• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Boston PD to monitor police cars by GPS tracking... officers don't like it

Status
Not open for further replies.

Primus

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 24, 2013
Messages
3,939
Location
United States
Since when do cops cross into EMT's scope of practice? If I had a dime for every time my former Battalion Chief knocked a LEO down a few pegs for trying to take control of a medical scene/call, or try to intervene and give orders, or even try to assert themselves on a medical call, I would be a very wealthy person, and probably would have moved to a Mexico beach.

I haven't much paid attention to this thread, or what the other posts are, or whatever, but this one caught my eye, because Primus comes across as being a LEO, or a Rent-a-cop, from their wording and context. You see, Primus, if a LEO takes an EMS/EMT's med call, and uses their LEO authority to show up to a medical scene, and dives right into attempting to resuscitate someone, and that person didn't need such actions, the LEO just opened his/herself to a whole world of hurt which Qualified Immunity wouldn't touch with a twenty foot pole. And if you, acting as a LEO/Rent-a-cop, crossed over from law enforcement, to playing EMT/medic, you had better get yourself some really good lube, because you're gonna get reamed left, right, up, down, and out the arse. I've seen two sheriffs-deputies find themselves in a whole world of legal hurt when they tried to act as first responders, and tried to revive and use a AED on a person who had non-schockable a-fib.

Tread lightly, bud, you don't want to come across as someone who treads where angels fear to go, or worse, as a wannabe-cop who knows not what they speak.

I don't mean to come across as bashing, or insulting to Law enforcement, but I'm sure even the most statist LEO on this board can tell you that your badge/uniform doesn't make you Gods gift to 911, nor does it protect you from HIPPA violations, and it sure as HELL doesn't make you an EMT. Unless you have NREMT status, or state cert, then you're just another walking lawsuit.

Really? You heard from someone else somewhere that we couldn't do something? That's your assertion?

First, no one said we "replace" EMTs. Second, your so far off base I honestly don't even know how to fix you. It's just inaccurate to assert that when an LEO is first on the scene they don't apply first aid. Of course they do, until the ambulance arrives THEN they hand over medical and go to crowd control (or continue medical). I can cite my experiences of having to literally patch bullet holes and stab wounds. Also, I've assisted in CPR on other gun shot victims. So please don't jump in with uninformed opinions and try to spread them as if you know.
 

Primus

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 24, 2013
Messages
3,939
Location
United States
It may not be illegal for a cop to give a citizen attitude, but it is unprofessional and, I hope, against policy.

If you stop me without RAS and give ME attitude, there WILL be a formal complaint filed with IAB or the equivalent. The first time a cop very politely violated my rights, I contacted everyone, including the city attorney's office. If you don't have RAS, take any rudeness in stride, or find another job. If you have RAS and the detainee is being abusive, you have professional ways to deal with it.

If you cannot deal with these situations without feeling like you have to defend your manhood, get another job.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

I agree with this. If someone stops you for no reason and gives you attitude then file away. If you feel your rights are violated you did the right thing, contact the whole chain of command and get it resolved.

Those situations are still not what I'm talking about and it seems for some reason theres a disconnect in what I'm saying and what you guys are hearing. If it's my fault, so be it. I'd love to take some of you guys on a ride along so you could see what I'm trying to describe. It's behavior that you would honestly just be appaled by. So be it, I tried.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
I agree with this. If someone stops you for no reason and gives you attitude then file away. If you feel your rights are violated you did the right thing, contact the whole chain of command and get it resolved.

Those situations are still not what I'm talking about and it seems for some reason theres a disconnect in what I'm saying and what you guys are hearing. If it's my fault, so be it. I'd love to take some of you guys on a ride along so you could see what I'm trying to describe. It's behavior that you would honestly just be appaled by. So be it, I tried.

I have pretty much covered every situation you could be talking about in my posts. Let me just sum it up:

Regardless of the situation, there is no reason to lose control and swear at the citizen. If you cannot handle every situation professionally, seek other employment.

Moving on.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>
 

PALO

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 12, 2012
Messages
729
Location
Kent
Our management has expressed interest in GPS'ing our patrol cars. Obviously, it's a major issue with the union. There are some pluses for the line officer, for example, from an officer safety perspective, if the officer is unable to transmit where he's at, after a major collision or whatever, and./or doesn;'t know where he's at, the GPS provides his location.

