LEO's who violate/don't know gun laws

imported post

possumboy wrote:

The problem is LEOs need to be above question. ... Previous drug use could become and issue for LEOs in court.....

Click to expand...

Correct you are. I recently saw an officer in a felony weapons possession charge refuse to answer in depositions whether they hadever used drugs, prior to being hired as a police officer.... or even after.The refusal to answer the question implies an answer of YES obviously.

I too think it is a major problem just waiting to play out in courtrooms across the nation as soon as defense attorneys start exploiting the problem.

imported post

Yeah again I was thinking more of a non-convicted individual, but I agree if their record could be questioned it could become a problem. As you say a lawyer would try to imply that they had done "x, y or z" and screwed up "just like they did on this date." Or that since the officer did it why can't the defendant have done it, etc. I could see that ending up being a problem at some point during their career.

Also, I was thinking more if they actually met the other requirements. Some of what Sheriff said would occur is wild. I can't imagine people getting in even though they perform that poorly. We definitely don't need that.

imported post

Sheriff wrote:

Correct you are. I recently saw an officer in a felony weapons possession charge refuse to answer in depositions whether they hadever used drugs, prior to being hired as a police officer.... or even after.The refusal to answer the question implies an answer of YES obviously.

Click to expand...

now there is something that I don't understand in this situation. first, why exactly was the LEOs background becoming an issue in a weapons case? now I agree that if LEOs want to believe that they are superior to "mere mortals" that they must be held to a higher level of accountability, but was the officers previous history in any way relevant to the case?

secondly, your last comment bothers me in no small way. one of the biggest problems with the court system today is the very notion that you seem to share in your last sentence. refusal to answer a question does NOT imply a yes.

I am not an LEO, and if I am asked a question that I don't wish to share the answer to, believing that it has no relevance, I won't answer, plain and simple. Once at a traffic stop, I was asked "how longyou been outta the pen, boy?" now, I have absolutely no criminal background, save a few traffic violations, but I didn't answer his question, instead I told hiom that he had my info, why didn't he run it. why did I not answer? because I felt that he had no justification for his assertion that I was an ex-con, not because I didn't want to reveal some long criminal history (since I have none)

imported post

All I can say is that I am grateful that my Dept. has never lowered it's standards, and has no intention of ever doing so.

An Officer's integrity and reputation are everything, and if those qualities are lost, then one should not be a Cop. The other side of that coin is the fact that I for one would not do well if I had to work with boneheads or people thatI could not completely trust. There are many times when Officers place their own lives in the hands of their fellow Officers, and this demands that everyone be top notch and competent.

Officers do get held to a higher level of accountability than citizens. This is especially important in court, as Officers have a "credibility rating" that is presumed to be above average. Defense attorney's will frequently try to discredit an Officer, based upon their previous actions, in an effort to "smear" credibility, and thus the Officer's testimony.

imported post

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9A06E2DB143DF93AA3575AC0A96F958260

Judge Rules That Police Can Bar High I.Q. Scores
Judge Dorsey ruled that Mr. Jordan was not denied equal protection because the city of New London applied the same standard to everyone: anyone who scored too high was rejected.

Either we are equal or we are not. Good people ought to be armed where they will, with wits and guns and the truth. NRA KMA$$

imported post

That's kind of weird.

imported post

Argumentation, as opposed to what is characterized here as 'argument', is an 'art' as highly developed as gun carry. Not answering a question implies what ever your opponent desires it to imply.

"Have you stopped beating your wife (dog, opponent, 'gun')?" is the classroom example. Any answer is damning, so what of the question?

Similarly, "half of the people in a room are statistically sub-normal" is a statement arguably true but anathema to democrats and egalitarians. If one fails to engage the question, what does that imply? Whatever your opponent wants it to imply.

Either we are equal or we are not. Good people ought to be armed where they will, with wits and guns and the truth. NRA KMA$$

imported post

He was already a states corrections officer.

But he was too smart to be a cop! :lol:

I rest my case on the LOWERING OF STANDARDS in police recruiting and hiring!

imported post

Johnny Law wrote:

All I can say is that I am grateful that my Dept. has never lowered it's standards, and has no intention of ever doing so.

An Officer's integrity and reputation are everything, and if those qualities are lost, then one should not be a Cop. The other side of that coin is the fact that I for one would not do well if I had to work with boneheads or people thatI could not completely trust. There are many times when Officers place their own lives in the hands of their fellow Officers, and this demands that everyone be top notch and competent.

Officers do get held to a higher level of accountability than citizens. This is especially important in court, as Officers have a "credibility rating" that is presumed to be above average. Defense attorney's will frequently try to discredit an Officer, based upon their previous actions, in an effort to "smear" credibility, and thus the Officer's testimony.

Click to expand...

Smaller departments have plenty of candidates to choose form to fill the spots of those that leave the department. There is little need to lower standards when you are looking for one or two people.

