That is an impossibly naive point of view. Police don’t “discover” people have warrants–they have to enter the name adn do a search. The cops ran the search to get something on the videotaper, and ding, ding, din, they found something.
You have missed the point,. Obviously, if somebody has an active arrest warrant, the cops should apprehend the guy. But they shouldn’t do searches on people just because they pissed them off. Remember, the videotaper was not a suspect in a crime, he had not been arrested for anything, all he did was videotape policemen whaling on a suspect. The police had no reason to run a search on this guy.
and as for my preferences (were I a tax payer in that jurisdiction), I’d rather they sent half of the officers to process current outstanding felony warrents from my own damn jurisdictiion, sent routine number of officers to serve warrent for grand jury appearance, and not run the check (there was no reason to do so - it’s not a routine thing to run witnesses’ names down).
As a matter of procedure, most PD’s run every name that ‘officially’ comes to them (Mostly through people filing reports). This cameraman filed a report. His name was run through the system. The cameraman then was arrested.
If you go to the police station tomorrow to file a missing bicyle report, they’ll most likely run your name though the system. You would not believe how many criminals unwittingly turn themselves in.
Police departments generally work together. It’s part of how law enforcement works. This guy made his location and name known. He had outstanding warrants. They aren’t just going to ignore warrants that showed that this person could be a danger to the public (OWI? Hit and run? What does the guy need to do for it to be severe enough in your view?).
Law enforcement does not work by always going after the most severe of the severe. In LA County, this would mean there would never be cops available to go to traffic accidents because they would all be hunting down dangerous felony warrants. However, when the police come in contact with an individual and they manage to get a name/DOB or an ID #, they run it to check for warrants. I certainly think they should.
I don’t think I’m being naive. I work in law enforcement and I do dozens of these checks every single shift. You don’t have to go very far to do these. For us, you do not even specifically check for warrants. Simply searching for a driver’s license – to check for a home address, for example – will bring up warrants as well.
Police routinely check people for warrants even when they do not commit a crime. I hate to agree with Brutus, but he is correct here. If you give personal information to the police – even just your name – chances are, they will check you. They don’t do detailed searches, of course, but outstanding warrants come up automatically for the most mundane searches. You don’t need to have probable cause or to have a suspect to do this. I just think you’re looking way too much into this. I’m sure that it’s possible that some of the officers enjoyed arresting him, but that doesn’t mean that they shouldn’t have.
Again, gobear – what would you rather they have done? Should they ignored the charges? Are you aware that liability would then fall on the officers if this guy got drunk and hit somebody again? That could easily cost somebody their career. I feel it’s too much to ask of the officer to break procedure because of the circumstances.
fluid - like I said, and you ignored - LA County undoubtedly has scads and scads of unprocessed felony warrants of their own. So, while they’re busy sending a half dozen officers to pick up this guy on an outstanding misdemeanor warrent from antoher jurisidiction, they’d have been ignoring untold numbers of felonies from their own jurisidicition. Care to explain how/why that is the best use of resources?
and they process one for another jurisidiction? Were they asked to do so? Why did they run a check on him in the first place?
none of this is standard.
Yes, police co-operate w/each other (to a degree). So, if they trip over a wanted felon (note, felon, not necessarily misdemeanant), while in the process of checking out something else on him, they may (not always) pick him up.
But go out of their way to process it?
nonsense.
The felony absconder recovery guy I worked didn’t always get cooperation even when he told them where the person was and that they had outstanding felonies AND that he’d come pick them up.
I am a reserve police officer. I do this all the time as a matter of departmental SOP.
wring
See above for the first question.
For the second, what difference does it make? The knew where this guy was. They don’t know where all of the other suspects are.
All things being equal, you first go get the warrants whose location is known. Finding people whose location is not know is very difficult and time-consuming, even when operating on your own turf. Just look at the goofy domestic terrorist that is still on the loose out in N.Carolina (or somewhere like that).
I didn’t ignore it. I told you that they had contact with someone and found out he had outstanding warrants. The jurisdiction of the warrant really isn’t important as long as the other jurisdiction will arrange transit.
