• 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.

My recent encounter with LEO's

USMC1986

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 24, 2010
Messages
78
Location
USA
Where did this happen? I think if they really wanted to be pricks, they could of been. Did they see you recording them? I think you handled the situation well but I'd advise catching their names and badge numbers without asking. Asking in that type of situation will only piss them off. While its important to put your foot down when flexing your rights, don't forget we don't need more enemies either. I'd rather see cops on our side more than any other person on the street.
 

Publius

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 10, 2010
Messages
67
Location
Northern California Now NH soon
[Where did this happen?]
Marysville, CA

[I think if they really wanted to be pricks, they could of been.]
I am grateful that they were not.

[Did they see you recording them?]
I have to presume that they did, as I was holding the my recorder out in front of me in my open palm. I was at least not concealing what I was doing.

[I think you handled the situation well but I'd advise catching their names and badge numbers without asking.]
I intend to verify their identity's first thing if I ever have an encounter again.

[While its important to put your foot down when flexing your rights, don't forget we don't need more enemies either. I'd rather see cops on our side more than any other person on the street.]
This happened in a neighboring town from where I live, LEO's where I live don't react negatively to people utilizing their rights and I have a good relationship with most of them.

I am trying to get everyone on board with exercising and defending all of our Liberty's :)
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
LEOs are not our employees. We do not directly pay them. We cannot fire them. We did not hire them and make none of the personnel decisions affecting them. They serve us. They don't work for us.

Whether or not they must provide their names and badge numbers is a matter of local and State law and of departmental policy. However, as a matter of courtesy, they should be willing to do so, whether it is required or not.
 

Publius

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 10, 2010
Messages
67
Location
Northern California Now NH soon
Please correct me if I am wrong about this but doesn't an LEO have to tell you his name if you ask? After all, he is our employee.

I asked a local Police Chief and according to him in California it is required by law for Patrol Officers to do so.

So far the MPD has ignored my requests to file an incident report, as I want them to review their procedures with their Officers.
 

Publius

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 10, 2010
Messages
67
Location
Northern California Now NH soon
...Surprised they didn't turn it into some fiasco. Marysville PD are kind of known for that...

Back in April, I had my first encounter with LEO's and it was also in Marysville, it was a fiasco teetering on disaster : / as they were completely caught of guard, had no idea how to handle the situation, and ignored the California Police Officers Association memo that I gave them knowing they might otherwise not know what to do. 20 minutes later I was forced to give them ID, had my guns serial number run through their system, and instructed to conceal my weapon even though I don't have a CCW an instruction I ignored.
 

SouthernBoy

Regular Member
Joined
May 12, 2007
Messages
5,837
Location
Western Prince William County, Virginia, USA
LEOs are not our employees. We do not directly pay them. We cannot fire them. We did not hire them and make none of the personnel decisions affecting them. They serve us. They don't work for us.

Whether or not they must provide their names and badge numbers is a matter of local and State law and of departmental policy. However, as a matter of courtesy, they should be willing to do so, whether it is required or not.

I disagree, but we can remain on good terms I trust.
 

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
Of course. I was just stating facts, not perceptions.

No you countered with more perceptions. Fact is we do pay for their employment and they do work for us, they work for the public as a "public" employee. So even if someone doesn't pay the taxes that go for their hiring they still work for them. Just because we don't directly hire/fire this does not mean they don't work for us.

The only reason more don't get fired is their strong unions and the politicians they work for who believe they don't have to answer to the public.

But do file complaints when LEO acts outside his duties, they do build up "jackets" that can get them fired if their bad behavior continue. I also recommend writing letters commending proper actions of LEO, this too goes into file and helps with positive reenforcement.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
No you countered with more perceptions. Fact is we do pay for their employment and they do work for us, they work for the public as a "public" employee. So even if someone doesn't pay the taxes that go for their hiring they still work for them. Just because we don't directly hire/fire this does not mean they don't work for us.

The only reason more don't get fired is their strong unions and the politicians they work for who believe they don't have to answer to the public.

But do file complaints when LEO acts outside his duties, they do build up "jackets" that can get them fired if their bad behavior continue. I also recommend writing letters commending proper actions of LEO, this too goes into file and helps with positive reenforcement.

