View Full Version : Why unmarked Police Cars?
After watching the local news tonight where some whack-job is driving around in a police style cruiser, pulls women over and rapes them made me wonder;
"Why aren't police cars clearly marked "Police" with lights on top?"
The cynic in me says its another revenue generating ploy to catch speeders or to be sneaky.
I mean if all police cars were clearly marked, people/women wouldn't stop for these unmarked cars. Am I wrong that unmarked police cars contributes to this crime?
I would think if someone were to impersonate a police officer it would be harder to be driving around in a car that looked like one of those unmarked police cars.
I also believe that if you need help from the police and were looking to flag a patrol car down, you might not recognize the unmarked cruiser as a police vehicle and not get the assistance you need.
So, is there a reason why there are unmarked police cars?
It is nearly as easy to make a fake marked police car if that is your intention.
See?
http://autojunkie.blogspot.com/csp151.jpg
http://autojunkie.blogspot.com/csp150.jpg
bobbyfairbanks
08-01-2011, 21:17
Once saw a cop doing a traffic stop in a unmarked cruiser while he was wearing red sweat pants. He also had a marked cruiser behind him. I think the person that got stopped was a little nervous they where about to get raped. I also agree that all cruisers should be marked. No exceptions. What are the police trying to do. Trap or ambush the citizens they are supposed to be protecting um I mean enforcing the law um I mean really collecting revenue from the law abiding citizens while crime runs unchecked so they can justify there jobs.
But hell there are some good cops out there.
Zundfolge
08-01-2011, 21:24
It is nearly as easy to make a fake marked police car if that is your intention.
Just remember, impersonating a cop is a FELONY in Colorado.
I suspect the unmarked cars are for 3 reasons;
1) Easier to catch speeders (and thus generate revenue)
2) Cheaper to not put the markings and lights on the car (and thus save revenue)
3) something for the plain clothes boys to drive.
eighty duece
08-01-2011, 21:33
Most of the ones I see are pretty hard to miss.
White malibu with ultra dark windows and little lights by the sun visors, it sticks out like a turd. The maroon jeep with ultra dark windows and 37 antennas on top. And so on, at least in the northern part of the state they are easier to spot then a marked car with lights flashing if your looking.
flan7211
08-01-2011, 21:35
I have no problem if under cover guys need unmarked vehicles. My problem with uniformed guys is that his presence helps slow the whole tempo of the road. When he is unmarked, yes one guy gets a ticket(revenue.) When marked it helps slow everybody down(public safety.)
CrufflerSteve
08-01-2011, 22:06
I have no problem if under cover guys need unmarked vehicles. My problem with uniformed guys is that his presence helps slow the whole tempo of the road. When he is unmarked, yes one guy gets a ticket(revenue.) When marked it helps slow everybody down(public safety.)
I'll give this a +1. There is a need for unmarked cars but a marked car makes everyone pay attention. Speeders slow down. I go to marginal neighborhoods for concerts and I notice the creepy guys try to look less creepy when a marked unit cruises by. It doesn't solve crimes but helps keep a lid on things.
Steve
BPTactical
08-01-2011, 22:12
creepy guys try to look less creepy when a marked unit cruises by.
Steve
So your saying you pull up your britches and stop slouching when a black and white rolls by.............[LOL]
Jus razzing ya Steve[Beer]
The cynic in me says its another revenue generating ploy to catch speeders or to be sneaky.
Cynic #2 agrees.
This thread is now about bitchin' cop cars.
http://i.imgur.com/Q9aqO.jpg
patrick0685
08-01-2011, 23:16
i want one
Wow, I can't believe the state highway patrol got an Subaru STI. Not cheap... You know that they just wanted a reason to be able to drive one. Talk about a fun car to have to drive for work. Not to mention they get to flog it. Damn, now I want to join Co state patrol.[Twist]
It is definitely not to save on markings and lights. They have integrated lights which cost a lot more than a light bar.
They are good to have to nab guys buying don't think regular traffic cops should get unmarked cruisers. It is good for for detectives to nail drug dealers but to pull someone over for speeding isn't cool in an unmarked car in my book.
JohnTRourke
08-02-2011, 05:00
duh
it's all about revenue
Nice.... really nice.
