Robert Hairless
Member
- Joined
- Oct 11, 2003
- Messages
- 3,983
If you managed a New York City carry permit, you, my friend, will be one of my heroes. Transmit a few chocolate covered donuts this way and you'll rise up to the top.
Should LEO's Have A Passing Familiarity With Laws?
- Thread starter R127
- Start date
- Status
If you managed a New York City carry permit, you, my friend, will be one of my heroes. Transmit a few chocolate covered donuts this way and you'll rise up to the top.
209
Member
I always read threads that have people discussing the job requirements of other professions and chuckle. Not because the threads don’t raise valid points, but because the points raised are usually voiced by the very people in those professions.
There are few if any professional law enforcement officers that don’t try to interpret the laws correctly. They rage against the law makers who write vague laws that are next to useless as much or more than do the citizens. Frequently, new laws are enacted, and, through a trial-and-error period, the actual parameters of enforcement of the law are set through court decisions.
Lawyers can’t even interpret most laws, and we see that when defense attorneys find all of the various loopholes of a law and get their clients off. Or when a judge decides the charge doesn’t fit the crime. Laws are ever evolving. What is case law today and considered good enforcement practice is a bad thing to do tomorrow.
The easiest fix would be to stop electing stupid people to represent us. They make the laws. I sit through hours of legal up-dates every year. The usual class goes like this:
Officer: “Well, the way I read the law, it means XYZ”
Instructor: “Yep, that’s what it says, but what it means is XYA”
Officer: “Okay, I’m confused.”
Instructor: Welcome to the club.”
Fast forward to the officer attempting to use a new law:
Supervisor: “You cited this guy for XYQ”
Officer: “Yep, the guy did XYQ which is a violation of the statute. See this language- that’s what he did.”
Supervisor: “It may be, but we just got this letter from the States Attorney over at the court. He says XYQ isn’t a violation and not to use that as criteria anymore. He says the law means DFE”
Officer: “That’s not what the law says.”
Supervisor: “Yep, but according to him, that’s what it means.”
Officer: “I’m confused.”
Supervisor: “Welcome to the club.”
The officer gets called to court to testify in a case:
States Attorney: “I’m changing the charges you used in this case because you used ABC as the violation, and that’s not the right charge.”
Officer: “But that statute specifically states that ABC is a violation of that statute.”
States Attorney: “Yep, you’re right, but we don’t use it that way.”
Officer: “I’m confused.”
States Attorney: “Welcome to the club.”
There are few if any professional law enforcement officers that don’t try to interpret the laws correctly. They rage against the law makers who write vague laws that are next to useless as much or more than do the citizens. Frequently, new laws are enacted, and, through a trial-and-error period, the actual parameters of enforcement of the law are set through court decisions.
Lawyers can’t even interpret most laws, and we see that when defense attorneys find all of the various loopholes of a law and get their clients off. Or when a judge decides the charge doesn’t fit the crime. Laws are ever evolving. What is case law today and considered good enforcement practice is a bad thing to do tomorrow.
The easiest fix would be to stop electing stupid people to represent us. They make the laws. I sit through hours of legal up-dates every year. The usual class goes like this:
Officer: “Well, the way I read the law, it means XYZ”
Instructor: “Yep, that’s what it says, but what it means is XYA”
Officer: “Okay, I’m confused.”
Instructor: Welcome to the club.”
Fast forward to the officer attempting to use a new law:
Supervisor: “You cited this guy for XYQ”
Officer: “Yep, the guy did XYQ which is a violation of the statute. See this language- that’s what he did.”
Supervisor: “It may be, but we just got this letter from the States Attorney over at the court. He says XYQ isn’t a violation and not to use that as criteria anymore. He says the law means DFE”
Officer: “That’s not what the law says.”
Supervisor: “Yep, but according to him, that’s what it means.”
Officer: “I’m confused.”
Supervisor: “Welcome to the club.”
The officer gets called to court to testify in a case:
States Attorney: “I’m changing the charges you used in this case because you used ABC as the violation, and that’s not the right charge.”
Officer: “But that statute specifically states that ABC is a violation of that statute.”
States Attorney: “Yep, you’re right, but we don’t use it that way.”
Officer: “I’m confused.”
States Attorney: “Welcome to the club.”
Cavalier Knight
Member
No that was not one of my privileged permits, lol but I'm planning on moving about less then an hour away to CT where they have endowed me with the power to carry. So that will have to do for now. Or either join the NYPD.
pbearperry
Member
Cops do not need to know all the laws.Even Judges take recesses to go to their lobbies to read law books to make decisions.All a cop needs to know is probable cause and arrest powers.
Moondoggie
Member
I'm presently attending a 14 week LEO academy...2 wks to go!
We're knee-deep in laws and procedures, but laws regarding gun ownership/possession/carrying barely get a mention.
