The Direction of Law Enforcement

[michaels]

This thread is still going?

My other 2 cents....

I don't think police are necessary.

People would be better off without them, handling there problems between themselves.

Yes, that is my opinion. You can accept it. Or not. Your choice.

So, seeing as the police are not going to be going away anytime soon, I think they should be held much more accountable than they are.

And when one of them messes up multiple times, as an example Chris humphries comes to mind......

If the goddamn cops would get together, and act like adults.

Say this is unacceptable.

Then I could get behind them.

Instead, when there was talk of giving punishment to humphries, many portland cops wore shirts proclaiming "i am chris humphries"

Not cool.

And I want to stop hearing the whining about the stress, and you don't know what it's like out here, and, and, and.

I don't care.

Sometimes people make bad career decisions that should be rethought.

 

[dmancornell]

COOL IT GENTLEMEN

 

[Riot]

Could you explain to me why victims of auto theft have to have their cars impounded?

So it doesn't get stolen (again) or damaged while on the side of the road.

Police found my car hours after it was stolen, instead of calling me to get it, called me to tell me it was at a wreckers. WTH is up with that?

The priority is to secure the subject(s), then the property, then notify you so the property can be returned to you. Did they catch the guy or did they just find your car on the side of the road? Was this after a lengthy car chase or did they just happen upon the car while patrolling?

 

[Riot]

I don't think police are necessary.

Everyone says that until they need one. I bet you don't like lawyers, either....until your butt is standing in the defendant box then I bet you'll love them!

People would be better off without them, handling there problems between themselves.

Handling what problems? Noise complaints? Sure...I think two grown adults should be able to talk with their neighbor and handle a situation without getting the police involved. Investigating a murder? I think you're high.

 

[Jammer Six]

Shootfirst, at least two of your assumptions are simply not correct.

 

[CounterOfBeans]

counterofbeans - ruling on the field stands. I don't have the ability to respond in depth, like your post deserves due to a bear of a work project. I wonder though, would a court grant class status to a suit brought against the state for the permitting? Aren't most courts outside of constitutional carry states pretty hostile to 2A issues?

For the license though, where your statement seems to lose consistency to me is that some licensing is for commercial/mercantile endeavor, however there is precedent for "rights/entitlements" licensing in the form of driver's license, and marriage licensing. What's your take on that? If they can make me get a license to marry, and marriage on the part of the bridge/groom is not a commercial endeavor, what does it do to the argument that permitting/licensing is for commerce reasons?


RE: the ORS for State Police - reason I mentioned that it's for state police is that the way I interpreted it, is that the restrictions are specific to state police only, as were the granted powers, they would apply to all police only if stated thusly. Opinion?

Davemata,

Sorry about taking so long to get back on your questions. I've been working on my answer, but as you've already seen for yourself. It is pretty difficult for me to be brief and some answers just require more information to provide the necessary context. But I'm gonna try to be less long-winded. Nuff about that.

Your class action question. Good question. I threw that out there as an unresearched idea. If it doesn't work though, since we're dealing with fundamental rights grievances that result from executive branch policies systemically violating the legislative intent of the law, maybe it's time to whip out the petition for redress clause under Oregon Constitution, Article 1, Section 26:

"Section 26. Assemblages of people; instruction of representatives; application to legislature. No law shall be passed restraining any of the inhabitants of the State from assembling together in a peaceable manner to consult for their common good; nor from instructing their Representatives; nor from applying to the Legislature for redress of greviances [sic].—"

Re: courts hostile to 2nd Amendment issues. If they're hostile to the 2nd Amendment, then they are hostile to the Constitution by default. Seems to me that if that attitude results in actions that are also opposed to Constitutional provisions, Article 3, Section 3 of the Constitution applies... Treason, I think is the word they use to describe actions like that. It might interesting to start a thread about treasonous conduct of government officials and what can be done about it.

