WA:Bellingham Pays $15,000 for Police Pointing Gun at Open Carrier

[MKEgal]

Here's the actual news report of the settlement.

An individual’s firearm “in their hand available,” whether in the holster or in one’s hand, may create a safety issue in an urban environment and likely will reasonably and immediately cause alarm and fear with most persons who are nearby. Because the fear that a drawn firearm, or a firearm in-hand creates in public spaces in the City of Bellingham, a firearm in-hand should be analyzed under the “unlawful display of a weapon” RCW 9.41.270

And yet, they appear to have defended their officer who did exactly this.

Nobody got "almost shot".

Good morning all. You have probably figured out the individual involved was myself. That said, I was a witness to what actually happened.
1. Yes, someone came very close to being shot. the LEO was appx 30 INCHES fom my person. The weapon was from 3 to 7 INCHES from my cute little belly button. His hands were shaking and he was visibly upset.

Having been in a similar situation myself, though at a slightly longer range, I completely understand how upsetting that is.
I'm glad you weren't hurt, and very glad that the city has provided a little compensation for their employee's misdeeds (plus correcting their training).
Maybe that officer can be provided some simulator training so he's not so scared the next time he meets a peaceful LAC walking his dog in the park. :lol:

if the cop was pointing the guy AND had his finger on the trigger, that would make the "almost got shot" statement more reasonable because a mere startle reflex could cause the cop to fire

How quickly can you move from indexed to on the trigger?
The officer was obviously terrified, so was not going to be reacting normally and reasonably.

Many studies have been done by the manufacturer and I take any results from such studies with a grain of salt.
Of course, these studies only include healthy adults in their prime. If it was so safe, they would have included less than prime people to be zapped to be included in their studies (right?)... 70 yrs old, 80 yr old people

Why would they test their product on people it's unlikely to be used on?
Violent criminals are, by and large, young to middle-aged physically healthy/strong men. (Some women, yes, but not many.)

Since it affects the nervous system and muscle tissue (at the very least) I would call the devices to be a pseudo-biological weapon.

Merriam-Webster defines biological weapon as

a harmful biological agent (as a pathogenic microorganism or a neurotoxin) used as a weapon to cause death or disease usually on a large scale

Since electricity is not a biological agent (not a toxin or micro-bug) it is not a biological weapon.

you have a civic duty imnsho to check out your local pd and find out if they have trained ofc's how to deal with OCer's and the state of current case law. IF they haven't - DEMAND change.
...
As an OC'er, if I lived in Bellingham, I would damn well have a copy of BPD's policies and procedures manual and if it did not address OCer, I would attend community meeting, or write an email to the chief, etc. iow do something to ensure that BPD treated OCers consistent with the law *and* held ofc's accountable if they diverged from same.

I'm curious as to why?
Should a department have a policy for dealing with people walking along the sidewalk, or playing frisbee in the park?
If a department had a policy for dealing with every potential lawful action, the books would be huge!

Ah yes, the recourse of every American... sue sue sue.

Because in many cases that's the only thing which will get the attention of a city / PD and convince it to change its ways, stop doing illegal things.
If it's done through the courts, there are records & if they don't correct their ways there is recourse.

it is much more likely now a days, that misconduct is caught on camera AND much more likely that GOOD conduct is caught on camera to protect good officers from bogus complaints.

IF the citizens feel kindly disposed toward officers & are willing to come forward with the exculpatory video. That would depend at least in part on how they, their friends, their community had been treated. (Also on the potential repercussions on them from the community.)

I'm a generally law-abiding person (I admit to being a bit happy on the throttle from time to time, esp. on the motorcycle), and I'd probably give exculpatory evidence to exonerate an officer in trouble, but it wouldn't be automatic, thanks to the mistreatment I've had.
(If it were one of the officers who has lied & caused me a great deal of trouble & expense, I'd be very tempted not to come forth.)
I imagine that for people with worse interactions, especially those which were manufactured & not deserved, there would be even less willingness to do the right thing.

Unbeknownst to me at the time I was tackling him and wrestling him into handcuffs, I had an audience of a half dozen barbeque'ers on their porch watching my every move... I now have a half dozen witnesses to back up my actions if the nimrod felon tries to drum up some kind of bogus complaint. I even got a standing ovation! booya

Would you have welcomed their help in subduing the suspect, esp. if it meant not being injured?
Or would you have been overly concerned that the people coming toward you meant to help the suspect?
I'm wondering when it's a good idea to step in & help an officer who appears to be in trouble, and when it's best to stay out of the way & walk on.

any OCer in their right mind would recognize that as long as they followed instructions, they were not going to get shot.

