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

[OC for ME]

based ona bunch a civilian federal lawyers view of what constitutes unreasonable force. The study was conducted with a specific result in mind. How you ever heard of DoJ investigating a department only to say "oops, sorry our bad you never did anything wrong"? I don't trust the DoJ. Especially since no one has yet been prosecuted for fast and furious.

SPD was fully engaged with the "investigation".

Before sending our letter, we met in February 2011 with you, dozens of community stakeholders, City leaders, and SPD personnel and union members. While opinions differed on the causes, scope, and depth of the challenges facing SPD, there was agreement on some over-arching principles. - page 1.

Unfortunately, most interviewed – internally and externally to SPD – believed that one or more of these critical elements is deficient. - page 1

OPA disposes of nearly two-thirds of citizens’ complaints by sending them to SPD’s precincts, where the quality of investigations is, according to one OPA supervisor, admittedly “appalling.” (We understand that OPA has suspended the assignment of investigations to the chain of command.) - page 5

II. DOJ’S INVESTIGATION
This investigation was conducted by the Civil Rights Division’s Special Litigation Section and the United States Attorney’s Office for the Western District of Washington. We engaged nationally recognized law enforcement professionals and a social scientist with expertise in biased policing. Their combined experience and knowledge have helped inform our findings. These professionals conducted an independent analysis of SPD policies, use of force and OPA reports, other data, and community sentiments toward SPD. - page 7

Your dismissal of the report clearly indicates that you are a "blind supporter" of SPD regardless of the facts, in spite of the fact that SPD acknowledges their deficiencies.

 

[PistolPackingMomma]

HA! Awesome reference and I agree with it.

Because you get it

 

[EMNofSeattle]

Semantics is the study of word use.

Oh and Dan Wesson revolvers have been more thoroughly tested than Smith and Wesson.

Just ask those who were in the IHMSA.

Granting and protecting are far from being the same thing.

States don't have the right to travel.

Also I noticed that you're in the same state I am. Washington was never properly admitted to the union. So your 10th amendment argument falls short.

Oh and the Washington state constitution did not grant the state the power to set speed limits.... Neither the 1878 (the one in congressional record) or the 1889 (the de facto one) constitutions grant the state such powers.

Edit for cases:
Since I figure you might have a little bit of ability to understand them

"...Based upon the fundamental ground that the sovereign state has the plenary control of the streets and highways in the exercise of its police power (see police power, infra.), may absolutely prohibit the use of the streets as a place for the prosecution of a private business for gain. They all recognize the fundamental distinction between the ordinary Right of the Citizen to use the streets in the usual way and the use of the streets as a place of business or a main instrumentality of business for private gain. The former is a common Right, the latter is an extraordinary use. As to the former the legislative power is confined to regulation, as to the latter it is plenary and extends even to absolute prohibition. Since the use of the streets by a common carrier in the prosecution of its business as such is not a right but a mere license of privilege." Hadfield vs. Lundin, 98 Wash 657l, 168, p.516.

Since that one happened here in Wash.

"The Right of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by horse drawn carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city can prohibit or permit at will, but a common Right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." [emphasis added] Thompson vs. Smith, 154 SE 579.

So we can see that a Citizen has a Right to travel upon the public highways by automobile and the Citizen cannot be rightfully deprived of his Liberty. So where does the misconception that the use of the public road is always and only a privilege come from?

"...For while a Citizen has the Right to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, that Right does not extend to the use of the highways, either in whole or in part, as a place for private gain. For the latter purpose no person has a vested right to use the highways of the state, but is a privilege or a license which the legislature may grant or withhold at its discretion." State vs. Johnson, 243 P. 1073; Hadfield, supra; Cummins vs. Homes, 155 P. 171; Packard vs. Banton, 44 S.Ct. 256; and other cases too numerous to mention.



That blows away your arguments. I laugh.

