They're not much of a lifeline when they seem to have no problem doing their bosses' bidding. So our guys aren't as bad as their guys... yet.
JavaScript is disabled
Our website requires JavaScript to function properly. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser settings before proceeding.
The Direction of Law Enforcement
- Thread Starter wichaka
- Start date
They're not much of a lifeline when they seem to have no problem doing their bosses' bidding. So our guys aren't as bad as their guys... yet.
- Messages
- 934
- Reactions
- 325
The dash cam was only part of it. I read the transcript and the shooting investigation report.
Did you? I suspect not.
If you had, a couple of things would have jumped out at you.
"...their bosses' bidding"? That's pretty funny.
They do their bosses bidding, and then the bosses fire them?
- Messages
- 1,799
- Reactions
- 1,225
The dash cam was all I needed. Any written report is just someone else's interpretation of the event.
I'm not a Seattle bleeding heart. When Rodney King got his butt kicked, I backed the cops and thought he deserved it. There had been many instances where cops got crucified in the media where I took their side. There are however cases when they deserve nothing less than the same treatment that you or I would get had we committed the same act. This was one of them.
- Messages
- 934
- Reactions
- 325
I see.
- Thread Starter
- #85
This post is not to flame anyone...but I would hope that anyone who would sit on a jury would look at ALL the evidence presented, and not rely on one piece and disregard everything else...or worse, not want to look at it.
Now put yourself in the position as the one whom the jury is judging...if it were I, I would hope they would look at everything presented.
Now put yourself in the position as the one whom the jury is judging...if it were I, I would hope they would look at everything presented.
- Messages
- 1,812
- Reactions
- 929
First: I have carried (mostly OC) in WA on both sides of the hill for the 40+ years. We presently live in Okanogan co, and I must say, I, personally, have never had a bad LE experience. I have been stopped for driving too fast a couple times in 40 years, but that was my fault...
I tend to follow the jury decision. I don't trust the media... You want what concerns me? Sgt Thompson in Spokane: AFTER he was convicted, the the SPD SALUTES him? There is absolutely no excuse for that. And the city of Spokane did not charge him, it took the Feds?
The second one that really concerns me is the Creech murder. Read the report (I have) The deputy even admits that Creech did not threaten him...and this was on Creech's own private property? That is very concerning,,,,very.
Is this a LE wide problem? Maybe not, but their are departments (like Seattle and Spokane) that really need to review and change their policies.
BTW: it was always my understanding that it was OK to shoot a fleeing felon "If he would continue to be a danger to the public at large" That is, the BG was armed (and used) a deadly weapon when he performed a personally witnessed felony, and continued to possess that deadly weapon as he fled.... Sound like good understanding? or no?
- Messages
- 287
- Reactions
- 128
Thanks a bunch for getting this dialogue going Wichaka. This is such an important conversation. I've read pretty much all of the posts and a theme I keep seeing in this thread is that our culture has arrived at a point where we have been brought to look at each other as "us against them". True - there will always be bad apples....everywhere. But as Wichaka and others have mentioned, there seems to be more of them, especially in the younger crowds. Wichaka was specifically referring to the new generations of LE colleagues in his first post, but it can't be left unsaid that the trends he's describing are pretty common outside of LE too. My eyes and ears tell me that there just seems to be a lot of people floating around in our society today that lack fundamental grasps on things like decency, respect, courtesy, etc.
We keep nodding our heads in agreement about how the things we see as problems keep getting worse, in spite of the money and energy we throw at fixing them. So a question I have is this. Are we actually attacking problems or the just the symptoms or effects of problems? Are we chasing our tails trying to put out spot fires while the big blaze keeps on spitting them out, unchecked? I totally salute LE who carry on the tradition and spirit of being an intimate part of the community in their daily law enforcement duties. But in the hope of offering a different lens to see our dilemmas through, I would like to say that I think our society has lost a very important perspective in digesting the issues of this thread. I want to put out an apology first for how long this posting is, but if what it brings to the table is of any value, maybe I can get away with it.
