What would constitute impersonating an officer?

[High Speed Low Drag]

OK.  I see everyone is on the same page as I am.  Also, NEC proposed adding a regulation regarding "Social media"

http://members.gocivilairpatrol.com/media/cms/NEC_2009_Nov_draft_A932C887B8DC0.pdf

There is more to the story then I have revealed here (other photos, and an incident), but I was curious if anyone had anything else to add.

Thanks for your thoughts.

[JoeTomasone]

I concur with NHQ.   As written, that regulation is a hornet's nest of problems.  For example, if I link to a page that links to a page that has pornography, am I subject to disciplinary action?    If I link to a page upon which later someone ADDS pornography.....  Etc, etc.



  I would entirely support a measure reading:

Social Media. CAP, its commanders, officers, and staff shall not constrain any
communication by a member, whether senior or cadet, including without limitation use of
the Internet. Provided, however:

(1) CAP member generated material constituting "speech" shall not use either sexually
explicit or suggestive language, profanity, photographs or graphic material of sexually
explicit or suggestive or depictions of violence or mayhem; nor shall it violate any CAP
regulation or policy directive; nor shall it intentionally and directly link to any such proscribed
material when communicated:

a. Directly with any Civil Air Patrol member
b. When a Civil Air Patrol member is likely to receive such communications
c. When communicating pursuant to the member's role as a Civil Air Patrol member. 

This (hopefully) attaches the same expectations of members online as we have in uniform at a CAP activity.   If I have a lot of CAP members as friends on Facebook, I shouldn't (and don't, since this case is true for me) be posting anything that I wouldn't say to them directly, in person, in uniform.  That is especially true if some of those members are Cadets.  However, if I belong to a forum that (to my knowledge) has no CAP members, I should not be restricted from any form of communication that is not illegal or substantially immoral.   


Examples:

What should NOT be actionable:

Dropping an F-bomb on a forum discussing politics

A member who is a model and has an online portfolio of pictures modeling underwear for the JC Penny catalog, or Victoria's Secret, etc.

Comments that a non-CAP member makes on your online profile




What SHOULD be actionable:


Conduct on CAPTalk or any other CAP/military oriented site, including unit websites.

Posting pictures anywhere depicting the member partially dressed in only a Blues shirt with proper insignia (etc)

Posting pictures anywhere depicting the member engaged in illegal activity

Sending any questionable material, using objectionable language, or any violations of CPPT intentionally in communications directly with Cadets or in a manner in which they would be expected to see it (such as friends on Facebook).


..I could come up with more, but it's lunchtime.   

[raivo]

^ If they post a picture of themself on Facebook with eight shots of tequila lined up front of them, well... they're probably showing pretty poor judgment, but there's not a lot I can (or should) do, other than to warn them to be careful.

If they're improperly wearing the CAP uniform, and by extension the Air Force uniform (in the case of non-CAP-distinctive uniforms) they've crossed a bad line. (Particularly if they have eight shots of tequila lined up in front of them, but I assume this wasn't the case. ) When they're wearing the uniform, they're representing CAP (and some might perceive representation of the USAF.) If they're deliberately wearing that uniform incorrectly, they're displaying an intentional disrespect for the rules designed to make sure that members don't do anything to cast a bad light on said uniform - regardless of what their intent was.

[lordmonar]

^ If they post a picture of themself on Facebook with eight shots of tequila lined up front of them, well... they're probably showing pretty poor judgment, but there's not a lot I can (or should) do, other than to warn them to be careful.

If they're improperly wearing the CAP uniform, and by extension the Air Force uniform (in the case of non-CAP-distinctive uniforms) they've crossed a bad line. (Particularly if they have eight shots of tequila lined up in front of them, but I assume this wasn't the case. ) When they're wearing the uniform, they're representing CAP (and some might perceive representation of the USAF.) If they're deliberately wearing that uniform incorrectly, they're displaying an intentional disrespect for the rules designed to make sure that members don't do anything to cast a bad light on said uniform - regardless of what their intent was.

When I deployed to Bosina we worked closely with a German Communications unit.  As we were getting ready to roate home a couple of the guys traded uniforms with the German......we took pictures and the guys were going to wear their their new uniforms to their next drill (they were ANG types).  It was fun....and was not disrepect.

