Interesting LEO encounter

[j706]

What I think it funny is that if the officer had insisted on seeing ID and clearing the house, many of the same folks in this thread talking about how the cop should have done just that would probably been up in arms about the jackboot violating rights.

My thoughts exactly Joe. Damned if you do and damned if you don't. Alarms are a major PITA. I give ONE freebie and then it starts getting pricey real fast.

 

[Tactical Dave]

I would have stayed outside and let the cop clear the house........

 

[Eddie]

My thoughts exactly Joe. Damned if you do and damned if you don't. Alarms are a major PITA. I give ONE freebie and then it starts getting pricey real fast.

This. Come on guys. Whenever somebody gets pulled over we get a thread about how some nazi jackbooted thug violated their rights and proned them out and how the OP needs to call and complain and yada yada yada.

Somebody else posts about a cop being nice and we get a thread full of posts about wasting taxpayer money, incompetent police work and a bunch of woulda, shoulda, coulda.

Its an alarm call. Alarms go off constantly. Ride with one of your local LEOs on a stormy night and you'll be sick of alarm calls in under an hour.

I think that the only correct answer is the one posted above. No matter what a LEO does, a bunch of folks will condemn them.

 

[finity]

What I think it funny is that if the officer had insisted on seeing ID and clearing the house, many of the same folks in this thread talking about how the cop should have done just that would probably been up in arms about the jackboot violating rights.

Oh geez.

You can't see the difference between

1. a cop showing up to a home alarm, meeting the "homeowner" in the driveway, & not even checking their ID and

2. a cop pulling some over for a traffic violation or just walking down the street, disarming them, sweeping them with their own gun, putting them on the ground, asking for ID & berating them for 15 minutes about the "dangers" of carrying a gun "like that", or shooting a 7yo girl in a botched raid, or shooting a biker in the back even though he had no weapon, or shooting a guy in the back in the subway even though he had had 2 cops on him holding him face down, or...etc. etc....

Nobody here (to my knowledge) is so anti-LEO that they feel that EVERYTHING that EVERY cop does violates your rights. However many cops seem to take an all or nothing approach to their jobs. That's when the trouble starts.

either way next time ask him to check or say hey can i speak to your supervisor and explain your concerns. but next time they roll up guns out and want you to lay face down, cuff you up, put you in the car, then check your residence don't complain cause thats the opposite to where your at, especially when you tell the officer hey i am armed and checked the residence and didn't see anything. not trying to cause drama just pointing out the opposite to what occurred

See what I mean...

This is the perfect example of what I was referring to above, "the all or nothing approach". This guy can't see that there's any amount of possibilities between believing everything the "homeowner" tells him with no verification at all and "they roll up guns out and want you to lay face down, cuff you up, put you in the car, then check your residence ".

The message here is "don't complain about the job we do or just see what happens".

That's not good police work, that's retribution.

If you want to be an unreasonable JBT then go ahead & keep that binary extremist mind-set but don't get your feelings hurt when non-LEO citizens complain because of it.

Its an alarm call. Alarms go off constantly. Ride with one of your local LEOs on a stormy night and you'll be sick of alarm calls in under an hour.

Sorry, but I personally don't give a crap how "sick" of alarm calls a cop gets. THAT'S THEIR JOB. If they're "sick" of DOING THEIR JOB properly then it's time to find another one. When peoples lives are possibly on the line they can't afford to be non-chalant or "sick" of responding.

 

[Eddie]

Sorry, but I personally don't give a crap how "sick" of alarm calls a cop gets. THAT'S THEIR JOB. If they're "sick" of DOING THEIR JOB properly then it's time to find another one. When peoples lives are possibly on the line they can't afford to be non-chalant or "sick" of responding.

Alarm calls are weird animals as far as police calls go. Different people install different alarm systems and set them to notify police/fire under a variety of different conditions. This results in a high percentage of false alarms. Some cities and counties even create ordinances to fine home and business owners who have more than a set number of false alarm calls within a set period of time. A motion detector can be dialed down until a moth flying by sets it off and plenty of homeowners set off their own alarms and then don't remember the code words.

I don't know what duty a LEO would have in responding to a private citizen's own alarm call once he was told that he was not needed there and that no crime was occuring. What would the OP have said if the officer insisted on IDing him and then said: "I know this is your ID, and that you are telling me there is nothing wrong, but someone could be inside holding your family hostage and making you say that there is nothing wrong, so now I'm going to have to search your house."

