CAP Talk

I agree with DNall.  Arming qualified officers with a survival firearm is a prudent idea. 

There are some alternatives:

1.  The old .38 revolver sidearm.  Good for snakes and varmints, both two and four legged.  Will also work on most small-to-medium alligators.  Don't use it on a bear.  It will make the bear mad at you.

2.  The Henry Survival Rifle.  .22 caliber, semi-auto, breaks down and folds into its own stock.  Good for snakes and rats, not good for 4-legged varmints, and better than nothing on two-legged varmints.  I don't think it would have any effect at all on 'gators and bears.

3.  M1911A1 .45 caliber semi auto.  Will kill everything, including small bears.  Big bears, no.

Big bears require repeat application.

got a sig I like pretty well.

I like the Sig.  I carried one for many years, once the police department transitioned to semi-autos from wheelguns.  But I am not impressed with the 9mm round.  It is, in my opinion, one notch above a bb gun.  Maybe not even a full notch.

I have personally seen thugs take up to nine hits in the torso with the 9mm, and still fire at police.  I saw one take three torso hits and three groin hits, and was still firing until he was hit with a 12-guage shotgun loaded with single 0 buckshot.

I had some dope dealers turn a German Shepherd on me once.  I hit the dog 3 times with the 9mm, and my partner hit it once.  Four 9mm hits, and there was NO effect on the dog.

I could get to like a .40-caliber from what I've heard, but I've never been in a gunfight with one.

I've got a couple of .40 S&W Glocks that I'm pretty happy with...

I carry a 357sig round in my Glock. I'm wanting to change it to a 40 cal. I just think it's a better round.

  I have a few issues in CAP as I'm sure most of the other Police Officers in CAP have as well. We can and should and in a few cases have to carry a weapon on us off duty. I know my Department has stopped short of actually saying you shall carry off duty but the policy says you should highly consider it. I personally don't go anywhere unarmed, I have been in shooting situations already and I darn sure won't be caught in one unarmed. I personally think NHQ should specify that Police Officers may carry there off duty weapon with them in the field.

Quote from: DrJbdm on March 22, 2007, 03:09:36 AM
I carry a 357sig round in my Glock. I'm wanting to change it to a 40 cal. I just think it's a better round.

  I have a few issues in CAP as I'm sure most of the other Police Officers in CAP have as well. We can and should and in a few cases have to carry a weapon on us off duty. I know my Department has stopped short of actually saying you shall carry off duty but the policy says you should highly consider it. I personally don't go anywhere unarmed, I have been in shooting situations already and I darn sure won't be caught in one unarmed. I personally think NHQ should specify that Police Officers may carry there off duty weapon with them in the field.

John:

As far as I know, the only place CAP members can be armed is Alaska.  I do not concur with that regulation.  There are hazards faced by CAP ground teams and to a lesser extent by aircrews that would be alleviated by selectively authorizing firearms.  I would not limit it to police officers, but rather to any person authoized to carry a weapon within the state.  I might also add a recent re-qualification at a military/NRA/police range as well, at least every two years.

This could be annotated on the 101 card.  Once the state credentials and re-qual were verified. 

Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on March 22, 2007, 03:38:47 AM

Quote from: DrJbdm on March 22, 2007, 03:09:36 AM
I carry a 357sig round in my Glock. I'm wanting to change it to a 40 cal. I just think it's a better round.

  I have a few issues in CAP as I'm sure most of the other Police Officers in CAP have as well. We can and should and in a few cases have to carry a weapon on us off duty. I know my Department has stopped short of actually saying you shall carry off duty but the policy says you should highly consider it. I personally don't go anywhere unarmed, I have been in shooting situations already and I darn sure won't be caught in one unarmed. I personally think NHQ should specify that Police Officers may carry there off duty weapon with them in the field.

As far as I know, the only place CAP members can be armed is Alaska.  I do not concur with that regulation.  There are hazards faced by CAP ground teams and to a lesser extent by aircrews that would be alleviated by selectively authorizing firearms.  I would not limit it to police officers, but rather to any person authoized to carry a weapon within the state.  I might also add a recent re-qualification at a military/NRA/police range as well, at least every two years.

This is a lot like the medical situation where states require a Dr/nurse/emt to render aid within the limits of their training or risk license, civil & criminal charges. Yet CAP says "NO" because of liability concerns.

Obviously a lot of LE agencies require or recommend off-duty carry. The point there being you are a LEO all the time. However, if you went on guard/reserve duty (title 10 lets say) that would not be the case. Still, I think CAP should recognize the requirement of those officers to go armed & allow them to do so, with the requirement that they not excercise LE powers while in CAP uniform (take off the BDU blouse "before" you shoot back).

I do also think it's appropriate to allow 21+ adults to carry concealed within the bounds of state licenses, while maintaining the same no assistance to LE rules. Specify real clearly that being armed is for self defense from wildlife or survival situations, and that brandishing or use outside that situation will get you hung out to dry.

Quote from: DNall on March 22, 2007, 04:28:28 AM
Specify real clearly that being armed is for self defense from wildlife or survival situations...

Is this seriously a concern?  Do we have that many issues with members in downed aircraft fending off wild animals?  Have we ever had such an issue?  There are weak arguments and then there are weak arguments.

If you want people to be able to carry their own weapons, isn't it a better argument to simply say, "Hey, I went through state sponsored/approved training to carry this firearm at any time - this should not need to be an exception!"?   

Personally, I just still don't see the need given our current missions.

There was a story on here a few months ago from a member, I forget who, who came up on a crash scene years ago. Believe it was four aboard, 3 unable to exit the plane, and one little girl a hundred years up a hill fighting off cyotes with a stick. He helped the girl while the rest of the team went for the plane. Now, I wasn't there, I'm just relaying to the best of my recollection what someone else said.

What I do know though is there are a lot of places in my state where it isn't safe to be w/o the ability to defend yourself. Some of those involve wildlife, pochers (game warden just killed a few days ago by automatic rifle fire), transhippment of narcotics or other things. We go on internationally flagged vessels. The border is a whole huge extra layer where you don't realize you're stepping into the middle of a private little civil war till you're in it. In certain urban situations or when penetrating private property we do our best to have LE escort us, but that isn't always possible. I have no desire to act as LE or take anything but defensive action when there is no other choice, but I'd at least like that choice. And I got no problem signing a liability waiver or whatever else is required to take care of my people if the  situation arises. The issue is not that it is likely, but that it is forseeable & doing nothing is irresponsible.

Back in the 60's a Florida Wing GT leader shot and killed an Eastern Diamondback while searching for a downed plane.  It used to be that the officers could carry sidearms at their option, based on the environmental threat.  I'm not sure what standards were applied.

Carrying sidearms does appear prudent.

There are areas in Ohio where we would not post ground teams because of the threat posed by drug growers and/or smugglers.  Some airfields were known to be drop off points for drugs, and ELT's were only followed up from the air.  Encountering dangerous predators (4-legged, 2-legged, or no-legged) can happen anywhere.

Which would you rather read about?

"CAP Search Team Officer Shoots Child Predator"

"CAP Cadet, 14, Kidnapped and Murdered While Searching For Lost Plane"

My squadron meets in "THE METRH CAPITOL OF THE WORLD" - as according to the IL State Police. More Meth and Crack come out of Coles County Illinois then any other place in America... Sometimes me thinks this is the reason we don't run GT missions in these parts.

If I'm given the option Ill carry the largest caliber allowed, just so long as its not a Glock (personal bias)

The Aux. Police in this area are REQUIRED to carry. (And most have larger calibers then the Regular Deputies) - trend is for .40 S&W vs 9m Glock

as a LEO you're never without police powers and would be regulated by state laws to take action in some cases. Note that the Texas Code of Criminal Procedures makes no distinction as to "off duty" or "on duty".

  As a LEO, even if in a CAP uniform, there are times in which I or any other Peace Officer may be force to act as a LEO. In such a situation there would be no time to remove the CAP uniform before acting as such. These types of situations are not very likely to come up often but the world we live in is changing, it's not the same safe place it once was. We have to adapt to the changing world around us. 

  Now according to CAPR 900-3, CAP members who are full authority Peace Officers can receive "permission" to carry a weapon while in CAP uniform. Can anyone shed any light on this reg? it's intents and it's requirements?

  Either way, I believe that ground team members and flight crews should be allowed to carry a side arm in a survival bag, As long as all Federal/State laws where followed. (I would make that side arm readily available in the survival bag) As for flight crews I would also include a .22 rifle that folds. That should be standard equipment in all flight survival bags, You never know what you are going to encounter in an off airport landing. 

Quote from: DrJbdm on March 22, 2007, 04:17:34 PM
As a LEO, even if in a CAP uniform, there are times in which I or any other Peace Officer may be force to act as a LEO. In such a situation there would be no time to remove the CAP uniform before acting as such. These types of situations are not very likely to come up often but the world we live in is changing, it's not the same safe place it once was. We have to adapt to the changing world around us. 

I meant shoot the guy, then take off your BDU blouse before the cops get there. Not that the uniform would matter a lot when on an AFAM.

Anyway, when on AFAM, you are legally a civilian employee of the Dept of the AF, and boubd by things like PCA... meaning you cannot excercise LE powers. It's the same situations if you were on duty as a reservist. The federal law takes precedent over state law, inlucing your peace officer commission.

QuoteNow according to CAPR 900-3, CAP members who are full authority Peace Officers can receive "permission" to carry a weapon while in CAP uniform. Can anyone shed any light on this reg? it's intents and it's requirements?

Don't know anything about that. I would imagine it pertains ONLY to situations where your dept explicitly requires you to remain armed at all times. I know a lot of LEOs in CAP & haven't ever heard of anyone having permission to carry a firearm. Many have one in the car though & would sacrifice the CAP membership if the situation required.

QuoteEither way, I believe that ground team members and flight crews should be allowed to carry a side arm in a survival bag, As long as all Federal/State laws where followed. (I would make that side arm readily available in the survival bag) As for flight crews I would also include a .22 rifle that folds. That should be standard equipment in all flight survival bags, You never know what you are going to encounter in an off airport landing. 

or what you may walk up on as a GTL. It's a vERY tricky subject, but I personally think it's irresponsible not to work it out.

Quote from: DNall on March 22, 2007, 05:37:30 AM
There was a story on here a few months ago from a member, I forget who, who came up on a crash scene years ago. Believe it was four aboard, 3 unable to exit the plane, and one little girl a hundred years up a hill fighting off cyotes with a stick.

Are Cyotes some futuristic predator? Since they had to go 100 years up the hill and all... ;D

A .44 Magnum would be sooo much more fun than a .22 LR survival rifle.   ;D  I love my Springfield XD-40, though.  As much as I don't like to leave it lonely at home when doing a CAP thing, I don't have a strong opinion either way on carrying like this.  When I was a cadidiot, I would have strongly favored cadets carrying firearms to revolt against the seniors.   :)

I have worked in all sorts of remote areas all over the country, mostly by myself and not once have I ever come across a situation where a firearm was necessary.  I'm a hunter and use guns all the time for recreational purposes, but they aren't something you need to survive in the woods.  Alaska would probably be the only exception where a gun would actually be of use as there would be a very real possibility of being on your own for weeks if something went wrong.  Thats just not the case anywhere in the rest of the US.

Regarding snakes -- you are probably more likely to get bit while maneuvering to get a shot at the snake that you would if you just got the heck out of the area when you saw it.

If you really want to start getting into pi**ing matches with your local sheriffs and LEOs, start having CAP teams carry weapons in their towns and counties. 

Now, frankly I don't really care if some police department requires their officers to carry weapons at all times.  If that conflicts with CAP regulations, then they shouldn't join CAP.   If my employer required me to carry a weapon for whatever reason, should CAP honor that as well?  I'd be sorry to lose them, but I don't believe that is a valid reason to change CAP regs and open up the can of worms that it would. 

QuoteAlaska would probably be the only exception where a gun would actually be of use as there would be a very real possibility of being on your own for weeks if something went wrong.  Thats just not the case anywhere in the rest of the US.

Never been to west Texas much have you, or possibly the mountains of Montana and Idaho. These areas are rife with large predators such as mountain lions grizzly bears and wolves, much like Alaska.

I can get out on a US highway in west Texas and not see anyone for hours on end. Now think about getting off that road by about 20 miles and there is a distinct chance you won't see anyone for the rest of you life if no one is looking for you. And if they are it could be weeks before they run across your half eaten carcass baking in the high noon day sun.

Quote from: carnold1836 on March 22, 2007, 07:42:13 PM

QuoteAlaska would probably be the only exception where a gun would actually be of use as there would be a very real possibility of being on your own for weeks if something went wrong.  Thats just not the case anywhere in the rest of the US.

Never been to west Texas much have you, or possibly the mountains of Montana and Idaho. These areas are rife with large predators such as mountain lions grizzly bears and wolves, much like Alaska.

You don't even have to go out west.  There are plenty of bear encounters in the Appalachian regions.  The best response is to avoid them, but they are there.  Sometimes they even wonder into town.

FYI
I split this line of discussion from the NYPD Aux. thread (http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=1742.0) as best as possible, since the topic really developed its own sidebar discussion.  Carry on.  :)

For legal reasons firearms will never be allowed for regular carry by members. Do I wish I could have my CPL allowed during CAP missions, sure. But it'll never happen.

That doesn't mean I don't think something like this (http://www.life-act.com/) couldn't be allowed.

Quote from: davedove on March 22, 2007, 07:47:46 PM

Quote from: carnold1836 on March 22, 2007, 07:42:13 PM

QuoteAlaska would probably be the only exception where a gun would actually be of use as there would be a very real possibility of being on your own for weeks if something went wrong.  Thats just not the case anywhere in the rest of the US.

Never been to west Texas much have you, or possibly the mountains of Montana and Idaho. These areas are rife with large predators such as mountain lions grizzly bears and wolves, much like Alaska.

You don't even have to go out west.  There are plenty of bear encounters in the Appalachian regions.  The best response is to avoid them, but they are there.  Sometimes they even wonder into town.

Didn't mean to saythat there weren't large predators out east just making the point that there is a whole lot of nothing out here and you can go for hundreds of miles and not see anybody.

But yes, there are big eaty type critters back in the civilized part of the country. >:D

I started to get a new (and anonymous) account to answer this, but we should have the courage of our convictions ...

After very careful thought, I'd prefer the end of the newspaper article to say something to the effect of " ... his use of the legally carried firearm to protect the teenagers has resulted in his removal from the civil air patrol for violating their internal policies of firearms. "  Rather than something like " ... an accurate description of the kidnappers car was given by the adult supervisor of the teenagers, who was present at the scene."

My companion is an H&K .45 USPC and the second "C" of CCW is concealed.

Quote from: RiverAux on March 22, 2007, 07:26:06 PM
I have worked in all sorts of remote areas all over the country, mostly by myself and not once have I ever come across a situation where a firearm was necessary.  I'm a hunter and use guns all the time for recreational purposes, but they aren't something you need to survive in the woods.  Alaska would probably be the only exception where a gun would actually be of use as there would be a very real possibility of being on your own for weeks if something went wrong.  Thats just not the case anywhere in the rest of the US.

Regarding snakes -- you are probably more likely to get bit while maneuvering to get a shot at the snake that you would if you just got the heck out of the area when you saw it.

If you really want to start getting into pi**ing matches with your local sheriffs and LEOs, start having CAP teams carry weapons in their towns and counties. 

Now, frankly I don't really care if some police department requires their officers to carry weapons at all times.  If that conflicts with CAP regulations, then they shouldn't join CAP.   If my employer required me to carry a weapon for whatever reason, should CAP honor that as well?  I'd be sorry to lose them, but I don't believe that is a valid reason to change CAP regs and open up the can of worms that it would. 

This has got the most intelligent thing said on this thread!

AT THE MOST....a .22 in the aircraft survival kit.....and even then that would be stretch!

Every GT should have 2 full meals...they are only expected to be in the field 12 hours...but plan for a 14 hour stay.   Allowing GTM's to carry weapons is just asking for trouble.

We would have to come up with some sort of qualification process, we would have to come up with caliber guidelines (because someone will insist that his Barret .50 is necessary to protect his team from rabid squirrels.

Then we will have to make sure our insurance carrier will cover us.

Just not a good idea...even if we take on a more active role in LE.

I do agree with the thought that being armed is not really needed. I'm just wanting to point out that Alaska isn't the only place in this country that is desolate and at times barren. Stay away from the big eaty critters. As the old saying goes "They are more scared of you than you are of them."

Also remember avoiding natural hazards is part of your GTM 3 training.

I have been a cop for 10 years and have been a Senior Member since 1998. I havn't had any real issues with not carrying my weapon.  I would like to, especially on CD or SAR missions.  Im going to have to look into CAPR 900-3, I hadnt heard of it.  My Dept carries the S&W 4506, what a horse that is!  We are now getting the new S&W TSW 45.

Id have some issues with just anyone with a CCW carrying on a CAP mission.  Thats a little much.  I could see some big issues arising out of that.  Compared to a police officer, the training to get a CCW is actually pretty low.  Sorry, dont mean to insult anyone.  I had a CCW before I was a law enforcement officer.  Im all for an armed citizenry.  

But, that being said, if for some reason you were in CAP uniform and shot someone DO NOT DO NOT DO NOT remove your uniform.  PLEASE!  Do not change anything. You would be safer explaining something as simple as that vs. explaining why you tried to change or alter the evidence.  
The law doesnt care that you are in a CAP uniform.  If you have a CCW and your legal, provided your not on a military base, your good.  Law enforcement doesnt care about CAP's regulations.  The investigation is probably going to come down the the city or county your in.  Of course, I could see some problems if you were on a CD and DEA and ICE got involved.

But as far as a LE officer carrying, I really think it comes down to this line by River Aux......

"Now, frankly I don't really care if some police department requires their officers to carry weapons at all times.  If that conflicts with CAP regulations, then they shouldn't join CAP.   If my employer required me to carry a weapon for whatever reason, should CAP honor that as well?  I'd be sorry to lose them, but I don't believe that is a valid reason to change CAP regs and open up the can of worms that it would."

Id say he's right.

On a side note, I would NEVER fly with someone on board with chemical agents.  On our helicopter I carry everything a street Deputy does with the exception of OC.  

Yes, there are some very remote areas in the lower 48, but please find me some cases where after an airplane crash with survivors that they were forced to live on their own for weeks prior to rescue? 

Big animals?  please, you're crashing around in the woods with a bunch of people, they're going to be long gone.  People read too many articles in Field and Stream. 

This part of the discussion is very closely related to other threads regarding aircrew survival equipment. 

The only time where it might be good to have someone with a gun is doing late night ELT missions in the bad part of town.  And in that case the proper solution is to ask a local cop to come along. 

Quote from: JC004 on March 22, 2007, 07:01:45 PM
A .44 Magnum would be sooo much more fun than a .22 LR survival rifle.   ;D  I love my Springfield XD-40, though.  As much as I don't like to leave it lonely at home when doing a CAP thing, I don't have a strong opinion either way on carrying like this.  When I was a cadidiot, I would have strongly favored cadets carrying firearms to revolt against the seniors.   :)

"The Cadets are revolting!"

"Ewww,... Yes they are!"

I said in another thread, force protection is the elephant in the room.  We are not supposed to talk about it.

I have been a policeman for 25 years.  I hold a CCW permit in Florida.  I can view it from both sides of the qualification debate, and yes, the standards of most states for a CCW license are too low. 

Given full authority and responsibility, I would...

1.  Use the CCW license, or other state authority to carry a weapon as a starting point. 

2.  If the person is legally entitled to carry, I would structure a web based instruction program on the CAP rules of engagement, and require a passing score on a short scenario-based quiz.

3.  I would require documentation that the member fired an approved LE/Military/NRA qualification course with the same type of weapon he intends to carry.

4.  I would require re-certification every two years, documenting authority to go armed on the 101 card.

5.  I concur that hand guns should be carried by at least one officer of a GT, and either a hand gun or a folding survival rifle carried by one member of any aircrew flying over desolate or hostile terrain.

Also, I would require that they be kept concealed.  No sense advertising how many officers are armed and who they are.  Also, I would NOT authorize a new BDU patch for this, for the reason just explained.

Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on March 22, 2007, 11:24:44 PM
I said in another thread, force protection is the elephant in the room.  We are not supposed to talk about it.

I have been a policeman for 25 years.  I hold a CCW permit in Florida.  I can view it from both sides of the qualification debate, and yes, the standards of most states for a CCW license are too low. 

Given full authority and responsibility, I would...

1.  Use the CCW license, or other state authority to carry a weapon as a starting point. 

2.  If the person is legally entitled to carry, I would structure a web based instruction program on the CAP rules of engagement, and require a passing score on a short scenario-based quiz.

3.  I would require documentation that the member fired an approved LE/Military/NRA qualification course with the same type of weapon he intends to carry.

4.  I would require re-certification every two years, documenting authority to go armed on the 101 card.

5.  I concur that hand guns should be carried by at least one officer of a GT, and either a hand gun or a folding survival rifle carried by one member of any aircrew flying over desolate or hostile terrain.

Also, I would require that they be kept concealed.  No sense advertising how many officers are armed and who they are.  Also, I would NOT authorize a new BDU patch for this, for the reason just explained.

John this is just scarry!  The same guys we can't trust with 2b powers you want to arm!

The same guys we say who can't follow the simple regulations because it does not suit their empire building or political goals....you want to arm!

The same guys who you don't want to have boonie hats because of the cool factor you want arm!

Gods it get chills just thinking about it!

As I said before.....maybe as part of the aircraft survival kit and nothing bigger than .22 LR.  Anything else you are just asking for trouble.

And don't get me wrong...I am not anti gun.  I have .357 S&W and the whole range of Rifle and shotguns.  But this is just going down the slippery slope head first!

Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on March 20, 2007, 10:54:50 PM
1.  The old .38 revolver sidearm.  Good for snakes and varmints, both two and four legged.  Will also work on most small-to-medium alligators.  Don't use it on a bear.  It will make the bear mad at you.

Bears are the #5 threat against America (http://www.wikiality.com/Bears), you know.

Can anyone document an instance in which a CAP member was harmed or endangered because of lack of means of self defense?

In other words, is there a demonstrable need for arming CAP personnel?

I'm not going to try to whiz as high as you guys....I love to hunt and qualified expert in both the AF and Army and support almost complete freedom to keep and arm bears...or something like that.

I honestly don't understand the fuss since I have yet to hear (from a credible and verifiable source) of anyone being hurt in CAP because we didn't have guns.

I do want to point out that Alaska is also the only state in the US that legally REQUIRES all aircraft to have a weapon on board. To me, that kind of puts a different perspective on CAP allowing aircraft in Alaska to carry firearms. Note that there's no mention of GTs packin' in Alaska.

As for LEOs being armed, 900-3 addresses that as well and only requires written proof that you are required to carry. A copy of the municipal code or other ordinance should be sufficient.

When thinking saftety, we never wait until something bad happens to make change.    I have been hiking and seen many strange things.  I was hiking Red Rock canyon in Las Vegas and saw a porn movie being filmed.   I have seen drug deals going down and have hiked into drug field in FL.   I know of people that live in the AZ desert without any running water, electricity, phone or name.  These people don't want to be found out.  I have met militia (and I don't mean the good types) in the desert.    Also in AZ we have illegal immigrants that would mistake a CAP uniform for border patrol.

There was a hiker in AZ that was attacked by another hiker for no reason and ended in death last year.  Bad people can be found almost anywhere.  The difference between a city and the wilderness is that police don't routinely patrol the wilderness and would take too long to respond to a distress call. 

I don't know what the solution is, but a CCW permit should be the starting point for any weapon. 

Most folks that don't want to be noticed won't shoot at you if you're moving away as quickly as possible....which with a group of cadets I would still probably be doing no matter how much heat I was packing.

Quote from: desert rat on March 23, 2007, 07:20:16 PM
When thinking safety, we never wait until something bad happens to make change.

When also thinking safety you have to consider the safety risk you are introducing as you implement a safe guard. 

Arming ground teams to be ready for the one time that you happen onto the the terrorists crossing the border with the illegals and getting shot at....has to be compared to the safety risk of having a fire arm.

Now granted most of us who have fire arms and carry them (I don't but that is because my guns are still in Arkansas  :'() we only have to control the situation we normally encounter at home.  We teach our kids, and keep it safe at home, work, the car, etc.   But now we are talking the bigger world of a mission base.  There are many more people around...some of them who are not very smart.  12 kids who's only fire arms training is playing GTA on the Play Station.  We also have to extend our circle of risk to include by standers and the public.  As a private citizen with a CWP our level of liability is that as a lay person.  As a member of the CAP on an AF assigned mission we suddenly become Federal Instruments and now our level of liability enters the gray area of being professionals.

