AA Pilot Busted for Impersonating Cop

[FN FAL]

Don't know about the rest of the country, but in Texas you can hold a person for 72 hours without charges...

...or longer, it's not the cops fault that the request to charge form was sitting in the prosecutor's in basket all weekend long.

I know a married couple that spent Friday to Tuesday in the clink, the wife was released at the arraignment hearing on the Tuesday because of insufficient evidence. I think the husband plead and paid a simple fine at the arraignment hearing.

 

[boxesdontbitch]

the skinny

Okay, i actually know this guy. He and I were in the same guard unit (im retired) and still live in the same city. ..He was pulled over for a traffic violation and did try the ole "brother law enforcement" bit to dodge it. stupid, but not criminal. he did not claim he was a federl airmarshall but a part of the airmarshall program. trying to explain the FFDO program to someone who never heard of it. Then a couple of weeks later the feds show up to "just ask a few questions, to clear up this misunderstanding" Just a friendly chat, no need for a lawyer or anything. Next thing he knows hes indicted and the whole thing has literally become a federal case. Now he has a DA who wants a juicy career enhancing case (maybe get on FOX news!) and the feds with an axe to grind on FFDO's in general. So far American has told him that unless he is convicted they have no problem. The Air Guard though has grounded him and revoked security clearances until this is resolved. So if you are in the FFDO program, beware. You cannot dick around with this and skate by. Lots of confusion about your legal status as "law enforcement"

 

[Occam's Razor]

Okay, i actually know this guy. He and I were in the same guard unit (im retired) and still live in the same city. ..He was pulled over for a traffic violation and did try the ole "brother law enforcement" bit to dodge it. stupid, but not criminal. he did not claim he was a federl airmarshall but a part of the airmarshall program. trying to explain the FFDO program to someone who never heard of it. Then a couple of weeks later the feds show up to "just ask a few questions, to clear up this misunderstanding" Just a friendly chat, no need for a lawyer or anything. Next thing he knows hes indicted and the whole thing has literally become a federal case. Now he has a DA who wants a juicy career enhancing case (maybe get on FOX news!) and the feds with an axe to grind on FFDO's in general. So far American has told him that unless he is convicted they have no problem. The Air Guard though has grounded him and revoked security clearances until this is resolved. So if you are in the FFDO program, beware. You cannot dick around with this and skate by. Lots of confusion about your legal status as "law enforcement"

Good gouge, and an important safety tip!

The extra scrutiny isn't exclusively for FFDO's. Even if you aren't in uniform, don't have your pilot's license with you, and you are not actually flying an airplane...get a DUI and the FAA will make your life more interesting.

We're "special"!

 

[skiandsurf]

Good gouge, and an important safety tip!

The extra scrutiny isn't exclusively for FFDO's. Even if you aren't in uniform, don't have your pilot's license with you, and you are not actually flying an airplane...get a DUI and the FAA will make your life more interesting.

We're "special"!

This is why I never went thru the program. Its all for show, with no support.

I do know an FFDO, and he does use the badge to get his family into Disneyland and knotts Berry Farm for free on "Police day". Was also with him at a "pay parking" garage. He flashed the badge and asked the guy "if they give free parking to law enforcement officers?" The guy let us drive out without paying. Keep in mind that he was "impressing" 20 year old kids, not cops.

 

[Occam's Razor]

This is why I never went thru the program. Its all for show, with no support.

The "show" for NOT going through the program is the "shoe dance and laptop screen" by the white shirts at the airport. I enjoy watching it as I sign in and get in front of you at Starbucks on the other side.

I do know an FFDO,

Me too! He sleeps with my wife!

...and he does use the badge to get his family into Disneyland and knotts Berry Farm for free on "Police day". Was also with him at a "pay parking" garage. He flashed the badge and asked the guy "if they give free parking to law enforcement officers?" The guy let us drive out without paying. Keep in mind that he was "impressing" 20 year old kids, not cops.

