Chicago Hospital Ejects Uniformed, On-Duty Cop for Refusing to Surrender his Gun

Presence St. Joseph Hospital police guns

Image via Presence St. Joseph Facebook page.

Presence St. Joseph Hospital in Chicago has a “no guns” policy that goes well beyond what is required by Illinois law. Last week, security there ejected a uniformed, on-duty Chicago Police officer visiting a retired police officer patient during a break.  Why?  Because the uniformed cop wouldn’t surrender his sidearm.

What did the lone female security officer tell the cop to do if he surrendered his gun and then needed it while inside the hospital? “You will have to do like the rest of us, which is to run and hide.”

Run and hide? Sounds like a recipe for a lot of dead and wounded innocent victims.

Second City Cop reported the incident on its blog.

This morning I stopped by “Presence St. Joseph’s Hospital” on the 2900 block of Lake Shore Drive to visit slain police officer Rick Francis’s partner, Norm K. (019 – Retired) who recently had a heart attack and as of Friday was still in ICU. After stopping by ICU mid morning today I was instructed that Norm had been moved to another floor. In addition to that the nurse also made aware that the hospital has a strick [sic] policy against persons or in this case, police officers possessing firearms on the premises while not responding to a call for service…

Within 10 min. or so security arrived to escort me off the premises since I was unwilling to surrender my weapon… Having a brief conversation on the way back down with the female security officer, whom I might add was Not armed, stated that the policy set forth was even discussed with a Chicago Police Superintendent and the Mayors office.

I did asked the following question: “Had I surrendered my weapon and had let’s say I ran into a situation what is it that you think I should do since your hospital policy has stripped me of my weapon”?

Your (sic) going to love her answer! “You will have to do like the rest of us, which is to Run and Hide” Shaking my head not believing what I had just heard, drove away wondering what if anything could be done…

Intrepid readers will recall how a loser fired from the Chicago Fire Academy became angry at his ex-wife and shot up Chicago’s Mercy Hospital before responding officers shot him.  At that point, facing armed resistance, the spree killer took the coward’s way out and shot himself in the head.

From USA Today

The gunman accused of killing a doctor, a pharmacist and a police officer at Chicago’s Mercy Hospital on Monday was kicked out of the city’s fire training program more than four years ago for bullying fellow cadets, authorities said Tuesday.

Juan Lopez, 32, bullied multiple cadets, including some women, during his roughly two months at the Chicago Fire Academy in 2014 before he was fired, Chicago Fire Department spokesman Larry Merritt said. …

Mercy has its own security, but the hospital officers did not get involved in the incident, (police spokesman Anthony) Guglielmi said.

Yeah, smart people don’t go up against an armed spree killer when workplace policy keeps them disarmed.

And here is Presence Hospital escorting out uniformed police officers for not surrendering their guns. That’s a recipe for disaster, not “gun-free” zone safety.



  1. avatar TonyL says:

    Who would the officer “surrender” his firearm to?

    1. avatar Jeff the Griz says:

      Our psychiatric unit had a lock box bolted to the wall outside, the officers were supposed to lock their arms up before entering, but usually the officers waited off unit and I would bring people to them for transport.

    2. avatar NukemJim says:

      Every hospital that I have worked at has one or more safes to lock guns (and other “interesting” items) up.

      1. avatar Rattlerjake says:

        But that still violates policy because the weapon is still “on site”!

        1. avatar Jerry Sweet says:

          Hey ratterlerjake hospital policy does not trump 2020 state policy get a grip

    3. avatar Reason says:

      Surrender to the security guard. But then she would be armed. Hmm, What then? Would she surrender to another guard? and so on.
      Stupid policy!! Causes stupid consequences.

    4. avatar I Haz A Question says:

      It’s my understanding that LEOs in most any department aren’t allowed by policy to “surrender” their weapons to any non-department person. How can a hospital require an on-duty officer to disarm himself and hand over his weapon to a non-LEO?

      1. avatar Tom in Oregon says:

        The only time my agency allowed us to be unarmed while in uniform was when we were taking a prisoner into the county jail or our own holding facility.
        In our own temp lockup, we were still allowed to have a Taser.

        (Trivia-Taser is somewhat of an acronym for
        Thomas A Swift’s Electric Rifle. It’s from a 1911 novel by Victor Appleton)

        1. avatar I Haz A Question says:

          Yes, but that’s for good reason, and under the auspices of Corrections personnel. Doesn’t make sense to me that any hospital would require an on-duty, uniformed, sworn and badged LEO to leave his/her duty weapon at the door. It’s not like the gun is going to override the triple-retention holster and jump out a-blazin’ all by itself. The LEO is already recognized by the local department/township as being an authorized “protector of the community”…

        2. avatar Jerry Sweet says:

          But see you show common sense these idiots dont posses any they are stupid

        3. avatar LarryinTX says:

          Haz, you’re overthinking. It makes no sense for ANYONE to require ANYONE to disarm. It also makes no sense for anyone to have the *authority* to require anyone to disarm. I think it is wonderful for anyone proclaiming anything like a “gun-free zone” to require EVERYONE to surrender their guns, this place apparently allows LEO responding to violent crimes like mass murder, etc, to enter with their firearms. I think they should require the cops to disarm, even if they’re after an active shooter.

        4. avatar Rattlerjake says:

          LarryinTx, You’re exactly right. All of these commenters are missing the point. LE are no more special than the rest of us law-abiding citizens; none of us should be required to disarm because of the ignorance of a few. By percentage, LE are bigger offenders of law than citizens, because they assume they are above the law. When you consider the numbers of LE who speed, run stop signs, shoot innocent people or their pets, break into homes (violating the 4th amendment), rape, accept bribes, traffic in drugs, lie in court, etc. compared to the total number (and those are only the ones caught but seldom charged or prosecuted), LE are far worse than the overall population.

      2. avatar TR says:

        Possession of firearms by police is governed by statute, and none of the people mentioned has the authority to take it. If the mayor and superintendent had balls, they would provide an ultimatum to the hospital and remove all officers from responding there for any reason until the hospital complies. It’s a simple fix. No guns, no cops.

        1. avatar Phil says:

          Sounds good to me. The laws apply to Police as well especially on Federal property. If you cops don’t like it, don’t go there like the rest of us. What amazes me is how clueless most of you LEOs are especially to the law. Simply because you have a badge does not allow you to carry wherever you want this also applies to concealed carry license and so on. Please flash your badge at the nearest Federal Facility, preferably Militarty or Nuclear demanding to get in while armed and see how it goes for you.

          In my unit they arrested a Border Patrol agent who just got off duty, with his duty weapon and was there for drill. Ironically unlike most you cops he is actually licensed to carry on Federal Facilities. And no to answer you question I don’t want the police where I am ever they are one of the standing armies the Founders warned us of.

