Ask A Cop!!! Post Your Questions Here!

[Scubatooth]

TJ

this one has made me wonder from time to time. why is it that fire departments will jump start a vechile if you ask them but most every cop i have encountered wont jump start a car. all i get is something about the onboard electronics. to me this is just odd because theres more sensitive electronics on a fire truck or ambulance then in a squad car (or am i just plain wrong ?)

Tooth

 

[TJcop]

I've never heard of fire departments jump starting vehicles. At my department, you won't get a jump from the police or the fire personnel. If you need auto service, we can call you a tow truck. We don't even do lock outs anymore, unless a child is trapped inside.
I suppose that there is some liability involved. Just image if someone connect the cables wrong and the city now owes someone a new car...or worse, someone gets seriously hurt.

 

[ItsBruce]

bruce

it was in the news here locally (dallas) and i really hope that the DA nails the guy as from what im seeing and hearing from local leos who know of the situation that leo was out of line. i really feel sorry for the kid that got shot as his view of law enforcement is probably really messed up now.

FWIW

Tooth

I understand that the victim was an MP. (At least that's what he was heard to be saying on the videotape.) Presumably he knew exactly how to comply with orders.

I doubt we'll ever know what the deputy was thinking. It is unlikely he will take the witness stand.

And, we (LA) just had another great incident. A handful of LAPD were just indicted on charges of home invasion robberies of drug dealers. And, here I figured Training Day was just fiction.

 

[ItsBruce]

Bruce,
First of all, let me clear some things up. I said that the officers may have been responding to a call, based on the original information you posted...now you give us the rest of the story of the 2nd set of lights and the squad stopping and waiting. That might have been useful info the first time around. But, that still doesn't prove that they weren't enroute to a call, then cancelled. Again, they may have been a couple of jags and just blew the light (not cool).

In my original post, #541, I noted my opinion that the two cars should have ticketed each other. I did not state the factual basis for my opinion. However, I would not have formed that particular opinion but for the actual facts that I saw. BTW: they did not blow the light. They crossed the centerline of the road to get into the left turn pocket and then waited at the light.

You also failed to comment on the breaks I give citizens...you know, the breaks you say that officers don't give.

I did not comment, but I did not overlook it. I defer to your judgment as to whether a warning was enough to prevent a reoccurrence, i.e. whether the "break" was warranted. In my experience, most infractions are the result of carelessness. That would include bad lane changes, "California" stops and lots of entering the intersection on red. Many drivers, if warned, will not make the same mistake again for a long time. Many drivers, however, really need traffic school and a ticket is just the officer's way of telling the driver he or she needs driving school. TJ, I trust your judgment in deciding who needs a warning and who needs traffic school. Use that good judgment, but don't let people who need traffic school off just because of their status, whether it is a politician, doctor, judge, or leo.

 

[RonDawg]

And, here I figured Training Day was just fiction.

And here I thought you were quite supportive of law enforcement.

Yes, there are bad cops...I don't disagree with that. Just like there are bad doctors, bad lawyers, and <gasp> bad judges. But it's certainly not to the extent that Hollywood would like you to believe.

The fact that these officers are being prosecuted should be proof to you that we don't tolerate corruption within our ranks, and not as proof that "Training Day" is more common than it really is.

 

[RonDawg]

this one has made me wonder from time to time. why is it that fire departments will jump start a vechile if you ask them but most every cop i have encountered wont jump start a car. all i get is something about the onboard electronics. to me this is just odd because theres more sensitive electronics on a fire truck or ambulance then in a squad car (or am i just plain wrong ?)

Our fire department will tell you to call the police if you want a jump start. Just like they won't rescue stranded cats from trees either.

One of the biggest reasons we don't do "Auto Club" is because of liability. If I accidentally short out your electrical system, my department now buys you a new computer for your car. And it's not something I have specific training in; I only know how to do it from my Dad, who believed every driver should know some basic auto maintenance skills as part of having a driver's license.

Jump starting a car, when you don't have the proper training, is actually quite dangerous. In addition to frying the electronics of BOTH vehicles, you could also cause one or both batteries to explode, showering anything and anybody nearby with battery acid.

 

[RonDawg]

I am really offended by your statement that "We cut each other small breaks," and especially your suggestion that I "[g]et over it." Who cuts civilians small breaks? Cutting each other breaks is one of the things that makes the public lose respect for police officers. Of all people, police officers should follow the traffic laws meticulously because they know them even better than civilians.

While I have given police officers breaks, I have also extended the same to doctors, nurses, firefighters, EMT's, and yes even judges. For that matter I have probably given a warning to just about every job classification on the face of the earth.

I would say the ratio of police officers that I have let off with a warning, to non-cops that I have let off with a warning, is about 1000:1 or more.

So what's this about a Federal Civil Rights violation?

 

[TJcop]

Ron, you're wasting your time.

If you saw my responses to those same questions, you'll see that suddenly the terms change.

First the "turn pocket violation" where he doesn't, ahem, let me get this right:

I did not state the factual basis for my opinion. However, I would not have formed that particular opinion but for the actual facts that I saw...

So, I guess we're supposed to be mind readers if we aren't given all of the facts?

Then then whole "given a break" issue. First he says that we shouldn't give breaks to officers since we don't give them to citizens. I said that I give them to both (just like Ron said). Then I'm told that I should use my best judgement when giving breaks. That breaks should be given to those that probably won't re-offend, regardless of status. Hmmm...ok, so now we give breaks? My, how opinions change...

PS: I would think a break would be warranted to most LEO's since (as Bruce says) they probably won't re-offend due to the chance of having repercussions at work. Remember, were not talking homicide here...minor traffic offenses.

 

[WaterWayne]

Folks, although I don't have a dog in this particular fight, I surely would hate to see this thread boil down to a point-counterpoint argument. That said, I realize fully that there are professional pride and civic ethics involved here, so it would be terribly naive and ineffective to just say "Can't we all just get along?"

I've enjoyed this thread, and applaud T.J. for starting it. It's given me a break from work several times, and made me think a few times, too. I hope it continues in a public-spirited vein.

--Wayne (who received his one and only warning ticket from a grumpy but kind-hearted Oklahoma trooper, and therefore doesn't tell Okie jokes with my Texas buddies -- or at least, not that many Okie jokes.)

 

[RonDawg]

TJ,

I hear what you're saying. I just wanted to add my 2 cents in.

I just find it rather strange that someone who wants us to enforce certain sections of traffic law (i.e. "impeding") more than others ("unsafe speed") now doesn't think it's kosher for us to exercise our discretion when it comes to traffic enforcement. Particularly when he cites incidents of so-called "impeding" (in particular, the "not pulling far enough into intersection while waiting for a left turn") that, if I were to try to present that to my local traffic court as such, would be laughed out of the courtroom.

As you so eloquently put it, it's a traffic infraction. Not a felony or a misdemeanor. An infraction, defined in this state as any offense that can only be punished by a fine or other administrative sanction (i.e. license suspension) and cannot be punished by incarceration. For an infraction, I see no issue with giving a warning, whether or not to a fellow law enforcer. Fortunately, I have never been placed in a position where I am dealing with a law enforcer who has committed a misdemeanor or a felony.

I would say the ratio of police officers that I have let off with a warning, to non-cops that I have let off with a warning, is about 1000:1 or more.

And before someone points out it, it should be the other way around: 1 cop that I have warned for about 1000 of non-cops that I have warned.