Game Officer harassment

[Pa. Patriot]

so if they were on thier way for official buisness, ie, carcass removeal, or to a to give a speech. then they are in the scope of employment. Sounds to me its like on or off duty........I think that would fall back onto what was said hours ago, it all depends on the report.

Well, I disagree that the act of getting lunch is within the scope of their duties, unless they were hired specifically to, and are being paid to, get lunch.

As for the reports, I think there is some truth to that. BUT, in order to create RAS where none truly exists one would have to LIE on the report. Which I know for a fact, and I'm sure others expect, happens occasionally.
Good point though.

[1861]

I have a question since I,'m not originally from PA. Do game wardens and park rangers run radar and work traffic in general ? This just doesn't make sense to me . Not saying it isn't true .

[thetruepyromaniak]

I dont think they should, I also dont think he should have asked her if she had a LCTF....That was never my issue. Its how I the reation taken. More so the Attitude in which, To me its kind of like saying you should respect a vetern because he was only a cook. IMO its just BS. If your obeying the law, why worry, and if heaven forbid you come into a situation where you are legal and are harrased, then thank god for good laywers. If that WCO would have thought she was attempting to draw(again wasnt there, dont know how it went down.) and shot her dead, I think more people would fall into my lines of thinking. (NOT WISHING THAT UPON ANYONE). They would all be saying, what a goof, why reach twords your gun after raising your voice with a LEO. IMO of course.

[riverpirate]

See my prior reply. 1(b) is contingent on (a)(1) and (a)(2).

Sorry, but (a)(1) and (2) are pretty clear.



There was no crime afoot at the BK in the OP's story. And they (WCO) were not "acting within the scope of their employment" (a(1)) while standing in line at BK
AND they were not "at the time and places the officer is authorized to perform the activity."... unless there is hunting going on at BK

to answer your first post.
do i believe they should be able to pull over someone to check their license?
well in the context of what we are talking about ( a obvious gun printing in a busy fast food place that could be a danger to others )
they yes if the way the person is driving can be construed as a possible danger to other individuals.

as far as what happened at BK , i am not defending them on that. i clearly state this over and over. i think they WERE being jerks as the story is written.

as far as their powers/authority. it clearly states " if the offense occurs in front of them"
of the act only to the degree necessary to protect life and property in any one or more of the following circumstances:

(i) The offense occurs in the officer’s presence.

(ii) The offense occurs on lands or waters owned, leased or otherwise controlled by the Commission.

(iii) The offense arises out of Commission operations.

(iv) Another law enforcement agency has reasonably requested the assistance
all they need to meet this requirement is one of the above not all or only on game lands or only while they are working on a case.

[Pa. Patriot]

I dont think they should, I also dont think he should have asked her if she had a LCTF....That was never my issue. Its how I the reation taken. More so the Attitude in which, To me its kind of like saying you should respect a vetern because he was only a cook. IMO its just BS.

Hey, I got no issue with your opinion on that... I also basically agree. I do however like to play devils advocate too. Maybe when an LEO oversteps his authority , and asks something that is none of his business, it's not so bad for them to be treated to what someone not in a uniform would be treated to, IE "non of your biz"

If that WCO would have thought she was attempting to draw(again wasnt there, dont know how it went down.) and shot her dead, I think more people would fall into my lines of thinking. (NOT WISHING THAT UPON ANYONE). They would all be saying, what a goof, why reach twords your gun after raising your voice with a LEO. IMO of course.

Yeah, I can certainly appreciate that angle, something I did not think of on reading the OP. I know I, as a regular OC'er, never ever look like I am touching my gun, or about to while out and about. I can only assume that Michelle, being the bright bulb that she is, swept her cover garment aside in a way that was obviously not anything close to reaching for her sidearm.

[unclejumbo]

I have a question since I,'m not originally from PA. Do game wardens and park rangers run radar and work traffic in general ? This just doesn't make sense to me . Not saying it isn't true .

Park rangers can run speed enforcement (not radar) in state parks.

[Pa. Patriot]

to answer your first post.
do i believe they should be able to pull over someone to check their license?
well in the context of what we are talking about ( a obvious gun printing in a busy fast food place that could be a danger to others )
they yes if the way the person is driving can be construed as a possible danger to other individuals.

Well, that's unfortunate. A vehicle can be a danger to others too. People that carry guns are mostly good. as are people that drive cars. So, again, your entitled to your opinion and I do thank you for answering the question. It just is disappointing to hear you agree with the stigma that carrying a gun is "bad".

as far as what happened at BK , i am not defending them on that. i clearly state this over and over. i think they WERE being jerks as the story is written.

Good to hear

as far as their powers/authority. it clearly states " if the offense occurs in front of them"
of the act only to the degree necessary to protect life and property in any one or more of the following circumstances:

(i) The offense occurs in the officer’s presence.
---snip----.

Yes, I understand that... And as I posted, that is conditional on a(1) and a(2)
It's right there in B&W. I can't make you believe it, and I'm OK with you disagreeing. But if you read the case snips below the code you'll see that a(1) and a(2) ARE qualifiers to the part you keep posting.

[son of the revolution]

as far as their powers/authority. it clearly states " if the offense occurs in front of them"
of the act only to the degree necessary to protect life and property in any one or more of the following circumstances:

(i) The offense occurs in the officer’s presence.

And this is where the hang up occurs . What " offense " occured , in the WCO's presence , in BK ? As has already been pointed out , PA has NO " printing " laws . And the mere carrying of a weapon does not , in and of itself , rise to the level of RAS , absent some other factor .

[riverpirate]

Well, that's unfortunate. A vehicle can be a danger to others too. People that carry guns are mostly good. as are people that drive cars. So, again, your entitled to your opinion and I do thank you for answering the question. It just is disappointing to hear you agree with the stigma that carrying a gun is "bad".



Good to hear



Yes, I understand that... And as I posted, that is conditional on a(1) and a(2)
It's right there in B&W. I can't make you believe it, and I'm OK with you disagreeing. But if you read the case snips below the code you'll see that a(1) and a(2) ARE qualifiers to the part you keep posting.

i dont think legally carrying a gun is "bad" in any way. I am a realist though. the town i work in has many gangs and quite a few carry guns and are not afraid to use them. so i do believe that some consideration should be given on wether the individual is carrying that gun legaly or not.

we will agree to disagree on the authority of WCO's . i will continue to respect their position in the law enforcement comunity.

[Mocha Java]

I take it all back. The WCO's were on official business investigating the serving of hedgehog hamburgers when the OP showed up. Therefore, they were unquestionably acting in the scope of their employment and the OP's response was simply uncalled for.