Jim Bailey; phony retired cop
James “Jim” Bailey has been posing as a retired police officer for the last twenty years in Oak Harbor, Washington, according to KIROTV but it wasnt’ discovered until last week when OHPD got a call for an officer who needs assistance and that officer turned out to be the police academy dropout;
The officers arrived and found two men and one woman. As the officers began to interview those involved, they determined that the woman and one of the men had been in an argument when a third man, identified as Jim Bailey, intervened and told them he was a retired police officer.
Bailey then told them to call 911 and say a police officer needed assistance, according to the three people involved in the incident. The officers at the scene told them that Bailey was not a police officer.
The Inquisitr reports that he’s been giving training to folks under his police persona for more than 20 years;
According to Chief Green,
“He was listed as an officer doing certain training and things, so there became some concern that he was acting as an officer, maybe obtaining information that he shouldn’t be obtaining, maybe obtaining information that we need.” Green said.
From KOMONews;
Green said Bailey spent a few years as an Oak Harbor reserve officer in the late 1980s. The chief is convinced Bailey has been pretending to be a retired cop since he left the department in 1991.
“It appears through our investigation this has been going on for a good 20 or 25 years or so, ” he said.
Green said Bailey never graduated from the Police Academy in Burien and never become a police officer.
“He only lasted 2 to 3 weeks at the Police Academy, he did not succeed there, ” said Green.
Good thing that we don’t know anyone like that, huh?
Epic ‘stasche, though. Thanks to CB for the link.
Category: Crime
Any updates on our beloved blobfish?
He’s Kim Jong-Un’s newest BFF. They share a common love, and when they are not eating, they swap challenge coins while Chevy tells Kim what it’s like to bomb people back to the stone age in an EC-130H. Kim wants Chevy’s Wilmer PD Badge, but Chevy told him he will have to pry it out of his cold dead fingers. More cheese for Kim. I love a happy ending.
http://entertainment.ie/wtf/Kim-Jong-Un-may-be-dying-because-hes-addicted-to-Swiss-Cheese/291893.htm
Looks like initial reports were incomplete, and – if he actually represented himself as a serving LEO during that incident – he may have stepped over the line, legally.
I still have a problem with a law declaring false claims about being a RETIRED COP to be unlawful. At that point, IMO a retired LEO is no more “special” than anyone else. Unless I’m missing something, once they’ve retired they’re no longer LEOs.
But, once they’re a retired cop, they still qualify for CCW in all 50 states, irrespective of those states’ CCW laws.
Jonn, under the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act, (LEOSA) one has to be retired as a regular full time officer. Rserves would not qualify. The retirement also must be honorable and not caused by psychological reason. This clown would not qualify. He would not qualify for Washington State’s retiree exemption either.
My take is that there should be no such exception, in either Federal or state law. If retired LEOs had to live under the same restrictions vis-a-vis concealed carry as anyone else, more would speak out against the idiotic laws restricting law-abiding citizens from protecting themselves and their families which exist many places.
A retired LEO has no greater claim to the right of self-defense than anyone else. That right is universal. But under law today, they’re “special” – even after they’re no longer serving as LEOs.
Not to mention that if you kill an active duty cop you get enhanced sentencing…. Didn’t like that when it was passed and don’t like it now – I generally like cops but if someone kills, say, my kid and someone else kills a cop, the one who killed my kid gets X years and the cop-killer gets 3X. There is a whole class of “protected” people who apparently are worth far more than you or I.
Now that is an interesting piece of info.
Retired LEO = CCW exemptions
Retired Military = A good chance they will take your firearms away.
Now just saying, anyone else see a bit of a significant skew here.
I have that good old “something doesn’t seem right” feeling.
That would be an issue for the state legislature. If it is a violation of state law then they are the ones responsible. Officers only enforce laws, not make them.
Um, no. The First Amendment is binding on State and local governments as well as the Federal government (Everson v. Board of Education, 1947).
The SCOTUS has held that merely lying about one’s military background or awards is not unlawful. Since the First amendment applies equally to state and local governments, if merely lying about one’s military background (as opposed to for the purposes of fraud) is protected on 1st Amendment grounds I fail to see how merely lying about being a retired LEO can be made unlawful. Protected speech is protected speech.
If they can demonstrate that the guy claimed to be a serving cop, the guy stepped on his schlong and they IMO have a case. But if all he did was claim “I’m a retired cop”, I cannot see how that claim in and of itself can violate any Constitutionally-valid law given last year’s SCOTUS decision.
