• 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.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • 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.

My First LEO Encounter

joeroket

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 5, 2006
Messages
3,339
Location
Everett, Washington, USA
imported post

jbone wrote:
peekaboo wrote

Not to incite anything as I’m PRO LEO, father’s a retired COP. But let’s say a non-LEO walk’s up to a complete stranger and says:

"I could have taken your gun from you, and put a bullet in your head just now."

The stranger feels his life has been threatened and calls 911. Police respond. What next? Will that person be arrested? Stranger wants to file charges on the fact they have implied to commit harm buy the words spoken.

Introduce that person speaking the words carrying a gun; has this person violated any law by implying they could have committed murder while in possession of a gun? My not being a legal mined person or LE savvy is why I ask.

LEO or not, any person needs to exercise common sense and sound judgment when dealing with others, and choose their words wisely. Would be my guess the Officer’s were packing and failed to handle the encounter wisely as fellow citizens sense you say “
No police powers were exercised
That scenario is exactly why the anticipatory laws are worded the way they are. You must take a substantial step towards commiting the crime. Just speaking the words "I could have...." does not fall under it.
 

jbone

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2008
Messages
2,230
Location
WA
imported post

joeroket wrote:
That scenario is exactly why the anticipatory laws are worded the way they are. You must take a substantial step towards commiting the crime. Just speaking the words "I could have...." does not fall under it.
Roger that, I guess I'm seeing what you say. Thanks.
 

possumboy

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 14, 2006
Messages
1,089
Location
Dumfries, Virginia, USA
imported post

joeroket wrote:
Why would we talk about VA caselaw when we are dealing with Wa. law?

The anticipatory crimes in Wa require that a great step towards commission of the crime be accomplished by the suspect. We do not have good faith in our anticipatory laws. It requires articulable facts to show what the suspect did in making an attempt to commit the crime.

Now having said that in reference to the OP if the officer said I could have taken your gun and actually reached for it then it would be a violation of the law in WA.
Good point, misread the question about which state.
 

joeroket

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 5, 2006
Messages
3,339
Location
Everett, Washington, USA
imported post

possumboy wrote:
joeroket wrote:
Why would we talk about VA caselaw when we are dealing with Wa. law?

The anticipatory crimes in Wa require that a great step towards commission of the crime be accomplished by the suspect. We do not have good faith in our anticipatory laws. It requires articulable facts to show what the suspect did in making an attempt to commit the crime.

Now having said that in reference to the OP if the officer said I could have taken your gun and actually reached for it then it would be a violation of the law in WA.
Good point, misread the question about which state.
No harm no foul possumboy.
 

amlevin

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 16, 2007
Messages
5,937
Location
North of Seattle, Washington, USA
imported post

While the officer's actions may not have violated State Law, I would wager that they certainly violated one or more "rules of conduct" set forth by the department they work for. It's always a good idea to ID both the actor(s) and who they work for. A remark like this deserves a complaint to the department at the very least.
 

jbone

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2008
Messages
2,230
Location
WA
imported post

Agree. As mentioned earlier” No police powers were exercised" then why was the badge or ID flashed. I believe the minute they flashed they were representing their department and the departments views. If the not the departments view than by filing formal complaint the Officers at the very least can be brought back to department standards with some common sense training on proper dialogue when confronting the public, on and of duty.



Their were flashing for authoritative value, and shouldn’t have if not representing in an official capacity, they wanted their way and weight in the situation. I still stand that the Officer’s encounter was disrespectful and unprofessional.
 

peekaboo

Regular Member
Joined
May 17, 2008
Messages
23
Location
, ,
imported post

joeroket wrote:
jbone wrote:
peekaboo wrote

Not to incite anything as I’m PRO LEO, father’s a retired COP. But let’s say a non-LEO walk’s up to a complete stranger and says:

"I could have taken your gun from you, and put a bullet in your head just now."

The stranger feels his life has been threatened and calls 911. Police respond. What next? Will that person be arrested? Stranger wants to file charges on the fact they have implied to commit harm buy the words spoken.

Introduce that person speaking the words carrying a gun; has this person violated any law by implying they could have committed murder while in possession of a gun? My not being a legal mined person or LE savvy is why I ask.

