Cool Oregon Law, well IMHO...

[ValleyOne Member Find all posts View Profile Close ValleyOne]

I get a kick out of this law everytime I see or hear anyone talking about a laser pointer...

ORS 163.709 Unlawful directing of light from a laser pointer.

(1) A person commits the offense of unlawful directing of light from a laser pointer if the person knowingly directs light from a laser pointer at another person without the consent of the other person and the other person is:

(a) A peace officer as defined in ORS 161.015 who is acting in the course of official duty; or

(b) A uniformed private security officer as defined in ORS 181.870 who is on duty.

(2) The offense described in this section, unlawful directing of light from a laser pointer, is a Class A misdemeanor.

(3) As used in this section, "laser pointer" means a device that emits light amplified by the stimulated emission of radiation that is visible to the human eye. [1999 c.757 §1]

I found it interesting that 1) we share the same law as a Police Officer, 2) that we both have to be on duty. At least I see it as giving the PO a more important sounding definition of being on duty...

In Oregon, a Class A Mis. is an arrestable offense. I have a keen eye out for laser pointers, and wait till I do find someone 'screwing' with 'some' guard. <evil grin> hehehehe

Anyone else have any similar laws that directly pertain to Private Security AND Police Officers at the same time?

[Mr. Security Senior Member Find all posts View Profile Close Mr. Security]

I'll check CT, but I believe it's illegal to target anyone with a laser pointer.

[Mr. Security Senior Member Find all posts View Profile Close Mr. Security]

Ct

Sec. 53-206e. Limitation on sale and use of laser pointers. (a) As used in this section, "laser pointer" means a hand-held device that emits a laser light beam and is designed to be used by the operator to indicate, mark or identify a specific position, place, item or object.



(b) No person shall sell, offer to sell, lease, give or otherwise provide a laser pointer to a person under eighteen years of age, except as provided in subsection (d) of this section.



(c) No person under eighteen years of age shall possess a laser pointer on school grounds or in any public place, except as provided in subsection (d) of this section.



(d) A person may temporarily transfer a laser pointer to a person under eighteen years of age for an educational or other lawful purpose provided the person to whom the laser pointer is temporarily transferred is under the direct supervision of a parent, legal guardian, teacher, employer or other responsible adult.



(e) No person shall shine, point or focus a laser pointer, directly or indirectly, upon or at another person in a manner that can reasonably be expected to cause harassment, annoyance or fear of injury to such other person.


(f) Any person who violates any provision of this section shall have committed an infraction.

[ValleyOne Member Find all posts View Profile Close ValleyOne]

That's great that they restrict the direction of laser to pointers to anyone, I was just pointing out that at least the very literal sence we and the Police were treated as one and the same... I know I know, in one paragraph on one page, in one chapter of about 200, but it's a start...

See, I wasn't sure if I should've posted this in the why do cops hate security type thread we have going on or give it it's own thread...

[globalinstincts Member Find all posts View Profile Close globalinstincts]

Hate To Side Track, But....

I agree! That is cool!
Now if we can get all assaults on SGs on level with assaulting a L.E.O., Then we would have some protection.

In CA. I don't think we have any laws regarding pointing a laser pointer at a person.
But, I dug up an odd story about a guy in Berkley getting robbed at "Laser-point".

Bet he WISHES we did have one...

-=-=-=-=- STORY-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Two Suspects Nabbed
in Berkeley Laser Pointer Robbery
By Christin Ayers, October 25, 2002 11:33 PM
BERKELEY -- Two men are in police custody after allegedly robbing a Berkeley man using a red laser pointer as a simulated gun, Berkeley police said.

Police said the suspects, 18-year-old Lyndell Alexander Taylor and his partner, a 17-year old, who has been booked at Juvenile Hall, pulled the robbery off without a weapon, instead pointing a concealed red laser pen at the victim’s chest, causing him to believe that the two were armed with laser-guided guns.

The suspects are said to have approached the 43-year old victim Wednesday evening in front of his house on the 1900 block of Parker Street. Berkeley Police Spokesman, Officer Mary Kusmiss said the first robber demanded the victim’s wallet, removed $120, and then told the victim to look down.

