I think the article is missing some essential pieces of information.
After a high profile case of a MET officer kidnapping and murdering a woman through the use of his status, the MET has decided that all plain clothes officers will work in tandem. So you should never be stopped by a lone plain clothes officer.
Yes, that the hn headline does not have 'officer' in quotes (as the linked headline does) is quite misleading and a violation of hn guidelines. Is there a way to page @dang :)
But a Met police officer is still a Met police officer, even if they aren't acting in any kind of official capacity. This isn't a situation where someone impersonated an officer and killed the lady - a real police officer did it.
Yes, but the meaning in the HN title is obviously the correct one. The concern here is not about a fake officer. It is about a real one. Why do you think that the quotes are justified?
If someone is subsequently charged with fleeing, having a reasonable belief that someone was impersonating officers could be an easier defense than merely fearing danger, however founded those fears may be.
Does it? If someone approaches you as single person, and claims they are an officer. What are you supposed to do? Ask for credentials and if they don't provide it, then run?
Detectives and other “senior” police officers in UK generally work in plain clothes. They aren’t generally on the beat shaking people down, but are otherwise regular police officers, can and will arrest you if need be. But then this is UK, citizen arrests are rare but also 100% legal in appropriate circumstances so it’s not a biggie here.
The law says, IIRC that plainclothes officers must show their ID, without even being asked for it, when approaching people.
Do you think a potentially improved tweak to baybal2's
>There should be no plainclothes officers on duty.
might be "there should be no plainclothes officers with regular police arrest powers"? I agree that there are certainly cases where it's valuable to have officers working undercover. I also think there is a strong argument though that while they are in plain clothes, they should also have more restricted "plain clothes powers" more like a regular civilian. They shouldn't be able to arrest anyone or demand special recognition as police, or at least to no greater extent then what any random citizen can do in a Citizen's Arrest [0]. That could tamper a certain amount of abuse and room for mixups while still preserving the valuable investigative and monitoring aspects. Basically if they want to surrender some of the typical recognition and accountability they must also surrender some of the power that goes with it, so it's more self-regulating. Feels like a parallel with other areas of force like military, where in general legitimate combatants justified in full protection of the laws of war also must have identifiable uniforms and so on.
----
0: Rules vary by state and country. In the US at least in general (though not all states) citizens may do arrests, but there are much stricter requirements. They need to directly witness the crime, they do not have qualified immunity and aren't entitled to the same mistakes of fact when it comes to personal liability, and are much more limited in use of force.
No, I don’t think it would serve a useful purpose. The police arrest power in the UK is already quite limited and unlawful arrests are taken seriously.
I've found police in the UK are generally harder to provoke than in the US. However it only takes one bad cop having a bad day for things to go sideways fast.
At risk of sparking a controversy, I do think the UKs tighter gun control laws help. It means fewer people are carrying guns and thus fewer officers need to be armed. Sure, there's still the other deterrents -- which can be nasty too. But guns can causes a situation to escalate so much faster so mostly removing that from the equation must help matters.
I think there’s a specific condition where this advice applies, FTA:
"It would be extremely unusual for an officer in plain clothes to be working alone. If they are, they should be calling for assistance with other officers arriving very soon. This is standard practice.”
So, don’t run away from uniformed officers, don’t run away from multiple officers.
To your point, I’m reminded of Nicole Harper, whose vehicle was flipped by an officer’s pit maneuver as she continued down the road lookong for a safe place to pull off the highway, hazards flashing, just as the police department’s own “drivers license study guide” advises.
For a well dressed white person it would be sensible advice but I’m not so sure how well it would pan out for a black guy at 3am in Tottenham or even a white kid in a shell suit in Castlemilk for that matter. You almost certainly wouldn’t be killed, but you probably would get chased and tackled to the ground and it would be up to the interpretation of the police officer, prosecutor and ultimately judge or jury as to wether it was a reasonable thing for you to do or if you were just trying to use the Everard case as an excuse.
At least in my home town (central Illinois), our drivers education instructor actually taught this. If you’re being pulled over in podunk nowhere, turn on your hazards, reduce your speed, and proceed to the next well populated area (I.e. gas station).
I always was told this too but I've never had the courage to actually do it. I'd be afraid the cop would be angry and treat me more harshly when I finally do pull over. There was recently a case of a pregnant woman doing this and the police performed a PIT maneuver and flipped her car.
It would probably be fine as long as you do it calmly and don’t make any crazy sudden moves. The current climate would make it even easier. But I’m not a habitual law breaker so not really into running away from cops. By ‘running away’ I take that to mean move yourself calmly to a more public / busier area rather than obviously trying to disappear into the night.
Edit [I’m from the UK and offering a UK perspective. I have been accosted calmly by UK police and I have UK friends who are officers.]
You can communicate with them as you’re doing it you know. You can shout or wave to let them know you’re aware they’re cops etc. English police and USA police are not the same.
