Bailey23

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.

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.

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.

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...

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...

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.

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.

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.

Harper: Try doing what DanX stated, as I've had the same problem although it only happens on rare occasions for me.

To the developers: Great job working with what you have been given. A forced release wasn't what you guys had planned, but most of the community understands that the product we were given was not ready and I'm happy to fight through the bugs until the true release. Keep up the great work!

As for lomnutjo: age is merely a number. These 14 year olds appear to be more mature than you are currently acting; they spell better as well.

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:

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'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:

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 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.

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.

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.

As a law enforcement officer myself, I tend to shy away from analyzing other officer's actions for the primary purpose that I was not in that situation and a video will never cover the entire totality of the situation. However, I will state that based strictly upon what I observed in the video the officers were justified and this was certainly a deadly force situation.

From what I can see, the taser deployment was too high (you cannot aim for the head) so my guess is that only one of the two probes hit the suspect. When only one probe hits, there is no exchange of electricity and therefore nothing will happen to the suspect. Electricity travels between the two probes, which is why it is important to aim for the middle of the back or the middle of the stomach for a proper spread of the probes. (The x26 taser conducts 50,000 volts of electricity and 1200 volts are transmitted through the body. Not a couple hundred as someone stated)

The officers who took his eyes off of the suspect clearly put himself in danger, but this does not excuse the actions of the suspect whatsoever. When his reactionary gap closed, it now became 100% justified for the officers to use deadly force. Once the first round of shots were fired, the suspect remained on his feet and was still moving away from the officers. It would be justified to continue firing rounds to put him down since him fleeing the officers could likely cause great bodily harm to other innocent civilians in his direction of travel. Another round of shots were fired, at which point the suspect dropped to the ground. The officers did not fire another shot once he was on the ground, since at that point they had stopped the threat.
---------------

The analysis on the video itself clearly shows the lack of knowledge by the creator. Holding a gun at a slant is the preferred method of fire when firing with one hand because it is easier and a more natural motion for the arm/hand. K9's will typically use this type of grip more often than others. Also, I will add that a gun shoots exactly where it is pointed so it doesn't matter whether the gun is perfectly level or at a slant. That bullet goes where the sights are aimed. In a situation such as this one, officers are utilizing a "point shooting" technique where you simply point the gun and shoot without taking the time to gain proper sight alignment. We're trained in this manner of shooting because you can't take a couple seconds to get a proper sight picture and sight alignment in a deadly force situation.

As for releasing the dog... there is absolutely no justification for releasing the dog in this scenario. It is very likely that the suspect would have seriously injured or killed that dog.

Absolutely, and I would add that the average citizen is going to deal with an intense situation (car accident, death of a family member, observing a violent crime) maybe only a handful of times or even once in their life. Police officers deal with these situations every single day, multiple times per day. It is a crushing experience to watch innocent people hurt or killed by thoughtless individuals.

On the other side of the token, and going back to my situation, can you also imagine what it must have been like to be the deputy who had to go to the young man's home and explain to his mother that his fellow zone partner had killed her son? That's another element of my job because typically death notifications must always be done in person except in extenuating circumstances.

These are just all things to consider the next time an officer isn't as polite as one would expect. Every single person we come in contact with we are scanning their person for weapons and assessing the situation to determine if they are a threat or not. This is not a mentality that civilians understand unless they become more familiar with law enforcement besides what is seen on TV. It only takes one minor mistake for an officer to be killed. For me personally, I'm not going to give anybody the slightest opportunity to get the advantage over me.

As a law enforcement officer myself, I tend to shy away from analyzing other officer's actions for the primary purpose that I was not in that situation and a video will never cover the entire totality of the situation. However, I will state that based strictly upon what I observed in the video the officers were justified and this was certainly a deadly force situation.

From what I can see, the taser deployment was too high (you cannot aim for the head) so my guess is that only one of the two probes hit the suspect. When only one probe hits, there is no exchange of electricity and therefore nothing will happen to the suspect. Electricity travels between the two probes, which is why it is important to aim for the middle of the back or the middle of the stomach for a proper spread of the probes. (The x26 taser conducts 50,000 volts of electricity and 1200 volts are transmitted through the body. Not a couple hundred as someone stated)

The officers who took his eyes off of the suspect clearly put himself in danger, but this does not excuse the actions of the suspect whatsoever. When his reactionary gap closed, it now became 100% justified for the officers to use deadly force. Once the first round of shots were fired, the suspect remained on his feet and was still moving away from the officers. It would be justified to continue firing rounds to put him down since him fleeing the officers could likely cause great bodily harm to other innocent civilians in his direction of travel. Another round of shots were fired, at which point the suspect dropped to the ground. The officers did not fire another shot once he was on the ground, since at that point they had stopped the threat.
---------------

The analysis on the video itself clearly shows the lack of knowledge by the creator. Holding a gun at a slant is the preferred method of fire when firing with one hand because it is easier and a more natural motion for the arm/hand. K9's will typically use this type of grip more often than others. Also, I will add that a gun shoots exactly where it is pointed so it doesn't matter whether the gun is perfectly level or at a slant. That bullet goes where the sights are aimed. In a situation such as this one, officers are utilizing a "point shooting" technique where you simply point the gun and shoot without taking the time to gain proper sight alignment. We're trained in this manner of shooting because you can't take a couple seconds to get a proper sight picture and sight alignment in a deadly force situation.

As for releasing the dog... there is absolutely no justification for releasing the dog in this scenario. It is very likely that the suspect would have seriously injured or killed that dog.

