# Good Cop / Bad Cop



## KP.

In this thread on the MartialTalk.Com  	> Arts   	> General Self Defense   	> Law Enforcement forum, a discussion about a particular technique took a left turn and became a discussion about police conduct.

It was claimed in the discussion by Drac that:



Drac said:


> Any and all injuries sustained by the arrested parties could be avoided if they would comply with our simple request of*  "Sir/Mam, STOP resisting.."*



Which I personally find somewhat ludicrous. I would not disagree if he claimed that "some" injuries, or even if he stated that "most" injuries. After all, the majority of this nation's LEO's are professional folks trying to do a good job. But it is also the case that police misconduct, and police brutality, are a problem in our cities police forces.

A bit later in the discussion, this point was made:



Archangel M said:


> KP. said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't disagree that there are far more good cops than bad. My point was that *too many* do go beyond where they are allowed to go. The closer one gets to the inner city, the greater that number becomes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ever stop to think that perhaps that is due to a relationship between the police AND the clientele? What (and who) the police have to deal with in the "inner city" is different from the suburbs. It doesnt excuse improper use of force, but the cop who acts like officer friendly in the projects is going to get his *** handed to him.
> 
> Not a PC answer perhaps, but the truth as I see it.
Click to expand...


I don't disagree that the reality of the task of policing in the inner cities is that it is more stressful, and there are more "bad guys" around (or at least folks who really dislike the police), but does that excuse mistreatment?

There are real problems that exist between inner city communities and the police, systemic mistrust on both sides renders interactions in investigations and neighborhood policing efforts difficult at best. Does police violence make those relationships better or worse? And, does that serve to help or harm the police and community as a whole? Is it blown out of proportion, or does the rate of events, how ever few they may be when taken with all interactions over the nation as a whole, present real issues for how the police and community interact at local levels?

Does a person's social-economic background effect how they view the police because of past interactions or events? What can be done to change that if it is considered a problem. If it is not considered a problem, why not?


----------



## Archangel M

Mistreatment is in the eye of the beholder. 

Some "mistreatment" is plain ******** from people who just didn't like getting arrested for what they did.

Some "mistreatment" is people thinking that running from a robbery and fighting with police should mean being asked nicely to turn around and put their hands behind their backs.

Some "mistreatment" is from people who think that they can be disrespectful, abusive, uncooperative and general *******s with the police and then not like the "attitude" they get back.

Some "mistreatment" is mommy not liking the way her little baby got treated after running from the police after a robbery, a car chase and a fight.

Some "mistreatment" is plain old ******** from people who want a lawsuit and a payday based on lies.

Some "mistreatment" is from aggravated, tired and beaten down cops who are good guys that have lost their focus.

Some "mistreatment" IS bad cops who should be removed from the job.


Find Chris Rocks video on getting your *** kicked by the police... #1 OBEY THE LAW.


----------



## Cryozombie

Archangel M said:


> Find Chris Rocks video on getting your *** kicked by the police... #1 OBEY THE LAW.



Yeah... cuz the cops NEVER interact with anyone who hasn't broken the law...

No one gets pulled over for "roadside safety checks" just for driving down the road they are checking that night.

No one ever gets stopped because their vehicle matches the description of one thats being looked for.

No one gets questioned because something was stolen from their former employer, and even tho they didn't do the theft, they are questioned for it because they were reported as leaving on bad terms...

Hell man, I personally, years ago was stopped and ticketed for speeding in a residential area even tho I was driving under the posted speed limit.  It was thrown out in court, but don't tell me I should have "Obeyed the Law" because I was, and *the COP was in the wrong.*

It happens sometimes.


----------



## Archangel M

Perhaps you didnt read the last 2 lines in my list?

The rest of my points are just as valid as yours DEAL WITH IT!!!!


----------



## KP.

Cryozombie said:


> Yeah... cuz the cops NEVER interact with anyone who hasn't broken the law...



More to the point, even if they have broken the law, are the standards "suggestions?"

And when those standards are violated, to what level must they be violated before meaningful action is taken.

The reality of police brutality would be tolerated (or at least willfully ignored) a lot more by the residents of inner cities where I have lived if it were believed that the bad cops were treated the same way as any other criminal. But the perception (and in at least a few high profile cases, the reality) is that such is not the case. Moreover, even if recent changes have been bringing that sort of double-standard more into line of equal treatment, these communities exist with the knowledge of the past, and rightly or wrongly, the practices of 1978 effect perceptions in 2008.


----------



## Rich Parsons

I have friends and met some who are good police officers.

I have met some bad cops in my time as well. 


I have met some who were just having a bad day as well. 


I have I been hit by cops before? Yes. 

Was I resisting? No. My hands were behind my back, and I was surrounded by the one officer questioning me and his backup. The back up was four other officers, plus others watching the vehicle.

What? This makes no sense, Rich you must have been doing something wrong to that many police officers "talking" to you. What the heck happened?

There had been two guys in two tone Grey and Dark Red Two Door Biuck Regal 1975 that were running over lawns in the wealthy neighborhoods. We were coming home from a teen club with live music, and were dropping people off at 11:00 PM. We had 6 guys in a four door 1978 White Oldsmobile Royale. 

We were pulled over, and told to wait while more police showed up. Then a car driving a couple of young women in the back drove by and pointed at us. I heard one say, "yes that is them."

That is when the night got bad. I was in the back seat in February with the windows down (* to precent fogging so the police could watch us, but they had over ten cars present and could have put us in the back of them. *) freezing. The police officers had already secured the driver. They then proceeded to to talk to the passengers int eh front seat out of the car. Not nicely either. Lots of pushes and shoves, even while they were walking. Then it came to my turn. The officer(s) were upset and they opened the door. I asked if I was to get out or remain seated, asn they had opened the door previously and yelled at me when I went to get out. The officer just grabbed me and pulled me out by my hair. I got out and just stood there. He asked what my name was so he could go through our ID's to find me. Other officers came over to back him up. You see I was 6'2" going on 6'3" and about 200 to 210 lbs no gut. The officer that grabbed me by my hair was 5'5" and about 150 lbs. So I guess he needed back up. As some were carrying their flash lights and others were jsut acting too nervous for me, I stood straight and looked ahead with my hands behind my back and tried not to do anything wrong. I answered the officers questions with Yes Sir and No Sir and with data, Sir. I was then yelled at for about 3 minutes about calling him sir. So we then went through all the same questions again with me just answering with no response of sir, just the answer. He then asked me how old I was. I said 15. It being February as I mentioned and my birthday being in September. The officer, replied "Idiot, you are 16. You do not even know who old you are. How stupid are you?" I replied, "I will be 16 in September." He then hit me in the gut, with a followed up upper cut to the face as I was partialy bent over. I did not pull my hands from my back. I yelled I am not resisting, I only answered your question. I yelled as of course ten plus police cars got the neighborhood out. I then was taught a lesson. The officer is always in control. The officer is always right. The officer does not like to be corrected or told something he does not like to hear. It was a very enlightening experience being hit from behind and from the side and from the front. I was even kicked on the ground when I fell. I never once removed my hands from behind my back. I grabbed them and did not let go. When it was over, and while it seemed like a long time to me I am sure it was quite quick, I was placed back into the vehicle I had been a passenger in and told to wait. I did. The police came back to ask more questions. This time it was the 5'5" cop (* Yes this is when I startd to refer to bad police officers as Cops and I try to keep it that way  in my mind as well *) and a 6'6" officer. The 6'6" officer said he would question me as I seemed to have a problem with the other officer. This officer then asked all the questions again. I realized also this is what made them upset. I knew exactly where I was and when the whole night. I had a brand new watch and kept checking it. So I knew at what time we picked up so and so and what time we got to the teen club and when we left and so forth. They though since I had actual data I was making it up. I was lying. This taller officer then got made at me and yelled at me that he was going to call my parents. I looked him in the eyes, and I stated, "Please call my parents, so I can tell them everything that has happened tonight." He then grabbed me by the collar and belt and started to pull drag me to the back of a police car. He stated, "I hope your parents can afford a fine for $500 for destruction of private property." As he was throwing me face firts into the back of the car, I look over my shoulder, and said something in anger. I stated, "Would that be cash check or charge?" He then yelled at me to not move or breath or anything. I was face down on teh back seat. He then slammed the car door into my legs. He yelled at me to move my legs. I bent them up. He closed the door. A few minutes later the officer in the front seat, told me I could begin to breath. So, I stopped my real shallow breaths and breathed normal. He then told me to sit up straight. I did. 

30 minutes later, they let us all go. They wrote the driver up for doing 26 in a 25 zone. They then sent officers to all of our homes to tell our parents we had been pulled over for speeding and that we had started a fight with them, and then the ADA will be looking into resisting arrest charges and assaulting an officer charges. 

That was Friday night. 

Saturday all day I went and gathered data from listening to people talk about what they did Friday. By Monday morning I knew who the driver and passenger were and the vehicle they were in. As described above it was no way similar and no real way to get confused between the two.

On Monday Morning I went to see the school detective. He was very surprised to see me, as he had my name on a list of students to watch. You see he knew me. My Mom worked for the school and was a Union rep for her area. I was an A-B honor roll student that all the staff knew and knew was not a trouble maker. 

I explained to him what happened. He asked me, what was more important to me, see the bad guys caught and my name getting clear, or having my day against the officer(s) that hit me. I told him I wanted my name cleared, as it would be hard to prove anything against that many officers in aprticular since the chief was there that night. He smiled and told me I was a smart kid. 

They busted the two guys who did it. They caught them the next weekend, as they had been watching them. 



My point it that it only takes a few to make it look bad for everyone. My experience with the police in general is not good, but I have had some good experiences as well, just the bad out weigh the good. And no I am not talking about the couple of speeding tickets I have gotten in my life. I was speeding, I may not have been treated well, but I was nto arguing that issue nor counting those incidents.


----------



## The Last Legionary

A little outdated as it's for 2004.



> In the Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program, one arrest is counted for each separate instance in which an individual is arrested, cited, or summoned for criminal acts in Part I and Part II crimes. (See Appendix II for additional information concerning Part I and Part II crimes.) One person may be arrested multiple times during the year; as a result, the arrest figures in this section should not be viewed as a total number of individuals arrested. Rather, this section provides the number of arrest occurrences that were reported by law enforcement.





> National Volume, Trends, and Rates
> *In 2004*, the UCR Program estimated the *number of arrests in the United States for all criminal offenses (except traffic violations) at approximately 14 million.* Law enforcement made an estimated 1.6 million arrests (11.8 percent of all arrests) for property crimes and 586,558 arrests (4.2 percent of all arrests) for violent crimes. Law officers made more arrests for drug abuse violations (an estimated 1.7 million arrests and 12.5 percent of all arrests) than for any other offense. (See Table 29.)
> 
> *In 2004, the estimated rate of arrests in the Nation was 4,752.4 arrests per 100,000 residents. *Arrests for violent crimes were measured at a rate of 200.4 arrests per 100,000 inhabitants&#8212;for property crimes, 565.8 arrests per 100,000 persons. (See Table 30.)



With me so far? Good.  Keep reading



> By gender, 76.2 percent of arrests in 2004 were of males. Males accounted for 82.1 percent of the total number of arrestees for violent crimes and 68.1 percent of the total for property crimes. (See Table 42.)
> 
> *A review of the 2004 arrest data by race indicated that 70.8 percent of arrestees were white, 26.8 percent were black, and 2.4 percent were of other races (American Indian or Alaskan Native and Asian or Pacific Islander). Of all arrestees for violent crimes, 60.9 percent were white, 36.9 percent were black, and the remainder were of other races. Of all arrestees for property crimes, 69.3 percent were white, 28.2 percent were black and the remaining 2.5 percent were of other races. Whites were most commonly arrested for driving under the influence (893,212 arrests) and drug abuse violations (821,047 arrests). Blacks were most frequently arrested for drug abuse violations (406,890 arrests) and simple assaults (288,286 arrests). *



There's the race data.

Sources:
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_04/persons_arrested/index.html


----------



## MJS

KP. said:


> In this thread on the MartialTalk.Com     > Arts     > General Self Defense     > Law Enforcement forum, a discussion about a particular technique took a left turn and became a discussion about police conduct.
> 
> It was claimed in the discussion by Drac that:
> 
> 
> 
> Which I personally find somewhat ludicrous. I would not disagree if he claimed that "some" injuries, or even if he stated that "most" injuries. After all, the majority of this nation's LEO's are professional folks trying to do a good job. But it is also the case that police misconduct, and police brutality, are a problem in our cities police forces.


 
Why do you find that ludicrous?  I've seen people comply while being arrested and no injuries happen.  I've also seen people resist and yes, their arm will be twisted, they may be taken to the ground, they may have a knee across their shoulders.  Again, what is so odd about that?  Abuse would be beating on them after they're cuffed.  Now, if they're cuffed and they start to spit or kick or try to twist away from the officer, again, that is resisting, so if they're brought to the ground again, that is not abuse.  

IMHO, you seem to be under this impression that if any force is used, the cop is in the wrong.  Let me ask you...have you had some bad run ins with the law?  



> A bit later in the discussion, this point was made:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't disagree that the reality of the task of policing in the inner cities is that it is more stressful, and there are more "bad guys" around (or at least folks who really dislike the police), but does that excuse mistreatment?


 
Lets put the shoe on the other foot for a moment.  Please tell us, if you were an LEO, how you would handle someone resisting?  If you seem to think that anything more than a gentle touch is abuse, please share with us how you would handle this?



> There are real problems that exist between inner city communities and the police, systemic mistrust on both sides renders interactions in investigations and neighborhood policing efforts difficult at best. Does police violence make those relationships better or worse? And, does that serve to help or harm the police and community as a whole? Is it blown out of proportion, or does the rate of events, how ever few they may be when taken with all interactions over the nation as a whole, present real issues for how the police and community interact at local levels?


 
Are you kidding me??  Community policing is a huge thing with many PDs today.  Interestingly enough, the PD I work for seems to concentrate the majority of their efforts on the Main St./North End area, where there is alot of businesses as well as low income housing.  Hmm..there are 5 cops that take care of that area, vs. the 1 per district for the rest of the city.  Some of these guys are walking so as to better interact with the public.  




> Does a person's social-economic background effect how they view the police because of past interactions or events? What can be done to change that if it is considered a problem. If it is not considered a problem, why not?


 
Why is the race card always brought into play???  Keep in mind that the officers I work with, know their areas well, as well as the regulars.  Why are the regulars known so well?  Because many times they're the problem people.  So it doesnt matter if they're white, black, or pink...people control how they're viewed, and if they choose to always get in trouble, that is the label they will carry.  The first step to bettering an area starts with the people.  If an area has people that don't give a crap, well, nothing will change.


----------



## The Last Legionary

Youtube has a number of videos involving alleged cases of police brutality.
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=police+brutalty&search_type=&aq=f

Some are crap, some look legit.

Anytime there is a protest you read stories of cops backing horses into people, knocking down, roughing up and dragging innocent reporters across gravel, etc. Recent reports indicate a disturbing trend where anyone with a camera is given "special attention" by uniformed officers during police actions, usually involving "accidental" smashing of equipment, and "incidental" injuries, from "involuntary" contact with non yielding objects such as walls, cars and of course the ground.   PoliceAbuse.com has a list of over 100 active complaints.

Then there are the complaints that arose from the recent political conventions in the US.
http://www.rcfp.org/newsitems/index.php?i=2457

What you will rarely see however are the thousands of good cops who risk their lives daily, or who go out of their way to try to make a difference, often running solo at great risk to themselves.  Rare is the front page report of a cop who did good, but an accusation of wrong will be there. The aquittal will be in secion C if mentioned at all. Cops on solo duty face the greatest risk of injury as even a basic traffic stop can turn deadly as anyone who's watched any cop video shows will know. 

Bad cops need to be removed from the force, and punished.  
It'd be nice if the good ones were recognized as well.

Now please stop sending me the PBA notices, my car window is full.


----------



## The Last Legionary

It's been my experience that the ones ranting most online about evil police are usually someone who has had run ins where the cops didn't recognize their being an exception to law and decency.  

Some young "thug 4 life" type who gets pissed when the gumball flashers show up at 2am and tell him to turn his rapcrap **** off because people are trying to sleep, or they are hanging out in an upscale shopping center dressed like hobo's who got the rag pickers rejects with more *** crack showing than a plumbers convention.

You know.  Scum suckers!
:btg:


----------



## Carol

Know what the LEOs are looking for.

Avoid being what they are looking for.

Makes any potential encounter go a lot more smoothly.


----------



## MJS

I work in a city that is home to a University.  Every Thur-Sat night, its party night.  Drive around the area around 11, 12 at night, and you'll see a huge number of people walking.  Recently, there was a huge house party.  Hundreds of people in the street.  Campus security went and told them to quiet down and attempted to disperse the large gathering, which of course failed.

The city police were called.  Now, on the midnight shift where I work, there is about 6 or 7 cops plus a road Sgt.  Thats it.  The entire shift responds because of the large group.  Due to the fact that many of the kids were drinking, not leaving and also calling others who were not there, to come down to that location, officers from 2 other towns were called, as well as State Police.

Of course, there was tasers, OC, dogs, etc. which is all par for the course and perfectly within their rights due to the situation.

So, needless to say, the kids cried and complained and claimed that the police response was too much, too much force was used, cry, cry, cry.  After a long investigation, the city cops were cleared, with no charges filed.

Now, this is a clear cut example of what many of us are talking about.  When these punks were asked to leave, why didn't they?  No, instead, they stay, call more of their friends to come down, and feel the need to throw bottles.  Yeah, real mature people we have here, and they have the nerve to complain that too many cops came to the scene?  Are you friggin kidding me?  

ALL of this couldve been avoided if they acted like adults and did what was asked.  So, to disperse the crowd, gas was shot off, but wait...thats too much force.  All this could've been avoided if they just left.  To disperse the crowd, dogs were used.  But this was too much force.  You have huge odds, so more cops are called to help.  But this is too much force.

I stand by my past comments....people must love to bring on headaches for themselves, because if they just did what was asked, half their problems would go away.


----------



## Cryozombie

The Last Legionary said:


> It's been my experience that the ones ranting most online about evil police are usually someone who has had run ins where the cops didn't recognize their being an exception to law and decency.



I rant often about cops online, havn't been arrested, I have no criminal record.  BUT... I have been questioned for various things I was not involved in, treated like I was some kind of Douchebag because I was present or the one being "questioned".  

My Father was a cop.  My Hapkido instructor was a cop.

My Current dojo has cops in it.  

I can say safely that I am OFTEN in social situations with cops who are not interacting with me because I am some kind of a criminal douchebag.  And I guarantee most of you would be appalled by some of the things these guys talk/brag about... and I'm sorry to the LEO members on this board who think almost everything a cop does is justified, because if it was done, the guy *must* have been being a douchebag... If you could defend some of this behavior, It doesn't bode well for what we can expect from cops.

This is not to say I don't know some exceptional cops, or that I have not had good experiences with some as well... But don't expect me drink the kool aid and think that cops are always "in the right" because the truth is, been around em enough that I don't buy it.


----------



## Archangel M

Ive got friends who are black....Hispanic...Gay......


----------



## Drac

Like *Rich Parson* I was slammed around by a bunch of burb cops when my vehicle and description matched a 5 min old armed robbery..When checking me they found my off duty weapon and I was slammed into the hood of a police car..When they extracted my wallet and saw my badge and ID they let go...I shook the hand of every officer there and said Good Job..


----------



## MJS

Cryozombie said:


> I rant often about cops online, havn't been arrested, I have no criminal record. BUT... I have been questioned for various things I was not involved in, treated like I was some kind of Douchebag because I was present or the one being "questioned".
> 
> My Father was a cop. My Hapkido instructor was a cop.
> 
> My Current dojo has cops in it.
> 
> I can say safely that I am OFTEN in social situations with cops who are not interacting with me because I am some kind of a criminal douchebag. And I guarantee most of you would be appalled by some of the things these guys talk/brag about... and I'm sorry to the LEO members on this board who think almost everything a cop does is justified, because if it was done, the guy *must* have been being a douchebag... If you could defend some of this behavior, It doesn't bode well for what we can expect from cops.
> 
> This is not to say I don't know some exceptional cops, or that I have not had good experiences with some as well... But don't expect me drink the kool aid and think that cops are always "in the right" because the truth is, been around em enough that I don't buy it.


 
Hopefully I won't be accused of pointing figners here, but reading your post, I can't help but to think that there's more to the story here.


----------



## Archangel M

I just dont get the whole "all cops think that all cops are innocent angels". Ive never heard that. Any cop will tell you stories...However, a bunch of cops standing around talking "war stories" is far from "evidence: of anything. 

And I do believe that there are plenty of "abuse" allegations that are pure BS.


----------



## Carol

Archangel M said:


> I just dont get the whole "all cops think that all cops are innocent angels". Ive never heard that. Any cop will tell you stories...However, a bunch of cops standing around talking "war stories" is far from "evidence: of anything.
> 
> And I do believe that there are plenty of "abuse" allegations that are pure BS.




Somehow I don't think an "innocent angel" would last too long with the crowd that you folks have to deal with every day.


----------



## Cryozombie

MJS said:


> Hopefully I won't be accused of pointing figners here, but reading your post, I can't help but to think that there's more to the story here.



Which story?  About me being questioned?  I have more than one, but the most recent isn't worst... If you want it, I'll be happy to share it.


----------



## MJS

Cryozombie said:


> Which story? About me being questioned? I have more than one, but the most recent is worst... If you want it, I'll be happy to share it.


 
I'm sorry, yes, the one where you were questioned, or whichever you feel more comfortable about sharing.


----------



## Cryozombie

Archangel M said:


> However, a bunch of cops standing around talking "war stories" is far from "evidence: of anything.



Right... but if a "bad guy" told a "story", he'd be admitting a crime, right?


----------



## GBlues

Police Officers have bad days like everybody else. YOu know I have been pulled over for speeding. And doing it well over criminal speeds. The deal is this. Officers get lied to, treated like garbage, and generally most are thought to be total jerks. I tell the truth. I was speeding. That's it no excuses. I ran the stop sign, I didn't see anybody coming and so I just drove past it. I slowed down to look. ( California Stop). Been pulled over at night, turn my dome light on. I always answer with yes sir, no sir. And you know what I have never, been given a ticket. A few warnings, but never a ticket. If you treat people the way that you want to be treated, it automatically puts them at ease. And therefore regardless of there job, are more apt to treat you the way they want to be treated, or would want to be treated in that situation.

Another time I set the alarm off at my previous job. I'd got back late, to the shop. It was dark, and people were running all over the place, it's a bad neighborhood, all I wanted was to get dressed in my riding gear, and get out of there. I unlock the door, and turn the alarm off, ( well, I'd thought I turned the alarm off), about 10 minutes later cops pull up. I look out the front door and realize that apparently I have not turned the alarm off, cause they are flashing the lights in the shop. Now, understand I'm dressed head to toe, in a bandana, leather jacket, riding boots, I look like somebody that doesn't belong. So this female officer is holding her light into the office, and I figure I'd better let her in so that I can set things straight. Well, as I'm walking up, with my back pack in my hand, I see her pull her side arm out and it's pointed at me. So I unlock the front door, and slowly open it, and I tell her, "Don't shoot I'm not armed. All I have is my backpack", and I placed it outside the door first, and stepped out. She kept her weapon drawn and pointed at my chest, and if I had spooked her I have no doubt, she'd have killed me dead on the spot. She was close enough that there was no way that she could have missed. She asked who I was what I was doing there, etc... Are you supposed to be here....you know standard questions. Again I anwered Yes, ma'am, no ma'am, etc... Next thing I know her partner comes walking around the corner and scares the crap out of me. HAHA! He asks if he I have any weapons and I tell him the truth, " No, Sir" He then asked if he could search my bag, and I told him not a problem. He then searched my person, no problem, except for the grabbing of my junk, which was a little awkward, but ok. They were at ease at that point. Just same old same. Guy didn't turn the alarm off correctly. Asked what I was riding I told him, he had one of there other partners that I didn't see verify. I had to make a few phone calls, and let them talk to my boss, no problem. We were talking bikes, and cracking jokes before we all left. Simple.

Now I have had other experiences that aren't so good. I've met cops that just exude I'm a mean guy, and I don't like the way you look, and I'm going to abuse my power to make you feel like garbage. However, in my experience if your respectful right off of the bat, and are honest, and not nervous, and not hostile, they will treat you the same. Respect goes along ways for all concerned. In the previous experience I could have been all nasty with them for even being there, (Which was my fault cause I screwed up turning the alarm off), and the fact that they thought it was necassary to pull a gun on me. HOwever, they don't have the luxury of giving me the benefit of the doubt. They don't know me. Once things are on a social level, that is acceptable to them, there attitude changed. Guns got put away, and note pads, and pencils came out taking notes. 

However, like all groups, gangs etc. And yes the police department is a gang. It is a gathering of 2 or more like minded individuals. WHich constitutes a gang. There will always be those in groups or gangs, or motorcycle clubs or whatever, that are just bad apples. 80-90% may do there best to do a good job, or follow the law. But it only takes 10-20% to give the other 80 to 90% a bad name. That's it. just a small group of guys to go around and screw up public opinion of your group, and it's over. People will never think of your group the way that the good members of it see it. Cause they have experienced the bad group, and it doesn't matter that your just doing your job. They will label you with the rest of the ******* cops of the world. That's just the way it is. Yeah police brutality exists, but I would say that on the whole it happens far less than most people would like to believe. 

And that folks is my two cents. ABBDBDBDBD THAT'S ALL FOLKS!


----------



## shesulsa

Cryo, I think you should share Illinois LEO stories here.  

It's always disheartening for people who hold LEOs in high regard to hear stories of corruption or bad behavior and most don't want to accept it.  That is a mistake, friends.  There are always at least two sides to every story and while most criminals likely lie about their treatment or the need thereof, there are plenty of people who are treated as criminals who aren't.  There are some LEOs who are more than willing to tweak a little further, hit a little harder, escalate a little sooner just because they can or because they want to or they're having a real bad day.

Open, respectful conversation about this can help keep the profession honest and, hopefully, weed out those who should probably find another profession. Perhaps in executive protection.


----------



## Cryozombie

shesulsa said:


> Cryo, I think you should share Illinois LEO stories here.



Most of my personal stories are either simply bad attitude cops, (two I shared with MJS via PM) or are stories I heard from the cops themselves, which Arc has already stated don't prove nothing... *rolls eyes*  So instead I think I will bow out before I get angry and stupid on here.  

But, since you asked... if you want to see Illinois cops in action... 






The actual initial video doesn't make it apparent that guy was a cop, but it was BIIIIIIGGGG news here when it happened, and then the cops tried to cover it up.


----------



## Archangel M

One again, who's is saying there are no problems out there? 

Goggle Louisiana PD and Corruption and see what you get. One cop was fingered in a robbery/homicide when she came back to the store to investigate the murders SHE committed. By a victim that survived by hiding in a cabinet. 

There are two sides of the story. Unfortunately I cant tell any of the details about flat out lies about officer behavior or just plain wacky accusations by clueless people. Because accusations are investigations and hence private. You can FOIL the details if you like.

The thing to realize is that not all cops are trained, behave or act the same way. The cops here can be "cool" and the cops in the city next door entirely different. And even within that city one precinct can have a different culture form another. NYPD is the size of an army for crying out loud, expecting them all to act like the officer in your sleepy burb just isnt gonna happen.


----------



## Bob Hubbard

Bad cop stories:

- I have heard from reliable sources that during several robbery investigations, the officers on the location helped themselves to items like chips, soda etc. 
- I've seen on several occations cars run lights, etc that did not appear to be responding to calls.  One was doing at least 45 in a 30, to return to the office. Must have been a shift ending.
- A local department was called on the table for harassment and profiling.
- An Orleans County Deputy was convicted of violating a prisoners rights when he walked on the prisioners penis, repeatedly.
- Numerous complaints are on file against the same department for violations in the womans prision, including rape of prisioners.

My own direct experiences have been mostly acceptable, down to inviting 2 FBI agents into my home. One sadly was quite alergic to cats. LOL  

In all cases I am polite, respectful and slow moving. I've provided my official permit to operate a vehicle on a public road (NY Drivers Licence) and the proof of vehicle ownership and permission to operate vehicle on a public road (NYS Registration) and proof of safe vehicle (NYS Inspection Sticker) as well as proof of insurance coverage mandated to operate a licenced vehicle on public roads (Insurance Card) when requested without argument.

I also avoid frequenting known areas of concern (poor neighborhoods, night clubs, bars) or associating with those who go out "looking for a little fun".

I know my rights, I have several lawyers on my "speed dial" and "client list", as well as officers in several departments. Despite that, I don't act like an *** when dealing with them, and so far haven't been beaten up, locked up, or had my anus probed.


Speaking of which, Let us not forget that inserting a lamp up a suspects *** is not a legit method in the US, outside of a certain interegation center in Cuba.


----------



## Archangel M

And if you continue with that approach I don't forsee you having many problems.


----------



## KP.

MJS said:


> Why do you find that ludicrous?  I've seen people comply while being arrested and no injuries happen.



Because the statement is an absolute. Yes, the vast majority of police are good guys who never do anything wrong, walk on water, and heavenly choirs of angels begin to sing when they walk into a room. But there are also exceptions to that. And to think that if everyone just complied no one would ever get hurt is ludicrous. Police abusing the public is not some fantasy, it happens every day. It is the exception to the norm, but it happens, and to suggest that it's the victim's fault is wrong. 



> IMHO, you seem to be under this impression that if any force is used, the cop is in the wrong.



Not at all. The police have every right to use force to control a situation, protect themselves, the public, and to limit the harm to who ever they are trying to control if that is possible. And I also realize that when force is used it is the norm that it is being used appropriately. 




> Let me ask you...have you had some bad run ins with the law?



Repeatedly, yes.



> Lets put the shoe on the other foot for a moment.  Please tell us, if you were an LEO, how you would handle someone resisting?  If you seem to think that anything more than a gentle touch is abuse, please share with us how you would handle this?



I don't think anything more than a gentle touch is abuse. Do you think police abuses of power don't happen? Do you think that it's never the cops in the wrong?



> Are you kidding me??  Community policing is a huge thing with many PDs today   . . . Some of these guys are walking so as to better interact with the public.



Great, hope it works for them. Community policing doesn't happen where I grew up. 





> Why is the race card always brought into play???



Well, first, I didn't bring up race, I brought up socio-economic status. But I'll give you a pass since that does correlate strongly to race in this country (we could get into a whole new discussion as to why that is, but I'll pass on that for now).

Second, it's brought up because it is a huge factor in the discussion. Minorities are disproportionately the victims of police brutality when it happens. They are disproportionately the target of arrests and prosecutions. There are more than a few studies that clearly indicate that minorities are treated more harshly by the justice system at all levels. 

As for caring, my experience has always been that the people cared, but rarely did most anyone else.


----------



## Archangel M

> Repeatedly, yes.



Ever stop and wonder......why?


----------



## Rich Parsons

shesulsa said:


> Cryo, I think you should share Illinois LEO stories here.
> 
> It's always disheartening for people who hold LEOs in high regard to hear stories of corruption or bad behavior and most don't want to accept it. That is a mistake, friends. There are always at least two sides to every story and while most criminals likely lie about their treatment or the need thereof, there are plenty of people who are treated as criminals who aren't. There are some LEOs who are more than willing to tweak a little further, hit a little harder, escalate a little sooner just because they can or because they want to or they're having a real bad day.
> 
> Open, respectful conversation about this can help keep the profession honest and, hopefully, weed out those who should probably find another profession. Perhaps in executive protection.


 

While in High School local police officer would Detain people and search them for alcohol and or drugs. This in itself was a good thing. The problem was he used it in the High School Parking lot to seel back to the kids and to "make friends" with some of the young ladies. 

One day he was there. The next he had left the state, and was working in Florida as a police officer(cop).  He came back 5 years later (* read everyone who had kids in high school, those kids had graduated *) but I recognized him back in uniform when he would respond to a place I worked. 

I think he was smarter in his "dealings" with the public, but he was not your Good Police Officer either. 

But that was one guy with a referrence from his management and then was able to come back, so I blame him and those who hired him back. I did  not and do not blame the other officers of the department. 



On the other hand, I have been pulled over to be told I had a light out, and told to get it fixed. I have had police officers stop when I was broke down on the side of the road. 

Like I said it takes a few bad ones to make things look real bad for a lot of people. It too a long time for the police reputation in my area to get respectable or should I say out of disrespect after the issues that I saw in HS and College era. 


I had one officer get upset, as he told me I lied to him and that my license was suspended. My license had never been suspended. The probation after one is 18 for accidents was extended as I was hit by the local news crew twice in a month. It was a bad snow season, and they just lost control of their vehicle and slid into me. But it was a report. So I was extended. I went to court to get it dropped. The officer was even madder for looking bad in court. But, he just stormed out after I showed the error was that his screen on his LEAN computer did not tab to the next page to show the dates. 

I was traveling from one location of work to another for a meeting. I was driving a company car. There was this lady who pulled into the left lane of the expressway doing 50 mph while I was doing 65 (* the posted speed *). I hit the brakes and lifted my hand to check my speed. I was concerned I had been speeding and not known it. A man in his mid to late 20's in a company car causing an accident for speeding is not good. I realized I had not been speeding but that she was going so slow. After about 5 miles she got back over and I passed her and kept on my trip. 

About 10 minutes later a police officer pulls up beside me and the signals to get in behind me and the turns on his lights. I pull over. I roll down the window and have all my information cards ready. As he walks up he swings his hand and hits me flat in the chest and then grabs and yanks me half out of the car. He shakes me and asks," Do you know who you flipped off buddy? That was the wife of the (* Sensored *) Chief of Police? " I try to explain that I did not flip any one off. He then tried to give me a speeding ticket. I asked to see the equipment or how he knew I was speeding. We were in bumper to bumper traffic at about 60 mph. He had been using his brights and flashing them to get people to move out of his way. I just let him proceed to give me the ticket with no arguement. I recorded the time of the initial event and with his hit and also what hsi badge number and name were. (* I sometimes cannot read the names on the tickets *) He got upset and wanted to know how I coudl be driving a company car. I was too young so it must be stolen. I then produced the paperwork I offered up front that was Company internal paper work to authrize my usage of the vehicle. 

I scheduled a date in court and took the time off of work. The judge was a real hanging judge. A jacket was not good enough, no tie you were in contempt. If you were in his court room you were guilty by default the issue was just how guilty. (* He actually said that to everyone before he began. *) I had to wait outside as the officer was not there. (* Note: Police station and court were in the same building for this jurisdiction. *) The judge came out and handed me my signed ticket and told me I was free to go, but that there was a note that said I wanted to speak to him. He asked what for. With other officers standing around (* I had been watched, and I over heard many speaking out loud, that they could not believe I showed up. *), I told him that the officer hit me. He said, well I can hold the ticket and you can come back, and we can let both of you say your peace. At that time I could bring charges if the thought there sufficient evidence. I smiled and said, "Thank you, sir. I will take the ticket and go home." He smiled and said smart man.


----------



## MJS

KP. said:


> Because the statement is an absolute. Yes, the vast majority of police are good guys who never do anything wrong, walk on water, and heavenly choirs of angels begin to sing when they walk into a room. But there are also exceptions to that. And to think that if everyone just complied no one would ever get hurt is ludicrous. Police abusing the public is not some fantasy, it happens every day. It is the exception to the norm, but it happens, and to suggest that it's the victim's fault is wrong.


 
Have I said that all cops are angels or are you putting words in my mouth?  You make it sound like out of 10 cases of arrests, all 10 are going to involve abuse.  I call BS on that!




> Not at all. The police have every right to use force to control a situation, protect themselves, the public, and to limit the harm to who ever they are trying to control if that is possible. And I also realize that when force is used it is the norm that it is being used appropriately.


 
And I'm sure there are cases when it is and when it isn't.  I have not said otherwise.  





> Repeatedly, yes.


 
IMO, and I think it may be the impression that you're giving others as well, but it seems that you're painting all cops with the same brush.  If someone tells me a story of what happened to them, I can only assume that they're telling me the truth.  Of course, they may be lying to make themselves sound better as well.  Cryo has privately shared with me 2 incidents that happened to him.  In both cases, I told him that I felt he got a raw deal.  Is he BSing me as to what really happened?  Don't know, but seeing that I've known him for a while on the board, as he used to be staff here, I'm inclined to say that he wasn't hiding anything.





> I don't think anything more than a gentle touch is abuse. Do you think police abuses of power don't happen? Do you think that it's never the cops in the wrong?


 
Please answer the question.  How would you handle someone resisting?  Once again, don't put words in my mouth to attempt to pad your case.  I don't believe I have said that all cops are angels.  If I have, please point that post out to me.





> Great, hope it works for them. Community policing doesn't happen where I grew up.


 
What a shame.







> Well, first, I didn't bring up race, I brought up socio-economic status. But I'll give you a pass since that does correlate strongly to race in this country (we could get into a whole new discussion as to why that is, but I'll pass on that for now).
> 
> Second, it's brought up because it is a huge factor in the discussion. Minorities are disproportionately the victims of police brutality when it happens. They are disproportionately the target of arrests and prosecutions. There are more than a few studies that clearly indicate that minorities are treated more harshly by the justice system at all levels.
> 
> As for caring, my experience has always been that the people cared, but rarely did most anyone else.


 
Man, for a minute there I thought I was reading an article from the ACLU.  As I said in my other post...people control how they act.  Example only here:  If more blacks are arrested for selling crack, compared to Hispanic and white, and they're arrested more...how is that discriminating?  The ACLU would and I'm sure already has done studies on stuff like that.  Actually, I posted this a while ago. Classic example.  Those studies are biased and compiled by people who have an agenda.


----------



## JadecloudAlchemist

I am actually scared of Cops.

I know some cops are good and some are crooked but in my experience
here in Miami I have only met bad ones.

I have had cops take me out of a Burger King while I was peacefully eating lunch because according to them I told someone I had a gun(I never said that!!)

Many times riding my bike home during the day I am stopped and questioned where am I going where did I come from.

I have been stopped on my way to the groccery store because supposely I fit a Robbery suspect but I was being asked Sexual questions by the Cops.

I am an average looking guy not "Thug 4 life"

And there is no more to the story that may apply.

Yea I am scared of cops here in Miami because I never know what they will say or do.


----------



## Cryozombie

Oh, look at this mornings News.

http://usnews.feedroom.com/?fr_story=bf034eff367f97e0d9c5ac7b75999866770c73a1&rf=rss

Hey, its ok, he wasn't complying, and they made a Judgement call.

*rolls eyes*


----------



## MJS

Cryozombie said:


> Oh, look at this mornings News.
> 
> http://usnews.feedroom.com/?fr_story=bf034eff367f97e0d9c5ac7b75999866770c73a1&rf=rss
> 
> Hey, its ok, he wasn't complying, and they made a Judgement call.
> 
> *rolls eyes*


 
Many PDs today, have their officers respond to medical calls. I would imagine it isn't anything too in-depth, so possibly MRT or at the most EMT level. Seems like diabetic shock has symptoms similar to being intoxicated.
http://www.medterms.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=11165

Should they have asked if he was drunk? Should they have asked if he was having a medical problem? If the symptoms are similar to being drunk, I can see why they would think that, and with him not getting out of the truck.  

Using spray, a taser or another less lethal tool in a situation like this is most likely going to be justified.  

Slightly off track from this article, let me ask this.  For those that are not LEOs, but think that they use too much force...if you were a cop, and told someone to get out of the vehicle and they refused, what would you do to handle the situation?


----------



## Archangel M

Its what a reasonable person would do when faced with the situation that matters NOT what the facts are after all is over with. No matter how people with police issues want to frame things *rolls eyes* *rolls eyes* *rolls eyes*


----------



## Bob Hubbard

Cop Story:

I used to travel across the US/Canada border regularly back in the 90's with some friends. We'd travel around Ft. Erie, St. Cat's and up through Toronto shopping once a month. We usually took 2-3 cars. My then gf had a blue K-Car, mine was a beat up kyrloned Mustang, and this other guy we'll call him "Coyote" cuz I can't remember his name) drove a beat to hell red Buick.  Every trip we'd cross over, "Coyote" would get waved to the side for an up close looksie by Canadian -and- US Border Patrol.

On a few cases, they brought out the dogs to sniff around.  Never found anything, always was sent along.  

Now, let me describe "Coyote".
Asian, looked Hispanic.  Sunglasses, all the time.  Do Rag, all the time. Leather, All the Time.  Studded wrist bands. Goatee.

Talking to a guy I worked with who was a Border Patrol agent a few years later, he let me in on a few of the things they were looking for at the time.  Guess what?  "Coyote" fit the bill, right down to the beat red car, favored at the time by Mexican drug runners.

You want to avoid trouble?  Shower, Shave, dress professional.  Bet you have less problems. I've yet to run across cops giving grief to folks driving well maintained vehicles, wearing polo shirts, speaking proper english, and acting passive.

Now a "I know my rights" hippie, repeatedly going "Man...." or "Dude...", dressed like he's going to an Ozzy concert....in a rusty VW van, or smoking Taurus, well.....they get a different reaction.


----------



## Cryozombie

Bob Hubbard said:


> You want to avoid trouble? Shower, Shave, dress professional. Bet you have less problems. I've yet to run across cops giving grief to folks driving well maintained vehicles, wearing polo shirts, speaking proper english, and acting passive.
> 
> Now a "I know my rights" hippie, repeatedly going "Man...." or "Dude...", dressed like he's going to an Ozzy concert....in a rusty VW van, or smoking Taurus, well.....they get a different reaction.


 
And Bob, this is acceptable why?

I ask What's next? 

He was black not white so...

He was dressed Flamboyantly and didnt look straight so...

He was fat, therefore...

Why is making these judgements based on any kind appearance acceptable?

And FWIW, if criminals don't goom and wear suits, I point you to Illinois Governer Rod Bla... well, you get the picture...


----------



## Bob Hubbard

Never said it was acceptable.

As to the Gov, he got a what? Pocket change bail, and is out and about.  $10 says if he looked like Charlie Manson he'd still be in the lockup under a $100k bail option.

Society dictates what is and isn't normal. Cops will relax around normal, and be on edge around not-normal, especially if not-normal is in their percieved threat zone.  IE a cop who has had bad run ins with bikers wearing leather, will be more on edge when facing someone else wearing leather.  Hell, I'm sometimes uneasy around dudes in jeans and rock tees, and I wear the damn things.

There is a time to fight things, and a time to not fight.  Pulled over to the side of the road, I am 1 person, unarmed (legally and technically) against someone who has armed backup and legal authority. He can beat the **** out of me, and if I fight back, I get hit with "_Assaulting an officer in the performance of his duties_".  I may be perfectly justified, he may be completely in the wrong.  What do people see?  "_One of those hippies beating on a cop"_.  What do other cops see? "_A cop being attacked_".  My mission in these encounters is to make them end, as fast and safely as possible for myself, then to seek proper legal council and combat it through the proper channels, in order to attempt to effect change.  

People will argue, "Well I got Rights". Sometimes, no you don't.  There are parts of the US where the US Constitution doesn't apply. Know what type of jurisdiction you are in. 

And if I live in an area so corrupt that I can't fight it or change it, I will get the =hell= out, even if it means abandoning property, friends and family.  

You are the General. You choose which battlefield to commt your resources to. Be a smart general. Pick the ones you can win on.


----------



## Archangel M

Well said Bob. Although I would like to add that you should'nt just "roll over" if the cop is obviously "out of bounds"..by all means dont fight it out on the street, but do go through the proper channels and file a complaint. If the dept gives you no satisfaction and you believe it was an aggrieveuous enough of an offense there is always the FBI.

Something people dont realize is that even if they dont feel like their individual case went anywhere, there are many times where the volume of complaints made all the difference. So dont think that just because you never heard back that nothing happened. 

However, have some common sense and save the complaining for real "issues", you not liking an "attitude" or a ticket may just be your perception.


----------



## Cryozombie

Bob Hubbard said:


> As to the Gov, he got a what? Pocket change bail, and is out and about. $10 says if he looked like Charlie Manson he'd still be in the lockup under a $100k bail option.


 
Actually this has more to do with who's in his pocket than the name sewn on the tag in his suit, IMO, but thats a topic for another thread.


----------



## punisher73

Archangel M said:


> I just dont get the whole "all cops think that all cops are innocent angels". Ive never heard that. Any cop will tell you stories...However, a bunch of cops standing around talking "war stories" is far from "evidence: of anything.
> 
> And I do believe that there are plenty of "abuse" allegations that are pure BS.


 
I don't trust most "war stories" I hear from cops.  I have been there for some of them and they didn't happen the way they are retold.  Cops telling stories is like a fisherman with "the fish that got away".  

Unfortunately, many people in the public think that all cops get to act like Dirty Harry on the job, and even worse alot of cops tell stories trying to act like Dirty Harry to impress people.

No one is trying to argue that there AREN'T bad cops. We all know that they exist, just like every other profession out there.  I just think that cops get judged MUCH more often than most other professions.


----------



## Bob Hubbard

So....what you're all saying is, "The SHIELD" isn't a documenary?


----------



## MJS

Cryozombie said:


> And Bob, this is acceptable why?
> 
> I ask What's next?
> 
> He was black not white so...
> 
> He was dressed Flamboyantly and didnt look straight so...
> 
> He was fat, therefore...
> 
> Why is making these judgements based on any kind appearance acceptable?
> 
> And FWIW, if criminals don't goom and wear suits, I point you to Illinois Governer Rod Bla... well, you get the picture...


 
And I never said it was acceptable either...however...right or wrong in someones eyes, this is what happens.  There have been many times something happened while I was at work, and someone gave the cops a description of a car, a partial plate, that was disputed relentlessly by a few people....it was a white honda with Ct reg 123-ABD.  No it was ABO.  So every cop was out looking for a beater honda, with anything that loooked similar to the above.  Cops were running plates and pulling anything over that looked remotely familiar.  And ya know what...they have every right to do so, regardless of what anyone out there thinks.  

The same goes for physical descriptors.  I love when I take calls and ask for a desc., and they tell me it was a black male....but they couldn't give me clothing?  So, what happens....any black male that may look familiar....I think you see the point I'm trying to make.  

The undercover narc cops are always running plates, pulling cars over.  I mean really, if you saw an $80,000 MB driving thru an area, where the average family income was $20,000, wouldnt that raise an eyebrow?  Are they lost?  Are they looking for their next fix?  Or do they really know someone down there.  So, they wait until a minor m/v violation happens and pull the car over.  Even if they give the guy a verbal warning for not using a turn signal, which BTW, is a perfectly legit reason to pull a car over, they now have a copy of his DL, his car and any physcial descriptors.  So the next night, if they see the same car down there again......

Does this look wrong?  To some I'm sure they'd say yes, but there is nothing wrong about it.  Think about this.  At a checkpoint, they pull every 6th car or person out of line.  Is that fair to me?  Now I'm going to have to run to catch my plane because TSA decided that they needed to have me take my shoes off, look thru my bags, etc.  They are doing their job, and whether I, my wife, or anyone else likes it, thats the way it is.  Deal with it or dont fly.


----------



## MJS

Bob Hubbard said:


> So....what you're all saying is, "The SHIELD" isn't a documenary?


 
LOL!  Now that may be a case of some abuse.


----------



## KP.

MJS said:


> Man, for a minute there I thought I was reading an article from the ACLU . . . I posted this a while ago. Classic example.  Those studies are biased and compiled by people who have an agenda.



So basically, it is your contention that anyone who claims anything is a problem is biased, making it up, and their view has no merit. 

Thanks for making that clear.

Odd how all the major criminology and sociology journals are publishing such biased peer reviewed papers on these topics.

So at what point would you consider police brutality and abusive behavior unacceptable?


----------



## Cryozombie

MJS said:


> I mean really, if you saw an $80,000 MB driving thru an area, where the average family income was $20,000, wouldnt that raise an eyebrow?  Are they lost?  Are they looking for their next fix?  Or do they really know someone down there.  So, they wait until a minor m/v violation happens and pull the car over.  Even if they give the guy a verbal warning for not using a turn signal, which BTW, is a perfectly legit reason to pull a car over, they now have a copy of his DL, his car and any physcial descriptors.  So the next night, if they see the same car down there again......





punisher73 said:


> No one is trying to argue that there AREN'T bad cops. We all know that they exist, just like every other profession out there. I just think that cops get judged MUCH more often than most other professions.



Now here's an intersting situation, food for thought for ya...

We are people "with an adgenda" or a "problem with cops" if we judge the actions of most cops on the tiny minority of bad ones...

But if a cop makes a judgement call like the one above it's perfectly ok, because a tiny minority of civilians are scumbags so we all could potentially be.  

Hmmm.  That's an interesting double standard we have there.


----------



## Archangel M

Where did his post paint anybody as "scumbags"? Its called good police work, its called investigation...as long as the traffic infraction is valid the SC had declared them appropriate.

Whats the alternative? Just take reports and look the other way? Then some people with gripes *rolls eyes* would be complaining the cops are not doing anything about crime.


----------



## Carol

Until I moved, I was regularly lumped in with the "suspicious people."  Taverns in this area close between 11pm and 2am.   There are people out there that will go out drinking until close, then get in their car and drive home. Unfortunately I made my 1 hour commute home during this time window.

I lost count of the number of times that I've been pulled over.  I'd guesstimate the number of times to be about a dozen.  I'll be perfectly honest, there were a couple of times when I deserved it.  I drive like a Bostonian.   The other times...not so much.  The first couple of times I saw blue lights in my rearview, I was livid.  The third time, the trooper was at my window for about a minute tops, took a glance at my license, never looked at my reg, asked me a few questions and then he took off.  It was then I realized what was really going on...the area was being tightly patrolled for drunks.

Do I like it?   No I don't.  Before taking this job, I had rarely been pulled over, and hadn't even been issued a traffic ticket the ones I sustained in my arrest-me-red Camaro in 1994.     I don't think you can ever get comfortable with blue beacons flashing at you and being asked to be pulled over when you just want to get home.

