Let's discuss the off-duty officer who pulled a gun on kids recently.

a reply to: HushedNoLonger

you gotta love apologists...

I couldn't find one specifically for CA but I would assume it's not much different

When off-duty and only if within the legal jurisdiction of this law enforcement agency, an officer may make an arrest only when: * The arresting officer is not personally involved in the incident underlying the arrest; and

* There is an immediate need to prevent a crime or apprehend a suspect; and

* The crime would require a full custodial arrest; and

* The arresting officer possesses appropriate police identification.

www.aele.org...


and

Just because someone is a police officer does not mean that they are acting under color of law. “… [T]he fact that an individual is a police officer does not render all of his actions to be under color of state law. Gibson v. City of Chicago 910 F. 2d 1510, 1516 (7th Cir. 1990). The United States Supreme Court has held that the ‘acts of officers in the ambit of their personal pursuits are plainly excluded.’ Screws v. United States 325 US 91, 111 ….” McCloughan v. City of Springfield 172 F. Supp. 2d 1009, 1014-1015 (C.D. Ill. 2001).

www.policeone.com...

a reply to: vonclod

I'm sorry I'm not understanding what you are trying to say when you say...

And allegedly assaulting the officer..that's why the police have less and less credibility these day's

Why is that an example of police having less credibility? Are you saying he wasn't assaulted? The officer was not struck in the head and bleeding? That is still under investigation. So we cannot say this officer has no credibility yet.

a reply to: HushedNoLonger

You are correct about it still being investigated..I will have to re watch the vid.
I will wait before further commenting.

a reply to: FamCore
From your source

This does not apply to situations where the police officer is a victim of crime.

Assault is a crime, he was the victim...threats are a crime, he was the victim...
I can't find a link about California directly either. Some states say officers are obligated to make arrests while off duty, some seem to prohibit it. Guess we'll have to wait and see.

a reply to: FamCore

Maybe these disrespectful teens should be removed from their parents and remanded to state custody until they can be put into good homes, with foster parents who can teach them some discipline and morals. Maybe, if their parents had taught them respect, this whole incident could have been avoided. Maybe if you play the stupid game, you win the stupid prize.

a reply to: Crumbles

An off duty officer is still an officer with all the power to arrest or hold a suspect. period. and an off duty officer has an obligation to be armed at all times. It seemed to me as if one or more teens were interfering with the officers duty and attempting to aid and abet a suspect being lawfully detained. What I saw in the video was an officer holding a suspect who was resisting , who was being physically assaulted by multiple attackers and drew his weapon in defense. In the struggle there was an accidental discharge. The multiple attackers were scared off by the firearm. Backup arrived and arrest were made.

a reply to: chopperswolf

Omg yea they should be placed in foster homes for walking across someone's grass. Those kids did not seem that bad unless you are some kind of "old crabby get off my lawn kids these days" types. Bad kids would have been tatted up wearing gang colors smoking cigarettes and running mopeds up and down that guys lawn.

There definitely needs to be more info released but since this is a conspiracy site let me propose a possible theory, that cop had Trump signs on his lawn months before and these kids have had it out for him since. Just a theory but remember the cop did say it's been happening for months.

If we are to believe the kids and witnesses story a girl walked across his lawn and the cop yelled "get off my lawn #" or something to that effect, that's when the kid mouthed off at the cop for talking to her like that. The cop then crossed several yards to apprehend a kid that wasn't even the original tresspasser If I'm hearing the story right, he then drags the kids over several lawns back on to his property so he can hold him under citizen's arrest?

Well that all doesn't really sound like a lawful arrest and the cop showed no badge as far as I can tell on the video so why should those kids believe him? I say good for those kids for sticking up for their friend.

Where is xcathdra he is an expert on these issues as he is or was a LEO, I would like to hear his opinion on this matter.

originally posted by: HushedNoLonger
a reply to: peter vlar

My citation also points out that he is obligated to in force the law even while off duty. That minor was being held after allegedly assaulting and threatening an officer.

