Martial artist getting the extra squeeze by a judge for being a Martial artist.

[punisher73]

He should get in trouble but he should get in no more trouble than if he d have any experience in the martial arts.

I disagree with this. He was TRAINED to compete in a set of rules (MMA) that have to be followed. So he knows "when" and "what" he can do in an MMA competition and follows those guidelines. He was TRAINED as a bouncer to follow certain policy and procedures. So he knows "when" and "what" he can do legally when escorting a person out. Next, he is trained on how to throw effective punches to take out a skilled and equally heavy opponent. He had even posted videos on how to knock people out.

He knew full well exactly what he was doing and what he was capable of. Training should hold people to a higher standard in all cases.

Courts hold many different "classes" of people to a higher standard and have stiffer penalties when they betray or abuse it. For example, a teacher having an inappropriate relationship with a student is given a harsher penalty because of that violation. Why should a trained fighter be any different? Again, this was NOT a case where they were both fighting and the injury ocurred. He flat out ASSAULTED the guy and sucker punched him!

 

[punisher73]

Before the court can hold you to a higher standard because you're a "trained martial artist," they would have to know that you're a "trained martial artist" in the first place.

Oh, you mean like being a professional fighter and making your living by fighting people and also posting "how to" videos on punching people to knock them out?

 

[Steve]

I disagree with this. He was TRAINED to compete in a set of rules (MMA) that have to be followed. So he knows "when" and "what" he can do in an MMA competition and follows those guidelines. He was TRAINED as a bouncer to follow certain policy and procedures. So he knows "when" and "what" he can do legally when escorting a person out. Next, he is trained on how to throw effective punches to take out a skilled and equally heavy opponent. He had even posted videos on how to knock people out.

He knew full well exactly what he was doing and what he was capable of. Training should hold people to a higher standard in all cases.

Courts hold many different "classes" of people to a higher standard and have stiffer penalties when they betray or abuse it. For example, a teacher having an inappropriate relationship with a student is given a harsher penalty because of that violation. Why should a trained fighter be any different? Again, this was NOT a case where they were both fighting and the injury ocurred. He flat out ASSAULTED the guy and sucker punched him!

So, then where does qualified immunity fit in with this? We are holding bouncers and martial artists in general to a higher standard because of their training, but not cops because they're civil servants? How does that make sense? Are not cops trained to a higher standard? I mean, if one then why not the other?

 

[punisher73]

So, then where does qualified immunity fit in with this? We are holding bouncers and martial artists in general to a higher standard because of their training, but not cops because they're civil servants? How does that make sense? Are not cops trained to a higher standard? I mean, if one then why not the other?

I will answer this question based on the exact scenario that occurred in this instance for alike comparisons. If a police officer would have done this, they also could've been charged with assault causing great bodily harm (each state usually calls it something different). In this case, the person was only being verbally non-compliant and running his mouth and was being escorted out. In most use of force polices, the level of force that would be appropriate would be pressure points used in conjunction with a "come along" technique or joint locking to escort. Up until this point, Sosoli is good to go. Where he went wrong is, he got fed up with the man running his mouth and then just sucker punched him. A police officer acting in the same manner as Sosoli would NOT have qualified immunity because he would be violating policy and Supreme Court cases dictating police officers legal authority to use force (Graham v. Connor, Tennessee v. Garner for a couple big ones). This is one of the key components to having the qualified immunity, the officer must not violate "clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known".

Now back to police use of force vs. civilians. This is going to be a very general comparison, there are always the totality of circumstances that come into play on both sides, but these comparisons hold up in the majority of cases.

