Is using an aggressive tone of voice a good tactic for police officers?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Voice and demeanour are the first stage in the continuum of force, and some officers use that as a "default" whenever they deal with anyone, because they think it'll head off anything physical before it gets to that point. Plenty of other officers think there's no reason whatsoever to be a dick unless the person you're dealing with gives you a reason to be a dick.
Click to expand...
I view an aggressive tone of voice as a minor escalation in the use of force continuum, and depending on the situation, we don't necessarily start out at the bottom of the continuum.

There are certain areas of the city where a "sir", "please" and "thank you" are both effective and appropriate. There are other areas where those terms would be viewed as a sign of weakness. "When in Rome", so to speak ;).

But when dealing with the average joe on a traffic stop, I see absolutely no reason to start out aggressively in any manor.

As far as effectiveness, however, it's been my experience that an aggressive tone of voice takes a back seat to a confident tone. An air of self-confidence usually makes a customer step back and think before doing something stupid, and it works with people from all walks of life.

We've all heard the phrase, "don't look like a victim". We probably should add to that, "don't sound like a victim, either". ;)
 
Aggressive tone? - probably not

I am not LEO but like most I have had a few encounters with some in the past. There have been very few instances where the LEO I have encountered have not been professional and, for the most part, respectful and polite....I have always appreciated and admired this in LEO. Even though I certainly do not appreciate someone acting agressively towards me for no apparent reason, in the case of LEO I will always try to be polite and respectful to them regardless of their individual demeanor. I figure anyone can have a bad day and I have no desire to make their day any worse. I work for the military and in my duties as well as my personal life I have traveled to a few foreign Countries and have witnessed some foreign Police activities...there is no doubt that our LEO are vastly superior in terms of how they treat and respect their fellow citizens, as it should be....as it must be!
 
The LEO on the initial encounter should be very agressive in order to control the situation. The message sent is "your in trouble, I'm in charge and Dpn't think about it".
The officer can easily "lighten up" as soon as it's determined this stop isn't going to present any danger. It's almost impossible to regain control if it wasn't there at the very beginning.
Click to expand...

Absolutely backwards , one should start low key and escalate the force continuum as needed to keep control . Once you set a level of force you cannot go back down the ladder so to speak . An officer should be direct and courteous on contact , not loud and abusive . Spade said it best thusfar on the thread imho .
 
Several definitions of aggressive:

"having or showing determination and energetic pursuit of your ends"
"assertive, bold, and energetic"
"vigorously energetic"
"boldly assertive and forward"

A police officer may be all of those things while acting appropriately.

There are other, inherently negative ones, of course.

The answers of some, and the difference between them, should be viewed through that prism.
 
Several definitions of aggressive:

"having or showing determination and energetic pursuit of your ends"
"assertive, bold, and energetic"
"vigorously energetic"
"boldly assertive and forward"

A police officer may be all of those things while acting appropriately.

There are other, inherently negative ones, of course.

The answers of some, and the difference between them, should be viewed through that prism.
Click to expand...

Ok toto i am ready to go home now .....

Le should never be " aggressive " on an initial contact unless they are serving a court order ( warrant ) . Yes LE must be firm , Yes they must control the contact , this however does not mean a license to be an idiot at any time much less if one should be contacted for say a traffic violation or other minor infraction . IMHO its best to start out treating all with respect and only hand on a " tude " to the ones who make it necessary.
 
"Badge-Heavy" Approach Not Effective...

An officer's initial approach to nearly every law enforcement encounter should be to de-escalate, not to make a bad situation worse by their own trigger-happy demeanor. Professionalism has traditionally included the ability to gain compliance through a level-headed thoughtful approach, not through a "Barney Fife" badge-heavy approach.

Granted, our officers are dealing with a greater number of meatheads in today's society, and a steady diet of rough incidents is bound to have an effect on one's disposition on the job. Nevertheless, that's no excuse; dealing with difficult situations is a part of that job. If an officer is unable to handle the difficulties of the job without losing control of his own emotions, he should not be in a law enforcement career.
 
kmoffitt said:
"Barney Fife"...without losing control of his own emotions, he should not be in a law enforcement career.
Click to expand...

