Police Education

[BushMasterBoy]

CSPD wrongly arrested a man for open carry in a city park...

http://www.krdo.com/news/Gun-charge-dropped-after-CSPD-mistake/-/417220/16059590/-/12mb2f5z/-/index.html (http://www.krdo.com/news/Gun-charge-dropped-after-CSPD-mistake/-/417220/16059590/-/12mb2f5z/-/index.html)

[buffalobo]

When are we gonna hold management responsible for the guys on the street?

Seriously, the "cheat sheet" was 9 yrs out of date?

[Bang] [Rant1] [Bang]

[Troublco]

It is funny to hear the "Ignorance of the law is no excuse" mantra, and for THEM to be the ignorant ones. Worse because the law had changed so long ago.

[sellersm]

Reminds me of the scene from the Transformers movie: "see this badge? It's a 'I can do what I want and get away with it' badge."

Interesting how everyone seems to want to be "sensitive" to the Aurora incident, EXCEPT the authorities by re-educating themselves!

[Bailey Guns]

Not to mention the "you're about to get the **** kicked outta you" remark.

Someone needs to be held accountable.

[Byte Stryke]

So if "ignorance of the law is no excuse!", what's Theirs?

Until we start holding officers personally accountable for their actions, there will continue to be abuses and negligence.

Im not talking about the accidents or marginals... Im Talking about the planted evidence, lies, corruption and abuse.

No more slaps on the wrist and a performance review in their record.
don't do the crime if you cannot do the time.

[SideShow Bob]

So this person that was arrested was the very first person to open carry in C.S. In a public area / park in the 9 years since the laws have changed ?
It hard to believe that there hasn't been at least one incident or bad arrest for the PD there to learn from and correct their officers as to what is and is not legal in reference to open carry of firearms......[Stooge]

[Sharpienads]

Wait a second... A gay guy carrying a gun?!?! Say it isn't so! Sounds like he was the target of a hate crime to me.

I didn't make it all the way through the video, but I can understand why he was upset. Good for him for standing up for himself. Bad on the police for not knowing the law.

[Flatline]

Wait a second... A gay guy carrying a gun?!?! Say it isn't so! Sounds like he was the target of a hate crime to me.

I didn't make it all the way through the video, but I can understand why he was upset. Good for him for standing up for himself. Bad on the police for not knowing the law.

I don't know if it was a discrimination or hate inspired arrest, but I certainly can see the lawsuit coming against cspd for it.

[Sharpienads]

I don't know if it was a discrimination or hate inspired arrest, but I certainly can see the lawsuit coming against cspd for it.

Yeah, the hate crime part was a joke.

From the article, sounds like all the guy wants is a public apology.

[Byte Stryke]

we don't allow Electricians to wire homes without knowing their job.
We don't allow Plumbers to run lines without knowing their jobs.
I have to spend almost $1K on Certifications and take Weeks of Classes and HOURS of exams to do my job.

these clowns get to run around with constitutional arrest powers and Guns and haven't the slightest clue about what they are doing... but we are the problem?

I'm waiting for the wave...

[Sharpienads]

we don't allow Electricians to wire homes without knowing their job.
We don't allow Plumbers to run lines without knowing their jobs.
I have to spend almost $1K on Certifications and take Weeks of Classes and HOURS of exams to do my job.

these clowns get to run around with constitutional arrest powers and Guns and haven't the slightest clue about what they are doing... but we are the problem?

I'm waiting for the wave...

Is it even possible for them to know all the laws? I highly doubt it. I'm not making any excuses for them, but maybe the problem is deeper, and ignorant cops is a symptom of that problem.

But being allowed to open carry, that's probably one they should know.

[Bailey Guns]

we don't allow Electricians to wire homes without knowing their job.
We don't allow Plumbers to run lines without knowing their jobs.
I have to spend almost $1K on Certifications and take Weeks of Classes and HOURS of exams to do my job.

these clowns get to run around with constitutional arrest powers and Guns and haven't the slightest clue about what they are doing... but we are the problem?