Those would work great for unpaved roads too.
It is nearly as easy to make a fake marked police car if that is your intention.
See?
http://autojunkie.blogspot.com/csp151.jpg
http://autojunkie.blogspot.com/csp150.jpg
This thread is now about bitchin' cop cars.
http://i.imgur.com/Q9aqO.jpg
no, no, no.... don't hijack this thread. If you want pics of cool cop cars start another thread. I'm not interested to see those pics. I want to know people's thoughts on the subject...
This thread is now about bitchin' cop cars.
Glock Shooter
08-02-2011, 06:51
duh
it's all about revenue
DING DING DING....we have a winner. I 100% agree. Follow the money.
It be all about the Benjamins.
I like seeing unmarked police cars, hopefully they'll nail some of the bad drivers.
A friend of mine is a Lakewood cop and I had asked him about this a few years ago and he had told me it was 90% revenue issues - that the cost to outfit a police cruiser with the graphics was about $5K and they figured it was better to have more cars than anything so they either skimped on graphics for some cruisers or left them totally off in order to budget in more cruisers.
unmarked cars have never fooled anyone in the city . i tell my gal " if " she were to get pulled over by an unmarked car to drive to the nearest public place to get the ticket . if the cop has a problem with it then ill just have to lawyer up . the safety of my lady is worth to two min it takes to drive to safety . any reasonable cop should understand and if they dont well ...
I agree that uniformed patrolmen need to be in clearly marked squad cars. It not only helps to create a police 'presence' which can help prevent crime before it even starts and the second and probably more important reason is what happens when someone needs a police officer when lives are on the line and an unmarked car drives right by and they're looking for the badge and lights? To me police cars should be clearly marked as these things are more important than a few traffic tickets they may or may not get otherwise.
hollohas
08-02-2011, 09:39
It is nearly as easy to make a fake marked police car if that is your intention.
See?
http://autojunkie.blogspot.com/csp151.jpg
http://autojunkie.blogspot.com/csp150.jpg
Pretty sure they just use those to race kids at Bandimere Speedway during the "Take it to the Track" events. Not sure they actually use them on the street...I think the second pic is a marketing picture...could be wrong though. Awesome anyway.
My Dad used to drive a Mustang 5.0 for AZ HP. Was always marked...
rockhound
08-02-2011, 11:23
show me da money, it is all about getting you unaware
personally, they stick out almost as bad as a marked cruiser
I remember years ago (around 01/02) Jeffco had the unmarked Chevy Silverado Pick Ups that drove around and unless you looked really hard for the lights in the grill (which were very well concealed) or in the front or back window, it'd look just like any other truck on the road. Then they got all this money and did away with the unmarked pick ups, moved to unmarked Expeditions and Crown Vics, oh yeah and then repainted the entire fleet of marked vehicles with the traditional black and white scheme. Did I forget to mention that some of the Expedition's up in the mountain areas have FLIR? I don't think Jeffco needs unmarked for revenue generation- they seem to be pretty well off enough to mount FLIR systems on some of their vehicles and give every deputy a brand new M4 if he needs it.
OneGuy67
08-02-2011, 15:06
Most of the agencies I've worked for in the past have used unmarked vehicles for their traffic units. If you want to call it revenue, okay whatever, but the street cop isn't tallying up dollar figures when he is writing citations. They generally use them for being sneaky and catching the dumb ass who is driving poorly and wouldn't normally be caught if using a marked vehicle.
We also used unmarked vehicles for 'special' enforcement or patrol when an area is/has been hit with a specific type of crime, like say a bunch of burglaries in a specific neighborhood. A marked vehicle would stand out far more than an unmarked, even if it was a similar vehicle style. You would want to cruise in the unmarked as you want to catch the bad guy, not scare him into moving his burglary ways to another neighborhood. Other types of enforcement might be prostitution, street racing, etc.
I currently have an unmarked vehicle assigned to me with mini light bars in the front and back windows, headlights and taillights flash, big siren and air horn, etc. I wouldn't use it for a u/c vehicle (kind of hard to explain those bars in the windows), but it works to get me to where I need to be and if SHTF, then I have the ability to clear traffic with the equipment.
Not justifying their existance, just explaining why some agencies use them.
