Force protection and armed CAP members

[PA Guy]

Just a thought about CCWs.  Using possession of a CCW as a criteria for allowing CAP members to be armed is no standard at all.  The criteria for issuing a CCW varies so widely from state to state as to be meaningless. CA has very stringent criteria for issuing CCWs while AL will issue a CCW if you can fog a mirror for example.

The CCW standards for a CCW permit holder in California are not that stringent.  It's the willingness of sheriff's to issue CCW permits that makes them relatively rare.  It often boils down to personal opinion on the part of the sheriff or police chief since CA is a "may issue" state.

I also find it ironic that some of the strongest proponents of being armed are the same people that want us to be more Air Force.

Got any facts to back up that opinion?  Most opinions I've seen here are suggesting CAP essentially stay out of it, either allowing mere compliance with state and local laws, or keeping things the way they are now.   I don't recall anyone suggesting we create a force of heavily armed 12 year old cadets or turn CAP into aviating special forces.

Yes,  CA is a "may issue" state and depending on the jurisdiction not many CCWs are approved. However, CA requires a full criminal background check, fingerprints and demonstrated proficiency in handling/firing the weapon to be authorized. AL on the other hand does not require fingerprinting, does only a cursory NCIC check and does not require any demonstrated proficiency.

As for my opinion, well that is what it is, my opinion. Some of those who frequently advocate for making us more AF like don't want anything to do with AF regs./policy in regards to on duty personnel  being armed with personal weapons while on the job. Not sure where the cadet thing came from.

[tdepp]

Living in Sinn:

Sounds like you live on the set of "Deliverance."     Rather than buying a gun or equipping your CAP squadron members with 9 mms, I'd move to a safer locale.  Or get your sheriff off his arse and tell him to go after these dirtbags.

Actually deliverance isn't too far from the truth. During WW2 we had whole towns move up here from Kentucky to work in the ordnance plant. We also have scum moving out from Chicago. Our crime rate doubles in the summer with people from IL visiting all the lakes around here.

Moving is not an option. Increased police is not an option because we are the poorest county in the state. The local economy is much worse here than in most areas so that's not helping.

Indiana has a stand your ground law and CCW vs Illinois' "run away" or "retreat" law, lack of CCW and an outright handgun ban in Chicago . Guess who's crime rate is lower?

Sinnful:

I'm sorry to hear about the crime in your area and that moving is not an option and law enforcement has no resources.  You're in a tough spot.  And if this is your home from way back, it's tough to leave.  Meth is a scourge on our society.

You're absolutely right about the difference in self-defense laws from state to state.  I think in Texas you can basically shoot anyone who looks crosswise at you.     I'm kidding, of course.  Other states, like you note, are a retreat state.  Throw in concealed carry law variations and I don't see how CAP could allow its members to be armed.  Here in SD, where I have had a concealed carry permit (it has since expired), all I had to do was go to my sheriff's office with my state form and they ran the criminal background check on me.  The sheriff signed the form, I paid my fee, and sent it to Pierre.  Now, CC permit applications are a sealed record in SD, so you don't know who has applied for one.

Meanwhile, in Kansas, where I am also licensed to practice law, applicants have to take some sort of rather extensive pistol safety course and get tested on the range.

Sinn, I wish you didn't have to worry about the criminals around you.  Fortunately, where I live in SE SD, most of us have no such concerns.  When I lived in the 3d Ward in Houston, however, like you, I was surrounded by crime and was a victim of burglaries and attempted burglaries.  It is a terrible feeling.

[Flying Pig]

Im going with eliminated. Totally eliminated.  100%

[tdepp]

My source on this you ask? Our local DEA agents in Sioux Falls, who arrest folks I represent on federal court appointments from time to time.

Who were all undoubtedly innocent of the charges 

Fubar:

Your comment is taken in the spirit it was intended.  But guilty or innocent, everyone has a right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty.  Everyone in the process--prosecutors, defense attorneys, judges, police, etc.--has to do their job to the best of their ability to make sure justice is done. 

Frankly, a lot of what I do is negotiate pleas.  In the federal criminal system, the conviction rate is 95-97%.  So when the feds bring a federal case against you, you're up against it.  And most criminal cases never go to trial and are pled out.  If it were otherwise, the criminal justice system would collapse from the sheer numbers.

[Flying Pig]

Ive never arrested an innocent person!

