Your partner yells "Get that guy!"

[broke]

Hello everyone!

I just wanted to pose the following scenario:

You are on foot patrol near a beach and as you walk down the sidewalk you see a man walk quickly in front of you.

Suddenly, you hear your partner who is about 20 feet away and driving toward you on an ATV shout "Get that guy!"

You see him point at the man

You look at the man and tell him to stop, but he takes off running toward the beach.

Now, you don't know WHY you are chasing this guy...only that your partner yelled at you to catch him.

You sprint up and catch up to him, and now the man is running parallell to the water and you are running parallel with him...on the outside of him with the beach on your right, the suspect on your left.

And you have him cornered in effect...he can only run in the water (to his left) or toward you (to his right) to fight hands on.

What do you do?

If you choose to stop him...HOW would you stop him?

What technique would you use? What tools? And why?


:o

[L-1]

What do you do? :o

Assuming the law in your state is the same as it is in mine, you detain him/take him into custody.

In my state the law says that a person seeking to make an arrest (your partner) may summon as many people as he deems necessary (you) to assist in the completion of that arrest. The law further states that implicit with your ability to be summoned, is your right to make the arrest, just as if the crime were committed in your presence (even though it was not).

[deputy x 2]

Do as your partner says..period. You don't have to know the reason.

Running parallel on the beach? "Get that guy" means STOP HIM don't let him continue to run. Cut him off and detain him immediately.

[exComptonCop]

If my partner was twenty feet away from me, and approaching on an ATV, wouldn't he/she, the partner on the ATV, be able to "get that guy" quicker, on the ATV? :confused:

[broke]

If you were to detain him, how would you do it?

Would you grab him, not knowing if he was armed or not....would you pepper spray him? (defensive resistance)

What tactics would you use and why?

[mobrien316]

If you were to detain him, how would you do it?

Would you grab him, not knowing if he was armed or not....would you pepper spray him? (defensive resistance)

What tactics would you use and why?

You would use the minimum amount of force necessary to detain the person.

Sometimes all it takes is saying, "Stop."

Sometimes it takes more.

[SRT936]

You would use the minimum amount of force necessary to detain the person.

Sometimes all it takes is saying, "Stop."

Sometimes it takes more.

As I've said before, I'd argue that you use the maximum allowable force to effect the stop. Its a matter of semantics, but it makes a better mental model for officer's to follow.

In the situation at hand, saying "stop" didn't work, so its time to elevate. Seeing as I'm already running parallel with him, a nice little tackle should do the trick. Once on the ground, I'd evaluate his response and my options. If he's still resisting, I may consider elevating to OC or Taser. Problem is though, they require me to free up a hand that's probably busy controlling him. I'd probably engage in a few compliance or active countermeasures to gain control. It shouldn't be long before hes in cuffs.

[broke]

But what if the guy is armed with a knife or something? or is a grappler?

Maybe a tackle or a trip would have worked.

Now, what if the guy jumps in the water?

What then? Do you chase?

[mdrdep]

If I got my x-26 with me he's getting a little edison medicine

[GIPD]

"edison medicine"

lol nice.

[CruiserClass]

I zoned out at "your on the beach and..." What was the rest of the question?

Oh yeah, tackle. You can't base your actions on what you don't know (knife, grappler, suicide bomber) just what you know at the time. What I know right now is he's running and my partner would rather he wasn't. Oh, and I suck at sprinting so I better do whatever I'm going to do pretty quick. I'm surprised I've kept on with him this long, actually.:D

[broke]

Ok so next time the guy's going upside down.

Thanks for the input everyone I do appreciate it!

[Gene L]

Tackle him...gotta take your chances with him like anyone else. If you get soaked, you'll probably get the rest of the day off to change clothes.

Get him means "GET HIM." Although the X 26 is the best answer.

God should issue one to each police officer in the world.

[Nightshift va]

Hello everyone!

I just wanted to pose the following scenario:

You are on foot patrol near a beach and as you walk down the sidewalk you see a man walk quickly in front of you.

Suddenly, you hear your partner who is about 20 feet away and driving toward you on an ATV shout "Get that guy!"

You see him point at the man

You look at the man and tell him to stop, but he takes off running toward the beach.

Now, you don't know WHY you are chasing this guy...only that your partner yelled at you to catch him.

You sprint up and catch up to him, and now the man is running parallell to the water and you are running parallel with him...on the outside of him with the beach on your right, the suspect on your left.