LEO or not, any person needs to exercise common sense and sound judgment when dealing with others, and choose their words wisely. Would be my guess the Officer’s were packing and failed to handle the encounter wisely as fellow citizens sense you say “
No police powers were exercised
That scenario is exactly why the anticipatory laws are worded the way they are. You must take a substantial step towards commiting the crime. Just speaking the words "I could have...." does not fall under it.
Exactly right...the comment is opinion not a true threat as defined by case law. Change it to "I am going to...." it changes the entire context of the scenario. Would anyone be arrested for the scenario outlined above...gawd I hope not...cause you would be wearing the hat with the jackass ears for a long time. Are we going to try and find out what was going on, sure. Take any action other than suggest maybe you dont need to talk to each other, nope....no crime or potential for crime no action really needed.

Merely indentifying yourself as a police officer doesn't change the fact this was a contact between two adults expressing their opinions, belief, whatever, about the point of discussion. I wear shirts on occasion off duty that have my department logo on them. Anyone I talk with is going to know I am a police officer, but just like every other citizen I have the same right to express my opinion. For example I could tell someone, "Ya know, carrying openly here is the stupidest thing you could be doing; what are you thinking?" (opinion) Just like theanyone I was talking to could say "Who gives a rat screw what you think?" (opinion)Two grown men arguing....aGod given right. No color of authority violation, nothing, nada......Now if police action was takenbased on theirargument with no violation of law different story.

File a complaint with the employing agency as one writer suggested...go ahead, God given right of every American is that they can complain. Will it be sustained is another issue. Officers have the same right as any other citizen to express their belief's as long as it is not in the performance of their offical duty.

I agree with the last point posted above absolutely. Acting like adults goes a long way. Unfortunately common sense aint that common. Like I said one was representing himself much better than the other.
 

Bear 45/70

Regular Member
Joined
May 22, 2007
Messages
3,256
Location
Union, Washington, USA
imported post

peekaboo wrote:
Merely indentifying yourself as a police officer doesn't change the fact this was a contact between two adults expressing their opinions, belief, whatever, about the point of discussion.
BS, when the LEO flashed the badge he was tellin the OP that he was a cop. That he expected theOP to do as he was told even though the LEO had no right to do that. The cop was ordering and threatening in his manner and words. IT's pure crap that anyone supports the low life and his actions.
 

jbone

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2008
Messages
2,230
Location
WA
imported post

peekaboo wrote:
joeroket wrote:
jbone wrote:
Not to incite anything as I’m PRO LEO, father’s a retired COP. But let’s say a non-LEO walk’s up to a complete stranger and says:

"I could have taken your gun from you, and put a bullet in your head just now."

The stranger feels his life has been threatened and calls 911. Police respond. What next? Will that person be arrested? Stranger wants to file charges on the fact they have implied to commit harm buy the words spoken.

Introduce that person speaking the words carrying a gun; has this person violated any law by implying they could have committed murder while in possession of a gun? My not being a legal mined person or LE savvy is why I ask.

LEO or not, any person needs to exercise common sense and sound judgment when dealing with others, and choose their words wisely. Would be my guess the Officer’s were packing and failed to handle the encounter wisely as fellow citizens sense you say “
No police powers were exercised
That scenario is exactly why the anticipatory laws are worded the way they are. You must take a substantial step towards commiting the crime. Just speaking the words "I could have...." does not fall under it.
Exactly right...the comment is opinion not a true threat as defined by case law. Change it to "I am going to...." it changes the entire context of the scenario. Would anyone be arrested for the scenario outlined above...gawd I hope not...cause you would be wearing the hat with the jackass ears for a long time. Are we going to try and find out what was going on, sure. Take any action other than suggest maybe you dont need to talk to each other, nope....no crime or potential for crime no action really needed.

Merely indentifying yourself as a police officer doesn't change the fact this was a contact between two adults expressing their opinions, belief, whatever, about the point of discussion. I wear shirts on occasion off duty that have my department logo on them. Anyone I talk with is going to know I am a police officer, but just like every other citizen I have the same right to express my opinion. For example I could tell someone, "Ya know, carrying openly here is the stupidest thing you could be doing; what are you thinking?" (opinion) Just like theanyone I was talking to could say "Who gives a rat screw what you think?" (opinion)Two grown men arguing....aGod given right. No color of authority violation, nothing, nada......Now if police action was takenbased on theirargument with no violation of law different story.

File a complaint with the employing agency as one writer suggested...go ahead, God given right of every American is that they can complain. Will it be sustained is another issue. Officers have the same right as any other citizen to express their belief's as long as it is not in the performance of their offical duty.

