"Are we breeding a police culture of “additional victims?”

KenpoTex

Senior Master
Joined
Jan 24, 2004
Messages
3,001
Reaction score
144
Location
Springfield, Missouri
Great article...

here's a taste:
Law enforcement agencies “should build a police culture that accepts, validates and rewards a fighting spirit.” Instead too many are creating “additional victims,” hesitant officers who shy from using deadly force when it’s legal and urgently needed. The result: “Some officers today are more afraid of being sued than being murdered!”

...officers and agencies should embrace a greater willingness and readiness to use lawful deadly force in appropriate circumstances.

“It’s not necessary to talk to somebody when they’re trying to murder you. You can do it, but there’s no legal obligation to and tactically it’s not desirable. There are some offenders you simply can’t negotiate with. Yet officers want to take things to the last instant because they have imprinted in their mind ‘I don’t want to shoot.’”
http://www.correctionsone.com/write...eding-a-police-culture-of-additional-victims/
 

jarrod

Senior Master
Joined
Jul 7, 2008
Messages
2,172
Reaction score
96
Location
Denver
one of the problems with the law & enforcing the law is that there are so many variables that it is impossible to legislate something onto the books for every possible scenario. i'm not usually a big advocate of The Man so to speak, but individual cops should be protected from frivolous law suits. one of the ways to do that is to punish police who truly use brutality swiftly & severly. every time a bad cop gets off with a slap on the wrist, it adds to the likelihood that a decent cop will be more severly punished over something accidental or trifling in order to prevent public outrage.

jf
 

Archangel M

Senior Master
Joined
Dec 5, 2007
Messages
4,555
Reaction score
154
That is the leaderships fault. Fear of liability drives senior leadership into stupid decisions.
 

sjansen

Orange Belt
Joined
Oct 21, 2008
Messages
82
Reaction score
3
Location
Charlotte
Police, law enforcement and those in our prisons already have an undo burdon to proof to proove themselves as worthy to those who have shown themselves not to be be worthy of leniency where the law is concerned. Why should law enforcement officers have to show this in the case of criminals? These people deserve what they get.

Police should be able to shoot first and ask questions later where there own health is at risk. Although it is there job to be put in harms way, how much harm do we expect them to take before society collapses. If someone is insane an expects to die, let them meet their fate. In prison, on a street or bar.

The police should not have to worry about prosecution in every turn. Neither should they be taken off the street or out of a prison for doing so.
 

tellner

Senior Master
Joined
Nov 18, 2005
Messages
4,379
Reaction score
240
Location
Orygun
It's not just being willing to use deadly force. It's more being willing to protect citizens. What I've seen of officer training has been very strongly in favor of using deadly force to protect the officer's life. But protecting anyone else? Not so much. "Find a defensible position" or "Pull back and call for backup" or "Let the SWAT team handle it" or "First you go home, they your partner goes home, then the civilian goes home" are drilled into police from the Academy on.

Consider the Colorado school shootings. The cops sat outside and waited for the situation to resolve. They stopped parents who were trying to save their children. Control the perimeter. Don't put yourself at risk. "Civilians" are acceptable (if regrettable) costs of doing business.
 

Archangel M

Senior Master
Joined
Dec 5, 2007
Messages
4,555
Reaction score
154
The policing world was different pre-Columbine. The police did what they did because that was SOP for almost all PD's at the time. You set up a perimiter and called for SWAT. In this day and age of rapid deployment things are different in many departments.

One thing about this article though...as is the case in almost any collumn, blog post, article, writers like to make sweeping generalizations based on a handfull of anecdotal stories. Im not prepared to accept that there is a widespread, endemic problem of cops unwilling to use force. As a matter of fact Im pretty confident that we could find a number of posts right HERE where people claim that the police are trigger happy. Perhaps SOME cops or SOME departments are building a "culture of additional victims". But Id like to see more of a study proving that this is a widespread problem.

Many people (a number of which post here) like to make broad brush claims about the police and how they operate with ZERO knowledge or experience with the topic other than those based on their their preconcieved viewpoints and political leanings. Many of their opinions of how police act, think and operate are just that... OPINIONS, that are phrased as though they are facts.

