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

[Fuller Malarkey]

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.

Police don't violate our rights in good faith. Rights violations are bad faith actions. That's why they call them violations. You don't violate a child in good faith, nor 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.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

Police don't violate our rights in good faith. Rights violations are bad faith actions. That's why they call them violations. You don't violate a child in good faith, nor 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.

You Can't violate a child in good faith, because there is statutory law making child rape specifically illegal. One knows that act is criminal prior to doing it. Unless a police officer knowingly violates someones rights it's not illegal until a court rules to that fact later. Again this is apples to oranges.
This is why state officials are given qualified immunity, officers can only be held liable if they violate clearly established law. Again I have no sympathy for crooked officers, but it's not just to hold good officers to a standard that can change on the whim of a judge. I am fully supportive of qualified immunity in that regard.

 

[SevenSlugs]

One can stand their ground and excert their rights, but still remain calm, soft spoken and polite. I think when they immediately go SCREAMING "AM I BEING DETAINED? AM I FREE TO GO?" That they look crazy and reflect bad on other OCers. I will say those things if I think it is a bad stop or if the LEO wants to do search or such but will act in a calm manner while doing so. The LEOs who sale drugs to someone then arrest them for buying them is different in that the LEO is doing something that would be illeagal for us to do. We (those who OC) are doing something leagl. How can doing something legal bait an LEO into doing something illegal? While many of those videos are posted by Richard Heads, They should have been left alone in the beginning.

X2

Sent from my SGH-T839 using Tapatalk 2

 

[OC for ME]

If a cop sees a citizen OCing a properly holstered side arm in a "rough" part of town in stead of a "evil black rifle" it seems we are all being told that the same result will occur in spite of what WA law states. This is an admission that LE really does not care that OC is legal, heck OC is not really the point anymore because now a "out of place citizen", looking just a bit "suspicious" and LE now uses time, place, and mannerisms to hassle OCers or "out of place citizens."

I have cousins who are LE back in SC and I get on their case every time I hear one of their stories where they "acted in good faith", thought they did a good job. Yet get pissed when I tell them they broke the law. Here in MO there are a few laws where a violated citizen could file criminal charges for what were considered by that cop as good faith acts. Yet a prosecutor will never ever press those charges.

As to those DUI, shoving girl friends out windows incidents perpetrated by cops, keep those out of the conversation they are completely irrelevant to what we all know is the real issue for OCing citizens and "casual contacts" by cops.

If a cop feels the need to stop citizen A and not citizen B, and the only difference between citizen A and citizen B is citizen A has a OC'd pistol then that cop is anti-liberty. Cops are realizing that OCing citizens are a quick way to a civil suit so cops are shifting tactics to hassle citizens by using time, place, and mannerisms that seem to the cop, in good faith of course, to be just a wee bit on the suspicious side.

But, if the "casual contact" is relatively brief, cordial and the citizen hands over his papers it is a win-win for all sides.....right?

What does the citizen have to hide? Why not cooperate and leave a good impression with that cop? It does the "movement" good to have "responsible" members educating the public. We want LE on our side as well.

 

[PistolPackingMomma]

EMNofSeattle;

I disagree with qualified immunity and blue line protection; you obviously do not. We will have to agree to disagree on this topic. You are going to claim everything I say is comparing apples to oranges; but since apples and oranges are both fruit, I see continuing this conversation is going to be (ironically) fruitless.

 

[KYGlockster]

If an officer does not know whether the activity someone is committing is illegal or legal he should verify before he decides to detain a suspect. Law enforcement officers have mobile data terminals in their vehicles and can do a vast search for nearly anything they want, and have excellent access to state criminal codes. If I witness someone doing something that I suspect might be illegal but I'm not sure, I will NOT confront without knowing exactly what the possible violation could be and what type of offense it is. The majority of the times though, if an officer witnesses something and he does not know whether the activity is in violation of the law, it probably is not something to worry about. I am a firm believer in jury nullification and police discretion, and if I believe something is egregious or unconstitutional I would not enforce that particular statute.

 

[KYGlockster]

EMNofSeattle;

I disagree with qualified immunity and blue line protection; you obviously do not. We will have to agree to disagree on this topic. You are going to claim everything I say is comparing apples to oranges; but since apples and oranges are both fruit, I see continuing this conversation is going to be (ironically) fruitless.

I agree completely and this is why I believe anyone entering the criminal justice field should be mandated to have at LEAST an associate's degree in CJ. An officer violating someone's rights and claiming qualified immunity is a joke. If an officer is ignorant enough to walk around detaining people on a whim then he is ignorant enough to set in jail for depriving folks of their rights. This country has descended into this deplorable condition because we have given LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS the ability to do as they please without facing any reperucussions. We need to uphold and enforce the federal and state constitutions, and any act or legislation that is unconstitutional needs to be rescinded and/or punished.