No...as a former squadron commander...I just don't see the risk being acceptable to the level of the threat at this time.  If our mission changed into more active support of LE operations.  Maybe....this is a very big maybe.  But for the level of operations we do now and with an anticipated expansion of our aerial operations...no.  There is just no need to arm CAP members.

There was a time at HMRS (early 90's) where it was the norm for at least one senior staff member per squadron to be armed during field operations.  Never to my knowledge was there ever any problems.  Weapons were either carry concealed on ones person or stowed securely in the pack.

Like most similar discussions in CAP world its the paranoia of one bad apple.  Or if you like the lowest common denominator.  No doubt 99% of CAP officers could safely and appropriately carry a concealed firearm and if presented with that life and death, shoot/no-shoot scenario execute the proper descision and likely save  the day.  However its the 1% that worries me.

I see drop leg holsters with excesively big handguns with a bizzilian lights, lasers and night sights, or a a pair of mac 10's  (technically a hand gun) chuck norrised under the arms...because they can.  A lot of the saem cool factor with berets and boonies we all fear....not to mention the show off factor that would likely ensue.


mk
.

Again, force protection has not been addressed.  All of us know of situations where we compromise the mission to avoid KNOWN hazards.  What about hazards that are not known until you are hip deep in them?

I'm not calling for every member to be armed.  Simply a mechanism to make a firearm available if needed.

The issue of "Firearms safety" with NHQ has been addressed in terms of safety FROM firearms, not safety from the hazards that firearms can protect against.

And we have yet to hear a legitimate reason for a ground team to be armed other than "something might happen".  Well, that can happen at any time to any person in any place and the vast majority of folks seem to get along ok. 

I think ground team members should probably worry more about having the proper equipment to treat for bad reactions to bee stings, which is probably more than 100 times as big a risk to our personnel. 

Quote from: RiverAux on March 24, 2007, 12:36:29 AM
And we have yet to hear a legitimate reason for a ground team to be armed other than "something might happen".  Well, that can happen at any time to any person in any place and the vast majority of folks seem to get along ok. 

I think ground team members should probably worry more about having the proper equipment to treat for bad reactions to bee stings, which is probably more than 100 times as big a risk to our personnel. 

Exactly.  The only thing we should be doing is ducking for cover and calling for help. 

Quote from: Psicorp on March 24, 2007, 12:39:19 AM

Exactly.  The only thing we should be doing is ducking for cover and calling for help. 

Not to start another tangent, but that's what those poor aux officers were doing.

Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on March 24, 2007, 12:00:55 AM
Again, force protection has not been addressed.  All of us know of situations where we compromise the mission to avoid KNOWN hazards.  What about hazards that are not known until you are hip deep in them?

I'm not calling for every member to be armed.  Simply a mechanism to make a firearm available if needed.

The issue of "Firearms safety" with NHQ has been addressed in terms of safety FROM firearms, not safety from the hazards that firearms can protect against.

John, We can't trust wings to enforce uniform regulations.  I just can't endorse allowing anyone to be armed unless there is a valide law requiring them to be.  As Sarmed1 said, 99% of the members would be good and do what they are supposed to do.  But you have got admit that one day a cadet will be on site packing heat, some misguided sm will have way too much heat, some idiot will shoot something he is not supposed to.

And where would that leave CAP?

Again....I just can't see the benifit out weighing the risk.

Quote from: RiverAux on March 24, 2007, 12:36:29 AM
And we have yet to hear a legitimate reason for a ground team to be armed other than "something might happen".  Well, that can happen at any time to any person in any place and the vast majority of folks seem to get along ok. 

I think ground team members should probably worry more about having the proper equipment to treat for bad reactions to bee stings, which is probably more than 100 times as big a risk to our personnel. 

Absoluty....if we are going to talk about taking something on Ground Teams because "something might happen"....let's talk about requiring EMTs on the Ground Team.  Let's get the insurance to cover EMTs and make them an offical part of CAP.

You are about 9000 times more likely to have a heart attack on a GT mission than get shot at by some random bad guy.

Im an EMT so Im biased towards having GTE's ->  GT-EMT
As for the GT gun issue- would you support or would the AF allow it IF - ONLY IF you were prior/current service and maintained your training / rating?

Now, while ground teams do not need firearms, I do think that there probably should be some training for GTLs and UDF team members on how to spot, avoid, or get themselves out of potentially dangerous "people situations". 

Yes, a lot of it is common sense, but it wouldn't hurt for our folks to have some awareness training about this issue in particular.  After all, cops are able to handle almost all situations by using their heads rather than their weapons. 

All of you guys are making excellent points.  And, I cannot argue with anything that you have said. 

But, I still think that the assurance of an unarmed force in the field is an invitation to trouble.  If a potential attacker, child predator, dope smuggler, or other miscreant has to consider that CAP personnel MAY be armed, that fact alone is a major deterrent factor.

I am not saying that CAP needs to re-work itself into an armed force, or an extension of law enforcement, nor am I suggesting a more aggressive tactical stance.  I am simply suggesting that those officers (not cadets) who have the authority of the state to go armed every other day of their lives should have a mechanism to remain armed on CAP duty. 

Have you ever wondered why there are so many school shootings?  Where else in America does a criminal have the legal assurance of an unarmed target population?  Providing such assurance to criminals with regard to our own operations is not, in my opinion, in our interest.

Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on March 24, 2007, 01:32:46 PM
All of you guys are making excellent points.  And, I cannot argue with anything that you have said. 

But, I still think that the assurance of an unarmed force in the field is an invitation to trouble.  If a potential attacker, child predator, dope smuggler, or other miscreant has to consider that CAP personnel MAY be armed, that fact alone is a major deterrent factor.

John....first who is preying on CAP?  Are there really guys out there who hear that CAP is on the scene and rush out for the chance to nab a little kiddie?  Or that Drug smugglers planning a dash across the Rio Grande are really factoring in CAP ground teams?

Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on March 24, 2007, 01:32:46 PMI am not saying that CAP needs to re-work itself into an armed force, or an extension of law enforcement, nor am I suggesting a more aggressive tactical stance.  I am simply suggesting that those officers (not cadets) who have the authority of the state to go armed every other day of their lives should have a mechanism to remain armed on CAP duty.

Already exists. 

Quote from: CAPR 900-3 Para 1a. A member may carry firearms on his/her person when required to do so by law provided he/she has a written statement of proof of such requirement signed by the Wing Commander.
b. Firearms may be carried in survival gear in CAP aircraft when required by law. When firearms are so authorized, they will not be removed from the survival gear unless an emergency situation exists.

QuoteHave you ever wondered why there are so many school shootings?  Where else in America does a criminal have the legal assurance of an unarmed target population?  Providing such assurance to criminals with regard to our own operations is not, in my opinion, in our interest.

How many of the school shootings was because someone was looking for easy targets.  90% of school schootings are gang related, another 9% are your common "domestic violence" type fights (someone mad at someone else).  The random "I'm looking for targets that can't shoot back" type are very rare.

I would caution using a military background as a prereq to carrying a weapon.  The issue with most isn't that they can't shoot, its knowing when to shoot. 

As far as school shootings ( can  see this thread splitting again ;D)  Thats not all correct about an unarmed target population.   I teach Active Shooter courses to law enforcement.  Many of the high profile school shootings, the suspects knew there were campus police officers on campus, and were actively engaged by them at the onset of the shooting.  Columbine, Santana HS for example.  In the other school shootings, the suspect had no plan for escape and didnt try to flee.  They were suicidal.  And then you have your gang element also which doesnt get much publicity outside that particular community.

I dont know John, I definitely see you point about a hard target.  I just think there are a lot of hidden elements to consider.  Vastly different levels of training that vary from county to county for CCW's.  If your on a SAR and you cross into other county or state where you CCW isnt valid.  In some states your CCW is valid only in your county.  On an air mission, crossing state lines?  What if your mission takes you to a military base.  Now where do you put your weapon? 
Legal considerations?  I was in an officer involved shooting that went to court.  After Four years, a 2-week jury trial and $225,000 in legal fees paid by the city, I won.  That was the most stressful four years of my life.  Hearings, meetings with Psychs, use of force experts, depositions.   And my shooting was pretty cut and dry. Does CAP have that kind of money?  A guy on his own shooting some guy is one thing.  No lawyer cares about that.  Attach that same incident to a corporation or the government and you have vultures circling road kill.

And then Im sure we've all worked with them.  And who knows, some of us here may be "them".  Im referring to that Senior Member who everyone shakes their head at everytime he opens his mouth, now has a tricked out Springfield 1911 strapped to his hip.

Im all for citizens carrying guns.  I just think that if we opened that can of worms in CAP we will rapidly transform into something we didnt intend and will begin to attract people who are looking for something we are not. 

OK I guess you guys have convinced me I'm wrong.

I'm still more than a little uncomfortable presenting a soft target to anybody with criminal thoughts, softer in my opinion than it has to be.  And I'm also uncomfortable having to consider that our officer standards are so low that we must write regulations with the assumption that a certain percentage of the people we entrust with leadership are brain-dead.  And that includes some of the people entrusted with leadership of a wing.

But your counterpoints are valid, and that, after all, is the purpose of discussion.

Quote from: stillamarine on March 24, 2007, 05:45:23 AM

Quote from: Psicorp on March 24, 2007, 12:39:19 AM

Exactly.  The only thing we should be doing is ducking for cover and calling for help. 

Not to start another tangent, but that's what those poor aux officers were doing.

Actually, I believe they were pursuing the suspect....showing great courage, though contrary to NYPD Aux policy, which is 'observe and report'.

Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on March 24, 2007, 01:32:46 PM
I am not saying that CAP needs to re-work itself into an armed force, or an extension of law enforcement, nor am I suggesting a more aggressive tactical stance.  I am simply suggesting that those officers (not cadets) who have the authority of the state to go armed every other day of their lives should have a mechanism to remain armed on CAP duty. 

If you are referring to law enforcement personnel, I could support that.

I'm not so eager to see private citizens who happen to have carry permits attending CAP events while armed....I don't see the necessity...for instance, you mentioned child predators.....there is probably more internal danger from this (someone slips through the system and has access), than an individual stalking a CAP squadron somehow.

Quote from: ZigZag911 on March 24, 2007, 10:54:12 PM

Quote from: stillamarine on March 24, 2007, 05:45:23 AM

Quote from: Psicorp on March 24, 2007, 12:39:19 AM

Exactly.  The only thing we should be doing is ducking for cover and calling for help. 

Not to start another tangent, but that's what those poor aux officers were doing.

Actually, I believe they were pursuing the suspect....showing great courage, though contrary to NYPD Aux policy, which is 'observe and report'.

According to the story on mutible wires, they were following at a distance and keeping NYPD officers avised of the suspect's direction of travel.  I don't believe that is against NYPD Aux policies as they were not attempting to stop or arrest the person. The suspect observed them following him and CROSSED the street to shoot them.

Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on March 24, 2007, 09:04:25 PMAnd I'm also uncomfortable having to consider that our officer standards are so low that we must write regulations with the assumption that a certain percentage of the people we entrust with leadership are brain-dead.  And that includes some of the people entrusted with leadership of a wing.

Just dealing with reality man!  That is why we had to write no hazing rules and spell out the no senior's dating cadets rules.   We all know that most CAP officers know what they are doing and are competant...but it's that 10% that scares us.  It's the 10% that goes to an USAF base poses as a real officer and checks out 10 M-16's.  It's that 10% that involves his cadets in a mock hostage taking with flash bangs and blank ammo.  It that 10% who wears his DI hat to impress the cadets with macho neat skills.

Wish it wern't so....but got to accept it in planning and execution.

Quote from: ZigZag911 on March 24, 2007, 10:58:32 PM

Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on March 24, 2007, 01:32:46 PM
I am not saying that CAP needs to re-work itself into an armed force, or an extension of law enforcement, nor am I suggesting a more aggressive tactical stance.  I am simply suggesting that those officers (not cadets) who have the authority of the state to go armed every other day of their lives should have a mechanism to remain armed on CAP duty. 

If you are referring to law enforcement personnel, I could support that.

I'm not so eager to see private citizens who happen to have carry permits attending CAP events while armed....I don't see the necessity...for instance, you mentioned child predators.....there is probably more internal danger from this (someone slips through the system and has access), than an individual stalking a CAP squadron somehow.

I'm not even sure I would support law enforcement officers to carry unless required by law.  We all have seen that DEA agent shooting himself in the foot during a class in school about the dangers of firearms!

Not that he was a bad cop or anything...but things go wrong...and is CAP willing to take that risk.  $255K in legal fees is almost a whole plane.  It is a whole lot of flying hours.  And that was for a "straight forward shooting".

Today...even 100% obvious "good shootings" often end up in court because lawyers only have to convince 12 people that some cops are bad and that life on the streets are dangerous.  Here in Vegas they have 3-4 cop related shootings this year....and all of the "victims" or the family had lawyers withing hours!

A CAP shooting....would result in a law suit.  Even if we win we would be out $250K!

Not to trivialize the situation...if you die on a corporate mission....your family only gets $5K!

Last year I was involved in a life or death shooting situation with a pack of feral dogs in Louisiana, after Katrina. If not for my trusty Strayer- Voight Infinity ( and you real shooters will know what that is) I would have been killed and eaten, and failed in my FEMA protection mission. ( My AR-15 was still in the car-live and learn!) As a GTL, I have been in some pretty serious country on missions, but the only time I was ever concerned was when bears were trying to batter down our door in Seqouia National Park, where my CCW and other permits would not count anyway. Of course, the 900-3 reg makes it evil to carry a gun, so I am sure no one ever does that...As I have pointed out before, the 900 Regs are incompatible with California Law and are somewhat anti-American, but I have heard some pretty un-constitutional rheotric by CAP people in the past.

Capt. Lord

Quote from: CaptLord on March 25, 2007, 06:40:40 AM
Last year I was involved in a life or death shooting situation with a pack of feral dogs in Louisiana, after Katrina. If not for my trusty Strayer- Voight Infinity ( and you real shooters will know what that is) I would have been killed and eaten, and failed in my FEMA protection mission. ( My AR-15 was still in the car-live and learn!) As a GTL, I have been in some pretty serious country on missions, but the only time I was ever concerned was when bears were trying to batter down our door in Seqouia National Park, where my CCW and other permits would not count anyway. Of course, the 900-3 reg makes it evil to carry a gun, so I am sure no one ever does that...As I have pointed out before, the 900 Regs are incompatible with California Law and are somewhat anti-American, but I have heard some pretty un-constitutional rheotric by CAP people in the past.

Capt. Lord

Are you saying you had a fire arm while on a CAP mission?  Or were you there in another capacity?

Just for my curiosity....what laws in CA are in compatiable with the CAPR 900's?

On the idea of ALTERNATIVES to having CAP carry weapons: can anyone see issuing flack vests or surplus interceptors to GTs? OR using a kevlar "seat cushion" if you are on a Drug flight.
- For an animal issue I know... though kevlar might stop bear claws  ;D
But he'd still eat your legs.... and arms.... and.... Im done. ::)

QuoteIt's that 10% that involves his cadets in a mock hostage taking with flash bangs and blank ammo.

Seen AF security police do that with cadets on an encampment before (mid-1980s) with no warning to the cadets that they were about to participate in such an exercise.

Quote from: lordmonar on March 25, 2007, 07:14:25 AM

Quote from: CaptLord on March 25, 2007, 06:40:40 AM
Last year I was involved in a life or death shooting situation with a pack of feral dogs in Louisiana, after Katrina. If not for my trusty Strayer- Voight Infinity ( and you real shooters will know what that is) I would have been killed and eaten, and failed in my FEMA protection mission. ( My AR-15 was still in the car-live and learn!) As a GTL, I have been in some pretty serious country on missions, but the only time I was ever concerned was when bears were trying to batter down our door in Seqouia National Park, where my CCW and other permits would not count anyway. Of course, the 900-3 reg makes it evil to carry a gun, so I am sure no one ever does that...As I have pointed out before, the 900 Regs are incompatible with California Law and are somewhat anti-American, but I have heard some pretty un-constitutional rheotric by CAP people in the past.

Capt. Lord

Are you saying you had a fire arm while on a CAP mission?  Or were you there in another capacity?

Just for my curiosity....what laws in CA are in compatiable with the CAPR 900's?

I was not on a CAP mission!  I was working for FEMA through a DOD contractor. 900-3 states that we canot be deputized. There is no provision in law that keeps CAP members from being deputized while not on AFAMS, and we are legally obligated on pain of criminal law penalties to assist Law enforcement when requested. ( At least in California)

Capt. Lord

Yup....in Ca if you are over 18, I can order you to assist me....you dont, you go to jail.  And Ive never read any exemption in Ca law regarding CAP..actually, the only exemption is that you have to be 18+

Of course, in 10 years I have never had to do that.  And dont know anyone who has. I have been helped by civilians out of their own initiative.

As far as issuing Flak vests or kevlar.   Sure, it would look great in luggage comartment as I fly along the border in 120 degree heat.  And aint no way you'd get me to hump that thing on a ground mission.  The ony way a seat plate would help if they shot from directly underneath.  Even then, if its a rifle your screwed.
Of course, we did have a helo shot down when a murder suspect shot the main rotor with an AR15.  Everyone landed OK.  Suspect.....not OK  ;D

Quote from: RiverAux on March 25, 2007, 02:49:50 PM

QuoteIt's that 10% that involves his cadets in a mock hostage taking with flash bangs and blank ammo.

Seen AF security police do that with cadets on an encampment before (mid-1980s) with no warning to the cadets that they were about to participate in such an exercise.

That would be a great time to be a cadet. Every cadet in my sq would cut off his right arm to take part in that.

Had something like that at encampment back WIWAC.

There is a difference between "assisting" and "deputizing".   Just because a cop says to come over here and hold this sign does not mean he has deputized the bystander to do anything more than hold the sign.  900-3 explains CAP's role in law enforcement not in the individual.  If a cop said I need you to do such and such.  As far as CAP would be concerned you would be come a private citizen at that moment and no longer a CAP member (for legal purposes).  So YOU can be deputiesed....but you can't do both your deputy duties and your CAP duties at the same time.

We AD people have to deal with this all the time.  I am not a CAP Capt 24/7.  I have to do one or the other.

Pat:

Again, that depends on the state.

In Ohio, if an officer calls you to assist him in  any way, you are, for the duration of that assistance, a law enforcement officer.

On an AFAM, when CAP is a part of the USAF, an officer cannot call a member to assist him without violating the PCA.  In effect, and in law, the call to assist is a "Posse."

On the other hand, if you are not on an AFAM, you are subject to being called to assist a law enforcement officer, and if you refuse, you can be prosecuted.  The regulations and policies of a corporation are not a defense to failing or refusing to assist a law enforcement officer.  In Ohio there was a state supreme court case involving a private corporation that established precisely that precedent.

Quote from: lordmonar on March 24, 2007, 07:02:20 AM

Absoluty....if we are going to talk about taking something on Ground Teams because "something might happen"....let's talk about requiring EMTs on the Ground Team.  Let's get the insurance to cover EMTs and make them an offical part of CAP.

You are about 9000 times more likely to have a heart attack on a GT mission than get shot at by some random bad guy.

But unless that EMT-B has a cath lab in his back pocket, you're still pretty screwed by having said heart attack. Couldn't resist.

Everyone has brought forth the best points of both sides. Good for when you stumble upon the crazy armed person in the woods, bad when the crazy armed person in the woods is a senior member.

If someone REALLY wanted to push it, I don't see why LEO's couldn't carry concealed, just for the fact that they're typically POST certified, know the responsibility in carrying a weapon on a daily basis, are are probably going to be  a little lest ept to doing the whole drop down holster/mac 10 chuck norris type thing.

Unfortunately, the letter of the law probably will not change until something bad happens. Who says CAP and the FAA aren't similar at all?

Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on March 26, 2007, 01:51:03 PM
Pat:

Again, that depends on the state.

In Ohio, if an officer calls you to assist him in  any way, you are, for the duration of that assistance, a law enforcement officer.

On an AFAM, when CAP is a part of the USAF, an officer cannot call a member to assist him without violating the PCA.  In effect, and in law, the call to assist is a "Posse."

On the other hand, if you are not on an AFAM, you are subject to being called to assist a law enforcement officer, and if you refuse, you can be prosecuted.  The regulations and policies of a corporation are not a defense to failing or refusing to assist a law enforcement officer.  In Ohio there was a state supreme court case involving a private corporation that established precisely that precedent.

Again...no problem...if in Ohio...and on a corporate mission/normal CAP time, when you get asked to assist you take off your CAP uniform and help.  No harm no foul.  If on a AFAM you do what you think is best.  And the CAP/USAF lawyers will sort it out later.

Quote from: lordmonar on March 24, 2007, 07:02:20 AM

Absoluty....if we are going to talk about taking something on Ground Teams because "something might happen"....let's talk about requiring EMTs on the Ground Team.  Let's get the insurance to cover EMTs and make them an offical part of CAP.

You are about 9000 times more likely to have a heart attack on a GT mission than get shot at by some random bad guy.

Hopefully the people you allow on GT with you aren't likely to have a heart attack, but yes we do need EMTs on GT, and FEMA is moving us in that direction at a certain level mission/team type. And yes it would also be a very good idea to have one of those people armed to protect the team & survivors from whatever happens, but that won't happen because of liaiblity, regardless of situations that have happened before.

I don't think a UDF team needs either an EMT or armed member. That's a situation where you should be in contact w/ LE. I'm talking more about a level of GT mission where there is no possibility of any kind of help for several hours at minimum - be that way out in the woods or a disaster zone where there is virtually no LE (remember we couldn't do anything in Katrina till way afterwords cause it was"too dangerous").

Quote from: lordmonar on March 26, 2007, 04:50:52 PM

Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on March 26, 2007, 01:51:03 PM
Pat:

Again, that depends on the state.

In Ohio, if an officer calls you to assist him in  any way, you are, for the duration of that assistance, a law enforcement officer.

On an AFAM, when CAP is a part of the USAF, an officer cannot call a member to assist him without violating the PCA.  In effect, and in law, the call to assist is a "Posse."

On the other hand, if you are not on an AFAM, you are subject to being called to assist a law enforcement officer, and if you refuse, you can be prosecuted.  The regulations and policies of a corporation are not a defense to failing or refusing to assist a law enforcement officer.  In Ohio there was a state supreme court case involving a private corporation that established precisely that precedent.

Again...no problem...if in Ohio...and on a corporate mission/normal CAP time, when you get asked to assist you take off your CAP uniform and help.  No harm no foul.  If on a AFAM you do what you think is best.  And the CAP/USAF lawyers will sort it out later.

If I'm a policeman, and I ask a female CAP member to assist me by searching a female suspect, and the first thing that the female CAP member does is start taking off her clothes, I am going to develop some rather inaccurate conceptions about CAP females, generally.

Not unpleasant ones, but inaccuarate nevertheless.

Quote from: DNall on March 26, 2007, 05:07:26 PM
Hopefully the people you allow on GT with you aren't likely to have a heart attack,

The number one cause of line-of-duty deaths in the Fire Department is heart attacks. What makes anyone think we're any better?

NHQ has a terminal case of Swollen Head Syndrome. Their regs never take into account where they may run afoul of local and state laws and seem to think their regs trump civilian law, hiding behind the USAF AUX status. It may work for the corporation, but you as a member of a CIVILIAN auxiliary, doesn't protect you.  Don't expect NHQ to bail your arse out of a jam if you refuse to assist an LEO and you end up in jail. The regs are written to protect NHQ and the corporate officers, not you.

CPPT is a good example: You're expected, by CAP regulation to report abuse to the Wing King or higher and no one else. You're expected to trust CAP, Inc. to "investigate" and make the proper notification to the authorities. Your civic duty as a citizen to report a crime? CAP, Inc. says keep your mouth shut. CPPT is pure CYA for the organization, who will insulate CAP, Inc. first and foremost over your duty as a citizen to report a crime.

No matter the mission, if I'm asked by a cop to assist him I will as part of my civic duty "to my community, state and nation". A state CCW permit allows for the legal carry of a firearm within the boundaries of the law regulating CCW and no CAP regulation trumps that. Concealed Carry means just that and it's really none of CAP, Inc.'s business what I have on under my uniform. If this jepoardizes my CAP membership so be it, I'll take the $4K I spend on CAP activities annually and the hundreds of hours of my time I spend with CAP and be on my way.

