Self Defence AGAINST an officer

[CB Jones]

At the point of filling the seats, as long as airlines inform the customer that they may be bumped. Then no harm is done. The passenger has significant notice that they may be bumped. It's one thing to buy a ticket with the understanding that you have purchased a ticket in hopes that another passenger won't show. But to purchase a ticket thinking that the plane isn't full is something totally different. By creating the assumption that there is enough space on the plane when the ticket is purchased creates the issue of deceptive practices.

Have no problem with that...but we also have to also realize that the Airlines are in the business of making money. And as we require changes in SOP, those changes could cause price increases or stricter requirements for ticket refunds.

 

[drop bear]

But did they make it clear to the passenger that they would remove him by force if he didn't comply, or was the conversation more like this:

"Please leave the airplane"
"No"
"Leave the airplane now"
"No"
*passenger grabbed and muscled out*

If the guards had made it clear that if the passenger didn't comply, they would remove him by force, would he have still refused. If so then I would call him out on his stupidity for not believing they would do it.

What do people think no means in that situation?

Maby that explains the suprised looks I got from time to time.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

At the point of filling the seats, as long as airlines inform the customer that they may be bumped. Then no harm is done. The passenger has significant notice that they may be bumped. It's one thing to buy a ticket with the understanding that you have purchased a ticket in hopes that another passenger won't show. But to purchase a ticket thinking that the plane isn't full is something totally different. By creating the assumption that there is enough space on the plane when the ticket is purchased creates the issue of deceptive practices.

I guess I would suggest people read their tickets and the conditions of carriage to see what they agree to when they buy a ticket.

 

[jks9199]

Neither, actually. They do not have a security team, nor any police officers as part of their agency.
My guess is, eventually, TSA will have it's own law enforcement unit. I hope so anyway, sure would make my life easier. Especially with folks who show up too drunk to fly. Too drunk to walk in some instances.

I do not like drunks.

There are sworn TSA personnel. I'm not sure how many or their exact grade/classification.

 

[jks9199]

Not fighting through five pages (and counting) for the moment. I see some drift into TSA and such, not surprising with the original question.

So... Can you resist an unlawful arrest? Sure. Maybe. In some states. Because they don't all have the same laws. Or, let me rephrase... Can you resist unlawful arrest? Of course. But should you? Probably not. Not at the scene.

There's a time and a place to fight. (I think some Chinese guy said something to that effect...) In the heat of the moment, when both you and the cop are keyed up, is not it. The only exception I'll make to that is if you believe that rather than arrest, they're going to murder or seriously injure you. (Not something that happens very often.)

See, even if it turns out that you were 100% innocent of the original charge supporting the arrest, if the cop was justified in his decision to arrest by probable cause -- you might still find yourself convicted of resisting. As long as the cop was reasonable in his beliefs, based on the information and circumstances known to him, the resisting charge will stand. That means that, so long as he can articulate facts and circumstances that would lead a similarly situated cop to reasonably believe that you more likely than not committed the alleged offense. He can be wrong -- but so long as he had probable cause, the arrest is legal. So, you get off the original offense... but eat the felony resisting charge whole. Not a good plan... And the odds are damn good that the cop's going to win the fight, too -- because he's paid to do so, and he'll have lots of friends coming to help him.

Go with the program. Fight it later -- with an attorney. File a complaint with the agency. Sue.

In short -- know the time, place, and manner to resist. And pay someone who knows that stuff well enough to help you win it...

 

[Steve]

Actually....in the real world how Bill described is correct.

Spending too much time explaining or arguing is how people (officers and civilians) get hurt.

Ask...tell...and then restrain and force. The longer you explain and argue....the more chance the guy decides to fight or worse pull a weapon.

At swiftly and you minimize fighting and lethal force actions.

This presumes the guy is a bad guy who wants to argue, and is doing something wrong, other than being on the wrong side of a cop who's having a bad day. As I said, you're approaching this from the perspective of someone on your wrong side. What if it were you, as a civilian, on the wrong side of a bad cop?

