# What to do during a police encounter...



## jks9199

CAVEAT:  I am not speaking officially, nor am I giving legal guidance.  I'm offering my personal insights and opinions as a law enforcement officer in the United States. 

As tempted as I am, I'm not going to start with Chris Rock's video -- even though it's actually got some good advice, cached as comedy.  Towards the end, I'm going to pull up some links to the advice given by several police departments.

There are lots of reasons for the police to make contact with you.  To begin with, a police officer can walk up and talk to anyone who's willing to talk to them; this is a consensual encounter.  It's easy to stop, too...  Just say "I don't want to talk to you right now."  That's it.  Don't go into a harangue about how the cops are always picking on you or whatever...  The cop is just doing his job.  He may even just be bored! 

There are times that the police will stop you, and be a bit more insistent.  They need reasonable articulable suspicion to detain you briefly for investigation; that suspicion can come from facts and circumstances relayed to them (like a lookout for a suspect), a complaint or tip called into the PD, or simply a combination of things that they can point to, which based on their training and experience suggest that "criminal activity may be afoot."   Answer the officer's questions.  Be polite.  If they ask for ID, give it to them.  You CAN inquire politely about why they're detaining you -- but understand they may not give full details.  The officer may pat you down briefly for weapons, if they have reason to suspect weapons.  (I routinely pat down gang members, for example, because I know, based on my training and experience, that gang members carry concealed weapons.)  They may also handcuff you, depending on exactly what they know.  For example, if you match the physical description of a wanted suspect... you're probably getting cuffed till they figure out what's up.  If you're not doing anything wrong, the officer will probably get enough information to dispel their suspicions and send you on the way. 

Finally, you might be stopped because you did indeed do something wrong.  This may be traffic related (speeding, rolling a stop sign, missing tags, etc.) or because you're trespassing in a closed park, or some other violation of the law that you may not even be aware of.  You won't be given a chance to leave here...  You're in the wrong -- even if you didn't know it.  (I'm assuming that nobody here will deliberately commit a serious violation of the law!)  The officer will conduct an investigation; for a traffic stop, that means collecting your license, registration, and any other paperwork, probably checking the license status, and deciding whether or not to issue a ticket.  The details will vary depending on exactly what they're dealing with. 

My advice is going to boil down to go with the program.  There's a time and place to argue and to complain.  It's not in the field.  But:


Be polite.  Answer the officer's questions -- or if you choose not to, say nothing.
Common law does permit you to resist a wrongful arrest (state laws may vary!).  However, unless you are beyond certain that it's wrongful... I'd strongly urge you to simply cooperate.  Complain later, and defend yourself at court.  It's a really good bet that you'll still go to jail -- and the resisting arrest charge or assault on an officer charge may stick even if the original charge didn't.
Listen carefully to the officer; more than one person has argued themselves into a ticket or arrest because they got indignant as an officer tried to offer them a break.
On a traffic stop:
Remain in your car until/unless asked to exit.
Turn off your radio and hang up your cell phone.  I assure you -- the cop is the most important person to listen to during the stop!  He's the one who will be deciding about giving you a ticket, or even whether you go to jail.
At night -- turn on the dome light so that the officer can see inside your car.
Be polite; treat the cop the same way you want him to treat you.
Don't move around a lot, and keep your hands in plain view.  YOU know you don't have a gun in your glove box and that you just dropped your wallet under your seat.  The cop doesn't.
If you get a ticket -- don't argue it on the side of the road.  The cop's probably literally got his butt in traffic, and he's not going to want to listen.  Take your ticket, sign if necessary, and come to court.  Let the judge decide who was right.

In a field encounter/subject stop:
Stand still, and don't put your hands in your pockets.  You know you don't have a gun or hand grenade in your pocket; the cop doesn't!
Be polite; treat the cop the same way you want to be treated.
HANG UP YOUR CELL PHONE.  Don't talk on the Bluetooth headset, either.
Listen to the officer's questions; answer them or don't -- but don't argue or complain.
If you are arrested -- don't resist.  Yes, you may be justified in resisting an unlawful arrest.  You almost certainly won't succeed.  You stand a good chance of getting hurt.  You may not be able to get a bond.  And you aren't guaranteed to win at trial, either.

Search and seizure, and Miranda rights are both too big a topic for me to address here.
Handcuffs:
Yes, they're uncomfortable.  We know; who do you think we practice putting them on?
Generally, the "hole" is oval.  Your wrist is oval, too.  If you twist and turn... you'll end up with the long axis of your wrist running across the short axis of the cuff.  The cuff is steel; it's not going to give very much.
Yes, you will almost certainly be cuffed with your hands behind your back.  Most agency general orders require this.  Officer safety strongly encourages it.  If you have shoulder injuries or other problems -- politely tell the officer.  He is responsible for your safety -- and will do what he REASONABLY can to work around your injury.
You can be cuffed without being arrested.  A common phrase at that point is "You're not under arrest; I'm just putting these on for your safety and mine."


What if you think the cop was wrong, rude, unjustified?  First, don't argue in the field.  It's not the time or place.  Argue your case in front of a judge.  If you think the officer did something wrong, file a complaint.  Speak to his supervisor.  If you aren't satisfied, go up the chain.  Just like yelling at the cash register clerk isn't likely to solve a consumer problem, yelling at the cop in the street isn't going to improve your situation.  And can make it much worse.  If the agency isn't responding, go to the state attorney general or state police (or both).  If they don't respond -- got to the FBI.

OK... I said I wouldn't start with it -- but here it is:





Links:  I scanned these quickly; they seem decent, and actually represent a few takes.  My agency is deliberately not included, as I am not speaking officially.

What Are Your Rights If You Are Stopped By The Police | ExpertLaw

Police Traffic Stops and Vehicle Searches: FAQs - FindLaw

What to Do When Stopped by a Police Officer

What to Do If the Police Stop You

http://www.ric.edu/campuspd/documents/whattodo.pdf

http://bloomington.in.gov/documents/viewDocument.php?document_id=912


----------



## Jenny_in_Chico

I laughed my *** off at that video! Thanks for a great start to my day, jks!


----------



## Carol

Being able to keep your cool in a bad situation does a lot of good things.  It immediately brings you more respect, and it can help get you out of trouble if you're in trouble.  

If you are in a situation where you feel you've been wronged, and want to seek redress, keeping your cool will help your memory of the situation.  This will help you be more consistent when it is time to tell your side of the story. 

Personally I think this is true in just about any bad situation, whether one is in a police encounter, confronted by a boss, or in trouble at school.


----------



## KenpoTex

Thanks for taking the time to put that together.

As an expansion of the "don't talk" part of your "either talk them or don't" portion, I would offer the following:
"Don't talk to the police"

This vid. has been discussed here before in the Gen. SD subforum but for those that have never watched this, it's *well worth* the time it takes.  The advice giiven in this video mirrors the advice I've seen given on other forums by guys who are lawyers and, in one case, a current attorney who is a former judge.


----------



## Bill Mattocks

Great advice, thanks!  Funny video, too.

Couple of thoughts...

On being handcuffed; most police officers will remember to double-lock them, so they will not tighten down.  However, it's probably a very good idea not to lean back on the cuffs if you're being transported.  If they are not double-locked, they will tighten down and cut off the blood flow to your hands.  It's really painful.

With regard to being cuffed while not under arrest...I have to disagree ever so slightly.  The word 'arrest' literally means 'stop'.  If you are free to leave, you are not under arrest.  If you are not free to leave, you are under arrest.  You can be arrested without being charged with a crime.  You can be cuffed and detained for a short period of time; as jks9199 says, for both the officer's and the subject's safety.  However, if you are cuffed, you are not free to leave; and that means one thing.  You are in fact under arrest.

Here is a link to the famous ACLU "Bust Card."  It's a PDF file.  You can download it, print it, and fold it in quarters to fit in your wallet or purse.  Good reference material to have with you, although you really should read it and understand it before you need it.

http://www.aclu.org/drug-law-reform...al-justice/know-your-rights-what-do-if-youre-

As a former LEO, I can't tell you how many times people I've arrested have told me that _"You can't do that,"_ or _"I know my rights, I demand a lawyer,"_ or _"You can't arrest me unless you tell me what the charges against me are,"_ or _"Take these cuffs off and I'll kick your ***,"_ (love that one) or _"I'll have your badge,"_ or _"I'm going to sue the city and you and I'm going to own you, punk!"_  It used to get quite comical at times. I have no idea where people get these nutty ideas about what their rights are.

The advice given by the O/P is terrific.  Read and heed.  Download and read the ACLU Bust Card.  Great advice there too.  Arguing with a cop is always a bad idea, and raising your hand to a police officer is the same as saying you'd like your butt kicked right now, please, as Chris Rock said.


----------



## Archangel M

As with almost ALL things LE, it comes down to articulation. 

State v. Pfleiderer, held that use of handcuffs in a detention situation where the officer cannot or does not articulate a reasonable justification for the handcuffing makes the detention a de facto arrest.  It is presumed that the use of handcuffs is associated with arrests.  Officers need to overcome that presumption by explaining why the cuffs were necessary. 

This can be as simple as being a lone officer in a secluded area, lies from the subject, indications that the subject looked like he was going to flee based on body language or other indicators. Too many cops think that "articulation" is some complex hurdle. All it comes down to is the question of "can you explain why you did it?" Most of the times that "gut feeling" that something is wrong is correct and if you think about it you can point out indicators of what caused that "gut feeling". Thats articulation.


----------



## Archangel M

Bill Mattocks said:


> As a former LEO, I can't tell you how many times people I've arrested have told me that _"You can't do that,"_ or _"I know my rights, I demand a lawyer,"_ or _"You can't arrest me unless you tell me what the charges against me are,"_ or _"Take these cuffs off and I'll kick your ***,"_ (love that one) or _"I'll have your badge,"_ or _"I'm going to sue the city and you and I'm going to own you, punk!"_  It used to get quite comical at times. I have no idea where people get these nutty ideas about what their rights are.



And don't forget the ever so popular "YOU DIDN'T READ ME MY RIGHTS!!"


----------



## jks9199

Bill Mattocks said:


> With regard to being cuffed while not under arrest...I have to disagree ever so slightly.  The word 'arrest' literally means 'stop'.  If you are free to leave, you are not under arrest.  If you are not free to leave, you are under arrest.  You can be arrested without being charged with a crime.  You can be cuffed and detained for a short period of time; as jks9199 says, for both the officer's and the subject's safety.  However, if you are cuffed, you are not free to leave; and that means one thing.  You are in fact under arrest.



While it is true that, in the strictest sense, any detention (including a traffic stop) is an arrest, the US Supreme Court has also consistently drawn a line between formal arrest and investigatory detentions.  Handcuffing does not move an encounter from an investigatory detention to an arrest by itself, though it certainly raises the level of the detention.  If asked by a prospective employer "Have you ever been arrested?", most people are not going to list traffic stops or brief investigatory detentions.  Nor do all of the same constitutional concerns come into play.

You can certainly be handcuffed without being subject to the formal process of arrest.  For example, say an officer runs a suspect, and returns a wanted hit based on name and DOB.  The basic physical description is reasonably close, as well.  Most officers will handcuff that person while confirming the warrant.  If the confirmation comes back with some significant detail, say a large tattoo or scar that is not present on the detained subject, they'll be released.  Or simply that their is no extradition authorized...


----------



## Bill Mattocks

jks9199 said:


> While it is true that, in the strictest sense, any detention (including a traffic stop) is an arrest, the US Supreme Court has also consistently drawn a line between formal arrest and investigatory detentions.  Handcuffing does not move an encounter from an investigatory detention to an arrest by itself, though it certainly raises the level of the detention.  If asked by a prospective employer "Have you ever been arrested?", most people are not going to list traffic stops or brief investigatory detentions.  Nor do all of the same constitutional concerns come into play.
> 
> You can certainly be handcuffed without being subject to the formal process of arrest.  For example, say an officer runs a suspect, and returns a wanted hit based on name and DOB.  The basic physical description is reasonably close, as well.  Most officers will handcuff that person while confirming the warrant.  If the confirmation comes back with some significant detail, say a large tattoo or scar that is not present on the detained subject, they'll be released.  Or simply that their is no extradition authorized...



I understand, but I think it's a distinction without a difference.  If one is handcuffed and 'detained' but not arrested, one is not free to walk away.  Anyone not free to walk away is technically under arrest.  However, I take your point.


----------



## Archangel M

There is obviously a legal distinction... otherwise I wasted a LOT of time in the academy on Terry V Ohio.


----------



## Bill Mattocks

Archangel M said:


> There is obviously a legal distinction... otherwise I wasted a LOT of time in the academy on Terry V Ohio.



Yes, as I said, a distinction without a difference.  When I was in the USMC, as an MP we did not 'arrest' people.  We placed them under military apprehension.  Net difference?  None.  Same handirons, same gray-bar hotel.  If we had to put the habeus grabbus on a civilian, whom we technically had no jurisdiction over, we did not arrest them either.  We 'detained them' for civilian authorities.  Net difference?  None.  Same handirons, same seat on the bench in front of the Desk Sgt until the FBI came to cart them away.

If you're not free to walk away, you've been arrested.  I know there are lots of different words for it...


----------



## Archangel M

I see where you are going Bill and I get it. But as you we an LEO at one time you KNOW that there is a BIG difference when you take a case to court. This job is all about semantics at times.


----------



## Bill Mattocks

Archangel M said:


> I see where you are going Bill and I get it. But as you we an LEO at one time you KNOW that there is a BIG difference when you take a case to court. This job is all about semantics at times.



Yes indeed. You are quite right.


----------



## sgtmac_46

Archangel M said:


> And don't forget the ever so popular "YOU DIDN'T READ ME MY RIGHTS!!"



One of my personal favorites.......


----------



## sgtmac_46

Bill Mattocks said:


> I understand, but I think it's a distinction without a difference.  If one is handcuffed and 'detained' but not arrested, one is not free to walk away.  Anyone not free to walk away is technically under arrest.  However, I take your point.



Well, it's actually a more important distinction than that........a stopped motorist is not free to walk away, but the courts have upheld time and again that he's not under arrest.

'Detention' and 'Arrest' have very clear differences in some very important ways.


----------



## Carol

Archangel M said:


> I see where you are going Bill and I get it. But as you we an LEO at one time you KNOW that there is a BIG difference when you take a case to court. This job is all about semantics at times.



Arrests become matters of public record where "detentions" and the like do not, yes?  So, if I'm running a pre-hire background check on a candidate, that report could potentially tell me the arrest record of the candidate but it wouldn't reveal a "detention record".

Not advocating an arrest record check for a pre-hire screen, the EEOC would prefer a candidate is screened of,


----------



## Tez3

I would add here 'don't always assume the worst'. A police officer may stop you in your car for example because you have a light out, now here anyway, that doesn't mean he's necessarily going to do you for it. The police understand that you may not have known and are often in the first place just informing you and telling you to get it fixed as soon as you can. Going into a 'you can't stop me, have you nothing better to do, you should be out catching real criminals' routine will make the officer think that after all he/she will do you for that light plus anything else they can find. 
A while back my other half was driving in Leeds, a very big city compared to where we live and somewhere with one way streets, a lot of lanes in the roads including bus lanes which he inadvertantly ended up on. A police car pulled him over, he apologised saying he was lost and was in a muddle, they didn't charge him or fine him instead they got in their car and told him to follow them to where he wanted to be. It was much appreciated. 

Police officers don't want to charge people, they want people to be safe on the roads, not cause accidents that they have to mop up and not to have reams of paperwork because people have been stupid. It make life so much easier for everyone if people keep their cool, don't get radged at the police and it's so much easier to sort out.
It may be that you are stopped in the street, if you have done nothing wrong there is no point in ranting and raving, it really should be a citizens duty to help the police. Again don't assume the worse, they may just be asking if you'd seen someone running away past you etc, ranting and raving at them just because they've stopped you and not giving them a chance to explain is asking for trouble. I've heard of cases like where a police car has stopped a youth in the street just to ask where an address was and he's run like hell away from them so they chased him and found him carrying drugs. If he'd kept his cool waited to see what they'd wanted they'd have been on their way with them none the wiser, as it was they laughed all the way to the nick.  


Here the military police can't apprehend civilians and can only perform 'citizens arrests' which don't involve hancuffs. The only powers that they have come from military laws which only the military come under and each service here has different laws. In a war situation it changes as you'd expect.

Arresting and being charged are different here as has been discussed on different threads.


----------



## stungunsusa

I found the following video to be most helpful on the subject matter:


----------



## Jenna

stungunsusa said:


> I found the following video to be most helpful on the subject matter:


Very interesting video.. why do I feel sparks of adrenaline when I watch the encounters in the little vignettes in the video I wonder.. anyway good vid thank you (and welcome to MT)


----------



## Balrog

I've been asked what should be done in a police encounter.  I tell them that there are two guidelines to follow:

1.  Be polite and comply immediately with the officer's directions.
2.  If in doubt, see guideline #1.


----------



## Bill Mattocks

Balrog said:


> I've been asked what should be done in a police encounter.  I tell them that there are two guidelines to follow:
> 
> 1.  Be polite and comply immediately with the officer's directions.
> 2.  If in doubt, see guideline #1.



The thing I saw more than any other was the person being arrested try to stop the arrest so they could 'explain'. They never seemed to grasp the idea that attempting to stop the arrest is resisting arrest, and no, the cop won't stop arresting you while you explain.

Best solution is to let it happen. You can explain just as well in handcuffs.


----------



## FriedRice

Sue the city later for wrongful arrest. The side of a street is not a courtroom.


----------



## Gwai Lo Dan

jks9199 said:


> You can be cuffed without being arrested.  A common phrase at that point is "You're not under arrest; I'm just putting these on for your safety and mine."


My safety? So you can punch me more easily? I'd really be thinking "yeah right" if the cop said that.

My comment on being beaten more easily comes from the innumerable stories you read.  Currently, in my city, an off-duty cop is on trial for beating a black teen with a rod and the teen eventually losing an eye. The teen called 911 before the beating and the cop grabbed the phone said it was an officer arresting a suspect, and the beating began. 

Police chief denies 'cover-up' in beating of Whitby teen

"Falconer has said his client was on his way to a friend’s house when he walked by two men standing inside a garage near Thickson Rd. and William Stephenson Dr.

The human rights lawyer alleges one of the men identified himself as an officer and when Miller refused to answer his questions, he was chased down and beaten to “within an inch of his life” with a steel pipe.

The allegations have not been proven in court.

Miller’s nose, jaw and wrist were broken. He also needs to have an injured eye surgically removed."


----------



## jks9199

Gwai Lo Dan said:


> My safety? So you can punch me more easily? I'd really be thinking "yeah right" if the cop said that.
> 
> My comment on being beaten more easily comes from the innumerable stories you read.  Currently, in my city, an off-duty cop is on trial for beating a black teen with a rod and the teen eventually losing an eye. The teen called 911 before the beating and the cop grabbed the phone said it was an officer arresting a suspect, and the beating began.
> 
> Police chief denies 'cover-up' in beating of Whitby teen
> 
> "Falconer has said his client was on his way to a friend’s house when he walked by two men standing inside a garage near Thickson Rd. and William Stephenson Dr.
> 
> The human rights lawyer alleges one of the men identified himself as an officer and when Miller refused to answer his questions, he was chased down and beaten to “within an inch of his life” with a steel pipe.
> 
> The allegations have not been proven in court.
> 
> Miller’s nose, jaw and wrist were broken. He also needs to have an injured eye surgically removed."


Thanks for reviving the thread; I didn't know a video link was broken.

With that out of the way -- you really felt a need to revive it to address a criminal act by a person who happens to have been employed as a LEO?  How's it relate to the post or thread?  The guy in your account is being prosecuted, is probably unemployed...  and I still don't see how any of this relates to an on-duty encounter with a police officer.

It's covered pretty well upthread -- but a police officer may certainly place handcuffs on you without it amounting to a formal arrest.  They have to be able to justify their actions, and it certainly greatly raises the level of detention -- but depending on the circumstances-- it's not an arrest.  A common example occurs during execution of a search warrant.  Often, anyone located is cuffed while identified and while the residence is cleared.  There are others...  None of that relates to an assault by someone who, when they are working, is a cop but ordinarily... they're off.


----------



## drop bear

So was this the right or wrong way to handle a police encounter?


----------



## FighterTwister

The Chris Rock video in first post is hilarious, he is funny.

How true though I mean even the part of the friend in the passenger seat LoL

Best never to drink and drive simply obey the road laws respect law enforcement officers that are there to protect and uphold the laws for our own benefit, yeah not always perfect in the crazy world we live in but they have a hard job so just cooperate when asked.

Simple really!

Be a good law abiding citizen be honest when things go wrong and normally everything works out fine!

We are all just people or subject to our human nature and they understand that its their job everyday all day long.

There is a glamour or prestige of being in the police force but I personally think after a few years it wears down thin and wears off on some officers depending on their experiences. Its hard dealing with people, thats why enlisting is even harder to get into the police force.

I have always liked the idea of being a motorcycle officer personally but without the drama,  just not for me as a motorcycle rider myself.

But watch..............












Nice ha!


----------



## ballen0351

drop bear said:


> So was this the right or wrong way to handle a police encounter?


Sure if you want to be arrested.


----------



## Gwai Lo Dan

jks9199 said:


> With that out of the way -- you really felt a need to revive it to address a criminal act by a person who happens to have been employed as a LEO?  How's it relate to the post or thread?  The guy in your account is being prosecuted, is probably unemployed...  and I still don't see how any of this relates to an on-duty encounter with a police officer.



