My RunIN with the JackBooted Thugs

[misskitty]

I'm beginning to hate my computer. It won't let me acess the link you provided Bicycle.

Could someone tell me what DoD stands for please? I don't remember. I'm surprised you even got a link to something dealing with DoD anyway. I conducted a search for the military and law enforcement definition of "assault" and I couldn't get ANYTHING. Which was strange usually I have very little difficulty conducting searches.

 

[BicycleTree]

DoD = Department of Defense

 

[misskitty]

Ah yes. Thanks for reminding me.

 

[Evo]

I looked online for the manual for the Coast Guard on the use of deadly force. Couldn't find it, but I found similar for the Department of Defense:

http://usmilitary.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/html/521056.htm

In particular, the following guideline applies to DoD personnel:
E2.1.6.4. In the case of holstered weapons, a weapon should not be removed from the holster unless there is reasonable expectation that use of the weapon may be necessary.


By these rules, if the Coast Guardsmen were in the DoD, they would have acted counter to regulations. Of course, maybe the Coast Guard has much greater authority to use deadly force than DoD personnel.

That doesn't apply to the Coast Guard or other law enforcement. Plus if it did, they were acting according to regulations because as it states reasonable expectation that use of the weapon may be necessary. That clearly applies in the case of someone interferring with officers in the middle of an arrest. There was definitely reasonable expectation that use of the weapon may be necessary. Most people in their right mind wouldn't do something like that.

 

[misskitty]

I would really like to have the Military's definition of "assault" as well as their guidelines of when to use their weapons. I don't know if it's different for every branch, but it would be an interesting link for this thread.

As far as Ray goes, Evo I agree the authorities handled the situation the way they did. I don't think their reaction was too much. I'm actually suprised they didn't charge him with misuse of 911. He never should have contacted the authorities through that channel. Why not just look up the number for the police department and call. Or better yet, contact the Coast Guards' superiors since he felt the Coast Guard personel was out of line. The local police could have been left out of the entire situation.

 

[BicycleTree]

That doesn't apply to the Coast Guard or other law enforcement. Plus if it did, they were acting according to regulations because as it states reasonable expectation that use of the weapon may be necessary. That clearly applies in the case of someone interferring with officers in the middle of an arrest. There was definitely reasonable expectation that use of the weapon may be necessary. Most people in their right mind wouldn't do something like that.

About 3/4 of the way down the page there is a section on exactly when deadly force is justified (heading E2.1.2). Basically there are conditions that must be met, and these conditions were not likely to be met in the situation of a man with an oar.

E2.1.2. Deadly force is justified only under conditions of extreme necessity and when all three of the following circumstances are present:

E2.1.2.1. Lesser means have been exhausted, are unavailable, or cannot be reasonably employed;

E2.1.2.2. The risk of death or serious bodily harm to innocent persons is not significantly increased by use; and

E2.1.2.3. The purpose of its use is one or more of the following:

(It then proceeds to list and describe at length a number of headings, none of which that situation can reasonably fall under; in addition E2.1.2.2 and E2.1.2.1 are not met)

Yes, this code doesn't apply to Coast Guard, but Department of Defense personnel involved in law enforcement and security are fairly close in function and organization to Coast Guard personnel (who are part of the Department of Homeland Security). What we need to find for this discussion to come to a conclusion is the code that applies specifically to Coast Guard.

 

[chroot]

I don't believe pulling a gun counts as using deadly force; only firing it counts. Can you verify one way or another?

- Warren

 

[BicycleTree]

It doesn't count as using deadly force, but (by those regulations) a gun should not be drawn unless deadly force is expected to be used.

 

[BicycleTree]

Well, unless "use of the weapon" is expected. I believe that using a gun does constitute deadly force because of the substantial likelihood of killing the target. I suppose if you're an expert marksman you could carefully shoot someone in the leg and not be using deadly force. But that's speculation.

 

[Evo]

It doesn't count as using deadly force, but (by those regulations) a gun should not be drawn unless deadly force is expected to be used.

And they had reason to believe that Ray was a potential threat. He interfered with an arrest in progress. Is there some part of that you don't get?

 

[BicycleTree]

Interfering with an arrest in progress is not one of the conditions in that document for use of deadly force. Remember that the only thing Ray did was assault the officer. An oar is not a weapon. Merely giving the officer the finger is assaulting him. A gun should only be drawn in serious, dangerous situations.

Chroot, here is the definition of deadly force (for the Dept of Defense):
3.2. Deadly Force. Force that a person uses causing, or that a person knows or should know would create a substantial risk of causing, death or serious bodily harm. Deadly force shall be used only as set forth in enclosure 2.