I'm waiting for the wave...

The problem isn't that they aren't trained. It's that they apparently haven't received updated training or the person responsible failed at disseminating proper information.

Let's face it...a 6 month academy, 19+ weeks of field training, having to pass a comprehensive state-issued certification test, continuous ongoing training at least monthly, etc... They've had plenty of training.

They made a mistake. Plumbers and electricians and IT guys make mistakes, too, despite their certs and training.

The question is, will this be corrected on their "cheat sheet" and in future training and will this incident be made right by the PD?

[Flatline]

They made a mistake. Plumbers and electricians and IT guys make mistakes, too, despite their certs and training.

When a plumber floods your house he is expected to pay for damages, the same for faulty electrical work or IT mistakes, or at least to the the point of their expressed contracts.

What is the social contract with the police? What is their reprimand for violating it? Is the amnesty provisions as written appropriate?

Is dropping false charges after the public humiliation, false accusation, and legal fees not to mention the false imprisonment or arrest enough?


Clearly these police officers have a gross lack of education for the job that they do, is that their fault or the department that educated them? Whoever continued to issue a "cheat sheet" that is used to issue citations or arrest suspects with incorrect laws is partially responsible for what happened as well.

Most likely there will be no apology, no significant reeducation (though apparently the reissued the cheat sheet after being corrected), and nobody will be held personally liable within the department. And instead of receiving an apology from the department the guy could sue the department/officers and instead potentially cost the city millions (which he may or may not do).

[Ah Pook]

Let's face it...a 6 month academy, 19+ weeks of field training, having to pass a comprehensive state-issued certification test, continuous ongoing training at least monthly, etc... They've had plenty of training.
Becoming an appraiser for a county assessor takes longer. [Shock]


It is their job to know the law. One would think that laws regarding firearms would be higher up on the list.

[ben4372]

we don't allow Electricians to wire homes without knowing their job.
We don't allow Plumbers to run lines without knowing their jobs.
I have to spend almost $1K on Certifications and take Weeks of Classes and HOURS of exams to do my job.

these clowns get to run around with constitutional arrest powers and Guns and haven't the slightest clue about what they are doing... but we are the problem?

I'm waiting for the wave...


Most of what the government does is based on 'this is how I was told to do it' or 'this is the way it's always been done' No real regard to the law or the way it is supposed to be done. And 'tell it to the judge' is a genuine hassle and expense. Even if you are in the right it cost you plenty. Arresting officer may get a talking to or miss a promotion. Not entirely their fault. Like any job, the tards at the top have pet issues and often it is not training and education.

[Bailey Guns]

When a plumber floods your house he is expected to pay for damages, the same for faulty electrical work or IT mistakes, or at least to the the point of their expressed contracts.

What is the social contract with the police? What is their reprimand for violating it? Is the amnesty provisions as written appropriate?

Is dropping false charges after the public humiliation, false accusation, and legal fees not to mention the false imprisonment or arrest enough?


Clearly these police officers have a gross lack of education for the job that they do, is that their fault or the department that educated them? Whoever continued to issue a "cheat sheet" that is used to issue citations or arrest suspects with incorrect laws is partially responsible for what happened as well.

Most likely there will be no apology, no significant reeducation (though apparently the reissued the cheat sheet after being corrected), and nobody will be held personally liable within the department. And instead of receiving an apology from the department the guy could sue the department/officers and instead potentially cost the city millions (which he may or may not do).

Just like anyone else who screws up a job, there are remedies. If the plumber screws up he doesn't necessarily own up to the mistake and just fix it. Nor does the auto mechanic. Sometimes it takes a little persuasion.

We have a system for dealing with this. It's called civil court.

I'm in no way defending what the police did. It was wrong. They had the wrong information for some reason...for 9 years it went unnoticed.

But... A guy gets arrested and jailed. He's then released and the charges are dropped. Short of a public apology by the PD...which they can't really do for several reasons...is that all there is to it? Well, that's up to the citizen that was mistakenly arrested. He has further remedies in civil court just like he'd have if the plumber screwed up his plumbing and didn't make it right.

