Boston PD to monitor police cars by GPS tracking... officers don't like it

[JoeSparky]

It's not bashing to say that cops have one job. To make arrests. The rest is collateral. To do this they are allowed to lie, to provocate, to use force, to plant evidence, to arrest for something that's not a crime, to say they were ignorant of the law and let the judge sort it out. They are allowed to bully, pressure, bargain but not follow through. We HOPE they don't do this to normal LACs, and use these tactics when dealing with a public menace.
SNIPED

I will disagree with your sentence beginning with "To do this...."

Yes the courts have ruled that the police can lie during interrogations, also, many have been provocative or forceful. Others have planted evidence or arrested persons for no crime. Just because they have done this does not mean that it is done LEGALLY. ANY action that a LEO engages in that is illegal is not something they are "allowed" to do but a violation of someones rights. It seems to many that too often they seem to get away with it but that doesn't make it "allowed" or legal!

 

[Grapeshot]

I will disagree with your sentence beginning with "To do this...."

Yes the courts have ruled that the police can lie during interrogations, also, many have been provocative or forceful. Others have planted evidence or arrested persons for no crime. Just because they have done this does not mean that it is done LEGALLY. ANY action that a LEO engages in that is illegal is not something they are "allowed" to do but a violation of someones rights. It seems to many that too often they seem to get away with it but that doesn't make it "allowed" or legal!

Agree.

Further, in discussions like this to imply that such abuses are allowed, encouraged, or part of an operating policy of the entire law enforcement community becomes bashing. It paints with a too broad brush, that which should be a fine line detail of individual actions.

 

[eye95]

+1

Nailed it. I START with sir and ma'am. Always. Until they yell and swear and then I'll still attempt the niceties. In the end, some people literally won't listen until you talk like them. It's part of knowing who your dealing with and how to deal with them. Some people respond very well to niceties and appreciate the respect. Others will just do their own thing and yell over your or worse, until you respond in kind.

I don't know if you have ever heard of transactional analysis. It's a 1970's thing but has a practical application.

Rather than get into the weeds with it, I'll just simply say that when you start with sir and ma'am, you are speaking from your adult to their adult. If they respond from the adult, communication is effective. However, when they start swearing, they are coming from their child to your parent (most likely). Responding in kind is from your child to their parent. Ineffective. Lots of yelling and screaming, zero communication. Many officers will switch to parent to child mode. Effective, but probably unlawful.

Speak from the adult to the child. Less effective than parent to child. Certainly more effective than child to parent. But, most importantly, professional and demonstrating patience.

[Assuming a lawful stop and the swearing is part of noncompliance with your lawful demands.] "Sir, swearing will not help resolve the matter. Tell me what you have to say, without swearing, and I guarantee you that I will listen until you are done." Most will persist in the childish ranting. "Sir, I will have to ask you one more time to stop the swearing. If you continue to swear, we won't be able to talk, and I don't want to have to take it to the next level [warning of a switch from adult to parent]." Many will continue. "[switching to parent to child] Sir, the swearing stops now, or I will restrain you and place you in the cruiser." Some will continue. Now in full-blown parent to child, cuff'n'stuff.

Hopefully, the swearing stops, and the person is guided, by your example, into the adult mode. Useful communication occurs, adult to adult.

One more thing: Swearing that is not part of noncompliance with lawful demands is free speech. Get over it. If this is not a lawful stop, as a professional, you should either just take the swearing in stride, or walk away. You don't have the authority to impose yourself willy-nilly on a member of the public and expect an adult response.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

 

[Maverick9]

Much respect to eye95. Great post.

Myself I probably swear about 10x per year. Very isolated incidences, and only in my house when describing something alarming to my partner.

I never swear at the public, never have sworn at my child, never have sworn at my current partner, nor at my ex. I use explicit language in an indirect manner 'WTF were those a-holes thinking', looking at the news for example. I use three words. Shite, fsk and damn and that's it. I always use euphemisms online.

Not trying to be greater than thou, but just saying, swearing has no real purpose and you should never swear AT a person. Perhaps 'Fsk with me and I'll shoot your azz' would be acceptable.

I agree with the use of adult to adult and am a strong proponent of the transactional analysis methods both in practice and as a debriefing tool in relationships.

 

[Maverick9]

I will disagree with your sentence beginning with "To do this...."

Yes the courts have ruled that the police can lie during interrogations, also, many have been provocative or forceful. Others have planted evidence or arrested persons for no crime. Just because they have done this does not mean that it is done LEGALLY. ANY action that a LEO engages in that is illegal is not something they are "allowed" to do but a violation of someones rights. It seems to many that too often they seem to get away with it but that doesn't make it "allowed" or legal!

