TVTropes Now available in the app store!
Open

Follow TV Tropes

Following

The Law Enforcement Officer Thread

Go To

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.

Barkey Since: Feb, 2010 Relationship Status: [TOP SECRET]
#301: Aug 23rd 2012 at 4:32:51 PM

I think it's fine to use education as part of the metric for who to invest in and put into academy, and who to later promote, but what I'm saying is that they shouldn't get you out of academy and automatically throw you into administration. You're no good as a leader if you don't have any tangible LE experience.

2 years on the street is kind of the limit I have in mind. If you've spent 2 years on the street or more, you're a legitimate cop who has done legitimate work, and capable of going to an administrative post and understanding what other officers are dealing with. Any less than that and you shouldn't be leading cops or having authority over them.

My entire point is that you can never forgo experience. Even if education results in increased performance, there are also educated people who do not perform as well as uneducated people in some careers.(meaning there are obvious exceptions) So give the benefits and bonuses to the people achieving the results and not just giving them a silver spoon because of a degree.

edited 23rd Aug '12 4:37:03 PM by Barkey

drunkscriblerian Street Writing Man from Castle Geekhaven Since: Oct, 2010 Relationship Status: In season
Street Writing Man
#302: Aug 23rd 2012 at 6:12:21 PM

I'm with Barkey on this one. Experience -pushing your way up- ought to be the only route to leadership. Those who would rule must first serve.

Let me put this in a way most of you non-military/LEO types will understand. Most of us have held crappy jobs at some point in our lives. Remember all those silly policies you had to deal with, handed down from on high? Remember how annoying, nonsensical and detrimental to getting your job done they were?

That's because they were written by someone who had never done your job. Like as not they were written by some guy with a business degree who has never touched a register, a mop or a fryer handle in his life.

I count myself very fortunate to work for a company where the boss does the same work I do. He works alongside his employees, and is not too proud to sweep floors or organize tools if that is the job that needs doing. Sure, we try to spare him these tasks...but that's because his expertise is valuable to us, not because he thinks he is too "good" to do such things.

He does not ask anyone to do anything he is not prepared to do himself. His authority does not come from a piece of paper mounted on his wall, but from the fact that he's put in 50 years as a builder and knows what the hell he is talking about. That's called credibility, and you don't earn it in college.

As a very wise friend of mine once put it, "There's lots of ways to impress the boss, but only one way to impress the crew."

I think that's what Barkey and Tuefel are talking about here.

If I were to write some of the strange things that come under my eyes they would not be believed. ~Cora M. Strayer~
TuefelHundenIV Night Clerk of the Apocalypse from Doomsday Facility Corner Store. Since: Aug, 2009 Relationship Status: I'd need a PowerPoint presentation
Night Clerk of the Apocalypse
#303: Aug 23rd 2012 at 6:19:18 PM

Drunk: Sort of. I don't mind having a degree being big plus but I do object to it being a requirement to advance. If someone is impressive enough to not need a degree why not give them a shot.

edited 23rd Aug '12 6:19:43 PM by TuefelHundenIV

Who watches the watchmen?
drunkscriblerian Street Writing Man from Castle Geekhaven Since: Oct, 2010 Relationship Status: In season
Street Writing Man
#304: Aug 23rd 2012 at 6:34:33 PM

@Tuefel: Education does matter. But experience matters too, and cutting those with the latter but not the former out of promotion does the organization as a whole a disservice.

If I were to write some of the strange things that come under my eyes they would not be believed. ~Cora M. Strayer~
Gabrael from My musings Since: Nov, 2011 Relationship Status: Is that a kind of food?
#305: Aug 23rd 2012 at 6:39:22 PM

LRPD uses 3 years. After 3 years of patrol you can try for SWAT, Dectectives, Narc, whatever. If you can pass the tests, you get the job. If you have a degree, there are minor pay advances, but you're not a shoe in for anything but admin. My dad got a minor advance due to him having some college credit, but it was his seniority that gave him his ability to choose shifts, transfer, etc. They rank seniority based on patrol years first, department years second.

"Psssh. Even if you could catch a miracle on a picture any person would probably delete it to make space for more porn." - Aszur
Sandor from London/Cambridge Since: Oct, 2009
#306: Sep 6th 2012 at 12:31:12 PM

I think it's fine to use education as part of the metric for who to invest in and put into academy, and who to later promote, but what I'm saying is that they shouldn't get you out of academy and automatically throw you into administration. You're no good as a leader if you don't have any tangible LE experience.

You do.

