Security, Police Training, and perceptions...

[Gerry Seymour]

Search "Police Shooting" on YouTube and you get much more hits against police than supporting police.

Consider that statement. If I search for "police shooting", what would be likely to show up that paints officers in a favorable light? Just as if I search for "cop saves the day", I probably won't find much that paints them in a bad light. Your search terms biased the results from the start.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Actively shooting? No. Gun in hand? Yes.

The difference between those two points is much shorter than you seem to think. In many cases, once the gun is out and clearly identified, it was probably the muzzle flash that completed the identification. They wait until they think they can't afford to wait longer. That's reasonable. They'll make some mistakes, because there's often a razor-thin margin between shooting too early and shooting too late.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

He would have had to been completely insane to attempt to pull a gun while having a pistol in his back and multiple officers both holding him and watching him.

That hasn't stopped people from doing it in the past.

 

[TieXiongJi]

I realized something while driving. This conversation is incredibly frustrating because we are talking aboyt details too far away from where we agree.
Please indulge me by finding the common ground.
At which point do we agree? I did my best to keep it logically linear.

We are all humans.
We all want to live good lives.
We all want to suffer as little hardship as possible.
We don't want to be forced.
We don't want to force others.
We want to feel and truly be safe.
Existence is competition.
Outside forces cannot be controlled.
We must roll with the punches and find the best outcome possible.
We want to live in society.
We want to live in a fair society.
We want all people to be treated without bias.
We want a constitution as a foundatuon for law.
We agree with the US constitution.
We want to live the way we choose to live within the valid laws of the US constitution.
We want to remove laws which contradict the US constitution.
We want to have institutions integrated into society and thus our lives.
We want to have a well trained group ensure our safety by enforcing the laws.
We want the well trained group to protect us and themselves.
We want the well trained group to feel safe while performing their duty.
We want the well trained group to use reasonable force if necessary to perform their duty.
We want the well trained group to treat everyone as equals under the law.
We want the well trained group to justify their ideas and actions when necessary.
We want the well trained group to have more rights than the people they protect.
We want the well trained group to have a union to protect and improve their lives.
We want the well trained group to have enough resources to live a good life.
We want the well trained group to empathise with the people of society.
We want the well trained group to keep us safe even if we are a suspect in a crime.
We want the well trained group to clearly explain the reason we are a suspect.
We want the well trained group to keep us safe until we are fairly judged.

Let's see how far that gets us to understanding each other.

 

[Juany118]

Sure, but sometimes the officer is the first to use aggression. I completely disagree with initiating violent force. How can you know he will punch you until he swings?

A few things, if you are trained and experienced in noticing the.

1. Scanning. The suspect isn't looking at the interviewer. He is looking at the surrounding environment. He looks like he is looking for something, and is. He is looking for back up officers, witnesses, escape routes, allies.
2. Target glance. The suspect looks at specific areas on the officer. Where is their gun? Do they have a taser, pepper spray? Where is their radio and/or hand Mike. If they stay focused on a weapon you might want to be prepared for weapon retention. If they finally start looking at you face be prepared for a punch.

3. Clenching. constriction of muscles indicates physical stress and perhaps readiness for an attack. Pre-fight tensions will cause jaw muscle to bulge, fists to close and facial muscles to contract. If you pay close attention you may observe the trapezius muscles rise as the large muscles of the body constrict as if to prepare for physical contact or assault.

4. Eye blinks. Two variations. Some people will slow their blinking and get the thousand yard stars. Others will double, even triple their blinking rate (average rate is about 20 per minute.

5. Taking a fighters stance.

6. They flank the officer.

Unless the person is under the effects of an intoxicant or suffering a mental health episode it is actually not difficult to see the subconscious "tells" that an assault is imminent. Add these in with a known criminal history, especially one of violence, maybe they are on Probation/parole. This is why knowing these queues are important for an officer. An officer doesn't have to wait to be punched before they act, but they need to know the cues and how to articulate them to do so legally.

I already conceded on the video where the officer was arrested. Like I said, 10-15 minutes to gather proof when I start with a vague memory? Search "Police Shooting" on YouTube and you get much more hits against police than supporting police.
I hadn't seen the update, but the suspect is resisting while the officer has a pistol on his spine with additional officers around. Not a lot of perceived danger from my perspective. And he was arrested because it was obviously suspect of wrong doing.

YouTube is a HORRIBLE source for this. Except in extreme circumstances they are usually myopic in scope and show only the immediate incident of violence. This is a perfect example as to why you don't trust YouTube, especially with bias filled search terms.

