The Direction of Law Enforcement

[wichaka]

Tennessee V. Garner is the base for Federal Law - 471 U.S. 1 (1985) and WA State Law - RCW 9A.16.040


First we'll explore Tenn v. Garner. This portion of case law (471 U.S. 1 (1985)) has two prongs to look at;


1 - Officers are authorized to use deadly force against any person as necessary in self-defense or the defense of another. when they have reason to believe they or another are in immediate danger of death or serious physical harm.

Important points of this prong;

- Any person

- Reason to believe - A Legal Definition

"Reasonable belief" - personal knowledge of facts and circumstances which are reasonably trustworthy.

Also defined as;
- what an average person in similar circumstances might believe.
- a belief which is not reckless or negligent in holding.

- Immediate danger of serious physical harm, doesn't have to be death.


2 - Officers are authorized to use deadly force to capture or seize a dangerous suspect when there is probable cause to believe that the suspect has committed a crime involving the infliction or threatened infliction of serious bodily harm, and there in no reasonably safe means of preventing the suspect's escape.

Important points of this prong;

- Capture or Seize

- Inflicted or threatened serious bodily harm

I will give a quick & easy example of "threatened infliction of serious bodily harm"
Subject passes a note to a bank teller stating they have a gun and will use
it if x amount of money is not given. There is no requirement for an actual weapon to be seen.

- No reasonable safe means

 

[jimwsea]

What percent of the police are good and what percent are bad? I don't know.

When you visit websites like this one - Injustice Everywhere - and think about how many similar incidents go unreported and unresolved, it affects your perception.

 

[wichaka]

Is the suspect a danger?

The U.S. Supreme Court (The Supremes) gave us two things to look at when making this assessment:

1 - if the suspect threatens an officer with a weapon

OR

2 - there is probable cause to believe that the suspect has committed a crime involving the infliction or threatened infliction of serious bodily harm.

Either of the above can establish that the suspect's escape will continue to endanger the community.

 

[Father of four]

Thank you Jimwsea. Yes, that type of stuff is what I have seen over and over and over and over again and it has affected my perception. There was/is no excuse for what I just saw. Appalling behavior from the men in blue.

 

[wichaka]

Perception isn't always reality, but if one is exposed to it enough...the effect can be deep and long lasting.

Grace is a good thing.

 

[Father of four]

Yeah you are right.

How about trying to persuade people into believing something different then what they see with there own eyes?

 

[wichaka]

Am not here to persuade people into believing anything.

In all the years of living, I refer back to old saying of "You can lead a horse to water, but..."

Well..with people the way they are, you can't even lead them to the water.

I'm not here to lead anyone to any water, that's a decision they will have to make for themselves.

 

[Father of four]

Not all of us want to drink water at that moment. We might not be thirsty. Gonna make us anyways?

 

[Father of four]

The biggest problem I have with LE is when they do things wrong they don't man up and admit it.

But they sure want the civilians to.

 

[wichaka]

What water are you expecting me to offer?

Your comments aren't productive.



"The biggest problem I have with LE is when they do things wrong they don't man up and admit it.

But they sure want the civilians to. "




...and all of LE is this way?

 

[Father of four]

This discussion is about the direction of LE. We are talking about that.

 

[Father of four]

Well, As you posted in your first post. Seems like there are some LE that aren't doing the job like some of us think they should.

 

[Father of four]

I have never said ALL the LE.

 

[wichaka]

You made a blanket statement that serves no purpose.

Stating that when we do things wrong, we don't man up and admit it.

That's implying you know every LE officer, and everyone of them WILL act that way...without question.

I was hoping we can get past such useless statements.

 

[wichaka]

Am sorry you have been exposed to the bad part of LE...it appears there's nothing anyone can do to help that.

How do you think we should do our job? Now we're getting somewhere.

 

[Father of four]

I am saying what I have observed for years. It is not a blanket statement but it is the truth. You guys most of the time (Seem) to want to cover up your mistakes. And will even put us in jail for video tapping you guys from a distance. Not even interfering with your arrest.

I say alot, a bunch of LE does that. There are videos and videos and court cases that prove it.

Why not just admit it like you want us to when we do something bad?

