Police Ticket Quota

Off Topic
121

[quote]idaho wrote:

[quote]mapwhap wrote:
Orion,

I agree with your statement AND with Angry Chicken’s…police should be held to a higher standard. In my opinion…or I should say, from this side of the mirror, I think that we are. Do some of them get light sentences? Yes. I personally believe a LOT of people get sentences that are far too light. Not just cops. By the same token, I have seen officers lose their jobs for very minor infractions. And they should have. To me, that is part of being held to a higher standard.

Push,

Believe it or not, I do see the criminal justice system as a machine…and a faulty one. Is it financially driven? I don’t know. We could argue endlessly on that and probably change neither mind. However, as naive as this may sound to others, I do still believe in law and order. I don’t believe that a society without law and order perpetuates for long. (My apologies to any anarchists reading this…I just don’t get your philosophies.) What I can tell you is that I, the “salesman” as you said, never see any of that money personally. I don’t get a commission for putting people in jail, writing tickets, etc. Maybe in some places they do, but not here. However, if I read your statments correctly, you are more angry at the system itself…and occasionally the agents of it. Fair enough. I don’t like everything “my” government does either.

Angry Chicken,

First I don’t need to Google Prince George’s County…I am already familiar with their brand of policing, and I am aware they have a reputation for corruption and brutality. The fact that they have not fallen under Federal control is beyond me. Also, if I got the facts of your particular case mixed up, then I apologize.

Secondly, and most importantly, you are correct…I don’t know you. And that was my entire point. It isn’t very fun being painted with a broad brush and being lumped in with everyone else, is it?

I have served both my country and my city honorably as a police officer for almost 25 years now. I don’t need or want thanks for it, because I like my work, and it has its own rewards. I don’t expect others to automatically respect me, or the things I have done. I make a decent living, and I like going to work, so I can’t ask for much more. If I wanted people to like me, I would have become a fireman. And you know what? The VAST majority of my co-workers are the same.

I made my comment about criminals and ex-cons for a reason…because many of them are exactly as I described. There obviously are exceptions to every rule. You say you are one, so I’ll take that at face value. But it sucks to be lumped in with the bad apples, doesn’t it? You probably experience more of that on a daily basis than I ever have, because of your past. And you would probably prefer to be identified for the good things you have done…not the bad.

We (police) are the same way. We have our share of fuck-ups and idiots. But the vast majority of us are not. And we would prefer not to be idntified or defined by the ones who do fuck up.

I lurk on these boards a lot. I have for many years. From time to time I’ll jump in, but it’s a rarity, especially these days. I have never commented or responded to you directly until now, and frankly I don’t know why I did this time. My impression of you has always been that you don’t like police, period. If you say otherwise, then I’ll take you at your word.

My overall point to you and the other “cop haters” is this…hate the system all you want. A lot of us hate it. Hate the bad police…we do too. But quit lumping us all into one category. You’d be surprised to know how many of us agree with you on many things…we just work on a different side of the issue.

Fin.
[/quote]

Good Post… I learned years ago we will always be hated, until “they” are injured, victim of a crime, attacked, etc…then “they” cry like babies for the police. What a double standard…
[/quote]

Yes, how foolish of us to not expect police to act like criminals or trample our rights.

I don’t hate cops, I know quite a few personally but if you don’t believe the power turns some of them into self righteous pricks you are delusional.

I know it is a tough job in which you deal with the dregs of society often, this doesn’t mean everyone should be treated as criminals.

122

[quote]idaho wrote:
… I learned years ago we will always be hated, until “they” are injured, victim of a crime, attacked, etc…then “they” cry like babies for the police. What a double standard…
[/quote]

Utter horseshit.
No reasonable mature person hates the police; in general. Pointing to situations were an Officer has failed to properly execute his duties are another matter altogether. Discussing policies that consistently re-define ‘low hanging fruit’ in the attempt to increase revenue even more so.

124

Testy-

To your earlier point, notice the progression. You would ask for consent when you develop RS while conducting a lawful traffic stop. Why would you not ask for consent to search based ones training and experience? Some of my best seizures were simple consent seizures. (And NO… They weren’t at the barrel of a gun).

It begins with the conversation. That’s where it develops for me more than anything. I place more weight on this and body language than I do more than anything else. I just don’t start at the end point. And I won’t work with guys who do. It’s not worth putting me or my family at risk.

From the broken tail-light to calling a dog there is a lot of development there a lot of articulable facts to why you are detaining someone for this purpose. I take it seriously if I do it (WHEN- I did it), and I could always back it up on paper why I did some with multiple reasons.

I can’t speak to your personal experiences, but they do appear unfortunate.

