Why Americans should reconsider their contempt for today's police (v2.0)

[LittleLebowski]

Article (http://www.returnofkings.com/38476/why-americans-should-reconsider-their-contempt-for-todays-police). Discuss in a civil manner if you like.

[jlw]

I would like to thank IRISH for trying to start a legitimate discussion. Unfortunately, it got derailed.

---

Please keep in mind that there are roughly 18,000 "law enforcement agencies" and, if you add in corrections, there are over 1 million peace officers in the U.S. Lumping us all together as a single autonomous group is intellectually the same as lumping every single gun owner together with those gun owners that lose it during a domestic and commit murder. You, as a gun owner, didn't go nuts and kill someone and shouldn't be lumped in with those that do no more than I, as a peace officer, should be lumped with a cop that uses excessive force.

[Shellback]

You're welcome Chief. I hope this one runs more positively. I'm gonna quote myself from that last thread because I think it bears repeating. It's not rocket science but I think that very few people participate in the program and I got a lot out of it.


I would encourage anyone and everyone to participate in their local ride-along program. Rest assured it will change your perception of the police and what they deal with.

I've ran several full shifts with one of my best friends who's got 18 years on the job, he's also a firearms instructor and FTO for his dept, he knows his stuff. He works in a bad area dealing some very nasty people. Rolling in a blacked out UC Yukon looking for stolen vehicles wasn't too bad. No real way to tell it was a police vehicle unless you noticed the porcupine rooftop. Unfortunately we only recovered one stolen vehicle that day but the owner was incredibly happy to have his car back.

Rolling in a marked cruiser, in the same neighborhoods, is a whole different animal. It's kinda like being in a fishbowl, but one that has a big target on it! The whole pay attention to what's going on around you thing was dialed up to 11 on those days. Never relaxed, always vigilant, scanning, assessing, feeling vulnerable, I think it's probably what rookie cops go through as well. People do look at you differently, some happy, some angrily and most just look like they don't want to be pulled over. ;)

He taught me how to operate the radio, run auto plates, access the shotgun and AR in case things went sideways, *he insisted I carry concealed. I was his immediate backup if necessary and it's something I took very seriously. I'm not a cop, but he is my brother, and he knows if the poop hit the fan he'd much rather have me engaging bad guys than curled up in the floorboard of his cruiser. Thankfully that didn't have to happen.

From my limited experience, it's a very difficult job that comes with some awesome rewards, and a metric ton of BS as well. Sorry for the winding dialogue... If you haven't participated in a ride-along yet then I highly encourage you to do so. The only thing required is you taking the time out of your day and signing a few papers, there's no charge and you get to sit in the front. Who knows, you might walk away with a different attitude about police work, you might stay the same, no one's forcing you to change. You might even walk away having made a friend, and an appreciation for what they do, trying to help keep your family safe.

*Disclaimer: This is probably against department policy and if so it never really happened.

[Salamander]

Please keep in mind that there are roughly 18,000 "law enforcement agencies" and, if you add in corrections, there are over 1 million peace officers in the U.S. Lumping us all together as a single autonomous group is intellectually the same as lumping every single gun owner together with those gun owners that lose it during a domestic and commit murder. You, as a gun owner, didn't go nuts and kill someone and shouldn't be lumped in with those that do no more than I, as a peace officer, should be lumped with a cop that uses excessive force.

Excellent point. As with the larger society they are a part of, police officers or LE agencies cannot be considered as a monolithic entity. I fully expect the bell-shaped curve to apply.

I'm able to offer a policy level perspective on one very small agency, without going into detail I'm able to say that I have indirect (one step removed) local oversight responsibilities. In the time I've been here, about 14 years, we've had one out of control officer out of a force that averages four or five full time officers and a few part timers, and that tends to have a lot of turnover as the better ones get hired away by bigger places able to pay more than we can. We got out in front of that one potential problem before it became serious. Other than that we've had a lot of people who quietly did there job, and a few who have excelled. Of the four chiefs I've had personal experience with I'd rate two of them as competent but unexceptional, one as technically capable but not very good at interacting with the community, essentially not very good at empathy or social skills; and one (our current guy) who is very, very good.

We ask our LE men and women to be fair and to be sensitive to the dynamic of the community. Most of them have met that standard.

At a national level there certainly are issues in some places that need to be addressed, and it's probably possible to write a book on some of those places. For example, I'd love to understand what's going on in Oakland and I'm pretty sure the issue extends to the top elected leadership of that city.

[John Hearne]

I would encourage anyone and everyone to participate in their local ride-along program. Rest assured it will change your perception of the police and what they deal with. ... if the poop hit the fan he'd much rather have me engaging bad guys than curled up in the floorboard of his cruiser.

One of our dispatchers had repeatedly ask to ride along with me so we were out one night. IIRC, nobody else in my district was working so I knew I'd have to rely on the locals for help. I made a traffic stop and the guy had a misdemeanor warrant but had huge flags in the city's database for prior assaults on officers. When they heard who I was out with, they sent three units based on previous experience. My dispatcher was suddenly a lot less interested in being on the road as the radio traffic rolled out and she realized who she was in the company of. When the city showed up and we pulled him out at gun point, she was practically in the floorboard of the car. She never asked to ride along again for some reason....

[Shellback]

One of our dispatchers had repeatedly ask to ride along with me so we were out one night. IIRC, nobody else in my district was working so I knew I'd have to rely on the locals for help. I made a traffic stop and the guy had a misdemeanor warrant but had huge flags in the city's database for prior assaults on officers. When they heard who I was out with, they sent three units based on previous experience. My dispatcher was suddenly a lot less interested in being on the road as the radio traffic rolled out and she realized who she was in the company of. When the city showed up and we pulled him out at gun point, she was practically in the floorboard of the car. She never asked to ride along again for some reason....
I always carry. But, prior to going on shift with him I asked if he was cool with it and his response was something like "Absofrickinglutely, no ifs, ands or buts about it!" but with a little bit more colorful language. I understand why departments wouldn't want ride-alongs to be armed but there is absolutely no way I would ever go on one now without a gun, ever. Even with my CCW I felt naked. I would much prefer to have had a vest on as well.

[GardoneVT]

You're welcome Chief. I hope this one runs more positively. I'm gonna quote myself from that last thread because I think it bears repeating. It's not rocket science but I think that very few people participate in the program and I got a lot out of it.

After spending some years back at University again, I think all the negative attention LE gets is due to how good our cops really are. We Americans take it for granted that our law enforcement are professionals, to the point where even slight errors in the job are blown up by the media.

Every profession has slugs. There's even some who are crooked. But thats human nature. As much as the media likes to bag about crooked cops, there's shady bankers, shady car salesmen, shady insurance brokers, shady contractors, and so forth. I've never met a crooked cop and I lived in Chicago. I've met all of the others, and they do more damage to people's lives in my estimation then any bent officer. Yet the media never has time to nail the crooked insurance adjuster who's cheating clients out of their due funds.

[TR675]

Ride alongs - I will parrot what Irish said. They are an outstanding way to learn more about what your local officers friendly go through. In my previous job we were..."strongly encouraged" to go on ride alongs on a monthly or bimonthly basis; I went on about six with local PD and state troopers and learned a LOT. Made a good friend, too.

[Coyotesfan97]

If your local agency has a citizen's academy I'd recommend it. Ours lasts about 3 months meeting once a week. IIRC it includes two ride alongs.

[Mark]

I have to say my experience with the public has been overwhelmingly positive. Even most people I arrest and deal with in an enforcement action typically are fine, they understand the rules of the game and what's going on and also see that there is no reason we all can't be civil to each other. This isn't to say there aren't any negative encounters, there are but they are far less common then the positives. My experience has actually been that the people some would generalize as being more anti-police actually often times aren't bad to deal with. It's more the tea party types that tend to make even the most minor issues, in fact most of the times minor issues, a fight, almost seemingly just to find a reason to challenge authority when there isn't anything of consequence going on. This has led me to re-evaluate my political views to some degree to be honest. My conservative father (very successful financial guy and bronze star decorated (along with others) Vietnam vet was on a ride along with me once and he even noticed that trend and was equally surprised by it, I told him I was too, but there it is.


I routinely have people approach me on the street, in restaurants, even at stop lights and thank me for doing police work, which actually makes me feel uncomfortable........I'm not looking for praise, just a friendly hello is great. I still get cards from people whose cases I worked on in investigations and see people every day on the street who yell hello followed by my last name as I pass through....these are not your mr and mrs Ameca, but people I have developed relationships with on the street.......and over time they start giving me info I don't even ask for.

I guess I just don't think the problem is as big as some others do, and this is in the SF Bay Area......

[pablo]

I don't feel any contempt from the overwhelming majority of the public. There are people out there that will never be satisfied with what the police do.

We joke around a lot that the department would be a much better place to work for if all the Lt's, Captains and chief had to do a ride along once a month. I feel a lot more contempt for Police Officers coming from the department's upper management, the DA, local politicians and the DOJ.

[JackRock]

I used to have a bad attitude towards cops. Two were very rude and overbearing (two separate occasions) - once to me, and once to my wife at the time. But having personally known many since those encounters (and none prior), I've had to re-evaluate my position on LEOs. Oddly enough, my position on pro-LEO was more or less cemented when I was arrested a few years ago.

I was stupid and had a bench warrant out for failure to appear. But the patrolman was courteous, ensuring his own safety (I had no gun in my name, much less on me, but I did have two legal pocket knives). I'm big in the midsection, so he even used two pair of cuffs so my shoulders wouldn't be wrenched out of their sockets. On the way to the detention center, he spoke to me about what I should expect, what my options were, what the bond was (a measly $250), and how best to ensure I get out of the jail within the night. Surprisingly, my wife knew about my probable arrest quickly enough, since I sent her a message and didn't get a chance to respond to her again. She had the money via some friends of ours, and had me bailed before they even allowed me a phone call. Frankly, the officer was duteous (is that a word?), courteous, professional, and just plain good guy.

Now, I have several very close friends and family within the LE community - cops to prison guards - and frankly, I find few people I know that I'd rather be around.

[Kimura]

I don’t remember when LEOs became the “them” and the public became the “us”. Last I can remember the thugs/gang members/terrorists were the “them” and the rest of us were the “us”. This not only was my viewpoint, but still is. And I’m pretty sure that most of the general public and most LEOs agree with me.

Not to say there aren’t some bad LEOs or crap citizens out there, because there are. But from what I’ve seen, that’s not the rule, it’s the exception.

And then the press exacerbates the problem. If it isn’t sensationally bad, most media won’t cover it anymore. Never mind the LEO that helped your mother or grandmother unlock her car after she locked the keys in it. That doesn’t get covered because it’s not sensational. And never mind the citizen that helped his neighbor do yard work because the neighbor was incapacitated due to injury or illness. Doesn’t get covered because it’s not sensational.

Most people, LEO or not, are pretty decent. That doesn’t mean you have the same interests or want to hang out with them or even have the same religious or political views. That means they get up every morning and go to work in hopes of creating a better life for themselves and their families. They by and large don’t makes waves or scream about X or Y because they’re too busy trying to carve out a nice place for their families. This is really what most Americans or people in general are. Don’t let the vocal minorities with vid cameras or the press or a few bad LEOs fool you into thinking otherwise.

[TheRoland]

Humans are not rational creatures, and bad experiences can disproportionately effect opinions, particularly when bad experiences in the legal system can have extreme consequences. I would not be at all surprised that people can have 99 fantastic interactions with police, then grow to fear them after a single negative experience, particularly if that experience is dramatic. That's just how people work.

[KeeFus]

My first agency (Wilson, NC PD) and second agency (Henderson, NC PD) were largely high crime areas. I had the opportunity to work some of the worst areas in the State with these two agencies. As you probably guess the interactions we had with the public in those areas were not always so positive. The "us v. them" was a mindset that some officers developed after being exposed to that very attitude by the citizenry. It happens.

When I finally returned back to my roots and began working for the S.O. where I grew up the attitude by the citizens was a stark contrast to what I had previously been exposed to for the first 11-12 years of my career. It was a refreshing & pleasant change actually. Even after my OIS the support I received from the community was overwhelming...a stark contrast to other OIS's I had seen in the other 2 agencies.

In the Town where I currently work for the attitudes from the citizens are very good and uplifting. The admin here is, for the most part, exceptional. Having said all that I am still very mindful of my first 2 agencies and what happened to me and other folk not only from the citizens...but the agency admins...which is why I am so guarded (even to this day) when dealing with citizens and watchful of the admins. I don't think either of them is out to get us but I have become pretty good at side stepping land mines that others just do not see...next thing you know they are in a bad situation and then gone.

In regards to ride-alongs, we have few of them. Most of the time its a high school student doing a senior project. Very few citizens ride with us. I wish more would so they could be exposed to what we deal with. I think most of the citizens trust that we are doing our job. They put their blinders on and ignore the bad stuff until it invades their space. Then its WTF!? They cant believe that this has happened to them and they want something done with this thing NOW!...very Law and Order-ish and within the next hour or so.

The last ride along I had was literally when I was with the S.O. Guy rode with me and I ended up in a chase that entered another county. I had to keep telling him to sit back in his seat because if he didn't and we wrecked the air bag would likely injure him. At the end of it he was all pumped up, loving what he had just experienced. A few weeks later he entered BLET...I had my OIS...and my fist day back to work I started FTO'ing him. He called me last week...he had trained his first rookie. He was proud of what he had accomplished. He's an outstanding example and a future leader. Yes, ride-alongs work.

[GardoneVT]

Humans are not rational creatures, and bad experiences can disproportionately effect opinions, particularly when bad experiences in the legal system can have extreme consequences. I would not be at all surprised that people can have 99 fantastic interactions with police, then grow to fear them after a single negative experience, particularly if that experience is dramatic. That's just how people work.

The culture also has something to do with it. When I was stationed in South Dakota, an officer was killed during a disturbance call. The LEO was interviewing a suspect when he pulled a gun at close range and shot the officer, at which point his partner returned the favor to the suspect.

The town visited the officers public memorial service in such numbers that the venue had to be shut down. That's never happened in my years growing up in Chicago, for any of the CPD officers hurt or killed in the line of duty, although in all fairness Channel 7 downtown would never have broadcasted it anyways if it did.

[Shellback]

If your local agency has a citizen's academy I'd recommend it. Ours lasts about 3 months meeting once a week. IIRC it includes two ride alongs.

Just found out LV Metro (http://www.lvmpd.com/communityprograms/citizenspoliceacademy/tabid/134/default.aspx) has one. 12 weeks, once a week like down there. Thanks for the idea!

[Shellback]

I think most of the citizens trust that we are doing our job. They put their blinders on and ignore the bad stuff until it invades their space. Then its WTF!? They cant believe that this has happened to them and they want something done with this thing NOW!

I think that's a really accurate assessment for the vast majority of people. Cool story about your ride-along.

[Coyotesfan97]

Just found out LV Metro (http://www.lvmpd.com/communityprograms/citizenspoliceacademy/tabid/134/default.aspx) has one. 12 weeks, once a week like down there. Thanks for the idea!

You're welcome. LV Metro's citizens academy looks very close to ours. We have the alumni association too.

[Sensei]

My first agency (Wilson, NC PD) and second agency (Henderson, NC PD) were largely high crime areas. I had the opportunity to work some of the worst areas in the State with these two agencies. As you probably guess the interactions we had with the public in those areas were not always so positive. The "us v. them" was a mindset that some officers developed after being exposed to that very attitude by the citizenry. It happens.

When I finally returned back to my roots and began working for the S.O. where I grew up the attitude by the citizens was a stark contrast to what I had previously been exposed to for the first 11-12 years of my career. It was a refreshing & pleasant change actually. Even after my OIS the support I received from the community was overwhelming...a stark contrast to other OIS's I had seen in the other 2 agencies.

In the Town where I currently work for the attitudes from the citizens are very good and uplifting. The admin here is, for the most part, exceptional. Having said all that I am still very mindful of my first 2 agencies and what happened to me and other folk not only from the citizens...but the agency admins...which is why I am so guarded (even to this day) when dealing with citizens and watchful of the admins. I don't think either of them is out to get us but I have become pretty good at side stepping land mines that others just do not see...next thing you know they are in a bad situation and then gone.

In regards to ride-alongs, we have few of them. Most of the time its a high school student doing a senior project. Very few citizens ride with us. I wish more would so they could be exposed to what we deal with. I think most of the citizens trust that we are doing our job. They put their blinders on and ignore the bad stuff until it invades their space. Then its WTF!? They cant believe that this has happened to them and they want something done with this thing NOW!...very Law and Order-ish and within the next hour or so.

The last ride along I had was literally when I was with the S.O. Guy rode with me and I ended up in a chase that entered another county. I had to keep telling him to sit back in his seat because if he didn't and we wrecked the air bag would likely injure him. At the end of it he was all pumped up, loving what he had just experienced. A few weeks later he entered BLET...I had my OIS...and my fist day back to work I started FTO'ing him. He called me last week...he had trained his first rookie. He was proud of what he had accomplished. He's an outstanding example and a future leader. Yes, ride-alongs work.

So much of life is the return on your investment. It is interesting how people who invest so little are shocked by the paltry return on their non-participation. The same can be said about public schools.

Irish's comments on the citizens academy are excellent. Imagine the improvement if just 1% of a community invested the time to inquire (much less attend) such a program.

[ffhounddog]

I think a part of the "contempt" comes from being human. We are looking for a male race is X and they are 5'9-6'2 in jeans and a t-shirt. Well that could be 50% of people in that area. Then you have assumptions and if they are correct 75% of the time then you might make a mistake but with the information given the officer had to make a judgement call. In todays society making a judgement call could get you fired. In rural settings the officer is mostly seen within a good light. You do have the kid that got bullied in high school but its not that common. The City is where this us verse them mentality started. That is also where the most crime came from and it turned violent quickly when the individual knows its death, jail, or no jail but living in the ghetto. There is no consequences because jail might be better in that persons mind than where they are at.

There is also some perceived notion of some officers get freebies. I was at a bagel shop and two officers got coffee and bagels and walked out the door without paying. I do not know if there is an agreement but the perception of many in line were bewildered and a lot of mumbling from other customers.

Then you have the Fed side where we give county X X amount of dollars you better show us why we should still give you grant money.

There are a lot of small issues today that has turned the "Us vs Them" attitude and it does not help that most movies and tv shows like to put in a crooked cop for a plot twist.

I think it started with the 60's myself. Civil Rights and War protests and now those people whom dislike the police are now elected officials. Also look at today's men. You have to have motivation to get through the Academy just like Basic, it requires physical and mental toughness where many today never have to go outside of their comfort zone like people going into LE where service to the community is better than service to ones self. Its like the "Nerds" want to stick it to the "jocks".

Okay i am all over the place but these are some of my thoughts on this actually deep issue.

[John Hearne]

The citizen's academy is a great idea or simply some time on a FATS machine can really open some eyes. A mentor of mine reports some amazing "conversions" when he ran their most vocal critic on the city council through a few scenarios. Apparently, when it was her butt on the line, everyone that made a furtive movement got lit up.

My agency requires a "Law Enforcement for Managers" class for Superintendents who are responsible for LE programs. It is a week long and includes force-on-force scenarios. One of them involves service of an arrest warrant for theft of .gov property. The suspect is contacted when he is in his front yard and is initially compliant. If they allow him to go into the house to "get a few things" one of those things is a shotgun. It has opened a lot of eyes.

[JackRock]

On the suggestion of an earlier post, I looked up the option of a citizen's academy - and they have one! I may just look into that. They offer ride-alongs at least once after one of the sessions. I will look into that after this next semester is over.