People disagreeing with my comment should realise I’m not saying that anything you could do would save you from the fate that Sarah Everard suffered. A determined rogue cop can still kill you. Anyone can kill you. The Met’s advice isn’t helpful. But moving to a busier area as briskly and unprovocatively as possible could save you.
I’m again speaking from a US perspective but there is no situation here where moving away from the police is not considered provocative from their viewpoint.
I would fully expect to be choked, body slammed, and cuffed if I attempted to walk away from the cops. I live in a fairly affluent area and am not a minority and still have seen local cops do things like start screaming at people for not maintaining eye contact, or in a particular notable event an off duty not in uniform cop who ran a car off the road and pulled a gun on them for not giving them right of way in a traffic circle.
If you have cops that would let you move to a safer location after they interact with you, it’s nearly unbelievable from our experiences
I wonder if this will work in the U.S. I remember reading a story on Reddit - this woman drove half mile more (night time) before stopping for a cop, because she wanted to stop in a well lit area. He arrested her for this, even though she had done nothing else wrong.
Many (most?) traffic stops are pointless and create unnecessary risk on both sides of the encounter. If it's just moderate speeding, a tail light is out, rolling through a stop sign, or another low-level infraction, send a fine in the mail--with perhaps a little blast of the sirens to inform the driver. Stops should be reserved for grossly reckless driving or clear signs of intoxication.
And with the frequency with which police find unregistered guns locally making traffic stops, I fully support this. It baffles me the repeated efforts locally to "reform" policing involve stopping these kinds of police activities to seem more fair or something... Don't get me wrong there are some really shady tactics in this realm police do use and having the job biases you towards certain assumptions, but still. Criminals are stupid, please keep giving them the opportunity to give themselves up by speeding in unregistered cars, etc.
It's not worth it when you have both innocent people and cops themselves frequently getting killed as a result. There are plenty of other ways to catch stupid criminals that don't carry the same risks.
These practices also create a generally high level of fear and animosity toward police which isn't good for anyone.
If it's a numbers game, what are the numbers that make it worth it or not?
"worth it" judgements shouldn't be made about what numbers justify other numbers if you aren't ready to have a priori numbers ready (as opposed to saying "this isn't justified because statistics" after the fact).
It’s not a numbers game at all. On one side you have actual innocent people (and cops) who are killed, assaulted, traumatized. On the other side, in the best case scenario, you are maybe preventing a hypothetical crime that maybe causes someone harm—and even that could have potentially been prevented through other means without the bad externalities. It’s a stupid trade.
>It's not worth it when you have both innocent people and cops themselves frequently getting killed as a result. There are plenty of other ways to catch stupid criminals that don't carry the same risks.
"worth it", "frequently", "risks"
These are all numerical arguments but you're claiming it isn't about numbers. Set a value for risk and reward and drive for that policy. Don't make vague arguments that lean on statistics when it feels useful but refuse to say when something is worth it.
What I see is kids getting shot in the street and my neighbors mugged and carjacked and police picking up guns in routine traffic stops. I don't think those are very "hypothetical".
That would only make sense if there was no other way to prevent these crimes.
It's like asking for "numbers" to justify not putting every 16-25 year old male in prison. It would drastically reduce the crime rate!
The numbers are: innocent people and police are dying needlessly, and any potential effect on the crime rate could also be achieved without those people dying through better policing strategies. It's pure waste.
The amount of property stolen by police using civil forfeiture exceeds the amount stolen in property crime. On average, the risk of abuse exceeds the rewards of enforcement.
That's the unproven assumption made about any cash. There was a choice made between regulation of most black markets and using their existance as a justification for legalizing theft.
Would you be happy if this random search is extended to homes? What about a lottery every morning where they pick some random point in the map and they go to the home and make a search? What about searching homes because they have a broken light in the porch?
It's not a random search, it's people running lights and speeding getting stopped and it seems the kinds of people who are in the streets committing crimes that actually hurt people have a tendency to not obey traffic laws.
Even if that's true, the percentage of people who commit traffic violations that are violent criminals is still extremely small, making it effectively a random search.
People who commit crimes are probably more likely to get parking tickets too. Should police search the homes of everyone who gets a parking ticket since there's a slightly increased chance they'll find evidence of a crime by doing that?
Yep, this guy solved it - let's let all our streets devolve to Mumbai roads level madness because apparently it's unfair for police to stop cars for such "minor" infractions such as speeding.
I said they should send fines through the mail instead of stopping people for minor things. How does that lead to "madness"? If anything the deterrent would be even stronger since police could give more fines if they didn't have to waste so much time pulling people over.
Yes, if someone is speeding on the streets and a police officer sees that - that's fine, let them go, we'll send them the bill later.
Of course, they might catch a few mothers with prams on their way to said home, but that's a reasonable price to pay for not wasting so much time pulling people over!
