High Exposure

They are crimes that typically would not happen to drug users if they were not on drugs. It is funny, I have yet to arrest a druggie that has not committed another crime too, usually while high.

When you deal with serious calls on a constant basis, important stuff like that can start to feel routine or mundane. It slips your mind that it is that important. It is a coping mechanism that helps you deal with stress on a constant basis - stress inoculation. Sometimes the ball just gets dropped. Info isn't relayed properly, or these guys just came back from vacation or days off, the idea that they weren't recognized as Cops just didn't occur to them, or maybe they were late to roll call or missed the shift brief. There are a million reasons why stuff goes pear shaped. But, if they had called out their status and notified dispatch of their stop - you know like they were supposed to - that the ball dropping could have been rectified well before it got to the stage it was in this story. Like I said, if the BCPD guys were my Cops, I would nail them to the wall over this. Someone could have gotten seriously hurt here and Officer safety issues, especially when they crop up because of stupidity or laziness when they could have been easily avoided, is my one peeve as a supervisor.

You are 100% right. I know cops that will suck you out of the car through vent window and screw a gun in yor ear because "Why didn't you stop? Didn't you see my lights." The thought that you didn't think it was real Police behind you would not even occur to them - Even in an area where a bunch of PD impersonator car-jackings occurred. And in this instance, the BCPD didn't call the stop, so calling 911 the dispatcher would likely have said there are no cars in your area trying to stop you. That's why I always advise to also drive to the nearest Police station/barracks as well.

No, they are not. But you have to play the game by the rules as they stand. Not how they should be or how you want them to be. I do have my own opinions on a great many things. For example, I have a sense of humor that is very dark. I keep it to myself, my family, my co-workers and Friends. I don't film it and post in on the Internet because I don't want to deal with the repercussions. Doesn't mean I don't have my own thoughts and opinions. It just means they are not for public consumption. We are not held to their standard, we judged by their actions. And it is made worse because it is an abuse of the trust the public places on us when we swear our oath and pin on that badge. They expect us to do the right thing always. They employ us to set avgood example and rightly hold us to a higher standard. The public has a right to be outraged when two cops shoot at each other over a parking spot, hurt someone while driving drunk, or act as if they are above the law - because we betrayed that trust. So what happens is the good are simply lumped in with the bad by the very nature of the jobs we do. Yes, it is wrong, but it is what it is. It happens and that is all that matters. He is not losing his right to think, his right to be an individual or his right to his opinions. He is simply advised not to say stupid crap in public as a condition of employment. This is in every job in the planet. If you think your boss is an inept clod, and you tell him that in a very public way so everyone that you work with can see it, what do you think will happen to you? (this is an example, not a comparison to Kessler) Again, since when does right and wrong come into play in the court of public opinion. Whether it is right or not doesn't matter. What matters is whether it HAPPENS or not. Nothing else. And, it does happen. A cops job is to keep the town safe and to make the residents feel safe. That video had the opposite effect. Shocker. He betrayed the trust the people of his community placed in him. He chose to do it. Now he has to pay the piper. It is called personal responsibility and goes with being a grown ass man. I appreciate that very much. But you my friend, are in a significant minority. And you said yourself - as did many others here - in the "warrior cop" thread, it is not solely an individuals actions. It is the overall appearance and the actions of a few that will influence how people feel about Police not ther actions.

Until you shoot someone? And a lawyer asks you "So Mr. Defendant, how many drinks did you have again? And what made you think it was a good idea to drink while carrying a loaded GUN."

Yeah, well, we got to do something. Everyone forgets about the 2nd and 3rd order effect. The neglected, malnourished children, who can't figure out why mom or dad won't feed or clean them. The broken families, beaten spouses, and fatherless offspring. The disease, the filth, the crime, the self-perpetuating horror that drugs brings to a community and breeds among families. FU€K drug users. Let them rot. But their neighbors, children, family, community, shouldn't have to suffer for their indulgences, selfishness, and weakness.

