Wrong action vs. not enough action .

[ap3572001]

We all read about cops getting into trouble due to mistakes, poor judgment, excessive force allegations etc. Some people call it " doing too much".

What about getting into trouble for NOT DOING ENOUGH?

Would like some input on this .

[WyattandDoc]

The bare minimum is handling your calls for service to conclusion. That will get you by. And from what I'm hearing and seeing, that's all guys are doing nowadays. Citizens don't want their areas to be policed, so why police them?

[Samuelx]

We all read about cops getting into trouble due to mistakes, poor judgment, excessive force allegations etc. Some people call it " doing too much".

Who are "some people" and where is "doing too much" being said?

What about getting into trouble for NOT DOING ENOUGH?

Would like some input on this .

The way you pose the underlined question is IMO not "discussible".

1. What is your definition of "trouble"?
2. How are you defining/delineating what specifically is "ENOUGH"?
3. And, where is it mandated Anywhere that LEOs Must do your definition of "ENOUGH" in #2?

[ap3572001]

The way you pose the underlined question is IMO not "discussible".

1. What is your definition of "trouble"?
2. How are you defining/delineating what specifically is "ENOUGH"?
3. And, where is it mandated Anywhere that LEOs Must do your definition of "ENOUGH" in #2?

Sorry . LOL. Worked a double yesterday.

1). Trouble= Discipline (counseling, suspension , criminal charges)

2). ENOUGH = You see a guy who is smoking crack and instead of detaining him (run for warrants, search, etc) You tell him to drop his pipe and to get lost.

3). Definition of ENOUGH : public perception (someone filmed You doing #2) or complained that You could and should have done more than You did .

I guess the question is : Do You have more chances of getting in trouble for doing TOO MUCH or NOT ENOUGH?

[IrishJoe3]

Does death or serious injury apply to #1, trouble?

Deputy Kyle Dinkheller's murder is a good example....

[ap3572001]

Does death or serious injury apply to #1, trouble?

Deputy Kyle Dinkheller's murder is a good example....

???????

[Ralston]

I can't embed but I'm familiar with what he's talking about. Sad.

http://youtu.be/k8-ycSkoYfc

[IrishJoe3]

That's the one.

[micro911]

I have seen people get a discipline action for not handling the call properly/ "kissing off".

[RedVines]

OP to answer your ???????, a short time before his murder Deputy Dinkheller was disciplined by his superiors for using too much force on an incident. Many cops believe that that discipline action made him second guess himself during the traffic stop as he did not take decisive action to use force and that ultimately cost him his life.

[RickD427]

Early in my career, I was an assisting unit on a call where a mentally deranged individual had barricaded himself in a second floor office and was shooting at folks from the window. Interestingly, he had done the same thing a few months earlier in the city of Torrance, but was not criminally charged due to his mental state.

We secured the area as best we could with available units while awaiting the SWAT team. A resident of the area tried to enter the closed off zone and was turned away by another deputy who explained the hazard. The individual argued with the deputy and insisted that it was his right to return home. The deputy became distracted, and the individual slipped past him and into the danger zone. He was shot by the suspect, right through his elbow. He was rescued by deputies who ran into the line of fire to reach him. He recovered from his wound, but his elbow was permanently fused.

You guessed it. He sued us (and lost). His claim was that the deputy should have realized that he failed to understand the warning given and that the deputy should have used any force necessary to prevent him from entering the danger zone. And of course, he could not identify the involved deputy, so he sued all who were present, including the deputies who pulled him to safety.

I'd like to think that this was the first time that LEOs were sued for not beating someone, but it probably wasn't.

[Country_Jim]

IIRC, Deputy Dinkheller was disciplined for pulling his pistol during an incident prior to the deadly traffic stop. Apparently, his Sergeant thought he didn't need to do so. IMO, this may have been a factor. I do believe from what I saw on the video, Deputy Dinkheller wasn't mentally prepared to end a life, even to save his.

Stay safe.

[wazafuzz]

More and more I hear from the guys at my old office, they're becoming the "smile and wave" police. Just ride around, waving at everyone, handle your calls, do all the follow up necessary for every call and don't do **** proactive. It seems the "people" don't want you to hurt anyone's feelings so why put your life, job and freedom on the line? It's sad.

[Samuelx]

Sorry . LOL. Worked a double yesterday.

1). Trouble= Discipline (counseling, suspension , criminal charges)

As you noted, degrees of "trouble" vary greatly and can be a big factor in determining whether someone does or doesn't do something... IF the potential of getting into "trouble" factors into the decision making process, it will be on a case by case and LEO by LEO basis - i.e. you can't make a generalization.

2). ENOUGH = You see a guy who is smoking crack and instead of detaining him (run for warrants, search, etc) You tell him to drop his pipe and to get lost.

Much of LE work is based on discretion (or CYA) - there are VERY few statutes where an LEO "must" or "shall" do X or Y. In the case of your hypothetical situation, you are familiar with CA voters passing Prop 47 right? Also, depending on what else is happening, an LEO may not have time to do more than shoo the crackhead.

3). Definition of ENOUGH : public perception (someone filmed You doing #2) or complained that You could and should have done more than You did .

A witness' view of what is "enough" is completely subjective - one person's view on what "should" be or have been done might be excessive to someone else (or, on the flip side, "not enough"). The Vast majority of the public do not know enough about LE work to intelligently discuss what COULD have been done much less what "should" have been done.

I guess the question is : Do You have more chances of getting in trouble for doing TOO MUCH or NOT ENOUGH?

I guess IMO, the answer is that "not enough" is going to be dependent on the totality of the circumstances and is going to be on a case by case basis AND, again IMO, may be extremely difficult to "prove".

Also, "TOO MUCH" can be just as subjective as "not enough". FWIW, my definition of "too much" is when someone's constitutional rights are legitimately violated by LE (which IMO, isn't the case the majority of the time).

Take a look at this article:

http://calibrepress.com/2015/06/slugs-vs-the-rest/

[SansSouci]

“All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.”
---Arthur Schopenhauer---

I'd go with the illusion of alleged civil rights violations of local officers as a machination designed to dupe very gullible Americans into believing that local law enforcement is not beneficial to the public, and the feds have the solution that'll keep the public safe: federalization of ALL law enforcement.

We see overt propaganda most when government dupes Americans into false flag wars while concealing ulterior and true motives. Americans are easily manipulated with nationalism and strong desire to believe their federal government, even when facts indicate they should respond with suspicion.

I would not be surprised to see in my lifetime all cops under direct control of US DOJ. As it is now, all law enforcement functions at the acquiescence of the feds. If the feds don't like the way a local agency operates, it will deny grant money necessary keep it viable. The latent threat of a federal investigation is another control scheme of local law enforcement.

Lest we forget, our Founding Fathers discussed and dismissed creating a federal police agency. They had just vanquished king George III. One of the reasons of the American Revolution was oppressive and barbaric tactics of the king's royal troops agains British subjects. (We were all British subjects until Cornwallis surrendered.) Our Founding Fathers wanted no part of such a scheme in the once sovereign nation that they've created.