Ugly fight: LEO v Criminal

[repz]

Personally, I dont know what I would do. I am torn with helping him and not.

Why I would help is obvious. Why I wouldnt, heres some reasons.

- You think its safe to get involved in a scuffle when one person is a cop? What makes you think the cop wants a civilians help? For all you know you can get yourself into trouble. Sure, we like to think that the cop will thank us, and say nice words, but whos to say the cop wont get angry with you and tell you thats his job, not yours. Or that you just busted the guys nose and they are going to think he did it, and now you just opened up a case against you. Then theres the possiblities of having to file paperwork, or being called to testify in court.

Unless the cop is calling for help, and i have witnesses, or the bad guy has the upperhand, i would have a second thought about jumping in. If they are scuffling, i might yell to the cop if he wants my help, if he says yes, I would atleast sweep the guy down and put my weight on him, or try to hold down his hands so the cop can do his work on him.

 

[jks9199]

This will unfortunately bother some.

The proper response of a non-cop in a case like this is to contact cops and stand down.

Most civilians do not have the training to handle a situation such as this.
If you are injured or killed, you're on your own.
You might be mistaken as another attacker and injured or killed by arriving law enforcement.
If you injure the attacker, you can and likely will face significant legal challenge.
The city will most likely not help your defense.
If you accidentally strike the officer, you stand a high chance of being charged.
If the local PD is one of the attitude ones, you might save the cops life, but face an "interfering with cop" charge.
Let me repeat, most civilians are not trained to handle these type of situations, and can be injured, or killed, and face significant financial, medical and legal risk should they intervene.

Film it, call emergency services, stay on the line, inform them that a cop is engaged in a fight, be aware of where you are at and give an accurate location to speed up response time of properly equipped and trained responders.

If the officer goes down, get a detailed description of the person, his mode of escape, license plate, direction, etc and relay that to the dispatcher. Unless you are a trained medic, do not move the injured person, doing so may cause more injury.

"But Bob, I have to do something."
Yes, call 911, take notes, but unless you have training and are willing to accept the legal, financial and medical risks, stand down.

Tactically, a 1 on 1 fight feels fair. Add another body to that, and the perp may escalate. The cop now has to also worry about your safety in addition to yours. In the heat of battle he may mistake your attempt to help as being the attackers back up. Many well meaning people have been taken away muttering "I was just trying to help". Some in bags.

Bob --

I don't have a problem with this. Sometimes, even for a cop, the right response isn't to jump into a situation directly, but to call for help. There's someone out there that I will forever be thankful to, because he did exactly what you say here when one of the officers in my department was injured: he got help started! (He actually grabbed the cops radio... but a 911 call is just as good.)

But I'm pretty confident nobody did even that much... In fact, someone in position to do so clearly did not because I'm presuming the video came from a cell phone. Had it been called in -- in Boston, I'm pretty confident there'd have been sirens screaming and dozens of cops on scene long before the officer in the fight finally got the guy choked out.

It's the whole "let's watch and film" (at most!) and no more that pissed me off about the bystanders. Way too often, nobody calls stuff in because they assume somebody else is doing it. Please, please, CALL THE DAMN THING IN! Whatever it may be... In this case, somebody probably didn't call because they figured the cop already did via radio... OK, not a bad thought. But... maybe he couldn't get his location out. Maybe his last transmission was that the guy was calm -- and then the fight was on. Call it in. At worst, you're confirming his radio traffic. Maybe the radio malfunctioned... or was broken in the fight! Then, you've become the source for his buddies getting word... I promise -- if you call something in, the very worst thing you'll do is spare someone a traffic ticket!

 

[Archangel M]

Thanks Bob. Asked and received.

Just to further the conversation, look at this.

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2247/can-cops-really-commandeer-cars

The Connecticut Supreme Court noted in State v. Floyd that "the basic concept that every citizen can be compelled to assist in the pursuit or apprehension of suspected criminals has ancient Saxon origins, predating the Norman Conquest, and . . . derives from a time in which the public peace depended upon the ability of the populace to summon their neighbors, through the raising of the 'hue and cry,' to come to their assistance when a crime had occurred." In an essay published in the 1992 Yale Law Journal, Jon C. Blue, the trial judge in Floyd, elaborated on this custom:

Realize that some states have laws that authorize officers to command you to assist them and its against the law to refuse.

Heres one from your State:

S 195.10 Refusing to aid a peace or a police officer.

A person is guilty of refusing to aid a peace or a police officer
when, upon command by a peace or a police officer identifiable or
identified to him as such, he unreasonably fails or refuses to aid such
peace or a police officer in effecting an arrest, or in preventing the
commission by another person of any offense.

