The Direction of Law Enforcement

[CounterOfBeans]

Gentlemen. Most of you know which side of this debate I fall on. I've never made a secret of it. That being said, this has been a useful thread where a sort-of reasonable debate has gone on. At the very least is has given an LEO a chance to answer questions in a respectful forum.

Please do not ruin it by personal attacks. If you don't like his ideas, attack them, not him.

I totally understand where you're coming from Mountainbear. I would have vastly preferred not writing post #434 (which is what sparked Squidly's remark I'm guessing), but from what I have seen of Jammer's contributions, he religiously either withholds ideas for any anyone to focus an attack on or refuses to defend his baseless assertions when those assertions are challenged. So, his "ideas" have been regularly been met with respect by other members and he has dependably sullied the spirit of this thread by responding to those challenges with personal insults rather than facing those challenges on their merits.

I also very much value the "reasonable debate" in this "respectful forum", and to the degree that my posting encourages him to stop dragging it down, I felt compelled to speak to him in the only language that he apparently seems to relate to. In the midst of other forum contributors taking their moment to chime in on my post about Jammer, the sentiment of Squid's comment was not only spot on in my opinion, but it mirrored how others were feeling. Having done my venting now, I do look forward to getting back on a productive track with this thread. I appreciate your concern and your effort to keep this thread worth everyone's while. I'll just follow Davemata's lead and ignore Jammer altogether, unless he shows a willingness to turn over a new leaf. Thanks

 

[RB87]

Submitted for consideration:

Angel and Ashley Dobbs are suing Texas troopers after shocking BODY CAVITY search that was caught on tape | Mail Online

 

[gunnails]

Submitted for consideration:

Angel and Ashley Dobbs are suing Texas troopers after shocking BODY CAVITY search that was caught on tape | Mail Online

=========================================================

That's messed up, and another reason why I will never consent to any searches.

 

[davemata]

I think this is the thread where I made the comment that there should be citizen review boards, seems that I wasn't too far off.

This document is in response to Otto Zehm, and rec #22 is the development of a Citizen Review Board.
http://www.spokanecity.org/_documen...ce-draft-report-with-addendums-dec20-2012.pdf

Guess I'm just a luminary! (No, not really, Los Angeles has had one since 2001, apparently.)

Interesting read, but like all .gov docs, it's bloated and meandering.

 

[Father of four]

Submitted for consideration:

Angel and Ashley Dobbs are suing Texas troopers after shocking BODY CAVITY search that was caught on tape | Mail Online

Yes that is messed up!

 

[CounterOfBeans]

Title 46 has to do with motor vehicles, licenses, registrations, rules of the road etc. Where 47 deals with 'public' highways and transportation.

I'm going to play devil advocate here, Yep I agree its a 'right' for vehicular travel. But where is it a right for a drivers license or vehicle license registration etc.?

Do I agree with the registration etc.? Not really, as long as all vehicles are safe to be on the road, and don't cause an innocent any danger.

The only thing a drivers license does is say that you passed a certain test and you were on your best behavior at the time...doesn't mean you can really drive safely at the moment. lol

Hey Wichaka,

You asked me "where is it a right for a drivers license or vehicle registration etc.?". I went to some length (I know, I know....when don't I) on post 407 to answer this question, and on post 410 I provided active (non-overturned) Oregon and Washington Supreme Court case law to support my answer. It's been about three weeks since your post and, given that you mentioned that you don't agree with the registration thing and that I laid out some law language to support you in your common sense perspective, I was wondering if you've had time to think about them. Since this is literally a matter of how rights are affected by enforcement "policies", not unrelated to how "policies" affect gun rights, I'd really like to hear your thoughts about the laws I cited in light of the Oregon and Washington Supreme Court case law. Thanks again for being willing to discuss these really important topics. I look forward to hearing back from you.

 

[parallax]

Hey Wichaka,
Sincerely,Just wanted to say; thnxs for taking the time to post with us.its good to hear the thoughts and views from an L.E.O. member.
thnxs again.

 

[wichaka]

Sorry I've been off here for quite awhile, other firearm endeavors have taken me away from here.

Will get back to pondering the drivers license thing. Stay tuned.

 

[michaels]

Just curious about thread resurrection....

So wichaka, would you please continue to explain how police go about justifying use of force?

In light of recent events it's been a relatively quiet topic on this board.

Thanks

 

[Riot]

Just curious about thread resurrection....

So wichaka, would you please continue to explain how police go about justifying use of force?

In light of recent events it's been a relatively quiet topic on this board.

Thanks

I hope I can help with this as I am asked to review uses of force within a correctional facility to determine if the force used was excessive or not.

