Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 44
  1. #1
    RIP Seann1 Resq14's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    New England
    Posts
    2,223

    Ohio Pursuit video

    Does anyone have details on the video that was on the o.com front page?

    http://www.officer.com/videonetwork/...?showid=378811

    If you haven't watched it, check it out.

    A L L H A V E G I V E N S O M E,  B U T S O M E H A V E G I V E N A L L

  2. #2
    Football Bat
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    IL
    Posts
    42
    I listened to the audio a little while back on that, but didn't read any news reports. I had no idea it ended that way with the hood ridin'. That's some crazy stuff.

  3. #3
    .
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Atlanta
    Posts
    200

  4. #4
    Forum Member Bssthound98's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    35
    There's a lesson to be learned by all the knuckleheads out there... don't try to run down police, or you will be shot.

    There's too many videos out showing police hesitating to use force and being killed / injured in the line of duty... it's nice to see not all of us have lost that edge.

    _________________________

    "22's son... 22's... do work!!!"
    - Christopher "Big Black" Boykin

    - In God we trust, everyone else is run through NCIC.

  5. #5
    Forum Member Nightshift va's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    The South
    Posts
    2,801

    Unnecessary Risk

    Quote Originally Posted by Bssthound98 View Post
    There's a lesson to be learned by all the knuckleheads out there... don't try to run down police, or you will be shot.

    There's too many videos out showing police hesitating to use force and being killed / injured in the line of duty... it's nice to see not all of us have lost that edge.
    I agree far too many's hesitation has resulted in injury or death, however just from what I saw with the "Hindsight" 20/20 factor the Officer's action's were more like a combatant during a frontline war fire fight where your mission is to eliminate the enemy versus our role where "due" caution and care are a mandatory requirement in the way we affect an arrest dealing with american citizens versus muslim terrorist, The Officer felt the guy was a threat and was attempting to run down himself and his fellow officers however he should have never left cover to charge onto the hood of the suspects car endangering himself and resulting in his having to stop the thug from driving off while he was a hood ornament. That act of bravado was what the cause and effect was of the end result of him unloading on the driver and that is where unfortunately he will be judged and more than likely be at risk in termination or worse. It would have been one thing if he was attempting to extract the driver from the vehicle and the thug then attempted to drive off with him caught up in the door but to jump on the hood of a vehile that has already demonstrated an unwillingness to stop and drive towards patrol units etc hoping on the hood? Not good. I still work the streets and though I supervise Iam in no way an administrator type, and the last thing I do is undermine or judge against fellow brothers in blue in these type's of scenario's but the Officer's action's will be judged harshly i suspect. If there were more facts present other than that brief stream video such as the driver was knowingly armed etc..it may be different. I guess we will see. Bottomline is It will revert back to his general orders and approved training tactics and I doubt any felony stop of a vehilce involves jumping on the hood of suspect vehicles versus cover and comand using duty weapon's and verbal commands or with cover from other officers lighting up the car and doing an emergency extraction of the driver. If the guy was in Fallugah and the suspect was a suicide bomber or a terrorist I'd give him a medal for his actions but that wasn't the case as far as I know. I do know that if we reacted this way more often we definately wouldn't have as many vehicle pursuits.
    "Some people spend an entire lifetime wondering if they made a difference in the world. The MARINES don't have that problem." ....Ronald Reagan

  6. #6
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    .
    Posts
    57
    I agree with Nightshift. I don't have all the facts, but I would not want to be that officer at this point. His actions will be judged harshly by some panel of administrators and/or civilians.

    Quote Originally Posted by Nightshift va View Post
    ...from what I saw with the "Hindsight" 20/20 factor the Officer's action's were more like a combatant during a frontline war fire fight where your mission is to eliminate the enemy versus our role...