Police having poor training, being too trigger happy and having very little repercussions for having done terrible things is a completely different topic.
Are you under the impression that people pulled over for speeding are immediately removed from their cars and taken to jail? As opposed to, say, being stopped for 15 minutes, given a ticket, then allowed to go on their way. How’s that end up any differently for those poor mothers and their prams in your little GTA fantasy?
Yeah that's what happens in practice, but it's not a good use of police resources. Road policing should be focused on keeping the roads safe, not fishing for unrelated crimes. The cost-benefit for society and the police on these stops is terrible.
I don't understand what you're saying - say someone has a busted headlight or is speeding. Police stop the car, which gives them a chance to talk to the person and let them know what's the problem. If it's their headlight - maybe a warning given that the driver promises to change their headlight. If they're speeding the cop can ascertain if the driver is for example sober or not. By this stop the road is indeed policed to be safer.
The being able to stop a serious criminal is just a bonus.
The same safety benefit, without the risk, could be accomplished using some kind of signal with the sirens for "you're getting a ticket", sending a ticket in the mail, and logging it in a database somewhere so the person can look up why they got fined. Warnings could be done in the same way.
If someone is impaired enough to be driving dangerously, police will notice that and should pull them over. I'm talking about the minor infractions which (I presume) make up the majority of stops.
There was a case a bit ago where a cop flipped a pregnant woman’s car, even though she had turned her lights flashing and wasn’t speeding up (indicating she likely wanted to find a safe place to stop, since it was on the highway).
seems the most recent article is June 24, the state is backing up the officer:
“ The 15-page answer to the suit by Rutledge senior assistant attorney general Jennifer Merritt states that Dunn did nothing wrong and further asserts that he is entitled to immunity under the state and federal constitutions.”
If it's the one I know about he was fired (eventually), and she won her lawsuit for emotional distress. Thankfully she didn't file for any physical injuries.
There's other similar cases with less ideal outcomes but they're not as obviously unreasonable as the popular one every one mentions.
American police officers have a terrifying habit of disproportionately escalating when a subject "flees". Especially in the case of just trying to find a safe place to pull over - I know multiple people, men and women, who were terrorized for daring to do that.
The whole chain of events that led to this advice is so sad. Rest in peace Sarah.
My view is that undercover police should have a surveillance only role. Arresting or even approaching members of the public should be reserved for uniformed officers.
I think the state of the police force at the moment is very much all hands on deck. Would be very expensive to have a large part of the force unable to act.
Some sort of smartphone app to scan and verify badges via a PKI might be the best solution. There isn't much to stop someone with bad intentions from impersonating an officer, uniformed or not. Every non-emergency police encounter should begin with validation.
Arresting yes, but approaching and stopping IF necessary (and that mean justifying it in the report) the public should be OK.
In the first world countries, we need classes to learn how to deal with state force/judicial power. I usually read a lot about "teach economics to poor famillies", but we would be better served if we understood the law and our right before 30.
Then one of the eyewitnesses identified a policeman as one of the suspects.
The next night, the chief of police was on the panel. He said,
"Now, girls,
whatever happens, do not stop for a police officer. Stay in your car. If a police officer tries to stop you, do not stop. Keep driving and under no circumstances should you get out of your car."
For a few weeks, half the traffic in L.A. was doing twice the speed limit.
We should put such suggestions (and indeed so should any other jurisdiction) on a statutory footing if we are serious about them. This means, minimally—
1. use of bodycams
2. to record the furnishing of identity
3. when requested
should be required before any power exercisable only by police may be used (self defence, arrests of persons in flagrante murdering people and so on are I think not really limited to police), and no offence of obstruction &c. should be committed if the requirement above is not met.
One could spend a lot of time plumbing the depths of such a contemptible statement. But all I'll say is this: if your organisation is ever even tangentially party to some act of evil, don't do this. Do the other thing.
I guess the joke is on them, having one of the lowest homicide rates by firearm in the world, even knife homicides which London is famous for are lower than many major US cities.
Basically a random person stopping/coming up to you and saying they're police asking for id and to search you / whatever...
I've personally had an encounter like this long time ago where I just ran away, was stopped by uniformed officers a small distance away, explained I was scared and just got a thorough search / left alone.
You would be wise to be afraid in situations like this, especially in dark areas. If someone asks for ID or time, light, etc, it's likely a pretense to get close enough to mug you. (see if phone is worth it, or in the past if there's money in wallet)
I'm not sure it's unreasonable for a police agency to provide guidance for people who could be afraid of the police. People who fear police have worse outcomes than thoes that dont. They have a vested interest in creating positive outcomes. Reminding people it's reasonable to run from someone in plainclothes claiming they have authority when they're making you afraid is a good idea.
After a high profile case of a MET officer kidnapping and murdering a woman through the use of his status, the MET has decided that all plain clothes officers will work in tandem. So you should never be stopped by a lone plain clothes officer.