QuoteYou're expected to trust CAP, Inc. to "investigate" and make the proper notification to the authorities.

I think they changed that last year. 

Quote from: floridacyclist on March 26, 2007, 10:37:19 PM

Quote from: DNall on March 26, 2007, 05:07:26 PM
Hopefully the people you allow on GT with you aren't likely to have a heart attack,

The number one cause of line-of-duty deaths in the Fire Department is heart attacks. What makes anyone think we're any better?

Not better so much as not carrying that much weight with limited ability to breath fresh air. Not saying we're immune by any means, but it's no more or less likely than needing to defend yourself, not in my experience anyway.

Quote from: Johnny Yuma on March 27, 2007, 02:50:44 AM
If a CAP member has a CCW then there is no regulation in CAP that trumps a state CCW permit.

Wanna bet? You wouldn't be breaking the law to violate CAP regs, but don't think that'll protect you from being tossed out of the org. I know people that have carried weapons in their vehicles on GT with the idea that if it gets bad enough they need it then it's worth more than staying in CAP. I wouldn't recommend that though.

Quote from: DNall on March 27, 2007, 03:07:19 AM

Quote from: floridacyclist on March 26, 2007, 10:37:19 PM

Quote from: DNall on March 26, 2007, 05:07:26 PM
Hopefully the people you allow on GT with you aren't likely to have a heart attack,

The number one cause of line-of-duty deaths in the Fire Department is heart attacks. What makes anyone think we're any better?

Not better so much as not carrying that much weight with limited ability to breath fresh air. Not saying we're immune by any means, but it's no more or less likely than needing to defend yourself, not in my experience anyway.

Quote from: Johnny Yuma on March 27, 2007, 02:50:44 AM
If a CAP member has a CCW then there is no regulation in CAP that trumps a state CCW permit.

Wanna bet? You wouldn't be breaking the law to violate CAP regs, but don't think that'll protect you from being tossed out of the org. I know people that have carried weapons in their vehicles on GT with the idea that if it gets bad enough they need it then it's worth more than staying in CAP. I wouldn't recommend that though.

Those wacky Air Force SP's are under the impression that my CA CCW is not valid on their base. Where do they get these wild ideas?

Capt. Lord

Quote from: RiverAux on March 27, 2007, 02:56:10 AM

QuoteYou're expected to trust CAP, Inc. to "investigate" and make the proper notification to the authorities.

I think they changed that last year. 

They did, with some generalized and vague guidance to comply with local and state laws.

But... If you are in doubt and report suspected abuse to child welfare authorities, and you misinterpret state law and didn't actually have to do so, you well could be toast.

Quote from: Johnny Yuma on March 27, 2007, 02:50:44 AM
NHQ has a terminal case of Swollen Head Syndrome. Their regs never take into account where they may run afoul of local and state laws and seem to think their regs trump civilian law, hiding behind the USAF AUX status. It may work for the corporation, but you as a member of a CIVILIAN auxiliary, doesn't protect you.  Don't expect NHQ to bail your arse out of a jam if you refuse to assist an LEO and you end up in jail. The regs are written to protect NHQ and the corporate officers, not you.

This is a complete misrepresentation of the situation.  No reg ever trumps law.  No one ever said they did.  But as a corporation we must protect ourselves.  What the CAP regs say is that CAP cannot assist LE except in very limited circumstances.  If the local law requires you to assist LE...then you do so as a private citizen not an instrumentality of CAP or the Federal Government.

Quote from: Johnny Yuma on March 27, 2007, 02:50:44 AMCPPT is a good example: You're expected, by CAP regulation to report abuse to the Wing King or higher and no one else. You're expected to trust CAP, Inc. to "investigate" and make the proper notification to the authorities. Your civic duty as a citizen to report a crime? CAP, Inc. says keep your mouth shut. CPPT is pure CYA for the organization, who will insulate CAP, Inc. first and foremost over your duty as a citizen to report a crime.

Again...this is because the rules from state to state are so different it would be impossible to make a universal rule to cover all situations.  So in this case you report it to wing....and ask him when he is going to report it.  It he says he is not...then you report it.  You have satisfied both the regulation and the law.  CPP does not say you have to keep your mouth shut.  It says that YOU can't report it until you have informed your wing commander and state director.  In this case you are not a private citizen but a member of the Civil Air Patrol.  Your first and foremost duty is to protect your cadets.  Waiting until the Wing King can make a decision is not going to change the facts in the case.

Quote from: Johnny Yuma on March 27, 2007, 02:50:44 AMNo matter the mission, if I'm asked by a cop to assist him I will as part of my civic duty "to my community, state and nation".

No one said otherwise....but you do so as a private citizen and to a CAP officer.

Quote from: Johnny Yuma on March 27, 2007, 02:50:44 AM
A state CCW permit allows for the legal carry of a firearm within the boundaries of the law regulating CCW and no CAP regulation trumps that.

I beg to differ.  You bring your gun to my squadron meeting out you go!  And The 2b would be following you before the door hit you on the butt!  Now don't get me wrong...I am pro-gun and pro-CCW.  But I am also about keeping my cadets and SM safe.  I am also about following the regulations.  900-3 says not gun, except as REQUIRED by law.  Your CCW does not require you to carry anything.  As a precedent I will use the CAP driver's license.  Does not matter what kind of driver license you have...you can't drive a CAP vehicle until your commander gives you that little piece of paper.

Quote from: Johnny Yuma on March 27, 2007, 02:50:44 AM
Concealed Carry means just that and it's really none of CAP, Inc.'s business what I have on under my uniform. If this jepoardizes my CAP membership so be it, I'll take the $4K I spend on CAP activities annually and the hundreds of hours of my time I spend with CAP and be on my way.

And finally we come to the real crux of your misconception.  On CAP time you belong to CAP.  It is defiantly their business to know if you are introducing a dangerous object into the meetings, missions and activities.  Just as if you walked into a meeting drunk or under the influence of drugs.  Out you go!  If you can't leave your firearm in the car for a couple of hours then maybe you should quit CAP.

--->John K.  Johnny Yuma is exactly the type of guy I am talking about that scares the hell out of me when you talk about allowing CAP members to arm themselves.  Regulations don't count with them.  They will take the inch you give time and run it out the full mile.  And one day...one of them will shoot someone!

Maybe that's why he took the name of "The Rebel."

If you're on an AFAM, you are legally an agent of the AF & restricted by federal law from assisting LE, and that does trump state law. That said, I got no problem when they say "can you do me a favor & maintain a perimeter till we get some more guys out here," and while rolling around with some guy on the ground he asks for help, well you may well get thrown out for it, but that's something for the lawyers to sort out later. You can't decide mid-mission to suddenly be a private citizen again. You are legally the same as anyone in the AF or their civilian employees from the time you sign in till you sign out again (and travel to & from as well, actually from when you are alerted till the mission is closed online).

I do & will continue to stick to regs in general & specifically with regard to firearms. However, I think there should be provision for GTs to carry CCW under state license for appropriate mission circumstances (not UDF where LE is accessible).

Regarding reporting vs. CPP. You are required to report to WgCC & legal, no one else. That's standard self-protecting risk mgmt policy. Via lawsuit they have made provision to allow you to mandatory report to LE, but that doesn't free you from your burden. What should happen when you call the Wg/CC & legal comes on the line, is they should debrief you & help you format your statement to LE so that you provide all the information but don't word it in a way that exposes CAP to excessive unnecessary liability. If they aren't on the ball enough to do that, then you need to inform them of the law as you understand it & prompt them to do that process with you.

Dennis:

Some states, although not all, have "Youth Group Leaders" lumped in with day care providers, teachers, and others who are required to report suspected child abuse.

Ohio might be a good example of the dilemma facing CAP members in some states.

Ohio law requires a long list of professionals to report suspected child abuse to a Childrens' Services Board.  Failure to report is a 2nd degree misdemeanor.  The list inludes: "...and other persons acting in loco parentis."

Are CAP officers, say, on a bivouac, acting "In loco parentis?"  Maybe, maybe not.  I could craft an arguement to support either position.

So... CAP Captain Jones comes to suspect CAP Lt. Smith of abusing Cadet Snuffy, and reports it to Wing.  Because he thinks he is required to do so, he also reports it to the CSB of the involved county.  Wing and National decide that his report to CSB was not legally required, and hit him with a 2B.

But... If Capt Jones decides that his report to Wing was enough, and he was not acting In Loco Parentis, and he does not report the incident to CSB, he could find himself in jail if a county official decides he WAS required to report.

And remember... Orders of a superior are not a defense.  Not since Nuremburg.

Quote from: DNall on March 26, 2007, 05:07:26 PM
(remember we couldn't do anything in Katrina till way afterwords cause it was"too dangerous").

Yes - this is by design, not accident - we are not first responders, therefore no need for first responder skills.

In all but a VERY small percentage of our activities, we were deployed in areas which were specifically "low risk"  trying, difficult, but not a perceived risk from a violence standpoint.  We served in roles that were exactly what CAP is in business for.

Self-reliant teams performing duties which require skills a cut-above the average CERT player, but far below EMS/PD/FD, etc. We relived them of this lighter duty, so the sworn, trained >paid< professionals
could take care of the more dangerous "messy" things.

Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on March 27, 2007, 07:36:57 PM
So... CAP Captain Jones comes to suspect CAP Lt. Smith of abusing Cadet Snuffy, and reports it to Wing.  Because he thinks he is required to do so, he also reports it to the CSB of the involved county.  Wing and National decide that his report to CSB was not legally required, and hit him with a 2B.

But... If Capt Jones decides that his report to Wing was enough, and he was not acting In Loco Parentis, and he does not report the incident to CSB, he could find himself in jail if a county official decides he WAS required to report.

An emergency supplement to 52-10 addressed this directly and the change was incorporated into the Jan 2006 version:

Quote from: CAPR 52-10, 11 JAN 2006 Paragraph 1d
d. Reporting to State Agency. There may be a mandatory requirement to report certain types of physical, sexual or emotional abuse to a designated state agency. Requirements vary from state to state. Members having knowledge of abuse must follow reporting requirements under their state's laws.

As far as first reporting.  Schools are the same way.  A student tells a teacher they were abused, the teacher doesnt run to the phone and call 911.  They report it to the counselor or school Psych, then to the Principal, Principal to Superintendent, then on to CPS etc. and  Ive been involved in this many times.  And in 10 years, I have yet to see it screw up a case.  Its pretty common and it works.

As far as the whole gun deal.  You know,  I have my gun in my center console when Im enroute and it stays there.  If I need to get out for any extended period, or know Im going to make a stop before or after the meeting, I remove my uniform shirt and put on a jacket or a flannel and put my gun on my belt, concealed.

In the end, do the right thing.  My Flight Officer Training Officer told me once, If your intentions werent selfish and self serving, and you were honestly trying to do the right thing, you'll probably be OK.
I cant see anyone booting you out of CAP because you ran to the assistance of a cop who was getting his a-- handed to him.  There have been several incidents of uniformed military people out to lunch, etc. in uniform helping an officer.  I was in the Corps with a guys who got the Navy-Marine Corps medal for it. In fact, havnt there ben a few members get the Silver or Bronze Medal of Valor for that?
If you do get heat, go to the local Police Officers Assoc and tell them you catching heat for helping one of their guys!  Then pull up a chair and watch the show........ :o

FP:

I don't think the issue is helping out in a fight.  I think it is more involved than that.

OK, lets say you are on an AFAM, you locate the downed aircraft, which happened to be carrying a famous rock and roll rapper country music star.  Once word gets out as to where the wreck is, you end up with freaky fans coming out of the woods on ATV's, and they all want a piece of the airplane to sell on e-bay.

Obviously you call the cops.  The cops send a couple of deputies. 

A deputy tells a female fan to get away from the wreckage.  The girl says "F" You, pig, and grabs a piece of charred aileron.  The deputy does the predictable thing, and arrests the little wench.

Now, you happen to have a female officer on your GT.  The male deputy is understandably reluctant to search a young girl out in the forest with her friends no doubt taping the whole incident onto their cell phones.  So he asks to you have your female lieutenant conduct the search under his watchful supervision.

What are your orders, Captain Pig?

QuoteSo he asks to you have your female lieutenant conduct the search under his watchful supervision.

If he's asking the female LT to do it, she shouldn't do it.  If he TELLS her to do it, she should if that is what the state law requires. 

However, I think this is a gray area here that probably should be explored by CAP's lawyers and explained better in our regulations.  They've probably never had it put to them.  Sounds like a good question to submit to the knowledgebase. 

Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on March 27, 2007, 09:18:35 PM
FP:

I don't think the issue is helping out in a fight.  I think it is more involved than that.

OK, lets say you are on an AFAM, you locate the downed aircraft, which happened to be carrying a famous rock and roll rapper country music star.  Once word gets out as to where the wreck is, you end up with freaky fans coming out of the woods on ATV's, and they all want a piece of the airplane to sell on e-bay.

Obviously you call the cops.  The cops send a couple of deputies. 

A deputy tells a female fan to get away from the wreckage.  The girl says "F" You, pig, and grabs a piece of charred aileron.  The deputy does the predictable thing, and arrests the little wench.

Now, you happen to have a female officer on your GT.  The male deputy is understandably reluctant to search a young girl out in the forest with her friends no doubt taping the whole incident onto their cell phones.  So he asks to you have your female lieutenant conduct the search under his watchful supervision.

What are your orders, Captain Pig?

Conduct the serach yourself as a LEO and have the CAP female observe...(especially if the hippie chick and the CAP member are cute...but what are the odds of that happening?) I have never had any problems searching prsioners incident to arrest, male, female or....other

Capt. Lord

Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on March 27, 2007, 07:36:57 PM
Some states, although not all, have "Youth Group Leaders" lumped in with day care providers, teachers, and others who are required to report suspected child abuse.....

I understand all that. However, no state law I know of requires LE (or whomever) to be the first report. There is nothing that says you can't consult with counsel (including corp counsel) prior to reporting, which is exactly what the reg is requiring you to do. You call the Wg/CC & get a conf call going with Wg & nat legal to sort out if you are required to report & how that report should be worded. The idea is that they will do any necessary reporting, but if they don't then you are responsible. So, you should not let them off the phone without understanding that you are legally required to report the incident & asking for their help in doing so the right way.

Quote from: RiverAux on March 27, 2007, 09:26:28 PM

QuoteSo he asks to you have your female lieutenant conduct the search under his watchful supervision.

If he's asking the female LT to do it, she shouldn't do it.  If he TELLS her to do it, she should if that is what the state law requires.  

So you want an agent of the US military, who the public rightfully assumes IS the military, to conduct search & siezure on a civilian out in the woods? That's expressly what PCA says not to do. And THAT is why it applies to us, not so it can restict us from flying missions. That's the same thing that gets you when you can stand a line to do crowd control but you can't physically restrain someone from messing with the scene, only document & draw LE attention to it.

Quote from: CaptLord on March 27, 2007, 09:30:27 PM
Conduct the serach yourself as a LEO and have the CAP female observe

That's the right answer, and what you as a GTL should recommend while advisiong the LEO that you are bound by PCA & can not take part in LE activities while on AFAMs, but you'll do your best to help him out within those parameters.

Redacted....that's what you get for not reading the whole thread before replying  ;D

Redacted as well, ref ^

Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on March 27, 2007, 09:18:35 PMWhat are your orders, Captain Pig?

I would say I can't do it.  And he would have to conduct the search on his own.

Because at this point I am not talking as John Q. Public but as and officer of the CAP on a AFAM mission.  As such I am a federal military asset and I cannot be deputized by him nor can I assist him in his current actions by regulation and federal law.

It is simple as that.  Sorry...can't do it.  (would I help out anyway?  Probable...but the legal answer is to say "can't do it".) 

If life or limb were involved...that would be a different situation.  But in the helping the cop make an arrest at the site....can't do it.

You guys who identified the fact that this was an AFAM and as such we are bound by the PCA get a smiley-face sticker. 

I do NOT think that there would be a PCA violation by having the female Lt. witness the search.

Now.  New situation.

You have been called out pursuant to an MOA with the county EMA to assist in a flood.  You are the GT commander, and you are in contact with an air asset.  The aircraft spots an occupied car on an expressway ramp, trapped by flood waters, which are rising.  The aircraft sees a way you can get to the people and get them out, and directs you to them via the opposite-side ramp.  There is a barrier in the median, so you can't bring the vehicle out, only the occupants.  As you rescue the occupants, you notice that one of them is a famous rock and roll rap country singer, and her entourage.

It is cold, and they are all wet.  You recognize the early signs of hypothermia, and you request an ambulance respond. 

Suddenly, several cars of people pull up and begin taking pictures,  their cars block the only access available to the ambulance.  You ask them to move their cars, and clear the scene, and one says to you:  "Eat (excrement) soldier-boy.  We're gettin' pictures."  You get your excremement-eating soldier boy butt on the radio and call for police.  The cops get there, and the female driver of one of the cars refuses to move for the ambulance.  The policeman arrests her.  Every paparazzi now turns his camera on the cop, and not wanting to grab and grope a female with that many cameras present, asks you to direct your female Lt. to search the arrestee.

Now what are your orders, Captain Excrementeater?

If you were a cop and concerned enough for your safety to require a search of a suspect, would you trust an excrement-eating civillian enough to do it properly?

In the military, we were taught that if a female cop wasn't present, a female witness would suffice.

What are my orders?  Hey cop, grow a set and do your job.  Lt. X.  be a good witness and give the Ofcr your infor for his report. 

And, is threre some law that says I have to search you the second the cuffs go on.  Keep control of her, and take her to a more secure location.

 I could not EVER imagine asking a non law enforcement officer to search anyone.  If that male deputy is reluctant to search a female he needs to turn in his gear.  We are trained for those situations.  I worked Corrections and worked the female floor by myself.  I now work a rural part of the county and dont even have any females on my shift.  Never had an issue.  Having the female observe, sure.  Hey...have the entire ground team observe.  But nobody but another LEO searches the prisoner.   The hippies want it filmed?  Great.  Theres more of a liability in allowing non trained civilians groping your suspect.  And what about training?  What are we taught in the academy? I dont care who searched that person, or if I watched them search that person.  Before I take custody of you, I search you again.  Im not putting my life on the line trusting a CAP senior to search my suspect.  Nor do I want to put that burden on that good intentioned Senior member.  

Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on March 27, 2007, 11:02:12 PM
You guys who identified the fact that this was an AFAM and as such we are bound by the PCA get a smiley-face sticker. 

I do NOT think that there would be a PCA violation by having the female Lt. witness the search.

Now.  New situation.

You have been called out pursuant to an MOA with the county EMA to assist in a flood.  You are the GT commander, and you are in contact with an air asset.  The aircraft spots an occupied car on an expressway ramp, trapped by flood waters, which are rising.  The aircraft sees a way you can get to the people and get them out, and directs you to them via the opposite-side ramp.  There is a barrier in the median, so you can't bring the vehicle out, only the occupants.  As you rescue the occupants, you notice that one of them is a famous rock and roll rap country singer, and her entourage.

It is cold, and they are all wet.  You recognize the early signs of hypothermia, and you request an ambulance respond. 

Suddenly, several cars of people pull up and begin taking pictures,  their cars block the only access available to the ambulance.  You ask them to move their cars, and clear the scene, and one says to you:  "Eat (excrement) soldier-boy.  We're gettin' pictures."  You get your excremement-eating soldier boy butt on the radio and call for police.  The cops get there, and the female driver of one of the cars refuses to move for the ambulance.  The policeman arrests her.  Every paparazzi now turns his camera on the cop, and not wanting to grab and grope a female with that many cameras present, asks you to direct your female Lt. to search the arrestee.

Now what are your orders, Captain Excrementeater?

Ha! A trick question! You are still blocked on the bridge because the female is the driver! You are not on an AFAM, so the PCA does not apply ( it does not apply to CAP anyway anyway, strictly speaking) If you are a CAP member searching the arrestee to recover the car keys, you are doing so at the request of a "lawful order" of an emergency services worker, removing an impediment to a bona fide rescue, and not a "police agent". (legally akin to directing traffic or removing hazards to navigation at the direction of the CG or FD) You are an agent of the County pursuant to the MOA. Secondly, the car blocks your retreat, so you may act reasonably and prudently to resist the unlawful detention the hippie,commie beatnik chick has inflicted on you and your associates. (double tapping her is an alternative) Conducting a search incident to arrest is still a bad idea UNLESS you are the one effecting the arrest ( and CAP members may make private citizens arrests, as can any member of the military) Still better to witness than to actually conduct the search. (Better question is who pays for our court time when we get subpoened?) What bedwetting LEO out there is not going to search a suspect incident to an arrest?

Capt. Lord, apparent gourmand de la merde

Hey by the way: Fun question!

Capt. Lord

Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on March 27, 2007, 11:02:12 PM
I do NOT think that there would be a PCA violation by having the female Lt. witness the search.

Would that not be part of an "arrest" action?

Quote from: CAPR 900-3 Para 3.3. Assistance to Law Enforcement Officials. Civil Air Patrol units and CAP members engaged in CAP activities may provide passive assistance to law enforcement officers and agencies. CAP members may not be deputized nor may they take an active part in arrest or detention activities and have no authority to restrict per-sons by means of force, actual or implied.

Searching a suspect is definitely not passive act.  Witnessing a search maybe considered passive, but it is getting really cross to that gray line between passive/active.

Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on March 27, 2007, 11:02:12 PMSuddenly, several cars of people pull up and begin taking pictures,  their cars block the only access available to the ambulance.  You ask them to move their cars, and clear the scene, and one says to you:  "Eat (excrement) soldier-boy.  We're getting' pictures."  You get your excrement-eating soldier boy butt on the radio and call for police.  The cops get there, and the female driver of one of the cars refuses to move for the ambulance.  The policeman arrests her.  Every paparazzi now turns his camera on the cop, and not wanting to grab and grope a female with that many cameras present, asks you to direct your female Lt. to search the arrestee.

Now what are your orders, Captain Excrement-eater?

I would have to refuse and continue with the rescue operation.  This definitely crosses the line between passive assistance and active.  There is no life or limb situation here, and there is the PR issues.  The cop does not want to be on camera doing his job....the last thing I want is one of my team members doing it.  If that means I would face criminal charges...so be it.  That is the hazards of command.  We often are placed in positions where we have to choose between two bad options.  We often have to make triage assessments and rescue probability assessments.  This is no different.

But what if grasshoppers had machineguns?  Would the birds still #%$& with them?

Quote from: Flying Pig on March 27, 2007, 11:43:06 PM
But what if grasshoppers had machineguns?  Would the birds still #%$& with them?

Well grasshoppers don't have opposable thumbs and .....hey, wait a minute, you're being facetious aren't you!

Capt. Lord

( I do support the right to arm bears, but not not grasshoppers-does this make me a specist?)

Quote from: CaptLord on March 27, 2007, 03:11:29 AM

Quote from: DNall on March 27, 2007, 03:07:19 AM

Quote from: floridacyclist on March 26, 2007, 10:37:19 PM

Quote from: DNall on March 26, 2007, 05:07:26 PM
Hopefully the people you allow on GT with you aren't likely to have a heart attack,

The number one cause of line-of-duty deaths in the Fire Department is heart attacks. What makes anyone think we're any better?

Not better so much as not carrying that much weight with limited ability to breath fresh air. Not saying we're immune by any means, but it's no more or less likely than needing to defend yourself, not in my experience anyway.

Quote from: Johnny Yuma on March 27, 2007, 02:50:44 AM
If a CAP member has a CCW then there is no regulation in CAP that trumps a state CCW permit.

Wanna bet? You wouldn't be breaking the law to violate CAP regs, but don't think that'll protect you from being tossed out of the org. I know people that have carried weapons in their vehicles on GT with the idea that if it gets bad enough they need it then it's worth more than staying in CAP. I wouldn't recommend that though.

Those wacky Air Force SP's are under the impression that my CA CCW is not valid on their base. Where do they get these wild ideas?

Capt. Lord

It's against Federal law to carry on a military installation without the written permission of the Base Commander. Moot point.

Quote from: lordmonar on March 27, 2007, 11:33:25 PM

Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on March 27, 2007, 11:02:12 PM
I do NOT think that there would be a PCA violation by having the female Lt. witness the search.

Would that not be part of an "arrest" action?

Quote from: CAPR 900-3 Para 3.3. Assistance to Law Enforcement Officials. Civil Air Patrol units and CAP members engaged in CAP activities may provide passive assistance to law enforcement officers and agencies. CAP members may not be deputized nor may they take an active part in arrest or detention activities and have no authority to restrict per-sons by means of force, actual or implied.