Two other issues as examples.

Alton Sterling. Even the Washington Post experts could only say this upon closely watching the video. Note the source here isn't what I would call police friendly...
Was Alton Sterling shooting appropriate use of force? Experts analyze video for Washington Post

What does that all say? That the officers arguably made tactical mistakes, that due to lack of empty hand training were out of options when the taser failed and that because of this cascade the shooting of Sterling is actually within the use of force.

Then we have what one person started spreading on FB about the shooting of Scott on FB. A friend shared it saying "omg I hope it isn't true" because the YouTuber is editorializing. At one point he says "see they dropped a gun. Omg they dropped another gun, this is a set up!!! Now the guns are gone.". Because of my friends preconceptions exaggerated by the editorial, they saw guns. They weren't. It was the nitrile gloves the officer, who shot Scott, was struggling to put on due to the stress, so he could help render first aid.

YouTube, tbh Social Media in general, sucks.

 

[Juany118]

I realized something while driving. This conversation is incredibly frustrating because we are talking aboyt details too far away from where we agree.
Please indulge me by finding the common ground.
At which point do we agree? I did my best to keep it logically linear.

We are all humans.
We all want to live good lives.
We all want to suffer as little hardship as possible.
We don't want to be forced.
We don't want to force others.
We want to feel and truly be safe.
Existence is competition.
Outside forces cannot be controlled.
We must roll with the punches and find the best outcome possible.
We want to live in society.
We want to live in a fair society.
We want all people to be treated without bias.
We want a constitution as a foundatuon for law.
We agree with the US constitution.
We want to live the way we choose to live within the valid laws of the US constitution.
We want to remove laws which contradict the US constitution.
We want to have institutions integrated into society and thus our lives.
We want to have a well trained group ensure our safety by enforcing the laws.
We want the well trained group to protect us and themselves.
We want the well trained group to feel safe while performing their duty.
We want the well trained group to use reasonable force if necessary to perform their duty.
We want the well trained group to treat everyone as equals under the law.
We want the well trained group to justify their ideas and actions when necessary.
We want the well trained group to have more rights than the people they protect.
We want the well trained group to have a union to protect and improve their lives.
We want the well trained group to have enough resources to live a good life.
We want the well trained group to empathise with the people of society.
We want the well trained group to keep us safe even if we are a suspect in a crime.
We want the well trained group to clearly explain the reason we are a suspect.
We want the well trained group to keep us safe until we are fairly judged.

Let's see how far that gets us to understanding each other.

I realized something while driving. This conversation is incredibly frustrating because we are talking aboyt details too far away from where we agree.
Please indulge me by finding the common ground.
At which point do we agree? I did my best to keep it logically linear.

We are all humans.
We all want to live good lives.
We all want to suffer as little hardship as possible.
We don't want to be forced.
We don't want to force others.
We want to feel and truly be safe.
Existence is competition.
Outside forces cannot be controlled.
We must roll with the punches and find the best outcome possible.
We want to live in society.
We want to live in a fair society.
We want all people to be treated without bias.
We want a constitution as a foundatuon for law.
We agree with the US constitution.
We want to live the way we choose to live within the valid laws of the US constitution.
We want to remove laws which contradict the US constitution.
We want to have institutions integrated into society and thus our lives.
We want to have a well trained group ensure our safety by enforcing the laws.
We want the well trained group to protect us and themselves.
We want the well trained group to feel safe while performing their duty.
We want the well trained group to use reasonable force if necessary to perform their duty.
We want the well trained group to treat everyone as equals under the law.
We want the well trained group to justify their ideas and actions when necessary.
We want the well trained group to have more rights than the people they protect.
We want the well trained group to have a union to protect and improve their lives.
We want the well trained group to have enough resources to live a good life.
We want the well trained group to empathise with the people of society.
We want the well trained group to keep us safe even if we are a suspect in a crime.
We want the well trained group to clearly explain the reason we are a suspect.
We want the well trained group to keep us safe until we are fairly judged.

Let's see how far that gets us to understanding each other.

1. The problem is some of these things are subjective. What is "fair?" People where I currently live would say it is fair to cite someone for walking down the street drinking a 40oz. or blaring music the entire neighborhood can here. Where I work, the neighborhoods that require the most Police services, many of the people see enforcing the open container, or noise, ordinances as "harassment" and thus "unfair."

