Ask the Police:

Greetings,

I am a tad new around here and for those that do not know I am a Police Officer by trade. I have found during my time posting on numerous websites that people often have questions and misconceptions about law enforcement. So, If you have any questions fire away....


FYI: I ignore posts containing insults, personal attacks and profanity.

does the prohibition of marijuana help or hurt society in your opinion?

Well it clearly helps. Smoking anything is not good for your health. I do not buy the whole medicinal garbage. It is a poor pain killer and the appetite benefit has been synthesized in Marinol. People pushing medical marijuna are just looking to get their foot in the door and legalize it outright.

That being said... I personally think it should be legalized. People should be able to make the choice themselves. I would much rather marijuana be legal then alcohol.

Your dentist can use cocaine on your mouth, but you can't smoke a joint. It is reefer madness, nothing else. P.S. Marinol doesn't work.

It has always been my understanding that Marinol did work. I thought studies backed that but I really do not know.

I've gotten a prescription for it. It does NOTHING for the pain in my legs, which is going on every day for 10 years! Marinol is completely ineffective, not just for me. The broad based medical studies found it to be ineffectual as well.

BTW: I have a friend who's a police captain. He's the public liaison officer for a dept. in a city of about 120,000.

The Professor

helps the pain in my legs. Like you Professor, I have had constant pain since 1997. If only marijuana would help, I'd try to get some. Are you saying that Marinol does not help but marijuana does?

Mr. Police Officer, seems people do not like you until they need you. :-)

However, marinol does NOT help the pain from MS. It has been shown to be wholly inefficacious. (So are, btw, most any painkiller or pain moderator.)

The extacts and the mode of introduction to the body matter for ANY medicine ro treatment. That's why people don't DRINK chemo, or take a pill for that. The route of introduction has an impact on the overall concentration of active ingredients.

You can infer from that what you will.
The Professor

Marionl is not as affective. There are better drugs on the market for nausea but they are extremely expensive. Marinol like its cousin marijuana also increases appetite which is helpful with chemotherapy patients because they tend to have a decreased appetite which can cause nutritional deficiencies.

but I have been put on some serious pain medication in the past that did wonders. Oxycotin is some interesting stuff.

Marinol reduces the spasming associated with chemo, since those are poisons and various bodily mechanisms are adversely affected by them. It also minimizes nausea, which makes people less likely to WANT to eat.

Pain killers tend not to work (if at all) for MS because the mechanism of most of them blocks the synaptic interface between the source of the pain and the cerebellum and cervical spinal cord. In MS, the pain sensors are firing randomly around the source of myelin breakdown. So, there is no synaptic interface to block. The pain's already in the brain. (Think it phantom pain if that's makes it easier to imagine.) As a result, reflex actions trigger many tangential nervous functions in those same extremeties, leading to spasms, twitches, biomechanical delays and, usually, extreme burning sensations. (Sort of like standing in a campfire, but for 2 weeks straight!)

So, painkillers are highly ineffective. Marinol can make someone feel a little less focused on the intensity, but it did absolutely NOTHING for me. I took the whole bottle over the prescribed time ( i think it was 4 weeks worth). I took it at the exactly prescribed dosage. Nada!

I know that the ant-medmar folks say there is only anecdotal evidence that it helps. (Of course, since it's impossible to do a true double blind study, it's self-fulfilling to term it anecdotal.) But, it seems silly that a naturally occurring plant wouldn't be made readily available to people with extreme medical conditions, just IN CASE it helped. There is no real logic to denying those people the possibility of less discomfort.

Even worse, it's still CRIMINAL behavior. So, desperately seeking relief from an intractable medical disorder makes one a criminal. Not much logic inherent there, either. Must be compassionate conservatism in action.
The Professor

I think the main problem is ignorance. I was unaware of the issues you raise. These cripply illnesses are not party specific and a more informed public might change its opinion.

Once again I think part of the problem is the messenger killing the message. A bunch of "stoner" types protesting for legalizing medical marijuana is not going to change minds. Everyone knows they are pushing for fully legalization and do not care about the medical aspect. If the stoners would sit down and shut up and let the people suffering from illness lead the cause then more people might listen.

When one considers that alcohol is far more dangerous, and has far more harmful effects on the user and on society. Any societal ills associated with marijuana exist because marijuana is illegal. The illegality makes it profitable; therefore it attracts the attention of criminals, and encourages development of a black market.

There ARE drugs which ought to be regulated, but marijuana is NOT one of them.

reread my posts. I am not against legalizing marijuana. I never said alcohol was less dangerous. If I had to choose between the two I would ban alcohol and legalize marijuana.

Like, I said... Please reread my posts. Sorry if they are not clear. I worked last night and have not slept yet.

long night myself...chronic insomnia...so I'm not quite up to par either...sorry I missed that.

who said that marijuana does kill people. All those poor DEA agents, and police officers who get killed by drug dealers? Hello? MacFly? If it was legal....

There is really no point in criminalizing it at all. Every scientifically valid study on drug use shows that the rate of usage has gone up slightly, but by the same amount, in EVERY decade since congress criminalized naturally occurring substances. EVERY DECADE!

The business growth, the numbers of people, the corrupted officers, DEA folks, border patrol, all go up. And, the war on drugs has not any substantial impact on the growth of the business. The bang of the buck in a drug war has been abysmally poor. No business in their right mind would accept the sliver thin return on investment.

Congress needed to push through a Constituional ammendment to ban alcohol. Those substances are PURELY manufactured goods. By fiat, Congress decided (in many cases for racist reasons) to declare natrually occurring substances (PLANTS!) to be illegal. No ammendment. No plebiscite. Just decided for us. There is a fundementally objectionable aspect to the drug prohibition. It's not supposed to be the way america works. For that reason alone, i will remain wholeheartedly against it, and wholeheartedly for full decriminalization.
The Professor

I am not against legalizing marijuana.

I disagree with your claim drug use has gone up. It has actually been going down.

I disagree with your racist reasoning also.

Congress no longer uses Ammendments and probably will not for anything in the future. Ammendments were used initially to make Federal laws because they were not sure of a better way. Congress has now decided just to pass laws and leave the Constitution alone.

Way to go.

No-knock searches, asset forfeiture, et cetera...we have laws allowing these that basically make the Fourth Amendment meaningless, and it's thanks to the pointless and stupid War on Some Drugs.

And to say that racism wasn't a motivating factor in the passage of drug laws is to ignore historical fact. Apparently you've not heard of the yellow-journalism hysteria of William Randolph Hearst and others...stories about evil "Chinamen" using opium to lure young American girls into "white slavery"; about "reefer-crazed" and "cocaine-maddened" "buck Negroes" raping young white women and committing terrible crimes under the influence of these drugs...make no mistake, racism played a VERY large part in formulation of this country's drug laws.

No-knock warrants require a warrant and probably cause. Asset forfeiture requires probable cause and a hearing. Neither violate the spirit of the 4th.

You racisim examples are just propaganda used at the time. They were not the basis of the outlawing.

I always get vaguely irritated whenever I hear someone say something about the "spirit of the law". It says what it says, and means what it means; invocation of some nonexistent "spirit" is usually justification for opening a loophole, generally prior to driving a battering ram through it.

And without an orchestrated propaganda campaign, those laws may not have passed. After all, it took the propaganda for something that had NOT been a problem to become considered a problem and outlawed; if collection of tax revenues were the basis of the law, then why not regulate sales and require excise stamps, as with alcohol and tobacco?

Completely. FBI and DEA statistics indicate the growth curve of drug use has been EXACTLY THE SAME in each decade. You can wish it were going down all you want. It's just not so. The law enforcement community says it is going up! So does the Treasury department who tracks the probable cash flow from the drug trade to better understand its economic import. They show money volume rising by 2.77% greater than the rate of inflation in everyone of the last 40 years. Either there are 100 stoners who are blasted beyond belief or people are spending more money on more drugs.