Wrong.
We have the example of Ofc. Harless of Canton, OH showing that even following instructions can lead to threats on our lives.
We have the Costco incident, where witnesses say the officers were shouting conflicting commands and the victim was doing his best to show that he wasn't a threat, yet he was murdered.
We have examples from across the country of people being shot by officers for having keys or sunglasses or a cell phone in their hand, or for being deaf & so not responding to orders.
Anyone pointing a gun at me is a deadly threat.
The only difference is that I'm not automatically allowed to defend myself against someone with a badge.

imo, nothing is more important for a cop than credibility.
...
In my agency, screwing up may get you in trouble or not (depending) up to and including termination for a major major screw up, but LYING is ... automatic termination.
...
No matter how tempting, never sully the badge by being untruthful.
Our job is to be a witness. Not a witness for the defense or prosecution, but an impartial witness.

I wish my local PD had the same standards, and I wish someone would teach them the whole "impartial witness" concept.

Even among criminals, it pays to have the rep that you are a straight shooter and always honest and fair. Among other things, besides being the right thing to do , it means you will get WAY more compliance in the field, even from hardcore bangers. They respect "tough but fair".

Absolutely true.
The second night I spent in jail (after the NOV11 false arrest), the whole day the holding area was loud & unruly. When the night shift came on, the supervisor pretty much laid down the law, & people behaved better. (Well, at least they were quieter & not wandering around the area.)
He was tougher than the day shift people had been, but at least we knew what was expected.
And he listened to us, instead of treating us like diseased cattle to be shoved here & there at the whim of the guards.
I was more worried about the guards than the other prisoners.

 

[davidmcbeth]

Merriam-Webster [URL="http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/biological%20weapon"]defines biological weapon as

Since electricity is not a biological agent (not a toxin or micro-bug) it is not a biological weapon.

Hence my use of the term "pseudo-biological" and not "biological".. your definition is the current definition. Good information to share.

 

[PALO]

"How quickly can you move from indexed to on the trigger?
The officer was obviously terrified, so was not going to be reacting normally and reasonably. "

You should never be "on trigger" unless you are in the process of pressing on (squeezing) the trigger.

With that being said, the studies I have seen on our range show no significant difference given a stimulus to shoot - either visual or auditory - between going from indexed to 3 shots on target vs. on trigger to three shots on target. The bulk of the time in the scenario is observing the stimulus and deciding to shoot. The actual time to press the trigger or de-index and press the trigger is a tiny percentage of the total time. Since indexing has no significant effect on time to fire, but is MUCH MUCH safer, it's a no brainer. ALWAYS INDEX

"Why would they test their product on people it's unlikely to be used on?
Violent criminals are, by and large, young to middle-aged physically healthy/strong men. (Some women, yes, but not many.) "

The ones who die subsequent to tasing (note I said SUBSEQUENT TO not BECAUSE OF because overwhelmingly it's not the taser that kills them. It's the entire stress on the body from the struggling, adrenaline dump, fight or flight, etc.) usually have one or more of the following, all of which are common among "street people" etc.

1) obese
2) malnourished (2 does not necessarily conflict with 1)
3) on polydrug combo (iow more than one drug)
4) dehydrated
5) in the midst of a binge - multiday period without sleep usually due to meth use, etc.
6) extremely poor physical fitness
7) usually undiagnosed heart condition
8) excited delirium (controversial)

their bodies simply can't handle the stress of the whole struggle, part of which is the taser, but plenty of people died before tasers in similar circ's (like the guy I wrestled with who flatlined - he was a street person, dehydrated, on a LOT of crystal meth, malnourished). The stress of being tased multiple times is much more dangerous. Imo, never more than 3 should be the rule

"I'm curious as to why?
Should a department have a policy for dealing with people walking along the sidewalk, or playing frisbee in the park?
If a department had a policy for dealing with every potential lawful action, the books would be huge! "

This is the first of your questions that is silly enough to almost discredit you. Walking along the sidewalk, playing frisbee etc. are not (compare to OCing) activities that result in serious cop misconduct such as in this case - drawing down on a person for no reason, etc.

