A hypothetical question

Status
Not open for further replies.

shenck

Member
Joined
Jul 12, 2006
Messages
188
Location
Central PA
Let's say hypothetically that where you work has a policy change, that on hospital duty you have one armed officer, and one unarmed officer(handler). The discussion amongst the coworkers is where should the armed officer be positioned, in the room, or outside the room. What is your opinions on this.
 
I would say let the guy do his job and figure out where he should be at any given time given the circumstances. Leave the security work to the trained (hopefully) security people, the doctoring to doctors, etc.
 
Let's say hypothetically that where you work has a policy change, that on hospital duty you have one armed officer, and one unarmed officer(handler). The discussion amongst the coworkers is where should the armed officer be positioned, in the room, or outside the room. What is your opinions on this.
"The" room? Is this a one room hospital?
 
My thought is it depends on where you expect the threat to come from. If the greatest threat is the inmate, I want to have the armed officer in the room with the inmate. If the greatest is someone from the outside to either harm the inmate or help the inmate. I want the armed officer outside the room. When this policy change was announced, there seemed to be three train of thoughts, armed officer in the room with the inmate no matter what, armed officer outside the room no matter what, and those that are with my thoughts. I just wondered what others thought.
 
I didn't want to get to detailed, like charges, or gang affiliations, or any other details. I just wanted some general thoughts on officer placement. Not that it mates much, we have to follow our policies, and the hospitals even if we don't think the hospital has the best strategy. The hospital we use has decided that they don't want firearms to be seen by the public.
 
Correction officers, the hospital wants to dictate officer placement.
Who's in charge of officer placement? Whoever it is, I strongly suspect that they're not going to give a rat's ass about the opinion of a group of random folks on an internet forum.
 
I think it’s time for the sheriff or chief to have a talk with the hospital administration. The officers are responsible for the inmate and the safety of the public. The hospital administration needs to hear about things like liability and potential litigation if there is an incident.
 
The discussion amongst the coworkers is where should the armed officer be positioned, in the room, or outside the room. What is your opinions on this.
They are no more qualified to tell police officers how to do their job than police officers are qualified to tell them how to do theirs.

Strong opinions and emotions are no substitute for knowledge, training and expertise.
...the hospital wants to dictate officer placement.
What makes them think they can dictate anything to the officers? Has it really come to the point that medical professionals can tell law enforcement officers what to do? Guess I'll start recommending that people call their doctor instead of a lawyer if they get into trouble with the law from now on.
 
I guess it's possible, but impractical. We are talking about a full size duty weapon, two reloads, on a duty belt. Maybe there is a gear change in our future. That would be up to administration.
 
Have you talked to your administration about this? I would never let anyone dictate procedures for my officers.

I know that it’s hard to find places that will treat inmates but that’s usually more related to the low rates of reimbursement then to worries about having armed officers in the facility.

I really don’t think we’re going to give you any answers here. Like I said in my earlier post, this is something that needs to be worked out between your administration and the hospital administration. If you feel that your administration is not supporting you, perhaps if the FOP rep talks to them (your administration) about officer safety.
 
Admin's stance is, it's their building so we follow their rules. With that said we have two other hospitals we can use, but in some instances the hospital in question is the only one that can handle some situations. You are correct that I'm not going to get any real answers, every hospital trip is a unique situation. I guess I just wanted to complain about the two policy changes.
 
My thought is it depends on where you expect the threat to come from. If the greatest threat is the inmate, I want to have the armed officer in the room with the inmate. If the greatest is someone from the outside to either harm the inmate or help the inmate. I want the armed officer outside the room. When this policy change was announced, there seemed to be three train of thoughts, armed officer in the room with the inmate no matter what, armed officer outside the room no matter what, and those that are with my thoughts. I just wondered what others thought.
Not that my opinion is worth anything given your situation, I agree with you, it depends on all the facts and circumstances.
 
With a probable that the inmate in some form would be restrained to the bed it would seem outside the door unless someone enters the room then they would be in the room to insure the protection of staff and make sure the staff is staff and not an impersonator or even adversarial staff.
 
Our hospital puts the officer outside the door to the room in the hallway. I guess the thought is, the officer sometimes falls asleep, and its better for them not to do that in the room with a prisoner. We had one escape a few years ago when an officer fell asleep.
 
Schools and hospitals (or other caring facilities) often allow their beliefs and judgments to get in the way of cops doing their jobs - at least that was my experience with a career in law enforcement. Frequently "hospital rules" or "school board rules" were cited in conflict situations when, as noted above, the doctors should have been focused on their skills and allowed the officers to their jobs...

I'm pretty sure the conflicts inherent have been with us forever - and will still be around long after I'm gone. What usually had to happen is someone in authority on each side needed to come to an agreement on that particular situation to get any resolution at all. Then you always ran into individuals that wanted to resist whatever arrangements were agreed upon (and that goes for both sides of the equation - unfortunately..).

Dealing with people in authority in the school or hospital sector was frequently a pain from my perspective - but once any disputes were ironed out we did eventually work well together... That's the way it has to be.
 
I guess it's possible, but impractical. We are talking about a full size duty weapon, two reloads, on a duty belt. Maybe there is a gear change in our future. That would be up to administration.
It's quite practical. I do it all the time. As long as the officers train for it and are in somewhat decent shape (as in, don't have a belly getting in the way), AIWB allows for practical carry of a full or mid size handgun quite comfortably. The reloads can be carried on the belt or in a pocket if necessary. Policies about tucked in shirts may be a problem though......
 
Probably the fact that the officers are in their hospital, utilizing their services.

That's my guess too. I don't think the cream of the crop gets put on details like watching prisoners in hospitals. We have had at least one escape while under the watchful eye of the the officers. Maybe incidents like that are why hospital administrators feel like they need to get involved in directing the officer's actions.
 
There would have to be policy changes to make concealment practical. Our uniform policy makes it impractical at best. I think next contract negotiations this should be addressed.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top