The reason for banning marijuana, opium and cocaine are well-documented in the Congressional Record. Go look it up sometime. The speeches by the congress critters who passed those laws didn't even hide their racist motivations. Before you tell someone they're wrong, you need to do some research and get your facts straight first. The "Mexican Problem" was addressed by outlawing MJ. The "black urban unrest" was addrssed by outlawing cocaine. And there were too many white people spending dough at Chinese opium dens and making Chinese businessmen too rich. So, we banned that.

Lastly, my point is that we SHOULDN'T just pass laws that tell everyone what's legal and what's not. They can't ban alcohol or gambling all over the country because of the states' rights clause. They NEEDED to ammend the Constitution to make it happen. They NEEDED to ammend even to reverse it, even though EVERYONE admitted by then it was a tragic mistake. YOu dismiss that as suggesting better not to ammend. Better not to pass laws that should require an ammendment, i would think.
The Professor

Stats at each other left and right...

I still disagree with your racisim claim. Cocaine became controlled by Congress in 1914 due to the rise in fatalities. Opium was banned in 1905 due to the alarming rate of addiction.

I never said anything about it being better not to ammend. It is merely what happened. Please reread my previous post.

The FBI, the DEA, and Treasury all show increases and you don't want to hear it.

I tell you that the congress people made these statements in bold face type in the Congressional record and you don't want to hear that.

You did say that they don't ammend they just pass laws. That was the premise of my complaint in the first place and you simply dismissed that. Then you said you never said it.

This conversation has reached the fruitless stage.

Have a good rest to your Tuesday.

I'm out.
The Professor

I never approved of passing laws instead of Amendments.


You are correct, this is fruitless.


Best of Luck,

SouthernDem

I am sure he is not used to having to explain himself to civilians anyway. Cops are right because they say so. Just look at how he started this thread. He came here to school us while clearly it is he who needs an education.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Best of luck to you.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

My sister used it rather extensively, while ignoring the studies that showed up to a 40% decrease in white blood cell counts due to its use.

She died of pneumonia.

I have no proof that her regular use of marijuana contributed to her death, but I have my suspicions as to it being a factor. :(

And my white cell count is perfectly normal, thank you. But, i appreciate your concern.

BTW: I never said i used marijauna. You might want to go back and reread my original post. I said marinol was USELESS. That's it.
The Professor

It is not illegal to use marijuana. Its illegal to possess marijuana.

The Professor

if ur smoking a joint then ur posessing the joint. (or pipe etc)

As for the individual data point, the studies about marijuana and white blood cell counts are out there, and they seem pretty conclusive to me. I'm glad your white blood cell count is normal. :)

My sister had relapsing / remitting MS. She was not that far advanced when she died. She thought she had a cold, and was putting off going to the doctor until Monday. She died in the car on the way to the hospital on Sunday. :(

I don't however, think they're any correlated studies to MS sufferers. Also, i am highly suspicious of such studies. There is too much vested interest in finding things wrong with the "drugs" the gov't and big pharma can't control.

Really truly, sorry about your sister.
The Professor

When my partner was getting chemo (3 day infusions, every 3 weeks for 1 year) he could not eat ANYTHING for those 3 days. Threw up every 30 minutes around the clock.

I was getting very freaked out, well, you can imagine when your 30 year old husband is going through this, it is devastating. One night he smoked a bit of a joint out of the hospital window that a friend had given him. He slept for 3 hours without throwing up, awoke and asked for a cheeseburger and fries. Ate it all up and slept the rest of the night. Wow.

His doc had given him Marinol but he couldn't keep anything down.

Just wanted to share my story, and glad you have an open mind.

Sounds about right ;-) :smoke:

Sounds like a hellish process.
Well, thank God no other seriously ill patients will ever have to undergo the Horrors Of Drug Use.
Honestly, many of these laws are just ridiculous.
And for the record, I have never tried any drugs (with the obvious exception of over-the-counter and perscription medication). Nor do I ever plan to. But I still think the laws are pointless.

I don't have a script for Marinol but smoking it helps when the pain is mild but not if it's that deep agonizing ache.

It doesn't work for the deep ache but it helps if you can catch it before it gets to the real bad stage. Which is where I am at tonight.

I've talked with people for whom MMJ works very well.

Each person's experience is just that. One can't speak for all.

But if you are barfing all the time from chemo, whatthehell good does it do to try to take oral meds? Smoke in the lungs works right away.

I work in clinical research and specifically in oncology and Marinol has some theraputic affect but it is not even close to smoking a marijuana joint. The police officer is not well informed.

I have never had Chemo and all I know about Marinol is what you see on the news.

in keeping marijuana illegal? ie. the war on drugs results in funds and more prisonsers are always good for the prison industry.

1) Meth, Cocaine and other hard drugs will never be legal. The war on drugs will continue regardless of the legality of marijuana.

2) The state of marijuana is determined by the public's current opinion on the issue not the prison systems. As long as the majority of the public opposes marijuana it will remain illegal.

3) The State has much more to gain finacially by legalizing and taxing.

i am talking about private prison owners.

do they not have an interest in gaining/maintaining prison population?

are there not prison lobby groups?
do you think they have the best interest of our society in mind or what is best for their pocketbook?

do you believe it is ethical to lock up a person who besides marijuana offenses is a law abiding citizen?

do you find it hypocritical the way our society embraces alcohol a far more dangerous drug?

do you agree with the federal government stepping in to shut down medical marijuana markets in california after the people voted to make medical marijuana legal?

do you believe that politicians speak their mind about the issue of marijuana prohibition or do you think that they are worried about appearing "soft on crime"?

how would the state effectively tax something you can grow in your backyard?

do you believe we are addressing the real causes of substance abuse by locking up people?

Lot'o questions:

1) I do not believe the prison industry has the influence you think they do.

2) Do I believe in locking up for marijuana? The only people that do any real time are dealers, growers and people that transfer. Is it ethical to lock them up? Yes, they broke the law. We are a nation of laws. If you do not like the law work to change it. Like I said before, life is not fair.

3) The alcohol question, The answer would be no. Alcohol can be used without impairing the user. Anyway, I think it is a mistake to try and link the issues.

4) California: Federal Laws supersede State laws. Marijuana was never legal in CA.

5) Politicians: No they do not speak their mind. I think you are correct that they do not want to seem soft on crime.

6) Tax: Lol, most people are to lazy to grow it in their backyard. Once it is made legal it would just be cheaper and easier to buy it at a store.

7) Locking people up: Just sending people to treatment does not work. I see this every day. My city has a drug court that sends offenders to rehab, rarely works. Their are consequences in life. You break the laws you go to jail.

1) my point is that the private sector has an investment in keeping prison populations high, do you disagree?

2) so no one goes to jail unless they are dealing, growing, trafficing? what is the criteria for deciding if someone is trafficing or not?

3) marijuana can be used with out impairing the user, do you think it is a mistake to link the two issues because alcohol does far more damage to our society than marijuana? how many alcohol related deaths/violence did you deal with this year? how many marijuana related deaths/violence did you deal with this year?

4) but the majority voted? what happened to states rights? are you saying for marijuana to be decriminalized that the federal laws will have to be overturned?

5) yay, we agree on something.

6) i would grow marijuana in my back yard in a second if it were legal. i believe you have misconceptions about "typical" marijuana users.

7) so, does locking someone up protect the population or does it teach the criminal a lesson?

how do you know the rehab does not work? what exposure do you have to the situations? what city is this? you seem to know more than the court system, why don't try to address the situation with them?

1) I do disagree in general. Sure the companies that run private prisons do not mind the business. Thing is that there are very few companies and they do not control the US.