Obviously, if the officer is spending half his shift parked in a parking lot doing crossword puzzles, the GPS will show that too.

the current agreement is that if it is implemented, that management can only use GPS stuff against an officer if they use it to corroborate a complaint, but cannot use it proactively.

Iow, if a complaint is made like - the officer was speeding at location X at time Y, GPS can confirm that, and of course the MDT/CAD will confirm he wasn't enroute to a "code" (lights and siren) detail where he would have a justification for the speed. Or if there is a use of force at a location, theycan check the GPS data to see who was on the scene. if a complaint is made about the amount of time it took an ofc. to respond to a call, they can check the GPS data and see where he was prior to the call and make sure it correlates with CAD (maybe it's heinous traffic and he was responding from a far away location in the district or maybe he just sat on his butt for 20 minutes before he moved (which would be a problem UNLESS the CAd supported a reaosn for him to be sitting there - like still on paper from the previous detail. And it can also, of course, just like video/audio, help exonerate an officer if the GPS conflicts with the complaint.

We get busy. Sometimes, "paper" (not in progress details, even of a serioius nature - rape, burglary, etc.) hold for HOURS before we are able to get to them. The GPS and CAD together can support the delays if and when there is a complaint, to greater extent than just CAD.

But, under the agreement, management cannot "fish" through an officer's GPS data to LOOK for improprieties (speeding, more than 2 officers at a coffee break etc. at the same location). It can be accessed as aggregate data for any # of purposes (iow to see how well coverage is working for various districts by seeing where the police cars spend the majority of their time etc.) but management will not be able to do any kind of search of an individual's GPS data (specific to him) UNLESS there has been a complaint or some other firm justification for fishing.

GPS is really useful to help document and support officer narratives in pursuits, for example, since it will show his speed and location over the whole course of a pursuit.

I'm not sure, under FOIA etc., to what extent journalists, citizens etc. will have access to any particular officer's GPS data. Im a very pro open govt. guy and think they SHOULD be allowed to fish the data to find whatever improprieties they can, but I haven't read any case law regarding "civilian" access to the data.
 
Last edited:

Primus

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 24, 2013
Messages
3,939
Location
United States
Our management has expressed interest in GPS'ing our patrol cars. Obviously, it's a major issue with the union. There are some pluses for the line officer, for example, from an officer safety perspective, if the officer is unable to transmit where he's at, after a major collision or whatever, and./or doesn;'t know where he's at, the GPS provides his location.

Obviously, if the officer is spending half his shift parked in a parking lot doing crossword puzzles, the GPS will show that too.

the current agreement is that if it is implemented, that management can only use GPS stuff against an officer if they use it to corroborate a complaint, but cannot use it proactively.

Iow, if a complaint is made like - the officer was speeding at location X at time Y, GPS can confirm that, and of course the MDT/CAD will confirm he wasn't enroute to a "code" (lights and siren) detail where he would have a justification for the speed. Or if there is a use of force at a location, theycan check the GPS data to see who was on the scene. if a complaint is made about the amount of time it took an ofc. to respond to a call, they can check the GPS data and see where he was prior to the call and make sure it correlates with CAD (maybe it's heinous traffic and he was responding from a far away location in the district or maybe he just sat on his butt for 20 minutes before he moved (which would be a problem UNLESS the CAd supported a reaosn for him to be sitting there - like still on paper from the previous detail. And it can also, of course, just like video/audio, help exonerate an officer if the GPS conflicts with the complaint.

We get busy. Sometimes, "paper" (not in progress details, even of a serioius nature - rape, burglary, etc.) hold for HOURS before we are able to get to them. The GPS and CAD together can support the delays if and when there is a complaint, to greater extent than just CAD.

But, under the agreement, management cannot "fish" through an officer's GPS data to LOOK for improprieties (speeding, more than 2 officers at a coffee break etc. at the same location). It can be accessed as aggregate data for any # of purposes (iow to see how well coverage is working for various districts by seeing where the police cars spend the majority of their time etc.) but management will not be able to do any kind of search of an individual's GPS data (specific to him) UNLESS there has been a complaint or some other firm justification for fishing.

GPS is really useful to help document and support officer narratives in pursuits, for example, since it will show his speed and location over the whole course of a pursuit.

