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.

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.

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.