PDA

View Full Version : El Monte and Alabama excessive force incidents and End of Chase Syndrome


Dust Monkey
May 22, 2009, 12:12 AM
http://blogs.usatoday.com/ondeadline...d-beating.html (http://http://blogs.usatoday.com/ondeadline...d-beating.html)
http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/05/20/...ng/#cnnSTCText (http://http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/05/20/...ng/#cnnSTCText)
http://www.ktla.com/news/local/ktla-...,7041275.story (http://http://www.ktla.com/news/local/ktla-...,7041275.story)

End of Chase

“There is a reason you separate military and police. One fights the enemies of the state, the other serves and protects the people. When the military becomes both, then the enemies of the state tend to become the people.” (Borrowed a quote from a line in BSG, I believe it is apt to this discussion)

We all remember the video of the El Monte Police officer kicking a compliant suspect in the head at gunpoint. We had a discussion about it that was locked down due to personal attacks by some members, including me. This will not happen in this thread. If it does, I will assure you that a MOD will shut it down post haste and deal with the people who can't discuss a topic without attacking the poster. (emphasis added by Antipitas)

I am ex military police/investigations and served in a civilian police department in Texas. Total LE experience just shy of 14 years.

The El Monte incident was not the only incident in recent news to attract my attention. There were 5 Alabama Officers fired after a video surfaced showing them beating an unconscious suspect after a chase. By some reports this video is over a year old and was viewed by several LE supervisors, several in the LE community and Prosecuting Attorneys. Yet not one of them thought something was wrong until the trial. During the trial, the Prosecuting Attorney did not have his edited copy so he asked the defense to borrow their copy. The current Prosecuting Attorney had not seen the entire tape, it was a surprise. Think about that. 5 officers beating the hell out of an unconscious suspect, not a threat to anyone, maybe in need of medical attention at the time himself, not one person thought that this might be wrong. Our Constitution either means something or it does not. If one persons rights are abused, criminals included, we all suffer for it. Those abuses that begin on criminals, end up on the law abiding citizen.

Higher ups in several departments involved saw this video, and no one scratched their head and said, um, wait a minute. It took a year to surface. That folks is sad and alarming at the same time.

These officers were fired, and I believe they need to be charged and prosecuted for several crimes that IMO they are guilty of under color of law. Same with the El Monte Officer, another report has yet another El Monte officer striking the same suspect, but video did not capture it. That kick he gave to the suspect on the ground did not serve any LE purpose. None at all. In the past few days I have had the time to speak with some old friends, some retired LE some current, and all of them agree on what a “distraction blow” is. And they all agree that you never should deliver one, alone, and holding a suspect at gunpoint. Now I believe both of these instances are a result of 2 things. End of chase syndrome and the growing militant behavior/training of today’s peace officers.

The militant attitude that is all consuming in today’s LE is scary. Police should not act like soldiers. Soldiers are trained to kill, period. They are trained to seek out an enemy and kill. They have that mindset instilled during basic training and advanced training. In police schools across the country, that same mindset is being taught. And this is where the two jobs, military and police, clash. A police officers job is not to kill an enemy. It is to prevent crime and arrest those who are a danger to the populace, and to do that while respecting established laws and the civil rights of the population, that also includes the civil rights of the suspect/criminal.

Police are not soldiers in a war. There is not a war going on in any state where the police need to be militant. If there were, you would here about multiple officers being killed by criminals nightly on every news network. So I don’t want to hear any BS about “it’s a war out there”. I was a cop when the war on drugs was started, and it was BS then, and its BS now.

End of chase syndrome is defined as: police beatings like this have no logical explanation why they happen, some cops have described a feeling of excitement during a high speed pursuit. This feeling now has a name. It is called High-Speed Pursuit Syndrome. High-Speed Syndrome is described as a mix between fear, excitement, and adrenaline. This syndrome cause the officer to vent all these emotions on the suspect at the end of the pursuit

It is my opinion that the militant attitudes and training only aggravate this syndrome to the nth degree.

Some folks can’t handle being in LE. I now work in a dangerous industry, Oil and Gas exploration. I know what whenever I step on a location I could be killed. H2S gas, well kick, explosion are among but a few dangers. Some stuff on an Oil rig will hurt you, most will KILL you. My point, don’t try to excuse actions that are wrong by saying that the suspect was the reason you chased them. Or the suspect shot at me. I have worn a badge. You wanted to do the job as a police officer, you knew the risks that come with the job, so do it. There is no excuse for actions as seen in these 2 incidents. No excuse.

More training in civil rights is needed in today’s LE schools. Rights that everybody has, suspects included. Police officers should know that the rights of the populace come first. They should be educated more on End of Chase Syndrome and how to realize the signs just like a fighter pilot receives g-force training and hopefully can see a black out before it happens.
Lets discuss this, nicely and with an attempt to see if there is a solution.

Glenn E. Meyer
May 22, 2009, 09:38 AM
Very nice post. It's almost out of an aggression and violence lecture plus a touch of authoritarianism from a social psych class. Maintaining our values in the face of provocation is an indicator of civilized society.

maestro pistolero
May 22, 2009, 11:09 AM
There is a reason you separate military and police. One fights the enemies of the state, the other serves and protects the people.

We accept this idea a little too quickly in my opinion. The police are, by definition, law enforcement, and therefore agents of the state. While this role may tangentially protect the public from harm in the broadest sense, it is not primarily the role. And, as we all know, there is no legal duty to protect, or ramifications to fail to protect. Even the oath to uphold and defend the constitution would be willingly supplanted by many, if not most LEs, by an order to the contrary.

Tennessee Gentleman
May 22, 2009, 11:28 AM
We accept this idea a little too quickly in my opinion. The police are, by definition, law enforcement, and therefore agents of the state.

Yes they are agents of the state but their roles and training are quite different. One of the reasons we have Posse Comitatus.

Even the oath to uphold and defend the constitution would be willingly supplanted by many, if not most LEs, by an order to the contrary.

Not sure I agree with that. Especially if they know the order to be illegal. Many times LE believe the order to be legal and don't find out it is not until after the fact. However, I think if a Chief of Police walked up to a rookie and told him to murder someone or fire into a peaceful crowd most would not obey that order.

OuTcAsT
May 22, 2009, 01:49 PM
Yes they are agents of the state but their roles and training are quite different.

I have not been through LE training but I would guess the training would have been, at some point, different. I'm not so sure about modern training.

Another issue is this;

I am ex military police/investigations and served in a civilian police department in Texas.

Now while the OP came from a Military LE background, many military veterans go into LE from other types of MOS.

When my hitch was up I left the military with a technical background, and went into a technical field, I brought with me many of the skills and thought-processes that I used during my service.

I would think that same thing would apply to someone who came out of a combat/peacekeeping MOS and went into LE. You might receive additional LE training, but some "skills" just don't get "turned off".

Additionally, the "militarization" of LEAs is becoming more apparent; IE: Uniforms are now adaptations of BDU's Agencies have humvees, APCs, and a general military e'spirit de corps. I am certain that these esoteric appearances are not the only military manifestations that exist in LE today.


Another issue is this;

While this role may tangentially protect the public from harm in the broadest sense, it is not primarily the role. And, as we all know, there is no legal duty to protect, or ramifications to fail to protect.

While there is a great deal of "protectionism" in LE it is generally not in the public interest, as they have no responsibility to the public.
And, the immunity from prosecution for crimes committed "In the line of duty" that LE enjoys is another huge problem.

Dust Monkey
May 22, 2009, 02:00 PM
When I went through a civilian academy, we were called Peace Officers, not LEO. LE was part of what a Peace Officer did, but he/she did it knowing the risks involved.

I know that some officers leave infantry, force recon, Spec Ops and such to become police officers. IMO That should not happen if you are a 15 year vet of special ops, you really don't need to go straight in to civilian LE. Folks with some MOS's should be banned from being in LE. I am reminded of an incident, I believe it was in CA during the riots. Police were being aided by a Marine unit, I do not remember if the unit was active or reserve, I do think the marines were combat trained, MOS. Police officers were partnered up with marines. A call came in of a shooting. IIRC, 2 officers and 2 marines responded. Shots were still being fired, not in the direction of the police and marines. One of the officers wanted to move to a better vantage point and yelled at the marines to "cover me". Well, they covered him as they had been trained to, by putting several hundred rounds into the house where the shooting suspect was held up.

This is why some military MOS training should bar you from LE work, period.

However, I think if a Chief of Police walked up to a rookie and told him to murder someone or fire into a peaceful crowd most would not obey that order.

We are not talking about disobeying an order. These incidents are veteran cops beating the hell out of suspects after chases, in most instances. These veteran cops have been/should have been trained in civil rights as well as proper arrest procedures. Is it ok to get forceful (knee in the back) with a felon being compliant just to ensure officer safety, sure. Beating the hell out of one serves no purpose and turns the cop into a criminal.

hogdogs
May 22, 2009, 02:38 PM
Southern Justice


A couple of kids in the South get pulled over for speeding. When the trooper approaches the car, the driver says 'What's the problem, sir?'.
The trooper takes out his machined aluminum flashlight and whacks the kid across the head saying 'You don't speak to a state trooper unless you're spoken to'.
The trooper writes out the citation and gives it to the driver who responds 'Thanks a lot'.
The trooper again gives the kid a dose of the flashlight and says 'When you address a state trooper, you finish your sentence with the word sir'.
He then walks over to the passenger side and whacks the other kid with the flashlight.
The kid says 'What was that for, sir?'
The trooper says 'I was just fulfilling your wish.
Y'all wouldn't have gotten 100 yards down this road before you'd have said to your friend, "I wish he'd have hit me with that flashlight", so I fulfilled your wish.'

There is no room for police brutality... if they can't handle the adrenaline rush after a chase I will correct it for them... I can take them on a hog hunt and after we get to the caught boar I can pull the bulldog off and let officer brutal loose on him! Bet he learns to control his adrenaline induced rage after 5 seconds nose to nose with a 250 pound hog!
I am not in LE and one reason is I doubt I could haul some criminals to jail without stoppin off in a dark alley along the way and adrenaline wouldn't even be involved... just plain ol' "pre-trial justice"...
Brent

Al Norris
May 22, 2009, 04:50 PM
I am not in LE and one reason is I doubt I could haul some criminals to jail without stoppin off in a dark alley along the way and adrenaline wouldn't even be involved... just plain ol' "pre-trial justice"...
"A mans gots to know his limitations." :cool:

hogdogs
May 22, 2009, 05:35 PM
Al, I hope that wasn't sarcastic as I agree with the statement fully. I am also not willing to try brain surgery just like many folks won't attempt to repair their car on their own;)
Brent

Al Norris
May 22, 2009, 08:17 PM
Nah Brent. Just trying to show (with good natured humor) that common sense isn't quite dead.... Maybe I'll just stick to swinging the scythe. :eek:

hogdogs
May 22, 2009, 08:35 PM
Thanx, I was hopin' that was an attempt at humor or agreement... I admit I wouldn't be able to deal with a bunch of the riff raff with out takin' it over the line...
Brent

Dust Monkey
May 22, 2009, 08:50 PM
Come on guys. Let's not interject common sense into this. Folks might get the wrong idea that we are trying to have an actual civil discussion.:D

OuTcAsT
May 22, 2009, 11:07 PM
turns the cop into a criminal.

Unfortunately this is not always the case.

Granted that in the two incidents in the original post the officers were "caught red handed" as it were, and suffered a loss of job as a punishment, but as I pointed out earlier
LE is usually immune to prosecution in a criminal manner. While they may yet be tried in civil court, and punitive damages may result, that is not enough.

An example which remains in my mind is a case I have discussed here before, a resident of my community was shot and killed by two local LEOs when they kicked in the door of the wrong address to serve a warrant, the homeowner thought he was being robbed, produced a weapon to protect himself, and was killed.

The result was a loss of job, and a hefty civil settlement.
Why ? Because they were acting under "color of law" and an accident happened. I would think the first barrier that needs to be broken down is this kind of "immunity".

If LE had to operate under the same ROE as any other citizen, and with the same consequences possible, this would be a good first step. Assault someone during an attack of "end of chase" syndrome ? Get charged with aggravated assault, weapon also involved ? how about ADW. Break down the wrong door? Breaking and entering.
someone get hurt ? Aggravated burglary. Someone killed?
Criminally Negligent Homicide or 2nd degree murder.

With all due respect to our fine LE members, I know the argument would be akin to; "we would never be able to do our job for fear that every case would result in some kind of bogus charge" Maybe so, but if you have done your job correctly you should have nothing to worry about, and you are, after all, innocent until proven guilty.

ETA: I am not advocating that you be charged for doing your job, but unlike when a mechanic puts on the wrong part, and can go back and fix the problem, when LE does a poor job people pay, sometimes in blood.

Once the law applies equally to everyone, many of the "syndromes" might well correct themselves.

Dust Monkey
May 22, 2009, 11:40 PM
OuTcAsT,

Great post. Right on target. I agree 100%.

Wagonman
May 23, 2009, 12:58 AM
It's threads like this that make me glad I gave up police work about five years ago.

Dust Monkey
May 23, 2009, 01:14 AM
Wagonman,

Why did you leave police work? Your reference to " threads like this ". Care to elaborate?

BlueTrain
May 23, 2009, 07:42 AM
There was an incident a year or two ago in a small town in the Maryland suburbs of Washington in which the police invaded a house that was apparently the wrong house. It turned out to be the house of the mayor of this small town. Fortunately, a local constable and friend of the mayor turned up just in time and stood by the mayor to prevent anything else happening, there being a likelihood of it turning even worse. I wonder how these things get started?

There seems to be an unfortunate trend of militarization of law enforcement. They wear black uniforms and combat boots with black trousers, helmets, shields and the works. They tend to have what used to be called Prussian haircuts as if having hair were immoral. I think these little details cause a little confusion in the minds of some police but there may be other reasons. The police in my small town where I grew up wore white shirts. The police station was built with a garage door front (next to the fire station) and on hot summer days before air conditioning, the entire front of the station was wide open. I guess things change.

bob.a
May 23, 2009, 09:22 AM
I live in the same area as the above poster; while no humans were killed, the police did execute the family's labradors, in front of kids I believe. Pretty offensive.

And in northern VA, a SWAT team arrived to bust a local fellow, optometrist if I recall correctly, for gambling on football games in the local sports bar. One of the team bumped his elbow exiting his vehicle; his drawn .45 discharged, killing the gambler. No charges.

Us vs Them has got to stop. We're becoming the disUnited States of Alienation.

ilbob
May 23, 2009, 10:15 AM
Us vs Them has got to stop.
It will get much worse before it gets better.

OuTcAsT
May 23, 2009, 11:17 AM
After sleeping on this, I have begun to wonder why there are no criminal charges brought against officers that commit such acts, the question was the impetus for my doing some research into my own states laws. After reading the TCA carefully, and from a layman's POV (I realize case law also plays a part) I cannot find any statutes that prohibit such charges from being brought. This is problematic for me.

Who has the responsibility and authority to bring such charges ? Would it not be the States Atty. / Local DA ?

Is it really as simple as the fact that the DA is unwilling to bring such charges ?

Perhaps someone more qualified than I can explain this.


Wagonman,

Why did you leave police work? Your reference to " threads like this ". Care to elaborate?

Wagonman, we have discussed things in the past, and I respect your opinions and common sense views, please elaborate. The more input we can get from veterans such as yourself, the clearer the picture becomes for us all. I also hope some active LEOs will join the discussion as well.

bob.a
May 23, 2009, 12:59 PM
Why no charges? I suspect it's politics as usual. The DA and the police are on the same team; further, no DA wants to be seen as soft on crime or hard on the police. Then too, there's the internal culture of the police dept. One local county which I will not name has had a racist and trigger-happy reputation for the forty years I've lived in the area. Despite the occasional investigation (FBI was involved, more than once if I recall correctly) nothing really changes. The Chief gets swapped out every so often, but it's difficult to impossible to weed out the folks who shouldn't be carrying anything more lethal than their bare hands. I imagine it must be very frustrating for the honorable and responsible LEOs, to be tarred with the same brush, so to speak.

