Jump to content

Talk:Department of Defense police

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

September 2009

[edit]

WOW, don't know where to start, this article is so wrong in so many ways!!! Guess I'm gonna have a go at it.--98.111.139.133 (talk) 16:31, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Between the people trying to slander the DoD police and the veiled threats of legal action from the DoD police or persons claiming affiliation, yeah, work needed.Simonm223 (talk) 14:12, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the bad edits over the last few days are coming from anon editors 138.162.8.57 and 138.162.8.58.
I've put Level 2 warnings on both of their talk pages, so we'll see if that works. Singularity42 (talk) 15:23, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This page is a prime example of an edit war. Someone clearly has a personal agenda. This page should be put down as it would seem that no one can write an objective, neutral article. The grammar is absolutely atrocious and the article reads like a third grader's essay. It's amazing that DoD police are that much of a controversial subject; they are just security police that patrol military bases. To whomever keeps editing these pages: you two need to take your debate to a forum, not Wikipedia. Knock it off.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.196.4.217 (talk) 16:48, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Malfeasance by an editor is not grounds for deletion. The topic is clearly notable. Just get more eyes on it to watch for vandalism and delete unreference statements.Simonm223 (talk) 16:59, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am not a DoD Police Officer, I am a full-time police officer in New Jersey who lives close to a military base. The DoD Police Officers I have met are professional, helpful, and have New Jersey peace officer status under NJ law. Whoever wrote this article is apparently a Pentagon police officer attempting to distance himself or herself from the rest of the DoD police forces worldwide. In the end, all of these forces are created under the base commander's authority to take actions reasonable and proper for the protection of their facility, and they are all equal ... slamming the rest of the DoD forces to try to pump up one's own agency (and therefore one's self) is silly, immature, and a disservice to all DoD law enforcement. Translation: it makes everyone look bad, and should be stopped.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.85.154.3 (talk) 21:43, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The things is, there is no such agency as "DoD Police". It's a catch-all term that refers to a civilian engaged in military law enforcement. You cannot write an article about them because there is no "them". Department of the Army Police are very different in terms of SOPs and other topics than Department of Navy Police or Defense Logistics Agency Police. Authority, peace officer status, and other topics vary so widely from agency to agency, base to base, and state to state that it is impossible to write an article that groups everyone together under this one title. Again, there is no such agency as "DoD Police". To be effective, this article needs to be split into at least five articles (Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corp, Defense Logistics Agency) that address each unique civilian agency. Even within overall agencies (Dept. of Army, etc.), the quality of training and work varies so greatly from base to base that one risks creating unfair generalizations.

I agree with the officer from New Jersey (who posted above) that one editor in particular seems to have some connection to the Pentagon Force Protection Agency and dislikes civilians from other agencies. The reality of the situation is, with the exception of attending FLETC, he does all the things other civilians do: stand fixed posts, do mobile patrols, and do a little law enforcement and a lot of force protection. That's why it is called "Pentagon Force Protection Agency" chief. Don't make it out to be more than it is. The fact is, if you are a "0083" with the federal government, you are security police, not regular police. Learn the difference.71.196.4.217 (talk) 23:44, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A trace on the IP addresses of the "bad editors" shows them to be utilizing Navy/Marine Corp Intranet (NMCI) US government computers. These editors are using a government computer somewhere at Naval Air Station Jacksonville. 71.196.4.217 (talk) 23:21, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I like how people are classifying DOD Police as "security police" and not "regular" police. A police officer is a police officer, get it? The duties may be different sometimes; but i know we run radar, make arrests, issue citations, conduct investigations and testify in court, sounds pretty similar to me!! Remember Ft. Hood? Yeah much different than the mean streets of Podunk, USA! Get over yourselves, grow up.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.179.99.172 (talk) 00:09, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like the page is back to being vandalized. Again. Like the "In the Media" section that was added. This is getting exceedingly childish. Probably another disgruntled employee or someone who got a ticket and was pissed off. Either way, put that stuff on the talk page.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.55.196.25 (talk) 13:46, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I AM a Department of Defense police officer and I want to reply to some of these postings. First of all, a police officer is a police officer, but DoD are NOT regular police. We DO NOT HAVE statutory arrest powers, which is the ONLY UNIVERSAL DIFFERENCE between law enforcement officers and the rest of society. It's that simple. We make citizen's arrests the same as security guards at the mall, but it says explicitly in your SOP that anyone you arrest MUST BE TURNED OVER TO CIVILIAN LAW ENFORCEMENT. Prior to arguing on the internet or erasing cited additions to an article, perhaps you should read and educate yourself on the subject. And lastly, just because there was ONE shooting on a military base, does not mean you can compare standing at a gate and checking IDs to what REAL police officers do, risking their lives in apprehending gang bangers and drug addicts.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.60.36.71 (talk) 06:03, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm also a DoD police officer, and the statutory arrest powers is questionable (some say your authority comes from 5 USC). Your SOP could be very different from other people's SOPs. Officers at bases in New Jersey, for example, respond to 911 calls in the region of the base at the request of local police. People we arrest at my installation are brought before a US magistrate. We don't turn them over to anyone, and I doubt that a US magistrate would allow this to happen if we weren't supposed to to do it. It sounds like you have concurrent jurisdiction on your base. If you work at a place with exclusive jurisdiction, you aren't turning anyone over. SOPS vary widely between installations and branches. I'm not saying we are anywhere on the level of a large, "normal" police department, but because your one installation has crappy SOPS doesn't mean you know how the whole operation works.
Leave the article neutral. It gives a decent overview of what a DoD officer does (checks IDs, patrols a base, equipment, etc.). It doesn't have to be anymore than that. Leave the legal crap out of it.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.55.196.25 (talk) 12:52, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