We need to keep things in perspective.

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

If, for example, I were to take the grey epaulette slides off my service coat and light blue shirt, replace them with standard hard rank and blue AF epaulettes, and change my CAP nameplates to AF ones, walk into a recruiting office, National Guard armoury, etc. and say "I'm Captain Joe Blow, USAF," that would clearly be an impersonation.

However, if I have a historically-accurate RAF/RCAF/RAAF/RNZAF uniform and am taking part in a Battle of Britain re-enactor's group, that would not be.

[Thom]

I concur with NHQ.   As written, that regulation is a hornet's nest of problems.  For example, if I link to a page that links to a page that has pornography, am I subject to disciplinary action?    If I link to a page upon which later someone ADDS pornography.....  Etc, etc.



  I would entirely support a measure reading:

Social Media. CAP, its commanders, officers, and staff shall not constrain any
communication by a member, whether senior or cadet, including without limitation use of
the Internet. Provided, however:

(1) CAP member generated material constituting "speech" shall not use either sexually
explicit or suggestive language, profanity, photographs or graphic material of sexually
explicit or suggestive or depictions of violence or mayhem; nor shall it violate any CAP
regulation or policy directive; nor shall it intentionally and directly link to any such proscribed
material when communicated:

a. Directly with any Civil Air Patrol member
b. When a Civil Air Patrol member is likely to receive such communications
c. When communicating pursuant to the member's role as a Civil Air Patrol member. 

This (hopefully) attaches the same expectations of members online as we have in uniform at a CAP activity.   If I have a lot of CAP members as friends on Facebook, I shouldn't (and don't, since this case is true for me) be posting anything that I wouldn't say to them directly, in person, in uniform.  That is especially true if some of those members are Cadets.  However, if I belong to a forum that (to my knowledge) has no CAP members, I should not be restricted from any form of communication that is not illegal or substantially immoral.   

The problem with the above quoted idea is this (among others):  It would make punishable ENTIRELY PRIVATE explicit messages between a HUSBAND and WIFE who are both CAP members.

I know you could easily tweak the language to avoid this particular fault, but it illustrates the point that when you try to limit speech, as opposed to physical behavior, you quickly run into a quagmire.

My personal preferred approach is to use the bare minimum possible regulations to keep the most outrageously egregious behavior at bay, and accept that the remaing 'merely slightly-obnoxious' behavior is the price of treating people like responsible individuals.

We'll have to see where the NB goes with the whole idea.  If they were to enact anything remotely like the proposal, I would expect the NLO to have an ulcer in short order.

Thom

[FW]

I wouldn't worry about the NLO as much as our Corp. Legal Council.  He is the one who would be dealing with all the litigation which would ensue (pun intended) from such regulations. 

[vmstan]

Nevermind

[RiverAux]

There is a US code mentioned earlier in this thread that makes it a federal crime to impersonate a member of a military auxiliary, including CAP.

[BuckeyeDEJ]

From Section 90 of the 1996 Police Act -

Impersonations, etc.

• (1) Any person who with intent to deceive impersonates a member of a police force or special constable, or makes any statement or does any act calculated falsely to suggest that he is such a member or constable, shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale, or to both.


• (2) Any person who, not being a constable, wears any article of police uniform in circumstances where it gives him an appearance so nearly resembling that of a member of a police force as to be calculated to deceive shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale.


• (3) Any person who, not being a member of a police force or special constable, has in his possession any article of police uniform shall, unless he proves that he obtained possession of that article lawfully and has possession of it for a lawful purpose, be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 1 on the standard scale.


• (4) In this section—
  
• 
  
  • (a) "article of police uniform" means any article of uniform or any distinctive badge or mark or document of identification usually issued to members of police forces or special constables, or anything having the appearance of such an article, badge, mark or document, and
    
    
  [li](b) "special constable" means a special constable appointed for a police area.
  

Because "offence" is spelled in the British manner, and because the "standard scale" strikes me a little strange, please tell me where you got this. I have a sneaking suspicion it's not from either the U.S. or any state government.[/list]

[davidsinn]

From Section 90 of the 1996 Police Act -

Impersonations, etc.

