Calguns.net  

Home My iTrader Join the NRA Donate to CGSSA Sponsors CGN Google Search
CA Semiauto Ban(AW)ID Flowchart CA Handgun Ban ID Flowchart CA Shotgun Ban ID Flowchart
Go Back   Calguns.net > SPECIALTY FORUMS > Calguns LEOs
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

Calguns LEOs LEOs; chat, kibitz and relax. Non-LEOs; have a questions for a cop? Ask it here, in a CIVIL manner.

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #41  
Old 04-11-2018, 4:26 PM
TripleThreat's Avatar
TripleThreat TripleThreat is offline
Triple Your Pleasure
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 2,526
iTrader: 16 / 100%
Default

This is the same type of people that passed Measure B in San Jose. It seemed like a good idea. Years later and millions of dollars as well as an uptick in crime, not so much.
__________________
1911 "The MILF of handguns"

LINK: 9mm Shootout: BHP vs 92A1 vs SP-01 vs P-01
  #42  
Old 04-12-2018, 4:47 PM
packnrat's Avatar
packnrat packnrat is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 3,834
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

i am glad i will be out of here in a short number of years.
already have some of my things out of this state, in free America.

i feel for the leos stuck here. soon it will be like that cheap future cop movie. demolition man i belive??
where a street cop has to have a computer tell him what to do.
__________________
big gun's...i love big gun's
  #43  
Old 04-13-2018, 7:00 AM
TrailerparkTrash's Avatar
TrailerparkTrash TrailerparkTrash is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Democratic People’s Republic of Gavin
Posts: 2,481
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by packnrat View Post
i soon it will be like that cheap future cop movie. demolition man i belive?? where a street cop has to have a computer tell him what to do.
It’s already like that. They literally carry “check lists” with one department. The LEO refers to a checklist to see what to do next, step by step.

Whoever created that checklist idea shoulda been tarred and feathered. It took common sense thinking and tossed it out the window in patrol.
__________________



-I hate being bipolar its awesome.

-Life member, NRA
-Trump’s SCOTUS: 2 / Dems: 0
-ΙΧΘΥΣ <><
  #44  
Old 04-14-2018, 9:55 AM
RedVines RedVines is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 444
iTrader: 18 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TrailerparkTrash View Post
It’s already like that. They literally carry “check lists” with one department. The LEO refers to a checklist to see what to do next, step by step.

Whoever created that checklist idea shoulda been tarred and feathered. It took common sense thinking and tossed it out the window in patrol.
My dept recently issued a laminated checklist for getting ambushed. Literally: "Step 1: Find Cover"....

I **** you not
  #45  
Old 04-14-2018, 5:22 PM
SVT-40's Avatar
SVT-40 SVT-40 is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Az
Posts: 9,048
iTrader: 25 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RedVines View Post
My dept recently issued a laminated checklist for getting ambushed. Literally: "Step 1: Find Cover"....

I **** you not
Should have been:

Step one.... Poop your shorts.
__________________
Poke'm with a stick!


Quote:
Originally Posted by fiddletown View Post
What you believe and what is true in real life in the real world aren't necessarily the same thing. And what you believe doesn't change what is true in real life in the real world.
  #46  
Old 04-14-2018, 5:58 PM
flyer898's Avatar
flyer898 flyer898 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: State of Jefferson
Posts: 1,068
iTrader: 27 / 100%
Default

I suspect this will pass constitutional muster if it ever becomes law. Graham v Conner set a minimum standard for when use of force is constitutional under the 4th Amendment. States are free to raise the bar, they cannot lower it.
__________________
“Never argue with a fool, onlookers may not be able to tell the difference.” Mark Twain
"One argues to a judge, one does not argue with a judge." Me
"Never argue unless you are getting paid." CDAA
"I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and besides, the pig likes it." George Bernard Shaw
  #47  
Old 04-16-2018, 1:57 AM
Battosai1 Battosai1 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 188
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by flyer898 View Post
I suspect this will pass constitutional muster if it ever becomes law. Graham v Conner set a minimum standard for when use of force is constitutional under the 4th Amendment. States are free to raise the bar, they cannot lower it.
After it passes do you think this will affect relations between LEO AND politicians? Less bodyguards wishing to follow Gavin Newsum or Pelosi? Also will it effect people not in the field of LEO, who may want to get in, but find the rules to harsh to work with?
  #48  
Old 04-22-2018, 10:13 PM
Librarian's Avatar
Librarian Librarian is offline
Administrator
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Concord
Posts: 37,661
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Blog Entries: 6
Default

