# Lawful use of force or excessive?



## Archangel M (Jun 15, 2010)

[yt]E9w9AfptGGQ[/yt]

Let's see what you all think?


----------



## seasoned (Jun 15, 2010)

He is lucky all the people around him were more interested in taking pictures and video's, or he would have been in a world of hurt. Also, am I wrong, or was he having problems taking control of the situation?


----------



## Archangel M (Jun 15, 2010)

He needed back-up.

If he couldn't physically control the suspect he should have used some sort of less lethal like OC IMO. As far as "taking control of the situation" thats easier said than done for those who haven't tried it. I did notice the officers lack of strong verbal commands though. I'm thinking he was fairly new and way in over his head.


----------



## jks9199 (Jun 15, 2010)

One caveat: I don't know the circumstance prior to the video starting; I'm presuming it was a lawful arrest.  The use of force, against both women, was justified.  It's clear the first woman, in black, was resisting an arrest.  Her cousin, in the pink, interfered, and got struck.

Personally... I don't like the officer's use of force.  It wasn't enough, and it wasn't done in an effective manner.  He spent something like two minutes trying to hold the one woman's wrists, and meanwhile, he was attacked by another party.  At that point, the ideal or textbook response is to escalate the level of force.  He probably should have at least been going for OC or a baton, and very easily could have justified escalating towards lethal force; there were too many people in that crowd that could have easily turned on him.

I also have to wonder where his backup was -- because he should have called for them early in the event.


----------



## jks9199 (Jun 15, 2010)

Here is the article the video was apparently lifted from.  One warning; it gave me a little bit of a fit trying to bounce from the article to a page not found.

It seems that the officer made a jaywalking stop.  The girl in black ignored his commands to stop, and began walking away.  He physically escorted her back, and she became resistive, as shown in the video.  The girl in pink attempted to intervene, grabbing the officer's arm, and he punched her.  She was eventually taken into custody for obstruction or a similar charge.  I'd have added assault on an officer, and attempted aiding an escape by force, myself.  

I'd say this is a great example of how a seemingly minor incident can escalate quickly, and why officers have to be prepared for that escalation (or de-escalation, if a previously resistive or combative subject ceases to resist).


----------



## kaizasosei (Jun 15, 2010)

Kindof seemed like the officer was sortof getting off on the proximity involved in the encounter. The use of force i think was not appropriate or necessary or actually extrememly counterproductive to the profession.
Taking control of the situation, definite FAIL
As a police officer, i would think you don't 'pick your battles, nevertheless you sure as hell are free to go about things in different ways, some good, some not so.
Police are human and can be overwhelmed especially if lacking experience or braincells.
It's like..Don't mess with the oger! Keep a healthy distance from the cage. 
Quite bold or foolish to physically stand up to police but people do what people do..reason or madness?


----------



## Cryozombie (Jun 15, 2010)

From a civilian standpoint, I don't think he used proper force. In fact, I think he was too restrained: The confrontation took too long and he was fighting with multiple opponents, with more potential combatants in the mix.  IMO, again, as a Civilian, THAT is what Tazers and OC are made for... The woman in pink is lucky she only got a sock to the face, and should have been charged with Assault, as far as Im concerned.


----------



## Carol (Jun 15, 2010)

Psst...hey Cryo,  police officer was recorded in a 2 party consent state (Washington).  Shh!  Don't tell anyone.


----------



## Aikicomp (Jun 15, 2010)

That officer needs some training ASAP...on numerous fronts. Someone in that area PLEASE find him and offer him some training. He was very lucky he was not in a more aggressive situation...IMHO....he would have been hurt or killed.

As to his use of force....I did not see any, all he did was play wrist grab with her and could have paid a terrible price if things had gone differently. 

If it was me....she was resisting arrest and not complying with commands....SO....the first woman would have hit the ground so hard her momma would have said ouch, and after she was secured, her stupid a$$ cousin would have followed soon after.

Things like this make me crazy!!!!

I can't believe the academy training sends officers out this ill-prepared in hand to hand controling and locking techniques....honestly....it sickens me. I have given many police seminars and they have learned more from me in a 3 hour intensive on locks and control techniques than they had in the academy! Absolutely! EFFIN! Rediculous! 

Rant over.

Michael


----------



## seasoned (Jun 16, 2010)

Archangel M said:


> He needed back-up.
> 
> If he couldn't physically control the suspect he should have used some sort of less lethal like OC IMO. As far as "taking control of the situation" *thats easier said than done for those who haven't tried it.* I did notice the officers lack of strong verbal commands though. I'm thinking he was fairly new and way in over his head.


Really!!!! Were we looking at the same video? 
Re: Lawful use of force or excessive? I saw the potential for a disaster. 
I will agree, fairly new, and way in over his head.


----------



## punisher73 (Jun 16, 2010)

This is one of those videos that is a no win situation for cops.  With a slight edit by the newsmedia it would look very bad.

As to the use of force.  He didn't use the appropriate level of force from the start.  When the first woman was resisting he should have done was he was trained to do (assuming that they use PPCT or something similiar) use a knee strike as a distraction and then takedown.

BUT, Once he takes the woman down (either to the ground or the hood of the car) he is left vulnerable to the other people in the crowd.