        2. avatar Kendahl says:

          There is an anti-gun judge in Omaha, Nebraska who insisted that police officers testifying in his court not wear uniforms, because that would prejudice the jury against the defendant, or carry weapons, because they would frighten people. The police chief replied that uniforms and sidearms were required by department regulations and that none of his officers would appear in court under the judge’s conditions. (During the last election, I voted against retaining this judge but he still squeaked by.)

        3. avatar Kendahl says:

          Also in Omaha, there was a charity that dealt with the homeless. They frequently called for police to remove troublemakers but never would press charges. Eventually, police stopped responding to their calls.

        4. avatar yamadog says:

          I like your way of thinking, the hospital has to be out of there minds. You are also correct law enforcement can carry any where they want to . What about the criminal element, does some administrator think he will surrender his or her weapon. There are bigger fish to be fried then an officer of the law surrendering his weapon.

        5. avatar Dennis says:

          They always defend their “ideals” to the death, as long as it’s someone else’s death!

      3. avatar Paul says:

        He should visit on his own time. Problem solved

        1. avatar Michael Cull says:

          My brother-in-law was mandated to be armed anytime he was in the town he worked in. This was Issaquah, WA.

        2. avatar John says:

          What a stupid comment!

      4. avatar Jerry Sweet says:

        They do it illegally cops let them get away with it

      5. avatar Victoria Illinois says:

        Does that non-LEO have a FOID card?

  2. Great!! The politicians and Police need to know what gun control means. No special carve outs or privileges for the elites.

    1. avatar Kyle says:

      Nailed it!

      Its not about the cop having his gun. No one actually believes hes a threat to anyone. Its about making the cops actually feel the effect of gun control. My guess is he was faced with the same choice we little peon gun owners are faced with.

      1) Surrender a firearm…to some guy, who will not be responsible in any way for what happens to it or to others from his failure to handle it properly. We can lock it up in our car, but then, as has happened, when it’s stolen, we get crapped on for it, not the hospital administrator.
      2) Be defenseless in a gun free zone, never a fun idea. It’s why we peons try to avoid them as much as possible.

      The police need to this to happen to them EVERYWHERE. No carveouts for cops, not dealing with an emergency situation, should be allowed into gun free zones armed. Nor should they be allowed exemptions from the various state gun laws.

      I want my California police officer working with firearms that are only legal to buy if your a citizen of the state. And I want my military compliant with all Federal gun laws as well. No more giggle switch’s for them unless in an active state of declared war.

      Same for all private security, secret service, etc, etc, etc.

      1. avatar Don from CT says:


      2. avatar anarchyst says:

        I’ve been saying the same thing for decades.
        There should be no special “carve-outs” or other privileges for police or anyone else.
        Let them feel the same way that us ordinary people feel when their “protection” is taken away from them.

        1. avatar Old Fur Trapper says:

          Sounds like you will be the first one into the firing line to stop a bullet. Or any others from criminals that will invade so called gun free zones. Real smart!!!!!

        2. avatar Jerry Sweet says:

          Then i will be the 2nd

        3. avatar Dennis says:

          Have fun with that!

      3. avatar SoCalJack says:

        Excellent points. May this incident be a reminder we’re all in it together when the politicians restrict gun rights.

      4. avatar PosseMan says:

        You do realize that LEOs don’t actually make/write/pass those gun control laws, right?!

        1. avatar Ralph says:

          Yes, but they do enforce them.

        2. avatar Chip Bennett says:

          And they don’t oppose them during the legislative process, either.

        3. avatar Phil says:

          But they are more than happy to arrest you stating: “The law is the law”. Regardless of how unconstitutional the law maybe while ignoring both State and Federal Laws because they are the law and laws don’t apply to them. I am a Guardsman and the overwhelming number of cops who are also Guardsman are hardcore Statists who have no problem confiscating your guns or any other manner of stupidity because the law is the law and or they were ordered to do so.

        4. avatar ",keep yur paws off my dead guy" possum says:

          @Phil,,, this is exsactly what Im in fear of. . ” Ive got orders”:,”Doing as ordered”, sheriffs “we wont enforce” ,,,until their ass is on the line. Theres a few good cops but not many, and to be a ‘good soldier” you follow orders.

      5. avatar LarryinTX says:


    2. avatar Specialist38 says:

      Yep. If all Defense Free Zone were enforces this way it would put an end to this bull shit.

    3. avatar Victoria Illinois says:

      And no discounts at the stores. Cops have sick days, vacation days, pensions and other perks. I don’t. They chose that job, so did I choose mine. I’m not whining about my choice, but it irks me that so many think they deserve it. You only get a star if you do something above and beyond your job…..not for just doing a job, sitting at a desk with lots of paper.

  3. avatar Cruzo1981 says:

    Uggghhh, Chicago….gross…

  4. avatar Blake G says:

    What if the on-duty cop had told the (unarmed) hospital security “No.”? What would they have done?

    1. avatar SAFEupstateFML says:

      Called him?

      1. avatar Ad Astra says:


        1. avatar LarryinTX says:

          Oh, yes, that was a winner!

      2. avatar Andrew Lias says:

        That would have been great

        Dispatcher:”I need a unit at hospital blah blah blah person with gun won’t leave.”
        Guards:”You can’t do that.”
        Officer:”I just did.”

        Could be a frickin episode in a comedy.

        1. avatar Arc says:

          The offending cop has trespassing charges filed against him and the department gets sued. Some areas of hospitals have a high risk of someone seizing any weapon they see or making an attempt to. Police presence stresses people out even more than they already are. Never know when a cop takes a fukitol pill and is at the hospital to shwack someone.

          Hospitals have designated armed security, no one else is allowed to be armed, that includes cops.

        2. avatar Jerry Sweet says:

          Arc how utterly stupid

        3. avatar I Haz A Question says:


          Except that in this case the hospital’s “security” is unarmed by their own policy (if I’m understanding the article correctly), and advised the LEO to “run and hide like the rest of us” in the event of danger.

          Also, the entire purpose of triple-retention holsters is to prevent others from removing the gun.

        4. avatar arc says:

          @I Haz A Question

          Holster type is irrelevant in the face of policy, no weapons means no weapons. The policy isn’t in place because some nutcase might decide to shoot up the hospital, the policy is in place because the very presence of a weapon may cause patients in a high risk environment to make a run for it. A parients odds of getting the weapon are also irrelevant, some are under the influence of drugs — hospital or otherwise, some will still get violent regardless of the odds just by knowing a weapon is nearby and injuries take place when they otherwise wouldn’t have. The mind can get completely irrational and illogical when on drugs, especially those with dissociative effects. A dissociative will literally split you apart from your rational thought and control of your body and put you on autopilot.

