Interesting twist on OC'ers baiting police and recording the event

[eye95]

Don't forget, cops can do a consensual encounter and develop RAS during that encounter. However, until they develop that RAS, the encounter continues only as long as the contactee consents. Of course, that consent often comes out of massive ignorance.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

 

[OC for ME]

Don't forget, cops can do a consensual encounter and develop RAS during that encounter. However, until they develop that RAS, the encounter continues only as long as the contactee consents. Of course, that consent often comes out of massive ignorance.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

Or, the citizen is afeared of the cop not liking them and thus makes a "informed" decision to continue the contact. A badge and a gun are powerful tools of polite persuasion.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

Why not detain regardless of whether or not the cop has RAS in the name of crime prevention. Tyranny with a smile.

Well worn refrain(s):
"We need to know that you are not a felon or about to commit a crime."
"Your cooperation in this matter will help us and help you."
"We are just doing our job, I hope you understand."

Effective tools of persuasion too, because as it turns out most criminals aren't smart enough to use their rights

How do you, in the dark, see a printing pistol? Or, is it that the cop states that he does see it and it does not matter how plausible it is that he is/was able to see it.

The same way we actually have some level of vision in the dark

1. "he's looking suspicious" - This is the first step in violating a citizen's 4A right, the cop gets to define suspicious.

Read Terry v. Ohio yes a cop can detain based off of what he thinks is suspicious. There is no 4th amendment violation.

2. "prowling" - New qualifier.

http://definitions.uslegal.com/p/prowling/

3. "a neighborhood after dark wearing black" - No law against this.

There's no law against drinking rogaine either. Something being technically legal doesn't make it smart, or non-suspicious. if you're loitering on my block wearing dark clothes after dark and I don't recognize you as a neighbor that is in fact suspicious, RAS is not a high standard to meet and doesn't require the activity be illegal

6. "maybe he was called in as a suspicious person who a homeowner didn't recognize and isn't a resident of the neighborhood" - This is the most troubling aspect of our society today, every citizen is a suspect to cops for simply walking down a sidewalk.

No, you're suspicious with a combination of factors. If you're walking down the sidewalk dressed like a mormon missionary you're probably not going to get the cops called on you, or bothered except by people who don't want to hear about Joseph Smith. If you're walking down the sidewalk and it's after dark and you're not a member of that neighborhood and you're wearing all black and you're still in the same place when the police show up..... well that is suspicious

It is a reality today the cops are able to manufacture RAS on the spur of the moment and the odds that their RAS will be accepted are very high. Unfortunate for the citizenry.

Yeah, in fact that does happen, cops aren't able to leave the scene and consult with a team of lawyers and then come back and take action. RAS is made on the spur of the moment, that's entirely what RAS is, RAS is derived from what's happening at the time you observed it.

 

[eye95]

Or, the citizen is afeared of the cop not liking them and thus makes a "informed" decision to continue the contact. A badge and a gun are powerful tools of polite persuasion.

Well one of the reasons many of us are here is to remind everyone that LEOs are ordinary citizens with no more power--until circumstances dictate that they exercise power for the State, usually in the form of RAS, PC, or a warrant. Without the proper circumstances, not just the credentials, we should treat officers as members of the public, but always wary that they can often be our adversary.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

 

[OC for ME]

Effective tools of persuasion too, because as it turns out most criminals aren't smart enough to use their rights

The same way we actually have some level of vision in the dark

Read Terry v. Ohio yes a cop can detain based off of what he thinks is suspicious. There is no 4th amendment violation.

http://definitions.uslegal.com/p/prowling/

There's no law against drinking rogaine either. Something being technically legal doesn't make it smart, or non-suspicious. if you're loitering on my block wearing dark clothes after dark and I don't recognize you as a neighbor that is in fact suspicious, RAS is not a high standard to meet and doesn't require the activity be illegal

No, you're suspicious with a combination of factors. If you're walking down the sidewalk dressed like a mormon missionary you're probably not going to get the cops called on you, or bothered except by people who don't want to hear about Joseph Smith. If you're walking down the sidewalk and it's after dark and you're not a member of that neighborhood and you're wearing all black and you're still in the same place when the police show up..... well that is suspicious

Yeah, in fact that does happen, cops aren't able to leave the scene and consult with a team of lawyers and then come back and take action. RAS is made on the spur of the moment, that's entirely what RAS is, RAS is derived from what's happening at the time you observed it.

