PDA

View Full Version : Upland PD responds to OC incident


Agent Orange
07-18-2011, 4:19 PM
My apologies if a dupe. The acting Chief of Upland PD has replied to all those who sent him emails about the incident:

"This email is being written to all persons that took the time to correspond with me regarding the recent posting of an Upland officer dealing with two individuals who were not involved in any illegal activity. The individuals were exercising their Constitutional right to carry an unloaded weapon in plain sight. I do agree the individuals were not breaking the law. The call for service could have been handled in a more professional manner, consistent with the training previously provided to all officers.

Prior to this incident, the Upland Police Department conducted briefing training on how to handle a person exercising their Constitutional right by “open carrying”. The Upland Police Department used a District Attorney training bulletin as the basis of the training.

The training, in a nutshell, advises officers have a right to check the weapon to make sure it is unloaded. Officers should not lengthen the detention by running the serial number of the weapon or individuals involved.

On the night of the incident, when Command Staff became aware of the call and how it was handled, immediate steps were taken to ensure all officers received refresher training. The Patrol Commander has ensured that all patrol briefings have gone over the appropriate way to handle an “open carry” call for service and what legally can be done by the officers.

In closing, I do believe Upland Police officers made mistakes during this contact and the incident could have been handled better. The Upland Police Department has opened a citizen’s complaint investigation of the incident and as such all officers involved will be afforded their personnel rights.

Within 48 hours, “open carry” advocates exercised their rights at the same shopping center and all subsequent calls for service were handled appropriately, indicating the refresher training was successful."

Jeff Mendenhall

Acting Chief of Police

Upland Police Department

paul0660
07-18-2011, 4:23 PM
If true, the best you can hope for. "Refresher" is not a satisfying as "unpaid week off" would be.

ElvenSoul
07-18-2011, 4:27 PM
Hmmmm!

MasterYong
07-18-2011, 4:27 PM
Uh, the Chief of Police stated IN WRITING that the officers mishandled the contact and "made mistakes"??? That just doesn't happen. Liability and all that.

You sure this is a legit email? Darn-near sounds like it was written by a CalGunner LOL.

oni.dori
07-18-2011, 4:29 PM
An unpaid week off should have been the MINIMUM administrative action for violating citizens rights. Enough of htis "slap on the wrist" bull sh*t. If it doesn't work for criminals, it won't work for officers.

Tripper
07-18-2011, 4:30 PM
refresher, bravo to that part
bad part is, that they acted the way they did, with FULL knowledge that they shouldnt, and was also in contradiction to their training. I think the chief just tookthe department out of the lawsuit, by saying outright, the cops knew better, and shouldnt have done that
i really think they just lost their qualified immunity with that statement

Tripper
07-18-2011, 4:31 PM
they are on the hook all by themselves now
I hope porac has lots of money to defend them

BigDogatPlay
07-18-2011, 4:34 PM
Is the acting chief throwing the officers under the bus? That e-mail contains a rather damaging set of admissions. Not the least of which is a tacit acknowledgement that his officers violated the civil rights of the OC'ers.

Now, of course, he also can't discuss personnel matters publicly but given the frank admission that his officers, and a field supervisor, did not handle the contact in accordance with training and policy I would speculate that some involved may be enjoying a few days unpaid vacation at some point.

Assuming this is a legit e-mail. I can't imagine the city attorney's office signing off on it, unless the specific intent is to use it to move for summary judgement out of any potential civil rights action.

ETA: The e-mail notes a citizen complaint investigation has been opened. Those can not be ignored and, given the totality of the evidence and the acting chief's statements, the investigators would be hard pressed to not sustain the complaint.

Tripper
07-18-2011, 4:43 PM
yah, assuming the letter is legit, sounds like he threw them under the bus.
counsel probably said that's the cheapest way out.
the whole color of authority thing, civil rights, it doesnt end
first things first though
Restraining orders/stay away order, placed against them for knowingly violating rights, see how long they get to work with a restraining order, which says they cant carry guns.

stix213
07-18-2011, 4:53 PM
My non-lawyerly opinion of the email is the Chief manned up that his officers were the problem. Kudos to him for not circling the wagon and denying everything like is sometimes seen.

Uxi
07-18-2011, 4:57 PM
Sounds pretty good. I'm not out to get any of them fired, thought at least one was in serious need of attitude adjustment.

VW*Mike
07-18-2011, 5:00 PM
(In my most sarcastic tone possible!) Someone bus driving an underling? That NEVER happens!

uyoga
07-18-2011, 5:05 PM
If the email is factual, the Acting Chief is indeed guilty of having a well placed set of cojones in addressing the incident the way he did. Kudos to him!

Whether the "insulting" officers were "thrown under the bus" leaves a little room for thought. Obviously they were in the wrong - they knew they were in the wrong - maybe their egos got the best of them. They may be loving parents, faithful husbands, and above average performers - but for THIS incident, they get no sympathy from me.

HowardW56
07-18-2011, 5:08 PM
While I am not an advocate of UOC, I believe the original incident was handled very poorly. As acknowledgement of that and retraining is enough for me...

I want cops to learn, not become bitter opponents ... If there were no change in policy & training, or if the officers ignored their training, that is another issue...

Apocalypsenerd
07-18-2011, 5:14 PM
That letter sounds to me like the chief is a very reasonable man. You can admit a mistake was made and try to fix it, without "throwing someone under the bus". Perhaps the victims of the police abuse spoke with him and just wanted an apology. Not everything has to end in litigation.

Also, it's not "just a slap on the wrist" yet. They opened an investigation and haven't finished. The results could be more or less than said slap.

Norcal Industries
07-18-2011, 5:17 PM
if true, this is at least a step in the right direction. wish more chiefs were like this.

Liberty1
07-18-2011, 5:17 PM
This is as open a public statement as I've ever seen this quickly after an event. Often a department will just say it's being investigated. The chief here is going 'above and beyond' and I commend him for restoring faith in the department and doing the honorable thing.

But he is required to notify the DA of his officers felonious actions which violate CPC 236, false imprionment, not to mention battery under color of authority.

BSlacker
07-18-2011, 5:18 PM
That letter sounds to me like the chief is a very reasonable man. You can admit a mistake was made and try to fix it

Please look up Beck vs Upland for this guys record. :)

Apocalypsenerd
07-18-2011, 5:22 PM
Liberty1:

Is turning off the recorder and attempting to delete the footage, "tampering with evidence"? If so, is that a felony?

BigDogatPlay
07-18-2011, 5:24 PM
That letter sounds to me like the chief is a very reasonable man.

I'm sure he is, otherwise he'd have had a hard time getting to where he is in his career.

You can admit a mistake was made and try to fix it, without "throwing someone under the bus".

You can indeed admit openly that a mistake was made, just a couple of days after the incident and with the internal investigation barely started. You can do that. But it's very unusual in 21st century government, and particularly in my own experience in LE. That e-mail is close to the equivalent of a dog showing it's belly.

Perhaps the victims of the police abuse spoke with him and just wanted an apology. Not everything has to end in litigation.