  7. #7
    Barefoot Ninja SRT936's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Posts
    6,607
    Quote Originally Posted by Nightshift va View Post
    I agree far too many's hesitation has resulted in injury or death, however just from what I saw with the "Hindsight" 20/20 factor the Officer's action's were more like a combatant during a frontline war fire fight where your mission is to eliminate the enemy versus our role where "due" caution and care are a mandatory requirement in the way we affect an arrest dealing with american citizens versus muslim terrorist, The Officer felt the guy was a threat and was attempting to run down himself and his fellow officers however he should have never left cover to charge onto the hood of the suspects car endangering himself and resulting in his having to stop the thug from driving off while he was a hood ornament. That act of bravado was what the cause and effect was of the end result of him unloading on the driver and that is where unfortunately he will be judged and more than likely be at risk in termination or worse. It would have been one thing if he was attempting to extract the driver from the vehicle and the thug then attempted to drive off with him caught up in the door but to jump on the hood of a vehile that has already demonstrated an unwillingness to stop and drive towards patrol units etc hoping on the hood? Not good. I still work the streets and though I supervise Iam in no way an administrator type, and the last thing I do is undermine or judge against fellow brothers in blue in these type's of scenario's but the Officer's action's will be judged harshly i suspect. If there were more facts present other than that brief stream video such as the driver was knowingly armed etc..it may be different. I guess we will see. Bottomline is It will revert back to his general orders and approved training tactics and I doubt any felony stop of a vehilce involves jumping on the hood of suspect vehicles versus cover and comand using duty weapon's and verbal commands or with cover from other officers lighting up the car and doing an emergency extraction of the driver. If the guy was in Fallugah and the suspect was a suicide bomber or a terrorist I'd give him a medal for his actions but that wasn't the case as far as I know. I do know that if we reacted this way more often we definately wouldn't have as many vehicle pursuits.
    Frankly, I couldn't disagree more.

    We have a guy that has already rammed squad cars, been rammed by squads, has already been fired on by officers but continues to target those officers with his primary weapon, the car. This guy showed an utter disregard for human life (both the officers and the general public) that culmanated in him trying to run over an officer who was attempting the "cover and command" you're advocating. Instead of allowing this yahoo to escape and thereby continue to threaten the lives of the officers and general public, this sergeant did exactly what we are trained to do- take the fight to the bad guy.

    This guy had already demonstrated that he was willing to do anything, including trying to kill police officers, to escape. The cause and effect of this situation was the bad guy deciding to run from the police, deciding to attempt to kill police officers, and deciding not to surrender.
    Quote Originally Posted by kontemplerande View Post
    Without Germany, you would not have won World War 2.
    Strong is what's left when you've used up all your weak.

  8. #8
    Lt.
    Lt. is offline
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Raleigh N.C.
    Posts
    21
    It looked like just a pursuit until the video was blocked by the hood due to the, what appeared to be, first hit into the drivers side of the Monte Carlo by the cruiser. You couldn't see why the first officer fired his weapon. There just wasn't a good shot with the video.
    Sometime during that lack of video is where officers appear to have made the decision to open fire. I think that is where the key is here. After that it appeared to be a free for all. If indeed the driver did try to run the officer(s) over during that period I can see why they opened fire. Once that happened the suspect had demonstrated he would injure or kill to escape. Thus I can see why other officers or the same officer opened fire at the end.
    As to the officer that wound up on the hood, I couldn't really see how he got up there. The car was seeming to move forward though.
    Last edited by Lt.; 09-23-2007 at 06:43 PM.
    No good deed goes unpunished.

  9. #9
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    WV
    Posts
    404
    I hope all are cleared and I am glad to see they acted the way they did. The car being used as a weapon in such a way with disregard for the safety of officers and the public to me would constitute a "Fleeing Felon" and thus a justifiable shooting situation.

  10. #10
    Ignore Garbage Man Garbage Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Los Angeles county California
    Posts
    1,618
    I dont see any criminal problems here. the courts have long held that we never need to retreat form attack. we have every right to stand in front of a suspect pointing our guns at them and shooting them if they try to run us over. You drive with a policman on your hood then you die. I don't care how he got on the hood and neither will the courts.