The topic is timeless. "Reviving" from 6 months ago isn't so bad IMO, when 1 of the stickies is 10 years old.

In terms of the "why"...I agree with everything that was posted about what to do and what not to do. It lowers the chance of a cop deciding to flex his muscle, almost literally.

I really do think though that with everything in the news, I would be wondering about my own safety when handcuffed.  To me, "for you own safety" might be along the lines of "stop resisting" as the cop hits the suspect...there lots of those stories. Tell me if you can see the resisting at 1:00. This incident is also under review.  Cops said they would spit in the face of the guy recording and give him AIDS...good lord. You have to do everything to lower the likelihood of a problem, but there are no guarantees.


----------



## MA_Student

What to do? Shut up and do whatever they tell you to do.....or if you're brave you could handle it the michael jai white way.


----------



## drop bear

ballen0351 said:


> Sure if you want to be arrested.



Arrested like a boss.


----------



## Buka

I have been handcuffed by the police in my private life. I got out of said handcuffs and put my hands back behind me in forty seconds. Then handed them the cuffs when they were about to take them off me. They were not in the least bit amused. But then, neither was I. Fortunately, everything worked out.

It's a really difficult occupation, being a cop. Seems to be getting more difficult with every passing year. 
It's one of the few occupations where some folks will hate you for what you do for a living, regardless of how honest, helpful and hard working you are. Nobody hates the guy who runs the hardware store.

It hasn't been a field I advise people to go into in a long time. And I find that sad. Maybe it's a sign of the times, I dunno'.

But, hey, somebody has to do it. I mean, who you gonna' call?


----------



## drop bear

Buka said:


> I have been handcuffed by the police in my private life. I got out of said handcuffs and put my hands back behind me in forty seconds. Then handed them the cuffs when they were about to take them off me. They were not in the least bit amused. But then, neither was I. Fortunately, everything worked out.
> 
> It's a really difficult occupation, being a cop. Seems to be getting more difficult with every passing year.
> It's one of the few occupations where some folks will hate you for what you do for a living, regardless of how honest, helpful and hard working you are. Nobody hates the guy who runs the hardware store.
> 
> It hasn't been a field I advise people to go into in a long time. And I find that sad. Maybe it's a sign of the times, I dunno'.
> 
> But, hey, somebody has to do it. I mean, who you gonna' call?



Yeah but all of those jobs are not really ones you advise people do. 

Like my advice when people ask 

how do you become a bouncer?

Fail at everything else in life.


----------



## jks9199

drop bear said:


> So was this the right or wrong way to handle a police encounter?



Well, nobody got hurt.  The drunk was no longer driving.  It's certainly not how the investigation would have been conducted here in the US.  But it clearly wasn't in the US -- so no wonder it was different.

But what was your point in posting this?  Seriously.  What did you feel this post would contribute to the discussion?


----------



## drop bear

jks9199 said:


> Well, nobody got hurt.  The drunk was no longer driving.  It's certainly not how the investigation would have been conducted here in the US.  But it clearly wasn't in the US -- so no wonder it was different.
> 
> But what was your point in posting this?  Seriously.  What did you feel this post would contribute to the discussion?



I thought it would be funny on the surface while highlighting some of the silly things people will attempt while being arrested.

Yes Australian police have a lot more tolerance for idiots. Which although more time consuming and personally more irritating. Is ultimately more effective.

And we tend to put two cops in a car.

So it was a layered contribution. Like an ogre.

If you want we can go back to police beating up black people. I mean that is a fun topic as well.


----------



## jks9199

Gwai Lo Dan said:


> I really do think though that with everything in the news, I would be wondering about my own safety when handcuffed.  To me, "for you own safety" might be along the lines of "stop resisting" as the cop hits the suspect...there lots of those stories. Tell me if you can see the resisting at 1:00. This incident is also under review.  Cops said they would spit in the face of the guy recording and give him AIDS...good lord. You have to do everything to lower the likelihood of a problem, but there are no guarantees.



Being handcuffed "for ... safety" is usually the result of someone who is failing to follow directions and failing to cooperate but succeeding in being a notable jerk.  In some cases, it's merely procedural -- like being detained while identity is confirmed for a warrant or during a search warrant execution.  But, more often than not, it's because the person is behaving in a way that, if the officer lets them continue, stands a good chance of ending with someone getting hurt.

Why do cops hit someone and say "stop resisting"?  Well, a lot of that is visuals.  Perceptions.  Letting people around them know that the cop is working, not simply thumping someone.  It's also an implicit deal -- the cops will stop using force if the subject stops resisting.  (Doing something along those lines might be useful for the general person defending themselves, too...)

I'm not going to sit here and review particular incidents.  There are too many variables and it's just not what I want to do.  The thread was written as a general bit of advice, not a place to armchair quarterback.


----------



## ballen0351

Gwai Lo Dan said:


> Cops said they would spit in the face of the guy recording and give him AIDS...good lord.


Sounds like The officer says "He's (as in the suspect) going to spit in your face"  Not the Officer saying "I'm going to"


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> I thought it would be funny on the surface while highlighting some of the silly things people will attempt while being arrested.
> 
> Yes Australian police have a lot more tolerance for idiots. Which although more time consuming and personally more irritating. Is ultimately more effective.
> 
> And we tend to put two cops in a car.
> 
> So it was a layered contribution. Like an ogre.
> 
> If you want we can go back to police beating up black people. I mean that is a fun topic as well.


You know what else has layers?


----------



## Gerry Seymour

jks9199 said:


> Well, nobody got hurt.  The drunk was no longer driving.  It's certainly not how the investigation would have been conducted here in the US.  But it clearly wasn't in the US -- so no wonder it was different.
> 
> But what was your point in posting this?  Seriously.  What did you feel this post would contribute to the discussion?


I think his point was that the subject did everything wrong. Cops seemed to do a lot of very right stuff.


----------



## FighterTwister

Here watch this idiot for a lack of a better word!

20 heart racing minutes a motorcycle police officer keeping his kool and true to his training in a very dangerous situation I kid you not!






Look at the crap they have to go through, especially at the end poor guy who knows what could have happened not being able to see beyond the tall grass, the biker could have popped a gun shot, sad to say.

Oh boy I would be switching that camera off after that chase and give this guy a good talking to up close so here can hear it LoL

But the police officer did the right thing keeping the camera on and watching forward as he lifts his bike up again, at that point I would be panicking a fair bit.

Kool cop, so hats off..............the training pays off!


----------



## oftheherd1

Gwai Lo Dan said:


> The topic is timeless. "Reviving" from 6 months ago isn't so bad IMO, when 1 of the stickies is 10 years old.
> 
> In terms of the "why"...I agree with everything that was posted about what to do and what not to do. It lowers the chance of a cop deciding to flex his muscle, almost literally.
> 
> I really do think though that with everything in the news, I would be wondering about my own safety when handcuffed.  To me, "for you own safety" might be along the lines of "stop resisting" as the cop hits the suspect...there lots of those stories. Tell me if you can see the resisting at 1:00. This incident is also under review.  Cops said they would spit in the face of the guy recording and give him AIDS...good lord. You have to do everything to lower the likelihood of a problem, but there are no guarantees.



The above incident does look questionable.  But the video isn't very good either.  So I think it is possible it isn't as bad as it looks.  The resistance may be clasping his hands in front of him and refusing to allow his hands to be handcuffed behind him.  Still, it could have been handled better.  Normally when you have that many people against one, the person can be controlled with mild pain compliance from a grappling move, that doesn't even look bad.

Of course, I don't know the Canadian law either.  In US law, the person recording the incident doesn't appear close enough to the incident to be a problem, and could not be lawfully required to retreat or stop recording.  Yet it was done.

Even so, I don't consider this a good example of what to do when questioned by police, or how to handle the possibility of being handcuffed or arrested by the police.  We don't know what happened before the video displayed by you started.  That could lessen or change our perception of the response.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> You know what else has layers?




Cake.


----------



## drop bear

there is kind of an art form to getting a guys arms behind their back when they dont want to.

It isn't taught well in police school from what I have seen. So what happens is they try it. It obviously fail and so they go off reservation pretty much.

So here we go video of an idiot  with a good enough takedown and control. Lost control of the arm repeatedly because trying the 70,s karate arm locks there.

That is part why guys get tazered or kicked and punched. They just run out of options. Very similar to going for the eyegouge from the bottom.






The issue is the the idiots wont stop being idiots. That is why we have a police force. I mean if I have to explain why you shouldn't behave like that then you probably have bigger issues than just being arrested.

So we have to set up the police so they can safely handle these guys. Safe for the officer, safe for the dumbbo.

The only confusion I get from people is they don't understand that no means I am going to fight you.

Can you do this please? No. = fight.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> Cake.


And parfait.


----------



## CB Jones

Buka said:


> It's a really difficult occupation, being a cop. Seems to be getting more difficult with every passing year.
> It's one of the few occupations where some folks will hate you for what you do for a living, regardless of how honest, helpful and hard working you are. Nobody hates the guy who runs the hardware store.
> 
> It hasn't been a field I advise people to go into in a long time. And I find that sad. Maybe it's a sign of the times, I dunno'.



Agree 100%

I don't talk about my work in front of my son because I don't want him growing up wanting to follow in my footsteps.


----------



## Tez3

British Police - The Russell Howard Hour - British Comedy Guide

I hope this plays outside the UK.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Tez3 said:


> British Police - The Russell Howard Hour - British Comedy Guide
> 
> I hope this plays outside the UK.


It plays in the US.


----------



## Tez3

gpseymour said:


> It plays in the US.



I'm pleased because he makes very good points.


----------



## Balrog

Gwai Lo Dan said:


> My safety? So you can punch me more easily? I'd really be thinking "yeah right" if the cop said that.


It is for your safety.  

Let's say the officer doesn't handcuff you and in our hypothetical situation, you attack the officer.  You are then going to be injured at any level from bumps and bruises up to being shot.  If you are handcuffed, that (probably) won't happen.


----------



## drop bear

Balrog said:


> It is for your safety.
> 
> Let's say the officer doesn't handcuff you and in our hypothetical situation, you attack the officer.  You are then going to be injured at any level from bumps and bruises up to being shot.  If you are handcuffed, that (probably) won't happen.



Or just put two cops in a car.





__ https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=10203373619297935


----------



## Gerry Seymour

drop bear said:


> Or just put two cops in a car.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __ https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=10203373619297935


That used to be common practice, I think. I'm not sure what all drove the decision to have only one in a car at a time. I've always thought being a cop got much scarier when they had to go solo.


----------



## CB Jones

gpseymour said:


> That used to be common practice, I think. I'm not sure what all drove the decision to have only one in a car at a time. I've always thought being a cop got much scarier when they had to go solo.



Manpower issues.  Cops doubled up means you need twice as many officers which means bigger budgets and more qualified candidates both of which is hard to come by.


----------



## Balrog

gpseymour said:


> That used to be common practice, I think. I'm not sure what all drove the decision to have only one in a car at a time. I've always thought being a cop got much scarier when they had to go solo.


It is.   When I was a deputy sheriff, the only time we rode two in a car was my two weeks of "field training".  After that, we flew solo.  Backup was unpredictable and sometimes resulted in some, shall we say, interesting times.


----------



## drop bear

gpseymour said:


> That used to be common practice, I think. I'm not sure what all drove the decision to have only one in a car at a time. I've always thought being a cop got much scarier when they had to go solo.



It costs too much and it is not worth it.

The response I got anyway.


----------



## Buka

The thread - _What to do during a police encounter.._*.*

If you're a a member of the public, or of you're a cop?


----------



## Reedone816

The safest thing is to call your lawyer, and no talk until he arrive...

Sent from my BV8000Pro using Tapatalk


----------



## Tez3

Reedone816 said:


> The safest thing is to call your lawyer, and no talk until he arrive...
> 
> Sent from my BV8000Pro using Tapatalk



That only works if you are being interviewed at a police station. Here you can get the duty solicitor to come in. Being arrested: your rights: Legal advice at the police station - GOV.UK

However if you are stopped on the street or while driving not speaking until you get legal representation is going to cause you some problems. If you refuse to do a breathalyser then you will be taken back to the station and charged anyway, totally stupid if you haven't been drinking. If you are being stopped by the police just so they can ask a couple of questions then you would be a fool not to answer, setting yourself up for obstruction charges. Why make life harder for yourself?

While the reasons for stopping this car aren't usual here, the way the police stop and react is typical, unless of course you get aggressive then you won't like the way they react, don't mistake their politeness and calmness for weakness.


----------



## Reedone816

Tez3 said:


> That only works if you are being interviewed at a police station. Here you can get the duty solicitor to come in. Being arrested: your rights: Legal advice at the police station - GOV.UK
> 
> However if you are stopped on the street or while driving not speaking until you get legal representation is going to cause you some problems. If you refuse to do a breathalyser then you will be taken back to the station and charged anyway, totally stupid if you haven't been drinking. If you are being stopped by the police just so they can ask a couple of questions then you would be a fool not to answer, setting yourself up for obstruction charges. Why make life harder for yourself?
> 
> While the reasons for stopping this car aren't usual here, the way the police stop and react is typical, unless of course you get aggressive then you won't like the way they react, don't mistake their politeness and calmness for weakness.


Good advice there.
I just happened been in situation when the law enforcer did the road inspection, they forced to search inside the vehicle, and found something that hadn't been there, and pushed me to do underhand bargain or being charged.
After that i consulted my lawyer friend and he said if something like that happened again, be polite, park the vehicle, then call and let him do the talking to the officer.

Sent from my BV8000Pro using Tapatalk


----------



## CB Jones

Reedone816 said:


> After that i consulted my lawyer friend and he said if something like that happened again, be polite, park the vehicle, then call and let him do the talking to the officer



In the U.S.?  If so that is not gonna work...lol.

I have 18 years experience and have worked patrol, detectives, and narcotics the best advice if you have done nothing wrong then talk.....if you are guilty then your two options are lawyering up or tall and seek help through cooperation.

Personally....if I was ever to do something stupid and illegal.......i'm snitching on everyone because that is the easiest way to stay out of jail.

Plus I'm big on when you screw up....owning up to it and taking your lick.


----------



## Tez3

Reedone816 said:


> Good advice there.
> I just happened been in situation when the law enforcer did the road inspection, they forced to search inside the vehicle, and found something that hadn't been there, and pushed me to do underhand bargain or being charged.
> After that i consulted my lawyer friend and he said if something like that happened again, be polite, park the vehicle, then call and let him do the talking to the officer.
> 
> Sent from my BV8000Pro using Tapatalk




If you are saying you have corrupt police officers then I doubt talking to your lawyer will help frankly.


----------



## Reedone816

And it's not in US.
Here sometimes the winner is who bark the loudest (who knows who), at least for unofficial road inspection, but know to toe the line.

Sent from my BV8000Pro using Tapatalk


----------



## Anarax

jks9199 said:


> CAVEAT:  I am not speaking officially, nor am I giving legal guidance.  I'm offering my personal insights and opinions as a law enforcement officer in the United States.
> 
> As tempted as I am, I'm not going to start with Chris Rock's video -- even though it's actually got some good advice, cached as comedy.  Towards the end, I'm going to pull up some links to the advice given by several police departments.
> 
> There are lots of reasons for the police to make contact with you.  To begin with, a police officer can walk up and talk to anyone who's willing to talk to them; this is a consensual encounter.  It's easy to stop, too...  Just say "I don't want to talk to you right now."  That's it.  Don't go into a harangue about how the cops are always picking on you or whatever...  The cop is just doing his job.  He may even just be bored!
> 
> There are times that the police will stop you, and be a bit more insistent.  They need reasonable articulable suspicion to detain you briefly for investigation; that suspicion can come from facts and circumstances relayed to them (like a lookout for a suspect), a complaint or tip called into the PD, or simply a combination of things that they can point to, which based on their training and experience suggest that "criminal activity may be afoot."   Answer the officer's questions.  Be polite.  If they ask for ID, give it to them.  You CAN inquire politely about why they're detaining you -- but understand they may not give full details.  The officer may pat you down briefly for weapons, if they have reason to suspect weapons.  (I routinely pat down gang members, for example, because I know, based on my training and experience, that gang members carry concealed weapons.)  They may also handcuff you, depending on exactly what they know.  For example, if you match the physical description of a wanted suspect... you're probably getting cuffed till they figure out what's up.  If you're not doing anything wrong, the officer will probably get enough information to dispel their suspicions and send you on the way.
> 
> Finally, you might be stopped because you did indeed do something wrong.  This may be traffic related (speeding, rolling a stop sign, missing tags, etc.) or because you're trespassing in a closed park, or some other violation of the law that you may not even be aware of.  You won't be given a chance to leave here...  You're in the wrong -- even if you didn't know it.  (I'm assuming that nobody here will deliberately commit a serious violation of the law!)  The officer will conduct an investigation; for a traffic stop, that means collecting your license, registration, and any other paperwork, probably checking the license status, and deciding whether or not to issue a ticket.  The details will vary depending on exactly what they're dealing with.
> 
> My advice is going to boil down to go with the program.  There's a time and place to argue and to complain.  It's not in the field.  But:
> 
> 
> Be polite.  Answer the officer's questions -- or if you choose not to, say nothing.
> Common law does permit you to resist a wrongful arrest (state laws may vary!).  However, unless you are beyond certain that it's wrongful... I'd strongly urge you to simply cooperate.  Complain later, and defend yourself at court.  It's a really good bet that you'll still go to jail -- and the resisting arrest charge or assault on an officer charge may stick even if the original charge didn't.
> Listen carefully to the officer; more than one person has argued themselves into a ticket or arrest because they got indignant as an officer tried to offer them a break.
> On a traffic stop:
> Remain in your car until/unless asked to exit.
> Turn off your radio and hang up your cell phone.  I assure you -- the cop is the most important person to listen to during the stop!  He's the one who will be deciding about giving you a ticket, or even whether you go to jail.
> At night -- turn on the dome light so that the officer can see inside your car.
> Be polite; treat the cop the same way you want him to treat you.
> Don't move around a lot, and keep your hands in plain view.  YOU know you don't have a gun in your glove box and that you just dropped your wallet under your seat.  The cop doesn't.
> If you get a ticket -- don't argue it on the side of the road.  The cop's probably literally got his butt in traffic, and he's not going to want to listen.  Take your ticket, sign if necessary, and come to court.  Let the judge decide who was right.
> 
> In a field encounter/subject stop:
> Stand still, and don't put your hands in your pockets.  You know you don't have a gun or hand grenade in your pocket; the cop doesn't!
> Be polite; treat the cop the same way you want to be treated.
> HANG UP YOUR CELL PHONE.  Don't talk on the Bluetooth headset, either.
> Listen to the officer's questions; answer them or don't -- but don't argue or complain.
> If you are arrested -- don't resist.  Yes, you may be justified in resisting an unlawful arrest.  You almost certainly won't succeed.  You stand a good chance of getting hurt.  You may not be able to get a bond.  And you aren't guaranteed to win at trial, either.
> 
> Search and seizure, and Miranda rights are both too big a topic for me to address here.
> Handcuffs:
> Yes, they're uncomfortable.  We know; who do you think we practice putting them on?
> Generally, the "hole" is oval.  Your wrist is oval, too.  If you twist and turn... you'll end up with the long axis of your wrist running across the short axis of the cuff.  The cuff is steel; it's not going to give very much.
> Yes, you will almost certainly be cuffed with your hands behind your back.  Most agency general orders require this.  Officer safety strongly encourages it.  If you have shoulder injuries or other problems -- politely tell the officer.  He is responsible for your safety -- and will do what he REASONABLY can to work around your injury.
> You can be cuffed without being arrested.  A common phrase at that point is "You're not under arrest; I'm just putting these on for your safety and mine."
> 
> 
> What if you think the cop was wrong, rude, unjustified?  First, don't argue in the field.  It's not the time or place.  Argue your case in front of a judge.  If you think the officer did something wrong, file a complaint.  Speak to his supervisor.  If you aren't satisfied, go up the chain.  Just like yelling at the cash register clerk isn't likely to solve a consumer problem, yelling at the cop in the street isn't going to improve your situation.  And can make it much worse.  If the agency isn't responding, go to the state attorney general or state police (or both).  If they don't respond -- got to the FBI.
> 
> OK... I said I wouldn't start with it -- but here it is:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Links:  I scanned these quickly; they seem decent, and actually represent a few takes.  My agency is deliberately not included, as I am not speaking officially.
> 
> What Are Your Rights If You Are Stopped By The Police | ExpertLaw
> 
> Police Traffic Stops and Vehicle Searches: FAQs - FindLaw
> 
> What to Do When Stopped by a Police Officer
> 
> What to Do If the Police Stop You
> 
> http://www.ric.edu/campuspd/documents/whattodo.pdf
> 
> http://bloomington.in.gov/documents/viewDocument.php?document_id=912



I usually do the following.

1. Be as uncooperative and condescending as possible for no reason.

2. Repeatedly yell I'M A SOVEREIGN CITIZEN, I'M A SOVERIGN CITIZEN

3. Call them Nazis and claim police brutality

Just kidding. I've been pulled over numerous times(traffic violations) and I always treat them with respect and they do the same. More then half the time they don't even give me a ticket


----------



## Dirty Dog

I always make sure I have my gun in hand, and yell "I have a gun" to make sure the officer knows I'm armed.
Or not.
I find the advice "Don't be a **** waffle" good. Be civil and odds are the officer will be too.


----------



## CB Jones

Dirty Dog said:


> I always make sure I have my gun in hand, and yell "I have a gun" to make sure the officer knows I'm armed.
> Or not.
> I find the advice "Don't be a **** waffle" good. Be civil and odds are the officer will be too.



