originally posted by: conspiracy nut
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 all 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
Walking across someones lawn is in fact trespassing. Even private property that is open to the public (think of a public parking lot like at a
walmart) can have trespassing enforced on it. The only time frame I saw dealt with being warned and coming back onto the property and being charged (I
think it said 30 days and only with signs posted or something like that).
The articles talked about the officer being fed up with kids crossing his lawn so its entirely possible they have been warned not to cross prior to
this incident. Its why I pointed out that we do not have all the facts so serving the officers head on a platter might be premature. Also the article
said something about the officer being threatened (although which kid made the threat, if at all, is apparently in dispute).
Because the guy is a police officer and a violation occurred in his presence he is covered by detaining the kid off his own property. If he were a
private citizen their might be an issue however since California allows for a citizens arrest we would need to read the specific requirements to find
out if its permissible for trespassing.
Also because he is a police officer and was detaining a person for a crime the officer would not be trespassing (or be in violation of the trespassing
law). It would be covered under job performance for law enforcement / fresh pursuit / hot pursuit / whatever terms California uses.
If the kids who attacked him did not know he was law enforcement then any charges that deal with assault on law enforcement generally will not apply.
The Supreme Court has ruled on officer identification and those rulings have resulted in police officer identification being a part of the use of
force / subject resistance control continuum.
Marked patrol vehicles and officers in uniform are easily identifiable. Unmarked vehicles / detectives / under cover / off duty officers have a higher
criteria they must meet in order to argue the "suspect" knew they were in fact law enforcement. Its one of the reasons when you see undercover /
detectives taking action there are usually uniformed / marked patrol vehicles involved or close by. In my state we are required to produce our
credential cards for absolute confirmation we are in fact law enforcement. I have never been asked while in uniform and depending on the overall
circumstances, for the most part, I would have no issues producing it if someone asked.
Now they could still face issues on the normal assault charges however we come back to the defense of a 3rd party issue and the overall circumstances
involved in this situation - were the kids warned before about trespassing / did the guy identify himself as a cop / did the kids know he was a cop /
were the kids warned by Anaheim PD etc?
Threatening to kill someone can if fact be considered assault (it is in my state however im not sure about CA).
Dragging a person who trespassed back onto your property and wanting charges will be based off the initial transgression and not from being brought
back onto the property for charges.
Also their is the whole issue of a "threat to kill a person". That also can affect the entire situation / circumstances. If that comment was in fact
made and the officer came under attack by the 2 kids it further supports his decision to draw a gun. People need to remember that an officer is not
required to determine if a person making a claim is in fact going to follow through.
We take the person at their word.
If a person tells a cop he is special forces and a black belt in karate its irrelevant if the person making the claims is lying. It will be taken as
real / factual information and an officer can take an action based on that information regardless if it is a lie.
If someone in the crowd said they were going to kill / shoot the cop the cop can take appropriate action. Even if the person he has did not make the
comment himself, the officer would be acting on good faith if he thought the kid was the one who made the threat. A subsequent investigation would
determine the overall facts / truthfulness / misidentification / reasonableness of actions taken by all parties involved.
I also want to note I am not familiar with how California law works with regards to law enforcement and juveniles. That information must also be
considered. In my state we have limited authority over juveniles (except for traffic violations and a very very other areas). I am not allowed to
arrest a juvenile as a police officer as it requires a juvenile officer to do so. Either by themselves or by giving me authorization to do it.
Sorry for the long winded response. Like I said we dont have anywhere close to all the information we would need to make an educated conclusion on
this situation. The article / video gives us a very very limited / very very narrow 20/20 hindsight and when it comes to reviewing officer actions
20/20 hindsight cannot be used.
edit on 26-2-2017 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)