[Shellback]

They offer ride-alongs at least once after one of the sessions.

In my experience the citizen's academy was not a requirement to go for a ride-along. I rode with my buddy after a couple signatures on a waiver form and I'm sure it'd be similar if you wanted to go sooner. Never hurts to ask.

[1986s4]

I have never lost my respect for the police. On several occasions I came close to joining law enforcement but life and other interests got in the way. If I have any objections to the police it is in the way they are used or allow themselves to be used. When the police are used as city revenue enhancement instead of public safety I struggle with my basic respect for the local police. When my wife gets pulled over after stopping at a stop sign and she tells the officer "I did stop" and the officer informs her that yes, she did but not long enough [in his opinion] I start to wonder what the goal is. It is a quiet neighborhood, there was no other traffic.

[JackRock]

In my experience the citizen's academy was not a requirement to go for a ride-along. I rode with my buddy after a couple signatures on a waiver form and I'm sure it'd be similar if you wanted to go sooner. Never hurts to ask.

Granted, but I thought the idea of doing the whole academy would be a rather enlightening and eye-opening experience, anyway. Given my interactions with the police (almost universally positive in my area), I would like to have more insight than a single ride-along.

[John Hearne]

When the police are used as city revenue enhancement instead of public safety I struggle with my basic respect for the local police. When my wife gets pulled over after stopping at a stop sign and she tells the officer "I did stop" and the officer informs her that yes, she did but not long enough [in his opinion] I start to wonder what the goal is..

This is a bit of a slippery slope. While most of us worry about violent felonies, the odds of being such a victim are not evenly distributed. If you are middle to upper class, don't use/buy drugs, and sleep in your own bed with YOUR spouse, I'd be willing to be that you are more likely to be killed by a traffic offender than a violent criminal. I find the fact that I am inadvertently dead not much comfort compared to intentionally dead.

I do not deny that there are a handful of jurisdictions that use traffic tickets as revenue generation but they are a very small minority. Running stop signs is a common cause of traffic crashes. I've written a lot of tickets for that and almost everyone I have written denied running the stop sign. I don't argue with them because nobody wins a roadside argument. I also make sure to catch all of my violations on camera so any disputes in court can be quickly settled.

Ditto with speeding. While driving in day time, dry conditions on the interstate is one thing, speeding in residential neighborhoods, schools zones, and congest commercial areas is just stupid and begging to hurt someone.

We are an exception but all of our tickets simply go to a victim reimbursement fund and the general treasury fund. I know that in my state, fines from tickets written by the state police go to the county in which they are written. The state has only one violation that they keep the money for.

[KeeFus]

In regards to making money on tickets...I've yet to see any of that money...

When I first started court costs were $50...plus a small fine.

Here is a breakdown of NC fines. Court costs now vary from charge to charge. It may be higher... Thank god for ecitation.

http://www.nccourts.org/Courts/Trial/Documents/court_costs_chart-2009-criminal.pdf

Eta:Better linky

[jnc36rcpd]

Every week our command staff distributes a list of "check on patrols" to the patrol shifts. A significant number are on little-traveled streets where few crashes occur. Many are complaints of stop sign violations. The majority of these stop sign violators slow down, but do not entirely stop. These "check on patrols" are generated by citizen complaints. In fact, a police officer who attempts to generate a check on patrol is usually ignored.

I cannot speak to the concept of "not stopping long enough". In Maryland, you either stop or do not.

[cclaxton]

Whenever someone talks negatively about cops, I usually say this: "Cops are people like you and me with uniforms on and a job to do, and they make mistakes and get upset about things just like we do, and no two are exactly the same."
Cody

[jlw]

Let's please not turn this into the tiresome "it's all about revenue" debate.

[Rich]

I don't care for the LE officers who join for the wrong reason. We all know the type . A looser / nobody in high school who joins just for the authority .
There should be a way to weed them out before coming a LEO.

[TGS]

Let's please not turn this into the tiresome "it's all about revenue" debate.

I think this is a good opportunity for you to speak to the issue, actually. Lots of people have this attitude because of what they observe. You probably know the saying....."If we don't tell them what's going on, the rumor mill will." John Hearne's comments about where the money goes is interesting, I thought, and very helpful.

[jlw]

I think this is a good opportunity for you to speak to the issue, actually. Lots of people have this attitude because of what they observe. You probably know the saying....."If we don't tell them what's going on, the rumor mill will." John Hearne's comments about where the money goes is interesting, I thought, and very helpful.

The problem is that no matter how many times you explain it, there is a hefty amount of adamant refusal to accept the truth.

I can speak to GA law. We have one law that governs speeding. We have 17 laws that govern enforcing that one law. Local and campus agencies have to have a permit from the state in order to operate speed detection equipment, and that permit list specific stretches of road. It is renewable every three years. If the local government or state builds a new road, it won't be added to the permit, if then, until the next renewal. If the local government changes the speed limit on a road, it invalidates the permit. If the local government changes the speed limit, it invalidates the permit. One county in the state along with six municipalities all lost their permit due to a law requiring a completely unrelated issue of service delivery among the respective governments.

Part of the permitting process is an audit of the tickets and the court system. If the state decides that a local agency is "revenue generating" they can pull the permit. If the percentage of tickets for speeds less than 14MPH over the limit is too high, in the state's opinion, they can pull the permit.

I worked for the state for 10 years. Not a single penny of fine money from a ticket or arrest came back to the agency. It goes to the general fund of the local government in which the violation occurred.

I now work for a Sheriff's Office. We are a completely separate legal entity from the county governing authority. If we write a ticket, the fine money goes to the general fund of the county. It does not come back to the agency, and generating more revenue DOES NOT result in an increase in our budget. Period. End of story.

Hey look, I wrote an article about this stuff (http://chiefweems.wordpress.com/2010/09/20/notes-on-speed-detection/)...

I don't even know where we keep the ticket books, and I have given an order that nobody is allowed to tell me.

Oh yeah, we have a municipality that is partially in our county and partially in the neighboring county. We have a contract to provide law enforcement services within the city. If we write a ticket in the portion of the city that is in the other county, any fine money from the ticket goes to the OTHER county.

[Lon]

I was surprised where all the money from tickets goes in Ohio, the library, public defenders office, the county law library and a bunch of other places I can't remember.

[Lon]

I don't care for the LE officers who join for the wrong reason. We all know the type . A looser / nobody in high school who joins just for the authority .
There should be a way to weed them out before coming a LEO.

That is where a good background investigation is key. And if they make it through that, a good FTO program should be able to deal with that. I personally think that FTOs are one of the most important positions in any agency. More important than many supervisors. Bad FTOs? Your agency is kittened.

[Unobtanium]

From the civilian-side, looking in...

I have never had a police officer be unfair with me...except once. One gave me a ticket that was a bogus lie. I was going much faster than he stated. He and I both knew it. I didn't ask questions or argue!

By and large, I think that truly bad police officers are like airline crashes. They are rare, but when they happen it's such a sore spot that it garners enough press that noone wants to fly for a while.

I think that it helps to keep police officers and their jobs in perspective.

-They are not bodyguards.
-They are not there to get revenge on your X.
-They are not predators hunting unsuspecting civilians.
-Even they are a little ashamed of issuing tint citations and minor traffic infractions unless they just have a chip on their shoulder
-The only real reason they pull you over is because you are a legitimate reckless menace, or to get a look inside your vehicle or at you and see what you're up to. I was pulled over for a tint ticket one time specifically because my vehicle was a cheaper, older model with very dark windows in a not so good part of town on my way home from work. Both officers all but apologized, but a rookie had to be taught how to write a ticket, so they went ahead and issued the citation. Big boy rules. I like dark windows because smash-grabs are very popular...I paid the city tax for having them. $140 for 6 years of protecting my shoes/gym bag/etc. = worth it.


Also, that being said, I am fairly privy to the area I live in...I don't know how it is now, but a very prominent official's relative once remarked to me in all seriousness "I want to be a lawyer, and if I can't do that, I'll just be a crooked cop."

So, yeah, there are some bad guys out there wearing uniforms. However, if you are not involved in shady business, they tend to leave you out of theirs. Kindof like the Mob. You aren't going to get knocked over for your cash at the ATM by the Sicilian Mob. Now, if you're selling dope in their part of town...Same goes for crooked cops. They aren't going to just pull you over an plant a kilo of cocaine in your car unless you've been dabbling in your own shady affairs. In fact, it has been my experience that the crooked one's are the nicest, since complaints = investigation = attention they don't want.

By and large, though, I think that technology (cell-phone, dash-cam, etc.) has both helped and hurt the police force. Sometimes a thug just needs a good beating to send them on their way. Sometimes not. Only a good officer without any malice can make that call, but now, it's all on the shoulders of a broken judicial system. I personally wish officers had two things: More stringent moral development in their recruiting process (My former roommate is an officer, and refused to join the department "because it's crooked as hell", in my area. See a few paragraphs up). More latitude in their authority on the gray areas, without everyone MMQB'ing what was done in the moment, in the field.

Mainly, they are men and women who want a paycheck, think that they can be a positive influence, however small, and believed (right or wrong) that they would enjoy the line of work---and so here they are in uniform. Not a damn thing wrong with it, as we all do it, except the trust-fund babies.

[TGS]

The problem is that no matter how many times you explain it, there is a hefty amount of adamant refusal to accept the truth.

I can speak to GA law. We have one law that governs speeding. We have 17 laws that govern enforcing that one law. Local and campus agencies have to have a permit from the state in order to operate speed detection equipment, and that permit list specific stretches of road. It is renewable every three years. If the local government or state builds a new road, it won't be added to the permit, if then, until the next renewal. If the local government changes the speed limit on a road, it invalidates the permit. If the local government changes the speed limit, it invalidates the permit. One county in the state along with six municipalities all lost their permit due to a law requiring a completely unrelated issue of service delivery among the respective governments.

Part of the permitting process is an audit of the tickets and the court system. If the state decides that a local agency is "revenue generating" they can pull the permit. If the percentage of tickets for speeds less than 14MPH over the limit is too high, in the state's opinion, they can pull the permit.

I worked for the state for 10 years. Not a single penny of fine money from a ticket or arrest came back to the agency. It goes to the general fund of the local government in which the violation occurred.

I now work for a Sheriff's Office. We are a completely separate legal entity from the county governing authority. If we write a ticket, the fine money goes to the general fund of the county. It does not come back to the agency, and generating more revenue DOES NOT result in an increase in our budget. Period. End of story.

Hey look, I wrote an article about this stuff (http://chiefweems.wordpress.com/2010/09/20/notes-on-speed-detection/)...

I don't even know where we keep the ticket books, and I have given an order that nobody is allowed to tell me.

Oh yeah, we have a municipality that is partially in our county and partially in the neighboring county. We have a contract to provide law enforcement services within the city. If we write a ticket in the portion of the city that is in the other county, any fine money from the ticket goes to the OTHER county.

Well, I guess the rub is that what you described is still revenue generating. Not for the officer or department, but the conflict lies in that the local government could still be leveraging the local police to write tickets as a way of generating revenue for the township's general fund.

Otherwise, why do some police departments get upset over people flashing their headlights to warn other motorists of a cop camping out, or people passing messages on social media that a department is going hardcore on speeding violations in a certain area? If the goal is to get people to slow down for public safety, then hasn't the goal been accomplished? The only thing that's missing is the government didn't take money from its citizens.

If you find that inflammatory, then I'm not sure how else to discuss it.

[runcible]

I don't care for the LE officers who join for the wrong reason. We all know the type . A looser / nobody in high school who joins just for the authority .
There should be a way to weed them out before coming a LEO.

There are certainly protocols in place at most major departments, to weed out those with unsuitable personalities; but I always find it interesting when someone invokes the high school social scheme as an indicator of suitability or unsuitability.

There are those who think that all\most cops are formerly\has-been athletes\jocks\bullies\etc; and at the other end there are those who think that all\most cops are social outcasts finally laying claim to power and authority. Neither has been correct, in my observation.

I am curious how you think an organization would screen for this quality, and justify a less competitive rating due to an applicant's perceived social standing in pre-adult years. It seems strange.

[runcible]

Otherwise, why do some police departments get upset over people flashing their headlights to warn other motorists of a cop camping out, or people passing messages on social media that a department is going hardcore on speeding violations in a certain area? If the goal is to get people to slow down for public safety, then hasn't the goal been accomplished? The only thing that's missing is the government didn't take money from its citizens.

It could be argued, that they become upset because by shrinking the uncertainty involved with targeted traffic enforcement, the zone of improved behavior is thus shrunk from the "possible" to the "applicable."

More so, flashing the high beams and inappropriately using the four-way emergency flashers is its' own set of infractions; and for cause.

[Unobtanium]

It could be argued, that they become upset because by shrinking the uncertainty involved with targeted traffic enforcement, the zone of improved behavior is thus shrunk from the "possible" to the "applicable."

More so, flashing the high beams and inappropriately using the four-way emergency flashers is its' own set of infractions; and for cause.
I used to always run a valentine 1. Many times I found officers sitting with nothing on. Just trying to slow traffic via their existing. After that realization I just don't know what to think.

[jlw]

Well, I guess the rub is that what you described is still revenue generating. Not for the officer or department, but the conflict lies in that the local government could still be leveraging the local police to write tickets as a way of generating revenue for the township's general fund.

Otherwise, why do some police departments get upset over people flashing their headlights to warn other motorists of a cop camping out, or people passing messages on social media that a department is going hardcore on speeding violations in a certain area? If the goal is to get people to slow down for public safety, then hasn't the goal been accomplished? The only thing that's missing is the government didn't take money from its citizens.

If you find that inflammatory, then I'm not sure how else to discuss it.

The Sheriff's Office is a completely separate entity from the governing authority. They can't leverage us to do anything. We don't work for them. They have no command and control over us. Period. The Sheriff is the legal level of control. He and he alone is the boss. There is absolutely no financial gain for us for writing tickets. None. There is nothing to leverage. Period.

I'm speaking from a GA law perspective. I can't tell you how they do it Cleveland, but this is the law in GA and all 159 counties in this state.

One more time, please do not turn this thread into another tiresome thread on "revenue generation."

[LittleLebowski]

One more time, please do not turn this thread into another tiresome thread on "revenue generation."

This bears repeating. Consider it a ruling.

[Shellback]

One more time, please do not turn this thread into another tiresome thread on "revenue generation."

Read the original article and post things relevant to it, or not. But, this isn't the thread to air your personal grievances against specific policing policies.

I'm as pro-freedom as anyone, and just as critical of police when it's warranted, but this isn't the bitch about the cops in general thread. Please and thank you.

[Chuck Haggard]

I've pointed out to people how the whole "revenue generation" thing is false economy, it costs more to write tickets than you make off of them, and a myriad of other arguments. I might as well be trying to convert an ISIS henchman to Buddhism for all the listening that they do, and the "yeah, but"s I get.

Anyway, a really good article, and thanks for posting it.

[Tom Duffy]

In a six degrees of separation kind of way, most people have a horror story concerning themselves or someone they know being pulled over by a cop who was an absolute xxxxxxx. That trauma colors peoples' perception of law enforcement for many years to come and it's disproportionate in its effect. One unprofessional cop more than makes up for nine good ones.

Without trying to get into the sociology of it all, it's easy to understand why people in government subsidized projects view the police as an occupying army. The militarization of police forces hasn't helped in that regard but it keeps the police safer. The irony is that law abiding people who live in high crime areas still have a love/hate relationship with cops. "The New Centurions" is a timely today as when it was written.

I now like to read the comments on the local newspaper's website, particularly the crime stories; the comments are a good barometer of anti-cop feeling, which are way stronger than I ever would have thought. In the suburbs of New York City, for example, it usually revolves around the incredible (as in can't be believed) police salaries and the perception of how little work is done for these salaries as compared to the police who work in the cities.

Closing, I'll include a video making the rounds today of a cop saving a women he had just pulled over from choking. This deep down is what most cops want to be, it's only that they have lousy clients that keep this from being the norm.

http://www.cnn.com/video/data/2.0/video/us/2014/08/13/mxp-cop-saves-choking-woman.wood.html

[Chuck Haggard]

There is no militarization of the police. Period.

Moon bat conspiracy nuts to the contrary.


Recently I heard one of the reasons some people think "militarization" is cargo pants. Seriously?

The "traditional" uniform so many of these folks think of as "police" came from where? Blue is traditional in LE for what reason?

[Shellback]

Blue is traditional in LE for what reason?

It flatters you due to your eye color?


The police uniform is a tradition as old as the field of law enforcement itself In 1829 the first modem police force, the London Metropolitan Police, developed the first standard police apparel. These first police officers, the famous "Bobbies" of London, were issued a dark blue, paramilitary-style uniform.. The color blue was chosen to distinguish the police from the British military who wore red and white uniforms at the time. The first official police force in the United States was established in the city of New York in 1845. Based on the London police, the New York City Police Department adopted the dark blue uniform in 1853, Other cities, such as Philadelphia, Boston, Cincinnati, Cleveland, Buffalo, and Detroit quickly followed suit by establishing police departments based on the London model, including the adoption of the dark blue, paramilitary-style uniform.

[pablo]

I now like to read the comments on the local newspaper's website, particularly the crime stories; the comments are a good barometer of anti-cop feeling, which are way stronger than I ever would have thought. In the suburbs of New York City, for example, it usually revolves around the incredible (as in can't be believed) police salaries and the perception of how little work is done for these salaries as compared to the police who work in the cities.


It's false economy. In just about any geographic area, higher paying agencies pay less per officer because they face fewer lawsuits related officer misconduct. There's a very small pool of people that are qualified to be police officers, higher paying agencies have the purchasing power to hire and train qualified candidates or better hire qualified officers that were trained by a lower paying agency. Lower paying agencies can't hire and/or retain good officers.

[Chuck Haggard]

It flatters you due to your eye color?

Don't think blue goes with dark brown, I'd have to defer to folks with fashion sense as I have none.


In the US, mainly out east, it was mainly due to hand-me-down uniforms from the Union army. ETA; apparently out west as well; http://www.laphs.org/docs/blue-in-history-section.pdf

Coppers getting free stuff from the .mil, shocking militarization of the police!!!!!!!!, it was just 150 years ago is all.

Wish I had a copy of the pic of some of our cops from back in the 1890s posing next to the department Gatling gun.



Who wore the "Smokey the Bear" hat first, cops or doughboys?........................


Who issued .38 revolvers first, the Army or the po-po?...................

[Chuck Haggard]

The good old days;


while officers in San Francisco were required to pay $400.54 In regard to promoted positions, the going rate in New York City for a sergeant’s position was $1,600, and it was $12,000 to $15,000 for a position as captain.55 Upon being hired, policemen were also expected to contribute a portion of their salary to support the dominant political party.56 Political bosses had control over nearly every position within police agencies during this era.
Due to the extreme political influence during this time, there were virtually no standards for hiring or training police officers.57 Essentially, politicians within each ward would hire men that would agree to help them stay in office and not consider whether they were the most qualified people for the job. August Vollmer bluntly described the lack of standards during this era:
Under the old system, police officials were appointed through political affiliations and because of this they were frequently unintelligent and untrained, they were distributed through the area to be policed according to a hit-or-miss system and without adequate means of communication; they had little or no record keeping system; their investigation methods were obsolete, and they had no conception of the preventive possibilities of the service.58
Mark Haller described the lack of training another way:
New policemen heard a brief speech from a high-ranking officer, received a hickory club, a whistle, and a key to the callbox, and were sent out on the street to work with an experienced officer. Not only were the policemen untrained in law, but they operated within a criminal justice system that generally placed little emphasis upon legal procedure.59

http://www.sagepub.com/upm-data/50819_ch_1.pdf

[jlw]

...and nurses used to wear a white blouse, a white skirt, and a funny hat.