Even if the guy is a bad guy, there is a real problem in some areas with a petty thief being shot by overzealous or frightened police officers, for example. Cops in some areas seem pretty good at escalating, and Seem pretty bad at de-escalating.

And before anyone goes overboard and starts pulling red herrings out, I'm not talking about the heroin addicted gang members. Context matters. No one can reasonably say that this AARP member was a danger to anyone. Truly, he'd already been through all the screening, so if there were anyplace we could reasonably guarantee he's not a threat is in an airport or in a plane. He just didn't want to give up his seat. The escalation by the guys on the united flight was not okay and completely unnecessary. The only people I've run across arguing that the cops did the right thing are other cops.

 

[Steve]

There are sworn TSA personnel. I'm not sure how many or their exact grade/classification.

I don't know about sworn personnel. Maybe, but I couldn't find any information on it. Looked several places, and did run across this summary of the various positions. This is from the TSA website:


TSA PAY BANDS EXPLAINED
Although the TSA is a Federal agency, it does not use the General Scale (GS) like most other arms of the Federal Government. The TSA uses a graded ‘Pay Band’ system. The full chart is pretty confusing, so here are the pay bands and base salary ranges for some of the most common jobs.

TSA PAY BAND SALARY RANGE BY JOB
TSA Job Minimum Starting Salary Maximum Salary Pay Band Range
TSA Security Officer (Agent) $22,613.00 $92,540.00 C – I
TSA Security Manager $40,150.00 $92,540.00 G – I
TSA Clerical Support $22,613.00 $44,891.00 C – E
TSA Administrative Support $26,031.00 $51,509.00 D – F
TSA Technical Support $29,891.00 $62,208.00 E – G
TSA Professional $34,303.00 $158,700.00 F – L (L is expert)
TSA Engineering $40,150.00 $158,700.00 G – L (L is expert)
TSA Specialized Tech Positions $34,303.00 $112,835.00 F – J
TSA Attorney $40,150.00 $158,700.00 F – M (L & M,are expert)
TSA Medical Officer $40,150.00

 

[CB Jones]

This presumes the guy is a bad guy who wants to argue, and is doing something wrong, other than being on the wrong side of a cop who's having a bad day. As I said, you're approaching this from the perspective of someone on your wrong side. What if it were you, as a civilian, on the wrong side of a bad cop?

Even if the guy is a bad guy, there is a real problem in some areas with a petty thief being shot by overzealous or frightened police officers, for example. Cops in some areas seem pretty good at escalating, and Seem pretty bad at de-escalating.

And before anyone goes overboard and starts pulling red herrings out, I'm not talking about the heroin addicted gang members. Context matters. No one can reasonably say that this AARP member was a danger to anyone. Truly, he'd already been through all the screening, so if there were anyplace we could reasonably guarantee he's not a threat is in an airport or in a plane. He just didn't want to give up his seat. The escalation by the guys on the united flight was not okay and completely unnecessary. The only people I've run across arguing that the cops did the right thing are other cops.

At this point Steve....I really don't care.

You are entitled to your opinion and perspective.

 

[Dirty Dog]

Not fighting through five pages (and counting) for the moment. I see some drift into TSA and such, not surprising with the original question.

So... Can you resist an unlawful arrest? Sure. Maybe. In some states. Because they don't all have the same laws. Or, let me rephrase... Can you resist unlawful arrest? Of course. But should you? Probably not. Not at the scene.

There's a time and a place to fight. (I think some Chinese guy said something to that effect...) In the heat of the moment, when both you and the cop are keyed up, is not it. The only exception I'll make to that is if you believe that rather than arrest, they're going to murder or seriously injure you. (Not something that happens very often.)

