Good Cop / Bad Cop

[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]

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]

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]

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...

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

Yes...

 

[Drac]

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..

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.]

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]

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.]

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]

...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]

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]

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]

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.]

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.]

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]

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.