*Video* Off-Duty Miami Cop Busted Doing 120mph In Marked Cruiser! [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : *Video* Off-Duty Miami Cop Busted Doing 120mph In Marked Cruiser!


ULVER
10-29-2011, 20:42
:faint: Seriously, how utterly stoooopid can you be! I hope he's fired double-quick. At least how about some lights and turn signals, pal.

Kudos to the female officer.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pnseE0E_hnc

Story here:
http://www.cnn.com/2011/10/29/us/florida-cop-reckless-driving/index.html

use2b6L32
10-30-2011, 02:24
:faint: Seriously, how utterly stoooopid can you be! I hope he's fired double-quick. At least how about some lights and turn signals, pal.

Kudos to the female officer.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pnseE0E_hnc

Story here:
http://www.cnn.com/2011/10/29/us/florida-cop-reckless-driving/index.html


Really? I think she's an idiot. Pulling over a marked patrol car and putting a uniformed officer in handcuffs, at gunpoint?

Would've never happened in my beat...

South Fla
10-30-2011, 03:12
Really? I think she's an idiot. Pulling over a marked patrol car and putting a uniformed officer in handcuffs, at gunpoint?

Would've never happened in my beat...


As far as pulling over a marked cruiser, how did she know that it was not stolen when it would not pull over? It might not have been reported as stolen as of yet.

Yes, and at gunpoint until she could verify it was an actual law enforcement officer.

Then...call a supervisor.

Looks like some of you West Coasters have a few things to learn.

4949shooter
10-30-2011, 04:14
http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1378487

Aux Bear
10-30-2011, 05:49
As far as pulling over a marked cruiser, how did she know that it was not stolen when it would not pull over? It might not have been reported as stolen as of yet.

Yes, and at gunpoint until she could verify it was an actual law enforcement officer.

Then...call a supervisor.

Looks like some of you West Coasters have a few things to learn.

I concur! The gal had no way of knowing that the car wasn't stolen or if the possible cop driving it had become unhindged. They are human too and have issues to deal with like everyone else. (Like no cop has ever committed suicide.) IF he was legit in running as he was, there's the radio to relay his intentions. She was 100% Right On in protecting the public against the reckless driver and then protecting herself against the unknown occupant. The vehicle occupant may have immediate access to numerous loaded weapons. I'd back her actions 100%! I wonder if she called for back-up. I certainly would have.

My county had an incident several years ago where a private auto repair shop mechanic was "road testing" a "repair" he made by speeding down county roads. He too was stopped and jailed. His answer was he did it because he could. The repair was an oil change and lube. :faint:

Palmguy
10-30-2011, 07:09
Really? I think she's an idiot. Pulling over a marked patrol car and putting a uniformed officer in handcuffs, at gunpoint?

Would've never happened in my beat...

:upeyes:

JTipper.45
10-30-2011, 09:45
She did her job and as a supervisor I would have expected no less. The only thing I would have gotten on to her about is approaching the car without a cover unit. There was no way to tell what the situation was and who was in that unit. As far as the off duty officer, I can't say I have never been away from home and had a personal emergency that I had to get back in a hurry. However, 120 is way too fast and by looking at the video it appears to be raining or misting. That is just crazy. If he did have a legit reason, as SOON as the lights came on he should have hit the shoulder if anything not to put another officer in danger having to chase his butt down.

PinkoCommie
10-30-2011, 10:55
Sometimes, we are our own worst enemies.

:upeyes:

The only thing that sucks is that the asswipe put another law enforcement officer in an uncomfortable (and dangerous -- 120mph is always dangerous) situation. Entitled *******. The badge gives you the right to do a lot of things. If you want to clown around, though, change into civvies and do it in your own car.

RVER
10-30-2011, 12:36
[QUOTE=PinkoCommie;18102549]Sometimes, we are our own worst enemies.
:upeyes:

Makes me glad that I wasn't stupid enough to drive a marked unit at 120 MPH and that I was wise enough to know better than to try and stop one that was...:dunno:

captcurly
10-30-2011, 15:36
The Miami officer is a jerk and should be terminated from the force. I would like to see his personnel folder. I was on the job for 30 years and this yo yo has not defense for his actions. This jo mo was doing over 120 MPH and he deserves whatever he gets.

IndyGunFreak
10-30-2011, 16:11
That happened here in Indiana... about 5-6yrs ago I believe (maybe longer).

Trooper pulled over a city K-9 Officer for driving over 100mph down the highway, then the city officer resisted the Trooper, and the trooper had to use force to restrain him.