Re: "precedent for 'rights/entitlements' licensing in the form of driver's license, and marriage licensing."

I'll use the "driver license" as an example of how our perceptions of "precedents" have been created by our presumptions of good faith from authority figures' boilerplate assertions, rather than the law itself.

Again, 183.310(5) (Administrative Procedures Act) is where the definition of "license" is provided (post #311). It's exclusively for "commercial" purposes, as the legislative language makes very clear. The word "Administrative" in Administrative Procedures Act pertains to the "administration", i.e. application or enforcement of the law's legislative intent by executive branch agencies, like LE.

You mentioned that ORS 181.400 only applied to State police (i.e. LE "no member......shall in any way interfere with the rights or property of any person", except for the prevention of crime..."), and inferred that the rest of LE didn't have to abide its general purpose prohibition. It appears that you didn't put much attention into my citation of 181.030(3) which says all other LE have the same general duties as Staters, so if you just roll with 181.400 comments for a second, I'll have you take a look at ORS 153.039, which corroborates this because it pertains to all LE. ORS 153.039 describes who LE may arrest, stop or detain for offenses that are "non-crimes", i.e. "violations". "Violation" is the name for an offense that can not be punished with jail time (crimes)...only a fine. Here's 153.039:

"153.039 Stop and detention for violation. (1) An enforcement officer may not arrest, stop or detain a person for the commission of a violation except to the extent provided in this section and ORS 810.410.

(2) An enforcement officer may stop and detain any person if the officer has reasonable grounds to believe that the person has committed a violation. An enforcement officer may stop and detain any employee, agent or representative of a firm, corporation or other organization if the officer has reasonable grounds to believe that the firm, corporation or other organization has committed a violation.

(3) Except as provided in subsection (4) of this section, the period of detention may be only as long as is
necessary to:

(a) Establish the identity of the person, firm, corporation or organization believed to have committed the
violation;

(b) Conduct any investigation reasonably related to the violation; and

(c) Issue a citation for the violation.

(4) The authority of an enforcement officer to stop and detain a person for a traffic violation as defined by ORS
801.557 is governed by ORS 810.410."



Dang it! So much for me being less long-winded.



But what about the word "person" you might say? Aren't Citizens "persons" too? Let's check that. The term "person" is defined in two places. It's defined for general purposes for applying to all of the statutes under the chapter on "legislative construction" at 174.100(5):

"174.100 Definitions. As used in the statute laws of this state, unless the context or a specially applicable definition requires otherwise:
(5) "Person" includes individuals, corporations, associations, firms, partnerships, limited liability companies and joint stock companies."

Remember my reference to Or. Const. Art. 4, Sec. 20 in post #311: That's an Oregon Constitutional legislative construction provision. It requires all laws to pertain to ONE subject and MATTERS THAT ARE PROPERLY CONNECTED TO that one subject. So since all of the references in the definition for "person" above (except one..."individual") are explicitly of a "commercial" nature, does it hold water to say that "person" or "individual" may be a Citizen? No, because "Citizen" is not properly connected to a law that specifically applies to "commercial" entities.

To corroborate this, look at ORS 174.020(2):

"174.020 Legislative intent; general and particular provisions; consideration of legislative history. (2) When a general and particular provision are inconsistent, the latter is paramount to the former so that a particular intent controls a general intent that is inconsistent with the particular intent."

So, "particular" .....(i.e. corporations, associations, firms, partnerships, limited liability companies and joint stock companies)

CONTROLS

"general" .....(i.e. individuals), think sole proprietorships, or employee, or representative, or CEO.

"Person" is also defined in the Administrative Procedures Act at chapter 183...where "license" is defined. This definition of "person" is closer to the mark of what our concerns are because this definition applies to how administrative (i.e. executive branch) agencies apply the law in performance of their enforcement duties. "Person" is defined there at 183.310(8) to mean:

"183.310 Definitions for chapter. As used in this chapter:
(8) "Person" means any individual, partnership, corporation, association, governmental subdivision or public or private organization of any character other than an agency."