          The cop has the option to check his iron at the door, or retain his weapon and stay out of a high risk environment. He is not the only cop available, others can respond to crimes in progress and if need be, he can return to the door, get his weapon, and be on his way.

          If a few seconds to open a safe is good enough for us peons, its good enough for a cop.

        5. avatar borg says:

          The article as written leads me to believe that the officer was nowhere near a high risk location.

        6. avatar L says:

          >the very presence of a weapon [on a cop’s hip] may cause patients in a high risk environment to make a run for it.


        7. avatar arc says:

          @L, both good people and bad people end up in the ICU, psych, etc, and if someone weasels out of the cuffs on their bed and happens to get a gander at someones weapon while the cop / whoever is obliviously jaw jacking to someone or playing thumb games, they may roll the dice and try and take it.

          The prospect of 20+ years or even just the right drug combo will make people do some interesting things.

    2. avatar vaadu says:

      He can comply with the hospital rules, leave or be cited for criminal trespass.

      1. avatar Jerry Sweet says:

        Not legally except this is Chicago

      2. avatar Victoria Illinois says:

        He may be on duty, but he’s on his break. Follow the rules or work to change the rules. That’s the law. I think we have to obey the rules, no? What happens if we civilians don’t?

  5. avatar DrewR55 says:

    On the one hand this policy is certainly asinine but not just for law enforcement. On the other hand? I kind of agree with her, if it is good for the gander then it is good for the goose. Law enforcement, especially in major metro cities, have for too long enjoyed special citizen status and that needs to stop. Either we all go free or we all hang together.

    We have all previously commented here in the past that law enforcement officers have enjoyed carve outs in firearms regulations to gain their support and we need to put a stop to that. How many cops would support magazine limitations if they weren’t exempted?

    1. avatar Don from CT says:

      You sir, are a very smart man.

      Let them suffer like the rest of us.

  6. avatar Andrew Lias says:

    I have little to no sympathy for him. Apparently all animals are equal at this hospital.

    1. avatar Dude says:

      Me either. It sounds like he’s only outraged because HE doesn’t get to carry.

      1. avatar Rusty - Molon Labe - Chains says:

        My heart bleeds purple Koolaid for Mr. Special; welcome to peon land!

    2. avatar Phuck Yall says:

      Absolutely agree. I’m supposed to feel bad that a cop – an “only one’r” (as in “we’re the only ones that oughta have guns”) had to be treated like every other Citizen!?!? GASP!

      Good for the hospital.

      It’s a stupid policy that puts everyone there in danger, but I give them credit for enforcing it fairly and completely.

  7. avatar Jerry Sweet says:

    Run away and hide brilliant these gun control idiots are absolute morons

    1. avatar Andrew Lias says:

      I’m still trying to figure out if she’s a gun control idiot or a troll. Either would make sense.

      1. avatar Don from CT says:

        Or a gun rights person who wants to see LE subjected to the same laws as the citizenry.

        Shiny badges and fancy costumes don’t grant extra rights.

      2. avatar arc says:

        Or someone who understands that having any weapons in a high risk area of the hospital is a danger to everyone.

        1. avatar Mike V says:

          Was he in a high risk area?

        2. avatar LarryinTX says:

          Why would that be? Can you give us a hundred examples where it has caused a problem? I regularly carry in hospitals, and I have never turned to stone or anything. Nor has anyone attacked me, no bad result at all. So why?

        3. avatar Jerry Sweet says:


  8. avatar Ad Astra says:

    “You will have to run and hide”.
    Is conspiracy to obstruct a peace officer a legit charge in Illinois? Because the hospital boatd needs to be cuffed and taken in if so.

    1. avatar PosseMan says:

      I doubt there was any obstructing going on if he was there in a non-official capacity to visit his buddy.

  9. avatar Leslie says:

    The “No Gun Policy” is for the entire state of Illinois, not just Chicago. It has to do with a Inmate that grabbed a gun from an Hospital Security Guard while being restrained for treatment and held the Medical Staff hostage until the local SWAT was called in to resolve the issue. Incident to place at Northwestern’s Delnor Hopital on May 13, 2017…

    1. avatar arc says:

      Someone finally gets it. Hospitals have high risk areas and weapons are simply not allowed except for a designated security officer.

      1. avatar I Haz A Question says:

        …and a sworn and trained LEO isn’t considered to be one?

        1. avatar arc says:

          No, hes not. He isn’t under the authority of the hospital.

        2. avatar LarryinTX says:

          WTF difference does that make?

        3. avatar Arc says:

          Its makes a colossal difference when it comes to liability and legal nuances.

      2. avatar PosseMan says:

        Even the “designated security officer” was unarmed.

      3. avatar Jerry Sweet says:

        Yes an unarmed idiot brilliant

        1. avatar Ed Schrade says:

          But had jogging shoes !

  10. avatar Ogre says:

    Since this has been publicized (through the Second City Cop blog, and no doubt on other outlets as well), I think Presence St. Joseph Hospital can just stand the fuck by, since an incident there is not an “if” but a “when” probability. Every bad guy and mental defective in Chicago and vicinity now knows they can expect no resistance when they decide to carry out an “op” at this hospital. And based on how the hospital treated the on-duty cop when ejecting him, I wouldn’t expect the police response to an incident at their location to be very robust or timely. “Run and hide – we’ll be there when we get there.”

    1. avatar Grendal says:

      That view is why all cops are bad.

      Change my mind.

  11. avatar Don from CT says:

    I think this is fantastic.

    There is no way we are going to get cops to join us if they have special carve outs. Special rights that the rest of us don’t have.

    I am so glad to hear this.

    The security guard really sends the point home. “You will have to run and hide, like the rest of us”. Give that woman a medal.

    1. avatar DrewR55 says:

      And I would really like to know how this officer would react to a private citizen with an Illinois issued carry permit trying to carry a firearm into the hospital or other GFZ. Too many cops would happily arrest the legally armed citizen for doing what this officer tried to do. We should be asking whether this guy has ever arrested a CCW permit holder or if he feels a permit holder should be arrested for something like this.

      I say there should be no special considerations for law enforcement, all animals should be equal.

      1. avatar Hannibal says:

        TIY that CPD still has issued revolvers floating around. Guess we can guess the guy’s age bracket!

        Supervisors should issue a written directive that CPD shall not respond to the hospital for any calls for service unless it is in response to a violent crime in-progress. Otherwise, let unarmed security deal with it. No theft calls, no trespass calls (important one!) and no business checks.

        1. avatar Hannibal says:

          oops didn’t mean that as a reply

  12. avatar Rusty - Molon Labe - Chains says:

    Carve outs are a socialist concept designed to reinforce the concept of power reserved for the state. Allowing cops to carry in a gun free zone, on duty or off, is part of that socialist concept.

