ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 3rd August 2019, 09:22 PM   #281
PhantomWolf
Penultimate Amazing
 
PhantomWolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 18,549
Originally Posted by Dr. Keith View Post
I think the guard was right to not let him in with his gun, but oh so very wrong to pull his own gun. A small right does not make up for a huge wrong.
Here's what should have happened.

SD - Hi, I've come to make an inquiry.
SG - Sorry you can't come in with your gun, can you leave it in your car?
SD - No, it's against policy, do you have a gun locker I can store it in?
SG - No we don't, you'll need to take it outside.
SD - Can I speak with a manager
SG - Hold on, I'll get one.
Manager comes and makes a decision of if he can come in or has to leave.
__________________

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtah
I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871)

PhantomWolf is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th August 2019, 10:48 AM   #282
Dr. Keith
Not a doctor.
 
Dr. Keith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Texas
Posts: 18,612
Originally Posted by Craig4 View Post
He was on the clock and available for dispatch. This status requires that he be armed.
I do not doubt that. But that does not mean that he can enter an IRS facility with his sidearm.

It may just be that a cop can't go into an IRS office to handle personal matters while on the clock. Is that really so hard to wrap your head around?
__________________
Suffering is not a punishment not a fruit of sin, it is a gift of God.
He allows us to share in His suffering and to make up for the sins of the world. -Mother Teresa

If I had a pet panda I would name it Snowflake.
Dr. Keith is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th August 2019, 10:50 AM   #283
Dr. Keith
Not a doctor.
 
Dr. Keith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Texas
Posts: 18,612
Originally Posted by quadraginta View Post
I don't know that he can't do a personal errand while he's on duty.

Department regulations, perhaps?

Or, possibly, department regulations allow for it.

Do you have any cites to establish which is the case?
I think the department has no problem with cops handling minor personal errands while on duty.

The IRS has a problem with people entering an IRS facility with a firearm unless it is a part of their "lawful performance of official duties".

My argument is that personal errands while on the clock is not the "lawful performance of official duties".
__________________
Suffering is not a punishment not a fruit of sin, it is a gift of God.
He allows us to share in His suffering and to make up for the sins of the world. -Mother Teresa

If I had a pet panda I would name it Snowflake.
Dr. Keith is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th August 2019, 10:53 AM   #284
Dr. Keith
Not a doctor.
 
Dr. Keith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Texas
Posts: 18,612
Originally Posted by PhantomWolf View Post
Here's what should have happened.

SD - Hi, I've come to make an inquiry.
SG - Sorry you can't come in with your gun, can you leave it in your car?
SD - No, it's against policy, do you have a gun locker I can store it in?
SG - No we don't, you'll need to take it outside.
SD - Can I speak with a manager
SG - Hold on, I'll get one.
Manager comes and makes a decision of if he can come in or has to leave.
The only problem with that is that there likely isn't a security manager on site. Sure, there may be an IRS manager, but that sort of manager may not have enough authority to override security protocol and federal law.

Maybe they do. I have ample fear and respect for the IRS, so I do not state categorically what their managers may or may not have authority over. (Please don't audit me.)
__________________
Suffering is not a punishment not a fruit of sin, it is a gift of God.
He allows us to share in His suffering and to make up for the sins of the world. -Mother Teresa

If I had a pet panda I would name it Snowflake.
Dr. Keith is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th August 2019, 10:55 AM   #285
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 36,892
Originally Posted by PhantomWolf View Post
Here's what should have happened.

SD - Hi, I've come to make an inquiry.
SG - Sorry you can't come in with your gun, can you leave it in your car?
SD - No, it's against policy, do you have a gun locker I can store it in?
SG - No we don't, you'll need to take it outside.
SD - Can I speak with a manager
SG - Hold on, I'll get one.
Manager comes and makes a decision of if he can come in or has to leave.
In your opinion.

Here's what really should have happened:

SD - Hi, I've come to make an inquiry.
SG - Sorry you can't come in with your gun, can you leave it in your car?
SD - No, it's against policy, do you have a gun locker I can store it in?
SG - No we don't, you'll need to take it outside.
SD - Can I speak with a manager
SG - You're welcome to contact a manager by phone or email from outside this facility. But I can't allow you to remain here while armed.
SD leaves and files a strongly-worded complaint to the IRS security department. The office upholds the SG's actions, and issues a memo to all IRS facilities, reminding staff about the strict no guns policy and the importance of enforcing it.

In my opinion.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th August 2019, 11:12 AM   #286
Dr. Keith
Not a doctor.
 
Dr. Keith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Texas
Posts: 18,612
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
In your opinion.