Well let's call a spade a spade, shall we. These behaviors are 'allowed'. They are not legal. They are not descriptive of all LEOs and all departments by any means. But all departments have 'allowed' such things at one time or another. NO department has been completely free of all non-legal methods, except the one in Mayberry RFD, though some are much better than others.

I guess my point is that we need to have LE stop 'allowing', making 'allowances for' these methods. Should evidence NEVER be fabricated? I'm not sure. Should exculpatory evidence ever be withheld? I would say no, never. Should LE stop trying to find a perp in order to close a case that they know is not valid. I'd say absolutely not, and the top brass should not be encouraging or driving this methodology.

Remember not all 'planting' or fabricating evidence is blatant, like putting durgs in someone's pocket or their car. Some things are more subtle. In the OJ case it came back to haunt the prosecution big time. Now everyone is suspicious of 'evidence'. All we have is proper procedure, chain of custody and honesty. Let's use these powerful tools as they were intended. You don't do good work, and I suspect all cops and LE value good, tight work when they get that. You can't make every case. But if you are perceived as upstanding you will get help and cooperation. Even BGs can respect you.

 

[Grapeshot]

Grampa said, "Cursing represents a lack of self-control, a weakness in the English language and is immature. Grow up, my little man."

Grandma used Lifebuoy* soap.

Together the two taught me a valuable lesson.


*The Original Lifebuoy Soap in the bright red color with the distinctive carbolic fragrance and taste that had been Lifebuoy's signature since 1895. Imported directly from England this bar of soap was sure to clean even the dirtiest mouth.

 

[Primus]

I don't know if you have ever heard of transactional analysis. It's a 1970's thing but has a practical application.

Rather than get into the weeds with it, I'll just simply say that when you start with sir and ma'am, you are speaking from your adult to their adult. If they respond from the adult, communication is effective. However, when they start swearing, they are coming from their child to your parent (most likely). Responding in kind is from your child to their parent. Ineffective. Lots of yelling and screaming, zero communication. Many officers will switch to parent to child mode. Effective, but probably unlawful.

Speak from the adult to the child. Less effective than parent to child. Certainly more effective than child to parent. But, most importantly, professional and demonstrating patience.

[Assuming a lawful stop and the swearing is part of noncompliance with your lawful demands.] "Sir, swearing will not help resolve the matter. Tell me what you have to say, without swearing, and I guarantee you that I will listen until you are done." Most will persist in the childish ranting. "Sir, I will have to ask you one more time to stop the swearing. If you continue to swear, we won't be able to talk, and I don't want to have to take it to the next level [warning of a switch from adult to parent]." Many will continue. "[switching to parent to child] Sir, the swearing stops now, or I will restrain you and place you in the cruiser." Some will continue. Now in full-blown parent to child, cuff'n'stuff.

Hopefully, the swearing stops, and the person is guided, by your example, into the adult mode. Useful communication occurs, adult to adult.

One more thing: Swearing that is not part of noncompliance with lawful demands is free speech. Get over it. If this is not a lawful stop, as a professional, you should either just take the swearing in stride, or walk away. You don't have the authority to impose yourself willy-nilly on a member of the public and expect an adult response.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

Well said and I agree. I appreciate the insight. Let me clarify though, I let guys swear all they want until it crosses a line. That line is usually, swearing at or in front of women and children, or swearing directly at any other person (to include myself and the other responding officers). I agree with your approach and use something very similiar. This is were the Disorderly Conduct charge comes into play. Yes swearing is part of freedom of speech, but to scream at myself or ANY other citizen at the top of your lungs while telling us to F*** off or to suck your man parts, or many other colorful things is not protected, especially after you've been given about a dozen warnings to please calm down and stop with the language. I know we shouldn't act as "parents", but sometimes that's exactly what our job is. How else do you get a grow man to not act like a child? Children are more likely to listen to their parents, who can punish them (arrest) as opposed to just other adults (who can only tell their parents). Your presumption (no fault of your own) is that they can and will act like an adult.

I would actually prefer the GPS in the cruiser more then body cams, although ideal would be none. While the body cams do help, they've saved plenty of Officers like the video I posted, I would rather not be video taped everytime I'm on the toilet, or picking my nose, or getting a forbbiden donut. How about getting a free coffe on tape from a local store owner? It would literally force you to have to explain every action you do for every second your at work. Should we put body cameras on Mayors? Politicians? Teachers in schools (imagine the stuff you'd see then)? Trash collectors? etc. etc. They are getting paid by the citizens who may be concerned what they are doing on their dime.

For those that bash and hate the proffession, I apologize if you were wronged by an LEO. If you were legitimately wrong and they slapped you and you now have hurt feelings, then tough love. We are certainly not bad guys, nor ones to be feared in anyway.

Food for thought..... if you act a different way around police (immediately start taping, immediately start asking certain things, ignore or give attitude) are you surprised you get treated a certain way in return? If you treated an Afircan American, Asian, American Indian, etc. , this way you would be called a racist, when you do it towards a person in uniform you somehow think it's patriotism.....

