Play stupid games, win stupid prizes

[Bailey Guns]

Yeah, I was an LEO for about 15 years here in Colorado.

And understand...I agree wholeheartedly that the officer and his superiors used poor judgment in pursuing this suspect as they did. I would've shown up at the meet with the guy (in uniform and marked car) and been straight up with him. Dude...give up the keys or go to jail. Having said that, I don't know what went into the decision making process of the officer and his supervisors. Maybe (probably??) they have information on this we don't have.

My only argument is that the officer verbally identified himself to the suspect. The suspect resisted, the suspect escalated the encounter by producing a deadly weapon and the officer responded. Appropriately, in my opinion.

As to the statute you cited I think you're missing an important point. The statute specifically states:

...if the peace officer or firefighter is in uniform OR the person committing an assault upon or offense against or otherwise acting toward such peace officer or firefighter knows or reasonably should know that the victim is a peace officer or firefighter.

Based again on the totality of the circumstances I don't think it would be difficult at all to prove a case of murder if he'd killed the officer. The guy knew he'd committed a crime and now, suddenly, here's a guy claiming to be a cop saying you're under arrest for exactly the crime you know you're committing. To me, that fulfills the "reasonably should know" part of the statute.

Also, I just watched a video where witnesses stated the officer was simply trying to control/subdue Contreras and verbally identified himself as a police officer several times.

[TFOGGER]

If that's how it happened, then BG should be dead. But it'd still be fishy as to why the cop would go through all the hassle of making sure he went to make an arrest with absolutely no proof he was a cop...

Like I said, nothing says the cops didn't step on their genitalia, but i'm not throwing the cop under the bus just yet. BG made a number of bad choices that led to his demise.

[Byte Stryke]

I personally dont care if it went like this: Cops failed to PROPERLY Identify himself as a law enforcement officer.

Cop: It's a bad day for you, I'm the tooth fairy. You have a cavity.

BG: You'll never take my teeth!

Cop: reaches in to grab the tooth

BG: Slugs cop

Fight ensues. officer is mortally wounded with a toothbrush


Failed to properly Identify.



Lets be realistic, if Some guy in a pickup truck, wearing a white T Shirt and Blue jeans, pulls up next to you and yells out of his window "Pull Over I am a cop!" without showing you a badge or an ID, will you pull over?

[OneGuy67]

@Bailey

All that is true and I see your point. Ok, the officer was within the law when he tried to arrest the BG. Even if it was the dumbest way to possibly go about it. But are you saying that these statues mean we should all let the next guy who says he's a police officer attack us, handcuff us or kill us because if he actually is a real police officer he's justified in doing so?

I don't think so. I'm not doing shit for some guy that simply says he's a police officer. And if he tires to forcibly detain me, I'm defending myself until he produces a badge.

Because nowhere there does it say that a civilian has to assume a person is a peace officer just because they said so.

Also, I have zero problem with police using force. As I said before I come from a LE family and my own father was involved in a shooting situation (I'll just say he was the victor). I have also defended damn near every LEO use of force story we have ever discussed here. Unlike some here, I respect LEOs until they give me a reason otherwise, not the other way around.

Bailey, I seem to remember you said you used to be LE. Maybe you can tell me, with what we know, why this particular officer removed his uniform, left his badge, left his unit, left his dash cam and drove a private civilian's car to make an arrest???? Something ain't right there...

My father carried his badge even when off-duty...

And if it went the other way and the cop was killed, it would be a hard court battle and the below statute says to me that they would not be able to get the BG on murder of a LEO...

18-3-107
(2) As used in this section, "peace officer or firefighter engaged in the performance of his or her duties" means a peace officer as described in section 16-2.5-101, C.R.S., or a firefighter, as defined in section 18-3-201 (1), who is engaged or acting in, or who is present for the purpose of engaging or acting in, the performance of any duty, service, or function imposed, authorized, required, or permitted by law to be performed by a peace officer or firefighter, whether or not the peace officer or firefighter is within the territorial limits of his or her jurisdiction, if the peace officer or firefighter is in uniform or the person committing an assault upon or offense against or otherwise acting toward such peace officer or firefighter knows or reasonably should know that the victim is a peace officer or firefighter.