I worked for 5 months on the street prior to attending the academy, and I can tell you that every deputy on our department has a Lexus-Nexus book of criminal and traffic laws in our state. We couldn't get by without it! There's also a copy on the desk in our booking room, and most of us carry a homemade "cheat sheet" of common statutes. (The index in the manual is the most worthless thing I've ever read...it's not uncommon to spend 10 minutes finding a statute that you're unfamiliar with.)
The problem with gun laws is that, despite being a professional LEO, sometimes you can't stop your lifelong ideas of right and wrong from creeping into your thought process. (I KNOW it's wrong, it HAS to be illegal.)
Another pro-gun deputy and I recently straightened out a fud deputy on this issue. He saw the light.
I would suggest copying the pertinent laws in your jurisdiction from the internet and tossing a copy in your glovebox. If you can get a LEO to listen, you'll have ground to stand on.
We're knee-deep in laws and procedures, but laws regarding gun ownership/possession/carrying barely get a mention.
I worked for 5 months on the street prior to attending the academy, and I can tell you that every deputy on our department has a Lexus-Nexus book of criminal and traffic laws in our state. We couldn't get by without it! There's also a copy on the desk in our booking room, and most of us carry a homemade "cheat sheet" of common statutes. (The index in the manual is the most worthless thing I've ever read...it's not uncommon to spend 10 minutes finding a statute that you're unfamiliar with.)
The problem with gun laws is that, despite being a professional LEO, sometimes you can't stop your lifelong ideas of right and wrong from creeping into your thought process. (I KNOW it's wrong, it HAS to be illegal.)
Another pro-gun deputy and I recently straightened out a fud deputy on this issue. He saw the light.
I would suggest copying the pertinent laws in your jurisdiction from the internet and tossing a copy in your glovebox. If you can get a LEO to listen, you'll have ground to stand on.
The problem is the confusion, I guess we can all agree on that. The way the laws are written are pure BS. THe law should be written so that EVERYONE can understand the law. How can we comply with the law if we do not know what it is? We have allowed our elected officials to create another language and in doing so they can change the meaning without changing the words. That is how we have gotten laws that mean different things depending on your title or bank account.
Len
Len
sacp81170a
Member
Welcome, coloradokevin. Just be advised that there is a subset of folks here who, for whatever personal reasons, will always assume the worst about us and pass on whatever material they can find that makes us look bad. Don't take it personally (like I've done in the past) but look on it as a learning experience. I've found that if treat most of the guys here decently and explain your perspective in practical terms rather than giving knee-jerk emotional responses most of 'em will understand. They may not agree, which is what America is all about, but they'll understand.
sacp81170a
Member
Yeah, but if everybody could understand the laws, what need would we have for lawyers? (Hint: You might be shocked to find out what a large percentage of our legislators at the state and federal level are themselves lawyers. Self-perpetuating loop? Could be, at least in terms of attitude...)
Blackfork
Member
Thread Question
The original question was whether LEOs should have a PASSING FAMILIARARITY with the laws they enforce. The answer to that is an unequivocal YES.
The original question was whether LEOs should have a PASSING FAMILIARARITY with the laws they enforce. The answer to that is an unequivocal YES.
Robert Hairless
Member
- Joined
- Oct 11, 2003
- Messages
- 3,983
sacp81170a:
And that's one of the reasons why you're worth reading. One part of the experience is about learning, another part is about teaching, and the whole is mutually educational.
There's something else that I think is worth putting on the table now.
Aside from some inevitable subset on the fringes, the people who frequent gun forums tend to be strongly inclined to support law enforcement officers. Read between the lines of many messages posted here and I think it's clear that most concealed weapons permit holders here would rush to aid an officer in need of assistance. I've been reading messages for decades and at first I thought it was a John Wayne syndrome: "Gotta gun, gonna use it." As I kept reading and analyzing, though, I came to see it wasn't that at all.
It's another manifestation of exactly the same attitudes that lead people to become CWP holders. We acknowledge the existence of evil in the world, we recognize the fragility of life, we realize that bad people hurt good people, and we conclude that it's essential to take individual responsibilty for being on the side of good rather than submitting to evil.
So we are on your side. It's therefore a powerful shock to encounter incidents where law enforcement officers are substantially less than we expect and have a right to expect. I'm not talking about situations that demonstrate human frailty but about situations in which a cop obviously has lost his way. For rough analogies think of news reports about baby sitters who abuse infants in their care and nurses who poison patients. There aren't that many, thank God, but when such incidents come to light there's justifiable outrage. Imagine the heightened mistrust that would follow and spread if other nannies and nurses actually defended those abuses or tried to excuse them.
A few years ago in one of these threads I saw a cop post a message stating that it was all nonsense. When he is on the streets, he said, he is the law and anyone who didn't like it could lump it.