On the plus side, the local Va dept mentioned in my earlier post is studying alternatives to having SWAT teams serving warrants on non-violent offenders.
I don't think they're looking into why it was thought necessary in the first place. Of course, when you have a weapon available, the tendency is to use it. The availablility of funding from Homeland Security (am I the only one who finds that title a bit disturbing?) has contributed to the development of a lot of para-military equipment and capability in local police departments; possibly a lot more than is needed.

wingman
May 23, 2009, 01:17 PM
There seems to be an unfortunate trend of militarization of law enforcement.

I agree, with family and friends in law enforcement for years I've seen the trend,however one aspect of an officer losing control is how it affects him in his personal life, his family, once he is conditioned to react with force or rage it becomes hard to hold on to reality at home, divorce rate is high among law enforcement.

Truthfully I believe some type of psychological testing every 5 years should be mandatory, it would protect the public and the officer.

Wagonman
May 23, 2009, 01:30 PM
The second guessing and breast beating about the excesses of Police work are just two of the reasons I and many of my fellow LEOs stopped proactive Police work. We are getting results also, Chicago had more murders than Baghdad last year. But, the bright side a lot less "rights" were violated and I haven't been sued federally in over 6 years.


once he is conditioned to react with force or rage it becomes hard to hold on to reality at home

That is an insulting and a Non sequitur. While LEOs have a higher rate of divorce than the GP LEOS have a lower incidence of DV. Unfortunately LEOs harm themselves more than others with their demons.

Kmar40
May 23, 2009, 02:32 PM
Anyone notice the poor innocent motorist running down the cop who tried to spike the van at the first of the video?

Seems to be getting glossed over by the left wing fringe and other nutcases.

sholling
May 23, 2009, 03:37 PM
Why no charges? I suspect it's politics as usual. The DA and the police are on the same team; further, no DA wants to be seen as soft on crime or hard on the police. Then too, there's the internal culture of the police dept. One local county which I will not name has had a racist and trigger-happy reputation for the forty years I've lived in the area. Despite the occasional investigation (FBI was involved, more than once if I recall correctly) nothing really changes. The Chief gets swapped out every so often, but it's difficult to impossible to weed out the folks who shouldn't be carrying anything more lethal than their bare hands. I imagine it must be very frustrating for the honorable and responsible LEOs, to be tarred with the same brush, so to speak.
Much of it is an us vs them attitude bred in training and nurtured in dealing mainly with sheep and the wolves that prey on them everyday. Much of it is a gentleman's agreement. I can't speak for the rest of the country but I'm a politically conservative male in my 50s and I've been observing this trend in California LE for decades. What I have seen time after time is a set of standard operating procedures. Again these are not attacks just 30+ years of observations.

SOPs:
1) The LE agency circles the wagons and begins leading and (less commonly) intimidating witness to exonerate the officer. A classic case happened back in the 1980s. A middle aged middle class African-American couple stopped to get gas (Anaheim, CA?) and spotted a LEO beating a suspect. They called the police to report the crime. They were then arrested and prosecuted for "filing a false police report" against the officer. The judge threw out the case as a blatant attempt to intimidate the public into remaining silent on abuses. Riverside, CA a police fusillade into a woman sleeping in her car with her pistol on her lap led to multiple press releases and press conferences about what a horrible human being she was. Murrieta, CA an off duty shooting in a bar led to an immediate press statement on what evil mean and nasty people the shootees were. SOP step 1a) Intimidate and lead witnesses, step 1b) demonize and dehumanize the shooting/beating victim in the media, step 1c) release a report exonerating the officer. In the cases cited I make no judgement of guilt or innocence only on the method of dealing with the cases. But in one recent and extreme case it went so far that the parents of a child molestation victim received death threats from someone very familiar with non public aspects of the case. The molestation suspect was a long time LEO and the charges had been brought by another agency. I personally think most officers are good men and women but are victims of an us vs them system and also don't want to risk being the next Serpico.

2) Whenever possible DA's in this area accept the official report and quietly decline to file charges.

3) If backed into a political corner the DA's office will file charges but will simply throw the case and blame "brain damaged jurors". Methods vary. In a taped Long Beach CA beating the suspect was beaten unconscious, but that did not stop the officer who continued the beating with his nightstick while literally dancing a jig around the suspect. Fellow officer were so appalled that they failed to confiscate the video tape. However the DA refused to enter the video tape into evidence during the trial. A board of rights later reinstated the officer to duty. Orange County CA, the DA's office "accidentally" deleted the 20 minutes of a jail house security video showing deputies beating a suspect. Strangely enough they only deleted that 20 minutes from the video. But without a video they were "forced" to drop the case.

The examples could go on forever but I do not submit these to attack LE. Only to answer the question. I think the vast majority of LEOs are as appalled as you or I. But I also think they suffer from the "but for the grace of god go I" syndrome that leads them to protect the old boy system. After all anybody, even a really outstanding officer can loose it once and it's nice to know you have a backstop to protect your butt even if it means that it protects the rare bad guy in blue.

OuTcAsT
May 23, 2009, 03:45 PM
The second guessing and breast beating about the excesses of Police work are just two of the reasons I and many of my fellow LEOs stopped proactive Police work. We are getting results also, Chicago had more murders than Baghdad last year. But, the bright side a lot less "rights" were violated and I haven't been sued federally in over 6 years.


OK, Thanks for clearing that up. I hope I am misunderstanding you, but this sounds like a "Jack Nicholson" answer, the whole " You give me the dirty jobs to do and then question the way I do it" ? I expect this kind of response at some point, pardon me if this one comes as a surprise.

Anyone notice the poor innocent motorist running down the cop who tried to spike the van at the first of the video?


I saw the motorist who is presumed innocent until proven guilty. And therein lies the rub, while anyone who saw the video has no doubt that the motorist is likely to be convicted when his case goes to court, until that happens he has specific rights that should be protected.

When even a scumbag gets the crap beat out of him under color of law it is still illegal. Lets assume that the video showed a soccer mom (your wife, girlfriend, daughter or mom) pulled over for a minor traffic infraction only to get beaten within inches of her life, would that make a difference? According to law, does the scumbag have less rights than the innocent soccer mom? The simple answer is no.

Sure, watching some guy try to clip a copper trying to stop him is inflammatory, but if it is OK to kick his a$$ over it, why would it be less OK for the soccer mom to get pounded? They are still both entitled to equal protection under the law, so by that reasoning, also should get equal treatment ? No ?

Unless things like this are prosecuted, I fear that is the direction we are headed. If you have a subset of people who can operate above the law, they are going to do just that.

BlueTrain
May 23, 2009, 04:46 PM
And another trend I don't care for is the increasing use of abbreviations on this forum. I don't understand half of them. Maybe I ought to get out more.

OuTcAsT
May 23, 2009, 04:58 PM
And another trend I don't care for is the increasing use of abbreviations on this forum. I don't understand half of them.


I may have contributed to the confusion, let me see if I can help;

MOS=Military Occupation Specialty ( your job in the military)
LE=Law Enforcement
LEO=Law Enforcement Officer
LEA=Law Enforcement Agency
DA= District Attorney
BDU=Battle Dress Uniform (Fatigues)
ROE=Rules of Engagement ( The rules for a combat situation )
APC= Armored personnel carrier
Hope that helps, :cool:

zxcvbob
May 23, 2009, 05:56 PM
Who has the responsibility and authority to bring such charges ? Would it not be the States Atty. / Local DA ?
Is it really as simple as the fact that the DA is unwilling to bring such charges ?

Yes, it is that simple. However the FBI also has juridiction, so it could end of prosecuted by the feds (that seldom seems to happen either.)

D.Delozier
May 23, 2009, 07:13 PM
Dont forget they have the Internal affairs people, LOL thats like letting the fox watch the hen house! All such incedents should be taken out of the offending departments hands and given over to a public review board of some kind.Maybe then these kind of things will be delt with in a more fair and just manner.

Dust Monkey
May 23, 2009, 08:12 PM
The second guessing and breast beating about the excesses of Police work are just two of the reasons I and many of my fellow LEOs stopped proactive Police work. We are getting results also, Chicago had more murders than Baghdad last year. But, the bright side a lot less "rights" were violated and I haven't been sued federally in over 6 years.


So, correct me if I am wrong, you and other officers have "stopped" doing your job just because you cant or are unable to do it within the scope of the law?

Proactive is great, just do it within the confines of the constitution.

Anyone notice the poor innocent motorist running down the cop who tried to spike the van at the first of the video?


The suspect motorist is presumed innocent. And yes I saw him almost hit an officer. I also saw the officer step away from the safety behind a patrol car to attempt to thow a spike strip in front of the suspects vehicle, which was being chased at a high rate of speed. Common sense should tell you that if you are trying to apprehend someone that is not wanting to be apprehended, and you step in his way, he most likely wont stand down. Not blaming the officer or stating that its the officers fault that the suspect almost hit him. Just saying that if you touch a hot stove, dont be surprised if you get burned.

Last thought. If you cant do a job within the rules and regulations laid out for said job, you need to quit.

Wagonman
May 24, 2009, 01:41 AM
So, correct me if I am wrong, you and other officers have "stopped" doing your job just because you cant or are unable to do it within the scope of the law?

Proactive is great, just do it within the confines of the constitution.



I have turned into report taker because it's not worth the aggravation to play police. But, as I said I haven't been sued or received a complaint in over six years.

The suspect motorist is presumed innocent. And yes I saw him almost hit an officer. I also saw the officer step away from the safety behind a patrol car

Last thought. If you cant do a job within the rules and regulations laid out for said job, you need to quit.


You can presume him innocent all you want he is still guilty on the street.

No, you saw a Officer doing his job.

Last thought. you will get the society you deserve, God help you.

B. Lahey
May 24, 2009, 02:16 AM
I'm no expert, but it seems to me that Chicago must be a hell of a hard place to be a cop. Politics aplenty, "advocates" crawling out of the woodwork to screech and protest and sue every time little Johnny Criminal gets his hair messed up, corruption, neverending scandals. I'm not surprised at all that Chicago cops find themselves playing it safe.

You should move out of IL to the civilized world, Wagonman. It's different over here, and we need cops too.:D

Wagonman
May 24, 2009, 02:32 AM
You should move out of IL to the civilized world, Wagonman. It's different over here, and we need cops too.


To far in pensionwise sadly. ;)

RedneckFur
May 24, 2009, 02:33 AM
You can presume him innocent all you want he is still guilty on the street.

If this is how the law inforcement in our country feel and act, then our legal system has failed.

Dust Monkey
May 24, 2009, 03:31 AM
Still guilty on the street. Since when were cops given judicial powers.

That statement speaks volumes about the problem.

And I did not say that the spike strip officer was not doing his job. I opined that he was careless and made a very stupid decision, IMO.

B. Lahey
May 24, 2009, 03:51 AM
If this is how the law inforcement in our country feel and act, then our legal system has failed.


If our system had cops acting as judges or performing other legal resposibilities, I would agree with you, but that isn't the case. The way our system works, I don't see how the way a cop mentally regards the person being arrested has any bearing on the situation.

If they see somebody in violation of the law, that person is indeed "street guilty", and they get treated like a criminal temporarily.

If a cop sees some maniac waving a huge Bowie knife in some grandmother's eye, what are they supposed to do? Kindly ask "innocent" Mr. Psychopath to come along down to the courthouse so that he may be tried?

No. That man gets treated like a criminal as a practical matter. The term "guilty" in its strict legal sense don't even come into it, that's for later on down the road, and cops are not the ones who make that call.

BlueTrain
May 24, 2009, 06:40 AM
Hey, Outcast, you left these out:

TDY
RPG
PDW
PFD
BAR
SMG
SGM
MSG
HCR

You get a gold star if you figure all them out.

Dust Monkey
May 24, 2009, 09:13 AM
B. Lahey,

Stop the "street guilty" crap. With regards to people breaking the law a cops job is to arrest, gather info to put together a case to forward to the DA. The DA decides to charge or not and Judge/jury decides guilt or not. This "he is already street guilty" put the officer in a biased mindset.

And your statements on how cops treat potential criminals. I sure hope you are not a cop. No on in this thread has suggest for a cop to treat a knife weildng suspect in the manner as you described. You description is flippant crap. Your see there is this certain thing called "Use of Force". It outlines and guides an officer on how and when to respond to a threat. No where in the Use of Force does it say you get to beat the hell out of an unsconscious suspect or kick a compliant suspect in the head. So I do not know where your getting that I and others are advocating what BS you decsribe in your post about treating suspects.

FWIW. If you have a criminal armed with a knife that is an IMEDIATE threat to you or the public, use of deadly force is justfied. Just dont beat the hell out of the dead body afterwards.

Wagonman
May 24, 2009, 09:35 AM
B Lahey, you expressed my point far more eloquently than I did and for that I will never forgive you. ;)

Glenn E. Meyer
May 24, 2009, 09:35 AM
I'm disturbed a bit about street justice also. A few years ago I went to a meeting of the American Society for Criminology. Lots of LEO researchers attend. A fair number of criminologists have LE backgrounds. One telling presentation was about a small but noticeable number of departments that focus on clearing cases regardless of the guilt or innocence of the 'suspect'. Their methods were, as you might imagine, not in accord with basic civil rights. It is not being soft to expect professionalism. If one burns out, despite pension and financial issues - you shouldn't be on the front line. It is true for most professions.

One argument against civilian carry was the fear of vigilante justice. If folks can make that argument - can we, in the gun world, chortle about police acting in the same manner?

Gun culture also prattles about the Constitution and basic rights. Then we find folks wanting to violate them in some aggressive hissy fit. He's a criminal, blah, blah. So which is it? Rights or it's fun to be violent in violation of basic rights, if you don't like the guy.

Last, red herrings, pseudo-vivid instances as rhetorically hogwash. What if it was a knife wielding psycho - are you supposed to be nice to him. Horse manure - that is an active on coming threat as compared to an unconscious or restrained individual.

Wagonman
May 24, 2009, 09:42 AM
TDY Temporary Duty
RPG Rocket Propelled Grenade
PDW Personal Duty Weapon
PFD Personal Floatation Device
BAR Browning Automatic Rifle
SMG Sub Machine Gun
SGM Sergeant Major
MSG Master Sergeant
HCR I dunno

BlueTrain
May 24, 2009, 10:36 AM
Personal Defense Weapon, which is dumb.
Household Cavalry Regiment (didn't think you'd know that).

I knew what some were, finally figured the others out, didn't see the one with APC, which also means all-purpose capsule.

To bring this back on track, do people think that the behavior of law enforcement officers is different in different parts of the country, or the type of agency they belong to? By the latter, I mean state police, county or city police, federal agencies, or sheriff's department, where there is one. In Fairfax County, Virginia, the Sheriff's Department has different duties from the Fairfax County Police Department but I know that in more rural counties the local sheriff's department had the regular law enforcement function.

At one time, of course, there were only sheriffs and not so many of them, plus in territories, there were US Marshals and their deputies. Law Enforcement has been a minor growth industry, you might say.

I am tempted to say that the police in larger cities, though not all, are more likely to be "not so nice" as those in other places. I have virtually no basis for making that statement, however, with only the slightest first hand encounters with the police anywhere. I am also tempted to say that once things like SWAT teams are organized and on hand, there could be a temptation to use them more if only to justify their existance but again, that is only a supposition.

hogdogs
May 24, 2009, 11:28 AM
Blue, I am 100% convinced that LEA's vary from region to region thru out the states... I am a Floridian by birth but raised thru out the USA. Aside from Louisiana at 18, all my adult years I have lived in Fla. The peninsula of florida is basically "big city" type living and even the rural areas are rife with tourists and other riff raff common to big city life.
I am no angel and have been on both sides of the "blueline" many times, that said...

In the peninsula of florida, I have never had a cop approach me on the side of the road broke down, using the phone, reading my map etc. and not turn it into a "traffic stop". Blues flashing and asking for ID and POI and registration and often asking permission to search my ride.
Up here in the panhandle, sitting on the side of the road getting cel service or whatever, I have never had one do anything but pull alongside and ask if I was okay... Down yonder, if you lip off YOU WILL AT LEAST BE TAZED... Up here I know of one guy who I personally witnessed or my son witnessed (ex bossman) get out and bow up in the face of a deputy or trooper only to be threatened with arrest if he didn't "chill out"...
I bowed up on one deputy before LTL tazers were carried down yonder but he knew he was wrong and I was right or he would have either whooped my butt or shot me... All in all up here is the most laid back LEO's I have ever encountered. They are real life not blowed up super human above the law types... They relate to their own self unlike other locales. Had the law been called to report "possible full auto firearms" claims down yonder I doubt I would have spent better than an hour on my porch explaining the .22lr pistol speed firing and requiring the deputy get a "super" involved and brining out the pistol and demonstrating the rate of fire then letting them do the same...
Brent

OuTcAsT
May 24, 2009, 12:19 PM
One argument against civilian carry was the fear of vigilante justice

And just what is vigilante justice?