And racist speech can be a bias crime. So what? I didn't say practice pedophelia. I don't have to be an actual pedophile, all I need to do is simply say, in public, that I think it is OK - and I will feel the repercussions. With all the people in this world who have been sunk by the words that came out of their mouths I can't believe you believe this to be true. Ask Zumbo or how that worked out for him, or the publishers of "Recoil Magazine", or the other names I mentioned previously. Spoiler - It didn't end well for them. That's the reality of the world we live in. Strawman Argument. We are talking about what we do in the public eye, not what we do in the privacy of our own home. Specifically, saying or doing the unpopular thing - showing your ass so to speak - in public. We are not talking aout showing the good and keeping the "dark side" private. If Kessler said what he did on those videos to his buddies at the range, or his wife in their home this would be a non-issue - because we wouldn't know about it. Instead he said what was on his mind in a very public fashion in an age where this kind of stuff spreads like wildfire - thanks to the electronic media circus we all live in - and now he and his family have to deal with the aftermath. Since when has "right" mattered when pre-judging someone? Kessler absolutely represents all Cops in theyeliner of public opinion as soon as he puts that badge on and spews his nonsense. You merely have to look back at threads here to see that is the truth. Every time a Cop reportedly messes up and it is in the "news" this place erupts and a thread is shut down. So respectfully, No, it is not both. I will be judged in a professional capacity by the public based on the actions of the other LEOs they have come into contact with in their lives either in person or in the media (sometimes even to include TV/Movies). That. Is. It. I may be my own man, and conduct the Job in my own way, but in the Uniform we are all the same in the eye of most of the public. And while every member of the public may view the Police differently - some like us, some hate us, some are indifferent, etc... most see all Cops as basically the same to them and that will be based on their experience. If they experience Cops like Kessler.... Well , you do the math. My goal is to make that view positive at every chance I get and to sway those that think Cops are stupid or bullies into believing that that may not be the case. Am I always successful? Nope. The very nature of my job, telling people they are wrong - either with shiny lights on my car, a ticket, or bracelets - precludes me from making everyone I come in contact with in an official capacity happy all of the time. The only thing I can do is be respectful and honor their dignity to the best of my ability while doing my job and applying my discretion based on my own morals, values and ethics. And while I may not make a defendant/actor a Cop lover, maybe that victim will remember how I treated them and helped them when they needed it the next time they are on either side of a Police encounter.

Not true. When you are a Cop you are held to a higher standard by your Agency, your Administration, your colleagues and the Public. You are under constant scrutiny and there are "Unsullied" clauses in most contracts and General Orders. You are responsible for your actions and how you reflect on your Agency at all times. This is all made clear to you before you sign on the line. Don't like it, the world can always use another bartender. Also while technically true, it is not true in practice. Tell that to Don Imus, David Howard, Jimmy "The Greek" Snyder, or Kessler himself. Sure, you can say what you feel, but be prepared to suffer the consequences of it if it is not well received by your employers or the public. When you say things in a public medium you will reap what you sow. If I went around off duty making racist comments, I would get fired. If I started talking about pedophilia as something cool while off the clock the same thing would happen. And it should.

I am not saying that "professional courtesy" doesn't happen, but where is it here? I believe everyone here is on the Job and on the clock actively conducting Police Business. The BCPD guys have a car stopped and even though they didn't follow normal procedures what they are doing isn't wrong or illegal. The Trooper is appropriately investigating a suspicios vehicle. What "Courtesy" do you see being given?

It should be covered by agency General Orders. If he is retired, I don't know how it works. I don't think LEOSA or the retired officer guidelines says either way. I am still active and according to my General Orders I can - and will - carry in a bar, but I can't - and won't - drink. I basically stopped drinking because I carry 24/7. Now, I will only drink at home, or if it is a planned thing, I am leaving my gizmo at home. Even then 2 beers is my limit. Drinking/being Drunk with a gun is a no-go.

Same... Except for the Beretta part *yuck*... and I have 5 Glocks... and for me it is a G35... and I have two of them

Ok. For the Trooper only.

Don't get me wrong, if I was called to respond to this as a supervisor (from either side) there would be no donuts. There would be hell to pay and the two BCPD Cops would be lucky if they could sit down anytime soon without wincing because I would take a huge chunk out of their ass. But that would be done out of the public eye. The rest of the BCPD guys that are out there doing it right should not have to deal with these two guy's screw-up on their next car stop.