Your premise is based on knowing everyone in your neighborhood. I do not know everyone in my neighborhood. Any person who I may not recognize could live in my neighborhood or be an invited guest of a neighbor whether I know that neighbor or not.

A person walking in the dark, wearing black may be suspicious to you but not to all. The person could be walking around the block multiple times for exercise purposes. Prowling is in the eye of the beholder and careful observation by a cop would need to be made prior to making contact to ensure that he will be able to articulate all of a set of specific facts, later if need be, to support a contact.

Is twenty times around the block exercise or "casing" a particular residence? What are the facts to justify stopping a person who is observed walking repeatedly around the same block? A cop, based on your premise would make a stop. RAS is derived from being able to articulate specific facts that a crime is about to be or has been committed. Hunches are not allowed and this has been cited here on OCDO before. A report of a person walking around the block repeatedly should not be all a cop needs to detain that person for investigative purposes.

 

[Logan 5]

where are these departments? In Washington State virtually no agencies I'm aware of require any college, just a high school diploma or GED.

The US is not the State of Washington. Washington is only a part of the US. Maybe I can't come up with names and departments right now, but they are out there and that really is irrelevant. The fact is, if they give an oath to protect the Constitution they sure as heck better know what the heck it is.

 

[KYGlockster]

Your premise is based on knowing everyone in your neighborhood. I do not know everyone in my neighborhood. Any person who I may not recognize could live in my neighborhood or be an invited guest of a neighbor whether I know that neighbor or not.

A person walking in the dark, wearing black may be suspicious to you but not to all. The person could be walking around the block multiple times for exercise purposes. Prowling is in the eye of the beholder and careful observation by a cop would need to be made prior to making contact to ensure that he will be able to articulate all of a set of specific facts, later if need be, to support a contact.

Is twenty times around the block exercise or "casing" a particular residence? What are the facts to justify stopping a person who is observed walking repeatedly around the same block? A cop, based on your premise would make a stop. RAS is derived from being able to articulate specific facts that a crime is about to be or has been committed. Hunches are not allowed and this has been cited here on OCDO before. A report of a person walking around the block repeatedly should not be all a cop needs to detain that person for investigative purposes.

+1

Some tend to give police too much discretion when it comes to the topic of "reasonable articulate suspicion" and Terry v. Ohio. Just wearing black while walking at night is not enough reason to stop and detain someone as suggested. If this were the case, then the police could stop nearly everyone they see walking around after dark, or any other time. Under Terry v. Ohio, the Court stated that in order to stop and detain an individual, the officer must have "reasonable suspicion that a crime is afoot." As you have already stated, this CANNOT be based on a hunch or pure speculation, but on some sort of knowledge that a crime may be afoot.

 

[KYGlockster]

Don't forget, cops can do a consensual encounter and develop RAS during that encounter. However, until they develop that RAS, the encounter continues only as long as the contactee consents. Of course, that consent often comes out of massive ignorance.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

This is the truth! It is amazing how many people actually place themselves in cuffs, and subsequently in prison for many years. I'd guess over 50% of those that are incarcerated placed themselves behind bars because they were and are ignorant of their rights.

The sad thing regarding all of this is that officers take great advantage of those that have no knowledge of the rights they possess. When an officer encounters someone that is aware of their rights, then the encounter often becomes unpleasant because the offier is not used to someone refusing a request, or often times a demand that people don't realize they can refuse.

 

[tyc]

Every time you OC is there not a chance you'll get harassed based on the stories we've heard?

Let me ask you this. What would you do if almost EVERY TIME you OC you got a MWAG called and detained?

Would you keep OC'ing?

Yes.

tyc

 

[tyc]

I have to disagree with you here. I believe such a requirement would only strengthen the belief of some LE that they are a separate(and superior) class than the plain and average citizenry. We all ready have a problem with LEOs being "militarized". They dress like the military, use military grade weapons, and practice military techniques. I don't want to add to the mental image, some have, with the addition of "special" requirements.

If a person chooses to enter a career in LE, they should be expected to learn the requirements and limits of their job on their own, and if they fail to do so, be held accountable for it. I had to for my job, why should they be any different.

I realize that we can never return to the days of Andy Taylor, but to be honest, I would trust a simple and honest sheriff with no formal training more than I would some mall ninja(ladened with tacticool) who thinks just because he can pass a test, he is endowed with some special privilege or power.

That some LEO individuals are under the impression that they are some sort of "... separate (and superior) class than the ... citizenery, there is as I've seen it over the years something to this and I don't like it either.

