Harrassed by the cops while eating lunch

[CZ52GUY]

And I'm not so certain that the thread starter was entitled to that information. Why an officer needs to explain his actions in full just because the person in the car might want to know is beyond me. Sure, we might give some sort of a cursory answer, but really, nothing else is required. It might very well be that the thread starter, given the attitude he has displayed in the thread, would sit there and try to debate the officer about what the officer was doing.

What is legally required vs. what is going to determine whether the public at large sees LEO's as public servants providing protection or as a threat is based on how the LEO communicates with those he/she serves. Law abiding taxpayers should not fear LEO, but many do. That's a problem for all of us which can be mitigated to some degree if reciprocal respect is the rule. Reciprocal respect can be achieved through skillful communication on the part of the LEO. Many of us want to do our part, but the "submit or else" attitude of some in the LEO community makes us suspicious when we shouldn't have to be.

The reality is that we are often advised of a problem in a particular location or area..break ins, larceny, etc, and told to check the area during our patrols. Some business owners simply ask us to check their property, especially if its isolated or unoccupied, as was the case in this incident.The information we are basing our checks on is not always public knowledge, nor should we have to sit there and explain to every disgruntled person why they are being checked on.

The skill in the communication may indeed require discretion in the amount of information divulged. However, adults know when they are being treated respectfully. The Golden Rule can go a long way, even between a LEO and a law abiding civilian. That is something that needs to go both ways.

I've had encounters with LEO's that have been positive, and those that have been less so. I've always tried to do my part to consider the difficult job they do, the value they provide to the community, and that they are human beings with spouses and kids hoping they get home in one piece, just as mine hope that for me. I merely point out that beyond the "legalese", we are all THR members that should be on the same side...seeking prudent professional law enforcement. There will be times when civilians will scrutinize and respectfully question LEO behavior. Please consider it an opportunity to review practice and improve relations.


Best wishes,

CZ52'

 

[Coronach]

I'd be happy with the courtesy of a brief explanation. The idea that NO explanation is required is unacceptable.

Then I'm not sure what you're arguing about, as even the person with whom you directed those comments stated that a cursory explaination should be given.

And your willingness to see what you wish to see is telling.

Likewise.

I'll only note that I am not the one saying things like "probably used the dog because he was hispanic" and "probably don't like warrants either." To anyone reading this thread, that is a sure indicator of bias.

Logically, don't you think it stange that all the po-po can muster is a "resisting" charge if there were something more to the incident?

Logically, I think it is foolish to base any argument upon a scant newspaper article based heavily upon a press release prepared by the plaintiff's lawyer. However, if you insist, you'll note that he was slated in jail for something, even though the resisting arrest charges were supposedly filed much later. Theres is much that the newspaper article is not telling you. This is why relying upon it for anything is foolish. Even more so as it has nothing to do with your encounter.

Mike

 

[Bill Hook]

Then I'm not sure what you're arguing about, as even the person with whom you directed those comments stated that a cursory explaination should be given.

we might give some sort of a cursory answer

I'll only note that I am not the one saying things like "probably used the dog because he was hispanic" and "probably don't like warrants either." To anyone reading this thread, that is a sure indicator of bias.

And I'm not the one saying that I might be entitled, if the officer can deign to do so, an explanation. Cops sure seem to break out the Tazers and K-9s with ethnic "suspects."

 

[Coronach]

Ah, point.

I took that to mean that "the answer we give might be cursory," with the implication that a response would be given, just that it might not be the full story, and might not be open to debate. I still do, but I won't pretend to know what tcsd1234567890 was trying to say.

Regardless, I have stated from jump that he should be courteous to you, including giving some answer to your inquiry as to why he was doing what he was doing. If he wasn't courteous, he should have been.

Mike

PS "Cops sure seem to break out the Tazers and K-9s with ethnic "suspects."" Not even worthy of a response.

 

[tcsd1236]

Posted by Hook:

"You mean the attitude that public servants need to be accountable? "

Public sector employee, thanks very much. The officers here have been more than reasonable with their explaination for you of why the officer was acting properly. Based on your comments here, its apparent that you'd have been oh-so-happy to sit there and argue with the officer, given the chance. We don't have time to debate that kind of thing when we're working. Certainly a short explaination would be advisible, but as I said, sometimes thats confidential information. And we really don't have time to stand around a parking lot for 10 or 15 minutes with someone we do a field interview with and debate whether we were correct in making contact with them.

 

[cordex]

From what I've read here the officer wanted to know what was going on and wanted to make sure everything was okay. This doesn't strike me as wrong. However, he failed in his duty as a public employee to ensure that Bill - one of his employers - did not leave feeling needlessly pestered. Some police need to learn basic customer satisfaction skills. As several police here have suggested, short explaination of why he took interest and perhaps some friendly small-talk. It is not all that much to ask.

Personally, I think an officer should work to make sure that the law abiding people he contacts go away with a good feeling about speaking with the officer. Of course, they can't be 100% successful, but some (thankfully, only a few) of the police attitudes displayed on this thread are unnecessarily confrontational. "I don't have to explain myself to you, civilian" is not conducive to developing positive police/community relationships.

I thank the officers who have tried to calmly and politely explain their side of the story.

 

[Bill Hook]

Public sector employee

Euphemism.

 

[tcsd1236]

Call it what you want. Its more correct than "public servant".

 

[Bill Hook]

Its more correct than "public servant".

You're right - the public ARE the servants when it comes time to deal with public sector employees.

 

[Coronach]

From what I've read here the officer wanted to know what was going on and wanted to make sure everything was okay. This doesn't strike me as wrong. However, he failed in his duty as a public employee to ensure that Bill - one of his employers - did not leave feeling needlessly pestered. Some police need to learn basic customer satisfaction skills. As several police here have suggested, short explaination of why he took interest and perhaps some friendly small-talk. It is not all that much to ask.

Well, one of two things happened...either the officer didn't do his part in being courteous, or Bill Hook refused to be satisfied. As I was not there, I can only speculate as to which. If he was discourteous, Bill Hook has a legit gripe, if a smaller one than he claims. "The officer was rude!" is quite a few steps away from "The JBT invaded my privacy and violated my rights!"

And...as I'm posting this, I see that the needless argumentation has continued. Anyway...as I said, I can really only speculate as to which of the persons involved in this interaction was discourteous.

Mike

 

[cordex]

Call it what you want. Its more correct than "public servant".

In the private sector, when a company fails to treat its customers well, it goes out of business. Therefore, employees who treat customers badly get fired. Private companies must work to serve their paying customers well, or they lose contracts, they lose customers and they lose money.

It should be the same in the public sector.

 

[Bill Hook]

Private policing. Hire those firms that provide the best service.

 

[cordex]

Snow Crash, dude.

 

[Don Gwinn]

I don't even know what that last post means, but five pages of this is enough. If anyone wants to continue this, do it privately, please. I've got to go wrap my head in duct tape so it doesn't explode when I get back to the classroom.