  13. avatar NORDNEG says:

    Had a wreck on my Harley one day, & two police officers were at the same place investigating another car wreck at the same spot, I landed on the pavement next to one cop, I tried to get up & the cop put his knee on my chest & said once your down He couldn’t let me get up & called for a ambulance, they patted me down & apparently either the cop or paramedic felt the pistola I had in my boot,,, one cop followed me to emergency & when the nurses left said he was there to secure my firearm, I told him I wasn’t carrying one, he just gave me a weird look & left,,, luckily They didn’t need to take xrays, both the cop & me kept our manhoods that day. Just a story I thought I’d share about cops & hospitals,.
    Thank You very much…🔫 Oh ,& by the way the Harley turned out just fine.

    1. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

      ‘Oh ,& by the way the Harley turned out just fine.’

      Did it ever quit making that godawful noise?

      1. avatar UpInArms says:

        Harleys don’t make noise. They have a sound.

        1. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

          Until you pull the baffles out.

  14. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

    “Had I surrendered my weapon and had let’s say I ran into a situation what is it that you think I should do since your hospital policy has stripped me of my weapon?”

    Pray that a civilian with a concealed carry permit ignored the sign at the door and intervened.

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      If you don’t have *everyone* enter through a metal detector operated by an armed guard, you need to consider the meaning of the word “concealed” before passing such stupid rules.

  15. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

    I wonder what the CPD policy is for it’s officers ‘surrendering’ their firearms while on duty.

    1. avatar Old Guy in Montana says:

      Inquiring minds want to know!

    2. avatar borg says:

      The policy should require making arrests since disarming on duty officers likely constitutes interfering with police officers since these officers are legally. Required to be armed while on duty. I hope detectives storm the building to investigate why on duty cops are illegally disarmed by staff. It would be hilarious if the staff at the hospital ended up getting arrested for trying to disarm the detectives.

      1. avatar Arc says:

        If you are legally required to be armed and policy of the area is no guns, guess what, you don’t get to visit places outside of the scope of your official duties while armed.

        1. avatar sparkyinWI says:

          Amen….. this is exactly right. The LE was there visiting a friend and not there on official duty. Hence as a civilian citizen like the rest of us the no guns allowed policy applies to him as well. He is no more special than you, me, or anyone else in the city of Chicago.

  16. avatar Brian Emmert says:

    I’m thinking that the hospital better never need to call the cops for help.

  17. avatar moreadventuresonotherplanets says:

    Every time there is a proposed anti-gun law the Mayors and Cops all stand behind the Political Hack that proposes the anti-gun law. Cops should have to obey the same laws the people do they should not be above the law but in most cases they know they are or think they should be. Maybe next time they will not be so quick to promote anti-gun laws.

  18. avatar borg says:

    They are lucky that the cop did not decide to charge them with felony disarmament of a police officer and interfering with law enforcement.

    1. avatar arc says:

      No one attempted to disarm the pig and personal hospital visits are not in the scope of official police duties. If he thumped his chest and started a temper tantrum about how everyone needs to respect his “authority” and stop resisting while arresting staff, he would get the department sued into a hole.

      He refused to follow policy, so he was asked to leave and escorted off the property. If he resisted, he could be charged with trespassing. If he caused injury in the process or damage to property, he just stepped into deeper shit.

      1. avatar Guesty McGuesterson says:


        Ah, you just showed your stripes. You hate cops. Got it. And so does every LEO here at TTAG reading this.

  19. avatar MIO says:

    We woulda had a gunfight or an arrest. No one is going to eject me in the performance of my lawful duties.

    1. avatar dph says:

      He was on a break visiting another cop, hardly what you call doing his lawful duties.
      Fuck that cop, crying about having to follow the same rules as the rest of the world.

      1. avatar Borg says:

        Unlike average citizens cops are legally obligated to respond to a a crime at any moment and therefore disarming him interferes with his ability to discharge his duties. If he was eating lunch and saw an armed robbery he would be obligated to intervene.

        1. avatar arc says:

          Sounds like a personal problem, don’t go to places on taxpayer time that require you to surrender your duty weapon. Cop needs to stay in the scope of his official duties while on duty hours. If he wants to make a personal visit to a friend in a hospital or gun free business then he needs to wait until hes off duty.

        2. avatar Brian says:


        3. avatar PosseMan says:

          “cops are legally obligated to respond to a crime at any moment”

          SCOTUS disagrees with this assessment (multiple times).

        4. avatar In for a Penny, In for a pound says:

          Cops have no legal duty to help any Citizen per SCOTUS, that means they don’t have an obligation to stop a crime.

          The Second Amendment means Citizens have more of right to be armed over the police, because the police are who Citizens are meant to be armed against.

        5. avatar LarryinTX says:

          Just take out an ad in local media announcing that police will not respond to that hospital under any circumstances, and why, including that NOBODY there is ever armed. After about a week, a few murders, several rapes, and countless robberies and carjackings, they might revisit their rules. OTOH, if they experience no such problems, their policy can be considered sensible.

        6. avatar Leslie says:

          Yeah, right! And any Cop Shot, Bleeds To Death in the process! Unless you have a Foresight Solution for that too…

        7. avatar grendal says:

          That’s extortion

    2. avatar sparkyinWI says:

      He was not ejected during the lawful performance of anything close to his duties. Please read the article. The guard even told him he could only be armed coming in if the situation was for the lawful performance of his duties.

  20. avatar borg says:

    Would they be stupid enough to try to disarm a 2 cops that are transporting a dangerous prisoner to the hospital. I ask because I remember reading about an incident in which an employee of a hospital tried to make the cops disarm themselves and even called the police on them. The responding officers laughed and alluded to the fact that if the employee tried to the cops that if the employee was stupid enough to try to forcibly disarm them he would have a bad day.

    1. avatar arc says:

      Transporting a prisoner to a hospital is within the scope of official duties, personal visits aren’t. Nice try though.

  21. avatar Imayeti says:

    When I worked as ER charge nurse I only expected PATIENTS be unarmed, LEO or not. Often the partner or another LEO would stay near so the officer didn’t feel totally nekid. The meds we give in the hospital impair judgement making being armed dangerous to all.

  22. avatar TRUMPSTER says:


    they more of this kind of things getting notice in the public eye will hopefully bring awareness to the problem that is for all LAW biding citizens.

    till then let these cops get disarmed. I am actually in favor of disarming all law enforcement and lets just see how that goes over 🙂

  23. avatar Chiefton says:

    I think I would have been tempted to hand her my gun on her demands, then arrest her for possession of a firearm in the hospital.

