DC Detective Pulls Gun Against Snowballs!

[Old Fashioned]

During the snow storm that hit DC on the 19th, people were having a snowball fight at one of the intersections. Reporters that heard of the snowball fight and went there to cover it said it was good natured fun and that the snowballers actually stopped at one point to push a police car that got stuck at the intersection. A short while after freeing the police car a large Hummer arrived at the intersection and some started throwing snowballs at it. The driver got out and approached the crowd then pulled a gun from the holster and displayed it. The driver turned out to be a DC Detective who did not identify himself as a detective until after a uniformed officer arrived responding to calls about a man with a gun. Witnesses including some reporters say the detective appeared to be out of control. Police officials claimed that the detective did not actually draw his gun. Photos taken at the time clearly show that the detective did draw his gun and did wave it around. My thoughts. This is an example of the police that DC claims will protect residents? This is the basis for officials wanting to (and having for so long) deny citizens the ability to defend themselves? This is an example of police integrity when they claim he did not draw his weapon when in fact photos and video clearly show he did and he admits to it? Police say an investigation is continuing. In light of the photos and videos, that can only be judged to be the start of white washing it. Here in SC, if a CWP holder had done what this detective did, that would have been the end of the permit. By the standards of SC, that detective is not mature enough or trustworthy enough to be allowed to carry a concealed weapon. Here are links to the stories and photos.

http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/citydesk/2009/12/19/did-d-c-cops-overreact-to-snowball-fight-14th-and-u/

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,580693,00.html?test=latestnews

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,580693,00.html?test=latestnews

[Rich-D]

This is an example of police integrity when they claim he did not draw his weapon when in fact photos and video clearly show he did and he admits to it? Police say an investigation is continuing. In light of the photos and videos, that can only be judged to be the start of white washing it



Is there a law, rule or regulation prohibiting an officer from unholstering his sidearm when approaching a large crowd?

Another important point is, was the weapon pointed at anyone?

I agree that if the Detective violated a law, rule or regulation that he should be brought up on charges. However, if he did not, he cannot be convicted based on public opinion.

[Old Fashioned]

I believe there may be two things at play here. First is the matter of judgement. Was his reaction appropriate for the situation? It is one thing to be dealing with a crowd that is out of control or violent. It is quite another thing to draw a weapon on a crowd of people that are not violent and are simply having fun throwing snowballs. Second is the fact that this detective was not in any kind of uniform, was not driving a marked car, and DID NOT IDENTIFY himself as a law officer until after a uniformed officer arrived with a drawn gun in response to calls about a man with a gun. Failure to identify himself as a law enforcement officer when he drew his gun could have resulted in injuries or even death if someone had tried to disarm him. Reporters that were on the scene prior to the detectives arrival reported that the crowd had a jovial fun atmosphere about it and also reported that the detective appeared to be simply out of control. I believe this is a case of a detective that used very poor judgement, failed to maintain control of his emotions, and created a very dangerous situation by over reacting (unjustified drawing of a weapon) and then failing to identify himself. He may not have violated a law but is certainly guilty of excercising very poor judgement and may well have violated department procedures. The over riding question is simply this: Is this the type of conduct that people expect from their police and is this the type of person that citizens want on their police force? Remember, the police work for and are paid by the citizens of a community, county, or state. While I do not believe that police should be subjected to petty complaints or interference, at the same time citizens have a right to expect a certain level of conduct and professionalism from their police force.

[Rich-D]

If I were the Officer's Union Rep, I would be pointing out the following:

It is unlawful to launch any projectile at vehicle traffic.

Launching any projectile at a non participant while having fun, is an assault.

Plowed snow is compacted, icy and has the ability to break windows and scratch paint.

The officer was targeted and hit with snowballs as he exited his vehicle.

In so far as not identifying himself, we have not heard the officer's side.

The officer never pointed his weapon at the crowd or anyone in the crowd.

What law, rule or regulation has the officer violated, in response to a breach of law by an unruly crowd who turned a snowball fight into an assault on moving vehicles and individuals.

The news reporters opinion that is was a "jovial fun atmosphere" is merely an unqualified opinion that is disputed by the fact that unwilling participants and moving vehicles were targeted by a large crowd.

eg: In the summertime it is a jovial fun activity to throw buckets of water on each other. Throwing a bucket of water on a stranger or moving traffic is unlawful.

