Police Education

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Byte Stryke

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/us...0404/drama.gif

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bailey Guns

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bailey Guns

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bailey Guns

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.

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