Bailey23

As an LEO myself I think the supervisor handled the problem very well, but the main issue with these types of situations is that for the most part these aren't regular citizens that just have an interest in videotaping the police. They are organized groups of individuals who seek out conflict with the police and do whatever they can to get a rise out of us. I liken them to bullies in school that pick on other kids, they just want attention and they thrive off of the reaction they receive. With that said, I encounter situations like these on rare occasions and my agency does a great job of keeping us updated on the various laws regarding videotaping in the public and at what point this legal behavior crosses the line into being obstruction. I have no problem with people that want to videotape me doing my job, but I do have an issue when they intentionally try to upset me by not following my instructions or getting too close to my scene or investigation. Luckily, I haven't found myself on Youtube yet, but I try to be nice to people as much as possible. There is going to be increase in these types of videos because of the attack on government and public service by the Occupy movement and other anarchists. Unfortunately that is the world we live in today and people don't realize that we are humans just like everyone else. We have bad days, we lose our tempers, etc... We also understand that we are held to a higher standard than others, but sometimes we let our hair down and get nasty with people. It's sad that people devote much of their time to "bullying" the police with these tactics, but there isn't a whole lot we can do about it. If only these idiots went out and got jobs rather than being bums driving around the country and filming/protesting the police, but that's just my opinion.

The computer is housed in the trunk, but the interior of the vehicle includes a touchscreen monitor and keyboard in the center console/dash area.

No, but be honest about prior drug use. My agency doesn't allow any drug use within 3 years of application, so if discovered that you used illegal drugs within 3 years then you'd simply be denied employment with us. The whole goal of the recruitment and screening division is to employ great deputies with integrity and commitment to the office, not to arrest people for crimes they may or may not have committed in the past. I can't speak for your specific situation, but I'd be very surprised if legal action was taken based on information discovered in a polygraph unless it was something very serious such as child abuse, sex crimes, homicide, etc...

Information from the polygraph can be used to initiate an investigation, but the specific results of the polygraph will not be used as evidence in court in the US. Minor things aren't going to be an issue, we've all made mistakes. Based on what I've seen with my agency, they would only go after you for major violations (mostly felonies).

I took multiple polygraphs in order to get hired on with my sheriff's office where I currently work. The process was pretty simple, I would sit down with the examiner and she and I would essentially carry on an interview regarding my application, my past history, affiliations, etc... These would be the exact questions that I would be asked during the actual polygraph, so there were no surprises and I knew what was coming. The whole idea was for me to be forthcoming and honest with all of my responses, then the polygraph would simply verify my integrity. During the interview portion before being hooked up to the machine, I could ask questions and clarify what the examiner meant with her questioning so that I knew exactly what I was answering to. I also found that she would ask the same questions multiple ways or by changing some key aspect of the question in order to insure I was answering consistently to the same premise. Although it can be quite intimidating and it certainly raises my anxiety, the examiners are trained for this and the machine is only going to recognize legitimate deception and not just nervousness. I did have to sign a waiver that anything I say during the polygraph examination could be grounds for prosecution, but if there is nothing to hide then you have nothing to worry about. They aren't going to go after you for the pack of gum you stole as a kid (statute of limitations would apply anyway), but obviously if you admit to a felony I'm sure they wouldn't be happy about it, but why would you be applying for this line of work with questionable integrity to begin with? At my sheriff's office, to my knowledge the people who fail the polygraph typically do so because they lie about aspects of their application: prior drug use, prior employment, criminal history, etc...