You should try the Blazing Saddles routine.

(With gun to your own head and with a tough guy voice) "get back or the bald guy gets it"

(Then in a scared voice)  "he'll do it...he's crazy"


----------



## Daniela455

Great information. Very useful


----------



## Deleted member 34973

Just do not answer any questions. Regardless of the situation. I know this is going to upset a few people, but the questions you are asked, are designed to get you to admit to a crime.

Just hand them your info and keep your mouth shut.

Also, study the U.C.C. codes, this is where you will find a majority of what police can and can not do.

Remember these are administrative police and courts, designed under commercial laws and statutes. Admiralty law is completely different than Constitutional law.

Other than the Sheriff's Department, none are constitutional law enforcement.


----------



## Buka

S.T.F.U Friday


----------



## Bruce7

Everyones post were good.
I respect police officers and the hard job they do.
Being white, respectful, and law abiding, I have had good outcomes from speaking with police officers.

Having said that some police officer use their power to beat people up for fun.
When I was in the Navy in San Diego alot of police officers beat up sailers for sport.
For that matter a lot of the people in general treated servicemen badly.
It became so bad the Admiral had everyone stay on base for 3 days until the mayor told him things would improve.

A sailor who was from Utah and me went to the movies in the suburbs by bus, the bus came back to downtown around 9:00 PM so we could catch the bus back to base. Walking with the light the police turn a corner and nearly ran over us. My friend who never said a bad word in his life yelled watch what you are doing, you nearly ran over us. The police car stop and burn rubber up the street in
reverse and jump the curve in front of us. I said I was sorry, but my friend said you need to watch how your driving you could hurt someone.They both turn on him and said some bad words. One was so mad he was about to hit my friend with his stick. I grab his arm.
Next thing I knew I was on the ground handcuffed. Then he grab the chain and pulled me up off the ground I though my arms were going break before I got to my feet.  They were about to walk me to their car. Shore Patrol in a van and 4 SPs jump out of the van and said this guy is ours. In the van they ask me what I did, I started crying and told them what happen. They told me if they had got me in the car they would have beat me up real bad they had seen it before. When we got to base they let me go and told me to stay on base.

I still had the jaywalking ticket. So on my day off I went to court. Sat there for hours waiting my turn. I told the the D.A I was not guilty.  He told me police officers don't write tickets for nothing. I told him where I come from police officer don't handcuff and hurt you, I want to tell the judge what happen. He tore up the ticket and would not let me talk to the judge.


----------



## Buka

It's a Yin Yang thing for me. 


 

On the flip side, having spent way to much time in L.A. I will never go to that city again. You know why? Because of the police. Hell, I almost got shot for jaywalking there in the nineties. SHOT. I'm talking three officers unsnapping their holsters. I didn't even know what jaywalking was back then, it was kind of a sport in Boston.

My distrust and distaste for L.A.P.D has only intensified over the years.


----------



## Bruce7

Buka said:


> It's a Yin Yang thing for me.
> 
> View attachment 22417
> 
> On the flip side, having spent way to much time in L.A. I will never go to that city again. You know why? Because of the police. Hell, I almost got shot for jaywalking there in the nineties. SHOT. I'm talking three officers unsnapping their holsters. I didn't even know what jaywalking was back then, it was kind of a sport in Boston.
> 
> My distrust and distaste for L.A.P.D has only intensified over the years.



IMO, The way police officers act depends a lot on where you are.
I live in the suburbs for the past 30 years and the police are very helpful.
I went to downtown Houston, I was lost and pulled up to a police car to ask directions, He look at me like he wanted to shoot me.
He waved me on and would not speak to me.
I am a  little afraid of the police in Houston. They will shoot you for not much cause.
I know some Houston police officers, they are good people, but a big problem is they are not paid enough, so they take second jobs at bars.
They only get a few hours sleep and it affects their judgement on the job.


----------



## Buka

I agree that a lot depends on location. I live on the most isolated land mass on the planet. There are no checks and balances here from other agencies or political watchdogs - which is never a good thing.

Scary sometimes.


----------



## pdg

Buka said:


> Hell, I almost got shot for jaywalking there in the nineties. SHOT. I'm talking three officers unsnapping their holsters. I didn't even know what jaywalking was back then, it was kind of a sport in Boston.



I had to Google jaywalking...

Over here, it's really, honestly, not a thing.

I can perfectly legally cross the road wherever the whim strikes me, or just wander along it. The only exception being motorways (a bit like a freeway I suppose, if you don't know what a motorway is you'll have to look it up).

Pedestrians have legal right of way over motor vehicles.

In some places the authorities would really rather you wouldn't enter the public highway on foot, so they erect barriers.

Punishment for hopping over the barrier?

You might get told you're a bit silly.


----------



## pdg

From the font of all knowledge, the great Wikipedia (I know the references to be correct):

the United Kingdom, does not have jaywalking laws; its Highway Code relies on the pedestrian making their own judgment on whether it is safe to cross based on the Green Cross Code. Pedestrians do have priority over turning vehicles. Rule 170 of the UK's Highway Code states that a driver should "watch out for pedestrians crossing a road into which you are turning. If they have started to cross they have priority, so give way."


----------



## JowGaWolf

jks9199 said:


> As tempted as I am, I'm not going to start with Chris Rock's video -- even though it's actually got some good advice,


ha ha ha.. Chris likes to mix in truth with his comedy.   Rule #1  Don't piss the officer off.  Rule #2 try to be the guy that the police officer really doesn't want to give a ticket to, or a beating to. Don't be that guy. lol.  Rule #3  Keep your emotions in check. 

A lot of that stuff is just common sense, that most people refuse to really pay attention to.  Try to be the guy or gal that the officer will feel bad about arresting.  That way your more likely to get whatever is coming.  

A neutral and polite tone of confidence works well for me.   A few years ago the police came to my house because some woman said that a man was peeing in the street and had fled to my house.  I was polite and probably had that crazy expression on my face like?





Ok it wasn't that extreme,  but I did show a little expression of confusion and WTF,  Just enough for them to pick it up.  Staying neutral when someone says something crazy only makes people question more.  Over doing expressions does the same thing.  But anyway the officer stuck his foot in the doorway and tried to ease his way in.  So my family kind of blocked the entrance, Again nothing that signal a treat, but just enough to let the officer know he was overstepping his boundaries.  The police are always looking for Subtle clues so I try to use that to my advantage.

When an officer is talking to me I want to control the situation as much as possible by not giving any reasoning to pry or to ask additional questions.  The first thing they stated was why they were there.  After that it was me asking questions like,  What happened that brought you hear, who said that, I've been indoors all night,  Why would I run to the back yard of my house when I have the key to my front door.  These questions were from the perspective of a concerned citizen and not evasion.  

5 or 10 minutes later they were hauling that crazy lady to jail for making a false report.  They already knew who lived at the house, that's the first thing they check so I knew I had that going for me.  The guys were nice but only because I made sure I kept the tone and conversation in friendly water.  I was nice but not over nice.

I think people think forget that Police are train to pick up subtle body language and tone.  There's no need to put it on blast. it's not going to take a lot for them to identify that you are mad or upset lol.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Carol said:


> Being able to keep your cool in a bad situation does a lot of good things. It immediately brings you more respect, and it can help get you out of trouble if you're in trouble.


Holds true for everything, sparring, dating, fighting, arguments, tests,   Emotions are good but sometimes they make things worst.  Sometimes it clouds our thought.  Instead of focus and thinking, we end up just reacting.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

*NOTICE TO MartialTalk MEMBERS:*

The thread has been cleaned up to remove some off-topic bickering. Please keep it more or less on-topic and civil. Any continuation of what was deleted (or similar) will result in the thread being locked, and may result in warnings and/or points being issued.

--------
*Gerry Seymour*
MartialTalk Moderator
@gpseymour


----------



## Buka

Can we start another thread about What to do During a Perp Encounter, or is that too close to home?


----------



## geezer

Buka said:


> I agree that a lot depends on location. *I live on the most isolated land mass on the planet*.



Jeez, Buka ...You live in _Antarctica?_ ...and they have cops there?  Oh, I guess that explains why penguins are black and white.


----------



## geezer

JowGaWolf said:


> ...When an officer is talking to me I want to control the situation as much as possible ....



^^^^_This_ is the key to de-escalating so many potentially confrontational situations. If you are really paying attention and in control of _yourself, _then you can politely and unobtrusively extend that control to the overall situation. A good start is just appearing cooperative and polite, but also calm and confident. Even appearing_ helpful_ (without being ingratiating) can't hurt.

Unlike what Guthrie advises in post #65, I'd suggest calmly and politely answering any reasonable questions, such as identifying yourself, presenting ID and so forth, ...unless you are being arrested for a crime. Then politely invoke your right to remain silent and get an attorney!

Finally, remember that if there _is_ a problem, or if you are treated roughly, don't exacerbate the situation by spewing obscenities or physical resistance. It can only make things worse. These kinds of things are better settled later, filing complaints and /or in court ...especially if you have witnesses, video, and  if the abusive situation was extreme enough to be worth pursuing.


----------



## geezer

Guthrie said:


> ...Other than the Sheriff's Department, none are constitutional law enforcement.



What is constitutional when challenged is ultimately determined by the Supreme Court of the United States, and not by your personal _opinion_ (or the interpretations of any fringe group like the "Posse Comitatus").

Of course, you are more than welcome to adhere to said opinions, but regardless of how "right" and entitled you may feel, remember that _in this real world_, you may well end up in jail. Even if _you _feel it's unfair and unconstitutional. Wah! wah! 

Sorry if that came of as harsh.

OK, not really


----------



## Buka

geezer said:


> Jeez, Buka ...You live in _Antarctica?_ ...and they have cops there?  Oh, I guess that explains why penguins are black and white.



Now you're just being silly. They're actually part of the house staff.


----------



## JowGaWolf

geezer said:


> Then politely invoke your right to remain silent and get an attorney!


Best advice ever.  If I'm going to invoke my rights it's going to be through this method.  All I need to do is keep a good mental record of what is going on so I can tell my attorney.  An officer forgets to read me my rights?  No problem, not my job to remind him of that.  But I will remember so that my attorney can work it from that end.  I can always use a nice payday lol. 

But seriously, too many people don't know how to pick their battles and when to fight them.  No one  like "being outsmarted"  We only have to look at Martial Talk to see how aggressive that turns out sometimes. It amazes me to see how some will think it will turn out differently in real life.


----------



## Deleted member 34973

geezer said:


> What is constitutional when challenged is ultimately determined by the Supreme Court of the United States, and not by your personal _opinion_ (or the interpretations of any fringe group like the "Posse Comitatus").
> 
> Of course, you are more than welcome to adhere to said opinions, but regardless of how "right" and entitled you may feel, remember that _in this real world_, you may well end up in jail. Even if _you _feel it's unfair and unconstitutional. Wah! wah!
> 
> Sorry if that came of as harsh.
> 
> OK, not really


Well yeah, and that is why 9 times out of 10..police departments lose those cases.

You gotta follow the Supreme Law of the Land, not that which hands you your paycheck.

This to the Administrator, I put this thread on unwatch, yet I am still receiving alerts, do I need to ignore individual members that tag me from this thread?


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf

Guthrie said:


> Well yeah, and that is why 9 times out of 10..police departments lose those cases.
> 
> You gotta follow the Supreme Law of the Land, not that which hands you your paycheck.
> 
> This to the Administrator, I put this thread on unwatch, yet I am still receiving alerts, do I need to ignore individual members that tag me from this thread?


If someone quotes you, unless you have them on ignore, you will get an alert no matter the thread. You always have the option to just see what thread they quoted you on, and not open it up though.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Guthrie said:


> Well yeah, and that is why 9 times out of 10..police departments lose those cases.
> 
> You gotta follow the Supreme Law of the Land, not that which hands you your paycheck.
> 
> This to the Administrator, I put this thread on unwatch, yet I am still receiving alerts, do I need to ignore individual members that tag me from this thread?


If someone mentions you in a thread (by putting the @ before your username), you'll be notified, whether you're watching the thread or not. I don't know if it would notify you if you've ignored them - I haven't tried that before.


----------



## Deleted member 34973

Thank you, I will put them on ignore.


----------



## Deleted member 34973

I am assuming, that you can't ignore moderators correct?


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Guthrie said:


> I am assuming, that you can't ignore moderators correct?


That is correct.


----------



## Buka

Officer arrested at airport after arriving home | News, Sports, Jobs - Maui News

Yesterday at work it made me think of this thread.


----------



## Buka

Guthrie said:


> Well yeah, and that is why 9 times out of 10..police departments lose those cases.
> 
> You gotta follow the Supreme Law of the Land, not that which hands you your paycheck.
> 
> This to the Administrator, I put this thread on unwatch, yet I am still receiving alerts, do I need to ignore individual members that tag me from this thread?



9 out of 10? That isn’t even close to correct.


----------



## Buka

I just felt like posting this. Just because. Hopefully it won't offend too many people.


----------



## quasar44

Be very polite and lose your attitude 
They want to move on , too 
If it’s serious then keep your mouth shut until you consult a lawyer


----------



## Hapki-Concepts

My 2-cents as it relates to Concealed carry (CCW) and being stopped.  As this is a long thread, i'm sorry if it was already covered.  Maybe I missed it.


----------



## dvcochran

Buka said:


> Officer arrested at airport after arriving home | News, Sports, Jobs - Maui News
> 
> Yesterday at work it made me think of this thread.


I only saw a one sentence statement in the link. Is there more to this story?


----------



## Buka

dvcochran said:


> I only saw a one sentence statement in the link. Is there more to this story?



I don't know what happened to the link. Let's see if this works....

Officer arrested at airport after arriving home | News, Sports, Jobs - Maui News


----------



## Steve

..


----------



## Guardian

Bill Mattocks said:


> Great advice, thanks!  Funny video, too.
> 
> Couple of thoughts...
> 
> On being handcuffed; most police officers will remember to double-lock them, so they will not tighten down.  However, it's probably a very good idea not to lean back on the cuffs if you're being transported.  If they are not double-locked, they will tighten down and cut off the blood flow to your hands.  It's really painful.
> 
> With regard to being cuffed while not under arrest...I have to disagree ever so slightly.  The word 'arrest' literally means 'stop'.  If you are free to leave, you are not under arrest.  If you are not free to leave, you are under arrest.  You can be arrested without being charged with a crime.  You can be cuffed and detained for a short period of time; as jks9199 says, for both the officer's and the subject's safety.  However, if you are cuffed, you are not free to leave; and that means one thing.  You are in fact under arrest.
> 
> Here is a link to the famous ACLU "Bust Card."  It's a PDF file.  You can download it, print it, and fold it in quarters to fit in your wallet or purse.  Good reference material to have with you, although you really should read it and understand it before you need it.
> 
> http://www.aclu.org/drug-law-reform...al-justice/know-your-rights-what-do-if-youre-
> 
> As a former LEO, I can't tell you how many times people I've arrested have told me that _"You can't do that,"_ or _"I know my rights, I demand a lawyer,"_ or _"You can't arrest me unless you tell me what the charges against me are,"_ or _"Take these cuffs off and I'll kick your ***,"_ (love that one) or _"I'll have your badge,"_ or _"I'm going to sue the city and you and I'm going to own you, punk!"_  It used to get quite comical at times. I have no idea where people get these nutty ideas about what their rights are.
> 
> The advice given by the O/P is terrific.  Read and heed.  Download and read the ACLU Bust Card.  Great advice there too.  Arguing with a cop is always a bad idea, and raising your hand to a police officer is the same as saying you'd like your butt kicked right now, please, as Chris Rock said.


The word 'arrest' literally means 'stop'. If you are free to leave, you are not under arrest. If you are not free to leave, you are under arrest.  Depending on your State/City Codes - Detained can be used if you are detained, your not under arrest but you are detained.


----------



## punisher73

Guardian said:


> The word 'arrest' literally means 'stop'. If you are free to leave, you are not under arrest. If you are not free to leave, you are under arrest.  Depending on your State/City Codes - Detained can be used if you are detained, your not under arrest but you are detained.



Correct.  The Supreme Court has ruled that police can stop a person as part of  a “valid investigatory stop" and detain them (even in handcuffs) under reasonable suspicion that they were involved in a crime.  If it is determined that they were not involved, you uncuff and release or you can then place them under arrest.

Someone mentioned police not reading Miranda Rights, so I thought I would clarify a little. 

Contrary to TV/Movies, police ONLY have to read you Miranda if you have been arrested AND they are asking your questions directly related to the crime.  

They are NOT required to read Miranda if you are just arresting someone and not asking them questions (I get that one all the time, although some departments may do it anyways just so they are covered as part of a departmental policy).  If you have not been arrested yet and the police are still investigating matters and you are still free to go, they can ask you whatever they want and it doesn't trigger Miranda.  
If you are under arrest, they can still ask unrelated questions to the crime without reading Miranda.  I also see that one a lot when the officer is asking biographical questions such as full name, date of birth, height/weight, address or where they are staying etc.


----------



## dvcochran

punisher73 said:


> Correct.  The Supreme Court has ruled that police can stop a person as part of  a “valid investigatory stop" and detain them (even in handcuffs) under reasonable suspicion that they were involved in a crime.  If it is determined that they were not involved, you uncuff and release or you can then place them under arrest.
> 
> Someone mentioned police not reading Miranda Rights, so I thought I would clarify a little.
> 
> Contrary to TV/Movies, police ONLY have to read you Miranda if you have been arrested AND they are asking your questions directly related to the crime.
> 
> They are NOT required to read Miranda if you are just arresting someone and not asking them questions (I get that one all the time, although some departments may do it anyways just so they are covered as part of a departmental policy).  If you have not been arrested yet and the police are still investigating matters and you are still free to go, they can ask you whatever they want and it doesn't trigger Miranda.
> If you are under arrest, they can still ask unrelated questions to the crime without reading Miranda.  I also see that one a lot when the officer is asking biographical questions such as full name, date of birth, height/weight, address or where they are staying etc.


How do you differentiate 'detain' from 'arrest' in this context?


----------



## punisher73

dvcochran said:


> How do you differentiate 'detain' from 'arrest' in this context?



Two seperate things, but connected.  

If I had detained someone and placed them in cuffs and told them where to sit/stand etc.  then the assumption is that they are NOT free to leave and if I needed to ask them questions, I would either uncuff them and start talking to them after I told them they were not going to be under arrest and free to leave or I would read them Miranda Rights.


----------



## drop bear

dvcochran said:


> How do you differentiate 'detain' from 'arrest' in this context?



Which we can't ever do by the way. We are either making an arrest or defending ourselves.


----------



## CB Jones

dvcochran said:


> How do you differentiate 'detain' from 'arrest' in this context?


Detainment is a seizure of a person for a short time with the expectation to release upon finishing the task that required the seizure.  Arrest is the seizure of someone without the expectation of releasing them.

Courts have allowed detainment if the officer has reasonable suspicion of a crime.  Arrests must have probable cause.


----------



## punisher73

drop bear said:


> Which we can't ever do by the way. We are either making an arrest or defending ourselves.



Curious on your comment.  Who is "we"?  Do you have a departmental policy that doesn't allow for it contrary to law?


----------



## drop bear

punisher73 said:


> Curious on your comment.  Who is "we"?  Do you have a departmental policy that doesn't allow for it contrary to law?



"We" as in everyone in the world who isn't a cop. 

It gets done a lot because people think they are somehow protecting themselves legally. Sort of a soft arrest.

But it is more likely to be a false imprisonment.


----------



## CB Jones

drop bear said:


> "We" as in everyone in the world who isn't a cop.
> 
> It gets done a lot because people think they are somehow protecting themselves legally. Sort of a soft arrest.
> 
> But it is more likely to be a false imprisonment.



You don't have citizen's arrest power?


----------



## drop bear

CB Jones said:


> You don't have citizen's arrest power?



I do. I don't have detain power


----------



## punisher73

drop bear said:


> "We" as in everyone in the world who isn't a cop.
> 
> It gets done a lot because people think they are somehow protecting themselves legally. Sort of a soft arrest.
> 
> But it is more likely to be a false imprisonment.



Gotcha, thanks for clarifying.


----------



## Zinobile

Great to see that video again!  And as one who raised plenty of hell in his younger years, I can vouch for the essentials of your post:  give the police the same respect you would give any stranger and all will go well.  I was never charged with anything (but could have been for some minor stuff), and I believe that's because I just chilled out and cooperated respectfully when the police caught me misbehaving.  When the police arrive, it's game-over time!!  And like Chris said ... shut the love up and be polite!!


----------



## Steve

Can the LEO on this site please explain civil forfeiture, and how people can protect themselves from having cash or other belongings taken by cops.  Was reading this article the other day : The strange, failed fight to rein in civil forfeiture in Washington

And it reminded me of articles I've read over the years, advising people never to tell cops you have cash or any items of particular value in the car, as they will just take it.  No citation needed. All they have to do is suggest that it could be connected to criminal activity and they can seize your personal property, even if they don't cite or arrest you for anything.  

So, first, is this accurate?  Second, if a cop asks you point blank if you have any cash or valuables in the car, what should you do?  And lastly, why would a cop ask that question, if not with an interest in generating some revenue for his department literally at your expense?


----------



## punisher73

Each state varies and even then each department will vary based on policy and procedure.

In Michigan, it is one of the states that require a conviction before you are allowed to seize assets. So I can't just decide to take something and claim it was obtained in a crime and then never charge or prosecute the person.

But, even before then our policy was that we could only seize something if there was a clear and direct connection to what was seized and the specific crime that they were arrested for. 

