Police Brutality??

[MJS]

Have you ever tried to do an orderly evacuation of 250+ drunk and possibly high college kids? Do you think sending in just a couple of cops to ushser people to the door would work? I guess not, because that is just a disaster waiting to happen.

QFT!!! And of course, usually when people say "Well the cops were in the wrong!" they rarely post what THEY feel should be done. I've heard some totally off the wall stuff, such as using a tranqualizer (sp) gun, like they would use for animals. LOL. Are you kidding me?? LOL.

I agree with you though...you got a situation like that, and you're right, its a ticking time bomb.

 

[jks9199]

5-0 Kenpo's post was excellent...

I only half agree with the issue on language. I agree with the basic premise; using profanity should be limited. Relying on profanity generally is a sign that you don't have the confidence and control to avoid it -- and often escalates a situation unnecessarily. But you also have to use language that makes sense to the people you're dealing with, and sometimes, that means using language that you wouldn't ordinarily. Drunk college kids -- or drunks in general -- sometimes don't take "please step back" seriously... and I don't know how long things went on before the filming started.

 

[5-0 Kenpo]

5-0 Kenpo's post was excellent...

I only half agree with the issue on language. I agree with the basic premise; using profanity should be limited. Relying on profanity generally is a sign that you don't have the confidence and control to avoid it -- and often escalates a situation unnecessarily. But you also have to use language that makes sense to the people you're dealing with, and sometimes, that means using language that you wouldn't ordinarily. Drunk college kids -- or drunks in general -- sometimes don't take "please step back" seriously... and I don't know how long things went on before the filming started.

I understand talking the language that people understand, however, I don't necessarily that using coarse language is the answer. If a guy is not doing what you are legally allowed to order him to do, detain him and if need be take him to jail.

Now, to show that I'm not just an administrator type I understand that officers sometimes use such language so that they don't have to go all the way to a detention or arrest, and save a couple of hours on a BS misdemeanor arrest that may or may not get filed by the "overburdened city attorney's office" . That being said, however, most of the time you handcuff a guy and put him in the back seat of a patrol car it has the uncanny ability to change their attitude. And if it doesn't, it's probably someone who needs to go to jail anyway.

You can tall a guy in a forceful and commanding way to do something while dropping the nice guy act. I just have a hard time seeing any real justification for such language considering the negative association to it with the public. Maybe if it's just the cop and the subject around, ok. But as I see it, the cost outweigh the benefits, as seen from the reaction to this video.

 

[jks9199]

I understand talking the language that people understand, however, I don't necessarily that using coarse language is the answer. If a guy is not doing what you are legally allowed to order him to do, detain him and if need be take him to jail.

Now, to show that I'm not just an administrator type I understand that officers sometimes use such language so that they don't have to go all the way to a detention or arrest, and save a couple of hours on a BS misdemeanor arrest that may or may not get filed by the "overburdened city attorney's office" . That being said, however, most of the time you handcuff a guy and put him in the back seat of a patrol car it has the uncanny ability to change their attitude. And if it doesn't, it's probably someone who needs to go to jail anyway.

You can tall a guy in a forceful and commanding way to do something while dropping the nice guy act. I just have a hard time seeing any real justification for such language considering the negative association to it with the public. Maybe if it's just the cop and the subject around, ok. But as I see it, the cost outweigh the benefits, as seen from the reaction to this video.

Absolutely; the bearing and authority that we lump under the phrase "command presence" is vital, and doesn't rest on profanity. But even the most forceful "sir, please step back" just doesn't always cut through the fog like a "GET THE **** BACK." It's not something that's appropriate every time. It's just one more item in the bag of tricks.

 

[sgtmac_46]

wouldnt' matter. Police officers dont stop most crimes last i knew. They can act as a semi-deterrent, but most often than not they show up after the crime was committed. Good lighting, private security cameras, a dog, there are many things that would probably have better results than the after the fact police call.

Yes and no.

By the admission of the cops on this board, they don't PREVENT Burglaries, they just respond to them, So...

Police do act as an effective deterrent against some crimes, mainly property crimes. Why? Because burglary cases that get solved result in criminals not being on the street to commit them. Burglary cases that don't get solved result in more burglary cases. So, while on the simplistic surface, the police won't 'prevent' an individual act, burglaries are not isolated affairs and are committed by repeat offenders.

Moreover, the perception of reduced protection will not go unnoticed by the criminal community and one can predictably expect increase in larceny related crimes.

Hope that helps clear up the confusion.

 

[sgtmac_46]

not at all. some officers i like very much, have some in the family if you read my posts, other officers i (can't complete it would be a violation of forum rules). They are like anyone else, there is good and bad.

what you are probably seeing in my post is my political ideology. I wont say what it is, (could be a violation of the rules) but lets just say it isnt a a liberal but i am a huge fan of freedom.

To be clear my personal political views are minarchist libertarian. But I believe that there exists a necessity in society for law enforcement. Perhaps not the shear amount of laws on the books. But certainly I do not believe that law enforcement need less authority to enforce those laws I do believe are necessary.

If one agrees with the need of LEO's to enforce laws, one necessarily agrees that they need the authority to do so. The two go hand in hand.

 

[sgtmac_46]

I understand talking the language that people understand, however, I don't necessarily that using coarse language is the answer. If a guy is not doing what you are legally allowed to order him to do, detain him and if need be take him to jail.

Now, to show that I'm not just an administrator type I understand that officers sometimes use such language so that they don't have to go all the way to a detention or arrest, and save a couple of hours on a BS misdemeanor arrest that may or may not get filed by the "overburdened city attorney's office" . That being said, however, most of the time you handcuff a guy and put him in the back seat of a patrol car it has the uncanny ability to change their attitude. And if it doesn't, it's probably someone who needs to go to jail anyway.

You can tall a guy in a forceful and commanding way to do something while dropping the nice guy act. I just have a hard time seeing any real justification for such language considering the negative association to it with the public. Maybe if it's just the cop and the subject around, ok. But as I see it, the cost outweigh the benefits, as seen from the reaction to this video.

There is some merit to both sides of the argument. Your last paragraph actually sums it up........'Maybe if it's just the cope and the subject around'.

Officers have to keep in mind what the public sees and maintain a certain image. What he says to the mouthy drunk out of earshot is an entirely different matter. If you have a French speaking citizen you speak French. If you have a drunken idiot you have to speak the language.......just not where everyone else can hear.

 

[Cryozombie]

As far as the OP is concerned, the only thing I think is wrong would be that If the cop told me to "Watch this" while I was filming, I'd take that as permission... then to be arrested for doing so, (and yeah, the guy was being a bit of an assclown to the cops, which didn't help him) well... I'd probably file a complaint too.

Brutality tho? Must have happened after the camera stopped rolling cuz I didn't see any.

 

[sgtmac_46]

As far as the OP is concerned, the only thing I think is wrong would be that If the cop told me to "Watch this" while I was filming, I'd take that as permission... then to be arrested for doing so, (and yeah, the guy was being a bit of an assclown to the cops, which didn't help him) well... I'd probably file a complaint too.

Brutality tho? Must have happened after the camera stopped rolling cuz I didn't see any.

I agree with your assessment. He shouldn't have done the 'watch this'......though the impact was really neglible, except that it would have looked better without that in it.