Too much, too little, so what is just right?

Normally when I read and editorial in The Standard Times, and newspaper, I do a bit of digging (research wise) before accepting the premise. In today's online paper anyway, there is a piece about a matter where we recently raked through a few of the issues.

However unrealistic some might feel it is, and acknowledging one point of contention I foresee, about just how "rigorous" the training should be, I note it is an opinion piece that should be heeded:

With rigorous training, certification, and oversight, armed shellfish wardens should be able to fulfill their duties while ensuring the safety of the public at large, shellfishers, and themselves. The three caveats, of course, must be non-negotiable.

Should there be a full blown police academy, including the drill, physical tests, etc.? No. Whatever aspects of that part of training for public safety officers should be considered, I will leave to the powers that be to debate.

The "classroom aspects", well exercising arrest powers should require one to be well versed in those little issues such a reasonable grounds, probable cause, misdemeanor, felony, when and when not the use of deadly force is authorized.

Please, let's not turn this into the great debate raging throughout society.

I agree totally with the concept of allowing them to be armed. I don't agree that a firearm safety course and some self-defense courses are enough. Nor is adding just a few course on dealing with confrontation.

There are several major considerations at play. Yes, the safety of the shellfish officers should be paramount. In today's world expecting someone to make an arrest and expecting all suspects to go gracefully away with the officer is not realistic.

We all would like to hope and think that the gun will never have to come out of the holster. But we have to give full consideration to the likelihood that it will.

The if and when for that is where the training becomes extremely important. As crass as some may find any discussion about money to this issue, lack of training for public officials authorized to carry firearms in the performance of their duties is very often the determining factor in claims brought.

And money is the only aspect of any argument against the caveats in the editorial cited above.

This is not an issue that curtails a citizens 2nd amendment rights. While on the job you are not acting as a citizen.

I am not going to get involved in a great debate about what should be.

Our officials have to make decisions on the official level about what is.

In closing, note this:

1. I agree they should be armed.
2. I absolutely agree that certification and oversight should be key components of the policy. I fail to see where there should be any debate on this.
3. It seems the level of training is a sticking point. A full police academy type program. I will go along with the "no" and say that would be too much. A simple firearms course, the type the average citizen takes to get a license to carry. Way too little.

Whatever the "in between" point is, is debatable. There has to be a whole lot of emphasis placed on the "when" part. When you should and can draw that gun. When you can fire that gun.

I don't think that is unrealistic. I don't think proper training for any law enforcement officer is unrealistic.

The only argument against such training is not wanting to pay for it.