 

[finity]

Alarm calls are weird animals as far as police calls go. Different people install different alarm systems and set them to notify police/fire under a variety of different conditions. This results in a high percentage of false alarms. Some cities and counties even create ordinances to fine home and business owners who have more than a set number of false alarm calls within a set period of time. A motion detector can be dialed down until a moth flying by sets it off and plenty of homeowners set off their own alarms and then don't remember the code words.

I have no problem holding people responsible for the cost of false alarms (after at least some warning first).

But just because you get false alarms, it doesn't mean that NO alarms are valid. So all alarms should be responded to as if there is a real problem until proven otherwise, not the other way around.

If a cop still uses the same precautions time after time for his own safety even though he's had zero problems in the last 5000 traffic stops then why should he respond any differently when someone elses safety is involved even if the last 5000 home alarms have been false alarms?

I don't know what duty a LEO would have in responding to a private citizen's own alarm call once he was told that he was not needed there and that no crime was occuring. What would the OP have said if the officer insisted on IDing him and then said: "I know this is your ID, and that you are telling me there is nothing wrong, but someone could be inside holding your family hostage and making you say that there is nothing wrong, so now I'm going to have to search your house."

Unfortunately, there are two aspects to the police "duty" to respond.

There is the legal duty to respond & the moral duty to respond.

It has been covered here several times that the SCOTUS has ruled that the police have no legal duty to respond to an individual's call for assistance (I don't agree with that decision). Legally, you're on your own. While most cops would still do their best to respond to a crime in progress this opens up the door for abuse to the lazy or corrupt cops/departments who are OK getting paid but not really wanting to do the job & we as tax payers have no real legal remedy.

If the abuse is bad enough then eventually the administration would be voted out & the cops fired. That is a slow process & most times won't happen because the knowledge of the abuse is not widespread enough (yet) to mobilize people against the corruption.

You also seem to be falling into the same trap as 'grunt soldier' in believing that there are only two ways to handle this situation - the 'all or nothing' approach.

OTOH, I seriously doubt that MOST people who go to the time & expense to have an alarm system installed then continue to pay the monthly monitoring fee are going to get bent out of shape if a cop 'insists' that they should look around to be sure that there really is no danger.

 

[grunt soldier]

I have no problem holding people responsible for the cost of false alarms (after at least some warning first).

But just because you get false alarms, it doesn't mean that NO alarms are valid. So all alarms should be responded to as if there is a real problem until proven otherwise, not the other way around.

If a cop still uses the same precautions time after time for his own safety even though he's had zero problems in the last 5000 traffic stops then why should he respond any differently when someone elses safety is involved even if the last 5000 home alarms have been false alarms?



Unfortunately, there are two aspects to the police "duty" to respond.

There is the legal duty to respond & the moral duty to respond.

It has been covered here several times that the SCOTUS has ruled that the police have no legal duty to respond to an individual's call for assistance (I don't agree with that decision). Legally, you're on your own. While most cops would still do their best to respond to a crime in progress this opens up the door for abuse to the lazy or corrupt cops/departments who are OK getting paid but not really wanting to do the job & we as tax payers have no real legal remedy.

If the abuse is bad enough then eventually the administration would be voted out & the cops fired. That is a slow process & most times won't happen because the knowledge of the abuse is not widespread enough (yet) to mobilize people against the corruption.

You also seem to be falling into the same trap as 'grunt soldier' in believing that there are only two ways to handle this situation - the 'all or nothing' approach.

OTOH, I seriously doubt that MOST people who go to the time & expense to have an alarm system installed then continue to pay the monthly monitoring fee are going to get bent out of shape if a cop 'insists' that they should look around to be sure that there really is no danger.

since you seem to know so much about me and my attitude and how i am based off reading one post that you seem to only have haphazardly read. i don't think thats what officers should do at all. i said he should ask the cop hey can you check my resd. or he should have called back in and requested to speak to a supervisor on the situation was handled. and i was just giving another option that could have went the other way. another thing was the officer probably ran the guys plate when he pulled up and was already clear that it was the homeowners vehicle and then once talking to the home owner who stated he had a gun and checked the resd already if there was really some sort of problem the homeowner would have relayed it to him. either way


i think you need to either calm down and stop acting like you know everything. i mean as a tax payer i understand your concerns. you people who say that kill me. you know cops pay the same amount of taxes as you do right? so they are tax payers too.