2. Regarding the Constitution the SCOTUS is the final judge of that. How many people said when a case went there "the government did something unconstitutional" but the SCOTUS said "nope, it's all good."

3. Regarding reasonable force, the issue in most cases appears to be that the average citizen isn't aware what the law says is a reasonable use of force (see number 2.)

4. Officers already have to justify their actions. Every action actually, not just UoF. The problem is when someone says "well that isn't justified", often with a lack of information or legal understanding, they assume the Officer can't justify it. Now is every single action by every single officer in the US legally justifiable? No. However the vast majority are. Again see number 2.

5. The law, affirmed by the SCOTUS not only says that police don't have to tell you, before arrest, why you are a suspect. The SCOTUS has also said police can LIE to you. Specific Case? Frazier v Cupp. During an interrogation police lied about the co-conspirator already confessed. The bad guy confessed, SCOTUS said it was fine. This was recently affirmed to extend to car stops. Example (the case itself... Federal court: OK for cops to lie -- sometimes ). Again see #2.

 

[Buka]

When the sheet hits the fan in your life, who you gonna' call?

 

[Tez3]

But as a discussion drags on for weeks and months, the participants stop communicating and the conversation fizzles.

As I said you haven't been here long enough to state that, conversations go on for a very long time here because we have the luxury of being able to converse, learn, research come back converse etc etc. This isn't Facebook.

I didn't even know that was a thing! Thank you. 1/27/17.

27th January 2017 ( see below)

We want a constitution as a foundatuon for law.
We agree with the US constitution.
We want to live the way we choose to live within the valid laws of the US constitution.
We want to remove laws which contradict the US constitution.

As I mentioned before this is an international site, most outside the US know the American Constitution by name only, many have their own Constitution or similar. The other bit is about 'the law', in any country there is always going to be debate about what laws there should be, the legalising of marijuana is a case in point, there is a lot of argument for and against. The gun control debate is a very good example of what Americans regard as a Constitutional issue, I've seen arguments both for and against owning guns so your point about 'we want to remove laws which contradict the US Constitution' will come up against people who believe laws aren't against it while other believe the laws do. It's not a blanket agreement statement.

We want the well trained group to have more rights than the people they protect.

I think you are confusing rights with legal powers. If they have more rights they could do thing like have more than one husband/wife, they could park their cars in no parking areas, etc. You mean they should have more powers, which again is debatable. Definition of policing by consent - GOV.UK

We want the well trained group to empathise with the people of society.

Good grief. Are you imagining that this 'group' is outside of society?

http://www.police-foundation.org.uk...what-is-policing-for/what_is_policing_for.pdf

 

[Juany118]

As I mentioned before this is an international site, most outside the US know the American Constitution by name only, many have their own Constitution or similar. The other bit is about 'the law', in any country there is always going to be debate about what laws there should be, the legalising of marijuana is a case in point, there is a lot of argument for and against. The gun control debate is a very good example of what Americans regard as a Constitutional issue, I've seen arguments both for and against owning guns so your point about 'we want to remove laws which contradict the US Constitution' will come up against people who believe laws aren't against it while other believe the laws do. It's not a blanket agreement statement.

And this is the key issue imo. Most people know "murder is bad, theft is bad, DWI is bad..." etc. But the difference between a mere encounter, detention and arrest? The difference between reasonable suspicion and probable cause? That the use of force CAN NOT use 20/20 hindsight and is instead "simply" based on a principle of "was it 'reasonable' given the circumstances and accounting for the officers training and experience." As an example, Chicago police say officer didn't shoot suspect beating her, fearing scrutiny.

She was severely beaten, she had hair ripped out of her head. She could have shot the person BUT because she knows that would make her the next "Social media goat", because of ignorance of the laws on the part of most of society, she didnt. Wtf.

 

[ballen0351]

A few things, if you are trained and experienced in noticing the.

1. Scanning. The suspect isn't looking at the interviewer. He is looking at the surrounding environment. He looks like he is looking for something, and is. He is looking for back up officers, witnesses, escape routes, allies.
2. Target glance. The suspect looks at specific areas on the officer. Where is their gun? Do they have a taser, pepper spray? Where is their radio and/or hand Mike. If they stay focused on a weapon you might want to be prepared for weapon retention. If they finally start looking at you face be prepared for a punch.

3. Clenching. constriction of muscles indicates physical stress and perhaps readiness for an attack. Pre-fight tensions will cause jaw muscle to bulge, fists to close and facial muscles to contract. If you pay close attention you may observe the trapezius muscles rise as the large muscles of the body constrict as if to prepare for physical contact or assault.