Webster defines it ;

vigilante
One entry found.

Main Entry:
vig·i·lan·te Listen to the pronunciation of vigilante
Pronunciation:
\ˌvi-jə-ˈlan-tē\
Function:
noun
Etymology:
Spanish, watchman, guard, from vigilante vigilant, from Latin vigilant-, vigilans
Date:
1856

: a member of a volunteer committee organized to suppress and punish crime summarily (as when the processes of law are viewed as inadequate) ; broadly : a self-appointed doer of justice

I would think for the purpose of this discussion, and in keeping with the current context, everyone has a similar idea of what constitutes "vigilantism".

If we look at some of the statements thus far;

The second guessing and breast beating about the excesses of Police work

But, the bright side a lot less "rights" were violated

it's not worth the aggravation to play police

You can presume him innocent all you want he is still guilty on the street.


you will get the society you deserve

It would appear that this is, at least on the surface, what LE has become. Someone said:

If our system had cops acting as judges or performing other legal responsibilities, I would agree with you,

Yet that is exactly what is happening. When someone is presumed "Street Guilty" that is a judgement plain and simple. Maybe not a legal one, but certainly one which is going to effect the manner in which a suspect is treated.

At one point in our society, justice was served up by the gun and rope. After a while people saw that there were many legally innocent people who were "collateral damage" in this sort of broadsword-type justice, and some reforms were needed to mitigate the possibility that someone might be tried, convicted, and possibly executed on the whim of the public at large. Some would argue that a return to that sort of system would reduce the violent crime we see today. The fact remains that those checks and balances were put in place to protect the innocent. There is no question that the same system also can be exploited to the criminals advantage, but that is seen more so in the courtroom than on the street.

I am not advocating that someone who has allegedly just shot, stabbed, or raped someone be "asked nicely" to come along to court. LE has to do whatever it takes, within the law to bring that person to court. But, once he is in custody, they have fulfilled their role to the public, which was to get him off the street. Afterwords their responsibility changes, they are then charged with a duty to protect that persons rights, much as LE once had to protect prisoners from lynch mobs.

Sure it is difficult for most of us to detach ourselves from the emotions we feel about the crime, and worry about the prisoner's rights, until you are the prisoner. I will postulate that each and every person who has flamed my position, would, if you are arrested, (say for an investigation into a self defense shooting) want every single one of your rights protected. You will expect to be handcuffed, ( just not too tightly ) transported safely, ( watch your head on the door )
without having your A$$ kicked, to the precinct, where you will immediately request a lawyer. Those are your rights, and you will expect LE to protect every one of them.

That is perfectly fine, since you have done nothing wrong.

But, you cannot have it both ways. That robber, rapist, murderer, also have, the same rights as you until they are convicted. We preach and posture about our rights when it serves our purpose, but can just as easily dismiss someone else their rights because we place ourselves in a position of "street judge" Perhaps some should re-read the definition I provided.

Also, I don't think an officer should be sued for civil rights violations, I think he should be held to the same standard I am. If he is outside the law he should be arrested, tried, and either convicted, or exonerated. If our legal system cannot function within it's own guidelines, then how can those of us that might get caught up in it expect to be treated fairly?

ilbob
May 24, 2009, 12:38 PM
Up here I know of one guy who I personally witnessed or my son witnessed (ex bossman) get out and bow up in the face of a deputy or trooper only to be threatened with arrest if he didn't "chill out"...

What is "bow up"?

I saw the video of the El Monte incident. I am sort of ambivalent about it, but I am inclined to give the benefit of the doubt to a law abiding person over a violent street thug every time, if there is some doubt.

I think police agencies all over the country are going to have to rethink the way they operate to more closely align what they do with public perceptions of what they should be doing. Video is pervasive and won't go away. And many cases where video is produced there is a rush to get it in the public domain.

Much of the way policing was done in the past was done in the shadows, without much public knowledge of what was going on. Maybe a good analogy is how hot dogs are made. We liked to think that the way police work and how police officers were portrayed on Adam12 and Dragnet was real. We are now starting to get snippets of what it really is like sometimes, especially in some of the urban hell holes.

What we are seeing does not comport well with what we as a society would like to believe is the way things should be. Some of it is the view that cops should never make a mistake, or have any human failings while performing their jobs. Being as cops are human, that is not an especially realistic expectation, and no amount of training or policies is going to change that. We are going to have to find a way for the system to accept those human failings, yet provide protection from those failings to the people at large. Probably not an easy task.

OuTcAsT
May 24, 2009, 12:54 PM
What is "bow up"?

Brent can correct me if I'm wrong, pretty sure the definition is the same here in TN, But to "Bow Up" would be to "Aggressively assert your point of view" Usually this type of display is sprinkled liberally with colorful metaphors, and comments concerning one's family lineage, their "close" relationship to their Mother, etc. You get the Idea. :D

ilbob
May 24, 2009, 01:07 PM
Brent can correct me if I'm wrong, pretty sure the definition is the same here in TN, But to "Bow Up" would be to "Aggressively assert your point of view" Usually this type of display is sprinkled liberally with colorful metaphors, and comments concerning one's family lineage, their "close" relationship to their Mother, etc. You get the Idea.
That would seem to be a fairly poor way of dealing with people, especially those whose training, experience, and temperament leads them to need to be in control of the encounter.

hogdogs
May 24, 2009, 01:43 PM
In my definition... To "bow up" is to aggressively posture physically. No physical contact, just to posture intent or threat of such. It may or may not include verbal content... In fact, the inclusion of verbal content such as family lineage and possible profession of one's momma usually shows less true intent of physical force compared to a silent show of posturing ie:bowing up...
And I wasn't referring to the LEO as bowing up although I have seen that too many times as well...

Bob, yes it is a risky move to posture up on a LEO... In the instance I did it I was 100% in the right and he was in the wrong and I was willing to go to the next level to defend my position of being wronged by an over zealous officer. it was one of those traffic stops performed after a running of a tag and him trying to come up with a justified reason for a stop. His excuse was "The tag comes back to a woman so I thought you may have stolen the car..." My wife was with me (tag in her name) and the car was 15 years old and not custom (no reason to expect the car to be worth more than $500-$800 bucks!)

Brent

Wagonman
May 24, 2009, 01:57 PM
"Street Guilty" that is a judgement plain and simple. Maybe not a legal one, but certainly one which is going to effect the manner in which a suspect is treated.


No his actions are going to dictate how he is treated. "street guilty" is a temporary judgement which is nothing more than Probable Cause to arrest or legal justification for use of force.

I am a judge, I decide who is going to jail. However, I have checks and balances. My Watch Commander has to approve the arrest, The SA has to approve felony charges, an actual judge and or jury has to find said offender guilty or innocent. So this arguement collapses under it's own weight.

Wagonman
May 24, 2009, 02:06 PM
In the instance I did it I was 100% in the right and he was in the wrong and I was willing to go to the next level to defend my position of being wronged by an over zealous officer. it was one of those traffic stops performed after a running of a tag and him trying to come up with a justified reason for a stop. His excuse was "The tag comes back to a woman so I thought you may have stolen the car..."

Sounds like a legal stop to me, well within the confines of Terry. How were you "wronged" other than being delayed?

Apropos of nothing I looked at older cars a little harder when I did police work, just something else that is out of the ordinary. Were you in a area you don't frequent? Were older cars the norm or not.

I grow weary of people B^%$ing about being pulled over by the Police. Try a little introspection, why was I pulled over?

BlueTrain
May 24, 2009, 02:33 PM
Here is another very general comment, which may have nothing to do with the original topic, not being familiar with the incident.

I think the relationship the police have with the citizenry, the pubic, is critical to their success in fulfilling their basic function of enforcing the laws and ensuring public safety. That may sound like something everyone should understand but in places where the relationship is a little sour, the police have trouble catching the bad guys, to put it simply. Now, most places the police are much better at their job than they get credit for and one reason is the police usually enjoy public support. Some people may expect a little too much from the police but that's a different issue. Those are usually the same people who don't like strangers driving on the public street in front of their house.

It would be interesting to know if the size of the community made any difference in this relationship. One in which more people knew one another's names (I mean between the police and the public). One would hope it would but it couldn't hurt.

zxcvbob
May 24, 2009, 02:35 PM
Try a little introspection, why was I pulled over?Out of state tags? :rolleyes:

hogdogs
May 24, 2009, 02:45 PM
I was on a street I was on every single morning... had to drive it to drop off the children at the sitter before work and pick them up after work.
I am as sick of sorry excuses for stops with no law broken as you are of people BI@@@###((( about it...
I broke no law and saw the officer at a stop sign and in the rearview saw him key the mic as his eyes were glued to my rear bumper... The point I am after is traffic stops should only be done with a law having been broken... Otherwise it is harassment! NEVER should a car be pulled or a home owner approached without a complaint of a violation of law or an officer witnessing it... In my case my car was a 1980 Olds 4 door with no window tint or flash... tan on creme color and stock hub caps in around 1995. Man driving with female passenger and tag registered to a 30+ year old woman with no criminal history and listed as "MARRIED" with a male driver does not probable cause make!
I maneuvered around a flooded spot in the road after he had gotten behind me using my signal to indicate I was crossing a yellow stripe and he didn't even mention this in the stop.
Don't even try to convince me that cops need the power to just pull over cars with little reason to "CHECK 'EM OUT"... It is no more true than cops thinking they can come to my door and say they think I am a criminal because the lease/deed is in a females name! Also cops do not have the leeway in Florida to pull over a car to ask if they have proof of insurance. Nor can they pull over a biker without a helmet to ask if he has the required health insurance... Thus I doubt the stop I SUFFERED do to male driver/female passenger in a vehicle registered to a married woman was legal and as it turned out neither did his superiors when I reported and filed complaint for this...
Cops need to only respond or stop for violations of law... otherwise it is a BS contact with civilian!
Brent

Dust Monkey
May 24, 2009, 02:47 PM
You are not a judge. You are a police officer charged with arresting people who have appeared to violate a law. Period. The law guides you, you are not a judge. You are a citizen who applied for a job to wear a badge. If you want to be a judge, get your law degree and make yourself known as a good lawyer. Then maybe you will get the chance to be a real judge.

Also. It does no matter on bit if video cameras are around or not. It does not matter is some one sees you beat a suspect or not. You should conduct yourself as a professional and obey the very same law you wanted to protect. If you can't do that, quit and sell vaccum cleaners door to door.

We all know that there is a bad element in society that must be dealt with. We just don't want the cops to be worse than the bad element.

Just think. Those officers I references in my first post. Every case, every arrest, evert trial the testified at is in jeopardy. Any lawyer worth his salt will ask for a new trial. That is but one result of rogue LEO's. The other result has not happened yet, but I see it coming. It will be a major backlash by the citizens. Just like the tea parties, people will wake up and realize that they can control the purse strings. That they can make a difference and change the way police do their jobs.

OuTcAsT
May 24, 2009, 02:49 PM
this arguement collapses under it's own weight.

Does it indeed ?

I believe my statement was ;

"Street Guilty" that is a judgment plain and simple.

Your exact words are ;

I am a judge,

and;

"street guilty" is a temporary judgement

That would appear to be , by your own definition , a "Judgment" in the same context I was using it.

I said;

certainly one which is going to effect the manner in which a suspect is treated.

So your own judgment is not going to have an effect on what happens next ? or the "manner in which a suspect is treated" ?

I never said that the suspects actions were not going to play a part. Certainly I would think someone resisting or being violent would have it's own consequences.

I decide who is going to jail.

I would think the law plays some part in that determination? Ah yes, I see it does;

My Watch Commander has to approve the arrest, The SA has to approve felony charges, an actual judge and or jury has to find said offender guilty or innocent.

So it would seem the law decides who goes to jail, as it should be.

The whole premise of this discussion is not about trying to limit the ability of a police officer to do his job, and is not an attack on the street cop's ability to make an arrest as necessary, or even use force as necessary The problem lies in what happens when the officer does his job by "other than legal" means. If you "judge" someone to be "street guilty" of an offense that warrants an arrest, that is fine, If he lays down and gives up and then you kick him in the head, that is a crime. If you have been issued a warrant to serve and you kick down the wrong door, that is a crime. If someone pulls a gun to defend himself from this invasion and you shoot him, that is a crime, is it a mistake?
Possibly, but a crime none the less. If I kick someone in the head it is a crime, if I walk into the wrong house and the owner pulls a gun and I shoot him I will likely be charged with a crime. Why should the "color of law" be able to protect someone from being held to the same standard ? And how would doing so make a police officer less effective in doing his job? You don't have to be perfect, just equally culpable when you go beyond the law. If the handful of cops out there no longer had the blue shield to hide behind, I suspect that responsible officers such as yourself, might actually have a better rapport with the public at large.

OuTcAsT
May 24, 2009, 03:10 PM
The other result has not happened yet, but I see it coming. It will be a major backlash by the citizens.

Exactly, You just might see an increase in the number of folks
getting "Bowed Up" because they are weary of listening to police officers whine about "not being able to do their jobs because the law is in the way"

Try a little introspection; "Why doesn't the public respect me"?

ilbob
May 24, 2009, 04:26 PM
"The tag comes back to a woman so I thought you may have stolen the car..."

Sounds like a legal stop to me, well within the confines of Terry. How were you "wronged" other than being delayed?
Thats a pretty bizarre argument.

I don't want to put words in your mouth but it appears your contention is that it is PC to stop a car merely because the person driving it may not be the owner?

If that is truly the case, we are far worse off than I had imagined.

And being stopped for no legitimate reason is indeed a wrong.

B. Lahey
May 24, 2009, 04:30 PM
So it would seem the law decides who goes to jail, as it should be.


Street cops have a great deal of discretion in deciding who will be arrested, and these discretionary decisions have been upheld in various courts time and again. Cops are "street judges", and always have been.

I think the main issue in this thread is the disconnect between legal nerdism and the world of street cops. They are two sides of the same coin, but nobody understands both.

When Wagonman says "street guilty", it's very hard for people to overlook that word "guilty" and not react to its traditional legal meaning, but that's not how it is being used in this context. He's just using the term as regular-dude shorthand for "a temporary judgement which is nothing more than Probable Cause to arrest or legal justification for use of force" (as he described it later, after everyone had alread jumped to their own conclusions). The same goes for the word "judge" when it is being used without the usual technical legal meaning.

Is Wagonman bringing it on himself by using these words with legal strings attached? Yep. But I think you guys could do a bit better in trying to understand what he means.

hogdogs
May 24, 2009, 04:56 PM
Mr.Lahey, It would also behoove many TFL folks (I realize the board owners are owners of SWAT magazine) to recognize that the LEA's are after more and more power to "conduct" investigations and raids with less recourse if they err. I have heard from many friends and customers who are LEO "If you have nothing to hide, why worry about allowing a search of self, car or home...?" For this I call POO-POO On their shoe... If I have not committed an obvious violation of a fairly heinous law they won't barge in without a warrant (I realize no warrant is required for an officer staying in eye contact with a perp of some crimes) and for any other suspected crime I may have committed, I will require a warrant. This is for self, car or home as in "F" Off Buddy lemme know when you got paper! Slam the door in their face etc! As you have read I have great respect for the law and those who fairly do the job they are simply employees to do. Not sodiers, warriors or ninjas... just cops, no more important of a job than a garbage man...
Now if you want to go peeking on private lives trying to "find" evidence of a crime not reported than you likely are not a fan of my posts nor a defender of the COTUS!
Brent

B. Lahey
May 24, 2009, 05:07 PM
I will require a warrant

Awesome. I wish more people would react as you do, dogger. The "if you don't have anything to hide..." line is stupid and offensive.

You can't blame them for trying to get consent, criminals are not usually very bright and they will often consent to a search when they have huge bags of crack poorly hidden in their car, but that doesn't mean anyone with a brain shouldn't refuse.

No, you have to force a search-happy cop to violate your rights or go away. Then you can fight them in official channels or go about your business.