It's all in the technique.

I actually used my status as a captain to do something special once. We were on a cruise in the Caribbean, and I took the tour of the bridge. The captain was on duty at the time, and I explained to him that I was a captain too. He actually set me steer the ship! It was kinda creepy sitting on his lap, but other than that, it was fun.

 

[ReverseSensing]

NoyesWay! It's a matter of technique, not policy.

The words are Occam's, but the voice I hear the words in belong to my wife. :0

 

[AceCrackshot]

Okay, i actually know this guy. He and I were in the same guard unit (im retired) and still live in the same city. ..He was pulled over for a traffic violation and did try the ole "brother law enforcement" bit to dodge it. stupid, but not criminal. he did not claim he was a federl airmarshall but a part of the airmarshall program. trying to explain the FFDO program to someone who never heard of it. Then a couple of weeks later the feds show up to "just ask a few questions, to clear up this misunderstanding" Just a friendly chat, no need for a lawyer or anything. Next thing he knows hes indicted and the whole thing has literally become a federal case. Now he has a DA who wants a juicy career enhancing case (maybe get on FOX news!) and the feds with an axe to grind on FFDO's in general. So far American has told him that unless he is convicted they have no problem. The Air Guard though has grounded him and revoked security clearances until this is resolved. So if you are in the FFDO program, beware. You cannot dick around with this and skate by. Lots of confusion about your legal status as "law enforcement"

Lessons learned:
There is no such thing as a "friendly chat" with a .gov lawyer. Always lawyer up.

A portion of fed cops are screaming d1cks. How about going after a real violent criminal, chief? There are one or two around. Instead, we'll go after the slam-dunk on Joe Private Citizen who happens to be a former .mil officer. What a joke.

Unnecessary ad hominums deleted.

 

[frog_flyer]

few more:

"i dont have my license bc the bar took it when i refused to give them my keys"

cop: how much have you had tonight??
you: "not enough to keep me from cringing at the sight of your wife!!"

female cop: "how much you had tonight?"
you: "too much; cause you're lookin good right now"

this is as good as i can do whilst sippin on tecate with lime watchin the masters

 

[Uppercrust]

When did say screw anybody? If they are abusing the FFDO status, they should lose it. I didn't say PROSECUTE them.
If they are using credentials solely to avoid taking off their shoes and aren't carrying the weapon, they don't deserve the privilege.
I happen to believe that when you raise your right hand and take an oath, it means something.

No offense seriously.. I just don't think it is any of our business nor do I CARE IF THEY GET AROUND SECURITY. Taking off their shoes is not a requirement to get on an aircraft. How about MX personel... how do they get on the ramp??

Also, taking an oath has nothing do with with not carrying your weapon and bypassing security. Sorry, I just don't agree.

 

[FN FAL]

Then a couple of weeks later the feds show up to "just ask a few questions, to clear up this misunderstanding" Just a friendly chat, no need for a lawyer or anything. Next thing he knows hes indicted and the whole thing has literally become a federal case.

"Friendly chat"?

Priceless.

 

[FN FAL]

A portion of fed cops are screaming d1cks. How about going after a real violent criminal, chief? There are one or two around.

Simple, a crime of violence isn't necessarily a federal crime. We covered this already, local and state cops have authority to enforce state law. Federal cops have authority to enforce federal law.

Federal and State law may look similar to each other, but they aren't. Take for instance the guy that murdered joggers because they were inter-racial couples. Two were white women and two were black men. Because the federal government doesn't have a law against murder, they tried the shooter for denying these people their civil rights by killing them for a certain reason. The state could turn right around and try the shooter for the murders...viola! No double jeopardy! Gotta love it.

The authority of the federal government is enumerated...and can be summed up as being limited to 1) Import/export 2) Interstate Commerce 3) Crimes against the federal government 4) Matters of national security.

I can see the alleged impersonation of a federal officer as a crime against the federal government or a national security issue. Lack of violence has nothing do do with it.

