why do so many come in here and BASH COPS

[Fire in the Hole]

Back then the official response was, we don't require our officers to write a minimum amount of tickets. However, some officers came forward with, well if I don't write x amount compared to what others are writing, it's suggested I am not doing my job. Hence an unwritten quota policy.

I would agree with that. But you have to realize that nowdays the business of law enforcement is business. LE personnel with an AJ degree have hit the glass ceiling as far as promoting goes. Promotional boards want to see degrees in either business or public administration. What do business schools teach as a principle? "Keep it in the black, stay out of the red." Furthermore as an anology. As a traffic cop you are getting paid to deliver a service. Paid rather well in most cases. Any customer or employeer has a right to expect their moneys worth from you. Try working at any shop as a mechanic or store as a salesman, or whatever. It could be a baker baking bread, or a widget maker making widgets. If your repairs, sales, or production, or loaves of bread, or units of widgets is consistently below that of the widget maker/baker/mechanic/salesman sitting next to you, and you are getting paid the same; you might be able to get away with it for a little while, but eventually, you're going end up on the S-list.

[PatriotnMore]

So wondering now, as then, why not simply admit a quota? Also, I feel there is a distinct difference between LE, and the average business in terms of sales, and revenue generation.

Thank you for the honest answer.

I would agree with that. But you have to realize that nowdays the business of law enforcement is business. LE personnel with an AJ degree have hit the glass ceiling as far as promoting goes. Promotional boards want to see degrees in either business or public administration. What do business schools teach as a principle? "Keep it in the black, stay out of the red." Furthermore as an anology. As a traffic cop you are getting paid to deliver a service. Paid rather well in most cases. Any customer or employeer has a right to expect their moneys worth from you. Try working at any shop as a mechanic or store as a salesman, or whatever. It could be a baker baking bread, or a widget maker making widgets. If your repairs, sales, or production, or loaves of bread, or units of widgets is consistently below that of the widget maker/baker/mechanic/salesman sitting next to you, and you are getting paid the same; you might be able to get away with it for a little while, but eventually, you're going end up on the S-list.

[Fire in the Hole]

So wondering now, as then, why not simply admit a quota? Also, I feel there is a distinct difference between LE, and the average business in terms of sales, and revenue generation.

Thank you for the honest answer.

Because as I said it is not a "Quota" system by legal or common business defination. Furthermore, the word "Quota" is defined in the V.C., and its use is prohibitted. By just saying, "Alright we have a quota." They would by extension, be confessing to a crime. Furthermore, a quota system is commonly understood to be the only system in place for measurement. And tickets are in fact only one slice of the pie. Motorists services, answering questions, public involvement, removing or reporting hazards, assisting allied agencies, storing vehicles, DUI arrests, other in custody arrests, recovering stolen vehicles, court testimony and presentation, professional appearance, range qualifications, officer safety, knowlege of the law, and physical conditioning, are but a few of the other slices, and LE managers/supervisors do look at the whole pie when evaluating a given officer or squad.

My answer to the ticket question was framed exclusive th this question. I do mean to imply that is the Golden Fleece by which an officer is considered. It is not. It runs the entire gamet.

[bubbagump]

But you have consider the volumne. I don't know where you worked. How many radio cars were out at a given time? 5? A single CHP dispatcher might be assigned easily 25 radio cars at a time. And these are principally traffic enforcement units looking to make as many stops as they can. Many stops are being done simultaneously. If each one called in, it would choke the system, If a unit needed to call in an 11-99 or 10-35, he/she couldn't get through. Also, you might just finf a trophy of the "Golden Microphone" glued to your locker or desk top. Nobody wants to win the "Golden Microphone" Award.

Makes sense.

And I know what you mean about the Golden Microphone.

One of the guys I worked with was a ****-magnet. He was supposed to be 10-7 at 0300, but instead he'd find something big for the officers who were trying to get their paper done back at the station. They didn't like him for that...so I'm pretty sure that's why he didn't get hired when he applied to be an officer.

[Ron-Solo]

Why, then, are hadguns registered? Why does the state mandate new residents to submit the make, model, and serial number of imported handguns if there is no registration?

That is not the same as your claims that it is illegal to possess an unregistered handgun

On another note, it is illegal to operate a motor vehicle on a public road without a license. Can you pull me over just to check? Maybe this is a better analogy.

Not even close. If I stop you for something else, and you have no drivers license, I can cite you. I can even arrest you under certain circumstances and tow your car.

J-Cat,

I'm getting tired of trying to explain this to you. Here is a little scenario for you, maybe this will help. These are the facts of the incident, and you can't add anything that isn't listed:

Situation: You make a traffic stop, consentual encounter, serve a search warrant, whatever, and you encounter an individual in possession of a handgun. You run the handgun and there is no record on file - No DROS, no wants, hits, anything, etc. The handgun is not registered in any system. The owner says he got the gun years ago from his grandfather, but does not remember the exact date. He has no criminal history and has never lived out of state at any time. The gun is unloaded, not concealed or illegal in any other way, shape or form.