Of course you don't have to be nasty about it. "No, I do not consent to a search" is good enough, unless you want them to violate your rights.:D

OuTcAsT
May 24, 2009, 05:58 PM
Street cops have a great deal of discretion in deciding who will be arrested, and these discretionary decisions have been upheld in various courts time and again. Cops are "street judges", and always have been.


I will not presume to speak for anyone else but myself here so bear that in mind. With that understood, you are, in the broadest sense correct. I have no problem with the latitude of discretion that an officer has in his decision making, or judgment if you will. His choice of terminology matters not, judge, supreme commander, fuzzy pink teddy bear, whatever.

Where my problem lies is what happens once the discretion is exercised. As long as an officer stays within the law we are golden. It is also my firm belief that if he operates above , Outside of, or beyond the law, he should be held to, at a minimum, the same legal consequences that any other citizen would be.

No legal nerdism here, just a belief that anyone who commits a crime should be subject to the same laws, be he dirtbag or deputy.

B. Lahey
May 24, 2009, 06:06 PM
Then we are in total agreement.:)

I don't think anyone would disagree with that last post, not even supreme commander teddy bears.

Wagonman
May 25, 2009, 01:43 AM
NEVER should a car be pulled or a home owner approached without a complaint of a violation of law or an officer witnessing it...

Don't even try to convince me that cops need the power to just pull over cars with little reason to "CHECK 'EM OUT"...

I am sorry but you are wrong, I just need reasonable suspicion to do an investigatory stop according to the Terry decision.

Reasonable suspicion is a very low threshold to meet as it should be.

I don't want to put words in your mouth but it appears your contention is that it is PC to stop a car merely because the person driving it may not be the owner?

Probable Cause is different that Reasonable Suspicion. This is why I grow fatigued at people who don't know my job trying to tell me how to do my job.


number of folks
getting "Bowed Up" because they are weary of listening to police officers whine about "not being able to do their jobs because the law is in the way"

Try a little introspection; "Why doesn't the public respect me"?

The law doesn't get in my or any other reasonably well trained and intelligent Copper.

What public is that?

Is Wagonman bringing it on himself by using these words with legal strings attached?

I thought I made myself clear. I am the judge, small j, on the street I judge if you have probably committed the crime or if the person signing the complaints is credible. I then have the levels of approval up to and including the Judge. However, since the level of freedom I am able to take away is lower than a Judge my threshold to do my business is lower.

will require a warrant. This is for self, car or home as in "F" Off Buddy lemme know when you got paper! Slam the door in their face etc! As you have read I have great respect for the law and those who fairly do the job they are simply employees to do. Not sodiers, warriors or ninjas... just cops, no more important of a job than a garbage man...


Again you are comparing apples and oranges. A warrant is a little above the paygrade of a beat cop. The debate has been about street stops and the powers confered upon Police Officers. You are indeed correct that I would need a warrant to search your house, car, unless you are under arrest. That is not in dispute. It sounds like you fail the hello test with your planned reaction to a Police Officer doing his job.

Again with the disparaging remarks. A garbageman is not sworn to uphold the constitution yadda yadda yadda. Police Officers are akin to soldiers which is why we have special rights and responsibilities.


No legal nerdism here, just a belief that anyone who commits a crime should be subject to the same laws, be he dirtbag or deputy.

No one disputes this concept. The dispute comes from the ignorance about Police work that some posters here seem to have and the fact that some want to hammer Coppers for minor transgressions.

Dust Monkey
May 25, 2009, 01:54 AM
Police officers ARE NOT akin to soldiers. This attitude, this mindset is a big part of the problem that we ate discussing. We would not be having a discussion like this if some officers were true to their oaths. Meaning upholding the constitution.

B. Lahey
May 25, 2009, 02:18 AM
Lack of capitalization is not good enough alone to explain how you are using a word that powerful and with that many strings attached. People are going to soil themselves and jump to conclusions, and you shouldn't be surprised. It's a strong word.

Besides, "judge" is not capitalized when used in a sentence as a regular noun, only when used as a title as a part of a person's name.

"The judge for the chicken thievery trial was Judge Billy-Jack Wapner"

Wagonman
May 25, 2009, 10:31 AM
judge---to form a judgment or opinion of; decide upon critically: You can't judge a book by its cover.
9. to decide or settle authoritatively; adjudge: The censor judged the book obscene and forbade its sale.
10. to infer, think, or hold as an opinion; conclude about or assess: He judged her to be correct.
11. to make a careful guess about; estimate: We judged the distance to be about four miles.

I was making a point with the capitalization

B. Lahey
May 25, 2009, 10:59 AM
That's the verb definition, you were using it as a noun. Here's the noun definition:

judge, n. A public official appointed or elected to hear and decide legal matters in court. • The term is sometimes held to include all officers appointed to decide litigated questions, including a justice of the peace and even jurors (who are judges of the facts). But in ordinary legal usage, the term is limited to the sense of an officer who (1) is so named in his or her commission, and (2) presides in a court.

But whatever. I only jumped into this discussion because I need practice explaining away the idiotic and offensive statements cops sometimes make (I would like to practice on the prosecution side of things when I graduate law school), but you may be beyond help.

There's only so much an argument can do when the cop in question stands in the back of the courtroom yelling "I am zee judge!", and is so dense that he can't understand why people react badly to that.

I'm done here.

ilbob
May 25, 2009, 11:13 AM
The second guessing and breast beating about the excesses of Police work are just two of the reasons I and many of my fellow LEOs stopped proactive Police work. We are getting results also, Chicago had more murders than Baghdad last year. But, the bright side a lot less "rights" were violated and I haven't been sued federally in over 6 years.

So, correct me if I am wrong, you and other officers have "stopped" doing your job just because you cant or are unable to do it within the scope of the law?
He is speaking the truth about the policing situation in Chicago. he is being less than completely honest about it though.

The "de-policing" he and many of his fellow officers are engaged in is mostly a labor action to try and blackmail the city into giving them a more favorable contract. Their contract ran out several years ago and they are not happy with the proposals the city has made on a new one.

It started with cops writing fewer and fewer parking and traffic citations. The city has responded by hiring non-police to write parking tickets. They have made some attempts at traffic enforcement by camera, but that is not going all that well.

The city brought in an outsider, a former FBI supervisor, to run the department. My guess is it was some kind of under the table deal with the feds to avoid a federal takeover of a department widely regarded by the public as being out of control. They don't like the new guy so are protesting by more job actions.

In fairness, its a complex situation that defies an attempt to put it into adequate perspective in a short post, or even a really long one.

This is a city run by one the most corrupt and powerful political organizations in the country. As you might expect, the politicians have installed many of its own political operatives into positions of power within the department. Thats why there are regular stories in the news media about how some connected guy with what amounts to a "get out of jail free" card gets off the hook on a DUI, or a gun charge, and really probably just about anything else too, but you don't hear about it. That kind of thing has been going on forever in Chicago. It is just the way things work there. No doubt having minders working directly for the corrupt politicians gives a lot of cops in Chicago a bad taste, but again, this is not anything real new.

I could see where it is the kind of place where a good cop would not get a whole lot of pleasure from the job, and I have a fair amount of sympathy for the rank and file for what may be in the works there. It would surprise me not one bit, possibly as some kind of distraction, if Obama arranged for a massive probe of the CPD. A bit of irony there, being as he is part and parcel of the corrupt machine that runs the department.

I am guessing there are some bad cops to be found on that force, and the feds are going to have a field day tearing it apart finding them. This is a force after all, that admitted publicly not that many years ago that it had hundreds of gang members among its ranks, and had a (deputy?) chief of detectives running a burglary ring out of his police office.

ilbob
May 25, 2009, 11:23 AM
All of us make judgments every day. Its merely a decision.

Cops have to decide if a conduct they observe rises to the level of being a crime. If you don't like that process being called a judgment, than call it something else. Nitpicking over semantics seems like a waste of time to me.

Wagonman
May 25, 2009, 12:28 PM
There's only so much an argument can do when the cop in question stands in the back of the courtroom yelling "I am zee judge!", and is so dense that he can't understand why people react badly to that.


That is a willful misunderstanding of my point, as evidenced by my clarification and explanation of my meaning.

He is speaking the truth about the policing situation in Chicago. he is being less than completely honest about it though.

I am being completely honest. I started de-policing several years ago when I was federally sued under specious grounds, the latest contract nonsense is just icing on the cake. The Cozzi situation is the main impetus for the climate of de-policing in the CPD

OuTcAsT
May 25, 2009, 12:33 PM
No one disputes this concept.

At face value that is encouraging to hear from an officer.

Police Officers are akin to soldiers

I will echo what others have said; While that seems to be the common misconception that police departments and individual officers seem to be operating under this is, IMHO, fundamentally where the the problem begins.

Ask anyone who has served in any of the armed forces and they will tell you pretty much the same thing.
No matter what your classification is in the military, you are a soldier first. This means that everyone from a 4 star down to a PFC is trained first, and foremost, to pick up a weapon, and neutralize ( Kill ) an enemy. In the military right now they are experiencing the exact opposite effect we are seeing on our streets every day, they are being transformed into "peacekeepers" and expected to reverse their role, to uphold the law, and arrest suspected criminals. They are also expected to show the locals that they are there to serve and protect them.

Here at home, we are seeing the opposite happen, our police agencies and officers are becoming soldiers. Instead of the peace officers they were supposed to be. Rather than protect and serve, win the hearts and minds, keep the peace, we start to hear more about "special operations", no-knock warrants being "served" by guys with better armaments than most of our military has, "terry stops" that are merely fishing expeditions. Yes you are adopting a soldier mindset, and while you may name crime as your enemy, it is the "collateral damage" inflicted on innocent civilians, and the shredding of their constitutional rights while fighting the enemy that is the reason for this discussion.

we have special rights and responsibilities.

While you do have a number of responsibilities ( Including to protect the rights of every citizen ) You have no more or less "rights" than anyone else. You may have special privileges that the average citizen does not enjoy, but your "rights" are exactly the same as mine, or the guy you bust for armed robbery. I can see where you would get confused on this matter though, since LEAs and district attorneys have created the artificial "right" that keeps you safe from criminal charges should you "screw the pooch"

OuTcAsT
May 25, 2009, 12:59 PM
Police Officers are akin to soldiers

Oh, and if I were you I would not walk into a room full of actual Soldiers, Sailors, Marines, or Airmen, and echo that sentiment out loud.

Wagonman
May 25, 2009, 01:09 PM
While you do have a number of responsibilities ( Including to protect the rights of every citizen ) You have no more or less "rights" than anyone else. You may have special privileges that the average citizen does not enjoy, but your "rights" are exactly the same as mine, or the guy you bust for armed robbery. I can see where you would get confused on this matter though, since LEAs and district attorneys have created the artificial "right" that keeps you safe from criminal charges should you "screw the pooch"



Police have the authority to take the freedom of a citizen away, albeit temporarily. We have the authority to use deadly force in the name of the state in the prevention of death or serious bodily injury and forcible felony in some jurisdictions.

Maybe rights wasn't the right term. I plead fatigue.

Oh, and if I were you I would not walk into a room full of actual Soldiers, Sailors, Marines, or Airmen, and echo that sentiment out loud.

Really, why not? Since I am active supporter the local VFW I will try this next time I am at a get together.

hogdogs
May 25, 2009, 01:17 PM
We have the authority to use deadly force in the name of the state in the prevention of death or serious bodily injury and forcible felony in some jurisdictions.
I have the same authority as a regular joe with the difference being I am not doing it the name of the state as you would... I GET to do it the name of myself or any one I choose to...
Brent

orangello
May 25, 2009, 01:24 PM
I am glad to see many of the views expressed in this thread. Many, if not most, of my peers have thought me paranoid when i commented on my dislike of the militarization of law enforcement agencies.

I would like to comment on the earlier comment regarding the lack of criminal prosecution as a penalty for LEO's on duty who make a mistake or violate a law. There was a murder in Atlanta, GA a year or two ago that involved a few narcotics officers who exercised a warrant of VERY questionable validity on a ghetto house belonging to a 90+ year old woman. The woman was murdered by the officers when they served a "no knock" warrant at her home; the woman did fire at the officers when they entered the home (she wounded one i believe). There were some criminal convictions/pleas in that case, i believe. I don't recall anyone being sentenced to "life" or "death" penalties, but some of the officers did go to jail.

When i was a child, i was always told that the police officers were there to help, and that if i was in trouble or lost, i should ask them for help. I don't see my friends with kids teaching their kids to do that anymore. I'm not sure i blame them; i do not associate with LEO's in any way. I don't do this to be unkind, but to err on the side of my own personal safety & problem/hassle avoidance.

OuTcAsT
May 25, 2009, 02:27 PM
I have the same authority as a regular joe with the difference being I am not doing it the name of the state as you would... I GET to do it the name of myself or any one I choose to...

Good point ! :cool:

I am glad to see many of the views expressed in this thread. Many, if not most, of my peers have thought me paranoid when i commented on my dislike of the militarization of law enforcement agencies.


Welcome orangello You will find lots of stimulating discussions here. :)

You are not so much paranoid as wisely cautious. I think everyone recognizes that there is a problem from both sides of the line, there likely is no easy solution but, discussion brings about education and knowledge is a strong tool.

I would like to comment on the earlier comment regarding the lack of criminal prosecution as a penalty for LEO's on duty who make a mistake or violate a law. There was a murder in Atlanta, GA a year or two ago that involved a few narcotics officers who exercised a warrant of VERY questionable validity on a ghetto house belonging to a 90+ year old woman. The woman was murdered by the officers when they served a "no knock" warrant at her home; the woman did fire at the officers when they entered the home (she wounded one i believe). There were some criminal convictions/pleas in that case, i believe. I don't recall anyone being sentenced to "life" or "death" penalties, but some of the officers did go to jail.

We did discuss this unfortunate incident at some length...If I (or someone else ) can find a link to the thread I will post it, made for a good discussion. In this particular case the media spotlight was the factor that finally brought about the arrests and convictions of the responsible parties.

As someone pointed out earlier, Police functioned basically in stealth mode for so many years that folks got used to the "Adam-12" stereotype and did not recognize what was really happening until technology advancements both privately, and in the media, began to illuminate such incidents and make them harder to just disappear or be obscured so easily.

When i was a child, i was always told that the police officers were there to help, and that if i was in trouble or lost, i should ask them for help. I don't see my friends with kids teaching their kids to do that anymore. I'm not sure i blame them; i do not associate with LEO's in any way. I don't do this to be unkind, but to err on the side of my own personal safety & problem/hassle avoidance.
Today 01:17 PM

I think most officers are good, decent, honorable individuals that have a difficult job to do and, just want to do their best and go home at night. It's not so much the individual officer that has issues so much as the system in general.

Wagonman
May 25, 2009, 03:04 PM
The difference is that I am required to use said deadly force in a particular situation.


This nonsense about not telling kids that police are there to help is one of the most tin foil statements I have ever heard.

OuTcAsT
May 25, 2009, 04:07 PM
The difference is that I am required to use said deadly force in a particular situation.

So you are going to tell me that IL. Law Requires you to use said force as opposed to being "justified in using" force, as a typical ( maybe not in Chicago ) CCW is ? Please point me in the direction of the law that requires you to do that, I would be interested in reading that statute.

This nonsense about not telling kids that police are there to help is one of the most tin foil statements I have ever heard.

I know that sometimes a reality check can be a difficult pill to swallow but, do you remember a post from earlier in this thread? to wit:


By OuTcAsT

Try a little introspection; "Why doesn't the public respect me"?

Your response was:

By Wagonman

What public is that?


Mr. Wagonman, meet the public. It should come as no surprise to you that the folks younger than you or I, show so little respect or trust in the uniformed officer anymore.
They have grown up in a world where a police officer is, (in your own words) akin to a soldier. And when you picture a soldier you usually associate that picture with war, violence, and death, not peace, tranquility and "helpfulness". When they sit at home and watch "Cops" they see police officers executing no-knock raids, tackling suspects, tasering individuals, and people going to jail. They do not equate the fact that ordinary looking guy in cuffs may be the bad guy, just that they don't want that kind of treatment. As time goes on that feeling perpetuates it's self and you have a public that views you as what you aspire to be...A soldier.

ilbob
May 25, 2009, 04:13 PM
This nonsense about not telling kids that police are there to help is one of the most tin foil statements I have ever heard.
It is a certainly a more complex situation then "cop good" or "cop bad". For very young kids it is probably best to go with the "cop good" model until they are old enough to understand under what circumstances and situations that is not the proper model to operate under.

orangello
May 25, 2009, 04:40 PM
Quote"This nonsense about not telling kids that police are there to help is one of the most tin foil statements I have ever heard."

