Police Education

[BushMasterBoy]

In regards to the last part I thought posting of sings in parks was illegal as well. I remember reading (maybe here) about someone calling local jurisdictions complaining about there no guns policy was against state law. OC in this case....... And didn't a city in the mountains have to pay in a civil case for their rights being violated by two cops who hit the guy and tackled him for OC in a park??
Local jurisdiction was apologizing and removing said sign from parks. Maybe that's why the cheat sheet was out of date??? At one time it was legal but now it is not?

It is my interpretation, that if the property is "city owned" then they can regulate if firearms are allowed in that building or other area. If a city park sign says "No Firearms" then they can enforce it.

As for the case you mentioned about a "city in the mountains" I have never heard of it, but maybe another member of the forum knows something about it.

[WETWRKS]

Ok, here is my thoughts on all of this.

My job is not in law enforcement. I am required by my employer to know not just the company rules but also what I am allowed to do legally.

According to the government and these officers...I am required to know the law. Not just what applies to me at the minute. I am required to know all law.

Officers...under their same requirements of my knowing the law also are required to know the law. But moreover...it is their JOB to know the law. They have even more of a requirement to know what the current law is. Someone mentioned that it changed 9 years ago. Would I be able to get away with the excuse that I knew what the law WAS and was acting based on that? I would still be arrested.

They held someone against that persons will...this would be kidnapping or unlawful detainment.

They took someone's personal property...this would be theft.

Those are both criminal actions. These officers need to be arrested and charged. If I failed to follow the law...if I did either of these actions I would be arrested.

[WETWRKS]

I posted this article originally so that EVERYBODY that reads it can cite the law if in a similiar situation. These excerpts are pasted from Lexis/Nexis which claims to be the official publisher of Colorado Law. Why the state can not publish it own laws baffles me!

lexis/nexus is one of several companies that publish the state laws. The state could...but it would cost money.

Pretty much it all boils down to what the lawyer prefers. Some like one company, some another. Some like it in soft bound. Others want a nice hard bound. Some want a hard copy. Others are ok with doing it all on line.

[Bailey Guns]

Ok, here is my thoughts on all of this.

My job is not in law enforcement. I am required by my employer to know not just the company rules but also what I am allowed to do legally.

According to the government and these officers...I am required to know the law. Not just what applies to me at the minute. I am required to know all law.

Officers...under their same requirements of my knowing the law also are required to know the law. But moreover...it is their JOB to know the law. They have even more of a requirement to know what the current law is. Someone mentioned that it changed 9 years ago. Would I be able to get away with the excuse that I knew what the law WAS and was acting based on that? I would still be arrested.

They held someone against that persons will...this would be kidnapping or unlawful detainment.

They took someone's personal property...this would be theft.

Those are both criminal actions. These officers need to be arrested and charged. If I failed to follow the law...if I did either of these actions I would be arrested.

The officers appeared to be acting in good faith based on information provided by their department. There is ample case law that protects them from liability in these circumstances. Ultimately, though, a civil court will decide.

Just one example:

Officer not liable for false arrest and false imprisonment. Where police officer had both probable cause to believe that an offense had been committed and that the plaintiff was the person who had committed it, he was not civilly liable for false arrest and false imprisonment. Beyer v. Young, 32 Colo. App. 273, 513 P.2d 1086 (1973).

And from 18-8-103 Resisting Arrest (I know the guy wasn't resisting...just for reference)

(2) It is no defense to a prosecution under this section that the peace officer was attempting to make an arrest which in fact was unlawful, if he was acting under color of his official authority, and in attempting to make the arrest he was not resorting to unreasonable or excessive force giving rise to the right of self-defense. A peace officer acts "under color of his official authority" when, in the regular course of assigned duties, he is called upon to make, and does make, a judgment in good faith based upon surrounding facts and circumstances that an arrest should be made by him.

If a peace officer is acting in good faith, based on information provided by their department policies and training, and they make an arrest based on the information/training they believe to be valid, they're given certain protections, even when that information/training was wrong.

If it wasn't that way, then every time a jury acquitted someone of an offense they could claim they were arrested falsely.

[WETWRKS]

The officers appeared to be acting in good faith based on information provided by their department. There is ample case law that protects them from liability in these circumstances. Ultimately, though, a civil court will decide.

Just one example:

And from 18-8-103 Resisting Arrest (I know the guy wasn't resisting...just for reference)
If a peace officer is acting in good faith, based on information provided by their department policies and training, and they make an arrest based on the information/training they believe to be valid, they're given certain protections, even when that information/training was wrong.

If it wasn't that way, then every time a jury acquitted someone of an offense they could claim they were arrested falsely.

Ok...under that same idea...say I was told in my ccw class that it is ok to ccw a machine gun...do I get off under good faith? Would an officer let me walk under that good faith? Would a DA?

They stated that ignorance of the law is no excuse....that is a 2way road.

[Byte Stryke]

professional and criminal negligence.

[Bailey Guns]

You're welcome to your opinion...even if it isn't consistent with the law or case law. But it doesn't change anything.

Furthermore, I'm not saying any of that will apply in this incident. But it is there and will be brought up. But it still doesn't justify the failure of the PD to make the necessary changes to their training program.

[Bailey Guns]

Ok...under that same idea...say I was told in my ccw class that it is ok to ccw a machine gun...do I get off under good faith? Would an officer let me walk under that good faith? Would a DA?

They stated that ignorance of the law is no excuse....that is a 2way road.

False analogy.

That has absolutely nothing to do with performance of your official duties or acting in good faith under the color of law as a POST certified peace officer. If you're going to try to argue the point you need to at least make an attempt to understand what you're arguing against.

Not to mention, if your "machine gun" was a lawfully possessed handgun (say you're a Glock LE rep, lawfully permitted to CCW by the state, and had access to a legally possessed Glock 18), why would it be illegal?

BTW...I know someone who regularly did this several years ago.

[DSull]

If you want to teach those cops a lesson they won't forget "lawsuit" will do the trick!

[Byte Stryke]

If you want to teach those cops a lesson they won't forget "lawsuit" will do the trick!

Thats the point, they are exempt.
they can beat you into a coma and cannot be touched.
the department can be sued, they personally will not and cannot be touched.