I’m not sure this is the “best” use of resources – I just don’t see anything wrong with arresting a guy on outstanding warrants when you know his location and you’ve had contact with him. It’s very common that this happens.
**
If their local laws are anything like ours, I can guarantee that they made contact with the organization that had the warrant. They’d have to confirm it and confirm how he’d be transferred. If that jurisdiction didn’t want him arrested, it would easily haev occurred.
**
As I have repeatedly said, the police check a lot of people! It’s an officer safety issue, for one. If you are out and talking with a group of people, it’s nice to know if one of them has an outstanding warrant for robbery or if they’re known to assault police officers. It is also a very good way to make arrests on warrants without using a lot of resources – this is why warrants are computerized (there are limits to how much investigating can be done).
**
May I ask what authority you have to determine that, given that you have made various insinuations that have already been deflected?
No, they MAY not. For minor warrants, sometimes a cop will give the guy a break if he doesn’t think he will be a danger to others or a flight risk. For example, if a guy doesn’t know he’s wanted and it’s for something pretty minor, often a cop will let him go with strict instructions to go to the courthouse and get things sorted out. For OWI and a hit and run? Do you think that’s really minor and we should just ignore warrants that aren’t felonies?
**
This is their job, you know.
**
And the experience of some guy you worked with once who told you what happened where he was according to his experience should somehow prove that there was maliciousness and abuse of the system involved with these officers because his experience must be somehow universal and indicative of all law enforcement agencies everywhere?
Please sort and prioritize that list and send forward it to all police departments in California - they will appreciate it.
I don’t get all the cloak-and-dagger suspicions that everyone has in regards to the arrest of Crooks. The tape is already released - everyone has seen it. What’s he going to do now.
Any high-profile arrest would require more resources (i.e multiple officers, ominous SUV). Why risk sending just a single beat cop to go pick him up and risk and angry mob of pro-conspiracy theorists jumping on him, start beating him and chant witty slogans like “How does it feel, pig!”
Your point about sending so many 'cause of the high profile nature of the arrest begs the question - why, then did they opt for a vehicle w/tinted windows and/or fail to bring witnesses w/them?
And, re: the number of outstanding warrants etc. - it’s bordering on incredulous that out of all those thousands of other outstanding warrants, that this is the only one that they had any idea where the guy was.
You mean, besides the half-dozen cops, plus all the media that saw it (outside CNN offices).
If you are of the opinion that all cops are dirty, then there really is no way to make you saisfied.
It’s ridiculous to think that they needed a van with tinted windows so that no one could see what is going on inside (i.e a thorough beating). What, they really couldn’t wait until they got back to the station to put the boots to him in total privacy?
You know, it is not just stupid people who work for the police.
Let’s try this again. THe issue isn’t centering around what happened outside the van but that they took this very high profile guy, who’d just been on the news saying he feared what the cops would do to him if they took him in custody, they load him into a dark, non standard vehicle in full view of lots of cameras, witnesses and newspeople, and whisk him away outside of the view of anyone except police officers and the arrested man.
now, is this a wise move? hmmm?
They drive away with him screaming for help, and this strikes you as a good idea??
Drive him off in a standard cop car, alone in the back seat, driving slowly so the news cameras can keep track of the fact that you’re not beating him. Bring a newsreporter along w/a camera as a witness to the fact that not beating him
Nope, these folks take him in full view of everybody, load him up in a vehicle where no one can see in, and the only thing we can know is that he’s screaming for help as they drive him away.
I don’t think it looks good for the cop - the slam onto the hood of the car is far harder than a play fight, and he really unloads with that punch, given the amount of space he has to cock his fist.
Had the cops not ran a check and Crook went on to kill a family while driving drunk, I am certain that a few of the posters criticizing police actions in this thread would be ranting at about police incompetency.
As someone previously said, if you think it is so easy or you know a much better way for the police to do their jobs, put in your job application. I am sure they will welcome your knowledge of correct police procedure.
Just to wipe out a tiny bit of ignorance, it is “warrant” with an “a” not “warrent”.
and re: spelling correction - I’ve got serious vision issues, have mentioned them before, and often get a/e screwed up.
but again, thanks so very much for your concern.