It's funny you should mention Barney.

During the early 1970's my club rode quite a bit all over south central Wisconsin. We were well known, in fact, many local law enforcement agencies knew us as individuals.

Sometimes a LEO might say to our president, "Look, I can tell by the sound that none of you guys even know what a 'baffle' is or does, so no burn outs on the main street. Don't do anything I have to react to."

Then we would go into a friendly tavern and make the bar-keep a wealthy man.

Other guys would come down at the first sparkle of chrome like it was D-Day. We called these guys "Barney Fifes."

When our club was organizing bikers to fight the helmet law, we rode pretty much throughout the state. A club from their city would organize a party, we'd go and watch the girls dance and have a few Mountain Dews. We'd build some alliances and talk about the helmet vote.

Before sundown, Officer Fife came blazing into the campground in his cruiser and he was immediately showered with over 500 bottle rockets. A clear showing of disrespect. What was he going to do, handcuff all 1,200 of us?

One of his offciers talked to my president and told the prez that he had a little Harley Sportster. Our club officers asked him what time his shift ended and he informed us around 11:00PM.

We gave the nice cop a "visitor's button" and welcomed him back a few hours later.

All you have to do is ask...
 
In a situation with a known violent felon, maybe there is a place for an "aggressive tone" right off the bat. But absolutely not with John Q. Citizen who only offense was slow rolling a stop sign or not knowing he had a blinker out. Sometimes leo's forget that they are there for us not IN SPITE of us. Having a "bad day" doesn't cut it either. Gee, if I had a bad day, would that get me off of a speeding ticket? Kinda doubt it. In some professions you just cannot have a "bad day".

To the good ones out there putting their lives on the line, a tip of the cap, a raise of the glass and a sincere, heartfelt "thank you". To the bad ones on ego trips, well they can go scat in their hat.
 
Some of my LEO friends tell me that there is noticeble "line" and it shows when it gets' crossed.

When a officer only has LEO friends, when all citizens are "potential felons" and perps and there is the increased use of tobacco and alcohol, you've got a guy that needs to be on the rubber gun squad for a bit.

While everyone seems to know this, domestic policing is being a "peace officer," not the military shock troops.

Some folks may think this is simply "tree hugging," but our former chiefs Couper and Williams stressed "community policing." And guess what? The animousity dropped, even in tough neighborhoods. As much as I would dearly love to see a gang-banger selling drugs in a school yard get his brain ventilated, I know that the singular act would close down comminication. Other work will undoubtedly suffer.

I call the police in my little town often for info and to report on our neighborhood watch program. They are not the enemy, and we all live more securely.
 
There's a reason CHP is known by other law enforcement as "The Auto Club with Guns." The ones I've run into have all been bullies with a badge and a gun: arrogant, rude, demeaning, and condescending. BTW, I've never been pulled over by the CHP. They have a very poor reputation, and deservedly so.
 
There's a reason CHP is known by other law enforcement as "The Auto Club with Guns." The ones I've run into have all been bullies with a badge and a gun: arrogant, rude, demeaning, and condescending. BTW, I've never been pulled over by the CHP. They have a very poor reputation, and deservedly so.
Click to expand...

I lived in San Diego for twenty years, rode a bike, carried every day, drove all over the southern counties with rifles strapped to the sides of the bikes and met many of the CHP officers and Sheriff's deputies. My experience with them is much different from those mentioned in the above quote.

Most of the officers I met were people. Professional, polite and doing their job. After doing their job, or, when met off the clock, they were fine folks. I did meet two Sheriff's deputies who were (*)holes, but they were such off the job, also. As I said, police officers are people.

Pops
 
The theory behind the "command voice" is to utilize a forth-right aggressive tone in a situation where someone has a weapon or when the person your dealing with is under considerable stress. The person who has a weapon wont usually hear soft-spoken words because of the stress involved so a "command voice" is needed so they can actually hear you.