There's that "general" word "individual" again. Are we allowed by legislative construction to call that "individual" a Citizen? If the "particular" references in this definition are "partnership, corporation, association, governmental subdivision or public or private organization, then.....NO. But again to corroborate this take on things, look at ORS 174.010 again:

174.010 General rule for construction of statutes. In the construction of a statute, the office of the judge is simply to ascertain and declare what is, in terms or in substance, contained therein, not to insert what has been omitted, or to omit what has been inserted; and where there are several provisions or particulars such construction is, if possible, to be adopted as will give effect to all.

But the public's use of the "highway" is a "privilege" correct? Nope...see ORS 801.305 below (801 is beginning of Oregon Vehicle Code):

"801.305 'Highway.' (1) 'Highway' means every public way, road, street, thoroughfare and place, including bridges, viaducts and other structures within the boundaries of this state, open, used or intended for use of the general public for vehicles or vehicular traffic as a matter of right. ...."

But it's true that some people do only have a "privilege" to use the "highway". The name given to those "persons" by the Legislature is "motorist" and they are referred to by the Legislature as "owners" and "operators" who are subject to the Oregon Vehicle Code. See OrS 801.050:

"801.050 Privilege of motorist to use highways. Subject to compliance with the motor vehicle law of this state, owners and operators of motor vehicles are granted the privilege of using the highways of this state."

Keeping the "single subject" rule in mind from Or. Const. Art. 4, Sec. 20, our Legislators demonstrated that they couldn't "insert" the word "public" in 801.050 along with "motorist" and couldn't "insert" the word "motorist or owner or operator" into 801.305 where access to the highway is defined as a "right" for the "public". They literally passed two separate laws that both pertain to access to the highway in order to keep the contexts of the two kinds of people distinguished from one another. And even with all this support from the law to confirm the public's "right" (not privilege) to use the highway, it's still predictable that it will be hard for some to come to terms with the implications of what these laws say about our reality. Luckily the Oregon Legislature helped us out again with ORS 174.030 below:

"174.030 Construction favoring natural right to prevail. Where a statute is equally susceptible of two interpretations, one in favor of natural right and the other against it, the former is to prevail."

 

[Jammer Six]

Now all you need is some case law that agrees with you.

 

[michaels]

Everyone says that until they need one. I bet you don't like lawyers, either....until your butt is standing in the defendant box then I bet you'll love them!



Handling what problems? Noise complaints? Sure...I think two grown adults should be able to talk with their neighbor and handle a situation without getting the police involved. Investigating a murder? I think you're high.

See, and the problem is the way our legal system is set up, I pretty much have to call the cops to take care of things.

Lawyers? Are you kidding? I love a good lawyer. That's without sarcasm, and I've never been in the defendant box.

 

[wichaka]

Could you explain to me why victims of auto theft have to have their cars impounded? Police found my car hours after it was stolen, instead of calling me to get it, called me to tell me it was at a wreckers. WTH is up with that? Do tow companies do paybacks for agencies here like they did in MA?

It is possible that your car was processed for the crime. Thus the vehicle must be impounded to secure any possible evidence, so a search warrant can be obtained. The vehicle will then be searched/processed, then released. If this wasn't done, I can't answer it for you...unknown why they did it.

In WA. State, tow companies are governed under the state, and get a so called 'state rate' for each impound...so there's nothing changing between the impounding agency and the tow company.

 

[wichaka]

"Personal opinions of right or wrong or moral standing are irrelevant when sitting on such a case." I beg to differ.

You just made my point. This may get a little frustrating, but... As a juror, you can only make your evaluation of the case based on the facts of the case compared to what the law allows, not what you think is right, wrong, or immoral etc.