Never said I thought the cops had an easy job. However, once again - in such a fucking high profile, ‘abusive police’ situation, can you please explain to me, why the wisest course of action was to arrest this man in front of CNN, w/the world’s eyes on them, in an SUV w/tinted windows while he’s hollering for help, and drive off?
A cop car. With windows. would have allowed any and all interested to drive by and watch that he wasn’t being beaten.
I cannot for the life of me fathom why this was the best plan.
and, I stand by my comments re: them picking him up for another county. they certainly have more pressing ones to serve for their own county.
No problem. I just thought that you might be interested in earning a paycheck with your superior knowledge of what police procedure should and should not be.
Interesting that the “a” and “e” were only messed up, every time I might add, in the word “warrant”, but whatever, it’s your story.
No I can’t explain to you because, like you, I don’t have enough inside knowledge of the situation. But hey, if you truly do know a better way, I am sure the department would love to hear from you. Maybe you could set up some training or something, eh?
I have a police scanner that I listen to often. You would be amazed at how often warrant checks are called in by the police routinely. This guy made himself known to the cops, they ran a check and found something, so what if it wasn’t in their county. What do you suggest they should have done after learning of the warrant?
I’m suggesting (and have posted, but apparently you were too busy constructing your ‘bon mots’ for my behalf), that should have contacted his very public attorneys in order to arrange for the issuing of the subpeona for his grand jury testimony (which, of course, is what the LA DA claims was his only interest), and that if they’d decided to run a check on him, they’d have the common sense to understand that when some one has accused the police of brutality, it’s in their own fucking best interest to insure that they have safeguards in place prior to taking him into custody to demonstrate that there was no brutality against him.
this could easily have been done by using a standard cop car. and/or invite one of the thousand or so reporters who were there w/cameras.
Instead, they instigated a fucking idiotic public relations nightmare by driving him off while he’s screaming ‘help help’, in a car w/tinted windows.
And as for my ‘background’, I’ve posted many times - 25 years now working w/offenders, have testified for the prosecution, ran a correction center for 14 of those years. So much so, that defense attorneys were reluctant to call on me since I was considered to be ‘pro prosecution’.
And - by the way- your veiled ‘whatever, it’s your claim’ if you have a specific charge against my honesty, come out with it. I’ve posted often about issues regarding my vision, I also have arthitus in my fingers, have been treated for c/t etc. And of course it makes a difference in my typing and posting.
On the other hand, if you merely want the ‘points’ for making a snide spelling correction, I’m sure we’re all the better for that.
Note: This is speculation on my part - I only briefly caught the video clip of Crooks being arrested (as opposed to the non-stop tape loop of the original arrest and beating). If I am totally wrong here, I will gladly accept the flames that are coming to me.
Wring - let’s figure out the best course of action for the police here. I am going under the assumption that you agree with my point that for a high-profile arrest such as this, you can not send only one or two officers, but would need several to make sure some nut-job does not cause trouble. So now you need, say eight police.
So, what is the best way to get eight officers to the proper place? A half dozen patrol cars - lights flashing and then being accused of “parading” the individual about, or one or two patrol cars and a large transport vehicle?
Tinted windows. Scary. Yet, it appears that all LA County Sheriffs Office SUVs have tinted windows. Are these the designated beating-mobiles? Granted, they used an unmarked one - but tinted windows on a police SUV does not appear to be out of the ordinary.
The screaming for help is pure theatrics from my point of view. Again, it seems highly unlikely that if the police planned on beating him (why? So they could beat him back to last month and make sure he wouldn’t be able to film), they would want to do it right there and then.
Besides, the MO of the police seem to be to beat their suspects outside the vehicles… right?
So the police are in the unenviable position of having to arrest someone in front of all the world, and then listen to all the speculation of sinister deeds. You just can’t please everyone. Until proven otherwise - I’ll side with the police on this one.
Oh, and;
This of course is not a static list. A can guarantee you that they served other warrants at the same time, and have others added to the list. They make more than one arrest a day, you know…