The Direction of Law Enforcement

[Father of four]

<broken link removed>

"The Milwaukee County District Attorney's Office told TODAY'S TMJ4 they got the case last year and they also consulted with the U.S. Attorneys office.

Both decided that no criminal activity took place."


http://www.jsonline.com/news/milwau...fficer-draws-criticism-rt7tgvc-182096131.html

"Common Council President Willie Hines Jr. said he was "appalled" when he watched the video.

"Ms. Tracy was by no means a threat to Officer Schoen, herself or anyone else," he said in a statement. "This is a case where an officer, in a rage, assaulted a defenseless citizen."

He said the commission's decision to suspend Schoen for 60 days rather than allowing him to be fired "gives the impression that they sanction his assault on Ms. Tracy."

 

[Redcap]

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"

He deserves a long drag behind a slow truck on a gravel road. Feet first, so his a.ss fills up with gravel.

 

[FourTeeFive]

And then, unfortunately, there is this:

Cleveland woman killed during police chase was shot 24 times - Crimesider - CBS News

In this thread here:

http://www.northwestfirearms.com/off-topic/109870-cops-shoot-unarmed-couple-137-times.html

 

[Burt Gummer]

Sorry, but as we go further and further down into the sewer it is only going to get worse. Tyrannical police state with no restraints here we come. The only delay is getting the technology, equipment and personnel in place. All the morons who fell for the 'fighting for freedoms' nonsense will get a taste of reality. That they, not some brown person 7300 miles away, were the targeted 'terrorist' all along.

 

[ron]

The cops seem to be above the law. I do not trust these guys. Check out 'The Rifleman's Blog'. Jeffersonian's Home Page

 

[CounterOfBeans]

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

Re: "I agree its a 'right' for vehicular travel. But where is it a right for a drivers license or vehicle license registration etc.?"


EXACTLY!!! But here’s where you’re having your hang up. You correctly think there is a “right” to use a vehicle to “travel”. A “right” to travel is a “right” in its full constitutional meaning here because, literally, if you don’t have a “right” to travel, then you have to get someone’s permission to travel. The name for someone who has to get permission to travel is “slave” or “employee”. But you’re off the mark in thinking that I am saying there is a “right” for a “driver license” or “vehicle license registration”. I have never uttered any words to the effect that I believe people have a “right” to a “license” or “registration”. Because no one has a “right” to get either of those things.

The reason for that is that those “license” and “registration” things apply only to commercial use purposes. No one has a right to engage in commercial activity for private gain on property that is intended for all of the public to enjoy, like highways. This is why you have to “apply”, i.e. ask for a business “license” to engage in activities that the State has authority to regulate for protection of the public. You don’t ask for a “right”. You only ask to acquire permission to do something if you don’t already have a “right” to do it. When you are granted permission, you become “privileged” to do something that not everyone can do.

Your statement below even shows that your instinct is healthy enough to pick up on the common sense of how use of the highways should be governed:

“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.”

To that I say BINGO! And that you should start sharing that perspective with your fellow officers. It would be nice to see that attitude catch on. Maybe some of the stuff I say below will help you make your case to your LE co-workers.

The missing link here is that, people forget that when someone gets onto the highway with a profit motive, safety is more likely to take a back seat to the bottom line. And no one has a right to routinely use the highway in a way that puts safety second or in a way that maximizes profit by using heavy-pounding vehicles to carry more in a load per trip, which naturally does a lot more damage to the “public’s” highway than a soccer mom whose taking her kids to practice. It is the business of government to grant permission to commercial users of the highway and regulate their use and suspend or revoke their “privilege” if they are abusing the government’s permission conditions.

If a Citizen has a driver license, all that does is say that they have permission from the State to pursue a job that requires them to transport people or property for hire. As an example, when a UPS driver gets in his car at home and heads out on the road to go to work, he is merely a Citizen who is exercising his “right” to travel. But the second, he punches the clock at work, his legal identity changes from Citizen to “employee”, an employee who needs the license in his pocket to do his job. I.e. he becomes a representative of the commercial entity (UPS) who pays him to act on the behalf of and in the interest of UPS, not his personal Citizen interests. His usage of the highway with one of those delivery vans is exclusively of a commercial nature. And UPS pays their “drivers” good money to walk the thin line between public safety and speedy profit generation.

