FCV96

The Rhode Island State Police currently have one of the nicest uniforms in the U.S. in my opinion. ---- And from a historical standpoint, the NYPD's old choker/reefer coats were beautiful. The old NYPD/TAPD leather jackets were great too!

Or it could have been an accidental discharge of some sort with no ill-intent, or the result of a previous/current dispute between two or more parties. Who knows?

The NYPD used that green/black/white color scheme on its vehicles from the 1930s up until 1972. That car is a one-off as far as I know; I believe former Commissioner Bratton was a fan of the older livery. That Taurus usually makes it out to recruiting events, the NY Auto Show, and other smaller shows from what I've seen. It appears at 0:09 in this video as well, taken from an event on Governor's Island earlier this year.

The prominent checkerboard pattern and car number make this Explorer look more like a taxicab than a police car.

I still can't decide whether they looked better in all white or black and white.

The NYPD definitely had a few early 80s ('81 models IIRC) Chrysler LeBarons. I want to say that they were ordered after the Volare ended production in '80. In 1982 the LeBaron name changed platforms (the M-body verison becoming the Chrysler New Yorker/Chrysler Fifth Avenue (in its top trim level), and the Gran Fury moved to the M-body platform like the Diplomat.

The opening guitar riffs/synth in this song are some of the best I've heard.

Philadelphia used to have all red police cars years ago, but made the switch to blue around the early 70s.

**September 15th, 2011

Yeah, the NYPD's Vision lightbars came out in the early nineties on the new generation of Caprice (1991-1996). You could certainly consider the CVPI vintage - you can't get a sedan that's body on frame, RWD, with a V8 anymore, let alone one with bench seats and a column shifter!

(Not my video, but pretty awesome nonetheless.)

Sounds like one of the Unitrol sirens to me.

There's always a possibility that someone was bored and rhythmically tapping the brakes in that second bit. :D --- On a sadder note, I was told that this footage was from the line of duty death of Housing Police Officer Gary Peaco. The circumstances surrounding this case are tragic to say the very least. City officers were involved in a shootout with armed robbery suspects. After pinning the officers down with gunfire, two of the shooters stole the city RMP. Officer Peaco's HAPD RMP was responding when it was struck by an NYC-EMS ambulance on an unrelated call, causing it to spin out, strike a lamppost and tree, and catch fire. http://www.nytimes.com/1988/06/17/nyregion/housing-police-officer-killed-in-chase.html?mcubz=0 https://www.odmp.org/officer/10468-police-officer-gary-l-peaco

I love that burgundy/brown '88-91 LTD Crown Vic on the bottom right.

Maybe, although I haven't seen any marked Fusions newer than 2014, and generally the marked cars tend to stick around 3-5 years from what I've seen from my local precinct.

The Crown Vic is roomy as all hell, reliable due to its simplicity and steadfast design, and takes off like a shot thanks to that V8. They feel larger on the inside and significantly less cramped than comparable Tauruses and Chargers for sure, and their trunk space is unparalleled. They might not be the quickest, and they might not corner the best at higher speeds, but they did their job for the better half of thirty years, and were good enough during that time to establish fond memories from those who drove them. I personally prefer the way the Vic handles as compared to anything else currently offered. The Taurus and Charger are definitely quicker, but their interior visibility is downright poor compared to the CVPI. I also prefer the conservative styling of the Crown Victoria - it didn't look aggressive in the least bit, more so administrative, but it most definitely had a presence on the road. I doubt you could nail a specific car down to the "best police car ever", given that the variety of memories, experiences, and technical details will point to every end of the spectrum, but the Crown Vic represents the last of its kind in a way. The last body-on-frame, RWD, V8-powered sedan that has the proportions of a shipping vessel and the handling and interior volume to match (along with bench seating options and the column shifter standard!). In the long line of police cars like the Dodge Monaco/Plymouth Fury, Chevy Caprice, Ford Custom and LTD II, among countless others, the Crown Victoria personifies the zenith of decades of traditional policing. All I know for sure is that once mine inevitably rusts out from under me thanks to New England winters (RWD and snow offer an interesting time, haha) and lack of anything but on-street parking, I'm sure that I'll be picking up another (or Grand Marquis) in the future. Hopefully by then I'll have a garage and a separate winter car! -------------------------- I'm looking forward to seeing how the Responder does in police service. I've heard anecdotally that the NYPD Fusions didn't stand up very well to the rigors of being run 24/7, and weren't exactly comfortable given their narrow interior dimensions. I would disagree that the Utility is superior to the Taurus though. I'd like to imagine that the Taurus comes out cheaper on a per-unit basis as compared to a Utility, and numerous departments don't really need the extra cargo room of an SUV. Part of the issue is how cramped Ford managed to make the Taurus' interior as compared to how large of a car it is IMO.