The reason why we need specific policy/training is obvious FROM the reaction we have seen from (a small %age of ) cops TO OCing.

We have an activity, an entirely legal/protected activity that should result in no response from cops, but that instead sometimes result in gross overreaction to include drawn weapons, arrest, and at a lesser level harassment (unjustified stops etc.)

There are few other entirely lawful activities that cause cops to act thusly. Frankly, the only other activity that is both completely legal/protected and also gets such extreme reaction (although not to include drawing down) is filming the police, which is why we also need specific policy regarding same.

The reason we need policies and training for these two activities are OBVIOUS.

Fwiw, I can't think of (there are probably a few) any other clearly constitutionally protected activities that also sometimes result in such severe cop overreaction.

Filming, especially is an interesting activity in the regards that cops routinely collect evidence, are trained to do so, and are generally legally able to do so. Iow., they see a bloody glove, they collect it. Film evidence of cops though, is a unique exception due ot the 1st amendment in that cops can't (legally) just seize a person's evidence from their video cameras. It's not intuitive/common sense that they can;t. Common sense would say - hey, it's critical evidence. Of course I can collect it. But the law says otherwise. And of course many cops j ust don't like being filmed (understandable). They need to be given strict rules/training in these two areas. ANd ime in agencies that do provide same training/policy vis a vis OCers and Filmers, we see very very few instances of misconduct towards same

So, cmon. Be serious in your questions and don't play games.

"IF the citizens feel kindly disposed toward officers & are willing to come forward with the exculpatory video. That would depend at least in part on how they, their friends, their community had been treated. (Also on the potential repercussions on them from the community.)

I'm a generally law-abiding person (I admit to being a bit happy on the throttle from time to time, esp. on the motorcycle), and I'd probably give exculpatory evidence to exonerate an officer in trouble, but it wouldn't be automatic, thanks to the mistreatment I've had.
(If it were one of the officers who has lied & caused me a great deal of trouble & expense, I'd be very tempted not to come forth.)
I imagine that for people with worse interactions, especially those which were manufactured & not deserved, there would be even less willingness to do the right thing."

I've already posted the stats. 58% of the consider cops High or Very High on the honesty/professionalism front. 32% consider them average. 7% consider them low. And 3% consider them very low.

Other polls give siimilar results - the public overwhelmingly respects/admires/desires to support the police. It's extremely well supported by polling data. I also have seen it supported in 20+ yrs of police work. People in places like this website for instance, are able to surround themselves with enough fellow travelers (consider how many posts here are some sort of snarky criticism of cops, no matter what the actual topic of the thread is) to make them feel like the way they feel about cops is the way the average person thinks. I've seen many people fall into that trap. One guy, tried to school me the other day about "hey, the american people tend not to trust govt " (to include cops, which is what he was critiquing).

Au contraire. The polling data is clear that politicians , governors, etc. get very little respect/public support

cops DO. And thank god for that. It is one of the most rewarding aspects of the job- the respect/praise etc. I get from the public.

 

[OC for ME]

The governor et al will not draw down on a OCer, but their security detail will most certainly draw down on a OCer. The respect that cops get as a function of their job is well deserved for the simple fact that the vast majority of cops are good. But, it only takes one cop in a LEA to taint that LEA. When will that wayward cop's co-worker purge him from their ranks to improve their LEAs public image? I will not know the good cops bey merely looking at any cop. So, I am compelled, unfortunately to view all cops with distrust until they prove otherwise.

 

[davidmcbeth]

Folks there is only 2 ways to have your gun ... holstered or shooting .. IMO

I would not draw my gun w/o shooting ... its not a scare tactic device ...

 

[mikeyb]

Folks there is only 2 ways to have your gun ... holstered or shooting .. IMO

I would not draw my gun w/o shooting ... its not a scare tactic device ...

Wrong.

You forgot cleaning. :banana:

 

[color of law]

St. John v. McColley, 653 F. Supp. 2d 1155 - Dist. Court, D. New Mexico 2009 is a district court case, but a better case to understand search, seizure and being free to walk away is United States v. Black, 707 F.3d 531 (4th Cir. 2013). And it is an appeals court case which carries more persuasion.

