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

[lklawson]

I agree with this, and I think most people do. The million dollar question right now is whether this is a feature or a flaw. A lot of folks look at the true statement above and say, "Regardless of actual circumstance, this is exactly what happens. Someone says or does something and the cops call their friends, dogpile, and you get met with deadly force from multiple angles."

If it is a problem to be addressed, while it's occurring to you is not a good place to try to fix the issue.

Here's a relevant question. What if you reasonably believe that the cops are going to kill you regardless? Heck, we see videos with regularity now of "bad apples" killing or beating folks who aren't resisting. To be clear, this isn't a referendum on cops. It is, however, a reality that some people believe when they encounter a cop that chances are probable he (usually) is a bad cop and their life is in as much danger as if they were being robbed at gun point.

Well, first off, statistics seem to indicate that the vast, vast majority of cops are decent folks and those rare events really are rare and probably really do constitute bad apples. By some statistics there are "2.5 million contacts per day, 75 million contacts per month and 900 million contacts per year. The vast majority of police-citizen contacts are handled without incident and when force must be used to gain compliance, it involves minimal to no injury in most cases." In many of those "bad apple" contacts that we end up hearing about, it turns out that the facts were misrepresented to try to wind up public outrage. But even if we assume that all or most are not misrepresented, let's call it 2/3 just for argument sake, then that represents, what?, maybe half-a-dozen per year of cops "killing or beating folks who aren't resisting." Let's raise it way way up and make it an even 20. What is 20 divided by 900,000,000? Statistical noise, is what. Should that be stamped out? Of course. No one is making an excuse for bad cops using excessive force. Get rid of them. What I am saying is that with north of 900 million contacts per year, any believe that "cops are going to kill you regardless" is not founded in reality. So what's my advice if you believe cops are going to kill you anyway? Look at the actual numbers or get some help for paranoia because the fear is not well founded but, instead, is likely a result of The Illusory Truth Effect.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

 

[Steve]

If it is a problem to be addressed, while it's occurring to you is not a good place to try to fix the issue.

But when one finds him or herself in the moment, you're literally suggesting that they just hope for the best.

Well, first off, statistics seem to indicate that the vast, vast majority of cops are decent folks and those rare events really are rare and probably really do constitute bad apples. By some statistics there are "2.5 million contacts per day, 75 million contacts per month and 900 million contacts per year. The vast majority of police-citizen contacts are handled without incident and when force must be used to gain compliance, it involves minimal to no injury in most cases." In many of those "bad apple" contacts that we end up hearing about, it turns out that the facts were misrepresented to try to wind up public outrage. But even if we assume that all or most are not misrepresented, let's call it 2/3 just for argument sake, then that represents, what?, maybe half-a-dozen per year of cops "killing or beating folks who aren't resisting." Let's raise it way way up and make it an even 20. What is 20 divided by 900,000,000? Statistical noise, is what. Should that be stamped out? Of course. No one is making an excuse for bad cops using excessive force. Get rid of them. What I am saying is that with north of 900 million contacts per year, any believe that "cops are going to kill you regardless" is not founded in reality. So what's my advice if you believe cops are going to kill you anyway? Look at the actual numbers or get some help for paranoia because the fear is not well founded but, instead, is likely a result of The Illusory Truth Effect.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

Honestly, it really depends on how we're defining "bad apple."

Studies in various cities put the number of bad apples at somewhere in the area of 5 to 10%, based on community/external and internal/inner-departmental complaints. There was also a study in Chicago (IIRC), which looked at the negative impact that "bad apples" can have on other cops. I've posted links in the past. Bad apples don't kill everyone they encounter, and if the bar for bad cop is set to "beating or killing folks who aren't resisting" we're in more trouble than I thought.

But even if we strip away all of the noise and static you're bringing into the discussion, the fact remains that a lot of folks in this country... more than a few... genuinely believe that if they encounter a cop, their life is in danger regardless of their behavior... in much the same way that it is endangered by being robbed at gunpoint.

My point is simply this. You are suggesting to folks that they just don't do anything and hope for the best. Let's put that in a self defense context. Would you say this to someone who is taking a self defense class? "Hey, guys. I'm going to show you some self defense tips... but really... your best bet is to do nothing and just take that bad guy to court."

And just to be clear, we could really dig into the specious logic you use above. I'd like to hear more about how "contact" is defined, etc, and etc. But that's really irrelevant to the point.