Here's what really should have happened:

SD - Hi, I've come to make an inquiry.
SG - Sorry you can't come in with your gun, can you leave it in your car?
SD - No, it's against policy, do you have a gun locker I can store it in?
SG - No we don't, you'll need to take it outside.
SD - Can I speak with a manager
SG - You're welcome to contact a manager by phone or email from outside this facility. But I can't allow you to remain here while armed.
SD leaves and files a strongly-worded complaint to the IRS security department. The office upholds the SG's actions, and issues a memo to all IRS facilities, reminding staff about the strict no guns policy and the importance of enforcing it.

In my opinion.
Based on the overriding belief shown here and by other cops that officers can go anywhere with their gun while on duty, I don't think the SD would have left, but otherwise I agree.
__________________
Suffering is not a punishment not a fruit of sin, it is a gift of God.
He allows us to share in His suffering and to make up for the sins of the world. -Mother Teresa

If I had a pet panda I would name it Snowflake.
Dr. Keith is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th August 2019, 11:20 AM   #287
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 36,892
Originally Posted by Dr. Keith View Post
Based on the overriding belief shown here and by other cops that officers can go anywhere with their gun while on duty, I don't think the SD would have left, but otherwise I agree.
Yup! I struggled a little with the ending, because it didn't seem realistic. On the other hand, the premise was what should have happened. And really, what should have happened was that the Deputy should have apologized and walked right back out again, the moment the guard reminded him of the rule against firearms in federal facilities.

And really, what should have happened is the Deputy remembering the rule before entering the facility to begin with, and making other plans for completing his personal business there.

More realistically? How about this:

SD - Hi, I've come to make an inquiry.
SG - Sorry you can't come in with your gun, can you leave it in your car?
SD - No, it's against policy, do you have a gun locker I can store it in?
SG - No we don't, you'll need to take it outside.
SD - Can I speak with a manager
SG - You're welcome to contact a manager by phone or email from outside this facility. But I can't allow you to remain here while armed.
SD - No, I think I'll wait here while you get a manager.
SG uses all available and necessary force to subdue and detain an armed intruder in a federal facility. His manager arrives as backup to help contain the situation. The deputy is disarmed and detained. His agency issues a formal apology and terminates the deputy. The deputy uses his newfound free time to complete his personal business over the phone or via the IRS website.

This is pretty close to what actually happened, except that the armed intruder escaped, and the security guard got in trouble for doing their job.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th August 2019, 11:32 AM   #288
Dr. Keith
Not a doctor.
 
Dr. Keith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Texas
Posts: 18,612
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Yup! I struggled a little with the ending, because it didn't seem realistic. On the other hand, the premise was what should have happened. And really, what should have happened was that the Deputy should have apologized and walked right back out again, the moment the guard reminded him of the rule against firearms in federal facilities.

And really, what should have happened is the Deputy remembering the rule before entering the facility to begin with, and making other plans for completing his personal business there.

More realistically? How about this:

SD - Hi, I've come to make an inquiry.
SG - Sorry you can't come in with your gun, can you leave it in your car?
SD - No, it's against policy, do you have a gun locker I can store it in?
SG - No we don't, you'll need to take it outside.
SD - Can I speak with a manager
SG - You're welcome to contact a manager by phone or email from outside this facility. But I can't allow you to remain here while armed.
SD - No, I think I'll wait here while you get a manager.
SG uses all available and necessary force to subdue and detain an armed intruder in a federal facility. His manager arrives as backup to help contain the situation. The deputy is disarmed and detained. His agency issues a formal apology and terminates the deputy. The deputy uses his newfound free time to complete his personal business over the phone or via the IRS website.

This is pretty close to what actually happened, except that the armed intruder escaped, and the security guard got in trouble for doing their job.
I agree.

But, once the officer began to leave there was really no need to detain him. The point was to get him to leave. They have him on video and they had already called the police.

It has to be very tough for security to deal with belligerent police officers who have no respect for their authority. I don't envy that job, but I would think "minimizing risk" should be top of mind and letting the cop leave seems to me the least risky route. Even after he has shown that he has no concept of what the extent of his authority actually is.
__________________
Suffering is not a punishment not a fruit of sin, it is a gift of God.
He allows us to share in His suffering and to make up for the sins of the world. -Mother Teresa

If I had a pet panda I would name it Snowflake.
Dr. Keith is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th August 2019, 11:44 AM   #289
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 47,170
Originally Posted by Dr. Keith View Post
I agree.

But, once the officer began to leave there was really no need to detain him. The point was to get him to leave. They have him on video and they had already called the police.