It was pretty big in the news, and he got some disciplinary action, etc. (edit: the city officer did)

The irony of it all, is the Trooper that made the stop/arrest, was accidentally bitten by a city K-9 during a foot pursuit about a year later. Scuttlebutt was it was intentional, but he seemed to admit he didn't hear(when numerous other officers out there did) the K-9 officer ordering guys to stay back because he was releasing his dog.

IGF

fespo276
10-30-2011, 18:16
Sorry, but who is she to pull over another MARKED unit. How does she know he is not going to a call? What if he was a SWAT operator going to a call out? Then, once the car stopped she HANDCUFFS a uniformed police officer for a motor vehicle violation? Give me a break.

Pepper45
10-30-2011, 18:26
Sorry, but who is she to pull over another MARKED unit. How does she know he is not going to a call? What if he was a SWAT operator going to a call out? Then, once the car stopped she HANDCUFFS a uniformed police officer for a motor vehicle violation? Give me a break.

Only he wasn't going to a call. Simple radio traffic can verify that. SWAT officers are selected for their superior skills at many different things, but most important, is their decision making skills. No SWAT officer worth a damn is going to be doing 120+ on a crowded highway without lights and siren. Handcuffing a uniformed police officer isn't out of line, not for a violation, but for a crime. In my state he'd be charged with a felony, and rightly so.

The trooper screwed up. She shouldn't have gone halfway with this. But then again, she shouldn't have been put in that position by some idiot running that speed to an off-duty gig 20 miles outside of his jurisdiction, putting the safety of the public at risk because of his stupidity.

Look at it this way, if he'd pulled over right away, they'd have had a "whose badge is bigger" contest, and this would have been a much different story, one that I really wouldn't care about. But the moment that he decided he didn't have to yield to emergency lights and siren, and was going to continue at a high rate of speed, accelerate and attempt to elude the trooper, all bets for treating him like a "fellow officer" went right out the window. He did that, not her. Yield right away, and we'll deal with it on the side of the highway. I may call you a retard, I may tell you what I really think of you, but the side of the highway is where things stop if you don't force me to talk to your supervisor. Don't yield, force me to chase you for several minutes at 120+? You're going to jail, and it's you that made the decision for me.

fespo276
10-30-2011, 18:37
Should the speeding cop just have pulled over? Sure, I agree. However, I just don't think she should have attempted the stop in the first place. We are going to just have to disagree there. If she really wanted to make something of it, get the plate and complain to the "powers that be" at the speeding cop's department.

Handcuffing a uniformed police officer isn't out of line, not for a violation, but for a crime. In my state he'd be charged with a felony, and rightly so.

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.

Pepper45
10-30-2011, 19:04
Should the speeding cop just have pulled over? Sure, I agree. However, I just don't think she should have attempted the stop in the first place. We are going to just have to disagree there. If she really wanted to make something of it, get the plate and complain to the "powers that be" at the speeding cop's department.



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.
I agree, but eluding is a felony here. If I turn on my lights, and the violator doesn't stop, they turned a traffic ticket into a felony arrest. I don't know what FHP policy is, but my department's policy is that if I am going to charge someone with a felony, I am to secure them in handcuffs, and at a minimum, transport them to my office. There, the issue may be referred to the DA's office, or they may be lodged on a probable cause affidavit. But I'm required to take them into custody, and that means putting them in handcuffs.

If I was forced to do what she did, cuff a uniformed cop, he wouldn't be uniformed long. I'd peel off his shirt/vest/belt/etc, because there is no reason he needs to be ID'd as LE when around scumbags in custody. Maybe referring the case to the DA would be enough, and he could be released. But he endangered the lives of everyone on that road. Sure, he's a good driver. Sure, we all are. But his decision making skills SUCK. Even given his attitude, he knew what he was doing was wrong. He knew he was doing it with an "I'm above the law I enforce" attitude.

I say again, this would have turned out much differently if he'd pulled over right away. It could have been handled on the side of the road, or with the guy's supervisor, and not gotten into a pissing match once the MPD guy was id'd. Running put him right in line with the kinds of people that you and I arrest on a daily basis. I can't make excuses for someone like that. It sucks that he put his family in that position, but it sucks equally for the family of the cop that is really dirty, or doing other criminal things. He dishonored the badge by his actions, and needs to be held accountable for them. If he escapes a felony, or even skates on the criminal charge completely, he doesn't need to be in this career field.