Refusing to aid a peace or a police officer is a class B misdemeanor.

 

[jks9199]

I posted about Boston Special Officer Paul Langone here:

http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=83591

October 27, he was out on personal buisness when he heard a series of screams from a behind a closed door at Mass. General Hospital. He opened the door to find a doctor literally being stabbed to death by her patient. Mr. Langone shot the patient, saving the doctor's life. The patient did not survive. He was hailed widely as a hero, he humbly insists that it is the surgeons that saved the doctor's life that were the real heros.

What did he get as thanks for his actions? He got props in the media, which is nice.

But he also was put on administrative leave from work, had the shooting go before a grand jury (I assume this involves paying attorneys, last time I checked attorneys were not cheap), and was threatend with a civil lawsuit by another attorney.

The grand jury did not clear him until January 11. He was still on administrative leave after the acquittal. He still faces a risk of a lawsuit, although he has a powerful ally (Sen. Scott Brown) that proposed changing the Good Samaritan laws in Massachusetts.

http://www.thebostonchannel.com/news/22210555/detail.html
http://www.scottbrown.com/Press.htm

As far as I know, no one has stepped up to pay his legal fees.

Carol,

Most of that is standard after an officer is involved in a shooting. It's almost always routine to put the officer on admin leave for a lot of reasons during the investigation. Many places routinely take police shootings before the grand jury, and the officer often receives legal assistance either from the department's counsel or through the FOP or other similar bodies. There's a big advantage to this: once jeopardy has attached and the charges are no-billed, the cannot be brought again. In Virginia, it's not automatic. It's conceivable that an officer could be cleared here & now... but a vindictive or cop-hating Commonwealth Attorney be elected in a few years, and start proceedings anew...

Regarding civilians actually jumping in -- it's a tough call. There's no magic solution; it's something I have to plan on because I'm currently in a plainclothes assignment. No uniform -- nobody knows I'm a cop. Including the cop I'm trying to help... Same problem for a civilian. In fact, there was an incident not too long ago where an off-duty officer felt he had to take action and ended up getting shot because the working cops just saw a guy with a gun...

Often, the best answer is to call it in. Especially for a civilian. And if you do that much, whether it's a cop or a civilian who needs help -- you've satisfied what I see as your minimum obligation to another human. Me? I admit; I'm more likely to directly intervene if someone's getting hurt. But that's a set of risks I choose to assume -- not one I expect of anyone else.

 

[kaizasosei]

I think that the officer was very brave and wellmeaning to not resort to using other weapons. I don't want to take sides and i have seen this vid already ages ago. At the time i was a bit frustrated with both fighters but it seems like a relatively fair fight especially considering the situation. Don't know if i'm wrong or missing something, but I was thinking the officer came away from that feeling good about himself even if there was a fair bit of risk.

 

[jks9199]

Thanks Bob. Asked and received.

Just to further the conversation, look at this.

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2247/can-cops-really-commandeer-cars



Realize that some states have laws that authorize officers to command you to assist them and its against the law to refuse.

Heres one from your State:

S 195.10 Refusing to aid a peace or a police officer.

A person is guilty of refusing to aid a peace or a police officer
when, upon command by a peace or a police officer identifiable or
identified to him as such, he unreasonably fails or refuses to aid such
peace or a police officer in effecting an arrest, or in preventing the
commission by another person of any offense.

Refusing to aid a peace or a police officer is a class B misdemeanor.

We've got one like that in Virginia, too...

§ 18.2-463. Refusal to aid officer in execution of his office.
If any person on being required by any sheriff or other officer refuse or neglect to assist him: (1) in the execution of his office in a criminal case, (2) in the preservation of the peace, (3) in the apprehending or securing of any person for a breach of the peace, or (4) in any case of escape or rescue, he shall be guilty of a Class 2 misdemeanor.
(Code 1950, § 18.301; 1960, c. 358; 1975, cc. 14, 15.)

There's also Obstruction of Justice depending on exactly what is done/not done. But, generally, we don't use them to demand people go into danger. They're largely holdovers from the days when law enforcement officers were much rarer in this regard. (Obstruction is more often used when someone is actively interfering in an investigation, like lying to hide someone's involvement in a crime or whereabouts.)

 

[jks9199]

I think that the officer was very brave and wellmeaning to not resort to using other weapons. I don't want to take sides and i have seen this vid already ages ago. At the time i was a bit frustrated with both fighters but it seems like a relatively fair fight especially considering the situation. Don't know if i'm wrong or missing something, but I was thinking the officer came away from that feeling good about himself even if there was a fair bit of risk.