Now they wear scrubs for the most part.

[Shellback]

Don't think blue goes with dark brown, I'd have to defer to folks with fashion sense as I have none...

How very American of you. ;) Brits, and the more fashion forward, rock the look quite often.

http://rusolclothing.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/blue-suit-brown-shoesnavy-suits-and-brown-shoes-jeremy-stewart-4duxlo1t.jpg

I think I may have included this too late in my last reply, it's from PoliceUno.

The police uniform is a tradition as old as the field of law enforcement itself In 1829 the first modem police force, the London Metropolitan Police, developed the first standard police apparel. These first police officers, the famous "Bobbies" of London, were issued a dark blue, paramilitary-style uniform.. The color blue was chosen to distinguish the police from the British military who wore red and white uniforms at the time. The first official police force in the United States was established in the city of New York in 1845. Based on the London police, the New York City Police Department adopted the dark blue uniform in 1853, Other cities, such as Philadelphia, Boston, Cincinnati, Cleveland, Buffalo, and Detroit quickly followed suit by establishing police departments based on the London model, including the adoption of the dark blue, paramilitary-style uniform.

[Chuck Haggard]

A lot of the small things you note are exactly what the good people stuck in the hood complain about. Little things turn into big things.

The broken windows theory is dead on.

[Jay Cunningham]

How very American of you. ;) Brits, and the more fashion forward, rock the look quite often.

http://rusolclothing.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/blue-suit-brown-shoesnavy-suits-and-brown-shoes-jeremy-stewart-4duxlo1t.jpg

I think I may have included this too late in my last reply, it's from PoliceUno.



Indeed.

:cool:

[Tom Duffy]

Quote Originally Posted by Tom Duffy View Post
I now like to read the comments on the local newspaper's website, particularly the crime stories; the comments are a good barometer of anti-cop feeling, which are way stronger than I ever would have thought. In the suburbs of New York City, for example, it usually revolves around the incredible (as in can't be believed) police salaries and the perception of how little work is done for these salaries as compared to the police who work in the cities.



It's false economy. In just about any geographic area, higher paying agencies pay less per officer because they face fewer lawsuits related officer misconduct. There's a very small pool of people that are qualified to be police officers, higher paying agencies have the purchasing power to hire and train qualified candidates or better hire qualified officers that were trained by a lower paying agency. Lower paying agencies can't hire and/or retain good officers.

Agreed, to a point. The NYPD raised its starting salary by $10,000 several years ago because they weren't attracting very good candidates with a starting salary of $25,000. The department suffered lots of "bad egg" issues because of the average quality of the recruit who would work for so little. There are a lot of cities around the country that have "young" police forces; that just means they don't pay enough to retain good people.

But I only agree to a point. Around here, the average police salary for someone on the force a few years is about $120,000 and a Sergeant gets about $140,000 before overtime. The chief of police in a suburban town with an 11 man force makes about $180,000. With overtime, four patrol officers in a neighboring town made over $200,000. Plus great pension benefits. Long Island has even higher salaries. The compensation levels are unsustainable and the system is going to break. In my original post, I was trying to indicate this as an example of why there is anti-cop feeling. Worse case, some guy struggling to get by is late for his second job and caught doing 43 in a 25 mph zone is going to pay a $500 ticket and court costs, and get an insurance surcharge for 3 years. Resentment? You bet. And yes, the average cop around here is way more professional then he was 40 years ago.

[Tom Duffy]

There is no militarization of the police. Period.

Moon bat conspiracy nuts to the contrary.


Recently I heard one of the reasons some people think "militarization" is cargo pants. Seriously?

The "traditional" uniform so many of these folks think of as "police" came from where? Blue is traditional in LE for what reason?

In terms of the militarization of police forces, I thing the average citizen has two hot buttons, the proliferation of MRAPS and the utilization of SWAT teams to execute search warrants. You and I could argue whether the militarization actually occurred, or not. (Actually we couldn't, since you know way more about the subject than I do. :) ) But the phrase "perception is reality" comes to mind. The mainstream media is publishing articles such as this one I link to:

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2014/08/police_in_ferguson_military_weapons_threaten_prote sters.html

[jlw]

The media and public sees external body armor and says the SWAT team was on scene. It was more likely detectives/investigators.

[Chuck Haggard]

I've read that article, and many like it. That they are bull od BS and outright lies is a fact.

Historically when SWAT, real SWAT, shows up the level of violence and likelyhood for anyone to get hurts goes down, way down.

How did we get here? I'll tell you, too many patrol guys and/or detectives doing warrants and those warrants going bad, really bad, for both the good guys and the bad guys.


And MRAPS are defensive, they are in no way "offensive weapons of WAR!!!!!". An MRAP would get shot to bits in any real war.

Why is it OK to put money in an armored car and drive it around town, but not a few cops?

I sure bet the guys trying to deal with Whitman at the top of the tower could have used an armored car for rolling cover to rescue downed victims of his sniper fire. Just sayin.

Massive levels of Dunning-Kruger running rampant in the anti-SWAT folks writing those articles.

[GardoneVT]

In terms of the militarization of police forces, I thing the average citizen has two hot buttons, the proliferation of MRAPS and the utilization of SWAT teams to execute search warrants. You and I could argue whether the militarization actually occurred, or not. (Actually we couldn't, since you know way more about the subject than I do. :) ) But the phrase "perception is reality" comes to mind. The mainstream media is publishing articles such as this one I link to:

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2014/08/police_in_ferguson_military_weapons_threaten_prote sters.html

Why is it that no one wants to talk about militarization of the bad guys? Darn near every gangland video I've seen features a chopped up AK or SKS .

[Shellback]

http://sdwriters.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/stay-on-target.gif

[TheRoland]

Historically when SWAT, real SWAT, shows up


What makes a SWAT team "real"? Is there a problem with SWAT teams that are part-time or thrown-together or whatever?

In my rural part of New England, there are several super-part-time SWAT teams despite nobody shooting at a cop here since the 1800s. It's occasionally generated controversy when they're used for drug warrants.

[ford.304]

Ignore the misuse of the word SWAT. People are ignorant. But the use of raids by part-time "SWAT"-like teams has definitely gone up, and definitely escalates situations. We need to be careful we have good reason to escalate.

I think the only legitimate gripe about MRAPS is budgetary. Those things aren't cheap to operate, even if you did get them for practically free. I'd rather my cops had better training than an armored vehicle they're that gets used once every five years.

[Chuck Haggard]

Gear doesn't make a SWAT team, training and good leadership does.

[LittleLebowski]

Article (http://www.returnofkings.com/38476/why-americans-should-reconsider-their-contempt-for-todays-police). Discuss in a civil manner if you like.

Gentle reminder on what we are discussing.

[ssb]

I think my only, non-LE, never-intend-to-be-LE, Joe-Nobody gripe with the article is the following passage:


In short, police officers are legally protected if they make most types of mistakes, including serious life ending mistakes. Why? Because who the hell would want this job if you couldn’t make a mistake? I could hear this in a job interview: “You want me available to handle unpredictable, violent, life threatening situations over the course of a few decades, but I can’t make a mistake? Fuck you!”

LEOs are in a position of great public trust and responsibility. I think the attitude is somewhat cavalier: their mistakes can range from a pissed off citizen to that tragedy in Georgia (?) where the entry team tossed a flash-bang into a crib. Especially when the consequences of the mistake can be death/serious bodily harm of somebody who didn't need to die/get hurt, a "kitten happens" attitude is unacceptable to me. Their margin for error is very, very thin, and they should know that; they signed the contract.

Further, justified or not (I'll leave that to the experts), there are more than a few police responses that have made headlines which look asinine at best, the Arizona shooting (homeless guy in the hills) being one that immediately comes to mind (chiefly, the obvious presence of officers with less-than-lethal shotguns who were covered by officers with long guns should things go seriously awry). The fact that officers are perceived as receiving legal cover despite what is perceived as irresponsible and stupid actions doesn't sit well with a lot of people, reasonable or not.

[Shellback]

...the Arizona shooting (homeless guy in the hills) being one that immediately comes to mind (chiefly, the obvious presence of officers with less-than-lethal shotguns who were covered by officers with long guns should things go seriously awry).

That actually happened in the Sandia foothills, in Albuquerque, NM. If you're referring to what I think you are.

[ssb]

That actually happened in the Sandia foothills, in Albuquerque, NM. If you're referring to what I think you are.

Yep, that'd be it. Sorry -- long day.

[BaiHu]

I see this stuff like sales: if you have one good experience with a customer, then you hope like hell you'll get another. But if you have one bad experience with a customer, then you'll lose 20 potential customers.

Plus, people like to punch the big guy. It gets out their frustrations over their own failures and he never seems to go down. Love/hate.

[Unobtanium]

The Sheriff's Office is a completely separate entity from the governing authority. They can't leverage us to do anything. We don't work for them. They have no command and control over us. Period. The Sheriff is the legal level of control. He and he alone is the boss. There is absolutely no financial gain for us for writing tickets. None. There is nothing to leverage. Period.

I'm speaking from a GA law perspective. I can't tell you how they do it Cleveland, but this is the law in GA and all 159 counties in this state.

One more time, please do not turn this thread into another tiresome thread on "revenue generation."

This likely explains why I have NEVER seen a deputy writing a ticket to a motorist that wasn't endangering public safety (read: Not doing just 5 over), while it is common practice in my area (Waskom, TX, just across the state line from me. I used to work for the City just across from the court house, and I promise you, they think that 2-3 mile section of I-20 exists solely to generate revenue.) to generate revenue from 1-3mph over tickets (NO, I am not exaggerating. I saw them myself as the hangdog looking recipients brought them in).

[Unobtanium]

There is no militarization of the police. Period.

Moon bat conspiracy nuts to the contrary.


Recently I heard one of the reasons some people think "militarization" is cargo pants. Seriously?

The "traditional" uniform so many of these folks think of as "police" came from where? Blue is traditional in LE for what reason?

I see complaints like this on Facebook and other forums all the time. They complain about body armor. They complain about Colt 6920's. They complain about armored vehicles.

I think it's stupid. Do officers need that stuff? Well...if I was called out to the types of things they were, would I want it? Damn right I would. Would I USE IT every time? I sure hope not, but if something will keep me just one tiny bit safer on the job, and it's available, I'm damn well going to use it. I do where I work/what I do, why wouldn't I carry the same self-preservation as a law officer?

I think it's an absurd thing to complain over.

Then you have the nutjobs who think "They are gearing up to put us in FEMA camps and they need this to do that..." That is such a huge can of worms, when you cut worm in half, you just have 2 worms.

[Chuck Haggard]

I think my only, non-LE, never-intend-to-be-LE, Joe-Nobody gripe with the article is the following passage:



LEOs are in a position of great public trust and responsibility. I think the attitude is somewhat cavalier: their mistakes can range from a pissed off citizen to that tragedy in Georgia (?) where the entry team tossed a flash-bang into a crib. Especially when the consequences of the mistake can be death/serious bodily harm of somebody who didn't need to die/get hurt, a "kitten happens" attitude is unacceptable to me. Their margin for error is very, very thin, and they should know that; they signed the contract.

Further, justified or not (I'll leave that to the experts), there are more than a few police responses that have made headlines which look asinine at best, the Arizona shooting (homeless guy in the hills) being one that immediately comes to mind (chiefly, the obvious presence of officers with less-than-lethal shotguns who were covered by officers with long guns should things go seriously awry). The fact that officers are perceived as receiving legal cover despite what is perceived as irresponsible and stupid actions doesn't sit well with a lot of people, reasonable or not.


I agree.

In the flash-bang incident you note that would be people with gear and no training, or disregarding their training, one or the other. It's been decades since anyone has taught it being OK to dump a bang into an area that you can't see, and for precisely such reasons.

People get the police that they vote for, and that they are willing to finance with their taxes. You want to pay for a B quality group of people then don't be shocked when they kitten things up at times.

I have lost track of how many administrators that tell the troops they don't "need" things like advanced SWAT school, or patrol rifles classes, etc.

In my state we are required to sit through a BS racial profiling class every single year. We have no state requirement for DT, batons, OC, Taser, any other less-lethal, or firearms more than a 50 round qual once per year.

[jlw]

The flash bang into the crib happened 60 miles from me. There hasn't been a "kitten happens" attitude locally. That is certainly not the situation on the ground here. The national media is picking and choosing what it reports, and if anyone is basing their knowledge of media reports, bless their hearts.

The group that was executing that warrant was a regional drug task force made up of personnel from several agencies. The chief of one of the agencies with personnel on the task force has already been fired, and I expect there will be grand jury presentations at some point soon.

Of course, the national media just goes with the juicy headline and then moves on to the next one.

[Chuck Haggard]

The flash bang into the crib happened 60 miles from me. There hasn't been a "kitten happens" attitude locally. That is certainly not the situation on the ground here. The national media is picking and choosing what it reports, and if anyone is basing their knowledge of media reports, bless their hearts.

The group that was executing that warrant was a regional drug task force made up of personnel from several agencies. The chief of one of the agencies with personnel on the task force has already been fired, and I expect there will be grand jury presentations at some point soon.

Of course, the national media just goes with the juicy headline and then moves on to the next one.


I will point out that ^this^ is "not SWAT". If a proper SWAT team was involved this wouldn't have happened.


You actually want SWAT doing your warrants. Seriously.

[jlw]

A narcotics team is just as capable as executing a search warrant as is a SWAT team. A SWAT team is just as capable as screwing up a warrant as is a narcotics team. I've seen examples of both.

The label does not grant nor dispel common sense.

[JR1572]

When I was in narcotics, we conducted our search warrants, not SWAT. My group didn't have any problems due to the fact that we went overboard gathering intel and planning. Plus, we used other ways to get in besides dressing up in pajamas and smashing a door with a ram.

Not taking anything away from SWAT, but we had a very good group with very good leadership that made sure we had very good training. That's why it worked for us. I miss those days, but my 8-4 M-F position is much less hectic.

JR1572

[Chuck Haggard]

A narcotics team is just as capable as executing a search warrant as is a SWAT team. A SWAT team is just as capable as screwing up a warrant as is a narcotics team. I've seen examples of both.

The label does not grant nor dispel common sense.


In the real world the first statement is often very untrue.

Every single bad raid incident I have seen has involved a dope unit of some kind.

If one wants a SWAT team they need to be brought up to standard, in gear and training. I get that many are not. In my mind that makes them not a SWAT team so much as a bunch of guys with cool gear.

[Chuck Haggard]

Stolen post from a friend on his FB page, ref a MU professor ranting some off the wall BS about how the police need to be forced to report police shootings to a national data base, as though these are being hidden from the public somehow.


So the good professor from MU says in the article that the number of people that police officers shoot each year is undereported by 25 percent. That would put the high mark of the three years featured in the article at 532 people shot and killed by police. So what we are saying is that police forces in the United States, consisting of approximately 120,000 officers, policing a population approaching 300 MILLION people, making approximately 12.5 million arrests with almost 600,000 of those being for violent felonies, kill less than 600 people per year. While policing the most heavily armed population that the world has ever seen. IS THAT WHAT WE ARE SAYING??? OH USUALLY CLOSE TO 100 OF US ARE KILLED DOING IT. These numbers are not in dispute that I know of by anyone that has any credibility. These are the facts. Look at these numbers and tell me what you see. I see men and women of law enforcement doing a tremendous job and I and damn sick and tired of small minded, ignorant entitled people running over us at every turn.

The numbers are legit. The reporting of these numbers is not. Police shootings are a very rare event. The spin and excessive amount of reporting of such events is the real issue.

Yes, cops screw up. When they do they need to be pounded for it. Tarring the entire profession for the rare acts of a few bad actors doesn't make things better.

[ssb]

You actually want SWAT doing your warrants. Seriously.

Honest question: why?

Being blunt, I'd rather you knock on my door and let me know you're coming in because you had a warrant, than I would you toss a flash-bang at 6:30AM.

In my un-trained opinion, one seems a lot less likely to result in bad unintended consequences than the other. There are more than a few cases that have made the headlines where it didn't look like the now-deceased occupants' first thought was "oh, that's the police" (working off the assumption that normal people of sound mind don't set out to shoot at cops).

[JHC]

Rand Paul weighs in on de-militarizing the police.http://time.com/3111474/rand-paul-ferguson-police/

My youth was very different than Rand's it appears from his opening. I would not have considered mouthing off to one of our local un-militarized Mayberry LEOs. I'd have gotten snatched up for lack of respect. And I'm ok with that.

[Chuck Haggard]

Honest question: why?

Being blunt, I'd rather you knock on my door and let me know you're coming in because you had a warrant, than I would you toss a flash-bang at 6:30AM.

In my un-trained opinion, one seems a lot less likely to result in bad unintended consequences than the other. There are more than a few cases that have made the headlines where it didn't look like the now-deceased occupants' first thought was "oh, that's the police" (working off the assumption that normal people of sound mind don't set out to shoot at cops).

Depends on the warrant. And who it's on. You are thinking like you, some people don't think like you, they think they're Scarface.

In many cases knocking on the door gets the cops shot up. Do you think that we have randomly arrived at the way things currently are?

A properly trained SWAT team doesn't just go around randomly throwing bangs into houses.

Most of the cases you might look at do not involved a well trained and well led SWAT team, then involved dope teams. Not everybody wearing raid gear is a SWAT guy.

[Chuck Haggard]

Rand Paul weighs in on de-militarizing the police.http://time.com/3111474/rand-paul-ferguson-police/

My youth was very different than Rand's it appears from his opening. I would not have considered mouthing off to one of our local un-militarized Mayberry LEOs. I'd have gotten snatched up for lack of respect. And I'm ok with that.

Back in the day in many places resisting arrest would have resulted in a baton or flashlight to the head and then the Riverdance on your behind after you were down. That's a fact.

Mouthing off to the coppers often led to such events.

The "good old days" were not what everyone thinks they were.

[jlw]

In the real world the first statement is often very untrue.

Every single bad raid incident I have seen has involved a dope unit of some kind.

If one wants a SWAT team they need to be brought up to standard, in gear and training. I get that many are not. In my mind that makes them not a SWAT team so much as a bunch of guys with cool gear.


A couple of my guys are here on this forum. They are free to pipe up if they wish. I made the decision to deactivate our SRT for the time being, and I am being very, very resistant to bringing it back. It is a cause of dismay for some very talented and dedicated people, and I fully understand and respect their thoughts on the matter It does put us in the position have possibly having to call another agency for help, and that is a hard pill for a lot of my guys to swallow, but at the same time, we were at a point where I felt and still feel it was necessary.

That being said, I don't think any sort of equipment, a patch on your uniform, or a special designation as a "team" is the secret sauce to executing a warrant.

[Chuck Haggard]

That's a very mature decision. I totally get it.

[Trooper224]

The "good old days" were not what everyone thinks they were.

Oh, you mean the days when we were all supposedly "peace officers"?

[Shellback]

Most of the cases you might look at do not involved a well trained and well led SWAT team, then involved dope teams. Not everybody wearing raid gear is a SWAT guy.

That's one of the biggest issues with the public, perception. If it looks like a duck... It ain't always a duck.

[runcible]

Honest question: why?

Being blunt, I'd rather you knock on my door and let me know you're coming in because you had a warrant, than I would you toss a flash-bang at 6:30AM.

In my un-trained opinion, one seems a lot less likely to result in bad unintended consequences than the other. There are more than a few cases that have made the headlines where it didn't look like the now-deceased occupants' first thought was "oh, that's the police" (working off the assumption that normal people of sound mind don't set out to shoot at cops).