And you have him cornered in effect...he can only run in the water (to his left) or toward you (to his right) to fight hands on.

What do you do?

If you choose to stop him...HOW would you stop him?

What technique would you use? What tools? And why?


:o

Thats one of my biggest problems with the newer crop of recruits I have to Field Train, they dont understand how important it is to not always question everything they are told to do. You should do as your partner told you and take the subject into custody. Id do so in your scenario with a head tackle then apply a nice coat of oc spray before putting them in handcuffs. Why is there even a question. Your partner has what he feels is some kind of PC and you should assist him especially if he ask you to.:cool:

[Phlip]

+1 for following your partners orders.

You can ask questions when you're done in something like that.

[Nightshift va]

But what if the guy is armed with a knife or something? or is a grappler?

Maybe a tackle or a trip would have worked.

Now, what if the guy jumps in the water?

What then? Do you chase?

If he pulls" a knife he gets shot. The grappler martial artist crap is why I say after you stop him with a tackle you apply OC or taser if you have one. If the guy jumps into the water let him drown or keep an eye on him til he tires out..eventually he will either wash onto shore or be tired out enough to pull into shore I dont think fighting someone in the water is to the advantage of a police officer so I wouldnt suggest trying it, the advantage always has to be with us not the crook.

[broke]

Thats one of my biggest problems with the newer crop of recruits I have to Field Train, they dont understand how important it is to not always question everything they are told to do. You should do as your partner told you and take the subject into custody. Id do so in your scenario with a head tackle then apply a nice coat of oc spray before putting them in handcuffs. Why is there even a question. Your partner has what he feels is some kind of PC and you should assist him especially if he ask you to.:cool:


Next time he goes down!

What happened:

the guy was being stopped for jaywalking and then flipping off an officer who told him to stop.

[broke]

If he pulls" a knife he gets shot. The grappler martial artist crap is why I say after you stop him with a tackle you apply OC or taser if you have one. If the guy jumps into the water let him drown or keep an eye on him til he tires out..eventually he will either wash onto shore or be tired out enough to pull into shore I dont think fighting someone in the water is to the advantage of a police officer so I wouldnt suggest trying it, the advantage always has to be with us not the crook.

I was wary about being near the water because we were told about an officer who tried to subdue a suspect in a few feet of water.

The guy was a grappler and put the officer's head in a hold then sat down...nearly drowning the officer

[broke]

+1 for following your partners orders.

You can ask questions when you're done in something like that.

Thanks for the advice. I will take it to heart.

[deputy x 2]

But what if the guy is armed with a knife or something? or is a grappler?

Maybe a tackle or a trip would have worked.

Now, what if the guy jumps in the water?

What then? Do you chase?

No matter who you stop under any circumstances WATCH HIS HANDS!!!

[kjk203]

Take His Sorry Butt Down, Stick Him, Taze Him Tackle Him Just Get It Done Now.

If You Start Wrestling Your Partner On The Atv Should Be Able To Help Heck Run The Sob Over If You Got To Geez.

Sudden Extreme Violence Usualy Takes The Fight Out Of 99% Of Those Who Chose To Be An Idiot The Other 1% Should Be Shot In The Head.


As A Friends Motto Goes

Assistance From A Distance By.308

I Am Here To Assist You From Being Stupid As You Realy Do Not Want To Be Stupid. But Some Thing Just Makes You Be Stupid So

Bang!!!!!!

[ChiTownDet]

Well, some town, city, county decided to give you a badge, gun, fast car, a thing that can zap 50K volts into someone, the power to take away someone's freedom or their life, and is hopefully paying more than minimum wage. They are hoping you can make a logical decision and do it in a split second. You use your common sense and training and hope for the best. If an offender does something, you adapt your response to his actions. This isn't a poli-sci class where you have until next week to turn in your 10 page paper on "If my partner yells "Grab him," what would I do, and why." The problem I see with the newer people on the job is too much college, not enough common sense.

[RedRaider911]

acting in good faith based upon your partners orders....

[SRT936]

But what if the guy is armed with a knife or something?

If I see that he's actively armed with a knife, its *bang*,*bang* time.


or is a grappler?


No way to tell this until you're on the ground with him. This is why you train, train, and then train some more. Be strong, capable, and skilled so that you can overcome any bad guy. Remember, losing is not an option.


Now, what if the guy jumps in the water?

What then? Do you chase?

Then I take a little breather and watch the idiot tire himself out fighting the surf. Sooner or later, he'll get tired and come back to shore. Meantime, I'll be getting well rested to finish the gig.