First thing I do is ask "why was force used?" It must, first, past the smell test...

Was force used is a good faith effort to maintain order and discipline- or was it used in a wanton disregard for other's rights and/or joyfully/maliciously to cause harm?

Then comes the review of the paperwork and video (if applicable). The offender is also asked about how they feel about the use of force and what they felt was excessive. Even if the offender does not complain about the force being used (either out of fear of reprisal or lack of knowledge of their 8th Amendment rights) all uses of force in WA state prisons are reviewed.

I'll be honest, I didn't like the headlock the officer used on Eric Garner (if you know anything about choke holds you will note that for it to be a "rear-naked choke" it was not applied correctly). Do I think the officer should have been charged? Nope...maybe retrained on control tactics and takedowns, but not charged with a crime.

I believe Eric Garner died from positional asphyxia (being obese, having asthma and having a bunch of officers on top of him).

Let me be clear...if you are photosensitive epileptic then go into a club with a strobe light, bust your head and die, that's not the club's fault. Mr. Garner should have obeyed the directives of the officers and allowed them to place him in restraints. On the sidewalk when a cop is trying to place you in handcuffs is not the time, nor the place to voice your distaste and disagreement with the police. Having said that, I would have fully supported the use of force if two officers grabbed Garner's legs and two grabbed his arms, scooped him up and let him fall...but guess what- he probably would still have died since it's obvious that the headlock didn't cause him to die...it was a combination of the aforementioned factors.

On the reverse...what I don't get is why a TASER or OC spray could not have been used. It appears as though a lot of those officers are in plain clothes, carry a gun, a badge and cuffs...that's it. So they've limited their options during arrest to:

A. Wrestle with them
B. Shoot them
C. Call someone who can spray/TASER them

It boggles my mind why someone would carry a gun and not pepper spray when working as a cop...but I digress.

Lastly, why is selling un-taxed cigarettes an arrestable offense in the first place? Couldn't they have given him a court summons and told him to leave? I'll never understand this country as long as I live.

 

[michaels]

Interesting take riot. But, being in society is not the same as being in a "correctional" facility.

I don't agree with the use of force on Eric Garner. I think what killed him was not so much the use of force, but that he was forced onto the ground and no one gave him medical attention. Yes an ambulance was called. But no one bothered to help the man after he had passed out. Another factor in all of this, the man wasn't selling cigarettes at the time of this incident. The family alleges that his arrest was retribution for reporting theft by the police. Interestingly enough, the man who video taped this incident has been arrested. His girlfriend is refusing interviews out of fear. The both of them were reporting harassment from the police after the video tape went public.

As to following police orders.... Again, the penalty for not following police orders is not death. Shouldn't be anyways. We are citizens of this country, not criminals, convicts, or slaves. Those 3 designations are something a judge and jury may decide. Not a policeman. Therefore, telling the cops to go to hell shouldn't be that big of a deal.

Yes, when dealing with the police in this country, I listen to their commands. I call them sir, 'cause they eat that $*** up like pancakes. But I don't consent to a search, and if the conversation goes in a direction i don't like I ask if i'm free to go, and if i'm not, i shut up. (I'm not nearly as interesting as this may sound, I just enjoy knowing and using my 4th and 5th)

But, the problem with the usa, is that it is isolated, and the newsmedia keeps us isolated. We are led to believe, that this is how things are done, and it's better than any other country. Not so, I lived overseas. In France, if the police are acting up, they get beat up. Not ideal of course, but it does make them (cops) human. (please, no one do that dumb thing where you make fun of the french. The foreign legion is way more hardcore than any part of our military. Also, so much modern, turn of the century gun technology came from them.)

I just really wanted to hear wichaka's take on this, 'cause it seemed when this thread was started way back when, he kept coming back to, "well this happens, 'cause it's legal"

Maybe I'm remembering it wrong, but I'm to lazy to go reread this thread. I just wanted to resurrect it.

'Cause I do want to ask some questions.

Like, why are civilian review boards met with resistance?
If it's just bad apples in the force, why don't the good apples ever speak up? Not in a photo op like that wretched thing from portland, but in a real way, ala Frank Serpico.

Why were Ferguson protestors including the mother of Michael Brown invited to speak in Geneva at the U.N.? (I know, not a popular org here, but it does have weight in the world, regardless of your personal opinion)

Why have two grand jury witnesses been killed under mysterious circumstances? And the police just don't seem to be interested? Why are protesters being followed?

I know, alot to lay on wichaka, but, i figure he started the thread, had his position, and well, so much has gone on since then. Wichaka, i don't hold you responsible in anyway for any recent deaths, but, you did start this thread to educate the public. I'm just a student with hard(? or not) questions. I guess, I'm also wondering, does anything get through to you guys? I'm all for loyalty and backing up your guys, but at some point you gotta question what your stand is and why.