I'm not sure, under FOIA etc., to what extent journalists, citizens etc. will have access to any particular officer's GPS data. Im a very pro open govt. guy and think they SHOULD be allowed to fish the data to find whatever improprieties they can, but I haven't read any case law regarding "civilian" access to the data.

Well explained.
 

Primus

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 24, 2013
Messages
3,939
Location
United States
I have pretty much covered every situation you could be talking about in my posts. Let me just sum it up:

Regardless of the situation, there is no reason to lose control and swear at the citizen. If you cannot handle every situation professionally, seek other employment.

Moving on.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

Eye, I tried to explain (by example maybe bad ones) that certain individuls will not even RESPOND until you raise your voice or use vulgarities. Individuals who tend to be under the influence of certain things (drugs, alcohol, anger, etc.) or are just reared a certain way WILL NOT respond to "Excuse me sir, please quiet down."

You may see it as unproffesional, I see it as being proffesional enough to know the people I'm serving and how to do it. I can't get a guy to stop berating his wife and screaming at her in front of this kids (domestic, very ugly) by treating him with kid gloves. In fact, I've found through experience that it's easier to descelate it verbally by sometimes raising to their "level". With SOME individuals, if you just say "please stop shouting at her and please step away from her" they are less likely to do so, and more likely to be physically removed away from said person. I'd rather raise my voice then have to put my hands on someone.

Again, I agree, with normal citizens you need never raise your voice nor choose foul language and therefore you shouldn't. But if there were only normal citizens then I'd be out of a job.
 

DrakeZ07

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 26, 2011
Messages
1,080
Location
Lexington, Ky
Really? You heard from someone else somewhere that we couldn't do something? That's your assertion?

First, no one said we "replace" EMTs. Second, your so far off base I honestly don't even know how to fix you. It's just inaccurate to assert that when an LEO is first on the scene they don't apply first aid. Of course they do, until the ambulance arrives THEN they hand over medical and go to crowd control (or continue medical). I can cite my experiences of having to literally patch bullet holes and stab wounds. Also, I've assisted in CPR on other gun shot victims. So please don't jump in with uninformed opinions and try to spread them as if you know.

Wow.

Congrats, Primus Trollimus, you've successfully put me in a position, where I couldn't even begin to deal with your crap without getting banned for violating any number of the forum rules. You must really take pride in hiding behind the rules, just so you can come up with more ways of frustrating, and peeving off other people/professions.

Bravo, you've successfully trolled me.
 
Last edited:

Maverick9

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
1,404
Location
Mid-atlantic
Let's look at a text-book LEO encounter to speeding 5-10 mph over the limit on a drizzly night.

1. The LEO follows for a bit and sees the person is going 5-10 mph over the limit for about a mile, meaning it wasn't just a necessary speed change to get out of the way of something (big truck?).

2. He puts on his lights and the guy pulls over right away in a safe place.

3. He goes up to the driver and says 'Sir, good day, I have you at 8-10 mph over the posted speed limit for a considerable distance. May I see your license and registration. He doesn't 'play games' asking 'do you know what you did', he doesn't fish, he doesn't start asking for windows to be rolled down, he doesn't say 'where are you headed'. It's professional, to the point and by the book.

4. He takes the license, goes back to the car, runs it and finds one citation 20 years ago. He also notes the guy has a concealed carry, and knows he's had a background check, no DV, no DUI, no record. Because of this he decides to tell the driver the penalty, to ask him to slow down and issue a warning. He doesn't even ask about the firearms in the car because he knows it's not a requirement. He doesn't ask to see the permit because it's right there in front of him on the VIC database.

5. He goes back to the car, and the driver says 'G-D it, I've only had one fsking ticket in 20 years, don't you jerks have some real crime to solve'.

6. The LEO says, 'exactly Sir, since you have had just one ticket in the last 20 years I'm giving you a warning instead of a 10mph which would cost you $220 and an appearance. Since it's wet out I'd ask you to keep the speed down. Have a good day.

7. Because of this professional approach, a motorist has a positive attitude towards LEOs, and this truly was a low level stop. The harsh language was not directed at the LEO and he ignores it.

The LEO did the minimum, he did what he is legally required to do, he didn't ask demeaning or 'fishing expedition' questions, noting no 'impairment' he didn't try to smell substances, he complimented the driver because, hey, he deserved it and nobody is the worse for it.

