Be prepared to deal with LE at some time or another (even at Belmar)

[hermannr]

View attachment 6902

Today I decided I would go down to the Lakewood Police Dept. and speak with someone about why I haven't received a response regarding the complaint that I filed back in July. I requested to speak with Sergeant Greenwell and after waiting a few minutes he came out to speak with me. He told me that he never received the message that I left for him on his phone and acted surprised that I had not received a letter in the mail concerning the incident. He left to get me a copy of letter that was allegedly mailed. When he got back he handed me the letter and explained that the officers involved with my detainment had not done anything improper and had acted according to their training. Since the letter does not mention that one of the officers drew his weapon on me I asked him directly if it is his position that officers can draw weapons on law abiding citizens going about their business. His answer was that it is entirely permissible for an officer to do so and that it's "officer safety". That wasn't the only thing about our conversation that surprised me. He also told me that the incident occured on private property and since the officers were responding to a request by Belmar security the officers actions were warranted. After we wrapped up our conversation, which is on my audio recording device, I headed over to the Belmar security officers to speak with security first hand and find out what is private and what is public property over there. Security was clueless for the most part and gave me the name and phone number of the property manager. After I got home I tried calling the property manager, but was directed to his voicemail. Hopefully I will hear back from him soon.

When you have a lawyer, one of the things you need to ask for is that they change their training to what is lawful, and not what they like to do. His response shows an obvious flaunting of the law, and the courts frown on that. Maybe even request court supervision of the rewriting of the training bulletins.

 

[since9]

Maybe even request court supervision of the rewriting of the training bulletins.

Even the hint of this may be enough to get them to police their own instead allowing the tarnish to continue.

 

[M-Taliesin]

Even the hint of this may be enough to get them to police their own instead allowing the tarnish to continue.

Howdy Folks!
I don't know if this would work, but could be fun nevertheless, and cheaper than filing a law suit.

Go to the court and demand to file a criminal complaint against the specific officer who drew his weapon. That is nothing short of "Assault with a deadly weapon". Citizens are able to file for arrest of another individual who is guilty of a criminal act. The court will try to talk you out of filing a charge against the officer, because essentially, they are in cahoots with them. But you can still file a complaint with the court (unless I am vastly mistaken, and I don't believe I am) and you'd press charges through the courts rather than the police department, considering the police department itself is conspiratorial to the criminal act and has not addressed that behavior internally. You might also pitch in the charge of brandishing a deadly weapon too.

If you can get that done, make certain the media gets wind of it. Nothing like a massive black eye in the press to get their attention!

While you are visiting the court, make certain to have a restraining order slapped on that particular officer, which should be appropriate considering he already threatened your life when he drew down on you.

Personally, I'd look for a lawyer who is pro 2a and willing to help set things straight through both civil and criminal proceedings.

Whether you wear a badge or not, you can't just go around drawing your weapon capriciously, threatening peacable citizens and putting the general public in peril of their lives as well.

I'd still like to know where his trigger finger was after he unholstered his weapon.

Blessings,
M-Taliesin

 

[Lokster]

No answers from Belmar

As I continue to gather information from a variety of sources, explore my options and consider certain legal avenues the situation seems to getting difficult. I posted on Monday that I called and left a message with the Belmar property manager, Mr. Lary Herkal requesting him to define public and private property boundaries at Belmar and also request that he allow Belmar security to provide me with a copy of their incident report. This morning I determined that my request obviously was not going to be a priority of his so I decided to call again. I spoke with his assistant who must have relayed my message because I received a call from Mr. Herkal about an hour later. The first thing I asked Mr. Herkal was if he received the message that I left for him on Monday, he stated that he did, but had decided not to return my phone call. Since he heard that this incident might involve litigation he did not want to make comments of any sort. He denied my request to clarify property boundaries at Belmar and allow me to review a copy of the security incident report. As I say, I am still considering my options with all this and will likely be making some more phone calls to lawyers in the near future.

 

[M-Taliesin]

Howdy Pardner!
I don't know if Lakewood has a similar document, but the Denver P.D. has a manual for their officers from which I would like to offer a couple of quotes:

http://www.denvergov.org/Portals/326/documents/105.pdf

"When deciding whether to use force, officers shall act within the boundaries of the United States and Colorado constitutions and laws, ethics, good judgment, this use of force policy, and all other relevant Denver Police Department policies, practices and training. With these values in mind, an officer shall use only that degree of force necessary and reasonable under the circumstances."