   
• (1) Any person who with intent to deceive impersonates a member of a police force or special constable, or makes any statement or does any act calculated falsely to suggest that he is such a member or constable, shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale, or to both.
• (2) Any person who, not being a constable, wears any article of police uniform in circumstances where it gives him an appearance so nearly resembling that of a member of a police force as to be calculated to deceive shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale.
• (3) Any person who, not being a member of a police force or special constable, has in his possession any article of police uniform shall, unless he proves that he obtained possession of that article lawfully and has possession of it for a lawful purpose, be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 1 on the standard scale.
• (4) In this section—
• 
        
  • (a) "article of police uniform" means any article of uniform or any distinctive badge or mark or document of identification usually issued to members of police forces or special constables, or anything having the appearance of such an article, badge, mark or document, and
    
  [li](b) "special constable" means a special constable appointed for a police area.

[/l][/list]

Because "offence" is spelled in the British manner, and because the "standard scale" strikes me a little strange, please tell me where you got this. I have a sneaking suspicion it's not from either the U.S. or any state government.[/q]


A little google-fu

[TACP]

From Section 90 of the 1996 Police Act -

Impersonations, etc.

• (1) Any person who with intent to deceive impersonates a member of a police force or special constable, or makes any statement or does any act calculated falsely to suggest that he is such a member or constable, shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale, or to both.


• (2) Any person who, not being a constable, wears any article of police uniform in circumstances where it gives him an appearance so nearly resembling that of a member of a police force as to be calculated to deceive shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale.


• (3) Any person who, not being a member of a police force or special constable, has in his possession any article of police uniform shall, unless he proves that he obtained possession of that article lawfully and has possession of it for a lawful purpose, be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 1 on the standard scale.


• (4) In this section—
  
• 
  
  • (a) "article of police uniform" means any article of uniform or any distinctive badge or mark or document of identification usually issued to members of police forces or special constables, or anything having the appearance of such an article, badge, mark or document, and
    
    
  [li](b) "special constable" means a special constable appointed for a police area.
  

Because "offence" is spelled in the British manner, and because the "standard scale" strikes me a little strange, please tell me where you got this. I have a sneaking suspicion it's not from either the U.S. or any state government.[/list]

HAHA, nice one... I'm pretty stunned though that "standard scale" struck you more that calling a law enforcement officer 'CONSTABLE'. Few places in the US where you hear that term...

Anyways, I know the quote is totally off topic, but just asked a British dude I'm deployed with and he confirmed it's United Kingdom law. Good call Buckeye.

Gotta read the WHOLE Google page...

[SarDragon]

Yeah, the constable thing caught my instantly. I had pretty much ignored the whole quote before.

[RiverAux]

By the way, that wasn't the law I was referring to, this was.
18 USC 33 sec. 702 makes it a misdemeanor (6 months in jail, max) to wear the uniform of the Armed Forces of the US, the Public Health Service of the US, or any auxiliary thereof.

[JoeTomasone]

By the way, that wasn't the law I was referring to, this was.
18 USC 33 sec. 702 makes it a misdemeanor (6 months in jail, max) to wear the uniform of the Armed Forces of the US, the Public Health Service of the US, or any auxiliary thereof.

And just because it's the Government and things shouldn't make sense unnecessarily, it's also prohibited in 10 USC -- but with exceptions that aren't in 18 USC (for actors and certain other categories):

http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/10C45.txt

[wuzafuzz]

Interesting that this thread morphed from "impersonating an officer" to social media policies.  However, I'll bite.

Any effort by CAP or any other organization to regulate the speech of its members is fraught with peril.  Even the military has some struggles with this, and they have UCMJ in their tool box.

It is my opinion that NHQ nailed it with their statement of non-concurrence.  Members are not authorized to speak on behalf of CAP, unless duly authorized by their commanders.  Use of CAP logos, brand, and symbols may be regulated.  So if you claim to speak on behalf of CAP and you go off the reservation, or you weren't authorized to do so, membership action may be taken.

