John and Martha just got handcuffed!

[Great Ozzie 101]

Well, unfortunately I disagree with the 'point of view' and wouldn't take too kindly to having guns pointed at myself and/or my family. To be honest, I would not be nearly as gracious as the Kings are being at this time.

That is completely understandable... exactly why Officers get the question, "Why are you treating me like a criminal!?". The response is, "I am not treating you like a criminal, I am treating you in such a way to minimize the opportunity of injury to either one of us (especially me!). John & Martha must divorce the incident | from who they know themselves to be, because how SBPD treated them has absolutely nothing to do with who they "are".Btw, I never knew another Officer who said (or had the attitude)... "I hope I get shot tonight"... "I hope I do something that gets me involved in a lawsuit tonight"... "I hope I get my picture in the paper/tv showing how stupid a thing I did tonight".

While it was treated as a felony stop, in fact it was a completely blown process from the get-go. Not one person confirmed the information before acting on it. It's like executing a no-knock warrant on the wrong street address because you didn't take the time to confirm the house had the correct number on it.

That is what I find interesting about the story... How exactly was N50545 flagged in the FAA system as stolen?Is there an automated process when N-numbers are entered into "the system" (for clearances)... are they then automatically (cross)checked with The NCIC Database, then are "flagged" if a "hit" comes back as stolen? I don't understand the, "Not one person confirmed the information before acting on it." You get a NCIC hit on a vehicle registry as "stolen" what more do you want checked? So it says Cessna 150... "what the heck is a Cessna 150?" And even me knowing aircraft... "was the C150 information incorrectly entered?" An officer is going to want to speak with the occupants and check the aircraft registration. Again, the Officer has no idea who he will be confronting... they have a report of it being stolen and have to act accordingly.

Wearing a badge doesn't relieve one of the obligation of being morally and ethically right... even if you're 'legally' right. A prime issue we currently have in this country, unfortunately, in many aspects of our 'legal' society.

Of course not. Many officers want to "stand before God" or "before the mirror" with a clear conscience. They realize how serious it is to intervene in another person's life... that the quick judgments they make can have lasting consequences. One prays not to be involved in a law suit. Or in a situation where a mistake causes "everything to go south" and someone is needlessly hurt or killed. Obviously we know not all officers are like this... but most that I knew were good and decent and tried to do "the right thing".And I think it is wrong / morally unacceptable to call those SBPD Officers "fools" when it appears they were acting in good faith for the incident tasked to them.

[n4gix 4,947]

I personally find the term "Epic Fail" to be overused in recent times, however I agree with you, this falls under that category.

Peter, in this context it is very a'propos, given that the erroneous information was provided to the SDPD by:El Paso Intelligence Center (EPIC)......which is of course a quite deliberate double-entendre!

[n4gix 4,947]

That is what I find interesting about the story... How exactly was N50545 flagged in the FAA system as stolen?

It wasn't flagged in the FAA system as stolen. In fact, after the first incident, the FAA took steps to have the information removed from the NCIC Database!

http://www.aopa.org/aircraft/articles/2010/100831kings.html?WT.mc_id=ebrief+An FAA spokeswoman said the number was removed from the list of stolen aircraft, preventing it from being reported again as a stolen plane to the El Paso Intelligence Center (EPIC). That list is the National Crime Information Center (NCIC) database maintained by the FBI. Data contained by the NCIC is provided by the FBI, federal, state, local, and foreign criminal justice agencies, and authorized courts. It is not open to the public.

And I think it is wrong / morally unacceptable to call those SBPD Officers "fools" when it appears they were acting in good faith for the incident tasked to them.

They were "fools" only in the sense that they were (re)acting well out of their area of competence.Demonstrating once more the depth of class the King's possess, they've offered to help develop a training program for all LEO's faced with such a scenario on the future:

http://www.aopa.org/aircraft/articles/2010/100831kings.html?WT.mc_id=ebrief+In other developments, Santa Barbara Police Chief Camerino Sanchez has called John and Martha King and apologized "clearly and profusely" for his department detaining the couple at gunpoint Saturday, Aug. 28, Martha King said Aug. 31. "He said that the police don’t have any training for aircraft stops, and used the only procedure they knew--a “hot stop” on a stolen vehicle," King said. Her husband John, co-owner of King Schools, suggested police departments should have national training and a standard operating procedure so they can do aircraft intercepts properly. He will provide the chief ideas on the kind of training police should receive.