Until someone makes that or another equally well argued case to the Supreme Court, the law will stand.
The main difference is that impersonating a law enforcement officer, even a retired on in some places, exerts an authority over someone that impersonating a veteran does not. That’s the difference in free speech.
You are comparing the SCOTUS decision on stolen valor to state laws regarding impersonating a cop. Apples and oranges.
In states where retired LEOs have arrest authority, that may be true. In that case, the individual should be charged with impersonating a LEO – not with “falsely claiming to be a retired LEO”, as the original story about this individual stated.
In states where a retired LEO has no such authority and the public is not required to obey their directives, that point is not valid. Another individual here has indicated that Washington state falls in this latter category.
Assuming that is correct (e.g., that former LEOs in WA state do not have arrest authority), the SCOTUS decision on Stolen Valor is indeed an appropriate comparison.
Actually, EVERYBODY, whether police or not, when witnessing a felony, has the “authority” to effect a “citizen’s arrest”, and/or to use their firearm in defense of life and property.
As a matter of interest, when I attended the III Corps NCO Academy, during the practical exercises on the Military Method of Instruction, I chose as my topic to instruct my fellow students on “Citizen’s Arrest”.
I believe I may still hold the record for having the most demerits while miraculously still able to graduate!
That’s how it works. In that case the retired cop would have the same authority as an active officer outside of their jurisdiction. If they see a felony they can act, and make an arrest. Many states and / or jurisdictions require the LEO to identify themselves as an LEO to all parties involved. At that point they are acting under the color of law irrespective of their employment status. That is something a non-LEO does not have to contend with. Any actions taken by said LEO will be viewed under the color of law by any court.
That’s a long way to say that the rules are different for cops in that narrow view. Most of the time that means that they are subject to a higher level of scrutiny in court. Whether they are out of their jurisdiction or retired is irrelevant if they decide to act.
Non-LEOs in the same situation are not subject the same judicial scrutiny.
Depending on the State & Department, retired officers can still effect an arrest and hold some authority including carrying a handgun. This is starting to change as some departments are telling their officers they will not be continuing to ‘hold’ their credentials and have sent them off to .gov to get a carry license under HR 218(LEOSA).
We have no arrest authority in Washington State nor under LEOSA. It just allows for the carry of a weapon. The language is also kind of vague and in some states I would be concerned whether it would be honored.
We also have to qualify once a year with the individual weapon. The course is pretty basic and I believe is designed by the individual states training commissions. Our ranges from 3 yards to 15 yards. It is basic self defense.
The same is true in Georgia. The weapons qualification is usually done by the agency you retired from. There is a statewide standard that is pretty low, IMO. Some departments use that standard. A lot of reputable ones go well beyond that standard and have remarkable agency qualifications.
They do not have arrest powers, but carry a retired ID card and badge.
Hondo, there really are some special protections which apply to retired LEO’s which do not apply to the rest of us. The extent and type vary from state to state. The CCW thing is probably the most universal.
So long as those special protections don’t violate the Constitution, states are free to grant them. Even then, I view that as a very dangerous practice. With apologies to the late Mr. Orwell: barring an overwhelming, compelling, and demonstrable public good, some animals should never be held to be “more equal” than others.
However, when states start granting “special privileges” that infringe on the Constitutional rights of other individuals, I do indeed have a problem. Given last years SCOTUS decision concerning the original Stolen Valor Act of 2005, I fail to see how any state or local law making merely claiming to be a retired LEO unlawful can possibly pass court scrutiny.
A false claim of being a serving LEO? Different story. Serving LEOs have broad authority granted to them by the state – including the authority to detain and to use force. The state indeed has a compelling, overwhelming, and demonstrable interest in prohibiting any “Joe” on the street from falsely claiming to be a LEO or acting as one.
I don’t see any possible way that type of compelling need can extend to cover mere false claims of being a retired LEO.
Understand your remarks, Hondo, and do not disagree with them. But, will posit a “for instance” for you to ponder. What about home addresses? In those states which protect the home addresses of active officers, should that not also extend to retired officers for the same reasons? Presumably there was a compelling reason to begin with (the protection of officers and their families from retaliatory strikes from criminals) which would extend well beyond actual service. Folks who would go after an active officer are not suddenly OK with that officer the day after s/he retires. They might still be languishing in the pen.
Whether we like it or not, some folks just are more equal because they are bigger targets. Like special forces military folks. And cops.
Of course, those who would abuse their special privileges should be dealt with quickly and harshly. Those who falsely claim them should as well.
