bayboy42
Regular Member
imported post
UTOC - when did the officer command you to aid or assist him?
UTOC - when did the officer command you to aid or assist him?
-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
Backed up a Cop out of Nowhere
- Thread starter UTOC-45-44
- Start date
Pa. Patriot
State Researcher
imported post
"bayboy42 wrote:
"Acting by his command" does NOT mean he commanded you to do so.
It means under his direction, under his command, at his authority, ect
Good lord.
"bayboy42 wrote:
"Acting by his command" does NOT mean he commanded you to do so.
It means under his direction, under his command, at his authority, ect
Good lord.
UTOC-45-44
Regular Member
imported post
bayboy42
Regular Member
imported post
Ok fine PA, explain how any of the 3 meanings you list apply to this situation?
Ok fine PA, explain how any of the 3 meanings you list apply to this situation?
UTOC-45-44
Regular Member
imported post
Pa. Patriot
State Researcher
imported post
bayboy42 wrote:
I really am not sure what you don't understand, sorry. It seems pretty simple the way it is written.
bayboy42 wrote:
The LEO acknowleged him and then he stood there awaiting direction of LEO or need to react to potential issues.
I really am not sure what you don't understand, sorry. It seems pretty simple the way it is written.
combatcarry
Regular Member
imported post
I admit its hard to follow this thread with so many deleted items.
It appears that he is trying to justify the use of deadly force because he was under the command of the officer.
76-2-404. Peace officer's use of deadly force.
(1) A peace officer, or any person acting by his command in his aid and assistance, is justified in using deadly force whenby acting by hiscommandin his aid and assistance, is justified in using deadly force.
I've always interpreted this section to mean the following: if the officer asks you to shoot someone, and you shoot them, it is justified. The situation doesn't matter. It is the cops butt for telling you to shoot someone.
This in no way gives you justification to shoot somebody just because you are aiding an officer. You are not a cop, just because you are helping one. :banghead:
I would have totally avoided the situation. I would consider a couple of kids on bullet bikes very little threat to anybody. But, I admit I wasn't in your shoes.
I admit its hard to follow this thread with so many deleted items.
It appears that he is trying to justify the use of deadly force because he was under the command of the officer.
76-2-404. Peace officer's use of deadly force.
(1) A peace officer, or any person acting by his command in his aid and assistance, is justified in using deadly force whenby acting by hiscommandin his aid and assistance, is justified in using deadly force.
I've always interpreted this section to mean the following: if the officer asks you to shoot someone, and you shoot them, it is justified. The situation doesn't matter. It is the cops butt for telling you to shoot someone.
This in no way gives you justification to shoot somebody just because you are aiding an officer. You are not a cop, just because you are helping one. :banghead:
I would have totally avoided the situation. I would consider a couple of kids on bullet bikes very little threat to anybody. But, I admit I wasn't in your shoes.
bayboy42
Regular Member
imported post
Ok, I'm done asking questions, I'll just make my point and be done with it.
UTOC, you put yourself in a posiition that could have (but luckily didn't) lead to some very serious legal troubles. Based on your original post, the officer never commanded, directed, instructed you to do anything or gave any other indication that he needed aid or assistance or that he was accepting your voluntary assistance. Based on your analysis and interpretationof this situation, anyone in Utah can just position themselves in the middle of a LEO stop and as long as the LEO doesn't immediately say anything to the contrary suddenly be "given" a different set of rules and guidelines to operate under. (which for those of you who missed it UTOC stated in one of his posts but then later deleted it). Do you really think Utah Code Section 76-2-404had situations like this in mind when it was penned. I'd say probably not.
Maybe look at the situation with an alternate ending...one that resulted in UTOC firing his weapon and hitting/killing one of the "bullet bikers"...which was later surrounded by questions from the community about whether the use of deadly force was justified. UTOC are you 100% sure that the officer would have then stated outright that Mr. UTOC was "acting bymy command in my aid and assistance"? I honestly don't think Utah Code Section 76-2-404 would provide ya much cover.
I'm sure some of you are sitting around saying Good Lord, whats bayboy's beef with this post.........nothing bad came of it.......yada yada yada....I'll go ahead and answer that now. I had about a two hour conversation last night after the Norfolk VA city council meeting with my wife who ain't what I would call a strong proponent of carrying guns. During this conversation, a large portion of the time was spent with me trying to dispel typical misconceptions that people who carry guns are more apt to enter into situations that they typically wouldn't....try to act like police/mall ninjas/ so on and so forth. So then UTOC posts this story so I'm positive when I get home tonight, I'll be met with a big "See I was right....did you read what UTOC-45-44 did when he went out to get the mail"?