    The only issue would be internal, did they use the best officer safety tactics? Thats something they will work out and hopefully keep to themselves.
    Quote Originally Posted by FJDave View Post
    GM, you have just set the bar that much higher for the rest of us in our witty, sarcastic responses. I yield to you! Good job, kind Sir!

    District B13
    "We are not cops nor Feds." yet he still poses as an officer Hmmmm


    Grant us grace, fearlessly, to contend against evil and to make no peace with oppression.--WWII memorial

    "I have loved justice and hated iniquity, therefore I die in exile."

    Pope Gregory V II

  11. #11
    "Retired" pulicords's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    5,698

    Thumbs down Don't try this at home (in So. California)!

    Like it or not, if this occurred in my agency's jurisdiction, the shooting would probably be ruled out of policy. Our policy generally prohibits shooting at or from moving vehicles and specifically prohibits shooting at moving vehicles wanted for assault on police officers, when the weapon used in the assault was the vehicle itself. Placing one's self in front of the vehicle, has (in Southern California) been equated to "enabling" the offender to further his opportunity to escape by driving through or over the officer and is frowned on in the extreme. Many local agencies are even going so far as to require officers to jump out of the way of speeding vehicles, bluntly ruling out firing at the driver as even an option for self defense.

    Having been in a similar situation myself, I have nothing but sympathy for the officer involved. Even so, had this occurred in California generally and Southern California in particular, the shooting (as depicted) would very probably ended the (shooting) officers' careers, resulted in a substantial civil loss and very likely would have also resulted in criminal charges being filed against the those who fired. I don't believe criminal convictions would have been obtained, but with the other difficulties the officers faced from their own agency and plaintiffs' lawsuits, the experience after the shooting would nearly be as traumatic as the shooting itself.
    "I'm not fluent in the language of violence, but I know enough to get around in places where it's spoken."

  12. #12
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Dallas, TX
    Posts
    18
    We cant even chase unless the suspect is a violent felony offender. I commend that officer for what he did however crazy it looks like. It might look bad him putting bullets into a suspect like that, but that monte carlo was a 4000 pound bullet that had been aimed multiple officers already. I hope they clear that officer and the others involved of any wrong doing. The deceased was a turd anyway. The world is a better place without that guy here.

  13. #13
    Ignore Garbage Man Garbage Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Los Angeles county California
    Posts
    1,618
    Quote Originally Posted by pulicords View Post
    Like it or not, if this occurred in my agency's jurisdiction, the shooting would probably be ruled out of policy. Our policy generally prohibits shooting at or from moving vehicles and specifically prohibits shooting at moving vehicles wanted for assault on police officers, when the weapon used in the assault was the vehicle itself. Placing one's self in front of the vehicle, has (in Southern California) been equated to "enabling" the offender to further his opportunity to escape by driving through or over the officer and is frowned on in the extreme. Many local agencies are even going so far as to require officers to jump out of the way of speeding vehicles, bluntly ruling out firing at the driver as even an option for self defense.

    Having been in a similar situation myself, I have nothing but sympathy for the officer involved. Even so, had this occurred in California generally and Southern California in particular, the shooting (as depicted) would very probably ended the (shooting) officers' careers, resulted in a substantial civil loss and very likely would have also resulted in criminal charges being filed against the those who fired. I don't believe criminal convictions would have been obtained, but with the other difficulties the officers faced from their own agency and plaintiffs' lawsuits, the experience after the shooting would nearly be as traumatic as the shooting itself.
    I guess the OC is no longer in southern California. We have no such policy, I have witnessed shootings way more controversial where the vehicle was the weapon and the DA never even thought about filing charges. In fact the OC DA has never filed charges against an officer for shooting someone. You LA guys keep thinking the whole so cal is as screwed up as the LA agencies are.

    Please stop painting us all with the your ACLU issued paint brush, there are at least 5 other counties in So cal you know
    Last edited by Garbage Man; 09-24-2007 at 12:14 AM.
    Quote Originally Posted by FJDave View Post
    GM, you have just set the bar that much higher for the rest of us in our witty, sarcastic responses. I yield to you! Good job, kind Sir!