Police are authorized by law to use force to subdue and restrain a suspect or protect themselves or others and are required to make arrests as part of their job, outside of some VERY specific circumstances civilians are not authorized to use force and are never required to arrest someone.
Police do NOT have a duty to retreat, civilians do (not talking about inside your own home and the "castle doctrine"). This is why "self-defense" as a legal claim is an affirmative defense. You are admitting that you broke the law, but that circumstances were such that it was justified.
Police are allowed to use unequal amounts of force (commonly called a +1 theory), civilians are not. In layman's terms, as a civilian you can only use the same level of force or equivalent used against you to protect yourself. So if someone pushes you and you can't retreat (one of the requirements to claim self-defense) you can't kick them and tear out their knee, it is an unequal use of force to the threat. Because police HAVE to use force many times and have to do it quickly to minimize risk to both them and the suspect, they will go one level higher than what is used to gain immediate control and then de-escalate.

So, with Sosoli, he did not have any legal authority to use force as part of his job as a police officer would have. Sosoli would have been bound by the same laws (at least in many states here in the US) as any other civilian using "self-defense" to protect themselves.

Now on the other side of things. At least in my county, I have seen police officers (and former police officers) get into off-duty things and have been charged higher because of their training and the violation of community trust.

 

[lklawson]

But people are going to resist arrest.

If people did what they were told you wouldn't need to arrest them.

Those people aren't really worried about police use of force. They're using force against the police and expect police to use force against them. It's 3rd parties who are concerned about police use of force. For them, if they're worried about it, don't resist arrest. Really.

 

[drop bear]

Those people aren't really worried about police use of force. They're using force against the police and expect police to use force against them. It's 3rd parties who are concerned about police use of force. For them, if they're worried about it, don't resist arrest. Really.

Everyone is concerned about police using reasonable and proportionate force as a direct response to the threat they face.

To say a criminal uses force so a cop uses force is misleading.

 

[lklawson]

To say a criminal uses force so a cop uses force is misleading.

You already admitted that it's a requirement; "But people are going to resist arrest. If people did what they were told you wouldn't need to arrest them."

 

[drop bear]

You already admitted that it's a requirement; "But people are going to resist arrest. If people did what they were told you wouldn't need to arrest them."

It is a misleading statement on your part. I doubt anyone is suggesting cops shouldn't use force on criminals. That is not even the discussion.

It is life threatening misuse of force and suggesting that the defence to misuse of force is compliance and hopes and prayers.

That is the discussion.

Proportionate use of force should be part of a police officers tool set. Because people will actively resist police.

People shouldn't fall over and hurt themselves. But we still have ambulances if they do.

 

[lklawson]

It is a misleading statement on your part. I doubt anyone is suggesting cops shouldn't use force on criminals. That is not even the discussion.

It is life threatening misuse of force and suggesting that the defence to misuse of force is compliance and hopes and prayers.

Fortunately, I wasn't suggesting that at all.

 

[Steve]

Those people aren't really worried about police use of force. They're using force against the police and expect police to use force against them. It's 3rd parties who are concerned about police use of force. For them, if they're worried about it, don't resist arrest. Really.

You're entire premise is textbook victim blaming. I can't tell if you seriously don't see it or if you're just screwing with me. If you're worried about excessive force, just don't resist arrest. Right? If you didn't want to be raped, you shouldn't have dressed like a slut / gone on that date / flirted with him at work / drank so much at the party. It's very simple. Right? If you're worried about being mugged, just don't wear nice shoes or hang out with your friends at the club or go downtown at night. Shoot, if you don't want your house to get robbed, just move to a nicer neighborhood. So simple.

Jesus christ, man. You seriously don't see how screwed up your premise is? The entire point here is that excessive use of force is, by definition, excessive. And it occurs frequently enough, particularly within minority communities, that some folks distrust law enforcement. And there is mounting evidence that excessive use of force occurs more frequently than has historically been reported. And, on top of all that, law enforcement agencies have a notorious reputation for protecting their own, which is well documented.

To be frank, I'm not sure what the "right" answer is here. But I know it's not as simple as you believe it to be. Your position only makes sense if cops don't break the rules. But we know that some do.