I'm not expecting people to agree with everything I'm saying here, just see my point. I'm ok with with agreeing to disagree:lol:
There were two other posts made while i was typing that diatribe:
PaPatriot - so you are considering UTOC's statement of "He looked briefly my way and didn't Object." as meaning "he LEO acknowleged him and then he stood there awaiting direction of LEO ".
combatcarry - good to see you understand my point even before i got it all out.
Ok, I'm done asking questions, I'll just make my point and be done with it.
UTOC, you put yourself in a posiition that could have (but luckily didn't) lead to some very serious legal troubles. Based on your original post, the officer never commanded, directed, instructed you to do anything or gave any other indication that he needed aid or assistance or that he was accepting your voluntary assistance. Based on your analysis and interpretationof this situation, anyone in Utah can just position themselves in the middle of a LEO stop and as long as the LEO doesn't immediately say anything to the contrary suddenly be "given" a different set of rules and guidelines to operate under. (which for those of you who missed it UTOC stated in one of his posts but then later deleted it). Do you really think Utah Code Section 76-2-404had situations like this in mind when it was penned. I'd say probably not.
Maybe look at the situation with an alternate ending...one that resulted in UTOC firing his weapon and hitting/killing one of the "bullet bikers"...which was later surrounded by questions from the community about whether the use of deadly force was justified. UTOC are you 100% sure that the officer would have then stated outright that Mr. UTOC was "acting bymy command in my aid and assistance"? I honestly don't think Utah Code Section 76-2-404 would provide ya much cover.
I'm sure some of you are sitting around saying Good Lord, whats bayboy's beef with this post.........nothing bad came of it.......yada yada yada....I'll go ahead and answer that now. I had about a two hour conversation last night after the Norfolk VA city council meeting with my wife who ain't what I would call a strong proponent of carrying guns. During this conversation, a large portion of the time was spent with me trying to dispel typical misconceptions that people who carry guns are more apt to enter into situations that they typically wouldn't....try to act like police/mall ninjas/ so on and so forth. So then UTOC posts this story so I'm positive when I get home tonight, I'll be met with a big "See I was right....did you read what UTOC-45-44 did when he went out to get the mail"?
I'm not expecting people to agree with everything I'm saying here, just see my point. I'm ok with with agreeing to disagree:lol:
There were two other posts made while i was typing that diatribe:
PaPatriot - so you are considering UTOC's statement of "He looked briefly my way and didn't Object." as meaning "he LEO acknowleged him and then he stood there awaiting direction of LEO ".
combatcarry - good to see you understand my point even before i got it all out.
imported post
Bayboy +1. Nothing wrong with helping out a cop in trouble, but be sure he's in trouble before "helping" him. I wasn't there, only UTOC was, so none of us can "pass judgement" on him. I believe bayboy was just offering some words of caution.
Bayboy +1. Nothing wrong with helping out a cop in trouble, but be sure he's in trouble before "helping" him. I wasn't there, only UTOC was, so none of us can "pass judgement" on him. I believe bayboy was just offering some words of caution.
bayboy42
Regular Member
imported post
Exactly dngreer....please noone misconstrue my thoughts as passing judgement....especially in a situation that I was not there to experience first hand. "Words of caution" indeed.
Exactly dngreer....please noone misconstrue my thoughts as passing judgement....especially in a situation that I was not there to experience first hand. "Words of caution" indeed.
mark edward marchiafava
Banned
imported post
And all this time I thought open carry was to help protect the citizen from THEM !!!
And all this time I thought open carry was to help protect the citizen from THEM !!!
UTOC-45-44
Regular Member
imported post
bayboy42
Regular Member
imported post
I didn't say it was.
I didn't say it was.
mark edward marchiafava
Banned
imported post
dngreer wrote:
Let me educate you right now. There are NO "good cops." ANY cop who stands by and ALLOWS the "bad cops" to violate citizens is just as guilty as the so-called "bad cops."
The apostle Paul expressed remorse for having watched as OTHERS stoned the prophet Stephan to death. While Paul didn't cast any stones, he DID admit to holding the cloaks of those who DID. In legal terms, your "good cops" are accessories during and/or after the fact.
dngreer wrote:
mark edward marchiafava wrote:Not all cops are evil!They are still fighting the "bad guys" for the most part.