[Guest simmer9304]

All these years I thought it was John and Martha. I feel like some stranger is living in my computer now.

[Great Ozzie 101]

It wasn't flagged in the FAA system as stolen. In fact, after the first incident, the FAA took steps to have the information removed from the NCIC Database!

Yes I see now... EPIC "sees" an aircraft airborne that is apparently stolen and notifies the originating office: McKinney PD. McKinney PD asks Santa Barbara PD to make the stop. Does EPIC stop there??? No...."McKinney police received a second call from the intelligence center, saying they had spoken to Cessna Aircraft Co. officials who said that the N number had been reissued. McKinney police suggested that the intelligence center call directly to Santa Barbara police who were then on the scene. The El Paso Intelligence Center official did that, but the Kings had already been detained." [Emphasis Added]So great... the FAA gets the info scrubbed from NCIC. Obvious by this (and previous incidents) it isn't the wisest move to re-issue an N-number that has been previously linked to a stolen aircraft.

They were "fools" only in the sense that they were (re)acting well out of their area of competence.

:( And where is the least bit of evidence to indicate that???

Demonstrating once more the depth of class the King's possess, they've offered to help develop a training program for all LEO's faced with such a scenario on the future:

More power to them. I hope it becomes more than a cathartic exercise for them. They are going to face an uphill battle in trying to convince any LEO there is "kinder and gentler" way to make such a felony stop. Officer Safety is paramount... not the feelings of someone being stopped.You don't think non-uniformed officers have ever been stopped? But they don't whine or complain about it (or they better not) as they know the stopping Officer has to (reasonably) establish his safety first.If you were in Law Enforcement, or understood the job they did, you would not make comments like, "they were (re)acting well out of their area of competence".

[WarpD 824]

And where is the least bit of evidence to indicate that???

The SBPD chief admitting his officers were not trained to handle a stolen aircraft.

More power to them. I hope it becomes more than a cathartic exercise for them. They are going to face an uphill battle in trying to convince any LEO there is "kinder and gentler" way to make such a felony stop. Officer Safety is paramount... not the feelings of someone being stopped.You don't think non-uniformed officers have ever been stopped? But they don't whine or complain about it (or they better not) as they know the stopping Officer has to (reasonably) establish his safety first.If you were in Law Enforcement, or understood the job they did, you would not make comments like, "they were (re)acting well out of their area of competence".

No one who is a LEO is conscripted or forced to become one. They step into the position knowing beforehand exactly how dangerous it is. It's not like a 'police recruiter' lied and promised a free RV and a condo ('Stripes' reference). While I respect those who choose to be a LEO for all the right reasons... I don't feel they deserve more protection than the average law abiding citizen. The law abiding citizen isn't wearing any body armor (most police are), the law abiding citizen can't call for backup (police can), the law abiding citizen is rarely armed (the police are), the law abiding citizen can be killed and only a small team of LEOs will deal with it (one LEO gets attacked at any level and you can find an entire force chasing the individual very quickly). I could go on and on... but the entire concept of police safety above citizen safety is so wrongfully upside down it's insulting to those who pay their salary. Like I said... I respect those who choose to serve, but don't tell me they deserve to put citizens at risk for their own protection. That's just so not the purpose of having law enforcement to begin with.

[RyanB 0]

Beautifully put Ed.

[Great Ozzie 101]

The SBPD chief admitting his officers were not trained to handle a stolen aircraft.

:( just :( :( B)

but the entire concept of police safety above citizen safety is so wrongfully upside down it's insulting to those who pay their salary.

How did anything I say or what SBPD do morph into that perversion?

but don't tell me they deserve to put citizens at risk for their own protection

I didn't Ed. You want to twist my words to go off on some rant to justify why you believe SBPD are fools, when they acted in a professional manner... well... whatever.No one was hurt... no property damaged... the issue was sorted at a relatively isolated area of the airport grounds... I'd imagine it was sorted very quickly... EVERYONE went home that night to their family... and that's the bottom line.So you tell me Ed... how should SBPD have acted?

[WarpD 824]

:( just :( :( B)

Ok, that's a rude response. LOL You asked, I pointed it out. No need to be rude.

How did anything I say or what SBPD do morph into that perversion?