The officers might have some immunity. If they were trained that this is the city ordinance and department policy regarding guns in the park and they acted in good faith within the policy by which they were trained, they may indeed face only limited liability. However, the department overall and some others may not be so lucky.

[Byte Stryke]

I have a MINIMUM of 120 hours of continual education requirement per YEAR and Must Retest each cert every 3 years.
If I Screw up, its not just my job or "paid administrative leave."
It's my certs, clearances and a prison term.

To cite a public official:

"IGNORANCE OF THE LAW IS NO EXCUSE!"

[SuperiorDG]

They need to carry more then a "Cheat Sheet". I'm sure they have the room.

[Bailey Guns]

I have a MINIMUM of 120 hours of continual education requirement per YEAR and Must Retest each cert every 3 years.
If I Screw up, its not just my job or "paid administrative leave."
It's my certs, clearances and a prison term.

To cite a public official:

"IGNORANCE OF THE LAW IS NO EXCUSE!"

OK. You win. You obviously get punished more than anyone else ever will for making a mistake at work. Congratulations.

[Ed_S]

There is a reason why cheat sheets are banned in my industry – they’re notoriously hard to control! Try explaining a cheat sheet to an FDA inspector! I probably spend an hour per week training on new regulations and yes I’m expected to know and follow them.
As for should a cop know all the laws, no I don’t expect, that but I would expect them to know the basic ones? I think open carry in CO would be a basic one?

[Whistler]

They should be expected to know every law they enforce - that is their job. I know all the regs for my job and yes they change continuously. The problem with "take it to court" is the cost, the time and the hassle. Just being right after spending thousands of dollars and hundreds of hours is like pissing yourself in dark pants - you get a warm feeling but nobody notices. Law Enforcement receives special consideration and consequently should be held to a higher standard IMO.

[10mm-man]

They should be expected to know every law they enforce - that is their job. I know all the regs for my job and yes they change continuously. The problem with "take it to court" is the cost, the time and the hassle. Just being right after spending thousands of dollars and hundreds of hours is like pissing yourself in dark pants - you get a warm feeling but nobody notices. Law Enforcement receives special consideration and consequently should be held to a higher standard IMO.

You know now that i think about yes, they should know! I recently sat down for two hours covering basic laws w/ and ATF agent, we just touched the tip of the Ice berg. I don't abide by the laws, rules and regs, i get in trouble. I am required to know my industry laws so therefore so should the Po po..

[XC700116]

The way I look at it, every one of us as citizens are expected and required to comply with a multitude of federal, state, and local laws. As the officer in the video says, ignorance of the law is no excuse. If you or I ignorantly disobey a law and are caught doing so we pay a penalty ranging anywhere from a warning, to a fine, to imprisonment and loss of our civil rights. Yet an officer enforcing these laws is somehow subject to being held to less of a standard than a private citizen in these cases.

I just simply can't understand everyone that is so quick to say that these officers shouldn't be held accountable, and CSPD shouldn't be forced to compensate this person for his losses in time, money, and reputation over it. THEY (LE) are the ones put in place to enforce the laws. If THEY don't understand the law, they shouldn't be arresting or charging anyone with it.

Then of course there is the bigger issue of the fact there are just too many stupid laws on the books for any normal person to actually know and understand. Hence the root of the problem to begin with.

[Bailey Guns]

I just simply can't understand everyone that is so quick to say that these officers shouldn't be held accountable, and CSPD shouldn't be forced to compensate this person for his losses in time, money, and reputation over it.

Who is everyone that was so quick to say the officers shouldn't be held accountable?