2) I said Prison, not jail. They are 2 very different things. Trafficing is determined by quantity or packaging. An 8-ball is personal use, not trafficing. A kilo is not for personal use, trafficking. A dime bag of week, personal use. 50 pounds on weed hidden in a vehicele, not personal uses.
3) Marijuana can not be used without impairing the user. I think you missed my posts where I stated I do not have a problem with legalizing it and that if I had to choose between the two I would ban alcohol.
4) Yes, in order to make marijuana legal the Federal laws will have to be changed. States rights were eroded with the loss of the Civil War. The ignorant racist of the old south killed states rights.
6) Growing your own... It pot was legal you would not need to grow your own. How many cigarette smokers grow their own tobacco?
7) It can do both when dealing with felonies. As for misdemeanor it does not really help anything. Misdemeanor pot charges are only going to get you fined unless you slap the judge and urinate on his desk.

How do I know rehad does not work? Because I deal with the same people over and over for the most part. I am in court when they get sentenced to rehab and then I find them back at it again a month later... I do not know the solution. Sorry, I will not say where I work.

As a former mental health counselor who also dealt with substance abusers on a regular basis, I agree that rehab that is court ordered, or entered into to lessen a sentence, etc., does not work in the majority of cases. On the other hand, rehab that is self-chosen is much more likely to be successful.
Additionally, the least successful rehab clients in my neck of the woods tend to be meth addicts.

He doesn't. He seems to really dislike hippy's and stoner's and was shocked to learn pot helps people with cancer. He is very opinionated but it is clear that those opinions are based on mostly shallow understandings of the subject and very little actual research or data.

I doubt he really knows much about the private prison system and even less about the well funded groups that influence our government to promote a war on drugs.

"There are consequences in life. You break the laws you go to jail."
Obviously, it is not true in the first place. You need to break the law, get caught,get arrested, get prosecuted, get convicted, and get sentenced before you goto jail. As the Bard said, 'there is many a slip 'twixt cup and lip.'
In the second place, being run through the meat grinder of the justice system is not a consequence of anyone's actions. It is a societal choice. Let me illustrate. If you jump off a building without a bungee cord or other attachments, you fall and crash. The fall is a consequence of the jump. If, on the other hand Francis tells me "if you touch my stuff, I will kill you" and I touch his stuff, getting killed is not a consequence of what I did. It requires action on the part of Francis, which may or may not be considered "justice".
Then again, I am unclear as to how knowledge of the sociology or philosophy of crime and punishment is going to help you in your job. Those sorts of things need to be built into the laws and policies.

with your assertion that alcohol can be used w/o impairing the user. Even 1 drink can dull your reflexes.

Good luck to you sir. I have nothing but respect for honest cops. Pity theres so few around here.

7) Locking people up: Just sending people to treatment does not work. I see this every day. My city has a drug court that sends offenders to rehab, rarely works. Their are consequences in life. You break the laws you go to jail.

Our county drug court is highly successful. I'd like to hear more about what your city is doing, or doing wrong.

They send people to normal drug classes and programs. They also put them on probation and do testing.

Does your city have any unique drug programs?

I work quite a bit with Common Pleas drug courts (I work for the Ohio DRC APA). Not only is there mandatory community-based drug counseling (both individual and group), but also job counseling, family counseling, working with housing concerns, medical services, regular meetings with probation officers, frequent urinalysis, community service, AA/NA meetings and so on. It seems that for the drug/alcohol abusers and small-time traffickers there's more often than not an underlying reason behind the offense such as chronic job disruption, etc. I don't want to make it sound perfect because it's not. There are always new arrests, non-compliance, and absconders. The counselers tend to not want to work around a client's job or school schedule (which pisses me off regularly). On the whole, I believe the drug courts that are able to identify and target various needs other than substance
abuse have the best successs of reducing relapse into criminal behaviors.

I personally think (marijuana) should be legalized.

What are the costs to police officers and to law enforcement a whole, of US drug policy?

Do tough penalties for drug charges make officers' work more dangerous?

Does the great amount of money in the illegal drug trade fuel corruption in law enforcement?

Does strict enforcement and teh attendant searches, etc., provoke antagonism and suspicion of police in communities where drugs are sold, making law enforcement more difficult in those areas?

The monetary cost for the war on drugs is pretty high. I do not know the numbers off hand.

Do tough penalties make work more dangerous? Only in a small number of instances. It is a common misconception that people go to prison for minor drug offenses. For someone to go to prison I basicly have to get 3 felony convictions first before they will even see a prison. It does make the people transporting drugs dangerous though. I am talking about the people that are running drugs. They are dangerous people.

There is not as much corruption as people would have you believe. It is actually not common. Movies and TV shows are not real life. Is there some corruption? Of course... Police are human beings. Where you have humans, you have morons.

As to your last question about antagonism... the answer is basicly yes. It does not make the job harder but it does cause antagonism. What causes the anatgonism is not searched and the like, its the amount of contact they have with the Police. For example, Let is say you live in a low crime middle class neighborhood. The odds are the Police are not going to be patroling your area that often because there is no real reason. You rarely have to worry about the Police stopping you for traffic violations and can basicly drives as you please. Now let us say you live in a high crime, poorer neighborhood. The Police are going to patrol your area constantly and there will be more Police assigned to that area. So you are going to see the Police almost constantly. This is going to mean that the Police are more likely to observe your traffic infractions and pull you over. I am sure you can see the problem.

British police have been very successful at not shooting people on a
comparative average, as they don't carry guns. What do you think of
police not carrying guns and having to use human skills of getting
along instead of lethal force.

It appears the british method is much more sucessful in places like
basra where american hard-policing just creates enemies... perhaps this
could work on the home front as well?

There is a huge difference between us and them. Guns are everywhere in the U.S. There is no way we could disarm. I have been at 4 officer involved shootings. One involved a suspect shooting an officer, two instances of the suspect shootinmg at officers but missing and one the suspect was shooting his wife. I do not see how human skills would have worked in any of these cases. As long as the public is heavily armed we must be also. It is just not realistic.

Also, the British are armed to the teeth in Basra. The British are just posted in less viloent areas in the south of Iraq. We also have troops in those areas that have no problems with the general populace.

It beats the living daylights out of anything you can get over the counter and is far less addictive and dangerous than opiates.

if it is legalized for medicinal purposes it will not be over the counter. There are far better prescription pain relievers.

i agree. legalize it! stop arresting kids and giving them criminal records for getting high every once in a while. besides our courts have more important issues to address.. drunk drivers for instance.

I would stick with the same restrictions as alcohol.

who are courteous? That would be a narrow scope.

Thats an under statement.
You'll find out, being a peace officer gets little respect around here.
Good Luck




Retired, Sheriffs Department.

That must really eat you up since most people are frightened of you and kiss your ass.

Yea i spent 21 yrs with the SO for just those reasons. jeezzzzzz!
Theres a couple of memorials on Interstate 20 in west TX, ones at mile marker 168, the others at mile marker 186. If your ever traveling through i would hope you'd stop and read. Both of these men were friends of mine. One was hit by a drunk while changing a womans tire. The other was shot in the face during a routine traffic stop. Both left family's behind. They didn't want respect, they didn't want thank you's, they didn't want their ass kissed. They just wanted to protect and serve the good people of this county, a job few are willing to take on.

If you ever catch a clue, hang on to it, because your in desperate need of one.

Use the CIVIL courts to sue the folks who either a) provide the illegal drugs to minors, and b) the folks in whose homes the illegal drug use is taking place.

No offense meant, but it appears that police officers are kind of busy tracking down "real" crimes, and illegal drug use by minors is kind of penny ante stuff (sp?). Plus, I've been told by other police officers that most parents don't want their teenage children to go to jail, but "just want you to put a scare into them" -- like the police have time to discipline your children for you -- so drug use by minors gets kind of ignored in favor of going after the "big time dealers" until such time as the kids escalate into harder drug use and/or crime to pay for the habit.