    District B13
    "We are not cops nor Feds." yet he still poses as an officer Hmmmm


    Grant us grace, fearlessly, to contend against evil and to make no peace with oppression.--WWII memorial

    "I have loved justice and hated iniquity, therefore I die in exile."

    Pope Gregory V II

  14. #14
    Forum Member tzbv2p's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    AZ
    Posts
    440
    Quote Originally Posted by pulicords View Post
    Like it or not, if this occurred in my agency's jurisdiction, the shooting would probably be ruled out of policy.
    Frankly....I don't give a damn about policy in life or death situations. All I care about is winning and going home to my wife. From what I saw in the video, there will be no charges filed by the DA. If the department wants to discipline you for the shooting, let them. There are plenty more agency's that will appreciate an officer that doesn't back away from lethal confrontations.

  15. #15
    "Retired" pulicords's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    5,698
    Quote Originally Posted by Garbage Man View Post
    I guess the OC is no longer in southern California. We have no such policy, I have witnessed shootings way more controversial where the vehicle was the weapon and the DA never even thought about filing charges. In fact the OC DA has never filed charges against an officer for shooting someone. You LA guys keep thinking the whole so cal is as screwed up as the LA agencies are.

    Please stop painting us all with the your ACLU issued paint brush, there are at least 5 other counties in So cal you know
    About eight years ago (while assigned to our Robbery/Homicide Unit) I attended a CPOA sponsored Officer Involved Shooting investigation class in Fullerton. There were investigators from a number of OC agencies present and one of the cases profiled involved a CHP OIS where the officer approached the suspect's vehicle from the front, on foot and fatally shot the suspect who drove at him. The departmental, civil and criminal exposure faced by the officer were detailed and are among the specific concerns I'd have in that kind of situation. I realize the world doesn't circle around the County of Los Angeles, but training like this is certainly relevant to all So. CA. agencies or they wouldn't be represented there!

    Every department has variations and similarities between their policies and other agencies'. Although my department's might be different in some respects than your's, the ACLU didn't write it, nor did they provide me with a "paint brush" to address other agencies' policies. Case law (civil and criminal), recent legislation and "community input" have all resulted in policy changes and always will.

    A large number of officers have been filed on criminally by the DA's offices in Los Angeles, San Bernardino and Riverside (to name just a few) for use of force incidents that looked "good" to me and many fellow officers. If you really believe you're safe there in Orange County because, "the OC DA has never filed charges against an officer for shooting someone." you're failing to recognize threats beyond those immediately obvious when dealing dangerous suspects. Also, please don't try to paint me as one of those "L.A. guys" you have a problem with. Like yours', my experiences and opinions are my own and not dictated by the jurisdiction I work in or for.
    Last edited by pulicords; 09-24-2007 at 01:22 AM. Reason: grammar
    "I'm not fluent in the language of violence, but I know enough to get around in places where it's spoken."

  16. #16
    Forum Member VSPTAC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Where the banjos STOP playing
    Posts
    801
    Quote Originally Posted by pulicords View Post
    Like it or not, if this occurred in my agency's jurisdiction, the shooting would probably be ruled out of policy. Our policy generally prohibits shooting at or from moving vehicles and specifically prohibits shooting at moving vehicles wanted for assault on police officers, when the weapon used in the assault was the vehicle itself. Placing one's self in front of the vehicle, has (in Southern California) been equated to "enabling" the offender to further his opportunity to escape by driving through or over the officer and is frowned on in the extreme. Many local agencies are even going so far as to require officers to jump out of the way of speeding vehicles, bluntly ruling out firing at the driver as even an option for self defense.

    Having been in a similar situation myself, I have nothing but sympathy for the officer involved. Even so, had this occurred in California generally and Southern California in particular, the shooting (as depicted) would very probably ended the (shooting) officers' careers, resulted in a substantial civil loss and very likely would have also resulted in criminal charges being filed against the those who fired. I don't believe criminal convictions would have been obtained, but with the other difficulties the officers faced from their own agency and plaintiffs' lawsuits, the experience after the shooting would nearly be as traumatic as the shooting itself.
    Sounds like it is time to pack up and move east!!
    You get in life what you have the courage to ask for.