Searching a suspect is definitely not passive act.  Witnessing a search maybe considered passive, but it is getting really cross to that gray line between passive/active.

Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on March 27, 2007, 11:02:12 PMSuddenly, several cars of people pull up and begin taking pictures,  their cars block the only access available to the ambulance.  You ask them to move their cars, and clear the scene, and one says to you:  "Eat (excrement) soldier-boy.  We're getting' pictures."  You get your excrement-eating soldier boy butt on the radio and call for police.  The cops get there, and the female driver of one of the cars refuses to move for the ambulance.  The policeman arrests her.  Every paparazzi now turns his camera on the cop, and not wanting to grab and grope a female with that many cameras present, asks you to direct your female Lt. to search the arrestee.

Now what are your orders, Captain Excrement-eater?

I would have to refuse and continue with the rescue operation.  This definitely crosses the line between passive assistance and active.  There is no life or limb situation here, and there is the PR issues.  The cop does not want to be on camera doing his job....the last thing I want is one of my team members doing it.  If that means I would face criminal charges...so be it.  That is the hazards of command.  We often are placed in positions where we have to choose between two bad options.  We often have to make triage assessments and rescue probability assessments.  This is no different.

The officer, in both cases, is interested in avoiding false charges of sexual misconduct.  Women bring them all the time.  Really.

In the case of being on an AFAM, he isn't asking the Lt. to do anything that she would not do anyway... watch the officer make a search.  If the suspect states that the officer acted improperly, he will have a witness, and a probably reliable one, to back up his version of events.

In the second, I would NOT risk criminal charges, nor would I put my Lt. in that position.  (If I won't order it, and the officer ordered the lt. to do so directly, we have BOTh failed to assist police.  I would obey the police order, have my Lt. conduct the search, and report the action through the IC.  Federal Law beats local and state law.  Local and State Law beats corporate regulations and policies.  I'm not going to jail because the NB was too busy writing new uniform regulations to consider the impact of the change in the law taking our USAF status away on other than AFAM's.

John I understand where you are coming from and your reasoning (to a point...I won't say that it is lack of activity on part of the NB...but maybe a why waste time on something that is not likely to happen).

Bottom line is that 900-3 gives CAP an out when it comes lawsuit time.  That is if you assist Deputy Johnny Lawenforment and it brings heat on CAP....they can always pass the liability directly on the member by saying he violated regulations.

The thing is...the law enforcement assistance thing works both ways.  The MOU between the CAP and local LE should point out that it would be inappropriate for the LE Officer to even ask for that type of help.  That the LEO acted incorrectly when he was trying to avoid a sexual harassment suit by passing the liability to another agency.   If he does not feel right about executing an arrest because of possible litigation...he should not execute the arrest in the first place.  If the bust is a good bust....he should follow his training in a professional manner and accept the risk of a lawsuit.  If he is doing what he is supposed to do and the way he is supposed to do it...then all is good....it just takes time to prove it.

But that brings us back to CAP.  Even when we are on a corporate assigned mission we do not represent ourselves.  We are NOT private citizens.  Yes that does not allow you to totally disregard police assistance, but it does mean that you are between a rock and a hard place.  You have to please two masters.  So it is a judgment call in the field.  Follow the law or CAPR's.  Your choice.

Quote from: DNall on March 27, 2007, 03:07:19 AM

Quote from: floridacyclist on March 26, 2007, 10:37:19 PM

Quote from: DNall on March 26, 2007, 05:07:26 PM
Hopefully the people you allow on GT with you aren't likely to have a heart attack,

The number one cause of line-of-duty deaths in the Fire Department is heart attacks. What makes anyone think we're any better?

Not better so much as not carrying that much weight with limited ability to breath fresh air. Not saying we're immune by any means, but it's no more or less likely than needing to defend yourself, not in my experience anyway.

Quote from: Johnny Yuma on March 27, 2007, 02:50:44 AM
If a CAP member has a CCW then there is no regulation in CAP that trumps a state CCW permit.

Wanna bet? You wouldn't be breaking the law to violate CAP regs, but don't think that'll protect you from being tossed out of the org. I know people that have carried weapons in their vehicles on GT with the idea that if it gets bad enough they need it then it's worth more than staying in CAP. I wouldn't recommend that though.

CAP, Inc. tosses out people for little or no reason. If they toss me out for defending myself when in fear of my life or for another then then CAP, Inc. has proven they care about no member's life at all.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070327/pl_nm/texas_deadlyforce_dc (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070327/pl_nm/texas_deadlyforce_dc) related article.

Quote from: DNall on March 28, 2007, 05:51:31 AM
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070327/pl_nm/texas_deadlyforce_dc (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070327/pl_nm/texas_deadlyforce_dc) related article.

Hurray for the Castle Doctrine!  Now to get it passed in Pennsylvania...   :)

Quote from: Johnny Yuma on March 28, 2007, 04:25:14 AM

Quote from: Johnny Yuma on March 27, 2007, 02:50:44 AM
If a CAP member has a CCW then there is no regulation in CAP that trumps a state CCW permit.

Quote from: DNallWanna bet? You wouldn't be breaking the law to violate CAP regs, but don't think that'll protect you from being tossed out of the org. I know people that have carried weapons in their vehicles on GT with the idea that if it gets bad enough they need it then it's worth more than staying in CAP. I wouldn't recommend that though.

CAP, Inc. tosses out people for little or no reason. If they toss me out for defending myself when in fear of my life or for another then then CAP, Inc. has proven they care about no member's life at all.

Johnny...I think you don't understand what we are saying.  Your right to bear arms ends at the CAP door.  Because you are now the CAP's responsibility to keep safe.  CAP cannot afford for you to input an uncontrolled element of danger.  Sorry that is just the way it is.  Just like you can't take that gun with you when you go to a school campus.  CAP has a direct responsibility to keep its people safe.  And at a squadron meeting you represent the greatest threat...and therefore they wrote 900-3.  It is not that don't care for peoples lifes....it is that the "cure" that you bring with you is worse than the disease.

Quote from: lordmonar
Johnny...I think you don't understand what we are saying.  Your right to bear arms ends at the CAP door.  Because you are now the CAP's responsibility to keep safe.  CAP cannot afford for you to input an uncontrolled element of danger.  Sorry that is just the way it is.  Just like you can't take that gun with you when you go to a school campus.  CAP has a direct responsibility to keep its people safe.  And at a squadron meeting you represent the greatest threat...and therefore they wrote 900-3.  It is not that don't care for peoples lifes....it is that the "cure" that you bring with you is worse than the disease.

While a nice thought, you know very well that's not the reason why it's like that. The reg is everythign to do with liability. As a corp independent of the govt when it suits them or us, we can be sued for problems. They govt will not pay the results of that suit! If that suit is high enough (probably based on gross negligence or punative damages) then CAP cannot collect enough from member dues or outside donations to remain in operation & will shut down. The better legal strategy is to ask that the individuals & CAP be seperated into two or more cases, and then for CAP to help prosecute the individuals, cause the more liablity that lands on them the less there is for CAP to settle.

Quote from: DNall on March 28, 2007, 06:18:02 PM

Quote from: lordmonar
Johnny...I think you don't understand what we are saying.  Your right to bear arms ends at the CAP door.  Because you are now the CAP's responsibility to keep safe.  CAP cannot afford for you to input an uncontrolled element of danger.  Sorry that is just the way it is.  Just like you can't take that gun with you when you go to a school campus.  CAP has a direct responsibility to keep its people safe.  And at a squadron meeting you represent the greatest threat...and therefore they wrote 900-3.  It is not that don't care for peoples lifes....it is that the "cure" that you bring with you is worse than the disease.

While a nice thought, you know very well that's not the reason why it's like that. The reg is everything to do with liability. As a corp independent of the govt when it suits them or us, we can be sued for problems. They govt will not pay the results of that suit! If that suit is high enough (probably based on gross negligence or punitive damages) then CAP cannot collect enough from member dues or outside donations to remain in operation & will shut down. The better legal strategy is to ask that the individuals & CAP be separated into two or more cases, and then for CAP to help prosecute the individuals, cause the more liability that lands on them the less there is for CAP to settle.

You are right, of course...I already used that argument...but Johnny Y did not want to hear about that.  He wanted to say that his right to self defense was more important than CAP's right to protect its people and itself.  And I just used a precedent that already exists.

I understand, I just wouldn't go so far as thinking it has anything to do with taking care of our people. CAP has never demonstrated any concern for members, quite the opposite in fact. This particular rule can be written up exclusively to cold hearted no soul at all self-serving protection of the org even & especially when it screws members that are doing the right thing. That's standard practice in civil law, and especially in the area of risk mgmt.

If you don't believe Dennis, read the Safety Pledge... Even THAT was written by a lawyer!

I don't want to be seen as a threat, subversive or one who disregards the National Leadership; for submitting this chain of thought. BUT:  Why the fascination with GUNS?! I have several nice tent stakes that could make instant weapons,- not to mention a BFK and a throwing star- in the gear-.  I have no reason to bring a gun on a mission. And I would bet that my with defense training / martial arts and the knife that I could deal appropriately with the situation.

As for reaction: if  a crazy trys to mess with a GT I'm on, or aims a gun at me... well then.. well just see what a throwing star or Kbar looks like lodged in the guys windpipe (I'm an EMT too, so I suppose I can keep him from dying if I'm of a mind.)
I can (and have) taken down "wild things" with the star as well.

Well, I didn't bring the topic up, but I've been very nearly killed a half dozen times on CAP missions and to the extent that's peventable & nothing is done about it, that's unacceptable.

Far as I remember, I've had a gun pulled on my GT twice, one was innocent enough but I didn't much like it, the other was 10 seconds short of shotgun thru the brain pan.

I've also on several occations encountered dangerous wildlife that didn't particularly care for my folks being near them & expressed that fact to us in a few different ways. Luckily no one has been hurt, but if an animal charges my team & starts attacking one of my guys, which reg would you recommend I cite to make it all beter, or maybe just throw at it while I call for a troop of girls scouts to come & rescue us.

UDF with 911 & cops around the corner is one thing, it's completely another when you're talking about GT in places where a desperate emergency & perfect comms means maybe a two hour response time if your're real lucky. The same kind of places where a game warden gets gunned down a couple weeks back by a poacher who fliped the selector to full-auto, or you walk up on meth labs or stands of dope. Should I tighten up my boy scout hankie & instruct them not to hurt my people or should I defend the people placed in my charge?

I'm just saying, there's some places where it's not real smart to go unarmed, & folks like park rangers will tell you that. There's also the other end of the spectrum where we don't get to go to Katrina till two weeks late cause it's too dangerous to put poor innocent little volunteers in there that can't take care of themselves. That's BS.

By the way, KBar & throwing star (especially) are both exactly as illegal to possess at a CAP function or take with you in the field. No weapons of any kind, no large sheath knives. Get real Jackie Chan. Try that crap on a Gator, bear or charging javelina & see what happens to ya.

Quote from: SAR-EMT1 on March 29, 2007, 08:37:32 PM
not to mention a BFK and a throwing star- in the gear-.

In this state, I can carry my pistol just about anywhere I please, but all hell would break loose if I got caught with a throwing star.  Unlike some states like Florida, my concealed carry permit doesn't cover knives and such.

Man, I would love to see you try to defend yourself against bears, mountain lions or a dog pack with a throwing star! BTW, its a  misdemeanor to carry a gun concealed in California,(without a permit)  but a felony to carry a shuriken (throwing star) Do the math...

As a GTL, I have had a few close calls, but I have decided to play by CAP rules and not carry my gun. Yes, the United States Constitution DOES trump Corporation rules, but if in good conscience you cannot abide CAPRs, than don't do CAP. CAP does have sometimes have a decidedly un-American flavor to it, but it is up to us to keep the bedwetters from running this organization.

Capt. Lord

Quote from: CaptLord on March 29, 2007, 10:26:59 PM
Man, I would love to see you try to defend yourself against bears, mountain lions or a dog pack with a throwing star! BTW, its a  misdemeanor to carry a gun concealed in California,(without a permit)  but a felony to carry a shuriken (throwing star) Do the math...

Well you could kill somebody with a throwing star!  Sheesh!  Even if they were legal in CA, there'd be a 10-star limit.   ;D  Stupid high capacity magazine laws.   :angel:

Quote from: CaptLord on March 29, 2007, 10:26:59 PMYes, the United States Constitution DOES trump Corporation rules, but if in good conscience you cannot abide CAPRs, than don't do CAP.

Just to emphasise the point!

Quote from: lordmonar on March 28, 2007, 03:42:55 AM
John I understand where you are coming from and your reasoning (to a point...I won't say that it is lack of activity on part of the NB...but maybe a why waste time on something that is not likely to happen).

Bottom line is that 900-3 gives CAP an out when it comes lawsuit time.  That is if you assist Deputy Johnny Lawenforment and it brings heat on CAP....they can always pass the liability directly on the member by saying he violated regulations.

The thing is...the law enforcement assistance thing works both ways.  The MOU between the CAP and local LE should point out that it would be inappropriate for the LE Officer to even ask for that type of help.  That the LEO acted incorrectly when he was trying to avoid a sexual harassment suit by passing the liability to another agency.   If he does not feel right about executing an arrest because of possible litigation...he should not execute the arrest in the first place.  If the bust is a good bust....he should follow his training in a professional manner and accept the risk of a lawsuit.  If he is doing what he is supposed to do and the way he is supposed to do it...then all is good....it just takes time to prove it.

But that brings us back to CAP.  Even when we are on a corporate assigned mission we do not represent ourselves.  We are NOT private citizens.  Yes that does not allow you to totally disregard police assistance, but it does mean that you are between a rock and a hard place.  You have to please two masters.  So it is a judgment call in the field.  Follow the law or CAPR's.  Your choice.

You are absolutely right.  900-3 is a protection for CAP.  I cannot use that as a legal defense for failing to aid a LE officer.

And as to the propriety of the request for assistance, assuming that a street cop would even KNOW the provisions of the MOU, his statement in court that actual conditions at the scene required him to take actions and make requests not envisioned by the MOU would carry plenty of weight in front of a jury. 

I mean... here's an officer saying that he needed assistance from a volunteer disaster worker, and there YOU are reading to the jury a bunch of legalese in a contract between lawyers for the various parties.  How would YOU vote if it came down to a cop saying "I needed help and asked Lt Jones to help, and she refused."  versus,  "At no time during the pendency of this Agreement between the Civil Air Patrol, Inc. and any other party or party to said Agreement shall any of the contracting parties, either directly or through agents, demand, request, authorize, permit, or suffer and member of the Civil Air Patrol, Inc. to be deputized, sworn, or appointed as a law enforcement officer, nor to assume the duties of a law enforcement officer, not to make arrests, nor to use any force, restraint, or coercion in detaining another, nor to carry or use lethal, less-than-lethal, or non-lethal weapons, nor to employ deadly force upon another except such force as may be reasonably expected to be used as self-defense in the event of a criminal attack directly upon the person or persons of such member or members of the Civil Air Patrol, Inc.  Nor to makes searches and seizures of persons arrested or about to be arrested to include documenting, inventorying, securing or otherwise processing physical evidence of crime as might be uncovered in such searches and seizures."

Quote from: lordmonar on March 29, 2007, 11:07:01 PM

Quote from: CaptLord on March 29, 2007, 10:26:59 PMYes, the United States Constitution DOES trump Corporation rules, but if in good conscience you cannot abide CAPRs, than don't do CAP.

Just to emphasise the point!

Absolutely! No question of that at all. I'm not advocating breaking the reg in any sense of the word. Please don't misunderstand me on that point in any way shape or form!!!

What I'm advocating is changing the rule to something that accounts for the reasonable circumstances under which it'd be a good idea to have the option of carrying a firearm in accordance with state laws, and with ample liability waiver to the org (you pull it you're on your own, & may be held criminally liable for abuse of official authority if you cross the line into LE). Stong restictions, min requirements, etc.

There are certainly routine circumstances (stated above) that warrant such an option, but really what I was originally thinking was being able to get quickly into a disaster zone w/o needing police escort when there ain't no free cops to hold your hand & probably are both looters & people shooting at them.

Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on March 29, 2007, 11:47:15 PM
You are absolutely right.  900-3 is a protection for CAP.  I cannot use that as a legal defense for failing to aid a LE officer.

No of course you can't use THAT, but you can MUST use your status as a legal employee of the AF while on AFAM to prevent you from engaging in LE. The reg is there for two reasons. One, is flat out liability being more important than the lives of memebrs; and the second is, to create a barrier in the degree to which you're able to physically engage in LE & thereby break federal law.

1) Lets call 900-3 a contract between members and CAP.
2) 900-3 calls for us to commit a crime.
3) A legal contract cannot be for an illegal act
4) Quad errat demonstrandum, the 900-3 is not a valid contract...

Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on March 29, 2007, 11:47:15 PMYou are absolutely right.  900-3 is a protection for CAP.  I cannot use that as a legal defense for failing to aid a LE officer.

And as to the propriety of the request for assistance, assuming that a street cop would even KNOW the provisions of the MOU, his statement in court that actual conditions at the scene required him to take actions and make requests not envisioned by the MOU would carry plenty of weight in front of a jury. 

I mean... here's an officer saying that he needed assistance from a volunteer disaster worker, and there YOU are reading to the jury a bunch of legalese in a contract between lawyers for the various parties.  How would YOU vote if it came down to a cop saying "I needed help and asked Lt Jones to help, and she refused."  versus,  "At no time during the pendency of this Agreement between the Civil Air Patrol, Inc. and any other party or party to said Agreement shall any of the contracting parties, either directly or through agents, demand, request, authorize, permit, or suffer and member of the Civil Air Patrol, Inc. to be deputized, sworn, or appointed as a law enforcement officer, nor to assume the duties of a law enforcement officer, not to make arrests, nor to use any force, restraint, or coercion in detaining another, nor to carry or use lethal, less-than-lethal, or non-lethal weapons, nor to employ deadly force upon another except such force as may be reasonably expected to be used as self-defense in the event of a criminal attack directly upon the person or persons of such member or members of the Civil Air Patrol, Inc.  Nor to makes searches and seizures of persons arrested or about to be arrested to include documenting, inventorying, securing or otherwise processing physical evidence of crime as might be uncovered in such searches and seizures."

Well if we are going to ask those kinds of questions....what DA is going to risk his career on looking foolish?  That is a good defense lawyer would just say...."my defendant did not help out due to neglect or not caring...but he was following the rules and regulations of his organisation and the MOU between CAP and the Police Force.  It is they who are negligent and are trying to pass off this bystandard who is not a laywer, does not know the law and was presented with seemingly conflicting instructions.  Was he wrong?  Maybe...but was he ciminally wrong?"

It would look bad for the DA to say that the CAP member refused to do something the Police Force AGREED to not do.  

That is easy to explain.

Quote from: CaptLord on March 30, 2007, 12:14:26 AM
1) Lets call 900-3 a contract between members and CAP.
2) 900-3 calls for us to commit a crime.
3) A legal contract cannot be for an illegal act
4) Quad errat demonstrandum, the 900-3 is not a valid contract...

True.....but also....by contract if you violate the rules of the corporation you loose all benifit of protection of that corporation.  Nothing in 900-3 makes it completly invalid.  You can be deputised right this minute and get armed and raid drug houses.....but you can't do that as a CAP member.

Also remember that 900-3 was written before the 2000 Title 10 change where we no longer the 24/7 USAF AUX.  When 900-3 was written, we were always the USAF AUX and always covered by PCA.

Anyways....other than a theoritical exercise...most of this is not going to likely happen.  No one is going to get charged for not assiting and CAP is not likely to expand it LE role anytime soon.

^ that's right... the reg is not invalidated. It was written at a time when we were always the AFAux while participating in CAP activities. Thereby always a legal agent of the military & bound by PCA. So yes as of now you could be deputized from a meeting & required by law to do LE stuff (please remove your uniform as best as possible so as not to give the wrong impression).

However, during AFAM, you are still legally part of the military & bound by PCA, therefore federal law trumps state law. The federal law does not restrict you from CCW (excpet on base & a few other locations), but nothing in that process negates 900-3 with regard to carrying a weapon, which means it's still valid & you are bound by it.

I can promise you you'll get no sympathy in court. It's a volunteer org you chose to participate in, knew the rules, and were free to quit of your own free will. No one forced you to do anything, and the jury will recognize that.

Quote from: SAR-EMT1 on March 29, 2007, 08:37:32 PM
I don't want to be seen as a threat, subversive or one who disregards the National Leadership; for submitting this chain of thought. BUT:  Why the fascination with GUNS?! I have several nice tent stakes that could make instant weapons,- not to mention a BFK and a throwing star- in the gear-.  I have no reason to bring a gun on a mission. And I would bet that my with defense training / martial arts and the knife that I could deal appropriately with the situation.

As for reaction: if  a crazy trys to mess with a GT I'm on, or aims a gun at me... well then.. well just see what a throwing star or Kbar looks like lodged in the guys windpipe (I'm an EMT too, so I suppose I can keep him from dying if I'm of a mind.)
I can (and have) taken down "wild things" with the star as well.

Rule #1 for gunfights:  Bring a loaded gun!
Rule #2:  There are no other rules.

"by contract if you violate the rules of the corporation you loose all benifit of protection of that corporation.  Nothing in 900-3 makes it completly invalid"

The provision prohibiting deputization is illegal on the face of it. I actually do not believe that the regulation is a "contract" within the legal definition of the term. If it was it would be prima facie invalid. The CAPR's are just Corporate rules, having no more legal standing than the J.C. Penny's salesman manual. In the event that I refused deputization, and a third party died as a consequence of my illegal actions, I guarantee you that CAP would be named in the suit, and having provided a written instruction knowing that said instruction could foreseeably lead to the death of a third party, AND that they knew or should have known that such actions were deemed  by (black letter) CA law to be illegal, CAP would bear the brunt of the liability. (okay they could try to sue us, but you can't get blood from turnips!)

I will refrain from carrying a gun, because I am willing to accept the personal risk attendant to that action. If in the event that I am summoned to assist a LEO, I will do so. In the event that I am subject to the call to militia, I will respond to supress riots or what ever is needed. To think that our faux AF duds makes us immune to the law is just proposterous. It sickens me to hear CAP members think that we are above the law. It sickens me further to think that anyone wearing the uniform of this country would not assist the police to protect it. Many of you were never police, and I understand that, but to think that you would let a brother defender of our country fend for himself in an emergency is just too awful for words. If you feel that way you should join earth first, or some other pinko group.




Capt. Lord

Quote from: DNall on March 29, 2007, 11:59:10 PM

Quote from: lordmonar on March 29, 2007, 11:07:01 PM

Quote from: CaptLord on March 29, 2007, 10:26:59 PMYes, the United States Constitution DOES trump Corporation rules, but if in good conscience you cannot abide CAPRs, than don't do CAP.

Just to emphasise the point!

Absolutely! No question of that at all. I'm not advocating breaking the reg in any sense of the word. Please don't misunderstand me on that point in any way shape or form!!!

What I'm advocating is changing the rule to something that accounts for the reasonable circumstances under which it'd be a good idea to have the option of carrying a firearm in accordance with state laws, and with ample liability waiver to the org (you pull it you're on your own, & may be held criminally liable for abuse of official authority if you cross the line into LE). Stong restictions, min requirements, etc.

There are certainly routine circumstances (stated above) that warrant such an option, but really what I was originally thinking was being able to get quickly into a disaster zone w/o needing police escort when there ain't no free cops to hold your hand & probably are both looters & people shooting at them.

Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on March 29, 2007, 11:47:15 PM
You are absolutely right.  900-3 is a protection for CAP.  I cannot use that as a legal defense for failing to aid a LE officer.

No of course you can't use THAT, but you can MUST use your status as a legal employee of the AF while on AFAM to prevent you from engaging in LE. The reg is there for two reasons. One, is flat out liability being more important than the lives of memebrs; and the second is, to create a barrier in the degree to which you're able to physically engage in LE & thereby break federal law.

Dennis:

If the situation were on an AFAM, then refusing to comply with the officer would be, in fact, legal.  He cannot request assistance of the USAF (Which on an AFAM, we are) due to the Posse Comm. Act.

But in the example I gave, the mission was under an MOU with the EMA (The police would not be a party to the MOU).  We would not be protected under the PCA, and would be, in fact, private citizens subject to being called to aid a LE officer.  The rules and policies of a corporation do not trump state and local law.