Perhaps they did. And I'm not saying that it will end in litigation. It certainly could, however.

Also, it's not "just a slap on the wrist" yet. They opened an investigation and haven't finished. The results could be more or less than said slap.

Define a slap.... ;)

But seriously, if the complaint is sustained and the officers are found in the LEA judgement to have violated policy, the law and the OCers civil rights, they are liable to be in a peck of crap.

Agent Orange
07-18-2011, 5:25 PM
Upland has its problems. For example if you look into it you'll see this guy is acting chief for a reason. I believe the reply to be legit though. I also wrote to the Upland City Council and received this back. Both came from "official" addresses found on the city's website.

Dear Mr. xxxxxx

The Upland Police Department is considering this a citizen’s complaint. Since we have no physical address we are sending the response via email, which was provided.

Sincerely,

Luz Barrett
Senior Admin Asst

vantec08
07-18-2011, 5:26 PM
Past due time for the bureaucrats to get ***** slapped into shape.

Liberty1
07-18-2011, 5:27 PM
While I am not an advocate of UOC, I believe the original incident was handled very poorly. As acknowledgement of that and retraining is enough for me...

I want cops to learn, not become bitter opponents ... If there were no change in policy & training, or if the officers ignored their training, that is another issue...

I want CA peace officers to show reverence to our ancient and honorable sacred enumerated Rights which have been purchased by the blood of our ancestors, California statutes authorizing the violations NOTWITHSTANDING! The 4th A is very settled law and the 2nd is developing but clear enough for officers to do nothing more then observe otherwise lawful activities.

Termination and criminal charges are what appear reasonable based on what was shown on the video.

IGOTDIRT4U
07-18-2011, 5:34 PM
If the email is factual, the Acting Chief is indeed guilty of having a well placed set of cojones in addressing the incident the way he did. Kudos to him!

Whether the "insulting" officers were "thrown under the bus" leaves a little room for thought. Obviously they were in the wrong - they knew they were in the wrong - maybe their egos got the best of them. They may be loving parents, faithful husbands, and above average performers - but for THIS incident, they get no sympathy from me.

Good post.

And congrats to the Chief for taking action. Yeah, should the officers not even done what was done, sure. But again, they are human. And I am sure they learned the rules this time.

The citizens board will take them to task, and probably make recommendations. Give it time. At least we got the Chief's ear.

Apocalypsenerd
07-18-2011, 5:36 PM
BigDog you are more experienced in these matters than I. After reading Beck vs. Upland, well, that alters the picture somewhat.

IGOTDIRT4U
07-18-2011, 5:37 PM
Please look up Beck vs Upland for this guys record. :)

http://www.ninthcircuitopinions.com/2008/05/28/beck-v-city-of-upland/

BERZON, Circuit Judge:
Kenneth Beck and the City of Upland, California, engaged for months in an escalating series of disputes arising from Beck’s protests against a city contract granted to one of his competitors. In the incident that gave rise to this case, Beck was arrested six days after he confronted two city police officers over what he felt to be unfair treatment by the city. Beck’s arrest was pursuant to a warrant for two felony violations of a California statute prohibiting threats of violence made to deter police officers from performing their duties. The warrant, we conclude — as did the state courts considering the criminal charges — was entirely without probable cause. All charges against Beck were dismissed. Beck maintains that his “First and Fourth Amendment rights . . . were violated when he was arrested and imprisoned [without probable cause] for his protected speech and then forced to incur the cost of defending himself against the crim. . .

IKUTA, Circuit Judge, concurring in part, dissenting in part: In my view, the district court’s grant of summary judgment must be reversed for two reasons. First, the district court granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment and dismissed Beck’s § 1983 cause of action based in part on its determination that the police officers had probable cause to arrest Beck. This determination was erroneous: the police officers lacked probable cause to arrest Beck as a matter of law. See In re Manuel G., 16 Cal. 4th 805, 814-15 (1997). Second, the district court determined that the officers were immune from liability under Smiddy v. Varney, 665 F.2d 261 (9th Cir. 1981), due to the prosecutor’s intervening action of filing a criminal charge against Beck. The Supreme Court’s recent opinion in Hartman v. Moore, 547 U.S. 250 (2006), casts doubt on the district court’s conclusion, at least with respect to Beck’s allegation that the police officers arrested him in retaliation for his exercise of First Amendment rights. Beck had attempted to rebut the Smiddy presumption (i.e., the presumption that a prosecutor’s filing of criminal charges constitutes an exercise of independent judgment that immu. . .

Liberty1
07-18-2011, 5:44 PM
Liberty1:

Is turning off the recorder and attempting to delete the footage, "tampering with evidence"? If so, is that a felony?

I'm sure a DA or federal prosecutor could find plenty on that video. But will they?

Agent Orange
07-18-2011, 5:49 PM
For those who wish to tell him what they think, one way or the other:

JMendenhall@uplandpd.org

I've already told him that although there was no excuse for the officers behaviors I'm encouraged by his response.

Tripper
07-18-2011, 5:52 PM
well, I have to say, as someone suggested up there, it would be nice if things could end without litigation.but, in todays CA, its going to take a signinficant litigation, to stop this kind of abuse, there needs to be a 'test case', someone has to be thrown under the bus. if these things continue to get, resolved without litigation, as in, we will of course retrain our officers in short time. it doesnt stop it from happening. which is proven here, which he had suggested they recently went through the training which they apparently ignored.
fort it to 'sink' in, someone has to get thrown under the bus. get personally liable for their actions. umm, like I would be held to for instance. make it cost the officer that was in the wrong, including his/her accomplices, his FTO should have some liability, and his academy should also have some liability.

once that occurs, then we will have LEO's doing the right things.
that being directed at the LEO's that continuously ignore the 'right' things, and trample on rights such as shown here.
i'm with someone else that said, I have no sympathy here, in case you cant tell.

Liberty1
07-18-2011, 6:04 PM
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=455903

Here is the origional thread on this event.

nitroxdiver
07-18-2011, 6:24 PM
The letter is legit. I wrote to the Chief 2 days ago, and received the same reply.
I also received a signed letter via email from the admin supervisor advising me that my letter, along with everyone else's, have been filed as civilian complaints, and that an investigation is pending. They will advise us of the outcome. Kudos to the Chief.

Anchors
07-18-2011, 6:41 PM
This is as open a public statement as I've ever seen this quickly after an event. Often a department will just say it's being investigated. The chief here is going 'above and beyond' and I commend him for restoring faith in the department and doing the honorable thing.

But he is required to notify the DA of his officers felonious actions which violate CPC 236, false imprionment, not to mention battery under color of authority.

Seriously. I have never seen a department spokesman, much less the chief, respond with such honor and integrity. It is really refreshing.
Officers like this chief and you are the example all others should lead by. If I was a LEO, that is the kind of LEO I would want to be.

I want CA peace officers to show reverence to our ancient and honorable sacred enumerated Rights which have been purchased by the blood of our ancestors, California statutes authorizing the violations NOTWITHSTANDING! The 4th A is very settled law and the 2nd is developing but clear enough for officers to do nothing more then observe otherwise lawful activities.

