Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 32

Thread: Park officer posed as another, lied to press

  1. #1
    Campaign Veteran pourshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Stafford, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    405

    Post imported post

    http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...BA1P1CBJ92.DTL

    http://tinyurl.com/ygzhck9


    Park officer posed as another, lied to press
    Matthai Kuruvila, Chronicle Staff Writer

    Saturday, March 6, 2010


    A U.S. Park Police officer is facing disciplinary action after lying to The Chronicle and the New York Times by identifying himself as a former officer and in an unseemly manner, according to the San Francisco field office commander for the U.S. Park Police.

    The officer, Ken Rawles, was assigned to work undercover to take photographs and video of officers and their interactions with gun activists during a Baker Beach event at which activists sought to carry visible, unloaded handguns on the beach, said Major Jason Wu.

    But, dressed in plain clothes, Rawles told reporters covering the event that he was Brad Lawrence. Lawrence is the name of a former U.S. Park Police officer who now works for the U.S. Department of Homeland Security in Georgia. Rawles told reporters he was at the beach to video people sunbathing in the nude, but finding none began to photograph and video the gun activists.

    His statements appeared in a Chronicle story Sunday and in a New York Times blog about the event. Colleagues of Lawrence contacted the Chronicle upset at the portrayal.

    "What Officer Rawles did is not something that we would do," said Wu. "Certainly, I am not too pleased about that myself."

    Wu said Rawles' video and photographs were intended to be used later for training purposes, as people are now allowed to bring licensed and unloaded handguns into national parks, such as the Presidio, where Baker Beach is located.

    "What we're looking to make sure is that the interaction between the officer and the citizens are appropriate - which can work both ways, as you know," Wu said. "We do respect people's constitutional rights, but we do have to make sure for public safety to make sure the weapons are not violating state laws."

    Wu said that Rawles would face internal discipline, but declined to state what that would be.

    "He was there with pretty clear instruction and that was to capture on video and camera the interactions, and nothing more," Wu said.

    E-mail Matthai Kuruvila at mkuruvila@sfchronicle.com.

    This article appeared on page C - 3 of the San Francisco Chronicle

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Las Vegas, NV
    Posts
    1,140

    Post imported post

    At least they are doing training, that's a plus. I'm happy that the Major stood up and didn't hide this. That's a plus

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Escondido, California, USA
    Posts
    1,140

    Post imported post

    *******.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    City of Angeles - San Fernando Valley, California, USA
    Posts
    158

    Post imported post

    I would also expect LE has "placed" undercover officers on the board andas OCersto monitor the planning of events. There is nothing really wrong with this as long as all members are acting lawfully even though IMO it is a waste of their time and public resources.

    So this is the pervert that was there to 'video' nudes and said 'guns scare me'?

    I wonder if the guy who's name he used is gay and that is the major objectionby the friends of Lawrence? I thought only f*^*^* and sailorswere named Lawrence?

  5. #5
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter bad_ace's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Cupertino, California, USA
    Posts
    328

    Post imported post

    Want video of "Brad Lawrence", "Kevin", Ken Rawles, what ever his name is?

    http://www.opencarryradio.com/?p=583

    I'll post more later, I'm off to the Palo Alto meetup.

  6. #6
    Regular Member Gundude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Sandy Eggo County
    Posts
    1,691

    Post imported post

    pullnshoot25 wrote:
    @#$%.
    Awww, tell us how you really feel LOL
    A citizen may not be required to offer a ―good and substantial reason-- why he should be permitted to exercise his rights. The right‘s existence is all the reason he needs.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Escondido, California, USA
    Posts
    1,140

    Post imported post

    Gundude wrote:
    pullnshoot25 wrote:
    @#$%.
    Awww, tell us how you really feel LOL
    This is EXACTLY why the 12031 check has to go. Any friggin ******* can come up and say "I need to check your gun"

    I fear the cop or the pseudocop more than I fear the common man. This just adds one more reason.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Escondido, California, USA
    Posts
    1,140

    Post imported post

    Oh yeah, I am still waiting for the permission letter and proof of PC 832 training from those federal officers. I know it will take a bit, just throwing out there my angst and desire to see them...