That seems to include use of a gun. I have read somewhere (on a police dept page) definitions of non-deadly force and an intermediate degree of force which I forget the name of, and I think that a gun may be used under some circumstances for the intermediate degree of force, but by the definition in this document it appears shooting someone with a gun is always deadly force.

We really need the document for deadly force for the Coast Guard.

 

[Evo]

Interfering with an arrest in progress is not one of the conditions in that document for use of deadly force. Remember that the only thing Ray did was assault the officer. An oar is not a weapon. Merely giving the officer the finger is assaulting him. A gun should only be drawn in serious, dangerous situations.

Chroot, here is the definition of deadly force (for the Dept of Defense):
3.2. Deadly Force. Force that a person uses causing, or that a person knows or should know would create a substantial risk of causing, death or serious bodily harm. Deadly force shall be used only as set forth in enclosure 2.

That seems to include use of a gun. I have read somewhere (on a police dept page) definitions of non-deadly force and an intermediate degree of force which I forget the name of, and I think that a gun may be used under some circumstances for the intermediate degree of force, but by the definition in this document it appears shooting someone with a gun is always deadly force.

We really need the document for deadly force for the Coast Guard.

The use of deadly force is firing the weapon. They didn't use deadly force.

 

[BicycleTree]

There must be an expectation to fire the weapon (use deadly force) before the weapon may be drawn.

I will now leave this discussion until such a time as someone links to the relevant document for use of deadly force in the Coast Guard. Further discussion on the current information is now pointless.

 

[honestrosewater]

By the way, why are all of your posts truncated at the ends of the lines like that? No line ever goes all the way to the right side of the text box. The same thing happens to Tournesol. What causes that?

Copypasting from another program, or they're trying to be poetic.

 

[chroot]

The other problem is that we don't really know what ray did. Based on his later posts, it seems likely he was significantly more beligerant than he made himself out to be. We have no idea how severe a threat he made himself out to be.

- Warren

 

[Moonbear]

It doesn't count as using deadly force, but (by those regulations) a gun should not be drawn unless deadly force is expected to be used.

Nope, from your own earlier quote, it states:

E2.1.6.4. In the case of holstered weapons, a weapon should not be removed from the holster unless there is reasonable expectation that use of the weapon may be necessary.

It doesn't say they expect they will use, but that they may need to use it. You're also assuming the oar could not have been used as a weapon, but none of us here knows what size or shape or weight oar he was holding. There is also no way for anyone who was not a witness to know if there was anything threatening in the way the oar was being held, to suggest ray b could have intended to use it as a weapon, even if it would have been an ineffective weapon.

Regardless, the judge already threw out the charges related to holding the oar as a weapon. Ray will have his day in court on the other charges as well. If it turns out he was wrongfully arrested and the remaining charges thrown out, then the proper channel is for him to then file a wrongful arrest complaint against the Coast Guardsman who pulled the gun on him or the police officers who arrested him. He could have filed a complaint regarding the gun being drawn anyway, and if a court found the Coast Guardsman was wrong in drawing it under those circumstances, and there's always room for that possibility, then the CG would be disciplined.

Without any of us having witnessed the events, and through a clearly biased description of the events, the bottom line is none of us can truly say what was right or wrong under those circumstances. That is why arrests are not the end-all-be-all of our justice system.

 

[Zantra]

You know, this reminded me of an incident when I was a youth. Classic case of wrong place, wrong time. I'd just left my friend's house and I was walking through an alley. Along the side of the alley there was a wall about 8-10 feet high, and on the other side was a mcdonalds parking lot. Well as I was walking along the wall, I heard some voices that I thought I knew, so I jumped up and grabbed the wall to peek over it. As I'm jumping up to peek over along comes this cop car blazing down the alley. This startled me as I hadn't see the cop, so I let go of the wall. He comes up asking me What I was doing, and I told him, and he didnt believe me. So he throws me in the cop car, takes me around the corner to a house down the street. He jumps up out and talks to this older woman standing there(I say older, but I was a kid, so she could have been 25). Anyhow, she looks at me, nods, next thing I know I'm heading to the pokey.

Turns out some kids had stolen a moped of hers, and she had seen the backs of them from probably 400 yards away. So she ID'ed me as one of the kids. Needless to say I was not the kid in question, and after "grilling" me for a few hours and not getting me to admit that I'd stolen the bike, the let me go and dropped the charges. If I was an adult at the time I would have turned around and filed a lawsuit, but since I was maybe 15 I just shrugged and went on.

So with all that in mind, ray you're a paranoid nutjob

 

[misskitty]

Interfering with an arrest in progress is not one of the conditions in that document for use of deadly force.

That doesn't count because those rules only apply to civilian law enforcement personel. Not Coast Guard.

Ray was intereferring with an arrest in progess. Evo is right, the only time force becomes deadly is if the weapon discharges, not if its just pointed at someone tagged as potentially dangerous.