Any communication that is otherwise legal and is merely incidental to your CAP membership should be left alone.  The grey areas, where a members statements cast CAP in a gravely bad light are likely covered by other regulations.  New rules for social media are likely unneeded.  What wouldn't hurt is for PAO's or commanders to explain the existing rules at a meeting.  Remind folks the covered actions are the same regardless of the medium. 

As for impersonating an "officer," the USC and a variety of state laws already cover unlawful use of certain uniforms.  Those laws aren't limited to officer uniforms.  Context is everything.  (We don't arrest actors or people in Halloween costumes.  Actions causing someone to believe you are a member of the military, police dept, etc are the concern.  You don't even need a uniform to run afoul of those laws.)  Therefore a CAP cadet sporting a CAP officers uniform on Facebook needn't be a big deal.  Might deserve a talking to, but absent some other egregious act, leave it at that. 

[nesagsar]

Okay.....going after a guy because he is wearing a uniform he is not entitled to on a face book picture.....is a bit much.

Okay....pat's rules for impersonating a CAP officer.

The individual must wear the uniform/insignia with the intention to defraud someone or something.

Wearing the wrong rank....is not a major failure.....I can think of several scenarios where I would allow it.....say a person shows up for a mission with out a uniform....someone else (of higher ranks) has a spare flight suit......we have a mission to do and two regs apply......we break one to satisfy the requirements of the other.


No harm, no foul.

If this cadet is already on the line for getting into trouble.....again I think it is a stretch to go after him for simply a face book picture.  If he is really that bad just wait...he will really screw up and then you can hammer him to your heart's content.

Good rules. Could you please send this over to Illinois Wing? After all they did file a 2-B on me for wearing an officer cap and called it impersonating a cadet officer.

[lordmonar]

Okay.....going after a guy because he is wearing a uniform he is not entitled to on a face book picture.....is a bit much.

Okay....pat's rules for impersonating a CAP officer.

The individual must wear the uniform/insignia with the intention to defraud someone or something.

Wearing the wrong rank....is not a major failure.....I can think of several scenarios where I would allow it.....say a person shows up for a mission with out a uniform....someone else (of higher ranks) has a spare flight suit......we have a mission to do and two regs apply......we break one to satisfy the requirements of the other.


No harm, no foul.

If this cadet is already on the line for getting into trouble.....again I think it is a stretch to go after him for simply a face book picture.  If he is really that bad just wait...he will really screw up and then you can hammer him to your heart's content.

Good rules. Could you please send this over to Illinois Wing? After all they did file a 2-B on me for wearing an officer cap and called it impersonating a cadet officer.

Did it stick?  Did you challange it?

[Dracosbane]

[Good rules. Could you please send this over to Illinois Wing? After all they did file a 2-B on me for wearing an officer cap and called it impersonating a cadet officer.

Someone's yanking your chain, or they've got a serious stick shoved up their six.  What were you doing while wearing an officer cap that someone would have had an issue with it?  And why would they do anything but tell you to take it off?

None of that statement makes sense, at least not without some extra facts for context.

[nesagsar]

[Good rules. Could you please send this over to Illinois Wing? After all they did file a 2-B on me for wearing an officer cap and called it impersonating a cadet officer.

Someone's yanking your chain, or they've got a serious stick shoved up their six.  What were you doing while wearing an officer cap that someone would have had an issue with it?  And why would they do anything but tell you to take it off?

None of that statement makes sense, at least not without some extra facts for context.

Unfortunately there are some officers in CAP that abuse their power. My squadron commander was one of those. I was the junior ranked member of the squadron honor guard/color guard for a veterans day parade, me and 3 cadet officers. To balance out the headgear issue the senior member in charge ordered us to all wear cadet officer caps since we had extras of those but only one flight cap. The squadron commander took a picture of us and wrote me up for impersonating a cadet officer during the parade. I challenged it under grounds of me never saying I was an officer as well as the fact that all of my insignia was cadet enlisted and that I was ordered by a superior officer to wear the cap but he was able to bring enough of his friends into it to force the issue. In the end he wasn't able to enforce the 2-B but I left the squadron anyway having lost any respect I had for him and his officers. I intended to join another squadron but he got promoted to group commander.