Some of you guys are making a mountain out of a mole-hill... "Security Forces" or "Security Police" is just a general term synonymous with a police officer (don't always trust what you hear on Wikipedia, but that's beside the point). What Eagle described in his first post is not the same as the "security police" described by Nutt and others. The security police described in that Wikipedia link are sworn law enforcement officers at one of the government levels (local, county, state, federal, etc...) just like any other law enforcement officer. They go through an "academy" just like any other patrol officer would. Most of those governmental police officers go through here: http://www.fletc.gov/ As for the main point of this thread, security guards... Within my county where I'm a sheriff's deputy we have a few security companies that are hired by neighborhoods or businesses to provide armed security. I won't discount their job because I certainly wouldn't want to do it, but they are nothing more than what you think a normal security guard is except some carry guns (which is scary because I can tell you they aren't trained to a fraction of the level I'm trained, but I digress). In my specific zone, one of the primary companies is CIS (http://cisworldservices.org/services/patrol.html) and their website make them sound like an incredibly well-trained government agency, but they are nothing more than security guards. They usually patrol neighborhoods and then alert us if anything is going on. Most importantly, they certainly deter crime especially due to the fact that their vehicles look quite intimidating and similar to law enforcement vehicles. The problem with these guys is that they have no law enforcement powers and therefore tend to let their egos get in the way. In a couple of the neighborhoods in my zone they either initiate calls for us (open doors, prowlers, suspicious people/vehicles, etc...) or I think they listen to our scanners and respond to calls we get dispatched on because occasionally they show up or even beat me to the call. Sometimes they are a nice help such as when my district is very busy and it is going to be tough to get a backup unit to my location in a timely fashion to clear a residence with an open door or signs of forced entry. I don't like to clear structures alone, so sometimes one of them goes in behind me if I'm not going to wait on another deputy to come with me. They usually enjoy the chance to draw their gun and act like a cop for 10 minutes, so it works for both of us. However, I had an incident where the guy was clearly poorly trained and kept flagging me with the muzzle end of his firearm so after a couple times of that I finally told him to holster his gun and get out of my sight. I don't need someone like that on a call with me. Short version: The security companies, as described in the first post, are nothing more than your typical security guards who patrol and report suspicious activity to police. In most places they have no authority beyond what is afforded to every citizen, protect yourself from imminent great bodily harm if needed but they can't take any legal action against someone unless it is a felony in progress. In most states, a "citizens arrest" can only legally be performed if a felony is in progress.

This is by no means directed at the poster above (my argument is with the concept of the comparison between vehicles), but that is about the stupidest video I've seen in a long time. You simply can't compare all wheel drive with rear wheel drive vehicles when it comes to a loose surface such as the one used in the video. Obviously the all wheel drive vehicles are going to perform better on that specific surface. What the video fails to mention is the countless number of years of vehicle use in law enforcement that proves front wheel drive and usually all wheel drive cannot handle the stress put on the transmission and the vehicle with law enforcement use. If this video had been a comparison of top speed it would be like comparing a Ferrari to a golf cart.

Well it's hard to answer that one. For me personally, I can stop you and write a ticket and have you back on your way within 5-10 minutes (we don't hand-write tickets any longer, I fill it out on my MDT and print it within my car), but it depends on the officer. I can get a book's worth of information, but that stuff usually comes back to my screen in multiple pages and it includes links to open up to more stuff. When I run a tag, it sends me back about 4 pages, but with experience I know what I'm looking for on each page so I skim all the info in about 10 seconds. I do this before I activate my lights to stop the vehicle and all I'm looking for is if the vehicle is stolen, the vehicle registration expiration, registered owner and if they have warrants, and that's about it. Once I stop the car, I get their driver's license and return to my car and we have the handy dandy ID card swipes now so I just swipe the DL like a credit card and it automatically inputs the information and runs it for me. Then it kicks me back one page of information on the person which lists all of the information I described in my previous post. On that page for a basic traffic stop, I just look to make sure you don't have warrants and then I look at the person's criminal history and driving history. It only takes a few seconds. Now, to address your comment specifically. As soon as the vehicle stops I immediately approach it for a basic traffic stop. If the person wanted to fight me, shoot me, hide drugs, etc..., it gives them less time to react or less time to plan how to hurt me. I also HATE when people get out of their cars and try to come back to my car. My policy is that if you get out of your car, I get out of mine. I never let anyone have the advantage when I'm dealing with them. So the short answer is that it depends on the officer. :smile:

Everyone who has posted is correct so far. The requirements vary by state, but generally speaking you must have a driver's license, registration for the vehicle, proof of insurance, etc... Some states require vehicle inspections, and in states that do not require inspections I know of some insurance companies who require inspection before you can insure your vehicle with them if it isn't a new vehicle being purchased. As for what is going to come back in the MDT, that is going to vary not only by state but also by agency. For example, my MDT system is linked with NCIC (National Crime Information Center), FCIC (Florida Crime Information Center), and then also my sheriff's office specific information and the police departments' info within my county. Information returned (and I'm only listing the big things because a lot of information comes back): NCIC/FCIC - linked with the FBI. If I simply run a vehicle tag, it's going to return all information on the vehicle that the tag is registered to and also includes insurance information in some cases (I don't know why it doesn't do it in all cases) and then all information on the registered owner(s) including any warrants they may have (where they are out of, if the agency who entered the warrant wants extradition, etc...). It also returns similar matches and the level of "certainty" of the hit, so if somebody is wanted with a very similar name and identity it will give me a percentage match. This is useful for people using false information that may be close to their real identity. On the registered vehicle owner or if I run the person specifically, it gives me all of their information (date of birth, social security number, last known address, last known phone numbers, last known occupation/employer, demographics, etc...). It can also include mug shots if applicable and pictures uploaded by other LEOs (only holds one mug shot and one picture). Within the same search, my MDT also returns local information from my sheriff's office and police departments in our jurisdiction. That includes all past involvement with police (whether as a suspect, victim, witness, etc...) and all applicable police reports, street checks (which are short entries I can submit in a person's record documenting my experience with them), and then records flags which inform me of their past history such as if they have previously fought law enforcement, known to have weapons, drug use, martial arts experience, etc... I've left plenty of information out, but you can start to see the big picture which is that I get a ton of information back to my laptop within seconds regarding my inquiries. Just by skimming the pages of information I get back I can learn a lot about who I am dealing with. Now that I typed all this up I realized you wanted specifics on vehicles which I kind of described above... oops I can run a license plate tag or a VIN (Vehicle Identification Number) and it will send back all information on the registered vehicle, all information on the registered owner(s), and its past involvement in local cases in my county such as whether it was the entity of a burglary or other past incident, or maybe used as a getaway vehicle, etc...

cp702: Policy states I can't transport medical emergencies in my patrol car, but that's just "policy". I was previously an Emergency Medical Technician so I have more advanced training than a police officer has in terms of medical treatment, so I'd do what I can (I keep a trauma bag in my trunk as well) and wait for an ambulance. If I'm close to a hospital, then I might go ahead and transport in my car if I think it is life-threatening, but most injuries aren't. Now, I did drive my zone partner to the hospital when he got very sick on duty but that is a different story and he was too far away from a fire station to the point that I could get him to the hospital running code before the ambulance would have even arrived. Unr3al: I wouldn't ticket or arrest a man for driving his wife to the hospital in a reckless manner, but I wouldn't allow him to continue doing so after my stop. Drive the speed limit or wait on an ambulance. If he wrecks and his wife and unborn child die in the crash, I don't see the benefit of driving 106MPH... but that's just me lol. stormoffires: Florida does have the move-over law (FS 316.126(b) http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0300-0399/0316/Sections/0316.126.html). It's near impossible to enforce because if I'm stopped then it is going to take another deputy to pull over the vehicle, AND, I have to have them on radar or laser to prove their speed. Enforcement of this law only works when two LEOs are working together to enforce this specifically because the officer with lights activated must be actively on a call such as a traffic stop or car crash (I can't just sit on the side of the road with my lights on and then pull people over).

