Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
September 20, 2018, 04:14:22 PM
Home Help Login Register
News:

CAP Talk  |  General Discussion  |  Membership  |  Topic: CAP and Why We are Civilian
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4  All Print
Author Topic: CAP and Why We are Civilian  (Read 6146 times)
Eclipse
Too Much Free Time Award

Posts: 28,944

« Reply #40 on: September 02, 2018, 06:26:40 PM »

Way, way, way back, in the 60's, whether or not the Posse Comitatus Act NEEDED to be mentioned much, it was frequently referenced as the justification for not "guarding" aircraft at airshows, or guarding crash sites. There were a lot of anecdotes about matters escalating to the point of physical contact, sometimes ending with "citizen's arrests." Those were sometimes followed by lawsuits, which put CAP Inc. in a weird place, it's members having invented authority in some cases, or having been actually deputized in others.

The easy solution was to simply say "Nuh-uh! Posse Comitatus!  You/We can't do that!"

I understand why the ruse might be needed - anyone Whacker enough to belive they could be "deputized",
or that even if they could it's a good idea, might need some fancy-sounding Latin to slow their roll,
but those with common sense would know they aren't LE, regardless, and wouldn't want to be mistaken as such.

Despite this, there's plenty of airshows that indicate CAP members will "secure" aircraft, flight lines, etc.
Because people like the way that sounds, despite the knowledge that an 8-year-old can kick them in the shins
and run into the plane they are "securing".

(I wouldn't be surprised to hear that was how CAP acquired a TWELFTH General Order, to accompany the original 11 (at the time; I think only the Marines have kept all 11, the Army went to 3 sometime in the 60's or 70's and I have no idea what anybody uses now).  That 12th General Order was "To use no force or show of force in the execution of my duties").

CAP General what now?
Logged


Mitchell 1969
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 806
Unit: PCR-CA-051

« Reply #41 on: September 02, 2018, 06:34:42 PM »

Way, way, way back, in the 60's, whether or not the Posse Comitatus Act NEEDED to be mentioned much, it was frequently referenced as the justification for not "guarding" aircraft at airshows, or guarding crash sites. There were a lot of anecdotes about matters escalating to the point of physical contact, sometimes ending with "citizen's arrests." Those were sometimes followed by lawsuits, which put CAP Inc. in a weird place, it's members having invented authority in some cases, or having been actually deputized in others.

The easy solution was to simply say "Nuh-uh! Posse Comitatus!  You/We can't do that!"

I understand why the ruse might be needed - anyone Whacker enough to belive they could be "deputized",
or that even if they could it's a good idea, might need some fancy-sounding Latin to slow their roll,
but those with common sense would know they aren't LE, regardless, and wouldn't want to be mistaken as such.

Despite this, there's plenty of airshows that indicate CAP members will "secure" aircraft, flight lines, etc.
Because people like the way that sounds, despite the knowledge that an 8-year-old can kick them in the shins
and run into the plane they are "securing".

(I wouldn't be surprised to hear that was how CAP acquired a TWELFTH General Order, to accompany the original 11 (at the time; I think only the Marines have kept all 11, the Army went to 3 sometime in the 60's or 70's and I have no idea what anybody uses now).  That 12th General Order was "To use no force or show of force in the execution of my duties").

CAP General what now?

The 12 General Orders.  They WERE a real thing. Feel free to look them up in your CAPM 50-3. 
Logged
_________________
Bernard J. Wilson, Major, CAP

Mitchell 1969; Earhart 1971; Eaker 1973. Cadet Flying Encampment, License, 1970. IACE New Zealand 1971; IACE Korea 1973.

CAP has been bery, bery good to me.
Eclipse
Too Much Free Time Award

Posts: 28,944

« Reply #42 on: September 02, 2018, 06:39:16 PM »

The 12 General Orders.  They WERE a real thing. Feel free to look them up in your CAPM 50-3.

Yes, were.  I get it, but when you drop stuff like that without a "used to have", it gets into the Zeitgeist
and starts to show up in other places.

