo tomato stake. The police officer was injured in the course of apprehending the suspect, who was convicted of attempted theft and assault. The Workers’ Compensation Review Board concluded that the injury arose "out of and in the course of" his employment within the meaning of the term in the Workers’ Compensation Act. The Board reasoned that the police officer objectively had embarked on a criminal investigation at the point at which he saw the open car door, despite the fact that he was on his own property: "[o]nce he saw objective evidence of a crime in progress, his police officer role was engaged." A similar decision resulted in a West Vancouver case in which an off-duty police officer attempted to apprehend a person unlawfully entering his residence.

 

[Tgace]

Well, then, if "its pretty simple to figure out", it shouldn't be hard to codify. Once "its" is written out, it could be presented to each of the stakeholders for discussion and action.

'Til then, however, 'The Rules is The Rules'. It's pretty simple to figure out, don't you think?

It is "codified" in my dept. We are told in the event of a property crime or petty offense, to be a "good witness"; get descriptions, plates, direction of travel, follow if possible. In the event we come across a situation where human life is in danger, then we get involved. To "codify" any further is a little silly. Street situiations are fluid and to break it down any more would be counterproductive.

 

[michaeledward]

It is "codified" in my dept. We are told in the event of a property crime or petty offense, to be a "good witness"; get descriptions, plates, direction of travel, follow if possible. In the event we come across a situation where human life is in danger, then we get involved. To "codify" any further is a little silly. Street situiations are fluid and to break it down any more would be counterproductive.

Perhaps it would be counterproductive to 'break it down' further.

However, it would seem that all stakeholders should know what is assumed.

Does being a "good witness" also demand the oversight and accountability of the town's workers compensation program? Are those member of the town council/board of alderman/mayor's office who are responsible aware of the ramifications of that codification? Do they think you are covered? Do they know that is what they are voting for when the town budget is passed?

Apparently, the authorities in Denver, Colorado had a different understanding of their local civil servant contracts than you. Perhaps they have different 'codifications' than Cheektowaga, New York.

It still smacks of "I want different rules for me".

Incidentally, I much prefer the new avatar, but it also seems to me to be saying "Look at Me, See these Stripes, That Means I'm the Boss of You." Very Smokey and the Bandit of you.

 

[Flatlander]

It still smacks of "I want different rules for me".

The way I see it, when these folks are afforded different powers, and handed different responsibilitites than Joe Citizen, different rules must apply. How can different rules apply in some situations and not others?

I would expect that most of the officers that are off duty who would engage in some sort of "dire" law enforcement activity would rather be supported by worker's compensation than concern themselves with remuneration for such activities. They'd likely be satisfied with getting paid for only the hours for which they are scheduled. In fact, I would even go so far as to say that most cops would rather never ever need to work overtime in the first place.

However, given that many forces are shamefully understaffed and woefully underequipped, that overtime is necessary in order to get the job done. The saddest part of the entire affair is that taxpayers are unwilling to pay for what they want - they always want more services than they are prepared to fund. It always boggles me when someone uses the argument (not to suggest that you are here) that their property taxes should be lower in their fancier neighborhood because they use the police services less frequently, yet are the first ones howling if the cops don't respond to a vandalism call within an hour. Why do they suppose it took so long? Yeah, lets take MORE money out of the system, that's the solution.

However, this relates somewhat to the argument at hand. You cannot reasonably expect an officer to apply the powers that they are given when off duty if you are not prepared, as a community, to support them financially should they become injured. The work is dangerous in nature, and carries a high degree of risk.

Who watches the watchers? Internal affairs supported by The Canadian Police Act in Canada, I'm not sure about the American situation.

Incidentally, I much prefer the new avatar, but it also seems to me to be saying "Look at Me, See these Stripes, That Means I'm the Boss of You." Very Smokey and the Bandit of you.

I really don't see how this was necessary to the discussion. Let's remain civil, please.

 

[michaeledward]

The argument has been put forth that the civil servants should consider their positions 24/7 jobs.

The argument has been put forth that 'dire need' can call a civil servant to duty beyond their regularly scheduled hours.

The argument has been put forth that the 'higher level of responsibility' demands civil servants take action beyond that of an ordinary citizen.

The question I pose is WHO GETS TO DECIDE when it is appropriate for a civil servant to step beyond their 'normal' duties, and what remuneration should be included for these actions. The answer to my question seems to be, the civil servant decides when he is responsible and when the municipality should be responsible for his actions.

