Shooting debrief discussion

[Spekkio]

Why should they stop someone walking down the street? Unless they have a legitimate reason to suspect that individual has committed a crime, they shouldn't be stopping people randomly walking down the street. This is precisely what people are upset about.

Counter-point: A good cop familiar with the neighborhood knows who is walking home from their night shift and who is looking to make a late night drug deal. It's not really that hard to figure out. Reasonable suspicion is legally enough to initiate a search. And a good cop might follow the former to make sure he/she isn't attacked by the latter.

 

[Swanee]

I'm at fault for not being clear enough.

Not stopping people for minor traffic offenses, I'm fine with whatever the public comes up with, and will enforce that. If you don't want laws enforced, repeal them. As to pulling people over with tag lights out, rolling stops, etc..just to make a bigger case. Surprise, I totally agree that it's not necessary. When I was in patrol, I would not let my guys do it.

Here are some reasons from this week in my jurisdiction that you might want to stop some walking at 0300 in the morning:

1. The guy who walked away from his car that had no insurance and fake tags, and who was probably drunk. ( strong odor of alcohol from the corpse, we are waiting on toxicology.) He made it about 600 ft walking away from that broken down car, wearing all black sweatsuit before he was hit by one car, and then a second car after his body landed in the on coming lane of traffic. I wish one of our road units had been there to stop him and see if he needed HELP as he walked down the road. That's one stop I wish we had made, I'm sure his family and the two people who hit him wished he had of been stopped.

2. The guy who was walking through an apartment building complex with a huge back pack. An apartment complex that has had continual problems with this offense. We made contact, and asked him if he lived in the complex, and was he ok. He takes off, and throws the back pack, which we recovered. Over 20 cars had been entered in that lot, and several guns recovered. He is a convicted felon, and has served two short sentences for armed robbery. I'm sure that had it turned into a use of force issue it would fall under the heading of another person stopped for walking and minding his own business. On a side note, if people could stop leaving their cars unlocked with guns inside, that would be great.

I think #2 goes with this one:

Counter-point: A good cop familiar with the neighborhood knows who is walking home from their night shift and who is looking to make a late night drug deal. It's not really that hard to figure out. Reasonable suspicion is legally enough to initiate a search. And a good cop might follow the former to make sure he/she isn't attacked by the latter.

My father-in-law was stopped by the cops after some folks called 911 complaining about a "scraggly" looking older man walking through their super fancy Cave Creek Az neighborhood early in the morning. My sister and brother in law are a doctor/lawyer power couple. He and my mother in law were visiting- and he walk/jogs 12 miles a day while the sun is coming up. Cops did a quick drive by, said, "Good morning, lovely day for a stroll, how're you doing?" And after a brief back and forth were all on their merry way. He looks like a hippy, long hair, beard, round glasses...

But I also understand that they don't need to bother someone who isn't doing something wrong.

I could go on, but you either get the picture or you don't.

Less intrusion into people's live by LE, I am in support of. Here are a few ways that we could start:

1. A person has a problem with their neighbor because they looked at them funny, don't cut their grass, cut it too early on Sunday, etc... They want something done, so they call 911. In most places, even though none of that is against the law, we get sent. Long conversations are had, much bitiching ensues as we explain we have no standing to get involved. We leave with another happy citizen who knows the law, knows what we should have done, and tells everyone till the end of time that we suck and did nothing. I'm fine with stopping that today.

2. Every call we get to " trouble with a business " The long took too long, the food was late, the tires that were advertised are not in stock, the cell phone contract is invalid, on and on I could go. Let's stop that too.

3. Someone is sick and needs an ambulance. We get sent to all of those, because, if you did not know, EMS won't go to scenes that are not safe. The scene magically becomes safe when we are there.

Interesting counterpoint: my brother is a paramedic / firefighter LT. He often tells me that in the predominantly poor black neighborhoods their "regulars" live in, the people are much easier to deal with if the police aren't there. In fact, they're all about telling EMS what happened and what they were doing and who they were doing it with- but as soon as the police show up everyone clams up and gets a little... aggressive. They've adjusted their SOPs for police response to those neighborhoods as a result.

We have some ideas on why this is, but they go WELL beyond the scope of this thread.

4. Mental illness and people in crisis. Every police will tell you that we are the worse possible solution to most people that are on the verge of committing suicide or suffering from some sort of dissociative break. Guess what; in 99% of the county, there are no mental health crisis teams to respond to those folks. We get that call, and get to deal with someone with issues, and in many cases are scared of us anyway. It turns out ok the majority of the time, but when it does not, in the court of public opinion that's just us taking every opportunity to shoot someone.

