# Police brutality.



## someguy (Jun 10, 2004)

this kind of stuff doesn't happen often but I now am curious about what to do.
So my best freinds cousin was pulled over and beaten by a sheirff for no good reason(to my knowledge) and then sent home.  
After I had heard about this I began to wonder what to do if this ever happened to me.  You would get in major trouble if you fight back.  So should you just cover up or what?  
What do you do afterwards?  Who do you report that kind of stuff to?


----------



## Touch Of Death (Jun 10, 2004)

Good luck with that one. Society's secret weapon against that kind of behavior is the video camera. Too bad your best freinds cousin wasn't wearing one in his hat.
Sean


----------



## Flatlander (Jun 10, 2004)

Yeah, don't fight back.  You'll need yourself later to lodge a complaint.  take it directly to internal affairs.  They will investigate it.  But be wary of people saying they were beaten "for no reason".  There are more people out there wanting to cover up their own mistakes with false accusations than there are police rolling around looking for someone to beat down.  Generally speaking, of course.


----------



## loki09789 (Jun 10, 2004)

someguy said:
			
		

> this kind of stuff doesn't happen often but I now am curious about what to do.
> So my best freinds cousin was pulled over and beaten by a sheirff for no good reason(to my knowledge) and then sent home.
> After I had heard about this I began to wonder what to do if this ever happened to me. You would get in major trouble if you fight back. So should you just cover up or what?
> What do you do afterwards? Who do you report that kind of stuff to?


You are an uninvolved 3rd party.  You can't really do anything but complain to the department.  If your cousin is a minor, the parents can take action, if he is an adult, he can do so.  Too vague on info right now though.  And I would strongly advise that you don't start spinning a story here because if there is any legal action taken, it can undermine things a lot.


----------



## someguy (Jun 10, 2004)

I'm not involved in the stuation.  I'm  just wondering what the best thing to do would be if I ever was.
Oh this is the middle of no-where sheiriffs department so where would you report that kind of stuff?  I don't think there would be an internal affairs department.


----------



## MichiganTKD (Jun 10, 2004)

I don't know about anyone else, but if I feel an officer is beating me up for unjustifiable reasons (civil disobedience, just wants to see me suffer), I'm going to fight back. He may have a stick or spray, but I will use all my energy and willpower to make him suffer as well. I will die with my boots on.
I just think of all those incidents in the past where police attacked unarmed civilians and the civilians did not fight back. I would have taken a few officers out as well.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Jun 10, 2004)

someguy said:
			
		

> I'm not involved in the stuation.  I'm  just wondering what the best thing to do would be if I ever was.
> Oh this is the middle of no-where sheiriffs department so where would you report that kind of stuff?  I don't think there would be an internal affairs department.


Truth is you would be burnt. Think of this little grey area as a good reason to mind your Ps and Qs. I know two ex police officers that quit the force for just this reason; they would witness a fellow officer do something stupid and were expected to shut up about it. They did, but they both chose other lines of work. Cops are people too, and when pushed they will react like people. A little respect will grease the wheels, I say. But we all know peole who just gotta say something abrasive no matter what. I know one guy that I used to work with that was laughing about the police brutality he brought down on himself when he kept talking about the sexual relations he had with the officer's wife. I don't think he even blamed the officer after he sobered up.
Sean


----------



## Touch Of Death (Jun 10, 2004)

MichiganTKD said:
			
		

> I don't know about anyone else, but if I feel an officer is beating me up for unjustifiable reasons (civil disobedience, just wants to see me suffer), I'm going to fight back. He may have a stick or spray, but I will use all my energy and willpower to make him suffer as well. I will die with my boots on.
> I just think of all those incidents in the past where police attacked unarmed civilians and the civilians did not fight back. I would have taken a few officers out as well.


Can you say bullet sponge?


----------



## Han-Mi (Jun 10, 2004)

Knowing myself as I do, which is pretty well, I think I would fight back to the extent of putting the officer into a lock that would have no permanent damage. Of course if he pulled his baton or gun, I might not be able to have such restraint, Of course, there are many police officers that know me and would vouch for my self control, so I would prolly have a good chance in court against the cop.  In other words, if you decide to fight back, expect to end up in court.


----------



## Flatlander (Jun 10, 2004)

Or dead.  When an officer is subject to unrelenting force, they will shoot, if they must.

Isn't the point to live another day?  If you feel you're being beaten for an unjustifiable cause, resistance will absolutely cause an escalation.


----------



## Disco (Jun 10, 2004)

An unjustified beating, or any beating for that matter, can have major physical results. There is a big gulf between being roughed up and beaten. The term resisting arrest covers a wide range of actions. My personal opinion is, I would submit to a normal restraint and arrest. I would not however, to the best of my abilities, allow myself to be physical beaten into a state of broken bones, head injuries or worse. As was pointed out, cops are human too and also are not perfect. There are some, thankfully a very, very small number, who revel in their position of authority and abuse it most freely. I can stand before a Judge and a jury of my peers and at least state my case, if I devert such a beating. If I'm in a hospital bed in a veg state, I'm finished.


----------



## Cryozombie (Jun 10, 2004)

I would think, if one HAD to fight in those circumstances, and was able to win/get away...

The first thing I would do is High-tail it to the nearest State Police Headquarters, ask for a supervisor, and Turn myself in, explaining in detail what happened, why i fought back, and why I turned myself in...

HOEPFULLY that will:
a) make me look better in a trial situation, 
b) put me out of harms way of the podunk sherriff or his people who were beating me...

And I would Hope to hell that cop car had a dash cam.


----------



## FasterthanDeath (Jun 10, 2004)

Well if your cousin was pulled over and beaten right outside his car, the Sheriff should have a camera in his car. I believe it is now standard that all police cars have cameras in their dash. And as far a fighting a police officer or defending yourself, your just out of luck. You will more than likely be peppered, beat, and probably shot. As soon as the officer calls for assitance the other officers will not stop the both of you and ask whats going on? They will just pounce on you. And if you somehow hurt, disarm, ko, or even kill an officer in COMPLETE self-defense unless you had the whole thing on tape, YOU WILL LOSE IN A COURT OF LAW. And as far as cops being people too, they arent when they are working. They are cops.  I dont care if they pull over the guy that killed the cops whole family and raped his daughter. He is first a cop. Second a human. They cannot feel anything but 1. fear for the public, 2. fear for themselves. Thats all.


----------



## Tgace (Jun 10, 2004)

Beat for no reason and let go?? Thats a big "UHH YEAH?" If I ever saw it. 99.999% of the time, If the police have to "lay hands" on you, you are going to be arrested. Not arresting just opens you up to questions about why you used force...even in a "corrupt cop" type situation, the cop would drum up some false charges to cover the beating....Id be wary of your friends story.


----------



## muaythaifreak (Jun 10, 2004)

I agree with tgace. Chances are pretty high that your friends cousin is not telling the whole story. I don't know of anyone who ever got beaten up by the cops and was subsequently released without being taken to jail. Additionally, if it really were an undeserved beating, he would have taken action pretty quickly. Police brutality has become less and less common place due to the fact that most cruisers, even in "nowhereville" USA, have in car cams which activate either with the blues, or they are required to activate them manually whenever they pull someone. Cops are really taking great pains to cover thier butts when dealing with the public these days. In short, there is probably more to the story than you have been made privvy to.


----------



## dearnis.com (Jun 10, 2004)

I agree with the above.  He did something to provoke a response...whether it was appropriate may be another question.  What was he charged with?


----------



## Tgace (Jun 10, 2004)

The original post says the guy was stopped, beat and let go.


----------



## rompida (Jun 10, 2004)

Well.....not really wanting to say this, but...  It does happen.  I know of a police officer who has told me about some incidents that I think may have crossed the line.  But - the suspect initiated it by making a threatening move or just mouthing off while stepping closer to the officer.  When I asked him about it, he said that taking that step closer, combined with his agitated tone was cause enough to crack him in the head with a slapjack (sp?).  Bottom line, I would guess your cousin's friend didn't just "do nuthin".  He probably got a little out of line.


----------



## someguy (Jun 10, 2004)

I don't know what he did.  I would belive there was something.  I doubt it was to big after all my friend's cousin isn't in jail now.  I don't know all of the story.  The main reason was that I'm curious to what the best course of action is for a situation similar to this.  Mainly the whole being beaten thing.


----------



## Tgace (Jun 10, 2004)

Dont poke the bear.

btw: Who carries "slapjacks" anymore??


----------



## loki09789 (Jun 10, 2004)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Dont poke the bear.
> 
> btw: Who carries "slapjacks" anymore??


Is this another name for or a misnaming of a 'blackjack'?  I have never heard of a slapjack, but that doesn't mean it aint out there or that there is another name for the same tool.


----------



## lonecoyote (Jun 10, 2004)

I think slapjack might be another name for flat sap. I've seen one as recently as about 5 years ago. Flat piece of lead wrapped in leather, looks kind of like a blackjack. No one should ever fight with an officer, no matter the circumstances, just cover and pray, because you're never fighting with just one officer, if there's trouble there's more on the way. And they will use how ever many it takes.


----------



## 8253 (Jun 11, 2004)

you shouldnt believe everything you hear.  however if it did happen without cause the person who beat on him should be reprimanded.  as far a fighting with a LEO, it is probably not a good idea.  They usually win.


----------



## dearnis.com (Jun 11, 2004)

> The original post says the guy was stopped, beat and let go.



so it does....16 hours on duty does not help reading comprension/retention.  

Some southern departments still carry blackjacks/slapjacks; a decent tool (IMO), but between the liability and the risk of blood-borne pathogens in this day and age one whose time has passed.


----------



## rompida (Jun 11, 2004)

It was a blackjack/slapjack.  Sorry for the confusion.  I hadn't thought about his story in such a long time.  Anyway, it wasn't all that long ago.  Maybe 5 years ago, in southern part of North Carolina.  Don't want to give specifics, you know to protect the... guilty.      Its a rough town.  I had the misfortune of being there when I was a young teen.  Happened to be there when there was a KKK rally.  Wasn't a pretty scene.  The cops were being threatened from both sides - the clan members and the very upset people on the streets who were on the verge of rioting.  Bottom line - Its a job I wouldn't want, but can understand how an officer might hit first and then ask questions once the person was cuffed.


----------



## Bammx2 (Jun 11, 2004)

......"I fought the law and the.....law won!"

"yes sir" and "no sir" goes a long way..........
Being from North Carolina originally,I do know of one incident on a small town where this actually happened; a man was hit for no good reason by a cop....and the man kicked off!
 The only thing that saved HIS *** was the fact that it all took place in FRONT of the dash-cam and the whole thing was recorded.
And considering both my "granpappies" was police chiefs of "podunk" towns way back when.........
It doesn't hurt one bit to be AS POLITE AS YOU CAN to any police officer!
 Just use common sense and don't push it...
run like hell if you need too! they aren't really allowed to shoot you in the back


----------



## Tgace (Jun 11, 2004)

Oh I know what a slap/blackjack is...I just thought they disappeared in the 60's.


----------



## Gary Crawford (Jun 11, 2004)

I got unneccisarily roughed up by a cop once.I called every lawyer in town,none of them would even consider taking the case.They had to live there too.Best advise-don't piss off the cops!


----------



## Tgace (Jun 11, 2004)

A lot of this is "perspective"..for example, I once was dealing with a warrant suspect by myself. I told him to put his hands on my car ("spread him out") and told him not to move. He moved and I kicked out his legs and pinned him to the trunk with my arm. Now Im sure he thought I was "unnecessarily roughing him up" (his girlfriend sure did) because hey, whats wrong with picking your hands up off a trunk? But from my point of view its was much different.


----------



## muaythaifreak (Jun 11, 2004)

Good point Tgace, the average person does not realize what an LEO goes through every day. When someone does not comply with an order from an LEO, all kinds of **** can happen and often does. If you're not going to comply with keeping your hands on the car, what else are you not going to comply with. When you're dealing with LEO's, you need to do what they tell you to do, exactly as they tell you to do it. It's for your own protection as well as theirs.  An LEO's main objective is to go home at the end of his/her shift.  And most will do whatever is necessary to insure that they will be able to do just that.


----------



## MichiganTKD (Jun 12, 2004)

I understand that. However, if an officer is being a jerk or not listening to me, I refuse to just take it. I'm not anti police. Not at all. I am pro sticking up for myself if I have to. If a police officer is being rough with me and does not listen to my complaints, I will stick up for myself. If he tries to use a stick or spray or whatever, I will respond appropriately.
We have this mentality in this country that a police officer can do no wrong and is always right. 99% of the time he probably is. But again, I will stick up for myself if it comes down to it, and I mean no disrespect against cops.


----------



## Flatlander (Jun 12, 2004)

I believe that though you come from a noble position on this, dealing with law enforcement from this type of position increases the likelyhood of getting tangled up in legal messes.  The fact is that we are all subject to rule of law.  A police officer's job is to administer that law.  Regardless of his temperment or approach, when he's talking, you're best to pay attention.