There's a real problem here. To ignore it or to blame the victims only increases the problem. That kind of reaction by police officers to criticism from the segment of the population most inclined to support them is at best foolish and more likely self destructive. For example you are the very people who should be loved by minority communities for the protection you provide that they can't give themselves. Instead, though, you're often hated and feared by them. There's something fundamentally wrong here and I think it's similar to what triggers similar reactions in threads like this.
It's not awfully bright to alienate those who are most inclined to support you. When you can't distinguish between your friends and your enemies, all you see are enemies.
And that's one of the reasons why you're worth reading. One part of the experience is about learning, another part is about teaching, and the whole is mutually educational.
There's something else that I think is worth putting on the table now.
Aside from some inevitable subset on the fringes, the people who frequent gun forums tend to be strongly inclined to support law enforcement officers. Read between the lines of many messages posted here and I think it's clear that most concealed weapons permit holders here would rush to aid an officer in need of assistance. I've been reading messages for decades and at first I thought it was a John Wayne syndrome: "Gotta gun, gonna use it." As I kept reading and analyzing, though, I came to see it wasn't that at all.
It's another manifestation of exactly the same attitudes that lead people to become CWP holders. We acknowledge the existence of evil in the world, we recognize the fragility of life, we realize that bad people hurt good people, and we conclude that it's essential to take individual responsibilty for being on the side of good rather than submitting to evil.
So we are on your side. It's therefore a powerful shock to encounter incidents where law enforcement officers are substantially less than we expect and have a right to expect. I'm not talking about situations that demonstrate human frailty but about situations in which a cop obviously has lost his way. For rough analogies think of news reports about baby sitters who abuse infants in their care and nurses who poison patients. There aren't that many, thank God, but when such incidents come to light there's justifiable outrage. Imagine the heightened mistrust that would follow and spread if other nannies and nurses actually defended those abuses or tried to excuse them.
A few years ago in one of these threads I saw a cop post a message stating that it was all nonsense. When he is on the streets, he said, he is the law and anyone who didn't like it could lump it.
There's a real problem here. To ignore it or to blame the victims only increases the problem. That kind of reaction by police officers to criticism from the segment of the population most inclined to support them is at best foolish and more likely self destructive. For example you are the very people who should be loved by minority communities for the protection you provide that they can't give themselves. Instead, though, you're often hated and feared by them. There's something fundamentally wrong here and I think it's similar to what triggers similar reactions in threads like this.
It's not awfully bright to alienate those who are most inclined to support you. When you can't distinguish between your friends and your enemies, all you see are enemies.
Last edited:
Cosmoline
Member
Terrorism checkpoint?! Where was this? I've never even heard of such a thing.
To answer the question, yes all LEO's should know their laws well enough to know if firearms need to be registered. I would suggest giving more details and publishing the identies of the officer who made the mistake. I have no idea why you're reluctant to provide details.
To answer the question, yes all LEO's should know their laws well enough to know if firearms need to be registered. I would suggest giving more details and publishing the identies of the officer who made the mistake. I have no idea why you're reluctant to provide details.
Flyboy
Member
"Probable cause?" As in, "probable cause to believe a crime has been, or is being, committed?" How is he going to know probable cause without knowing what he has probable cause for?
For example, if one of the Kampus Kops here in Norman (you'd have to know them to understand) wanted to search my vehicle because he believed I had a firearm therein, he wouldn't have probable cause, even if he'd seen me put it in there: state law says it's perfectly legal for me to leave it in the car on campus, and preempts even the university's policy.
So, he has probable cause to believe I have a firearm, but no probable cause to believe a crime has been committed. The distinction is critical.
Deanimator
Member
"Probable cause" for WHAT? Being Slovenian on a sunny day?
If you don't know the law, how can you POSSIBLY have probable cause to believe it's been broken? Any such belief must be REASONABLE. You can't say that one of the Keebler elves told you that it's unlawful to possess a firearm capable of holding more than five rounds and expect that to be accepted as probable cause of anything.
And lest you dismiss that flippant example out of hand, there was a cop not so long ago who physically hassled a guy based on his mistaken understanding of CCW in a DIFFERENT state where he USED to be a cop. The victim didn't retaliate against him legally or administratively. Heaven knows why. Just too nice for his own good, probably. The cop could just as easily have run into me, and I'd STILL be giving his career the death of a thousand cuts.
Orthonym
Member
Welcome, coloradokevin!
You do realize, though, that if, somehow, all many thousands of us meet up at the range before anyone else joins up, you will be required to buy ALL of the ammo, for all of us?
You do realize, though, that if, somehow, all many thousands of us meet up at the range before anyone else joins up, you will be required to buy ALL of the ammo, for all of us?
Orthonym
Member
P.s.
Hey, it could be worse. We could make you buy the beer too.