Termination and criminal charges are what appear reasonable based on what was shown on the video.

Again. I agree based on the video.
I hope that the DA is at least notified and a serious investigation occurs, whatever the results may be.

Maestro Pistolero
07-18-2011, 8:02 PM
As much as I understand the sentiment of wanting to throw the department under the bus, it would have the effect, in this case, of discouraging the kind of unguarded, forthcoming response that the chief has put out with this letter.

I would let this one go, and hammer them unmercifully only if, and when there is another incident. We need to encourage this kind of refreshing response to malfeasance.

proclone1
07-18-2011, 8:19 PM
My non-lawyerly opinion of the email is the Chief manned up that his officers were the problem. Kudos to him for not circling the wagon and denying everything like is sometimes seen.

I agree, others like Hutchens (LOL like she'd ever write back to corresponders) would have basically given 2 middle-fingers back.

On the other hand, if you reverse rolls here and had an UOC'er do something stupid and illegal, does anyone really think that the cops or DA would show any mercy and give just a warning or wristslap? Perhaps make the offending citizen take a refresher basic-pistol safety course? They'd steamroll the "perp" to the maximum allowed penalty and let a judge/jury have mercy on them.

Gun owners and RKBA have been shown ZERO mercy, and as such cannot for a second show that that we'd likewise go back and let our rights be trampled on and say "oh well it's ok things like this happen".

Take them all to court and let justice be served. it's the only way to be sure.

hornswaggled
07-18-2011, 8:27 PM
Notice how LEOs are afforded the opportunity to make mistakes and walk away, issuing written statements after the fact. Are private citizens undeserving of the same considerations under law?

BSlacker
07-18-2011, 8:28 PM
Seriously. I have never seen a department spokesman, much less the chief, respond with such honor and integrity. It is really refreshing.
Officers like this chief and you the example all others should lead by. If I was a LEO, that is the kind of LEO I would want to be.Before you people go all goo goo over the acting chief I would want you to look a little into his background and some of the goings on in the UPD. Please look at Beck vs Upland. This acting chief arrested someone without PC with animus and he is still on the force he even made acting chief. No firing no anything by the city, he was promoted. The city paid 375K to Mr Beck and admitted that it happened. If you think a little dust up like this is going to change him or the city council and make the acting chief an angel and change anything at UPD you are wrong. This is all white wash. He wants to go out chief and will grovel to get it thats all. Mendenhal would arrest all of you without PC. ;)
He is acting chief because the chief went out on medical and is under investigation by the FBI. A Sgt was promoted to LT and given 25K cash because he claimed to be passed over for promotion by the city manager after the Sgt did a investigation of the city manager.

We need to encourage this kind of refreshing response to malfeasance. The acting chief is a criminal Just read about Mr Beck.

Along with this the Mayor was arrested and some other city fools were arrested as well.
I just don't think you will get the old and stupid city council's attention.
The corruption in this city has gone well past this.:o

Tripper
07-18-2011, 8:46 PM
sounds like it needs to go outside the city for the lawsuit then huh

Tripper
07-18-2011, 8:47 PM
if someone just gives me 10k, i'll quit talking about suing ppl for a few weeks

Tripper
07-18-2011, 8:49 PM
whether ya like it or not, crook or not, it always looks better to the courts or jury, when its shown the truth was told, and mistake was admitted. not to mention something was done to help prevent the mistake from occurring again (refresher training)

andytothemax
07-18-2011, 9:00 PM
This thread and the original really show the power of the internet and collaborating with other shooters. What a huge equalizer in the power struggle, if you could call it that, between law enforcement and citizens re UOC. Imagine if this happened with no video and no bulletin board to post it on. Not even a footnote in the weekly crime blotter.

It's great to see a chief LEO take responsibility. But really, what other choice did he have with this embarrassing video going viral? :43:

HisDivineShadow
07-18-2011, 9:09 PM
Before you people go all goo goo over the acting chief I would want you to look a little into his background and some of the goings on in the UPD. Please look at Beck vs Upland. This acting chief arrested someone without PC with animus and he is still on the force he even made acting chief. No firing no anything by the city, he was promoted. The city paid 375K to Mr Beck and admitted that it happened. If you think a little dust up like this is going to change him or the city council and make the acting chief an angel and change anything at UPD you are wrong. This is all white wash. He wants to go out chief and will grovel to get it thats all. Mendenhal would arrest all of you without PC. ;)
He is acting chief because the chief went out on medical and is under investigation by the FBI. A Sgt was promoted to LT and given 25K cash because he claimed to be passed over for promotion by the city manager after the Sgt did a investigation of the city manager.

The acting chief is a criminal Just read about Mr Beck.

Along with this the Mayor was arrested and some other city fools were arrested as well.
I just don't think you will get the old and stupid city council's attention.
The corruption in this city has gone well past this.:o

:eek:

That makes dealing with all of the hipsters and busy-bodies in Claremont seem trivial. We've had drama with one of our school board members, but luckily our PD seems decent.

epilepticninja
07-18-2011, 9:21 PM
My non-lawyerly opinion of the email is the Chief manned up that his officers were the problem. Kudos to him for not circling the wagon and denying everything like is sometimes seen.

That's how I took it too. The chief acknowledged his officers acted like knuckleheads. It is not a perfect world.

Liberty1
07-18-2011, 9:44 PM
Before you people go all goo goo over the acting chief...:

I give props where props are due. In this instance the Chief gets credit for his words. Whether or not it actually mitigates the event for those involved is unknown...

Liberty1
07-18-2011, 10:04 PM
if someone just gives me 10k, i'll quit talking about suing ppl for a few weeks

I'll give you 10k to use proper punctuation!:p. It's painful to read your posts.

Agent Orange
07-18-2011, 10:04 PM
^ This. Regardless of what happens he must have known the consequences of writing that email.

What's interesting is during the video one cop says: "we're not going to play your little open carry games" (or some such) and then states "if you're looking for an arrest you're not going to get one".

This seems to imply they've already developed the opinion all OCers fall into the very tiny group deliberately looking for a confrontation leading to legal payout. Yet the officers went ahead and did the very things that could result in one. Given their statements one would think they'd have known better.

mow
07-18-2011, 10:09 PM
Is unloaded open carry a constitutional right?

sandman21
07-18-2011, 10:15 PM
Is unloaded open carry a constitutional right?

Yep, 1A.

Droc101
07-18-2011, 10:15 PM
Is unloaded open carry a constitutional right?

No, but owning and bearing arms is. I do not consider myself armed if my block of polymer and steel is unloaded.

Droc101
07-18-2011, 10:16 PM
Yep, 1A.

I hope this was a joke. lol

Liberty1
07-18-2011, 10:16 PM
Is unloaded open carry a constitutional right?

Some trial judges have said in their decisions that UOC satisfies RKBA therefore Ca's current statutes regulating ccw licensing do not violate the 2A. Several LEA memos have refered to UOC as a Right. Obviously our side in various cases is arguing that functional guns ready for defense means loaded.