If all interactions were like this (depending on the signs, impairment or not, reckless behavior or not) then LEOs would be held in routinely high regard. They tell you the law, they do their job, they create a positive interaction if possible, and they go home unstressed.

But typically it is not done like this at all. Demeaning questions, fishing, stringing someone along, challenging their language to get a further rise out of them, nickel and dime-ing someone who is by all evidence a LAC, cuffing and disarming. WHAT IS THE POINT. The end result is his sergeant is called, he learns it's not appropriate to disarm a LAC with a permit, the guy goes off now hating LEOs and thinking they're not professional and don't know the law and have anger-management issues.

In my profession I often had angry people confront me (emergency care). I not only didn't lose my temper, I never felt like doing so, and in ANY OTHER profession if you start getting angry and cursing the client you lose your job.

LEOs should be MORE capable of not going to anger-like behavior because it clouds your judgment should you have to do something like deploy.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
Wow.

Congrats, Primus Trollimus, you've successfully put me in a position, where I couldn't even begin to deal with your crap without getting banned for violating any number of the forum rules. You must really take pride in hiding behind the rules, just so you can come up with more ways of frustrating, and peeving off other people/professions.

Bravo, you've successfully trolled me.

This is why it is best just to make your point and move on. You won't change his outlook. You can only inform others who read the interaction.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>
 

Fuller Malarkey

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 12, 2010
Messages
1,020
Location
The Cadre
Eye, I tried to explain (by example maybe bad ones) that certain individuls will not even RESPOND until you raise your voice or use vulgarities. Individuals who tend to be under the influence of certain things (drugs, alcohol, anger, etc.) or are just reared a certain way WILL NOT respond to "Excuse me sir, please quiet down."

You may see it as unproffesional, I see it as being proffesional enough to know the people I'm serving and how to do it. I can't get a guy to stop berating his wife and screaming at her in front of this kids (domestic, very ugly) by treating him with kid gloves. In fact, I've found through experience that it's easier to descelate it verbally by sometimes raising to their "level". With SOME individuals, if you just say "please stop shouting at her and please step away from her" they are less likely to do so, and more likely to be physically removed away from said person. I'd rather raise my voice then have to put my hands on someone.

Again, I agree, with normal citizens you need never raise your voice nor choose foul language and therefore you shouldn't. But if there were only normal citizens then I'd be out of a job.

It sounds like you use savage, verbal assault to compensate for your lack of any other skills. Kind of serves as proof of that old adage "when the only tool you have is a hammer...." If you would only consider how ER Nurses, which I suspect see far more crisis than an average police officer, aren't known for using profanity as a front line, primary tool of establishing a flow of services. I've just always been baffled about how nurses deal with the same people police do without clubs, tasers, and they rarely escalate things to satiate their need for control. Get the healing to begin and move on. I know they CAN cuss, but I've never heard one defend the practice as a "right". Something else I've never encountered? I've never heard of a nurse going into the waiting room and tell a parent " I killed yer kid for "Failure to immediately and satisfactorily comply with all commands". "She kept rubbing her eye after I commanded her to stop. I feared for her safety, my safety and the safety of nurses everywhere, so I bashed her head with a sap. Get over it. You can make another one. Don't make more of this than it is." You just don't hear it much. And they deal with the same people. Funny, uh?

I picked up on the " I know what's best for the people I herd" ["I see it as being proffesional enough to know the people I'm serving and how to do it."] I'm guessing you've taken this forum on as a kind of project, to clean up these scofflaws and show your dominance achieving verbal skills to your peers on what, PoliceOne? Yuk-yuk thread goin' on somewhere on one of the thin blue line forums?

ETA: In staying with the topic of GPS in patrol cars, it appears the recent criminal rape charges against a San Antonio police officer were somewhat hinged on the police officer's car being where the victim said the rape occurred, for about the length of time she said it was there.

"A GPS tracking system was in working order, however, and confirmed that Officer Neal was indeed on the street the victim says she was on when she was pulled over around the time she indicated."

http://www.webpronews.com/cop-accused-of-rape-has-other-accusations-of-assault-2013-11
 
Last edited:

Fuller Malarkey

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 12, 2010
Messages
1,020
Location
The Cadre
Wow.

Congrats, Primus Trollimus, you've successfully put me in a position, where I couldn't even begin to deal with your crap without getting banned for violating any number of the forum rules. You must really take pride in hiding behind the rules, just so you can come up with more ways of frustrating, and peeving off other people/professions.