Hey, it could be worse. We could make you buy the beer too.
fastbolt
Member
Sure, just like doctors should be familiar with all of the diseases and conditions they may encounter and have to treat in a patient, and lawyers should know about all of the laws which may be involved in all the cases they may have to handle ... and drivers should know all of the rules of the road contained in their state vehicle codes (which they agreed to obey when they received their license) ... etc., etc..
ranger335v
Member
- Joined
- Dec 3, 2006
- Messages
- 3,797
I respect a few LEOs but many seem more concerned with well timed coffee breaks than the acual law they are supposed to be familiar with.
pbearperry
Member
Hey Ranger don't forget pee breaks too.You never drink coffee while working?Stay focused man.
So personal tragedy is an excuse to break the law? Will it be ok, then for the cop to whip out a nightstick and beat someone with a gun, just to make him or herself feel better? Will you condone cops falsely arresting someone because they're having a bad day?
Someone in the position of authority of a police officer needs to be absolutely sure of the laws he or she is enforcing. Ignorance of basic gun laws is absolutely inexcusable. We aren't talking about some esoteric law that was hiding in the books since 1823 or something! (like the Texas law against walking down a roadside with pliers in yout pocket) We're talking about fundamental laws here!
It isn't a cop's job to decide what laws he or she likes, or dislikes. It's his or her job to enforce the laws on the books. Period.
I obviously don't know the accuracy of the original story, but if I encountered someone like that, there sure would be some calls/letters/visits to the cop's superiors, the local news, and the city, county, or state office that cop worked for!
R127
Member
This must not be rare at all as that happened in my case as well. There were two officers that were clearly from some place I would call New England, I'm no expert on that area but I would have guessed Boston by the accent. One of the individuals was very courteous and professional, not at all jumpy. He thought there was a gun registration system in my state and a few other oddball things like that so I can only guess those were realities where he was originally from. The good news was he had no axe to grind and readily accepted new information upon confirmation. I would say his actions and attitude were a positive reflection on law enforcement officers in general.
The other guy seemed to have much hatred dwelling within him. It appeared he was in charge. I caught a little attitude from him but I'd say the other LEO's caught more and for no discernable reason. He just treated people like doo-doo. I would have guessed Massachusetts or New Jersey for that guy, again I'm no expert. He was far too enthusiastic about trying to find something to take me in for. My feeling was that while several of the other officers were trying real hard to find some wrongdoing they were doing it from a technician's point of view, nothing personal and no particular agenda just a focus on what they felt was their job. I don't think it was a good cop/bad cop thing, just an individual with a bad attitude. I'd say it was pretty clear that he was probably an anti and definately wanted to enforce laws from his old state that do not apply here.
Sure, I get the sarcasm but you miss the point. If a doctor doesn't know what's wrong with you he isn't going to remove your appendix just because that is a procedure he's familiar with. If a lawyer doesn't understand a given area of the law in regards to a given case he's going to spend some serious time studying before he makes a move, at least if he's halfway competent. Even a driver who is not followin some obscure vehicle code is not likely to be endangering anybody as long as he isn't being careless. Law enforcement officers have the power to dammage or destroy your life simply by acting without an understanding of the law. You can very easily end up in jail for months before you ever get a trial and if you get unlucky a jumpy officer might injur or even kill you for no justifiable reason. It is simply a huge ammount of discretionary power in the hands on an individual, really too much to be considered safe unless that individual is held to an exacting standard.
The bottom line remains there either needs to be some sort of higher standard of competence or else the system of laws needs to be reduced to a comprehensible level. Officer competence is extremely important but I feel that things just will not work right until the system of laws is made comprehensible and it is grossly unjust to both the ordinary citizens and the LEO's to have a huge, arcane unknowable double secret mystery system of laws. I personally would be much more interested in hearing some actionable ideas on how to get a reform movement rolling than just sarcasm. That goes the same for pee and coffee breaks too. There's clearly some very real problems that need some real solutions.
Oh don't misunderstand me, that isn't what it was officially called. However that is what I was told they were checking for when I asked. Terrorism is the excuse for everything these days.
Do you habbitually post all your personal information on the web? I don't. Nobody got physical with me and I don't think the individual officers need a personal reprimand. The problem I see and care about is systemic. A failure somewhere on the operational, training or hiring level coupled with the aforementioned system of laws. It simply does not need to be made personal to address these issues and I am more interested in gauging general sentiment and solliciting ideas on what might be done to address the core issues.
I do appreciate the valuable insight that has been offered by many of the LEO's that have responded to this thread. It does help us understand where you're coming from.
You're in a land far away from me but I just want you to know that I sincerely appreciate the fact that you don't take shortcuts for convenience's sake that could end up costing someone big for no good reason. In any job it's easy to get lazy and try to fudge things, especially in the face of peer pressure and disallusionment. People who take their job seriously and act in a responsible way such as yourself or the other officer I mentioned as being particularly courteous and professional reflect well on the LEO community in general but even more importantly are indicative of the type of character that should be required of anyone in a position of authority. Any fool can be given power but it takes integrity and honor to use it justly.
damien
Member
Short answer. The feds more or less require FBI agents to have a law degree for exactly the reasons that you mention. It would be ideal if all cops had this requirement. Of course, it would be quite expensive.