[Byte Stryke]

OK. You win. You obviously get punished more than anyone else ever will for making a mistake at work. Congratulations.

that's not what I said
but not going to let you suck me into the anti-cop thing...

keep paying them higher taxes though... because insurance is going up!
Start another thread complaining about how high taxes are

;)

[BushMasterBoy]

I posted this article originally so that EVERYBODY that reads it can cite the law if in a similiar situation. These excerpts are pasted from Lexis/Nexis which claims to be the official publisher of Colorado Law. Why the state can not publish it own laws baffles me! These following laws concern local governments and what they can and cannot do;



Colorado Revised Staute 29-11.7-101. Legislative declaration

(1) The general assembly hereby finds that:

(a) Section 3 of article II of the state constitution (http://web.lexisnexis.com/research/buttonTFLink?_m=9cbb4c7b0a82a70da16a2ef4b80ba1d7&_xfercite=%3ccite%20cc%3d%22USA%22%3e%3c%21%5bCDAT A%5bC.R.S.%2029-11.7-101%5d%5d%3e%3c%2fcite%3e&_butType=4&_butStat=0&_butNum=2&_butInline=1&_butinfo=CO%20CONST%20II%203&_fmtstr=FULL&docnum=1&_startdoc=1&wchp=dGLbVzt-zSkAl&_md5=550f8c7ab9e918e30c4f2ad5249c7325), the article referred to as the state bill of rights, declares that all persons have certain inalienable rights, which include the right to defend their lives and liberties;

(b) Section 13 of article II of the state constitution (http://web.lexisnexis.com/research/buttonTFLink?_m=9cbb4c7b0a82a70da16a2ef4b80ba1d7&_xfercite=%3ccite%20cc%3d%22USA%22%3e%3c%21%5bCDAT A%5bC.R.S.%2029-11.7-101%5d%5d%3e%3c%2fcite%3e&_butType=4&_butStat=0&_butNum=3&_butInline=1&_butinfo=CO%20CONST%20II%2013&_fmtstr=FULL&docnum=1&_startdoc=1&wchp=dGLbVzt-zSkAl&_md5=6fc10cb5c6c2427caa8230f85d407dba) protects the fundamental right of a person to keep and bear arms and implements section 3 of article II of the state constitution (http://web.lexisnexis.com/research/buttonTFLink?_m=9cbb4c7b0a82a70da16a2ef4b80ba1d7&_xfercite=%3ccite%20cc%3d%22USA%22%3e%3c%21%5bCDAT A%5bC.R.S.%2029-11.7-101%5d%5d%3e%3c%2fcite%3e&_butType=4&_butStat=0&_butNum=4&_butInline=1&_butinfo=CO%20CONST%20II%203&_fmtstr=FULL&docnum=1&_startdoc=1&wchp=dGLbVzt-zSkAl&_md5=85fe5e1e1a915b2227be914c4a81b823);

(c) The general assembly recognizes a duty to protect and defend the fundamental civil rights set forth in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this subsection (1);

(d) There exists a widespread inconsistency among jurisdictions within the state with regard to firearms regulations;

(e) This inconsistency among local government laws regulating lawful firearm possession and ownership has extraterritorial impact on state citizens and the general public by subjecting them to criminal and civil penalties in some jurisdictions for conduct wholly lawful in other jurisdictions;

(f) Inconsistency among local governments of laws regulating the possession and ownership of firearms results in persons being treated differently under the law solely on the basis of where they reside, and a person's residence in a particular county or city or city and county is not a rational classification when it is the basis for denial of equal treatment under the law;

(g) This inconsistency places citizens in the position of not knowing when they may be violating the local laws and therefore being unable to avoid violating the law and becoming subject to criminal and other penalties.

(2) Based on the findings specified in subsection (1) of this section, the general assembly concludes that:

(a) The regulation of firearms is a matter of statewide concern;

(b) It is necessary to provide statewide laws concerning the possession and ownership of a firearm to ensure that law-abiding persons are not unfairly placed in the position of unknowingly committing crimes involving firearms.