The fundamental, core premise behind our form of government is the rule of law. That is what is guaranteed to every State of the union by way of a Republican form of government under Article 4, Section IV under the federal Constitution. Even though this might seem like an offensively obvious or idle thing to say, it is necessary. Here's why. It has become extremely fashionable for our State and federal governments to promote the notion that "policy" and "law" are interchangeable terms; and that compliance with "policies" is tacitly synonymous with compliance with "law". While the "law" automatically presumes that "policies" jive with the "laws" they're designed to carry out, that presumption is only valid if, minimally, those who administer or enforce them are constitutionally literate enough to discern and understand the actual legislative intent of the underlying law(s) themselves.
For the automatic validity of duty-connected presumptions to exist and survive, those who swear an oath must actually be capable of detecting when "policies" they administer or enforce run afoul of the "law". Otherwise, an oath sworn to uphold and defend the "law" and Constitutions is technically meaningless. Constitutional literacy is utterly necessary for the rule of law to reign supreme as directed under the State and federal Constitutions.
So here's an honest question about Constitutional literacy (for everyone). Most of us have an education that is the direct product of our public school system(s). Think back to your middle and high school days, and do your best to tally up the amount of time that you spent in class literally studying THE Constitution(s). Not, history. Not social studies. THE Constitutions. Did you spend a week, a month, a quarter, a year....? I know from my own personal experience in Oregon's school system that I would be generous in saying that I spent no more than two to three months sitting in a class where constitutional provisions were the topic of discussion. Again, I believe that is being generous.
Here's my point. We're all familiar with the expression "Ignorance of the law is no excuse." For a nation and culture that is based on the rule of law, that seems like a reasonable standard to hold people to. And if that's so, it would seem to follow that at minimum, everyone should at least be competent to manage their affairs as they relate to the supreme law(s) of the land, i.e. the State and federal Constitution(s), in order to have a sound understanding of the lawfully defined powers and limitations that exist in the relationships between Citizens and those who operate the machinery of government. For example. If people are generally not literate on the Constitution(s), how can they be competent jurors when their time arrives to perform their civic duty on a jury?
Here are some facts about Constitutional education and Oregon's public schools. Education curriculum "policies" are directly responsible for what education we ACTUALLY get in the classroom. Oregon has two laws on the books that pertain directly to what level of Constitutional education is required for graduation. The first one , ORS 336.057, has been on the books since 1923. What follows are citations of this law and ORS 336.067, as well as case law and an attorney general's opinion which corroborate the "legislative intent" of these Constitution education laws. Compare what these citations say against what our actual experiences have been in the classroom:
336.057 Courses in Constitution and history of United States. In all public schools
courses of instruction shall be given in the Constitution of the United States and in
the history of the United States. These courses shall:
(1) Begin not later than the opening of the eighth grade and shall continue in grades
9 through 12.
(2) Be required in all state institutions of higher education, except the Oregon Health
and Science University, and in all state and local institutions that provide education
for patients or inmates to an extent to be determined by the Superintendent of Public
Instruction. [Formerly 336.230; 1977 c.226 §1; 1999 c.1023 §1]
As you can see above, the law in Oregon (ORS 336.057) literally requires a minimum of 5 years of classes devoted to studying the Constitution (8th grade through 12th grade). If one goes on to college that requirement continues. ORS 336.067 similarly requires education on the State Constitution.
"336.067 Topics given special emphasis in instruction. (1) In public schools special
emphasis shall be given to instruction in:
(a) Honesty, morality, courtesy, obedience to law, respect for the national flag,
the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of Oregon,
respect for parents and the home, the dignity and necessity of honest labor and
other lessons that tend to promote and develop an upright and desirable citizenry.
......."
The court opinion in Wilson v. Chancellor (418 F. Supp. 1358; 1976) reinforces this:
"Political subjects invariably will arise during the course of study required in Oregon
schools by Oregon law. ORS 336.057 requires public and private schools to give
instruction in the constitution of the United States for a minimum of five years. ORS
336.067 requires 'special emphasis' on instruction in obedience to law, respect for the
flag, and the federal and state constitutions, and 'other lessons which tend to promote
and develop an upright and desirable citizenry.' "
And
"It seems these same residents fear that young Molallans will become young Marxists
and Maoists, virtually overnight. Because Oregon law, ORS 336.057-067, requires the
schools to specially emphasize our form of government, respect for the flag, and
obedience to our laws, this fear seems ill-founded. Moreover, today's high school
students are surprisingly sophisticated, intelligent, and discerning. They are far from
easy prey for even the most forcefully expressed, cogent, and persuasive words."
