Faquier Co Deputy Illegal Detention of OCer?

I sought out an officer for a criminal/domestic issue several months ago that was reported to me. The matter was escalated to a different county (long story). Unfortunately, I lost the initial PWC officers business card. He told me he thought recording was illegal without his consent. I explained otherwise to which he was very receptive and asked me to send him the law references because he wanted to look into it more. I'd like to assume he did look into it, but as I say I lost his info. Unfortunately athe contact did not go through dispact (serious privacy reasons), so afaik there is no log.


I know several officers who have told me they have been trained to assume they are always being recorded, audio and video.

I think that would be a wise assumption. Somethibg the Chiefs would drill into officers so they don't cost us taxpayers money.

Blade



Sent from my SGH-T999 using Tapatalk 2

So if I call 911 and report a "man with a car" they will send a LEO to check it out and illegally detain him to see if the man is allowed to have the car?

speed41ae said:

So if I call 911 and report a "man with a car" they will send a LEO to check it out and illegally detain him to see if the man is allowed to have the car?

Click to expand...

Probably not, unless you include the magic word "suspicious. "

Blade


Sent from my SGH-T999 using Tapatalk 2

I'd like to know more about it from the person who was detained. In my opinion, they shouldn't bother to send someone out when the call does not report any kind of illegal activity; on the other hand, if someone had to be sent, then the person making the call should be charged with the crime of making a false report to law enforcement.

If I approach a person, in uniform and tell them "Place your hands on the wheel" and then have a second uniformed Officer go for their I.D., that person is not free to leave. Attempting to do so is going to result in them being forcefully detained.
So, in my my professional opinion; yes that person was detained. I can say that I would have handled it much differently.

Except that.....

Nightmare said:

And fined with the cost of the response - similar to "tort reform."

Click to expand...

the "gubermant" tells people to do exactly what they did. No crime was committed (except by the responding police), just "suspicious activity" was reported by the standards the "gubermant" has set.

To us, it was not suspicious. To the anti crowd, it was another "Sandyhook" waiting to happen thanks to the morons WE elected.

peter nap said:

Yep, that's when you put your hands on the wheel.

Click to expand...

I think self-defense should be a viable option when threatened without cause with deadly force.

Many of these "encounters" could be avoided, in my opinion, by having dispatchers trained on how to handle "Man with a gun" calls. Dispatchers should be asking pertinent questions to the complainant; "What is the person doing?" "Is he threatening anyone?" "Is the weapon in a holster?", and if it is determined that it's simply someone Open Carrying, then the complainant should be informed that there is nothing illegal about that, and the call should be cleared.
Officers that are not provided details about the call should be asking dispatch to get the relevant information from the complainant. Interjecting a little common sense into the equation would go a long way.

starbuck said:

Many of these "encounters" could be avoided, in my opinion, by having dispatchers trained on how to handle "Man with a gun" calls. Dispatchers should be asking pertinent questions to the complainant; "What is the person doing?" "Is he threatening anyone?" "Is the weapon in a holster?", and if it is determined that it's simply someone Open Carrying, then the complainant should be informed that there is nothing illegal about that, and the call should be cleared.
Officers that are not provided details about the call should be asking dispatch to get the relevant information from the complainant. Interjecting a little common sense into the equation would go a long way.

Click to expand...

Common sense is not all that common.


Sent from my PantechP9070 using Tapatalk 4

starbuck said:

Many of these "encounters" could be avoided, in my opinion, by having dispatchers trained on how to handle "Man with a gun" calls. Dispatchers should be asking pertinent questions to the complainant; "What is the person doing?" "Is he threatening anyone?" "Is the weapon in a holster?", and if it is determined that it's simply someone Open Carrying, then the complainant should be informed that there is nothing illegal about that, and the call should be cleared.
Officers that are not provided details about the call should be asking dispatch to get the relevant information from the complainant. Interjecting a little common sense into the equation would go a long way.

Click to expand...

How about this:

Caller (to 911): I see a man with a gun.
911: What is the man doing with the gun?
Caller: Nothing, it is in a holster.
911: That is legal.
Caller: Really.....uh, the man just pulled his gun [click]

OC for ME said:

How about this:

Caller (to 911): I see a man with a gun.
911: What is the man doing with the gun?
Caller: Nothing, it is in a holster.
911: That is legal.
Caller: Really.....uh, the man just pulled his gun [click]

Click to expand...

Yeah, ok.

Just pulled his gun? Maybe he is locking it up in a box? Switching holsters? Who knows? Not enough info until we hear "bang!" Jmo....

Blade

Sent from my SGH-T999 using Tapatalk 2