The text of AB931 is finally up - http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/fa...201720180AB931

Note that at this point in the bill's life, blue italic is "new" and red strikeout is "old" and will be deleted next revision.
__________________
No one will really understand politics until they understand that politicians are not trying to solve our problems. They are trying to solve their own problems - of which getting elected and re-elected are number one and number two. Whatever is number three is far behind.
- Thomas Sowell
I've been saying that for years ...

There is no value at all complaining or analyzing or reading tea leaves to decide what these bills really mean or actually do; any bill with a chance to pass will be bad for gun owners.

The details only count after the Governor signs the bills.

Not a lawyer, just Some Guy On The Interwebs.


  #49  
Old 04-23-2018, 8:56 AM
CinnamonBear723 CinnamonBear723 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Orange County
Posts: 1,785
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Battosai1 View Post
After it passes do you think this will affect relations between LEO AND politicians? Less bodyguards wishing to follow Gavin Newsum or Pelosi? Also will it effect people not in the field of LEO, who may want to get in, but find the rules to harsh to work with?
Those 'body guards' are not there voluntarily. That is their assignment. Part of doing your duty as law enforcement is sometimes just sucking it up and doing your job. I don't think it will effect their protection details.

What it will effect is the morale of your average street cop. It will bring proactivity even further down and cause hesitation when and where there shouldn't be any. When we hesitate we die.
  #50  
Old 04-23-2018, 11:30 AM
omgwtfbbq's Avatar
omgwtfbbq omgwtfbbq is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: North Sac Valley
Posts: 3,197
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

I don't get it:

from the bill:
Quote:
(d) (1) Notwithstanding any other law, a peace officer may use deadly force only when such force is necessary to prevent imminent and serious bodily injury or death to the officer or to a third party.
And:
Quote:
(A) “Necessary” means that, given the totality of the circumstances, a reasonable peace officer would conclude that there was no reasonable alternative to the use of deadly force that would prevent imminent death or serious bodily injury to the peace officer or to a third party. Reasonable alternatives include, but are not limited to, deescalation, tactics set forth in the officer’s training or in policy, and other reasonable means of apprehending the subject or reducing the exposure to the threat.
So... We can't use deadly force unless it's necessary but necessary is defined by what a reasonable officer would do?... wut?
__________________
CERTIFIED GLOCK ARMORER

"Far and away the best prize life has to offer is the chance to work hard at work worth doing." - Theodore Roosevelt

Quote:
Originally Posted by rmorris7556 View Post
They teach you secret stuff I can't mention on line.
  #51  
Old 04-23-2018, 7:04 PM
GizmoSD GizmoSD is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 71
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Makes perfect sense!

Someone gets to bolster their political career with some smoke and mirrors.
  #52  
Old 04-23-2018, 8:52 PM
esy esy is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: NorCal
Posts: 761
iTrader: 8 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by omgwtfbbq View Post
I don't get it:

from the bill:


And:


So... We can't use deadly force unless it's necessary but necessary is defined by what a reasonable officer would do?... wut?
Agreed.

I thought I was reading it wrong somewhere, somehow last night and blamed it on my lack of sleep. Glad to know that others had a similar interpretation.
  #53  
Old 04-23-2018, 9:13 PM
MJB's Avatar
MJB MJB is offline
CGSSA Associate
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: San Diego
Posts: 4,108
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I wish you guys the best.....jugded is better than dead

No take down looks good......it's not a Hollywood movie......just saying.....
__________________
One life don't blow it!
  #54  
Old 04-24-2018, 8:58 AM
esy esy is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: NorCal
Posts: 761
iTrader: 8 / 100%
Default

So, I just talked to some DAs in my county and they were stating that although the amended 196 and 835a seem the same, they still very much feel it significantly handcuffs us.