One of my biggest fears is that my wife, who is diagnosed Bipolar 2 disorder, will be on a manic attack- and will become more than the family or friends can handle. At that point, she needs someone who will de-escalate and calm things down. But police generally don't do that, they puff up and show authority. That's the last thing she would need- and I am afraid that even though it's been 8 years since her last major manic episode, that she'll end up being shot by the police.

I could go on, but let me get to the topic of using deadly force. In my 30 years, 100% of the people that I have known that had to take a life suffered ill effects from the process. Some work through it, but some never get close to the life they had before. I would hope that no one slips through and gets into LE wants to shoot anyone. If they do, they need to get gone, they are not what we need.

I'll end with this, we as a whole suck at communicating with people and explaining what happened and why. In my example above, if backpack man was a resident and getting ready to ruck march for 3 hours prior to going to work, and he gets stopped he thinks it's because he is black, white, gay, trans, whatever. If we take 1 min, literally 1 min, to explain that there have been thefts in the area, and we know that in many cases offenders wear oversize backpacks to stash their goods, he walks away glad we are out there and feeling safer. We suck at that and need to improve, which would help solve some of the bigger issues we face.

Much respect for admitting that.

 

[Brett327]

Counter-point: A good cop familiar with the neighborhood knows who is walking home from their night shift and who is looking to make a late night drug deal. It's not really that hard to figure out. Reasonable suspicion is legally enough to initiate a search. And a good cop might follow the former to make sure he/she isn't attacked by the latter.

A gut feeling does not meet the threshold for reasonable suspicion. You need PC to search, not reasonable suspicion - unless there's also reasonable suspicion that a deadly weapon is present.

 

[Spekkio]

A gut feeling does not meet the threshold for reasonable suspicion. You need PC to search, not reasonable suspicion - unless there's also reasonable suspicion that a deadly weapon is present.

Probable cause is for searching your property where you have a reasonable expectation of privacy or obtaining a warrant. Cops don't need probable cause to stop and frisk someone in public; probable cause is the threshold to arrest them.

Terry v. Ohio - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

And it's not just a gut feeling. It's knowing normal behaviors in the neighborhood.

 

[Brett327]

Probable cause is for searching your property where you have a reasonable expectation of privacy or obtaining a warrant. Cops don't need probable cause to stop and frisk someone in public; probable cause is the threshold to arrest them.

And it's not just a gut feeling. It's knowing normal behaviors in the neighborhood.

Based on my reading of the law, there needs to be reasonable suspicion of a deadly weapon before someone's person can be frisked/pat down. That does not include a search of one's pockets, for example. @GroundPounder - What's the threshold on this? If an LEO has reasonable suspicion that an individual has narcotics on their person, is that sufficient to execute a search of that person's pockets or backpack (assuming weapons aren't a factor)?

 

[exNavyOffRec]

Not stopping people for minor traffic offenses, I'm fine with whatever the public comes up with, and will enforce that. If you don't want laws enforced, repeal them. As to pulling people over with tag lights out, rolling stops, etc..just to make a bigger case. Surprise, I totally agree that it's not necessary. When I was in patrol, I would not let my guys do it.

I asked my current officer friends a few years ago if they stopped people for no tag lights, rolling stops, etc..... and there response surprised and concerned me, they said no, and what concerned me is that they said they were too busy with the guys going 100 MPH on the freeway, or DUI person who rear-ended another car, etc.... one of my trooper friends for several days in a row would pull over a DUI, processes them, go back and get another DUI with the hour, it was just crazy to me.

When I was on patrol many years ago we had guys that would work the shift that covered from 8 pm to 3 am and they always pulled people over for tag lights, brake lights, etc.... small stuff, and between those hours like 50% of the people they pulled over were DUI, we had one officer that in the period of 1 year was hit 3 times by DUI drivers, one hit him at low speed in the Village Inn parking lot, another blew a stop sign and t-boned him, and the third plowed into his car on the state Hwy as he was investigated another DUI (he wasn't in the vehicle that time), 2 of the cars were totaled.

I pulled over some people for the small stuff, never wrote a ticket for it, I would let them know what was wrong and they should try to get it fixed as if their other headlight or brake light went out then it would be hard to see. I never had anyone get mad, I talked to them from the point that I wanted to be helpful.

 

[magnetfreezer]

1. A person has a problem with their neighbor because they looked at them funny, don't cut their grass, cut it too early on Sunday, etc... They want something done, so they call 911. In most places, even though none of that is against the law, we get sent. Long conversations are had, much bitiching ensues as we explain we have no standing to get involved. We leave with another happy citizen who knows the law, knows what we should have done, and tells everyone till the end of time that we suck and did nothing. I'm fine with stopping that today.