But I never treated the troopers with anything but absolute respect.  Emotions can be felt.  I also did my best to make their job a bit easier.  I've driven conservative SUVs since I ditched my red Camaro.  I used to hide my laptop and my blackberry in the shadows under the dash (no good place to hide a laptop in an SUV) to keep the baddies from thinking I had anything valuable with me.  I started keeping them on the passenger seat instead, which made it a bit easier for the troopers to see that I really was coming from work, and not someplace where I've been partying.    Did some troopers have worse attitudes than others?  Sure. Some had better attitudes than others too, such as the one that didn't even mention my then-expired inspection sticker.

Now that I've moved and don't have that commute anymore, I'm glad I'm away from that drive.   But they are likely doing the best they can to check for drunk drivers and not overtly hassle the the ones that are trying to make their job easier, and I think that deserves props.  :asian:


----------



## Bob Hubbard

Don't blame the cops doing their job, blame the *** holes who make that job necessary.

I'd rather have a couple of pull overs and quick Q&A's and know they're pulling drunks off the roads, than not have them there and have those same drunks smash into me...because some dumb *** needed his losers kool aid that night.


----------



## Carol

Bob Hubbard said:


> Don't blame the cops doing their job, blame the *** holes who make that job necessary.
> 
> I'd rather have a couple of pull overs and quick Q&A's and know they're pulling drunks off the roads, than not have them there and have those same drunks smash into me...because some dumb *** needed his losers kool aid that night.



Absolutely. 

I get the feeling of being singled out.  Its not my fault that I have to be on the road at closing time.  I don't like being pulled over for something that the troopers wouldn't have bothered with at another hour of the day/night.  (Especially when I have an expired sticker or something that would get me in some trouble)

I also understand that there are some LEOs out there that can act poorly.  Connecticut permits mandatory road blocks.  I was there once alone and the LEO was kind and polite as could be.  I went through the same road block 30 minutes later as a passenger in my then-(brown skinned, turban-earing) BF's car and the exact same LEO acted like a tool.   

There was another friend of mine that was profiled for his beard and turban when he went in to renew his visa.   When a clerical error in paperwork prepared by a previous attorney was reveled, he was arrested on fraud charges he spent 3 months in the federal pen while the issue was being straightened out by his attorney.  

Probably the worst of my friends was my friend Sher, who, on the day after 9/11 boarded an Amtrak train from Boston to see how he could help.  Someone alerted law enforcement to his beard and turban.  At the very next stop, in Providence, he was pulled from the car and arrested.  His arrest made international news and some of the national news networks displayed the image of him being led off the train and plastered it up alongside Osama Bin Laden, and questioned whether he was the one responsible for the deaths of so many innocent people.  

Personally I am not sympathetic to the anti-LEO attitude.  My friends have been on the of an officer's questionable judgement yet they remain positive.  They have never said a denigrating word to those in uniform, nor insisted that a LEO be hung out to dry by a CRB.  Instead, they worked.  They worked at  and instead have succeeded in finding positive ways to address issues of law enforcement, and positive ways to get the community-at-large educated.  My friend Sher in particular has made incredible strides.

These are the folks that successfully command my attention, and my respect.


----------



## KenpoTex

The OP has acknowledged that most LEO's are good people who do their jobs correctly, etc. Are there some bad apples who overstep their authority and violate people's rights? Certainly, and when it is determined that this did in fact take place, said officer should no longer be an officer and should face any other consequences called for by their actions.

We seem to be in agreement that: 
1) Most LEO's do their jobs according to the law and respect people's rights.
2) A small percentage of them don't.
3) Those who fall into that "small percentage" are wrong

Not trying to be flippant here, but I really fail to see exactly what this thread is trying to accomplish...?


----------



## Archangel M

Venting I guess.


----------



## GBlues

Ok. I have now seen a few posts related to racial profiling and I'm going to say this. Absolutely police officers and the like, should use racial profiling. 100%, and here's why. 

It was not an african-american, or asia-american, or latino, or white guy, or any other nationality but one, that brought the world trade center down. It was only one nationality. ANd they were of middle eastern decent. So to say in the war on terror, that they should not profile is ridiculous. It makes no sense to pick people at random. YOu are wasting time, money, and making it that much harder on the american people, to get through airport security, when you have to choose every 6th person in line. YEt the 7th, may be of middle-eastern decent, who's sportin, a turbin. You don't pull him out of line? Because it will be construed as racial profiling? You know, I just don't get it. If I'm out hunting duck, I don't say, well I can't profile, so I'll shoot that turkey over there. Well it ain't turkey season, and I didn't get my duck. Although there are several ducks in, and around that group of turkeys. I'm not looking for turkeys, I'm looking for ducks, and if it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, and acts like a duck, it's probably a duck. 

So yeah I look, and dress like a biker. It's what I am. I get irritated when I'm pulled over, but hey it's part of there job, I am the one that chooses to dress like, and be associated with that particular part of American culture. I have to accept that there may be times when I am momentarily detained because of my demeanor or dress, until such time as they can determine that I'm not one of the bad guys. In my opinion I have nothing to fear from the LEO's of the world. I've never been arrested, ticketed, had accidents, or anything of the like. YOu know why? Cause I follow the law. Period. As long as you ain't breaking the law they ain't gonna' mess with any longer than they have too, once they figure out you're on of the good guys. YOu want to wear a turbin and go to a mosk for church, hey it's cool, nobody has a problem with that. But be prepared to be profiled till they know that your one of the good guys. Simple, don't complain about it, it's America, and you have that right, to dress and be associated with any culture you choose. However, if it is not the way that mainstream society is dressing, or acting, then your going to be treated like a bad guy from time to time. Simple, that's all. Enjoy your freedom, I do.


----------



## Archangel M

"Profiling" is a misunderstood, misapplied and wrongly vilified term. Often confused with "illegal profiling" i.e. having no articulatable reason other than race for stopping somebody. I used to "profile" white kids all the time and it was proper, legal and effective. 

http://www.city-journal.org/html/11_2_the_myth.html

If anybody cares enough to read it.


----------



## MJS

KP. said:


> So basically, it is your contention that anyone who claims anything is a problem is biased, making it up, and their view has no merit.
> 
> Thanks for making that clear.
> 
> Odd how all the major criminology and sociology journals are publishing such biased peer reviewed papers on these topics.


 
Interesting how all these people who create these 'studies' never seem to come up with a solution to the problem.  They just go on a tangent, doing their best to dig and dig to come up with whats wrong, but fail to mention a solution and rarely if ever at all, list anything good that the cops do.  No wonder why there're so many people who dislike cops.



> So at what point would you consider police brutality and abusive behavior unacceptable?


 
Hmm...there ya go again, trying to twist my words for your agenda.  Show me where I have ever said that I condone police brutality?  I've asked a few times and I'm still waiting.  And you know why?  Because I've never said it!  

Judging by your posts in that last thread with the knee on the shoulder, you seem like that is too much force.  Also I've asked how if you were in the cops shoes, what you would do.  Don't recall seeing anything.  Seems like you're quick to point out supposed flaws, especially when you don't know the full story, and fail to be able to provide any solution.  Why am I not surprised.


----------



## Cryozombie

Archangel M said:


> Where did his post paint anybody as "scumbags"? Its called good police work, its called investigation...as long as the traffic infraction is valid the SC had declared them appropriate.
> 
> Whats the alternative? Just take reports and look the other way? Then some people with gripes *rolls eyes* would be complaining the cops are not doing anything about crime.



The term Scumbags in my post referred to actual criminals.  You know... the small percentage of overall Americans that make the cops job a necessity.  

But the overall attitude I see is that those Small percentage make the generalization of the population at large ok, because in your own words "Whats the alternative?" (Which I would paint as: Maybe assume that whole, ya know... innocent until proven guilty, and treat people with respect until it is determined that they don't deserve it) while at the same time crying out "It's so unfair the way you people paint cops because of a tiny minority of them that do bad things... you people are biased!"

It's hypocritical _AT BEST_.  And you know it, cuz I've seen your posts and I don't think you are stupid.


----------



## MJS

Cryozombie said:


> Now here's an intersting situation, food for thought for ya...
> 
> We are people "with an adgenda" or a "problem with cops" if we judge the actions of most cops on the tiny minority of bad ones...
> 
> But if a cop makes a judgement call like the one above it's perfectly ok, because a tiny minority of civilians are scumbags so we all could potentially be.
> 
> Hmmm. That's an interesting double standard we have there.


 
Sigh...John...who the hell called the guy in the Benz a scumbag?  That is YOUR assumption, that is how YOU are reading it.  So, going by your post, you see alot wrong with my scenario?  You feel that the guy in the MB should have just been left alone?  So in other words, just let anyone do whatever they want?  

Fact is, it wasn't a judgement call.  I see you read what YOU wanted to read.  Did you see where I said they pulled the car for a minor mv violation...failure to signal?  If you dont think that is a reason to pull a car over, perhaps instead of crying how cops are not doing their job, cry to the state to have that law pulled.  

Once again, people are soooo quick to find flaws, yet sooo slow to come up with solutions.  Again, why am I not surprised?

Let me ask you this.  If you lived in a neighborhood, where every house on the block was 1 million plus, and everyone drove $50,000 cars, and you saw some piece of **** car with some shady looking guys driving thru the area repeatedly, going by each house real slow, would you not be concerned?  Would the thought that maybe, just maybe they're looking to see what house is the best to break in?


----------



## MJS

Archangel M said:


> Where did his post paint anybody as "scumbags"? Its called good police work, its called investigation...as long as the traffic infraction is valid the SC had declared them appropriate.
> 
> Whats the alternative? Just take reports and look the other way? Then some people with gripes *rolls eyes* would be complaining the cops are not doing anything about crime.


 
Agreed.  They're damned if they do, damned if they don't.  Do too much, they get **** on, do too little they get **** on.  Funny how nobody comes up with a solution though.  *****, *****, *****, yet no alternatives.


----------



## Cryozombie

MJS said:


> Sigh...John...who the hell called the guy in the Benz a scumbag?  That is YOUR assumption, that is how YOU are reading it.  So, going by your post, you see alot wrong with my scenario?  You feel that the guy in the MB should have just been left alone?  So in other words, just let anyone do whatever they want?



See my post right above yours we cross posted...


----------



## MJS

Bob Hubbard said:


> Don't blame the cops doing their job, blame the *** holes who make that job necessary.
> 
> I'd rather have a couple of pull overs and quick Q&A's and know they're pulling drunks off the roads, than not have them there and have those same drunks smash into me...because some dumb *** needed his losers kool aid that night.


 
But, but, Bob, thats harassment, don't ya know.

All kidding aside, I agree with you.  My wife and I were picked on time in the airport....because of the way the coffee mugs we bought while on our vac. looked in the carry on.  Multiple small boxes, so we had to open our bags, the whole nine yards.  We literally ran to the gate to get the plane.  Was I muttering?  Sure, but I knew that was their job.  Had some clown brought a bomb on board, I'd be muttering even more that they didn't catch him.


----------



## MJS

KenpoTex said:


> The OP has acknowledged that most LEO's are good people who do their jobs correctly, etc. Are there some bad apples who overstep their authority and violate people's rights? Certainly, and when it is determined that this did in fact take place, said officer should no longer be an officer and should face any other consequences called for by their actions.
> 
> We seem to be in agreement that:
> 1) Most LEO's do their jobs according to the law and respect people's rights.
> 2) A small percentage of them don't.
> 3) Those who fall into that "small percentage" are wrong
> 
> Not trying to be flippant here, but I really fail to see exactly what this thread is trying to accomplish...?


 
Its an excuse for people who have had some 'misfortune' with the cops, to bash them.  Can't be done in the LEO thread, so it was brought here.  Interesting how a) the good things the cops do are never brought up and b) no solutions are ever mentioned.  Oh well....


----------



## Cryozombie

MJS said:


> Do too much, they get **** on, do too little they get **** on.  Funny how nobody comes up with a solution though.



How about doing *Enough*?  Not too much, not too little.  And doing it well, with respect for your community, the people who live in it, and the rights those people are supposed to have under the law?


----------



## MJS

Cryozombie said:


> The term Scumbags in my post referred to actual criminals. You know... the small percentage of overall Americans that make the cops job a necessity.
> 
> But the overall attitude I see is that those Small percentage make the generalization of the population at large ok, because in your own words "Whats the alternative?" (Which I would paint as: Maybe assume that whole, ya know... innocent until proven guilty, and treat people with respect until it is determined that they don't deserve it) while at the same time crying out "It's so unfair the way you people paint cops because of a tiny minority of them that do bad things... you people are biased!"
> 
> It's hypocritical _AT BEST_. And you know it, cuz I've seen your posts and I don't think you are stupid.


 
John, with all due respect, I bef to differ on the small percentage comment.  If it was really that small, then why do we hear so much about prison overcrowding?


----------



## Cryozombie

MJS said:


> Its an excuse for people who have had some 'misfortune' with the cops, to bash them.



Funny... I see it as an opportunity to point out the inequity between the way cops do things, and they way they want them done to them.  But that's just me.  I take issue to cops going "But we have to do it that way, what other choice do we have" while saying "Its horrible cop bashing the way people perceive us"  I don't think the badge earns you the right to special treatment, sorry.

There are plenty of "Good" cop stories.  Plenty of cops doing things that are good for their community and the people in them.  Problem is, while I'm sure its nice to be recognized for that its the job you signed up for and what we expect from you... so it often goes without saying.  I don't get high praise when I keep the servers at work from crashing, but you can damn bet I hear about it when they do.  That's how it works just about everywhere.

But MJS, and Arc, and Drac, and the rest of you "Honest cops": Thank you for doing your best... continue to do so.


----------



## MJS

Cryozombie said:


> How about doing *Enough*? Not too much, not too little. And doing it well, with respect for your community, the people who live in it, and the rights those people are supposed to have under the law?


 
Ok, and who determines what is enough?  Your version, my version, and 50 other versions will probably differ.  If I lived in a high crime area, I'd expect more than if I lived in a low crime area.  The dept. I work for has put extra cops in the problem areas, to address the quality of life issues, as they call them, ie: drinking in public, loitering, loud music, etc.  I'd be anything that many people view that as bs, and make claims that the cops should be out fighting real crime.  We see it all the time.  A bank will get held up, and someone will say, well, if the cops weren't bothering someone on the street, maybe they'd have gotten there quicker.  Yet the old lady who feels intimidated because 5 guys are on the corner drinking is afraid to go anywhere.


----------



## Cryozombie

MJS said:


> John, with all due respect, I bef to differ on the small percentage comment.  If it was really that small, then why do we hear so much about prison overcrowding?



Topic for another thread, I think.  I'd be going off on a tangent about unjust laws we are working to change and "political crimes" and the percieved ineptitude of the system.


----------



## MJS

Cryozombie said:


> Funny... I see it as an opportunity to point out the inequity between the way cops do things, and they way they want them done to them. But that's just me. I take issue to cops going "But we have to do it that way, what other choice do we have" while saying "Its horrible cop bashing the way people perceive us" I don't think the badge earns you the right to special treatment, sorry.


 
Then address them with someone, such as the mayor or chief.  They're the ones who set the policy, and many of the things they (the cops) have to do, is a directive from the higher ups, because of the citizen complaints.  Like I said in another post, there are 5 cops alone for the Main St/North End area where I work.  Yet 1 per. dist. for the rest of the city.  Hmmm....so the huge apt/condo complex that we have in the city has one cop, so while he's on one end of his dist., its open season for the people who steal cars in that area.



> There are plenty of "Good" cop stories. Plenty of cops doing things that are good for their community and the people in them. Problem is, while I'm sure its nice to be recognized for that its the job you signed up for and what we expect from you... so it often goes without saying. I don't get high praise when I keep the servers at work from crashing, but you can damn bet I hear about it when they do. That's how it works just about everywhere.


 
Sad but true.  Many times, the behind the scenes people never get the credit they deserve.



> But MJS, and Arc, and Drac, and the rest of you "Honest cops": Thank you for doing your best... continue to do so.


 
I'm a dispatcher John, not a cop.  My Grandfather was a cop, and I always wanted to follow in his footsteps, but for the time, have put that on hold.  I will admit that there are some lazy *** cops where I work, but fortunately, the good ones, the ones that make a difference, outnumber the others.


----------



## Archangel M

"Quality of Life Enforcement" will have a larger impact than having cops sitting on banks waiting for a robbery that may never come. Sucks for the people who are just loitering around on the corners with 40 oz in paper bags...cops should always be dealing with someone other than ME...you know how it goes.


----------



## Cryozombie

MJS said:


> Ok, and who determines what is enough?  Your version, my version, and 50 other versions will probably differ.  If I lived in a high crime area, I'd expect more than if I lived in a low crime area.  The dept. I work for has put extra cops in the problem areas, to address the quality of life issues, as they call them, ie: drinking in public, loitering, loud music, etc.  I'd be anything that many people view that as bs, and make claims that the cops should be out fighting real crime.  We see it all the time.  A bank will get held up, and someone will say, well, if the cops weren't bothering someone on the street, maybe they'd have gotten there quicker.  Yet the old lady who feels intimidated because 5 guys are on the corner drinking is afraid to go anywhere.



It's a point, to be sure, you can't please everyone.  Are 5 guys drinking on the corner breaking the law?  Someplaces maybe... but not everywhere.  And where it's not, it sucks to be that old lady.  Where it is, sucks to be them.  But I was addressing your post where you lamented doing too much and being wrong, and doing too little and being wrong.


----------



## Archangel M

Cops are a bit like soldiers. There were some real tools in my unit, but on the whole I never knew a better group of guys. People dont paint "Soldiers" with the same brush that "Cops" seem to get, but the comparison is very similar.


----------



## Cryozombie

MJS said:


> Then address them with someone, such as the mayor or chief.  They're the ones who set the policy, and many of the things they (the cops) have to do, is a directive from the higher ups, because of the citizen complaints.



I have no real reason to.  I said earlier, I have had good run ins and bad run ins with the cops, but I'm discussing it here, because this is a discussion board.  My only real gripe with the way things are being done in my neighborhood is an administrative one, and how the City is using those cops to generate revenue that is then lining the pockets of the corrupt village board, rather than being put to its stated use, and that has little to do with the cops, and is being dealt with on a different level.


----------



## MJS

Cryozombie said:


> I have no real reason to. I said earlier, I have had good run ins and bad run ins with the cops, but I'm discussing it here, because this is a discussion board. My only real gripe with the way things are being done in my neighborhood is an administrative one, and how the City is using those cops to generate revenue that is then lining the pockets of the corrupt village board, rather than being put to its stated use, and that has little to do with the cops, and is being dealt with on a different level.


 
So, if something is happening in your neighborhood, and you don't like it, as a taxpayer, why are you not doing anything about it?  I certainly can't help or change anything, so if you have an honest concern, you should address it to someone who can help you.  Not saying you can't talk about it here, but if you're looking for a solution.....


----------



## Cryozombie

MJS said:


> So, if something is happening in your neighborhood, and you don't like it, as a taxpayer, why are you not doing anything about it? I certainly can't help or change anything, so if you have an honest concern, you should address it to someone who can help you. Not saying you can't talk about it here, but if you're looking for a solution.....


 
We voted in a new Village president... its just a matter of seeing what she does.  I didnt say I was doing nothing.  I said it was being dealt with on a different level.  Like I said, my real issues in my neigborhood is how they are being used.

In the end, despite the title, I didn't see this thread as a discussion thread for the happy-go-lucky good things cops do, lets make em feel warm and fuzzy thread... but rather a thread about bad cops or bad things cops do.  Then the cops jumped in with a "Why meeeeee!" attitude.  If someone wants to start a "Cops are the Greatest People" thread, I have some good cop stories I'd post in there... It's just a sad fact that I have far fewer of those.


----------



## Archangel M

Because most people only have a handful of experiences with the police and most times they are getting a ticket, or are the victim of a crime.

BTW: "Good Cop" is in the title too.


----------



## JadecloudAlchemist

I suppose everyone has a different experience.


----------



## Drac

Cryozombie said:


> How about doing *Enough*? Not too much, not too little. And doing it well, with respect for your community, the people who live in it, and the rights those people are supposed to have under the law?


 
Believe or not Cyro, that is my (and a lot of officers I know) goal..Doing *just enough* to get the person the person cuffed and into the cruiser.. I attempt to start a dialog with *almost *every encounter..Unfortunately it always seems to wind up in a physical altercation when the person decides that they are *NOT* going to be cuffed or go to jail..


----------



## Bob Hubbard

Bad cop stories:
The one who pulled me over, came on like the king of dagotopia (stereotypical itallian goon, complete with shirt half unbuttoned, the gold chain and theforest of hair), wrote me up for speeding, then lid in court about the situation to a judge who could care less.  I paid the fine, took the points, and told who I had to tell about it.

The cops who took hours answering mydomestic call concerning a drunk neighbor blasting his music at 4am.

All of the ones I see regularly violating MV laws for apparently personal reasons.


As to profiling, sure.  Pull over everyone who looks Middle Eastern because they did 9/11.  Now, while you're at it, pull over everyone who looks White because they are the ones who do school shootings, and blew up the Oklahoma Fed. Bld.  Once you have them over, pull over all the Dark Skinned people because Mexicans are doing a lot of the drug smuggling, and Blacks the bulk of the violent assaults.  If we missed anyone, pull them over too for being different.   Now that everyone's off to the side, let me through, I'm late for work!


----------



## Drac

Bob Hubbard said:


> As to profiling, sure. Pull over everyone who looks Middle Eastern because they did 9/11. Now, while you're at it, pull over everyone who looks White because they are the ones who do school shootings, and blew up the Oklahoma Fed. Bld. Once you have them over, pull over all the Dark Skinned people because Mexicans are doing a lot of the drug smuggling, and Blacks the bulk of the violent assaults. If we missed anyone, pull them over too for being different. Now that everyone's off to the side, let me through, I'm late for work!


 
Well with that schedule there goes my quality time at the donnut shop...LOL


----------



## Drac

I wasn't always a cop, I did *A LOT* of stupid stuff..I have had my share of run ins with local law enforcement because of the company I kept and being in the wrong place at the wrong time...

I have *NEVER* had any problems because I was respectful, if questioned I answered without lying...I never played the irate citizen routine or the you just messing with me cause I have long hair (that was a *gar-en-teed* cop attracter back then).I was never cuffed because I never gave them reason too..The cops in the late 60's and early 70's didnt have to worry about being recorded on someones cell phone and were prone to be a little brutal..


----------



## Drac

Carol Kaur said:


> Know what the LEOs are looking for.
> 
> Avoid being what they are looking for.
> 
> Makes any potential encounter go a lot more smoothly.


 
Bravo Carol..But that would be too simple for most...Most people wear a sign that says Stop and Question me.


----------



## Cryozombie

Drac said:


> Believe or not Cyro, that is my (and a lot of officers I know) goal..Doing *just enough* to get the person the person cuffed and into the cruiser.. I attempt to start a dialog with *almost *every encounter..Unfortunately it always seems to wind up in a physical altercation when the person decides that they are *NOT* going to be cuffed or go to jail..


 
I think there is more to it than that... "Enough" is when I call and say "some stranger is beating on my door at 3am" and you don't come say "Oh, ignore it, he was probably just passing thru your yard", but rather take the time to get a description and make me feel safe...  *I* don't see "enough" as just not going too far.    When I call for help and get blown off, and then when I am minding my own buisness and get harrassed, it makes me think cops are... less than neccessary.  I think that would be easy to fix.



Drac said:


> Most people wear a sign that says Stop and Question me


 
MOST people? Why?  If MOST people look/act a certain way, that's the norm right?  

Let me ask the cops here... What "flags" a person to be stopped and questioned who you have no evidence of having broken the law?  Do you not like the way they dress? Or how they walk, or that their car isn't new with a nice wash and wax job?  What is the criteria for "ooh, I better check this guy out" ?


----------



## KP.

MJS said:


> Then address them with someone, such as the mayor or chief.  They're the ones who set the policy, and many of the things they (the cops) have to do, is a directive from the higher ups, because of the citizen complaints.



MJS -- first, as to how I'd handle a person who is resisting. I imagine it would depend entirely on the specific circumstances at the time. I have not denied that the use of force can be justified given particular circumstances. There is, however, no one specific answer to such a hypothetical precisely because the totality of circumstance can not be known. I would ultimately hope, however, that I would not exceed my authority nor unnecessarily risk damage to the person I was attempting to restrain.

That said, when was the last time such complaints were listened to from a minority community and action taken on them? 

Like you, such officials immediately jump to the belief that any complaints are exaggerations, biased, and invalid based on the people making them. After all, if they didn't deserve to be treated however they were treated, they wouldn't have, and they were only treated within the bounds of policy, because to admit otherwise would be to admit that such officials were being derelict in their duties.

Major cities receive  upwards of tens of thousands of complaints each year, and on a typical year, only a few hundred are investigated. Except for the most egregious abuses, the worst that a cop can expect is a minor administrative punishment, when the same actions by a civilian would result in prosecution and parole, if not prison.

What good are complains when the police simply are not held to the standard of the law?

How many folks have seen police fly down the streets sirens blaring to get back to their car to clock out? Or just hit the lights to blow through a yellow or red when they didn't want to obey the traffic laws. Yet dare to drive 3 miles over the speed limit in front of that same officer.

The assumption is always that the other guy was wrong. Always.

Out of high school I joined the army, mainly for the GI Bill so I could afford to go to school. I hung around a bit as I liked it. I received nothing but the highest reviews, was promoted regularly, and by all accounts was an excellent soldier.

I am very polite, I always say 'Sir' or 'Ma'am' no matter who I'm addressing (strict Baptist upbringing more than the military on that one). I always look the person I'm speaking with directly in the eye. I am never anything but respectful when speaking to anyone in person. (I realize my writing style is terse and is often mis-construed as rude. But that reading does not adequately reflect my personality).

Yet, I have never once had a pleasant interaction with the police, from the time I was a kid until this day. Over a period of nearly 50 years and the only times I've met with the police, under any circumstances, it's been at best unpleasantly distasteful, and at worst a small dose of hell. Why? 

I must be a total scumbag right? I mean being a young guy in a nice car near my parent's home means I must be suspect. After all, no one there can be expected to be successful, so I must be guilty of something. 

Or maybe being a kid on a stoop at the wrong time. Obviously I must have been involved, right? No kid in town could possibly just be sitting reading. After all, people like me don't read.

Or, go to a high quality school in the right parts of this county, and immediately one is a suspect if you're not one of the good ol' boys.

I know why I'm being stopped, and it has nothing what-so-ever with any valid reason. But hey, I'm wrong 'cause if only I wasn't what the cops were looking for I'd be fine. Well, that is simply not true. 

Now, I recognize that there are good cops out there. I recognize that they are the majority. But I also recognize that the bad cops are more numerous than the police would like us to believe, and I recognize that they do more damage than the average person realizes. Precisely because the average person is shielded from the reasons cops become abusive in the first place -- which leads them to develop certain prejudices and frustrations that such bad cops take out on those who in any-way represent the sources of those issues.

But the only solution to the problem is that the rest of the police force stop making excuses and start taking action. When the police unions stop protecting the bad cops and start demanding vigorous investigations and equal treatment under the law, then the problem will diminish. But until then, it won't go away because the only people who can make it go away have their jobs tied, at least in part, to denying that real problems exist.


----------



## Drac

Cryozombie said:


> I think there is more to it than that... "Enough" is when I call and say "some stranger is beating on my door at 3am" and you don't come say "Oh, ignore it, he was probably just passing thru your yard", but rather take the time to get a description and make me feel safe....


 
I'm sorry that the LEO's on your city treat your requests for service that way..My departments responds to ALL calls, and would be in deep doo-doo if he refused or gave you such a lame excuse as he is cutting through your yard...



Cryozombie said:


> when I am minding my own buisness and get harrassed, it makes me think cops are... less than neccessary. I think that would be easy to fix


 
There HAS too be a reason that your are being targeted...As I don't know your history I cannot comment on that...





Cryozombie said:


> MOST people? Why? If MOST people look/act a certain way, that's the norm right?..Let me ask the cops here... What "flags" a person to be stopped and questioned who you have no evidence of having broken the law? Do you not like the way they dress? Or how they walk, or that their car isn't new with a nice wash and wax job? What is the criteria for "ooh, I better check this guy out" ?


 
Not an easy answer..

4AM I spot one of those tricked out cars cruising through one of our housing developments..I run the plate an it comes back to a city 2 hrs away..We pull the car down and its occupied by males..I see 3 cell phones and 2 pages sitting on center council all the other occupants are wearing cell phones and pages..We begin a dialog of Are you lost??..They are looking for their friend who live in the township..They can only supply a first name and no address..Now is this suspicious??? 

A lone male hanging in the area where there has been a rash of drug related crimes..He is dressed in true gang-banger-wanna-be fashion.Is this suspicious???.We approach and question him..He is waiting for a ride..We get his name and address and say good night..

A nice clean waxed vehicle or a bondo buggy is driving down the street with his stero *BLAIRING..*We pull him down and advise him of the noise ordinance law..We check his license to make sure he is the owner...He is and this is the first time he has been stopped for this offense...He is advised and sent...The loud radio is always a check me out sign..


----------



## shesulsa

I'm wondering if our LEO members could offer any kind of suggestions to law-abiding citizens who have had negative experiences with the police in their respective areas?

For instance, if a citizen feels they cooperated in every possible way but were mistreated through violence, mistreatment, etcetera ... let's just say the possibility exists for argument's sake ... is there anything at all a citizen can do? Anyone they should talk to?  Write to? Anything?

It really does happen, fellas.  I was pulled over for a simple traffic violation and the officer called me "meathead" and "witch" (with a capital B) and various other unsavory words.  I was very polite, very cooperative, had my documents ready, didn't get out of the car, wasn't angry ....

IS there a recourse for ill-treated citizens who respect and obey the law?


----------



## KP.

MJS said:


> Its an excuse for people who have had some 'misfortune' with the cops, to bash them.  Can't be done in the LEO thread, so it was brought here.  Interesting how a) the good things the cops do are never brought up and b) no solutions are ever mentioned.  Oh well....



Actually, the reason I opened the thread was because in the LEO thread about restraining techniques and if they could injure a person I commented that in my experience a few too many police enjoy injuring people, sad as that reality is. 

A discussion ensued in which several claimed that not only is it not the case but it was even said that in all cases no one would be injured if the person being detained would just do what the officer asked. I challenged that belief precisely because of the claim that it was true for *all* encounters. 

I attempted to provide some information on police brutality as a reality, but no matter the citation I was informed that it was biased and therefore dismissive.

I brought the thread here hoping to stir some discussion precisely because it appears that the common refrain from the police is "this doesn't happen, any claim it does is ********, people only get what they deserve."

I am honestly stunned at that response. Moreover, I wonder how MJS thinks an academic could provide a solution when those who would need to buy into implementing a solution deny the existence of a problem and seem to believe that any data to the otherwise is made up and misconstrued.


----------



## KP.

shesulsa said:


> IS there a recourse for ill-treated citizens who respect and obey the law?



Obviously I'm not an LEO, but from my personal experience, and the data I've seen is "no."

Oh, there are forms you can fill out, but if an investigation into the events happen (which the studies suggest is a very rare thing indeed) the most one can expect is minor administrative action, regardless of the severity of the officer's actions.


----------



## Cryozombie

shesulsa said:


> It really does happen, fellas. I was pulled over for a simple traffic violation and the officer called me "meathead" and "witch" (with a capital B) and various other unsavory words. I was very polite, very cooperative, had my documents ready, didn't get out of the car, wasn't angry


 
No, Shesulsa, there must be more to this story that you aren't telling us about.  

And besides, it wouldn't have happened if you hadn't broken the law.

:angel:


----------



## Drac

shesulsa said:


> I'm wondering if our LEO members could offer any kind of suggestions to law-abiding citizens who have had negative experiences with the police in their respective areas?
> 
> For instance, if a citizen feels they cooperated in every possible way but were mistreated through violence, mistreatment, etcetera ... let's just say the possibility exists for argument's sake ... is there anything at all a citizen can do? Anyone they should talk to? Write to? Anything?
> 
> It really does happen, fellas. I was pulled over for a simple traffic violation and the officer called me "meathead" and "witch" (with a capital B) and various other unsavory words. I was very polite, very cooperative, had my documents ready, didn't get out of the car, wasn't angry ....
> 
> IS there a recourse for ill-treated citizens who respect and obey the law?


 
You can always make an appointment with Chief of Police or the Safety Director to discuss this...


----------



## Bob Hubbard

1-file your complaints with chief of police, mayor, county executive, state gov. etc.
2- write your representatives
3- write local papers
4- put up a website outlining your problems
5- post notices calling attention to the issue
6- hold a public rally on the steps of city hall

If you feel your rights were violated, defend them, protect them and realize you may go through a lot of crap in the process.

In the end, the only rights you really have are those you're willing to die over.

I don't think someone with a bad attitude is worth taking a bullet over....having a lamp rammed up my back end however might be.


----------



## KP.

Drac said:


> You can always make an appointment with Chief of Police or the Safety Director to discuss this...



rofl


----------



## Bob Hubbard

KP. said:


> rofl


In that case, lead an armed uprising and create the society you think should be.

There's only about 900,000 cops, and 3 million military (active and reserve) standing in your way.


----------



## Cryozombie

Bob Hubbard said:


> There's only about 900,000 cops, and 3 million military (active and reserve) standing in your way.


 
Nah man, if you believe the anti-bush crowd, all our military is tied up overseas... theres none left here.


----------



## The Last Legionary

A million cops eh?  Wonder how many complaints they get.

Oh, no one get up. I looked for you.



> Highlights include the following:
> 
> During 2002 large State and local law enforcement agencies, representing 5% of agencies and 59% of officers, *received a total of 26,556 citizen complaints about police use of force. *
> About a third of all force complaints in 2002 were not sustained (34%).
> Twenty-five percent were unfounded,
> 23% resulted in officers being exonerated,
> and 8% were sustained.
> 
> Using sustained force complaints as an indicator of excessive force results in an estimate of about 2,000 incidents of police use of excessive force among large agencies in 2002.
> 
> 06/06 NCJ 210296


http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/ccpuf.htm

Just because a cop asks you questions, stops you, detains you, or asks you to move along, doesn't mean it's abuse. 

It might be your car, it might be your porch, it might be your house, but the cop doesn't know that.  He has a complaint with vague information to check on. He's also human, and has bad days too.  Do you piss and moan because someone at Dorky Dumbnuts didn't gush and giggle all over you while bringing you your over priced doughball and brown liquid? 

Then again, if you're always getting stopped, you might want to look at what's really happening, and take both your head and that stick out your ***.


----------



## Bob Hubbard

Cryozombie said:


> Nah man, if you believe the anti-bush crowd, all our military is tied up overseas... theres none left here.


There's at least 20,000 here....
http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=70254


----------



## KP.

The Last Legionary said:


> Oh, no one get up. I looked for you.
> 
> . . .



Those are filed complaints, which are not particularly representative of actual events.

Look at inquiries on how to file complaints, and in most large cities you'll see that number is an order of magnitude higher than the actual complaints filed. Then consider that a large number of people are never going to complain . . . either due to a belief (largely correct) that nothing will be done, or because they have a fear of police contact due to their own legal status.


----------



## KP.

Bob Hubbard said:


> In that case, lead an armed uprising and create the society you think should be.
> 
> There's only about 900,000 cops, and 3 million military (active and reserve) standing in your way.



I guess I'm not surprised that people are so dismissive of this topic, but it is sad.


----------



## Empty Hands

GBlues said:


> It was not an african-american, or asia-american, or latino, or white guy, or any other nationality but one, that brought the world trade center down. It was only one nationality. ANd they were of middle eastern decent.



They could have sent John Walker Lindh or Jose Padilla.  Or, domestic terrorists like Timothy McVeigh could decide to become more active, especially now that a black Democrat is President.


----------



## jks9199

shesulsa said:


> I'm wondering if our LEO members could offer any kind of suggestions to law-abiding citizens who have had negative experiences with the police in their respective areas?
> 
> For instance, if a citizen feels they cooperated in every possible way but were mistreated through violence, mistreatment, etcetera ... let's just say the possibility exists for argument's sake ... is there anything at all a citizen can do? Anyone they should talk to?  Write to? Anything?
> 
> It really does happen, fellas.  I was pulled over for a simple traffic violation and the officer called me "meathead" and "witch" (with a capital B) and various other unsavory words.  I was very polite, very cooperative, had my documents ready, didn't get out of the car, wasn't angry ....
> 
> IS there a recourse for ill-treated citizens who respect and obey the law?


You have several routes to deal with police conduct that you are unhappy with.  You can contact the officer's immediate supervisor; they may be able to explain what happened or resolve the situation directly.  

You can file a formal complaint with the agency; every agency has an established policy and method.  Some may not accept or may not take as seriously an anonymous complaint, unless it's clearly a serious matter.  Some treat any complaint, even obviously frivolous ones (like the person who complained that a cop actually ate his lunch...) as if the cop committed a murder.

If you feel the agency isn't going to respond, you can complain to the appropriate government (city, town, or county), as well.  If you go to your councilman or town manager or county board, well, the old rule about fecal matter flowing down hill applies.

Or you can complain to the state attorney general's office.  Or even the FBI.

In other words -- there's lots of recourse.  But you actually have move within channels, instead of simply whining or complaining to your buddies.  

And... if you're simply not sure about something you've seen or heard, I know that I (and probably several of the others here) are happy to try to answer questions.  I'm not going to give legal advice, I'm not going to arm-chair quarterback something that I wasn't involved in... but I will generally answer "why did they..." type questions.  (There are also several LE forums on the web where much the same thing can be done.)


----------



## The Last Legionary

KP. said:


> Those are filed complaints, which are not particularly representative of actual events.
> 
> Look at inquiries on how to file complaints, and in most large cities you'll see that number is an order of magnitude higher than the actual complaints filed. Then consider that a large number of people are never going to complain . . . either due to a belief (largely correct) that nothing will be done, or because they have a fear of police contact due to their own legal status.


 
If you don't file the complaint, nothing can be investigated or looked into. 
If you don't file the complaint properly, then you delay action.
Ten people will watch a fight crying "why won't anyone do something".
One will call for help.
Who's the smart one, and who are the dumb asses?

As to this: "fear of police contact due to their own legal status.", you mean illegals and criminals aren't taken serious when they complain about the cops? Gee, maybe that's because the gave up their credibility when they chose to break the law in the first place.

Either be part of the solution, or be a victim all the time.
I ain't gots no sympthys for da victms man.



KP. said:


> I guess I'm not surprised that people are so dismissive of this topic, but it is sad.


 
Ok, you're right.  There's a vast conspiracy going on, and right now, in a sekret section here, all the cop be plotting and schemin on how to keeps you down.  They be laughing, busting mad jokes bout hows dey yank arm and be crankin you junk just cuz you be.


----------



## The Last Legionary

Guys, they want a whine fest, for everyone to see how evil cops are, and how wrong it all is.  They aren't interested in solutions, they've already given up and want to cling to being a helpless "oh help me help me, pity me pity me" victim.

I refuse to be a victim, I refuse to pity pathetic people.  Cowards can do as the please.
I choose battle.


----------



## Andy Moynihan

Look.



All this about whether cops are heroes or villains is kinda missin' the point.

All they are is human.

But that's the last thing anyone not a cop wants to hear. they ignore the fact that the people who fill the job slots are cut from the same mismatched, ****ed-up cloth as the rest of us and basically turn around and expect them to turn infallible.

What needs to happen, whether it's cops, soldiers, bouncers, whoever handles humanity's ugly side for a living--what needs to happen is for someone to stand up and say Look, there isn't some big mystery to how these guys act. Sure, there is training involved but it isn't like they install some damn computer in your head. You're still a person just like you were before, and just the same KIND you were before.You still get mad and screw up, you still take things personal--maybe more so, the kinda crap you have to put up with in a job like that.

But there's no way anybody in any position to make the words COUNT is ever gonna come out and say this to people.

THAT's your real problem, right there.


----------



## Empty Hands

Andy Moynihan said:


> But that's the last thing anyone not a cop wants to hear. they ignore the fact that the people who fill the job slots are cut from the same mismatched, ****ed-up cloth as the rest of us and basically turn around and expect them to turn infallible.



No, I don't think that is it at all.  Everyone in this discussion has made the claim that most police are good people just trying to do their jobs.  The problem is the minority of bad people in the mix.  I think we all get that.

However, the social and institutional structures in place make it difficult and at times impossible to deal effectively with this small minority.  Due to a variety of factors, they are protected.  That is the real problem.  If that minority was dealt with effectively and quickly, I doubt you would hear many serious complaints (some will always complain in order to attempt to deflect their own guilt).


----------



## The Last Legionary

Empty Hands said:


> However, the social and institutional structures in place make it difficult and at times impossible to deal effectively with this small minority.  Due to a variety of factors, they are protected.  That is the real problem.  If that minority was dealt with effectively and quickly, I doubt you would hear many serious complaints (some will always complain in order to attempt to deflect their own guilt).


bull ****. 

Atlanta cop convicted in Kathryn Johnstons death 
Two ex-New York cops convicted for helping mafia
Ex-cops Convicted Of Stealing And Reselling Cocaine, Marijuana ... 
Ex-Chicago cop convicted of conspiracy
Miami cops convicted of corruption in shootings
Ex-Hackettstown cop sentenced for giving radios to suspected drug ... 
Robbery Ring Disguised as Drug Raids Nets ... Robbery Ring Disguised as Drug Raids Nets Convictions for Former LA Cops,
Ex-cop convicted of conspiracy -- chicagotribune.com 
Detroit Cops Convicted of Extortion
Ex-cops convicted of mob hits bash lawyers
That's a short list I found on Google, in the first 3 pages, most are 2007-2008.

If people would complain, go through proper channels, follow up, they'd get justice eventually. Problem is, they want it now, they want it their way, and when they don't they whine.

Google chicago cops convicted and you get over 400,000 hits. Looks like a few of the bad-cops went down. Wonder how many more might if lazy as Chicagoians or whatever you call yourselves (other than helpless victims I mean) would do something about the problem, other than whine.
.


----------



## KP.

The Last Legionary said:


> As to this: "fear of police contact due to their own legal status.", you mean illegals and criminals aren't taken serious when they complain about the cops? Gee, maybe that's because the gave up their credibility when they chose to break the law in the first place.



So, no one who has broken a law or who is suspected of breaking the law has a right to complain about how they are treated. Good to know.



> Either be part of the solution, or be a victim all the time.
> I ain't gots no sympthys for da victms man



And people wonder why the "race card" is brought up. 

Here's a thought, the reason intimidation tactics are used is because they are in fact intimidating. 

It's rather ludicrous to suggest to someone who has just been abused that the way to handle the issue is to complain to the people who just abused you. Oddly, a fair number of people, particularly those who are familiar with how a gang operates, aren't going to be particularly trusting of such a solution. That is even more so when it is fairly well known how few complaints are taken seriously.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2003762615_alleybarnes26m.html

Now, I'll grant that Alley-Barnes is most likely a total ***. But several questions are raised -- including why the initial friend was detained.

But really at issue is that these guys were found to have been guilty of serious breaches, yet they were given a walk. So what is the next person in that city who has a run in like this going to do? Obviously complaints are pointless.


----------



## Empty Hands

The Last Legionary said:


> That's a short list I found on Google, in the first 3 pages, most are 2007-2008.



Sure, but even in my memory, I can think of many police officers caught in brazen misconduct that got away with administrative punishments like suspension with pay (free vacation!) or other slaps on the wrist.  Even then, those punishments often only came about because of taped evidence, not testimony of other officers.  Unless you have a quantitative study of some sort, then posting Google nuggets is rather useless.
 



The Last Legionary said:


> If people would complain, go through proper channels, follow up, they'd get justice eventually. Problem is, they want it now, they want it their way, and when they don't they whine.



From statistics posted earlier in this thread, only 8% of 25,000 or so complaints were substantiated. Take another example posted earlier in this thread from Mr. Parsons.  Do you really think a complaint would have worked for him without documentary evidence?  That his testimony would be believed over that of the multiple other officers present?  That one of those officers would have confessed to his own misconduct or ratted out the others?  I rather doubt it.  I guess that makes me a cowardly whiner.


----------



## KP.

Yet another biased source:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/19/AR2007061901161_pf.html


----------



## KP.

KP. said:


> Yet another biased source:
> 
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/19/AR2007061901161_pf.html



But remember, all you have to do is not be a bad guy and talk nicely to the police chiefs and all will be well.

It's just a lie.

Again, I'm sure there are great officers (who are the majority) out there (not my experience, but I still believe it), but instead of the good officers being appalled at these types of incidents and doing everything in their power (which is considerably more than those of the average civilians) to make sure that their own are held accountable to the law, they do the opposite -- engaging in protective silence and exonerating those who are known to be guilty of serious crimes.

Yes, a few are convicted. But most are not. 

So why is it that the good officers won't even admit to it being a problem, let alone do something about it? 

Guys here who are apparently respected continue to assert that it's only a problem for the bad guys who deserve what they get. Do you folks really believe that? Wait, don't answer ... I already know.


----------



## Archangel M

All you have to do where I am is simply call the station and state you want to file a complaint. If you really want to see something done you have to show up in person. There isnt going to be a suspension or firing on an anonymous complaint that cant be followed up any other way. All complaints that are screened as being a violation of law or policy (vs. "the cop followed me for over 10 minutes" or "the cop shined a flashlight in my car" type complaints...actually fielded that one) will be assigned to a lieutenant for investigation. Officers HAVE been terminated, suspended or disciplined in various instances. You may not hear about it because our dept. isnt too keen on calling the news every time one of our officers gets a few months off for being an idiot...sorry.

When it somes to bad cop stories...

As a cop, what gets my hackles up is the "all cops" tone...not in the sense of "that NEVER happens here" but in the sense that when some cop in New Mexico does something bad then cops over here get looked at askance. If a person were to say "The Chicago Police have problems...or I have had a lot of troubles with the Seattle Cops...." well all I can do is look at your story from the perspective of what I would have done in the same circumstances, but I really cant answer for them. The only similarity between them and I is the job we are asked to do. Otherwise we are day and night in HOW we do things.

If you point the finger at MY department and a situation that I have knowledge of then I may either say "yup that guy has issues" or defend him and his actions.

I just resent being made to feel ashamed of my profession and dept because you had a bad experience on the other side of the country with a dept that may be as different from mine as one in Germany may be.


----------



## Rich Parsons

MJS said:


> Its an excuse for people who have had some 'misfortune' with the cops, to bash them. Can't be done in the LEO thread, so it was brought here. Interesting how a) the good things the cops do are never brought up and b) no solutions are ever mentioned. Oh well....


 
Mike,

I apologize but I believe I did mention that I had officers stop to assist. I did not go into details as that would have been boring. I did try to state that it was just as likely as the other incidents I listed. 


Thanks


----------



## Rich Parsons

Drac said:


> You can always make an appointment with Chief of Police or the Safety Director to discuss this...


 
Drac,

In my area the Chief was in on most of the bad dealings and covered the rest. Is there a way to get other police involved? 

The reason I ask this is that I was able to get a better response from the the locals when there were present and telling me what happened. i.e. "that must not have been a real gun we don't have gun crimes in this area".   I told an employee to call 911 and tell them I needed a state police officer as I was not sure if the police present were real or impersonating officers. The sergeant who was hangin back stepped up and then proceeded to at least pretend to listen to what happened and even wrote down a couple of things. But my point is that they changed their tune real quick as soon as another jurisdiction was to be involved. Is that normal for what I would call a bad "house"?

Thanks


----------



## Archangel M

Rich Parsons said:


> Drac,
> 
> In my area the Chief was in on most of the bad dealings and covered the rest. Is there a way to get other police involved?
> 
> The reason I ask this is that I was able to get a better response from the the locals when there were present and telling me what happened. i.e. "that must not have been a real gun we don't have gun crimes in this area". I told an employee to call 911 and tell them I needed a state police officer as I was not sure if the police present were real or impersonating officers. The sergeant who was hangin back stepped up and then proceeded to at least pretend to listen to what happened and even wrote down a couple of things. But my point is that they changed their tune real quick as soon as another jurisdiction was to be involved. Is that normal for what I would call a bad "house"?
> 
> Thanks


 
State Police, State Attny General, The FBI...there are various options. The problem is (As Legionary has said) that many people would rather complain than go through "the hassle" of filing an official complaint.


----------



## The Last Legionary

KP. said:


> So, no one who has broken a law or who is suspected of breaking the law has a right to complain about how they are treated. Good to know.


 
I don't recall saying that. I said the credibility of someone with a record or who is here illegally wasn't worth ****.  Don't slur my words boy.




> And people wonder why the "race card" is brought up.


 
Might have something to do with the statistical fact that members of certain races tend to wave it as an excuse way too often when they are caught ****ing up.



> Here's a thought, the reason intimidation tactics are used is because they are in fact intimidating.


 
No ****? Really? I thought it was just cuz the cops be *******s.



> It's rather ludicrous to suggest to someone who has just been abused that the way to handle the issue is to complain to the people who just abused you. Oddly, a fair number of people, particularly those who are familiar with how a gang operates, aren't going to be particularly trusting of such a solution. That is even more so when it is fairly well known how few complaints are taken seriously.


 
Who said complain to the people being jackasses? You go over their head. Unless you're one of those clueless ****tards who think the $7/hr cashier at Wendy's can solve your complaint if you swear at her enough.  You go to their boss and then their boss and so on. Squeeky Wheel gets the notice and all that.



> http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2003762615_alleybarnes26m.html
> 
> Now, I'll grant that Alley-Barnes is most likely a total ***. But several questions are raised -- including why the initial friend was detained.


 
"Probable Cause". "Was acting suspicious". "Seemed Out Of Place". "Had Stinky Feet and Walked Like He was Smuggling a Python". Got me. 
I know. The cop hadn't gotten any from is old lady that morning, and decided to take out his sexual frustrations by stopping the first person he saw who had a face like his old lady.



