New improper government 30.06 fight

[Dave2]

[Not trying to argue here. Just curious how can you be "confident" you'll recoup your costs? I think people are arrested commonly and are not able to recoup their legal expenses, time, loss of pay if that comes into play and emotional toll.

I believe it is very important to make sure things are straight up front in order to avoid such situations. The idea of don't worry, I can beat the rap if I have to take the ride can be costly. I also think many cops are to quick to take the arrest and let the courts and DA's sort it out attitude too far. To me, that's akin to the "shoot'em all and let God sort them out" mentality.

Ok.. so.. I'm not 100% on recouping costs..
But I'm not going to let that stop me from exercising my rights.
I'm as diligent as I can be about checking the status of places I'm planning to go.... Then I go.

Don't you have a nearly guaranteed win in court if you get arrested for something the police know isn't illegal? Something about a such-and-such civil rights case? I forget the exact colloquial name for it.

[cb1000rider]

Don't you have a nearly guaranteed win in court if you get arrested for something the police know isn't illegal? Something about a such-and-such civil rights case? I forget the exact colloquial name for it.

Defense Attorney: Officer, isn't it true that you knew that my client wasn't violating the law?
LEO: Yes, I knew that and arrested him anyway.

The the above playing out in court are? That's the circumstance that has a shot at paying back.

The claim is going to be that they can't possibly know all the nuances of the law, which is absolutely true... It's easy to demonstrate how complex just that little section of the law is. It's pretty easy to conclude that if a LEO didn't know he/she was acting in reasonable good faith.

Handog has a pretty good example of an officer acting in what I'd consider bad faith. That officer arrested him and indicated handog's intent. It's the intent which made failure to conceal illegal, so clearly the officer, likely after some review (as handog didn't get arrested straight away), KNEW that law well enough, but arrested him anyway. As far as I know, no legal pay back and no legal repercussion to RR PD, even though there is no reported factual basis for writing down that the exposure was intentional. Don't know what I'm talking about? Review: viewtopic.php?f=7&t=31719

[Dave2]

Don't you have a nearly guaranteed win in court if you get arrested for something the police know isn't illegal? Something about a such-and-such civil rights case? I forget the exact colloquial name for it.

Defense Attorney: Officer, isn't it true that you knew that my client wasn't violating the law?
LEO: Yes, I knew that and arrested him anyway.

The the above playing out in court are? That's the circumstance that has a shot at paying back.

The claim is going to be that they can't possibly know all the nuances of the law

Nuances of the law? This isn't a nuanced interpretation... The law says the behavior in question isn't illegal right there in plain english. If they can get away with incomplete knowledge of the law, so can I. And since we all know I can not claim ignorance of the law as an excuse, and since we're all supposed to be equal under the law, then they can't claim it either.

[cb1000rider]

Nuances of the law? This isn't a nuanced interpretation... The law says the behavior in question isn't illegal right there in plain english. If they can get away with incomplete knowledge of the law, so can I. And since we all know I can not claim ignorance of the law as an excuse, and since we're all supposed to be equal under the law, then they can't claim it either.

I agree with you.. I'm just being the devils advocate and indicating that a payoff isn't a sure thing. Handogs case was *much* more egregious than what we are talking about here and I'll let you ask him about the legal advice he got regarding following it up via civil action. I'm simply suggesting that a sure payoff may cost a lot more than you think.

I assure you, than when it comes to comparing the public to LEOs, we are most certainly not equal under the law, regardless of what the law says.

Do you really expect all LEOs to know when 30.06 laws apply and when they don't? Now take into consideration the average educational requirements for an entry level LEO job... Still expect them to know? We know it because we're passionate about it, studied it, and re-studied it.. Yet you still see questions posted, myself included.

[lfinsr]

Do you really expect all LEOs to know when 30.06 laws apply and when they don't? Now take into consideration the average educational requirements for an entry level LEO job... Still expect them to know? We know it because we're passionate about it, studied it, and re-studied it.. Yet you still see questions posted, myself included.