But if I responded properly from the start, he wouldn't have the opportunity to get to the water in the first place.

[L-1]

This is the second thread you've started in which you appear to express concern about detaining someone or taking them into custody based solely on the request or directiopn of another officer.

Whay are you concerned about this? Similarly, why are you so worried about how to take a resisting suspect into custody? Your posts suggest you just got out of the academy. Didn't they address these areas? Is your FTO unwilling to discuss these issues with you?

Please don't misunderstand - I'm not trying to give you a hard time. It's just that no matter how much advice you get from the people on this forum, you are still going to have to do it the way your department and FTO want you to, if you are going to pass probation with your agency.

[WASP1]

First of all like has been stated earlier, if my partner tells me that, no hesitation to stop this guy. Apparently something went on, even though I did not see it my partner did and that is good enough.
Secondly, level of force would depends on him. Since he is running he doesn't want to play nice, so take the lead in that dance. Whatever it takes, as a LEO we always have the upper hand. Resort back to your training. The cool thing about us is we have all these nifty tools in our arsenal designed for ppl like that (ie Hands on, OC, Baton, etc.). It comes down to trusting your partner (and you BETTER, your life could depend on it one day) and using your training and tools.

[broke]

This is the second thread you've started in which you appear to express concern about detaining someone or taking them into custody based solely on the request or directiopn of another officer.

Whay are you concerned about this? Similarly, why are you so worried about how to take a resisting suspect into custody? Your posts suggest you just got out of the academy. Didn't they address these areas? Is your FTO unwilling to discuss these issues with you?

Please don't misunderstand - I'm not trying to give you a hard time. It's just that no matter how much advice you get from the people on this forum, you are still going to have to do it the way your department and FTO want you to, if you are going to pass probation with your agency.

Just want to make sure I do the right thing and not go over board.

That's all.

Next time, I will know what to do. It won't be a problem.

[broke]

It comes down to trusting your partner (and you BETTER, your life could depend on it one day) and using your training and tools.

This is the part that bothers me.

I had a 3rd scenario recently where I had to trust my partner, that he knew what he was doing when he told me to arrest somebody...and I almost got burned.


Scenario 3:

I am on foot patrol and come across a fight in progress about 100 ft away.

I yell, "Police! Stop!" and run toward the crowd with my flashlight trained on them...it appears a man is holding down a woman and another woman is being restrained by another woman.

As I get to the group, no one has a weapon, no one is taking an aggressive stance toward me...in fact, everyone is sorta just focused on holding the 2 females back from each other.


As I get even closer, one of the females being restrained takes off running. I chase her without hesitation and she stops running and gives up about 20 ft away.


As I am "detaining her" and not putting the cuffs on her (because she is not resisting anymore and I'm trying to get her story) I see my partner about 20 feet away with the group of people and he's telling me to hook her up.

I do not know why he is telling me but in this case...I do trust that he knows what he's doing and hook her up.


Anyway turns out the victim doesn't wanna prosecute so we unhook the lady and let her go.


Now comes the tricky part...where I live you cannot just put the handcuffs on suspects especially if they are NOT under arrest, and only in investigative detention. They are very strict here about that.

When I wrote my report, my Sgt wanted to know WHY I put the lady in cuffs. He wanted to know why my partner directed me to cuff her.

So, I ask my partner if he had in fact talked to the other party and found out that the lady I was detaining was the suspect...and that that was the reason why he told me to cuff her.

Did he talk to the victim and find out the lady I was talking to was the suspect?

No...he had not.

He just guessed that because the lady was running away she HAD to be the suspect.

So, because I trusted that my partner knew what he was doing, I almost got burned.

[broke]

So in scenario three, I asked another of my classmates what he would have done had his partner simply told him to "handcuff that lady" without giving a reason.

My classmate said he would NOT handcuff without knowing why.

Instead, he would have told his partner to handcuff the lady.

[BigRob]

first of all where are you from, why can't you handcuff while detained. second in your partner tells you to take them down, you do what you have to do and worry about all the politics later

[broke]

first of all where are you from, why can't you handcuff while detained. second in your partner tells you to take them down, you do what you have to do and worry about all the politics later

I don't want to say BigRob because some of my classmates and superiors might visit here.

This is a very liberal state where the crooks seem to have more rights than the cops.

Even a car is considered a "sealed container" and requires a search warrant.

If I find an object wrapped in a napkin on a suspect, I cannot even unwrap that napkin since it would be considered an search and a warrant would be required.