For example, I could not have just seized property and claimed that I thought it was obtained illegally.  I would have had to charge the person with a specific crime and arrest them for that crime and the property that was seized would have been obtained through the crime.

Let me give 2 examples of what I mean:

I stop a person and end up arresting them for an outstanding warrant for domestic violence.  I get them to the jail and while doing an inventory of their property, I find that they are carrying $5000 in cash on them.  No matter my opinion on where I think they may have gotten the money, I can't just seize it because I don't think they should have it and think they committed a crime to get it.

I see what looks like a drug deal going on and I stop and detain the person.  Through investigation, I find that the person has a dozen small baggies of crack cocaine and $5,000 in cash all in $20 dollar bills on their person.  The person says that they are on SSI and doesn't have a job.  I could then seize that money due to connecting the money directly to the crime.

To use another example, we do surveillance on a person for awhile and have informants go in and buy drugs and we build a case on it.  We show that the suspect is dealing large amounts of drugs out of their house.  The person has no job and no other means of income.  We get a search warrant and execute it and find large quantities of drugs and guns in the house.  The suspect drives a brand new $50k car.  We could seize that vehicle because we have shown that there was no other way the suspect could have got that car except through their drug trafficking business.

I have NEVER heard of police being trained to ask if you have any cash or valuables in the car without a specific legitimate reason as part of the investigation.  I would agree that it stinks and that they are just looking for seizure opportunities without probable cause of an actual crime.  As most attorneys will tell you if a police officer asks if they can search your car.  "No" because you have no reason to search it.  If they were to ask if I had cash/valuables in the car, I would ask how that pertained to the reason for their stop (assuming traffic stop).


----------



## dvcochran

punisher73 said:


> Each state varies and even then each department will vary based on policy and procedure.
> 
> In Michigan, it is one of the states that require a conviction before you are allowed to seize assets. So I can't just decide to take something and claim it was obtained in a crime and then never charge or prosecute the person.
> 
> But, even before then our policy was that we could only seize something if there was a clear and direct connection to what was seized and the specific crime that they were arrested for.
> 
> For example, I could not have just seized property and claimed that I thought it was obtained illegally.  I would have had to charge the person with a specific crime and arrest them for that crime and the property that was seized would have been obtained through the crime.
> 
> Let me give 2 examples of what I mean:
> 
> I stop a person and end up arresting them for an outstanding warrant for domestic violence.  I get them to the jail and while doing an inventory of their property, I find that they are carrying $5000 in cash on them.  No matter my opinion on where I think they may have gotten the money, I can't just seize it because I don't think they should have it and think they committed a crime to get it.
> 
> I see what looks like a drug deal going on and I stop and detain the person.  Through investigation, I find that the person has a dozen small baggies of crack cocaine and $5,000 in cash all in $20 dollar bills on their person.  The person says that they are on SSI and doesn't have a job.  I could then seize that money due to connecting the money directly to the crime.
> 
> To use another example, we do surveillance on a person for awhile and have informants go in and buy drugs and we build a case on it.  We show that the suspect is dealing large amounts of drugs out of their house.  The person has no job and no other means of income.  We get a search warrant and execute it and find large quantities of drugs and guns in the house.  The suspect drives a brand new $50k car.  We could seize that vehicle because we have shown that there was no other way the suspect could have got that car except through their drug trafficking business.
> 
> I have NEVER heard of police being trained to ask if you have any cash or valuables in the car without a specific legitimate reason as part of the investigation.  I would agree that it stinks and that they are just looking for seizure opportunities without probable cause of an actual crime.  As most attorneys will tell you if a police officer asks if they can search your car.  "No" because you have no reason to search it.  If they were to ask if I had cash/valuables in the car, I would ask how that pertained to the reason for their stop (assuming traffic stop).


Same for TN. You cannot not seize material without an arrest, and that is no guarantee that it will not be returned. You can confiscate for inspection, evidence, etc... but there is a different definition here. 
NEVER have I heard of a police officer asking for cash or valuables. Is it legal? Yes; just as legal as asking if you have sunshine up your axx or asking if you have drugs in your possession. I was always amazed how many people freely answered this question in the affirmative. Up until that point an officer may not have the probable cause for a search. After an affirmative, or usually even a questionable answer, all bets are off.


----------



## CB Jones

Steve said:


> Can the LEO on this site please explain civil forfeiture, and how people can protect themselves from having cash or other belongings taken by cops.  Was reading this article the other day : The strange, failed fight to rein in civil forfeiture in Washington
> 
> And it reminded me of articles I've read over the years, advising people never to tell cops you have cash or any items of particular value in the car, as they will just take it.  No citation needed. All they have to do is suggest that it could be connected to criminal activity and they can seize your personal property, even if they don't cite or arrest you for anything.
> 
> So, first, is this accurate?  Second, if a cop asks you point blank if you have any cash or valuables in the car, what should you do?  And lastly, why would a cop ask that question, if not with an interest in generating some revenue for his department literally at your expense?



Well most articles are written heavily slanted against asset forfeiture and do not give a completely accurate picture.

First,  the officer has to get a warrant signed by a judge to seize it in which you have to show probable cause that the money is connected to criminal activity or is unclaimed....the burden of proof is still on the police if it is claimed.

Once a warrant is issued the owner of the money can contest the seizure in court.

And most of the stories you hear are so screwed up there isn't any doubt it's dirty money, but what is reported is the cleaned up story afterwards.

But to answer your other questions:




Steve said:


> Second, if a cop asks you point blank if you have any cash or valuables in the car, what should you do?



Be truthful.



Steve said:


> And lastly, why would a cop ask that question, if not with an interest in generating some revenue for his department literally at your expense?



Because millions of dollars a year in drug proceeds travel along the highways to source cities before being sent to the cartel.


----------



## CB Jones

punisher73 said:


> have NEVER heard of police being trained to ask if you have any cash or valuables in the car without a specific legitimate reason as part of the investigation



They are.  It's a part of roadside interviews along roadways that are known as drug corridors.


----------



## Steve

punisher73 said:


> Each state varies and even then each department will vary based on policy and procedure.
> 
> In Michigan, it is one of the states that require a conviction before you are allowed to seize assets. So I can't just decide to take something and claim it was obtained in a crime and then never charge or prosecute the person.
> 
> But, even before then our policy was that we could only seize something if there was a clear and direct connection to what was seized and the specific crime that they were arrested for.
> 
> For example, I could not have just seized property and claimed that I thought it was obtained illegally.  I would have had to charge the person with a specific crime and arrest them for that crime and the property that was seized would have been obtained through the crime.
> 
> Let me give 2 examples of what I mean:
> 
> I stop a person and end up arresting them for an outstanding warrant for domestic violence.  I get them to the jail and while doing an inventory of their property, I find that they are carrying $5000 in cash on them.  No matter my opinion on where I think they may have gotten the money, I can't just seize it because I don't think they should have it and think they committed a crime to get it.
> 
> I see what looks like a drug deal going on and I stop and detain the person.  Through investigation, I find that the person has a dozen small baggies of crack cocaine and $5,000 in cash all in $20 dollar bills on their person.  The person says that they are on SSI and doesn't have a job.  I could then seize that money due to connecting the money directly to the crime.
> 
> To use another example, we do surveillance on a person for awhile and have informants go in and buy drugs and we build a case on it.  We show that the suspect is dealing large amounts of drugs out of their house.  The person has no job and no other means of income.  We get a search warrant and execute it and find large quantities of drugs and guns in the house.  The suspect drives a brand new $50k car.  We could seize that vehicle because we have shown that there was no other way the suspect could have got that car except through their drug trafficking business.
> 
> I have NEVER heard of police being trained to ask if you have any cash or valuables in the car without a specific legitimate reason as part of the investigation.  I would agree that it stinks and that they are just looking for seizure opportunities without probable cause of an actual crime.  As most attorneys will tell you if a police officer asks if they can search your car.  "No" because you have no reason to search it.  If they were to ask if I had cash/valuables in the car, I would ask how that pertained to the reason for their stop (assuming traffic stop).


That seems reasonable.  Do you think Michigan is pretty typical?


CB Jones said:


> Well most articles are written heavily slanted against asset forfeiture and do not give a completely accurate picture.
> 
> First,  the officer has to get a warrant signed by a judge to seize it in which you have to show probable cause that the money is connected to criminal activity or is unclaimed....the burden of proof is still on the police if it is claimed.
> 
> Once a warrant is issued the owner of the money can contest the seizure in court.
> 
> And most of the stories you hear are so screwed up there isn't any doubt it's dirty money, but what is reported is the cleaned up story afterwards.
> 
> But to answer your other questions:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Be truthful.
> 
> 
> 
> Because millions of dollars a year in drug proceeds travel along the highways to source cities before being sent to the cartel.


So you’re saying that if you pull someone over for speeding, you routinely ask about cash or valuables?


----------



## CB Jones

Steve said:


> That seems reasonable.  Do you think Michigan is pretty typical?
> 
> So you’re saying that if you pull someone over for speeding, you routinely ask about cash or valuables?



It's a routine question along drug corridors.  Just like asking if you are carrying any illegal substances.


----------



## punisher73

CB Jones said:


> They are.  It's a part of roadside interviews along roadways that are known as drug corridors.


I have NEVER heard of police being trained to ask if you have any cash or valuables in the car *without a specific legitimate reason as part of the investigation.*

I've worked drug interdiction before since our agency covers a major highway between Detroit and Chicago.  I didn't just ask that every time I stopped somebody though, I would look for clues and other things that made me want to dig further.  But, I've also worked with guys that did just ask everybody that question without any articulable reason.  I should have been more clear with my statement.


----------



## punisher73

Steve said:


> That seems reasonable.  Do you think Michigan is pretty typical?


I don't think so.  If I remember correctly, there are only around 20 states that require a conviction before you can seize something.


----------



## Steve

CB Jones said:


> It's a routine question along drug corridors.  Just like asking if you are carrying any illegal substances.


Okay.  Just trying to understand.  So, you pull me over for some reason, speeding, a tail light is out, expired tabs, whatever.   You ask me if I have any cash in the car.  I say yes to cash and no to illegal substances.  What the next step in this routine?

And do the departments along the drug corridors consider this a form of revenue for the department?  Is the revenue counted on to supplement the budget?


----------



## Urban Trekker

Unlike most, I'm not one-sided on this.

No, I will not go out of my way to find any and every excuse to give a cop the benefit of whatever doubt I can dig up or grasp straws at.

But at the same time, I'm not going to give a police officer a hard time within legal constraints, just because I can.  And I hate seeing other people do it, and what I hate even more is seeing officers allow themselves to be dragged into arguments where they end up stuttering their way though rhetorical questions being asked by the apprehendee.

Eff that.  I know that if I was a cop, I'd nicely ask someone to do something only once.  After that, I'm going to help them do it.


----------



## dvcochran

CB Jones said:


> They are.  It's a part of roadside interviews along roadways that are known as drug corridors.


Agree; but there is a reason and a method that precipitates the conversation.
As said earlier, there is usually more to the situation to build probable cause. The question in and of itself is not illegal at any stage, but on its own may not be enough. 
I do realize drug trafficking is a little different but the laws to arrest are not. 
It does amaze me how freely information is given sometimes.


----------



## Steve

Urban Trekker said:


> Unlike most, I'm not one-sided on this.
> [snip]
> Eff that.  I know that if I was a cop, I'd nicely ask someone to do something only once.  After that, I'm going to help them do it.


Sounds like you might not have the temperament for the role.


----------



## Urban Trekker

Steve said:


> Sounds like you might not have the temperament for the role.



You're right, I don't.  One thing I won't tolerate is being made a fool of.  I'd much rather look like an a-hole than someone who got played.


----------



## Steve

Urban Trekker said:


> You're right, I don't.  One thing I won't tolerate is being made a fool of.


----------



## Urban Trekker

Steve said:


> View attachment 27114


Not sure what this means, but I know that in other situations where I'm in a position of authority, I'm not going to allow my next move to be determined by whether or not I can win an argument with someone who is being insubordinate.

Unfortunately, for every viral video of a police officer committing an act of police brutality, there's also one recorded by some chump (sometimes, sovereign citizens) winning arguments with police officers and having them walking away with their tails between their legs.  To me, this is why cops need to stop entertaining these arguments.

In both extremes - police brutality at one, walking away looking stupid at the other - it makes me lose confidence in our police forces.


----------



## Steve

Urban Trekker said:


> Not sure what this means,


It's a visual metaphor.


Urban Trekker said:


> but I know that in other situations where I'm in a position of authority, I'm not going to allow my next move to be determined by whether or not I can win an argument with someone who is being insubordinate.


This is genuinely interesting to me.  Do you think that people are subordinate to a police officer?  I don't.  I think police officers are public servants, and are subordinate to the community in which they serve.  And if they don't agree, they probably need to reconsider their vocation.  Insubordination would be if a cop refuses to do something that their superior office directs them to do (presuming it's not a ULP under their collective bargaining agreement).  But that is fundamentally a different relationship than between the cop and a member of the public they serve.



Urban Trekker said:


> Unfortunately, for every viral video of a police officer committing an act of police brutality, there's also one recorded by some chump (sometimes, sovereign citizens) winning arguments with police officers and having them walking away with their tails between their legs.  To me, this is why cops need to stop entertaining these arguments.
> 
> In both extremes - police brutality at one, walking away looking stupid at the other - it makes me lose confidence in our police forces.


My opinion is that cops who are worried about winning arguments have already lost control of the situation, and if they walk away, that's probably a wise move on their part.  The entire concept of winning or losing in that scenario is alarming to me, that a cop is worried about being made to look foolish, and would abuse their delegated authority because they feel embarrassed.  Dude.  Come on.  You have to see how bonkers that is.


----------



## Urban Trekker

Steve said:


> It's a visual metaphor.
> 
> This is genuinely interesting to me.  Do you think that people are subordinate to a police officer?  I don't.


The police officer is in a position of authority.  So when people who are subject to that authority defy it, they're being insubordinate.



Steve said:


> My opinion is that cops who are worried about winning arguments have already lost control of the situation, and if they walk away, that's probably a wise move on their part.  The entire concept of winning or losing in that scenario is alarming to me, that a cop is worried about being made to look foolish, and would abuse their delegated authority because they feel embarrassed.  Dude.  Come on.  You have to see how bonkers that is.


Bear in mind that I'm not a cop, have never been one, nor am I interested in ever being one.  So I'm speaking purely hypothetical here.

So, hypothetically speaking, I'm not worried about winning an argument, because I would never engage them in one.

My wife actually has this problem with our oldest daughter, who is 15.  I keep reminding my wife that our daughter is not elementary school age.  While she may not have the life experience of an adult, a 15 year old is just as fully capable of rational thought as an adult is; which makes her capable of winning arguments with adults.  So when my wife comes to me, angry about arguments she's had with our daughter, what do you think is the first thing I tell her?  I never argue with my daughter, because I know that there's a chance I could lose.  She either does what she's told, or there's going to be consequences; and it's not up for debate.

So let's talk about an example of a cop dealing with an apprehendee:

Cop pulls a suspect over.  Suspect slightly cracks the window open.  The cop tells the suspect to step out of the vehicle.  The suspect decides to stay put and begins arguing with the cop.

Now that cop has two options:

1.  Argue back with the suspect, and risk losing it and walking away looking stupid.
2.  Ignore the suspects argument.  Maybe tell the suspect one more time to step out of the vehicle.  If the suspect continues to argue, the cop whips out the baton, smashes the window, opens the door, and drags the suspect out.

I'm not even completely sure if #2 is illegal.  It might be (and I'll sure people who don't like cops will definitely say it is), or it might be perfectly legal.  Or it might be legal, but equivalent to a McDonald's employee not putting too much or not enough secret sauce on the Big Macs.

I think it's legal (not sure), but #2 is the route I'm taking.


----------



## dvcochran

You had me until scenario #2. 
What I do not feel is being appreciated is the mental and situation awareness that takes place in the officer during a stop. There is a Lot that has to be processed. 
First, there had to be a reason for the stop. Not necessarily an arrest or ticket event on it's own but it  should usually contain some of the 'building blocks' for probable cause. The exception may be a courtesy stop which is perfectly legal. 
You could think of it as writing a program. There are necessary steps that have to take place first to start the process. Then there are often levels of ambiguity that have to be navigated (such as the window cracked and not willing to step out) . However, there are still boundaries that have to be maintained to stay within legal parameters. For the average person, this is where things often are misunderstood. 
Never would an officer jump to smashing the window based on the sequence of events you described. That is ripe for getting into all sorts of trouble.


----------



## Urban Trekker

dvcochran said:


> Never would an officer jump to smashing the window based on the sequence of events you described. That is ripe for getting into all sorts of trouble.


Okay, I'm not sure if you're a police officer - maybe you are.

Bear in mind that I'm not, so I'm not speaking from full understanding of the procedures.

Maybe there are other things that need to happen before the cop can smash the window; I get that.  But I also don't think that there's any circumstance where a cop's actions are determined by whether or not the cop wins the argument or gets stumped by a rhetorical question.

Sure, rather than walk away after losing the argument, the cop still could carry out a particular action that requires physical contact with the apprehendee, but I think that would look even worse.  It would look like the cop is agreeing he would be wrong if he did it, and still did it anyway.


----------



## CB Jones

Steve said:


> Okay.  Just trying to understand.  So, you pull me over for some reason, speeding, a tail light is out, expired tabs, whatever.   You ask me if I have any cash in the car.  I say yes to cash and no to illegal substances.  What the next step in this routine?
> 
> And do the departments along the drug corridors consider this a form of revenue for the department?  Is the revenue counted on to supplement the budget?



So if you aren't giving off any indicators that you are trafficking narcotics or illegal proceeds you would be given your license back and told to have a nice day.  If you are giving off indicators they would continue to investigate.

In our state, seized narcotic assets can only be used to fund narcotics investigations.  It is placed in a separate account from other revenue.  It can not be used for other budget needs.


----------



## Steve

Urban Trekker said:


> The police officer is in a position of authority.  So when people who are subject to that authority defy it, they're being insubordinate.


in my opinion, this is a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of delegated authority and public service.  Public servants are entrusted to act on our behalf.  They are granted authority by the communities they serve, and they work for us.  We are accountable to the police only in those areas where they are delegated authority, but cops are subordinate to the community in which they serve. 

I get that this may seem a little philosophical, but folks who don't understand this intuitively just flat out aren't temperamentally suited for the role.  If you are a cop and don't feel as though you are a servant of the community, you're in the wrong job, and are part of the problem we're having with law enforcement now.


----------



## Urban Trekker

Steve said:


> in my opinion, this is a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of delegated authority and public service.  Public servants are entrusted to act on our behalf.  They are granted authority by the communities they serve, and they work for us.  We are accountable to the police only in those areas where they are delegated authority, but cops are subordinate to the community in which they serve.
> 
> I get that this may seem a little philosophical, but folks who don't understand this intuitively just flat out aren't temperamentally suited for the role.  If you are a cop and don't feel as though you are a servant of the community, you're in the wrong job, and are part of the problem we're having with law enforcement now.


Okay, maybe "defiant," "recalcitrant," or "non-compliant" would have been better words to use.  Either way, the point is the same: obedience to authority.


----------



## CB Jones

Urban Trekker said:


> Cop pulls a suspect over. Suspect slightly cracks the window open. The cop tells the suspect to step out of the vehicle. The suspect decides to stay put and begins arguing with the cop.



So when you are stopped you have violated the law (misdemeanor traffic law).  You are legally required to exit your vehicle if instructed to do so in most states.  Refusal to do so violates resisting arrest statutes that allow the officer to take you into physical custody for that violation.

At some point, something has to give and police do have the authority to forcefully open your car to take you into custody if you continue to refuse to comply with their lawful order.


----------



## Dirty Dog

CB Jones said:


> So when you are stopped you have violated the law (misdemeanor traffic law).


No. You are accused or suspected of violating the law. Innocent until proven guilty is a fundamental (perhaps *the*) principle of US law.


----------



## Urban Trekker

FTR, again, I'm not a "Blue Lives Matter" type, you won't find a thin blue line sticker or flag on anything I own.  As a matter of fact, I even followed Cop Block on facebook for a short amount of time.

And emphasis on short, because I find that most of the people that followed those pages weren't using their critical thinking skills.  In my estimation, at least four-fifths of the people on the Cop Block pages have a problem with authority in their lives in general, not just with police.

I will admit that I hate being told what to do myself.  But, at the same time, what allows me to keep that in check is the fact my desire for society to run as smoothly and efficiently as a well-oil machine is stronger than that dislike.  We do that by working together and not making other people's lives difficult, particularly when it's futile to do so.


----------



## Steve

Okay, I need a reality check here.  This thread has gone bonkers.  Am I the only one who sees that?



Urban Trekker said:


> FTR, again, I'm not a "Blue Lives Matter" type, you won't find a thin blue line sticker or flag on anything I own.  As a matter of fact, I even followed Cop Block on facebook for a short amount of time.
> 
> And emphasis on short, because I find that most of the people that followed those pages weren't using their critical thinking skills.  In my estimation, at least four-fifths of the people on the Cop Block pages have a problem with authority in their lives in general, not just with police.
> 
> I will admit that I hate being told what to do myself.  But, at the same time, what allows me to keep that in check is the fact my desire for society to run as smoothly and efficiently as a well-oil machine is stronger than that dislike.  We do that by working together and not making other people's lives difficult, particularly when it's futile to do so.


Okay, I think I see some common ground here.  I am with you that we need to work together and not make other people's lives difficult.  Everything you've mentioned so far paints the picture of cops who are small minded and insecure, willing to abuse their authority and who feels superior to the public they are hired to serve.  That is a recipe for disaster.


