LEO training & qualification

[TonyF]

Originally Posted by Philadelphia

I'm just about the first guy to give the police a break, but I'm really starting to think more strongly that if you're in the business of arresting people for violating criminal laws, you better know what the law is when you make that pinch.

Take a step back and reflect on how many members of this forum were ignorant of the fact that OC is legal. My point is that "cops are people too".

And if I'm an administrator of an LE agency with limited training and educational funds, you can bet your life I'm going to spend the lions share of their education on things that they are most likely to encounter.

In fact, let's not forget that OC isn't even covered by statute so how are they supposed to know about a law that doesn't exist? It is legal because there is no statute prohibiting it. What some of you guys are actually asking is for patrol cops to know case law (e.g. Hawkins). That's even worse than asking them to know "all" the laws on the books.

No way guys, I'm not giving an inch on this one.

[Philadelphia]

Originally Posted by TonyF

Take a step back and reflect on how many members of this forum were ignorant of the fact that OC is legal. My point is that "cops are people too".

And if I'm an administrator of an LE agency with limited training and educational funds, you can bet your life I'm going to spend the lions share of their education on things that they are most likely to encounter.

In fact, let's not forget that OC isn't even covered by statute so how are they supposed to know about a law that doesn't exist? It is legal because there is no statute prohibiting it. What some of you guys are actually asking is for patrol cops to know case law (e.g. Hawkins). That's even worse than asking them to know "all" the laws on the books.

No way guys, I'm not giving an inch on this one.

No problemo but you can't enforce laws that don't exist. Criminal laws are proscriptive. The text tells you what people can't do. If you want to arrest someone, somewhere down the road you had better be able to point to a law that says whatever it is is illegal. If you can't, you won't have to give an inch the judge will take care of what you'll be giving, welcome to the defendant's side of the courtroom. The basic premise is that the public can't be made to guess what is and isn't illegal and will land them in a cell. If you have to guess and wonder, how do you think John Q. is supposed to deal with his everyday life? Walk around wondering if his every move might at any moment be declared illegal by the police?

The crimes code is pretty short and very easy to understand.

All Hawkins did was remind the police and gov't that it's not illegal to openly carry a gun. There is no law against it. That case should really drive home the point that no matter what anyone might think, if the legislature didn't make something illegal, it's not. If it's not illegal to do it, it can't make people doing it suspicious either. These should not be remarkable conclusions requiring the Pa Supreme Court to tell us, but it did. Why, well people just refuse to believe that openly carrying a gun is, as a matter of law, not suspicious; it has to be, right? No, it's not. There's no law against it.

Seriously, if you think you need to see something written down saying people are allowed to do something before you'll let them do it, for your own good you better have a talk with your city solicitor or department counsel.

Oh and before I forget, I'm not arguing with you to criticize your point of view. I'm trying to get a handle on the various sides of the issue before I decide where I want to come down on it. So, I appreciate your point of vew.

[gf45acp]

They do not need to know that a law dosen't exist, they need to know one does. If nothing has told them that something is illegal then what do they think they are doing, as if no law is broken it is not a police matter.
If the numbers a correct 1 in 23 Pa citizens has an LTCF, over half of all Pa homes has a gun, and who knows how many people OC without a permit.
The average officer, knowingly or not, has to interact with legally armed persons on a regular basis, and if they don't want legal problems need to learn the limits of what they can do.
This is not just a gun issue, it is a stop and search issue, with all of it's constitutional complexities, and if police training does not cover this then the citizens of this commonwealth had better get after Harrisburg fast.
Just as citizens are told, ignorance of the law is no excuse, and "I was just following orders" don't cut it either.

[larrymeyer]

Tony like you my stance won't change> If you don't know the law how can you arrest anyone ?

As for PA case the officer stated on at least 4 occasions he knew the law he was offered a Gun Rights flier about OCing and refused it. They could have made telephone calls to the Chief or the DA's to find out the law.

Like when Mrs Pa was threatened with arrest for video taping the incident. While I don't expect a LEO to know all the laws on the books I do expect them to know the ones that deal with a persons rights. PA was never read his while we were there.

I believe a DA or someone who has access to the law books are on call to assist the police when they make a stop. Plus every collage offers a Judicial course on criminal justice which most municipalities will pay for a police officer to attend as laws change each year.

And it does cut down on law suites

[TonyF]

Originally Posted by Philadelphia

No problemo but you can't enforce laws that don't exist. Criminal laws are proscriptive. The text tells you what people can't do. If you want to arrest someone, somewhere down the road you had better be able to point to a law that says whatever it is is illegal. If you can't, you won't have to give an inch the judge will take care of what you'll be giving, welcome to the defendant's side of the courtroom. The basic premise is that the public can't be made to guess what is and isn't illegal and will land them in a cell. If you have to guess and wonder, how do you think John Q. is supposed to deal with his everyday life? Walk around wondering if his every move might at any moment be declared illegal by the police?

The crimes code is pretty short and very easy to understand.

All Hawkins did was remind the police and gov't that it's not illegal to openly carry a gun. There is no law against it. That case should really drive home the point that no matter what anyone might think, if the legislature didn't make something illegal, it's not. If it's not illegal to do it, it can't make people doing it suspicious either. These should not be remarkable conclusions requiring the Pa Supreme Court to tell us, but it did. Why, well people just refuse to believe that openly carrying a gun is, as a matter of law, not suspicious; it has to be, right? No, it's not. There's no law against it.