First off, you can try the argument that WA was never properly admitted, but it will get you nowhere, if it would some lawyer would've figured it out and used it effectively as a criminal defense. Washington has been considered a state for over a century and nothing from 1889 will change that status. It's simply not going to happen

And as far as the other cases you've cited, I can't find them online, so I'm going to have find a law library that has records of Washington case law, I believe there may be one at the Pierce County courthouse so i'm going to have to go look those cases up before commenting on them.

 

[Skip D]

I don't know about you folks but when I see some of the videos on YouTube where it is pretty obvious that an OC'er has deliberately tried to bait police for the purpose of recording and posting the incident, it kinda rubs me the wrong way and makes me uncomfortable. An incidental, unexpected encounter where the OC'er was going about his business in a normal fashion when he is stopped is one thing, but a deliberate attempt to bait police simply to cause a heated exchange for posting is not something I like to see happen. It has been my take that this does not work in our favor.

With that said, I ran across something posted by an individual over a week ago that really gave me pause and got me to thinking. I don't have the answer to this and have not formed any sort of opinion about it either so I thought I would just throw it out there for kicks. I also don't think this violates the rules of these forums but if it does, I expect this thread to be closed or removed.

What this individual said when this topic was raised was this. "So how do you feel about police setting bait cars?"

He makes an interesting point. Police do deliberately bait people in an attempt to weed out criminal activity so why should'nt citizens bait police to weed out the bad apples? This was his position and frankly from the surface, it make sense. We should monitor the actions of our public servants more than we do and this IS one way to do it.

But as I said, I don't have the answer and I am pretty neutral on this one. What say you people?

I agree... It rubs me the wrong way also... I could definately find better things to do.

 

[Fallschirjmäger]

I feel the same way about "bait cars", but then again I also realize that you can bait all the hooks you want but if the fish don't bite you ain't catching nothin'.
You can not tempt an honest man into stealing a car by leaving one in the middle of the road, doors open, keys in the ignition and motor running. And you can't bait an honest cop into violating the law or someone's civil rights by performing a legal action. The only reason these "confrontations" take place is because the cop thinks he's "just gotta do something".

 

[PistolPackingMomma]

I feel the same way about "bait cars", but then again I also realize that you can bait all the hooks you want but if the fish don't bite you ain't catching nothin'.
You can not tempt an honest man into stealing a car by leaving one in the middle of the road, doors open, keys in the ignition and motor running. And you can't bait an honest cop into violating the law or someone's civil rights by performing a legal action. The only reason these "confrontations" take place is because the cop thinks he's "just gotta do something".

+1

 

[Freedom1Man]

First off, you can try the argument that WA was never properly admitted, but it will get you nowhere, if it would some lawyer would've figured it out and used it effectively as a criminal defense. Washington has been considered a state for over a century and nothing from 1889 will change that status. It's simply not going to happen

And as far as the other cases you've cited, I can't find them online, so I'm going to have find a law library that has records of Washington case law, I believe there may be one at the Pierce County courthouse so i'm going to have to go look those cases up before commenting on them.

se·man·tics (s-mntks)
n. (used with a sing. or pl. verb)
1. Linguistics The study or science of meaning in language.
2. Linguistics The study of relationships between signs and symbols and what they represent. Also called semasiology.
3. The meaning or the interpretation of a word, sentence, or other language form:

Law is semantics.

You want to make a counter claim then you must show the documentation to back it up.

My claim is that no such documentation exists.

 

[since9]

The fact that someone can walk in off the street (in some cases without the most basic of education, such as a highschool degree) and be deputized and given a gun and badge and told to go out and enforce the laws is beyond ridiculous.

What's ridiculous is that you claim this is a fact. It's not. Most police departments require, as a minimum, an associate's degree.

I believe everyone going into the field of law enforcement, corrections, parole, etc. should be mandated to have at the minimum an associates degree in criminal justice, with an emphasis on whatever field they plan to work in.

Actually, they'd rather their recruits not all show up with degrees in criminal justice, unless they plan on only spending a few years in law enforcement before heading to law school. Even then, a lot of law schools want people from broader backgrounds, too.

