Randy Cassingham's Blog

Posted by Charles, Al on September 18, 2009:

This is one time I am scratching my head. What did the police or the waitress do wrong? Is it against the law to sit where the cops often tell suspects to place their hands? Is taking a picture of a pretty girl against the law? "Bambi" is wearing more clothing than most football team's cheerleaders, so she must not be breaking any indecency laws. She is not even holding the firearm in a threatening manner. Is it against the law for an off duty policeman to frequent a place that serves liquor? What's the beef?

---

Even assuming the officer did unload it (did he clear the chamber? Does he really want to bet his life on that?), handing police-issued weapons over to a civilian is certainly improper. Police officers already have a problem being viewed as professionals; this certainly didn't help. And assuming she's not a felon, the waitress did nothing wrong, and was not arrested or cited. Had she been a paroled felon, holding the gun would be a felony. (Did the officers check her background to ensure they weren't abetting a felony? Unlikely!) -rc

Posted by John, Texas on September 18, 2009:

This smacks of zero tolerance. If Sheriff's Deputy Subia insured that the weapon was safe then it becomes simply a prop in a picture of a cute girl.

Were these officers on duty, or, were they simply a bunch of guys away from home out for dinner after work? Do they owe their entire lives to the department? Perhaps, they could have some time off after work. After all, they were 350 miles from home.

Furthermore, why did someone call the local cops anyway? I suspect an ulterior motive. Was there an upcoming competition scheduled in the training?

---

Did you read the whole page, John? You know that the gun was properly unloaded? I don't. If she had foolishly pulled the trigger of the "unloaded" weapon, and there had been a round in the chamber, and she shot and killed someone -- you know, like the accidental discharges that happen all the time! -- I imagine you would have been right at the front of the line to say how stupid the officers were to hand over their department-issued weapon to anyone. The department would lose the resulting lawsuit. Who called the local police? A citizen who saw a scantily clad woman in the parking lot with a rifle, who rightfully thought that was rather suspicious.

So how does a department avoid stupid accidents and lawsuits? They demand that the officers act professionally, which certainly does not include handing over their weapons to civilians for fun. When it comes to ZT, I've always said that "the punishment should fit the crime." This punishment does. The officer who handed over the weapon showed extremely bad judgment, and I don't want a cop that stupid working where I live. You should think about why you think that would be OK in your neighborhood! -rc

Posted by Natane, CA on September 18, 2009:

Hmm, something tells me that those who are saying the sheriff's deputies involved shouldn't have been punished are being swayed by who's holding the gun in the picture. If it was a pic of somebody who looked like, say, a skinhead or a gangbanger, I think we'd be hearing something completely different. Personally I think those working in law enforcement should be held to a higher standard of conduct and agree with their punishment.

And besides, if Bambi was so easily able to convince them to give her one of their guns for a picture, who's to say they would exercise good judgment if someone tried to bribe them or even worse? To chalk it up to them just having a little fun just encourages a "good old boy" system that will inevitably lead to corruption and injustice. Believe me, I've lived in some small towns in the south that uphold the "boys will be boys" excuse when it comes to the conduct of law enforcement, and it's not a good thing.

Posted by Bruce, Royse City, Texas on September 18, 2009:

Law and zero tolerance are not at issue here. These officers are (or were) voluntary employees of this department. Sheriff Painter is quoted as saying they violated his policy, he being their boss. I'm sure they knew the policy that was in place. If they disagreed with it, they were free to protest through proper channels or to seek employment elsewhere.

Sure this is ZT, but it's ZT against dishonorable conduct, something that deserves no tolerance. Rather, it is too often ignored because honor is of so little value these days.

Posted by Michael, Phoenix AZ on September 18, 2009:

Suppose it were her own rifle and she brought it to the "photo shoot". Would the police have been called because it looked suspicious? Would heads have rolled?

---

Question one: Probably. Question two: Not hers, but the officers might have had some sort of trouble, depending on what happened. But so what? "If the situation had been different, would the response had been different?" Well, yeah! And? -rc

Posted by Stef, Melbourne, Australia on September 18, 2009:

Randy, why do you question reader John for stating that the gun was unloaded? The photo includes a caption from the original news article, and it states the gun was unloaded. If you're going to question that part of the story, why don't you question everything else?

I believe that since police are given great power, they should be held to greater standards than ordinary people. But that shouldn't come at the expense of their humanity. Quite frankly, all else being equal, I'd rather have cops in my neighbourhood who relaxed with a harmless photo than by going out and getting stinking drunk, or by using their badge as an excuse for bullying people.

In this case, it should be treated as "no harm, no foul". The police had exhibited responsible gun safety by ensuring that the weapon was unloaded. You can play "what-if" games all day. What if the waitress shot somebody. What if she had brought her own gun?