----------



## CB Jones

Dirty Dog said:


> No. You are accused or suspected of violating the law. Innocent until proven guilty is a fundamental (perhaps *the*) principle of US law.



Ok....but still there is probable cause to stop you and the law requires you to exit your vehicle if instructed to.


----------



## Urban Trekker

Steve said:


> Okay, I need a reality check here.  This thread has gone bonkers.  Am I the only one who sees that?
> 
> 
> Okay, I think I see some common ground here.  I am with you that we need to work together and not make other people's lives difficult.


Yes.  Is the guy who's arguing with a police officer, before the officer is even able to finish a complete sentence, not working together with the officer?  Is he or she not making the officer's life difficult for no reason?

In the majority of these videos I've seen, these apprehendee's actually would have been let go if they didn't feel the need to try to harass and humiliate the officer.



Steve said:


> Everything you've mentioned so far paints the picture of cops who are small minded and insecure, willing to abuse their authority and who feels superior to the public they are hired to serve.  That is a recipe for disaster.


But why should the officer engage in the arguments, rather than skip the BS?

Bear in mind, this isn't just about "insecurity."  Imagine walking through a department store, and seeing a small child cussing out their parents for not buying him a new toy; and the parents do nothing about it.

How do those parents look to you?  Incompetent, right?

Same concept, but even worse, when you see a police officer in this situation with a suspect.  And I say that this is worse because, ultimately, what happens within that family is no one else's business.  But how are we expected to have confidence in a police officer when we see this happening?


----------



## Steve

Urban Trekker said:


> Yes.  Is the guy who's arguing with a police officer, before the officer is even able to finish a complete sentence, not working together with the officer?  Is he or she not making the officer's life difficult for no reason?



This is a false dichotomy.  It's not one or the other.  The scenario you're presenting is of a cop who is both thin skinned, argumentative, quick tempered, sensitive to any real or perceived slight, and prone to abusing their delegated authority... and who is also collaborative and interested in working together with the person they're detaining? 

Look, maybe you don't see it, but I really think/hope you've somehow worked your way into an extreme position that is out of sync with what you really mean.  Take a beat, think about what you really want to say and let's get this back into something reasonable.  Because right now, this is some jackbooted, authoritarian stuff.




Urban Trekker said:


> In the majority of these videos I've seen, these apprehendee's actually would have been let go if they didn't feel the need to try to harass and humiliate the officer.



Okay.  In my opinion, so what?  I've seen a lot of videos where police have handled these situations really, really well.  Some excellent examples of police handling open carry folks who were intentionally baiting them, and they did a great job of managing the situation.  I guess it's possible that some might think the cops were humiliated.  But if the cops keep their cool, don't over react or unnecessarily escalate the situation, I think they've done great.  Whether it's a BLM protester, a person who's been pulled over, a far right 2nd amendment dude, or anything else, this is just part of the job.



Urban Trekker said:


> But why should the officer engage in the arguments, rather than skip the BS?



Because it's intrinsic to the job. 



Urban Trekker said:


> Bear in mind, this isn't just about "insecurity."  Imagine walking through a department store, and seeing a small child cussing out their parents for not buying him a new toy; and the parents do nothing about it.


It's entirely about insecurity.  And dude, let's not get into parenting.  My concerns about your parenting philosophy could be a thread all on its own. 

For this thread, though, it's apples and oranges.  A cop is dealing with a person in isolation... it's a discrete interaction.  A parent has a years long parental relationship with the child.  Also, a cop is dealing with an adult, while the parent is dealing with a child.  I mean, it's just fundamentally different.  Lastly, the nature of the relationship is fundamentally different.  Cops' role and function in society is not parental in nature. 

It's also possible the child has tourrette's, is mentally ill, autistic, or there is something else we can't know as a bystander in that moment. 

And even if it's just a full on tantrum or whatever, the issues involved are probably not the same (though the root causes may be similar: insecurity, lack of emotional/communication tools, lack of self awareness, etc).  



Urban Trekker said:


> How do those parents look to you?  Incompetent, right?
> 
> Same concept, but even worse, when you see a police officer in this situation with a suspect.  And I say that this is worse because, ultimately, what happens within that family is no one else's business.  But how are we expected to have confidence in a police officer when we see this happening?


----------



## john_newman

That video was a bit funny and also informational as it had several learning aspects in it.


----------



## Urban Trekker

Steve said:


> This is a false dichotomy.  It's not one or the other.  *The scenario you're presenting is of a cop who is both thin skinned, argumentative, quick tempered, sensitive to any real or perceived slight, and prone to abusing their delegated authority... and who is also collaborative and interested in working together with the person they're detaining?*
> 
> Look, maybe you don't see it, but I really think/hope you've somehow worked your way into an extreme position that is out of sync with what you really mean.  Take a beat, think about what you really want to say and let's get this back into something reasonable.  Because right now, this is some jackbooted, authoritarian stuff.


No, I'm not.  I'm painting the picture of a cop who's not going to allow himself to get suckered into whatever games the suspect is trying to play.



Steve said:


> Okay.  In my opinion, so what?  I've seen a lot of videos where police have handled these situations really, really well.  Some excellent examples of police handling open carry folks who were intentionally baiting them, and they did a great job of managing the situation.  I guess it's possible that some might think the cops were humiliated.  But if the cops keep their cool, don't over react or unnecessarily escalate the situation, I think they've done great.  Whether it's a BLM protester, a person who's been pulled over, a far right 2nd amendment dude, or anything else, this is just part of the job.


The point I was making in what you quoted is that they're making the officer's job difficult for no reason other than the fact that they don't like cops.  Did you not say that you agree with what I said about living in a society where people work together and don't make each other's lives difficult?



Steve said:


> Because it's intrinsic to the job.


Arguing with people who are legally obligated to obey your orders is intrinsic to the job?  No, it's not.



Steve said:


> It's entirely about insecurity.  And dude, let's not get into parenting.  My concerns about your parenting philosophy could be a thread all on its own.


I suppose you'd be less concerned if I allowed the inmates to run the asylum.



Steve said:


> For this thread, though, it's apples and oranges.  A cop is dealing with a person in isolation... it's a discrete interaction.  A parent has a years long parental relationship with the child.  Also, a cop is dealing with an adult, while the parent is dealing with a child.  I mean, it's just fundamentally different.  Lastly, the nature of the relationship is fundamentally different.  Cops' role and function in society is not parental in nature.


Let's keep things simple.  I'm describing any relationship where one person is subject to the authority of another, and actions on the part of both parties that can affect other people's perceptions on whether or not the person in the position of authority is fit to occupy it.


Steve said:


> It's also possible the child has tourrette's, is mentally ill, autistic, or there is something else we can't know as a bystander in that moment.


This is one of the reasons I said that what goes on in that family is ultimately no one else's business.  However, the point of bringing it was to discuss how it is perceived.


----------



## Steve

Urban Trekker said:


> No, I'm not.  I'm painting the picture of a cop who's not going to allow himself to get suckered into whatever games the suspect is trying to play.


If he's worried about losing an argument with a member of the public, he's already suckered.  And just to be clear, cops interact with a lot of people, and they aren't all suspects.  Even if they're rude.  Being rude isn't a crime.



Urban Trekker said:


> The point I was making in what you quoted is that they're making the officer's job difficult for no reason other than the fact that they don't like cops.  Did you not say that you agree with what I said about living in a society where people work together and don't make each other's lives difficult?



100%, and that goes for cops, too.  What you're describing is not collaboration.  It's unquestioning obedience.   It's entirely one sided.  Collaboration is inherently cooperative, and requires mutual respect... not just one sided.  Do you really not see that?

Let me say it a different way.  If you are telling me what to do and if I don't, you will beat me with your baton, that's not collaboration or "working together."  

Now, it may be that we have different profiles in mind when we say the above statements.  So, just for clarity, I'm still back on routine traffic stops, even up to protestors, open carry advocates, etc.  We can talk about scenarios where cooperativeness on the part of a cop is inappropriate and could even be dangerous  



Urban Trekker said:


> Arguing with people who are legally obligated to obey your orders is intrinsic to the job?  No, it's not.


 Remember, we're not talking about obeying orders.  We're talking about losing arguments and being made to look foolish.  This all started when you said something about not letting someone challenge your authority by making you look foolish, forcing you to slink away with your tail between your legs... something along those lines.

Also, should note, there are circumstances where a member of the public is not obligated to obey an order by a cop, as the order is unlawful.  Which gets more to the topic of this thread, as when and how to safely disobey an unlawful order is tricky business when you don't have a gun but the cop has one.   



Urban Trekker said:


> I suppose you'd be less concerned if I allowed the inmates to run the asylum.



To be really honest, I'm glad that's not up to you, because I think you and I have very different opinions about who the inmates are in your analogy.



Urban Trekker said:


> Let's keep things simple.  I'm describing any relationship where one person is subject to the authority of another, and actions on the part of both parties that can affect other people's perceptions on whether or not the person in the position of authority is fit to occupy it.
> 
> This is one of the reasons I said that what goes on in that family is ultimately no one else's business.  However, the point of bringing it was to discuss how it is perceived.



I think what you perceive says more about you than anyone else.  That's true in general.  We all react to snapshots by projecting a lot of context that comes from us.  

I'm just really glad you're not a cop.  Earlier, you readily agreed you lack the temperament for the role.  I think we should have just stopped there.  I'll just get off the crazy train now, though... a few stops late, but better than not at all.


----------



## Buka

I don't usually cop talk on our forum, I get enough of that nonsense at work, but I think @Urban Trekker brings up an important point - "equivalent to a McDonald's employee not putting too much or not enough secret sauce on the Big Macs."

I have a Big Mac once every two months. Hadn't had one in forty years until recently. That sauce is important stuff. 

Just wanted to contribute to the interesting thread.


----------



## Urban Trekker

Steve said:


> If he's worried about losing an argument with a member of the public, he's already suckered.  And just to be clear, cops interact with a lot of people, and they aren't all suspects.  Even if they're rude.  Being rude isn't a crime.


And the way to not worry about losing an argument is to not get into the argument in the first place.  I've been saying that the whole time.

It's not a crime to be rude, but have you ever thought about the possibility that the average person probably commits crimes everyday without even knowing it?

Got a story for you: I was a young teenager at the time, but old enough to have my own vehicle.  I was a junior or senior in high school at the time.  Anyhow, I was near a busy intersection (not in my vehicle, but walking), where two police cars had someone pulled over.

Another person who saw this shouted "f*** the police" and a bunch of other crap, while they were crossing the street.  His mistake?  He was jaywalking.  This is a violation that is very rarely ever enforced, yet this guy got a ticket for something he otherwise wouldn't have if he had kept his mouth shut.

Thankfully, he wasn't dumb enough to escalate the situation to something where could have gotten charged with more.




Steve said:


> 100%, and that goes for cops, too.  What you're describing is not collaboration.  It's unquestioning obedience.   It's entirely one sided.  Collaboration is inherently cooperative, and requires mutual respect... not just one sided.  Do you really not see that?


Are you saying that we should only obey the order if we agree with it?



Steve said:


> Let me say it a different way.  If you are telling me what to do and if I don't, you will beat me with your baton, that's not collaboration or "working together."


I never presented that scenario.  I simply said "helping" the suspect comply.  That could be something as simple as ordering them to move three steps to the left, and then physically moving them to that spot if they refuse.  Not beating obedience out of them.



Steve said:


> Now, it may be that we have different profiles in mind when we say the above statements.  So, just for clarity, I'm still back on routine traffic stops, even up to protestors, open carry advocates, etc.  We can talk about scenarios where cooperativeness on the part of a cop is inappropriate and could even be dangerous
> 
> 
> Remember, we're not talking about obeying orders.  We're talking about losing arguments and being made to look foolish.  This all started when you said something about not letting someone challenge your authority by making you look foolish, forcing you to slink away with your tail between your legs... something along those lines.


Those two things tie in, right?  Is a person who is arguing with the police usually obeying their orders, or vice versa?



Steve said:


> Also, should note, there are circumstances where a member of the public is not obligated to obey an order by a cop, as the order is unlawful.  Which gets more to the topic of this thread, as when and how to safely disobey an unlawful order is tricky business when you don't have a gun but the cop has one.


Outside of things that a plainly obvious, for example, an officer telling you to eat dog feces that's laying on the ground; you're better off doing what you're told and following up in court.



Steve said:


> To be really honest, I'm glad that's not up to you, because I think you and I have very different opinions about who the inmates are in your analogy.


What, how I parent my children isn't up to me?  "Inmates running the asylum" is simply a saying that refers a situation where the people who are subject to a particular authority have taken over.  You know that.



Steve said:


> I think what you perceive says more about you than anyone else.  That's true in general.  We all react to snapshots by projecting a lot of context that comes from us.


Ah, so you're perfectly fine when people who are in positions of authority remain so, even if they're ineffective at exercising it.



Steve said:


> I'm just really glad you're not a cop.  Earlier, you readily agreed you lack the temperament for the role.  I think we should have just stopped there.  I'll just get off the crazy train now, though... a few stops late, but better than not at all.


Maybe, but consider this: I wouldn't be the worst cop.  Hell, 99th percentile being the worst, I don't think I'd even be in the 50th.


----------



## Steve

Urban Trekker said:


> And the way to not worry about losing an argument is to not get into the argument in the first place.  I've been saying that the whole time.
> 
> It's not a crime to be rude, but have you ever thought about the possibility that the average person probably commits crimes everyday without even knowing it?
> 
> Got a story for you: I was a young teenager at the time, but old enough to have my own vehicle.  I was a junior or senior in high school at the time.  Anyhow, I was near a busy intersection (not in my vehicle, but walking), where two police cars had someone pulled over.
> 
> Another person who saw this shouted "f*** the police" and a bunch of other crap, while they were crossing the street.  His mistake?  He was jaywalking.  This is a violation that is very rarely ever enforced, yet this guy got a ticket for something he otherwise wouldn't have if he had kept his mouth shut.
> 
> Thankfully, he wasn't dumb enough to escalate the situation to something where could have gotten charged with more.


Let's try to get this thread back on track.  

Let's say he kept on talking... what's next?  If you were the cop, what would you do if you were giving this kid a ticket for jaywalking and he called you a pig in a very disrespectful manner?  

What do the LEO here think about this scenario?   You are giving someone a ticket for running a red light or something, and a dude crossing the street (jaywalking), says, "F*** the police!" and other colorful language, as he walks by.  Would you give him a hard time?  Stop him and give him a ticket, maybe go fishing for something more?  

What if he doesn't stop jawing at you, pulls out his phone or yells for other people to pull out theirs, and says more mean things to you?

I'm curious, because I think we've all seen good and bad examples of how to handle a situation like this.  Sometimes, this exact situation ends up with a dead dude.  I think we can all agree that yelling at cops is a bad idea, but being disrespectful isn't a crime.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf

Something to keep in mind with the spirit of getting the thread back on track. Keep in mind I've only skimmed the last few pages so this might not be needed; sorry to all if it's not. 

Discussing what to do and why to do it, is in spirit of the thread, and self-defense in general (reacting in a certain way is more or less likely to result in harm to yourself). Similar to that, discussing what the LEO's reactions to certain things (for instance how would LEO react to refusing to hand over cash), is also in that vein. But arguing over the character of LEO, and what they should/shouldn't be doing in your view (as opposed to what they actually do/don't do), is unrelated to self-defense and this thread.


----------



## dvcochran

Urban Trekker said:


> Okay, I'm not sure if you're a police officer - maybe you are.
> 
> Bear in mind that I'm not, so I'm not speaking from full understanding of the procedures.
> 
> Maybe there are other things that need to happen before the cop can smash the window; I get that.  But I also don't think that there's any circumstance where a cop's actions are determined by whether or not the cop wins the argument or gets stumped by a rhetorical question.
> 
> Sure, rather than walk away after losing the argument, the cop still could carry out a particular action that requires physical contact with the apprehendee, but I think that would look even worse.  It would look like the cop is agreeing he would be wrong if he did it, and still did it anyway.


Was an officer. Wife is an attorney and I do a good amount of legal contract work in my capital project discovery/design.
I do not remember ever seeing an officer get in an 'argument' with someone. That would be the totally wrong personality for a LEO. TV does a good job of creating this falsehood. 
One of the first things you learn is to use and lean on your backup. If you do not know something it is a good bet your backup will. 
Just like every other job in the world, no one knows everything. The smart guy knows where to find the answers.


----------



## Urban Trekker

Steve said:


> Let's try to get this thread back on track.
> 
> Let's say he kept on talking... what's next?  If you were the cop, what would you do if you were giving this kid a ticket for jaywalking and he called you a pig in a very disrespectful manner?



Interesting thing about this, is that the kid was pretty brave when he thought the cops couldn't get him for anything.  And then he changed up his attitude real quick when they got him.

Just for changing up his attitude, I probably would have let him go after letting him know that I could ticket him for jaywalking if I wanted to.  And then actually do it, if he continues to run his mouth.


----------



## Steve

Urban Trekker said:


> Interesting thing about this, is that the kid was pretty brave when he thought the cops couldn't get him for anything.  And then he changed up his attitude real quick when they got him.
> 
> Just for changing up his attitude, I probably would have let him go after letting him know that I could ticket him for jaywalking if I wanted to.  And then actually do it, if he continues to run his mouth.


Huh. What if he continued to disrespect you and make you look foolish?  You’d walk away with your tail between your legs?  What if that was on video, you slinking away?


----------



## Urban Trekker

Steve said:


> Huh. What if he continued to disrespect you and make you look foolish?  You’d walk away with your tail between your legs?  What if that was on video, you slinking away?



That depends on when it stops.  Does it stop when or before I give him the ticket?  If so, I'll let it go.  If he continues afterwards, then I can fish for additional things to get him for.  And, having grown up in the particular environment that I've grown up in, I know the right things to say to get someone to threaten me with violence... and now we've got a charge that I can haul his butt in for.


----------



## Buka

Steve said:


> Let's try to get this thread back on track.
> 
> Let's say he kept on talking... what's next?  If you were the cop, what would you do if you were giving this kid a ticket for jaywalking and he called you a pig in a very disrespectful manner?
> 
> What do the LEO here think about this scenario?   You are giving someone a ticket for running a red light or something, and a dude crossing the street (jaywalking), says, "F*** the police!" and other colorful language, as he walks by.  Would you give him a hard time?  Stop him and give him a ticket, maybe go fishing for something more?
> 
> What if he doesn't stop jawing at you, pulls out his phone or yells for other people to pull out theirs, and says more mean things to you?
> 
> I'm curious, because I think we've all seen good and bad examples of how to handle a situation like this.  Sometimes, this exact situation ends up with a dead dude.  I think we can all agree that yelling at cops is a bad idea, but being disrespectful isn't a crime.


In my opinion, anyone who takes bait easily -letting a yelling, or drunken, idiot get under your skin enough to make you loose your cool - might be in the wrong profession.

As a side note to the jaywalking thing - I thought I was going to get shot by LAPD for jaywalking in  in the nighties. I kid you not.


----------



## drop bear

Urban Trekker said:


> Okay, maybe "defiant," "recalcitrant," or "non-compliant" would have been better words to use.  Either way, the point is the same: obedience to authority.


Disorderly is the term we use.





__





						What types of behaviours would be considered as disorderly?
					






					www.findlaw.com.au


----------



## geezer

Buka said:


> I thought I was going to get shot by LAPD for jaywalking in  in the *nighties.* I kid you not.


Did you say *...nighties?



*


----------



## Buka

geezer said:


> Did you say *...nighties?
> 
> View attachment 27234*


Cmon, give a guy a break. It wasn't like it was see through or anything.


----------



## Koryuhoka

I invoke ALL my Constitutional Rights, and make it clear that I will not waive any of them. The Bill of Rights.


----------



## geezer

Koryuhoka said:


> I invoke ALL my Constitutional Rights, and make it clear that I will not waive any of them. The Bill of Rights.


So... I'm guessing you are white? 

Not disagreeing mind you, but there is a difference between theory and practice. For a lot of people, taking your high principled stance might be risky, don't you think?


----------



## Koryuhoka

geezer said:


> So... I'm guessing you are white?
> 
> Not disagreeing mind you, but there is a difference between theory and practice. For a lot of people, taking your high principled stance might be risky, don't you think?


I am not white. 

The Bill Of Rights protects us from tyranny. People are proving this everyday, holding LEO accountable. They swear an oath to the Constitution, to uphold it. If you are not committing a crime, and you are stopped, questioned and detained by the police, they are breaking their oath and that is a crime. The only way they can make you ID yourself is if you have committed an crime. By law, they have to articulate the crime. If they cannot, they are violating your rights, and breaking - dishonoring the oath they swore. The only risk is to them, if they follow through and arrest you using made up laws to entrap you. *They are public servants*. Their salaries, benefits and pensions come from us. They work for us and are accountable to us. 

This is not an "anti cop" thing. It is the reality they try to blind us from, that they entrap us with made up laws. It is UN-American.


----------



## drop bear

Koryuhoka said:


> I am not white.
> 
> The Bill Of Rights protects us from tyranny. People are proving this everyday, holding LEO accountable. They swear an oath to the Constitution, to uphold it. If you are not committing a crime, and you are stopped, questioned and detained by the police, they are breaking their oath and that is a crime. The only way they can make you ID yourself is if you have committed an crime. By law, they have to articulate the crime. If they cannot, they are violating your rights, and breaking - dishonoring the oath they swore. The only risk is to them, if they follow through and arrest you using made up laws to entrap you. *They are public servants*. Their salaries, benefits and pensions come from us. They work for us and are accountable to us.
> 
> This is not an "anti cop" thing. It is the reality they try to blind us from, that they entrap us with made up laws. It is UN-American.