2. Every call we get to " trouble with a business " The long took too long, the food was late, the tires that were advertised are not in stock, the cell phone contract is invalid, on and on I could go. Let's stop that too.

Would the existing fines/penalties for false 911 calls cover these situations? Especially a few publicized by the police PAO would deter that kind of stuff. Or publicized SOP that the 911 dispatchers are allowed to not dispatch if there's no probable cause in the call? Hangup, open line etc. would still need a response since they could be someone threatened, etc. who couldn't talk.

 

[Jim123]

Would the existing fines/penalties for false 911 calls cover these situations? Especially a few publicized by the police PAO

I think a lot of those bogus 911 calls fall under "you can't fix stupid."

Part of me thinks that the people calling them in are probably too stupid/incapable of being productive members of society except to make license plates for a few months- but our prisons are crowded with nonviolent offenders and stupidity isn't a crime (perhaps unfortunately). I think it's infuriating when people use 911 for that stuff though.

 

[FinkUFreaky]

Yeah, anyone remember the operator Mike Forbess, a few (by a few I guess I mean 15) years ago? Woman calls in, says she can't control her 12 and 14 year olds. He replies sarcastically, "OK. Do you want us to come over to shoot her?" Might not be the right thread for this but it's what I thought of in the illegitimate 9-11 calls subthread in my brain. Best part is right afterwards (including an apology) the woman apparently was no longer in danger or in need of assistance, and went full Karen asking to speak to his boss.

 

[GroundPounder]

Would the existing fines/penalties for false 911 calls cover these situations? Especially a few publicized by the police PAO would deter that kind of stuff. Or publicized SOP that the 911 dispatchers are allowed to not dispatch if there's no probable cause in the call? Hangup, open line etc. would still need a response since they could be someone threatened, etc. who couldn't talk.

Fines are really a non starter, in fairness to people we have spend the last 50 years drumming 911 in their head. We have also trained them that when they call, a car is coming. What my county has started is a 311 number that has operators that farm out their calls to the right part of the government, or a private entity in certain situations. If 311 could be a thing everywhere it would get better over time.

Fines do come into play with certain people, and certain circumstances. Every agency has at least one or two people that are sane enough to live on their own, but in reality suffer from non -violent mental illnesses. We have three people that I can think of off the top of my head that might call 911 a hundred times a month, each. People in their house, neighbors shouting at them through the TV, that sort of thing.

 

[GroundPounder]

Based on my reading of the law, there needs to be reasonable suspicion of a deadly weapon before someone's person can be frisked/pat down. That does not include a search of one's pockets, for example. @GroundPounder - What's the threshold on this? If an LEO has reasonable suspicion that an individual has narcotics on their person, is that sufficient to execute a search of that person's pockets or backpack (assuming weapons aren't a factor)?

Quick answer, I'll be more detailed later. We can do a pat down for weapons, under certain circumstances. Weapons have a particular feel, outline, weight etc... Once we ID it as a weapon we can go in the pocket and take it out. Other things in pockets are another category all together. If I were to pat someone down and feel what I thought was drug paraphernalia, and I could ID it as such, then I can take it out. If I have to " manipulate " it by pressing down on it, trying to turn it around, etc. then that is a search. If I'm searching someone, then I need probable cause to conduct that search.

Plain view is also an area where what is and is not a search comes in. Say I went into your house because you called 911 to report A crime. While I am in your house I notice 22 boxed 60 inch HDTVs. If I can see the serial number on one of the boxes, I can run it and see if it was reported stolen. If I have to move the boxes around, or tilt one to reveal the serial number, than I have just conducted a warrant-less search and risk that evidence being thrown out. That search would have been improper.

Frisks for weapons, are not really considered a search, they are an exception. It comes from Terry vs. Ohio. Note that a hunch does not get you to the point of conducting a Terry frisk. You need reasonable suspicion. I'll get to that again when I answer your other question about NYPD stop and frisk.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terry_v._Ohio

 

[GroundPounder]

I think #2 goes with this one:




Interesting counterpoint: my brother is a paramedic / firefighter LT. He often tells me that in the predominantly poor black neighborhoods their "regulars" live in, the people are much easier to deal with if the police aren't there. In fact, they're all about telling EMS what happened and what they were doing and who they were doing it with- but as soon as the police show up everyone clams up and gets a little... aggressive. They've adjusted their SOPs for police response to those neighborhoods as a result.

