• 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.

Park officer posed as another, lied to press

pourshot

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jul 10, 2006
Messages
405
Location
Stafford, Virginia, USA
imported post

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/03/05/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
 

Pace

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 2, 2009
Messages
1,140
Location
Las Vegas, NV
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
 

cato2

New member
Joined
Nov 25, 2006
Messages
159
Location
, ,
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'? :lol::lol:

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?
 

pullnshoot25

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 24, 2008
Messages
1,139
Location
Escondido, California, USA
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...
 

Gundude

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 30, 2009
Messages
1,691
Location
Sandy Eggo County
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.
 

N6ATF

Banned
Joined
Jul 22, 2009
Messages
1,401
Location
San Diego County, CA, California, USA
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).
 

marshaul

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
11,188
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia
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?
 

N6ATF

Banned
Joined
Jul 22, 2009
Messages
1,401
Location
San Diego County, CA, California, USA
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.
 

pullnshoot25

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 24, 2008
Messages
1,139
Location
Escondido, California, USA
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.
 

yelohamr

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 30, 2009
Messages
516
Location
Vista, California, USA
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.
 

bigtoe416

Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter
Joined
Jun 3, 2008
Messages
1,747
Location
Oregon
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.
 

Gundude

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 30, 2009
Messages
1,691
Location
Sandy Eggo County
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.
 

marshaul

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
11,188
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia
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. :?
 
Top