Ok it was mentioned there is not a thread for Law Enforcement Officers (LEO for short)and other similar jobs for discussion.
This is for discussing the actual jobs, ranks, training, culture, relations to military bodies that exist, and any other variety of topics that can arise pertaining to the World of Policing.
Since a large number of patrol officers are themselves either former military personnel or reserves, that tends to be a mixed bag, but your point definitely still stands. When I train police officers, I teach them how to use controlled use of force. My military students and instructors, however, need a curriculum that more heavily emphasizes immediate incapacitation. Law enforcement and military perceptions of "excessive force" are clearly different, as they should be.
Having said that, I've spoken with a number of combat veterans who have argued that having soldiers with law enforcement experience is a major plus because military operations as of recent have shifted more toward civil peace keeping missions. Say what you want about the National Guard and Reserves, but many cops who get deployed have gained a solid reputation for being able to reason with Iraqi civilians a little bit better than full-time soldiers. Of course, you've also got guys like Barkey who would probably do just fine in these same situations, but it's undeniable that a working knowledge of law and order can go a long way in our current areas of operation.
Likewise, former military types working in law enforcement tend to have more of a no-BS mentality to patrol duty and, not surprisingly, more SWAT candidates tend to be former military although I've seen plenty non-military SWAT officers hold their own just as well rather commonly. Military and law enforcement tactics are by no means perfectly interchangeable, but their skill sets can be tweaked with relative ease.
So there are police specificall trained to deal with members/ former members of the military?
No, not to my knowledge. What I was suggesting is that former and reserve military personnel in law enforcement can handle one of their own as the situation sees fit, though this is not always the case. Training is the foundation for proper situational awareness, but how you respond is far more important than your service/patrol record. Number of warrants, arrests, enemy kills and combat missions is a good indicator of performance, but it's not the end-all be-all of of the individual soldier/officer in question.
Edit: While there are no formal training programs I know of that deal with handling suspects with a military background, the issue is something of a watercooler discussion in many law enforcement circles, if nothing else.
edited 14th Oct '10 10:35:01 PM by Aprilla
Ah, okay.
Night Clerk of the Apacalypse.
Rumetzen: The Military has its own judicial system and law enforcement arm. The MP (Military Police) and SP (Security Police) operate law enforcement and security operations that Civilian police handle but are trained in a more military manner.
The escalation of force for non-combat members of the Military like my job use a model more closely based on the ones the Police use because we have a much higher chance of encountering belligerent non-hostile civilians.
Who watches the watchmen?
Hey, pvtnum. Were you asking about military I Ds or I Ds in general?
From what a deputy and a lawyer once told me, it depends on how the ID is used. Constructing fake I Ds for minors so they can purchase alcohol and tobacco is a felony in some states, but that tends to get thrown out in a criminal court session. The charge is typically dropped to a Class 1 misdemeanor, but that's still something you DO NOT want on your criminal record, especially if you are planning on getting into college or certain corporate-level jobs.
Laser engraved polycarbonate is typically used as a security measure to ensure the legitimacy of the ID. In fact, one of my instructors just led a seminar for bouncers dealing specifically with how to spot fake I Ds without the polycarbonate signature. Since a lot of bouncers are off-duty cops, it's usually a given and comes with the territory.
That reminds me. When my step dad gave me some of his old woodland fatigues, he sternly told me to check for and take off the tab indicating his rank and name so I wouldn't be accused of impersonating military personnel. If you shop at a military surplus store, make sure the clothing has been debadged. Just a small tip.
OMG NO NOSECONES
^ Yep. I got my old field jackets with my name on it, but no rank or anything else. I kind of liked them larger than what they issued me, though - more comfortable that way.
I still have my Class A uniform in my closet. Hadn't worn it since I made E-3, so my Specialist rank is still in the inner pocket, waiting to be sewn on. I'd also have to get my single row of chest candy made up. No, wait. I'm one ribbon over one row.
I wouldn't fit it now if I wanted to, and I don't have the shirt for it anyway. Plus - I've done military time already. Why would I want to fake being something I already was...?
Happiness is zero-gee with a sinus cold.
See, as much as I likes studying law, I'm not sure if that would be legal. I mean, it is your clothing. You would probably get into legal trouble for using your uniform to falsely identify yourself a current member of the military in order to, say, get certain medical benefits at a VA hospital, but that's too far fetched. If it were that serious of a crime, then there would be fewer Vietnam veterans wearing their fatigues in public.
OMG NO NOSECONES
We got a bunch of vets at work - retired submariners. They take the rank off their blue coveralls, but leave their names on them. Those that had earned their dolphins wear those, too. It's not to sneak onto a boat again, it's just what they've worn for close to thirty years. This one old guy in particular, I have a double-take whenever I see him in anything besides those coveralls. Of course, submariners are just out there mentally, anyhow.