...They generally use them for being sneaky and catching the dumb ass who is driving poorly and wouldn't normally be caught if using a marked vehicle.
Thanks for proving my point. When there are more marked cars those who would normally drive dangerously straighten up and fly right making the road a safer place for everyone. Wouldn't this be a big part of 'To serve and protect' ?? Seems to me that preventing dangerous acts is a better outcome than ticketing those who commit the dangerous acts after their committed. One generates revenue and one doesn't and, possibly even more importantly, one is easy to track and spread sheet and the other is pure speculation. One you can go to whoever your superior is and say 'we cited this many people this month' versus saying 'we think we prevented this number of crimes this month' so I get it, I just think things have gone too far to try to 'catch' people.
We also used unmarked vehicles for 'special' enforcement or patrol when an area is/has been hit with a specific type of crime, like say a bunch of burglaries in a specific neighborhood. A marked vehicle would stand out far more than an unmarked, even if it was a similar vehicle style. You would want to cruise in the unmarked as you want to catch the bad guy, not scare him into moving his burglary ways to another neighborhood. Other types of enforcement might be prostitution, street racing, etc.
So if there is enough police presence in ALL neighborhoods wouldn't it deter a burglar entirely eventually? Same thing can be said with street racing and as for prostitution... I have my own beliefs on that one (I think our resources could be better directed) so we'll leave it alone. Just seems that more prevelant police force can create a feeling of a strong police state which would help to deter crime before it ever happens. Seems it makes more sense from a $ standpoint to have a lot more unmarked, plain clothes officers nearby to try to catch the perp of the crime after it's been committed and someone has already been victimized.
I currently have an unmarked vehicle assigned to me with mini light bars in the front and back windows, headlights and taillights flash, big siren and air horn, etc. I wouldn't use it for a u/c vehicle (kind of hard to explain those bars in the windows), but it works to get me to where I need to be and if SHTF, then I have the ability to clear traffic with the equipment.
Are you a detective or under cover or do you drive this unmarked vehicle in full uniform? Don't get me wrong, I agree that unmarked vehicles have their use in law enforcement but I just think they're being overused and are counterproductive when used most of the ways they get used these days. I personally had a good Samaritan situation years ago that could have gone MUCH better had a single LEO been in a marked car which was readily distinguishable from every other car as we were giving chase. Instead he was in an unmarked vehicle hiding trying to catch someone doing 5mph over the speed limit. I'm sure others have had examples where a marked vehicle could have helped and I don't feel any safer because they're out there. Who knows how many situations could have been avoided entirely if a cruiser was marked and helped to deter crime instead of being sneaky to write paper on someone after the fact.
Not justifying their existance, just explaining why some agencies use them.
I appreciate your devil's advocate take and I'm not trying to come off rude but I have an opinion on this topic and have had one for a while so that's why I ask the questions I ask and say the things I say. Eventually you or others reading this could get into positions to try to fix the things that are broken rather than just obey orders from those who are tied to the broken system and trying to make #'s out of it.
Seems to me that preventing dangerous acts is a better outcome than ticketing those who commit the dangerous acts after their committed.
The impression I get- and this is not intended to bash cops or anything- but the system is set up so that crime prevention is "on the list" but isn't really a high priority. Look at city/state/county revenue and do they make anything from crime prevention? No. I see more instances of LE orgs erring on the side of punishing crime instead of proactively preventing it. However, on the flip side of that coin, most cops I know would rather have their presence known and prevent a crime than have to make an arrest/write a ticket/give a warning.
hollohas
08-02-2011, 15:52
I see more instances of LE orgs erring on the side of punishing crime instead of proactively preventing it. However, on the flip side of that coin, most cops I know would rather have their presence known and prevent a crime than have to make an arrest/write a ticket/give a warning.
^Bingo.
Marked units help deter and prevent crime from happening. Unmarked units only help catch them in the act.
Here's my case... I grew up in Woodland Park. We would go to Colorado Springs regularly. Do you know what stopped us from speeding down the pass? It was the fact that we saw a marked car damn near every time. Now if I hadn't noticed any police cars in a while (conceivably because they were unmarked) then I got the impression that there weren't any police regularly clocking traffic so you bet we would travel a little faster down the pass.