  17. #17
    Forum Member tzbv2p's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    AZ
    Posts
    440
    Quote Originally Posted by VSPTAC View Post
    Sounds like it is time to pack up and move east!!
    x.2

  18. #18
    "Retired" pulicords's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    5,698
    Quote Originally Posted by tzbv2p View Post
    Frankly....I don't give a damn about policy in life or death situations. All I care about is winning and going home to my wife. From what I saw in the video, there will be no charges filed by the DA. If the department wants to discipline you for the shooting, let them. There are plenty more agency's that will appreciate an officer that doesn't back away from lethal confrontations.
    If I were you, I'd care very much about my department's policy. We, "face life and death situations" on a regular basis. Knowing and complying with policy is something we all have to do to survive. There's a lot I might not like about my department's policy, but if I lose my job, my home, my liberty, and ability to support myself and wife because I don't care to follow policy or the law, I've got no one to blame but myself. If you get fired, filed on criminally or lose a civil suit (or your employer pays out due to your "malfeasance") good luck trying to get hired on a decent paying department. I've personally been involved in three use of deadly force incidents. All were determined to be within departmental policy and none resulted in civil losses by my agency or me personally. Even in the "heat" of those incidents, I considered our policy, the law, my personal safety and that of those around me. If you're ever unfortunate enough to find yourself in these kind of situations, I really hope you take these things into consideration too. In this occupation, survival means more than just living to see another day.
    "I'm not fluent in the language of violence, but I know enough to get around in places where it's spoken."

  19. #19
    Forum Member tzbv2p's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    AZ
    Posts
    440
    Quote Originally Posted by pulicords View Post
    If I were you, I'd care very much about my department's policy. We, "face life and death situations" on a regular basis. Knowing and complying with policy is something we all have to do to survive. There's a lot I might not like about my department's policy, but if I lose my job, my home, my liberty, and ability to support myself and wife because I don't care to follow policy or the law, I've got no one to blame but myself. If you get fired, filed on criminally or lose a civil suit (or your employer pays out due to your "malfeasance") good luck trying to get hired on a decent paying department. I've personally been involved in three use of deadly force incidents. All were determined to be within departmental policy and none resulted in civil losses by my agency or me personally. Even in the "heat" of those incidents, I considered our policy, the law, my personal safety and that of those around me. If you're ever unfortunate enough to find yourself in these kind of situations, I really hope you take these things into consideration too. In this occupation, survival means more than just living to see another day.
    All very true points.....don't get me wrong, understanding and abiding by policy is very important. What I'm saying is, if I'm in a situation were i face a very serious threat of immediate death, i'd rather make a decision that lets me go home to wife....than end up dead and on the front page of officer.com

  20. #20
    Gcrfirewolf
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    SC
    Posts
    31
    Quote Originally Posted by tzbv2p View Post
    x.2
    you all are more than welcome out here in South Carolina

  21. #21
    yes, it really is me... LeanG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    where it's warm in the winter...
    Posts
    3,309
    I watched this video about 5 times. This can go either way. I don't know about the chase policy of this dept., but the review board will dissect this incident from the beginning, from when he said (this guy tried to ram me). It looks like he was just trying to get away.

    I don't recommend that any of my fellow officers jump on the hood of a fleeing felon's vehicle. It will never end better than it did in this incident. The cop was lucky the BG didn't floor it.

    A man should never be ashamed to own that he has been in the wrong, which is but saying... that he is wiser today than yesterday. Jonathan Swift 1667-1745

    It's only a conspiracy when your party is not in power.