It has to be very tough for security to deal with belligerent police officers who have no respect for their authority. I don't envy that job, but I would think "minimizing risk" should be top of mind and letting the cop leave seems to me the least risky route. Even after he has shown that he has no concept of what the extent of his authority actually is.
See the cop should just have shot him for having a gun, then it would be an open and closed case and we could all be happy with the result. There is nothing wrong with cops shooting armed security after all as the courts regularly show. Simple and direct and preserves the cops authority as those here know is the most important thing to do.
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th August 2019, 01:27 AM   #290
quadraginta
Becoming Beth
 
quadraginta's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Central Vale of Humility
Posts: 23,782
Originally Posted by ponderingturtle View Post
See the cop should just have shot him for having a gun, then it would be an open and closed case and we could all be happy with the result. There is nothing wrong with cops shooting armed security after all as the courts regularly show. Simple and direct and preserves the cops authority as those here know is the most important thing to do.

A fatal shooting does tend to leave the officer involved with the fewest negative consequences.

As long as they can convince a jury they were in fear of their safety, of course.

And the security guard did have a gun. That ought to be enough to do it.
__________________
"A great deal of intelligence can be invested in ignorance when the need for illusion is deep."

"Ninety percent of the politicians give the other ten percent a bad reputation."
quadraginta is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th August 2019, 03:04 AM   #291
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 47,170
Originally Posted by quadraginta View Post
A fatal shooting does tend to leave the officer involved with the fewest negative consequences.

As long as they can convince a jury they were in fear of their safety, of course.

And the security guard did have a gun. That ought to be enough to do it.
Exactly if a cop pulled his gun for any reason there is 0 chance it would involve any consequences let alone criminal charges. And the police defenders talk about the homicide rate against cops while security guards face similar level of risks but are not giving the security guard similar levels of pass on laws like brandishing.
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th August 2019, 04:58 AM   #292
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 12,222
Originally Posted by Dr. Keith View Post
My argument is that personal errands while on the clock is not the "lawful performance of official duties".
I can't speak to the actual details of the regulation in that state or town, but I can tell you that as a general rule, an LEO is carrying out the "lawful performance of official duties" at all times, every minute of the day, from the moment he starts his shift, to the moment he finishes his shift, even during meal breaks.

If he is on lunch break and his dispatcher calls him on his personal radio to go to an incident, he is expected to respond immediately. He cannot call back and say "sorry, I'm on lunch break, find another officer." Even if he was in that Federal building, on his lunch break, running a personal errand, he is still on duty, he could be called at any time and must respond immediately.

Now, the facts are that there has been no indication whatsoever from his police chief or any spokesman for the Lucas County Sheriff's Office or the Toledo PD, that he was in error or in breach of regulations for running a personal errand. Meanwhile the Security guard has been changed with firearms offences for holding the Deputy at gun point.

Seems fairly obvious to me where this is going to go.
__________________
“Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore - if they're white!"
If you don't like my posts, my opinions, or my directness then put me on your ignore list.
This will be of benefit to both of us; you won't have to take umbrage at my posts, and I won't have to waste my time talking to you... simples! !
smartcooky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th August 2019, 05:18 AM   #293
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 47,170
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
I can't speak to the actual details of the regulation in that state or town, but I can tell you that as a general rule, an LEO is carrying out the "lawful performance of official duties" at all times, every minute of the day, from the moment he starts his shift, to the moment he finishes his shift, even during meal breaks.

If he is on lunch break and his dispatcher calls him on his personal radio to go to an incident, he is expected to respond immediately. He cannot call back and say "sorry, I'm on lunch break, find another officer." Even if he was in that Federal building, on his lunch break, running a personal errand, he is still on duty, he could be called at any time and must respond immediately.

Now, the facts are that there has been no indication whatsoever from his police chief or any spokesman for the Lucas County Sheriff's Office or the Toledo PD, that he was in error or in breach of regulations for running a personal errand. Meanwhile the Security guard has been changed with firearms offences for holding the Deputy at gun point.

Seems fairly obvious to me where this is going to go.
Yes that it is a crime to deny anything to a cop for any reason.
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th August 2019, 07:31 AM   #294
Craig4
Penultimate Amazing
 
Craig4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Alexandria, VA Home to the Deep State.
Posts: 18,542
Originally Posted by Dr. Keith View Post
I do not doubt that. But that does not mean that he can enter an IRS facility with his sidearm.

It may just be that a cop can't go into an IRS office to handle personal matters while on the clock. Is that really so hard to wrap your head around?
If he was outside of policy, I kind of think it would have come up by now. However that's between him and his agency. He was still legal under 18 USC.
__________________
A MAGA hat = a Swastika arm band.
Craig4 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th August 2019, 07:37 AM   #295
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 36,892
Originally Posted by Craig4 View Post
If he was outside of policy, I kind of think it would have come up by now. However that's between him and his agency. He was still legal under 18 USC.
A cop entering someone's home without a warrant or probable cause is not official business. A cop going armed into a federal facility on a personal errand is not official business. There are probably many other examples, but these are the two most obvious ones I can think of. The second one seems especially relevant.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th August 2019, 11:28 AM   #296
Dr. Keith
Not a doctor.
 