> But really at issue is that these guys were found to have been guilty of serious breaches, yet they were given a walk. So what is the next person in that city who has a run in like this going to do? Obviously complaints are pointless.


 
No. The point that too many morons miss is that the system isn't perfect. If it was, there would be no crime, no one innocent would ever go to jail, and only criminal would go away.  OJ would have been found guilty, Rodney King would have been locked away long before his justified *** kicking, and school shrinks would have recognized the problem long before Colombine.  Yes, bad cops get away with crimes. Civilian criminals do too, and corrupt polititians make millions and get off scott free. Welcome to a relly ****ed up world.  

Complaints aren't pointless, if they are legitimate, properly filed, followed through, followed up, and escalated higher up the food chain when they stall lower down. This is true with bad cable service, bad food service and bad police service. 

But go right on believing it's staked against you, that you're helpless and it's hopeless, like a good little victim.



Empty Hands said:


> Sure, but even in my memory, I can think of many police officers caught in brazen misconduct that got away with administrative punishments like suspension with pay (free vacation!) or other slaps on the wrist. Even then, those punishments often only came about because of taped evidence, not testimony of other officers. Unless you have a quantitative study of some sort, then posting Google nuggets is rather useless.


 
See above please.



> From statistics posted earlier in this thread, only 8% of 25,000 or so complaints were substantiated.


 
Yes. That means that most people complain about stupid **** like getting their feelings hurt and not having their asses kissed, or the rules bent special for them because they feel entitled to special treatment.



> Take another example posted earlier in this thread from Mr. Parsons. Do you really think a complaint would have worked for him without documentary evidence? That his testimony would be believed over that of the multiple other officers present? That one of those officers would have confessed to his own misconduct or ratted out the others? I rather doubt it. I guess that makes me a cowardly whiner.


 
No, but if he had medical evidence, backed up by other witnesses, he could have filed a complaint. One complaint may mean nothing, however that same officer may have a dozen other ones that lacked the evidence and follow through to stick, and his might have been the critical one to put the bad cop away.



KP. said:


> Yet another biased source:
> 
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/19/AR2007061901161_pf.html


 
Everyone says the WP is biased. I prefer the Sun anyway.  Who can complain about being busted by a Page 3 Girl! Whoo Hoo!



KP. said:


> But remember, all you have to do is not be a bad guy and talk nicely to the police chiefs and all will be well.
> 
> It's just a lie.


 
I ain't never had any real problems with cops, be I wearing a suit or a doorag.  Must be my deoderant I guess. Couldn't possible by my nonthreatening attitude, simple compliance, and avoidance of most stupid situations that would get me a cop copping a 'tude, dude.



> Again, I'm sure there are great officers (who are the majority) out there (not my experience, but I still believe it), but instead of the good officers being appalled at these types of incidents and doing everything in their power (which is considerably more than those of the average civilians) to make sure that their own are held accountable to the law, they do the opposite -- engaging in protective silence and exonerating those who are known to be guilty of serious crimes.
> 
> Yes, a few are convicted. But most are not.


 
Most aren't eh?  How many bad cops are there? I can't find a count of "Bad Cops On The Street" anywhere.  Must be a sekret society. You keep going on about how the cops protect their own.  If it's as common as you claim, can you show me a mere 10 recognized cases where cops protected bad cops from due justice?  A problem as prevalient as you claim surely must be easily found on Google.  Unless your just full of beans as they say.



> So why is it that the good officers won't even admit to it being a problem, let alone do something about it?


 
What shoud they do about it? The Good Cops follow the law. Oh, they should break the law for you.  Got it.



> Guys here who are apparently respected continue to assert that it's only a problem for the bad guys who deserve what they get. Do you folks really believe that? Wait, don't answer ... I already know.


 
Bad things happen to Good people in bad situations. **** happens. 
Deal with it in a positive manner...lest I taunt you again and again and again...or find any old excuse to pull you over, handcuff you real tight, depant you, and play hide the flashlight with you while my fake flashers that I bought at RadioShack set the mood with a nice blue and red strobe effect.  You'll be happy to believe that I earned that from a NYC cop.


----------



## Rich Parsons

Archangel M said:


> State Police, State Attny General, The FBI...there are various options. The problem is (As Legionary has said) that many people would rather complain than go through "the hassle" of filing an official complaint.


 
When I called the FBI I could not get an address or set up a time to meet them. 

I did take pictures of the locals and I sent it to the chief asking if he wanted it to go public. I was paranoid about finger prints and mailed from the main officer in the largest local city. It seeme to help as they did not know who it came from and lots of the random problems stopped. 

Like, I said I have never been upset with being pulled over. 

I have lots of bad incidents with police. I also do not like how it seems that every police officer will tell you how you are supposed to react to police officers, and even if you do everything they say in the same department it is wrong. 


One Ohio State Tropper pounded on my door window as I fell a sleep on the I-75 rest area. I thought it was better to pull over and rest for a few minutes (* it was cold out and with the car not running I would wake up from being cold before a long time. *) I had been out maybe ten minutes when he wrapped on it with his flash light and yelled at me to leave the area. So I did. 

On another trip through Ohio a group of cars started the silly pass and then slow down game, so I stepped on the throttle pedal and passed them to give some room. As I passed under a bridge I saw a line of 7 State Tropper vehicles lined up. The first one pointed at me and then motioned me over to the side while he was out of his car. I brought my vehicle to a stop behind him and the vehicle never skidded or had an ABS engagement. The other vehilces that had also pulled out to follow me just kept going and the other officers chased them down. The officer got out of his car waled back to me and laughed. He had expected to have to chase me down. I told him that my car was always under control and that I could bring it to a stop under control as well. He laughed again, and took my paperwork. He wrote me a ticket. He did not ask me why he stopped me. He did not ask why I was speeding he just wrote me a ticket. When I got the ticket it was for 5 over and not 10. I smiled and told the officer thank you. 

On anther trip in Florida, I came off the expressway. There was a stop sign straight ahead and a separate lane to the right with its' own lane afterwards. I slowed down and looked left to check for traffic to see if anyone was coming and if they would signal to get over. No one was coming so I turned back (* 15 mph *) and finished the slow banking curve onto the road. I drove up to the gas station on the right and signaled to turn in. The officer coming from the other direction turned on his lights so I pulled off to the side. I presented all of my paperwork including my CPL paperwork. He aksed where the firearm was and I told him locked up at home in Michigan as I planned on spending time on the beach. He laughed and asked me if I knew why he pulled me over. I replied no idea offcicer. He replied that I have run a stop sign. I looked over at where the sign should be and it was there, but from when I started the curve it was behind another bigger sign. So, I missed in my turn to the left and then back to the right. I apologized. I told him I had missed it, and that I had no excuse.  He spent about 10+ minutes writing up and checking things on his computer. He gave me a written warning for not stopping at the sign. It would have been $170 and three points. I thanked him for the warning and got gas and went on my vacation.


----------



## Archangel M

Every time I hear "Ive had a lot of problems with the police".....we are to believe it was the "police" that were in error in every instance???


----------



## Bob Hubbard

Ok.  I have a problem with the police.

You guys hit hard. My last major encounter, we locked up, it went to the ground, I got tossed around a bit, then I got it on the head with the stick.  


Best damn training session I had that week.


----------



## Bob Hubbard

Archangel M said:


> Every time I hear "Ive had a lot of problems with the police".....we are to believe it was the "police" that were in error in every instance???


...There's usually some good reasons?




Rich, the reason you have issues is, you're a big guy, you're an engineer, and you scare the hell outta em, even though you're a gentleman.  Plus, you squish people.


----------



## MJS

Drac said:


> I wasn't always a cop, I did *A LOT* of stupid stuff..I have had my share of run ins with local law enforcement because of the company I kept and being in the wrong place at the wrong time...
> 
> I have *NEVER* had any problems because I was respectful, if questioned I answered without lying...I never played the irate citizen routine or the you just messing with me cause I have long hair (that was a *gar-en-teed* cop attracter back then).I was never cuffed because I never gave them reason too..The cops in the late 60's and early 70's didnt have to worry about being recorded on someones cell phone and were prone to be a little brutal..


 
And that is the key right there....be respectful.  Even if you honestly feel that you are in the right and the cop wrongfully did XYZ, deal with it LATER.  I've been pulled over many times, once for going too fast, a few because I was so friggin tired, I swerved and the cop thought I was drunk, so pulled me over.  Any time this happened, I'd do anything I could to ease the situation, ie: turn on my interior lights so he could see easier in the car, put my hands on the wheel, be polite, etc.  Never had any major issues.  

People get pulled over and go on the defense right away, acting like a jerk, so, the downhill process begins.


----------



## The Last Legionary

I see someone filmed one of the complainants and put them up on Youtube.
[yt]VyoDWeDwYRE[/yt]
or 



 if that don't work.


----------



## MJS

KP. said:


> MJS -- first, as to how I'd handle a person who is resisting. I imagine it would depend entirely on the specific circumstances at the time. I have not denied that the use of force can be justified given particular circumstances. There is, however, no one specific answer to such a hypothetical precisely because the totality of circumstance can not be known. I would ultimately hope, however, that I would not exceed my authority nor unnecessarily risk damage to the person I was attempting to restrain.


 
Let me ask these scenarios of you.  You tell someone to get out of their car, they refuse.  What would you do?  

Person is out of their car, you attempt to cuff them, they resist, what do you do?

Basically, I'm asking, would you use a taser, kneel across their back, etc.?  Again, going by your comment in that other thread, i get the strong impression that you think kneeling on the shoulder area is too much force.



> That said, when was the last time such complaints were listened to from a minority community and action taken on them?


 
Well, they added an extra cop in some of the trouble areas, due to some recent serious incidents that have happened.  People want to be safe, the city wants to address concerns....that tells me that the issues are being looked at.  Of course, how many times have police responded to a serious incident such as a shooting, and the people are afraid or unwilling to help the police?  See, its a 2 way street.



> Like you, such officials immediately jump to the belief that any complaints are exaggerations, biased, and invalid based on the people making them. After all, if they didn't deserve to be treated however they were treated, they wouldn't have, and they were only treated within the bounds of policy, because to admit otherwise would be to admit that such officials were being derelict in their duties.


 
People ***** about things all the time, they list a ton of bad things, but again, people such as you, never come up with a solution.  Like I said earlier, its a 2 way street.



> Major cities receive upwards of tens of thousands of complaints each year, and on a typical year, only a few hundred are investigated. Except for the most egregious abuses, the worst that a cop can expect is a minor administrative punishment, when the same actions by a civilian would result in prosecution and parole, if not prison.


 
Proof please.  How do you know only a few are investigated?



> What good are complains when the police simply are not held to the standard of the law?


 
I never said all cops are angels.  Why do you keep missing that?



> How many folks have seen police fly down the streets sirens blaring to get back to their car to clock out? Or just hit the lights to blow through a yellow or red when they didn't want to obey the traffic laws. Yet dare to drive 3 miles over the speed limit in front of that same officer.


 
Proof please?  Do you follow the cop and see where he is going?



> The assumption is always that the other guy was wrong. Always.


 
Umm...ok *shrug*



> Out of high school I joined the army, mainly for the GI Bill so I could afford to go to school. I hung around a bit as I liked it. I received nothing but the highest reviews, was promoted regularly, and by all accounts was an excellent soldier.


 




> I am very polite, I always say 'Sir' or 'Ma'am' no matter who I'm addressing (strict Baptist upbringing more than the military on that one). I always look the person I'm speaking with directly in the eye. I am never anything but respectful when speaking to anyone in person. (I realize my writing style is terse and is often mis-construed as rude. But that reading does not adequately reflect my personality).


 




> Yet, I have never once had a pleasant interaction with the police, from the time I was a kid until this day. Over a period of nearly 50 years and the only times I've met with the police, under any circumstances, it's been at best unpleasantly distasteful, and at worst a small dose of hell. Why?


 
A dark cloud must be following you.  Seriously though, I have to ask, and feel free to PM me, if you'd rather not publically talk about a given situation, but I have to wonder why this is happening.  I find it hard to believe that every single cop you've dealt with has been a jerk.  Like I said, they're not all angels, but come on....




> I know why I'm being stopped, and it has nothing what-so-ever with any valid reason. But hey, I'm wrong 'cause if only I wasn't what the cops were looking for I'd be fine. Well, that is simply not true.


 
Why were you stopped?



> Now, I recognize that there are good cops out there. I recognize that they are the majority. But I also recognize that the bad cops are more numerous than the police would like us to believe, and I recognize that they do more damage than the average person realizes. Precisely because the average person is shielded from the reasons cops become abusive in the first place -- which leads them to develop certain prejudices and frustrations that such bad cops take out on those who in any-way represent the sources of those issues.
> 
> But the only solution to the problem is that the rest of the police force stop making excuses and start taking action. When the police unions stop protecting the bad cops and start demanding vigorous investigations and equal treatment under the law, then the problem will diminish. But until then, it won't go away because the only people who can make it go away have their jobs tied, at least in part, to denying that real problems exist.


 
Well, I beg to differ on that.


----------



## MJS

KP. said:


> Actually, the reason I opened the thread was because in the LEO thread about restraining techniques and if they could injure a person I commented that in my experience a few too many police enjoy injuring people, sad as that reality is.
> 
> A discussion ensued in which several claimed that not only is it not the case but it was even said that in all cases no one would be injured if the person being detained would just do what the officer asked. I challenged that belief precisely because of the claim that it was true for *all* encounters.
> 
> I attempted to provide some information on police brutality as a reality, but no matter the citation I was informed that it was biased and therefore dismissive.
> 
> I brought the thread here hoping to stir some discussion precisely because it appears that the common refrain from the police is "this doesn't happen, any claim it does is ********, people only get what they deserve."


 
And I think that being able to provide an alternative to the problem is a beginning to solving an issue at hand.  You claim cops are abusive.  If you think that kneeling on the back is wrong, what is an alternative?  Not every cop is a bashing machine.



> I am honestly stunned at that response. Moreover, I wonder how MJS thinks an academic could provide a solution when those who would need to buy into implementing a solution deny the existence of a problem and seem to believe that any data to the otherwise is made up and misconstrued.


 
The typical data that we see is one sided at best.  How the hell does one not think that its anything different, when all thats shown is negative things, one side of a story, and no solution?


----------



## MJS

KP. said:


> rofl


 
See, you don't even want to give it a try.  You already set yourself up to fail.


----------



## The Last Legionary

Now here is some cop harassing this poor woman. All she wanted to do was check her car, and look what happens. It's because she's black isn't it?
[yt]lJYOumvG5BM[/yt]

Another law abiding citizen taken out despite his pollite and respectfu manner by a man hating femmanazi control freak.
[yt]oJjNJuRymY4[/yt]

Damn, two innocent people, abused by the Blue Wall.


----------



## Archangel M

Ive fielded a few complaint investigations. In one, it was....the cop ran a red light and went to the station where "I saw him walk slowly into the station so there was no emergency"....well the entrance is in the back of the building unviewable from the street. When asked how they saw this I get uhhhhhh....
coupled with the fact that a combative suspect was being brought in and officers were responding to assist, it went nowhere.

Im pretty sure that that complaint was filed under the "cops covering for each other".."most complaints go unanswered" heading by the complainant.


----------



## MJS

Rich Parsons said:


> Mike,
> 
> I apologize but I believe I did mention that I had officers stop to assist. I did not go into details as that would have been boring. I did try to state that it was just as likely as the other incidents I listed.
> 
> 
> Thanks


 
Hey Rich,

I saw your post.   I don't know man, just seems like more people have a grudge than anything else.


----------



## MJS

KP. said:


> Yet another biased source:
> 
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/19/AR2007061901161_pf.html


 
Hmm...maybe I missed it when I skimmed through the article, but I have to wonder why, when we see things like this, it just talks about what the cop did.  When he approached person A, were they acting like an ***, did they attack the cop, etc.  I mean, we see an article that says a cop beat someone, yet we don't see that the suspect lunged at the cop and then the cop hit him.


----------



## Sukerkin

Having watched the vids posted by *LL* above ...

... and people have the nerve to complain about how they are treated.

Obviously I don't know if she was acting differently than normal because she was being filmed but that female officer was remarkable.  An uncooperative, verbally hostile and abusive chap makes to get out of the car at me, I'd've shot him ... just like he wanted :angel:.

The first film tho', I did think at first that it was a bit excessive to take the lass 'in' just because she was guilty of an attack of 'the dims' (crossing a tape marked "DO NOT CROSS!") but then I realised that if they were doing forensics there then they needed to eliminate the 'pollution'.  Of course there was also the suspicion that she may have been attempting to remove or conceal something but her demeanour suggested otherwise.


----------



## The Last Legionary

Nice comments on Youtube on this one. Seems most of the respondants would rather see cops die. Personlly, I think they did AOK here.
[yt]mn-XRM5F7Eo[/yt]

Watch this clip as a cop roughs up a woman on video. Bet the bastard gets away scott free too.
[yt]qeeNG44VDOs[/yt]

See, the nice thing about YouTube is, there are tons of videos up that show thegood, the bad, and the ****ed up.


----------



## The Last Legionary

Looks like another complainer with all his excuses ready is pulled over.
[yt]_NYQpNwmjIk[/yt]

Oh, looks like she was right afterall, but what a sweet attitude she has.
[yt]MPseyY0Vg0E[/yt]



Oh, and cops aren't perfect as this next video clearly shows. LOL!
[yt]eOiHUyNyCNE[/yt]


----------



## Archangel M

LOL! Ive had that happen before. I was bailing out to chase someone though. [SARCASM]Sometimes doling out excessive force is so important I forget to put it in park. [/SARCASM]


----------



## The Last Legionary

Seems someone was bothered by my timely reference some posts back. For the uninformed or clueless, let me clarify where my closing comment came from.

3 NYC police officers charged in sodomy attack
Man's DNA was found on police baton after he suffered 'anal assault'

Seems NYC cops have a fixation with jamming things up peoples asses as this isn't the first case like this they've been involved in, though I believe a flash light was involved in one of the earlier cases.

Now, I'm always one to be fair as everyone here knows. I mean I'm the King of Fair.
So, enjoy this. http://www.sanfranciscobay.com/dirty/police.htm  Theres a few pages, showing both convictions and get-away-frees. I know nothing about the majority of the cases, cannot cite the objectivity of the site or anything. Feel free to research the particulars on your own. Me, I'm going off for a while to play "hide the baton" with Officer Amy and I do hope she brings her hand cuffs! Whoof!  I'll be having more fun than the chip on shoulder folks I assure you.  Toodles!


----------



## jks9199

Empty Hands said:


> Sure, but even in my memory, I can think of many police officers caught in brazen misconduct that got away with administrative punishments like suspension with pay (free vacation!) or other slaps on the wrist.  Even then, those punishments often only came about because of taped evidence, not testimony of other officers.  Unless you have a quantitative study of some sort, then posting Google nuggets is rather useless.
> 
> 
> 
> From statistics posted earlier in this thread, only 8% of 25,000 or so complaints were substantiated. Take another example posted earlier in this thread from Mr. Parsons.  Do you really think a complaint would have worked for him without documentary evidence?  That his testimony would be believed over that of the multiple other officers present?  That one of those officers would have confessed to his own misconduct or ratted out the others?  I rather doubt it.  I guess that makes me a cowardly whiner.


Suspension isn't "a free vacation."  Generally, a disciplinary suspension means you don't get paid.  (Could you skip a week or two of paychecks?)  Depending on the length and circumstances, the clock towards retirement may stop.  A recent suspension stops most applications for specialty positions and promotion.  It's a lot different from a slap on the wrist.  (And, in my department and the ones I know of... if you're going to be suspended, you can't just use some leave to make up the paycheck.  Many times, you won't be permitted OT during that pay period, either.)

Admin suspensions are routine in certain cases, and may or may not be paid.  Depending on why an administrative suspension was used, the department may even go back and collect that pay before they fire you...


----------



## jks9199

Good cops and bad cops  Im not going to try to address every post individually.

Guess what?  As long as we hire police officers that start life as human beings, were going to end up with some bad cops.  Sometimes, despite every effort in screening, someone gets through that is a bully at heart, or even an outright criminal.  Sometimes theres no way to tell until theyve passed the academy and hit the street.  Sometimes its not even till theyve been on their own a bit  But thats also a far cry from allegations of some sort of systematic or intentional abuse.

Most people who become cops do so because they sincerely want to help and protect people, no matter how corny it sounds to say so.  But the job will wear you down; nobody calls the cops because their kid got straight As or drew a pretty picture thats stuck up on the fridge.  Cops are the party poopers.  Theyre the ones who tell you to knock it off when youre having a good time  but are never there fast enough when its the other guys good time thats disturbing yours.  Someone compared cops and soldiers; theres a lot of validity, but one huge difference.  Most people wont have an encounter with a soldier whos going to tell them what to do or make them do something they dont want to.  Most people will, at least once in their life, encounter a police officer whos telling them to stop doing something or to move along or that they cant go down that road or whatever.  That does shape how society in general relates to the police  and how the police in general relate to society.  Jack Webb as Joe Friday in Dragnet described it pretty well:
(Jack delivers the following speech about the trials and tribulations of being a police officer to a rookie undercover officer suspected of robbing a liquor store. It's our most-requested speech, and many people frame the words. (Please note that this transcript was taken from the slightly edited Nick at Nite version of this episode. We plan to add a few missing lines soon.) 
"It's awkward having a policeman around the house. Friends drop in, a man with a badge answers the door, the temperature drops 20 degrees. 
You throw a party and that badge gets in the way. All of a sudden there isn't a straight man in the crowd. Everybody's a comedian. "Don't drink too much," somebody says, "or the man with a badge'll run you in." Or "How's it going, Dick Tracy? How many jaywalkers did you pinch today?" And then there's always the one who wants to know how many apples you stole. 
All at once you lost your first name. You're a cop, a flatfoot, a bull, a dick, John Law. You're the fuzz, the heat; you're poison, you're trouble, you're bad news. They call you everything, but never a policeman. 
It's not much of a life, unless you don't mind missing a Dodger game because the hotshot phone rings. Unless you like working Saturdays, Sundays, and holidays, at a job that doesn't pay overtime. Oh, the pay's adequate-- if you count pennies you can put your kid through college, but you better plan on seeing Europe on your television set. 
And then there's your first night on the beat. When you try to arrest a drunken prostitute in a Main St. bar and she rips your new uniform to shreds. You'll buy another one-- out of your own pocket. 
And you're going to rub elbows with the elite-- pimps, addicts, thieves, bums, winos, girls who can't keep an address and men who don't care. Liars, cheats, con men-- the class of Skid Row. 
And the heartbreak-- underfed kids, beaten kids, molested kids, lost kids, crying kids, homeless kids, hit-and-run kids, broken-arm kids, broken-leg kids, broken-head kids, sick kids, dying kids, dead kids. The old people nobody wants-- the reliefers, the pensioners, the ones who walk the street cold, and those who tried to keep warm and died in a $3 room with an unventilated gas heater. You'll walk your beat and try to pick up the pieces. 
Do you have real adventure in your soul? You better have, because you're gonna do time in a prowl car. Oh, it's going to be a thrill a minute when you get an unknown-trouble call and hit a backyard at two in the morning, never knowing who you'll meet-- a kid with a knife, a pill-head with a gun, or two ex-cons with nothing to lose. 
And you're going to have plenty of time to think. You'll draw duty in a lonely car, with nobody to talk to but your radio. 
Four years in uniform and you'll have the ability, the experience and maybe the desire to be a detective. If you like to fly by the seat of your pants, this is where you belong. For every crime that's committed, you've got three million suspects to choose from. And most of the time, you'll have few facts and a lot of hunches. You'll run down leads that dead-end on you. You'll work all-night stakeouts that could last a week. You'll do leg work until you're sure you've talked to everybody in the state of California. 
People who saw it happen - but really didn't. People who insist they did it - but really didn't. People who don't remember - those who try to forget. Those who tell the truth - those who lie. You'll run the files until your eyes ache. 
And paperwork? Oh, you'll fill out a report when you're right, you'll fill out a report when you're wrong, you'll fill one out when you're not sure, you'll fill one out listing your leads, you'll fill one out when you have no leads, you'll fill out a report on the reports you've made! You'll write enough words in your lifetime to stock a library. You'll learn to live with doubt, anxiety, frustration. Court decisions that tend to hinder rather than help you. Dorado, Morse, Escobedo, Cahan. You'll learn to live with the District Attorney, testifying in court, defense attorneys, prosecuting attorneys, judges, juries, witnesses. And sometimes you're not going to be happy with the outcome. 
But there's also this: there are over 5,000 men in this city, who know that being a policeman is an endless, glamourless, thankless job that's gotta be done. 
I know it, too, and I'm damn glad to be one of them."​Some if its not totally accurate anymore (most of us get OT pay now, and many departments issue uniforms  but not all!), but a lot of it is still true.  The stale jokes that are old by the time youre done FTO the people who wont associate with you and the emotional, spiritual, and physical wear and tear is something that there really arent words to explain.

Unfortunately cops are human.  They have bad days.  The general crap does get to them.  Its not excusing being rude or unprofessional but it does serve as mitigation.  How many times can people in general lie to you before you decide that everyone is a liar?  How many times can someone insult your parenthood before you start to question the parenthood of the people you deal with?  It does get to you; it does wear you down and sometimes, it just plain comes out.  You also have to remember that sometimes a cop has to speak the language that the people hes dealing with understand.  In a neighborhood where the median income is in the seven figure range, thats one way but in an area with a 4 or 5 figure median income  Well, pretty please and a gentle guiding hand wont get you very far.  Again, to be clear, Im not at all suggesting that every cop is perfect or that its acceptable for a cop to be less than professional  but I am absolutely saying its human to be so.  And, Ill tell you, most cops live for and measure their experiences by the exceptional moments, like the day a little boy walked up and told me that I was his friend  because the police are our friends.

With regard to cover-ups, internal investigations, and the like  Yeah, cops do stick together.  Perhaps youre familiar with Prince Henrys speech from Shakespeare:
We few, we happy few, we band of brothers; 
For he to-day that sheds his blood with me 
Shall be my brother​
Yes, cops will look out for each other  especially in minor matters.  But theres nobody despised by law enforcement officers more than a true dirty cop.  We just often don't want to air our dirty laundry in public, any more than you would.  

It was asked what you might do to ensure a more positive encounter with the police.  Its a joke  but Chris Rocks bit about how not to get your *** kicked by the police has a lot of truth.  Start by treating us the way you want to be treated.  For example, one clueless soccer mom was rather upset at the way I spoke to her one day.  Well I admit, I was a bit out of sorts.  See, Id followed her, with my lights and sirens on, for about 3 blocks till she parked and got out of her car  For some reason, I wasnt all sweetness and light when I made contact with her...  Obey the law.  (In fact, youve probably heard of professional courtesy; Ive said many times that it starts with the cop being courteous enough NOT to give someone a reason to stop them.)  Listen to what the cop says when he approaches you.  If Im stopping someone because theyre similar to a lookout,  Im probably going to explain that to you, though the explanation may come after Ive sorted out who you are depending on the exact circumstances.

Cops do make mistakes, and they do things that they shouldnt.  If you happen to get caught in the middle of one of those incidents  go with the program.  The time to argue and fuss over it isnt on the side of the road or in the street.  (Rich Parsons described his situation quite well  and it came out so well because he didnt make it harder at the time.)  Do what the cops say, work with them and, if appropriate, deal with the mistake through whatever channel (official or press or even civil court) AFTERWARDS.  Think of it kind of like a leaking toilet; you could ***** and call the manufacturer about the leak while its going on but youll still have the mess growing unless you deal with the situation and stop the leak first.  By going with the program, youll stop the leak and be able to deal with the problem later.


----------



## Empty Hands

jks9199 said:


> Suspension isn't "a free vacation."  Generally, a disciplinary suspension means you don't get paid.  (Could you skip a week or two of paychecks?)



Hence my specification of "with pay".


----------



## Drac

JKS9199 said:
			
		

> But theres nobody despised by law enforcement officers more than a true dirty cop. We just often don't want to air our dirty laundry in public, any more than you would.


 
A few years ago there were a number of Cleveland Police busted for giving protection to some  "drug-boys"..They were investigated and *FIRED ..*There was NO COVERING up by their brother officers...


----------



## KP.

Drac said:


> A few years ago there were a number of Cleveland Police busted for giving protection to some  "drug-boys"..They were investigated and *FIRED ..*There was NO COVERING up by their brother officers...




So, they were at least aiding and abetting criminals, if not in violation of RICO laws. Were they prosecuted?

If a civilian gave overt help to drug dealers for money, would they most likely be prosecuted?


----------



## Bob Hubbard

A quick google search found these.  It looks like in Ohio at least, complaints are investigated, and Bad Cops punished.

I also found several references to officers injured or killed in the line of duty. Sometimes I wonder if those who complain know what a cops job is really like. Sometimes I wonder if they even care.



*Veteran police officer fired in Sagamore Hills Township*
*Garfield Heights police officer faces rape charges*
*Ex-Cleveland officer gets 4 years in prison*
*Cleveland: Officer involved in shooting*
*Oakwood police officer arraigned on felonious assault charge*
*Akron police cleared in 22-shot fatal shooting*
*Highland Hills policeman charged with stealing from evidence room*
*Cleveland police officer charged with drug abuse*
*Oakwood police officer indicted for felonious assault of a driver*
 

All articles from http://outside.in/Cleveland_OH/tags/police officers


----------



## Bob Hubbard

Let me balance this by saying, yes, there are corrupt, confused and just not right police and police departments. 

Lets backtrack for a moment, and review the whole 'kneeling on the neck' thread.  If you did that to me, you'd paralyze me.  The suggestion of "don't be there then", doesn't cut it, if my job were that of a street reporter. 

I've tracked complaints where cops have backed horses into protesters, dragged people -into- their lines and clubbed them, knocked down and dragged people across gravel and beaten on them when they tried to protect themselves from the gravel.  I've seen them break the law, heard from very reliable sources some of what goes on. I come from a family with long roots in both the military and law enforcement, going back to the 40's.

This site has a god number of LEO's on it, and I know the "Bad Cop" stories bother them. It bothers them because it tears them up when they see other cops going bad, and the loss of public trust and respect it causes, making their jobs that much harder.

Here's the problem.  You can complain about it all you want.  We can tell out horror stories, all we want. We can share videos, war stories, whatever.

Doesn't change a thing.

The only thing that is going to change this situation is if people stop doing the helpless bit, and do something about it.  Are there corrupt cops and corrupt departments and corrupt politicians? Damn right there are.

And complaining here, or anywhere but here you need to isn't going to change anything. 
Organize.  Take your communities back. Stop being victims and do something. Complain loudly, repeatedly, and join with others and grow.  

I say this about government office, I say it about the police, I say it about rights.  Unless you stand up, stand tall, and make your voice be heard, -and counted- nothing will change, except to get worse.

Change takes time, momentum must build up force, and one must act intelligently. I shouldn't have to tell this to people on a martial arts board.


----------



## Archangel M

It happens ALL the time Bob. People seem to want to harbor the idea that its like "The Shield" out there...in MANY depts there is some sort of IA going on at almost all times. Some are cleared, some get punised, some get fired. Depts dont publicize it...it typically isnt in the depts best interest to do so.


----------



## Bob Hubbard

People who've been on here long enough know me well.  Give me a debate and I can prove almost any point, then turn around and destroy my argument, then turn around and destroy my destruction. Hell, I've proven Jesus both did and didn't exist. Im sure I could find 100 bad cop stories, 100 bad cop got away with it stories, then find 100 bad cop got busted stories.   Won't fix the problem.  Only we can, and we can't fix it if we make the good cops feel like ****.  If anything I want the good cops on my side.


----------



## Archangel M

Appreciate it Bob...really do.

As a side point of sorts. Some of these stories we see on the net need to be handled with a grain of salt. I recall a discussion I had a bit back on what was being touted as outright abuse by prison guards caught on tape:

http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=67907&highlight=force+law

Until you read the whole story it looks really bad. People need to realize that "complaints" come to us in varying degrees from outright lies at one end to officers getting fired at the other end. While your (general you) run in may seem like the worst case of abuse by the cops ever and you want that cop fired...its not always whats right. Then you get the people with BS complaints spreading their war stories to everybody they can.

Thats NOT to say that ALL complaints are fabricated..but not ALL are legit either. There are drawers full of BS lawsuits in my dept from people just looking for a payday. THEY do the people with legit complaints a grave disservice.


----------



## jks9199

I can't speak for any agency but the one I work for, a mid-size municipal force.  We average somewhere around 12 or 13 internal investigations a year.  Some years more, some less.  A fair number of those are the result of citizen complaints which couldn't be handled directly between the sergeant and officer involved.  Some things that fall into the sergeant's realm might be an isolated incident of rude conduct, questions about an officer's driving, or sometimes why a call was handled in a certain way.  Some violations of the department regulations might be handled with discipline from the sergeant directly, or through regular disciplinary channels without an internal investigation while others would require investigation.  Many of the IAs that do take place are the result of interal complaints, observations, or reports.  Some are automatic results of police actions, like serious uses of force.   An IA has three dispositions: Unfounded, Justified, or Sustained.  Unfounded indicates that there was no violation or infraction.   For example, an officer was accused of speaking rudely to someone, but they never actually had contact.  Justified means that something did happen -- but was within the bounds of policy.  Perhaps the officer did speak rudely to the person, but it was because they ignored more polite requests to return to their house.  Sustained means there was a violation -- and usually means discipline will follow.  The officer, for some unfathomable reason, really did curse out a 90 year old grandmother who did nothing wrong.

I've been the subject of several IAs in my career... and expect to be the subject of more.  I'm a proactive, reasonably aggressive cop; I'm going to sometimes piss someone off or do something else that might get investigated.  I study the law, the regs, and more, so that I can be as confident as possible that I don't have anything to worry about.

Most IAs in my department are cleared either unfounded or justified.  A few do lead to disciplinary action.  And, as I said a bit earlier, sometimes disciplines occur as the result of non-IA cases.

You seldom see most of the disciplinary actions that occur at most jobs; you don't know if the clerk at the cash register where you bought your lunch was written up for being late, or failing to wash their hands, or whatever.  Most PDs do report the overall results of their internal affairs function to the local government; it varies widely whether this report becomes a public matter or not.  You could also FOIA some of these records...


----------



## jks9199

Archangel M said:


> Appreciate it Bob...really do.
> 
> As a side point of sorts. Some of these stories we see on the net need to be handled with a grain of salt. I recall a discussion I had a bit back on what was being touted as outright abuse by prison guards caught on tape:
> 
> http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=67907&highlight=force+law
> 
> Until you read the whole story it looks really bad. People need to realize that "complaints" come to us in varying degrees from outright lies at one end to officers getting fired at the other end. While your (general you) run in may seem like the worst case of abuse by the cops ever and you want that cop fired...its not always whats right. Then you get the people with BS complaints spreading their war stories to everybody they can.
> 
> Thats NOT to say that ALL complaints are fabricated..but not ALL are legit either. There are drawers full of BS lawsuits in my dept from people just looking for a payday. THEY do the people with legit complaints a grave disservice.


In certain states, filing an IA complaint is a regular defense tactic in criminal prosecutions...  Fortunately, it's not that way in my state, so I'm a little sketchy on exactly why, but it stalls the case and gets the defense access to the officers's entire personnel jacket in some way...

If you think interpreting crime numbers from the UCR and Crime Victimization Survey is tricky... you don't even want to imagine trying to compare IA numbers.  One agency may generate an IA on each and every thing that comes in while another diverts as many as possible.  Some may include only criminal allegations, while others include criminal and routine disciplinary matters like tardiness or sloppy uniforms...


----------



## seasoned

Archangel M said:


> Mistreatment is in the eye of the beholder.
> 
> Some "mistreatment" is plain ******** from people who just didn't like getting arrested for what they did.
> 
> Some "mistreatment" is people thinking that running from a robbery and fighting with police should mean being asked nicely to turn around and put their hands behind their backs.
> 
> Some "mistreatment" is from people who think that they can be disrespectful, abusive, uncooperative and general *******s with the police and then not like the "attitude" they get back.
> 
> Some "mistreatment" is mommy not liking the way her little baby got treated after running from the police after a robbery, a car chase and a fight.
> 
> Some "mistreatment" is plain old ******** from people who want a lawsuit and a payday based on lies.
> 
> Some "mistreatment" is from aggravated, tired and beaten down cops who are good guys that have lost their focus.
> 
> Some "mistreatment" IS bad cops who should be removed from the job.
> 
> 
> Find Chris Rocks video on getting your *** kicked by the police... #1 OBEY THE LAW.


 
#2 *Respect the officer, do not act in a threatening manner, and answer the questions he asks, politely.*

People sometimes make themself a target. If you are guilty and run, you got problems, if you are innocent, at the time you are approached by LE, do what they ask until things get hashed out. On duty officers, in reality, are people trying to do a job that most of us dont want to do. It is all about safety, yours and theirs., and at the end of their shift, they want to go home in one piece.


----------



## Drac

KP. said:


> So, they were at least aiding and abetting criminals, if not in violation of RICO laws. Were they prosecuted?


 
Yes, they were prosecuted and jailed...



KP. said:


> If a civilian gave overt help to drug dealers for money, would they most likely be prosecuted?


 
Yes...


----------



## Drac

KP. said:
			
		

> But remember, all you have to do is not be a bad guy and talk nicely to the police chiefs and all will be well.
> 
> It's just a lie.





Filing  a complaint against an LEO is like appearing in court,its all about appearence..If you walk into the Chiefs office looking and sounding like 50 Cent, 2Pac, etc..etc.. complete with the syntax and the hand gestures with your possee standing behind you with their arms folded you will not be taken seriously..Go by yourself..

Example: I watched a drug boy appear before late the Stephanie Tubbs Jone's once..He started talking in the street syntax "Lemme tell you judge the po-leeses always be dissin me"..She stood and screamed from her bench that " In my court you will speak English"..Like magic the attitude and speech patterns vanished...Then she listened to everything he had to say..



			
				Bob Hubbard said:
			
		

> Sometimes I wonder if those who complain know what a cops job is really like



No they don't...They watch *Cops* and other such shows and believe that's how it is...*Cops* never shows the amounts of paperwork that follows every arrest especially if the suspect resisted..


----------



## KP.

MJS said:


> And I think that being able to provide an alternative to the problem is a beginning to solving an issue at hand.  You claim cops are abusive.  If you think that kneeling on the back is wrong, what is an alternative?  Not every cop is a bashing machine.



Actually, I don't think I stated that kneeling on the back is wrong. I could be mistaken about that, but I don't recall saying it.

As for solutions -- make the damn process transparent and hold the police to the same standard as the rest of us. That would be a hell of a start.

Frankly, the police should be held to a higher standard -- they are given weapons and the power and authority to wave them in people's faces with often the flimsiest of excuses. They are given the power to wreck lives based on hunches. 

Now that in and of itself is not wrong. The police serve a vital public function and we'd be much worse off without them. But given the power they wield, having their disciplinary measures shrouded in secrecy, and largely being held to a lesser standard when it comes to criminal prosecution is exactly the opposite of what it should be. 

Yes, the police are human beings who make mistakes. I'm not saying toss every cop who ever had a bad day in jail and throw away the key. But do make sure that mistakes are not tolerated without repercussions, and make those known publicly so that the citizens know that their police care about quality and consistency and do not tolerate bad cops. 

That won't fix everything, but it'd be a heck of a start. 

I was reading something a few weeks back about how DA's are finding many inner city cases difficult to prosecute because the local residents tend to be uncooperative with the police and DA office. The reason is really straightforward -- the DA and Police are not trusted. Building trust starts by being open. The people want crime addressed, they just don't believe the police are interested in that.

They're wrong, of course, but spend a bit of time in their shoes and it's pretty easy to see why that attitude exists.


----------



## shesulsa

KP. said:


> Actually, I don't think I stated that kneeling on the back is wrong. I could be mistaken about that, but I don't recall saying it.
> 
> As for solutions -- make the damn process transparent and hold the police to the same standard as the rest of us. That would be a hell of a start.
> 
> Frankly, the police should be held to a higher standard -- they are given weapons and the power and authority to wave them in people's faces with often the flimsiest of excuses. They are given the power to wreck lives based on hunches.
> 
> Now that in and of itself is not wrong. The police serve a vital public function and we'd be much worse off without them. But given the power they wield, having their disciplinary measures shrouded in secrecy, and largely being held to a lesser standard when it comes to criminal prosecution is exactly the opposite of what it should be.
> 
> Yes, the police are human beings who make mistakes. I'm not saying toss every cop who ever had a bad day in jail and throw away the key. But do make sure that mistakes are not tolerated without repercussions, and make those known publicly so that the citizens know that their police care about quality and consistency and do not tolerate bad cops.
> 
> That won't fix everything, but it'd be a heck of a start.
> 
> I was reading something a few weeks back about how DA's are finding many inner city cases difficult to prosecute because the local residents tend to be uncooperative with the police and DA office. The reason is really straightforward -- the DA and Police are not trusted. Building trust starts by being open. The people want crime addressed, they just don't believe the police are interested in that.
> 
> They're wrong, of course, but spend a bit of time in their shoes and it's pretty easy to see why that attitude exists.



I think education and cooperation on both sides of the spectrum is what is in order to solve this disparity between LEOs and the general public.

First off, the reasonable citizen needs to bring into their consciousness what it means to deal with the bad guys every single day and how often bad guys try to (and often do) look like the good guys ... or, at least, innocent.  Every person is a potential threat and these guys have to patrol and serve and insert themselves into some *very* dangerous situations. They must be prepared for the absolute worst at all times. They see things most people will never see in their lives.

This gives LEOs a certain edge and it is only one reason why people need to know how to behave with any officer such that they don't put themselves in danger, either physically or legally.

You have your best chance when you do what you're supposed to do and abide by the law.  If you say something like, 'oh sure, that guy who beat up my neighbor goes free but you gotta write me a ticket for a broken taillight,' will not win you favor. And if you keep it up, you could be arrested for harrassing an officer ... and rightly so.  

If you are absolutely in the right and the officer is in error, you simply must remain calm and seek proper recourse.

I think one big trouble with most people is they don't understand what the line is nor where it lies.  You'd do better to learn that by reading the free advice the officers on this board are willing to afford you and by learning your local ordinances and local, county and state escalation of force policies.  These change regularly, btw, as LTL weapon acquisitions are made and laws change, so keep up on it if it matters to you ... and I assure you, you never know exactly when it will matter to you until it does.

I'd like to remind everyone participating in this thread that it is unlikely that any of the officers on this board committed any kind of offence against you and we would all be wise if we were to ask for their suggestions and guidance rather than lambaste them blindly for the actions of others.


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo

> Hence my specification of "with pay".


 
Do you think that it is perfectly acceptable to be suspended without pay for every accusation of wrong-doing?  If not, what accusations would you amount to a such a suspension?  Would you allow for reimbursment of back pay if the allegations are unfounded?  If, during the course of that unfounded investigation without pay, the officer lost his house, had his car repossesed, or had his or her wife/husband leave them over financial issues, would you somehow reimburse them for that?

You do realize also that if an officer were suspended without pay for every allegation of misconduct, there would be no police force anywhere.  All the criminals of the world would have to do is make baseless accusations and every cop would be suspended.

Here is a follow-up question:  Would you think it appropriate if everytime someone made an accusation against you in your profession, that you should be suspended until the facts of an investigation come to light?  



> Frankly, the police should be held to a higher standard -- they are given weapons and the power and authority to wave them in people's faces with often the flimsiest of excuses.


 
I am interested in what you call the flimsiest of excuses.  It is rather vague, and I do not want to respond to that until I understand where you are coming from better.



> They are given the power to wreck lives based on hunches.


 
This is absolutely untrue.  For there to be probable cause for an arrest, an officer must have specific facts to back up his arrest.  There is a legal standard after all.  What you call hunch, I have a feeling is probably an officers training and experience.  You see, the U.S. Supreme Court says that based on what we are trained on and what we experience can be a legitimate basis in our reasoning (as opposed to hunches), and can constitute a factor in a probable cause arrest.



> But given the power they wield, having their disciplinary measures shrouded in secrecy, and largely being held to a lesser standard when it comes to criminal prosecution is exactly the opposite of what it should be.


 
The disciplinary measures are not shrouded in secrecy.  I will point you to this website:  http://www.porac.org/POBOR.html

Of course this pertains only to California.  And Texas is the only other state in the U.S. with a procedural bill of rights for cops.  That means other states can play fast and lose and be more vindictive in the prosecution of police officers.

And it is not a matter of being held to a lesser standard for prosecution.  Quite frankly, an DA could make a career off of prosecuting police officers.  



> But do make sure that mistakes are not tolerated without repercussions, and make those known publicly so that the citizens know that their police care about quality and consistency and do not tolerate bad cops.


 
I am going to have to ask what you mean by mistakes.  Mistakes are often not sinister in nature.  Mistakes are how you learn.  Do you think that any organization would be served well by bashing someone every time they made a mistake?

And if you are talking about reports of misconduct, I can only tell you in regards to the agency which I work for.  We send out correspondence to every person who makes a complaint against an officer, telling them whether action will be taken or not against an officer.

But one thing that you must realize, is that police personnel files, like personnel files on all employees whether law enforcement or not, are confidential.  It is not appropriate, barring a legal proceeding, to just give that information out to the public.  



> I was reading something a few weeks back about how DA's are finding many inner city cases difficult to prosecute because the local residents tend to be uncooperative with the police and DA office. The reason is really straightforward -- the DA and Police are not trusted. Building trust starts by being open. The people want crime addressed, they just don't believe the police are interested in that.


 
I would be interested in knowing where you have come to your conclusion.  Is there some fact to back it up, or just your own feeling?

To say that the police are not trusted is a gross oversimplification of the situation.  Enough for another thread entirely, in fact.



> They're wrong, of course, but spend a bit of time in their shoes and it's pretty easy to see why that attitude exists.


 
In their shoes, huh?  It is interesting that you know so much about the mentallity of the inner city, when you yourself do not live in their shoes, at least judging by the way you phrase the statement.


----------



## KP.

5-0 Kenpo said:


> I am interested in what you call the flimsiest of excuses.  It is rather vague, and I do not want to respond to that until I understand where you are coming from better.



For the lonest time, in NYC, the standard for when an officer could un-holster their weapon was that they felt threatened or had reasonable suspicion that the person they were approaching might be armed. It's been similar in other places I've been. 'Reasonable suspicion' has been basically "anything another cop might do."



> This is absolutely untrue.  For there to be probable cause for an arrest, an officer must have specific facts to back up his arrest.  There is a legal standard after all.  What you call hunch, I have a feeling is probably an officers training and experience.  You see, the U.S. Supreme Court says that based on what we are trained on and what we experience can be a legitimate basis in our reasoning (as opposed to hunches), and can constitute a factor in a probable cause arrest.



Police do not need probable cause to engage in a search, only reasonable suspicion.



> Articulating precisely what reasonable suspicion and probable cause mean is not  possible.  They are commonsense, nontechnical conceptions that deal with the factual and practical considerations of everyday life on which reasonable and prudent men, not legal  technicians act.  As such, the standards are not really, or even usefully, reduced to a neat set  of legal rules.  We have described reasonable suspicion simply as a particularized and objective basis for suspecting the person stopped of criminal activity, and probable cause to search as  existing where the known facts and circumstances are sufficient to warrant a man of reasonable prudence in the belief that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found.  We have cautioned that these two legal principles are not finely-tuned standards comparable to the standards of proof beyond a reasonable doubt or of proof by a preponderance of the evidence. They are instead fluid concepts that take their substantive content from the particular contexts in which the standards are being assessed.  The principal components of a determination of reasonable suspicion or probable cause will be the events which occurred leading up to the stop
> or search, and then the decision whether these historical facts, viewed from the standpoint of an objectively reasonable police officer amount to reasonable suspicion or to probable cause.
> Ornelas v. United States, 517 U.S. at 695-96


 




> The disciplinary measures are not shrouded in secrecy.  I will point you to this website:  http://www.porac.org/POBOR.html
> 
> Of course this pertains only to California.  And Texas is the only other state in the U.S. with a procedural bill of rights for cops.  That means other states can play fast and lose and be more vindictive in the prosecution of police officers.



Vindictive? How about "avoid it at all costs unless there is substantive public outcry."



> I am going to have to ask what you mean by mistakes.  Mistakes are often not sinister in nature.  Mistakes are how you learn.  Do you think that any organization would be served well by bashing someone every time they made a mistake?



When mistakes damage another person, they are not an "oops, sorry about that" thing. They are someone being wronged by the government. As such, the public has a right to know how that is going to be addressed. Appropriate measures might be as little as having a few hours of training or professional consoling on how to more appropriately handle a situation.



> And if you are talking about reports of misconduct, I can only tell you in regards to the agency which I work for.  We send out correspondence to every person who makes a complaint against an officer, telling them whether action will be taken or not against an officer.



Congratulations for being on the front line of what should be the norm everywhere.



> But one thing that you must realize, is that police personnel files, like personnel files on all employees whether law enforcement or not, are confidential.  It is not appropriate, barring a legal proceeding, to just give that information out to the public.



Information relevant to the public is not confidential. A weekly reporting noting nothing more than a count of categorical issues, from clerical errors up to the worst offenses, along with descriptive text about what is being done with the officer/officers involved is all that is needed. The public has no need to know salaries or specifics about internal investigations. They do need to know that those investigations happen, they are taken seriously, and consequences which are at least as equally severe as a civilian would face for similar acts are being levied.



> I would be interested in knowing where you have come to your conclusion.  Is there some fact to back it up, or just your own feeling?



A combination of an article I read, and my own experiences. More than a feeling, less than a researched fact.



> To say that the police are not trusted is a gross oversimplification of the situation.  Enough for another thread entirely, in fact.



Yes, it is not a nuanced statement covering all the intricacies of government/citizen interactions, but still true enough in its own way.  



> In their shoes, huh?  It is interesting that you know so much about the mentality of the inner city, when you yourself do not live in their shoes, at least judging by the way you phrase the statement.