The suggestion that the police should be held responsible for abetting a felony if Bambi was violating parole by handling a gun is ridiculous. Should cops be responsible to run a background check on somebody before they give them a drink just in case they're a paroled felon and drinking alcohol would violate their parole? If that's the law, it's a bad law.

I don't own a gun, I think the gun culture is stupid, but this is a storm in a teacup and the officer who was fired should feel really hard done by. I wouldn't be surprised if the "policy" to be professional wasn't written down anywhere, and even if it was, the sin deserved nothing more than a verbal reprimand, if that.

I'm fascinated by the idea that some citizen saw a person -- the fact that she was a "scantily clad waitress" is irrelevant -- holding a rifle and was concerned. (As if people holding guns in rural Texas is something unusual.) Looking at the photo, it looks like it was after dark, which makes it almost impossible that they were seen by a passer-by. So we're supposed to believe that somebody there in the restaurant or carpark noticed the gun, but didn't notice the four police officers, and thought that they were in danger and needed to call the cops. Yeah, right. It sounds like a blue-nosed wowser was offended more by the idea of deputies taking photos of a waitress and decided to get them in trouble. Heh, who knows, maybe one of the other waitresses was miffed that the cops didn't want to take photos of her!

---

People are shot by "unloaded" weapons all the time because they forgot to clear the chamber. So much so that the number one gun safety rule is "All guns are loaded." If these officers, who were apparently drinking, didn't have enough sense to keep control of their weapons, it's quite plausible that they didn't have enough sense to clear the chamber. Either way, their actions are extraordinarily unprofessional, period. -rc

Posted by Brian, NV on September 19, 2009:

Generally speaking, I'm all for holding the police to higher standards but in my opinion getting fired was overkill. Here's why:

1. Anyone who has handled weapons for any time would know how to clear it. And I would expect these cops to have been trained prior to being handed the weapon or the sheriff is guilty of much worse.

2. They were in town for training so they would have had to clear the weapon when they left the range.

3. This isn't a cheap, undependable weapon that would have discharged accidentally HAD there been a round in the chamber. The article doesn't mention any round so I figure it was empty since that WOULD have made the story much juicier.

4. This is a restaurant that has many photo ops. It must be part of the attraction.

5. This is a waitress, NOT a skinhead or gang member as someone else tried to connect.

6. The waitress has knowledge of this same firearm. It's possible that she has more training that some of the posters here.

There was some bad judgment here and the reprimands and suspensions were warranted, but getting fired was over the line. It's not like he mistook his gun for a taser and shot someone.

Posted by Tom - Stuttgart, Germany on September 19, 2009:

One comment about the weapon being unloaded, based on what I learned in my military days:

Clearing a rifle means that the magazine has been removed, the chamber cleared, and the the weapon is then "fired" (usually in a sand-filled barrel or some other safe device) to ensure that there is still not a round in the chamber.

While the first two steps can be easily followed in a restaurant parking lot, I don't see how the third step could be safely conducted there. So by most people's standards, the weapon should have been considered loaded.

Some type of punishment was in order, in my opinion (but I won't comment on "too severe" or "too moderate" -- I'll leave that to the people involved) because the weapon could not have been "certified" as being unloaded.

---

Plus, as can plainly be seen in the photo, there's a magazine in the rifle, casting further doubt. -rc

Posted by Bob, Ireland on September 19, 2009:

Guys, guys get a grip of yourselves! Felony, background checks, secret bullet in the chamber, dishonorable conduct!, gangbangers?

Was it a dumb thing to do, sure, was she cute, yes. was it a great picture, of course! Was the sheriff a bit embarrassed? I bet!

But give them a break, she might have been a crazed armed communist, illegal immigrant but somehow I doubt it! and yes I admit it, I am being swayed by her good looks and skimpy dress, so what? and no, I probably would not have given my gun to a skinhead and asked him to pose for photos on the back of my car, but that's just me :-) !

stinks of zero intelligence matched by an equal measure of political correctness gone wild,and a lack of any discretion!!

A quiet phone call from police chief to sheriff and a reprimand or two, no one's career ruined.

If I got in trouble for every dumb thing I did around a pretty girl (in a skimpy dress!!) I would be serving multiple life sentences by now! So I suspect would most guys!

---

If it's wrong to give a rifle to a skinhead for a photo (as you state), why is it "right" to give it to a cute girl? You admit your judgment would be clouded, but think it's OK for law officers to have clouded judgment ...just because. Sorry, but we hold our law enforcement to a higher standard here. -rc

Posted by Ellen, Illinois on September 19, 2009:

I am opposed to zero tolerance when it is directed against students or other plain citizens, especially when officials are only trying to cover their rear. But in this case the deputies obviously violated department rules and showed poor judgment. Did I perhaps miss the part of the story that says this restaurant serves alcoholic beverages? The fact that "Bambi" owns an assault rifle and knows how to use it doesn't excuse anything.