Yes, but there are also protocols that he neglected to follow such as calling the police who are responsible for the jurisdiction that he lived in as he worked for a different department.

The gun was pointed at the ground meant as a warning shot.

Please tell me that's some tongue in cheek humor that somehow went over my head. Warning shots are a violation of both department policy and local laws. I'm sorry but that's nothing but a rationalization and if he was firin a warning shot as opposed to an "accidental" discharge, then that's actually even more egregious and demonstrates that this man should not have access to firearms in a public setting. It's an extraordinarily irresponsible and highly dangerous move and not one that should have been made by a supposed law enforcement "professional". It reminds me of the DEA agent speaking to a high school class a few years ago who, while lecturing them about how they shouldn't have guns because he was the only person who had the level of training required to handle one responsibly, managed to shoot himself in front of the entire class.

In the video as he is pulling the kid over the shrub he is clearly out numbered, a teen is seen approaching from behind the officer reaching for something in his back pocket, what? That's unclear. When you are outnumbered have been hit in the head hard enough to nearly black out and are bleeding as a result, I'm sure "sue" and "shoot" sound similar. What was actually said? That is also unclear. Of course multiple witnesses heard him say "sue" there were what? 10 teens surrounding this guy? These teens were looking for trouble and boy did they find it! Read all of my previous posts, I never said they should let this officer go without discipline at all, I clearly said he needs to face what happened.

Except that there would have been zero teens surrounding him bad he not allegedly struck a girl first. Had he used proper protocol and called for patrol units to respond. I'm sorry but trespassing is a violation. The off duty officer escalated a violation into a misdemeanor and possibly felomies on his own end because he overreacted and decided to forget he is supposed to be both the adult in this situation as well as a professional. He acted like neither. Had he acted like an adult, the situation would never have escalated to the point where you need to make up rationalizations for his illegal warning shot.

What I also said multiple times, that people seem to keep missing, is that these teens are ALSO in the wrong. They need to face that TOO! There is absolutely no way these teens were sweet innocent children skipping home from school tra lala...when a crazy deranged trigger happy officer started popping off shots. Which is exactly how some are interpreting this video.

And likewise, the officer was not some proper acting professional who acted properly and within the letter of the law. If he overreacts in such a fashion to kids walking on his lawn, how does he react if someone decides to be a smart ass during a traffic stop? Sorry, he's supposed to be both an adult and a professional. He was neither.

originally posted by: odzeandennz
imagine if that kid was walking by himself and walked on the guy's grass... or if there was no video, or if the killed a kid over his grass.

If that kid was alone he most-likely would not have gone near the guys property but once in a pack of teens, the mob mentality and showoffmanship takes over. A little bit of adrenalin from doing something a little bit wrong fuels the events and next thing you know the pack is out of control.

a reply to: peter vlar

The only arguments I can pose to your reply are the ones I've already quoted because the news is basically all we have to go on. Unless you can find Anaheim code of conduct for off duty officers somewhere on the internet. Everything else is speculation and opinions. It was mentioned in OP's link that the cops were called and en route. Other than giving my opinion in my first post in this thread, I have merely tried to bring some logic to the conversation with quotes and sources found online that directly addressed some of the things discussed in this topic. It is NOT my opinion that this officer had the right to do what he did. Just because I quote something off the internet doesn't necessarily mean that is the platform I'm standing on. And no, with the exception of the Judge Judy references I do not find this funny.

originally posted by: peter vlar
Warning shots are a violation of both department policy and local laws. I'm sorry but that's nothing but a rationalization and if he was firin a warning shot as opposed to an "accidental" discharge, then that's actually even more egregious and demonstrates that this man should not have access to firearms in a public setting.