Notice in this last paragraph how the judge considers students' vulnerability to having their minds preyed upon by Marxists and Maoists to be "ill-founded" BECAUSE of the level of constitutional education they are supposed to be getting under ORS 336.057 - 067. Given how openly en vogue and embraced socialistic sentiments are these days amongst those with various "greater-good" agendas, it appears that this judge's confidence may have been a little too quick out of the gate. The legislative intent of these Constitution education laws is also echoed in Attorney General James M. Brown's 1980 opinion #7982 (41 Op. Atty Gen. Ore. 281), in response to a request for legal opinions by the Honorable Verne Duncan, Superintendent of Public Instruction:
"The Board has the duty to establish state standards for public schools and prescribe
required or minimum courses of study. ORS 326.051(1)(a), (c). Certain courses are,
however, prescribed by statute. See, e.g., ORS 336.057; 336.067. District school
boards have the duty to ensure that courses of study prescribed by law and by the
rules of the Board are carried out[/B], and may establish supplemental courses not in lieu
of the prescribed courses."
So how much of our "us against them" mentality and antagonistic disagreement about how to solve our society's problems is a result of the fact that we generally lack a basic education on the fundamental laws of the land and how those laws interface with our interactions with each other. The constitutional ignorance that public school curriculum "policies" have infected our perspectives with, generally, does two things minimally: 1) it clouds Citizens' awareness of their responsibilities and proper roles in the constitutional chain of power and it drastically reduces their ability to intellectually defend themselves against breaches of government limitations. 2) For those who go on to pursue government positions, they lack much of the constitutional insight that would enable them to know when, how or why the "policies" they administer or enforce, conflict with their oath or the oaths of those they work under.
These kinds of insights would also enable us, in general, to better identify problems that arise only because they are simply the result of "policies" that clash with the law or the Constitutions themselves. These off-shoot or tangent problems, keep us in tension with each other unnecessarily and constantly scanning the ether for some higher order solution, when the solution may literally be found in a broad, unified effort of getting back to some forgotten, essential basics. The fact that Constitution education "policy" is in such conspicuous and gross non-compliance with what we now know about Constitution education "law", is direct evidence of how out of tune "policies" can be, even when we rotely presume them to comply with the law. Our unquestioned presumptions about the compliance of these education laws has resulted in generation after generation of Oregonians entering adult life with profound educational disabilities on matters that apply directly to their most cherished possessions; their rights and freedoms.
I think we can all agree that we need common ground very badly these days. Commonplace constitutional literacy is a great place to re-establish that common ground if we truly value the goals that the rule of law is intended to accomplish.
We keep nodding our heads in agreement about how the things we see as problems keep getting worse, in spite of the money and energy we throw at fixing them. So a question I have is this. Are we actually attacking problems or the just the symptoms or effects of problems? Are we chasing our tails trying to put out spot fires while the big blaze keeps on spitting them out, unchecked? I totally salute LE who carry on the tradition and spirit of being an intimate part of the community in their daily law enforcement duties. But in the hope of offering a different lens to see our dilemmas through, I would like to say that I think our society has lost a very important perspective in digesting the issues of this thread. I want to put out an apology first for how long this posting is, but if what it brings to the table is of any value, maybe I can get away with it.
The fundamental, core premise behind our form of government is the rule of law. That is what is guaranteed to every State of the union by way of a Republican form of government under Article 4, Section IV under the federal Constitution. Even though this might seem like an offensively obvious or idle thing to say, it is necessary. Here's why. It has become extremely fashionable for our State and federal governments to promote the notion that "policy" and "law" are interchangeable terms; and that compliance with "policies" is tacitly synonymous with compliance with "law". While the "law" automatically presumes that "policies" jive with the "laws" they're designed to carry out, that presumption is only valid if, minimally, those who administer or enforce them are constitutionally literate enough to discern and understand the actual legislative intent of the underlying law(s) themselves.
For the automatic validity of duty-connected presumptions to exist and survive, those who swear an oath must actually be capable of detecting when "policies" they administer or enforce run afoul of the "law". Otherwise, an oath sworn to uphold and defend the "law" and Constitutions is technically meaningless. Constitutional literacy is utterly necessary for the rule of law to reign supreme as directed under the State and federal Constitutions.
