Glock Talk banner
21 - 40 of 40 Posts
State law of course differs, so I'm not getting into that discussion.

What if he had been responding to a call in a "silent code 3" response? It's in our official policy I can drive like a bat out of hell without my lights and sirens if need be. Not saying the dude wasn't an idiot for driving that fast, not saying he doesn't deserve to get canned for doing it, but I also think the trooper took care of business the wrong way as well.


-Jenrick
This is true as well. She screwed up, and handled it badly. But instead of it being a blip on page 43 of the metro section of the local paper, now it's a blight on all local LE. Love it or hate it, both Miami and FHP get to own this mess.

As an aside, I can think of no reason that I would need to travel 120+ without lights or siren. We have silent approaches too, but 120+ isn't considering the safety of the public. Damned few times do cops need to travel that speed. I do it, but I do it as safely as possible. I use lights and siren at that speed, no matter what. What if I hit a kid, a deer, anything because they don't expect me to be moving that fast? I hit someone, they're gonna own my house, because my department will hang my butt out to dry, and justifiably so.

I think SAR put it best. If she was thinking this was a legitimate reason to stop the guy, it needed to be a high-risk stop. She needed multiple units, supervisors, a helo, the world. Playing cowboy on the median of a freeway doesn't help the situation.
 
But, sorry, I don't care how its classified, it ain't a "crime" worthy of pointing a gun at another uniformed cop and handcuffing him. A crime is an abused kid, a robbery victim, a beat up spouse, a murder victim. Seen plenty of those, and I am sure you have, too. Something tells me, however, she has not.
How was she to know he was an officer? Marked squad, couldve been stolen. Uniforms can be bought ANYWHERE. She shouldve waited for backup/cover and then "felony" stopped him. She got lucky when she approached alone and found him to be cooperative. Just because "hes a cop" doesnt mean he is above the law. He was off duty and its been reported by some he was even outside his jurisdiction. Ive also seen it mentioned that the trooper stated she has noticed a miami pd vehicle driving similarly on several occasions and couldnt catch up to it. Him acting this way should relieve him of his "officer" status.
 
This will be my last comment.

I am NOT defending the speeding cop. Speeding is wrong and dangerous, and might properly be addressed through enforcement action.Failing to stop may, in fact, be criminal. No excuse.


However, there could have been many legitimate, legal, and "law enforcement related" reasons to explain why he was driving like that: SWAT call out, silent code 3 response to crime in progress, actual code 3 response in which he thought driving with his lights off would be safer/faster, etc., etc.

My only point is that her INITIAL reaction, to pull him over and assume the worst, could have interfered with that response. I think a uniformed officer in a marked police car should be given the benefit of the doubt and be allowed to proceed unencumbered. Following up later through his chain of command would have served to address the issue, without running the risk of interfering with a potentially legitimate law enforcement function.

Again, my only point.



Oh, and I am not what is "wrong" with law enforcement. I have sacrificed more than I care to think about, or explain to you, to be a police officer. I'm the guy who handles every call to full completion (and then some), never takes a meal break while at work, almost never calls out sick, backs up my fellow officers, would never even think of breaking the law, and volunteers my on free time to better my department. I am honest, dedicated, and professional and, after more than a decade in law enforcement, am growing more and more tired of defending myself to an ungrateful citizenry.
So you know for certain it was a police officer in the MPD cruiser? How do you know it wasn't someone who stole a police car or God forbid killed an officer and took his car. But, your all for letting a criminal go because he's in a marked unit. I'm sure that would have been worse on the FHP than pulling him over.

Read my words, I didn't say all law enforcement was wrong, I said a few that feel they are above the law. They are the ones that give all the good officers a bad reputation.

If the MPD officer was really on a call, I'm sure that would have been easily verified by radio and if it was true, she could have stopped the pursuit.
 
State law of course differs, so I'm not getting into that discussion.