Question: What California law would allow you to arrest this person for possesson of an "Unregistered Handgun" ?

If you find it, please post it.

[Fire in the Hole]

Permit me to add to my answer. I'll give you two real-life examples. These are two officers that really existed, and that I worked with. Officer #1 was without a doubt the "Hot Pencil" of the squad. He rarely ever brought in less than 300 tickets per month. He was Hell on Wheels. When briefing was over, he'd run, I mean really run to his unit and get out there at 'em. And he wasn't a junior officer full of piss and vinegar. He had 24 years on when I knew him. He only did the most minimal of disabled motorists services, and considered it an intrusion on his enforcement time. He also generated about two citizen complaints per every shift. This sure keept the Sgt.s busy. But damm could ever bring in the tickets. He was pretty much disliked by his fellow officers, the Sgts. Lt's, Capt. etc.

Officer #2 was about as easy going a guy as you'd ever met. He was friendly, smart, professional. He coached two soccer teams, and one little league team at the same time. He knew a little bit about auto mechanics too. If he drove past a citizen's house that was working on their car in their driveway, he'd get out and offer to help turn a wrench, or reach that rear sparkplug wire for them. Somebody looked like they couldn't get their lawn motor started, he'd pull over and make it crank over. If the person was disabled, or elderly, he or his son would come over and mow their yard on his day off. Officer # 2 avoided arresting people. Officer #2's traffic enforcement stats were like 20 verbal warnings to one ticket. Everybody liked Officer #2. Officer #2 kept getting written up on his monthly evaluations for his lack of enforcement, but his other pie slices more than made up for this defiency.
Everybody breathed a sigh of relief when Officer #1 retired. Everbody mourned Officer#2 when a disabled motorist whom he had stopped to help, shot him in the head.




My computer is really acting up with some kind of a bug. I've got to take it in to the shop. I'll be off the air probably for a week at the most. See ya all.

[Steveo8]

Why, then, are hadguns registered? Why does the state mandate new residents to submit the make, model, and serial number of imported handguns if there is no registration?

On another note, it is illegal to operate a motor vehicle on a public road without a license. Can you pull me over just to check? Maybe this is a better analogy.

J-cat,

From the CADOF website:

How do I know if my firearms need to be registered?

There is no firearm registration requirement in California except for assault weapon owners and personal handgun importers. However, you may submit a Firearm Ownership Record to the DOJ for any firearm you own. Having a Firearm Ownership Record on file with the DOJ may help in the return of your firearm if it is lost or stolen. With very few and specific exceptions, all firearm transactions must be conducted through a firearms dealer.

End of discussion!

[FLIGHT762]

J-cat,

From the CADOF website:

How do I know if my firearms need to be registered?

There is no firearm registration requirement in California except for assault weapon owners and personal handgun importers. However, you may submit a Firearm Ownership Record to the DOJ for any firearm you own. Having a Firearm Ownership Record on file with the DOJ may help in the return of your firearm if it is lost or stolen. With very few and specific exceptions, all firearm transactions must be conducted through a firearms dealer.

End of discussion!

I already posted that information from DOJ on pg.18 post #180 in this thread. It didn't help.

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?p=2605265#post2605265

[J-cat]

There is a HANDGUN registration requirement in CA.

When you buy a handgun, it has to be registered. If you import a handgun, it has to be registered.

Handgun!

[J-cat]

J-Cat,

I'm getting tired of trying to explain this to you. Here is a little scenario for you, maybe this will help. These are the facts of the incident, and you can't add anything that isn't listed:

Situation: You make a traffic stop, consentual encounter, serve a search warrant, whatever, and you encounter an individual in possession of a handgun. You run the handgun and there is no record on file - No DROS, no wants, hits, anything, etc. The handgun is not registered in any system. The owner says he got the gun years ago from his grandfather, but does not remember the exact date. He has no criminal history and has never lived out of state at any time. The gun is unloaded, not concealed or illegal in any other way, shape or form.

Question: What California law would allow you to arrest this person for possesson of an "Unregistered Handgun" ?

If you find it, please post it.

In your scenario, you are correct. However, that is not what we're talking about in the last five pages. I am talking about a handgun with a picatinny rail. You keep trying to deviate away from that and keep talking about handguns purchased a long time ago.

How about that vehicle analogy?

[Jonathan Doe]

Having a not registered firearm is not a violation of a penal code.

