The official "Ask a cop/deputy anything!" thread

Sedan_Clan wrote

Unless he was a blue pill superhero that day.

A blue pill only straightens the barrel, AFAIK. The magazine is still only loaded with wads, though.....

vreihen16 wrote

A blue pill only straightens the barrel, AFAIK. The magazine is still only loaded with wads, though.....

No swimmers make for a more stress free dip.

What is this Star Wars head gear on a Fullerton, CA officer? Call of Duty?????




.

vreihen16 wrote

What is this Star Wars head gear on a Fontana, CA officer? Call of Duty?????




.

That might be their drone pilot.

Sedan_Clan wrote

That might be their drone pilot.

There was another officer with the same kit, and he was K9 with a dog on leash. It may have been their SWAT or entry team, because they were approaching a house for a reported domestic with guns involved and went down the street with shields and tactical gear out.

Just curious what it was, since it looked like there was a boom microphone on one ear like they were playing a video game.....

vreihen16 wrote

There was another officer with the same kit, and he was K9 with a dog on leash. It may have been their SWAT or entry team, because they were approaching a house for a reported domestic with guns involved and went down the street with shields and tactical gear out.

Just curious what it was, since it looked like there was a boom microphone on one ear like they were playing a video game.....

There are various ear options for the new(er) Motorola radios. I don’t use the ear piece options like some of my partners, but I do utilize a miniature mic with an easily accessible e-trigger (..e-trigs send an emergency signal if I’m involved in a fight and can’t put out verbal coordinates; I just press the red button).

I've noticed a shift on that TV show where officers they ride with are increasingly wearing in-ear buds on their radios. My original assumption was that they were doing it only with the camera crews, to keep the radio chatter off of TV. Watching a few recent interactions, not having a subject in a traffic stop or investigation hear dispatch informing the officer of outstanding warrants makes detaining them a surprise versus them hearing the radio and having time to resist or flee.....

vreihen16 wrote

I've noticed a shift on that TV show where officers they ride with are increasingly wearing in-ear buds on their radios. My original assumption was that they were doing it only with the camera crews, to keep the radio chatter off of TV. Watching a few recent interactions, not having a subject in a traffic stop or investigation hear dispatch informing the officer of outstanding warrants makes detaining them a surprise versus them hearing the radio and having time to resist or flee.....

No, it’s mainly to isolate radio traffic from ambient noise (…think, passing cars on the road as you’re conducting a traffic stop). The ear pieces are like a noise canceling earbud. Before our dispatchers send any sensitive data over the radio, they ask, “Are you 10-29H?”, which basically means are you clear to receive sensitive information over the radio. If we’re with a suspect who we don’t want to hear the information, we’ll advise, and the information will be sent to our mobile computers rather than voiced.

I don’t have anything to ask, but I got a great story. Here goes…. Back in the early days, when I just got my E46 M3 6MT in Mystic Blue, that doggone car was a magnet for the LEO’s for some reason. Anyways, back then, my home church was Calvary Chappel Pacific Hills; Pastor Dave Rolf taught Wedesday night bible study, but a good bit away from my apt in Artesia (CA). It’s about 10pm, driving about 70 to 75 mph, and I pass the 22 fwy on the 405 going north. For some reason, that location is a fave spot for the LEO’s to hang out there. I’m just bumbling along and then some punk a$$ ish from out of nowhere cuts me off really close. It was really dark on that stretch of fwy so I could not see a CHP who was shadowing me super close with all lights off on my 7. Before I could utter a curse word, on comes the pursuit lights; I thought I that was the intended victim so my I just sank in my seat. Full pursuit lights, and now with headlamps on, the fellas on my 7, they move past me and nabbed that stinkin SOB who cut me off!!!! Oh man, I was so happy, hah! The saying of where is a LEO when you need him…. Well, even though I was the intended subject, but some moron decided to do a smarty-pants maneuver, and got busted! Woo hoo!!! I can’t begin to tell you guys how satisfying that was. Finally!! Hah.
Alright dudes, everyone be careful this coming 4th of July Holiday weekend.