Bravo, you've successfully trolled me.

I can fully appreciate your frustration. On other forums, the behavior is considered "Inciting", and is dealt with accordingly. I don't understand it here. If a cop went into a neighborhood tavern and began inciting fights among the regular customers, beating them down, causing hostilities where that had been none, would the owner, a shrewd businessman, banish his regular contributing customers to apease a troublemaking thug bent on creating discord? Doesn't meet the reasonableness standard with me.
 

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,317
Location
Valhalla
OCDO has a policy of permitting discussion from many different POV, in so long as that discussion does not get out of hand.

Because you do not agree with a user/poster is no reason to insult them - talk about the facts objectively.

Referring to posters on this thread, I have seen no LEO attempt to incite others or cause a fight amongst users. I see a sharing of opinions and experiences mostly.

What does concern me are the personal attacks/insults being levied by others - that needs to cease.
 
Last edited:

Primus

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 24, 2013
Messages
3,939
Location
United States
Wow.

Congrats, Primus Trollimus, you've successfully put me in a position, where I couldn't even begin to deal with your crap without getting banned for violating any number of the forum rules. You must really take pride in hiding behind the rules, just so you can come up with more ways of frustrating, and peeving off other people/professions.

Bravo, you've successfully trolled me.

It wasn't trolling. It was countering your "opionon" with real experiences. I asked for clarification since you are the one who said you were citing a third person's opinion.

Instead of getting angry you could have just tried to refute what I said. You made all kinds of allegations that LEOs can't do CPR in the field or if they try to render aid they get booted or are violation of HIPPA, etc. etc. You weren't able to back any of it up.

I merely responded with things I have done personally. Not a link nor opinion. Straight fact.

Also, since it has devolved to this kind of discussion... anyone see the bolded? THAT is an example of someone being so "angry" or "peeved" that they can't even speak to you without violating rules (forum rules).

To everyone else, I'm sorry you guys have bad opinions on what LEOs do. As I've said many of times there are plenty of bad ones out there but they are the minority.

Food for thought to those on the fence..... LEOs are supposed to be made up of and represent the community they police. This is achieved by pulling from that said community. Some departments have a Residency requirement (need to live in the town to work the town/city) and others have just a preference for in city hires. This idea is so important that Deptartments strive to and are required by law/rules in some states to balance their department to reflect the community. Meaning, you cannot have a predominantly white male police force in a predominantly African American, Asian,Latino, etc. area. This is even pushed down to the amount of women on the Dept. to reflect the amount of women in the street. There are many documented cases where they have a preference and a need to hire women only.

So why the schpeal about the make up of LEOs? Our entire society has some bad apples in it. Thieves, cheats, murderers, rapists. So when you represent that community you WILL have some of them. This is because LEOs are still just humans. They have the same needs, wants, desires as everyone else. They have a temper like anyone else. When they go through the Academy they don't get their human faults removed and thrown away. They get yelled at a bit and forced to learn some laws and first aid (drake). While they SHOULD and DO strive to be "above" anger, emotions, corruption, etc. It's not physically possible.

This is the same that's true for ALL proffessions. There are firefighters that set fires, EMTs that assault people, Doctors that kill people, teachers that molest kids, plumbers that take take your money and don't really do the work (happened to me)..... the list goes on and on. The difference is when the fire fighter arrives you don't accuse him of setting the blaze, when the EMT gets there you don't beg them not to assult the person further, you don't accuse your Doctor of killing you family members that die in a hospital, you don't ask your kid every day if their teacher touched them, and you probably don't immediately use your toilet to make sure the plumber did it right. Please think about this the next time you assume an LEO is a bad guy because of his profession. If that INDIVIDUAL officer wrongs you, then hate HIM. If that Dept. has a dumb policy, then have THEM change it.
 

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,167
Location
earth's crust
Let's look at a text-book LEO encounter to speeding 5-10 mph over the limit on a drizzly night.

1. The LEO follows for a bit and sees the person is going 5-10 mph over the limit for about a mile, meaning it wasn't just a necessary speed change to get out of the way of something (big truck?).

2. He puts on his lights and the guy pulls over right away in a safe place.

3. He goes up to the driver and says 'Sir, good day, I have you at 8-10 mph over the posted speed limit for a considerable distance. May I see your license and registration. He doesn't 'play games' asking 'do you know what you did', he doesn't fish, he doesn't start asking for windows to be rolled down, he doesn't say 'where are you headed'. It's professional, to the point and by the book.