With as much effort as I've spent learning the law I still feel there are items I'm not clear on so I just avoid those situations. However, expecting LEO's to understand it any better is hopeless, that's why there are judges. They determine whether or not the arrest was valid. The unfortunate part is there is little or no recourse on the LEO's part if they make a bad judgement call. We get arrested if we make a mistake.

Without question the laws really could be a lot clearer. The drawback to making it easier to understand is people that don't want us in their business will also understand the simplified version. If the folks in Austin clarify/simplify the laws, I'm speculating but, I see it ending in us having many more businesses correctly posting a 30.06 (or whatever is valid) sign expanding, instead of shrinking, the no carry places. The exact same thing Charles was concerned about regarding the new laws that apply to hotels. If we make any noise about inadequate notification before checking into a hotel, the chains will simply put up blanket notices banning us, the easiest solution in their mind.

There is no easy answer to this problem, at least from my point of view...

Larry

[tommyg]

It is a mistake to educate anyone about proper signage. It will only cause the anti bunch to put up legal signs leading to more restricted areas

[Dave2]

Do you really expect all LEOs to know when 30.06 laws apply and when they don't?

Yep.

Now take into consideration the average educational requirements for an entry level LEO job... Still expect them to know?

Well, hold on, let me think about it... Yep.

We know it because we're passionate about it, studied it, and re-studied it.. Yet you still see questions posted, myself included.

We're not tasked with arresting people who violate the law.

[cb1000rider]

Dave,
I like your standards. Plano PD has pretty high standards for officers and I've had good experiences with them... Plano also has a higher end pay scale and can be more selective about who they hire. I think in my community entry level officers start out in the high 30k-40k range... I'm not saying salary guarantees better performance, but you do get a wider candidate pool to pick from.

If you really expect them to know it and think that they all do, I challenge you to ask one of your local LEOs if you can carry into a city building that has a posted 30.06. Be more specific if you want... I'll bet that you're looking at under 50% getting it right.

We're not tasked with arresting people who violate the law.

That's true.. But if there are no or minimal repercussions for making a good "faith" arrest that happens to get dropped by a judge, how much attention do you pay to preventing those scenarios? Especially if it solves the immediate problem at hand.

[Dave2]

Dave,
I like your standards. Plano PD has pretty high standards for officers and I've had good experiences with them... Plano also has a higher end pay scale and can be more selective about who they hire. I think in my community entry level officers start out in the high 30k-40k range... I'm not saying salary guarantees better performance, but you do get a wider candidate pool to pick from.

If you really expect them to know it and think that they all do, I challenge you to ask one of your local LEOs if you can carry into a city building that has a posted 30.06. Be more specific if you want... I'll bet that you're looking at under 50% getting it right.

My neighbor's a Plano cop. I'll ask next time I see him, but I'm pretty sure "1" is not a statistically valid sample size...

We're not tasked with arresting people who violate the law.

That's true.. But if there are no or minimal repercussions for making a good "faith" arrest that happens to get dropped by a judge, how much attention do you pay to preventing those scenarios? Especially if it solves the immediate problem at hand.

Depends... Personally, I'd make sure I knew the traffic and criminal code backwards and forwards because I believe "ignorance is no excuse" cuts both ways. But if your boss is saying that you only need to know the common stuff, a less, um, idealistic(?) person would probably leave it at that. I think we're making the same point here...

[kenobi]

Don't you have a nearly guaranteed win in court if you get arrested for something the police know isn't illegal? Something about a such-and-such civil rights case? I forget the exact colloquial name for it.

Defense Attorney: Officer, isn't it true that you knew that my client wasn't violating the law?
LEO: Yes, I knew that and arrested him anyway.

The the above playing out in court are? That's the circumstance that has a shot at paying back.

Historically it has happened a lot, especially to minorities, but the bad guys rarely admit their abuse of power.

[poppo]

Why would you be bothered by a "No Firearms" sign? TX PC is quite clear that such a sign does not apply to CHL.
Now if they posted a valid 30.06...? Another story.