We should start the pool and see which encampment or NCSA sees them first in FY2019.
Logged


xyzzy
Recruit

Posts: 8

« Reply #43 on: September 02, 2018, 07:34:49 PM »

I understand why the ruse might be needed - anyone Whacker enough to belive they could be "deputized",
or that even if they could it's a good idea, might need some fancy-sounding Latin to slow their roll,
but those with common sense would know they aren't LE, regardless, and wouldn't want to be mistaken as such....

To an EMT like me, the general idea of being deputized doesn't seem the least bit whacker. Every time I hold a drunk driver still while the cop puts the cuffs on, or transport a drunk driver in an ambulance while the cop follows in her cruiser, I've been "deputized". (In my state, there's no ceremony; the officer asks for help, and you do it.)

R900_3 is really quite confusing. It presents itself as a regulation of a not-for-profit organization, and as such, it's trumped by state law. But, at least in some situations, it's the Posse Comitatus Act that's operative. Since that's a federal law, it trumps state law. But the CAP member who only reads R900_3 wouldn't know about the Posse Comitatus Act.

Logged
SarDragon
Global Moderator

Posts: 10,400
Unit: NAVAIRPAC

« Reply #44 on: September 02, 2018, 07:45:24 PM »

That 12th General Order was "To use no force or show of force in the execution of my duties").

That one hit the streets WIWAC. It was in CAPM 50-3, 2nd edition, 1967.
Logged
Dave Bowles
Maj, CAP
AT1, USN Retired
Mitchell Award (unnumbered)
C/WO, CAP, Ret
Eclipse
Too Much Free Time Award

Posts: 28,944

« Reply #45 on: September 02, 2018, 09:04:31 PM »

I understand why the ruse might be needed - anyone Whacker enough to belive they could be "deputized",
or that even if they could it's a good idea, might need some fancy-sounding Latin to slow their roll,
but those with common sense would know they aren't LE, regardless, and wouldn't want to be mistaken as such....

To an EMT like me, the general idea of being deputized doesn't seem the least bit whacker. Every time I hold a drunk driver still while the cop puts the cuffs on, or transport a drunk driver in an ambulance while the cop follows in her cruiser, I've been "deputized". (In my state, there's no ceremony; the officer asks for help, and you do it.)

R900_3 is really quite confusing. It presents itself as a regulation of a not-for-profit organization, and as such, it's trumped by state law. But, at least in some situations, it's the Posse Comitatus Act that's operative. Since that's a federal law, it trumps state law. But the CAP member who only reads R900_3 wouldn't know about the Posse Comitatus Act.

There's no place to be confused as long as you don't try to make CAP something it's not.
Members only need to know about PCA as general information, since the actions it governs bind
the agencies and military, not the member per-se.

A CAP member only reading 900-3 would be fine, because regardless of PCA, the reg says a member can't be deputized,
so PCA is extraneous.  PCA may well have informed the verbiage of the reg, but it doesn't even appear there, because it
doesn't need to.

What you may, or may not be bound to do as an EMT is irrelevant  to what you may or may not do in a CAP uniform.
Being a medical professional, LEO, mandatory reporter, etc., etc., doesn't supercede CAP regs in regards to your
following them, it means that as soon as some higher authority you need to to obey kicks in, you are no
longer acting as a CAP member, nor will you be protected by the corporation.

From that point forward you're acting under whatever authority, jurisdiction, or responsibility that outside agency
affords or requires.
Logged


ironputts
Forum Regular

Posts: 157
Unit: PA-101

Lower Bucks Squadron PA101
« Reply #46 on: September 02, 2018, 09:46:16 PM »

HISTORY OF CIVIL AIR PATROL Origins/1936-1941

The origins of Civil Air Patrol date to 1936, when Gill Robb Wilson, World War I aviator and New Jersey director of aeronautics, returned from Germany convinced of impending war. Wilson envisioned mobilizing America’s civilian aviators for national defense, an idea shared by others.

In Ohio, Milton Knight, a pilot and businessman, organized and incorporated the Civilian Air Reserve (CAR) in 1938. Other military-styled civilian aviation units emerged nationwide, training for homeland defense.