Dr. Keith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Texas
Posts: 18,612
Originally Posted by Craig4 View Post
If he was outside of policy, I kind of think it would have come up by now. However that's between him and his agency. He was still legal under 18 USC.
Only if you ignore the part that requires the "lawful performance of official duties".

Running a personal errand is not an "official duty" even if he is on the clock. It is in every conceivable way the exact opposite. It is personal, not official, and a chosen activity, not a duty.

Is there some underlying LEO lingo that I am not understanding? How do we both read the same words in the same language but see the exact opposite meaning?
__________________
Suffering is not a punishment not a fruit of sin, it is a gift of God.
He allows us to share in His suffering and to make up for the sins of the world. -Mother Teresa

If I had a pet panda I would name it Snowflake.
Dr. Keith is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th August 2019, 11:33 AM   #297
Dr. Keith
Not a doctor.
 
Dr. Keith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Texas
Posts: 18,612
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
I can't speak to the actual details of the regulation in that state or town, but I can tell you that as a general rule, an LEO is carrying out the "lawful performance of official duties" at all times, every minute of the day, from the moment he starts his shift, to the moment he finishes his shift, even during meal breaks.

If he is on lunch break and his dispatcher calls him on his personal radio to go to an incident, he is expected to respond immediately. He cannot call back and say "sorry, I'm on lunch break, find another officer." Even if he was in that Federal building, on his lunch break, running a personal errand, he is still on duty, he could be called at any time and must respond immediately.
See my reply to Craig4. I really can't conceive how running a personal errand will ever be considered an official duty of a police officer.

Quote:
Now, the facts are that there has been no indication whatsoever from his police chief or any spokesman for the Lucas County Sheriff's Office or the Toledo PD, that he was in error or in breach of regulations for running a personal errand. Meanwhile the Security guard has been changed with firearms offences for holding the Deputy at gun point.

Seems fairly obvious to me where this is going to go.
He was not in breach of any state law or police regulation for running a personal errand. That is clear.

He was in breach of federal law. But, since the guard was stupid and pulled his gun on the officer while he was retreating, the officer will not face any consequences for this breach. Really, since he left I don't think they will press charges, even if he did argue a bit first.
__________________
Suffering is not a punishment not a fruit of sin, it is a gift of God.
He allows us to share in His suffering and to make up for the sins of the world. -Mother Teresa

If I had a pet panda I would name it Snowflake.
Dr. Keith is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th August 2019, 11:41 AM   #298
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 36,892
Originally Posted by Dr. Keith View Post
Only if you ignore the part that requires the "lawful performance of official duties".

Running a personal errand is not an "official duty" even if he is on the clock. It is in every conceivable way the exact opposite. It is personal, not official, and a chosen activity, not a duty.

Is there some underlying LEO lingo that I am not understanding? How do we both read the same words in the same language but see the exact opposite meaning?
You touched on "official duties." There's also the question of "lawful performance." Absent probable cause or official request, there is no lawful way for a sherriff's deputy to perform any duty - official or otherwise - while armed inside a federal facility.*

---
*Perhaps there are rare exceptions. Such as the cop finding themselves in a federal facility by accident, and just needing to get back out again. But even then, I'd expect an inquiry, and some sanction of the cop if the accident arose from negligence on the cop's part.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th August 2019, 11:46 AM   #299
Dr. Keith
Not a doctor.
 
Dr. Keith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Texas
Posts: 18,612
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
You touched on "official duties." There's also the question of "lawful performance." Absent probable cause or official request, there is no lawful way for a sherriff's deputy to perform any duty - official or otherwise - while armed inside a federal facility.*

---
*Perhaps there are rare exceptions. Such as the cop finding themselves in a federal facility by accident, and just needing to get back out again. But even then, I'd expect an inquiry, and some sanction of the cop if the accident arose from negligence on the cop's part.
I don't disagree, I'm just trying to focus on the part that seems the most clear.

I just can't conceive how "personal errand" is a subset of "official duty".
__________________
Suffering is not a punishment not a fruit of sin, it is a gift of God.
He allows us to share in His suffering and to make up for the sins of the world. -Mother Teresa

If I had a pet panda I would name it Snowflake.
Dr. Keith is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th August 2019, 11:46 AM   #300
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 36,892
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
I can't speak to the actual details of the regulation in that state or town, but I can tell you that as a general rule, an LEO is carrying out the "lawful performance of official duties" at all times, every minute of the day, from the moment he starts his shift, to the moment he finishes his shift, even during meal breaks.
It does not follow from this that everything a cop does on duty is justified as "lawful performance of official duties".