R127
Member
I would be willing to pay extra for the peace of mind of knowing that the power is in the hands of someone highly qualified to handle it and prevent its misuse. I will look into the FBI's system. I don't have any experience with the FBI but I have had some contact with the US Marshals and was actually very impressed with the way they handled themselves and treated others.
XDKingslayer
member
No...They don't.
And it's pretty much impossible to expect them to have a passing knowledge of the many, many federal, state and county laws. Most prosecutors and even most judges don't have a passing familiarity on most laws.
Deanimator
Member
If police [or their supporters] want to go down that route, it's 100% guaranteed to bite them sooner rather than later.
I'm absolutely certain that the families of Kathryn Johnston and Michael Pleasance are pretty distraught over the murders of their relatives by the Atlanta and Chicago PDs, respectively. To justify criminality by police on the basis of emotional upset opens the door to criminality by everyone else with the same excuse. Would the families of those two murder victims be justified in unlawfully harming police because they're upset at the behavior of the cops who committed those heinous crimes (nevermind the attempted coverups and failures to punish)? No more or less so than a cop would be justified in violating someone's rights because his wife's leaving him, his dog died or another cop got shot.
One law for EVERYONE.
fastbolt
Member
No, I don't miss your point.
You seemingly have what may be a reasonable grievance which prompted this thread topic resulting from an unfortunate experience which could've, and probably should have, gone better. Don't know. Wasn't there. Perfectly reasonable response, though.
You seem to have identified an instance where a local LEO's demonstrated level of training, knowledge and experience may have caused him to make a mistake of law ... but you can't know for sure whether this was the result of less-than-satisfactory training or a failure of the individual to remember and retain previously received knowledge ... or even whether it was a combination of not caring to remember previous training and a cavalier disregard for proper conduct. Again ... Don't know. Wasn't there. Not involved.
Doesn't mean the whole system is broken or requires repair, though.
I haven't looked up the current number of cops who are employed in this country, but I seem to remember we reached the 3/4 of a million mark a while ago. That's a lot of peace officers (law enforcement officers, etc.). 50 states (and DC, etc.). Over 3,000 counties (and county equivalents). Cities, townships, villages, etc. Feds, too. Lots of laws, statutes and codes. Local ordinances.
Line level cops have supervisors which are expected to direct, support and even participate in their activities. Good supervisors obviously don't want their folks making mistakes, either, especially mistakes of law. Good bureau managers want the supervisors to have the necessary support and wherewithal to help the line cops do their jobs correctly. If a problem exists it can be corrected. The people at the executive, command and management levels of an agency want a problem corrected if it exists. The public is entitled to have it corrected.
You're just focusing on a single aspect of the law, though, and one which doesn't often come up when you look at LE agencies in general all across the country and when you consider the huge number of LE which are presently working in this country. Sure, it may be a 'biggie' in a public firearms enthusiast's internet forum ... but day in & day out there are other valid and pressing concerns which exist, and to a significantly greater degree.
Someone else who experienced a different situation where a particular LEO's knowledge, experience and training may not have satisfactorily addressed a situation, or caused a perceived problem, would likely have just as valid of a concern that his/her situation not be repeated.
Different states may require different types of annual or biennial in-service training for active LE. Granted, certain federal and/or state mandated training may take up most, or even all, of such training time and dollars. Depends. Training dollars don't grow on trees.
I know a state LE agency which makes it a priority to hold what's called 'roll-call' training every day at the beginning of each shift. Different officers are tasked with researching and presenting correct information about all kinds of subjects and activities, things which can impact the officers on any given day, as well as things which they may not encounter frequently. The presentation is compressed within about 15 minutes, but it's frequent and ongoing. New subject every day. Sometimes critical subjects may be covered more than once a month, too. It addresses laws (existing & new), case law decisions and updates, tactical situations, officer safety, etc., etc..
I've known other agencies which set aside a certain day of the week for updated and refresher training.
Another agency generates a monthly training bulletin addressing changes in the law (existing & new), new case law decisions, refresher briefings for laws & circumstances which may not happen frequently, new Policies/GO's and revisions to existing ones, etc..
The potential situation for ongoing, in-service training is virtually as myriad as the agencies which exist.
Risk Management philosophies are becoming of increasing interest in the LE field, too. Predictable is preventable ... And not just when it comes to preventing injuries, either. Provide the necessary knowledge and training to your folks so they won't make those high liability mistakes, especially in those low-frequency occurrences where their knowledge may not be as 'fresh', or as current, as it might be with some attention.