I haven't put a uniform on in over ten years. I'm saving them (except my BDU's those went away) for two reasons - I'm a horrible packrat, and I'm nostalgic about that period of my life. I still got my BFA for my M249 SAW, that's how much of a packrat I am...
I'd love to have some more OD Green sateen uniforms, the kind the Army used to issue back in the seventies and such in garrison - they look way better than BDU's, and they're much more comfortable, too. Strip teh patches off and they make good work clothes and they wash well.
Happiness is zero-gee with a sinus cold.
Barkey: Never pull a weapon on a cop. You'll be lucky to survive.
Also, never touch a cop. That's almost as bad.
What do you all think of polygraph tests? The sentiment in many law enforcement groups is that they are ineffective largely because they elicit manufactured responses from the subject. A lot of this is the result of the observer's paradox, which makes actual truth telling much more difficult.
When you take a polygraph test, the questions become increasingly personal and sensitive. Here's the key problem: being hooked up to the machine in the first place already creates an atmosphere of tension. The machine will detect this tension in your body and the examiner will likely register it as your giving false information. There have been several cases of test subjects failing the polygraph test even though they were telling the truth. Likewise, many spies and other types of criminals have been able to defeat the polygraph test using techniques such as heartrate control, tightening of the rectal and lower abdominal muscles, and memorizing the questions the day before the test (the latter of which requires having access to the question).
The United States Army is currently in the process of using a handheld device known as the Preliminary Credibility Assessment Screening System. So far, it has produced mixed results in the military intelligence community.
The National Academy of Sciences has released a bundle of reports indicating elemental flaws in the polygraph test, even outright saying that such a method is unscientific. The polygraph test is notorious for producing false positives, and while workers in the FBI, DEA, and CIA have submitted essays demonstrating evidenced shortcomings in this method, authorities in the Federal government and in local law enforcement insist on using it. A few agents and officers have even quit/lost their jobs over arguments about the deployment of the polygraph test.
Night Clerk of the Apacalypse.
Polygraph tests can also be readily spoofed by anyone with a little practice.
They are a bull crap technology.
Who watches the watchmen?
Night Clerk of the Apacalypse.
America is becoming less fond of them as a whole. In quite a few courts polygraph tests are not admissible as evidence.
Who watches the watchmen?
A common dilemma with hiring police officers is the infamous background check. Some recruiters have to make a serious judgment call about what constitutes conduct unbecoming and what is simply a blemish in the past that can be overlooked.
One SWAT member I met a while back said he had a physical altercation with his father and ended up getting arrested. This was back when he was about 22. He's worked for the city for 15 years now, and his service record is quite impressive. However, some people have criticized officers for having offenses that could be a detriment to the nature of their work. An officer with a history of domestic violence is arguably not someone you want patrolling your neighborhood. Arguably.
On the other hand, police academy authorities are quick to recognize that finding a cadet with a squeaky-clean record probably isn't going to happen too often, and having someone with a little dirt in their history can actually speak for their character in the sense that they know what it means to commit a crime. Seeing how the other side lives puts things into better perspective for someone who is inevitably going to carry a badge and a gun.
Obviously, this is going to be a bit more strict than entrance to the United States Armed Forces, especially considering how many people join the military precisely because of their criminal record, not despite it. Of course, the military won't take just anyone, but it's undeniable that law enforcement agencies are much more rigid about a person's record.
For example, you can't even become an FBI police officer if you have been arrested for domestic violence of any kind (bar fight, spousal fight, throw-down at the family reunion) even if you were not charged with a crime of battery or anything thereof. Special agents and standard FBI employees, maybe. The ATF is considered the most difficult law enforcement agency to enter, and they have been known to turn down excellent candidates with expert marksmanship ratings and polylingual skills just because they got a DUI when they were a teenager. The CIA and DEA, by contrast, have been known to hire people with less than stellar records (i.e. Harvard graduate with a slight record of drug abuse).
This reminds me of the adage that a good cop is not a person who makes mistakes, but rather a person who learns from his mistakes. There's a lot of truth to that.
edited 26th Oct '10 6:16:53 PM by Aprilla
Night Clerk of the Apacalypse.
Well for security clearance and background checks that really depends on the job. U.S. Marines on Embassy Duty, Working in Intel, Munitions, Or in an Armory have to pass a similar background check. You have to be pretty much spotless to get into those positions. For anything related to nuclear anything and the military you have to be spotless no exceptions.
Who watches the watchmen?
That sounds about right. The interesting thing about working for the federal government is that many criminal offenses can be waived if the applicant has an honorable discharge from the military. In fact, I know a few officers and federal agents who cleaned up their records through military service. BORTAC (Border Patrol) and the US Marshals tend to hire people from the Coast Guard because they statistically have the cleanest records of all service members in any branch. The Air Force is a close second, and most post-AF federal workers making special agent or standard employee positions will already have secret or top secret security clearance anyway.