[DOAcop38]

This is the part that bothers me.

I had a 3rd scenario recently where I had to trust my partner, that he knew what he was doing when he told me to arrest somebody...and I almost got burned.


try this -" thyjuan taplin V.city of los angeles"; you should TRUST your partner,but also you should immediate ask questions as soon as the situation warrants it,as well a be prepared -on paper and even verbally to a supervisor or invs. that you had "limited" information and responded or reacted only under what you believed to be exigent circumstances requiring your reaction("NEVER" admit,report or testify to events or activities you were "blind" to or have no independent knowledge of).your partner in the scenario you gave ,wasn't "wrong" nor were you in placing handcuffs on the person- you had a defacto arrest the moment you stopped or demanded the person("the "lady") to halt and submit to your authority-handcuffed or not, the only way you could not have an arrest is that the "lady" knew or was told she could walk away;if you release a person without restraining them,do not advise them they are subject of a criminal investigation and theres no transportation,then you have a detention only-here in California ,a Peace officer can detain someone based on the "belief" that a crime occurred or will occur,even IF its later discovered that there is not crime.Also, i'll NEVER understand Depts or Sates,or localities that moan and cry over the use of handcuffs to detain someone(handcuffs don't EQUAL arrests!!)These are the SAME depts that have officers injured after draggin their feet to decide if a crime has occurred then trying "officially" arrest the person after allowing them to get worked up and even more resistant.

IF ANYTHING,we often use them to deffuse situations and deter potential altercations between the officers and suspects,or to prevent the potential resistance and escape of individuals we detain for investigations.now naturally ,i'm sure there are MACHO coppers from other states that'll swear up and down this violates a persons "rights" and even cite the oft used " 80 yr old granma" as a suspect excuse to NOT use handcuffs,and ture- you don't need to handcuff everyone you deal with9like a compliant driver who is only reading the citation you are about to issue) but how many times do you have to see an officer going thru a guzzillion questions on a investigative stop of a felony narcotics suspect and they are have enough to to place the person under arrest but drag their feet in handcuffing the suspect?

now lastly on that "sealed container"-i don't know of many states where a peace officer has no legal right to enter and inspect a vehicle,much less search a vehicle pursuant to the arrest of its occupants-only time a person has reasonable expectation of privacy is when its a consensual issue-if you can see it,smell it,hear it or feel it,you have "PC"

[DOAcop38]

...and that wrapped item??? please email me he State- and I'm sure that THAT state has had a legal rendering on the matter in favor of the officer

[broke]

Thanks for the write up, I do appreciate it.

I agree, I wouldn't have been in the wrong had I decided to handcuff her myself. After all, she tried to run away!

But again, our state is very very strict when it comes to that.

The rule here is, If a person thinks he or she is not free to leave, that is considered to be an arrest.


That's how strict it is here.

[Resq14]

What other answer is there to "What do I do when my partner says, 'Stop Him!"... aside from STOPPING HIM!?!?! Did you attend a full-fledged police academy? What gives?

In my neck of the woods, handcuffing does not equal arrest, nor is it, in and of itself, a use of force. I handcuff detainees routinely. Handcuff early and often.

[StudChris]

Who cares that the other person didn't want to prosecute, she resisted (running away from you), and that alone is enough cause to hook her up.

And I think that whoever told you that you can't handcuff someone who actively resists you is full of it. The handcuffs go on for officer safety, not so someone can know without a doubt that they're being detained for questioning.

[CruiserClass]

This is a very liberal state where the crooks seem to have more rights than the cops.

Even a car is considered a "sealed container" and requires a search warrant.

If I find an object wrapped in a napkin on a suspect, I cannot even unwrap that napkin since it would be considered an search and a warrant would be required.

Holy Hippy-fest Batman! Is that a state or a love-in?

[BrickCop]

But what if the guy is armed with a knife or something?

I pull out Mr. Glock.

or is a grappler?

If empty handed control fails I'd use OC, baton or taser (if issued).

Maybe a tackle or a trip would have worked.

You're looking for a one size fits all reply to an incident with many variables. BTW, it is not a great idea to tackle the aforementioned knife wielding suspect from a tactical standpoint.

Now, what if the guy jumps in the water? What then? Do you chase?

It depends- is he just wading around out there? If so I'm getting wet, if he decides to swim out 50 yards I'd keep him in sight and call in the Harbor guys or the Coast Guard or if all else fails David "Mitch Buchanon" Hasselhoff.