Slimory, I'll explain how this scenario you described would play out in Florida, and this likely applies to almost anywhere in the US (I could see exceptions in small towns, but I digress). My agency policy restricts us from doing any type of "escort" for civilians, so if I stopped a vehicle that was enroute to the hospital I would not be able to escort them for safety reasons. I would call an ambulance at that point which is really what the people should have done from the beginning. I can see where it is important for someone to get to the hospital quickly, but that doesn't give anyone the right to violate laws or place other people's lives in danger by driving in a reckless manner. If what you say is true in Canada, I would just hate to see a tragedy occur from an unskilled and untrained driver violating traffic safety in order to reach the hospital. However, concepts that work in the United States may not be suited for use in Canada or other countries and vice versa. It'd be a disaster here if people were allowed to do as you describe (and that's an understatement if you've seen how terrible some US drivers are). :smile:

Reckless Driving (no property damage or personal injury) is a criminal traffic citation in Florida punishable as a 2nd degree misdemeanor (maximum 90 days in jail and/or maximum $500 fine). It is NOT a civil infraction. It requires a mandatory court appearance. Reckless driving becomes a felony if you cause great bodily injury to another person. I just had court two weeks ago on a reckless citation I wrote. The judge gave him 30 days in jail and $315 fine. Unreal: Our version of "operating to endanger" is our reckless driving charge and I can arrest the driver on that offense. Additionally, in Florida I have the option of requiring a driver to retake a driving exam following any citation I issue. I have to have proper justification in doing so, but it is as simple as checking a box in our driver's database (DAVID). I usually do this for elderly individuals or teenagers based on certain offenses and/or their attitude regarding the stop. Florida has a ton of good traffic statutes on the books, so if you're like me and stay proficient with the various traffic statutes then you can find reasons to stop almost anybody. I'm not about writing a bunch of tickets (I usually just give verbal warnings), but I do have certain pet peeves or certain violations that I think are inexcusable.

As a sheriff's deputy in Florida myself I've had more of a front-row seat for all of this drama in the past few months. What many people aren't aware of is the amount of tension between the law enforcement agencies in the Miami area to include FHP. Agencies in the Miami area have a history of corruption that exceeds the "average" found in other areas, and this particular incident only highlights the already poor relations between agencies in the Miami area. FHP has a pretty poor reputation statewide, including in my general area of Tampa. FHP is known for writing other law enforcement officers tickets in their personal vehicles on a frequent basis, which there is nothing wrong with, but typically we provide a level of professional courtesy to other officers. It is sad that situations like these have come to light, but it really is no surprise due to the terrible working conditions that Troopers have and the relationship between sheriff's offices/police departments with our highway counterpart. This particular traffic stop highlights terrible tactics, attitudes, and procedures from BOTH individuals and both agencies. I don't know how they operate in Miami in terms of mutual aid agreements, but here in the Tampa area we have procedures in place for situations such as these. If for whatever reason I have an issue with a fellow officer from another agency, our policy is to inform dispatch of the situation and have them contact the other agency and speak to a supervisor. We do NOT stop other law enforcement vehicles unless an exceptional emergency exists. Speeding would not be one of them. It does raise suspicion when an officer is outside of their jurisdiction and driving in this manner, but the simplest and most professional way to handle this specific incident would have been for the Trooper to contact a supervisor with the police officer's department and provide the license plate or vehicle number. Then a disciplinary process or investigation can be started and any criminal traffic violations, citations, etc... could be filed from that point forward. It works best this way and I can speak from experience. I passed a Trooper on a county road one night running about 80 MPH in a 45 MPH zone (6 lane divided road) while I was approaching a convenience store robbery in progress, thus no lights or siren. The Trooper apparently noted my tag or vehicle number and contacted my agency to inform them what I was doing. They reviewed my call history and pulled the GPS from my vehicle and determined I was enroute to a priority call. Nothing further came from it, there was no embarrassing traffic stop, and no media coverage. Couldn't have been handled better. Plus, if I'm enroute to a call I'm not stopping for a Trooper anyway and I'll let dispatch know so they can inform FHP's dispatch that I'm enroute to a call.