Obviously a low-calber MOS isn't going to be a cause for concern, but working around nuclear materials definitely requires a good judicial standing.
The type of offense plays a large part in the paths of many post-military professionals. Speeding tickets are hit-or-miss, domestic violence typically depends on the number of years since the infraction occurred, but anything drug related will hamper your chances of gaining substantial work in a federal office. Juvenile offenses may not reduce one's likelihood of local, state, or federal employment, but people with a history of juvenile delinquency will most likely go through a more extensive psychiatric evaluation.
What do you all think of the blending of military and law enforcement tactics and culture? Some counties in states such as Michigan, Kentucky, Texas, and Nevada have started issuing night vision goggles to their patrol officers. A few towns issue MP-5N sub-machine guns on nighttime watch teams, and surveillance equipment seems to be steering more and more toward full-blown electronic warfare protocols. Part of this is because of the Patriot Act, but many of these procedures and inventory updates have been in practice long before the War on Terror ever began.
Do you think that local, state and federal police forces have become too militaristic? Not militaristic enough? Obviously, this is not a one-size-fits-all question since a federal unit such as the FBI Hostage Rescue Team is going to use more heavy-duty equipment than your typical one-horse town with the sheriff's department that doesn't even have a SWAT team. Speaking of which, some of the more well-known SWAT units are starting to require their officers to go through jump school and combat diving school. As a result, many tactical response teams are beginning to resemble special operations forces more and more, and I personally have mixed feelings about this.
OMG NO NOSECONES
The better your training, the better you'll be when your sugar turns to crap.
You won't rise to the occasion, you will fall - to the highest level of training you have. So yeah, all good. Especially since some gangs send "clean" members into the military for that training.
Happiness is zero-gee with a sinus cold.
Night Clerk of the Apacalypse.
Its fine just as long as we draw a clear an distinct line between the police and the military. The police must do certain things in a certain way. On the equipment front things like FLIR choppers and NVG's are excellent gear for officers to have as well as enhanced body armor and fire power etc.
Who watches the watchmen?
I don't know, I'm kind of in the middle as an SP. The difference is if I had to police an area filled with civilians it would be hard to adjust, I'm used to being no-bullshit and straight to the point, because that's how the military works. Instead I'd have a bunch of civilians trying to push different stories on me and expect me to be all friendly and shit.
That's part of what makes my Guard unit so good though, about half of my unit is LAPD, and 3/4ths of it is some type of law enforcement, when we worked the detention areas overseas our unit was awesome because we have a bunch of corrections guys in our unit, search and rescue, deputy sheriffs, etc. I could function policing a civilian populace, but they wouldn't like me because they would think I'm a hardass, in a hurry, and absolutely rude. All those things would just fly right off the shoulders of a military suspect, they're used to it.
Night Clerk of the Apacalypse.
Barkey: For you your trained to deal with military guys first and civilians as a secondary concern. Your still clearly military with all of the ramifications that carries. But say my local police force needs to operate in the parameters of police not the military. Ie they need to very strictly adhere to the escalation of force models and ensure that they do not violate our rights while doing their job. The military isn't necessarily bound the same concerns within reason. (Do you have to read a service member their rights?)
But I also see the need for our police forces to have more combat related training, better fire power (excellent example is that California Bank Shoot out), better armor and tools as whole to deal with the larger population centers and the gangs who are keeping abreast of the tech. and being surprisingly well equipped. The downside is it makes law enforcement much more expensive then a cop with a gun, radio, and car setup.
edited 19th Nov '10 3:52:41 PM by TuefelHundenIV
Who watches the watchmen?
I think it's hilarious, given the increasingly obvious fact that soldiers in most places around the world desperately need more indoctrination into civilian policing methods.
Night Clerk of the Apacalypse.
I am not sure about other branches but the Marines in recent years have been making a push on handling issues with civilians through means that involve less shooting faces and breaking bones (war zones are different animal then being stationed among a populous not laced with people part of a group trying to kill you in a variety of interesting and creative ways.) Including an increase in non-lethal techniques for detaining or discouraging and more Marines who are not SP/MP learning things like riot control and more policing style tactics for non-combat encounters.
Its not funny when something goes wrong and military personnel who have not yet been trained in this method use more force then they should.
Contrary to popular belief the military as a whole is trying to cut back on it. #Military men generally do not like to kill anyone who is not an enemy ie innocent bystanders. #It pisses off the locals and builds sympathy for the enemy camp. #Bad press which can create animosity back home no one wants to come to that.
Who watches the watchmen?
...which is why a drunk servicementer can be a real pain in the butt - no longer able to listen clearly to authority figures, which normally comes second-nature to them.
Happiness is zero-gee with a sinus cold.