A drawn and loaded gun pointed at an innocent person is an extreme risk to that person. Do they deserve to undergo such risk?

I didn't Ed. You want to twist my words to go off on some rant to justify why you believe SBPD are fools, when they acted in a professional manner... well... whatever.

Please re-read the thread. I don't believe I called them fools.

No one was hurt... no property damaged... the issue was sorted at a relatively isolated area of the airport grounds... I'd imagine it was sorted very quickly... EVERYONE went home that night to their family... and that's the bottom line.So you tell me Ed... how should SBPD have acted?

No one was hurt. Had they pulled no guns, the same outcome with a lower risk for the innocent individuals. I find it disturbing that you think pointing a loaded gun at someone doesn't put them at risk. I find it even more disturbing that you think it's perfectly acceptable to place a citizen at greater risk for one's own personal safety when only the LEO is the one who agreed and chose to be at greater risk. Not the citizen.I believe there's a case in Detroit right now where a young child was shot dead, during a no-knock warrant. The suspect wasn't even in the residence where the child was killed. The suspect was apprehended... but I doubt that makes the child's parents feel any better. Especially since they weren't actually involved other than living in a home that was a mulit-unit dwelling and knowing the suspect. They were innocent people, put in harms way and one of them died because of the process and the belief that the life of a LEO is of greater value and thus guns and agressive military tactics are endorsed. Innocent people die from this. It has happened in the past, it will continue to happen. I am saddened that this is apparently considered an acceptable risk.

[TPerson 15]

I 100% agree with Ed. Well said in all of your posts sir!Here is what I see wrong with the whole situation and would like to ask a question.Why did the SBPD have to approach this situation with guns drawn? They received a called that a plane had been stolen. Did they also receive info that the occupants were armed and dangerous? I think not. I guess it is out of the question to approach the plane and simply ask the occupants some questions and respond appropriately from there. Yea that's out of the question because as our ex-LEO states multiple times, officer safety comes first! I will make multiple quotes to prove my point and show where the problem lies.

better to risk injury someone's feelings and go home that night to your family, than treat it like we're in Mayberry and end up dead on the tarmac. Going into a situation like that… You Don’t Know What Will Happen. "Complacency Kills".

Pointing a loaded weapon at someone is using deadly force.No it is not... not from a Law Enforcement point of view.

You do not go into a potentially high-risk situation like a Felony Stop (as the Kings were involved in and had to endure) w/o your firearm drawn. Period.

That is completely understandable... exactly why Officers get the question, "Why are you treating me like a criminal!?". The response is, "I am not treating you like a criminal, I am treating you in such a way to minimize the opportunity of injury to either one of us (especially me!).

Officer Safety is paramount... not the feelings of someone being stopped.

but don't tell me they deserve to put citizens at risk for their own protectionI didn't Ed. You want to twist my words to go off on some rant to justify why you believe SBPD are fools, when they acted in a professional manner... well... whatever.No one was hurt... no property damaged... the issue was sorted at a relatively isolated area of the airport grounds... I'd imagine it was sorted very quickly... EVERYONE went home that night to their family... and that's the bottom line.So you tell me Ed... how should SBPD have acted?

I'm afraid sir you did indeed state that "officer safety is paramount". This is the real failure of police departments today and the justice system in general, treat everyone as criminals and assume they are guilty until proven innocent! All for the safety of the officer! The SBPD should have acted in a manner to protect the citizen and the officer. No longer does the saying "to protect and to serve" (the general public) applies. It is simply about protecting the officer.A different way of thinking is needed by LEO's as too many innocent citizens have been killed in the name of officer safety.LEO's have my respect for what they have to put up with but they don't have it for how they go about it.OK that's my 2 penny rant!Todd

[Great Ozzie 101]

They were "fools" only in the sense that they were (re)acting well out of their area of competence.

And where is the least bit of evidence to indicate that???

The SBPD chief admitting his officers were not trained to handle a stolen aircraft.

Please re-read the thread. I don't believe I called them fools.

That sir... is where I infer you calling them fools.Btw... using (what I consider) a bone-headed statement from the SBPD Chief... to me that is intellectually akin to using the excuse, "My dog ate my homework."So in my book you rated three :( for using it.You know... I had a several page MS doc reply ready to post to attempt to give you more perspective "from the other point of view". Then it occurred to me... you were one of those who defended the actions of the "Barefoot Bandit" :(

I find it amazing how people can justify being as harsh as possible with regards to punishment for others, even to the point of implying flat out falsehoods to further bolster their desire for harshness...