126

[quote]BlueCollarTr8n wrote:

[quote]idaho wrote:
… I learned years ago we will always be hated, until “they” are injured, victim of a crime, attacked, etc…then “they” cry like babies for the police. What a double standard…
[/quote]

Utter horseshit.
No reasonable mature person hates the police; in general. Pointing to situations were an Officer has failed to properly execute his duties are another matter altogether. Discussing policies that consistently re-define ‘low hanging fruit’ in the attempt to increase revenue even more so.
[/quote]

It’s funny when I meet new people and fail to disclose my profession. Once it’s revealed, the dynamic changes despite the person not being a criminal.

127

[quote]mapwhap wrote:
Angry Chicken,

That works for me. I’ll say it with you.

Brett620,

You have bitten off a lot there, my friend. You seem to be explaining things well, though, so I’ll just let you carry on. My general response to those issues is this…the days of the friendly police officer walking the beat, while nice to remember, are pretty much gone.

From my point of view, too many criminals took advantage of the Officer Friendlies (or killed them), and so policing has had to change. I would personally LOVE to turn back the clock and work the way the old officers did, but it just isn’t practical anymore. We all wish we lived in Mayberry these days, but we don’t. I just try not to let that jade my day-to-day interactions with people too much.

USMCCDS423,

I’m not really familiar with what you are referring to. I’m assuming use of force complaints have gone up in Boston since the bombing?[/quote]

Again, I’m right with you. Your right, I’m sure I but off more than I can chew! Bad habit of mine…

I could make a whole thread about how policing needs to be re-done. Rodney King fucked everything up in my opinion. That’s a whole 'nother thread. It’s funny how all of the old school OGs… Guys that were gang members who are now 50 who did 20+ in State say that “they missed how policing was back in the day”. Said you got busted, got your ass whopped, and that was that. But they had more street rules and a honor code, and they said “we still hated you guys, but at least we feared and respected you”.

128

[quote]BlueCollarTr8n wrote:

[quote]super saiyan wrote:

[quote]Chushin wrote:
And how are random (DUI?) traffic stops legal?[/quote]

They were upheld by the Supreme Court in, Michigan Department of State Police v. Sitz (1990). The Court used a 3-point test to uphold the reasonableness of the checkpoints. The test balances the State’s interest in preventing drunk driving, the effectiveness of the checkpoints, and the level of intrusion upon the driver.

However, some states have banned such checkpoints, finding them to be unconstitutional. This includes Michigan, where the Sitz case started. Currently, 38 states utilize checkpoints in some form. Here is a breakdown by state:

http://www.ghsa.org/html/stateinfo/laws/checkpoint_laws.html[/quote]

If the police were limited to dealing with impaired drivers at these check points I might reconsider my opinion. It is my understanding that…registration, inspection, insurance, etc tickets are written at these stops in addition to sobriety checks…that’s just a money grab, plain and simple.
[/quote]

They are supposed to be limited to checking for impairment. You don’t have to produce your license, insurance, etc. But here’s the rub - if you are uncooperative, police will use your noncooperation as a basis for reasonable suspicion and make you pull over for further investigation. They can say you might have been trying to conceal your intoxication. So your rights at these stops are somewhat illusory, IMO.

There is no simple solution. Drunk driving kills thousands annually and costs us billions of dollars so something needs to be done. Finding a balance between liberty and taking measures to protect the public is tough.

129

[quote]LoRez wrote:
Next time you get pulled over for speeding, ask to see the reading. If you get that far, ask to see the calibration paperwork.

Without either of those, the case becomes his/her word vs yours. Then discuss the case with the prosecutor and point out the lack of evidence. At best, they’ll drop the charges; more likely, they’ll offer a plea-bargain offering a lower fine and/or 0 points on your license.

[/quote]

I asked to see the radar one time. The reading on it was exactly what I said I was going (which was still over the speed limit). The officer said "Well, that’s how fast you were going when I stopped it. You were going X mph when I first put it on you. I was traveling through Oregon at the time so I wasn’t going to fight the ticket but when I sent in my check I included a note telling my side of the story (which included some other points). I later noticed the infraction never showed up on my record so I think including that note did do some good.

130

[quote]WN76 wrote:

[quote]BlueCollarTr8n wrote:

[quote]idaho wrote:
… I learned years ago we will always be hated, until “they” are injured, victim of a crime, attacked, etc…then “they” cry like babies for the police. What a double standard…
[/quote]

Utter horseshit.
No reasonable mature person hates the police; in general. Pointing to situations were an Officer has failed to properly execute his duties are another matter altogether. Discussing policies that consistently re-define ‘low hanging fruit’ in the attempt to increase revenue even more so.
[/quote]

It’s funny when I meet new people and fail to disclose my profession. Once it’s revealed, the dynamic changes despite the person not being a criminal. [/quote]

I’m not certain what you mean, however most normal people are suspicious of LEOs they don’t personally. Until we know if you’re ‘one of those types’ it’s the proper course of action. There are many opportunities to meet officers in the gym, I’m certain I know more than a dozen at mine, some are very close friends, some don’t rate more than an acquaintance.