What if he had been responding to a call in a "silent code 3" response? It's in our official policy I can drive like a bat out of hell without my lights and sirens if need be. Not saying the dude wasn't an idiot for driving that fast, not saying he doesn't deserve to get canned for doing it, but I also think the trooper took care of business the wrong way as well.


-Jenrick
I can understand a silent code 3, but that is not meant for the highway in a big city, it is meant for when you are nearing the neighborhood of the incident.

If there is a reason to go silent code 3 on the highway please tell me why.
 
If there is a reason to go silent code 3 on the highway please tell me why.
Because the officer may be going to back up another officer who is on a motor vehicle stop on the highway. The officer on the stop may not have showed his hand yet, and the criminal(s) he has in the vehicle in front of him may not know he is on to them. If the backup officers come flying with lights and siren, it could alert the criminals in the vehicle and they may take action before the backup patrol arrives.

This is done all the time in my agency.
 
Why would an "off-duty" cop be taking the cop car to whatever he was babbling about???? Something wrong with his vehicle??? Does he pay for the fuel for that run, or does that go on the taxpayers dime??? I'm guessing the latter. What if he'd gotten in a wreck; off duty, and out of his jurisdiction driving like that???? What would happen??? Again, probably on the taxpayers dime!!!!:steamed:


The Few, The Arrogant, Miami Cops..........and the ones:upeyes: that apologize for them here:shocked::upeyes:!!
 
Why would an "off-duty" cop be taking the cop car to whatever he was babbling about???? Something wrong with his vehicle??? Does he pay for the fuel for that run, or does that go on the taxpayers dime??? I'm guessing the latter. What if he'd gotten in a wreck; off duty, and out of his jurisdiction driving like that???? What would happen??? Again, probably on the taxpayers dime!!!!:steamed:


The Few, The Arrogant, Miami Cops..........and the ones:upeyes: that apologize for them here:shocked::upeyes:!!
I know that you're a cop hater, and therefore I'm not replying directly to you, but rather commenting on your post for the benefit of the others that may have to suffer through reading it.

A lot of agencies that allow officers to work "off duty" uniformed jobs allow their officers to use a patrol car for transportation. There are a variety of reasons:

1) Ultimately, it's another marked patrol car on the street that the public will see.

2) The officer is able to respond appropriately to an emergency call that may come in (or that he may encounter) while traveling to, working at, or traveling from an off-duty job.

3) An off duty officer arriving at or working at an off-duty job in uniform looks more "legit" than one in their personal vehicle.

4) If the off duty officer makes an arrest or has other reasons to transport a person in the course of the travel to/from or working at an off-duty gig, they have a vehicle at their disposal with which to do so.

5) Many agencies (most?) have an arrangement where the contractor (the company hiring the officer) pays the agency, who in turn pays the officer. This keeps the contractor from having to deal with tax issues, makes the officer's tax return cleaner, and also idemnifies the officer as if they were on duty, since they're being paid by the agency. If the agency is going to be liable for the officer, acting as their employee, than he might as well be driving their car., which they can vouch for the condition of.

6) Much along the lines with number 5 above, many agencies that contract out "off-duty" work include an administrative fee or even a separate charge for the use of a police vehicle, so in a lot of cases, the car is being paid for by the contractor.
 
4949shooter provided a good answer.

The last time I ran a silent code 3 was to a stolen vehicle that the other officer hadn't lit up yet. We didn't want to spook them. Also since I was about 7 miles away, putting the pedal to it meant that they wouldn't out in the boondocks when we finally lit them up on the felony stop.

-Jenrick
 
I know that you're a cop hater, and therefore I'm not replying directly to you, but rather commenting on your post for the benefit of the others that may have to suffer through reading it.

A lot of agencies that allow officers to work "off duty" uniformed jobs allow their officers to use a patrol car for transportation. There are a variety of reasons:

1) Ultimately, it's another marked patrol car on the street that the public will see.

2) The officer is able to respond appropriately to an emergency call that may come in (or that he may encounter) while traveling to, working at, or traveling from an off-duty job.