Wow!... Sounds amazingly like what you are doing using the Chief's statement (btw, what a dumb statement) and the apples-oranges comparison with May Detroit SWAT Incident. Could the SWAT-Related Death of a 7-Year-Old Have Been Avoided in Detroit?

The kid has not put anyone on the planet in any more danger than they are every single day and absolutely no one can provide proof otherwise. To imply he's more dangerous than your next-door neighbor... is making stuff up. Zero fact in evidence.

He posed no physical risk to anyone that anyone can legitimately prove at this point.

Back at you from the L.E. perspective... In closing: due to how much I have written already and a number of others "things"... statements which I believe would be accurate and truthful, nonetheless you might find offensive... I really have no further interest in discussing this subject. I think it wise to move on to something else.

[Great Ozzie 101]

Why did the SBPD have to approach this situation with guns drawn? They received a called that a plane had been stolen. Did they also receive info that the occupants were armed and dangerous? I think not.

Of course not... Do you need to be told when a thunderstorm is approaching to get out of an open field? If you are investigating (an) individual(s) who may have stolen a plane... the possibility of resisting arrest is very high (who wants to go to jail? How many have sworn they would die before going back?). I've pulled handguns and knives off of individuals during an arrest... with that in mind who knows... if & when the resisting begins... how far will it escalate? (The Lord knows what steps I have taken prior to going on-duty and how I will conduct myself during a contact with an individual [e.g. treating them with the same respect I would like to be treated with in their position] to absolutely minimize the possibility of any such resisting... besides the fact people rate in my book to treated with respect...)

I guess it is out of the question to approach the plane and simply ask the occupants some questions and respond appropriately from there.

Are you willing to bet your life that the occupants are unarmed?It depends on the situation and how the officer(s) assess the level of threat / risk For Everyone involved. Did you see me say, "Everyone involved"?So your department gets a call (who in turn got the call from the DEA) requesting to investigate a Stolen Vehicle...Are you willing to walk up to that plane (again with the knowledge that one or more of the occupants may have stolen it...And with the knowledge it's entirely possible they didn't steal it and the aircraft isn't stolen... but the occupants may have an outstanding (misdemeanor or felony) warrant? You have no idea the number of individuals I came across on a so-called "routine traffic stop" (btw… nothing is routine) that had one or more outstanding warrants...[EDIT: One more thing to add... let's say the plane is not stolen... no wants/warrants on the occupants everything kosher... except...This individual you are stopping is Anti-Authoritarian, Anti-Police and he (or she) doesn't like you stopping them! You are all ready to do the "thanks and have a nice day" and they decide to get "in your face" and provoke some stupid confrontation. Are you so naive to believe everyone is as nice as I'd imagine the Kings were to SBPD? As I said before... things can "go south" quicker than any vehicle you'll ever drive can go from 0 to 60. Who here will deny it's a bizarre world and bizarre things happen? Crazy stuff can happen... stuff you least expect... can and has to me. ]So if you are 100% certain it's just going to be "Mom & Pop" then fine you go ahead and treat every possible stolen vehicle stop is this manner.But then I would say, you are willing to get yourself, your fellow officers and the citizens you are investigating hurt or possibly killed.

Yea that's out of the question because as our ex-LEO states multiple times, officer safety comes first!

No... don't be so obtuse. Go back and read what I said (in the posts you copied!) about minimizing the opportunity for injury for all involved. If you had the slightest bit of L.E. Training, you would know what you do isn't just for your personal benefit.

I'm afraid sir you did indeed state that "officer safety is paramount".

Of course I did! So where's the "gotcha!" moment??? You think I signed up to get shot or injured? Because I was concerned about my own safety you then insinuate I had no regard for the lives of those I come in contact with, whether or not they have been adjudicated by the Criminal Justice System as guilty of some crime? Please... that is terribly insulting... as if I was some self-centered Evil Beast.

This is the real failure of police departments today and the justice system in general, treat everyone as criminals and assume they are guilty until proven innocent! All for the safety of the officer! The SBPD should have acted in a manner to protect the citizen and the officer. No longer does the saying "to protect and to serve" (the general public) applies. It is simply about protecting the officer.