We have some ideas on why this is, but they go WELL beyond the scope of this thread.

I think that people would be better served if we were not there. If someone is having a medical issue, they need to be honest about what they have taken that might be causing the problem. People trust EMS/FIre, we should not get int the way of that.

One of my biggest fears is that my wife, who is diagnosed Bipolar 2 disorder, will be on a manic attack- and will become more than the family or friends can handle. At that point, she needs someone who will de-escalate and calm things down. But police generally don't do that, they puff up and show authority. That's the last thing she would need- and I am afraid that even though it's been 8 years since her last major manic episode, that she'll end up being shot by the police.

PM me on that topic, I have a few suggestions that might ease your anxiety about that happening.

Much respect for admitting that.

 

[E6BFlightComp]

Not stopping people for minor traffic offenses, I'm fine with whatever the public comes up with, and will enforce that. If you don't want laws enforced, repeal them. As to pulling people over with tag lights out, rolling stops, etc..just to make a bigger case. Surprise, I totally agree that it's not necessary. When I was in patrol, I would not let my guys do it.

LA Times has a very interesting article on this: https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1995-05-15-me-841-story.html

Many a mass criminals have been caught on routine traffic stops, the likes of which catch countrywide reputation such as Ted Bundy, Randy Kraft, and the infamous Timothy McVeigh. It is also said that minor traffic stops can be among the most dangerous for an officer. Most traffic stops are made in order to progress to a bigger reason under viable suspicion. The Bureau of Justice Statistics (https://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?tid=702&ty=tp) lists that a majority of police interactions occur during routine traffic stops with the second being requests for police assistance. A sizeable portion of the traffic stops interactions lead to criminal arrests for drugs, unregistered firearms and human trafficking. But a majority of the stops will lead to the officer advising a person to fix whatever it is that prompted the stop in the first place.

That is unless the person is "traveling" in their vessel trying not to be harassed by the damn road pirates.

 

[taxi1]

4. Mental illness and people in crisis. Every police will tell you that we are the worse possible solution to most people that are on the verge of committing suicide or suffering from some sort of dissociative break. Guess what; in 99% of the county, there are no mental health crisis teams to respond to those folks. We get that call, and get to deal with someone with issues, and in many cases are scared of us anyway. It turns out ok the majority of the time, but when it does not, in the court of public opinion that's just us taking every opportunity to shoot someone.

We had that sort of incident last year. A family called the police and asked them to do a wellness check on their son. Ended up with a loss of life. I can't imagine being the family getting the report back.

Borough Leaders Expect 'Fair And Independent' Investigation Into Police Shooting Death Of State College Man

"As a community member I am going through these moment-by-moment feelings beside you. As a community leader I’m working to get answers. I spoke staff yesterday. I’ve asked for a leadership briefing. I’ll continue to advocate for transparency and information sharing."

onwardstate.com

 

[GroundPounder]

LA Times has a very interesting article on this: https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1995-05-15-me-841-story.html

Many a mass criminals have been caught on routine traffic stops, the likes of which catch countrywide reputation such as Ted Bundy, Randy Kraft, and the infamous Timothy McVeigh. It is also said that minor traffic stops can be among the most dangerous for an officer. Most traffic stops are made in order to progress to a bigger reason under viable suspicion. The Bureau of Justice Statistics (https://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?tid=702&ty=tp) lists that a majority of police interactions occur during routine traffic stops with the second being requests for police assistance. A sizeable portion of the traffic stops interactions lead to criminal arrests for drugs, unregistered firearms and human trafficking. But a majority of the stops will lead to the officer advising a person to fix whatever it is that prompted the stop in the first place.

That is unless the person is "traveling" in their vessel trying not to be harassed by the damn road pirates.

I think what the person that I was answering meant was just using the stops as attempts to get voluntary consents to search, or a K9 sweep of the car. I've pulled over tons of people for weaving , California stops, 1 headlight or brake light out etc.. In my world, after it was obvious you were not drunk which caused the offense, or now know about the equipment failure you were on your way. I found that people were fine with that, and it increased the safety of the motoring public.

I'm in favor of what I described, but a little dubious about pulling people over for tag lights out, and then trying to go somewhere with that.

Someone earlier made the point, but you can stay very busy as a traffic car doing nothing but pulling people over that are exceeding the speed limit by 30 mph and over.

My state started about 15 years ago to really ramp up the fines for regular offenses. When I started, a stop sign case was around 70 bucks, and not they are at least 200. My personal policy was warnings only unless the licence or tag was suspended/revoked or it involved a traffic accident.