See, even if it turns out that you were 100% innocent of the original charge supporting the arrest, if the cop was justified in his decision to arrest by probable cause -- you might still find yourself convicted of resisting. As long as the cop was reasonable in his beliefs, based on the information and circumstances known to him, the resisting charge will stand. That means that, so long as he can articulate facts and circumstances that would lead a similarly situated cop to reasonably believe that you more likely than not committed the alleged offense. He can be wrong -- but so long as he had probable cause, the arrest is legal. So, you get off the original offense... but eat the felony resisting charge whole. Not a good plan... And the odds are damn good that the cop's going to win the fight, too -- because he's paid to do so, and he'll have lots of friends coming to help him.

Go with the program. Fight it later -- with an attorney. File a complaint with the agency. Sue.

In short -- know the time, place, and manner to resist. And pay someone who knows that stuff well enough to help you win it...

QFT

Do not surprise cops.
I've carried a gun since the 1990's. I've had numerous police encounters during that time (traffic offenses... go figure...). The fact that I was legally armed has only been an issue one time. And that was because I was outside the car when the officer contacted me, and I forgot to tell him that there was a gun in my car. His partner saw it. The surprise was an issue. Not being a complete idiot, I froze, didn't move, kept my hands visible, and answered their questions honestly. Ultimately, since everything was legal, everything was ok. But there's the lesson.
Do not surprise cops.

Do not argue with cops.
Again, thanks to those pesky speed limits. Polite, respectful, honest, and more often than not I get a warning.

Best self defense against a cop?
Don't be a **********.

 

[JowGaWolf]

Have no problem with that...but we also have to also realize that the Airlines are in the business of making money. And as we require changes in SOP, those changes could cause price increases or stricter requirements for ticket refunds.

Making money doesn't always mean higher prices. Walmart has already proven that by showing the value of doing volume. Higher prices without added value is a good formula for failure.

The practice of overbooking by itself isn't a bad thing, but like everything else in this world, how you do it does matter. If customers know ahead of time that their flight will be overbooked then it gives the customer a heads up. For example, if a plane has 150 seats then passenger 151 should be made aware that they are booking an over booked flight and that there's a possibility that that they can fly that day because not everyone shows up. However, there is also a possibility that they will be bumped in the event that everyone does show up, or in the event that an emergency requires another passenger to board. The passenger should explain that the company will ask for volunteers first, then if no one volunteers then he/she will be e involuntarily bumped to another flight. People are willing to pay for something like this as long as they understand what they are getting into and the chances that it will happen. I can guarantee that the problem is that customers feel cheated because they go to the airport with the expectation that they will leave for their destination that day.

Here's an example of someone who doesn't mind "Last week I was flying to Chicago on Southwest, and as always, I looked up the seat availability that morning. I noticed that the flight was sold out and got really excited. It was a perfect opportunity to volunteer for a bump. I had plenty of time before my work dinner that evening and was in no rush to get to Chicago. Essentially, it was between spending more time in the airport doing work or sitting in my hotel room completing the same work, no difference to me." Source

I don't like overbooked flights because the companies try to be slick about it. Better communication is needed. If the plane is full then let people know as well as the likely hood of being bumped. Policy needs to change to where if a person is late to check out, then they fall in the category for being bumped. In addition notes can be made in the system about which passengers to choose from for involuntary bumping, instead of bumping randomly.

If passengers also communicate with the Airlines and tell the airlines that it's urgent that they be at their destination then it's possible to avoid the involuntary bump. People in general are willing to help if you communicate a specific need or urgency. But let the airline know that up front before the ticket is purchased.

 

[JowGaWolf]

Do not argue with cops.
Again, thanks to those pesky speed limits. Polite, respectful, honest, and more often than not I get a warning.

Best self defense against a cop?
Don't be a **********.

You can argue with cops, just don't be disrespectful. I've done it when a police officer tried to tell me that the address on my license wasn't fake. He kept telling me that there wasn't a house at that location and I kept telling him that there was. It's possible to argue your point without making the officer look stupid. In the end, I ended up with a "community contact receipt" now ain't that a B***h. lol. After I was harassed for 10 minutes lol. about where I was going and where I lived. I got harassed about driving through a drug neighborhood, on my way to my home from work, which at that time was located in the hood.

