# Stuff and Things > Guns and Self Defense >  Cops Kill Weaponless Young Man with Downs Syndrome

## Guest

http://www.infowars.com/man-with-dow...ted-by-police/

He was staying in the theater after watching Zero Dark Thirty and wouldn't leave, the cops jumped him, cuffed, him etc, (follow link for full story)

Contact info below to actually *do* something about it:

saylor5.jpg

_The Huffington Post  reported that Patti Saylor, Roberts mother, stated Robert has never  had anyone put their hands on him in his life, implying he may have  reacted out of fear. He would not have been doing anything threatening  to anybody.
_
_In a post  that has appeared in several places online, a woman named Lynda Willis  has urged others to help spread awareness of the horrific story:_
_The police officers remain on duty and were allowed to  invoke their rights as police officers not to provide statements even  though they were not on duty or performing official duties at the time.  They were security guards in police uniforms._
_The county police are investigating and the story has received local news coverage. Please share this everywhere both to ensure justice but also to raise public awareness._
_Where is our humanity when a young, obviously disabled young man dies  for the price of a movie ticket? My son is worth a lot more to me &  society than eleven dollars.__A reminder to police everywhere: you are employed to protect the  people, not yourselves. If these three men have committed murder, or  homicide, it is not the place of a police or sheriffs department to  protect them. If the department does protect them, at least in my eyes,  they are complicit in murder. People do not pay taxes for police to go  out and act like gang members and kill innocent people.
_
_Below is contact information for the Frederick County Sheriffs department:_
_Frederick County -Law Enforcement Center
110 Airport Drive East
Frederick, MD 21701
Ph: (301) 600-1046
Fax: (301)600-1527_

----------

OceanloverOH (02-21-2013)

----------


## The XL

I wish every cop involved in this got the death penalty.  

They'll get paid suspension.  That'll teach 'em.

----------



----------


## Guest

This is why I can't stand the apologists like Bluesguy and Don Glock.  They think that cops should be able to do everything they want with impunity and never face risk, meanwhile...tether our fucking military.

Fuck those guys.  The day they made excuses for the cops shooting that one armed, one legged man holding a felt tip marker...I wanted to throw up.

----------

The XL (02-21-2013)

----------


## The XL

My dad was a cop.  I have a bunch of uncles, aunts, and other family members that were too.  So I have no bias when I say:

Fuck most cops.  They are shit.  I can only hope my family members that are cops didn't/don't do the shit these scumbags do.  If I knew they did, I'd disown them on the spot.

----------

OceanloverOH (02-21-2013)

----------


## OceanloverOH

Good God almighty.  DON'T THEY HAVE MINIMUM PERSONALITY PROFILE REQUIREMENTS FOR POLICE CANDIDATES ANYMORE?  And if so, do 3rd graders write them?  Is dealing with mentally impaired people part of their training?  Or have police forces gotten so desperate they just routinely hire any dumbshit nutbar who doesn't know right from wrong or his/her ass from a hole in the ground?  The majority of Down Syndrome victims are the sweetest, most innocent and loving human beings imaginable, though they can be easily and severely frightened by what they view as a threat.  Once he was struggling, these cops should have calmed down, hands off, and spoken to him as though he was a child, and asked him if he had a phone so they could call his Mom or Dad to help him?  Or just let him stay and watch the goddam movie again....I would have paid the $11 myself, FFS.  This is disgusting.....and heartbreaking.  His poor family.

----------

Canadianeye (02-21-2013),Irascible Crusader (02-22-2013)

----------


## liberal_hack

tragedy: yes
sad: absolutely

Does it sound like the intent was to injure or kill him?

_Cpl. Jennifer Bailey, of the Frederick County Sheriffs Office,  stated, They made numerous attempts to get him to leave, he was cursing  at them, at that point they physically removed him, and he began having  the medical emergency. [sic]_ _She elaborated further stating the deputies in question immediately  removed the handcuffs and administered first aid when they noticed the  disabled man going into distress, adding Its a very sad case, and not  something we see everyday._



I do not condone a police state mentality but for the avg run of the mill person, being cuffed and put face down on the ground is not a life threatening situation. If it is found that they choked him, or sat on him making breathing impossible or anything like that, then toss them in jail for a long period.

But, I won't jump to conclusions and am shocked that a person working in the legal system would jump to conclusions.

----------


## patrickt

I hardly know where to start since this was a horrible tragedy but I suppose commenting on the obvious errors in the original article might be appropriate.

"_The police officers remain on duty and were allowed to invoke their rights as police officers not to provide statements even though they were not on duty or performing official duties at the time."
_
I'm shocked that a defense lawyer didn't catch this. After all, police have no right not to provide statements but everyone in the country does. You don't have to make any potentially incriminating statements to the police.

When I was working as a police officer I often visited group homes with people with Downs Syndrome and was sometimes invited to dinner. People with Downs Syndrome have widely different levels of functioning but I really question whether this young man should have been at the theater on his own. It would seem he shouldn't have been.

On the surface, ignoring the source and the inaccuracies, it appears to be a tragedy that should have been avoided. I've never met a person, usually a male, with Downs Syndrome where the condition was not fairly obvious. If the lights had been on I would have thought the young man's condition would have been apparent. So, my opinion is the officers should have avoided the conflict. I have already question the judgement exercised in letting him go to this movie alone.

I was also surprised that a lawyer is not advocating letting the process take it's course in court but prefers mob action. Hypocritical attorneys are hard to stand. I wonder if this lawyer would get whiplash changing course if one of the officers hired her?

----------


## Guest

> tragedy: yes
> sad: absolutely
> 
> Does it sound like the intent was to injure or kill him?
> 
> _Cpl. Jennifer Bailey, of the Frederick County Sheriffs Office,  stated, They made numerous attempts to get him to leave, he was cursing  at them, at that point they physically removed him, and he began having  the medical emergency. [sic]_ _She elaborated further stating the deputies in question immediately  removed the handcuffs and administered first aid when they noticed the  disabled man going into distress, adding Its a very sad case, and not  something we see everyday._


1. We have their word that the did all of this AFTER he started to go into distress
2. Why did they overreact in such a way?  They were off duty as private security and forced one lone disabled man to the ground because he stayed later.  I would have just tried to call his family.
3. You're conditioned already to think this is appropriate.  Fifty years ago they would not have done this to him.




> I do not condone a police state mentality but for the avg run of the mill person, being cuffed and put face down on the ground is not a life threatening situation. If it is found that they choked him, or sat on him making breathing impossible or anything like that, then toss them in jail for a long period.
> 
> But, I won't jump to conclusions and am shocked that a person working in the legal system would jump to conclusions.


Why would you be shocked when I see/hear this stuff every day?  Police are no longer trained to take a little risk or pain.  They've been told that is no longer part of the job requirements.  Funny that our military has been trained to meet force with like force, not exert _more_ force when "policing" cities.

Here is my BIGGEST problem with police:

They must finish everything within 5 minutes.  They have zero patience to wait situations out.  The one armed, one legged wheelchair bound man with a felt tip pen was killed within only 2 MINUTES of their arrival to the managed care facility.