Essentially saying that necessary is more seen as what a reasonable officer deems necessary rather than what a reasonable officer would do.

Tough one. We’ll see how it all plays out.

Stay safe, brothers and sisters.
  #55  
Old 04-24-2018, 9:02 AM
CBR_rider CBR_rider is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 2,195
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by omgwtfbbq View Post
I don't get it:

from the bill:


And:


So... We can't use deadly force unless it's necessary but necessary is defined by what a reasonable officer would do?... wut?

More stupid legislation by our ignorant overlords who want to “do something.”
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by bwiese View Post
[BTW, I have no problem seeing DEA Agents and drug cops hanging from ropes, but that's a separate political issue.]
Stay classy, CGF and Calguns.
  #56  
Old 04-24-2018, 2:58 PM
WyattandDoc WyattandDoc is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 769
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

If this passes, I will never again do one ounce of Proactive Police work.
__________________
Knives don't stab people, cars don't drive drunk, eating utensils don't make you fat and pencils don't mis-spell words.
  #57  
Old 04-24-2018, 6:34 PM
shotcaller6's Avatar
shotcaller6 shotcaller6 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: 37°44'16.40" N 121°25'53.28" W aka Tracy, CA. 95376
Posts: 649
iTrader: 88 / 100%
Default

Like their job is not already as dangerous as it could possibly be.

This will only guarantee that someone's watch will tragically come to an end and families will be disrupted forever due to the complete & total ignorence of the buffoons in the California Legislature.

I would not like California Law Enforcement to start acting like Broward County.
__________________
A well regulated Milita, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
  #58  
Old 04-24-2018, 7:17 PM
CBR_rider CBR_rider is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 2,195
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by shotcaller6 View Post
Like their job is not already as dangerous as it could possibly be.

This will only guarantee that someone's watch will tragically come to an end and families will be disrupted forever due to the complete & total ignorence of the buffoons in the California Legislature.

I would not like California Law Enforcement to start acting like Broward County.
They may be mandated to with this.. if some guys is running around a school with a gun; why should the police shoot him? How would the officer "know" that it was "necessary" to shoot him; maybe just talking to him for three hours over a beer would settle him down and cause him to place himself in handcuffs.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by bwiese View Post
[BTW, I have no problem seeing DEA Agents and drug cops hanging from ropes, but that's a separate political issue.]
Stay classy, CGF and Calguns.
  #59  
Old 04-24-2018, 7:29 PM
esy esy is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: NorCal
Posts: 761
iTrader: 8 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CBR_rider View Post
They may be mandated to with this.. if some guys is running around a school with a gun; why should the police shoot him? How would the officer "know" that it was "necessary" to shoot him; maybe just talking to him for three hours over a beer would settle him down and cause him to place himself in handcuffs.
Well, that has always worked for me. You should try it some time, CBR.
  #60  
Old 04-24-2018, 7:33 PM
CinnamonBear723 CinnamonBear723 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Orange County
Posts: 1,785
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CBR_rider View Post
They may be mandated to with this.. if some guys is running around a school with a gun; why should the police shoot him? How would the officer "know" that it was "necessary" to shoot him; maybe just talking to him for three hours over a beer would settle him down and cause him to place himself in handcuffs.
Especially since they added a subsection specifically defining deescalation. It's clear that deescalation will be a standard for them, reasonable officer or not. Just more ways to take away qualified immunity to make sure they can lead us like lambs to the slaughter at the pleasure of liberals who will revel in the gore.
  #61  
Old 04-24-2018, 7:35 PM
CinnamonBear723 CinnamonBear723 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Orange County
Posts: 1,785
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by WyattandDoc View Post
If this passes, I will never again do one ounce of Proactive Police work.
As if proactivity hasn't gone down enough already. I agree. What would be the point? I can see most of my coworkers opting out of proactivity altogether as well.
  #62  
Old 04-24-2018, 7:35 PM
Featureless Featureless is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Posts: 264
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

