Limelight Forums

Contrary to popular belief, a badge, gun and uniform does not earn you the public's trust, and it is far from earning you their respect. Respect is a mutual system: that is, both parties must strive for equal grounds of respect. A mistake many officers make on-duty, is in their tone and in their choice of language. Let's see what side of the spectrum you are on. From the following statements, which one is the best way to approach someone interfering with the arrest of another person:

1. "Sir, you need to step back right now."
   
2. "Get back now!"
   
3. "Sir, I'd like you to take a few steps back there."
   
4. "If you persist to act in a disorderly fashion, you will be arrested."
   

Congratulations to you who answered with statement three. Statement one, is still a valid option - for a second warning. The tonality of the statement should carry some warning, but this is easily misinterpreted by boisterous subjects as condescending - a challenge, even. You must bear in mind that a majority of the EvoCity population are fairly young: that is late teens, twenties and early thirties. A portion of this population will be running through a 'defiance complex' - which in short, means they resent the idea of conforming to an order, especially from a figure of authority. By patronising these subjects - or indirectly challenging them - it's likely you've had an accidental detrimental effect on the situation at hand.

Statement two is never a correct way in which to speak to a member of the public. Note the force in the tone, and re-call what we discussed earlier: To the criminals, you are a force. To the public, you are a service. Speaking like this may wade off an interferer, but it will only serve to antagonize the Department further in the view of a public eye.

Statement three should be your go-to. Here, you're telling the person exactly what you want them to do, while still maintaining an equal grounds of respect. This is perfectly suited for a first warning. It is not an attempt to use your authority as leverage over the person, nor is it a condescending tone. By opening up with a person on a polite, clear and concise manner, you heighten the chances greatly of their co-operation. 

Statement four should only be used as a final warning. That is, you have put to use something along the lines of statement three and two first. There are a few issues as using this as your go-to: firstly, you do not tell the person what you want from them. Indeed, they may not even know they're interfering. By saying 'disorderly', you are antagonizing the person, and potentially embarrassing them in front of acquaintances on scene. The threat of arrest can again, be seen as a direct challenge. This is not how you begin your interactions with any member of the public.

The best system to operate in most scenarios with a disorderly/disruptive member of the public is a three-strike system; that is, three warnings:





Imposing a restriction on someone's liberty through arrest should be a last resort - in the case of low-level offenders. Even so, when an arrest is unavoidable, you as a Police Officer should still strive to portray a positive public image of the Service. Rather than blinding detainees with Miranda's Rights, fines - or indeed probing for hard-details of a perpetration - look further into it. Find out more about the person; family, employment, etc. Inquire as to why they committed the crime (this may also serve to: A) further incriminate them in a court trial and B) award you possible leads on accomplices or additional offenders).

Imposing a restriction on someone's liberty through detainment (be it for a search or otherwise) should always be kept as brief as possible. While hurrying the process as much as is possible, you must also make it very clear to the person why they are being detained - rather than them thinking they are being unfairly prosecuted. Formally you must inform the person as to why you are detaining them: you must state the bill of legislation you are citing in order to detain a person. You must then also tell them what you are searching for. For example;

"At this moment in time, I'm going to detain you for the purposes of a search, Ma'am. You are being searched under the Terrorism Act 2000. Though I do not necessarily expect to find anything on you, I legally have reasonable suspicion that you may be carrying a firearm on your person tonight. Do you understand this?"