With a “license” Joe Smith can toggle his legal identity back and forth between Joe Citizen and Joe UPS driver. But what about registration plates on cars owned by the public? Same goes… The word “registration” is included in the definition of “license”, as a “similar form of permission required by law to pursue a commercial activity, trade, occupation or profession.”, under the Administrative Procedures Act in Oregon at 183.310.(5). Technically, it simply says that someone can use their car for transportation of people or property for hire as a regular business. Think newspaper delivery or private couriers.

But even though registration plates are evidence that a vehicle can be used that way, it is not proof that it is. Therefore, all you have to do to find out if a car is being used for commercial purposes is to look for the signs… you know, things like actual signs on the side of the car that say “driver for hire” or “in service” or if there’s a load on a truck, ask to see the bill of lading or manifest that proves there is commercial use going on. If there is no evidence to confirm commercial “operation”, then the only conclusion to draw is that the one behind the wheel is a Citizen who is simply using their vehicle as a Citizen has a right to, and that their right can only be interfered with if criminal activity is suspected or observed. See ORS 181.400:

“181.400 Interference with personal and property rights of others. No member of the state police shall in any way interfere with the rights or property of any person, except for the prevention of crime, or the capture or arrest of persons committing crimes. [Amended by 1971 c.467 §25; 1991 c.145 §1]”

Indeed, with regard to “violation” offenses, the law says officers may only interfere with commercial users of the highway. See ORS 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. [1999 c.1051 §10]"

One of the major implications of this, is that since traffic courts pretty much spend the bulk of their time processing traffic “violations”, Citizens have no business receiving “violation” citations and going to traffic court to endure the loss of their time and money. But traffic courts generate a lot of revenue don’t they? PLEASE start asking yourself whether you and your fellow LEOs are being exploited to serve as unwitting revenue agents rather than crime fighters. Is it in the interest of the State to keep LEOs in the dark about what’s going on? You bet it is…especially LEOs who have an active conscience like yourself, who might already struggle with being urged by their chain of command to fill quotas.

Just think about how much more time could be spent on crime prevention and public relations opportunities if officers weren’t busying themselves with “violation” stops of the public and going to court back up their citations. Just think about how much more opportunity you would have to interact positively with the communities you serve in if they knew you were not one of those quota fillers. Citizens would keep money in their pockets and spend it into the economy, thereby encouraging job growth through increased demand from spending.

I’d like to hear your thoughts.

 

[wichaka]

This blog I look at from time to time makes some interesting points about law enforcement. I think many times
cops have the us against them attitude. When the SHTF and law enforcement is directed to confiscate firearms from law abiding citizens,
(as they did in New Orleans) how many will not follow orders and support our 2A rights?

Click on 'Rifleman's Journal'. Jeffersonian's Home Page

I won't be involved in that debacle. I've already drawn my line in the dirt.

 

[wichaka]

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.

How close were you to where they found your car?
Could have been a time issue? If not, Then I see no reason for the impound.

 

[CounterOfBeans]

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

@Wichaka too

Sure thing. Here you go. And by the way, I double-checked these cases today on Lexis Nexis. They are all still active, current case law. The 1934 Robertson case however is a loser for fundamental rights. It is a Washington Supreme Court decision that provides a window into where our right to travel started taking blows. Justice Tolman, joined with others in dissent to chastise his majority colleagues for starting down the slippery slope of chipping away at the settled law of the right to travel. There's plenty more case law where this came from.

Read the following citations from the Oregon and Washington Supreme Courts about the right to travel and you can see how this is happening to our gun rights a little at a time right now. It is clear through these older court decisions (which have never been overturned) that our modern courts are merely building on and reinforcing the fraudulent premise that "licensing" a "right" is valid. A "validity" created by deceiving the public into believing that using the highway is only a "privilege".