Other than how a person is treated once charged with a crime... yes I agree there the CJS treats one like a convicted criminal once entering the system i.e. charged with a crime. But then... I see so much of the General Public doing the same thing... not only pre-trial, but also afterwards even if a judgment of "not-guilty" is determined by the court.

A different way of thinking is needed by LEO's as too many innocent citizens have been killed in the name of officer safety.

You simply do not know what you are talking about. If you had any training / experience as an LEO, you would never make such statements. The accusations you level with such a broad stroke are hurtful… and I would even say disgusting .Phew! As I said to Ed... enough of all this. Time to fly something fun and to lose myself in the enjoyment I find in FSX!

[TPerson 15]

Look I'm not here trying to stir up trouble. I am not Anti Police or anything like that so don't go there. We're having a conversation about how an apparent stolen plane situation was handled by the SBPD.I stated I respect LEO's in general but the tactics used by them are not always in favor of protecting the public. Police tactics are designed to do two things.1. Subdue criminals and suspected criminals. The LEO will sort out who is who after they have detained the individuals and they do so because of #2.2. Officer safety is paramount. The definition of Paramount is: "Superior to all others".(And BTW the gotcha was you stated to Ed Wilson the following:)

but don't tell me they deserve to put citizens at risk for their own protectionI didn't Ed. You want to twist my words to go off on some rant to justify why you believe SBPD are fools, when they acted in a professional manner... well... whatever.

So actually you did state and continue to state that "officer safety is paramount". OK so lets rehash this:

A different way of thinking is needed by LEO's as too many innocent citizens have been killed in the name of officer safety.You simply do not know what you are talking about. If you had any training / experience as an LEO, you would never make such statements. The accusations you level with such a broad stroke are hurtful… and I would even say disgusting.

Tell me sir why that factual statement is so disgusting to you? You are not aware of any situations that have claimed the lives of innocent people because officers had their weapons drawn and someone was shot needlessly? You are not aware of any situations where someone was shot because the officer thought the individual had a weapon? These types of situations happen because the LEO felt threatened and used his weapon. Let me elaborate using an actual incident that happened earlier this year.In a nearby city the PD responded to a domestic dispute. Arriving on the scene the officers spoke with the woman who had made the complaint. She stated that her husband had assaulted her and he was still in their home. The officers then asked the man to come outside which he did not comply. After a period of time the front door of the home opened and the man's dog bolted outside towards the officers. At that point an officer shot and killed the dog. Shortly thereafter the man in the home came outside and was yelling at the officers about what had happened to his dog. But when the man came outside for reasons unknown he had a fireplace lighter in his hand. The lighter was mistaken as a weapon and the man was then shot multiple times. The local PD release a very brief report a couple of months later simply stating that the officers had acted per their training and were allowed to return to work.So now I ask you since you stated that my statement was so disgusting:1. Why was the dog shot?2. Why was the man shot?3. Why was the man shot multiple times by multiple officers?The reason I state the training and the way of thinking needs to change is because LEO's use their weapons whenever they feel threatened. Whether it's an unarmed individual fighting with an officer, and individual trying to run down an officer with a automobile, or a dog attacking the officer, because the officer is now fearing for his life, use of their weapon becomes the next option. Subduing the individual by other means is just out of the question because officer safety is superior to all others.Sorry something isn't right with that picture. But I do not expect you to see it any other way because as a ex LEO that is how you were trained. And there lies the problem. A difference of opinion from two different sides.Todd

[B777ER 2,484]

Well, unfortunately I disagree with the 'point of view' and wouldn't take too kindly to having guns pointed at myself and/or my family. To be honest, I would not be nearly as gracious as the Kings are being at this time.While it was treated as a felony stop, in fact it was a completely blown process from the get-go. Not one person confirmed the information before acting on it. It's like executing a no-knock warrant on the wrong street address because you didn't take the time to confirm the house had the correct number on it.Wearing a badge doesn't relieve one of the obligation of being morally and ethically right... even if you're 'legally' right. A prime issue we currently have in this country, unfortunately, in many aspects of our 'legal' society.

Well, whether you disagree or not, a leo pointing a firearm at you is not deadly force. Your first post stating it was is wrong and sensationlist... much like the drivel the media puts out. You need to put the caveat that it is your opinion only, not factual.