----------


## liberal_hack

> 1. We have their word that the did all of this AFTER he started to go into distress
> 2. Why did they overreact in such a way?  They were off duty as private security and forced one lone disabled man to the ground because he stayed later.  I would have just tried to call his family.
> 3. You're conditioned already to think this is appropriate.  Fifty years ago they would not have done this to him.
> 
> 
> 
> Why would you be shocked when I see/hear this stuff every day?  Police are no longer trained to take a little risk or pain.  They've been told that is no longer part of the job requirements.  Funny that our military has been trained to meet force with like force, not exert _more_ force when "policing" cities.
> 
> Here is my BIGGEST problem with police:
> ...


I am not conditioned to think this appropriate. As a wizened person, I am however aware that things are not always as they appear. Life experience has taught me not to jump to conclusions.

When this occurred, was it dark? Could they discern whether the man was mentally challenged, intoxicated or under other influence? Who knows? That needs to be discovered.

----------


## Guest

> I am not conditioned to think this appropriate. As a wizened person, I am however aware that things are not always as they appear. Life experience has taught me not to jump to conclusions.


And life experience has shown me to be ever-wary and look for patterns.

Unfortunately, I see the results of off the hook police officers every week.  I also, unfortunately, cannot turn away police officers whose unions abandon them after they do something fucking nuts--or I would, believe me.  I'm cold that way.  So monthly, I'm doubly reminded of the types of people who go into enforcement and how their job effects them negatively.

----------


## liberal_hack

> And life experience has shown me to be ever-wary and look for patterns.
> 
> Unfortunately, I see the results of off the hook police officers every week.  I also, unfortunately, cannot turn away police officers whose unions abandon them after they do something fucking nuts--or I would, believe me.  I'm cold that way.  So monthly, I'm doubly reminded of the types of people who go into enforcement and how their job effects them negatively.


I will make no excuses for the police; they choose their line of work. I do however understand that day in and day out they tend to deal with people at their worst or also the dregs of society. Chances are they aren't going to meet their future Mr or Mrs on their next "call".

My very good friend was a cop in a large urban area and eventually got out and moved to a rural area taking a tremendous pay cut but kept his sanity.

----------


## Guest

> I will make no excuses for the police; they choose their line of work. I do however understand that day in and day out they tend to deal with people at their worst or also the dregs of society. Chances are they aren't going to meet their future Mr or Mrs on their next "call".


I've been beaten by clients of mine who are insane.  I accept that these things happen in my job.  About three weeks ago I posted from bed because my ribs were cracked.

I didn't get on here whining because thems are the breaks of my job.  I'm not a wussy.  I wear a suit.  I don't have kevlar, no bullet proof anything, no gun...I just accept the risks of my job and my own responsibilities.

This kid with a little patience could be waited out.  In most situations with time and patience you can defuse the situation, not escalate it.

----------


## Guest

Duplicate post

----------


## liberal_hack

> I've been beaten by clients of mine who are insane.  I accept that these things happen in my job.  About three weeks ago I posted from bed because my ribs were cracked.
> 
> I didn't get on here whining because thems are the breaks of my job.  I'm not a wussy.  I wear a suit.  I don't have kevlar, no bullet proof anything, no gun...I just accept the risks of my job and my own responsibilities.
> 
> *This kid with a little patience could be waited out.  In most situations with time and patience you can defuse the situation, not escalate it*.


I would say that you are assuming too much. Are you assuming that they knew he had Downs Syndrome? Are you assuming that it was well lit and they could identify that?

Part of the reason a person is restrained is to protect the person as well as others in the vicinity. Police are expected to "take control" of a situation. What you are asking is that they "manage" a situation and there are very distinct differences between the 2.

----------


## Guest

> I would say that you are assuming too much. Are you assuming that they knew he had Downs Syndrome? Are you assuming that it was well lit and they could identify that?


The movie was long over and as you know the lights come on so the place can be cleaned.




> Part of the reason a person is restrained is to protect the person as well as others in the vicinity. Police are expected to "take control" of a situation. What you are asking is that they "manage" a situation and there are very distinct differences between the 2.


I'm saying that the police rush to control a situation and in many times make it worse.

----------


## garyo

Do we need to give them the benefit of the doubt until all the facts come out, one fact for sure, a dead retarded man, irrefutable fact.

----------



----------


## liberal_hack

> Do we need to give them the benefit of the doubt until all the facts come out, one fact for sure, a dead retarded man, irrefutable fact.


nah, guilty until proven innocent

----------


## garyo

Good, you're starting to come around.

----------


## Guest

> nah, guilty until proven innocent


Isn't that what they did with the kid?  Assume he couldn't be talked gently out within 10 minutes?

----------


## liberal_hack

> Isn't that what they did with the kid?  Assume he couldn't be talked gently out within 10 minutes?


again, a rush to judgment. The article states that when they realized he was in trouble that they immediately jumped into first aid mode. Do you really think the intent was to kill/injure the person? I hope to God that if for any reason I am ever in court, that I do not draw any of you on the jury.

----------


## Fearandloathing

What difference does have a condition of Downs Syndrome make when the suspect is a threat to national sercuirituy, is aiding and abetting terrorism and probably masterbates.



"Do what we say and nothing bad happens.'  You have nothing to fear if you have done nothing wrong."


This guy wouldn't give up his seat...he had to die as next he might refuse to be patted down at an airport and where would society be.

----------

garyo (02-21-2013)

----------


## Guest

> again, a rush to judgment. The article states that when they realized he was in trouble that they immediately jumped into first aid mode. Do you really think the intent was to kill/injure the person? I hope to God that if for any reason I am ever in court, that I do not draw any of you on the jury.


No, I do not think they intended to kill him.  I think they were criminally negligent.  Spend more time coaxing and talking then going into take-down mode.  I've watched the cops.  They spend shit time trying to talk people out of whatever it is they are doing and just go into aggressive mode because they've been told that they are more important than public safety, that the rules of humanity do not apply to them.

Like I said on another thread, I've met EXCELLENT cops who put themselves into danger before harming others, who take the time to negotiate and talk to people--even with the risk, and as a result these are the cops who get cookies, cakes, and pizzas sent to the police station.

----------


## The XL

> again, a rush to judgment. The article states that when they realized he was in trouble that they immediately jumped into first aid mode. Do you really think the intent was to kill/injure the person? I hope to God that if for any reason I am ever in court, that I do not draw any of you on the jury.


I'd love to know how the fuck they managed to kill the kid in the first place, then.  They weren't being gentle, that's for sure.

----------



----------


## Guest

> I'd love to know how the fuck they managed to kill the kid in the first place, then.  They weren't being gentle, that's for sure.


Ask any police officer how long they have been told they have to "manage" a situation.  That's my biggest problem.  It's like why don't they have 24 hours?  Most of the deaths could be avoided by them just fucking waiting it out.

----------

The XL (02-21-2013)

----------


## The XL

How does one kill someone who isn't a threat, who's just sitting in a movie theater, by accident?  

Those variables, the outcome, and by accident do not compute in my brain.  Would someone smarter than me with more knowledge of police like to give this a shot and enlighten me?

----------


## Guest

> How does one kill someone who isn't a threat, who's just sitting in a movie theater, by accident?  
> 
> Those variables, the outcome, and by accident do not compute in my brain.  Would someone smarter than me with more knowledge of police like to give this a shot and enlighten me?


Well, the kid probably scared the THREE officers.  I mean, everyone can have a gun on them somewhere...right?

----------


## The XL

> Well, the kid probably scared the THREE officers.  I mean, everyone can have a gun on them somewhere...right?


Yep.  Next thing you know pregnant women and children will be packing heat, aggressively.

----------


## OceanloverOH

> People with Downs Syndrome have widely different levels of functioning but I really question whether this young man should have been at the theater on his own. It would seem he shouldn't have been.
> 
> On the surface, ignoring the source and the inaccuracies, it appears to be a tragedy that should have been avoided. I've never met a person, usually a male, with Downs Syndrome where the condition was not fairly obvious. If the lights had been on I would have thought the young man's condition would have been apparent. So, my opinion is the officers should have avoided the conflict. I have already question the judgement exercised in letting him go to this movie alone.


Mr. Saylor was NOT attending the movie alone.  I just read an update to the story....he was at the theater accompanied by a caregiver.  The caregiver left him alone AFTER THE LIGHTS WENT ON only long enough to exit the theater and go get their vehicle, shortly after which the altercation took place.  Should the caregiver have left him alone?  Probably not.  But it may have been a case where there were big crowds and the car parked at a distance.....and Mr. Saylor was obese.

----------


## Guest

> Mr. Saylor was NOT attending the movie alone.  I just read an update to the story....he was at the theater accompanied by a caregiver.  The caregiver left him alone AFTER THE LIGHTS WENT ON only long enough to exit the theater and go get their vehicle, shortly after which the altercation took place.  Should the caregiver have left him alone?  Probably not.  But it may have been a case where there were big crowds and the car parked at a distance.....and Mr. Saylor was obese.


Yes, the lights were on...but cop defenders will come up with some other reason why three grown ass trained men needed to jump someone within MINUTES of trying to talk to him instead of talking calmly and asking him if he was alone, who he was with, etc.

They NEVER wait shit out.

----------

The XL (02-21-2013)

----------


## The XL

I'd imagine it's really hard to kill someone who isn't a threat sitting in a movie theater unless you're trying.

----------



----------


## St James

> I hardly know where to start since this was a horrible tragedy but I suppose commenting on the obvious errors in the original article might be appropriate.
> 
> "_The police officers remain on duty and were allowed to invoke their rights as police officers not to provide statements even though they were not on duty or performing official duties at the time."
> _
> I'm shocked that a defense lawyer didn't catch this. After all, police have no right not to provide statements but everyone in the country does. You don't have to make any potentially incriminating statements to the police.
> 
> When I was working as a police officer I often visited group homes with people with Downs Syndrome and was sometimes invited to dinner. People with Downs Syndrome have widely different levels of functioning but I really question whether this young man should have been at the theater on his own. It would seem he shouldn't have been.
> 
> On the surface, ignoring the source and the inaccuracies, it appears to be a tragedy that should have been avoided. I've never met a person, usually a male, with Downs Syndrome where the condition was not fairly obvious. If the lights had been on I would have thought the young man's condition would have been apparent. So, my opinion is the officers should have avoided the conflict. I have already question the judgement exercised in letting him go to this movie alone.
> ...


again I say..........welcome to the police state

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> Good God almighty.  DON'T THEY HAVE MINIMUM PERSONALITY PROFILE REQUIREMENTS FOR POLICE CANDIDATES ANYMORE?


Of course. You have to be good at lying, crime, and corruption.

----------


## liberal_hack

> Of course. You have to be good at lying, crime, and corruption.


one of my very good friends is a cop and your broad brush is far from accurate. Another friend retired after 25 years in NY and started a business. He is nothing like you depict. Your diarrhea of the mouth will some day write a check that your body can't cash.

----------


## Irascible Crusader

> http://www.infowars.com/man-with-dow...ted-by-police/
> 
> He was staying in the theater after watching Zero Dark Thirty and wouldn't leave, the cops jumped him, cuffed, him etc, (follow link for full story)
> 
> Contact info below to actually *do* something about it:
> 
> Attachment 347
> 
> _The Huffington Post  reported that Patti Saylor, Roberts mother, stated Robert has never  had anyone put their hands on him in his life, implying he may have  reacted out of fear. He would not have been doing anything threatening  to anybody.
> ...


At what point did the police act improperly?

----------


## Guest

> At what point did the police act improperly?


Define improper.

The entire incident took less time than it did for the caretaker to run from the theater to her car and pull it around.  So, rather than wait out a few minutes, they jump the kid.

That is my problem with law enforcement of today.  They immediate rush to action when patience could result in no one being injured.

----------


## liberal_hack

> At what point did the police act improperly?


without the entire story not one us here can make that call.

----------


## Guest

> without the entire story not one us here can make that call.


Did you read the part where they did all of this shit OFF DUTY?  As private security?

----------


## The XL

Odds are they were ridiculously rough and aggressive with him, and that led to his death.  Perhaps "accidental," but unacceptable and avoidable in the same way a teenager doing a wrestling move on his little brother and killing him is a accident, but unacceptable and avoidable.  Except these idiots are adults and are suppose to work for us and protect us.

----------

OceanloverOH (02-22-2013)

----------


## Guest

> Odds are they were ridiculously rough and aggressive with him, and that led to his death.  Perhaps "accidental," but unacceptable and avoidable in the same way a teenager doing a wrestling move on his little brother and killing him is a accident, but unacceptable and avoidable.  Except these idiots are adults and our suppose to work for us and protect us.


Ohhhh, but cops aren't supposed to have ANY risk to themselves.  Those three grown men were totally allowed to handcuff (off duty--LOL) a Downs man and scare the shit out of him until he had heart failure.

WHAT PUSSIES.

----------

OceanloverOH (02-22-2013),The XL (02-22-2013)

----------


## The XL

> Ohhhh, but cops aren't supposed to have ANY risk to themselves.  Those three grown men were totally allowed to handcuff (off duty--LOL) a Downs man and scare the shit out of him until he had heart failure.
> 
> WHAT PUSSIES.


Ugh.  Guy was no threat.  They should have just fucked off.

Idiots......

A 26 year old with down syndrome probably has the intellectual capacity of someone under 12, so they basically handcuffed and killed a child.

----------

OceanloverOH (02-22-2013)

----------


## Guest

> Ugh.  Guy was no threat.  They should have just fucked off.
> 
> Idiots......


Or how about spoken gently to him.  We know they didn't try that long because the caregiver was gone less than 5 minutes.

----------


## The XL

> Or how about spoken gently to him.  We know they didn't try that long because the caregiver was gone less than 5 minutes.


I bet you they suffer no repercussions whatsoever.

----------



----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> one of my very good friends is a cop and your broad brush is far from accurate. Another friend retired after 25 years in NY and started a business. He is nothing like you depict. Your diarrhea of the mouth will some day write a check that your body can't cash.


I was making a joke, really, but okay dude.

----------


## liberal_hack

> I was making a joke, really, but okay dude.


then it was lost on me

----------


## garyo

Most anything to do with common sense is.

----------


## Irascible Crusader

> without the entire story not one us here can make that call.


Voted BEST response in this entire thread!  You are the only one with a sane approach to this.

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> Voted BEST response in this entire thread!  You are the only one with a sane approach to this.


We can always count on you to rush to the defense of your precious police state.

----------


## Guest

> Voted BEST response in this entire thread!  You are the only one with a sane approach to this.


Did you miss the part where they were "off duty" and are not legally allowed to do what they did in the capacity of private security?  How's that for facts?

----------


## Guest

> We can always count on you to rush to the defense of your precious police state.


Unless they arrest someone for being naked.   :Big Grin:

----------

Sinestro/Green Arrow (02-22-2013)

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> Did you miss the part where they were "off duty" and are not legally allowed to do what they did in the capacity of private security?  How's that for facts?


On duty, off duty, who cares? It's the job our saintly police to protect society regardless. Clearly, this man was only pretending to have DS. His name was actually Ahmed and planned to blow up the RNC. These men protected our country!

----------

OceanloverOH (02-22-2013)

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> Unless they arrest someone for being naked.


Zing!

----------


## Irascible Crusader

> Did you miss the part where they were "off duty" and are not legally allowed to do what they did in the capacity of private security?  How's that for facts?


I don't know the "facts" and you get your "facts" from infowars.  That's like ten times worse than Foxnews.

----------


## The XL

> I don't know the "facts" and you get your "facts" from infowars.  That's like ten times worse than Foxnews.


Except it's not.

----------


## Guest

> On duty, off duty, who cares? It's the job our saintly police to protect society regardless. Clearly, this man was only pretending to have DS. His name was actually Ahmed and planned to blow up the RNC. These men protected our country!


True, that could have been plastic explosives in that popcorn tub.

----------

Sinestro/Green Arrow (02-22-2013)

----------


## Guest

> I don't know the "facts" and you get your "facts" from infowars.  That's like ten times worse than Foxnews.


It would be the Frederick County News.  I follow all links before I post anything.  Perhaps you should try it.  You read the article, click the internal link, follow it, click more and so on until satisfied.

----------

Sinestro/Green Arrow (02-22-2013)

----------


## The XL

> True, that could have been plastic explosives in that popcorn tub.


Shh.  Don't say too much, or they'll use that as a reason against us, too.

I mean, fuckin A, the FBI already considers anyone paying for coffee with cash a potential terror suspect.

----------

Sinestro/Green Arrow (02-22-2013)

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> It would be the Frederick County News.  I follow all links before I post anything.  Perhaps you should try it.  You read the article, click the internal link, follow it, click more and so on until satisfied.


He's always right, remember? Why should he have to go through all the effort to prove it? We should just bow and kiss his feet.

----------


## Guest

http://articles.baltimoresun.com/201...eputies-office

When the movie ended, the sheriff's office says, Saylor insisted on  watching it again. The three deputies, *who were moonlighting as security  guards at the theater*, stepped in to remove him.


After Saylor cursed them, the sheriff's office says, *they placed him in handcuffs*.


Then he had what the sheriff's office has called a "medical emergency."


The  deputies removed the handcuffs and called for an ambulance, the  sheriff's office says. Saylor was taken to a hospital, where he was  pronounced dead.


After an autopsy, the office of the chief medical  examiner in Baltimore ruled the death a homicide by asphyxia last week.  The Frederick County state's attorney will determine whether criminal  charges are warranted.

*******************
http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/...e3d_story.html

Fascinated with law enforcement, Robert Ethan Saylor would sometimes  call 911 just to ask the dispatchers a question. He loved talking to  police officers and was a loyal follower of the TV show “NCIS.” 						


Now, his death at age 26 is the subject of a criminal  investigation that has left those who knew him in his Frederick County  community and those who didn’t around the country wondering: How did a young man with Down syndrome die in an encounter with the very people he idolized?






*You don't get to cuff people while moonlighting.  You are not acting as a police officer at that point*

----------


## liberal_hack

> You don't get to cuff people while moonlighting.  You are not acting as a police officer at that point[/B]



good grief, as an "officer of the court" which you claim to be one would hope you would make factually correct statements on occasion. Because you are working a 2nd job, be it washing cars, digging ditches whatever, you are always a police officer and expected to act accordingly and that includes responding to an event which is near you. In this case, they went from being simply "security" into acting as police officers.

My friend is EXPECTED to carry his gun with him. He is expected to react to situations around him even if he is off duty.

A simple litmus test is to ask a lawyer if they heard an off duty police officer was standing by watching a rape occur would that be OK with them. or, would they want to know why a cop did nothing?

You see, you cannot have it both ways

what you post may always be your opinion but it is not always correct. Sadly, there are a couple of lapdogs here who believe everything that you post as being gospel. If you really are an atty then it would do a great service to those lapdogs for you to put a disclaimer when something is merely your opinion and not being posted as an atty.

----------


## Guest

> good grief, as an "officer of the court" which you claim to be one would hope you would make factually correct statements on occasion. Because you are working a 2nd job, be it washing cars, digging ditches whatever, you are always a police officer and expected to act accordingly and that includes responding to an event which is near you. In this case, they went from being simply "security" into acting as police officers.


I am making a factual statement.  Read for comprehension.  When you are acting as private security you forgo acting in police capacity, else it is a conflict of interest, and preferential treatment.

They were not acting as dishwashers, they were acting as "private security".  Completely different.

----------


## Guest

> I am making a factual statement.  Read for comprehension.  When you are acting as private security you forgo acting in police capacity, else it is a conflict of interest, and preferential treatment.
> 
> They were not acting as dishwashers, they were acting as "private security".  Completely different.



^^I'll caveat the above with "...in New York" just in case Maryland's statutes are different--but I don't think they are.

----------


## The XL

> http://articles.baltimoresun.com/201...eputies-office
> 
> When the movie ended, the sheriff's office says, Saylor insisted on  watching it again. The three deputies, *who were moonlighting as security  guards at the theater*, stepped in to remove him.
> 
> 
> After Saylor cursed them, the sheriff's office says, *they placed him in handcuffs*.
> 
> 
> Then he had what the sheriff's office has called a "medical emergency."
> ...


That's really sad.

----------


## Irascible Crusader

> *You don't get to cuff people while moonlighting.  You are not acting as a police officer at that point*


Now I KNOW you're full of shit.  I spent 3 years as a security officer.  During that time, as a first responder to buglaries and other disturbances, I made multiple arrests some at gunpoint.  Oh, yes, and I used handcuffs.  You must be a shitty lawyer because time and time again you prove that you don't know the law.

----------


## Guest

> Now I KNOW you're full of shit.  I spent 3 years as a security officer.  During that time, as a first responder to buglaries and other disturbances, I made multiple arrests some at gunpoint.  Oh, yes, and I used handcuffs.  You must be a shitty lawyer because time and time again you prove that you don't know the law.


No offense, but ...bullshit.  When *POLICE OFFICERS* moonlight as *Private Security* they must comply and adhere to different procedures due to conflict of duty protocols--even when in the capacity of a "Paid Duty Unit".

They must call the regular police for an arrest.

Of course, you're not about to think through why they would have protocols for conflict of interest--ie, taxpayers funding their training while private agencies reap the benefits, whose interest would be protected first, etc.

And stop with the personal attacks.  You never see me throwing them your way.  If you'll note I applied a caveat of "in New York", maybe you should do the same?

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> good grief, as an "officer of the court" which you claim to be one would hope you would make factually correct statements on occasion. Because you are working a 2nd job, be it washing cars, digging ditches whatever, you are always a police officer and expected to act accordingly and that includes responding to an event which is near you. In this case, they went from being simply "security" into acting as police officers.
> 
> My friend is EXPECTED to carry his gun with him. He is expected to react to situations around him even if he is off duty.
> 
> A simple litmus test is to ask a lawyer if they heard an off duty police officer was standing by watching a rape occur would that be OK with them. or, would they want to know why a cop did nothing?
> 
> You see, you cannot have it both ways
> 
> what you post may always be your opinion but it is not always correct. Sadly, there are a couple of lapdogs here who believe everything that you post as being gospel. If you really are an atty then it would do a great service to those lapdogs for you to put a disclaimer when something is merely your opinion and not being posted as an atty.


You're full of crap. I'm a licensed security officer. We have an ex-cop (hell, prolly more than just one, but he's the only one I know) working for our company. You cannot, as a private security officer, act in the capacity of a law enforcement officer, _even if you are also a law enforcement officer._

----------



----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> Now I KNOW you're full of shit.  I spent 3 years as a security officer.  During that time, as a first responder to buglaries and other disturbances, I made multiple arrests some at gunpoint.  Oh, yes, and I used handcuffs.  You must be a shitty lawyer because time and time again you prove that you don't know the law.


You're either lying or Idaho is unique, because no private security officer is a "first responder" to burglaries and such unless they are federal, and even then you don't make arrests _ever_.

----------



----------


## Guest

> You're full of crap. I'm a licensed security officer. We have an ex-cop (hell, prolly more than just one, but he's the only one I know) working for our company. You cannot, as a private security officer, act in the capacity of a law enforcement officer, _even if you are also a law enforcement officer._


There are many reasons why police officers have different rules applied to them when moonlighting as private security, but far be it from Mike to examine it too closely.

For one, the citizens of the city or state PAID for them to go through the training that makes them a good extra-curricular candidate, and in the cases of "Paid Duty Units" to banks or other locales, there is always the question of: if the company they work for is breaking the law, to whom do they owe allegiance?

But...he doesn't ever go that deep.  It's anecdotal and I'm always wrong.

----------


## The XL

I'm all for getting rid of the state at this point.  Police are thugs with a monopoly on force, the courts are shit, and the military is just used for imperialistic globalists.

----------



----------


## Guest

I'm for privatizing it altogether so there is a feedback loop.

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> I'm all for getting rid of the state at this point.  Police are thugs with a monopoly on force, the courts are shit, and the military is just used for imperialistic globalists.


We don't even have to do that, we just have to separate everything into small communities.

----------


## liberal_hack

> You're full of crap. I'm a licensed security officer. We have an ex-cop (hell, prolly more than just one, but he's the only one I know) working for our company. You cannot, as a private security officer, act in the capacity of a law enforcement officer, _even if you are also a law enforcement officer._


ahh, and here is the lapdog

you are being misled. Let's be clear

hiring a cop off duty is simply getting an employee just like any other schmuck except he/she may have special training/skills. You are the boss of that employee

*hiring a cop* to work security would be a "detail" and the cop is being paid by the local force who in turn you are paying for the service. You are hiring a full blown police officer and he/she will not check ticket stubs, park cars etc. He/she is there as a cop. You are not the boss of that cop at that time despite paying for the detail

and here Mr lapdog is where you are being misled. Regardless if a cop is driving a bus, washing dishes or stripping, if he/she sees activity where a cop is needed and he/she is able to respond, then they are expected to do so. Think of it like Clark Kent when he removes his shirt and pants. At that point, they stop being a dishwasher/stripper and become an off-duty cop. You can be detained, heck, you can even be shot by them and it's called in the line of duty. 

I have been consistent on this. You never really stop being a cop even when you are on vacation.

Where you are not being told the entire story is because a certain someone is carefully choosing her words and omitting ones which go against what she wants you to believe. It's called a sin of omission. But, as the lapdog, you lap it up. You'll learn. It's called maturation.

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> ahh, and here is the lapdog
> 
> you are being misled. Let's be clear
> 
> hiring a cop off duty is simply getting an employee just like any other schmuck except he/she may have special training/skills. You are the boss of that employee
> 
> *hiring a cop* to work security would be a "detail" and the cop is being paid by the local force who in turn you are paying for the service. You are hiring a full blown police officer and he/she will not check ticket stubs, park cars etc. He/she is there as a cop. You are not the boss of that cop at that time despite paying for the detail
> 
> and here Mr lapdog is where you are being misled. Regardless if a cop is driving a bus, washing dishes or stripping, if he/she sees activity where a cop is needed and he/she is able to respond, then they are expected to do so. Think of it like Clark Kent when he removes his shirt and pants. At that point, they stop being a dishwasher/stripper and become an off-duty cop. You can be detained, heck, you can even be shot by them and it's called in the line of duty. 
> ...


I'm nobody's lapdog. What I've said is not Rina's words or Rina's information, it's _my_ information as a legal, licensed security officer. But, hey. Go on with your bad self. This discussion is over.

----------


## Guest

> ahh, and here is the lapdog
> 
> you are being misled. Let's be clear


Uh, no.




> hiring a cop off duty is simply getting an employee just like any other schmuck except he/she may have special training/skills. You are the boss of that employee


Conflict of interest statutes.  And they worked for a private security firm.  BIG DIFFERENCE.




> *hiring a cop* to work security would be a "detail" and the cop is being paid by the local force who in turn you are paying for the service. You are hiring a full blown police officer and he/she will not check ticket stubs, park cars etc. He/she is there as a cop. You are not the boss of that cop at that time despite paying for the detail


No.  That's a detached unit, different beat altogether and they wear their city uniforms.




> and here Mr lapdog is where you are being misled. Regardless if a cop is driving a bus, washing dishes or stripping, if he/she sees activity where a cop is needed and he/she is able to respond, then they are expected to do so. Think of it like Clark Kent when he removes his shirt and pants. At that point, they stop being a dishwasher/stripper and become an off-duty cop. You can be detained, heck, you can even be shot by them and it's called in the line of duty.


If he were a dishwasher, true.  When he's hired as private security, then it's different.  Then there are conflict of interest statutes and protocols that come into play so that the public is not held hostage to special and private interests...at least in New York...caveat, caveat, sis boom bah!




> I have been consistent on this. You never really stop being a cop even when you are on vacation.


Except when you're hired and receiving a W-2 as private security.




> Where you are not being told the entire story is because a certain someone is carefully choosing her words and omitting ones which go against what she wants you to believe. It's called a sin of omission. But, as the lapdog, you lap it up. You'll learn. It's called maturation.


Except that he's a security guard himself for a politician or something so you're telling him about his job.   :Big Grin:

----------


## Guest

> I'm nobody's lapdog. What I've said is not Rina's words or Rina's information, it's _my_ information as a legal, licensed security officer. But, hey. Go on with your bad self. This discussion is over.


Don't you love how strangers tell you about your job because they use google or "know someone"?  I do.

_Nooooo, the cop didn't read him his Miranda rights so that case will be dismissed!

Not really.  Cops just lie and you have to prove--

Listen!  It happened to my friend and he got off.

Okay, but I don't think your friend is being entirely honest--

Shut up.  You don't know what you're talking about.

Four months later...

I should have listened to you.  Fuck those guys!
_

----------

Sinestro/Green Arrow (02-22-2013)

----------


## LCgreat

The Police here where i'm living have killed one person with his hands cuffed behind his back.The good guy in blue said he feared for his life, because the bad guy had a box cutter and tired to cut him with it. So that good Cop in blue shot that bad person 11 times while his hands was cuffed behind his back. Guess who investigated the shooting ? The fair and honorable integrity Police unit,NOW THAT'S NO JOKE.

----------

Sinestro/Green Arrow (02-24-2013)

----------


## St James

> This is why I can't stand the apologists like Bluesguy and Don Glock.  They think that cops should be able to do everything they want with impunity and never face risk, meanwhile...tether our fucking military.
> 
> Fuck those guys.  The day they made excuses for the cops shooting that one armed, one legged man holding a felt tip marker...I wanted to throw up.


yep, I got into it with both of them over this...........and they still don't get it.........but we do

----------



----------


## St James

> The Police here where i'm living have killed one person with his hands cuffed behind his back.The good guy in blue said he feared for his life, because the bad guy had a box cutter and tired to cut him with it. So that good Cop in blue shot that bad person 11 times while his hands was cuffed behind his back. Guess who investigated the shooting ? The fair and honorable integrity Police unit,NOW THAT'S NO JOKE.


LMPD is chock full of murdering cops............

----------

LCgreat (02-25-2013)

----------


## LCgreat

They were getting awards for killing in the 90's,the Mayor gave a warning not to do it. His hand appointed Chief ignore him and gave out the awards anyway, knowing this city was ready to blow up about the killings.Well i'll give the Mayor a point for firing his azz! :Angry20:

----------


## Irascible Crusader

> No offense, but ...bullshit.  When *POLICE OFFICERS* moonlight as *Private Security* they must comply and adhere to different procedures due to conflict of duty protocols--even when in the capacity of a "Paid Duty Unit".
> 
> They must call the regular police for an arrest.
> 
> Of course, you're not about to think through why they would have protocols for conflict of interest--ie, taxpayers funding their training while private agencies reap the benefits, whose interest would be protected first, etc.
> 
> And stop with the personal attacks.  You never see me throwing them your way.  If you'll note I applied a caveat of "in New York", maybe you should do the same?


Stop with the fucking ignorance!  It's embarrassing!

Yes, security officers can make arrests, use handcuffs, and they don't have to call the police to do it for them. It's called a "citizens arrest" and I've performed many of them, some even at gunpoint.  You don't know the law, your guessing, and it's a horrible habit not to mention intellectually dishonest.  Just admit you don't know shit about the laws that govern private security and stop making a fool of yourself.

----------


## Irascible Crusader

Holy Crap!  Stupid on energizer batteries!!

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> Stop with the fucking ignorance!  It's embarrassing!
> 
> Yes, security officers can make arrests, use handcuffs, and they don't have to call the police to do it for them. It's called a "citizens arrest" and I've performed many of them, some even at gunpoint.  You don't know the law, your guessing, and it's a horrible habit not to mention intellectually dishonest.  Just admit you don't know shit about the laws that govern private security and stop making a fool of yourself.


Like I said, the law must be different in the backwoods of Idaho, because pretty much everywhere else in the country there is no such thing as a "citizen's arrest" for private security firms, _especially_ without calling the police. It is agaibst the law for me, as private security, to act as a policeman.

----------


## Irascible Crusader

> Like I said, the law must be different in the backwoods of Idaho, because pretty much everywhere else in the country there is no such thing as a "citizen's arrest" for private security firms, _especially_ without calling the police. It is agaibst the law for me, as private security, to act as a policeman.


I was living in California at the time and citizens arrests are legal in all 50 states and can be conducted by security officers and they are not "acting as cops" when they do so.  You display the _exact same_ ignorance as Rina.

.....odd.

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> I was living in California at the time and citizens arrests are legal in all 50 states and can be conducted by security officers and they are not "acting as cops" when they do so.  You display the _exact same_ ignorance as Rina.
> 
> .....odd.


Yeah, no. I'm a licensed security officer in the state of Tennessee. I cannot, by law, make a citizen's arrest. I work a post now where I can't even carry the gun anymore (or ANY mode of defense, for that matter), let alone handcuffs.

----------


## Irascible Crusader

> Yeah, no. I'm a licensed security officer in the state of Tennessee. I cannot, by law, make a citizen's arrest. I work a post now where I can't even carry the gun anymore (or ANY mode of defense, for that matter), let alone handcuffs.


Your company policy may prevent you from making a citizens arrest, but it's not against the law, neither is carrying handcuffs.  You clearly can't tell the difference between your company's policy and the law.  Here's a link to the laws in your state regarding citizens arrest. http://constitution.org/grossack/arrest.htm

----------


## Guest

> Stop with the fucking ignorance!  It's embarrassing!


Mike, I'm going to say this as politely as I can.  Quit being a dick and quit cursing at me like an angry old man.  I said that perhaps the laws are different elsewhere, as in whatever "land" you live in, but here if *police*are working as private security conflict of interest procedures constrict how they govern themselves AND citizen's arrest laws are non-existent.




> Yes, security officers can make arrests, use handcuffs, and they don't have to call the police to do it for them. It's called a "citizens arrest" and I've performed many of them, some even at gunpoint.  You don't know the law, your guessing, and it's a horrible habit not to mention intellectually dishonest.  Just admit you don't know shit about the laws that govern private security and stop making a fool of yourself.


Mike, I am very close to ignoring you.  You read what you want and then are in rage mode.  I have no idea why.  I find it childish and offensive.  Not every state's laws are the same, something that I--unlike you-- have acknowledged.  One more personal insult and in spite of how I love ya, you go on ignore for awhile.  I really don't need it today.

----------


## Guest

> Your company policy may prevent you from making a citizens arrest, but it's not against the law, neither is carrying handcuffs.  You clearly can't tell the difference between your company's policy and the law.  Here's a link to the laws in your state regarding citizens arrest. http://constitution.org/grossack/arrest.htm


And gun control is not against the law until it is regulated by states in a manner of their legislature's choosing.

----------


## Irascible Crusader

> Mike, I'm going to say this as politely as I can.  Quit being a dick and quit cursing at me like an angry old man.  I said that perhaps the laws are different elsewhere, as in whatever "land" you live in, but here if *police*are working as private security conflict of interest procedures constrict how they govern themselves AND citizen's arrest laws are non-existent.
> 
> 
> 
> Mike, I am very close to ignoring you.  You read what you want and then are in rage mode.  I have no idea why.  I find it childish and offensive.  Not every state's laws are the same, something that I--unlike you-- have acknowledged.  One more personal insult and in spite of how I love ya, you go on ignore for awhile.  I really don't need it today.



Sorry, you don't get to spew ignorance and then whine when people call you on it. Grow the fuck up!  Even now you're stupidly (yes, I said stupidly) claiming that there is no citizens arrest law in New York.  You know what I find offensive?  I find your recalcitrance offensive and your unethical spreading of misinformation.  You don't know what you're talking about, you refuse to do the research and alleviate your ignorance, and you are pointedly incorrigeable.  That's just as enraging as anything I'm saying to you.




> There is an important distinction between the defense of justification/necessity under Article 35 and the law of citizen's arrest. In general, to use physical force a private citizen must in fact be correct that a person has committed an offense, while a police officer must only have a reasonable belief.
> Apart from the "citizen arrest" statutes of New York, which authorize any "person" to use force necessary to arrest and hold a GUILTY offender in custody until the police take him, there exists a separate common law/statutory privilege that permits property owners, including shop-keepers and landowners, to restrain or "detain" persons whom they have probable cause to believe have committed or are about to commit violations of their property rights (e.g., by theft or by trespass or property damage):
> "[G]enerally, restraint or detention [of trespassers and/or of their personal property (e.g. vehicles)], reasonable under the circumstances and in time and manner, imposed for the purpose of preventing another from inflicting personal injuries or interfering with or damaging real or personal property in one's lawful possession or custody is not unlawful. … And although confinement reasonably perceived to be unlawful may invite escape, the person falsely imprisoned is not relieved of the duty of reasonable care for his own safety in extricating himself from the unlawful detention." Sindle v. NYCTA, 33 N.Y.2d 293, 307 N.E.2d 245 (1973); Fieldston Prop. Owners Assn. v. City of New York, 16 NY2d 267, 269; Forest Hills Corp v. Kowler, 80 AD2d 630; Forrest Hills Corp. v. Baroth, 147 Misc. 2d 404.In the event that the defiant guilty intruder is an unknown stranger in an act of malfeasance, a landowner or lawful occupant may choose to invoke his statutory right to "arrest" the intruder and to hold him for, or to "deliver" him promptly to, the Police. CPL 140.30 et. seq.
> The privilege of Citizen's Arrest in New York is granted by statute to "any person," and is a right that a land-owner enjoys in addition to his privilege to use force "in defense of premises." (PL s. 35.10(6)). Private persons may only "arrest" those offenders who are in fact guilty of any "offense" (e.g., Trespass PL s 140.05 or ECL 11-2113).
> New York Penal Law, sec. 35.30, titled "Justification; use of physical force in making an arrest or in preventing an escape", provides:
> "4. A private person acting on his own account may use physical force, other than deadly physical force, upon another person when and to the extent that he reasonably believes such to be necessary to effect an arrest or to prevent the escape from custody of a person whom he reasonably believes to have committed an offense [in his presence] and who in fact has committed such offense; and [after giving due notice of the grounds for the arrest] he may use deadly physical force for such purpose when he reasonably believes such to be necessary toa) Defend himself or a third person from what he reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of deadly physical force; or (b) Effect the arrest of a person who has committed murder, manslaughter in the first degree, robbery, forcible rape or forcible sodomy and who is in immediate flight therefrom[1]. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necessi...ense_(New_York)


Quit crying and educate yourself.

----------


## Irascible Crusader

Holy CRAP!! Using the "I'm going to ignore you" tactic to ward off scrutiny of misinformation.  What fucking manipulation.  Ignore me. I don't care. It fits well with your "ignore"ance.

----------


## Guest

> Sorry, you don't get to spew ignorance and then whine when people call you on it. Grow the fuck up!  Even now you're stupidly (yes, I said stupidly) claiming that there is no citizens arrest law in New York.  You know what I find offensive?  I find your recalcitrance offensive and your unethical spreading of misinformation.  You don't know what you're talking about, you refuse to do the research and alleviate your ignorance, and you are pointedly incorrigeable.  That's just as enraging as anything I'm saying to you.
> 
> 
> 
> Quit crying and educate yourself.


Did I say that you cannot detain a criminal by holding him down until police arrive?  No.  You cannot make a citizen's arrest of this nature.  A private security firm, must be registered, they may carry fire arms, but they are not law enforcement officers and cannot place handcuffs on individuals, per article.  You keep quibbling because you know that you are wrong.  It is a violation of an individual's due process rights, and causes the city a headache when it comes to an arrest.

My bodyguard may beat someone senseless and take on the liability, hence the insurance, but he cannot arrest someone.

Sorry.  Now stomp your feet, show me some wiki, but it doesn't make it true.

----------


## Guest

In New York a citizen may only make an "arrest" if the individual has committed a felony.


http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/nycode/CPL/TWO/H/140/140.30


*Arrest without a warrant; by any person; when and where authorized* *Search N.Y. CPL. LAW § 140.30  : NY Code - Section 140.30: Arrest without a warrant; by any person; when and where authorized*1.   Subject to the provisions of  subdivision  two,  any  person  may   arrest  another  person  (a)  for  a  felony when the latter has in fact   committed such felony, and (b) for any offense when the  latter  has  in   fact committed such offense in his presence.     2.    Such  an  arrest,  if  for a felony, may be made anywhere in the   state.  If the arrest is for an offense other than a felony, it  may  be   made only in the county in which such offense was committed.


Here:

Just as the circumstances under which a citizen’s arrest is permitted  varies from state to state,* so does the proper procedure for carrying  out such an arres*t. Generally, the arresting citizen must notify the  suspect that he is being arrested and the reason for the arrest. The  arresting citizen must also use only a reasonable amount of force to  apprehend the suspect.


 Police officers acting in an official capacity enjoy legal protection  for errors during arrests that citizens do not. If the Good Samaritan  gets it wrong and conducts an unauthorized arrest, or fails to follow  proper procedure in an authorized arrest, he can be found liable for  false imprisonment, battery, assault, or other damages caused by the  arrest.


 So if you find yourself considering making a citizen’s arrest, you  might want to think again. Even assuming you know your state law (e.g.  what constitutes a felony, what a disturbance of the peace entails, what  is reasonable force, etc.), and do make a proper citizen’s arrest, you  are still subject to potential lawsuit or criminal charges that can lead  to a legal battle that, even if you win, may be costly. 

http://www.thelawinsider.com/insider...80%99s-arrest/

----------


## Guest

> Holy CRAP!! Using the "I'm going to ignore you" tactic to ward off scrutiny of misinformation.  What fucking manipulation.  Ignore me. I don't care. It fits well with your "ignore"ance.


Shut up.  Just shut the fuck up today.  I asked you to CEASE with the name calling.  That is it.  NOT CEASE talking to me.  Get it straight.