> However, if an officer is being a jerk or not listening to me, I refuse to just take it.


Becoming arguementative just reinforces in his mind that this could go somewhere.  Keep in mind that these guys get into violent situations (on average) more in one day than most civilians do in their whole life.  They come from a position of toal aawareness, and are always ready to escalate.  _They are there to win, and must do so at all costs._

There are no greater percentages of police officers "out to get you" than there are regular civilian folk out walking the streets.  In fact, I would argue that there are likely fewer.  We need to let these people do their jobs.  If you feel you've been wronged, escalate it up the chain of command.

If you have a problem dealing with the authorities, move to Afghanistan for a while, and see what you learn.  

No disrespect to anyone's point of view.  My family is all currently LEO or retired.  This one touches me in the bad spot.


----------



## Tgace (Jun 12, 2004)

Posted this on an old thread but it bears repeating here...

Dont argue law on the scene. If you think Im right or wrong, on the street Im "always right". In court I can be wrong. That may sound pompus, but thats the way it goes. If I say "you are under arrest" you are under arrest even if you didnt do it. If I was mistaken, court is where that will be decided. If I was negligent or did something illegal then I could face charges later. Resisting, running or fighting will just result in more charges. And those can stand up even if my arrest was illegal.


----------



## Cryozombie (Jun 12, 2004)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Dont argue law on the scene. If you think Im right or wrong, on the street Im "always right". In court I can be wrong. That may sound pompus, but thats the way it goes. If I say "you are under arrest" you are under arrest even if you didnt do it. If I was mistaken, court is where that will be decided. If I was negligent or did something illegal then I could face charges later. Resisting, running or fighting will just result in more charges. And those can stand up even if my arrest was illegal.



While I dont disagree that is "The way it is" it doesnt make it right...

As LEO, your "opinion" may be that on the "Scene" you are a god among men, until the courts prove you wrong...

What about the "innocent" guy you drag in, who gets stripped, printed, humiliated, detained, and AND, even if he is "cleared of charges" still has an ARREST on his record?  I really dont like the idea that the LE Community who is there to "Protect and Serve" is running amok with the attitude of 



			
				Tgace said:
			
		

> Im "always right".



because regardless of how well it turns out in court, its not the LEO's reputation, time and considerable amount of money in the trash... But I'm sure that isn't considered.

I'm not anti-cop either, and, athough I have been treated completely unfairly on several past occasions, I still manage to treat the police I come in contact with in a respectful manner.  I train with cops, I attend BBQs with cops, and my father is a retired cop... I know what they go thru... 

But I also hear stories of them "abusing" their power "just because".  At a BBQ I was at last summer, one of them was telling a story and lauging about macing some woman for no reason, except because she argued with him... and the other cops there just laughed about it.  Hell, there is a thread in the Firearms section about a cop who tased a 9year old... It happens... And I think its the small handfull of cops who think "I am always right" that make the rest of us afraid of the majority of "good cops".

And, Tgace, that is by no way a slam on you, I dont know you, From most of your posts I believe that you are in the majority of good cops, but your words did hit home with the point I was trying to make...


----------



## Tgace (Jun 12, 2004)

Example: You didnt steal a guys $20.00..the "guy" calls the cops, tells me that you stole his $20.00, saw you do it and is willing to sign a complaint, you were in the same place as this guy at the same time, you have $20.00 (of your money) in your pocket. Im arresting you. You are totally innocent but if you argue, ignore my orders, fight, resist, run, you are going to pile up legitimate charges even if in court the guy admits that he "framed" you.

or more realistically, your girlfriend calls and says you hit her and wants you arrested (even if you didnt) the same thing goes. 

You are looking at my statement like it was being said by that cop on "The Shield". Im coming from the point of view that if I have "probable cause" (which isnt absolute proof) to arrest you, I am "right" regardless of what you know or think...trying to "fight it out" on the scene is a BAD idea. Do you recommend that people be allowed to debate with the police over if they are really under arrest or not on the street??

For the record I said "Dont argue the Law...", I never said that If I Tase a 9yo or OC somebody for the hell of it "Im always right."


----------



## Tgace (Jun 12, 2004)

Technopunk said:
			
		

> But I also hear stories of them "abusing" their power "just because". At a BBQ I was at last summer, one of them was telling a story and lauging about macing some woman for no reason, except because she argued with him... and the other cops there just laughed about it.


Ive seen you reference this story a few times now. A question I have is was this woman arrested? Or did he just spray any passerby for the heck of it and go on his merry way? If I was arresting a woman and she began "arguing": read screaming, waving her arms around, refusing to obey commands and giving me the impression that she was going to fight my attempts to cuff her, Id probably spray her too.


Revisit this thread....
http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=12084


----------



## psi_radar (Jun 13, 2004)

This is one of those disturbing parts of living under a "system." You're in "the system" pretty much as soon as those lights go on in the squad car, and you're at its mercy until you're "out" through proper procedures. And it's up to that officer how deeply he wants to take you into the system--depending of course on the evidence against you. Like as was already said, an old girlfriend can lodge a complaint against you, and most likely you'll spend a night in jail, have to go to court, etc. even if she's lying. This could result in the loss of your job, lawyers fees, etc., and there's not much you can do about it. You are innocent until proven guilty, but along the way, you'll probably have to prove your innocence. 

 I've been at the hands of a "overzealous" rookie cop and luckily I had the presence of mind to just take what he was giving. Later, as the officer's handling of the situation was reviewed by a senior officer, they pretty much dropped everything. 

I think the most scary part of it is where the line is drawn. LEOs have a tough job but I don't think they realize that most people are simply not used to accepting the types of physical manipulations they throw down without eliciting a serious physical reaction. I, personally, woud not respond well to someone trying to hogtie me. It's against my nature. I doubt most LEOs would respond well either. Powers that be, be damned, it's hard to take getting your face shoved into a cruiser if you feel you haven't done anything wrong. And where along the line, when you're getting kicked in the head, does self preservation have to kick in, and the system be damned?


----------



## Tgace (Jun 13, 2004)

Dont take this the wrong way, but just because you "feel" youve done nothing wrong dosent mean you havent. What kind of "system" would you recommend? One where we have to have 2 lawyers and a judge at the scene to determine if an arrest is warranted? I can fully understand and sympathize with a person whos been arrested in instances like I previously mentioned. From my point of view however, very few people say "yes officer I did it, please take me to jail." I hear "I didnt do it!" from people Ive observed "doing it". If I had a hand held 100% reliable lie detector, my job would be so much easier.

People want us to "arrest bad guys" or "do something" about stop sign passers, kids smoking pot in the parks, noise complaints etc. etc. Until its them or their loved ones who are being arrested/ticketed. 

As you said, this is how our "system" works. And its held up as an example in many corners of the world. Fortunately, our system is much "kinder and gentler" now believe it or not. Ask people who had LEO contact here back in the 60's-70's what it was like then. I believe that the majority of instances are deserving arrests. Just yesterday my partner and I were complimented by a guy we were arresting for how considerate and polite we were. The day before we had to drag a person out of a closet, needless to say we didnt get as good of a review.

BTW: The only time Ive seen "hogtying" is when a subject is trying to kick out windows, banging their heads into the windows/cage or refusing to be put into the car after arrest. If you get yourself to that point you have gone "over the edge" already.


----------



## Tgace (Jun 13, 2004)

From the US Dept. of Justice...



> Among those patted down by police, 70% said they were also
> handcuffed or force was threatened or used during the contact.
> For the 5 out of 6 respondents who attributed the contact to police
> suspicions about them and who were not patted down, less than 6%
> ...


----------



## Cryozombie (Jun 13, 2004)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Ive seen you reference this story a few times now. A question I have is was this woman arrested? Or did he just spray any passerby for the heck of it and go on his merry way? If I was arresting a woman and she began "arguing": read screaming, waving her arms around, refusing to obey commands and giving me the impression that she was going to fight my attempts to cuff her, Id probably spray her too.



Tgace,

I cannot say if she was arrested, as the cop never stated this, at least while I was there. It was my understanding she was still in her car the time, however. To cover his a$$ I would bet he did in fact find some reason to arrest her. The thing about this story that bugs me most tho, is not that she got maced, hell, better that she got maced than beaten with a club, but that all the other cops at the BBQ got a good laugh at her expense.  It was like no one thought to question why he would mace a woman simply for being beligerant, it made ME think that the police take pleasure in being bullys...

And by your own admission... although not in these exact words...

"Perception is reality, Until Perception Changes" 

Even if they were good cops, with justification for doing it... that was not the way the story was being told... Imagine if I came on this board, 

"Dude, you should have seen it, this guy in this bar was getting all beligerent and I did a jumping sidekick and broke his sternum, and he fell to the ground and it was so cool!"

How many people here would attack me for my attitude and tell me that I didnt understand the spirit of the martial arts?  The situation may have been different, and I may actually have been justified, but did it sound that way?


----------



## Tgace (Jun 13, 2004)

Yeah I can understand that....when you overhear cops talking "shop" between themselves though its like dojo "war stories". Like telling the story about how your buddy jumped around, screaming like a little girl when you inadvertently stomped on his toe. It was different when it happened but you get a laugh out of it now.....is this the case here? I dont know, maybe this guys a loose cannon. But keep that in mind.


----------



## hedgehogey (Jun 14, 2004)

I remember reading in my local paper about an alleged "drug dealer" who used BJJ to escape being handcuffed.

Still, I wouldn't reccomend relying on your hands and feet to get away from 5-0. They got guns after all.


----------



## psi_radar (Jun 14, 2004)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Dont take this the wrong way, but just because you "feel" youve done nothing wrong dosent mean you havent. What kind of "system" would you recommend? One where we have to have 2 lawyers and a judge at the scene to determine if an arrest is warranted? I can fully understand and sympathize with a person whos been arrested in instances like I previously mentioned. From my point of view however, very few people say "yes officer I did it, please take me to jail." I hear "I didnt do it!" from people Ive observed "doing it". If I had a hand held 100% reliable lie detector, my job would be so much easier.



Ha ha, I didn't recommend a solution for a better system since I can't think of one.   Maybe I miscommunicated, I was trying to say that generally, LEOs expect people to be compliant under all circumstances, since they represent the powers that be and are just trying to sort out a situation and resolve it, however, this is where a fundamental disconnect can happen. People that believe they are innocent of wrongdoing may not want to be put into the system for very good reason and may choose to express themselves in some fashion and from an LEO standpoint this could lead to an escalation of action, since of course, from their perspective, they're always in the right. 

I didn't really want to tell this story, but this is how I got my point of view. In college a girlfriend of mine was being stalked by an ex-boyfriend. I was on the phone with her one night when he broke into her apartment and started beating her up. I lived about three miles away. This being before everyone carried a cell phone, I drove up as fast as could and didn't call 911 until I arrived at her dorm. The ex had already left. When the police finally arrived, they immediately claimed they could smell marijuana smoke. This was before they even asked my GF whether or not she was ok and needed medical attention. We hadn't been smoking, and the smell, well it was a college dorm for chrissakes, it's soaked into the walls. I got upset with the deputy because he seemed to have no interest in going after the ex, or the medical condition of my GF, just in the source of the pot smell. I got in an argument with him (nothing physical) and I ended up being in "the system" for about a day, missed a test and a class. My frustration was rooted in the fact we called for help, and what we got in return was the shaft. The ex, on the other hand, never suffered any repercussions, as I recall. On a happy note, the girlfriend healed up all right.

So I feel some individuals in the law enforcement community have misguided priorities. Hey, we're all human, right? I believe they are truly the exception, I have utmost respect for most LEOs--the majority of whom regard their jobs as protectors of the community first. But overzealous, powerblinded LEOs are out there. One episode of COPS should provide sufficient evidence of this. The power an LEO weilds honestly frightens me, since in the wrong hands it can result in life-altering encounters.


----------



## loki09789 (Jun 14, 2004)

psi_radar said:
			
		

> Ha ha, I didn't recommend a solution for a better system since I can't think of one.  Maybe I miscommunicated, I was trying to say that generally, LEOs expect people to be compliant under all circumstances, since they represent the powers that be and are just trying to sort out a situation and resolve it, however, this is where a fundamental disconnect can happen. People that believe they are innocent of wrongdoing may not want to be put into the system for very good reason and may choose to express themselves in some fashion and from an LEO standpoint this could lead to an escalation of action, since of course, from their perspective, they're always in the right.
> 
> I didn't really want to tell this story, but this is how I got my point of view. In college a girlfriend of mine was being stalked by an ex-boyfriend. I was on the phone with her one night when he broke into her apartment and started beating her up. I lived about three miles away. This being before everyone carried a cell phone, I drove up as fast as could and didn't call 911 until I arrived at her dorm. The ex had already left. When the police finally arrived, they immediately claimed they could smell marijuana smoke. This was before they even asked my GF whether or not she was ok and needed medical attention. We hadn't been smoking, and the smell, well it was a college dorm for chrissakes, it's soaked into the walls. I got upset with the deputy because he seemed to have no interest in going after the ex, or the medical condition of my GF, just in the source of the pot smell. I got in an argument with him (nothing physical) and I ended up being in "the system" for about a day, missed a test and a class. My frustration was rooted in the fact we called for help, and what we got in return was the shaft. The ex, on the other hand, never suffered any repercussions, as I recall. On a happy note, the girlfriend healed up all right.
> 
> So I feel some individuals in the law enforcement community have misguided priorities. Hey, we're all human, right? I believe they are truly the exception, I have utmost respect for most LEOs--the majority of whom regard their jobs as protectors of the community first. But overzealous, powerblinded LEOs are out there. One episode of COPS should provide sufficient evidence of this. The power an LEO weilds honestly frightens me, since in the wrong hands it can result in life-altering encounters.


Could it also be that you were rightfully concerned and upset for your GF, but expressed it in a way that didn't help the situation at all? Hind sight being 20/20 you should have called first and then left. You know that now it seems, but where I think there is a confusion over who is responsible for what. Cops are not responsible for anyones emotional state, nor are they responsible for how poorly a person maintains composure.


----------



## DavidCC (Jun 14, 2004)

MichiganTKD said:
			
		

> I understand that. However, if an officer is being a jerk or not listening to me, I refuse to just take it. I'm not anti police. Not at all. I am pro sticking up for myself if I have to. If a police officer is being rough with me and does not listen to my complaints, I will stick up for myself. If he tries to use a stick or spray or whatever, I will respond appropriately.
> We have this mentality in this country that a police officer can do no wrong and is always right. 99% of the time he probably is. But again, I will stick up for myself if it comes down to it, and I mean no disrespect against cops.


HAHAHAHA LOL Good Luck with that!


----------



## psi_radar (Jun 14, 2004)

I remained relatively calm given the situation. As for calling first, yeah, I probably should have, but listening to someone I cared about getting hit on the other end of the phone sort of skewed my judgement. 

After getting grilled on the dope matter for a couple minutes I just asked the deputy why he wasn't focused on what I had called him about in the first place--the threat of the ex and my GF's welfare. He then got emotional and escalated the hostility of the exchange. You had to be there, hard to describe. He was cursing a lot, being generally disrespectful to both of us. I only expressed my displeasure with his priorities. I wasn't expecting him to be some kind of crisis counselor, just prioritize the issues--My GF's safety and the apprehension of the threat rather than some imagined drug infraction.

It's a really long story. I've thought about it a bit over the years and, devoid of emotion, I still see the situation the same way. In retrospect, I probably should have called an ambulance first to keep everyone's priorities on track. The deputy was later reprimanded by his superior in front of me for his behavior toward me, but that's another segment of the story.


----------



## Tgace (Jun 14, 2004)

psi_radar said:
			
		

> It's a really long story. I've thought about it a bit over the years and, devoid of emotion, I still see the situation the same way. In retrospect, I probably should have called an ambulance first to keep everyone's priorities on track. The deputy was later reprimanded by his superior in front of me for his behavior toward me, but that's another segment of the story.


I think this part of your story is important when talking about "The Police" in general.


----------



## psi_radar (Jun 14, 2004)

"I think this part of your story is important when talking about "The Police" in general."

The reprimand wasn't for his handling of the scene, but his continued harassment of me while I was trying to write a statement back at the station. His sergeant referred to him in confidence to me as young and perhaps a little too "gung-ho." 

The only way I am referring to the police in general is in regard to the power they all possess. As I've stated, I think most LEOs are good people, but they are human and individuals. There are those that might be tempted to abuse that kind of power, and there are many documented cases of this. There would not be internal affairs departments if this wasn't the reality. 

But, as I said, I don't have a better solution to offer except for maybe tighter entrance screening, continued training, and active discouragement of an US VS. THEM mentality.


----------



## Tgace (Jun 14, 2004)

Cant disagree with anything you said there....and you are right about cops being "individuals". The only way to screen out the bad ones is not to be afraid to report them if they act dishonorably. Just dont report them because you want "revenge" for getting a ticket though. That happens too.


----------



## muaythaifreak (Jun 20, 2004)

psi_radar said:
			
		

> "But, as I said, I don't have a better solution to offer except for maybe tighter entrance screening, continued training, and active discouragement of an US VS. THEM mentality.


The "us vs them" mentality is a survival mechanism, and is necessary to some extent. If a police officer approached every situation with full trust in the individuals in question not to harm them, there would be a lot of dead cops out there. You must remember, most of the people officers come into contact with are not happy about them being there and a good number of them would just as soon shoot a cop as to give them a statement. I hate to put it this way, but if it comes down to hurting someones feelings in order to go home at night, I'm gonna hurt some feelings. Cops are not there to make you feel good about yourself, or to make you feel good about the situation you are in. First and foremost is officer safety. They are there to protect you and to enforce laws. (dead cops cannot do this.) And if he thinks there are drugs around, there is a good chance that there are people using those drugs, and in most cases if there are drugs, there are weapons and people unconcerned with using those weapons. You must remember, not everyone thinks like you and not everyone respects the police. Therefore, it is necessary to an officers survival that he treat you as though you are a threat. Cops do not know you, they do not know that you mean them no harm. A large percentage of the people they deal with on a regular basis DO mean them harm if they get the chance to inflict some. A cop who does not approach you as a threat is a careless cop. Do not take this as if I'm saying that cops should be rude and uncaring, they should however come across as confident and in charge. One can be polite and still be effective. But if impoliteness is what it takes to get control of the situation, I'm all for it. Your feelings are secondary to my safety.


----------



## Flatlander (Jun 20, 2004)

muaythaifreak said:
			
		

> Cops are not there to make you feel good about yourself, or to make you feel good about the situation you are in. First and foremost is officer safety. ......You must remember, not everyone thinks like you and not everyone respects the police. Therefore, it is necessary to an officers survival that he treat you as though you are a threat. Cops do not know you, they do not know that you mean them no harm. A large percentage of the people they deal with on a regular basis DO mean them harm if they get the chance to inflict some. A cop who does not approach you as a threat is a careless cop. Do not take this as if I'm saying that cops should be rude and uncaring, they should however come across as confident and in charge.  Your feelings are secondary to my safety.


It's due to these facts that we civilians, who are NOT about breaking the law as a course of our regular activities, can best assist the system by just following orders when they're given.  If we want our tax dollars to work efficiently, let these guys do their jobs.  If you've  done nothing wrong, what's to worry about?  If you have, accept the consequences and move on.


----------



## Disco (Jun 23, 2004)

Anybody see the recent arrest (today on fox news) of the L.A.P.D. and the stolen car suspect?


----------



## Flatlander (Jun 23, 2004)

No, I'm stuck at work, explain it to us if you can.  Thanks.


----------



## Tgace (Jun 23, 2004)

Refer to...

http://www.shout.net/~lee/chrisrock.asf


----------



## Cruentus (Jun 23, 2004)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Refer to...
> 
> http://www.shout.net/~lee/chrisrock.asf



 :uhyeah:


----------



## Flatlander (Jun 23, 2004)

too funny dude!:rofl:


----------



## StraightRazor (Jun 23, 2004)

More than a bit of truth in that huh?


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Jun 24, 2004)

That link is excellent.  I *heart* Chris Rock.

I have met some very nice police officers, and have heard stories about some that were not too favorable of the officers.  



> The only way I am referring to the police in general is in regard to the power they all possess. As I've stated, I think most LEOs are good people, but they are human and individuals. There are those that might be tempted to abuse that kind of power, and there are many documented cases of this.


----------



## muaythaifreak (Jun 24, 2004)

great link!!


----------



## Flatlander (Jun 24, 2004)

This is a true story, which should be verifiable if you search CBC.ca (Canadian News.)

A couple of years back, near the outskirts of Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, the body of a Native Canadian man was found frozen to death in a field.  He appeared to have died wearing little more than a t-shirt, shoes and pants.

It was discovered that the last place anyone had seen him was in the back of a police car.  It was later determined that this was a regular occurrence.  The Saskatoon Police would, on occasion, pick up a Native person for pulic intoxication or disturbing the peace or whatever, and take them out of town and drop them off, basically just to keep them out of everyone's hair until they could make their way back to town.  But this time they had done it in the middle of winter.  

Saskatchewan winters are brutal.  Nighttime temperatures dip below -76 degrees Farenheit.  People can freeze pretty quickly, particularly without appropriate winter gear.

There are currently 2 officers on trial for this event.


----------



## tshadowchaser (Jun 24, 2004)

6-24-04
 Police in LA filmed beating down a suspect who seems to have surrendered. It is on all the news casts. Any thoughts on this one?


----------



## Tgace (Jun 24, 2004)

Any info. on if the subject was injured or needed medical attention??


----------



## StraightRazor (Jun 24, 2004)

tshadowchaser said:
			
		

> 6-24-04
> Police in LA filmed beating down a suspect who seems to have surrendered. It is on all the news casts. Any thoughts on this one?



"everybody knows. If the police have to come get you, theyre bringing an @** kicking with them."-Chris Rock


----------



## tshadowchaser (Jun 24, 2004)

Only report on subject says "facial injuries"
 Folm shots from Hilocopter where pretty clear. Incident now under investagation by FBI as well as internal affairs


----------



## Tgace (Jun 24, 2004)

tshadowchaser said:
			
		

> Only report on subject says "facial injuries"
> Folm shots from Hilocopter where pretty clear. Incident now under investagation by FBI as well as internal affairs


I think they should look at the officers history and see if this is a one time thing. If it is maybe an administrative punishment. If hes a hot head maybe more.


----------



## tshadowchaser (Jun 25, 2004)

Good thoughts .
If there is a history he will most likely get the feds realy interested.
Trouble with far range filming is you do not have the sound so we can't hear what was said , if anything.


----------



## muaythaifreak (Jun 25, 2004)

I think "seems to have surrendered..." is the point that should be of most interest.  The camera was not "right there".  Therefore, the guy may have been resisting in a way that was not apparent to outside observers.  Not everything is as it may first appear to be.


----------



## Littledragon (Jun 25, 2004)

someguy said:
			
		

> this kind of stuff doesn't happen often but I now am curious about what to do.
> So my best freinds cousin was pulled over and beaten by a sheirff for no good reason(to my knowledge) and then sent home.
> After I had heard about this I began to wonder what to do if this ever happened to me. You would get in major trouble if you fight back. So should you just cover up or what?
> What do you do afterwards? Who do you report that kind of stuff to?


As a martial artist knowing what you could do, do not fight back. I would say go directly to the Chief Of Police in that certain city and desrcibe the situation. The best weapon in this situation is patience, humbleness, and calmness. Just relax and explain everything that happened.

Tarek


----------



## Kevin Walker (Jun 28, 2004)

flatlander said:
			
		

> Yeah, don't fight back. You'll need yourself later to lodge a complaint. take it directly to internal affairs. They will investigate it. But be wary of people saying they were beaten "for no reason". There are more people out there wanting to cover up their own mistakes with false accusations than there are police rolling around looking for someone to beat down. Generally speaking, of course.


Unfortunately people do get beaten by the police for "no reason", and if you've ever taken the subway late at night and see the transit cops kick an unconscous wino in the head just for fun, or witness a cop beat a helpless vagrant in a dark alley just for spite, then you will realize the ugly reality that the police are not always the good guys.


----------



## Kevin Walker (Jun 28, 2004)

Littledragon said:
			
		

> As a martial artist knowing what you could do, do not fight back. I would say go directly to the Chief Of Police in that certain city and desrcibe the situation. The best weapon in this situation is patience, humbleness, and calmness. Just relax and explain everything that happened.
> 
> Tarek


If you're a career criminal or choose crime as a way of life, then getting shot, beaten, or incarcerated is just an occupational hazard.

BUT, if you're a decent and average adult male (over 35) and very good in your style, and you get attacked by a cop for 'no reason' (and it happens), then by all means defend yourself against that cop.

It is an ugly reality that you will have to face sometime as an adult that the police are not the good guys!

Cops have beefs with each other all the time.  Also, EMT's and Paramedics have the largest amount of lawsuits against cops for assault & battery.  Go ask a Paramedic in your city if he or she has hand any run-ins with the police, and see what they say.

Do you remember the 1970s TV episode KUNG FU, where blind Master Po is slapped in the face by a royal guard?  And when the guard leans back to crack him in the face a second time, the humble & patient Buddhist monk Master Po calmly bends the guard (cop) over with a painful wrist lock and says: "Even the emperor's guard shouldn't hit an old man in the face twice!"  

This also applies to the police in America today!  If you've done nothing wrong, then there is no reason to allow yourself to get injured by a cop!  Then, after you've successfully defended yourself, call an ambulance for the cop, then submit a complaint.


----------



## Flatlander (Jun 28, 2004)

> Then, after you've successfully defended yourself, call an ambulance for the cop, then submit a complaint.


I think you need to change the 'after' to 'if'.

I maintain that it is the primary responsibility of an officer of the Law to escalate their use of force until they win.  The unfortunate truth in this circumstance is:  Irrespective of the justification for the beating you may take, without a witness, it comes down to your word against theirs.  This is a battle you will always lose.  These officers have sworn an oath on their word, and the entire system is built upon that foundation.


----------



## Kevin Walker (Jun 28, 2004)

flatlander said:
			
		

> I think you need to change the 'after' to 'if'.
> 
> I maintain that it is the primary responsibility of an officer of the Law to escalate their use of force until they win. The unfortunate truth in this circumstance is: Irrespective of the justification for the beating you may take, without a witness, it comes down to your word against theirs. This is a battle you will always lose. These officers have sworn an oath on their word, and the entire system is built upon that foundation.


If you're a proficient martial artist with the requisite number of street fights under your belt, the cop loses.

The ugly reality in these here United States is that the police are not the good guys, and you have a fundamental right to defend yourself against anybody!  Yes, the police are liars, drug dealers, and mafia members, and being confronted by the police is no less pleasant than being surrounded by the hells angels.  And if you're a decent adult not associated with criminals or involved in a left-wing or right winged protest, there is still no reason for you to be injured by a cop.  And yes, you will be involved in the judicial system for a number of years with a chance of imprisonment for doing the right thing.  So its a choice you will have to make, defend yourself, or live with scars on your face and conscious for the rest of your life, and allow that dangerous cop to remain in society.  Life is complicated for the skilled and talented.  When you make a comittment to the martial arts,  you are taking on some serious responsiblities.


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Jun 28, 2004)

> If you're a proficient martial artist with the requisite number of street fights under your belt, the cop loses.


Unless he has pulled his gun on you, and you still come at him.  Unless he has a partner, or backup arriving.  

I completely understand that some cops are "not the good guys".  Some are.  I still think it is a losing proposition to take on an officer.



> When you make a comittment to the martial arts, you are taking on some serious responsiblities.


I don't understand - as part of my martial arts training, I am not telling myself that I will always take someone else on. My first option in many situations is to run away as fast as possible.  Another option, when confronted with an angry or violent cop, may be to flee if possible, and get to the police station where (hopefully) others will keep him or her from going after you.   



> So its a choice you will have to make, defend yourself, or live with scars on your face and conscious for the rest of your life,


I think everything we do marks us.  I think being incarcerated would leave worse marks than being roughed up by the cops.  Not a choice anyone should have to make, obviously.


----------



## Kevin Walker (Jun 28, 2004)

Feisty Mouse said:
			
		

> Unless he has pulled his gun on you, and you still come at him. Unless he has a partner, or backup arriving.
> 
> I completely understand that some cops are "not the good guys". Some are. I still think it is a losing proposition to take on an officer.
> 
> ...


I hate to paraphase from the spiderman movie, but with great power comes great responsibility.  You are now dealing with some thorny issues in society that you might come into contact with.  Again, if you are a decent unassuming non-criminal adult, and you are faced with an unprovoked attack by a cop (YES this does happen in America), and you are really really good in the martial arts, and you're not a Buddhist monk or something, then by all means defend yourself.  

If a cop, or a hell's angel or a heroin addict, comes at you with a drawn gun, it is the same thing!  Yes sir, no sir, yes sir, no sir, yes sir, no sir - but you do have an equal chance of getting shot in all scenarios.  The police are not the good guys, and you need to rid one's self of a boy scout attitude toward the police before you become another statistic.

You're walking home at night, you take a shot cut through an alley, you come upon a police officer selling drugs to a pimp, they both see you, the cop attacks you.  Are you not going to defend yourself?
If you're an adult male with 30+ years of martial arts experience with a bunch of street fights to your credit, yeah, you kinda defend yourself. 

In the video tape of the beating, I saw a guy running from a police officer, stop, got down on his knees, placed his hands behind his head giving himself up, then got beaten.   Absolutely unnecessary.  Shoddy, unprofessional, and criminal conduct on the part of the police.   These accounts of police brutality are happening with too much frequency to be isolated incidents.  America has a police problem pure and simple.

But as an excellent and talented martial artist, all you have is the right to defend yourself - against anybody.


----------



## Flatlander (Jun 28, 2004)

Mr. Walker, I'll have to bow out of this one.  I think that perhaps you and I live in two completely different realities.

The fact of the matter is, the city in which I live has fewer than 200,000 residents, nearly a quarter of the population in a territory larger than California.  Simply put, its like a big small town.  Many people from rural backgrounds, and the farm blood here for the large majority runs back two generations at most.  Things are pretty calm up here.

As well, much of my family is LEO, and I know many of the approximately 300 members of the local force.  Though I am not LEO by profession, my culture is painted in blue.  

I cannot speak intelligently on matters of which I have no experience, and it sounds to me as though you live in complete anarchy.  I do not understand, given your expressed opinions, why you choose to stay wherever it is you are.

Around here, the Rule of Law is supreme.

Thank you for the discussion.


----------



## Tgace (Jun 28, 2004)

Small Town, Mid-Size, Metro, State Police, Sheriffs, etc.....the cultures, attitudes and policies and proceedures are as varied as different dojos of the same art can be. Painting us all based on the actions of a few is as wrong as judging based on race religon etc.


----------



## Kevin Walker (Jun 28, 2004)

flatlander said:
			
		

> Mr. Walker, I'll have to bow out of this one. I think that perhaps you and I live in two completely different realities.
> 
> The fact of the matter is, the city in which I live has fewer than 200,000 residents, nearly a quarter of the population in a territory larger than California. Simply put, its like a big small town. Many people from rural backgrounds, and the farm blood here for the large majority runs back two generations at most. Things are pretty calm up here.
> 
> ...


Sorry if I came across too strong.  I'm from Boston, Massachusetts for fifty years.  Everything I have mentioned I have either witnessed or encountered first hand.  There is a book written by an acquaintance of mine called: STREET SOLDIER in which he relates paying off police, lawyers and judges.  I have seen this happen.  The city of Boston has about a 2,000 man police force, most of whom I consider punks and losers.  I would never allow a policeman in my dojo.  Again, I'm sorry for this dose of reality.  I believe in democracy and justice and the United States Constitution, not the rule of law.  I've seen the law fail too many times.  Thanks for your patience.


----------



## Kevin Walker (Jun 28, 2004)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Small Town, Mid-Size, Metro, State Police, Sheriffs, etc.....the cultures, attitudes and policies and proceedures are as varied as different dojos of the same art can be. Painting us all based on the actions of a few is as wrong as judging based on race religon etc.


Not really.  The police are consistently violent.  I taught Taiho Jitsu (arrest and restraint tactics) to a midsize town police department in central Massachusetts for two years from 1972-74.  Yet in all my eyewitness accounts of police violence, and documentary evidence, I have never seen police use arrest techniques other than brute force and ignorance.  When I see a transit cop in Boston kick an unconscious wino in the subway, that is not an isolated incident.  Or when I see a drunken state policeman throwing empty beer cans out of his cruiser into the Charles River at 6:00 am, this is not another isolated incident.  Or when I go to a small northern Massachusetts town on a job interview, and while quietly waiting on a park bench for my appointment, a cop armed to the teeth and dressed like a commando verbally harasses me in a town whose major crime is a barking dog or drunk teenager, again the police are making another consistent negative impression.  Until I see or hear about more police getting arrested for breaking the law, the police will always remain a threat to freedom and democracy in the United States.


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Jun 28, 2004)

Kevin

That saddens me a great deal - I have friends in the Boston area, I hate to think of a mass of corrupt (and armed!) cops who would harm law-abiding civilians.

I have a question, and I mean it in a very sincere, and non-snarky way. What would your alternative be to law enforcement in this country?

Thanks

FM


----------



## Kevin Walker (Jun 28, 2004)

Feisty Mouse said:
			
		

> Kevin
> 
> That saddens me a great deal - I have friends in the Boston area, I hate to think of a mass of corrupt (and armed!) cops who would harm law-abiding civilians.
> 
> ...


Hi, Thank you for asking that excellent question. (By the way, I'm from South Boston, I grew up watching police whacking people for nothing, and whacking people who are jerks.  The problem is that the police don't really care which is which.  Do you remember last year on Tremont street when the manager of a retail store called the police because some punks were acting up in his store?  The Boston Police stormed in and arrested everybody: the manager, the punks, and all the customers, saying they would let the courts figure it all out!

Police are: 1) After the fact, they arrive after the crime is committed.
2.) Are corrupt, since they frequently contribute to crime, getting rid of them would lower the crime rate.  The United States has the highest crime rate in the world existing alongside the largest police force in the world.  How can the two coexist if the police are effective against crime?
3.) Are violent, they frequently escalate and exacerbate a tense situation into a riot.
4.) Are hypocritical, Officer Friendly isn't friendly! 
5.) Have become a state within a state, police unions frequently dictate terms to the mayor.  Police have become a threat to democrary.
6.)  Are undermining, registered voters have lost control of their mayor, and the mayor has lost control of his police department.
7.) and the police have become the first among equals, rules and regulations applicable to other civilians don't seem to apply to the them: i.e., police break the law to enforce the law, they shoot the shooters, they speed to catch speeders, and murder the murderers.  They frequently act as judge, jury and executioner, as now commonly caught on videotape. 

My alternative to law enforcement in this country would be to do away with the police altogether and institute in cities and towns a constabulary and/or a night watch.  There are small towns in Maine whose city and town councils won't allow a police force.  A constabulary costs half as much as a police department and is equally effective/ineffective against crime.
The night watch would consist of neighborhood patrols.

A few years ago in Boston, the Guardian Angels did a better job of crime prevention than the Boston police.  They embarrassed the cops and were asked to leave.

We know who the criminals are in my neighborhood, yet can't do anything about them without getting into trouble with the police.  The police are useless and are not a deterrent against crime, so its best not to waste taxpayers money on them.

I hope this helped explain my utopia, a world without police, just a constabulary and a night watch.  Thanks!


----------



## Tgace (Jun 28, 2004)

I was going to respond, but it would obviously be futile.......


----------



## Tgace (Jun 28, 2004)

The Police Officer 

What is a police officer made of? He or she, is at the same time the most needed and yet the most unwanted...a strangely nameless creature who is "officer" to their face and "pig" behind their back.

They suffer from an overdose of publicity about brutality and dishonesty. They suffer far more from the notoriety produced by the unfounded charges. Too often, acts of heroism go unnoticed and the truth is buried under all the criticism.

*The fact is that less then one half of one percent of police officers ever discredit their uniform. Thats a better average than you will find among clergymen.*

A police officer is an ordinary man or woman who is called upon for extra ordinary bravery. Their job may sometimes seem routine, but the interruptions can be moments of stark terror.

They are the ones who face a half crazed gunman, who rescues a lost child, who challenges a mob and who risks his or her neck more often than we realize. They deserve our respect and profound thanks.

A police officer must be such a diplomat that he or she can settle differences between individuals so that each person will think we won. But if the police officer is neat, they are conceited. If they are careless, their a bum. If they are pleasant, their a flirt. If their not, their a grouch.

In an instant, they must make decisions which require months for a lawyer. But if they are in a hurry, they are careless. If they take their time, they are lazy.

They must be first to an accident, infallible with a diagnosis. They must be able to start breathing, stop bleeding, tie splints, and above all, be sure the victim goes home without a limp, or expect to be sued.

The police officer must know every gun, draw on the run, and hit where it doesnt hurt.

They must be able to whip two men their size and half their age, without damaging their uniform and without being brutal. If you hit them, they are cowards. If he hits you, hes a bully.

A police officer must know everything and not tell. They must know where all the sin is and not partake.

The police officer must, from a single human hair, be able to describe the crime, the weapon, and the criminal, and tell you where the criminal is hiding. But if they catch the criminal, they are lucky. If they don't, their a dunce.

If they get promoted, they had political pull. If they don't, their a dullard.

The police officer must chase bum leads to a dead end and stake out ten nights to tag one witness who saw it happen, but refuses to remember.

They run files and writes reports until their eyes ache, to build a case against a felon who will be let off the hook by his lawyer or an honorable who isnt so honorable.

A police officer is a protector in time of need and a comforter in time of sorrow. Their job calls for them to be a minister, a psychologist, a diplomat, a tough guy, a friend, and an inspiration. And, of course, they will have to be a genius, for they will have to feed a family on a police officers salary.


*Heroism's face often turns ugly for police*

By HOWARD TROXLER 

The amazing thing is that this guy, a kid's uncle, wrestles a 7-foot bull shark to the shore last Friday up in the Panhandle, a 200-pound shark that has just torn off his nephew's arm, throwing that giant slap-thrashing fish up onto the sand so that a park ranger can shoot it in the head, and they prop open the mouth with a police baton and reach in and pull out the kid's arm so it can be reattached. Oh, man. 

Then, the uncle and his wife are tying off the kid's limbs with beach towels as tourniquets -- beach towels! -- and administering CPR. And the uncle calls 911 and talks to the dispatcher to make sure help is on the way. And the dispatcher says, "Everybody is on the way, okay?" And the uncle finishes the call by telling the dispatcher, "Okay, thank you." See, he remembers to say thank you. 

Two weeks ago, a woman is swimming at a lake in Pasco County, and suddenly she gets jerked under the water, one second she's there and the next she's not, just like, as her husband put it, "one of the scenes out of Jaws." So this is what he does, he starts fighting it and kicking it, whatever that thing is in the water, which turns out to be a 9-foot, 8-inch, 350-pound alligator, until it lets his wife go. This was an entirely impressive feat, not diminished even by the fact that they later called a news conference to say they were trying to find somebody to sue. 

Two weeks before that, a guy's car gets hit on the Howard Frankland Bridge, plunges over the side, and the guy is thrown out of his car and is floating away in Tampa Bay. So this car with two teenage lifeguards pulls up and they see his body floating away and they talk about jumping in. 

A woman comes running up with a little pink kiddie-toy inner tube. One of the lifeguards takes it without any hesitation and jumps off the bridge into Tampa Bay. He can't see because the water is rough and it's dark and so he relies on shouts from the bridge above for direction to the victim's body. The victim turns out to be dead, but the kid cradles him for the next 45 minutes, at first alone and then with a police diver. 

On Tuesday they buried a Tampa police officer named Lois Marrero. She was shot and killed while she was chasing a pair of bank robbers. The guy shot her in a parking lot and she didn't stand a chance, as if in an ambush -- if not planned then that's the way it worked out. She didn't get to draw; they took her gun as she lay on the ground. 

Can we say from these stories what heroism is? The shark-wrestling uncle surely is a hero. So is the alligator-fighting husband, the bridge-jumping lifeguard. So was the guy from Jacksonville who gave his life last weekend trying to save a kid from a riptide. The rest of us hear about these people with awe and ask ourselves silently: Given the same split-second, would I do the same? Could I? 

Here is one difference, though. Nobody wakes up in the morning saying, "Today I might have to wrestle a bull shark, or save my beloved from an alligator, or jump off a bridge." But every police officer, every day, goes to work knowing what might be. 

The fact that police take on this risk does not mean that they catch any special breaks, either, and this is not to say they should. Their decisions are second-guessed. Their powers are constantly debated, as they should be. The police know these hard political facts very well. Do you know what would have happened had Lois Marrero shot and killed the bad guy, instead of the other tragic way around? Today she would be suspended, getting questioned. Maybe, as often happens, some citizen would be claiming that he saw it all and that she used too much force. 

That's how the world works for police officers. It does not seem too maudlin, or too worshipful, to say to each of them this morning, thank you. - You can reach Howard Troxler at (727) 893-8505 or at troxler@sptimes.com.


----------



## Tgace (Jun 28, 2004)

> As a result of the Violent Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) and the Deparment of Justice conducted a series of studies of police use of force. In 2001, BJS published the Police Public Contact Survey. Its goal was to collect, evaluate, and publish statistics to better understand under what circumstances a traffic stop or other contact between the police and citizens becomes problematic. *The report revealed that about 21 percent of the public had a direct encounter with a police officer in the past year--about half of these incidents were traffic stops. Less than one percent of people experienced an interaction involving the threat or use of force. *'Force' was defined as contact in which the officer pushed, grabbed, kicked, or hit the citizen. It also included dog bites, pepper sprays, and a gun being pointed toward or used against the citizen. The survey revealed that in the vast majority of incidents involving force, the officer pushed or grabbed the victim; chemical sprays were used in less than 10 percent of incidents, and guns in less than 6 percent.


Good Site...

http://www.neiassociates.org/defense.htm

Im not saying that police misconduct is nonexistant, or that police/criminals shouldnt be punished (they should). Heres a good site explaining various forms of police misconduct and methods to implement ethical policing.

http://faculty.ncwc.edu/toconnor/205/205lect11.htm


----------



## Flatlander (Jun 28, 2004)

Excellent Post Tom.  :asian:


----------



## Tgace (Jun 29, 2004)

Thanks, I hate the "blowing my own horn" aspect, but I have seen so many selfless and brave acts amongst my co-workers and met so many good people in the profession that I feel something needed to be said.


----------



## OULobo (Jun 30, 2004)

I remember a friend of mine that said something to me that stuck. "It takes a certain kind of person to take on a job that pays poorly, has bad hours and consistantly puts you directly in danger." There are some that do it for noble reasons (protecting and serving, family legacy, ect.), but there are many also I think that have a bully mentality or just want a job that lets them carry a gun. I've met a lot of police in my limited time in this world and one thing I always remember is that for every cop I meet with normal priorities, I meet one with a bully/jock mentality. I have noticed that the older vets usually completely lack that mindset and are both down to earth and restrained in their actions. 



			
				Kevin Walker said:
			
		

> Police are:
> 1) After the fact, they arrive after the crime is committed.
> 2.) Are corrupt, since they frequently contribute to crime, getting rid of them would lower the crime rate.  The United States has the highest crime rate in the world existing alongside the largest police force in the world.  How can the two coexist if the police are effective against crime?
> 3.) Are violent, they frequently escalate and exacerbate a tense situation into a riot.
> ...


 
1) Sometimes, but many times they stop crimes in progress or before they are comitted, like random patrols or drug busts. 
2) Corruption exists everywhere, it is inescapable, but often controlable. 
3) This I agree with. While the majority of police agencies have progressed to better tactics, I think the notion of a slower escalation to violence or adopting more non-aggressive techniques for many situations is needed. Most police forces have rules and policies that suggest actions, but I don't think they enforce them at all and I think there is too much "protecting my other brothers in blue" even when they are obviously wrong. 
4) Depends on the officer and how his day went. I've met many a friendly customer service rep who neither friendly nor of much service. 
5) Elect a stronger mayor or run yourself. The fact is money still pulls the strings and the paychecks still come from the mayor or city council.
6) See 5.
7) That is the nature of the business. You have to break eggs to make an omlette. They are still accountable for their actions. I would like to see a federal watchdog agency that handles police disputes though.



			
				Kevin Walker said:
			
		

> My alternative to law enforcement in this country would be to do away with the police altogether and institute in cities and towns a constabulary and/or a night watch.  There are small towns in Maine whose city and town councils won't allow a police force.  A constabulary costs half as much as a police department and is equally effective/ineffective against crime.
> The night watch would consist of neighborhood patrols.
> 
> A few years ago in Boston, the Guardian Angels did a better job of crime prevention than the Boston police.  They embarrassed the cops and were asked to leave.
> ...



The only problem with that is that a constibulary or night watch can't handle the needs of a large city, also you lose the benefits on the logistics side of things and on actual ability to maintain order due to the amount of cases and people you may need to control at one call. This type of system has been used, as you mentioned, but it is not efficient in larger settings. In smaller settings it's called a sheriff and there are still issues of corruption.


----------



## Baytor (Jun 30, 2004)

Kevin Walker said:
			
		

> If you're a proficient martial artist with the requisite number of street fights under your belt, the cop loses.


Magic exists in this world.  I have seen it.  I saw a police officer touch a little button on his radio and presto:  Every other cop in the area magically apeared within a minute.

It doesn't matter what kind of skills you have, cops always have more friends, and cops always fight to win.

It is unfortunate that you have had such negative contact with law enforcement.  I have never seen a cop take the time to harrass law abiding citizens, they have always been too busy working.


----------



## OULobo (Jun 30, 2004)

Tgace said:
			
		

> The Police Officer
> 
> What is a police officer made of? He or she, is at the same time the most needed and yet the most unwanted...a strangely nameless creature who is "officer" to their face and "pig" behind their back.
> 
> ...



Very poetic and fun. I agree with most of it, except:

"The fact is that less then one half of one percent of police officers ever discredit their uniform. Thats a better average than you will find among clergymen." 

Those are the one's that get caught in a system that makes it easy for them to hide or deny offenses. 

"A police officer is an ordinary man or woman who is called upon for extra ordinary bravery. Their job may sometimes seem routine, but the interruptions can be moments of stark terror.
They are the ones who face a half crazed gunman, who rescues a lost child, who challenges a mob and who risks his or her neck more often than we realize. They deserve our respect and profound thanks."

Some do these things and some don't. As I found out recently, they aren't required to do most of the things we expect them to. 

"They must be able to whip two men their size and half their age, without damaging their uniform and without being brutal. If you hit them, they are cowards. If he hits you, hes a bully."

I know many officers that don't meet this requirement and aren't required to. 

"They must know where all the sin is and not partake."

No more than any other man and with roughly the same consequences if they do partake. 


I agree that many officers get prejudged and that they sometimes do perilous deeds, but usually not without thanks. Some of the other gripes in this are the same for all jobs, not just cops. Just like anyone else they should get a pat on the back if they do good and a swat on the wrist when they don't, the main differance is that there are steeper consequences.

What it really comes down to is that I respect the man, not the badge.


----------



## Flatlander (Jun 30, 2004)

OULobo said:



> Those are the one's that get caught in a system that makes it easy for them to hide or deny offenses.


Good Point Sir.


----------



## someguy (Jun 30, 2004)

Originally Posted by Kevin Walker
If you're a proficient martial artist with the requisite number of street fights under your belt, the cop loses.

Ya know some police also seem to be Martial artists.  *Looks over at Tgace.
 Heres to the good police oficers out there :drinkbeer.  Oops I'm under age.


----------



## muaythaifreak (Jun 30, 2004)

I see a lot of generalizing statements being made that are simply not applicable to all police officers.  To say that "police" are corrupt is like saying that "catholic priests" are pedofiles.  I am a police officer, and while there is the occasional bad apple, I can say from first hand experience that they are the exception and not the rule.  I hope that when you need some help, when someone is mugging you or trying to kill you that a police officer is around to save your ***.  And I hope you'll be man enough to say, "thank you officer.".  As for your comment about "winning" against a police officer in a fight, don't kid yourself.  Even if you kick the s**t out of him, (here's the good part), more are coming.  If not now, later.  So by all means, resist obstruct and delay.  And when you do please visit my little county.


----------



## OULobo (Jun 30, 2004)

muaythaifreak said:
			
		

> As for your comment about "winning" against a police officer in a fight, don't kid yourself.  Even if you kick the s**t out of him, (here's the good part), more are coming.  If not now, later.  So by all means, resist obstruct and delay.  And when you do please visit my little county.



Gee. . . that's helping abolish the image of cops as violent jocks and bullies. 

(I understand your motivation, but if he's going to learn, it's going to be the hard way, not on an online forum.)


----------



## Trent (Jun 30, 2004)

Should you be a witness or victim of "true" police brutality do not hesitate to contact your respective U.S. Attorney's Office with the following statute that applies (among others):

TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 13 > Sec. 242.  
Sec. 242. - Deprivation of rights under color of law 



Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or to different punishments, pains, or penalties, on account of such person being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race, than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death


----------



## Littledragon (Jul 1, 2004)

I just want to say something, personally I am against police brutality. I think it is a form of cowardness that a police officer beats a young black male because he feels he is a threat even though the male is unarmed. It is situations like these I just feel ashamed of.


----------



## Tgace (Jul 1, 2004)

I dont think anybody here is "for" it....


----------



## Littledragon (Jul 1, 2004)

Tgace said:
			
		

> I dont think anybody here is "for" it....


Yea you probably are right lol.


----------



## Cryozombie (Jul 1, 2004)

I think the MAIN problem comes not from "Police as a whole"

But from a System who values the Income Police can bring into the community, over the good they can do preventing "real" crime.

(Solution: Instead of encouraging cops to sit for hours on end running radar to slow speeders down to generate revenue, have more of them patrol "at risk neighborhood"s, and stop speeders as they encounter them.  It erks me that the argument is always made that the cops cannot be "everywhere" or there is not enough manpower, but there are plenty of officers availibe for "speedtraps".  And before this becomes "You are bitter because you get tickets" Ive been driving for over 15 years, and Ive had less than 5 speeding tix, so that's NOT it.) 

From a System that considers the Police as gods, and "civilians" all as criminals.

(I dont have a solution to this... but as long as the cop's word is ALWAYS taken over the civilians, it is going to to be that way) 

From a System that teaches officers "You are always right, even when you are wrong, let the courts sort that out"

(Solution: Teach the officers in training to listen, think, reason out the situation,  and look at it from different perspectives.  Part of that is for the system to recognize the difference between the "word of the law" and the "spirit of the law") 

I could go on... but I think you see my point... in most cases The System is more to blame than the cops... but hey... there are bad cops as well as good ones.


