Let's discuss the off-duty officer who pulled a gun on kids recently.

a reply to: Xcathdra

No confusion on my part I'm the one who asked for your opinion.

originally posted by: Bedlam
a reply to: Xcathdra

CA law being so complex/ambiguous on the point, is cutting across the corner of his lawn even trespassing, if he has no signage or fencing?

They're much more definitive if it's a business. When it's a residence, if you're not loitering or vandalizing, it's tough to say.

From what I have read, and if anyone from California knows better please correct me, its not specific in that context. It looks like the person has to know they are trespassing, either by a posted sign or by being warned by the property owner / property manager / authorized agent of the owner / law enforcement.

In my state a person can trespass and not be aware of it however its only an infraction. If they have been warned, like in CA also, and come back onto the property they can be arrested / charged / cited for trespassing (it becomes a misdemeanor in my state if you knowingly trespass).

Cutting across private property, regardless of the size they pass through, is still trespassing. As with all crimes charges are ultimately the purview of the PA. A trespassing charge though is the property owner verse the accused and not the state verse a person so they are more inclined to go along with a charge if the property owner is going to follow through with the process.

What punishment a person would get would be up to the judge though.

as an LEO and property owner how would you have handled it, how should it have been handled? i realize we do not have all the info, back story which makes it difficult to say who is in the wrong.

just going off the info i am aware of i find it hard to justify the mans actions, he did just not handle the situation as a mature adult, much less professional LEO imo.

a reply to: conspiracy nut

I watched the video and none of those children were threatening him, just asking for him to let the other child go.

a reply to: Mictain

right and if they honestly did not know it was an off duty cop i applaud them for trying to help their friend.

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 knew.

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.

originally posted by: conspiracy nut
a reply to: Xcathdra

No confusion on my part I'm the one who asked for your opinion.

Yeah I was responding to you and another poster in the same post. I forgot to add his reply info under yours to place my comment about the policies from Virginia not applying to place it into proper context.

a reply to: conspiracy nut

To be honest I am not a fan of second guessing an officer action unless I was present and witnessed it first hand or if I was conducting an investigation / review into the officers actions where I would have all the info.

If I were faced with the same situation (using my states laws) -

From a private citizens aspect -
I would have told the kids to get off the property and not come back on it. I would also have filed a report with the responsible jurisdiction. Even if the kids were going to lip off my response would have been the same. If someone threatened to shoot me I would take action to not only defend myself, but the other kids in the area. If a kid was armed one cannot be sure of their marksmanship skills, placing me and everyone else in imminent fear of serious physical injury / death.

From a police aspect and it being my property and outside my primary jurisdiction plainclothes - same as above.

In both instances involving a threat of someone wanting to shoot me I would have armed myself as well if I were "attacked". However I would not discharge my weapon unless I was reasonably certain my life / life of others were in immediate danger and then it would be to stop the threat. We cannot give warning shots.

As an investigating officer -
A thorough investigation would be conducted into the conduct of all parties involved, regardless if one party is a member of law enforcement. I would also request my higher ups to contact the officers agency to inform them of what occurred, which would automatically trigger an IA investigation.

Instead of issuing a PC statement to the PA for charges I would submit my completed investigation without a PC statement to the PA for their review and and any action they feel is appropriate.

As a side note I have been involved in a similar situation (the cop drew his weapon but did not fire). His command staff was notified and the investigative report went to the PA ad was made available to the other agency for their investigation into the officers actions.

I am not a big believer in "professional courtesy". I do (did) my job in a manner that I would not be fearful of a criminal investigation / IA investigation into my actions (again ive had both occur to me). If a cop acts like a no talent ass clown I am not going to protect them just because they wear a uniform. I dont think i could deal with an aftermath where a no talent ass clown officer is given a pass by me and goes on to kill someone else down the road for the same no talent ass clown behavior.

Just my 2 cents / personal beliefs...

originally posted by: Mictain
a reply to: conspiracy nut

I watched the video and none of those children were threatening him, just asking for him to let the other child go.

Except for when the guy was attacked by 2 of the kids. A person does not have to be of a certain age in order to take someone elses life.

Totality of circumstances...


ETA - In general food for thought.
A police agency can have a policy that governs officer behavior while "off duty". The 2 agencies I worked for had simple policies in this area. If I were going to carry "off duty" I was required to be department qualified on the weapon I carry. I was not permitted to carry a weapon off duty I was not department qualified on while at the same time receiving the departments backing.

The mindset revolves around departmental / legal liability. Any cop carrying off duty, in addition to a weapon, will also have their badge and/or credential card with them. If I am going to be legally protected by my agency employment off duty then I have to abide by their policies. It also protects the officer in the sense that he/she can argue they received training / qualifications on the weapon they used.

I was not prohibited from carry a different type of firearm however if I used it I would essentially lose the backing of my agency since I used a weapon the department never qualified me on.

Why should an agency be forced to defend an action of an officer who used an item the department never "authorized" / "trained" the officer use?