I'm an escapee. I was born and raised in some very bad neighborhoods. Managed, through the grace of God and my Mother's wooden spoon, to get through High School, joined the Army to pay for college, managed to get a graduate scholarship, turned that into a research fellowship, and now live quite happily well the hell away from where I started. I still go visit friends and family when I can, but it's not who I am anymore. 

It certainly does, and will always, inform my world view, and I do believe I have insights into what it means to be in that world which the average person does not have, but I also don't consider myself part of that world either.


----------



## Rich Parsons

Bob Hubbard said:


> ...There's usually some good reasons?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rich, the reason you have issues is, you're a big guy, you're an engineer, and you scare the hell outta em, even though you're a gentleman. Plus, you squish people.


 

Bob,


The big Guy facter is a part of it. The inderterminate race, is another thing. I am always in the wrong neighborhood. Never the right shade. 

Yes, I have had female officers pull their weapon on me just because of my size. While I agree that an officer should be able to feel safe and defend thenselves, I was over 22 feet away had no weapons, and she felt afraid that I might hurt her. When I was the one who called the police and identified myself as the one who had called the police. So after being cuffed and shoved into the back of the car, she talked to the ex and her boyfriend who showed up to beat me up, call was recorded on answering machine as I picked it up. I understand her fear of domestics. I understand take control of one, and this limits the possibility of issues. All she ahd to do was ask me first to come over to her car, and I would have let her cuff me (* no matter how much is might make me feel bad *) and put me in the back of her car. Instead she just pulled her weapon and had her finger hot on the trigger. I prefer to limit and avoid situations where people point loaded guns at me. I tried to write up a complaint, but her Lt. just said she felt like she needed control and took it as she was afraid. She also did not believe that someone my size would smart enough to call 911 (* document the call on tape *) and wait for the police versus just letting them show up and hurting them.


----------



## Empty Hands

Rich Parsons said:


> She also did not believe that someone my size would smart enough to call 911 (* document the call on tape *) and weight for the police versus just letting them show up and hurting them.



That's funny.  Every overly aggressive, meathead guy I've had to deal with has been small (I'm big).  Most of the big guys I know are careful of their strength, because they know they can hurt others easily.


----------



## Rich Parsons

Empty Hands said:


> That's funny. Every overly aggressive, meathead guy I've had to deal with has been small (I'm big). Most of the big guys I know are careful of their strength, because they know they can hurt others easily.


 

I get lots of comments about my soft touch. I sneak up on people at work with out trying but the 95 lb women can be heard coming a long distance off. 

But I grant she was afraid. I saw it in her eyes. I did exactly what she said when she said it. Kept my nouth shut, and waited until later when her sergeant and back up showed up as she did not call in that she was clear of had it under control. Her sergeant had to have a nice talk with her as she refused to take the report as domestic violence cannot be female to male the law only protects against male to female. In the end I got the report. She delayed the filing for over a week by taking a couple of days off and then a couple of days to write up and file. I had to have my lawyer call her department a couple of times before it was filed. 

My points are not that all police are bad. My points are that the few bad cops really stick out and they make a big impression on the people they impact.


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo

KP. said:


> For the lonest time, in NYC, the standard for when an officer could un-holster their weapon was that they felt threatened or had reasonable suspicion that the person they were approaching might be armed. It's been similar in other places I've been. 'Reasonable suspicion' has been basically "anything another cop might do."


 
Please explain to me how a feeling of being threatened or, as even you say, had *reasonable* suspicion that the person they were approaching might be armed, is a *flimsy* excuse?

The reason that it is basically anything another cop might do, is, well, because its reasonable.  




> Police do not need probable cause to engage in a search, only reasonable suspicion.


 
You are, again, incorrect.  The police need probable cause to search, but only reasonable suspicion to detain.

Your comment, however, was that the police had the power to wreck lives based on hunches.   A mere search does not have typically have the ability to wreck lives.




> Vindictive? How about "avoid it at all costs unless there is substantive public outcry."


 
That is just not true.  But your ignorance is easy to understand in that personnel matters are not typically subject to public scrutiny.

Although, I will admit that there are those agencies and individuals who do exactly what you say.  But a general statement that this is done by the police is disingenuous.



> When mistakes damage another person, they are not an "oops, sorry about that" thing. They are someone being wronged by the government. As such, the public has a right to know how that is going to be addressed. Appropriate measures might be as little as having a few hours of training or professional consoling on how to more appropriately handle a situation.


 
And often, just to reduce liability, these things are done.  However, they may not be done to your satisfaction perhaps. 



> Congratulations for being on the front line of what should be the norm everywhere.


 
You will find that in large and/or urban settings, that this is typically the case. 




> Information relevant to the public is not confidential. A weekly reporting noting nothing more than a count of categorical issues, from clerical errors up to the worst offenses, along with descriptive text about what is being done with the officer/officers involved is all that is needed. The public has no need to know salaries or specifics about internal investigations. They do need to know that those investigations happen, they are taken seriously, and consequences which are at least as equally severe as a civilian would face for similar acts are being levied.


 
And it is available.  In fact, you could get the names of every officer on a police department, you could find out how many complaints were made in a particular department, you could find out how many times a police department was sued for alleged misconduct.

Its called the Freedom of Information Act.  You may argue that police departments should just broadcast that information.  Very well.  Talk to you city council and make it a local law.

Which leads me to another point.  People need to understand that a police department does not exist in a vacuum in a jurisdictional heirarcy.  Sometimes, the greatest impediment to what you are looking for is your local elected officials.



> A combination of an article I read, and my own experiences. More than a feeling, less than a researched fact.
> 
> Yes, it is not a nuanced statement covering all the intricacies of government/citizen interactions, but still true enough in its own way.


 
I will give you credit for your experiences.  But your statement that your comment is *true enough in its own way* to me shows a blatant attempt at manipulation.



> When I was the one who called the police and identified myself as the one who had called the police.


 
With all due respect to you and your situation, you would not believe how many times I and other officers have arrested the person who had called the police.  Sometimes its the guilty, not the innocent that call.


----------



## The Last Legionary

Wow.  Lots of good stuff since I went off with Office Amy for some "Unlawful Search and Seizure" action. (Yeah, she brought the handcuffs, Woof!)

Bottom line here is, don't act in a manner that makes the cop suspicious or feeling threatened, and you will usually be ok. Not always, but usually. Move slow, be obvious when moving, be polite, use proper english not Ebonics, etc.

Don't do stupid things like take off running when you see cops. That's a red flag for them. 

Don't tell the about your rights, how you pay their salary, comment about donuts, or make nazi references. Don't try and be a comedian, but don't go robot on them either.

If you're smoking up while driving, air the damn car out before stopping by rolling all the windows down, but don't take 40 miles to do so.  Don't flick it out the window, put it out in your ashtray and close the ****ing thing. Cleaning it and your ride out out might help too. A couple of 12 packs of empties rolling around in plain view on the floor, kinda looks bad.

Don't have 12 issues of Hustler spread on the back seat.

Keep the music down. If your car's radio can be used as a sonic disruptor, you're kinda saying "Here I am, come bother me! I'm an *** hole!"

Lose the "Cop Killla" bumper stickers. The "Bad Cop, No Donut" one's gotta go too.

Pull your pants up and hide the 6" of boxers and 3" of *** crack for a change home dog.

Ok Talkies, gotta jet.  Officer Amy's on her way back over and shes bringing Agent Jenny for some inter-department interegation technique training. I have to go find my waterboard!  Woof! It's CheneyTime!

Axes flash, broadsword swing,
Shining armour's piercing ring
Horses run with polished shield,
Fight Those Bastards till They Yield
Midnight mare and blood red roan,
Fight to Keep this Land Your Own
Sound the horn and call the cry,
How Many of Them Can We Make Die!


----------



## kenpofighter

What 5-0 Kenpo is saying is correct.  I am going through college with a major in criminal justice.


----------



## KP.

5-0 Kenpo said:


> Please explain to me how a feeling of being threatened or, as even you say, had *reasonable* suspicion that the person they were approaching might be armed, is a *flimsy* excuse?



Because the officer merely has to say "i felt threatened, the suspect appeared to be acting strangely." It does not in any way have to be true. It's a free ticket.



> I will give you credit for your experiences. But your statement that your comment is true enough in its own way to me shows a blatant attempt at manipulation.



Simplifications do not, tautologically, discursively cover a topic in totality. That does not make them false. It makes them lacking in depth and nuance. Nor does it make one who uses a simplification manipulative.


----------



## KP.

kenpofighter said:


> What 5-0 Kenpo is saying is correct.  I am going through college with a major in criminal justice.



As to reasonable suspicion, he is correct only in the most pedantic of ways. 

The police are free to frisk anyone based on reasonable suspicion, and may require that the person identify themselves. If the officer decides during that encounter that he now has probable cause, he may initiate a search.

As the Supreme Court has ruled that probable cause is a fluid definition, it is almost impossible to have a search initiated from a Terry stop thrown out.


----------



## jks9199

KP. said:


> For the lonest time, in NYC, the standard for when an officer could un-holster their weapon was that they felt threatened or had reasonable suspicion that the person they were approaching might be armed. It's been similar in other places I've been. 'Reasonable suspicion' has been basically "anything another cop might do."


Perhaps you'd like to explain to my wife why I should risk death or injury waiting to be certain before I prepare for violence?  I'm allowed to draw my gun anytime I anticipate that I might need to for a very simple reason: *The first rule of law enforcement is to go home at the end of the shift.*  Ideally with no more holes in me than I started with...  My family kind of appreciates that idea, too. 



> Police do not need probable cause to engage in a search, only reasonable suspicion.


 Reasonable suspicion is a particular, if imprecise legal standard.  There are literally dozens of cases that help to define it, but a general definition is "facts and circumstances which, based on the officer's training and experience, would lead him to believe that criminal activity is afoot."  It's not a mere hunch; it does recognize that a combination of things which separately or together might mean nothing to a lay person may be very telling to a professional.  We expect doctors to recognize a pattern of symptoms that don't mean much to us to identify a disease or illness; why shouldn't a cop do the same with suspicious activity?

Reasonable suspicion supports specific actions (see _Terry v. Ohio_), namely brief detention (and, if there is suspicion of weapons) and frisk to confirm or dispel those suspicions.  To go further requires a higher standard of proof.  Any search or arrest in the US is required to be based on probable cause (or, for searches, a very small set of exceptions), and any search or arrest without a warrant issued by a neutral magistrate is treated as an exception to the rule.  The list of exceptions is fairly small; the state code defines when I may arrest a person (and, in fact, in Virginia, is more restrictive than the US Constitution requires), and there are about 6 or 7 common exceptions to the requirement for a search warrant.  (Depending on who counts them, the numbers can be different as some can be combined.)



> Vindictive? How about "avoid it at all costs unless there is substantive public outcry."


You haven't seen some of the prosecutors in my region...  There are a couple that are known for gunning for cops, to the point that I know of one case where a uniformed officer was ARRESTED at the scene of a police shooting...



> Information relevant to the public is not confidential. A weekly reporting noting nothing more than a count of categorical issues, from clerical errors up to the worst offenses, along with descriptive text about what is being done with the officer/officers involved is all that is needed. The public has no need to know salaries or specifics about internal investigations. They do need to know that those investigations happen, they are taken seriously, and consequences which are at least as equally severe as a civilian would face for similar acts are being levied.


And who's going to pay for tallying and reporting this data?  What's gained from publishing that "3 officers were disciplined for reporting to work late; 2 were verbally counseled, and a memo was placed in the file for one."  

Most departments are required to make an annual report (sometimes more than annual), as well as immediate reports about major matters, to the appropriate body, be it a town manager, city council, or governor.  Often, this report is actually available, though you may have to know where to look or ask for it.



> A combination of an article I read, and my own experiences. More than a feeling, less than a researched fact.



Wait... that sounds a whole lot like... reasonable suspicion based on your own education and experiences.  I guess it's OK for you, but not cops? 


> I'm an escapee. I was born and raised in some very bad neighborhoods. Managed, through the grace of God and my Mother's wooden spoon, to get through High School, joined the Army to pay for college, managed to get a graduate scholarship, turned that into a research fellowship, and now live quite happily well the hell away from where I started. I still go visit friends and family when I can, but it's not who I am anymore.
> 
> It certainly does, and will always, inform my world view, and I do believe I have insights into what it means to be in that world which the average person does not have, but I also don't consider myself part of that world either.



I have a simple question.  Without a doubt, our perceptions are shaped by our experiences and beliefs.  But need we shape EVERY encounter in our life by earlier experiences?  Or can we learn and adapt our responses based on what we've learned and new experiences?  I know that I have biases and even prejudices; I do my best to be aware of them, and try to make sure that my actions are not driven by a bias or prejudice.  You may have grown up in a terrible neighborhood, filled with corrupt, unprofessional, and even downright criminal "police" -- but that doesn't mean that the cops you deal with today are the same.  Should I hold you to the standard of the gang banging thug that came from that sort of neighborhood -- or allow you to be who you've become?


----------



## Bob Hubbard

I would like to take a moment to thank the anonymous Buffalo cop for not t-boning me while he was driving at warp 11 with his lights off tonight.  

I noticed him approaching the red light at considerable speed (note, I had the right of way on a green). I brought my car to a complete stop to avoid him impacting me right on the drivers door.  After a moment, I continued through the light.  As I approached the next intersection, the previous light turned, allowing the police car to move again (seemed the red light stopped it from continuing again). He caught up with me immediately and allowed his patrol car to sniff my butt for a moment, then backed up, and floored it around me.  This time however the red traffic light was caught by surprise and didn't have time to stop him.  He was out of sight a few seconds later.

At no time, did he stop me, turn on his flashers, or act like he was on a call, responding to a silent alarm, or otherwise seeming to be doing anything more than speeding and blowing through traffic signals, as well as being a threat to legitimate traffic.  Unfortunately, to catch his car number I would have had to do about 70 in a 30.  

My guess is, if he was on a call, he wouldn't have waited at the previous light, or taken the time to ride up my *** before continuing on his way.  

Can anyone offer an alternate to my current conclusion which is dangerous dumbass?


----------



## Archangel M

It sounds like he MIGHT have been responding to the location of some sort of call and checking the area for vehicles/people. Or going to cover a call that technically wont let him go "code" so hes stretching things a bit to get somewhere quick. When you hear another cop say "send me another car..no hurry", you want to get there quick but some dept policies may not let you run code. Of course getting into an accident blowing a light w/o emergency equipment on and saying "I wasnt going code sgt...." isnt going to help you much. You re sort of rolling the dice.

I have been in many situations where my driving could have been interpreted as "dumbass" but what I was doing was looking for a suspect vehicle. While I try to at least light up before going through a light, sometimes I dont. Other times Ive done it I was trying to catch up to a car that was going the other way without tipping him off with the lights.

Of course it could have been for no good reason at all. Just giving you some options for "good reasons". I could give you some "bad reasons" too.


----------



## Andy Moynihan

Archangel M said:


> It sounds like he MIGHT have been responding to the location of some sort of call and checking the area for vehicles/people. Or going to cover a call that technically wont let him go "code" so hes stretching things a bit to get somewhere quick. When you hear another cop say "send me another car..no hurry", you want to get there quick but some dept policies may not let you run code. Of course getting into an accident blowing a light w/o emergency equipment on and saying "I wasnt going code sgt...." isnt going to help you much. You re sort of rolling the dice.
> 
> I have been in many situations where my driving could have been interpreted as "dumbass" but what I was doing was looking for a suspect vehicle. While I try to at least light up before going through a light, sometimes I dont. Other times Ive done it I was trying to catch up to a car that was going the other way without tipping him off with the lights.
> 
> Of course it could have been for no good reason at all. Just giving you some options for "good reasons". I could give you some "bad reasons" too.


 
"Going code"= lights/ wig-wags?


----------



## jks9199

Archangel M said:


> It sounds like he MIGHT have been responding to the location of some sort of call and checking the area for vehicles/people. Or going to cover a call that technically wont let him go "code" so hes stretching things a bit to get somewhere quick. When you hear another cop say "send me another car..no hurry", you want to get there quick but some dept policies may not let you run code. Of course getting into an accident blowing a light w/o emergency equipment on and saying "I wasnt going code sgt...." isnt going to help you much. You re sort of rolling the dice.
> 
> I have been in many situations where my driving could have been interpreted as "dumbass" but what I was doing was looking for a suspect vehicle. While I try to at least light up before going through a light, sometimes I dont. Other times Ive done it I was trying to catch up to a car that was going the other way without tipping him off with the lights.
> 
> Of course it could have been for no good reason at all. Just giving you some options for "good reasons". I could give you some "bad reasons" too.



I agree; there are good justifications that might be out there.  I'm not pushing a cruiser these days, and you really don't want to see some of the ways we drive when we're doing surveillance or tailing someone, for example.  Reaching back to patrol days -- depending on the call, you don't run hot to it, and if you're looking for a particular car in traffic, you might do stunts like the one Bob described.

But -- let's be honest.  There are quite a few cops out there who drive like maniacs without justification, too.  Just "cuz they can."  I used to work with one guy whose driving scared me...  and I know his supervisor had some words with him about it, on more than one occasion.



Andy Moynihan said:


> "Going code"= lights/ wig-wags?



Yep; somewhere (I think in California), they designated three levels of response with Code 1 (normal driving), Code 2 (urgent; go direct, but no lights & sirens), and Code 3 (lights & sirens, emergency response).  The levels of response were already around; the name "code" caught on.


----------



## Bob Hubbard

Let me add some data.

At the light he caught up to me, 1 block to the right is the preceinct hq. (Yeah I live 2 blocks from it. Response time's pretty quick on slow nights)

Straight ahead 2 blocks is a gas/cigatette station that gets hit every 6-8 weeks it seems.

After waiting for the 1st light, and after making sure I knew he ws there at the second light, he went through the red, and went straight.

I can assume he was on a call, except if he was, why would he have waited for the 1st light, then taken the time to sniff my butt before continuing on?


----------



## Rich Parsons

Bob Hubbard said:


> Let me add some data.
> 
> At the light he caught up to me, 1 block to the right is the preceinct hq. (Yeah I live 2 blocks from it. Response time's pretty quick on slow nights)
> 
> Straight ahead 2 blocks is a gas/cigatette station that gets hit every 6-8 weeks it seems.
> 
> After waiting for the 1st light, and after making sure I knew he ws there at the second light, he went through the red, and went straight.
> 
> I can assume he was on a call, except if he was, why would he have waited for the 1st light, then taken the time to sniff my butt before continuing on?


 

One night while driving home many years ago, I pulled onto an unlighted dirt street. I lived on it. A police car that had turned two intersections from behind me (* less than a 1/4 of a mile *) The officer turned his lights on. I pulled over. While, I was getting my paperwork out, he turned off all his lights. He then backed out and away from me (* Dark *). He then turned back onto the main paved road and went up it totally dark. I saw him leave, and got out and walked back to the intersection and watched him for about a mile go dark. Just after he passed over the hill, he turned his head lights on. I thought it was funny as I was having problems with the local police and then this happens. 

I understand running Dark into a call. I do not understand running Dark from a Call and then turning on your lights after you are out of sight. The only issue was that the lights just turned on, over the hill and no car came over it.  I guess Physics was not the officer's strong suit. But my point was that sometimes good Police do things we do nto understand as we do not have the complete picture. Then again as mentioned there are some bad cops that just do it because they can.


----------



## Drac

jks9199 said:


> But -- let's be honest. There are quite a few cops out there who drive like maniacs without justification, too. Just "cuz they can." I used to work with one guy whose driving scared me... and I know his supervisor had some words with him about it, on more than one occasion.


 
Amen brother..There are officers in my department that I will not ride with because they scare the **** outta me..I even went home one day after roll call when the Sgt refused to honor my requests for a different partner .I was rolling to an " Officer Needs Assistance" call..I had the lights and siren on...I bumped into a cruiser from another city that is not on our radio ban and told them what was up...The responded too, they ran *EVERY* red light with checking to see if there was oncoming traffic..I still paused at every light the way my FTO taught me...





jks9199 said:


> Yep; somewhere (I think in California), they designated three levels of response with Code 1 (normal driving), Code 2 (urgent; go direct, but no lights & sirens), and Code 3 (lights & sirens, emergency response). The levels of response were already around; the name "code" caught on.


 
One department uses the term PRIORITY.


----------



## Drac

Bob Hubbard said:


> Can anyone offer an alternate to my current conclusion which is dangerous dumbass?


 
Prolly on a call...Robbery or Burglary in progress, or something where the suspects are armed an still on scene.....Still there is no excuse for driving like a butt head


----------



## MJS

KP. said:


> Actually, I don't think I stated that kneeling on the back is wrong. I could be mistaken about that, but I don't recall saying it.


 
Perhaps that is the impression that your post gave.  Of course, I've yet to see any alternatives, as it seems if LEOs use any force...heaven forbid, they come under the microscope of those that don't think highly of the cops.



> As for solutions -- make the damn process transparent and hold the police to the same standard as the rest of us. That would be a hell of a start.


 
So, you think that despite the links that have already been posted of LEOs who've been in trouble, that they skate on any charges?  Hmmm...a Sgt. at a PD here in CT, stole some cash from the explorer fund...she is being charged. 



> Frankly, the police should be held to a higher standard -- they are given weapons and the power and authority to wave them in people's faces with often the flimsiest of excuses. They are given the power to wreck lives based on hunches.


 
Depending on the situation, they just may be in the right, despite you thinking that its a flimsy excuse.  Again, not saying that they're all good, but come on, I doubt its as bad as you're claiming.



> Now that in and of itself is not wrong. The police serve a vital public function and we'd be much worse off without them. But given the power they wield, having their disciplinary measures shrouded in secrecy, and largely being held to a lesser standard when it comes to criminal prosecution is exactly the opposite of what it should be.


 
Why does everything have to be pubic knowledge?  



> Yes, the police are human beings who make mistakes. I'm not saying toss every cop who ever had a bad day in jail and throw away the key. But do make sure that mistakes are not tolerated without repercussions, and make those known publicly so that the citizens know that their police care about quality and consistency and do not tolerate bad cops.


 
See my comment above.




> I was reading something a few weeks back about how DA's are finding many inner city cases difficult to prosecute because the local residents tend to be uncooperative with the police and DA office. The reason is really straightforward -- the DA and Police are not trusted. Building trust starts by being open. The people want crime addressed, they just don't believe the police are interested in that.


 
Hmm..I believe I said something about this a while ago.  Part of solving a problem is a 2 way street.


----------



## MJS

KP. said:


> For the lonest time, in NYC, the standard for when an officer could un-holster their weapon was that they felt threatened or had reasonable suspicion that the person they were approaching might be armed. It's been similar in other places I've been. 'Reasonable suspicion' has been basically "anything another cop might do."


 
Nothing wrong with that.  If you knew someone may be armed, I'd think it'd be normal to pull a weapon.





> Police do not need probable cause to engage in a search, only reasonable suspicion.


 
You have no idea what you're talking about.


----------



## MJS

KP. said:


> Because the officer merely has to say "i felt threatened, the suspect appeared to be acting strangely." It does not in any way have to be true. It's a free ticket.


 
I call BS on that.  If you're pulled over by a cop, the person should do everything in their power to put that cops mind at ease.  That means, don't make any sudden moves, turn on your interior lights, keep your hands on the wheel, etc.  If you start making odd movements before the cop even gets out of his car, what the hell do you think is going thru his mind??


----------



## Bob Hubbard

Actually, I tend to agree with KP on a point.  The police should not only be held to a higher standard, they should be that higher standard.  
I happen to think most of them do meet that though.

When Gen. Patton took command in Africa, he found an American Army that was a disgrace. Sloppy discipline, sloppy appearance, etc.  He put his foot down, and whipped them into a shape to be proud of.

Cops in clean neat uniforms, in clean cars, with good manners and a respectful attitude will be cops you can look up to.

Slobs in dirty stained half buttoned uniforms, driving beat up filthy cars, who swear like it's going out of style who think they are to be bowed to.....those are the guys I hold in low esteem.

I've run into both.  I've yet to meet the later among our members here.  Might be jeans and tee guys off duty, but on duty I've seen pros that I'm damn glad to know and in many cases call friends.


As to discipline, I hear about the big screw ups. Don't really care about who showed up late to work. Don't even care about -your- complaint. But I'd like to know mine was taken seriously, honestly investigated, and all.


----------



## The Last Legionary

Freedom of Information act doesn't always give you answers, people are stonewalled all the time on that call.  

Oh look.  From a traffic ticket to jail time in a few seconds.
[yt]exrPbeaIFwQ[/yt]


Now in this one, the cops are flat out wrong.  Watch the cop walk maybe 10 feet up to the woman and just crack her in the head. Don't know what was said, but?
[yt]vR5RBIBNrmY[/yt]

Video from the Daily Bruin website, which also contains additional coverage: http://dailybruin.com/news/articles.a... The video shows Kim Passoth's reporting of the repeated tasering of a student without his ID in the library -- they taser him even when he is handcuffed and screaming in pain and nearby students are telling the police to stop. 
[yt]VMl4u1E2_bY[/yt]
This was discussed here when it happened I think.

Chris Rock gives advice on dealing with the Police.
[yt]65zXlytv01c[/yt]


----------



## Drac

Chris Rock is a genius....He forgot to add not to attempt to quote law or sound like an attourney when being questioned...


----------



## jks9199

The Last Legionary said:


> Freedom of Information act doesn't always give you answers, people are stonewalled all the time on that call.
> 
> Oh look.  From a traffic ticket to jail time in a few seconds.
> [yt]exrPbeaIFwQ[/yt]
> 
> 
> Now in this one, the cops are flat out wrong.  Watch the cop walk maybe 10 feet up to the woman and just crack her in the head. Don't know what was said, but?
> [yt]vR5RBIBNrmY[/yt]
> 
> Video from the Daily Bruin website, which also contains additional coverage: http://dailybruin.com/news/articles.a... The video shows Kim Passoth's reporting of the repeated tasering of a student without his ID in the library -- they taser him even when he is handcuffed and screaming in pain and nearby students are telling the police to stop.
> [yt]VMl4u1E2_bY[/yt]
> This was discussed here when it happened I think.
> 
> Chris Rock gives advice on dealing with the Police.
> [yt]65zXlytv01c[/yt]


One note on your second video there, Legionary...

It's not in the US.  (Looks like maybe Spain, since some of the titling shows Madrid.)

The general culture and role of law enforcement in the US, and England, is rather different than in many other countries.  The protections that US citizens have from the government and law enforcement are almost unique in the world; there are things that cops in England can do that stun and amaze us here in the US because Constitutional protections prevent us.  Tez may be able to hit on a few of them; I know they've popped up here on MT before.  Look at a lot of other countries, and it's even more amazing.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise

jks9199 said:


> One note on your second video there, Legionary...
> 
> It's not in the US.  (Looks like maybe Spain, since some of the titling shows Madrid.)
> 
> The general culture and role of law enforcement in the US, and England, is rather different than in many other countries.  The protections that US citizens have from the government and law enforcement are almost unique in the world; there are things that cops in England can do that stun and amaze us here in the US because Constitutional protections prevent us.  Tez may be able to hit on a few of them; I know they've popped up here on MT before.  Look at a lot of other countries, and it's even more amazing.



*Absolutely true*.  I have been in several foreign countries and witnessed one beat down that would simply have not happened here in the US based upon what was going on.  We do have a great constitution. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





   I would also say that I have met and observed exceptional police behavior in these other countries. (*that is more the norm than anything else*)  Law Enforcement around the world is a tough job.  I believe that any LEO who takes their job seriously and professionally deserves all the respect in the world.  Try dealing with the worst of society day in and day out.  That is a very, very challenging situation.

I have in general found almost all LEO's that I have encountered to be hard working, conscientious people trying to do a very, very, very difficult job.  

In any field there will always be 1% or so that screw off and screw up and do not take their job seriously and professionally.  It simply does not matter the job.  Video footage of poor police behavior is always a minority thing in the general greater scope of all police behavior.  One thing is for sure is that police help out people more often.  I can just look back to last night where I saw one helping to change a tire here in Michigan. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




When I was in this field I always tried to be professional, polite and help out where needed.  That is in general what most LEO's do!!!


----------



## Sukerkin

Those were some quite surprising and, in Mr. Rocks case, entertaining videos posted by *TLL* above.

The end to the first one was astounding tho'.  I thought the officer had been marvellously polite and covered all the right bases and then the eejut he'd pulled over reversed over the police car !


----------



## Bob Hubbard

What are the stats guys?  Traffic stop or a domestic call being the most dangerous one for a cop?


----------



## jks9199

Bob Hubbard said:


> What are the stats guys?  Traffic stop or a domestic call being the most dangerous one for a cop?


It's not a clear-cut question, for a lot of reasons.

How do you define "most dangerous?"  During a traffic stop, you're dealing with an unknown person or people, on the side of a road, with traffic and other things going on around you.  It's something you've done hundreds or thousands of times by the end of probation... so it's really easy to become very complacent.  You're frequently alone.  No matter how carefully you pick the location -- the violators almost never stop where you expect or want them to.  You don't know if the driver is a serial killer or a 90 year old grandma.  Or both...  You don't know if they've got a pocket nuke, a dead midget, or nothing in the car.  Your lights are drunk magnets... and looky-loos are drawn to the activity.  But, most of the time, nothing happens beyond the ticket.

On a domestic -- you know you're going into a hairy furball of a mess.  A lot of the time -- you know who you're dealing with before you get there, because the "good domestics" are typically repeat offenders.  Even if they're not -- you already know a lot going into the situation because you were called to a problem.  You don't handle a domestic alone.  But you're also often in the suspect's home -- and they're already pissed off before you "invade" and start telling them what to do.   And they may not think that they did anything wrong.  You've got a screwy dynamic in the first place -- because it's not uncommon for the two that were fighting each other tooth & nails to suddenly bond against the interlopers who are trying to take charge...

Personal opinion:  I think that traffic stops are more dangerous because we do so many of them, and so few become violent, and there are so many other distractions coupled with so many unknowns.  

It's worth noting, I think, that every year, the number of LEOs killed in the US in some form of accident (including crashes) is about the same as those killed in some sort of assault.

For consideration, here are the FBI's summaries for 2006.  (I didn't see 2007's numbers listed yet online in my quick search)

Officers Feloniously Killed - 2006 - Tables


> 8 officers were killed when responding to disturbance calls (e.g., bar fights, family quarrels), and 8 officers were killed while conducting traffic pursuits or stops.


Officers Accidentally Killed - 2006 - Tables


> *   38 officers died in 2006 as a result of automobile accidents.
> 
> * 13 officers were struck and killed by vehicles; 9 of these victim officers were directing traffic/assisting motorists, etc., and 4 were performing traffic stops, instituting roadblocks, etc.
> 
> * 8 officers died of injuries sustained in motorcycle accidents.


----------



## jks9199

jks9199 said:


> It's not a clear-cut question, for a lot of reasons.
> 
> How do you define "most dangerous?"  During a traffic stop, you're dealing with an unknown person or people, on the side of a road, with traffic and other things going on around you.  It's something you've done hundreds or thousands of times by the end of probation... so it's really easy to become very complacent.  You're frequently alone.  No matter how carefully you pick the location -- the violators almost never stop where you expect or what them to.  You don't know if the driver is a serial killer or a 90 year old grandma.  Or both...  You don't know if they've got a pocket nuke, a dead midget, or nothing in the car.  Your lights are drunk magnets... and looky-loos are drawn to the activity.  But, most of the time, nothing happens beyond the ticket.
> 
> On a domestic -- you know you're going into a hairy furball of a mess.  A lot of the time -- you know who you're dealing with before you get there, because the "good domestics" are typically repeat offenders.  Even if they're not -- you already know a lot going into the situation because you were called to a problem.  You don't handle a domestic alone.  But you're also often in the suspect's home -- and they're already pissed off before you "invade" and start telling them what to do.   And they may not think that they did anything wrong.  You've got a screwy dynamic in the first place -- because it's not uncommon for the two that were fighting each other tooth & nails to suddenly bond against the interlopers who are trying to take charge...
> 
> Personal opinion:  I think that traffic stops are more dangerous because we do so many of them, and so few become violent, and there are so many other distractions coupled with so many unknowns.
> 
> It's worth noting, I think, that every year, the number of LEOs killed in the US in some form of accident (including crashes) is about the same as those killed in some sort of assault.
> 
> For consideration, here are the FBI's summaries for 2006.  (I didn't see 2007's numbers listed yet online in my quick search)
> 
> Officers Feloniously Killed - 2006 - Tables
> 
> Officers Accidentally Killed - 2006 - Tables


OK... found the 2007 data.  

The numbers aren't that different.  Looking solely at assaults on cops, not deaths,  about a third occurred during some sort of disturbance call -- which is not limited to domestic disturbances, but includes bar fights, disorderly subjects, and so on.


----------



## Drac

Bob Hubbard said:


> What are the stats guys? Traffic stop or a domestic call being the most dangerous one for a cop?


 


jks9199 said:


> It's not a clear-cut question, for a lot of reasons...Personal opinion: I think that traffic stops are more dangerous because we do so many of them, and so few become violent, and there are so many other distractions coupled with so many unknowns.


 
Been to both type of calls...As JKS said with the domestic you know your getting into the ****...With a traffic stop you *NEVER* know what you will encounter..


----------



## Archangel M

If "dangerous" was defined as being at risk of having a complaint filed against you I would say car stops.


----------



## Drac

Archangel M said:


> If "dangerous" was defined as being at risk of having a complaint filed against you I would say car stops.


 
Yup....We (the cops) just picking on them because they are White, Black, Puerto Rican, etc...etc...


----------



## Bob Hubbard

I do have 1 confrimed case where they targeted Klingons.  One year a few folks fro the US headed to a Toronto con in full costume, all 3 cars in the group were detained at the border.  Seems that the Canadian BP thought is suspicious that people would travel looking like this. 

Then again, maybe they were looking for these 2 evil critters?


----------



## Drac

bob hubbard said:


> i do have 1 confrimed case where they targeted klingons. One year a few folks fro the us headed to a toronto con in full costume, all 3 cars in the group were detained at the border. Seems that the canadian bp thought is suspicious that people would travel looking like this.
> 
> Then again, maybe they were looking for these 2 evil critters? :d


 
*lol.......*


----------



## jks9199

Shoot...

In my area, if you're going to define "most dangerous" as "most likely to lead to a complaint", I think trying to take a lunch break tops the list!


----------



## The Last Legionary

jks9199 said:


> One note on your second video there, Legionary...
> 
> It's not in the US. (Looks like maybe Spain, since some of the titling shows Madrid.)
> 
> The general culture and role of law enforcement in the US, and England, is rather different than in many other countries. The protections that US citizens have from the government and law enforcement are almost unique in the world; there are things that cops in England can do that stun and amaze us here in the US because Constitutional protections prevent us. Tez may be able to hit on a few of them; I know they've popped up here on MT before. Look at a lot of other countries, and it's even more amazing.


I think the video is from Spain or somewhere in South America during one of their weekly riots.


Ok. I've posted alot of the **** cops go through videos to prove a point. The point being, it's rough out there, and sometimes, people are ****ing stupid dumb asses.

Sometimes though, the cops are pigs. No, I don't mean the type who want to strip search Officer Amy. That's expected, what straight man wouldn't?

No, I mean the type of corrupt bastard that makes people hate their local department.

I give you, for your disgust, the corrupt and despicable Prince Georges County, MD police force.


*Prince Georges County, MD*
[yt]YCBZOdBqMgo[/yt]
*"Every one of the Federally required cameras were either inoperable, or not running".*
*Non resisting reporter has shoulder dislocated by police during traffic stop.[/**B]
http://www.rcfp.org/newsitems/index.php?i=4230

There are a good many reposts of brutality from this particular department online.
http://www.gazette.net/stories/10022008/hyatnew184010_32474.shtml
http://www.wjla.com/news/stories/0908/556298.html
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig7/bothwell10.html

Let me quote:




			Enter Berwyn Heights, Md., Mayor Cheye Calvo, whose home was raided on Tuesday, July 29 by a Prince George&#8217;s County SWAT team after he picked up a 32-pound package of marijuana from his doorstep that was addressed to his wife, Trinity Tomsic. In an investigation that reportedly began in Arizona, where a police dog identified the package as containing contraband, P.G. County officers posing as deliverymen placed the package on Calvo&#8217;s porch and waited for someone to take possession.

According to the Washington Post, Calvo came home from work early that day, took his two black Labs for a walk, and upon returning home spotted the package. He brought it inside the house, set it unopened on a table, and went upstairs to change. Calvo barely had a chance to remove his clothes before he heard his mother-in-law screaming; SWAT officers conducting a "no-knock" raid stormed the house, thundering through the front door and shooting immediately, killing the family&#8217;s dogs, one of which was running away as it was shot. 

...


The P.G. County Police Department has a long, troubled history of brutality, corruption, and insider crime. 

Television reporter Andrea McCarren told her story of how county officers ordered her at gunpoint to drop her very dangerous video camera before one of them dislocated her shoulder during her arrest;
seven-year department veteran Jermaine Ayala was convicted of insurance fraud;
Cpl. Sheldon Vessels was convicted on charges of assaulting four teenagers;
for seven years, the sheriff&#8217;s office hid from auditors $45,000 it seized from a drug dealer while it lobbied for new laws allowing the department to keep the money;
a federal jury sentenced K-9 cop Stephanie Mohr to 10 years in prison for violating the civil rights of a homeless man when she released her police dog to attack him after he surrendered;
Howard University student Prince C. Jones was shot in the back five times and killed by undercover cop Carlton Jones;
and Keith Washington, who landed a job as P.G. County&#8217;s homeland security deputy director because County Executive Jack Johnson thought he was "mentally tough," was sentenced to 45 years in jail this past May for shooting two deliverymen at his home, killing one.
Perhaps most disturbing, however, is the death of 19-year-old suspected cop-killer Ronnie Lionel White, who was strangled in his cell in June &#8211; sadly unsurprising given that at least a dozen P.G. County jail officers are criminals themselves.
		
Click to expand...

 
Now critics will also note that the bastards were in most cases brought to justice. 

Follow up to the 2005 Andrea McCarren  brutality report.




9 cars, 12 officers.  None of the required police cameras, in 9 cars mind you, were working.  Sounds funny to me.

Why were the reporters following the car prior to being stopped and assaulted?




Ohh. Investigating the use of a uniformed cop as a chauffeur.
Oh and the department refuses to release copies of 911 tapes, video, etc as it's "Not in the publics interest". 


Oh, and more on this story here
http://www.tvrundown.com/0520.htm



			The U.S. Department of Justice has been investigating and monitoring the Prince George's County police department for years for excessive force and abuse of police power. 

"There is a memo of understanding that all police cameras must be operable. Now they are saying that all nine cameras were not working," she adds. 
...
McCarren says the department is in a tough spot. If the cameras weren't rolling or weren't operable, it is a clear violation of the Department of Justice memo of understanding. 

If the cameras were operable, and they haven't provided the tapes or they destroyed them, that is obstruction of justice. 

"If they release the tapes, people will see five guns pulled on me and that the officer was rough. It is going to be hard for them to win on this," she adds.
		
Click to expand...

 
I can't find anything newer than this, and I looked for an hour.  Found a shitload more on corruption in the DC area though.  Somehow, I'm not surprised.

Now if you'll excuse me, I have to go check on Amy. Hey, is spanking a crime? :rofl:*


----------



## Archangel M

Hmm. Minus the background I would have said that a report of someone obviously being followed would require an investigation regardless of how the driver "looked". And she looked none the worse for wear after being released for someone with a dislocated shoulder.

BUT. With all the other details added in I have to say that either there is something "going on" or PGC is dropping thr PR ball big time.


----------



## jks9199

OK... PG County MD isn't far out of my neck of the woods.  In fact, I know more than a few PG cops, and have had many cases with ties to PG.

PG is one of those special places on Earth...  Depending on where in the county you are, you've got welfare ghettos to people who'd shrug at losing a million dollars the same way some of us might a penny.  You've got a huge volume of traffic moving through on I-95, US 50, and several other major roads, too.  PG borders some of the worst parts of DC (SE and and Anacostia, among them.)  They've got a prosecutor who is actively and openly anti-cop, too. 

Now, I'm not suggesting that the cops in PG are never wrong, either.  Because they are.  More often than I really want to think about.  But they're also working in an extremely tough envioronment, and sometimes, they're simply working in the language that many of the people they deal with understand.  And they're doing it with little support from the county government outside the cops...  You don't want to know about the gang issues.  Especially since the county government will tell you they don't have a gang problem.  (Neither does Chicago, or Los Angeles, if PG doesn't.)

Things are "different" there...  

No, it doesn't justify roughing up a reporter, allowing K9s to bite cuffed suspects, and some of the other things they've done or been accused of.  But... it's also worth remembering that the press, especially in the DC area, isn't always known for reporting the whole story, either.  And you're looking at things from 3 years ago.  PG County PD has worked hard to improve things.  And, in many cases, the officers responsible for those acts have been disciplined, and even tried and convicted. 

There are lots of problems with how the investigation last year that led to the sheriff's SWAT raid on the Berwyn Heights mayor's house.  That investigation is ongoing -- and it's been thoroughly covered in the press.  One side note -- it was the SHERIFF'S Department SWAT unit.


----------



## Bob Hubbard

Sounds like a county I'll do my best to avoid.


----------



## The Last Legionary

I just wish I could find the 'rest of the story' as it were. I'm not finding anything on that reporters case after that 3rd video. I don't doubt they are trying to clean it up but man, that's a hella lot of crap on one department. Not the slapping a drunk around a bit too rough stuff either.


----------



## Carol

jks9199 said:


> Things are "different" there...



Having been on assignment at NASA Goddard, I think that's probably the best way to describe PG county.  :lol:


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo

]





KP. said:


> As to reasonable suspicion, he is correct only in the most pedantic of ways.



If I am being pedantic, it is only because the law if very nuanced in this matter.  An oversimplification, which you are attempting, tells us nothing and does not further the discussion.  Bumper sticker statements like yours don't help.  





> The police are free to frisk anyone based on reasonable suspicion, and may require that the person identify themselves. If the officer decides during that encounter that he now has probable cause, he may initiate a search.



You are absolutely right.  What's wrong with that?



> As the Supreme Court has ruled that probable cause is a fluid definition, it is almost impossible to have a search initiated from a Terry stop thrown out.



You are incorrect, sir.  They are thhown out all the time.  You just are not aware of it.

I do have another question: what is your traning and experience when it come to these issues?


----------



## Drac

5-0 Kenpo said:


> ] If I do have another question: what is your traning and experience when it come to these issues?


 
Great question...


----------



## jks9199

KP. said:


> As to reasonable suspicion, he is correct only in the most pedantic of ways.
> 
> The police are free to frisk anyone based on reasonable suspicion, and may require that the person identify themselves. If the officer decides during that encounter that he now has probable cause, he may initiate a search.
> 
> As the Supreme Court has ruled that probable cause is a fluid definition, it is almost impossible to have a search initiated from a Terry stop thrown out.


I refer you to _Terry v Ohio_, 392 U.S. 1 (1968).  This is the case where stop and frisk was articulated.  A detective observed 3 men in front of a store in an area where there had been numerous robberies.  The men would stop, look into the store, then move around the corner.  These actions led the detective to suspect that the men were casing the store for a robbery.  He made contact with them, and frisked them, finding a gun.  The Court held that his actions were constitutional, because he could articulate specific behaviors and circumstances that would lead a police officer to believe that criminal activity was in the offing.  The frisk was a brief, cursory search of the outer garments with the specific intent of finding a weapon, and the search was justified because the crime the detective suspected involved weapons.  Writing for the Court, Chief Justice Warren wrote:
_Our evaluation of the proper balance that has to be struck in this type of case leads us to conclude that there must be a narrowly drawn authority to permit a reasonable search for weapons for the protection of the police officer, where he has reason to believe that he is dealing with an armed and dangerous individual, regardless of whether he has probable cause to arrest the individual for a crime. The officer need not be absolutely certain that the individual is armed; the issue is whether a reasonably prudent man in the circumstances would be warranted in the belief that his safety or that of others was in danger. Cf. Beck v. Ohio, 379 U.S. 89, 91  (1964); Brinegar v. United States, 338 U.S. 160, 174 -176 (1949); Stacey v. Emery, 97 U.S. 642, 645  (1878). 23  And in determining whether the officer acted reasonably in such circumstances, due weight must be given, not to his inchoate and unparticularized suspicion or "hunch," but to the specific reasonable inferences which he is entitled to draw from the facts in light of his experience. Cf. Brinegar v. United States supra._​...
_We merely hold today that where a police officer observes unusual conduct which leads him reasonably to conclude in light of his experience that criminal activity may be afoot and that the persons with whom he is dealing may be armed and presently dangerous, where in the course of investigating this behavior he identifies himself as a policeman and makes reasonable inquiries, and where nothing in the initial stages of the encounter serves to dispel his reasonable fear for his own or others' safety, he is entitled for the protection of himself and others in the area to conduct a carefully limited search of the outer clothing of such persons in an attempt to discover weapons which might be used to assault him. [392 U.S. 1, 31]    Such a search is a reasonable search under the Fourth Amendment, and any weapons seized may properly be introduced in evidence against the person from whom they were taken. _​
In a concurrence, Justice Harlon wrote:
_In the first place, if the frisk is justified in order to protect the officer during an encounter with a citizen, the officer must first have constitutional grounds to insist on an encounter, to make a forcible stop. Any person, including a policeman, is at liberty to avoid a person he considers dangerous. If and when a policeman has a right instead to disarm such a person for his own protection, he must first have a right not to avoid him but to be in his presence. That right must be more than the liberty (again, possessed by every citizen) to address questions to other persons, for ordinarily the person [392 U.S. 1, 33]    addressed has an equal right to ignore his interrogator and walk away; he certainly need not submit to a frisk for the questioner's protection. I would make it perfectly clear that the right to frisk in this case depends upon the reasonableness of a forcible stop to investigate a suspected crime.

Where such a stop is reasonable, however, the right to frisk must be immediate and automatic if the reason for the stop is, as here, an articulable suspicion of a crime of violence. Just as a full search incident to a lawful arrest requires no additional justification, a limited frisk incident to a lawful stop must often be rapid and routine. *There is no reason why an officer, rightfully but forcibly confronting a person suspected of a serious crime, should have to ask one question and take the risk that the answer might be a bullet.* _​ (emphasis mine)

The stop and frisk is a relatively narrowly proscribed act; an officer must have reasonable, articulable suspicion -- not a mere hunch -- that the person is somehow involved in a criminal act to stop and briefly detain them at all, and then must further have reasonable articulable suspicion that the person is either armed or that the crime is one which involves violence.  This is far from _carte blanche_ to stop anyone an officer wishes and search them.  The detention can only be long enough to either confirm or dispel the suspicion, and the actions and inquiries the officer makes must be directed towards that goal, or the detention becomes an unreasonable intrusion.  Of course, if probable cause for arrest is developed during the course of that investigation, the officer may act on that new information.  Note that simply discovering probable cause for a search may not justify a search without a warrant, unless one of the established exceptions apply.

Requirements to identify yourself to a police officer are a different matter entirely.  Many states DO NOT have a law or ordinance requiring a person to do so.  In Virginia, for example, it's only a crime to lie to an officer about your identity IF you are detained; if an officer doesn't have sufficient grounds to detain you, you don't have to tell them your name, and you can even tell them that you're Mickey Mouse if you want!  The most recent case on this is _Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial Dist. Court of Nev., Humboldt Cty._, 542 U. S. 177 (2004), where the Court upheld laws requiring a person to identify themselves to the police.  I do believe this case was discussed at length here on MT...

And... by the way, lots of stops, and even more searches, are thrown out at trial.  Few reach the national news, or even the local news.  That doesn't mean they don't happen.  Poor articulation of reasonable suspicion or probable cause is one of the things that prosecutors where I work really complain about; a cop does a good thing -- but doesn't explain it in a way that the judge accepts.


----------



## Cryozombie

jks9199 said:


> The stop and frisk is a relatively narrowly proscribed act; an officer must have reasonable, articulable suspicion -- not a mere hunch -- that the person is somehow involved in a criminal act to stop and briefly detain them at all, and then must further have reasonable articulable suspicion that the person is either armed or that the crime is one which involves violence. This is far from _carte blanche_ to stop anyone an officer wishes and search them.


 
Hmmm.  I wonder about that.  I was stopped one day a few years back walking out of a suburban Mall by two police officers near the mall door who questioned and frisked me, because It was summer and I was wearing a coat.  They asked me why I would have a jacket on, and I explained that I was on my way to work and it was raining outside, so I didn't want to show up in a soaking wet uniform.  They said it was still too hot to be wearing a coat, and proceeded to pat me down, found nothing except the CDs I bought in the music store then told me to leave the mall, which I was doing anyhow.  

I wonder what reasonable and articulate suspicion they had that I was involved in exactly what criminal act...


----------



## jks9199

Cryozombie said:


> Hmmm.  I wonder about that.  I was stopped one day a few years back walking out of a suburban Mall by two police officers near the mall door who questioned and frisked me, because It was summer and I was wearing a coat.  They asked me why I would have a jacket on, and I explained that I was on my way to work and it was raining outside, so I didn't want to show up in a soaking wet uniform.  They said it was still too hot to be wearing a coat, and proceeded to pat me down, found nothing except the CDs I bought in the music store then told me to leave the mall, which I was doing anyhow.
> 
> I wonder what reasonable and articulate suspicion they had that I was involved in exactly what criminal act...


I'm not going to sit here, years later, with only one side of the story, and try to second guess what might have been going on.  I'm going to assume that they were cops, and not guards.  There are a whole host of things that you may not be aware of that would justify their actions, including one of those pain-in-the-*** "shoplifter alarm" gadgets going off.  (In some states, including Virginia, the activation is enough to allow a merchant or their agent -- which can sometimes include police -- to detain someone and check within reason for stolen merchandise.)  I don't know; I wasn't there.  It's equally possible that they were just plain wrong... or that it was consensual, and you could have said no and walked away, but didn't choose to do so.  A consensual encounter or search lasts as long as you let it...   And the decision as to whether it's consensual or not isn't whether YOU subjectively felt you could walk away; it's whether that hypothetical "reasonable person" would have objectively felt that they could say no.  A lot depends on the words the officer uses; there's a huge difference between "Do you have any ID?" and "I need your ID..."