This amendment to the law isn't designed to censor anybody. It is designed to deter and stop criminal activity online such as hacking, piracy, cyber-terrorism, etc... As is the case in all situations in life, don't break the law and you won't have any problems.

I don't personally see any problems with CISPA. Unfortunately I think the media and the internet culture are influencing opinions with inaccurate information. I think any measures to strengthen cyber security should be taken especially when it is optional for private companies and websites to send the information back to the government. Theft of intellectual property is a growing problem and attempts should be made to prosecute these criminals. "Civil liberties" and "freedom of speech" don't excuse the illegal act of intellectual property theft or the transmission of property obtained illegally. No where in the amendment to the National Security Act does it state the government is going to spy on emails and/or other forms of personal communication. It more properly defines cyber security and intellectual property theft, and gives remedies to companies and websites (much like LCPDFR) when they are the unfortunate victim of cyber attacks.

I don't intend for this to become a fight of any sorts so for those chiming in please keep it civil. CP702, my occupation doesn't automatically make me right or wrong on any issues, but thank you for the comment. Marine831, I'm going to respond to your scenario and state why you would be in the wrong (again, based on state laws that vary by state). In Florida, for example, I have the legal right to detain you by placing you in handcuffs if I can articulate that I wanted to demobilize you for my safety while I conduct my investigation. Absent my development of probable cause for an arrest within a reasonable amount of time, I would then remove the handcuffs and release you. If you resist my lawful detention I'm going to use all force necessary to arrest you for obstruction of my investigation. If you resist me violently, I'm going to arrest you for resisting with violence and battery on a law enforcement officer. I don't intend to continue a back and forth argument regarding scenarios with you, but I can tell you don't have a grasp on this concept although you do seem educated to some extent regarding the Constitution. I will agree with you that a badge and gun mean nothing, and I also agree there are cops out there who show disrespect for the public and abuse their authority. They should be fired and/or prosecuted for doing so, but I can tell you individuals who do so are the minority and I don't believe it is fair to attribute that moniker to all of us. I can also tell you that I follow the Constitution and all laws when performing my duties as a Sheriff's Deputy, and I've never had any problems nor any accusations regarding my conduct on the job. I think that record speaks for itself regarding my ability to stay within my boundaries. I would expect my fellow deputies to do the same, and I'd be the first to correct any behavior of others who work with me (I've done it before). I do wish you the best in your endeavor to become a Marine. I just hope you don't run across a police officer that you believe is conducting himself unlawfully, because your opinion may not be accurate and it could be a bad day for you or for the officer if you act similarly as you describe here.

