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

sgtmac_46

Senior Master
Joined
Dec 19, 2004
Messages
4,753
Reaction score
189
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.
You're confused about the standard.....the standard isn't 'NO RISK!' of injury.....resisting arrest carries a risk of injury........the force used was in proportion with the resistance offered......strikes to the legs carry no real risk of DEATH or SERIOUS physical injury......and if you don't understand the definition of 'SERIOUS' physical injury, that may be where the confusion lay. Serious physical injury is 'Brian Damage' or a ruptured spleen.

Pain, bruising, soft tissue damage are not considered 'serious' physical injury, and are considered acceptable risks incurred when actively resisting arrest.



What the public wants is 'Pretty on video force'.......that's an asinine standard. The rational standard is 'Objectively Reasonable' force......and that is the standard the courts apply, that you refer to as 'Giving the officers a slap on the wrist'........apparently 'Objectively reasonable based on the totality of the circumstances' offends some folks.
 
Last edited:

sgtmac_46

Senior Master
Joined
Dec 19, 2004
Messages
4,753
Reaction score
189
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.
Entirely irrelevant.......increased prosecution is merely knee-jerk political response to public perception of abuse, and does not remotely support the notion that abuse is wide-spread....and even LESS proves that abuse is on the RISE.......perception and reality are very often not remotely the same thing......especially in a 24-hour 'If it bleeds/it leads' news cycle.

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
Again you demonstrate an inability to separate true brutality from ugly justifiable use of force. In the 3rd incident, it is not remotely 'abuse'. The strikes to the face, while not palatable, are not 'police brutality'. They were measured responses to a resisting subject who had not responded to lessor means and was still resisting. The subject could have ended that force at any time by ceasing his resistance.


I find it telling that every time someone wants to demonstrate the widespread nature of 'Police Brutality' they demonstrate that same inability to separate 'Legitimate' force from 'Excessive'.........and if they don't know the difference, why are they trying to tell me how widespread police brutality is if they can't distinguish it from legitimate force.........it merely reinforces my earlier proclamation that 95% of the cases of perceived brutality are legitimate uses for force. You've managed to find a few of those 5% examples, but that you have them mixed and matched with the other 95% of assumed brutality that is legitimate use of force illustrates the problem very well.
 

jarrod

Senior Master
Joined
Jul 7, 2008
Messages
2,172
Reaction score
96
Location
Denver
or the other possibility is that you & i have different definitions of justifiable. as a cop, you have lost the perspective of a civilian. you look at these clips & wonder why the dumbass perp doesn't quit "resisting", which in most of these videos looks an awful lot like laying still on the ground. as a non-cop, i see people who look scared & are afraid to go with the people who are screaming at them, punching them, sticking a gun in their face, etc. maybe that second clip wasn't excessive force by the legal definition, i don't know. i do know that if two people were holding me down, one of them kneeling on my throat (aren't chokehold illegal for LEOs?) my instincts wouldn't exactly be screaming "comply". it's a simple matter of escalation of force; we want people to be aware of it with potential attackers but then fully comply with other people because they have a badge. i know most cops are decent folks, but my instincts would have a really hard time not reading some of those cops as a legitimate threat.

now, out of those 4 clips/articles i posted, you claimed that one is not legitimate brutality. so far your assertion that "95% of the cases of perceived brutality are legitimate uses for force" isn't really holding up. or is it okay to dump people out of wheelchairs or gang rape them? keep in mind these are only instances caught on video. i kinda doubt that cops get caught the first time they abuse someone.

jf
 

jarrod

Senior Master
Joined
Jul 7, 2008
Messages
2,172
Reaction score
96
Location
Denver

jarrod

Senior Master
Joined
Jul 7, 2008
Messages
2,172
Reaction score
96
Location
Denver
sorry to serial post here, just wanted to add a thought...

most cops i've dealt with on a professional level have been helpful, good people. but to pretend that there are not abusers in the system adds to the general feeling of public distrust. you & i can argue all day about what justified & what's not. but the fact is that this discussion is adding to my general apprehension about dealing with the police. should i ever be in a situation where, rightly or wrongly, the police suspect me of something, i'm definately going to be concerned as to whether or not the cop i'm dealing with think it's okay to kneel on my neck & punch me in the face if i don't immediately respond to their commands, whether those commands violate my rights or not. many people just don't feel protected by the cops; they feel intimidated by them.

jf
 

jks9199

Administrator
Staff member
Lifetime Supporting Member
Joined
Jul 2, 2006
Messages
23,506
Reaction score
3,851
Location
Northern VA
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.
But you can't protect or serve the public if you haven't made reasonable steps to protect yourself. And your teammates.

I'm not saying that cops shouldn't take risks to protect others. It's part of the job description. But there are good risks and bad risks. Let me use a HAZMAT response as an example, 'cause it's easier to see. You roll up on a report of a car crash, and you see everyone it falling down, gasping. You can run in, try to drag someone out... and if they're going down that fast, probably go down yourself. Repeat until your squad runs out of people to respond... Or you can back off, report what you're seeing, and get the HAZMAT team in there to make it safe. Same sort of thing with an active shooter; there's currently debate about solo entry. There are absolutely times to make a solo entry, in my opinion -- but generally, you wait until you've got a minimum team to get in with acceptable risks and a decent chance of success. (This isn't the same as the old "secure the scene and wait for SWAT" approach -- which is also still valid in some situations.)