----------



## Cryozombie

jks9199 said:


> it's whether that hypothetical "reasonable person" would have objectively felt that they could say no.


 
Hmm... this is an interesting idea, and a good topic for discussion...  Under what circumstances would a reasonable person feel justified in defying the police?  To the LEO here, under what circumstances would you feel a person would be justified in denying your requests and or walking away from you without you deciding they were being problematic or difficult and escalating the situation?


----------



## Bob Hubbard

Cop asks "May I search your bag"
You say "No".
Cop searches anyway.
You state "I object to this search".
Cop asks you to stop.
You ask "Am I being detained".
Cop says "no"
You walk away.
Cop asks you to stop again.
You ask "Am I being detained".
Cop says "no"
You walk away.
Cop arrests you.
In court you state that you objected to the search, that you saw no warrant, that you asked twice if you were being detained and the cop said no. 

Wearing a jacket on a hot day, is suspicious. Especially if it's a scortcher, and it's a heavy jacket.

Just be glad you hadn't paid for those CD's with $2 bills.  That's serious business you know.

Man arrested, cuffed after using $2 bills

Then there was this case which we discussed back in 2007 here.


> Man Arrested for Refusing to Show Drivers License
> Posted by ScuttleMonkey on Mon Sep 03, 2007 11:56 AM
> from the living-your-life-with-principles dept.
> News
> NMerriam writes "*Michael Righi was arrested in Ohio over the weekend after refusing to show his receipt when leaving Circuit City*. When the manger and 'loss prevention' employee physically prevented the vehicle he was a passenger in from leaving the parking lot, he called the police, who arrived, searched his bag and found he hadn't stolen anything. The officer then asked for Michael's driver's license, which he declined to provide since he wasn't operating a motor vehicle. *The officer then arrested him, and upon finding out Michael was legally right about not having to provide a license, went ahead and charged him with 'obstructing official business' anyways."*


His case was settled with charges dropped. http://www.michaelrighi.com/2007/09/20/success/


----------



## shesulsa

Bob Hubbard said:


> Cop asks "May I search your bag"
> You say "No".
> Cop searches anyway.
> You state "I object to this search".
> Cop asks you to stop.
> You ask "Am I being detained".
> Cop says "no"
> You walk away.
> Cop asks you to stop again.
> You ask "Am I being detained".
> Cop says "no"
> You walk away.
> Cop arrests you.
> In court you state that you objected to the search, that you saw no warrant, that you asked twice if you were being detained and the cop said no.
> 
> Wearing a jacket on a hot day, is suspicious. Especially if it's a scortcher, and it's a heavy jacket.
> 
> Just be glad you hadn't paid for those CD's with $2 bills.  That's serious business you know.
> 
> Man arrested, cuffed after using $2 bills
> 
> Then there was this case which we discussed back in 2007 here.
> 
> His case was settled with charges dropped. http://www.michaelrighi.com/2007/09/20/success/



Okay, now ... see ... this is a line that fascinates me.  If he were suspected of shoplifting (he had to know he was) and he were innocent, why refuse to show the receipt at least?  And is the ID request a spot-check thing?  Personally, if I were a law enforcement officer I'd want to see the ID of anyone I spoke to in an official manner about anything.


----------



## Drac

shesulsa said:


> Okay, now ... see ... this is a line that fascinates me. If he were suspected of shoplifting (he had to know he was) and he were innocent, why refuse to show the receipt at least?


 
Cause they are stupid???





shesulsa said:


> And is the ID request a spot-check thing? Personally, if I were a law enforcement officer I'd want to see the ID of anyone I spoke to in an official manner about anything.


 
I do...


----------



## shesulsa

I'll have to go back and look at the discussion on that - it might have been an preservation of rights issue. Sounds like it.


----------



## Drac

shesulsa said:


> I'll have to go back and look at the discussion on that - it might have been an preservation of rights issue. Sounds like it.


 
Having grown up in a more respectful era if a cop would stop and ask for my ID I would give it to him and answer whatever questions put to me...


----------



## Bob Hubbard

What a cop -wants- is not always what he is -legally- entitled to.
Even if he thinks he is.

Last I checked, I don't live in a nation that requires me to have my papers to move about.
I need a licence to operate a government registered vehicle on a public road. Cop has the right to ask me for it, and if I do not comply to detain me.
He doesn't have that same right if it's noon and I'm walking to the post office. Assk my nephew for his ID. He has none. He's 14. What is he supposed to provide?
Etc.

Theres more on the ID issue in that other thread.



> 7. When do I have to show ID?
> 
> This is a tricky issue. As a general principle, citizens who are minding their own business are not obligated to "show their papers" to police. In fact, there is no law requiring citizens to carry identification of any kind.
> 
> Nonetheless, carrying an ID is required when youre driving or flying. Driving without a license is a crime, and no one is allowed to board an airplane without first presenting an ID. These requirements have been upheld on the premise that individuals who prefer not to carry ID can choose not to drive or fly.
> 
> From here, ID laws only get more complicated. In Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, the Supreme Court upheld state laws requiring citizens to disclose their identity to police when officers have reasonable suspicion to believe criminal activity may be taking place. Commonly known as 'stop and identify' statutes, these laws permit police to arrest criminal suspects who refuse to identify themselves.
> 
> Currently the following states have stop and identify laws: AL, AR, CO, DE, FL, GA, IL, KS, LA, MO, MT, NE, NH, NM, NV, NY, ND, RI, UT, VT, WI
> 
> Regardless of your state's law, keep in mind that police can never compel you to identify yourself without reasonable suspicion to believe you're involved in criminal activity. Rather than asking the officer if he/she has reasonable suspicion, test it yourself by asking if you're free to go.
> 
> If the officer says youre free to go, leave immediately and refrain from answering any additional questions.
> 
> If the officer detains you, you'll have to decide whether withholding your identity is worth the possibility of arrest or a prolonged detention. In cases of mistaken identity, revealing who you are might help to resolve the situation quickly. On the other hand, if you're on parole in California, for example, revealing your identity could lead to a legal search. Knowing your state's laws can help you make the best choice.
> 
> Keep in mind that the officer's decision to detain you will not always hold up in court. Reasonable suspicion' is a vague evidentiary standard, which lends itself to mistakes on the officer's part. If you're searched or arrested following an officer's ID request, always contact an attorney to discuss the incident and explore your legal options.


http://www.flexyourrights.org/frequently_asked_questions#02

I see I was somewhat wrong.  I do live in a State that requires me to have my papers after all. How interesting.....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_and_Identify_statutes



> For example, *New York's stop-and-identify law[16] apparently allows a police officer to demand that a suspect identify himself but does not require the suspect to do so, and its obstructing law[17] apparently requires physical rather than simply verbal obstruction.[18]* Laws in different states that appear to be nearly identical may be different in effect because of interpretations by state courts. For example, Californias stop-and-identify law, Penal Code §647(e) has wording[19] similar to the Nevada law upheld in Hiibel, but a California appellate court, in People v. Solomon (1973) , 33 Cal.App.3d 429 construed the law to require credible and reliable identification that carries a reasonable assurance of its authenticity. Using this construction, the U.S. Supreme Court held the law to be void for vagueness in Kolender v. Lawson, 461 U.S. 352 (1983).[20]



N. Y. Crim. Proc. Law (CPL) §140.50(1)


> §  140.50  Temporary questioning of persons in public places; search for
> weapons.
> 1. In addition to the authority provided by this article for making an
> arrest without a warrant, *a police officer may stop a person in a public
> place located within the geographical area of such officer's  employment
> when  he  reasonably  suspects  that  such  person  is  committing,  has
> committed or is about to commit either (a) a felony or (b) a misdemeanor
> defined in the penal law, and may demand of him his name, address and an
> explanation of his conduct.*


 But I don't need to show my papers.  I am only required to provide my "name, address and an explanation of his conduct.".  So name, address and "going to the post office and taking a walk" should suffice.

Unless I'm wearing a skimask, carrying a prybar, and wearing a "born to steal" tee shirt.....


----------



## Bob Hubbard

Something to keep in mind.
NY law is not Ohio Law, and Cleveland OH law may have some significant differences from Brooklyn OH law, even though they are right next door.  Actually, I know they have differences as that string of porn shops across the street from the churches on the way to the airport will show. LOL!  (I miss Parma)  (Different zoning regs I believe, btw)

My point is, a cop familiar with his areas laws may be both right and wrong.  Right where he is, wrong where I am. More problems arise when we mix different jurisdictions laws in discussions like this. So, it's important we keep our perspectives when discussing these things I think.

Getting the input from officers from varying jurisdictions on these discussions is a great way to better understand the whole issue, be it ID requirements, or case particulars.


----------



## Bob Hubbard

More from Wiki


# The Fifth Amendment prohibits only communication that is testimonial, incriminating, and compelled; see United States v. Hubbell, 530 U.S. 27 (2000), at 34&#8211;38. Hiibel held that a person's name is not incriminating, and consequently is not protected by the Fifth-Amendment privilege against self-incrimination.


# Texas Penal Code, Title 8, §38.02(a), reads
    &#8220;A person commits an offense if he intentionally refuses to give his name, residence address, or date of birth to a peace officer who has lawfully arrested the person and requested the information.&#8221;

Based on these and similar, if a cop stops you and asks who are you, where are you going, and why, it's usually a good idea to answer, and if requested, provide your ID.  As always, cooperation and politeness usually results in less problems than arguing.


----------



## jks9199

Cryozombie said:


> Hmm... this is an interesting idea, and a good topic for discussion...  Under what circumstances would a reasonable person feel justified in defying the police?  To the LEO here, under what circumstances would you feel a person would be justified in denying your requests and or walking away from you without you deciding they were being problematic or difficult and escalating the situation?


For me, that's easy.  If I don't have grounds to detain, it's reasonable for you to refuse.  If I don't have PC and an exception to the warrant requirement, it's reasonable for you to refuse to consent to a search.  In other words -- if I'm giving you a choice, it's reasonable for you to say no.

I'll admit; I use careful phrasing and other tactics to hopefully get the result I want, just like a salesman does.  "Do you have ID?" is really a yes or no question -- but typically results in someone handing me an ID card.

It can be frustrating; I know of several incidents where the person almost certainly had something on them -- but the facts and circumstances I had didn't rise to reasonable suspicion, so when they said no -- I had to respect that.  And saying no doesn't count as "proof" that you're hiding something.  I know several people who say no on principle; one of them hasn't flown, gone into museums or libraries, or quite a few other things because he refuses to consent to being searched.

One more thing... If you can't tell, I make it a point to know the laws and decisions.  I use them.  I'm not stopping or detaining you if I walk alongside and talk to you.  It's not generally a detention if I haven't blocked your travel or changed your path.  "Can I talk to you?"  "Do you mind if..."  "May I?"  are all very different then "Stop!", "I need to talk to you?" "I'm going to..."  I'll openly admit that I take advantage of the way many people are likely to comply with requests from authority, too.  Or that a criminal may feel that refusing will make them look guilty.


----------



## jks9199

Bob Hubbard said:


> Something to keep in mind.
> NY law is not Ohio Law, and Cleveland OH law may have some significant differences from Brooklyn OH law, even though they are right next door.  Actually, I know they have differences as that string of porn shops across the street from the churches on the way to the airport will show. LOL!  (I miss Parma)  (Different zoning regs I believe, btw)
> 
> My point is, a cop familiar with his areas laws may be both right and wrong.  Right where he is, wrong where I am. More problems arise when we mix different jurisdictions laws in discussions like this. So, it's important we keep our perspectives when discussing these things I think.
> 
> Getting the input from officers from varying jurisdictions on these discussions is a great way to better understand the whole issue, be it ID requirements, or case particulars.


Great point.  If you pay attention, I often differentiate in my posts on topics like this between general principles (Terry stops & frisks) and specific instances (Virginia's law about giving false identity to a LEO) for just that reason.  The big things kind of stay the same.  The NY law you posted where you're required to identify yourself and explain your conduct in many ways is just a codification of a Terry stop...  But specifics can be very different; you aren't required to have any ID on you, unless you're driving or riding a moped, generally, in Virginia.


----------



## Archangel M

In NY there is the case of People vs. DeBour that you should be aware of. It was a landmark case that describes the legal levels of police contact and what they can and cannot do:

Level One permits a police officer to request information from an individual and merely requires that the request be supported by an objective, credible reason, not necessarily indicative of criminality. This could be just walking in a certain area of town at a strange time. The officer has the right to drive up and talk to you. This is not a stop since you dont have to answer. Cops have the same right to talk to some stranger as anybody else. They just have to be able to state why.  

Level Two, the common-law right of inquiry, permits a somewhat greater intrusion and requires a founded suspicion that criminal activity is afoot. Here they can say, "hey you come here for me please..." and ask you for ID..you dont have to give it but they can ask.. this is typically stopping and talking to anybody walking around in an area where a suspect may have fled to. If you dont have a description you can talk to people in the general area and "ask" for ID.

Level Three authorizes an officer to forcibly stop and detain an individual, and requires a reasonable suspicion that the particular individual was involved in a felony or misdemeanor. Here you are not going anywhere till I figure out what is going on and if you are involved.  If you are in the area of a fleeing suspect and you match the description, and you say you came from the same location as the BG I can hold you till I figure out if you are my guy.

Level Four, arrest, requires probable cause to believe that the person to be arrested has committed a crime. Here you will be taking a ride with me in the fancy car.

The things to remember is that you dont know at the time if the officer has a "reasonable or credible" reason to stop you. So you better ask before you decide to walk or run away. And furthermore, most police contacts start and one level and move up or down depending on what happens. If the cop is at level one and you lie to him that you came from a place that he knows you didnt you may have just moved up to level 2 or 3.


----------



## jks9199

Another way to articulate the levels of police encounters would be:

*Consensual Encounter*: either party can terminate the encounter at any time.  This is the simple "can I talk?" or just walking up and chatting.  It can go on as long and be as thorough as you permit.  In theory (ONLY!), a police officer could consensually conduct a strip search and cavity search, if you let them.  (Not that ANY US police department's general orders would actually permit this!) (Level 1, above)

*Terry Stop/detention*: a brief detention based on reasonable articulable suspicion of criminal activity.  The detention can only go on as long as necessary to either confirm or dispel the suspicion, and the actions taken should be tied to that goal, as well.  Frisks for weapons are permitted, if supported by the facts.  (Level 2 and 3)

*Arrest*: Based on probable cause (which may be dispelled by the end of the encounter), an officer deprives the person of their freedom of movement, using whatever force may be reasonably necessary to do so.  A full search may be conducted incident to arrest, without a warrant.  (Level 3 and 4)


----------



## Drac

Now I do not want to honk anyone off.. But *WHY *is such a big flippin problem to show your ID if an officer asks for it???? If you have nothing to hide you have nothing to worry about...Officers remember those that comply with a simple request as we meet so few..My being polite saved my butt many times before I became a cop....


----------



## Brian R. VanCise

Drac said:


> Now I do not want to honk anyone off.. But *WHY *is such a big flippin problem to show your ID if an officer asks for it???? If you have nothing to hide you have nothing to worry about...Officers remember those that comply with a simple request as we meet so few..My being polite saved my butt many times before I became a cop....



*Absolutely Drac*.  I cannot count the times where being polite has paid off.  Even more important than that though is that by being polite in turn people have in general treated me very well and I in turn have made some great friendships because of it!


----------



## Empty Hands

Drac said:


> Now I do not want to honk anyone off.. But *WHY *is such a big flippin problem to show your ID if an officer asks for it????



In itself, divorced from all context, there is no problem at all.  However, the necessity of internal papers and the requirement to produce them on demand of the authorities is a hallmark of authoritarian societies that in the past the US has prided itself on being different from.  In the comparisons with say the Communist USSR, we would point to the necessity of papers as a hallmark of an unfree nation, unlike ourselves.  Thus, the modern necessity of producing one's papers reminds some of us uncomfortably of these historical comparisons.  Like it or not, we are not required by law to have official papers simply to move about in society (yet).

Sometimes, I also have to wonder what producing ID is supposed to accomplish.  In some places, like the airport, it makes sense.  Your picture confirms your identity, which can be matched against your ticket.  Or in your car, your ID can prove that the car is yours and that you are certified to drive.  To get into a venue though or when walking around on the sidewalk, what is it supposed to accomplish?  You have an identity, please enter?  No official ID holders try to smuggle weapons into a stadium or commit crimes?  It's bizarre.  Even in the case of the police, if they want your name in case you cause trouble later, I would presume that arresting you later when you commit the crime would be sufficient.  Are names from incident reports collected into databases?  Can the police or others determine that you have been stopped for ID by the police without being arrested?

In more pessimistic moments, I think the constant demands of ID are simply to condition us to the demands of authority and our developing security state.  I rather hope that is wrong.


----------



## Archangel M

Many wanted people have been caught on "routine" stops when their names were ran through NCIC. Most people who ID themselves as "Joe Blow" saying they have no ID on them are then arrested and found to indeed have their drivers licenses on them. You dont "have to" carry ID but most of us do.


----------



## Drac

Empty Hands said:


> In itself, divorced from all context, there is no problem at all.


 
That's all I wanted to know....


----------



## Drac

Archangel M said:


> Many wanted people have been caught on "routine" stops when their names were ran through NCIC. Most people who ID themselves as "Joe Blow" saying they have no ID on them are then arrested and found to indeed have their drivers licenses on them. You dont "have to" carry ID but most of us do.


 

If they wind up in court the officer testifys that the subject LIED about his identity..It never ends good...


----------



## Archangel M

In theory people dont show their ID because they are "protecting their freedoms". In practice though most refuse because they are wanted. The trick is finding out while staying within the limits of the law.


----------



## jks9199

Archangel M said:


> Many wanted people have been caught on "routine" stops when their names were ran through NCIC. Most people who ID themselves as "Joe Blow" saying they have no ID on them are then arrested and found to indeed have their drivers licenses on them. You dont "have to" carry ID but most of us do.


I made a t-stop on a guy one time who tried to convince me that he left his wallet home when he came into my area for work... for a couple of weeks.  Uh, right.

Ran the name he gave me.  OOPS... Not licensed.  As I ask him to step out of the car to discuss the issue... I see a wallet at his feet.  We call that a clue...

_Somebody_ went to jail that day for driving after having been adjudicated a habitual offender (felony), among other charges...

Moral of the story:  If you're gonna lie about your name, make sure the name you use has a license!


----------



## Archangel M

LOL! Ive had guys give me false names that came back to wanted persons. They quickly figure out that what they are wanted for (plus the false impersonation they just bought) is better than going down as the person they were pretending to be.

Sometimes the "game" can be fun though. When you know they are lying to you and you start getting them all tripped up on their story.


----------



## Sukerkin

I have to confess that I am of mixed feelings on this aspect of police-work.

On the one hand, I can see that it is easy for police to use a refusal to provide ID as an 'acid test' of possible malfeasance. On the other, I do find it to be an insidious creeping towards "papieren bitte!".

For myself, if  a copper asks me my name and address, I'm going to tell him.  It makes his job and my life easier.  But I can see why some people would take umbridge at 'groundless' (as they see it) intrusion and harassment.


----------



## jks9199

Empty Hands said:


> In itself, divorced from all context, there is no problem at all.  However, the necessity of internal papers and the requirement to produce them on demand of the authorities is a hallmark of authoritarian societies that in the past the US has prided itself on being different from.  In the comparisons with say the Communist USSR, we would point to the necessity of papers as a hallmark of an unfree nation, unlike ourselves.  Thus, the modern necessity of producing one's papers reminds some of us uncomfortably of these historical comparisons.  Like it or not, we are not required by law to have official papers simply to move about in society (yet).
> 
> Sometimes, I also have to wonder what producing ID is supposed to accomplish.  In some places, like the airport, it makes sense.  Your picture confirms your identity, which can be matched against your ticket.  Or in your car, your ID can prove that the car is yours and that you are certified to drive.  To get into a venue though or when walking around on the sidewalk, what is it supposed to accomplish?  You have an identity, please enter?  No official ID holders try to smuggle weapons into a stadium or commit crimes?  It's bizarre.  Even in the case of the police, if they want your name in case you cause trouble later, I would presume that arresting you later when you commit the crime would be sufficient.  Are names from incident reports collected into databases?  Can the police or others determine that you have been stopped for ID by the police without being arrested?
> 
> In more pessimistic moments, I think the constant demands of ID are simply to condition us to the demands of authority and our developing security state.  I rather hope that is wrong.


Let me address this...

Part of what it shows me when you present an ID is that it gives me an idea about how cooperative you're going to be.  It supports who you claim to be, and gives me some idea whether or not you're probably legit to be where I've come across you.

Yeah, I'll probably run your name, just to make sure you're not wanted.  And, in some cases, I'm required to document who I made contact with.  It's a lot easier to copy that off your ID than to ask you "how do spell that?" several times.  And where I work -- in a single day, I can get Pakistani, Korean, Vietnamese, Spanish, English, Eastern European, and more names.  Not to mention some of the "special" spellings of ordinary names -- or just "ordinary" spellings.  Just how do you spell "Jennifer?"  One N, or two, with a G, or a PH... and so on.  Helps if it's already spelled for me on an ID...

Let me try to give a couple of examples to pull a couple of things together...  A few years back, I'm on patrol in the early afternoon when I notice a guy walking up a street that's a little off the beaten path.  He's dressed in black, carrying a bag, and has some sort of long object sticking out of a backpack.  He's looking awful hard at the house he's passing by...  Note that NONE of this is illegal by itself.  But it's more than passing strange... so I went and made myself a "new friend."  Guy claimed to live in the area.  H'mmm... most times when I notice a resident acting unusual, I get a thank you -- because they get that I probably would have noticed and stopped the guy breaking into their house, just like I noticed them.  But this guy is pissed.  He's not being cooperative, says he lives around the corner.  H'mm...  No law broken.  Had to let him go on his way... but I do know that no house got broken into in my area that afternoon.  Can't prove there's a connection...  Had he given me an ID, I'd have known where he lived.  Could it have supported his story?  Sure.  Or it might have clinched my suspicions.

Another time... we're responding to an alarm.  Two cops go into the office building, and I stay in the area because there have been a lot of business burglaries of late. While I'm there, I see a guy walk out from the back area of the building.  Not sure he came out of the building, and people do walk through there... Still, I make contact with the guy.  He starts to give a story about being inside.  Meanwhile, I'm getting a radio message that there was a burglary inside.  I ask the guy for ID -- and he's from out of state.  H'mm...  One thing led to another, and we ended up arresting him.  He was good for more than 100 business burglaries in the region.  And a string of residential burglaries magically stopped that day, too...

Am I starting to give you a little insight into how at least one cop's mind works, when he's talking to someone on the side of the street?


----------



## Archangel M

We here in the US probably have the most restrictions on "requesting papers" from citizens than almost any other country in the world.


----------



## Archangel M

Good point JKS..when people hear cops say that not showing ID makes cops suspcious they seem to go off on the assumption that we then trample their rights, when in fact it is usually like in your example. Yeah that guy in the neighborhood would have sparked my suspicions too and his refusal to show ID even more so. Id be as suspcious as hell as he walked off when I had nothing on him. Theres a difference between being suspicious and being able to do anything about it. ANY GOOD COP would be "suspicious" in those situations.

PS-Did you ask to look in his bag?


----------



## jks9199

Archangel M said:


> Good point JKS..when people hear cops say that not showing ID makes cops suspcious they seem to go off on the assumption that we then trample their rights, when in fact it is usually like in your example. Yeah that guy in the neighborhood would have sparked my suspicions too and his refusal to show ID even more so. Id be as suspcious as hell as he walked off when I had nothing on him. Theres a difference between being suspicious and being able to do anything about it. ANY GOOD COP would be "suspicious" in those situations.
> 
> PS-Did you ask to look in his bag?


Of course I wanted to... and no, he wouldn't let me.  Again, not enough to detain him or hold the bag...  Sucked, too... because I *know* he had something in that damn tube.  And I doubt it was a poster...

Just recalled another example that might be illuminating...

I stopped a car one night.  "Legalize drugs", "Stop the drug war", etc. bumper stickers.  Driver was early 20s.  Tags from Colorado or California, as I recall.  Stopped him for minor traffic stupidity...  For some reason, I felt that searching his car just might be worthwile.  I issued him the ticket or warning, whatever I was gonna do, and asked if he'd stay for a minute.  He voluntarily stayed...  and he claimed he didn't have anything in the car.  Don't know for sure, because he wouldn't consent to the search.  He "just believed" in legalization...  And, after chatting for a couple minutes -- he got sent on his way.


----------



## Bob Hubbard

Drac said:


> Now I do not want to honk anyone off.. But *WHY *is such a big flippin problem to show your ID if an officer asks for it???? If you have nothing to hide you have nothing to worry about...Officers remember those that comply with a simple request as we meet so few..My being polite saved my butt many times before I became a cop....


In despotic nations, failure to have proper papers ended badly for people. The US is supposed to be "Land of the Free".  Free means I don't need "Papers".

If you stop me as I'm walking out of a store, or walking down the street, or sitting on my porch, honestly, what -legal right- do you have to demand my papers?  
Note, I said papers.  Not ask me my name, address and whatnot.

What if I either don't have any 'papers', or don't have them with me? I don't carry my wallet when I'm cutting the grass or shoveling my driveway. Should I, just incase a curious cop needs to see them? 

The law says what it says to protect our freedoms.  Failure to require law enforcement and government to comply with the law, results in abuse, and eventually, new laws legalizing those abuses.

Now, if I were approached, I would weigh out the risks of complying with the resultant theft of 3-5 hours of my time, and risk of legal expense, and probably show my ID, if I had it.

But if I don't..... what do you do?

Mind you, all of the above is based on my innocence, not protecting guilt. It also assumes I'm not in a position (ie driving a car) where I must have those 'papers'.

If I was on my porch, said my ID was inside, do you allow me to go in and get it, or is that not ok?  Does me saying it's inside now suddenly authorize you to enter the house?  (I'd like to know...I might dust more often then. LOL)

Now, another question.
I have photo ID.  I give you my name, and address.  Can't you pull it up on that car-pc?


----------



## Archangel M

No one saying you "have to" Bob. Its not illegal for me to ask either. The issue for most cops is that most people do indeed have "papers" on them. "Most" people refuse to show it either because they want to be *******s or because they are wanted. A simple "do I have to?" if you just dont want to will get a "no" from me if I dont have a legal reason to demmand it.

If you have a license, ever had a ticket or ever been arrested I can confirm your ID with your name and DOB. Unless you are really good at remembering someone elses personal info.

In this job its always good to know who you are dealing with. If I can get an ID without a problem Ill take it.


----------



## jks9199

Bob Hubbard said:


> In despotic nations, failure to have proper papers ended badly for people. The US is supposed to be "Land of the Free".  Free means I don't need "Papers".
> 
> If you stop me as I'm walking out of a store, or walking down the street, or sitting on my porch, honestly, what -legal right- do you have to demand my papers?
> Note, I said papers.  Not ask me my name, address and whatnot.



Depends in a significant part on state law.  In general, if there's no reasonable suspicion of criminal act -- None.  At least for now...


> What if I either don't have any 'papers', or don't have them with me? I don't carry my wallet when I'm cutting the grass or shoveling my driveway. Should I, just incase a curious cop needs to see them?
> 
> The law says what it says to protect our freedoms.  Failure to require law enforcement and government to comply with the law, results in abuse, and eventually, new laws legalizing those abuses.
> 
> Now, if I were approached, I would weigh out the risks of complying with the resultant theft of 3-5 hours of my time, and risk of legal expense, and probably show my ID, if I had it.
> 
> But if I don't..... what do you do?
> 
> Mind you, all of the above is based on my innocence, not protecting guilt. It also assumes I'm not in a position (ie driving a car) where I must have those 'papers'.
> 
> If I was on my porch, said my ID was inside, do you allow me to go in and get it, or is that not ok?  Does me saying it's inside now suddenly authorize you to enter the house?  (I'd like to know...I might dust more often then. LOL)


Depends on the circumstances, but generally, no that doesn't let me enter your house without a warrant or your permission.  In fact, I'm not going to let you go into that house if I'm dealing with you; I don't know what you've got in the house.  

(There is a narrow exception that allows a protective sweep of a nearby house to ensure that police aren't attacked from the house.  It's narrow -- but it does exist.)


> Now, another question.
> I have photo ID.  I give you my name, and address.  Can't you pull it up on that car-pc?



Not like you see in TV, where the cops get pictures and all sorts of current info on the person.  Not all states have put the photographs in the computers in a way that cops can get them, and not every cop has a computer that's capable of doing any of that, anyway!  We can run your information, and get whatever physical description DMV has -- which can be worse than useless.  Virginia, for example, doesn't report race as part of the DMV description; it's not like race is some sort of physical descriptor that might  help identify someone or anything...


----------



## Drac

Bob Hubbard said:


> In despotic nations, failure to have proper papers ended badly for people. The US is supposed to be "Land of the Free". Free means I don't need "Papers".
> 
> If you stop me as I'm walking out of a store, or walking down the street, or sitting on my porch, honestly, what -legal right- do you have to demand my papers?
> Note, I said papers. Not ask me my name, address and whatnot.
> 
> What if I either don't have any 'papers', or don't have them with me? I don't carry my wallet when I'm cutting the grass or shoveling my driveway. Should I, just incase a curious cop needs to see them?
> 
> The law says what it says to protect our freedoms. Failure to require law enforcement and government to comply with the law, results in abuse, and eventually, new laws legalizing those abuses.
> 
> Now, if I were approached, I would weigh out the risks of complying with the resultant theft of 3-5 hours of my time, and risk of legal expense, and probably show my ID, if I had it.
> 
> But if I don't..... what do you do?
> 
> Mind you, all of the above is based on my innocence, not protecting guilt. It also assumes I'm not in a position (ie driving a car) where I must have those 'papers'.
> 
> If I was on my porch, said my ID was inside, do you allow me to go in and get it, or is that not ok? Does me saying it's inside now suddenly authorize you to enter the house? (I'd like to know...I might dust more often then. LOL)


 
I give up....



Bob Hubbard said:


> Now, another question.
> I have photo ID. I give you my name, and address. Can't you pull it up on that car-pc?


 
Depends on the program...One dept I work for has that capability, the other doesn't....


----------



## Bob Hubbard

Archangel M said:


> No one saying you "have to" Bob. It not illegal for me to ask either. The issue for most cops is that most people do indeed have "papers" on them. "Most" people refuse to show it either because they want to be *******s or because they are wanted. A simple "do I have to?" if you just dont want to will get a "no" from me if I dont have a legal reason to demmand it.
> 
> If you have a license, ever had a ticket or ever been arrested I can confirm your ID with your name and DOB.
> 
> In this job its always good to know who you are dealing with. If I can get an ID without a problem Ill take it.



I'll ask next time it happens.  At my current rate, that'll be oh, 2016? 

Here's my problem.
You are looking, for whatever reason.  
You ask me for ID, in order to eliminate me from suspicion.
But I'm innocent until proven guilty.
In this case, I'm suspicious until I'm not.
Kinda bugs me.Make sense where I'm coming from here?  Not trying to drive people nuts, or cause poor Drac to jump on a stake.



jks9199 said:


> Depends in a significant part on state law.  In general, if there's no reasonable suspicion of criminal act -- None.  At least for now...



But is my not having those now suddenly "suspicious" and "probable"?



> Depends on the circumstances, but generally, no that doesn't let me enter your house without a warrant or your permission.  In fact, I'm not going to let you go into that house if I'm dealing with you; I don't know what you've got in the house.



You mean it's not on my secret government file about how I scared the crap outta 2 FBI agents with my collection of wall hangers, and 3 fierce attack cats, who shed on them and gave the one the sniffles? 

Seriously though, it's a good idea, but if I don't have my papers, and you need those papers, my options now seem limited to suspicious and more suspicious, neither of which will allow for a quick resolution to our problem. 

Baring me giving my name, address, etc, what else can I offer, besides a state or federal issued ID?  I always have my business cards, you could google me and find my face on 7/10 of the first 10 sites.  

Or, is my only option a ride down town, a long boring wait while we wait for someone who can verify I am who I say I am to show up?



> Not like you see in TV, where the cops get pictures and all sorts of current info on the person.  Not all states have put the photographs in the computers in a way that cops can get them, and not every cop has a computer that's capable of doing any of that, anyway!  We can run your information, and get whatever physical description DMV has -- which can be worse than useless.  Virginia, for example, doesn't report race as part of the DMV description; it's not like race is some sort of physical descriptor that might  help identify someone or anything...



Well, that would be racist, don't you know, and only discrimination against whites is legal.
--_Regents of the University of California vs Bakke_
--_United Steelworkers of America v. Weber_
(These are in something I'm working on for later on)


----------



## Archangel M

Not child safe but f'in funny!

http://www.craigslist.org/about/best/nyc/845973660.html


----------



## Drac

Archangel M said:


> Not child safe but f'in funny!
> 
> http://www.craigslist.org/about/best/nyc/845973660.html


 

OMG...Too-flippin-funny...I had tears on that one...


----------



## Archangel M

NYPD man...I know a couple those guys, they can be some of the funniest guys you will ever meet.


----------



## Bob Hubbard

Let me ask another question.

I'm driving. I see flashing lights behind me.
Am I obligated to stop?

Before you answer, let me clarify the picture.

The car behind me is a oh, blue Ford Taurus. 
The headlights are alternately flashing.
Theres a blue & red flasher in the center of the grill.
The driver is wearing sunglasses, and that's all I can make out.
The car is not marked, and there are no other visible lights, no gumball machine on the top, etc..

Is that a cop car?

Because the hardware to convert a civilian taurus to do that is under $200.
(I just checked Ebay, it's $30 to make my headlights alternate flash)

Let me expand this to a more important direction.
How can I be sure, that the person I'm dealing with is in fact a legit law enforcement officer?   Obviously, 12 cars behind me all flashing with 30 uniforms in 1 place, kinda says "these are cops" but what about that lone officer in the unmarked car?

Can I ask that officer for -his- ID? And, if I do so, will that "red flag" me?

(Yes, I'm being annoying here and I apologize for that. But bear with me a bit eh?)

I want to mke my life, and your life as easy as possible. I want to minimize the unplesantness, do my best to aid you in your task, keep myself outta harm, avoid misunderstandings, and keep out of trouble. What I'm looking for here is how/how far/etc, without simply rolling over and submitting.


----------



## Bob Hubbard

Archangel M said:


> Not child safe but f'in funny!
> 
> http://www.craigslist.org/about/best/nyc/845973660.html


That was excellent!


----------



## Archangel M

To your above question, there is no absolute answer. An undercover officer here wont be conducting a car stop unless its really important and even then a marked car would be close behind. Most unmarked cars look like "police cars" when you look close..radar units, push-bars etc. 

I guess I would say. If you think it may be a cop...stop but request a uniform if you are suspicious. If you really dont think its a cop, eventually a marked car will show up if you keep on going.


----------



## Bob Hubbard

Buffalo and some of the surrounding locals use unmarked cars for traffic stops.  I've heard reference (haven't verified) to a story about some civilian using a unmarked car with the "cop lights" and a "Party City" uniform to pull over women, and assault them. Again, heard, not confirmed, though I think it was in Florida some years back.  I've bought enough surplus gear myself to know it's easy to get uniform bits and do a reasonable mock up. I know, impersonation is illegal, but criminals don't care.

Other than the "gear" cop cars have, any other suggestions to confirm legitimacy?  General appearence, amount of "beat up", etc?  

Also, if I were stopped and requested confirmation, how pissed off would that make someone? I am questioning his authority right?


----------



## jks9199

Bob Hubbard said:


> Let me ask another question.
> 
> I'm driving. I see flashing lights behind me.
> Am I obligated to stop?
> 
> Before you answer, let me clarify the picture.
> 
> The car behind me is a oh, blue Ford Taurus.
> The headlights are alternately flashing.
> Theres a blue & red flasher in the center of the grill.
> The driver is wearing sunglasses, and that's all I can make out.
> The car is not marked, and there are no other visible lights, no gumball machine on the top, etc..
> 
> Is that a cop car?
> 
> Because the hardware to convert a civilian taurus to do that is under $200.
> (I just checked Ebay, it's $30 to make my headlights alternate flash)
> 
> Let me expand this to a more important direction.
> How can I be sure, that the person I'm dealing with is in fact a legit law enforcement officer?   Obviously, 12 cars behind me all flashing with 30 uniforms in 1 place, kinda says "these are cops" but what about that lone officer in the unmarked car?
> 
> Can I ask that officer for -his- ID? And, if I do so, will that "red flag" me?
> 
> (Yes, I'm being annoying here and I apologize for that. But bear with me a bit eh?)
> 
> I want to mke my life, and your life as easy as possible. I want to minimize the unplesantness, do my best to aid you in your task, keep myself outta harm, avoid misunderstandings, and keep out of trouble. What I'm looking for here is how/how far/etc, without simply rolling over and submitting.


Tough question, because the answer is YES... but only if it's really a cop.  (Note: consult your state traffic code for the specifics on colors of flashing lights and what they mean.)

Police impersonators are a problem, because there are legitimate unmarked cars of various body styles used for traffic enforcement and to make stops.  And then there's things like tactical stops of a car in a takedown...  

What I advise people is that the traffic code requires that they yield to the approach of an emergency vehicle.  And it's the smart thing to do (after all; it could be that it's simply someone like a volly firefighter or a cop trying to get somewhere else!) -- but that doesn't mean you have to stop in a spot that you feel is particularly unsafe.  

Pull over as soon as you may reasonably do so.  At night, turn on your dome light.  If you have any questions about the identity of the officer, roll the window down enough to speak -- and that's it.  You can certainly ask for their ID.  Especially if they're in plainclothes, ask them to get a uniformed officer.  Ask to move to a better lit area or more populous area.  (Note... if you're in an area that's got so many lights and business that you don't need your headlights... you probably shouldn't ask to move somewhere else.  But if you're in the middle of nowhere, on some remote highway... yeah, you might want to.)  You can call 911 or the local emergency number if you've got a cell phone, too.  Realize that you may not get that officer's dispatch; if you call 911 where I work, you won't go directly to my dispatcher.  You'll go to the county call center that dispatches all the fire & rescue stuff.  They'll redirect your call.  But someone there should be able to determine that you are really out with a cop.

And -- since impersonators are actually fairly rare, the odds are that you'll be given reasonable proof that the person stopping you is really a cop.  At which point, continue to be polite and work with them.

In other words... Yes, you've got to stop.  But if you have any concerns, you have ways to confirm the identity, starting with asking for ID, and running through calling 911.  Not stopping and simply driving till you get a pursuit to convince you that they really are cops is NOT a good idea!  (Unless you want to be pulled out the vent window of your car over some stupid traffic offense...)

Whether asking for identification, etc. would piss a real cop off depends.  Cops are human; if you're too picky, it'll piss 'em off.  But if you stopped reasonably promptly, and you were reasonable about asking for proof and what you accept... you'll probably be fine.  They may call you an ******* under their breath, but most cops who regularly operate unmarked cars and especially those who do sometimes conduct traffic stops in plainclothes or non-uniformed capacities do know and understand the concerns.


----------



## Archangel M

Bob Hubbard said:


> I'll ask next time it happens. At my current rate, that'll be oh, 2016?
> 
> Here's my problem.
> You are looking, for whatever reason.
> You ask me for ID, in order to eliminate me from suspicion.
> But I'm innocent until proven guilty.
> In this case, I'm suspicious until I'm not.
> Kinda bugs me.Make sense where I'm coming from here? Not trying to drive people nuts, or cause poor Drac to jump on a stake.


 

Being "suspicious" and being arrested are two vastly different things. Being arrested and being "found guilty" are two different things. I dont need proof of guilt on the street just probable cause.

If you ID yourself I can move on to finding the real BG and people giving me grief while Im just trying to do my job "bugs me". So show your ID or not.In the end, (unless there is something else going on) all you are doing is wasting our collective time if you are simply refusing to ID "on principles". 

In the end you go on your merry way if I have nothing else "on you".


----------



## Bob Hubbard

I don't think I'd fit through that vent window.


----------



## Archangel M

Archangel M said:


> To your above question, there is no absolute answer. An undercover officer here wont be conducting a car stop unless its really important and even then a marked car would be close behind. Most unmarked cars look like "police cars" when you look close..radar units, push-bars etc.
> 
> I guess I would say. If you think it may be a cop...stop but request a uniform if you are suspicious. If you really dont think its a cop, eventually a marked car will show up if you keep on going.


 
Let me add that I was being sarcastic on that last part lest someone take that as advice to get into a vehicle pursuit.

We had a guy in a beat up crown vic with spotlights and wig wags pulling people over. He wore a security guard uniform (was actually a guard somewhere) fortunately he thought he was"doing a good deed" by stopping people he thought were in violation of the traffic law and nothing more serious. Needless to say he was shown his error in thinking.

People should also familiarize themselves with their local LE vehicles and uniforms. That guy looked nothing like any local cop but people are blissfully unaware of finer details that they probably should be aware of.


----------



## Carol

When I first started my night job and had discussions about safety with some other folks here....a few folks told me to not pull over if an unmarked was trying to pull me over, and to first call 911 to confirm that what was behind me was the real deal. 

I soon found out that.....when you have a full rack of beacons in your rear view...and its dark....you can't tell whether what is behind you is marked or unmarked.   I've also learned that...the stretch of road that I've traveled is patrolled heavily by the real LEOs looking for drunks that have been in the taverns till closing time.

That being said, we do have some atypical unmarkeds here and in northern MA (SUV's, etc)

Archangel/JKS...what do you guys think about verifying with 911 if you have your suspicions about whose beacons are behind you?


----------



## Archangel M

If you dont pull over when the lights go on and decide to drive on for 3-5 more minutes while you verify with 911 you are not going to enjoy the results.


----------



## Cryozombie

Archangel M said:


> Not child safe but f'in funny!
> 
> http://www.craigslist.org/about/best/nyc/845973660.html


 

Haha, that was great!  Wait... Here's the message I got:

"So you were the victim of a crime.  Shut the **** up and deal with it."

Way to empathize.  No wonder people think cops are douchebags.  Prime example RIGHT there.

Everything in that post was the Cop bashing the _victim_. EVERYTHING.


----------



## Archangel M

Lighten Up Francis! 

Like tech-service people dont talk the same way about the stupid questions they have to deal with, or cashiers dont ***** about the way customers act.

Take a pill.


----------



## Cryozombie

Archangel M said:


> Lighten Up Francis!


 
No, see... if it were a joke, in the comedy cafe, say, it would have been amusing.  But it was posted as an example in a thread about police behavior.  So I am holding it up as an example of, well, police behavior.


----------



## Archangel M

For your reading pleasure



> You should remember that the wild police officers are very unpredictable when in a normal state. Like any wild animal, the danger is doubled when you startle them.
> 
> If you mistakenly cross the path of police officers in the wild, you should immediately fall to the ground, cover your face and head, and curl into ball. You have to show the police officers you are not a threat. If you fail to follow this advice, the outcome could be tragic:





> We all know how dangerous roving bands of rabid policeman can be. By reading this series you can greatly reduce the chances of being killed or seriously injured if you happen, or mishappen as the case may be, upon these dangerous, mindless creatures.
> 
> Apparently rabid police officers are overcome by a murderous rage if you happen to frolic in traffic. While we&#8217;re not sure how this uncontrollable anger has developed from an evolutionary standpoint, we are certain that playing in traffic is a surefire way to draw the ire of any roaming police officers in the area.


----------



## jks9199

Carol Kaur said:


> When I first started my night job and had discussions about safety with some other folks here....a few folks told me to not pull over if an unmarked was trying to pull me over, and to first call 911 to confirm that what was behind me was the real deal.
> 
> I soon found out that.....when you have a full rack of beacons in your rear view...and its dark....you can't tell whether what is behind you is marked or unmarked.   I've also learned that...the stretch of road that I've traveled is patrolled heavily by the real LEOs looking for drunks that have been in the taverns till closing time.
> 
> That being said, we do have some atypical unmarkeds here and in northern MA (SUV's, etc)
> 
> Archangel/JKS...what do you guys think about verifying with 911 if you have your suspicions about whose beacons are behind you?



Bare minimum:  Slow down, put your flashers on, and by your driving make it clear that you see the lights and are responding.  Pull over quickly; I'm NOT suggesting driving for more than a block or two as a general rule.  Preferably, pull over right away.  Again -- the cruiser may simply be trying to get by, not stop you.

If you're concerned, roll the window down enough to hear and pass your ID through, and keep the doors locked.  Keep your hands where they can be seen, but ask the officer for his ID or even to get another officer on the scene.  (I know of one case where a genius impersonator did call for backup...  He got arrested.)  If you call 911 -- read my earlier comment.  



Archangel M said:


> People should also familiarize themselves with their local LE vehicles and uniforms. That guy looked nothing like any local cop but people are blissfully unaware of finer details that they probably should be aware of.



Great point.  In my area, we have county cops,  town cops, and city cops along with state troopers and sheriff's deputies.  All use at least some unmarked vehicles, and most have "cruisers" that aren't Crown Vics in their fleet.  There are different uniforms for most of the forces, though several of the towns do use similar navy blue.  I get so fed up with people complaining about "what that cop did", but they don't even have a clue what agency the cop worked for... and they're in the wrong place.

As Archangel said, knowing the common light schemes and uniforms can help you recognize real cops from the small number of impersonators out there.  As Carol said, at night you probably won't see the markings -- but you'll be able to tell if they're red lights, blue lights, or some combination.  If you have an idea what's "normal", you'll have an idea if something is wrong.

One more thought... if they stay behind you for more than a minute or two, I'd say the odds are good that they're real.  I've never heard of an impersonator staying with someone who didn't stop pretty quick...  I'm not saying it doesn' t happen -- but I think it's a good indicator.  Sirens seem like another good indicator; very few impersonators seem to get a siren kit.  It's a lot harder to add to a car than a visor light...


----------



## shesulsa

Archangel M said:


> If you dont pull over when the lights go on and decide to drive on for 3-5 more minutes while you verify with 911 you are not going to enjoy the results.



Really?  So ... no matter what happens, you should just pull over and spread your *** for anybody with flashy lights without question, eh? Even when you're in the middle of nowhere? In the middle of the night?  Driving, say, your mother's vehicle 1,000 miles north from her sold residence to your warm, comfy home where she is staying while you transport the vehicle personally?  

Is calling 911 to verify identity of a bona fide officer not EXACTLY WHAT POLICE DEPARTMENTS TELL YOU TO DO??? Um ... yes.



Archangel M said:


> Lighten Up Francis!
> 
> Like tech-service people dont talk the same way about the stupid questions they have to deal with, or cashiers dont ***** about the way customers act.
> 
> Take a pill.



So ... let's assume you're an LEO.  Tell me how this is going to encourage the general populous who have become disenchanted with law enforcement to regain respect and cooperation with The Law?  What you did here is like minority gangs robbing, killing, selling drugs because they want to get back at THE MAN for keeping them down by calling them criminals.  One simply has to conclude that some LEOs don't give a flying **** about what the public thinks and are in law enforcement for the wrong reasons.  That's my opinion and I'm stickin' to it.



jks9199 said:


> Bare minimum:  Slow down, put your flashers on, and by your driving make it clear that you see the lights and are responding.  Pull over quickly; I'm NOT suggesting driving for more than a block or two as a general rule.  Preferably, pull over right away.  Again -- the cruiser may simply be trying to get by, not stop you.
> 
> If you're concerned, roll the window down enough to hear and pass your ID through, and keep the doors locked.  Keep your hands where they can be seen, but ask the officer for his ID or even to get another officer on the scene.  (I know of one case where a genius impersonator did call for backup...  He got arrested.)  If you call 911 -- read my earlier comment.



Now THIS is some sound advice - exactly what I have given to driving-age persons in self-defense classes I've taught.  And I stand by it 100%.  And it's even more encouraging to read such a calm, concerned response from an LEO.  Thank you.



> Great point.  In my area, we have county cops,  town cops, and city cops along with state troopers and sheriff's deputies.  All use at least some unmarked vehicles, and most have "cruisers" that aren't Crown Vics in their fleet.  There are different uniforms for most of the forces, though several of the towns do use similar navy blue.  I get so fed up with people complaining about "what that cop did", but they don't even have a clue what agency the cop worked for... and they're in the wrong place.
> 
> As Archangel said, knowing the common light schemes and uniforms can help you recognize real cops from the small number of impersonators out there.  As Carol said, at night you probably won't see the markings -- but you'll be able to tell if they're red lights, blue lights, or some combination.  If you have an idea what's "normal", you'll have an idea if something is wrong.



Agreed - however there are some missing uniforms and shields out there the general public doesn't know about.  Better to be safe and respectful than defiant and disrespectful - and that goes for both sides of the baton. 



> One more thought... if they stay behind you for more than a minute or two, I'd say the odds are good that they're real.  I've never heard of an impersonator staying with someone who didn't stop pretty quick...  I'm not saying it doesn' t happen -- but I think it's a good indicator.  Sirens seem like another good indicator; very few impersonators seem to get a siren kit.  It's a lot harder to add to a car than a visor light...



It's more common in long stretches of highway where there's little to no traffic - like I5 in the agricultural areas at 2am.


----------



## theletch1

[playnice] Jeff Letchford [/playnice]


----------



## KP.

Been away for a bit .. man this took off . . .

Anyway so this today . . since the contention is that police are not given preferential treatment surely someone can provide a case where a civilian admitted to driving 25 mph over the speed limit, caused a fatal accident, and was let off with a speeding ticket.

http://media.www.diamondbackonline....Killed.Student.Wont.Be.Indicted-3579237.shtml


----------



## Empty Hands

Bob Hubbard said:


> I've heard reference (haven't verified) to a story about some civilian using a unmarked car with the "cop lights" and a "Party City" uniform to pull over women, and assault them.



