Washington cop asks open carrier if he is feeling erratic.

[solus]

Please cite your dictionary. I agree with you that that is a common modern meaning, and one we often use in here, but technically, I believe cops are still civilians, which were the citizenry not in the military. I guess maybe some modern dictionaries are agreeing that cops are more military than not these days?

Interestingly, www.dictionary.com and www.merriam-webster.com also say that fire fighters are not civilians. Must be the uniform. Maybe the milkman is next.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/civilian

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/civilian

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/civilian

Wiki: In U.S. parlance, a civilian is also considered one not on active duty in the armed services, not a law enforcement officer, not an intelligence officer, or not a firefighter. ("Merriam-Webster Dictionary". Merriam-Webster. Retrieved 18 February 2013.)

enough?

ipse

ad nauseam: In a military context, Chapter 18 of Title 10 United States Code refers to law enforcement officers as civilians. http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/granule/USCODE-2011-title10/USCODE-2011-title10-subtitleA-partI-chap18

 

[solus]

It is a true definition for countries without our same make up.

A non civilian police force would be unconstitutional. I think we have way passed the point of them being a civilian police force. A distinction they have worked hard to achieve.

unfortunately, it is a misguided perception they operate from and stepped on their professionalism toes to achieve.

ipse

 

[OC for ME]

I could simply ignore the cop, walk around him, and continue on my way. What are the odds that a cop would consent to this? If he stops me I am seized.

 

[Freedom1Man]

I could simply ignore the cop, walk around him, and continue on my way. What are the odds that a cop would consent to this? If he stops me I am seized.

In this, as in many, cases the officer called for the LAC to stop and turn around. It was not a consentual encounter. The LAC has to work about the new "comply or die" mantra that seems to be the norm for police across the country.


Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk

 

[color of law]

In this, as in many, cases the officer called for the LAC to stop and turn around. It was not a consentual encounter. The LAC has to work about the new "comply or die" mantra that seems to be the norm for police across the country.

We don't know that. The OP didn't say that and the Youtube does not indicate that. What if the officer said to the OP - I hate to admit it, but I'm lost. Which way to the highway? Would that not be a consensual encounter?

Though I can be critical of the cops, I don't believe that out of the thousands of police and citizen encounters that the "comply or die" mantra is the norm.

The problem is that the police force refuses to clean up their departments and get rid of the bad cops. So called good cops must stop turning a blinds eye.

 

[Dave_pro2a]

http://static4.businessinsider.com/image/53a9a88e6bb3f717338173ee-480/swat-team-police.jpg[/img]

 

[Dave_pro2a]

Reality beats any dictionary

 

[OC for ME]

In this, as in many, cases the officer called for the LAC to stop and turn around. It was not a consentual encounter. The LAC has to work about the new "comply or die" mantra that seems to be the norm for police across the country.


Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk

The LAC should have kept on going, ignoring the cop. Acknowledging the cop could be seen as consenting. Expect to be roughed up if you ignore the cop and keep on keeping on.

 

[OC for ME]

The LAC should have kept on going, ignoring the cop. Acknowledging the cop could be seen as consenting. Expect to be roughed up if you ignore the cop and keep on keeping on.

Generally speaking, most folks would not appreciate being ignored. Most folks do not have a badge and gat to do something about being ignored, even if doing something is later found to have been illegal.

 

[twoskinsonemanns]

It was a consensual encounter. A consensual encounter involves only minimal police contact and no seizure, whereas the investigative stop requires a well-founded suspicion that criminal activity is afoot.

An investigative stop is where police detain you temporarily in order to investigate the possibility that you committed a crime or are in the process of committing a crime. In order to justify an investigatory stop, law enforcement officers must have a well-founded, reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 30 (1968). A detainment is a seizure.

I think I have to disagree. If a cop gives you a verbal command to walk over to him would you consider it a request you are free to ignore?
If the cop directs you to deviate from your path to walk over to him through gestures, how could that possibly be conveyed as a request you're free to ignore?

 

[Dave_pro2a]

Showing some bad and some good men in masks isn't "discriminatory to a class."

Evil men hid behind masks. Cops, protesters, gang members. Not all are bad, but masks... cloak the evildoers.

 

[Grapeshot]

Showing some bad and some good men in masks isn't "discriminatory to a class."

Evil men hid behind masks. Cops, protesters, gang members. Not all are bad, but masks... cloak the evildoers.

They are not just for surgery and primary purpose is not to hide the identity.

 

[color of law]

I think I have to disagree. If a cop gives you a verbal command to walk over to him would you consider it a request you are free to ignore?
If the cop directs you to deviate from your path to walk over to him through gestures, how could that possibly be conveyed as a request you're free to ignore?

I'm generally paraphrasing court decisions. I don't necessarily disagree with you, but the courts keep making exceptions to the rule. We are very close to having the rule become the exception and the exceptions becoming the rule.

If you ain't free to walkaway then you have been seized.

 

[Dave_pro2a]

They are not just for surgery and primary purpose is not to hide the identity.

Well, hmm. So you claim

http://boingboing.net/2015/02/25/think-you-have-the-right-to-de.html

 

[solus]

I think I have to disagree. If a cop gives you a verbal command to walk over to him would you consider it a request you are free to ignore?
If the cop directs you to deviate from your path to walk over to him through gestures, how could that possibly be conveyed as a request you're free to ignore?

an emphatic free to ignore...some have stated:

boy, come over here! ignored!

excuse me sir, could you come over here? ignored!

sorry if it is a crisis, then the nice LE can walk over to me to explain why they wish to even begin to have a conversation with me. then if the conversation starts by demanding ID, i will terminate the encounter and i will walk away...Ignored!

being stopped while driving has statutory impediments where i am mandated to proffer DL, Insurance to the nice LE.

ipse

 

[Wstar425]

I could simply ignore the cop, walk around him, and continue on my way. What are the odds that a cop would consent to this? If he stops me I am seized.

I'm thinking that would have qualified you under the "erratic behavior" clause of the local penal code......

I could just be making this all up.

 

[Dave_pro2a]

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/13/u...-from-overseas-wars-to-local-police.html?_r=0

Facial recognition software, which American military and intelligence agencies used for years in Iraq and Afghanistan to identify potential terrorists, is being eagerly adopted by dozens of police departments around the country to pursue drug dealers, prostitutes and other conventional criminal suspects.

But because it is being used with few guidelines and with little oversight or public disclosure, it is raising questions of privacy and concerns about potential misuse.

 

[protias]

Reality beats any dictionary

 

[SouthernBoy]

I can't pretend to speak for protias, but my point would be that I'm most concerned by the kind of 'us vs them' minded police who use the word 'civilian' in the 3rd person, and you seem to have fallen into those thugs' language trap.

You can talk about cops vs ordinary citizens (I usually refer to ordinary citizens as the cops' employers), or about military vs civilians, but not about cops vs civilians, because cops are civilians.

Not true at all and not inferred, either.