Librarian
07-18-2011, 10:19 PM
Is unloaded open carry a constitutional right?

We're going for loaded ...

Yep, 1A.

UOC as political speech is pretty weakly supported in practice; it may get better regard from the next round of Nordyke.

sandman21
07-18-2011, 10:20 PM
I hope this was a joke. lol

Functional firearms are protected under the 2A, UOC to protest CCW policy is 1A protected.

We're going for loaded ...

UOC as political speech is pretty weakly supported in practice; it may get better regard from the next round of Nordyke.

It does not fall under the 2A, no matter what the 9th says, 1A is the best fit.

jimh
07-18-2011, 10:38 PM
Good for the chief to admit mistakes and move on. He fixed the problem. Isn't one of the points in UOC to force the system to follow the rules and not infringe. If so, I would say it worked in this case.

Anchors
07-19-2011, 3:27 AM
What's interesting is during the video one cop says: "we're not going to play your little open carry games" (or some such) and then states "if you're looking for an arrest you're not going to get one".

It also seems to imply that they already decided there was no illegal activity and had no intent to arrest, therefore the officer admitted to furthering an already probably illegal detention into a definitely illegal detention.

I know CGF doesn't really do OUC (and I'm not an UOCer), but this seems like a pretty slam dunk case they could take if they wanted to...


It does not fall under the 2A, no matter what the 9th says, 1A is the best fit.

Is there some convoluted California Penal Code that prohibits me from open carrying a training mold of a Glock as a form of protest (the blue, red, whatever color they are)?

I'm sure there is...

GaryV
07-19-2011, 10:23 AM
Before you people go all goo goo over the acting chief I would want you to look a little into his background and some of the goings on in the UPD. Please look at Beck vs Upland. This acting chief arrested someone without PC with animus and he is still on the force he even made acting chief. No firing no anything by the city, he was promoted. The city paid 375K to Mr Beck and admitted that it happened. If you think a little dust up like this is going to change him or the city council and make the acting chief an angel and change anything at UPD you are wrong. This is all white wash. He wants to go out chief and will grovel to get it thats all. Mendenhal would arrest all of you without PC. ;)
He is acting chief because the chief went out on medical and is under investigation by the FBI. A Sgt was promoted to LT and given 25K cash because he claimed to be passed over for promotion by the city manager after the Sgt did a investigation of the city manager.

The acting chief is a criminal Just read about Mr Beck.

Along with this the Mayor was arrested and some other city fools were arrested as well.
I just don't think you will get the old and stupid city council's attention.
The corruption in this city has gone well past this.:o

See, I would look at this slightly differently. Yes, Mendenhal was seriously wrong in the Beck case, and the courts clearly said that he intentionally violated Beck's 1st and 4th Amendment rights. He even lost all his immunity, under both federal and state law, and was held personally liable. I agree, he should have been fired, and even criminally prosecuted.

However, I think what his email in this current situation shows is that such a suit did have an effect on his behavior, in that he didn't hesitate to distance himself and his department from the actions of these officers. While he may still personally be a power-mad scumbag, he learned that the citizens he messes with can fight back and win, and that his best way to avoid what happened to him in Beck is to be honest and open from the start, and not try to defend or hide clearly indefensible behavior in his department. So I think this shows that such this kind of thing can have lasting positive effects, if the injured parties show they're not willing to put up with such behavior.

Bhobbs
07-19-2011, 10:33 AM
Good for the chief to admit mistakes and move on. He fixed the problem. Isn't one of the points in UOC to force the system to follow the rules and not infringe. If so, I would say it worked in this case.

I wouldn't go that far with it. He wrote a letter saying the cops were wrong.

Now, if he suspended them without pay for a month while they read over the laws regarding UOC, then I might say he is trying to fix the problem.

TNP'R
07-19-2011, 10:33 AM
So are we still allowed to open carry? Because I thought state senate passed the open carry ban.

Bhobbs
07-19-2011, 10:34 AM
So are we still allowed to open carry? Because I thought state senate passed the open carry ban.

It has to be signed by the Governor to be a law.

TNP'R
07-19-2011, 10:37 AM
It has to be signed by the Governor to be a law.

I didn't know if he signed it or not, haven't kept up with it since the vote, he'll sign it though..

Ctwo
07-19-2011, 10:46 AM
Is there some convoluted California Penal Code that prohibits me from open carrying a training mold of a Glock as a form of protest (the blue, red, whatever color they are)?

I'm sure there is...

I think imitation firearms are illegal...?

bwiese
07-19-2011, 10:52 AM
Folks,

I think we should regard this as a win. The perfect is the enemy of the good, and we got some 'good' at the end.

1. the Chief got involved.
2. admission of problems
3. likely remedial measures to stop this behavior.

Let's not confuse things. Matters like litigation against depts or officers are means to an end, not the end itself. The actual end is tolerance for lawful conduct with firearms without drama. The response from the Chief indicates he recognized problems and took measures to stop them.

If there's a repeat, then we can go nuclear, but this is an initial rational result on the pathway to success.

r3dn3ck
07-19-2011, 10:59 AM
one can only hope he signs it. As I understand it the only thing that's keeping us from something like constitutional carry or shall-issue is the UOC rule. As long as we have UOC we can't get SI or CC (well we could but this will make it way easier).

As for the whole upland thing... Regardless of previous acts the acting chief did the right thing and manned up. The "under the bus" stuff is garbage though. He told the truth and is in a position where pure truth (as pure as it can be I guess) is the expectation of all members of his group. He didn't toss them under the bus, they did when they violated the constitution. He's just not going to get boned for another civil rights violation and so decided to do the 1 right thing. Open the city up to the proper consequences for the actions of their agents.

I see it as him simply playing by the rules because he knows how big the microscope he's currently under (and his whole city/department) and he doesn't want the jail time.

The cop that shut off the phone should receive jail time for unauthorized accessing and damage to electronic data. AFAIK he can be held accountable on federal charges. He accessed an internet connected electronic device without the owners consent, which was being used to actively record lawful data and attempted to cause damage to that data and prevent further data gathering from happening. Plain and simple, that's covered under the Federal Computer Fraud and Abuse Act:

intentionally accesses a protected computer without authorization, and as a result of such conduct, recklessly causes damage

It also appears you can get 10 years for the offense. I recommend vigorous prosecution of the officer. Make it a big deal. End the career he should not have had. Send a message to every other agency that if you want to destroy evidence, destroy your own and not the stuff I'm electronically maintaining.

CCWFacts
07-19-2011, 11:04 AM
If the email is factual, the Acting Chief is indeed guilty of having a well placed set of cojones in addressing the incident the way he did. Kudos to him!

I think we should regard this as a win. The perfect is the enemy of the good, and we got some 'good' at the end.

1. the Chief got involved.
2. admission of problems
3. likely remedial measures to stop this behavior.