Colorado Revised Statute29-11.7-102. Firearms database - prohibited


(1) A local government, including a law enforcement agency, shall not maintain a list or other form of record or database of:

(a) Persons who purchase or exchange firearms or who leave firearms for repair or sale on consignment;

(b) Persons who transfer firearms, unless the persons are federally licensed firearms dealers;

(c) The descriptions, including serial numbers, of firearms purchased, transferred, exchanged, or left for repair or sale on consignment



Colorado Revised Statutes 29-11.7-103. Regulation - type of firearm - prohibited

A local government may not enact an ordinance, regulation, or other law that prohibits the sale, purchase, or possession of a firearm that a person may lawfully sell, purchase, or possess under state or federal law. Any such ordinance, regulation, or other law enacted by a local government prior to March 18, 2003, is void and unenforceable.


Colorado Revised Statute 29-11.7-104. Regulation - carrying - posting

A local government may enact an ordinance, regulation, or other law that prohibits the open carrying of a firearm in a building or specific area within the local government's jurisdiction. If a local government enacts an ordinance, regulation, or other law that prohibits the open carrying of a firearm in a building or specific area, the local government shall post signs at the public entrances to the building or specific area informing persons that the open carrying of firearms is prohibited in the building or specific area.

[10mm-man]

I posted this article originally so that EVERYBODY that reads it can cite the law if in a similiar situation. These excerpts are pasted from Lexis/Nexis which claims to be the official publisher of Colorado Law. Why the state can not publish it own laws baffles me! These following laws concern local governments and what they can and cannot do;



Colorado Revised Staute 29-11.7-101. Legislative declaration

(1) The general assembly hereby finds that:

(a) Section 3 of article II of the state constitution (http://web.lexisnexis.com/research/buttonTFLink?_m=9cbb4c7b0a82a70da16a2ef4b80ba1d7&_xfercite=%3ccite%20cc%3d%22USA%22%3e%3c%21%5bCDAT A%5bC.R.S.%2029-11.7-101%5d%5d%3e%3c%2fcite%3e&_butType=4&_butStat=0&_butNum=2&_butInline=1&_butinfo=CO%20CONST%20II%203&_fmtstr=FULL&docnum=1&_startdoc=1&wchp=dGLbVzt-zSkAl&_md5=550f8c7ab9e918e30c4f2ad5249c7325), the article referred to as the state bill of rights, declares that all persons have certain inalienable rights, which include the right to defend their lives and liberties;

(b) Section 13 of article II of the state constitution (http://web.lexisnexis.com/research/buttonTFLink?_m=9cbb4c7b0a82a70da16a2ef4b80ba1d7&_xfercite=%3ccite%20cc%3d%22USA%22%3e%3c%21%5bCDAT A%5bC.R.S.%2029-11.7-101%5d%5d%3e%3c%2fcite%3e&_butType=4&_butStat=0&_butNum=3&_butInline=1&_butinfo=CO%20CONST%20II%2013&_fmtstr=FULL&docnum=1&_startdoc=1&wchp=dGLbVzt-zSkAl&_md5=6fc10cb5c6c2427caa8230f85d407dba) protects the fundamental right of a person to keep and bear arms and implements section 3 of article II of the state constitution (http://web.lexisnexis.com/research/buttonTFLink?_m=9cbb4c7b0a82a70da16a2ef4b80ba1d7&_xfercite=%3ccite%20cc%3d%22USA%22%3e%3c%21%5bCDAT A%5bC.R.S.%2029-11.7-101%5d%5d%3e%3c%2fcite%3e&_butType=4&_butStat=0&_butNum=4&_butInline=1&_butinfo=CO%20CONST%20II%203&_fmtstr=FULL&docnum=1&_startdoc=1&wchp=dGLbVzt-zSkAl&_md5=85fe5e1e1a915b2227be914c4a81b823);

(c) The general assembly recognizes a duty to protect and defend the fundamental civil rights set forth in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this subsection (1);

(d) There exists a widespread inconsistency among jurisdictions within the state with regard to firearms regulations;

(e) This inconsistency among local government laws regulating lawful firearm possession and ownership has extraterritorial impact on state citizens and the general public by subjecting them to criminal and civil penalties in some jurisdictions for conduct wholly lawful in other jurisdictions;

(f) Inconsistency among local governments of laws regulating the possession and ownership of firearms results in persons being treated differently under the law solely on the basis of where they reside, and a person's residence in a particular county or city or city and county is not a rational classification when it is the basis for denial of equal treatment under the law;

(g) This inconsistency places citizens in the position of not knowing when they may be violating the local laws and therefore being unable to avoid violating the law and becoming subject to criminal and other penalties.

