The Direction of Law Enforcement

[Jammer Six]

My point(s) is (are) simple.

Just because something is old doesn't make it valuable. It just makes it old. Just because something is new doesn't make it valuable.

And if the "values of the 1700s" were or are alive and well today, they would not be the values of the 1700s. They would be modern values. By definition.

Therefore, in general, values that we've left behind (burning witches, legal racism, general foolishness) are good riddance, and any values that we've retained are those that have stood the test of time. (Sexism in our armed forces being one notable exception. Homophobia appears to be reasonably new.)

Next time one of your politicians tries to drag you backwards to the 1700s, tell him or her that you want to keep our current infant mortality rate, as well as the ability to chatter about politics on the internet.

Which will, of course, require electricity.

 

[wichaka]

I direct this to the OP: Can you give me a generalized LEO opinion of citizen CCW?

I would like to know what the cop population as a whole thinks about civilian CCW.

First I can't answer as LE as a whole, because I am not that many people all rolled into one, so I can only answer from the crowd that I am around.

Second; Again I can only answer from the crowd I am around, and that would be local, and from others I converse with.

From what I believe, as well as the majority from whom I have discussed this issue with, there should be a nation wide CCW permit system. We act like the separate states of America, instead of United.

I believe that folks should have to obtain a permit, which tells anyone that at the time of obtaining the permit, they were legally able to poses and carry a firearm. Some may disagree with that, but hey LE folks are put thru the same background check, so don't feel singled out.

If you get stopped, show the permit and go on your merry way. I do not believe any state or jurisdiction within any state should have the right to restrict carrying of a firearm...federal building or not. If your legal enough to have a permit, you should be legal enough to carry anywhere.

I hope that makes it clear.

 

[Spitpatch]

Apart from my reputation here for going long, I will be brief:

The flood of "likes" received in response to my father's story is overwhelming. I don't participate much in the "like" flagging, unless it knocks me on the floor. Assuming others utilize this practice in at least a comparable fashion, your kind recognition deserves my own in return.

To Wichaka, and the throng of others (you know who you are) who took time and effort to send a "like", all I can say is I am humbled. But the credit is not mine. It goes to my Dad. He would be pleased that his way of life is appreciated.

I miss him very much.

 

[wichaka]

1) Do you think that the some of the hot hotheadedness from LEOs can be attributed to officers using steroids?

Not sure. I've never taken steroids myself, and anyone who has ever seen me can attest to that! lol

I think its a control or power thing. Instead of taking the high road, they get pointed right off. But I will say at times, the citizen will often dictate how the contact goes with their own attitude.

There's one thing you'll never be able to take out of the job, and that's the human factor...unless they have robots do the job.

Even though all states have pretty much the same laws etc., you'll never get treated the same because of the human factor...and that goes without saying in all professions.

2) How do you feel about being recorded from civilians?

It doesn't bother me. I usually smile for the camera, and ask if their focus and sound are working properly...and at times will actually give them an interview when I'm done.

I've been thru way too many things on the job to get rattled by something as petty as that.

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?

NO! And will say that the group I do run with feels the same way. Even if there was a limit imposed by the gov. about how much ammo one could have on hand at one time.

I had it out with an ATF agent back in '94 when the assault weapon ban went into effect. I told them to stuff it, I would not confiscate one weapon if it was found to be illegal (meaning against the AW ban)...unless, it was used in a crime, or the subject was not legally able to posses any firearm.

I am not a sheep, and there are many sheep with the LE world.

4) What do you feel about people that open carry?

I am not opposed to it. I did some research about it back in the days where cowboys and the like carried everywhere. Back then it was considered suspicious if one carry concealed...oh how things have changed!

The problem I see, and I'm sure others have seen it as well...some in the LE world will use to harass. It will happen, there's no getting around it, as there's not a straight line consensus in the LE world about it..again the human factor.

But open carry will get attention, and most likely get a response from LE because 1) Someone was alarmed to see it, or 2) The LE person is not versed on OC laws.

5) Any suggestions for citizens that become involved in an armed confrontation?

I would heavily suggest that one sit down with an attorney very much versed in the areas of use of force, and go over the laws of where you carry. So if you carry in more than one state, sit down with one in every jurisdiction if need be. Then keep their card handy if the time comes to pass where their services will be needed.

For the cost of a case of ammo or so, this is money extremely well spent...more than anything spent on any firearm related product.

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.