It's not about perfect safety for the cops -- but about recognizing good and reasonable risks from stupid ones that don't help anyone.
 

exile

To him unconquered.
Lifetime Supporting Member
MTS Alumni
Joined
Sep 7, 2006
Messages
10,665
Reaction score
251
Location
Columbus, Ohio
But you can't protect or serve the public if you haven't made reasonable steps to protect yourself. And your teammates.

It's not about perfect safety for the cops -- but about recognizing good and reasonable risks from stupid ones that don't help anyone.

This is exactly the same logic that the airline safety instructions follow in telling you, the parent, to get your oxygen mask on yourself before putting your kids' on, should a decompression occur. My impulse would be to get Adrian's on before I did anything about my own. But if you're starting to go into oxygen deprivation, you'll probably never get your kids' masks on anyway, and in any case, if you're unconscious, your children have lost their major protector in a critical situation. You're only useful to them if you're functional. This is the same thing.
 
Last edited:
OP
KenpoTex

KenpoTex

Senior Master
Joined
Jan 24, 2004
Messages
3,001
Reaction score
144
Location
Springfield, Missouri
I love how it seems that every thread that touches on use of force (including this one which was intended to be more of a mindset discussion) devolves into a "see, the cops beat people for no reason" debate.
 

Archangel M

Senior Master
Joined
Dec 5, 2007
Messages
4,555
Reaction score
154

I agree with SgtMac. This illustrates part of the REASON for this thread. Most people cant tell the difference between excessive force and necessary/reasonable force...these are the same people who protest and complain, influencing police leadership to either unfairly punish officers involved or instill fear of prosecution/lawsuits into their officers, resulting in not using enough force when its required.

PS- nobody is saying that excessive force doesn't happen. The girl throwing her shoes is one example. I feel sorry for the other officer who I hear was a trainee...
 

redantstyle

Blue Belt
Joined
Oct 18, 2007
Messages
205
Reaction score
6
Location
wny

pathetic restraint skills is more like it.

can't think of anything better to do then jab the guy in the face?

perceptually, the striking of the face is really something that people find objectionable, on the visceral level. it is something that is widely known to not only hurt, but also considered to be embarassing. so if you see a cop hitting the face of a young girl or old man, it is going to hit a nerve. and in general, striking is more evocative than restraints of various kinds, when it comes to emotive responses.
 

Archangel M

Senior Master
Joined
Dec 5, 2007
Messages
4,555
Reaction score
154
"Restraint holds" are worthless against active resisters.
 

jks9199

Administrator
Staff member
Lifetime Supporting Member
Joined
Jul 2, 2006
Messages
23,506
Reaction score
3,851
Location
Northern VA
"Restraint holds" are worthless against active resisters.
Lots of the time -- restraint holds aren't all that useful against even a passive resister!

They're worse than useless against active resistance...
 

jarrod

Senior Master
Joined
Jul 7, 2008
Messages
2,172
Reaction score
96
Location
Denver
I love how it seems that every thread that touches on use of force (including this one which was intended to be more of a mindset discussion) devolves into a "see, the cops beat people for no reason" debate.

sorry if i helped lead the thread off topic; i was trying to make the point that i believe there would be fewer frivolous lawsuits against the police if legitimate cases of brutality were seriously & consistently prosecuted. while i may just be a lowly civilian who doesn't always know the difference between justifiable force & brutality, some of the actions in the links i posted are clearly well beyond what is necessary. personally i don't get why a suspect lying on the ground needs to be punched in the face, but even if that is accepted practice a good chunk of those videos are still clearly excessive.

my apologies again though for leading things off the original topic.

jf
 

blindsage

Master of Arts
Joined
Mar 5, 2009
Messages
1,580
Reaction score
112
Location
Sacramento, CA
Brutality isn't the norm, but aggression often is. I can't walk down the street past an officer 90% of the time without getting aggressive looks and a stare down even if I smile and say hello. Is this suppose to make me feel safe? I'm actually a fan and a proponent of law enforcement, but there are lines that get crossed fairly regularly. I've known a few cops and I would say all of them are good people and good cops, but they never acknowledge openly or present a willingness to deal with innapropriate behavior and/or brutality. I don't want to undermine or discourage the men and women who put themselves out there everyday to protect me and everyone else, I want to support and encourage them, but in return is it really to much to ask that we have some openess and honestly about the lines that do get crossed and what can be done about it? Is it too much to ask that our officers start making an effort to end the culture that at times protects and defends those officers that do transgress the bounds of their jobs? I would hope not.
 

jarrod

Senior Master
Joined
Jul 7, 2008
Messages
2,172
Reaction score
96
Location
Denver
sorry if i helped lead the thread off topic; i was trying to make the point that i believe there would be fewer frivolous lawsuits against the police if legitimate cases of brutality were seriously & consistently prosecuted. while i may just be a lowly civilian who doesn't always know the difference between justifiable force & brutality, some of the actions in the links i posted are clearly well beyond what is necessary. personally i don't get why a suspect lying on the ground needs to be punched in the face, but even if that is accepted practice a good chunk of those videos are still clearly excessive.

my apologies again though for leading things off the original topic.

jf

to whoever gave me the anonymous negative rep for this comment; i wasn't being passive aggressive, for your info. too bad that dissenting opinions make you angry, & that you don't have the courage to publicly state your opinions.

i was apologizing for my part in veering of topic, pure & simple.

jf
 

Archangel M

Senior Master
Joined
Dec 5, 2007
Messages
4,555
Reaction score
154
The problem is that 95% of what the public perceives as 'brutality swiftly and severely' 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.

Exactly. Just because it "looks" like brutality doesn't make it so. Odd how a thread focusing on how officers dont use enough force when required has turned into a "police brutality" thread.
 
Top