Ask A Cop!!! Post Your Questions Here!

[Knight1989]

As for the earlier question about OC or being shot in the leg. Having been OCed but not shot, I cant compare the two. But I will say that I have been shot at and my "panic level" was less than when I got hit with OC. A lot of that is also due to the ancipation. I knew was getting OCed, I watched about 10 people before me get it. So you have a lot of time to work yourself up. Getting shot at is very sudden, but I was still very suprised at how calm I felt during it. Again, not the best comparision since I had time, a few sec, to mentally prepare myself for the shooting.

 

[00scuba]

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-0601060236jan06,1,675767.story?coll=chi-news-hed

How do you guys deal with questions/comments about this? My Dad was a cop for 30 years...didn't seem to happen ..or not as publicly talked about back then. He retired in 95

 

[Knight1989]

It's a no-win situation, so we trudge along as best we can.

Well put!!!

 

[Knight1989]

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-0601060236jan06,1,675767.story?coll=chi-news-hed

How do you guys deal with questions/comments about this? My Dad was a cop for 30 years...didn't seem to happen ..or not as publicly talked about back then. He retired in 95

That cop made his decision. While it sucks, I dont have much sympathy.

 

[kent_1848]

I going to guess on this one...gonna go out on a limb and say OC-spraying is better than being shot.

LOL While I've never been OC-sprayed, I have been shot. I think I would have rather been sprayed, I don't think there are many instances of death form OC spray are out there. That was the worst part, not knowing how bad the wound was, there was definately a shock factor involved.

 

[kent_1848]

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-0601060236jan06,1,675767.story?coll=chi-news-hed

How do you guys deal with questions/comments about this? My Dad was a cop for 30 years...didn't seem to happen ..or not as publicly talked about back then. He retired in 95

I wish I had a job that would suspend me with pay!

 

[TJcop]

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-0601060236jan06,1,675767.story?coll=chi-news-hed

How do you guys deal with questions/comments about this? My Dad was a cop for 30 years...didn't seem to happen ..or not as publicly talked about back then. He retired in 95

From speaking with the guys that have been at the station for the last 25-30 years...it happened alot! But back then, they just loaded the guy up in a squad and dumped him off at home. OWI didn't have the publicity it has now.

It's unfortunate that this officer (Sgt.) had this happen to him. Hopefuly he can get some treatment and continue with his duties. I don't think this is reason alone to fire him.

 

[Goose75]

hmmm.... there is a "double" standard because soldiers and police officers
are not the same animal.

if a superior officer gives you a lawful order, either as a solider or a policeman,
you are required to follow it.

you are only allowed to disobey the order (generally speaking) when it is
an unlawful order.

however, what "unlawful" means is different from soldiers and police officers. soldiers
are subject to martial law, and police officers are subject to criminal and civil law.
also, their mandate is different (defeat the enemy; enforce the law).

neither soldiers (the Pentagon) nor police officers (Law Enforcement) select where
and who they fight (soldiers) or wich laws they enforce (law enforcement).
this is determined for them by the civilian authorities (the President, in case of
soliders; the various legislatures and courts in the case of the law enforcement
community).

perhaps if you gave me a specific instance i might be able to comment further.

When I was in college I was in ROTC. In one of our classes we were instructed about the Geneva convention and war crimes. We were told that a soldier is responsible to refuse any order or policy that violates the Geneva covention or we would be subject to prosecution in a war crime tribunal. We were told following orders or policy decided by the adminstration is not an acceptable defence.

Now it was ROTC and many years ago so I may have my facts twisted but
I think I have it correct.

At the time I felt that was the same as asking a policeman to interpret the Constitution and decide wether a law or ordanance he/she is ordered to enforce is legal. I don't think that either should be required to do so.

 

[H2Andy]

At the time I felt that was the same as asking a policeman to interpret the Constitution and decide wether a law or ordanance he/she is ordered to enforce is legal.

i am sorry... i still don't get it... if a superior officer gives an order to a policeman
that violates the constitution, then that officer is supposed to not follow
that order.

for example, a detective is asked to implement an illegal wiretap. he should
say no, or he has followed an illegal order.

if there is a law or ordinance in place, the officer MUST enforce that law. he
can't say, "no, that ordinance is not constitutional." he does not have that
right. only the civilian legislature or the courts can do that.

a police officer can never be held liable for enforcing a duly legislated
law or ordinance, even if that law is later found to be unconstitutional.

 

[Goose75]

i am sorry... i still don't get it... if a superior officer gives an order to a policeman
that violates the constitution, then that officer is supposed to not follow
that order.

for example, a detective is asked to implement an illegal wiretap. he should
say no, or he has followed an illegal order.

if there is a law or ordinance in place, the officer MUST enforce that law. he
can't say, "no, that ordinance is not constitutional." he does not have that
right. only the civilian legislature or the courts can do that.

a police officer can never be held liable for enforcing a duly legislated
law or ordinance, even if that law is later found to be unconstitutional.

I suppose it's confusing because there isn't law in the parallel I tried to make, just policy or rules of engagement. To me a law is simply congress's way of giving orders on how to enforce structure within the guidelines of the constitution. I guess it's a bad parallel so I'll stop pulling the thread off tangent. I do agree an officer should follow the law, not make it or refute it. Checks and balances exist for good reason.