 

[misskitty]

The other problem is that we don't really know what ray did. Based on his later posts, it seems likely he was significantly more beligerant than he made himself out to be. We have no idea how severe a threat he made himself out to be.

- Warren

Whatever he did was enough to coorse (sp?) the police to arrest him. I agree with you Warren, I think Ray was more beligerent then he lead us to believe. Which isn't a smart thing to do, but then again we only have one side of the story.

 

[ray b]

BS there was NO ARREST
the man with the suger was let go
as per the coastie he was NEVER ARRESTED mearly detained
and as he had violated NO LAW let go

AND by ingageing the coasties in conversation
and expressing the comunitys outrage at the tactics and M/O and lack of discression in busting people for VERY SMALL amounts drugs for personal use in their HOMES and for various other minor violations NOT COMMONLY INFORCED
while they were in a standing around and WAIT MODE

so just how DID I INTERFEAR with JUSTICE?

and by carrying an oar from a car to a boat without any intent or threat to use the oar, HOW DID I assalt anyone

remember I was not arrested at that point
only told to leave
only after a 9-11 call to report a man WITHOUT ID in a UNMARKED VAN
pulling a GUN and ORDERING me to leave a place where I had every right to be
who CLAIMED to be a coast guards man
or JUST THE FACTS and nothing BUT THE FACTS

and as I saw the coastie move their van [so I thought they left} only then did I return ,BUT stop short of the dock
and speak to the local cops
AND ONLY after instructed by the local cops to come closer and show ID
did I return to the dock
then
after the man who had the suger was let go [and the thugs lost their first victom and were pissed and embarrested as a result] was I arrested on totaly FALSE charges
as I didnot and had no intent of any assault or interfearance with anyone to do anything
in fact the only assault was on me by the GUNMAN
and that is what I tryed to report in the 9-11 call
as I was TRYING TO WORK WITHIN THE SYSTEM

 

[chroot]

I call BS on the whole story at this point, honestly.

- Warren

 

[Moonbear]

Tell the judge about it. He/she is paid to listen to your story. I suggest you pick just one version and stick with it when you go to court.

 

[misskitty]

That's not working within the system. You abused the 911 line. You should have contacted the police at the station, not 911.

Moonbear, I agree with you. Tell a one version of your story to a judge. They will decide whether you were or were not interfering with an arrest after speaking with you, the local authorities and the Coast Guard Personel involved. The judge will decide what to do with you. I can only hope that the judge will deal with you accordingly just like the police and CG did.

 

[russ_watters]

Yeah, its probaby best if you don't tell the judge you knew they were coasties, then tell the judge you didn't know they were coasties. Its probably also better to say you didn't know what they were doing, since there was no way for you to know at the time.

 

[misskitty]

This is true. But, I have to ask, how many times has ray changed his story without thinking about it? I would take a gander of a few. What's to say he won't do that in front of a judge? I'm not trying to sound bulidgerent (sp?) or nasty. Its a serious question.

 

[Moonbear]

This is true. But, I have to ask, how many times has ray changed his story without thinking about it? I would take a gander of a few. What's to say he won't do that in front of a judge? I'm not trying to sound bulidgerent (sp?) or nasty. Its a serious question.

And that's precisely what judges listen for. That's why they go to school all those years and get paid good money, because they have to sit and listen to these types of stories all day long and sort out the truth from the fabrications, often based on internal consistency of the story.

 

[misskitty]

How much do you think a slip up by ray might affect him? Do you think it might change whatever punishment the judge might give him?

 

[Moonbear]

How much do you think a slip up by ray might affect him? Do you think it might change whatever punishment the judge might give him?

It's a lot harder to "slip up" if you stick to the truth and don't waiver from that. It's when you start inventing facts and changing your story that it gets harder to keep it all straight. So, a so-called "slip up" could mean the difference between guilt and innocence because it undermines your credibility when your only defense is your word (all the witnesses were law enforcement, none on ray's side according to his story).

 

[Astronuc]

BS there was NO ARREST
the man with the suger was let go
as per the coastie he was NEVER ARRESTED mearly detained
and as he had violated NO LAW let go

So why get involved in the situation

AND by ingageing the coasties in conversation
and expressing the comunitys outrage at the tactics and M/O and lack of discression in busting people for VERY SMALL amounts drugs for personal use in their HOMES and for various other minor violations NOT COMMONLY INFORCED while they were in a standing around and WAIT MODE

so just how DID I INTERFEAR with JUSTICE?