I've attended a number of seminars in which line level, supervisory, management and even command staff listened to legal experts discuss the inherent potential pitfalls and liability that can result when LEO's aren't sufficiently trained and supervised ... or aren't dismissed when someone chooses not to respond (or consistently fails to respond) to progressive discipline and fails to correct a continuing problem, or a problem is of a sufficiently serious criminal nature that it requires immediate suspension and termination proceedings. Negative Retention of 'problem' employees is a potential liability concern to LE agencies.
I've met experienced experts who taught this subject in addition to their normal LE-related jobs, and those who taught it full time and traveled widely. There are similar seminars given just for command and executive staff of LE agencies, too. I've seen packed large convention lecture halls and regular convention training rooms where this subject was addressed.
It's not like LE isn't trying to meet the needs of the public it serves.
BTW, mistakes made by doctors, and other medical professionals, are not an insignificant 'problem'.
I've seen mistakes made by attorneys which did adversely affect their clients, sometimes to significant degrees.
Motorists & pedestrians have suffered serious injuries and/or death because someone violated one of the more 'common' rules of the road, often claiming they were unaware of doing so at the time.
Professional pilots. ("Pilot error" )
Fire fighters.
Military.
Lots of professions have some serious training requirements, both initially and continuing in-service.
Mistakes in judgment and knowledge still occur, though. Sometimes the immediate actions and resulting consequences are immediately adverse and unfortunate, too.
However, back to LE ...
A 4-6 month (or more) Basic academy can only instill so much, in so short of a time. FTO training & evaluation, as well as on-going training and experience, continues the career-long process.
Want your cops to have law degrees? Be ready to pay a lot more money. Good luck attracting enough folks to fill all the positions, too. (FWIW, did you ever hear lawyers argue interpretation of a statute or precedent in a court proceeding? Want that to happen with your basic law enforcement peace officers?)
The FBI used to like folks with Accounting degrees, too.
Want your line level cops to be proficient in their firearms knowledge and skills far and above the public? Front the money for increased training time, ammunition, range facilities, and worker's comp insurance (physical injuries do happen on a training range which don't involve gunshot wounds, you know). Get ready for court challenges when someone can't cut the mustard and challenges the higher standards.
Want your cops to be highly physically fit, and remain so throughout their careers (allowing for age-related achievement standards)? Get ready for the union and ADA legal challenges. Not going to happen on a wide-spread scale anyway, though, so it doesn't matter.
How about enhanced EVO (emergency vehicle operation) driving skills? More cops lose their careers, financial future and even freedom driving their emergency vehicles through intersections, not understanding when & how to run 'code', than from just about any other circumstance. I remember hearing an association attorney lecture on this subject when I was a young cop, and I've seen him repeatedly proven correct as the years of my career have passed. Bad driving decisions, especially 'code' & pursuit-related (arguably knowledge-based to a degree, as well as judgment-related) have cost LE & public lives.
Want them to have EMT/Paramedic training & skills?
Want them to have Rescue training and skills?
Want them to have Critical Incident Training and interpersonal skills?
Some cops have these things. It all costs money.
Being a First Responder who is a LEO isn't quite as easily learned and basic as some folks may be inclined to think.
The public is entitled to expect their LE are consistently held to high standards. No doubt. Rightfully so. It's the specific definition of what constitutes 'high standards' that causes some folks some consternation. The courts have been helpful in some instances, though.
Doesn't mean the cops are going to be able to learn all of the relevant statutes, codes and local ordinances for which possible violations may have occurred and have to be investigated.
Experienced, professional cops try to learn what they believe will be useful and necessary in order for them to properly and effectively do their jobs ... beyond their basic/standard level of training ... which includes realizing when they may need to seek answers from either more experienced cops or supervisors.
Sometimes we have luxury of taking an extra few minutes to clarify something of which we're either not sure, don't know or simply can't remember ... and then other times we may have to take immediate control of a situation and make everything safe so we can sort things out in a condition of relative safety for everyone involved.
If you think a problem exists with a local agency then express your concerns as a citizen and point it out, and then request clarification if you feel it necessary. If the public perceives a problem to exist ... it might just exist. One way to find out.
This doesn't automatically result in a 'complaint' or IA investigation against a cop, although it certainly might. Hey, that's the breaks for us when we're doing our jobs, though. Sometimes our actions receive ... and may actually require ... closer scrutiny for something which occurred. It's not personal, it's professional. Corrected actions and knowledge are good for everyone and benefit our society as a whole. It's arguably better when mistakes or gaps in knowledge are identified, examined and corrected before they become a 'problem' of such a nature that it results in, and requires, corrective action at the judicial system level.
So, yes, LE should have a passing familiarity with the laws they enforce ... and we do, to a reasonable extent ... and we're always trying to do better.
Sometimes you only get what you're willing to pay for when it comes to qualified candidates for any job, though ... to a reasonable degree, of course. I say that only because I've found it pretty mind-boggling when I've learned how little some LE are paid across our country for doing the same job. Yeah, I understand cost-of-living and relative housing costs as you change areas, but gasoline/diesel fuel and vehicles are still becoming very expensive regardless of where you live and earn a living.