 

[Steve]

I will answer this question based on the exact scenario that occurred in this instance for alike comparisons. If a police officer would have done this, they also could've been charged with assault causing great bodily harm (each state usually calls it something different). In this case, the person was only being verbally non-compliant and running his mouth and was being escorted out. In most use of force polices, the level of force that would be appropriate would be pressure points used in conjunction with a "come along" technique or joint locking to escort. Up until this point, Sosoli is good to go. Where he went wrong is, he got fed up with the man running his mouth and then just sucker punched him. A police officer acting in the same manner as Sosoli would NOT have qualified immunity because he would be violating policy and Supreme Court cases dictating police officers legal authority to use force (Graham v. Connor, Tennessee v. Garner for a couple big ones). This is one of the key components to having the qualified immunity, the officer must not violate "clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known".

Now back to police use of force vs. civilians. This is going to be a very general comparison, there are always the totality of circumstances that come into play on both sides, but these comparisons hold up in the majority of cases.

Police are authorized by law to use force to subdue and restrain a suspect or protect themselves or others and are required to make arrests as part of their job, outside of some VERY specific circumstances civilians are not authorized to use force and are never required to arrest someone.
Police do NOT have a duty to retreat, civilians do (not talking about inside your own home and the "castle doctrine"). This is why "self-defense" as a legal claim is an affirmative defense. You are admitting that you broke the law, but that circumstances were such that it was justified.
Police are allowed to use unequal amounts of force (commonly called a +1 theory), civilians are not. In layman's terms, as a civilian you can only use the same level of force or equivalent used against you to protect yourself. So if someone pushes you and you can't retreat (one of the requirements to claim self-defense) you can't kick them and tear out their knee, it is an unequal use of force to the threat. Because police HAVE to use force many times and have to do it quickly to minimize risk to both them and the suspect, they will go one level higher than what is used to gain immediate control and then de-escalate.

Very helpful. As I said earlier, someone along the way described cops as vice grips. This is pretty consistent with that, and a helpful explanation of how cops are trained to think.

So, with Sosoli, he did not have any legal authority to use force as part of his job as a police officer would have. Sosoli would have been bound by the same laws (at least in many states here in the US) as any other civilian using "self-defense" to protect themselves.

Now on the other side of things. At least in my county, I have seen police officers (and former police officers) get into off-duty things and have been charged higher because of their training and the violation of community trust.

This is a great point. I don't honestly know about "higher" standards, but I have seen examples of officers being disciplined for doing bad things while off duty. The Bellevue PD seemed to be in the news all the time a few years back. I remember in 2012, a group of off duty Bellevue PD officers were very drunk at a Seahawks game, picking fights and tossing around a bunch of really vile, racial slurs. The news says they were "disciplined." We know one was demoted from corporal to officer only because a few years later he was picked up driving drunk, off duty in a city vehicle. According to the article, he was taken off the bomb squad.

 

[lklawson]

You're entire premise is textbook victim blaming.

Absolutely not.

I'm saying if you don't want to get shot, don't pull a knife on the cops. I'm saying that if you don't want to get pepper sprayed, don't get into a fist fight with cops. I'm saying that if you don't want tased, don't think take a swing or try to wrestle. I'm saying that if you don't want to get tackled by two big guys, don't run and try to push them in the face.

Don't give them the excuse.

And, yes, I have conceded many times that there are (a small minority of) cops who are going to use inappropriate force. AND THERE'S JACK SPIT YOU CAN DO ABOUT IT WHEN IT'S HAPPENING. Because they have dozens of friends, all armed better than you, some of them likely there on site with them, who are going to automatically fight against you, regardless of whether or not you think the bad cop is an ash-hole.

It's not victim blaming to recognize the freaking reality and recommend a course of action which minimizes the chances of bad things happening to you. It's simple logic.

