Quote Originally Posted by hollohas View Post
@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.