Play stupid games, win stupid prizes

[Bailey Guns]

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.

I'm not arguing that sort of thing happens or might happen. There's a story HERE about it recently happening in the metro area. But, one of the victims said something about the encounter just didn't "feel" right. Maybe I'm wrong but I think most people, in most circumstances, are going to know if it's a real cop or not. Whether they act on their hunches or don't is another matter.

And I certainly hope some of you guys have a really good attorney on retainer if you really do react in a real world situation the way you say you will on this forum you're gonna need one.

[Bailey Guns]

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.

Misses point again....

"OK if a guy in plainclothes comes up, verbally identifies himself as a police officer and states my family members and I are under arrest for a crime we just committed (and we know we committed) 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..."

Fixed again.

[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?

[Byte Stryke]

Misses point again....

"OK if a guy in plainclothes comes up, verbally identifies himself as a police officer and states my family members and I are under arrest for a crime we just committed (and we know we committed) 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..."

Fixed again.

yeah still misses...

lets make it even more accurate

"That is driving the victims car and is probably be out for vigilante justice"

still doesn't address the "reasonable" clause of the statute

I do not believe it "unreasonable" for a law officer to produce his badge and credentials upon identifying himself. I Do find it unreasonable that a law officer would not have these on his person to produce when performing an arrest.

BUT, being as you are a former law officer and not in Adams county, we dont have to worry about you sitting on his jury.
And as I am more than due...

[hollohas]

And I certainly hope some of you guys have a really good attorney on retainer if you really do react in a real world situation the way you say you will on this forum you're gonna need one.

This coming from the guy who just told a story of pulling a gun on a guy in his store who gave him the evil eye and used strong words and another guy who wanted to kick his dog...Not saying you were wrong in either instance, just saying you're quick to pass judgement on me for saying I would defend myself against anyone that ATTACKED ME.

Before you're start thinking that I would shoot any guy that comes up to my car and tries to remove me, let me set the record straight. I would first simply try to drive away.

[Bailey Guns]

That's a fact. I've been dismissed from jury duty immediately every time I've been summoned.

I don't think there is a definition of "reasonable" under Title 18...but I don't recall for sure. But it basically means:

Reasonable man theory refers to a test whereby a hypothetical person is used as a legal standard, especially to determine if someone acted with negligence. This hypothetical person referred to as the reasonable/prudent man exercises average care, skill, and judgment in conduct that society requires of its members for the protection of their own and of others' interests. This serves as a comparative standard for determining liability. For example, the decision whether an accused is guilty of a given offense might involve the application of an objective test in which the conduct of the accused is compared to that of a reasonable person under similar circumstances.

[Bailey Guns]

This coming from the guy who just told a story of pulling a gun on a guy in his store who gave him the evil eye and used strong words and another guy who wanted to kick his dog...Not saying you were wrong in either instance, just saying you're quick to pass judgement on me for saying I would defend myself against anyone that ATTACKED ME.

Before you're start thinking that I would shoot any guy that comes up to my car and tries to remove me, let me set the record straight. I would first simply try to drive away.

You've got your stories mixed up. The first guy was a convicted felon - who I had arrested (for burglary) - who wouldn't remove his hand from his pocket (and it appeared he had his hand wrapped around something in said pocket) and was, in fact, giving me the "evil eye" for no good reason inside my business. I felt he was a distinct threat.

The other guy threatened to kick my dog. Nobody kicks my dog. In neither case did I say I was justified...that was for the sheriff's deputies to decide.

Also...that statement was not meant towards you in particular. Just a generic statement. And I haven't passed judgment on anyone. Just trying to present an opposing and informed point of view.

[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]

You've got your stories mixed up. The first guy was a convicted felon - who I had arrested (for burglary) - who wouldn't remove his hand from his pocket (and it appeared he had his hand wrapped around something in said pocket) and was, in fact, giving me the "evil eye" for no good reason inside my business. I felt he was a distinct threat.

The other guy threatened to kick my dog. Nobody kicks my dog. In neither case did I say I was justified...that was for the sheriff's deputies to decide.

Also...that statement was not meant towards you in particular. Just a generic statement. And I haven't passed judgment on anyone. Just trying to present an opposing and informed point of view.

IMO you were right in both...but you may need a good attorney too.

[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.