WHy are people so paranoid?

[2Cute2Shoot]

WOW! I've been involved in law enforcement as a non-LEO and my dad is retired after +31 years as a Federal LEO and many more as a local PD reserve officer. But, I've NEVER seen someone who wants to ba a LEO openly display this type of superiority complex. 2Cute, please think about what you just said carefully. It's this type of thinking that gets people believing in the us vs. them thing.

You're so right CSACannoneer! That was my stupid fault for not being able to express myself. I only wanted to say how highly I regard law enforcement, and not hold up one vs. the other...as I know I can't speak for citizens in general. Sorry for being such a dummy

[CSACANNONEER]

I'm soooo sorry. That was a typo. What I was trying to say was that there are many more officers who value our rights than there are that don't! I didn't mean to say that people in law enforcement are somehow better. That was my TYPO! Oops

That makes much more sense and now, I'll agree with you. Thanks for the clarification.

[SoCalDep]

I'm going to assume that you are an active LEO, so let's put the shoe on the other foot for a second. What if a detective from IA wanted to "talk" to you, would you want your union rep present, or would you take the approach that if you did nothing wrong nothing bad would happen to you?

It depends, and I've done both. The error that anyone can make in these incidents (LEO, non-LEO, NAVY SEAL's who punch a murdering terrorist...etc) is giving broad based advice based on personal opinion, either based on personal bias in complete disregard to whatever facts and circumstances might be present, or with a lack of complete knowledge or understanding of the incident.

I can't tell you how many times I've been told "you can't come in my house without a warrant!" They are wrong. The people who told them that are wrong, and sometimes they go to jail because they refuse to consider they may be wrong.

I may be wrong. I try to continuously look at what I'm doing and why. If someone doesn't, they aren't being intellectually honest.

[Jwood562]

I'm going to assume that you are an active LEO, so let's put the shoe on the other foot for a second. What if a detective from IA wanted to "talk" to you, would you want your union rep present, or would you take the approach that if you did nothing wrong nothing bad would happen to you?

as stated above I have done both. I have been to IA a few times. not because I have done anything wrong but because people have the right to complain on anything they want and IA has to investigate.

People have claimed that I have "tricked them" in to traffic tickets, used fowl language, excessive force etc etc. All have been found to be unfounded. People have a misconception of how police work is "supposed" to be done and thus the ton of IA cases that get investigated and cleared.

Granted there are a few IA cases that desrved to be investigated and the mis conduct needs to be dealt with. But just like every other person in this great land police are innocent until proven guilty too.

I am also all for cleaning out the bad cops, just like a bad employees at mcdonalds, they do not belong!


i guess it is just the 2a forum that kinda runs wild. The guy in the original thread has admitted his sons illegal involvement in drugs and thefts etc and the responses from some people are telling the kid not to talk to the detective or cooperate. The detective wouldn't be there for no reason

[Jonathan Doe]

If I get to start all over again, I will be a fireman. That way, people say "hi" with all fingers, not just one.

[yzErnie]

What if a detective from IA wanted to "talk" to you, would you want your union rep present, or would you take the approach that if you did nothing wrong nothing bad would happen to you?

If I did nothing wrong I would not have any need for union or attorney representation because I have nothing to hide.

[CSACANNONEER]

i guess it is just the 2a forum that kinda runs wild. The guy in the original thread has admitted his sons illegal involvement in drugs and thefts etc and the responses from some people are telling the kid not to talk to the detective or cooperate. The detective wouldn't be there for no reason

In the end, the child is a minor so, the detective should either respect the parent's rights as a parent. If he doesn't do that, why should the parents repsect his position of authority? It's a two way street unless there is sufficient evidence that the child committed a crime, why should the parents go to the trouble of having their child contact the detective? It does sound like he is on a fishing trip and wants to see what he can get the kid to say. If there was a real need to speak with the child, why won't he discuss it with the child's parents first?

You can call me paranoid if you like but, just two weeks ago, I was pulled over for drinking a diet cola! After the officers realized that it was not a beer, they continued their fishing expedition by running my license (I didn't have a problem with this) and requiring my passenger to present ID as well. The later is were it was obvious that they were fishing. We were in a work truck and didn't have time to play their game so, we complied. Really, we had nothing to hide and had not broken any laws but, the officers still took 15 minutes out of our workday. Why should I or anyone else have to give up any of our time just because a LEO wants to talk to us? He's getting paid to talk to me but, he's taking up my valuable time and not compensating me for it.

[cindynles]

i guess it is just the 2a forum that kinda runs wild. The guy in the original thread has admitted his sons illegal involvement in drugs and thefts etc and the responses from some people are telling the kid not to talk to the detective or cooperate. The detective wouldn't be there for no reason

That's an understatement . Many people seem to seem to go a little off the deep end and post things they would never say in a face to face conversation. As far as the kid goes I guess it really comes down to risk vs. reward: Risk=go to jail / Reward=none.