Home invasion robbery and assault by two police impersonators.  Googling reveals a number of such incidents, some which ended in the deaths of the victims or even the impersonators.  Terrifying stuff.  The prime rule of being a victim and defending yourself in these circumstances: don't be wrong.


----------



## Archangel M

shesulsa said:


> Really? So ... no matter what happens, you should just pull over and spread your *** for anybody with flashy lights without question, eh? Even when you're in the middle of nowhere? In the middle of the night? Driving, say, your mother's vehicle 1,000 miles north from her sold residence to your warm, comfy home where she is staying while you transport the vehicle personally?
> 
> Is calling 911 to verify identity of a bona fide officer not EXACTLY WHAT POLICE DEPARTMENTS TELL YOU TO DO??? Um ... yes.


 
Uhhmmm...what did I say that was any different from JKS? He said..



> Pull over quickly; I'm NOT suggesting driving for more than a block or two as a general rule. Preferably, pull over right away. Again -- the cruiser may simply be trying to get by, not stop you.


 
I said:



> _If you dont pull over when the lights go on and decide to *drive on for 3-5 more minutes while you verify* with 911 you are not going to enjoy the results._


 

Take one of those pills too why dont ya?


----------



## Archangel M

shesulsa said:


> So ... let's assume you're an LEO. Tell me how this is going to encourage the general populous who have become disenchanted with law enforcement to regain respect and cooperation with The Law? What you did here is like minority gangs robbing, killing, selling drugs because they want to get back at THE MAN for keeping them down by calling them criminals. One simply has to conclude that some LEOs don't give a flying **** about what the public thinks and are in law enforcement for the wrong reasons. That's my opinion and I'm stickin' to it.


 
Right..Im a "bad cop" or supporting "bad cops" because I found some humor in that. Whatever.

You know what they say about opinions.


----------



## shesulsa

Archangel M said:


> Right..Im a "bad cop" or supporting "bad cops" because I found some humor in that. Whatever.
> 
> You know what they say about opinions.



I didn't call you a bad cop. Nor did I tell you to take a pill nor otherwise personally attack you.  But I find your tactics ... interesting and telling.

My point - and I find it absolutely incredible yet demonstrative that you can't seem to get it - is that the more a person swaggers with bad attitude, the worse the attitude becomes.  And what does a person usually buy with bad attitude and authority?  

I'm sincerely curious how exactly you feel you're going to help bridge the gap between the law-abiding yet enforcement-loathing public and officers who want to serve?

Tell me. Can you tell me without insulting or personally attacking me?


----------



## MJS

shesulsa said:


> So ... let's assume you're an LEO. Tell me how this is going to encourage the general populous who have become disenchanted with law enforcement to regain respect and cooperation with The Law? What you did here is like minority gangs robbing, killing, selling drugs because they want to get back at THE MAN for keeping them down by calling them criminals. One simply has to conclude that some LEOs don't give a flying **** about what the public thinks and are in law enforcement for the wrong reasons. That's my opinion and I'm stickin' to it.


 
On the flip side, the Chris Rock video, "How To Not Get Your *** Kicked By The Police" gives the impression that if you do any of the things he suggests, that you will definately get your *** kicked.  I highly doubt a cop is going to pull you from your car and beat the **** out of you because your radio is blasting.


----------



## Bob Hubbard

Folks, lets relax a bit eh?


----------



## Archangel M

shesulsa said:


> I didn't call you a bad cop. Nor did I tell you to take a pill nor otherwise personally attack you. But I find your tactics ... interesting and telling.
> 
> My point - and I find it absolutely incredible yet demonstrative that you can't seem to get it - is that the more a person swaggers with bad attitude, the worse the attitude becomes. And what does a person usually buy with bad attitude and authority?
> 
> I'm sincerely curious how exactly you feel you're going to help bridge the gap between the law-abiding yet enforcement-loathing public and officers who want to serve?
> 
> Tell me. Can you tell me without insulting or personally attacking me?


 
I do my JOB. I do it within the limits of the law, I dont do anything "to" people unless they require it and I am pretty good at it if I do say so myself. Thats how I "bridge the gap". 

What I find humor in is no more "telling" about me and my attitude towads the public than your taking offense at it is "telling" about your opinion towards cops.


----------



## Archangel M

MJS said:


> On the flip side, the Chris Rock video, "How To Not Get Your *** Kicked By The Police" gives the impression that if you do any of the things he suggests, that you will definately get your *** kicked. I highly doubt a cop is going to pull you from your car and beat the **** out of you because your radio is blasting.


 
Good point. If it was a cop who made that video Im guessing that it wouldnt be recieved with the same humor. *roll eyes*


----------



## jks9199

That case has been extensively reported. 

Apparently, the officers (including supervisors) at the scene saw no evidence of impairment.  Could they have done sobriety tests of some sort?  Sure.  It certainly wouldn't have hurt -- but it wouldn't be routine, either.  If there's nothing making you think the driver is drunk, most cops won't test them.

Because of the way the laws are written, there is nothing but the relatively minor traffic charges available -- and the officer was charged.

And this happens in plenty of cases that don't involve cops...  There's a big hole in the traffic code in a lot of states.


----------



## shesulsa

Archangel M said:


> I do my JOB. I do it within the limits of the law, I dont do anything "to" people unless they require it and I am pretty good at it if I do say so myself. Thats how I "bridge the gap".
> 
> What I find humor in is no more "telling" about me and my attitude towads the public than your taking offense at it is "telling" about your opinion towards cops.



Hm. And what do you think my opinion towards cops is? Do you think I have one attitude and one only about cops in general?  Point me to exactly where I personally attacked or insulted an LEO on this board. Anywhere.

And as far as you doing things "to" people ... I wouldn't know about that, but your verbal willingness to shoot rioting prisoners just because they're rioting ... let's see, what were the words you used?  *scrolls back*  Oh that's right ... I'm "not going to enjoy the results."

I'm done with this thread. Except for a couple of voices, it's just too damn discouraging.


----------



## Rich Parsons

shesulsa said:


> Hm. And what do you think my opinion towards cops is? Do you think I have one attitude and one only about cops in general? Point me to exactly where I personally attacked or insulted an LEO on this board. Anywhere.
> 
> And as far as you doing things "to" people ... I wouldn't know about that, but your verbal willingness to shoot rioting prisoners just because they're rioting ... let's see, what were the words you used? *scrolls back* Oh that's right ... I'm "not going to enjoy the results."
> 
> I'm done with this thread. Except for a couple of voices, it's just too damn discouraging.


 

I stopped a while ago for many reasons:

1) If I continued I would be aruing with people here who might be doing their job well but refuse to acknowledge that there are losers in all positions.
2) People who make snide comments like "I have a friend who is Black" after I state I have police who are friends. This thread is about police, I was giving a dat point. If the thread was about ethnicity I owuld give data points about ethnicity. I really did not want to rise to that troll bait, but as you can see I remember it.
3) If I continue to try to make a point I look like I am crazy and out to get all the police, inviting the police to be more brutal in the future with me as there is now evidence or my disregard for them. (* which is not true *)
4) Even the best police I know all have bad days, the problem is that we pay so much for doctors when they mess up we take them to court for money as this seems to be the way to make them listen. For police we file charges if possible and see if we can get their attention that way. But that can make one look bad as if they are out to get the machine or the system, when in actuality I am just trying to have an open discussion. 
5) And many more that I do not wish to bring up at the moment. 

Peace


----------



## Archangel M

shesulsa said:


> Hm. And what do you think my opinion towards cops is? Do you think I have one attitude and one only about cops in general? Point me to exactly where I personally attacked or insulted an LEO on this board. Anywhere.


 
Hmmm..either I was unclear or you misread. I stated that what I find humorous says nothing about how I do my job. And that your attitude towards me says nothing about you attitude towards cops.

Perhaps your ire is blinding you.


----------



## Archangel M

Archangel M said:


> If you dont pull over when the lights go on and decide to drive on for 3-5 more minutes while you verify with 911 you are not going to enjoy the results.


 
If a cop is trying to stop you and you keep going for *3-5 MORE MINUTES* while you try to get through to 911...then through to the dept then to the cop following you and back again, the cop is going to think that you are fleeing, evading or doing something that will make him nervous. When you do stop he is not going to be treating you like the normal traffic stop. If you happen to LIKE that treatment than to each his own. Reading this as "Im going to enjoy trampling your rights now because I have an excuse" is plain stupid and biased and reading into a statement something that wasnt there due to someones preconceptions about the cops in general and the poster in particular.


----------



## Bob Hubbard

Folks, if there's legit grievances, I'm happy to see them, and I'm happy to have the input of the LEO's here to examine them, as they can. I'm happy to see complaints listed, legit issues resolved or the unresolved ones kept public.   But if we're going to lash out at each other, it's not going to help things.

As to the jokes, I often find them hilarious.  I'm on a number of tech sites that techs tell their dumb customer stories...I've contributed a few too, and think I saw myself in one once.  Cops are allowed to tell dumb-perp jokes, and civis dumb cop jokes.  As long as we treat each other right when we interact, it's all good, and when we don't that there is a way to resolve it.

Of course, I've also been in court where the couple ahead of me in the judges queue were rather special, the mother being in her pajamas's and carrying he kid, and the deadbeat dad looking like he's paused the engine rebuild to pop in for court (jeans, dirty tee, and greasy ballcap). I've watched the "street cred" folks tell off a cop who was telling them to move along, as they were just "hanging out doing nuthin", in front of the convenience store, blocking the entrance and intimidating people trying to get in to shop.  Hell, I'll call the local dept if that was my store to chase the little darlings off.

Easy way to avoid a traffic stop.
- Don't speed.  
- Don't drive erratically
- Signal when changing lanes, even if there's no one else on the road
- Make sure all lights are operable
- Make sure your headlights are working, properly aimed, and not in HIGH mode.
- Take the "**** the police" tag off, along with the naked girls, profanity, etc.
- Make sure your muffler is muffling
- Lose the vibrator effect and don't blat your tunes, especially in a residential area at 2AM.
- Make sure your license, tags, registration and any required inspections are current and where they need to be on the car.
- Wear your seat belt, helmet, etc as required by your laws.

I've driven from Buffalo NY to San Antonio TX, St. Louis, MI, and Miami FL, as well as Toronto Canada, and haven't had a problem in over 15 years. 

I've been outside a number of times when my one neighbor was getting the 3x daily 4 car response visit (I got a loser neighbor). I've sat on my porch and watched it, couple times a few years back I was doing stick work, and sword work on my front lawn. They dealt with the drunk, and left.  I used to do sword kata, sparring, etc in my back yard, never had a problem. (yard is very visible from the street on 2 sides.)  

I haven't had my "cops beat me up for no reason" experience yet. Been 38 years so far. Aiming for another 40+ without it.


----------



## Carol

Archangel M said:


> If a cop is trying to stop you and you keep going for *3-5 MORE MINUTES* while you try to get through to 911...then through to the dept then to the cop following you and back again, the cop is going to think that you are fleeing, evading or doing something that will make him nervous. When you do stop he is not going to be treating you like the normal traffic stop. If you happen to LIKE that treatment than to each his own. Reading this as "Im going to enjoy trampling your rights now because I have an excuse" is plain stupid and biased and reading into a statement something that wasnt there due to someones preconceptions about the cops in general and the poster in particular.




No way in hell are you guys trampling my rights. 

You know who is trampling on my rights?  The selfish scumbags that have been out partying all night and think that they're perfectly fine to drive 2 to 3 tons of metal on a public road.  Those slimeballs seriously trample on my rights.  Go get 'em


----------



## MJS

Archangel M said:


> If a cop is trying to stop you and you keep going for *3-5 MORE MINUTES* while you try to get through to 911...then through to the dept then to the cop following you and back again, the cop is going to think that you are fleeing, evading or doing something that will make him nervous. When you do stop he is not going to be treating you like the normal traffic stop. If you happen to LIKE that treatment than to each his own. Reading this as "Im going to enjoy trampling your rights now because I have an excuse" is plain stupid and biased and reading into a statement something that wasnt there due to someones preconceptions about the cops in general and the poster in particular.


 
For what its worth, I didn't take it the way others did.  I took it just the way you said...the cop will think you're trying to flee, trying to hide something, trying to grab a weapon, etc.  So of course, a thousand things are going to be running thru his mind and yes, he probably will be pissed once he gets to the car and have a different attitude.  

Sigh...why oh why oh why do people insist on bashing the cops and twisting things?


----------



## Lynne

Maybe we need more good cop stories.  People always remember the bad but not often the good (regarding any situation it seems).

Personally, I can think of several.  In the 1970's, we had racial riots at my high school, replete with weapons such as switchblades, razorblades, and sharpened Afro combs.  The racial riots peaked the last week of the school year during all four years of my high school years, 1971 - 1975.  It even came down to black male students waiting for white girls in the ladies' restrooms to assault them.  Students would stay home for two or three days and would return to school when it was "safer" to do so.  Police officers always escorted me to homeroom in the morning.  They were actually entering unknown territory.  They had guns and billy clubs but could have been easily outnumbered.

In a second situation, I was abducted and gangraped when I was 15.  I only survived by my wits.  I knew two of the rapists from high school, the other 6 I did not know.  I told them that I had no idea who they were and because they were black that I could not identify them. They dropped me off not far from where I lived.  My mother called the police.  One of the officers insisted on driving me to the hospital while my mother was too embarrased for me to go to the hospital.  My being raped was a family disgrace (no, they are not Muslim - just backwards people).  He argued with my mother, insisting that I needed medical care (I did - there was nothing left of me, so-to-speak - the emergency room doctor began crying as soon as he saw what had been done to me).  My mother never came to the hospital.  The officer waited for me and drove me back home.  He didn't say much as I cried but he held my hand.  To be honest, he was the only one who gave me any support.  My father was a deranged alcoholic and wanted to know what I had done to cause me to be raped (may he rest in hell).  I have carried guilt since then.

Lastly, my nephew is a police officer in Portsmouth, Virginia.  I sometimes think that it's a miracle that he's still alive.  He said he'd rather go to a burglary call than a traffic accident though - he dies a little inside every time he sees a teenagers/younger adults who have died in a car accident.  He started eating out of stress and has ballooned up to 225 pounds at 5'10".


----------



## Archangel M

God Bless You. You have had a tough go.

As to your nephew, everybody handles the stresses of the job differently. If he ever seriously thinks that things are getting too bad there are people and services that can help. He should be encouraged to go.


----------



## Lynne

Archangel M said:


> God Bless You. You have had a tough go.
> 
> As to your nephew, everybody handles the stresses of the job differently. If he ever seriously thinks that things are getting too bad there are people and services that can help. He should be encouraged to go.


 
Thank you.

I bet my nephew is suffering more than anyone knows.  I'll give him a call and try to gently suggest he talk to someone.  I worry about his cardiovascular health, especially if he has to chase someone down.  I guess if you gain too much weight, they don't necessarily give you desk work. (He's not SWAT.)


----------



## Lynne

Just for the record, I don't remember how everyone was sentenced.  The case went to trial in juvenile court.  I will say I remember the defense attorney for the assailants.  He was a total jerk and tried to twist my words into things about unusual sex acts.  I had no idea what he was talking about.  There were about 100 lawyers in the room while my parents and relatives were not allowed to be present.  The lawyers all stood up at one point and began yelling at the defense attorney.  That gave me some relief...some relief while having to recant the whole thing from beginning to end.

Unfortunately, I could not identify 6 of the men.  And guess what?  They were 21 or over.  I do recall that two of them went to prison somehow.  The two I identified did go to city jail - one for an assault charge because he had threatened to kill me with a knife. Someone must have confessed to witnessing him threaten me or he admitted it.   I remember that the prosecutor had me falsely identify two people.  They'd been smoking dope and supposedly I would have gone to juvenile detention for being in the car while they were smoking dope.  The defense attorney wanted to make it look like we were having a party. The emergency room doctor gave a testimony which I was not allowed to hear.  But I'm certain he told them everything. I could not be a lawyer.  My conscience would kill me.  Or I'd lose my conscience.   Have you ever heard of such crap?


----------



## Archangel M

Dont get me going on lawyers...who knows what sort of atrocities against your rights I may be accused of if I start down that path.


----------



## Lynne

I'd like to apologize for diverting the thread a bit.  Just wanted to make the point that cops are human like everyone else, prone to mistakes, temper and also goodness.


----------



## Drac

Lynne said:


> Thank you.
> 
> I bet my nephew is suffering more than anyone knows. I'll give him a call and try to gently suggest he talk to someone. I worry about his cardiovascular health, especially if he has to chase someone down. I guess if you gain too much weight, they don't necessarily give you desk work. (He's not SWAT.)


 
You are correct about the desk job..I just don't chase them for long periods anymore,  but I have always been good at short bursts of speed..Chased down an real POS with another officer I cannot go into much detail, but we caught the creep..We are both smokers and a little overweight...


----------



## Bob Hubbard

Lawyers is another topic...I just agree with the Romans....


----------



## Lynne

Drac said:


> You are correct about the desk job..I just don't chase them for long periods anymore, but I have always been good at short bursts of speed..Chased down an real POS with another officer I cannot go into much detail without that punk KP or Cryo jumping in, but we caught the creep..We are both smokers and a little overweight...


 My husband is not a cop but that's exactly what he did about 16 years ago.  We were driving along a highway in Renton, Washington.  Some punks threw a rock and it hit the windshield on the passenger side where I was sitting.  "POW!" My daughter was in the back in her safety seat.

My husband reacted by doing a quick u-turn which scared the heck out of me.  We were in his 1979 Chrysler 300 (same chassis as a Dodge magnum).  Tires were squalling and then he floored it.  He managed to catch sight of the two boys, both about 12/13.  We ended up at a little park where people were racing radio-controlled cars.  My husband jumped out of the car, ran through the crowd and ran down one of the punks.  He paced himself and then sprinted when the kid got tired. He hauled the kid to a grocery store and called the police.  By that time, some other people had called 911 because they thought we were trying to abduct/or abuse some kid.


----------



## Drac

Bob Hubbard said:


> Lawyers is another topic...I just agree with the Romans....


 
OK, I'll bite..What is the Romans attitude???


----------



## Bob Hubbard

Drac said:


> OK, I'll bite..What is the Romans attitude???


They make the lions happy.....but somewhat gassy.


----------



## Drac

Bob Hubbard said:


> They make the lions happy.....but somewhat gassy.


 
:lfao::lol::lol::lfao:


----------



## KP.

Drac said:


> Now I do not want to honk anyone off.. But *WHY *is such a big flippin problem to show your ID if an officer asks for it???? If you have nothing to hide you have nothing to worry about...Officers remember those that comply with a simple request as we meet so few..My being polite saved my butt many times before I became a cop....



The whole "if you're not guilty of something why worry about it" mentality is precisely what leads to more and more repressive government.

How about this: it's the government's job to prove guilt, not the citizen's job to prove innocence. We the people have the right to anonymity from the government. We have the right to private actions and private speech. 

I joined the military largely to get money to go to school, but while there I came to believe I was involved in a righteous fight for human rights against dictatorial communist powers -- and we rightly were bemused by those countries that denied their citizens basic rights, such as walking around without identifying themselves to the government and having to ask permission to live their lives.

I recognize that draconian laws make the police's job of catching the bad guys easier. But making the government's job easier is never worth the costs that come from sacrificing our rights. 

A notion that has sadly fallen out of favor as people more and more succumb to the twin beliefs that there is no harm in giving up freedoms if one can be under the illusion of safety and if one has done no wrong.


----------



## MJS

KP. said:


> The whole "if you're not guilty of something why worry about it" mentality is precisely what leads to more and more repressive government.
> 
> How about this: it's the government's job to prove guilt, not the citizen's job to prove innocence. We the people have the right to anonymity from the government. We have the right to private actions and private speech.
> 
> I joined the military largely to get money to go to school, but while there I came to believe I was involved in a righteous fight for human rights against dictatorial communist powers -- and we rightly were bemused by those countries that denied their citizens basic rights, such as walking around without identifying themselves to the government and having to ask permission to live their lives.
> 
> I recognize that draconian laws make the police's job of catching the bad guys easier. But making the government's job easier is never worth the costs that come from sacrificing our rights.
> 
> A notion that has sadly fallen out of favor as people more and more succumb to the twin beliefs that there is no harm in giving up freedoms if one can be under the illusion of safety and if one has done no wrong.


 
So....during questioning, a person has his/her hands in their pockets and is acting nervous.  The LEO asks them to remove their hands.  So, your line of thinking is that if the person complies, that they're bowing down to the govt?  Actually, by doing what the cop wants, it'll ease their mind, and the other person will run less of a risk of getting taken to the ground or a gun pulled on them.  Why not take your hands out?  Hiding something?  Got a blade in your pocket you're just itching to pull out?  Drugs maybe?


----------



## Bob Hubbard

Now, when dealing with things, being polite will almost always keep things calmer than they would if you got heated and let your temper show.

Doesn't mean it will make it all perfect.

When things do legitimately go south, and "He was rude" isn't really south to me, take careful note of the situation, get badge numbers and names if possible, get car numbers if possible, note the exact time (5ish isn't good enough), the date, the conditions of the weather, your exact location (smith st isn't enough).

Write it all down, use the voice record feature of your phone/mp3 player if it has it, etc. Take pictures if you can.  The more information you have, the better your chances are of getting results.

Then, report it. Do not turn over orginals and only copies of your notes. They can vanish, accidentially or on purpose.  Copies suffice until it's court time.

Contact a lawyer. A good one, who specializes in civil matters.  Your tax attorney, your family court attorney or the guy representing you in your car accident case most likely ain't the guy you want.

Follow up with the department, notate day/time and who you speak with each time. 

Inquire on when you can expect to hear back.

Follow up.
If you feel after a reasonable amount of time that you are getting no where, go over their heads. Higher up the food chain.  Mayors office, County Exec, Senator and Representative, local papers, etc.

In the few really corrupt areas, be prepared for retaliation. It happens.  Cleaning out a truly bad precinct can take years, headache and hard work. Part of that task includes cleaning up the situation that rotted the precinct, which means pushing the gangs and thugs out.  It's usually the real rat-hole areas that have the highest concentration of "bad cops", many who are not really bad, but frustrated that the bad guys out number them, out gun them and seem to catch all the breaks when brought in.

The only way to effect change is to become the catalyst of that change yourself. If you do nothing, then expect nothing to change. If you believe change is impossible, then you are already beaten. 

I'll keep posting cop abuse stories that catch my eye, and I'll keep posting good cop success stories when they catch my eye. The first, because we need to know, and the second because we need to recognize and applaud that which we want more of.


----------



## Bob Hubbard

KP. said:


> The whole "if you're not guilty of something why worry about it" mentality is precisely what leads to more and more repressive government.
> 
> How about this: it's the government's job to prove guilt, not the citizen's job to prove innocence. We the people have the right to anonymity from the government. We have the right to private actions and private speech.
> 
> I joined the military largely to get money to go to school, but while there I came to believe I was involved in a righteous fight for human rights against dictatorial communist powers -- and we rightly were bemused by those countries that denied their citizens basic rights, such as walking around without identifying themselves to the government and having to ask permission to live their lives.
> 
> I recognize that draconian laws make the police's job of catching the bad guys easier. But making the government's job easier is never worth the costs that come from sacrificing our rights.
> 
> A notion that has sadly fallen out of favor as people more and more succumb to the twin beliefs that there is no harm in giving up freedoms if one can be under the illusion of safety and if one has done no wrong.


And a reading of many of my arguments here and in other threads will show I agree with you.

Innocent until proven guilty. Land of the Free. Etc.   I've argued that the whole country is supposed to be a free speach zone, not just this little fenced off area down the block and away from the candidates.  

But, and here's the but.  If you act suspicious, you get treated as such. In some areas, cops are so used to dealing with hostility, that they are automatically "on", until you turn them "off". 

Troops in Iraq aren't exactly Mirandaizing when they stop people there. That whole suicide bomber thing.  While we don't have that problem here thankfully, in some areas, the chance of a minor lawful order like "move along" or "walk on the sidewalk, not in the street", can and has been answered with attitude, profanity, and even threat.  

I get stopped, my first goal is to show the cop I mean no threat.  Once done, we can have a more productive and less painful encounter.

Hey LEO's.  Quick question.  Ever been out walking in uniform and see someone catch a look at you, then take off as fast as they can?  Seem supicious?


----------



## KP.

MJS said:


> So....during questioning, a person has his/her hands in their pockets and is acting nervous.  The LEO asks them to remove their hands.  So, your line of thinking is that if the person complies, that they're bowing down to the govt?  Actually, by doing what the cop wants, it'll ease their mind, and the other person will run less of a risk of getting taken to the ground or a gun pulled on them.  Why not take your hands out?  Hiding something?  Got a blade in your pocket you're just itching to pull out?  Drugs maybe?



Why? 

I mean that as a serious question. Why should the government be able to tell me how I can or can not stand in public? I know you probably don't think of yourself as the government, but you are. When the state starts thinking they have the right to tell people how they may or may not stand, we've pretty well given up any meaningful rights at all.

That said, I would think that a polite request of something like, "Would you mind taking your hands out of your pockets, it's making me nervous." Or something along those lines would be complied with by most people. And failure to comply with a simple request would (and should) make the officer a bit more alert, but is it against the law for someone to stand how they like while answering a question?


----------



## KP.

Bob Hubbard said:


> But, and here's the but.  If you act suspicious, you get treated as such. In some areas, cops are so used to dealing with hostility, that they are automatically "on", until you turn them "off".



I'm suspicious at all times, never found anything I could do to help a cop turn it 'off.'



> Troops in Iraq aren't exactly Mirandaizing when they stop people there.



Soldier's aren't the police, and it's a serious abuse of the soldier to ask them to pretend to be one. They don't have the training. 

On the flip side, the police wanting to be soldiers is just as serious a problem.  (towns owning apc's with .50 cal's mounted on them is a big clue that this isn't the USA I, at least, grew up in.)



> I get stopped, my first goal is to show the cop I mean no threat.  Once done, we can have a more productive and less painful encounter.



Never experienced a productive encounter, so can't speak to that.



> Hey LEO's.  Quick question.  Ever been out walking in uniform and see someone catch a look at you, then take off as fast as they can?  Seem supicious?



I do my best to not be where the police are as quickly as possible. Experience has taught me that that is the best place to be.


----------



## MJS

KP. said:


> I would think that a polite request of something like, "Would you mind taking your hands out of your pockets, it's making me nervous." Or something along those lines would be complied with by most people.
> 
> On the other hand, unless the person is being arrested, why should they have to comply? Now I grant that that would (and should) make the officer a bit more alert, but is it against the law for someone to stand how they like while answering a question?


 
Sigh...why do I bother.  In a number of your posts, you complain how people like yourself and others are treated.  You paint all LEOs with the same brush.  Yet, anyone with any common sense, would understand that this simple request will make things SO much easier.  I guess you didn't read Bobs post.  Or maybe you did read it, but still have that anti cop attitude and think that its a violation of 'your rights.'  Its no different than turning on your interior light at night if you get stopped.  I guess you don't think its right to put someone against the wall or a car when being searched.  You know, God forbid you put the suspect in a position that limits his movement.  Afterall, why not just have him turn around, so maybe while you're searching, he can take off running.  

So, let me ask you....if you were a cop and made a stop and 3am, with a car that had 4 people in it.  As you both pull to the side of the road, you notice the front seat and rear seat passengers making alot of movement.  Would that concern you?  After all, its not illegal to move in a car right?  Then again, they could be hiding stolen items, a gun, or getting that gun from under the seat, so when you walk up, they blow you head off!


----------



## MJS

KP. said:


> Why?
> 
> I mean that as a serious question. Why should the government be able to tell me how I can or can not stand in public? I know you probably don't think of yourself as the government, but you are. When the state starts thinking they have the right to tell people how they may or may not stand, we've pretty well given up any meaningful rights at all.


 
Since you made a last minute edit, I'll address this part.  I could give a rats *** if someone stands on their head and spits nickles.  However, in this case, an investigation is being conducted.  

See, its this piss poor, cocky attitude that you carry, that brings on the trouble that you cry about all the time.  So proud and good that you should be able to do what you want, when you want, **** everyone else and their opinion.  Sorry, why is it so hard to co-operate just a little bit?  Is that too much to ask?


----------



## MJS

KP. said:


> I'm suspicious at all times, never found anything I could do to help a cop turn it 'off.'


 
Amazing.







> Never experienced a productive encounter, so can't speak to that.


 
LMFAO!  And why am I not surprised at this?  A little hint...maybe start with changing your attitude.





> I do my best to not be where the police are as quickly as possible. Experience has taught me that that is the best place to be.


 
There ya go again, painting with that broad brush.


----------



## Drac

Bob Hubbard said:


> Hey LEO's. Quick question. Ever been out walking in uniform and see someone catch a look at you, then take off as fast as they can? Seem supicious?


 
Yep..I'll record the plate in my notebook and keep it..No need to call it in unless I hear a call of a robbery having just been commited *THEN *I will call it in...


----------



## Bob Hubbard

KP. said:


> Why?
> 
> I mean that as a serious question. Why should the government be able to tell me how I can or can not stand in public? I know you probably don't think of yourself as the government, but you are. When the state starts thinking they have the right to tell people how they may or may not stand, we've pretty well given up any meaningful rights at all.
> 
> That said, I would think that a polite request of something like, "Would you mind taking your hands out of your pockets, it's making me nervous." Or something along those lines would be complied with by most people. And failure to comply with a simple request would (and should) make the officer a bit more alert, but is it against the law for someone to stand how they like while answering a question?



Noon at a street corner is different than 4am. And, yes there are reasons they would tell you to move.  Hanging out in front of a closed store at 2am, is suspicious. Its  trespassing for one thing, store might have a history of break ins that would add to the suspicious nature, etc. Many parks close after a certain hour. I've been tossed out of a few when I was a teen...they were popular make out spots and the cops would patrol them. They are also highly vandalized, adding to the reasonable suspicion thing. 



KP. said:


> I'm suspicious at all times, never found anything I could do to help a cop turn it 'off.'



Don't be in places that require them to be 'on'.




> Soldier's aren't the police, and it's a serious abuse of the soldier to ask them to pretend to be one. They don't have the training.



Very true. Which is why theres a thread open here discussing the possible use of combat troops on US soil.



> On the flip side, the police wanting to be soldiers is just as serious a problem.  (towns owning apc's with .50 cal's mounted on them is a big clue that this isn't the USA I, at least, grew up in.)



This isn't Mayberry.  Barney didn't need to load his gun.  A DC cop on the other hand, needs heavier gear to compete with the bad guys.



> Never experienced a productive encounter, so can't speak to that.



Not familiar with your situation, so I can't say.



> I do my best to not be where the police are as quickly as possible. Experience has taught me that that is the best place to be.



But fleeing is a suspicious act. You make yourself a target this way, IMO.


----------



## KP.

MJS said:


> LMFAO!  And why am I not surprised at this?  A little hint...maybe start with changing your attitude.



Never once did an encounter was an encounter with the police initiated by me. And what attitude should I have when, for example, the first words I hear are "Hey boy . . ."




> There ya go again, painting with that broad brush.



I didn't paint anything with a broad brush. Like I've said a few times, i've yet to have a decent encounter with the police. I'm sure such things happen. I hope that's the norm. But I'm not going to try and prove myself wrong, either.


----------



## Bob Hubbard

Guy runs a stop sign, cop turns on his lights, hour long chase ensues, multiple cops involved, at the end, guy ditches the car, takes off running...

Tell me where the error was here?

Guy runs a stop sign, multi cop chase ensues, end result is driver pulls a weapon, unloads into his chest, dies on scene.

Again, where's the error?

Both real cases, both were discussed here previously.


----------



## Drac

KP. said:


> Why?
> 
> I mean that as a serious question. Why should the government be able to tell me how I can or can not stand in public? I know you probably don't think of yourself as the government, but you are. When the state starts thinking they have the right to tell people how they may or may not stand, we've pretty well given up any meaningful rights at all.
> 
> That said, I would think that a polite request of something like, "Would you mind taking your hands out of your pockets, it's making me nervous." Or something along those lines would be complied with by most people. And failure to comply with a simple request would (and should) make the officer a bit more alert, but is it against the law for someone to stand how they like while answering a question?


 
I would love to see you but on a badge and a gun and encounter somone with your attitude and see how Officer Friendly you remain...


----------



## KP.

Bob Hubbard said:


> Noon at a street corner is different than 4am. And, yes there are reasons they would tell you to move.  Hanging out in front of a closed store at 2am, is suspicious. Its  trespassing for one thing . . .



I'm not talking about being on someone else's property. Or in any location someone is not legally allowed to be.



> This isn't Mayberry.  Barney didn't need to load his gun.  A DC cop on the other hand, needs heavier gear to compete with the bad guys.



Police do not need a vehicle mounted .50, period. If there's something going down that needs that much firepower, it's time for the national guard.



> But fleeing is a suspicious act. You make yourself a target this way, IMO.



I'm not running down an alley and jumping fences. I'm just going the other way.

But, speaking of 4am .. this is hillarious:

http://www.nwfdailynews.com/news/officer_13573___article.html/driver_marijuana.html


----------



## KP.

Drac said:


> I would love to see you but on a badge and a gun and encounter somone with your attitude and see how Officer Friendly you remain...




"My job's stressful, but I have a gun so I get to be a jerk" is not a compelling excuse.


----------



## elder999

KP. said:


> Police do not need a vehicle mounted .50, period. If there's something going


 

Depends a lot upon _where_ they are policing. The cops and security guards in Los Alamos have vehicle mounted .50's. You don't often see them out and about-especially the cops, but they'e here.  Drive by the guards range, and you might even see them firing it.....


----------



## Drac

KP. said:


> "My job's stressful, but I have a gun so I get to be a jerk" is not a compelling excuse.


 
I mean the whole " Sir, please take your hands out of your pockets please" and their response to you is "Don't tell me how to stand"...


----------



## The Last Legionary

Officer "Excuse me good sir, might I have a moment of your time to engage you in some verbal discourse?"

Person "What the **** you be haslin me for pig?"

Officer "I say Sir, there is no need for that kind of attitude or language, Please contain yourself."

Person "Contain this mother ****er." grabs crotch

Officer "Sir I'm just attempting to discuss a matter of some urgency with you. Please, might I continue?"

Person "Continue this mother ****er" proceeds to urinate on the officers shoes"

Officer "I Say! How jolly well rude of you! Good Day Sir!" and walks away.

Person "You come back an I bust a cap in yo *** mother ****er."



The reason why we don't have English cops walking a beat in a NYC inner city neighborhood.  If that was me, I would have grabbed the nice person, and made them lick my shoes clean.


----------



## KP.

Drac said:


> I mean the whole " Sir, please take your hands out of your pockets please" and their response to you is "Don't tell me how to stand"...




If I were talking to a police officer and I was asked just as you stated, I'd do so without hesitation. 

But to my knowledge, there's no law compelling me to, nor is refusal to do so a reason to be taken to the ground, as was suggested above.


----------



## The Last Legionary

KP. said:


> "My job's stressful, but I have a gun so I get to be a jerk" is not a compelling excuse.


True.

But "I'm black, so all cop are out to get me" is equally lame.  

But lets back up a moment.  You said you were in the military.
What unit, when, where'd ya serve, etc.

Moving forward, maybe the problem is the huge ****ing chip on a rather large group of peoples shoulders, thinking that they are somehow entitled because up to 140 or so years ago their ancestors picked cotton and tobacco, and that respecting others is somehow beneath them as is proper grammar.


----------



## Drac

elder999 said:


> Depends a lot upon _where_ they are policing. The cops and security guards in Los Alamos have vehicle mounted .50's. You don't often see them out and about-especially the cops, but they'e here. Drive by the guards range, and you might even see them firing it.....


 

We just got the M-16's for our cars....You outta see the APC that the Cleveland Police SWAT unit has..Sweet..


----------



## Drac

Better picture


----------



## Rich Parsons

KP. said:


> Police do not need a vehicle mounted .50, period. If there's something going down that needs that much firepower, it's time for the national guard.


 
Hmmmm, I wonder about that. 

I know that the LA for the 1984 Olympics had firearms on helicopters.

I know that some shootings in major crime cites are with semi-automatic weapons, with reports locally of a bad guy using one in each hand to shot at police. This was the reason it made the news, they used one in each hand.


----------



## KP.

Drac said:


> Better picture



Serious question -- what the heck is that used for?


----------



## MJS

KP. said:


> If I were talking to a police officer and I was asked just as you stated, I'd do so without hesitation.
> 
> But to my knowledge, there's no law compelling me to, nor is refusal to do so a reason to be taken to the ground, as was suggested above.


 
My last post in this thread for a while.  So you're telling me that if you were a cop and you were going to make an arrest and told the person to get out of their car or if they were already out and you told them to turn around and put their hands behind their back, and they refused, after you repeatedly asked them, that you would not take them down?  

As I said, a little cooperation goes a long way.  I remember one day when I was a CO, I was patting a guy down.  I felt something in his rear pocket, and when I went to reach into his pocket, he pulled away and said something to the effect of, "What the **** you lookin' in my pocket for?  You gay or somethin'?"  

Now, this guy was a first class jackass, as I was simply doing my job, which consisted of random pat downs.  For all I knew, he had a shank in his pocket.  He refused to let me look, so I simply called for assistance.  Needless to say, it was a comb.  Oh he got the comb back...and was locked up for the remainder of the night.  

Again, why be an *******?  All I wanted to know, was what the item was...perfectly within my rights as a CO.  I was not rough with him, nor was I verbally abusive to him.  I randomly picked him from the day room.  

Did his actions both verbal and physical raise my suspicion and guard a bit?  Of course.  With his sudden action of pulling away, I would have been well within my right to bring him to the ground, yet I chose not to.  

So, a simple incident turned into a fiasco.  All because this guy wanted to be an *** and show off.  Moral of the story...he lost.  One way or the other, I was going to find out what that item was.  Could have let me check, but instead he required me to bring in others.


----------



## KP.

Rich Parsons said:


> I know that some shootings in major crime cites are with semi-automatic weapons, with reports locally of a bad guy using one in each hand to shot at police. This was the reason it made the news, they used one in each hand.




Most all shootings (at least with hand guns) are with semi-automatic weapons. There are very few single shot hand guns sold anymore.


----------



## Bob Hubbard

Drac said:


> Better picture


I want that for driving on the I35 in Texas.


----------



## KP.

MJS said:


> My last post in this thread for a while.  So you're telling me that if you were a cop and you were going to make an arrest and told the person to get out of their car or if they were already out and you told them to turn around and put their hands behind their back, and they refused, after you repeatedly asked them, that you would not take them down?




You spoke about questioning, not about arresting. To my knowledge, if someone is being placed under arrest, they pretty much have lost all right to not do as instructed (unless such instruction violates retained rights, such as 5th amendment protections).


----------



## Bob Hubbard

KP. said:


> Serious question -- what the heck is that used for?


Busting down reinforced doors in crack houses, drug labs, and dealing with riot situations.


----------



## The Last Legionary

Ugly Truths

Blacks are more likely to kill Whites, than Whites kill blacks.
*
In 2005:*
Blacks were 6x more likely than whites to be a victim of crime, and 7x more likely to be the offender.
They are also more likely to be involved in a drug related murder, or using a gun to kill or killing over an argument than whites. Blacks kill more people than whites over time.

Whites are more likely to know or be related to the victim than blacks, and more likely to kill in a sex, gang or workplace matter. They also prefer fire and poison to guns. Whites kill more people at once.

From 1976 to 2005 --

    * 86% of white victims were killed by whites
    * 94% of black victims were killed by blacks


http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/race.htm


Add to this the "I'm entitled" chip on the shoulder attitude, the poor grammar, and the macho attitude, and it explains why you have so many confrontations.

Like I said, Ugly Truths.  Prove me wrong, call me a bigot, kiss my pale pink ***, I don't care.  I laughed at the Chris Rock bit, I laughed as Carlos Mencia's, and I laughed at Eddie Murphy's that he done years ago where he got made up white and went "undercover".  

"I wasn't doin nuthin".  Yo! Holmes! The sign that you can't read because reading is "fo suckas" says why you need to move your ignorant and illiterate ***. The "Whatchu gonna do" 'tude is making me nervous, and the "in my face attitude" is causing me concern for my own wellbeing, as are your 5 friends who are trying to out macho each other and intimidate me. 1 me, 6 of you, might be why my hands on my gun, and my radio is calling for backup.  Sit down, shut up, answer like a grown up and not a spoiled piss pot, and maybe we can all go home to our families tonight, and not in a bag over something stupid like "street cred".

But I'm a bigot for refering to the jobs done by one vocal groups ancestors. Ok, I'm sorry, they all worked at the Confederate Stars N Bars Bucks, I'm so stupid to get history wrong like that.


----------



## KP.

The Last Legionary said:


> True.
> 
> But "I'm black, so all cop are out to get me" is equally lame.




I don't think all cops are out to get me. I think that the cops I've encountered in their official capacity have been. I've said again and again, i don't doubt that the majority of the police are good folks honestly trying to do a good job in the service of the community. But I've not met those people. 



> But lets back up a moment.  You said you were in the military.
> What unit, when, where'd ya serve, etc.



Went in in 1977, enlisted for 4 years for the GI bill. I went in as a cav scout, went to 2nd Cav in Europe and stayed there for almost 3 years, at which point I the so into OCS. Went to Benning for OCS then headed off for intel school. I went back to Europe where I worked counter-intel in Brussels for 2 years. I then was assigned to INSCOM.  



> Moving forward, maybe the problem is the huge ****ing chip on a rather large group of peoples shoulders, thinking that they are somehow entitled because up to 140 or so years ago their ancestors picked cotton and tobacco, and that respecting others is somehow beneath them as is proper grammar.



I don't think I'm entitled to anything more than any other person. Things like simple respect and a right to be assumed innocent.

Want to know how many times I was pulled over while at Benning because I was a driving a (very, very nice) 'vette? Wnat to know how many of those incidents started with being told to get out of the car and put my hands on the hood? 

Want to know how many times that happened to any of my classmates?


----------



## The Last Legionary

I'd love to know.


----------



## The Last Legionary

Some other things I'd love to know.
How old are you?
How many times have you had these bad cop encounters?
How old were you then?
Where were you when this happened, what time was it, etc?

Might help people see into your head and better understand where you're coming from.


----------



## Kreth

The Last Legionary said:


> Blacks were 6x more likely than whites to be a victim of crime


and


> Whites are more likely to know or be related to the victim than blacks


Um... how does that work? :idunno:


----------



## MJS

KP. said:


> You spoke about questioning, not about arresting. To my knowledge, if someone is being placed under arrest, they pretty much have lost all right to not do as instructed (unless such instruction violates retained rights, such as 5th amendment protections).


 
So given the tense nature of the situation, why not, if being questioned, do what you could to make things easier, for both you and the cop?  Is taking your hands out of your jacket, where a knife could be, too much to ask?


----------



## KP.

The Last Legionary said:


> Some other things I'd love to know.
> How old are you?




50 next birthday ... sigh ;/




> How many times have you had these bad cop encounters?
> How old were you then?




Maybe a dozen or so.  Starting when I was 10 or 11 (don't recall exactly) where a policeman decided he should beat my dog to death in front of me. (A very well trained fellow who was sitting quietly in front of me at the time when the guy pulled out his night stick - or whatever they're called these days - and crushed his head in)



> Where were you when this happened, what time was it, etc?




South side of Chicago till I was 18, later when I was in Georgia, Virginia, and California. The last time I encountered a policeman (outside of the ludicrous TSA  guys who I suspect are not properly lumped in with other law enforcement types) was in the early 1990's.
 


> Add to this the "I'm entitled" chip on the shoulder attitude, the poor grammar, and the macho attitude, and it explains why you have so many confrontations.




I certainly don't have the best spelling or grammar when writing on the web. Oddly I don't spend much time crafting my words or proof-reading my texts. But my grammar when speaking is excellent.  For example, I can explain to you in detail why your sentence there is poorly crafted and punctuated if you'd like. We can start with the lack of proper parallelism in your first three clauses. From there we can discuss your choice to use air quotes around a phrase that I have never uttered, thus falsely attributing words never spoken. But I won't accuse you of having poor grammar. Rather, I will assume that, like me, you simply don't have the time or inclination to edit a web post.

And I don't have no illusions to being entitled to anything beyond my legal rights and the simple respect due any human being. I'm not sure where you got that impression, but if you believe you've seen that in anything I've said here, then you have read far more into what I've written than what I've intended.


----------



## Archangel M

People are confusing "suspicion" with probable cause here. I am free to be as suspicious as I like, I cannot do whatever I want beacuse of it. Do you call the police when you see someone with a screwdriver looking in your car windows or do you wait till he breaks in and takes your GPS? Innocent till proven guilty and all that.

Not ID'ing yourself is going to make any good cop suspicious. Being suspicious is how we catch bad guys...sometimes they get away beacuse we cant find anything beyond suspicion.


----------



## Archangel M

K.P. is also under the impression that if you are not under arrest that you are "free to go". In some situations that is true, but he is forgetting (or ignorant of the fact) that there are also investigative detentions where a police officer may detain an individual for investigative purposes if the officer believes, based on a reasonable and articulable suspicion that the individual is engaged in criminal activity, even if there is no probable cause to make an arrest. The officer must be able to point to specific and articulable facts which warrant that intrusion. A court reviewing the legality of such a detention must look to the whole situation when determining whether detention is justified and consider if the detaining officers had a particularized and objective basis for *suspecting *the particular person stopped of criminal activity. Refusing to show ID alone would not be enough, but added into the mix can raise the "pot" so to speak.

Thats the law in most states.


----------



## elder999

"


The Last Legionary said:


> I wasn't doin nuthin". Yo! Holmes! The sign that you can't read because reading is "fo suckas" says why you need to move your ignorant and illiterate ***. The "Whatchu gonna do" 'tude is making me nervous, and the "in my face attitude" is causing me concern for my own wellbeing, as are your 5 friends who are trying to out macho each other and intimidate me. 1 me, 6 of you, might be why my hands on my gun, and my radio is calling for backup. Sit down, shut up, answer like a grown up and not a spoiled piss pot, and maybe we can all go home to our families tonight, and not in a bag over something stupid like "street cred".





Ya know,20 pages, and I&#8217;ve pretty much stayed out of this.

I&#8217;m educated-not illiterate, maybe even _over_ educated,  and I couldn&#8217;t talk that way if I wanted to. I&#8217;ve got a fair amount of money, and the cars that go with it. My work brings me into contact with law-enforcement agencies pretty regularly, at least it used to, and I&#8217;m pretty thankful for the profession. That said, I&#8217;ve had encounters of quite few kinds with them in various jurisdictions, and they weren&#8217;t always pleasant.
Sometimes, cops are just NOT  gonna believe the black guy bought the Mercedes with legitimately earned money if they don&#8217;t know him from television, I guess&#8230;:lol:

So, here are some of my personal &#8220;police stories.&#8221;

My family, or at least, my branch of my family, has really strong ties to Sag Harbor, New York-Cuffees were whalers that sailed out of Sag Harbor from the 18th through the 19th century. My great grandfather helped build the Presbyterian church there, and there is a street named after him. We went there for summers for most of my childhood. One summer, when I was 11 years old, we brought one of my friends from home with us. My friend and my brother found a bicycle under some bushes,  that obviously belonged to some kids who were fishing, but they were bored, so they took it. I&#8217;d had my first bike stolen when I was 12, and, when I got a chance, I took it back, but the kids weren&#8217;t there. So I took it to the police station.  The guy at the desk told me the chief was over at a restaurant-I should have left the bike there, but what the heck, I went to the restaurant&#8230;..

&#8230;..and got picked up by the chief for stealing the bike-and he was NOT going to believe that I was trying to return it, even after we got back to the station, and the guy at the desk told him I&#8217;d just been there, it was _Put him back there with the rest of them ******s_ (&#8220;n&#8221; word)-which is where I was when my parents came and got me.

And that was my first encounter with the police. 



Archangel M said:


> K.P. is also under the impression that if you are not under arrest that you are "free to go". In some situations that is true, but he is forgetting (or ignorant of the fact) that there are also investigative detentions where a police officer may detain an individual for investigative purposes if the officer believes, based on a reasonable and articulable suspicion that the individual is engaged in criminal activity, even if there is no probable cause to make an arrest. The officer must be able to point to specific and articulable facts which warrant that intrusion. A court reviewing the legality of such a detention must look to the whole situation when determining whether detention is justified and consider if the detaining officers had a particularized and objective basis for suspecting the particular person stopped of criminal activity. Refusing to show ID alone would not be enough, but added into the mix can raise the "pot" so to speak.
> 
> 
> 
> Thats the law in most states.





Years later, I rode a hardtail Triumph from New York to Palm Beach, Florida. I was 19, had a good beard, and, except for my color, probably looked like an &#8220;outlaw biker.&#8221; No patch, but dubious. I was living with that. Now, my friend from boarding school, Lee, who would wind up being the first person in his family to have a job since his grandfather,  lived in a mansion that (and I didn&#8217;t know at the time) actually had a sign that said, &#8220;_Deliveries, service and police, use service entrance_,&#8221; so that, and the noise being made at the time about having domestic servants  carry special I.D. to prove they belonged in that area, were probably contributing factors to what happened. Anyway, I got pulled over by a Palm Beach officer. I was polite. I complied. He ran my license and registration and didn&#8217;t find anything untoward. He searched through all my stuff-I politely allowed him to-he didn&#8217;t find anything illegal, not even a knife. He asked me where I was going. I politely told him I was going to stay at the house of a friend, with the friend&#8217;s name and address, to which he replied, _The *hell* you say._, to which I said, no, really, call them. To which he replied, _I&#8217;m going to have to take you in._ I asked if I was under arrest, he said yes, and I asked what the charge was, and he said, _Charge? How about I charge you with being a ****** on the side of the road on a sunny day?_ 

After about six hours, I finally got to call my friend, he and his dad came and got me, and his dad had that cop fired.