Hrsuhd
10-30-2011, 19:08
wow just wow

eaglefrq
10-30-2011, 19:54
Should the speeding cop just have pulled over? Sure, I agree. However, I just don't think she should have attempted the stop in the first place. We are going to just have to disagree there. If she really wanted to make something of it, get the plate and complain to the "powers that be" at the speeding cop's department.



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.

You are what is wrong with the select few police who feel they are above the law. It doesn't matter whether the off duty was right or wrong, you will defend him, because he is a cop.

If that had been a "civilian" speeding at 120mph, she would have been justified in your eyes, but since it was a cop, then let him drive recklessly and complain through the chain of command.

The off duty cop is a criminal. At a minimum, he is guilty of reckless driving and eluding.

I'm willing to bet you roll through stop signs and speed while in your cruiser, because apparently you are there to enforce the law, but not follow it.

Law enforcement should be held to a higher standard. If they can't obey the law, then they have no business enforcing the law.

jenrick
10-30-2011, 20:05
I agree, but eluding is a felony here. If I turn on my lights, and the violator doesn't stop, they turned a traffic ticket into a felony arrest.

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

fespo276
10-30-2011, 20:39
You are what is wrong with the select few police who feel they are above the law. It doesn't matter whether the off duty was right or wrong, you will defend him, because he is a cop.

If that had been a "civilian" speeding at 120mph, she would have been justified in your eyes, but since it was a cop, then let him drive recklessly and complain through the chain of command.

The off duty cop is a criminal. At a minimum, he is guilty of reckless driving and eluding.

I'm willing to bet you roll through stop signs and speed while in your cruiser, because apparently you are there to enforce the law, but not follow it.

Law enforcement should be held to a higher standard. If they can't obey the law, then they have no business enforcing the law.

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.

You are what is wrong with the select few police who feel they are above the law.

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.

GPalmer
10-30-2011, 20:41
I agree, but eluding is a felony here. If I turn on my lights, and the violator doesn't stop, they turned a traffic ticket into a felony arrest.
Same in Florida, say hi to a second degree felony.

316.1935 Fleeing or attempting to elude a law enforcement officer; aggravated fleeing or eluding.
(1) It is unlawful for the operator of any vehicle, having knowledge that he or she has been ordered to stop such vehicle by a duly authorized law enforcement officer, willfully to refuse or fail to stop the vehicle in compliance with such order or, having stopped in knowing compliance with such order, willfully to flee in an attempt to elude the officer, and a person who violates this subsection commits a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
(2) Any person who willfully flees or attempts to elude a law enforcement officer in an authorized law enforcement patrol vehicle, with agency insignia and other jurisdictional markings prominently displayed on the vehicle, with siren and lights activated commits a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
(3) Any person who willfully flees or attempts to elude a law enforcement officer in an authorized law enforcement patrol vehicle, with agency insignia and other jurisdictional markings prominently displayed on the vehicle, with siren and lights activated, and during the course of the fleeing or attempted eluding:
(a) Drives at high speed, or in any manner which demonstrates a wanton disregard for the safety of persons or property, commits a felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

Pepper45
10-30-2011, 21:04
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.

bci21984
10-31-2011, 00:47
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.

vista461
10-31-2011, 01:16
Sounds like an ongoing problem by the looks of it at 2:06
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yStiufMfIl0&feature=related

eaglefrq
10-31-2011, 07:01
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.

Milltown
10-31-2011, 11:38
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.

4949shooter
10-31-2011, 12:56
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.

Mattz
10-31-2011, 14:34
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.

dorkweed
10-31-2011, 14:43
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:!!

DaBigBR
10-31-2011, 15:53
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.

jenrick
10-31-2011, 17:50
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

dorkweed
10-31-2011, 18:04
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"???

SAR
10-31-2011, 18:10
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....

4949shooter
10-31-2011, 20:58
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.

4949shooter
10-31-2011, 21:01
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.

South Fla
10-31-2011, 21:13
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:

CarloTwoGuns
11-07-2011, 10:22
:faint: Seriously, how utterly stoooopid can you be! I hope he's fired double-quick. At least how about some lights and turn signals, pal.

Kudos to the female officer.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pnseE0E_hnc

Story here:
http://www.cnn.com/2011/10/29/us/florida-cop-reckless-driving/index.html

I wouldnt suggest working in South FLA

South Fla
11-07-2011, 15:53
I wouldnt suggest working in South FLA

Should have been there during the 1980's. Now that was a good time. :thumbsup:

viclava51
11-07-2011, 16:44
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..

ray9898
11-07-2011, 17:44
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.

beatcop
11-07-2011, 18:06
It's been posted here 3? times already.

Yup, ugly all the way around.