  9. #9
    Regular Member Gundude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Sandy Eggo County
    Posts
    1,691

    Post imported post

    pullnshoot25 wrote:
    Oh yeah, I am still waiting for the permission letter and proof of PC 832 training from those federal officers. I know it will take a bit, just throwing out there my angst and desire to see them...
    Are park rangers considered LEO's. Can they enforce state laws? Can a sheriff deputize someone by letter. I understood that you had to "raise your right hand" when you are deputized. This smells really bad.
    A citizen may not be required to offer a ―good and substantial reason-- why he should be permitted to exercise his rights. The right‘s existence is all the reason he needs.

  10. #10
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    San Diego County, CA, California, USA
    Posts
    1,402

    Post imported post

    Retweet this: http://twitter.com/TheButterZone/status/10086185909

    OMFG

    :what::celebrate

    ROTFLMFAO

    Even before I read the standard anthropomorphizing of INANIMATE OBJECTS.

    Wu wrote:
    but we do have to make sure for public safety to make sure the weapons are not violating state laws.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Escondido, California, USA
    Posts
    1,140

    Post imported post

    AFAIK, only if the officers had PC832 training can they enforce CA state laws.

    I am not aware of deputizing people by declaration. Anyone have insight into this?

  12. #12
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    San Diego County, CA, California, USA
    Posts
    1,402

    Post imported post

    pullnshoot25 wrote:
    AFAIK, only if the officers had PC832 training can they enforce CA state laws.

    I am not aware of deputizing people by declaration. Anyone have insight into this?
    Either it's a historical reference to when sheriffs could just randomly deputize, or a poor modern reference to PC 150 (posse comitatus).

  13. #13
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487

    Post imported post

    pullnshoot25 wrote:
    AFAIK, only if the officers had PC832 training can they enforce CA state laws.

    I am not aware of deputizing people by declaration. Anyone have insight into this?
    Dude, we've already been over this.

    CA PC 830.8 wrote:
    (b) Duly authorized federal employees who comply with the training
    requirements set forth in Section 832 are peace officers when they
    are engaged in enforcing applicable state or local laws on property
    owned or possessed by the United States government, or on any street,
    sidewalk, or property adjacent thereto, and with the written consent
    of the sheriff or the chief of police, respectively, in whose
    jurisdiction the property is situated.
    Now, whether they've had that training I do not know. But the law clearly allows for "peace officer status by declaration". Do you really think you're going to catch them with their pants down due to 832 requirements? Those requirements are a joke. So what, they have to complete an exam? You really think they'd flunk it?

  14. #14
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    San Diego County, CA, California, USA
    Posts
    1,402

    Post imported post

    marshaul wrote:
    pullnshoot25 wrote:
    AFAIK, only if the officers had PC832 training can they enforce CA state laws.

    I am not aware of deputizing people by declaration. Anyone have insight into this?
    Dude, we've already been over this.

    CA PC 830.8 wrote:
    (b) Duly authorized federal employees who comply with the training
    requirements set forth in Section 832 are peace officers when they
    are engaged in enforcing applicable state or local laws on property
    owned or possessed by the United States government, or on any street,
    sidewalk, or property adjacent thereto, and with the written consent
    of the sheriff or the chief of police, respectively, in whose
    jurisdiction the property is situated.
    Now, whether they've had that training I do not know. But the law clearly allows for "peace officer status by declaration". Do you really think you're going to catch them with their pants down due to 832 requirements? Those requirements are a joke. So what, they have to complete an exam? You really think they'd flunk it?
    Yes. These are people that think GUNS act on their own and break laws, and think telling the press they are nude voyeur videographers who are afraid of guns is a good idea.

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Escondido, California, USA
    Posts
    1,140

    Post imported post

    marshaul wrote:
    pullnshoot25 wrote:
    AFAIK, only if the officers had PC832 training can they enforce CA state laws.

    I am not aware of deputizing people by declaration. Anyone have insight into this?
    Dude, we've already been over this.

    CA PC 830.8 wrote:
    (b) Duly authorized federal employees who comply with the training
    requirements set forth in Section 832 are peace officers when they
    are engaged in enforcing applicable state or local laws on property
    owned or possessed by the United States government, or on any street,
    sidewalk, or property adjacent thereto, and with the written consent
    of the sheriff or the chief of police, respectively, in whose
    jurisdiction the property is situated.
    Now, whether they've had that training I do not know. But the law clearly allows for "peace officer status by declaration". Do you really think you're going to catch them with their pants down due to 832 requirements? Those requirements are a joke. So what, they have to complete an exam? You really think they'd flunk it?
    ... thanks for the reminder?

    I expect for nothing less than most cops to break the law.