As to the second lady, she WAY upped the level of response.  She created a multiple opponent situation that had to be dealth with IMMEDIATELY.  The officer had no way of knowing what her intent was, only that she put hands on him and was trying to stop him from effecting a legal arrest.


----------



## MJS (Jun 16, 2010)

First and foremost, as soon as people started resisting, he should've called for backup, new or seasoned officer.  IMO, its better to air in the side of caution, rather than trying to deal with something like this, especially with a large group forming.

As Arch said, he was using alot of verbal commands, which, had he not hit her, would probably have been his saving grace.  

As for the hit....IMO, in a situation like that, I do not feel that the hit was proper.  Now, if 5 other people suddenly joined in and started beating him, then yeah, he's outnumbered, and in that case, if he started swinging back, then I see no issues with that.  That actually happened to one of our plain clothes narc. dets. one day.  Started chasing the guy, the guy stopped and started throwing punches.  

As far as this goes though, I think the OC would've been the better choice.  Blast them both with a shot of it, and I'm sure their 'fire' would've been put out.  

As always, this video was only started when the officer was attempting to detain/arrest the first girl.  I would have loved to have physically seen what happened earlier.  I'm sure, had we seen that, we'd have seen this girl acting just as much of an *** as she was when being arrested.  

And as punisher said, why keep playing around with her standing?  Take her down.  The downside, as said, is he's more vulnerable.  Then again, by the looks of the growing crowd, he was rapidly getting placed in a bad position.  Call for backup.  I"m assuming he called out his location to dispatch, so even if he wasn't able to use his radio, hit the panic button.  Again, assuming the radio has one, which I believe they all do.  At least help would've been on the way.


----------



## Balrog (Jun 16, 2010)

I'd have maced her or used the taser.  The punch was justified, but I guarantee he'll be sued over it and get 12 jerks on the jury who will totally overlook the circumstances and hang him out to dry.


----------



## jks9199 (Jun 16, 2010)

MJS said:


> First and foremost, as soon as people started resisting, he should've called for backup, new or seasoned officer.  IMO, its better to air in the side of caution, rather than trying to deal with something like this, especially with a large group forming.
> 
> As Arch said, he was using alot of verbal commands, which, had he not hit her, would probably have been his saving grace.
> 
> ...


At the time when he punched the woman in pink, OC wasn't a really available option.  His hands were tied up, and you have to have at least one hand free enough to deploy the OC (or anything else).  The strike was absolutely justifiable -- and he stopped when she backed out of the fight.  The strike drove her back, and got her off of him.  However, as I said, he didn't escalate in dealing with the original offender.

It's actually kind of simple.  An officer is empowered to use sufficient force to obtain his lawful goal; the girl in question refused verbal commands, and began to pull away and try to escape his control.  He *did *have grounds to involuntarily detain her to investigate the traffic infraction, so he had grounds to use the force necessary to do so.  He begins to escalate to stronger holds, and got locked in a game of tug o' war over her wrists.  I can think of a lot of reasons why he might not have escalated, ranging from just didn't think of it through "she's a girl" or questioned his own authority to use more force and was afraid of liability.  Especially when the second woman joined in -- he could have backed off, and presented a higher level of force, and called for back up.


----------



## jks9199 (Jun 16, 2010)

Balrog said:


> I'd have maced her or used the taser.  The punch was justified, but I guarantee he'll be sued over it and get 12 jerks on the jury who will totally overlook the circumstances and hang him out to dry.


He'd face the same suit over the Taser or pepper spray.  He needed to deal with her RIGHT then; his hands were his most available and direct option.  I can really make a case from the video that he could have felt she was going for his gun...


----------



## Archangel M (Jun 16, 2010)

Sure enough this is going to be turned into "The Cop punched a girl because she was JAYWALKING!" UHHH...no. Thats the typical attempt to turn the bad behavior of these girls around on the cop. He had every legal right to stop them. How they behaved from that point on is on THEM!


----------



## Kyosanim (Jun 16, 2010)

Archangel M said:


> [yt]E9w9AfptGGQ[/yt]
> 
> Let's see what you all think?







Most people don't know there are a lot of politics in police work, and if the guy was right or wrong really doesn't matter. If the higher ups decide it looks bad for the department he'll lose his job and have a hard time getting a new one.


----------



## MJS (Jun 16, 2010)

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37731283/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/


----------



## Archangel M (Jun 16, 2010)

> Seattle Urban League CEO James Kelly says the punch was an overreaction that brought to mind a video taken April 17 of two Seattle officers kicking a Hispanic suspect.



Of course...so now we have to be worried about "bringing to mind" other incidents??

Kudos to that Police Chief!


