What "magic words" must cops hear to take action against bums?

[Big Chudungus]

So I'm hearing about gas station with a bunch of women employees in Oakland being terrorized by one particular bum (AKA "homeless" but maybe just a "local") and of course he's been told he trespassing a million times etc.

Short of actual video of him striking employees and documented injuries, etc, is their some Magic Words cops are needing to hear to enable them to take action?

I'm wondering if the employees need to say something similar to what is justification for self defense such as "I'm in fear of my safety" etc or "He threatened to harm me" but such already seems to be been well communicated to police at least verbally.

Is their some more formal thingy that needs to happen? Are they supposed to spend some quality time down at The Station filling out some official report?

[SilveradoColt21]

Any mention of a gun and OPD is there for sure, any other crime and they will get back to you in 2-3 business days .

[RickD427]

So I'm hearing about gas station with a bunch of women employees in Oakland being terrorized by one particular bum (AKA "homeless" but maybe just a "local") and of course he's been told he trespassing a million times etc.

Short of actual video of him striking employees and documented injuries, etc, is their some Magic Words cops are needing to hear to enable them to take action?

I'm wondering if the employees need to say something similar to what is justification for self defense such as "I'm in fear of my safety" etc or "He threatened to harm me" but such already seems to be been well communicated to police at least verbally.

Is their some more formal thingy that needs to happen? Are they supposed to spend some quality time down at The Station filling out some official report?

There ain't no "Magic Words" to be said.

For one to expect police action to be taken, three conditions must be satisfied:

1) There has to be a law broken. The making of simple threats, unless they meet the elevated criteria of PC 422 is not a crime. The simple act of placing a person in fear for their safety is not a crime.

2) In cases where the LE agency is constrained by budget and/or political concerns, the severity of the legal violation must exceed the self-imposed enforcement threshold of the involved city. Even Lodi PD has it's threshold.

3) The particular case has to survive a Penal Code section 4 review by the responding officers. We all have learned, early in the career that you can't solve the problems of homelessness and mentally ill based crimes simply by taking folks to jail, or moving them along. It's kinda like "squeezing a bag of jello." No matter how hard you squeeze, you can't make the bag any smaller. All you accomplish by squeezing harder is that bag breaks and you wind up with a bigger mess.

The problems that you're discussing here require a systemic solution. They're far beyond being solved by first responders.

[P5Ret]

In addition to what Rick said, you need to have a victim willing to follow through. I'm sure most of us have been in the position of going to a call, and no one is willing to take the necessary steps that leads to the enforcement action that they want done. I can't count the number of times I heard something along the lines of "I want him/her to go to jail, but I don's want to get involved".

I'm also not quite sure where you came up with this "Magic Word" nonsense, there is either something to act on or there isn't. If there isn't, nothing anyone says is going to change that.

[Maltese Falcon]

In addition to what Rick said, you need to have a victim willing to follow through. I'm sure most of us have been in the position of going to a call, and no one is willing to take the necessary steps that leads to the enforcement action that they want done. I can't count the number of times I heard something along the lines of "I want him/her to go to jail, but I don's want to get involved".

We once had someone wacko enter our facility (coming in after a carded employee) grabbed a lab coat and was walking around until someone asked who are you?

Garden Grove PD came and indicated since they did not see the trespass or theft (lab coat) they could do not do anything, except remove from parking lot, free to return.

Well that sucked.

As the highest level manager present they offered me the option of Citizen’s arrest for Trespassing, then they could take him away.

I did exactly what they told me to say, they even let me copy his ID.

EDIT: I think it was interesting for GGPD, low key/training SOP, still have the contact card somewhere.

.

[Big Chudungus]

I'm also not quite sure where you came up with this "Magic Word" nonsense, there is either something to act on or there isn't. If there isn't, nothing anyone says is going to change that.

It is or was SOP for cops to arrive then instruct victims on "Magic Words" that victim must utter to allow cops to make an arrest because it was a misdemeanor committed in presence of victim but not officers. This was covered on Adam-12 at least once and I've seen it IRL 2x.

People also say if you do a "defensive shooting" or similar action you'd better be able to legally and correctly articulate how you were "in fear of great bodily harm to self and/or others" (after consulting lawyer of course).

[esy]

This is all we need to know.

[Fastattack]

So trespassing isn't a crime if a formal complaint is made? Or are the police just not interested for some reason? What is this bum doing that he is "terrorizing" the women?

[Featureless]

Doesn't matter. Arrest bum and book into jail. Bum released without bail (because he/she has zero money) on promise to appear. Court date shows up bum does not. Rinse and repeat.

[RickD427]

So trespassing isn't a crime if a formal complaint is made? Or are the police just not interested for some reason? What is this bum doing that he is "terrorizing" the women?

Nope,

Trespassing is still a crime. But just like any other crime, the procedural law has to be followed to prosecute the crime.

If somebody wants to see an immediate custodial arrest, then someone who has legal standing to make the arrest must do so.

If you think the responding LEO's should make the arrest, then please tell me where in Penal Code 836, you see any such legal standing for a misdemeanor arrest not committed in the officer's presence. Even if there is no immediate arrest, the violation can still be prosecuted via a complaint if the DDA is willing to file.

With regard to a "Trespassing", it's important to know what conduct amounts to "Trespassing" and what does not. Simply being a place where one is not desired is not an act of "Trespassing." Please check out Penal Code section 602 (which lays out twenty-five different ways to commit "Trespassing") to determine what the offense consists of.