[davidsinn]

Ive never arrested an innocent person!

And that's not his and he didn't know where it came from?

[RRLE]

He's saying it has eliminated local production and South Dakota now imports foreign made meth.

More manufacturing jobs lost to South of the Border. 

[JayT]

Ive never arrested an innocent person!

And that's not his and he didn't know where it came from?

And he fell on it.

[Major Lord]

These are not my pants, I am just wearing them for a friend......I forget his name....

The presumption of innocence is pretty much just theoretical.....we don't clap people in irons, and throw them into a hole in the ground until a Judge decides if they can be trusted because we "presume" they are innocent. If we presumed innocence, no one would be arrested, we would all just shake hands and say, oops, sorry, I shot my wife by accident. My bad!

Major Lord

[Short Field]

The presumption of innocence is pretty much just theoretical.....we don't clap people in irons, and throw them into a hole in the ground until a Judge decides if they can be trusted because we "presume" they are innocent.

Sorry, but the presumption of innocence is NOT just theoretical.  The burden of proof is on the government to prove the suspect is guilty in front of a Judge and a Jury of the individual's peers.  That is a whole lot different than having the burden of proof being on the suspects to prove they are innocent. 

[davidsinn]

The presumption of innocence is pretty much just theoretical.....we don't clap people in irons, and throw them into a hole in the ground until a Judge decides if they can be trusted because we "presume" they are innocent.

Sorry, but the presumption of innocence is NOT just theoretical.  The burden of proof is on the government to prove the suspect is guilty in front of a Judge and a Jury of the individual's peers.  That is a whole lot different than having the burden of proof being on the suspects to prove they are innocent.

Pre-indictment I'm assuming? Yes we hold them but presumption of innocence still holds because if the person is not indicted within 48? hours they are released.

[RiverAux]

The choice of "The regulation is fine as is" also includes the subset of LEO's who are obligated to carry a firearm by law or policy ( with the Wing-Kings approval) so there is not really a "no guns at all" choice in the question bank.

Major Lord

Wing king can't approve LEOs carrying weapons just because it is their Dept. policy.  Can only approve if they are required to carry by law.  Big difference.

[tdepp]

The presumption of innocence is pretty much just theoretical.....we don't clap people in irons, and throw them into a hole in the ground until a Judge decides if they can be trusted because we "presume" they are innocent.

Sorry, but the presumption of innocence is NOT just theoretical.  The burden of proof is on the government to prove the suspect is guilty in front of a Judge and a Jury of the individual's peers.  That is a whole lot different than having the burden of proof being on the suspects to prove they are innocent.

Pre-indictment I'm assuming? Yes we hold them but presumption of innocence still holds because if the person is not indicted within 48? hours they are released.

And thank goodness for the Constitution and Bill of Rights that help insure everyone's rights, no matter who they are.  It might be you accused some day and you're going to want the full monty of rights.

[davidsinn]

The presumption of innocence is pretty much just theoretical.....we don't clap people in irons, and throw them into a hole in the ground until a Judge decides if they can be trusted because we "presume" they are innocent.

Sorry, but the presumption of innocence is NOT just theoretical.  The burden of proof is on the government to prove the suspect is guilty in front of a Judge and a Jury of the individual's peers.  That is a whole lot different than having the burden of proof being on the suspects to prove they are innocent.

Pre-indictment I'm assuming? Yes we hold them but presumption of innocence still holds because if the person is not indicted within 48? hours they are released.

And thank goodness for the Constitution and Bill of Rights that help insure everyone's rights, no matter who they are.  It might be you accused some day and you're going to want the full monty of rights.

I like the theory: "Better ten guilty men go free than one innocent man be punished," even though that's not quite true in practice.

[Flying Pig]

The presumption of innocence is pretty much just theoretical.....we don't clap people in irons, and throw them into a hole in the ground until a Judge decides if they can be trusted because we "presume" they are innocent.

Sorry, but the presumption of innocence is NOT just theoretical.  The burden of proof is on the government to prove the suspect is guilty in front of a Judge and a Jury of the individual's peers.  That is a whole lot different than having the burden of proof being on the suspects to prove they are innocent.

Pre-indictment I'm assuming? Yes we hold them but presumption of innocence still holds because if the person is not indicted within 48? hours they are released.