3) An off duty officer arriving at or working at an off-duty job in uniform looks more "legit" than one in their personal vehicle.

4) If the off duty officer makes an arrest or has other reasons to transport a person in the course of the travel to/from or working at an off-duty gig, they have a vehicle at their disposal with which to do so.

5) Many agencies (most?) have an arrangement where the contractor (the company hiring the officer) pays the agency, who in turn pays the officer. This keeps the contractor from having to deal with tax issues, makes the officer's tax return cleaner, and also idemnifies the officer as if they were on duty, since they're being paid by the agency. If the agency is going to be liable for the officer, acting as their employee, than he might as well be driving their car., which they can vouch for the condition of.

6) Much along the lines with number 5 above, many agencies that contract out "off-duty" work include an administrative fee or even a separate charge for the use of a police vehicle, so in a lot of cases, the car is being paid for by the contractor.


Thanks for the info.

I'm not a "cop hater", just a "bad cop hater".

This turd is a bad cop IMHO. He's abusing his position of authority.

Would said officer still be OK had he wrecked the vehicle were it proven he was driving like a butthead??!!!

If Joe Tax-Payer did the exact same driving scenario, I don't think any of the apologists here would've said a word.

Can you say "double standard"???
 
I can understand a silent code 3, but that is not meant for the highway in a big city, it is meant for when you are nearing the neighborhood of the incident.

If there is a reason to go silent code 3 on the highway please tell me why.
We often shut down our sirens on the freeways here in Southern California. We still have our lights flashing, but sirens do little good for us on the freeway (interstate) except give us a headache after awhile. The purpose of a siren is to alert traffic ahead of you. In my experience, freeway speeds, coupled with all the associated noises, car stereos, plus modern car sound dampening, sirens are pretty much useless on the open road. Surface streets are another story....
 
4949 I am glad to see a trooper chiming in, offering some common sense to the situation. I agree with everything you've stated regarding the topic, and how it should have been handled.
4949shooter provided a good answer.

The last time I ran a silent code 3 was to a stolen vehicle that the other officer hadn't lit up yet. We didn't want to spook them. Also since I was about 7 miles away, putting the pedal to it meant that they wouldn't out in the boondocks when we finally lit them up on the felony stop.

-Jenrick
Thank you, Brothers.
 
We often shut down our sirens on the freeways here in Southern California. We still have our lights flashing, but sirens do little good for us on the freeway (interstate) except give us a headache after awhile. The purpose of a siren is to alert traffic ahead of you. In my experience, freeway speeds, coupled with all the associated noises, car stereos, plus modern car sound dampening, sirens are pretty much useless on the open road. Surface streets are another story....
And when they finally hear the siren, they sometimes panic and jam on the brakes, which is not conducive to getting us to our emergency any quicker.
 
4949shooter provided a good answer.

The last time I ran a silent code 3 was to a stolen vehicle that the other officer hadn't lit up yet. We didn't want to spook them. Also since I was about 7 miles away, putting the pedal to it meant that they wouldn't out in the boondocks when we finally lit them up on the felony stop.
But, you weren't running through going-to-work traffic at 0630 hrs in Dade County traffic either.

Glad you made the stop. :thumbsup:
 
Definitely worthy of disciplinary action, but to be placed in custody?? IMHO it could have been handled differently.

She sounded like she was yelling at her kids or something. Must be more to this story than what's publicized..
 
Thanks for the info.

I'm not a "cop hater", just a "bad cop hater".

This turd is a bad cop IMHO. He's abusing his position of authority.

Would said officer still be OK had he wrecked the vehicle were it proven he was driving like a butthead??!!!

If Joe Tax-Payer did the exact same driving scenario, I don't think any of the apologists here would've said a word.

Can you say "double standard"???

I would not have reacted that way to Joe Tax-Payer over a speeding issue.
 
21 - 40 of 40 Posts
You have insufficient privileges to reply here.
Top