• 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.

Training Your Agency for the Future By WILLIAM L. HARVEY

ryanburbridge

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 24, 2009
Messages
299
Location
Long beach ca, , USA
http://www.officer.com/web/online/Leadership/Training-Your-Agency-for-the-Future/16$54641.


"As a former director of training and now a chief, I can tell you it is sometimes difficult to plan a department's training curriculum. Some may even lay down on the job and only go with their state's minimum recommendations. They use words similar to minimum required hours to protect their budget but not the officers and communities. First of all, training is like maintenance for the employee. You would not think of having a motor vehicle without tuning it up for peak efficiency and performance. Training for the officers is no different; training fine tunes your staff to maximize their performance. There are the usual training topics that come up to refresh the staff but in these changing and challenging times we live in, I see some topics that must be presented to your staff for everyone’s legal, tactical and administrative survival."

And

"Another point is the understanding of open carry laws for your state. This in many states is perfectly legal and often some officers may not fully understand this law. It is extremely difficult for officers to contact a person carrying a firearm, I know this. But, there are cases where a few officers did not know the laws and infringed some CCW and/or open carry personal rights. Let's work with our citizens and not set ourselves up for a bad case. There are several websites, most are state specific on this area, familiarize yourself here as well."



This guy sounds like he gets it. Let's hope he is heard by others in his profession.
 
Last edited:

ConditionThree

State Pioneer
Joined
May 22, 2006
Messages
2,231
Location
Shasta County, California, USA
Nice find. Its pleasing to see that there are some CLEO's that understand that they have an obligation to the public they serve. I wonder if we could entice him to relocate to be a sheriff of a small northern Californian county...
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
"Another point is the understanding of open carry laws for your state. This in many states is perfectly legal and often some officers may not fully understand this law."

This guy sounds like he gets it. Let's hope he is heard by others in his profession.


He seems to get it. Until you look deeper.

I cannot immediately recall a bad cop encounter where the 2nd Amendment was at issue. It was almost always the 4th Amendment (search and seizure) that was violated, not the 2nd Amendment.

When the author says it is hard for some officers to understand OC laws, he is tossing a red-herring. There is nothing for an officer to understand. Either the cop knows to a dead moral certainty that OC is illegal, or he doesn't. If the cop does not know for a dead moral certainty that OC is illegal, he has no justification for detaining (temporarily seizing) the OCer merely for OC. If there is something about which he is uncertain, or knows he does not understand, then he has no business taking non-consensual enforcement action.

You can almost bet the farm that cops that illegally detained OCers were also illegally detaining other people. Those cops did not wake up that morning and say to themselves, "For the first time in my career I am going to violate someone's 4th Amendment rights today." They didn't suddenly decide to enforce this one non-existent law, or badger or harrass someone this one time.

If he really "got it", he would be calling for activities designed to all but eliminate police being a law unto themselves, making it up as they go along, enforcing their opinions, and so forth. That is the root of this problem--enforcement action without legal authority.

Personally, I think we OCers have contributed to exposing this problem in policing. The reason we discovered this is because the vast majority of seized OCers were doing something perfectly legal, not even meriting reasonable suspicion. Meaning there was no criminality cluttering up the picture. The picture was stark and clear.

Even though we are dedicated to advancing 2A rights, I would be gladdened to see a strong initiative to hammer the 4A rights angle. If I woke up tomorrow and found this forum re-titled Street-level 4A.org with a view to legislative solutions, I would not object one bit.
 
Last edited:

markm

New member
Joined
Mar 7, 2010
Messages
487
Location
, ,
Profound! You are right-on!

He seems to get it. Until you look deeper.

I cannot immediately recall a bad cop encounter where the 2nd Amendment was at issue. It was almost always the 4th Amendment (search and seizure) that was violated, not the 2nd Amendment.

When the author says it is hard for some officers to understand OC laws, he is tossing a red-herring. There is nothing for an officer to understand. Either the cop knows to a dead moral certainty that OC is illegal, or he doesn't. If the cop does not know for a dead moral certainty that OC is illegal, he has no justification for detaining (temporarily seizing) the OCer merely for OC. If there is something about which he is uncertain, or knows he does not understand, then he has no business taking non-consensual enforcement action.

You can almost bet the farm that cops that illegally detained OCers were also illegally detaining other people. Those cops did not wake up that morning and say to themselves, "For the first time in my career I am going to violate someone's 4th Amendment rights today." They didn't suddenly decide to enforce this one non-existent law, or badger or harrass someone this one time.

If he really "got it", he would be calling for activities designed to all but eliminate police being a law unto themselves, making it up as they go along, enforcing their opinions, and so forth. That is the root of this problem--enforcement action without legal authority.

Personally, I think we OCers have contributed to exposing this problem in policing. The reason we discovered this is because the vast majority of seized OCers were doing something perfectly legal, not even meriting reasonable suspicion. Meaning there was no criminality cluttering up the picture. The picture was stark and clear.

Even though we are dedicated to advancing 2A rights, I would be gladdened to see a strong initiative to hammer the 4A rights angle. If I woke up tomorrow and found this forum re-titled Street-level 4A.org with a view to legislative solutions, I would not object one bit.

Hey Citizen,

Thanks, I enjoyed reading your post.

I second your motion to re-title to "Street-level 4A.org."

This forum is more about 4A and 1A than 2A. If 4A and 1A rights were not being violated on a daily basis by LEO, OCers would have no problems with LEO while OCing.

Meet-ups are free political speech events, which, as we all know, is the only form of speech that is TRULY protected by the Bill of Rights. Slander is not protected. Libel is not protected. Defamation is not protected. Speech that endangers public safety is not protected. Free political speech is protected.

markm
 

markm

New member
Joined
Mar 7, 2010
Messages
487
Location
, ,
12031(e)'s days are numbered and diminshing more rapidly then we could guess. :)

Hey Cato,

Don't count your chickens...

The fat lady has not...

Moonbeam may become our retread anti-gun governor.

markm
 

Gundude

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 30, 2009
Messages
1,691
Location
Sandy Eggo County
I have him marked on my sample ballot. I guess that makes me a liberal who believes in the Bill of Rights. Is that an oxymoron?
 

cato

Newbie
Joined
Oct 29, 2006
Messages
2,338
Location
California, USA
If he is such a good friend to the 2A then why has he not drafted and released a memo stating 12031(e) is a violation of our...err...4A rights.

He can't. A Ca. appellate court has already spoken on the issue in People v DeLong. We need the legislature to change the law or Federal Court relief.

He DID demote BOF within DOJ. Some very anti staffers were pushed out of their jobs. DOJ is now focused on real criminals and not run of the mill gun owners and DOJ stopped cooperating w/ local DAs on prosecutions of OLL owners. And the CA AG's office joining McDonald was huge causing must angst among antis nation wide.

Meg has NO internal compas. JB is at least LIB w/libertarian leanings. He owns guns and has defended private ownership in his interviews. A Dem in Ca doesn't have to do any of the above to get elected.
 
Last edited:
Top