The other issue, and usually the one most often looked at, is that LEOs are held to a different standard in court. This applies to their actions on and off duty. In my state retired officers that take any action under the color of law, are held to that standard in court as well. It’s called the reasonable officer standard versus the reasonable person standard non-LEOs are held to.
Hondo, you may think that this is a free speech issue. It’s not. I assure you that being held to a higher standard in court where everything you’ve done is being second guessed is not a privilege. It is more like a cross to bear.
And while a retired cop may not have arrest powers per se, if they make a citizens arrest and identify themselves as a retired cop, then they are acting under color of law and will held to the different standard.
So to your Orwellian metaphor, it’s not entirely appropriate as some pigs are judged differently than others. It’s not about equality.
Well, there is that, of course. Standards for the use of force would be what we civilians might think of in that regard. Cops, and others in the justice system, would have much more specific rules while the rest of us are given more latitude in what might be considered life threatening, for instance, and proportional.
And as I have said previously, multiple times: I have no problems with serving LEOs certain additional considerations. I also have no problem with impersonating a LEO being unlawful. Both are defendable.
However, a LEO who has retired is just that – a retired LEO. Just like a retired soldier is just that – a retired soldier. On retirement, legal status and privileges change.
I do object to the “OK for me, but not for thee” principle unless compelling need can be demonstrated. And I see no compelling need for making lying about being a retired LEO a crime – or for giving someone who’s a retired LEO “carte blanche” for concealed carry nationwide when that same right is highly regulated if not denied outright in many places to everyone else.
A retired LEO has no greater right to defend themselves than does anyone else. Everyone has that right. But today, in many places by law not everyone has the same legal right to do so.
” Folks who would go after an active officer are not suddenly OK with that officer the day after s/he retires.”
Hell I was called for jury duty 6 months ago in a criminal case. The defendant was a two time loser, and if found guilty, was going to serve some serious time. During jury selection, in the presence of the defendant, do you think us citizen/jurors were afforded any anonymity? Zero, zip, nada. Dude was looking at the data sheet that was sitting in front of his attorney probably memorizing our names, addresses, occupations, etc. But, not being a LEO I guess that’s okay.
OWB: “apples and oranges”. I have no problem with states shielding the home addresses of former LEOs from open records laws. I’d also have no problem with a state refusing to confirm/deny the fact of an individual being a retired LEO without that individual’s permission. Unlike those rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights, an individual has no fundamental Constitutional right to know anything and everything he/she wants to know. States (and the Federal government) have full authority to create exceptions to public release of information without violating anyone’s Constitutional rights. Creating a release exception that forbids release of the home addresses (or even the names) of current and retired LEOs would seem to be a common-sense application of that inherent authority. Both Federal and state FOIA laws today typically have exceptions for similar reasons (LE connection, national security, privacy). Making an exception such as that doesn’t deprive anyone else of a Constitutional right. And it’s also defensible on common-sense grounds, too. I have somewhat of a problem with granting “special” privileges such as nationwide concealed carry to groups based solely on past employment. Yes, it’s probably within Congress’ authority to do that. But I think that doing so without compelling public interest is exceptionally bad public policy, and should be the solution of last resort. Regarding the retired LEO concealed carry special privilege, I see neither a compelling need or compelling public benefit; I also don’t see it as the solution of last resort (changing state laws to permit concealed carry by all vice a special group would work just as well). I think that was more an exercise in “let’s give current and retired LEOs a no-cost perk to keep them quiet”. I have a real problem when one “special” group gets an additional right or benefit which in turn limits another’s fundamental Constitutional rights. If – and that’s admittedly a big if – the original reports here were correct, IMO that’s precisely what happened here. If that initial report was true, a man was arrested not for impersonating a serving LEO, but merely for falsely claiming to… Read more »
As a retired LEO, I occasionally run into a person in public that I have arrested and even some that I have sent to prison. I see one guy occasionally at our local VA Community based clinic that I got sent to prison for being a pervert. The guy is a creeper that sent me threatening letters from prison for a couple years. He also happens to now be a disable vet from Vietnam. Now I am pretty sure that he is no longer a threat but I still get the hair on the back of my neck raised when I see him. I have another guy that is delusional and posts wild shit on FB about me covering up serial murders and now he even claims that I am the serial killer. I guarantee that I carry. I comply with the Federal LEO Safety Act. I would carry even if there was no such law. My weapon is always concealed and is for personal protection only. Not going to stop some dirtbag from shoplifting or any other minor crime. I cannot guarantee that I would not use it to stop a serious incident, it would have to be a judgement call. I try to always practice situational awareness.