Marked cars created a presence and stopped us from speeding because I knew they were going to be there. Unmarked cars' presence is unknown so it only served to catch you in the act, not deter you.
What's better? Preventing it from happening with a visual presence or catching them while it's happening with a hidden presence? I vote the former...
However, on the flip side of that coin, most cops I know would rather have their presence known and prevent a crime than have to make an arrest/write a ticket/give a warning.
And I like this better. A bigger police presence, even if it just perceived and not real, is quite a deterrent. I think revenue plays a big part nowadays, just take a look at how Littleton is ripping up every intersection to put in the traffic cameras and photo radar - something I'm anxious to challenge in court if they ever get me on one of them (seeing how many precedents have already been set on the unconstitutionality of not being able to face your accuser).
hollohas
08-02-2011, 16:13
And I like this better. A bigger police presence, even if it just perceived and not real, is quite a deterrent. I
And an example of that is Alma, Colorado. For years they had a marked unit that they would move around their small town. No officer in it...just parked on the side looking like it was running traffic. It didn't stop the locals from speeding because they knew it was empty but it sure slowed down all the out-of-town ski traffic heading to Breckenridge.
And an example of that is Alma, Colorado. For years they had a marked unit that they would move around their small town. No officer in it...just parked on the side looking like it was running traffic. It didn't stop the locals from speeding because they knew it was empty but it sure slowed down all the out-of-town ski traffic heading to Breckenridge.
Now from time to time put an actual officer inside running traffic & you accomplish both goals.
Unmarked police cars are merely a symptom of a larger problem - the creation of an institution alien to our country's founding principles.
The institution of police in a free society where law enforcement was originally and properly done by locally elected sheriffs whose actual 'muscle' depended on the voluntary help of their citizens in the form of a temporary 'posse' is just another example of a violation of principle that seemed to be 'a good idea at the time' leading inevitably to abuses that diminish freedom.
Our government was founded on the principle that the sole reason for its very existence is the protection of the inherent natural rights of the sovereign individuals who delegate whatever authority that government might possess. No authority that does not, of right, reside with the individual can be 'delegated' to anyone. The overwhelming majority of law enforcement activity today involves 'laws' that no-one had any right to enact in the first place. It is performed by people who are almost totally unanswerable to the public they are supposed to 'protect and serve' - it is not at all surprising that abuses, in and out of the system, occur on a massive scale.
It is also not at all surprising to see the Founders denigrated as terrorists in official law enforcement training - had a policeman magically appeared on the streets of Revolutionary-era America and treated the citizens of that time the way the police routinely treat the citizens today, he would be quite lucky to merely be tarred and feathered...
Every policeman pulling over motorists for traffic infractions is, I believe, required to be in full uniform. Unmarked units are often used to spot aggressive drivers and road ragers. They also are used by a lot of supervisors who are permitted to take them home when they are on call.
I realize that anyone can buy an old Crown Vic and order a light bar from JC Whitney, but I've been pulled over by an unmarked car and there are more lights on the unmarked cars than the marked patrol cars with the light bar. I thought someone was setting off fireworks behind me. The dash, visors, mirrors, headlights, turn signals, and grille all started strobing and flashing. You just can't fake stuff like that without a major investment and a lot of technical, know how.
Every policeman pulling over motorists for traffic infractions is, I believe, required to be in full uniform.
No.
They also are used by a lot of supervisors who are permitted to take them home when they are on call.
Not really. You don't have to be a supervisor to have a take-home car and who gets to take them home, when and why varies from department to department.
I realize that anyone can buy an old Crown Vic and order a light bar from JC Whitney, but I've been pulled over by an unmarked car and there are more lights on the unmarked cars than the marked patrol cars with the light bar. I thought someone was setting off fireworks behind me. The dash, visors, mirrors, headlights, turn signals, and grille all started strobing and flashing. You just can't fake stuff like that without a major investment and a lot of technical, know how.
If someone does this then it's impersonating a LEO which is a felony. They had to do this because people were impersonating 'under cover' police and perpetrating crimes using people's trust of LE against them. A simple solution would be to require uniformed police officers in clearly marked vehicles unless on a specific assignment that requires it. As I've stated, I believe there are some instances where this is necessary but I just think it's being overly used when it's not required IMO.