When my youngest daughter was 2 years old. snow balls launched at my vehicle broke my rear door window glass. My daughter could have sustained a loss of sight had the glass which hit her face, hit her in the eyes. So what is jovial fun for some is a danger to others.

[Old Fashioned]

Your points regarding launching a projectile at a vehicle or at a non participant while having fun are valid points. After the arrival of the uniformed officer, apparently 3 or 4 individuals were picked obviously at random from the crowd and given warnings. No arrests were made. Your point about compacted, icy snow is a valid point however there is no mention of anyone being accused of that or any mention of any damage being caused. The officer's weapon is obviously pointed toward the ground at one point as shown by some views while other or later views show that the weapon is obviously pointed toward the direction the detective is moving which is towards the crowd. A uniformed officer arrived on the scene responding to calls about a man with a gun. The uniformed officer had his weapon drawn but holstered it after the detective identified himself. The uniformed officer surely felt that there was no threat to justify a drawn weapon. Prior to all of this, a marked patrol car became stuck in the snow in the intersection. The crowd voluntarily stopped the snowball fight and pushed the patrol car free then resumed the snowballing. To call the crowd out of control would seem to fly in the face of reality. Finally, the detective is heard on one video admitting to drawing his weapon but makes no claim to having identified himself. In fact, the videos show him waving an object in his right hand (obviously not any form of badge or identification) and then having the drawn weapon. I am simply making the point (in my opinion based on the news accounts and photos and videos) that this officer used very poor judgement and over reacted and created in the proccess a much more dangerous situation. While I generally feel that the benefit of the doubt go to police, There are many cases of police over reacting and using far more force than is justified. At any rate, the officer has been assigned to desk duty pending the results of an investigation. Until the results of the investigation become available we will just have to agree to dissagree.

[Rich-D]

I will agree to disagree, However you have brought up more points that I will address.

There are no reports that the responding unformed officer's vehicle was hit by snowballs. Nor as far as I can see was the unformed officer himself the target of snowballs. So the actions of the uniformed officer have no baring on the matter.

Members of a large crowd estimated at 200 people by ABC News assisted a police unit that was stuck. However, who among the crowd assisted the officers is unknown, and there is no report that these officers were the object of an attack by snowballs.

In so far as making no claim to identifying himself, we only have a short clip of the incident to analyse. However, the Detective freely admits drawing his gun and he also gave his name and rank on tape.

Your statement "Until the results of the investigation become available we will just have to agree to disagree." is on point! However, your previous statement "In light of the photos and videos, that can only be judged to be the start of white washing it." creates bias against Law Enforcement and is the reason I posted.

If the officer is guilty of an offense, I agree that it should be addressed! However, if he is not found to have committed an offense against the law or regulations of his department, you appear to believe that it would be a whitewash. When in fact the hue and cry of the press will place immense pressure on the administration to take action against the officer.

The organizers of the event who utilized the internet to announce the time and location, should have chosen a public park and not a main street.

[Old Fashioned]

The reason that I commented that this could be the start of a white wash was due to the fact that in the first statement from the DC police it was stated that there was no evidence that the detective drew his weapon when in fact there were photos and videos all over the place showing that he did. If the statement had simply said that an investigation was being conducted I would not have made that comment. The actions of the uniformed officer are relevant from the standpoint that he was responding to a call about a man with a gun. What is relevant are his actions at the scene. He arrived initially with drawn weapon which is reasonable and prudent considering the type of call he was responding to. After determining that the man with the gun was in fact an off duty detective, he immediately holstered his weapon. This is relevant because it demonstrates that in his opinion there was no threat present that justified a drawn weapon. As for the detective breaking any laws, I don't think that I implied that. My whole problem with this incident is the lack of judgement of this detective. I really don't think any reasonable person would claim that having someone throw a snowball at you or your vehicle or even being hit by a snowball is justification for drawing a weapon. Should the detective be fired? I would leave that up to the police officials. I do believe that he should at least be given a talking to by his superiors regarding judgement and appropriate levels of response. Remember, if a private citizen had taken the same action almost any where in the country, that citizen would undoubtedly be in deep do do. So, maybe the question becomes, just how far does being a police officer place one above the laws and accepted standards of conduct that are applied to all other citizens? I agree with you about where the organizers had the event. A park location would have been much more appropriate.

