[quote]Brett620 wrote:
Well, he’s def a shrewd def atty. I’ve seen dozens of them. He has a point, I will give him that. BUT, I would argue that talking to the police has its benefits if you are a suspect, but innocent.
Like I said, I work investigations. I have had situations where one of the suspects was able to eliminate themselves as a suspect by talking to me. He was able to provide information about his activity and whereabouts during the time of the incident that I was able to then verify after receiving this information. If not, he would have been charged.
I’ve also had cases where I suspected that one party was the guilty one and the other party may have had a far lesser role. But, since the suspected man who played the lesser role refused to talk about the incident (I told him he could do with with legal council), both were eventually charged. They let him off easy in court, but he still had to get arrested and had to pay to make a $20k bond. Sucks for him I guess. A few questions about some receipts/purchases and where he was during specific times and dates would have saved him a headache. But I had a case with PC on two suspects… I wanted a lock tight case on the primary, but you get what you get. [/quote]
What kind of probable cause did you have on the suspect who was able to talk you out of charging him? Obviously I’m not familiar with the situation, but it sounds more like he was a mere suspect from whom you were seeking an admission or confession before charging because the PC did not exist.
If two men commit a crime in which one plays a lesser role, then they are both still guilty of something, correct? Unless I’m misunderstanding, the man who played the lesser role would just have been rewarded for serving the government.
[quote]Brett620 wrote:
Well, he’s def a shrewd def atty. I’ve seen dozens of them. He has a point, I will give him that. BUT, I would argue that talking to the police has its benefits if you are a suspect, but innocent.
Like I said, I work investigations. I have had situations where one of the suspects was able to eliminate themselves as a suspect by talking to me. He was able to provide information about his activity and whereabouts during the time of the incident that I was able to then verify after receiving this information. If not, he would have been charged.
I’ve also had cases where I suspected that one party was the guilty one and the other party may have had a far lesser role. But, since the suspected man who played the lesser role refused to talk about the incident (I told him he could do with with legal council), both were eventually charged. They let him off easy in court, but he still had to get arrested and had to pay to make a $20k bond. Sucks for him I guess. A few questions about some receipts/purchases and where he was during specific times and dates would have saved him a headache. But I had a case with PC on two suspects… I wanted a lock tight case on the primary, but you get what you get. [/quote]
What kind of probable cause did you have on the suspect who was able to talk you out of charging him? Obviously I’m not familiar with the situation, but it sounds more like he was a mere suspect from whom you were seeking an admission or confession before charging because the PC did not exist.
If two men commit a crime in which one plays a lesser role, then they are both still guilty of something, correct? Unless I’m misunderstanding, the man who played the lesser role would just have been rewarded for serving the government. [/quote]
I don’t want to use specifics, since that’s my username is me and you’ve already seen where I’m posting from.
If there was a PM option, I would provide a little more.
The lesser party could have just been charged with facilitating, a lesser offense. Or a lesser charge all together (reduced to reckless endangerment for instance). Again, I wish I could talk more specifics and not hypotheticals, but hopefully you understand with this being a public forum.
[quote]Brett620 wrote:
I don’t want to use specifics, since that’s my username is me and you’ve already seen where I’m posting from.
If there was a PM option, I would provide a little more.
The lesser party could have just been charged with facilitating, a lesser offense. Or a lesser charge all together (reduced to reckless endangerment for instance). Again, I wish I could talk more specifics and not hypotheticals, but hopefully you understand with this being a public forum.
[/quote]
I totally understand not saying anymore; however, the point is that the lesser party didn’t clear himself by talking to you, he was rewarded for working with/for the government.
In your other example(the one in which the guy gave a story clearing himself), I doubt you already had probable cause to arrest him. You were probably looking for either an admission, confession, or a missing piece that would create probable cause for a warrant, right? Again, I would say the guy did himself no favors by talking, it just happened not to work against him.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Doooood, you are seriously missing the point here.[/quote]
Like I said before, a single post here isn’t going to change anyone’s mind. The post I made was for the coppers on here. We circulate writings like this because most of the time we get shit on and it’s nice to see something positive from the people we serve once in the while.
[quote]SkyzykS wrote:
So the fall back position is that when someone gets raped who else are they going to call?
That is pretty weak. In fact, it’s pathetic.
The simple fact that this is agreed upon by several police officers from multiple forces throughout the US exposes the arrogance that is endemic to the profession.
Lol at wondering why the public perception of law enforcement is not so good.
[/quote]
I also feel the need to question how many TRUE rape victims these folks have dealt with. True rape happens occasionally, no doubt. However, I’d say it’s far less common than a prostitute reporting she was raped after not being paid, or a drunk girl claiming to have been raped after letting somebody who didn’t call her again bang her.[/quote]
That would be pretty interesting if the subject were the validity of the claim of rape, but it seems that we are discussing the ethics of law enforcement.
Like, the attitude that it doesn’t matter what they do or whether you like them or not, because when something bad happens you will either call them or have no just recourse.
Any thoughts on that?
[/quote]
Yeah, you have no just recourse because lawmakers have made it so.
And those laws are enforced by cops.