I meant no offense to you personally, but i cannot blame these parents for having concerns. Other groups previously considered "kid friendly" are now considered less so: teachers, priests, kindly old folks in the neighborhood, etc. It just seems like there has been a great deal of change since "Officer Friendly" visited my elementary school back in the mid 1970's.

It makes me glad i just have cats & not kids.

Wagonman
May 25, 2009, 06:51 PM
Now you are nitpicking. My point is that when I am working I am required to perform my sworn duties to protect and serve. A ccw is under no such duty.

There are indeed segments of the society that want to tear down traditional values, Thankfully a majority of citizens don't

The reason for the decline in regard for the Police is the general decline of society. The bad actors among law enforcement are a TINY percentage of Coppers, not nearly enough to justify the concept of telling kids Cops aren't the good guys.

Dust Monkey
May 25, 2009, 06:58 PM
I don't think traditional values and police militarization go together. Kids, friends neices and nephews I teach, if they are of age to be polite to police officers, Provide ID if asked but do not answer any questions, do not consent to any search and do not invite police into their homes.

Young children should be taught to seek any authority figure if they are lost or in need of any help.

OuTcAsT
May 25, 2009, 07:47 PM
You misunderstand me I believe. I am not referring to the small number of bad actors, but rather the general rapport that LE has in the community.
It is not the misdeeds of the rouges that is causing the problem, it is the increasing "police state" style tactics that are being used, and the continuing us vs. them attitude that officers display.


The reason for the decline in regard for the Police is the general decline of society. The bad actors among law enforcement are a TINY percentage of Coppers, not nearly enough to justify the concept of telling kids Cops aren't the good guys.


Let me give you an example, Both my children are now adults, They were raised around the belief that uniformed personnel, Including police, firefighters, paramedics, are the good guys. I worked as a ALS/EMT for a good portion of their childhood. Neither of them has ever had any legal "problems" During their high school years it was/is common for the police to randomly search their lockers, and cars on school property. Though neither of them ever had any reason to worry they still felt that it was an overly dramatic display. It is also common practice for young people to be terry stopped and, while no citations are issued, the teens are questioned, and even offered cash bribes er "rewards" if they would become informants on their classmates. My daughter felt it was a "creepy" experience, my son felt it was harassment. This greatly influenced their view of LE in general. My son's girlfriend is quite bright and articulate, and she was threatened with arrest if she did not consent to a search of her vehicle. She had nothing to hide, and was willing to stand up for her principles, she called the bluff and won, but that influenced her perception as well.

My point is this, you do not have to "tell" children something for them to draw their own conclusions from experience. There is no doubt in my mind that they will probably not be as willing to portray LE as the good guys as I was. I will postulate that what you refer to as the "general decline of society" is a self-fulfilling prophecy.

OuTcAsT
May 25, 2009, 07:56 PM
deleted a double tap, sorry.

Dust Monkey
May 25, 2009, 09:04 PM
OuTcAsT,

Stop it. Your providing way too much "real world" common sense to the discussion. :eek:

bigger hammer
May 25, 2009, 10:28 PM
The militant attitude that is all consuming in today’s LE is scary. Police should not act like soldiers. Soldiers are trained to kill, period. They are trained to seek out an enemy and kill. They have that mindset instilled during basic training and advanced training. In police schools across the country, that same mindset is being taught. And this is where the two jobs, military and police, clash. A police officers job is not to kill an enemy. It is to prevent crime and arrest those who are a danger to the populace, and to do that while respecting established laws and the civil rights of the population, that also includes the civil rights of the suspect/criminal.

Wondering if you have any evidence to support the emboldened statement? I've been to many "police schools" across the US and have never seen such a "mindset" being taught.

More training in civil rights is needed in today’s LE schools.

As a matter of fact today's' "LE schools" (btw do you mean police academies?) have about ten times more curriculum on civil rights than they did about 25 years ago.

Dust Monkey
May 25, 2009, 10:39 PM
As a matter of fact today's' "LE schools" (btw do you mean police academies?) have about ten times more curriculum on civil rights than they did about 25 years ago.

Well, if so. Why the 2 incidents that are at the root of this thread. The El Monte Officer is, IMO, from the video guilty of assault and violation of civil rights. So explain to me why we have way to many incidents like this, yet more civil rights training being taught, are happening. The 2 dont mesh.

ilbob
May 25, 2009, 10:46 PM
Well, if so. Why the 2 incidents that are at the root of this thread. The El Monte Officer is, IMO, from the video guilty of assault and violation of civil rights. So explain to me why we have way to many incidents like this yet more civil rights training being taught, are happening. The 2 dont mesh.He is not guilty until a court says so.

Maybe it is not more incidents but more incidents that find their way into the public view.

maestro pistolero
May 25, 2009, 10:56 PM
So explain to me why we have way to(o) many incidents like this yet more civil rights training being taught, are happening. The 2 dont mesh.

It's a little like when some moron snaps using an EBR or AK. The truth is it's actually very, very rare. If you look at the statistics, and consider the massive population base that the numbers are drawn from, you see that the actual number of incidents is microscopically low.

But, it's so horrendous that when it does happen, that it is publicized disproportionately and leaves us with the impression that it incidents like it are more commonplace than they are.

Summing up, police abuse does happen, it's always inexcusable, but much more rare than we might think.

Dust Monkey
May 25, 2009, 10:58 PM
I am pretty sure that for every video we see there are half a dozen or more we dont see and will never know about. I will search for some stats, I remember a map showing the wrong address no knocks. Hint, there are a lot of them.

OuTcAsT
May 25, 2009, 11:00 PM
Wondering if you have any evidence to support the emboldened statement?

While it may be possible that Dust Monkey will provide you with empirical data, I will address your question with another question for you to ponder.

Given the incontrovertible evidence that is available from direct observation of law enforcement tactics in the form of SRT teams, No knock paramilitary operations, the adaptation by many officers of variations of BDU's as standard uniforms, are you suggesting that the officers are taking it upon themselves to become more "militarized" ? Or that this mindset is not a part of the curriculum at all ? If not, please enlighten us as to where the adversarial mindset starts to be adapted into an officers thought process , from an expert point of view.




He is not guilty until a court says so.

He's "street guilty".

Wagonman
May 25, 2009, 11:09 PM
During their high school years it was/is common for the police to randomly search their lockers, and cars on school property. Though neither of them ever had any reason to worry they still felt that it was an overly dramatic display.

I am sure if they are doing CONSTITUTIONAL locker searchs they had some reason other than contributing to the "militarized Police state" you keep bringing up.

Why should your daughter's feelings matter? Do the teachers ask how does she feel about homework?

It is also common practice for young people to be terry stopped and, while no citations are issued, the teens are questioned, and even offered cash bribes er "rewards" if they would become informants on their classmates. My daughter felt it was a "creepy" experience, my son felt it was harassment.

It is a common practice for good reason, teens hanging around doing nothing is RS for a Terry stop. Idle hands are the devil's workshop.

I would expect the "stitches for snitches" arguement on a gangsta' rap forum not here. What is "creepy" or harassing about getting intel from community members about what's going on?

My son's girlfriend is quite bright and articulate, and she was threatened with arrest if she did not consent to a search of her vehicle. She had nothing to hide, and was willing to stand up for her principles, she called the bluff and won, but that influenced her perception as well.


I harken back to previous threads and think it is ludicrous to play street lawyer. Although, the recent SC decision would embolden such folly. However, as I have said before the harder you make a LEO work the harder a LEO will work. I guarantee that if you had callled my "bluff" I would have laid down my winning hand "cuffs"

The militant attitude that is all consuming in today’s LE is scary. Police should not act like soldiers. Soldiers are trained to kill, period. They are trained to seek out an enemy and kill. They have that mindset instilled during basic training and advanced training

Funny, I know scores of LEOs and I haven't met any that have a "militant attitude" I see professional attitudes, I see sarcastic attitudes I see "I don't care" attitudes. But, mostly I see regular guys and ladies doing a job that they believe in.

Kids, friends neices and nephews I teach, if they are of age to be polite to police officers, Provide ID if asked but do not answer any questions, do not consent to any search and do not invite police into their homes.



Good idea inculcate them in not cooperating with the Police, because all the Police want to do is interrupt the flow of your day for no reason other than he is bored and wants to violate someones rights so it may as well be you.

I guess today when I was chasing the armed robber the people I asked if they saw the offender running should have politely provided me their ID and not assisted me in attempting to judge whether to arrest a violent offender.

Wagonman
May 25, 2009, 11:23 PM
So explain to me why we have way to many incidents like this, yet more civil rights training being taught, are happening. The 2 dont mesh.


Over the course of a year Police have hundreds of thousands citizen interactions with a insignificant percentage being problematic.

Of course if you live in the fantasy world of even one incident is too many then I who live in the world where excrement happens cannot speak your language.

I do not excuse willful unlawful behavior, but, I will not sanction someone for doing their job in good faith who makes a mistake.

OuTcAsT
May 25, 2009, 11:27 PM
Quote:
During their high school years it was/is common for the police to randomly search their lockers, and cars on school property. Though neither of them ever had any reason to worry they still felt that it was an overly dramatic display.
I am sure if they are doing CONSTITUTIONAL locker searchs they had some reason other than contributing to the "militarized Police state" you keep bringing up.

Why should your daughter's feelings matter? Do the teachers ask how does she feel about homework?

Quote:
It is also common practice for young people to be terry stopped and, while no citations are issued, the teens are questioned, and even offered cash bribes er "rewards" if they would become informants on their classmates. My daughter felt it was a "creepy" experience, my son felt it was harassment.
It is a common practice for good reason, teens hanging around doing nothing is RS for a Terry stop. Idle hands are the devil's workshop.

I would expect the "stitches for snitches" arguement on a gangsta' rap forum not here. What is "creepy" or harassing about getting intel from community members about what's going on?

Quote:
My son's girlfriend is quite bright and articulate, and she was threatened with arrest if she did not consent to a search of her vehicle. She had nothing to hide, and was willing to stand up for her principles, she called the bluff and won, but that influenced her perception as well.
I harken back to previous threads and think it is ludicrous to play street lawyer. Although, the recent SC decision would embolden such folly. However, as I have said before the harder you make a LEO work the harder a LEO will work. I guarantee that if you had callled my "bluff" I would have laid down my winning hand "cuffs"



Respectfully friend,

Maybe it was a long day for you, maybe I was not clear in my writing, but go back and read that post in it's entire context, without parsing, I cannot believe that the "moral of the story" did not register. :confused:

Wagonman
May 25, 2009, 11:31 PM
Given the incontrovertible evidence that is available from direct observation of law enforcement tactics in the form of SRT teams, No knock paramilitary operations, the adaptation by many officers of variations of BDU's as standard uniforms, are you suggesting that the officers are taking it upon themselves to become more "militarized" ? Or that this mindset is not a part of the curriculum at all ? If not, please enlighten us as to where the adversarial mindset starts to be adapted into an officers thought process , from an expert point of view.

Police department are Paramilitary organizations, it says it right in my General orders.

No knock warrant service is an acceptable and legal practice with reasoned justification. If you don't like it work to change the laws of the land.

What is wrong with BDU type uniforms----much more comfy and in my opinion more suitable for field wear, rather than dress pants

please enlighten us as to where the adversarial mindset starts to be adapted into an officers thought process , from an expert point of view.


COPS and society good
Offenders bad
I think somewhere around the first day of the academy

Wagonman
May 25, 2009, 11:40 PM
I cannot believe that the "moral of the story" did not register.


enlighten me.
I answered the points that I had the most heartburn over.

My point is this, you do not have to "tell" children something for them to draw their own conclusions from experience. There is no doubt in my mind that they will probably not be as willing to portray LE as the good guys as I was. I will postulate that what you refer to as the "general decline of society" is a self-fulfilling prophecy.

No don't tell them anything. Explain the errors of their actions and perceptions using the explanations I proffered above.

hogdogs
May 25, 2009, 11:46 PM
Wagonman, I am regretful to state that you have lost my respect as a fellow citizen... You are just a cop not a citizen! You type the words of the over zealous police tactics that most of us law abiding americans rightfully deem UNCONSTITUTIONAL and against the people you claim to protect. Ask to search my ride or home and you will be met with a slammed door in your face! If you ain't got enuff on me to arrest me and thus get free reighn to search than you obviously are grabbing at straws and fishing in a bathtub! As a child I was told the cops were out to protect me... as a teen they lied to me and my parents and my pop apologized to me for wrongly teaching me this... I raised my son and daughter to avoid police contact at all cost! In fact they have seen me try to provide cases for them to persue only to have them fumble the ball so now they, as I, realize if it was major enuff of a crime to dial 911it is best to handle it yourself and make sure justice is dealt!

We didn't say snitches get stitches... I was raised amongst some folks that taught "Snitches are a dieing breed..."
sad day when folks are willing to tell a cop they have little respect for them as they were trained!
Brent

maestro pistolero
May 25, 2009, 11:58 PM
I guarantee that if you had callled my "bluff" I would have laid down my winning hand "cuffs"

If you were, in fact, bluffing, then I assume you had no PC or RS. Are you saying you would then arrest someone in order to facilitate an unwarranted, illegal search? If I misunderstood, set me straight.

Wagonman
May 26, 2009, 12:10 AM
I don't bluff which is why I put bluff in quotation marks. If I have enough PC which is the traffic violation that engendered the stop I am able to make a physical arrest for said traffic violation and impound said car and inventory the contents.

I do not engage in the practice of making false arrests, and would not tolerate the practice by any LEO I work with. But, I will use every tool at my disposal to do my job.

Wagonman
May 26, 2009, 12:18 AM
You are just a cop not a citizen! You type the words of the over zealous police tactics that most of us law abiding americans rightfully deem UNCONSTITUTIONAL

I beg to differ, there is no such thing as just a Cop.

What unconstitutional tactic did I advocate? You might not like a particular 'tactic" that does not make it unconstitutional. Only the SCOTUS can judge something unconstitutional with finality. Thanks Marbury.

bigger hammer
May 26, 2009, 12:23 AM
Well, if so. Why the 2 incidents that are at the root of this thread. The El Monte Officer is, IMO, from the video guilty of assault and violation of civil rights. So explain to me why we have way to many incidents like this, yet more civil rights training being taught, are happening. The 2 dont mesh.

Based on your complete avoidance of my question, Wondering if you have any evidence to support the emboldened statement? I've been to many "police schools" across the US and have never seen such a "mindset" being taught.

It's probably safe to assume that you've made this statement in the complete absence of any evidence for it. That's as I thought.

It would also appear that in spite of quite a bit of discussion about "innocent until proven guilty" in this thread that you've managed to somehow convict the El Monte officer without a trial or even any evidence being gathered other than watching a few seconds of video. Aren't you climbing all over LEO's who you think have done this? Just seems a bit hypocritical to me.

It appears that you equate more curriculum on this topic with an absence of violations of civil rights. I think that's just silly. I’m not guessing, I'm stating facts. Would that you'd do the same instead of trying to pass off your opinion as fact.

Do you have any evidence (sounds familiar does it not?) that there are more incidents occurring these days than did in the past. Or are you suffering from cumulative information overload? Is it possible that just as many, if not more of these incidents occurred in days of old but that they didn't make the news the way they do today? I think it's not only possible, but that it's probable.

bigger hammer
May 26, 2009, 12:24 AM
Earlier I wrote, Wondering if you have any evidence to support the emboldened statement?


Given the incontrovertible evidence that is available from direct observation of law enforcement tactics in the form of SRT teams, No knock paramilitary operations, the adaptation by many officers of variations of BDU's as standard uniforms,

I'm reminded of a comment from a new hire who was just released from the US Army. I was giving him a tour of the station, introducing him to everyone and the topic of "room clearing" came up with another experienced officer. We were discussing various aspects of it and I noticed a wry look on his face. He had been trained that "room clearing" meant "toss in a grenade, enter and kill everyone that wasn't already dead." Police are hardly doing that so I really wonder what is meant by the phrase "the militarization of the police." Do you think that because some police have adopted BDU's that somehow they've been "militarized?" When I was a K-9 handler we wore BDU's because they were washable and the regular unis had to be dry–cleaned. It had nothing to do with "militarization." SWAT wears them because like the K-9 handlers they go to much "dirtier places" than does the average street cop and there's an intimidation factor that's desirable with the crooks that they deal with. But still no "militarization" there either.

