‘Can you spare a fine?’: RCMP ‘panhandlers’ ticket distracted B.C. drivers

[Container]

Does this set a bad precedence in that motorists knowing cops are dressing up like panhandlers will now go out of their way to avoid them (just cause) meaning panhandlers will be given less money?

I ran radar dressed like a homeless person 12 years ago and was featured in the paper. Didnt change anyones actions- its not a new sting by any stretch.

I am surprised that somebody working in crime reduction/plain clothes would want to advertise his face and name accross the internet. Makes project surveillance hard. I guess im too old to get how funny it is now  :-\

 

[mariomike]

Having two officer patrols is always the best solution, sure. 

The two-officer car was not achieved overnight in Metro:

"It took me 10 years to get two men* in a car in Metro. We had guys beaten up, stabbed and murdered when they were one in a car."
Sid Brown, President Metro Toronto Police Association
Star, December 20, 1976

Background:
In 1972, Metro Police was made an essential service. They gave up their right to strike in exchange for compulsory binding interest arbitration.
In 1974, the arbitrator ruled in favour of the  Metro Toronto Police Association on the two-man car issue.
Understandably, the higher ups were concerned that two-man cars would "drain" the car count.
This led to the 1976 slowdown by the union. Metro accepted the arbitration ruling.

They had to ante up and hire more officers to maintain the car count.

*Back then, it was always referred to, and reported as, "two-man car" rather than "two-officer car". It still is on the TPA website.

Many agencies cannot afford the luxury, like everyone they need to do more with less. 

"Escalating Emergency Services Labour Costs and the Ontario Taxpayers’ Ability to Pay":
https://www.pao.ca/library/Ability%20to%20Pay%20Position%20Paper%202011.pdf

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

Maybe the police in BC can show leadership on the issue and remove the exemption they have allowing them to use cellphones while driving. If it's to dangerous for us, it's to dangerous for them.

Didn't you whine about this a couple of years ago??  Frig, pay the fine and move on......

 

[Jarnhamar]

I ran radar dressed like a homeless person 12 years ago and was featured in the paper. Didnt change anyones actions- its not a new sting by any stretch.

I am surprised that somebody working in crime reduction/plain clothes would want to advertise his face and name accross the internet. Makes project surveillance hard. I guess im too old to get how funny it is now  :-\

Ahh, fair enough.
Hey when was your last desk pop?  ;D

 

[Maxadia]

Not every police officer out there is going to abuse the privilege of using a laptop or cell phone.  However, giving them an exemption does little to quell the little voice in someone's head saying "Well, I shouldn't, but seeing as I'm allowed..."

I'm for taking them out and doing two-person patrols when they are able to do so.  At least one person would have their eyes open the entire time, or should have.

Case in point....I t-boned the rear end of a teenager's car last September, who was trying to turn in front of three lanes of traffic (I was in the last lane to her left). Luckily, there was a cruiser parked at the front of the intersection perpendicular to me with a full view of the entire accident.

Unfortunately, and interestingly enough....the cruiser's officer somehow missed the entire thing. And I mean the ENTIRE thing.  He had no clue which way either vehicle was going, whether the light was still green (remember, he was parked at the front of the intersection at a red light and he was asking ME if the light was still green?), etc. etc.  But he couldn't explain what he was doing at the time.

I'm just very glad that early the next week and acquaintance asked me about my splint and we discovered they had been parked beside the officer, saw the entire thing, and ended up being the witness needed to explain what happened.

Not everyone will abuse the privilege....but some may.

 

[Container]

Ahh, fair enough.
Hey when was your last desk pop?

Hope you like prison food... and penis

 

[bcbarman]

Officers are responsible for what happens to their PC.  If they are in a incident (PCMVI, it even has its own acronym) its their ass reporting to brass. 

As for a 2 person car, the pro's and con's are back and forth forever.  A 2 officer car is safer and more "teamwork" but it has been shown to cause more "jump too fast incidents"  Read Malcolm Gladwell (good Canadian Kid's) book "Blink" talks about the value of single officer cars.  A single officer will not charge into a situation, they wait for backup.  Less shootings, less incidents, less horrible stories.

As for the photo, me thinks it was done by a passenger and went viral.  Hope he had no aspirations for UC work.

 

[mariomike]

As for a 2 person car, the pro's and con's are back and forth forever.  A 2 officer car is safer and more "teamwork" but it has been shown to cause more "jump too fast incidents"  Read Malcolm Gladwell (good Canadian Kid's) book "Blink" talks about the value of single officer cars.  A single officer will not charge into a situation, they wait for backup.  Less shootings, less incidents, less horrible stories.

From the U.S. Department of Justice, about the same time as the Metro arbitration:

"IN CITIES WHERE ONE-MAN PATROL PREDOMINATES, THERE IS PERSISTENT PRESSURE FROM POLICE UNIONS AND FROM THE RANK AND FILE TO MOVE TOWARD TWO-MAN CARS. IN MANY CITIES WHERE TWO-MAN CARS PREDOMINATE, THERE IS PRESSURE FROM POLICE ADMINISTRATORS CONCERNED ABOUT PATROL COVERAGE AND FROM CITY OFFICIALS CONCERNED ABOUT TAX RATES TO USE ONE-MAN CARS WHEREVER POSSIBLE."
( Copy/paste, sorry for the caps. )
https://www.ncjrs.gov/App/publications/Abstract.aspx?id=45248

June 9, 2011
"In the 1970s, an arbitrator supported the two-officer rule in Toronto.
The Police Services Board challenged it all the way the Supreme Court of Canada and lost.
Now almost 40 years later, the rule still stands.":
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/story/2011/06/09/police-two-officer-rule.html

Police officers, firefighters and paramedics in Toronto gave up their right to strike in exchange for compulsory binding interest arbitration.
There is no appeal.

The link in reply #41 explains the employer's point of view.

 

[bcbarman]

As this thread has veered WAAAY off track (you think we were talking on a cell phone while browsing or something) lets call it bad for anyone to be distracted when driving.  Hell, France is going to manditory breathalizers in the cars, in the UK, its a fine to eat and drive and lets not even talk about california's talk and text law.  (WOW)

Single officer PC's work well when the area to cover is not too dangerous and backup is close by (rural locals). 2 officer cars work best in dangerous locals and isolated posts (downtown TO and northern communities.)

 

[Jarnhamar]

its a fine to eat and drive

Reminds me of a (CF) officer wanting me to take heat over an anonymous complaint that *someone* was talking on a cell and driving with zero evidence that it was even me- yet the officer is a chronic 'eats-while-driving' cf vehicles type.

 

[mariomike]

2 officer cars work best in dangerous locals and isolated posts (downtown TO and northern communities.)

The arbitration ruling covers more than just downtown.
It is Metro-wide. That includes the entire city, and the five boroughs.
The ruling - it is not discretionary - applies to all 17 Divisions of the Toronto Police Service.

 

[mariomike]

OP:

At least in Chilliwack, police officers disguised as panhandlers have become the B.C. RCMP’s newest tool in cracking down on distracted driving.

To add to the discussion,

June 10, 2016

Canadian man gets a ticket after handing change to undercover cop disguised as a panhandler
https://ca.news.yahoo.com/canadian-receives-a-ticket-after-1447965043687478.html
A Good Samaritan in Regina, Sask., may think twice before extending a helping hand after receiving a ticket for giving spare change to a cop disguised as a panhandler.