[P5Ret]

It is or was SOP for cops to arrive then instruct victims on "Magic Words" that victim must utter to allow cops to make an arrest because it was a misdemeanor committed in presence of victim but not officers. This was covered on Adam-12 at least once and I've seen it IRL 2x.

People also say if you do a "defensive shooting" or similar action you'd better be able to legally and correctly articulate how you were "in fear of great bodily harm to self and/or others" (after consulting lawyer of course).

Really, tell me more about SOP for the several hundred different LE agencies in CA.

I have a feeling that I've taken custody of more private persons arrests then you've even seen. Not one single time have I ever told a victim what to say. In fact more than once I've told them they don't have to say anything at all, once they sign the form it was always good enough for me and the DA.

Nothing you said changes the basic fact that if there is nothing to act on, no so called "magic words" will change that fact.

OH by the way Adam-12 was not a documentary, it was entertainment.

[GizmoSD]

[1911su16b870]

There ain't no "Magic Words" to be said.

For one to expect police action to be taken, three conditions must be satisfied:

1) There has to be a law broken. The making of simple threats, unless they meet the elevated criteria of PC 422 is not a crime. The simple act of placing a person in fear for their safety is not a crime.

2) In cases where the LE agency is constrained by budget and/or political concerns, the severity of the legal violation must exceed the self-imposed enforcement threshold of the involved city. Even Lodi PD has it's threshold.

3) The particular case has to survive a Penal Code section 4 review by the responding officers. We all have learned, early in the career that you can't solve the problems of homelessness and mentally ill based crimes simply by taking folks to jail, or moving them along. It's kinda like "squeezing a bag of jello." No matter how hard you squeeze, you can't make the bag any smaller. All you accomplish by squeezing harder is that bag breaks and you wind up with a bigger mess.

The problems that you're discussing here require a systemic solution. They're far beyond being solved by first responders.

^ Word...

[Big Chudungus]

There ain't no "Magic Words" to be said.

For one to expect police action to be taken, three conditions must be satisfied:

1) There has to be a law broken. The making of simple threats, unless they meet the elevated criteria of PC 422 is not a crime.

https://www.losangelescriminallawyer.pro/california-penal-code-section-422-pc-criminal-threats.html

sounds like most common threats made in the ghetto would meet arrest-able level only question is misdemeanor or felony.

The words "I'm gonna kill you" come out of mouths of ghetto dwellers like crap out of a goose.

[RickD427]

https://www.losangelescriminallawyer...l-threats.html

sounds like most common threats made in the ghetto would meet arrest-able level only question is misdemeanor or felony.

The words "I'm gonna kill you" come out of mouths of ghetto dwellers like crap out of a goose.

Nope.

The simple utterance of "I'm gonna kill you" does not meet the elements of Penal Code section 422.

That the term, or words closely similar, may be often spoken, actually places the term farther out of the reach of section 422.

Penal Code section 422 was very carefully drafted to withstand anticipated challenges to it on First Amendment grounds. One of the key provisions of the statute is that it requires a threat of death or great bodily injury. The statement "I'm gonna kill you" clearly meets that criteria. But there is more that has to be shown in order for there to be a violation of section 422. The statute also requires that the threat communicate a "gravity of purpose and an immediate prospect of execution of the threat." Here's where that ghetto threat line starts to go into the toilet. If the phrase "I'm gonna kill you" has been uttered a thousand times, and nobody's been killed following the utterance, then there ain't no section 422 violation.

But it goes even farther. There is also the element that requires the threat to be one that produces "Sustained Fear" on the part of the victim. "Sustained Fear" is a higher standard than is simple fear. There's gotta be some evidence of that fear. In practice, this is the most problematic element of making a 422 PC case. To help show that element, I'd often ask potential 422 victims to explain to me what they did following the receipt of the threat. If they told me something like "I watched my back real close until I got outta there", there was no 422 case. The victim only described an ordinary and temporary fear. Not enough. OTOH, if the victim told me that he made the final payment on his burial plot, and requested the last rites from his priest, then the element was shown.

The courts have dealt with 422 PC and there are two good cases to study in order to get a better understanding:

In the juvenile case of In re George T, the California Supreme Court considered a case where a student threatened a mass school shooting. For technical reasons relating to juvenile court proceedings, the Supreme Court did not reach a conclusion on the "Threat" element, but the case record shows a clear threat. But court found that the threat failed to satisfy the "gravity of purpose and immediate execution" elements.

In People v Fierro, the California Court of Appeal upheld a 422 conviction (which was based on a "I'm gonna kill you" type of threat that originated from a dispute over access to a gas pump at a filling station). The generic "I'm gonna kill you" threat was made, and the defendant showed an object in his belt, contained in a "Smith and Wesson" marked holster, that the victim believed to be a gun. The victim cancelled his gas purchase and drove way, but later found himself unable to continue driving. He stopped and summoned police. In this case, the court did find that all three elements were present.

It's also important to note that the current flavor of PC 422 is California's second attempt at making a law prohibiting the making of criminal threats. The original flavor of 422 PC did make it illegal to make the generic "I'm gonna kill you" type of threat. The original flavor of the law was found to be unconstitutional by the California State Supreme Court in People v. Mirmirani.

The bottom line is that no law is broken by simply telling someone that you're "Going to kill them." You need the additional factors discussed in the Fierro decision, before there is a violation.