"Officers should ensure that they do not engage in unreasonable actions that precipitate the use of force as a result of tactical, strategic, and procedural errors that place themselves or others in jeopardy."

"Unnecessarily or prematurely drawing or exhibiting a firearm limits an officer’s alternatives in controlling a situation, creates unnecessary anxiety on the part of citizens, and may result in an unwarranted or accidental discharge of the firearm."

See: DENVER POLICE DEPARTMENT OPERATIONS MANUAL

C.R.S. §18-1-707 states in the pertinent part: Use of physical force in making an arrest or in
preventing an escape:

In this section, we can read:
2. A peace officer is justified in using deadly physical force upon another person for a
purpose specified in subsection (1) of this section only when he reasonably believes that
it is necessary:
a. To defend himself or a third person from what he reasonably believes to be the
use or imminent use of deadly physical force; or
b. To effect an arrest or prevent the escape from custody, of a person whom he
reasonably believes:
1. Has committed or attempted to commit a felony involving the use or
threatened use of a deadly weapon; or
2. Is attempting to escape by the use of a deadly weapon; or
3. Otherwise indicates, except through a motor vehicle violation, that
he is likely to endanger human life or to inflict serious bodily injury
to another unless apprehended without delay. (The Denver Police
Department policy on use of deadly force in this situation is more
restrictive than state law – see OMS 105.05(5).

So where is the RAS for the reasonable belief that a felony or attempted felony involving the use of a firearm or threatened use of a firearm when a citizen is merely carrying a holstered pistol while walking his dog?

Finally, the best part of the Colorado Revised Statutes:
3. Nothing in subsection (2)(b) of this section shall be deemed to constitute justification for
reckless or criminally negligent conduct by a peace officer amounting to an offense
against or with respect to innocent persons whom he is not seeking to arrest or retain
custody.

In other words, and this is strictly my opinion, the cop who drew his weapon broke the law! He violated his oath as a police officer to preserve the peace.
I believe he committed the crime of assault with a deadly weapon by drawing his weapon and placing both the OP and innocent bystanders in jeopardy of harm from possible negligent discharge or accidental discharge.

Again, an alternative might well be to file criminal charges against the officer who immediately confronted the OP, or, failing that, take the matter directly to the State of Colorado Attorney General to demand your right to file complaint against the officer who drew and threatened deadly force against you. In my estimation (not being an attorney or anything of that ilk) you were criminally assaulted, and the color of authority does not justify the degree of force applied in the situation nor condone the threat against you with deadly force.

Now.... that's what Denver says, and they put their cards on the table for anybody to see online.

If I were in the position under discussion, I'd pick up the Lakewood Police Manual, available on CD for $20 bucks:
http://www.lakewood.org/PD/Records/RecordsDocs/PriceList.pdf
Language of the police manual may show verbage similar to what we find from Denver PD.
In so doing, may illustrate the point that the officer may be subject to criminal penalties.
If it is their position to draw on a citizen peacefully going about their own business while carrying a holstered firearm, they may be criminally complicit. i.e.: conspiracy.

My 2 cents, from a non-attorney type of citizen.

Blessings,
M-Taliesin

 

[mahkagari]

If I were in the position under discussion, I'd pick up the Lakewood Police Manual, available on CD for $20 bucks:

My 2 cents, from a non-attorney type of citizen.

'Course, once you're working with an attorney, he'll charge you $100 to pick up the Lakewood Police Manual and then another $200 or so to read that section.

 

[since9]

$20? Isn't it available for free download via the Internet?

It should be...

Here's the Field Manual for the Colorado Springs Police Department. It's not in PDF, though it is one page. Most browsers (Chrome, IE) will allow you to save it as a "web page, complete," which is good enough. You might also be able to print to PDF, though with some programs you'll loose the hotlinks.

 

[rushcreek2]

"Officer safety" can be addressed by unholstering the weapon, and having it at an "at ready" position at the side.

The actual aiming/pointing of a loaded firearm at another person MUST BE justified by the presence of some threat by the targeted person to do bodily harm to the officer.

I have a deadly force response threshhold based upon "someone" pointing/aiming a firearm at me in a threatening manner. I would prefer that such a person not be acting under colour of law.

Training of LEO's needs to revisit this topic.

 

[MKEgal]

That letter was not only an unsatisfactory response to the violation of your rights, but downright condescending as well.

+1

"the agents contacted you, which was found not to be a detention"

Except that one officer told you at the end that you were no longer being detained,
and you had been told earlier that you were being detained, to be investigated whether or not you're a felon in possession.