 In 1941, Wilson launched his perfected program: the Civil Air Defense Services (CADS). That summer, tasked by Fiorello H. LaGuardia (New York mayor and director of the federal Office of Civilian Defense and also a World War I aviator), Wilson, publisher Thomas H. Beck and newspaperman Guy P. Gannett proposed Wilson’s CADS program as a model for organizing the nation’s civilian aviation resources.

Their proposal for a Civil Air Patrol was approved by the Commerce, Navy, and War departments in November, and CAP national headquarters opened its doors on Dec. 1, under the direction of national commander Maj. Gen. John F. Curry. Existing CADS, CAR and other flying units soon merged under the CAP banner. Public announcement of CAP and national recruiting commenced on Dec. 8.
Logged
Greg Putnam
Lt. Col., CAP
Eclipse
Too Much Free Time Award

Posts: 28,944

« Reply #47 on: September 02, 2018, 10:46:13 PM »

Factually correct, but what is the relevance to PCA?  Especially in light of the significant
evolution of the organization in the last 30 years?

Logged


xyzzy
Recruit

Posts: 8

« Reply #48 on: September 03, 2018, 06:49:39 AM »


There's no place to be confused as long as you don't try to make CAP something it's not.
Members only need to know about PCA as general information, since the actions it governs bind
the agencies and military, not the member per-se.

A CAP member only reading 900-3 would be fine, because regardless of PCA, the reg says a member can't be deputized,
so PCA is extraneous.  PCA may well have informed the verbiage of the reg, but it doesn't even appear there, because it
doesn't need to.

What you may, or may not be bound to do as an EMT is irrelevant  to what you may or may not do in a CAP uniform.
Being a medical professional, LEO, mandatory reporter, etc., etc., doesn't supercede CAP regs in regards to your
following them, it means that as soon as some higher authority you need to to obey kicks in, you are no
longer acting as a CAP member, nor will you be protected by the corporation.

From that point forward you're acting under whatever authority, jurisdiction, or responsibility that outside agency
affords or requires.

To the member who reads R900_3 but not PCA,it appears it's merely the regulation of a non-profit organization that prevents the member from being "deputized". Supposing the member is also aware of the law in his/her state authorizing LEOs to demand the assistance of the inhabitants, the member would naturally suppose R900_3 is superseded by the state law. But on an Air Force assigned mission, it probably isn't; PCA probably applies. Eclipse says PCA applies to organizations, not members. My understanding is PCA theoretically would punish the LEO who demanded active law enforcement help from a CAP member on an AF assigned mission*, not the CAP member who followed the LEO's order. But the CAP member would be exposed, because the CAP member would be disobeying the CAP regulation and following an illegal order.

*I've read that no one has ever been prosecuted for following PCA, but those who have been arrested by, or with the aid of, the military have used PCA to further their cause.
Logged
Eclipse
Too Much Free Time Award

Posts: 28,944

« Reply #49 on: September 03, 2018, 09:12:52 AM »

To the member who reads R900_3 but not PCA,it appears it's merely the regulation of a non-profit organization that prevents the member from being "deputized". Supposing the member is also aware of the law in his/her state authorizing LEOs to demand the assistance of the inhabitants, the member would naturally suppose R900_3 is superseded by the state law. But on an Air Force assigned mission, it probably isn't; PCA probably applies. Eclipse says PCA applies to organizations, not members. My understanding is PCA theoretically would punish the LEO who demanded active law enforcement help from a CAP member on an AF assigned mission*, not the CAP member who followed the LEO's order. But the CAP member would be exposed, because the CAP member would be disobeying the CAP regulation and following an illegal order.

*I've read that no one has ever been prosecuted for following PCA, but those who have been arrested by, or with the aid of, the military have used PCA to further their cause.

First, where are US citizens forced to be conscripted to a posse?

Second, absent literal apocalypse, what Sheriff or LEO would ever even consider that idea?
Logged


Hawk200
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 4,559

« Reply #50 on: September 03, 2018, 10:01:04 AM »

First, where are US citizens forced to be conscripted to a posse?
From what I know, a person has to be in agreement with being deputized. The individual also has to put forward any issues with acting in a LE capacity. (For example, I don't believe someone with a felony record may be deputized.)