131
132

[quote]WN76 wrote:

[quote]BlueCollarTr8n wrote:

[quote]idaho wrote:
… I learned years ago we will always be hated, until “they” are injured, victim of a crime, attacked, etc…then “they” cry like babies for the police. What a double standard…
[/quote]

Utter horseshit.
No reasonable mature person hates the police; in general. Pointing to situations were an Officer has failed to properly execute his duties are another matter altogether. Discussing policies that consistently re-define ‘low hanging fruit’ in the attempt to increase revenue even more so.
[/quote]

It’s funny when I meet new people and fail to disclose my profession. Once it’s revealed, the dynamic changes despite the person not being a criminal. [/quote]

I’ve been involved in boxing for years. In the gyms that I have attended, I have always kept my profession to myself. Most of the gyms were in the inner-city. A few of the guys found out after several years… they couldn’t beleive it. The young guys said, “Man, you can’t be a pig. Your cool as shit.”

133

[quote]legendaryblaze wrote:

[/quote]

Not the dreaded white box again. Noooooooooo!!!

134

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]idaho wrote:
Good Post… I learned years ago we will always be hated, until “they” are injured, victim of a crime, attacked, etc…then “they” cry like babies for the police. What a double standard…
[/quote]

I think the police are lacking control.

You have a gun and social power over me. I want you under every eye and and under as much speculation as possible.

I want cops to live in glass houses…literally.

If you want that power, you should have to give up some personal privacy also we can all make sure you are doing what you are supposed to at all times.

I bet the employment line would be empty if that were the case.[/quote]

I can only speak for how it is where I live, but I don’t see how police could reasonably work under a higher level of scrutiny.

Prior to obtaining employment one must complete a 80+ page questionnaire disclosing in excruciating detail every embarrassing and/or questionable activity you’ve ever engaged in including the stuff you would expect (prior drug use, criminal activities etc) as well as particulars of your sexual history, detailed financial information, social media and other online activities and your porn viewing habits. This information is then verified in 3-5 separate interviews, the last of which being a polygraph.

You then must produce 30 personal references to be interviewed and 4 letters of reference. Inquiries will also be conducted with people you don’t provide as a reference (i.e. neighbours, past employers not listed as references etc). You must then pass extensive medical, performance and psychiatric testing.

If that all goes your way you get a job where all your communications are recorded as a matter of public record, you must document in painstaking, court admissible detail every action you take from the time you start work until the time you finish. Simultaneously the overwhelming majority of those actions are being logged on video either through legitimate surveillance or through “citizen journalism” and you can expect anything “interesting” you did to be on Youtube by the time you get off shift.

Should you actually elect to use force of any kind beyond compliant hand cuffing you must document all actions taken in even more minute detail, including your justification for having done what you did. Even if you are justified, it is not at all unlikely that you will be subject to investigation through Professional Standards (read: Internal Affairs) as well as independent civilian oversight. In some cases (like a K-9 bite) an independent investigation is triggered automatically.

Forget using force, if you use strong language while making an arrest you will likely be subject to scrutiny and hauled into Professional Standards. The threshold for conducting searches etc in the course of such an investigation is nowhere approaching the threshold required to do the same thing to a private citizen. There is NO expectation of privacy.
No doubt, some cops still sometimes do the wrong thing, sometimes with tragic results, but it’s not for want of reasonable constraints being placed on them.

Yet and still several hundred people apply to my local PD each year and bust their asses trying to get hired.

Go figure.

Edited

135

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]idaho wrote:
Good Post… I learned years ago we will always be hated, until “they” are injured, victim of a crime, attacked, etc…then “they” cry like babies for the police. What a double standard…
[/quote]

I think the police are lacking control.

You have a gun and social power over me. I want you under every eye and and under as much speculation as possible.

I want cops to live in glass houses…literally.

If you want that power, you should have to give up some personal privacy also we can all make sure you are doing what you are supposed to at all times.

I bet the employment line would be empty if that were the case.[/quote]

That’s why when I worked the street, I tended to record my interactions. Esp. when I was in narcotics. I got sick and tired of getting accused of robbing the drug dealers… lol

It sure helps to insulate you. You can simply press the ‘Play’ button and then call them out on their bullshit statements. Had a camera in the car and a recorder in the pocket.