    1. avatar Borg says:

      Not only could you charge her with possession of the gun on hospital property but also with possession of stolen property since she does not own it as well as gun theft etc. etc. etc.

      1. avatar grendal says:

        Wow, talk about entrapment.

  24. avatar Jordan says:

    Goose meet gander.

  25. avatar Brian says:

    LEOs in many jurisdictions are required to carry when off-duty as well (my son being one). These so-called “carve outs” that people keep referring to aren’t a “privilege.” A LEO has taken on additional responsibilities and personal risk to serve and protect. Before anyone starts citing examples of incidents where LEOs have failed in that capacity, I wish to point out that the overwhelming majority of officers really do strive to fulfill the oaths they took. And they do it with targets painted on their backs by criminals and law-abiding citizens alike. So this “taste of their own medicine” rhetoric is BS. Unlike you or me, an officer doing his duty isn’t allowed to run and hide in a violent situation, but we can whether we are armed or not. I’m sure this comment will draw opposition and criticism, but as a supporter of 2A and backer of the blue, I stand by my stated opinion.

    1. avatar Cole Dashit says:

      I am also a Blue Supporter but a carvout is a privilege if no one else gets the same treatment.Especially since it has been proven – In Court – that Police are under no obligation to protect or serve. They enforce law. That’s all. If it is a GFZ well guess what? LEO are NOT above the law & they are prohibited from stealing, burgling and murder etc. etc. just like the rest of us.
      Oh & BTW, if anyone in my family is under some kind of threat, I will NOT be running & hiding.

      1. avatar Brian says:

        I, too, would defend my family and others. As far as enforcing the law v. Serving and protecting, the LEO who chooses that career for the right reason, serves and protects. Just a couple weeks ago, my son was the target of an intentional and deliberate attack. While enroute to an elementary school, a car with three intoxicated individuals intentionally and deliberately swerved into his lane with no time for him to react trying to force him off the road. This resulted in a head-on collision. The driver and front seat passenger required CPR, which my son administered in spite of his own injuries. The driver was pronounced dead at the scene. The front seat passenger died in the hospital a few days later. The back seat passenger admitted that they intentionally swerved into his lane.

        So the court rulings state that the only legal obligation a LEO has is to enforce laws, but the officers who are on the job for the right reason do it out of their desire to help and protect the people in their community.

        1. avatar I Haz A Question says:

          My condolences. A year ago, my own adult son was involved in a head-on collision. He was on a motorcycle, while the other driver was a young 20-something who was being cocky behind the wheel to mess with people, according to witnesses. The motorcycle was destroyed, my son flipped over the car through the air to land on the pavement hard enough to black out. Woke up in the middle of the street with two responding deputies kneeling over him as they waiting for EMS. Fortunately, he was wearing heavy gear – full helmet, leather jacket with Kevlar inserts, boots, etc. – but suffered road rash all along one side of his body.

          Hope your son is okay.

    2. avatar arc says:

      If extra responsibilities now grant extra rights and privileges then they also require higher standards, yet I don’t see too many cops being subject to the whole higher standards part. CCL and concealed armor should be the order of the day like the rest of us tax slaves.

      If he is required to be armed off duty as part of a policy then he is also required to respect the policy of other establishments.

      Plenty of cops are allowed to run and hide, *cough* Broward county. Slow response times to no-go zones if they ever show up at all, just another method of waiting until danger has passed before arriving to fill out the paperwork. Courts have already decided that cops have no duty to protect us, I see no reason to continue to pay for them.

      I’ll believe the farce about oath keeping when the good cops turn in the bad ones, the majority seem to be bad these days, rather than good. Especially in places like Harris county (Houston), NYC, and Chiraq. Every run in with a cop I’ve ever had in my life has been an abuse of power for personal amusement, trespassing, warrant-less searching, intimidation, and yes, assault (part of wrong house incident). As you can imagine, I don’t want them around and I go out of my way to avoid them, even with a spotless record.

      1. avatar Brian says:

        As I wrote my comment , I knew someone would mention Broward County. Why was the court of public opinion so critical of his actions? Because we expect more of those who choose the career of law enforcement. We expect it, and when an individual LEO fails to live up to that expectation, whether in the public eye or through our own interactions with them, we generalize their behavior as indicative of all LEOs. We become suspicious of all, but still expect them to do their jobs. In no way do I condone the action of the deputy in Parkland, his failure to proactively intervene is inexcusable. But he is in the minority, as are many of the officers you’ve encountered. Count how many negative interactions you’ve experienced with LEOs and compare that to the total number of LEO’s in the country. I believe you’ll find the percentage to be extremely low

        1. avatar arc says:

          Yes, the minority, I guess that explains why police shoot people through windows, taser the mentally ill and people in wheel chairs, shoot dogs on sight. . . except when they miss and hit the kids, abuse their power and taught the elderly, abuse their power and force pet owners to behead their own dogs, flash bang babies, rummage through peoples trash for tea leaves. etc, etc, ETC.

          Cowardice is the way of the game and it isn’t the minority.

    3. avatar SwampDaddy says:

      Brian, I understand the inherent paternal admiration you express for your son. It is evident that you are still an ill informed citizen . Your statement “A LEO has taken on additional responsibilities and personal risk to serve and protect.” Is just partly correct.

      I’m sure he is required to serve in order to earn his paycheck. However, to protect is just a pandering ruse by politicians and law enforcement and no more ! The Supreme Court has stated so on multiple cases.

      1. avatar Brian says:

        Ill informed? If I appear to be, so be it. I know “legally “ there is no obligation to serve and protect. An I’ve experienced interactions with LEOs who seemed to be motivated by the power of the badge. But paternal pride aside I’ve known countless others who live up to the serve AND protect motto. I choose to expect a higher motivation than a “paycheck,” because it instills a sense of gratitude and respect even if not all LEOs live up to our expectations.

        1. avatar In for a Penny, In for a pound says:

          Your son is who WE Citizens have the right to carry guns to keep away from our families. If your son tries to enforce unconstitutional laws, then he is the kind of morally inferior public servant, who the Founders made sure the Citizens could use force upon.

          Cops are nothing but societal janitors with high rates of suicide, domestic violence, and substance abuse.

    4. avatar LarryinTX says:

      Have you informed the cops at Parkland that they are not allowed to run and hide in an emergency? Cops are people. No one should be allowed to demand that people be disarmed. But no special privileges for cops, if they need guns, so do I.

  26. avatar Dale Menard says:

    Gun control taken to its logical conclusion.

  27. avatar TexasJack says:

    my answer is I stay the heck out of Chicago and Illinois so I won’t have to go to a liberaltard policy making hospital.. the security guard there is obviously uneducated and anleft wing nut.. no officer is going to surrender their weapon at any time for any reason.. the liberaltards are dumber then I thought if they believe an officer would..