FACT: You do not pay them. Saying you do would be like saying you pay a Wal-Mart employee because the money he earns ultimately comes from you. The entity who "pays" a LEO is the entity on whose account the actual paycheck is drawn.

FACT: You cannot fire a LEO. Saying you can would be like saying that you can fire a Wal-Mart employee by complaining about his behavior, bringing about his termination.

FACT: You cannot take any personnel action on a LEO, not even indirectly.

FACT: Just like the Wal-Mart employee does not work for you, LEOs do not work for you. LEOs serve you and work for the city or the county or some other government agency.

These are facts, not perceptions.

Moving on.
 

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
FACT: You do not pay them. Saying you do would be like saying you pay a Wal-Mart employee because the money he earns ultimately comes from you. The entity who "pays" a LEO is the entity on whose account the actual paycheck is drawn.

FACT: You cannot fire a LEO. Saying you can would be like saying that you can fire a Wal-Mart employee by complaining about his behavior, bringing about his termination.

FACT: You cannot take any personnel action on a LEO, not even indirectly.

FACT: Just like the Wal-Mart employee does not work for you, LEOs do not work for you. LEOs serve you and work for the city or the county or some other government agency.

These are facts, not perceptions.

Moving on.

No those again are your perceptions...Wal-mart is a privately owned company, LEO are public officials. I can choose not to shop at Wal-mart. Wal-mart can trespass me for any reason whatsoever from their property, the police cannot. Who makes up the "City, County, etc?" who pays for those entities to exist? (Sheriffs are directly elected officials) The bottom line is they are our "servants" we pay for them to be there.

And yes you can have an effect on LEO employment. I have seen it happen.

They do work for us otherwise they wouldn't be considered "public servant".
Part of the problem is too many people feel like you do and that there is nothing that can be done....which continues to add to the problem.
 

jtrider

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 21, 2010
Messages
37
Location
Shenandoah Valley, Virginia
FACT: You do not pay them. Saying you do would be like saying you pay a Wal-Mart employee because the money he earns ultimately comes from you. The entity who "pays" a LEO is the entity on whose account the actual paycheck is drawn.

FACT: You cannot fire a LEO. Saying you can would be like saying that you can fire a Wal-Mart employee by complaining about his behavior, bringing about his termination.

FACT: You cannot take any personnel action on a LEO, not even indirectly.

FACT: Just like the Wal-Mart employee does not work for you, LEOs do not work for you. LEOs serve you and work for the city or the county or some other government agency.

These are facts, not perceptions.

Moving on.



I can reference a number of cases where "actions" have been taken against police officers, departments, supervisors.

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcon...ries/031210dnmetcarrolltonsuit.199ea29f8.html

Regular viewers of "Perry Mason" know that you can also sue a government employee who deprives you of your civil rights while acting "under color of law".

A police officer arresting someone while on duty is clearly acting "under color of law".
In order to successfully sue persons with qualified immunity you will have to prove their conduct violates clearly established rights which a reasonable person would have known about. Police officers generally have qualified immunity. Qualified immunity protects public officials from being sued for damages unless they violated “clearly established” law of which a reasonable official in his position would have known.

State laws provide that citizens can sue the police for wrongful death, assault, battery, false arrest, breaking and entering, and false imprisonment. In addition to state laws, Section 1983 of the Civil Rights Act of 1871 [now 42 U.S.C. 1983] allows citizens to sue public officials for violations of their civil rights.

I'm not into games of semantics. However, accurate information can be as useful as a handgun in some situations. Can you reference something to clarify this "FACT"?
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
I can reference a number of cases where "actions" have been taken against police officers, departments, supervisors.

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcon...ries/031210dnmetcarrolltonsuit.199ea29f8.html

Regular viewers of "Perry Mason" know that you can also sue a government employee who deprives you of your civil rights while acting "under color of law".

A police officer arresting someone while on duty is clearly acting "under color of law".
In order to successfully sue persons with qualified immunity you will have to prove their conduct violates clearly established rights which a reasonable person would have known about. Police officers generally have qualified immunity. Qualified immunity protects public officials from being sued for damages unless they violated “clearly established” law of which a reasonable official in his position would have known.

State laws provide that citizens can sue the police for wrongful death, assault, battery, false arrest, breaking and entering, and false imprisonment. In addition to state laws, Section 1983 of the Civil Rights Act of 1871 [now 42 U.S.C. 1983] allows citizens to sue public officials for violations of their civil rights.