One of my nieces became a teenage heroin addict. Her mother (my sister) is now deceased, but a huge family fight occurred when my sister confessed at a family Christmas that she had provided marijuana to both my niece and her boyfriend (both age sixteen!) THE DAY AFTER THE BOYFRIEND GOT OUT OF DRUG REHAB. I always wondered if she may have taken the stupidity of her actions a little more seriously if HIS family had sued the pants off of her....

In the meantime, the boyfriend has now spent a great deal of the last few years in jail for dealing, while my heroin junkie niece seems to be staying clean -- for now.

I'm confident these types of stories aren't news to you; what do you think of turning the personal injury lawyers loose on these folks? If slip-n-fall accidents and dog bites can become big business, what do you think of the idea of civil penalties for "contributing to the delinquency of a minor" as a way of going after the small time folks?

The only people that could sue the so called "parents" would be the childrem themselves or the children's legal guardian if they were taken away from the "parents."

You story is far to common. In cases like this there is really little the Police can do. We often lack the evidence to make an arrest. We lack the authority to really investigate these kind of problems in the home. However, your Department of Human Services or whatever your state calls its child welfare agency does. If you know of any incidents of parents giving children drugs call DHS or file a report with the Police. The Police will contact DHS.

One of the main problems is that we do not know these things are happening. I arrest minors all the time for possession. We have no idea after they are returned to their parents what happpens to them. The case goes to Family Court and we are completley out of it from that point on.

I had to ask.

and quality seems to be slipping.

Don't worry, SouthernDem, I'm on your side. People here don't always have respect for a guy or gal in uniform.

My question: Do you and the other officers ever sit around and watch the funny dash cam recordings you must occasionally end up with?

We actually make highlight tapes. We pull the tapes out of our cars and dub "interesting" incidents onto a VHS tape.

Police go to I guess what you would call continuing ed type classes. They are training classes held throughout the country constantly. During breaks between training we often pop in a video. This seems to be a universal thing with Police.

Do you need to see my license and registration?

I just need a DL and proof of insurance. :)

somewhere...

Is there a film that you think best exemplifies police work?

There to many different types of Police work for any film to cover. Not to mention alot of what we do would be boring to watch. Even the TV cops is not close because it only shows highlights of week long video shoots.

For example, I work graveyard shift in a high crime area of town. My job is alot different from the Officers in my department that work day shift in another part of town. A big difference in the stress level for one. I would estimate a dayshift officer may draw his weapon maybe once every few months at the most. Graveyard, at least once a week.

;-)

1) I keep my registration & insurance info in a pocket behind the passenger seat of the car. If I'm ever stopped by a LEO, and asked to provide insurance/registration, and I reach behind the seat to grab the info, are most LEO's going to assume I'm going for a weapon? Should I explain what I'm doing first?

2) I travel A LOT for work. Sometimes I have to stop in bad sections of towns or in semi-deserted rest areas. All I have for defense is a pair of nunchaku, with which I'm still pretty efficient. If I'm ever pulled over for a traffic stop, am I likely to be arrested for having a concealed weapon?

1) We always assume you are going for a gun. Wait until the Officer is at your window and asks for the information. Then tell him where it is but do not reach for it until he tells you to. Do not be offend if he puts his hand on his weapon, it is nothing personal. Also, pull the documents out of the pocket slowly.

2) CCW laws vary from state to state. Nunchaku are just plain illegal in some states. I would take them out if I were you. If the police find them it would probably be because they are searching your vehicle for some reason. You do not want to give them a reason to arrest you at that point or another charge they can add on. Get a permit and carry a gun.

How did you end up in police work?

After I finished college I quit my higher paying job and became a Cop.
I realized that money alone was not going to make me happy. I now have an interesting job where every day is different. I enjoy the feeling you get when you help someone out of a bad situation or even sometimes save their life. One person can make a difference. I am my brothers keeper.

inform the American people about the irregularity's and fraud in this past election, and do you approve of how we are handling it?

First the fraud issue and yes I believe they are two very different issues. I judge most issues like they were a criminal matter. In the instance of fraud one must first ask if they have Probable Cause to believe a crime was committed. To determine whether probable cause existed for purposes of arrest is whether facts and circumstances within the officer's knowledge are sufficient to warrant a prudent person to believe a suspect has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime. Do we have those facts? The answer is no. I have listened to the threads on this site and others and no one has yet to come up with a single hard fact demonstrating fraud. Until someone comes up with a fact, not suppostion or a feeling, there is no argument for fraud.

Second the irregularities: Is there probable cause showing irregularities? The answer is yes. When I am talking about irregularities I am refering to machines crashing, lack of voting machines and other problems that have been happening for decades. However, I do not see a criminal intent. There are certainly inperfections in the system that need to be addressed.

Finally, Do I approve of how the informing the public is being handled? No offense intended but no I do not. Right now what you have is a case of the messenger killing the message. No one is going to pay attention or take a group seriously if they are spewing hate and I am not saying you are one of the people that is doing so. If you read the forums here you will see what I am talking about. In order to get reform you are going to need both Democrats and Republicans. Calling all Republicans stupid, liars and the such serves no purpose. Anti-religious remarks serve no purpose. People are not going to listen to people that insult them or are arrogant. Ask a Republican if they are for paperless ballots and see what they say. I bet they are against it also. Now walk up to a Republican calling him a lying, murderous idiot and ask him if he is for paperless ballots....I bet he did not hear the question....

There will be no reform of the system until calmer heads prevail. Right now calmer heads do not want to get involved in an issue that might associate them with people spewing hate.

Remember, This is my opinion...

That is a very good point SouthernDem2004. We are supposed to be the more intellectual and progressive thinkers, possessing an elevated level of reason. Narrow minded thinking serves no purpose other than to reinforce ones own prejudices. All republicans are not stupid liars, all police are not "pigs", all (fill in the blank) are not (fill in the blank), on and on. My 50 years on the planet and traveling around the globe several times has proved to me that people are just people and there are good and bad that pervade every aspect of the human experience.

I guess I am guilty of ranting a bit. I agree, you do get much more done when both teams can talk civilly. Thanks for your answer, it gives all of us something to think about.

And when watching movies or tv that involve computers they invariably apply a hollywood interp of what they think computers or hacking is like. This drives us computer geeks up the wall (particularly those who understand what hacking is really like (from the security side, not the black hat side)).

So the question. What are the stereotypes and movie cliches that make you grind your teeth about police in the movies?

1) The whole "blue wall of silence" bull. The movies act like cops cover or lie for other cops that commit crimes. I am not saying that does not happen occasionally but it is not system wide. Most of us consider Cops that commit crimes to be traitors.

2) That you can kill someone and then be back out working the street a hour later. That does not happen. You are looking at a couple days off at least.

3) All Cops in movies seem to drink ALOT.

4) That CSIs actually go out in the field and interview people. Pffft, all CSI does is respond to a crime scene and collect evidence. They then take the evidence back to the lab and process it. That is the end of their involvement. Any and all further investigation is handled by the detectives.

5) That Police have to read you you Miranda rights. We do not.

6) That you only get one phone call. We let you make more then one call but of course you have to call collect.

I am sure I can think of many more :)

was probably one thing the cop shows got right.

The only time I need to read Miranda is if I am asking questions that I may use in court testimony or it may lead to the discovery of evidence. Even then I only read them in possible felony cases.

Most of the time I never read them. Most of the time I have more then enough evidence to convict someone without a confession or statement.

thanks for taking the time to talk to us here, and I hope you really feel at home here. Keep up the good work.

and about handgun control in particular? Any difference?

On edit: Thanks for protecting us!

Everyone I know is for gun control. I do not know anyone personally that is for banning guns outright. The gun laws that just expired need to be renewed and once they are they need to be enforced. We were happy with the old laws.