Kinda interesting to see this revisited.
I see a lot of myself in Jim Bailey.
http://thetruthaboutsocnetlies.wordpress.com/2012/03/05/john-giduck-did-not-provide-a-bio-claiming-to-be-an-army-ranger/
sincerely
John “Faker 6” Giduck
This dude should interview with All-Points Logistics as their new head of security.
Commander Phil Monkress would hire him on the spot. They have a lot in common being that Phildo also claims to be a LEO, specifically a Brevard County Sheriffs Deputy, though not retired.
I see this clown having a rosy future with Phildo and his gang.
At least he didn’t claim to be a sniper.
At least he didn’t claim to be a sniper.
An officer needs assistance code means everyone drops what they’re doing and comes tearing to the scene. THAT was what pissed the chief off more than anything. He can’t say, “Well, we have a heightened response to our own needing help, much more so than a member of the public needing it. We speed like crazy, risking harm to ourselves and others, and we get on edge like nobody’s business.” This guy ran ads in the local rag for years. He didn’t hide his claim. Hell, he advertised it. I tell you, it was the Signal 13 (or whatever their code) that landed his ass in trouble.
Yeah, police responses to that call can be dramatic. I know officers that should have put that call out, but didn’t for fear of the response it would garner. To say it is used sparingly would be an overstatement. I’ve only heard of it being used once in 9 years of policing.
You know, the whole back-and-forth between Hondo and Planet Ord is premised on the assumption that the article was correct when it stated that Bailey was arrested for “falsely claiming to be a retired LEO.”
I don’t have access to Washington statutes, but is it, in fact, an offense to impersonate a RETIRED cop in WA? Because if it’s not then this whole argument takes on a different tone.
Just because a newspaper reported that someone was arrested for something, it doesn’t mean they were. Crime beat reporters are often woefully ignorant of the law. So it could be that Bailey was arrested for something else entirely.
Additionally, even if the report was accurate and Bailey was arrested for impersonating retired LEO, it doesn’t mean that’s actually a crime. There are lots of instances of people being arrested for things and then the charges getting dropped because it turned out what they were doing was not against the law. I’m thinking particularly of recent incidents where people have video recorded cops and been arrested for it, only to later have the whole case dismissed because it’s not against the law to record someone in public, even if that person is a cop. And yet, there are cops who think it is illegal and will arrest people for it. Ditto for open carry of firearms.
You are correct, Martinjmpr. That is why I have very carefully indicated that my argument here was based on assumption that initial report was accurate.
I would love to know the precise details – in particular, the WA statute the guy was accused of violating. I’d also like to hear a witnesses account of what precisely he told the individual during the incident in question.
As I said above: if the guy impersonated a serving cop, he stepped on it and deserves a fall. If – as was reported – he was arrested merely for telling someone “I’m a retired cop”, I got a problem with that.
I’ll provide my unsolicited opinion about the matter. I’m sure others will disagree.
If a guy at an incident scene identifies himself as a LEO, regardless of what adjective he prefaces LEO with, the people at the scene will treat him as a LEO. Doesn’t matter if he says retired, off-duty, black, disabled, white, etc. The SOLE reason he says he is a LEO is to be treated as one. How he prefaces it is irrelevant if his intent is to be treated as a LEO others present.
I realized that we were talking about a hypothetical since the initial reports was incorrect. It’s an interesting argument, though. Georgia law only mentions peace officer, not retired or off duty, etc under the impersonation code. Other states may vary. I imagine it has been decided in case law somewhere, though. I don’t have the time to look it up, though.
From the Revised Code of Washington:
RCW 9A.60.045
Criminal impersonation in the second degree.
(1) A person is guilty of criminal impersonation in the second degree if the person:
(a)(i) Claims to be a law enforcement officer or creates an impression that he or she is a law enforcement officer; and
(ii) Under circumstances not amounting to criminal impersonation in the first degree, does an act with intent to convey the impression that he or she is acting in an official capacity and a reasonable person would believe the person is a law enforcement officer; or
(b) Falsely assumes the identity of a veteran or active duty member of the armed forces of the United States with intent to defraud for the purpose of personal gain or to facilitate any unlawful activity.
(2) Criminal impersonation in the second degree is a gross misdemeanor.
He crossed the line when he told the person dailing 911 that he was “an Officer needing assistance”.
That’s what fried his ass.
Geraldo called, he wants his stach back