Nope, not discouraged. From what I read on here and other places...it appears some will tag every LE person as the same from one or more bad or unfavorable experiences.
Some just need to be educated on what we can or can not do...or how we can, or can not operate...and what rules we operate under. Other incidents just plain leave me speechless :huh:


Hope that answers your questions well enough...if not, fire away again.

 

[wichaka]

hermannr, I'm on a tight schedule at the moment and will respond to your post, but I will leave you with this...not knowing the full case, and not reading any of your links yet...in most cases private property has little to do with most cases.

I know that's not what you're wanting to hear...but if we (LE) can articulate the reason why we are there, and it is reasonable and lawful, it will most likely never be factored into the results of a case. I'm not saying this is the case every time, no not at all...just sayin'.

In a quick reading over some of the articles on line, it appears the officer was there because there was an increase of illegal activity, and was patrolling at the time?

I've done the same thing in my jurisdiction. Iave gone onto many a private business property to check for open or forced entry doors, windows etc., its what we do, and the business owners and citizens expect it...to catch the person in the act, or alert the business owner of potential problems in the future.

I don't have all the facts of the case...but will check out every link when I get back on here.

Be well.

 

[wichaka]

You've posted some links to some good info. on the Creach incident, so give me some time to read thru it.

Off the top of my head, there are some errors on the Officer side, as well as Creach...as I see it. But as with anything, if something can go wrong...it will.

Again, as for the private property thing. There's no law either Fed or State that reads that one can't defend themselves on someone's private property...LE and citizen alike. We need to apply law to the actions of Officer and citizen alike...no mater how much we may think the laws are crap. And believe me, some are just that, but that is what everyone will be judged against...like it or not.

Any OIS (Officer Involved Shooting) will always be applied to law first, as that's what dictates if there was any criminal wrong doing. For the most part, policy and procedure will dictate if the Officer will be disciplined, as well as the possibility of any civil suit action...but can involve both.

Again, in the end and the purpose of this thread is to enlighten folks as to what dictates how we can operate, what those parameters are, who makes those parameters, who allows us to work within those parameters, and what if any discretion we may or may not have.

I have had many complaints from people over the years, and it tends to boil down to simply some people don't know, what they don't know.

I will be transparent with my position, stating law and posting links if there are any, so its easy to do your own research, as well as giving LE side of how we view things...of course that part is a personal opinion.

But in the end, I'm still human...I put on my pants and shoes the same way everyone does. The job is what I do for a living...its not who I am.

Stand by...

 

[Gunner3456]

...The job is what I do for a living...its not who I am.

I wish more LEOs felt that way.

 

[hermannr]

When you read the whole Creech thing, keep in mind, Creech was a cranky old boy (in Hirzels favor), but being cranky is no reason to shoot him. Personally, I think Hirzel paniced, and then lied...BTW: Hirzel is no longer a Spokane deputy.

I also thank you for your openess. I live in Okanogan Co. Personally, never have met a bad cop in this county (or Skagit either, where I lived before coming over here) I think the big problems are in the big cities/counties, and a lot of that comes from bad (political) management.

 

[wichaka]

Was up there training with Larry Vickers last August, extremely nice range they have there...but was very hot!

 

[NCW Ray]

Was up there training with Larry Vickers last August, extremely nice range they have there...but was very hot!

Sounds like their range has improved drastically since I worked there 35+ years ago. Back then we threw some target stands in the back of a pickup and headed out to a secluded piece of sagebrush covered land against a hillside and setup our PPC course.....and yes I do recall it was hotter than the hubs of h*** back then too!

 

[RB87]

<broken link removed>

Situations like this one are what fuel hatred and distrust of the police. I doubt we'll see any apologies anytime soon.

 

[Gunner3456]

<broken link removed>

Situations like this one are what fuel hatred and distrust of the police. I doubt we'll see any apologies anytime soon.

I have to tell you I'd have a hard time with that if my dog wasn't running loose. A really hard time.

"The report says" the dog was chained in the garage, and that the officer said he would "blow the owner's brains out"

"The officer is not facing disciplinary action pending an internal investigation, Channel 2 said."

Let's see what the truth is here, and what happens.

 

[Father of four]

<broken link removed>

Situations like this one are what fuel hatred and distrust of the police. I doubt we'll see any apologies anytime soon.

The officer is not facing disciplinary action pending an internal investigation, Channel 2 said.
Yep figures, but shoot his K-9 and you'll receive what 10-15 years of prison?
I would love to hear the whole story. Did the officer apologize and possibly offer to do his best to fix his mistake and buy the guy a dog? It should be the least he could do, right?