So here's an honest question about Constitutional literacy (for everyone). Most of us have an education that is the direct product of our public school system(s). Think back to your middle and high school days, and do your best to tally up the amount of time that you spent in class literally studying THE Constitution(s). Not, history. Not social studies. THE Constitutions. Did you spend a week, a month, a quarter, a year....? I know from my own personal experience in Oregon's school system that I would be generous in saying that I spent no more than two to three months sitting in a class where constitutional provisions were the topic of discussion. Again, I believe that is being generous.
Here's my point. We're all familiar with the expression "Ignorance of the law is no excuse." For a nation and culture that is based on the rule of law, that seems like a reasonable standard to hold people to. And if that's so, it would seem to follow that at minimum, everyone should at least be competent to manage their affairs as they relate to the supreme law(s) of the land, i.e. the State and federal Constitution(s), in order to have a sound understanding of the lawfully defined powers and limitations that exist in the relationships between Citizens and those who operate the machinery of government. For example. If people are generally not literate on the Constitution(s), how can they be competent jurors when their time arrives to perform their civic duty on a jury?
Here are some facts about Constitutional education and Oregon's public schools. Education curriculum "policies" are directly responsible for what education we ACTUALLY get in the classroom. Oregon has two laws on the books that pertain directly to what level of Constitutional education is required for graduation. The first one , ORS 336.057, has been on the books since 1923. What follows are citations of this law and ORS 336.067, as well as case law and an attorney general's opinion which corroborate the "legislative intent" of these Constitution education laws. Compare what these citations say against what our actual experiences have been in the classroom:
336.057 Courses in Constitution and history of United States. In all public schools
courses of instruction shall be given in the Constitution of the United States and in
the history of the United States. These courses shall:
(1) Begin not later than the opening of the eighth grade and shall continue in grades
9 through 12.
(2) Be required in all state institutions of higher education, except the Oregon Health
and Science University, and in all state and local institutions that provide education
for patients or inmates to an extent to be determined by the Superintendent of Public
Instruction. [Formerly 336.230; 1977 c.226 §1; 1999 c.1023 §1]
As you can see above, the law in Oregon (ORS 336.057) literally requires a minimum of 5 years of classes devoted to studying the Constitution (8th grade through 12th grade). If one goes on to college that requirement continues. ORS 336.067 similarly requires education on the State Constitution.
"336.067 Topics given special emphasis in instruction. (1) In public schools special
emphasis shall be given to instruction in:
(a) Honesty, morality, courtesy, obedience to law, respect for the national flag,
the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of Oregon,
respect for parents and the home, the dignity and necessity of honest labor and
other lessons that tend to promote and develop an upright and desirable citizenry.
......."
The court opinion in Wilson v. Chancellor (418 F. Supp. 1358; 1976) reinforces this:
"Political subjects invariably will arise during the course of study required in Oregon
schools by Oregon law. ORS 336.057 requires public and private schools to give
instruction in the constitution of the United States for a minimum of five years. ORS
336.067 requires 'special emphasis' on instruction in obedience to law, respect for the
flag, and the federal and state constitutions, and 'other lessons which tend to promote
and develop an upright and desirable citizenry.' "
And
"It seems these same residents fear that young Molallans will become young Marxists
and Maoists, virtually overnight. Because Oregon law, ORS 336.057-067, requires the
schools to specially emphasize our form of government, respect for the flag, and
obedience to our laws, this fear seems ill-founded. Moreover, today's high school
students are surprisingly sophisticated, intelligent, and discerning. They are far from
easy prey for even the most forcefully expressed, cogent, and persuasive words."
Notice in this last paragraph how the judge considers students' vulnerability to having their minds preyed upon by Marxists and Maoists to be "ill-founded" BECAUSE of the level of constitutional education they are supposed to be getting under ORS 336.057 - 067. Given how openly en vogue and embraced socialistic sentiments are these days amongst those with various "greater-good" agendas, it appears that this judge's confidence may have been a little too quick out of the gate. The legislative intent of these Constitution education laws is also echoed in Attorney General James M. Brown's 1980 opinion #7982 (41 Op. Atty Gen. Ore. 281), in response to a request for legal opinions by the Honorable Verne Duncan, Superintendent of Public Instruction:
"The Board has the duty to establish state standards for public schools and prescribe
required or minimum courses of study. ORS 326.051(1)(a), (c). Certain courses are,
however, prescribed by statute. See, e.g., ORS 336.057; 336.067. District school
boards have the duty to ensure that courses of study prescribed by law and by the
rules of the Board are carried out[/B], and may establish supplemental courses not in lieu
of the prescribed courses."