I bought a new car, and was testing the cruise control...therefore I knew EXACTLY how fast I was going, because I was monitoring it. I was going 67 in a 65 mph. (yes, two miles over, but I was aware of that).
The cop pulled me over and told me I was going 85!!!!. There was no way that was possible, since I was on cruise, and besides which I had my six year old in the car at the time.
He either was dead wrong, or intentionally lying, which of course I could not prove.
I found myself powerless to do anything but disagree, respectfully, but pay the ticket.

I think I'd have had no problem to be correctly pulled over, or if the speed charged was even in the vicinity of my actual speed, or if I hadn't been using the cruise control.

oh well, there are worse problems in the world.

It is unlikely he is lying. It is possible his radar clocked a vehicle doing 85 and he just stopped the wrong one.

If money is an issue do not pay the ticket by mail. Go to court and plead guilty to the judge. They normally access a lower fine. Also, if you can not come up with the money they will often set up payment plans.

If you had gone to trial you would have had 2 technical points you could have argued. Aside from that it would have been his word against yours. You would have lost in that case.

Hard truth is that life is not fair and some people in jail really are innocent.

because people were passing me right before he pulled me over.

but you're right, there wasn't much I could do about it.

1) Stay out of the fast lane. (The far left lane.) You stand out and Cops pay more attention to that lane.

2) If you see a Cop, slow down. Some people think that since they already got clocked speeding there is no point in slowing down. Continuing to speed is often seen by Police as being disrespectful.

3) Once you pass a Cop do NOT speed up. We have rear facing radar.

4) Use a radar detector if it is legal in your state. Most of the time we leave the radar constantly on just to slow down traffic. We are not all out to right tickets. Often we just want to slow traffic down. (All radar detectors are not equal, choose wisely.)

5) Those radar cloaker/jammer things do not work. Do not waste your money.

6) If stopped stay in your vehicle. Do not get out unless told to do so. Be polite. Do not cry. Do not flirt (This actually may work sometimes but it ticks off Cops like me.) Do not argue with the Police or say he is wrong. Do not throw out names like "Do you know officer so in so.) Do not lie about the reason for the violation. I have let off more people with a warning for telling me they had no excuse then any other made up bull. I do not like it when people insult my intelligence. Do not ask for a warning. Do exactly what the officers tells you to. Do NOT reach under your seat or anywhere else for that matter. Freaks us out...

Is this a pretty good one in your opinion? I've watched from the first indication until I pass the cop with the radar gun. When stationary, I usually run up on the cop in about three miles. If the cop is coming towards me on the opposite side of the road, I usually see him about a mile and a half down the road.

I know the laser detector sucks because I actually had it go off once and the cop was right in front of me. He had to have painted me with his laser at about the same time I detected him, fortunately I wasn;t speeding at the time.

I also have a feature that lets me know if a cop has a radar detector detector, but I've yet to drive in a state where radar detectors are illegal to test it out.

That some just plain do not work. I have no idea which brands but I have stopped numerous people that had detectors that did not pick up my low band Ka. These were newer models too.

Laser detection is a scam. A laser radar gun shoots a single laser beam. The Officer aims the beam using a sight just like on a gun. It even has a tone telling you when it hits a moving target. Think of a laser pointer. It omits a single narrow beam like a radar gun. For your laser radar detector to work that beam would have to actually hit the detector. Sorry, but the Officer is not aiming at your detector. :)

:shrug: It was a package deal, both in the same device.

My radar detector works just fine. I also find it helpful to follow somebody whom I label "bait". If possible I find somebody on the road traveling about as fast as I travel and just stay behind them, when the detector goes off I slow down and my "bait" gets the ticket.

Two reasons:

1) I never take the first car. Why? Because I know what the cars behind him are doing. :)

2) When people are running drugs they often use two or more vehicles. The first vehicle is there to distract the Police while the other goes on past. Its like that old movie Smokey and the Bandit.

I'm doing 65 while the guy in front is doing 80 because I slowed down since I knew you were there.

:eilgrin:

3) Once you pass a Cop do NOT speed up. We have rear facing radar.

I did not know that.

All I have to do is push a button and it switches to the unit mounted on the rear deck of the car.

This is one of the more common types of systems: http://www.stalkerradar.com/law_2x.shtml

I do not do a lot of traffic though. I am a Patrol Officer and generally do not care about traffic unless someone is driving dangerously. 50 in a 35 or something of that nature depending on the area, I usually just flash my lights to get them to slow down. If they speed up again once they pass me... well its time to have a little talk.

Yeah...i'm usually spooked enough after a cop flashes their lights at me that I slow down for quite a while. I never do more than 10 over the speed limit in residential areas anyway.

Is it true that police and other emergency responders are only allowed to go 20mph above the speed limit when the emergency lights and sirens are turned on? I heard that somewhere.

20 MPH is most common. I know that is the law in my state. We violate that law like you would not believe. Lets say your at work and your wife and kids are home alone. Your wife went to the store and on the way home she notices a car that seems to be following her. There is only one person in the car and it looks like a man. Its 11:30 PM. Your wife loses sight of the other vehicle and returns home. A short time later she hears noises at the back door. She peers out a window and sees the man from the vehicle at her back door doing something to the lock. On the ground beside the man she can see duct tape and a knife. She calls the Police. Ok, here is the thing. She lives down a long road that has a posted limit of 15 MPH! Also, the roads leading to hers have varying limits between 15 and 35 mph. Do you think I should drive 35 MPH to get to the call? This is an actual call I answered one night. If you think I drove 35 you are sadly mistaken. :)

:)

for an expired inspection sticker I told the police officer I knew it was expired and I was waiting for either a ticket or an infusion of cash...he gave me a warning and I went directly to the inspection station with my weeks paycheck...we ate macaroni that week, but I did NOT get a ticket!

about reaching behind my seat for my insurance/registration info. That would be a no-no.

The issue about speeding brings up a question. Why do you (LEO's in general--usually Highway Patrol) sometimes like to drive UNDER the speed limit? On a 4-lane divided, this usually yields hilarious results: You get a gaggle of nervous Nellies who are afraid to go the ACTUAL speed limit for fear of passing the trooper, even though he's only going, say, 61 in a 65 zone.

Then someone like me says "Forget this!" and I zip past the whole gaggle and the trooper, doing 65. I'm at the speed limit, but I feel nervous and strangely guilty while doing so, afraid that I might get pulled over just for (gasp!) passing an officer.

So my question is: Do you guys just laugh your heads off at us? I can picture two troopers in their car: "Get a load of this, Tom! I got sixteen vehicles backed up behind me! And I'm only doing 41 in a 55 zone!"

1) Yes, it is funny. :)

2) The margin of error on a normal vehicle's speedometer is normally +/- 3 MPH. It can be higher if you do not have the same size tires as that were originally on the vehicle or the speedometer can be out of wack.

3) It is a rolling speed trap. Several miles ahead is an Officer sitting and waiting. At some point the Officer slowing down the traffic is going to exit the Interstate. The citizen's by basic human nature are going to speed up then and some are going to try and make up for lost time by driving even faster. Your radar detecter will be useless since the slowing Officer still has his on and its effecting your detecter. Tickets away...

4) The officer is in no hurry and is just crusing along with no where to go.

5) If it is on a normal street the Officer maybe looking for criminal activity. It is hard to see in between houses and businesses when you are doing 45 MPH.

I know it's wrong, but I'm an American and it's my right to be stupid.

Anyway, how likely is it that I'll get stopped--highways and Interstates?

I never have been yet, but I don't know how long my luck will hold out. What % of the time would a cop/trooper pull me over for 70 in a 65?

I've had that happen twice (in 30 yrs driving), both times on the way home from work exhausted & wanting to go home to bed, speeding w/out realizing it. When the officers asked me 'do you know why I stopped you' I was too beat to try to talk them out of a ticket, just said speeding, & when asked why told them the truth - I just worked xxx hours/days, I wanna go to bed, write my ticket fast & let me go home, please. To my shock, both times they just looked at me for a second & said, go home. Taught me alot, no need to BS - be honest & sometimes you get a break! Now, I set my hours, so bosses aren't working my behind in the ground w/no sleep!