Anyway, none of this means that there aren't going to be mistakes along the way, or that each and every cop is going to possess the same level of knowledge and experience as every other cop, and at the same point in his/her career. Increased time on the job exposes us to increased levels of training and continuing experience. Of course, it also doesn't mean the same priorities are going to exist from the perspective and perception of everyone when it comes to focus of training emphasis, too, once you move beyond mandated training requirements.
Just my thoughts ... meaning these thoughts and opinions are mine and are not intended to reflect the official policies, practices and procedures of my agency (Disclaimer).
Best regards.
You seemingly have what may be a reasonable grievance which prompted this thread topic resulting from an unfortunate experience which could've, and probably should have, gone better. Don't know. Wasn't there. Perfectly reasonable response, though.
You seem to have identified an instance where a local LEO's demonstrated level of training, knowledge and experience may have caused him to make a mistake of law ... but you can't know for sure whether this was the result of less-than-satisfactory training or a failure of the individual to remember and retain previously received knowledge ... or even whether it was a combination of not caring to remember previous training and a cavalier disregard for proper conduct. Again ... Don't know. Wasn't there. Not involved.
Doesn't mean the whole system is broken or requires repair, though.
I haven't looked up the current number of cops who are employed in this country, but I seem to remember we reached the 3/4 of a million mark a while ago. That's a lot of peace officers (law enforcement officers, etc.). 50 states (and DC, etc.). Over 3,000 counties (and county equivalents). Cities, townships, villages, etc. Feds, too. Lots of laws, statutes and codes. Local ordinances.
Line level cops have supervisors which are expected to direct, support and even participate in their activities. Good supervisors obviously don't want their folks making mistakes, either, especially mistakes of law. Good bureau managers want the supervisors to have the necessary support and wherewithal to help the line cops do their jobs correctly. If a problem exists it can be corrected. The people at the executive, command and management levels of an agency want a problem corrected if it exists. The public is entitled to have it corrected.
You're just focusing on a single aspect of the law, though, and one which doesn't often come up when you look at LE agencies in general all across the country and when you consider the huge number of LE which are presently working in this country. Sure, it may be a 'biggie' in a public firearms enthusiast's internet forum ... but day in & day out there are other valid and pressing concerns which exist, and to a significantly greater degree.
Someone else who experienced a different situation where a particular LEO's knowledge, experience and training may not have satisfactorily addressed a situation, or caused a perceived problem, would likely have just as valid of a concern that his/her situation not be repeated.
Different states may require different types of annual or biennial in-service training for active LE. Granted, certain federal and/or state mandated training may take up most, or even all, of such training time and dollars. Depends. Training dollars don't grow on trees.
I know a state LE agency which makes it a priority to hold what's called 'roll-call' training every day at the beginning of each shift. Different officers are tasked with researching and presenting correct information about all kinds of subjects and activities, things which can impact the officers on any given day, as well as things which they may not encounter frequently. The presentation is compressed within about 15 minutes, but it's frequent and ongoing. New subject every day. Sometimes critical subjects may be covered more than once a month, too. It addresses laws (existing & new), case law decisions and updates, tactical situations, officer safety, etc., etc..
I've known other agencies which set aside a certain day of the week for updated and refresher training.
Another agency generates a monthly training bulletin addressing changes in the law (existing & new), new case law decisions, refresher briefings for laws & circumstances which may not happen frequently, new Policies/GO's and revisions to existing ones, etc..
The potential situation for ongoing, in-service training is virtually as myriad as the agencies which exist.
Risk Management philosophies are becoming of increasing interest in the LE field, too. Predictable is preventable ... And not just when it comes to preventing injuries, either. Provide the necessary knowledge and training to your folks so they won't make those high liability mistakes, especially in those low-frequency occurrences where their knowledge may not be as 'fresh', or as current, as it might be with some attention.
I've attended a number of seminars in which line level, supervisory, management and even command staff listened to legal experts discuss the inherent potential pitfalls and liability that can result when LEO's aren't sufficiently trained and supervised ... or aren't dismissed when someone chooses not to respond (or consistently fails to respond) to progressive discipline and fails to correct a continuing problem, or a problem is of a sufficiently serious criminal nature that it requires immediate suspension and termination proceedings. Negative Retention of 'problem' employees is a potential liability concern to LE agencies.
I've met experienced experts who taught this subject in addition to their normal LE-related jobs, and those who taught it full time and traveled widely. There are similar seminars given just for command and executive staff of LE agencies, too. I've seen packed large convention lecture halls and regular convention training rooms where this subject was addressed.
It's not like LE isn't trying to meet the needs of the public it serves.
BTW, mistakes made by doctors, and other medical professionals, are not an insignificant 'problem'.