Speeding tickets are totally something different. When it comes to quota times, some traffic police will pull you over even if you aren't speeding. I've had that happen to me, when to court still got a ticket even though the police officer couldn't tell me if he clocked me coming or going. Even though he claimed to have known which position my car was located among 6 other cars. He claimed that I was in the front of the other cars, but being in front doesn't = speeding. In reality there was another car in front of me. Even though his story didn't hold up and he couldn't answer the questions that I had, the judge still made me pay for the ticket. Three years later I became friends with the county police and he hip me to the quota crap. Then he told me about the other stuff that some police do in relation to generating money via tickets. Burns me up.

Sometimes you just have to take a minor loss, go to court and hope the officer doesn't show up and only have to pay the court fee. The best thing when dealing with the police is to understand your rights as a citizen and understand the laws of your state, city, and county. Also drop the attitude when speaking to them. No one likes attitude.

 

[Steve]

At this point Steve....I really don't care.

You are entitled to your opinion and perspective.

Okay. No problem. I would be interested in your answer to the question, as I believe it's a lot closer to the original question posed. but I'm never going to convince a priest god doesn't exist, and wouldn't expect to.

 

[CB Jones]

Okay. No problem. I would be interested in your answer to the question, as I believe it's a lot closer to the original question posed. but I'm never going to convince a priest god doesn't exist, and wouldn't expect to.

The post was about normal everyday procedure.

Typically you ask, tell, then force....are there some exceptions sure. But typically that is how you handle it.

You don't take chances with your safety.

Typically, if you allow a suspect to continue to argue they build confidence in that they can oppose your authority which often times causes the situation to escalate. That's why its better to shut it down quickly and get control of the suspect swiftly once the suspect proves he isn't willing to comply. In doing so not only can you limit injury to yourself but also the suspect as well. The idea is you gain control before he escalates into actual fighting.

In 17 years, I have seen numerous times officers try to convince someone to comply only to end up fighting the guy when they could have gained physical control much earlier and ended it before it escalated to an attack.

I'm not arguing that the force they used on the plane was justified...I don't have enough info on what exactly they did. But I do support the decision to forcibly remove him once he refused their authority. I myself thought they should have advised him he was under arrest and instructed him to get up and place his hands behind his back that often times will de-escalate it in itself. If he refused that command then go hands on.

At some point, arguing over authority becomes beating a dead horse and its a waste of time and energy.

And you don't have to beat them down...often times just simple restraint and escort position lets them know that their refusal is starting to escalate into possible charges and they will immediately de-escalate. But steadily arguing with a suspect over authority is a pointless exercise.

 

[Steve]

The post was about normal everyday procedure.

Typically you ask, tell, then force....are there some exceptions sure. But typically that is how you handle it.

You don't take chances with your safety.

Typically, if you allow a suspect to continue to argue they build confidence in that they can oppose your authority which often times causes the situation to escalate. That's why its better to shut it down quickly and get control of the suspect swiftly once the suspect proves he isn't willing to comply. In doing so not only can you limit injury to yourself but also the suspect as well. The idea is you gain control before he escalates into actual fighting.

In 17 years, I have seen numerous times officers try to convince someone to comply only to end up fighting the guy when they could have gained physical control much earlier and ended it before it escalated to an attack.

I'm not arguing that the force they used on the plane was justified...I don't have enough info on what exactly they did. But I do support the decision to forcibly remove him once he refused their authority. I myself thought they should have advised him he was under arrest and instructed him to get up and place his hands behind his back that often times will de-escalate it in itself. If he refused that command then go hands on.

At some point, arguing over authority becomes beating a dead horse and its a waste of time and energy.

And you don't have to beat them down...often times just simple restraint and escort position lets them know that their refusal is starting to escalate into possible charges and they will immediately de-escalate. But steadily arguing with a suspect over authority is a pointless exercise.

There's the disconnect. You're talking about what is typically done. I see this as an opportunity to talk about what isn't typical, but still happens. And this guy isn't a suspect.

 

[CB Jones]

There's the disconnect. You're talking about what is typically done. I see this as an opportunity to talk about what isn't typical, but still happens. And this guy isn't a suspect.

