Now from time to time put an actual officer inside running traffic & you accomplish both goals.Quote:
Originally Posted by hollohas
Printable View
Now from time to time put an actual officer inside running traffic & you accomplish both goals.Quote:
Originally Posted by hollohas
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.
No.Quote:
Originally Posted by Clint45
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Clint45
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Clint45
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jer
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hollohas
This just proves the opposite point. You knew there was no officer in the vehicle and you continued to violate traffic law.
In nearly 20 years as a cop, I've never been to any LE training that advocated this.Quote:
Originally Posted by Milt
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...Quote:
Originally Posted by OneGuy67
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.
Sorry! Just going by your post, I made a (wrong) assumption you were referencing your own driving habits.Quote:
Originally Posted by hollohas
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!