We seem to average 1-2 threads a month here, about cops on shift, uniformed and armed and available for dispatch, unlawfully performing unofficial duties. Planting drugs on innocent people. Shooting dogs that are barking too loud. Illegally entering people's homes. Etc.

Putting on the uniform and going on-call is not a free pass to bring a gun into a federal facility under the banner of "lawful performance of official duties". There's nothing lawful about it, and no official duty there. Just like there's no official duty for a police officer inside your house right now. If a cop were to kick down your door and raid your fridge, you wouldn't excuse it as "he's in uniform and available for dispatch, so it's all lawful and official." No. You'd want his badge and his gun and his resignation. And rightly so.

Last edited by theprestige; 6th August 2019 at 11:47 AM.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th August 2019, 01:33 PM   #301
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 12,222
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
It does not follow from this that everything a cop does on duty is justified as "lawful performance of official duties".

We seem to average 1-2 threads a month here, about cops on shift, uniformed and armed and available for dispatch, unlawfully performing unofficial duties. Planting drugs on innocent people. Shooting dogs that are barking too loud. Illegally entering people's homes. Etc.

Putting on the uniform and going on-call is not a free pass to bring a gun into a federal facility under the banner of "lawful performance of official duties". There's nothing lawful about it, and no official duty there. Just like there's no official duty for a police officer inside your house right now. If a cop were to kick down your door and raid your fridge, you wouldn't excuse it as "he's in uniform and available for dispatch, so it's all lawful and official." No. You'd want his badge and his gun and his resignation. And rightly so.
In the other hand, if that officer knocks on my door, and wants to ask me a few questions about an advertisement for a car I'm selling that I placed in the local newspaper, I'm not going to tell him there is a "no guns in my house" rule and that he has to leave his sidearm in his cruiser, and then argue about it with him, and then pull a gun on him myself when he's leaving the property.

See how that works?
__________________
“Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore - if they're white!"
If you don't like my posts, my opinions, or my directness then put me on your ignore list.
This will be of benefit to both of us; you won't have to take umbrage at my posts, and I won't have to waste my time talking to you... simples! !
smartcooky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th August 2019, 01:36 PM   #302
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 36,892
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
In the other hand, if that officer knocks on my door, and wants to ask me a few questions about an advertisement for a car I'm selling that I placed in the local newspaper, I'm not going to tell him there is a "no guns in my house" rule and that he has to leave his sidearm in his cruiser, and then argue about it with him, and then pull a gun on him myself when he's leaving the property.

See how that works?
On the other hand, if he says "official duty" and tries to come in your house after you tell him about the rule, you'd not accept his excuse as valid, would you?
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th August 2019, 01:43 PM   #303
Crawtator
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Posts: 365
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
In the other hand, if that officer knocks on my door, and wants to ask me a few questions about an advertisement for a car I'm selling that I placed in the local newspaper, I'm not going to tell him there is a "no guns in my house" rule and that he has to leave his sidearm in his cruiser, and then argue about it with him, and then pull a gun on him myself when he's leaving the property.

See how that works?
No.

If, by some stroke of luck, you had a video recorder and it recorded this incident, and he barged in and you asked him to leave if he would not leave without putting his gun away, you would be perfectly within your rights to not only kick him out, but if he refused, you could pull a gun (in most states) to protect your home from invasion. Now, I'm not saying that would be wise, but you would certainly be within your rights to do so.

That is more like the original hypothetical. This is not a public space that the officer had any jurisdiction over. It was a federal facility that specifically gave the powers of law enforcement over to this contracted security agency. The guard held all the correct cards, as far as I can tell. There are no "official duties", absent exigent circumstances, for a sheriff's deputy to be required to carry a gun in that area. That is the security guard's mandate.
Crawtator is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th August 2019, 06:02 AM   #304
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 47,170
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
In the other hand, if that officer knocks on my door, and wants to ask me a few questions about an advertisement for a car I'm selling that I placed in the local newspaper, I'm not going to tell him there is a "no guns in my house" rule and that he has to leave his sidearm in his cruiser, and then argue about it with him, and then pull a gun on him myself when he's leaving the property.

See how that works?
And of course as a cop he doesn't need to call ahead or ring the bell just kick open the door and demand the car. You have no right to keep him out of your house. He doesn't need to ask to come in he can just do it and there is simply nothing you can do to stop him.
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th August 2019, 11:20 AM   #305
Dr. Keith
Not a doctor.
 