  22. #22
    Ignore Garbage Man Garbage Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Los Angeles county California
    Posts
    1,618
    Quote Originally Posted by pulicords View Post
    About eight years ago (while assigned to our Robbery/Homicide Unit) I attended a CPOA sponsored Officer Involved Shooting investigation class in Fullerton. There were investigators from a number of OC agencies present and one of the cases profiled involved a CHP OIS where the officer approached the suspect's vehicle from the front, on foot and fatally shot the suspect who drove at him. The departmental, civil and criminal exposure faced by the officer were detailed and are among the specific concerns I'd have in that kind of situation. I realize the world doesn't circle around the County of Los Angeles, but training like this is certainly relevant to all So. CA. agencies or they wouldn't be represented there!

    Every department has variations and similarities between their policies and other agencies'. Although my department's might be different in some respects than your's, the ACLU didn't write it, nor did they provide me with a "paint brush" to address other agencies' policies. Case law (civil and criminal), recent legislation and "community input" have all resulted in policy changes and always will.

    A large number of officers have been filed on criminally by the DA's offices in Los Angeles, San Bernardino and Riverside (to name just a few) for use of force incidents that looked "good" to me and many fellow officers. If you really believe you're safe there in Orange County because, "the OC DA has never filed charges against an officer for shooting someone." you're failing to recognize threats beyond those immediately obvious when dealing dangerous suspects. Also, please don't try to paint me as one of those "L.A. guys" you have a problem with. Like yours', my experiences and opinions are my own and not dictated by the jurisdiction I work in or for.
    Let me clarify my issues with your posts

    1. You seem to be saying that these officers did something criminal.

    2. You seem to be saying those officers would be toast here in So Cal.

    It's wrong to state that in So Cal we are not allowed to shoot at vehicles. Off the top of my head I know of three instances where this has happened and have been found to be perfectly justifiable. I was present at one such incident where the suspect started driving at me and I leapt out of the way, but another officer got trapped and had to shoot and kill the driver. No one in either my department or the DA's office ever thought that the shooter did anything wrong. In another incident, just a few weeks ago, one of our officers tried to extract a driver out of a vehicle and got his hand stuck in the drivers door latch as the car started to drive away. He shot at the driver and he should have.

    I am not suggesting that getting in the path of a suspects vehicle is something we should do whenever we want. I think it should be avoided at all costs but not as a matter of law. Common sense dictates avoiding, whenever possible, putting yourself in harms way.

    The reason I knew you were from LA is that I too have attended training with officers from LA agencies and I have spoken to many of our laterals. I strongly believe that LA cops are told that restrictions exist in law that simply don't by administrators that are affected by groups such as the ACLU. An example of this is the ridiculous Miranda warning you guys use where you have the suspect say "yes" to every step of the warning. Often times you will even have him sign the form. There has never been a case that said this was required and I have attended classes where LA cop instructors have said there was. The problem is that your administrators lie to you in a lame effort to reduce civil exposure, then you guys think that the way you do things is the way everyone does them and that those who don’t, like these Ohio cops, are doing something wrong.

    I do not have a problem with any individual LA copper in fact I respect the fact that they show up to work every day. I'd be happy to buy any of you guys a beer any day, just don’t be offended if I try to deprogram you.
    Quote Originally Posted by FJDave View Post
    GM, you have just set the bar that much higher for the rest of us in our witty, sarcastic responses. I yield to you! Good job, kind Sir!

    District B13
    "We are not cops nor Feds." yet he still poses as an officer Hmmmm


    Grant us grace, fearlessly, to contend against evil and to make no peace with oppression.--WWII memorial

    "I have loved justice and hated iniquity, therefore I die in exile."

    Pope Gregory V II

  23. #23
    "Retired" pulicords's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    5,698
    First, in none of my posts did I say I believed the actions of the officers in this shooting was (IMO) a criminal violation. I said that their actions (specifically those of the officer firing from the hood of the suspect's vehicle) would probably have been in violation of my department's policy. Although many agencies in Los Angeles County and other areas have policies similar to those at my department, I recognize that many departments' policies differ.