Although in his recent post, Tgace has shown the written instructions for his municipality. If Denver Colorado has the same written instructions, then the officer in question should be covered by the workman's compensation program. If however, Denver does not have the same written instructions, to assume, and demand coverage where it is not specified is unfair.

This argument is 'We are all equal, except some are more equal than others.'

 

[Tgace]

Who gets to decide? Well, you may not want to hear it, but we have to make decisions everyday. Decide who is telling us the truth and who is lying. Decide to use an appropriate level of force. Decide to arrest. Shoot or dont shoot. Decide if getting involved in an off duty incident would be more dangerous to the family we are with than the victim involved. Decide if I can handle a situation solo or should call for aid and just observe. Most of these decisions have to be made in seconds and then are deliberated over by lawyers and juries for weeks/months.

Incidentally, I much prefer the new avatar, but it also seems to me to be saying "Look at Me, See these Stripes, That Means I'm the Boss of You." Very Smokey and the Bandit of you.

Personal attacks? Wow. Is this about the issue at hand or me? Nothing implied with the avatar. Just what I wear on my sleeve.

 

[loki09789]

OK, so when he's off-duty, he can arrest someone and draw his firearm, correct? And if I go attack him, I'm arrested for assaulting a police officer, right? I agree that a cop is a cop 24/7 and a cop is a civil servant. What better way to serve the civilizatin than to save lives?

Good point.

If this was him off duty/out of jurisdiction and trying to stop an armed robbery or something would he be getting the same treatment?

His general health coverage should kick in for now at least. My only hope is that his supervisor and fellow LEO are working with him better than the 'system.'

I don't know if workman's comp is the right thing to cover this situation - or that workman's comp is set up to deal with this 'compassionately' might be the better way to say it.

Do any of these 'Fraternal order of...' or 'Friends of LEO xyz' organizations have any private plans that parallel workmans comp or do unions lobby for just such a situation?

 

[loki09789]

This argument is 'We are all equal, except some are more equal than others.'

In this case I would say that we are not 'equal' in job description, accepted risks, and authority, so we are not talking about blind equality but proportionate equitability. I think there is some confusion about 'fair' and 'equal' in this case.

Taxes are suppose to be 'equitable' (huh!) because they are proportionate (though the proportions shift based on bracket) to income. If the idea is blind equality, do we just charge everyone the same tax amount regardless of income level? That may be 'equal' but it isn't fair or proportionate.

You are dead on that if the clause isn't there for Col. then he may have to do some negotiating.

I would say that there may be some discord between inference and implication with regard to other issues.....do I hear an ax grinding ....

 

[loki09789]

Personal attacks? Wow. Is this about the issue at hand or me? Nothing implied with the avatar. Just what I wear on my sleeve.

Yes and congrats again on the promotion...

I know Tom won't really toot too much (at least his horn....) but he is the youngest (in age AND seniority) Sgt. promotion in his department to date...way to go man.

 

[Tgace]

Well, maybe seniority wise....Im not all that young anymore. (and you arent far behind)

 

[loki09789]

Well, maybe seniority wise....Im not all that young anymore. (and you arent far behind)

Uhhhhh why are you talking about my behind?

 

[dearnis.com]

Michael- might I suggest you try volunteering with your local fire company, perhaps on an abmbulance? You might find it very eye-opening.

 

[dearnis.com]

And on a more substantive note... I am required, usually one week, but sometimes as many as three a month, to be on call and instantly available. The department's preference is that I operate their car at these times so that I am ready to go....now, even though I am off duty I am operating a police vehicle, and as a result have a somewhat higher duty to act that if I am simply armed off duty. I take it that I should have neither workman's comp coverage nor any renumeration for events that I should happen to be involved in?

 

[michaeledward]

And on a more substantive note... I am required, usually one week, but sometimes as many as three a month, to be on call and instantly available. The department's preference is that I operate their car at these times so that I am ready to go....now, even though I am off duty I am operating a police vehicle, and as a result have a somewhat higher duty to act that if I am simply armed off duty. I take it that I should have neither workman's comp coverage nor any renumeration for events that I should happen to be involved in?

If this question is directed to me, my point is that either is acceptable, as long as it is discussed and known in advance by all stakeholders. I point out that you are, perhaps, not as 'required' as you think you are. Most places in America have an 'at will employment' policy. If you choose not be 'required' to do something, you have the choice to leave your job.

