The official "Ask a cop/deputy anything!" thread

[Sedan_Clan]

Originally Posted by Soul_Glo

What do movies and TV get wrong and right about police work?

The first thing 99% of movies and shows get wrong are "gun sounds" when there is no physical manipulation of the firearm itself; that, and officers who decide to rack the slide/pump the action/charge the handle once they are waist deep in a gunfight. It just doesn't happen like that. Our duty weapons are always live and our shotguns/rifles go live the moment they are removed from the storage cradle in our patrol vehicles.

There's so much that Hollywood does wrong, but of all of the shows/movies I've watched throughout the years, "Southland" and "Chicago P.D." are two of the most accurate depictions of field and investigative police work I've seen on television. That's not to say there isn't some embellishment, but the feel, the grit, the internal and professional conflict (…e.g…color outside of the lines here to achieve the greater good there, "appropriate" street justice, etc.) is truly well done.

Originally Posted by Soul_Glo

Have you ever used your status to get any freebies or perks, like at a 7-Eleven?

Well yes and no. I suppose it depends on how you are defining "using my status". The answer is "no" if you mean expecting special treatment or freebies simply because I wear a uniform. That would be unethical and simply a poor example of character. Have things been comped for me over the years? Absolutely! ….but I don't expect them to be.


The answer is "yes" when it comes to places that offer an LEO/military/first responder discount. It's there and it's offered for a reason, so why wouldn't I take advantage of the support given to, and/or gracious acknowledgment of my profession?!? I tend to patronize the businesses that support law enforcement/military/first responders more than any businesses that do not.

It's interesting because your inquiry is actually discussed often. There are people in the aforementioned fields that do not ….will not…..take advantage of the legitimate discounts offered citing that it makes them feel weird or they feel wrong for doing it. When asked my opinion, I usually counter with "Did you feel that way when you used your military service to save money when you bought your home?"…."…or to obtain free education for your children?!?"…..etc. The answer is usually "no!" What's the difference?!? Service is service, and with that service comes some benefit(s).

[Soul_Glo]

Thank you for keeping us all safe. I appreciate the work you do.

[Sedan_Clan]

Originally Posted by Soul_Glo

Thank you for keeping us all safe. I appreciate the work you do.

I appreciate that!

Just know this…..


….none of us are perfect and we make a shit ton of mistakes, but the vast majority of us who entered this field really did it because we want(ed) to help make the community better. When one of us does something shady and/or reprehensible, just remember they are the outliers and do not represent the norm.

[Sedan_Clan]

This candid interview was nice to listen to.

[E93Beast]

Not sure if it has been covered. Thoughts on Christopher Dorner ? Hope I got the name right.

[Sedan_Clan]

Originally Posted by E93Beast

Not sure if it has been covered. Thoughts on Christopher Dorner ? Hope I got the name right.

I remember that situation like it was yesterday. A crime spree spanning four counties that eventually ended with a cabin going up in flames. Dorner was problematic and there were a lot of red flags concerning him, but despite the department working to address those issues, a person who has gone off the rails is both dangerous and unpredictable.

[UncleWede]

Weekend DUI checkpoint: '13 drivers were cited for being unlicensed, and 3 were cited for driving on a suspended license' Yet no vehicles were impounded???

[E93Beast]

Originally Posted by Sedan_Clan

I remember that situation like it was yesterday. A crime spree spanning four counties that eventually ended with a cabin going up in flames. Dorner was problematic and there were a lot of red flags concerning him, but despite the department working to address those issues, a person who has gone off the rails is both dangerous and unpredictable.

But do you believe he was correct in some instances ? Crooked cops type stuff ? A LOT of people are aware of the "if you ain't white, you ain't right" slogan. SoCal locals anyways. I'm sure you know the department as well.
Also what are your thoughts on how things were handled ?
Personally I was and still am PISSED at the cowardly cops that shot up a truck with a mom and daughter trying to make a living because they were so scared of Dorner. Truck didn't even match the description FFS.

To make it clear, I have no issues with LEO's, hell my buddy was the field Sargeant of 5 cities until he moved.
I do however have an issue with cops / rookies that should NOT be on the streets and are a trainwreck waiting to happen.

[Sedan_Clan]

Originally Posted by UncleWede

Weekend DUI checkpoint: '13 drivers were cited for being unlicensed, and 3 were cited for driving on a suspended license' Yet no vehicles were impounded???

We don't have to take the car. Maybe there were licensed drivers in the vehicle. Maybe the D.A. in your area isn't filing on 12500(a) CVC/1460X.X CVC violations, so it's merely a show like it is in L.A. County.

[Sedan_Clan]

Originally Posted by E93Beast

But do you believe he was correct in some instances ? Crooked cops type stuff ? A LOT of people are aware of the "if you ain't white, you ain't right" slogan. SoCal locals anyways. I'm sure you know the department as well.
Also what are your thoughts on how things were handled ?
Personally I was and still am PISSED at the cowardly cops that shot up a truck with a mom and daughter trying to make a living because they were so scared of Dorner. Truck didn't even match the description FFS.

