# Take Your Child to Work Day: There Have to be Limits



## tellner (Apr 5, 2008)

I think we can safely say these guys passed them on the way to Dumbass County...



> Two SWAT officers are being counseled after bringing their young children along with them on a drug raid
> 
> The Orange County SWAT team searched a house on Napoleon Street Friday, arresting three people and recovering guns and drugs


.


----------



## jks9199 (Apr 5, 2008)

I can understand bringing the kids (depending on their age) into the office, and maybe letting them watch some training exercises.  I could even see running them through an exercise or two with squirt guns or something like that...  

But to take them on a raid?  I assume the only reason the officers at the bottom of the chain aren't being more severely disciplined (just counseled -- which is really a discipline, because there will be a record of the counseling in their file, hurting promotions) is because the supervisor who signed off on it is...


----------



## tellner (Apr 5, 2008)

jks9199 said:


> I assume the only reason the officers at the bottom of the chain aren't being more severely disciplined (just counseled -- which is really a discipline, because there will be a record of the counseling in their file, hurting promotions) is because the supervisor who signed off on it is...



Dumber than a box of dirt?


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Apr 5, 2008)

jks9199 said:


> I can understand bringing the kids (depending on their age) into the office, and maybe letting them watch some training exercises. I could even see running them through an exercise or two with squirt guns or something like that...
> 
> But to take them on a raid? I assume the only reason the officers at the bottom of the chain aren't being more severely disciplined (just counseled -- which is really a discipline, because there will be a record of the counseling in their file, hurting promotions) is because the supervisor who signed off on it is...


  Does anyone know how old these 'children' were?  17 year olds would be 'children'.....and we don't know what 'brought along on the raid' means either.....I doubt they put vests on them and had them breaching the door......and sitting with an officer on the perimeter down the block isn't really high risk.

So without knowing more, I can't comment on just how much bad judgement they used.....the story seems very lacking in details, and I couldn't find any other articles on the incident.  If someone else finds one, let me know.

For the record, police explorers routinely accompany officers on patrol all over the country.....and a drug raid, while dangerous for the entry team, isn't exactly high risk for an officer down the block on perimeter duty.

Could this be a prime example of stupidity in action?  Certainly.....it could ALSO be much ado about nothing.   Again, if someone more talented than me at finding another more detailed story would link it, i'd LOVE to know more!


----------



## MA-Caver (Apr 5, 2008)

Mebbe the officers were trying to clean up their own gene pools?


----------



## grydth (Apr 5, 2008)

Irrespective of what the department did or did not do to them.... imagine what happened at home when the wives found out!:btg:


----------



## Andy Moynihan (Apr 5, 2008)

Wow.

I mean I know kids are growin' up faster these days and all but....Damn.


----------



## jks9199 (Apr 5, 2008)

sgtmac_46 said:


> Does anyone know how old these 'children' were?  17 year olds would be 'children'.....and we don't know what 'brought along on the raid' means either.....I doubt they put vests on them and had them breaching the door......and sitting with an officer on the perimeter down the block isn't really high risk.
> 
> So without knowing more, I can't comment on just how much bad judgement they used.....the story seems very lacking in details, and I couldn't find any other articles on the incident.  If someone else finds one, let me know.
> 
> ...


I don't know your agency's policies -- but we rarely allow anyone under 18 to do any sort of ride-along.  The only exception I'm aware of are kids in a school based Law Enforcement career education program, and even then, you don't take the kid to something that has the potential to be a hot call -- and even a perimeter slot on a tactical unit op would qualify as a hot call.

Like I said -- it's not bringing the kids to work. Running on the "Take Your Child To Work" program, I'm assuming we're talking high school kids at best, and more likely elementary or middle school.  Bringing the kids into the office, maybe even dispatch or records, I don't see a problem.  I can even see, with juniors/seniors, letting them ride in patrol.  But even a perimeter unit on any raid has the potential to be rolling into the scene... and they're not generally in neighborhoods you'd want to dump the kid out before you pulled up.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Apr 5, 2008)

jks9199 said:


> I don't know your agency's policies -- but we rarely allow anyone under 18 to do any sort of ride-along. The only exception I'm aware of are kids in a school based Law Enforcement career education program, and even then, you don't take the kid to something that has the potential to be a hot call -- and even a perimeter slot on a tactical unit op would qualify as a hot call.
> 
> Like I said -- it's not bringing the kids to work. Running on the "Take Your Child To Work" program, I'm assuming we're talking high school kids at best, and more likely elementary or middle school. Bringing the kids into the office, maybe even dispatch or records, I don't see a problem. I can even see, with juniors/seniors, letting them ride in patrol. But even a perimeter unit on any raid has the potential to be rolling into the scene... and they're not generally in neighborhoods you'd want to dump the kid out before you pulled up.