So ... you believe the officer should have placed a well-aimed shot into the chest of one of the kids/instigators who were aggressing him?

a reply to: FamCore

That's also true, most jurisdictions either have a judicial bar or departmental policy forbidding a LEO to act if he/she has a dog in the hunt. You can't respond to your sister calling in on 911, there's a conflict of interest. In like fashion, I'm pretty sure if you 'arrest' someone as an off duty cop that is breaking into your house, the courts SHOULD find that questionable-to-unlawful if you act in your capacity as a LEO.

And non-LEOs can't arrest or detain for misdemeanors. Nor do non-LEOs get to shoot kids for cutting across the corners of the lawn. So by trying to put on the LEO hat in mid stride there, he might actually have damaged his position. Can a cop arrest as a cop for your intrusion onto his property? That sure seems like personal involvement.

originally posted by: Bedlam
Can a cop arrest as a cop for your intrusion onto his property? That sure seems like personal involvement.

Gets down to Judge shopping. A reasonable judge will let the cop off. It happens nearly every time.

originally posted by: Snarl

originally posted by: Bedlam
Can a cop arrest as a cop for your intrusion onto his property? That sure seems like personal involvement.

Gets down to Judge shopping. A reasonable judge will let the cop off. It happens nearly every time.

And then cops are mystified as to why everyone detests them, and conclude that it's because we're all criminals.

originally posted by: Deny Arrogance
Even though officialy off-duty, the officer was still obligated to intervene in any criminal activity he witnessed.

The officer was within his right to detain the hoodlum. The gang of thugs had no right to assault the officer.

The officer was in immediate physical jeopoardy from the attackers and fired a warning shot to scare off the thugs before it escalated to where he had no choice but to use lethal force.

Case closed.

The officer should have some foresight if there's a school close by. If he don't like people walking on his property, he is at liberty to inform the public by which a posted sign at either end would suffice. He didn't do anything proactive at a crime scene to stop a crime from taking place, he created a crime scene due to his reactions.

The sign on the end of my driveway says cameras in use...
It's theoretically supposed to thwart the idea of getting stupid on my property.
What it actually does is warn potential thieves that I got my eyes on them, they don't deserve the heads-up, but I give it to them anyway.

If I get them on film, and it's good film, I don't have to be the one chasing them down.
In a way, I remove myself from the personal situation protecting my property enlists.
Laws are to protect the citizens?

Will we learn it was rather a neighbor/witness who rang the dispatcher than the busy-radio-less off-duty citizen-cop?

It's the problem with administering policy the right way, good cops know's what I mean, bad cops are offended.

a reply to: conspiracy nut

The policies you cited are not going to apply in this case. California law, like any other state, allows a peace / police officer to make an arrest within their jurisdiction as well as outside their jurisdiction. Even law enforcement from one state on vacation in another state could take action in certain circumstances.

In California -
CA Penal Code 836 - CHAPTER 5. Arrest, by Whom and How Made [833 - 851.90]

(a) A peace officer may arrest a person in obedience to a warrant, or, pursuant to the authority granted to him or her by Chapter 4.5 (commencing with Section 830) of Title 3 of Part 2, without a warrant, may arrest a person whenever any of the following circumstances occur:

(1) The officer has probable cause to believe that the person to be arrested has committed a public offense in the officer’s presence.

(2) The person arrested has committed a felony, although not in the officer’s presence.

(3) The officer has probable cause to believe that the person to be arrested has committed a felony, whether or not a felony, in fact, has been committed.

Believe it or not trespassing is a crime - CPC 602 - Trespassing

(t) (1) Entering upon private property, including contiguous land, real property, or structures thereon belonging to the same owner, whether or not generally open to the public, after having been informed by a peace officer at the request of the owner, the owner’s agent, or the person in lawful possession, and upon being informed by the peace officer that he or she is acting at the request of the owner, the owner’s agent, or the person in lawful possession, that the property is not open to the particular person; or refusing or failing to leave the property upon being asked to leave the property in the manner provided in this subdivision.