As an LEO myself it is appalling to read some of the comments in this thread... I tend not to get involved with these types of threads on this site because they typically involve people who are responding to issues they know little or nothing about. However, I am going to address some of the comments in this thread because I simply can't let them stand as being factual. I'm going to make a quick comment regarding the 1st Amendment because those of you in this thread are forgetting the exceptions to "Freedom of Speech" as outlined in Article 19 with the remainder of the declaration. Exceptions include but are not limited to libel, slander, obscenities, and "speech" that incites the commission of crimes. I'm not really here to argue the issue of internet piracy and the Government's attempt to stop these crimes, but I can tell you that it is not an attempt to put a vice grip on the internet. My opinion is that large cases of piracy and file sharing should be prosecuted, which is why the legislators are attempting to better define the process for doing so. My primary issue in this discussion is the comments by Marine831 regarding cop killing to defend what you supposedly say would be a violation of your rights. It is my understanding you wish to become a Marine, so please take my comments as being educational and an effort to assist you in reaching your goals. I'll assume you are of a younger generation that tends to quickly go to extremes regarding many issues, and understand I'm basing that comment off of what I've seen in this thread already. Based on your comments in this thread (and assuming you demonstrated the same in your application process), you would be rejected from receiving the necessary security clearances to join a career in the armed forces because of such insensitive and appalling remarks when you advocate the killing of a police officer. You highlighted Plummer v. State so I'll begin there. What this case law states is essentially you can resist an unlawful arrest with reasonable force, but what you fail to ascertain is that 99.99% of the time an unlawful arrest is not being committed. You mentioned the entering of a person's cell phone into evidence, which is a state by state issue and will not apply in certain areas. If the state has a law that allows an officer to confiscate your phone for evidence (I find it hard to believe a state would allow this without reasonable suspicion or probable cause), then it is lawful and you would be remiss to resist such confiscation. The law would remain enforceable until such time as the Supreme Court rules it unconstitutional, which won't be happening on the cell phone issue because the laws currently on the books in the various states fit in line with the reasonableness standard in the 4th Amendment (keeping in mind, cell phones are typically searched following an arrest and at this point you have lost your reasonable expectation privacy due to being in custody. A phone is considered a container of information, which is searchable based on certain state laws and the Constitution). Most agencies are going to secure a warrant before doing so, however, the media will make you believe that officers do it all the time. Continuing your thought-process, if the officer pulls his firearm you then state you'd be fully clear to pull your firearm and kill the officer. What you would have done in this situation is get yourself killed, or if you kill the cop you will be charged at minimum with manslaughter. Having a CCW gives you the authorization to carry a concealed weapon, but no where does it allow you to display or use said weapon. There are states that do allow the use of reasonable force up to and including deadly force in defending yourself against an imminent life threat, but those states also include statutes that declare it unlawful to display a firearm to threaten or kill a police officer in the commission of his/her official duties. There really is no situation where you can legally kill a police officer, and I particularly find it appalling that you would even consider such action. Such a rash and extreme defiance of the law is going to be a problem for you entering the armed forces, so I hope you've taken my comments constructively as I urge you to understand the issue from both sides. Now I understand fully that civilians simply can't grasp the concept of my job as a law enforcement officer because you've never been in my shoes, but I do urge you to make an attempt at understanding the laws of our great nation and how they are enforced by myself and fellow officers. You or any other citizen does not determine the constitutionality of any action or law, so you are unable to play judge in a situation where an officer MAY or may not be violating your rights. There is a judicial process, even including after you have been arrested and charged with a crime (doesn't mean you will be prosecuted). I can't think of any situation beyond gross negligence where a police officer would violate a person's rights to the extent that deadly force would be a reasonable option in self-defense against the officer. Now I'm going to let my hair down a bit: ----- This is concerning for me and let me explain why. Myself as a Sheriff's Deputy in Florida would need to have a strong reasonable belief that I'm in danger to draw my weapon and point it at a person. This is something I'd have to be able to explain in court, otherwise I'd be guilty of committing an Aggravated Assault on you. If a situation presents itself where you are staring down the barrel of an officer, your options are to conform with his/her lawful orders or he is going to physically make you comply unless you present a clear and imminent threat to the officer's life, then he would have the option of shooting you. You have to be exhibiting behavior consistent with deadly force where any reasonable person would believe they are in imminent danger of great bodily harm or death. ----- It's not as simple and black and white as you seem to portray. Once again, please understand my comments are constructive and intended to inform you of the facts regarding the judicial process in the US. Obviously I couldn't cover every caveat or scenario you have described or may describe in further posts, but my intent was to show you that these issues are complicated and that there are many lawful reasons behind what cops do on a day-to-day basis. Try to understand what I'm saying before continuing to spout off about killing cops or further sharing inaccurate information regarding legal concepts. I've been in a shooting on the job and I've had to kill a suspect, so I can speak from first-hand experience what it is like to be in these types of situations and thus you may understand my passion for this topic. And I don't plan on attending any more funerals of my fellow brothers and sisters in law enforcement so I'll do my part to ensure we all go home safely to our families each and every day. One aspect of that is educating the public regarding our profession. :smile:

I may be too late to this thread, but for those who intend to do ride-alongs in the future it is important to speak with the officer at the beginning of the ride along about his/her expectations of you. When I have riders I typically judge who the person is and then let them know what I expect of them. If I think they are mature and can handle what they might see, I typically let those types of people get out of the car and come with me. I usually don't allow my riders to get out of the car on traffic stops, though. I tell all of my riders that if I end up getting into a fight, that means WE got in a fight and you had better be helping me. If anything, it gets them pumped up for the shift The best way to handle the situation if you'd like to ask them about shooting a suspect or being shot is to simply ask the officer if he/she has been involved in any on-duty deadly force situations and if so what that experience taught the officer. They will either explain and go into detail or not, but it will appear more professional than asking if they have shot somebody. As for attire, call and ask the agency you are riding with. Some require a business-like image, while others are ok with casual clothing. Some also forbid a rider from wearing clothing associated with law enforcement or appearing to look like an officer, so it is going to depend on where you ride. The policy at my sheriff's office for ride-alongs is that men dress in a business-like outfit (button down shirt and tie with nice pants), but I typically have the rider lose the tie once they get in the car with me.

I'm an LEO and I love my CVPI. They are faster than you think, especially with the Interceptor engines in them. My agency is moving to the Charger (I probably won't be getting one for a year or so), but I did drive my zone partner's the other day and they are faster than our CVPI's. As some have mentioned in this thread, the speed of our vehicles doesn't really matter that much and the level of training we receive for pursuits generally means that people aren't going to be skilled enough to run from us and get away. And as another poster mentioned above, you can't out run our radios or helicopters. My agency's pursuit policy is pretty restrictive. We'll pursue for forcible felonies and that is pretty much it. I've been in a handful of pursuits in my couple years on the job and the fastest my CVPI has gone according to the GPS on my MDT was 126MPH, which was in a pursuit on the interstate and we didn't sustain that speed for long. However, every other pursuit has been on surface level streets and my guess is we probably averaged 50-60mph and maxed at maybe 90. Luckily my agency only allows 3 vehicles to be in the pursuit (and K9 usually takes over and bumps somebody off the pursuit), so any other units are going to be running parallel or attempting to shut down intersections and get spikes out. This is much safer than having 20 cars trying to chase somebody.

If we're talking about the US, most campus police departments consist of officers who are considered to be state police officers since universities are run by the state.

Luckily, privatizing the police force in America is something that I believe will never happen. It isn't a system that would work or be supported by the government nor the citizens. However, there are places that are moving that direction for the prisons and I'm also strongly against that as well. The reason why the system wouldn't work in America is primarily due to our laws. It takes a certain level of certification and being sworn in to perform the duties of a police officer. I'll also comment on the use of AR-15's in law enforcement since I'm a cop. I have an AR-15 (M4) as well as a Remington shotgun mounted in my patrol vehicle. For those who are unfamiliar with law enforcement (primarily citizens who have never done this job), it is sometimes unsettling to wonder why we would carry that type of fire power and that idea has presented itself by people posting in this thread before me. There are a multitude of functions for tha type of firepower outside of a SWAT scenario, and this is why I have one in my vehicle. Although my patrol zone is primarily suburban, I also have some rural areas in my district and I'd say about once or twice a month I run across a scenario where I bring my AR-15 simply because I may need to take a longer range shot if the situation presents itself. Also, just the appearance of having an AR-15 slinged around my shoulder is sometimes enough to deter a criminal from taking further action. I also use it if I need to clear a large open structure such as a business warehouse. It's good to have a couple deputies using handguns and one or two deputies with a long-gun (shotgun or AR-15) to hold or cover hallways and large open areas. I encounter this quite frequently responding to business alarms (usually false-alarms), but our policy is we have to clear a structure when we find an open or unsecured door. However, I do resent the comment that having an AR-15 means we are militarized. That couldn't be further from the truth. It just means we have another tool that can be used in certain situations. It doesn't mean I'm going to pull it out all the time (I rarely do), but I'd hate to encounter a situation and wish I had an AR-15. Better to have it and never need it, than to need it and not have it. I prefer using the AR-15 rather than the shotgun in the situations I typically face because I don't know where the rounds out of a shotgun cartridge are going to spread to, but I know exactly where the single 223 round I fire is going to go and I can set myself up to make a safe shot without having to worry how far the round is going to travel.