Yeah. But what if I want them to tazer guys for that kind of irrigating nonsense. 

Technically they also work for me.


----------



## punisher73

Koryuhoka said:


> I am not white.
> 
> The Bill Of Rights protects us from tyranny. People are proving this everyday, holding LEO accountable. They swear an oath to the Constitution, to uphold it. If you are not committing a crime, and you are stopped, questioned and detained by the police, they are breaking their oath and that is a crime. The only way they can make you ID yourself is if you have committed an crime. By law, they have to articulate the crime. If they cannot, they are violating your rights, and breaking - dishonoring the oath they swore. The only risk is to them, if they follow through and arrest you using made up laws to entrap you. *They are public servants*. Their salaries, benefits and pensions come from us. They work for us and are accountable to us.
> 
> This is not an "anti cop" thing. It is the reality they try to blind us from, that they entrap us with made up laws. It is UN-American.



There are some nuances that vary state to state that could get you into trouble if you think that they can only make you ID yourself if you committing a crime. 

Many states that have "shall ID" laws list 3 circumstances:  1) You did commit a crime 2) You are suspected of committing a crime and 3) You are suspected that you are about to commit a crime. These are based on a "reasonable suspicion". 

Other states also have a "loitering" clause in their shall ID, which basically states if you are hanging out in an area that is not a general place or time to be there in that location, then you have to ID yourself while they are looking into why you are there.  For example, hanging around a bank with no ATM at 2am. 

So, going back to your scenario that you only have to ID if you are committing a crime.  There is a retail fraud (shoplifting) call that goes out and the description is a white male wearing jeans and a dark colored coat that ran out of the store.  You are seen a couple blocks from the store wearing jeans and a dark colored coat.  They can stop and detain you and get your ID even if you didn't actually commit the crime while they are determining that because they have reasonable suspicion that you could have done it.


----------



## dvcochran

Koryuhoka said:


> I am not white.
> 
> The Bill Of Rights protects us from tyranny. People are proving this everyday, holding LEO accountable. They swear an oath to the Constitution, to uphold it. If you are not committing a crime, and you are stopped, questioned and detained by the police, they are breaking their oath and that is a crime. The only way they can make you ID yourself is if you have committed an crime. By law, they have to articulate the crime. If they cannot, they are violating your rights, and breaking - dishonoring the oath they swore. The only risk is to them, if they follow through and arrest you using made up laws to entrap you. *They are public servants*. Their salaries, benefits and pensions come from us. They work for us and are accountable to us.
> 
> This is not an "anti cop" thing. It is the reality they try to blind us from, that they entrap us with made up laws. It is UN-American.


You are correct that they are a public servant.
On the rest of is you are incorrect.

Color has Nothing to do with any of this.


----------



## Steve

dvcochran said:


> You are correct that they are a public servant.
> On the rest of is you are incorrect.
> 
> Color has Nothing to do with any of this


Is that so?  Just yesterday I read an article from Oakland about a group of current and former cops being disciplined for racist and misogynistic posts on Instagram.  One was making fun of efforts to address excessive force.   

You can easily find studies, articles, and anecdotes all highlighting individual and systemic racism in police departments all over the country.  

or are you saying that race shouldn’t have anything to do with it?  Because if you’re speaking aspirationally, I agree.


----------



## drop bear

Steve said:


> Is that so?  Just yesterday I read an article from Oakland about a group of current and former cops being disciplined for racist and misogynistic posts on Instagram.  One was making fun of efforts to address excessive force.
> 
> You can easily find studies, articles, and anecdotes all highlighting individual and systemic racism in police departments all over the country.
> 
> or are you saying that race shouldn’t have anything to do with it?  Because if you’re speaking aspirationally, I agree.



It's a feedback loop.


----------



## jks9199

You know what, let's talk about "Public Servants" for a moment...

Cops are indeed "public servants" because they do work for the body public, as governement employees.  But that doesn't mean they "work for you."  You can't give a cop an order, any more than you can order the tax assessor not to bill you this year, or tell the road & sewer guys not to dig up your yard to fix a pipe.  (As a parenthetical aside... ain't it interesting that we tend to only hear the "you work for me!" stuff about cops, not the tax man or water meter reader?) They provide a service to everyone, and that service is sometimes individualized, meaning that they come to your door and help you out.   And sometimes, they do things you don't like -- give you a ticket, or even arrest you.  So, even though they are indeed public servants, they aren't your personal servants -- the emphasis is on PUBLIC not servant.


----------



## Buka

Being a police officer has become increasingly more difficult over the last forty years.

Personally, I wouldn't recommend it as a profession to anyone anymore. And that saddens me.


----------



## Steve

jks9199 said:


> You know what, let's talk about "Public Servants" for a moment...
> 
> Cops are indeed "public servants" because they do work for the body public, as governement employees.  But that doesn't mean they "work for you."  You can't give a cop an order, any more than you can order the tax assessor not to bill you this year, or tell the road & sewer guys not to dig up your yard to fix a pipe.  (As a parenthetical aside... ain't it interesting that we tend to only hear the "you work for me!" stuff about cops, not the tax man or water meter reader?) They provide a service to everyone, and that service is sometimes individualized, meaning that they come to your door and help you out.   And sometimes, they do things you don't like -- give you a ticket, or even arrest you.  So, even though they are indeed public servants, they aren't your personal servants -- the emphasis is on PUBLIC not servant.


I can assure you it isn’t just cops who hear that.  Just to be more clear, the tax guy definitely hears it.  As does the census guy, the civil servants who work for the city, the state and the federal government in social security, at the local welfare office, unemployment, etc. I know all of that either from personal experience or through very close friendships with folks who work in all areas of government.


----------



## drop bear

Steve said:


> I can assure you it isn’t just cops who hear that.  Just to be more clear, the tax guy definitely hears it.  As does the census guy, the civil servants who work for the city, the state and the federal government in social security, at the local welfare office, unemployment, etc. I know all of that either from personal experience or through very close friendships with folks who work in all areas of government.



Yep people used to say that to me when I bounced. 

People are sad.


----------



## dvcochran

Steve said:


> Is that so?  Just yesterday I read an article from Oakland about a group of current and former cops being disciplined for racist and misogynistic posts on Instagram.  One was making fun of efforts to address excessive force.
> 
> You can easily find studies, articles, and anecdotes all highlighting individual and systemic racism in police departments all over the country.
> 
> or are you saying that race shouldn’t have anything to do with it?  Because if you’re speaking aspirationally, I agree.


You can easily find just as many studies, articles, and anecdotes highlighting just the opposite. 

You should really study Matthew 7:5.

No, I was not trying to speak aspiringly on purpose, but I will take it.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

dvcochran said:


> You should really study Matthew 7:5.


What does it explain about modern US race relations?

I mean, I could suggest some wisdom from many sources, but they wouldn’t shed light on this topic.


----------



## Steve

jks9199 said:


> You know what, let's talk about "Public Servants" for a moment...
> 
> Cops are indeed "public servants" because they do work for the body public, as governement employees.  But that doesn't mean they "work for you."  You can't give a cop an order, any more than you can order the tax assessor not to bill you this year, or tell the road & sewer guys not to dig up your yard to fix a pipe.  (As a parenthetical aside... ain't it interesting that we tend to only hear the "you work for me!" stuff about cops, not the tax man or water meter reader?) They provide a service to everyone, and that service is sometimes individualized, meaning that they come to your door and help you out.   And sometimes, they do things you don't like -- give you a ticket, or even arrest you.  So, even though they are indeed public servants, they aren't your personal servants -- the emphasis is on PUBLIC not servant.



The relevant issue here is that cops are public servants.  Like all public servants, the role of cops is to act as a responsible steward for the public trust.  What that charge is depends on the role.  Someone who works for the IRS has a fiduciary responsibility.  Their job is to ensure (as best they can) that people pay their due taxes, and that the people aren't charged more than they are due. 

People who work at the VA hear the "you work for me" thing all the time.  The folks at the Veterans Administration have a pretty serious charge, to support and serve our veterans, and in particular, disabled veterans. 

The public servants who work for the state's department of transportation have a serious charge.  They keep the roads safe.  During normal times, they have to prioritize which areas to maintain, which bridges get fixed.  In crisis, they ensure the roads are cleared timely so that things get back to normal. 

Cops have a serious charge, as well. 

The issue isn't who you work for, as cops aren't unique in this area (even if you feel like you are).  The issue is when a public servant (ANY public servant) betrays the public trust, either through abuse or incompetence.   The real difference here is that, unlike the tax guys, when a cop fails in this area, it can have dire consequences to an individual. When an entire department fails in this area, it can have dire consequences to an entire community. 

I've had a couple of concerning interactions with our local police.  Going on a decade ago now, my son was thinking about the future.  In our local high schools, a requirement to graduate is to do a day of job shadow.  He did an overnight ride along with our local police and at that time was really interested.  There were a lot of things that happened that really bothered him, but the worst was that the cop described to my son what he called the "walks like a duck" method.   He would point out people to my son and say, "is that a duck?"  Short version is that people of color were all "ducks." 

Recently, my neighbor called the non-emergency line to complain about a violation of our local noise ordinances.  A neighbor had a live band in his backyard that could be heard for miles around.  It was literally so loud we couldn't watch TV in our house with the windows and doors closed.  By the time the cop showed up, we were all milling around.  There was a lot of crazy in that interaction, but the most alarming thing to me was that the cop said to my neighbor that by calling the cops, he had put his neighbor's life in danger... because now, the cop was going to go over there and this cop might have to shoot some people.  It was a bizarre twist of logic. 

But to the point, the issue is that these things have stuck with me, because they speak to the culture of the department, and insight into their view of their role in the community that is concerning.  And it's easy to connect the dots between cops who express sentiment like those above and issues of systemic racism and a sense of entitlement.


----------



## jks9199

Steve said:


> The issue isn't who you work for, as cops aren't unique in this area (even if you feel like you are).  The issue is when a public servant (ANY public servant) betrays the public trust, either through abuse or incompetence.   The real difference here is that, unlike the tax guys, when a cop fails in this area, it can have dire consequences to an individual. When an entire department fails in this area, it can have dire consequences to an entire community.
> 
> I've had a couple of concerning interactions with our local police.  Going on a decade ago now, my son was thinking about the future.  In our local high schools, a requirement to graduate is to do a day of job shadow.  He did an overnight ride along with our local police and at that time was really interested.  There were a lot of things that happened that really bothered him, but the worst was that the cop described to my son what he called the "walks like a duck" method.   He would point out people to my son and say, "is that a duck?"  Short version is that people of color were all "ducks."
> 
> Recently, my neighbor called the non-emergency line to complain about a violation of our local noise ordinances.  A neighbor had a live band in his backyard that could be heard for miles around.  It was literally so loud we couldn't watch TV in our house with the windows and doors closed.  By the time the cop showed up, we were all milling around.  There was a lot of crazy in that interaction, but the most alarming thing to me was that the cop said to my neighbor that by calling the cops, he had put his neighbor's life in danger... because now, the cop was going to go over there and this cop might have to shoot some people.  It was a bizarre twist of logic.
> 
> But to the point, the issue is that these things have stuck with me, because they speak to the culture of the department, and insight into their view of their role in the community that is concerning.  And it's easy to connect the dots between cops who express sentiment like those above and issues of systemic racism and a sense of entitlement.



We've moved rather astray of the original topic (I believe I can speak with a tad bit of authority on that), and are straying dangerously close to politics, so let's be mindful and respectful as we go on.  That's not a Staff authority warning -- that's a participant in a conversation recognizing a concern.

Those are certainly concerning issues, and I can't address them particularly specifically.  Cops are human beings.  There is a wide range of biases and thoughts and opinions among cops.  Some good, some bad.  I would suggest that those are issues to discuss with a supervisor at that agency.  Your son's experience, especially, because it may well indicate a bias.  I hedge that because I don't have all the pieces, and there may be other justifications.  More on that in a moment....  Your noise violation... They're a nuisance to everybody, and you have every right to function in your own home without that disturbance, and the officers should probably have handled it differently.  (Again; sorry for weasel words -- but I don't have all the pieces.)  In my experience, over several agencies, the usual pattern for a noise complaint is to contact the violator, ask them to knock it off, explaining that if it keeps up, they could be cited.  (Specifics vary...)  Usually, we avoid contacting complainants to hopefully avoid neighborhood feuds.  But there are various factors, like time of day, specifics of local noise ordinances, history of complaints or permits obtained (yep; I've seen people actually get appropriate permits for a live band show in their back yard... which ties the cops hands a bit), and overall attitudes.  If youre not happy -- let someone know.  Talk to a supervisor about it; be willing to listen, because they might give you an explanation.  Don't start with a complaint, and don't start out demanding that "something be done!"  Quite bluntly, every supervisor and chief gets several of those a day -- often about things that they have no ability to respond to.  I suggest starting along the lines of "this happened, I'm not sure why, can you explain?"

As to ducks...  There's a great bit from the NYPD Blue series, where Andy Sipowicz is explaining what to look for to his son, who is about to go into the academy.  "People, the things they, the times they do them, the places they do them."  A good cop does know his jurisdiction, and who fits and who doesn't.  And, in some places, a particular race may indeed either fit or not fit...  If a white suburban kid is wandering around the Anacostia neighborhood in Washington, DC.... something doesn't fit.  If a black kid from Anacostia is wandering around Great Falls, VA... something doesn't fit.  It may or may not be criminal... but it's not normal.  And then you have gang bangers... that certainly have a look, and are often racially segragated.  So there may be justification or explanation.  Or there may not.  Either way, nothing will change if you don't tell someone.  All that'll happen is the animosity will fester...


----------



## Buka

I think I heard something.


----------



## Steve

jks9199 said:


> We've moved rather astray of the original topic (I believe I can speak with a tad bit of authority on that), and are straying dangerously close to politics, so let's be mindful and respectful as we go on.  That's not a Staff authority warning -- that's a participant in a conversation recognizing a concern.
> 
> Those are certainly concerning issues, and I can't address them particularly specifically.  Cops are human beings.  There is a wide range of biases and thoughts and opinions among cops.  Some good, some bad.  I would suggest that those are issues to discuss with a supervisor at that agency.  Your son's experience, especially, because it may well indicate a bias.  I hedge that because I don't have all the pieces, and there may be other justifications.  More on that in a moment....  Your noise violation... They're a nuisance to everybody, and you have every right to function in your own home without that disturbance, and the officers should probably have handled it differently.  (Again; sorry for weasel words -- but I don't have all the pieces.)  In my experience, over several agencies, the usual pattern for a noise complaint is to contact the violator, ask them to knock it off, explaining that if it keeps up, they could be cited.  (Specifics vary...)  Usually, we avoid contacting complainants to hopefully avoid neighborhood feuds.  But there are various factors, like time of day, specifics of local noise ordinances, history of complaints or permits obtained (yep; I've seen people actually get appropriate permits for a live band show in their back yard... which ties the cops hands a bit), and overall attitudes.  If youre not happy -- let someone know.  Talk to a supervisor about it; be willing to listen, because they might give you an explanation.  Don't start with a complaint, and don't start out demanding that "something be done!"  Quite bluntly, every supervisor and chief gets several of those a day -- often about things that they have no ability to respond to.  I suggest starting along the lines of "this happened, I'm not sure why, can you explain?"
> 
> As to ducks...  There's a great bit from the NYPD Blue series, where Andy Sipowicz is explaining what to look for to his son, who is about to go into the academy.  "People, the things they, the times they do them, the places they do them."  A good cop does know his jurisdiction, and who fits and who doesn't.  And, in some places, a particular race may indeed either fit or not fit...  If a white suburban kid is wandering around the Anacostia neighborhood in Washington, DC.... something doesn't fit.  If a black kid from Anacostia is wandering around Great Falls, VA... something doesn't fit.  It may or may not be criminal... but it's not normal.  And then you have gang bangers... that certainly have a look, and are often racially segragated.  So there may be justification or explanation.  Or there may not.  Either way, nothing will change if you don't tell someone.  All that'll happen is the animosity will fester...


I’m not too worried about it, but my Venezuelan neighbors whom the cop thinks he may involuntary shoot may have something to worry about. 

Actually, truth is I live in a small, semi rural area.  We have a few “city cops” but they are really county deputies leased by the city.  I am realistic about anything positive coming to me or my neighbors if I were to call in a complaint. I would need to call the sheriffs office and that won’t get me anywhere. 

Regarding the duck thing, the area I live in is quite diverse, though it wasn’t that way about 25 years ago when we first moved out here. I can’t tell you what the cop said. I can only tell you that my son has never forgotten it and he never mentioned the police as a possible career again.  Probably for the best. 

anyway, this is a little far afield. I was really commenting on your post regarding public service.  I wasn’t disagreeing with you as much as I was pointing out that public service is all about stewardship of the public trust.  All public servants are accountable for that.  Even cops. I don’t think that’s political, or even all that controversial.


----------



## dvcochran

gpseymour said:


> What does it explain about modern US race relations?
> 
> I mean, I could suggest some wisdom from many sources, but they wouldn’t shed light on this





Steve said:


> The relevant issue here is that cops are public servants.  Like all public servants, the role of cops is to act as a responsible steward for the public trust.  What that charge is depends on the role.  Someone who works for the IRS has a fiduciary responsibility.  Their job is to ensure (as best they can) that people pay their due taxes, and that the people aren't charged more than they are due.
> 
> People who work at the VA hear the "you work for me" thing all the time.  The folks at the Veterans Administration have a pretty serious charge, to support and serve our veterans, and in particular, disabled veterans.
> 
> The public servants who work for the state's department of transportation have a serious charge.  They keep the roads safe.  During normal times, they have to prioritize which areas to maintain, which bridges get fixed.  In crisis, they ensure the roads are cleared timely so that things get back to normal.
> 
> Cops have a serious charge, as well.
> 
> The issue isn't who you work for, as cops aren't unique in this area (even if you feel like you are).  The issue is when a public servant (ANY public servant) betrays the public trust, either through abuse or incompetence.   The real difference here is that, unlike the tax guys, when a cop fails in this area, it can have dire consequences to an individual. When an entire department fails in this area, it can have dire consequences to an entire community.
> 
> I've had a couple of concerning interactions with our local police.  Going on a decade ago now, my son was thinking about the future.  In our local high schools, a requirement to graduate is to do a day of job shadow.  He did an overnight ride along with our local police and at that time was really interested.  There were a lot of things that happened that really bothered him, but the worst was that the cop described to my son what he called the "walks like a duck" method.   He would point out people to my son and say, "is that a duck?"  Short version is that people of color were all "ducks."
> 
> Recently, my neighbor called the non-emergency line to complain about a violation of our local noise ordinances.  A neighbor had a live band in his backyard that could be heard for miles around.  It was literally so loud we couldn't watch TV in our house with the windows and doors closed.  By the time the cop showed up, we were all milling around.  There was a lot of crazy in that interaction, but the most alarming thing to me was that the cop said to my neighbor that by calling the cops, he had put his neighbor's life in danger... because now, the cop was going to go over there and this cop might have to shoot some people.  It was a bizarre twist of logic.
> 
> But to the point, the issue is that these things have stuck with me, because they speak to the culture of the department, and insight into their view of their role in the community that is concerning.  And it's easy to connect the dots between cops who express sentiment like those above and issues of systemic racism and a sense of entitlement.


This explains a lot about your skewed posts.


----------



## geezer

dvcochran said:


> This explains a lot about your skewed posts.


Skewed? Perhaps. That doesn't mean Steve's wrong. My brother-in-law is a cop and he would pretty much agree. How law enforcement is perceived in different communities needs to be addressed. I'm fortunate that I'm a "clean-cut", well spoken, old white guy, and being polite and cooperative with law enforcement has always worked for me. Not everybody has that experience.

And, while we're on the subject, it so happens that due to my messed up ankles, I absolutely _walk like a duck,_ all the time. But I'm pretty sure I'm not a duck and nobody has ever mistaken me for one!


----------



## Koryuhoka

punisher73 said:


> There are some nuances that vary state to state that could get you into trouble if you think that they can only make you ID yourself if you committing a crime.
> 
> Many states that have "shall ID" laws list 3 circumstances:  1) You did commit a crime 2) You are suspected of committing a crime and 3) You are suspected that you are about to commit a crime. These are based on a "reasonable suspicion".
> 
> Other states also have a "loitering" clause in their shall ID, which basically states if you are hanging out in an area that is not a general place or time to be there in that location, then you have to ID yourself while they are looking into why you are there.  For example, hanging around a bank with no ATM at 2am.
> 
> So, going back to your scenario that you only have to ID if you are committing a crime.  There is a retail fraud (shoplifting) call that goes out and the description is a white male wearing jeans and a dark colored coat that ran out of the store.  You are seen a couple blocks from the store wearing jeans and a dark colored coat.  They can stop and detain you and get your ID even if you didn't actually commit the crime while they are determining that because they have reasonable suspicion that you could have done it.


No. The Constitution is ABOVE ALL State laws, acts and statutes. Nuances affect those who allow public servants to talk legalese to them. Once they instill doubt in you, you're set up to put yourself under their jurisdiction, which can only happen if you consent. It's really simple. But Americans have allowed themselves to be subject to deception. This is the reason police departments and LEO are being held accountable through legal action. People are waking up and not taking the abuse.


----------



## Koryuhoka

drop bear said:


> Yeah. But what if I want them to tazer guys for that kind of irrigating nonsense.
> 
> Technically they also work for me.


Then that is not only a crime, but the breaking of the oath to the Constitution, which is dishonorable.


