• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Do cops believe themselves to be above the law?

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
11,901
Location
White Oak Plantation
The St. Louis cop and the female officer he is accused of killing in a deadly game of Russian roulette had been on patrol together two days before her death.

On the force two years they were not. So quickly the dark side of the force was learned. Powerful the dark side is.

Another case of a very few "bad cops?" :rolleyes:

STLMPD will institute a policy of having their minions report their whereabouts every hour. The irony in that statement is priceless.
STLMPD, like all LEAs, the organization must be protected at all costs.

Evidence:
The partner [Riordan] told investigators that he grew uncomfortable while the other two were playing with a gun. He says he had started to leave when he heard a shot.

Why not stop the unlawful activity.

571.030. Unlawful use of weapons — exceptions — penalties. — 1. A person commits the offense of unlawful use of weapons, except as otherwise provided by sections 571.101 to 571.121, if he or she knowingly:

(5) Has a firearm or projectile weapon readily capable of lethal use on his or her person, while he or she is intoxicated, and handles or otherwise uses such firearm or projectile weapon in either a negligent or unlawful manner or discharges such firearm or projectile weapon unless acting in self-defense; or

Why was the shooter permitted to walk the streets for a week after killing a citizen...rhetorical question, I know.

571.030. Unlawful use of weapons — exceptions — penalties. — 8. A person who commits the crime of unlawful use of weapons under:

(3) Subdivision (5) or (10) of subsection 1 of this section shall be guilty of a class A misdemeanor if the firearm is unloaded and a class E felony if the firearm is loaded;
Not charged under RSMo 571.030.
 
Last edited:

Ghost1958

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2015
Messages
697
Location
Kentucky
In short yes most, not all. But most do know that regardless what they do, every effort by their fellow officers, their dept, and the court system will cover or find a way to justify their actions , and behave accordingly.
 

The Truth

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 18, 2014
Messages
1,969
Location
Henrico
I don't think they believe themselves to be above the law... they KNOW that they are, in fact, above the law.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,539
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
In some ways, we have direct proof that police officers are treated as above the law.

I have personally witnessed officers flat-out lie under oath on the stand. Judges at least automatically assign them credibility over ordinary citizens and sometimes facilitate the lying.

Many police officers have shot and killed innocents in circumstances that would have resulted in felony convictions for ordinary citizens.

In my encounters with officers, most (not all) have behaved in a way that indicates they believe themselves to be super-citizens, rather than just folks whose government jobs afford them powers over specific people in specific circumstances.

So, yes, in my experience, most (not all) officers do believe that our system grants them “rights” that place them above laws that burden us ordinary citizens.
 

skin'erback

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 14, 2012
Messages
29
Location
missouri
So, why do we accept them in our world? Why accept their apoligists? We all know when when we are being ******. Why are you so accepting of it? They only have the power if you accept that they do. Hold them to whats right.
 

Ghost1958

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2015
Messages
697
Location
Kentucky
So, why do we accept them in our world? Why accept their apoligists? We all know when when we are being ******. Why are you so accepting of it? They only have the power if you accept that they do. Hold them to whats right.
I agree with the sentiment.
That said, getting a cop even charged with a crime is rare. Convictions almost never occur.
And they know this.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,539
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
QI does get pierced from time to time. St. John v. McColley comes to mind.

Roy Call got a nice settlement when Riverside realized they and the cop were going to lose. A recording that established that the cop was flat-out lying was key to that case.
 

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
7,752
Location
here nc
QI does get pierced from time to time. St. John v. McColley comes to mind.

Roy Call got a nice settlement when Riverside realized they and the cop were going to lose. A recording that established that the cop was flat-out lying was key to that case.

Sorry, no QI involved in Call’s case whatsoever as the riverside city council decided to settle out of court!
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,539
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
Reread my post. I believe that the settlement was reached because the city believed that QI would have been pierced had the recordings been heard in court.

QI was pierced in the St John case. So, point made regardless.

Anyway, I am done discussing anything with you. I perceive that you goal is to antagonize, not to discuss. Have a nice life.
 

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
7,752
Location
here nc
Snipp...

Roy Call got a nice settlement when Riverside realized they and the cop were going to lose. A recording that established that the cop was flat-out lying was key to that case.
Reread my post. I believe that the settlement was reached because the city believed that QI would have been pierced had the recordings been heard in court.

Snipp...

Anyway, I am done discussing anything with you. I perceive that you goal is to antagonize, not to discuss. Have a nice life.
What on earth eye95 is there to discuss except your inadequate and grossly inaccurate ‘were going’ or ‘would have’ fantasy statements posted on this national forum as objective and substantiated FACTS.
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
11,901
Location
White Oak Plantation

Unfortunate that a trial did not manifest. Perhaps the nittwittery evident in the cop comments at the time further reinforce a different thread on cops and their attitudes regarding the laws.
 

CJ4wd

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 22, 2017
Messages
191
Location
Planet Earth
Is there a requirement in Ohio that somebody OCing have ID and provide it when asked by the police? If so, the guy violated the law. If not, he was right to sue.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,539
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
There have been several rulings from around the US that the mere act of lawful carry does not provide RAS for a stop. (US v. Black, among others. I think the Ohio case is called Northcutt Northrup v. Toledo.)

So, even if Ohio law had such a requirement, it would be ruled unconstitutional.

The cop knew (or should have known) that his stop was illegal. St John v. McColley (cited in US v. Black) says that QI is pierced.

Edited to correct the Ohio case citation. Thanks to BB62 for pointing out the mistake.
 
Last edited:

Ghost1958

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2015
Messages
697
Location
Kentucky
Is there a requirement in Ohio that somebody OCing have ID and provide it when asked by the police? If so, the guy violated the law. If not, he was right to sue.
Ohio has a law you must inform at a traffic stop if your cc. I do not think that applies to OC though I could be wrong.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,539
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
If you are OC on the street, there is no duty to inform. However, it is kinda obvious.

If the stop is a traffic stop, being OC in the car requires a license. I’d inform the officer.
 

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
7,752
Location
here nc
Is there a requirement in Ohio that somebody OCing have ID and provide it when asked by the police? If so, the guy violated the law. If not, he was right to sue.
There have been several rulings from around the US that the mere act of lawful carry does not provide RAS for a stop. (US v. Black, among others. I think the Ohio case is called Northcutt v. Toledo.)

So, even if Ohio law had such a requirement, it would be ruled unconstitutional.

The cop knew (or should have known) that his stop was illegal. St John v. McColley (cited in US v. Black) says that QI is pierced.
If you are OC on the street, there is no duty to inform. However, it is kinda obvious.

If the stop is a traffic stop, being OC in the car requires a license. I’d inform the officer.
CJ4wd, you might have not stated your OC’g question inappropriately as you did not receive a viable response as a comment stating quote...even if Ohio law had such a requirement, it would be ruled unconstitutional. could result in you ending up in judical hot water!

Did you note a specific cite or random ‘court rulings’? While not ORC, policy insight from Chief’s of police...



Finally, ORC 2923.16 is applicable OC/CC.

Courtesy of http://handgunlaw.us/states/ohio.pdf
 
Top