# "Are we breeding a police culture of additional victims?



## KenpoTex (Mar 6, 2009)

Great article...

here's a taste:


> Law enforcement agencies should build a police culture that accepts, validates and rewards a fighting spirit. Instead too many are creating additional victims, hesitant officers who shy from using deadly force when its legal and urgently needed. The result: Some officers today are more afraid of being sued than being murdered!
> 
> ...officers and agencies should embrace a greater willingness and readiness to use lawful deadly force in appropriate circumstances.
> 
> Its not necessary to talk to somebody when theyre trying to murder you. You can do it, but theres no legal obligation to and tactically its not desirable. There are some offenders you simply cant negotiate with. Yet officers want to take things to the last instant because they have imprinted in their mind I dont want to shoot.


http://www.correctionsone.com/write...eding-a-police-culture-of-additional-victims/


----------



## jarrod (Mar 6, 2009)

one of the problems with the law & enforcing the law is that there are so many variables that it is impossible to legislate something onto the books for every possible scenario.  i'm not usually a big advocate of The Man so to speak, but individual cops should be protected from frivolous law suits.  one of the ways to do that is to punish police who truly use brutality swiftly & severly.  every time a bad cop gets off with a slap on the wrist, it adds to the likelihood that a decent cop will be more severly punished over something accidental or trifling in order to prevent public outrage.

jf


----------



## Archangel M (Mar 6, 2009)

That is the leaderships fault. Fear of liability drives senior leadership into stupid decisions.


----------



## sjansen (Mar 7, 2009)

Police, law enforcement and those in our prisons already have an undo burdon to proof to proove themselves as worthy to those who have shown themselves not to be be worthy of leniency where the law is concerned. Why should law enforcement officers have to show this in the case of criminals? These people deserve what they get. 

Police should be able to shoot first and ask questions later where there own health is at risk. Although it is there job to be put in harms way, how much harm do we expect them to take before society collapses. If someone is insane an expects to die, let them meet their fate. In prison, on a street or bar.

The police should not have to worry about prosecution in every turn. Neither should they be taken off the street or out of a prison for doing so.


----------



## tellner (Mar 7, 2009)

It's not just being willing to use deadly force. It's more being willing to protect citizens. What I've seen of officer training has been very strongly in favor of using deadly force to protect *the officer's life*. But protecting anyone else? Not so much. "Find a defensible position" or "Pull back and call for backup" or "Let the SWAT team handle it" or "First you go home, they your partner goes home, then the civilian goes home" are drilled into police from the Academy on.

Consider the Colorado school shootings. The cops sat outside and waited for the situation to resolve. They stopped parents who were trying to save their children. Control the perimeter. Don't put yourself at risk. "Civilians" are acceptable (if regrettable) costs of doing business.


----------



## Archangel M (Mar 7, 2009)

The policing world was different pre-Columbine. The police did what they did because that was SOP for almost all PD's at the time. You set up a perimiter and called for SWAT. In this day and age of rapid deployment things are different in many departments.

One thing about this article though...as is the case in almost any collumn, blog post, article, writers like to make sweeping generalizations based on a handfull of anecdotal stories. Im not prepared to accept that there is a widespread, endemic problem of cops unwilling to use force. As a matter of fact Im pretty confident that we could find a number of posts right HERE where people claim that the police are trigger happy. Perhaps SOME cops or SOME departments are building a "culture of additional victims". But Id like to see more of a study proving that this is a widespread problem.

Many people (a number of which post here) like to make broad brush claims about the police and how they operate with ZERO knowledge or experience with the topic other than those based on their their preconcieved viewpoints and political leanings. Many of their opinions of how police act, think and operate are just that... OPINIONS, that are phrased as though they are facts.

I dare say that few people on this thread have any clue about how most cops view their obligations to keeping their community and citizens safe.


----------



## Andy Moynihan (Mar 7, 2009)

KenpoTex said:


> Great article...
> 
> here's a taste:
> 
> http://www.correctionsone.com/write...eding-a-police-culture-of-additional-victims/


 

It would seem that even in traditionally liberal areas of the country, that the private citizens are finally beginning to get the message too. I only hope it's in time.


----------



## seasoned (Mar 7, 2009)

Yes, and its the liberal media and lenient courts that are to blame. LE, right out of the box, have restrictions placed on them to present themselves in a favorable manner, when dealing with the public. Cameras are everywhere, catching everything, except the thoughts and feeling that are present within the minds of the people being filmed. Split second decisions need to be made, and in some cases, with life threatening consequences, and it is up to LE to be right, every time. When the order is given to drop something, or to get on the ground, just do it. If that order is ignored, then the person ignoring it, is the liable one. From that point forward it is assumed by the officer, that they are dealing with a noncompliant individual who is a threat or danger to them. and the public. Sadly enough, the camera does not pick up the feelings, thoughts, and anguish present in the minds of responding officers, who now have to deal with this threat, appropriately. The camera only picks up the aftermath of controlling that situation. This whole attitude is present in our military, where they have imbedded journalist on the battle field reporting the news first hand. I envision patrol car cameras being replaced someday with ride along reporters, so they can in someway, better protect the public from these gun happy grazed individuals, that are swore to protect. If 3/4 of these people knew what type of training goes into testing, selecting, and consequently going through an academy, the majority would not make it. Just let them do their job.


----------



## searcher (Mar 7, 2009)

I think that this type of mentality is supposed to be bridged by those of us with CCH.   I know that having to force the everyday person into making this bridge is not ideal, but it seems to be what is happeneing.    JMO.


The sheeple will gripe and raise a fit because we have the _*Right To Bear Arms*_, but then when we save their life this may change.


----------



## jks9199 (Mar 7, 2009)

tellner said:


> It's not just being willing to use deadly force. It's more being willing to protect citizens. What I've seen of officer training has been very strongly in favor of using deadly force to protect *the officer's life*. But protecting anyone else? Not so much. "Find a defensible position" or "Pull back and call for backup" or "Let the SWAT team handle it" or "First you go home, they your partner goes home, then the civilian goes home" are drilled into police from the Academy on.
> 
> Consider the Colorado school shootings. The cops sat outside and waited for the situation to resolve. They stopped parents who were trying to save their children. Control the perimeter. Don't put yourself at risk. "Civilians" are acceptable (if regrettable) costs of doing business.


As a result of the Columbine shootings (and a few other incidents), police policy on active shooter situations has changed.  Dramatically. 

But there's a reason for the "self, then team, then public" training.  I'm not able to help anyone if I'm injured.  My partner is unable to help me help you if he's injured.  It's that simple.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Mar 9, 2009)

KenpoTex said:


> Great article...
> 
> here's a taste:
> 
> http://www.correctionsone.com/write...eding-a-police-culture-of-additional-victims/



EXCELLENT article!  And supports something i've long seen to be true in law enforcement.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Mar 9, 2009)

jarrod said:


> one of the problems with the law & enforcing the law is that there are so many variables that it is impossible to legislate something onto the books for every possible scenario.  i'm not usually a big advocate of The Man so to speak, but individual cops should be protected from frivolous law suits.  one of the ways to do that is to punish police who truly use brutality swiftly & severly.  every time a bad cop gets off with a slap on the wrist, it adds to the likelihood that a decent cop will be more severly punished over something accidental or trifling in order to prevent public outrage.
> 
> jf


 The problem is that 95% of what the public perceives as 'brutality swiftly and severly' isn't remotely that at all.....therefore, the public perception is that they are getting off with a slap on the wrist when they didn't do anything wrong in the first place.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Mar 9, 2009)

tellner said:


> It's not just being willing to use deadly force. It's more being willing to protect citizens. What I've seen of officer training has been very strongly in favor of using deadly force to protect *the officer's life*. But protecting anyone else? Not so much. "Find a defensible position" or "Pull back and call for backup" or "Let the SWAT team handle it" or "First you go home, they your partner goes home, then the civilian goes home" are drilled into police from the Academy on.
> 
> Consider the Colorado school shootings. The cops sat outside and waited for the situation to resolve. They stopped parents who were trying to save their children. Control the perimeter. Don't put yourself at risk. "Civilians" are acceptable (if regrettable) costs of doing business.



That used to be true to some extent......that is not the current standard of training.  I've maintained throughout my career (and the training is now bearing this out) that our duty is to put ourselves in harms way to save innocent lives.

In the wake of Columbine I made the point with my department that the officers there failed, and clung to an outdated and failed doctrine of 'Isolate, Cordon, Negotiate'.....when they should have been actively seeking out and engaging those two clowns.

Well, current police training 'Active Shooter' doctrine has changed the way law enforcement deals with these types of situations......the new paradigm is that, when confronted by an active shooter, the officer gathers whatever men and resources he has immediately on hand, and goes in to confront and neutralize the gunmen.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Mar 9, 2009)

jks9199 said:


> As a result of the Columbine shootings (and a few other incidents), police policy on active shooter situations has changed.  Dramatically.
> 
> But there's a reason for the "self, then team, then public" training.  I'm not able to help anyone if I'm injured.  My partner is unable to help me help you if he's injured.  It's that simple.



I've always felt uncomfortable with that order or arrangement.......we took this job for a reason.  Public, Team, Self, Criminal.....that's the order I put priority in, and what I preach to other officers to put priority in.

Our honor is directly proportional to our willingness to put ourselves in harms way so that others may live.......which means to me other officers and innocent members of the public......the criminals themselves are SOL if it comes to that, because I fully intend on doing unto them before they can do unto me or anyone else.


----------



## jarrod (Mar 9, 2009)

sgtmac_46 said:


> The problem is that 95% of what the public perceives as 'brutality swiftly and severly' isn't remotely that at all.....therefore, the public perception is that they are getting off with a slap on the wrist when they didn't do anything wrong in the first place.


 
http://comegetyousome.com/video/20370/police-brutality(warning!).html

http://www.comegetyousome.com/video/19448/police-brutality.html

http://comegetyousome.com/video/18915/shocking-police-brutality(warning).html

brutality isn't the norm, but it does happen & should result in swift & severe punishment.  

jf


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Mar 9, 2009)

jarrod said:


> http://comegetyousome.com/video/20370/police-brutality(warning!).html
> 
> http://www.comegetyousome.com/video/19448/police-brutality.html
> 
> ...


 Thank you for making my point......you've got one true example of excessive force out of the three videos you provided......the case of the female throwing her shoes at the officer.

The video of the male subject receiving baton strikes to the legs illustrates a controlled use of measured force to bring a resisting subject in to compliance, and the use of force stopped once the subject was brought under control.  There are many questions from the video.....what was he being arrested for, what was he doing before the video started?  One thing is certain from the video is that he was engaged in a prolonged struggle with officers who were trying to take him in to custody.  The officer with the baton was striking an area of the body not likely to cause death or serious physical injury.  It was an area designed to bring compliance from pain and discomfort only.  The baton strikes he was giving would likely cause only bruising, pain and discomfort, which are acceptable risks of force used to overcome active resistance.

Moreover, it's very telling that the officer, instead of wildly wailing away at this guys head, was instead giving a shot or two at his legs, waiting a moment to see if that brought compliance, before adding another strike or two, and pausing to see if that brought compliance.  Measured response NOT brutality.  Force ended immediately upon compliance being gained.

In the video involving the motorist, you are judging the use of force via hindsight narrative.....none of which was available to the officer who chased the woman, who failed to yield to an emergency vehicle for a considerable distance.  She was pulled out of the vehicle, per acceptable law enforcement practiced, and handcuffed.  She complained of bruises and scrapes, which are considered acceptable injuries for uses of force involving active resistance (via fleeing and refusing to exit the vehicle to be handcuffed).  Again, force ended IMMEDIATELY upon the subject being restrained.

Your lay perception of 'Police Brutality' isn't the same as the reality of Police Brutality......again, 95% of the cases that folks like yourself perceive as police brutality are nothing of the sort.  CONTEXT is everything.

And what ends up happening is that, with your limited perception of the events, when the department does an internal investigation and finds the officer acted within accepted guidelines, you declare that the officer is 'Just getting a slap on the wrist'......when he did nothing objectively wrong to begin with.



When determining whether force is reasonable or excessive we must ask ourselves several questions, and not fall prey to a gut-level emotional reaction to the ugly nature of ALL force, not just unreasonable force.

1) Was there justification for arrest or restraint? (In all three cases the answer was yes)
2) Was there resistance on the part of the subject? (In all three cases the answer was yes)
3) Was there a need for force to overcome the resistance of the subject? (In all three cases the answer was yes)
4) Was the force used in proportion to the level of resistance? (In two out of three cases the answer was yes)
5) Did the force cease once compliance was achieved? (In two out of three cases the answer was yes)

ALL force is ugly.....ugliness is not the measure of brutality.  And yes, i'm aware the state settled the lawsuit and and terminated the trooper in the video with the female motorist......but his use of force was not excessive given the nature of the resistance.  He was fired because the video looked bad, and he appeared to be out of control (he could have handled the situation much better than he did) and could have been far more professional......but that's not the same as claiming police brutality.

The incident with the baton strikes shouldn't even be listed in the examples at all......and the subject in that circumstance could have ended that 'beating' any time he wanted......by simply complying and putting his hands behind his back.  When he did so, it all stopped.

To address the incident involving the girl kicking her shoe at the officer, that incident is entirely indefensible.  Her actions demanded a response, but the response she guy was grossly disproportionate to her actions.


----------



## Carol (Mar 9, 2009)

sgtmac_46 said:


> Thank you for making my point......you've got one true example of excessive force out of the three videos you provided......the case of the female throwing her shoes at the officer.




...and the reason why we know about that incident to begin with is because the department released the video in a news release referring to the event and stating that the officer was under investigation...


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Mar 9, 2009)

Carol Kaur said:


> ...and the reason why we know about that incident to begin with is because the department released the video in a news release referring to the event and stating that the officer was under investigation...


 Exactly!

Bottom line, the officer was wrong in that one.....and he's going to lose his career and catch a charge over it, more than likely.


----------



## jarrod (Mar 9, 2009)

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/07/30/top-5-police-brutality-vi_n_115921.html

in the top one the guy really had it coming, riding his bicycle & all.

the second one is a repeat with a little commentary. i watched it again, & i don't really think that a club to the knee carries no risk of injury.  

in the third one, i believe all three suspects were hospitalized.

of course, the "don't taz me bro" kid was a jackass looking for publicity.  

jf


----------



## jarrod (Mar 9, 2009)

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-12-17-copmisconduct_n.htm

here's an article about brutality cases increasing 25% in the last several years. it may be due to increased occurence or increased prosecution, but it's worth noting.

then of course there was the guy dumped out of his wheelchair:

http://www.policebrutality.info/2008/04/*****-cop-dumps-disabled-man-out-of-his.html

here are some cops beating a 64 year old drunk guy while a mounted officer tries to stay between the camera & the action:

http://www.policebrutality.info/2008/12/police-abusing-and-beating-64-years-old.html

here's a cop punching a guy in the face while he has his shin across his throat:

http://www.policebrutality.info/2008/04/los-angeles-police-brutality.html

& lastly, 5 cops in NY sodomize a man:

http://www.policebrutality.info/2009/01/police-beating-man-with-antena.html

jf


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Mar 9, 2009)

jarrod said:


> the second one is a repeat with a little commentary. i watched it again, & i don't really think that a club to the knee carries no risk of injury.


 You're confused about the standard.....the standard isn't 'NO RISK!' of injury.....resisting arrest carries a risk of injury........the force used was in proportion with the resistance offered......strikes to the legs carry no real risk of DEATH or SERIOUS physical injury......and if you don't understand the definition of 'SERIOUS' physical injury, that may be where the confusion lay.  Serious physical injury is 'Brian Damage' or a ruptured spleen.

Pain, bruising, soft tissue damage are not considered 'serious' physical injury, and are considered acceptable risks incurred when actively resisting arrest.



What the public wants is 'Pretty on video force'.......that's an asinine standard.  The rational standard is 'Objectively Reasonable' force......and that is the standard the courts apply, that you refer to as 'Giving the officers a slap on the wrist'........apparently 'Objectively reasonable based on the totality of the circumstances' offends some folks.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Mar 9, 2009)

jarrod said:


> http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-12-17-copmisconduct_n.htm
> 
> here's an article about brutality cases increasing 25% in the last several years. it may be due to increased occurence or increased prosecution, but it's worth noting.


 Entirely irrelevant.......increased prosecution is merely knee-jerk political response to public perception of abuse, and does not remotely support the notion that abuse is wide-spread....and even LESS proves that abuse is on the RISE.......perception and reality are very often not remotely the same thing......especially in a 24-hour 'If it bleeds/it leads' news cycle.



jarrod said:


> then of course there was the guy dumped out of his wheelchair:
> 
> http://www.policebrutality.info/2008/04/*****-cop-dumps-disabled-man-out-of-his.html
> 
> ...


 Again you demonstrate an inability to separate true brutality from ugly justifiable use of force.  In the 3rd incident, it is not remotely 'abuse'.  The strikes to the face, while not palatable, are not 'police brutality'.  They were measured responses to a resisting subject who had not responded to lessor means and was still resisting.  The subject could have ended that force at any time by ceasing his resistance.


I find it telling that every time someone wants to demonstrate the widespread nature of 'Police Brutality' they demonstrate that same inability to separate 'Legitimate' force from 'Excessive'.........and if they don't know the difference, why are they trying to tell me how widespread police brutality is if they can't distinguish it from legitimate force.........it merely reinforces my earlier proclamation that 95% of the cases of perceived brutality are legitimate uses for force.  You've managed to find a few of those 5% examples, but that you have them mixed and matched with the other 95% of assumed brutality that is legitimate use of force illustrates the problem very well.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Mar 9, 2009)

Pop quiz........Brutality?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SdoP...eo-catches-fresno-police-beating-homeless-man

Yes/No


----------



## jarrod (Mar 9, 2009)

or the other possibility is that you & i have different definitions of justifiable.  as a cop, you have lost the perspective of a civilian.  you look at these clips & wonder why the dumbass perp doesn't quit "resisting", which in most of these videos looks an awful lot like laying still on the ground.  as a non-cop, i see people who look scared & are afraid to go with the people who are screaming at them, punching them, sticking a gun in their face, etc.  maybe that second clip wasn't excessive force by the legal definition, i don't know.  i do know that if two people were holding me down, one of them kneeling on my throat (aren't chokehold illegal for LEOs?) my instincts wouldn't exactly be screaming "comply".  it's a simple matter of escalation of force; we want people to be aware of it with potential attackers but then fully comply with other people because they have a badge.  i know most cops are decent folks, but my instincts would have a really hard time not reading some of those cops as a legitimate threat.  

now, out of those 4 clips/articles i posted, you claimed that one is not legitimate brutality.  so far your assertion that "95% of the cases of perceived brutality are legitimate uses for force" isn't really holding up.  or is it okay to dump people out of wheelchairs or gang rape them?  keep in mind these are only instances caught on video.  i kinda doubt that cops get caught the first time they abuse someone.

jf


----------



## jarrod (Mar 9, 2009)

sgtmac_46 said:


> Pop quiz........Brutality?
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SdoP...eo-catches-fresno-police-beating-homeless-man
> 
> Yes/No


 
i think it was more than was needed.  he popped him once when he was face down with his hands behind his back.  i personally couldn't hit someone who was laying on the ground not trying to hurt me.  maybe these cops just need better training in compliance-holds.  

jf


----------



## jarrod (Mar 9, 2009)

sorry to serial post here, just wanted to add a thought...

_most_ cops i've dealt with on a professional level have been helpful, good people.  but to pretend that there are not abusers in the system adds to the general feeling of public distrust.  you & i can argue all day about what justified & what's not.  but the fact is that this discussion is adding to my general apprehension about dealing with the police.  should i ever be in a situation where, rightly or wrongly, the police suspect me of something, i'm definately going to be concerned as to whether or not the cop i'm dealing with think it's okay to kneel on my neck & punch me in the face if i don't immediately respond to their commands, whether those commands violate my rights or not.  many people just don't feel protected by the cops; they feel intimidated by them.

jf


----------



## jks9199 (Mar 9, 2009)

sgtmac_46 said:


> I've always felt uncomfortable with that order or arrangement.......we took this job for a reason.  Public, Team, Self, Criminal.....that's the order I put priority in, and what I preach to other officers to put priority in.
> 
> Our honor is directly proportional to our willingness to put ourselves in harms way so that others may live.......which means to me other officers and innocent members of the public......the criminals themselves are SOL if it comes to that, because I fully intend on doing unto them before they can do unto me or anyone else.


But you can't protect or serve the public if you haven't made reasonable steps to protect yourself.  And your teammates.

I'm not saying that cops shouldn't take risks to protect others.  It's part of the job description.  But there are good risks and bad risks.  Let me use a HAZMAT response as an example, 'cause it's easier to see.  You roll up on a report of a car crash, and you see everyone it falling down, gasping.  You can run in, try to drag someone out... and if they're going down that fast, probably go down yourself.  Repeat until your squad runs out of people to respond...  Or you can back off, report what you're seeing, and get the HAZMAT team in there to make it safe.  Same sort of thing with an active shooter; there's currently debate about solo entry.  There are absolutely times to make a solo entry, in my opinion -- but generally, you wait until you've got a minimum team to get in with acceptable risks and a decent chance of success.  (This isn't the same as the old "secure the scene and wait for SWAT" approach -- which is also still valid in some situations.)

It's not about perfect safety for the cops -- but about recognizing good and reasonable risks from stupid ones that don't help anyone.


----------



## exile (Mar 9, 2009)

jks9199 said:


> But you can't protect or serve the public if you haven't made reasonable steps to protect yourself.  And your teammates.
> 
> It's not about perfect safety for the cops -- but about recognizing good and reasonable risks from stupid ones that don't help anyone.



This is exactly the same logic that the airline safety instructions follow in telling you, the parent, to get your oxygen mask on yourself before putting your kids' on, should a decompression occur. My impulse would be to get Adrian's on before I did anything about my own. But if you're starting to go into oxygen deprivation, you'll probably never get your kids' masks on anyway, and in any case, if you're unconscious, your children have lost their major protector in a critical situation. You're only useful to them if you're functional. This is the same thing.


----------



## KenpoTex (Mar 9, 2009)

I love how it seems that every thread that touches on use of force (including this one which was _intended_ to be more of a mindset discussion) devolves into a "see, the cops beat people for no reason" debate.


----------



## Archangel M (Mar 9, 2009)

jarrod said:


> http://comegetyousome.com/video/20370/police-brutality(warning!).html
> 
> http://www.comegetyousome.com/video/19448/police-brutality.html
> 
> ...



I agree with SgtMac. This illustrates part of the REASON for this thread. Most people cant tell the difference between excessive force and necessary/reasonable force...these are the same people who protest and complain, influencing police leadership to either unfairly punish officers involved or instill fear of prosecution/lawsuits into their officers, resulting in not using enough force when its required. 

PS- nobody is saying that excessive force doesn't happen. The girl throwing her shoes is one example. I feel sorry for the other officer who I hear was a trainee...


----------



## redantstyle (Mar 9, 2009)

> Pop quiz........Brutality?
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SdoP6...g-homeless-man
> 
> Yes/No


 
pathetic restraint skills is more like it.

can't think of anything better to do then jab the guy in the face?

perceptually, the striking of the face is really something that people find objectionable, on the visceral level. it is something that is widely known to not only hurt, but also considered to be embarassing. so if you see a cop hitting the face of a young girl or old man, it is going to hit a nerve. and in general, striking is more evocative than restraints of various kinds, when it comes to emotive responses.


----------



## Archangel M (Mar 9, 2009)

"Restraint holds" are worthless against active resisters.


----------



## jks9199 (Mar 9, 2009)

Archangel M said:


> "Restraint holds" are worthless against active resisters.


Lots of the time -- restraint holds aren't all that useful against even a passive resister!

They're worse than useless against active resistance...


----------



## jarrod (Mar 10, 2009)

KenpoTex said:


> I love how it seems that every thread that touches on use of force (including this one which was _intended_ to be more of a mindset discussion) devolves into a "see, the cops beat people for no reason" debate.



sorry if i helped lead the thread off topic; i was trying to make the point that i believe there would be fewer frivolous lawsuits against the police if legitimate cases of brutality were seriously & consistently prosecuted.  while i may just be a lowly civilian who doesn't always know the difference between justifiable force & brutality, some of the actions in the links i posted are clearly well beyond what is necessary.  personally i don't get why a suspect lying on the ground needs to be punched in the face, but even if that is accepted practice a good chunk of those videos are still clearly excessive.

my apologies again though for leading things off the original topic.

jf


----------



## blindsage (Mar 10, 2009)

Brutality isn't the norm, but aggression often is.  I can't walk down the street past an officer 90% of the time without getting aggressive looks and a stare down even if I smile and say hello.  Is this suppose to make me feel safe?  I'm actually a fan and a proponent of law enforcement, but there are lines that get crossed fairly regularly.  I've known a few cops and I would say all of them are good people and good cops, but they never acknowledge openly or present a willingness to deal with innapropriate behavior and/or brutality.  I don't want to undermine or discourage the men and women who put themselves out there everyday to protect me and everyone else, I want to support and encourage them, but in return is it really to much to ask that we have some openess and honestly about the lines that do get crossed and what can be done about it?  Is it too much to ask that our officers start making an effort to end the culture that at times protects and defends those officers that do transgress the bounds of their jobs?  I would hope not.


----------



## jarrod (Mar 10, 2009)

jarrod said:


> sorry if i helped lead the thread off topic; i was trying to make the point that i believe there would be fewer frivolous lawsuits against the police if legitimate cases of brutality were seriously & consistently prosecuted.  while i may just be a lowly civilian who doesn't always know the difference between justifiable force & brutality, some of the actions in the links i posted are clearly well beyond what is necessary.  personally i don't get why a suspect lying on the ground needs to be punched in the face, but even if that is accepted practice a good chunk of those videos are still clearly excessive.
> 
> my apologies again though for leading things off the original topic.
> 
> jf



to whoever gave me the anonymous negative rep for this comment; i wasn't being passive aggressive, for your info.  too bad that dissenting opinions make you angry, & that you don't have the courage to publicly state your opinions. 

i was apologizing for my part in veering of topic, pure & simple.

jf


----------



## redantstyle (Mar 10, 2009)

how PC.


----------



## jarrod (Mar 10, 2009)

feel free to elaborate.

jf


----------



## Archangel M (Mar 10, 2009)

Anybody have anything to say about the OP?


----------



## Archangel M (Mar 10, 2009)

sgtmac_46 said:


> The problem is that 95% of what the public perceives as 'brutality swiftly and severely' isn't remotely that at all.....therefore, the public perception is that they are getting off with a slap on the wrist when they didn't do anything wrong in the first place.



Exactly. Just because it "looks" like brutality doesn't make it so. Odd how a thread focusing on how officers dont use enough force when required has turned into a "police brutality" thread.


----------



## jarrod (Mar 10, 2009)

well, as i said, i think the two problems are connected.  but nobody seems to want to address that.  

jf


----------



## redantstyle (Mar 10, 2009)

> feel free to elaborate.


 
your little buddy.  since it's against the rules to be unpleasant, he sniped you instead.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Mar 11, 2009)

jarrod said:


> or the other possibility is that you & i have different definitions of justifiable.  as a cop, you have lost the perspective of a civilian.  you look at these clips & wonder why the dumbass perp doesn't quit "resisting", which in most of these videos looks an awful lot like laying still on the ground.  as a non-cop, i see people who look scared & are afraid to go with the people who are screaming at them, punching them, sticking a gun in their face, etc.  maybe that second clip wasn't excessive force by the legal definition, i don't know.  i do know that if two people were holding me down, one of them kneeling on my throat (aren't chokehold illegal for LEOs?) my instincts wouldn't exactly be screaming "comply".  it's a simple matter of escalation of force; we want people to be aware of it with potential attackers but then fully comply with other people because they have a badge.  i know most cops are decent folks, but my instincts would have a really hard time not reading some of those cops as a legitimate threat.
> 
> now, out of those 4 clips/articles i posted, you claimed that one is not legitimate brutality.  so far your assertion that "95% of the cases of perceived brutality are legitimate uses for force" isn't really holding up.  or is it okay to dump people out of wheelchairs or gang rape them?  keep in mind these are only instances caught on video.  i kinda doubt that cops get caught the first time they abuse someone.
> 
> jf


  I base my opinion based on the standard of objective reasonableness, my knowledge of standards of use of force, and years of court case law.....you obviously base yours on how it makes you feel watching it.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Mar 11, 2009)

jarrod said:


> i think it was more than was needed.  he popped him once when he was face down with his hands behind his back.  i personally couldn't hit someone who was laying on the ground not trying to hurt me.  maybe these cops just need better training in compliance-holds.
> 
> jf


 Are you are aware that he was armed with a pen and was trying to stab the other officer, even while laying on the ground?  That they were trying to force the pen out of his hand?


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Mar 11, 2009)

jks9199 said:


> But you can't protect or serve the public if you haven't made reasonable steps to protect yourself.  And your teammates.


 You take those precautions before hand.  When the moment of truth comes, though, and the choice becomes personal safety or saving the lives of others, personal safety comes second.  If you can achieve both goals, then that's obviously the choice you should make.  It's a hierarchy of decisions......and the safety of others comes first.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Mar 11, 2009)

Archangel M said:


> PS- nobody is saying that excessive force doesn't happen. The girl throwing her shoes is one example. I feel sorry for the other officer who I hear was a trainee...


 And who obviously was damn uncomfortable with the situation, and did nothing wrong for his own part.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Mar 11, 2009)

jarrod said:


> to whoever gave me the anonymous negative rep for this comment; i wasn't being passive aggressive, for your info.  too bad that dissenting opinions make you angry, & that you don't have the courage to publicly state your opinions.
> 
> i was apologizing for my part in veering of topic, pure & simple.
> 
> jf


 It wasn't me......i'll disagree with you in the forum with my name attached to it, for the record.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Mar 11, 2009)

redantstyle said:


> your little buddy.  since it's against the rules to be unpleasant, he sniped you instead.


 Who's his little buddy?  If you're referring to me, let me make it clear that if I want to make someone look like a jackass, i'll do it with my name attached to it.  I don't have a passive aggressive bone in my body.


----------



## exile (Mar 11, 2009)

Folks, things are getting a bit too personalized here. If you've been on MT for any length of time, you'll notice that a point comes in certain threads when the personalities/deficiencies/whatever of other members of the thread becomes the main topic, rather than the OP or anything even close to it. It's easy to get tangled up in the wrangling, but the thread really needs to (i) cool down a _lot_ and (ii) get back to the OP topic. 

If anyone thinks there are certain matters germane to the OP topic that might not seem so at first glance, fine: a  coherent argument to that effect will always be welcome. But the OP has to remain the center of the conversation, or major (and very unpleasant) topic drift is going to result. Just a word to the wise, eh?


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Mar 11, 2009)

redantstyle said:


> pathetic restraint skills is more like it.
> 
> can't think of anything better to do then jab the guy in the face?
> 
> perceptually, the striking of the face is really something that people find objectionable, on the visceral level. it is something that is widely known to not only hurt, but also considered to be embarassing. so if you see a cop hitting the face of a young girl or old man, it is going to hit a nerve. and in general, striking is more evocative than restraints of various kinds, when it comes to emotive responses.



'Looking bad' and being objectively unreasonable are two entirely different things.  I didn't about how the video 'looked' I asked if it were police brutality.  It was a trick question to determine whether you would go based solely on a knee-jerk emotional response of a snippet of video, or would actually research the totality of the case.  There is a legal term......'Totality of the Circumstances'.......and easier word would be 'Context'.

In the case of the girl, the actions were not justified by the totality of the circumstances........in the instance of the gentleman on the ground, however.....

.........get the FULL story on the homeless guy.....first of all....

6'2", 250. He had a warrant for felony assault on a police officer, stemming from an attack where he struck a deputy over the head with the deputy's flashlight. 

You'll also notice, if you find the complete video on AP.....visible for a short few moments at the beginning of the video is the badge of an officer, which he RIPPED off the officers chest in the struggle preceding the video beginning, and in his LEFT is one of the officers pens (A WEAPON!).

That would indicate a PERFECTLY JUSTIFIED AND RIGHTEOUS use of force in striking the suspect in the face! And that force IMMEDIATELY ended once the suspect was finally handcuffed.

Trying to stab an officer with his own pen is justification for punches to the face to remove that deadly instrument from your hand and place you in to custody.

Another video that starts at the end of a longer incident, and is further edited to make the suspect look like the victim, and the police merely violent thugs beating on him for no reason.....which is not REMOTELY what happened here!




Now, we get Monday morning quarter backs telling us they could have done it better.......and perhaps they could.......how many times have you guys wrested a sharp object from a 6'2 250 pound man intent on running you through with it?  In short, is your statement on 'Control tactics' based on REAL world experience, or forum room theory and dojo play?


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Mar 11, 2009)

blindsage said:


> Brutality isn't the norm, but aggression often is.  I can't walk down the street past an officer 90% of the time without getting aggressive looks and a stare down even if I smile and say hello.  Is this suppose to make me feel safe?  I'm actually a fan and a proponent of law enforcement, but there are lines that get crossed fairly regularly.  I've known a few cops and I would say all of them are good people and good cops, but they never acknowledge openly or present a willingness to deal with innapropriate behavior and/or brutality.  I don't want to undermine or discourage the men and women who put themselves out there everyday to protect me and everyone else, I want to support and encourage them, but in return is it really to much to ask that we have some openess and honestly about the lines that do get crossed and what can be done about it?  Is it too much to ask that our officers start making an effort to end the culture that at times protects and defends those officers that do transgress the bounds of their jobs?  I would hope not.


 That openness and honesty points both ways........meaning the public also has to be open and honest with itself about the REALITY that legitimate force isn't ever pretty, even when it's necessary, and whether they want the police arresting violent criminals, or just existing as some sort of social workers with a badge.

I guess the answer to that last question depends on whether you're driving down the road commenting on how the police 'look'......or whether you've just called them to come deal with the armed home invaders that are currently climbing your staircase.  The idea that you can be all things to all people at all times......that you can look like a cuddly, friendly social worker, and still deal effectively with violent gang members, is a bit unreasonable........so some honesty about personal expectations should be in order.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Mar 11, 2009)

Archangel M said:


> Anybody have anything to say about the OP?



Yes, it is my firm belief that there are folks walking the street, or sitting in prison, who should be dead right now, and would be had an officer not hesitated in following his training and his departments use of force policies.

In short, there are some folks who should be getting shot, that officers are risking their own lives and the lives of the public, by hesitation......which has, by prevented those folks from being shot.........by shear luck, sometimes that hesitation results in nobody dying.........other times, that hesitation results in officers and/or the public dying instead!



In short, we have a bunch of cops who are 

1) Afraid of liability to the point that they are frozen in fear when they should be acting.
and/or
2) They don't completely understand use of force law, caselaw and department policy enough to know when they are justified in using force, so they pick a level they know they are safe at, which is often LOWER than they should be using.


The irony of that kind of thinking is that it THESE officers, who use too little force, too late, that get themselves killed, get other officers and citizens killed, and actually result in MORE suspects needing to be killed.

The aggressive application of low-level force PREVENTS the need to escalate to higher levels of force.......even if it makes the shrinking violets in video land queezy.

What officers need to REALIZE is that, even though it can 'look bad', this isn't American Idol (yet!).......the viewers at home don't get to convict you......you STILL have a system of checks and balances to explain your actions in, and they generally side with an officers legitimate use of force, even when it's UGLY use of force, because the system has ways of preventing knee-jerk reactions.


----------



## Archangel M (Mar 11, 2009)

Something I come across in these discussions (it may have even popped up here) is the "cops just expect you do do what they say..." line. Implying that "brutality" stems from officers thinking that they can just tell people what to do and beat them if they refuse. 

Well, if you are being arrested...yeah, we do expect you to "do as you are told". If you don't "do what we tell you" you are resisting arrest which is against the law. This isn't an option..you don't have a choice. I will ask you to comply, tell you to comply then make you comply (unless your actions demand me to go directly to MAKE).


----------



## blindsage (Mar 11, 2009)

sgtmac_46 said:


> That openness and honesty points both ways........meaning the public also has to be open and honest with itself about the REALITY that legitimate force isn't ever pretty, even when it's necessary, and whether they want the police arresting violent criminals, or just existing as some sort of social workers with a badge.
> 
> I guess the answer to that last question depends on whether you're driving down the road commenting on how the police 'look'......or whether you've just called them to come deal with the armed home invaders that are currently climbing your staircase. The idea that you can be all things to all people at all times......that you can look like a cuddly, friendly social worker, and still deal effectively with violent gang members, is a bit unreasonable........so some honesty about personal expectations should be in order.


 
I absolutely agree that it goes both ways. I can't speak for all of the public, but I do recognize the reality (to the best of my non-professional ability) of police work. It's frequently ugly and violent by definition. 

My issue with walking down the street has to do with building relationships with the community, whether you agree with that or not I can't help, but I believe that law enforcement should engage the community, not just patrol it, though this is more of a top down cultural issue than an individual officer one. I'm not lookin for officers to be social workers, but personally I have seen plenty of evidence that dealing with violent gangs is made easier when officers have relationships with the community. I also expect that when something violent actually goes down that they are going to have to do there jobs on that end, I have no illusions about that. It's not about being all things to all people. It's about "to protect and serve". 

I also agree that the vast majority of society has contradictory and ignorant expectations of police officers which creates a lot of difficulty. But at the same time this doesn't excuse behavior that crosses the line from dealing with violent criminals to harrassing people with no evidence but profiling, or crossing the line with the use of force. I'm positive there are plenty of incidents of officers wrongly accused of brutality because of a misunderstanding of the situation by bystanders and other lay people, but I also know of numerous circumstances in which officers harrass and harm people with very little or no provocation, and never see any consequences from their partners, their departments, or the legal system. I want to and do support and defend law enforcement, but law enforcement can't just blame the public for ignorance (which is often legitimate) and not be honest about the transgressions that go on. Saying that it goes both ways only works if you're making an effort to do your part.


----------



## Archangel M (Mar 11, 2009)

Accusing "The Police" of overlooking brutality is implying that we have some sort of national police force. I cant answer for what a PD half the nation away does. And expecting me to bear some sort of responsibility for the actions of some cops I have no association with (or influence the way their PD handles them) is unfair. Police service is "locally served" if your local dept has "issues then do something about it. 

Most people enjoy complaining and pointing fingers rather than acting. If I had a nickle for every "those dirty cops did this to me..." story where the teller did zippo about it..well Id be on a beach somewhere.

This isnt aimed at the last poster. I tend to generalize on these topics vs pointing fingers at individuals.


----------



## blindsage (Mar 11, 2009)

Archangel M said:


> Accusing "The Police" of overlooking brutality is implying that we have some sort of national police force. I cant answer for what a PD half the nation away does. And expecting me to bear some sort of responsibility for the actions of some cops I have no association with (or influence the way their PD handles them) is unfair. Police service is "locally served" if your local dept has "issues then do something about it.
> 
> Most people enjoy complaining and pointing fingers rather than acting. If I had a nickle for every "those dirty cops did this to me..." story where the teller did zippo about it..well Id be on a beach somewhere.
> 
> This isnt aimed at the last poster. I tend to generalize on these topics vs pointing fingers at individuals.


 
How would you suggest people act on this issue?  I'm asking honestly.  

It also seems like much of what you are complaining about it terms of use of force comes from pressure from the public.  Which seems to contradict what you said about acting on it.  You think people should act when they see a problem, but seem frustrated when they do.


----------



## jks9199 (Mar 11, 2009)

First, on the issue of use of force & working cops knowing and understanding case law...  Too many agencies have policies that aren't clear, and are seldom re-explained as they change.  Even fewer officers pay attention to case law unless they're beat over the head with it...

So you've got officers on the streets, working by what they were taught in the academy -- but these issues change all the time.  They've received the last 3 versions of their GOs, maybe even signed for 'em -- but barely read them, and nobody's discussed it with them.  



Archangel M said:


> Something I come across in these discussions (it may have even popped up here) is the "cops just expect you do do what they say..." line. Implying that "brutality" stems from officers thinking that they can just tell people what to do and beat them if they refuse.
> 
> Well, if you are being arrested...yeah, we do expect you to "do as you are told". If you don't "do what we tell you" you are resisting arrest which is against the law. This isn't an option..you don't have a choice. I will ask you to comply, tell you to comply then make you comply (unless your actions demand me to go directly to MAKE).


 
Exactly; the best way to guarantee a decent outcome of a police encounter is to go with the program.  You can file a complaint with the department, the local government, the state attorney general, or even the FBI afterwards if you feel a need -- or (if you must) go to the press.  Just make sure everything is really what you think it is...  

But don't try to argue it on the street or at the jail.  That's just not going to end well...

And I'm not saying that the cops are always right!  There are cops out there who have all the tact and sublety of a water buffallo on speed.  There are even people with badges who are screwed up enough to think that there's nothing wrong with beating someone for daring to question them... or less.  But your odds of coming out of things happy at the time go way, way up if you choose the right time to complain.



Archangel M said:


> Accusing "The Police" of overlooking brutality is implying that we have some sort of national police force. I cant answer for what a PD half the nation away does. And expecting me to bear some sort of responsibility for the actions of some cops I have no association with (or influence the way their PD handles them) is unfair. Police service is "locally served" if your local dept has "issues then do something about it.
> 
> Most people enjoy complaining and pointing fingers rather than acting. If I had a nickle for every "those dirty cops did this to me..." story where the teller did zippo about it..well Id be on a beach somewhere.
> 
> This isnt aimed at the last poster. I tend to generalize on these topics vs pointing fingers at individuals.


 
There are at least 3 or 4 officers responding here.  NONE of us work for the same agency, as far as I know.  You might note that our answers aren't exactly the same...  Now multiply that by the 50000 or so different agencies in the US with law enforcement authority.


----------



## Archangel M (Mar 11, 2009)

blindsage said:


> How would you suggest people act on this issue?  I'm asking honestly.
> 
> It also seems like much of what you are complaining about it terms of use of force comes from pressure from the public.  Which seems to contradict what you said about acting on it.  You think people should act when they see a problem, but seem frustrated when they do.



Well...yeah..I'm a cop. I do get frustrated when people who don't know what it is they are looking at start leveling unfounded accusations. That doesn't mean that we don't think people shouldn't file a complaint when they think something is wrong. That is how departments find out when something really IS wrong. Look, nobody who has force used against them thinks the cops had the right to do so. You can chase an armed felon and wrestle him over a knife and he will file a complaint that he was "abused". In my dept we entertain them all. Peppered in amongst the BS may be the true cases of abuse. They ALL get investigated and many are dismissed as unfounded. Others are founded and the punishment varies. But as JKS said none of here work together and our experiences and opinions will vary as much as civillians perception of the "police". I cant answer...and refuse to take responsibility for what the police in your area do or dont do. 

While there are "bad cops" out there, nobody says there isnt, its a two way street. WE cant let the bad apples slide and YOU shouldnt be making judgements based solely on media representation, word of mouth or youtube videos.


----------



## Archangel M (Mar 11, 2009)

jks9199 said:


> And I'm not saying that the cops are always right!  There are cops out there who have all the tact and sublety of a water buffallo on speed.  There are even people with badges who are screwed up enough to think that there's nothing wrong with beating someone for daring to question them... or less.  But your odds of coming out of things happy at the time go way, way up if you choose the right time to complain.



Exactly. It seems to be a recurring theme in these sorts of threads that "we" (cops) have blinders on when it comes to this stuff. I dont know how to express the facts of the job when it comes to "officer types" and the dynamics of dealing with them. I have seen many officers terminated for misbehavior...no "thin blue line" here. And I have seen MANY MORE investigated over situations where either the complainant outright lied or had justified force used against them. Of course they are out running their mouths about how we all "close ranks" behind our cops....again that's MY AGENCY. I don't know how anybody elses operates.


----------



## redantstyle (Mar 11, 2009)

> Who's his little buddy? If you're referring to me, let me make it clear that if I want to make someone look like a jackass, i'll do it with my name attached to it. I don't have a passive aggressive bone in my body.


 
cant imagine why you are directing this towards me.

jarrod said he got an _anonymous_ neg rep.

and for the record, if i thought it was you (how in the hell would i know?), then i would call you out directly.  

since everyone is being so open...

regards,

J Michael Barr


----------



## redantstyle (Mar 11, 2009)

> 'Looking bad' and being objectively unreasonable are two entirely different things. I didn't about how the video 'looked' I asked if it were police brutality. It was a trick question to determine whether you would go based solely on a knee-jerk emotional response of a snippet of video, or would actually research the totality of the case. There is a legal term......'Totality of the Circumstances'.......and easier word would be 'Context'.


 
by default, my answer was 'no'.  

i then went on to explain what i felt was a major point of perception in regards to 'police brutality'.   i was merely making an observation, not a recrimination.   

'cept maybe for their jujutsu skills.

i've been picked up on bench warrants for traffic tickets and license violations...behind the wheel of course.  my experience with the police has been stellar.  i treated them like gentlemen, and was treated the same in return.  

i'm not anti-cop, not even close.  all i am doing is pointing out a cause/effect sequence as i see it.

regards,

J Michael Barr


----------



## jks9199 (Mar 11, 2009)

Archangel M said:


> Exactly. It seems to be a recurring theme in these sorts of threads that "we" (cops) have blinders on when it comes to this stuff. I dont know how to express the facts of the job when it comes to "officer types" and the dynamics of dealing with them. I have seen many officers terminated for misbehavior...no "thin blue line" here. And I have seen MANY MORE investigated over situations where either the complainant outright lied or had justified force used against them. Of course they are out running their mouths about how we all "close ranks" behind our cops....again that's MY AGENCY. I don't know how anybody elses operates.


I've been the subject of or a prominent name in several Internal Affairs investigations.  Been cleared in every citizen complaint, too.  I do my job, do it right, and do it within the law.  But that doesn't mean that every person I encounter walks away happy to have met me, either.  And just because they're not my newest fan doesn't mean I did anything wrong, either...


----------



## redantstyle (Mar 11, 2009)

> Now, we get Monday morning quarter backs telling us they could have done it better.......and perhaps they could.......how many times have you guys wrested a sharp object from a 6'2 250 pound man intent on running you through with it? In short, is your statement on 'Control tactics' based on REAL world experience, or forum room theory and dojo play?


 

i'll base it on over thirty five years of martial arts practice with copious amounts of nhb sparring, and some _real fights_ even.

i'll stand by my assessment of their restraint skill level.  given the position they have him in at the point the video starts, between the two of them, given sufficient training, they should have been able to immobilize him.

but i will draw back a bit and say that i was a bit harsh, as they are cops and not expected to be accomplished martial artists. 

and frankly, given the extra info you provided, if he had a weapon, then i feel they took it very easy on him. 

and really, you just mistook the tone of my original post. 

regards,

J Michael Barr


----------



## Archangel M (Mar 11, 2009)

And just because something "could have been done better" doesn't make the way it WAS DONE wrong. And I will add (from experience) that dojo training, sparring and civilian fights are vastly different from apprehending someone. From experience I will restate that restraint holds against an active resister just dont work often enough to be trusted in this line of work.


----------



## redantstyle (Mar 11, 2009)

> And just because something "could have been done better" doesn't make the way it WAS DONE wrong.


 
sure, but there is always 'better' too.  my critique is from an ma pov, on an ma board, so...



> And I will add (from experience) that dojo training, sparring and civilian fights are vastly different from apprehending someone. From experience I will restate that restraint holds against an active resister just dont work often enough to be trusted in this line of work.


 
i understand.  there really is no such thing as a 'hold'.  and because you cant start dropping heads on the ground, or hyperextending joints, it limits your options to things that aren't liable to be effective.   without hitting them on top of it. 

my only real point here is that hitting is more likely to be viewed as 'brutality'.

take the video with the girl who kicks her shoe off.  what really stands out in that are the overhand rights he throws while she is face down on the floor.  

i think what is core to this is the violation of the mythical image of police that the average person has.  i may be going out on a limb here, but it seems that if you use your 'lineage' weaponry, namely guns, batons, pepper spray, tasers, or gas to disable someone you wont get the same kind of backlash from the public because it's more accepted.  

in contrast, it seems uncouth, or uncivilized even, for the police to use their fists.

if that makes any sense.

regards,

J Michael Barr


----------



## Archangel M (Mar 11, 2009)

redantstyle said:


> i think what is core to this is the violation of the mythical image of police that the average person has. i may be going out on a limb here, but it seems that if you use your 'lineage' weaponry, namely guns, batons, pepper spray, tasers, or gas to disable someone you wont get the same kind of backlash from the public because it's more accepted.
> 
> in contrast, it seems uncouth, or uncivilized even, for the police to use their fists.
> 
> if that makes any sense.


 
Yeah. I understand what you are saying and can see how people would view that. 

Even with the perception that we have all the gizmos that allow us to arrest people with "minimized force", there are also people out there that would call "brutality" if the officers Tased the guy or started hitting his legs with batons (as was shown in a previous example of "excessive force"). So sometimes it seems like a "no win" situation where anything more than some friendly suggestions to comply will be seen as excessive.

On one hand, as an American I like the fact that my fellow citizens prize their freedom and question authority. On the other hand these same people employ me to "keep the peace" but dont want to really SEE what that job sometimes requires. Everybody wants the cops to "deal with the law breakers" unles THEY are the law breaker if you know what Im saying.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Mar 12, 2009)

Archangel M said:


> Something I come across in these discussions (it may have even popped up here) is the "cops just expect you do do what they say..." line. Implying that "brutality" stems from officers thinking that they can just tell people what to do and beat them if they refuse.
> 
> Well, if you are being arrested...yeah, we do expect you to "do as you are told". If you don't "do what we tell you" you are resisting arrest which is against the law. This isn't an option..you don't have a choice. I will ask you to comply, tell you to comply then make you comply (unless your actions demand me to go directly to MAKE).



It's an immature person who says 'Cops just expect you to do as you are told'.......because that is a person who doesn't realize what police are, which is an extension of society.  It's a 17 year old 'Rebel without a clue' mentality.

SOCIETY expects you to obey the laws, and have charged the police with ensuring that you do so.....and they have granted them the force of law, and the authority to use whatever force is necessary to gain compliance.

Now, if the laws were unjust, some folks would have an argument.  But laws against not robbing our neighbors, not stealing, not raping, not driving so drunk you can kill other people......those are not unjust laws.  And if we accept that the laws are not unjust, then we have to accept that those who REFUSE to obey those laws are the ones in the wrong, and have NO RIGHT to resist arrest when confronted by the lawful authority.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Mar 12, 2009)

Archangel M said:


> Accusing "The Police" of overlooking brutality is implying that we have some sort of national police force. I cant answer for what a PD half the nation away does. And expecting me to bear some sort of responsibility for the actions of some cops I have no association with (or influence the way their PD handles them) is unfair. Police service is "locally served" if your local dept has "issues then do something about it.
> 
> Most people enjoy complaining and pointing fingers rather than acting. If I had a nickle for every "those dirty cops did this to me..." story where the teller did zippo about it..well Id be on a beach somewhere.
> 
> This isnt aimed at the last poster. I tend to generalize on these topics vs pointing fingers at individuals.


 Excellent point!  Local police forces tend to take on the views of the local political authorities, which are, in turn, a reflection of the local community.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Mar 12, 2009)

blindsage said:


> How would you suggest people act on this issue?  I'm asking honestly.
> 
> It also seems like much of what you are complaining about it terms of use of force comes from pressure from the public.  Which seems to contradict what you said about acting on it.  You think people should act when they see a problem, but seem frustrated when they do.



Here's the problem......when a doctor is alleged to have screwed up, he is judged by a medical board that is made up of experts in the field he is alleged to have screwed up in.

When a lawyer is alleged to have screwed up, he is judged by a board of lawyers who are likewise experts.

When a pilot is alleged to have made a mistake, the NTSB has a board of experts that review the facts.

But when a police officer is alleged to have screwed up, many folks want him judged by the opinion of laymen with ZERO experience or understanding of the dynamics involved.

Is the public right to point to a possible problem?  Yes, but the public also needs to be open minded enough to realize that Starsky and Hutch didn't prepare them to judge the objective reasonableness of a use of force, devoid of any facts but a 30 second video.

Use of force is ugly......but, then, so is surgery.  But we have surgery shows on television, so everyone knows surgery when they see it.  Violence, as prolific as media violence is, is sanitized and distorted.  

Real violence looks very little like the violence T.J. Hooker used to subdue the bad guy.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Mar 12, 2009)

redantstyle said:


> cant imagine why you are directing this towards me.
> 
> jarrod said he got an _anonymous_ neg rep.
> 
> ...


 Fair enough......my apologies for the misunderstanding.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Mar 12, 2009)

redantstyle said:


> by default, my answer was 'no'.
> 
> i then went on to explain what i felt was a major point of perception in regards to 'police brutality'.   i was merely making an observation, not a recrimination.
> 
> ...


 True, but you'll notice that even excellent 'jujutsu skills' sometimes deteriorate in to the 'Ground and Pound' even among so called submission experts. 

I agree that striking looks bad, and I tell my officers that.  If they can use an arm bar or even a strangle over a strike, it'll look better to the public.  

But at the end of the day, when a man is trying to stab you with a pen, you really have to do what you have to do.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Mar 12, 2009)

jks9199 said:


> I've been the subject of or a prominent name in several Internal Affairs investigations.  Been cleared in every citizen complaint, too.  I do my job, do it right, and do it within the law.  But that doesn't mean that every person I encounter walks away happy to have met me, either.  And just because they're not my newest fan doesn't mean I did anything wrong, either...


 If every person you dealt with walked away happy with you......you wouldn't be doing your job.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Mar 12, 2009)

redantstyle said:


> i'll base it on over thirty five years of martial arts practice with copious amounts of nhb sparring, and some _real fights_ even.
> 
> i'll stand by my assessment of their restraint skill level.  given the position they have him in at the point the video starts, between the two of them, given sufficient training, they should have been able to immobilize him.
> 
> ...


 I apologize if I mistook your tone.  Further, my retort was a bit sharper than I intended.

As to the point of submission skills, you are correct......most police officers are not world-class submission artists......further, even world-class submission experts, when fighting MMA and Vale Tudo, often find themselves in a position where find themselves needing to resort to using 'Ground and Pound' techniques.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Mar 12, 2009)

Archangel M said:


> And just because something "could have been done better" doesn't make the way it WAS DONE wrong. And I will add (from experience) that dojo training, sparring and civilian fights are vastly different from apprehending someone. From experience I will restate that restraint holds against an active resister just dont work often enough to be trusted in this line of work.


 No, we have to apply the 'Objective Reasonableness' standard......not the 'If I had 2 weeks to study the video of the exact scenario, I could come up with a fool-proof way of responding' standard.

We take a snippet of a violent, dynamic and chaotic situation, broadcast it, watch it dozens of times, and then conclude that we could have done better, somehow.

The same folks who Monday morning quarter back such situations should consider this......what if, on their job, they had a video camera watching them at a truly chaotic crisis point, and then hundreds of thousands of folks, many of whom are already hostile toward them based solely on what they do for a living, get to give their critique of how they failed.

Now, some folks will say 'Police work isn't like other jobs......if you don't want the scrutiny, don't take the job....' and that's a fair assessment on many levels.......law enforcement does NEED a level of scrutiny above many other jobs in a free society........but if folks are going to take upon themselves the task of judging the actions of others, they BY RIGHTS need to truly educate themselves on those actions.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Mar 12, 2009)

redantstyle said:


> sure, but there is always 'better' too.  my critique is from an ma pov, on an ma board, so...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 I agree with your points, and I make them myself in training.  But also stress to officers that they MUST NOT put themselves or others in harms way simply to avoid 'appearing' a certain way.  

If two techniques will both get the job done equally, and one is more provocative, choose the less provocative one.  But if two techniques might get the job done, but the less provocative one is MORE likely to backfire and get you or someone else hurt, BE PROVOCATIVE!

It's sometimes a damned uncivilized and uncouth job.......or, more specifically, how does one subdue a blood, wacked out, PCP addled rock troll, and still appear couth and civilized?  It sometimes gets really ugly.......but, then, most people can't watch open heart surgery, either.

How do you make this look pretty? http://media.putfile.com/copshot

It's a violent, brutal, primal struggle for survival, that ends up with one person bleeding and dead.


----------



## Archangel M (Mar 12, 2009)

Fortunately it was the right person bleeding and dead in this case.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Mar 12, 2009)

Archangel M said:


> Fortunately it was the right person bleeding and dead in this case.



EXACTLY!  And I point out Trooper Cress as a guy who was doing it right, he had the will to survive, and he'd obviously physically prepared for such an encounter as his balance was fairly decent when he was riding the thug in question, and staying on top.  

But even with the text book 'doing it right'.....it's an ugly thing shooting an armed man in the back of the head......right, necessary and justified.......but viscerally ugly none-the-less.


----------



## jks9199 (Mar 12, 2009)

Archangel M said:


> Yeah. I understand what you are saying and can see how people would view that.
> 
> Even with the perception that we have all the gizmos that allow us to arrest people with "minimized force", there are also people out there that would call "brutality" if the officers Tased the guy or started hitting his legs with batons (as was shown in a previous example of "excessive force"). So sometimes it seems like a "no win" situation where anything more than some friendly suggestions to comply will be seen as excessive.
> 
> On one hand, as an American I like the fact that my fellow citizens prize their freedom and question authority. On the other hand these same people employ me to "keep the peace" but dont want to really SEE what that job sometimes requires. Everybody wants the cops to "deal with the law breakers" unles THEY are the law breaker if you know what Im saying.


The bottom line is that the bad guy needs to end up in cuffs, transported to the jail.  All of the various force options are simply a tool to achieve that goal -- and none of them can eliminate the need to put the cuffs on the bad guy.  (All right; a gun can, in one sense.  If he's dead -- then he's not going to jail.)  So barring something like mind control gun that makes the bad guy walk where we want him to -- we're never not going to have to go hands on at some point in the process.

As martial artists, we often have idealized views of what happens in fights.  The general public does, too, thanks to TV and movies.  Walker takes the bad guys out with a flashy series of kicks and they go down...   Batman goes at the bad guy like a Cuisanart on "mince to oblivion" but nobody gets badly hurt...  Boxing movies like the Rocky series and *Million Dollar Baby* and *Raging Bull* are some of the most realistic fight scenes; they ain't pretty!  When was the last time a sparring match looked "pretty?"  Way too often, you don't even have a clue about the styles by what two fighters are doing in the ring!  

It's even worse in the real world; remember the effects of adrenaline and the stress of a fight.  Lots of those wonderful techniques that work great in the training hall just plain go out of the mind under that pressure.  Others rely on fine motor control that has vanished.  Real use of force, even in ideal situations, is just plain ugly.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Mar 13, 2009)

jks9199 said:


> The bottom line is that the bad guy needs to end up in cuffs, transported to the jail.  All of the various force options are simply a tool to achieve that goal -- and none of them can eliminate the need to put the cuffs on the bad guy.  (All right; a gun can, in one sense.  If he's dead -- then he's not going to jail.)  So barring something like mind control gun that makes the bad guy walk where we want him to -- we're never not going to have to go hands on at some point in the process.
> 
> As martial artists, we often have idealized views of what happens in fights.  The general public does, too, thanks to TV and movies.  Walker takes the bad guys out with a flashy series of kicks and they go down...   Batman goes at the bad guy like a Cuisanart on "mince to oblivion" but nobody gets badly hurt...  Boxing movies like the Rocky series and *Million Dollar Baby* and *Raging Bull* are some of the most realistic fight scenes; they ain't pretty!  When was the last time a sparring match looked "pretty?"  Way too often, you don't even have a clue about the styles by what two fighters are doing in the ring!
> 
> It's even worse in the real world; remember the effects of adrenaline and the stress of a fight.  Lots of those wonderful techniques that work great in the training hall just plain go out of the mind under that pressure.  Others rely on fine motor control that has vanished.  Real use of force, even in ideal situations, is just plain ugly.


 Excellent, excellent points.

By the way, speaking of Hollywoodized violence, did you happen to see the movie 'Eastern Promise' with Viggo Mortensen?  The Turkish bath fight scene was a pretty good example of avoiding the flashy to get to the more realistic (as realistic as play acting can appear) ugly violence.


----------



## Hudson69 (Apr 21, 2009)

My agency hadn't lost an officer in 20 years when suddenly we lost two in under a year; it was rough.  The first officer died due to inexperience or overconfidence but tragic none the less. The second died to the inexperience of another officer who is no longer on the department by choice, for that reason but in any event because of the sacrifices of these two fine officers we have been actively addressing that "I will be sued mind-set."  

The academy, we have our own, still covers liability but it is relegated to a small portion of each class that has a high liability factor (guns, tasers, DT and so on) because we dont want anyone going into a situation where a gun should be out but "we dont want to get complained on because we pointed a gun at somebody with a felony warrant for assault."  

We also do not want someone to rely to heavily on a taser because it is so much safer than going hands on; there is a time and a place for DT/Arrest Control and there is a time for the taser, not always the same time.

I know that we are members of a modern society but we are the warriors of that modern society and we need to be able to protect our citizens from the predators  Corrupting our confidence(s) and putting too much worry in our hearts will only lead to more officers getting hurt or quitting because we are mired in the thoughts of "potential litigation."


----------



## diamondbar1971 (Apr 21, 2009)

Hudson69 said:


> My agency hadn't lost an officer in 20 years when suddenly we lost two in under a year; it was rough. The first officer died due to inexperience or overconfidence but tragic none the less. The second died to the inexperience of another officer who is no longer on the department by choice, for that reason but in any event because of the sacrifices of these two fine officers we have been actively addressing that "I will be sued mind-set."
> 
> The academy, we have our own, still covers liability but it is relegated to a small portion of each class that has a high liability factor (guns, tasers, DT and so on) because we dont want anyone going into a situation where a gun should be out but "we dont want to get complained on because we pointed a gun at somebody with a felony warrant for assault."
> 
> ...


 

a lot of issues within law enforcement is attitude.  a large percentage of officers are very young and most have a good heart mind and soul, but it seems that they are all taught the same accross the country and they think they are 10 ft tall and bullet proof; if you couldn't take care of yourself before the academy, you sure as hell can't after either. my personal favorite is a 21 year old officer stating "i am a trained observer" to a person who has been driving longer than the officer has been on this planet...its not intimidating, its pathetic...the veteran officers need to instill in the rookies that police officers are citizens themselves and also that they may be a police officer, but they too are still a civilian, a civilian police officer, nothing more nothing less, be cool, be nice, but ever on the alert!  too much military style within law enforcement and the general public is aware of this and that that creates problems-oh well have a nice day.


----------



## Archangel M (Apr 21, 2009)

on about the "civilian" vs "cop" thing..I refer to Merriam Webster:

ci·vil·ian 
Pronunciation: \s&#601;-&#712;vil-y&#601;n also -&#712;vi-y&#601;n\ 
Function: noun 
Date: 14th century 
1: a specialist in Roman or modern civil law
2 a: one not on active duty in the armed services *or not on a police or firefighting force *b: outsider 1
&#8212; civilian adjective 

Police officers are expected to behave to a different standard 24/7/365 and can face far more serious job repercussions for off-duty behavior than "civilians" .

Not that you are doing it here, but after years of taking "civilian complaints" regarding officer behavior (like saying "Im a trained observer" to an older "civilian") is that more complaints are about the "civilian" not liking have been subject to a young cops legal authority than they are about any inappropriate behavior. Their ego got a bit bruised and they didnt like the feeling of having someone with the authority greater than theirs "talking down to them". The worst officer safety habit I can think of is having a cop act like (or forget) that they are a COP, with the authority and responsibility to act where others do not. 

Nobody likes "having their peepee slapped", but the "civilian" thing just makes me roll my eyes. LEO's have different duties, powers (even off duty) and limitations on their behavior than "civilians" regardless of someones dislike for them or their title.

Having been a soldier as well...even soldiers are subject to the local flatfoots authority.


----------



## Archangel M (Apr 21, 2009)

PS-Cops are as much (if not more) an "agent of the government" as a soldier is.


----------



## jks9199 (Apr 21, 2009)

I get so sick of that "civilian" argument...

Yes, police are representatives of the civil authority.  Yes, the term "civilian" originally distinguished military members from the general public.  But, unless you're being pedantic, it's commonly understood now to have a broader meaning.  "Civilian" personnel in a police department (or fire department) are those who are not sworn personnel (yes, many places still swear firefighters in); the support staff, dispatchers, and others who aren't directly engaged in the primary function of the public safety agency.  And to the population at large.

What other term would you suggest?  Laity?  "non-sworn people?"  

It's become a term of convenience, the same way that even though Xerox is a brand name, we don't generally say "photostatic copier."

Too often, those falling back on that argument seem to be trying to derail the actual discussion, rather than actually face issues raised.


----------