Quote from: lordmonar on March 30, 2007, 12:16:32 AM

Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on March 29, 2007, 11:47:15 PMYou are absolutely right.  900-3 is a protection for CAP.  I cannot use that as a legal defense for failing to aid a LE officer.

And as to the propriety of the request for assistance, assuming that a street cop would even KNOW the provisions of the MOU, his statement in court that actual conditions at the scene required him to take actions and make requests not envisioned by the MOU would carry plenty of weight in front of a jury. 

I mean... here's an officer saying that he needed assistance from a volunteer disaster worker, and there YOU are reading to the jury a bunch of legalese in a contract between lawyers for the various parties.  How would YOU vote if it came down to a cop saying "I needed help and asked Lt Jones to help, and she refused."  versus,  "At no time during the pendency of this Agreement between the Civil Air Patrol, Inc. and any other party or party to said Agreement shall any of the contracting parties, either directly or through agents, demand, request, authorize, permit, or suffer and member of the Civil Air Patrol, Inc. to be deputized, sworn, or appointed as a law enforcement officer, nor to assume the duties of a law enforcement officer, not to make arrests, nor to use any force, restraint, or coercion in detaining another, nor to carry or use lethal, less-than-lethal, or non-lethal weapons, nor to employ deadly force upon another except such force as may be reasonably expected to be used as self-defense in the event of a criminal attack directly upon the person or persons of such member or members of the Civil Air Patrol, Inc.  Nor to makes searches and seizures of persons arrested or about to be arrested to include documenting, inventorying, securing or otherwise processing physical evidence of crime as might be uncovered in such searches and seizures."

Well if we are going to ask those kinds of questions....what DA is going to risk his career on looking foolish?  That is a good defense lawyer would just say...."my defendant did not help out due to neglect or not caring...but he was following the rules and regulations of his organisation and the MOU between CAP and the Police Force.  It is they who are negligent and are trying to pass off this bystandard who is not a laywer, does not know the law and was presented with seemingly conflicting instructions.  Was he wrong?  Maybe...but was he ciminally wrong?"

It would look bad for the DA to say that the CAP member refused to do something the Police Force AGREED to not do.  

That is easy to explain.

The basic argument of the DA would be strong, especially (as in my example) the MOU was with the EMA and not the police.  The police cannot be held to comply with a agreement to which they are not a party. 

Quote from: lordmonar on March 30, 2007, 12:21:40 AM

Quote from: CaptLord on March 30, 2007, 12:14:26 AM
1) Lets call 900-3 a contract between members and CAP.
2) 900-3 calls for us to commit a crime.
3) A legal contract cannot be for an illegal act
4) Quad errat demonstrandum, the 900-3 is not a valid contract...

True.....but also....by contract if you violate the rules of the corporation you loose all benifit of protection of that corporation.  Nothing in 900-3 makes it completly invalid.  You can be deputised right this minute and get armed and raid drug houses.....but you can't do that as a CAP member.

Also remember that 900-3 was written before the 2000 Title 10 change where we no longer the 24/7 USAF AUX.  When 900-3 was written, we were always the USAF AUX and always covered by PCA.

Anyways....other than a theoritical exercise...most of this is not going to likely happen.  No one is going to get charged for not assiting and CAP is not likely to expand it LE role anytime soon.

Bingo!

Your second paragraph is my point.  CAPR 900-3 needs to be re-written to recognize the new legal world we are in since 2000. 

Quote from: lordmonar on March 28, 2007, 08:41:37 AM

Quote from: Johnny Yuma on March 28, 2007, 04:25:14 AM

Quote from: Johnny Yuma on March 27, 2007, 02:50:44 AM
If a CAP member has a CCW then there is no regulation in CAP that trumps a state CCW permit.

Quote from: DNallWanna bet? You wouldn't be breaking the law to violate CAP regs, but don't think that'll protect you from being tossed out of the org. I know people that have carried weapons in their vehicles on GT with the idea that if it gets bad enough they need it then it's worth more than staying in CAP. I wouldn't recommend that though.

CAP, Inc. tosses out people for little or no reason. If they toss me out for defending myself when in fear of my life or for another then then CAP, Inc. has proven they care about no member's life at all.

Johnny...I think you don't understand what we are saying.  Your right to bear arms ends at the CAP door.  Because you are now the CAP's responsibility to keep safe.  CAP cannot afford for you to input an uncontrolled element of danger.  Sorry that is just the way it is.  Just like you can't take that gun with you when you go to a school campus.  CAP has a direct responsibility to keep its people safe.  And at a squadron meeting you represent the greatest threat...and therefore they wrote 900-3.  It is not that don't care for peoples lifes....it is that the "cure" that you bring with you is worse than the disease.

ROFLMAO!

That right only ends if the door's posted. If not, then too bad.

If you really believe that CAP will keep you safe, you've been drinking Tony's KoolAid for too long. CAP, Inc. will protect you as long as it doesn't cost them money nor jepoardizes the corporation or its officers. By officers, I mean The board, NEC and BoG.

I'll keep the repsonsibility of keeping myself safe in my own hands, thank you very much.

Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on March 30, 2007, 01:14:22 AM

Quote from: DNall on March 29, 2007, 11:59:10 PM

Quote from: lordmonar on March 29, 2007, 11:07:01 PM

Quote from: CaptLord on March 29, 2007, 10:26:59 PMYes, the United States Constitution DOES trump Corporation rules, but if in good conscience you cannot abide CAPRs, than don't do CAP.

Just to emphasise the point!

Absolutely! No question of that at all. I'm not advocating breaking the reg in any sense of the word. Please don't misunderstand me on that point in any way shape or form!!!

What I'm advocating is changing the rule to something that accounts for the reasonable circumstances under which it'd be a good idea to have the option of carrying a firearm in accordance with state laws, and with ample liability waiver to the org (you pull it you're on your own, & may be held criminally liable for abuse of official authority if you cross the line into LE). Stong restictions, min requirements, etc.

There are certainly routine circumstances (stated above) that warrant such an option, but really what I was originally thinking was being able to get quickly into a disaster zone w/o needing police escort when there ain't no free cops to hold your hand & probably are both looters & people shooting at them.

Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on March 29, 2007, 11:47:15 PM
You are absolutely right.  900-3 is a protection for CAP.  I cannot use that as a legal defense for failing to aid a LE officer.

No of course you can't use THAT, but you can MUST use your status as a legal employee of the AF while on AFAM to prevent you from engaging in LE. The reg is there for two reasons. One, is flat out liability being more important than the lives of memebrs; and the second is, to create a barrier in the degree to which you're able to physically engage in LE & thereby break federal law.

Dennis:

If the situation were on an AFAM, then refusing to comply with the officer would be, in fact, legal.  He cannot request assistance of the USAF (Which on an AFAM, we are) due to the Posse Comm. Act.

But in the example I gave, the mission was under an MOU with the EMA (The police would not be a party to the MOU).  We would not be protected under the PCA, and would be, in fact, private citizens subject to being called to aid a LE officer.  The rules and policies of a corporation do not trump state and local law.

And NHQ isn't above playing both sides of the USAF AUX/Corporation to keep the members confused  and everyone in line at the KoolAid stand.

 ;D

Quote from: Al Sayre on March 30, 2007, 12:38:48 AM
Rule #1 for gunfights:  Bring a loaded gun!
Rule #2:  There are no other rules.

Not true.  The other rule is to bring all your friends who have guns.

Quote from: Al Sayre on March 30, 2007, 12:38:48 AM

Quote from: SAR-EMT1 on March 29, 2007, 08:37:32 PM
I don't want to be seen as a threat, subversive or one who disregards the National Leadership; for submitting this chain of thought. BUT:  Why the fascination with GUNS?! I have several nice tent stakes that could make instant weapons,- not to mention a BFK and a throwing star- in the gear-.  I have no reason to bring a gun on a mission. And I would bet that my with defense training / martial arts and the knife that I could deal appropriately with the situation.

As for reaction: if  a crazy trys to mess with a GT I'm on, or aims a gun at me... well then.. well just see what a throwing star or Kbar looks like lodged in the guys windpipe (I'm an EMT too, so I suppose I can keep him from dying if I'm of a mind.)
I can (and have) taken down "wild things" with the star as well.

Rule #1 for gunfights:  Bring a loaded gun!
Rule #2:  There are no other rules.

Murphy's lawsof combat:

1) your weapon is supplied by the lowest bidder.
2) If you're close enough to shoot, you're close enough to be shot.

Quote from: flyerthom on March 30, 2007, 06:12:26 AM

Quote from: Al Sayre on March 30, 2007, 12:38:48 AM

Quote from: SAR-EMT1 on March 29, 2007, 08:37:32 PM
I don't want to be seen as a threat, subversive or one who disregards the National Leadership; for submitting this chain of thought. BUT:  Why the fascination with GUNS?! I have several nice tent stakes that could make instant weapons,- not to mention a BFK and a throwing star- in the gear-.  I have no reason to bring a gun on a mission. And I would bet that my with defense training / martial arts and the knife that I could deal appropriately with the situation.

As for reaction: if  a crazy trys to mess with a GT I'm on, or aims a gun at me... well then.. well just see what a throwing star or Kbar looks like lodged in the guys windpipe (I'm an EMT too, so I suppose I can keep him from dying if I'm of a mind.)
I can (and have) taken down "wild things" with the star as well.

Rule #1 for gunfights:  Bring a loaded gun!
Rule #2:  There are no other rules.

Murphy's lawsof combat:

1) your weapon is supplied by the lowest bidder.
2) If you're close enough to shoot, you're close enough to be shot.

After having read your comments and reviewed my own submission I will concede that I was in error and that my actions would most likely get me killed in a situation as you all have concieved. I will remove the star, but I will keep the knife. - Regs say no BFKs visible on team gear, I keep mine tucked out of common view -

As for my actions in a situation so concieved,- drug labs, shotgun crazies etc... I must conclude that my only goal would be to protect any cadets on my team 1st, the other seniors, and myself. 
As for guns on my personal part: I have been waiting on FOID card approval for over a year now. - Paperwork is SLOW here in Nazi Germany  Illinois.

---
As an aside: a javelina is a man eating wild hog correct? Cant be worse then an "upset"  mother wolverine. CAN IT?! 

The javelina is probably a little faster on the run, and the tusks can cut you to the bone in a heartbeat.  I've never dealt wih javelina's, but I have dealt with wild (feral) hogs (we hunt them with dogs in Florida) and a wild sow with piglets is a VERY dangerous animal.

Quote from: SAR-EMT1 on March 30, 2007, 07:24:01 AM
As for guns on my personal part: I have been waiting on FOID card approval for over a year now. - Paperwork is SLOW here in Nazi Germany  Illinois.

Ha.  Good luck with that.  IL has a long heritage of severe gun control.  Not as crazy as some states, though (CA, MA, NY, NJ).  PA is shall-issue and the law requires it to be processed within 45 days (for carry).  Hopefully the new legislature won't change that.

So far as regs go with knives and other pointy things, it's debatable how authoritative the task booklets are (where most of the guidance was originally inserted), but in most states, a large knife would likely be acceptable on a SAR mission, just probably not roaming the streets.

I have a machete, a small tree saw and an entrenching tool I keep behind the seat in my truck.   They're just tools... ;D

Its amazing how these threads just spin out of control ;D

Quote from: Al Sayre on March 30, 2007, 07:57:37 AM
The javelina is probably a little faster on the run, and the tusks can cut you to the bone in a heartbeat.  I've never dealt wih javelina's, but I have dealt with wild (feral) hogs (we hunt them with dogs in Florida) and a wild sow with piglets is a VERY dangerous animal.

We got hogs too. They began as domesticated hogs turned lose on the range. They are concerned with protecting their spot/family & will chase you only so far as that objective is met. Javelina began wild. They are faster & lots more aggerssive. They take the intrusion personally & will keep chasing you a long way (they're lots faster than you with bog ole tusks). That's empty a 45 a short range pray, just like some guy on PCP. Very very dangerous.

Quote from: JC004 on March 30, 2007, 08:07:44 AM

Quote from: SAR-EMT1 on March 30, 2007, 07:24:01 AM
As for guns on my personal part: I have been waiting on FOID card approval for over a year now. - Paperwork is SLOW here in Nazi Germany  Illinois.

Ha.  Good luck with that.  IL has a long heritage of severe gun control.  Not as crazy as some states, though (CA, MA, NY, NJ).  PA is shall-issue and the law requires it to be processed within 45 days (for carry).  Hopefully the new legislature won't change that.

So far as regs go with knives and other pointy things, it's debatable how authoritative the task booklets are (where most of the guidance was originally inserted), but in most states, a large knife would likely be acceptable on a SAR mission, just probably not roaming the streets.

Most states, including California, do not prohibit carrying any length sheath knife openly. ( You can carry a Samurai sword if you are so inclined.) Carrying a fixed blade knife concealed is a felony most everywhere. If you need a big knife for the mission, carry a big knife for the mission. I have found little use for combat knives on CAP missions, but a good Machete has come in darn handy. I think the perfect SAR knife would be a short blade ( less than 2 inches is legal in California) serrated switch blade with a blunt tip and a seat belt cutter. For Northern California, it should have a corkscrew and a cheese knife. For Alabama, it should have a possum "legal length" gage.. (waiting for the outraged Alabamans to find someone to read this to them...)

Capt. Lord

Quote from: CaptLord on March 30, 2007, 12:46:19 AM
The CAPR's are just Corporate rules, having no more legal standing than the J.C. Penny's salesman manual. In the event that I refused deputization, and a third party died as a consequence of my illegal actions, I guarantee you that CAP would be named in the suit, and having provided a written instruction knowing that said instruction could foreseeably lead to the death of a third party, AND that they knew or should have known that such actions were deemed  by (black letter) CA law to be illegal, CAP would bear the brunt of the liability.

The situation is somewhat confused because of our 'part time' Auxiliary status (which might be an argument in favor of restoring full time Aux standing)....considering it strictly as a layman, the controlling factors are federal statue establishing the PCA rules, and AFIs on the same subject.

In other words, arguing that one followed a CAP regulation which was written specifically to conform with U.S. law and AF regulations, in that case, might stand legal testing.

It is a matter of the primacy of federal law where there is a conflict; CAP is not seeking to be 'above the law', but rather in compliance with the laws that govern us as an auxiliary to a military service, as well as those that control us as a Congressionally chartered corporation.

can one of the the cops here cite a specific state law that gives a police officer the authority to demand the assistance of non-police officers and that would leave teh civilian open to prosecution if he did not comply?  Please give specific title/chapter, etc. for the law.

By the way, I'm not questioning that such a law might exist, I'd just like to see an example and to see exactly what the language of such a law says. 

ZZ:

You hit the point ZZ.  On an AFAM, we are a part of the Air Force. We USED to be a part of the Air Force all the time.  Now, we are only USAF when actually called into service on AF orders.

900-3 was written when the world was a better place, when we were ALWAYS the USAF auxiliary.  Now that on some missions were are not part of the AF, 900-3 is, literally, of no more legal consequence than the J.C. Penny's Instructions to Ladies Intimate Aparrel Sales Associates.

900-3 needs to be re-written to give proper legal guidance in the light of our changed legal status.

Actually... well I do think it needs to be re-written to grant teh option in reasonable situations as I stated before, BUT in general I think it should be presented as part of a body of evidence to show the full-time Aux status needs to be respored & adequate regulatory & command authority granted to ensure that's executed within the lines with ref to penalties that may ensue from not doing so. In other words, what they should have don in the first place, but I wasn't working there at the time to tell them how stupid the idea was.

Dennis:

I agree with you.  It seems that to address one problem, the system created new problems.  And the act of creating new problems did not solve the original problem.

1.  We went in to drain the swamp.

2.  We agitated the alligators.

3.  Then, with alligators up to the anal opening, we discover that the pump we brought doesn't work.

4.  The National Board then designs a new patch for participants in "Operation Dry Swamp," and considers making a new specialty track for alligator wrestling. 

River Aux........Its the Posse Comitatus Act.  In Ca. its defined in Penal Code 150.

Every able-bodied person above 18 years of age who neglects or refuses to join the posse comitatus or power of the county, by neglecting or refusing to aid and assist in the taking or arresting any person against whom there may be issued process or by neglecting to aid and assist in the retaking any person who, after being arrested or confined may have escaped from arrest or imprisonment, or by neglecting or refusing to aid and assist in preventing any breach of the peace, or the commission of any criminal offense, being thereto lawfully required by any uniformed peace officer or by any peace officer designated in PC830.1, who identifies himself or herself with a badge and or identification card issued by the officers employing agency, or by any judge, is punishable buy a fine of not less than $50 and not more than $1000.

Its a misdemeanor. 

So in other words, as you can see as I said above, an officer ordering your female Lt to search his prisoner doesnt fall under Posse Comitatus.  Assist in making the arrest, or preventing any breach of peace.  Not searching your suspect after the arrest is made because the officer is worried about a law suit.  Thats why I made the comment when asked, that I would tell the cop to "do his job". Its intended for summoning help in an extreme situation.

Section 2921.23, Ohio Revised Code:

"No person shall negligently fail or refuse to aid a law enforcement officer when called upon for assistance in preventing or halting the commission of an offense or in apprehending or detaining an offender, when such aid can be given without a substantial risk of physical harm to the person giving it."

(Minor Misdemeanor.)

Quote from: DNall on March 30, 2007, 07:55:00 PM
Actually... well I do think it needs to be re-written to grant teh option in reasonable situations as I stated before, BUT in general I think it should be presented as part of a body of evidence to show the full-time Aux status needs to be respored & adequate regulatory & command authority granted to ensure that's executed within the lines with ref to penalties that may ensue from not doing so. In other words, what they should have don in the first place, but I wasn't working there at the time to tell them how stupid the idea was.

Concur, completely!

Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on March 31, 2007, 03:33:43 AM
Section 2921.23, Ohio Revised Code:

"No person shall negligently fail or refuse to aid a law enforcement officer when called upon for assistance in preventing or halting the commission of an offense or in apprehending or detaining an offender, when such aid can be given without a substantial risk of physical harm to the person giving it."

(Minor Misdemeanor.)

I high light that word as the critical one here in this sentence.  Would a reasonable person who was a member of CAP and read his regulations and listened to the training we get on ES missions THINK they were not allowed to be deputized and not allowed to assist LE officers?  Not that they did not want to...but that they were not allowed to.

So again we are stuck between a rock and a hard place.  PCA/not PCA....volunteers doing ES who are not lawyers and don't spend hours looking up obscure laws and reading dusty regulations.

Bottom line 900-3 needs to be re-written.  But we can't re-write it anytime soon because once we start down that path the guys who thing CAP is purposely moving away from the USAF will see it as just another power grab and scream bloody murder.  Forget that all we are doing (and this includes the USAF-AUX coming off the planes and vehicles) is compiling with title 10.

We need to rewrite 900-3 to:

A) allow LE Support under Corp missions.
B) Spell out when and where a CAP member can be deputized.
C) Spell out exactly how CAP will cover or not cover a deputized CAP member.

"Negligently" is the level of criminal intent necessary to commit the act.  There are 4 levels of criminal intent:

1.  Negligence
2.  Recklessness
3.  Knowledge
4.  Purpose

Negligence is defined as "A substantial lapse from due care."  If you want to use the lack of criminal intent as a defense, it MAY work.  You would have to prove that the CAP officer failed to assist the LE officer in the honest belief that he or she would be violating a law by doing so.  This would be an uphill battle for the defense, since negligence is the lowest level of criminal intent.  The only things that are lower are "Strict liability" offenses, which do not require a showing of any level of criminal culpability.

Quote from: lordmonar on March 31, 2007, 07:24:00 AM
Bottom line 900-3 needs to be re-written.  But we can't re-write it anytime soon because once we start down that path the guys who thing CAP is purposely moving away from the USAF will see it as just another power grab and scream bloody murder.  Forget that all we are doing (and this includes the USAF-AUX coming off the planes and vehicles) is compiling with title 10.

Actually, I don't think you're referring to title 10 specifically, but the law in general states some restrictions on CAP that they only have power to enforce while in Aux status but the intent is for those restrictions to be inplace all the time regardless of which govt paid insurance policy is covering you. The only reason tot take any of the stuff off or change these kinds of rules is to skirt the law & do what happens to please us for the time being, regardless of how others feel about it. I tend to think of that as irresponsible & selfish.

OR... the AF could just give us the same LE powers as the Coast Guard or the same LACK of powers the CG-Aux has.

The Air Force doesn't have those powers to give.  That would have to be an act of Congress.

But check the "Iraq Run Away Bill."  It MIGHT be in there!

Suppose an untrained, possibly unarmed, civilian so deputized is killed or injured acting under the orders of a law enforcement officer.

To what kind of liability does this expose the state or local jurisdiction?

I'm no lawyer, but I sense litigation with a capital "L"!!

ZZ:

Already done.

The state is fully liable.  Most states have specific laws on that.  Local jurisdictions are normally protected by state laws which accept liability for injury or damage.  Also, in most states, a citizen called to aid a police officer is immune from lawsuit.

Quote from: DNall on March 31, 2007, 08:03:13 AM

Quote from: lordmonar on March 31, 2007, 07:24:00 AM
Bottom line 900-3 needs to be re-written.  But we can't re-write it anytime soon because once we start down that path the guys who thing CAP is purposely moving away from the USAF will see it as just another power grab and scream bloody murder.  Forget that all we are doing (and this includes the USAF-AUX coming off the planes and vehicles) is compiling with title 10.

Actually, I don't think you're referring to title 10 specifically, but the law in general states some restrictions on CAP that they only have power to enforce while in Aux status but the intent is for those restrictions to be inplace all the time regardless of which govt paid insurance policy is covering you. The only reason tot take any of the stuff off or change these kinds of rules is to skirt the law & do what happens to please us for the time being, regardless of how others feel about it. I tend to think of that as irresponsible & selfish.

No...prior to the 2000 change we were always the USAF-AUX and alway PCA applied.  When title 10 changed so did our PCA exemption to assiting local LE officers.

Okay, lets compare laws --- We now have examples of several state laws that require individuals to assist law enforcement officers upon demand.  If I as a CAP member refuse, I'm the one paying the criminal price for doing so.

But, look closely at the federal posse comitatuts law:

QuoteTITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 67 > § 1385
§ 1385. Use of Army and Air Force as posse comitatus
Whoever, except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress, willfully uses any part of the Army or the Air Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.

Note that the law does not prohibit the Army or Air Force from being used for law enforcement.  It does not say that individual soldiers or airmen would be violating federal law if they participated in a posse comitatus.  What it says is that the person who uses the Army or Air Force is in violation of the law.

So, in all the various examples we've been given here, the CAP member is still required by state law to help the law enforcement officer, however when the law enforcement officer uses the CAP member the LEO would be the one violating federal law (not the CAP member) and would be the one charged with violating PCA.

Now, for this interpretation to be valid and the CAP members completely protected I think the LEO would have to order each individual CAP member to assist him.  If the LEO told the GTL that he required the whole ground team to assist him, I don't think the GTL should then order the ground team to help.  The officer would need to order each GTM to assist him.  Otherwise, the GTL might be putting himself at risk of violating the PCA since he would be acting as an agent for the LEO by ordering the ground team to help. 

Quote from: lordmonar on March 31, 2007, 10:44:12 PM

Quote from: DNall on March 31, 2007, 08:03:13 AM

Quote from: lordmonar on March 31, 2007, 07:24:00 AM
Bottom line 900-3 needs to be re-written.  But we can't re-write it anytime soon because once we start down that path the guys who thing CAP is purposely moving away from the USAF will see it as just another power grab and scream bloody murder.  Forget that all we are doing (and this includes the USAF-AUX coming off the planes and vehicles) is compiling with title 10.

Actually, I don't think you're referring to title 10 specifically, but the law in general states some restrictions on CAP that they only have power to enforce while in Aux status but the intent is for those restrictions to be inplace all the time regardless of which govt paid insurance policy is covering you. The only reason tot take any of the stuff off or change these kinds of rules is to skirt the law & do what happens to please us for the time being, regardless of how others feel about it. I tend to think of that as irresponsible & selfish.

No...prior to the 2000 change we were always the USAF-AUX and alway PCA applied.  When title 10 changed so did our PCA exemption to assiting local LE officers.

That's correct. When not on an AFAM you are legally bound as any other private citizen, which I would argue is problematic for the AF in any number of situations you can envision.