I agree with the last point posted above absolutely. Acting like adults goes a long way. Unfortunately common sense aint that common. Like I said one was representing himself much better than the other.
Not sure my question was addressed, maybe I missed the answer!

Peekaboo, are you saying that if I walked up to a uniformed Officer, plain clothed detective, or any other LEO and stated " "I could have taken your gun from you, and put a bullet in your head just now." I would be able to walk away becuase I only stated my opinon? I would rather think I would be taken to the ground, cuffed and arrest for threathing an Officer?

 

amlevin

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 16, 2007
Messages
5,937
Location
North of Seattle, Washington, USA
imported post

peekaboo wrote:
Officers have the same right as any other citizen to express their belief's as long as it is not in the performance of their offical duty.

Absolutely true statement---UNTIL-- they flash a badge. That very act made the encounter "official" and from there on they were subject to conduct standards.

I would bet my breakfast doughnuts that every department in this State considers this type of behavior "conduct unbecoming", etc., and is not able to take action until a complaint is filed. Just thinking that all complaints go in the "round file" means that one is not in tune with the times. Check this out with SV Libertarian and ask how his complaints were met in the Oly PD.
 

MetalChris

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 26, 2007
Messages
1,215
Location
SW Ohio
imported post

Bear 45/70 wrote:
peekaboo wrote:
Merely indentifying yourself as a police officer doesn't change the fact this was a contact between two adults expressing their opinions, belief, whatever, about the point of discussion.
BS, when the LEO flashed the badge he was tellin the OP that he was a cop. That he expected theOP to do as he was told even though the LEO had no right to do that. The cop was ordering and threatening in his manner and words. IT's pure crap that anyone supports the low life and his actions.
+1
If it was what peekaboo described, the cop would've had no need to "flash" his badge.
 

Johnny Law

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2007
Messages
462
Location
Puget Sound, ,
imported post

Normally I would say that as soon as a badge is "flashed" an off duty Officer goes into "duty mode" and is in his official capacity. In this case the Officer did nothing more than express his opinion on the oc issue at that particular place.

While I feel that it was an inapropriate example to use, and the badge flashing was unnecessary,the Officer could argue that he was expressing a safety concern for the children present, and for the oc'er alike. He was proposing that anyone could take the oc'ers gun, shoot the oc'er, and then potentially shoot the children or others present.

He apparently gave no orders to the oc'er to cover up, disarm, or otherwise, and was merely voicing a safety concern. A complaint would not go very far under these circumstances.
 

jbone

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2008
Messages
2,230
Location
WA
imported post

Johnny Law wrote:
Normally I would say that as soon as a badge is "flashed" an off duty Officer goes into "duty mode" and is in his official capacity. In this case the Officer did nothing more than express his opinion on the oc issue at that particular place.

While I feel that it was an inapropriate example to use, and the badge flashing was unnecessary,the Officer could argue that he was expressing a safety concern for the children present, and for the oc'er alike. He was proposing that anyone could take the oc'ers gun, shoot the oc'er, and then potentially shoot the children or others present.

He apparently gave no orders to the oc'er to cover up, disarm, or otherwise, and was merely voicing a safety concern. A complaint would not go very far under these circumstances.
While there are different opinions on the officer's conduct in handling the situation, it appears most feel that he was off baseto some degree or another.

Is there is someone that could set up a poll on the site would be interesting to see. Not sure ifpolling ispossible or authorized on thissite like those I see on S&W forum?

Edit: had to fix spelling of pole to Poll
 

David.Car

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 1, 2008
Messages
1,264
Location
Spokane, Washington, USA
imported post

Flashing the badge was an attempt to show force and power over the carrier.In my opinion flashing the badgewas saying "Hey, I'm a cop now shut up and listen to me because what I say goes around here."

I most definitly would file a complaint. I would have let him know right in that instance that I would be doing so, and I surely would have let him know that his opinion is better kept to himself and he would get a much nicer reaction from people if he didn't walk around letting them know he could kill them with their own weapons.