 

[Primus]

Hey Primus...wanna hug?

Lets do it. I'm down with a Bromance hug. You have to buy me a beer first.

 

[Primus]

All cops use their cellphones to make calls that they don't want to be made public ... and that's a lot !

Whenever you see a cop with a cell phone, ask him if you have have records relating to the calls he has made for 1 yr. They would be public records. And watch him/her start crying.

Why would me calling my wife on my cellphone to ask her if my son pooped ok tonight be public record? Is this because I'm on the "clock"? Does this apply to all people paid by the .gov?

For someone whos so concerned about getting your rights taken away your awfully for me getting mine taken away simply because I wear a different suit then you. Hypocrisy in it's finest...

 

[Primus]

It's not bashing to say that cops have one job. To make arrests. The rest is collateral. To do this they are allowed to lie, to provocate, to use force, to plant evidence, to arrest for something that's not a crime, to say they were ignorant of the law and let the judge sort it out. They are allowed to bully, pressure, bargain but not follow through. We HOPE they don't do this to normal LACs, and use these tactics when dealing with a public menace.

If they do it too much, they BECOME the public menace. Most of us know that we fear one thing and that's the cops (and heavy handedness and lethality without review) because you can't fight back. I don't fear the average BG. I don't fear random muggings, or random burglaries, because I can be sure I don't appear to be a soft target. But to a cops, a LAC who appears to be a 'hard target' is a CHALLENGE to take down. Why? Because they can. They can't get respect from criminals, but they can reduce the normal LAC to a pile of rubble by piling on, bodies, charges, lies, assaults, and their brothers will stand by and do nothing.

Somehow we need to turn the tide. We need to get the LEOs on our side. I do a little of this at every gun show I go to, make a friend, get a business card. It's the only path available, because we are cannon fodder, hampered by rules and laws and rulings which protect the criminals. We are treated LIKE criminals because that's all cops know. It's hard to blame them, but it doesn't make life any better for the LAC who just wants to be left in peace.

/Rant

Bolded is factually incorrect. We have many jobs or "hats" as we call them. When we go to a med call and revive your sick grandmother, we aren't arresting anyone. When we go to the accident and block traffic so you don't get smashed by more vehicles (oh and get plowed into and killed on the highway, which happens to be leading cause of death to LEOs last I checked), when we get the call for the guy whos drunk and passed out on the sidewalk and we bring them to the hospital we aren't making arrests.

Listen my friend, you may fear us because YOU think your a hard target and we want to take you down (like a white rhino), but let me rest assure you.... your probably not nearly as hard of a target as you think and we (meaning my department and guys) have many other, much harder targets to take down (drug dealers, gang members, violent criminals, etc. etc.). As I've said before, act a certain way towards an LEO and you certainly will get treated a certain way.

You should get LEOs on your "side". Know why? We are a large portion of the population that votes with or against you. We also have a say in gun laws. I happen to vote pro gun and conservative, but the bashing that I see by fellow conservatives certainly doesn't help that.

 

[eye95]

Why would me calling my wife on my cellphone to ask her if my son pooped ok tonight be public record? Is this because I'm on the "clock"? Does this apply to all people paid by the .gov?

For someone whos so concerned about getting your rights taken away your awfully for me getting mine taken away simply because I wear a different suit then you. Hypocrisy in it's finest...

Nobody takes his legal claims seriously. I urge you not to.

If he thinks that a private call made on a private phone, even while on the clock, is a public record, he should cite the law or the case that makes it so. I call BS.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

 

[Grapeshot]

Lets do it. I'm down with a Bromance hug. You have to buy me a beer first.

:lol:

 

[F350]

If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear.

Isn't that what we hear from the statists all the time?

:lol::lol::lol:

 

[MKEgal]

This, OFFICER, is a blatant attempt at ENTRAPMENT.
I will not participate in your suggestion!

If he suggested it he's consenting to it, so you can't get in trouble, right?

Children are more likely to listen to their parents, who can punish them (arrest) as opposed to just other adults (who can only tell their parents).

Sometimes they're much more willing to listen (& talk) to other adults.
Depends on the situation.

We are certainly not bad guys, nor ones to be feared in anyway.

If you treated an Afircan American, Asian, American Indian, etc. , this way you would be called a racist

Not all officers are bad, dangerous, power-mad, etc., no.
Problem is, Officer ******* looks just like you.
No way to tell you apart until you act.
Officer Harless (sp?) in Ohio is a great example - not only was he wearing the same uniform as his partner, but the partner did nothing to even try to stop the completely illegal attack which was committed.