This is why we see so many idiots with a badge these days, because there is no selection process whatsoever...

So the rejection rate of more than 60% for the local police department is "no selection process whatsoever..."

I could go on, but what's the point? You make outlandish, untrue, unsubstantiated, and easily countered claims, ad nauseum.

 

[carolina guy]

Hadfield v Lundin

It is ALWAYS good to get confirmation of what someone on the internet says...here are a few references to Hadfield v Lundin:

http://books.google.com/books?id=kwgLAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA517#v=onepage&q&f=false
(Google version of the case)

http://www.atg.wa.gov/AGOOpinions/opinion.aspx?section=archive&id=14098

http://mt.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.19280204_0000025.MT.htm/qx

http://law.justia.com/cases/california/cal2d/11/488.html

 

[Nicholas A.]

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.

With most parts of Maryland and northers Virginia they do require at a min. of an AA or 60 credits from college. With that they also seem to prefer people with previous military experience, the only places I know of that don't require college education at least in my area is the local park police, Sheriff department, PG county, and Baltimore. I'm not too sure of other departments. Before I forget I should also note that in order to get a promotion within several of the departments you must have a Bachelor degree.

 

[Deliveryboi]

It used to upset me as well when I would see or hear people doing this, but now it does not. It is a sad time we are living in here in the good old United States, and unfortunately too many "peace officers" want to deprive us of our rights. The fact that someone can walk in off the street (in some cases without the most basic of education, such as a highschool degree) and be deputized and given a gun and badge and told to go out and enforce the laws is beyond ridiculous. I believe everyone going into the field of law enforcement, corrections, parole, etc. should be mandated to have at the minimum an associates degree in criminal justice, with an emphasis on whatever field they plan to work in. This is why we see so many idiots with a badge these days, because there is no selection process whatsoever; and to be honest, if they want to allow these idiots to walk around knowing they don't have a clue about constitutional rights, or the moral and ethical ideals that are involved in dealing with citizens, then the governments that hire these people and the officers themselves deserve to be sued. These "peace officers" are not selling doughnuts or used tires, they are dealing with citizens of the United States of America, the land of the free, where our government is supposed to recognize and protect our rights.

I have a feeling that we will continue to lose our rights, and will also continue to be treated like we are somehow less deserving of those rights than the government. We are turning into a utilitarianism state, a socialist wasteland where the "good" of the people is better than our "individual" rights, and it is extremely alarming to me, and I can't believe it isn't to everyone else as well. Just look at the federal government, they are so far beyond their constitutional limits that it is scary. Every alphabet agency, every law they pass that is not allowed for in the constitution, and nearly everything else they do is un-constitutional. The federal government was established by the "states." The states and the people have the higher authority under the constitution, and the federal government was only established for certain responsibilities, the main one being the defence of the several states. If we continue to allow the government to grow outside of it's constitutional constraints that the founders placed in the constitution for a very good reason (which we are now seeing why they placed those restraints, and the topic of this post is one) then we will have to record these individuals when they sh*t on our rights more and more. What these people are trying to do is teach them a lesson in the courts, because the judicial system is our last hope folks. The executive and legislative branches of our government are beyond repair, and if someone can't see that then I don't know what to say to help them

I just want to add one thing. If it wasn't for these people, we would be in a much worse situation than we are now, because nobody would know about the unlawful, un-constitutional, un-american acts these officers commit. Go on Youtube and watch some of the Alex Jones movies, or some of the other movies on there about the government and our rights. Watch how these people are treated, right here in America! Would you believe that cops would walk up and down the street hitting people with batons, or spraying a crowd of peaceful protestors with pepper spray? Would you believe cops would wrap nun chuks around peoples arm and make them so tight that they intentionally snap peoples arms? Just go watch these videos, they will infuriate you. The way these people are treated is exactly why these people go out and try to get cops to violate their oath to uphold the constitution. I guaruntee if you were treated like some of the people in these videos, you would do whatever you could to get the truth out.