 

[Gunner3456]

"Negligent infliction of extreme emotional distress."

 

[Father of four]

Heres more to that story... <broken link removed>

There is a great comment there.

Michelle Wiley · Georgia State
When are we going to say "enough is enough?" It was bad enough when the unarmed guy got shot in the back a few weeks ago in Union City, but he was involved in an actual altercation with the cops. This police officer came onto the property of unsuspecting, law-abiding citizens and killed their dog. It is a sad day when we (and our families and pets) aren't even safe in our own homes, from the ones meant to protect us, no less!! Here's an idea: if you see a chained up dog and it's lunging at you, turn around and walk away! Especially when you are at the wrong d@mn house!! This makes me beyond furious.
· January 19 at 11:51am

 

[Gunner3456]

IN THE ---------COURT OF --------------

Case #

Jury trial demanded

COMPLAINT

Negligent infliction of severe emotional distress

JURISDICTION:

This court has subject matter jurisdiction because at all times the tort occurred in this county, the parties lived or worked in this county, and the subject matter deals with this state's laws.

The facts:

.............................

First Cause of action: Negligent infliction of severe emotional distress.

Element 1.

Element 2.

Element 3.

Etc.

DAMAGES:

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$4

SIGNED:

--------------------

DATED:

--------------------

PROOF OF SERVICE

--------------------

 

[Jammer Six]

Skeeter & Booger's Excellent Law Practice And Bait Shop

 

[wichaka]

First off, we only have one side of the story (Hirzel). I will not speculate, assume, etc. anything...we can only go with what the report(s) show, which includes statements, crime scene investigation etc.

In reading over the items submitted by the links posted, there are many questions and some conclusions I will point out, and leave the overall conclusion to the members of the forum here...the jury;

Facts;

Incident happens at night (dark), unknown if there is ambient light anywhere, or direct light from possible street or parking lot lights.

Creach - 74yr male. Were there any current medical problems at the time that would affect his judgement? What about eye sight & hearing?

He has had crime problems in the past, and now confronts possible problems with gun in hand...good for him.

SCSO Deputy parks an unmarked patrol car on the Creach property (parking lot), and leaves park lighst on only...the time of day...approx. 11pm+

As I stated above about private property, we do and are often asked to check businesses in the night to hopefully deter crime, to intervene should it be in progress, or to see if anything is afoul. So the Deputy in the parking lot of Creach is not abnormal, and would never go far in court unless the Deputy's presence was tied to some illegal activity on the part of the Deputy...meaning he was there illegally. So unless Creach requested SCSO to stay off his property, the Deputy is good to go.

I read about the family bringing up the fact the car was unmarked, a very weak argument at best, again would not be a factor in a court proceeding unless there was some criminal activity on the part of the Deputy.

SCSO Deputy works on reports etc., using the on board MDT (Mobile Data Terminal). I will pause here and state, as I did with Father of Four when he rode with me on a patrol shift...they can be widow makers.
We out there to watch for 'crime afoot', and focus our attention on our surroundings, not bury our heads in the 'puter.

This incident is text book, and makes my point very clear, Creach got to within approx. 30 feet before said Deputy noticed. Can we all say "Situational awareness?"

SCSO Deputy states he saw Creach at approx. 30 feet, and saw a gun in his right hand. Deputy drew his side arm, identified himself and gave verbal commands to drop the gun. Creach continues and gets within approx. 3 feet.

Does anyone see a problem with this?

From the reports, Hirzel does not know Creach, so didn't know if he was the property owner...unknown if Creach knows Hirzel. There are many times where a citizen will know an Officer, but the Officer won't the citizen.

So far we have these facts;

Time of day;

Male subject with gun;

Deputy identifies himself;

Male subject fails to heed warning, and continues.

Can we all see a train wreck here?


Put yourself in the position with someone walking up to you with a gun in their hand, and continue walking toward you after your repeated commands to stop, drop the gun etc.

I will state here, if there ever was a legal time to drop the hammer on someone, that would have been it.

The Deputy failed and failed badly. We do not have to wait for someone to actually point a gun at us for us to react. I feel bad for Mr. Creach, but he had a responsibility at that point, and failed to comply. His actions, or in this case fail to act again brings up his state of mind and/or medical problems that would hinder him from responding appropriately.