In the broader self defense community in the U.S. there is a common bit of advice, often shorthanded as "the rules of stupid." If you want to increase your odds of staying safe don't go stupid places, with stupid people, to do stupid things. Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should. What's the old saw, "Master, how can I make sure I never lose a bar fight? ...[reply] Don't go to bars." Yes, you can go to bars. How 'bout biker bars where you're obviously not welcome? Sure, you can go. It's legal. While you're there you can also stare menacingly at the biggest, nastiest looking guy too, oggle his girl, then look back at him and snigger. It's all legal. But the results are predictable.

I'm recommending, urging, people to play the odds based on facts. If you want to minimize the possibility of some bad cop thinking he has an excuse to use excessive force, if you want to minimize the possibility of some good or otherwise-borderline cop losing control and stepping over the line, then allow yourself to be peacfuly arrested.

It's not victim blaming. It's being smart.

 

[Steve]

Absolutely not.

What else would you call it? You're blaming the victim of excessive use of force by police for the excessive force. Because, after all, if they hadn't resisted, it wouldn't have been necessary. You also presume that a person who is the victim of excessive use of force will survive if they don't resist. We know that's not always true. And lastly, you presume that a victim of excessive use of force can reasonably expect justice after the fact. Which we know is unlikely.

To be clear, we're not talking about most interactions with cops. I think we all agree that most cops are doing or are trying to do the right thing. We're talking about those bad apples. Criminals who are also cops.

As I said above, I don't know what the best thing to do is, but that's mostly because the bad guys in this scenario enjoy all of the protections (legal, tactical, administrative) that the good guys are afforded. That's the dilemma.

 

[lklawson]

What else would you call it?

I accidentally hit post before I was done. Re-read.

 

[Steve]

Absolutely not.

I'm saying if you don't want to get shot, don't pull a knife on the cops. I'm saying that if you don't want to get pepper sprayed, don't get into a fist fight with cops. I'm saying that if you don't want tased, don't think take a swing or try to wrestle. I'm saying that if you don't want to get tackled by two big guys, don't run and try to push them in the face.

Don't give them the excuse.

And, yes, I have conceded many times that there are (a small minority of) cops who are going to use inappropriate force. AND THERE'S JACK SPIT YOU CAN DO ABOUT IT WHEN IT'S HAPPENING. Because they have dozens of friends, all armed better than you, some of them likely there on site with them, who are going to automatically fight against you, regardless of whether or not you think the bad cop is an ash-hole.

It's not victim blaming to recognize the freaking reality and recommend a course of action which minimizes the chances of bad things happening to you. It's simple logic.

In the broader self defense community in the U.S. there is a common bit of advice, often shorthanded as "the rules of stupid." If you want to increase your odds of staying safe don't go stupid places, with stupid people, to do stupid things. Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should. What's the old saw, "Master, how can I make sure I never lose a bar fight? ...[reply] Don't go to bars." Yes, you can go to bars. How 'bout biker bars where you're obviously not welcome? Sure, you can go. It's legal. While you're there you can also stare menacingly at the biggest, nastiest looking guy too, oggle his girl, then look back at him and snigger. It's all legal. But the results are predictable.

I'm recommending, urging, people to play the odds based on facts. If you want to minimize the possibility of some bad cop thinking he has an excuse to use excessive force, if you want to minimize the possibility of some good or otherwise-borderline cop losing control and stepping over the line, then allow yourself to be peacfuly arrested.

It's not victim blaming. It's being smart.

Let's say it's not cops. You're walking down the road and are, for whatever reason, surrounded by a small group of angry ninja who are threatening you. They have dozens of friends, all armed better than you, on site with them, who are going to automatically fight against you, regardless of whether or not you think the bad cop is an ash-hole. (aside... you think this is about cops being ash-holes? That's excatly the problem with this... we're talking about excessive use of force. Key word being "excessive." Not about being a jerk.)

Would your self defense advice to this person be "never resist... you'll survive and then you can take them to court."?