[L-1]

Re scenario three, I am even more at a loss.

You yell, "Police, stop!" and the woman takes off running, forcing you to go after her and physically stop her. There are clearly grounds for arrest here (and the resulting handcuffing) because the woman has refused to obey your command and in doing so has obstructed, interfered and delayed you in carrying out your duties, yet your sergeant chews you out for cuffing her because she is no longer resisting??? Like the other have said, something doesn't smell right.

And as far as being under arrest if you are not free to leave - it's somewhat the same thing in my state, however, how that's interpreted will vary from department to department. My agency says once the cuffs go on you are under arrest while the department next door doesn't consider it to be an arrest until you are physically booked at their jail. Nonetheless, the law (at least in my state) anticipates that from time to time, the police will stop, involuntarily detain, hook up or even book people who reasonably appear to have committed a crime but later turn out not to have done so after all. The law says this can be remedied by giving them a little card declaring that theirs was a detention only and not an arrest. No harm, no foul. I bet your state has the same provisions.

Again, I think a lot is missing from your stories here.

[broke]

[QUOTE=Resq14;956665]

You're in Hawaii, according to my research. [QUOTE]





thanks for respecting my privacy

[broke]

There is nothing missing from the scenarios

That's all it was. Thanks for the replies!

[kc12]

My method, since we weren't issued Tasers, is tackle the guy, but make sure you grab his arms, they are what hurts. If you are successful at grabbing his arms the ground becomes sandpaper on his face. That always looks good to the other inmates.:D

[13B to 13D]

I'm not an LEO yet so tell me if this would be the wrong thing to do. I in fact had a similar situation in Iraq. I was told to stop a man who was running from the MP's. Just like in the first senario mentioned I was running parallel to him only instead of water, it was a barb wire fence. Normally, I would have shot him, but the situation came up unexpectedly while on the base and I did not have time to load my weapon. So, I ran up along side him and using my body, I knocked him into the fence similarly the way a hockey player would check someone into the boards. While he tangled himself in the barb wire, I took the opertunity to load my weapon and I held him at gunpoint until the MP's who were about 50 yards behind me came up to take him into custody.
If this had been in the United States, and had I been an LEO, would this have been the right thing? Furthermore, what type of escalation of force do police use and how does it differ from that of the Army?

[CruiserClass]

thanks for respecting my privacy

Being a public forum and all, don't post anything you don't want the world to see.

That said, if you do want your location to remain hidden, try an anonymizer service that blocks your true IP address.

http://www.freeproxy.ru/en/free_proxy/cgi-proxy.htm

There are several listed there.

[JohnV]

Based on what you've told me about your current department's policies and state laws - I'd move.

I would never work for a department or in a state that does not allow me to cuff any possible suspect(s) until I can determine whether or not a crime has been committed and what their involvement (if any) has been in the incident.

That is a MAJOR officer safety issue and a good way to get yourself (or someone else) hurt or killed.

You can always pick up the person off the ground, dust them off, and take the cuffs off of them when you conclude that they have not committed a crime.

If this is not how your department/state works, move. They aren't paying you enough to hang your neck out there every time you come in contact with a possible suspect(s) to completely disregard basic officer safety and put yourself at greater risk.

[Smurfette_76]

[QUOTE=Resq14;956665]

You're in Hawaii, according to my research. [QUOTE]





thanks for respecting my privacy

You have no expectation of privacy on an internet forum.

[madchiken]

thanks for respecting my privacy

You're the one that posted where you live!!

About 2 minutes of research and anyone can find out where you work.

[Resq14]

Not sure what else to say, other than "wow."

[NorwichGrad05]

This is the second thread you've started in which you appear to express concern about detaining someone or taking them into custody based solely on the request or direction of another officer.

Whay are you concerned about this? Similarly, why are you so worried about how to take a resisting suspect into custody? Your posts suggest you just got out of the academy. Didn't they address these areas? Is your FTO unwilling to discuss these issues with you?

Please don't misunderstand - I'm not trying to give you a hard time. It's just that no matter how much advice you get from the people on this forum, you are still going to have to do it the way your department and FTO want you to, if you are going to pass probation with your agency.