4. Eye blinks. Two variations. Some people will slow their blinking and get the thousand yard stars. Others will double, even triple their blinking rate (average rate is about 20 per minute.

5. Taking a fighters stance.

6. They flank the officer.

Unless the person is under the effects of an intoxicant or suffering a mental health episode it is actually not difficult to see the subconscious "tells" that an assault is imminent. Add these in with a known criminal history, especially one of violence, maybe they are on Probation/parole. This is why knowing these queues are important for an officer. An officer doesn't have to wait to be punched before they act, but they need to know the cues and how to articulate them to do so legally

Just to add to this list

Sometimes they just flat out tell you "you come near me I'm going to $*#^ you up"

Or prior experience there is always that "one guy" in your area that will always have a warrant and will always run and fight.

 

[Tez3]

I think it must surprise civvies how many people who are arrested are actually known to the police, sometimes it's like groundhog day arresting all the same people!

 

[ballen0351]

I think it must surprise civvies how many people who are arrested are actually known to the police, sometimes it's like groundhog day arresting all the same people!

I have always said we spend 75% of our time dealing with the same 25% of our population
When all you need to hear is the address over the radio and you already know the problem that's about to take up the rest of your day or when Dispatch just says respond to the Johnsons residence again usual issue and all you can do is laugh

 

[TieXiongJi]

As I mentioned before this is an international site, most outside the US know the American Constitution by name only, many have their own Constitution or similar. The other bit is about 'the law', in any country there is always going to be debate about what laws there should be, the legalising of marijuana is a case in point, there is a lot of argument for and against. The gun control debate is a very good example of what Americans regard as a Constitutional issue, I've seen arguments both for and against owning guns so your point about 'we want to remove laws which contradict the US Constitution' will come up against people who believe laws aren't against it while other believe the laws do. It's not a blanket agreement statement.

Agree. This website is international. Over the last few days, we have been discussing policing in America because I am American and it seems like most of the people responding to me are American.
I could reword the logical series for all national borders, but then we don't talk about American policing and justifying violence exercised within the American national law.
Please rewrite the statement and I will agree or not before we move on.

I think you are confusing rights with legal powers. If they have more rights they could do thing like have more than one husband/wife, they could park their cars in no parking areas, etc. You mean they should have more powers, which again is debatable. Definition of policing by consent - GOV.UK

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/policing-by-consent/definition-of-policing-by-consent

Good grief. Are you imagining that this 'group' is outside of society?

http://www.police-foundation.org.uk...what-is-policing-for/what_is_policing_for.pdf

No no. I wrote the statement to make sure we are all agree on the same goal.

Did you find any statement with which you disagree? If so, please rewrite in your words.

Years of debating with friends and family taught me that we must go through a very simple series of statements and agree until we disagree. Only when we understand each other up to the exact point we disagree can we start a conversation.

Thank you for continuing the conversation.

 

[TieXiongJi]

And this is the key issue imo. Most people know "murder is bad, theft is bad, DWI is bad..." etc. But the difference between a mere encounter, detention and arrest? The difference between reasonable suspicion and probable cause? That the use of force CAN NOT use 20/20 hindsight and is instead "simply" based on a principle of "was it 'reasonable' given the circumstances and accounting for the officers training and experience."

That is fair point. Hindsight analysis must not include information unavailable to the participants. The only way for people outside of the situation to understand the decisions made by the participants is exhaustive, truthful testimony. Again, testimony is extremely flawed due to all of imperfections of our brains.

As an example, Chicago police say officer didn't shoot suspect beating her, fearing scrutiny.
She was severely beaten, she had hair ripped out of her head. She could have shot the person BUT because she knows that would make her the next "Social media goat", because of ignorance of the laws on the part of most of society, she didnt. Wtf.

Read the article. Officer cited fear of public reprisal for not killing a citizen while out of their mind. All I have is that statement, so I will accept it at face value.
I am happier they both survived the conflict than if she had decided to kill.
Killing anyone is permanent; killing steals existence from another. A split decision made in a desperate moment could easily haunt a person for the rest of their life.
As a citizen, as a man of peace, I could only justify killing an assailant if I was unable to subdue them before they kill myself or another.

I prefer holding off on discussing specific cases until we find out where we disagree on American policing.

 

[TieXiongJi]

I think it must surprise civvies how many people who are arrested are actually known to the police, sometimes it's like groundhog day arresting all the same people!

In your experience, what would you say is the social class and/or personal wealth of a typical repeat offender?

