Those rulings established that there is no entitlement to individual protection from criminal activity by the police. And Gonzales ruled that there was no property interest in having a restraining order enforced. there is nothing that says police have zero obligation for public safety. In fact in Washington statutory law in this state (RCW 9A.80.010) which makes it a crime to fail to discharge duties required by law, and RCW 36.28.010 requires county sheriff's to arrest all persons who breach the peace or commit public offenses. So there is in fact an obligation to public safety spelled out in law, at least in this state.
RCW 9A.80.010 makes it a crime to
intentionally do something criminal, or to
intentionally not do something when you are required by law
to do something. What I can't find is a law that explicitly states that a cop is required by law to prevent a crime, even if that cop witnesses the crime in progress. There are all sorts of laws that gives the cop the authority to do something, but I have not yet found a law that states that he must do something with that authority right then and there. But, to be honest I'm not looking all that hard. The vast majority of cops work very hard to do the best they can every day and comply with the law and uphold their oath. But the point remains valid.
But not felony records, felony applicants cannot be hired, and any police officer who is convicted of a felony must be decertified (RCW 43.101.105)
Not true, there is an exception 1(c), it's in there.....funny, it's quite possible that you could be bust for a misdemeanor by a convicted felon.....:uhoh:
Yes you can refuse to allow police officers on your property, they may however enter with a warrant or in some cases, probable cause. If they are entering your property outside of official duties then they may be arrested the same as any citizen.
The reason for their entry onto my property is irrelevant. The property owner should/may have every right to demand their ID and "check them out", especially if they enter upon my property without permission or lawful authority.
Not true at all, I can think of at least three cases off the top of my head in which officers have been fired for abusing people's rights.
Officer Harless of Canton Ohio was fired for threatening to kill a lawfully armed citizen for not informing his he was armed fast enough, Sergeant Kuhlein of St George Missouri was fired for threatening to fabricate charges against a college student who asked him why he was being stopped (the college kid was in a parked car at a park and ride lot that's open 24 hours)
An Ohio police chief was fired for beating a man already in custody, bad cops get fired all the time. of course if you want firings for every single "questionable" stop made there'd be no one qualified to do police work.
Harless was not fired because he abused a citizen's rights, he was cleared of any wrong doing on that account. He was fired because the public backlash from his death threats caught on dash-cam tape, on several different occasions, made him unemployable by the city due to looming litigation if the city did not act. What you may find of some interest is that his partner seems to have retained his job simply because he was not the "articulate one" of the two during those incidents.
It seems that Sgt. Kuhlein was hired by Velda City PD until he was charged in November 2011 with a felony crimes.
http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/...cle_4fa372cc-0a81-11e1-b0a6-001a4bcf6878.html
Cops "breaking the law" is far different that cops violating your rights and getting off without so much as a sticky note attached to their service record. And, I suspect, that you know this to be true in every LEA anywhere. It is the very rare exception that a cop get fired for violating a citizen's rights. The Madison 5, skidmark, MKEgal are just a few of those who have been unlawful subjected to the legal system and those thug cops have retained their jobs. I'll bet some of those thug cops have "earned" promotions since their thuggery was repudiated.
Maybe in your state you can, I mean I can file a criminal complaint against anyone I want, but if the Prosecuting Attorney won't take it then you're dead in the water. PA's nearly always take police initiated cases, they rarely waste their time with civilian complaints unless the matter is serious.
You just cited RCW 9A.80.010. So, which is it? Cops can or can not be charged for official misconduct? However, you are correct, the odds of a cop being charged with a gross misdemeanor under RCW 9A.80.010 are virtually nil.
I'm saying my general frustration with people like David McBeth is that they consider every single time an officer stops someone without what THEY would consider RAS is a firable offense, Or they compare to a felony criminal code offense which it's not.
I agree.....but it sure would be nice if cops did not, ever, stop you unless they did have RAS. At least we all would know that the stop was lawful going into the stop.
Anyone who supports the concept of "consensual contact" is anti-liberty, anti-citizen in my view.
Mr. Mcbeth stated earlier on the column that a group of guardsmen who told their CO we will not confiscate guns weren't doing enough, and then implied that they should've opened fire on the Louisiana guardsmen counterparts who did. As if the first thing Louisiana needed was the authorities engaged in firefights with each other and ignoring the gangs roaming the streets.
It's his opinion.....not mine. By the way, there were many "uniformed gangs" roaming the streets too, as we now know lo these many years later. I am extremely disappointed that NOPD was placed under federal control after those egregious acts and that the vast majority of those cops remain NOPD officers to this day.
I don't want a society with laws as interpreted by david mcbeth[/QUOTE]I do not want a society with laws as
interpreted by cops.
