El Monte and Alabama excessive force incidents and End of Chase Syndrome

[B. Lahey]

I will require a warrant

Awesome. I wish more people would react as you do, dogger. The "if you don't have anything to hide..." line is stupid and offensive.

You can't blame them for trying to get consent, criminals are not usually very bright and they will often consent to a search when they have huge bags of crack poorly hidden in their car, but that doesn't mean anyone with a brain shouldn't refuse.

No, you have to force a search-happy cop to violate your rights or go away. Then you can fight them in official channels or go about your business.

Of course you don't have to be nasty about it. "No, I do not consent to a search" is good enough, unless you want them to violate your rights.

 

[OuTcAsT]

Street cops have a great deal of discretion in deciding who will be arrested, and these discretionary decisions have been upheld in various courts time and again. Cops are "street judges", and always have been.

I will not presume to speak for anyone else but myself here so bear that in mind. With that understood, you are, in the broadest sense correct. I have no problem with the latitude of discretion that an officer has in his decision making, or judgment if you will. His choice of terminology matters not, judge, supreme commander, fuzzy pink teddy bear, whatever.

Where my problem lies is what happens once the discretion is exercised. As long as an officer stays within the law we are golden. It is also my firm belief that if he operates above , Outside of, or beyond the law, he should be held to, at a minimum, the same legal consequences that any other citizen would be.

No legal nerdism here, just a belief that anyone who commits a crime should be subject to the same laws, be he dirtbag or deputy.

 

[B. Lahey]

Then we are in total agreement.

I don't think anyone would disagree with that last post, not even supreme commander teddy bears.

 

[Wagonman]

NEVER should a car be pulled or a home owner approached without a complaint of a violation of law or an officer witnessing it...

Don't even try to convince me that cops need the power to just pull over cars with little reason to "CHECK 'EM OUT"...

I am sorry but you are wrong, I just need reasonable suspicion to do an investigatory stop according to the Terry decision.

Reasonable suspicion is a very low threshold to meet as it should be.

I don't want to put words in your mouth but it appears your contention is that it is PC to stop a car merely because the person driving it may not be the owner?

Probable Cause is different that Reasonable Suspicion. This is why I grow fatigued at people who don't know my job trying to tell me how to do my job.

number of folks
getting "Bowed Up" because they are weary of listening to police officers whine about "not being able to do their jobs because the law is in the way"

Try a little introspection; "Why doesn't the public respect me"?

The law doesn't get in my or any other reasonably well trained and intelligent Copper.

What public is that?

Is Wagonman bringing it on himself by using these words with legal strings attached?

I thought I made myself clear. I am the judge, small j, on the street I judge if you have probably committed the crime or if the person signing the complaints is credible. I then have the levels of approval up to and including the Judge. However, since the level of freedom I am able to take away is lower than a Judge my threshold to do my business is lower.

will require a warrant. This is for self, car or home as in "F" Off Buddy lemme know when you got paper! Slam the door in their face etc! As you have read I have great respect for the law and those who fairly do the job they are simply employees to do. Not sodiers, warriors or ninjas... just cops, no more important of a job than a garbage man...

Again you are comparing apples and oranges. A warrant is a little above the paygrade of a beat cop. The debate has been about street stops and the powers confered upon Police Officers. You are indeed correct that I would need a warrant to search your house, car, unless you are under arrest. That is not in dispute. It sounds like you fail the hello test with your planned reaction to a Police Officer doing his job.

Again with the disparaging remarks. A garbageman is not sworn to uphold the constitution yadda yadda yadda. Police Officers are akin to soldiers which is why we have special rights and responsibilities.

No legal nerdism here, just a belief that anyone who commits a crime should be subject to the same laws, be he dirtbag or deputy.

No one disputes this concept. The dispute comes from the ignorance about Police work that some posters here seem to have and the fact that some want to hammer Coppers for minor transgressions.

 

[Dust Monkey]

Police officers ARE NOT akin to soldiers. This attitude, this mindset is a big part of the problem that we ate discussing. We would not be having a discussion like this if some officers were true to their oaths. Meaning upholding the constitution.

 

[B. Lahey]

Lack of capitalization is not good enough alone to explain how you are using a word that powerful and with that many strings attached. People are going to soil themselves and jump to conclusions, and you shouldn't be surprised. It's a strong word.