No point in arguing around the edges. The people who run this state have absolutely no interest in protecting its CITIZENS. Leo's might want to follow that example and simply stand down. Let the goblins run free and let's see what happens.
  #63  
Old 04-24-2018, 8:13 PM
SVT-40's Avatar
SVT-40 SVT-40 is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Az
Posts: 9,048
iTrader: 25 / 100%
Default

No need to use any force or "de-escalate" if you don't find the suspect.

Code three... Speed limit. Stop at every signal. Far to dangerous to run any red lights... Wait for at least three units before entering any location. Be sure to leave an exit for the suspect. After all that's "de-escalation" at it's finest.

If a suspect runs... No need to chase as that could lead to having to use force.. Classic de-escalation.

415 subjects... Please stop fighting.... Please... Oh well, sooner or later they will tire out or run away... You have now successfully de-escalated the situation.

Somebody gives you lip on a T stop. Smile, hand them their license back and drive away...

Can't give any citations as that would be confrontational and unnecessarily escalate a situation where you might have to use force...

Smile and wave....

And on and on.
__________________
Poke'm with a stick!


Quote:
Originally Posted by fiddletown View Post
What you believe and what is true in real life in the real world aren't necessarily the same thing. And what you believe doesn't change what is true in real life in the real world.
  #64  
Old 04-24-2018, 9:20 PM
tsmithson tsmithson is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 177
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

California’s Goals
1- Turn whole State into a gun free prison.
2- No common sense penalties for crime.
3- Murder the Constitution.
4- Blame Freedom not the wicked.
5- Silence Free speech with violence.
6- Dumb down the population.
7- MSM propaganda in Lg. Doses.
8- Kill business
9- Bankrupt State and tax us to death.
10- Give the State back to Mexico.
  #65  
Old 04-24-2018, 9:59 PM
Rover60's Avatar
Rover60 Rover60 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: OC
Posts: 95
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Time to put on your mental health hats and talk it out with these scumbags


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
  #66  
Old 04-24-2018, 10:28 PM
TrailerparkTrash's Avatar
TrailerparkTrash TrailerparkTrash is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Democratic People’s Republic of Gavin
Posts: 2,481
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SVT-40 View Post
Somebody gives you lip on a T stop. Smile, hand them their license back and drive away...
You’re still doing T-stops????

What on earth for???? Screw that noise....
__________________



-I hate being bipolar its awesome.

-Life member, NRA
-Trump’s SCOTUS: 2 / Dems: 0
-ΙΧΘΥΣ <><
  #67  
Old 04-25-2018, 7:38 PM
CinnamonBear723 CinnamonBear723 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Orange County
Posts: 1,785
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SVT-40 View Post
No need to use any force or "de-escalate" if you don't find the suspect.

Code three... Speed limit. Stop at every signal. Far to dangerous to run any red lights... Wait for at least three units before entering any location. Be sure to leave an exit for the suspect. After all that's "de-escalation" at it's finest.

If a suspect runs... No need to chase as that could lead to having to use force.. Classic de-escalation.

415 subjects... Please stop fighting.... Please... Oh well, sooner or later they will tire out or run away... You have now successfully de-escalated the situation.

Somebody gives you lip on a T stop. Smile, hand them their license back and drive away...

Can't give any citations as that would be confrontational and unnecessarily escalate a situation where you might have to use force...

Smile and wave....

And on and on.
Time to exercise some extra due regard. I'll be sure to take an extra awesome police report when I do finally get there.
  #68  
Old 04-27-2018, 2:22 PM
RedVines RedVines is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 444
iTrader: 18 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SVT-40 View Post
No need to use any force or "de-escalate" if you don't find the suspect.

Code three... Speed limit. Stop at every signal. Far to dangerous to run any red lights... Wait for at least three units before entering any location. Be sure to leave an exit for the suspect. After all that's "de-escalation" at it's finest.

