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

[Statkowski]

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

Nope, I don't think so.

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

I'd be filing an awful lot of Private Criminal Complaints against the detaining officer(s) and Federal Civil Rights Lawsuits against the officers, their police chiefs and their municipalities.

Here in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania we've got two State Supreme Court rulings stating that OC was legal, without a license (except in a City of the First Class), plus the annual training put out by the Pennsyvania State Police for all police officers statewide specifically covered the legality of OC.

Would you keep OC'ing?

You betcha.

 

[Fallschirjmäger]

I won't swear to it, but I'll lay odds that in every State enticing someone into committing a criminal act is illegal.
If it were true that "OC advocates" were truly "baiting" law abiding officers into committing illegal acts, then why have none of them been arrested for it?

 

[Battleborn Billy]

i think it all depends on the situation. if you get stopped by law enforcement and the officer is stepping over the line and trying to trample on your rights and incriminate you, then yes, stand up for your rights. i'm not trusting of too many cops just like im not very trusting of the majority of people in general. but just like anyone else, there are good cops and bad cops. some cops take their jobs and the rights of individuals very seriously. Everyone should stand up for their rights, i just don't see the point in yelling "am I under arrest!!!" over and over in an officers face if he isn't violating your rights. they have a difficult and dangerous job and want to be safe too. go with your instincts and treat each situation and officer the way you feel you should depending on your own treatment.

 

[Freedom1Man]

i think it all depends on the situation. if you get stopped by law enforcement and the officer is stepping over the line and trying to trample on your rights and incriminate you, then yes, stand up for your rights. i'm not trusting of too many cops just like im not very trusting of the majority of people in general. but just like anyone else, there are good cops and bad cops. some cops take their jobs and the rights of individuals very seriously. Everyone should stand up for their rights, i just don't see the point in yelling "am I under arrest!!!" over and over in an officers face if he isn't violating your rights. they have a difficult and dangerous job and want to be safe too. go with your instincts and treat each situation and officer the way you feel you should depending on your own treatment.

Want a dangerous job? Be a deep sea welder/diver.
Want a job that people claim is dangerous but lets you abuse people? Become a cop.

 

[Kraven115]

Note: I have not checked every state's minimum requirements for admission as an officer, but .....
Every state I've checked so far, shows that only a General Educational Development certificate is required for admission into the academy.

You have not checked MN then. At minimum you must have an AA degree, most departments favor a BA. I can't comment on other states but here we are required to not only have a degree and meet Peace Offricer Standards and Training requirements, but we must also maintain those as continuing education throughout our career. Also,most of the peace officers I know support your right to carry and take our oath to uphold the constitution quite seriously. I know I do.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

You have not checked MN then. At minimum you must have an AA degree, most departments favor a BA. I can't comment on other states but here we are required to not only have a degree and meet Peace Offricer Standards and Training requirements, but we must also maintain those as continuing education throughout our career. Also,most of the peace officers I know support your right to carry and take our oath to uphold the constitution quite seriously. I know I do.

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

 

[twoskinsonemanns]

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

This is kinda a WAG but maybe departments that require some sort of criminal justice degree do so to save money for training. The fact is there are so many laws out there it is almost impossible to know them. But as citizens we feel the cops must know them if they are to enforce them.

 

[Fallschirjmäger]

I won't swear to it, but I'll lay odds that in every State enticing someone into committing a criminal act is illegal.
If it were true that "OC advocates" were truly "baiting" law abiding officers into committing illegal acts, then why have none of them been arrested for it?

You have not checked MN then. At minimum you must have an AA degree, most departments favor a BA. I can't comment on other states but here we are required to not only have a degree and meet Peace Offricer Standards and Training requirements, but we must also maintain those as continuing education throughout our career. Also,most of the peace officers I know support your right to carry and take our oath to uphold the constitution quite seriously. I know I do.

Minnesota is to be commended and is definitely one of the exceptions then. As recently as 2003, only 9 percent of police departments nationally required a 2-year college degree and 1 percent a 4-year degree.
Source: M.J. Hickman and B.A. Reaves, U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Local Police Departments, 2003 (NCJ 210118), May 2006, http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/lpd03.pdf

 

[EMNofSeattle]

This is kinda a WAG but maybe departments that require some sort of criminal justice degree do so to save money for training. The fact is there are so many laws out there it is almost impossible to know them. But as citizens we feel the cops must know them if they are to enforce them.