[PeacePiece]

I know what you mean. I've visited several forums including this one where you are suppose to be able to ask a Cop a question, and receive an answer. Then, end of story. However after the question is posed, there will be a string of posts that begin with the sentence "I'm not LEO, but here's what I think. Or here's what I would do in that situation. Then when a bonified LEO does get an answer in, Someone will tell the LEO that he's wrong, or that's not what an LEO in a bar told him, or that he must be proud of himself for giving that answer, or that his answer won't hold up in court, and so forth and so on.

I wonder if Proctologists have such a forum where if a non-Proctologist asks a question, a bunch of forum members jump in and say: "I'm not a Proctologist, but here's how I would approach the situation. When a Proctologists does squeeze in an answer, someone counters with; "We'll I'd sue you then, Your are a disgrace to Proctology. You should not be in this line of work!"

Just wondering.

The problem with your analogy is that law enforcement officers are not the law. They do not have JDs (law degrees) and a proctology MD would assumedly have that. LEOs are not judges and they are not lawmakers - nor are they lawyers (thank God!)

Having said that, I don't bash these guys because most LEOs have a good understanding of "retail" criminal law (in my experience.) In the rare instances when I've encountered an LEO with a misunderstanding of the law, I do not blame him or her - I blame training and (sometimes) departmental culture. In those instances, it's not willful ignorance - it's just miseducation backed by an honest desire to do their job and do it right.

Of course there are exceptions...

[luvtolean]

I know what you mean. I've visited several forums including this one where you are suppose to be able to ask a Cop a question, and receive an answer. Then, end of story. However after the question is posed, there will be a string of posts that begin with the sentence "I'm not LEO, but here's what I think. Or here's what I would do in that situation. Then when a bonified LEO does get an answer in, Someone will tell the LEO that he's wrong, or that's not what an LEO in a bar told him, or that he must be proud of himself for giving that answer, or that his answer won't hold up in court, and so forth and so on.


I wonder if Proctologists have such a forum where if a non-Proctologist asks a question, a bunch of forum members jump in and say: "I'm not a Proctologist, but here's how I would approach the situation. When a Proctologists does squeeze in an answer, someone counters with; "We'll I'd sue you then, Your are a disgrace to Proctology. You should not be in this line of work!"


Just wondering.

I haven't read all 36 pages, and lest you think this is cop bashing my best man at my wedding is a LEO, but...


Your proctology example happens all the time. (Think of all the "home remedies" out there for sickness.) The internet has given voice to all amateurs. I'm a mechanical engineer, and my profession gets as desecrated online as much as any, and arguably more than most. I've been told I'm wrong in regards to things related to my profession plenty too.

LEOs have it particularly bad. LEOs are paid by us civilians to enforce a set of rules, that is criminal law, that the layman is supposed to be able to understand. That's kind of the point really, an understanding of the risks and rewards. So, in a way, we all should be able to talk intelligently on it. Of course, not all can, and that's probably what frustrates LEOs.

When a LEO does get it wrong, at best it creates a crapton of headaches for the civilian on the receiving end. It can even end in or near bankruptcy as some of the threads on here around have shown.

Online BS in forums is part of the cost, arguably the benefits outweigh it, and thus we're here.

[J-cat]

Having a not registered firearm is not a violation of a penal code.

Neither is possession of a registered AW.

[FLIGHT762]

Neither is possession of a registered AW.

But, an unregistered AW is a felony. It's my opinion that a LEO seeing someone using an obvious AW has reasonable suspicion to contact the person possessing it and check to see if the AW is registered . If the contact turned sour and into an arrest for 148 P.C. (even if the AW is registered), as I stated in my earlier post(#180), I believe the 148 P.C. would probably be upheld for an Officer to check, even though it is not a requirement written into the AW law as it is in 12031 P.C. I suppose it will have to be tested in court.

If an L/E agency was contacted by a concerned citizen who called regarding someone shooting an AW at a public range. Do you believe that the call for service should not be dispatched? I know at my agency, an Officer would be dispatched. I also know that if an Officer did not check the AW to see if it is legally registered, that Officer would be in a supervisor's office explaining why not.

I know you believe that a LEO does not have Reasonable suspicion or probable cause to contact and detain the person shooting the AW.
My local public range(run by the County) has a notice posted that anyone intending to shoot an AW has to show proof of registration. They want to see the original copy!

Like it or not, with California's stance on AW's, If the person possessing the AW refused to comply with the check, walked away or fought with the LEO, and an arrest for 148 P.C. was made, I believe it would be argued by the D A that the LEO's check of the AW would be reasonable due to public safety and the nature of an unregistered AW being contraband in this State.

If I am contacted by L/E shooting my registered AW's, I will comply. I believe for me, this is a fight I do not want to take. I believe I would loose.

This is just my opinion. I don't know if there is current case law concerning this. If there is, I would like to know.
Next time I'm at the DA's office, I'll run it by them. I am also curious to find out.