The law is the law. Presumably, the officers has probable cause. You did not get involved in justice, you interferred with the process. You have to collect evidence and file a complaint through appropriate channels. If that is not enough, get the ACLU involved.

and by carrying an oar from a car to a boat without any intent or threat to use the oar, HOW DID I assalt anyone

Assault is defined as "The act or an instance of unlawfully threatening . . . ". You might have threatened the officers if you "approached with an oar". The threat is based on "perception of the victim".

remember I was not arrested at that point only told to leave
only after a 9-11 call to report a man WITHOUT ID in a UNMARKED VAN
pulling a GUN and ORDERING me to leave a place where I had every right to be who CLAIMED to be a coast guards man or JUST THE FACTS and nothing BUT THE FACTS

If an officer asks you to leave the vicinity then leave. It seems ray b, you understood or had reason to believe that the 'coasties' were indeed 'coasties', and if that is the case, use of 911 was not warrented.

and as I saw the coastie move their van [so I thought they left} only then did I return ,BUT stop short of the dock and speak to the local cops AND ONLY after instructed by the local cops to come closer and show ID did I return to the dock then after the man who had the suger was let go [and the thugs lost their first victom and were pissed and embarrested as a result] was I arrested on totaly FALSE charges

Well it seems through your posts that you admit to interfering with law enforcement, and then made inappropriate use of 911.

Maybe you should plead temporary insanity.

 

[ray b]

so if a law officer assults you
you should never call 9-11 to report it??
and pulling a gun and pointing it at a person is an ASSAULT
if I went to a very remote cop/shop they would have wanted names and other info I didnot have ect

what is the PROBLEM, with a call to 9-11 that reported facts

and BTW what are you babbeling on about here
" slip up by ray might affect him"?

 

[russ_watters]

The officers didn't assault you, you assaulted them.

 

[misskitty]

IF you had been assaulted, which you weren't, IF the assault was bad enough and you were unconscious because of it, which didn't happen, you wouldn't be able to call 911 anyway. IF you were conscious enough and coherant enough you perhaps could drive yourself to a nearby medical emergency centre.

BUT NONE OF THIS HAPPENED BECAUSE YOU WEREN'T THE ONE ASSAULTED, THE LAW ENFORCEMENT PERSONEL WAS. SO ITS A MOOT POINT.

 

[Astronuc]

so if a law officer assults you
you should never call 9-11 to report it??
and pulling a gun and pointing it at a person is an ASSAULT
if I went to a very remote cop/shop they would have wanted names and other info I didnot have ect

By definition, an officer on duty cannot assault a person. The officer would likely have probable cause. Russ is right, you involved yourself 'unnecessarily'.

If an officer is off-duty and does actually 'assault' someone or you, then it may be appropriate to call 911. There is a grey area, if someone or you are performing a criminal act, or an actin in a manner that a reasonable person might construe as criminal.

I have had police officers pull guns on me. It was an amusing (well not for the guns in my face) and interesting experience. It didn't help that I had no ID (but then I wasn't planning on doing anything that would cause me worry about being in the middle of a bust), so they thought I was someone else. Charges were dropped. No big deal - no hard feelings.

what is the PROBLEM, with a call to 9-11 that reported facts

That is not appropriate. The 911 number is for 'emergency'. There was no emergency.

and BTW what are you babbeling on about here
" slip up by ray might affect him"?

Moonbear is wondering what the consequences will be for you if your testimony in court is inconsistent, or contradictory.

 

[ray b]

IF you had been assaulted, which you weren't, IF the assault was bad enough and you were unconscious because of it, which didn't happen, you wouldn't be able to call 911 anyway. IF you were conscious enough and coherant enough you perhaps could drive yourself to a nearby medical emergency centre.

BUT NONE OF THIS HAPPENED BECAUSE YOU WEREN'T THE ONE ASSAULTED, THE LAW ENFORCEMENT PERSONEL WAS. SO ITS A MOOT POINT.

you DO NOT KNOW THE LAW
assault is not hitting anyone that's battery
and pulling a gun and pointing it at a person IS ASSAULT
carrying an oar is not, nore is it reason to pull a gun
I reported a CRIME but the pigs don't enforce the laws on each other
that is a big problem here in Miami and many places in amerika today
and pigs do retaliate on those who report their actions
that is what this is all about as there was no arrest for assault intill the report of it

or the use of state terror to protect the jackbooted thugs from criticisum
I was assaulted and reported it and was arrested as a result

 

[ray b]

"" By definition, an officer on duty cannot assault a person ""

and I wonder who wrote that bit of BS LAW a former cop no-dought
I wonder if he was one of
the cops in selma who sic'ed their dogs on blacks trying to register to vote
or the national guards men at kent state who shot unarmed protesters
or the cops mayor daily sent to bust heads at the 68 convention PIG RIOT

btw no one ever went to jail or even court in those CRIMES
and while both the SS and KGB would support that view how can a free people
belive such a EVIL IDEA ?
esp if they expect to remain free