If a suspect runs... No need to chase as that could lead to having to use force.. Classic de-escalation.

415 subjects... Please stop fighting.... Please... Oh well, sooner or later they will tire out or run away... You have now successfully de-escalated the situation.

Somebody gives you lip on a T stop. Smile, hand them their license back and drive away...

Can't give any citations as that would be confrontational and unnecessarily escalate a situation where you might have to use force...

Smile and wave....

And on and on.
When i was brand new the OGs had a saying, "If you do nothing, you do nothing wrong".

11 years later, I get it.
  #69  
Old 04-30-2018, 10:36 PM
CinnamonBear723 CinnamonBear723 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Orange County
Posts: 1,785
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tsmithson View Post
California’s Goals
1- Turn whole State into a gun free prison.
2- No common sense penalties for crime.
3- Murder the Constitution.
4- Blame Freedom not the wicked.
5- Silence Free speech with violence.
6- Dumb down the population.
7- MSM propaganda in Lg. Doses.
8- Kill business
9- Bankrupt State and tax us to death.
10- Give the State back to Mexico.
Although I agree, I have a more simplified version.

1. Make criminals into victims
2. Make cops into criminals
3. Take everyone's money
  #70  
Old 05-23-2018, 10:23 PM
glbtrottr's Avatar
glbtrottr glbtrottr is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: By the Beach, Baby!
Posts: 3,508
iTrader: 48 / 87%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by anbu_yoshi View Post
Agreed that this will not pass legal muster in constitutional ruling via stare decisis of Graham v. Connor and Tennessee v. Garner.
Ugh. Graham vs. Connor was a *horrible* case I've had to write multiple dissertations about at this point. The case illustrates the very worst of what can go wrong in officer perception versus suspect behavior. Worse, Graham was literally battered by law enforcement.

"Graham, still suffering from an insulin reaction, exited the car and ran around it twice. Berry (his driver) and Officer Connor stopped Graham, and he sat down on the curb. He soon passed out; when he revived he was handcuffed and lying face down on the sidewalk. Several more police officers were present by this time. The officers picked up Graham, still handcuffed, and placed him over the hood of Berry’s car. Graham attempted to reach for his wallet to show his diabetic identification, and an officer shoved his head down into the hood and told him to shut up. The police then struggled to place Graham in the squad car over Graham’s vigorous resistance."

https://www.oyez.org/cases/1988/87-6571

It would be great if case law had been decided on a case where law enforcement behaved with a different level of decorum. The California intended law is crap, but Graham vs. Connor is really not the best our Supreme Court has to offer, even if it was a unanimous decision based on the context of the case.

"A friend of Graham's brought some orange juice to the car, but the officers refused to let him have it."

"At some point during his encounter with the police, Graham sustained a broken foot, cuts on his wrists, a bruised forehead, and an injured shoulder; he also claims to have developed a loud ringing in his right ear that continues to this day."

So from this event, we get a unanimous decision where Rehnquist writes for the majority. Here are the gems that support LE action - everyone on this subforum knows them, by definition:

http://www.policemag.com/channel/pat...-v-connor.aspx

"Any use of force by law enforcement officers needs to take into account "severity of the crime at issue, whether the suspect poses an immediate threat to the safety of the officers or others, and whether he is actively resisting arrest or attempting to evade arrest by flight."

"The 'reasonableness' of a particular use of force must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, rather than with the 20/20 vision of hindsight."

"The calculus of reasonableness must embody allowance for the fact that police officers are often forced to make split-second judgments—in circumstances that are tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving—about the amount of force that is necessary in a particular situation."

In what universe is an officer going to disagree with the actions of fellow officers given the calculus at hand involving reprimand, suspension or termination?

The more important clause, though far less paid attention is paid to it, is:

“Because the test of reasonableness under the Fourth Amendment is not capable of precise definition or mechanical application, however, its proper application requires careful attention to the facts and circumstances of each particular case, including the severity of the crime at issue, whether the suspect poses an immediate threat to the safety of the officers or others, and whether he is actively resisting arrest or attempting to evade arrest by flight.”