Years back I lived in Washington State and this happened. I had an old beater pickup truck with a bad carburetor and nothing on this planet could make it go over 50 MPH. I Had my two roommates in the cab with me I was passed by two newer cars and then I drove passed a parked State Patrol car, He promptly pulled me over walked up to my window and said I was speeding he really didn't like what I told him next I called him a f*cking liar to his face explaining that my truck cant go over 50. To say the least he was a bit shocked then made up a bull story saying that he had already erased the radar gun so he wouldn't give me a speeding ticket so instead he gave us all seatbelt tickets, Was I steamed you beat I was and I let him know it.

I doubt you would have gotten any tickets if you had been polite. Curse the Officer AFTER the stop, not during.

But as the saying goes "I gota be me". When someone and I really dont care who it is accuses me of something that I have not done I will let them know in my own way. To me cops doing their job is just a job I get no special treatment for doing mine so they get none for doing theirs but as you said earlier we are all human and that in all walks of life we have good and bad. I have met some really nice cops, But when you met the ones on the other end of the spectrum it can really screw up your day. I do have a couple of other glaring examples of some cops that are real bad I'll give you one right now. This was in the days of longer hair I had hair maybe down to the the top of my shoulder driving my box stock 4 Cyl mustang (And I really pride myself on being a courteous driver I try not to go more than 5MPH over the limit I stop at stop signs let others merge and so on) and not doing anything illegal I get a cop behind me and he pulls me over I wait for him to come to my window. Then without any attitude I ask him why he pulled me over his answer to me was and I quote "Wheres the drugs at". Man did that ever light my fire for one thing I dont do drugs then or now except maybe a few beers. So needless to say he really didnt like it when I said IF THEY WERE SHOVED UP YOUR ASS I BET YOU WOULD KNOW. So the moral of the story is, If you are polite to me I will be polite to you.

Well often people commit minor traffic offenses and are not aware of it. Alot of traffic violations are caused by inattention which is why we write warning citations. I personal do not care if someone is rude or not. It is just like on this forum. If you are rude or unable to participate in civil discourse I ignore you. I do the same at work. Of course I am going to charge you with every violation you committed... If you want to get rude you the Police because you think you are right then go right ahead but know what the consequences are. I stick with the advice I have given that you should always be polite even if the Cop is wrong. Curse him after he has left. You will find life alot easier that way.

have you ever been in a situation where you find our laws and the results there of actually worsen a situation?

The reason is that I do not have to arrest someone if I do not want to.

There have been times where I have had to arrest parents and the children had to go to a juvenile shelter. It can be heart wrenching but sometimes it must be done.

Glad to have you here, and thanks for your public service.

Have the Supreme Court (I like to call it the Judicial Arm of the Coup because, it is neither Supreme nor a Court anymore, IMHO, and will become less so as the transition from the Old Free USA to Imperial Amerika speeds up) rulings on due process such as the Texas ruling whih allows an officer to cuff and search a vehicle without probable cause or the provisions of the unPATRIOT Act, changed how you and your fellows perform your duties.

Are more corners now being cut? More warrants ducked? Perhaps, like Tom DeLay in Texas, abuse of PATRIOT Act for use against people who are merely criminals, not national security risks?

I believe cops are like religious heirarchies. You do so much good with one hand while doing so much bad with the other (crooked cops, cutting corners, railroading innocents, lying on the stand, and HELL YES does watching a cop 100% lie on the stand, even in Traffic Court, change a person's view FOREVER on your profession). But if one acknowledges the great wrongs cops and law enforcement perpetrate (and it's only going to get worse now that the Busheviks are pushing us back to Mississippi 1930s Law Enforcement with people who oppose the Busheviks as the Uppity Negroes and the Busheviks as the KKK/CCC) then one must also acknowledge the great good cops do for many, too.

So, I went off on a tangent, but my initial question remains:

Has the recent changes in Amerika over the last 4 years such as unPATRIOT and Supreme Court Rulings changed the way you and your compatriots do your jobs?

I can cuff anyone I want for safety purposes but I am not sure what you are talking about in regards to a vehicle search. I am rather well versed in this topic. Can you clarify? I can do a wing-span search of the drivers immediate area but I can not search the entire vehicle without probable cause.

I remember a briefing at work just after the Patriot Act was passed and some groups were complaining on tv. We all found the whole thing rather amusing. Most of the powers opposition thought were new actually were not. We already had alot of the powers the Patriot Act granted. The PA was just political smoke and mirriors the administration used to make the public think they were doing something. The few new powers granted were given to the Feds. I really do not have a problem with the PA. I do not think it has been abused yet.

http://www.populist.com/03.11.edit.html

Note the OHS was used to track the aircraft of Democratic Legislators using PATRIOT provisions.

That's at least one incidence you don't know of. I wonder how many others are out there?

As to the "Supreme Court" ruling, scroll down on the list below to the heading "Searches Incident to Arrest for Minor Offenses"

http://www.radford.edu/~jcall/VACP/2002VACP.htm

There's much more on all this that I don't have time to gather for you.

And I strongly disagree that the unPA was "smoke and mirrors"

Sneak & Peek?

The right to access ANY record at ANY time without probable cause or a judge's signature?

The right of the Executive Branch to define people as "terrorists" using a (deliberate, IMHO) broadly worded definition that could apply to virtually anyone.

Even IF the unPA hasn't yet been abused, as a cop I am sure you are well aware of the very human tendency to cut corners, to take advantages and the necessity of explicitly having checks on bad conduct rather than handing out unchecked carte blanche and relying on People's Good Nature (which I am sure your job brings you with in contact every day) to keep them from violating the law.

The PA was not missused. A Congressmen abused his power and got information he should not have had access to. I do not see how the PA was involved here.


I am well aware of searches incident to arrest. I do it all of the time. Once I arrest someone I can search the vehicle prior to its being towed for the purposes of inventory. I can search the interior and trunk but that is it.

(the Texas ruling which allows an officer to cuff and search a vehicle without probable cause )
Still requires probable cause, your permission or a search warrant.
Being cuffed and detained is not being arrested.

If a custodial arrest is made, both the individual and vehicle are open to search, is it not so?

And since when is being cuffed and detained NOT being arrested? I suppose I could see the detained part (such as being detained for questioning relating to a crime), but the cuffing?

What are the rules, if any for "cuffing and detaining" outside of the arrest process (which, by the way is clearly NOT the case in the "Supreme Court" case I linked to above)?

Is there a name for this non-arrest 'cuffing and detaining'?

is not the same as being arrested. Being cuffed does not mean you are being chraged with any crime. It is done mainly for Officer Safety reasons until the situation can be straightened out. It is often called investigative detention. I can detain you for 72 hours without actually charging you with anything.

one - how much leeway do y'all have in deciding when to arrest someone and what for?


i got arrested once in a really bizarre scenario, and i've often wondered why they even bothered arresting me. (the case eventually wound up being dismissed - it was a twisted tragic chain of events, but the judge felt the case itself was worthless once all was said and done) if you want the details i'd be happy to share.


in any case that was question 1. question 2:


how do you feel about Homeland Security money and al the pseudo-attention paid to "First Responders" - are you really seeing anything qualitative coming from the hoohaa or is it all jsut smoke and mirrors?

1) I have alot of leeway. I do not have to arrrest anyone I do not want to. If a citizen wants to make a "citizens arrest" I can refuse to do it and tell them they must go sign charges and get a warrant from a judge.

2) Most citys have gotten grants from HS. The funding has helped alot of agencys buy equipment they could not normally afford. I have actually seen some positive things. Communication between Law Enforcement has become alot better and Fed agencys are actually listening to local law enforcement for a change.