 

[lklawson]

Let's say it's not cops. You're walking down the road and are, for whatever reason, surrounded by a small group of angry ninja who are threatening you. They have dozens of friends, all armed better than you, on site with them, who are going to automatically fight against you, regardless of whether or not you think the bad cop is an ash-hole. (aside... you think this is about cops being ash-holes? That's excatly the problem with this... we're talking about excessive use of force. Key word being "excessive." Not about being a jerk.)

Would your self defense advice to this person be "never resist... you'll survive and then you can take them to court."?

Now let's make it more the same instead of this work. You're surrounded by a dozen angry ninjas who want your wallet. You're pretty sure that if you fight them they're going to beat you to death then take your wallet anyway. OTOH, there's a pretty good chance that if you give them your wallet, they'll decide not to beat you to death and you can finger them in court later.

Do you give them your wallet?

That's the more accurate comparison.

 

[Steve]

Now let's make it more the same instead of this work. You're surrounded by a dozen angry ninjas who want your wallet. You're pretty sure that if you fight them they're going to beat you to death then take your wallet anyway. OTOH, there's a pretty good chance that if you give them your wallet, they'll decide not to beat you to death and you can finger them in court later.

Do you give them your wallet?

That's the more accurate comparison.

Great. This takes us back several posts, when I asked whether this was the advice you'd give to folks in a similar situation. As I said then, it raises the question why you train to fight for self defense, if the best advice is "give them your wallet (i.e., don't resist) and take them to court?" Are you saying that there is no circumstance where fighting is advised? I wonder then, why self defense training often involves learning (ostensibly) to fight.

As you say, there's a pretty good chance that the bad guy will let you go. Heck, I've made that point many times, with statistics to back it up.

 

[lklawson]

Great. This takes us back several posts, when I asked whether this was the advice you'd give to folks in a similar situation. As I said then, it raises the question why you train to fight for self defense, if the best advice is "give them your wallet (i.e., don't resist) and take them to court?"

As always, it depends.

Are you saying that there is no circumstance where fighting is advised?

I don't think I've ever said that.

I wonder then, why self defense training often involves learning (ostensibly) to fight.

I don't know why you'd wonder. I've been pretty clear the whole time.

As you say, there's a pretty good chance that the bad guy will let you go. Heck, I've made that point many times, with statistics to back it up.

Of course. I've said any number of times that stuff is just stuff.

What I've consistently said is that self defense is pretty much only worth it when you are in fear of immediate death or serious bodily harm (think "permanent disability" not "black eye").

And the same thing would go with a "rogue cop." The thing is, that the incidents of excessive force by a "rogue cop" are already rare and those incidents of excessive force rising to the level of death or permanent disability are exceptionally rare. It's like winning the lottery or being hit by lighting. So, yeah, if you're not resisting and get a black eye, well, yeah that sucks, is illegal, and is just plain wrong. But it's not deadly and it's not going to make you limp for the rest of your life or cost you a kidney or testicle. Document it and sue.

So I stand by my statement, in the vast vast vast majority of instances, with the other side being statistical noise, don't fight the cops.

 

[Steve]

As always, it depends.

I don't think I've ever said that.

You're going in circles again. Do we need to rehash the last several posts in which you said that folks should simply not resist?

I don't know why you'd wonder. I've been pretty clear the whole time.

Saying things clearly is not the same as saying things that are internally consistent. You speak clearly, but you just contradict yourself. It's okay, though. I'm not asking you to repeat yourself. I think this has run its course.

Of course. I've said any number of times that stuff is just stuff.

What I've consistently said is that self defense is pretty much only worth it when you are in fear of immediate death or serious bodily harm (think "permanent disability" not "black eye").

And the same thing would go with a "rogue cop." The thing is, that the incidents of excessive force by a "rogue cop" are already rare and those incidents of excessive force rising to the level of death or permanent disability are exceptionally rare. It's like winning the lottery or being hit by lighting. So, yeah, if you're not resisting and get a black eye, well, yeah that sucks, is illegal, and is just plain wrong. But it's not deadly and it's not going to make you limp for the rest of your life or cost you a kidney or testicle. Document it and sue.