 

[ballen0351]

I prefer holding off on discussing specific cases until we find out where we disagree on American policing.

the 5 prior pages should give you that answer

 

[Tez3]

I'm bringing the discussion to a new thread. In that thread, the topics of police training, police use of force, and public perceptions came up. I'll link more of the original posts shortly and address the last post.

This is the thread topic, to which I am responding to, that you have posts in this thread means you are one of quite a few other posters, it doesn't mean we exclusively discuss your topic.

No no. I wrote the statement to make sure we are all agree on the same goal.

I am pointing out the reasons why people will not agree, they are your points, not a general consensus. I have written out my points, as I said 'rights' are different from 'legal powers'. Police officers have no 'rights' as such they have to act within the law of the land, they are servants of the law, not the law itself. I doubt American police officers regard things any differently, I doubt they think they are above the law. ( Police oath in England and Wales..I, ... of ... do solemnly and sincerely declare and affirm that I will well and truly serve the Queen in the office of constable, with fairness, integrity, diligence and impartiality, upholding fundamental human rights and according equal respect to all people; and that I will, to the best of my power, cause the peace to be kept and preserved and prevent all offences against people and property; and that while I continue to hold the said office I will to the best of my skill and knowledge discharge all the duties thereof faithfully according to law.) Police are subject to the law, the same as you, they are subject to codes of conduct unlike you because you have rights when arrested, investigated etc. Do you want the police to be above the law?

"Rights
Rights are legal, social, or ethical principles of freedom or entitlement; that is, rights are the fundamental normative rules about what is allowed of people or owed to people, according to some legal system, social convention, or ethical theory. Rights are of essential importance in such disciplines as law and ethics, especially theories of justice and deontology."

Years of debating with friends and family taught me that we must go through a very simple series of statements and agree until we disagree

Well you may. The first thing you have to do is understand what you mean before trying to put your points.

In your experience, what would you say is the social class and/or personal wealth of a typical repeat offender?

Social class? The UK and the US definitions of social class are quite different plus it would depends on the crimes the 'repeat offender' is committing. I don't think we calculate people's 'personal wealth' as such. If you want me to say they are all on benefits then I'm afraid I'll disappoint you. However I'm sure you will enjoy this, it covers a area close to Newcastle, a city in the North East of England. If, as I suspect you are looking for a specific demographic which commits the most crime I will just point this out from the report. "White people made up 96.1% of the population of Gateshead yet accounted for 99.1% of Burglary Non dwellings and 98.9% of Criminal Damage offenders" plus this

"Offenders who had a home address in Gateshead during 2008/09:
• Over half of offenders were unemployed (56%). The proportion of unemployed offenders was highest for Theft from Vehicles, Burglary Dwelling (79%) and Robbery (76%).
• One quarter of offenders were in employment. Employed offenders were highest for Fraud & Forgery (38%), Sexual Offences (37%) and Violence Against the Person (32%).
• School children accounted for 9% of offenders. 18% of Criminal Damage offenders and 11% of Burglary Non-dwelling offenders were school children."

From here.

http://twri.org.uk/sites/default/files/twri/twri_Offenders_Report_Gd_2009Dec.pdf

 

[Tez3]

All I have is that statement, so I will accept it at face value.

It's a media report, even the best intentioned reporters cannot give the whole story, how can you take that as face value? All such reports should be taken with a pinch of salt.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

That is fair point. Hindsight analysis must not include information unavailable to the participants. The only way for people outside of the situation to understand the decisions made by the participants is exhaustive, truthful testimony. Again, testimony is extremely flawed due to all of imperfections of our brains.


Read the article. Officer cited fear of public reprisal for not killing a citizen while out of their mind. All I have is that statement, so I will accept it at face value.
I am happier they both survived the conflict than if she had decided to kill.
Killing anyone is permanent; killing steals existence from another. A split decision made in a desperate moment could easily haunt a person for the rest of their life.
As a citizen, as a man of peace, I could only justify killing an assailant if I was unable to subdue them before they kill myself or another.

I prefer holding off on discussing specific cases until we find out where we disagree on American policing.

The issue is that he could have killed her with that beating. Once the beating actually starts, it's impossible to tell where it will end. Her lack of action could have led to her death. He chose to attack, she had the right (as a person, forget that she's a cop) to take whatever action necessary to defend.

 

[Tez3]

she had the right (as a person, forget that she's a cop) to take whatever action necessary to defend.

That's as true here as it is in the USA.