“At this time, the vehicle was signaled to stop. It did not and a high speed pursuit was initiated. The vehicle contacted several other vehicles before coming to a stop. At this time, the arresting officers approached the vehicle and initiated the arrest.”
“The officer in question * approached the vehicle and requested identification. The occupants were asked to exit the vehicle and the officer in question initiated * a vehicle search. While *in the process * of a search the officer in question found substances of illegal nature. An arrest was initiated *at which time * the suspects resisted arrest and a struggle initiated. Two of the suspects *attempted to leave the scene * and were pusued on foot by assisting officers. The suspects were captured and arrested.”
“During a routine traffic stop, the arresting office overheard the suspects plotting, in spanish, to shoot the officer in question. The officer returned to the car to call for backup, *at which time he received indication * that the suspects had discharged a gun. The officer took a defensive position behind his vehicle and *attempted to disable the suspects * by returning fire. At this time, the suspect’s vehicle left the scene and an area wide search is being initiated for a red 82 Camaro with tinted windows and white stripes.”
These guys may be good at their job and I’m certainly glad they are out there doing their best to protect and serve but damn, do they get extra pay for using a maximum number of words to say something that can be said simpler and quicker? Are they frustrated lawyers?
You answered your own question. Lawyers make them talk that way. It isn’t for maximum verbiage…it’s for unquestioned accuracy in court. No ambiguity. You can’t say on an official report “He looked dirty, so I lit up the bar and snagged him. The dirtbag tried to rabbit, so my partner made him do the Funky Chicken” while I grilled his bitch about the job."
I expect there’s also a bit of what affects just about everybody who works in a particular trade. There’s a certain jargon to every industry that just rubs off on you the longer you work there. I can’t count the number of times I’ve caught myself using heinous corporate speak when I’m at home.
Cops don’t talk like that. They talk more in 10 code and like silenus’s example. They are taught to write reports this way in the police academies because otherwise lawyers pick the reports apart, word by word and letter by letter. Well, they still do that but at least the officer tried to write the report well.
The reports have evolved in response to the pressure of having to get by lawyers. I sometimes write reports that have to be approved by, among other folks, a Deputy City Atty. What does an engineer do in that case? We look for a previous, similar report that got approved with no hassle. We follow the general outline and cut and paste big chunks of language.
Then there’s a new Deputy or there’s a lawsuit and suddenly new chunks need to be added. There are memos and examples of language to be added are passed around. There’s usually a counter-pressure for brevity. No one likes writing long reports and if you make it too long, it will never be read, only skimmed through.
It’s kind of fun to watch the things evolve. You just have to make sure that the template that you’re using is recent enough to have all the new bits. Or you have to get the new bits from another report.
‘Made contact with’ would be grammatically correct. And again, what’s wrong with it?
Yep, that’s him.
This could encompass the officer instructing another to begin searching the vehicle.
Yes, an arrest was initiated. So?
Incorrect grammar. ‘A struggle ensued’ would be correct.
What on earth could be the problem with this? (And as they are attempting arrest, it’s a crucial piece of information.)
Just because you don’t speak that way, it doesn’t mean that this isn’t the best way to use language to ensure the precise details are given, and that no extraneous and inaccurate information is implied or included.
I’m doing my best with quoting quoted stuff, so I hope this shows up o.k.
Basically, there are shorter, more ordinary and direct ways of saying most of these things.
I’d substitute “Then” for “At this time.”
“Started,” or “begun” is more direct.
Grammatically correct, but unnecessarily wordy. How about, “The vehicle hit several other vehicles before stopping.”
Substitute “began” or “started” for “initiated.” Why add three extra syllables that add no extra meaning?
You could use “tried” instead of “attempted.”
IMHO people often believe that big words make them more important.
‘Then’ means ‘subsequently’. ‘At this time’ means ‘immediately following’. ‘Then’ also has a causal implication (it…then) which is not wanted in this situation. So I’d say using ‘then’ introduces ambiguity.
‘High-speed chase was initiated’ acknowledges that the police caused the chase to begin. Your options don’t indicate this.
Are two syllables really such a problem?
Evidently yes.
‘Tried’ has numerous different meanings (particularly in the course of a trial ) - ‘attempted’ is far less ambiguous.
) - ‘attempted’ is far less ambiguous.