"I hope you will find any future contact with our department to be a more positive experience."

Oh, yes indeedy, esp. since it's going to be through an attorney, & the PD/city will be apologizing with $$$.

 

[JamesB]

Lokster, $20... wanna split it?

 

[Lokster]

I'm pretty sure I can swing $20, but if you would like a copy then sure I'll take you up on your offer.

 

[JamesB]

I'm pretty sure I can swing $20, but if you would like a copy then sure I'll take you up on your offer.

That's exactly what I was thinking.

 

[yotebuster223]

How about a three way split?

 

[Lokster]

We've got three; do I hear four?

 

[sudden valley gunner]

Wow! And they still don't learn. The very least they need a training bulletin. They also need a "fine" to remind them that they can't run roughshod over citizens rights. To me this is a serious 4th amendment (and 5th) violation.

You handled the situation very well, this is a shining example of why I don't believe in the "bad apple" argument. (A rant I wrote that has become an essay of sorts).

The important thing is they didn't Birk you! And you made it out alive. I don't know about you (and at least you were able to identify it as an officer right away) but when I turned around and saw a gun pointing at my head my fight or flight instincts just about went full bore, very unnerving and I think about what could have happened often.

I hope you can afford a lawyer or be lucky enough as I was to find one on contingency. The detainment was unlawful, and dangerous. In Washington it doesn't matter if it's private property or not, the management or employee have to ask you to leave, without that happening the cops have no business being involved. Unless there is RAS of course.

Justice Blacks decision in St. John vs. Alamogordo is a good reminder for your local cops. http://www.examiner.com/gun-rights-...olice-pay-21-000-to-settle-open-carry-lawsuit Qualified immunity does not apply.

If you need funds let us know...I'll chip in a few bucks (Wont be a lot but I'll give something). And also remember the squeaky wheel gets the oil, don't give up and persist in getting something done. Otherwise they will feel more emboldened to harass the next guy.

Would also like to offer my opinion this wasn't a "detention" but an arrest. Of course SCOTUS has watered down what constitutes an arrest. They had no RAS and told you so, they "seized" you and said you were detained only for identification purposes, when you didn't ID yourself and they unlawfully still detained you it effectively was an arrest, in my opinion and and unlawful one. Even though the courts may not rule that way anymore.

"An illegalarrest is an assault and battery. The person so attempted to be restrained ofhis liberty has the same right, and only the same right, to use force indefending himself as he would have in repelling any other assault andbattery."
[State v. Robinson 145 Me. 77,72 Atl. 2d260, 262 (1950)]

Although wisely and prudently you didn't act to end this restraint of your liberty with force, it still was an assault and battery. I wish cops would think seriously that people do have the right to resist their illegal detentions/arrests, then they would be a lot more careful and cautious about the citizens whom they molest.

 

[Lokster]

Thanks for weighing in and your offer of support, sudden valley gunner! I agree with your opinion of what constitutes a detainment and arrest. Detaining me took up my time when I could have been doing other things; not allowing me to go about my business or inhibiting my freedom of movement is an arrest. It's too bad the courts have a different opinion.



I'm going to be heading over to the Lakewood PD in a few minutes to get a copy of the training manual.

 

[Lokster]

When I stopped at the Lakewood PD yesterday no one had any idea what I was talking about when I asked for a copy of the police training manual. I didn't have the link that M-Taliesin posted with me so the secretary behind the counter gave me her card and I just sent an email to her with the link listing the manual for purchase.

Also, I picked up a copy of the only documentation regarding my detainment. Allegedly all that is available is a report from one of the responding officers. Just about every paragraph that she wrote contains at least one statement that that isn't true. Either she has selective memory and a decent imagination because more than a few important details of the incident are being intentionally covered up, fabricated or left out.

I suppose I'm not all that surprised, though.

 

[Polynikes]

The plot thickens...

 

[since9]

Just about every paragraph that she wrote contains at least one statement that that isn't true. Either she has selective memory and a decent imagination because more than a few important details of the incident are being intentionally covered up, fabricated or left out.

That's where an audio/video recording of the incident is worth it's weight in god. It's court-admissible, prima-facia evidence that the report is falsified. If you're defending yourself against charges, it's often enough to get the charges thrown out. If you're seeking damages, it's often enough for the judge to rule in your favor.

Judge do NOT like it when police (or anyone) falsifies a report in an attempt to game the system.

 

[Polynikes]

Man, this thread is a constant reminder to me that I need to find a good budget recorder to add to my carry arsenal.