In summation, most criminal law enforcement responsibility and authority, is on local and state law enforcement agencies.

 

[AceCrackshot]

I guess the point I'm trying to make with my drunken post is this...
federal law enforcement/prosectural assets are expensive, limited and nonfungible.

So, to expend them on a crime of:

1) less than compelling import (does prosecuting this guy serve the public good? Who is going to be deterred? What public good was injured?)

2) less than compelling economic damage (is getting out of a ticket, if that is the basis of the "false representation," really worth the federal agents, support personnel, federal prosectutors, their staff, judge, and jury's time?)

3) the above could be spent on a crime of significant import (crime that represents a significant breach of peace, corrosion of public trust, or theft of public or private property)

This meets none of these standards. Not even close. It couldn't even take a bus to close. So, the prosecutors and cops are overzealous and poor guardians of the public trust. But I suppose to you, FN FAL, you can sympathize with the traffic cop who finds it easier to prosecute the citizen of above average character (ANG officer, FAM, model citizen) than the drug dealer, WestStar/Enron executive, or street thug. After all, they have good lawyers and shoot back.

 

[satpak77]

edited for brevity....

Simple, a crime of violence isn't necessarily a federal crime. We covered this already, local and state cops have authority to enforce state law. Federal cops have authority to enforce federal law.

....the federal government doesn't have a law against murder, they tried the shooter for denying these people their civil rights by killing them for a certain reason. The state could turn right around and try the shooter for the murders...viola! No double jeopardy! Gotta love it.

In summation, most criminal law enforcement responsibility and authority, is on local and state law enforcement agencies.

FN, the following federal laws exist "against murder" on federal level. The following fulfill for all intents and purposes our definition of murder....some state "murder" in their language others state "XXXX act which results in the death of a person...." type language.

Another note, "most criminal law enforcement responsibility" is not just on the local and state level, plenty of federal crimes going on also. Statistically, numbers-wise, yes, more state crimes occur every day (domestic abuse, assaults, etc) than federal crimes, but all levels of LE are very busy.

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00000115----000-.html

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sup_01_18_10_I_20_51.html

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00001751----000-.html

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00002331----000-.html

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00002332---f000-.html

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00001091----000-.html

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00000036----000-.html

http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/crm01110.htm

 

[FN FAL]

But I suppose to you, FN FAL, you can sympathize with the traffic cop who finds it easier to prosecute the citizen of above average character (ANG officer, FAM, model citizen) than the drug dealer, WestStar/Enron executive, or street thug. After all, they have good lawyers and shoot back.

A traffic cop isn't a prosecutor. The federal investigator's evidence was taken by a federal prosecutor in front of a grand jury and the grand jury said "game on".

Peter V. Austin, 42, was indicted Tuesday by a grand jury meeting in Wichita. According to the indictment, the crime occurred March 5, 2006, in Sedgwick County, Kan., when Austin was stopped by Park City Police Officer R.W. Wolff.

As far as above average character, the feds are prosecuting three Illinois state troopers for illegal possession of machine guns. 10 police chiefs stood up for these troopers with your same argument and the ATF said "tough luck, it's in the hands of the US Attorney General's office".

 

[satpak77]

I guess the point I'm trying to make with my drunken post is this...
federal law enforcement/prosectural assets are expensive, limited and nonfungible.

So, to expend them on a crime of:

1) less than compelling import (does prosecuting this guy serve the public good? Who is going to be deterred? What public good was injured?)

2) less than compelling economic damage (is getting out of a ticket, if that is the basis of the "false representation," really worth the federal agents, support personnel, federal prosectutors, their staff, judge, and jury's time?)