As for "LEOs being "militarized"", I'm not so sure that is a significant problem but I know what you're speaking of and I offer at present continuous proper oversight is the best answer; I'm thinking of the TV appearances by that police chief or former police chief in Los Angeles several years ago ... Darrel something if memory serves me right; with his black shirt, four or five silver stars on his shirt lapels, etc. ... and you have better believe that guy takes himself very seriously as some sort of para-miliatry general. I for one do not like people like that.

tyc

 

[tyc]

Education does not now, nor has it ever been any indication of intelligence or the willingness of a person to be law-abiding.

For instance, Eric Holder, Janet Reno, Elena Kagan and Sonya Sotomayor have Doctorate degrees.

These people you mentioned are lawyers.

Recently I've had a fellow pro se practioner exclaim in a shocked tone when referring to statements offered by cousel for the defendants, "... they lied!" Nothing new about that. Lawyers do that quite often - to win - justice as they see it has nothing to do with the truth.

I for one am of the opinion that in this day and age we have far, far, far too many lawyers messing around with our judicial and legal systems. Were the decision mine, we would have far, far, far more historians involved in the legal process.

tyc

 

[tyc]

baiting[/I] which means teasing or verbally antagonizing someone to get them to react harshly.
Testing might be a better term.
Nothing wrong at all with citizens keeping an eye on government and checking it out to see if it is functioning correctly.

I for one agree, I don't like the term "baiting" either and your disagreement with the term is as well put as any I've seen todate.

As for the term "Testing". Yes, I agree, it might be a better term.

About your comment re. "... citizens keeping an eye on governement ..." yes, by all means, yes! It's a case of the employer keeping an eye on the employees.

tyc

 

[tyc]

I frankly disagree with the idea that police officers should be REQUIRED to have a college education to be considered for hire. College is no measure of your responsibility in my mind. Keep in mind most of the politicians who vote for gun control are college educated. I don't think paying 10K a year while getting drunk and smoking MJ qualify someone for law enforcement work.

I'll put it this way, lets say you have a 22 year old college graduate with no work experience, versus let's say someone with a GED who is 26 and has been a longshoreman, recieved safety awards, works hard, has 6 years of work history responsible for operating large pieces of machinery. who would you rather have able to apply? frankly I think having a history of holding a real job is better then college when it comes the suitability of someone for LE work

I for one concur, a college degree is not the measure of an adult. I for one view an individual with a Liberal Arts degree as one who has wasted four or more years of time, talent and treasure - but that's not to say the individual should be shunned.

But I do disagree with your supposition about work experience vs no work experience. I offer for example what the military has and is doing with young, essentially useless recruits. commissioned and non-commissioned. With the proper training, right frame of mind and a little time, odds are you'll end up with an individual who is a real asset to any organization he/she is affiliated with.

tyc

 

[tyc]

... But your example was a cop that did not know if OC specifically was a crime or not and detaining the person for it. That is the part I don't agree with.

That's were YOU come into the picture. I'm paraphrasing a very good judge who commented not so long ago, words to the effect, it is up to us to keep governement from falling into error; us meaning you and I. States "misbehave" all the time and with few exceptions, the individuals involved will employ every "trick in the book" to keep from being called to account. They will "hide" behind their state paid attorney, they will hide behind their labor unions and they will try and hide from you. It is up to YOU to know the law and just as importantly, be ready to use it.

With the above said, I suspect few here will not agree in that as some of those videos on YOUTUBE and the like regarding OC, the individuals doing the open carrying are for the most part very articulate and very knowledgeable about what they're doing.

tyc

 

[tyc]

Police don't violate our rights in good faith. Rights violations are bad faith actions. ...do police violate a persons rights in good faith. These are criminal acts, and society could be no better served than to criminally prosecute the offender.

I don't agree. LEOs do make mistakes, usually they're not serious - usually they're not - and I offer that not all rights violations are committed in bad faith but they do go on. State actors do misbehave, some far more than others but not all do and the "trick" is not to let the bad ones get away with it.

As for criminally prosecuting the offender. Take it case by case, incident by incident. Without question there have been and still are LEOs who really shouldn't be in the business. I for one am of the opinion that the old 10-80-10 principle of reward and punishment should apply to LEOs, just as it does to the rest of us. On the job, have you never made a mistake; a serious one or otherwise?

tyc

 

[tyc]

EMNofSeattle;
... but since apples and oranges are both fruit, I see continuing this conversation is going to be (ironically) fruitless.