Example, an Officer or citizen shoots an unarmed person. Some may think this is wrong, if not, others may think other means could or should have been done first etc. Whether you think that shooting an unarmed man is wrong, is irrelevant to the case. What is relevant are the facts of the incident compared to what the law allows the Officer or Citizen at the time of the incident. I hate to say it, but personal feelings etc., have no place in the court room when judging such a case. But we all know they will enter in, it's human, it's going to happen. Its kind of like putting said dead persons family as the jurors...how objective will they be?

If the Officer/Citizen can articulate a threat to the point where deadly force is used on an unarmed person, the thought of right, wrong or moral standing is irrelevant.

Isn't that why I was chosen to be a juror?

You were chosen for two reasons; 1. Your number was called, 2. You gave the right answers. Sorry Howard couldn't resist! lol

The D.A, his assistant and the defendants lawyers grilled us about the answers in our juror questioner. They wanted to find out how we were gonna look at the case by not only reviewing the laws we knew only, but they also wanted to try and see our characters, opinions and values too. Everyone uses their own opinions of right and wrong in judging things.

Anyone can say what they want in those questionnaires, and most give their heart felt responses...but some will hide it and will cast their vote on the case because of their moral views etc., which at times is contrary to what the law allows. Hard to fault those people, but until the system gets changed...this is what we will have at times.

More examples; Roe v Wade (abortion issue) and the medical marijuana law(s)

While I am " sitting in a nice chair in the comfort of x" I can understand that it it totally different then the time when the officer was involved. I can take that into account and understand that laws give him power and I can understand the way he may be thinking when he went into that situation. But...i can also understand that not ever officer follows the laws or boundaries that are given them. So it would be my job as a juror to cast my opinion as to if the LEO stepped outside what I think was lawful and legal.


I can not know all the laws, the ways that they are, can be, or have been carried out, no one can. I could be shown the laws needed to help judge a case and use my common sense, my personal opinions, opinions of others, past experience, ect... to make my mind up about a case. And if given the chance I would help judge over a case with LE. I believe I as a citizen, non-LEO would be way more impartial then other LEOs sitting on that case.

I agree, not every Officer falls into the boundaries of the playing field set forth.

Oregon has the "Grand Jury" and Washington has the "Coroners Inquest", in which both seat jurors that are made up of citizens...and they judge whether there's a enough to warrant a criminal charge. So I guess citizens do get their say if it goes that far.

I believe I as a citizen, non-LEO would be way more impartial then other LEOs sitting on that case.

Either way both LEO and Citizens alike must be well versed in the laws that allow each to operate, and sadly there's deficiencies on both sides.

One of my pet peeves...Officers that don't know general firearms, CCW & Open carry laws! UHG!

Which is why I have trained my dept. in such things.

 

[Father of four]

I am not saying lets all go around with our feeling, opinions and emotions on our selves ready to let loose. But what I am saying is that you as a cop may be legal to shoot a bad guy but if you walk over to a bad guy and hold the gun to his head and shoot him then that would be far different. Yes, you might have had the legal standing to shoot the bad guy, But actions sometimes tells a bit more to the story. There are times when one needs to use his/her opinion beyond what is drawn out in the law. Nothing is always cut and dry. You as a cop with many years of service, I bet you know that very well.

 

[wichaka]

While that might sound good for a LEO sitting behind that law it does not for the average citizen. Just because a LEO can take someones life and not be held responsible in the name of law does not make it right.

I really do understand that. But until the laws are changed, that's what we have to operate with. Right, wrong, etc.

How very messed up can the laws and the courts be with regards to a LEO. If he/she is found not guilty of a murder they are still often fired or seems to be forced to retire anyways? Something really weird and messed up there.

Every such incident is judged two ways; 1. Against State/Federal law; 2. Against Dept. policy/procedures, with number two being done internally. So even though an Officer did not violate State/Fed. law, they may have violated dept. policy to the point where termination is warranted.