I agree man...why you so nervous about stopping a perp? Just be glad that you have an FTO...I didn't have one..you know who my FTO was? A rookie just like me that got out the academy 6 months prior...if you so nervous about it, you stop someone...fill out the "stop, question and frisk" card...also known as the "terry search" rule..EVERY police dept. does that one..and it covers you in case some jerk tries to sue you for violation of his "civil liberties"...I hope that all the guys with a lil' more time than you helped out..and the whole thing about cuffing or not being allowed to cuff..honestly...do what you HAVE to do in the street, your boss ain't gonna be the one fighting with your suspect..you will be..so do what you must. New York City is VERY liberal and HATE police, but we still do what we gotta do..

[broke]

Being a public forum and all, don't post anything you don't want the world to see.

That said, if you do want your location to remain hidden, try an anonymizer service that blocks your true IP address.

http://www.freeproxy.ru/en/free_proxy/cgi-proxy.htm

There are several listed there.

Thanks for the info!

[bigstakz]

This is the second thread you've started in which you appear to express concern about detaining someone or taking them into custody based solely on the request or directiopn of another officer.

Whay are you concerned about this? Similarly, why are you so worried about how to take a resisting suspect into custody? Your posts suggest you just got out of the academy. Didn't they address these areas? Is your FTO unwilling to discuss these issues with you?

Please don't misunderstand - I'm not trying to give you a hard time. It's just that no matter how much advice you get from the people on this forum, you are still going to have to do it the way your department and FTO want you to, if you are going to pass probation with your agency.
I agree 100%!

[broke]

:) Our probation ends in t-minus 7 hrs....


Thank you God for making my dream come true :o

[broke]

congrats man. can't wait until I'm there too.

Congrats to you in advance ;)

[broke]

dont forget OBSTRUCTION

Over here the Obstructing Gov't Operations law is a bit different.

It only applies to someone knowingly/intentionally trying to stop an investigation, for e.g., putting up a fence to stop officers from investigating a crime, from reaching a crime scene.

[Resq14]

Over here the Obstructing Gov't Operations law is a bit different.

It only applies to someone knowingly/intentionally trying to stop an investigation, for e.g., putting up a fence to stop officers from investigating a crime, from reaching a crime scene.

You're trying to tell us that there is no law (perhaps titled something different) that prevents someone from interfering with your job???

[broke]

You're trying to tell us that there is no law (perhaps titled something different) that prevents someone from interfering with your job???

there is the old standby "Resisting Arrest"


there's "Refusing to Obey the Lawful Order of a LEO to Stop" that applies to motorists refusing to pull over or obey my commands while directing traffic.

[Resq14]

I'd already looked it up... just curious what your reply would be. I suggest you go over this stuff with experienced officers from your agency... cuz I have a different take on it, as it's similar to my state's "obstructing" statute...

PART II. OBSTRUCTION OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION

§710-1010 Obstructing government operations. (1) A person commits the offense of obstructing government operations if, by using or threatening to use violence, force, or physical interference or obstacle, the person intentionally obstructs, impairs, or hinders:
(a) The performance of a governmental function by a public servant acting under color of the public servant's official authority;

(b) The enforcement of the penal law or the preservation of the peace by a law enforcement officer acting under color of the law enforcement officer's official authority

This is important, basic stuff that you need to have down cold. When it's "go time" and you're all alone, you can't stop to open the statutes to see what -- if anything -- fits.

[broke]

I'd already looked it up... just curious what your reply would be. I suggest you go over this stuff with experienced officers from your agency... cuz I have a different take on it, as it's similar to my state's "obstructing" statute...



This is important, basic stuff that you need to have down cold. When it's "go time" and you're all alone, you can't stop to open the statutes to see what -- if anything -- fits.


What I wrote earlier is what we were taught at the academy. That was the example we were given.

Despite what the law says in writing....it does not mean it will fly with the Prosecutor's office.

Yes the statute you quote could be used to interpret that a fleeing suspect is "Obstructing Gov't Operations" so technically I could arrest for that.

But I'd rather not seeing I might be frowned upon by my superiors not to mention the prosecutors office who will most likely toss the case out.

About the prosecutors tossing cases out for enforcing certain laws, that is something we were also taught. Not at the academy but while on the road.

[broke]

For the record while living here all my life and reading the police section of the newspaper for most of my adult life I have never seen anyone arrested for Obstructing Gov't Operations using the scenario I described.

Nor have I ever seen it applied during my time at the academy or on the road.

[broke]

I'd already looked it up... just curious what your reply would be. I suggest you go over this stuff with experienced officers from your agency... cuz I have a different take on it, as it's similar to my state's "obstructing" statute...



This is important, basic stuff that you need to have down cold. When it's "go time" and you're all alone, you can't stop to open the statutes to see what -- if anything -- fits.