So how much of our "us against them" mentality and antagonistic disagreement about how to solve our society's problems is a result of the fact that we generally lack a basic education on the fundamental laws of the land and how those laws interface with our interactions with each other. The constitutional ignorance that public school curriculum "policies" have infected our perspectives with, generally, does two things minimally: 1) it clouds Citizens' awareness of their responsibilities and proper roles in the constitutional chain of power and it drastically reduces their ability to intellectually defend themselves against breaches of government limitations. 2) For those who go on to pursue government positions, they lack much of the constitutional insight that would enable them to know when, how or why the "policies" they administer or enforce, conflict with their oath or the oaths of those they work under.
These kinds of insights would also enable us, in general, to better identify problems that arise only because they are simply the result of "policies" that clash with the law or the Constitutions themselves. These off-shoot or tangent problems, keep us in tension with each other unnecessarily and constantly scanning the ether for some higher order solution, when the solution may literally be found in a broad, unified effort of getting back to some forgotten, essential basics. The fact that Constitution education "policy" is in such conspicuous and gross non-compliance with what we now know about Constitution education "law", is direct evidence of how out of tune "policies" can be, even when we rotely presume them to comply with the law. Our unquestioned presumptions about the compliance of these education laws has resulted in generation after generation of Oregonians entering adult life with profound educational disabilities on matters that apply directly to their most cherished possessions; their rights and freedoms.
I think we can all agree that we need common ground very badly these days. Commonplace constitutional literacy is a great place to re-establish that common ground if we truly value the goals that the rule of law is intended to accomplish.
- Thread Starter
- #88
I'll answer this piece by piece, in hopes some food for thought will come about, and some understanding into the legal system;
First, I don't know the story and will not assume anything. But where did that salute come from? The Admin? The Officers organization? Or?
If it came from the Admin., then again I submit that they are not the voice of the WHOLE dept., or LE in general. If it came from the Officers, I submit the same thing.
This is not the fault of Law Enforcement, that is a Prosecutor decision only.
When you have read the report, I take it that you read the officers actual report or what? Please be specific.
I'm not the one who writes the laws, but let's look back at my post #21, where I write in bullet #2 and I'll print it here;
2 - Officers are authorized to use deadly force to capture or seize a dangerous suspect when there is probable cause to believe that the suspect has committed a crime involving the infliction or threatened infliction of serious bodily harm, and there in no reasonably safe means of preventing the suspect's escape.
Important points of this prong;
- Capture or Seize
- Inflicted or threatened serious bodily harm
I will give a quick & easy example of "threatened infliction of serious bodily harm"
Subject passes a note to a bank teller stating they have a gun and will use
it if x amount of money is not given. There is no requirement for an actual weapon to be seen.
- No reasonable safe means
In looking over the important points I mention, the above allows the officer to employ deadly force even if there is no weapon visible at the time the offices pursues the subject, or even displayed during an incident. See the above example of the bank robbery.
Now, does not mean the Officer MUST employ deadly force, no...there MUST always be discretion when employing such force. But let's put this in perspective, the law allows this to happen, not the LE world.
We have been given the rules by the rule makers...
The courts look at the "Reasonable Officer" standard. What would a reasonable officer do in such a circumstance. The court looks at every piece of evidence presented to make that judgement. This is why I posted above about the jury, and in this case the judge(s) looking over every piece of evidence, not relying on just one piece...that being one statement, one bloody glove, dash cam video etc.
Put yourself in the place of defending your family, and now being on trial for homicide because you killed the suspect. I would really hope for your sake, and that of your family that every bit of evidence is submitted for examination to help make your case.
This may not put anyone at ease, but that's what we have to work with...and the parameters we work under.
First, I don't know the story and will not assume anything. But where did that salute come from? The Admin? The Officers organization? Or?
If it came from the Admin., then again I submit that they are not the voice of the WHOLE dept., or LE in general. If it came from the Officers, I submit the same thing.