I agree with both of those. He admitting mistakes. In today's world that takes cojones. The officers were out of line but it wasn't extreme and they can learn from it.

green grunt
07-19-2011, 11:04 AM
I don't think I would get a pass from any LEO if I did something as wrong as that ....
I don't belive the Cops that did this should get a pass...oops...sorry...its OK now we are being retrained.......and what gets done "next" time , more retraining.......
time off with out pay and a letter in there file.....at least.

GaryV
07-19-2011, 11:13 AM
Folks,

I think we should regard this as a win. The perfect is the enemy of the good, and we got some 'good' at the end.

1. the Chief got involved.
2. admission of problems
3. likely remedial measures to stop this behavior.

Let's not confuse things. Matters like litigation against depts or officers are means to an end, not the end itself. The actual end is tolerance for lawful conduct with firearms without drama. The response from the Chief indicates he recognized problems and took measures to stop them.

If there's a repeat, then we can go nuclear, but this is an initial rational result on the pathway to success.

I agree that a suit against the department or the city might be more than is justified here since they both seem to be responding appropriately; but, given the chief's admission that his officers violated policy even after initial training on the topic, wouldn't a suit against the individual officers be a good thing? If the victims could penetrate immunity and get them as individuals, wouldn't that go much further in reaching our actual end state- or even nationwide, rather than having to deal with a "first offense" for each department individually before pursuing litigation?

BannedinBritain
07-19-2011, 12:33 PM
If there's a repeat, then we can go nuclear, but this is an initial rational result on the pathway to success.

But I wanna push the button NOW!!! :43:

http://silentmajority09.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/Tsar-Nuclear-Explosion.jpg

mag360
07-19-2011, 12:33 PM
just watched the video, "officer safety", "exigent circumstances due to open carry". bahaha, what a trio of as$holes with badges.

FERGUSON
07-19-2011, 1:00 PM
SO WHO WANTS TO UOC IN UPLAND THIS WEEKEND HAHA

BlackRain17
07-19-2011, 1:14 PM
Sounds pretty good. I'm not out to get any of them fired, thought at least one was in serious need of attitude adjustment.

Most LEOs aren't bad it's these ignorant aholes with attitudes that make the rest of them look bad...

FastFinger
07-19-2011, 3:30 PM
The Upland Police Department used a District Attorney training bulletin as the basis of the training.



It'd be nice to see a copy of the referenced bulletin. Might be a good document to circulate around.

Liberty1
07-19-2011, 5:06 PM
It'd be nice to see a copy of the referenced bulletin. Might be a good document to circulate around.

Most memos are here http://californiaopencarry.org/

carsonwales
07-19-2011, 10:23 PM
I am really growing tired of this legalistic dog and pony show we have to play...

The Constitution is clear, and SCOTUS has opined

We (I) have an inalienable right to defend our lives...

I am so sick of this nuance and legal tap dancing...

...and we should be 'happy' that this chief (Upland) acknowledges his officers broke the law and he will make efforts to correct it?

Give me a friggin break...more of the same crap sandwich we have been fed for the last 20 years in this state

It is my life...and I will defend it..period...and they can Kilo Mike Alpha

Carson

Window_Seat
07-19-2011, 10:48 PM
I am really growing tired of this legalistic dog and pony show we have to play...

The Constitution is clear, and SCOTUS has opined

We (I) have an inalienable right to defend our lives...

I am so sick of this nuance and legal tap dancing...

...and we should be 'happy' that this chief (Upland) acknowledges his officers broke the law and he will make efforts to correct it?

Give me a friggin break...more of the same crap sandwich we have been fed for the last 20 years in this state

It is my life...and I will defend it..period...and they can Kilo Mike Alpha

Carson

We not only have an admission of wrongdoing from the top of the COC, but also a statement made that indicated that they had proper training and education on the topic of open carry & (e) checks. This is a step in the right direction, which is much better than beating around the bush on the matter. This CLEO could have sent back some PC form response letter, but he didn't. That is going to make it so that going to court (for a civil matter) is unlikely to be necessary, and I like it that way.

Erik.

carsonwales
07-20-2011, 12:01 AM
Your right and I am wrong.

I will sit quietly and do what I have been doing for the last 20 years.

Supporting stuff like CalGuns and what not.

But it does not change my feeling...that this whole thing is a circus.

After 50 years of doing laps on this rock (all in this state) and never breaking a law...I hate being considered or treated as a criminal or outcast because I own guns...

I am sick of it...

It really pisses me off

CavTrooper
07-20-2011, 3:38 PM
Folks,

I think we should regard this as a win. The perfect is the enemy of the good, and we got some 'good' at the end.

1. the Chief got involved.
2. admission of problems
3. likely remedial measures to stop this behavior.


I have an alternate POV.

Perfect would be the officers in question spending a long time behind bars as well as losing most if not all of their assets.

Good would be them losing their jobs and pension and the deprtment making a huge, bankrupcy inducing, payout.

Wall Flower
07-20-2011, 4:23 PM
Button pressed: http://www.jonbirdt.com/images/Upland_complaint.pdf

note the background info regarding the on scene supervisor.

Maestro Pistolero
07-20-2011, 4:33 PM
For God's sake, Birdt, get an editor. If it's 2A related, I'll do it for free:

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION- AGAISNT OFFICER DURAN

and

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION- AGAISNT BARRY BELT

Note also inconsistencies such as usually referring to Sergeant Belt as Barry Belt and at least twice as Barry Bell as in item "1 and 2" of the introduction. Should be "Sergeant Belt" or "Sgt. Belt" throughout unless a specific abbreviation were designated in the opening of the brief. If the title 'officer' is used for Duran, why not "Sgt" for Belt?

I hope they prevail, regardless.

sreiter
07-20-2011, 4:46 PM
Folks,

I think we should regard this as a win. The perfect is the enemy of the good, and we got some 'good' at the end.

1. the Chief got involved.
2. admission of problems
3. likely remedial measures to stop this behavior.

Let's not confuse things. Matters like litigation against depts or officers are means to an end, not the end itself. The actual end is tolerance for lawful conduct with firearms without drama. The response from the Chief indicates he recognized problems and took measures to stop them.

If there's a repeat, then we can go nuclear, but this is an initial rational result on the pathway to success.

But what if "next time" the behavior isn't as egregious?

This is a slam dunk.

While cliche', the adage "strike while the iron is hot" I feel would be the prudent thing to do.

San Diego contacts are sweet as honey after being *****ed slapped.

Seems like a good tactic. Of course, as a lawyer you know better, and the above is just MHO.

sreiter
07-20-2011, 4:58 PM
Button pressed: http://www.jonbirdt.com/images/Upland_complaint.pdf

note the background info regarding the on scene supervisor.

:( who wants odds he took the case pro bono just to try to bolster his "rep" as a 2a lawyer

sreiter
07-20-2011, 5:04 PM
For God's sake, Birdt, get an editor. If it's 2A related, I'll do it for free:

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION- AGAISNT OFFICER DURAN

and

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION- AGAISNT BARRY BELT

Note also inconsistencies such as usually referring to Sergeant Belt as Barry Belt and at least twice as Barry Bell as in item "1 and 2" of the introduction. Should be "Sergeant Belt" or "Sgt. Belt" throughout unless a specific abbreviation were designated in the opening of the brief. If the title 'officer' is used for Duran, why not "Sgt" for Belt?