But inplaces like Chicago, DC, and New York when you have 4,000 - 20,000 cops..... You need bodies to fill the positions every month. You may have to overlook stuff like experimental drug use when you were much younger or even some minor crimes convictions. You are not in a position to be so picky.

In a perfect world... you pick the best their is to offer. But if we were in a perfect world... nobody would be breaking the law. The alternative is to NOT hire someone and allow the position to go unfilled.... and then you are in the hole. Eventually... there are no police on the street.

People make mistakes when they are young and immature. Some people can be given a chance to show that it was a one time thing. Just because someone committed a minor violation of law does not mean they can never be trusted again.

If we really want to push this... how about not hiring cops that have never received a traffic ticket.

In other words.... people can make a mistake and turn their life around.

imported post

LEO 229 wrote:

Smaller departments have plenty of candidates to choose form....

Click to expand...

What do you consider a "candidate" to be.... somebody who has simply applied, or somebody who has passed all exams, interviewsand met all entrance qualifications?

Both my localpolice departments, 100+ officers in each,have NOT had plenty of qualified individualsto select from for years.

You live in a totally different world up there in Northern Virginia. (If a couple of Indians came along with beads and trinkets, the rest of the state would probably exchange all of Northern Virginia for them! )

imported post

*

imported post

I would echo what he said....

imported post

LEO 229 wrote:

I would echo what he said....

Click to expand...

Well said Pointman.

I have many times explained this same situation in detail on this board. I would have to commend SV Libertarian's current views, as I believehe has realized what you just said. I for one do not want a wedge driven between oc'ers and the Police.

If some would just take the time and show a good attitude, andrealize that Police have an obligation to do their job, you would find that most Cops are not horrible meanies.

I can't begin to count the number of great people I have met while on the job. Many are now good friends, and or business associates.

imported post

Johnny Law wrote:

LEO 229 wrote:

I would echo what he said....

Click to expand...

Well said Pointman.

I have many times explained this same situation in detail on this board. I would have to commend SV Libertarian's current views, as I believehe has realized what you just said. I for one do not want a wedge driven between oc'ers and the Police.

If some would just take the time and show a good attitude, andrealize that Police have an obligation to do their job, you would find that most Cops are not horrible meanies.

I can't begin to count the number of great people I have met while on the job. Many are now good friends, and or business associates.

Click to expand...

+1

I know a great deal of people that I had a positive encounter with and we wave and chat when we see each other. It is a nice feeling to know they are out there.

And this all started from positive start. Anyone wanting to "catch an attitude" from the start is losing this chance to know some good people. Cops and citizens alike.

imported post

In regards to limited information being presented to responding LEOs...

There is still a procedure for dealing with unfamiliar situations, no? I brought up this point at the Dickson City council meeting, and it was left pretty much unanswered. The police have every right to show up to a "man with a gun" call, but upon arriving, there is a duty to observe what is happening. Is the man waving the gun around? Threatening people? Or just acting like a normal person? Maybe a friendly chat with the guy will yield some more information or behavioral cues. Basically... there are ways to "investigate" without disarming, handcuffing, and running the gun's serial numbers of the "man with a gun". I likened it to being pulled over for doing 30mph in a 25mph zone, and the LEO's walking up to the driver's window and shooting said driver with a taser. The city council didn't like that one...

Anyhow, I can forgive some ignorance of the law regarding open carry on the part of LEOs, so long as it is approached in a controlled, respectful manner. Unfortunately, from what I've read on here, the LEOs who can approach a new situation in a controlled manner (the vast majority, I'd say) aren't the ones causing problems for OCers anyway.

imported post

I think the biggest problem is that OCing is not know by all to be legal. This goes for cops and civilians.

It simply is not done on such a grand scale to draw interest and get people talking. When people communicate with each other they pass along information. This goes for EVERYONE.

With all the grassroots encounters that have happened that were negative in certain areas.... the police started talking and supervisors reminded them OCing was not against any state or local laws (depending on where you live).

In regards to the "man with a gun call" the police do have an obligation to check on the person. From a distance and maybe an approach is necessary. Now a man out with his wife and kids... it would appear that there is nothing unusual and people with him are not ratting him out "He is going to kill us!" or "He is going to shoot Joe Blow".

But when you have a sole person armed with a gun you have to know that the dude is in his right mind and firing on all his cylinders. So an approach to someone with a gun holstered is not going to cause anyone any harm.

Now here is where I see where problems happen.....

The officer approaches to check on the guy so he can tell his supervisor "I checked him out and he was OK." versus "I looked at him from a distance and I guess he it not a threat"... one is not going to go over well with the boss. Everyone can relate that you need to keep the boss happy.