Under this scheme you're expected to undergo a year and a half before you're put into promotion. To be fair you're going to lose six months of that to training. But a year in what I'm almost certain are going to be the top flight 'basic teams' (response, and a couple others I won't name) in one of the best services in the world is worth significantly more then two years as SNT or STT in Cambridgeshire or something.

And whilst you need that basing I agree, the skills you need to be a good cop aren't necessarily those you need to make a good leader. We've all seen good coppers turn into shit Sergeants and vice versa. We certainly should keep up promotions straight from the rank and file, but as touched upon earlier this also has a range of issues.

A combination of both methods seems perfectly serviceable.

"When you cut your finger, I do not bleed." Response of a man who lived on the outskirts of a concentration camp.
Barkey Since: Feb, 2010 Relationship Status: [TOP SECRET]
#307: Sep 8th 2012 at 4:19:02 PM

I just don't feel that a college degree has anything to do with being a leader. That's my main gripe with the entire system. We need to identify good leadership qualities, and elevate those people to leaders, not just take a gamble with people we don't know anything about.

It's why I'm into the whole bottom up idea. I don't want to assfuck all the hard working officers who don't have a degree, and likely won't get one soon because being a police officer requires really weird/long hours, lots of unplanned overtime, et cetera. Going to college as a cop is hard. I don't think it's right or effective to just look at people with a degree and say "Oh, we'll put you in our leadership program."

A degree should make you a good pick for Administration, but it shouldn't be guaranteed. The type of people who would ass out and not become cops unless they were promised extra pay and career advancement for their degrees don't deserve to be cops anyway.

Aprilla Since: Aug, 2010
#308: Sep 8th 2012 at 11:10:09 PM

This issue could also distantly represent problems arising from the college environment itself. College campuses are not as conducive to individual responsibility as they once were, and there are a variety of reasons for this. Before the recession gave many people a sobering reality, one of the prevailing attitudes with college is that you pay for a service rather than earning a degree in exchange for your hard work and research. That is, you don't work toward the degree so much as you believe you are entitled to it by virtue of having given the school money for classes. The administrations on campus are partly to blame for this as well because collegiate activities have become big business. ROTC and criminal justice students are not immune to this by any stretch of the imagination.

I've seen this mentality manifest itself through the freshman and sophomore years, as many young people enter college with the improper attitude of what is expected of them. Sleeping and texting during class or asking for extensions on papers when they had plenty of time to prepare their thesis is not reflective of the kind of leadership skills needed to operate in a military or law enforcement capacity. I know the officer hierarchy is heavily despised among enlisted ranks in the military (an understatement, I know), but a lot of this might have to do with the quality of education and responsibility being given to the student while they're pursuing the degree in question. Ideally, the whole concept of officer achievement stems from the idea that if you can bust your butt for four to eight years in college, you have at least demonstrated the potential for leadership roles in law enforcement. But this is the ideal, not the reality.

TamH70 Since: Nov, 2011 Relationship Status: Faithful to 2D
#309: Sep 18th 2012 at 7:54:33 AM

Sad news today from Manchester. Two young female police officers, on what has been described as a "routine" operation, whatever the fuck that means, have been killed in a gun and grenade attack, by what seems to have been a man who is the subject of the most expensive and extensive manhunts in the Greater Manchester Police Force's recent history. The man suspected of the killings has handed himself into police custody at a local station.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-19635239 has more details.

The names of the officers killed have been released as Fiona Bone and Nicola Hughes. No word yet on their ages.

edited 18th Sep '12 7:55:20 AM by TamH70

TuefelHundenIV Night Clerk of the Apocalypse from Doomsday Facility Corner Store. Since: Aug, 2009 Relationship Status: I'd need a PowerPoint presentation
Night Clerk of the Apocalypse
#310: Sep 18th 2012 at 8:42:46 AM

Charming fellow. Wonder why he did that.

Who watches the watchmen?
Barkey Since: Feb, 2010 Relationship Status: [TOP SECRET]
#311: Sep 18th 2012 at 8:59:56 AM

^^

I don't want to downplay anything, or maybe it's because I'm from an LAPD family, but two officers killed is "the darkest day in the history of our department"?

I Manchester small or something?