[Just-in]

If I get to start all over again, I will be a fireman. That way, people say "hi" with all fingers, not just one.

I've been flipped off rolling to a call before.
I **** you not on richmond parkway we were rolling to a brush fire in clayton two dudes in a yellow bug pulled up next to our type three honked and the driver flipped us the bird. He outran us got caught at a light we passed through he passed us again with the 1 finger salute... left me puzzled as hell didn't look to see if he had a black and blue sticker in the the rear window

[chickenfried]

yup what cowards. if they had any testicular fortitude they'd speak their mind in person to the nice folks in a position of authority carrying batons, guns, tasers, and/or pepper spray.

That's an understatement . Many people seem to seem to go a little off the deep end and post things they would never say in a face to face conversation. As far as the kid goes I guess it really comes down to risk vs. reward: Risk=go to jail / Reward=none.

[FeuerFrei]

I've been flipped off rolling to a call before.
I **** you not on richmond parkway we were rolling to a brush fire in clayton two dudes in a yellow bug pulled up next to our type three honked and the driver flipped us the bird. He outran us got caught at a light we passed through he passed us again with the 1 finger salute... left me puzzled as hell didn't look to see if he had a black and blue sticker in the the rear window

Sounds about right.
I was rolling to a grass fire in a type 3 Ford 350 doing the prescribed 55mph and was PASSED by no less than 3 cars.
Some people just don't get the lights and siren thing.
Hey...55mph and 800 gallons of water gets rolling...they NEED to get out of the way.

[POLICESTATE]

IBTL

[tyrist]

There are some paranoid people; fortunately there seem to be far more in the forum than in the field.

The strangest thing is in the field people don't need any prompting at all to confess to serious felonies.

[SVT-40]

In the end, the child is a minor so, the detective should either respect the parent's rights as a parent. If he doesn't do that, why should the parents repsect his position of authority? It's a two way street unless there is sufficient evidence that the child committed a crime, why should the parents go to the trouble of having their child contact the detective? It does sound like he is on a fishing trip and wants to see what he can get the kid to say. If there was a real need to speak with the child, why won't he discuss it with the child's parents first?
.

Minor or not, LEO's have every right to talk with any suspect or person if that person wants to talk with them.

It's not about any "parents rights", Because in the case of the police interviewing minors there is no parental right to be present. It's about trying to determine the truth of the matter.

Talking with the parents first would not be in the best interest of the investigation. Which is the officers duty.

It would be silly to tell the parents of a suspect exactly what their little angel did or was accused doing of before actually talking with the individual.

It would give the suspect time to prepare a story to cover his involvement in the matter, and jeopardize the investigation.

Regarding "respecting authority". What ever happened to trying to find out the truth? Which is the ultimate goal of any investigation.

In fact the Det. may be giving the minor a chance to tell his side of the story. Before deciding to arrest him or not.

One thing many NON LEO's don't know is minors can be arrested for Misdemeanors as well as felonies regardless of whether the crime occurred in the officers presence. So in most instances warrants are not needed when dealing with minors.

Investigators are very busy. This is not his only case. Leaving a card is a common practice.

If I were the Det. I would certainly call a parent. I would give them as much info as I could. But would not give them any info which would jeopardize the investigation.

[CSACANNONEER]

Minor or not, LEO's have every right to talk with any suspect or person if that person wants to talk with them.

It's not about any "parents rights", Because in the case of the police interviewing minors there is no parental right to be present. It's about trying to determine the truth of the matter.

Talking with the parents first would not be in the best interest of the investigation. Which is the officers duty.

It would be silly to tell the parents of a suspect exactly what their little angel did or was accused doing of before actually talking with the individual.

It would give the suspect time to prepare a story to cover his involvement in the matter, and jeopardize the investigation.

Regarding "respecting authority". What ever happened to trying to find out the truth? Which is the ultimate goal of any investigation.

In fact the Det. may be giving the minor a chance to tell his side of the story. Before deciding to arrest him or not.

One thing many NON LEO's don't know is minors can be arrested for Misdemeanors as well as felonies regardless of whether the crime occurred in the officers presence. So in most instances warrants are not needed when dealing with minors.

Investigators are very busy. This is not his only case. Leaving a card is a common practice.

If I were the Det. I would certainly call a parent. I would give them as much info as I could. But would not give them any info which would jeopardize the investigation.

This is the problem. The Detective is worried about what is best for "their investigation" and the parents are worried about what is best for their child. Are you telling me that if you were/are a parent, you would blindly have you child speak to some unknow detective about matters that were unknown to you? I hope that is not the case. I hope that you are/were a better parent than that. In the end, I see someone who is trying to protect their job and their work on a case and others who are trying to protect a human being who is their offspring.