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

[NorCalAthlete]

Originally Posted by ///d

Current technology and our laziness and desire to have everything automatic is the culprit. And a little bit of backl-it dashboards.

DRL's because most people don't understand they are not as high of an output as your headlights, and your tail lights are not on. They dont realize these are not considered your headlights for inclement weather or low light conditions.

Auto-headlights. I once dated a gal who did not know how to manually turn on headlights. She had to drive my 1988 Toyota pickup home once at 9pm. It was getting dark but she didnt know how to turn the lights on because she has always had auto-lights, so she drove the whole way home without headlights.

I also have a friend who I had to call and explain to her how to turn her lights on when it was raining. She tried to tell me her lights were auto and she couldn't turn them on herself and the car had to do it.

See that's the part I don't get - when I KNOW a car has auto-headlights, and they're STILL off. Like, that took extra effort to drive without lights on, so how can you be so oblivious?

I had a newish Tacoma work truck following me the other night. There was a sinkhole that had opened up due to the heavy rain, so this road had been converted from 2 lanes down to 1 lane with traffic taking turns in intermittently in each direction. Moderate to heavy traffic too.

For around 10 miles of bumper to bumper, stopped for several minutes at a time traffic, this dude had no lights on whatsoever. I tried flashing my interior lights, phone light, making hand signals, yelling out the window at him - nothing. I had the construction worker at the first entry point to the 1-lane section yell at him to put his lights on - he just kept driving. We got to the 2nd worker at the other end, maybe 1 mile before the road merged onto a 5 lane freeway, and I stopped traffic to get the worker's attention and told him to make the guy behind me turn his lights on before getting on the freeway. Construction guy understood immediately as soon as he glanced back, swore a couple times, then ran over and banged on the guy's window to tell him.

He turned his lights on and flashed me a couple times (in appreciation / understanding, I hope) and we got on the freeway and I bounced, but...for 8-10 miles this guy was oblivious and probably thought I was just crazy / distracted.

[Fly320s]

Yeah... most drivers are oblivious of most things. They drive by rote. They put their right foot at a comfortable angle and leave it there, which means they slow down going uphill and speed up going downhill. They do slow for curves, though, because curves are scary.

Those drivers also drive in packs, think the left lane is for anyone driving above the limit, regardless of traffic behind them, think that their auto-follow distance set to minimum is a good idea, and can't plan ahead more than 18 seconds.

[NorCalAthlete]

The Tacoma was new enough that he would have had to manually switch the lights off. That's the part that really bugs me - why would you ever do that with daytime running lights and auto headlights?

[freakystyly]

Auto shops would usually turn off your lights so they aren't a drain on the battery while work is being performed, etc.. same with the radio or other battery drains.

It's still surprising to see on roads with no ambient lights, there is no thought process. I'm noticing a lot of people with high beams and / or 1 operational headlight as well. More than 1 per day anyways.

[ezaircon4jc]

So experts, what's the rule on delivery trucks parking in the red/bike lane/right lane/painted island while making a delivery?

[Sedan_Clan]

Originally Posted by ezaircon4jc

So experts, what's the rule on delivery trucks parking in the red/bike lane/right lane/painted island while making a delivery?

They usually get a pass because delivering goods would be problematic otherwise.

[UncleWede]

Originally Posted by Sedan_Clan

The donut trucks usually get a pass because

FTFY

[Sedan_Clan]

What do the non-sworn contributors to this thread think about law enforcement's involvement in mental health issues or crimes perpetuated by people with mental health issues?

[ezaircon4jc]

Originally Posted by Sedan_Clan

What do the non-sworn contributors to this thread think about law enforcement's involvement in mental health issues or crimes perpetuated by people with mental health issues?

LEO's probably shouldn't get involved, UNLESS they have special psychiatric training. The odds of the situation going sideways is too great, and not in the officer's best interest; film at 11.

IMHO, there's no reason not to arrest a criminal, no matter their condition. After the arrest, let "the system" take car of them. Last I heard, the job of the police is to investigate crimes (and arrest the perpetrator) and the DA's are supposed to prosecute.

[Murf the Surf]

Originally Posted by ezaircon4jc

LEO's probably shouldn't get involved, UNLESS they have special psychiatric training. The odds of the situation going sideways is too great, and not in the officer's best interest; film at 11.

IMHO, there's no reason not to arrest a criminal, no matter their condition. After the arrest, let "the system" take car of them. Last I heard, the job of the police is to investigate crimes (and arrest the perpetrator) and the DA's are supposed to prosecute.

The majority of inmates in federal prisons/jail/justice system have mental health issues.