Call the agency you wish to ride with and ask them. Typically in the US you must be 18 years old or have a parental waiver if younger.

I'm a Sheriff's Deputy with a large agency in Florida. Got my bachelor's degree and have been on the job for a couple years. My duties include basically everything your average cop will deal with in a patrol function... responding to 911 calls, doing some traffic enforcement if I choose, and I also try to find some time to be proactive. As with most cops I have some pet peeves. Two of mine are people who illegally park in handicap spaces (typically kids who use grandma's car and think they can park in the handicap spot) and habitual juvenile runaways who typically are being used as prostitutes in the area, which sickens me to even think about it. I work nights so I get to see a lot of in-progress calls, but also have my fair share of the typical domestics and the pesky 911 misdials and/or hang-ups. On the rare occasion that absolutely nothing is happening in my zone on weekday night, then I either fight myself to stay awake or my zone partners and I meet up and see what kind of trouble we can find. Occasionally about 4 or 5 of us have nothing going on so we'll sit on known drug houses and pull cars over coming out of there. One particular location they just love to roll the stop sign out to the main road, then wonder why 5 marked patrol cars are behind them for simply running the sign or not using a turn signal. I love seeing their reaction... However, one instance we all pulled a car over and much to our surprise the driver had an outstanding warrant out of California for two counts of premeditated murder. Good catch for only a failure to use a turn signal which we were going to use to attempt a search of the vehicle. I use that story every time I stop someone for speeding and they try to tell me I have better things to be doing or "real criminals" to be catching instead of stopping them. Mind you, I RARELY actually write a traffic citation, but people still want to argue about their verbal warning. That's my job... I love going to work every day. Now if we could just encourage the politicians to pay us more :thumbsup:

... and if the dog bites the area between the two taser probes, you are likely to end up with a dead dog. Keep in mind that not only is a K9 your partner, but it is your dog who goes home to you and your family each night. But alas, it is tough to debate these topics with people who have no true knowledge of law enforcement, LEO training, or tactics. Which begs the question... What personal (verifiable) knowledge and experience do you have regarding LEO training?

Absolutely, my sheriff's office has a great crisis team consisting of other deputies in my agency who will respond to situations like mine and essentially be a confidential shoulder to cry on. It's great because anything I tell that person is confidential under Florida state law, which is excellent because in the few hours following a use of force (especially deadly force in my situation), you have a million things going on including news media, sheriff's office legal team trying to get me sheltered, etc... I experienced a lot of self-doubt in the days following my shooting. I kept wondering to myself if what I did was right or if I over-reacted (I'm also a religious person, so that element came into play as well), I wondered if the court was going to determine my shooting was justified or if it would be considered a homicide, etc... It was a mentally incapacitating experience, and our crisis team really helped me calm down and become comfortable with my decision. And in the end, the State of Florida determined my actions were justified. I now teach a seminar to each of our new recruit classes in the academy at my agency where I essentially go step-by-step through that scene. I've found that it really puts things in perspective for the new recruits. I also highly recommend, if you're interested, that you check out Det. Jared Reston's (Jacksonville SO) story regarding his experience. I don't how in depth his public interviews go into his situation, but here is a link with which to begin hearing his story. He chased a shoplifting suspect and at some point in the encounter the suspect pulled out a gun and shot Jared in the face and stood over his body and continued to fire rounds into his chest and legs. If I recall correctly, he was shot 7 times. After being shot 7 times, he had what he now calls the "will to win" and he returned firing killing the suspect. He came to my agency and I was lucky enough to attend his seminar and watch his presentation in person. It was truly an incredible story. http://www.policeone...n-Jared-Reston/