Again -- I state most emphatically that IT IS NOT THE COP'S JOB TO FIGHT FAIR. His job is to WIN. And to use any appropriate and legal means to do so necessary. He succeeded -- but it could have gotten a whole hell of a lot worse there...

Were a military unit to encounter the enemy, and have them outnumbered 2:1, would you expect half the unit to step out of the fight?

 

[Xinglu]

Again -- I state most emphatically that IT IS NOT THE COP'S JOB TO FIGHT FAIR. His job is to WIN. And to use any appropriate and legal means to do so necessary. He succeeded -- but it could have gotten a whole hell of a lot worse there...

Were a military unit to encounter the enemy, and have them outnumbered 2:1, would you expect half the unit to step out of the fight?

I have always thought that the LEOs where trained to use the "force plus one" rule. In this case, using a baton, pepper spray, or even a taser (maybe a combination) would have been enough to put this guy in cuffs, keep people safe (including the suspect).

The way I see it, engaging in H2H with this guy, not only put the officer at risk, but the civilians around him too. Maybe this is the Army in me talking, but I'm confused why he got a commendation instead of a dressing down from his CO. Bad judgement, no matter how well intended, should never be rewarded.

 

[Carol]

Carol,

Most of that is standard after an officer is involved in a shooting. It's almost always routine to put the officer on admin leave for a lot of reasons during the investigation. Many places routinely take police shootings before the grand jury, and the officer often receives legal assistance either from the department's counsel or through the FOP or other similar bodies. There's a big advantage to this: once jeopardy has attached and the charges are no-billed, the cannot be brought again. In Virginia, it's not automatic. It's conceivable that an officer could be cleared here & now... but a vindictive or cop-hating Commonwealth Attorney be elected in a few years, and start proceedings anew...

Thanks for the info, I didn't realize that was routine for off-duty officers as well. :asian: I have heard stories in the past from other officers complaining about how much paperwork was involved if with discharging a firearm within city limits...I don't think I ever knew how involved the process would be.

 

[jks9199]

I have always thought that the LEOs where trained to use the "force plus one" rule. In this case, using a baton, pepper spray, or even a taser (maybe a combination) would have been enough to put this guy in cuffs, keep people safe (including the suspect).

The way I see it, engaging in H2H with this guy, not only put the officer at risk, but the civilians around him too. Maybe this is the Army in me talking, but I'm confused why he got a commendation instead of a dressing down from his CO. Bad judgement, no matter how well intended, should never be rewarded.

Many if not most agencies have moved away from a "stair step" or "ladder" force model. An officer in the US is permitted to use whatever force is reasonably necessary to achieve the arrest. The general goal is to use the least amount necessary -- but that's not a requirement. So long as the force is not so excessive as to be unreasonable, it's permitted.

I realize that this is complicated sounding -- and it's even more complicated in the heat of the moment. HERE is one of the more common models in use today; if you look at it, you'll notice that it balances force against resistance and outcome. The goal is to use the amount of force that allows you to control the arrestee, not force that is beyond that and thus likely to cause avoidable injury.

 

[jks9199]

Thanks for the info, I didn't realize that was routine for off-duty officers as well. :asian: I have heard stories in the past from other officers complaining about how much paperwork was involved if with discharging a firearm within city limits...I don't think I ever knew how involved the process would be.

Any police officer's involvement in a shooting is investigated, whether on or off the clock. In some cases, the home agency as well as the agency where the event happened will conduct parallel and separate investigations. It gets complicated, because the officer often is required to answer questions administratively that might violate their rights in a criminal investigation...

 

[kaizasosei]

Again -- I state most emphatically that IT IS NOT THE COP'S JOB TO FIGHT FAIR. His job is to WIN. And to use any appropriate and legal means to do so necessary. He succeeded -- but it could have gotten a whole hell of a lot worse there...

Were a military unit to encounter the enemy, and have them outnumbered 2:1, would you expect half the unit to step out of the fight?

I know and I completely agree. Just sayin..

 

[Xinglu]

Many if not most agencies have moved away from a "stair step" or "ladder" force model. An officer in the US is permitted to use whatever force is reasonably necessary to achieve the arrest. The general goal is to use the least amount necessary -- but that's not a requirement. So long as the force is not so excessive as to be unreasonable, it's permitted.

I realize that this is complicated sounding -- and it's even more complicated in the heat of the moment. HERE is one of the more common models in use today; if you look at it, you'll notice that it balances force against resistance and outcome. The goal is to use the amount of force that allows you to control the arrestee, not force that is beyond that and thus likely to cause avoidable injury.

Thank you, excellent site reference.

I still don't think he should have received a commendation, he put a lot of people at risk including himself and the suspect. OC spray could have gone a long way towards incapacitating him without causing undue harm. The guy was throwing punches at the cop and at one point had his hands near the cops belt. What would have happened if he had gotten a hold of the cop gun?

 

[jks9199]

I'm deliberately not addressing the commendation issue. We don't know all the facts; we only know what's presented.

And, even then, I'm not going to penalize the guy for a bad call. I don't think you can find a cop who hasn't made a bad call...

 

[K831]

My thoughts after watching the video:

1.) I would like to see LEO's get much better hand to hand training. This video reaffirmed that notion.

2.) Fighting the guy for that long without escalating was stupid. I think he is lucky to be alive after giving the combatant so many opportunities to escalate (gun, knife, buddy etc).

3.) This is the quote from the video description on youtube:

"Compare this officer with the cop who shot Oscar Grant. Wouldn't you say this is a good cop? )

A police officer decides not to use deadly force against a drug-crazed car thief,"


I absolutely hate that perception. I wish I could stomp it out of the public. It is not heroic for a cop to risk his life by failing to be decisive in a fight. He is already heroic for putting himself in that situation. He doesn't need to be a pacifist, he needs to put that guy down, I don't really care how. Can't anyone see that the "perp" could have pulled a knife, killed the cop who "decided not to use deadly force" then said "perp" could have gone down the street, shot a store owner and raped some guys wife? I don't get it. Terrible decision to roll around with the guy, but I am glad he made it through ok, and I think he is lucky.

4.) " Lame Pro Police Propaganda, show the video of how police really are; miserable losers that aren't smart enough to get a real job..."

One of many quotes like it under the video.. what is wrong with people these days?

5.) I'm going to help an officer in that situation, period. I'll assess the situation. Maybe it would even be possible to communicate as I engage "officer I am applying a wrist lock and help you get him on his stomach". I'm not going to live the rest of my life knowing that I had the physical attributes to have helped an officer and I chose not to and he was killed or seriously injured.

 

[K831]

I don't think you can find a cop who hasn't made a bad call...

I don't think you can find a human being who hasn't made a bad call.

 

[Xinglu]

I'm deliberately not addressing the commendation issue. We don't know all the facts; we only know what's presented.

And, even then, I'm not going to penalize the guy for a bad call. I don't think you can find a cop who hasn't made a bad call...

True, however should he be rewarded for a bad call?

I couldn't agree more about our LEOs receiving better H2H training. They use it more than anyone to include pro fighters, and should IMHO, have much more training in it then they currently do.

 

[jks9199]

True, however should he be rewarded for a bad call?

I couldn't agree more about our LEOs receiving better H2H training. They use it more than anyone to include pro fighters, and should IMHO, have much more training in it then they currently do.

Commendations are what they are. He made an arrest in a difficult situation. He won, and he stuck with it. Would I have preferred to see him do something differently? Sure. But I have the luxury of watching it from my comfy sofa. I can think of some incidents that I've handled rather unwisely in hindsight... And I've received awards, commendations and/or positive memos to my personnel files for dumb luck or cases that I didn't really do anything special in... they just got the right people's attention.

In this case -- I again note that he made the arrest, using minimum force. That's his job... And I don't know what else was a factor; did arresting the guy close numerous cases? Was he a high profile target for another reason? Were there reasons that aren't apparent from the video that made using more force a bad call? Like I said -- lots of things not provided here.

And cops get little enough praise for what they do; why begrudge him this when it's just a matter of handling it differently?

 

[Archangel M]

I don't know why an officer should be denied a commendation simply because he didn't employ his use of force options the way we monday morning quarterbacks THINK we would have.

Yeah he could have "done better" but I recall a little quote about critics from T. Roosevelt that I could apply here.

Im with JKS. He won, he made a difficult arrest and did so without killing anybody or himself.

 

[Hudson69]

I agree with those who said the officer should have escalated. He was too focused on "control and restrain." Early in the video, he tried to cuff the guy before he had really gained control. Then when the guy started actively fighting (attacking the officer instead of just resisting), he didn't increase his use of force.
An "ASP shampoo" would have been perfectly appropriate given the situation.

I commend those who finally jumped in to help the officer.

I dont know when the video was shot but I dont think that he had the option of going to a taser. He did try to go to cuffing way to early (no control) and the civilians who helped should be commended, obviously not the person with the video camera.

One thing I noticed (LEO's please chime in here) the officer was determined to grab onto this guy and hold on like you see in so many LEO arrest situations resulting in a fight.

Does it seem to any of you long in the tooth LEO(s) that, until recently, this was SOP: "Grab and arm (or something) and drag to the ground."

He really seems to take some shots from this guy who "is" fighting and not holding on and hoping for the best.