I see what you are saying. :)

[broke]

............

[L-1]

I'd already looked it up.

I looked it up, too, and after reading the legislative intent, it appears some of Hawaii's laws were written by the script writers of Law & Order (you know, where they make up the most stupid laws that make no sense at all).

In California if you tell someone to stop and they wilfully refuse it's an automatic resisting/obstructing. But here's what Hawaii's legislative intent said about their law in that area:

Resisting arrest is one of the commonest forms of obstructing government operation. The Code deals specifically with resisting arrest out of a desire to confine the offense to forcible resistance that involves some substantial danger to the person. Mere non-submission ought not to be an offense. One who runs away from an arresting officer or who makes an effort to shake off the officer's detaining arm might be said to obstruct the officer physically,[1] but this type of evasion or minor scuffling is not unusual in an arrest, nor would it be desirable to make it a criminal offense to flee arrest. In this case the proper social course is to authorize police pursuit and use of reasonable force to effect the arrest. If the actor is captured, the actor may be convicted of the underlying offense. If conviction cannot be had, it would be a grave injustice to permit prosecution for an unsuccessful effort, by an innocent person, to evade the police.[2]

Again, Broke, my heart goes out to you on this one. You've lost a valuable tool that we all take for granted on the mainland.

[Resq14]

I'm not saying I'd necesarily want to apply the obstructing charge in the example here (refusing to submit to arrest/detention). I just questioned the use of the "build a fence to interfere with an investigation" example, as the law reads nothing like that, and certainly gives you flexibility in other circumstances.

Personally, I don't let prosecutorial discretion be my guiding light. If there is a law I can use to solve a problem for the night, I'll use it. That an over-worked and underpaid assistant DA chooses to reduce or drop my charges 30-60 days later... not my problem.

At your request, I edited my other post that had your state. For what it's worth, though, you have posted this same information here in other threads. If you're that concerned, you might want to edit some of your prior posts.

[JohnV]

Personally, I don't let prosecutorial discretion be my guiding light. If there is a law I can use to solve a problem for the night, I'll use it. That an over-worked and underpaid assistant DA chooses to reduce or drop my charges 30-60 days later... not my problem.

AMEN! It's not like we're building a case against a giant organized crime faction or a serial killer...it's a problem solving arrest, not necessarily something you call the ADA about to make sure they don't give them a "deal" for...

I guess they don't teach folks to think "creatively" out there in the Pacific...

[13B to 13D]

I'm not an LEO yet so tell me if this would be the wrong thing to do. I in fact had a similar situation in Iraq. I was told to stop a man who was running from the MP's. Just like in the first senario mentioned I was running parallel to him only instead of water, it was a barb wire fence. Normally, I would have shot him, but the situation came up unexpectedly while on the base and I did not have time to load my weapon. So, I ran up along side him and using my body, I knocked him into the fence similarly the way a hockey player would check someone into the boards. While he tangled himself in the barb wire, I took the opertunity to load my weapon and I held him at gunpoint until the MP's who were about 50 yards behind me came up to take him into custody.
If this had been in the United States, and had I been an LEO, would this have been the right thing? Furthermore, what type of escalation of force do police use and how does it differ from that of the Army?

[broke]

I'm not saying I'd necesarily want to apply the obstructing charge in the example here (refusing to submit to arrest/detention). I just questioned the use of the "build a fence to interfere with an investigation" example, as the law reads nothing like that, and certainly gives you flexibility in other circumstances.

Personally, I don't let prosecutorial discretion be my guiding light. If there is a law I can use to solve a problem for the night, I'll use it. That an over-worked and underpaid assistant DA chooses to reduce or drop my charges 30-60 days later... not my problem.

At your request, I edited my other post that had your state. For what it's worth, though, you have posted this same information here in other threads. If you're that concerned, you might want to edit some of your prior posts.


Thanks Resq and sorry I got so upset, I was having a bad week.

I appreciate your input as well as everyone else's....and about editing my past posts I'll just let it stand. I apologize again for getting so upset. :(

You have a point about letting the DA decide while I make my own decisions in the field.

We officers have to stick together!

[broke]

AMEN! It's not like we're building a case against a giant organized crime faction or a serial killer...it's a problem solving arrest, not necessarily something you call the ADA about to make sure they don't give them a "deal" for...

I guess they don't teach folks to think "creatively" out there in the Pacific...