I'm not into games of semantics. However, accurate information can be as useful as a handgun in some situations. Can you reference something to clarify this "FACT"?

What has to be cited? :rolleyes: Personnel actions are taken by the HR department or equivalent of any organization, not by those outside the organization. If you think otherwise, nothing anyone can say will ever convince you of reality.

Moving on from you too.
 

jtrider

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 21, 2010
Messages
37
Location
Shenandoah Valley, Virginia
What has to be cited? :rolleyes: Personnel actions are taken by the HR department or equivalent of any organization, not by those outside the organization. If you think otherwise, nothing anyone can say will ever convince you of reality.

Moving on from you too.


I think it would be hard to maintain a position that can't withstand scrutiny or challenge, wouldn't you agree?

And I did not present you with either. I was looking for clarification. There are many ways to skin a cat. We are not limited to your understanding of the process. Were that indeed the case, this forum would become a blog and re-named "As eye95 sees it". While it is apparent to a reasonable person that we cannot take "personnel" actions against law enforcement officers, we can take "personal" actions. In the end, the cat is skinned. My need to be right is far outweighed by my desire to help dispense true useful information.
 
Last edited:

rodbender

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 23, 2008
Messages
2,519
Location
Navasota, Texas, USA
I can reference a number of cases where "actions" have been taken against police officers, departments, supervisors.

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcon...ries/031210dnmetcarrolltonsuit.199ea29f8.html

Regular viewers of "Perry Mason" know that you can also sue a government employee who deprives you of your civil rights while acting "under color of law".

A police officer arresting someone while on duty is clearly acting "under color of law".
In order to successfully sue persons with qualified immunity you will have to prove their conduct violates clearly established rights which a reasonable person would have known about. Police officers generally have qualified immunity. Qualified immunity protects public officials from being sued for damages unless they violated “clearly established” law of which a reasonable official in his position would have known.

State laws provide that citizens can sue the police for wrongful death, assault, battery, false arrest, breaking and entering, and false imprisonment. In addition to state laws, Section 1983 of the Civil Rights Act of 1871 [now 42 U.S.C. 1983] allows citizens to sue public officials for violations of their civil rights.

I'm not into games of semantics. However, accurate information can be as useful as a handgun in some situations. Can you reference something to clarify this "FACT"?

You must be careful. I'm afraid that you are awfully close to being put on eye95's ignore list, as is sudden valley gunner. I was one of his first and it is a terrible place to be, I mean , imagine being ignored by the mighty eye95. It's really been hell for me since. I wish there were something I could do about it but, I fear that I am stuck here for eternity, Woe is me, oh, woe is me.
 

Publius

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 10, 2010
Messages
67
Location
Northern California Now NH soon
For the record, I do not wish to see any LEO involved in my incident to be fired. I am seeking that the MPD train their officers better on Open Carry and to remind Officers of their legal obligation to ID themselves when asked to do so. So far my requests to talk to a superior within the MPD have been ignored.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
For the record, I do not wish to see any LEO involved in my incident to be fired. I am seeking that the MPD train their officers better on Open Carry and to remind Officers of their legal obligation to ID themselves when asked to do so. So far my requests to talk to a superior within the MPD have been ignored.

What a healthy approach. Sometimes contention only causes the police to retrench.

My experience with the Montgomery PD in Alabama was that being reasonable with them (which includes not trying to get officers fired or insisting that they "work for us") illustrated how much can be accomplished when you work together. As a result of my stop, MPD changed its policy and training on the issue (as I found out again indirectly from an officer who was quoted as saying, "I heard about that incident. Now we know the rules.")

My recommendation is that you keep doing what you are doing. Don't get contentious unless they won't move on the issue.
 

jtrider

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 21, 2010
Messages
37
Location
Shenandoah Valley, Virginia
You must be careful. I'm afraid that you are awfully close to being put on eye95's ignore list, as is sudden valley gunner. I was one of his first and it is a terrible place to be, I mean , imagine being ignored by the mighty eye95. It's really been hell for me since. I wish there were something I could do about it but, I fear that I am stuck here for eternity, Woe is me, oh, woe is me.

COMMENTS REMOVED BY MODERATOR: Personal attack

Dog ate my OC.org starter kit, so I'm kinda winging it.
 
Top