 

[Steve]

Just, before we get too far down the rabbit hole of folks asserting that there is clear evidence that some miniscule number of cops are "bad apples" and that most encounters are just fine, there have been a few credible studies done on use of force. The most recent one from 2018 acknowledges up front that, "While allegations that some police force is excessive, unjustified, and discriminatory continue and proliferate, current data regarding police use of force is insufficient to determine if instances are occurring more frequently. The public continues to hear competing narratives by law enforcement and community members, and the hard reality is that available national and local data is flawed and inadequate."

Simply put, like gun issues, no information has been collected reliably. "Without accurate data on police use of force, allegations by community members and actions by law enforcement not only sow distrust among communities and the police, making policing more dangerous, but also jeopardize public safety. Research consistently shows that positive relationships between community members and law enforcement are essential for safer communities. Citizens are more likely to aid in crime reduction and partner with police if they believe that law enforcement are engaging in equitable treatment and are impartial towards all."

Once again, the point isn't to argue pro cop or anti-cop. It's the opposite, to nip this in the bud, acknowledging that there is a dearth of data, and folks will believe what they are inclined to believe.

https://www.usccr.gov/pubs/2018/11-15-Police-Force.pdf

 

[lklawson]

But when one finds him or herself in the moment, you're literally suggesting that they just hope for the best.

When "in the moment" is defined as "in the midst of being arrested," then yes. Trying to physically fight the cops while they are trying to arrest you is simply not an effective way of trying to prevent cops from using excessive force while trying to arrest you. Suggesting "they're just going to hurt me anyway" is both a fallacy and also ineffective at preventing the use of excessive force. The simple fact is that physically fighting cops while they're trying arrest you can only increase the odds of a "bad apple" (however you want to define that) using excessive force. It's all down-sides, no up.

Honestly, it really depends on how we're defining "bad apple."

Studies in various cities put the number of bad apples at somewhere in the area of 5 to 10%, based on community/external and internal/inner-departmental complaints. There was also a study in Chicago (IIRC), which looked at the negative impact that "bad apples" can have on other cops. I've posted links in the past. Bad apples don't kill everyone they encounter, and if the bar for bad cop is set to "beating or killing folks who aren't resisting" we're in more trouble than I thought.

But even if we strip away all of the noise and static you're bringing into the discussion, the fact remains that a lot of folks in this country... more than a few... genuinely believe that if they encounter a cop, their life is in danger regardless of their behavior... in much the same way that it is endangered by being robbed at gunpoint.

Just because someone believes something doesn't make it true. About half of the people on Planet Earth currently genuinely believe in Creationism and the other half genuinly believe in Evolution. One half of them are wrong, despite what they genuinely believe.

My point is simply this. You are suggesting to folks that they just don't do anything and hope for the best. Let's put that in a self defense context. Would you say this to someone who is taking a self defense class? "Hey, guys. I'm going to show you some self defense tips... but really... your best bet is to do nothing and just take that bad guy to court."

Against cops arresting you? Yes. If you are worried about LEO excessive force, then let them arrest you, then take it to court.

Have you EVER, ever in your life, heard of a person who resisted arrest, physically fought the cops, and it turned out well for him? He successfully fended off the cops, didn't get injured, the cops didn't call a crap ton of their friends, all armed, and then get the suspect anyway, who then didn't have additional charges leveled against him? Ever?

Physically fighting the cops, resisting arrest, never ends well. Take the arrest. Go to court.

And just to be clear, we could really dig into the specious logic you use above. I'd like to hear more about how "contact" is defined, etc, and etc. But that's really irrelevant to the point.

2.5 million contacts happened yesterday, and none of them made the national news. Not sure how that's <cough> "specious." It's indicative that the concern of LEO excessive force is vastly over-represented in the psyche of the nation.

 

[Steve]

When "in the moment" is defined as "in the midst of being arrested," then yes. Trying to physically fight the cops while they are trying to arrest you is simply not an effective way of trying to prevent cops from using excessive force while trying to arrest you. Suggesting "they're just going to hurt me anyway" is both a fallacy and also ineffective at preventing the use of excessive force. The simple fact is that physically fighting cops while they're trying arrest you can only increase the odds of a "bad apple" (however you want to define that) using excessive force. It's all down-sides, no up.

Just because someone believes something doesn't make it true. About half of the people on Planet Earth currently genuinely believe in Creationism and the other half genuinly believe in Evolution. One half of them are wrong, despite what they genuinely believe.