Although I agree with everything you've stated. I have one argument, and its one that I hope can be prevented. "The judicial system is our last hope". My friend that is where you are wrong, and I believe that this is why the government gets away with such things. The last thing anybody of sound mind would want to do is pull the trigger. But it is our responsibility as Americans to defend our own rights, because nobody else is going to. Its a lot like that saying "Its your road, someone can walk it with you, but nobody can walk it for you". Our last hope will be the very firearms that we possess. The government knows this, and that is EXACTLY why they are trying to destroy our right to bare arms. Think me an extremist if you will, but the moment some "peace officer" or government official shows up at my doorstep to disarm me and my family, they better come loaded because I live by the constitution, and I'll die defending it.

People have seemed to come under some kind of fear coma where they want to stand up for their rights, but NOBODY has the heart to do it. Yes, each one of us believes in our rights as Americans to bare arms, but if that very right is at threat, do we possess the capacity to go to war with the government tyranny? We can all just sit on these forums and whine and complain about what is going on in the world, but if nobody steps up to the plate; eventually we won't have a hope in the world. What we need is an organized operation to destroy the government as we know it. The government calls us "Conspiracy theorists" and talking in the very manner that I am now borderlines what they call "treason". How many of us are we going to let them take down before we stand up and take back our nation?

You can't fight corrupt politics with more politics. We keep in sending "experts", who know the rights of the people, and do their best to defend them, but get nowhere and meet extreme resistance. We need to get organized, we need to get ready, and we need to take action. Plain and simple.

All of this being said, I have nothing against good cops, or good political officials who are sincere in their words and follow up with action. But if you think about it, when was the last time we had any of those?

Its time to stand.

 

[MP_4_Life]

In my honest opinion, I believe that the whole "bait car" thing is just a way to opt out of responsibility for the negative publicity that OCer's are getting because of people like them. Ok, u want to catch a cop breaking your constitutional rights? How about don't stand there with a camera in the cops face the while time, or how about not announce to them that your filming them? What moron in their right mind is really going to go beyond his/her authority when your waving a camera in their face? A couple of idiots might, but most cops already know to be on their best behavior when they see camera's pointed at them (at least when they see them). The real problem I have with these people isn't that their OCing (i only OC myself), but rather the way they handle the situation most of the time with basically harassing the officer because "I refuse to be searched." This takes a 5 minute ordeal (that should just be give him your ID and registration, he checks your clean and let's you go) and turns it into a 15+ minute issue that ends with multiple officers being present rather than the 1-2 dealing with the dispatch calls for a OCer. Instead of those officers being on the street and dealing with actual BG's.

Am I against people that OC filming police encounters? NO! I'm all about COA. The thing I don't approve of is making a **s of yourself and our community. The way most video's are handled with the OCer's baiting officers is just infuriating and dumb founding. If these people actually showed the video only when the peace officer actually violates their rights or something, then I'm perfectly happy to see the video. I'm not for watching a video titled "Open Carry Harassment" or other themes like this with most officers being mostly polite and just trying to handle the situation quickly. In the end, if u want to bait the cop, then just use a hidden camera please. If your really trying to "bait" a peace officer to violate your rights. Though in the end I feel that if your trying to "bait" the cop, then you pretty much deserve it.

 

[twoskinsonemanns]

This takes a 5 minute ordeal (that should just be give him your ID and registration, he checks your clean and let's you go) and turns it into a 15+ minute issue that ends with multiple officers being present rather than the 1-2 dealing with the dispatch calls for a OCer. Instead of those officers being on the street and dealing with actual BG's.

What don't you understand about the phrase "secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures"?
The courts have not yet given you the authority to ignore our rights for no other reason than we our OCing.
So if you demand people give up that right you should expect some to resist.

 

[Fallschirjmäger]

Well said, Twoskinsonemanns. It's strange how not everyone grasps the concept that their rights are more important than the convenience of some paid municipal employee.