Consider this list from a different article on the reasons around deploying a K9 and the "4th prong" - described in the article as "decision making process if known in advance" but also called (articulatable) facts (in other words, how to write it up)...

Prior criminal history that may include violent offenses
Prior actions or know violence by the suspect(s) that may include physical resistance to arrest or attempts to do so
Parole or probation status, and its relation to any violent crimes
Potential for “third strike candidate” if applicable
Pre-assault indicators
Size, age, and physical condition of the officer and suspect(s)
Known violent gang membership or affiliation
Known or perceived physical abilities of the suspect (e.g., karate, judo, MMA)
Previous violent or mental history known to the officer at the time
Perception of the use of alcohol or drugs by the subject
Perception of the suspect’s mental or psychiatric history based on specific actions
The availability and proximity to weapons, and any prior history related to weapon possession and/or use
Environmental factors
The number of suspects compared to the officers involved and availability of back-up
Injury to the officer or prolonged duration of the incident
Officer on the ground or other unfavorable position
Characteristics or perceptions of suspect being armed and not previously searched


Then...ask yourself the question: How many of these did Officer Connor know prior to the use of Force on Mr. Graham?

I agree that California laws tend to not be ideal - and yes, Graham vs. Connor offers a titanium fig leaf that protects officers in the event of use of force, but...geezus, what a crappy case to decide on. A man in diabetic shock who isn't listened to by the officers pending investigation who ends up with a broken foot and other injuries at the hands of officers, though he was not reported as resisting?
__________________
On hold....
  #71  
Old 05-24-2018, 8:28 AM
esy esy is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: NorCal
Posts: 761
iTrader: 8 / 100%
Default

^^^^ I’ll ask since I’m curious. Are you a LEO?
  #72  
Old 05-24-2018, 7:31 PM
Tree Cutter Tree Cutter is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 78
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by esy View Post
^^^^ I’ll ask since I’m curious. Are you a LEO?
I don't think he is because in another thread he wrote that he finished the background investigation for reserve probation officer for LA County...
  #73  
Old 05-24-2018, 8:00 PM
esy esy is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: NorCal
Posts: 761
iTrader: 8 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tree Cutter View Post
I don't think he is because in another thread he wrote that he finished the background investigation for reserve probation officer for LA County...
I figured as much.
  #74  
Old 05-24-2018, 10:38 PM
Country_Jim Country_Jim is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 341
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by esy View Post
I figured as much.
Yep.
  #75  
Old 05-24-2018, 11:21 PM
glbtrottr's Avatar
glbtrottr glbtrottr is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: By the Beach, Baby!
Posts: 3,508
iTrader: 48 / 87%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by esy View Post
^^^^ I’ll ask since I’m curious. Are you a LEO?
Oh! I guess that was aimed my way.

CSMR Military Police.
Got picked up by Probation but as someone else pointed out, waiting for the academy which hasn't been scheduled for months and months.

Decided to go to Rio Hondo instead.

Does that make the information I provided less valid?

I hope not. It would be a shame to perpetuate the stereotype that only LEO's understand the issue at hand.
__________________
On hold....
  #76  
Old 05-25-2018, 8:48 AM
esy esy is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: NorCal
Posts: 761
iTrader: 8 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by glbtrottr View Post
Oh! I guess that was aimed my way.

CSMR Military Police.
Got picked up by Probation but as someone else pointed out, waiting for the academy which hasn't been scheduled for months and months.

Decided to go to Rio Hondo instead.

Does that make the information I provided less valid?

I hope not. It would be a shame to perpetuate the stereotype that only LEO's understand the issue at hand.
Yes, it does. Until you’ve worked even a year as a peace officer, you don’t see it through the same lens.

While I can appreciate your several dissertations, that does not mean you completely grasp the ideas, concepts, or mindset of a peace officer. If you finish the academy, get a FT job with a PD, Sheriff’s Department, etc., I’d be interested to see what and how your perspective on use of force has changed. I’d bet that it will have changed drastically.