However, the reason the command patches changed & stuff came off the planes is to get around the AFI requiring permission from the SAF to partake in missions which need a legal ruling to ensure they don't violate PCA. If you don't have the AFAux name on then that reg doesn't apply & youy don't have to ask permission for those corporate missions. That sounds fine on the surface, but do you really have a problem with an AF/JA reviewing the mission profile first to make sure there isn't an issue? I mean there still can be legal issues for AF regardless if it is a corporate mission and they deserve the right to clear them first.

The case with 900-3 is very similiar. We were previously boud by federal law, spelled out in 900-3. You are correct that after the Aux status changed that the reg became outdated & in need of update. However, allowing assistance to LE greater than what 900-3 provides is not palatable from a liability perspective, and it allows the appearance of inpropriety that AF is not willing to tolerate. That's why AFAux went on the planes in the first place in conjunction with that restrictive AFI.

You can't just deide you don't like the rules & try to squirm around them. You can either go to congress & have them change or clarify the ssituation, or you can live with it as is. The org looks real bad & burns lots of bridges when it tries to exploit the situation or play games outside those rules.

I would just strip naked and run away screaming, then claim stress.

That can work, you know.  We had a sergeant who was the commander of the midnight shift SWAT team (And a reserve Special Forces full colonel) who got caught wearing womens clothing by officers of a suburban police department.  He claimed stress and got a 60% disability.

He can buy a lot of Victoria Secret stuff with that money!

Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on March 31, 2007, 06:05:31 PM
ZZ:

Already done.

The state is fully liable.  Most states have specific laws on that.  Local jurisdictions are normally protected by state laws which accept liability for injury or damage.  Also, in most states, a citizen called to aid a police officer is immune from lawsuit.

OK, granted I'm from a densely populated urban state (although NJ does have some pretty isolated rural areas, with few or no local police, patrolled by the state poice), but I'm having a great deal of difficulty imagining a situation in which a professional law enforcement officer is going to see a benefit to deputizing an untrained, unprepared, unequipped civilian.

I see even less value in it for state and local jurisdictions that will have to bear the price tag if said civilian gets killed, hurt, kills or injures someone else, or otherwise does more harm than good.

Please enlighten this dumb Yankee!

Quote from: ZigZag911 on April 01, 2007, 06:36:57 PM

Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on March 31, 2007, 06:05:31 PM
ZZ:

Already done.

The state is fully liable.  Most states have specific laws on that.  Local jurisdictions are normally protected by state laws which accept liability for injury or damage.  Also, in most states, a citizen called to aid a police officer is immune from lawsuit.

OK, granted I'm from a densely populated urban state (although NJ does have some pretty isolated rural areas, with few or no local police, patrolled by the state poice), but I'm having a great deal of difficulty imagining a situation in which a professional law enforcement officer is going to see a benefit to deputizing an untrained, unprepared, unequipped civilian.

I see even less value in it for state and local jurisdictions that will have to bear the price tag if said civilian gets killed, hurt, kills or injures someone else, or otherwise does more harm than good.

Please enlighten this dumb Yankee!

I admit that it is rare.  I have only done it myself 3 or 4 times in 25 years.  And in all but one of those incidents I used a trained security officer to assist me.

But then, I only fired my pistol in action once in 25 years.

I think it would be LESS rare in a disaster when CAP forces are likely to be engaged in a relief mission.  At that point, police forces would be seriously overextended, and one officer may need help securing or searching prisoners.  If I saw two looters and arrested one, I could handcuff him and direct uniformed relief workers to "Watch him" while I went after the second one.

Quote from: ZigZag911 on April 01, 2007, 06:36:57 PM
Please enlighten this dumb Yankee!

Okay sure... You're jogging in the park, see a cop wrestling on the ground with some guy, & mostly getting his butt kicked. He loses that guy very well could get his gun & now someone's not going home to their wife & kids. So he says help... now you're legally deputized.  You bear full LE powers (temporarily & under his supervision), are required by law to help to the best of your ability, are free from legal liability if you break the guy's jaw in the process, and will be charged with a crime if you don't help.

As a CAP member in that situation while on an AFAM you are not supposed to get involved, but as Pat said before, most people are going to do the right thing & let the lawyers sort it out later. The time when you're going to refuse is when it's not an emergency & there's cameras all over the place to document the heavy handed military oppressing civilians by enforcing the law on them by force, or so CNN will say.

Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on April 01, 2007, 07:41:43 PM
I think it would be LESS rare in a disaster when CAP forces are likely to be engaged in a relief mission.  At that point, police forces would be seriously overextended, and one officer may need help securing or searching prisoners.  If I saw two looters and arrested one, I could handcuff him and direct uniformed relief workers to "Watch him" while I went after the second one.

That's a good point. When state/local cops are fractured & working all over, National Guard troops moving around. Here comes CAP doing assessment & SaR work, there's some looters over there & cop yells come with me as he takes off at a run. It gets dicey in there.

Quote from: Flying Pig on March 30, 2007, 10:06:13 PM
River Aux........Its the Posse Comitatus Act.  In Ca. its defined in Penal Code 150.

Every able-bodied person above 18 years of age who neglects or refuses to join the posse comitatus or power of the county, by neglecting or refusing to aid and assist in the taking or arresting any person against whom there may be issued process or by neglecting to aid and assist in the retaking any person who, after being arrested or confined may have escaped from arrest or imprisonment, or by neglecting or refusing to aid and assist in preventing any breach of the peace, or the commission of any criminal offense, being thereto lawfully required by any uniformed peace officer or by any peace officer designated in PC830.1, who identifies himself or herself with a badge and or identification card issued by the officers employing agency, or by any judge, is punishable buy a fine of not less than $50 and not more than $1000.

Its a misdemeanor. 

So in other words, as you can see as I said above, an officer ordering your female Lt to search his prisoner doesnt fall under Posse Comitatus.  Assist in making the arrest, or preventing any breach of peace.  Not searching your suspect after the arrest is made because the officer is worried about a law suit.  Thats why I made the comment when asked, that I would tell the cop to "do his job". Its intended for summoning help in an extreme situation.

Flying Pig, not to be a nit picker, but "Posse Comitatus" is an axiom of the common law, allowing law enforcement to call the citizenry to their aid. The Posse Comitatus Act is a crimininal law, part of the U.S. Code. There has never been a prosecution of a violation of the PCA in the entire history of the United States. Thre are hundrdeds of exemptions in it. The Air Force does not consider CAP to even be subject to Posse Comitatus. Right on on the CA Penal code!

Capt. 

John & Dennis, thanks for the clarification.

I'm not certain that the example John used would, in fact, be a PCA violation for anyone, CAP or regular service, to render assistance to a LE officer whose life may well be endangered (regardless of the initial offense, you now have a suspect resisting arrest, attempting flight, and undoubtedly in the act of committing assault & battery on the person of a police officer....which certainly constitutes an immediate danger to all in the vicinity).

Dennis' case, enlisting CAP personnel in a 'hot pursuit' (whether running or by vehicle) is, as he stated, much more complicated....probably would be a violation of PCA....best left to JAG types to unravel!

ZZ:

Don't forget that some CAP operations since 2000 might NOT be as an AF asset, and therefore no PCA involvement takes place.

That's my whole point... 900-3 is designed to reinforce the provisions of the PCA in CAP operations, and has not been changed to reflect our potential non-AF status in a post-2000 legal world.

Quote from: CaptLord on April 01, 2007, 09:32:02 PM...The Air Force does not consider CAP to even be subject to Posse Comitatus...

Chapter and verse, please, as this is being hotly debated as we speak, and is overtly contained within many of our regulations and pamphlets, and training aids.

Quote from: Eclipse on April 02, 2007, 12:56:27 AM

Quote from: CaptLord on April 01, 2007, 09:32:02 PM...The Air Force does not consider CAP to even be subject to Posse Comitatus...

Chapter and verse, please, as this is being hotly debated as we speak, and is overtly contained within many of our regulations and pamphlets, and training aids.

It's a very complicated subject. AF's official view is that CAP personnel are not as individuals bound by PCA in the same way members of the armed services are. Even before 2000 you weren't under military orders all the time, just on AFAMs (remeber funded SaREx's count also). That's also a requirement to invoke the combatant status under the geneva conventions, which is meaningless in practical terms, but important as a legal techincality that helps define PCA as well.

The simple version is if on an AFAM you assist LE in a way that would otherwise violate PCA for the AF to do the same thing, then YOU haven't committed a crime, but the AF as an organization has because you as their legal agent have done something while acting on theri behalf that they aren't allowed to do. There could be no reprocusions for YOU, but it would be a problem for AF, and if it's a big enough deal (on CNN) then it could seriously endanger funding to CAP (which is a death sentence of the org). More likely though it'd lead to massive reorganization that could go either way.

Like I said it is complicated & there is a lot of debate on the subject. Congress has been asked for clarification, they have considered the matter, and they have intentionally decided to leave it vague. My take on why is because the way they'd define it if forced to would be to put us back in the box w/ AF (opening up the govt to further liability), which would cut off a few opportunities for state/local that they like us doing for now (border patrol for instance).

Dennis:

You're right.  We are working with a Civil War/ Reconstruction era law.  It does not address issues we are facing in the War on Terror.  But it is still a law.  Congress has been asked to modify it as far back as the early 80's when we started getting the military involved in drug wars, but they have consistently refused to address it.  I don't know why, since I've never heard of a constituency for keeping the PCA as it is.

By the way, and I rebuke myself in advance for straying from the topic, but I wrote Chapter One of our paper, paraphrasing you as best I could  from your postings here.  I e-mailed it to you this afternoon, and also to Nick.  Feel free to change anything.  Except your first paragraph where you praise the heck out of me.  (Make me write it, I'll write it my way!!!! >:D)

Saw the email, but you might want to re-send with the file attached. I got a couple weeks here finally I can get some stuff slammed together on it. Thanks much for drafting it though, that'll save tons of effort.

Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on April 02, 2007, 12:00:19 AM
ZZ:

Don't forget that some CAP operations since 2000 might NOT be as an AF asset, and therefore no PCA involvement takes place.

That's my whole point... 900-3 is designed to reinforce the provisions of the PCA in CAP operations, and has not been changed to reflect our potential non-AF status in a post-2000 legal world.

Absolutely...ideal solution: make is full time Auxiliary again!

Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on April 02, 2007, 01:48:03 AM
Dennis:

You're right.  We are working with a Civil War/ Reconstruction era law.  It does not address issues we are facing in the War on Terror.  But it is still a law.  Congress has been asked to modify it as far back as the early 80's when we started getting the military involved in drug wars, but they have consistently refused to address it.  I don't know why, since I've never heard of a constituency for keeping the PCA as it is.

The ultra right....The Federal Government is the devil....and other state's rights advocates do not want PCA changed.  Any thing that blurs the lines between state and federal government is bad. It's the same reason why we don't have a National ID card, federal teaching standards, federal doctors, or teacher's licensees.

Quote from: lordmonar on April 02, 2007, 03:34:35 AM

Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on April 02, 2007, 01:48:03 AM
Dennis:

You're right.  We are working with a Civil War/ Reconstruction era law.  It does not address issues we are facing in the War on Terror.  But it is still a law.  Congress has been asked to modify it as far back as the early 80's when we started getting the military involved in drug wars, but they have consistently refused to address it.  I don't know why, since I've never heard of a constituency for keeping the PCA as it is.

The ultra right....The Federal Government is the devil....and other state's rights advocates do not want PCA changed.  Any thing that blurs the lines between state and federal government is bad. It's the same reason why we don't have a National ID card, federal teaching standards, federal doctors, or teacher's licensees.

Actually I think it's more the left that stand against changes, the ACLU for sure. While they are all for the federal govt being involved in every part of my life, they distrust the military, which tends to be more politically conservative, but trust the FBI & other LE agencies who tend to be percieved as more neutral.

I'ma  pretty staunch state's rights advocate, and I don't see mild reasonable alteration of PCA as much of a threat to state authority. The 10th Amendment is fairly authoritative on that. I certainly don't want the military patrolling streets enforcing laws though, which again the 10th amendment prevents.

PCA is not that big a deal. It is more a regulatory rule than a criminal code anyway. For CAP purposes, I don't see it as a problem at all. It keeps us out of situations that we don't want to expose our people to legally, and it really isn't very restrictive. The fact is there's more work to go around then we could ever hope to handle with four times the number of members. We shouldn't sit around complaining about laws like PCA, we should accept it (cause it'd be in regs even if it weren't the law) and focus on making ourselves capable as a force to respond to things that need to be done. We need to turn our focus inward. That's the whole deal on PCA as I see it is it's just a non-issue. You need to know on GT where the line is & when it applies, but otherwise we're talking about strategic moves by the org, and that's not really very complicated if you accept reality & buckle down to do the hard work.

Quote from: Flying Pig on April 01, 2007, 05:34:22 AM
I would just strip naked and run away screaming, then claim stress.

Sorry Sir,
That would be inapropriate for the Cadets :o
Nice thought though. ;)

Nice thought? You havnt seen me then! ;D

Dennis & LordM,

I think you are both correct...this is one of those odd situations wherein the two extremes see eye to eye (though for wildly differing reasons!).

Quote from: ZigZag911 on April 03, 2007, 02:11:17 PM
Dennis & LordM,

I think you are both correct...this is one of those odd situations wherein the two extremes see eye to eye (though for wildly differing reasons!).

Hence, why it is probably a very good law....anytime the Gun Toting Right-Wingers and the Pinko-Commie ACLU Lefties agree on something....leave it alone!

I don't know that they agree, just scared for different reasons. There's enough ambiguity though that it's not politically feasible to make a change. That & social security.

Quote from: RiverAux on March 31, 2007, 11:57:35 PM
Okay, lets compare laws --- We now have examples of several state laws that require individuals to assist law enforcement officers upon demand.  If I as a CAP member refuse, I'm the one paying the criminal price for doing so.

But, look closely at the federal posse comitatuts law:

QuoteTITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 67 > § 1385
§ 1385. Use of Army and Air Force as posse comitatus
Whoever, except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress, willfully uses any part of the Army or the Air Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.

Note that the law does not prohibit the Army or Air Force from being used for law enforcement.  It does not say that individual soldiers or airmen would be violating federal law if they participated in a posse comitatus.  What it says is that the person who uses the Army or Air Force is in violation of the law.

So, in all the various examples we've been given here, the CAP member is still required by state law to help the law enforcement officer, however when the law enforcement officer uses the CAP member the LEO would be the one violating federal law (not the CAP member) and would be the one charged with violating PCA.

Now, for this interpretation to be valid and the CAP members completely protected I think the LEO would have to order each individual CAP member to assist him.  If the LEO told the GTL that he required the whole ground team to assist him, I don't think the GTL should then order the ground team to help.  The officer would need to order each GTM to assist him.  Otherwise, the GTL might be putting himself at risk of violating the PCA since he would be acting as an agent for the LEO by ordering the ground team to help. 

No comments on this particular argument?  Guess everyone agrees with my assessment!

That's not the case in execution though. You as an individual are the same as the organization, and you are not allowed to knowingly participate in a criminal act, in this case allowing the officer to commit a crime by following his orders while on an AFAM.

Quote from: RiverAux on April 04, 2007, 03:33:01 AM

Quote from: RiverAux on March 31, 2007, 11:57:35 PM
Okay, lets compare laws --- We now have examples of several state laws that require individuals to assist law enforcement officers upon demand.  If I as a CAP member refuse, I'm the one paying the criminal price for doing so.

But, look closely at the federal posse comitatuts law:

QuoteTITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 67 > § 1385
§ 1385. Use of Army and Air Force as posse comitatus
Whoever, except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress, willfully uses any part of the Army or the Air Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.

Note that the law does not prohibit the Army or Air Force from being used for law enforcement.  It does not say that individual soldiers or airmen would be violating federal law if they participated in a posse comitatus.  What it says is that the person who uses the Army or Air Force is in violation of the law.

So, in all the various examples we've been given here, the CAP member is still required by state law to help the law enforcement officer, however when the law enforcement officer uses the CAP member the LEO would be the one violating federal law (not the CAP member) and would be the one charged with violating PCA.

Now, for this interpretation to be valid and the CAP members completely protected I think the LEO would have to order each individual CAP member to assist him.  If the LEO told the GTL that he required the whole ground team to assist him, I don't think the GTL should then order the ground team to help.  The officer would need to order each GTM to assist him.  Otherwise, the GTL might be putting himself at risk of violating the PCA since he would be acting as an agent for the LEO by ordering the ground team to help. 

No comments on this particular argument?  Guess everyone agrees with my assessment!

It just means we can only be used as directed by act of congress.  I.E. one of the the defense authorization bills authorized the USAF to conduct the war on drugs with in certain parameters.  It means that if a military commander ordered his troops to help enforce laws in ways NOT DICTATED BY CONGRESS that individual would be in violation.  If I as a MSgt in the USAF volunteered as a private citizen to be a sherrif's deputy...that is NOT a violation of PCA. (I know lots of volunteer LE Officers who are active duty).  I just can't be ordered by the USAF to do so without congressional authorization.

So again....we are in a very gray area.  Could a cop ask and receive help for a in the field on the spot assist?  Sure.  Would it be in violation of PCA?  No...not really...if you go by the spirit of the law.  Would a CAP member be up [mess]'s creek if he refused?  Maybe...90%/10% with the 90% being on the side that he would not be prosecuted because of our training, our regulations and our on again/off again USAF-AUX status.

Right.. in general do the right thing & let the lawyers sort it out later. There's enough ambiguity that really you can't be found to be TOO wrong either way. The problem comes when CNN runs a story about the "military engaging in LE" & shows a CAP member (under LE supervision) connecting a right cross on some punk. You can't put yourself in the situation to have something like that happen. It doesn't really matter if it's legal or not, at some point you represent the military (at least when on a mission under their orders, & at least in public perception) and you have to behave as such. Within reason though you just do the right thing & be careful about it.

Quote from: DNall on April 04, 2007, 05:56:06 AM
Right.. in general do the right thing & let the lawyers sort it out later. There's enough ambiguity that really you can't be found to be TOO wrong either way. The problem comes when CNN runs a story about the "military engaging in LE" & shows a CAP member (under LE supervision) connecting a right cross on some punk. You can't put yourself in the situation to have something like that happen. It doesn't really matter if it's legal or not, at some point you represent the military (at least when on a mission under their orders, & at least in public perception) and you have to behave as such. Within reason though you just do the right thing & be careful about it.

Well...I got a real simple answer for that.  Corporate Uniforms.

See....no PCA problems...we can write our regulations to let us do what we need to do, to support our communities.....and still be the USAF aux when the federal government needs our assistance.

 ;D See I know you're joking now, and that's funny... obviously what you;re wearing doesn't matter legally. Depending on what you're wearing some moron may still think you're the military. As I said, in their mind there is only the miiltary & cops & if you have an even slightly military looking official uniform & no badge then you are the military. How well you continue to meet or not meet those expectations has other ramifications.... Anyway, good laugh there.

Nah.. if you want a laugh Mr Nall, lets discuss - for a ludicrous albeit short amount of time the following:

LEGAL RAMIFICATIONS OF EQUIPING C- 182's with NAPALM and FLIR in order to target and destroy Counter-Drug "Targets of Opportunity" ... ::)

.... OOOH  I CANT JUST SEE THE NEW BOMB/Nav/Combat WINGS NOW  :P

Now, really, napalm would be just silly!  Its way to heavy for a 182! I suggest white phosphorus...  FLIR would be fine. Do we need to get the FAA approve it as an "instrument"?

Quote from: CaptLord on April 04, 2007, 02:35:20 PM
I suggest white phosphorus...  Do we need to get the FAA approve it as an "instrument"?

I could be "instrument" rated for white phosphorus? great when can I start training?

I think the approvals are already taken care of...
(http://specialmissions.cessna.com/single_engine/images/patrol-2.jpg)
http://specialmissions.cessna.com/index.htm (http://specialmissions.cessna.com/index.htm)

WP might be a problem, they won't even let us drop piss bottles from the plane.  :P

Quote from: RiverAux on March 24, 2007, 12:36:29 AM
And we have yet to hear a legitimate reason for a ground team to be armed other than "something might happen".  Well, that can happen at any time to any person in any place and the vast majority of folks seem to get along ok. 

I think ground team members should probably worry more about having the proper equipment to treat for bad reactions to bee stings, which is probably more than 100 times as big a risk to our personnel. 

While I can see both the pros and cons of having armed CAP members out there, since it inevitably brings about the question of liability, lets get liability coverage for medical personnel first, then tackle carrying firearms. I agree with you RiverAux.

Quote from: SJFedor on March 26, 2007, 03:30:56 PM

Quote from: lordmonar on March 24, 2007, 07:02:20 AM

Absoluty....if we are going to talk about taking something on Ground Teams because "something might happen"....let's talk about requiring EMTs on the Ground Team.  Let's get the insurance to cover EMTs and make them an offical part of CAP.

You are about 9000 times more likely to have a heart attack on a GT mission than get shot at by some random bad guy.

But unless that EMT-B has a cath lab in his back pocket, you're still pretty screwed by having said heart attack. Couldn't resist.

Everyone has brought forth the best points of both sides. Good for when you stumble upon the crazy armed person in the woods, bad when the crazy armed person in the woods is a senior member.

If someone REALLY wanted to push it, I don't see why LEO's couldn't carry concealed, just for the fact that they're typically POST certified, know the responsibility in carrying a weapon on a daily basis, are are probably going to be  a little lest ept to doing the whole drop down holster/mac 10 chuck norris type thing.

Unfortunately, the letter of the law probably will not change until something bad happens. Who says CAP and the FAA aren't similar at all?

Yes. because we all know that the only emergent treatment for an accute MI is cath lab access (please read with intended sarcasm). Ever here of the protocol for nitro and ASA...Im guessing not.

Quote from: DNall on March 27, 2007, 03:07:19 AM

Quote from: floridacyclist on March 26, 2007, 10:37:19 PM

Quote from: DNall on March 26, 2007, 05:07:26 PM
Hopefully the people you allow on GT with you aren't likely to have a heart attack,

The number one cause of line-of-duty deaths in the Fire Department is heart attacks. What makes anyone think we're any better?

Not better so much as not carrying that much weight with limited ability to breath fresh air. Not saying we're immune by any means, but it's no more or less likely than needing to defend yourself, not in my experience anyway.

Quote from: Johnny Yuma on March 27, 2007, 02:50:44 AM
If a CAP member has a CCW then there is no regulation in CAP that trumps a state CCW permit.

Wanna bet? You wouldn't be breaking the law to violate CAP regs, but don't think that'll protect you from being tossed out of the org. I know people that have carried weapons in their vehicles on GT with the idea that if it gets bad enough they need it then it's worth more than staying in CAP. I wouldn't recommend that though.

I recently had a patient die during an EMS run. We got to his house and I had to knock in the door to break the safety chain to get to him. He was laying on the floor and screamed "Oh God Help me! Im going to die" That is, in fact what he did. He had no history or coronary disease, no blocked arteries, he simply experienced an SCA and dropped dead where he stood. If its guns or liability covered EMTs...go with the EMTs every time.

Quote from: SARMedTech on May 30, 2007, 05:14:01 AM

Quote from: DNall on March 27, 2007, 03:07:19 AM

Quote from: floridacyclist on March 26, 2007, 10:37:19 PM

Quote from: DNall on March 26, 2007, 05:07:26 PM
Hopefully the people you allow on GT with you aren't likely to have a heart attack,

The number one cause of line-of-duty deaths in the Fire Department is heart attacks. What makes anyone think we're any better?

Not better so much as not carrying that much weight with limited ability to breath fresh air. Not saying we're immune by any means, but it's no more or less likely than needing to defend yourself, not in my experience anyway.

Quote from: Johnny Yuma on March 27, 2007, 02:50:44 AM
If a CAP member has a CCW then there is no regulation in CAP that trumps a state CCW permit.

Wanna bet? You wouldn't be breaking the law to violate CAP regs, but don't think that'll protect you from being tossed out of the org. I know people that have carried weapons in their vehicles on GT with the idea that if it gets bad enough they need it then it's worth more than staying in CAP. I wouldn't recommend that though.

I recently had a patient die during an EMS run. We got to his house and I had to knock in the door to break the safety chain to get to him. He was laying on the floor and screamed "Oh God Help me! Im going to die" That is, in fact what he did. He had no history or coronary disease, no blocked arteries, he simply experienced an SCA and dropped dead where he stood. If its guns or liability covered EMTs...go with the EMTs every time.

EMS rule of thumb number umpteen: if a patient says they're gonna die, they may be right.