SWAT teams are relatively new on the police scene, having been created to handle special circumstances. Among reasons for their existence were changes that were occurring in society that were beyond the capability of the street police officer. Among them were threatened guerilla tactics (including sniper activity) adopted by several militant groups and occurrences like the Watts Riots. Police are merely responsive to what society does.

Like SWAT, no–knock warrants came about as a result of changes in society. Mostly the disposable nature of narcotics. Such entries were authorized by judges to prevent the destruction of such evidence. No militarization there either.

are you suggesting that the officers are taking it upon themselves to become more "militarized" ?

Nope. I'm denying that this "militarization" is happening at all. The instances under discussion, the El Monte "kick" and the Alabama end-of-pursuit beating have nothing to do with the military at all.

Or that this mindset is not a part of the curriculum at all ? If not, please enlighten us as to where the adversarial mindset starts to be adapted into an officers thought process , from an expert point of view.

I don't think that there's an adversarial relationship between LEO's and honest, decent citizens. There certainly is between LEO's and crooks though. And I think that's existed since both groups have existed, thousands of years. Nothing new there either.

bigger hammer
May 26, 2009, 12:25 AM
Wagonman, I am regretful to state that you have lost my respect as a fellow citizen... You are just a cop not a citizen!

Wagonman is BOTH a cop and a citizen!

You type the words of the over zealous police tactics that most of us law abiding americans rightfully deem UNCONSTITUTIONAL and against the people you claim to protect.

Your opinion of what is constitutional and what is unconstitutional means nothing. The SCOTUS makes those decisions, not you.

Ask to search my ride or home and you will be met with a slammed door in your face! If you ain't got enuff on me to arrest me and thus get free reighn to search than you obviously are grabbing at straws and fishing in a bathtub!

That is your right as it's our right to ask. Per SCOTUS.

As a child I was told the cops were out to protect me... as a teen they lied to me and my parents and my pop apologized to me for wrongly teaching me this.

Oddly enough I still teach my kids this. lol. Oddly enough they've never had a police officer lie to them.

I raised my son and daughter to avoid police contact at all cost!

Not bad advice, unless one needs help, directions or becomes a crime victim.

In fact they have seen me try to provide cases for them to persue only to have them fumble the ball so now they, as I, realize if it was major enuff of a crime to dial 911it is best to handle it yourself and make sure justice is dealt!

Feel free to never dial 911 again. LOL.

sad day when folks are willing to tell a cop they have little respect for them as they were trained!

Not really. Police have been told this since there were police. Nothing new there either.

Dust Monkey
May 26, 2009, 02:29 AM
SWAT is not new. Using SWAT to serve failure to pay tickets is


Not ignoring you or running from the discussion. I am gathering facts and figures to put up. From my initial findings, I am sure you won't like it and fnd some way to explain that it's crucial to your job and that if folks are not guilty they have nothing to hide

And FWIW, SWAT is a very good example of mission creep. Using SWAT just to justify a budget is common in many departments.

You don't see the problem because you have been trained to do your job a certain way. IMO the wrong way. To solve most of the problems I see wood be to do away with color of law protections and police unions. For instance. If a raid happens on the wrong address and results in a death, it's murder plain and simple. Some one dropped the ball and did not do their job and confirm the correct address. Anything after that mistake should not be covered by color of law protections. Period. And this crap of "don't like it, change it". That's what some of us are trying to do. And guess who wants to oppose us, oppose change in the civil rights area? Cops that's who. The sw cops who begged us for help getting nation wide carry for them with the promise they would help us get nationwide carry. And we all know how that ended up.

So. I will have some stats. Alarming as they may be. Just try not put your coptalk hat on. Those guys over there are scary. Now. Off to care for my father. Will get those stats up as soon as I can.

Al Norris
May 26, 2009, 08:24 AM
Those who watch TV news, see more and more "gun crimes." Newspapers carry more and more crime stories.

We "hear" about more assaults with long guns, most commonly being referred to as "assault weapons."

Therefore, "common wisdom" would conclude that violent crimes are on the upswing.

Yet, at the end of the day, the actual reports are collated and we find that crimes, of all kinds, are on the downward slide. We also should note that usage of so-called assault weapons has remained at between 1% and 2% of all firearms related crimes.

"Common wisdom," isn't!

The same thing is happening with respect to police brutality stories. More and more are being reported, yet statistically, these incidents have either remained stable or are dropping... Depends upon whose stats we are reading. They are most certainly not on the rise.

Perception is the appearance of something happening that may not be the actual reality of the thing perceived.

We have gotten off topic. End of Chase syndrome is real. but we are not discussing this aspect of police work now, are we?

What happens with almost any subject dealing with the police, is a general slide into general police bashing. I would ask you all to go back and re-read this thread, with the specific intent of watching the slide.

It's there, and I can point to (if I have to) where it started.

I'm off to work now. If this thread hasn't gotten back on track when I get home, it will be closed.

Wagonman
May 26, 2009, 08:32 AM
To solve most of the problems I see wood be to do away with color of law protections and police unions. For instance. If a raid happens on the wrong address and results in a death, it's murder plain and simple.


That's the ticket, have Cops do thier jobs taking their career in thier own hands without any kind of protection. I guarantee job-preservation will become the coin of the realm. They tried that in Cincy a few years ago and the Police made their point handily.

I find it more than a little ironic that you are railing against SWAT teams on a forum maintained by SWAT magazine.

maestro pistolero
May 26, 2009, 08:56 AM
I don't bluff which is why I put bluff in quotation marks. If I have enough PC which is the traffic violation that engendered the stop I am able to make a physical arrest for said traffic violation and impound said car and inventory the contents.

I do not engage in the practice of making false arrests, and would not tolerate the practice by any LEO I work with. But, I will use every tool at my disposal to do my job.

Thanks for that answer. Just to clarify, are you saying that you can or would arrest someone for a minor traffic violation, and that would be sufficient cause for a complete search? Unless I am misreading, then any minor traffic violation invalidates fourth amendment rights.? Thanks for bearing with me.

Wagonman
May 26, 2009, 09:12 AM
EOCS does happen, it shouldn't, we are professsionals and should act that way.

However, the rub as I see it is the level of punishment different people want to mete out on said LEO. The "Cops are the problem" crowd wants said officer to be drawn quartered, jailed for the rest of his Civil Rights abusing career, then a civil suit judgement to really punish this bad guy who in the heat of attempting to arrest under suspicious circumstances a honor student on his way to bible study.

The reasonable punishment crowd realizes that in the heat of the moment excrement happens and punishment should fit the crime. first offense some UOF retraining and maybe a couple of days on the bench. subsequent infractions should have more severe punishment.

Wagonman
May 26, 2009, 09:23 AM
Thanks for that answer. Just to clarify, are you saying that you can or would arrest someone for a minor traffic violation, and that would be sufficient cause for a complete search? Unless I am misreading, then any minor traffic violation invalidates fourth amendment rights.? Thanks for bearing with me.

When I am searching a vehicle that is impounded subsequent to arrest it is not a investigatory search it is an administrative search. I have control of said vehicle and I cannot be held responsible unless I know what I am being held responsible for. However, any contraband is fair game. It is akin to being searched when you hit the lock up. You don't lose your rights against USS but your safety and the safety of the lockup keepers take precedence.

Just to be clear, physical arrests for traffic are rare, they usually happen to people who fail the hello test.

hogdogs
May 26, 2009, 09:41 AM
So lemme get clarification...
Wagonman pulls over the ol'hogdogs pickup truck for the heinous crime of "No Tag Light". I provide required ID and paperwork as asked. While in his patrolcar wagonman decides that my unshaven face and raggedy clothing makes look "suspicious" and comes up to ask to search my truck, I reply I am rather in a hurry to get to the gun range and nothing in my truck for you to worry about... I will then be arrested for failing a test I did not know I had to take (I thought I had the right to be friendly to whom I choose) on the charge of my broken tag light, My truck then fully searched while I locate a bondsman?
That is shady police work at it's finest!
Brent

maestro pistolero
May 26, 2009, 09:49 AM
Just to be clear, physical arrests for traffic are rare, they usually happen to people who fail the hello test.

1. So if there is no arrest impending, you would be OK with my politely refusing a search? (in the absence of PC or RS, of course)

2. Pardon my ignorance, but what's the 'hello test', and since you say it's a reason to be arrested, is there a legal basis for it, or is it entirely discretionary?

Thanks for your answers.

hogdogs
May 26, 2009, 10:30 AM
Maestro, I am pretty sure their "hello test" is not published material as we would expect. But every citizen has a "Hello Test" to some degree or other... Part of my test involves LEO's who ask to search my ride when I have never been seen coming or going from known locations of illicit activity. No smell of weed, no bed full of tools possibly going to the pawn shop to support a crack habit stolen from homes... Just a tow strap, spare tire, gas can and some trash...
One of the funniest search situations I was involved in occurred when a deputy pulled me over for no claimed reason... just checkin' me out. It was my last day in Daytona Beach as I was moving out that night. I had to pick up my truck from the transmission shop so I had removed all items of value to prevent theft. I had a very dear friend with me so I could have more time to have our last personal conversation. He was off duty Juvenile probation officer and tasked with wearing a county deputy badge on his belt. He was always very neatly dressed and groomed. The cop asks for my papers and I comply, He then asks to search, I asked what for but since I wasn't wanting to involve my buddy in making a scene denying the consent to search I allowed. This old truck takes only seconds to search as it has no headliner or floor mats, no ashtray nor radio... just shine a light in the holes...
He then gets to the seat and he cannot figure out how to tip the back forward... I explained that it didn't flip. He tells me has never seen one that didn't, I informed him that you can learn something new each day. I then explained that the front seat in a crew cab or suburban did not flip, my seat musta come from one of them... Absolutely nothin' to be found and after 30 minutes I could have used loading my truck for the move, I was finally on my way...
Brent

Wagonman
May 26, 2009, 10:53 AM
1. So if there is no arrest impending, you would be OK with my politely refusing a search? (in the absence of PC or RS, of course)

2. Pardon my ignorance, but what's the 'hello test', and since you say it's a reason to be arrested, is there a legal basis for it, or is it entirely discretionary?



1, yes of course.

2, The hello test is indeed entirely discretionary. However, it is not a reason to be arrested on it's own, just something else to to base RS on.

The hello test is simply "you act like "one" you will be treated like "one" Passing the hello test is very simple hence the name

You say hello like a civilized person and you pass.

A good example of the hello test is in the infamous and decidely obscene Chris Rock "how not to run afoul of the police" video. You can youtube it, I am hesitant to link because it is a family forum.


Wagonman pulls over the ol'hogdogs pickup truck for the heinous crime of "No Tag Light".

I can only arrest for moving violations not compliance violations.

I will then be arrested for failing a test I did not know I had to take

No, but acting suspicious will raise my reasonable suspicion. Say what you will but being adversarial with the Police is indeed lawful and your constitutionally protected right but not a good idea in ther real world.

One of the funniest search situations I was involved in

How many times have you been searched incident to a traffic stop? The fog is starting to clear.

nitetrane98
May 26, 2009, 11:01 AM
Wagonman, you're doing a fine job defending yourself and other LEOS here and I'm kind of late on the particular point about being a judge.

I'm retired LE and I can remember the day a judge dismissed about half the charges I had written a guy up on, (mainly for failing the attitude test). They were all honest charges. Anyway, after the court session the judge took me aside and said, "Don't take it personally, you do my job every day. You dismiss charges on the street sometimes for your reasons and I dismiss some for my reasons." I came away with different point of view. Other than an arrest on a warrant (which I knew nothing about the particulars) I never arrested an innocent man.

My career spanned 1980-2000 with a sheriff department in East Texas. As I look back with this thread in mind I can see the gradual shifting toward what the OP calls militant LE training. Back in the day, an assault on a peace officer was handled quite differently than today. There was a price to pay for a BG assaulting a PO, and they knew it. We won all of those fights, no matter how many men it took. Today the public expects a LEO to take those kicks in the balls, head butts, etc when they are in cuffs or not and simply gently subdue the actor ad file the appropriate charges. Somehow those charges always seem to get plea bargained away. It's disheartening to know that he went to prison for 5 years for burglary but walked on assaulting you.
This same guy will expect the Officer Friendly treatment when he gets out.

It seems that many here want a completely emotionless LEO when dealing with BGs and a smiling compassionate, empathetic, LEO when dealing with them. They want you to find the BG that broke in and stole your Xbox but don't want you stopping anybody in a ragged, beat up old car at 3:00AM in your neighborhood unless he commits a traffic or equipment offense.

Godspeed, wagonman, retirement is good.

I'd better go now.

hogdogs
May 26, 2009, 11:12 AM
No, but acting suspicious will raise my reasonable suspicion. Say what you will but being adversarial with the Police is indeed lawful and your constitutionally protected but not a good idea in ther real world
Thus the crux of the problem! We all know that exercising my civil rights can and does lead to them being violated in the end in the name of PC or RS!:mad:

1. So if there is no arrest impending, you would be OK with my politely refusing a search? (in the absence of PC or RS, of course)
1, yes of course.
Then the officer informs you that they now have PC or RS and you may be informed that they will just get a warrant to search the vehicle which may take several hours as they detain you waiting for the judge signed warrant to arrive...
How about this... "The reason I do not consent to the search of my vehicle is I am not a criminal involved in any criminal activity and your time would be better spent pulling over cars and suvs typically driven by the thug life crowd and searching them." If I am seen leaving an area of criminal activity I can expect a stop but not violating any traffic laws 'tween my house and the properties I do hog removal on isn't the time to stop and ask to search my truck! My appearance isn't thug, goth, punk, or radical in any way... just a typical redneck guy who chooses to only shave ever so often to save money as razor refills are outrageous and my attire is only to keep me warm and cover my privates. I do not see that as reason to stop my old truck and ask me to search it...
Brent

hogdogs
May 26, 2009, 11:16 AM
In my 24 years of driving cars and trucks or riding motorcycles I have been approached for permission to search in excess of 15 times... possibly closer to 20 or more.
In a few of cases I admit I intentionally was less than friendly. I haven't been asked to consent to search since leaving the peninsula of florida 3+ years ago...
Coincidence? I think not... I have changed none of my looks or MO of day to day routine.
Brent

orangello
May 26, 2009, 11:23 AM
This has been a very enlightening thread. Wagonman, thank you for your candor in your responses, seriously. It is better to know what the officers I may encounter could be thinking.

I still see no good reason for the militarization of the law enforcement agencies in this country. Leadership comes from above, and i can only assume that this militarization trend will be ended when the right people are elected to the offices that can influence that trend. In the mean time, i will continue to look at LEO's as unfortunate plauge victims & avoid them as such.

On the original part of the topic of the syndrome associated with police pursuits, maybe it would work out better for the police & for those pursued if all registered vehicles were equipped with a law enforcement operable "kill switch" to cut power in the pursued vehicle as safely as possible when the vehicle is being pursued by an authorized police vehicle. Obviously, this would fall prey to the same types of failures as emissions controls have (removal with annual reinstallation for official inspection & such). I'm not sure i'd want to participate in such a system, but that would make for safer pursuits and would eliminate any type of "syndrome" as an excuse for police brutality.

The irony of a thread critical of the militarization of police forces (partially) on a forum with a "SWAT" section is not lost on me.

ilbob
May 26, 2009, 11:52 AM
Back in the day, an assault on a peace officer was handled quite differently than today. There was a price to pay for a BG assaulting a PO, and they knew it. We won all of those fights, no matter how many men it took. Today the public expects a LEO to take those kicks in the balls, head butts, etc when they are in cuffs or not and simply gently subdue the actor ad file the appropriate charges. Somehow those charges always seem to get plea bargained away. It's disheartening to know that he went to prison for 5 years for burglary but walked on assaulting you.I don't know what public you are refering to but I don't know of too many people who think LEOs are expected to allow the BGs to beat on them without the LEO taking action to defend himself.

Some of the crap you guys are getting is because of what appears to be a double standard where police think street justice is Ok for them when they are attacked, but not OK for Joe citizen.

fbrown333@suddenlink
May 26, 2009, 12:15 PM
I agree I also could not be law enforcement as I believe in 3 things there is right, wrong, and then there is the law, and they are not always the same.:eek:

OuTcAsT
May 26, 2009, 12:39 PM
Some of the crap you guys are getting is because of what appears to be a double standard where police think street justice is Ok for them when they are attacked, but not OK for Joe citizen.