When I was early in my career the Association (union) wanted to put together a job description for police officers. It started to look like a phone book, I'm not kidding. The short answer is preserve life, protect property, investigate crimes, bring offenders before the courts, execute warrants and all other duties the Chief Constable deems necessary. That last part is an enormous catch all.

[Sedan_Clan]

Originally Posted by ezaircon4jc

LEO's probably shouldn't get involved, UNLESS they have special psychiatric training. The odds of the situation going sideways is too great, and not in the officer's best interest; film at 11.

IMHO, there's no reason not to arrest a criminal, no matter their condition. After the arrest, let "the system" take car of them. Last I heard, the job of the police is to investigate crimes (and arrest the perpetrator) and the DA's are supposed to prosecute.

So what would you have us do when a call for service is placed regarding a family member who is being aggressive or violent.....and that family member has diagnosed or undiagnosed mental health issues? I ask this question to stimulate a little bit of conversation about the topic because despite the fact I agree with you about us not being psychologists (..although we do receive some training), we are tasked with dealing with these people multiple times a day. We don't have the liberty of just refusing to show up or showing up and doing nothing.

[mahalom3]

Originally Posted by Sedan_Clan

So what would you have us do when a call for service is placed regarding a family member who is being aggressive or violent.....and that family member has diagnosed or undiagnosed mental health issues? I ask this question to stimulate a little bit of conversation about the topic because despite the fact I agree with you about us not being psychologists (..although we do receive some training), we are tasked with dealing with these people multiple times a day. We don't have the liberty of just refusing to show up or showing up and doing nothing.

We just had an OIS involving a 5150 two days ago... You have to go and handle it and hope no one gets hurt. Our station have a 5150 car too.

[Murf the Surf]

Police are always called when everything else fails. They often don't know there is any mental health issue other than what they are presented with upon arrival, the fact is they can't and shouldn't diagnose the mental illness, they must deal with the crisis. In the vast majority of these instances the issue is resolved with minimal use of force and the individual gets taken for assessment. They are often released by the "mental health professionals" before the police finish the paperwork. In extremely rare situations (less than .01%) the interaction results in deadly use of force. I have been involved in the investigation of many of these instances.

In one particular incident which illustrates some of the issues the individual was in a psychotic episode, he was walking through a park armed with a large knife, police were called and they tried to talk him down, he didn't respond to any of their directions and one of the officers ended up being stabbed before the subject was fatally shot.

During our investigation we learned that the family had managed to get the subject detained in a psych ward for 3 weeks for assessment. The psychiatrist saw him daily and at the end still wasn't able to diagnose his mental illness before he managed to escape the secure facility the day he was shot by police.

Often these people when they are in crisis are unmanageable and end up in encounters with police. For some reason they often arm themselves with edged weapons and in their psychotic and often paranoid states don't recognize police or anyone else for that matter and perceive them as threats and these are the times that they often end in tragedy.

During my investigations of these interactions we interviewed a researcher who studied police use of force and interactions with the public. The reality is the police interact with the public millions of times without using force. The fact is that statistically the incidence of use of force is quite low, and the other fact is that police are trained to respond to situations not instigate them.

Just my two cents.

[ezaircon4jc]

I'm sure you have training, but how easy/hard is it to distinguish between someone with genuine mental issues and one undergoing a drug-induced psychotic event? Does that dictate how the situation may or may not escalate? I do understand that de-escalation is obviously the preferred course.

[Murf the Surf]

Originally Posted by ezaircon4jc

I'm sure you have training, but how easy/hard is it to distinguish between someone with genuine mental issues and one undergoing a drug-induced psychotic event? Does that dictate how the situation may or may not escalate? I do understand that de-escalation is obviously the preferred course.

Like I said in my post before, mental health professionals often can't diagnose mental health issues after weeks of sessions. The other thing we often saw was folks, especially homeless people who suffered mental health issues but were also intoxicated from drug use.

The job really isn't to solve the underlaying issue but to deal with the crisis and get them to treatment or detox or into the criminal justice system. I came to the view that as counter productive as it might seem it was often more productive to lay a criminal charge if possible and then sent them for a psychiatric show cause hearing (bail hearing) where the court would then detain them for an assessment. If we took them to hospital they were often released within a few hours, if they were intoxicated they would get detoxed and released. At least when put into the judicial system they might get held for some treatment. Not ideal but in my view more productive.