Or when a LEO is found guilty but only looses his job, is demoted or just changes locations of employment? Weird and messed up there as well. How about the LEO just retire and then the case just seems to be dropped. How about that for justice?

If an Officer is found guilty in a court of law, but nothing happens to them...that's the system we are stuck with. You know plea bargains and such...

As for changing locations of employment? Every Officer who wishes to go to another dept., must submit an application and go thru the usual hiring process. It's not like working for Boeing, and one gets reassigned to another office somewhere else.

Now, if the dept. is a large one like Portland P.D. etc., they may get assigned to a different precinct/area etc. But they don't just switch departments/agencies.

I feel that the biggest problem as to why the LEOs as well as the citizens do not receive justice in LEO involved criminal cases is because of the internal investigations, the police unions along with the D.A. There is a definite double standard and we all see it.

I would be safe to say that most of us United States citizens believe that LEOs do often get away with murder.

Like I said above, the internal investigation is for possible violations of dept. policy/procedures, it has no bearing on the criminal side of things. So an Officer can be cleared of any internal wrong doing, but still charged, and vice versa.

P.S Be nice grammar Nazis!

I tend to be a grammar Nazi, but I know my mind gets going faster than my fingers can type.

 

[Father of four]

You just made my point. This may get a little frustrating, but... As a juror, you can only make your evaluation of the case based on the facts of the case compared to what the law allows, not what you think is right, wrong, or immoral etc.

Yes and no. We as jurors had to examine the facts, the evidence, the testimony, videos, recordings, etc.. None of that was laws. How were we to examine them? Only within the guide lines of a law? Or also with understanding, opinions, our moral judgements. Just like when you said you would let a car go and not require it to be impounded. Why? The law says you have too. But your opinion was not too. Opinions and what we think are part of life. Inside the courts and outside as well. Just like when a D.A decides if he will press charges, what level of charge and what type. It is not always weighed on law but on facts, opinions and what the D.A thinks.

 

[Father of four]

I never intended or want to be in a intelligence match with you. I would clearly be the underdog in laws and probably even common sense. I am just saying that its not cut and dry. Just because there are laws that say a LEO can do something, does not necessarily make it right. I think other LEOs, the courts and the legal system in general will bend over backwards to help a LEO but would throw a non-LEO under the buss for the same charges. That is not right and I think if there were a citizens board of something of that nature then we as citizens and also the LEOs would receive actual justice.

 

[Father of four]

I really and truly thank you for your comments and your dialog. I wish there were more like you wichaka. It would really help the citizens-LEO tension to actually talk some things out. Even when they did not agree.

 

[wichaka]

Wichaka,

Indeed, "pretty much the same laws are on the books of about every state", so since I can tell you've probably got a lot on your plate, I decided to do a little research with the RCWs to help out. In post #316 and others, I cited a few laws to explain how we've been lied to (including you and all other LE) about what "licensing" is all about. I used Oregon's laws because Oregon's laws are just so crystal clear. You already mentioned that any given State's laws are essentially on the same page, so to help start bridging whatever gap there might be in perception between Oregon and Washington law, I'd like to use each State's definition of "highway" below:


ORS "801.305 “Highway.”
(1) “Highway” means every public way, road, street, thoroughfare and place, including bridges, viaducts and other structures within the boundaries of this state, open, used or intended for use of the general public for vehicles or vehicular traffic as a matter of right."


RCW "47.04.010
(11) "Highway." Every way, lane, road, street, boulevard, and every way or place in the state of Washington open as a matter of right to public vehicular travel both inside and outside the limits of incorporated cities and towns"

As it state's above in both State's laws, the public's use of the "highway" is described as a "right"......not a "privilege". One big difference between Oregon and Washington though is that Oregon puts this definition right in its vehicle code. But Washington doesn't. Washington puts its definition in Title 47, rather than Title 46....Washington's vehicle code, where most people would intuitively look to find it.