Since we're still being watched by our Sgts in the field, we're now not on probation but full-time LEO and fully protected by our union...so it's basically harder to fire us....we still have to call our Sgt before we arrest someone.

The Sgt will have the final say if we can arrest or not, and for what crime.

[broke]

I looked it up, too, and after reading the legislative intent, it appears some of Hawaii's laws were written by the script writers of Law & Order (you know, where they make up the most stupid laws that make no sense at all).

In California if you tell someone to stop and they wilfully refuse it's an automatic resisting/obstructing. But here's what Hawaii's legislative intent said about their law in that area:

Resisting arrest is one of the commonest forms of obstructing government operation. The Code deals specifically with resisting arrest out of a desire to confine the offense to forcible resistance that involves some substantial danger to the person. Mere non-submission ought not to be an offense. One who runs away from an arresting officer or who makes an effort to shake off the officer's detaining arm might be said to obstruct the officer physically,[1] but this type of evasion or minor scuffling is not unusual in an arrest, nor would it be desirable to make it a criminal offense to flee arrest. In this case the proper social course is to authorize police pursuit and use of reasonable force to effect the arrest. If the actor is captured, the actor may be convicted of the underlying offense. If conviction cannot be had, it would be a grave injustice to permit prosecution for an unsuccessful effort, by an innocent person, to evade the police.[2]

Again, Broke, my heart goes out to you on this one. You've lost a valuable tool that we all take for granted on the mainland.


Thanks L1 I appreciate it. I'm not trying to get sympathy or anything because I knew what I was getting into with our laws here...and the rights criminals have.

I was just explaining how it is here.

[NORCOCOP]

My Lord I am sick to my stomach after reading that bit of legeslative intent, that is complet bull$#@!. In Missouri when you have reasonable suspicion a crime was comitted or is about to be comitted and a perp flees you tell them to stop, they don't and they're failing to comply with a lawfull order. Now you have an arrestable offense and may do what ever is required to make an arrest. The one exception to this in my dept. is traffic when they fail to yield, only in the case that life is in jeapordy may we take pursuit, but that's were creative writing comes in.

To answer 13B to 13D'S question, all you did was shove him it's not your fault dumbass was running next to a barb wired fence, as long as you had PC to chase your fine. I mean come on, say your chasing someone, they hop a fence and get chewed up by an angry dog, not your problem. You run from the PO PO you pay the piper, period. If I gotta run it has yet to end happilly for the runner, I don't believe in being abusive, but running after someone always puts you the LEO at risk and if possible it should be painfully clear and the end of a pursuit that next time running is NOT an option.

Just my .02

[JohnV]

Since we're still being watched by our Sgts in the field, we're now not on probation but full-time LEO and fully protected by our union...so it's basically harder to fire us....we still have to call our Sgt before we arrest someone.

The Sgt will have the final say if we can arrest or not, and for what crime.

That is absolutely the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard.

[Resq14]

That is absolutely the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard.

Ditto... :eek:

[Kabal]

You can, in good faith, pursue and detain him. As far as the level of force you use; you need to go with what you see and hear for yourself. If he does nothing agressive towards you and brandishes no weapon you need to tread lightly the amount of force you use.

I actually got named in a lawsuit and was protected by the "good faith" type of defense. I pulled up on a scene and saw another officer chase a guy across a yard and tackle him. I ran up to them and the two of us got the guy under control and hooked up. Turns out, the first officer had no probable cause to make an arrest or use any force on the guy. But I simply acted to assist the other officer I was saved from the ensuing slam that hit the other officer.

[Gene L]

If your partner says "Grab him" and you don't grab him, you're not going to get a good reputation as a cop among your contemporaries. They'll think you're timid.

What if your partner yelled "Gun!" Would you ignore that?

A locked car with no one in it does require a search warrant, and not just in Hiawii. It's like a house. If by "sealed" you mean locked an unoccupied.

[cervelo]

I'm sorry and I have a problem with all this....if you are so scared that you are going to get burned doing your job maybe this is not the job for you......You might be in some crazy state but I am willing to bet it is not as crazy as Canada....and I would still hook her up in senario 3 for my saftey.....and tackle the guy and worry about the reason after.......


Someone who i am supposed to trust with my life asked me to do something....If I hesitate because i am afraid of him being a "Grappler" or that I am afraid I am going to get into trouble what is my partner to think about me when he really needs me...

From what you have posted here you are one cop that I would not want to be partnerd with on calls...I would be to worried you would endanger my safety because you woud hesitate...


CER