El Monte and Alabama excessive force incidents and End of Chase Syndrome

[bigger hammer]

Originally Posted by hogdogs

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]

Originally Posted by OuTcAsT

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]

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!
Brent

[hogdogs]

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!
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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Lots of the Soviet style guns were cheap. SKS rifles for $89 to 99 were quite attractive to gang members.

[bigger hammer]

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.

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.

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?

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?

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.

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.

[bigger hammer]

Earlier I wrote,

More than likely you just moved into an area with a less aggressive outlook of how to do law enforcement.

Originally Posted by hogdogs

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.

Originally Posted by hogdogs

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

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

Originally Posted by hogdogs

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.

Originally Posted by hogdogs

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]

Originally Posted by orangello

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.

Originally Posted by orangello

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]

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.

Originally Posted by OuTcAsT

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]

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.

Originally Posted by Dr. Strangelove

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.

Originally Posted by Dr. Strangelove

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.

Originally Posted by Dr. Strangelove

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.

Originally Posted by Dr. Strangelove

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.

Originally Posted by Dr. Strangelove

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.

Originally Posted by Dr. Strangelove

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]

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]

Wow bigger hammer, good thing there's no charge for bandwidth on this forum!

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]

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]

As I said earlier....

Closed.