Dr. Keith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Texas
Posts: 18,612
I wonder if some of the confusion stems from the similarity in the phrases "performance of official duties" and being "officially on duty"?
__________________
Suffering is not a punishment not a fruit of sin, it is a gift of God.
He allows us to share in His suffering and to make up for the sins of the world. -Mother Teresa

If I had a pet panda I would name it Snowflake.
Dr. Keith is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th August 2019, 11:35 AM   #306
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 36,892
Originally Posted by Dr. Keith View Post
I wonder if some of the confusion stems from the similarity in the phrases "performance of official duties" and being "officially on duty"?
I would definitely have to reconsider some things, if it turns out there's real confusion on this point.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th August 2019, 11:59 AM   #307
Dr. Keith
Not a doctor.
 
Dr. Keith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Texas
Posts: 18,612
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
I would definitely have to reconsider some things, if it turns out there's real confusion on this point.
I would not blame you.
__________________
Suffering is not a punishment not a fruit of sin, it is a gift of God.
He allows us to share in His suffering and to make up for the sins of the world. -Mother Teresa

If I had a pet panda I would name it Snowflake.
Dr. Keith is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th August 2019, 12:06 PM   #308
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 83,937
Originally Posted by Dr. Keith View Post
I wonder if some of the confusion stems from the similarity in the phrases "performance of official duties" and being "officially on duty"?
The real question for me is whether a police officer, during his shift, and during his break, can go into a federal building for his own business where guns are not permitted. That's got to be something that breaks the tie between the unstoppable force and the immovable wall.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th August 2019, 12:51 PM   #309
Dr. Keith
Not a doctor.
 
Dr. Keith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Texas
Posts: 18,612
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
The real question for me is whether a police officer, during his shift, and during his break, can go into a federal building for his own business where guns are not permitted. That's got to be something that breaks the tie between the unstoppable force and the immovable wall.
Federal law prohibits him entering the building with his weapon unless in the "lawful performance of official duties".

Most departments don't allow officers to remove or stow their firearms while on duty.

Taken together it would seem that so long as the officer is on duty and can not remove his firearm he can not enter an IRS office to conduct personal business. Which sucks, but isn't the worst thing about having to deal with the IRS. Cops have days off and they can take care of personal business while not in uniform.
__________________
Suffering is not a punishment not a fruit of sin, it is a gift of God.
He allows us to share in His suffering and to make up for the sins of the world. -Mother Teresa

If I had a pet panda I would name it Snowflake.
Dr. Keith is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th August 2019, 09:22 PM   #310
DevilsAdvocate
Philosopher
 
DevilsAdvocate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 5,188
Originally Posted by Dr. Keith View Post
I wonder if some of the confusion stems from the similarity in the phrases "performance of official duties" and being "officially on duty"?
Those are separate terms. Federal law does not define "official duties". It does define "on duty".

Because they are federal laws, the definition for "on duty" relates to federal employees, not people like county sheriff deputies. But the point is that the law uses both terms in different circumstances.

Federal law talks about privileges and restrictions for someone "on duty". In other cases it addresses privileges and restrictions related to "official duties". They are not the same thing.

We would normally expect that someone performing official duties to also be on duty. There is a relationship between the two. But they are not the same.

An official duty is generally recognized as an action required by or directed by an entity such that it is considered an action of the entity (rather than the person).

This is important in lawsuits in determining liability. An entity may be liable for an employee's actions while the employee is not individually liable. Or an employee may be individually liable while the entity is not. Or both. Or neither.

There can be overlap where an action is both official and unofficial. A police officer directed to patrol an area chooses to go down a street in that area to see if his friend Dave has put up his Christmas lights yet. He is preforming an unofficial act or checking put his friend's lights, but at the same time performing an official act of patrolling the area.

In this case, the deputy was not performing an official duty because he was not performing a duty of the sheriff's department. He wasn't patrolling the office as required by or directed by the sheriff's department. He wasn't responding to a police call. The sheriff's department had no official business in getting information about this deputy's tax information.

This was personal business, not police business. Whether or not he was official on duty, entering the IRS office to ask about his taxes was not performing official duties of the sheriff's department. It is extremely unlikely any court would construe his actions as official duties.

Because he was not perming official duties, under federal law he was not permitted to bring a gun on federal property.
__________________
"Nothing scarier than piled up adirondack chairs." - AvE
DevilsAdvocate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th August 2019, 01:08 AM   #311
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 12,222
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
On the other hand, if he says "official duty" and tries to come in your house after you tell him about the rule, you'd not accept his excuse as valid, would you?
Non sequitur

I said I would NOT tell him I had such a rule. That is because I respect beat cops and the job they have to do. It is of no consequence whether he is wearing a sidearm on my house or not - he's welcome either way.
__________________
“Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore - if they're white!"
If you don't like my posts, my opinions, or my directness then put me on your ignore list.
This will be of benefit to both of us; you won't have to take umbrage at my posts, and I won't have to waste my time talking to you... simples! !
smartcooky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th August 2019, 01:10 AM   #312
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 12,222
Originally Posted by Crawtator View Post
No.

