A question about Authoritarianism

[Dan D]

"The Citizens Guide to Surviving Police Encounters", legal situation in the US and Germany, easily explained:

http://andrewhammel.typepad.com/germ...y-entry-1.html

[vienna]

Originally Posted by Jimbuna

I'd say 'points for pulls' is a most unfortunate and potentially misleading way of explaining a crackdown on a given theme or category of offence which is temporarily made the subject of a zero tolerance operation brought about by a localised and notable increase in said type or types of offences.

I have to agree with Clive in that I have never been made aware of definitive 'quotas' or absolutes being dictated.

There are a few traffic black spots near me where deaths have occurred in traffic related incidents and it is not uncommon for road stops being performed where zero tolerance is operated on whatever theme is taken for the time eg: speeding, tyres, insurance, road vehicle excise etc.

I admit to have taken part in them on occasion myself and the moment the operation ceases or has run its course it was always back to the individual LEO using his power of discretion (being able to verbally warn without the need to issue a ticket)....and often that had a better response from motorists.

We also have such 'task force' enforcement in areas where there is a very large number of traffic incidents, particularly when there in a danger to pedestrians and other vehicles. What really irritates me is when these efforts are reported on the news, there are invariably those people who have been ticketed for violations fuming and shouting about how the only reason they got a ticket is because the LEOs are out to make some "quota" and they are trying to "rip off" the 'innocent' public. The question begs itself: if that citizen did get a ticket, wasn't it because they did violate a law and by doing so put others in harm's way and if they had followed the law, they wouldn't have received the ticket? Those idiots aren't angry because they were 'unjustly' ticketed due to some imaginary 'quota system', they are angry because they behaved like asses and got caught...


<O>

[Schroeder]

@Jim & Clive

I think the problem might be that you have been officers some years ago. Things change. If the Bedfordshire (spelling?) officers say they have to fulfill a quota then I have no reason to not believe them. Did you watch the first two minutes (and 15 seconds) of the video I linked? They have a target of 300 credits (whatever a credit is) per month.

[Jimbuna]

Originally Posted by vienna

We also have such 'task force' enforcement in areas where there is a very large number of traffic incidents, particularly when there in a danger to pedestrians and other vehicles. What really irritates me is when these efforts are reported on the news, there are invariably those people who have been ticketed for violations fuming and shouting about how the only reason they got a ticket is because the LEOs are out to make some "quota" and they are trying to "rip off" the 'innocent' public. The question begs itself: if that citizen did get a ticket, wasn't it because they did violate a law and by doing so put others in harm's way and if they had followed the law, they wouldn't have received the ticket? Those idiots aren't angry because they were 'unjustly' ticketed due to some imaginary 'quota system', they are angry because they behaved like asses and got caught...


<O>

Pretty much says it all for me.

[Jimbuna]

Originally Posted by Schroeder

@Jim & Clive

I think the problem might be that you have been officers some years ago. Things change. If the Bedfordshire (spelling?) officers say they have to fulfill a quota then I have no reason to not believe them. Did you watch the first two minutes (and 15 seconds) of the video I linked? They have a target of 300 credits (whatever a credit is) per month.

I'm not doubting the content Stefan but rather justifying it as per vienna's post and simply adding that the term 'points for pulls' is a most unfortunate and potentially misleading way of explaining the operation.

I've never seen a LEO being carpetted for failing to keep a high prosecution rate but I have seen one or two disciplined for blatantly ignoring offences committed in selected areas (and subject to 24hr surveillance cameras to verify such inaction).

I still meet a few currently serving LEO's from time to time and I'll be blatantly honest when I say that some of them do refer to the term above but it is an unspoken given that this is not the true situation in reality. Some of them are lazy and go out of their way to avoid such operations but the expectation from up high is always there nevertheless.

[vienna]

The LAPD uses a statistical system for attempting to verify patrol officers are actually doing their jobs and not slacking off or otherwise being derelict in their duties. For example, if an area has a certain average number of a particular violation and suddenly the number noticeably declines, the officers in that area are called in to explain any conditions that may have resulted in the change. If the reason is some sort of change in traffic or pedestrian flow or perhaps a signage change, etc., then the LAPD will note the reason and move on; if there is no compelling reason, then the LAPD investigates and takes appropriate action if it is found the officers are slacking. This hold true of violations other than traffic; if there are sudden drops in the number of drug arrests in an area known for high drug traffic, then the LAPD wants to know the reason; if the drop is the result of better enforcement methods, then the LAPD wants to know what they are doing right so the methods can be expanded to other such areas; and, again, if there is no compelling reason, the LAPD will investigate to determine if the officers are doing their duty, or, worse, if they might possibly be on the take...


