Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Political Action Forum' started by Ramblingman, Aug 25, 2017.
Folks, get out your crayons and big chief and write that down.
Without boring everyone with an 18 week Academy schedule, and a 22 week ride-along Field Training program, the reason for knowing all those traffic laws is to use it for Probable Cause to make a stop, and investigate for REAL crimes.
The first couple weeks of FT, you learn how to spot traffic infractions. Learn how to write tickets quickly, safely, and correctly. After that, you better have a reason for pulling over a guy because he didn't signal, or rolled through an empty 4-way intersection, or has a brake light out. Our goal every shift was to find felony infractions, or wanted subjects. Since we were mainly responsible for answering calls for service, our stops had to have a purpose.
Now, motor cops, THEY are there to write traffic tickets.
Now, if my Sector/Beat has an uptick in burglary stats, I need to concentrate on 16-22 year old males, either on foot or driving, during school hours. THEY are the ones doing the crimes. I am profiling. (That is one example, every crime type, and Sector/Beat, has its' own profiling data.
If illegals are causing a problem in my Sector/Beat, guess who I am stopping. NOT because they are illegal, that is a side benefit. Because they are causing a disproportionate volume of the crime. Since the criminal justice system just wants to let them out with little or no punishment, getting them deported is a MUCH better way of reducing the crime.
Individual hurt feelings aside, seriously... does anyone doubt that crimes against property and people can be easily categorized statistically and those folks who typically do crimes against property and people can be identified via specific attributes that correlate to predictable behavior?
Corollary on the value of profiling: In the interest of prevention and amelioration while promoting local tranquility... aren't we better off in the long run by heading off trouble up front?
It would make sense, that if one isn't a perp, then don't do things or go places that are potential perp identifiers.
If parents and educators don't teach kids how to avoid stupidity, then who do we expect to do the chore? If the next line is law enforcement, then step back and let them try to recover the upstream failures.
Like drive while being Mexican in your own home town?
Like being 16-22 years of age walking on the street?
If they are acting/drawing suspicion, as was stated, then go get'm Dano. But they should not be guilty of being Mexican or a yout'
You left out the 'during school hours' part.
Except its hard to ignore actual data identifying the attributes from historical events. Agreed, though... the basis of a profile ought to be more than a seat of the pants suspicion.
Exactly, giving them a little extra eye time is definitely called for. But detaining or arresting...ehhhh kind of a slippery slope.
While I know what you mean, of all the people driving down the street, walking on the sidewalk, and 'that' person suddenly draws your 'suspicion'? Not, "Hey, there is a latin person, let's stop him.", but "Hey, something is out of place here."
I was a training officer, the new officer was driving. (true story) We were on a 2-lane each way road in the middle of town (Vegas). A car went by the other direction. I told my partner to turn around, and stop that car. He asked why, and I said the guy was drunk. He looked at me like I was deranged. But, we turned around, stopped him, and he was drunk. He asked me how I knew, and I honestly couldn't tell him. It would have been great to just say, "Oh, his head was drooping, he was slumped in the seat, his blinker was on, etc.", but I couldn't.
There are so many nuances to human behavior, and only extended time dealing with them will help you understand the signs of criminal behavior. An eye flick, head turn, change in stature, tiny little things. So, don't be too quick to dismiss a 'seat of the pants' suspicion.
There are 3 levels....
Contact: Something is wrong, don't know what, so you make a consensual stop. "Sir, can I talk to you for a moment?" Is he intimidated? Probably, but that isn't my fault. He is free to say 'no, I have places to go'. I have to let him go.
Detention: The officer has 'reasonable suspicion' to detain the person. That is defined as:
Reasonable suspicion is a standard established by the Supreme Court in a 1968 case in which it ruled that police officers should be allowed stop and briefly detain a person if, based upon the officer’s training and experience, there is reason to believe that the individual is engaging in criminal activity. The officer is given the opportunity to freeze the action by stepping in to investigate.
Law Dictionary: Definitions Of Probable Cause Vs. Reasonable Suspicion
Probable Cause (to arrest):
The facts and circumstances that would lead a reasonable person to believe that a crime had been committed, and that the accused had committed it. (that is from memory, Academy training)
All this comes down to the report. You have to be able to articulate on paper what brought that person to your attention. In my example of the DUI driver above, we had to follow him, till he weaved over the line, then make the stop. Me saying 'That guy is drunk" wasn't enough for a stop.
And, let me add here, all the things I am saying are the way it is SUPPOSED to be done. There is NO QUESTION these rules are not always followed. I taught, and acted, according to the rules, as much as I could. Human nature being what it is, I won't claim I never violated them, but I tried not to.
or identified as a member of a protected voting block that the libs are so fond of.