----------



## MJS (Jun 16, 2010)

jks9199 said:


> At the time when he punched the woman in pink, OC wasn't a really available option. His hands were tied up, and you have to have at least one hand free enough to deploy the OC (or anything else). The strike was absolutely justifiable -- and he stopped when she backed out of the fight. The strike drove her back, and got her off of him. However, as I said, he didn't escalate in dealing with the original offender.
> 
> It's actually kind of simple. An officer is empowered to use sufficient force to obtain his lawful goal; the girl in question refused verbal commands, and began to pull away and try to escape his control. He *did *have grounds to involuntarily detain her to investigate the traffic infraction, so he had grounds to use the force necessary to do so. He begins to escalate to stronger holds, and got locked in a game of tug o' war over her wrists. I can think of a lot of reasons why he might not have escalated, ranging from just didn't think of it through "she's a girl" or questioned his own authority to use more force and was afraid of liability. Especially when the second woman joined in -- he could have backed off, and presented a higher level of force, and called for back up.


 
Points taken.  Could you clarify something you said for me?  I had mentioned the use of OC.  In this reply to me, you said that you need at least 1 hand free for that, but in your first post, you said:



> He probably should have at least been going for OC or a baton


 
It looked to me, that there was more than one opportunity, the first one being right after he hit the girl in the pink, to grab his OC.  

Of  course, I'm also interested in knowing the PDs use of force policy.  I think that would shed some light on this as well.

In closing, I think its safe to say that you, and the other fellow LEOs on the forum, all, or should all hopefully know, that I'm certainly not anti-LEO.   By all means, if he was justified in doing that, go for it.   I just figured that since he had other options available to him, at the time, that he'd go for those first, before doing what he did.  I'd just hate to see him get jammed up, thats all.


----------



## Haakon (Jun 16, 2010)

Archangel M said:


> Sure enough this is going to be turned into "The Cop punched a girl because she was JAYWALKING!" UHHH...no. Thats the typical attempt to turn the bad behavior of these girls around on the cop. He had every legal right to stop them. How they behaved from that point on is on THEM!



Absolutely, it's apparently already being portrayed that way in some markets. They're editing the video down to just the punch without anything leading up to it and saying how the cop punched her for jaywalking.

From what I've heard about it, the officer has been on the job for 4 years, backup took more than 3 minutes to get there from when he called - that area is under patrolled. I don't think he used excessive force, I also think he was lucky there were only the 2 girls to deal with and not the entire group there. That could have turned very ugly for him, very quickly.

Not that it will get much play in the media, but the girl who was punched has a history of assaulting police officers already, and clearly wasn't punished hard enough since she's willing to do it again. Chances are she won't do much, if any, time for it this time either. Juveniles get less than 1 year for helping to beat someone to death in Seattle, she won't get much for this unfortunately.


----------



## ratman (Jun 16, 2010)

Absolutely without a doubt a justified use of force. You push a cop, girl or not, a punch to your grill is not excessive. According to our departments use of force policy and procedure and the State of Ohio Police Officer Training Academy.... we can always stay one step ahead of the offender in use of force. A taser or oc may have been more "politically correct" and look better to the public but when your on the street with a bunch of thugs around you obstructing official business with no backup, you do what you got to do. Just because this thug was a chick has nothing to do with it. You wanna act like a man be prepared to get treated like one.


----------



## kaizasosei (Jun 16, 2010)

I think it's safe to say that the officer was a fair bit harsher on the second subject/victim, much nicer to the first one. That i think is a typical human fault anyone can make. I've always admired the certain aspect of equality in the justice system itself and i believe that attempting to embody the 'law one must be able to remain somewhat more detatched from the world. It's definitely a spiritual odessey and i often wonder about what it would be like to join the police.  
  I think that the biggest problem was the apparent lack of clear communication before attempting to restrain which caused a startle effect. Probably, the natural resisting ability of the woman was underestimated. Communication is not only important, it is also ethical and fair not to mention effective.  The clearer and more persistent the better.

I must appologize if i came off as rude in my last post in this thread as i failed to realize i was in the law enforcement section.



j


----------



## jks9199 (Jun 17, 2010)

MJS said:


> Points taken.  Could you clarify something you said for me?  I had mentioned the use of OC.  In this reply to me, you said that you need at least 1 hand free for that, but in your first post, you said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


At the specific moment of the punch, he had to do something to back the woman in pink off to allow him other options.  At that instant, I'd say that it was unlikely that he could have simply reached for OC or a baton... but after driving her back, he had a chance to do shift to a different option.  It's a very dynamic thing, and the early comment was a more generic statement.  The specific moment of the punch is a different question.

You can kind of compare it to maybe a sweep...  Do a sweep while the opponent's weight is on the leg and they're balanced, and it's not likely to work.  But that doesn't mean that you can't use a sweep at a different instant in a fight.


----------



## Sukerkin (Jun 17, 2010)

Archangel M said:


> "The Cop punched a girl because she was JAYWALKING!"


 

I confess that that is what I was thinking - along with a sinking feeling in my gut that almost every member on here who is an officer of the law thought that it was okay to man-handle and strike someone for a minor infraction {AFAIK that is}.

Drug dealing or murder are crimes - wandering about without a purpose is hardly in the same league. I would far rather police dealt with the first category than the second.

I know that you chaps have your rationales for policing the way that you do and that it is your country at the end of the day. 

So before you all start in on me, just because I am thousands of miles away and it says "English" on my passport, that doesn't mean that I can't say that I don't like what it suggests about the very concept of policing by consent in the States. 

Hopefully, having such an opinion doesn't promote a 'backlash' {or should that be a "back-fist"?  } from the Thin Blue Line.


----------



## ratman (Jun 17, 2010)

Sukerkin said:


> I confess that that is what I was thinking - along with a sinking feeling in my gut that almost every member on here who is an officer of the law thought that it was okay to man-handle and strike someone for a minor infraction {AFAIK that is}.
> 
> Drug dealing or murder are crimes - wandering about without a purpose is hardly in the same league. I would far rather police dealt with the first category than the second.
> 
> ...



The issue isn't wandering about (jaywalking) the issue is she assaulted a police officer which is a felony crime in every state in the U.S. We don't punch people for jaywalking although there would be less of it going on if we could.


----------



## jks9199 (Jun 17, 2010)

Sukerkin said:


> I confess that that is what I was thinking - along with a sinking feeling in my gut that almost every member on here who is an officer of the law thought that it was okay to man-handle and strike someone for a minor infraction {AFAIK that is}.
> 
> Drug dealing or murder are crimes - wandering about without a purpose is hardly in the same league. I would far rather police dealt with the first category than the second.
> 
> ...


No, she wasn't punched for jaywalking.

The first woman, in black, was grabbed and detained because, when stopped for jaywalking, she refused to obey the officer's commands, and then resisted his control.  I'm pretty confident that even British cops () would take action where someone to walk away when they were being confronted about a violation of law.

The second woman, who got punched, was struck because she interfered in the situation with the first girl.  At that point, she's interfering in the lawful duties of the officer, and presenting a serious threat to his safety.  It's become a two-on-one fight, AND there's a crowd that could easily join in.  Immediate, decisive action was necessary.  He could (and arguably should!) have used even more force.


----------



## Sukerkin (Jun 17, 2010)

I actually don't think we have fundamentally different views on this issue. We might be talking about different aspects of the same thing as I was broad-brushing a 'macro-scale' socio-political view rather than, as would have been more proper given the 'target' of the thread, a more microcosmic view of the tactical situation.

Nonetheless, I appreciate your point of view and, as ever, applaud the logical and reasonable way you put that view across

Like others here who are qualified to voice a more professional opinion than mine, I think that the judgement excercised by the officer in question was poor from the start.

Now that I have had time to read the whole thread tho' and absorb the full timbre of the encounter, I don't feel so strongly about the 'wrongness' of the officers actions. 

That doesn't mean I think he was right or that I completely aquiesce to the majority view of the officers here that it's okay to police in such a fashion but neither do I think that there is yet a need to issue little silver collar flashes ... not just yet at any rate .


----------



## MA-Caver (Jun 17, 2010)

Mark, as I saw it and read the article and posts here... Jaywalking is a minor infraction of the law (and it's there for public safety... I got hit by a small truck because I dashed out to cross the street in order to catch a bus... could've been killed)... and likely the girl would've gotten either a verbal warning or a simple ticket ... HAD she simply cooperated with the officer and quietly acquiesce to his commands (which likely would've been more along the lines of "come here, I need to talk to you." I can guess she KNEW she was jaywalking (a LOT of people know about it and do it anyway thinking cops aren't watching) and didn't want to get a ticket so she tried to ignore him. 
At which point the officer needed to up the ante by asserting his authority when he sees someone breaking the law, however minor.
Arguing with an officer over a clear infraction is just plain stupid. Arguing is best done in Court. 
Yelling and cursing at a cop is just plain stupid. It not only shows disrespect for their authority but adds stress to the situation, stress to the officer, who already has enough stress through the day anyway. 
If the officer feels that the situation merits an arrest and you disagree then a cooler head would be to request that a supervisor be sent to the area to discuss the situation. Granted that the officer has the option to refuse for whatever reason. Or simply go on downtown and hash it out and deal with it in court. 
These points of course are for the cooler heads in the world. There aren't that many sad to say. So probably already hyped up from something totally unrelated the girl finds out she's going to get a ticket and argues the point, bringing her emotions to THAT situation instead of rationally separating them. 
Cop wants to arrest and she RESISTS... another stupid STUPID move. Resisting just aggravates the cop even more (especially getting yelled at and verbally abused to begin with and HE's supposed to remain calm throughout... yeah right). 
2nd girl throwing into the mix just raised the stakes even higher. As mentioned by the other officers here he's now out-numbered. 

What I can't figure is why this particular cop and many others aren't trained for effective take-down techniques. The video clearly shows he had no control what-so-ever of the girl in black and he couldn't maintain control. She kept twisting on out of his grip... tying up BOTH hands. Clearly (to me anyway) there was a lack of training. Maybe he _was/is_ trained and knew that whatever technique he _could_ have applied would've seriously hurt the girl... which would've gotten him into more serious hot water. 

I dunno... But I do agree with what someone else here said... should've radioed for back up at the first opportunity.


----------



## Sukerkin (Jun 17, 2010)

I agree entirely with the quite obvious foolishness of the actions of the lady in question.

I think I am attempting to address a point that is not properly pertinent to this particular issue i.e. that the escalation of events was understandable and legal but that perhaps it would have been better to excercise a little judgement and let it go rather than get all Cartman about it.


----------



## Carol (Jun 17, 2010)

Sukerkin said:


> That doesn't mean I think he was right or that I completely aquiesce to the majority view of the officers here that it's okay to police in such a fashion but neither do I think that there is yet a need to issue little silver collar flashes ... not just yet at any rate .



The LEOs out west are not enforcing jaywalking tickets because they're trying to show neighborhood kids who's boss.  They're enforcing jaywalking tickets because the mayor depends on it as a source of revenue generation (insert gratuitous public safety comment here).  In other words Suke....its not about the power, its about the money.  :lol:


----------



## MJS (Jun 17, 2010)

jks9199 said:


> At the specific moment of the punch, he had to do something to back the woman in pink off to allow him other options. At that instant, I'd say that it was unlikely that he could have simply reached for OC or a baton... but after driving her back, he had a chance to do shift to a different option. It's a very dynamic thing, and the early comment was a more generic statement. The specific moment of the punch is a different question.
> 
> You can kind of compare it to maybe a sweep... Do a sweep while the opponent's weight is on the leg and they're balanced, and it's not likely to work. But that doesn't mean that you can't use a sweep at a different instant in a fight.


 
I see what you're saying.  Of course, this is why I hate to Monday morning QB things like this.  Why?  Because its easy to say what they should/should not have done, but when you're really out there, dealing with these knuckleheads, its a whole different story.

On a side note...I emailed this video to a good friend and inst. of mine.  He's a Capt. in the DOC, here in CT.  He made mention of the kid with the fancy designs cut into his hair.  There were at least 2 times, while the cop was dealing with those girls, that it appeared like he was contemplating attacking the cop.  I hadn't noticed that when I was watching it.


----------



## DavidCC (Jun 17, 2010)

Sukerkin said:


> I agree entirely with the quite obvious foolishness of the actions of the lady in question.
> 
> I think I am attempting to address a point that is not properly pertinent to this particular issue i.e. that the escalation of events was understandable and legal but that perhaps it would have been better to excercise a little judgement and let it go rather than get all Cartman about it.




Let it go?

an Officer stops a woman for a minor violation, she cusses him out and walks away and he should let it go?


----------



## Steve (Jun 17, 2010)

Carol said:


> The LEOs out west are not enforcing jaywalking tickets because they're trying to show neighborhood kids who's boss. They're enforcing jaywalking tickets because the mayor depends on it as a source of revenue generation (insert gratuitous public safety comment here). In other words Suke....its not about the power, its about the money. :lol:


In this particular case, based on what I've heard locally on the radio, the officers were enforcing jaywalking at the request of Franklin HS.  I know that intersection well, and it's a dangerous one.  There's a passover that's been there for a long time, but kids routinely run across the street rather than trudge up and over.


----------



## Archangel M (Jun 17, 2010)

Carol said:


> The LEOs out west are not enforcing jaywalking tickets because they're trying to show neighborhood kids who's boss.  They're enforcing jaywalking tickets because the mayor depends on it as a source of revenue generation (insert gratuitous public safety comment here).  In other words Suke....its not about the power, its about the money.  :lol:





stevebjj said:


> In this particular case, based on what I've heard locally on the radio, the officers were enforcing jaywalking at the request of Franklin HS.  I know that intersection well, and it's a dangerous one.  There's a passover that's been there for a long time, but kids routinely run across the street rather than trudge up and over.



Steve beat me too it. 

Carol, while what you said is a common perception, when it comes to situations like this one it is routinely what Steve just described. 

Someone complains about a situation, like Jaywalking in front of the school...most likely to the Chief of Police or the Mayor/Supervisor who then passes it to the Chief. Their complaint has as much right to be addressed by us as anybody elses, jaywalking IS illegal. 

So a Sergeant assigns an officer to address the complaint. Probably with orders to advise and if necessary cite violators. The officer follows orders and goes to the location. So what happens? Some loudmouth (with an alleged history of this sort of behavior I have heard) who probably was going to get a warning now is going to get a ticket..but no she wont stay around for that and gets disorderly to boot. The officer tries to arrest her and she resists and her friend shoves him. 

Now we have people trying to frame things as "Out of control officer punched girl for Jaywalking". The more I deal with people the less I understand how they think.


----------



## kaizasosei (Jun 17, 2010)

I really think it would have been enough to tell the second lady to BACK OFF really forcefully, then he could have returned to the first problem probably with even more authority. I'm sure most will have to agree that had there been some crazy cophating punk out there, that punch would have been his cue to move in or start blastin. So in that sense it was not overly bright on the part of the single man either.  

The girl who initially was being addressed should have been controlled more with the voice and then taken down briskly. She was being very offensive to the officer from what we could see on the vid.  Not sure what happened before that and the exact words.  
Ultimately i guess those two ladies handled things worst of all.  The policeman was most stressed and they were playing it. Not knowing is half the problem. 
I think as a strong man, and i don't mean just physically, he should have been able to deal with these two without creating a mess of it all and coming away looking bad.  Plus it's not only cameras, a human being has a conscience that doesn't get erased or purged so easily.  
So no choice but believe in ones actions or repent in remorse.  If so rightfully smack your obstacle in the face, take a punch for a friend and wrestle with a demon if you like.
Thanks be to God that there was no more bloodshed than there was.

Watching it again, it seemed like the officer was correct in uping the level of force according to his ability. Voice probably would not have been enough at that stage.. strange i didn't notice this so much the first time, but they were not just resisting they were defending against the officer by choosing to fight him off.  Some really inexperienced or triggerhappy officer could possibly shoot confronted with such a situation.


j


----------



## Carol (Jun 17, 2010)

Archangel M said:


> Steve beat me too it.
> 
> Carol, while what you said is a common perception, when it comes to situations like this one it is routinely what Steve just described.
> 
> ...



Thanks for the insight...and for the correction.  :asian:



> Now we have people trying to frame things as "Out of control officer punched girl for Jaywalking". The more I deal with people the less I understand how they think.



"If it bleeds, it leads." As cliche as it sounds...its still accurate.


----------



## Archangel M (Jun 17, 2010)

Bottom line.

The punch worked and most likely was within his departmental guidelines in terms of their force continuum.


----------



## Sukerkin (Jun 17, 2010)

DavidCC said:


> Let it go?
> 
> an Officer stops a woman for a minor violation, she cusses him out and walks away and he should let it go?



It all depends on what you want out of your police force.

If you want them to enforce all the laws all the time, then no, clearly not.

If you want them to excercise their judgement as to what truly constitutes them doing their job, then yes.

I don't for a second think that LEO's don't make that sort of call every day of their working lives.


----------



## Archangel M (Jun 17, 2010)

When all someone has to do to avoid police interaction is to act like an *** and get away with it we may as well hand over the keys and pick up the fiddle while things burn. 

The "scream and tantrum my way out of an arrest" tactic is an old one. You don't get away with that tactic with me on the street.


----------



## Sukerkin (Jun 17, 2010)

That's the wrong inference to pick up from what I'm trying to say, *Angel*.  If it weren't you, I'd say that you could take your straw man and set fire to it.

There is more respect earned from some actions than from others and if you think that the LEO's of America had their reputations and thus their effectiveness enhanced by this episode then it is pointless to continue the conversation.  

In fact, no more conditional statements or intricate balancing acts between what is legal, what is right or what is important.  I'll just agree that you're right, that there is nothing more to discuss  and move on.

I knew it was a dead horse before I even began and all that I would do was make myself out to be the 'bad guy'.


----------



## Archangel M (Jun 17, 2010)

Suk if you think this episode is unique or something special in law enforcement...in my country or yours... you have been assimilated by the media borg.

If you want to discuss wrong doing by the Seattle police you need to pick something like this:

[yt]1-aCVrG-M_0[/yt]

not the video we are discussing. The problem is, is that videos like the one above are indefensible while the one we are discussing is.

This situation (the Jaywalkers) is simply an example of policeworks sometimes necessary, never pretty, reality. I could easily find some video footage of Brit coppers behaving similarly. An example of a drunk Squaddie in London (I believe) comes to mind. But that would hijack this thread.


----------



## Sukerkin (Jun 17, 2010)

Last gasp then I'm leaving this thread alone - I'm dog tired and thus barely able to form coherent arguments when the core I'm trying to get across is somewhat intangible.

One point embedded in what I've been trying to say is that it is not a unique situation (and becoming less so as edited 'public' video becomes more prevalent).

Part of law enforcement is surely to try to make sure that the cooperation is gained of those whose best interests you are supposed to have at heart.

Hostility against the police is inversely proportional to that quotient of cooperation.

Thus, in part, it is indicative of an underlying problem how much you or your fellows think that this episode should not be subject to criticism because the officer was 'within his rights'.

That is almost irrelevant.

I happen to agree with almost all that has been spoken from the Blue Corner.  I am actually on your 'side' {right up to the point where the Police become a tool of oppression rather than protection - which is not what is under discussion here}.

But law enforcement relies upon the cooperation of the citizenry (for, without it, you have a police state rather than rule of law by consent).

Incidents like this undermine that rule of law, whether it's fair or not for that to be the case.  That in turn only makes it harder for the lads and lasses who do your line of work.


----------



## Archangel M (Jun 17, 2010)

"It relies on cooperation of the citizenry"...

Not everybody we arrest cooperates Suk. The officer asked the ladies to come along quietly...they didn't cooperate.

Im sorry Suk..but I disagree with you. That happens sometimes.


----------



## MJS (Jun 17, 2010)

Sukerkin said:


> I agree entirely with the quite obvious foolishness of the actions of the lady in question.
> 
> I think I am attempting to address a point that is not properly pertinent to this particular issue i.e. that the escalation of events was understandable and legal but that perhaps it would have been better to excercise a little judgement and let it go rather than get all Cartman about it.


 


Sukerkin said:


> It all depends on what you want out of your police force.
> 
> If you want them to enforce all the laws all the time, then no, clearly not.
> 
> ...


 
Its bad enough, that the lack of respect for LEOs has majorily gone down the toilet, but IMHO, if every officer were to do what you suggested, for the situation you said, then there would be total chaos in every town and city.  

I used to get **** from inmates on a daily basis when I worked in Corrections.  If I did nothing, every time an inmate violated a unit rule, not only would I get in trouble by my Supervisors, but I'd have ZERO control of the housing unit.  

I've said it before, and I'll say it a thousand more times....people could avoid 99.99% of the headaches they bring on THEMSELVES, if they just shut the hell up, and did what the cop asked them to do.  Put your hands behind your back...you do it.  Get on the ground...you do it.  Get out of the car...you do it.  If the person feels they're being wrongly accused of something, deal with it after, but if you're going to act like an ***, then when you get slammed to the ground, hit with OC, hit with a taser, bit by a dog....you have nobody to blame but yourself.


----------



## kaizasosei (Jun 17, 2010)

I think i do somewhat understand what Sukerkin was trying to get at.  I tried to make a case of it with a reply but it was too difficult and  i had to give up. 

Really. Intangible is a good word for it.
It would venture to say it boils down to there being other options rather than immediate force. Is it just me or are most the lone violent cops always the ones that take lots of crap silently and stoically until it seethes so bad they flip and lash out?

Yet the scene starts off as bad with the lady mouthing off the officer, so that means only two possibilities, either that was one lippy and rebelious woman or the officer did not command the necessary respect that makes an arrest even possible-that is without extremely rough techniques. Probably safe to say the first scenario is more of an issue considering the intense resistance both verbally and physically.

j


----------



## Brian King (Jun 17, 2010)

*Sukerkin wrote:*



> I know that you chaps have your rationales for policing the way that you do and that it is your country at the end of the day.


*Carol wrote:*



> The LEOs out west are not enforcing jaywalking tickets because they're trying to show neighborhood kids who's boss. They're enforcing jaywalking tickets because the mayor depends on it as a source of revenue generation (insert gratuitous public safety comment here). In other words Suke....its not about the power, its about the money.


*SteveBJJ wrote:*



> In this particular case, based on what I've heard locally on the radio, the officers were enforcing jaywalking at the request of Franklin HS. I know that intersection well, and it's a dangerous one. There's a passover that's been there for a long time, but kids routinely run across the street rather than trudge up and over.


 
Roger that Steve, I heard that from 2002-2006 there were 61 deaths from vehicle vs pedestrian accidents on that vary street. That was one of the reasons for the sky bridge (which was fifteen feet from where this incident took place). The street isnt one of the biggest or busiest but it has I think six lanes there where the incident took place. 

Regarding OC, not sure I would want to use it with multiple people involved. Being alone I hardly want my own vision and breathing even slightly impaired if I can at all help it.

One of the issues up here, and this is just my own opinion, is political and politics. We have certain people and community organizations that are backing the interim police chief because he happens to be a Hispanic, while other groups and individuals are backing their man because he happens to be colored. The not so in the background focus has become unfortunately racial for some of the more active (loud) groups in their backing of their candidates run for the appointed position. We see almost a battle of my group is the bigger victim rising of community issues and why their candidate is the better person for the job. 

Regarding the officer and his performance during this incident, it is difficult for me to say. It appears that he could have been more positive in his officer presence, meaning more forceful, but I was not there. I cannot get a vibe from just the video on what the group feel was. If he had been more forceful might some in the group besides the other gal have been motivated to become involved? Both young ladies have extensive and serious criminal records. One of the young men who took the video has a criminal record from what I have heard. When bouncing sometimes I would bounce hard other times very soft, often it was my gut feelings and experience telling me which approach was best for that exact situation. This officer I am sure was reading the young ladies as well as the crowd and was adjusting his tactics with what his training and experience was telling him he was seeing/feeling. Was he 100 percent correct? I dunno, but anytime I see myself doing my martial art on film I am unhappy as I always realize I could have done better. I am pretty sure that this officer feels the same LOL but the officer survived and was uninjured, both girls survived without injury, no one in the crowd were injured and those that asked to be arrested were. I am sure the officer and his department would like more positive press but it could have been worse. The young ladies and the young men are enjoying the press as in some neighborhoods resisting police brings status and that brings a sense of safety and prestige. The local news outlets are enjoying all the national attention and the drama has given the local politicians and community activists something to be upset. Not so bad as far as such incidents go in my opinion.


Regards
Brian King


----------



## jks9199 (Jun 17, 2010)

Sukerkin said:


> It all depends on what you want out of your police force.
> 
> If you want them to enforce all the laws all the time, then no, clearly not.
> 
> ...





Archangel M said:


> When all someone has to do to avoid police interaction is to act like an *** and get away with it we may as well hand over the keys and pick up the fiddle while things burn.
> 
> The "scream and tantrum my way out of an arrest" tactic is an old one. You don't get away with that tactic with me on the street.



Once the officer has chosen to take action -- he has to follow through.  I don't make threats, especially at work.  I will advise you of the consequences of an action.  If I tell you that if you don't comply and voluntarily get into the cruiser, I'm going to fold you in half and put you in the cruiser, it's a good bet I'm prepared and have a plan to do exactly that.

Sukerkin, you've talked about "policing by consent" more than once.  What would happen if people decided all they needed to do to avoid being policed is to "not consent"?  How long would it take for nobody to consent, and there to be no effective policing?

Most people here in the USA voluntarily comply with the laws, by and large.  And, while they may grumble, they listen to what the police say, and heed it.  A portion are very verbal, but comply.  A smaller portion need to be driven to comply.  The smallest portion are those "NO WAY" people, who would break the the law of gravity as a matter of principle...  They need to be dealt with, and dealt with effectively.  They aren't going to voluntarily do anything.


----------



## Sukerkin (Jun 18, 2010)

jks9199 said:


> What would happen if people decided all they needed to do to avoid being policed is to "not consent"? How long would it take for nobody to consent, and there to be no effective policing?


 
That wasn't really what I was driving at. 

I was talking about societal consent rather than individual and how that consent is dependant on the intangible form of respect that is lost by incidents like this being so publicly picked over. The understandble instinct to 'defend' the actions of the officers involved with arguments that don't address the concerns of the public makes things worse still.

What I've been trying to get at is that, in the end, any over-authoritarian execution of a policemans duties serves to place them outside the community they are supposed to be part of and erodes the consent that they need to do the job without becoming a force for a true 'Police-State'.

You might agree with that or not and you might understand it or not but it is my view. I can't decifer why I am failing to get that view across effectively but I just wanted to add this caveat when I was not rendered almost incoherent by fatigue.

I shall not respond any further here as the frustrating feeling of banging my head against a brick wall is not one I enjoy {not saying that it is the fault of you chaps that I feel that way, just to be clear}.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jun 18, 2010)

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2010/0617102punch1.html


----------



## MJS (Jun 18, 2010)

Sukerkin said:


> That wasn't really what I was driving at.
> 
> I was talking about societal consent rather than individual and how that consent is dependant on the intangible form of respect that is lost by incidents like this being so publicly picked over. The understandble instinct to 'defend' the actions of the officers involved with arguments that don't address the concerns of the public makes things worse still.
> 
> ...


 
So basically, you're talking about community policing, where the officers do more interacting, than usual with the general public.  Ex: A beatman makes it a point to frequent more businesses, getting to know the business owners on a more personal level, interacting with people in certain neighborhoods, perhaps ones that are not as well to do as others, and things of that nature.  

Where I work, and many other PDs in the state, already do this.  However, the relations between the public and officers are a 2-way street.  The officers can do their best, but it requires more than a few members of the public to accept the officers.  

As I said in my other post....there are many times people dont like to do what is asked of them.  My line of thinking is simple to do it at the moment, and if you feel wrongly done, deal with it later, but to act like a first class ***, well, thats bringing on more headache.  If the public refuses to listen to the cop, and the cop does nothing, how can the cop possibly ever expect anyone to listen to him?  

In this case, do you honestly think that the girl was going to admit she did anything wrong?  Of course not.  The other girl should've minded her own damn business, plain and simple.  Instead, she went to bat for her friend, and found herself getting detained as well.  

I've said it many times, I'll say it again...there are good cops and bad ones.  I've seen ones that think because they have a badge and gun, that that gives them the right to bully people.  Ther are also ones who are decent and do their job.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jun 18, 2010)

"Seattle girl  had it coming to her" - *Carlos Miller*

When a guy who writes a "bad cop" blog stands up for the cop in a violent altercation, it makes an interesting point.

I've consented (through not choice I made, no vote I cast, etc) to having a police force. I choose to cooperate with them in a positive and friendly manner, as I did last night at the dwi checkpoint I went through without incident. 

In this particular case, the girl seeks out the cop, attacks the cop physically. The cop had not given her more than a verbal order prior. She was in the wrong, the cop was in the right.

In the case of the coffeeshop issue, I again support the cop.

In the other video above, the cops in the wrong.

Society as a whole, and as individuals need to support the police in their efforts to keep the peace and solve crimes and enforce laws while serving the public good.
Police need to, as a whole and as individuals, remain true to their oaths, to enforce not make up laws, to respect the people they serve. Yes, serve, not dominate.

It's a 2 way street. Both sides need to work at this.


----------



## DavidCC (Jun 18, 2010)

Sukerkin said:


> That wasn't really what I was driving at.
> 
> I was talking about societal consent rather than individual and how that consent is dependant on the intangible form of respect that is lost by incidents like this being so publicly picked over. The understandble instinct to 'defend' the actions of the officers involved with arguments that don't address the concerns of the public makes things worse still.
> 
> ...



I don't think anyone would really disagree with you philosophically about policing and the community.  But it was too late for that, she was being loudly, publically defiant and I don't think any police force in the world can allow that kind of behavior, otherwise their relationship with the community would become even more damaged.


----------



## Phelan (Jun 21, 2010)

Soft hands with the first lady is OK, but once the second lady joined the fray, it's GAME ON. She could have easily gone for his weapon--her, or one of the crazies from the crowd. This officer needs to remember that this is an armed encounter.

IMO , OC would have been the perfect choice here. It would have cleared that place out in a hurry. And instead of having to hear "GET THE **** OFF OF ME" You'd be hearing, cough cough whiz whiz.

Situations like this are why cops are trained to VERBALIZE whenever putting hands on someone.  "STOP RESISTING," or "GET BACK" or "GET DOWN" or anything to that effect. If you just stand there struggling with someone and all you hear is the suspect saying "HELP" it just looks bad, even if the officer is 100% in the right.


----------