US needing THEM is to a large degree an artificial necessity enforced by THEM.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
This story has its own thread if I remember correctly but nonetheless it deserves inclusion here.
Ummm…not so sure the ol’ adage, “the good apples un-spoil the barrel,” as referenced by Varq earlier, really is a sage one.
I’d like comments on this from the LEO’s who’ve participated in this thread.
BTW, do this to my wife and/or daughter and I will come looking for you, badge or no badge.[/quote]
Don’t know why you insist scrapping the bottom of the barrel here. Those two idiots are fired and indicted. I think it’s a terrible example. And I don’t feel sorry for them.
Again, when I worked narcotics, you have to get a fucking SEARCH WARRANT for a body cavity search! Idiots. And it’s done at a hospital, not on the side of a road.
Now, he was correct in calling a female officer to search the women… **IF he had consent OR probable cause, which he appeared to have neither. He had reasonable suspicion (maybe…). I’ll bet they “were acting funny”… may have had some conflicting stories, and maybe the “cigarette” they threw was a joint so the marijuana odor might have been on their clothes/in the car- hell, I don’t know- I’m trying to give them SOME benefit of the doubt.
But searches are NOT conducted this way.
This is a TOTAL aberration.
And they should be prosecuted.
Are you expecting me to defend this crap?
What profession are you in? I’m sure there are unsavory 1% that everyone else a bad rap. You see it even in the church. Look at the pastors/sex scandals than the church had endured with their clergy. Or teachers screwing their students. Now, it’s even the female teachers. Or the MDs with their abortion horror stories, or the accountants/finance people that bilk their companies and pensioners about of millions of dollars… I could go on. It’s not like we are unique. We are people like everyone else. As people, we are all flawed. We are all sinners (or use appropriate substitute if you don’t believe in God) or we are all imperfect. We are humans policed by humans and we are not robots. So inevitably there will be mistakes made even by those we entrust to enforce the law. That’s why the controls we have in place are so strict.
I know that’s how it is in my state, but I’m sure it’s similar in TX.
Oh, and with regard to your last statement. I would refrain from comments like that. They are not very productive and quite inflammatory. I don’t respond well to veiled threats.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
This story has its own thread if I remember correctly but nonetheless it deserves inclusion here.
Ummm…not so sure the ol’ adage, “the good apples un-spoil the barrel,” as referenced by Varq earlier, really is a sage one.
I’d like comments on this from the LEO’s who’ve participated in this thread.
BTW, do this to my wife and/or daughter and I will come looking for you, badge or no badge.[/quote]
Brett620 covered it well.
I requested answers concerning two questions I had, but no one stepped up to the plate. I’ll ask again.
What are the thoughts on fire-hall style policing?
Why is it OK to make an assumption about a group of people and treat them accordingly without even knowing them? Would you be able to see past your initial assumption?
[quote]pushharder wrote:
This story has its own thread if I remember correctly but nonetheless it deserves inclusion here.
Ummm…not so sure the ol’ adage, “the good apples un-spoil the barrel,” as referenced by Varq earlier, really is a sage one.
I’d like comments on this from the LEO’s who’ve participated in this thread.
BTW, do this to my wife and/or daughter and I will come looking for you, badge or no badge.[/quote]
Brett620 covered it well.
I requested answers concerning two questions I had, but no one stepped up to the plate. I’ll ask again.
What are the thoughts on fire-hall style policing?
Why is it OK to make an assumption about a group of people and treat them accordingly without even knowing them? Would you be able to see past your initial assumption?
[/quote]
Could you explain what “fire hall style policing” is? I’ve never heard of it and nothing is coming up on Google. Perhaps that’s why you haven’t gotten a response.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
This story has its own thread if I remember correctly but nonetheless it deserves inclusion here.
Ummm…not so sure the ol’ adage, “the good apples un-spoil the barrel,” as referenced by Varq earlier, really is a sage one.
I’d like comments on this from the LEO’s who’ve participated in this thread.
BTW, do this to my wife and/or daughter and I will come looking for you, badge or no badge.[/quote]
Brett620 covered it well.
I requested answers concerning two questions I had, but no one stepped up to the plate. I’ll ask again.
What are the thoughts on fire-hall style policing?
Why is it OK to make an assumption about a group of people and treat them accordingly without even knowing them? Would you be able to see past your initial assumption?
[/quote]
Could you explain what “fire hall style policing” is? I’ve never heard of it and nothing is coming up on Google. Perhaps that’s why you haven’t gotten a response.[/quote]
A reactive style of policing instead of a proactive style. Cops would sit in the office until called upon, like a fire hall.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
This story has its own thread if I remember correctly but nonetheless it deserves inclusion here.
Ummm…not so sure the ol’ adage, “the good apples un-spoil the barrel,” as referenced by Varq earlier, really is a sage one.
I’d like comments on this from the LEO’s who’ve participated in this thread.
BTW, do this to my wife and/or daughter and I will come looking for you, badge or no badge.[/quote]
Don’t know why you insist scrapping the bottom of the barrel here. Those two idiots are fired and indicted. I think it’s a terrible example. And I don’t feel sorry for them.