I completely agree with you on the racist aspect (but not necessarily the derogatory one, as it is highly subjective based upon interpretations. What is silly or stupid to you or I might be the end of the world to someone else.). If you truly believe that doctors, nurses, and surgeons don't laugh about or poke fun at their patients constantly then you are mistaken. Office workers talk shit about each other all the time. People are people - no one can be one-hundred perfect professional and perfect from the time they wake up to the time they go to sleep at night. Sometimes blowing off steam or otherwise breaking monotonous silence with a comment is necessary; my problem is that when everyone starts scrutinizing every single little thing that you say, no matter how much you watch your words and think of possible negative interpretations, they're going to find something that could be interpreted badly, given the varied nature of interpretations. Your intentions could have been perfectly fine while saying what was said, but they no longer matter. You then create the precedent of "if it isn't on tape, it never happened" though, effectively calling into question every officer's testimony. What if an officer turned his head and witnessed a traffic infraction, but his torso with the body-cam attached remained facing where he was originally looking? Does the officer's sworn testimony that he witnessed the infraction count, or could it be argued that it never happened because it wasn't on video? Again, I'm all for body cams. I believe they will cut down on a lot of false complaints, generally make the job easier, and especially assist in figuring out chains of events for important incidents. I don't know how many shootings have occurred where a body camera was turned off, but if the ability to turn the camera off exists, there should be some form of repercussions for having the camera off at a time that it should have been on. I still maintain that a camera should be controlled by the officer though. What if a CI refuses to talk to an officer with a bodycam that is on, because he is cognizant of the audio-recording capabilities, and doesn't trust that the footage will be treated with a high priority in terms of editing by the respective department? Not to mention the logistical challenges of storing that much data (and potentially having to employ editing staff, and yet having someone editing the clips would call the validity of them into question), having to power the cameras for eight hours (and potentially significantly more if overtime is incurred), and the list goes on.

What you're describing is an unattainable fantasy IMO. You're requesting nothing short of 100% productivity out of individuals, which unto itself is a bit much, but you're also asking them to leave any semblance of humanity that they have at the door such that they basically become robots. You stick two guys in a car together for eight hours, running back and forth to job after job, and in their downtime there will be conversation. Guaranteed. There is also a high probability that something dumb or otherwise silly will be said. You can be the most professional, perfect individual when dealing with others and your work duties, but the moment you get put with a friend and have to pass the time, you can't help but to shoot the breeze. It's practically human nature. You can't tell me that you've never taken a moment to interact with something or talk to someone about something that didn't have anything to do with your job, at work. The big difference between a cushy cubicle job and policing is that you aren't exposed to the worst horrors that society has to offer in your cubicle. Sometimes the only way to combat what you've heard and seen is coping through humor, and oftentimes people that haven't shared those experiences will find that humor dark, or objectionable. Dealing in absolutes is dangerous. A police officer never has to use the bathroom? A police officer never has to make a personal telephone call or something of the sort while on a break? If a complainant or informant refuses to speak with a camera active, what then - allow the officer to cover the camera with their hand? That creates another precedent then - what is the difference between turning a camera off and obscuring the lens with your hand? If the voice is distorted and a FOIA request comes through, what are the legal ramifications of handing over an edited clip versus the original? Who can guarantee that, when editing voiceover clips, the video was not edited in some other fashion in the event of an incident that incurred litigation during or shortly following a situation in which you've said a camera may be obscured?

If a defense attorney has your entire "roll" of body cam footage subpoenaed, and if you make any sort of joking derogatory remarks, or say anything about someone or something that may offend someone or isn't 100 percent politically correct, do you believe that it won't be used against you in some capacity to attack your character and/or fairness of handling things? With that said, I do like the idea of body cams. Provided that they be turned on only when a call/interaction begins.