Greenmantle V from Greater Wessex, Britannia Since: Feb, 2010 Relationship Status: Hiding
V
#312: Sep 18th 2012 at 9:04:11 AM

[up]

No, it's Britain*

— we've not had anything this bad since 1966, when three Officers were shot in West London. One of their killers is still in Prison.

edited 18th Sep '12 9:05:16 AM by Greenmantle

Keep Rolling On
TamH70 Since: Nov, 2011 Relationship Status: Faithful to 2D
#313: Sep 18th 2012 at 9:35:49 AM

[up][up]What greeny says. It is also the first time that we have lost two female officers in the one attack. We have lost others of course, most famously Yvonne Fletcher outside the Libyan Embassy decades ago, and most recently Sharon Beshenivsky, but not more than one per incident. The higher-ups are trying frantically to downplay the fact that they were female, of course, but that isn't washing with the various commentators, and quite right too.

Barkey Since: Feb, 2010 Relationship Status: [TOP SECRET]
#314: Sep 18th 2012 at 9:56:53 AM

I don't want to downplay it or anything, but yeah. Being from Los Angeles that just makes me scratch my head I guess.

InverurieJones '80s TV Action Hero from North of the Wall. Since: Jan, 2010 Relationship Status: And they all lived happily ever after <3
'80s TV Action Hero
#315: Sep 18th 2012 at 9:58:01 AM

Manchester is a big city but generally, in Britain, we don't shoot each other.

'All he needs is for somebody to throw handgrenades at him for the rest of his life...'
Gabrael from My musings Since: Nov, 2011 Relationship Status: Is that a kind of food?
#316: Sep 18th 2012 at 11:06:35 AM

Wasn't it Manchester where an officer was machete'd to death during a riot?

"Psssh. Even if you could catch a miracle on a picture any person would probably delete it to make space for more porn." - Aszur
Barkey Since: Feb, 2010 Relationship Status: [TOP SECRET]
#317: Sep 18th 2012 at 11:12:38 AM

^^

What an uncivilized place. Here we meet at dawn, walk 10 paces, and then spray fully automatic fire in eachothers general direction.

Greenmantle V from Greater Wessex, Britannia Since: Feb, 2010 Relationship Status: Hiding
V
#318: Sep 18th 2012 at 2:17:07 PM

[up][up]

Maybe, but it turns out the person who did the shootings was already a wanted Criminal, who had already committed two murders in Manchester, a son and then his father. As well, it appears that they were responding to a fake "burglary". And before it's asked, having Beat Officers armed is against the Founding Principles of British Policing, which is still taken seriously.

...and here are the Founding Principles:

The Nine Principles of Policing:

1. To prevent crime and disorder, as an alternative to their repression by military force and severity of legal punishment.

2. To recognise always that the power of the police to fulfil their functions and duties is dependent on public approval of their existence, actions and behaviour and on their ability to secure and maintain public respect.

3. To recognise always that to secure and maintain the respect and approval of the public means also the securing of the willing co-operation of the public in the task of securing observance of laws.

4. To recognise always that the extent to which the co-operation of the public can be secured diminishes proportionately the necessity of the use of physical force and compulsion for achieving police objectives.

5. To seek and preserve public favour, not by pandering to public opinion; but by constantly demonstrating absolutely impartial service to law, in complete independence of policy, and without regard to the justice or injustice of the substance of individual laws, by ready offering of individual service and friendship to all members of the public without regard to their wealth or social standing, by ready exercise of courtesy and friendly good humour; and by ready offering of individual sacrifice in protecting and preserving life.

6. To use physical force only when the exercise of persuasion, advice and warning is found to be insufficient to obtain public co-operation to an extent necessary to secure observance of law or to restore order, and to use only the minimum degree of physical force which is necessary on any particular occasion for achieving a police objective.

7. To maintain at all times a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and that the public are the police, the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence.

8. To recognise always the need for strict adherence to police-executive functions, and to refrain from even seeming to usurp the powers of the judiciary of avenging individuals or the State, and of authoritatively judging guilt and punishing the guilty.

9. To recognise always that the test of police efficiency is the absence of crime and disorder, and not the visible evidence of police action in dealing with them.

And the Founding Principles of the Metropolitan Police:

The principles listed above may have been Sir Robert Peel’s principles. However, the Metropolitan Police’s founding principles and, de facto the founding principles of all other modern (post 1829) UK police forces, was summarised by Sir Richard Mayne (the first commissioner) in 1829 in the following terms:

The Nine Principles by Sir Richard Mayne:

1. To prevent crime and disorder, as an alternative to their repression by military force and severity of legal punishment.

2. To recognise always that the power of the police to fulfil their functions and duties is dependent on public approval of their existence, actions and behaviour and on their ability to secure and maintain public respect.

3. To recognise always that to secure and maintain the respect and approval of the public means also the securing of the willing co-operation of the public in the task of securing observance of laws.