OneGuy67
08-03-2011, 08:49
Thanks for proving my point. When there are more marked cars those who would normally drive dangerously straighten up and fly right making the road a safer place for everyone. Wouldn't this be a big part of 'To serve and protect' ?? Seems to me that preventing dangerous acts is a better outcome than ticketing those who commit the dangerous acts after their committed. One generates revenue and one doesn't and, possibly even more importantly, one is easy to track and spread sheet and the other is pure speculation. One you can go to whoever your superior is and say 'we cited this many people this month' versus saying 'we think we prevented this number of crimes this month' so I get it, I just think things have gone too far to try to 'catch' people.
So if there is enough police presence in ALL neighborhoods wouldn't it deter a burglar entirely eventually? Same thing can be said with street racing and as for prostitution... I have my own beliefs on that one (I think our resources could be better directed) so we'll leave it alone. Just seems that more prevelant police force can create a feeling of a strong police state which would help to deter crime before it ever happens. Seems it makes more sense from a $ standpoint to have a lot more unmarked, plain clothes officers nearby to try to catch the perp of the crime after it's been committed and someone has already been victimized.
Are you a detective or under cover or do you drive this unmarked vehicle in full uniform? Don't get me wrong, I agree that unmarked vehicles have their use in law enforcement but I just think they're being overused and are counterproductive when used most of the ways they get used these days. I personally had a good Samaritan situation years ago that could have gone MUCH better had a single LEO been in a marked car which was readily distinguishable from every other car as we were giving chase. Instead he was in an unmarked vehicle hiding trying to catch someone doing 5mph over the speed limit. I'm sure others have had examples where a marked vehicle could have helped and I don't feel any safer because they're out there. Who knows how many situations could have been avoided entirely if a cruiser was marked and helped to deter crime instead of being sneaky to write paper on someone after the fact.
I appreciate your devil's advocate take and I'm not trying to come off rude but I have an opinion on this topic and have had one for a while so that's why I ask the questions I ask and say the things I say. Eventually you or others reading this could get into positions to try to fix the things that are broken rather than just obey orders from those who are tied to the broken system and trying to make #'s out of it.
I'll try to respond to your statements. I'm not technically proficient to be able to pluck them like you did.
I'm not sure I proved your point. I just provided information on what some agencies that I have personal knowledge of, are doing and what their unmarked vehicles are used for. If I was to put a percentage on it, I would say 95% of each agencies fleet is marked, with only 5% being unmarked. There are exceptions to that as I think on an agency in southeast Colorado who do use all unmarked vehicles and they do use traffic enforcement as a revenue generating device for their very poor town.
Law enforcement tends to follow 4 basic premises no matter what law enforcement philosophy the agency adheres to: Eliminate, Reduce, Move or Determine no criminal activity. The top being to eliminate as all agencies keep track of their crime statistics and report them to CBI, who then compiles and publishes the state statistics and then reports to the FBI for their U.S. analysis. No chief or sheriff wants to go before the city council, county commissioners, the public and say 'We gots a problem' with burglaries, rapes, homicides, etc. Look at the news for evidence of this. You aren't seeing press conferences where the chief is announcing a rash of burglaries in this portion of town where the majority of people may be of one ethnicity, color, gender preference, or other type grouping as those special interest groups will then jump and shout and rant and rage.
The next is to reduce, which the enforcement comes into play. If you got a problem with X crime, throw resources at it, and it will reduce. How it reduces is up to the type of crime.
The next is to move the issue, which is what you are referencing with marked vehicles and a police presence. It may reduce or eliminate the burglaries in this area, but you haven't really eliminated the problem, you've just moved it down the street, so to speak. The bad guys will continue to be bad guys and if they can't do car break ins in this area, they will go to that area and continue. Same for burglaries, robberies, and most other property and person crimes. So then, that agency whose area you just moved the problem to, now must react to it.
The fourth is determine there is no problem and that is one that most citizens do not like. They don't like being told that what they perceive to be an issue, is really not an issue. The old lady who swears all the teenagers are driving 70 mph down her street and are a danger to the children there. Traffic enforcement reveals that the average speeder on her street is 5 mph over the posted limit and there isn't convincing evidence of her beliefs. You ever go to a meeting of your city council and listen to the open mike statements of your neighbors? Complaints of barking dogs, of weeds, of dilapidated buildings, etc.