If you want to get an insiders look at the behind-the-scenes jockeying that is taking place to avoid a conversation about the "licensing-the-public" issue, stop in and visit Liz Luce or whoever the Director at the Washington Department of Licensing is and ask them to make you a copy of Liz's response to a particular public record law demand made (c. 2008) by an Oregon Citizen named Richard L. Koenig, regarding policies that treat the public the same as motor vehicle operators. Watch her reaction and please be ready to ask her some pointed questions. Maybe even copy and paste some of the Oregon laws that I've already posted, as a reference to what's what in other States. No, I'm not Richard. But I have picked up some of what I know about this stuff from his online information and just cruising the statutes.

You said that "knowledge is power" and it's true that the more you learn from just reading things like law term definitions and legislative construction laws, the more you want to know about what their effect is when you plug those understandings into the laws that we're told we have to submit our rights to. I know you want your thread to empower people to make more informed decisions. So I hope you can help us put some of this stuff under the microscope. Thanks

Title 46 has to do with motor vehicles, licenses, registrations, rules of the road etc. Where 47 deals with 'public' highways and transportation.



I'm going to play devil advocate here, Yep I agree its a 'right' for vehicular travel. But where is it a right for a drivers license or vehicle license registration etc.?

Do I agree with the registration etc.? Not really, as long as all vehicles are safe to be on the road, and don't cause an innocent any danger.

The only thing a drivers license does is say that you passed a certain test and you were on your best behavior at the time...doesn't mean you can really drive safely at the moment. lol

 

[wichaka]

I really and truly thank you for your comments and your dialog. I wish there were more like you wichaka. It would really help the citizens-LEO tension to actually talk some things out. Even when they did not agree.

That's why I started this thread.

I have put myself out here for anyone to comment and get some dialogue going as to some of the behind the scene things that happen in the LE world, that some may not know...or in some cases, may not want to know! lol

 

[davemata]

So it doesn't get stolen (again) or damaged while on the side of the road.



The priority is to secure the subject(s), then the property, then notify you so the property can be returned to you. Did they catch the guy or did they just find your car on the side of the road? Was this after a lengthy car chase or did they just happen upon the car while patrolling?

Fortunate occurence: Officer rolled up on them in my car next town over, while they were using my GPS to find a location. It wasn't in a public way, and would have taken zero effort to let me pick it up.

Instead, I had to pay the vig, and now deal with some toolbag "Victim's Advocate" that tells me I can ask for restitution, but then doesn't respond to communications. I'm pretty over this whole process. Welcome to WA, I guess.

 

[davemata]

It is possible that your car was processed for the crime. Thus the vehicle must be impounded to secure any possible evidence, so a search warrant can be obtained. The vehicle will then be searched/processed, then released. If this wasn't done, I can't answer it for you...unknown why they did it.

He did ask if it was ok to search, and I said yes. I then gave him an inventory of what was in the car that was mine. I don't leave anything in that car. So he didn't need a warrant, whether or not he got one, is another story. Like I said though, a crappy drop knife was left in my car, so I don't think there was actually much of a search done.

I mean, the money is spent, and I'm pissed about it, but w/e, it's over. Thieves don't have cash either, so not going to get restitution.

 

[Father of four]

It just never ends.... <broken link removed>

Here is another example of a piece of crap LEO getting his job back.


"A Milwaukee police officer fired for punching a female suspect will get his job back.

Officer Richard Schoen was let go after this dashcam video surfaced of him punching a handcuffed woman he arrested in May.

The Milwaukee police chief said it was clear Schoen had lost control and was using excessive force.

Schoen appealed, saying he punched the woman because he was afraid she would bite or spit on him.

Monday, the Milwaukee Fire and Police Commission overturned the firing."


Just listen to that piece of crap in the video. Unbelievable! Guys like him and the decision of the Milwaukee Fire and Police Commission makes me sick.

"I still feel like it was somewhat justified"