I dare say that few people on this thread have any clue about how most cops view their obligations to keeping their community and citizens safe.
 
Last edited:

seasoned

MT Senior Moderator
Staff member
Lifetime Supporting Member
Joined
Apr 19, 2007
Messages
11,250
Reaction score
1,227
Location
Lives in Texas
Yes, and it’s the liberal media and lenient courts that are to blame. LE, right out of the box, have restrictions placed on them to present themselves in a favorable manner, when dealing with the public. Cameras are everywhere, catching everything, except the thoughts and feeling that are present within the minds of the people being filmed. Split second decisions need to be made, and in some cases, with life threatening consequences, and it is up to LE to be right, every time. When the order is given to drop something, or to get on the ground, just do it. If that order is ignored, then the person ignoring it, is the liable one. From that point forward it is assumed by the officer, that they are dealing with a noncompliant individual who is a threat or danger to them. and the public. Sadly enough, the camera does not pick up the feelings, thoughts, and anguish present in the minds of responding officers, who now have to deal with this threat, appropriately. The camera only picks up the aftermath of controlling that situation. This whole attitude is present in our military, where they have imbedded journalist on the battle field reporting “the news” first hand. I envision patrol car camera’s being replaced someday with ride along reporters, so they can in someway, better protect the public from these gun happy grazed individuals, that are swore to protect. If 3/4 of these people knew what type of training goes into testing, selecting, and consequently going through an academy, the majority would not make it. Just let them do their job.
 

searcher

Senior Master
Joined
Mar 15, 2005
Messages
3,317
Reaction score
58
Location
Kansas
I think that this type of mentality is supposed to be bridged by those of us with CCH. I know that having to force the everyday person into making this bridge is not ideal, but it seems to be what is happeneing. JMO.


The sheeple will gripe and raise a fit because we have the Right To Bear Arms, but then when we save their life this may change.
 

jks9199

Administrator
Staff member
Lifetime Supporting Member
Joined
Jul 2, 2006
Messages
23,426
Reaction score
3,728
Location
Northern VA
It's not just being willing to use deadly force. It's more being willing to protect citizens. What I've seen of officer training has been very strongly in favor of using deadly force to protect the officer's life. But protecting anyone else? Not so much. "Find a defensible position" or "Pull back and call for backup" or "Let the SWAT team handle it" or "First you go home, they your partner goes home, then the civilian goes home" are drilled into police from the Academy on.

Consider the Colorado school shootings. The cops sat outside and waited for the situation to resolve. They stopped parents who were trying to save their children. Control the perimeter. Don't put yourself at risk. "Civilians" are acceptable (if regrettable) costs of doing business.
As a result of the Columbine shootings (and a few other incidents), police policy on active shooter situations has changed. Dramatically.

But there's a reason for the "self, then team, then public" training. I'm not able to help anyone if I'm injured. My partner is unable to help me help you if he's injured. It's that simple.
 

sgtmac_46

Senior Master
Joined
Dec 19, 2004
Messages
4,753
Reaction score
189
one of the problems with the law & enforcing the law is that there are so many variables that it is impossible to legislate something onto the books for every possible scenario. i'm not usually a big advocate of The Man so to speak, but individual cops should be protected from frivolous law suits. one of the ways to do that is to punish police who truly use brutality swiftly & severly. every time a bad cop gets off with a slap on the wrist, it adds to the likelihood that a decent cop will be more severly punished over something accidental or trifling in order to prevent public outrage.

jf
The problem is that 95% of what the public perceives as 'brutality swiftly and severly' isn't remotely that at all.....therefore, the public perception is that they are getting off with a slap on the wrist when they didn't do anything wrong in the first place.
 

sgtmac_46

Senior Master
Joined
Dec 19, 2004
Messages
4,753
Reaction score
189
It's not just being willing to use deadly force. It's more being willing to protect citizens. What I've seen of officer training has been very strongly in favor of using deadly force to protect the officer's life. But protecting anyone else? Not so much. "Find a defensible position" or "Pull back and call for backup" or "Let the SWAT team handle it" or "First you go home, they your partner goes home, then the civilian goes home" are drilled into police from the Academy on.