Seriously, if you think you need to see something written down saying people are allowed to do something before you'll let them do it, for your own good you better have a talk with your city solicitor or department counsel.

Oh and before I forget, I'm not arguing with you to criticize your point of view. I'm trying to get a handle on the various sides of the issue before I decide where I want to come down on it. So, I appreciate your point of vew.

Looking at it from the perspective of the limited training police officers receive, they're going to view open carry the way most people on this board did until they became educated otherwise and that basically means "permit required to carry a gun, permit is for concealed carry, gun not concealed, against the law".

[Philadelphia]

Originally Posted by TonyF

Looking at it from the perspective of the limited training police officers receive, they're going to view open carry the way most people on this board did until they became educated otherwise and that basically means "permit required to carry a gun, permit is for concealed carry, gun not concealed, against the law".

Not surprising and good to know.

Stay safe.

The fact that you are here spending your free time, with an open mind likely puts you at the top of your profession and I very much respect that.

[TonyF]

Originally Posted by larrymeyer

Tony like you my stance won't change

Fair enough.

If you don't know the law how can you arrest anyone ?

Not all judges know all the laws either yet we let them preside over criminal cases and occasionally they issue bad rulings.

As for PA case the officer stated on at least 4 occasions he knew the law he was offered a Gun Rights flier about OCing and refused it.

I have always applauded PA Patriot's flyer initiative but it is not a legal document and therefore it is not something that an officer on scene would review and "use" in his assessment of the situation. If he takes it and reads it off duty and educates himself, great.

They could have made telephone calls to the Chief or the DA's to find out the law.

CLEO's and DA's aren't knowledgeable on all the laws either. What's to say they would have had a different opinion?

Like when Mrs Pa was threatened with arrest for video taping the incident. While I don't expect a LEO to know all the laws on the books I do expect them to know the ones that deal with a persons rights. PA was never read his while we were there.

I'm not siding with the police in his particular incident but constitutional rights are also extremely complex. Maybe even more so than statutes.

I believe a DA or someone who has access to the law books are on call to assist the police when they make a stop. Plus every collage offers a Judicial course on criminal justice which most municipalities will pay for a police officer to attend as laws change each year.

I'll bet you could go to law school for 25 years and still not know all the laws on the books.

[reverserboy]

OK where do I start??

First.....comparing a LEO to a lawyer is not valid. Cops don't do wills,divorce,real estate,incorporation,family law,med malpractice of any of the other stuff lawyers do. They just need to know the crimes code & motor vehicle laws.

The biggies are:traffic stops,Terry stops,POW,UFA & what is & is not a legal search. An improper Terry stop or search could mean a real criminal,who needs locking up,walks away a free scumbag.

In PA there are somewhere around a half million LCTFs. PA is one of the biggest deer hunting places & I understand has the most NRA members. Sooo perhaps LEOs should know the UFA a little better.

As far as me:

To be considered for my job. You'll have to be a HS grad but a 9th grade reading level won't cut it. They will want you to be older than 18.

You will have no felonies or drug convictions of any kind.

You will have a physical exam,including an EKG. AND you will get one every 12 months.
You will pass a vision & hearing test & you will pass one every 12 months.

You will be subject to D&A testing both random, probable cause,post incident & pre employment.

You will be subject to a background & credit check.

You must be able to pass a standard color vision test.

You will take the Londonhouse personality inventory AND a battery of aptitude tests. (takes about 5 hours)

Have a panel interview.

If you get hired you will go through a 20 month training program. Fail any exam twice & you're terminated. About 60% of those who start,finish.

If anyone has any more questions about the requirements for my job please PM me.

[Philadelphia]

Originally Posted by TonyF

I'm not siding with the police in his particular incident but constitutional rights are also extremely complex. Maybe even more so than statutes.

If I might again provide some friendly unsolicited advice, if you can't point to a law that say somebody can't do something, you are far better off not telling them they can't. You don't need to be a constitutional scholar to follow that road.

In very practical terms, someone video taping an incident is likely your friend if what you are doing is the right thing. You know what I mean.

I've said basically the same on other forums but I believe it so I'll say it again: if what you are doing is something you genuinely, honestly believe is the right thing, it likely is and you can always hold your head up and there will always be plenty who are proud of you.

Stopping someone from video taping things that occur in public -- is that something anyone believes is wrong? or right? Who really gives a shit? Let them do it (unless you can point to a law that says they can't -- which you won't be able to, at least not clearly).

[TonyF]

Originally Posted by Philadelphia

If I might again provide some friendly unsolicited advice, if you can't point to a law that say somebody can't do something, you are far better off not telling them they can't. You don't need to be a constitutional scholar to follow that road.

In very practical terms, someone video taping an incident is likely your friend if what you are doing is the right thing. You know what I mean.

I've said basically the same on other forums but I believe it so I'll say it again: if what you are doing is something you genuinely, honestly believe is the right thing, it likely is and you can always hold your head up and there will always be plenty who are proud of you.

Stopping someone from video taping things that occur in public -- is that something anyone believes is wrong? or right? Who really gives a shit? Let them do it (unless you can point to a law that says they can't -- which you won't be able to, at least not clearly).

Officers Mariano and Gallager both need an attitude adjustment. No argument there. In fact, by Mariano's demeanor in this one incident tells me he often uses heavy handed tactics and it's probably because he's not too bright (when all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a nail).

But on balance, I still maintain there is no way police officers, judges and lawyers should be expected to know every law on the books.

They should however be expected to handle situations professionally and professionalism was definitely lacking in the OCB incident on many levels.