This is not the fault of Law Enforcement, that is a Prosecutor decision only.
When you have read the report, I take it that you read the officers actual report or what? Please be specific.
I'm not the one who writes the laws, but let's look back at my post #21, where I write in bullet #2 and I'll print it here;
2 - Officers are authorized to use deadly force to capture or seize a dangerous suspect when there is probable cause to believe that the suspect has committed a crime involving the infliction or threatened infliction of serious bodily harm, and there in no reasonably safe means of preventing the suspect's escape.
Important points of this prong;
- Capture or Seize
- Inflicted or threatened serious bodily harm
I will give a quick & easy example of "threatened infliction of serious bodily harm"
Subject passes a note to a bank teller stating they have a gun and will use
it if x amount of money is not given. There is no requirement for an actual weapon to be seen.
- No reasonable safe means
In looking over the important points I mention, the above allows the officer to employ deadly force even if there is no weapon visible at the time the offices pursues the subject, or even displayed during an incident. See the above example of the bank robbery.
Now, does not mean the Officer MUST employ deadly force, no...there MUST always be discretion when employing such force. But let's put this in perspective, the law allows this to happen, not the LE world.
We have been given the rules by the rule makers...
The courts look at the "Reasonable Officer" standard. What would a reasonable officer do in such a circumstance. The court looks at every piece of evidence presented to make that judgement. This is why I posted above about the jury, and in this case the judge(s) looking over every piece of evidence, not relying on just one piece...that being one statement, one bloody glove, dash cam video etc.
Put yourself in the place of defending your family, and now being on trial for homicide because you killed the suspect. I would really hope for your sake, and that of your family that every bit of evidence is submitted for examination to help make your case.
This may not put anyone at ease, but that's what we have to work with...and the parameters we work under.
- Thread Starter
- #89
I was on Fox News web site and found an article that is typical of the lack of support by city/county gov., that sometimes does occur in the job...not always, but occurs often enough to be noted;
Connecticut Police Officer Fights For Answers After Being Told His Life-saving Attempt Not 'related' To Work | Fox News
Connecticut Police Officer Fights For Answers After Being Told His Life-saving Attempt Not 'related' To Work | Fox News
- Messages
- 1,812
- Reactions
- 929
Ok, short of time so I'll be brief: The officers that saluted Thompson were "over 40" of the active duty SPD officers. (ie the union local) Probably ever one that could make it to Yakama for the trial.
On teh Creech murder, Yes, I read the transcript of the civilian investigation (Ombudman) "I observed a partly clothed citizen, (it's night time, Creech was in bed) carrying a pistol. did he threaten you or point it at you at any time, No. i have the links, but I am also cooking supper
On teh Creech murder, Yes, I read the transcript of the civilian investigation (Ombudman) "I observed a partly clothed citizen, (it's night time, Creech was in bed) carrying a pistol. did he threaten you or point it at you at any time, No. i have the links, but I am also cooking supper
- Messages
- 1,812
- Reactions
- 929
Thompson salute: <broken link removed> or: City Council rebukes Thompson salute - Sirens & Gavels - Spokesman.com - Nov. 22, 2011
Creech, internal investigation: <broken link removed>
Here is a news article: <broken link removed>
<broken link removed>
The Ombudsman came up broken link...but here is Sheriffs department internal documents..I can't see that they would be much different. If I can find the active link, I'll post it here later, It's on the KXLY web site (or at least that is where it was)
This is one I had not read before, might be a good place to start. No disciplinary action for deputy who shot pastor - Spokesman.com - June 22, 2011 I don't normally read teh spokesman, too liberal and biased for me, but there is something in it that confirms what I suspected all along (knowing Creech)
"Hirzel told investigators that he repeatedly ordered Creach to drop the gun, but investigators could find no neighbors who heard any of that exchange.
Only Creach's wife, Imogene, reported hearing anything, and she described what sounded like her husband yelling out in fear before the shot was fired.
Hirzel said Creach initially responded that he didn't have to drop his gun, and mentioned that he had had problems with theft in the past. But Creach eventually put the gun in the back waistband of his pants.
Hirzel then ordered Creach onto the ground, but Creach refused. Hirzel couldn't remember exactly when he called for backup but said he struck Creach on the outside of the left knee with a police baton."