 

[Freedom1Man]

I agree completely and this is why I believe anyone entering the criminal justice field should be mandated to have at LEAST an associate's degree in CJ. An officer violating someone's rights and claiming qualified immunity is a joke. If an officer is ignorant enough to walk around detaining people on a whim then he is ignorant enough to set in jail for depriving folks of their rights. This country has descended into this deplorable condition because we have given LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS the ability to do as they please without facing any reperucussions. We need to uphold and enforce the federal and state constitutions, and any act or legislation that is unconstitutional needs to be rescinded and/or punished.

Considering those who are the product of this training. I disagree unless we get rid of "qualified immunity."

First thing first is to get rid of all the unelected police forces. If you don't elect the head officer (eg sheriff or chief of police) then that police department should be disbanded.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

Considering those who are the product of this training. I disagree unless we get rid of "qualified immunity."

First thing first is to get rid of all the unelected police forces. If you don't elect the head officer (eg sheriff or chief of police) then that police department should be disbanded.

You're not going to find anyone willing to work in a public office without qualified immunity. Of course frankly I think that's the libertarians want anyway. No cops, no courts, everyman for himself.
There's a reason for qualified immunity, it means a public employee can do their job without worrying about being personally bankrupted as a result of doing it. I'll pose this question to you, why don't you become a cop, since SPD is hiring right now, you become a cop, and then go on the media and demand you be bankrupted or thrown in jail if a search you make is declared unconstitutional or suppressed by a judge. put up or shut up, put your money and reputation where your fingers are....

And even "unelected police forces" have leaders chosen by elected officials. what if the majority of people in your town elected a raving anti-gunner police chief and/or judges? whatchya gonna do then? probably run with your tail between your legs to some UNELECTED federal judges (who should be disbanded right) and claim the elected official is violating your rights.

 

[twoskinsonemanns]

Of course frankly I think that's the libertarians want anyway. No cops, no courts, everyman for himself.

This is not an accurate portrayal of libertarians. It's may be gratifying to portray libertarians as anarchistic but is a lie. Why does it have to be anarchy or totalitarianism? Why do we have to try to control people and make them be the way we want them?

 

[EMNofSeattle]

This is not an accurate portrayal of libertarians. It's may be gratifying to portray libertarians as anarchistic but is a lie. Why does it have to be anarchy or totalitarianism? Why do we have to try to control people and make them be the way we want them?

That certainly is the impression I get sometimes, you know when you got people saying it's evidence of police corruption that they compelled him to produce a driver's license when they arrived at the scene of a collision and began filing a report. And then denies the plain language of the law requiring him to do so. It certainly seems that libertarians don't really like any form of authority over them. Becuase evidently if we allow police to check a driver's license and insurance information at the scene of a crash it won't be long before we have secret police yanking people off the streets and sending them to re-education camps in Okanogan County, Washington (there was an episode of the Alex Jones show in which he stated there was secret detention camps being built in the Okanogan highlands.... I've been there several times, it's EMN certified detention camp free) That is definitely the impression I get from listening to people who symppathize libertarian.

Now I understand we have rights, I exercise my rights when I have to, once a friend and I were walking a girl home my senior year of high school, we're walking down a rural county road at 11:30 pm and a pair of sheriff's deputies stopped us and began asking questions, I gave them my name and current address and then informed them I decline to answer any further questions. he tried to ask me what we were doing and where we were going, and my friend got intimidated and answer all their questions while I just sat there. Was that detention legal? Well the officers claimed the recieved a call from someone concerned about the safety of the girl we were with. now would a detention based off of a general concern expressed by one late night caller qualify as PC or even RAS for a terry stop? who knows? Could I have gone to court and filed a complaint and made that officers week a living hell? probably. but I understand WHY stuff like that happens, and the officer was professional enough, he never made threats or threatened me with arrest for not answering questions (but i guess he didn't need to becuase my friends were all too willing to talk to him) Every so often even the best of officers will screw up and someone will have their rights violated on occasion, to expect anything else is being unrealistic. to expect cops to do everything perfectly with no mistakes is unrealistic.

I completely support firing officers who knowingly violate someone's rights or who threaten or intimidate people into waiving their rights etc. but for the good faith violation I honestly believe the exclusionary rule (that evidence cannot be admitted into court) is perfectly adaquate for that purpose.

And to think 2 years in college studying criminal justice is going to end police corruption or increase the professionalism of police forces is wishful thinking at best. Chicago Police requires Bachelor's degrees and they're still one of the most corrupt forces in the country. Bellevue, Washington police only require high school or GED, and they're considered one of the most professional forces in the northwest. college education means nothing towards being an effective LEO, in my humble opinion. I'm attending college right now, believe me there's plenty of morons in higher education too.