(2) Based on the findings specified in subsection (1) of this section, the general assembly concludes that:

(a) The regulation of firearms is a matter of statewide concern;

(b) It is necessary to provide statewide laws concerning the possession and ownership of a firearm to ensure that law-abiding persons are not unfairly placed in the position of unknowingly committing crimes involving firearms.


Colorado Revised Statute29-11.7-102. Firearms database - prohibited


(1) A local government, including a law enforcement agency, shall not maintain a list or other form of record or database of:

(a) Persons who purchase or exchange firearms or who leave firearms for repair or sale on consignment;

(b) Persons who transfer firearms, unless the persons are federally licensed firearms dealers;

(c) The descriptions, including serial numbers, of firearms purchased, transferred, exchanged, or left for repair or sale on consignment



Colorado Revised Statutes 29-11.7-103. Regulation - type of firearm - prohibited

A local government may not enact an ordinance, regulation, or other law that prohibits the sale, purchase, or possession of a firearm that a person may lawfully sell, purchase, or possess under state or federal law. Any such ordinance, regulation, or other law enacted by a local government prior to March 18, 2003, is void and unenforceable.


Colorado Revised Statute 29-11.7-104. Regulation - carrying - posting

A local government may enact an ordinance, regulation, or other law that prohibits the open carrying of a firearm in a building or specific area within the local government's jurisdiction. If a local government enacts an ordinance, regulation, or other law that prohibits the open carrying of a firearm in a building or specific area, the local government shall post signs at the public entrances to the building or specific area informing persons that the open carrying of firearms is prohibited in the building or specific area.

In regards to the last part I thought posting of sings in parks was illegal as well. I remember reading (maybe here) about someone calling local jurisdictions complaining about there no guns policy was against state law. OC in this case....... And didn't a city in the mountains have to pay in a civil case for their rights being violated by two cops who hit the guy and tackled him for OC in a park??
Local jurisdiction was apologizing and removing said sign from parks. Maybe that's why the cheat sheet was out of date??? At one time it was legal but now it is not?

[cstone]

This story is about Mapes and the Thornton movie theater arrest. Since the story mentions that one of the issues Mapes' attorney will be filing for is to overturn the parks and buildings gun ban, I thought it fit with this thread.

Does anyone in the north metro area know Mapes? He lives in Northglenn, owns a gun, so I would imagine he would eventually find his way to BPTactical [Coffee]

http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_21278371/civil-rights-suit-likely-thornton-theater-gun-case

"Robert B. Wareham of the Law Center in Highlands Ranch said the case "is bigger than Mr. Mapes" and that he will likely file a case in federal court arguing a violation of civil rights, and another in state court to challenge Thornton's existing ordinance banning guns from city parks, public buildings and posted areas, which he characterized as overly broad."

[lead_magnet]

These cops made one of the biggets ut-ohs you can make as a cop. You NEVER arrest (or write a ticket) unless you are absolutley positive you are correct in your findings.

[BushMasterBoy]

In regards to the last part I thought posting of sings in parks was illegal as well. I remember reading (maybe here) about someone calling local jurisdictions complaining about there no guns policy was against state law. OC in this case....... And didn't a city in the mountains have to pay in a civil case for their rights being violated by two cops who hit the guy and tackled him for OC in a park??
Local jurisdiction was apologizing and removing said sign from parks. Maybe that's why the cheat sheet was out of date??? At one time it was legal but now it is not?