  As a cop who's done his share of drug raids, the risk on the perimeter is vastly overrated......and the attention grabbing headlines 'Guns and drugs seized' doesn't really mean anything, as, quite honestly it could be 2 ounces of pot and an old hunting rifle in the closet....these things are reported to the media with an eye toward positive attention for the department.  Not to discount the risk involved in serving narcotics warrants, but even the risk to the entry for a non-violent drug offender isn't that particularly high.....can something go wrong?  Yes, but it'll be the entry team bearing the brunt of anything going wrong.  Every raid has the 'potential' but not all raids has the same potential......raiding a Mongel's methlab doesn't have the same level of risk as raiding Mike, the neighborhood small time pot dealer......

moreover, being on the perimeter down the block has LESS inherent risk than being on patrol......because, though there is a known risk, there are about three dozen patrol cops and armed swat guys within shouting distance.....unlike the unknown risk of every traffic stop, but where you are the only officer in ear shot.

Again, I don't know any specifics, and when the media leaves out specifics I start getting very suspicious......for all we know 'children' could be two young 17 year old men on the delayed entry program for the military......no ages or age ranges were missing.  

I'll reserve judgement until someone can provide me with the full story!  I don't jump to conclusions PRECISELY because i've got so much experience with the media and their way of 'spinning' a story.


----------



## arnisador (Apr 5, 2008)

I see your points...still, if nothing else they should have foreseen this type of bad PR coming from it and checked with the boss.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Apr 5, 2008)

arnisador said:


> I see your points...still, if nothing else they should have foreseen this type of bad PR coming from it and checked with the boss.


  Oh, I agree with that.....but I still have yet to see anything resembling a 'full story' version.....it's a little snippet, and i'm notoriously leary of those.  These guys might be BIG idiots.....or just had bad brain day......I can't really say until I kind of get some details.


----------



## newGuy12 (Apr 6, 2008)

grydth said:


> Irrespective of what the department did or did not do to them.... imagine what happened at home when the wives found out!:btg:


No doubt!


----------



## terryl965 (Apr 6, 2008)

Andy Moynihan said:


> Wow.
> 
> I mean I know kids are growin' up faster these days and all but....Damn.


 
I can only agree


----------



## Tez3 (Apr 6, 2008)

On the other side of the fence criminals very often involve their families in their work! I know many here who regard the profession of breaking the law as a family business proudly handing it on to the next generation!


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (Apr 6, 2008)

Having been on a number of interesting runs myself this could be a story all about nothing.  Still it could also be negligent.  In other words not enough info! :idunno:  Still if they are being counseled then maybe it was not such a bright idea!


----------



## Drac (Apr 6, 2008)

Jeeze, how stupid could they be...


----------



## Bigshadow (Apr 6, 2008)

I say it depends on their age.  I am thinking along the lines of SgtMac.  They didn't mention the age of the kids for a reason.  In my opinion, the news wouldn't have been as sensational if they had.  They are probably being forced by the department do the counseling so that the department can take a positive stance on it for the public.  Just my opinion.  BTW, that is practically next door to me and this is the first I have heard about it.


----------



## tellner (Apr 6, 2008)

How many of the guys reflexively making excuses for the cops would say "Civilian ride-alongs on raids? No problem! They're not that dangerous."


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Apr 7, 2008)

Brian R. VanCise said:


> Having been on a number of interesting runs myself this could be a story all about nothing. Still it could also be negligent. In other words not enough info! :idunno: Still if they are being counseled then maybe it was not such a bright idea!


  My point exactly.......there are some folks demanding condemnation based on a VERY sketchy story!  I don't do that!


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Apr 7, 2008)

Bigshadow said:


> I say it depends on their age. I am thinking along the lines of SgtMac. They didn't mention the age of the kids for a reason. In my opinion, the news wouldn't have been as sensational if they had. They are probably being forced by the department do the counseling so that the department can take a positive stance on it for the public. Just my opinion. BTW, that is practically next door to me and this is the first I have heard about it.


 Which would tell me that the media squeezed all the sensationalism they could out of it...meaning MUCH ado about nothing.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Apr 7, 2008)

tellner said:


> How many of the guys reflexively making excuses for the cops would say "Civilian ride-alongs on raids? No problem! They're not that dangerous."


  Unless you're on the entry team, they AREN'T that dangerous tellner.....i've been on dozens upon dozens....how many have you been on?  Honestly there is more inherent risk in running traffic than there is on the perimeter of most drug raids.  I didn't see any reference to this being a 'high-risk' warrant.....and if it had, there would have been a reference to it by the media.

And to answer your SPECIFIC question I DO NOT have a problem with a civilian ride-along sitting with an officer on the perimeter of a raid of a drug house.

You're wanting us to CONDEMN these officers based on a VERY sketchy media report with nebulous claims.....SORRY i'm not a bandwagon kind of guy!

You find some MORE info on this story, like ages, type of warrant, where the kids were at during the raid, etc.....and we'll talk.  At this point it's a non-story.


----------



## Carol (Apr 8, 2008)

Meh.  The story doesn't live up to the hype.

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/crime/orl-bk-raid040708,0,1914344.story

Article says the kids were "young teens", and stayed outside the perimeter.


----------