Do you think it's a bit of a cognitive jump, to move from "SWAT serves a warrant," to "SWAT can only service a warrant with violence and dynamic breaching," with no other options considered?

In your mind, is SWAT capable of knocking on a door?

[ssb]

Depends on the warrant. And who it's on. You are thinking like you, some people don't think like you, they think they're Scarface.

In many cases knocking on the door gets the cops shot up. Do you think that we have randomly arrived at the way things currently are?

A properly trained SWAT team doesn't just go around randomly throwing bangs into houses.

Most of the cases you might look at do not involved a well trained and well led SWAT team, then involved dope teams. Not everybody wearing raid gear is a SWAT guy.

A substantial majority of SWAT/not-SWAT-but-dresses-like-SWAT raids around here (specifically, deployments of the county's ERT team) are done for drug warrants. I do find it difficult to believe that they're facing a large majority of people who think they're Scarface. In the Anthony Diotauto case (FL), IIRC that raid was justified on:

- The allegation that he sold marijuana
- The fact that he had a CCW permit

Diotiauto had no criminal record that would lead me to believe he had a tendency for violent behavior. Quite frankly, I'm at a loss as to why the officers involved with that couldn't have... picked him up at the community college they knew he attended five days a week, or picked him up at the bar they knew he worked nights at. Unfortunately, Diotiauto was killed in an early morning raid; what he may have done to give the officers cause to shoot, I don't know. I will say that I did not care for the outcome of the lawsuit that followed (effectively stated that, even though the police didn't request a no-knock, they would have been reasonable in performing one without authorization based on the CCW permit, and did not require one for that reason).

Fair point re: not every guy in raid gear is SWAT. I understand that not every guy with a vest and a helmet is a SWAT officer; a large part of the public, as evidenced by some of the statements about the recent unpleasantness in Ferguson, probably doesn't. But, if as you seem to be suggesting the large majority of these "SWAT" raids aren't actual SWAT guys, but rather... untrained guys with cool toys (?? I don't want to put words in your mouth -- you've spoken a lot about "real" SWAT, but haven't really articulated who/what these "not SWAT" guys are)... then what are they doing with said cool toys, acting like cool guys? If, as you suggest, these untrained/not-properly-led/whatever guys are the ones causing these high-profile problems, why keep using them?

ETA: Gave the wrong name. Improperly identified Anthony Diotiauto as Amadau Diallo.

[ssb]

Do you think it's a bit of a cognitive jump, to move from "SWAT serves a warrant," to "SWAT can only service a warrant with violence and dynamic breaching," with no other options considered?

In your mind, is SWAT capable of knocking on a door?

I'm sure a SWAT officer is perfectly capable of knocking on a door. I don't know what I said that would give you cause to believe that I thought they weren't.

Re: cognitive jump. That may be an exposure/perception issue. Typically, when the headlines read "SWAT Team Serves Warrant; Ends Badly; Media Outraged," you're not dealing with a situation where they went in calmly.

[jlw]

A substantial majority of SWAT/not-SWAT-but-dresses-like-SWAT raids around here (specifically, deployments of the county's ERT team) are done for drug warrants. I do find it difficult to believe that they're facing a large majority of people who think they're Scarface. In the Amadou Diallo case (FL), IIRC that raid was justified on:

- The allegation that he sold marijuana
- The fact that he had a CCW permit

Diallo had no criminal record that would lead me to believe he had a tendency for violent behavior. Quite frankly, I'm at a loss as to why the officers involved with that couldn't have... picked him up at the community college they knew he attended five days a week, or picked him up at the bar they knew he worked nights at. Unfortunately, Diallo was killed in an early morning raid; what he may have done to give the officers cause to shoot, I don't know. I will say that I did not care for the outcome of the lawsuit that followed (effectively stated that, even though the police didn't request a no-knock, they would have been reasonable in performing one without authorization based on the CCW permit, and did not require one for that reason).

Fair point re: not every guy in raid gear is SWAT. I understand that not every guy with a vest and a helmet is a SWAT officer; a large part of the public, as evidenced by some of the statements about the recent unpleasantness in Ferguson, probably doesn't. But, if as you seem to be suggesting the large majority of these "SWAT" raids aren't actual SWAT guys, but rather... untrained guys with cool toys (?? I don't want to put words in your mouth -- you've spoken a lot about "real" SWAT, but haven't really articulated who/what these "not SWAT" guys are)... then what are they doing with said cool toys, acting like cool guys? If, as you suggest, these untrained/not-properly-led/whatever guys are the ones causing these high-profile problems, why keep using them?


Raid? What raid? There was no raid in the Diallo incident. There was no SWAT team. He was confronted by four cops on a sidewalk.

[ssb]

Raid? What raid? There was no raid in the Diallo incident. There was no SWAT team. He was confronted by four cops on a sidewalk.

Sorry -- wrong name. Working off of memory on my lunch break. Editing my post to reflect that.

I meant Anthony Diotiauto.

The lawsuit referenced is here: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-11th-circuit/1461849.html

[ford.304]

I think the demilitarization argument is not that we should not have some trained SWAT teams, but that we should not have a system that encourages the creation of the police equivalent of Tactical Timmies. Don't cops usually have a pretty good idea before they go in whether they're likely to be dealing with a Scarface wannabe or a random loser with a couple dime bags? Obviously they're not always right... but everything in policing is about reasonable risk to the officer and to the citizens.

We've all heard the complaints about officers who "aren't gun guys" and who barely pass qualification. Do we really want a system that encourages outfitting those guys with AR's and body armor, and then intentionally sending them into a dynamic situation that takes months of training to pull off safely? Yes, better and more training standards would be awesome -- but in the absence of those, maybe we should change tactics instead?

--

I bet that Rand Paul *would* have gotten off with a stern talking to if he mouthed off to a cop. He grew up in a nice white neighborhood in Texas. :P

Cops are definitely more professional now. Much less likely to get away with individual excess. But systemized excess... can still be a problem in some places. It doesn't help that citizens don't understand public employee due process laws. The news has moved on before the real punishments for excess happen.

[cclaxton]

St. Louis County Police to be relieved of duty related to enforcement in Ferguson and outlying areas.
http://america.aljazeera.com/blogs/scrutineer/2014/8/14/st-louis-county-policetakenoutoffergusonsituationsaysmogov.html
Cody

[LittleLebowski]

St. Louis County Police to be relieved of duty related to enforcement in Ferguson and outlying areas.
http://america.aljazeera.com/blogs/scrutineer/2014/8/14/st-louis-county-policetakenoutoffergusonsituationsaysmogov.html
Cody

Not sure what point you're trying to make here.

[jlw]

Sorry -- wrong name. Working off of memory on my lunch break. Editing my post to reflect that.

I meant Anthony Diotiauto.

The lawsuit referenced is here: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-11th-circuit/1461849.html

The case you linked lists as facts that Diotiauto had a criminal history, was involved in the drug trade, and was known to be armed, ran from the police, picked up a gun, and pointed it at the police.

The officers had a warrant.

Second guessing something to the point of "should have picked him up on campus" is to a large extent part of the problem. How would it be better to try to arrest a person in the wide open environment of a college campus versus the confined location of a person's home? Explain that to me, please. Let's go from a place where it is pretty much just him to a place where hundreds of unrelated people milling about. You don't think wading into a crowd on campus and snatching somebody up won't be cause for a stir? One of my favorite sayings: "What's the worst that could happen?"

Yeah, the cops actually PLANNING to go capture a guy on a crowded campus with the arrest attempt resulting in a shootout... That's an excellent plan. Nobody would second guess that at all... There's no way that could turn into a hostage situation... No completely innocent bystanders would ever get hurt...

[jlw]

St. Louis County Police to be relieved of duty related to enforcement in Ferguson and outlying areas.
http://america.aljazeera.com/blogs/scrutineer/2014/8/14/st-louis-county-policetakenoutoffergusonsituationsaysmogov.html
Cody

I'm not clicking on a link from that source. Who is doing the removing and what is the legal authority being cited for the removal?

[Palmguy]

I'm not clicking on a link from that source. Who is doing the removing and what is the legal authority being cited for the removal?

The article implies that it was the governor's decision.

[cclaxton]

Not sure what point you're trying to make here.
Not making a point, per se. Just putting out some facts related to the current incident. It seems to me St. Louis County LE has lost credibility due to their behavior last night, and this is the result.
Codyt

[jlw]

The article implies that it was the governor's decision.

Okay. If that is the case, that is one difference between the Mizzou way of things there compared to here. Here, the governor does not have such authority.

[jlw]

Not making a point, per se. Just putting out some facts related to the current incident. It seems to me St. Louis County LE has lost credibility due to their behavior last night, and this is the result.
Codyt

Or could just be politics.

[cclaxton]

I'm not clicking on a link from that source. Who is doing the removing and what is the legal authority being cited for the removal?
The Governor of Missouri.
I find Aljazeera to be a very good source for unfiltered news.
Another source, but I think Aljazeera broke the story. http://www.businessweek.com/news/2014-08-14/st-dot-louis-county-police-to-be-removed-from-ferguson-clay
Cody

[cclaxton]

Or could just be politics.
What's the difference?
Cody

[KeeFus]

Or could just be politics.

Winner!

[Totem Polar]

What's the difference?
Cody

Indeed, perception of credibility=politics. I do not want to step on the toes of anyone who I respect here, but the same logic that says "you point a gun at cops, don't be complaining if you get blown up" and "you hold up people at a gas station, don't complaint if a CCW'er ventilates you" also says "if you go to a scene armored up to the teeth, and then tear gas god, the press and everyone, don't be surprised if John and Jane public start throwing fits about militarized police".

This Ferguson thing seems to be going FUBAR in part because the community has issues, and in part because cops are gassing and arresting Wa Post reporters. Bad press would naturally be expected to follow that action.
OMMV.

[ssb]

The case you linked lists as facts that Diotiauto had a criminal history, was involved in the drug trade, and was known to be armed, ran from the police, picked up a gun, and pointed it at the police.

The officers had a warrant.

Second guessing something to the point of "should have picked him up on campus" is to a large extent part of the problem. How would it be better to try to arrest a person in the wide open environment of a college campus versus the confined location of a person's home? Explain that to me, please. Let's go from a place where it is pretty much just him to a place where hundreds of unrelated people milling about. You don't think wading into a crowd on campus and snatching somebody up won't be cause for a stir? One of my favorite sayings: "What's the worst that could happen?"

Yeah, the cops actually PLANNING to go capture a guy on a crowded campus with the arrest attempt resulting in a shootout... That's an excellent plan. Nobody would second guess that at all... There's no way that could turn into a hostage situation... No completely innocent bystanders would ever get hurt...

Judges don't necessarily write all of the facts; rather, they publish the facts that support their arguments. You'll notice this often in the various SCOTUS majority opinions and dissenting opinions. Yes, he had a criminal history: a minor conviction for sale of marijuana at 16. That was his only conviction. No assaults, no resisting arrest, etc. etc. etc. The reason they knew he was "carried a handgun frequently" was because they were made aware that he had a CCW permit. And, finally, having a loaded long gun in the home? Like many people here do for self-defense? Those three things do not add up to "high risk warrant" which required the county to assemble a SWAT team, in my opinion, especially in a country where a good chunk of the homes contain people who own firearms.

He was a college kid who, like many college kids, smoked weed. He happened to sell in decent-sized quantities (though an ounce really isn't all that much). Not exactly Scarface, in my opinion. Add in some sort of history of violent behavior or, hell, reliable information that he had a proclivity to become violent? Sure. But, as per the officers' own testimony, the above three facts were why they deemed it high risk. And honestly, I'm not seeing that.

The officers had a warrant: I never disputed that. What was at issue in that case was whether they were authorized to conduct a no-knock warrant and, if they weren't, whether or not they could be held liable for their actions. The officers claim they knocked. The bystanders claim they did not. I disagree with the court's reasoning that, without authorization, an officer should be able to make a determination that such a tactic is reasonable, use that tactic, and still retain qualified immunity. I think that falls outside of the scope of the warrant they were assigned, and is therefore an illegal search. If such a standard is law, what's the point of requiring authorization for no-knocks? But, honestly, that's thread drift. Sorry for bringing it up.

"How would it be better to try to arrest a person in the wide open environment of a college campus versus the confined location of a person's home? Explain that to me, please. Let's go from a place where it is pretty much just him to a place where hundreds of unrelated people milling about. You don't think wading into a crowd on campus and snatching somebody up won't be cause for a stir? One of my favorite sayings: 'What's the worst that could happen?'"

My initial response would be: why would you make a bunch of loud noises in the early morning, at the home of a guy who it's plain seems to have armed himself for self-defense, and not expect a reasonable possibility that he'd do... exactly what it seems he had prepared to do (respond to an intruder)?

When I was in college, I watched the city's police department cut in front of me in line at the Chik-Fil-A, get one of the employees' attention, "hey, we need to talk to you, please come over here, etc." They talked to him, placed him in handcuffs, and led him off. They did so in a dining area with a couple hundred people around. Did they take an unnecessary risk?

[Shellback]

Indeed, perception of credibility=politics. I do not want to step on the toes of anyone who I respect here, but the same logic that says "you point a gun at cops, don't be complaining if you get blown up" and "you hold up people at a gas station, don't complaint if a CCW'er ventilates you" also says "if you go to a scene armored up to the teeth, and then tear gas god, the press and everyone, don't be surprised if John and Jane public start throwing fits about militarized police".

This Ferguson thing seems to be going FUBAR in part because the community has issues, and in part because cops are gassing and arresting Wa Post reporters. Bad press would naturally be expected to follow that action.
OMMV.

There are cops pointing hot weapons at people there. Firearms safety rules are being blatantly ignored.

[LSP972]

I find Aljazeera to be a very good source for unfiltered news.


Wow. Just… wow.

.

[Jay Cunningham]

Wow. Just… wow.

.

If you disagree then refute.

"wow just wow" is not a refutation; it's a non-sequitur at best.

[JodyH]

I trust Aljazeera's US reporting more than I do the big domestic news agencies like CNN, NBC, Fox or the various major newspapers.

[LSP972]

If you disagree then refute.

"wow just wow" is not a refutation; it's a non-sequitur at best.

Perhaps. It is also an expression of amazement; which was my intention.

.

[JV_]

I trust Aljazeera's US reporting more than I do the big domestic news agencies like CNN, NBC, Fox or the various major newspapers.

Agreed.

[John Hearne]

A substantial majority of SWAT/not-SWAT-but-dresses-like-SWAT raids around here (specifically, deployments of the county's ERT team) are done for drug warrants. I do find it difficult to believe that they're facing a large majority of people who think they're Scarface.

There is a very long judicial history of automatically designated those engaged in the selling of illegal drugs as "armed and dangerous." Why? Because enough of them are to justify the extra cost of treating them as such.

Drug dealing is a bit of a paranoid game where you have multiple sides to worry about. You have 1) competing/jealous drug dealers 2)guys who rip-off drug dealers and 3)unsavory customers. If you regularly deal with people like this, wouldn't you keep a gun handy? I'm sure there are some very laid back, mellow drug dealers like Eric Stoltz in Pulp Fiction but the amount who exist at the shoot first and ask questions later is high.

The question become how many dangerous drug dealers does it take to justify treating all drug dealers as dangerous? If only 25% of people engaged in a patently illegal activity tend to be armed and readily use violence to defend their stuff, then is that enough? It is essentially an issue of being over cautious. This about it this way:

http://i1202.photobucket.com/albums/bb374/ajp3jeh/Gun%20Stuff/matrix_zpscc055490.jpg (http://s1202.photobucket.com/user/ajp3jeh/media/Gun%20Stuff/matrix_zpscc055490.jpg.html)

In this matrix, the only "bad thing" is if the police use too low a response. If they use a higher level of force in a professional manner, then there is not down side.

It's a lot like any other use of force. If sufficient force is used early, the situation is over and the harm stops. If people hesitate, make half-ass attempts, and let events continue, then it gets really bad.

The final consideration, from the standpoint of police admin, is that officer's estates have successfully sued departments for NOT using the SWAT guys to serve a warrant and getting officers killed.

As is often said, I'd offer that the best way to avoid a SWAT team kicking down you door is to not engage in blatantly illegal activities.

EDITED TO ADD: One of the most common mistakes seen in American law enforcement is the underestimation of one's opponent. This underestimation and its byproducts kill far more officers than anything out there. I really struggle to take seriously, any suggestion that requires police to deliberately underestimate the threats/risks they face.

[TheRoland]

In this matrix, the only "bad thing" is if the police use too low a response. If they use a higher level of force in a professional manner, then there is not down side.


But the whole point of this thread is that even professionals are human, and are going to eventually make mistakes. These mistakes might not be very common, but one can imagine that mistakes made on a "dynamic" raid can have considerably graver consequences for everyone.

To quote you, it's not the odds, it's the stakes.

[Totem Polar]

I trust Aljazeera's US reporting more than I do the big domestic news agencies like CNN, NBC, Fox or the various major newspapers.

Agreed.

I hate to be able to say this, but I do too.

[John Hearne]

But the whole point of this thread is that even professionals are human, and are going to eventually make mistakes. These mistakes might not be very common, but one can imagine that mistakes made on a "dynamic" raid can have considerably graver consequences for everyone.... To quote you, it's not the odds, it's the stakes.

I thought the whole point of the thread was to reconsider the common contempt of police. After that, I think that Chuck made some very good points. There are mistakes made by so-called SWAT Teams but that most mistakes are made by the amateur teams. The "common mistakes" made by a professional SWAT team don't even earn the title "common."

Also, SWAT does not equal dynamic. A growing trend is to surround and call out. But guess what, some times you call out the guy who wants to fight. If there's going to be a fight, who should be pitted against the bad guy - a bunch of guys with no body armor, revolvers, and no long guns or the guys with rifle rated armor, good comms, training, and current weapons technology?

I'd also point out that even the "surround and call out" is not without its critics. There is a VIDEO of a SWAT team doing this, including having marked patrol vehicles in the driveway, sounding vehicle sirens, and very loudly announcing their presence. When the home owner, armed with an AR-15 gets killed, everyone wants to cry when the VIDEO evidence clearly shows they did everything that could reasonably be done to avoid the tragic result.

[TheRoland]

I thought the whole point of the thread was to reconsider the common contempt of police. After that, I think that Chuck made some very good points. There are mistakes made by so-called SWAT Teams but that most mistakes are made by the amateur teams. The "common mistakes" made by a professional SWAT team don't even earn the title "common."

Also, SWAT does not equal dynamic. A growing trend is to surround and call out. But guess what, some times you call out the guy who wants to fight. If there's going to be a fight, who should be pitted against the bad guy - a bunch of guys with no body armor, revolvers, and no long guns or the guys with rifle rated armor, good comms, training, and current weapons technology?

I'd also point out that even the "surround and call out" is not without its critics. There is a VIDEO of a SWAT team doing this, including having marked patrol vehicles in the driveway, sounding vehicle sirens, and very loudly announcing their presence. When the home owner, armed with an AR-15 gets killed, everyone wants to cry when the VIDEO evidence clearly shows they did everything that could reasonably be done to avoid the tragic result.

Thanks for the reply; I don't think I can find anything to argue with here.

[Coyotesfan97]

I thought the whole point of the thread was to reconsider the common contempt of police. After that, I think that Chuck made some very good points. There are mistakes made by so-called SWAT Teams but that most mistakes are made by the amateur teams. The "common mistakes" made by a professional SWAT team don't even earn the title "common."

Also, SWAT does not equal dynamic. A growing trend is to surround and call out. But guess what, some times you call out the guy who wants to fight. If there's going to be a fight, who should be pitted against the bad guy - a bunch of guys with no body armor, revolvers, and no long guns or the guys with rifle rated armor, good comms, training, and current weapons technology?

I'd also point out that even the "surround and call out" is not without its critics. There is a VIDEO of a SWAT team doing this, including having marked patrol vehicles in the driveway, sounding vehicle sirens, and very loudly announcing their presence. When the home owner, armed with an AR-15 gets killed, everyone wants to cry when the VIDEO evidence clearly shows they did everything that could reasonably be done to avoid the tragic result.

I posted this on another thread but I assisted on three SWAT surround and callout warrant services yesterday that happened in the middle of the day. Zero people hurt. No media coverage.

Teams are going to this method. We've been using it for at least 10 years. We serve warrants mostly in the morning after six AM and the afternoons.

If someone resists a surround and callout properly done there is no chance they didn't know it was the Police.

[Dr. No]

In the real world the first statement is often very untrue.

Every single bad raid incident I have seen has involved a dope unit of some kind.

If one wants a SWAT team they need to be brought up to standard, in gear and training. I get that many are not. In my mind that makes them not a SWAT team so much as a bunch of guys with cool gear.

It really boils down to priorities.

Narc teams want to get the big load to make their case. If they get no dope, they don't have a good case. They will take some extra risk to prevent joe turd from flushing.

SWAT teams want to secure the scene safely for someone else to investigate. They don't get jack from doing the raids, their only goal is to resolve the problem safely.

Like Chuck says, the planned hits we do as a team are heavily researched and planned. I have seen multiple dope raids pushed by other people which have been sideways because CI's are trying to get paid, exaggerate to work off their case, not enough planning or research is done, or just plain 'chase the dope'.

You really do want professional SWAT teams running these raids. Full time ones, if possible.

[cclaxton]

Wow. Just… wow.
.
I work in the Broadcast industry and a few years ago I ran into a journalist downtown at a bar and we started talking. He told me he worked for Al Jazeera as a journalist. I asked him how he liked it and he said something I will never forget: "Working for Al Jazeera is the best job I have ever had as a journalist. It allows me to be the journalist I always wanted to be because they don't try to filter it or modify it to American sensibilities." He went on to tell me how much he loves his job and being able to write the story he is reporting and have it go on the air without editing. He did say that sometimes that offends people because he will show pictures of dead or mutilated bodies or bad things that were done by people fighting in Iraq. I don't know if he is still there, but that is when I first gave Al Jazeera a chance, and after that found it to be very good, especially for international news.

Another amusing thing I heard a guy from Qatar say to me recently: "Qatar is basically a country built around a broadcast network."
Cody

[Tamara]

If you disagree then refute.

Sure thing!

All news is filtered. An educated consumer takes into account by whom it is filtered.

Anybody who parrots the saw that BBC or Al Jazeera or rt.com is "unfiltered" (apparently because it's foreign and therefore better) is doing nothing but exposing their own biases.

If anything, a moderately savvy American news consumer is probably safer with FOX or NPR because at least there one understands the spin being put on the data, and can adjust for windage accordingly.

[peterb]

"Working for Al Jazeera is the best job I have ever had as a journalist. It allows me to be the journalist I always wanted to be because they don't try to filter it or modify it to American sensibilities."

Getting a foreign perspective on the news is interesting and can be useful. But one cannot automatically assume that it's more accurate. There is always bias, even if the journalists involved have no conscious agenda. It's just human nature that our perceptions are shaped by our experiences.

Good video editors can produce very different stories from the same raw footage. There doesn't have to be commentary to express a viewpoint.


Might be a new thread here............

[JAD]

It really boils down to priorities.

Speaking from outside, that was one of the best posts I've read on the topic. I'm really interested in JLW's further thoughts.

[ssb]

There is a very long judicial history of automatically designated those engaged in the selling of illegal drugs as "armed and dangerous." Why? Because enough of them are to justify the extra cost of treating them as such.

Drug dealing is a bit of a paranoid game where you have multiple sides to worry about. You have 1) competing/jealous drug dealers 2)guys who rip-off drug dealers and 3)unsavory customers. If you regularly deal with people like this, wouldn't you keep a gun handy? I'm sure there are some very laid back, mellow drug dealers like Eric Stoltz in Pulp Fiction but the amount who exist at the shoot first and ask questions later is high.

The question become how many dangerous drug dealers does it take to justify treating all drug dealers as dangerous? If only 25% of people engaged in a patently illegal activity tend to be armed and readily use violence to defend their stuff, then is that enough? It is essentially an issue of being over cautious. This about it this way:

http://i1202.photobucket.com/albums/bb374/ajp3jeh/Gun%20Stuff/matrix_zpscc055490.jpg (http://s1202.photobucket.com/user/ajp3jeh/media/Gun%20Stuff/matrix_zpscc055490.jpg.html)

In this matrix, the only "bad thing" is if the police use too low a response. If they use a higher level of force in a professional manner, then there is not down side.

It's a lot like any other use of force. If sufficient force is used early, the situation is over and the harm stops. If people hesitate, make half-ass attempts, and let events continue, then it gets really bad.

The final consideration, from the standpoint of police admin, is that officer's estates have successfully sued departments for NOT using the SWAT guys to serve a warrant and getting officers killed.

As is often said, I'd offer that the best way to avoid a SWAT team kicking down you door is to not engage in blatantly illegal activities.

EDITED TO ADD: One of the most common mistakes seen in American law enforcement is the underestimation of one's opponent. This underestimation and its byproducts kill far more officers than anything out there. I really struggle to take seriously, any suggestion that requires police to deliberately underestimate the threats/risks they face.

Thanks. I learned something.

[cclaxton]

Getting a foreign perspective on the news is interesting and can be useful. But one cannot automatically assume that it's more accurate. There is always bias, even if the journalists involved have no conscious agenda. It's just human nature that our perceptions are shaped by our experiences.
Good video editors can produce very different stories from the same raw footage. There doesn't have to be commentary to express a viewpoint.
Might be a new thread here............

Agreed. I always apply the smell test to whatever I read or view.

Tam, based on what I know about the inside workings of the American networks, they are "filtered" to fit the demographics they are targeting for advertising. With Al Jazeera, no such filtering is applied based on what this journalist told me and my own smell test. But, as peterb pointed out journalists have their own view based on their own past experience, and that CAN be slanted. But I would argue that journalists are trained to suppress their own personal bias because it affects their credibility as a journalist. The best journalists can suppress their own personal bias very well, others don't do it very well. I can usually tell by listening to the questions they ask.

BTW, I have been in those editing rooms, and the video editors have very little to say about the content. Sometimes they will help add footage or graphics to help the journalist tell the story. But every producer/journalist I know would have the editors' head if the editor modified the content of story the journalist/producer was telling. For news, the Producer/Journalist owns the story and they protect that like Momma Alligators in their nest.

Cody

[KeeFus]

Agreed.
BTW, I have been in those editing rooms, and the video editors have very little to say about the content. Sometimes they will help add footage or graphics to help the journalist tell the story. But every producer/journalist I know would have the editors' head if the editor modified the content of story the journalist/producer was telling. For news, the Producer/Journalist owns the story and they protect that like Momma Alligators in their nest.

Cody

Hmmm. That's a stark difference to what our PIO told me. After my OIS she was one of the reporters reporting on it. There was a lot of drama added to the reporting to fester up a lot of BS. Fast forward 5 years and she gets hired as our PIO. She comes up to me wanting to be all chatty...didn't work out so well for her. She told me that they spin the story in a way to get ratings but not to worry now cause "she's on our side now". She did not like my response and hasn't spoken to me since...I'm good with that. They spin stories to get the most mileage out of them. PERIOD.

[Tamara]

You ain't gotta tell me how the newsroom works, Cody.

[jlw]

I get interviewed on a pretty regular basis. It is not uncommon for only part of a quote to actually be used in a story, and a partial quote can completely change the appearance of a position on a matter.

Sometimes, the reporter just screws up and/or misinterprets what was said.

Sometimes the reporter/editor just decide to completely flip things on their ear.

Sometimes they get it right. This instance is less common than the three above. Usually the story is so inconsequential that it is not an issue.

[ford.304]

http://i1202.photobucket.com/albums/bb374/ajp3jeh/Gun%20Stuff/matrix_zpscc055490.jpg (http://s1202.photobucket.com/user/ajp3jeh/media/Gun%20Stuff/matrix_zpscc055490.jpg.html)


That an excellent diagram of the situation from the "officer danger" point of view. I don't know that people are really disputing that argument, just that it fails to capture the "citizen's rights" and "citizen's danger" aspect of the situation.

I think this whole debate gets muddled because we're really talking about a bunch of points at once:

1) The appropriate gear and weaponry for cops.
2) The appropriate tactics for serving warrants/crowd control (surround and wait vs dynamic. Daytime vs night).
3) The times to decide when a warrant is a "dangerous" one.
4) The relative importance given to officer safety.
5) The relative importance given to civilian/target safety.
6) The relative importance given to acquiring possibly destructible evidence.
7) How all the above is implemented by well-trained and well-meaning police.
8) How all of the above is implemented by ill-trained, uncaring, or corrupt cops.
9) The cost considerations of any or all of the above.

It's not a simple issue. And it all gets pretty nonsensical pretty darn quick because most of the people (myself included) who have real concerns about the civil rights aspect of it admittedly don't have as much specific insider knowledge from the cop side. Makes it easy to make a mistep on one of the secondary problems while trying to address the first one.

[KevinB]

That an excellent diagram of the situation from the "officer danger" point of view. I don't know that people are really disputing that argument, just that it fails to capture the "citizen's rights" and "citizen's danger" aspect of the situation.

No it does not.

The fact remains you can deescalate a situation much easier by having the equipment and training that is above the requirement than below and trying to reach up.




I think this whole debate gets muddled because we're really talking about a bunch of points at once:

1) The appropriate gear and weaponry for cops.
2) The appropriate tactics for serving warrants/crowd control (surround and wait vs dynamic. Daytime vs night).
3) The times to decide when a warrant is a "dangerous" one.
4) The relative importance given to officer safety.
5) The relative importance given to civilian/target safety.
6) The relative importance given to acquiring possibly destructible evidence.
7) How all the above is implemented by well-trained and well-meaning police.
8) How all of the above is implemented by ill-trained, uncaring, or corrupt cops.
9) The cost considerations of any or all of the above.

It's not a simple issue. And it all gets pretty nonsensical pretty darn quick because most of the people (myself included) who have real concerns about the civil rights aspect of it admittedly don't have as much specific insider knowledge from the cop side. Makes it easy to make a mistep on one of the secondary problems while trying to address the first one.


I had a large response written for you, but I think your lists is easier distilled to two points:

1) Public Safety is the LE job #1, at the end of the day Officer Safety is #2 to the public.
2) Minimizing risks to officers while ensuring public safety is important as well.

It needs to be done within an acceptable budget - as quite frankly no non Mil/Int entity has the budget to run a Million or more dollar training package for their personnel.

I don't honestly understand the civil rights concerns about SWAT/ERT teams.

[ford.304]

No it does not.

The fact remains you can deescalate a situation much easier by having the equipment and training that is above the requirement than below and trying to reach up.





I had a large response written for you, but I think your lists is easier distilled to two points:

1) Public Safety is the LE job #1, at the end of the day Officer Safety is #2 to the public.
2) Minimizing risks to officers while ensuring public safety is important as well.

It needs to be done within an acceptable budget - as quite frankly no non Mil/Int entity has the budget to run a Million or more dollar training package for their personnel.

I don't honestly understand the civil rights concerns about SWAT/ERT teams.

Maybe rights activists are using the wrong terminology. What terminology should we be using?

Follow Radley Balko for a bit. You see a litany of violent, dynamic raids done on very flimsy evidence. Of no-knock or barely knock raids in the middle of the night, mostly on the pretense of not losing evidence. Of innocent adults and children being pulled from their beds, thrown to the ground, and an AR pressed to their head. Of accidental injuries because doing this kind of thing is inherently dangerous and confusing. Moreover, of how it can be very difficult for people (especially low income people) to get much redress from their local department when this is done in error.

Or looking at Ferguson, of how antagonistic the police strategy appears. They are showing up heavily armed to a protest about cops. It appears to be a show of force and power more than an attempt at de-escalating a protest. I'm all for having those guys at the ready *in case* something goes bad. But by the department's choice of priorities they appeared to be almost egging the protestors into some kind of a fight.

This part of the picture is well documented. There is a correlation between spread of "SWAT" style teams and their use in this manner. Some people find this an abusive, inherently risky and dangerous procedure (including many of the cops that Mr. Balko interviews). In Rise of the Warrior cop, Balko recounts how much *easier* it is for cops to obtain and use more modern military equipment in these sorts of raids compared to the 70's.

Now... as someone who *does* hold a high opinion of the cops on this board, and thinks they have every right to body armor and an AR that *I* do... my question now is -- how do we talk about *that* concern without straying out of our lane? Without showing contempt for our police officers, saying that their lives need to be risked, or accidentally (at least in my case) arguing the ridiculous idea that we don't need highly trained SWAT teams for some encounters (and even admitting that we don't always know which encounters those will be).

My personal opinion is that there are a few trends which are actually harmful (no-knock midnight raids for drug evidence), and many more that are causing more... cosmetic issues than actual rights issues. Guys wearing camo, carrying AR's, and sitting in an armored truck *look* like the army, and that provokes a reaction from people... but it's not actually impacting my rights. Still, the two have happened at the same time, in the same places. So maybe the gentlemen here in the profession can help sort out how I *should* be talking about the problems I have.

[KevinB]

Frankly in my opinion this is more of an issue with the both the POLITICAL and LEGAL system as a whole, than the ENFORCEMENT arm.

Zero Dark Stupid Raids are good for Mil Op's -- however unless it's for NATIONAL SECURITY issues, I do not see a rationale for them in current policing.

Camo - as a team that runs camo uniforms, they do in most environments help from officer safety.
Armored Truck is simply another PUBLIC safety tool --
AR's -- show me a more effective tool? I can be more accurate, faster with an AR - which increases public safety.

WTF showing up heavily armed to a protest -- well, when the crowd is tossing Molotov's and shooting, would you not?
I don't want to get sidetracked on that issue - as I think a litany of mistakes have been made that are specific to that incident that is not germane to the entire issue.

I believe that LE should be beholden to the people, and so should our political and legal branch -- issues with flimsy warrants are a symptom of a further issue not specific to the local Department.


Honestly I'm not interested in following Mr. Balko, as from what I have seen he is DEAD wrong. He misses the point that the Military has evolved exponentially since the 70's, as have the threats to the public (and consequentially LE).

[ford.304]

Thing is, it's the enforcement agency asking for the warrants and picking the tactics, right? I've heard several guys here say they choose not to do it that way, and that's awesome... but it means that the choice is at the enforcement level.

Does anyone have a link to a blog post or similar detailing why Balko is wrong? I'd love to read it. I've heard a couple cops who don't think highly of his work, but few particular rebuttals. It's incredibly frustrating as a neutral party trying to find out the truth here when there's so little direct engagement with specific claims.

[jlw]

Thing is, it's the enforcement agency asking for the warrants and picking the tactics, right? I've heard several guys here say they choose not to do it that way, and that's awesome... but it means that the choice is at the enforcement level.

Does anyone have a link to a blog post or similar detailing why Balko is wrong? I'd love to read it. I've heard a couple cops who don't think highly of his work, but few particular rebuttals. It's incredibly frustrating as a neutral party trying to find out the truth here when there's so little direct engagement with specific claims.

Here, no-knock warrants require a special attachment to a warrant that must specifically be authorized by the judge.

[KevinB]

WRT Balko: Show me a time at ANY point in US LE history when LE did not have the same weapons as the Military?
History rebutts him, in fact during the 20's and 30's you can see LE had in many cases more modern weapons than the Army and USMC did.

Tactics - mostly this is geopolitical. Few folks join Policing to fight/ refight street battles. Policies and Directives dictate what LE can and cannot do. IF some areas are prone to certain activities, its either a leadership and/or knowledge vacuum, or directed from higher (indicating the possibility of a moral vacuum).

[ford.304]

Here, no-knock warrants require a special attachment to a warrant that must specifically be authorized by the judge.

My impression from various former prosecutors was that most judges rarely refuse to authorize a warrant where someone knew how to fill out the form correctly.

Yes, this does point to a problem that goes far beyond enforcement to judges and prosecutors. I don't mean to single out cops. It doesn't exactly let enforcement off the hook when they ask for those warrants, though.

[jlw]

My impression from various former prosecutors was that most judges rarely refuse to authorize a warrant where someone knew how to fill out the form correctly.




Have you ever actually seen and read a search warrant?

They are not, at least not here, a simple form. They actually require complete sentences and such...

The probable cause affidavit is in paragraph form and more often than not several pages in length plus the description of the property, the verification of the property, etc.

[John Hearne]

My impression from various former prosecutors was that most judges rarely refuse to authorize a warrant where someone knew how to fill out the form correctly.


If by "correctly" you mean the request contains a description of the place to be searched, the items one is looking for, and the reason you think those items will be found in that location, then yes most judges sign them. That is the judge's job and not much else, to make sure those facts are present in the document. Properly requesting a search warrant isn't rocket science, it's something taught in back LE academies.

Just as an example, I recently requested and receive a search warrant for a vehicle including the contents of its airbag module and other contents. The probably cause affidavit was approximately 13 pages. It named the VIN number of the vehicle to be searched, where the vehicle was currently stored, and why I thought that evidence relevant to my investigation might be found. Because I had thoroughly documented all the necessary components, the judge signed it.

[David Armstrong]

Much of this stuff is local, which is as it should be to a great extent. But I've been places where warrants were signed without the most cursory reviews, I've been places where judges questioned the officers about all sorts of details before signing them. There are places where local LE manages to operate just fine without all the military trappings, there are others where that seems to be the only thing you see. The typical officer would do just fine today dressed and equipped the way they were dressed and equipped as they were in the mid 70s. On the other hand there are situations where we need the far from typical officer equipped with anything you might find on the latest spec ops soldier in a hot zone. Hard to generalize.

[vcdgrips]

ford.304

Your non first hand "impressions" reflect a woeful lack of understanding regarding how search warrant and their supporting affadavits are drafted, reviewed, sought and served. I base this statement on my review of hundreds of search warrants drafted by dozens of state and federal agencies. How about you stay in your lane.

[jlw]

If by "correctly" you mean the request contains a description of the place to be searched, the items one is looking for, and the reason you think those items will be found in that location, then yes most judges sign them. That is the judge's job and not much else, to make sure those facts are present in the document. Properly requesting a search warrant isn't rocket science, it's something taught in back LE academies.

Just as an example, I recently requested and receive a search warrant for a vehicle including the contents of its airbag module and other contents. The probably cause affidavit was approximately 13 pages. It named the VIN number of the vehicle to be searched, where the vehicle was currently stored, and why I thought that evidence relevant to my investigation might be found. Because I had thoroughly documented all the necessary components, the judge signed it.


ford.304

Your non first hand "impressions" reflect a woeful lack of understanding regarding how search warrant and their supporting affadavits are drafted, reviewed, sought and served. I base this statement on my review of hundreds of search warrants drafted by dozens of state and federal agencies. How about you stay in your lane.


But on TV they just pick up a cell phone and say, "I need a warrant." and that is all it takes.

[ford.304]

Not professionally, but recreationally a time or two :)

I'm pretty sure Ken White (used to work as a prosecutor, not works as a defense attorney and writes popehat.com blog) has read a few as well.

http://www.popehat.com/2014/07/15/warrants-bulwark-of-liberty-or-paper-shield/

I am completely aware that filling out a warrant is a time-consuming process for an officer. Filling out one for a legit crime is no walk in the park, and requires setting up a both what the officer knows and how they know it. Moreover, I know that for any additional escalation, special request and justification must be given, and should be examined very closely by the presiding judge.

It's very nice in theory. It seems as though in practice, many times it turns into so much paperwork. A lot of that is on the judge for not looking closely enough.

I'm trying *really* hard to not make this me vs the cops. I don't mean that. Sorry if I've given the wrong impression.

@vcd

I'm going off of what I have read from multiple lawyers and civil rights activists (including some cops) in this area who are intimately familiar with criminal procedure and its effects. It's not my impression from TV or watching evening news, if that what you mean.

But I didn't want to make this a big argument. So I'll check out. Have a nice evening, ya'll, and stay safe.

[John Hearne]

But on TV they just pick up a cell phone and say, "I need a warrant." and that is all it takes.

True, I have always wanted me one of those phones.....

[Shellback]

How about you stay in your lane.

Why not educate him in a positive manner rather than expecting him to kowtow to your imaginary internet badge?

[klewis]

How about you stay in your lane.

The fourth amendment is very much our collective lane. Hence the thread.

[Shellback]

Just last week, Maryland State Trooper on the way back to the cop shop - Nice save!


http://youtu.be/qzJFvb0h3qg

[vcdgrips]

Irish et al.

Respectfully, it has become quite tiresome to read in this forum particularly, posts based on or otherwise quote second or third hand information like it is the gospel truth.

"My impression from various former prosecutors was that most judges rarely refuse to authorize a warrant where someone knew how to fill out the form correctly."

1. The poster re the above by his own admission has not spoken to a group of collective prosecutors nor a body of judges such that he could glean a majority opinion held by "most" judges.
2. The supporting article that he links to talks about warrants to authorize federal wiretaps v. a search warrant for items etc. which is another kettle of fish entirely
3. The poster acknowledges that he has little to no experience reading search warrant documents as he has read "only one or two recreationally."


The post then goes on to clarify his point

"I am completely aware that filling out a warrant is a time-consuming process for an officer."
(Actually, filling out the warrant itself is not particularly time consuming at all, the attached supporting affidavit is what is often typically time consuming)

Filling out one for a legit crime is no walk in the park, (implication being that filling out one for a presumably non legit crime is easy?) and requires setting up a both what the officer knows and how they know it. Moreover, I know that for any additional escalation (the term additional escalation is not a term I have ever heard used in any document in the search warrant context.), special request and justification must be given, and should be examined very closely by the presiding judge.

It's very nice in theory. It seems as though in practice, many times it turns into so much paperwork. ( No basis in fact, training or experience to make this statement or draw this conclusion) A lot of that is on the judge for not looking closely enough.

Bottom Line- I base my comments from working in the search warrant arena for the last 17 years, the poster I took issue with -"the interwebs". I expect no kowtowing, I just expect posters on this forum (LE) to not post when they do not know what they are talking about or at least say that up front as opposed to making massive and sweeping generalization re a subject matter they have little to no real expertise in.

[LittleLebowski]

This thread needs some eyes on it. It also needs some civility and restraint. Happily, the moderators are here to provide these things. If you see a problem or feel insulted, hit that Report button. Let the moderators deal with it.

For all, remember how PF isn't that place where the denizens fling feces and scream at each other? Do your part at your level to keep it that way.

Again, if there's a problem, TELL THE MODS.

[Shellback]

Irish et al.

Thank you for taking the time to write a well thought out, articulate response. My apologies for my flippant remark earlier.

[vcdgrips]

Irish, No worries, we are talking about important issues.
Be safe and well.

[klewis]

vcdgrips,

In context I see your point, and get what you were saying. Sorry for any offense.

Ken

[ford.304]

Irish et al.

Respectfully, it has become quite tiresome to read in this forum particularly, posts based on or otherwise quote second or third hand information like it is the gospel truth.

"My impression from various former prosecutors was that most judges rarely refuse to authorize a warrant where someone knew how to fill out the form correctly."

1. The poster re the above by his own admission has not spoken to a group of collective prosecutors nor a body of judges such that he could glean a majority opinion held by "most" judges.
2. The supporting article that he links to talks about warrants to authorize federal wiretaps v. a search warrant for items etc. which is another kettle of fish entirely
3. The poster acknowledges that he has little to no experience reading search warrant documents as he has read "only one or two recreationally."


The post then goes on to clarify his point

"I am completely aware that filling out a warrant is a time-consuming process for an officer."
(Actually, filling out the warrant itself is not particularly time consuming at all, the attached supporting affidavit is what is often typically time consuming)

Filling out one for a legit crime is no walk in the park, (implication being that filling out one for a presumably non legit crime is easy?) and requires setting up a both what the officer knows and how they know it. Moreover, I know that for any additional escalation (the term additional escalation is not a term I have ever heard used in any document in the search warrant context.), special request and justification must be given, and should be examined very closely by the presiding judge.

It's very nice in theory. It seems as though in practice, many times it turns into so much paperwork. ( No basis in fact, training or experience to make this statement or draw this conclusion) A lot of that is on the judge for not looking closely enough.

Bottom Line- I base my comments from working in the search warrant arena for the last 17 years, the poster I took issue with -"the interwebs". I expect no kowtowing, I just expect posters on this forum (LE) to not post when they do not know what they are talking about or at least say that up front as opposed to making massive and sweeping generalization re a subject matter they have little to no real expertise in.

These are all very fair points, vcdgrips. And it points to exactly what I was trying to say at the beginning of this, before I overextended myself.

I'm not a cop. I'm never going to *be* a cop, and never have those direct experiences.

But I try to read, and I try to educate myself. I read blogs and academic articles from leading law professors, civil rights' activists, area-specific journalists, and police advocates. I've read more legal opinions and amicus briefs than is healthy for anyone who doesn't actually work in law.

I truly believe that the balance of police procedure and civil rights has to be a conversation between police and citizens. It can't be one or the other dictating terms.

When I say "my impression" I mean "this is a summary of the opinion of some people who *do* have direct knowledge that I have read."

If my research isn't enough to even get onto the ground floor of the debate... well, who does get to have that debate? How do I educate myself on this without becoming a police officer so we can have a useful conversation?

[calibased]

People who hate cops should never be trusted. This is because they cannot handle someone holding them responsible for there wrong doings.

[KevinB]

People who hate cops should never be trusted. This is because they cannot handle someone holding them responsible for there wrong doings.

Usually I call those people democrats ;)

[LittleLebowski]

People who hate cops should never be trusted. This is because they cannot handle someone holding them responsible for there wrong doings.

I've managed to change at least one cop hater's mind recently. Asking him to put himself in the shoes of the St. Louis cops did the trick. I always see things in shades of gray though.

[Coyotesfan97]

I've managed to change at least one cop hater's mind recently. Asking him to put himself in the shoes of the St. Louis cops did the trick. I always see things in shades of gray though.

Asking questions like that make people think. I like that.

[Default.mp3]

Mispost.

[jnc36rcpd]

When I instruct use of force at the citizens police academy, I ask the attendees to consider what they would want their sibling/adult child/significant other to do if that person were the officer involved in an incident.

[ford.304]

People who hate cops should never be trusted. This is because they cannot handle someone holding them responsible for there wrong doings.

I do think there's a big and important difference between hating cops and being concerned about the justice system. I *like* cops. I'm kind of terrified of the system.

[TR675]

I do think there's a big and important difference between hating cops and being concerned about the justice system. I *like* cops. I'm kind of terrified of the system.

Agree. Having seen it both sides both in front of the bar and as a juror, I have an extremely healthy fear of experiencing the system as a defendant, civil or criminal. It doesn't take much to get there either.

[cclaxton]

People who hate cops should never be trusted. This is because they cannot handle someone holding them responsible for there wrong doings.
There is a huge range of diversity of how people feel about cops.
At the low end everyone dislikes being pulled over for a traffic infraction, for instance.
There are some people who hate cops because they are opposed to the general idea of law enforcement, such as anarchists or extreme libertarians.
There are some people who hate cops because they are engaged in black market businesses, such as: weed sales, prostitution, moonshine, untaxed cigarettes, black market sales, etc.
There are some people who hate cops because they want to smoke weed legally, but are non-violent and law abiding otherwise.
There are some who hate cops because of how they have been treated in the past by cops, such as being searched for no reason, being assaulted, being arrested, etc.
There are some blacks who hate cops because they are mostly white and represent oppression of black people, even though there may not be any actual bias.
There are some who love cops when they need them but just fear getting caught doing something wrong, but who are not criminals.
There are some who love cops but hate some of our laws and the policies that come from those laws.
There are even LEO's that despise other LEO agencies.

My point is that it is difficult to generalize about hating cops.
Cody

[JV_]

Oh nevermind.

[Psychlone]

When I lived in Manassas, VA in the mid 90's they had a cool thing called a Citizens Police Academy run by the Manassas Police. It involved classroom discussion, K9 demos, and we even got to shoot police weapons such as a nine, 12 gauge, and even a full auto MP-5. They also had ride alongs if you wanted to do that. At the end of the Academy everyone got a plaque. It was a really cool experience and definitely made me respect what law enforcement people go through on a daily basis.

[JV_]

Prince William county still offers it.

[Coyotesfan97]

My agency runs a Citizen Academy.

[Shellback]

LEOs are in a position of great public trust and responsibility. I think the attitude is somewhat cavalier: their mistakes can range from a pissed off citizen to that tragedy in Georgia (?) where the entry team tossed a flash-bang into a crib. Especially when the consequences of the mistake can be death/serious bodily harm of somebody who didn't need to die/get hurt, a "kitten happens" attitude is unacceptable to me. Their margin for error is very, very thin, and they should know that; they signed the contract.

Update: The county will not pay medical bills for the child that was injured. Very disappointing.


http://youtu.be/O3DN-Lb_dzQ

[David Armstrong]

I do think there's a big and important difference between hating cops and being concerned about the justice system. I *like* cops. I'm kind of terrified of the system.That's a great point. Having worked in the system I'm certainly aware of just how easy it is for some officers to railroad others and grossly abuse their powers, and often it doesn't get addressed until in court, if at all. It is up to the good guys to police ourselves in the ranks and ride herd on those who use the system incorrectly. I used to wonder why it seemed so many ex-LEOs became such active defense attorneys until I got into the expert witness side of it for them and began seeing the amazing (to me) numbers of blatant wrongdoings from LEOs who use the system to cover for their own inadequacies and incompetence.

[Chuck Haggard]

A pretty good article, with some perspective;
http://www.lawofficer.com/article/lifeline-training/pigs-once-again


But, Pigs?

Here are some stats gleaned from such organizations as the National Institute of Justice:

2011: Police officers had direct contact with citizens more than 40 million times. 1,146 of those people were shot (not killed) by police. That means out of all the people police encountered approximately 0.00002865% were shot. If you consider that there are over 320 million people in the country that would mean 0.00000358125% of them were shot by cops.

2012: There were approximately 12 million arrests, which equals about 34,000 per day: slightly over 400 were killed by police. And almost all of them were killed because they were an immediate deadly threat to an officer or the public. Which means that at the times of those shootings, cops were saving lives.

The Truth: Cops are not “gunning down” people in the US. Are there mistakes, overzealousness, an overreaction to stress on occasion; yes, and we have to accept that and do something about it when those occasions happen. If a crime is committed by a police officer, criminal charges need be filed; No doubt.

But a war on the citizenry? Genocide being perpetrated by the police? Storm-troopers taking over cities?

Pigs?

I’ve been in law enforcement for more than 30 years. I’ve seen more than I care to share with people who don’t need to know such evil exists. I’m no different than every other cop out there, and let me guarantee you this; we feel. We are not heartless, nonhuman, Neanderthals looking to inflict pain. In fact, it’s the damn exact opposite. We beg, beg people not to resist, not to fight! And the stats are there to prove it; but why bother with reality?

[Chuck Haggard]

Oh, and reference public perception vs reality, a bit from a friend's FB page;


Perception is a funny thing. I go to a call of a EDP. I find him with a belt knotted several times around his neck, passing out. I am struggling with getting the belt off of him, he's making this gurgling sound, and I finally get it loose. He immediately starts fighting with me telling me to kill him. I take him down, pin him with a knee ride and ask for an ambulance. He starts bashing his head against the ground hard enough that I'm concerned he's going to fracture his skull so I pin his head to the ground so he can't do more damage and wait for the medics.

Two separate people, one on foot and one driving by, have been filming me with their cell phones. I could care less until the female in the car yells, "Look at this police brutality! This ain't Ferguson m*therf*cker!", then as she's starting to drive away she says, "this going on my facebook, you best believe that! The world going see this racist police brutality"....

So somewhere I'm on some idiots fb as the racist perpetrator of police brutality..., pinning a white EDP down so he can't hurt himself more.

3 years, 9 months... 3 years, 9 months...., 3 years, 9 months...

[Dr. No]

I think that is the thing that frustrates us as cops more than anything else. People don't understand the concept of "totality of the circumstances" and only take what they see right in front of them at complete face value. Especially when it comes to uses of force. If there is one thing I wish I could instantly make the entire population understand... it would be that sometimes you need to get all the details and facts before you decide what is right or wrong.

[Shellback]

This is a follow up article by the author of the original. I think he made a lot good points through out and it's definitely worth the read: 6 Ways Policemen Can Regain Credibility With The American Public. (http://www.returnofkings.com/41627/6-ways-policemen-can-regain-credibility-with-the-american-public)


With that being said, I would like to challenge law enforcement to look into the mirror and reflect on what we may be doing wrong. I know cops have many thoughts on this, even though it is not discussed at roll call or FOP meetings; primarily because our out-of-touch administrators are more worried about their bottom line and retirement and focus more on risk management than any sort of valuable reform. Many of you question the same things about our institution, but with no forum for it to be discussed, nothing is addressed and nothing gets changed...

And when the public truly seeks reform, they will direct their contempt at the politicians and “leaders” that actually run the show, yet have somehow remained exempt from the ridicule and harassment we often face. In the meantime, let us consider some changes and reminders to help come to an understanding with the public that we are simply local crime fighters acting on behalf of a common morality and not the government...

Public safety is contingent on the conscience and values of a community, not the power of law enforcement. Unfortunately, when crime is high in a community, half of the community begs for a police state while the other half condemns it, and we are always viewed simultaneously as too aggressive or too passive. How can we ever win?

[cclaxton]

I think that is the thing that frustrates us as cops more than anything else. People don't understand the concept of "totality of the circumstances" and only take what they see right in front of them at complete face value. Especially when it comes to uses of force. If there is one thing I wish I could instantly make the entire population understand... it would be that sometimes you need to get all the details and facts before you decide what is right or wrong.
This reminds me of a quote from the late Senator Byrd from WV: "the difference between a lynching and an execution is process." It is the process that allows people to calm down and find out the facts and the details of a particular incident. And, it is the process that reduces the amount of heresay and subjectivity so that a trial can occur. ....
Cody

[Trooper224]

I think that is the thing that frustrates us as cops more than anything else. People don't understand the concept of "totality of the circumstances" and only take what they see right in front of them at complete face value. Especially when it comes to uses of force. If there is one thing I wish I could instantly make the entire population understand... it would be that sometimes you need to get all the details and facts before you decide what is right or wrong.

Unfortunately most people aren't interested in the truth, but only that which supports their own preconceived ideas.

[Dr. No]

Unfortunately most people aren't interested in the truth, but only that which supports their own preconceived ideas.

Or what will get them the most hits on YouTube.

[Joe in PNG]

The comments on the two articles are interesting, and I often wonder what kind of Cloudcoo-cooland these folks come from.
Private law enforcement? Really? They really want Gecko45 enforcing laws? Or a LEO version of the old NYC Firedepartment fights from "The Gangs of New York" era?

[Shellback]

The comments on the two articles are interesting, and I often wonder what kind of Cloudcoo-cooland these folks come from.
Private law enforcement? Really?

Private policing is happening currently in the U.S. There are definitely pros and cons to both types of policing.

[Joe in PNG]

Private policing is happening currently in the U.S. There are definitely pros and cons to both types of policing.

We have a bit in PNG as well, and I tend to be rather underwhelmed by the actual practice.

[Shellback]

We have a bit in PNG as well, and I tend to be rather underwhelmed by the actual practice.

My familiarity is only in reading about it, admittedly. I do see pros and cons to both when comparing them.

[Kranq]

I believe that the number of people who actually hate LEO is smaller than most here think. As I see it, the problem these days is, as someone pointed out several pages ago, there are non-hacks in every career field. The police are a highly visible symbol of a government that many do not trust. So, when a highly visible representative of an organization that has PR issues does something that appears controversial, it gets instant delivery before 50% of the facts are in thanks to the magic of the internet. These days, people taught their opinion, individualism and diversity are more important than community. Sad... But that's just my opinion.

Years ago, I was an MP who went to war. Now, I'm an old guy who works for the army, helping his son's generation prepare for deployment. There has never been a day in my life where I thought... Damn! my personal life has spun out of control! I'm weak and need a LEO to come fix it... My "official" dealings with civilian LEO have been positive for the most part, and generally initiated because I was speeding while not paying attention. Cranial Rectal Inversion that has not ended in a citation issued, so far.

Everyone puts more importance on their life than anyone else's with the possible exception of loved ones. Nothing personal, my life, and the lives of my family mean more to me than anyone else's life, no exceptions. If you feel threatened, and it shows in your body language, guess what, me too. While I have nothing against you, and your uniform tells me that we should be on the same team, I do not know, or trust you any more than you do me.

We work for the government, everyone thinks they are our boss, suck it up and put on your big boy pants, we signed up for it.

[TinMan]

I speak for a lot of my co-workers when I say- seeing cops on TV wearing more gear to arrest a street criminal than I would wear in Baghdad or Kandahar is a bit disturbing. Dressing a guy a certain way can/will have an impact on how he acts. Police departments have APCs that they will NEVER need and that there is no logical argument for.

I know that the overwhelming majority of LEOs are great guys. Unfortunately, I believe the 24/7 feed of combat operations and availability of "tactical" training has led to the militarization of the police force to some extent.

Not saying it's a huge problem that is spiraling out of control or anything, but I feel as though I speak for a good representative sample when I say it is noticed.

[cclaxton]

I believe that the number of people who actually hate LEO is smaller than most here think. As I see it, the problem these days is, as someone pointed out several pages ago, there are non-hacks in every career field. The police are a highly visible symbol of a government that many do not trust. So, when a highly visible representative of an organization that has PR issues does something that appears controversial, it gets instant delivery before 50% of the facts are in thanks to the magic of the internet. These days, people taught their opinion, individualism and diversity are more important than community. Sad... But that's just my opinion.

Years ago, I was an MP who went to war. Now, I'm an old guy who works for the army, helping his son's generation prepare for deployment. There has never been a day in my life where I thought... Damn! my personal life has spun out of control! I'm weak and need a LEO to come fix it... My "official" dealings with civilian LEO have been positive for the most part, and generally initiated because I was speeding while not paying attention. Cranial Rectal Inversion that has not ended in a citation issued, so far.

Everyone puts more importance on their life than anyone else's with the possible exception of loved ones. Nothing personal, my life, and the lives of my family mean more to me than anyone else's life, no exceptions. If you feel threatened, and it shows in your body language, guess what, me too. While I have nothing against you, and your uniform tells me that we should be on the same team, I do not know, or trust you any more than you do me.

We work for the government, everyone thinks they are our boss, suck it up and put on your big boy pants, we signed up for it.
Citizens often confuse police and law enforcement with the policies/laws they are obligated to enforce. A lot of that comes from the drug, moonshining, and prostitution laws that many citizens think fall heavily on the poor and minorities. Frankly we should have legalized pot a long time ago and made drug courts for addicts.

A probation officer friend of mine told me that back in the sixties the drug addicts would turn themselves in most of the time just by a phone call because the penalties were low. But when mandatory minimums were passed and 5 year sentences were being handed out, resisting arrest is now the standard, even violent. Mandatory minimums didn't help either.

I think cops should do more to convince politicians to make sensible laws that make more sense than they do today. And, don't even get me started on property seizures.
Cody

[KevinB]

The problem is not the penalties - its the scale of the criminal enterprise, there is SO MUCH money involved that people are literally willing to kill for it.

For those who feel that the MRAP/Light Armored vehicles will never be used.
Prior to Columbine - Active Shooter training was ridiculed
Prior to the Boston Bombing, and the Christopher Dorner rampage, very few folks understood the need for tactical teams on a National Scale.

So if your a Mayor, or Chief LEO? Would prefer to have an ounce of prevention, or would you preferred to be crucified if the unthinkable comes?


Belief it or not Law Enforcement professionals do not desire to go to war in America -- however due to the threats, having the gear to successfully deal with someone go to war with you is a requirement.

[TR675]

Cop Watchers Have to be Cooler than the Cops, or Cop Watching Will Never Be Cool (http://blogs.dallasobserver.com/unfairpark/2014/09/cop_watch_arrests_arlington_texas_schutze.php).

Our local alt-weekly community gadfly makes some very cogent points about the realities of police work defending cops who arrested some goofus "cop watchers."

ETA: Video of the interaction here. Looks like these Cop Watchers are the same dumbasses who've been conducting "open carry" rallies in Arlington restaurants.


http://youtu.be/E3y3StT8puY

[Totem Polar]

^^^That is a decent op piece. Sort of writing that happens when someone penning columns for a liberal pop weekly actually has a real clue about the world.

[Shellback]

Cop Watchers Have to be Cooler than the Cops, or Cop Watching Will Never Be Cool (http://blogs.dallasobserver.com/unfairpark/2014/09/cop_watch_arrests_arlington_texas_schutze.php).

Our local alt-weekly community gadfly makes some very cogent points about the realities of police work defending cops who arrested some goofus "cop watchers."

ETA: Video of the interaction here. Looks like these Cop Watchers are the same dumbasses who've been conducting "open carry" rallies in Arlington restaurants.

Decent article with some good points. The video shows nothing but idiots instigating one another, on both sides of the lens.

[Shellback]

Latest article: The Ferguson Riots Show Why Good Cops Will Quit (http://www.returnofkings.com/41948/the-ferguson-riots-and-why-good-cops-will-quit)


Cops have been risking their lives for many years now with little appreciation from the communities they serve. Being underappreciated has always been acceptable and has never stopped any of us from going to work every day. But as explained in my previous article, “Why Americans Should Reconsider Their Contempt for Today’s Police,” lack of appreciation is turning into contempt and condemnation. Unreasonable contempt and condemnation from the community an officer serves will cause him to turn in his uniform. I think Ferguson will be a test to see how cops react, and could prove to be the beginning of the end for good cops.

[cclaxton]

The problem is not the penalties - its the scale of the criminal enterprise, there is SO MUCH money involved that people are literally willing to kill for it.
Don't talk about Wall Street like that.
Cody

[Lon]

Latest article: The Ferguson Riots Show Why Good Cops Will Quit (http://www.returnofkings.com/41948/the-ferguson-riots-and-why-good-cops-will-quit)

This incident happened in the city just west of mine:

The attorney is claiming the incident is on video (http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/08/26/video-shows-police-shot-ohio-man-on-sight-as-he-leaned-on-toy-gun-in-walmart-attorney-says/) and the guy was leaning on the air rifle, like a cane, talking on his cell phone.

I know the cops involved and its been crappy watching all this going down and not being sure that they are gonna be alright. I'll be honest, I'm worried about how things are gonna play out when the grand jury starts and Sharpton comes to town. Unfortunately, my city is the county seat so all the courts (and many of the focal points for protesters) are here and not where the shooting actually happened. I have a bad feeling that we are gonna see similar riots if the officer is not indicted. Our Attorney General did no one any favors when he announced the time and location the GJ was going to start. What a cluster.

Sometimes I wonder if I would stay in this line of work if I only had a couple of years in right now instead of almost 20.

[Shellback]

This incident happened in the city just west of mine...

Apparently the "eye witness" is a real winner. Backtracking on his original 911 statements and lying about military service. (http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/09/09/man-who-called-911-in-ohio-walmart-shooting-changes-his-story-after-viewing-video/)Both articles are fairly long and these are a tiny bit of the info. From the first article:


He had described himself to reporters shortly after the shooting as an “ex-Marine,” but he admitted to the Guardian that he was thrown out in 2008 after being declared a “fraudulent enlistment.”

2nd article. (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/07/ohio-black-man-killed-by-police-walmart-doubts-cast-witnesss-account)


When Ronald Ritchie called 911 from the aisles of a Walmart in western Ohio last month to report that a black man was “walking around with a gun in the store”, he said that shoppers were coming under direct threat.

“He’s, like, pointing it at people,” Ritchie told the dispatcher. Later that evening, after John Crawford III had been shot dead by one of the police officers who hurried to the scene in Beavercreek, Ritchie repeated to reporters: “He was pointing at people. Children walking by.”

One month later, Ritchie puts it differently. “At no point did he shoulder the rifle and point it at somebody,” the 24-year-old said, in an interview with the Guardian. He maintained that Crawford was “waving it around”, which attorneys for Crawford’s family deny.

Ritchie told several reporters after the 5 August shooting that he was an “ex-marine”. When confronted with his seven-week service record, however, he confirmed that he had been quickly thrown out of the US marine corps in 2008 after being declared a “fraudulent enlistment”, over what he maintains was simply a mixup over his paperwork.

Crawford, 22, turned out to be holding an unloaded BB air rifle that he had picked up from a store shelf. After Ritchie said Crawford appeared to be “trying to load” the gun, the 911 dispatcher relayed to an officer that it was believed the gunman “just put some bullets inside”.

I'm wondering when they'll release the video.


DeWine has said that releasing the footage would be “playing with dynamite”

[Alpha Sierra]

This incident happened in the city just west of mine:


I know the cops involved and its been crappy watching all this going down and not being sure that they are gonna be alright. I'll be honest, I'm worried about how things are gonna play out when the grand jury starts and Sharpton comes to town. Unfortunately, my city is the county seat so all the courts (and many of the focal points for protesters) are here and not where the shooting actually happened. I have a bad feeling that we are gonna see similar riots if the officer is not indicted. Our Attorney General did no one any favors when he announced the time and location the GJ was going to start. What a cluster.

Sometimes I wonder if I would stay in this line of work if I only had a couple of years in right now instead of almost 20.

It was a good shoot. Who the hell does not comply with police when being yelled at gunpoint and instead chooses to argue?

[Alpha Sierra]

If cops want the respect of the public, this is not how to go about it
http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/investigative/2014/09/06/stop-and-seize/

[Erick Gelhaus]

I speak for a lot of my co-workers when I say- seeing cops on TV wearing more gear to arrest a street criminal than I would wear in Baghdad or Kandahar is a bit disturbing. Dressing a guy a certain way can/will have an impact on how he acts. Police departments have APCs that they will NEVER need and that there is no logical argument for.

Couple thoughts ... How does one determine what departments will need an armored vehicle versus those that will not?
I'm in a suburban / rural county an hour outside of a major media market. Twice now in the last two years armed suspects have shot up department armored vehicles;
I've had assignments in gang enforcement, narcotics and our tactical support element. At no time, in any of those assignments, did I wear, carry or have available more gear than I did when deployed to Iraq, rolling out into an active, interesting area daily.

How can my profession better communicate why we need the personal protective equipment? Also, if what is currently available is deemed too military to continue using, who is going to fund the R&D of designs that are not visually disturbing while being as least as functional as those currently out there?

[Shellback]

It was a good shoot.

Do you have a link to the video? I'd really like to see it.

[TinMan]

Couple thoughts ... How does one determine what departments will need an armored vehicle versus those that will not?
I'm in a suburban / rural county an hour outside of a major media market. Twice now in the last two years armed suspects have shot up department armored vehicles;
I've had assignments in gang enforcement, narcotics and our tactical support element. At no time, in any of those assignments, did I wear, carry or have available more gear than I did when deployed to Iraq, rolling out into an active, interesting area daily.

How can my profession better communicate why we need the personal protective equipment? Also, if what is currently available is deemed too military to continue using, who is going to fund the R&D of designs that are not visually disturbing while being as least as functional as those currently out there?
To my knowledge, there's never been active employment of AT weapons, or any weapons for that matter that would pose a threat to an armored suburban or 4Runner- other than maybe a mobility kill after it sucks up a pretty good volume of fire. Police using M113s, in my opinion, excessive.

A good example that I can come up with off the top of my head for the PPE debate is the infamous Albuquerque man with a knife helmet cam video. The guy who ended up cuffing the knife wielder was kitted up to the max. Side plates, shoulder armor, brokos belt.

I can see that I may sound like a bit of an internet antagonist here, but understand that's not my intention. I don't have any solutions, just critiques- and I know that's also pretty perturbing. I'm sure a lot of the PPE stuff is mandated by departments as per certain position's requirements. I also sympathize with you gentlemen on the intense amount of pressure you are under to make decisions day in and day out on a moments notice.

If you take anything away from my ramblings- take it as an outsider's prospective that does exist at least to a certain extent. In every line of work there are variables that can't be controlled, but being aware of them helps to mitigate them.

[LittleLebowski]

Police departments have APCs that they will NEVER need and that there is no logical argument for.


Ask these guys if they liked their armored car.

http://www.bizpacreview.com/2014/08/20/video-police-take-live-fire-from-rioters-in-ferguson-journalists-run-for-their-lives-140077

[Erick Gelhaus]

Police using M113s, in my opinion, excessive.

Wasn't referring to any type of tracked vehicle.

[Tamara]

To my knowledge, there's never been active employment of AT weapons, or any weapons for that matter that would pose a threat to an armored suburban or 4Runner-

Thing is, the M113 or MRAP is off-the-shelf here. It's sunk costs; taxpayers have already shelled out for it, unlike a brand new Centigon Suburban or Bearcat. (A lot of more well-off departments seem to go the Bearcat route rather than panhandling for MRAPs anyway, since in exchange for the up-front cost, maintenance and spares can be handled at the county maintenance facility where they take care of the salt trucks and other road maintenance vehicles.)

[BaiHu]

Thing is, the M113 or MRAP is off-the-shelf here. It's sunk costs; taxpayers have already shelled out for it, unlike a brand new Centigon Suburban or Bearcat. (A lot of more well-off departments seem to go the Bearcat route rather than panhandling for MRAPs anyway, since in exchange for the up-front cost, maintenance and spares can be handled at the county maintenance facility where they take care of the salt trucks and other road maintenance vehicles.)
Logic on the intertoobz? Seriously? This early in the morning, Tam? Where are your manners?

[Alpha Sierra]

Still stuck on stupid arguing about the menacing looks of body armor and surplus armored trucks, while cops wearing simple uniforms and marked patrol cars rob the citizenry blind by the roadside and piss on the 4th amendment.

Spare me the argument that civil forfeiture is legal and court sanctioned. So was slavery.

[LittleLebowski]

Still stuck on stupid arguing about the menacing looks of body armor and surplus armored trucks, while cops wearing simple uniforms and marked patrol cars rob the citizenry blind by the roadside and piss on the 4th amendment.

Spare me the argument that civil forfeiture is legal and court sanctioned. So was slavery.

While not phrased how I would do so, I strongly agree. See the videos of the Tennessee highway shakedowns.

[TinMan]

Wasn't referring to any type of tracked vehicle.
APC is most often used to describe M113s... You don't often hear APC used to describe an MRAP, Bearcat, RG, MATV... In fact, I think Reva may be the only company that describes their MRAP style vehicles as APCs. Semantics aside, I was referring to M113s- but the MRAP styles are close enough.

The fact of the matter is, it's a stigma that exists. It can be a consideration, or it can be ignored. A google search for 'police armored vehicle' will turn up more negative news articles than positive. Yes, the world we live in harps on the negative and ignores the positive. It pays to know your operational environment.

[LittleLebowski]

I'd rather my local PD take an APC or MRAP out of DRMO than spend taxpayer money on something new.

[TinMan]

I'd rather my local PD take an APC or MRAP out of DRMO than spend taxpayer money on something new.
That's a great point, but you know blind libertarians like me and liberal college/media types can't understand that.

[Alpha Sierra]

That's a great point, but you know blind libertarians like me and liberal college/media types can't understand that.
What do you not understand?

The money savings from surplus equipment or the need to have bullet resistant vehicles for extraordinary situations? Or both?

[TinMan]

What do you not understand?

The money savings from surplus equipment or the need to have bullet resistant vehicles for extraordinary situations? Or both?

Neither one- do you not understand sarcasm? Do you not understand my point?

The public in some capacity, or the media at a minimum is skeptical of police having military vehicles. You could choose to ignore it or you could acknowledge it as fact.

Some people think the military needs nuclear weapons, some people think no one should have nuclear weapons. Some people think police need APCs, some people think they don't. These are both truths.

Before I'm labelled as anything else, I'd like to go on the record saying I'm a fan of having a nuclear arsenal.

[BaiHu]

That clears that up.

[Coyotesfan97]

All I know is that when the barricaded suspect in the house started shooting out windows from deep in his house I was in an alley behind a fence with rounds going over my head. It was awful nice when the our armored car pulled up and we could take cover behind and in it.

A Lenco Bearcat is going to cost your agency and taxpayers $250,000 or so depending on the options you get. We used a grant to purchase ours. So an agency gets a MRAP for free or drops some pretty good change for a Bearcat or BEAR.

I love our Bearcat. I was assigned to order it and work with Lenco. When it was ready I flew to Massachusetts with a fleet guy to test it. The fleet guy looked for defects and found none. Our city fleet does the maintenance on it.

When I started we rode to search warrants in the beds of pickups and jail vans with no armor so I guess we weren't militarized yet. But we sure we safe...not!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[LittleLebowski]

Let's make sure we go forward with the polite and respectful form of discussion that permeates the rest of PF

[Erick Gelhaus]

I'll re-ask the questions that were my second thought:
How can my profession better communicate why we need the personal protective equipment? Also, if what is currently available is deemed too military to continue using, who is going to fund the R&D of designs that are not visually disturbing while being as least as functional as those currently out there?
I'm truly curious about we can do better at this.

Also, I checked my original post, didn't say M113 or APC, just used the phrase "armored vehicle."

[Coyotesfan97]

I'll re-ask the questions that were my second thought:
How can my profession better communicate why we need the personal protective equipment? Also, if what is currently available is deemed too military to continue using, who is going to fund the R&D of designs that are not visually disturbing while being as least as functional as those currently out there?
I'm truly curious about we can do better at this.

Also, I checked my original post, didn't say M113 or APC, just used the phrase "armored vehicle."

A Bearcat isn't anymore sinister than a Brinks armored car. I had ours painted Ford black and white. It has multiple reflective decals identifying us as police.


We have an old Brinks car that I had up armored with rifle plate. The city guy that did the work did a great job. It's painted black and white too but it looks like it could be in a Mad Max film. It rides like a buckboard and the air brakes suck.

If you're doing downed officer or citizen rescues you need the armored car. You might need to rescue multiple victims. You need a position of cover for barricades and warrants. Your negotiators can use the PA from inside the car. Your immediate action and/or entry team can be literally in the driveway of the suspects house.

The problem isn't what we say but what gets reported. You could explain it until you're blue in the face to a reporter. You'd have 10 seconds of edited air time and the Militarization guy gets a minute.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[LittleLebowski]

I'll re-ask the questions that were my second thought:
How can my profession better communicate why we need the personal protective equipment? Also, if what is currently available is deemed too military to continue using, who is going to fund the R&D of designs that are not visually disturbing while being as least as functional as those currently out there?
I'm truly curious about we can do better at this.

Also, I checked my original post, didn't say M113 or APC, just used the phrase "armored vehicle."

Intent and use of go a long way towards clearing up anger with thinking citizens. If you're looking to fix things with the Huffington Post and certain politicians, can't help ya.

As Alpha Sierra said, many of us would be more impressed with say, curtailing civil asset forfeiture.

[LSP552]

People often assume that barricaded suspects are armed with pea-shooters. Often they are not. I remember one particular year that almost half of the suspects that LSP SWAT visited for were armed with rifles. I'm sure this is not unique for any agency that polices a mix of rural and urban areas. We have also had the pleasure of dealing with a barricade with a Barrett .50 cal in the house.

In many areas of the country, there is a strong sporting and hunting culture. I personally own more play and hunting rifles than ARs. And I'm probably more dangerous with them in certain situations and environments. A scoped .270 is nothing to be trifled with.

An armored vehicle gives so many more options for dealing with the normally available weapons law enforcement often faces. They are invaluable for staging and delivering elements to crisis points, recovering or extracting wounded or innocents, making a show of force and from a public relations aspect. I know this last sounds strange given this debate, but little kids flock to the armored vehicles. They make great tools for community play days.

Public perception is important thing. I've never heard anyone in LA say that it was a bad ideal for LSP to own and use armored vehicles. We had them going all the way back to V150 Commandos. I can see where they may not be appropriate expenses for every small community, providing there is availability from a larger agency.

Like most tools, the effectiveness is in how they are used. Equipment should never replace training, just enhance performance.

Ken

[Trooper224]

I've dealt with barricaded subjects armed with everything from a Barrett .50 to a German MP40, but we're getting too militarized not the bad guys. Approaching that farm house where the guy was ensconced with the Barrett was a trick when there was nothing but open ground for a five mile radius. An armored vehicle might have been nice. Then again, if we'd removed our body armor, strapped on six shooters and called ourselves "peace officers" I'm sure everything would have been okay.

[LSP552]

I've dealt with barricaded subjects armed with everything from a Barrett .50 to a German MP40, but we're getting too militarized not the bad guys. Approaching that farm house where the guy was ensconced with the Barrett was a trick when there was nothing but open ground for a five mile radius. An armored vehicle might have been nice. Then again, if we'd removed our body armor, strapped on six shooters and called ourselves "peace officers" I'm sure everything would have been okay.

As long as you didn't offend anyone.....

Ken

[Trooper224]

As long as you didn't offend anyone.....

Ken

True, to this day I regret not having a group hug and an encounter session afterward. Hell, there wasn't even cake.

[LittleLebowski]

I've dealt with barricaded subjects armed with everything from a Barrett .50 to a German MP40, but we're getting too militarized not the bad guys. Approaching that farm house where the guy was ensconced with the Barrett was a trick when there was nothing but open ground for a five mile radius. An armored vehicle might have been nice. Then again, if we'd removed our body armor, strapped on six shooters and called ourselves "peace officers" I'm sure everything would have been okay.

I hope that your organization gets the gear you need, including an armored vehicle.

[Trooper224]

I hope that your organization gets the gear you need, including an armored vehicle.

We do now. The incident mentioned was back in the mid-90's, in the early days of our tactical unit of which I was a founding member. No armored vehicles back in those days. That was a case where the training we'd received in field maneuver and camouflage paid dividends. I still remember the final leg of belly crawling two hundred yards through a soy bean field at the back of the house, in full gear. Boy wasn't that special in July after a rain storm the night before. :D I hate soy beans to this day.

[KevinB]

I'd rather my local PD take an APC or MRAP out of DRMO than spend taxpayer money on something new.

You saw our illustrious Sheriff say that he has no need for such Military equipment right?

And the Colt M4A1's, and LE6920's were bought with County money not DRMO...

[LittleLebowski]

You saw our illustrious Sheriff say that he has no need for such Military equipment right?

And the Colt M4A1's, and LE6920's were bought with County money not DRMO...

Local? Nope, didn't see that. I will say that I've heard good things about him.

[KevinB]

He was commenting on media questions based on Ferguson MO - but I was disappointed to say the least.
Then again I'm still pissed at him, as he wanted me to shut down my backyard range, despite it being legal...

[Chuck Haggard]

This sort of thing is why I love body worn cameras so very much; http://www.tpnn.com/2014/09/15/video-white-officer-accused-of-targeting-black-man-with-aggression-body-cam-tells-the-true-story/


Outrageous statements such as accusing white officers of willfully gunning down blacks without just cause have been made by some on the Left. A narrative has been pushed that black men are in danger when it comes to police for simply being black men.
Out of Oakland, California comes a story of such a claim being made, that a white officer used inappropriate force and threatened to shoot a black man. The black man in question is named Keith Jones. He also happens to be a firefighter.

Jones was returning to his vehicle at 10:45 pm following an Oakland Raiders game with his sons, ages 9 and 12, when he noticed the garage door of his fire station open. He figured the guys left quickly for a call and forgot to shut it. He walked through the station to make sure that everything was okay. As he emerged from shutting the door, a white police officer, who happened to be a rookie, was responding to a possibly burglary in progress and confronted him. According to Jones, the officer yelled, “Don’t move. Put your hands up.”

Jones told KPIX5, “His hand was on his gun. He was crouched, he was low. He was basically in a shooting stance.” He continued saying how his 9 year old was crying, so he told the officer, “sir, my name is Keith Jones. I’m an Oakland firefighter. I work here. Those are my kids. Could you please allow them to put their hands down and let them know that it’s okay.” Jones then claimed the officer looked at him and said, “Keep your hands up and don’t move.”

The news story goes on with Jones and his kids saying they thought the officer was going to shoot Jones. He added that, “I think they [white police officers] view black men as a threat.”

There’s only one problem with Jones’s story.

The officer in question was wearing a body cam. The rookie police officer was wearing a body cam that caught the entire thing on tape. It proves one thing. Jones was not telling the truth about his altercation with the police officer. In fact, some people might say he’s a liar.

Is this what things have come to – blatant lies that could end a man’s career and livelihood told just to push a race-baiting narrative?

[LittleLebowski]

This sort of thing is why I love body worn cameras so very much; http://www.tpnn.com/2014/09/15/video-white-officer-accused-of-targeting-black-man-with-aggression-body-cam-tells-the-true-story/

The actual transcript is hilarious. That firefighter has some serious integrity issues.

[KevinB]

Watching both video's you'd think it was two different incidents...

[TR675]

That is pretty appalling.

Had a friend elsewhere push for on-body video cameras for every cop because they "make the cops behave" - thus, police brutality complaints go down. Well, maybe. Or, maybe, more often than not they prove that the officer didn't do anything wrong...

[Shellback]

This sort of thing is why I love body worn cameras so very much; http://www.tpnn.com/2014/09/15/video-white-officer-accused-of-targeting-black-man-with-aggression-body-cam-tells-the-true-story/

Great example of how body cams protect the police.

[Shellback]

That is pretty appalling.

Had a friend elsewhere push for on-body video cameras for every cop because they "make the cops behave" - thus, police brutality complaints go down. Well, maybe. Or, maybe, more often than not they prove that the officer didn't do anything wrong...

Pretty interesting study on the topic here. (http://www.policefoundation.org/sites/g/files/g798246/f/201303/The%20Effect%20of%20Body-Worn%20Cameras%20on%20Police%20Use-of-Force.pdf)

[Chuck Haggard]

I have lost track of how many complaints have disappeared when folks found out we already had video. Many complaints are completely outrageous lies, one might as well claim that our officers kidnapped the complainant and gave them to alien overlords for medical experiments as compared to some of the complaints that I have fielded, and often wasted time in fully investigating.

One I as a complaint via phone claimed that the officers had repeatedly body slammed the complainant after they cussed him out, then "took him to jail for no reason". I got a real chuckle when it went something like this after I explained we might have video of the event;

"Umm, you have video?"

"We probably do, or at least audio of the incident, every one of our officers carries either a camera or a recorder"

"OK, so what happens if I was drunk I what I remember ain't what shows up on tape?"

"Well, by state law you could be found guilty of making a false writing if you complete a written complaint as you have requested to do, that is a sworn statement."

"OK, nevermind then" click...............

[KeeFus]

That is pretty appalling.

Had a friend elsewhere push for on-body video cameras for every cop because they "make the cops behave" - thus, police brutality complaints go down. Well, maybe. Or, maybe, more often than not they prove that the officer didn't do anything wrong...

When someone starts getting crappy with me I just tell'em they're being recorded, and push the button if it's not already rolling. That generally changes their attitude. I do not record every interaction...if I did I'd need a new camera card per day and prolly get yelled at for taking up too much storage on the server.

About 6 months ago we had a situation where a female alleged she was assaulted by a female officer after her man friend was arrested for DWI. They looked at the camera footage which was from the traffic stop to the escort home dropping her off. She was charged with filing a false report. That's our frame work now it seems. Lie on us and you get charged.

ETA: found a photo of the article I took on May 4, 2014.

http://i.imgur.com/yVjZIqZ.jpg

[Erik]

That's our frame work now it seems. Lie on us and you get charged.

Seems fair to me.

[Trooper224]

Here's a recent incident: http://www.policeone.com/officer-shootings/articles/7564469-Video-Footage-of-sovereign-citizen-s-full-frontal-assault-on-courthouse-released/?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=featuredNews&nlid=7563997

I'm sure Officer Friendly the Peace Officer could have handled that with a stern look and a kind word.

Two PA State Troopers ambushed: http://www.policeone.com/investigations/articles/7563514-Police-Trooper-hurt-in-deadly-ambush-conscious-talking/?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=featuredNews&nlid=7563997

Look at those nasty militarized jackboots in their BDU's. Where do they think they are, Fallujah? I'm sure Officer Friendly the Peace Officer in a nice spit and polish uniform could just talk the subjects into giving up.

[Shellback]

Put your passive aggressive waders on. :)

[Alpha Sierra]

Lie on us and you get charged.

Does it work the other way too?

[Hambo]

Here's a recent incident: http://www.policeone.com/officer-shootings/articles/7564469-Video-Footage-of-sovereign-citizen-s-full-frontal-assault-on-courthouse-released/?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=featuredNews&nlid=7563997

I'm sure Officer Friendly the Peace Officer could have handled that with a stern look and a kind word.


Whistling the theme song from the Andy Griffith is a sure way to defuse a situation.

[KeeFus]

Does it work the other way too?

Absolutely. I've seen LEO's charged with perjury...Seen them lose their job's too. I am also starting to see Giglio coming up more and more, which effectively ends a career. Thats a sharp contrast to folks that lie on us or lie in court. I'm sure that the female mentioned in that case I posted will have the charges reduced or dismissed.

[Shellback]

Absolutely. I've seen LEO's charged with perjury...Seen them lose their job's too. I am also starting to see Giglio coming up more and more, which effectively ends a career. Thats a sharp contrast to folks that lie on us or lie in court. I'm sure that the female mentioned in that case I posted will have the charges reduced or dismissed.

Does perjury reference lying during court proceedings or under oath? I think that's a separate issue and I believe he was talking about lying in general, and possibly referencing Frazier v. Cupp type of situations, where SCOTUS affirmed police lying to the public.

[Alpha Sierra]

I believe he was talking about lying in general, and possibly referencing Frazier v. Cupp type of situations, where SCOTUS affirmed police lying to the public.

That's what I was talking about.

Cops lying to suspect/public = not a crime
Suspect/public lying to cops = crime

[KeeFus]

Does perjury reference lying during court proceedings or under oath? I think that's a separate issue and I believe he was talking about lying in general, and possibly referencing Frazier v. Cupp type of situations, where SCOTUS affirmed police lying to the public.

I understand that is a sore subject with some folk, thats just the way it is. No one will ever be happy with LEO's being able to lie.

We had a recent case here wherein a Durham PD officer lied to a home owner about the reason he was at the home. Officer told the home owner that he was there on a 911 hang-up call (we get those all day long BTW...area code here is 919...) and that he was there to follow-up on that call. Officer was actually there looking for dope. He asked to come in, home owner allowed. Once inside the officer saw the dope and made an arrest. In this case its what we call a 'knock-and-talk'. The difference in this case is that the officer admitted under oath that he lied about the 911 call to gain entry...thats when everybodies panties got in a wad..even the police chief. Officer did not lie under oath and used a tactic (a lie) that has...and may still...be legal. They didn't have to let him in...and you know that they knew they had dope in the house. I have seeen that type of tactic used before, but mainly to look for wanted people when there was absolutely no other way to gain entry.

This case was ultimately dropped, according to this (http://www.thedurhamnews.com/2014/07/16/4008405/durham-chief-no-sign-more-officers.html) link.

[Shellback]

I understand that is a sore subject with some folk, thats just the way it is. No one will ever be happy with LEO's being able to lie.

We had a recent case here wherein a Durham PD officer lied to a home owner about the reason he was at the home. Officer told the home owner that he was there on a 911 hang-up call (we get those all day long BTW...area code here is 919...) and that he was there to follow-up on that call. Officer was actually there looking for dope. He asked to come in, home owner allowed. Once inside the officer saw the dope and made an arrest. In this case its what we call a 'knock-and-talk'. The difference in this case is that the officer admitted under oath that he lied about the 911 call to gain entry...thats when everybodies panties got in a wad..even the police chief. Officer did not lie under oath and used a tactic (a lie) that has...and may still...be legal. They didn't have to let him in...and you know that they knew they had dope in the house. I have seeen that type of tactic used before, but mainly to look for wanted people when there was absolutely no other way to gain entry.

This case was ultimately dropped, according to this (http://www.thedurhamnews.com/2014/07/16/4008405/durham-chief-no-sign-more-officers.html) link.

I see both sides or maybe even 3 sides to that coin... You gotta lie to trip up criminals and get them to reveal the dirt, I get that. I guess the thing that gets me is being deceitful and acting like criminals to catch criminals, or something like that. I think the big part of the problem is normal everyday people hear about the police being allowed to lie and they think it's going to be used again them personally, and it very well may happen. It's a tough position to be in and I don't think there's an easy answer.

In the example you highlighted I think the guy did a huge disservice to himself and his department over a small amount of weed. He's only generated mistrust with the community and alienated law enforcement in that people won't answer legitimate questions for fear of reprisals. If he really cared about the person smoking pot he should've just had them flush it. But, a drug arrest does look good on him I guess.


The defendant permitted Beck to enter her home, where he discovered two marijuana blunts and a marijuana grinder.

[KeeFus]

I see both sides or maybe even 3 sides to that coin... You gotta lie to trip up criminals and get them to reveal the dirt, I get that. I guess the thing that gets me is being deceitful and acting like criminals to catch criminals, or something like that. I think the big part of the problem is normal everyday people hear about the police being allowed to lie and they think it's going to be used again them personally, and it very well may happen. It's a tough position to be in and I don't think there's an easy answer.

In the example you highlighted I think the guy did a huge disservice to himself and his department over a small amount of weed. He's only generated mistrust with the community and alienated law enforcement in that people won't answer legitimate questions for fear of reprisals. If he really cared about the person smoking pot he should've just had them flush it. But, a drug arrest does look good on him I guess.

I agree that the juice in this case wasn't worth the squeeze. Durham has it's own set of problems that have manifested in part because of the PD, the council, and it's citizenry. I couldn't police in Durham...not because of the folks on the street but because of the politics/politicians/wanna be cheese dick politician nut huggers in that area.

[Chuck Haggard]

Tactical lies;
Before we had pics we could pull up in the car on the magic electric box we often had warrants we ere looking for and no idea what the bad guy looked like. Ask a bad guy if he's Joe Blow and you'll get a false name. Knock on the door and tell them you have a warrant for Jack Mehoff and all of a sudden they want you to know they're not Jack, they are Joe Blow. "You sure? You got ID? You fit the description" "Yup, I got ID" "Yup, you ain't Jack (radio check going on in the background", but damn Joe, sorry to tell you you got warrants too".
I have lost track of how many times that has worked. You want to call that a problem then you have no idea WTF street coppery is like.

However, comma, we have fired cops on my job for simple lying, like things most people do to their bosses on a regular basis. How many people lose a profession certification because they got caught speeding and lied about it to their boss?

For the record, I think our policy is as it should be. You end up with Brady/Gigglio material in your file and you are worthless in court, and thus worthless as a cop.

Around here the cops lie they lose a job, at minimum, they maybe go to jail. If the lawyers lie, complainants lie, criminals lie? No penalty, which is BS IMHO

[Kranq]

I understand operational necessity, but, at the same time, a man is only as good as his word. Trust is not an entitlement, it must be earned and maintained. Lying to the public erodes public confidence. It seems to me, these days, especially if you work patrol, you need all the public good will and support you can get.

[Chuck Haggard]

I understand operational necessity, but, at the same time, a man is only as good as his word. Trust is not an entitlement, it must be earned and maintained. Lying to the public erodes public confidence. It seems to me, these days, especially if you work patrol, you need all the public good will and support you can get.

I completely agree, however, comma, tell me how lying or not to a felon with warrants in order to catch said felon is going to help me increase my public goodwill?

[KevinB]

Catching felons increases public goodwill (or at least worthwhile public).

[Hambo]

I understand operational necessity, but, at the same time, a man is only as good as his word. Trust is not an entitlement, it must be earned and maintained. Lying to the public erodes public confidence. It seems to me, these days, especially if you work patrol, you need all the public good will and support you can get.

What exactly do you think that cops are lying to the public about?

[Shellback]

What exactly do you think that cops are lying to the public about?

I could show you multiple videos of police telling citizens that it's illegal for them to be filming them, then arresting them for filming, etc. So, it's not hearsay, and it does happen, but I don't want to jam up bandwidth unless it's necessary.

As I mentioned earlier I realize it's a necessary tool and most people wouldn't object to an officer lying to Johnny Shithead sporting his colors and gang tats but they don't want the same treatment. I think that's where a lot of the disconnect comes from, people's perception and their knowledge base. Cops deal with the scum of the earth and most people can't fathom how bad that can get.

Have'em watch the "behind bars" prison type shows and simply ask them how they think they got there? They didn't check in themselves. :)

[KeeFus]

I could show you multiple videos of police telling citizens that it's illegal for them to be filming them, then arresting them for filming, etc. So, it's not hearsay, and it does happen, but I don't want to jam up bandwidth unless it's necessary.


Yea, it happens...and they're the ones that usually end up with a boot in their rump on the way out the door to find employment elsewhere.



As I mentioned earlier I realize it's a necessary tool and most people wouldn't object to an officer lying to Johnny Shithead sporting his colors and gang tats but they don't want the same treatment. I think that's where a lot of the disconnect comes from, people's perception and their knowledge base. Cops deal with the scum of the earth and most people can't fathom how bad that can get.


Fair enough, but as LEO's we sometimes don't know who the "shithead" is amongst the nice folk...because the nice folk sometimes are the "shitheads". I do not lose any sleep over BS'ing someone, no matter what side of the tracks they're on.

Perception...I'm glad you mentioned that. There are so many misinformed perceptions about police work that it is really hard to point them all out. Like when you shoot someone they fall immediately b/c that's what they saw on NYPD Blue. Or when you are talking to someone about an incident they clam up because they think you should read them Miranda...when doing it isn't required unless it's a custodial interrogation. There are other's but those stand out at the moment. I am sure that the general citizenry could careless about whether LEO's lie to a suspect or not as long as it doesn't enter their world. When it does enter their world they revert back to what they saw on Law & Order or CSI and think that is the reality...when in fact, it is not.

[Hambo]

Fair enough, Irish. I wanted to know if there were specifics or just "cops lie" sort of thing.

First, there's the necessity of lying to hookers, drug dealers, etc. It's part of the game, and I don't think anybody really has heartburn over it.

Second, I think this might go unnoticed, but IME chiefs are usually politicians. Is it true or is it massaged data? Trust, but verify.

Third, institutional or individual lies. If you want a good institutional lie, check this one out. http://hernandotoday.com/article/20130103/ARTICLE/301039993 FHP was liberally interpreting statute to cite drivers, when in fact the statute had nothing to do with speed trap warnings. No es bueno. Individuals LEOs are a case by case thing. It could be an officer is lying, or he/she could be ignorant of what the law actually says. I've heard bad legal advice from cops, and it's not that they're lying, they just have no idea what they're talking about. This is not restricted to LEOs, but is pretty evenly distributed in the populace.

[Chuck Haggard]

Cop work;

A few years ago I rolled up in an alley where crack sales had been rampant, I hear voices in the dark as I sneak up, kick on the uber tactical flashlight thinking I just caught a hand-to-hand sale in-progress and I light up a stabbing in progress. I yell "Police" as I draw, and both the stabbing vic and the stabber run into the stairwell of the old apartment building and up the stairs.
Eventually it shakes out that the stab vic wanted to finish her crack before the po-po got to close, and had been stabbed by the stabber for not sharing said crack pipe.


A couple of years after that stabber chick is back out on the street and we are working a disturbance call where she is chasing a John around with a knife. We eventually find out that she is chasing the John, some average dude trolling the hood for a crack ho, because she is convinced he is the guy who gave her herpes awhile back. Herpes, I might add, in her colostomy hole.

Let that sink in a minute.

Who else has to deal with this kind of shit but street coppers?

[Lon]

Herpes, I might add, in her colostomy hole.

That made me snort honey mead out my nose. That hurt.

[Shellback]

Fair enough, Irish. I wanted to know if there were specifics or just "cops lie" sort of thing...

It could be an officer is lying, or he/she could be ignorant of what the law actually says. I've heard bad legal advice from cops, and it's not that they're lying, they just have no idea what they're talking about. This is not restricted to LEOs, but is pretty evenly distributed in the populace.

Nah, I'm not like that. I try to cite specifics and not make sweeping generalizations. But, I'm sure I've done it a time or two.

And to the 2nd part of your quoted post, ignorance of the law is no excuse. ;)

Believe it or not, and probably contrary to popular belief, I don't dislike the police. I do like spirited debate and I don't mind a good argument. I also think that I don't come across in the written word as well as I'd like to and often times would like to edit my post to clarify my position, not to redact it.

I'm all for crushing criminals, the malum in se type, and not so much on the malum prohibitum type. I may come across as a prick at times, it's not my intention. More than likely, most of us would get along talking about guns and everyday shit over a beer and I think too many of us, myself included at times, take this internet forum shit too seriously.

Anyhow, I hope everyone has a good night.

[Shellback]

Cop work;

Herpes, I might add, in her colostomy hole.

Let that sink in a minute.

Who else has to deal with this kind of shit but street coppers?

Sunday night we were over at our friend's house watching football, etc. Dude happens to be a firefighter guy and was telling stories about the ridiculous, the disgusting and just outright wrong shit you guys have to deal with after they pack up and ass out. They zip in, due a few vitals, remove taser barbs and you guys get left with transporting Mr. Poopy Pants and the puking and plenty of other vile shit... One of my best buddies sent me this one the other day:

http://s15.postimg.org/rkpcqpdvv/IMG_3860.jpg