Consider the Colorado school shootings. The cops sat outside and waited for the situation to resolve. They stopped parents who were trying to save their children. Control the perimeter. Don't put yourself at risk. "Civilians" are acceptable (if regrettable) costs of doing business.

That used to be true to some extent......that is not the current standard of training. I've maintained throughout my career (and the training is now bearing this out) that our duty is to put ourselves in harms way to save innocent lives.

In the wake of Columbine I made the point with my department that the officers there failed, and clung to an outdated and failed doctrine of 'Isolate, Cordon, Negotiate'.....when they should have been actively seeking out and engaging those two clowns.

Well, current police training 'Active Shooter' doctrine has changed the way law enforcement deals with these types of situations......the new paradigm is that, when confronted by an active shooter, the officer gathers whatever men and resources he has immediately on hand, and goes in to confront and neutralize the gunmen.
 

sgtmac_46

Senior Master
Joined
Dec 19, 2004
Messages
4,753
Reaction score
189
As a result of the Columbine shootings (and a few other incidents), police policy on active shooter situations has changed. Dramatically.

But there's a reason for the "self, then team, then public" training. I'm not able to help anyone if I'm injured. My partner is unable to help me help you if he's injured. It's that simple.

I've always felt uncomfortable with that order or arrangement.......we took this job for a reason. Public, Team, Self, Criminal.....that's the order I put priority in, and what I preach to other officers to put priority in.

Our honor is directly proportional to our willingness to put ourselves in harms way so that others may live.......which means to me other officers and innocent members of the public......the criminals themselves are SOL if it comes to that, because I fully intend on doing unto them before they can do unto me or anyone else.
 

jarrod

Senior Master
Joined
Jul 7, 2008
Messages
2,172
Reaction score
96
Location
Denver
The problem is that 95% of what the public perceives as 'brutality swiftly and severly' isn't remotely that at all.....therefore, the public perception is that they are getting off with a slap on the wrist when they didn't do anything wrong in the first place.

http://comegetyousome.com/video/20370/police-brutality(warning!).html

http://www.comegetyousome.com/video/19448/police-brutality.html

http://comegetyousome.com/video/18915/shocking-police-brutality(warning).html

brutality isn't the norm, but it does happen & should result in swift & severe punishment.

jf
 

sgtmac_46

Senior Master
Joined
Dec 19, 2004
Messages
4,753
Reaction score
189
Thank you for making my point......you've got one true example of excessive force out of the three videos you provided......the case of the female throwing her shoes at the officer.

The video of the male subject receiving baton strikes to the legs illustrates a controlled use of measured force to bring a resisting subject in to compliance, and the use of force stopped once the subject was brought under control. There are many questions from the video.....what was he being arrested for, what was he doing before the video started? One thing is certain from the video is that he was engaged in a prolonged struggle with officers who were trying to take him in to custody. The officer with the baton was striking an area of the body not likely to cause death or serious physical injury. It was an area designed to bring compliance from pain and discomfort only. The baton strikes he was giving would likely cause only bruising, pain and discomfort, which are acceptable risks of force used to overcome active resistance.

Moreover, it's very telling that the officer, instead of wildly wailing away at this guys head, was instead giving a shot or two at his legs, waiting a moment to see if that brought compliance, before adding another strike or two, and pausing to see if that brought compliance. Measured response NOT brutality. Force ended immediately upon compliance being gained.

In the video involving the motorist, you are judging the use of force via hindsight narrative.....none of which was available to the officer who chased the woman, who failed to yield to an emergency vehicle for a considerable distance. She was pulled out of the vehicle, per acceptable law enforcement practiced, and handcuffed. She complained of bruises and scrapes, which are considered acceptable injuries for uses of force involving active resistance (via fleeing and refusing to exit the vehicle to be handcuffed). Again, force ended IMMEDIATELY upon the subject being restrained.