 

[nonameisgood]

Jumping in late...
It seems to me that beat officers should be responsible for enforcing a subset of laws. They should have full knowledge about violent crime, trespass, weapons, child custody, and similar things. As stated elsewhere in the thread, when people can't know the laws of the land without a law degree, there are too many poorly constructed laws. How many other people successfully keep their jobs when they don't know the rules for the task at hand?

 

[EMNofSeattle]

Jumping in late...
It seems to me that beat officers should be responsible for enforcing a subset of laws. They should have full knowledge about violent crime, trespass, weapons, child custody, and similar things. As stated elsewhere in the thread, when people can't know the laws of the land without a law degree, there are too many poorly constructed laws. How many other people successfully keep their jobs when they don't know the rules for the task at hand?

you've obviously never worked in grocery........

The real problem isn't statutory law. The problem is case law, and what exactly concepts like probable cause means. I agree that there are too many laws on the books and some laws are enforced too aggressively though.

 

[Freedom1Man]

Jumping in late...
It seems to me that beat officers should be responsible for enforcing a subset of laws. They should have full knowledge about violent crime, trespass, weapons, child custody, and similar things. As stated elsewhere in the thread, when people can't know the laws of the land without a law degree, there are too many poorly constructed laws. How many other people successfully keep their jobs when they don't know the rules for the task at hand?

If a law is too complex to be understood by the 'common man' then the law is void.

How can I held accountable for a law that is not crystal clear?

As for 'case law' the courts are supposed to look at the INTENT of the law before ruling. They don't though.

 

[Freedom1Man]

You're not going to find anyone willing to work in a public office without qualified immunity. Of course frankly I think that's the libertarians want anyway. No cops, no courts, everyman for himself.
There's a reason for qualified immunity, it means a public employee can do their job without worrying about being personally bankrupted as a result of doing it. I'll pose this question to you, why don't you become a cop, since SPD is hiring right now, you become a cop, and then go on the media and demand you be bankrupted or thrown in jail if a search you make is declared unconstitutional or suppressed by a judge. put up or shut up, put your money and reputation where your fingers are....

And even "unelected police forces" have leaders chosen by elected officials. what if the majority of people in your town elected a raving anti-gunner police chief and/or judges? whatchya gonna do then? probably run with your tail between your legs to some UNELECTED federal judges (who should be disbanded right) and claim the elected official is violating your rights.

SPD as in Seattle Police Department? Sorry the fact that they even exist is contrary to the whole principle behind a republic.

The part of the problem is that the police are being taught to go beyond their legal function in society. To figure out what their legal function is you must look at the only legal purpose of a government is. The only legal function of government is to defend life, LIBERTY, and property.

I know an old man who used to be a Baltimore police officer. They were trained that they needed a warrant to arrest someone except when they witnessed a crime themselves. They were not supposed to issue speeding tickets to people for simply going 5,10,20 miles an hour over the speed limit though either. They were supposed to look at the whole picture. What the road dry? Was there a lot of other traffic? etc. If the roads had little to no traffic on them, they were dry, and the person behind the wheel was not bouncing between the lines then there was no cause for a stop even.


The SPD would fire me quickly because I would not issue frivolous traffic tickets, like seat belts laws, for one and considering that is how the make money. I think I would be off the force rather quickly. I would arrest pot smokers, J walkers (unless they were screwing up traffic), etc.

 

[OC for ME]

You're not going to find anyone willing to work in a public office without qualified immunity. Of course frankly I think that's the libertarians want anyway. No cops, no courts, everyman for himself.
There's a reason for qualified immunity, it means a public employee can do their job without worrying about being personally bankrupted as a result of doing it. I'll pose this question to you, why don't you become a cop, since SPD is hiring right now, you become a cop, and then go on the media and demand you be bankrupted or thrown in jail if a search you make is declared unconstitutional or suppressed by a judge. put up or shut up, put your money and reputation where your fingers are....

And even "unelected police forces" have leaders chosen by elected officials. what if the majority of people in your town elected a raving anti-gunner police chief and/or judges? whatchya gonna do then? probably run with your tail between your legs to some UNELECTED federal judges (who should be disbanded right) and claim the elected official is violating your rights.

"Public office" is different than being a certified peace officer/LEO. QI does not extend to the DMV employee or the city employed trash collector.

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.

Your defense of LE, irrational so it seems, is laudable and completely misplaced. Any LEO can come here and defend himself and his actions.