Last edited by esy; 05-25-2018 at 1:00 PM..
  #77  
Old 05-25-2018, 12:18 PM
Samuelx's Avatar
Samuelx Samuelx is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Los Angeles County
Posts: 1,412
iTrader: 33 / 100%
Default

In GvC, SCOTUS was wise enough to recognize that judging LE actions is based on a reasonable OFFICER standard and NOT reasonable Person - huge difference!
  #78  
Old 05-27-2018, 9:50 AM
Tree Cutter Tree Cutter is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 78
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by glbtrottr View Post
Oh! I guess that was aimed my way.

CSMR Military Police.
Got picked up by Probation but as someone else pointed out, waiting for the academy which hasn't been scheduled for months and months.

Decided to go to Rio Hondo instead.

Does that make the information I provided less valid?

I hope not. It would be a shame to perpetuate the stereotype that only LEO's understand the issue at hand.
Military Police and civilian law enforcement are two different animals, especially when it comes to use of force. I don't believe MPs use the standards set forth by Graham vs. Conner, but I could be wrong since its been almost 2 decades since i've served.
  #79  
Old 05-29-2018, 9:33 PM
CinnamonBear723 CinnamonBear723 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Orange County
Posts: 1,785
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by glbtrottr View Post
Ugh. Graham vs. Connor was a *horrible* case I've had to write multiple dissertations about at this point. The case illustrates the very worst of what can go wrong in officer perception versus suspect behavior. Worse, Graham was literally battered by law enforcement.

"Graham, still suffering from an insulin reaction, exited the car and ran around it twice. Berry (his driver) and Officer Connor stopped Graham, and he sat down on the curb. He soon passed out; when he revived he was handcuffed and lying face down on the sidewalk. Several more police officers were present by this time. The officers picked up Graham, still handcuffed, and placed him over the hood of Berry’s car. Graham attempted to reach for his wallet to show his diabetic identification, and an officer shoved his head down into the hood and told him to shut up. The police then struggled to place Graham in the squad car over Graham’s vigorous resistance."

https://www.oyez.org/cases/1988/87-6571

It would be great if case law had been decided on a case where law enforcement behaved with a different level of decorum. The California intended law is crap, but Graham vs. Connor is really not the best our Supreme Court has to offer, even if it was a unanimous decision based on the context of the case.

"A friend of Graham's brought some orange juice to the car, but the officers refused to let him have it."

"At some point during his encounter with the police, Graham sustained a broken foot, cuts on his wrists, a bruised forehead, and an injured shoulder; he also claims to have developed a loud ringing in his right ear that continues to this day."

So from this event, we get a unanimous decision where Rehnquist writes for the majority. Here are the gems that support LE action - everyone on this subforum knows them, by definition:

http://www.policemag.com/channel/pat...-v-connor.aspx

"Any use of force by law enforcement officers needs to take into account "severity of the crime at issue, whether the suspect poses an immediate threat to the safety of the officers or others, and whether he is actively resisting arrest or attempting to evade arrest by flight."

"The 'reasonableness' of a particular use of force must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, rather than with the 20/20 vision of hindsight."

"The calculus of reasonableness must embody allowance for the fact that police officers are often forced to make split-second judgments—in circumstances that are tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving—about the amount of force that is necessary in a particular situation."

In what universe is an officer going to disagree with the actions of fellow officers given the calculus at hand involving reprimand, suspension or termination?

The more important clause, though far less paid attention is paid to it, is:

“Because the test of reasonableness under the Fourth Amendment is not capable of precise definition or mechanical application, however, its proper application requires careful attention to the facts and circumstances of each particular case, including the severity of the crime at issue, whether the suspect poses an immediate threat to the safety of the officers or others, and whether he is actively resisting arrest or attempting to evade arrest by flight.”

Consider this list from a different article on the reasons around deploying a K9 and the "4th prong" - described in the article as "decision making process if known in advance" but also called (articulatable) facts (in other words, how to write it up)...