Back in the day, our cultural notion of the sanctity of the right to travel (as made clear by these judges...AND the law) was firm and healthy. Decades later we have been culturally trained to think of our "right" to travel on the highway as a "privilege", that we have to ask for and make scheduled payments to keep. THAT IS EXACTLY what is going on now with our gun rights. They did it with our right to travel and they will do it again with our gun rights, UNLESS....

Unless we put a stop to the notion of "licensing" a "right", right now, future generations will also think its silly and old-fashioned to have any rights that don't require permission from the government in the form of a "license". This is the whole point of why I'm making such a big deal out of the "driver license" thing.

Robertson vs. Department of Public Works, 180 Wash 133, 147 (1934) - J. Tolman in dissent
"Complete freedom of the highways is so old and well established a blessing that we have forgotten the days of the Robber Barons and toll roads, and yet, under an act like this, arbitrarily administered, the highways may be completely monopolized, if, through lack of interest, the people submit, then they may look to see the most sacred of their liberties taken from them one by one, by more or less rapid encroachment." -



Cummins v. Jones, 79 Or. 276, 155 P.171, (1916)
"In the case of Greene v. City of San Antonio (Tex. Civ. App.) 178 S.W. 6, Mr. Chief Justice Fly, in passing upon a "jitney" ordinance says:
'No man has a right to use a street for the prosecution of his private business, and his use for that purpose may be prohibited or regulated as the state or municipality may deem best for the public good.***In the case of Fifth Avenue Coach Co. v. City of New York, 194 N.Y. 19, 86 N.E. 824, 21 L.R.A. (N.S.) 744, 16 Ann. Cas. 695, it was held ***that the city had the authority to grant or withhold the right to run coaches on the streets.'

Again quoting from the same opinion:

'So in this case appellant has never had any vested right to use the streets of San Antonio to engage in the business of a common carrier of passengers for hire, and no right of his is infringed or invaded by the ordinance requiring certain things to be done in order to enter into business on the streets, which have at the expenditure of large sums, been placed by the city in prime condition for automobile travel. The streets belong to the public, the city being its trustee, and no private individual or corporation has a right to use such streets for the prosecution of a private business without the consent of the trustee and a compliance with the conditions upon which the permission to so use them is given."

This case is cited with approval in Le Blanc v. City of New Orleans, 70 South. 212. The same doctrine is announced in the case of Dickey v. Davis (W. Va.) 85 S.E. 781, L.R.A. 1915F, 840, from which we quote as follows:

'The right of a citizen to travel upon the highway and transport his property thereon, in the ordinary course of life and business, differs radically and obviously from that of one who makes the highway his place of business and uses it for private gain, in the running of a stage coach or omnibus. The former is the usual and ordinary right of a citizen, a common right, a right common to all, while the latter is special, unusual, and extraordinary. As to the former the extent of legislative power is that of regulation; but as to the latter its power is broader. The right may be wholly denied, or it may be permitted to some and denied to other, because of its extraordinary nature. This distinction, elementary and fundamental in character, is recognized by all the authorities' "--citing Jersey City Cas Co. v. Dwight, 29 N. J. Eq. 242; McQuillin, Munic. Corp. 1620.' "



Hadfield vs. Lundin, 98 Wash 657, 168 P. 516 (1917)
"These cases, though involving regulatory statutes or ordinances, all recognize and are based upon the fundamental ground that the sovereign state has plenary control of the streets and highways in the exercise of its police power, may absolutely prohibit the use of the streets as a place for the prosecution of a private business for gain. They all recognize the fundamental distinction between the ordinary right of a citizen to use the streets in the usual way and the use of the streets as a place of business or main instrumentality of a business for private gain. The former is a common right, the latter an extraordinary use. As to the former the legislative power is confined to regulation, as to the latter it is plenary and extends even to absolute prohibition. Since the use of the streets by a common carrier in the prosecution of its business as such is not a right, but a mere license of privilege, it follows that the legislature may prohibit such use entirely without impinging any provision either of the state or federal Constitution." -

 

[oknow]

Been in the job since '87, and I too am disappointed in the direction the job is going.