REMEMBER!!! in the above quote..Creech is on his own private property!!!!! If a Sheriffs deputy did the same to me on my own property, I would react exactly the same way Creech did. That deputy has no "authorty" to tell me to put my gun on the ground (it was in Creech's waist band) or tell me to get on the ground. Who the hell does the deputy think he is? He is on private property, has not been invited, and then is treating the homeowner like a criminal? Old man (I am a cranky old man too) was not a threat to the deputy, but the deputy shoots him?
I do not trust Brain Hirzel for one minute, but I can see Creeh responding to an order to disarm, and get on the ground with a "who do you think you are" Because Creech was armed, and because he did not drop the weapon (that was in his waist band) or drop to the ground...is no reason to shoot the guy..that is just MURDER, legalized murder.
- Messages
- 1,812
- Reactions
- 929
Thompson salute: <broken link removed> or: City Council rebukes Thompson salute - Sirens & Gavels - Spokesman.com - Nov. 22, 2011
Creech, internal investigation: <broken link removed>
Here is a news article: <broken link removed>
<broken link removed>
The Ombudsman came up broken link...but here is Sheriffs department internal documents..I can't see that they would be much different. If I can find the active link, I'll post it here later, It's on the KXLY web site (or at least that is where it was)
This is one I had not read before, might be a good place to start. No disciplinary action for deputy who shot pastor - Spokesman.com - June 22, 2011
I don't normally read the spokesman, too liberal and biased for me, but there is something in it that confirms what I suspected all along (knowing Creech)
"Hirzel told investigators that he repeatedly ordered Creach to drop the gun, but investigators could find no neighbors who heard any of that exchange.
Only Creach's wife, Imogene, reported hearing anything, and she described what sounded like her husband yelling out in fear before the shot was fired.
Hirzel said Creach initially responded that he didn't have to drop his gun, and mentioned that he had had problems with theft in the past. But Creach eventually put the gun in the back waistband of his pants.
Hirzel then ordered Creach onto the ground, but Creach refused. Hirzel couldn't remember exactly when he called for backup but said he struck Creach on the outside of the left knee with a police baton."
REMEMBER!!! in the above quote..Creech is on his own private property!!!!! If a Sheriffs deputy did the same to me on my own property, I would react exactly the same way Creech did. That deputy has no "authorty" to tell me to put my gun on the ground (it was in Creech's waist band) or tell me to get on the ground. Who the hell does the deputy think he is? He is on private property, has not been invited, and then is treating the homeowner like a criminal? Old man (I am a cranky old man too) was not a threat to the deputy, but the deputy shoots him?
I do not trust Brain Hirzel for one minute, but I can see Creeh responding to an order to disarm, and get on the ground with a "who do you think you are" Because Creech was armed, and because he did not drop the weapon (that was in his waist band) or drop to the ground...is no reason to shoot the guy..that is just MURDER, legalized murder.
Just to point out why I don't trust Hirzel The abouve cut and paste quote from the Spoksman Review says Hirzel said he struck Creeh with his baton...yet in the KREM report, Hirzel says he shot Creech when he approached within 30' That must have been one hell of a long baton to reach 30 feet, don't you think. In my mind I know what happened, Creeh did not bow to Hirzel's "authority" and Hirzel either paniced or his ego took over.
- Messages
- 280
- Reactions
- 319
I'm new here, so bear with me if I ask a question that has already been hashed to death.
I direct this to the OP: Can you give me a generalized LEO opinion of citizen CCW? I already know your views from the original post, but I have been wondering what the general consensus among LEOs is regarding citizens carrying concealed.
Since I got my own carry license, I have only had one experience with a cop. (Forgot to turn on my headlights when I left a store at night). I handed the cop my Oregon CHL along with my license. He asked me if I was carrying, and when I replied yes, he asked where on my person and I told him. He was very polite, reminded me to keep my lights on, and let me go without a ticket.
I cannot base my opinion of LEO response to CCW people based solely on that experience. I have read some serious horror stories about CCW folks running to some pretty heavy-handed cops. I would like to know what the cop population as a whole thinks about civilian CCW.
Again; Sorry if this subject has come up too many times on this site.
I direct this to the OP: Can you give me a generalized LEO opinion of citizen CCW? I already know your views from the original post, but I have been wondering what the general consensus among LEOs is regarding citizens carrying concealed.
