Police Ticket Quota

[quote]BlueCollarTr8n wrote:

[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.
[/quote]

Yea, that’s exactly what I’m talking about. I meet people and when they find out what I do, they act differently around me. “One of those types”? So now a very few define the whole lot of us? What is it called when assumptions are made about a whole group based on the actions of a select few belonging to that group? Is this type of thing acceptable? Why or why not?

Most of my interactions with police post-criminal activity have been pretty good. My last one was a doozy though that even I had to laugh about.

I got pulled over leaving work in a little town just to the south of me. Bad registration sticker. Not a big deal I thought, and put it out of my mind, thinking I’d take care of it some other time. A few months later though a constable shows up with a warrant for my and my wife’s arrest. Because it was her car and I was driving, we were both in trouble. We didn’t have cash on hand and all he wanted was the money, so when I explained to him where I work and that I drive by the municipal building every day, we agreed that I would go by the next day and pay up.

So the next day I stop by on my way in and ask the first guy I see (a cop) “Is this where I can pay a fine?”. He says no, the magistrates office moved up the hill, Is there anything I can help you with? So I explained to him the previous day.

His jaw drops. His hand rests on his gun. He cocks his head to the side and says with curiosity “Are you on any drugs right now?”. I tell him no, that I’m on my way to work and just wanted to stop by and pay a fine. Thats when he tells me he has to arrest me because I just walked into the police station and admitted that there was a warrant for my arrest. He has no recourse, and REALLY can’t believe that I just did that. At this point we’re both actually laughing about it because it was so damn ridiculous, and he was joking that he wished they were all this easy.

He ended up letting me follow him up to the magistrates (bad stickers and all) in my car so he could take off because his shift was going to be over by the time we got done there.

Then I had to take the paper work to HR and tell them why I was late.

[quote]Chushin wrote:

[quote]SkyzykS wrote:
Most of my interactions with police post-criminal activity have been pretty good. My last one was a doozy though that even I had to laugh about.

[/quote]

Can I ask the municipality?[/quote]

Brownsville PA.

Ever been there?

[quote]batman730 wrote:

[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[/quote]

Great post

I would add that in many departments - especially non “unionized” ones in the south - if you come under investigation, you can be hauled in to internal affairs and interrogated about actions that could (if prosecuted) later be deemed criminal… All without the right to an attorney. Failure to answer in this setting will result in immediate suspension. If you are found to be lying, most likely you face termination.

If you answer the questions in IA and the district attorney / solicitor decides to prosecute, your “interview” (again, without the right to legal counsel) can be used against you.

I can’t imagine being an officer today in the “YouTube” age either … Even though I never felt I had anything to hide, a picture or only part of a video rarely tells the whole story and can be wildly out of context to what actually went down

[quote]Chushin wrote:

[quote]WN76 wrote:

[quote]BlueCollarTr8n wrote:

[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.
[/quote]

Yea, that’s exactly what I’m talking about. I meet people and when they find out what I do, they act differently around me. “One of those types”? So now a very few define the whole lot of us? What is it called when assumptions are made about a whole group based on the actions of a select few belonging to that group? Is this type of thing acceptable? Why or why not?[/quote]

I have been a lifelong supporter of the police, but I have to tell you that more and more it does not seem to be “a very few.”

I really DON’T want to believe that most cops abuse their power, but I keep on seeing evidence to the contrary… [/quote]

“utter horseshit”…Really? Have you spent ten years working patrol in a major city? worked vice and narcotics? SWAT?.. You are entitled to your opinion, but, unless you have actually done the work, then you don’t have a clue what goes on. In the United States, on average, a cop dies in the line of duty every 4 days, between 140 and 160 per year. It is not an safe profession and those than join for a “power trip” are few and far between. Yes, you are certainly disliked, disdained, disrespected, spit on, hated and killed. To believe otherwise is “utter horseshit” . But, hey, keep on believing what you want, its your right.