----------



## Koryuhoka

dvcochran said:


> You are correct that they are a public servant.
> On the rest of is you are incorrect.
> 
> Color has Nothing to do with any of this.


Someone on a prior reply assumed I was white. That was my reply. And I am not incorrect about the rest. The problem is that the image portrayed on TV, with all the cop shows, showing cops doing things that are illegal to "get the bad guy", has America conditioned to accept the abuse as "the way things are". And even cops believe that BS. But when they find themselves in court being sued, they realize that they are on their own.


----------



## Steve

geezer said:


> Skewed? Perhaps. That doesn't mean Steve's wrong. My brother-in-law is a cop and he would pretty much agree. How law enforcement is perceived in different communities needs to be addressed. I'm fortunate that I'm a "clean-cut", well spoken, old white guy, and being polite and cooperative with law enforcement has always worked for me. Not everybody has that experience.
> 
> And, while we're on the subject, it so happens that due to my messed up ankles, I absolutely _walk like a duck,_ all the time. But I'm pretty sure I'm not a duck and nobody has ever mistaken me for one!


Not a cop thing, but a race thing.  A friend of mine's 17 year old daughter is a lifeguard at the community pool in Tacoma.  Literally yesterday, she was covering the front counter while her coworker at the pool took a break and some anti-mask/anti-vaxx guy comes in.  We have a mask mandate in the State now, and so she asks him to put a mask on.  Skipping to the end, the guy verbally threatens her, and for the first time in her life, she was called the n word.  She was upset.  My friend was very upset.  To suggest that race doesn't matter is incredibly entitled and naive.  It matters to the racists, and it matters to the victims of racism.  

Getting back to the police, when someone has delegated authority over you in some way and they have a bias, that's a bad combination.  Add a sense of entitlement to the mix and that's a recipe for disaster.


----------



## Instructor

The closest thing to abuse I've ever received from a "cop" was a meter maid giving me a ticket when my truck was definitely parked between the lines and the meter still had an hour on it.


----------



## Steve

Koryuhoka said:


> Someone on a prior reply assumed I was white. That was my reply. And I am not incorrect about the rest. The problem is that the image portrayed on TV, with all the cop shows, showing cops doing things that are illegal to "get the bad guy", has America conditioned to accept the abuse as "the way things are". And even cops believe that BS. But when they find themselves in court being sued, they realize that they are on their own.


An interesting read on this topic.  How 70 years of cop shows taught us to valorize the police

This study is from 2001, so its a little dated, but man does it forecast many of the issues we've seen come to light recently.  It's a long read, but the main findings are below: 

https://www.policefoundation.org/wp...et-al.-2001-The-Abuse-of-Police-Authority.pdf

American police believe that extreme cases of police abuse of authority occur infrequently. However, a substantial minority of officers believe that it is sometimes necessary to use more force than is legally allowable.
Despite strong support for norms recognizing the boundaries of police authority, officers revealed that it is not unusual for police to ignore improper conduct by their fellow officers.
American police believe that training and education programs are effective means of preventing police from abusing authority. They also argue that their own department takes a “tough stand” on the issue of police abuse. Finally, they argue that a department’s chief and firstline supervisors can play an important role in preventing abuse of authority.
Police officers believe that the public and the media are too concerned with police abuses of authority.
American police officers support core principles of community policing; they generally believe that community policing reduces or has no impact on the potential for police abuse.
A majority of African-American police officers believe that police treat whites better than African Americans and other minorities, and that police officers are more likely to use physical force against minorities or the poor. Few white police officers, however, share these views.
They spend a lot of time talking about their sample, response rates, and who they are at the outset.  They also get into the troubling gap between cops who do bad things, and the "good" cops who know them but do nothing to report them, referred to as the code of silence in this article, or the blue wall in recent news.


----------



## ballen0351

Steve said:


> An interesting read on this topic.  How 70 years of cop shows taught us to valorize the police
> 
> This study is from 2001, so its a little dated, but man does it forecast many of the issues we've seen come to light recently.  It's a long read, but the main findings are below:
> 
> https://www.policefoundation.org/wp...et-al.-2001-The-Abuse-of-Police-Authority.pdf
> 
> American police believe that extreme cases of police abuse of authority occur infrequently. However, a substantial minority of officers believe that it is sometimes necessary to use more force than is legally allowable.
> Despite strong support for norms recognizing the boundaries of police authority, officers revealed that it is not unusual for police to ignore improper conduct by their fellow officers.
> American police believe that training and education programs are effective means of preventing police from abusing authority. They also argue that their own department takes a “tough stand” on the issue of police abuse. Finally, they argue that a department’s chief and firstline supervisors can play an important role in preventing abuse of authority.
> Police officers believe that the public and the media are too concerned with police abuses of authority.
> American police officers support core principles of community policing; they generally believe that community policing reduces or has no impact on the potential for police abuse.
> A majority of African-American police officers believe that police treat whites better than African Americans and other minorities, and that police officers are more likely to use physical force against minorities or the poor. Few white police officers, however, share these views.
> They spend a lot of time talking about their sample, response rates, and who they are at the outset.  They also get into the troubling gap between cops who do bad things, and the "good" cops who know them but do nothing to report them, referred to as the code of silence in this article, or the blue wall in recent news.


It would be interesting to see what the study would show now.  Policing has changed a lot even since 2001.  It's far more commonplace now for good officers to turn in bad officers.  Hell, I retired in 2019 I've turned in, testified against, arrested, and gotten fired bad officers in my career and never once felt guilty and never once was treated differently by my fellow officers. But talking to the old-timers I know that would have been different in the 80's and even 90's.  
We should always be looking for ways to do better in every profession and Law Enforcement is no different.  I do think with the addition of Cell Phone cameras and Body Cameras Law Enforcement has taken steps to move in a more professional manner.  I also see a change in the mindset of departments as they are starting to put a priority on victim-centered approaches to handling situations. 
You will always have bad people in every job unfortunately that's the nature of humanity.  But I think the days of cops coving up serious infractions and violence for other cops are working their way out of the profession.  I personally never saw an incidence of excessive force by another officer that wasn't reported either by myself or other officers.  And of those experiences, the number is less than 5 times in almost 20 years.  That's 100,000s of calls for service so this narrative that cops are running around beating and killing people in the streets is not the reality I observed and I spent a majority of my career working in predominantly minority areas and mostly at night.


----------



## Steve

ballen0351 said:


> It would be interesting to see what the study would show now.  Policing has changed a lot even since 2001.  It's far more commonplace now for good officers to turn in bad officers.  Hell, I retired in 2019 I've turned in, testified against, arrested, and gotten fired bad officers in my career and never once felt guilty and never once was treated differently by my fellow officers. But talking to the old-timers I know that would have been different in the 80's and even 90's.


I really hope that's true.  I think the trend is certainly in the right direction, though the entire issue of the "blue wall of silence" really came to a head a few years back.  I'll try to find something more recent.  



ballen0351 said:


> We should always be looking for ways to do better in every profession and Law Enforcement is no different.  I do think with the addition of Cell Phone cameras and Body Cameras Law Enforcement has taken steps to move in a more professional manner.  I also see a change in the mindset of departments as they are starting to put a priority on victim-centered approaches to handling situations.
> You will always have bad people in every job unfortunately that's the nature of humanity.  But I think the days of cops coving up serious infractions and violence for other cops are working their way out of the profession.  I personally never saw an incidence of excessive force by another officer that wasn't reported either by myself or other officers.  And of those experiences, the number is less than 5 times in almost 20 years.  That's 100,000s of calls for service so this narrative that cops are running around beating and killing people in the streets is not the reality I observed and I spent a majority of my career working in predominantly minority areas and mostly at night.


I really hope that's true.


----------



## ballen0351

Steve said:


> I really hope that's true.  I think the trend is certainly in the right direction, though the entire issue of the "blue wall of silence" really came to a head a few years back.  I'll try to find something more recent.
> 
> 
> I really hope that's true.


As do I.  

I can only speak to my experiences but I have been around 1000s and 1000s of officers and even now my current job is to train law enforcement all over the country and we get into some pretty deep conversations about policing and its flaws and where we can improve. Especially around race and sexual orientation issues.  I see a difference in the midset of today's police vs even 10 years ago.  Again some by necessity due to cameras, some by outside pressure from citizens, some because we are just learning to do things better like the victim center approach, better training.  
One example is calls for people going through a mental health crisis.  Back when I started we had pretty limited ways to resolve these types of calls and almost all of them resulted in Law Enforcement making people do something they didn't want to do like go to a hospital and often times required force.  Now tons of departments are starting to have started Crisis Response teams with specially trained officers to better deal with the mental health issues in our communities.  

I'm also not naive enough to think we are fixed there will always be people like your son rode with.  It's impossible to not have a few bad apples in every profession.  The judge in the county next to mine just blew his head off last week because the FBI was raiding his house for Child Porn.  I once saw a local ER doc on the to catch a predator show so there will always be that element but at least in my experience, it's pretty few and far between.  As law enforcement agencies start paying more and providing better benefits they are able to be more selective in their hiring and it makes people far less likely to cover for someone.  In my last police department, I was making 6 figures with OT I would never risk losing that to cover for a bad apple and that tended to be the attitude of most people in my department.  In fact, we openly talked about it.  Every time we got a new person on the shift we would make comments to that effect Im not going to risk feeding my family for you so you better act right.


----------



## dvcochran

ballen0351 said:


> It would be interesting to see what the study would show now.  Policing has changed a lot even since 2001.  It's far more commonplace now for good officers to turn in bad officers.  Hell, I retired in 2019 I've turned in, testified against, arrested, and gotten fired bad officers in my career and never once felt guilty and never once was treated differently by my fellow officers. But talking to the old-timers I know that would have been different in the 80's and even 90's.
> We should always be looking for ways to do better in every profession and Law Enforcement is no different.  I do think with the addition of Cell Phone cameras and Body Cameras Law Enforcement has taken steps to move in a more professional manner.  I also see a change in the mindset of departments as they are starting to put a priority on victim-centered approaches to handling situations.
> You will always have bad people in every job unfortunately that's the nature of humanity.  But I think the days of cops coving up serious infractions and violence for other cops are working their way out of the profession.  I personally never saw an incidence of excessive force by another officer that wasn't reported either by myself or other officers.  And of those experiences, the number is less than 5 times in almost 20 years.  That's 100,000s of calls for service so this narrative that cops are running around beating and killing people in the streets is not the reality I observed and I spent a majority of my career working in predominantly minority areas and mostly at night.


Nail on the head. That article was more of a TV movie puff piece than anything remotely accurate about the police.

I was also part of a group who turned in a fellow officer who was on the take (had been for some time). That was not easy but the right thing to do.

I also got reprimanded once when I tried to give a guy a break. He walked into the station (not that uncommon) and after a bit I could tell he was PD. His nickname was "Happy" and would come and wash the patrol cars for money. Pretty much a derelict. Like Otis from the Andy Griffith Show. 
I was buried in paperwork and just observed the guy while he hung out talking to other people, not causing any trouble. He was there for over 2 hours. When he got ready to leave I talked to him and made sure he was good to go and not driving. 
I later found out it was the night dispatcher who reported that I let the guy go. I was miffed at first but let it go and never said anything because by the letter of the law I was in the wrong.  I still do not feel bad about giving him a break.


----------



## Steve

ballen0351 said:


> As do I.
> 
> I can only speak to my experiences but I have been around 1000s and 1000s of officers and even now my current job is to train law enforcement all over the country and we get into some pretty deep conversations about policing and its flaws and where we can improve. Especially around race and sexual orientation issues.  I see a difference in the midset of today's police vs even 10 years ago.  Again some by necessity due to cameras, some by outside pressure from citizens, some because we are just learning to do things better like the victim center approach, better training.
> One example is calls for people going through a mental health crisis.  Back when I started we had pretty limited ways to resolve these types of calls and almost all of them resulted in Law Enforcement making people do something they didn't want to do like go to a hospital and often times required force.  Now tons of departments are starting to have started Crisis Response teams with specially trained officers to better deal with the mental health issues in our communities.



Seriously, I can't tell you how heartened I am to read this.  Gives me some hope.  



ballen0351 said:


> I'm also not naive enough to think we are fixed there will always be people like your son rode with.  It's impossible to not have a few bad apples in every profession.  The judge in the county next to mine just blew his head off last week because the FBI was raiding his house for Child Porn.  I once saw a local ER doc on the to catch a predator show so there will always be that element but at least in my experience, it's pretty few and far between.  As law enforcement agencies start paying more and providing better benefits they are able to be more selective in their hiring and it makes people far less likely to cover for someone.  In my last police department, I was making 6 figures with OT I would never risk losing that to cover for a bad apple and that tended to be the attitude of most people in my department.  In fact, we openly talked about it.  Every time we got a new person on the shift we would make comments to that effect Im not going to risk feeding my family for you so you better act right.


Totally agree on all accounts. 

Regarding hiring, if you want to look at the clear cause and effect that hiring standards, competitive compensation, and the problems that can come about with discipline and abuse of power, look into the border patrol over the last few decades.  It highlights the cycle you mention above very clearly.


----------



## ballen0351

dvcochran said:


> Nail on the head. That article was more of a TV movie puff piece than anything remotely accurate about the police.
> 
> I was also part of a group who turned in a fellow officer who was on the take (had been for some time). That was not easy but the right thing to do.
> 
> I also got reprimanded once when I tried to give a guy a break. He walked into the station (not that uncommon) and after a bit I could tell he was PD. His nickname was "Happy" and would come and wash the patrol cars for money. Pretty much a derelict. Like Otis from the Andy Griffith Show.
> I was buried in paperwork and just observed the guy while he hung out talking to other people, not causing any trouble. He was there for over 2 hours. When he got ready to leave I talked to him and made sure he was good to go and not driving.
> I later found out it was the night dispatcher who reported that I let the guy go. I was miffed at first but let it go and never said anything because by the letter of the law I was in the wrong.  I still do not feel bad about giving him a break.





Steve said:


> Seriously, I can't tell you how heartened I am to read this.  Gives me some hope.
> 
> 
> Totally agree on all accounts.
> 
> Regarding hiring, if you want to look at the clear cause and effect that hiring standards, competitive compensation, and the problems that can come about with discipline and abuse of power, look into the border patrol over the last few decades.  It highlights the cycle you mention above very clearly.


The pay thing is a huge factor in my opinion.  Like I said I train all over the country and I've been to some places in like Rural Mississippi where the officers made 11 dollars an hour and had to provide their own equipment.  They were not able to recruit the cream of the crop there.
I worked in Maryland and we would always get people coming to work for us from Pennsylvania because outside of the big cities most of PA would only hire cops as part-time so they could avoid paying benefits.  So we would have guys come to work for us that had 3 different part-time police jobs in PA to make a living.  So again the people that stay behind and keep working there tend to have some reason they didn't leave either a character flaw or some other negative that kept them from going someplace more professional.  

If people want professionals as their officers they need to provide professional salaries and benefits.   Otherwise sadly you end up with people that shouldn't be cops and people that couldn't be cops someplace else.


----------



## Steve

dvcochran said:


> I was also part of a group who turned in a fellow officer who was on the take (had been for some time). That was not easy but the right thing to do.


This is the problem.  Should be easy to do the right thing.  If you work in a place where doing the right thing takes a group of people working together and isn't easy, there is something really concerning going on.  This is particularly true if it's something as clear as an "officer who was on the take."  

If it was hard for you to turn in an overtly corrupt officer, how can anyone reasonably believe you would turn in a cop who is generally okay but crosses the line from time to time?


----------



## Steve

ballen0351 said:


> The pay thing is a huge factor in my opinion.  Like I said I train all over the country and I've been to some places in like Rural Mississippi where the officers made 11 dollars an hour and had to provide their own equipment.  They were not able to recruit the cream of the crop there.
> I worked in Maryland and we would always get people coming to work for us from Pennsylvania because outside of the big cities most of PA would only hire cops as part-time so they could avoid paying benefits.  So we would have guys come to work for us that had 3 different part-time police jobs in PA to make a living.  So again the people that stay behind and keep working there tend to have some reason they didn't leave either a character flaw or some other negative that kept them from going someplace more professional.
> 
> If people want professionals as their officers they need to provide professional salaries and benefits.   Otherwise sadly you end up with people that shouldn't be cops and people that couldn't be cops someplace else.


Yeah, I mentioned earlier that my little town doesn't have the infrastructure to support an independent police force.  We have city police officers, but they are actually just permanently detailed from the County Sheriff's office.  Last I looked into it, at least.


----------



## dvcochran

Steve said:


> This is the problem.  Should be easy to do the right thing.  If you work in a place where doing the right thing takes a group of people working together and isn't easy, there is something really concerning going on.  This is particularly true if it's something as clear as an "officer who was on the take."
> 
> If it was hard for you to turn in an overtly corrupt officer, how can anyone reasonably believe you would turn in a cop who is generally okay but crosses the line from time to time?


Young, low man on the totem pole, my word against his at first. Had I went out on my own it would not have ended well. 
Proof had to built. 
You can play that holier than thou crap but a person has to be really, really smart about how they do something like that. 

Sounds like you would have just ended up more pissed off at the police than you already are. And most of it would have been your own fault.


----------



## Steve

dvcochran said:


> Young, low man on the totem pole, my word against his at first. Had I went out on my own it would not have ended well.
> Proof had to built.
> You can play that holier than thou crap but a person has to be really, really smart about how they do something like that.
> 
> Sounds like you would have just ended up more pissed off at the police than you already are. And most of it would have been your own fault.



As I said before, that's all kinds of red flags.  You think what you're saying is reasonable, but it's really not, and the more you elaborate, the more unreasonable it sounds.

What we know so far:

A cop is "on the take".  Having seen my share of gangster movies, I interpret that to mean he's been accepting bribes.  Maybe it means something else to you.  Either way, it sounds like unethical behavior.
You found it hard to report.
You reported it as part of a group, so clearly you weren't the only person aware of his unethical behavior.
It had been going on a long time, so clearly people were aware of his unethical behavior for a long time and didn't report it.  This also suggests that his unethical behavior is well known.
As a junior employee, you feared retaliation had you reported what you knew to be true without getting proof on your own.
Is there anything else you'd like to add?

You seem to think this is the way these things are supposed to work, as you suggest that just reporting it wouldn't have ended well for you, and any fallout from reporting it would have been your fault (well, technically, you said my fault, but I wasn't there).  I don't know how much experience you have with administrative investigations, but what you're describing is not how a healthy, well run, ethical organization operates.

And the actual point is, this is a serious breach of ethical behavior.  This is long term bribery and you only reported it as part of a group, after conducting your own quasi-investigation.  If this is the status quo, how can we reasonably expect 'good' officers to report lesser issues, like a guy who occasionally gets a little carried away with use of force?  Or a guy who abuses his authority.. but only with really bad guys who deserve it anyway?  Or any other unethical behavior that falls short of the extreme example that prompted you and your cohort to finally report the corrupt officer/


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf

dvcochran said:


> Young, low man on the totem pole, my word against his at first. Had I went out on my own it would not have ended well.
> Proof had to built.
> You can play that holier than thou crap but a person has to be really, really smart about how they do something like that.
> 
> Sounds like you would have just ended up more pissed off at the police than you already are. And most of it would have been your own fault.


How would they have known anything? Just about every job that I've had, there was a way to report HR issues anonymously. In the healthcare-related jobs, there was a way to report ethical problems anonymously, that I've used because lives were at stake. The person I reported, my boss, their bosses, all had no idea it was me. They also did their own review and found the evidence themselves based on what I could report. I can't imagine seeing something unethical happen that could endanger lives and not being able to report what happened afterwards, due to fear regarding my job. 

I could potentially see being the newest person around, not wanting to say anything in the moment and waiting until after to report it. Depending on what the issue was/severity of it. But there would be some point that it's safe to report what had happened without fear of retribution.


----------



## dvcochran

Monkey Turned Wolf said:


> How would they have known anything? Just about every job that I've had, there was a way to report HR issues anonymously. In the healthcare-related jobs, there was a way to report ethical problems anonymously, that I've used because lives were at stake. The person I reported, my boss, their bosses, all had no idea it was me. They also did their own review and found the evidence themselves based on what I could report. I can't imagine seeing something unethical happen that could endanger lives and not being able to report what happened afterwards, due to fear regarding my job.
> 
> I could potentially see being the newest person around, not wanting to say anything in the moment and waiting until after to report it. Depending on what the issue was/severity of it. But there would be some point that it's safe to report what had happened without fear of retribution.


Haha! This was in 1988. We had zero HR department. Two girls in admin but they had nothing to do with the issue. There was no "official review board". You seem to think there was some nice, clean process to do something like this back then in a small town. That could not be farther from the truth. 

I have no idea how old you are but imagine you are 20 years old less than a year into a high profile job and you catch your direct boss in a compromising situation. Say what you want but there was a ton to process and honestly I did not know who all I could trust. Believe me when I say I eased into the situation. I already had 2 businesses and in a small town it could have had huge implications had the whole thing went wrong. 
The other officer was held in very high regards and very well known about town. It turned the department upside down so much that the Chief (who hired me) resigned some time later (actually a transfer). 

I could not imagine it either at the time but I feel some of you guys need to step outside yourself and see the bigger picture. This was definitely the biggest reasons I was a LEO only 5 years. Not so much because someone had a bad error in judgement and ethical issues but how the whole process had to be handled. To say stressful is a massive understatement.