 

[BB62]

Can I change the discussion a bit?

What kind of recording device/application is best for capturing a video/audio record and simultaneously storing it someplace other than in the device used to record it?

It seems LEOs are becoming more aware of recording devices, and IMHO some are more than willing to erase/damage the evidence.

 

[Fallschirjmäger]

Other Than the device itself, you're probably limited to a smart-phone application. All the digital voice recorders I know of (store sales/internet) store recordings on the device itself or a removable chip. There are probably a few (microphones) that transmit to a separate recorder, but those would likely be 'spy stuff' or for films/movies.

 

[papa bear]

In my honest opinion, I believe that the whole "bait car" thing is just a way to opt out of responsibility for the negative publicity that OCer's are getting because of people like them. Ok, u want to catch a cop breaking your constitutional rights? How about don't stand there with a camera in the cops face the while time, or how about not announce to them that your filming them? What moron in their right mind is really going to go beyond his/her authority when your waving a camera in their face? A couple of idiots might, but most cops already know to be on their best behavior when they see camera's pointed at them (at least when they see them). The real problem I have with these people isn't that their OCing (i only OC myself), but rather the way they handle the situation most of the time with basically harassing the officer because "I refuse to be searched." This takes a 5 minute ordeal (that should just be give him your ID and registration, he checks your clean and let's you go) and turns it into a 15+ minute issue that ends with multiple officers being present rather than the 1-2 dealing with the dispatch calls for a OCer. Instead of those officers being on the street and dealing with actual BG's.

Am I against people that OC filming police encounters? NO! I'm all about COA. The thing I don't approve of is making a **s of yourself and our community. The way most video's are handled with the OCer's baiting officers is just infuriating and dumb founding. If these people actually showed the video only when the peace officer actually violates their rights or something, then I'm perfectly happy to see the video. I'm not for watching a video titled "Open Carry Harassment" or other themes like this with most officers being mostly polite and just trying to handle the situation quickly. In the end, if u want to bait the cop, then just use a hidden camera please. If your really trying to "bait" a peace officer to violate your rights. Though in the end I feel that if your trying to "bait" the cop, then you pretty much deserve it.

the point of the videos is showing a violation of our freedoms. and a search without RAS or PC is a violation of one of those freedoms. too, there are LEOs that are against themselves being videoed. i will never voluntarily give up my papers, or submit to a illegal search ( of course all i can do is verbally denounce it). i will be friendly, fair , but firm.

and you are right if a LEO is doing something stupid they should be exposed. and no one can catch you doing something stupid if you do0n't do it

hope fully these videos will get rarer as LEO wake up to their limits. i really hope to see that day

 

[MP_4_Life]

What don't you understand about the phrase "secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures"?
The courts have not yet given you the authority to ignore our rights for no other reason than we our OCing.
So if you demand people give up that right you should expect some to resist.

I completely understand what your saying, and by no means am i saying to give up your rights. All I'm saying is these people that try and get attention and make a big scene about it are just plain irritating to me. Now some might not want to identify themselves or what not, but in the end all they are doing is tying up these officers from real problems. They can sit there and refuse to present identification without a huge scene. I've seen 1-2 like this on youtube. Simply refuse to answer the officers questions and ask if he's free to go, when the officer doesn't respond they just walk away. doesn't have to be 15+ minutes of reciting your rights and continue the scene.

I personally don't have a problem with showing ID, but will i stand up for my rights? YES!

 

[Fuller Malarkey]

I completely understand what your saying, and by no means am i saying to give up your rights. All I'm saying is these people that try and get attention and make a big scene about it are just plain irritating to me. Now some might not want to identify themselves or what not, but in the end all they are doing is tying up these officers from real problems.