I hope they prevail, regardless.

Aren't judges prone to dismiss cases purely based on bad filings such as all the typo's here?

The fourth and fifth cause of action are against 2 different people, but both name Duran as the offender. huh?

Can Bell (Belt?) be name as a cause of action because Duran touched someone?

Maestro Pistolero
07-20-2011, 5:11 PM
who wants odds he took the case pro bono just to try to bolster his "rep" as a 2a lawyerIf true, I believe he shot himself in the foot. How can shoddy work like that earn someone credibility?

sreiter
07-20-2011, 5:21 PM
If true, I believe he shot himself in the foot. How can shoddy work like that earn someone credibility?


Shoddy work seems to be his middle name. Wasn't it he who is representing himself on a CCW case against LA. IIRC there was a huge thread on here where people were point out the same type horrible legal work.

vantec08
07-20-2011, 5:34 PM
Notice how LEOs are afforded the opportunity to make mistakes and walk away, issuing written statements after the fact. Are private citizens undeserving of the same considerations under law?

Who do you think you are? a "citizen" rather than a "subject"?

Maestro Pistolero
07-20-2011, 5:35 PM
It's only 5 pages for chrissakes. How much longer would it take to get it right? The obvious implication is that if you aren't taking your brief seriously enough to get the wrinkles out of it, why should the court take your allegations against police officers seriously?

And it's a little disrespectful of the court itself. Honest to God, I don't know how someone like Birdt passes the bar. But IANAL. Perhaps ISHBAL. (I should have become a lawyer) But so should a few people around here. (Gene?)

Liberty1
07-20-2011, 6:15 PM
A few more typos.

I WISH he had copied one of CGFs complaints dealing with 12031 e. Why is he calling it a 'right to carry an unloaded gun'??? Why even implicate the 2A? The 4A issues are clear. Thankfully the city will likely not resist and no case law will result also keeping their bill lower.

Saym14
07-20-2011, 6:42 PM
If true, the best you can hope for. "Refresher" is not a satisfying as "unpaid week off" would be.

NO WAY that would happen - they have too many rights under State law and thier unions.

Agent Orange
07-20-2011, 7:17 PM
Hmmm. One of the plaintiffs is this guy:

http://tinyurl.com/43rkkgv

Funtimes
07-20-2011, 7:49 PM
Well, yeah few glaring errors in that one (that got filed). Not really sure about that first quote it looks like the font is larger then the others and it's not block style. Good on Mr. Birdt though; the man has got to make a living one way or another.

HowardW56
07-20-2011, 7:50 PM
Button pressed: http://www.jonbirdt.com/images/Upland_complaint.pdf

note the background info regarding the on scene supervisor.


I wonder why he prepares complaint, signs it, and publishes it before it is filed...

Odd behavior...

HowardW56
07-20-2011, 7:59 PM
Well, yeah few glaring errors in that one (that got filed). Not really sure about that first quote it looks like the font is larger then the others and it's not block style. Good on Mr. Birdt though; the man has got to make a living one way or another.

It's obvious that he doesn't make a living as a English teacher...

It's questionable how well he does as a lawyer...

Liberty1
07-20-2011, 8:06 PM
Wish these guys had spent a little money and gotten Jason Davis, a proven winning civil rights attorney. :)

Wall Flower
07-20-2011, 8:27 PM
Jason didn't want to get involved, he was invited.

hoffmang
07-20-2011, 9:32 PM
I'm a bit confused about why we're beating up on a LEA that looks to have done the exact right thing after they had officers do the wrong thing?

And don't get me started about the errors (legal, not spelling) in this complaint. This could accidentally hurt 2A rights when it's a 4A (and only maybe a) 1A case...

I doubt Jason would chose to work with Gary Gorski either...

-Gene

CitaDeL
07-20-2011, 9:41 PM
Wish these guys had spent a little money and gotten Jason Davis, a proven winning civil rights attorney. :)

^ This.

Jason didn't want to get involved, he was invited.

If by 'invited' you mean 'asked to contribute his services for free'... I can kinda understand why he wasnt exactly jumping at the chance. Particularly for the reason Gene has mentioned...

wildhawker
07-20-2011, 10:47 PM
It's obvious that he doesn't make a living as a English teacher...

It's questionable how well he does as a lawyer...

..when he is able to practice as one...

http://members.calbar.ca.gov/courtDocs/05-O-04705.pdf

G-forceJunkie
07-20-2011, 11:13 PM
I'm a bit confused about why we're beating up on a LEA that looks to have done the exact right thing after they had officers do the wrong thing?



Because what he proposed doing (retraining), was already been done (training), and was shown not to be effective.

hoffmang
07-20-2011, 11:39 PM
Because what he proposed doing (retraining), was already been done (training), and was shown not to be effective.

That's not accurate. The chief is clearly saying that the original training was incorrect based on poor advice from a DA. Also, it appears there were subsequent encounters after the retraining that did go correctly.

Everyone forgets that the way to make the stick effective is to also wield the carrot.

-Gene

CitaDeL
07-20-2011, 11:54 PM
That's not accurate. The chief is clearly saying that the original training was incorrect based on poor advice from a DA. Also, it appears there were subsequent encounters after the retraining that did go correctly.

Everyone forgets that the way to make the stick effective is to also wield the carrot.

-Gene

I dunno... alot of people like the carrot that is four foot long, shaped like a Louisville Slugger and bristling with nails.

The Shadow
07-21-2011, 12:07 AM
I dunno... alot of people like the carrot that is four foot long, shaped like a Louisville Slugger and bristling with nails.

I prefer a collapsible carrot. Going off topic here, when can we get rid of 12020 ?

G-forceJunkie
07-21-2011, 12:24 AM
I disagree in how we are reading what the chief said. As I take it, he does not say the DA memo was good or bad. He says it limits the stop to "e" check only, and no lengthy detainment for serial number or id check. He says that is the training they gave the officers. He admits that this training did not work. His solution is to give more of the same training. Thats where I have an issue. They need more, and better training, and tangible punishment, both of which i hope prevent this in the future. All the training in the world is usless if the cops choose to not follow it, thats where the punishment, and fear of future punishment comes in. I don't want punishment to "get back at them" or "Make them pay", thats childish. But without some changes that have teeth, we won't see officer behavior modified.

That's not accurate. The chief is clearly saying that the original training was incorrect based on poor advice from a DA. Also, it appears there were subsequent encounters after the retraining that did go correctly.

Everyone forgets that the way to make the stick effective is to also wield the carrot.

-Gene

sreiter
07-21-2011, 8:15 AM
..when he is able to practice as one...

http://members.calbar.ca.gov/courtDocs/05-O-04705.pdf

Harm: Respondent’s misconduct harmed significantly a client, the public or the administration of justice.