Against cops arresting you? Yes. If you are worried about LEO excessive force, then let them arrest you, then take it to court.

Have you EVER, ever in your life, heard of a person who resisted arrest, physically fought the cops, and it turned out well for him? He successfully fended off the cops, didn't get injured, the cops didn't call a crap ton of their friends, all armed, and then get the suspect anyway, who then didn't have additional charges leveled against him? Ever?

Physically fighting the cops, resisting arrest, never ends well. Take the arrest. Go to court.

2.5 million contacts happened yesterday, and none of them made the national news. Not sure how that's <cough> "specious." It's indicative that the concern of LEO excessive force is vastly over-represented in the psyche of the nation.

did you read (or even skim) the report I shared by the NCCIS? If not, do so and then respond.

From the report: "Accurate and comprehensive data regarding police uses of force is generally not available to police departments or the American public. No comprehensive national database exists that captures rates of police use of force.

The best available evidence reflects high rates of use of force nationally, and increased likelihood of police use of force against people of color, people with disabilities, LGBT people, people with mental health concerns, people with low incomes, and those at the intersections of these groups.

Lack of training and lack of funding for training leave officers and the public at risk. Critical training areas include tactical training, de-escalation techniques, understanding cultural differences and anti-bias mechanisms, as well as strategies for encounters with individuals with physical and mental disabilities.

Repeated and highly publicized incidents of police use of force against persons of color and people with disabilities, combined with a lack of accurate data, lack of transparency about policies and practices in place governing use of force, and lack of accountability for noncompliance foster a perception that police use of force in communities of color and the disability community is unchecked, unlawful, and unsafe."

The report covers definitions of excessive use of force, the use of force continuum, and a number of other relevant issues. It also covers the lack of data, where that lack of data comes from, some transparency initiatives that might help going forward, and some recommendations for addressing the issues.

"Despite technological advancements in case management and data reporting capabilities, many police departments fail to report on the number of police-involved killings within their jurisdictions in a given year. Some jurisdictions do not have reliable data on use of force cases because many departments do not have an objective measure for “use of force,” thus officers are not reporting the incidents. Other departments attach force incidents to police reports, whereas others may keep separate databases, and others may only record data on paper. When the Justice Department surveyed police departments nationwide in 2013, they found that about one-fifth refused to comment on how they kept their data. Moreover, they found that in many departments, even in large jurisdictions such as New York City, Houston, Baltimore, and Detroit, law enforcement officials either refused to answer the question altogether or answered that they did not know how many times their officers used force. Further, in private conversations, some police officials told the Justice Department that they were reluctant to turn over data that the department could use to vilify them."

Frankly, that you're focusing on "contacts" is ridiculous.

 

[lklawson]

did you read (or even skim) the report I shared by the NCCIS? If not, do so and then respond.

It's 230 pages. Did you read it, or just skim? You could tell me that you actually read and digested those 230 pages. And I'd have no real way of saying you did or did not.

It's going to take time. I took the time to read the DoJ paper on Pepper Spray and Tasers but it took a while too. It's why I now think Tasers are too unreliable and Pepper Spray is remarkably effective and amazingly safe, the safest of all "less lethal" use of force tools, beating even "soft hands."

From the report: "Accurate and comprehensive data regarding police uses of force is generally not available to police departments or the American public. No comprehensive national database exists that captures rates of police use of force.

The best available evidence reflects high rates of use of force nationally, and increased likelihood of police use of force against people of color, people with disabilities, LGBT people, people with mental health concerns, people with low incomes, and those at the intersections of these groups.

Lack of training and lack of funding for training leave officers and the public at risk. Critical training areas include tactical training, de-escalation techniques, understanding cultural differences and anti-bias mechanisms, as well as strategies for encounters with individuals with physical and mental disabilities.

Repeated and highly publicized incidents of police use of force against persons of color and people with disabilities, combined with a lack of accurate data, lack of transparency about policies and practices in place governing use of force, and lack of accountability for noncompliance foster a perception that police use of force in communities of color and the disability community is unchecked, unlawful, and unsafe."

The report covers definitions of excessive use of force, the use of force continuum, and a number of other relevant issues. It also covers the lack of data, where that lack of data comes from, some transparency initiatives that might help going forward, and some recommendations for addressing the issues.

