• 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.

Not completely OC related, but...

Difdi

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 2, 2010
Messages
990
Location
Seattle, Washington, USA
http://photographyisnotacrime.com/2...ts-pinac-correspondent-of-trumped-up-charges/

Basically, a guy stepped out of his apartment, noticed police arresting someone and started filming using his phone. The police ordered him to disperse (from his own home no less) and when he attempted to comply with the order -- but didn't stop filming -- he was arrested for disobeying.

During the arrest, a deputy pointed a TASER at him. During the trial, the deputy testified under oath that he only aimed the TASER at the man because it had a flashlight on it and he needed the light.

So what I'm wondering is, is it the official position of the KCSO that pointing a dangerous weapon at someone does not warrant alarm providing it has a flashlight attached?
 

skidmark

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 15, 2007
Messages
10,449
Location
Valhalla
Your question should be addressed to the KCSO. Ask them for a copy of their use of force policy.

stay safe.
 

twoskinsonemanns

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 12, 2012
Messages
2,326
Location
WV
How can the cops concentrate on catching bad guys if they have to worry about their actions being documented and plastered all over youtube?
 

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,688
Location
Whatcom County
How can the cops concentrate on catching bad guys if they have to worry about their actions being documented and plastered all over youtube?
Yep and some wonder why those of us who have experienced these unlawful acts by cops, who were all willing to go to trial and F'ing lie along with the prosecutor. Are also willing to take some smack talk from apologist and talk back to these thugs.
 

skidmark

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 15, 2007
Messages
10,449
Location
Valhalla
http://photographyisnotacrime.com/2...ts-pinac-correspondent-of-trumped-up-charges/

Basically, a guy stepped out of his apartment, noticed police arresting someone and started filming using his phone. The police ordered him to disperse (from his own home no less) and when he attempted to comply with the order -- but didn't stop filming -- he was arrested for disobeying.

During the arrest, a deputy pointed a TASER at him. During the trial, the deputy testified under oath that he only aimed the TASER at the man because it had a flashlight on it and he needed the light.

So what I'm wondering is, is it the official position of the KCSO that pointing a dangerous weapon at someone does not warrant alarm providing it has a flashlight attached?


Why would their "policy" matter? Does that trump, the law? Are they more equal?

I guess it really does need explaining.

If the policy does not allow it then the individual cop is in the wrong and the KCSO ought to take corrective action. If the policy allows it both the KCSO and the individual cop may be in the wrong.

I don't know about Washington State (and am not too eager to learn) but many other jurisdictions "allow" (heck, encourage) behavior that would be the illegal act of brandishing/pointing/threatening if a non-LEO did it, and the courts have repeatedly upheld the law, the regulation, and the policy that makes that so. But somehow case law is not "law law", is it?

stay safe.
 

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,688
Location
Whatcom County
I guess it really does need explaining.

If the policy does not allow it then the individual cop is in the wrong and the KCSO ought to take corrective action. If the policy allows it both the KCSO and the individual cop may be in the wrong.

I don't know about Washington State (and am not too eager to learn) but many other jurisdictions "allow" (heck, encourage) behavior that would be the illegal act of brandishing/pointing/threatening if a non-LEO did it, and the courts have repeatedly upheld the law, the regulation, and the policy that makes that so. But somehow case law is not "law law", is it?

stay safe.

Well I don't give a rats ass about their "policy".

Both are still in wrong because no other cops including the department correct the problem whether its the individual or the whole departments policy.
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,453
Location
White Oak Plantation
File criminal charges against the cop(s). When they get ignored, file charges against the prosecutor/cops for conspiracy. When that tactic fails, file suit and include the failure to prosecute the criminal violations. there does seem to be a history with that particular LEA.
 

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,688
Location
Whatcom County
My mind is boggled by the rate of law enforcement interaction suffered and confessed here on OCDO.

The most recent time that I have had to speak to a cop in his line of duty was in 1977 when I got a speeding ticket in Lake City, SC in my 911 Porsche (justified by previous offenses, but not righteous at that moment).

It is rare to see sharks when you surf. Yet when you surf everyday it happens quite a bit. ;)
 

mikeyb

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 19, 2013
Messages
554
Location
Bothell
My mind is boggled by the rate of law enforcement interaction suffered and confessed here on OCDO.