It is far easier to sue a city employee for their good faith mistakes than a LEO. So much so that a mere policy violation that results in a violation of the citizen's rights can be used to sue the bureaucrat. Juries are not typically sympathetic to bureaucrats but irrationally cling to the "all cops are good and have a tough job" image that LE continually rams down the throats of the citizenry.

If there were fewer LEOs on the street I'm not sure that the doom and gloom that some predict would manifest. Just as blood running in the streets did not occur when CCW is permitted. heck, Arizona is about as close to where they were in the 1880's regarding guns and I have not heard of any gun fights at high noon happening.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

SPD as in Seattle Police Department? Sorry the fact that they even exist is contrary to the whole principle behind a republic.

I know an old man who used to be a Baltimore police officer. They were trained that they needed a warrant to arrest someone except when they witnessed a crime themselves. They were not supposed to issue speeding tickets to people for simply going 5,10,20 miles an hour over the speed limit though either. They were supposed to look at the whole picture. What the road dry? Was there a lot of other traffic? etc. If the roads had little to no traffic on them, they were dry, and the person behind the wheel was not bouncing between the lines then there was no cause for a ticket.

You mean the same Baltimore police department that just reached a 1million dollar settlement with some guy becuae police officers were yanking people off the streets in cuffs for jaywalking and holding them for a week with no hearing before a judge only to let them out? Well thank god they never wrote you up for speeding

believe I've dealt with overreaching LEOs, and all of them have been in elected sheriffs departments in rural towns. Seattle police is one of the most professional agencies in the northwest, and compared to Baltimore, Chicago, New York, and LA they rank pretty well in terms of conducting honest business. I'd much rather be contacted by SPD then my county sheriffs office.

and I dont really feel much sympathy for those who get a ticket, obey the speed limit and you won't get a ticket. It's not fair to those who obey the law that others get away with breaking it. Someone who's going 20 over in a city street or arterial in Seattle is a danger to life and property, frankly I think that they should be charged with reckless endangerment instead of speeding. Another reason I dislike libertarians "I have the right to operate my car however I want" why not 100 over if there's no one in sight.

 

[OC for ME]

<snip. Seattle police is one of the most professional agencies in the northwest, and compared to Baltimore, Chicago, New York, and LA they rank pretty well in terms of conducting honest business. I'd much rather be contacted by SPD then my county sheriffs office. <snip>

Do you mean this Seattle PD? Anyway, your claims regarding SPD with respect to Baltimore, Chicago, New York, and LA may very well be true.

 

[Freedom1Man]

You mean the same Baltimore police department that just reached a 1million dollar settlement with some guy becuae police officers were yanking people off the streets in cuffs for jaywalking and holding them for a week with no hearing before a judge only to let them out? Well thank god they never wrote you up for speeding

believe I've dealt with overreaching LEOs, and all of them have been in elected sheriffs departments in rural towns. Seattle police is one of the most professional agencies in the northwest, and compared to Baltimore, Chicago, New York, and LA they rank pretty well in terms of conducting honest business. I'd much rather be contacted by SPD then my county sheriffs office.

and I dont really feel much sympathy for those who get a ticket, obey the speed limit and you won't get a ticket. It's not fair to those who obey the law that others get away with breaking it. Someone who's going 20 over in a city street or arterial in Seattle is a danger to life and property, frankly I think that they should be charged with reckless endangerment instead of speeding. Another reason I dislike libertarians "I have the right to operate my car however I want" why not 100 over if there's no one in sight.

He's not been on the force for some time over 30 years now.

He has expressed his concern over the poor training these new cops get. He once found out he got the wrong man locked up and went into court to get the man released and the judge would not hear of it.
That is part of why he quit.

 

[Freedom1Man]

You mean the same Baltimore police department that just reached a 1million dollar settlement with some guy becuae police officers were yanking people off the streets in cuffs for jaywalking and holding them for a week with no hearing before a judge only to let them out? Well thank god they never wrote you up for speeding

believe I've dealt with overreaching LEOs, and all of them have been in elected sheriffs departments in rural towns. Seattle police is one of the most professional agencies in the northwest, and compared to Baltimore, Chicago, New York, and LA they rank pretty well in terms of conducting honest business. I'd much rather be contacted by SPD then my county sheriffs office.

and I dont really feel much sympathy for those who get a ticket, obey the speed limit and you won't get a ticket. It's not fair to those who obey the law that others get away with breaking it. Someone who's going 20 over in a city street or arterial in Seattle is a danger to life and property, frankly I think that they should be charged with reckless endangerment instead of speeding. Another reason I dislike libertarians "I have the right to operate my car however I want" why not 100 over if there's no one in sight.

So you support victimless crimes and public extortion. That is wonderful to know. We will never see eye to eye on things for sure.

So if a cop claims you're speeding just pay the ticket. I guess cops are not so corrupt after all in your mind.