4. He takes the license, goes back to the car, runs it and finds one citation 20 years ago. He also notes the guy has a concealed carry, and knows he's had a background check, no DV, no DUI, no record. Because of this he decides to tell the driver the penalty, to ask him to slow down and issue a warning. He doesn't even ask about the firearms in the car because he knows it's not a requirement. He doesn't ask to see the permit because it's right there in front of him on the VIC database.

5. He goes back to the car, and the driver says 'G-D it, I've only had one fsking ticket in 20 years, don't you jerks have some real crime to solve'.

6. The LEO says, 'exactly Sir, since you have had just one ticket in the last 20 years I'm giving you a warning instead of a 10mph which would cost you $220 and an appearance. Since it's wet out I'd ask you to keep the speed down. Have a good day.

7. Because of this professional approach, a motorist has a positive attitude towards LEOs, and this truly was a low level stop. The harsh language was not directed at the LEO and he ignores it.

The LEO did the minimum, he did what he is legally required to do, he didn't ask demeaning or 'fishing expedition' questions, noting no 'impairment' he didn't try to smell substances, he complimented the driver because, hey, he deserved it and nobody is the worse for it.

If all interactions were like this (depending on the signs, impairment or not, reckless behavior or not) then LEOs would be held in routinely high regard. They tell you the law, they do their job, they create a positive interaction if possible, and they go home unstressed.

But typically it is not done like this at all. Demeaning questions, fishing, stringing someone along, challenging their language to get a further rise out of them, nickel and dime-ing someone who is by all evidence a LAC, cuffing and disarming. WHAT IS THE POINT. The end result is his sergeant is called, he learns it's not appropriate to disarm a LAC with a permit, the guy goes off now hating LEOs and thinking they're not professional and don't know the law and have anger-management issues.

In my profession I often had angry people confront me (emergency care). I not only didn't lose my temper, I never felt like doing so, and in ANY OTHER profession if you start getting angry and cursing the client you lose your job.

LEOs should be MORE capable of not going to anger-like behavior because it clouds your judgment should you have to do something like deploy.

And what is the Text-Book citizen response guide? lol
 

Maverick9

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
1,404
Location
Mid-atlantic
While I don't expect posters self-identifying as LEOs to excoriate their compatriots, I do expect them to post here as a person who cares about LACs, who cares to make it better and who does not have hidden agendas, at least while posting here.

So, I'd like to call for folks to be brutally honest about their views, their profession, their tactics, because in the end, if a LEO can treat the vast majority of his stops as he would treat the members of his family, his fraternity, and could cause a grass-roots sea change of opinion, it would make his job EASIER.

All the blustering, the fishing expeditions, the roid-raging behavior, the violence, the overly self-entitled wall of blue is brought on by their own behavior. It's the adult version of bullying, the nerds against the jocks. The jocks resent the nerds having intelligence and logic so they use force, bullying and end up isolating themselves. They go home feeling misunderstood and beat their kids or wives or dogs or beat up themselves.

IT'S NOT NECESSARY.

Each LEO can start today to use calm, logical, law-abiding tactics. They can treat their stops with a very professional attitude, not exceeding their authority and they can learn the law and stop 'pretending' they don't know that OC is legal and the guy walking his dog with a slung AR or a holstered SA is an ASSET. While he's out there, BGs are driving past and going elsewhere. Yes, we KNOW it raises your ire because you like to be the BIG DOG who has empowerment. You have to fight those feelings.

One thing to consider is that ALMOST NO LAC OC-ers are out there feeling all pumped up and courageous and Rambo-esque. In fact, if you read we talk about how it makes us MORE aware of the need for calm, non-road-raging and almost a loving feeling towards our fellow man, whom, if you would let us we would be the sheepdogs, and take care of people. (But we know we don't dare).

FWIW.
 

Primus

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 24, 2013
Messages
3,939
Location
United States
While I don't expect posters self-identifying as LEOs to excoriate their compatriots, I do expect them to post here as a person who cares about LACs, who cares to make it better and who does not have hidden agendas, at least while posting here.
So, I'd like to call for folks to be brutally honest about their views, their profession, their tactics, because in the end, if a LEO can treat the vast majority of his stops as he would treat the members of his family, his fraternity, and could cause a grass-roots sea change of opinion, it would make his job EASIER.

