I would define intelligence led policing as using violent crime rates (in the case of the article, murder rates/assaults/robberies/etc) to know where to commit police resources to an area. I don't know how marijuana arrests relate to this article, as I am only referring to violent crime rates and who it is tragically impacting.
You are correct, just being pulled over for an equipment violation is not a pretext stop. However, departments like I cited in the article are telling officers not to make those stops unless they can articulate a serious crime beforehand. Regardless of the pretext.
Your example is actually what could be considered a pretextual stop. Per the case law I cited above, and the example I used from real life, that somewhat fits. What your commentary is describing on top of that situation is an abuse of the practice. Which I am not advocating.
Thanks again for your feedback. I hope you have a Merry Christmas and God bless you and your family.
For example being pulled over for a broken tail light is NOT a pre-textual stop.
A pre-textual stop would be you following me around for 30 minutes waiting for me to commit 1 of thousands of moving violations because you have some ulterior motive to pull me over and are looking for legal justification to do so
What do you think intelligence lead policing is? If you only every arrest black people for weed does that means that, according to intelligence, only black people smoke weed?
Data can be racist relying on poor data sets for intelligence lead police is an example of the kind of poor intelligence that lead you to write this article
The section I was talking about was where police in high crime areas of cities would go door-to-door and meet the residents, and the residents really wanted their presence since they were literally afraid because there are killings every day in that area of the city. Cops would frequently stop people in a similar fashion to what you described, and they confiscated lots and lots of weapons, and saved lots of lives, but when the same type of actions are taken around college campuses or in just regular suburban areas, it is unnecessary and an overreach. The problem is a lot of cops have been trained based on the methods that have worked in high crime areas, and when they apply these to other areas, racial profiling has been part of the problem.
I always think it's important to realize problems in law enforcement are not always static. One good idea that worked well in one era does not always apply to another. I think the key is to understand that tactics and methods used by officers will need to be constantly improved. Take what works, throw out what doesn't. Like anything really.
Even back when some of the methods you are describing worked I would still say it was taken too far in some areas in their application. Which again, full circle we are back to training. Which I hope I acknowledged in the article. Thanks for reading and giving some thoughtful responses.
Old, but Gladwell actually goes into the complexities of this in this clip.
I am familiar with the work, and his breakdown of the tragedy when Sandra Bland took her life. Are you recommending the reading because it is related or because you think I am missing something in the article? Thank you for the feedback!
A very difficult conversation but a well written article with some great points from a former cop and now educated leader. Share this.
This article was so bad it gave me cancer. I don’t have enough time or crayons to explain the flaws in logic as it’s at least 1 per paragraph.
Please re-read this and reconsider ever writing again
Thank you so much for commenting.
I would define intelligence led policing as using violent crime rates (in the case of the article, murder rates/assaults/robberies/etc) to know where to commit police resources to an area. I don't know how marijuana arrests relate to this article, as I am only referring to violent crime rates and who it is tragically impacting.
You are correct, just being pulled over for an equipment violation is not a pretext stop. However, departments like I cited in the article are telling officers not to make those stops unless they can articulate a serious crime beforehand. Regardless of the pretext.
Your example is actually what could be considered a pretextual stop. Per the case law I cited above, and the example I used from real life, that somewhat fits. What your commentary is describing on top of that situation is an abuse of the practice. Which I am not advocating.
Thanks again for your feedback. I hope you have a Merry Christmas and God bless you and your family.
For example being pulled over for a broken tail light is NOT a pre-textual stop.
A pre-textual stop would be you following me around for 30 minutes waiting for me to commit 1 of thousands of moving violations because you have some ulterior motive to pull me over and are looking for legal justification to do so
What do you think intelligence lead policing is? If you only every arrest black people for weed does that means that, according to intelligence, only black people smoke weed?
Data can be racist relying on poor data sets for intelligence lead police is an example of the kind of poor intelligence that lead you to write this article
The section I was talking about was where police in high crime areas of cities would go door-to-door and meet the residents, and the residents really wanted their presence since they were literally afraid because there are killings every day in that area of the city. Cops would frequently stop people in a similar fashion to what you described, and they confiscated lots and lots of weapons, and saved lots of lives, but when the same type of actions are taken around college campuses or in just regular suburban areas, it is unnecessary and an overreach. The problem is a lot of cops have been trained based on the methods that have worked in high crime areas, and when they apply these to other areas, racial profiling has been part of the problem.
I always think it's important to realize problems in law enforcement are not always static. One good idea that worked well in one era does not always apply to another. I think the key is to understand that tactics and methods used by officers will need to be constantly improved. Take what works, throw out what doesn't. Like anything really.
Even back when some of the methods you are describing worked I would still say it was taken too far in some areas in their application. Which again, full circle we are back to training. Which I hope I acknowledged in the article. Thanks for reading and giving some thoughtful responses.
Old, but Gladwell actually goes into the complexities of this in this clip.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=233HGx5pagk
You may want to read Malcolm Gladwell’s Talking to Strangers section about this topic.
I am familiar with the work, and his breakdown of the tragedy when Sandra Bland took her life. Are you recommending the reading because it is related or because you think I am missing something in the article? Thank you for the feedback!