And thank goodness for the Constitution and Bill of Rights that help insure everyone's rights, no matter who they are.  It might be you accused some day and you're going to want the full monty of rights.

Already been there. OIS reviews by the DA's office and 3 separate law suits all by jury.  And it aint funny when they are asking for damages to be paid by the officer.  Totalling about $20,000,000.00.  Sorry Parolee......you should-na shot at me.

[Major Lord]

The Constitution does not have the words "presumption of innocence" in it. Its inferred from Amendments. There are many presumptions in law, including the doctrine "stare decisis et quieta non movere" which judges routinely ignore and create new law based on their "feelings" and political views. On the presumption of innocence in general:

"First, the presumption is not a true presumption at all. A "presumption" is typically a rebuttable or irrebuttable inference dependent upon evidence of an initial fact (e.g., presumption of non-negligent behavior if a person took reasonable care). Instead, "presumption of innocence" serves to emphasize that the prosecution has the obligation to prove each element of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt (in some criminal justice systems) and that the accused bears no burden of proof.[1] An objective observer in the position of the juror would reasonably conclude that the defendant probably committed the crime.[2] The observable facts clearly support such an inference - the defendant has been charged with a crime, is present in court and is represented by an attorney, and all the participants in a criminal trial are also present and ready to proceed"

I don't thank "goodness" for the Constitution and the protections it affords me, I thank the men who tore freedom  from the grasp of tyrants, often at the cost of their lives, fortunes, and sacred honor. (You know who you are)

Major Lord

[ol'fido]

Will someone just shoot this thread in the head? The horse is dead! I'm going to bed. Just end this tale of woe and dread.

[a2capt]

LOL. Bed, now? Even in IL it's not bedtime.

No one was using a gun forcing you to click the thread .. ;-)

[billford1]

On a Sarex we had a local Sherrif Deputy visit our activity and observe a UDF scenario where there was an unattended vehicle and what was described as illegal drug activity. He told us that when LEOs encounter such things there's the matter of what to do. He noted that we should not have approached the vehicle. He asked why none of us hadn't observed from a distance with binoculars. When we go to remote areas on UDF or SAR we usually encounter private property. I'm inclined to call Law Enforcement for advice and/or assistance at such a time. We're told that in many wooded areas particularly near rivers there are places where illegal substances grow better. In such places we may encounter booby trap devices. The Deputy is likely to warn us of the hazard  and there is a no go decision. Deputies have gone in with us on private property and we leave the hazard to them.  If you encounter a dog or wild animal as a group the animal is more likely to avoid you. I lived in Washington State where some of the bears look like a car with furr. And then of course there are mountain lions. CAP patrols are usually going to have to seek them out. If CAP folks particularly Cadets are killed by drug bandits or terrorists my guess is that the state governor is going to bring out the posse in terms of maximum Law Enforcement maybe even the NG. I recommend hazard avoidance. If CAP Members who are LEO are present they should have access to the hardware they choose and why not it's what they do.

[tdepp]

On a Sarex we had a local Sherrif Deputy visit our activity and observe a UDF scenario where there was an unattended vehicle and what was described as illegal drug activity. He told us that when LEOs encounter such things there's the matter of what to do. He noted that we should not have approached the vehicle. He asked why none of us hadn't observed from a distance with binoculars. When we go to remote areas on UDF or SAR we usually encounter private property. I'm inclined to call Law Enforcement for advice and/or assistance at such a time. We're told that in many wooded areas particularly near rivers there are places where illegal substances grow better. In such places we may encounter booby trap devices. The Deputy is likely to warn us of the hazard  and there is a no go decision. Deputies have gone in with us on private property and we leave the hazard to them.  If you encounter a dog or wild animal as a group the animal is more likely to avoid you. I lived in Washington State where some of the bears look like a car with furr. And then of course there are mountain lions. CAP patrols are usually going to have to seek them out. If CAP folks particularly Cadets are killed by drug bandits or terrorists my guess is that the state governor is going to bring out the posse in terms of maximum Law Enforcement maybe even the NG. I recommend hazard avoidance. If CAP Members who are LEO are present they should have access to the hardware they choose and why not it's what they do.

Billfold:

I was with you until the last sentence.  Everything your wrote spoke of ORM and prudence and good sense.  Then you left me.     CAP is NOT a law enforcement agency, even if some of our members are in LE.  For legal, public policy, and public relations reasons, we can't blur that line, IMHO.