"Despite technological advancements in case management and data reporting capabilities, many police departments fail to report on the number of police-involved killings within their jurisdictions in a given year. Some jurisdictions do not have reliable data on use of force cases because many departments do not have an objective measure for “use of force,” thus officers are not reporting the incidents. Other departments attach force incidents to police reports, whereas others may keep separate databases, and others may only record data on paper. When the Justice Department surveyed police departments nationwide in 2013, they found that about one-fifth refused to comment on how they kept their data. Moreover, they found that in many departments, even in large jurisdictions such as New York City, Houston, Baltimore, and Detroit, law enforcement officials either refused to answer the question altogether or answered that they did not know how many times their officers used force. Further, in private conversations, some police officials told the Justice Department that they were reluctant to turn over data that the department could use to vilify them."

Frankly, that you're focusing on "contacts" is ridiculous.

Frankly, it's the only metric that is available. I caught that on the skim. I find it amusing that the paper starts off with "Accurate and comprehensive data regarding police uses of force is generally not available to police departments or the American public. No comprehensive national database exists that captures rates of police use of force" and it is then followed with a lot of guesswork and findings which conclude that "the best available evidence" which appears to be mostly unsubstantiated claims and "too many communities are not confident in that expectation and do not trust fair police-community interactions" because, apparently, how people feel is admissible evidence.

I'll take the time over the next few days to try to go through this, but, honestly, I've read books which were shorter.

Until that time, and likely after, I maintain that if you want to minimize your chances of having LEO excessive force used against you while being arrested, DON'T FIGHT.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

 

[Steve]

It's 230 pages. Did you read it, or just skim? You could tell me that you actually read and digested those 230 pages. And I'd have no real way of saying you did or did not.

I read it several months ago, and skimmed it again this morning. It's a thoughtful and detailed report. If it helps, the report is organized well, and the last 60 or so pages are actually more of an open letter/rebuttals than part of the report.

Also, if it helps, most of the pages are half filled with citations.

I didn't mean that comment to sound as snarky as it probably did. What I meant was, if you haven't read or at least skimmed the report, we're not remotely on the same page.

 

[Steve]

IUntil that time, and likely after, I maintain that if you want to minimize your chances of having LEO excessive force used against you while being arrested, DON'T FIGHT.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

You know, I missed this the first time. Would you give this same advice to a woman who reasonably believes she's going to be raped? Or a person who reasonably believes he's going to be assaulted or worse? I mean, really, if that's the case, I don't want to hear any more BS about teaching folks self defense. Because self defense just boils down to crossing your fingers and hoping for the best.

Again, why is this relevant? Because there are a lot of folks in our country who don't trust the police officers and who literally, reasonably fear for their lives whether they are armed or not, cooperative or not.

"A unique conversation is occurring in the black community, in part because of the media coverage of police use of force against African Americans. Black parents are having “the talk” with their children about how to behave if they encounter a police officer.886 At the heart of this talk is a deep distrust of law enforcement officers. The talk is rooted in parents’ warranted concern that a police encounter could result in the arrest or death of their child. While this conversation has occurred in one form or another privately for a long time, its existence has been revealed to the public because of the deaths of unarmed black men in recent years. The talk is important because it is one African Americans’ only defenses to combat their perception of an excessive use of force against communities of color. While debate exists as to the effectiveness of “the talk” in addressing excessive use of force, there is no doubt that its mere existence and representation in the public sphere speaks to the trust issues within the Black community around police interactions."

 

[jobo]

When "in the moment" is defined as "in the midst of being arrested," then yes. Trying to physically fight the cops while they are trying to arrest you is simply not an effective way of trying to prevent cops from using excessive force while trying to arrest you. Suggesting "they're just going to hurt me anyway" is both a fallacy and also ineffective at preventing the use of excessive force. The simple fact is that physically fighting cops while they're trying arrest you can only increase the odds of a "bad apple" (however you want to define that) using excessive force. It's all down-sides, no up.

Just because someone believes something doesn't make it true. About half of the people on Planet Earth currently genuinely believe in Creationism and the other half genuinly believe in Evolution. One half of them are wrong, despite what they genuinely believe.

Against cops arresting you? Yes. If you are worried about LEO excessive force, then let them arrest you, then take it to court.

Have you EVER, ever in your life, heard of a person who resisted arrest, physically fought the cops, and it turned out well for him? He successfully fended off the cops, didn't get injured, the cops didn't call a crap ton of their friends, all armed, and then get the suspect anyway, who then didn't have additional charges leveled against him? Ever?

Physically fighting the cops, resisting arrest, never ends well. Take the arrest. Go to court.

2.5 million contacts happened yesterday, and none of them made the national news. Not sure how that's <cough> "specious." It's indicative that the concern of LEO excessive force is vastly over-represented in the psyche of the nation.

thread swerve, there is no reason at all why both creationist and evolutionist cant both be largely correct, or both a little bit wrong, dependent on how you look at it

 

[Monkey Turned Wolf]

Keep in mind this is not a site to discuss political views. If you wish to do so, there are multiple other forums available for that. A quick google search and you'll find them almost instantly.

@Monkey Turned Wolf
MartialTalk Moderator

 

[drop bear]

Until that time, and likely after, I maintain that if you want to minimize your chances of having LEO excessive force used against you while being arrested, DON'T FIGHT.

But people are going to fight. That is why we have cops.

So you set up the cops to handle that without having to go buck wild on a guy.

It is almost as if this idea gets lost somewhere. Same with bouncing. The ratio is one guy for fifty patrons. That doesn't take in to account that I may have to drag a guy out.

 

[lklawson]

You know, I missed this the first time. Would you give this same advice to a woman who reasonably believes she's going to be raped?

I don't see it as even remotely the same.

 

[lklawson]

But people are going to fight. That is why we have cops.

So you set up the cops to handle that without having to go buck wild on a guy.

It is almost as if this idea gets lost somewhere. Same with bouncing. The ratio is one guy for fifty patrons. That doesn't take in to account that I may have to drag a guy out.

You haven't been following. Didn't even read the three posts preceding the one you replied to. The advice I'm giving is not "don't fight anyone," as you seem to be thinking. The advice is "Don't fight the cops who are trying to arrest you; don't resist arrest."

 

[lklawson]

thread swerve, there is no reason at all why both creationist and evolutionist cant both be largely correct, or both a little bit wrong, dependent on how you look at it

Fair enough. I guess you could apply the False Dilemma Fallacy / Fallacy of Insufficient Options. I've met more than one Theistic Evolutionist.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

 

[Steve]

I don't see it as even remotely the same.

Self defense from a cop is still self defense.

A few years ago I asked a question along the lines that if a cop initiates a physical altercation, that cannot be considered self defense. The general consensus, though I still disagree, is that it is self defense even if the cop created the situation entirely. So, if a bad cop, a bad apple, is threatening your life, how is that different from anyone else threatening your life? How is your advice any different? I mean, just go with it and you might survive to see them in court. Right?

Also in that report I'm pretty sure it says that 99% of police killings are not prosecuted. I don't recall the number of excessive use of force complaints, but I'd guess very few. So the idea you might see anyone in court as you advise is a long shot, particularly if you are a person of color (black and native american specifically)

To be clear, I'm not suggesting folks resist arrest. I'm pointing out that you can't always tell the 9 good cops from the 1 bad cop, and that your advice seems to be given from a position of relative safety. It's easy to kibitz from the sideline if you have no stake in the situation.

 

[Hanzou]

I'd like to just point out that just because **** isn't reported doesn't mean that **** isn't happening. George Floyd's death wouldn't have been reported if there weren't video cameras all over the place documenting what happened. Cops tend to lie when it comes to covering their own asses. It's sobering to think how many people were murdered by cops and we never hear about it because the event wasn't recorded.

 

[jobo]

Fair enough. I guess you could apply the False Dilemma Fallacy / Fallacy of Insufficient Options. I've met more than one Theistic Evolutionist.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

yes its a false dilemma, as they are not all in opposition, evolution is completly silent on the matter of creation, in fact it has very little to day about abiogenases

they even stole the name from the bible

religion, doesnt concern its self, with how life evolved, only to the extent that god did caused it to happen, 5hough some of the time scales are a bit iffy,, they are more or less in the correct sequence

 

[PhotonGuy]

Did you actually read the article? There was no "fight" and this was no self-defense situation, he sucker punched the guy and broke both sides of his jaw. Yes, being a trained fighter and knowing HOW to inflict damage and also being skilled enough to know when and how to use your skills should hold you to a higher standard when you abuse it.

He should be held accountable.

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

 

[PhotonGuy]

Courts holding "trained martial artists" to a higher standard is a common theme in many nations, including the U.S.

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.

 

[drop bear]

You haven't been following. Didn't even read the three posts preceding the one you replied to. The advice I'm giving is not "don't fight anyone," as you seem to be thinking. The advice is "Don't fight the cops who are trying to arrest you; don't resist arrest."

But people are going to resist arrest.

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