Good Cop / Bad Cop

[Cryozombie]

And the thing "civilians" (non-police..whatever...some people take offense at the term) have to remember is that after just a few years on the job, police officers have been lied to by moms, priests, kids, teachers, nurses, doctors, judges, attorneys and just about everybody else that they have run into. After a few instances of believing someones story, going the distance for them then getting let down, cynisism is a natural result. So when we act like we "are not getting the whole truth..." there is a reason for it.

I've said this before... cops are so used to dealing with douchebags that they automatically assume everyone is a douchebag. Not as pretty as you did... but I said it.

 

[shesulsa]

The only problem with that is that often, even if the Civilians do know, the Cops often don't or don't care.

Here's a clear case that came up after training on Tuesday night. An Employee with the Sheriffs department told us a story about an officer who came in boasting about how she got a gun off the street. Apparently this gentleman had a gun on the seat of his car, and a clip of ammunition in the same case with it. So he was arrested and they confiscated his weapon. Well... this raised a question with the employee telling the story... Did the guy have a FOID (an illinois gun permit basically) which he did... and if the gun was in a case, and was unloaded, why was their an arrest and confiscation. Her answer was because he had an accessable firearm with a loaded magazine with it. He asked her if she was familiar with Illinois gun transportation law, and she said yes, it has to be inaccessable to the driver with the ammo seperate. He said "actually that's not how the law reads, and you can have it on the seat with the clip right there as long as it's fully encased, and unloaded." She argued it with him and he offered to show her both of the Statutes that apply to Illinois law (we have 2, a criminal law and a forestry law) and she said declined stating she was just happy to get another gun off the streets.

So basically... her ignornace of the law (and obvious gun-bais) landed this guy in jail, and, on top of that will cost him money to fight it in court and have it thrown out, even tho he knew his rights and responsibility under the law and followed it.

Granted. It will.

So do you think officers need more legal training? What do you think the answer is to that?

 

[Cryozombie]

Granted. It will.

So do you think officers need more legal training? What do you think the answer is to that?

Maybe. It couldnt hurt although the laws change so often...

I'll tell you what tho. THIS is just SUPPOSITION based on past experience, but I'm willing to bet he tried to explain the gun law to her and she gave him an "are you arguing with me" attitude. And I think if they (police) would listen more with an open mind, I bet a quick call or even a lookup of the statute on her in-car laptop would have cleared the issue up quickly instead of an arrest because she didnt know. She had the tool to check... And I think THAT is the best thing... giving them the resources they need. And that means good guns, good body armor, working Dash-cams, working PCs in their cars, etc. I'm all for that. But they also need to have the willingness to use them.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

I asked a question about how much legal training cops get. I got some good answers that they get a fair amount. But every cop I've asked said ask a lawyer about the law, not a cop.

Giving cops the tools and the education is part of the solution. Another part is in the hands of the public.

But your story sounds like a cop who didn't care what the law said, she is anti-gun, guns are bad, so in her mind she got a gun off the street and saved society from the bad guys, since only bad guys have guns.

Here's a nasty thought. Make cops libel for bad calls.
You'll have less such situations happen, but you'll also create timid cops who will act less.

Of course, when Iraq is safer than Chicago.......

 

[Brian R. VanCise]

The only problem with that is that often, even if the Civilians do know, the Cops often don't or don't care.

Here's a clear case that came up after training on Tuesday night. An Employee with the Sheriffs department told us a story about an officer who came in boasting about how she got a gun off the street. Apparently this gentleman had a gun on the seat of his car, and a clip of ammunition in the same case with it. So he was arrested and they confiscated his weapon. Well... this raised a question with the employee telling the story... Did the guy have a FOID (an illinois gun permit basically) which he did... and if the gun was in a case, and was unloaded, why was their an arrest and confiscation. Her answer was because he had an accessable firearm with a loaded magazine with it. He asked her if she was familiar with Illinois gun transportation law, and she said yes, it has to be inaccessable to the driver with the ammo seperate. He said "actually that's not how the law reads, and you can have it on the seat with the clip right there as long as it's fully encased, and unloaded." She argued it with him and he offered to show her both of the Statutes that apply to Illinois law (we have 2, a criminal law and a forestry law) and she said declined stating she was just happy to get another gun off the streets.

So basically... her ignornace of the law (and obvious gun-bais) landed this guy in jail, and, on top of that will cost him money to fight it in court and have it thrown out, even tho he knew his rights and responsibility under the law and followed it.

I would be curious to see the Illinois statue on this and if she or the other person was correct. Having a firearm in its case with a loaded magazine sitting on the seat next to you would get you I am imagining in major trouble in most states. (but not all) Obviously some other factors would come into play but I would be curious to see the Illinois statue.

 

[jks9199]

As described -- it's not illegal to transport the firearm like that in Virginia. But VA is pretty liberal on gun laws; it's actually still legal for a kid to have an unloaded gun in his locked vehicle on school property. (And the first day of deer season is often a waste of a school day, in many places...)