The most recent time that I have had to speak to a cop in his line of duty was in 1977 when I got a speeding ticket in Lake City, SC in my 911 Porsche (justified by previous offenses, but not righteous at that moment).

You're also in Wisconsin. I doubt the Eau Claire PD has been monitored and chastised by the DOJ for abusive behaviors and tactics.
 

skidmark

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 15, 2007
Messages
10,449
Location
Valhalla
Well I don't give a rats ass about their "policy".

Both are still in wrong because no other cops including the department correct the problem whether its the individual or the whole departments policy.

You better start giving that rat's ass about the policy. It's what will form the basis of the defense/prosecution of the cop. Why would anybody want/need to "correct" anything if it's being done within policy? They (generic - we don't yet know about KCSO) apparently like the policy because they wrote and implemented it. It is up to someone (usually from the outside but not always) to convince them the policy is not achieving what they were hoping to achieve.

You want to live in a world of concrete absolutes. It must be hell for you to every day find out the world is not like that.

stay safe.
 

skidmark

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 15, 2007
Messages
10,449
Location
Valhalla
"Policy" is not different than the Nuremberg Defense. "Befehl ist Befehl"

Sorry, but that was only used in an attempt to justify following orders that were patently illegal because they supported the commission of crimes against humanity.

Your statement sounds more like something the Mommies Against Whatever would use than a rationally arrived at conclusion.

stay safe.
 

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,688
Location
Whatcom County
You better start giving that rat's ass about the policy. It's what will form the basis of the defense/prosecution of the cop. Why would anybody want/need to "correct" anything if it's being done within policy? They (generic - we don't yet know about KCSO) apparently like the policy because they wrote and implemented it. It is up to someone (usually from the outside but not always) to convince them the policy is not achieving what they were hoping to achieve.

You want to live in a world of concrete absolutes. It must be hell for you to every day find out the world is not like that.

stay safe.

Oh I see, so ignorance of the law is no excuse (misused to mean positive law already) , but now ignorance of policy is no excuse.

They would want/need to correct it to remain lawful......unless that isn't good enough.

Hahaha me a world of absolutes.....laughable.
 
Last edited:

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,453
Location
White Oak Plantation
Sorry, but that was only used in an attempt to justify following orders that were patently illegal because they supported the commission of crimes against humanity.

Your statement sounds more like something the Mommies Against Whatever would use than a rationally arrived at conclusion.

stay safe.
They were not, those orders, illegal in Germany, other countries, yes very likely. So, the orders followed only in Germany were made illegal by the new regime...sound familiar?
 

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
9,319
Location
here nc
Sorry, but that was only used in an attempt to justify following orders that were patently illegal because they supported the commission of crimes against humanity.

Your statement sounds more like something the Mommies Against Whatever would use than a rationally arrived at conclusion.

stay safe.

didn't work for calley either...

ipse
 

Difdi

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 2, 2010
Messages
990
Location
Seattle, Washington, USA
File criminal charges against the cop(s). When they get ignored, file charges against the prosecutor/cops for conspiracy. When that tactic fails, file suit and include the failure to prosecute the criminal violations. there does seem to be a history with that particular LEA.

Prosecutors have absolute civil immunity. The court clerk wouldn't let you file and if you somehow managed to get it into the docket anyway, the judge would instantly dismiss with prejudice. Mind you, that if you attempted to enact a statute that gave someone (prosecutor or not) that immunity it would get struck down as unconstitutional, but since it's a court doctrine it somehow is above the Constitution.

Sorry, but that was only used in an attempt to justify following orders that were patently illegal because they supported the commission of crimes against humanity.

And where in the body of laws with competent jurisdiction, in force at the time the acts were committed, would you find any statute that made it illegal to do those things?

They were not, those orders, illegal in Germany, other countries, yes very likely. So, the orders followed only in Germany were made illegal by the new regime...sound familiar?

Very true. It was not illegal where and when the crimes against humanity were committed to commit those acts. The new regime making them retroactively illegal is what is known as an ex post facto law, something the US Constitution absolutely prohibits. Not that that prohibition or the one against bills of attainder have stopped the US government from doing either one mind you, but it IS still illegal.
 
Last edited:
Top