Would you be amused if I told you I wasn't driving, just travelling?

KeFoZ4 wrote

Would you be amused if I told you I wasn't driving, just travelling?

Nope!

Sedan_Clan wrote

Nope!

But what if he doesn't contract with you?

jamesinaz wrote

But what if he doesn't contract with you?

Any traveler would contract with my handcuffs, or the newest projectile slinging TASER 10 if theyre feeling dangerous.

Sedan_Clan wrote

Any traveler would contract with my handcuffs, or the newest projectile slinging TASER 10 if theyre feeling dangerous.

What if they're just feeling froggy? Is there a middle ground...like a collapsible baton maybe?

Watching The World Burn wrote

What if they're just feeling froggy? Is there a middle ground...like a collapsible baton maybe?

I try not to bring out my phallic weapon unless there are ladies on the room. 😂

Watching The World Burn wrote

What if they're just feeling froggy? Is there a middle ground...like a collapsible baton maybe?

NYPD officers used a baton as a colon probe on a detainee several years ago, which seems like a fitting deterrent for sovereign citizens.....

Refused to identify, resisted/combative, injured a deputy..and ROR because of NY State's insane bail reform law.....

https://midhudsonnews.com/2026/07/18/deputy-injured-by-combative-driver-after-traffic-stop/

Deputy injured by combative driver after traffic stop

July 18, 2026, 6:08 am
Mid-Hudson News Staff

MONTICELLO- Walden man who was stopped while driving near Marshall’s in Monticello was arrested by Sullivan County Sheriff’s deputies on a number of charges.

David Monastersky, 50, was stopped on Wednesday for driving with a suspended license and when deputies attempted to issue him an appearance ticket on the scene and release him, he refused to provide information for the arrest report and became combative.

One of the deputies sustained a knee injury while taking the suspect into custody.

Monastersky was processed at the sheriff’s office and released under state bail reform law pending a future court appearance.

vreihen16 wrote

Refused to identify, resisted/combative, injured a deputy..and ROR because of NY State's insane bail reform law.....

https://midhudsonnews.com/2026/07/18/deputy-injured-by-combative-driver-after-traffic-stop/

Deputy injured by combative driver after traffic stop

July 18, 2026, 6:08 am
Mid-Hudson News Staff

MONTICELLO- Walden man who was stopped while driving near Marshall’s in Monticello was arrested by Sullivan County Sheriff’s deputies on a number of charges.

David Monastersky, 50, was stopped on Wednesday for driving with a suspended license and when deputies attempted to issue him an appearance ticket on the scene and release him, he refused to provide information for the arrest report and became combative.

One of the deputies sustained a knee injury while taking the suspect into custody.

Monastersky was processed at the sheriff’s office and released under state bail reform law pending a future court appearance.

Why am I not surprised?!? And people wonder why some of these cities/states go to crap (…and they blame us).

Sedan_Clan wrote

vreihen16 wrote

Refused to identify, resisted/combative, injured a deputy..and ROR because of NY State's insane bail reform law.....

https://midhudsonnews.com/2026/07/18/deputy-injured-by-combative-driver-after-traffic-stop/

Deputy injured by combative driver after traffic stop

July 18, 2026, 6:08 am
Mid-Hudson News Staff

MONTICELLO- Walden man who was stopped while driving near Marshall’s in Monticello was arrested by Sullivan County Sheriff’s deputies on a number of charges.

David Monastersky, 50, was stopped on Wednesday for driving with a suspended license and when deputies attempted to issue him an appearance ticket on the scene and release him, he refused to provide information for the arrest report and became combative.

One of the deputies sustained a knee injury while taking the suspect into custody.

Monastersky was processed at the sheriff’s office and released under state bail reform law pending a future court appearance.

Why am I not surprised?!? And people wonder why some of these cities/states go to crap (…and they blame us).

I have recently indulged in watching YT LEO body cam/LEO cruiser cam videos.

Can't say I'm surprised by how vile some people behave when pulled over but what did surprise me -- call me naive I guess... -- how lawbreaking people (documented on body cam!) get away with just a slap on the wrist.

