Sunday, December 28, 2014

Learning From The Pros

I have an appreciation for the hard work done by my peers in Law Enforcement each and every day. It is very rare but sometimes dangerous criminals have to be apprehended. The problem is they do such an amazing job it seems easier than it is in reality.

The first rule that I didn't really grasp until the Garner tragedy is just how dangerous the job is. I am somewhat of a legal perfectionist. I don't like to send items to the judge before all the possible angles are closed. According to my peers my standards are higher than those in court. There have been times where I prepared a case an on review my peers decided to make the arrest. This was done after an independent review of the evidence.

On the rare occasion a dangerous type is in the office the manpower needed to do the job is always present. The situations never escalate because of the preparation and controlled setting. In the beginning I questioned the amount of officers. I am confident in my ability to keep things under control. Yet they are right and that there is no need to gamble especially with dangerous criminals.

I used to be annoyed that my counterparts would rerun checks. In those rare cases I am very thorough because my safety depends on it. There have never been discrepancies but a second set of eyes never hurts. Usually my counterparts run additional checks, but it is done for sufficient cause.

The sad part is if an officer gets mildly injured in the line of duty you don't hear about it. Maybe they do their jobs so well the rest of us take it for granted.


Ducky's here said...

Your "peers" in law enforcement?

Are you insane?

beakerkin said...

I am a law enforcement officer. My role is more akin to the DA. In public safety situations they can trump my call. It is rare we would disagree.
Most of the time it is not yet.

Ducky's here said...

You work strapped?


beakerkin said...

You are not reading this properly. My role in the process is more akin to the DA. We pick and chose who we go after.

My standards for building a case are very high.
I only take well documented and crystal clear cases to the judge. Fortunately, I don't work many criminal cases.

My peers and I almost always agree. Almost all of the disagreements are along the lines of we need more evidence. Sometimes, I might ask why we need so many officers. The person was alleged to have committed a heinous crime abroad. My point was the investigation was not complete and we were not even certain his government wanted him for the crime. The legal review said the case was nearly closed and the matter falls under public safety. Even if his country didn't want him back, my peers were ready for deportation. The vast preponderance
of cases typically involve crimes over here.

In hindsight, they were correct. It is easier and safer to detain a person in a controlled setting than the street for all parties. My concern is with officer safety first. In the defense of my peers the person in question fled a crime of violence twenty years ago. His criminality here was low level pot arrests. Based upon the latter I wanted
minimal support. My request was declined and he was taken into custody immediately after my interview.

I do not carry a gun, nor do I need one. My approach is low key even with the worst. There would be no escalation as I keep things calm. I am confident of my abilities to maintain control of the situation at all times.

The disagreement was over are you prepared to build a case if his government doesn't want him. The attorney decided to proceed on the assumption that his government wouldn't take him. In the end his country did want him.