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Vista, California, USA
    Posts
    516

    Post imported post

    In Californiathe Military Police, while onfederal property,can write citations to civilians, using the CA Vehicle Code and the CA Penal Code. The civilians have togo to federal court. Persons subject to the UCMJ are required to go to base traffic court or the person's command.

    AFAIK federal officers can use the CA laws when afederal law doesn't cover the incident on federal property in CA.

    Indian reservations in CA follow the laws pertaining the county wherethey are located. It varies from state to state.

  17. #17
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter bigtoe416's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    1,748

    Post imported post

    The tinfoil hats aren't looking too crazy these days. That's a shame that our government agents are afraid of being honest with law abiding citizens.

  18. #18
    Regular Member Gundude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Sandy Eggo County
    Posts
    1,691

    Post imported post

    bigtoe416 wrote:
    The tinfoil hats aren't looking too crazy these days. That's a shame that our government agents are afraid of being honest with law abiding citizens.
    I'll be marketing these soon. Get your order in early.
    A citizen may not be required to offer a ―good and substantial reason-- why he should be permitted to exercise his rights. The right‘s existence is all the reason he needs.

  19. #19
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Greensboro, North Carolina, USA
    Posts
    1,052

    Post imported post

    First off, I laughed when I read this article.

    That is just deplorable police and investigative work.

    Bad_ace, great catch with your video and all.

  20. #20
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487

    Post imported post

    N6ATF wrote:
    marshaul wrote:
    pullnshoot25 wrote:
    AFAIK, only if the officers had PC832 training can they enforce CA state laws.

    I am not aware of deputizing people by declaration. Anyone have insight into this?
    Dude, we've already been over this.

    CA PC 830.8 wrote:
    (b) Duly authorized federal employees who comply with the training
    requirements set forth in Section 832 are peace officers when they
    are engaged in enforcing applicable state or local laws on property
    owned or possessed by the United States government, or on any street,
    sidewalk, or property adjacent thereto, and with the written consent
    of the sheriff or the chief of police, respectively, in whose
    jurisdiction the property is situated.
    Now, whether they've had that training I do not know. But the law clearly allows for "peace officer status by declaration". Do you really think you're going to catch them with their pants down due to 832 requirements? Those requirements are a joke. So what, they have to complete an exam? You really think they'd flunk it?
    Yes. These are people that think GUNS act on their own and break laws, and think telling the press they are nude voyeur videographers who are afraid of guns is a good idea.
    Point taken. :?

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Vista, California, USA
    Posts
    516

    Post imported post

    Put out the signs.

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    329

    Post imported post

    yelohamr wrote:
    In Californiathe Military Police, while onfederal property,can write citations to civilians, using the CA Vehicle Code and the CA Penal Code. The civilians have togo to federal court. Persons subject to the UCMJ are required to go to base traffic court or the person's command.

    AFAIK federal officers can use the CA laws when afederal law doesn't cover the incident on federal property in CA.

    Indian reservations in CA follow the laws pertaining the county wherethey are located. It varies from state to state.

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    542

    Post imported post

    Yelo aint no troll, hes just a cantankerous shitkicker, as far as I can tell.

    The efforts that law enforcement, all across California, are making to cause difficulty and threaten the livelihoods and reputations of OCers for personal and political gain is absolutely astonishing.

    Nothing in my experiences has galvanized me against the corrupt and overly empowered LEO in our nation then my personal experience with these efforts.

    Just my opinion, not a dig against the many, many fine police officers that seek to uphold the law and respect the private citizen.



  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    329

    Post imported post

    yelohamr wrote:
    In Californiathe Military Police, while onfederal property,can write citations to civilians, using the CA Vehicle Code and the CA Penal Code. The civilians have togo to federal court. Persons subject to the UCMJ are required to go to base traffic court or the person's command.

    AFAIK federal officers can use the CA laws when afederal law doesn't cover the incident on federal property in CA.

    Indian reservations in CA follow the laws pertaining the county wherethey are located. It varies from state to state.
    OpenCarry.org - Discussion Forum> Forum Rules> #7

    7) If you state a rule of law, it is incumbent upon you to try to cite, as best you can, to authority. Citing to authority, using links when available,is what makes OCDO so successful. An authority is a published source of law that can back your claim up - statute, ordinance, court case, newspaper article covering a legal issue, etc.


  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Vista, California, USA
    Posts
    516

    Post imported post

    I didn't state a rule of law, just experience.
    Google: Title 18, US Code- Crimes and Criminal Procedure. It's in there, try looking for yourself.



Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •