I didn't think so. I got it wrong. Just another example where the test writer wanted to get cute and create questions that could have gone either way

I strongly agree with you. It did not rise to the level where the duty captain had to be woke up from his sleep and a notification to iab had to be made.

Apparently the right answer is to go all the way with the incident but to me that's not an unusual incident.

I always thought an off duty incident was when u r personally involved in it as a c/v, suspect, or witness. Not if u are calling for a neighbor. But hey what do i know

And thats what they meant in the patrol guide but they tried to get cute and flip it but I am going to protest it.

I didn't think so either, I chose to tell the cop he did a good job for calling 911 and no further notifications are necessary. Did I get it wrong? I don't know? In 212 it says witness or participant to an "unusual police occurrence". The fact pattern had you visiting your folks and you witness the equivalent of a family offense, assault 2nd between the neighbors. It never said anything "unusual" happened, just that you called 911 and did not intervene. It never had you confronting or even talking to anyone involved. Also I don't think it can even be interpreted as you are involved since it explicitly said you were visiting your parents, so its not like they were even your neighbors!

BS question. Fact pattern was too vague and even if my choice was correct (not saying it was), the procedure doesn't say what to do if it is not an "unusual police occurrence". It gives no guidance. It also never properly defines what an "unusual police occurrence" even is? So a good exam writer would have left no question it was unusual by perhaps making it a well known person involved like a local politician. Or perhaps the cop intervening at gunpoint? Or a million other possible scenarios that anyone would agree is unusual. Simply calling 911 on a couple you don't know for assault with a stick? Not what I would call an "unusual police occurrence", more like business as usual....

NOTE: For purposes of this procedure an unusual police occurrence shall include family disputes and other incidents of domestic violence in which the officer is either a participant or a witness.

The way the book is worded, that ridiculous question would be an unusual police occurrence. I think that's why they made the scenario the cop being a witness to a domestic incident instead of a run of the mill assault.

But they know good and well that in the guide they're talking about being personally involved family disputes.

I am not sure of the exact wording, but I think what that means is like if you were a witness to DV in your own family or are somehow involved. But I am certain the book never specifies.

Also how does the cop even know its DV if he doesn't know the man and woman? Just an absurd question that has no business being in a promotional exam...

It deserves a protest and I will protest it. This is nonsense. It's just another example of them twisting and turning these procedures into dump tricks.

Yea, should be protested. It just seems like if the exam writers were going with any family dispute whether your family or someone else's is a poor interpretation of the procedure. Once again, its as if the exam writers didn't understand the material...

oneadditional wrote:

---

But they know good and well that in the guide they're talking about being personally involved family disputes.

---

I agree. I just don't believe that argument would win a protest. They set up the scenario as being a domestic incident, so asking "how would the cop know" won't fly. He knows because the question said so. As for interpreting what the patrol guide meant, I doubt that is winnable either. They basically took a word for word interpretation from that page, even though we all agree on what the procedure really implies.

They clearly don't understand it and they know if they came across that situation they wouldn't notify the duty captain or iab. I can't believe these questions.

It is worth a protest, their interpretation is flat out wrong. It is poorly worded in the book, but their question was poorly written too. You are a visitor, how do you even know that is a domestic dispute? You don't! Challenge it!

Also they tested "judgement", would anyone using "judgement" believe that was really an off duty incident as per "unusual police occurrence"?