To make it clear, I have no issues with LEO's, hell my buddy was the field Sargeant of 5 cities until he moved.
I do however have an issue with cops / rookies that should NOT be on the streets and are a trainwreck waiting to happen.

I have never worked for LAPD, so I can't really comment on the culture of that department. As a black male working in law enforcement, I have never experienced any anti-black sentiment, so I can't really relate to his position (…and I work in L.A. County). I think A LOT of people tend to attribute every problem they have to the color of their skin, especially in the black community. I am not that guy. In fact, it is my anecdotal opinion/experience that very, very few instances have anything to do with race/ethnicity at all (..in the grand scheme of things).

P.S. Everybody is a rookie at some point and every rookie makes mistakes. It's par for the course.

[E93Beast]

Originally Posted by Sedan_Clan

I have never worked for LAPD, so I can't really comment on the culture of that department. As a black male working in law enforcement, I have never experienced any anti-black sentiment, so I can't really relate to his position (…and I work in L.A. County). I think A LOT of people tend to attribute every problem they have to the color of their skin, especially in the black community. I am not that guy. In fact, it is my anecdotal opinion that very, very few instances have anything to do with race/ethnicity at all (..in the grand scheme of things).

P.S. Everybody is a rookie at some point and every rookie makes mistakes. It’s par for the course.

Thanks for the response. I get the rookie comment but some of these guys do NOT belong on the streets yet. Poor training IMO.

[Sedan_Clan]

Originally Posted by E93Beast

Thanks for the response. I get the rookie comment but some of these guys do NOT belong on the streets yet. Poor training IMO.

You're right! Some people are not fit for street duty or even fit for this line of work, but I suppose you could say that about people in every profession. Those who aren't fit usually quit or are weeded out due to behavior and/or a pattern of poor decision making. Even somebody like me, who is pretty dialed in overall, has done days off ……albeit over nonsense, but days off nonetheless.

[jamesinaz]

Originally Posted by Sedan_Clan

You're right! Some people are not fit for street duty or even fit for this line of work, but I suppose you could say that about people in every profession. Those who aren't fit usually quit or are weeded out due to behavior and/or a pattern of poor decision making. Even somebody like me, who is pretty dialed in overall, has done days off ……albeit over nonsense, but days off nonetheless.

Assuming I was still young and fit enough to be a cop I would still not be a good cop. My tolerance for people who NEED a good ass whupping is too low to be a good cop. My hats off to those who can resist serving up a smack in the face when deserved.

Which is why I never considered a job in law enforcement or being a bouncer.

[Sedan_Clan]

Originally Posted by jamesinaz

Assuming I was still young and fit enough to be a cop I would still not be a good cop. My tolerance for people who NEED a good ass whupping is too low to be a good cop. My hats off to those who can resist serving up a smack in the face when deserved.

Which is why I never considered a job in law enforcement or being a bouncer.

It's tough……really tough. I think it's a bad time to enter law enforcement. I remember a time when the California Highway Patrol had to rent out entire convention centers to handle 5000 applicants. Nowadays a department is lucky to get 1/3rd of that number to apply.

[E93Beast]

Years ago, a man in L.B. caught someone breaking into his home. Chased him out the back, down an alley, shot him in the back. Why no charges filed ? Even if the guy was armed, he was running away so home owner can not say he was in fear for his life.
Same goes for liquor store robberies. Seen plenty of surveillance videos of them being robbed and suspects getting shot in the back as they are fleeing. How is this OK ?
Same for armored vehicle robberies.
At what point is it OK for a person (civilian, security, LEO) to shoot somebody in the back ???

Let me add, as they are running away, not like active shooter in school type situation.

[Sedan_Clan]

Originally Posted by E93Beast

Years ago, a man in L.B. caught someone breaking into his home. Chased him out the back, down an alley, shot him in the back. Why no charges filed ? Even if the guy was armed, he was running away so home owner can not say he was in fear for his life.
Same goes for liquor store robberies. Seen plenty of surveillance videos of them being robbed and suspects getting shot in the back as they are fleeing. How is this OK ?
Same for armored vehicle robberies.
At what point is it OK for a person (civilian, security, LEO) to shoot somebody in the back ???

Let me add, as they are running away, not like active shooter in school type situation.

I would need more information. Sometimes people get shot in the back because they've turned away after rounds have already been fired.

[E93Beast]

Originally Posted by Sedan_Clan

I would need more information. Sometimes people get shot in the back because they've turned away after rounds have already been fired.

In the first question, what would it matter ?
If the robber was already off the property, being chased by home owner, then gets shot in the back in the alley.
What possible reason could there have been to not file charges ?
Even if the robber turned to engage the owner, then turned around again as shots were being fired, wouldn't it still fall on the homeowner for chasing him down ?
My point is, owner was not in fear for his life if he was chasing the guy.
I thought that was a main focus point under these circumstances. You must be in fear for your life or the life of a loved one or innocent bystander which you are trying to protect.