In regards to qualified immunity courts generally follow a two-step procedure in considering qualified immunity defenses. First, they determine whether the plaintiff's allegations, if accepted as true, adequately allege a violation of a federal constitutional or statutory right. If the plaintiff's allegations are sufficient, courts then consider whether, at the time of occurrence, the right was clearly established.

For a constitutional right to be clearly established, its contours must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that right. This is not to say that an official action is protected by qualified immunity unless the very action in question has previously been held unlawful. Rather, the unlawfulness of the official's conduct must only be apparent in light of preexisting law. A plaintiff must generally show that there was a Supreme Court or Circuit Circuit opinion on point or that the proposition is supported by the weight of authority from other courts. If the plaintiff fails to show that a defendant's actions violated a clearly established right, he cannot recover.

Based on the above it is not a crime in most States to carry a firearm without a license so long as the firearm is carried openly. And it is undisputed that under many State Constitutions, laws, and federal and State case law recognize openly carried firearms is a right. And merely displaying a gun in a non-threatening way is not illegal in those States. Yet, governments try to contend that because other laws prevent convicted felons from possessing guns, the officers could not know whether an open carrier was lawfully in possession of the gun until they performed a records check. And governments usually argue that it would be foolhardy for the officers to go about their business while allowing a stranger in their midst to possess a firearm. Courts are not persuaded by such foolish rhetoric.

Governments have to support their police officers' illegal acts, because if not, no one would not work for them knowing that they will be thrown to the wolves. Paying out taxpayer dollars for the misdeeds of officers is just the cost of doing business.

 

[eye95]

The point in raising St. John v. McColley is not "to understand search, seizure and being free to walk away." It is to illustrate that immunity can be pierced--specifically in an OC case--and that officers can be found personally liable, as they were in that case. BTW, Black cited St. John.

 

[color of law]

The point in raising St. John v. McColley is not "to understand search, seizure and being free to walk away." It is to illustrate that immunity can be pierced--specifically in an OC case--and that officers can be found personally liable, as they were in that case. BTW, Black cited St. John.

I see that you are still behaving like an ass.

This thread is not about you.

I made no comment about your post. Nor did I take any exception to your post.

I await with bated breath to read your contorted effort to justify your personal theories and methodology as to how my post had anything to do with how the world revolves around your counter-stereotypical point of view.

On the other hand, appealing to your prejudices, emotions, and self centered interests would be a major waist of time.

Moving on.

 

[eye95]

Others will decide for themselves which of the two posts immediately above was part of the discussion, and which was a juvenile personal attack on another poster.

I have made my point and will truly move on to discuss this with other posters.

 

[OC for ME]

Officer Bass will not have his immunity challenged because no sanctions, criminal or civil, will be brought. The settlement is the "sanction" that prompts retraining. It is unfortunate that the focus remains on BPD training efforts, or the lack there of vs. the criminal act of a cop drawing down on a LAC engaged in a lawful activity.

This topic has run its course for me.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

Glad you didn't contradict my counter claim about your claim of qualified immunity being an excuse when there is no training.

We can disagree on this and we will. Imo, it IS our responsibility to "police the police". OUR responsibility. Private individual citizens.

The essence of the BOR is to be left alone by govt. We can probably agree on that. But we are going to disagree on our responsibilites

This is silly, we agree about being left alone but.......
We are either free or we are not.

You can not buy the line about getting the govt we deserve, but again I disagree.

Wanking on a forum like this doesn't effect positive change. Being active in our community (block watch, citizen's academy etc.) DOES

Checking our local PD for policies and training regarding OCers and pointing out failings *does* .

We are not rocks and islands. Our govt. is by the people, for the people , of the people. That means me and you.

First off you have no idea how involved I have been and are making a lot of assumptions.
Second, I call BS it is not my responsibility to watch anyone, it is their responsibility to leave us alone. A victim of a rapist has no responsibility other than to be expected to be left alone.
Nope we are not supposed to be a democracy, and this was never even the intent of the founders not everyone had the right to vote, it was a very limited few. If I want to be a rock or an island I should be able to, I owe others nothing more than that, mutual respect would be they leave me alone and I leave them alone.

And again, if you, as an active OCer can spend hours and hours on the intertoobs complaining about the police , but can't spend a couple of hours attending a community meeting where you have the ability to ACTUALLY INTERACT WITH THE POLICE, QUESTION POLICY, AND SPUR POSITIVE CHANGE, then yes... you are getting the govt. you deserve.