So I stand by my statement, in the vast vast vast majority of instances, with the other side being statistical noise, don't fight the cops.

Your entire argument is flawed in two very meaningful ways. First, you assert as a fact that these incidents are rare, but have no data to support that. You believe it to be true, and that's fine. But that doesn't make it true, and as we learn more, and data is being reported more reliably, evidence suggests that you are actually mistaken.

Second, as a percentage of the population, folks just aren't attacked that often by anyone, even criminals. I mean, if the actual metric you're using is that cops don't use excessive force often, once again, we're into the arena where folks in general don't use excessive force on anyone very often. I mean, your odds of being attacked by even a criminal are like winning the lottery or being hit by lightning. So, again, if that's the measure, then why do folks peddling self defense focus so much (or even at all) on physical fighting skills?

 

[lklawson]

You're going in circles again. Do we need to rehash the last several posts in which you said that folks should simply not resist? Saying things clearly is not the same as saying things that are internally consistent. You speak clearly, but you just contradict yourself. It's okay, though. I'm not asking you to repeat yourself. I think this has run its course.

Sure go ahead. I'll point out, again, that you misinterpreted what I wrote and have clarified and expounded several times now (you know "going in circles"). But don't let that stop you. You seem determined to believe that I wrote something else that you disagree with.

Frankly, I'm getting a bit tired of this dance.

Your entire argument is flawed in two very meaningful ways. First, you assert as a fact that these incidents are rare, but have no data to support that.

Seriously? OK we've established a base number of 900,000,000 contacts but lets look at actual arrests. The current published numbers available for BJS deaths and arrests are from 2015 and are thus. In 2015, there were 10,797,088 arrests. During that year, according to Bureau of Justice Statistics, there were an estimated 1,216 people killed by police by "homicide" (either justified or unjustified, at 64% of the total, 18% were suicides and 11% were accidents), though some estimates actually put it at 900 total deaths by any means. Assuming the larger number of 1,216, that means that being killed for any reason (justified or not) when either in police custody or while being arrested comes in at 0.00112623%. 1/10th of 1%, including justified. Death by excessive force is a fraction of that, even when going by inflated media reporting.

So yes, I have data to support it, and it shows that the fears of being unjustifiably killed by bad cops is an exceptionally rare event. Just like I wrote several times now.

You believe it to be true, and that's fine. But that doesn't make it true

Being true is what makes it true.

, and as we learn more, and data is being reported more reliably, evidence suggests that you are actually mistaken.

Run the number of arrests again.

Second, as a percentage of the population, folks just aren't attacked that often by anyone, even criminals.

I agree. But it was your example, not mine.

I mean, if the actual metric you're using is that cops don't use excessive force often, once again, we're into the arena where folks in general don't use excessive force on anyone very often. I mean, your odds of being attacked by even a criminal are like winning the lottery or being hit by lightning. So, again, if that's the measure, then why do folks peddling self defense focus so much (or even at all) on physical fighting skills?

Who cares? That's not part of the discussion. You're the one that brought self defense against a gaggle of ninjas it in.

To restate most of my major points:

• Bad cops using excessive force is actually pretty rare
• The best way to avoid giving a bad cop the excuse to use excessive force is to not resist arrest
• The best way to avoid a "not bad" cop going too far and using excessive force even if he didn't intend to is to not resist arrest
• The only morally justifiable time to try to physically fight the cops and resist arrest is when you are justifiably confident that unjustified force rising to the level of death or permanent debilitating injury will be used against you
• Regardless of whether or not you are morally justified in resisting the cops, doing so will almost certainly get you hurt or killed, whether it is reasonable or not, because there are more cops than there are you and they're better armed
• These things are true even if you think they're unfair