There's a lot of self-entitlement attitudes coming in with some of the younger crowd being hired, again not all of them...but in the last few years, there's been a good increase in this type of personality.
The younger crowd tends to want to 'prove' themselves a bit, but usually in the wrong way. I tend to recite the "Two Bulls" joke quite a bit to describe the way they act.

Then you have some of the older types who tend to be sheep amongst the sheepdogs. Will do anything they are told, regardless of the task. Some don't really have a sense of what they are doing, if its tramples someones civil rights or not.

In the job, you have a few different dynamics going on at the same time...the politics of the Admin., the public, the city/county counsels etc., along with the village idiots or "Frequent Flyers" as they can be called sometimes...at times its as everyone wants a piece of your caboose. Not a good thing for those who truly want to make a difference in the job. We pretty much only deal with 1-2% of the public.

With all the above, sometimes it is hard to figure out who's good and who wants to end your life.

Making blanket statements about anything or anyone really serves no purpose. Because someone has a bad experience with a Ford, all Fords are bad?
One bad Dell Computer, all Dell computers are bad? One bad experience with an Outback Steakhouse restaurant, and they are all bad? Let's be a bit reasonable.

Do some in the LE world abuse their power? Golly-Bob-Howdy yes! I'm not so blind that I can't see that. Do some act better than thou? Yep

Do some get away with things that the average citizen can't? Now that is open to a very deep discussion, as some folks may not know that our lawmakers have allowed most of what LE people do be excused as long as they are operating under the "reasonable" officer standard, as well as "color of law", in which if the officer can articulate the reasons for their actions, they for the most part will not be held liable...at least criminally. I know this may cause a lot of whining, moaning, and gnashing of teeth, but the lawmakers put this in place.

I will be going over what governs the use of deadly force for those interested, so all can see what we operate under...what we can, and can not do. Which we are allowed to do much more than the citizen can...by far. This is taught in WA State to LE types, but alot is the same in Oregon as well.

Do I support a right to carry a firearm in all 50 states for everyone? Yep
Are we the United States? Apparently not, its more like the Separate States of America.

To end this post, we need to stand together to make the change. Acting like some of the lawless folks at the 'Occupy' camps won't get anyone anywhere, it will only make the change harder.

Be well all...I'll let the post flow for a day or two before I respond, unless there are some pointed questions. I'm an open book, feel free to ask anything, I am my own person...I'm not a cookie-cutter LE type...which is probably why my personnel file is so thick! :woot:

to change the subject for a second I have a question about your opinion on brandishing
if your carrying iwb with no cover garment is that brandishing

 

[hermannr]

to change the subject for a second I have a question about your opinion on brandishing
if your carrying iwb with no cover garment is that brandishing

I will get in here as wachaka said he is on the sidelines for a couple days...You live in WA, he is a LEO in WA and I live in WA, so this only applies to WA, OK. There is no such thing as "brandishing" in WA law. The term does not exist...also, UNLICENSED OC is totally legal.

In RCW 9.41.270(1) says "display with intent to intimidate" If full OC does not fit this discription, how would what you are talking about fit?

I will tell you what does fit: constantly gripping your weapon, taking your weapon out of it's holster and pointing it at someone...uncovering a covered weapon for the purpose of intimidating someone...

read RCW 9.41.270(1) carefully, then read the rest of the chapter, while keeping in mind, I have Oc'd for over 42 years and have never had a problem. The only time my carry is covered is if it is cold enough for a heavy coat. Don't be a nervous Nelly, don't check you weapon, don't grip your weapon...act as if it was no different than a cell phone that never rang.

If you are going to OC, use an OWB holster. Much more comfortable, easy to check/protect your carry with your elbow. Just feels better all around.

BTW: If you do need your weapon to protect yourself or someone near you, you are exempt from RCW 9.41.270(1) see RCW 9A.16.110 (be sure to read the questions at the bottom of this chapter)

 

[oknow]

I will get in here as wachaka said he is onm the sidelines for a couple days...You live in WA, he is a LEO in WA and I live in WA, so this only applies to WA, OK. There is no such thing as "brandishing" in WA law. The term does not exist...also, UNLICENSED OC is totally legal.