[Rich-D]

The reason that I commented that this could be the start of a white wash was due to the fact that in the first statement from the DC police it was stated that there was no evidence that the detective drew his weapon when in fact there were photos and videos all over the place showing that he did

Is there a Video or Copy of an official Department statement? If so I would like to review it. Thus far, I have only found a news report on that point!

The actions of the uniformed officer are relevant from the standpoint that he was responding to a call about a man with a gun. What is relevant are his actions at the scene. He arrived initially with drawn weapon which is reasonable and prudent considering the type of call he was responding to. After determining that the man with the gun was in fact an off duty detective, he immediately holstered his weapon. This is relevant because it demonstrates that in his opinion there was no threat present that justified a drawn weapon. As for the detective breaking any laws, I don't think that I implied that. My whole problem with this incident is the lack of judgement of this detective

As I stated previously, the responding Officer was not attacked with snowballs, Nor was he there when the incident occurred. So his actions would have no bearing on the Detectives actions. The responding Officers actions would not be admissible in a court of law or a departmental hearing to discredit the detective. The officer can only testify to his observations and findings.

At this point, unless you have a response to the question in my first sentence, it would be best to let the authorities sort out the facts and we can pick up the conversation based on their official findings. As I do not know the rules and regulations of the Department, I can not predict the outcome with any certainty. However, in the jurisdiction I served in, the administration would be hard pressed to find a violation that would be sustained on review by an Administrative Law Judge.

[Old Fashioned]

At this point I have to agree with you. We will just have to wait for the official findings of the investigation. I think this discussion proved something else entirely. Shortly after this site was started someone made a comment that it was not possible to have a debate on this forum because everyone agreed. I think we have just proved that you can have a disagreement on this site and remain civil. Something useful did come from this. :D :D

[Rich-D]

I'll raise you one smile! :D :D :D

[Aguila Blanca]

The officer acted like an idiot. Instead of simply driving on through the intersection, he left his vehicle, pulled a gun, and used it in an obvious attempt to intimidate people. Even if he didn't point it at any specific person, this is a classic example of unlawful "brandishing."

Further, the detective initially told his superiors that he did not draw his weapon. That was, as evidenced in the videos, a lie. It is unlawful and contrary to any department's regulations for an officer to knowingly make a false statement.

In other words, the detective is one of the holier-than-thou cops who think their badge is a free pass to act like a bully with no repercussions. Detective Bayley (or Baily) should not have a badge or a gun. (And, at the moment, I believe he does not.)

[John]

Detective Bayley (or Baily) should not have a badge or a gun. (And, at the moment, I believe he does not.)

Thank God!!!!

[Rich-D]

"The Metropolitan Police Department is looking into the circumstances involving the report of officers 'pulling their guns' on a crowd that had been throwing snowballs in the area of 14th and U Streets, NW.

On Saturday, December 19, 2009, an off-duty MPD member was reportedly operating his personal vehicle in the 1400 block of U Street, NW, when the vehicle was suddenly pelted with a barrage of snowballs. The member who was in plainclothes, stopped his vehicle to inspect for any damage that may have occurred. He then reportedly identified himself and went to investigate a crowd that had gathered as being the possible origins of the projectiles. Due to the number of individuals in the crowd and developing traffic conditions, the member called for assistance.

Arriving officers from the Third District responded to the scene for the report of a possible man with a gun incident unfolding at that location. Responding officers cautiously approached the scene as is protocol with a potentially dangerous assignment such as an armed individual, but at this time there is no evidence that they pointed any weapons in the direction of the crowd or at any individuals. Those officers were quickly able to ascertain that the individual in question was indeed a fellow sworn member and were able to deescalate the situation quickly without incident or injury.

The original videotape footage shown yesterday by a local media outlet did not appear to visibly show the off-duty member drawing his weapon during the course of his actions. However, the department has subsequently received additional images and statements that would seem to support the allegation that the off-duty member did pull a gun. The Metropolitan Police Department is intent on conducting a full investigation in determining all of the exact circumstances surrounding this incident.

The Metropolitan Police Department has truly appreciated the cooperation from the community as we all team together to tackle the many challenges encountered during these severe weather conditions."

