Play stupid games, win stupid prizes

[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.

[hollohas]

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.

You could also say that he didn't have his gun's holster because it was on his duty belt, next to the badge on his shirt, but he brought the gun with him...

Toss on a jacket or a sweatshirt and you got what he thought would be sufficient for such an endeavor.

If such an "endeavor" was so important that it required supervisor approval and an undercover operation, I find it hard to believe he thought a sweatshirt was sufficient...one would have to not be too sharp to think that.

OneGuy, you're a LEO too correct? Can you tell me you would go to make a probable arrest without your badge?

Bailey, you know the statutes well. All LEOs can carry concealed anytime they want but do they have to have proof they are a LEO while carrying?

[OneGuy67]

You could also say that he didn't have his gun's holster because it was on his duty belt, next to the badge on his shirt, but he brought the gun with him...



If such an "endeavor" was so important that it required supervisor approval and an undercover operation, I find it hard to believe he thought a sweatshirt was sufficient...one would have to not be too sharp to think that.

OneGuy, you're a LEO too correct? Can you tell me you would go to make a probable arrest without your badge?

Bailey, you know the statutes well. All LEOs can carry concealed anytime they want but do they have to have proof they are a LEO while carrying?

Yes I am.

I usually carry a badge on me at all times, so I can't answer that particular question in the light of the circumstances presented in the Aurora case. I can say if I am in the middle of dealing with a person who is actively resisting and I am yelling at him I am the police (as indicated in this situation by witnesses), I'm not going to stop going hands on to crack open my credentials in my back pocket.

In the cop world, you need supervisor approval to do most everything, other than basic law enforcement. He would be off the street to handle this incident, so other officers would have to take his calls, he might be out of district, etc. So, having supervisor approval isn't out of the norm for something like this and it isn't something that would be "normally" a big deal.

As for clothing, I don't know what he was wearing. I am assuming, based upon what could be immediately available for him to wear, that officers do tend to keep in vehicles. My old agency had packages of sweat pants, sweat shirts, socks and slipper type shoes in bags in the trunks of patrol vehicles to give to victims in the event clothing was needed (water emersion, fire escape, assault, etc). I don't know if Aurora does similar, but a sweatshirt, sweater or an unmarked jacket isn't out of the ordinary.

As for his gun, yep, his duty holster would be on his belt, but that doesn't stop someone from tucking in a gun into his pants.

Law Enforcement agencies tend to put the 'CCW' language on the identification cards, so his police ID card would be his 'CCW'.

[hollohas]

Yes I am.

I usually carry a badge on me at all times, so I can't answer that particular question in the light of the circumstances presented in the Aurora case. I can say if I am in the middle of dealing with a person who is actively resisting and I am yelling at him I am the police (as indicated in this situation by witnesses), I'm not going to stop going hands on to crack open my credentials in my back pocket.

Agreed and wouldn't expect any officer to. But in this instance it sounds like he had plenty of time to do that before hands on.

As for his gun, yep, his duty holster would be on his belt, but that doesn't stop someone from tucking in a gun into his pants.

As for him not having a chain to put his badge on, that wouldn't stop him from putting it in his pocket.

Law Enforcement agencies tend to put the 'CCW' language on the identification cards, so his police ID card would be his 'CCW'.

Thank you for the clarification on my question.

[OneGuy67]

Agreed and wouldn't expect any officer to. But in this instance it sounds like he had plenty of time to do that before hands on.

As for him not having a chain to put his badge on, that wouldn't stop him from putting it in his pocket.

I re-read the news reporting and it isn't clear as to how the events occurred once he identified himself or told the suspect he was under arrest. He might have had time as you indicate to be able to pull his ID or a badge if he had one on him, but he might not have had that time. I don't know and the reporting doesn't clarify.

Did he identify himself or tell the suspect he was under arrest and the suspect attempt to put the vehicle in gear to leave and the officer reached in to kill the vehicle, where he got punched several times? Hell, I don't know and again, the reporting doesn't indicate. There had to be a reason he tried to grab the guy through the window instead of opening the door to gain access to the guy.

Sure, he certainly could have put his badge in his pocket. It still goes back to the above paragraph.