I've seen mistakes made by attorneys which did adversely affect their clients, sometimes to significant degrees.
Motorists & pedestrians have suffered serious injuries and/or death because someone violated one of the more 'common' rules of the road, often claiming they were unaware of doing so at the time.
Professional pilots. ("Pilot error" )
Fire fighters.
Military.
Lots of professions have some serious training requirements, both initially and continuing in-service.
Mistakes in judgment and knowledge still occur, though. Sometimes the immediate actions and resulting consequences are immediately adverse and unfortunate, too.
However, back to LE ...
A 4-6 month (or more) Basic academy can only instill so much, in so short of a time. FTO training & evaluation, as well as on-going training and experience, continues the career-long process.
Want your cops to have law degrees? Be ready to pay a lot more money. Good luck attracting enough folks to fill all the positions, too. (FWIW, did you ever hear lawyers argue interpretation of a statute or precedent in a court proceeding? Want that to happen with your basic law enforcement peace officers?)
The FBI used to like folks with Accounting degrees, too.
Want your line level cops to be proficient in their firearms knowledge and skills far and above the public? Front the money for increased training time, ammunition, range facilities, and worker's comp insurance (physical injuries do happen on a training range which don't involve gunshot wounds, you know). Get ready for court challenges when someone can't cut the mustard and challenges the higher standards.
Want your cops to be highly physically fit, and remain so throughout their careers (allowing for age-related achievement standards)? Get ready for the union and ADA legal challenges. Not going to happen on a wide-spread scale anyway, though, so it doesn't matter.
How about enhanced EVO (emergency vehicle operation) driving skills? More cops lose their careers, financial future and even freedom driving their emergency vehicles through intersections, not understanding when & how to run 'code', than from just about any other circumstance. I remember hearing an association attorney lecture on this subject when I was a young cop, and I've seen him repeatedly proven correct as the years of my career have passed. Bad driving decisions, especially 'code' & pursuit-related (arguably knowledge-based to a degree, as well as judgment-related) have cost LE & public lives.
Want them to have EMT/Paramedic training & skills?
Want them to have Rescue training and skills?
Want them to have Critical Incident Training and interpersonal skills?
Some cops have these things. It all costs money.
Being a First Responder who is a LEO isn't quite as easily learned and basic as some folks may be inclined to think.
The public is entitled to expect their LE are consistently held to high standards. No doubt. Rightfully so. It's the specific definition of what constitutes 'high standards' that causes some folks some consternation. The courts have been helpful in some instances, though.
Doesn't mean the cops are going to be able to learn all of the relevant statutes, codes and local ordinances for which possible violations may have occurred and have to be investigated.
Experienced, professional cops try to learn what they believe will be useful and necessary in order for them to properly and effectively do their jobs ... beyond their basic/standard level of training ... which includes realizing when they may need to seek answers from either more experienced cops or supervisors.
Sometimes we have luxury of taking an extra few minutes to clarify something of which we're either not sure, don't know or simply can't remember ... and then other times we may have to take immediate control of a situation and make everything safe so we can sort things out in a condition of relative safety for everyone involved.
If you think a problem exists with a local agency then express your concerns as a citizen and point it out, and then request clarification if you feel it necessary. If the public perceives a problem to exist ... it might just exist. One way to find out.
This doesn't automatically result in a 'complaint' or IA investigation against a cop, although it certainly might. Hey, that's the breaks for us when we're doing our jobs, though. Sometimes our actions receive ... and may actually require ... closer scrutiny for something which occurred. It's not personal, it's professional. Corrected actions and knowledge are good for everyone and benefit our society as a whole. It's arguably better when mistakes or gaps in knowledge are identified, examined and corrected before they become a 'problem' of such a nature that it results in, and requires, corrective action at the judicial system level.
So, yes, LE should have a passing familiarity with the laws they enforce ... and we do, to a reasonable extent ... and we're always trying to do better.
Sometimes you only get what you're willing to pay for when it comes to qualified candidates for any job, though ... to a reasonable degree, of course. I say that only because I've found it pretty mind-boggling when I've learned how little some LE are paid across our country for doing the same job. Yeah, I understand cost-of-living and relative housing costs as you change areas, but gasoline/diesel fuel and vehicles are still becoming very expensive regardless of where you live and earn a living.
Anyway, none of this means that there aren't going to be mistakes along the way, or that each and every cop is going to possess the same level of knowledge and experience as every other cop, and at the same point in his/her career. Increased time on the job exposes us to increased levels of training and continuing experience. Of course, it also doesn't mean the same priorities are going to exist from the perspective and perception of everyone when it comes to focus of training emphasis, too, once you move beyond mandated training requirements.
Just my thoughts ... meaning these thoughts and opinions are mine and are not intended to reflect the official policies, practices and procedures of my agency (Disclaimer).
Best regards.
Last edited:
- Status