I am bothered by this because of the lack of knowledge by the chl holder (albeit small group, just look at these forums), by the park staff, and the LE.

Sorry, but IMO if a CHL holder does not know what a 30.06 sign is, and what is and isn't enforceable, I would rather they stay away from me anyway.

[gringo pistolero]

Do you really expect all LEOs to know when 30.06 laws apply and when they don't?

Yep.

I'm not quite as strict but I do expect them to understand the laws they enforce. If they're ignorant about some law, I expect them to be professional (and adult) enough to correct their ignorance before attempting to enforce that law. Doing otherwise undermines the public trust in their profession, and rightfully so.

[srothstein]

Do you really expect all LEOs to know when 30.06 laws apply and when they don't?

Yep.

Now take into consideration the average educational requirements for an entry level LEO job... Still expect them to know?

Well, hold on, let me think about it... Yep.

We know it because we're passionate about it, studied it, and re-studied it.. Yet you still see questions posted, myself included.

We're not tasked with arresting people who violate the law.

Dave2,

I think you might be expecting too much. Remember that where people can carry is not like theft. Theft is something everyone is taught right or wrong on from childhood. Guns are not that way. Cops get some training in the law, but not nearly enough. I would estimate that the average officer gets 40 hours in the academy to cover the whole Penal Code and guns is not a big portion of that time. Their biannual retraining on the changes is probably only 8 hours (state only requires 4) and that covers the Penal Code, Code of Criminal Procedure, Transportation Code, Education Code, and all criminal court case rulings.

So, expecting officers to know the laws in detail is, IMO, asking too much. I find it reasonable to expect them to know the basics and to have a copy of the law with them to look up the right answer. In a case like this, I would expect an officer to know that a 30.06 sign is required but not know who it applies to or where and not necessarily know the exact wording and size requirements. I would not be too upset with an officer who stopped me for violating the law if someone complained about me ignoring the 30.06 sign if he cuffed me and put me in the car as long as he stopped and read the law before we went any further. I do require that any officer should treat me with respect and courtesy, even if he is arresting me, but that is a different subject.

I think my position is a reasonable compromise between freedom and justice and reality. It would be nice if every officer knew the law and all relevant court cases, but that is just not possible. This is not due to the low qualities of the officers, but due to what would be required (lawyers get three years of schooling and then take lots of time to research their cases so imagine what a cop would require). But it is very realistic to expect the officer to know that he is not an expert and to look up the law before going anywhere. Gould's makes a copy of all of the relevant laws for officers that will fit in their briefcase (I know this because I still have my old copies) and even makes a searchable copy that will run on any Windows based laptop installed in the car with them (again, I have my old copies).

Do you think this might be a more reasonable expectation?

[MasterOfNone]

Do you really expect all LEOs to know when 30.06 laws apply and when they don't?

Yep.

Now take into consideration the average educational requirements for an entry level LEO job... Still expect them to know?

Well, hold on, let me think about it... Yep.

We know it because we're passionate about it, studied it, and re-studied it.. Yet you still see questions posted, myself included.

We're not tasked with arresting people who violate the law.

Dave2,

I think you might be expecting too much. Remember that where people can carry is not like theft. Theft is something everyone is taught right or wrong on from childhood. Guns are not that way. Cops get some training in the law, but not nearly enough. I would estimate that the average officer gets 40 hours in the academy to cover the whole Penal Code and guns is not a big portion of that time. Their biannual retraining on the changes is probably only 8 hours (state only requires 4) and that covers the Penal Code, Code of Criminal Procedure, Transportation Code, Education Code, and all criminal court case rulings.

So, expecting officers to know the laws in detail is, IMO, asking too much. I find it reasonable to expect them to know the basics and to have a copy of the law with them to look up the right answer. In a case like this, I would expect an officer to know that a 30.06 sign is required but not know who it applies to or where and not necessarily know the exact wording and size requirements. I would not be too upset with an officer who stopped me for violating the law if someone complained about me ignoring the 30.06 sign if he cuffed me and put me in the car as long as he stopped and read the law before we went any further. I do require that any officer should treat me with respect and courtesy, even if he is arresting me, but that is a different subject.