Your lay perception of 'Police Brutality' isn't the same as the reality of Police Brutality......again, 95% of the cases that folks like yourself perceive as police brutality are nothing of the sort. CONTEXT is everything.

And what ends up happening is that, with your limited perception of the events, when the department does an internal investigation and finds the officer acted within accepted guidelines, you declare that the officer is 'Just getting a slap on the wrist'......when he did nothing objectively wrong to begin with.



When determining whether force is reasonable or excessive we must ask ourselves several questions, and not fall prey to a gut-level emotional reaction to the ugly nature of ALL force, not just unreasonable force.

1) Was there justification for arrest or restraint? (In all three cases the answer was yes)
2) Was there resistance on the part of the subject? (In all three cases the answer was yes)
3) Was there a need for force to overcome the resistance of the subject? (In all three cases the answer was yes)
4) Was the force used in proportion to the level of resistance? (In two out of three cases the answer was yes)
5) Did the force cease once compliance was achieved? (In two out of three cases the answer was yes)

ALL force is ugly.....ugliness is not the measure of brutality. And yes, i'm aware the state settled the lawsuit and and terminated the trooper in the video with the female motorist......but his use of force was not excessive given the nature of the resistance. He was fired because the video looked bad, and he appeared to be out of control (he could have handled the situation much better than he did) and could have been far more professional......but that's not the same as claiming police brutality.

The incident with the baton strikes shouldn't even be listed in the examples at all......and the subject in that circumstance could have ended that 'beating' any time he wanted......by simply complying and putting his hands behind his back. When he did so, it all stopped.

To address the incident involving the girl kicking her shoe at the officer, that incident is entirely indefensible. Her actions demanded a response, but the response she guy was grossly disproportionate to her actions.
 
Last edited:

Carol

Crazy like a...
MT Mentor
Lifetime Supporting Member
MTS Alumni
Joined
Jan 16, 2006
Messages
20,311
Reaction score
541
Location
NH
Thank you for making my point......you've got one true example of excessive force out of the three videos you provided......the case of the female throwing her shoes at the officer.


...and the reason why we know about that incident to begin with is because the department released the video in a news release referring to the event and stating that the officer was under investigation...
 

sgtmac_46

Senior Master
Joined
Dec 19, 2004
Messages
4,753
Reaction score
189
...and the reason why we know about that incident to begin with is because the department released the video in a news release referring to the event and stating that the officer was under investigation...
Exactly!

Bottom line, the officer was wrong in that one.....and he's going to lose his career and catch a charge over it, more than likely.
 

jarrod

Senior Master
Joined
Jul 7, 2008
Messages
2,172
Reaction score
96
Location
Denver
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/07/30/top-5-police-brutality-vi_n_115921.html

in the top one the guy really had it coming, riding his bicycle & all.

the second one is a repeat with a little commentary. i watched it again, & i don't really think that a club to the knee carries no risk of injury.

in the third one, i believe all three suspects were hospitalized.

of course, the "don't taz me bro" kid was a jackass looking for publicity.

jf
 

jarrod

Senior Master
Joined
Jul 7, 2008
Messages
2,172
Reaction score
96
Location
Denver
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-12-17-copmisconduct_n.htm

here's an article about brutality cases increasing 25% in the last several years. it may be due to increased occurence or increased prosecution, but it's worth noting.

then of course there was the guy dumped out of his wheelchair:

http://www.policebrutality.info/2008/04/*****-cop-dumps-disabled-man-out-of-his.html

here are some cops beating a 64 year old drunk guy while a mounted officer tries to stay between the camera & the action:

http://www.policebrutality.info/2008/12/police-abusing-and-beating-64-years-old.html

here's a cop punching a guy in the face while he has his shin across his throat:

http://www.policebrutality.info/2008/04/los-angeles-police-brutality.html

& lastly, 5 cops in NY sodomize a man:

http://www.policebrutality.info/2009/01/police-beating-man-with-antena.html

jf
 
Top