Well no department anywhere that I know of requires a criminal justice degree. Lots of departments require college degrees, but that's just a requirement for a degree from an accredited school. If a department requires a bachelor's degree, you can have a bachelor's in CJ, Accounting, English, anything, as long as it's a BA or BS.

well it's not fair to require cops know every law, just the code of my state (Washington) contains over 98 titles with the two criminal code titles spanning over 75 chapters. add in local ordinances, court decisions, case law, etc. That's alot of information for someone to absorb. and Washington has a pretty simple criminal code compared to some other states (especially related to firearms). I wouldn't nessecarily blame an officer if he made a detention for OCing and he in good faith didn't know OC was legal or wasn't familiar with it for whatever reason, if he makes a detention and calls for a supervisor or calls dispatch to read out the law to him and then releases you and says "have a nice day". I don't expect cops to know every single comma in the RCWs and WACs and the Municipal codes, and what is and what is not pre-empted. I will never blame someone acting in good faith, however if the officer is like the Philly police sergeant who got out of the car drawn yelling "get on the f***ing ground" then I will definitely condemn that officer.

 

[twoskinsonemanns]

Well no department anywhere that I know of requires a criminal justice degree. Lots of departments require college degrees, but that's just a requirement for a degree from an accredited school. If a department requires a bachelor's degree, you can have a bachelor's in CJ, Accounting, English, anything, as long as it's a BA or BS.

Ah. I just assumed if they required a degree it would be in the related field. Just an assumption.

I wouldn't nessecarily blame an officer if he made a detention for OCing and he in good faith didn't know OC was legal

In this we will have to disagree. If a cop comes on a situation where he doesn't know if the action is a crime or not, the default should not be to seize the person.

 

[Fallschirjmäger]

"... If a cop comes on a situation where he doesn't know if the action is a crime or not, the default should not be to seize the person...

Chances that an officer or department could be held criminally or civilly liable for failing to act to prevent a crime they didn't know about, <= 0.
Chances that an officer or department could be held criminally or civilly liable for failing to act to prevent a crime they did know about, also <= 0.

Chances that an officer or department could be held criminally or civilly liable for committing a crime that they knew or should have known about... > 0

 

[EMNofSeattle]

In this we will have to disagree. If a cop comes on a situation where he doesn't know if the action is a crime or not, the default should not be to seize the person.

In a perfect world yes, but we live in an imperfect world. While its true police can't be held liable for failing to prevent a crime, most police officers would much rather prevent a crime from happening. If Officer X sees someone at night carrying a gun in a crime infested neighborhood and open carry while technically legal is rarely encountered in that area... I would expect a terry stop in that instance libertarian leanings notwithstanding

 

[twoskinsonemanns]

If Officer X sees someone at night carrying a gun in a crime infested neighborhood and open carry while technically legal is rarely encountered in that area... I would expect a terry stop in that instance libertarian leanings notwithstanding

Sure I hear ya, and I agree. There can certainly be cumulative circumstances that indicate an action which is know to be a crime is probably about to occur or just did occur which justifies a terry..

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.

 

[PistolPackingMomma]

Well no department anywhere that I know of requires a criminal justice degree. Lots of departments require college degrees, but that's just a requirement for a degree from an accredited school. If a department requires a bachelor's degree, you can have a bachelor's in CJ, Accounting, English, anything, as long as it's a BA or BS.

well it's not fair to require cops know every law, just the code of my state (Washington) contains over 98 titles with the two criminal code titles spanning over 75 chapters. add in local ordinances, court decisions, case law, etc. That's alot of information for someone to absorb. and Washington has a pretty simple criminal code compared to some other states (especially related to firearms). I wouldn't nessecarily blame an officer if he made a detention for OCing and he in good faith didn't know OC was legal or wasn't familiar with it for whatever reason, if he makes a detention and calls for a supervisor or calls dispatch to read out the law to him and then releases you and says "have a nice day". I don't expect cops to know every single comma in the RCWs and WACs and the Municipal codes, and what is and what is not pre-empted. I will never blame someone acting in good faith, however if the officer is like the Philly police sergeant who got out of the car drawn yelling "get on the f***ing ground" then I will definitely condemn that officer.

I disagree.

1. Life is not fair.

2. Perhaps we need less laws then, if they are too numerous to memorize?

3. Ignorance of the law is no defense for citizens, and if cops are not a special, privileged class, then why is it a defense for police? Their job is to enforce the law; how can they properly do that if they do not know the laws? The majority of gun carriers learn the laws, codes, statutes, whatever you want to call them, because they must know what is legal and what is not, in order to exercise their right lawfully. Is it such an unreasonable stretch for us to require cops to do the same?

