Police, Civilian Oversight and the Media

[Darkstar]

Actually, that's sounds about right NYE... if the cops have been left alone to their own devices for too long. The shock of having someone tug on their long forgotten leash would result in that sort of behavior. Your city council has let that dog go too long without showing who's Alpha. The trouble is sad... but at least its selling copy and giving you something to post about.

[notyoueither]

I have to agree. Too many years of people who rubber stamped police service plans and policies. Then citizens started dying due to those policies and the Commission started to question them. Then a very bad reaction to being questioned. It's like they never knew that it was a service/oversight relationship.

But it wasn't the city council. It was a commission required by provincial statute. In some ways it might have been easier if city council did the job of the commission. If the police rebelled directly against an elected body we'd be dealing with a whole other magnitude of bad. On the other hand, that would reduce the police to the level of being a political football in small time politics. Also, these clowns have shown no remorse in going after members of the media who were less than fans.

[Dinner]

They blew it because they let to many people in on the gig and they used unencrypted police band radios. A not to expensive set of encrypted Motorola Talkabout radios would have solved the transcript problem plus a smaller crew of more tight lipped [roffessionals would have solved any leaks. They would have gotten away with it if they were smart.

[Donegeal]

Ok, here is my perspective, one from the Law Enforcement side.

I am about to go on shift. In the shift briefing, we are told that we have gotten information that there is a high probability there is going to be people driving home drunk from a party. As an officer, it is not our job to question the source of the information (that would be the job of the OIC (Officer In Charge)). Then the briefing reveals that the information is about subject X (in this case, it happens to be media personality that has been hightly critical of their job). The officers are naturally elated by the news that there is a chance they would get to bust someone who has been calling for their jobs. Do not argue this fact. If someone were trying to get you fired you would love to be able to put them in place.

The error in judgement I feel comes from the officers after they found out who the suspect was. Yes they were excited at the prospect, but they should have kept their snickering and jovial attitude to themselves and left it off the airwaves. While it was clearly inappropriate radio traffic, and maybe grounds of atmost a written warning (unless it has happened before), it is not grounds for dissmissal.

The journalist should be most upset at the source of the information, or the person who decided to act on the tip. As it stands, the tips may very well have been valid. The articals state that the journalist took a cab home, but it also states that people at the party overheard about the sting on a scaner and were talking about it. Now if you heard that cops were on a stakeout for drunk drivers at a party you were attending, wouldn't you make sure you took a cab home? Of course you would.

About the high speed chase policy, I have no comment as i didn't read any details on that.

All I have seen is that the cops were acting on what someone (The chief?? The dispatcher??) determined to be a valid source of information that someone was going to break the law. The only infraction I see that was done by the cops on duty, was talk inapproiately on the radio. A minor infraction of policy. There is a greater issue at hand with the changing of the story. Going from saying the stakeout was all night to it ended when the commisioner went home should raise some eyebrows. Why the change?

[Donegeal]

Oh yeah, the size of the operation seems a bit excessive, but that is entirely subjective to the size of the police force.

[Sava]

cops are the same no matter where you go, no matter what country you are in...

**** the police.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by notyoueither
I think the problem is they believe they are above any oversight.

Bingo! That's true almost everywhere. And frequently, they're right. Even whenh you have civilian police oversight boards, they're frequently sympathetic to the police. In Chicago, for example, the oversight committee is basically a rubber stamp for the police version of events, and Chicago has a bad problem with abusive police. I've seen it (though luckily not experienced it) first hand on more than one occassion.

[Donegeal]

Originally posted by Sava
cops are the same no matter where you go, no matter what country you are in...

**** the police.

and there is another open mined liberal.

Ignore list updated!

[chequita guevara]

There is a reason why most people hate and fear the police. Unfortunately, they are a necessary evil. After all, there is no criminal oversite committee.

[Donegeal]

Originally posted by Donegeal


and there is another open mined liberal.

Ignore list updated!

Nah... change my mind. He's just ridiculous about somethings, not all...

[Sava]

btw, I'm not including the Chicago police in this... I have no beef with them. A friend of the family is a desk sergeant at the CPD... former homicide detective.

real cops

bull**** cops that abuse their power

[Donegeal]

...see?

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Donegeal
Ok, here is my perspective, one from the Law Enforcement side.

I am about to go on shift. In the shift briefing, we are told that we have gotten information that there is a high probability there is going to be people driving home drunk from a party. As an officer, it is not our job to question the source of the information (that would be the job of the OIC (Officer In Charge)). Then the briefing reveals that the information is about subject X (in this case, it happens to be media personality that has been hightly critical of their job). The officers are naturally elated by the news that there is a chance they would get to bust someone who has been calling for their jobs. Do not argue this fact. If someone were trying to get you fired you would love to be able to put them in place.

The error in judgement I feel comes from the officers after they found out who the suspect was. Yes they were excited at the prospect, but they should have kept their snickering and jovial attitude to themselves and left it off the airwaves. While it was clearly inappropriate radio traffic, and maybe grounds of atmost a written warning (unless it has happened before), it is not grounds for dissmissal.

The journalist should be most upset at the source of the information, or the person who decided to act on the tip. As it stands, the tips may very well have been valid. The articals state that the journalist took a cab home, but it also states that people at the party overheard about the sting on a scaner and were talking about it. Now if you heard that cops were on a stakeout for drunk drivers at a party you were attending, wouldn't you make sure you took a cab home? Of course you would.

About the high speed chase policy, I have no comment as i didn't read any details on that.

All I have seen is that the cops were acting on what someone (The chief?? The dispatcher??) determined to be a valid source of information that someone was going to break the law. The only infraction I see that was done by the cops on duty, was talk inapproiately on the radio. A minor infraction of policy. There is a greater issue at hand with the changing of the story. Going from saying the stakeout was all night to it ended when the commisioner went home should raise some eyebrows. Why the change?

Seven cops for most of an evening because 2 people might drive after drinking, and neither of those people have a history of impaired driving?

And then pack up the operation after the 'targets' get their cabs?

And targetting a function that was mostly people from out of town who most likely would have been cabbing to their nearby hotels?

This thing stinks to high heaven to my civilian nose.

[Urban Ranger]

Who watches the watchman?

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by notyoueither


Seven cops for most of an evening because 2 people might drive after drinking, and neither of those people have a history of impaired driving?

And then pack up the operation after the 'targets' get their cabs?

And targetting a function that was mostly people from out of town who most likely would have been cabbing to their nearby hotels?

This thing stinks to high heaven to my civilian nose.

Yah.

Do the cops even do stings on drunk driving?

I'd think they'd be more into the prevention aspect of it than sitting outside on a cold night waiting for somebody to break the law...