However -- the officer IS already liable for their actions. Whoever locked the guy up in Cryo's story can be sued for false arrest (assuming all the details as related are correct), separately from departmental discipline, and even can be charged criminally depending on some of the specifics.

 

[Archangel M]

Id hesitate to get into a debate when the story is from a "a guy told me about what some other cop did" source...maybe she was wrong, maybe she was right and this guy just didnt like it. If it was obviously an arrest not based on PC then where was her supervisor? I'd have told her to cut the guy loose...the cuffs can come off as easily as they go on.

And while it still sucks for the guy arrested..if this was a wrongful arrest the case will get dumped, he gets his gun back and he wins a lawsuit (settlement is more likely).

 

[Archangel M]

P.S.-The other thing that is unclear is...is this the sole reason for this guys arrest? Perhaps he was locked up for driving while suspended, DWI, joint in the ashtray, warrant, etc. and the gun just happened to be in the car so she added that charge on?

Not that it changes the "rightness or wrongness" of the gun charge and the persons recourse...but it changes the whole "flavor" of the story. When someone is telling a story of "cops doing wrong" they always seem to be of the "good guy doing nothing...minding his own busines..cop trampling his rights" variety. Its been my experience that few things are so cut and dry....if we are going to talk about what happens "often".

 

[Cryozombie]

I would be curious to see the Illinois statue on this and if she or the other person was correct. Having a firearm in its case with a loaded magazine sitting on the seat next to you would get you I am imagining in major trouble in most states.

NP. I have excerpted the Appropriate statute from:

CRIMINAL OFFENSES
(720 ILCS 5/) Criminal Code of 1961.


(4) Carries or possesses in any vehicle or concealed

on or about his person except when on his land or in his own abode or fixed place of business any pistol, revolver, stun gun or taser or other firearm, except that this subsection (a) (4) does not apply to or affect transportation of weapons that meet one of the following conditions:


(i) are broken down in a non‑functioning state;
or

(ii) are not immediately accessible; or
(iii) are unloaded and enclosed in a case,
firearm carrying box, shipping box, or other container by a person who has been issued a currently valid Firearm Owner's Identification Card.

Note the "Or" seperating each of those, not an "And" and that it clearly states meet one of the following

 

[Cryozombie]

Id hesitate to get into a debate when the story is from a "a guy told me about what some other cop did" source...maybe she was wrong, maybe she was right and this guy just didnt like it.

The Source of this story is far from anti gun, and I'll buy his story... because its par for the course here. (The estabishment Being anti-gun I mean) As to the lawsuit you mentioned, I don't know how it is elsewhere, but it is HARD to win a "false arrest" lawsuit against the police here if they can articulate that they did what they did in following their best understanding of the law. (There was a term used for it, but I don't recall what it is, but it came up numerous times in regards to the "Seconds to saftey" style carry that was developed here and people were getting arrested for it)

But yeah, Guy will be/probably was kicked, and got his weapon back (not ammo, however... In IL they get to keep any they confiscate, dont get me started on that) It's still kinda BS. And I don't know the orignial reason he got stopped, but yeah... regardless it doesnt excuse what happened IMO.

When I see him on Tuesday, I will ask for an update on this and let you know.

 

[MJS]

I've said this before... cops are so used to dealing with douchebags that they automatically assume everyone is a douchebag. Not as pretty as you did... but I said it.

Said it before, I may as well say it again...this is why I maintain that if this is the image that all cops supposedly have, then shouldn't we do what we can, to give a different impression to the cop? I mean, is it really going to kill us, again, despite what we think they're thinking of us, to be polite, and do anything to put their mind at ease?

Who knows...maybe, just maybe, the cop will notice this, and think, "Hmm..this guy isn't a jerk afterall."

 

[shesulsa]

Said it before, I may as well say it again...this is why I maintain that if this is the image that all cops supposedly have, then shouldn't we do what we can, to give a different impression to the cop? I mean, is it really going to kill us, again, despite what we think they're thinking of us, to be polite, and do anything to put their mind at ease?

Who knows...maybe, just maybe, the cop will notice this, and think, "Hmm..this guy isn't a jerk afterall."

Well, in the case of the two officers who came to my door for my brother at 3am - one did notice and the other didn't. So ... I think it really depends upon the situation, doncha think?

Neither side in this debate will get anywhere until we acknowledge there are people who are asses and don't behave well with police, get belligerent, etcetera, and there are police who are edgy and might not make the right call.

I'm one civilian who acknowledges there are people on both sides that do both and I'm willing to bridge the gap in my way. But just as police aren't guaranteed what they will run into, neither is anyone else. :idunno:

Both sides are justified and the Us vs. Them thing only works if a person thrives on conflict.

 

[MJS]

Well, in the case of the two officers who came to my door for my brother at 3am - one did notice and the other didn't. So ... I think it really depends upon the situation, doncha think?

You're right, some may, some may not.

Neither side in this debate will get anywhere until we acknowledge there are people who are asses and don't behave well with police, get belligerent, etcetera, and there are police who are edgy and might not make the right call.