Quote from: SARMedTech on May 30, 2007, 05:07:16 AM

Quote from: SJFedor on March 26, 2007, 03:30:56 PM

Quote from: lordmonar on March 24, 2007, 07:02:20 AM

Absoluty....if we are going to talk about taking something on Ground Teams because "something might happen"....let's talk about requiring EMTs on the Ground Team.  Let's get the insurance to cover EMTs and make them an offical part of CAP.

You are about 9000 times more likely to have a heart attack on a GT mission than get shot at by some random bad guy.

But unless that EMT-B has a cath lab in his back pocket, you're still pretty screwed by having said heart attack. Couldn't resist.

Everyone has brought forth the best points of both sides. Good for when you stumble upon the crazy armed person in the woods, bad when the crazy armed person in the woods is a senior member.

If someone REALLY wanted to push it, I don't see why LEO's couldn't carry concealed, just for the fact that they're typically POST certified, know the responsibility in carrying a weapon on a daily basis, are are probably going to be  a little lest ept to doing the whole drop down holster/mac 10 chuck norris type thing.

Unfortunately, the letter of the law probably will not change until something bad happens. Who says CAP and the FAA aren't similar at all?

Yes. because we all know that the only emergent treatment for an accute MI is cath lab access (please read with intended sarcasm). Ever here of the protocol for nitro and ASA...Im guessing not.

Nitro and ASA are short term treatments until definitive intervention is able to be done. You don't fix an AMI with nitro and ASA, you just increase bloodflow around the blockage and delay the death of muscle until you can get into a CCL.

But you already knew that.   ;D

Quote from: SJFedor on May 30, 2007, 05:49:09 AM

Quote from: SARMedTech on May 30, 2007, 05:07:16 AM

Quote from: SJFedor on March 26, 2007, 03:30:56 PM

Quote from: lordmonar on March 24, 2007, 07:02:20 AM

Absoluty....if we are going to talk about taking something on Ground Teams because "something might happen"....let's talk about requiring EMTs on the Ground Team.  Let's get the insurance to cover EMTs and make them an offical part of CAP.

You are about 9000 times more likely to have a heart attack on a GT mission than get shot at by some random bad guy.

But unless that EMT-B has a cath lab in his back pocket, you're still pretty screwed by having said heart attack. Couldn't resist.

Everyone has brought forth the best points of both sides. Good for when you stumble upon the crazy armed person in the woods, bad when the crazy armed person in the woods is a senior member.

If someone REALLY wanted to push it, I don't see why LEO's couldn't carry concealed, just for the fact that they're typically POST certified, know the responsibility in carrying a weapon on a daily basis, are are probably going to be  a little lest ept to doing the whole drop down holster/mac 10 chuck norris type thing.

Unfortunately, the letter of the law probably will not change until something bad happens. Who says CAP and the FAA aren't similar at all?

Yes. because we all know that the only emergent treatment for an accute MI is cath lab access (please read with intended sarcasm). Ever here of the protocol for nitro and ASA...Im guessing not.

Nitro and ASA are short term treatments until definitive intervention is able to be done. You don't fix an AMI with nitro and ASA, you just increase bloodflow around the blockage and delay the death of muscle until you can get into a CCL.

But you already knew that.   ;D

Yes, as a matter of fact, I did know that nitro and ASA are short terms stops gaps, but also that they are field protocol in most places. And for my money, increasing any blood flow possible during an MI is a good thing. You seem to be saying that since we arent going to be carrying around a portable cath lab (which by the way are going the way of the dodo in terms of diagnostics in favor of the new cardiac CT) we shouldnt be doing anything to try to help. And perhaps you havent read the literature that has shown that ASA properly administered can stop an MI. If a have a diaphuretic patient, turning blue around the lips and clutching his chest, Im gonna take whatever steps I can to assist in the field.  One thing I have noticed about the 'anti-EMT' crowd on this board is that they dont quite seem to realize that if we find a patient that we can assist and we are 10 miles out in the middle of nowhere, even the best EMS system or helicopter could be an hour away. Do you want to be the one that stands there and watches a patient die, taking vitals every 5 minutes (per protocol for an unstable patient) until they finally die. Not me. They may die anyway but its not going to be because I didnt do anything and everything I could to help them

Quote from: SARMedTech on May 30, 2007, 04:01:49 PM

Quote from: SJFedor on May 30, 2007, 05:49:09 AM

Quote from: SARMedTech on May 30, 2007, 05:07:16 AM

Quote from: SJFedor on March 26, 2007, 03:30:56 PM

Quote from: lordmonar on March 24, 2007, 07:02:20 AM

Absoluty....if we are going to talk about taking something on Ground Teams because "something might happen"....let's talk about requiring EMTs on the Ground Team.  Let's get the insurance to cover EMTs and make them an offical part of CAP.

You are about 9000 times more likely to have a heart attack on a GT mission than get shot at by some random bad guy.

But unless that EMT-B has a cath lab in his back pocket, you're still pretty screwed by having said heart attack. Couldn't resist.

Everyone has brought forth the best points of both sides. Good for when you stumble upon the crazy armed person in the woods, bad when the crazy armed person in the woods is a senior member.

If someone REALLY wanted to push it, I don't see why LEO's couldn't carry concealed, just for the fact that they're typically POST certified, know the responsibility in carrying a weapon on a daily basis, are are probably going to be  a little lest ept to doing the whole drop down holster/mac 10 chuck norris type thing.

Unfortunately, the letter of the law probably will not change until something bad happens. Who says CAP and the FAA aren't similar at all?

Yes. because we all know that the only emergent treatment for an accute MI is cath lab access (please read with intended sarcasm). Ever here of the protocol for nitro and ASA...Im guessing not.

Nitro and ASA are short term treatments until definitive intervention is able to be done. You don't fix an AMI with nitro and ASA, you just increase bloodflow around the blockage and delay the death of muscle until you can get into a CCL.

But you already knew that.   ;D

Yes, as a matter of fact, I did know that nitro and ASA are short terms stops gaps, but also that they are field protocol in most places. And for my money, increasing any blood flow possible during an MI is a good thing. You seem to be saying that since we arent going to be carrying around a portable cath lab (which by the way are going the way of the dodo in terms of diagnostics in favor of the new cardiac CT) we shouldnt be doing anything to try to help. And perhaps you havent read the literature that has shown that ASA properly administered can stop an MI. If a have a diaphuretic patient, turning blue around the lips and clutching his chest, Im gonna take whatever steps I can to assist in the field.  One thing I have noticed about the 'anti-EMT' crowd on this board is that they dont quite seem to realize that if we find a patient that we can assist and we are 10 miles out in the middle of nowhere, even the best EMS system or helicopter could be an hour away. Do you want to be the one that stands there and watches a patient die, taking vitals every 5 minutes (per protocol for an unstable patient) until they finally die. Not me. They may die anyway but its not going to be because I didnt do anything and everything I could to help them

:clap: First off, I'm absolutely not anti-EMT since I work in that arena as well.

Second off, you need to come off the soapbox just a little bit. I'm, by no means, trying to offend any medical personnel anywhere, which was understood, since you rehashed a post from months ago, and no one got tweaked about it, especially since we have EMT's, EMT-P's, RN's, and MD's on this board. I was making an analogy that yes, it may be good for us to have an EMT on board a GT, but they will not be the end all fix all, which was understood. You'll notice in the original post I ended the paragraph with "Couldn't resist", hinting the sarcasm.

I'm not sure why exactly you're getting all roused up about this, especially since you're A) very new to this forum, B) don't know me, my knowledge, or moreso, my wierd sense of humor and wit, and C) reading way too deeping into the wrong part of the post.

So please, for everyone's sake, just let it go. It was a small quip a long time ago.

FYI....that ball on the C-206 is a Gyro stabalized camera....not a FLIR.  Nice plane though.  We have the same exact set up on our 206.

Quote from: SJFedor on May 30, 2007, 05:04:34 PM

Quote from: SARMedTech on May 30, 2007, 04:01:49 PM

Quote from: SJFedor on May 30, 2007, 05:49:09 AM

Quote from: SARMedTech on May 30, 2007, 05:07:16 AM

Quote from: SJFedor on March 26, 2007, 03:30:56 PM

Quote from: lordmonar on March 24, 2007, 07:02:20 AM

Absoluty....if we are going to talk about taking something on Ground Teams because "something might happen"....let's talk about requiring EMTs on the Ground Team.  Let's get the insurance to cover EMTs and make them an offical part of CAP.

You are about 9000 times more likely to have a heart attack on a GT mission than get shot at by some random bad guy.

But unless that EMT-B has a cath lab in his back pocket, you're still pretty screwed by having said heart attack. Couldn't resist.

Everyone has brought forth the best points of both sides. Good for when you stumble upon the crazy armed person in the woods, bad when the crazy armed person in the woods is a senior member.

If someone REALLY wanted to push it, I don't see why LEO's couldn't carry concealed, just for the fact that they're typically POST certified, know the responsibility in carrying a weapon on a daily basis, are are probably going to be  a little lest ept to doing the whole drop down holster/mac 10 chuck norris type thing.

Unfortunately, the letter of the law probably will not change until something bad happens. Who says CAP and the FAA aren't similar at all?

Yes. because we all know that the only emergent treatment for an accute MI is cath lab access (please read with intended sarcasm). Ever here of the protocol for nitro and ASA...Im guessing not.

Nitro and ASA are short term treatments until definitive intervention is able to be done. You don't fix an AMI with nitro and ASA, you just increase bloodflow around the blockage and delay the death of muscle until you can get into a CCL.

But you already knew that.   ;D

Yes, as a matter of fact, I did know that nitro and ASA are short terms stops gaps, but also that they are field protocol in most places. And for my money, increasing any blood flow possible during an MI is a good thing. You seem to be saying that since we arent going to be carrying around a portable cath lab (which by the way are going the way of the dodo in terms of diagnostics in favor of the new cardiac CT) we shouldnt be doing anything to try to help. And perhaps you havent read the literature that has shown that ASA properly administered can stop an MI. If a have a diaphuretic patient, turning blue around the lips and clutching his chest, Im gonna take whatever steps I can to assist in the field.  One thing I have noticed about the 'anti-EMT' crowd on this board is that they dont quite seem to realize that if we find a patient that we can assist and we are 10 miles out in the middle of nowhere, even the best EMS system or helicopter could be an hour away. Do you want to be the one that stands there and watches a patient die, taking vitals every 5 minutes (per protocol for an unstable patient) until they finally die. Not me. They may die anyway but its not going to be because I didnt do anything and everything I could to help them

:clap: First off, I'm absolutely not anti-EMT since I work in that arena as well.

Second off, you need to come off the soapbox just a little bit. I'm, by no means, trying to offend any medical personnel anywhere, which was understood, since you rehashed a post from months ago, and no one got tweaked about it, especially since we have EMT's, EMT-P's, RN's, and MD's on this board. I was making an analogy that yes, it may be good for us to have an EMT on board a GT, but they will not be the end all fix all, which was understood. You'll notice in the original post I ended the paragraph with "Couldn't resist", hinting the sarcasm.

I'm not sure why exactly you're getting all roused up about this, especially since you're A) very new to this forum, B) don't know me, my knowledge, or moreso, my wierd sense of humor and wit, and C) reading way too deeping into the wrong part of the post.

So please, for everyone's sake, just let it go. It was a small quip a long time ago.

Here's what get's me "roused":

1. We are actually having a discussion about arming ground team members when the necessity for deploying deadly force during a SAR sortie is so minute as to render it almost moot. I can understand the idea for a .22 survival rifle with an air crew which may go down, but the idea of having GTs armed, as one person suggested with 1911A1's is just silly.

2. The fact that the discussion about GTs carrying guns took up 10 pages and that this actually being something that would become a regulation is miniscule at best.

3. The fact that in the field, whether on a "live" sortie or an EX in the SAR environment the chances of coming upon a situation which requires more than "emergency first aide" is exponentially greater than a situation where you would need to use deadly force. Especially (as with the CGAUX) the CAP membership is aging (not meant to be an insult-just a fact) and the likelihood of things like heart attacks, etc is increasing.

4. There are numeous things which require more than first aide in the field which an EMT or medic is capable of handling and it is simply ludicrous not to have the liability coverage and medical direction in place so that they can. Things that come to mind are bee stings and other envenomations which could lead to anaphylaxis, broken bones, falls which would require c-spine motion restriction, the ability to monitor a patients pulse O2 level and on and on...

5. By not taking serious steps toward allowing EMTs and Medics to do what they are trained to do, the CAP is opening itself up for even greater liability when the parents of some cadet find out there was something that could have been done, but because CAP doesnt want to come into the 21st century, it wasnt and their child is left with permanent damage or dies.

I am not saying that EMS personnel in the field is the do all and end all to SAR/ES. But it seems a little ridiculous to recognize these personnel so that they can be identified in the field when in fact they are not allowed to do anything that any medically untrained person can do. You dont need a license to apply a pressure bandage, to pull out a splinter or put aloe vera gel on a burn. CAP is sending a profoundly mixed message: lets have EMS folks out there, but lets tie their hands so they can really do anything. And if they are going to restrict us to emergency first aide, can someone please point me to the regs where that is define, ie: you can do this but not this.

With due respect, Sir, how new I am to this forum has nothing to do with the opinions I express. They come from the standpoint of a trained, professionally licensed pre-hospital emergency medical services provider. I am more than happy to buff up boo-boos...that doesnt bother me at all. But CAP is really turning a blind eye to the fact that more than scraped knees and sunburns occur in the field. It provides liability for pilots, which are an integral part of SAR, but not for EMTs which can be just as vital. In my opinion, whether you resepect it or not, this is a fundamental disconnect.

Quote from: SARMedTech on May 30, 2007, 07:31:53 PM
...

1. We are actually having a discussion about arming ground team members when the necessity for deploying deadly force during a SAR sortie is so minute as to render it almost moot. I can understand the idea for a .22 survival rifle with an air crew which may go down, but the idea of having GTs armed, as one person suggested with 1911A1's is just silly.
...

Agree.  .44 Magnum or nothing.  (but I want a waiver to carry my XD. it gets lonely)   >:D   ;D

I was once asked by a Law Enforcement Officer if I carried a concealed pistol because I was expecting some kind of trouble...  I answered that if I was expecting trouble I'd be carrying an M14 and a bandolier of grenades...  :D 

Quote from: SARMedTech on May 30, 2007, 07:31:53 PM
Here's what get's me "roused":

1. We are actually having a discussion about arming ground team members when the necessity for deploying deadly force during a SAR sortie is so minute as to render it almost moot. I can understand the idea for a .22 survival rifle with an air crew which may go down, but the idea of having GTs armed, as one person suggested with 1911A1's is just silly.

2. The fact that the discussion about GTs carrying guns took up 10 pages and that this actually being something that would become a regulation is miniscule at best.

3. The fact that in the field, whether on a "live" sortie or an EX in the SAR environment the chances of coming upon a situation which requires more than "emergency first aide" is exponentially greater than a situation where you would need to use deadly force. Especially (as with the CGAUX) the CAP membership is aging (not meant to be an insult-just a fact) and the likelihood of things like heart attacks, etc is increasing.

4. There are numeous things which require more than first aide in the field which an EMT or medic is capable of handling and it is simply ludicrous not to have the liability coverage and medical direction in place so that they can. Things that come to mind are bee stings and other envenomations which could lead to anaphylaxis, broken bones, falls which would require c-spine motion restriction, the ability to monitor a patients pulse O2 level and on and on...

5. By not taking serious steps toward allowing EMTs and Medics to do what they are trained to do, the CAP is opening itself up for even greater liability when the parents of some cadet find out there was something that could have been done, but because CAP doesnt want to come into the 21st century, it wasnt and their child is left with permanent damage or dies.

I am not saying that EMS personnel in the field is the do all and end all to SAR/ES. But it seems a little ridiculous to recognize these personnel so that they can be identified in the field when in fact they are not allowed to do anything that any medically untrained person can do. You dont need a license to apply a pressure bandage, to pull out a splinter or put aloe vera gel on a burn. CAP is sending a profoundly mixed message: lets have EMS folks out there, but lets tie their hands so they can really do anything. And if they are going to restrict us to emergency first aide, can someone please point me to the regs where that is define, ie: you can do this but not this.

With due respect, Sir, how new I am to this forum has nothing to do with the opinions I express. They come from the standpoint of a trained, professionally licensed pre-hospital emergency medical services provider. I am more than happy to buff up boo-boos...that doesnt bother me at all. But CAP is really turning a blind eye to the fact that more than scraped knees and sunburns occur in the field. It provides liability for pilots, which are an integral part of SAR, but not for EMTs which can be just as vital. In my opinion, whether you resepect it or not, this is a fundamental disconnect.

Well, you and I see eye to eye on a lot of these issues. My point, however, was that I was trying to make a dry, sarcastic, and almost rhetorical remark to someone commenting that our teams aren't in the best of shape and may be more at risk for AMI's, etc. However, with CAP at the current state it's in, with the current leadership, and the current corporate mentality, they do not wish to expose themselves to the liability of one of their members exceeding their scope of practice, even if they are properly licensed, and opening up the corporation for a substancial loss.

Personally, my belief is that if we have people who are trained beyond first aid, and they want to use said training in a CAP capacity, that national not only allow this, but require them to execute a hold harmless and disconnect, as well as requiring them to carry their own malpractice insurance policy.

You bring a lot of good points to the table; however, I feel like you went ahead and picked my post out of there, because it had something medically related, and attempted to berate me with it, which I do not take kindly to. It was a sarcastic remark from months ago, and it did not require your interjection, or demonstration of your own knowledge of AMI stabilization and treatment procedure.

I'm by no means doubting you're not a good EMT-B/I/P or whatever acronyms you list after your name, but you're coming off really cocky, engaging, and provoking, and what keeps these boards as stable as they are is that this type of behavior previously mentioned is not condoned or tolerated. Be friends with everyone, exchange information, and learn. It's not worth getting into a pissing contest with people on here, and I think you know that just as well as everyone else.

I remain unconvinced that firearms are a necessary or desirable piece of mission equipment....and before you point out that NJ is largely urban/suburban, we have areas where a UDF team runs more risk of coming under fire than almost anywhere else in the country....in which case our SOP is as follows:

1) DUCK
2) Get out of Dodge ASAP
3) Report to IC who will notify LE

Now, if  phasers were available, I might reconsider!

In the interests of clarity I should state for the record that my last post was facetious....I am interested, however, in hearing if there are substantiated reports of incidents on missions in which a weapon would have prevented some unfortunate event??

Quote from: ZigZag911 on May 30, 2007, 11:49:11 PM
In the interests of clarity I should state for the record that my last post was facetious....I am interested, however, in hearing if there are substantiated reports of incidents on missions in which a weapon would have prevented some unfortunate event??

I'm sure someone can dredge up a story about a guy who knows a guy who knows their cousin's friend's nephew's former roommate's GTL almost got eaten by a bear, but survived because the GTL beat the bear senseless with only a shoe string and a granola bar, and had he had a weapon, the cadets would have been less scarred from this.   >:D

Quote from: SJFedor on May 31, 2007, 12:25:47 AM
I'm sure someone can dredge up a story about a guy who knows a guy who knows their cousin's friend's nephew's former roommate's GTL almost got eaten by a bear, but survived because the GTL beat the bear senseless with only a shoe string and a granola bar, and had he had a weapon, the cadets would have been less scarred from this.   >:D

That's pretty much what I expected....

Oy!  Enough of this.  As Supreme National Commander, I am issuing you all the below weapon.  No fuss.  Also, I am going through the uniform manual with a Sharpie and you should all be prepared.  ::deep breath::

(http://www.irighti.org/springfieldxd40.jpg)

I still like the M1911A1.  The 9mm won't kill a bear.  The 9mm will probably not even kill a rabbit with one shot.

Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on May 31, 2007, 01:22:55 AM
I still like the M1911A1.  The 9mm won't kill a bear.  The 9mm will probably not even kill a rabbit with one shot.

This is a .40 S&W, but I'll issue you one in your choice of .45 GAP or good ol' .45 ACP.

.40 caliber = 9mm on steroids.

I'll stay with my G.I. .45 auto.  It stays in my nightstand to keep me safe.  The dog only barks.  The owner bites.

Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on May 31, 2007, 02:26:49 AM
.40 caliber = 9mm on steroids.

I'll stay with my G.I. .45 auto.  It stays in my nightstand to keep me safe.  The dog only barks.  The owner bites.

.40 S&W = 10mm Auto with less balls

But if you insist on the M1911, I won't cry. 

Quote from: JC004 on May 31, 2007, 01:10:10 AM
Oy!  Enough of this.  As Supreme National Commander, I am issuing you all the below weapon.  No fuss.  Also, I am going through the uniform manual with a Sharpie and you should all be prepared.  ::deep breath::

(http://www.irighti.org/springfieldxd40.jpg)

What a cute Toy.... I prefer the frame S&W came out for the FBI. Chambered for a 10 mm HP.

Quote from: SAR-EMT1 on May 31, 2007, 06:25:14 PM

Quote from: JC004 on May 31, 2007, 01:10:10 AM
Oy!  Enough of this.  As Supreme National Commander, I am issuing you all the below weapon.  No fuss.  Also, I am going through the uniform manual with a Sharpie and you should all be prepared.  ::deep breath::

(http://www.irighti.org/springfieldxd40.jpg)

What a cute Toy.... As for Glocks I say NO THANK YOU

ahem...THIS is a Springfield XD.  Distinctively different grip is a dead giveaway. 

Quote from: SAR-EMT1 on May 31, 2007, 06:25:14 PM
What a cute Toy.... As for Glocks I say NO THANK YOU

Hey now...watch the Glock 'smack'...  >:( ;D  I <3 my Glock 19, shoots like a dream.

Quote from: JC004 on May 31, 2007, 06:26:56 PM
ahem...THIS is a Springfield XD.  Distinctively different grip is a dead giveaway. 

<envy>Ah, the XD series... all the best of a Glock and Sig Sauer rolled into one nice flat black package</envy>

As an aside... I'd like to recommend a holster for those that carry concealed IWB, The Comp-Tac C.T.A.C.

http://www.comp-tac.com/catalog/product_info.php?products_id=61&osCsid=e07771364011ba72e9fcd96cebb8e0e8 (http://www.comp-tac.com/catalog/product_info.php?products_id=61&osCsid=e07771364011ba72e9fcd96cebb8e0e8)


And P.S.

Anyone a Kel-Tec fan?

Quote from: mlcurtis69 on May 31, 2007, 07:06:00 PM

Quote from: SAR-EMT1 on May 31, 2007, 06:25:14 PM
What a cute Toy.... As for Glocks I say NO THANK YOU

Hey now...watch the Glock 'smack'...  >:( ;D  I <3 my Glock 19, shoots like a dream.

Quote from: JC004 on May 31, 2007, 06:26:56 PM
ahem...THIS is a Springfield XD.  Distinctively different grip is a dead giveaway.

<envy>Ah, the XD series... all the best of a Glock and Sig Sauer rolled into one nice flat black package</envy>

As an aside... I'd like to recommend a holster for those that carry concealed IWB, The Comp-Tac C.T.A.C.

http://www.comp-tac.com/catalog/product_info.php?products_id=61&osCsid=e07771364011ba72e9fcd96cebb8e0e8 (http://www.comp-tac.com/catalog/product_info.php?products_id=61&osCsid=e07771364011ba72e9fcd96cebb8e0e8)


And P.S.

Anyone a Kel-Tec fan?

:)  Glorious firearm it is.  Shall have to try that holster for my XD-40.  Never became a big fan of Kel-Tec.  But maybe we should issue those to the smaller cadets.   >:D

If your taking orders, I will also take a 1911A1. My father has carried one for years as a LEO (Detective) and swears by it. I tried to get him to sell it to me when he retired a few years ago but no go...so again, if your taking orders for issue sidearms...please make mine a 1911.

Maybe if they wont let us carry firearms, we should start carrying tazers. Sort of the middle ground between pepper spray and a gun.. I wonder what effect a tazer would have on a snake. :o

What about expandable ASP batons?

Quote from: JC004 on May 31, 2007, 07:36:28 PM
Shall have to try that holster for my XD-40.

Most comfortable IWB you'll ever own, you have my personal guarantee on that one.  ;)

Quote from: JC004 on May 31, 2007, 07:36:28 PM
Never became a big fan of Kel-Tec.  But maybe we should issue those to the smaller cadets.   >:D

Some how I don't think the smaller cadets could handle the PLR-16 (http://www.kel-tec-cnc.com/plr16.html) though.  >:D I want one 'fully dressed'...