So, it can't be forced.

Second, absent literal apocalypse, what Sheriff or LEO would ever even consider that idea?
Pretty much.
Logged
xyzzy
Recruit

Posts: 8

« Reply #51 on: September 03, 2018, 02:04:01 PM »

First, where are US citizens forced to be conscripted to a posse?
From what I know, a person has to be in agreement with being deputized. The individual also has to put forward any issues with acting in a LE capacity. (For example, I don't believe someone with a felony record may be deputized.)

So, it can't be forced.

Second, absent literal apocalypse, what Sheriff or LEO would ever even consider that idea?

In my state a person who refuses to assist a LEO is subject to a fine. However, the person is not required to take excessive risk, so it would be hard to enforce.
Pretty much.
Logged
Eclipse
Too Much Free Time Award

Posts: 28,944

« Reply #52 on: September 03, 2018, 02:55:40 PM »

In my state a person who refuses to assist a LEO is subject to a fine. However, the person is not required to take excessive risk, so it would be hard to enforce.
Pretty much.

Cite please.  This isn't the Seinfeld universe.
Almost every state has some "value-add" law regarding assisting a peace officer.  That's not the
same as being deputized, that's "Hey!  Stop that guy!"

Also, this went from "EMTs who must" to "a person", which is it?

This is a typical conversation where members want to conflate "edge case emergency" to "normal operations".
Logged


Mitchell 1969
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 806
Unit: PCR-CA-051

« Reply #53 on: September 03, 2018, 04:34:03 PM »

In my state a person who refuses to assist a LEO is subject to a fine. However, the person is not required to take excessive risk, so it would be hard to enforce.
Pretty much.

Cite please.  This isn't the Seinfeld universe.
Almost every state has some "value-add" law regarding assisting a peace officer.  That's not the
same as being deputized, that's "Hey!  Stop that guy!"

Also, this went from "EMTs who must" to "a person", which is it?

This is a typical conversation where members want to conflate "edge case emergency" to "normal operations".

“Being deputized” and “Hey! Stop that guy!” ARE the same thing. And it is good that it is. That way, the “stop that guy” order gives authority to the person asked to do the stopping. That’s important, because additional charges can be levied against the guy who refuses to get stopped by the “deputized” person. Also, the deputized person will receive legal protections should the matter ever get to a civil suit or the person requiring medical care.   Doctors and lawyers not being cheap, it’s nice to get the city or county to provide and/or pay for them.

You guys are making way more out of deputization than needs to be made. For long-term deputization, there are selection, training and ceremonies. But for a cop who needs help RIGHT NOW in the field, there is no oath, no ceremony, no formality, no badge. (Also no pay, no pension).

I think I invoked the state law regarding deputization maybe a half dozen times in 30 years (three of those were due to September 11, 2001).  It was NO BIG DEAL. I was careful not to deputize members of the armed forces though. And no mail carriers, either. Because the mail must get through, they are apparently exempt, as I recall from a long-ago class on this.

FWIW, here is the relevant California law:

CHAPTER 7. Other Offenses Against Public Justice [142 - 181]  ( Chapter 7 enacted 1872. )
 
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 taking or arresting any person against whom there may be issued any process, or by neglecting to aid and assist in 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 described in Section 830.1, subdivision (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), or (f) of Section 830.2, or subdivision (a) of Section 830.33, who identifies himself or herself with a badge or identification card issued by the officer’s employing agency, or by any judge, is punishable by a fine of not less than fifty dollars ($50) nor more than one thousand dollars ($1,000).
(Amended by Stats. 1998, Ch. 760, Sec. 4. Effective January 1, 1999.)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Logged
_________________
Bernard J. Wilson, Major, CAP

Mitchell 1969; Earhart 1971; Eaker 1973. Cadet Flying Encampment, License, 1970. IACE New Zealand 1971; IACE Korea 1973.

CAP has been bery, bery good to me.
ZigZag911
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 1,985

« Reply #54 on: September 03, 2018, 08:27:48 PM »

I think the key phrase here is "being there to lawfully  required ".

If a LEO tried to require the assistance of Army or Air Force personnel,  I would imagine that federal law would supersede state law.