“When he looked down, he saw a red laser dot pointed at his chest and thought that the second suspect had a gun,” she said.

Officer Kusmiss said that the two suspects then commanded the victim to shake hands with them and said, “No hard feelings, man. We’re just doing our jobs.”

A police officer later arrested Taylor and the 17-year old suspect after hearing a radio description of the two and discovering them four blocks away from the crime scene.

Police officials said that the victim was able to positively identify the suspects in a police line-up.

Paul Lavely, a laser specialist at the UC Berkeley Office of Radiation Safety, said that using laser pointers as simulated weapons is not an uncommon practice, although California has yet to develop legislation that charges a suspect for using a laser pointer as a weapon.

“Using a laser pointer to scare someone into giving you money is the same as using a toy gun to rob a convenience store,” said Lavely. “It should be a crime.”

According to Lavely, California law only considers pointing a gun-attachable laser site at someone as a crime, not a laser pointer, which can be obtained at office supply stores for as little as $2.00.

“It’s a legal loophole,” said Lavely, who holds a juris doctor from UC Berkeley.

The absence of such legislation means that, if convicted, the robbery suspects will only have to answer to one charge of felony robbery, which carries a bail of $30,000.

The other suspect, who is a minor, will be detained at juvenile hall, Kusmiss said.

http://journalism.berkeley.edu/proje...es/000293.html

[Black Caesar Senior Member Find all posts View Profile Close Black Caesar]

Do ya one better Valley:

§ 22.01. ASSAULT. (a) A person commits an offense if the person:
(1) intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly causes
bodily injury to another, including the person's spouse;
(2) intentionally or knowingly threatens another with
imminent bodily injury, including the person's spouse; or
(3) intentionally or knowingly causes physical
contact with another when the person knows or should reasonably
believe that the other will regard the contact as offensive or
provocative.
(b) An offense under Subsection (a)(1) is a Class A
misdemeanor, except that the offense is a felony of the third degree
if the offense is committed against:
(1) a person the actor knows is a public servant while the public servant is lawfully discharging an official duty, or in
retaliation or on account of an exercise of official power or
performance of an official duty as a public servant;

--snip--
(4) a person the actor knows is a security officer
while the officer is performing a duty as a security officer.

--Snip--
d) For purposes of Subsection (b), the actor is presumed to
have known the person assaulted was a public servant or a security
officer if the person was wearing a distinctive uniform or badge
indicating the person's employment as a public servant or status as
a security officer.

In Texas, it's a Felony to assault a public servant, or a security officer. I don't think we have any laser pointer laws.....

[Charger Member Find all posts View Profile Close Charger]

Hey Valley:

You'll be happy to know that law holds up very well in court... We prosecuted a guy for it back when I worked at that mall I mentioned... (The same year that law was first introduced) He thought it was a funny joke... Till he got hooked & booked..

[Andy Taylor Member Find all posts View Profile Close Andy Taylor]

California

California does have a laser pointer law:

California Penal Code:
417.25. (a) Every person who, except in self-defense, aims or
points a laser scope, as defined in subdivision (b), or a laser
pointer, as defined in subdivision (c), at another person in a
threatening manner with the specific intent to cause a reasonable
person fear of bodily harm is guilty of a misdemeanor, punishable by
imprisonment in a county jail for up to 30 days. For purposes of
this section, the laser scope need not be attached to a firearm.
(b) As used in this section, "laser scope" means a portable
battery-powered device capable of being attached to a firearm and
capable of projecting a laser light on objects at a distance.
(c) As used in this section, "laser pointer" means any hand held
laser beam device or demonstration laser product that emits a single
point of light amplified by the stimulated emission of radiation that
is visible to the human eye.



417.26. (a) Any person who aims or points a laser scope as defined
in subdivision (b) of Section 417.25, or a laser pointer, as defined
in subdivision (c) of that section, at a peace officer with the
specific intent to cause the officer apprehension or fear of bodily
harm and who knows or reasonably should know that the person at whom
he or she is aiming or pointing is a peace officer, is guilty of a
misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment in a county jail for a term
not exceeding six months.
(b) Any person who commits a second or subsequent violation of
subdivision (a) shall be punished by imprisonment in a county jail
for not more than one year.