It is my interpretation, that if the property is "city owned" then they can regulate if firearms are allowed in that building or other area. If a city park sign says "No Firearms" then they can enforce it.

As for the case you mentioned about a "city in the mountains" I have never heard of it, but maybe another member of the forum knows something about it.

[WETWRKS]

Ok, here is my thoughts on all of this.

My job is not in law enforcement. I am required by my employer to know not just the company rules but also what I am allowed to do legally.

According to the government and these officers...I am required to know the law. Not just what applies to me at the minute. I am required to know all law.

Officers...under their same requirements of my knowing the law also are required to know the law. But moreover...it is their JOB to know the law. They have even more of a requirement to know what the current law is. Someone mentioned that it changed 9 years ago. Would I be able to get away with the excuse that I knew what the law WAS and was acting based on that? I would still be arrested.

They held someone against that persons will...this would be kidnapping or unlawful detainment.

They took someone's personal property...this would be theft.

Those are both criminal actions. These officers need to be arrested and charged. If I failed to follow the law...if I did either of these actions I would be arrested.

[WETWRKS]

I posted this article originally so that EVERYBODY that reads it can cite the law if in a similiar situation. These excerpts are pasted from Lexis/Nexis which claims to be the official publisher of Colorado Law. Why the state can not publish it own laws baffles me!

lexis/nexus is one of several companies that publish the state laws. The state could...but it would cost money.

Pretty much it all boils down to what the lawyer prefers. Some like one company, some another. Some like it in soft bound. Others want a nice hard bound. Some want a hard copy. Others are ok with doing it all on line.

[Bailey Guns]

Ok, here is my thoughts on all of this.

My job is not in law enforcement. I am required by my employer to know not just the company rules but also what I am allowed to do legally.

According to the government and these officers...I am required to know the law. Not just what applies to me at the minute. I am required to know all law.

Officers...under their same requirements of my knowing the law also are required to know the law. But moreover...it is their JOB to know the law. They have even more of a requirement to know what the current law is. Someone mentioned that it changed 9 years ago. Would I be able to get away with the excuse that I knew what the law WAS and was acting based on that? I would still be arrested.

They held someone against that persons will...this would be kidnapping or unlawful detainment.

They took someone's personal property...this would be theft.

Those are both criminal actions. These officers need to be arrested and charged. If I failed to follow the law...if I did either of these actions I would be arrested.

The officers appeared to be acting in good faith based on information provided by their department. There is ample case law that protects them from liability in these circumstances. Ultimately, though, a civil court will decide.

Just one example:


Officer not liable for false arrest and false imprisonment. Where police officer had both probable cause to believe that an offense had been committed and that the plaintiff was the person who had committed it, he was not civilly liable for false arrest and false imprisonment. Beyer v. Young, 32 Colo. App. 273, 513 P.2d 1086 (1973).And from 18-8-103 Resisting Arrest (I know the guy wasn't resisting...just for reference)


(2) It is no defense to a prosecution under this section that the peace officer was attempting to make an arrest which in fact was unlawful, if he was acting under color of his official authority, and in attempting to make the arrest he was not resorting to unreasonable or excessive force giving rise to the right of self-defense. A peace officer acts "under color of his official authority" when, in the regular course of assigned duties, he is called upon to make, and does make, a judgment in good faith based upon surrounding facts and circumstances that an arrest should be made by him.If a peace officer is acting in good faith, based on information provided by their department policies and training, and they make an arrest based on the information/training they believe to be valid, they're given certain protections, even when that information/training was wrong.

If it wasn't that way, then every time a jury acquitted someone of an offense they could claim they were arrested falsely.

[WETWRKS]

The officers appeared to be acting in good faith based on information provided by their department. There is ample case law that protects them from liability in these circumstances. Ultimately, though, a civil court will decide.

Just one example:

And from 18-8-103 Resisting Arrest (I know the guy wasn't resisting...just for reference)
If a peace officer is acting in good faith, based on information provided by their department policies and training, and they make an arrest based on the information/training they believe to be valid, they're given certain protections, even when that information/training was wrong.

