Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
The Range
Law & Order
Help With Technical Legal Line Between LEO/Peace Officer and Non Official Persons
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Glocktogo" data-source="post: 1736240" data-attributes="member: 1132"><p>Agreed. My point being that what I posted is my opinion, unfortunately it's backed by reality in the field. The law is vaguely written and subject to wide interpretation. Will it really matter how the law reads when you're on the wrong end of a ticked off LEO? Most folks don't recognize that just because a law doesn't specifically state something, that doesn't mean the officer is violating anyone's rights (by law) and forfeiting their qualified immunity. There is enough wiggle room in the statutes to drive a fleet of semi's through and you will not get any traction in a complaint against an officer for being overly aggressive on the subject. For this reason, I support the proposed revision to the notification clause. It's unfair to expect the citizen to divine whether they're being detained or not. <img src="/images/smilies/frown.png" class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":(" title="Frown :(" data-shortname=":(" /></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Vague detainment clause is overly vague. Notice I didn't state that "you shall" or "you must", which is legally binding phrasing. I said "you need to", which is stating a fact in evidence not supported by law. The advice I provided is sound advice, regardless of the phrasing of the actual law.</p><p></p><p>I spend more time in a day reading, interpreting, describing, explaining and enforcing laws and regulations than most officers do in a month. The terminology I use is not chosen by happenstance.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Glocktogo, post: 1736240, member: 1132"] Agreed. My point being that what I posted is my opinion, unfortunately it's backed by reality in the field. The law is vaguely written and subject to wide interpretation. Will it really matter how the law reads when you're on the wrong end of a ticked off LEO? Most folks don't recognize that just because a law doesn't specifically state something, that doesn't mean the officer is violating anyone's rights (by law) and forfeiting their qualified immunity. There is enough wiggle room in the statutes to drive a fleet of semi's through and you will not get any traction in a complaint against an officer for being overly aggressive on the subject. For this reason, I support the proposed revision to the notification clause. It's unfair to expect the citizen to divine whether they're being detained or not. :( Vague detainment clause is overly vague. Notice I didn't state that "you shall" or "you must", which is legally binding phrasing. I said "you need to", which is stating a fact in evidence not supported by law. The advice I provided is sound advice, regardless of the phrasing of the actual law. I spend more time in a day reading, interpreting, describing, explaining and enforcing laws and regulations than most officers do in a month. The terminology I use is not chosen by happenstance. [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Range
Law & Order
Help With Technical Legal Line Between LEO/Peace Officer and Non Official Persons
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom