LawDog Atty Fee Fundraiser

[runcible]

You asked if I had used a 40mm. Now you are referencing what I believe to be high explosive rounds.

...

There is no parsing. No part of the UMCJ applies to domestic law enforcement. The Supreme Court has clearly established the objective reasonable standard for use of force.

I think that there would have been less confusion if you had not quoted one of c_rion's posts that was not where he was expounding upon UOFDs in the specifically DOD\OCONUS context, and was instead discussing UOF as a general subject in the context of Dom\TX LE as he previously had been.

(I write this having worked for an LE Agency that did in fact have ROE for a good long while, and I don't disagree with your remarks in general, but I do question their relevance to the post in which they were in reply to.)

JLW,
If you used 40mm HEDP, as c_rion mentioned; on crowds of US citizens, as you mentioned; then I don't think that casts a kind light upon you.

Be well, friend.

[TGS]

@c_rion,

I've been following this thread and do appreciate your background, as it gives context for the way you feel. When operating under the UCMJ, a commander's ROE does in essence carry lawful authority, and violation of said "policy" carries a penalty under the UCMJ...thus, "breaking the law". In that spectrum, the way you're approaching this situation makes complete sense.

However, the thing that I'm sure has been fully explained yet is that the same is not true of civilian LE. Policy and law are two totally separate things. An officer can break agency policy in the application of force and the legality of the force still be completely legal. Historically, a violation of policy in the application of intermediate force would not usually result in criminal charges. This could include the use of control holds, strikes, or force adjuncts that are either not explicitly approved in a relatively restrictive policy, or even the use of ones that are explicitly disapproved of in policy.

For instance, at my own agency we have a policy that says we cannot use any intermediate force adjuncts which are not issued or otherwise explicitly approved. My unit supervisor is a former Baltimore cop, and thus still owns his espatoon....a wooden baton that is uniquely specific to Baltimore and carried as a piece of pride/heritage. If he were to carry his espatoon at our job instead of just having it as a wall ornament, and if he were to use it on uncompliant subject, he would have broken agency policy. However, he wouldn't be breaking the law unless his strikes themselves were somehow a violation of law; in this theoretical, just assume he was legally justified to strike the subject with a baton. If such is true, and although this can get a little convoluted and gray if you really dive into what ifs and specifics....he generally would still be legal to strike the subject with his espatoon.

The way that policy violations which do not amount to crime are typically dealt with is through administrative punitive actions, such as written admonishments, suspensions, or termination of employment. I dare say that prior to 2020, there's no way you would catch criminal charges for fish-hooking a combative subject while trying to gain control of them. I'd go even further to say that if you fish-hooked someone prior to 2020, the only way you'd catch criminal charges would be if it was not just "a gratuitous strike", but purely unreasonable battery that wasn't based on trying to control a subject. Like, if he had him in the back and decided to tune him up just because he was having a bad day, and no other reason. That doesn't even seem to be the official story here, simply that he fish-hooked a guy and wasn't allowed to by policy.

So, when looking at a LE use of force, "he broke policy, so he deserves to be prosecuted" doesn't really track, whereas it might in the military when subject to the UCMJ...and if you're looking to rationalize the disparity between UCMJ and our civilian law, just remember that many UCMJ offenses are considered administrative in nature by our civilian legal systems. If you "prosecuted" a soldier under the UCMJ for failing to obey an order because he fish-hooked a combative inmate, his UCMJ punishment would likely not be considered a criminal charge in the civilian system if the soldier were to later get a background check, apply for a CCW permit, or be involved in some sort of court proceeding down the line.

Over the last few years there has been a wave of anti-LE sentiment that has resulted in politically motivated prosecutions of officers for what is, in reality, lawful use of force.....and many times perfectly within policy. This happens departments with leadership and prosecutors in both sides of the political aisle. So, agency leadership rolling over on an officer isn't very compelling to me, given agency leadership more often than not roll over and feed their people to the grinder even when they've done everything right.

In addition, please understand that getting a GJ indictment should also not be taken as damning. While a grand jury is a necessary component to our system of due process, it is incredibly easy to get a grand jury indictment. There's a reason the phrase, "A grand jury could indict a ham sandwich, if that's what you wanted" has been around for a long time. It was coined by a judge.

I hope this helps.

[jnc36rcpd]

From the description of "Compliance Officer" duties, I imagine he may have told the sheriff things weren't right in the jail and that changes in budget or policy were needed. I know nothing about this county sheriff. but the current administrator at my former agency has been known to use arbitrary discipline to punish officers who previously upset him.

[HCM]

From the description of "Compliance Officer" duties, I imagine he may have told the sheriff things weren't right in the jail and that changes in budget or policy were needed. I know nothing about this county sheriff. but the current administrator at my former agency has been known to use arbitrary discipline to punish officers who previously upset him.

A compliance officer in a jail is an administrative position doing audits to ensure the facility is meeting state, federal, and in many cases ACA (American Correctional Association) standards. Use of force is a miniscule portion of those duties vs things like inmate food, phone calls, mail, property, laundry, frequency of sheet exchanges, showers, commissary, visits etc. For the uninitiated, that is not coddling, upholding standards like these go directly to the security and good order of the institution. But the UOF part of that mostly relates to ensuring UOF is properly documented and special teams are only used within the appropriate guidelines, planned UOF is video recorded etc.

Much of that costs money. In some places Sheriff's get bonuses etc for running the jail under budget. The potential for conflict of interest is significant.

[BehindBlueI's]

Anybody who uses the brass and elected officials statements as evidence of wrong doing is hilariously out of touch. I recall one of my former chiefs describing an incident as "the worst example of police brutality I've ever seen" while knowing full well it was completely reasonable. So reasonable the officer not only wasn't even sustained on any policy violation, let alone charged. And got a nice cush job the rest of his career, probably to head off the lawsuit against the department.

Criminally, the bar remains "reasonable officer" , but especially post-Ferguson you'll get charged for "looks bad" regardless. Especially in election cycles. I've seen way too much of the sausage being made.

My advise is donate or don't, but know what you don't know. And don't be a dick.

[Caballoflaco]

A compliance officer in a jail is an administrative position doing audits to ensure the facility is meeting state, federal, and in many cases ACA (American Correctional Association) standards. Use of force is a miniscule portion of those duties vs things like inmate food, phone calls, mail, property, laundry, frequency of sheet exchanges, showers, commissary, visits etc. For the uninitiated, that is not coddling, upholding standards like these go directly to the security and good order of the institution. But the UOF part of that mostly relates to ensuring UOF is properly documented and special teams are only used within the appropriate guidelines, planned UOF is video recorded etc.

Much of that costs money. In some places Sheriff's get bonuses etc for running the jail under budget. The potential for conflict of interest is significant.

In the last 25 years or so in Alabama we’ve had more County Sherriffs end up in federal prison than any other elected officials, including one who bought himself a beach house and other luxuries with the leftover money from the Jail’s budget.

[WobblyPossum]

@c_rion, the post above by TGS contains a ton of information that’s necessary to understand the context of LE use of force in the domestic US legal system.

[SCCY Marshal]

The UMCJ has absolutely no relevance to this discussion. Lawdog was a peace officer in the state of TX. His use of force will be evaluated based upon the laws of the state of Texas and the Constitution of the United States.

There's a gendarme walking
fierceful and formal
I'm not affraid of him
'cause he can do nothing to me

He frowns sternly
Fixes his eyes on me
But I'm just whistling
Such a catchy number:

...

Even if he suspected me
of worst things possible
He can do nothing to me
'cause I'm a civilian!

Yes, I'm a civilian
What a lovely status
Gendarme is not for me
For me there's the police!

https://hanba1926.bandcamp.com/track/andarm

[Stephanie B]

LawDog has raised enough money to pay his legal expenses, so he's shut the campaign down.

[Yung]

https://www.timesrecordnews.com/stor...l/69692336007/

LOCAL
LawDog bites back: Former Wichita County officer claims oppression charge is raw deal
Trish Choate | Wichita Falls Times Record News
Published 8:28 a.m. CT Dec. 14, 2022Updated 9:13 a.m. CT Dec. 14, 2022

A retired Wichita County Sheriff’s Office lieutenant is not so sure anymore about the system he helped uphold for 26 years as he stands accused of using excessive force against a jail inmate. But he is certain what he thinks of the lawman he used to worked for.
The sheriff is a "two bit, four flushin', dirty rotten . . . ," former Lt. Ian Hugh McMurtrie of Iowa Park said in an online video. He was indistinct at the end, but readers probably get the idea.

McMurtrie, an author and blogger of The LawDog Files, has persuaded members of his literary community and others he is getting a raw deal. They reached into their pockets to ante up over $43,000 for his legal defense.
...

MOD EDIT: PER FORUM RULES, DO NOT POST ENTIRE COPYWRIGHTED MATERIAL TO THIS WEBSITE