----------



## Tgace (Jul 1, 2004)

> From a System that teaches officers "You are always right, even when you are wrong, let the courts sort that out"


I think you are referring to my old post...let me state again. Its not a case of "IM right even if im wrong...". Its a case of; if I have probable cause, and based on all I see have reason to arrest you, Im "right" on that scene even if the fact is you didnt commit the crime (how am I supposed to know that?). What "proof positive" determination of guilt do you know of? 

As to speed traps and manpower, maybe other agencies work differently, but around here its the State Police on the Thruways that do a lot of speed enforcement. In my dept we have 2 Traffic cars that do most of the radar work and accident/DWI processing. I am radar certified, but only use it when I get a car that has it. Even then I use it primarily as PC for a stop so I can get guns/drugs/warrants/stolen property etc. I usually only write blatent lead feet. The same can be said of about 90% of my dept.


----------



## shesulsa (Jul 1, 2004)

Problem is that when police are wrong, even severely wrong, even repeatedly severely wrong, they are not fired.  How many have we seen cleared when their conduct was so obviously unjust even the jury said so but could not move forward because of technicality?

 I respect law enforcement and police officers - I wouldn't want their job.  But get rid of the ones that give law enforcement a bad name - not just transfer them out of state.

 I live in Washington State and Oregon and Washington are dealing with officers that were transferred because of questionable conduct in California.  So they bring their questionable conduct up here.  Why not put them on a desk job?


----------



## Tgace (Jul 1, 2004)

Ive seen 3 officers from my dept. terminated in my career. And various other civil suits where cops lost and $$ laid out. It wasnt announced over the media. You may be supprised how many cops leave the job without notice. The issue is, take that cop in Cali. ...Even if he was a "good cop" with no other incidents of improper use of force, and acted improperly after a stressful, 30 min chase, foot pursuit and apprehension of a person who may have been armed (not an excuse, just mitigating circumstance), there are people that will want him fired over an incident where he may really only "deserve" an adnimistrative punishment. If he does only get an administrative punishment, then its the "blue wall" story. Are there bad cops who slip through the system, yes. I would say there are more "borderline" cops who know how to ride that area between outright "badness" and not bad enough to get fired. If that cop in Ca. has a history of this kind of thing, thats a whole different story.


----------



## Flatlander (Jul 1, 2004)

I wonder how many instances of excessive or unwarranted force could be avoided if police were given adequate h2h training.  I don't know the specific training the recruits in the US get, but here, ours are not adequately trained, in my opinion.  I believe its simple PPCT, and a little judo (for takedowns) and a little baton (basically how to swing it).  In terms of actual training hours, very few, and no mandatory or even optional, departmentally sponsored ongoing training.  This just doesn't cut the mustard.

The Police Board's philosophy seems to be "cheaper to put one in the ground and train a replacement, than equip one with the necessary and appropriate skills."

Doesn't it seem ridiculous to you that after weekly training for one year in a combative art, a combative arts student should be able to destroy an unaware or careless officer of the law?  I think its absolute lunacy, but there it is.


----------



## Tgace (Jul 1, 2004)

OC has a lower chance of injury to offender and officer. Most depts. are going to, soft hand control only of willing/semi-willing offenders (come alongs, joint locks). To the "no go's", either active resistors or people who obviously are going to fight you, its safer to right to OC. Close in to grappling range with somebody who you know you are going to fight with is an invitation to bad mojo. If the OC dosent work or you get jumped is when you really need that h2h.


----------



## OULobo (Jul 2, 2004)

Tgace said:
			
		

> As to speed traps and manpower, maybe other agencies work differently, but around here its the State Police on the Thruways that do a lot of speed enforcement. In my dept we have 2 Traffic cars that do most of the radar work and accident/DWI processing. I am radar certified, but only use it when I get a car that has it. Even then I use it primarily as PC for a stop so I can get guns/drugs/warrants/stolen property etc. I usually only write blatent lead feet. The same can be said of about 90% of my dept.



I am really on the side of the cops when it comes to the speed issue. I even sometimes find myself wishing they were around more often. As Tgace said they don't usually bother speeders unless it is really excessive speeds or dangerous actions, and those are the people I just love seeing pulled over, I even pray they get pulled over (It helps to ease my road rage). Add into it the fact that so many busts for other more serious crimes start as speed stops and I'm all for it, as long as the officer stays within the confines of his arest powers and the citizens civil rights. What I do hate is the situations that Techno mentioned, where small villes that have a miniscule sliver of an interstate have a consistant and ultra strict speed trap so they can make some extra revenue. That's not cool. 



			
				shesulsa said:
			
		

> Problem is that when police are wrong, even severely wrong, even repeatedly severely wrong, they are not fired. How many have we seen cleared when their conduct was so obviously unjust even the jury said so but could not move forward because of technicality?



I saw an interesting posting, I can't remember if I saw it here or not, about a guy that was shot and killed by a cop after he came at the officer with a knife. Justifiable shooting, except the knife was nowhere to be found when backup arrived. So they assumed it had fallen down a sewer drain next to the body. Someone pulls up the drain cover and climbs down to find the knife. They come up with 4 knives that the other officers had thrown down to cover their buddy. The real knife was later found wedged under the body in a hard to find area. Goes to show the scary part of the police. That their loyalty to each other goes way beyond the duties of the job or the rights of a citizen. 

I also notice this on the administrative level. The captains, cheifs and commissioners will back their officers even when they know the officer is wrong and just got caught red handed. They refuse to dicipline unless a court rules it or the mayor calls, and they absolutly refuse to apologize, admit to any wrong doing or sometimes even question the actions of the officer. One thing I've never seen in a station is impartiality. 

To Tgace's comment about firing when leave may be more appropriate, in my job any screw up that comes to the attention of a higher up WILL get me fired, I'm just a chemist, I don't deal with life or death situations or law suits very much. I don't see why a cop should get more breaks than an average working guy. 




			
				Tgace said:
			
		

> OC has a lower chance of injury to offender and officer. Most depts. are going to, soft hand control only of willing/semi-willing offenders (come alongs, joint locks). To the "no go's", either active resistors or people who obviously are going to fight you, its safer to right to OC. Close in to grappling range with somebody who you know you are going to fight with is an invitation to bad mojo. If the OC dosent work or you get jumped is when you really need that h2h.



Not to mention the availability and proximity of the officer's side arm to the suspect.


----------



## Tgace (Jul 2, 2004)

OULobo said:
			
		

> To Tgace's comment about firing when leave may be more appropriate, in my job any screw up that comes to the attention of a higher up WILL get me fired, I'm just a chemist, I don't deal with life or death situations or law suits very much. I don't see why a cop should get more breaks than an average working guy.


Hmmm...Ive worked In 3 different professions and 6 different jobs in my life before my current one (not including part-time/summer vacation etc. work) and I havent had one yet that would fire over one screw-up and Ive seen everything from theft, sexual harassment and workplace violence occur without firing. So Ive been an "average working guy" longer than Ive been a cop and I respectfully disagree.


----------



## OULobo (Jul 2, 2004)

From : kenpotex
In : http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=15428


"When I was in college one of my professors (retired D.C. metro narcotics/US Marshall) told us a humorous story regarding "throwaway" weapons. It seems that when he was working in D.C. an officer shot a guy who was attacking him with a knife, problem was that when his backup and supervisor(s) showed up they couldn't find the knife. The guy's body was lying in the gutter right next to a storm drain so they figured that the knife might have fallen down there. when they pulled the manhole cover and went down to look they found five knives that other officers (obviously unbeknownst to each other) had apparently dropped in an effort to "cover" their buddy. when the coroner showed up to get the body they found that the knife was underneath it."



This is the story i was trying to tell in my previous post.


----------



## Tgace (Jul 2, 2004)

The "Blue Wall"
http://www.npr.org/news/national/1997/aug/970820.blue.html
http://www.cnn.com/US/9708/15/police.torture/
http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/judiciary/hju62440.000/hju62440_0.HTM
http://www.dcwatch.com/police/981006d.htm

Since misconduct does exist...
http://www.skepticfiles.org/aclu/police_m.htm


> What's wrong with your police department is not necessarily the same as
> what's wrong in another city.  Police departments are different in size,
> quality of management, local traditions and the severity of problems.
> Some departments are gravely corrupt; others are relatively "clean" but
> ...



Part of the issue...
http://faculty.ncwc.edu/toconnor/205/205lect09.htm


----------



## Mark Weiser (Jul 2, 2004)

I live in Topeka Kansas an this debate is a big one here in our hometown. There  have been instances where Officers have been "slapped on the wrist" however there have been at least two incidents where Police Officers faced criminal charges and were fired by the Department. 

The Process to remove an Officer is very detailed and private not for public disclosure. So when the Citizens are angry at an Officer(s) they want immeadate justice and when the Department backs up the Officer it gives the appearence of a Conspiracy of Corruption. 

This makes for a difficult job for the PR Dept.But unless you have worn the badge and sat down with other Officers on a daily business you will understand why the process is in place. 

Sincerely,
Mark E. Weiser 
Former Reserve Deputy Sheriff 
Shawnee & Sedgwick Counties State of Kansas


----------



## Tgace (Jul 2, 2004)

On the flip side, I dont want to see police officers getting hurt or killed because they are "afraid" to use force either. Extremes in any direction are counterproductive.


----------



## Kevin Walker (Jul 3, 2004)

Today in Boston we just had our second police shooting this July. 

1. On July 1st, an ex-con Afro-American was stopped in traffic for a minor violation, got in an argument and fight with the patrolman, and was shot three times  while running away - he died in the street. Police said he had a gun and was in fear of his life, yet three different eyewitnesses said there was no gun (and no gun was found, so I guess the cop didn't have his 'throw down' with him).

2. Just today a retarded 35 year old hispanic man with a history of mental illness and trouble making was shot to death inside his apartment when police arrive to the apartment building and said he threatened them with a knife. Why no attempt at Tai Ho Jitsu? I've disarmed knife weilding assailants as a bouncer.

And two months ago in East Boston, a Vietnamese woman had trouble with her beligerant retarded son, so she called the Boston police for help, they stormed in and beat the 22 year old kid into a coma. The mother was in hysterics, fainted, and also had to be taken to the hospital.  She said in the paper she just wanted help with her son.

Last year in downtown Boston, a captain fired his automatic at a parked black van. The captain said the driver tried to run him down. Unfortunately for the captain, and fortunately for us mere U.S. citizens, the van was filled with seven assistant D.A.s on their way to the U.S. district court. It turned out that the dispute was over a place to park, the captain had a long history of violent infractions, and a Boston paper reported last week that a certain Boston captain is no longer on the force. Might have been a different outcome if it wasn't a van full of Assistant D. A. 's.

I've witnessed Boston police beat up helpless winos and bums over my past five decades here in Boston, with my witnessing transit cops kick an unconscious wino (i.e. homeless person) in the head late at night in a train station last winter

This kind of unprofessional behavior goes on too frequently to keep calling it an isolated incident of police misconduct. We have a police problem in these here United States, and we simply just need to get rid of the police and replace them with a constabulary (in my humble opinion). 

The debate of Police Brutality has been ongoing here in Boston for several years and nothing is being done. The brutality keeps occuring!



			
				Mark Weiser said:
			
		

> I live in Topeka Kansas an this debate is a big one here in our hometown. There have been instances where Officers have been "slapped on the wrist" however there have been at least two incidents where Police Officers faced criminal charges and were fired by the Department.
> 
> The Process to remove an Officer is very detailed and private not for public disclosure. So when the Citizens are angry at an Officer(s) they want immeadate justice and when the Department backs up the Officer it gives the appearence of a Conspiracy of Corruption.
> 
> ...


----------



## Tgace (Jul 3, 2004)

Kevin Walker said:
			
		

> Today in Boston we just had our second police shooting this July.
> 
> 1. On July 1st, an ex-con Afro-American was stopped in traffic for a minor violation, got in an argument and fight with the patrolman, and was shot three times while running away - he died in the street. Police said he had a gun and was in fear of his life, yet three different eyewitnesses said there was no gun (and no gun was found, so I guess the cop didn't have his 'throw down' with him).
> 
> ...


Than you need to do something about the BPD or get out of Boston....Read what the ACLU said about differences in police agencies. (its pretty much what I said a few pages back) And how to promote reform. What makes you think a constabulary is going to be staffed with prefect, zero mistake people? People are fallible... the solution is better hiring practices, better training, better supervision and better misconduct policy...in my experience theres more good cops than bad.


----------



## Shizen Shigoku (Jan 6, 2006)

This cop was obviously just defending himself:

http://www.youtube.com/w/Street-Fights-Cop-Beats-Kid?v=-JjDmCg9mvY&feature=Views&page=4&t=t&f=b

(Warning - loud foul language)

otherwise pretty funny.