If, by some stroke of luck, you had a video recorder and it recorded this incident, and he barged in and you asked him to leave if he would not leave without putting his gun away, you would be perfectly within your rights to not only kick him out, but if he refused, you could pull a gun (in most states) to protect your home from invasion. Now, I'm not saying that would be wise, but you would certainly be within your rights to do so.
Again, a non sequitur.

You are changing MY story into something YOU want to argue about. I am NOT playing your game.

Originally Posted by Crawtator View Post
That is more like the original hypothetical. This is not a public space that the officer had any jurisdiction over. It was a federal facility that specifically gave the powers of law enforcement over to this contracted security agency. The guard held all the correct cards, as far as I can tell. There are no "official duties", absent exigent circumstances, for a sheriff's deputy to be required to carry a gun in that area. That is the security guard's mandate.
And yet Rent-a-Cop has been charged with menacing with a firearm, while the Sherriffs Deputy has not been charged at all

Reconcile that with your Rent-a-Cop's mandate!
__________________
“Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore - if they're white!"
If you don't like my posts, my opinions, or my directness then put me on your ignore list.
This will be of benefit to both of us; you won't have to take umbrage at my posts, and I won't have to waste my time talking to you... simples! !

Last edited by smartcooky; 8th August 2019 at 01:14 AM.
smartcooky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th August 2019, 01:11 AM   #313
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 12,222
Originally Posted by Dr. Keith View Post
I wonder if some of the confusion stems from the similarity in the phrases "performance of official duties" and being "officially on duty"?
They are one and the same thing in my view


An LEO is continuously "performing his official duties" the whole time he is on shift.
__________________
“Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore - if they're white!"
If you don't like my posts, my opinions, or my directness then put me on your ignore list.
This will be of benefit to both of us; you won't have to take umbrage at my posts, and I won't have to waste my time talking to you... simples! !

Last edited by smartcooky; 8th August 2019 at 02:09 AM.
smartcooky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th August 2019, 03:30 AM   #314
Craig4
Penultimate Amazing
 
Craig4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Alexandria, VA Home to the Deep State.
Posts: 18,542
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
A cop entering someone's home without a warrant or probable cause is not official business. A cop going armed into a federal facility on a personal errand is not official business. There are probably many other examples, but these are the two most obvious ones I can think of. The second one seems especially relevant.
Why are you choosing to be impervious to education here? Anyone who took high school civics should know the difference between a public office of a government agency and a private home. I'm not seeking your input; I'm correcting your error.
__________________
A MAGA hat = a Swastika arm band.
Craig4 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th August 2019, 04:38 AM   #315
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 12,222
Originally Posted by Craig4 View Post
Why are you choosing to be impervious to education here? Anyone who took high school civics should know the difference between a public office of a government agency and a private home. I'm not seeking your input; I'm correcting your error.

Its the Conservative Way!
__________________
“Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore - if they're white!"
If you don't like my posts, my opinions, or my directness then put me on your ignore list.
This will be of benefit to both of us; you won't have to take umbrage at my posts, and I won't have to waste my time talking to you... simples! !
smartcooky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th August 2019, 11:09 AM   #316
Dr. Keith
Not a doctor.
 
Dr. Keith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Texas
Posts: 18,612
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
They are one and the same thing in my view


An LEO is continuously "performing his official duties" the whole time he is on shift.
I read DevilsAdvocate's post and thought: there is no way anyone would need such a clear statement of the difference, but damn that is very clear and complete statement of the difference. Well done over achieving poster!

And yet you have just completely dismissed it.

I urge you to read it more carefully. You are completely wrong and if you are an actual LEO failing to understand the difference could be a serious problem if you are ever involved in a claim for liability.
__________________
Suffering is not a punishment not a fruit of sin, it is a gift of God.
He allows us to share in His suffering and to make up for the sins of the world. -Mother Teresa

If I had a pet panda I would name it Snowflake.
Dr. Keith is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th August 2019, 01:03 PM   #317
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 12,222
Originally Posted by Dr. Keith View Post
I read DevilsAdvocate's post and thought: there is no way anyone would need such a clear statement of the difference, but damn that is very clear and complete statement of the difference. Well done over achieving poster!

And yet you have just completely dismissed it.

I urge you to read it more carefully. You are completely wrong and if you are an actual LEO failing to understand the difference could be a serious problem if you are ever involved in a claim for liability.
Devil's Advocate's post is semantics bordering on sophistry.