Besides, "judge" is not capitalized when used in a sentence as a regular noun, only when used as a title as a part of a person's name.

"The judge for the chicken thievery trial was Judge Billy-Jack Wapner"

 

[Wagonman]

judge---to form a judgment or opinion of; decide upon critically: You can't judge a book by its cover.
9. to decide or settle authoritatively; adjudge: The censor judged the book obscene and forbade its sale.
10. to infer, think, or hold as an opinion; conclude about or assess: He judged her to be correct.
11. to make a careful guess about; estimate: We judged the distance to be about four miles.

I was making a point with the capitalization

 

[B. Lahey]

That's the verb definition, you were using it as a noun. Here's the noun definition:

judge, n. A public official appointed or elected to hear and decide legal matters in court. • The term is sometimes held to include all officers appointed to decide litigated questions, including a justice of the peace and even jurors (who are judges of the facts). But in ordinary legal usage, the term is limited to the sense of an officer who (1) is so named in his or her commission, and (2) presides in a court.

But whatever. I only jumped into this discussion because I need practice explaining away the idiotic and offensive statements cops sometimes make (I would like to practice on the prosecution side of things when I graduate law school), but you may be beyond help.

There's only so much an argument can do when the cop in question stands in the back of the courtroom yelling "I am zee judge!", and is so dense that he can't understand why people react badly to that.

I'm done here.

 

[ilbob]

The second guessing and breast beating about the excesses of Police work are just two of the reasons I and many of my fellow LEOs stopped proactive Police work. We are getting results also, Chicago had more murders than Baghdad last year. But, the bright side a lot less "rights" were violated and I haven't been sued federally in over 6 years.

So, correct me if I am wrong, you and other officers have "stopped" doing your job just because you cant or are unable to do it within the scope of the law?

He is speaking the truth about the policing situation in Chicago. he is being less than completely honest about it though.

The "de-policing" he and many of his fellow officers are engaged in is mostly a labor action to try and blackmail the city into giving them a more favorable contract. Their contract ran out several years ago and they are not happy with the proposals the city has made on a new one.

It started with cops writing fewer and fewer parking and traffic citations. The city has responded by hiring non-police to write parking tickets. They have made some attempts at traffic enforcement by camera, but that is not going all that well.

The city brought in an outsider, a former FBI supervisor, to run the department. My guess is it was some kind of under the table deal with the feds to avoid a federal takeover of a department widely regarded by the public as being out of control. They don't like the new guy so are protesting by more job actions.

In fairness, its a complex situation that defies an attempt to put it into adequate perspective in a short post, or even a really long one.

This is a city run by one the most corrupt and powerful political organizations in the country. As you might expect, the politicians have installed many of its own political operatives into positions of power within the department. Thats why there are regular stories in the news media about how some connected guy with what amounts to a "get out of jail free" card gets off the hook on a DUI, or a gun charge, and really probably just about anything else too, but you don't hear about it. That kind of thing has been going on forever in Chicago. It is just the way things work there. No doubt having minders working directly for the corrupt politicians gives a lot of cops in Chicago a bad taste, but again, this is not anything real new.

I could see where it is the kind of place where a good cop would not get a whole lot of pleasure from the job, and I have a fair amount of sympathy for the rank and file for what may be in the works there. It would surprise me not one bit, possibly as some kind of distraction, if Obama arranged for a massive probe of the CPD. A bit of irony there, being as he is part and parcel of the corrupt machine that runs the department.

I am guessing there are some bad cops to be found on that force, and the feds are going to have a field day tearing it apart finding them. This is a force after all, that admitted publicly not that many years ago that it had hundreds of gang members among its ranks, and had a (deputy?) chief of detectives running a burglary ring out of his police office.

 

[ilbob]

All of us make judgments every day. Its merely a decision.

Cops have to decide if a conduct they observe rises to the level of being a crime. If you don't like that process being called a judgment, than call it something else. Nitpicking over semantics seems like a waste of time to me.

 

[Wagonman]

There's only so much an argument can do when the cop in question stands in the back of the courtroom yelling "I am zee judge!", and is so dense that he can't understand why people react badly to that.