<O>

[Stealhead]

Originally Posted by vienna

The LAPD uses a statistical system for attempting to verify patrol officers are actually doing their jobs and not slacking off or otherwise being derelict in their duties. For example, if an area has a certain average number of a particular violation and suddenly the number noticeably declines, the officers in that area are called in to explain any conditions that may have resulted in the change. If the reason is some sort of change in traffic or pedestrian flow or perhaps a signage change, etc., then the LAPD will note the reason and move on; if there is no compelling reason, then the LAPD investigates and takes appropriate action if it is found the officers are slacking. This hold true of violations other than traffic; if there are sudden drops in the number of drug arrests in an area known for high drug traffic, then the LAPD wants to know the reason; if the drop is the result of better enforcement methods, then the LAPD wants to know what they are doing right so the methods can be expanded to other such areas; and, again, if there is no compelling reason, the LAPD will investigate to determine if the officers are doing their duty, or, worse, if they might possibly be on the take...


<O>

I'd push hard to get assigned to Beverly Hills. I'd give famous people tickets and not show up to court of course I'd imply that to the traffic offender. Then I'd chase away the peasants to keep the property values high. I bet I'd make lieutenant in three or four years.

[vienna]

Originally Posted by Stealhead

I'd push hard to get assigned to Beverly Hills. I'd give famous people tickets and not show up to court of course I'd imply that to the traffic offender. Then I'd chase away the peasants to keep the property values high. I bet I'd make lieutenant in three or four years.

Beverly Hills is a separate city from Los Angeles, although it is pretty much surrounded on three sides by the City of Los Angeles (the fourth side is bordered by the City of West Hollywood, also not part of the City of Los Angeles). The BH Police Department is autonomous from the LAPD and is, in itself a very good department. I've had dealings and encounters with them over the past few decades and have always found them to be professional, courteous and very efficient...

Giving a 'famous person' a ticket is not going to affect them in the least; you might not show up in court, but neither will they; they'll send their attorney who will have the judge dismiss the ticket: in California, if the case goes to trial and the officer doesn't show, it's an automatic dismissal. Add to that the fact very few 'famous people' nowadays actually live in BH and those who venture into the City, are usually in there only long enough to get the face on TMZ...

As far as chasing away the 'peasants', I have not heard of any BH officer using his position to force someone out of the City, not even transients; in fact, BH has in place programs that direct transients to programs to aid those persons with finding lodging, food, and counseling assistance. I have seen first hand, at the BH Public Library, social workers making rounds to find and aid those in need, something I have never seen anywhere else...

As far as making LT., I'm afraid you'd find yourself unemployed long before that would ever happen; the BHPD is a pretty tight ship...


<O>

[Stealhead]

Originally Posted by vienna

Beverly Hills is a separate city from Los Angeles, although it is pretty much surrounded on three sides by the City of Los Angeles (the fourth side is bordered by the City of West Hollywood, also not part of the City of Los Angeles). The BH Police Department is autonomous from the LAPD and is, in itself a very good department. I've had dealings and encounters with them over the past few decades and have always found them to be professional, courteous and very efficient...

Giving a 'famous person' a ticket is not going to affect them in the least; you might not show up in court, but neither will they; they'll send their attorney who will have the judge dismiss the ticket: in California, if the case goes to trial and the officer doesn't show, it's an automatic dismissal. Add to that the fact very few 'famous people' nowadays actually live in BH and those who venture into the City, are usually in there only long enough to get the face on TMZ...

As far as chasing away the 'peasants', I have not heard of any BH officer using his position to force someone out of the City, not even transients; in fact, BH has in place programs that direct transients to programs to aid those persons with finding lodging, food, and counseling assistance. I have seen first hand, at the BH Public Library, social workers making rounds to find and aid those in need, something I have never seen anywhere else...

As far as making LT., I'm afraid you'd find yourself unemployed long before that would ever happen; the BHPD is a pretty tight ship...


<O>

I am afraid I'll have to report you to the scarcasim police. Or maybe you should report me.

[Schroeder]

Originally Posted by Stealhead

I am afraid I'll have to report you to the scarcasim police. Or maybe you should report me.

I've reported you both and got 10 credit points for it.

[vienna]

Originally Posted by Schroeder

I've reported you both and got 10 credit points for it.

JUDAS!!!


<O>

[Schroeder]

Originally Posted by vienna

JUDAS!!!


<O>

Just be glad I didn't kiss you.

[vienna]

Never on the first betrayal...


<O>

[Stealhead]

Surely that was at least a felony times two. Maybe worth 600 credits to the SIA (Scarcastic Investigation Agency). You should see their sarcastic cop/ non-scarastic cop integration method.

[vienna]

Originally Posted by Stealhead

Surely that was at least a felony times two. Maybe worth 600 credits to the SIA (Scarcastic Investigation Agency). You should see their sarcastic cop/ non-scarastic cop integration method.

Oh, really, must I?...


<O>