All the blustering, the fishing expeditions, the roid-raging behavior, the violence, the overly self-entitled wall of blue is brought on by their own behavior. It's the adult version of bullying, the nerds against the jocks. The jocks resent the nerds having intelligence and logic so they use force, bullying and end up isolating themselves. They go home feeling misunderstood and beat their kids or wives or dogs or beat up themselves.

IT'S NOT NECESSARY.

Each LEO can start today to use calm, logical, law-abiding tactics. They can treat their stops with a very professional attitude, not exceeding their authority and they can learn the law and stop 'pretending' they don't know that OC is legal and the guy walking his dog with a slung AR or a holstered SA is an ASSET. While he's out there, BGs are driving past and going elsewhere. Yes, we KNOW it raises your ire because you like to be the BIG DOG who has empowerment. You have to fight those feelings.

One thing to consider is that ALMOST NO LAC OC-ers are out there feeling all pumped up and courageous and Rambo-esque. In fact, if you read we talk about how it makes us MORE aware of the need for calm, non-road-raging and almost a loving feeling towards our fellow man, whom, if you would let us we would be the sheepdogs, and take care of people. (But we know we don't dare).

FWIW.

Are implying something? Or just throwing an opposing opinion what I said and explained? IF, that was in direct response to my post then your just proving my point. Your entire second paragraph is an example of what I'm talking about and opposed to. Were YOU personally and violently wronged by a LEO that was blustering, while on a fishing expedition while using steroids? Did he in fact ever do sports and are you in fact a nerd? Did this LEO then use his "Blue Wall" and hide the fact he was beating his kids, wife, dog, and/or himself (possibly at the same time)?

If ANY part of my question above is NOT true, then your proving my point better then I ever could. It's just slander and bashing that serves no purpose other then make you feel better because you got to make fun of someone on the internet (kind of like a bully no?).

You do a common thing, you bost that if "the officer just did the right thing everyone would love them, it's their own fault people hate them". Well this thread is a perfect example. No LEO on here has wronged you. No one has been violated here. No LEO on here has insulted you or treaded upon any of your rights. Yet you spent a few minutes of your life bashing them (or maybe me, you haven't answered if it was in response to myself). You could have used that few minutes and approached an Officer and asked them how their day was (while OCing). Ask them how it's been around town lately. Instead of thinking of creative (yet very played out) ways to talk down about them.

I wish you the best of luck Maverick and if you do encounter that same angry roid jock wifebeating self-entitled violent bully LEO again, I hope you remain safe and not violated some how.
 
Last edited:

PALO

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 12, 2012
Messages
729
Location
Kent
"I have pretty much covered every situation you could be talking about in my posts. Let me just sum it up:

Regardless of the situation, there is no reason to lose control and swear at the citizen. If you cannot handle every situation professionally, seek other employment.


it's a false assumption that resorting to profanity necessarily equals a loss of control. heck, in some agencies, profanity is even acknowledged in the use of force continuum

under that continuum, the lowest level of "force" (force defined differently in UOF's than in other areas) is one's presence at a scene. Merely standing there, hands off your gun, not saying anything or doing anything other than being there.

verbal commands are farther up the continuum (the edge being deadly force of course), and some agencies and theorists advocate that "profane verbalization " is acceptable if justified for example by inaction. I can think of MANY examples where "sir, please do X" didn't work, even multiple times, but as soon as I upgraded "listen, do f***ing X or you are going to be f***ing sorry" the profane verbal commands DID gain compliance. Obviously, in a perfect world officers would never swear. In the real world, and in some circ's , an officer resorting to a few choice "profane verbalization" can result in compliance, and it's bettter to use a lower use of force such as profane verbalization , then to have to resort to physical force, for example.

Just recognize that there must be substantial justification for the profanity. In these cases, it's not a loss of control, it's a tool to try to accomplish a goal with the least amount of force necessary. Verbal judo has a lot of techniques, and a good street cop will be very skilled at verbally defusing situations and in using their voice to get compliance without having to resort to force. It's a skillset, and an art. It's ultimately a "people job" and imnsho, one's communication skills (to include interview, interrogation, etc) are among the most powerful and the most frequently used tools we have



Example from my Maui PD archives: I recall an incident where I was responding (for the second time), to a no contact order violation. on the first instance, the suspect bolted out the back door and by the time I got to the backyard, he had a 100 yard "jump" on me, and he got away.

