Take Your Child to Work Day: There Have to be Limits
- Thread starter tellner
- Start date
I can understand bringing the kids (depending on their age) into the office, and maybe letting them watch some training exercises. I could even see running them through an exercise or two with squirt guns or something like that...
But to take them on a raid? I assume the only reason the officers at the bottom of the chain aren't being more severely disciplined (just counseled -- which is really a discipline, because there will be a record of the counseling in their file, hurting promotions) is because the supervisor who signed off on it is...
But to take them on a raid? I assume the only reason the officers at the bottom of the chain aren't being more severely disciplined (just counseled -- which is really a discipline, because there will be a record of the counseling in their file, hurting promotions) is because the supervisor who signed off on it is...
OP
OP
tellner
Senior Master
sgtmac_46
Senior Master
Does anyone know how old these 'children' were? 17 year olds would be 'children'.....and we don't know what 'brought along on the raid' means either.....I doubt they put vests on them and had them breaching the door......and sitting with an officer on the perimeter down the block isn't really high risk.
So without knowing more, I can't comment on just how much bad judgement they used.....the story seems very lacking in details, and I couldn't find any other articles on the incident. If someone else finds one, let me know.
For the record, police explorers routinely accompany officers on patrol all over the country.....and a drug raid, while dangerous for the entry team, isn't exactly high risk for an officer down the block on perimeter duty.
Could this be a prime example of stupidity in action? Certainly.....it could ALSO be much ado about nothing. Again, if someone more talented than me at finding another more detailed story would link it, i'd LOVE to know more!
Wow.
I mean I know kids are growin' up faster these days and all but....Damn.
I mean I know kids are growin' up faster these days and all but....Damn.
I don't know your agency's policies -- but we rarely allow anyone under 18 to do any sort of ride-along. The only exception I'm aware of are kids in a school based Law Enforcement career education program, and even then, you don't take the kid to something that has the potential to be a hot call -- and even a perimeter slot on a tactical unit op would qualify as a hot call.
Like I said -- it's not bringing the kids to work. Running on the "Take Your Child To Work" program, I'm assuming we're talking high school kids at best, and more likely elementary or middle school. Bringing the kids into the office, maybe even dispatch or records, I don't see a problem. I can even see, with juniors/seniors, letting them ride in patrol. But even a perimeter unit on any raid has the potential to be rolling into the scene... and they're not generally in neighborhoods you'd want to dump the kid out before you pulled up.
sgtmac_46
Senior Master
As a cop who's done his share of drug raids, the risk on the perimeter is vastly overrated......and the attention grabbing headlines 'Guns and drugs seized' doesn't really mean anything, as, quite honestly it could be 2 ounces of pot and an old hunting rifle in the closet....these things are reported to the media with an eye toward positive attention for the department. Not to discount the risk involved in serving narcotics warrants, but even the risk to the entry for a non-violent drug offender isn't that particularly high.....can something go wrong? Yes, but it'll be the entry team bearing the brunt of anything going wrong. Every raid has the 'potential' but not all raids has the same potential......raiding a Mongel's methlab doesn't have the same level of risk as raiding Mike, the neighborhood small time pot dealer......
moreover, being on the perimeter down the block has LESS inherent risk than being on patrol......because, though there is a known risk, there are about three dozen patrol cops and armed swat guys within shouting distance.....unlike the unknown risk of every traffic stop, but where you are the only officer in ear shot.
Again, I don't know any specifics, and when the media leaves out specifics I start getting very suspicious......for all we know 'children' could be two young 17 year old men on the delayed entry program for the military......no ages or age ranges were missing.
I'll reserve judgement until someone can provide me with the full story! I don't jump to conclusions PRECISELY because i've got so much experience with the media and their way of 'spinning' a story.
sgtmac_46
Senior Master
Oh, I agree with that.....but I still have yet to see anything resembling a 'full story' version.....it's a little snippet, and i'm notoriously leary of those. These guys might be BIG idiots.....or just had bad brain day......I can't really say until I kind of get some details.
newGuy12
Master of Arts
No doubt!
I can only agree
Having been on a number of interesting runs myself this could be a story all about nothing. Still it could also be negligent. In other words not enough info! :idunno: Still if they are being counseled then maybe it was not such a bright idea!
I say it depends on their age. I am thinking along the lines of SgtMac. They didn't mention the age of the kids for a reason. In my opinion, the news wouldn't have been as sensational if they had. They are probably being forced by the department do the counseling so that the department can take a positive stance on it for the public. Just my opinion. BTW, that is practically next door to me and this is the first I have heard about it.
sgtmac_46
Senior Master
My point exactly.......there are some folks demanding condemnation based on a VERY sketchy story! I don't do that!
sgtmac_46
Senior Master
Which would tell me that the media squeezed all the sensationalism they could out of it...meaning MUCH ado about nothing.