As for manpower to accomplish some of the items you mention, I think you would be surprised at exactly how few officers there actually are on duty in your city at any given time. You should ask your local law enforcement for how many people are on a shift at one time and how many shifts. I'll give examples for Arapahoe County, which is where I have knowledge of. For agencies like Littleton, Englewood, Greenwood Village who have between 65-75 officers for their agency, that is roughly a supervisor and 5-6 officers a patrol shift. For their whole city. For Sheridan and Cherry Hills Village, 1-3 officers a shift. Centennial doesn't have a police department and contracts through the Arapahoe County Sheriff's Department. They have one deputy that handles everything from University Blvd west to the county line, one deputy from University to Quebec, one deputy from Quebec to I-25, etc. These are just examples of manpower. You can't put an officer in every neighborhood like you suggest. Plus, many here would argue with your premise that more cops are a good thing (a strong police state), ISN'T a good thing. Your argument that if more funding was put into prevention and thus, would need less for enforcement, investigation and prosecution isn't new. In a perfect world, maybe, but unfortunately, we have a criminal element that will do crimes no matter what and it will be done were there is a belief that they can get away with it. That is their occupation, their job, their funding.
To answer your question, I am a detective or something. I don't wear a uniform anymore. The vehicle I am issued has 129,000 miles on it. I use it a lot to do my job.
I am not taking a devil's advocate position on this. I am simply telling you facts based upon agencies I've worked for in the past and currently work for. Your premise that the system is broken regarding unmarked vehicles is yours and not necessarily shared by those who work in law enforcement. So, those of us who are in positions to effect change do not necessarily think that things need to be changed.
It's obvious you don't like unmarked vehicles doing traffic enforcement. I get that. It's obvious you believe that law enforcement is in league with their employers to generate revenue. Many here believe that as well and I get a giggle out of that. The cop pulling you over for expired tags and discovering you also don't have insurance isn't doing a fist pump and saying to himself "Yes! That's $800 in the general fund!" Most law enforcement officers could care less about the end result of the citation issued. You get fined $1? We don't care. It gets dismissed? We don't care.
I can't disagree with your premise that a marked vehicle on the side of the road will slow traffic down and prevent some of the road rage issues that occur. That being said, others here have mentioned on this forum that the officer parked there is hindering traffic as everyone driving has slowed down. We aren't going to please everybody, obviously.
OneGuy67
08-03-2011, 08:53
And an example of that is Alma, Colorado. For years they had a marked unit that they would move around their small town. No officer in it...just parked on the side looking like it was running traffic. It didn't stop the locals from speeding because they knew it was empty but it sure slowed down all the out-of-town ski traffic heading to Breckenridge.
This just proves the opposite point. You knew there was no officer in the vehicle and you continued to violate traffic law.
OneGuy67
08-03-2011, 08:55
It is also not at all surprising to see the Founders denigrated as terrorists in official law enforcement training...
In nearly 20 years as a cop, I've never been to any LE training that advocated this.
hollohas
08-03-2011, 09:42
This just proves the opposite point. You knew there was no officer in the vehicle and you continued to violate traffic law.
Nope, not me. I wasn't a local and I also believe strongly on obeying the speed limit through those small towns even as a teenager then...cars pulling out, people crossing the street, kids, respect...
Anyway, 90% of the traffic was non-local ski traffic and most slowed down for the unmanned unit. Not a bad result for an empty car...
If they put an officer in it, then they would have had better results of course.
But if they put an officer in an unmarked unit I bet the average traffic speed would have increased...just speculation of course...
129,000 miles on your unit is a lot. Time to talk your department into getting you a new ride. Certain highway patrol agencies I know about cut it off somewhere around 85,000 miles.
OneGuy67:
"In nearly 20 years as a cop, I've never been to any LE training that advocated this."
This was seen in a training presentation at one of the 'Fusion Centers' a couple of years ago - the moderator/presenter (from a federal agency) was soliciting/prompting audience (regular local police attendees) responses that indicated that the Founders were terrorists. The Missouri Fusion Center had also issued 'alerts' to state and local law enforcement indicating that people with libertarian, third party candidate or Constitutionalist bumper stickers were a threat to law enforcement personnel. There was a bit of a scandal over this at the time.