I love drugs. Make all drugs legal and free. All you can take and all the paraphernalia you need - gratis. Step right up! Then we should outlaw responding to medical calls involving drug users and make it illegal for hospitals to revive OD'd patients. Problem solved, problem stayin' solved.

No F'n way. I would call 911 or #77 and drive straight to the nearest PD/Barracks.

If it is a true UC car, no. If it is just an unmarked car, yes. BCPD guys clearly in the wrong - procedurally, tactically, and generally. Clownshoes all around. I award them no points and may God have mercy on their souls. If these 2 were my guys, they would be standing tall before the man with a recommendation for days off without pay. NJSP Trooper did a good job. My only complaint is that he should have called for a boss to settle it. He did 100% right by investigating the suspicious looking stop. Once it was determined all parties involved were in fact real Police, this should have been handled out of sight of the citizens involved in the stop.

I really like the US Palm PCs. Very simple and affordable. I have had hands on with a few - excellent construction in a minimalist package. The hard part is finding them in stock, especially the hard armor ones. If I had a store, they would be on my short list of items to carry!

??? ... I am confused ... Will I be judged/represented on the actions of a man I don't believe deserves the badge pinned to his chest solely because we wear a similar uniform, basically what blksheep inferred above - or will I be judged/represented solely on my own actions? As you stated in response to blksheep - So which is it? Because it can't be both. When I hit the streets at the beginning of my tour, I know that in the minds of the people I interact with that I will represent not only myself, but my actions and demeanor will also represent every other Cop out there and all the Government entities that they will interact with from that moment forward. I am over being prejudged based simply on my job title. I know it happens, and I accept it will happen - BUT I don't have to like it and I can do everything in my power to make sure that I represent myself in the best possible way so that my actions reflect on the other Cops out there in a positive manner. And truth be told, if I have my druthers, I will separate myself from the bad eggs and seek to have them actively thrown out of my profession.

Oh how I wish that were true! Vlad, you know as well as I that one Police Officer makes a mistake and the rest of us are labeled as overpaid idiots, trigger-happy Spec-Ops wannabes, or jackbooted thugs. Cops are routinely all judged by the public based on the actions of one of us. One thing about this whole thing that strikes me as odd. We hear all the time about Cops that are protected by other Cops, the "thin blue line" or "the blue wall". Well now you have a bunch of Cops declaring that this so-called "Chief of Police" should not be a Cop at all. That we don't want him counted amongst our ranks. That his actions, faulty decision-making process, and stupidity do not represent the rest of us, or the professionalism that we strive for, or the ideals that we try to uphold. And everyone is telling us we are wrong...

Apples to hand grenades. I answer that with my previous assertation: You can't compare any modern wars, especially any that the US has been involved in in any 3rd world sh!t holes where guerilla forces have held a modern army at bay (basically any conflict we have been involved in since the 1950s) as an example because we never had the intention of conquering or an administration ruthless enough to take the gloves off and allow the military do what they need to do to win. A modern army with air, armor, rockets, grenades, comms, satellites, relatively unlimited supplies of beans, bullets, and band aids against the arms most American's have in their homes, with limited supplies, no comms to coordinate attacks, relatively few with the will or ability to fight, even less with the know-how, will be a slaughter as long as - here is the crux - the invading forces leadership is ruthless enough to fight a total victory campaign regardless of native casualties. We have not fought an enemy in a total war campaign since the end of WWII. Even in WWI and WWII we had restraint. We have never told our generals "do whatever you have to do to win. You have unrestricted ROE. Take their homes from them and do what you need to do to ensure the citizenry is cowed and passive" (with the exception of the 2 atom bombs dropped on Japan). We have fought every war with kid gloves and an eye to our reputation on the world stage. You take a nation, or group of nations, that are intent on taking over the US, then you can infer that they have already decided they don't care about humanitarian issues, amnesty international, the Hague or Geneva conventions, or their reputation in the UN. The US is the enforcer whenever these issues pop up. If they are invading us and win, who will make sure that they pay for their "war crimes"? You are also applying western occidental first world values, morals, and ethics to another culture. Additionally, Afghanistan is not a comparison to the US. An Afghani citizen is used to privation, hunger, and doing more with less daily. They have been at war with some country, dynasty, kingdom, each other for hundreds of years. You cannot compare the soft citizens who can't live without Starbucks and American Idol to the people of Afghanistan. Since this is all hypothetical, who says it is one nation? It could be Russia, N. Korea, Cuba, Mexico, and China all together. Or all of South and Latin America combined. Regardless of numbers, an untrained, ill equipped militia armed with small arms is no match for a modern military with bombers, gunships, mortars, guided missiles, tanks, APCs, a comms net, etc... that has the will to do what it takes to conquer a land and take it for themselves. How long do you think you and 5 of your neighbors will hold out against artillery, tanks, and gunships with the 2 ARs, the 870, and grandpa's hunting rifle. You may fight a delaying action, you may have pockets of resistance, but you will never unlodge a determined modern military force. In my scenario the invasion happens months after an EMP attack. After 1/3-1/2 of all Americans are dead and the rest are starved. We have already taught the war for them by fighting with each other simply to survive. I just believe that we are too soft as a nation to be useful to anyone, especially our military.