I'm going to agree with Bailey on this one. His expressed opinions, based upon the information thusly provided in the news story, are in line with my own.

I would also question why the officer needed to handle it in this manner as there are other ways it could have been handled. Not to say it was wrong, as there are a number of different ways to 'skin the cat', so to speak, that gets us to the same conclusion of the incident. I don't know why he didn't have a partner nearby in a marked vehicle, or even a uniformed partner in an unmarked vehicle in the parking lot. There is sufficient information missing in the news report to not want to speculate on this.

As to why he didn't have a badge with him, I think that is a pretty easy answer, assuming this was a patrol officer. He makes the decision he is going to meet the guy and he gets approval from his superiors. He removes his shirt, which has his badge pinned to it, along with his vest and duty belt and leaves them in his vehicle. Most patrol officers do not carry or have immediately available to them a chain badge carrier to wear the badge around his neck, nor a belt badge carrier for attaching a badge to his belt, while on patrol. They may have such items back at the station, or at home. Toss on a jacket or a sweatshirt and you got what he thought would be sufficient for such an endeavor.

[Bailey Guns]

Lets be realistic, if Some guy in a pickup truck, wearing a white T Shirt and Blue jeans, pulls up next to you and yells out of his window "Pull Over I am a cop!" without showing you a badge or an ID, will you pull over?

Totally inappropriate analogy. And, Byte, you don't get to decide what is the appropriate way for an officer to make an arrest...state statute does.

[CrufflerSteve]

And here's another story:
http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_18560988

Cop couldn't prove he was a cop. There have been enough police impersonators that there have been public service announcements about how to deal with it. Bailey Guns has a point but not much of one to me since it seems like the cop was the assailant. If someone in plainclothes comes up to me and says he's a cop and wants my wallet, good luck to him.

Steve

[Byte Stryke]

As to the statute you cited I think you're missing an important point. The statute specifically states:

...if the peace officer or firefighter is in uniform OR the person committing an assault upon or offense against or otherwise acting toward such peace officer or firefighter knows or reasonably should know that the victim is a peace officer or firefighter.

So now what is defined as "Reasonable"?
We submit to every jackhole that says "I Am a COP and you are being searched!"

you and your family murdered and found in a ditch 3 weeks later. Don't say it won't happen, it has.

yeah fuck that.
Reasonably, a reasonable undercover officer would reasonably have a reasonable contingent of reasonably uniformed officers reasonable at hand to reasonably execute the arrest.

Define reasonable.
I do not believe it is reasonable for someone to submit as a potential victim based purely on the verbal say so of another single person.


a single person approaches me claiming to be PD?
Show me a badge, credentials AND a marked vehicle. otherwise, its your word against mine.

[hollohas]

To me, that fulfills the "reasonably should know" part of the statute.

I didn't miss that part and you're right, it might.

But man,that seems like a bit of a slippery slope to me. Could go either way. I know hypotheticals are dumb but this has me thinking...

-I rear-end some dude (a traffic accident...I know what some of you sickos were thinking)
-Dude gets out of his car, comes back and says "I'm a cop, get out of your car".
-I say show me your badge.
-He says, "I'm a cop" again...multiple verbal identifications...
-I say "nope".
-He tries to forcibly remove me and detain me.
-I am going to resist and defend. Ain't no doubt about it.

Is it reasonable to assume a LEO may show up at an accident and tell me to get out of my car? Sure. But is it also reasonable to think the guy may have wanted to kick my ass ala road rage? Yup, no matter what he said. Happens all the time. There's your slippery slope.

[Bailey Guns]

a single person approaches me claiming to be PD and tells me I'm under arrest for a crime I know I'm committing?

Had to fix it for you to make it a reasonable analogy to the encounter we're discussing.

[Byte Stryke]

Totally inappropriate analogy. And, Byte, you don't get to decide what is the appropriate way for an officer to make an arrest...state statute does.

OK if a guy in plainclothes comes up and wants to put you and your family in handcuffs, and haul the lot of you off. But he has no badge, no marked car and no credentials...

he lunges into your car.