  28. avatar Timothy Toroian says:

    That’s not a hospital, it a mismanaged nut house! The logic is amazing.

  29. avatar former water walker says:

    No sympathy johnny law. Minor error in your article Boch. The black female Doctor at Mercy Hospital was NEVER married to the murderer.EX- Boyfriend. Our good friend’s son-in-law was an anesthesiologist at Mercy and knew her well. Tragic especially with coward “guard’s”.

  30. avatar Leighton says:

    So….cops don’t show up when hospital calls 911 for them. Simple.

    1. avatar sparkyinWI says:

      No one at the hospital stated the LE could not be armed when performing lawful duties. As for not showing up now you have just proven what others state about LE in general. They are supposed to be professionals. Professionals do their jobs no matter the politics, what they may think about policies, etc.

      And any LE decide not to respond appropriately to 911 or such calls per their job in order to punish an institution, etc. then they do not have the morals, ethics, professionalism, etc. to be wearing a badge and have a firearm to begin with. And as such need to be terminated and removed from the job. And anyone who defends or proposes such action needs to take a long look in a mirror at themselves and their own morals, ethics, etc. or lack there of.

      1. avatar LarryinTX says:

        That sounds exactly like the BS we hear from grabbers forever. You swore an oath, so when I pass a law requiring you to go door-to-door and collect personal weapons by force, lethal force if necessary, of course you must obey me, or die trying. You cannot expect me to dirty my own hands, or worse, assume any personal risk, don’t be silly. Completely idiotic, but you believe getting into word games will save your ass when you go too far. It won’t.

  31. avatar Dennis says:

    One can’t help but wonder who they think will respond to serious trouble at the ER, unarmed conflict resolution experts???

  32. avatar borg says:

    If they physically touched the officer it technically is assault and battery. Assuming as much they are lucky he did not arrest them for assault and battery of a police officer.

  33. avatar macgearailt says:

    You work in a community that constantly votes for people who choose this type of policy and then you complain ,seems inconsistent . Was this officer expecting a special law enforcement cut-out policy that would have allowed him to be armed whilst everyone else might as well be naked ? Sorry , that’s a no go .

  34. avatar Chris T in KY says:

    Chiraq is stupid.

  35. avatar dpk54 says:

    I have never heard of anything so STUPID!!!! Welcome to the hellhole of Illinois!!!
    Most hospitals I know of allow only sworn police officers inside with firearms. I would rather have an armed police officer there, especially having to work around the thugs that are brought in through the ER ….most of the time LE is there to keep troublemakers from causing problems!! Besides, most DECENT departments require that the firearm be carried at all times when on duty!!!! I have a suggestion to those who think otherwise….next time you’re in trouble PLEASE leave the police out of it……I wouldn’t lift a finger to help anyone with such views on law enforcement!!!!!

    1. avatar Sam Hill says:

      Good! Cause if I ever have an emergency I plan on calling the fire department anyway. I’m afraid to call a cop cause with my luck I’d get one like that dumb ass and his partner out in Texas.

  36. avatar Guy Tuten says:

    you know as a gun carrier I don’t like having to leave my gun behind when I go into certain places but for them to make a cop give up their weapon is just wrong because like that one if they had gotten a call right outside they would have had to go get the gun then respond that could have taken a few minutes that might cost somebody their life because of a stupid rule

    1. avatar Sam Hill says:

      You don’t want to play “what if” what if he wasn’t a real police officer? What if something did happen in the waiting room and he drew his service weapon it discharged and killed a nine year old boy who had mumps . Don’t play games, you can’t make the rules for. Or live with.

      1. avatar Jerry Sweet says:

        Come on stop being stupid maybe the moon is green cheese

      2. avatar LarryinTX says:

        Yo, dumbass! Here’s the truth about guns for today. You just shined your ass as seriously iggorunt, service weapons do not “discharge”. They are fired, or they are not. If he draws his firearm and shoots a 9-year-old, he will have a problem, which I may also if I’m there, since I will be armed. And you can’t stop me from being armed. You may exist in la-la land, but I remain in the real world, and concealed is concealed.

  37. avatar Chris Mallory says:

    If he is conducting personal business, visiting a retired buddy in the hospital, he is not on duty. If he is on duty, then he is wasting tax payer money and should be fired.

    It is well past time we disarmed all cops. Citizens should be armed, not government employees.

    1. avatar borg says:

      I could use that same logic to declare that you quit your job by going to lunch.

    2. avatar LarryinTX says:

      In a perfect world, I could agree. If a firearm is needed, a cop could ask a bystander to assist.

  38. avatar Chip Bennett says:

    I am okay with this.

    Equal protection under the law. What is good (lawful) for the non-LEO civilian is equally good for the LEO civilian.

    If more LEO were forced to endure unconstitutional laws, maybe they would join us in opposing more of them.

    1. avatar ",keep yur paws off my dead guy" possum says:

      Injustice for all

  39. avatar ",keep yur paws off my dead guy" possum says:

    The hospitol should have dialed 911.

  40. avatar Brian says:

    This article raises other concerns. The officer was in uniform. When the public sees an officer in uniform, isn’t the general assumption tha the officer is on-duty regardless of their actual duty status? When your driving over the speed limit and see a cop car, you slow down because you assume he’s on duty and you’ll get a ticket.

    So heaven forbid a situation arose at the hospital, and the officer “runs and hides,” because he is off duty and complied with the policy. In the public eye, he was in uniform why didn’t he take action? Enter the media and court of public opinion. Politicians calling for investigation, the public labeling him a coward. They don’t care that he was not in the hospital in an official capacity. They assumed he was.

    1. avatar ",keep yur paws off my dead guy" possum says:

      You slow down? I punch the gas and pull out the shooter

      1. avatar Brian says:

        Yeah, my comment is all about following traffic laws… sheesh

        1. avatar ",keep yur paws off my dead guy" possum says:

          My conment is FTL

    2. avatar borg says:

      This hospital needs to realize that by disarming on duty cops they can potentially be held legally liable for harm resulting from disarming them. Can hospitals afford to pay tens of millions of dollars for wrongful deaths linked to their disarming police officers? Can hospitals afford to risk employees being prosecuted for disarming police if death results?

      1. avatar Leslie says:

        I what way, if there in a Hospital. If anything compromises the Security of the Hospital, it would be the Hospital Staff and Patient that would be endanger, not the Police…

        1. avatar borg says:

          If someone were to die down the street because the cop was forced to wait 15 minutes to get his pistol back then the family would be able to sue the hospital since their actions contributed to the death of the victim.