[UncleWede]

If a mental persons family can’t handle why didn’t they call a mental health expert? They called the police

If a mental health issues gets so bad that you become a threat to yourself or the public, the police are needed to secure the safety of the greater good

It would be great if patrol got 1-2 weeks training for
Mental health
Child endangerment
Teen issues
Drug addiction
Domestic violence
Drug trafficking
.
.
.
Say, that doesn’t leave any time to put all that training into practice on the street

[Sedan_Clan]

Originally Posted by mahalom3

We just had an OIS involving a 5150 two days ago... You have to go and handle it and hope no one gets hurt. Our station have a 5150 car too.

We have MET (Mental Evaluation Team) that consists of a Deputy and a psychologist who responds to our 5150 calls. They can't be everywhere though, so Deputies, by & large, have to deal with the issues themselves.

Originally Posted by ezaircon4jc

I'm sure you have training, but how easy/hard is it to distinguish between someone with genuine mental issues and one undergoing a drug-induced psychotic event? Does that dictate how the situation may or may not escalate? I do understand that de-escalation is obviously the preferred course.

It's not easy. As a DRE (..Drug Recognition Expert/Evaluator), I might be able to eyeball some behavioral characteristics that indicate impairment, but until I perform the full evaluation there is no way for me to know for sure. Some people are just wired wrong and their behavior is erratic, often resembling drug impairment. De-escalation is ALWAYS preferred. Nobody wants to get hurt, put their careers at risk, etc., but de-escalation is difficult to achieve when somebody is impaired by mind-altering drugs, chemically imbalanced, etc.

Originally Posted by UncleWede

If a mental persons family can’t handle why didn’t they call a mental health expert? They called the police

If a mental health issues gets so bad that you become a threat to yourself or the public, the police are needed to secure the safety of the greater good

It would be great if patrol got 1-2 weeks training for
Mental health
Child endangerment
Teen issues
Drug addiction
Domestic violence
Drug trafficking
.
.
.
Say, that doesn’t leave any time to put all that training into practice on the street

They want us to be everything and nothing simultaneously. Defund law enforcement, but still call them to solve every single problem we encounter in life.

[Dang3r]

Im coming over to Cali this summer for a weak, San Diego area, any significant road law changes for tourists to know?

[Watching The World Burn]

Originally Posted by Dang3r

Im coming over to Cali this summer for a weak, San Diego area, any significant road law changes for tourists to know?

California stops are a thing but also a good way to meet sedan clan.

[UncleWede]

Originally Posted by Watching The World Burn

California stops (you kinda slow down, but never really stop unless there is a big truck barreling down on you) are a thing but also a good way to meet sedan clan.

Right turn on red is allowed (after California rolling stop) Don't be that guy making a right turn on red with no traffic coming from the left, waiting until the light turns green. Proceed once it is safe.

Don't come with the expectation that drivers in the left lane will yield to faster traffic. It simply doesn't happen (unless you somehow end up behind me)

Jay-walking is no longer illegal, so pedestrians may appear from ANYWHERE. You must defy the laws of physics and move your 5000 lbs vehicle out of their way in micro-seconds.

0.08 BAC. There are so many opportunities to get a ride, don't drink/drive.

[Sedan_Clan]

Originally Posted by Dang3r

Im coming over to Cali this summer for a weak, San Diego area, any significant road law changes for tourists to know?

When you hit SoCal, let’s try to coordinate a lunch get-together with the other Bimmerpost members in the area.

Originally Posted by UncleWede

Jay-walking is no longer illegal, so pedestrians may appear from ANYWHERE. You must defy the laws of physics and move your 5000 lbs vehicle out of their way in micro-seconds.

Yes and no. I can still cite for 21955/21956 CVC violations. The “new law” is poorly written IMHO despite articulating the additional crime element(s). The law is designed for the people who are crossing an empty street with no traffic, but who would normally be cited for jaywalking. If the jaywalker presents a traffic hazard or crosses the street in a manner that disrupts traffic and/or is unsafe, they can be cited. What that means is…….nothing really changes. You’re only going to get the attention of an officer if one of the aforementioned occurs, so the citations will still roll in.


P.S. Pedestrians always appear out of nowhere and they do not always have the right of way.

[Sedan_Clan]

Originally Posted by UncleWede

Right turn on red is allowed (after California rolling stop) Don't be that guy making a right turn on red with no traffic coming from the left, waiting until the light turns green. Proceed once it is safe.

….unless the right turn on red is prohibited at that particular intersection (…and there are a lot of prohibited right turn intersections here).

Be mindful. I know a lot of Officer’s/Deputies who camp out waiting to cite for prohibited right turns and u-turns. They know motorists don’t pay attention, so it’s like shooting fish in a barrel.