If you do things the right way, I don’t give a shit who is recording.

136

In reference to the question regarding opinions on the Boston police going door to door searching homes…it is my understanding that those searches were consensual. I’m not aware of the police having to get warrants for any residences, but I’m also not aware of anyone refusing entry. As I understood it, people were pretty clear about what the police were searching for…an armed suspected terrorist…and were willing to cooperate.

I have not watched the video posted, nor have I read anything else on the subject, so I may well be misinformed. However, if a person grants law enforcement consent to search their premises, then the requirement to have a search warrant is dispensed with. That has been a long-standing exception to the 4th Amendment.

The circumstances were quite unusual for us as a country. We have never had to deal with an incident quite like that in my lifetime. Having grown up in that area, I would not be the least bit surprised to know that people allowed the police in to search. I know my family would have.

Also, and I speak only for myself here, but if I’m searching for a terrorist with explosive devices, and I come across a grow-room in someone’s closet, or their bong collection, or whatever, I’m personally not going to give a shit. Likelihood is, unless I come across a dungeon with a child locked in it in the guy’s basement, I’m just going to ignore it. On a day like that, the priority is the bomber and public safety. Screw the little shit.

138

[quote]mapwhap wrote:
In reference to the question regarding opinions on the Boston police going door to door searching homes…it is my understanding that those searches were consensual. I’m not aware of the police having to get warrants for any residences, but I’m also not aware of anyone refusing entry. As I understood it, people were pretty clear about what the police were searching for…an armed suspected terrorist…and were willing to cooperate.

I have not watched the video posted, nor have I read anything else on the subject, so I may well be misinformed. However, if a person grants law enforcement consent to search their premises, then the requirement to have a search warrant is dispensed with. That has been a long-standing exception to the 4th Amendment.

The circumstances were quite unusual for us as a country. We have never had to deal with an incident quite like that in my lifetime. Having grown up in that area, I would not be the least bit surprised to know that people allowed the police in to search. I know my family would have.

Also, and I speak only for myself here, but if I’m searching for a terrorist with explosive devices, and I come across a grow-room in someone’s closet, or their bong collection, or whatever, I’m personally not going to give a shit. Likelihood is, unless I come across a dungeon with a child locked in it in the guy’s basement, I’m just going to ignore it. On a day like that, the priority is the bomber and public safety. Screw the little shit.[/quote]

In the Boston Bombing, the “Exigent Circumstances” exception to the 4th would apply to a warrant-less search in possibly some of those examples.

It’s the classic “Hot Pursuit” scenario where I am chasing bad guy and he runs into a house. It’s not like I have to call time out, and go downtown and type up a search warrant while he is at home playing Call of Duty smoking all his dope while I’m trying to find a judge at 2am to sign my damn warrant… but that’s what the liberals would like the laws to be.

So I think the 4th exception applied in SOME of those searches (MOST were consent from what I believe). Again, thank the Supreme Court not the police. They are all listed under “exceptions”, when and where they may be applied.

139

AAANNNDDDD…I just watched the posted video. That was definitely not a consensual search, from the looks of it. That was not at all the impression I had from watching the news, so now I don’t know what to think.

I don’t know what the right answer is for a circumstance like that. On the one hand you have the US Constitution and the 4th Amendment. People have the right to have their homes free of search absent a warrant, and that IS a right that we have to hold near and dear. On the other hand, you have a terrorist inside a perimeter who has demonstrated the willingness to kill people for no reason…even children. It is not unimaginable that a person like that could be holding one of the families inside that perimeter hostage, or threatening the lives of their children if they reveal his presence to police.

It is clearly what we in law enforcement refer to as an “exigent circumstance”. And there is case law that allows us to dispense with the warrant requirement when an exigent circumstance exists. Seeing it done in that manner does not make me comfortable…I doubt it made anyone comfortable…but I really don’t know what would have been a better way to accomplish that particular objective. Certainly, I welcome debate on the subject.

I obviously would completely disagree with the Boston PD, or ANY agency doing that on a regular basis. And in my experience, we don’t. Just my two cents.

140

^^ With those searches in Boston, those are police/military acting in the most extreme situations. These are responses to acts to terrorism. These are dynamic situations, and they are NEVER pretty and clean. Balancing our civil liberties and freedoms makes the law enforcement side of the equation much more difficult. You can do a whole case study on that piece of shit Eric Holder. Look at the countless different ways he has botched/hinder or out-right obstructed law enforcement efforts when he is SUPPOSED to be at the top of the food chain (instead of having his nose in politics- but that’s another thread).

Those searches do not make me comfortable either. They look bad. Were they necessary? Yes. But, boy there should have been another method/strategy.