[Rich-D]

Here is a link and interesting sub links on the story! http://voices.washingtonpost.com/crime-scene/theola-labbe-debose/dc-police-union-blasts-laniers.html?wprss=crime-scene

In so far as the Officer being branded a lier. According to the official Police Dept News Release which appears on their Website. There is no indication that the Officer filed a false report. The news release blames a viewing of an earlier tape as the source that the Officer did not pull a gun. In fact, the Chief of Police who publicly came out against the Officer does not state that the Officer provided any false statements.

As I stated previously:"If the officer is guilty of an offense, I agree that it should be addressed!" However, under the circumstances the department may be hard pressed to find a violation of any law, rule or regulation.

Would I, when serving as an active Officer behave in such a manner, the answer is No! If I were the Chief of Police and the final trier of facts, would I issue a condemning statement prior to a completed investigation and hearing being conducted. The answer is No! Would I as an experienced investigator or currently as a private citizen, make a rush to judgement, prior to weighting all the facts. The answer is No!

Note: Assigning an officer to Desk Duty is a common practice during the course of an investigation. However, it does not imply a suspension from office, which would be required for the removal of the Officer's badge and issued firearm.

[d90king]

Interesting topic! Rich D has a bit more knowledge than I in this type of case so I will defer to his thoughts on the legal side for LEO.

IMHO it wasn't the smartest thing I have seen...

[Old Fashioned]

This will be my last comment on this situation and I want to make it clear that what I am about to say is my opinion. Much has been said about this detective and if he broke any laws or department regulations. I believe that is completely missing the point. This is and continues to be about judgement. Because of the power that a LEO wields, we do, and must always, hold the LEO to a higher standard of conduct, competency, and judgement. Many situations are neither black or white. That is where the LEO must excercise good judgement that is appropriate to the situation. Unlike some on the forum, I have never served as a LEO. However, I did serve as an officer in the Army in both peacetime and in combat. During part of that time I served as a Airborne Infantry Unit Commander. In that capacity I held the power of both judge and jury. I could arrest, fine, reduce in rank, and submit persons for formal courts martial. I also had the power to have persons put in pre-trial confinement. The standards of my unit were higher than any of the sister units yet the moral was also higher than any other unit with soldiers trying to get transfers into my unit rather than trying to get out. With that kind of power and authority it is critical that one excercise self control and good judgement at all times. I mention this only to show that I know the difference between good and bad judgement. No matter how you cut it, that detective excercised very poor judgement. That is what this incident is about and continues to be about. This time it ended with some ruffled feathers. What about next time?

[Rich-D]

Old Fashioned, As I stated earlier, I would not have behaved in the same manner as the Officer. However, as a Police Supervisor and the President of a Police Union I am aware of what is on point, and what is not, in the disciplining of a Police Officer.

Laws, Rules and Department Regulations are the standards that the Officer will be judged by. You state "Because of the power that a LEO wields, we do, and must always, hold the LEO to a higher standard of conduct, competency, and judgement" However, it is not how the Officer will be judged. Nor on "What about next time?" The standards that you are applying are not applicable in other then a care custody and control situation, such as in the military or parental control. An LEO can not be judged on the possibility of a future event.

While the Administration of the Department can basically do as it pleases in a Departmental Hearing. Such as dismissing the Officer for "Conduct Unbecoming a Police Officer" an Administrative Law judge will have the final say, based on Laws, Rules and Regulations which the Officer may or may not have violated. Not on public opinion, nor a concept that higher standards, competency and judgement apply!

The end result will depend entirely on the Laws, Rules and Regulations, applicable to the jurisdiction and the department in which the Officer serves!

[Aguila Blanca]

Note: Assigning an officer to Desk Duty is a common practice during the course of an investigation. However, it does not imply a suspension from office, which would be required for the removal of the Officer's badge and issued firearm.
I do not remember where I saw it at this time, so I can't vouch for the accuracy, but it was reported about two days after the incident that the detective's badge and gun had been taken away from him.

[R.D.Wylie]

A place where I lived the I.A. section of the P.D. was controlled by a state controlled
law entity not by a kankaroo court.We also don't know all the facts or
politics in the matter they may have been trying to black ball him for other
reasons some times nasty things show up at the strangest times!!