On this second occasion, he was outside when I arrived, and he bolted again, as I was exiting my car. I yelled to him that he was under arrest and to "stop" (we don't say 'freeze' like in the movies, since it's not universally understood like "stop" is ... almost).

I used a verbal tactic that included profane verbalization. I said words close to "Hey brah, why you run away like a little wahine? Be a man and stand up for yourself, don't be a f***ing p*ssy! You are such a f**king ***** !"

Guess what? He got PISSED and he stopped in his tracks and turned around , saying "hey, I aint no f*cking P*ssy" as I reached him, tackled him and got him into handcuffs.


He stopped. This is a guy who was notorious for running (career criminal) whenever the cops showed up. Once in a while, we would catch him, but we didn't have patrol canines, and he was fleet of foot. But simply by belittling him and using some choice profanities, I got my GOAL, which was to gain compliance (he stopped). It's better for society, for the victim(s) of his crimes, for the PD, etc.

Profanity worked where OTHER verbalizations did not. Now, maybe if I called him a "darned wimp" instead of a "F*cking p*ssy", he might have complied, but I strongly doubt it.

I take immense pride in my "command presence", which includes proper manners such as always referring to people as "sir" or "ma'am" unless they request otherwise, not raising my voice (unless necessary to obtain a goal), not swearing. and treating people with the respect I'd want my sister treated with if she was contacted by police. And in 20+ yrs I've had exactly ONE complaint for discourteousness . Despite 100's of arrests, tense situations, a shooting, some battle royale drawn out physical struggles, etc etc.

So, CLEARLY I am doing something right.

And in those instances when I choose to use profane verbalization, it is a sober, conscious CHOICE to achieve a goal, and to gain "control" over a situation... and losing control or never gaining it in many situations is where the cop gets hurt, the suspect gets hurt because the cop had to resort to force eventually, etc.

I don't care if you are a BGD, a soccer mom,. a microsoft executive, a teenage mcd's employee, or an armed robber. you WILL get respect and "sir" and etc.

But there are and will be occasional circ's where I will make the conscious sober (no loss of control ) CHOICE to employ profane verbalization and by doing so I very well may be able to make the arrest, contain the scene, etc at that point, vs. having to resort to higher level of force, to include physical force and/or not being able to gain control at all (suspect gets away, people continue to attack innocents etc.)

If this career criminal/woman beater wanted to make a complaint that I used profanity against him, I would have been fine with it, and I could JUSTIFY it, and any REASONABLE police admin etc. would recognize the street reality where it is sometimes necessary (one problem with police admin's in the regard of deciding whether an officers conduct is ok or bad, is that so many are cop-o-crats, often they have little to none experience in PATROL because they have had admin etc. type assignments their whole career, etc.)

Again, this is a tactic that I have used VERY sparingly, but imo this tactic CLEARLY brought far more benefits than cost, not just to me, but to innocent victims (like the victim in the case I just mentioned), and to suspects (because they comply short of my having to use physical force to achieve that)

TO reiterate, I am extremely polite and I take immense pride in my professionalism and manners, but I recognize that there are times and places for judicious use of the vernacular (useful in interrogations and interviews as well to help gain rapport and put people at ease), and even times and places for judicious use of profanity directed towards another
 

RANDYT

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 17, 2010
Messages
53
Location
ILLINOIS
Just some observations.

LAC want to be treated equal to police. meaning we deserve the same respect that you want from us.

CC or OC citizens that get disarmed at traffic stops or other stops getting disarmed under the guise of, it is for the officers safety. Comes across as the police persons life is more important than mine.

Police asking if there is anything in the vehicle I should now about. Comes across as I am going to treat you like a common criminal,(fishing) even though we as LAC don't deserve it. Respect goes out the window at that moment.

One thing that happens a lot on this forum is everytime an officer post on this forum, the other posters will flesh him out hard. Eventually the officer seems to loose his or her cool, and in that moment goes on troll watch. The every day posters are just trying to get a full sense of what the officers feelings are, and in a lot of cases the officer crosses the imaginary line, and gets snagged. I think the purpose behind it is, to give the officer a taste of what we as LAC feel like when we interact with police.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top