 

[EMNofSeattle]

I disagree.

1. Life is not fair.

2. Perhaps we need less laws then, if they are too numerous to memorize?

3. Ignorance of the law is no defense for citizens, and if cops are not a special, privileged class, then why is it a defense for police? Their job is to enforce the law; how can they properly do that if they do not know the laws? The majority of gun carriers learn the laws, codes, statutes, whatever you want to call them, because they must know what is legal and what is not, in order to exercise their right lawfully. Is it such an unreasonable stretch for us to require cops to do the same?

Well tell me which portions of the Revised Code of Washington Titles 9, 9A, 46, 47, 57,56, 64, 70,79, and 79A are all related or somewhat related to the job of a police officer. the rest of the RCW titles are related different things like code enforcement, welfare programs, building standards etc unrelated to the job of a general police officer. but the titles I mentioned are criminal code for 9 and 9A, 46 and 47 are related to vehicles and traffic, 70 is public safety, 79 and 79A are related to public lands, 56 and 57 relate to private property. You don't profess to know what is in ANY of these titles and yet you're stating we need less laws. these laws are passed for a reason and furthermore it's the legislature and not law enforcement that creates laws. don't like them vote for a different guy.

Life is not fair, you're point being?

As much as the libertarian party screams otherwise, LEOs are a special class. they can do all sorts of things you'd get thrown in prison for. Try tying someone up for public drunkeness and see what happens. They have the authority to carry firearms into areas you'd get jailed for carrying in, like airports (sterile areas) Schools, post offices, etc. They have the authority to lock someone up on suspicion of a crime, they have the authority to carry concealed weapons without a CPL they have the authority to break the traffic code while on duty, and list goes on and on. Furthermore in WA they have immunity from prosecution if they use deadly force "in good faith" and they have "qualified immunity" meaning you can not sue a police officer unless the officer knowingly and in mal faith violated your rights.

And when you say ignorance to the law is no excuse, but that doesn't apply to you being stopped and questioned by law enforcement. unless the police are acting in bad faith to deprive you of your civil liberties there is no statutory law that I am aware of at least in WA that makes police contact of an individual illegal. That goes into dealing with case law, which is extremely subjective based on the person and or judge looking at the facts of the circumstances. In WA state for instance, there was an open carry case in which a man was arrested walking in King County with an AK clone rifle slung on his back at midnight walking quickly and keeping his head down. not only did he get arrested and convicted, the appeals court that the search was reasonable in the first place that was State v Spencer. another case involved a felon who walked in downtown Port Angeles WA in broad daylight with two rifles rolled up in a knapsack, he was arrested and the search ruled illegal because open carry is legal in Washington. (State v. Casad) the legaility of any specific police contact is not generally black and white, which is why the "good faith standard exists" different judges rule differently, you can't expect a policemen to be punished severely for a good faith contact because different attitudes can prevail at court.

Sorry for the long post ma'am but I felt this was worthy of a detailed reply

 

[PistolPackingMomma]

Well tell me which portions of the Revised Code of Washington Titles 9, 9A, 46, 47, 57,56, 64, 70,79, and 79A are all related or somewhat related to the job of a police officer. the rest of the RCW titles are related different things like code enforcement, welfare programs, building standards etc unrelated to the job of a general police officer. but the titles I mentioned are criminal code for 9 and 9A, 46 and 47 are related to vehicles and traffic, 70 is public safety, 79 and 79A are related to public lands, 56 and 57 relate to private property. You don't profess to know what is in ANY of these titles and yet you're stating we need less laws. these laws are passed for a reason and furthermore it's the legislature and not law enforcement that creates laws. don't like them vote for a different guy.

Well, I'm not from WA, so I have not studied your laws, and I would not profess to know them. But shouldn't an officer know the laws as they may relate to private property, public safety or lands? And I still stand by my statement (controversial though many may find it) that if our laws are too numerous to know, then yes, we need less laws. Did you know some 80,000 laws are passed during an election year? My goodness, what on earth is IN that legislation? They are either making the same things illegal over and over again, or making more and more things illegal/restricted. You might understand the point I'm driving at if you understand that I'm an abolitionist. But I do not want to digress this conversation any further off topic than it has been.

Life is not fair, you're point being?

Umm...that you said "well it's not fair to require cops know every law,", so that's my point.

