Does anyone else feel frustration when considering the huge amount of resources(time and addtional LEO personnel) being wasted by these scenarios?

I think a big part of it is the change in attitude toward police created by Obama in 2014 after Ferguson, and the Michael Brown lie Obama helped foment. Since then, it has essentially been "open season" on cops and they are presumed guilty until proven innocent. Even then, they are made guilty when they are not: Darren Wilson, Derek Chauvin, etc.

Extra officers and too much time spent begging a suspect to comply take resources away from other areas where police may be needed. This kind of grandstanding and forcing LEO to dance to the criminals' tune to avoid lawsuits, harassment, etc cannot continue. It not only taxes the resources of state and local government, it has to absolutely weigh on the morale of the officers.

I like the officer selogic mentioned that simply said no when a supervisor was demanded. All officers need to feel supported enough to offer this response instead of kowtowing to every trick of criminal mind.

It may take state-level action in the form of a law that allows/commands officers to give an order (once?twice?) before they can take forceful action to make criminals comply, but I believe it has to be done.

.

Though I posted earlier that this woman reminded me of Sam Kinison, I think it went under the radar as he's been gone a while....so here's a youtube video.
Sam Kinison, my throat hurts listening to it

quote:

Originally posted by TigerDore:


I like the officer selogic mentioned that simply said no when a supervisor was demanded. All officers need to feel supported enough to offer this response instead of kowtowing to every trick of criminal mind.

It may take state-level action in the form of a law that allows/commands officers to give an order (once?twice?) before they can take forceful action to make criminals comply, but I believe it has to be done.

.

Why isn't this already SOP? There are cameras for post incident review of any alleged misconduct.

If the citizen involved is polite and reasonable, you can use discretion to debate. If the citizen is hostile, then no debate - they get forced compliance.

But this may only work if any real abuse is dealt with transparently and fully. There needs to be a public perception of integrity and accountability for real abuse cases. Public needs to believe when told that no abuse happened; if it did happen, it will be fully dealt with as appropriate, no rug sweeping.

Likewise, there should be punishments, including for lawyers, for anybody bringing forth false suits of harassment / abuse. You don't get to throw something at the wall and see what sticks.