If it wasn't that way, then every time a jury acquitted someone of an offense they could claim they were arrested falsely.

Ok...under that same idea...say I was told in my ccw class that it is ok to ccw a machine gun...do I get off under good faith? Would an officer let me walk under that good faith? Would a DA?

They stated that ignorance of the law is no excuse....that is a 2way road.

[Byte Stryke]

professional and criminal negligence.

[Bailey Guns]

You're welcome to your opinion...even if it isn't consistent with the law or case law. But it doesn't change anything.

Furthermore, I'm not saying any of that will apply in this incident. But it is there and will be brought up. But it still doesn't justify the failure of the PD to make the necessary changes to their training program.

[Bailey Guns]

Ok...under that same idea...say I was told in my ccw class that it is ok to ccw a machine gun...do I get off under good faith? Would an officer let me walk under that good faith? Would a DA?

They stated that ignorance of the law is no excuse....that is a 2way road.

False analogy.

That has absolutely nothing to do with performance of your official duties or acting in good faith under the color of law as a POST certified peace officer. If you're going to try to argue the point you need to at least make an attempt to understand what you're arguing against.

Not to mention, if your "machine gun" was a lawfully possessed handgun (say you're a Glock LE rep, lawfully permitted to CCW by the state, and had access to a legally possessed Glock 18), why would it be illegal?

BTW...I know someone who regularly did this several years ago.

[DSull]

If you want to teach those cops a lesson they won't forget "lawsuit" will do the trick!

[Byte Stryke]

If you want to teach those cops a lesson they won't forget "lawsuit" will do the trick!


Thats the point, they are exempt.
they can beat you into a coma and cannot be touched.
the department can be sued, they personally will not and cannot be touched.

[Bailey Guns]

Thats the point, they are exempt.
they can beat you into a coma and cannot be touched.
the department can be sued, they personally will not and cannot be touched.

Yeah. That's exactly the lessons learned from the Rodney King incident.[/sarcasm]

http://www.smileyvault.com/albums/userpics/10404/drama.gif

[Whistler]

The officers appeared to be acting in good faith based on information provided by their department. There is ample case law that protects them from liability in these circumstances. Ultimately, though, a civil court will decide.

Just one example:

And from 18-8-103 Resisting Arrest (I know the guy wasn't resisting...just for reference)
If a peace officer is acting in good faith, based on information provided by their department policies and training, and they make an arrest based on the information/training they believe to be valid, they're given certain protections, even when that information/training was wrong.

If it wasn't that way, then every time a jury acquitted someone of an offense they could claim they were arrested falsely.

I think I'd struggle somewhat with a "good faith" defense - this change in the law is nine years old. That's a stretch even when applied to LE after nine years they were completely unaware and considered their "information/training [they believe] to be valid". I'm afraid I agree it's a double-edged sword - if I'm accountable they are accountable.

edit: for knowing the law and their actions

[XC700116]

Who is everyone that was so quick to say the officers shouldn't be held accountable?

More or less a lot of the commenters on the originally posted article.

[WETWRKS]

Not to mention, if your "machine gun" was a lawfully possessed handgun (say you're a Glock LE rep, lawfully permitted to CCW by the state, and had access to a legally possessed Glock 18), why would it be illegal?

BTW...I know someone who regularly did this several years ago.

Ok first things first....they changed the status of our ccw laws. It used to state it was a concealed *weapon* permit then they changed it to a concealed handgun permit. He was probably carrying a mg under the weapon ruling. That has since changed.

MGs...they can have a stock put on them and removed, they can have the barrel length changed on them. They can have a number of changes made and unmade without any issue because thay arn't pistols or rifles. They are covered by a general designation of MG. This keeps them from being designated as a pistol as long as they are registered as a MG.

Thus with the change to the colorado law as to what you are allowed to carry, you can no longer carry a MG even if it looks like a pistol.

[Bailey Guns]

I'll buy that. Sounds like a reasonable explanation.