----------



## shesulsa (Jan 6, 2006)

I'm fairly certain that verbally and digitally assaulting a police officer is against the law ... not certain about the baton use, though, have to look that one up.


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Jan 6, 2006)

I think its fake.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jan 8, 2006)

Shizen Shigoku said:
			
		

> This cop was obviously just defending himself:
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/w/Street-Fights-Cop-Beats-Kid?v=-JjDmCg9mvY&feature=Views&page=4&t=t&f=b
> 
> ...


 Fake.


----------



## shesulsa (Jan 8, 2006)

In that particular clip, the uniformed officer was just meandering around in the grass outside a parking structure ... what on earth would an LEO be doing in that particular situation?  He wouldn't.  I think it's fake too.


----------



## jdinca (Jan 8, 2006)

Fake.


----------



## Cujo (Jan 9, 2006)

Fake.

Pax
Cujo


----------



## aplonis (Jan 22, 2006)

Was this on the road? Was it in view of the cop's own camera aimed out the front of his cruiser? If so, get a lawyer and subpeona that tape for a lawsuit.

If ever this happens to me, although I can't imagine it, I'll make every effort to stay in full view of that camera. If the tape somehow suffers a malfunction. Then it would be a case of the whole department, and not one officer, being to blame. The so-called Blue Wall of Silence. Your enemy then would have to be the uniform, not the individual. 

In such a case, if folks are truly abused at random, then it would be neither more nor less unjust for those same folks to bide patiently a year (to blur the awareness of causality) then take retribution at random against the "uniform" in a wholly general sense. That is to say, just like with enemy soldiers, there'd be no need to pick and choose. According to their own kind of thinking, any uniform at all from the same department would do. Such a response would be only playing by the same exact rules as they. That, at least, is one way of thinking.

It amuses me that some uniform will read this and perhaps be given pause to contemplate the notion of common courtesy.  Consider me an agent provocateur.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jan 22, 2006)

aplonis said:
			
		

> Was this on the road? Was it in view of the cop's own camera aimed out the front of his cruiser? If so, get a lawyer and subpeona that tape for a lawsuit.
> 
> If ever this happens to me, although I can't imagine it, I'll make every effort to stay in full view of that camera. If the tape somehow suffers a malfunction. Then it would be a case of the whole department, and not one officer, being to blame. The so-called Blue Wall of Silence. Your enemy then would have to be the uniform, not the individual.
> 
> ...


 You might want to watch the video again.....it's fake.  

I find the idea that you're simply going to go after any uniform, if one offends you, asinine.  You might want to reevaluate.


----------



## aplonis (Jan 22, 2006)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> You might want to watch the video again.....it's fake.



I could not view it on my Unix station. The page asked for a Win32 plugin to Firefox which was not installed on my platform. Since most already agreed it was fake, I hardly thought to expend the effort of installing new software to view. 

I thought to instead make a course correction away from the prior thread drift and address the original topic from the first post. I had expected to draw more fire with the wording therein. No one very much took the bait. Nevertheless, I shall plow on with my usual followup rhetoric.

Actually no, I do not despise all uniformed persons...just a certain type of viewpoint, a flawed mentality all too prevalent in American culture. The one fallen prey to by certain individuals the moment they put on a uniform. And it is obvious, at least to me, that the uniformed civilian authorities take very small pains to screen that sort out after recruitment.

It has always seemed to me ironic that someone, anyone would hide behind an artificial group identity and pretend that mere clothes immune them from personal responsibility. They claim to be the group who is acting and not a person. It is as if karma could not see beyond their uniform. Were that to be the case then it should be the group who expects to receive retribution and no person among them take personal offence.

Ridiculous, isn't it? If the latter part is absurd then the former part is also. Officers are indeed responsible for the laws which they inforce and the policies by means of which they enforce them. In this there is no distinction between them and Nazi death camp guards except in the matter of degree.

The fact that the term "cop killer" exists at all in any sense distinct from "waitress killer" or "fireman killer" shows how far our culture has bought into a quite obviously flawed evaluation of human life. Ask not why a greater effort is made to capture a cop killer...ask rather why a lesser one is made on behalf of anyone else.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jan 22, 2006)

aplonis said:
			
		

> I could not view it on my Unix station. The page asked for a Win32 plugin to Firefox which was not installed on my platform. Since most already agreed it was fake, I hardly thought to expend the effort of installing new software to view.
> 
> I thought to instead make a course correction away from the prior thread drift and address the original topic from the first post. I had expected to draw more fire with the wording therein. No one very much took the bait. Nevertheless, I shall plow on with my usual followup rhetoric.
> 
> ...


 Such great effort is made to bring a 'cop killer' to justice because the police represent the executive arm of societies will.  As such, it is tempting to believe that you can simply thwart societies will by killing it's representatives to escape.  Society has determined that that mindset is unacceptable.  They've also determined that anyone dangerous enough to decide to shoot a police officer to escape, is a particular danger to society as a whole.  You may disagree with that point, but I think it's probably the majority view of the citizens of society.

As for the idea that police are somehow operating with carte blanche, and do certain things because they are hiding behind a 'uniform', I suppose you might find some officers for which that is true.  It has, however, become a cliche that is not shown itself to true in the majority of cases in my experience.  

For myself, I don't know how many times i've heard the phrase 'If you weren't hiding behind that badge and uniform'.  The reality is that I myself am much nicer with a badge and uniform.  The people pay me to be nice and respectful, and to pursue their will toward law and order in a certain manner.  What many people who believe i'm simply hiding behind a badge and uniform fail to understand is that I tolerate behavior toward me on duty, in a way i'd never tolerate it off.  They get to yell profanity and insults at me, and I don't take it personally because it is directed toward an institution.


----------



## arnisador (Jan 23, 2006)

Murdering a LEO, judge, etc., is an attack on the _system _as well as on a person. Paying special attention to such crimes is merited.


----------



## aplonis (Jan 23, 2006)

So then...you _are_ in favor of making _lesser efforts_ on behalf of non-uniformed citizenry? Do you, in fact, give less than 100% on a sliding scale based upon your evaluation of that individuals worth relative to a uniformed officer? 

It can't be both ways. Either you do, or you don't. It seems that you do. Or at least you seem to say so.


----------



## arnisador (Jan 23, 2006)

aplonis said:
			
		

> So then...you _are_ in favor of making _lesser efforts_ on behalf of non-uniformed citizenry?


 
Yes, there's no other way to read this. I am opposed to the investigation of homicides that do not involve police officers.


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Jan 23, 2006)

Yeah..the cops NEVER try to solve murders unless they involve cops. 
Because the punishment is more severe for cop killers, it doesnt really follow that less than %100 is put into catching ALL murders. Theres some sort of logic error there.


Whatever
:feedtroll


----------



## kelly keltner (Jan 23, 2006)

aplonis said:
			
		

> So then...you _are_ in favor of making _lesser efforts_ on behalf of non-uniformed citizenry? Do you, in fact, give less than 100% on a sliding scale based upon your evaluation of that individuals worth relative to a uniformed officer?
> 
> It can't be both ways. Either you do, or you don't. It seems that you do. Or at least you seem to say so.


I'm confused on this one, people are convicted every day for criminal activities every day that do not involve officers as victims.
So where are the stats that show other cases are neglected in favor of ones concerning peace officer's?


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jan 23, 2006)

aplonis said:
			
		

> So then...you _are_ in favor of making _lesser efforts_ on behalf of non-uniformed citizenry? Do you, in fact, give less than 100% on a sliding scale based upon your evaluation of that individuals worth relative to a uniformed officer?
> 
> It can't be both ways. Either you do, or you don't. It seems that you do. Or at least you seem to say so.


 There's obviously an issue you miss.  If someone is going to take on the enforcement arm of society, with lethal force, they are a PARTICULAR threat to every member of society it's self.  That is the rational used for making the murder of police, judges, etc, enhanced crimes.  It in NO way makes other citizens 'worthless'.  It, in FACT is designed to protect those citizens.  

Again, ANYONE who is willing to shoot it out with an armed police officer, is willing to murder an average citizen without the slightest hesitation.  Further, we add enchancements to other crimes as well.  Hate crimes, for example.   Also, murders as a result of a sex crime of kidnapping, likewise enhance penalties.  In particular, there are laws that make any death as a direct result of a felony act, such as robbery, make everyone involved in the robbery guilty of 'murder' whether they pulled the trigger or not.  Again, it's not 'just cops' that enhance charges for murder.


----------



## Corporal Hicks (Jan 26, 2006)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Than you need to do something about the BPD or get out of Boston....Read what the ACLU said about differences in police agencies. (its pretty much what I said a few pages back) And how to promote reform. What makes you think a constabulary is going to be staffed with prefect, zero mistake people? People are fallible... the solution is better hiring practices, better training, better supervision and better misconduct policy...in my experience theres more good cops than bad.


 
Mmmm being in England I've known nothing but a constabulary police force?! Or am I missing the point about constabulary here?! Does this have some other meaning apart from the constabularys that are here?

If so, whats the difference between a constabulary and the American police force? 
Since Im currently studying a University course in Police Science, it would be nice to know, unless of course its really obvious that I've missed something here!

As for Police brutality, do you really think its the system that needs changing to combat this problem? 
Correct me if Im wrong but is it not the indiviuals that commit this 'brutality' and therefore you should be combating the indiviuals or the reasons that the indiviuals (i.e the police officers) commit these acts, unless of course the reason is due to the system?!

As for news reports, especially over here, they are generally best taken with a pinch of salt, if any police know what its like to be scrutized, its from the media over here. They are never praised, they only seem to be recognised when an officer is killed, but as soon as somebody makes a mistake, be it minor or not, everything comes crashing down and hey wow, a nice big fat juicy story.

Dont get me wrong, Im not saying police brutality doesnt happen, but the impression Im getting from Kevin Walker here, and I know your entitled to your own opinion by all means, but is simply that your coating all the police with the same brush, where ever they may be. 
Sure, you have what you describe to be a ineffecient police force in your area but does that warrant you discregarding the thousands of men and women who risk their lives everyday for others? 

Regards


----------



## arnisador (Dec 24, 2008)

*Police use excessive force, ER docs say*



> In a survey of a random sample of U.S. emergency physicians, virtually all said they believed that law enforcement officers use excessive force to arrest and detain suspects.
> 
> The sample included 315 respondents. While 99.8 percent believed excessive force is used, almost as many (97.8 percent) reported that they had managed cases that they suspected or that the patient stated had involved excessive use of force by law enforcement officers.


----------



## Guardian (Dec 25, 2008)

arnisador said:


> *Police use excessive force, ER docs say*


 
No doubt there are cases of it, but I just wonder how many of those ER docs ask the Officers what kind of force was used against them first requiring the officer to use more force to subdue the victim?

Interesting thought in my view.


----------



## arnisador (Dec 25, 2008)

I agree. It's not clear how the physicians could know that it was _excessive _force. Still, I thought it was an interesting thing to note.


----------



## seasoned (Dec 25, 2008)

Standard procedures, every citizen should know, and follow, when pulled over. When the lights go on behind you, pull over in a safe manor, with officer safety, and yours in mind. At this point, the officer does not know you, or what you are capable of doing. Without taking a lot of time, with your radio turned off, car in park, window down, both hands open, palms up, on steering wheel in plain sight, wait. Seems like a lot to do, but it can all be done with minimal time and movement. Do not lean down, gab for your license, or appear in any way to be looking for something. As the officer approaches your window, keep your eyes straight ahead, and speck when spoken to. When the officer specks, answer in a clear, precise, and polite manor without all the excuses for why he should not have pulled you over. At this point, the longer it takes you to find your appropriate paper work, the longer the officer has to stand out side your window watching you, and oncoming traffic. If you follow all the above, and you did not do something very stupid to be pulled over for, then he may issue you a warning. If during the above interaction you do, or say something to raise any concerns, and he feels threaten, this is where the problems start. The ticket is not the final verdict, and you will have your day in court. Nothing will be determined on the initial pullover except, ticket issued, or warning, but, it can definitely get a lot worse for you, if you dont follow the above. The mistake people make, is in their thinking. They may think that the officer has a God complex, or is power hungry, but in reality, he or she just wants to feel safe, and make it home to their family. IMHO, have a nice day.