OneGuy67
08-03-2011, 11:56
Nope, not me. I wasn't a local and I also believe strongly on obeying the speed limit through those small towns even as a teenager then...cars pulling out, people crossing the street, kids, respect...
129,000 miles on your unit is a lot. Time to talk your department into getting you a new ride. Certain highway patrol agencies I know about cut it off somewhere around 85,000 miles.
Sorry! Just going by your post, I made a (wrong) assumption you were referencing your own driving habits.
129,000 is a lot of miles; however, the state budget is still bad and there isn't any new funding for new vehicles, so I will have this vehicle for a lot more miles! It is a good thing that I like my vehicle!
OneGuy67
08-03-2011, 12:15
OneGuy67:
"In nearly 20 years as a cop, I've never been to any LE training that advocated this."
This was seen in a training presentation at one of the 'Fusion Centers' a couple of years ago - the moderator/presenter (from a federal agency) was soliciting/prompting audience (regular local police attendees) responses that indicated that the Founders were terrorists. The Missouri Fusion Center had also issued 'alerts' to state and local law enforcement indicating that people with libertarian, third party candidate or Constitutionalist bumper stickers were a threat to law enforcement personnel. There was a bit of a scandal over this at the time.
So, one person does this and you paint all law enforcement with a very overlybroad brush as advocating the founders are terrorists?
The 'Fusion Center' (I really don't like that term) here in Colorado doesn't participate in this type of activity. Occasionally, there are alerts that come out to inform about a subsect such as the Constitutionalists (Not to be confused with the Constitution political party), or those that believe the Uniform Commercial Code is the supreme law of the land, make their own license plates and driver's licenses and believe they can 'opt out' of being a U.S. citizen. If they are the 'third party candidates' you referring to, then yes, we get intel on dealing with individuals with those beliefs.
Sorry! Just going by your post, I made a (wrong) assumption you were referencing your own driving habits.
129,000 is a lot of miles; however, the state budget is still bad and there isn't any new funding for new vehicles, so I will have this vehicle for a lot more miles! It is a good thing that I like my vehicle!
Thank you for your service to the people of this state.
I'm sure you know (as most officers do) mileage is not as important as regular maintenance. We often advocated for assigned vehicles over pooled vehicles. Officers with assigned vehicles either took care of them or lost them (reassigned to someone more responsible). Vehicles that were taken care of last longer and save more money for the agency and the taxpayers. Pooled vehicles (found in most big city PDs) are often beaten to death and falling apart in a few years.
MD state police used to put unmanned marked units on the median strip of I-95. This lasted about a year until drivers realized the vehicles weren't manned. Two major annoyances from the unmanned units ultimately lead to their removal. Calls to dispatchers by motorists concerned for the welfare of the missing officer, and graffiti left on the unmanned marked cars was not flattering to the MD state police [ROFL1]
OneGuy67:
Sorry, I should have added the word, "some" to my post's reference to training.
The 'third party candidates' to whom I referred were people like Bob Barr and Ron Paul, whose supporters were considered a 'threat'.
This use of the police power to suppress political speech is completely unacceptable to anyone who understands what this country was intended to be. I also find the trend towards 'free speech zones' at public events profoundly disturbing - the entire country is a 'free speech zone'. When the police herd protesters into these areas, they clearly violate their oaths.
Lastly, please define 'Constitutionalists' (the ones on whom you 'receive intel').
This was seen in a training presentation at one of the 'Fusion Centers' a couple of years ago - the moderator/presenter (from a federal agency) was soliciting/prompting audience (regular local police attendees) responses that indicated that the Founders were terrorists. The Missouri Fusion Center had also issued 'alerts' to state and local law enforcement indicating that people with libertarian, third party candidate or Constitutionalist bumper stickers were a threat to law enforcement personnel. There was a bit of a scandal over this at the time.
Missouri State Police also basically said gun owners, former military, and conservative activists were potential terror threats.
Now the Feds are getting into the act:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/28/right-wing-extremism-united-states_n_911102.html
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.