Not too much later, maybe a year and a half, I was involved in an incident in the N.Y. subway-I'e posted about it before. The cops who caught the guys with my wallet and watch, brought them back to the platform to find me over the other guy&#8217;s bleeding body. Those cops were polite and supportive to me-awfully nice and professional. The same with the N.Y. State Troopers I dealt with on a couple of occasions, though I did once see a couple of those guys thump the heck out of a lady in a hospital waiting room, after making it pretty clear that they wanted to.


I like to speed-out here, you really can. I&#8217;ve been pulled over, and every time in the last 15 years, whether in N.M. or Colorado, the cops have been decent and professional-I&#8217;ve also gotten out of most of those tickets. While I&#8217;ve got a real good relationship with the Los Alamos Police now ( a couple of Lieutenants are long time students of mine) I&#8217;ve got a few really absurd stories about one cop in particular, who had it in for me-he doesn&#8217;t work for them anymore, and was known by all of them as a dick.I think, sometimes, it depends upon where you are-I&#8217;ve never had to deal with the Albuquerque cops, so who knows.  Once, I got pulled over by a Colorado Trooper-I was doing about 95. He asked why I was going so fast, and I said, in my best whine, _I've really gotta pee!_. He let me go. I guess is what it comes down to-most cops are o.k., some are great,and some-some are real dicks. I don&#8217;t know which one I&#8217;m dealing with when I get pulled over, or have to otherwise deal with them, but I can control which of *me* they&#8217;re dealing with, so I do. I&#8217;m polite and compliant. But, unless I was speeding, I don&#8217;t know if they&#8217;re interested in me because a taillight is out, or because they think  I&#8217;m a  little too dark to be driving a Ferrari. :lol:​​


The Last Legionary said:


> But I'm a bigot for refering to the jobs done by one vocal groups ancestors. Ok, I'm sorry, they all worked at the Confederate Stars N Bars Bucks, I'm so stupid to get history wrong like that.






			
				el brujo de la Cueva said:
			
		

> Which, I guess is what it comes down to-most cops are o.k., some are great, and some are real dicks. I don&#8217;t know which one I&#8217;m dealing with&#8230;.​


​​ 
....but, in *your* case, I&#8217;d hazard a guess.


----------



## KP.

MJS said:


> So given the tense nature of the situation, why not, if being questioned, do what you could to make things easier, for both you and the cop?  Is taking your hands out of your jacket, where a knife could be, too much to ask?



Again, I stated that I would probably comply with a polite request to do so. But I see no compelling reason why I should be required to do so. Again, the government has no right or authority to tell me how I may stand. 

It's a sad state we find ourselves in where the government can't figure out that rights should be respected.


----------



## jks9199

KP. said:


> Why?
> 
> I mean that as a serious question. Why should the government be able to tell me how I can or can not stand in public? I know you probably don't think of yourself as the government, but you are. When the state starts thinking they have the right to tell people how they may or may not stand, we've pretty well given up any meaningful rights at all.
> 
> That said, I would think that a polite request of something like, "Would you mind taking your hands out of your pockets, it's making me nervous." Or something along those lines would be complied with by most people. And failure to comply with a simple request would (and should) make the officer a bit more alert, but is it against the law for someone to stand how they like while answering a question?


Why should the government be able, at certain times and places, to be able to tell you that you may or may not stand there or do that?

Very bluntly, because we're not in KP.-land (or Bob-land or Jks-land or wherever-land).  You're part of a society; the freest society on the planet, but that doesn't mean there are no rules.  The First Amendment gives you the freedom to peacably assemble and to associate with whomever you please for any purpose that's not illegal, as well as the general right to say what you wish.  But it still allows some regulation of where you may assemble (among other things, you can't assemble on private property without the owner's permission & consent), and even, in some cases, what you can say.  

Moving from that general point -- as a cop, I AM allowed to control your movements to a certain degree if I have grounds to stop you.  I generally will ask once, tell once, and then make you comply.  I reserve the right to move up or down that scale as the circumstances demand -- because I am not required to risk being shot, knifed, or even simply hit.  Being hit, shot, or stabbed is NOT in a cop's job description anymore than being in a crash is part of a delivery driver's job; it's simply a risk of the job.  As hard as it is to believe, cops do have families that love them and want them to return home; we do all we can to make sure that happens!


----------



## The Last Legionary

The grammar, punctuation, and words that I use will vary depending on the situation that I find myself in. I may choose to act in a  civilized manner or I dun mights picks redneckin. The decision is of course, mine to make. If you know the enemy and know yourself, your victory will not stand in doubt.


----------



## theletch1

> I dont know which one Im dealing with when I get pulled over, or have to otherwise deal with them, but I can control which of *me* theyre dealing with, so I do.


Elder, I think that this quote makes quite possibly the most profound statement of the entire thread.  You can't control any one else in a truly meaningful manner.  You can, however, attempt to control their reactions to outside stimuli by not giving them any negative input.


----------



## jks9199

KP. said:


> On the flip side, the police wanting to be soldiers is just as serious a problem. (towns owning apc's with .50 cal's mounted on them is a big clue that this isn't the USA I, at least, grew up in.)


 
It's most certainly not the world I grew up in.  When I was a kid, shootings in the community I grew up in were pretty much unheard of.  They weren't exactly common elsewhere, and when they did happen, they didn't tend to involve high power rifles or semi- or full- auto combat-style rifles.  They were around -- but they weren't common on the streets.  It ain't like that today.  

Fights when I was kid tended to be unarmed; stabbings and knife attacks did happen -- but they weren't common.

More and more firepower is increasingly commonly in the hands of more and more crooks today.  Police departments prepare for that.  Police are also the first line of defense on US soil; the odds are virtually certain that unless the next terrorist attack (and there WILL be another, though I won't try to predict what sort of attack or terrorist) will be responded to by police officers and firefighters long before any military personnel arrive -- if they ever do.  We have explicitly and intentionally chose to put civil order in the hands of civil authority -- and I think it's a good thing! 



> Never experienced a productive encounter, so can't speak to that.
> 
> 
> 
> I do my best to not be where the police are as quickly as possible. Experience has taught me that that is the best place to be.


 
Is it possible that you bring the character of these encounters upon yourself?  I asked many posts back if perhaps you are allowing your early experience to characterize every encounter today -- even though the situation and environment is not the same.  You never really did reply to that in any way.

There are cops (every one of us knows a few) that you know, if they're involved, there's gonna be a problem.  Some of them are just jerks and *******s; some simply are lacking in personal communication skills; a few are simply badge heavy and arrogant.  But to characterize every cop that way is no more fair than deciding that every person from who lives along the Shenandoah Valley is an uneducated, illiterate hillbilly involved in generations-long feuds with their neighbors, or any other form of stereotyping.  I challenge you simply to assess your actions and your behavior and your beliefs regarding law enforcement; are you perhaps stereotyping the police unfairly?

I'm going to make one more comment that will probably offend some people.  There is one thing about law enforcement that is among the hardest of them to teach a rookie; the police must operate on a "what-when" mindset, not a "what if."  Police officers must have, in the back of their mind, a plan to respond with force - possibly lethal force - to every single person they encounter.  We simply cannot get the bad guys to all agree to where black hats and labeled t-shirts, and some of the most mild appearing people are the ones that would kill us in a heartbeat.  Our profession is called upon to run towards the guns; to go at what everyone else is running from.  And we must be emotionally and mentally prepared to do so at any moment!  That certainly shapes how we live.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise

theletch1 said:


> Elder, I think that this quote makes quite possibly the most profound statement of the entire thread.  You can't control any one else in a truly meaningful manner.  You can, however, attempt to control their reactions to outside stimuli by not giving them any negative input.



Yes I would also agree with Jeff that this is the most profound and important statement to come out of this thread so far.


----------



## jks9199

KP. said:


> "My job's stressful, but I have a gun so I get to be a jerk" is not a compelling excuse.


I don't believe that what you heard was what was said...  Perhaps a re-reading might be in order?


----------



## jks9199

elder999 said:


> I dont know which one Im dealing with when I get pulled over, or have to otherwise deal with them, but I can control which of *me* theyre dealing with, so I do.


 
Best advice I've seen, for almost any human interaction.

Jack Hoban codified several years of experience with Robert Humphrey like this:
_Wherever I walk,_
_everyone is a little safer because I am there._

_Wherever I am,_
_anyone in need has a friend._

_Whenever I return home,_
_everyone is happy I am there._​
I've found keeping this Warrior Creed in mind has had a very powerful effect on my dealings with people.  

How I present myself, the way I approach someone, even the mindset I have going into an encounter invariably shapes how that encounter will go.  If I go into the encounter expecting positive interaction, there's an excellent chance of a positive outcome.  If I expect problems -- I invariably find problems.  I personally try to start positively, and adjust as the conversation flows.​


----------



## MJS

KP. said:


> Again, I stated that I would probably comply with a polite request to do so. But I see no compelling reason why I should be required to do so. Again, the government has no right or authority to tell me how I may stand.
> 
> It's a sad state we find ourselves in where the government can't figure out that rights should be respected.


 


jks9199 said:


> Why should the government be able, at certain times and places, to be able to tell you that you may or may not stand there or do that?
> 
> Very bluntly, because we're not in KP.-land (or Bob-land or Jks-land or wherever-land). You're part of a society; the freest society on the planet, but that doesn't mean there are no rules. The First Amendment gives you the freedom to peacably assemble and to associate with whomever you please for any purpose that's not illegal, as well as the general right to say what you wish. But it still allows some regulation of where you may assemble (among other things, you can't assemble on private property without the owner's permission & consent), and even, in some cases, what you can say.
> 
> Moving from that general point -- as a cop, I AM allowed to control your movements to a certain degree if I have grounds to stop you. I generally will ask once, tell once, and then make you comply. I reserve the right to move up or down that scale as the circumstances demand -- because I am not required to risk being shot, knifed, or even simply hit. Being hit, shot, or stabbed is NOT in a cop's job description anymore than being in a crash is part of a delivery driver's job; it's simply a risk of the job. As hard as it is to believe, cops do have families that love them and want them to return home; we do all we can to make sure that happens!


 
Well KP, there ya go.  Can't really add much to that.  Kinda sounds a bit like what I said about my incident in the DOC with that ***, who refused to let me look in his pocket.  However, I'm still wondering why you can't answer the rest of the question...what is so hard about a simple request from the cop, to make the whole thing less tense?  Lets put the shoe on the other foot.  If you were the cop, and you were alone with a suspect, would you not want to feel somewhat secure?  Would you not want to see his hands? What if he had a gun or knife on him?


----------



## Drac

MJS said:


> If you were the cop, and you were alone with a suspect, would you not want to feel somewhat secure? Would you not want to see his hands? What if he had a gun or knife on him?


 
I asked him a similar question earlier..See below...



Drac said:


> I would love to see you but on a badge and a gun and encounter somone with your attitude and see how Officer Friendly you remain...



Here was his answer...



			
				KP said:
			
		

> "My job's stressful, but I have a gun so I get to be a jerk" is not a compelling excuse.


----------



## MJS

Drac said:


> I asked him a similar question earlier..See below...
> 
> 
> 
> Here was his answer...


 
Sigh...why am I not surprised.


----------



## Sukerkin

"I don&#8217;t know which one I&#8217;m dealing with when I get pulled over, or have to otherwise deal with them, but I can control which of me they&#8217;re dealing with, so I do. I&#8217;m polite and compliant."  Spot on observation, sir.  I tried to rep buff you for it but the quote sent things a little screwy .  Hopefully some sense made it through the truncation .


----------



## Bob Hubbard

Why do cops need the firepower they now have?

Maybe this is why:

[yt]6-cMIVNntHs[/yt]

Pay careful attention.....the cops were out gunned by -2- gunmen with automatic weapons, and body armor.  Notice how the one gunman walks lazily in the open firiing at will.

This was in LA.


----------



## The Last Legionary

Interesting range that firefight ended at. What was that, 12 feet?  Hard to imagine being in that mess. Very glad only the robbers were killed.


Here's a worse one.  Warning, this isn't pretty.
This resulted in the death of Sgt. Howard Stevenson, in an act of cold blooded murder at the hands of a decorated US marine.
http://www.aztlan.net/ceres_shootout.htm
[yt]tjTBwrLRbsw[/yt]

Tell me the cops deserved this like the pieces of **** commenting on Youtube, and I'll happily "see nothing" as they beat the commentors sorry sad ***.


----------



## KP.

Drac said:


> I asked him a similar question earlier..See below...
> 
> 
> 
> Here was his answer...



I didn't see question in what you wrote. Maybe in the whole condescending "i'd like to see you strap on a gun" thing I missed any attempt at dialogue.

However, I did answer you, I believe I wrote:



KP. said:


> If I were talking to a police officer and I was asked just as you stated, I'd do so without hesitation.
> 
> But to my knowledge, there's no law compelling me to, nor is refusal to do so a reason to be taken to the ground, as was suggested above.


----------



## MJS

KP, in case you missed this post, I'm interested in your comments.
http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showpost.php?p=1088166&postcount=325


----------



## KP.

What's to respond to?

In KP-land bad cops wouldn't be stopping people without reason and "moving up and down the scale" based on their desire to inflict damage upon another individual. But that happens with regularity too.

It doesn't surprise me that the guys with the guns figure they get to demand what they want.

But, if the police officer is merely questioning someone, and has no reason to suspect them of a crime, they do not have the right to tell someone what position to stand in in general. They do have the right to conduct a pat-down search to assure themselves that they are not in any danger, but past that point, if the person is not suspected in something and they want to put their hands in their pockets, they are within their rights to do so.

However, whatever the cop wants to do he'll win. In court the cop says "He made a threatening move so I took him to the ground . ." and it's game over regardless of whatever really happened.

I started the thread in response to the contention being put forth by the police officers here that anytime anyone is abused by the police it is always the victim's fault because it would not have happened if only that person had listened. 

To me, that's just more of the same. 

Again, were it me, and I was asked politely, I'd remove my hands and keep on talking with the officer. I've never been in that situation. I have never, and I really wish to stress this, NEVER encountered a police officer where I wasn't at a minimum told to stand with my legs spread and my hands out on the hood of the car. 

I have never been charged with anything above traffic tickets. And frankly, except for once on this really nice straight road in Texas, those were utterly bogus as well. But the one in Texas was entirely legitimate as a ticket . . . I just had to see how fast the car would go. What can I say, I was 22 or something like that. 

But as soon as I blew by the guy I started slowing down and pulling over. I started breaking before he put his lights on . . . that was actually the best encounter with a policeman I've ever had. Though I still had to tolerate being told to get out of the car, get searched, grab the hood and get called "Boy" every sentence.


----------



## The Last Legionary

Cops don't stop people without a reason. You just can't seem to grasp that KP. In your world, they are out to get you, you can't win, so piss on em all.  Rather crappy mindset to live a life on. *** hole cops who **** up are regularly put away by the same system you say lets them **** you up without worry, a fact that you either refuse to grasp, or are too stuck in "sorry *** victim mode" to see.  Whichever it is, you bring your pain on yourself.

Oh, and KP? A cop doesn't have a right to just pat you down. He can't touch you without cause, and checking out your junk just taint cause brudda. That's an unlawful search, and it can and will and has been thrown out in a hundred courts all over this great land of ours and the cop spanked badly, and I'm not talking how I spanked Officer Amy last week. (I'd post the video butt I don't want to get in trouble again). 

Bad cops get taken down all the time, and if all you see are bad cops, maybe, just maybe, you need your own reality check and an attitude adjustment. But if you're on the steps of my store, leaning on my car, or hanging out in front of my house, you bet your sweet *** I'm calling the boys in blue and hoping they move you along. I don't want trouble magnents near me. I cause my own **** storms.

Now that I've kicked ***, can someone please pass me some more bubblegum? I need to get moving.  I need to pick up some "performance enhancers" from my local drug pusher  for a 3 day Special Forces Operation this weekend.  Thank god for 24 hour drive through service.  Officer Amy is coming over again and she's bringing some of her friends!  We're playing "Hide the Baton" and California Carrie promised she'd show me how a CHIPPY rides! WOOF!

What the hell is Ponch style anyway?


----------



## MJS

KP. said:


> What's to respond to?
> 
> In KP-land bad cops wouldn't be stopping people without reason and "moving up and down the scale" based on their desire to inflict damage upon another individual. But that happens with regularity too.
> 
> It doesn't surprise me that the guys with the guns figure they get to demand what they want.
> 
> But, if the police officer is merely questioning someone, and has no reason to suspect them of a crime, they do not have the right to tell someone what position to stand in in general. They do have the right to conduct a pat-down search to assure themselves that they are not in any danger, but past that point, if the person is not suspected in something and they want to put their hands in their pockets, they are within their rights to do so.
> 
> However, whatever the cop wants to do he'll win. In court the cop says "He made a threatening move so I took him to the ground . ." and it's game over regardless of whatever really happened.
> 
> I started the thread in response to the contention being put forth by the police officers here that anytime anyone is abused by the police it is always the victim's fault because it would not have happened if only that person had listened.
> 
> To me, that's just more of the same.
> 
> Again, were it me, and I was asked politely, I'd remove my hands and keep on talking with the officer. I've never been in that situation. I have never, and I really wish to stress this, NEVER encountered a police officer where I wasn't at a minimum told to stand with my legs spread and my hands out on the hood of the car.
> 
> I have never been charged with anything above traffic tickets. And frankly, except for once on this really nice straight road in Texas, those were utterly bogus as well. But the one in Texas was entirely legitimate as a ticket . . . I just had to see how fast the car would go. What can I say, I was 22 or something like that.
> 
> But as soon as I blew by the guy I started slowing down and pulling over. I started breaking before he put his lights on . . . that was actually the best encounter with a policeman I've ever had. Though I still had to tolerate being told to get out of the car, get searched, grab the hood and get called "Boy" every sentence.


 
You still can't answer the question that I asked can you?  You avoid and avoid but fail to come thru.  Why I bother anymore I don't know.  What can't you understand?  If someone is being questioned, lets say they stole something from a store.  Cop comes across the person.  They are being detained.  What is so wrong about having that person take their damn hands out of their pockets?  How the hell is that a violation of rights?  Do you not feel that the officer should be safe?  Oh wait, you still havent answered that question...you know, the one where I put YOU in the shoes of the cop.  And sorry, I don't buy the line that every cop in the world is going to stop you for the sake of it.  

Oh and BTW, you really started this thread because you couldnt get away with your bashing in the LEO thread, so you bring it here.  Let me ask another question, although it'll probably go unanswered.  Lets say something went wrong while you were at a bar, or out driving.  Someone accused you of cutting them off in traffic or looking at their girl in the bar.  A verbal argument begins.  Would you haul off and beat the **** out of the guy or would you try to defuse the situation verbally?  I'm interested in hearing your answer.

Myself...I'd do my best to verbally defuse it, to ease the tension.  So, same thing applies to the cop.  Instead of being one to have that cocky, I have to defy everything attitude, what the hell is so damn hard about doing something so simple?  BTW, I never got an answer...yeah, go figure...to my DOC post.


----------



## Carol

The Last Legionary said:


> Now that I've kicked ***, can someone please pass me some more bubblegum?



Sorry man, like my pick says, I'm all out of bubble gum.  Really.  :lfao:


----------



## KP.

The Last Legionary said:


> Cops don't stop people without a reason. You just can't seem to grasp that KP.]




Yes, they do. Unless "driving while black" is an any way a legitimate reason in your book.



> Oh, and KP? A cop doesn't have a right to just pat you down.



Strike two. It's called a "Terry Search" or a "Terry Stop," named after the case Terry v Ohio. They may not do so with a purpose to discover anything other than a weapon, and those are the one's that get thrown out.

In that case, three men were doing nothing more than pacing back in forth in front of a jewelry store. The officers stopped and searched them because they were acting suspiciously. They did not have probable cause. The Supreme Court ruled that for a frisk to happen, only reasonable suspicion was required.


----------



## KP.

MJS said:


> You still can't answer the question that I asked can you?  You avoid and avoid but fail to come thru.  Why I bother anymore I don't know.  What can't you understand?  If someone is being questioned, lets say they stole something from a store.  Cop comes across the person.  They are being detained.  What is so wrong about having that person take their damn hands out of their pockets?



I've answered that several times. I am not required to stand at attention while speaking to the police either. The government has no authority to tell people how them must stand.



> Do you not feel that the officer should be safe?  Oh wait, you still havent answered that question...you know, the one where I put YOU in the shoes of the cop.  And sorry, I don't buy the line that every cop in the world is going to stop you for the sake of it.



I never said they are. I said that has been the limits of my experience. I've gone out of my way to assert, time and again, that I don't believe my experience defines all police; rather, I have repeatedly stated I believe most cops are hard working, honest folks trying to do a hard job well. But somehow you keep missing that.



> Oh and BTW, you really started this thread because you couldnt get away with your bashing in the LEO thread, so you bring it here.



Go read that thread. I stated what I new to be an unpopular view, namely that there are police who enjoy hurting people. The discussion started on that point and several people came in and specifically said it is always the victim's fault. That universal claim is what I discussed, and I did not there, nor here, attempt to "bash the police" in general. On the flip side, it is hard to even engage the police and their representatives on issues with police violence because the immediate reaction is to deny that it happens, or at least it never happens where they are. Or if it does, the claim is always that it's dealt with immediately and harshly -- even though the evidence presented in criminology and sociology journals says otherwise. But, when one points to those sources, one is told that they are biased sources.



> Let me ask another question, although it'll probably go unanswered.  Lets say something went wrong while you were at a bar, or out driving.  Someone accused you of cutting them off in traffic or looking at their girl in the bar.  A verbal argument begins.  Would you haul off and beat the **** out of the guy or would you try to defuse the situation verbally?  I'm interested in hearing your answer.



I always try to avoid violence if possible. 



> Myself...I'd do my best to verbally defuse it, to ease the tension.  So, same thing applies to the cop.  Instead of being one to have that cocky, I have to defy everything attitude, what the hell is so damn hard about doing something so simple?  BTW, I never got an answer...yeah, go figure...to my DOC post.



DOC post?

And let's see .. as for the hands in the pocket thing, again I've repeatedly stated that if asked politely to remove my hands from my pockets, I'd almost certainly do so without reservation. My point is not that I wouldn't do it to make the officer feel safer, my point is that I wouldn't have to.  Again, something I've said repeatedly.


----------



## elder999

The Last Legionary said:


> Cops don't stop people without a reason.




In case I wasn't clear earlier-_*yes, they do.*_ Of course, to _some_-skin color is a "reason," but there's nothing _reasonable_ about being on the receiving end of that sort of _*behavior*, and that's what it is, bad behavior-though some might call it "good police work."_




The Last Legionary said:


> _. *** hole cops who **** up are regularly put away by the same system you say lets them **** you up without worry, a fact that you either refuse to grasp, or are too stuck in "sorry *** victim mode" to see. _


 
_Yeah, and sometimes they have to put 41 bullets in a guy pulling out his I.D., or shove a plunger up someone's rectum to "get put away by the system," and sometimes they do those things and they don't get "put away by the system._

_Funny, what color were the "victims" in those particular "crimes?"_



The Last Legionary said:


> _Oh, and KP? A cop doesn't have a right to just pat you down._


 
_Funny story-I was back in New York, walking my dog, in my own neighborhood. A house had been burglarized, the cops were around-same two State Troopers that I saw thump the crap out of a lady in the emergency room waiting room-and they stopped me and asked what I was doing-I told them I was going for a walk, whereupon it was Oh, he's going for a *walk*-this not three doors from my own house. Whereupon they searched me-didn't ask,didn't ask me to empty my pockets, just started sticking their hands in my field jacket-all the time telling me they could, because they had "probable 'cause." Never mind that I was walking towards the house that had been burglarized, and was in my own neighborhood, *and had my goddam dog with me *-somehow, in the face of all those improbabilities, they had "probable 'cause."

All too often, probable cause is, well, because you're there.




The Last Legionary said:



			Bad cops get taken down all the time,
		
Click to expand...


Bad cops get away with it for years before they "get taken down." Sometimes, they retire. If you look at my earlier post, I could just as easily say that I'm treating all cops like "bad cops" until I find out otherwise-in fact, that *is* what I'm doing: I'm treating all cops like cops-good or bad, but I'm assuming the worst almost every time. 



The Last Legionary said:



Now that I've kicked ***, can someone please pass me some more bubblegum? 

Click to expand...

 
Sorry, dude-I'm not on K.P.'s side on this, but I'm not on yours either.Ya can't have any of my bubblegum. :lol: Odds are pretty good-based on what you've posted-that I wouldn't give you water if you were crawling through the desert-in uniform.:lfao:_


----------



## Cryozombie

The Last Legionary said:


> Officer Amy is coming over again and she's bringing some of her friends!  We're playing "Hide the Baton" and California Carrie promised she'd show me how a CHIPPY rides! WOOF!



I just gotta ask... as often as you feel the need to comment like this, I wonder are you 11 years old and wondering what grownup sex is like?  Cuz most "normal" grownups who are having regular sex don't feel the need to talk about this sort of thing in every other post.  Overcompensate much?


----------



## elder999

Cryozombie said:


> I just gotta ask... as often as you feel the need to comment like this, I wonder are you 11 years old and wondering what grownup sex is like? Cuz most "normal" grownups who are having regular sex don't feel the need to talk about this sort of thing in every other post. Overcompensate much?


 


> Originally Posted by *The Last Legionary*
> 
> 
> _Officer Amy is coming over again and she's bringing some of her friends! We're playing "Hide the Baton" and California Carrie promised she'd show me how a CHIPPY rides! WOOF!_




More likely, a nightstick isn't the only baton "Officer Amy" is swingin', and that's what he's compensating for. :lfao:
_
_


----------



## MJS

KP. said:


> I've answered that several times. I am not required to stand at attention while speaking to the police either. The government has no authority to tell people how them must stand.


 
Never said you had to salute them.  But, if someone is being questioned, they're acting very nervous, hands in pockets, etc., that makes the situation tense, even moreso for the cop, and if you can't see that, I don't know what to tell you.  You complain about being treated like a POS by the police, yet you seem to think that simple things like this would not help the situation.  If the cop pulls 4 people out of a car, and tells them to sit on the curb, stand mear his car, whatever, why not do it?  So, you're saying they can or would be in the right to tell the cop to **** off, that they're not sitting on the curb or near his car and they'll stand where they want, is ok?  Yeah, and then you wonder why people like that have issues with the cops?  See KP, this is what you fail or dont want to see.  Its that cocky dumbass attitude that people give off, that sets the pace for headaches.  Is sitting on the curb for a few really the crime of the century?  Is it really that much to ask?  





> I never said they are. I said that has been the limits of my experience. I've gone out of my way to assert, time and again, that I don't believe my experience defines all police; rather, I have repeatedly stated I believe most cops are hard working, honest folks trying to do a hard job well. But somehow you keep missing that.


 
blink*blink, blink*  Hmm...still don't see your reply regarding YOU being in the position of the cop, facing someone with hands in pockets, alone, at night, while they fidget around.  Would you wonder if they had a weapon?  Would you want them to stand still, stop moving like they have ants in their pants and cooperate?





> Go read that thread. I stated what I new to be an unpopular view, namely that there are police who enjoy hurting people. The discussion started on that point and several people came in and specifically said it is always the victim's fault. That universal claim is what I discussed, and I did not there, nor here, attempt to "bash the police" in general. On the flip side, it is hard to even engage the police and their representatives on issues with police violence because the immediate reaction is to deny that it happens, or at least it never happens where they are. Or if it does, the claim is always that it's dealt with immediately and harshly -- even though the evidence presented in criminology and sociology journals says otherwise. But, when one points to those sources, one is told that they are biased sources.


 
Never said that all cops were saints.  Point out where I have?  However, seeing that the focus of that topic was the knee on the neck, which was really the shoulder, I don't see how that is hurting someone, when there is a 99.99% chance that the guy on the ground with the knee on his back, was acting like an *******.  





> I always try to avoid violence if possible.


 
Hey, we're on the same page about something.  Strange things do happen.  Anyways...my point of that was, we're both agreeing that we do what we can to relax the situation.  I'm applying that same idea to someone being detained by the cops.  





> DOC post?


 
Here.  



> And let's see .. as for the hands in the pocket thing, again I've repeatedly stated that if asked politely to remove my hands from my pockets, I'd almost certainly do so without reservation. My point is not that I wouldn't do it to make the officer feel safer, my point is that I wouldn't have to. Again, something I've said repeatedly.


 
And my link just proves that by acting suspicious, it leads to a more tense situation.  Take your hands out, chances are the cop just relaxed a bit more.  Turn your interior light on at night when you get pulled over, it eases his mind a bit more, now that he can see better inside the car.  If that jackass inmate had not pulled away from me and let me look in his pocket like I was trying to do, he'd have saved himself alot of headache.  But nooooo...instead he's gotta show off to the homeboys.  In the end, he lost, just like I said. I gave him a chance, a choice, to do things the easy way...he chose the hard way.


----------



## jks9199

KP. said:


> Yes, they do. Unless "driving while black" is an any way a legitimate reason in your book.
> 
> 
> 
> Strike two. It's called a "Terry Search" or a "Terry Stop," named after the case Terry v Ohio. They may not do so with a purpose to discover anything other than a weapon, and those are the one's that get thrown out.
> 
> In that case, three men were doing nothing more than pacing back in forth in front of a jewelry store. The officers stopped and searched them because they were acting suspiciously. They did not have probable cause. The Supreme Court ruled that for a frisk to happen, only reasonable suspicion was required.
> [/COLOR]


Y'know... You can read the case for yourself.  I posted a link to it early in this thread.  They were doing quite bit more than simply pacing.  The detective in the case made an assessment based on his training and experience that led him to believe there was a good possibility (NOT A CERTAINTY) that criminal activity was afoot.  Let me make a couple of analogies that may help you to understand this.  You go to the doctor, and give him or her a list of symptoms.  Based on them, the doctor concludes you may have cancer, and sends you for appropriate tests.  How's the doctor decide what to look for?  He draws reasonable inferences and conclusions based on the evidence at hand.  Or, your car isn't working quite right.  So you go to a mechanic.  He listens to what you have to say, turns the car on, and drives it around the block, then tells you that, quite fortunately, he knows what's wrong and it'll only take a boat payment to fix it...  Again, he draws his conclusions based on things that, to you or me, are meaningless -- but seen in the context of his training and experience, speak volumes.

The courts have rejected many stops and many searches; I've had a few of mine questioned -- though I've never had one thrown out.  Most will never make the news.

For the last time, I'm going to ask you a simple question that you keep ignoring:  Is there even a possibility that the nature of your encounters with police officers today is being shaped by your own conduct and what YOU are bringing into it?

Oh, and "driving while black..."  I dare you to try something.  Find a parking lot reasonably close to the road; don't simply stop on the side of the road, or you're likely to have another one of those negative encounters.  Once you're legally parked, with a decent view of the road way (preferably a highway -- but really, any road will do)... watch the cars.  See how many times you can identify the race or gender of the driver.  Try it at daytime and night...  You just may find yourself a little surprised at how hard it is...


----------



## KP.

jks9199 said:


> Y'know... You can read the case for yourself. . . he draws his conclusions based on things that . .. seen in the context of his training and experience, speak volumes.



I understand the case. The reality is that reasonable suspicion allows the police to do a pat down search for weapons. Now, it is disingenuous to suggest that a guy not taking his hands out his pocket is reason to take them to the ground (as was proposed above) but it's not enough to have a Terry search. However, once the Terry search is over and all you've found is a pocket comb, there's no reason or authority to stop the guy from putting his hands right on back in his pocket. 



> The courts have rejected many stops and many searches; I've had a few of mine questioned -- though I've never had one thrown out.  Most will never make the news.



Certainly, any Terry search treads on the edge of legal searches. But the point being discussed is not about doing a search for evidence of criminal activity, but of making sure the officer is safe. 



> For the last time, I'm going to ask you a simple question that you keep ignoring:  Is there even a possibility that the nature of your encounters with police officers today is being shaped by your own conduct and what YOU are bringing into it?



I seriously doubt it. When I've not done anything but sit with my hands on the steering wheel in plain view, as the officer walks up to the car, and the first words I hear are "Out of the car, boy." I fail to see what I did to elevate the issue. 



> Oh, and "driving while black..."  I dare you to try something.  Find a parking lot reasonably close to the road; don't simply stop on the side of the road, or you're likely to have another one of those negative encounters.  Once you're legally parked, with a decent view of the road way (preferably a highway -- but really, any road will do)... watch the cars.  See how many times you can identify the race or gender of the driver.  Try it at daytime and night...  You just may find yourself a little surprised at how hard it is...




http://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...serid=10&md5=7cbe83896f349fc7613fbcf0a35c2760


----------



## Brian King

*JKS9199 wrote*



> For the last time, I'm going to ask you a simple question that you keep ignoring: Is there even a possibility that the nature of your encounters with police officers today is being shaped by your own conduct and what YOU are bringing into it?


 

FWIW-I heard this the first time in Spanish when I was a kid living in a very bad part of town and was having trouble down in So Cal.

If one person calls you a jackass it is they that are a jackass
When two people call you a jackass it is time to take a look at your behavior
When three call you jackass time to get a saddle and get used to eating hay.
Or it went something like that. It has helped me keep things in perspective and not take it personally when one person insults and has helped me gut check when more than one has issued the same insult.



Warmest Regards
Brian King


----------



## The Last Legionary

KP. said:


> Yes, they do. Unless "driving while black" is an any way a legitimate reason in your book.
> 
> Strike two. It's called a "Terry Search" or a "Terry Stop," named after the case Terry v Ohio. They may not do so with a purpose to discover anything other than a weapon, and those are the one's that get thrown out.
> 
> In that case, three men were doing nothing more than pacing back in forth in front of a jewelry store. The officers stopped and searched them because they were acting suspiciously. They did not have probable cause. The Supreme Court ruled that for a frisk to happen, only reasonable suspicion was required.
> [/color]


 
Sorry mate, those are reasons. Never said they had to be good, or legit, but "because I'm an *** hole" is a reason.



elder999 said:


> In case I wasn't clear earlier-_*yes, they do.*_ Of course, to _some_-skin color is a "reason," but there's nothing _reasonable_ about being on the receiving end of that sort of _*behavior*, and that's what it is, bad behavior-though some might call it "good police work."_
> 
> _Yeah, and sometimes they have to put 41 bullets in a guy pulling out his I.D., or shove a plunger up someone's rectum to "get put away by the system," and sometimes they do those things and they don't get "put away by the system._
> 
> _Funny, what color were the "victims" in those particular "crimes?"_
> 
> _Funny story-I was back in New York, walking my dog, in my own neighborhood. A house had been burglarized, the cops were around-same two State Troopers that I saw thump the crap out of a lady in the emergency room waiting room-and they stopped me and asked what I was doing-I told them I was going for a walk, whereupon it was Oh, he's going for a *walk*-this not three doors from my own house. Whereupon they searched me-didn't ask,didn't ask me to empty my pockets, just started sticking their hands in my field jacket-all the time telling me they could, because they had "probable 'cause." Never mind that I was walking towards the house that had been burglarized, and was in my own neighborhood, *and had my goddam dog with me *-somehow, in the face of all those improbabilities, they had "probable 'cause."_
> 
> _All too often, probable cause is, well, because you're there._
> 
> _Bad cops get away with it for years before they "get taken down." Sometimes, they retire. If you look at my earlier post, I could just as easily say that I'm treating all cops like "bad cops" until I find out otherwise-in fact, that *is* what I'm doing: I'm treating all cops like cops-good or bad, but I'm assuming the worst almost every time. _
> 
> _Sorry, dude-I'm not on K.P.'s side on this, but I'm not on yours either.Ya can't have any of my bubblegum. :lol: Odds are pretty good-based on what you've posted-that I wouldn't give you water if you were crawling through the desert-in uniform.:lfao:_


 
That's ok. I'll wait until the local convenience store is robbed, then show up and help myself like the CSI's do on tv.   Yes, bad cops get away with it. Tell me again, how many cold cases are there, where others get away too?  Alot I think.  Only took 20 years? to ID Walsh's kids killer, and he still got away with it. Life sucks sometimes.

_


Cryozombie said:



			I just gotta ask... as often as you feel the need to comment like this, I wonder are you 11 years old and wondering what grownup sex is like? Cuz most "normal" grownups who are having regular sex don't feel the need to talk about this sort of thing in every other post. Overcompensate much?
		
Click to expand...

_ 


elder999 said:


> [/color]
> 
> More likely, a nightstick isn't the only baton "Officer Amy" is swingin', and that's what he's compensating for. :lfao:


 
So, you're saying hands that big, and an adams apple aren't normal n a woman?  OH MY GOD!!!!!! No wonder my *** hurts! Here I thought her voice was so deep because she's from Newfoundland!  AAAAHHHH!!!

Oh, seriously, why is it some people, usually the ones who couldn't get a date with their own hand, or laid at the Bunny Ranch if they were covered in diamonds, has to dis someone in a wonderful open relationship with a great lady, and her friends, one of who ownes a baby oil supply shop? It's just not very nice. I could post pics, but you wouldn't believe I didn't just download them from the interweb. 

Oh, and for those too slow, too stupid, or too dense to get it, I'm a smart ***! Ah Duh! I'm here to have fun, and if I piss some folks off, and make others laugh, and others think, hey yo! it's all in good fun.  Now while I do wear a uniform, it doesn't have a big scribbly M on it, and I don't ask about fries or cheese. But it's stressful, this place is relaxing, and you're all entertaining. Even the whiney pathetic puppy who needs to get out more and masturbate less.

TaTa!


I now return you to your normal program here "While the Stubornly Ignorant Refuse to see"

:flame:


----------



## MJS

KP. said:


> *Went in in 1977,* enlisted for 4 years for the GI bill. I went in as a cav scout, went to 2nd Cav in Europe and stayed there for almost 3 years, at which point I the so into OCS. Went to Benning for OCS then headed off for intel school. I went back to Europe where I worked counter-intel in Brussels for 2 years. I then was assigned to [/color]INSCOM.




I'm sorry, whats your date of birth again?


----------



## Drac

Cryozombie said:


> I just gotta ask... as often as you feel the need to comment like this, I wonder are you 11 years old and wondering what grownup sex is like? Cuz most "normal" grownups who are having regular sex don't feel the need to talk about this sort of thing in every other post. Overcompensate much?


 
At least he's getting some..How you doing in that department???


----------



## Cryozombie

Drac said:


> At least he's getting some..How you doing in that department???



LOL.  Well, do you hear me talking about it?  And What did I say about adults getting enough not needing to talk about it?

Draw your own conclusions.


----------



## Drac

Cryozombie said:


> LOL. Well, do you hear me talking about it? And What did I say about adults getting enough not needing to talk about it?
> 
> Draw your own conclusions.


 
If anyone want to advertize its ok with me..


----------



## Bob Hubbard

Well, I think I did find a photo of TLL online.
Now who doesn't find that arresting? You'll not the size of the one on the lefts nightstick btw.


Hey, I'm not the one who brought all this up.


----------



## Archangel M

Driving While Black...

While I do not doubt that it happens, as a matter of fact Im pretty confident that it happens in some places...but I think that sometimes (maybe even many times) its either tossed out to get cops to stop looking any further or its just ASSumed by the person accusing the cop of it.

If some citizen calls the police saying a black male was observed going through his car and I pull onto the 3 AM street and you are the only person out (who also happens to be black) Im NOT hassling you "because you are black". If a person is being locked-up because they were observed stealing and caught in the parking lot with the property in their pockets dont start with the "you racist crackers are only stopping me because Im black!" routine to get them to back down (like THAT works...maybe with loss prevention but not us.)

If I say something like "its as clear as black and white", or say anything else with the word "black" in it...spare me the "OH ITS A BLACK THING HUH??" (yes I have heard stuff like that).

If this stuff is a conscious ploy or its actually believed by the person saying it, I dont know. But what it does is hurt those innocent people who actually may have been improperly stopped because of their skin color.


----------



## jks9199

KP. said:


> Certainly, any Terry search treads on the edge of legal searches. But the point being discussed is not about doing a search for evidence of criminal activity, but of making sure the officer is safe.


 
Assuming the officer has justification, a Terry stop does NOT "tread on the edge of (a) legal search."  The 4th Amendment is not a blanket protection against searches -- but only against UNREASONABLE search and seizure.  This country's courts, at all levels, have consistently held that a stop based on facts and circumstances which would lead a trained and experienced police officer to suspect criminal activity are not inherently unreasonable.




> For the last time, I'm going to ask you a simple question that you keep ignoring: Is there even a possibility that the nature of your encounters with police officers today is being shaped by your own conduct and what YOU are bringing into it?
> 
> 
> 
> I seriously doubt it. When I've not done anything but sit with my hands on the steering wheel in plain view, as the officer walks up to the car, and the first words I hear are "Out of the car, boy." I fail to see what I did to elevate the issue.
Click to expand...

Really?  There's not the slightest possibility that YOU brought your own expectations and history into the encounter, and that it had some sort of effect on the course of that encounter?  I can't really address the two examples you've given; I clearly wasn't there.  I do suspect neither was recent... but I will make it clear that I condemn the first example you gave (the officer killing your dog).  If everything is as you related it -- there was no justification, even in the late 60s or early 70s for such an act.  It is possible that some officer today might address a black person as "boy" -- but I'd be rather surprised.  Just like I'd be surprised at anyone else addressing any black man or child as "boy" in that manner.  Doesn't mean it doesn't happen -- but I find it unlikely.

I know that the history and background I bring to an encounter will influence it; there are people that I know I will be fighting as soon as I have to deal with them -- because our mutual history has proven this.  Just like I know that your personal history is influencing how you read anything I write here.

At this point -- I'm done.  I'll happily discuss anything except law enforcement with you, KP.  But until you admit that there at least exists the possibility that you bring part of the issue upon yourself -- there's simply no point.  You simply won't listen, and I'm not going to bash my head against a wall.  

I'll be glad to answer other people's questions about law enforcement, and even to continue responding in this thread.


----------



## Drac

jks9199 said:


> At this point -- I'm done. I'll happily discuss anything except law enforcement with you, KP. But until you admit that there at least exists the possibility that you bring part of the issue upon yourself


 
Like that's ever gonna happen



jks9199 said:


> there's simply no point. You simply won't listen, and I'm not going to bash my head against a wall.I'll be glad to answer other people's questions about law enforcement, and even to continue responding in this thread.


 
You beat me too it JKS...


----------



## theletch1

_*Attention all users:

*_This thread has generated quite a bit of tension between members. All users should take a moment to refresh their memories of the rules of the board. While it is completely understandable that people on both sides of this argument will hold to their beliefs rather strongly it should also be remembered that the person on the other end of the keyboard holds their own beliefs just as strongly as a result of their own life experiences. As we continue with this thread it is of the utmost importance that all members stop to consider that before posting. This thread has the potential to offer insight into "how the other side lives" as it were. Take advantage of the rare opportunity that you have (on both sides of the argument) to ask questions, discuss problems AND possible solutions with an open mind and the understanding that you are talking to another human being. If this thread degenerates into a slug fest it will be locked.

_*Attention all users:

*_ -Jeff Letchford
-MT super moderator


----------



## Cryozombie

Ok. 

Since this is the* Good Cop* / Bad Cop thread, I'll share a random "Good Cop" story that I have. I still hold to the opinion that many cops tend to expect people to be scumbags and treat them all like such, but here is an example of a couple being reletivley cool to me. 

I got off work one day, and it had started to snow. On the way home, I have to climb a moderatly steep hill and it was so slick my car slid to the shoulder and got stuck. Soon enough a patrol car came by and the two officers inside came out and approached me. (I was out of the vehicle with my flashers on at that time, trying to call for a tow). They asked for my Licence and insurance, so I gave it to them, and they ran my plate, and information. The one cop said to me "Why are out in this weather?" and I told him I was on my way home from work. I told him I was calling for a tow, when his partner came back and gave my my docs back. He said "if she gets in and steers, can we push the car up this hill, and back on the road?" so I said, sure, why not. (Part of me was thinking they just wanted an excuse to get in and check the interior of the car, but I had nothing to hide, so I figured what the hell...) She got in, and me and the other cop pushed the car about 10 feet off the shoulder and up the hill the rest of the way. I thanked them, and they let me go about my business, and I made it home in the snowstorm without calling a tow truck because of their aid.


----------



## shesulsa

I've never been treated more politely than by our local Vancouver PD with the incidences of my son disappearing, getting violent (officer who responded on that one had a nephew with autism).  We have a couple of local Sheriffs that are great about helping find John when he runs off - very polite, very careful to brief officers who are going to look for him about handling him.  One retired officer was just wonderful to us and I miss him terribly.

Another good cop story:  I was getting on the freeway in my van when my youngest was rocking in his car seat, trying to make it wiggle back and forth.  Well, he got it to sway, all right - the seat belt came completely undone and he was lying on his side, strapped into the chair.  My cell phone rang and I was trying to tell the other party I'd call them back. Kept trying to keep my youngest son calm, give him directions to stay where he was until I could get off of the freeway. Phone kept ringing, traffic was crazy, I was nervous and scared as hell when I saw the lights.  I realized, in my tension, I was doing 85 mph!  He wrote me for 72 which knocked my fee down by almost $200 and followed me to the next ramp.  

Another good cop story:  Officers showed up at our house at about 3am with an arrest warrant for my brother - I was about 20, living in Orange County, California and had already had a friend who'd been stopped by an impersonator.  Her story was a bad one.  When I asked the police for photo ID alongside their badges, one cop started to become belligerent, asking why the badge wasn't good enough for me.  I calmly explained my concerns, told them about my friend. The accompanying officer had taken her report and was familiar with the case, so he called him off and said, "no problem," they provided their foto IDs. I matched the badge numbers and their faces quickly and let them in. 

That officer understood the dangers to civilians, strove to keep trust with the public and did what he needed to do without any attitude or ire.  I wrote a thank-you letter to him, his sergeant, the COP and sent a copy to the editor of the Register. 

I said it before and I'll say it again - civilians need to become educated as to what they can and cannot, should and should not do when confronted by a police officer.  Civilians should know exactly what their rights are, become familiar with questioning tactics and have a lawyer secured in case anything unplanned happens.  Civilians should have someone to call - their GO-TO, one phone call and that person needs to know what to do when called.  Educate yourself and understand the escalation of force policy in your precinct, county and state.  Officers need to understand that because of bad press and misinformation that many civilians will be mistrustful and accusatory. Officers need to understand that the defensive attitude that you are always right and everyone else must not be telling the whole truth is what keeps you in this position in the public eye.  Officers need to realize that to get beyond this and make your jobs easier and safer for everyone - yourselves as well as the populous - that you need to talk to people like they are people, not animals.  Not listening to them is not the path to this.  Officers need to realize that most people appreciate police more than is demonstrated and more than they know.

:asian:


----------



## Archangel M

And the thing "civilians" (non-police..whatever...some people take offense at the term) have to remember is that after just a few years on the job, police officers have been lied to by moms, priests, kids, teachers, nurses, doctors, judges, attorneys and just about everybody else that they have run into. After a few instances of believing someones story, going the distance for them then getting let down, cynisism is a natural result. So when we act like we "are not getting the whole truth..." there is a reason for it.


"It's a basic truth of the human condition that everybody lies. The only variable is about what." -House 121: Three Stories


----------



## shesulsa

Archangel M said:


> And the thing "civilians" (non-police..whatever...some people take offense at the term) have to remember is that after just a few years on the job, police officers have been lied to by moms, priests, kids, teachers, nurses, doctors, judges, attorneys and just about everybody else that they have run into. After a few instances of believing someones story, going the distance for them then getting let down, cynisism is a natural result. So when we act like we "are not getting the whole truth..." there is a reason for it.
> 
> 
> "It's a basic truth of the human condition that everybody lies. The only variable is about what." -House 121: Three Stories



Absolutely.


----------



## Cryozombie

shesulsa said:


> Civilians should know exactly what their rights are, become familiar with questioning tactics and have a lawyer secured in case anything unplanned happens.


 
The only problem with that is that often, even if the Civilians do know, the Cops often don't or don't care.

Here's a clear case that came up after training on Tuesday night. An Employee with the Sheriffs department told us a story about an officer who came in boasting about how she got a gun off the street.  Apparently this gentleman had a gun on the seat of his car, and a clip of ammunition in the same case with it.  So he was arrested and they confiscated his weapon.  Well... this raised a question with the employee telling the story... Did the guy have a FOID (an illinois gun permit basically) which he did... and if the gun was in a case, and was unloaded, why was their an arrest and confiscation.  Her answer was because he had an accessable firearm with a loaded magazine with it.  He asked her if she was familiar with Illinois gun transportation law, and she said yes, it has to be inaccessable to the driver with the ammo seperate.  He said "actually that's not how the law reads, and you can have it on the seat with the clip right there as long as it's fully encased, and unloaded."  She argued it with him and he offered to show her both of the Statutes that apply to Illinois law (we have 2, a criminal law and a forestry law) and she said declined stating she was just happy to get another gun off the streets.

So basically... her ignornace of the law (and obvious gun-bais) landed this guy in jail, and, on top of that will cost him money to fight it in court and have it thrown out, even tho he knew his rights and responsibility under the law and followed it.


----------



## Cryozombie

Archangel M said:


> And the thing "civilians" (non-police..whatever...some people take offense at the term) have to remember is that after just a few years on the job, police officers have been lied to by moms, priests, kids, teachers, nurses, doctors, judges, attorneys and just about everybody else that they have run into. After a few instances of believing someones story, going the distance for them then getting let down, cynisism is a natural result. So when we act like we "are not getting the whole truth..." there is a reason for it.


 
I've said this before... cops are so used to dealing with douchebags that they automatically assume everyone is a douchebag.  Not as pretty as you did... but I said it.