February 2018

[edit]

DOD Police GS-0083's are NOT considered "federal law enforcement", like special agents, border patrol agents, etc. They are not on the law enforcement retirement nor do they get "AUO" (a special LEO pay status) like federal law enforcement officers. DoD Police Officers at their highest pay grade (non-supervisory) make was federal law enforcement make while in training. I am not saying DoD cops are slackers but the work is a lot as demanding then a local police officer's or a federal law enforcement officer's. Some bases are better then others, but a DoD's work is mostly security. I was a DoD detective for about a year before getting a position as a federal law enforcement officer. The day I signed on I made more $ then a DoD supervisor and had real arrest authority.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:601:A000:31B5:9113:3E07:A8CF:EF06 (talk) 03:16, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

They are employed by the federal government and are LEOs. There is no ‘definition’ of federal LE beyond this, and the article does a good job as to outlining their authority and the limitations to it MWFwiki (talk) 08:34, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 23 September 2024

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. per discussion below. Best, (closed by non-admin page mover) Reading Beans 09:34, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Department of Defense police → Department of Defense Police – GrammarCapitilization; "Department of Defense Police" vice "Department of Defense police" -- attempted to move myself, cannot due to re-direct Despite being an 'umbrella term,' and not quite a wholly independent agency, the "DOD Police" is a proper noun and is referred-to as such by the FBI[1] -- it is difficult to locate sources as most DOD Police entities use their component branch title (e.g. Department of the Navy Police). Further, per WP:CONSISTENT ALL of the component entities -- Department of the Navy Police, Department of the Air Force Police, and Department of the Army Civilian Police (I have issues with this title, as "civilian' is not part of the agency's official name, but I digress.) capitalize "Police." I would argue that this does not violate WP:TITLECHANGES, as the title change is so minor, it could not possibly disrupt the article's stability, nor would it disrupt the manner in which induvials find, search, or other locate the article. MWFwiki (talk) 01:17, 23 September 2024 (UTC) This is a contested technical request (permalink). MWFwiki (talk) 01:48, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://ucr.fbi.gov/leoka/2017/resource-pages/department_of_defense_police_-2017
  • Oppose – even nom's ref 1 has it as "DoD police". They only cap it in titles. And as the article points out, it's an "umbrella term", not the name of a policy agency. Actually police agency names are proper names and are properly capitalized, but this is not one of those. Dicklyon (talk) 02:50, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Department of Defense police" refers to all DoD LEOs. Unless I'm looking at something different, it specifically says "Department of Defense police officers," as one might say "Boston police officers,"[1][2] (though, admittedly, Boston Police officers would be correct, also). The article is discussing DOD police officers killed/assaulted/etc, not the DoD Police as an entity. Ignoring what is correct or not -- per WP:TITLECHANGES -- as per WP:CONSISTENT we should be capitalizing in-line with the other DODP articles. Also, I'm the one who added the phrase "umbrella term." They are not an agency, but they are an entity. The same as DONP, DACP, or DAFP. MWFwiki (talk) 03:20, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/these-latino-boston-police-officers-are-building-bridges-one-block-at-a-time-john-l-micek/ar-AA1qPkb5?ocid=BingNewsVerp
  2. ^ https://www.nbcboston.com/news/local/crews-respond-to-manhole-fire-in-boston/3495315/
Where can I find evidence of an entity named "Department of Defense Police"? Dicklyon (talk) 04:28, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Where is there evidence of any of the component 'agencies' being entities? Not just names in the wind? Indeed, DACP, DONP, etc, don't really mean anything. They are all DODP. They are all answerable to one office (Director for Defense Intelligence (CI, LE, & Security)) under the USD(I&S)), in charge of the DODP scheme. DONP, DAFP, and the DAP all make-up the DOD Police. There are even "Department of Defense Police" officers, proper. Hence the existence of the patch on the article page. And again; Ignoring what is correct or not -- per WP:TITLECHANGES -- as per WP:CONSISTENT we should be capitalizing in-line with the other DODP articles. We are, admittedly, stumbling in the dark a bit, as the DOD is not as transparent as civilian LEAs are. MWFwiki (talk) 06:31, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For a few links I looked at, it seems some of them are actual named orgs; if not we can work on fixing those, too. As for this article, as you already noted above, the lead says "... DoD police are the ... police officers of the DoD, various branches of the United States Armed Forces, or DoD agencies ..." That it, it says "DoD police are", not "DoD Police is", as it's about the officers, not an org. So no point in caps, unless you can show the existence of such a proper-named entity, and make the article about it. Dicklyon (talk) 03:07, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Department_of_Defense_police&oldid=1248578480"