----------



## dvcochran

Steve said:


> As I said before, that's all kinds of red flags.  You think what you're saying is reasonable, but it's really not, and the more you elaborate, the more unreasonable it sounds.
> 
> What we know so far:
> 
> A cop is "on the take".  Having seen my share of gangster movies, I interpret that to mean he's been accepting bribes.  Maybe it means something else to you.  Either way, it sounds like unethical behavior.
> You found it hard to report.
> You reported it as part of a group, so clearly you weren't the only person aware of his unethical behavior.
> It had been going on a long time, so clearly people were aware of his unethical behavior for a long time and didn't report it.  This also suggests that his unethical behavior is well known.
> As a junior employee, you feared retaliation had you reported what you knew to be true without getting proof on your own.
> Is there anything else you'd like to add?
> 
> You seem to think this is the way these things are supposed to work, as you suggest that just reporting it wouldn't have ended well for you, and any fallout from reporting it would have been your fault (well, technically, you said my fault, but I wasn't there).  I don't know how much experience you have with administrative investigations, but what you're describing is not how a healthy, well run, ethical organization operates.
> 
> And the actual point is, this is a serious breach of ethical behavior.  This is long term bribery and you only reported it as part of a group, after conducting your own quasi-investigation.  If this is the status quo, how can we reasonably expect 'good' officers to report lesser issues, like a guy who occasionally gets a little carried away with use of force?  Or a guy who abuses his authority.. but only with really bad guys who deserve it anyway?  Or any other unethical behavior that falls short of the extreme example that prompted you and your cohort to finally report the corrupt officer/


It is brilliant how you feel you have the capacity and information to have a clue what happened. 

1 is just ludicrous assumptions.
2 is correct
3,4 you are bizarrely off base and just blindly swinging. Dude. 
5 is correct

I will not oblige you with the full story. You obviously would not understand it and make your own story anyway.


----------



## ballen0351

dvcochran said:


> Haha! This was in 1988. We had zero HR department. Two girls in admin but they had nothing to do with the issue.


Thats kinda the point I was making to Steve. Just in the last 20 -30 years Law Enforcement has changed so much.  Im sure the way things went down in the 80s are totally different then they go down now.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf

dvcochran said:


> Haha! This was in 1988. We had zero HR department. Two girls in admin but they had nothing to do with the issue. There was no "official review board". You seem to think there was some nice, clean process to do something like this back then in a small town. That could not be farther from the truth.
> 
> I have no idea how old you are but imagine you are 20 years old less than a year into a high profile job and you catch your direct boss in a compromising situation. Say what you want but there was a ton to process and honestly I did not know who all I could trust. Believe me when I say I eased into the situation. I already had 2 businesses and in a small town it could have had huge implications had the whole thing went wrong.
> The other officer was held in very high regards and very well known about town. It turned the department upside down so much that the Chief (who hired me) resigned some time later (actually a transfer).
> 
> I could not imagine it either at the time but I feel some of you guys need to step outside yourself and see the bigger picture. This was definitely the biggest reasons I was a LEO only 5 years. Not so much because someone had a bad error in judgement and ethical issues but how the whole process had to be handled. To say stressful is a massive understatement.


The lack of an HR department or the ability to do that is more of an indictment on the police department than anything else mentioned. I hope that this is no longer the case (although now that I'm thinking about it, I do know of a police officer that was forced to "Retire" early due to reporting unethical behavior, which for his sake I won't go into detail about. So still an issue in 2010).


----------



## Steve

dvcochran said:


> It is brilliant how you feel you have the capacity and information to have a clue what happened.
> 
> 1 is just ludicrous assumptions.
> 2 is correct
> 3,4 you are bizarrely off base and just blindly swinging. Dude.
> 5 is correct
> 
> I will not oblige you with the full story. You obviously would not understand it and make your own story anyway.


I think in your zeal to try and troll me, you're completely missing the point.  I'm not criticizing you.  I'm pointing out that you worked in an organization that was dysfunctional.  You're taking it personally, but I'm actually impressed you got the hell out of there after only five years.  For all the reasons I listed, the organization you worked for epitomizes the issues brought up by me and others.

But, to the other stuff, I'm pretty sure I have as much or more experience with this kind of thing than pretty much anyone on the site. I have been involved in these kinds of investigations in pretty much every role accept for accused.  I've managed employees whom I've investigated and eventually fired for misconduct, I've investigated employee misconduct outside of my organization, been a management representative in alternative dispute resolution situations, and I've trained new managers on how to handle employee misconduct.  I don't know the ins and outs of the police union or the specifics of the collective bargaining agreement that you fell under in 1988, but I'm pretty up to speed on what it should be now.  And if I don't know something, I can run it by my wife, who is a senior HR investigator for an international company who has way more experience and expertise than I do.  She's forgotten more than I'll ever know, and is an expert in both America and Canada.  I'm sharing this in the hopes you just unclench a little and stop acting foolish.  It doesn't reflect well on you.


----------



## Steve

Monkey Turned Wolf said:


> The lack of an HR department or the ability to do that is more of an indictment on the police department than anything else mentioned. I hope that this is no longer the case (although now that I'm thinking about it, I do know of a police officer that was forced to "Retire" early due to reporting unethical behavior, which for his sake I won't go into detail about. So still an issue in 2010).


100%.  I'm actually really glad to hear these stories coming to light because for years, the prevailing philosophy seemed to be snitches get stitches.  And that's not sustainable.  You can't fix a problem if everyone involved is in on the cover up.


----------



## Steve

ballen0351 said:


> Thats kinda the point I was making to Steve. Just in the last 20 -30 years Law Enforcement has changed so much.  Im sure the way things went down in the 80s are totally different then they go down now.


I'm optimistic that in 10 years, the BLM protests and a lot of these issues we're working through now as a society will result in a stronger, healthier police force, that's better for everyone, including the police.


----------



## punisher73

Koryuhoka said:


> No. The Constitution is ABOVE ALL State laws, acts and statutes. Nuances affect those who allow public servants to talk legalese to them. Once they instill doubt in you, you're set up to put yourself under their jurisdiction, which can only happen if you consent. It's really simple. But Americans have allowed themselves to be subject to deception. This is the reason police departments and LEO are being held accountable through legal action. People are waking up and not taking the abuse.


You are _mostly _correct.  You are correct that the Constitution is above state laws.  Everything else after that is wrong in regards to stopping and identifying.

_Amendment IV
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized"._

Courts have ruled that police stopping someone is a "seizure", there is no disagreement on that part.  The US Supreme Court interprets the US Constitution and makes rulings on how to enforce and interpret it.  It also looks at how states pass laws and if the laws fall within the scope and intent of the Constitution.  Courts have ruled that certain "seizures" are not unreasonable following certain guidelines, in this case stopping someone and having them identify themselves given a certain set of circumstances.  The laws that I referenced are not considered "unreasonable seizures", and are within the proper scope of police duties. The courts get to decide reasonable or unreasonable NOT YOU.


----------



## Steve

dvcochran said:


> It is brilliant how you feel you have the capacity and information to have a clue what happened.
> 
> 1 is just ludicrous assumptions.
> 2 is correct
> 3,4 you are bizarrely off base and just blindly swinging. Dude.
> 5 is correct
> 
> I will not oblige you with the full story. You obviously would not understand it and make your own story anyway.



I'm actually not all that interested in the story.  The point you make is well made.  We all know enough to be able to say with confidence that, regardless of the details, your story highlights some of the systemic concerns raised by me and others in this thread.  And as I and others have said, it's great that we seem to be moving away from these kinds of dysfunctional situations and that police departments are headed in a more positive direction.  

We're still talking about it only because you are so emotional and looking for offense when you respond to me that you literally contradict yourself and can't keep your story straight.  I think you might be happier if you just put me on your ignore list.  I won't take it personally if you do.


----------



## ballen0351

Steve said:


> I'm optimistic that in 10 years, the BLM protests and a lot of these issues we're working through now as a society will result in a stronger, healthier police force, that's better for everyone, including the police.


I think there have been some good ideas proposed by both sides of the debate regarding changes in law enforcement but people are so dug into their beliefs they won't listen.
For example the "send a social worker" idea.  My first response from the police side of the brain says that stupid they will get killed.  BUUUT the more I think about it I agree with it sort of.  
Law Enforcement has become the catch-all for people when they don't know who else to call.  It's 4 am and there is a dog barking and animal control is closed so call the police, It's Sunday afternoon and there is a homeless guy panhandling in front of the business area well social services is closed call the police.  An autistic adult is having some issues at a movie theater call the police.  Well, sometimes the police are not the best organization to be called.  Our knowledge and resources are limited.  
Every special interest group alive wants the police to be an expert in their cause.  I deal with that at work now.  Im the only former law enforcement on our team and the others get so frustrated that cops don't pay more attention to "our cause."  I have to remind them that we are just one of 50 causes that demand an officer's attention.  So while it may not always be "social workers" being sent if we stopped making the police the "I don't know who else to call so I called you" for non-police matters and instead have other orgs either govt or non-profits respond to non-police matters, it gives the person in need of help better-trained people for that particular issue they are dealing with and it frees law enforcement to focus on actual crimes.


----------



## dvcochran

ballen0351 said:


> I think there have been some good ideas proposed by both sides of the debate regarding changes in law enforcement but people are so dug into their beliefs they won't listen.
> For example the "send a social worker" idea. My first response from the police side of the brain says that stupid they will get killed. BUUUT the more I think about it I agree with it sort of.
> Law Enforcement has become the catch-all for people when they don't know who else to call. It's 4 am and there is a dog barking and animal control is closed so call the police, It's Sunday afternoon and there is a homeless guy panhandling in front of the business area well social services is closed call the police. An autistic adult is having some issues at a movie theater call the police. Well, sometimes the police are not the best organization to be called. Our knowledge and resources are limited.
> Every special interest group alive wants the police to be an expert in their cause. I deal with that at work now. Im the only former law enforcement on our team and the others get so frustrated that cops don't pay more attention to "our cause." I have to remind them that we are just one of 50 causes that demand an officer's attention. So while it may not always be "social workers" being sent if we stopped making the police the "I don't know who else to call so I called you" for non-police matters and instead have other orgs either govt or non-profits respond to non-police matters, it gives the person in need of help better-trained people for that particular issue they are dealing with and it frees law enforcement to focus on actual crimes.


Very well said. 
I does speak to a another level of bureaucracy and the "there should be someone to do this for me" mentality. 
Instead of maintaining clearly defined lines and using common sense, maturity, and intelligence to deal with things themselves it seems the more liberal minded people keep wanting to add more top heavy mass and carve up the existing, adding to an already chaotic society.


----------



## Steve

ballen0351 said:


> I think there have been some good ideas proposed by both sides of the debate regarding changes in law enforcement but people are so dug into their beliefs they won't listen.
> For example the "send a social worker" idea.  My first response from the police side of the brain says that stupid they will get killed.  BUUUT the more I think about it I agree with it sort of.
> Law Enforcement has become the catch-all for people when they don't know who else to call.  It's 4 am and there is a dog barking and animal control is closed so call the police, It's Sunday afternoon and there is a homeless guy panhandling in front of the business area well social services is closed call the police.  An autistic adult is having some issues at a movie theater call the police.  Well, sometimes the police are not the best organization to be called.  Our knowledge and resources are limited.
> Every special interest group alive wants the police to be an expert in their cause.  I deal with that at work now.  Im the only former law enforcement on our team and the others get so frustrated that cops don't pay more attention to "our cause."  I have to remind them that we are just one of 50 causes that demand an officer's attention.  So while it may not always be "social workers" being sent if we stopped making the police the "I don't know who else to call so I called you" for non-police matters and instead have other orgs either govt or non-profits respond to non-police matters, it gives the person in need of help better-trained people for that particular issue they are dealing with and it frees law enforcement to focus on actual crimes.


Lots to think about.  Animal Control is only able to respond if they have the staff, the budget, and are well run.  Social Services are only effective if they are staffed, funded, and are well run.  And  so on.  It's a tough sell, if you're in the city, county, or state budget office, have limited money and are making decisions about who to fund and who to not fund...  where does the money go?  If it's between the police and social services...  generally, the money goes to the police.  Which pinches the social services resulting in fewer resources and services they can provide, which then results in the cops being called to do things they aren't well trained to do or are outside of the scope of their job.   It's a cycle that goes on all the time at every level of government... robbing peter to pay paul.  

Everything costs money, and taxation is definitely big "P" political, where different folks have different opinions.  But regardless of what your opinion is on taxation, it's just a fundamental truth that no matter how hard working and competent folks are, if you don't have the staff or the funding, you will at some point need to start reducing services or see a loss in quality.   True for the police and also for social services, animal control, and so on.


----------



## Buka

To a person who’s never trained Martial Arts, the opinions he forms will be based on something other than actual experience. That can be influenced by a lot of factors.

To a person who HAS trained Martial Arts, the opinions formed will be something else entirely, but that will vary immensely because not many dojos are exactly alike. And even in ones that are pretty much alike, results will vary greatly depending on who is teaching, what they are teaching, WHO they are teaching, why they are teaching, how they are teaching etc.

I believe it important to keep in mind that law enforcement is the same way, only ten fold.

Beware of the “I never trained Martial Arts but I believe this about it.”

Yeah, it’s kinda the same way about police work. And even if you do work in Law Enforcement, all of our experiences, dangers, procedures, politics and place in society tend to be different. Sometimes way different.

Always good to keep an open mind.


----------



## john_newman

Thanks for the information, just want to stay away with the word "Police"..


----------



## Urban Trekker

Koryuhoka said:


> Someone on a prior reply assumed I was white.



Are you northeast Asian?  Cuban?  African immigrant with an obvious accent?  Or one of those other "good" minorities that few people feel threatened by?


----------



## Urban Trekker

Koryuhoka said:


> No. The Constitution is ABOVE ALL State laws, acts and statutes. Nuances affect those who allow public servants to talk legalese to them. Once they instill doubt in you, you're set up to put yourself under their jurisdiction, which can only happen if you consent. It's really simple. But Americans have allowed themselves to be subject to deception. This is the reason police departments and LEO are being held accountable through legal action. People are waking up and not taking the abuse.



Looks like we've got ourselves a sovereign citizen


----------



## Urban Trekker

I'd like to see a town or city try this for an experiment: a conscripted police force.

Basically, any able-bodied person who has a clean record and is eligible for jury duty is also eligible for conscription in the police force.

The reasoning for why I propose this:  we all know what the job of a police officer entails.  There are times where you may have to get physical with someone you're apprehending, which can often times result in serious injury or death.  The issue?  The people who do not want to do these things are probably exactly the people you want on the police force, and they're not going to apply for the job.

My understanding is that Napoleon raised a conscripted army in order to avoid it being full of the crude ruffian types who were typically attracted to military service at the time.  Maybe we need to consider this as well, when looking at the police force.


----------



## jks9199

Urban Trekker said:


> I'd like to see a town or city try this for an experiment: a conscripted police force.
> 
> Basically, any able-bodied person who has a clean record and is eligible for jury duty is also eligible for conscription in the police force.
> 
> The reasoning for why I propose this:  we all know what the job of a police officer entails.  There are times where you may have to get physical with someone you're apprehending, which can often times result in serious injury or death.  The issue?  The people who do not want to do these things are probably exactly the people you want on the police force, and they're not going to apply for the job.
> 
> My understanding is that Napoleon raised a conscripted army in order to avoid it being full of the crude ruffian types who were typically attracted to military service at the time.  Maybe we need to consider this as well, when looking at the police force.


No, your concept is just wrong.

While nobody's perfect -- the goal is for police to use force professionally and responsibly, using ONLY the force necessary to accomplish lawful goals like taking someone into custody.  De-escalation and avoiding the use of physical force is a great goal -- but without the ability to carry out the implied threat of going hands on, you reduce people to begging a criminal to comply.  Want better cops?  Pay them to be professionals, stop dumping revenue collection and all the stuff that gets thrown on the cops because they're handy, and give them the tools and training to use them confidently.


----------



## drop bear

Urban Trekker said:


> I'd like to see a town or city try this for an experiment: a conscripted police force.
> 
> Basically, any able-bodied person who has a clean record and is eligible for jury duty is also eligible for conscription in the police force.
> 
> The reasoning for why I propose this:  we all know what the job of a police officer entails.  There are times where you may have to get physical with someone you're apprehending, which can often times result in serious injury or death.  The issue?  The people who do not want to do these things are probably exactly the people you want on the police force, and they're not going to apply for the job.
> 
> My understanding is that Napoleon raised a conscripted army in order to avoid it being full of the crude ruffian types who were typically attracted to military service at the time.  Maybe we need to consider this as well, when looking at the police force.



It doesn't matter who you start with if it is the environment creates monsters.


----------



## drop bear

jks9199 said:


> No, your concept is just wrong.
> 
> While nobody's perfect -- the goal is for police to use force professionally and responsibly, using ONLY the force necessary to accomplish lawful goals like taking someone into custody.  De-escalation and avoiding the use of physical force is a great goal -- but without the ability to carry out the implied threat of going hands on, you reduce people to begging a criminal to comply.  Want better cops?  Pay them to be professionals, stop dumping revenue collection and all the stuff that gets thrown on the cops because they're handy, and give them the tools and training to use them confidently.



No it really isn't.

If that was the goal. Then you would see ten cops packed in to a patrol car. That way they could effectively and safely subdue a person using minimum force.

Along with the tools, training and support needed to prepare a person for that role.

You would see a focus on mental health of officers to stop break downs. You would see increased work health and saftey. Pulling tired or injured officers off shift.

You might even give them pants with inbuilt knee pads so they are not beating themselves up every time they have to hand cuff some one.

If the sum total of effort that goes in to police using force professionally is a two week self defence course.

That is literally the last goal of police administration.


----------



## Urban Trekker

jks9199 said:


> No, your concept is just wrong.
> 
> While nobody's perfect -- the goal is for police to use force professionally and responsibly, using ONLY the force necessary to accomplish lawful goals like taking someone into custody.



Which is also the goal of my hypothetical scenario.



> De-escalation and avoiding the use of physical force is a great goal -- but without the ability to carry out the implied threat of going hands on, you reduce people to begging a criminal to comply.



I didn't mean to imply that this hypothetical conscripted police force would consist of officers that would flat out refuse to get physical if they can't gain compliance at lower levels.  What I did mean to imply is that they'd simply be less eager to do it.

Also, consider this other possibility: greater mutual respect between the police and the citizens.

The conscripted officers know that their time is eventually going to be up, and they're going to be back out there among the citizens that they deal with on a daily basis.  They also know that when this happens, some of the citizens that they've dealt with will be conscripted officers themselves.  The Golden Rule would then become very important in this scenario.


----------



## dvcochran

drop bear said:


> No it really isn't.
> 
> If that was the goal. Then you would see ten cops packed in to a patrol car. That way they could effectively and safely subdue a person using minimum force.
> 
> Along with the tools, training and support needed to prepare a person for that role.
> 
> You would see a focus on mental health of officers to stop break downs. You would see increased work health and saftey. Pulling tired or injured officers off shift.
> 
> You might even give them pants with inbuilt knee pads so they are not beating themselves up every time they have to hand cuff some one.
> 
> If the sum total of effort that goes in to police using force professionally is a two week self defence course.
> 
> That is literally the last goal of police administration.


Your points are valid but far, far from what @Urban Trekker mentioned.


----------



## Dirty Dog

Folks, this thread is starting to turn political. Please don't make us lock it.


----------



## Buka

Dirty Dog said:


> Folks, this thread is starting to turn political. Please don't make us lock it.


This thread has the right to remain silent. Anything it says can and will likely piss someone off.

I can see the lock coming now.


----------



## CB Jones

Urban Trekker said:


> My understanding is that Napoleon raised a conscripted army in order to avoid it being full of the crude ruffian types who were typically attracted to military service at the time.



You sure he didn't just need a method to replenish troops during the Napoleonic wars?  Of the 2.5 million conscripts...over 1 million never returned to France (either killed or deserted)


----------



## Urban Trekker

,


----------



## AIKIKENJITSU

From my research, I've taught myself to stay away from police for these reasons:'
1. They seem too eager to take you down physically and possibly kill you with one leg across his neck cutting off air and another cop's knee against his lungs so he can't bring in air. 
I have seen cops lie about a guy hitting him. and the list goes on.
I am 78 and I do my best to stay away from cop. One cop that lived on our block, drove up and gave me the come here finger as if I were a kid, instead of a 5'2" 70 year old. I have no food feeling towards that type of cop. Many cops are that way and many are not honest.
Therefore, the best way to be is to stay far away from them. And  if you must answer to them, do so in very short assigners. 
There are many cops that feel they have total control over the people.
Stay away from cops and give them the least amount  of information.


----------



## AIKIKENJITSU

My opinion and that of others, is that most police are improperly trained and the best advice is to stay away from them as much as possible.


----------



## geezer

AIKIKENJITSU said:


> My opinion and that of others, is that most police are improperly trained and the best advice is to stay away from them as much as possible.


Huh... must depend on the environment. 

Occasionally I run into LEOs at odd times ...like standing in line at Starbucks or a sandwich shop and will strike up a conversation.  If they're busy, the conversation will be short, but aside from that,  I've never really had a bad experience. Then again, I work hard at giving off good "vibes". 

When they're on the job, on the other hand, you'd have to be an idiot to interfere.


----------



## CB Jones

AIKIKENJITSU said:


> My opinion and that of others, is that most police are improperly trained and the best advice is to stay away from them as much as possible.



Opinions are like a‐holes

In every profession, there are people who are good at their job, average at their job, and bad at their job.

Some people judge people by their best representatives and some by their worst.  We should judge them by their individual actions, not the actions of others.


----------



## CB Jones

Always liked this saying...

If you meet a a-hole in the morning...you met an a-hole.

If you continue to meet a‐holes during the day....you are probably the a-hole


----------



## Dirty Dog

Thread locked pending staff review.


----------