That is a pretty good summation. ^^

I will leave this topic on the same note I started.

When a crime is committed it should carry the same consequences for a LEO as it does for anyone else.

I think this little point-counterpoint illustrates a perfect example of the real problem;


The Public:


To solve most of the problems I see wood be to do away with color of law protections and police unions. For instance. If a raid happens on the wrong address and results in a death, it's murder plain and simple.

Law Enforcement:

That's the ticket, have Cops do thier jobs taking their career in thier own hands without any kind of protection.


I would submit that you do have protection,
and that would be the same law that protects us all. If every officer did have to take his career in his own hands you would not see the type of violence that was exacted in the OP, and if you did, it would be self-correcting thru due process. Same crime/Same punishment whether dirtbag or deputy.

bigger hammer
May 26, 2009, 12:44 PM
SWAT is not new. Using SWAT to serve failure to pay tickets is

Please provide a link to such a case. I'd bet that unless this person had a history of violence that it was NOT just for failure to pay tickets.

Not ignoring you or running from the discussion. I am gathering facts and figures to put up. From my initial findings, I am sure you won't like it and fnd some way to explain that it's crucial to your job and that if folks are not guilty they have nothing to hide

You'd be wise not to try and put words in my mouth. Nearly 30 years of LE work and I've never uttered such a phrase. I believe in the right to deny an officer consent to search. That does not mean that the search won't take place, just that consent has been denied.

And FWIW, SWAT is a very good example of mission creep. Using SWAT just to justify a budget is common in many departments.

And this is related to this discussion exactly how?

You don't see the problem because you have been trained to do your job a certain way. IMO the wrong way.

You have no idea how I was trained to do my job. Assuming that you do, has lead you down the wrong road and allowed you to make all sorts of assumptions that aren't true.

To solve most of the problems I see wood be to do away with color of law protections and police unions.

I don't see how.

For instance. If a raid happens on the wrong address and results in a death, it's murder plain and simple.

No, sorry but you're quite wrong. Murder in most cases (the felony murder rule is one such exception) is a specific intent crime. The act must be committed with "malice aforethought." The actor must have the "mens rea" a guilty mind in order to commit murder. In the situation you describe there was a mistake. If a death were to occur that's manslaughter, not murder. Didn't you tell us that you have 14 years LE experience? I'd have thought that would have come up sometime in your career.

Some one dropped the ball and did not do their job and confirm the correct address.

Until and unless you can show that someone made that mistakewith the intent that someone be killed, it's an error. That's not murder. One can't commit murder accidentally. I've only heard about one perfect human being and he wasn't on a SWAT team.

Anything after that mistake should not be covered by color of law protections. Period.

It's not covered by a "color of law" protection. It's covered by the specific language of the law. There was no intent to kill a person. There was an error.

And this crap of "don't like it, change it". That's what some of us are trying to do.

Not here you're not. That would happen in the legislature. This is a place to vent and rant.

And guess who wants to oppose us, oppose change in the civil rights area? Cops that's who. The sw cops who begged us for help getting nation wide carry for them with the promise they would help us get nationwide carry. And we all know how that ended up.

I don't recall "begging" you for help in passing HR 218. Can you show us some documents to support such a claim? In any case, getting such a law passed for civilians is a process, just as passing HR 218 was. Your claim that this is how it "ended up" is nonsense. It's not over.

So. I will have some stats. Alarming as they may be. Just try not put your coptalk hat on. Those guys over there are scary.

I'll be the first one to say that some cops are doing the wrong thing. I'm personally responsible for the firing of several who did. I reported wrongdoing whenever I came across it. The last thing a decent cop wants is to work alongside a crook in the same uniform. That goes for cops who violate the law or who do the wrong thing.

The fact is that a police officer will perform hundreds of thousands (perhaps millions) of stops and have various kinds of contacts in the course of his career. One reason that these incidents make headlines is because they're so rare. There are about one million police officers of various levels in the US. If we assume 5,000 "bad deeds" (and I think that's way more than actually occur) that's still only 0.5%. Can you name an industry with that low an error (or accident) rate or such a low rate of good guys gone bad? I don't think so. If you take a look at prison populations you'll find far more judges, lawyers, doctors, and plumbers there than police officers.

Now. Off to care for my father.

Godspeed.

bigger hammer
May 26, 2009, 12:46 PM
Since this has wandered so far from the original topic I'll try and steer it back. I'll make some comments to your original post that I passed by in my first post here.

I think that part of the problem is that you think you know quite a few things when the fact is that you've made many assumptions and jumped to many conclusions.

We all remember the video of the El Monte Police officer kicking a compliant suspect in the head at gunpoint.

I think that the issue of compliance is one of those assumptions. Since there's no sound we don't know if he's being complaint or not. He IS on the ground but he's also looking towards the officer. I was trained to have the suspect turn his head away from me to hinder him in preparing an assault or any resistance. How do you know that the officer was not giving commands for the suspect to do that and that he was refusing to comply? At the end of a chase wherein the suspect deliberately tried to run down a police officer with his car I think it's reasonable to assume that he might resist the actual arrest as well. The officer is alone, and in my opinion has committed a tactical error in leaving cover to approach the suspect. But now that he's there, he must get compliance.


The El Monte incident was not the only incident in recent news to attract my attention. There were 5 Alabama Officers fired after a video surfaced showing them beating an unconscious suspect after a chase. By some reports this video is over a year old and was viewed by several LE supervisors, several in the LE community and Prosecuting Attorneys. Yet not one of them thought something was wrong until the trial.

Another assumption on your part. I think it's far more likely that they KNEW something was wrong but chose to turn their heads away from it. I find that far more disturbing than the initial act. It appears to me that the suspect was unconscious but I don’t know that the officers saw that. Neither do you BTW. If he was, then while he was certainly not resisting but he was also not complying with their commands. In the heat of the moment they may have perceived that he was not complying and went to a use of force to gain that compliance.

I've not made any assumptions, I've just pointed out a few possibilities.

During the trial, the Prosecuting Attorney did not have his edited copy so he asked the defense to borrow their copy. The current Prosecuting Attorney had not seen the entire tape, it was a surprise. Think about that. 5 officers beating the hell out of an unconscious suspect, not a threat to anyone, maybe in need of medical attention at the time himself, not one person thought that this might be wrong.

Your perception, and it may be correct, is that the suspect was unconscious. But you do not know if the officers realized this of even if it was true! ANOTHER assumption on your part. I doubt that the prosecuting attorney was surprised, as you say, by the entire video, but again you've made this assumption.

Higher ups in several departments involved saw this video, and no one scratched their head and said, um, wait a minute. It took a year to surface. That folks is sad and alarming at the same time.

AGAIN you have no idea what those "higher up in several departments" said or even if they saw this video. Perhaps I'm wrong in this and eagerly await your proof of it. Until then it's just another assumption.

I will say that I doubt that if they saw it, that they "scratched their head and said, um wait a minute." I'm sure that if they saw it they said, "Oh sh!t. I hope this doesn’t get out!' I find THAT alarming.

In the past few days I have had the time to speak with some old friends, some retired LE some current, and all of them agree on what a “distraction blow” is. And they all agree that you never should deliver one, alone, and holding a suspect at gunpoint.

I think his error was in moving from cover toward the suspect while still alone. But once he got there, if his perception was that the suspect was not complying, a distraction blow was warranted.

Now I believe both of these instances are a result of 2 things. End of chase syndrome and the growing militant behavior/training of today’s peace officers.

I have no idea what "end of chase syndrome" is. It sounds a bit like the press' use of the term "assault weapon" when discussing an AR-15. It's meant to inflame and conceal more than to give information. Anyone who is not excited and adrenalized at the end of a chase has some pretty serious problems. But I don't think there's a "syndrome" of any wrongdoing that occurs. I've already addressed the issue of "militarization of the police" in previous posts.

The militant attitude that is all consuming in today’s LE is scary.

What's scary is that you think that it's "all consuming."

Police should not act like soldiers. Soldiers are trained to kill, period. They are trained to seek out an enemy and kill. They have that mindset instilled during basic training and advanced training.

Odd but in both situations you brought to this discussion no one was killed. So how to you jive these situations with your "killing mindset?"

bigger hammer
May 26, 2009, 12:50 PM
So lemme get clarification...
Wagonman pulls over the ol'hogdogs pickup truck for the heinous crime of "No Tag Light". I provide required ID and paperwork as asked. While in his patrolcar wagonman decides that my unshaven face and raggedy clothing makes look "suspicious" and comes up to ask to search my truck, I reply I am rather in a hurry to get to the gun range and nothing in my truck for you to worry about... I will then be arrested for failing a test I did not know I had to take (I thought I had the right to be friendly to whom I choose) on the charge of my broken tag light, My truck then fully searched while I locate a bondsman?
That is shady police work at it's finest!

So let me give you some clarification from another viewpoint.

A police officer knows that several rapes where the suspect was armed with a handgun have occurred in his district so he's on the lookout for the suspect. These rapes have occurred at about the same time of day that the officer is working now. This suspect drives a truck and has removed his license plate light so make it more difficult to identify him. He has been described by his victims as being unshaven and wearing raggedy clothing. He's known to keep the victim's panties as "souvenirs."

Ol' hogdog is unshaven and wearing raggedy clothes. He's in the area at the time of day that the crimes have been committed. He's driving a truck that fits the description given by the victims. Hmm says the officer, this is a possible. Knowing that he can't arrest for just the the equipment violation he follows Ol' Hogdog for a few blocks and then he drives through a red "no right turn" arrow. He stops Ol' hogdog. Ol' hogdog provides all the required paperwork. While the officer knows that he has PC to search, he asks for consent anyway. It's refused because as ol' hogdog tells him, he "is in a hurry to get to the gun range," adding to the officer's PC and to his concerns for his own safety. Rather than just use the PC to search, he arrests Ol' hogdog for the blown red arrow and searches his car because he knows that such a search, incident to the arrest, is less likely to be overturned by a judge than one based on just the PC. He locates a gun matching the rape victim's description and several pairs of worn women's underwear. Because of these discoveries, and the totality of the circumstances, he books Ol' hogdog for suspicion of rape, the victims identify him and he's convicted.

That is excellent police work at it's finest!

Just another view of similar situations.

bigger hammer
May 26, 2009, 12:51 PM
Thus the crux of the problem! We all know that exercising my civil rights can and does lead to them being violated in the end in the name of PC or RS!

I'm sorry but we DO NOT "all know" this. There's nothing unconstitutional about an officer deciding, based on his observations, including how you respond to him, from taking action on a violation or letting you walk.

And if the PC or RS exists then it's ALSO not a violation of your rights if the officer searches despite your refusal to consent.

Then the officer informs you that they now have PC or RS and you may be informed that they will just get a warrant to search the vehicle which may take several hours as they detain you waiting for the judge signed warrant to arrive...

That may well be the case. If he lies and says this, it's not unconstitutional. If he tells the truth and says this, that's not unconstitutional either.

bigger hammer
May 26, 2009, 01:09 PM
In my 24 years of driving cars and trucks or riding motorcycles I have been approached for permission to search in excess of 15 times... possibly closer to 20 or more.

In a few of cases I admit I intentionally was less than friendly. I haven't been asked to consent to search since leaving the peninsula of florida 3+ years ago...

Coincidence? I think not... I have changed none of my looks or MO of day to day routine.

Probably not a coincidence. More than likely you just moved into an area with a less aggressive outlook of how to do law enforcement. I want my cops to be aggressive in their enforcement of the law. As a result of aggressive policing the crime rate where I used to work was significantly less than that of the immediate surrounding area. This was in a large metropolitan area with no clear boundary in jurisdictions. Highly populated areas of various cities were right against one another. Yet when the violent crime rate of the large city that surrounded us dropped 18%, ours dropped 47%.

The difference was that we made PC arrests and they did not. They just filled out Field Interview cards and let their detectives follow up. If you moved from my city to the neighboring city you'd find a similar drop in your contacts with police.

bigger hammer
May 26, 2009, 01:12 PM
I would submit that you do have protection, and that would be the same law that protects us all. If every officer did have to take his career in his own hands you would not see the type of violence that was exacted in the OP, and if you did, it would be self-correcting thru due process. Same crime/Same punishment whether dirtbag or deputy.

I have no problem with this. What I DO have a problem with is that you've already convicted the officers in both of these situations. YOU are insisting on the standard of "innocent until proven guilty in a court of law" EXCEPT for the officers in these two incidents. You've assumed that they are guilty and that has yet to be proven.

hogdogs
May 26, 2009, 01:14 PM
In my state I have the right to carry the weapon concealed anywhere in my car without a CCP so long as it is not on my person. It can be in any state of readiness I choose. So my statement of going to the range should not increase PC. Since I would not rape nor store panties in my truck, I would not be able to go along with your scenario... So I am arrested for the red arrow? Truck impounded, I now have an arrest record, a towing bill and a bond on me? And all you found was my legal pistol? sucks be in my shoes now doesn't it? All because to exercise my forth amendment rights afforded me as a law abiding citizen of these United states?
Bugger!:mad:
Brent

hogdogs
May 26, 2009, 01:20 PM
More than likely you just moved into an area with a less aggressive outlook of how to do law enforcement.
BINGO!!!!
Point of note is this area has very incredibly LOW crime rate and where the more aggressive "police work" style is conducted on the law abiding and criminals equally is rife with crime!:eek:
I want the police to aggressively pursue crime reports... Not to aggressively pull folks over for stupid reasons and randomly search!

The case of the elderly woman who was pulled over and the search of her car found tens of thousands of dollars (possibly 50K IIRC) that she was transporting to put a down payment on her retirement dream home... The money was seized for quite some time putting her thru heck to get it back...
Brent

nitetrane98
May 26, 2009, 01:33 PM
I don't know what public you are refering to but I don't know of too many people who think LEOs are expected to allow the BGs to beat on them without the LEO taking action to defend himself.

That's not what I'm saying. Sure, they say they want you to be able to defend yourself but they are not so sure about the method. I was never particularly interested in a fair fight with a BG. Where most LEO's run afoul is in the administering of "punishment" for the BG taking a swing at them. Most of the real "a##whoopings" occur as part subduing and part punishing. Generally speaking, these are counterproductive as the BG never seems to remember the part where he kicks and hits the LEO only the idea that he got his a## whooped for no reason at all and never seems to put the two together. But the injured LEO feels better about the whole thing until the video hits the 10PM news and Chief calls him in.
The "post chase syndrome" or whatever it's called is real. Our department instituted a policy that the pursuing officer have as little contact with the BG as possible after the stop if there were other officers available. They were not to be the arresting officer.

orangello
May 26, 2009, 02:03 PM
Nitetrane, that policy sounds like a wise step to protecting the officer & the suspect, imo.

"Probably not a coincidence. More than likely you just moved into an area with a less aggressive outlook of how to do law enforcement. I want my cops to be aggressive in their enforcement of the law. As a result of aggressive policing the crime rate where I used to work was significantly less than that of the immediate surrounding area. This was in a large metropolitan area with no clear boundary in jurisdictions. Highly populated areas of various cities were right against one another. Yet when the violent crime rate of the large city that surrounded us dropped 18%, ours dropped 47%.

The difference was that we made PC arrests and they did not. They just filled out Field Interview cards and let their detectives follow up. If you moved from my city to the neighboring city you'd find a similar drop in your contacts with police." quote from BiggerHammer

I wonder, if a survey were taken of different communities, where on the continuum between untimately aggressive law enforcement (pretty much a police state, as in a state of emergency) and ultimately non-aggressive law enforcement (basically call the police if you need them, otherwise they stay at the station or in their patrolcars) would the most customer/community satisfaction lie? Maybe communities should advertise the level of "aggresiveness" in their local law enforcement plan to increase the satisfaction of those living in said communities and PAYING FOR said law enforcement.

It would be wonderful to live in a crime-free environment, but not if it was a virtual prison with big brother watching from every street corner and occasionally doing a bed check. At least, that is my perception, but some older people or more frightened people might appreciate a community that borders on a police state for their own good. I guess i'd want a community with a less "aggressive" enforcement system for myself. It occurs to me that this might be why i wasn't bothered by the ghetto neighborhoods i lived in while living in Memphis.

nitetrane98
May 26, 2009, 02:19 PM
Nitetrane, that policy sounds like a wise step to protecting the officer & the suspect, imo.