        2. avatar Leslie says:

          A lot of “What If’s” in your comment! The Hospital I go to has both a Fire Station and Police Station with 100-feet of the Emergency Entrance…

        3. avatar borg says:

          No all hospitals have a police station and fire house anywhere near them and those that do not have them near endanger public safety by disarming on duty cops especially if the cop has to wait 10 or 15 minutes or longer to get his firearm back before responding to an urgent call.

        4. avatar Leslie says:

          Go to INOVA Mount Vernon Hospital in Alexandria, Virginia, and you’ll be proved wrong…

        5. avatar LarryinTX says:

          Leslie, if this hospital which you are so enamored with does not have *every* individual enter through a metal detector, under the watchful eye of armed guards, every day, like airports (and none that I have heard of do!), then there are lots of guns in your hospital every day, many probably carried by doctors and nurses. You are talking foolishness.

        6. avatar Leslie says:

          They do have Metal Detectors and Security Guards there. INOVA is the Largest Hospital System in Northern Virginia. With Six Locations and have revenues of ~$2.7-Billion/year. Dick Chaney had his Heart Transplant at the INOVA Fairfax Hospital less than 6 miles from the NRA HQ in Fairfax…

    3. avatar Jerry Sweet says:

      If iam on duty and security guard hassles me she goes to jail thwy have no authority over police

      1. avatar Chip Bennett says:

        Your comment makes you sound like one of those LEOs who believes that you are somehow more-than-civilian.

        Why would the security guard (acting otherwise lawfully)have no legal authority over a police officer on hospital property?

        The same holds for any private property owner. On my property, if I’m acting otherwise lawfully, I absolutely have legal authority over your continued presence on my property.

        1. avatar ",keep yur paws off my dead guy" possum says:

          Because there is more LEO’s then security gaurds. Numbers equal power

        2. avatar LarryinTX says:

          Chip, I’m no expert, but it’s my impression that security guards have no authority over anyone, if legal authority is required they call a COP! So if he refused to cooperate, they could call him on him, but nothing else.

      2. avatar Warlocc says:

        Good luck. Depending on the facility, in house security will shoot you and toss your dead, dumb ass out in the street for your friends to come collect, perfectly legally.

        1. avatar Jerry Sweet says:

          And swat kills them you idiot

  41. avatar MLee says:

    The only plus is that the cops get to eat and chew being disarmed like the rest of us. Doesn’t taste so well does it!!

    1. avatar Jerry Sweet says:

      They have no legal authority over police regardless of company policies his big mistake was complying

      1. avatar SwampDaddy says:

        Boot Licking noted.

      2. avatar LarryinTX says:

        I don’t see a reason for him to make a big fuss. And, Hell, he’s a cop in Chicago, you know he has at least one BUG, it’s not like he’d be disarmed.

  42. avatar Victor 615 says:

    If the hospital is this incompetent with this issue, it makes one wonder about the quality of care they provide. This is one of the most stupid policies ever created by anyone ever! I would never use this hospital for any kind of elective surgery or other care. It appears to be run by morons!

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:


  43. avatar Ad Astra says:

    Has anyone bothered to check if the hospital policy is backed up by state statute or has its board of directors decided they are now an extraterritorial entity?

  44. avatar Ralph says:

    Cry me a river, Officer Friendly. If it was me who was carrying, you would have run me off in a heartbeat and slapped me in cuffs if I didn’t kiss your badge.

    I guess it’s not so much fun when it’s your ox that’s gored.

    1. avatar ",keep yur paws off my dead guy" possum says:

      You think? I think the LEO’s would have kindly ask you to return your weapon to your vehicle or another place of safe storage. Then poured you a cup of that good old hospitol coffee snd throwed it in your face… Ask the snake why he bit the squaw

  45. avatar Alan says:

    The rank stupidity of these dictum’s is annoying, to say the very least. What I find most interesting is the following. Who is responsible for this foolishness, and by the way, how did they ever attain a position of authority? Did they perhaps win it in a crap game?

  46. avatar PATRON49IFT says:

    There is reason to rejoice here and reason to shake you head in wonder at the stupidity.

    Rejoice because the law is being equally applied to all with no special favors to anyone or group. Tired of the carve-outs for the ‘special people’>

    Shake your head at the sheer stupidity of the entire idea of gun free zones.

  47. avatar Xaun Loc says:

    I have to admit that I have mixed feelings about this story.

    I’m appalled at the way the policy was applied, but at the same time I support the unarmed security guard for doing her job as she is supposed to. I also 100% agree with her advice to the cop: “You will have to do like the rest of us, which is to run and hide.”

    Personally I am sick and tired or all sorts of laws that make unreasonable demands on citizens but exempt police. If talking on your cell phone while driving is dangerous (and it is) then why is it magically safe for police to do the same thing? We would see a lot fewer stupid laws if those laws applied to everyone instead of carving out exemptions for groups of people who think they are special.

    The article makes a point of saying the officer was “on duty” then tap dances that he was visiting a friend in the hospital while “on break” — I know the (Only) Blue Lives Matter crowd will be chanting that LEOs are “on duty” 24/7 but that is just rhetoric that they trot out to explain all the laws they are exempt from. Bottom line here is that this police officer was acting in his role as an ordinary citizen – just like anyone else visiting a friend or relative in the hospital – and should be treated exactly like everyone else. If a law abiding citizen who has jumped through all the stupid hoops for a FOID and carry permit in Chicago cannot carry in the hospital, then no one should be carrying in that hospital except perhaps a police officer who is really on duty there.

    1. avatar ",keep yur paws off my dead guy" possum says:

      Excemptions you say. Of course they are excempt, cant run a racket without it. Law Enforcement Officer, not quite sure where the officer part comes in, but the law enforcer part is there. You pass a law and pay someone to enforce it.

  48. avatar Sam Hill says:

    I think it’s great, what’s good for the goose is good for the gander. The sooner more places like that, the sooner 2A be safe. He should not have been there while on duty in first place. I’d give him a five day rip, and a letter of reprimand in his permant file, if I didn’t just fire him outright. If we are not all equal under the law, the law is no good, and the governing body is corrupt.

    1. avatar borg says:

      Perhaps this will force the police union to put pressure on government officials to make a law that prohibits hospitals from banning guns.

  49. avatar borg says:

    This cop should complain since this hospital may be violating a law by demanding an on duty cop disarm even if not acting in their official capacity. I hear even post offices let officers in the building armed when on duty but not acting in their official capacity.

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      Post offices always allow me to enter armed.

  50. avatar borg says:

    Armed police are a protected class in Texas so if a hospital in Texas did that they would be engaging in illegal discrimination based on Texas law.