Respondent’s indirect contacts with plaintiffs who were represented by counsel to settle their claims against Respondent’s clients significantly harmed the public and the administration of justice

Only suspended???? Should be disbarred!

sreiter
07-21-2011, 8:15 AM
I disagree in how we are reading what the chief said. As I take it, he does not say the DA memo was good or bad. He says it limits the stop to "e" check only, and no lengthy detainment for serial number or id check. He says that is the training they gave the officers. He admits that this training did not work. His solution is to give more of the same training. Thats where I have an issue. They need more, and better training, and tangible punishment, both of which i hope prevent this in the future. All the training in the world is usless if the cops choose to not follow it, thats where the punishment, and fear of future punishment comes in. I don't want punishment to "get back at them" or "Make them pay", thats childish. But without some changes that have teeth, we won't see officer behavior modified.

this!

Also, no amount of training is going to stop Duran from violating peoples civil rights/assaulting them, calling them names.

I think you HAVE to sue the city because of the qualified immunity to get to Duran and the Sgt.

If you could just go after the individuals, then they shouldnt go after the city, as gene pointed out, the "claim" they will try to fix the problem

Mulay El Raisuli
07-21-2011, 8:23 AM
As much as I understand the sentiment of wanting to throw the department under the bus, it would have the effect, in this case, of discouraging the kind of unguarded, forthcoming response that the chief has put out with this letter.

I would let this one go, and hammer them unmercifully only if, and when there is another incident. We need to encourage this kind of refreshing response to malfeasance.


While throwing someone under the bus is appropriate at times (surely, these cops deserve to be there), the chief does seem to addressing the problem correctly. We should let him. The message to other depts. should be that if you address the problem, we won't sue. But if you don't, if you continue to play the same stupid games that have the the norm up until now, then we WILL sue & for lotsa dough.

In other words:

That's not accurate. The chief is clearly saying that the original training was incorrect based on poor advice from a DA. Also, it appears there were subsequent encounters after the retraining that did go correctly.

Everyone forgets that the way to make the stick effective is to also wield the carrot.

-Gene


Gene is completely correct. I'll add though that the 'carrot' here is still something of a 'stick.' The cops aren't going to walk on this. Not completely, anyway. But as Maestro Pistolero pointed out, punishment isn't what we should be seeking. A change in behavior is what our goal should be. And a part of that goal should be to encourage good behavior in re the 2nd as well as the 4th & the 1st. As GaryV suggests, Mendenhall's attitude has been adjusted. True, it took a lawsuit, but as long as it did change, do we care why?

Also, the lawsuit is total Amateur Hour. The sooner its forgotten, the better.


The Raisuli

Uxi
07-21-2011, 8:29 AM
Hmm interesting point. Original training obviously failed and some sort of at least official reprimand analogous to either NJP or office hours/page 11 with the additional training making note of this. If the open carrier had been more articulate and less... annoying, I could see more punitive measures, but otherwise no.



I am really growing tired of this legalistic dog and pony show we have to play...

The Constitution is clear, and SCOTUS has opined

We (I) have an inalienable right to defend our lives...



I agree in principle and I wish that were so, but so far SCOTUS only agreed that we have a right to 'keep' the weapons in our homes. The 'bear' part is still infringed every day in California.

I really wish Madison's original draft of the 2nd Amendment was law and hadn't been mangled.

Maestro Pistolero
07-21-2011, 9:07 AM
Unfortunately, It's not up to us, as there's an attack dog in the picture, but it's a crippled-up chihuahua with bad eyesight.

We can counter with a letter of thanking the Chief for his response, but the suit will speak much louder.

sreiter
07-21-2011, 2:02 PM
A change in behavior is what our goal should be.
The Raisuli

The goal of prison is reform. A change in behavior, if you will. How many people have been "let off the hook" for the assault, etc. when they "promise" never to do it again.

Man - people need to go back and re-read the Jefferson, Madison (virginia plan) anti-federalist papers and common sense. Its all laid out right there. The authors KNEW power corrupts, and they will never change on their own

Firemark
07-21-2011, 2:19 PM
I really wish Madison's original draft of the 2nd Amendment was law and hadn't been mangled.

quote please.. would be nice to read the original

Uxi
07-21-2011, 2:41 PM
quote please.. would be nice to read the original

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country; but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person."

Basically giving pacifists an exemption. Bypasses all the argument the anti's used to give on the collective right nonsense.

Mulay El Raisuli
07-22-2011, 6:56 AM
"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country; but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person."

Basically giving pacifists an exemption. Bypasses all the argument the anti's used to give on the collective right nonsense.


I disagree. That emphasizes the military aspect far too much. The antis would have ape over this.


The Raisuli

Mulay El Raisuli
07-22-2011, 7:01 AM
The goal of prison is reform. A change in behavior, if you will. How many people have been "let off the hook" for the assault, etc. when they "promise" never to do it again.

Man - people need to go back and re-read the Jefferson, Madison (virginia plan) anti-federalist papers and common sense. Its all laid out right there. The authors KNEW power corrupts, and they will never change on their own


The difference here is that these are cops. People who are dedicated to serving the public. While I have a big problem with their particular version of "service," they can't be compared to the guys who knock over liquor stores either. I.E., something less than prison should 're-direct' their vision of service to a proper focus.

Also, prison often changes behavior. But rarely for the better.


The Raisuli

Maestro Pistolero
07-22-2011, 7:48 AM
The difference here is that these are cops. People who are dedicated to serving the public.Actually, their role is to enforce laws and uphold the constitution according to their oath.

I get your point, but the protection/serving-the-public role, as we know, is largely illusory. Not that most LE wouldn't do anything to protect/serve someone if the situation arises. And it's inherently problematic to hang protection duty on a tiny percentage of the population, who are not omnipotent as are the collective people to whom the 2nd amendment refers.

vantec08
07-22-2011, 9:33 AM
Actually, their role is to enforce laws and uphold the constitution according to their oath.

I get your point, but the protection/serving-the-public role, as we know, is largely illusory. Not that most LE wouldn't do anything to protect/serve someone if the situation arises. And it's inherently problematic to hang protection duty on a tiny percentage of the population, who are not omnipotent as are the collective people to whom the 2nd amendment refers.

Dam right. That pistol they pack is for THEIR protection, not YOURS.

tyrist
07-22-2011, 10:45 AM
An unpaid week off should have been the MINIMUM administrative action for violating citizens rights. Enough of htis "slap on the wrist" bull sh*t. If it doesn't work for criminals, it won't work for officers.

Punishment and the investigation take time so you will most likely have to wait close to a year to find out.

The chief basically said they violated department policy so I expect additional punishment to be forthcoming. I assume this was based off a radio call and if that is the case it's extremely unlikely any criminal charges would occur.

Liberty1
07-22-2011, 11:08 AM
I assume this was based off a radio call and if that is the case it's extremely unlikely any criminal charges would occur.