Prior criminal history that may include violent offenses
Prior actions or know violence by the suspect(s) that may include physical resistance to arrest or attempts to do so
Parole or probation status, and its relation to any violent crimes
Potential for “third strike candidate” if applicable
Pre-assault indicators
Size, age, and physical condition of the officer and suspect(s)
Known violent gang membership or affiliation
Known or perceived physical abilities of the suspect (e.g., karate, judo, MMA)
Previous violent or mental history known to the officer at the time
Perception of the use of alcohol or drugs by the subject
Perception of the suspect’s mental or psychiatric history based on specific actions
The availability and proximity to weapons, and any prior history related to weapon possession and/or use
Environmental factors
The number of suspects compared to the officers involved and availability of back-up
Injury to the officer or prolonged duration of the incident
Officer on the ground or other unfavorable position
Characteristics or perceptions of suspect being armed and not previously searched


Then...ask yourself the question: How many of these did Officer Connor know prior to the use of Force on Mr. Graham?

I agree that California laws tend to not be ideal - and yes, Graham vs. Connor offers a titanium fig leaf that protects officers in the event of use of force, but...geezus, what a crappy case to decide on. A man in diabetic shock who isn't listened to by the officers pending investigation who ends up with a broken foot and other injuries at the hands of officers, though he was not reported as resisting?
Oh boy how I love a good tale about how we should be interpreting the law and how we should be using force. Especially coming from someone who is not a street cop.

On the contrary, Graham v. Conner is excellent case law and saves cops from being victims of the pitch and fork when ignorant ppl decide what's best instead of giving the cop a fair shake.

More often then not, it is not reasonable to collect a lot of information about someone before using force on them. That takes an investigation. The priority during an investigation is safety and control. Uses of force most often occur right up front, hense the unreasonableness for the officers to do an indepth medical and psych evaluation prior to using force.

I too agree that if you make it out on your own as a street cop, your views will take a 180 degree turn.
  #80  
Old 05-29-2018, 9:48 PM
glbtrottr's Avatar
glbtrottr glbtrottr is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: By the Beach, Baby!
Posts: 3,508
iTrader: 48 / 87%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CinnamonBear723 View Post
Oh boy how I love a good tale about how we should be interpreting the law and how we should be using force. Especially coming from someone who is not a street cop.

On the contrary, Graham v. Conner is excellent case law and saves cops from being victims of the pitch and fork when ignorant ppl decide what's best instead of giving the cop a fair shake.

More often then not, it is not reasonable to collect a lot of information about someone before using force on them. That takes an investigation. The priority during an investigation is safety and control. Uses of force most often occur right up front, hense the unreasonableness for the officers to do an indepth medical and psych evaluation prior to using force.

I too agree that if you make it out on your own as a street cop, your views will take a 180 degree turn.


And you’ve proven my point exactly.

It shouldn’t take a cop or a Supreme Court justice to understand proper use of force. Moreover, my issue with Graham revolves around it not being a “clean case” given the plaintiff and surrounding case. While much of the condescension sent my direction revolves around “not being a street cop,” the last thing I want is less protection on the street as I do a job. I also didn’t state it is either practical or possible to search a suspect’s background prior to Use of force; good attempt on someone taking another quote and cutting and pasting them on my mouth.

My issue with law enforcement has been the disparate standard between law enforcement and the citizen. Rather than casual criticism, I’ve made it clear I’ve done my share to carry my weight. But y’all retired folk feel free to tell me what it was like during the old days, roll your eyes and dismiss the issue- which is that bashing the face of a diabetic lad on the hood of a cruiser who was not resisting and ended up with broken bones makes for case law that you’re proud of.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
__________________
On hold....
Closed Thread

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 5:34 AM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Proudly hosted by GeoVario the Premier 2A host.
Calguns.net, the 'Calguns' name and all associated variants and logos are ® Trademark and © Copyright 2002-2018, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.
Calguns.net and The Calguns Foundation have no affiliation and are in no way related to each other.
All opinions, statements and remarks made by Calguns.net on this web site and elsewhere are solely attributable to Calguns.net.