Think about it. When you have a weapon or are under considerable stress, you can't really hear or are not paying attention to the people around you. So someone needs to yell at you in an aggressive tone to get their point across. When soldiers are in battle and engaged in a firefight, it usually takes several aggressive shouts from commanders to stop them from firing.

However, in routine traffic stops, where the officer is acting as the tax collector for the state and levying fines then a softer approach is probably the better approach.

Does the fire inspector go into the local bodyshop acting very aggressively shouting at the staff when a fine needs to be levied because the paint was lieing out in the back? In the same way, the officer should probably just collect the tax for the state, do their job and take off without emotion or circumstance.

I believe that the state patrols in many of these states such as South Carolina and California are too aggressive and bring a bad reputation on the hard-working locals who make every attempt to community police. The state patrols make it hard for a local officer to really build a reputation in their own community.
 
Please answer the questions I posted earlier pfch1977

Please quote your source.
Quote:
a policy to use an aggressive tone of voice with just about everyone they pull over.

. Have you seen thier policy or been involved with thier training?

Or is this just your opinion.
Quote:
They are always using a sarcastic tone and their behavior at times is simply downright rude and unprofessional to motorists.

__________________
Click to expand...

And you statement:
The state patrols make it hard for a local officer to really build a reputation in their own community.
Click to expand...


And you give very little credit to the local population who are not able to tell the difference in uniform, vehicle and maybe even facial recognition of a local police officer. And in the same breath you show how little you think for a local police officer that the people he interacts with everyday will not be able to sway his own community by an attempted pleasent and neigbhorly manner.


And I dont know where this thread took a turn onto this subject after discussing intial approach and then it leaps to "command voice". I am not following your progression. Command voice is something utlitzed in high stress and potenially dangerous situations that demmand immeadiate action, not walking up and asking someone for the license and registration.
 
Policy is sometimes not in written form due to administrators not wanting or needing the liability of civil torts. There are certain forms of policy that are communicated verbally and informally by department trainers and higher ranking officers.

For example, the policy of racial profiling is not a written one along the NYC-Florida highway corridor, however, it is very much still in use.

You can tell when there is an unwritten informally communicated policy when all of the officers seem to act and deal with a certain situation in a similiar manner.

Therefore, when the Chief takes the stand, then he can say that he had no knowledge of the policy and the plaintiff attorney will not be able to produce a manual which states such a policy.

However, just because a policy is not in a manual or in written form does not mean it does not exist.
 
You can tell when there is an unwritten informally communicated policy when all of the officers seem to act and deal with a certain situation in a similiar manner.
Click to expand...
Indeed you can, that is well stated.

However there is something missing.

How many officers in the pertinent jurisdiction act in the manner you describe, and what source did you use to determine this percentage/proportion/number?
 
I agree with you the "enviroment" of an organization is highly important in how certian members will react to typical and even atypical situations.

But the larger the oganization such as the California Highway Patrol the policy usually sets the tone more than the local enviroment of each station or precient. Otherwise there would be widespread chaos as to what the standards are and how they are met. In smaller to medium size departments the informal method of letting persons know what is expected is much more prevelant.

But a smart attorney trying to win a case against a police department for not following thier own policy would not have to dig that deep to find other examples of the department violating its own policy. (usually in the most aggregous manner such as use of force)

An example. Policy states that once a person is placed in cuffs a certian form must be filled out indicating the offense of the arrest. But the enviroment is such that cops put kids in cuffs all the time and just transport them home. Well one day a cop gets sued because during one of these transports a kid was hurt.
The Lawyers come and the lawsuit begins.
When questioned on the stand the officer says the policy says one thing but everyone knows that the standard is something else. And he can name at least one officer (or two or three) who have violated the policy as well.

Now the agency can do one of two things: Admitt the actual standard is different then the policy, or hang the officers out to dry in some way shape or form.

Whatever happens this is going to be an agency that has greater problems then just this one incident.


But anyways, where is your proof that this is the "standard" of the CHP or is this just your opinion.
 
I disagree.

To me it's not the environment or the situation. It's the guy hearing the command.