Let me educate you right now. There are NO "good cops." ANY cop who stands by and ALLOWS the "bad cops" to violate citizens is just as guilty as the so-called "bad cops."
The apostle Paul expressed remorse for having watched as OTHERS stoned the prophet Stephan to death. While Paul didn't cast any stones, he DID admit to holding the cloaks of those who DID. In legal terms, your "good cops" are accessories during and/or after the fact.
imported post
mark edward marchiafava wrote:
mark edward marchiafava wrote:
Not true. I have friends who are LEOs, and they are good people. I understand what you are trying to say, but I disagree.dngreer wrote:mark edward marchiafava wrote:Not all cops are evil!
Let me educate you right now. There are NO "good cops." ANY cop who stands by and ALLOWS the "bad cops" to violate citizens is just as guilty as the so-called "bad cops."
The apostle Paul expressed remorse for having watched as OTHERS stoned the prophet Stephan to death. While Paul didn't cast any stones, he DID admit to holding the cloaks of those who DID. In legal terms, your "good cops" are accessories during and/or after the fact.
Pa. Patriot
State Researcher
imported post
bayboy42 wrote:
Yes, in the context of the OP's description (the way it is written) that is the only to interpret it.
And, in the context of the event, the LEO's lack of objection = consent. Clearly if he did not want him to assist he would instruct him not to or step back etc.
I don't disagree, in general, with any of your points other than your apparent misunderstanding of the terms mentioned "acting by hiscommandin his aid and assistance"
bayboy42 wrote:
Yes, in the context of the OP's description (the way it is written) that is the only to interpret it.
And, in the context of the event, the LEO's lack of objection = consent. Clearly if he did not want him to assist he would instruct him not to or step back etc.
I don't disagree, in general, with any of your points other than your apparent misunderstanding of the terms mentioned "acting by hiscommandin his aid and assistance"
HankT
State Researcher
imported post
Anyone have a copy of the OP? Pls send it to me via PM.
I missed the whole thing!
Must've been real embarrassing if UTOC erased it ALL. :shock:
Anyone have a copy of the OP? Pls send it to me via PM.
I missed the whole thing!
Must've been real embarrassing if UTOC erased it ALL. :shock:
mark edward marchiafava
Banned
imported post
dngreer wrote:
dngreer wrote:
Yea, "good people." And I'm sure the Third Reich was also full of "good people." It's just that they were working for the wrong employer, right? You can disagree all you want, there STILL are no "good cops." I'm constantly amazed at how many Amerikans refuse to face reality..............to do so would require they admit what they've believed all their lives is wrong. Pride won't allow it........mark edward marchiafava wrote:Not true. I have friends who are LEOs, and they are good people. I understand what you are trying to say, but I disagree.dngreer wrote:mark edward marchiafava wrote:Not all cops are evil!
Let me educate you right now. There are NO "good cops." ANY cop who stands by and ALLOWS the "bad cops" to violate citizens is just as guilty as the so-called "bad cops."
The apostle Paul expressed remorse for having watched as OTHERS stoned the prophet Stephan to death. While Paul didn't cast any stones, he DID admit to holding the cloaks of those who DID. In legal terms, your "good cops" are accessories during and/or after the fact.
UTOC-45-44
Regular Member
imported post
mark edward marchiafava wrote:
mark edward marchiafava wrote:
So...why these "warm fuzzies":lol: towards LEO's mark edward marchiafava???dngreer wrote:Yea, "good people." And I'm sure the Third Reich was also full of "good people." It's just that they were working for the wrong employer, right? You can disagree all you want, there STILL are no "good cops." I'm constantly amazed at how many Amerikans refuse to face reality..............to do so would require they admit what they've believed all their lives is wrong. Pride won't allow it........mark edward marchiafava wrote:Not true. I have friends who are LEOs, and they are good people. I understand what you are trying to say, but I disagree.dngreer wrote:mark edward marchiafava wrote:Not all cops are evil!
Let me educate you right now. There are NO "good cops." ANY cop who stands by and ALLOWS the "bad cops" to violate citizens is just as guilty as the so-called "bad cops."
The apostle Paul expressed remorse for having watched as OTHERS stoned the prophet Stephan to death. While Paul didn't cast any stones, he DID admit to holding the cloaks of those who DID. In legal terms, your "good cops" are accessories during and/or after the fact.