Keep in mind, some of "these people" are taking the role of activist, attempting to amplify the situation to draw more attention to the issue, not necessarily to themselves. The "issue" isn't the firearm, it is the behavior and actions of the police. They are free to take appropriate action on more pressing issues, yet choose to harass and violate law abiding citizens for what appears to be no other reason than to establish dominance. And let's get real....it takes less time to explain to a complainant that what they are observing is a legal activity than it takes to go shake down and harass a law abiding citizen that resents the intrusion, putting the responsibility for ignored "real problems" right back where it belongs....on the police.

They can sit there and refuse to present identification without a huge scene. I've seen 1-2 like this on youtube. Simply refuse to answer the officers questions and ask if he's free to go, when the officer doesn't respond they just walk away. doesn't have to be 15+ minutes of reciting your rights and continue the scene.


Activism involves some extremes. Picture a sapling tree you have that is leaning way to the right. In order to bring it back to a more center growth pattern, you might bend it hard to the left, hoping it returns to a middle area, so it can be useful instead of a hindrance. If that doesn't work, you might have to get rid of the sapling, and replace it with one that will serve your needs. Especially if it is too rigid to bend, resisting correction.

I personally don't have a problem with showing ID, but will i stand up for my rights? YES!

Each of our situations are uniquely our own, as is our reasoning. In my current area, any interaction with police, even though no charges or arrest occurs, I'll have an "ICR" kept "in house" on me and the incident. [ ICR = INCIDENT CRIME REPORTS] These become useful in justifying searches and "investigatory detentions" for "officer safety", used as information submitted when seeking a search warrant. More so than the intrusion and invasion of my privacy and the restriction on my right to travel freely, the embarrassment and damage to my reputation from the unwarranted police interaction, I want to avoid collecting these "ICR's" that police collect and use for future use....against me. I don't want to wake up to armed violent intruders wearing badges that used two "ICR's" as justification in harming/killing my family, killing my dog, tearing up my home. I want some sense of security AND my rights to privacy, to travel freely. It isn't carrying a firearm that endangers those wants of mine...showing my ID does. That's how they find out where I live, and anything else of importance to me. Once they have that info, I now can conform to their desires, or live under threat of retaliation. A simple traffic stop can be escalated into a life threatening situation for me, based on the voice inflection of the dispatcher as my "ICR" reports are fed to the cop behind me in the squad car. The cops, now known for giving in to their fear, can react in the extremes once they hear I may be armed, was involved in a firearms related incident. They can approach my car in an aggressive, threatening, dominating manner, waving a gun at me, my kids or clients, all based on these "innocent consensual encounters".

Try to picture in your mind what we are doing with police isn't much different than trying to break a large, aggressive dog from jumping on people. You aren't doing the dog or the dog handlers any favors by encouraging the behavior. You can be part of the dog's solution, or contribute to the problem. Which way you choose will probably affect the desire of the dog handler's to have you around.

 

[Fallschirjmäger]

I completely understand what your saying, and by no means am i saying to give up your rights. All I'm saying is these people that try and get attention and make a big scene about it are just plain irritating to me. Now some might not want to identify themselves or what not, but in the end all they are doing is tying up these officers from real problems. They can sit there and refuse to present identification without a huge scene. I've seen 1-2 like this on youtube. Simply refuse to answer the officers questions and ask if he's free to go, when the officer doesn't respond they just walk away. doesn't have to be 15+ minutes of reciting your rights and continue the scene.

I personally don't have a problem with showing ID, but will i stand up for my rights? YES!

I'm not exactly sure how to break this to you, but the OC'r isn't making the cop do a gorram thing. Officer Friendly has a gun, a radio, and a car; he's free to leave and investigate "real problems" anytime he wants. That he stays to investigate what you just stated wasn't a 'real problem' is because he wants to stay.
You may not have a problem with showing ID to the cops who stops you when you're walking around strapped with a big ol' gun on your hip. Do you have the same "non-problem" with being stopped any time a cop sees you driving and wants to make sure you're properly licensed to drive?
If you would, please explain the difference between the two, as to me both are legal activities and both have the presumption of legal activities in most states.