3) the above could be spent on a crime of significant import (crime that represents a significant breach of peace, corrosion of public trust, or theft of public or private property)

This meets none of these standards. Not even close. It couldn't even take a bus to close. So, the prosecutors and cops are overzealous and poor guardians of the public trust. But I suppose to you, FN FAL, you can sympathize with the traffic cop who finds it easier to prosecute the citizen of above average character (ANG officer, FAM, model citizen) than the drug dealer, WestStar/Enron executive, or street thug. After all, they have good lawyers and shoot back.

I am going to take FN's side here (I agree with him as much as I argue with him) and state that "a citizen of above average character" just lost all his atta-boys when he claimed to be a Federal Air Marshal. He now stopped being a model citizen and became an embarrasment to his ANG unit, his church, etc.

As far as the above questions, the police officer's job is to present the facts to the prosecutor. He then accepts/declines prosecution, at which point if it goes to court, the Judge and the jury in unison hear the case and make the decisions you are asking about in your questions ("what harm to the public was done? etc)

 

[FN FAL]

edited for brevity....



FN, the following federal laws exist "against murder" on federal level. The following fulfill for all intents and purposes our definition of murder....some state "murder" in their language others state "XXXX act which results in the death of a person...." type language.


http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sup_01_18_10_I_20_51.html

I looked at your links. The federal government defines murder or homicide, because it has to have a definition of what that is, when they have the authority to charge for it.

For example, a person murders an on duty federal postal inspector, or murders a postal inspector because they are one. This would be a federal crime...of murder. If someone just happens to shoot a guy and it turns out that he/she just happened to be federal postal inspector...that is going to be a state charge of murder.

The feds don't prosecute someone for merely murdering someone else.

That fits exactly what I said in my post...that the federal government has the authority to regulate 1) import/export 2) interstate commerce 3) matters affecting national security 4) crimes against the federal government.

 

[satpak77]

I looked at your links. The federal government defines murder or homicide, because it has to have a definition of what that is, when they have the authority to charge for it.

For example, a person murders an on duty federal postal inspector, or murders a postal inspector because they are one. This would be a federal crime...of murder. If someone just happens to shoot a guy and it turns out that he/she just happened to be federal postal inspector...that is going to be a state charge of murder.

The feds don't prosecute someone for merely murdering someone else.

That fits exactly what I said in my post...that the federal government has the authority to regulate 1) import/export 2) interstate commerce 3) matters affecting national security 4) crimes against the federal government.

Change #4 to read "Violations of federal law" as "crimes against the federal government" is not really accurate.

Also in your statement, not to split hairs, but crimes are not regulated, they are prosecuted/investigated, and the laws are enforced. "Regulate" applies more to the trade/commerce/civil law arena, as it is derived from REGULAtion.

If Joe Dirtbag drug dealer does a driveby on some competing gang-bangers, and kills three of them, the feds are happy to hear the good news. However, this is definitely (potentially based on the facts) a violation of federal law but not really "against the federal government"

As far as the feds "dont prosecute for merely murdering someone else", again if a violation of federal law occurs, they get prosecuted. It does not have to be the killing of a postal worker, etc.

If white supremacists (sp? its late) kill some minorities who were illegal aliens, they could be federally prosecuted under various Hate Crimes statutes, some of which outline "XXXX deprivation of rights, if injury or death result"

While not saying "murder", the statue accomplishes or allows for prosecution of the same thing under the law.

Note in the above situation the dead victims were not federal employees and this was a VIOLATION OF FEDERAL LAW but not really a "crime against federal government"

 

[FN FAL]

Change #4 to read "Violations of federal law" as "crimes against the federal government" is not really accurate.

If Joe Dirtbag drug dealer does a driveby on some competing gang-bangers, and kills three of them, the feds are happy to hear the good news. However, this is definitely (potentially based on the facts) a violation of federal law but not really "against the federal government"

Drive by shootings were a federal law during the ten year period of the 1994 Violent Crime and Law Enforcement Act (remember the Clinton assault weapon ban that sunset last year?). That's why that ACT had to be let go...and the drive by portion went with it. There's nothing in a drive by shooting that affects interstate commerce.