Again, when I worked narcotics, you have to get a fucking SEARCH WARRANT for a body cavity search! Idiots. And it’s done at a hospital, not on the side of a road.
Now, he was correct in calling a female officer to search the women… **IF he had consent OR probable cause, which he appeared to have neither. He had reasonable suspicion (maybe…). I’ll bet they “were acting funny”… may have had some conflicting stories, and maybe the “cigarette” they threw was a joint so the marijuana odor might have been on their clothes/in the car- hell, I don’t know- I’m trying to give them SOME benefit of the doubt.
But searches are NOT conducted this way.
This is a TOTAL aberration.
And they should be prosecuted.
Are you expecting me to defend this crap?
What profession are you in? I’m sure there are unsavory 1% that everyone else a bad rap. You see it even in the church. Look at the pastors/sex scandals than the church had endured with their clergy. Or teachers screwing their students. Now, it’s even the female teachers. Or the MDs with their abortion horror stories, or the accountants/finance people that bilk their companies and pensioners about of millions of dollars… I could go on. It’s not like we are unique. We are people like everyone else. As people, we are all flawed. We are all sinners (or use appropriate substitute if you don’t believe in God) or we are all imperfect. We are humans policed by humans and we are not robots. So inevitably there will be mistakes made even by those we entrust to enforce the law. That’s why the controls we have in place are so strict.
I know that’s how it is in my state, but I’m sure it’s similar in TX.
Oh, and with regard to your last statement. I would refrain from comments like that. They are not very productive and quite inflammatory. I don’t respond well to veiled threats.[/quote]
I think it’s unfair to make sweeping generalizations about people in any field. I personally don’t have anything against LEOs. Heck, my B.S. is in criminal justice!
I also agree that there are definitely bad apples in every profession. I can’t tell you how many times I have logged on to my professional association website to see a list of psychologists and psychotherapists that have had their licenses revoked due to gross unethical practices. I certainly do NOT condone the actions of these people nor do I want to be associated with them!
[quote]pushharder wrote:
This story has its own thread if I remember correctly but nonetheless it deserves inclusion here.
Ummm…not so sure the ol’ adage, “the good apples un-spoil the barrel,” as referenced by Varq earlier, really is a sage one.
I’d like comments on this from the LEO’s who’ve participated in this thread.
BTW, do this to my wife and/or daughter and I will come looking for you, badge or no badge.[/quote]
Brett620 covered it well.
I requested answers concerning two questions I had, but no one stepped up to the plate. I’ll ask again.
What are the thoughts on fire-hall style policing?
Why is it OK to make an assumption about a group of people and treat them accordingly without even knowing them? Would you be able to see past your initial assumption?
[/quote]
Could you explain what “fire hall style policing” is? I’ve never heard of it and nothing is coming up on Google. Perhaps that’s why you haven’t gotten a response.[/quote]
A reactive style of policing instead of a proactive style. Cops would sit in the office until called upon, like a fire hall. [/quote]
I really like community oriented policing, it gives me a warm fuzzy feeling. I could elaborate on this but not right now as I need to get to work!
[quote]WN76 wrote:
This story has its own thread if I remember correctly but nonetheless it deserves inclusion here.
Ummm…not so sure the ol’ adage, “the good apples un-spoil the barrel,” as referenced by Varq earlier, really is a sage one.
I’d like comments on this from the gun owners who’ve participated in this thread.
BTW, do this to my wife and/or daughter and I will come looking for you, gun or no gun. [/quote]
Well, my comment is that this guy was either a psychopath, or was a paid assassin made to appear like one.
Do you mean to say that the situations are equivalent? That the rare occurrences of bad apples in law enforcement can be explained either by psychopathy or conspiracy?
It is silly to blame police officers for what they do on the job.
[/quote]
Thats plenty, thanks.
[/quote]
I guess we can continue worrying about the symptoms instead of the disease. [/quote]
No, it is because even the officers here don’t agree with that.
They have remarked time and time again that they are glad that controls and accountability measures are in place.
[/quote]
Where do we disagree?
Totally agree with your second point. It’s difficult but needed. [/quote]
I don’t think we disagree much at all. I was just presenting a different perspective. I’m not holding anybody here accountable for something they have no control over. It actually is nice to see that people have some reverence for their profession and take personal pride in their work.
I feel the same way about mine, which is composed almost entirely of bad apples, degenerates, and miscreants of all kinds. (j/k)
Although, if I remember it right, someone on here once asked me “Why do concrete workers all look like they just got out of prison?”. My response- “Because they did.”. But I haven’t done any of that in quite a while.
What are the thoughts on fire-hall style policing?
[/quote]
The police around here do something similar already. They don’t hang out at the station except at change of shift to pick up a patrol car. After that though, they usually regroup at one of several local 7-11 type stores or go back home and wait for a call.
The main exception to that is holiday weekends. Then they’ll usually post at strategic locations where trouble virtually always breaks out. One neighborhood I lived in was notorious for this. There were two hills with a neighborhood on each.
The police would all hang out in the valley between them and go either way depending on where the call was. They drove by enough that I can identify the roar of an interceptor being floored and the sound of their tires from a mile away.