If you expect for workmans' compensation rules to be available during this 'off-duty time', I would suggest that you check with your employer to see if that is also his understanding. If there is a difference in understanding, it would be better to resolve it before it is required.

Again, concerning monetary compensation, you should have a clear understanding of when an 'event' is going to trigger compensation and / or benefits.

My point is that to assume you are covered by your employment benefits when you are not acting on behalf of your employer is kind of silly. But, if your are defining when you are working by the activity, rather than the time-table, it would be best if all parties involved agree on it before hand.

Concerning your suggestion that I volunteer on a fire truck or ambulance, I pay taxes for those services. I believe that qualifies me to have opinions with eyes opened or closed.

 

[Tgace]

"Hmmm...man was armed with a beer bottle and not a gun???" (Bureaucrat shuffles through papers) "Nope not covered. Article 354 section 3 subsection 1 of the "stakeholders" agreement clearly states in "street encounter flowchart #7" that an off duty apprehension of an armed felon may only be initiated when the perpetrator is armed with a deadly weapon as classified in article 322." NEXT!

-or-

"Officer, I dont care if you did have your 3 young children with you at the time. When the suspect pulled out a shotgun and held up that diner you were "required", under "Stakeholder provision number 6", to act. Your failure to do so will result in your immediate suspension while a full investigation is conducted."

 

[michaeledward]

But, Tgace, wasn't it you who told us that "It's really quite simple"?

Ahh .. here's the exact quote ...

Tgace][/b]
Ummm...stopping a car without a taillight isnt "dire" (although it could lead to a dire situation) . I dont go lights and sirens to a broken window call. Its pretty simple to figure out. . . .

 

[Tgace]

It can be....you are the one who seems to want a flowchart of acceptable situations. And a mandate of when an LEO can or cant act off duty. Things are fluid. You cant be a pedant. The situation should be investigated and then determine if the action is covered. Not just outright refused because you were "off duty".

IMHO if im performing my duty (which I view as a "duty" first and a "job" second) I should be covered. My oath wasnt to "protect life and property while on the clock". The Canadians seem to have no problem with the concept.

If its a petty offense or property crime and you dont reasonably believe action is necessary, be a good witness. Even then, what if I get hit by a car (drivers fault) in the mall parking lot while following a suspect to get a license plate? covered? Its my "duty" to be a good witness.

If human life is at stake take reasonable action. And yes, In my job its our responsibility to determine what is "reasonable" on the spot knowing we will be second guessed and accused down the road.

Again, what about a volunteer fireman who comes across a "situation" and is injured?

 

[Tgace]

BTW that example is about "routine" police work vs. emergency response situations. What calls would you go lights and sirens to and which ones wouldnt you? Is that a better question??

And in my last example wouldnt you call each situation "dire"? Should the officer have been "required" to act in each? Neither mentioned a parking ticket or a lost dog search....which wouldnt have been "dire". Simple.

 

[dearnis.com]

Concerning your suggestion that I volunteer on a fire truck or ambulance, I pay taxes for those services. I believe that qualifies me to have opinions with eyes opened or closed.

Whether or not you pay taxes has nothing to do with whether you have an opinion; the suggestion was a first step towards developing an informed opinion. But you position seems clear here; you don't like having your tax dollars pay for emergency services, and you have clear disdain for those who work in the professions.

 

[michaeledward]

Whether or not you pay taxes has nothing to do with whether you have an opinion; the suggestion was a first step towards developing an informed opinion. But you position seems clear here; you don't like having your tax dollars pay for emergency services, and you have clear disdain for those who work in the professions.

I find it odd that my opinion seems clear to you, because you have missed my opinion entirely. I have no problem with emergency services. I have no problem with taxes. I have no problem with a portion of my taxes going to pay for emergency services.

My opinion is that there are rules governing things like 'workers' compensation'. Those rules should be followed. I find it offensive that some feel they should decide when those rules will be applicable to themselves.

In the specific instance listed, it appears that the benefit 'workers' compensation' has been set up to cover town employees when they are working based on hours of performance. Because the worker performed a work-type-task, it is being argued that he should have his work benefits. Except, that is not the way the rules are written today.

I have no problem if people wish to change the rules so that the 'work-type-task' is covered by benefits. But don't do that behind closed doors. The employer must be involved in that discussion (taxpayer).

Anything else smells of Soviet Oligarchy.