In RCW 9.41.270(1) says "display with intent to intimidate" If full OC does not fit this discription, how would what you are talking about fit?

I will tell you what does fit: constantly gripping your weapon, taking your weapon out of it's holster and pointing it at someone...uncovering a covered weapon for the purpose of intimidating someone...

read RCW 9.41.270(1) carefully, then read the rest of the chapter, while keeping in mind, I have Oc'd for over 42 years and have never had a problem. The only time my carry is covered is if it is cold enough for a heavy coat. Don't be a nervous Nelly, don't check you weapon, don't grip your weapon...act as if it was no different than a cell phone that never rang.

BTW: If you do need your weapon to protect yourself or someone near you, you are exempt from RCW 9.41.270(1) see RCW 9A.16.110

Thank you. I always try and keep it concealed just to save the headache and have outgrown the worry about checking it.

 

[hermannr]

Thank you. I always try and keep it concealed just to save the headache and have outgrown the worry about checking it.

There is no headache to OC. Nobody bothers you. I have had 4 insodents in 42 years...three with LE, one BG.. The LE encounters were not a problem..not even asked for my CPL, (don't need one when you OC, even if you have one) and the BG saw the holstered caryy, and decided that he really did not want to beat the pulp out of me...(and I have never figured out what I did to make him screaming mad, but whatever, the carry did it's job, even if never left it's holster.

Actually less of a headache to OC as you do not have to carry your CPL around. My CPL stays in the car most of the time. I have a good OWB holster that holds my carry (a CZ85) securly and comfortably close to my body, very unobtrusive, but enough to put the BGs on notice, I can protect myself, Worked for 42+ years for me.

 

[Jammer Six]

More bad legal advice.

Why do people insist on asking for legal advice on the internet (of all places... a bar would be better)?

 

[DuneHopper]

More bad legal advice.

Why do people insist on asking for legal advice on the internet (of all places... a bar would be better)?

Umm did you just give legal advice by saying not to follow legal advice ???? Just sayin :winkkiss:

 

[CounterOfBeans]

More bad legal advice.

Why do people insist on asking for legal advice on the internet (of all places... a bar would be better)?

Which "advice" are you talking about and who asked for it?

 

[oknow]

to change the subject for a second I have a question about your opinion on brandishing
if your carrying iwb with no cover garment is that brandishing

More bad legal advice.

Why do people insist on asking for legal advice on the internet (of all places... a bar would be better)?

different animals

 

[hermannr]

More bad legal advice.

Why do people insist on asking for legal advice on the internet (of all places... a bar would be better)?

It would be fitting to address the post you think is improper, and also, a bit on why you may think it is improper.

If the "bad advice" postings are mine, what is it in the LAWs I have quoted, or pointed to, that you do not like and think are "bad'? Or is this all just "in your opinion?"

You do know, opinions are like behinds...everyone has one.

 

[DuneHopper]

Thank you. I always try and keep it concealed just to save the headache and have outgrown the worry about checking it.

Seems like good advice, I know I have not in a long time open carried, much easier to just go about my day without it hanging out .

 

[CounterOfBeans]

More bad legal advice.

Why do people insist on asking for legal advice on the internet (of all places... a bar would be better)?

Jammer Six,

Notice how hermannr responds to this post of yours by saying:

"It would be fitting to address the post you think is improper, and also, a bit on why you may think it is improper."

Just so you know, Hermannr is being "polite". He's using the word "fitting" here... which is another way of saying "appropriate" or "customary" or best of all...."expected". And what is it that he's expecting? Since "bad legal advice" comes off as an accusation, he's expecting to be shown the common courtesy of you being clear about who and what your claims of "bad legal advice" are aimed at. Which is to say that your words are worthless without those things, save for the abrasive feelings they inflict on people. It may be that slinging dirt indiscriminately at people is how you get your kicks, but it is not constructive or respectable. Start ponying up with the information you allude to, otherwise your posts do nothing but distract people from having a good faith meeting of the minds about the law.