If I'm aware of (or have been the victim of) police misconduct, it is reasonable to be wary & avoid officers unless absolutely necessary.
Sort of like how with the "knockout game" getting lots of publicity I think it's entirely reasonable to be wary & avoid groups of black teens on the street.
Being wary of anyone approaching closely wouldn't be out of line.

 

[Primus]

If he suggested it he's consenting to it, so you can't get in trouble, right?


Sometimes they're much more willing to listen (& talk) to other adults.
Depends on the situation.



Not all officers are bad, dangerous, power-mad, etc., no.
Problem is, Officer ******* looks just like you.
No way to tell you apart until you act.
Officer Harless (sp?) in Ohio is a great example - not only was he wearing the same uniform as his partner, but the partner did nothing to even try to stop the completely illegal attack which was committed.

If I'm aware of (or have been the victim of) police misconduct, it is reasonable to be wary & avoid officers unless absolutely necessary.
Sort of like how with the "knockout game" getting lots of publicity I think it's entirely reasonable to be wary & avoid groups of black teens on the street.
Being wary of anyone approaching closely wouldn't be out of line.

I agree on the sometimes speaking as an adult does work better. I usually find that works better when the person isn't already seething over something or isn't already beligerent. Starting by talking to someone as an adult ( I try always at least try to) is a great place to start and should be done by everyone.

I also agree the Ofc. D Bag looks just like me and there are a few on every Dept. But wouldn't that still be racist as I put it? If you treated all African Americans EVERYWHERE as scary, wouldn't that be wrong? My premise still stands when you treat someone because of the color of their uniform (or skin) or the fact they have one. If you get pulled over and immediately start out with the attitude just because the other person is wearing blue (or green or w/e color) isn't that wrong?

 

[Citizen]

I agree on the sometimes speaking as an adult does work better. I usually find that works better when the person isn't already seething over something or isn't already beligerent. Starting by talking to someone as an adult ( I try always at least try to) is a great place to start and should be done by everyone.

I also agree the Ofc. D Bag looks just like me and there are a few on every Dept. But wouldn't that still be racist as I put it? If you treated all African Americans EVERYWHERE as scary, wouldn't that be wrong? My premise still stands when you treat someone because of the color of their uniform (or skin) or the fact they have one. If you get pulled over and immediately start out with the attitude just because the other person is wearing blue (or green or w/e color) isn't that wrong?

Bwahahahahahahhahahahahaa!!!

His profession won't clean up the Blue Wall of Silence. Yet, he criticizes those who have no way to know whether the cop who confronts them is a bad cop and therefore adopts a guarded atttitude and exercises their rights.

Aaaaaaahahahahhahahahahhahah!!!

 

[stealthyeliminator]

Am I the only one that would expect this if I were a cop? If my department didn't have it, I'd be asking for it. I know someone on a volunteer fire department, and even he has a GPS enabled radio. Of course it means that dispatch can see where you are or where you're headed, but it also might be the difference in life or death should you ever have to hit that distress button.

 

[Grapeshot]

Bwahahahahahahhahahahahaa!!!

His profession won't clean up the Blue Wall of Silence. Yet, he criticizes those who have no way to know whether the cop who confronts them is a bad cop and therefore adopts a guarded atttitude and exercises their rights.

Aaaaaaahahahahhahahahahhahah!!!

We ask that we be judged by our actions, not by the way we are attired.

Our profession (everyday Joe) hasn't exactly done an exemplary job of cleaning out the bad apples from within our group.

 

[Primus]

Am I the only one that would expect this if I were a cop? If my department didn't have it, I'd be asking for it. I know someone on a volunteer fire department, and even he has a GPS enabled radio. Of course it means that dispatch can see where you are or where you're headed, but it also might be the difference in life or death should you ever have to hit that distress button.

No your not the only one, and like I said I'd be more for the GPS then the video camera. Your reason is a very sound reason and one mentioned as to why they were pushing for them, so when the SHTF and you can't get to your radio they can find you.

 

[Primus]

Bwahahahahahahhahahahahaa!!!

His profession won't clean up the Blue Wall of Silence. Yet, he criticizes those who have no way to know whether the cop who confronts them is a bad cop and therefore adopts a guarded atttitude and exercises their rights.

Aaaaaaahahahahhahahahahhahah!!!

Blue Wall of Silence? lol did you say that with a sound track? dun dun dun dun dun dun...... The Great Wall of Silence!!

If you only knew how thin that "blue line" really was. Sure when bullets start flying we stick together (as any guys in any type of service, Firefighters, EMS, etc.) but when the shoe drops and dudes get in trouble yuo'd be surprised how fast guys speak up and against eachother.

Did you ever think your "guarded attitude and exercised rights" may have ever caused a bad encounter? You sound like someone who got a parking ticket once so now you hate the uniform forever.

Experiment... try your "guarded attitude" on the waiter at your next restraunt or coffe shop. If you give a s**** attitude you get s***** service. Let me know how your food tastes...