Lawful use of force or excessive?

[Sukerkin]

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]

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]

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]

"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]

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.

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.

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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

 

[MJS]

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}.

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]

"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]

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}.

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]

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.