    Second, "toast" (your description) is cooked when extreme heat is applied. In my jurisdiction and many others, this incident would generate a lot of heat. Sometimes this is avoidable and sometimes it isn't. My agency (Not LAPD) has extremely restrictive policies regarding pursuits and shooting at moving vehicles. As a supervisor, I'm required to not only know them, but to ensure that my officers know them. Following those policies is in their best interest.

    Regardless of what I personally think of those policies, I strongly believe that they were put in place for the primary reason of protecting our personnel from physical threats, unnecessary civil actions and possible criminal liability. For whatever reason those policies were enacted, it's in our best interest to know them and work within them. I'm certainly not brainwashed or lied to about these policies by my department's administrators. I've known and worked with each and every one of them since they were officers and although I might (and frequently do) disagree with some of their points of view, I have a pretty good understanding of where they're coming from. Believe it or not, most care about their officers and are trying to protect them in every manner possible and still let them do their jobs.

    I've had the pleasure of receiving training from throughout the country on a variety of issues. My agency is fortunate enough to have the resources (money) to send it's officers (throughout the ranks) wherever good training opportunities exist, through a variety of agencies. With the training and experiences I've received over the years, I keep an open mind, look at the options and use what seems to work best. Institutionally, our department tries to do the same. We have these (training) resources in large part because we've been able to avoid having to pay out huge sums of money in civil settlements or awards. Strangely enough, we haven't been sued or paid out a single settlement over the last calendar year. Isn't this a good thing?

    Finally, you don't have to believe me, but I'm not in need of "deprograming" and certainly have the ability to think for myself. Neither I, nor my organization operates with a closed mind, regardless of what you might think and for you to continue refering to me or my coworkers as "you guys" is not only insulting but demonstrates extreme ignorance on your part. Your belief of our "Miranda" warning requirements shows this clearly. In my department, the common practice is to advise the suspect regarding his/her constitutional rights, confirm they understand them ("Yes" or "No" answered orally is sufficient) and then to continue with the interview. An implied waiver is most often acceptable and an expressed waiver is necessary only if the interrogator feels more comfortable with it. We have no policy requiring the written waivers you referred to.

    I'm not sure where you've gained your "knowledge" about all agencies within Los Angeles County, but you need to return to class. Every department, like every officer/deputy is different and needs to be evaluated on it's own merit. If you really respect others in this field, you need to more open minded. By the way, one of my shootings occurred when a suspect was trying to run me down and just getting out of her way didn't work. I did what I had to do, survived, remained within policy, wasn't sued, nor faced criminal prosecution for my actions.
    "I'm not fluent in the language of violence, but I know enough to get around in places where it's spoken."

  24. #24
    South central escapee... DOAcop38's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Santa Clarita ,CA USA
    Posts
    5,603
    pulicords- did you attend the 24 hr one (OCSD) or the 16hr supervisory course (fullerton city college-Police Academy)? been to both-both worthwhile.Both pushed the Tenn V.Garner and Graham V. Connor issues.I'm in L.A. and the city of L.A.s policies are very strict on UOF and shooting issues such as this-my dept had a recent OIS when a stolen veh.driven byt a parolee tried to ram officers still in the car,then he rushed officers holding a piece of a steering wheel locking device in his hand-officers instinctively thought it was a firearm and shot the felon.No matter how strict a depts policy is,it cannot be one which takes away the officers right to defend himself,nor negate what an officer feels or BELIEVEs is a threat tohis/her life or safety-that why you usually will see such catch words as "reasonable,generally ,shall,prudent,"etc in alot of the UOF policies ,instead of WILL ,must, shall not.,cannot............

  25. #25
    South central escapee... DOAcop38's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Santa Clarita ,CA USA
    Posts
    5,603
    Quote Originally Posted by LeanG View Post
    I I don't recommend that any of my fellow officers jump on the hood of a fleeing felon's vehicle. It will never end better than it did in this incident. The cop was lucky the BG didn't floor it.
    "t.j" hooker would have done this!!!! and he kept "long city pd" a top notch agency-yup....eerrrr I think i need some sleep now,my head hurts.....
    But for real shaky tactics on this one-depends on the depts policy (or lack there of)

Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •