He was coming in as I was heading out the door.Originally Posted by AMC
Six hundred showed up to take the written exam for the 1989 hire I came in on; five of us were hired & sent to the academy. The organization wants to send six to an academy after the first of the year; they'd gotten less than two hundred apps last I heard.
Thanks, I definitely appreciate it.
Sorta around sometimes for some of your shitty mod needs.
Must be the same people that changed the ROE in Iraq about 2006-07 time frame. When I was there it was don't fu&* with us. Shortly after I left in 06, it went to wait, I am waiving you off, blowing my horn, flagging you awa.....BOOM!!! VBIED at 60mph.
As two vehicles converge at 60 MPH... there is about 2 seconds to do something. They made the boys do all that other shit first after 06-07. Miserable pencil pushers.
It got even worse than that by 10-11.
-Cory
Agencies have given lip service to supporting their people for the longest time but most could see through the act as the veneer became thinner and thinner.
Back in the mid 90's when it was already apparent that a sea change was upon us, I can remember my SAC and ASAC asking my partner and me why a particularly recalcitrant person of interest we went to interview, (and who subsequently complained about our methods), wasn't brought into the SAC office "bloodied up".
I looked at the two of them and asked "and you'd have stood up for us, right?".
Crickets.
It wasn't a question of right or wrong anymore. It was all about appearance and not getting their little fiefdoms embroiled in anything that might reflect poorly upon their next promotion or review.
There's nothing civil about this war.
This sounds as if it's moving to the direction seen in handling juveniles. Where I have worked, regardless of how many times a kid kicks you or punches you, the one and only legal action is employing an approved restraint. If injury to it the kid results, then the state swoops down to persecute. I refer to injury when no harm was intended. Today in adult lockups these rules apply. I predict that policy for l.e. will be to avoid making unnecessary stops. An example would be minor speeding, defective lights, and such. Further foot pursuits will be curtailed. Too there will be new rules for crowd control. Eventually hiring practices will select personnel suitable for this type policing. Having been in a fight might disqualify an applicant. In some communities not all officers will be armed. If they are, weapons will be locked inside containers in vehicles. I hope I'm wrong.
How is a LEO supposed to know all of that? Are they going to interview everyone before they take any action? Seems to be the requirement they're seeking.It would require officers to use a verbal warning before using force and use the least amount of force when interacting with pregnant women; individuals under the age of 21; elderly persons; persons with mental, behavioral, or physical disabilities or impairments; persons experiencing perceptual or cognitive impairments due to use of alcohol, narcotics, hallucinogenic, or other drugs; persons suffering from a serious medical condition; and persons with limited English proficiency...
Federal standard? Just another intrusion by the federal gov't on local law enforcement. I suspect every situation is different.
I don't want a local LEO standing around with their thumb up their ass second guessing their every move. I wouldn't want a firefighter or medic doing that so why would anyone want any first responder doing it. Some things just have to be handled.
I worked for a local gov't for a long time and I had a few instances where I was reprimanded for something I said to a citizen tax payer. At some point I decided not to engage anyone who wanted answers to legitimate questions, even if I had the information they wanted and were entitled to. Bad policy when you can't help the people that pay you to provide a service.
Last edited by Borderland; 09-22-2019 at 09:10 PM.
In the P-F basket of deplorables.
Well, if you did your research you would know that this standard would apply ONLY to Federal Law Enforcement.
AND, have you heard anything else about it? No. Why not? It sank without a trace.
Lots of stupid legislation gets proposed every year. Most of it NEVER gets to committee. Of the stuff that gets to committee, most of it gets tabled there and dies. Then, if the proposed legislation actually gets out of committee it goes to the floor of whichever house it is for a vote. At the Federal level, BOTH the house of representatives and the senate have to vote on it, and it has to pass before it goes to the president for a signature or a veto.
Similar process in the states, except for those few states that only have one component of their legislature.
Just because some politician proposes something means absolutely NOTHING. Just like if some clown like Robert Francis O'Rourke proposes something stupid like confiscation of self loading rifles. It means about NOTHING, especially in that particular case because he doesn't even hold elected office at any level any more.
Some may find this interesting. In the McDonald shooting here in Chicago ( which I think was a bad shooting ), they ordered a Sgt. who wasn't even on the scene of the shooting to come in off the street and sign/approve the original report. Now keep in mind that when a Sgt. approves a report he is not looking to determine if the facts contained in the report are factual, he is simply looking to make sure that the narrative supports the classification, that the spelling and grammar are correct and that the report is legible. That's it. If not the report is returned to the officer for correction. In this case despite the Sgt's. protests about approving the report, he was ordered to approve it which he did. They have since fired him. For approving the report. If that is not indicative of current cowardly police management, I don't know what is.
Reply With Quote