I am not talking about criminals as a general term but LEOs (uncommon criminals) that break the law in the course of performing their official duties. I know what you are talking about. I was pointing out that not everyone who breaks a rule or a law suffers the consequences. Get over it. There may be no difference to you I didn't say there was or there wasn't. I was drawing a parallel. Parallels help some understand. but there is a distinction based on past case law/internal investigations. A criminal may or may not walk based on a good or bad lawyer or incompetent/unethical LE officials. It is more likely that administrative duty will be the worst your average LEO will get for breaking the laws we are talking about.
I have "refused to consent" and "did not resist" twice in one week. Wonderful. My point is to do that and not "submit" which will be interpreted by the courts as consent. It took filing criminal charges the second occurrence to get a change in behavior by my local LE agency. I fully expect to have a third at some point in the future especially if criminal charges are not pursued by the local prosecuting attorney, to set the precedent. The charges I filed were essentially ignored but I did get a call from the Chief of Police that he will address a "recently discovered training deficiency" in his department. The change in LE behavior only means that past criminal behavior/action was ignored. The LEOs skated.
Make no leaps of logic. I made none. As far as I could tell I was the only OCer in my town. Not prohibited in my town if you have a CCW endorsement. Local LE did not know the law they were charged to enforce, they had no desire to learn the law until I filed a criminal complaint against the second LEO. Just cuz I got stopped for a second time in one week, I was PO'd. The first encounter, water on a ducks back, the LEO was cool about the whole thing and even took my copy of the applicable city codes as true and accurate. The only thing I gave the LEO was a 3x5 card with the city code on it. Must have kept the secret to himself.
I may be stupid Nowhere did I say or imply that any PERSON was stupid. Try rereading what I posted without making a logical leap. if I look for a perfect outcome as in charging and prosecuting criminals and let a judge and jury work it out. The odds of any particular LEO getting prosecuted for breaking the law, let alone even being charge by his prosecutor, is statistically small. In the instances you mention were there any criminal charges filed against the LEOs? If their conduct was proven to be illegal were they prosecuted and punished IAW with current law? Or did you accept a change in behavior by LE as the best possible outcome because it would be stupid to expect a closer to perfect outcome? Like charging and then prosecuting a criminal.
It is easy to cite anecdotal evidence as proof of future occurrences. The point is that I know of zero anecdotal evidence of a LEO destroying a recording (much the same as I know of no anecdotal evidence of a gun grab from an OCer. Yet I do know of enough instances of LEOs being recorded without them destroying the recording and enough instances of OCers not having their guns grabbed to conclude that, at worst, such events would be isolated instances. Existing case law/IA investigation reports tend to be more indicative of future occurrences. Those being that LEOs who break the law will skate.
I am not looking for a perfect outcome, but I will not concede the point that "do not consent" and "do not resist" will work in your favor even 50% of the time. It worked 100% of the time in your case and it even worked 100% of the time in my two encounters. But our four cases are the exception and not the rule. Based upon all the instances I know of, recordings not being erased is the rule and not the exception. As a matter of fact, I know of zero exceptions, just as I know of zero exceptions to folks not having the OC gun grabbed.