----------



## Mark L (Dec 25, 2008)

seasoned said:


> Standard procedures, every citizen should know, and follow, when pulled over. When the lights go on behind you, pull over in a safe manor, with officer safety, and yours in mind. At this point, the officer does not know you, or what you are capable of doing. Without taking a lot of time, with your radio turned off, car in park, window down, both hands open, palms up, on steering wheel in plain sight, wait. Seems like a lot to do, but it can all be done with minimal time and movement. Do not lean down, gab for your license, or appear in any way to be looking for something. As the officer approaches your window, keep your eyes straight ahead, and speck when spoken to. When the officer specks, answer in a clear, precise, and polite manor without all the excuses for why he should not have pulled you over. At this point, the longer it takes you to find your appropriate paper work, the longer the officer has to stand out side your window watching you, and oncoming traffic. If you follow all the above, and you did not do something very stupid to be pulled over for, then he may issue you a warning. If during the above interaction you do, or say something to raise any concerns, and he feels threaten, this is where the problems start. The ticket is not the final verdict, and you will have your day in court. Nothing will be determined on the initial pullover except, ticket issued, or warning, but, it can definitely get a lot worse for you, if you dont follow the above. The mistake people make, is in their thinking. They may think that the officer has a God complex, or is power hungry, but in reality, he or she just wants to feel safe, and make it home to their family. IMHO, have a nice day.


I think I understand the spirit and intent of what you're saying, but have to disagree (from my non-LEO perspective) with a few points: speaking only when spoken to and keeping my eyes straight ahead.  First point, I have every right to _politely_ greet and engage the officer as to the purpose of the stop.  I am a citizen, with the associated rights.  Second, I would never avert my eyes from someone, presumably a police officer, who is approaching my vehicle.  The last time I was stopped was a very long time ago, at night, and the officer put lights in my rear and side view mirrors, and a big MagLite in my eyes.  I couldn't tell if he was a cop or the Easter Bunny, and told him (very politely) that I wouldn't be rolling down my window or giving him anything until I could see who I was talking to.  He adjusted the lighting, I cooperated fully, and thanked him for my warning.  Also, _I'm_ responsible for my own safety; the officer is responsible for _his_ own safety (and mine, given that their mandate is to protect and serve ...)

That being said, engine off, interior light on, hands on the wheel, window positioned to afford communication is my reaction to being pulled over.


----------



## arnisador (Dec 25, 2008)

I grab the wheel firmly with both hands high at the top (the few times I've been pulled over) but otherwise do as described above by *seasoned*! If I have a passenger in the car I ask them to place both hands on the dash as the LEO approaches. Asking for ID is always fair but I've only been stopped in daytime.


----------



## Guardian (Dec 25, 2008)

arnisador said:


> I agree. It's not clear how the physicians could know that it was _excessive _force. Still, I thought it was an interesting thing to note.


 
I agree, interesting note indeed, because we both know, folks love their statistics no matter where they come from and I'm sure someone somewhere will use that statistic


----------



## seasoned (Dec 25, 2008)

Mark L said:


> I think I understand the spirit and intent of what you're saying, but have to disagree (from my non-LEO perspective) with a few points: speaking only when spoken to and keeping my eyes straight ahead. First point, I have every right to _politely_ greet and engage the officer as to the purpose of the stop. I am a citizen, with the associated rights. Second, I would never avert my eyes from someone, presumably a police officer, who is approaching my vehicle. The last time I was stopped was a very long time ago, at night, and the officer put lights in my rear and side view mirrors, and a big MagLite in my eyes. I couldn't tell if he was a cop or the Easter Bunny, and told him (very politely) that I wouldn't be rolling down my window or giving him anything until I could see who I was talking to. He adjusted the lighting, I cooperated fully, and thanked him for my warning. Also, _I'm_ responsible for my own safety; the officer is responsible for _his_ own safety (and mine, given that their mandate is to protect and serve ...)
> 
> That being said, engine off, interior light on, hands on the wheel, window positioned to afford communication is my reaction to being pulled over.


Thanks for the response. Generally, when the officer approaches your vehicle, he will do it apprehensively, coming no closer then the center post, or where the front and back window meet, so it is hard to see him without turning way around. Its much easier to catch him in your rearview mirror and not distract him while he clears your back seat visually, making his job easier. Once you turn and start talking, you have taken his attention away. Once he visually sees no threat, back seat clear, hands in plain sight, he may approach your driver side window, but still slightly back, keeping his firearm out of reach. By the time he is at your window, he will have already asked you if you know why you are being stopped. At that time you should make eye contact, and answer truthfully and honestly, because like you said, it is your right as a citizen. By asking you this question, it gives him an opportunity to evaluate your speech and see your eyes, Whatever your answer is, he will at that time tell you why he pulled you over. At this time, he will ask for your license, registration and insurance card, or give you a warning, and you may be on your way. If you receive a ticket, this is not the time to argue, be polite and take it. You will have plenty of time in court to state your case to the judge. 
Officer safety is a critical problem, when people cry police brutality. For your safety it is important that they feel safe. You may look at something as an inconvenience, like lights in your eyes, but everything they do is for a reason. And by the way, any good citizen, will consider their own safety, as well as officer safety while interacting.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Dec 26, 2008)

arnisador said:


> *Police use excessive force, ER docs say*


Thanks for bringing this little ditty to our attention arnisador.......my comment on this article....

 :BSmeter::bs:

So....medical doctors are now experts on 'reasonable' versus 'excessive force'?  My question is what the hell do they think they know about it?  Yeah, they may observe an injury, but they know JACK about the circumstances surrounding that injury, or what the suspect was doing to receive that injury.......so how can ER docs even MAKE the statement 'Police use excessive force'?  IT'S DISHONEST AT BEST!


There is ZERO way that someone can look at an injury, and then conclude based solely on the injury, WITHOUT knowing any other details of the incident, whether or not it was 'Police Brutality'.

I like THIS little GEM! 





> that the patient stated had involved excessive use of force by law enforcement officers.


  So the he SAID the cops beat him.....i've NEVER taken a drunken, drugged up moron to the ER that didn't SWEAR he was BEATEN, RAPED, SODOMIZED and BRUTALIZED by the police to ANYONE THAT WOULD LISTEN!  But a doctor is a BIGGER moron if he actually believes what some crackhead junkie armed robbery suspect is spewing out!


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Dec 26, 2008)

> almost half (47.9 percent) felt that emergency physicians should be legally required to report cases of suspected use of excessive force by law enforcement officers.



REALLY!!! What these quacks need to REALLY concentrate on are the 195,000 negligent DEATHS A YEAR IN HOSPITALS FROM MALPRACTICE!!!! http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/11856.php:soapbox:

POLICE BRUTALITY DOESN'T KILL PEOPLE.....DOCTORS DO!  And who polices doctors?!  OTHER DOCTORS!  Perhaps THAT should change!


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Dec 26, 2008)

So.....if I bring in drunken idiot who's head is gashed open........and he SWEARS to anyone who will listen 'THEY BEAT ME!'........is the victim of police brutality?  Yes/No


Here's the thing.....when we bring someone in to the ER, we don't explain ourselves to the doctor.....we don't file a report with him.  We explain the basics of the injury, and that's it.  They treat the patient, the patient whines, lies, distorts, etc.

In the above case, a true story, I brought a guy in who's head needed stitching......a guy who SWORE we beat him......unfortunately for him, the incident was caught on camera......he caused ALL THE INJURIES to himself by headbutting my patrol car cage AFTER being arrested for domestic violence.......he split his OWN head open, then tried to swear we did it!

Now, that's probably one of those incidents the doctors reported as 'Police Brutality'.......I mean, he had an injury, and he SWORE we did it to him......he wouldn't lie would he?  NAAAAHHHHH!!!!


----------



## Archangel M (Dec 26, 2008)

http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showpost.php?p=1092518&postcount=408


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Dec 26, 2008)

Archangel M said:


> http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showpost.php?p=1092518&postcount=408



You should just cut and paste that statement in to this thread......it's a good one!

And that's exactly the point.....IF we brought these guys in and just LEFT them in the ER 'Good luck DOC' they'd be singing a different tune!

'HEY, get the COPS back in here, this guy is OUT OF CONTROL!'

No **** DOC!


----------



## Mark L (Dec 26, 2008)

seasoned said:


> Thanks for the response. Generally, when the officer approaches your vehicle, he will do it apprehensively, coming no closer then the center post, or where the front and back window meet, so it is hard to see him without turning way around. Its much easier to catch him in your rearview mirror and not distract him while he clears your back seat visually, making his job easier. Once you turn and start talking, you have taken his attention away. Once he visually sees no threat, back seat clear, hands in plain sight, he may approach your driver side window, but still slightly back, keeping his firearm out of reach. By the time he is at your window, he will have already asked you if you know why you are being stopped. At that time you should make eye contact, and answer truthfully and honestly, because like you said, it is your right as a citizen. By asking you this question, it gives him an opportunity to evaluate your speech and see your eyes, Whatever your answer is, he will at that time tell you why he pulled you over. At this time, he will ask for your license, registration and insurance card, or give you a warning, and you may be on your way. If you receive a ticket, this is not the time to argue, be polite and take it. You will have plenty of time in court to state your case to the judge.
> Officer safety is a critical problem, when people cry police brutality. For your safety it is important that they feel safe. You may look at something as an inconvenience, like lights in your eyes, but everything they do is for a reason. And by the way, any good citizen, will consider their own safety, as well as officer safety while interacting.


Seasoned,
I'm with you.  I want to feel safe when stopped, and I'd also like to accommodate the LEO.  Pulling over so they're not out in traffic, letting them see inside the vehicle, offering a polite, non-combative attitude.  The essence of my points is that the citizenry shouldn't need to play the "sheep" during stops.

Sounds like you have a lot more experience than I, having been stopped only a handful of times.  Good stuff ...


----------



## Ninebird8 (Dec 26, 2008)

One time a cop pulled me over for speeding on the way home from my martial arts training. When he approached, I was wearing my uniform still, and unfortunately, had both my gim sword and my darn dao in my trunk, and my staff in the seat next to me, along with my training knife. When he came to my window, I had my hands on the steering wheel, looked up at him, and told him about the things in the trunk and what was next to me and who I was. He looked, saw I was telling the truth, ran my information, came back, stuck out his hand, I shook it, and he told me how much he appreciated me being up front and allaying his concerns as he saw the staff while coming up to me. 

I have been pulled over 3-4 times in 50 years, all for speeding, and every time acted with respect, even when he was a jerk once. I later got 3 out of the 4 dismissed in court. Most cops I have met, and I have trained a few in self defense, only want common courtesy and respect. The few who do not, and I believe they are out there, should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. The only thing I have against some cops is their ability over the years to get out of shape, have no gradated self defense response, and shoot because they cannot catch the suspect. I believe police should be required to undergo periodic physical exams to ensure their health and ability to function on the street, and be given self defense training to control suspects. I understand this is very hard when the suspect is high or drunk, but I am speaking under normal circumstances. In Texas, where I live, many police currently employ tasers, but these can be ineffective due to aim, conditions, shape of suspect, etc. As I said, that is the only "complaint" I have against some officers.


----------



## Archangel M (Dec 26, 2008)

"controling a suspect" really only works when the suspect is co-operative or semi co-operative. The first thing a MA turned cop discovers is that all the fancy wrist locks and "control" techniques dont really work on someone who is "flat out" resisting or fighting. Thats when it comes down to a group of cops, a "beat down" (hands/batons/ Saps in the old days/etc.) or a taser/oc having to get the job done.

I have found that some control techniques are handy for manuvering a cuffed suspect around...just cause the bracelets go on doesnt mean that physical force is no longer necessary. Another thing many people dont understand.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Dec 27, 2008)

Archangel M said:


> "controling a suspect" really only works when the suspect is co-operative or semi co-operative. The first thing a MA turned cop discovers is that all the fancy wrist locks and "control" techniques dont really work on someone who is "flat out" resisting or fighting. Thats when it comes down to a group of cops, a "beat down" (hands/batons/ Saps in the old days/etc.) or a taser/oc having to get the job done.
> 
> I have found that some control techniques are handy for manuvering a cuffed suspect around...just cause the bracelets go on doesnt mean that physical force is no longer necessary. Another thing many people dont understand.



As a cop with 12 years experience and as a defensive tactics instructor/martial artist cop, i've found that my experience in Judo and BJJ has helped me in controlling folks the most.  The other tools (which I also instruct) such as the Taser, Pepper Spray, Baton, etc, are all great, but without a total approach, there are chinks in the armor that can get an officer in to real trouble.

As to wrist locks, armbars and the like, they are often difficult to pull off when dealing with sweaty, intoxicated who are merely passively resisting.....they are nearly impossible to pull off when someone is in active assault mode.  The tools then are, as you say, the baton, the taser, the LVNR (lateral vascular neck restraint) and swarming techniques.

I'm a huge proponent of the LVNR as a control technique as developed by Jim Lindell and the Kansas City Missouri Police Department......based on the Judo hadaka jimi, or rear-naked choke, and standardized for 34 years. 

The rear naked choke, in my opinion, is one of the highest percentage physical techniques that can be performed without a weapon.  There's a reason why MMA matches often end with a choke  And any department that doesn't make that technique available to the officers at some level is denying them one of the greatest tools of officer survival.


----------