Never happen. Restraints or not, the sheep would be against them for fear of reprisal in an effort to save their own skins. They would undermine any resistance they few with enough sack to do it could muster. Armed populace? Sure we have 300 million firearms but that isn't the real number that matters. Guns don't win wars, fighters, comms and supplies do - along with ROE and doctrine. How many true warriors are left in the US? How many people to bear those arms and slug it out with a real army? I have 6 ARs into safe. How many can I use at once? How many people do you know have the mental toughness and the mean to go up against a modern military force? So who do I give the other 5 rifles to? You can't use history as a precedent either. In the past when the leadership of invading nations were ruthless enough to carry out a true invasion with the only goal being victory, the disparity in the arms and training of the invading force and populace was minimal. Not like now. Everyone then had weapons training as there were no grocery stores and their guns were their lives. The citizens had the same weapons and similar training. Neither side had air, armor, satellite surveillance, comms. If the invading force was up against a native force armed with weapons more primitive than theirs it was a slaughter and a landslide victory for the invading force every time. You can't compare any modern wars, especially any that the US has been involved in in amy 3rd world sh!t holes where guerilla forces have held a modern army at bay (basically any conflict we have been involved in since the 1950s) as an example because we never had the intention of conquering or an administration ruthless enough to take the gloves off and the military do what they do. A modern army with air, armor, rockets, grenades, comms, satellites, relatively unlimited supplies of beans, bullets, and band aids against the arms most American's have in their homes, with limited supplies, to comms to coordinate attacks, relatively few with the will or ability to fight, even less with the know-how, will be a slaughter as long as - here is the crux - the invading forces leadership is ruthless enough to fight a total victory campaign regardless of native casualties.

If you think the "armed populace", especially the soft and weak citizens that this current nation of ours breeds, could stand up against a co-ordinated attack by a modern military force with artillery, air power, armor, communications network, trained soldiers, real time intelligence and observation assets and the ruthlessness to destroy us, you are out of your mind. We couldn't get through a hurricane and two weeks without power last fall without tearing each other up. What do you think an artillery bombardment followed my an armored assault supported by air strikes and infantry would do to 90% of the people in your neighborhood? You think a few hunting buddies will be able to repel a coordinated assault by a trained fire team with LMG/MMG, grenades, and comms?

That does look good. I will be looking into this further. Thanks!

Three letters - EMP. Then they could just wait offshore until we were done tearing ourselves apart fighting for food, water, electricity, medicine. 3 months later they could stroll in from anywhere they pleased and meet token resistance at best. Those of us most likely to be the ones "behind every blade of grass" and resist an invasion would be dead from the fight to survive while fending off others trying to do the same. Those fighters remaining would be weak, sick, and short on any ammo, weapons, and supplies that was stockpiled. Over half of the sheeple would be dead and the rest starving. All the infrastructure would still be standing for their exploitation. No fallout. Roads and buildings still intact for the most part and manufacturing facilities, utilities, etc would take minor repairs to get back up and running. The worst part, the part that really makes me sick.... After 3 months of starvation most remaining Americans would welcome an invading army if they brought food, MTV and Facebook back.

Wow... This guys doesn't know when to quit. http://youtu.be/EZ6DLCGHo2I http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2013/08/potty-mouth_schuylkill_county.html