4. To recognise always that the extent to which the co-operation of the public can be secured diminishes proportionately the necessity of the use of physical force and compulsion for achieving police objectives.

5. To seek and preserve public favour, not by pandering to public opinion; but by constantly demonstrating absolutely impartial service to law, in complete independence of policy, and without regard to the justice or injustice of the substance of individual laws, by ready offering of individual service and friendship to all members of the public without regard to their wealth or social standing, by ready exercise of courtesy and friendly good humour; and by ready offering of individual sacrifice in protecting and preserving life.

6. To use physical force only when the exercise of persuasion, advice and warning is found to be insufficient to obtain public co-operation to an extent necessary to secure observance of law or to restore order, and to use only the minimum degree of physical force which is necessary on any particular occasion for achieving a police objective.

7. To maintain at all times a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and that the public are the police, the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence.

8. To recognise always the need for strict adherence to police-executive functions, and to refrain from even seeming to usurp the powers of the judiciary of avenging individuals or the State, and of authoritatively judging guilt and punishing the guilty.

9. To recognise always that the test of police efficiency is the absence of crime and disorder, and not the visible evidence of police action in dealing with them.

edited 18th Sep '12 2:38:11 PM by Greenmantle

Keep Rolling On
TamH70 Since: Nov, 2011 Relationship Status: Faithful to 2D
#319: Sep 18th 2012 at 2:32:06 PM

What is annoying is that it took the guy handing himself in for this series of killings to stop. The guy had been at it since May last year. And he has been in the area of the killings all that time. This man should have been found and taken down by a few Armed Response units ages ago, it shouldn't have been two young WP Cs, unarmed, and responding to a "routine" burglary (which seems to have been in actual fact a deliberate ambush) that stumbled into him.

It is a complete failure of the Greater Manchester Constabulary's intelligence operations in the local area for him not to have been found up until today, with such tragic consequences.

Barkey Since: Feb, 2010 Relationship Status: [TOP SECRET]
#320: Sep 18th 2012 at 2:44:02 PM

Well capturing wanted armed suspects with unarmed police being the norm is obviously difficult, given that as soon as they are noticed it becomes an officer safety issue to watch the suspects at a distance.

The armed teams can't be everywhere at once.

Do the British equivalent of Detectives carry arms?

Greenmantle V from Greater Wessex, Britannia Since: Feb, 2010 Relationship Status: Hiding
V
#321: Sep 18th 2012 at 2:47:59 PM

Nope, CID don't. Only Specialised Firearms Officers use Firearms. British Firearms Officers are the rough equivalent of US SWAT Teams.

Keep Rolling On
pvtnum11 OMG NO NOSECONES from Kerbin low orbit Since: Nov, 2009 Relationship Status: We finish each other's sandwiches
OMG NO NOSECONES
#322: Sep 18th 2012 at 3:05:31 PM

I find it odd that a run-of-the-mill British police officer isn't carrying a sidearm, actually. True, the crimerates and such are probably apples to oranges to what we have here in The States, but still - it strikes me as odd.

Can some of you British guys attempt to explain the methedology and mindset behind that? I'm genuinely curious.

edited 18th Sep '12 3:05:48 PM by pvtnum11

Happiness is zero-gee with a sinus cold.
TamH70 Since: Nov, 2011 Relationship Status: Faithful to 2D
#323: Sep 18th 2012 at 3:09:54 PM

I cannot. I really cannot. Not in today's world. I know it is traditional, and all that, but I tend to see traditions, or some of them, as something that I cannot defend.

Greenmantle V from Greater Wessex, Britannia Since: Feb, 2010 Relationship Status: Hiding
V
#324: Sep 18th 2012 at 3:15:53 PM

@ pvtnum 11: For the mindset, see the quotes in post #318. Those are from the founders of British Policing.

Basically, it's Police by public consent; the People are the Police and the Police are the People — the people aren't armed, so neither are the Police. And an article from The BBC: Why British police don’t have guns

edited 19th Sep '12 8:44:31 AM by Greenmantle

Keep Rolling On
pagad Sneering Imperialist from perfidious Albion Since: Jan, 2001 Relationship Status: Showing feelings of an almost human nature
Sneering Imperialist
#325: Sep 19th 2012 at 2:17:00 PM

The biggest opponents to police being routinely armed are the police themselves, as that article notes - over eighty per cent of them would be opposed to such a move. Public opinion is about 50/50.

With cannon shot and gun blast smash the alien. With laser beam and searing plasma scatter the alien to the stars.

Total posts: 8,416
Top