Find me the law on drive by shootings being a Federal offense.

As for intent to deliver cocaine? That's greatly affecting interstate commerce. The controlled substances act federally regulative, based on interstate commerce.

Gun possession crimes? Certainly the federal government can regulate gun possession and transfers of possession as they affect interstate commerce.

Guns are made in Illinois or CT and sold all over the US. It's interstate commerce. The federal government doesn't care if I sell my gun to an in-state resident, because it's not interstate commerce.

However, remember the Brady Bill? It got amended big time when Lopez took his gun to school in California and got arrested by local cops...rightfully so. The feds came in and took Lopez and charged him under the relevant Brady Bill law that said no gun possession within 1000 feet of a school (united states v. Lopez).

Lopez went to a no jury trial in front of a federal judge and was found guilty, he appealed and the Supreme Court heard his argument that gun possession on school grounds does not affect interstate commerce, agreed and therefore the federal government had no authority to regulate his possession. The also did away with that portion of the Brady Bill.

So, I'm sticking with that list of things that the federal government is authorized to regulate...

import/export

interstate commerce

crimes against the federal government (murder of a postal/FBI/DEA/dot/etc theft and destruction of government property and so on, interfering with government employees etc)

matters of national security.

yea, civil rights is a constitution thing and the constitution is federal law as well...so I'll add a fifth thingie if you need it.

By the way, here's the case on the guy that shot the Negro male joggers...note the date 1981. The murders occurred in 1980.

Since then, federal hate crime laws have been passed...based on the denying someone's civil rights as guaranteed in the constitution.

If you murder a gay because he cut you off in traffic, it's just state murder charges...even though you hate it when someone cuts you off.

Published: January 6, 1981
A Federal District judge today denied a defense motion asking that Joseph Paul Franklin be tried on state murder charges before he is tried on Federal civil rights charges in the deaths of two young black men.

Stephen R. McCaughey, a defense attorney, filed the motion Dec. 16 in the District Court, but it was kept secret until today when Mr. Franklin appeared before Judge Bruce S. Jenkins. Mr. Franklin, 30 years old, of Mobile, Ala., has been charged with violating the civil rights of Ted Fields, 20, and David Martin, 18, by killing them as they jogged in a public park. The two men were gunned down by a sniper Aug. 20 near Salt Lake City's Liberty Park.

Mr. Franklin, who also faces state charges of first-degree murder in the deaths, has pleaded not guilty to the Federal counts.

 

[satpak77]

Drive by shootings were a federal law during the ten year period of the 1994 Violent Crime and Law Enforcement Act (remember the Clinton assault weapon ban that sunset last year?). That's why that ACT had to be let go...and the drive by portion went with it. There's nothing in a drive by shooting that affects interstate commerce.

Find me the law on drive by shootings being a Federal offense.

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00000036----000-.html

also, press release below

http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/can/press/html/2005_12_14_BigBlockfinal2pleas.htm

the subjects in the above press release were prosecuted federally for drive-by shooting

yes, the law exists

by the way, did I murder the gay because he was gay or because he cut me off in traffic?

(entire Flightinfo audience vomits and prays this legal discussion is over soon)

 

[aussiefly]

What I think is laughable is some LEO critcizing FFDO's firearms training competency. Now as someone who spent a significant amount of time in the ADF in a role which required regular liason with state SERT teams I can tell you that the standard beat cops firearms training is completely woefull.

Now there may be the exception of certain departments/individuals which spend alot of time on the range in realistic training scenarios but the reality is that most cops would be hard pressed to hit a target accurately in low light combat conditions. And drilling holes in paper targets does not really count as real training.

Therefore by definition they are no safer than what FFDO's are. In fact you may very well find that they may be of an equivalent level in alot of jurisdictions (again not all but most).

I think this all starts to sound a little like LEO's verse FFDO's verse the feds. Everyone needs to start supporting each other. Soudns like a typical law enforcement pissing match.