I own a P-32 for discrete pocket carry in a Desantis 'The Sting' holster (extra mag), very nice.

Quote from: SARMedTech on May 31, 2007, 07:49:35 PM
If your taking orders, I will also take a 1911A1. My father has carried one for years as a LEO (Detective) and swears by it. I tried to get him to sell it to me when he retired a few years ago but no go...so again, if your taking orders for issue sidearms...please make mine a 1911.

Maybe if they wont let us carry firearms, we should start carrying tazers. Sort of the middle ground between pepper spray and a gun.. I wonder what effect a tazer would have on a snake. :o

What about expandable ASP batons?

We can approve 1911's too. 

Tazers and batons aren't neeearly as fun, though.   :(

I have two comments.  First regarding EMT's in the field:

1.  When the ES regs were revised a few few years ago, they removed the requirement to have first aid training that was sanctioned by organizations like Red Cross or AHA.  They also added a sort of disclaimer that CAP isn't a medical services organization and doesn't advertise itself as such, or words to that effect.  I don't have the regs in front of me, but I'm not aware of anywhere that says you can not render what ever care you can within the bounds of your training.  Additionally, doesn't the good Samaritan law cover you if you are operating within your training?  If so, why the need to further liability coverage by CAP?

It's hard enough to find adult members that want to actually go humping through the woods, I'm not sure it's all that realistic to believe that we could get an EMT for every ground team.

2.  I agree that there is potential to need a firearm in the back country depending upon your area of operations.  In mine, there are copper heads, rattle snakes, bears and a lot of red necks.  Having a gun is not a bad idea.  However, CAP tends to have it's fair share of delusional senior members, and it probably isn't a good idea to allow them to go armed...especially around cadets.

However, the way I look at it, if I have a gun when I know I am going to be in an area where it might come in handy, no one will know I even have it unless I have to use it in an emergency.  If that happens, violating CAP regs is not going to be real high on my list of concerns.

Quote from: ELTHunter on May 31, 2007, 08:37:15 PM
...
2.  I agree that there is potential to need a firearm in the back country depending upon your area of operations.  In mine, there are copper heads, rattle snakes, bears and a lot of red necks.  Having a gun is not a bad idea.  However, CAP tends to have it's fair share of delusional senior members, and it probably isn't a good idea to allow them to go armed...especially around cadets.
...

Since, in the first 10 pages, it is evident that there would be no consensus, I have decided to go ahead and start issuing firearms to all.  Although cadets may object to not having more powerful firearms than senior members, it may be necessary for a senior member to some day halt a stolen donut truck.   >:D   :)

Quote from: JC004 on May 31, 2007, 11:18:39 PM

Quote from: ELTHunter on May 31, 2007, 08:37:15 PM
...
2.  I agree that there is potential to need a firearm in the back country depending upon your area of operations.  In mine, there are copper heads, rattle snakes, bears and a lot of red necks.  Having a gun is not a bad idea.  However, CAP tends to have it's fair share of delusional senior members, and it probably isn't a good idea to allow them to go armed...especially around cadets.
...

Since, in the first 10 pages, it is evident that there would be no consensus, I have decided to go ahead and start issuing firearms to all.  Although cadets may object to not having more powerful firearms than senior members, it may be necessary for a senior member to some day halt a stolen donut truck.   >:D   :)

Somebody said something about delusional senior members? 

Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on May 31, 2007, 11:41:18 PM

Quote from: JC004 on May 31, 2007, 11:18:39 PM

Quote from: ELTHunter on May 31, 2007, 08:37:15 PM
...
2.  I agree that there is potential to need a firearm in the back country depending upon your area of operations.  In mine, there are copper heads, rattle snakes, bears and a lot of red necks.  Having a gun is not a bad idea.  However, CAP tends to have it's fair share of delusional senior members, and it probably isn't a good idea to allow them to go armed...especially around cadets.
...

Since, in the first 10 pages, it is evident that there would be no consensus, I have decided to go ahead and start issuing firearms to all.  Although cadets may object to not having more powerful firearms than senior members, it may be necessary for a senior member to some day halt a stolen donut truck.   >:D   :)

Somebody said something about delusional senior members? 

If I didn't take pride in that, I would be offended.

Quote from: ELTHunter on May 31, 2007, 08:37:15 PM
I have two comments.  First regarding EMT's in the field:

1.  When the ES regs were revised a few few years ago, they removed the requirement to have first aid training that was sanctioned by organizations like Red Cross or AHA.  They also added a sort of disclaimer that CAP isn't a medical services organization and doesn't advertise itself as such, or words to that effect.  I don't have the regs in front of me, but I'm not aware of anywhere that says you can not render what ever care you can within the bounds of your training.  Additionally, doesn't the good Samaritan law cover you if you are operating within your training?  If so, why the need to further liability coverage by CAP?

It's hard enough to find adult members that want to actually go humping through the woods, I'm not sure it's all that realistic to believe that we could get an EMT for every ground team.

2.  I agree that there is potential to need a firearm in the back country depending upon your area of operations.  In mine, there are copper heads, rattle snakes, bears and a lot of red necks.  Having a gun is not a bad idea.  However, CAP tends to have it's fair share of delusional senior members, and it probably isn't a good idea to allow them to go armed...especially around cadets.

However, the way I look at it, if I have a gun when I know I am going to be in an area where it might come in handy, no one will know I even have it unless I have to use it in an emergency.  If that happens, violating CAP regs is not going to be real high on my list of concerns.

As Ive said in other threads, EMS liability coverage is agency specific. If I work for XYZ ambulance company, they pay for my liability while I am working for them, not for anyone else, nor does it cover me when I am off duty from XYZ ambulance. And no, Good Samaritan Laws dont cover professional providers. And you dont necessarily need an EMT/Medic team for every single ground team. If people dont want to do it, dont provide coverage for that Sqaudrons GT. That being said, where do I go to be issued my gun. And youre probably right, if you needed to use your concealed weapon (assuming you can get a concealed carry permit) CAP regs would be the least of your worries...getting the needle for shooting that redneck would probably rate higher. >:D

The red neck thing was joking....sort of....after all, we're not all that far from where Deliverance was filmed :)

Quote from: SARMedTech on June 01, 2007, 03:55:41 AM
... That being said, where do I go to be issued my gun. And youre probably right, if you needed to use your concealed weapon (assuming you can get a concealed carry permit) CAP regs would be the least of your worries...getting the needle for shooting that redneck would probably rate higher. >:D

There's a line over there --> 

No pushing.  Pick up your donut, coffee, firearm, and ammunition.  As for permits...wait, we were going to follow the law?  Hmmm...   :o  PA has a good start, though...we have the 3rd highest percentage of citizens with concealed carry permits.  As for Alaska and Vermont, your Pocket Constitution is your permit.  I guess we could start by issuing donut holsters...  :)

Quote from: JC004 on June 01, 2007, 02:04:19 PM

Quote from: SARMedTech on June 01, 2007, 03:55:41 AM
... That being said, where do I go to be issued my gun. And youre probably right, if you needed to use your concealed weapon (assuming you can get a concealed carry permit) CAP regs would be the least of your worries...getting the needle for shooting that redneck would probably rate higher. >:D

There's a line over there --> 

No pushing.  Pick up your donut, coffee, firearm, and ammunition.  As for permits...wait, we were going to follow the law?  Hmmm...   :o  PA has a good start, though...we have the 3rd highest percentage of citizens with concealed carry permits.  As for Alaska and Vermont, your Pocket Constitution is your permit.  I guess we could start by issuing donut holsters...  :)

I can understand Alaska having open carry but VERMONT?

Quote from: SAR-EMT1 on June 03, 2007, 03:33:10 AM
I can understand Alaska having open carry but VERMONT?

Live free or DIE.  ;D  No wait... That's New Hampshire.  :o

Isnt anyone but me worried that if we give the cadets guns they might mutiny? I think the SMs would have to go full auto.

Quote from: SAR-EMT1 on June 03, 2007, 03:33:10 AM

Quote from: JC004 on June 01, 2007, 02:04:19 PM

Quote from: SARMedTech on June 01, 2007, 03:55:41 AM
... That being said, where do I go to be issued my gun. And youre probably right, if you needed to use your concealed weapon (assuming you can get a concealed carry permit) CAP regs would be the least of your worries...getting the needle for shooting that redneck would probably rate higher. >:D

There's a line over there --> 

No pushing.  Pick up your donut, coffee, firearm, and ammunition.  As for permits...wait, we were going to follow the law?  Hmmm...   :o  PA has a good start, though...we have the 3rd highest percentage of citizens with concealed carry permits.  As for Alaska and Vermont, your Pocket Constitution is your permit.  I guess we could start by issuing donut holsters...  :)

I can understand Alaska having open carry but VERMONT?

Vermont is probably the most Libertarian leaning of all the states. They are just extreme enough in all liberties to piss of both the left and the right in equal measure. They probably need the CCW permits to protect the maple syrup...I have a California CCW, but they don't exactly hand those out for the asking. My carry gun is a Stayer Voight Infinity in .40.

Capt. Lord

Quote from: SARMedTech on June 03, 2007, 04:28:20 AM
Isnt anyone but me worried that if we give the cadets guns they might mutiny? I think the SMs would have to go full auto.

I think it might be entertaining, actually. 

NEWS RELEASE Special to The Volunteer

Maxwell AFB AL  June 3
Armed cadets from Maxwell Composite Squadron took over the National Headquarters Bulkding of Civil Air Patrol. According to one Cadet, C/MSgt John Doe, we have started the revolution. According to one eyewitness, the Cadets released all Air Force personnel and many civilians. It appeared that the cadets were releasing civilians not in uniform including those in the TPU uniform that cadets didn't consider a uniform.
The Cadets are demanding more activities, more military brought back to the program and low fat doughnuts. One report was the demands also included a re-write of CAPR 52-16 and the raising of the minimum age to join the organization. There has been no response from CAP which was explained by the CAP Communications net not meeting the Air Force required narrow band standards.
The cadets were issued the guns by AFJROTC for color guard use and the cadets modified them.

Quote from: BillB on June 03, 2007, 10:06:14 PM
NEWS RELEASE Special to The Volunteer

Maxwell AFB AL  June 3
Armed cadets from Maxwell Composite Squadron took over the National Headquarters Bulkding of Civil Air Patrol. According to one Cadet, C/MSgt John Doe, we have started the revolution. According to one eyewitness, the Cadets released all Air Force personnel and many civilians. It appeared that the cadets were releasing civilians not in uniform including those in the TPU uniform that cadets didn't consider a uniform.
The Cadets are demanding more activities, more military brought back to the program and low fat doughnuts. One report was the demands also included a re-write of CAPR 52-16 and the raising of the minimum age to join the organization. There has been no response from CAP which was explained by the CAP Communications net not meeting the Air Force required narrow band standards.
The cadets were issued the guns by AFJROTC for color guard use and the cadets modified them.

That's what we get.  How could we compete?  They are healthier and more agile than most of us.

This is why the standard issue weapon to SMs should be the BAR .50 with white phosphorus rounds. Thus endeth the revolution.

Quote from: SARMedTech on June 03, 2007, 10:37:41 PM
This is why the standard issue weapon to SMs should be the BAR .50 with white phosphorus rounds. Thus endeth the revolution.

But I have pretty bad back troubles and I find the BAR a little rough on my back...

Quote from: JC004 on June 03, 2007, 11:07:34 PM

Quote from: SARMedTech on June 03, 2007, 10:37:41 PM
This is why the standard issue weapon to SMs should be the BAR .50 with white phosphorus rounds. Thus endeth the revolution.

But I have pretty bad back troubles and I find the BAR a little rough on my back...

Who needs firearms? we seniors will just whine them into submission!

Quote from: flyerthom on June 03, 2007, 11:34:52 PM

Quote from: JC004 on June 03, 2007, 11:07:34 PM

Quote from: SARMedTech on June 03, 2007, 10:37:41 PM
This is why the standard issue weapon to SMs should be the BAR .50 with white phosphorus rounds. Thus endeth the revolution.

But I have pretty bad back troubles and I find the BAR a little rough on my back...

Who needs firearms? we seniors will just whine them into submission!

or take away all of their caffeinated beverages?

NEWS RELEASE

Maxwell AFB AL  The Cadet revolution has ended. Many cadets that staged the sit-in at the CAP National Headquarters had cell phones and got messages from home. According to C/A Smith, "Mommy called and told me it was past my curfew and I had homework to do". However three mid-Eastern Terrorist groups claimed responsibility for the revolution. "We suppot the downtrodden youth of America seeking equal rights in the Fascist military Civil Air Patrol."
Two CAP Colonels supervised the cadet work detail cleaning the Moon Pie wrappers and RC Cola cans from the Building.

Bill, I owe you an RC Cola and a Moon Pie the next time I'm in Florida. Or an adult beverage of your choice.

Save your sissy guns. I'll stop the revolution by putting those cadets in absolute Aw!!(http://www.planetfortress.com/tf2models/previews/The%20Rock/dechrome4.jpg)

^^ heh heh heh

Quote from: MIKE on June 03, 2007, 03:42:17 AM

Quote from: SAR-EMT1 on June 03, 2007, 03:33:10 AM
I can understand Alaska having open carry but VERMONT?

Live free or DIE.  ;D  No wait... That's New Hampshire.  :o

New Hampshire is open carry, if you want to carry concealed though you need a permit.  On the application it says "REASON (Self-Defense is acceptable)"  ;D

Anyone who plays Counter Strike knows about the Deagle.  Me, I'd prefer the FN P-90 as a PDW.  ;D

Desert Eagle or a S&W chambered for the 10mm Anti personnel rounds.

hehehe ALTHOUGH If we are allowed something other then sidearms I'd request an H&K MP10.
But seriously, here in NAZI GERMANY, DEMOCRATLAND Illinois
Ive had my FOID application in for 10 months and it still hasnt processed yet.

Quote from: SAR-EMT1 on June 05, 2007, 05:45:03 AM
Desert Eagle or a S&W chambered for the 10mm Anti personnel rounds.

hehehe ALTHOUGH If we are allowed something other then sidearms I'd request an H&K MP10.
But seriously, here in NAZI GERMANY, DEMOCRATLAND Illinois
Ive had my FOID application in for 10 months and it still hasnt processed yet.

Does that surprise you? It doesn't me.

Quote from: SAR-EMT1 on June 05, 2007, 05:45:03 AM
Desert Eagle or a S&W chambered for the 10mm Anti personnel rounds.

hehehe ALTHOUGH If we are allowed something other then sidearms I'd request an H&K MP10.
But seriously, here in NAZI GERMANY, DEMOCRATLAND Illinois
Ive had my FOID application in for 10 months and it still hasnt processed yet.

Can you sue the state when they find you eligible, only after you were shot and severely wounded by someone who didn't bother applying for one?  ::soapbox:: ::fist::

Quote from: SAR-EMT1 on June 05, 2007, 05:45:03 AM
Desert Eagle or a S&W chambered for the 10mm Anti personnel rounds.

hehehe ALTHOUGH If we are allowed something other then sidearms I'd request an H&K MP10.
But seriously, here in NAZI GERMANY, DEMOCRATLAND Illinois
Ive had my FOID application in for 10 months and it still hasnt processed yet.

Move to Florida.

Here the anti-gun nuts post signs at the borders to warn incoming criminals that Floridians have the right to shoot them.

Quote from: SAR-EMT1 on June 05, 2007, 05:45:03 AM
Desert Eagle or a S&W chambered for the 10mm Anti personnel rounds.

hehehe ALTHOUGH If we are allowed something other then sidearms I'd request an H&K MP10.
But seriously, here in NAZI GERMANY, DEMOCRATLAND Illinois
Ive had my FOID application in for 10 months and it still hasnt processed yet.

I got my IL card in 9 weeks. If you havent gotten it back after almost a year, either likely something was wrong with it and they rejected it and just didnt bother notifying you of that fact or its been lost. I would call the ISP and ask them the situation.

A number of years ago I went to a gun show in Nevada. Their was a prominent manufacturer of suppressors ( Silencers for you people from Rio Linda) I fell in love with a very nice Ruger MKII with an integral suppressor. When I told the guy that I was from the People's Republic of Kalifornia, he graciously offered to sell me the suppressed pistol and would throw in a Condo in Florida for only $100,000!

Capt. Lord

Quote from: CaptLord on June 05, 2007, 09:25:48 PM
A number of years ago I went to a gun show in Nevada. Their was a prominent manufacturer of suppressors ( Silencers for you people from Rio Linda) I fell in love with a very nice Ruger MKII with an integral suppressor. When I told the guy that I was from the People's Republic of Kalifornia, he graciously offered to sell me the suppressed pistol and would throw in a Condo in Florida for only $100,000!

Capt. Lord

Any "Condo" in Florida that you can get for $100,000 will have wheels underneath it.

Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on June 05, 2007, 10:42:25 PM

Quote from: CaptLord on June 05, 2007, 09:25:48 PM
A number of years ago I went to a gun show in Nevada. Their was a prominent manufacturer of suppressors ( Silencers for you people from Rio Linda) I fell in love with a very nice Ruger MKII with an integral suppressor. When I told the guy that I was from the People's Republic of Kalifornia, he graciously offered to sell me the suppressed pistol and would throw in a Condo in Florida for only $100,000!

Capt. Lord

Any "Condo" in Florida that you can get for $100,000 will have wheels underneath it.

It may have been more than "a number" of years....

Capt. Lord

Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on June 05, 2007, 07:40:24 PM

Quote from: SAR-EMT1 on June 05, 2007, 05:45:03 AM
Desert Eagle or a S&W chambered for the 10mm Anti personnel rounds.

hehehe ALTHOUGH If we are allowed something other then sidearms I'd request an H&K MP10.
But seriously, here in NAZI GERMANY, DEMOCRATLAND Illinois
Ive had my FOID application in for 10 months and it still hasnt processed yet.

Move to Florida.

Here the anti-gun nuts post signs at the borders to warn incoming criminals that Floridians have the right to shoot them.

That coming from the same state where a man was successfully sued for pain and suffering and loss of income after he shot a man who tried robbing his store (for the third time).    Of course if was overturned on appeal, but still.    Florida (and a number of other States) really needs to pass a "Castle Law".

Quote from: Psicorp on June 06, 2007, 03:10:20 PM
Florida (and a number of other States) really needs to pass a "Castle Law".

Jamie, Michigan has done so (http://legislature.mi.gov/doc.aspx?2005-hb-5142), as passed last fall.

Quote from: SAR-EMT1
But seriously, here in NAZI GERMANY, DEMOCRATLAND Illinois
Ive had my FOID application in for 10 months and it still hasnt processed yet.

BTW, it was signed off by our Democrat governor.  ;)

Quote from: Psicorp on June 06, 2007, 03:10:20 PM

Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on June 05, 2007, 07:40:24 PM

Quote from: SAR-EMT1 on June 05, 2007, 05:45:03 AM
Desert Eagle or a S&W chambered for the 10mm Anti personnel rounds.

hehehe ALTHOUGH If we are allowed something other then sidearms I'd request an H&K MP10.
But seriously, here in NAZI GERMANY, DEMOCRATLAND Illinois
Ive had my FOID application in for 10 months and it still hasnt processed yet.

Move to Florida.

Here the anti-gun nuts post signs at the borders to warn incoming criminals that Floridians have the right to shoot them.

That coming from the same state where a man was successfully sued for pain and suffering and loss of income after he shot a man who tried robbing his store (for the third time).    Of course if was overturned on appeal, but still.    Florida (and a number of other States) really needs to pass a "Castle Law".

Florida has the Castle Doctrine. One of the most controversial ones because it extends to your place of business, your home and your vehicle.

The Castle Doctrine in ANY State only protects you from criminal charges, not from civil. Shoot the perp and you may go free, but you sure as heck might get sued by his family.

And it's the same in MI, guy north of Grand Rapids few years back shot a guy in his back yard attempting to enter the house, got sued and lost.

Quote from: stillamarine on June 06, 2007, 05:45:07 PM
And it's the same in MI, guy north of Grand Rapids few years back shot a guy in his back yard attempting to enter the house, got sued and lost.

I remember that.

In my post above I linked directly to the legislation as I mentioned had passed and was signed into law last year. The specific Senate Bill that was linked as a part of that package covering Civil Liability is SB 1185, http://legislature.mi.gov/doc.aspx?2006-SB-1185 (http://legislature.mi.gov/doc.aspx?2006-SB-1185).

Quote from: SB1185
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN ENACT:
  Sec. 2922b. (1) An individual who uses force in compliance
with the self-defense act, and who is not engaged in the commission
of a crime at the time he or she used that force, is immune from
civil liability for the use of that force. This subsection does not
grant immunity for damages caused to an individual other than the
individual against whom the use of force is authorized under the
self-defense act.

This was a HUGE step forward for the State of Michigan and a lot of the ideals for our new legislation came from the examples Florida set forth.

Quote from: stillamarine on June 06, 2007, 05:45:07 PM

Quote from: Psicorp on June 06, 2007, 03:10:20 PM

Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on June 05, 2007, 07:40:24 PM

Quote from: SAR-EMT1 on June 05, 2007, 05:45:03 AM
Desert Eagle or a S&W chambered for the 10mm Anti personnel rounds.

hehehe ALTHOUGH If we are allowed something other then sidearms I'd request an H&K MP10.
But seriously, here in NAZI GERMANY, DEMOCRATLAND Illinois
Ive had my FOID application in for 10 months and it still hasnt processed yet.

Move to Florida.

Here the anti-gun nuts post signs at the borders to warn incoming criminals that Floridians have the right to shoot them.

That coming from the same state where a man was successfully sued for pain and suffering and loss of income after he shot a man who tried robbing his store (for the third time).    Of course if was overturned on appeal, but still.    Florida (and a number of other States) really needs to pass a "Castle Law".

Florida has the Castle Doctrine. One of the most controversial ones because it extends to your place of business, your home and your vehicle.

The Castle Doctrine in ANY State only protects you from criminal charges, not from civil. Shoot the perp and you may go free, but you sure as heck might get sued by his family.

And it's the same in MI, guy north of Grand Rapids few years back shot a guy in his back yard attempting to enter the house, got sued and lost.

Hotels and Motels also fall under the Castle Doctrine since they are considered places of residence during your stay. (Found that out from my LEO father.)

Quote from: SARMedTech on June 09, 2007, 11:59:17 PM

Quote from: stillamarine on June 06, 2007, 05:45:07 PM

Quote from: Psicorp on June 06, 2007, 03:10:20 PM

Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on June 05, 2007, 07:40:24 PM

Quote from: SAR-EMT1 on June 05, 2007, 05:45:03 AM
Desert Eagle or a S&W chambered for the 10mm Anti personnel rounds.

hehehe ALTHOUGH If we are allowed something other then sidearms I'd request an H&K MP10.
But seriously, here in NAZI GERMANY, DEMOCRATLAND Illinois
Ive had my FOID application in for 10 months and it still hasnt processed yet.

Move to Florida.

Here the anti-gun nuts post signs at the borders to warn incoming criminals that Floridians have the right to shoot them.

That coming from the same state where a man was successfully sued for pain and suffering and loss of income after he shot a man who tried robbing his store (for the third time).    Of course if was overturned on appeal, but still.    Florida (and a number of other States) really needs to pass a "Castle Law".

Florida has the Castle Doctrine. One of the most controversial ones because it extends to your place of business, your home and your vehicle.

The Castle Doctrine in ANY State only protects you from criminal charges, not from civil. Shoot the perp and you may go free, but you sure as heck might get sued by his family.

And it's the same in MI, guy north of Grand Rapids few years back shot a guy in his back yard attempting to enter the house, got sued and lost.

Hotels and Motels also fall under the Castle Doctrine since they are considered places of residence during your stay. (Found that out from my LEO father.)

You and your dad are correct.  Florida is VERY sensitive about people ripping off tourists unless you own a theme park.

Quote from: mlcurtis69 on June 06, 2007, 03:32:26 PM

Quote from: Psicorp on June 06, 2007, 03:10:20 PM
Florida (and a number of other States) really needs to pass a "Castle Law".

Jamie, Michigan has done so (http://legislature.mi.gov/doc.aspx?2005-hb-5142), as passed last fall.

BTW, it was signed off by our Democrat governor.  ;)

'ell I be...stuff happens in this state that makes sense after all.   

Sorry, I wasnt trying to sound too anti democrat or too pro republican.
I just dont like the one thats in office right now...Although he is better then the last one and has so far managed to avoid prison.
Thing is ... when you have a former Gov. for an uncle you kinda wish for a return of the old days.