The behavior is criminal and in some cases to a felony level with obstruction, resistance, even assault on a LEO.

And for reasons I can't imagine these people turn what in a number of cases would be just a warning or a minor traffic citation into more serious charges. 'course, as I noted above with the very real chance of not having to face any real consequences for their actions I guess that is a factor.

Oh and on a related note I have read where in some locales law enforcement body cams are being removed. This is not a decision made by the law enforcement agency but by local government politicians/bureaucrats.

Seems the body cams didn't record what was believed by those pushing body cam usage to be inappropriate LEO behavior but rather inappropriate and outright criminal behavior of citizens and in stop after stop.

RockCrusher wrote

I have recently indulged in watching YT LEO body cam/LEO cruiser cam videos.

Can't say I'm surprised by how vile some people behave when pulled over but what did surprise me -- call me naive I guess... -- how lawbreaking people (documented on body cam!) get away with just a slap on the wrist.

The behavior is criminal and in some cases to a felony level with obstruction, resistance, even assault on a LEO.

And for reasons I can't imagine these people turn what in a number of cases would be just a warning or a minor traffic citation into more serious charges. 'course, as I noted above with the very real chance of not having to face any real consequences for their actions I guess that is a factor.

Oh and on a related note I have read where in some locales law enforcement body cams are being removed. This is not a decision made by the law enforcement agency but by local government politicians/bureaucrats.

Seems the body cams didn't record what was believed by those pushing body cam usage to be inappropriate LEO behavior but rather inappropriate and outright criminal behavior of citizens and in stop after stop.

When the actual statistics don’t match the outrage, the politicians and bureaucrats back pedal. Some years ago a study was performed by a black male Harvard or Yale Professor (…I can’t quite remember, but it was an Ivy League institution), and the data illustrated just how insignificant the percentage of police excessive force incidents occurred - particularly among blacks - relative to the number of traffic stops that occur across the country, and he was vilified. Black politicians and bureaucrats warned him that publishing the results would be a “career killer”, etc. etc. After all, once the veil is lifted, how do you continue to use race to control narratives?!? They couldn’t have “one of their own” obliterating the narrative, but thankfully and heroically, he published the study anyway.

Sedan_Clan wrote

When the actual statistics don’t match the outrage, the politicians and bureaucrats back pedal. Some years ago a study was performed by a black male Harvard or Yale Professor (…I can’t quite remember, but it was an Ivy League institution), and the data illustrated just how insignificant the percentage of police excessive force incidents occurred - particularly among blacks - relative to the number of traffic stops that occur across the country, and he was vilified. Black politicians and bureaucrats warned him that publishing the results would be a “career killer”, etc. etc. After all, once the veil is lifted, how do you continue to use race to control narratives?!? They couldn’t have “one of their own” obliterating the narrative, but thankfully and heroically, he published the study anyway.

This may be the article:

Prof. Fryer - Harvard - Link - Abstract: This paper explores racial differences in police use of force. On nonlethal uses of force, blacks and Hispanics are more than 50 percent more likely to experience some form of force in interactions with police. Adding controls that account for important context and civilian behavior reduces, but cannot fully explain, these disparities. On the most extreme use of force—officer-involved shootings—we find no racial differences either in the raw data or when contextual factors are taken into account. We argue that the patterns in the data are consistent with a model in which police officers are utility maximizers, a fraction of whom have a preference for discrimination, who incur relatively high expected costs of officer-involved shootings.

bayarea328xit wrote

This may be the article:

Prof. Fryer - Harvard - Link - Abstract: This paper explores racial differences in police use of force. On nonlethal uses of force, blacks and Hispanics are more than 50 percent more likely to experience some form of force in interactions with police. Adding controls that account for important context and civilian behavior reduces, but cannot fully explain, these disparities. On the most extreme use of force—officer-involved shootings—we find no racial differences either in the raw data or when contextual factors are taken into account. We argue that the patterns in the data are consistent with a model in which police officers are utility maximizers, a fraction of whom have a preference for discrimination, who incur relatively high expected costs of officer-involved shootings.

That’s the one!