You (and I) are better versed on OC and case law surrounding same than the overwhelming majority of cops and lawyers. You have the knowledge, you have the concerns, you have the power, you have the means, you have the opportunity, but you don't feel it's your "responsibility"?

Yes and qualified immunity does not count when it is law or established case law, training has nothing to do with it. And I have had lots of interaction with the local PD several meetings etc, I sued the same city before this incident, it happened again.

I don't fight it out of "responsibility" I fight it for individual rights and to keep jack booted thugs from getting worse.

I disagree. Your local PD either has trained their officers regarding OCers or it hasn't. They either have a positive history of leaving OCers alone or they don't. Do you know? I *do* know when it comes to my PD. Because they work for me, I wanted to know. I checked and they do have firm policy/training regarding OCers and filmers. Good. When my local city park had signs that said firearms were prohibited, I went to a city meeting and got them to remove the signs. They were very responsive to fix the problem as ime local govt. usually is when polite informed citizens get involved.

It's your community, it's your PD. And yes, it *is* your responsibility, your civic duty, your MORAL obligation. But we are probably not going to agree on that. Groovy. I have no problem disagreeing with people. I only have problems with people who are intellectually dishonest and I have never seen that from you.

My first police job was a small new england town where everybody knew all of their local cops, where citizens had NO hesitancy whatsoever in making their concerns known, whether it was talking to us, to include the chief on down, at the local (and only) gas station, or walking into the station and talking to us there. We had town meetings that were about as close to direct democracy as you can get. And what the people got was an excellent police dept. responsive to their needs.

You probably don't live in such a bucolic tiny community where you know every officer by their first name. But you do live in a community and you do have a PD full of people who are public servants.

You can be part of the solution or you can do nothing, which makes you part of the problem assuming there IS a problem in your local PD and how they handle OCers. I have no idea. It's your PD.

Your whole thesis lays on how necessary cops are and that they are an extension of us......I call BS.....they are political and work for a minority that voted in the latest fad politician.

I have no moral obligation to train police any more than I have to go to a bar and instruct all males there that using roofies to get laid is bad.

You also assume they haven't been trained it's utter BS, they have been I had a lot to do with that, and in our state OC has been on the news for several years there is no reason for any cop to try to claim ignorance.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

Others will decide for themselves which of the two posts immediately above was part of the discussion, and which was a juvenile personal attack on another poster.

I have made my point and will truly move on to discuss this with other posters.

Your previous post was dead on and our courts have ruled similarly.

Officer Bass will not have his immunity challenged because no sanctions, criminal or civil, will be brought. The settlement is the "sanction" that prompts retraining. It is unfortunate that the focus remains on BPD training efforts, or the lack there of vs. the criminal act of a cop drawing down on a LAC engaged in a lawful activity.

This topic has run its course for me.

Yep Officer Allen Bass committed assault and won't be punished for it.

When I had my run in with officer Allen Bass who lied on the phone, lied in his reports and got very very aggressive when I questioned him about it, (all because my gun drew his attention to me), I talked to a local well known lawyer who told me he is a thug. So apparently John and I are not the only ones who have had bad encounters with him.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

Good morning all. You have probably figured out the individual involved was myself. That said, I was a witness to what actually happened.

1. Yes, someone came very close to being shot. the LEO was appx 30 INCHES fom my person. The weapon was from 3 to 7 INCHES from my cute little belly button. His hands were shaking and he was visibly upset. My hands were slightly more than shoulder width apart, holding a dogleash. He was very vulnerable.

2. I do not submit to bullies.

3. This is Truth.

4. He is now an identified "Brady Cop" and can no longer testilie in court without having his testimony thrown out. His "word" is now "cr@pp". With his name, (Allen Bass) being bandied about in the news others he has intimidated may come forward.

I did what I thought was the right thing. I do not bow down to a bully. I do not get intimidated.

+1 Thank you John. You did well and we will continue this fight, bullies be damned.

Well, since it has been established as a fact that MSG Laigaie did not even tough his gun then the only conclusion that a reasonable person can draw is that MSG Laigaie is the only person in that encounter who could have been shot. You inferred to the contrary by cloaking your allegation in a question.

You are holding the victim accountable. See my above reference to the established fact.

It's my opinion Officer Allen Bass came very close to finding out how a highly trained soldier would not have to use his own gun to end an assault at close range.

