Met Police: Run away, call 999 if you feel danger when stopped by lone officer
lbc.co.uk
lbc.co.uk
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.
An officer uniform should be easy to identify exactly to prevent confusion in cases like somebody being arrested in the middle of the street.
>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.
I don’t think there is much to gain here.
The law says, IIRC that plainclothes officers must show their ID, without even being asked for it, when approaching people.
So it’s not like they are secret spooks.
Any UK folks around to comment on whether this advice is actually usable there?
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.]
The idea that you can “calmly” run away from a rogue cop isn’t compatible with their expectations.
You just don’t habitually get the law enforced on you
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
https://www.news10.com/news/national/pregnant-woman-sues-ark...
"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.
https://jalopnik.com/cop-flips-pregnant-womans-while-she-tri...
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.
There's other similar cases with less ideal outcomes but they're not as obviously unreasonable as the popular one every one mentions.
“ 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.”
https://www.arkansasonline.com/news/2021/jun/24/troopers-tra...
there is no accountability for cops in USA
The being able to stop a serious criminal is just a bonus.
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.
These practices also create a generally high level of fear and animosity toward police which isn't good for anyone.
"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).
"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".
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.
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?
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!
Did anyone in the video get killed? Did anyone in the video go to jail? How many mother with prams do you think he would have killed?
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.
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.
-- Laurie Anderson, "New Jersey Turnpike"
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.
How many officers are doing this in the UK? It seems like it's gotten a lot of press because of how unusual it is.
A lot more people die from everyday thugs, relatives/lovers, etc. Is making people terrified of the police good in the long run?
All of them? It's UK -- guilty until proven innocent.
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)