Since I got my own carry license, I have only had one experience with a cop. (Forgot to turn on my headlights when I left a store at night). I handed the cop my Oregon CHL along with my license. He asked me if I was carrying, and when I replied yes, he asked where on my person and I told him. He was very polite, reminded me to keep my lights on, and let me go without a ticket.
I cannot base my opinion of LEO response to CCW people based solely on that experience. I have read some serious horror stories about CCW folks running to some pretty heavy-handed cops. I would like to know what the cop population as a whole thinks about civilian CCW.
Again; Sorry if this subject has come up too many times on this site.
- Messages
- 3,053
- Reactions
- 1,934
1) Do you think that the some of the hot hotheadedness from LEOs can be attributed to officers using steroids?
2) How do you feel about being recorded from civilians?
3) If you were given a list of firearms to confiscate from law abiding citizens because a law had passed making them illegal (i.e. a Semi-Automatic "Assault Rifle") would you follow the order?
4) What do you feel about people that open carry?
5) Any suggestions for citizens that become involved in an armed confrontation?
*edit*
Please don't get discouraged from the anti-LEO types on this forum that will just attempt to steer the thread to bash cops. You already admit that there are bad apples in the bunch so you don't have to justify the actions of the one per-centers on the accounts of the prejudice types.
- Messages
- 1,799
- Reactions
- 1,225
Having grown up in New England, I can tell you that you most likely would not want to be a cop there. Most of those states are so screwed up that they border on being dual personality psychopathic. They still talk about the old values from the 1700, while they have done everything possible to suppress most of them.
One of the things that I could never understand when I was living there was that a cop could not shoot a fleeing criminal that was considered dangerous. It seems from the stories I have heard was that the average citizen was treated worse than known criminals.
- Messages
- 5,374
- Reactions
- 7,756
My experience with New England LEO's over the past several months of working here has been almost entirely negative. Many have seemed lazy and complacent. But I will continue to support LEO's in general, as I still believe most are good, honest, hard working individuals who are doing the job for the right reasons.
Hi wichaka,
I'm feeling a little lost in the thread here.
You say you don't like the direction law enforcement is going.
Could you please go a little more in depth as to where you think it's going,
along with where you think it started?
As far as use of force, I have to say the rules governing them sound reasonable to me,
however the application is unreasonable.
Locally (pdx) I would say the training and culture of the pd is at fault.
As a local example, the shooting Fouad Kaady comes to mind.
The dispatch calls were disturbing in what they revealed as far as attitude of the clackamas/sandy cops.
I also believe the local media went along in presenting the cops side of the story.
For me it is not a question of good/bad apples.
It is how is the training,culture and values of the police effect the community.
I'm feeling a little lost in the thread here.
You say you don't like the direction law enforcement is going.
Could you please go a little more in depth as to where you think it's going,
along with where you think it started?
As far as use of force, I have to say the rules governing them sound reasonable to me,
however the application is unreasonable.
Locally (pdx) I would say the training and culture of the pd is at fault.
As a local example, the shooting Fouad Kaady comes to mind.
The dispatch calls were disturbing in what they revealed as far as attitude of the clackamas/sandy cops.
I also believe the local media went along in presenting the cops side of the story.
For me it is not a question of good/bad apples.
It is how is the training,culture and values of the police effect the community.
- Messages
- 934
- Reactions
- 325
Good.
I'm glad that New England doesn't burn people for witchcraft anymore, and that they let inniuns and wimmen vote.
- Messages
- 1,799
- Reactions
- 1,225
Nice to see that you have something of value to add to the conversation.
Similar threads
Upcoming Events
New Classified Ads
-
357 ammo sold as components.357 158gr. SWC lead. PENN bullets. load is 6.5 unique.
- Started by galleyjoe
- Replies: 0
-
357 ammo sold as components.357 158gr. truncated cone lead. PENN bullets. load is 6.5 unique.
- Started by galleyjoe
- Replies: 0
-
-
-
-
-
-
WTS - 50 cal muzzleloader bullets, powder, primers- Started by pnwair
- Replies: 0
-
Glock 42 .380, 100 rds thru it, including 2 boxes ammo
- Started by lhgunntravel
- Replies: 3