Return to Website

Community Service Officer Forum

Here is where any civilian law enforcement personel can share work experiences, problems, ideas, and promote equality in the workplace. Please join the discussion.

Community Service Officer Forum
Start a New Topic 
Author
Comment
CSO and Firearms

The whole thing with CSO's not carrying firearms is mind numbing. The extra training is a non issue. You just need to have a use of force training and then qualify with it twice a year. Our department quailifies us (animal control?. We basically do what CSO's do, ordinance, motorist assist, yadda yadda yadda. Why is it thought that a CSO will not find himself confronting someone dangerous any less than a certified? I am clueless ojn this train of thought.

Re: CSO and Firearms

The object of having CSO's is to lower the cost of providing services to the community. Over half the calls taken by an sworn officer are service in nature (some statistics claim about 80%). Sworn officers get paid better, sometimes much better, than a CSO does. Statistically, I take more calls for service than the officers I work with by about 25%. It costs St. Charles about $100 per call for service when they send an officer. When they send a CSO it costs about $56. That is why they hire us.
I work in a town that only had 3 homicides in the last 30 years, so it is a safe place to work, but anything can happen at any time. I approached a person who was "hanging around" in a parking lot next to a bank and asked him if I could help him. He said "yes you can" and handed me a note that said "give me all your money" and said he "was about to do something stupid".
He was holding a Franklin Planner with a zipper. I assumed he had a gun in there and knew if he went for it I was probably screwed. Ended up he didn't have a gun, but a knife in his back pocket. I believe he intended to take a knife to a gun fight. It was an exciting afternoon. I did think seriously about the problem of a CSO confronting someone dangerous but I keep working.
I had a coworker pin in a getaway car after there was a store robbed at gunpoint many years ago. After it was all said and done she thought twice about doing it again.
I think most CSO's have a good instinct for when to back off. There haven't been a lot of CSO's hurt that I have heard, but I don't think CSO injuries/deaths are tracked the way sworn officers are so I really don't know.

Re: CSO and Firearms

A few other points.

I can be a CSO at 18 I can't be a swron Officer until I'm 20 and can't carry a side arm until I'm 21.

CSOs are supposed to be fundamentally apporachable, not carrying a sidearm makes the CSO that much less intimidating.

A skilled CSO will find other ways to either avoid, diffuse or handle a situation until armed backup arrives. I don't think anyone should ever wear a uniform without a vest, but having the ability to talk your self some time, in additon some departments not all will allow a CSO to certify and carry and ASP and/or OC. Additonally I also believe everybodsy in law enforcement should seek out continual training in hand to hand confrinations,this does include hand to hand response, many times an edged weapon attack can be over in less time than it takes to draw your sidearm, esp. when the attacker is prepared and within 20 ft.

It is only one rung on the use of force ladder, and with a CSOs duties it isn't a nessicty for job function. I also remember hearing a statistic that over 50% of Officer shootings are done with their own sidearm, which is a common rule of thumb when buying a vest, that it should stop what you shoot. I'm not sure of the source so not sure of the validity but it is something to consider and research.

Now how a CSO gets on the street without knowing how to administer CPR is beyond me.

Re: Re: CSO and Firearms

School Resource Officers are suppose to be "approachable", Shall we just have them unarmed as well?

Anyone that deals in LE and gets dispatched or come upon unknown calls or issues, is in a uniform and drives a marked Govt. vehicle should be armed in my opinion. When a department issues you a vest they are accepting that there is a firearm threat you may face in your duties. It does not make sense to me to not give that individual the training and qualify them simply to maintain their approachability.

Its a simple ordinance call - send the CSO....10-4.

I have a freind that was a certified deputy. He was sent to a "simple" ordinace complaint. He got out of the car turned around and the ****bag already had the drop on him. He took one in the head. Had he even had the chance to get defensive he would have been able to defend himself. Of course unless he was a CSO and the dept does not "trust" the officer with training.

It just seems so non-progressive to have these indivuduals trained and there ready for the threat if it presents itself. Not to mention the backup they could supply to certifieds if they needed it.

Talk, verbal judo etc. is a very important tool to have I agree, but its only good if you have something to back it up with. You need to have the option to increase your threat response as he increases the threat. The ****bag has all the tools he wishes to choose from, the least a dept could do was to send their officers out to the fight with a few basic ones.

just my 2 cents.

Re: Re: CSO and Firearms

I have never worn a vest. The evening shift (when we still had one) officer wore one. I never had to work the evening shift on a regular basis so I never did get one. I also found out from my coworkers that the vest is not real good at stopping a knife or other penetrating weapon. It is meant to stop a bullet. I am sure I would rather take my chances with a vest anyway but there are no guarantees in life.

Many years ago in the Chicago area there was a woman CSO standing in front of her car and behind a parked car writing a ticket when someone rear ended her squad. The colision drove her squad into the parked car with her in the middle.

The lack of a weapon is not a matter of trust. It is simply the way the law is written. To carry in Illinois you must be a "sworn police officer". The term "peace officer" is used in the statutes as anyone that upholds the law or any part of the law (such as local ordinances only). In other states, peace officer means sworn police officer.

Another area where the difference is huge is in pensions. In Illinois I am stuck in the pension with the city workers because the statutes call for "sworn police officers" to participate in a police pension. There is a huge difference between the two, money wise and when collected.

Re: Re: Re: CSO and Firearms

Not sure about the laws in Illinois. Here in Michigan you can be "sworn" and not "certified". As a Reserve Special Deputy Sheriff I am "sworn" in by the sheriff but I am not certified. I carry a gun.

Right - the vest is not puncture proof. It is a Bullet Resistant Vest. It does offer some protection as far as blunt force trauma or if you are stabbed at least the object must penatrate the vest before you. Perhaps it would not penatrate deep enough to cause serious harm due to the vest.

Obviously this job offers many dangers that can not be solved by the presence of a firearm carried by the officer. I still see no reason to put an individual at risk when he is out dealing with an unknown public. I understand its what the law states. I am simply saying it should be re-written if that is the case. I'm doing it now in Michigan, no reason it can't be done elsewhere.