[quote]Brett620 wrote:
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.
[/quote]

The Boston incident was definitely not a hot pursuit scenario. If it had been, the bombers would have been found in the first house the police checked. Hot pursuit is when someone an officer reasonably believes presents a continued threat runs into a private residence in the officer’s view and locks the officer out. The officer can then kick the door in, enter the residence, and continue his pursuit.

Exigent circumstances also would not apply.

Hopefully all of the searches done after the Boston bombing were consent searches.

The truth is, Constitutional protections have been so weakened and citizens have been so brainwashed into accepting whatever the government does that it doesn’t really matter anymore. Folks who know they have dope on them will consent to searches 24/7 nowadays.

[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]

Are you sure …officer?

[quote]Velvet Elvis wrote:
I would add that in many departments - especially non “unionized” ones in the south - if you come under investigation, you can be hauled in to internal affairs and interrogated about actions that could (if prosecuted) later be deemed criminal… All without the right to an attorney. Failure to answer in this setting will result in immediate suspension. If you are found to be lying, most likely you face termination.
[/quote]

Lying in my Dept for any reason under any circumstance is grounds for immediate disempowerment, suspension and termination.

Dishonesty is a class “AA” offense. The worst. It’s actually coded WORSE than the charge of “police brutality” or “excessive force” which is a class “A” offense.

That’s how seriously we value integrity.

Quite different than the hipster working at Google or Apple I’m sure.

[quote]Chushin wrote:

[quote]idaho wrote:

[quote]Chushin wrote:

[quote]WN76 wrote:

[quote]BlueCollarTr8n wrote:

[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.
[/quote]

Yea, that’s exactly what I’m talking about. I meet people and when they find out what I do, they act differently around me. “One of those types”? So now a very few define the whole lot of us? What is it called when assumptions are made about a whole group based on the actions of a select few belonging to that group? Is this type of thing acceptable? Why or why not?[/quote]

I have been a lifelong supporter of the police, but I have to tell you that more and more it does not seem to be “a very few.”

I really DON’T want to believe that most cops abuse their power, but I keep on seeing evidence to the contrary… [/quote]

“utter horseshit”…Really? Have you spent ten years working patrol in a major city? worked vice and narcotics? SWAT?.. You are entitled to your opinion, but, unless you have actually done the work, then you don’t have a clue what goes on. In the United States, on average, a cop dies in the line of duty every 4 days, between 140 and 160 per year. It is not an safe profession and those than join for a “power trip” are few and far between. Yes, you are certainly disliked, disdained, disrespected, spit on, hated and killed. To believe otherwise is “utter horseshit” . But, hey, keep on believing what you want, its your right. [/quote]

Yeah, that certainly rekindled the faith that I used to have in cops.

Lol.[/quote]

I highly doubt a single post is going to change anyone’s mind in this thread.

[quote]Brett620 wrote:

[quote]Velvet Elvis wrote:
I would add that in many departments - especially non “unionized” ones in the south - if you come under investigation, you can be hauled in to internal affairs and interrogated about actions that could (if prosecuted) later be deemed criminal… All without the right to an attorney. Failure to answer in this setting will result in immediate suspension. If you are found to be lying, most likely you face termination.
[/quote]

Lying in my Dept for any reason under any circumstance is grounds for immediate disempowerment, suspension and termination.

Dishonesty is a class “AA” offense. The worst. It’s actually coded WORSE than the charge of “police brutality” or “excessive force” which is a class “A” offense.

That’s how seriously we value integrity.

Quite different than the hipster working at Google or Apple I’m sure.

[/quote]

Yep. My agency will fry you for lying about anything.

I’d like to know how people here feel about fire-hall style policing.

[quote]WN76 wrote:
I’d like to know how people here feel about fire-hall style policing.[/quote]

Hmmmmmmm.

(awaits response)

[quote]pushharder wrote:

Written by a long time former Miami cop and FBI agent, it discusses the justice system “corporation” that is in business among other things of course to make money and sustain and grow itself.[/quote]

You have many cops in this thread sharing their experiences. Their posts are “utter bullshit”, but the author of this book is speaking the truth about how is really is?