If you want to talk liability, then look no further than what has happened in this case.... there are only TWO things that matter

1. Rent-a-Cop drew down on a uniformed Law Enforcement Officer while that Officer was leaving the building in compliance with his request.

2. Rent-a-Cop has been charged, i.e., the police regard him to carry the liability for what happened, and I am not at all surprised by that.

Whether or not the Sheriff's Deputy was or was not in the wrong to be carrying his weapon into the building is neither here nor there, and is irrelevant, although it is worth noting that he hasn't been charged with anything, either by the Sherriff's Office or the Feds. That is a pretty clear indication that neither of those law enforcement bodies see him as having done anything against the Law.

The Deputy was leaving; complying with Rent-a-Cop's direction. If Rent-a-Cop had not drawn his weapon, nothing would have come of this.

There is ZERO excuse for what the Rent-a-Cop did.
__________________
“Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore - if they're white!"
If you don't like my posts, my opinions, or my directness then put me on your ignore list.
This will be of benefit to both of us; you won't have to take umbrage at my posts, and I won't have to waste my time talking to you... simples! !

Last edited by smartcooky; 8th August 2019 at 01:09 PM.
smartcooky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th August 2019, 01:12 PM   #318
Dr. Keith
Not a doctor.
 
Dr. Keith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Texas
Posts: 18,612
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
Devil's Advocate's post is semantics bordering on sophistry.
No, it is a clear refutation of the assertion that the cop has a right to enter the building on a personal errand with his firearm.

Quote:
If you want to talk liability, then look no further than what has happened in this case.... there are only TWO things that matter

1. Rent-a-Cop drew down on a uniformed Law Enforcement Officer while that Officer was leaving the building in compliance with his request.

2. Rent-a-Cop has been charged, i.e., the police regard him to carry the liability for what happened, and I am not at all surprised by that.
Read my posts in this thread. You will find a hidden surprise:

I agree that the security garden was wrong to draw his gun on the retreating cop.



Quote:
Whether or not the Sherriff's Deputy was or was not in the wrong to be carrying his weapon into the building is neither here nor there, and is irrelevant.
Not to the cop, his colleagues, Craig4 and you, who all have asserted that he could enter the IRS building on a personal errand with his firearm. In fact, it is what led to this problem in the first place: LEOs not understanding the limits of their authority.

Quote:
He was leaving; complying with Rent-a-Cop's direction. If he had not drawn his weapon, nothing would have come of this.

There is ZERO excuse for what the Rent-a-Cop did.
Again, I agree with you on all of this.
__________________
Suffering is not a punishment not a fruit of sin, it is a gift of God.
He allows us to share in His suffering and to make up for the sins of the world. -Mother Teresa

If I had a pet panda I would name it Snowflake.
Dr. Keith is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th August 2019, 01:35 PM   #319
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 12,222
Originally Posted by Dr. Keith View Post
No, it is a clear refutation of the assertion that the cop has a right to enter the building on a personal errand with his firearm.
Well, I just plain disagree.

Originally Posted by Dr. Keith View Post
Read my posts in this thread. You will find a hidden surprise:
I agree that the security garden was wrong to draw his gun on the retreating cop.

Yes, I was surprised.
I didn't know there was any such thing as a "security garden"

Originally Posted by Dr. Keith View Post
Not to the cop, his colleagues, Craig4 and you, who all have asserted that he could enter the IRS building on a personal errand with his firearm. In fact, it is what led to this problem in the first place: LEOs not understanding the limits of their authority.
And I agree with the cop, his colleagues, Craig4 and the Toledo DA who has charged the Rent-a-Cop, but has not charged the Sheriff's Deputy with any breach of the Law. Now whether or not that declination to charge was because what he did wasn't illegal, or was illegal but was not considered worth pursuing, we'll probably never know unless the DA makes a statement one way or the other, but you would think that if he thought both broke the law, they would either both be charged, or neither would be charged. However, that is not what he did.
__________________
“Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore - if they're white!"
If you don't like my posts, my opinions, or my directness then put me on your ignore list.
This will be of benefit to both of us; you won't have to take umbrage at my posts, and I won't have to waste my time talking to you... simples! !

Last edited by smartcooky; 8th August 2019 at 01:40 PM.
smartcooky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th August 2019, 07:52 AM   #320
rockysmith76
Scholar
 
Join Date: Jul 2019
Posts: 60
Originally Posted by William Parcher View Post
If Gaston was white he would have immediately drawn his weapon and killed that guard. Kept shooting until out of bullets.
and rightly so, this is what can happen when pulling a gun on a cop.
rockysmith76 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:54 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.