Quote Originally Posted by al-x View Post
Here's my thought: a lot of times we (general public) are subjected to interpretation of the laws by LEOs, which may or may not be entirely accurate. My quoted exampled from Idmaster show that he "quotes" the statute as "flick of a finger" but when he posts the actual statute, it clearly says "flick of a button, pressure on the handle or other MECHANICAL contrivance." That represents a big difference in the construction of the knife. Take my CRKT SF-13 for example. It CAN be opened with the flick of a finger, because it has a lever on the blade, which allows it to be opened with the flick of your finger, or upon pulling it out from your pocket, much like the "wave" feature on Emerson knives.
Um, yeah? I would say most LEO's do know the law as it tends to bite them in the tail end if they would do an enforcement action and be wrong. If Idmaster were to enforce his interpretation of the law (mind you, my post also discussed this point ad nauseum) and it was to be found in court to be wrong, depending upon which agency he worked, the citation would be dismissed, a letter would be sent by the D.A. to his agency (dependent upon the D.A.'s office and their relationship with his agency) and he would be open to a complaint by the citizen and possible civil remedies from a lawsuit. An officer wouldn't be covered under governmental immunity if he was plain wrong and couldn't be covered under good faith.

That's one reason why the attorney general's office and most local D.A.'s offices conduct training with law enforcement on the new statutes, changes in statute and new non-funded mandates required by statute in order to keep the majority of law enforcement out of trouble. Most good agencies will enhance that training with training of their own on a monthly basis, discussing new case law, new trends, new tactics, new municipal ordinances, etc. Continuous training is necessary in law enforcement to keep up with all the ever changing statutes, case law, circumstances, and such.