That is a willful misunderstanding of my point, as evidenced by my clarification and explanation of my meaning.

He is speaking the truth about the policing situation in Chicago. he is being less than completely honest about it though.

I am being completely honest. I started de-policing several years ago when I was federally sued under specious grounds, the latest contract nonsense is just icing on the cake. The Cozzi situation is the main impetus for the climate of de-policing in the CPD

 

[OuTcAsT]

No one disputes this concept.

At face value that is encouraging to hear from an officer.

Police Officers are akin to soldiers

I will echo what others have said; While that seems to be the common misconception that police departments and individual officers seem to be operating under this is, IMHO, fundamentally where the the problem begins.

Ask anyone who has served in any of the armed forces and they will tell you pretty much the same thing.
No matter what your classification is in the military, you are a soldier first. This means that everyone from a 4 star down to a PFC is trained first, and foremost, to pick up a weapon, and neutralize ( Kill ) an enemy. In the military right now they are experiencing the exact opposite effect we are seeing on our streets every day, they are being transformed into "peacekeepers" and expected to reverse their role, to uphold the law, and arrest suspected criminals. They are also expected to show the locals that they are there to serve and protect them.

Here at home, we are seeing the opposite happen, our police agencies and officers are becoming soldiers. Instead of the peace officers they were supposed to be. Rather than protect and serve, win the hearts and minds, keep the peace, we start to hear more about "special operations", no-knock warrants being "served" by guys with better armaments than most of our military has, "terry stops" that are merely fishing expeditions. Yes you are adopting a soldier mindset, and while you may name crime as your enemy, it is the "collateral damage" inflicted on innocent civilians, and the shredding of their constitutional rights while fighting the enemy that is the reason for this discussion.

we have special rights and responsibilities.

While you do have a number of responsibilities ( Including to protect the rights of every citizen ) You have no more or less "rights" than anyone else. You may have special privileges that the average citizen does not enjoy, but your "rights" are exactly the same as mine, or the guy you bust for armed robbery. I can see where you would get confused on this matter though, since LEAs and district attorneys have created the artificial "right" that keeps you safe from criminal charges should you "screw the pooch"

 

[OuTcAsT]

Police Officers are akin to soldiers

Oh, and if I were you I would not walk into a room full of actual Soldiers, Sailors, Marines, or Airmen, and echo that sentiment out loud.

 

[Wagonman]

While you do have a number of responsibilities ( Including to protect the rights of every citizen ) You have no more or less "rights" than anyone else. You may have special privileges that the average citizen does not enjoy, but your "rights" are exactly the same as mine, or the guy you bust for armed robbery. I can see where you would get confused on this matter though, since LEAs and district attorneys have created the artificial "right" that keeps you safe from criminal charges should you "screw the pooch"

Police have the authority to take the freedom of a citizen away, albeit temporarily. We have the authority to use deadly force in the name of the state in the prevention of death or serious bodily injury and forcible felony in some jurisdictions.

Maybe rights wasn't the right term. I plead fatigue.

Oh, and if I were you I would not walk into a room full of actual Soldiers, Sailors, Marines, or Airmen, and echo that sentiment out loud.

Really, why not? Since I am active supporter the local VFW I will try this next time I am at a get together.

 

[hogdogs]

We have the authority to use deadly force in the name of the state in the prevention of death or serious bodily injury and forcible felony in some jurisdictions.

I have the same authority as a regular joe with the difference being I am not doing it the name of the state as you would... I GET to do it the name of myself or any one I choose to...
Brent

 

[orangello]

I am glad to see many of the views expressed in this thread. Many, if not most, of my peers have thought me paranoid when i commented on my dislike of the militarization of law enforcement agencies.

I would like to comment on the earlier comment regarding the lack of criminal prosecution as a penalty for LEO's on duty who make a mistake or violate a law. There was a murder in Atlanta, GA a year or two ago that involved a few narcotics officers who exercised a warrant of VERY questionable validity on a ghetto house belonging to a 90+ year old woman. The woman was murdered by the officers when they served a "no knock" warrant at her home; the woman did fire at the officers when they entered the home (she wounded one i believe). There were some criminal convictions/pleas in that case, i believe. I don't recall anyone being sentenced to "life" or "death" penalties, but some of the officers did go to jail.