[Sedan_Clan]

Originally Posted by E93Beast

In the first question, what would it matter ?
If the robber was already off the property, being chased by home owner, then gets shot in the back in the alley.
What possible reason could there have been to not file charges ?
Even if the robber turned to engage the owner, then turned around again as shots were being fired, wouldn't it still fall on the homeowner for chasing him down ?
My point is, owner was not in fear for his life if he was chasing the guy.
I thought that was a main focus point under these circumstances. You must be in fear for your life or the life of a loved one or innocent bystander which you are trying to protect.

I'm not familiar enough with the case(s). Your question has merit, but I don't know the details. There is nuance. It's not always that black and white.

[jamesinaz]

Originally Posted by E93Beast

Years ago, a man in L.B. caught someone breaking into his home. Chased him out the back, down an alley, shot him in the back. Why no charges filed ? Even if the guy was armed, he was running away so home owner can not say he was in fear for his life.
Same goes for liquor store robberies. Seen plenty of surveillance videos of them being robbed and suspects getting shot in the back as they are fleeing. How is this OK ?
Same for armored vehicle robberies.
At what point is it OK for a person (civilian, security, LEO) to shoot somebody in the back ???

Let me add, as they are running away, not like active shooter in school type situation.

When I took a state mandated class to get a concealed carry permit in Arizona learning the law was part of it. Here is how it works here. May be different elsewhere.

If you have legitimate fear for your life or the life of another individual you can use lethal force. it can't be because someone called you and threatened you and you go to their house to kill them first. You can not shoot them in the back as they are 100 feet away running away with the family jewels. You can not shoot them if they stopped being a threat.

Perhaps the incident you mention is one where charges should have been filed. But why not provide a link to the incident so ALL the facts can come to light not just those that might be mentioned in light of one sided bias.

Stuff like this is why I hate our media. The Rodney King riots were sparked because of inflammatory media. The entire tape shows a man on drugs resisting arrest following a car chase. He was clearly on drugs and a very strong man tossing deputies around like rag dolls. They are human and yeah they might have been scared and took a few extra shots. The frenzied beating at one point was clearly not very professional. But the media portrayed it as if a peaceful motorist was pulled over, dragged out of his car and then beaten unconscious for no reason other than his race. Voila. Instant riots and people DIED because of that misrepresentation.

Anyway, in my state you need to have a reasonable fear for yourself or another to use lethal force. I suspect that is a normal standard.

[E93Beast]

Originally Posted by Sedan_Clan

I'm not familiar enough with the case(s). Your question has merit, but I don't know the details. There is nuance. It's not always that black and white.

Thanks for the response(s).

[E93Beast]

Originally Posted by jamesinaz

When I took a state mandated class to get a concealed carry permit in Arizona learning the law was part of it. Here is how it works here. May be different elsewhere.

If you have legitimate fear for your life or the life of another individual you can use lethal force. it can't be because someone called you and threatened you and you go to their house to kill them first. You can not shoot them in the back as they are 100 feet away running away with the family jewels. You can not shoot them if they stopped being a threat.

Perhaps the incident you mention is one where charges should have been filed. But why not provide a link to the incident so ALL the facts can come to light not just those that might be mentioned in light of one sided bias.

Stuff like this is why I hate our media. The Rodney King riots were sparked because of inflammatory media. The entire tape shows a man on drugs resisting arrest following a car chase. He was clearly on drugs and a very strong man tossing deputies around like rag dolls. They are human and yeah they might have been scared and took a few extra shots. The frenzied beating at one point was clearly not very professional. But the media portrayed it as if a peaceful motorist was pulled over, dragged out of his car and then beaten unconscious for no reason other than his race. Voila. Instant riots and people DIED because of that misrepresentation.

Anyway, in my state you need to have a reasonable fear for yourself or another to use lethal force. I suspect that is a normal standard.

It was long ago and correct, I do not know all the fine details, only what was shown on the news.
That is why I asked what possible circumstances could have created this outcome.
The NEWS is garbage and more harmful than good IMO.
Its more to "stir the pot" for views than true journalism with facts. Seems like nobody has integrity anymore.
Stuff that should be news, gets swept under the rug and not get talked about.

[leopard print]

Originally Posted by E93Beast

It was long ago and correct, I do not know all the fine details, only what was shown on the news.
That is why I asked what possible circumstances could have created this outcome.
The NEWS is garbage and more harmful than good IMO.
Its more to "stir the pot" for views than true journalism with facts. Seems like nobody has integrity anymore.
Stuff that should be news, gets swept under the rug and not get talked about.

I agree with you that current news is garbage.

It's just that real news doesn't sell. People (and I mean this in the most general terms) want drama. It's a perpetual cycle of who can get the most views to generate the most revenue. It's nearly equivalent to social media and influencers.