When they trespassed they violated state law. The owner of the property took action and the kids decided to act stupid and ignore commands to stop. He took one of the kids into custody (in CA a peace officer as well as a private individual can make an arrest). He did not draw his gun until he was assaulted by 2 kids, at which point he drew his weapon.

We are not allowed to give warning shots - period. Discharging a firearm is by definition deadly force. If the situation does not arise to a deadly force situation then you cannot justify using a deadly force option.

If he gave a warning shot then he can face charges / IA review.
If he accidentally discharged his weapon then he can face charges / IA review.
If he drew his weapon in self defense to A- protect himself, B- the kid in custody against more than one aggressor then he could have been justified in using deadly force in self defense. However given the mindset in CA the libtards would have gone nuts.

I have no idea if he ever identified himself as law enforcement either before the recording or during the incident which can have an impact on crimes committed by the kids who attacked him / interfered. We also dont know if the same kids were involved in any sort of previous encounters with this officer or any from the Anaheim PD regarding the same issue.

Was he justified in pulling a weapon? Based on the video and the actions of the kids attacking him absolutely. Was he justified in discharging it? Based on the video alone - nope.

Since 9/11 states changed the ways their laws work governing law enforcement and when and where they can take action. I know of no state that restricts law enforcement to their own jurisdiction. Its one of the reasons departments have policies governing actions of their officers. In my state I carry a carry a class A post license. It is the same class highway patrol, St. Louis, Kansas City etc officers carry. It denotes the level (hours) of training an officer receives and under MO law I can take action anywhere in the state regardless of jurisdiction (and I have on a few occasions).

Does an LAPD officer have primary jurisdiction in Anaheim? Nope. Can an LAPD officer take enforcement action inside the city limits of Anaheim based on CA state law - Yup and it depends on the circumstances. A basic rule of thumb for law enforcement outside their jurisdiction contemplating taking an official action is to be mindful of the sandbox you are about to take a dump in.

Just because you can take action does not mean you should. Sometimes its better to be a expert witness for the jurisdiction who has responsibility. As for what LAPD policy says on enforcement action taken outside their jurisdiction I have no idea. I will say its entirely possible to violate departmental policy while still being in compliance with state law.

A situation that can still result in termination and the city disassociating itself with the officer, meaning if any civil law suit comes down the pipeline the officer (or former officer in this example) faces it alone, including any monetary judgement awarded.

My opinion is based on the video / news article. There is info we do not have and we should keep that in mind before demanding his head on a platter.

originally posted by: Snarl

originally posted by: Bedlam
Can a cop arrest as a cop for your intrusion onto his property? That sure seems like personal involvement.

Gets down to Judge shopping. A reasonable judge will let the cop off. It happens nearly every time.

Only if the officer is charged and specifically request a trial by a judge. Absent that the judge has no say in charges, guilt or innocence.

The post was also in response to

a reply to: FamCore


My comment about the policies not applying are in reference to your post and not solely conspiracy nut.

Sorry for the confusion to both of you.

a reply to: Xcathdra

CA law being so complex/ambiguous on the point, is cutting across the corner of his lawn even trespassing, if he has no signage or fencing?

They're much more definitive if it's a business. When it's a residence, if you're not loitering or vandalizing, it's tough to say.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Is walking across someone's lawn considered trespass? According to the trespass law I cited someone would have to be on your property for a certain period of time and unwilling to leave after being asked to. The person making the citizen arrest would be in the clear if they made the arrest on their property only after asking the offender to leave. Well the police officer walked across several lawns to detain the alleged offender on someone else's property then dragged the alleged offender back on to his property to make the arrest, just going off of that and the trespass law I cited, it does not seem like a legit arrest.

If that officer never showed police identification I applaud those other kids for helping him. He could have been a kidnapping pedophile for all they knew.