Clever! Hope you don't mind if I use that somewhere down the line when time and circumstance allow.

tyc

 

[tyc]

"... LE, at any level, anywhere, has not given a single indication that they give a rats rear end about the financial consequences a citizen experiences when LE unlawfully and likely illegally violates a citizen's rights.

... It is far easier to sue a city employee for their good faith mistakes than a LEO. ...

Not giving "a rats ..." if the individual were a "bad cop" I'm sure you're right but as for it being easier to sue a city employee than a LEO, not true. It's just as easy or just as difficult, depending on how skilled in civil law you are.

tyc

 

[tyc]

There is a smartphone application/website called Qik that will record video from a phone to your device, while streaming it live and storing it on the www.qik.com website. Check it out.

Nice! Thanks.

tyc

 

[PistolPackingMomma]

Clever! Hope you don't mind if I use that somewhere down the line when time and circumstance allow.

tyc

Not at all.

 

[OC for ME]

These people you mentioned are lawyers.

Recently I've had a fellow pro se practioner exclaim in a shocked tone when referring to statements offered by cousel for the defendants, "... they lied!" Nothing new about that. Lawyers do that quite often - to win - justice as they see it has nothing to do with the truth.

I for one am of the opinion that in this day and age we have far, far, far too many lawyers messing around with our judicial and legal systems. Were the decision mine, we would have far, far, far more historians involved in the legal process.

tyc

The legal system is a system of processes wrapped around the law. Reciting the law is not nearly as important as following the process. You want to tick-off a judge? Recite a law that he is violating in his court.

Example: Cop files a report on you for DC due merely to you OCing. The report is full of lies (is this possible?). The judge accepts the report as factual even though you have evidence as to the falsehoods (lies) contained in the report. The judge must hold the process sacrosanct and not let the truth hinder the process. He will rule the report as a pack of lies when the process permits him to rule the report as a pack of lies.

I for one agree, I don't like the term "baiting" either and your disagreement with the term is as well put as any I've seen todate.

As for the term "Testing". Yes, I agree, it might be a better term.

About your comment re. "... citizens keeping an eye on governement ..." yes, by all means, yes! It's a case of the employer keeping an eye on the employees.

tyc

It does not matter what you call the act. The results of "catching" a cop, or a case of the cop "failing" the test are the same. That cop is a rights infringing thug and deserves a severe punishment.

I for one concur, a college degree is not the measure of an adult. I for one view an individual with a Liberal Arts degree as one who has wasted four or more years of time, talent and treasure - but that's not to say the individual should be shunned.

But I do disagree with your supposition about work experience vs no work experience. I offer for example what the military has and is doing with young, essentially useless recruits. commissioned and non-commissioned. With the proper training, right frame of mind and a little time, odds are you'll end up with an individual who is a real asset to any organization he/she is affiliated with.

tyc

You seem to misunderstand the importance that the military places on a college degree. Commissioned officer are leaders/managers and not assets. If a "useless recruit" does not pass college he will not become a commissioned officer. That individual is then classified as a asset, to be lead and managed.

I don't agree. LEOs do make mistakes, usually they're not serious - usually they're not - and I offer that not all rights violations are committed in bad faith but they do go on. State actors do misbehave, some far more than others but not all do and the "trick" is not to let the bad ones get away with it.

As for criminally prosecuting the offender. Take it case by case, incident by incident. Without question there have been and still are LEOs who really shouldn't be in the business. I for one am of the opinion that the old 10-80-10 principle of reward and punishment should apply to LEOs, just as it does to the rest of us. On the job, have you never made a mistake; a serious one or otherwise?

tyc

I disagree, usually the "mistake" is serious, if your perspective is based on the premise that a employee of the state is barred legally from infringing upon our rights without just cause. All rights violations should be considered as having occurred in "bad faith." It is easy if a cop is a witness to a crime. When the cop is not a witness and is using his authority and power based solely on a report from a citizen then that cop must use extra caution. I submit that most cops treat all citizens as if the crime reported is a fact and the "criminal" has the burden to prove that he is not the criminal.

Not giving "a rats ..." if the individual were a "bad cop" I'm sure you're right but as for it being easier to sue a city employee than a LEO, not true. It's just as easy or just as difficult, depending on how skilled in civil law you are.

tyc

City employees do not enjoy QI as do cops. The DMV clerk can not be protected by the courts via QI. The bureaucrat union for the DMV clerk can not intervene when a legal or civil action is lodged against that DMV clerk. A bureaucrat is not a cop, and a cop is not a bureaucrat until they are promoted sufficiently up the chain of command.