1.) that sucks. it means i was targeted for no good reason. despite the other parties involved not wanting charges pressed.


well let me sketch out the whole story - please tell me what you would have done:


I was 18 and living at my parents house, in the neighborhood i grew up in. I was driving into the entrance of the community and saw a kid i used to babysit, with a skateboard. he wasn't wearign a helemt (this was beofre it was required by law) he waved me down, and asked me if he could hitch a ride on my bumper. I said okay, and he grabbed by window and we went downt he street - goign about 2 miles an hour. well he hit a rock, and fell off, and hit his head ont he pavement. I wigged out, and went up the street to get my Dad - he's a doctor. This kid's dad was also a doctor, and his mom was a volunteer EMT. they were in Mexico at the time. My dad came an saw him, checked him out and said he would be alright, but an ambulance was called. They came and picked him up, recognizing who he was, and they notified his grandmother, who was ticked because she specifically told him not to go hitching rides off cars, so he just moved to the other side of the neighborhood and did it anyway.


So a few hours later, i got arrested in my living room for endangering the welfare of a child, permitting clinging and Felony Assault.


The kids parents came back from mexico that night, apologized to me for their son's behavior, and tried to get the charges dropped, but no dice.


from here the story gets even more twisted, but let's just leave it at the arrest - would you have oden the same thing? (this was a very small town)

...and attack peaceful demonstrators?

Why are so many cops, who get meager pay for dangerous work, so zealous about protecting the property of the wealthy?

I'm grateful for the work of the many good cops out there, but I wish I felt like more of them were on the side of working and poor people, rather than just folks being paid to keep the rich safe from the rest of us...

PS - in case you're wondering, I've never been arrested or harrassed - I keep my nose very clean - but I have observed this...

EDIT: Just to clarify, I was living and working in downtown Miami during the FTAA, and I saw THOUSANDS of cops in stormtrooper gear there to protect a bunch of FOREIGN robber barons from a few thousand AMERICANS who simply want trade policies that are fair to labor.

It was terrifying.

I think I know the answer.

We hate it. It is hot and uncomfortable. Mine is actually sitting in a bag beside me right now. I hate it with a passion. The gear is solely for our protecting. I am not going to let someone hurt me. We all know that protesters throw things and some come to cause trouble.

Attack demonstrators? The word attack is not fair in my opinion. We stop people from breaking the law. That is what we do.

Are you saying that some people do not have legal rights? That they should not be protected from harm? You do not have the right to harm anyone just because you do not like them or disagree with them. You do not have the right to destroy their property. It is my job to keep everyone safe. Notice you keep saying "protect." That is exactly what we do. Yes, we protect them just as we protect you.

I do not see anything wrong in your picture. The Officer on the far right has a pepperspray pellet gun. The shotgun with the red tape fires bean bags and the guy on the ground is being arrested I am sure for a reason.

The people who came to Miami were there to conspire with our business "leaders" to undermine our own laws with a trade agreement that supersedes them. The automatic assumption on the part of the police that the demonstrators are the ones prone to break the law and the foreigners are law-abiding is a big part of the problem.

The gear is solely for our protecting. I am not going to let someone hurt me. We all know that protesters throw things and some come to cause trouble.

No, it also serves to intimidate, especially when you have phalanxes of thousands of these stormtroopers moving in on peaceful demonstrators, rapping their batons on their shields, attacking protesters who fail to do as the officers want. You need to research what happened at FTAA a bit more. The Police presence was way over the top - stormtroopers facing down union guys with walking sticks. so many people were injured who did absolutely nothing wrong.

And no, I DON'T know that protesters come to throw things and cause trouble. I see cops starting the trouble with confrontational tactics.

But my real question is why would cops help these thugs to destroy our country. A better day for a "blue flu" I cannot imagine.

But it's okay. You know which side your bread is buttered on, and you don't really care that it's only the thinnest film of cheap margarine.

Why do poorly payed, underappreciated police officers always seem to protect the individuals that make sure that their salaries stay that way?

Here's another...

Why do cops always incite violence at peaceful protests?

I have seen several acts of uncalled bullying by the LAPD at protests in Hollywood. Do I judge the entire LAPD for these few bad apples? No! So quit acting like it never happens.

they were infiltration anti-war meetings with the hops of preventing protests etc., funny how the cops never seem to infiltrate meetings for republican war mongers. (of course, most cops are war mongers as well)

march in midtown during the GOP convention. Running people down and puposely inciting violence. It happened.

about these kinds of events. It would almost seem like you guys gave a fuck about the people you serve and protect if you were to actually take notice of your brethren's abuses on them.

the people jumped him because the idiot was trying to incite a riot in plainclothes. Good for the citizens I am so glad they chose to defend themselves I think ACLU got invloved.

You want Police that support your political views which I might add I probably agree with. It does not and should not work this way. When I am on duty I am not a Democrat, I am a Police Officer. I am an agent of the state. I enforce the laws. If you do not like the laws then you must change them.

Protesters do cause problems. They need the media attention to get their message out. Are the majority peaceful? Yes. Are there some that plan trouble? Oh yea.

Load up WinAmp and choose its TV playlist. I believe it is called FreedomTV. Its one of the activist stations. One documentory is about a group planning for a World Bank/IMF meeting. Watch it. Watch as they plan how to cause problems.

How do activists achieve their goal best without creating a situation where the police must adversly interact with them?

What forms of protest have you seen that were effective but gave the police no cause to intervene?

I see no other way for the protesters to be heard other then causing a problem. I never said I did not understand their tactics. I do not have anything against protesters. I wish the had a venue where they would be heard but I am afraid causing a media stir seems to be their only course of action at this time.

The purpose of most protest is for the protesters opinion to be heard. Have I ever seen an effective protest with violence or destruction. Sadly, No. I political system is seriously flawed. These protesters are causing problems because they feel strongly about something and it is the only way for them to be heard. I respect that but I am still a Police Officer.

You have to work with the laws you have. We have to provide you with laws that work. Thank you for doing the job that needs doing.

Do the math.

At the anti-war protests in Miami, some cops were dispassionate, and some seemed to be on our side but they were not in riot gear, and were not coming at us in a confrontational way as they did at the FTAA.

Another problem at FTAA was that they brought in thousands of cops from all over Florida, including many very rightwing backwater areas - and I think they accounted for a lot of the abuses that took place that day. The thug chief Timoney should have been fired, but he patted himself on the back the next day, and the corporate-owned local paper did likewise.

they are supporting the destruction of this country for the sake of the capitalist class but this is not surprising because that is the very reason cops were created in the first place.

And these people are not bloodthirsty killers or criminals.

And yeas, I want police officers to identify with and show solidarity with other members of the working class. Protecting thuggish crony capitalists from AMERICAN CITIZENS is not the same thing as busting a meth lab or catching a serial killer.

And my comments about "blue flu" stand. If you think your own salary and benefits are worth it, there should be some police operations that conscientious officer would want to opt out of participating in.

And the level of armament in Miami was again, WAY over the top. I didn't participate in the protests there because I was working, but I was working downtown. I have never felt so scared of police in my life - THOUSANDS of them in that riot gear, EVERYWHERE.

The police should have been prepared for disorder, but showing up like that from the beginning is needlessly confrontational.

hopefully you weren't working for a "thuggish crony capitalist" or someone might ask how your situation is that different from the policemen you criticize.

Not foreign moguls vying for trade pacts that nullify US labor and environmental laws.

Any more smug, smart-ass remarks you'd like to unload?

I just found it odd that you didn't go to a demonstration/protest that you were so passionate about.

I have a wife and kids to feed, and the scene there was obviously very dangerous, thanks to the thousands of unruly COPS. So sue me.

Thank goodness there are protesters in the world willing to sacrifice. Goodness knows where historically oppressed people in the world would be if such sacrifices hadn't been made.

I barely keep them fed as it is. No life insurance, no benefits, no inheritance.

I go to to the demonstrations that I can go to.