I think my position is a reasonable compromise between freedom and justice and reality. It would be nice if every officer knew the law and all relevant court cases, but that is just not possible. This is not due to the low qualities of the officers, but due to what would be required (lawyers get three years of schooling and then take lots of time to research their cases so imagine what a cop would require). But it is very realistic to expect the officer to know that he is not an expert and to look up the law before going anywhere. Gould's makes a copy of all of the relevant laws for officers that will fit in their briefcase (I know this because I still have my old copies) and even makes a searchable copy that will run on any Windows based laptop installed in the car with them (again, I have my old copies).

Do you think this might be a more reasonable expectation?

I agree with Steve's expectation except the part about cuffing me while the officer determines if I have violated the code. Disarm me, and I will stand peacefully at the front bumper while he looks up the law.

[mojo84]

Do you really expect all LEOs to know when 30.06 laws apply and when they don't?

Yep.

Now take into consideration the average educational requirements for an entry level LEO job... Still expect them to know?

Well, hold on, let me think about it... Yep.

We know it because we're passionate about it, studied it, and re-studied it.. Yet you still see questions posted, myself included.

We're not tasked with arresting people who violate the law.

Dave2,

I think you might be expecting too much. Remember that where people can carry is not like theft. Theft is something everyone is taught right or wrong on from childhood. Guns are not that way. Cops get some training in the law, but not nearly enough. I would estimate that the average officer gets 40 hours in the academy to cover the whole Penal Code and guns is not a big portion of that time. Their biannual retraining on the changes is probably only 8 hours (state only requires 4) and that covers the Penal Code, Code of Criminal Procedure, Transportation Code, Education Code, and all criminal court case rulings.

So, expecting officers to know the laws in detail is, IMO, asking too much. I find it reasonable to expect them to know the basics and to have a copy of the law with them to look up the right answer. In a case like this, I would expect an officer to know that a 30.06 sign is required but not know who it applies to or where and not necessarily know the exact wording and size requirements. I would not be too upset with an officer who stopped me for violating the law if someone complained about me ignoring the 30.06 sign if he cuffed me and put me in the car as long as he stopped and read the law before we went any further. I do require that any officer should treat me with respect and courtesy, even if he is arresting me, but that is a different subject.

I think my position is a reasonable compromise between freedom and justice and reality. It would be nice if every officer knew the law and all relevant court cases, but that is just not possible. This is not due to the low qualities of the officers, but due to what would be required (lawyers get three years of schooling and then take lots of time to research their cases so imagine what a cop would require). But it is very realistic to expect the officer to know that he is not an expert and to look up the law before going anywhere. Gould's makes a copy of all of the relevant laws for officers that will fit in their briefcase (I know this because I still have my old copies) and even makes a searchable copy that will run on any Windows based laptop installed in the car with them (again, I have my old copies).

Do you think this might be a more reasonable expectation?

I agree what you suggest is much more reasonable as it is very difficult if not impossible to know all the laws off the top of one's head and don't have a problem with a cop taking time to look up the information or calling someone that can offer the needed guidance. Matter of fact, I would respect him for doing so rather than just taking me in and letting the DA and courts sort it out.

I do have a problem with them cuffing me while they do so. Typically, in these scenarios we are discussing, it's not a violent or threatening situation and cuffing someone is overkill. If the cop is really and truly concerned about safety, this would be a time to disarm me, but only if I've given him a reason to believe it necessary.

I also don't believe cops appreciate the psychological aspect of cuffing someone, especially a law abiding citizen that hasn't done anything wrong. I've never been cuffed but I can imagine how I would feel if I was and put in the back of a patrol car when I hadn't done anything wrong or anything to warrant it. I can tell you it would not be appreciated and it would raise my ire considerably. Now, if I were acting like an idiot or in a threatening way, cuff me and put me in the car. That's completely different.