 

[Father of four]

Am sorry you have been exposed to the bad part of LE...it appears there's nothing anyone can do to help that.

How do you think we should do our job? Now we're getting somewhere.

I have said many times. We need LE!!!!! But we need them to be Truthful and Honest. And when they do wrong be punished like the rest of us. Is that fair for me to want that? And to say it isn't right when it doesn't happen?

 

[Father of four]

My father was a Deputy in Nevada, then a city Police Officer in Montana, and then a US Marshal. I spent my time in the service as a Military Policeman, and currently careerwise am still involved. It is refreshing to see a self-critical attitude presented here by wichaka, and my pride in the size of my personnel file might suprise him should he choose to glance over at my urinal. If one takes pride in doing what is right (rather than what is dictated) and point out without fear what is wrong, generally you will be treated as a troublemaker in the profession.

I have also been the victim (more than once) of police who consider all they do as righteous and sanctioned. I happliy returned their victimization in court. I have also been the grateful recipient of consideration from the few who still believe they are problem solvers FIRST over enforcers, as my father was. He took great pride in the fact that he never discharged his weapon in all his years of service (even when he would have been fully justified in doing so, and to his own peril). He was of the belief that he was hired to take a few knocks, and to excersise EXTRA restraint (BEYOND that of a citizen) toward the use of force. He considered his job to require from him that his life was of LESS value than that of a citizen (or even a suspect), given that he voluntarily accepted the daily grave responsibility of the means to take a life. This is not to say he would not protect himself as per his greater duty to his family. He preached that he never encountered a situation where a citzen or suspect did not respond to honesty and respect when he offered it to them. Some would say he was awfully lucky. He would say he survived, slept well, and had no regrets.

He also (in the later part of his career) had a great problem with the militarization/tactical aspects of civilian law enforcement. As a WWII veteran, he considered that militarization of the civilian force was entirely inappropriate, and severely damaging to the necessary favorable relationship between the citizenry and their police force. He felt that arrest and search warrants should be conducted as civilian-to-civilian, with all due respect to surrounding property and family of the subject of such warrants. He was disciplined severely on one occasion when he responded to a "barricaded subject", arriving before anyone else, and while the rest of the force was obeying orders to formulate a "tactical response", he chose to walk up to the door, knock, and spoke politely and respectfully to the subject, explaining his concern for the family and the house. Result? Subject in custody, and Dad actually testified in trial for the DEFENSE to full acquittal. Certainly not the very best approach to every situation, but Dad was fully adamant that under the same circumstances he would do the same thing again. He believed that resistance to law enforcement was very often a result of unreserved police action itself, escalation where none was necessary. His favorite summation of these scenarios was that "obviously the officer said something stupid" during a traffic stop, warrant service or other activity. Citizens, he believed had the right to say stupid, escalating and confrontational things. Police officers did not.

He would rail and vent at television shows (and news reports) showing civilian police in disguising masks or hoods while they conducted warrants and such. He would say, "If you are ashamed to show your face to people, you are doing something to be ashamed of!" This belief would come under great criticism today, where such anonymity is considered regularly appropriate. Yes, he received his share of threats to his life from arrested suspects, but never did fear for his life as a result of being recognized at a later date for conducting himself in his profession as nothing of which he should ever find reason be ashamed.

He also did not isolate himself in social circles to that of law-enforcement people. He was proud of his friendships with persons of "questionable character", who operated inside and outside of legal restraint. Granted, he tossed out any notion that he was "always on duty" and "bound to enforce and report" violations of law when off duty. Such associations with the "shady side of life" he found served him well, especially in the investigative arena of the profession. He was trusted by ALL.

A dying breed (perhaps nearly extinct) in law enforcement today. To the great detriment of our society and the honored profession.

Here! I say this is an excellent start! We need more Police Officers like this guys dad.

 

[wichaka]

Its right for the public to hold the LE world to a higher standard.

The same for the lawmakers etc., but sadly our society is eroding...in every area, which means LE too. No one is immune from it, it has permeated in every direction we turn.

Coming from my side...jobwise that is, I see many citizens doing the same things you mention that LE is doing, especially when they get caught.

So we need truth and honesty on both sides of the coin.

 

[Father of four]

I agree.

Howard