 

[finity]

since you seem to know so much about me and my attitude and how i am based off reading one post that you seem to only have haphazardly read. i don't think thats what officers should do at all. i said he should ask the cop hey can you check my resd. or he should have called back in and requested to speak to a supervisor on the situation was handled. and i was just giving another option that could have went the other way. another thing was the officer probably ran the guys plate when he pulled up and was already clear that it was the homeowners vehicle and then once talking to the home owner who stated he had a gun and checked the resd already if there was really some sort of problem the homeowner would have relayed it to him. either way

You didn't offer it as an option of what could happen. You told the OP that he had lost the right of complaint if the cops reacted to him voicing his original concerns by becoming JBT's the next time around.

I called it as I read it. It's the internet, these posts are the ONLY way we have of knowing anything about anybody. If you didn't mean it the way I took it then feel free to try to clarify it, as you have.

i think you need to either calm down and stop acting like you know everything. i mean as a tax payer i understand your concerns. you people who say that kill me. you know cops pay the same amount of taxes as you do right? so they are tax payers too.

No need for me to calm down. I'm not excited. I'm just stating my opinion.

It's interesting that you take offense to the idea that taxpayers pay your wages. Who exactly do you think pays your wages if not taxpayers. I didn't say that we were your bosses like many people do & which isn't technically correct. I just said that, as taxpayers (which implies that we DO pay your wages) we should be entitled to police protection under at least contract law.

If I pay a security company to protect my property & the security company just unilaterally decides to abandon the property to all criminals & I suffer a loss then I have recourse against the security company under the terms of the contract. BUT if I, as a taxpayer (along with all the other residents of the community), pay the police to provide protection for me/us & the police decide to wantonly abandon that responsibility then we, as taxpayers have no other recourse except as I stated previously. Talk about a two-tiered system.

Just because cops are also the tax payers doesn't (or shouldn't) change the dynamics of the "social contract". They should also be able to expect a professional timely response from the on-duty cops should they need it. Though, I would be willing to bet that the cavalry comes in those situations that a cop calls for help no matter how minor the incident though - so I doubt that is a real concern for you as it could be for many other people.

 

[skseifert]

skseifert, let me just point out that no matter what if you called and gave the passcode the alarm company called and tried to cancel the alarm or for sure let us know hey it was the home owner and we got proper pass code. we at impd have a no cancelation for panic alarms but no matter what either dispatch or control definitely told the officer that the alarm comp called back and wanted to cancel or that the home owner was on-scene and had a good code.

did you give him the address or you name and code any info a bad guy wouldn't have had. a lot of people don't realize the info they give up initially to the officers right off the bat. you already mentioned that you told him you had your gun and had checked the resd. any other info you gave him right away that you might have forgot about or just didn't realize you gave.

either way next time ask him to check or say hey can i speak to your supervisor and explain your concerns. but next time they roll up guns out and want you to lay face down, cuff you up, put you in the car, then check your residence don't complain cause thats the opposite to where your at, especially when you tell the officer hey i am armed and checked the residence and didn't see anything. not trying to cause drama just pointing out the opposite to what occurred

My alarm company does not offer any passcode for a distress call - the BG could be forcing me to hand over the passcode. All they did was verify that the distress alarm had been set, and not an intrusion alarm. This is not IMPD either - this is rural. I didn't offer anything to him other than I was armed (so he wouldn'd freak if he saw it on me - just trying to be respectful of the position our LEO are put in) and that I had called the alarm company and they stated it was a distress call.

Again I must iterate, he was very cordial about the whole incident, and I would love to run into him again. Just analyzing the scenario after the fact, I would think a different response would be warranted. I don't do LEO daily like you guys do, so this is why I am asking - did I read too much, or should I be concerned.

 

[skseifert]

I hope I have not caused any strife amongst members here over this thread. I have a true respect for the position our LEO put themselves in, and I respect the effort they put forth. Yes, there is always the one in the group that stands out to make the rest look bad and that is a shame - but of all the LEO's that I know from multiple jurisdictions and ranks, all that i know are great guys, and I believe represent the mass of our Law Enforcement.