----------



## shesulsa

Cryozombie said:


> The only problem with that is that often, even if the Civilians do know, the Cops often don't or don't care.
> 
> Here's a clear case that came up after training on Tuesday night. An Employee with the Sheriffs department told us a story about an officer who came in boasting about how she got a gun off the street.  Apparently this gentleman had a gun on the seat of his car, and a clip of ammunition in the same case with it.  So he was arrested and they confiscated his weapon.  Well... this raised a question with the employee telling the story... Did the guy have a FOID (an illinois gun permit basically) which he did... and if the gun was in a case, and was unloaded, why was their an arrest and confiscation.  Her answer was because he had an accessable firearm with a loaded magazine with it.  He asked her if she was familiar with Illinois gun transportation law, and she said yes, it has to be inaccessable to the driver with the ammo seperate.  He said "actually that's not how the law reads, and you can have it on the seat with the clip right there as long as it's fully encased, and unloaded."  She argued it with him and he offered to show her both of the Statutes that apply to Illinois law (we have 2, a criminal law and a forestry law) and she said declined stating she was just happy to get another gun off the streets.
> 
> So basically... her ignornace of the law (and obvious gun-bais) landed this guy in jail, and, on top of that will cost him money to fight it in court and have it thrown out, even tho he knew his rights and responsibility under the law and followed it.


Granted.  It will.

So do you think officers need more legal training? What do you think the answer is to that?


----------



## Cryozombie

shesulsa said:


> Granted. It will.
> 
> So do you think officers need more legal training? What do you think the answer is to that?


 
Maybe. It couldnt hurt although the laws change so often... 

I'll tell you what tho. THIS is just SUPPOSITION based on past experience, but I'm willing to bet he tried to explain the gun law to her and she gave him an "are you arguing with me" attitude. And I think if they (police) would listen more with an open mind, I bet a quick call or even a lookup of the statute on her in-car laptop would have cleared the issue up quickly instead of an arrest because she didnt know. She had the tool to check... And I think THAT is the best thing... giving them the resources they need. And that means good guns, good body armor, working Dash-cams, working PCs in their cars, etc. I'm all for that. But they also need to have the willingness to use them.


----------



## Bob Hubbard

I asked a question about how much legal training cops get. I got some good answers that they get a fair amount.  But every cop I've asked said ask a lawyer about the law, not a cop.

Giving cops the tools and the education is part of the solution.  Another part is in the hands of the public.  

But your story sounds like a cop who didn't care what the law said, she is anti-gun, guns are bad, so in her mind she got a gun off the street and saved society from the bad guys, since only bad guys have guns.  

Here's a nasty thought.  Make cops libel for bad calls.
You'll have less such situations happen, but you'll also create timid cops who will act less.

Of course, when Iraq is safer than Chicago.......


----------



## Brian R. VanCise

Cryozombie said:


> The only problem with that is that often, even if the Civilians do know, the Cops often don't or don't care.
> 
> Here's a clear case that came up after training on Tuesday night. An Employee with the Sheriffs department told us a story about an officer who came in boasting about how she got a gun off the street.  Apparently this gentleman had a gun on the seat of his car, and a clip of ammunition in the same case with it.  So he was arrested and they confiscated his weapon.  Well... this raised a question with the employee telling the story... Did the guy have a FOID (an illinois gun permit basically) which he did... and if the gun was in a case, and was unloaded, why was their an arrest and confiscation.  Her answer was because he had an accessable firearm with a loaded magazine with it.  He asked her if she was familiar with Illinois gun transportation law, and she said yes, it has to be inaccessable to the driver with the ammo seperate.  He said "actually that's not how the law reads, and you can have it on the seat with the clip right there as long as it's fully encased, and unloaded."  She argued it with him and he offered to show her both of the Statutes that apply to Illinois law (we have 2, a criminal law and a forestry law) and she said declined stating she was just happy to get another gun off the streets.
> 
> So basically... her ignornace of the law (and obvious gun-bais) landed this guy in jail, and, on top of that will cost him money to fight it in court and have it thrown out, even tho he knew his rights and responsibility under the law and followed it.



I would be curious to see the Illinois statue on this and if she or the other person was correct.  Having a firearm in its case with a loaded magazine sitting on the seat next to you would get you I am imagining in major trouble in most states. (but not all)  Obviously some other factors would come into play but I would be curious to see the Illinois statue.


----------



## jks9199

As described -- it's not illegal to transport the firearm like that in Virginia.   But VA is pretty liberal on gun laws; it's actually still legal for a kid to have an unloaded gun in his locked vehicle on school property.  (And the first day of deer season is often a waste of a school day, in many places...)

However -- the officer *IS* already liable for their actions.  Whoever locked the guy up in Cryo's story can be sued for false arrest (assuming all the details as related are correct), separately from departmental discipline, and even can be charged criminally depending on some of the specifics.


----------



## Archangel M

Id hesitate to get into a debate when the story is from a "a guy told me about what some other cop did" source...maybe she was wrong, maybe she was right and this guy just didnt like it. If it was obviously an arrest not based on PC then where was her supervisor? I'd have told her to cut the guy loose...the cuffs can come off as easily as they go on. 

And while it still sucks for the guy arrested..if this was a wrongful arrest the case will get dumped, he gets his gun back and he wins a lawsuit (settlement is more likely).


----------



## Archangel M

P.S.-The other thing that is unclear is...is this the sole reason for this guys arrest? Perhaps he was locked up for driving while suspended, DWI, joint in the ashtray, warrant, etc. and the gun just happened to be in the car so she added that charge on? 

Not that it changes the "rightness or wrongness" of the gun charge and the persons recourse...but it changes the whole "flavor" of the story. When someone is telling a story of "cops doing wrong" they always seem to be of the "good guy doing nothing...minding his own busines..cop trampling his rights" variety. Its been my experience that few things are so cut and dry....if we are going to talk about what happens "often".


----------



## Cryozombie

Brian R. VanCise said:


> I would be curious to see the Illinois statue on this and if she or the other person was correct. Having a firearm in its case with a loaded magazine sitting on the seat next to you would get you I am imagining in major trouble in most states.


 
NP. I have excerpted the Appropriate statute from:

CRIMINAL OFFENSES
(720 ILCS 5/) Criminal Code of 1961.


(4) Carries or possesses in any vehicle or concealed 

on or about his person except when on his land or in his own abode or fixed place of business any pistol, revolver, stun gun or taser or other firearm, except that this subsection (a) (4) does not apply to or affect transportation of weapons that meet one of the following conditions:


(i) are broken down in a non&#8209;functioning state; 
or 

(ii) are not immediately accessible; or 
(iii) are unloaded and enclosed in a case, 
firearm carrying box, shipping box, or other container by a person who has been issued a currently valid Firearm Owner's Identification Card. 

Note the "Or" seperating each of those, not an "And" and that it clearly states meet *one* of the following


----------



## Cryozombie

Archangel M said:


> Id hesitate to get into a debate when the story is from a "a guy told me about what some other cop did" source...maybe she was wrong, maybe she was right and this guy just didnt like it.


 
The Source of this story is far from anti gun, and I'll buy his story... because its par for the course here. (The estabishment Being anti-gun I mean) As to the lawsuit you mentioned, I don't know how it is elsewhere, but it is HARD to win a "false arrest" lawsuit against the police here if they can articulate that they did what they did in following their best understanding of the law. (There was a term used for it, but I don't recall what it is, but it came up numerous times in regards to the "Seconds to saftey" style carry that was developed here and people were getting arrested for it) 

But yeah, Guy will be/probably was kicked, and got his weapon back (not ammo, however... In IL they get to keep any they confiscate, dont get me started on that) It's still kinda BS. And I don't know the orignial reason he got stopped, but yeah... regardless it doesnt excuse what happened IMO.

When I see him on Tuesday, I will ask for an update on this and let you know.


----------



## MJS

Cryozombie said:


> I've said this before... cops are so used to dealing with douchebags that they automatically assume everyone is a douchebag. Not as pretty as you did... but I said it.


 
Said it before, I may as well say it again...this is why I maintain that if this is the image that all cops supposedly have, then shouldn't we do what we can, to give a different impression to the cop?  I mean, is it really going to kill us, again, despite what we think they're thinking of us, to be polite, and do anything to put their mind at ease?

Who knows...maybe, just maybe, the cop will notice this, and think, "Hmm..this guy isn't a jerk afterall."


----------



## shesulsa

MJS said:


> Said it before, I may as well say it again...this is why I maintain that if this is the image that all cops supposedly have, then shouldn't we do what we can, to give a different impression to the cop?  I mean, is it really going to kill us, again, despite what we think they're thinking of us, to be polite, and do anything to put their mind at ease?
> 
> Who knows...maybe, just maybe, the cop will notice this, and think, "Hmm..this guy isn't a jerk afterall."



Well, in the case of the two officers who came to my door for my brother at 3am - one did notice and the other didn't.  So ... I think it really depends upon the situation, doncha think?

Neither side in this debate will get anywhere until we acknowledge there are people who are asses and don't behave well with police, get belligerent, etcetera, and there are police who are edgy and might not make the right call.

I'm one civilian who acknowledges there are people on both sides that do both and I'm willing to bridge the gap in my way.  But just as police aren't guaranteed what they will run into, neither is anyone else.  :idunno: 

Both sides are justified and the Us vs. Them thing only works if a person thrives on conflict.


----------



## MJS

shesulsa said:


> Well, in the case of the two officers who came to my door for my brother at 3am - one did notice and the other didn't. So ... I think it really depends upon the situation, doncha think?


 
You're right, some may, some may not.  



> Neither side in this debate will get anywhere until we acknowledge there are people who are asses and don't behave well with police, get belligerent, etcetera, and there are police who are edgy and might not make the right call.
> 
> I'm one civilian who acknowledges there are people on both sides that do both and I'm willing to bridge the gap in my way. But just as police aren't guaranteed what they will run into, neither is anyone else. :idunno:
> 
> Both sides are justified and the Us vs. Them thing only works if a person thrives on conflict.


 
I hope I havent given the impression that I disagree with you.    I've asked many times in this thread for someone to show me a post of mine where I said that cops were all angels.  Havent seen one yet. 

Instead I've stated that there are good and bad.


----------



## shesulsa

MJS said:


> You're right, some may, some may not.
> 
> 
> 
> I hope I havent given the impression that I disagree with you.    I've asked many times in this thread for someone to show me a post of mine where I said that cops were all angels.  Havent seen one yet.
> 
> Instead I've stated that there are good and bad.



You have not given the impression that you disagree with me.   And you have said there are good and bad.  We agree.


----------



## jks9199

shesulsa said:


> Well, in the case of the two officers who came to my door for my brother at 3am - one did notice and the other didn't.  So ... I think it really depends upon the situation, doncha think?
> 
> Neither side in this debate will get anywhere until we acknowledge there are people who are asses and don't behave well with police, get belligerent, etcetera, and there are police who are edgy and might not make the right call.
> 
> I'm one civilian who acknowledges there are people on both sides that do both and I'm willing to bridge the gap in my way.  But just as police aren't guaranteed what they will run into, neither is anyone else.  :idunno:
> 
> Both sides are justified and the Us vs. Them thing only works if a person thrives on conflict.


As a loose rule, when I get on the scene, I start low key.  (I say loose, because there are plenty of exceptions.)  I assume and expect that the people there will lie to me; but that doesn't mean I don't treat them with basic courtesy.  The lie is normal; I was interviewing a person recently who turned out to be a witness, not the suspect we thought at first... He still lied to me, even about several stupid things!

Something that a lot of cops sometimes forget is that, even though the call is routine to us, and we've done it a hundred or more times... it's not routine for the person we're dealing with.  That applies whether we're arresting them for Drunk In Public or taking a larceny report or doing a search warrant.


----------



## Archangel M

jks9199 said:


> As a loose rule, when I get on the scene, I start low key.


 
Same here. It is much more effective going from nice to "mean" when that becomes necessary than it is to start out mean at the get go. 95% of the time you can "sweet talk" the BG into cuffs before he can react.

Well maybe more like 25%...I exaggerate for effect sometimes.


----------



## Archangel M

Thing to remember is...the police "run into people" all of the time, its what we do. And its not "just douchebags", its crime victims, people broken down at the roadside, injured children, people dying in front of you at car wrecks, people finding their loved ones dead (usualy natural causes), people who cant find their children, parents whos kids misbehave/run away/wont go to school, mentally disturbed people who hear voices, suicidal people calling for help, the sexually abused, SIDS babies, people who simply dont kown who else to call so they call us...and on and on. The "cops only deal with douchebags so they thing everybody is a douchebag"... "thing" is an error in thinking.

Most people only "run into a cop" once in a blue moon.


----------



## jks9199

Archangel M said:


> Thing to remember is...the police "run into people" all of the time, its what we do. And its not "just douchebags", its crime victims, people broken down at the roadside, injured children, people dying in front of you at car wrecks, people finding their loved ones dead (usualy natural causes), people who cant find their children, parents whos kids misbehave/run away/wont go to school, mentally disturbed people who hear voices, suicidal people calling for help, the sexually abused, SIDS babies, people who simply dont kown who else to call so they call us...and on and on. The "cops only deal with douchebags so they thing everybody is a douchebag"... "thing" is an error in thinking.
> 
> Most people only "run into a cop" once in a blue moon.


Law enforcement officers run into people with exactly the same frequency as people run into people.  After all, we are people...  But most people don't run into law enforcement UNLESS things are not good...

The difference is the circumstances.  It's rare when we run into people under good circumstances, especially professionally.  And our profession, like doctors and lawyers, is one that we can't leave behind at the end of the shift.  I posted Jack Webb's speech earlier in the thread; there's a lot of truth.  You go somewhere, and as soon as people know you're a cop -- they change.  The dumb jokes come out, the stories about "this ticket I got..." or whatever come out...  It gets old, fast.  That's part of why lots of cops don't admit what they do socially.  (My wife just tells people I'm a martial arts teacher...  I sometimes say I'm a garbage collector...)

At the same time -- I've had a few experiences that I expected to be terrible that were pretty cool.  For example, a few years ago, I got the call to do a death notification one night, and was able to give a family closure about a brother who'd dropped off the face of the earth several years earlier.


----------



## Archangel M

Frogot about that on my list...waking people up in the middle of the night to tell them a loved one has died. 

[sarcasm] those douchebags[/sarcasm]


----------



## Sukerkin

jks9199 said:


> (My wife just tells people I'm a martial arts teacher... I sometimes say I'm a garbage collector...)


 
With no criticsm whatsoever implied, that's such a sad indictment of the state of affairs .

You should have no reason not to hold your head up high for what you do, sir.  I certainly couldn't do it - not in your country at any rate (stress levels massively too high).

If police officers are not being seen as custodians of the public good, what does that speak of as to the general standard of policing?  Or at least the public perception of the standard of policing?


----------



## jks9199

Sukerkin said:


> With no criticsm whatsoever implied, that's such a sad indictment of the state of affairs .
> 
> You should have no reason not to hold your head up high for what you do, sir.  I certainly couldn't do it - not in your country at any rate (stress levels massively too high).
> 
> If police officers are not being seen as custodians of the public good, what does that speak of as to the general standard of policing?  Or at least the public perception of the standard of policing?


One part of why I'm quiet about my profession (not secretive, but quiet...  Several neighbors have come to know what I do) is because, sadly, work can follow me home.

A few months ago, I had professional contact (and not positive...) with several dumbasses who happen to live in my community.  The mother of one of them showed up at my door, and hassled my wife.  (The only reason I didn't return the favor with my buddies from work in tac gear was my wife didn't call me when the woman was there...)  I know people who've looked up to see someone they arrested sitting down the block or in the grocery store...  So, to protect my family, and for my peace of mind, I don't advertise what I do.  At the same time... a Google search of my name and employer pops up several news articles and other hits about me.  

The US culture is only grudgingly tolerant of its guardians; the love and adoration we were shown shortly after 9/11 or the DC-area snipers (Malvo & Mohammed) faded rapidly... In a couple of cases that I know of, as soon as someone got a ticket.  I literally had one woman inform me that I "ruined" the capture of the snipers for daring to cite her for driving nearly double the posted limit, on a dark, curvy, shoulderless & pothole filled road...


----------



## Brian King

*Sukerkin wrote:*



> If police officers are not being seen as custodians of the public good, what does that speak of as to the general standard of policing? Or at least the public perception of the standard of policing?


 
I think it is more that they are seen as possible inconvenience or trouble at least until they are needed than a testimonial on their occupations social standard or approval ratings. 

I am a supporter of law enforcement officers having many as students and fellow martial art practitioners and instructors and many close friends on the job. At the same time I do not like having an officer in the car behind me even if I am not speeding or breaking any other law. 

Years ago while in stop and go traffic in RentonWashington I was behind a Renton motorcycle officer and even today years later I smile when I recall his license plate frame. Smile I could be behind you 

While working the door we never liked it when officers would come into the bar for a look around or would stay parked in the parking lot or across the street. Not a big deal but it added tension to the room and often people would act up after they left almost as some kind of reaction, yet when we needed them to show up I loved it when the cars would come up and empty out a half of a dozen officers. When not needed they are authority and cold water and sometimes threat rolled into one, when needed they are angels and authority and threat rolled into one. I might not like that rather aggressive large officer when he is asking for ID because I was speeding or otherwise attracted his attention but when fighting multiple opponents that night out in the parking lot I loved it when his car came up and he bounded out. 

I can understand JKS9199s and other officers reluctance to make mention of thier profession while making contact with people outside of the job. Hey can you fix my ticket or the are you here for me? lame jokes that even I have heard too many times just being around officers. That uncomfortable feeling that some have as they monitor what they say when around authorities that even if they try to hide it everyone else also feels it including the officer. There is also the expectation that if there is trouble they will handle it, a house or car broken in down the street, a loud drunk at the other side of the restaurant or that group of young people by the door no matter if the office is on the clock or not. Then there are the questions is this or that legal like the officer is some kind of attorney giving out free legal advice. And for the officers there is that feeling of always being on the clock and watched for anything that they might say that might reflect badly on the uniform or taken out of context that will come back and haunt them even if said out of uniform and off the clock. I am sure that there are times we all like to turn off our work and just be a wife or a husband but this can be extremely difficult for those whose first name is always Officer.

Regards
Brian King


----------



## Drac

jks9199 said:


> lots of cops don't admit what they do socially. (My wife just tells people I'm a martial arts teacher... I sometimes say I'm a garbage collector...)
> .


 
That is funny..I have been saying that for years..


----------



## Kreth

jks9199 said:


> I sometimes say I'm a garbage collector...





Drac said:


> That is funny..I have been saying that for years..


Playing devil's advocate for a moment, do you both realize this actually adds merit to Cryo's comment about cops expecting people to be douchebags? :idunno:


----------



## Drac

Kreth said:


> Playing devil's advocate for a moment, do you both realize this actually adds merit to Cryo's comment about cops expecting people to be douchebags? :idunno:


 
I didn't see it that way..I have been in social situations where what I do for a living has slipped out...There is *ALWAYS* some jerkoff present that feels the need to tell me about him being harrased by the local ******* coppers *OR *they will ask legal questions that Perry Mason couldn't figure out..


----------



## jks9199

I know doctors and lawyers who avoid saying what they do for a living, because the moment they do, there's always the guy who wants free professional advice.  And, as I said, there are some serious safety concerns for us.

This may be one of the things that's more unique about the DC area -- but around here, "what do you do" is a common conversation starter.  There's also a kind of general acceptance of some vagueness or even outright deception; there are a lot of people around here who don't really work where their documents may say or where they're supposed to...  My general approach is generally to simply say where I work... or that I work for the government.  If pressed, it depends on the circumstances as to what answer they get.

Then there's the simple issue of actually being able to be off the clock.  Despite some popular perception, cops do actually get to be off the clock.  We don't need someone pounding on our door because they got a ticket or whatever when we're home any more than a doctor does...

What's so offensive about trying to keep a peaceable atmosphere socially by being a little evasive about what you do?


----------



## elder999

jks9199 said:


> There's also a kind of general acceptance of some vagueness or even outright deception; there are a lot of people around here who don't really work where there documents may say or where they're supposed to.......What's so offensive about trying to keep a peaceable atmosphere socially by being a little evasive about what you do?


 

Don't think it's particularly offensive-I work with a whole town of people who've had to do this, and had to do it for more nearly three generations....heck, when I worked at the nuke plant back in New York, nuclear power and the utility companies were so unpopular with some that there was a standard, evasive answer:

_I work for a major industrial concern with its interests in New York._ Put people right to sleep, that one did....:lol:


----------



## Cryozombie

Archangel M said:


> Frogot about that on my list...waking people up in the middle of the night to tell them a loved one has died.
> 
> [sarcasm] those douchebags[/sarcasm]



Ya know Arc... YOU said here:



Archangel M said:


> And the thing "civilians" (non-police..whatever...some people take offense at the term) have to remember is that after just a few years on the job, police officers have been lied to by moms, priests, kids, teachers, nurses, doctors, judges, attorneys and just about everybody else that they have run into. After a few instances of believing someones story, going the distance for them then getting let down, cynisism is a natural result. So when we act like we "are not getting the whole truth..." there is a reason for it.



Which to me is "Every kind of person lies to us no matter who they are so we expect it, you should understand our cynicism"

I just translated that to "they all are douchebags".  

Again, that was specifically directed to people you deal with in a Law ENFORCEMENT capacity. 

Here lemme clarify what I meant for you:  "People we deal with in an ENFORCEMENT Capacity of some kind are all guilty of being douchebags UNTIL they prove themselves innocent"

How's that?

And understand somthing else, Mr "Us cops are so perfect and you are an ***, zombie"... *I* didn't make that up, one of the cops at our dojo basically said that to us. YOUR comment above about everyone being a liar reinforced that in my mind.  

And... if cops can make broad sweeping judgements about "Civilians" based on the ones they deal with, and thats ok... then guess what?  Bitching about us doing it about cops... well... makes a person a hypocrite.


----------



## Rich Parsons

Drac said:


> I didn't see it that way..I have been in social situations where what I do for a living has slipped out...There is *ALWAYS* some jerkoff present that feels the need to tell me about him being harrased by the local ******* coppers *OR *they will ask legal questions that Perry Mason couldn't figure out..


 

Drac et al,

I get the same thing. About software and also about cars. 

I listen. I acknowledge that there could be a problem.

What I see from police officers, is that they never acknowledge that it was even remotely possible that some other officer might have made a msitake. There are some posts about that link in bad cops getting arrested and such. But they do not acknowledge that it was possible themselves, There always is plausible deniablility on their part. 

I mean I could ask people about their illegal downloads. I could ask about  following instructions while loading and removing software. 

I could ask people about maintenance on their cars. I know some that actually complain to me about their car. The same car they take to the track and race. This piece broke over time at high torque levels. I should have designed it better. 

The more I deny the possibility of a bad piece or quality control or bad design, the more they believe that they have a case. Thou does protest to much. 

But if I acknowledge the possibility and nod when I listen, they either accept it and move on. If they stay, then I realize they are willing to have a real discussion and I can then ask them questions about what they did or what happened. But for those that want to just complain then they complain and they move on. 





jks9199 said:


> I know doctors and lawyers who avoid saying what they do for a living, because the moment they do, there's always the guy who wants free professional advice. And, as I said, there are some serious safety concerns for us.
> 
> This may be one of the things that's more unique about the DC area -- but around here, "what do you do" is a common conversation starter. There's also a kind of general acceptance of some vagueness or even outright deception; there are a lot of people around here who don't really work where their documents may say or where they're supposed to... My general approach is generally to simply say where I work... or that I work for the government. If pressed, it depends on the circumstances as to what answer they get.
> 
> Then there's the simple issue of actually being able to be off the clock. Despite some popular perception, cops do actually get to be off the clock. We don't need someone pounding on our door because they got a ticket or whatever when we're home any more than a doctor does...
> 
> What's so offensive about trying to keep a peaceable atmosphere socially by being a little evasive about what you do?


 
Well as to the security issue, I understand. But if it is a small party and you are there, and there is a security issue, then why are you there in the first place? 

Why does a police officer associate with these Security risk to their life? Or is it that all people are a possible security risk. Everyone is against you because you are a police officer? 


As to lawyers and Doctors not telling people what they do, the one I know do. But, I could see your point about how some could. (* You see I acknowledge the other posters have a valid point and a place to stand on for their arguement. Trying to get that from a police officer is difficult or near impossible. *) Free advice in their field could lead to malpractice cases, or even death. 

Even when I know a police officer has violated my rights, or is wrong about the law. I smile, and take notes. I agree with everything they say, and then call my lawyer and make sure the offcier then is brought to the case. But, here is my experince for all you Honest LEO's on this board, is that once I fight it in court the officer does not show up and the ticket or case is dropped. I find this to an issue. I am guilty by the LEO, and then I have to PROVE I am innocent in Court. It seems a violation of my rights. It seems to be an injustice of the process and the rights of the people. A simple acknowledgement from time to time from the Honest and good LEO's that there are some that are gray or not so good, and that it is possible that some other HUMAN Being serving as a Police Officer could have been wrong and or made a mistake.  


If you search on this site you will find an old thread, where someone "yelled" at me that I should not be arguing or even challenging the comments comming from another poster as he was/is a LEO. I got private messages from the LEO asking me to drop my challenges, here on this site for he as in fear of getting in trouble at work. The issue is that I was being attacked with the threat of Police, but when I questioned it, I was wrong. So, even those who are hard core friends of the LEO's support their actions many times. I think this is why they are hard core friends. But, instead they cannot handle a true friendship of someone being able to challenge a point and have a discussion on a point. 

This is why I really did not want to post here on this subject. I know police who have to be right as that is their job to be right, from their point of view. I have others who will admit in private that there are some of run the gray area, because they can. Because they enjoy it. But they never admit it in public. Even to someone who support the LEO's and the risk they take every day even with a simple traffic stop, this seems to be a conspiracy within industry. A code of silence. 

I have been wrong before in my life. I admit that. But try to get an officer to do so, is almost impossible even in private. From my experience of course.


----------



## jks9199

Rich,
Go through this thread; in fact, go through all my posts on MT.  Find where I've said that cops are always right.  Please...  because I know I have specifically said that they aren't in this thread alone.  I have distinguished between police officers and criminals who snuck through and got badges; I admit, that's a semantic difference, but it matters to me.

I'll even admit; I've made mistakes.  I don't have every code section memorized.  I've never deliberately violated someone's rights, and I've never had one of my searches or arrests thrown out.  I did do a search warrant on what I had every reason to believe was someone's home -- and it turned out merely to be a place that they crash at frequently enough to seem to live there and claim as home in some records.  But I had probable cause to support the warrant.

You asked why I would be somewhere that security would be an issue.  It's simple.  Sometimes, it may not be a choice.  Maybe it's an office party with my wife.  Or maybe it's a PTA meeting, or homeowner's association meeting...  or just church or the grocery store.  We segregate criminals; they show up where we live and do business, too.  And, depending on the criminals you deal with, they do surveillance on us.  I know a guy who had a gang member sitting outside his home for several hours; it wasn't a coincidence.  I described how a neighbor showed up at my house and hassled my wife because the neighbor's kid got in trouble.  You think there might be a concern about some of my neighbors becoming my "customers?"


----------



## Drac

jks9199 said:


> You asked why I would be somewhere that security would be an issue. It's simple. Sometimes, it may not be a choice. Maybe it's an office party with my wife. Or maybe it's a PTA meeting, or homeowner's association meeting... or just church or the grocery store.


 
Walking out of the liquore store ( off duty) I saw a young black male bothering an elderly male for money..I could see that the old man was afraid, so I tod this POS gang banger to hit the road..He took offense to my messing up his panhandling and got in my face about it, even after I badged him, and he would up hitting the ground and the local boys had to be called to take this wanted felon to jail..


----------



## shesulsa

What I'm seeing is there are LEOs here who acknowledge there are good and bad and those who are just defensive. I see non LEOs here that are good and bad and those who are just defensive.

I think, though, that the points are moot at this point.


----------



## Archangel M

As these topics always seem to boil down to the same people with the same stories and issues I think you are probably right. 

If on this whole forum, only 4-5 keep cropping up whenever the "bad cop" issue arises then I think we are doing OK.


----------



## MJS

shesulsa said:


> What I'm seeing is there are LEOs here who acknowledge there are good and bad and those who are just defensive. I see non LEOs here that are good and bad and those who are just defensive.
> 
> I think, though, that the points are moot at this point.


 
I think this thread was moot about 25 pages back.


----------



## MJS

Archangel M said:


> As these topics always seem to boil down to the same people with the same stories and issues I think you are probably right.
> 
> If on this whole forum, only 4-5 keep cropping up whenever the "bad cop" issue arises then I think we are doing OK.


 
Are there really that many depts. out there with nothing but bad apples?  I mean, I know that everyone is far from an alter boy, but seems to me that there're folks on here who seem to attact nothing but 'bad cops.'


----------



## Archangel M

MJS said:


> Are there really that many depts. out there with nothing but bad apples? I mean, I know that everyone is far from an alter boy, but seems to me that there're folks on here who seem to attact nothing but 'bad cops.'


 
Same way in the "real world" too as I find it.


----------



## Drac

MJS said:


> Are there really that many depts. out there with nothing but bad apples? I mean, I know that everyone is far from an alter boy, but seems to me that there're folks on here who seem to attact nothing but 'bad cops.'


 
In all the depts I have interacted with up here I think I have only met a small handfull of " bad" cops, I hear stories about more..Then you have to expound on the term bad..What makes a cop bad?...A take-no-crap-from-an-uncooperative suspect attitude??..The " traffic nazi " cop that will not honor your courtesy cards or badge..


----------



## jks9199

MJS said:


> Are there really that many depts. out there with nothing but bad apples?  I mean, I know that everyone is far from an alter boy, but seems to me that there're folks on here who seem to attact nothing but 'bad cops.'


I know one "department of last resort" that'll hire you if you're good enough to be asked to resign from any other department...  but even there, most of the cops are actually decent.  They have a couple of knuckleheads, and I don't turn my back on that agency...  but that's only a couple.

There are some very corrupt, very bad departments out there.  Not surprisingly, lots of them are part of equally corrupt governments and communities.   But they're not particularly common.  And there are some parts of departments (like the LA Rampart division scandal or the cops involved in the Abner Luima incident in NY...) that do some incredibly stupid, often illegal things.  Sometimes, they're misreading "signals" from someone in the chain of command, other times it's just plain "dumbassity" to coin a word.


----------



## Sukerkin

"Dumbassity" - a new word is born .

I've read through this thread with a mixture of disbelief, frustration, aggrivation and agreement in equal measure.

The conclusion that I have reached is that I am glad that the police in Britain do not have to operate in the same environment as the police in America. But also I am glad that the police in Britain do not have the autonomy of action that it seems the police in America do.

Power {over others} corrupts. Experience of the real world, compared to the ideal, decays expectations. They are the true absolutes of governance and law enforcement. No matter how righteous an officer may be when he starts, those twin rasps of power and experience will erode his moral compass as sure as rain erodes stone.

It is not the fault of the officer, per se, but of the pressures and expectations that are laid upon him or her. I freely admit I would make a terrible officer - I'd be more like Judge Dredd than Officer Friendly. That being so, is it right for me to get on my high-horse about the behaviour of individuals who choose, as I self-absolve myself from, the profession of law enforcement?

The annoying answer is both Yes and No. I have a right to expect fair treatment from those who enforce the law but also, if those that do this hard job are held to too high a yardstick then none will choose to do it. Where does that leave us?

In the end, I'd rather have a small percentage of 'bad apples' and a half-way effective police force than no force at all.


----------



## MJS

Drac said:


> In all the depts I have interacted with up here I think I have only met a small handfull of " bad" cops, I hear stories about more..Then you have to expound on the term bad..What makes a cop bad?...A take-no-crap-from-an-uncooperative suspect attitude??..The " traffic nazi " cop that will not honor your courtesy cards or badge..


 
Exactly!  What is bad to me, is probably going to differ from the next person, and so on and so on.  I've gone on a few ride-a-longs with a cop where I work.  The guy has a nickname...the arrest machine. He is probably one of the most proactive cops on the force, goes out and actively looks for people with warrants, knows his dist. inside and out, big into community policing, etc.  To some folks, he is great, as he's keeping the neighborhood safe.  To others, he's a PITA.  



jks9199 said:


> I know one "department of last resort" that'll hire you if you're good enough to be asked to resign from any other department... but even there, most of the cops are actually decent. They have a couple of knuckleheads, and I don't turn my back on that agency... but that's only a couple.
> 
> There are some very corrupt, very bad departments out there. Not surprisingly, lots of them are part of equally corrupt governments and communities. But they're not particularly common. And there are some parts of departments (like the LA Rampart division scandal or the cops involved in the Abner Luima incident in NY...) that do some incredibly stupid, often illegal things. Sometimes, they're misreading "signals" from someone in the chain of command, other times it's just plain "dumbassity" to coin a word.


 
Thanks for the reply.


----------



## jks9199

Sukerkin said:


> "Dumbassity" - a new word is born .
> 
> I've read through this thread with a mixture of disbelief, frustration, aggrivation and agreement in equal measure.
> 
> The conclusion that I have reached is that I am glad that the police in Britain do not have to operate in the same environment as the police in America. But also I am glad that the police in Britain do not have the autonomy of action that it seems the police in America do.
> 
> Power {over others} corrupts. Experience of the real world, compared to the ideal, decays expectations. They are the true absolutes of governance and law enforcement. No matter how righteous an officer may be when he starts, those twin rasps of power and experience will erode his moral compass as sure as rain erodes stone.
> 
> It is not the fault of the officer, per se, but of the pressures and expectations that are laid upon him or her. I freely admit I would make a terrible officer - I'd be more like Judge Dredd than Officer Friendly. That being so, is it right for me to get on my high-horse about the behaviour of individuals who choose, as I self-absolve myself from, the profession of law enforcement?
> 
> The annoying answer is both Yes and No. I have a right to expect fair treatment from those who enforce the law but also, if those that do this hard job are held to too high a yardstick then none will choose to do it. Where does that leave us?
> 
> In the end, I'd rather have a small percentage of 'bad apples' and a half-way effective police force than no force at all.


As much as US law enforcement has a common heritage and some common principles with British law enforcement, just like US culture -- it's also very different.  The US is much more diverse than any other country; on top of that, there are different cultures from region to region, sometimes even within a state.

But even in England, a cop has a lot of autonomy and authority.  (After discussions with Tez and others -- in some way, more authority than I have!)  It goes with the job; the alternative ends up with cops who can't do anything without micromanaging guidance.

The best we can do starts within the police department.  We do our level best to hire the best people, who have reasonably balanced personalities and hopefully won't abuse their authority. Within a department, you do your best to cultivate a culture of integrity and reasonable respect for the community.  Then -- the community has to demand the same of its police.  That means working with cops -- and reporting officers who don't live up to the ideal, too.


----------



## morph4me

I've been following this thread for awhile and have read both sides of the issue. I have no axe to grind with either side of the issue and I think both sides probably have a degree of truth to them. LEO's are people, just like everyone else, so it's only common sesne that you're going to get your share of goo hardworking, cops trying to do their jobs to the best of their abilities, and the stupid, mean spirited, *******s who misusetheir authority that you have in any other segment of society, I've met both. On the other side of the coin, there are people who understand that the police have a job to do and comply with requests, and people who feel entitled and want to be bigshots and ignore the authority that we as a society give to our LEO's. It's the way it's always been, and always will be. The cops are being recorded and held accountable or vindicated more and more. Personall, I want to thank the LEO's for taking a thankless job and trying to make a difference.


----------



## Rich Parsons

jks9199 said:


> Rich,
> Go through this thread; in fact, go through all my posts on MT. Find where I've said that cops are always right. Please... because I know I have specifically said that they aren't in this thread alone. I have distinguished between police officers and criminals who snuck through and got badges; I admit, that's a semantic difference, but it matters to me.
> 
> I'll even admit; I've made mistakes. I don't have every code section memorized. I've never deliberately violated someone's rights, and I've never had one of my searches or arrests thrown out. I did do a search warrant on what I had every reason to believe was someone's home -- and it turned out merely to be a place that they crash at frequently enough to seem to live there and claim as home in some records. But I had probable cause to support the warrant.
> 
> You asked why I would be somewhere that security would be an issue. It's simple. Sometimes, it may not be a choice. Maybe it's an office party with my wife. Or maybe it's a PTA meeting, or homeowner's association meeting... or just church or the grocery store. We segregate criminals; they show up where we live and do business, too. And, depending on the criminals you deal with, they do surveillance on us. I know a guy who had a gang member sitting outside his home for several hours; it wasn't a coincidence. I described how a neighbor showed up at my house and hassled my wife because the neighbor's kid got in trouble. You think there might be a concern about some of my neighbors becoming my "customers?"


 

JKS,

If I may be so bold. 

In one post you may acknowledge there are bad cops.

In the next Post you tell someone that it is all their fault. 

Perception is the key here. A random post not directed at anyone that says there are bad cops and oh look here some links, does not really acknowledge the other persons point of view. It makes it look like a red hering. You get to be jaded by the people you deal with it also means that people on the internet are also jaded when it comes to posts. 


As to personal Safety, I understand being places where someone might come at you random. I understand having bad guys track you.

Do you, make sure you are not followed home every time no matter how long it takes? I did when I ran security and many of the hot spots. Only a few trusted friends knew where I lived. 

Do you or your buddies show up with a cruiser at your home? if you do then you are asking for your neighbors to know that you are a police officer. 

As to the Wife's Holiday Party, I can see not hurting her career by making a scene, but, if you condemn people for lying to you, and you do it for your own reasons as well is it really such a bad thing? Or shoudl we all just assume that everyone is a liar and nothing is true? 

I am not trying to have a fight with you. 

I am just trying to point out the perception issues, that police do not see for they are in the forest so deep they cannot see that not all the trees are hiding bad guys.


----------



## Bob Hubbard

*SPD Officers Find Shelter For 60 Displaced People*



> On 12/21/08, at  9:48 p.m., 911 received a call of a disturbance involving 60 people outside the Pavilion Shelter, at the Seattle Center.  According to the caller, a Greyhound Bus dropped the people at the shelter and advised them that they could stay there.   When they attempted to get into the shelter they were informed that they were full and did not have room.  Before the group could return to the bus, it had left.   The displaced people were out front of the shelter and were very angry.





> Metro or Greyhound were not available to assist with the transportation, so all transports were completed by patrol and West Anti Crime Team.  They were all in shelters, 1 ½ hours after the original call.


http://spdblotter.seattle.gov/2008/12/22/spd-officers-find-shelter-for-60-displaced-people/


----------



## Cryozombie

I saw this Video yesterday... 

It's apparently not just Civilians who give a hard time to the Cops durring routine traffic stops...

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=DrRdIeK9xoc

And Here is a good example of Cops being called out for their behavior.  (Although in this case, as a man, I don't know if their behavior was exactly wrong mind you.  LOL.  I'd say only in Chicago, but yeah.)  

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=FJaAe7sYoCA


----------



## elder999

ER doctors say police use excessive force



> NEW YORK (Reuters Health) &#8211; In a survey of a random sample of U.S. emergency physicians, virtually all said they believed that law enforcement officers use excessive force to arrest and detain suspects.
> The sample included 315 respondents. While 99.8 percent believed excessive force is used, almost as many (97.8 percent) reported that they had managed cases that they suspected or that the patient stated had involved excessive use of force by law enforcement officers.
> Nearly two thirds (65.3 percent) estimated that they had treated two or more cases of suspected excessive use of force per year among their patients, according to a report of the survey published in the January 2009 issue of the Emergency Medicine Journal.


----------



## jks9199

elder999 said:


> ER doctors say police use excessive force


There's been a bit of an ongoing disagreement between some paramedics, some ER docs, and cops.  We bring someone in cuffed, and they want them uncuffed.  We fight a guy on the street, and the medical side of things sees a guy who's been thumped.  They don't see the struggle that led up to the thumping...  

Again -- I'm not saying that there aren't cops out there who use excessive force.  I even discussed one of my partners with my sergeant once, because I can identify too many of his arrestees by their mugshot pictures -- and their injuries.  

But there are also two sides to that use of force issue, and the doctors often don't see what led up to a situation, and often by the time the doc is dealing with the patient -- the patient's demeanor and attitude has shifted significantly.  The relationship is also a bit different...

Also -- the article basically seems to me to be saying that the docs think they're seeing incidents -- not that they're seeing a systemic pattern that all or even many patients cops bring in are victims of excessive force.  The doctors noted two primary issues:  blunt force by use of fists and "too tight handcuffs."  It's hard to calibrate hitting someone, as most of us here know.  It's even harder if you're fighting them and trying to cuff them...  Which leads to the other issue...  Cuffing a resisting subject is difficult, and it's hard to get them properly adjusted.  Especially as you're struggling.  If a guy's not cooperative, I'm not going to even try to ease up the cuffs, either, unless I see his hand turning purple or something like that which screams for attention and adjustment.   Then, even properly adjusted cuffs are not comfortable and they are a little tight.  Especially on people with bigger wrists or broader shoulders...  I'm fairly flexible, but also pretty broad and big in the shoulders.  Standard cuffs WILL mean that my wrists are pulled uncomfortably far behind my back, and I'll end up straining against them a bit.

I do agree with something in the article, though.  I think that medics and ER staff should have clear, easy channels to report suspected cases of excessive force.  For many reasons, the victims of excessive force may not report it; the medical staff who treat them should be able to do so.  Because I WANT the real problems assessed.  One agency I know of automatically investigates any officer who has more than 3 uses of force in a certain period; that's too much because in one district -- you can do that without trying in one night, but in another district, you might not have 3 uses of force, in even the most technical definition, in a year.  Should reporting for medical staff be mandatory?  I don't think so.  The definition and assessment can be very subjective and very tricky; it's often not as clear as potential domestic abuse.  And there are other checks in the system.


----------



## Archangel M

Where the hell do the docs come off judging what force was necessary? How do they know what happened and what was justified or not? Who are they getting the story from? The ARRESTEE of course. 

Oh..Im sure that a number of cases ARE excessive force cases...have to be, the odds would demand it. BUT, that doesnt change the fact that an ER doc is in no position to KNOW any facts or evidence regarding whatr happened at the time of arrest. All he can professionaly attest to is that a subjects injuries support or fail to support his claims of excessive force. THATS IT.

I love it when you are bringing in a BG in cuffs because it took 5 cops to get him into them and the docs give us a hard time about the "poor guy" being in cuffs..then they are on too tight. They should stick to what they know best...

If we killed half as many people as doctors did every year there would be a media frenzy.


----------



## Cryozombie

Archangel M said:


> If we killed half as many people as doctors did every year there would be a media frenzy.



LOL.  Now THAT'S the truth.


----------



## shesulsa

ER personnel can't possibly know what the situation was like.  They should shut their mouths and tend to their own burning bacon.


----------



## theletch1

shesulsa said:


> ER personnel can't possibly know what the situation was like.  They should shut their mouths and tend to their own burning bacon.


Very true BUT ER personnel are looking at the individual from a 180 degree aspect.  For the cop every one they cuff is a potential criminal, for the ER folks every one they treat is a victim.  It's a different mindset.  Just as many cops don't (and IMO shouldn't) think about what led Johnny to rob a liquor store the ER folks don't (and again shouldn't) think about what led Johhny to come into the ER with a dislocated shoulder and pavement scrapes on his face.  The "what caused this" isn't truly part of the job.  The "what do I have to do to fix this" is.  Mitigating circumstances are something for lawyers and judges to deal with.  Cops and ER personnel must deal in the here and now at a speed that would have most of our heads spinning.


----------



## MJS

jks9199 said:


> There's been a bit of an ongoing disagreement between some paramedics, some ER docs, and cops. We bring someone in cuffed, and they want them uncuffed. We fight a guy on the street, and the medical side of things sees a guy who's been thumped. They don't see the struggle that led up to the thumping...


 
And this is 99% of the problem right there.  The public as well as the reporters usually form their opinion off of some half baked crappy quality cell phone camera video or some clown with a camcorder filming stuff.  Its rare that the WHOLE event is captured.  

So people see a guy on the ground, cuffed, with 8 cops standing over him and think, "Ohh this poor man. " when little do they know, this 'poor man' just drove like an *** for 7miles, rammed cop cars, got out and ran, was caught, but resisted, etc.


----------



## sgtmac_46

KP. said:


> In this thread on the MartialTalk.Com      > Arts       > General Self Defense       > Law Enforcement forum, a discussion about a particular technique took a left turn and became a discussion about police conduct.
> 
> It was claimed in the discussion by Drac that:
> 
> 
> 
> Which I personally find somewhat ludicrous. I would not disagree if he claimed that "some" injuries, or even if he stated that "most" injuries. After all, the majority of this nation's LEO's are professional folks trying to do a good job. But it is also the case that police misconduct, and police brutality, are a problem in our cities police forces.
> 
> A bit later in the discussion, this point was made:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't disagree that the reality of the task of policing in the inner cities is that it is more stressful, and there are more "bad guys" around (or at least folks who really dislike the police), but does that excuse mistreatment?
> 
> There are real problems that exist between inner city communities and the police, systemic mistrust on both sides renders interactions in investigations and neighborhood policing efforts difficult at best. Does police violence make those relationships better or worse? And, does that serve to help or harm the police and community as a whole? Is it blown out of proportion, or does the rate of events, how ever few they may be when taken with all interactions over the nation as a whole, present real issues for how the police and community interact at local levels?
> 
> Does a person's social-economic background effect how they view the police because of past interactions or events? What can be done to change that if it is considered a problem. If it is not considered a problem, why not?



Well, lets just throw it out in the open....the fact that a police officer in this country is 6 times more likely to be murdered by a black male, black males are 5 times more likely to be shot by a police officer.......those numbers correspond......if black men are 6 times more likely to kill or try to kill a police officer, they are 6 times more likely to be in situations justifying a police officer shooting them in the process.


But it's not just police officers and how they view police......a black man is 6 times more likely to be murdered IN GENERAL than any other race or gender......ALMOST ALWAYS by another black man!

The problem in some communities isn't just with the police.......the police are a convenient scape-goat for a communities problems, because they wear a uniform, and are often of a different race.....but the problems in those communities exist independently of the police, who are actually attempting to solve many of those problems.


----------



## sgtmac_46

MJS said:


> And this is 99% of the problem right there.  The public as well as the reporters usually form their opinion off of some half baked crappy quality cell phone camera video or some clown with a camcorder filming stuff.  Its rare that the WHOLE event is captured.
> 
> So people see a guy on the ground, cuffed, with 8 cops standing over him and think, "Ohh this poor man. " when little do they know, this 'poor man' just drove like an *** for 7miles, rammed cop cars, got out and ran, was caught, but resisted, etc.


 And add to that a very unrealistic expectation of what it takes to bring a combative person under 'control' and what qualifies as 'control'.  

Just because a man is in handcuffs, doesn't mean he can't hurt someone, just for one example.....yet the public is convinced that handcuffs mean the suspect is ABSOLUTELY under control.... http://www.blacktigertacticalsystem.com/pop/danger_handcuff_susp_v.html


----------



## sgtmac_46

Archangel M said:


> If we killed half as many people as doctors did every year there would be a media frenzy.


 If we killed one FRACTION as many people as killed by medical negligence, there'd be a REVOLUTION! 

By some accepted MEDICAL INDUSTRY estimates......medical malpractice may kill as many as 225,000 PEOPLE A YEAR! http://www.lifenatural.com/medical-malpractice.htm

And that's from the Journal of the American Medical Association!  If JAMA acknowledges 225,000 I wonder what the number COULD be as high as?!


----------



## Drac

Did I tell you about the guy that hit his girlfriend with his auto??? Then refused to pull over when despite 3 marked units behind him with light and sirens (I assisted the local boys)..He would not exit the vehicle cause he was talking to his homie on his cell phone ...


----------



## sgtmac_46

Drac said:


> Did I tell you about the guy that hit his girlfriend with his auto??? Then refused to pull over when despite 3 marked units behind him with light and sirens (I assisted the local boys)..He would not exit the vehicle cause he was talking to his homie on his cell phone ...



'You get my lawyer, man!  You get my lawyer and tell him these pigs are violating my rights!'


----------



## Carol

Why do I have the feeling that motard has heard the phrase "Will the defendant please rise..." before?


----------



## Drac

sgtmac_46 said:


> 'You get my lawyer, man! You get my lawyer and tell him these pigs are violating my rights!'


 
Yeah that was about it..we had to take the cell phone outta his hand to effect the arrest and he resisted...Now despite the opinions of some of the motards here once the cuffs were on the physical efforts stopped...When asked why he did it (after he was mirandized) he said "The Hoe dissed me"..


----------



## shesulsa

Drac said:


> Yeah that was about it..we had to take the cell phone outta his hand to effect the arrest and he resisted...Now despite the opinions of some of the motards here once the cuffs were on the physical efforts stopped...When asked why he did it (after he was mirandized) he said "The Hoe dissed me"..



Wow.


----------



## Drac

shesulsa said:


> Wow.


 
Sad but true....This jerk decided to plead out to all charges...I would have loved to been in court ( and I would have had to appear) to hear this guy explain to the judge what "dissing" was....


----------



## Cryozombie

So last night me and some friends had a few beers, ate some pizza and watched a Marathon of the Worlds Dumbest Criminals.

I think perhaps I found a new level of sympathy for the cops.


----------



## Drac

Cryozombie said:


> So last night me and some friends had a few beers, ate some pizza and watched a Marathon of the Worlds Dumbest Criminals.
> 
> I think perhaps I found a new level of sympathy for the cops.


 
Thanks Cryro...


----------



## Cryozombie

The stupidity these people displayed, consistantly, in dealing with the cops was mind boggling.


----------



## Drac

Cryozombie said:


> The stupidity these people displayed, consistantly, in dealing with the cops was mind boggling.


 
It goes a lot deeper than the show can show..


----------



## Archangel M

Cryozombie said:


> The stupidity these people displayed, consistantly, in dealing with the cops was mind boggling.



I know that you stated previously that some of your local LE agencies are are somewhat less than "respectable" in your opinion, but if you know of a jurisdiction with a good reputation that you could take a citizens academy or do a series of ride-a-longs with, you would get an even better idea of the realities of policing and the dynamics between cops, the normal public and the normal clientele.


----------