    1. avatar Leslie says:

      As I recall, the “Protected Class” status only applies to Hate Crimes committed [against] Police! Telling a Police Officer that their not allowed to carry a Firearm in a Gun Free Zone, isn’t considered a Hate Crime…

      1. avatar borg says:

        If I remember correctly it is worded in Texas to prohibit discrimination of armed law enforcement. Kicking a cop out for being armed law enforcement would be treated the same in Texas as the hospital kicking out a person for being black.

        1. avatar LarryinTX says:

          Except stupider, since the LEO is ARMED!

  51. avatar borg says:

    Texas law states that “An establishment serving the public may not prohibit or otherwise restrict a peace officer or special investigator from carrying on the establishment’s premises a weapon that the peace officer or special investigator is otherwise authorized to carry, regardless of whether the peace officer or special investigator is engaged in the actual discharge of the officer’s or investigator’s duties while carrying the weapon,” A hospital may be considered an establishment serving the public and therefore they would be violating this portion of Texas state law by forcing them to disarm if their hospital was in Texas.

  52. avatar Hannibal says:

    Supervisors should issue a written directive that CPD shall not respond to the hospital for any calls for service unless it is in response to a violent crime in-progress. Otherwise, let unarmed security deal with it. No theft calls, no trespass calls (important one!) and no business checks.

  53. avatar Donttreadonme says:

    Good, if private citizens cant carry, then no one should be able to. We do NOT have a two tiered system…. at least we arent supposed to.

  54. avatar Ethan I Lewis says:

    I live in Chicago and have spent much time at Presence St. Joseph’s Hospital. After reading this, I feel ashamed. This is disgraceful.

  55. avatar Russel Helmers says:

    Well if I was the Officer I’d go back and read State Statues on the Unarming of an Officer. Then I’d go back to the Hospital and arrest everybody involved with attempting to disarm me. No policy ever over rides a Law and Illinois State Law requires Officers to go armed 24-7

    1. avatar Hannibal says:

      Really. Please cite the law and language that “requires” officers to be armed 24/7 (I’m gonna let you think about the practicalities of that one for a second). Then please cite law and language that allows you to arrest someone who orders you to leave a private, religiously affiliated business in which you have no official business- because that’s what happened here. This absolutely would not fall under the plain language of 720 ILCS 5/31-1a, if that’s what you’re getting at.

      It’s a good thing you’re not the officer. There’s nothing more dangerous than someone who knows laws without understanding them. Although I’m sure some plaintiff’s lawyer would love you.

  56. avatar Wally1 says:

    Hey wake up, it’s Chicago. You want high crime rates, high taxes, corruption and poverty? Just keep voting Democrat. Prove me wrong. I won’t even visit Chicago, hope the whole city Implodes. Why is this even news?.

  57. avatar Hannibal says:

    Looks like my comments are disappearing again.

    The hospital should change their idiotic policy, as it is worse than most since it practically only effects cops (non-cops aren’t carrying openly).

    If not CPD should simply refuse to respond to any call for service from inside the hospital that does not involve a violent crime. Everything else can wait or be taken care of by they vaunted unarmed security. Dangers to life should still be responded to, of course, at which time security is ignored as they have zero authority to disarm an officer or stop him or her from the performance of official duties (as opposed to visiting someone, arguably) in such a place. The biggest result of this would be that the hospital can deal with its own trespass calls (i.e. some drunk hobo won’t get out of the waiting room) which would free up some officers to do real work.

    1. avatar Hannibal says:

      nevermind, technical error on my part leading to doubleposting. Oops.

  58. avatar GS650G says:

    Should the hospital call police for help the dispatcher can advise them to run and hide.

  59. avatar Beeroy says:

    So you’re “requiring” an on-duty police officer to hand over his duty weapon to an UNARMED security guard.
    WTF are you gonna do if he DOESN’T hand it over?
    Call a cop?

  60. avatar Tim says:

    “Yeah, smart people don’t go up against an armed spree killer when workplace policy keeps them disarmed.”

    Smart people don’t live in Chicago.

    1. avatar Hannibal says:

      Happily, it is not that difficult to get a license to carry a concealed weapon in the state anymore- as evidenced by many DGUs in the city in the past few years. Unfortunately the place is still very anti-gun so they push control wherever they can.

  61. avatar LeadFinger says:

    An incredibly dumb policy. Cops is cops. Unarmed cops is just people.

  62. avatar Warlocc says:

    As others have stated- good.
    Subject enough cops to the same laws and rules that the rest of us obey, and maybe they’ll start standing up to stupid laws and rules.

  63. avatar Chunk says:

    I wouldn’t trust a Chicago cop with a hairdryer, never mind a gun. They’re a bunch of crooked murdering liars.

  64. avatar Mott says:

    What did the lone female security officer tell the cop to do if he surrendered his gun and then needed it while inside the hospital? “You will have to do like the rest of us, which is to run and hide.”…….I worked as a security guard in one, I can tell you this we where unarmed also but that never stopped me or the other guards from doing our jobs….

  65. avatar Jack says:

    This is why Constitutional carry laws are so important. I bet you there were at least ten good citizens in that hospital carrying and alert to signs of impending danger.

  66. avatar borg says:

    The hospital risks being held legally liable if on-duty cops comply with the gun free policy by locking it in their car only for it to be stolen. It is illegal to disarm an on-duty cop on official business but perhaps a provision needs to be added to the law to prevent businesses from feeling empowered to disarm cops. Cops usually will not let someone disarm them even if they are on break so fixing to have more common sense would eliminate this issue.

    1. avatar grendal says:

      Yeah, crazy.. I pitch a fit like this and every cop would instantly arrest me make me a felon then red flag me if allowed by their state law.

  67. avatar BusyBeef says:

    Concealed means concealed.

    I carry in hospitals all the time, even with “no guns” policies.

  68. avatar janice alderson says:

    I have never heard of any thing so stupid. Why even have cops. MORONS

  69. avatar borg says:

    The policy may be illegal since it would cause staff that do not have FOID cards to commit felonies by taking possession of firearms without FOID cards.

  70. avatar borg says:

    This incident may cause police to push for laws prohibiting unjustified disarming of law abiding citizens that way all citizens including police will have their 2nd amendment rights protected. If the law does applies equally to all citizens it can not be easily challenged by these hospitals.

  71. avatar borg says:

    What happens if a cop gets shot in the line of duty and dozens of cops arrive at this hospital only for the employees to attempt to forcibly disarm them while they are on duty? The official capacity is so vague that the prosecutor could easily argue that being in uniform while on duty is the very definition of official capacity. If being in uniform while on duty does not mean that they are acting in their official capacity then why are police required not to engage in police activity while in uniform.

  72. avatar Tom says:

    Most departments require police officers to be armed while in uniform and on duty. I wouldn’t be surprised if Chicago was the same. Whoever made this decision needs to check into Chicago Behavioral Health down the road. Ridiculous !!

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email