Wouldn't that also be true for CAP members in uniform,  at least in the context of an  AFAM?
Logged
Luis R. Ramos
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 2,663

« Reply #55 on: September 03, 2018, 08:51:08 PM »

“Being deputized” and “Hey! Stop that guy!” ARE NOT the same thing.

Being deputized involves swearing to uphold laws, ordinances, and regulations. Involves swearing to follow officer's directives.

Stop that guy? ANYONE can yell or be the eyes and eras.

Two completely different concepts!

Otherwise we can say that anytime CAP is at an airshow manning the snow fence, we are sheriff's deputies!

Anytime someone does a CD mission, he is a deputy!

IN YOUR DREAMS!



Logged

Squadron Administrative Officer
Squadron Communication Officer
Squadron Emergency Services Officer
PHall
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 6,204

« Reply #56 on: September 03, 2018, 09:44:09 PM »

“Being deputized” and “Hey! Stop that guy!” ARE NOT the same thing.

Being deputized involves swearing to uphold laws, ordinances, and regulations. Involves swearing to follow officer's directives.

Stop that guy? ANYONE can yell or be the eyes and eras.

Two completely different concepts!

Otherwise we can say that anytime CAP is at an airshow manning the snow fence, we are sheriff's deputies!

Anytime someone does a CD mission, he is a deputy!

IN YOUR DREAMS!


Mitchell 1969 is the retired Chief of the Los Angeles World Airports Police with 30+ years of law enforcement experience.
I think he knows what he is talking about.

Logged
Mitchell 1969
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 806
Unit: PCR-CA-051

« Reply #57 on: September 04, 2018, 12:36:48 AM »

“Being deputized” and “Hey! Stop that guy!” ARE NOT the same thing.

Being deputized involves swearing to uphold laws, ordinances, and regulations. Involves swearing to follow officer's directives.

Stop that guy? ANYONE can yell or be the eyes and eras.

Two completely different concepts!

Otherwise we can say that anytime CAP is at an airshow manning the snow fence, we are sheriff's deputies!

Anytime someone does a CD mission, he is a deputy!

IN YOUR DREAMS!

One more time - “being deputized” outside of some planned effort or unit does not require anyone to swear to do anything. And, the “Stop that guy!” version is enough deputization to give authority and protections to the guy who was told to do the stopping.

It isn’t like what you used to see on Hopalong Cassidy.

And, no, we can’t say that “...anytime CAP is at an airshow manning the snow fence, we are sheriffs deputies.”


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Logged
_________________
Bernard J. Wilson, Major, CAP

Mitchell 1969; Earhart 1971; Eaker 1973. Cadet Flying Encampment, License, 1970. IACE New Zealand 1971; IACE Korea 1973.

CAP has been bery, bery good to me.
TheSkyHornet
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 1,395

« Reply #58 on: September 04, 2018, 10:21:55 AM »

Can we stick to present-day regulations and standards, and stop using remnants of past heraldry to suffice as active guidance?
Logged
supertigerCH
Forum Regular

Posts: 137

« Reply #59 on: September 13, 2018, 01:58:48 PM »

Hello,

I have the theory of why CAP is Civilian. It could be because the Military can't deploy on US soil, [except: National and Air National Guard].


can't deploy on U.S. soil...

except for...

1776 - 1783 -- Revolutionary War
War of 1812
1846 - 1848 -- Mexican War
1860 - 1865 -- Civil War
late 1700's - early 1900's  -- Various Wars with Native Americans in U.S. states & territories... (also while expanding into/settling the west)
1932 -- during the Great Depression years... against American Veterans ("Bonus Army" incident)
1957 -- 101st Airborne sent to Little Rock Arkansas... to have schools comply with new laws requiring racial integration


Did i miss any?   ;D

Meaning, any after 1878 that apply?   ::)


You are 100% correct, of course.

Was just laughing at the irony there.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4  All Print 
CAP Talk  |  General Discussion  |  Membership  |  Topic: CAP and Why We are Civilian
 


Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP SMF 2.0.14 | SMF © 2017, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.532 seconds with 26 queries.
click here to email me