Absolutely, and I would add that the average citizen is going to deal with an intense situation (car accident, death of a family member, observing a violent crime) maybe only a handful of times or even once in their life. Police officers deal with these situations every single day, multiple times per day. It is a crushing experience to watch innocent people hurt or killed by thoughtless individuals.

On the other side of the token, and going back to my situation, can you also imagine what it must have been like to be the deputy who had to go to the young man's home and explain to his mother that his fellow zone partner had killed her son? That's another element of my job because typically death notifications must always be done in person except in extenuating circumstances.

These are just all things to consider the next time an officer isn't as polite as one would expect. Every single person we come in contact with we are scanning their person for weapons and assessing the situation to determine if they are a threat or not. This is not a mentality that civilians understand unless they become more familiar with law enforcement besides what is seen on TV. It only takes one minor mistake for an officer to be killed. For me personally, I'm not going to give anybody the slightest opportunity to get the advantage over me.

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/

For what it's worth, I'm a sheriff's deputy at a large agency in Florida. Before I address some of the original poster's questions from my perspective, I'd like to make a comment regarding those in this thread who call "all" or "90%" of cops "dicks", arrogant, or that we possess attitude problems. First, unless you have met all or 90% of law enforcement officers then your argument is flawed, but more importantly, you are likely basing your opinion off one or a few isolated incidents. What people should realize is that we are human beings; no different than anybody else in any other career. However, we are and should be held to a higher standard as government employees, but there comes a time in all of our lives where we act in a manner that is not consistent with our normal behavior. I agree that there are officers out there who give all of us a bad reputation, but I caution you not to make sweeping accusations. With that said, I'm proud to be one of those officers who will still respond as quickly as I can to assist anyone who calls for my help... including someone who mother-F'd me all the way to the jail two days ago. I'll be the first to admit that I have treated people with disrespect who did little to deserve it, but it is not something that I do on a consistent basis. There are some shifts out there where I've been punched in the face and spit on by some dirtbag, then respond to a child who has been abused, then resolve a domestic between husband and wife, then respond to the scene of a murder, then attempt to locate a missing child.... then when you are with your buddies doing donuts in the parking lot, you can maybe see why I'm not as inclined to approach you with a smile on my face ready to kindly handle whatever reason you will spew for violating laws in my presence. I simply ask that you put yourself in my/our shoes before you state such insensitive remarks regarding myself and my brothers/sisters in my profession.

To the original poster:

Many of those who posted before me have provided correct advice regarding your questions. Typically, law enforcement departments/agencies are regulated by the state within which they reside. There will also be differences among and between the various agencies within that state. You should do some research into the agencies that you are going to apply to, especially because the agency is going to question you in the application process regarding your motivation for becoming an officer as well as why you want to work for their specific agency. You need to have a well formulated answer for them that sets you apart from other applicants. Education and physical requirements (remember these are minimums!) of course will vary by agency. Don't concern yourself with 10 codes or signal codes until you've been hired with an agency or you are in an academy because those vary by agency and you will have plenty of time and opportunity to learn them at that point.

Due to my immense pride in my career, I love to see people wishing to do what I do and enjoy helping them do so. My advice for anyone considering a career in law enforcement is to become as informed with the details of the career as you can. This job is certainly not for everyone and there are many people who wash out or resign even after getting released to the streets because they really don't realize the elements of this job until it is too late. I urge you to do ride-alongs and really pick the officer's brain. Don't just sit in the seat and be a silent observer. Ask questions and make that officer explain things to you so you have a complete understanding of what is going on.

From that point you must assess your qualities and abilities. Most people understand that this career is incredibly dangerous and stressful, and everyone knows we carry a gun on our belt, etc... Tough guys will always say they would have no problem doing what we sometimes have to do, but I always ask people one question and I tell them they cannot answer it to me. They must think about it and only answer the question to themselves. If the situation arises, can you take a life? This career is becoming more and more dangerous as time goes on, especially due to the economic situation in our country and other factors such as drug use and felons having easy access to weapons. I'm only 22 years old and I've already had to shoot and kill a suspect. That is not something that anyone can take lightly and I hope I never have to do it again, but I can also promise you I will do it again if needed, without hesitation. These are things that people know, but don't fully comprehend until they get handed their gun/badge and get put into the fire. I see many new officers resign for these very reasons.

Side note to those earlier in this thread who said we're all jerks: The situation I mentioned in the previous paragraph regarding my deadly force response to a suspect occurred when I observed 3 teenagers in a county park after dusk. The park was closed and we had consistent problems with kids going back into the park area to do drugs and drink alcohol. One may see this as a very low risk scenario, possibly a scenario not too different from your negative experiences with a cop who didn't act as you would expect. I approached these three kids to simply tell them to leave the park, and one of them who I later realized had a felony warrant for grand theft decided he wanted to pull a switchblade knife on me and proceed to lunge at me. You can fill in the rest. Apply that to the thousands of other situations where a cop who doesn't know you is approaching your vehicle because you were speeding, or loitering in a parking lot, etc... How does he know you are innocent kids or wanted felons? I would hope the cop doesn't let his guard down and talk to you like he is your best friend, because it may not be you and it might be that wanted felon. If my guard wasn't up, can you imagine what may have happened if I wasn't ready to defend against the knife? It's food for thought next time you wonder why cops aren't extremely nice all of the time.

I don't say any of this to scare you, but I say it so you understand what you are going to be getting yourself into. As long as you are able to do what we do in this job, then you will have no problems and I wish you the best of luck. Don't let anyone discourage you, including the very people in this thread who share such negative opinions of law enforcement officers. I'm always available via PM for questions.

(Sorry for my rant, I just get irked when people try to paint law enforcement with such a broad stroke.)

Good luck to you!