[N. A. Corbier Senior Member Find all posts View Profile Close N. A. Corbier]

Florida has a laser pointer law after a kid playing around pointed it at two Pinellas deputies, who showed the kid their laser pointers, at the end of their Glock 17s.

784.062 Misuse of laser lighting devices.--

(1) As used in subsection (2), the term "laser lighting device" means a hand-held device, not affixed to a firearm, which emits a laser beam that is designed to be used by the operator as a pointer or highlighter to indicate, mark, or identify a specific position, place, item, or object. As used in subsection (3), the term "laser lighting device" means any device designed or used to amplify electromagnetic radiation by stimulated emission.

(2) Any person who knowingly and willfully shines, points, or focuses the beam of a laser lighting device at a law enforcement officer, engaged in the performance of his or her official duties, in such a manner that would cause a reasonable person to believe that a firearm is pointed at him or her commits a noncriminal violation, punishable as provided in s. 775.083.

(3)(a) Any person who knowingly and willfully shines, points, or focuses the beam of a laser lighting device on an individual operating a motor vehicle, vessel, or aircraft commits a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

(b) Any person who knowingly and willfully shines, points, or focuses the beam of a laser lighting device on an individual operating a motor vehicle, vessel, or aircraft and such act results in bodily injury commits a felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

I had someone put a laser dot on my chest while I was driving on a property, in a marked patrol unit. Noted the position of the unit across the street from where the laser was coming from and who was pointing it (The idiot was waving and laughing), then ducked around a corner. Called police dispatch, and they sent two cars. The idiot shined it at me again, while talking with the police. Since I was "operating a motor vehicle," it was enough to arrest for the felony.

Unlike some states, Florida "LEO protection" statutes only apply to sworn law enforcement officers in performance of their duties. Many a person has gotten out of a felony charge because the LEO wasn't performing their duties (arresting people), and were performing non-police functions.

9 times out of 10, if you're an off duty cop providing security, you are not covered under the "performance of duties" statute because all non-arrest events are "the duties of a security guard, not of a law enforcement officer."

[ValleyOne Member Find all posts View Profile Close ValleyOne]

In Texas, it's a Felony to assault a public servant, or a security officer. I don't think we have any laser pointer laws.....

OK, ya got me BC, LOL Starting to like Texas more and more. Well the whole heat issues is still a big hang up on my part. Man, I hate the heat.

[ValleyOne Member Find all posts View Profile Close ValleyOne]

9 times out of 10, if you're an off duty cop providing security, you are not covered under the "performance of duties" statute because all non-arrest events are "the duties of a security guard, not of a law enforcement officer."

I understand this is the very reason some companies choose not to hire off duty cops, as in Oregon your never 'off duty' regardless of where in the state you are. Statewide jurisdiction for State Troopers to the smallest one man Dept's. They all have the same authority. In Oregon, they are compelled to act whereas s/o's are required not to. Which is why I am trying to recruit some good reserve p/o's. They are only considered police officers while on duty with their dept. So I benefit from their advanced training and other stuff as well....

[N. A. Corbier Senior Member Find all posts View Profile Close N. A. Corbier]

What I was referring to is this:

A deputy sheriff working, in his Sheriff's Uniform, off-duty at a night club checking IDs is attacked by a person denied entrance.

Since he is working for a private employer, is not enforcing the laws of the State of Florida, the person who attacked him will only be charged with misdemeanor battery, not felony Battery on a Law Enforcement Officer.

Case law has shown that unless you are acting as an agent of the state in performance of your lawful duties (arresting people, executing process, etc), your attacker attacked a civilian, not a police officer, for the purposes of Chapter 784's redefinition of battery.

In another instance, two police officers hired by an apartment complex to patrol it encountered a man who attacked them. The court found that they were not performing police functions, but security guard functions, when patrolling the apartment complex. Since they were not licensed guards nor were they police officers engaged in the performance of their official duties, the person's charge of battery on a specified officer was thrown out.