I cannot emphasize enough that I am not up for it today and asked you to stop.  Sometimes, people have things go on in their lives, SMDT, and you don't know about it, and they don't talk about it, and they are at the end of their tether.  One friend might ask another friend to keep to the topic and not play so rough when those things are going on.

----------


## Guest

Here is a good article on police moonlighting under another W-2 and why New York has strict rules about this:

http://www.policeone.com/columnists/...vil-Liability/

----------

St James (02-25-2013)

----------


## Irascible Crusader

> In New York a citizen may only make an "arrest" if the individual has committed a felony.
> 
> 
> http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/nycode/CPL/TWO/H/140/140.30
> 
> 
> *Arrest without a warrant; by any person; when and where authorized*
> 
> *Search N.Y. CPL. LAW § 140.30  : NY Code - Section 140.30: Arrest without a warrant; by any person; when and where authorized*
> ...


1. The "use of appropriate force" to affect an arrest entails restraints such as handcuffs which is why you see security officers in New York carrying handcuffs.

2. Liabilities for false arrest by citizens exist in every state and do not pertain to this conversation

3. We're a long way off from your initial claim that citizens arrest laws in New York are "non existant" (your words).  Don't think I didn't notice.

----------


## Guest

> 1. The "use of appropriate force" to affect an arrest entails restraints such as handcuffs which is why you see security officers in New York carrying handcuffs.
> 
> 2. Liabilities for false arrest by citizens exist in every state and do not pertain to this conversation
> 
> 3. We're a long way off from your initial claim that citizens arrest laws in New York are "non existant" (your words).  Don't think I didn't notice.


<PLACEHOLDER>  I will respond with the city code, but I have to get a coworker to look it up.  I am not at work for the next week or I would grab it myself.

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> Your company policy may prevent you from making a citizens arrest, but it's not against the law, neither is carrying handcuffs.  You clearly can't tell the difference between your company's policy and the law.  Here's a link to the laws in your state regarding citizens arrest. http://constitution.org/grossack/arrest.htm


1) I didn't say it was against the law for me to carry a gun or handcuffs. I made it clear that it's entirely the purview of the property owners. My poi t was that it's pretty fucking hard to arrest someone with no cuffs and no weapon.

2) You're right, I got mixed up. I can make a citizen's arrest _legally_ as a private security officer, though my company expressly prohibits it. However, my final point...

3) The main point of this whole argument is that police officers as private security officers cannot make arrests. That is a fact, covered under conflict of interest laws. This opinion on the subject is worth the read.

----------


## Guest

> 1) I didn't say it was against the law for me to carry a gun or handcuffs. I made it clear that it's entirely the purview of the property owners. My poi t was that it's pretty fucking hard to arrest someone with no cuffs and no weapon.
> 
> 2) You're right, I got mixed up. I can make a citizen's arrest _legally_ as a private security officer, though my company expressly prohibits it. However, my final point...
> 
> 3) The main point of this whole argument is that police officers as private security officers cannot make arrests. That is a fact, covered under conflict of interest laws. This opinion on the subject is worth the read.


Yes, he does not understand that when you are receiving a salary from a private security firm, you cannot make arrests.  You can if you're walking down the street on your day off or if you're moonlighting as a pizza maker.  The reason for this is that it shows a preferential treatment for Employer #2, and uses taxpayer dollars to "protect" a private firm (Employer #2) over the business down the street.

There are regulations against it.

He also doesn't understand that private citizens cuffing people and carrying them off to the police station has been prosecuted as kidnapping when their attorney shows up.  Good Samaritan laws cover felonies because the act is considered so heinous that the individuals should be able to "assist" and has an obligation to do so, however, good samaritans have been sued and the city has had to defend them, hence the tightly controlled statutes regarding them.



Everything is black and white in his world.

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> Yes, he does not understand that when you are receiving a salary from a private security firm, you cannot make arrests.  You can if you're walking down the street on your day off or if you're moonlighting as a pizza maker.  The reason for this is that it shows a preferential treatment for Employer #2, and uses taxpayer dollars to "protect" a private firm (Employer #2) over the business down the street.
> 
> There are regulations against it.
> 
> He also doesn't understand that private citizens cuffing people and carrying them off to the police station has been prosecuted as kidnapping when their attorney shows up.  Good Samaritan laws cover felonies because the act is considered so heinous that the individuals should be able to "assist" and has an obligation to do so, however, good samaritans have been sued and the city has had to defend them, hence the tightly controlled statutes regarding them.
> 
> 
> 
> Everything is black and white in his world.


Even our Tennessee State Attorney General was careful to point out that private security officers could make citizen's arrests _as private citizens_, _not_ as law enforcement officers, a distinction LEO's do not get because they are _not_ private citizens. I have a good friend here who is a cop, and he laughed when I told him about this.

----------

St James (02-25-2013)

----------


## garyo

My left testicle is sore.

----------


## Guest

I can't talk about our clients, but...I can talk about clients that friends of mine have and people have been prosecute for assault and kidnapping when making "arrests" because the person they are "bringing in" are "innocent until proven guilty" and when they turn out to be innocent...well, that's kidnapping and assault.

----------

Sinestro/Green Arrow (02-25-2013)

----------


## St James

> Here is a good article on police moonlighting under another W-2 and why New York has strict rules about this:
> 
> http://www.policeone.com/columnists/...vil-Liability/


yep, ya just gotta scream loud enough to be heard and keep screaming.....

----------


## Irascible Crusader

> My left testicle is sore.

----------


## Calypso Jones

is this the same one.  

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=c74_1399580183

oh..no..it isn't. THis is the young black man, mentally ill, family called the cops, cops gave him plenty of time to comply.   He gets shot.  Now why is the family releasing the video at this point because it is not helping their side of the story.

----------


## old wood

> I hardly know where to start since this was a horrible tragedy but I suppose commenting on the obvious errors in the original article might be appropriate.
> 
> "_The police officers remain on duty and were allowed to invoke their rights as police officers not to provide statements even though they were not on duty or performing official duties at the time."
> _
> I'm shocked that a defense lawyer didn't catch this. After all, police have no right not to provide statements but everyone in the country does. You don't have to make any potentially incriminating statements to the police.
> 
> When I was working as a police officer I often visited group homes with people with Downs Syndrome and was sometimes invited to dinner. People with Downs Syndrome have widely different levels of functioning but I really question whether this young man should have been at the theater on his own. It would seem he shouldn't have been.
> 
> On the surface, ignoring the source and the inaccuracies, it appears to be a tragedy that should have been avoided. I've never met a person, usually a male, with Downs Syndrome where the condition was not fairly obvious. If the lights had been on I would have thought the young man's condition would have been apparent. So, my opinion is the officers should have avoided the conflict. I have already question the judgement exercised in letting him go to this movie alone.
> ...


  Saylor was NOT "on his own"  there was a caretaker there who told those  Mall Cops ...REPEATEDLY... don't rush him..he over-reacts to strangers... give it a little time... everything will bre fine.

Also...the autopsy showed  damage to the larynx..and that he's asphixiated...basically.. they choked him out.. 

Though Infowars is a lousy source usually... the OP seems true if rather incomplete.  You can google more info.  Those cops ain't "home free" and this isn't over.

----------