As much as the libertarian party screams otherwise, LEOs are a special class. they can do all sorts of things you'd get thrown in prison for. Try tying someone up for public drunkeness and see what happens. They have the authority to carry firearms into areas you'd get jailed for carrying in, like airports (sterile areas) Schools, post offices, etc. They have the authority to lock someone up on suspicion of a crime, they have the authority to carry concealed weapons without a CPL they have the authority to break the traffic code while on duty, and list goes on and on. Furthermore in WA they have immunity from prosecution if they use deadly force "in good faith" and they have "qualified immunity" meaning you can not sue a police officer unless the officer knowingly and in mal faith violated your rights.

I'm very much aware that LEOs are a special class; they have a pretty blue line protecting them from a lot of the same things that would put us in jail. My post was a bit more tongue in cheek, regarding that point. What I guess I failed to make clear is how much I strongly disapprove of that elitist protection.

And when you say ignorance to the law is no excuse, but that doesn't apply to you being stopped and questioned by law enforcement. unless the police are acting in bad faith to deprive you of your civil liberties there is no statutory law that I am aware of at least in WA that makes police contact of an individual illegal. That goes into dealing with case law, which is extremely subjective based on the person and or judge looking at the facts of the circumstances. In WA state for instance, there was an open carry case in which a man was arrested walking in King County with an AK clone rifle slung on his back at midnight walking quickly and keeping his head down. not only did he get arrested and convicted, the appeals court that the search was reasonable in the first place that was State v Spencer. another case involved a felon who walked in downtown Port Angeles WA in broad daylight with two rifles rolled up in a knapsack, he was arrested and the search ruled illegal because open carry is legal in Washington. (State v. Casad) the legaility of any specific police contact is not generally black and white, which is why the "good faith standard exists" different judges rule differently, you can't expect a policemen to be punished severely for a good faith contact because different attitudes can prevail at court.

If I am ignorant of the law, I have no defense, no legal recourse or protection. If a cop is ignorant of the law, he is at worst put on administrative leave while a lawsuit with the city or town makes reparations for wrongful arrest or other such actions. There are no personal repercussions for the LEO, and yet, it's his very job to know and enforce the law. If he gets it wrong, well, that doesn't mean he wasn't doing his job properly; he was just acting in good faith. If I get it wrong, acting in good faith; I'm arrested and my recognition of rights possibly rescinded.

Can you not see the disparity there? Why should we tolerate this? Why is this considered acceptable, to hold one class of citizens responsible for their actions, but not the other?

Sorry for the long post ma'am but I felt this was worthy of a detailed reply

Long replies are fine, and I appreciate a civil discussion of differing views. I'm not so much arguing against you so much as against the principles of class elitism and lack of personal responsibility.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

Did you know some 80,000 laws are passed during an election year? My goodness, what on earth is IN that legislation?

I don't know what's being defined as a law in that number, I watched it on John Stossel once, But he never explains his numbers. Are administrative regulations considered a law? is any change or revision to a law considered a new law for that number? is that just federal or is it state and local code too? I just don't know, so I can't comment as to what's in those 80,000 pages, my best guess is it's mainly administrative regulation changes. but that's only a guess

I'm not from WA

I'm aware of that, it's just I'm only familiar with the laws of Washington and a handful of other Northwest states in any detail, so nearly all the laws and case laws I reference involve Washington law unless I mark otherwise, needless to say nothing i post constitutes legal advice

If I am ignorant of the law, I have no defense, no legal recourse or protection. If a cop is ignorant of the law, he is at worst put on administrative leave while a lawsuit with the city or town makes reparations for wrongful arrest or other such actions. There are no personal repercussions for the LEO, and yet, it's his very job to know and enforce the law

See but when you say the "law" we're talking two different things as it relates to cop and his duties and the private citizen and their duty to obey "the law" When you say "the law" in relation to you and me, we're talking mainly criminal statutory law, you drove home drunk, you shot some guy you weren't justified to, you imported leopard pelts from the black market. in that sense of the law a cop can (and usually is) punished in the same way a citizen would be. Here in my corner of the country I can relate a couple of examples, retired Bremerton Police Officer Roy Alloway was just convicted of dealing firearms without an FFL. Deputy Argyle of the Kitsap County Sheriff's office was stopped and written up for DUI, he recieved a suspended sentence after completing alcohol diversion classes (routine for first time offenders in my county). Police Officer Dennis McCarthy of Port Orchard (my hometown) get sentence to 23 years in prison for pushing his girl friend out a window.