 

[eye95]

...When I had my run in with officer Allen Bass who lied on the phone, lied in his reports and got very very aggressive when I questioned him about it, (all because my gun drew his attention to me), I talked to a local well known lawyer who told me he is a thug. So apparently John and I are not the only ones who have had bad encounters with him.

Since Bass now has been proven and documented to be a liar on official reports, can you set-to with him be revisited in that light? If he is a liar now, he surely was a liar then.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

 

[PALO]

Sudden Valley Gunner, in case after case where officers are rehired per arbitrator decision after being fired by their agency, one of the reasons given is failure to train. You can point out plenty of cases that failure to train does not automatically mean QI will hold fast. I never said it did. You are excluding the middle. What I am saying is that given failure to train in situations where an officer screws up , it is MUCH MORE likely they will enjoy QI and it is much more likely they will get their jobs back pending binding arbitration. It is a very common reason given by arbitrators when the overrule officer firings. It is not dispositive. Iow, I have never been trained how to deal with ultimate frisbee players, but if I interrupt an ultimate frisbee game and start bludgeoning a player like a baby seal, I am going to get fired, I am going to get criminally prosecuted and I am not going to enjoy QI in a civil trial. Groovy. It doesn't therefore follow that failure to train isn't relevant in cases of discipline and in deciding whether or not to lift QI. It just means that it is not always an excuse that is going to stick. Duh.

 

[PALO]

Glad you didn't contradict my counter claim about your claim of qualified immunity being an excuse when there is no training.




This is silly, we agree about being left alone but.......
We are either free or we are not.



First off you have no idea how involved I have been and are making a lot of assumptions.
Second, I call BS it is not my responsibility to watch anyone, it is their responsibility to leave us alone. A victim of a rapist has no responsibility other than to be expected to be left alone.
Nope we are not supposed to be a democracy, and this was never even the intent of the founders not everyone had the right to vote, it was a very limited few. If I want to be a rock or an island I should be able to, I owe others nothing more than that, mutual respect would be they leave me alone and I leave them alone.



Yes and qualified immunity does not count when it is law or established case law, training has nothing to do with it. And I have had lots of interaction with the local PD several meetings etc, I sued the same city before this incident, it happened again.

I don't fight it out of "responsibility" I fight it for individual rights and to keep jack booted thugs from getting worse.



Your whole thesis lays on how necessary cops are and that they are an extension of us......I call BS.....they are political and work for a minority that voted in the latest fad politician.

I have no moral obligation to train police any more than I have to go to a bar and instruct all males there that using roofies to get laid is bad.

You also assume they haven't been trained it's utter BS, they have been I had a lot to do with that, and in our state OC has been on the news for several years there is no reason for any cop to try to claim ignorance.

1) in case after case where officers are rehired per arbitrator decision after being fired by their agency, one of the reasons given is failure to train. You can point out plenty of cases that failure to train does not automatically mean QI will hold fast. I never said it did. You are excluding the middle. What I am saying is that given failure to train in situations where an officer screws up , it is MUCH MORE likely they will enjoy QI and it is much more likely they will get their jobs back pending binding arbitration. It is a very common reason given by arbitrators when the overrule officer firings. It is not dispositive. Iow, I have never been trained how to deal with ultimate frisbee players, but if I interrupt an ultimate frisbee game and start bludgeoning a player like a baby seal, I am going to get fired, I am going to get criminally prosecuted and I am not going to enjoy QI in a civil trial. Groovy. It doesn't therefore follow that failure to train isn't relevant in cases of discipline and in deciding whether or not to lift QI. It just means that it is not always an excuse that is going to stick. Duh. It's like claiming that being in a high crime area isn't relevant in justifying a terry stop. It most definitely IS relevant. It is just not dispositive. There has to be more "there" there.

There has been case after case of officers getting off , whether its civil liability or departmental punishment because they simply weren't trained/made aware of changes in the law or some court opinion that came down. Read some arb reports for pete' sake.


As for your continued claim that it's not your responsibility (your civic duty) to watch the watchers, you can keep making the same excuses and I grok your argument. I don't agree with it.

Fortunately, there are people out there who do recognize their civic duty, who do take action and who do thus become part of the solution not part of the problem.