As for the cops, I find it hard to fathom why they would even show up for such a shameful attack on their fellow citizens in the name of a bunch of foreign moguls, much less why they had no identification, or why they failed to instruct the crowds what to do and instead just attacked people whenever they felt like it.

that there was nothing for their family to fall back on and they could barely keep them fed.

... while you simultaneously cheer on the cops for clobbering them.

I "cheer on the cobs (sic) for clobbering them" I must have missed it, or you just made it up...quite dishonestly.

While making yourself self-appointed debate tactics referee.

Funny how you rag on people for not participating in a protest, when you haven't really even participated in this discussion, aside from ragging on people for not expressing themselves as you would like them to.

Your cryptic little quips don't add much...

And maybe by "cob(sic)", I meant... Oh, never mind.

This is an open-forum Q&A thread, so there have been several little discussions.

I am only defending a single policeman who is one of us (a DUer) and came on this thread for SIX hours and answered all sorts of questions. I enjoyed following the thread today because of his openness and enthusiasm in being a DU member. When two posters (not you) then came on and started dumping on him and making stuff up about what he said, yeah...I got pretty upset and wanted to defend the guy. I don't see any harm in that. Remember, this is a single policemen, no where does he represent some monolithic "policeman". I think he had earned our respect, and I got sick of the intellectual dishonesty going on in the discussion.

As for the "sic", I am pretty strict about using quotes from other posts, including not correcting typos. Hence the "sic". I apologize if you saw it as some type of jab. It wasn't mean that way.

I did not cheer on anyone. I understand both sides. The Police must be there. Law and order must also be maintained. I answered the questions I could about riot gear and tactics.

Not only did you discount his information because it didnt fit what you want to believe (he was correct btw), but you insult him too?

The job of law enforcement is not to take sides. Its not to sit there and determine which group of people get police protection. They all get it. Get it?

Great Example time: Ku Klux Klan rally. The cops are there to protect you and the Klan even though we all know what the Klan is about. The Klan has a RIGHT to be bigoted assholes. Law enforcement has the obligation to protect those rights, even the rights of those you disagree with.

Is being at the wrong place at the wrong time warrant for arrest? Or didn't they like the way he was dressed?

A reason? Peaceful protest is threatening? Sorry, I beg to differ, there was no reason for the behavior displayed by the police in that picture... none!!!!

Now, answer the question originally asked.

Aside from his arrest what are the Police doing wrong? Something wrong with standing? The protesters in the background that are not causing problems seem fine.

What your saying is that you can arrest anyone at anytime for whatever?

I love how you make it sound like people are never arrested for no reason what so ever. Don't tell me that some cops don't get off being able to just fuck with people because they can.

Best of luck.

;-)

your posts have spoken volumes.

Can you be a little more vague?

And for someone dealing with "the dregs of society" you sure have a pollyanna attitude about profanity.

"What your saying is that you can arrest anyone at anytime for whatever?

I love how you make it sound like people are never arrested for no reason what so ever. Don't tell me that some cops don't get off being able to just fuck with people because they can."

Now, since the police poster said nothing of the kind, I would call it a personal (and dishonest) attack. As for the language, he stated his rules at the very beginning of the thread. By your participation in the thread, you knew the rules.

At least not often.

But I don't get my panties in a wad when somebody does. There's such a thing as context, and it's often much more important than mere verbiage.

and a sign that the user really isn't going to participate any longer in an honest debate.

As for you using profanity, he was responding to another person's post. He has continued to participate in other subthreads on this thread.

or the discussion he took is baton and went home. It was nice having a forum with a cop who could not beat you for disagreeing but I knew it would not last.

Now he can go back to not knowing jack shit and liking it.

Some people just don't really appreciate profanity. It tends not to add much to intelligent discussion. Just try to accept that or at least respect that.

He's above that sort of thing. Police are above the rest of us, we are used to that kind of thing.

Bottom line is the rest of us post here everyday and manage to play by the rules that apply to us all. Like most police this guy thinks he has his own set of rules to go by, separate and above the rest of us.

Respect? I would respect him being able to hold his own even when he can't enforce his will on others.

You must have had many run-ins with the cops to have this amount of hostility.

Or is there some other reason?

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

listen, sunshine, you may not like my opinion but i believe the rules of this board prohibit you from making a personal attack on me, a stranger about whom you know nothing, just because you don't agree with my opinion. It so happens, for the record, I don't agree with your opinion either.

The guy wasnt here to be your whipping boy. He doesnt have to put up with profanity or insults here and specifically stated he wouldnt put up with it in his very first post in this thread. Ive read the entire thread and have seen no reason, none, why some folks should be treating this guy like shit. He has been honest and upfront while taking shit from people like you who pre-judged him from the get-go.

and made up a whole bunch of stuff that you claimed he said (which, btw, he didn't say). I'm impressed.

I like to think of myself as someone that wants to participate in an honest debate, not a mugging based on intellectual dishonesty. Hey, whatever floats your boat.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

http://www.benfrank.net/nuke/ftaa112003/Police_Brutality_in_Miami.html





Yes, look at this thugette.



God only knows what this brute might've done had the cops not roughed him up.




The nerve of this guy with the bandanna and glasses. He should have savored the pepper spray and tear gas like everyone else!




Sporty!



YOur friendly neighborhood police officers...

thanks for the pics Udokier

Specifically lying, stealing, and violating citizens rights while on the job. I'd say it is in the high 40 percentile. What do you think?

First, What do you mean by lying? I will lie to a suspect to get whatever information I need. The only time I can not lie is on the stand. Look at undercover Cops, they live a lie.

Second, I certainly hope your wrong about that and I think you are. I know of no Cops that steal. We would narc each other out anyway. The Police are not like they were say 20 years ago. 20 Years ago I would have said 40% was way to low.

Third, I think a very low percentage violate rights. Thing is most people do not know their actual rights.


As for breaking the law, I would say about 90% break the law. I do not know a single Officer that does not speed.

I know of a department were 100% of it's officers on the night-shift steal. Here is how it works:

Officer pulls over a car full of teenagers
Officer coerces said teens into allowing a vehicle search
Officer discovers alcohol
Officer confiscated said alcohol and lets the teens go on their merry way.
Officer(s) put all of the alcohol confiscated that night into a box.
Officers divvy up and take home the alcohol at the end of the night.

I also have to say that your naiveté and occasional, down-right, denial is disconcerting.

Jay

I disagreed with the numbers. reread my post.


If this happens in your city then you need to call you State's BI or the FBI itself. You should not allow your Police force to be corrupt.

is not in my immediate area and other then being crooks, they seemed to be good guys. As far as the denial goes, It's not specific to this branch of the thread. It's an overall impression I have received from reading the thread as a whole. It's natural though so don't sweat it. Maybe you can learn as much from us as we hope to from you. Hell, you have my respect for even starting this thread. :crazy:

Jay

To much black and white and not enough acknowledgment of gray. We have to learn to let-go of some things in this country. One of them is trying to prosecute everyone for everything. I rode with these guys as part of an internship and they were, overall, good guys. Another illegal thing they liked to do was "test" their cruisers before each shift by taking them up to top speed down a long and winding road. It could be pretty hair-raising in those old 100K+ mile Fury's

Jay

I've heard a "screen test" is when a cop speeds up his cruiser with a perp in the back seat. He makes a sudden stop sending the perp face first into the screen that separates the front and back seats.

Have you heard of this? Is it true and have you ever given on yourself?

Just curious.

and break traffic laws left and right with no indication of emergency? I have seen police turn on their lights to get through an intersection just to turn them off on the other side...how can the police expect people to respect them when they have no respect for the laws they are there to enforce???? /rant

theProdigal

I have seen it done all the time by cops.

Code 2 would be with lights on.
Code 3 would be lights and sirens.
It's very common, when responding to certain calls, to hit your lights to get through a intersection.

They only do that so they won't be in traffic like everyone else.