+1 to the poster describing walking upto a cop and saying the same thing.There would be consequences for that action, so why should the police officer be treated any differently?
 

gsx1138

Regular Member
Joined
May 14, 2008
Messages
882
Location
Bremerton, Washington, United States
imported post

So, how many officers have been killed with their own guns? And how many citizens who OC have been killed with their own guns? Perhaps we can see who has the real problem with getting their weapon snatched from them.
 

joeroket

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 5, 2006
Messages
3,339
Location
Everett, Washington, USA
imported post

gsx1138 wrote:
So, how many officers have been killed with their own guns? And how many citizens who OC have been killed with their own guns? Perhaps we can see who has the real problem with getting their weapon snatched from them.
Perhaps you should think about what police officers do for a living before making such a comment. I know of no OC'r that makes a living by running after and wrestling with guys that intend to do them harm. It's not a problem it is a risk of the job.
 

David.Car

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 1, 2008
Messages
1,264
Location
Spokane, Washington, USA
imported post

Maybe "problem" wasn't the best word, but it is another valid point.

For as many times as people say that they could grab someones gun away from them, how many times has it happened? None that I know of.


Edit: Would have been another nice reaction to ask the officer if he thought he was capable of passing your holsters retention system and drawing the firearm without you noticing and clamping your arm down on his and turning away?

I guaruntee if someone put their hand on my gun I would immediatly be clamping down on it and turning my body and gun further away from them very quickly. Not to mention my gun only draws straight out, which from standing behind someone and trying to quickly get their weapon out, does not work.
 

gsx1138

Regular Member
Joined
May 14, 2008
Messages
882
Location
Bremerton, Washington, United States
imported post

joeroket wrote:
gsx1138 wrote:
So, how many officers have been killed with their own guns? And how many citizens who OC have been killed with their own guns? Perhaps we can see who has the real problem with getting their weapon snatched from them.
Perhaps you should think about what police officers do for a living before making such a comment. I know of no OC'r that makes a living by running after and wrestling with guys that intend to do them harm. It's not a problem it is a risk of the job.

That is actually my point. I read here and the other states forums and the LEO argument is that same, "someone could take your gun". My point is that we have no documented case, that we know of, of an OC'er being disarmed by anyone other than Law Enforcement.

We don't go looking for trouble but they do. I'm wondering how rude it would be to bring up their track record vs. ours when confronted with the previous statement.
 

joeroket

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 5, 2006
Messages
3,339
Location
Everett, Washington, USA
imported post

gsx1138 wrote:
joeroket wrote:
gsx1138 wrote:
So, how many officers have been killed with their own guns? And how many citizens who OC have been killed with their own guns? Perhaps we can see who has the real problem with getting their weapon snatched from them.
Perhaps you should think about what police officers do for a living before making such a comment. I know of no OC'r that makes a living by running after and wrestling with guys that intend to do them harm. It's not a problem it is a risk of the job.

That is actually my point. I read here and the other states forums and the LEO argument is that same, "someone could take your gun". My point is that we have no documented case, that we know of, of an OC'er being disarmed by anyone other than Law Enforcement.

We don't go looking for trouble but they do. I'm wondering how rude it would be to bring up their track record vs. ours when confronted with the previous statement.
I do see your point and it is a valid one but you are trying to generalize it. I don't think the comparison stands up because of the fact that OC's don't go out to the trouble but rather try to avoid it as much as possible.

If you ever find an officer that thinks his gun cannnot be snatched please send him my way. I can straighten him out very quickly.
 

royAG46

New member
Joined
Apr 27, 2008
Messages
81
Location
Pullman, Washington, USA
imported post

Bear 45/70 wrote:
Mainsail wrote:
M1Gunr wrote:
Iron Monger wrote:
I can only hope I have the same fortitude when confronted for the first time by one of his kind that feels it is his right and obligation to approach a law- abiding citizen in public that is obviously not a threat or causing any trouble,and berate, belittle, and verbally assault him under the color of law, when he KNOWS open carry is legal!
ohhhh... T-shirt idea - Black with raised white letters. Cool idea but I could see them getting their hackles up more over the shirt than the gun. Sizes can be obtained with anything we want on them from petite to 6x tall.

Unfortunately, they won’t be real OC shirts; they’ll just be t-shirts with an OC logo on them. To be real OC shirts they’d need to be cut shorter than a standard t-shirt and have a split seam up the side to get the shirt around your holster.
Or God forbid, you could tuck the T-sirt into you pants!
RoflLg.gif
Hey bear- Some of us are young punk college students that like to look like the rest of them.Minus the guns on our hips of course...;)
 
Top