It is infinitely better to work for change and prevent civil rights violations from occurring in the first place, then to stand aside and LET them happen when you have the knowledge and the power (quite often) to prevent them from happening in the first place

You are under no legal obligation to call 911 if you see a guy bleeding out in the street in front of your house. After all, you just want to be left alone. But most people would say you damn well have a civic duty to AT LEAST call 911 if not go outside and render aid if the scene is safe. By doing so, you are (god forbid) aiding the police/fire/aid to better serve the public. You rightfully would see it as your responsibility. But in the case of preventing future rights violations to OCers, you are perfectly willing to let those OCers bleed out so to speak, on the sidewalk, because it's not your responsibility. You take no ownership whatsoever in what your local PD is doing, despite the fact that they are there to serve you

I did not assume they hadn't been trained vis a vis OC. What I am saying is that it is relatively easy to determine if they have or haven't been trained and to take simple proactive stance, write a frigging email or attend a community meeting or something

And then you trot out this rubbish: "Your whole thesis lays on how necessary cops are and that they are an extension of us......I call BS.....they are political and work for a minority that voted in the latest fad politician."

Whether you like it or not, they ARE an extension of us. This is a govt. of the people by the people and for the people. Cops are civil servants and they work for us. You can deny that all you want, but it won't change reality.

Any individual can call 911 and the police will come. Offering service. They don't work for the minority who voted in the latest fad politician. I know darn well who I work for, and it's primarily victims or potential victims of crime. And people in need of medical assistance. And people in need of help, in general. Service is what I, and the police , DO

You spend metric buttloads of energy wanking about cops and especially as regards to OC but "it's not my responsibility" to do something local in regards to the public servants who work for you, to even check to see what their training/policies are vis a vis OCers and IF they are lacking in that regards to address it in either any # of public meetins where cop-o-crats meet with the public and are open to public opinion about how and what they should change OR to simply write an email (good to have a paper trail) to the chief expressing your concerns and supporting them with OC case law about how it's crystal clear that cops need to leave them/US alone.

I get it. You want good govt but you don't want to take simple steps to help bring about that result in your local community. I get it. Imo, that attitude is the perfect example of somebody shirking their civic responsibility. It's like the people who don't vote and then whine about politicians, or who complain about the justice system while simultaneously bragging about how they got out of jury duty.

My local PD *does* have the training and the policies such that they handle OCers the right way. I've got nothing to complain about and have never had any negative interaction with them while OCing or filming them. Groovy.

If you can say the same about your local PD, then of course you have no civic responsibility to effect change. It's not needed.

However, if your local PD (I have no idea which PD that is) is not treating OCers correctly, then you do have a responsibility to try to do the bare minimum to effect change.

You have the typical attitude of the anti-cop person (remember you are a small minotrity of the public per polling data), which is that you view the cops as "the other", an occupying army. In my community, amongst most of us, we view them (correctly) as public servants sworn to serve us. We demand good policing and the corrolary to that is we recognize our responsibility to help bring about that reality.

You are in the special position of 1) being an OCer (a tiny minority of the public) and 2) knowing the law about OCing inside and out

But you feel NO responsibility bearing the above factors in mind, to help your local public servants better serve your niche group, and most importantly to help ensure your public servants do the right thing.

Thus, I will say it again. You have and will get the govt. you darn well deserve. People who feel no civic responsibility, and who would rather (evidenced by their lack of action) see people's rights violated by the police (negative action #1), and then want to see the cops sued ... which means the local taxpayers pay for it (negative action #2) ... who would rather see that inevitable eventuality versus taking an hour or two to attend a meeting or less than an hour to compose an email and making an effort to quite possibly PREVENT that rights violation from ever occurring in the first place.

Sorry, I don't buy it. You can keep protesting that it's not your responsibility, but it's not going to change the reality that (assuming your PD handles OCers suboptimally) you are part of the problem and not part of the solution. And you are part of the problem by conscious knowing choice, since you know how to effect change and you clearly have the knowledge and the means to do so, but you say it's not your responsibility.

 

[OC for ME]

Sorry, just can't help myself.

PALO, do you not read all of the posts by SVG?It just may provide you with some valuable information regarding SVG and his efforts to restore liberty. It seems that you have not. Do you not know that Bellingham is in Whatcom County? Do you not know that SVGs listed location is Whatcom County?

 

[MKEgal]

I would not draw my gun w/o shooting ... its not a scare tactic device

Yes, it is. Drawing is one step on the continuum of force. Pointing it at your attacker is another step. They may happen very close together, and very close in time with shooting, but they are separate actions.

