What a moron. Following the “security” guards reasoning, then, when an Officer stops for lunch he is on personal time and should disarm. The Officer may have been running a personal errand, but was on the clock, subject to an emergency call he may have needed to respond to at any time, including in that building. Disarming him would actually have a been a public safety concern. Not to mention that, in many (if not most or all) cases when an Officer is in uniform he is still considered on duty and required to be properly armed. The reasoning there is that a citizen that sees the Officer in uniform has no way of knowing if the Officer is on duty or not and has a REASONABLE EXPECTATION that (s)he is.
IF the guard was arrested and this went to a trial, I believe his attorney would have a difficult time proving to the jury that it was REASONABLE for the guard to believe his life was in danger.
My 2 pennies.
Yeah, that right there. There are times and places where seeing an armed officer might mean your life is at risk even if you are doing nothing wrong. But that surely wasn’t one of them.
someone wasn’t read in on status of forces agreements
I’m thinking they weren’t read in on status of common sense either!
He was arrested and charged wtih aggravated assault on a police officer since they couldn’t find a statute addressing aggravated stupidity under color of law.
now THAT’s a law I could endorse
well… maybe while he’s on lunch he should not only disarm, but disrobe so he’s not in uniform either.
Many departments actually require their officers to carry whether they are officially on or off duty.
Retired trooper here, and…
Wow. What a dumbass.
Reminds me of an employee I ran into at the dump while trying to properly dispose of some used tires from two of my cars. “Only 5 tires per annum! If you want to get rid of eight, you have to bring the other three next year.”
Yeah, he knew the rules, but no freaking sense at all.
Although, after doing some more searching for the actual law, it turns up this:
§930. Possession of firearms and dangerous weapons in Federal facilities
(a) Except as provided in subsection (d), whoever knowingly possesses or causes to be present a firearm or other dangerous weapon in a Federal facility (other than a Federal court facility), or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 1 year, or both.
(b) Whoever, with intent that a firearm or other dangerous weapon be used in the commission of a crime, knowingly possesses or causes to be present such firearm or dangerous weapon in a Federal facility, or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.
© A person who kills any person in the course of a violation of subsection (a) or (b), or in the course of an attack on a Federal facility involving the use of a firearm or other dangerous weapon, or attempts or conspires to do such an act, shall be punished as provided in sections 1111, 1112, 1113, and 1117.
(d) Subsection (a) shall not apply to—
(1) the lawful performance of official duties by an officer, agent, or employee of the United States, a State, or a political subdivision thereof, who is authorized by law to engage in or supervise the prevention, detection, investigation, or prosecution of any violation of law;
(2) the possession of a firearm or other dangerous weapon by a Federal official or a member of the Armed Forces if such possession is authorized by law; or
(3) the lawful carrying of firearms or other dangerous weapons in a Federal facility incident to hunting or other lawful purposes.
Kind of long, but even if he was not there on “official business,” section d(3) would seem to be a catch-all for otherwise lawful carry as long as the purpose is, well, lawful.