[Worthme]

I have come to know that in most big cities the police can away with anything. Check out this story from Milwaukee and understand that these officers were found not guilty in State Court.
Three of them are now in federal Prison of a total of about 12 Officers who were there.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Jude,_Jr.

[Worthme]

Sorry about that link but follow the links to get to the story, it is good reading and an amazing one.

[John]

Check out this moron cop who stopped a biker in Pennsylvania. No badge, no nothing. And he is still with the State Police!!!

http://www.nycphotorights.com/

[Rich-D]

Check out this moron cop who stopped a biker in Pennsylvania. No badge, no nothing. And he is still with the State Police!!!

While it would have been proper and prudent for the officer to produce ID. There is no law that an officer in plain clothes must produce ID in the course of an arrest. While there is a law in PA that prohibits voice recording a person who is not aware that they are being recorded. Pennsylvanian's highly value this law which protects their personal rights.

Although the person was warned and not charged, they transmitted the unlawful voice recording via the Internet. They then refused to remove it based on censorship. It is almost assured that the person will be charged as a privacy law trumps censorship considerations.

The person should have conferred with an attorney. Had they posted the video to make their point and not the voice recording they would not be subject to prosecution.

Ref: PA Title 18, Part II, Article F, Chapter 57, Subchapter B

[Aguila Blanca]

Rich-D, I'm not so certain there will be a conviction if the state pursues the "privacy" charge. First point, Federal wiretap law allows interception of voice communication if ONE of the two participating parties consents. Out of the fifty states, 38 also allow "wiretaps" (recording of voice communication) with the consent of only one of the participating parties. This only makes sense. If you need the consent of both parties, technically a victim of a stalker can't legally record calls from the stalker on his/her answering machine without a court order.

So PA seems to be one of the 12 states that are out of step with the rest of the Union. But ... those laws were written before the invention of compact, portable voice and video recorders. Those laws were written with the intention of addressing the interception of telephonic communication, when there is an expectation of privacy. Accosting a stranger on the side of a public road is in public view and it's going to be very difficult for the officer (or his agency, or the state) to argue that he had a "right" to expect "privacy" in conducting a traffic stop in broad daylight on a busy road. It's a two-edged sword. Should they prevail, the effect may be to invalidate the use of dash cams by police anywhere in PA, and I don't think that would be in the best interests of either the police or the citizens.

Why would it invalidate dash cams? Because a police stop is a warrantless action. If recording ("intercepting") a verbal interaction between two individuals requires the assent of both individuals in the absence of a warrant ... I doubt there is anything in that law that exempts police officers from it. If there were, they wouldn't need warrants for wiretaps.

http://www.citmedialaw.org/legal-guide/pennsylvania/pennsylvania-recording-law
Pennsylvania's wiretapping law is a "two-party consent" law. Pennsylvania makes it a crime to intercept or record a telephone call or conversation unless all parties to the conversation consent. See 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5703 (link is to the entire code, choose Title 18, Part II, Article F, Chapter 57, Subchapter B, and then the specific provision).

The law does not cover oral communications when the speakers do not have an "expectation that such communication is not subject to interception under circumstances justifying such expectation." See 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5702 (link is to the entire code, choose Title 18, Part II, Article F, Chapter 57, Subchapter A, and then the specific provision). Therefore, you may be able to record in-person conversations occurring in a public place without consent. However, you should always get the consent of all parties before recording any conversation that common sense tells you is private.

[Rich-D]

PA Statue is quite clear on Intentional Intercepts of wire or oral conversation as well as Intentional Disclosures of intercepted voice recording. see: Statute (http://cybercrimelaw.info/pdf/18_PaCS_5703_etsec.pdf)
In the instant matter the person not only recorded illegally, Which under the circumstances did not bring forth charges. However, they illegally disclosed the recording on the Internet, in violation of the Disclosure section of the statute.

The fact that the law was written when recording devices were larger, has no bearing on the fact, as the law is still on the books. And there appears to be no intent of removing or altering the law, as pocket size voice recorders have been available for 40 or so years.

Just like PA's Constitution provides stronger wording on the Right to Bear Arms then the US Constitution and those of most of the various States. It may be that the various States are out of step with the rights granted to PA citizens.

In so far as Police vehicle camcorders, I have never observed one in Philadelphia. However PA law provides that Law Enforcement may utilize a camcorder with sound when the emergency lights are flashing on the police vehicle..