Should a department have a policy for dealing with people walking along the sidewalk, or playing frisbee in the park?
If a department had a policy for dealing with every potential lawful action, the books would be huge!

This is the first of your questions that is silly enough to almost discredit you. Walking along the sidewalk, playing frisbee etc. are not (compare to OCing) activities that result in serious cop misconduct such as in this case - drawing down on a person for no reason, etc.
The reason why we need specific policy/training is obvious FROM the reaction we have seen from (a small %age of ) cops TO OCing.

Yes, it is a silly question, on purpose - why should one perfectly legal act be treated any differently than another perfectly legal act? Where are officers getting their misinformation about lawfully-armed citizens in the first place?

Surely there are any number of things taught in "cop school" which the average non-cop would do or approach differently, and the baby cops have to be taught to do legally (so they don't get their departments in trouble).
Use your example of seizing video evidence from citizens. (Which, BTW, is something else my PD still does, without a warrant, without consent, etc.)
Why isn't search & seizure and other civil rights part of that curriculum?
Catch the problem at the most basic level possible. Don't leave it to the vagaries of individual departments (their chiefs, training officers, etc.) making policies.
Is there a basic nationwide curriculum?

And in some places, walking along the street is action enough to entice officers to commit misconduct. See the recent court ruling telling NYC PD they're not allowed to stop & frisk people just 'cause they want to.

I read a news article last night where a man was knocked to the ground & handcuffed for waving at a passing patrol car! Pretty sure it was just a normal wave, with all his fingers, 'cause he's a firefighter & pastor.

I have never been trained how to deal with ultimate frisbee players, but if I interrupt an ultimate frisbee game and start bludgeoning a player like a baby seal, I am going to get fired, I am going to get criminally prosecuted and I am not going to enjoy QI in a civil trial.

Because it is assumed that you know the basics of civil rights & normal law (which says you're not allowed to hit someone except under certain conditions).
Aren't civil rights part of cop school curriculum?

 

[PALO]

Sorry, just can't help myself.

PALO, do you not read all of the posts by SVG?It just may provide you with some valuable information regarding SVG and his efforts to restore liberty. It seems that you have not. Do you not know that Bellingham is in Whatcom County? Do you not know that SVGs listed location is Whatcom County?

I am taking issue with specific statements he has made, statements about him having NO responsibility to police the police, so to speak. He may do tons of other groovy stuff that makes him a great benefit to his community, etc. Groovy.

Let me lay this out. IF

1) he is an OCer
2) he lives in a community where cops routinely mistreat OCers
3) he is intimately familiar with OC case law
4) he is upset that cops routinely mistreat OCers

THEN IMO he has a civic duty to

1) contact his local pd (the same one that is abusing the rights of OCers) and see if they have policy/training regarding OCers
and if (1) is either 'no' or the policy/training is simply contrary to the law

THEN

2) he should either write an email to his local police chief, explaining how the cops should treat OCers and support it with case cites etc. OR attend some type of community meeting where cops are receptive to community input (my agency attends these frequently) and give his input

dat's all

What I take issue with is his (and others) boundless energy in criticizing the status quo (my status quo is excellent since my local agency does treat OCers consistent with the law and I've never had a problem with them and they have had specific training making it very clear to leave OCers alone and that they will be punished if they violate this principle) , in wanting to see agencies sued, officers sued, officers disciplined and officers fired when these violations occur VERSUS doing a bare minimum of effort to help ensure that these violations do NOT occur in the first place


What is better

1) to work towards ensuring that cops who violate OCers rights are punished, as well as their agencies
OR
2) to at least first work towards ensuring that same violation of OCer rights never happen in the first place?

Is it better to help prevent harm or to idly sit by and let harm occur and then get all gung ho about seeking a pound of flesh in response thereto?

This says it all to me...
"Your whole thesis lays on how necessary cops are and that they are an extension of us......I call BS.....they are political and work for a minority that voted in the latest fad politician."

That may very well be true IN COMMUNITIES WHERE INDIVIDUALS AND GROUPS FEEL NO CIVIC DUTY, NO RESPONSIBILITY WHATSOEVER TO WORK WITH THE POLICE AND TO EFFECT POSITIVE CHANGE WHEN IT'S OFTEN SO EASY TO DO