After all of these years, I've had my belly fully of loudmouths, employers who haven't got a clue, drunks, Barney Fife's and idiots who act up public social functions. To me, the guttural tone is the mark of a man out of control.

It is the mark of a man who dearly needs to get his azz kicked.

Again, a domestic policeman is a "peace officer." A man who is so poorly trained and observant that he endangers the staff at his side is simply no man with whom I want to work.

A mouthy Fife who wades into a crowd of drunks, rioters or angry bikers because he is a Judge Dredd needs to be winnowed from the staff of professionals.

Put yourself in the mix. Imagine if it was your job to contain a large group of partying Mongols or Pagans with small town staff and a limited budget. The state police are fifteen minutes away and your area is too small for a Med-Flight style abulance service. It's just you and your partner, sent with the assignment to contain 75 bikers whose collective rapsheets exceed all of the arrests of the citizens in your jurisdiction.

Your partner decides to use a command voice. "Alright you thugs, I want a quiet, straight orderly line to form up right now, and everyone is going to stand still, shut up, and turn their pockets inside out. If I find anything, you are under arrest as of this second..."

At that moment, one of the bikers grins and says, "...I get the fat one..."

Well, truth is, I've heard worse. And remember, you are the one standing next to him.

Professionalism, professionalism, professionalism. I've also seen a cop wander into a bigger group and get smiles and compliance.
 
Nice scenario you've got there; quite the everyman standard. :rolleyes:

I agree though that it might be the person hearing things in addition, and even in lieu, of other factors.

Which is not to say that all interactions between LEOs and the general population go as they should, or that a given LEO handles every situation well, every time. Of course not.

But these kind of all LEOs or LEOs in a given agency treat people badly every time by policy statements are often times made by folks who'd be shocked to find out that many, if not most, people might not agree with them.

"How many officers in the pertinent jurisdiction act in the manner you describe, and what source did you use to determine this percentage/proportion/number?"

Also how many people encountered in the pertinent jurisdiction would agree or not, and what source did you use to determine this percentage/proprtion/number?

The "they always treat me and people I know poorly" argument is as much of an indictment of you and people you know as the officer or agency, after all.
 
I don't know how it is in LE agencies in general (and hate to generalize anyhow), but I do think what was taught to the SOs in my company is likely more common in LEAs than the opposite. I say this because our trainers (and most of our management staff) are LEOs or former LEOs from many departments nation-wide. My branch manager is a retired city police Chief of 30 years and our direct branch trainer is a former NYC detective and retired FBI agent.

Their training stresses the fact that initial contact between Officer and citizen(s) determines in part the direction the encounter will take, and that in their experience the majority of those encounters that turn bad do so because the Officer allows it to.

The recommended attitude by their training is one of confidence and authority of presence with-out being aggressive or confrontational. Politeness isn't a recommmended policy, it is insisted upon. Rude or arrogant behavior from the get-go is the surest way to defeat yourself. These folks even design our basic SO uniforms so color and appearance project trust and authority while downplaying force and aggression. Both force and aggressive posture are taught and used, but only when the situation dictates and no other alternative is available. They are NEVER considered first contact options though.

It's my personal opinion that the automatically aggressive, rude LEO is a stereotype promoted and projected by hollywood and mass media and based on the exception minority rather than the rule. Over-broad generalized statements like the original posters serve to perpetuate that myth until it in fact becomes what is expected by the general public.

These myths seldom play out in RL; the Dirty Harry/ Andy Sipowicz detective, the Barney Fife PO, the 'gun nut' NRA members who desire only violence and wanton killing......
 
But at the same time Erik, there will always be a group that says that
"they always treat me and people I know poorly"
Click to expand...
. That is the nature of the job, anytime someone has unpleasent consquences for thier behavior, (a speeding ticket with fine for driving too fast).

Because lets face it, not all people are as mature as you and I and take a speeding ticket for what it is, punishment for breaking a law we knew about.

So the best law enforcement can do is keep that number as low as possible, and keep the ones who say "the cops are a bunch of thugs" to a minimun with polite, professional and respectful tones during less than ideal circumstances.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top