What isn't typical is hard to discuss without specifics. Police are put into position where you often times you have to make decisions on the spot and sometimes you might not make the perfect decision. The only thing you can try and do is to stay within the confines of the law.

In this situation, the airline has asked him to de-board....he refused.

The airline ordered him to de-board...he refused.

Police asked him to de-board...he refused.

Police ordered him to de-board...he refused.

As an officer, you have to enforce the law...and in this situation it is reasonable to believe the airline had the right to force him off the airplane...refusal by him constitutes trespassing or remaining after forbidden. So how would you have enforced this?

 

[CB Jones]

And this guy isn't a suspect.

To answer this....when the airline contacted the police and complained that he would not de-board at that time he is a suspect of trespassing or remaining after forbidden.

 

[drop bear]

This presumes the guy is a bad guy who wants to argue, and is doing something wrong, other than being on the wrong side of a cop who's having a bad day. As I said, you're approaching this from the perspective of someone on your wrong side. What if it were you, as a civilian, on the wrong side of a bad cop?

Even if the guy is a bad guy, there is a real problem in some areas with a petty thief being shot by overzealous or frightened police officers, for example. Cops in some areas seem pretty good at escalating, and Seem pretty bad at de-escalating.

And before anyone goes overboard and starts pulling red herrings out, I'm not talking about the heroin addicted gang members. Context matters. No one can reasonably say that this AARP member was a danger to anyone. Truly, he'd already been through all the screening, so if there were anyplace we could reasonably guarantee he's not a threat is in an airport or in a plane. He just didn't want to give up his seat. The escalation by the guys on the united flight was not okay and completely unnecessary. The only people I've run across arguing that the cops did the right thing are other cops.

Ok. Two issues.
You can use force to remove people from private property. Remember how we were having all these discussions about only using force in self defence. And I kept saying it is not the whole picture. This is one example. You absolutely can drag a guy off a plane for no reason. Pretty much anywhere.
Now you can suggest it is right or wrong. And in the court case. That will absolutely be debated. And there is no guarantee it will work out either way. So just this issue will be interesting to look at to see how the law actually addresses an assault charge.


But.
There is also what is vs what should be. Yes if a cop just goes straight off the deep end. You should be able to fight back. But he has a gun and can shoot you.

So aside from the morality of the situation how do you address that?

 

[Buka]

There are sworn TSA personnel. I'm not sure how many or their exact grade/classification.

Every TSA worker is "sworn in" when they get the job. Every single one of them. But that is as an employee. (typical U.S government b.s when starting a new agency) There are no security, no police, no nothing. Honest. There are some that are designated as "whatever" (not sure of the term, I forget) but that is for internal watchdoggidness of their own employees, not for the public passing through TSA checkpoints.

 

[Steve]

What isn't typical is hard to discuss without specifics. Police are put into position where you often times you have to make decisions on the spot and sometimes you might not make the perfect decision. The only thing you can try and do is to stay within the confines of the law.

In this situation, the airline has asked him to de-board....he refused.

The airline ordered him to de-board...he refused.

Police asked him to de-board...he refused.

Police ordered him to de-board...he refused.

As an officer, you have to enforce the law...and in this situation it is reasonable to believe the airline had the right to force him off the airplane...refusal by him constitutes trespassing or remaining after forbidden. So how would you have enforced this?

How I would have handled it would be to prevent it from happening in the first place by handling it at the gate. If I screwed that up, I would have sweetened the deal until someone takes me up on the offer.

What wouldn't I do? Call the cops to forcibly remove a senior citizen from his chair. It will absolutely cost them far more than my suggestion above, guaranteed.

Now, what would you do if you were dealing with a bad cop who, as buka said, seems like he's escalating to violence because you jaywalked? That, in my opinion, is much closer to self defense against a cop than saying, "gee, the guy was technically trespassing at that point. So, anything goes."

 

[CB Jones]

Steve,

You failed to say what you would do as the police officer in that situation though?