When i was a child, i was always told that the police officers were there to help, and that if i was in trouble or lost, i should ask them for help. I don't see my friends with kids teaching their kids to do that anymore. I'm not sure i blame them; i do not associate with LEO's in any way. I don't do this to be unkind, but to err on the side of my own personal safety & problem/hassle avoidance.

 

[OuTcAsT]

I have the same authority as a regular joe with the difference being I am not doing it the name of the state as you would... I GET to do it the name of myself or any one I choose to...

Good point !

I am glad to see many of the views expressed in this thread. Many, if not most, of my peers have thought me paranoid when i commented on my dislike of the militarization of law enforcement agencies.

Welcome orangello You will find lots of stimulating discussions here.

You are not so much paranoid as wisely cautious. I think everyone recognizes that there is a problem from both sides of the line, there likely is no easy solution but, discussion brings about education and knowledge is a strong tool.

I would like to comment on the earlier comment regarding the lack of criminal prosecution as a penalty for LEO's on duty who make a mistake or violate a law. There was a murder in Atlanta, GA a year or two ago that involved a few narcotics officers who exercised a warrant of VERY questionable validity on a ghetto house belonging to a 90+ year old woman. The woman was murdered by the officers when they served a "no knock" warrant at her home; the woman did fire at the officers when they entered the home (she wounded one i believe). There were some criminal convictions/pleas in that case, i believe. I don't recall anyone being sentenced to "life" or "death" penalties, but some of the officers did go to jail.

We did discuss this unfortunate incident at some length...If I (or someone else ) can find a link to the thread I will post it, made for a good discussion. In this particular case the media spotlight was the factor that finally brought about the arrests and convictions of the responsible parties.

As someone pointed out earlier, Police functioned basically in stealth mode for so many years that folks got used to the "Adam-12" stereotype and did not recognize what was really happening until technology advancements both privately, and in the media, began to illuminate such incidents and make them harder to just disappear or be obscured so easily.

When i was a child, i was always told that the police officers were there to help, and that if i was in trouble or lost, i should ask them for help. I don't see my friends with kids teaching their kids to do that anymore. I'm not sure i blame them; i do not associate with LEO's in any way. I don't do this to be unkind, but to err on the side of my own personal safety & problem/hassle avoidance.
Today 01:17 PM

I think most officers are good, decent, honorable individuals that have a difficult job to do and, just want to do their best and go home at night. It's not so much the individual officer that has issues so much as the system in general.

 

[Wagonman]

The difference is that I am required to use said deadly force in a particular situation.


This nonsense about not telling kids that police are there to help is one of the most tin foil statements I have ever heard.

 

[OuTcAsT]

The difference is that I am required to use said deadly force in a particular situation.

So you are going to tell me that IL. Law Requires you to use said force as opposed to being "justified in using" force, as a typical ( maybe not in Chicago ) CCW is ? Please point me in the direction of the law that requires you to do that, I would be interested in reading that statute.

This nonsense about not telling kids that police are there to help is one of the most tin foil statements I have ever heard.

I know that sometimes a reality check can be a difficult pill to swallow but, do you remember a post from earlier in this thread? to wit:


By OuTcAsT

Try a little introspection; "Why doesn't the public respect me"?

Your response was:

By Wagonman

What public is that?

Mr. Wagonman, meet the public. It should come as no surprise to you that the folks younger than you or I, show so little respect or trust in the uniformed officer anymore.
They have grown up in a world where a police officer is, (in your own words) akin to a soldier. And when you picture a soldier you usually associate that picture with war, violence, and death, not peace, tranquility and "helpfulness". When they sit at home and watch "Cops" they see police officers executing no-knock raids, tackling suspects, tasering individuals, and people going to jail. They do not equate the fact that ordinary looking guy in cuffs may be the bad guy, just that they don't want that kind of treatment. As time goes on that feeling perpetuates it's self and you have a public that views you as what you aspire to be...A soldier.

 

[ilbob]

This nonsense about not telling kids that police are there to help is one of the most tin foil statements I have ever heard.

It is a certainly a more complex situation then "cop good" or "cop bad". For very young kids it is probably best to go with the "cop good" model until they are old enough to understand under what circumstances and situations that is not the proper model to operate under.