I'm one civilian who acknowledges there are people on both sides that do both and I'm willing to bridge the gap in my way. But just as police aren't guaranteed what they will run into, neither is anyone else. :idunno:

Both sides are justified and the Us vs. Them thing only works if a person thrives on conflict.

I hope I havent given the impression that I disagree with you. I've asked many times in this thread for someone to show me a post of mine where I said that cops were all angels. Havent seen one yet.

Instead I've stated that there are good and bad.

 

[shesulsa]

You're right, some may, some may not.



I hope I havent given the impression that I disagree with you. I've asked many times in this thread for someone to show me a post of mine where I said that cops were all angels. Havent seen one yet.

Instead I've stated that there are good and bad.

You have not given the impression that you disagree with me. And you have said there are good and bad. We agree.

 

[jks9199]

Well, in the case of the two officers who came to my door for my brother at 3am - one did notice and the other didn't. So ... I think it really depends upon the situation, doncha think?

Neither side in this debate will get anywhere until we acknowledge there are people who are asses and don't behave well with police, get belligerent, etcetera, and there are police who are edgy and might not make the right call.

I'm one civilian who acknowledges there are people on both sides that do both and I'm willing to bridge the gap in my way. But just as police aren't guaranteed what they will run into, neither is anyone else. :idunno:

Both sides are justified and the Us vs. Them thing only works if a person thrives on conflict.

As a loose rule, when I get on the scene, I start low key. (I say loose, because there are plenty of exceptions.) I assume and expect that the people there will lie to me; but that doesn't mean I don't treat them with basic courtesy. The lie is normal; I was interviewing a person recently who turned out to be a witness, not the suspect we thought at first... He still lied to me, even about several stupid things!

Something that a lot of cops sometimes forget is that, even though the call is routine to us, and we've done it a hundred or more times... it's not routine for the person we're dealing with. That applies whether we're arresting them for Drunk In Public or taking a larceny report or doing a search warrant.

 

[Archangel M]

As a loose rule, when I get on the scene, I start low key.

Same here. It is much more effective going from nice to "mean" when that becomes necessary than it is to start out mean at the get go. 95% of the time you can "sweet talk" the BG into cuffs before he can react.

Well maybe more like 25%...I exaggerate for effect sometimes.

 

[Archangel M]

Thing to remember is...the police "run into people" all of the time, its what we do. And its not "just douchebags", its crime victims, people broken down at the roadside, injured children, people dying in front of you at car wrecks, people finding their loved ones dead (usualy natural causes), people who cant find their children, parents whos kids misbehave/run away/wont go to school, mentally disturbed people who hear voices, suicidal people calling for help, the sexually abused, SIDS babies, people who simply dont kown who else to call so they call us...and on and on. The "cops only deal with douchebags so they thing everybody is a douchebag"... "thing" is an error in thinking.

Most people only "run into a cop" once in a blue moon.

 

[jks9199]

Thing to remember is...the police "run into people" all of the time, its what we do. And its not "just douchebags", its crime victims, people broken down at the roadside, injured children, people dying in front of you at car wrecks, people finding their loved ones dead (usualy natural causes), people who cant find their children, parents whos kids misbehave/run away/wont go to school, mentally disturbed people who hear voices, suicidal people calling for help, the sexually abused, SIDS babies, people who simply dont kown who else to call so they call us...and on and on. The "cops only deal with douchebags so they thing everybody is a douchebag"... "thing" is an error in thinking.

Most people only "run into a cop" once in a blue moon.

Law enforcement officers run into people with exactly the same frequency as people run into people. After all, we are people... But most people don't run into law enforcement UNLESS things are not good...

The difference is the circumstances. It's rare when we run into people under good circumstances, especially professionally. And our profession, like doctors and lawyers, is one that we can't leave behind at the end of the shift. I posted Jack Webb's speech earlier in the thread; there's a lot of truth. You go somewhere, and as soon as people know you're a cop -- they change. The dumb jokes come out, the stories about "this ticket I got..." or whatever come out... It gets old, fast. That's part of why lots of cops don't admit what they do socially. (My wife just tells people I'm a martial arts teacher... I sometimes say I'm a garbage collector...)

At the same time -- I've had a few experiences that I expected to be terrible that were pretty cool. For example, a few years ago, I got the call to do a death notification one night, and was able to give a family closure about a brother who'd dropped off the face of the earth several years earlier.

 

[Archangel M]

Frogot about that on my list...waking people up in the middle of the night to tell them a loved one has died.

[sarcasm] those douchebags[/sarcasm]

 

[Sukerkin]

(My wife just tells people I'm a martial arts teacher... I sometimes say I'm a garbage collector...)

With no criticsm whatsoever implied, that's such a sad indictment of the state of affairs .

You should have no reason not to hold your head up high for what you do, sir. I certainly couldn't do it - not in your country at any rate (stress levels massively too high).

If police officers are not being seen as custodians of the public good, what does that speak of as to the general standard of policing? Or at least the public perception of the standard of policing?