We look back at Post #21, and I'll post the important points here;

Tenn v. Garner. This portion of case law (471 U.S. 1 (1985)) has two prongs to look at;


1 - Officers are authorized to use deadly force against any person as necessary in self-defense or the defense of another. when they have reason to believe they or another are in immediate danger of death or serious physical harm.

Important points of this prong;

- Any person

- Reason to believe - A Legal Definition

"Reasonable belief" - personal knowledge of facts and circumstances which are reasonably trustworthy.

Also defined as;
- what an average person in similar circumstances might believe.
- a belief which is not reckless or negligent in holding.

- Immediate danger of serious physical harm, doesn't have to be death.


How the above pertains to WA State law;

RCW 9A.16.020 (3);

Whenever used by a party about to be injured, or by another lawfully aiding him or her, in preventing or attempting to prevent an offense against his or her person, or a malicious trespass, or other malicious interference with real or personal property lawfully in his or her possession, in case the force is not more than is necessary;

Also 9A.16.040 (2) (a) & (3);

Among the circumstances which may be considered by peace officers as a "threat of serious physical harm" are the following:

(a) The suspect threatens a peace officer with a weapon OR displays a weapon in a manner that could reasonably be construed as threatening;

(Open carry does not fall under this statute, meaning it is not a threatening gesture)


(3) A public officer or peace officer shall not be held criminally liable for using deadly force without malice and with a good faith belief that such act is justifiable pursuant to this section.


Me thinks we can all agree that the above facts would cause any reasonable person to believe that they were "...in immediate danger of death or serious physical harm."

How many youtube videos have we seen of subject being held within a certain area, not allowed to get outside of that area because they are pacing back and forth with a gun. I know from training and experience, if said subject ever got within a certain distance, they would be shot.

Did the Deputy have any idea of the intention of Creach?

Did Creach really know that the person identifying himself as a Deputy, was really a Deputy?

Questions...many unanswered questions.

I'll end this post here for now, so we can discuss what we have so far.

Remember, I'm stating the facts of the case as presented by the links posted, if I missed something...let me know.

Whether one sides with Creach or Hirzel, is irrelevant. What is relevant is what is known in this thread, and the links are all we know, so we can only go by that. It's like what's presented to a jury, these are the only things that the jury can use to make their decision.

 

[Gunner3456]

First off, we only have one side of the story (Hirzel). I will not speculate, assume, etc. anything...we can only go with what the report(s) show, which includes statements, crime scene investigation etc.

In reading over the items submitted by the links posted, there are many questions and some conclusions I will point out, and leave the overall conclusion to the members of the forum here...the jury;

Facts;

Incident happens at night (dark), unknown if there is ambient light anywhere, or direct light from possible street or parking lot lights.

Creach - 74yr male. Were there any current medical problems at the time that would affect his judgement? What about eye sight & hearing?

He has had crime problems in the past, and now confronts possible problems with gun in hand...good for him.

SCSO Deputy parks an unmarked patrol car on the Creach property (parking lot), and leaves park lighst on only...the time of day...approx. 11pm+

As I stated above about private property, we do and are often asked to check businesses in the night to hopefully deter crime, to intervene should it be in progress, or to see if anything is afoul. So the Deputy in the parking lot of Creach is not abnormal, and would never go far in court unless the Deputy's presence was tied to some illegal activity on the part of the Deputy...meaning he was there illegally. So unless Creach requested SCSO to stay off his property, the Deputy is good to go.

I read about the family bringing up the fact the car was unmarked, a very weak argument at best, again would not be a factor in a court proceeding unless there was some criminal activity on the part of the Deputy.

SCSO Deputy works on reports etc., using the on board MDT (Mobile Data Terminal). I will pause here and state, as I did with Father of Four when he rode with me on a patrol shift...they can be widow makers.
We out there to watch for 'crime afoot', and focus our attention on our surroundings, not bury our heads in the 'puter.

This incident is text book, and makes my point very clear, Creach got to within approx. 30 feet before said Deputy noticed. Can we all say "Situational awareness?"

SCSO Deputy states he saw Creach at approx. 30 feet, and saw a gun in his right hand. Deputy drew his side arm, identified himself and gave verbal commands to drop the gun. Creach continues and gets within approx. 3 feet.

Does anyone see a problem with this?

From the reports, Hirzel does not know Creach, so didn't know if he was the property owner...unknown if Creach knows Hirzel. There are many times where a citizen will know an Officer, but the Officer won't the citizen.

So far we have these facts;

Time of day;

Male subject with gun;

Deputy identifies himself;

Male subject fails to heed warning, and continues.