LOL, it had nothing whatsoever to do with protecting an officer or the suspect. It was all about protecting the agency from being included in any litigation. They could say the officer violated policy. Fair enough, I suppose.
A lot like many pursuit policies, but that's another story.

Their view was always, "If you're 100% right we'll back you up all the way."

OuTcAsT
May 26, 2009, 02:48 PM
I have no problem with this. What I DO have a problem with is that you've already convicted the officers in both of these situations. YOU are insisting on the standard of "innocent until proven guilty in a court of law" EXCEPT for the officers in these two incidents. You've assumed that they are guilty and that has yet to be proven.


Yes, you are correct for the most part except for one thing, It was not I who pronounced innocence or guilt, If you can find one sentence in any post I made which expresses anything which was not provided in direct evidence on the OP videotapes please point it out. When you do, I will apologize and stand corrected. The only presumption of guilt was received through the court of public opinion and the media coverage. As a smart fellow once said " It would not be wise for you to put words in my mouth" I have made several statements in this thread advocating equal treatment for crimes committed from either side of the badge, and that would also include equal protection under the law. It was one of your contemporaries, I believe, that brought the term "Street Guilty" into the conversation. While I reused the term sarcastically, (if you did not "get it" ) I in no way advocate such a premise.

Dr. Strangelove
May 26, 2009, 03:16 PM
The militant attitude that is all consuming in today’s LE is scary. Police should not act like soldiers. Soldiers are trained to kill, period. They are trained to seek out an enemy and kill.

I'm glad to see others are seeing the same things I do, I'm tired of seeing the police "playing army". Black combat boots, fatigue pants, AR-15's and MP-5's? Come on now, quit playing special forces. There is no place in civilian police work for military weaponry, particularly not carried by individual officers on a daily basis. Then they wonder why they get no respect? Don't go around looking like some sort of death squad member.

Seems every little town has to have it's own "Swat" team, or whatever they want to call them. Is this really a good use of our tax dollars? I think the police need to lay off the "Die Hard" movies and focus on real police work rather than playing with their toys at the gun range. Bradenton, FL, has a "Marine Response Unit", or some such nonsense. It's fun to watch them practice their "Navy Seal" rolls out of a souped up Zodiak raft into Tampa Bay. But what do they plan to do? Assault the beach? Commando attack? Looks like just another excuse to play with big boys' toys at taxpayer expense.

Anyway, yes, I too am appalled by the recent changes in police appearance and tactics. I believe it encourages a similar ramp-up in weapons and violence by criminals. We're slowly losing or rights as citizens and becoming more of a police state every day...

ilbob
May 26, 2009, 04:08 PM
I'm glad to see others are seeing the same things I do, I'm tired of seeing the police "playing army". Black combat boots, fatigue pants, AR-15's and MP-5's? Come on now, quit playing special forces. There is no place in civilian police work for military weaponry, particularly not carried by individual officers on a daily basis.
I don't really object to combat boots. They can be quite comfortable and give nice ankle support. Its about the whole package. I think cops should wear uniforms that scream "police" and look "right". I can't tell you how to look "right" but I can give you an example of something that I thought just looked silly. I went to a funeral last year and the driver of the escort car was wearing shorts, boots, an external vest, and a black baseball cap.

I don't really have much of an issue with the weapons they are issued either, with a few caveats. Most of the time long guns are locked up in the squad car where they will not frighten anyone unless they are needed, and then a little fright is probably a good idea. I am not sure a long gun is an appropriate choice for a bicycle cop though, or a guy on a foot beat.

nitetrane98
May 26, 2009, 04:24 PM
Seems every little town has to have it's own "Swat" team, or whatever they want to call them. Is this really a good use of our tax dollars?

You may have a point there. 99% of these units are funded with federal grant money, or at least the equipment is. The desire to get to that money trough has little to do with the needs of a community. Try getting the city council to pony up for a dozen ARs/Mp5s w/Eotech's, a couple high dollar sniper rifles, night scopes, BDU's, ammo, a raid wagon/command post etc etc etc. Slim chance, BUT, if they can say "It won't cost us a thing!!!" Suddenly the the council can make the argument for improved officer safety and once a year necessity. It's hard to fault a LEA chief for doing it.

I believe it encourages a similar ramp-up in weapons and violence by criminals.

I disagree. The majority of the weapons type escalation comes from rival gangs trying to stay ahead of one another not LE. I've never heard of one gang banger say, "The popo had Model 97's and .38's so we had to get AKs, UZI's and hi cap 9's." Sounds a lot like some politicians we know who believe unilateral dis-armament will make the world a safer place.

Glenn E. Meyer
May 26, 2009, 04:58 PM
Lots of the Soviet style guns were cheap. SKS rifles for $89 to 99 were quite attractive to gang members.

bigger hammer
May 26, 2009, 06:20 PM
In my state I have the right to carry the weapon concealed anywhere in my car without a CCP so long as it is not on my person. It can be in any state of readiness I choose. So my statement of going to the range should not increase PC.

I'm sorry but I'm having a hard time believing your comment that you were a police officer. In the situation that I gave OF COURSE, having a gun increases the officer's PC. The suspect used a gun in his crimes and you too have a gun. It makes not the slightest bit of difference that it's legal for you to carry it or not. You were not arrested for possession of the gun but for the rape. This is police work 101.

Since I would not rape nor store panties in my truck, I would not be able to go along with your scenario...

The situation I gave is a bit like a math problem. There are certain facts "given." You don't get to argue with the "given" that "the train left Chicago at 4:00 pm traveling at 35 mph." Neither do you get to argue with the "given" that there were panties in your car or that the rape victims ID'd you.

So I am arrested for the red arrow?

Are you purposefully being obtuse now or do you really lack understanding of the situation that I gave?

Truck impounded, I now have an arrest record, a towing bill and a bond on me? And all you found was my legal pistol?

Didja miss the part where the victims ID'd you?

sucks be in my shoes now doesn't it?

Rapists should expect that there's some chance at least that they'll be caught.

All because to exercise my forth amendment rights afforded me as a law abiding citizen of these United states?

ROFL. Cute game, but silly. Of course this is not to sully your good name just to provide another side of the coin to the one you keep presenting.

bigger hammer
May 26, 2009, 06:21 PM
Earlier I wrote, More than likely you just moved into an area with a less aggressive outlook of how to do law enforcement.

BINGO!!!!
Point of note is this area has very incredibly LOW crime rate and where the more aggressive "police work" style is conducted on the law abiding and criminals equally is rife with crime!

Yes and? Aggressive police work is how police officers drive crime rates down. You're looking at a moment in time. It doesn’t happen overnight, it takes years for the word to get out. We'll never eliminate crime, I liken it to a handful of peanut butter. Squeeze it and it does not disappear, it just moves elsewhere. When we drove crooks out of my city they moved to our neighbors. When they applied pressure they moved elsewhere still.

I want the police to aggressively pursue crime reports...

"To actively pursue crime reports?" I think you mean to "aggressively pursue criminals. lol

Not to aggressively pull folks over for stupid reasons and randomly search!

ROFLMAO. AGAIN I have to wonder where you learned to do police work since you claim 14 years of it. A street police officer finds and arrests criminals in large part by making traffic stops. Those are usually based on minor traffic violations. You like to call them "stupid reasons" but the fact is that's how MOST arrests start. It's very rare to catch a burglar or bank robber in the act of committing his crime, that only lasts for a few moments at most. But the act of driving to and from (equipped with the tools of the trade) lasts much longer and has much more exposure to street police officers. And since many, if not most crimes are committed by people under the influence of drugs and/or alcohol that gives us another "in" to the car.

The case of the elderly woman who was pulled over and the search of her car found tens of thousands of dollars (possibly 50K IIRC) that she was transporting to put a down payment on her retirement dream home... The money was seized for quite some time putting her thru heck to get it back...

Got a link Brent? I have no idea what you're referring to. And BTW what has this to do with the reason that this thread was started? Do you recall the promise from the moderator to shut it down if this turned into, as it has, another cop bashing thread? Do you even care?

bigger hammer
May 26, 2009, 06:22 PM
I wonder, if a survey were taken of different communities, where on the continuum between untimately aggressive law enforcement (pretty much a police state, as in a state of emergency) and ultimately non-aggressive law enforcement (basically call the police if you need them, otherwise they stay at the station or in their patrolcars) would the most customer/community satisfaction lie?

If you were to apply this to a ten scale, with ten being the ultimate police state, we'd have been about a seven. The other city I referred to would be a 3. The city I worked in had property values that were two to three times that of the surrounding neighborhoods. When asked why they lived there the residents answered the same way, "for the police services." I heard it hundreds of times during the years that I worked there.

It would be wonderful to live in a crime-free environment, but not if it was a virtual prison with big brother watching from every street corner and occasionally doing a bed check.

Agreed.

bigger hammer
May 26, 2009, 06:23 PM
Earlier I wrote, I have no problem with this. What I DO have a problem with is that you've already convicted the officers in both of these situations. YOU are insisting on the standard of "innocent until proven guilty in a court of law" EXCEPT for the officers in these two incidents. You've assumed that they are guilty and that has yet to be proven.

Yes, you are correct for the most part except for one thing, It was not I who pronounced innocence or guilt, If you can find one sentence in any post I made which expresses anything which was not provided in direct evidence on the OP videotapes please point it out.

No time or interest in going back. I'll take your word for it and apologize for accusing you of doing this when it was others. I was using the "editorial 'you' " and that was inappropriate. But Dust Monkey has those folks convicted and all but serving time before the fact finding part of the investigation is even completed! Lol.

bigger hammer
May 26, 2009, 06:24 PM
The militant attitude that is all consuming in today’s LE is scary. Police should not act like soldiers. Soldiers are trained to kill, period. They are trained to seek out an enemy and kill.

I'm glad to see others are seeing the same things I do, I'm tired of seeing the police "playing army". Black combat boots, fatigue pants, AR-15's and MP-5's? Come on now, quit playing special forces. There is no place in civilian police work for military weaponry, particularly not carried by individual officers on a daily basis. Then they wonder why they get no respect? Don't go around looking like some sort of death squad member.

You sound like an old time police administrator. Are you one? ROFL. Let's get some facts straight. Police have been wearing black combat boot for ages, long before I played the game. Fatigue pants go with the rest of the BDU outfit and are rarely worn by street police officers. Because SWAT teams and other special units get dirtier more frequently than them and it's expensive to dry clean regular uniforms they wear BDU's that can be tossed in the washer to get them clean. AR-15's? Perhaps you missed the North Holly Bank Robbery in Los Angeles that held hostage and terrorized the neighborhood because two crooks were wearing full body armor that stopped the handgun and shotgun rounds that was all the police officers had. They were armed with rifles firing fully automatic and hundreds of rounds of ammo. Officers were going to a local gun store and "borrowing" rifles to stop those crooks. Those crooks were finally stopped by the arrival of SWAT team members who were on a training evolution and arrived as the suspects were fleeing.

Seems every little town has to have it's own "Swat" team, or whatever they want to call them.

Completely inaccurate. When you get some facts to back this up, let us know. Until then, I'll tell you from experience that FEW police departments in the grand scheme of things have a full SWAT team. They may have something similar to handle lower grade incidents but most departments will call the nearby larger department that has a full time team to handle bigger incidents. Police chiefs like to keep control of things within their own borders.

Is this really a good use of our tax dollars?

If you don't think so it's up to you to make your wishes known. Start writing to your local government officials protesting how they spend your tax dollars. If they agree, they’ll stop that sort of spending. But before you waste your time you should realize that they've authorized those expenditures long ago and most of them think it was money well spent. These days often it's FREE money from the Feds and they love to take it.

I think the police need to lay off the "Die Hard" movies and focus on real police work rather than playing with their toys at the gun range. Bradenton, FL, has a "Marine Response Unit", or some such nonsense. It's fun to watch them practice their "Navy Seal" rolls out of a souped up Zodiak raft into Tampa Bay. But what do they plan to do? Assault the beach? Commando attack? Looks like just another excuse to play with big boys' toys at taxpayer expense.

The fact is that police departments charged with enforcing the law in such areas need to be ready for whatever comes along. A good friend of mine is on the police dive team for a large and busy commercial/pleasure boating harbor. They dive every commercial boat that enters their jurisdiction, searching for explosives and drugs. Terrorists would love to stop shipping from moving in and out of it. It's impossible to stop all acts of terrorism, but it's stupid to stop trying.

Anyway, yes, I too am appalled by the recent changes in police appearance and tactics. I believe it encourages a similar ramp-up in weapons and violence by criminals.

Nonsense. Police officers in metropolitan areas did not start carrying rifles until AFTER the criminals did. The aforementioned North Hollywood Bank Robbery was the impetus for MANY departments to get them. Like an officer's holstered handgun they sit quietly in the rack until needed. Criminals were shooting each other with automatic weapons for ages before police got them. The move to semi-automatic handguns from revolvers happened because the crooks were using them, long before LE got them. You've REALLY got this backwards.

We're slowly losing or rights as citizens and becoming more of a police state every day...

I'll disagree but even if you were right, please give us some idea of how police officers wearing combat boots, BDU's and having AR-15's has something to do with this.

hogdogs
May 26, 2009, 07:58 PM
WOW!!! JUST ABSOLUTELY WOW!!! Someone has misread my posts to think I said was a cop? Never once have I said or implied that! You got me mixed up with someone else...
BDU
It is understood that BDU stands for "Battle Dress Uniform"... Thus law enforcement is prepared for battle against civilians.

Brent

Dr. Strangelove
May 26, 2009, 07:58 PM
Wow bigger hammer, good thing there's no charge for bandwidth on this forum!:D

I have no problem with police wearing combats - polished and under normal pants. "Blousing" into black combat fatigues sends out the wrong message to the public. Police officers should dress professionally, not like the thugs they are chasing.

As far as the "SWAT" team stuff; sure, train some guys to act in unusual situations - but this quasi-special forces type nonsense? Seriously? Remember, these are police activities here, not combat missions.

hogdogs
May 26, 2009, 08:12 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by hogdogs
In my state I have the right to carry the weapon concealed anywhere in my car without a CCP so long as it is not on my person. It can be in any state of readiness I choose. So my statement of going to the range should not increase PC.
I'm sorry but I'm having a hard time believing your comment that you were a police officer. In the situation that I gave OF COURSE, having a gun increases the officer's PC. The suspect used a gun in his crimes and you too have a gun. It makes not the slightest bit of difference that it's legal for you to carry it or not. You were not arrested for possession of the gun but for the rape. This is police work 101.

Quote:
Originally Posted by hogdogs
Since I would not rape nor store panties in my truck, I would not be able to go along with your scenario...
The situation I gave is a bit like a math problem. There are certain facts "given." You don't get to argue with the "given" that "the train left Chicago at 4:00 pm traveling at 35 mph." Neither do you get to argue with the "given" that there were panties in your car or that the rape victims ID'd you.

Quote:
Originally Posted by hogdogs
So I am arrested for the red arrow?
Are you purposefully being obtuse now or do you really lack understanding of the situation that I gave?

Quote:
Originally Posted by hogdogs
Truck impounded, I now have an arrest record, a towing bill and a bond on me? And all you found was my legal pistol?
Didja miss the part where the victims ID'd you?

Quote:
Originally Posted by hogdogs
sucks be in my shoes now doesn't it?
Rapists should expect that there's some chance at least that they'll be caught.

Quote:
Originally Posted by hogdogs
All because to exercise my forth amendment rights afforded me as a law abiding citizen of these United states?
ROFL. Cute game, but silly. Of course this is not to sully your good name just to provide another side of the coin to the one you keep presenting.
Here is where I have issue in the aforementioned scenario... it implies that a rapist is pulled over and busted... But I am saying that as an honest law abiding citizen not engaged in crime I take personal offense to being treated as one.
Just like I feel that as not being a thief I can take a higher level of offense if I am ripped off than a thief getting ripped off by another thief...
I just don't take kindly to being treated as a suspect when I do what I can to live straight and fairly narrow path in this life not victimizing my fellow man nor blatantly thumbing my nose at the written laws.
Brent

Al Norris
May 26, 2009, 08:28 PM
As I said earlier....

Closed.