It ruffles my feathers when I hear 'Radio call' justifies action or 'we got a call so I have to investigate' (not saying this is what you meant). If the call for service or an officer's observations do not provide RAS all we are left with is a consentual contact or no contact. The mere fact that a radio dispatch was generated means nothing in and of itself except that we have to respond to the area pursuant to policy. We are not compelled to do anything. 10-98 No Crime

Wall Flower
07-22-2011, 12:41 PM
http://www.cbs8.com/story/15107706/2011/07/19/report-spike-in-fraud-by-la-county-deputies

morrcarr67
07-22-2011, 3:06 PM
http://www.cbs8.com/story/15107706/2011/07/19/report-spike-in-fraud-by-la-county-deputies

What does that have to do with the topic at hand?

cindynles
07-22-2011, 3:31 PM
What does that have to do with the topic at hand?

My thoughts exactly. Lets keep this on (or at least close) topic....

sreiter
07-22-2011, 6:37 PM
The difference here is that these are cops. People who are dedicated to serving the public. While I have a big problem with their particular version of "service," they can't be compared to the guys who knock over liquor stores either. I.E., something less than prison should 're-direct' their vision of service to a proper focus.

Also, prison often changes behavior. But rarely for the better.


The Raisuli

Since my other post was deleted, i'll make this short and sweet. Police serve the states interest, not the public's.

There are enough horror stories of abuse of power to believe its systemic (there are 100's if not 1000's of youtube vids to prove it). The now defunct Rampart anti gang unit was much worse then any guy knocking over a liquor store.

Mulay El Raisuli
07-23-2011, 7:47 AM
Actually, their role is to enforce laws and uphold the constitution according to their oath.

I get your point, but the protection/serving-the-public role, as we know, is largely illusory. Not that most LE wouldn't do anything to protect/serve someone if the situation arises. And it's inherently problematic to hang protection duty on a tiny percentage of the population, who are not omnipotent as are the collective people to whom the 2nd amendment refers.


I'm sure there are exceptions to the rule. Still, in theory, cops are supposed to serve the public. Even in this instance, the cops thought that this is what they were doing. The problem is that they wrong in their approach, not that they are inherently criminal. Prison is for those who are inherently criminal.

As for the rest, I am a big fan of the thought that everyone's safety is everyone's business. To rely on having only "tiny percentage" (cops) do the protecting is a bad idea. My thought is the way to get all cops on board with the thought is to re-direct their thinking. And to do so by means other than throwing them in prison.

Unless they're total scumbags like sreiter's example of the Rampart Anti-gang Unit. Which, btw, I don't believe is symptomatic of the majority of cops.


The Raisuli

Apocalypsenerd
07-23-2011, 9:28 AM
I'm sure there are exceptions to the rule. Still, in theory, cops are supposed to serve the public. Even in this instance, the cops thought that this is what they were doing. The problem is that they wrong in their approach, not that they are inherently criminal. Prison is for those who are inherently criminal.

The Raisuli

Cops who intentionally destroy evidence are criminal. If an average Joe were to turn off a recorder and attempt to delete the file, he would be charged with a few different crimes. At lease one of these cops was inherently criminal. The rest, maybe not so much.

Maestro Pistolero
07-23-2011, 10:22 AM
Cops who intentionally destroy evidence are criminal. If an average Joe were to turn off a recorder and attempt to delete the file, he would be charged with a few different crimes. At lease one of these cops was inherently criminal. The rest, maybe not so much.
I agree with this. If the intent of turning of or deleting video from a camera isn't an attempt to destroy evidence, then what is?

sreiter
07-23-2011, 6:03 PM
I agree with this. If the intent of turning of or deleting video from a camera isn't an attempt to destroy evidence, then what is?

This is exactly my point. There were instances of illegal behavior, and they should be punished to the fullest extent. Not given a pass because they'll receive a day of re-education

Mulay El Raisuli
07-25-2011, 8:08 AM
Cops who intentionally destroy evidence are criminal. If an average Joe were to turn off a recorder and attempt to delete the file, he would be charged with a few different crimes. At lease one of these cops was inherently criminal. The rest, maybe not so much.


Then I would have no problem with throwing that one cop into The House of Many Doors.


The Raisuli

Uxi
07-25-2011, 8:20 AM
I disagree. That emphasizes the military aspect far too much. The antis would have ape over this.


Maybe, but I think the logical extension is clear (and completely contrary to the NFA and GCA, much less the horrible and illegally passed Hughes Amendment...).

OscarMike
07-26-2011, 8:26 AM
One of the police officers named in the complaint, Barry Belt, has a $176,000 civil judgment against him for sexual assault and battery (Vincent v. Belt, E038884 - California Court of Appeals).

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=4413833820371095055&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr

Mulay El Raisuli
07-27-2011, 6:27 AM
One of the police officers named in the complaint, Barry Belt, has a $176,000 civil judgment against him for sexual assault and battery (Vincent v. Belt, E038884 - California Court of Appeals).

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=4413833820371095055&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr


Good find! Your Googlefoo is strong.

Clearly, Off. Belt is incapable of learning & now its time that he be slammed.


The Raisuli

Decoligny
07-27-2011, 7:16 AM
Officer belt was alleged to have been stalking the plaintiff while on duty AND in violation of a restraining order.

How did he get to possess a firearm (necessary for a police officer to be on duty) while under a restrianing order?

gobler
07-27-2011, 2:56 PM
Officer belt was alleged to have been stalking the plaintiff while on duty AND in violation of a restraining order.

How did he get to possess a firearm (necessary for a police officer to be on duty) while under a restrianing order?

You're kidding right? He's a brother in blue, aka protected class.


Sent from my iPod touch using Tapatalk

vantec08
07-28-2011, 6:50 AM
Officer belt was alleged to have been stalking the plaintiff while on duty AND in violation of a restraining order.

How did he get to possess a firearm (necessary for a police officer to be on duty) while under a restrianing order?


How? because he enforces the interests of the ruling political class.

Bhobbs
07-28-2011, 9:01 AM
Officer belt was alleged to have been stalking the plaintiff while on duty AND in violation of a restraining order.

How did he get to possess a firearm (necessary for a police officer to be on duty) while under a restrianing order?

Who's going to stop him from carrying a gun? Another LEO? :rofl2:

Uxi
07-28-2011, 9:04 AM
Who's going to stop him from carrying a gun? Another LEO? :rofl2:

Heh. Logical extension of the current prohibition would mean he'd have to be suspended and/or go on leave or something like that, I would think. Not that logic necessarily has anything to do with the law. :TFH:

OscarMike
07-29-2011, 5:01 PM
Good find! Your Googlefoo is strong.


Ty, I've been a long time lurker and decided to finally register and thought that would be a great first share post :D

Apocalypsenerd
07-29-2011, 6:36 PM
Raisuli, where abouts in O-side?

Mulay El Raisuli
08-01-2011, 1:31 PM
Raisuli, where abouts in O-side?


Me? I'm so far to the east end that I'm almost into Vista.


Ty, I've been a long time lurker and decided to finally register and thought that would be a great first share post :D


And indeed it was.


The Raisuli

Sutcliffe
08-01-2011, 1:52 PM
are we doing anything about this at all? If this guy is abusing authority, while in direct violation of law, should we maybe drop a line to the local rag about something rotten in Denmark?