The point is, in cases where it's apples to apples, the police can and do get punished comparably to DUI. your location thing says "SC" (which I assume is South Carolina) i don't know if there is a culture of police corruption or giving cops slaps on the wrist for criminal code violations, but in my corner of the country cops can and do get in trouble all the time.

but what you're saying is apples to oranges. The legality of an arrest or detention is a fuzzy issue that is determined after court hearings with a judge, and there simply isn't enough judges to ride along with every police officer to rule on stop legality before it's conducted. it's true that cops may make "illegal arrests" but that's not the same as you getting in trouble for speeding, becuase cops are expected to make arrests or detentions and some will be ruled illegal. The only time it's a criminal code offense (at least in my state) is if the "public servant" either commits what they know to be an unauthorized act under color of authority, or fails to discharge their duties while acting under color of authority, federal law also makes it illegal to conspire to deprive you of your civil rights, but that requires proving that the authorities INTENDED to do so.

Lets go back to the cases I mentioned one case a man is openly carrying a magazine fed rifle with magazine attached and is walking quickly through a residential neighborhood keeping his head low. he was arrested and convicted of carrying a firearm "in a manner that manifests an intent to intimidate others" (wording of WA law). man walking during the day with two bolt action rifles rolled in a knapsack is charged with the same crime and convicted, and conviction overturned. now how can you expect a cop to figure out if a particular OCer is following the law when judges can't even make up their mind on what constitutes the law? (which is why I think that law needs to be changed, it's not fair to OCer OR the Police/prosecutors to have such a vaguely worded statute. but the point i'm making is that constitutional law is sometimes vague becuase no two circumstances in which someone is contacted are the same. why don't you apply to become a police officer, and make a few arrests, will you demand to go to prison if one of your detentions is ruled unconstitutional? think about it for a sec...

 

[Vitaeus]

EMN you are talking apples and oranges with the two cases you are citing. State v. Casad was about an illegal terry stop, which resulted in an illegal search, he was not charged with a 9.41.270 violation. The court found no probable cause for the search which resulted in the charges being dismissed. Unfortunately it is unpublished and not a precedent, the inference is that open carry of a firearm without other factors is legal. The other case you are citing was a conviction for a violation of 9.41.270.

In Washington, I would respectfully disagree, the basic firearm's laws regarding open carry are contained in 9.41.050, 9.41.060, 9.41.290, 9.41.300, all of these are very short and not long, except for .300 which lists a short list of prohibited locations.

a short, listing of requirements for open carry in Washington:

"non-prohibited citizen over the age of 21 may open carry a firearm outside of school zones, courts, security area's at airports, posted areas of bars, jails, mental health facilities. No one but the state can make a law further restricting carry, see fine print for details. your mileage may vary and ignorance of the law is not an excuse, for either the citizen or the LEO."

A consensual encounter is one thing, but if the LEO decides to either detain or arrest, they had best have enough information to avoid a civil law suit. The case law in Washington, which the LEO should be passingly familiar with make privacy a very clear concern for both law enforcement and the Judicial system.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

You are right Vitaeus about the Spencer and Casad charges, I mispoke on that.

However both were stopped merely becuase they were displaying firearms, Spencer went down for the .270 violation and Casad was felon in possession. but both stops were initiated because the defendants in both cases were carrying firearms. My only point is that legality of certain police actions is nearly always determined afterward regarding that cases merits. Even the most professional of LEOs have cases they've made against a subject supressed because the court ruled some right was violated. case law is a murky subject at times. I don't believe destroying an officers career or making criminal charges out of violating someone's rights if it wasn't done in bad faith. Adhering to case law on what constitutes legal actions is not the same as adhering the statutory law. Statutory law only makes it illegal for a police officer to act in bad faith or to knowingly violate someone's rights or enter into a conspiracy to do so.

With criminal code laws you violated the law once you commited the act, with police searches and detentions, in 90% of cases the legality is only determined after the action has taken place. and since civilians can't do searches or detentions (well technically citizens arrest but there is no liability protection for civies) pistolpackingmama's comparison of "i have to obey the law, why don't they" (paraphrased not quoted) is not a completely apples to apples comparison

 

[Vitaeus]

Knowing every single law and the case law that applies, is excessive. I would however,e xpect a LEO to have a broad knowledge of firearms laws and the state specific variations in how the state considers detainments and arrests. In respect to Washington this link is very informative, it is written for law enforcement by lawyers to explain where the lines are fuzzy and where there is a bright line.

https://fortress.wa.gov/cjtc/www/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=137&Itemid=80

It explains many of the issues we discuss on this forum with respect to just how far LEO can go and why.