Once the man with a gun refuses to answer simple questions or begins that "Am I free to leave" speech he is giving the officer RAS to stick around and investigate. This is not "normal" behavior for people to do. (I know... you are exercising your rights)

Now Iunderstand what is going on but the street officer that does not visit this board has no clue. Most people are willing to explain themselves (I know... you do not need to prove you are innocent) and let the officer move on to find real criminals. The citizen and officer have a mutual respect for each other and do what they can to help each other out.

So I believe that in time with a common understanding between both the police and those that OC that these encounters will be fewer and less eventful.

imported post

LEO 229 wrote:

Snip
The officer approaches to check on the guy so he can tell his supervisor "I checked him out and he was OK." versus "I looked at him from a distance and I guess he it not a threat"... one is not going to go over well with the boss. Everyone can relate that you need to keep the boss happy.

Click to expand...

Therein lies the problem. The supervisor needs to know that OC-ing in and of itself is not legal, so there shouldn't be anything to "check out" unless the OC-er is acting in a suspicious manner.

imported post

LEO 229 wrote:

Once the man with a gun refuses to answer simple questions or begins that "Am I free to leave" speech he is giving the officer RAS to stick around and investigate. This is not "normal" behavior for people to do. (I know... you are exercising your rights)

Click to expand...

I would have to disagree here just a tad. I think it is somewhat normal behavoir nowadays. Even honest law abiding citizens have become more street smart now. If people feel pretty sure they have broken no law (as in OC for example), they wantthe officerto go on record as officially detaining them against their will. They pick this up on TV, the Internet, and in magazines and publications.

While none of this means much in a criminal case once a defendant has been arrested, it does go a long way after the charge is dismissed and the person files a civil claim against the police. Why? Because unlawful detention is the same as unlawful imprisonment.

edited to add bold and underline in quote above

imported post

USAF_MetalChris wrote:

LEO 229 wrote:

Snip
The officer approaches to check on the guy so he can tell his supervisor "I checked him out and he was OK." versus "I looked at him from a distance and I guess he it not a threat"... one is not going to go over well with the boss. Everyone can relate that you need to keep the boss happy.

Click to expand...

Therein lies the problem. The supervisor needs to know that OC-ing in and of itself is not legal, so there shouldn't be anything to "check out" unless the OC-er is acting in a suspicious manner.

Click to expand...

It is not that it is legal..... It is the fact that nobody knows if this lone gunman is any kind of threat to the public. Where do we draw the line? How about a guy walking down the street with a rifle in his hands? Legal? Maybe... but is he about to go shoot up his office where he was just fired?

Keep in mind that the supervisor is NOT there seeing it first hand to draw his own conclusions. Often times the officer reports back to advise "All is well" at the location. Guy is just out shopping.

Keeping an open mind and pushing aside that OCing is legal.... people do go out and kill people with guns. In defense of the supervisor... his butt is on line line if the person turned out to be a threat later on and knew that the officer failed to do any valid check on someone who is "truly" suspicious.

I am not talking about a group of guys or a family out to dinner. I am talking about one guy who seems to be a bit "odd".

So knowing that you may be asked..... "So what was he doing? What is his story" by the boss.... this may cause a LEO to talk to the OCer for a second or two.

Again.... not that ALL OCers need to be contacted... but we have seem people out there without guns that are just a little odd looking and you draw your own conclusions. Now add a gun to the mix..... :lol:

imported post

Sheriff wrote:

LEO 229 wrote:

Once the man with a gun refuses to answer simple questions or begins that "Am I free to leave" speech he is giving the officer RAS to stick around and investigate. This is not "normal" behavior for people to do. (I know... you are exercising your rights)

Click to expand...

I would have to disagree here just a tad. I think it is somewhat normal behavoir nowadays. Even honest law abiding citizens have become more street smart now. If people feel pretty sure they have broken no law (as in OC for example), they wantthe officerto go on record as officially detaining them against their will. They pick this up on TV, the Internet, and in magazines and publications.

While none of this means much in a criminal case once a defendant has been arrested, it does go a long way after the charge is dismissed and the person files a civil claim against the police. Why? Because unlawful detention is the same as unlawful imprisonment.

edited to add bold and underline in quote above

Click to expand...

Not sure how long you have been off the street... but most people do not do it. They are cooperative and assist the police as needed.

The only people I have encountered that were not... were actually criminals in the act. :lol:

So reciting phrases to exercise your rights in my 16 years experience is very rare.

Must be different down where you live.

In regards to "unlawful detention".... if a person does things that raiseRAS based on the officer's years of experience... the officer can hold him for a brief period of time. This is not an arrest and this has been backed by the courts.

So in my years of experience.... someone saying "Am I free to go" and other catch phrases will not be normal and can cause me to suspect something is wrong. :lol:

This is the stuff criminals learn in prison!!

But obviously.... I cannot just go to any Joe Blow on the street and try that. I have to have approached for a good reason first. The last thing I want to do is hold someone without a good reason.