Can we all see a train wreck here?


Put yourself in the position with someone walking up to you with a gun in their hand, and continue walking toward you after your repeated commands to stop, drop the gun etc.

I will state here, if there ever was a legal time to drop the hammer on someone, that would have been it.

The Deputy failed and failed badly. We do not have to wait for someone to actually point a gun at us for us to react. I feel bad for Mr. Creach, but he had a responsibility at that point, and failed to comply. His actions, or in this case fail to act again brings up his state of mind and/or medical problems that would hinder him from responding appropriately.

We look back at Post #21, and I'll post the important points here;

Tenn v. Garner. This portion of case law (471 U.S. 1 (1985)) has two prongs to look at;


1 - Officers are authorized to use deadly force against any person as necessary in self-defense or the defense of another. when they have reason to believe they or another are in immediate danger of death or serious physical harm.

Important points of this prong;

- Any person

- Reason to believe - A Legal Definition

"Reasonable belief" - personal knowledge of facts and circumstances which are reasonably trustworthy.

Also defined as;
- what an average person in similar circumstances might believe.
- a belief which is not reckless or negligent in holding.

- Immediate danger of serious physical harm, doesn't have to be death.


How the above pertains to WA State law;

RCW 9A.16.020 (3);

Whenever used by a party about to be injured, or by another lawfully aiding him or her, in preventing or attempting to prevent an offense against his or her person, or a malicious trespass, or other malicious interference with real or personal property lawfully in his or her possession, in case the force is not more than is necessary;

Also 9A.16.040 (2) (a) & (3);

Among the circumstances which may be considered by peace officers as a "threat of serious physical harm" are the following:

(a) The suspect threatens a peace officer with a weapon OR displays a weapon in a manner that could reasonably be construed as threatening;

(Open carry does not fall under this statute, meaning it is not a threatening gesture)


(3) A public officer or peace officer shall not be held criminally liable for using deadly force without malice and with a good faith belief that such act is justifiable pursuant to this section.


Me thinks we can all agree that the above facts would cause any reasonable person to believe that they were "...in immediate danger of death or serious physical harm."

How many youtube videos have we seen of subject being held within a certain area, not allowed to get outside of that area because they are pacing back and forth with a gun. I know from training and experience, if said subject ever got within a certain distance, they would be shot.

Did the Deputy have any idea of the intention of Creach?

Did Creach really know that the person identifying himself as a Deputy, was really a Deputy?

Questions...many unanswered questions.

I'll end this post here for now, so we can discuss what we have so far.

Remember, I'm stating the facts of the case as presented by the links posted, if I missed something...let me know.

Whether one sides with Creach or Hirzel, is irrelevant. What is relevant is what is known in this thread, and the links are all we know, so we can only go by that. It's like what's presented to a jury, these are the only things that the jury can use to make their decision.

OK. good post. Now, what about my rights to use deadly force on a trespasser in an unmarked car at 11;00 at night? He's armed and draws a weapon. How do I know he's a cop, even if in uniform? Did anyone else read about the fake cop in Eugene who got away with it for months, pulling people over, etc? <broken link removed>

What do I do when NOTHING out of the ordinary is happening at my house which might or should attract attention, and then suddenly this stranger with a gun shows up? Do I surrender only to find out I've been had?

At what point do I willingly give up and what I believe is to my peril? The officer caused the problem and the confusion.

 

[wichaka]

First, I don't have all the answers.
If I did, would I be on here as a mod? Sorry Joe!

Real or fake Officers happen, don't have an answer for ya...great society we live in eh?

Blaming the Officer for the confusion in this incident is really not accurate. Most officers are issued their cars, meaning they may not have a choice, so blame SCSO for using unmarked cars, not the officers fault.

Also I need to point out, the Deputy was still in his car at the time he was identifying himself...a definite disadvantage. If you were the one approaching said car, and was drawn down on, you are able to exit the threat area a lot faster than the person in the car. It takes time to put the gun down, start the car (if needed), place in gear, and stomp on the gas. Yes, can happen pretty fast...but the average shooter can also empty a 10 shot magazine in about a second and a half or less.

May the dregs of society dress up like a SWAT team and invade your home?
Yep, may happen...but tell me how to keep it from happening?

If someone wants to truly kill you, there's not a thing you can do about it. Some things we have no control over, some things we do.

We need to try to minimize the things we can't control, if its possible...and be ever vigilant for the things we can.