I could keep going, this bubblegum has been weighing on me some.... Just to end it, how the hell can the Cleveland police union chief give ANY grief to that ball player? Seriously.

 

[WillametteWill]

Sorry but you make several assumptions in the beginning of your post that lead away from other evidence. The family says he was not committing a crime at the time but based on the information they did have probable cause to make a lawful arrest. Was it for the crime of the century? No, of course not but here is what is not being reported. If an officer can make a lawful arrest, and someone resists, do they then say, "Sorry sir, I see you are resisting and this is a minor offense so I guess we should just let you go."

Once the process for arrest begins, it is going to be completed. The suspect dictates the amount of force that should be used. When you have large, sweaty, angry suspects often times all the "academy approved" control holds and techniques don't always work as planned. Does this mean officers can do anything and get away with it? Of course not. But there is a huge difference between misuse of force while trying to lawfully do the right thing and beginning your day planning on killing someone.

Yes, as you point out, the penalty for not following police orders should not be death. And 99.99% of the time it is not, but bad things can happen during use of force situations. Perhaps you would think he would have learned this based on his reported 30 prior arrest including assault and resisting arrest. (Source, Wall Street Journal)

It's nice you are asking questions, seriously, but I've written too much already to go into each. My suggestion is to look at the information from more than the MSM point of view. Many answers are out there.

Regards

 

[Swedish K]

Riot - CA is the same way when it comes to use of force - all incidents go through use of force review, though I have seen a few incidents that left me scratching my head as my take on some of them was to ask why the officer wasn't sent to additional training or why do they still have a job... I worked 15 years for CA Dept of Corrections (now dept of corrections and rehab) and for a time received all incident reports state wide (33 adult prisons at the time). I will say that well over 95% of incidents were legit without question and most of that last 5% were as well after a complete in depth review of the incident.
All employees at CDCR received use of force training annually regardless of job - even the part time clerk in the mail room at HQ who never saw an inmate while on the job went to the training every year.

michaels - you said "Interesting take riot. But, being in society is not the same as being in a "correctional" facility." and "As to following police orders.... Again, the penalty for not following police orders is not death."

You are correct - being in society is not like being in prison - in society a small percentage of those you may (or may not) interact with on any given day are criminals / felons. In a prison setting aside from staff and visitors EVERYONE is a convicted felon and well over 10% of those you encounter have nothing to loose by attacking you as they have sentences beyond their expected lifespan and might get some time in ad-seg or SHU but they won't serve any more time over stabbing you with a piece of wire stolen from the fence or steel rod ripped from a typewriter. You would be amazed at some of the weapons and other contraband that inmates make - if they put half the effort into being productive on the outside that they put into doing bad things in prison they would live successful lives. back to my point - in prison you are far more likely to have use of force incidents than out on the streets because of the environment - think of a prison as a complete city where everyone other than staff are criminals.

Your second point I quoted above was in regards to not following police orders - if those orders are to drop a weapon and prone out and you continue to come at a cop with the weapon you should expect the officer to "stop the threat" which often results in death. I agree that there are some incidents where some cops are a bit too quick on the trigger - there have been plenty of them in the last few years where I wouldn't feel too bad if the cop had to find a new line of work (or do time over illegal actions), you also have to understand that the incidents that make the evening news are far outnumbered by uneventful arrests or interactions. Heck, I've known my share of good cops that will let someone go for felony weapons violations since you are not being a jackass and the crime is a "no harm no foul" to them and you are otherwise not a felon - also knew a cop back in high school who would go set up at the street races to make sure everyone was being safe - by being there we didn't have idiots hanging out the window of the car burning donuts or drung/stoned idiots racing/driving. Never had a fight when he was there either.
**** Note - I am not saying you should waive your rights and say "sure officer feel free to search my car and give me a body cavity search right here on the roadside to make sure I don't have a weapon or drugs because you caught me speeding"...

 

[Stomper]

First, the French Foreign Legion is mainly comprised of FOREIGNERS, not frenchies, hence the name "Foreign Legion". Although the FFL is bad-azz, France has never won a war (by itself).

Second, the safest place to hide your money while in France is under a bar of soap, because no Frenchman would touch it.

(Yes, I feel MUCH better now.... Phhhhffffpppttt )

 

[michaels]

Thanks for the replies.

Willamete Will, it's not just the family that said he wasn't committing a crime. Neither one of us are lawyers (well maybe you are) so to say they had probable cause to arrest him is a pretty big stretch. And if it isn't a stretch, well it kind of reinforces the argument for major reform of police practices. Also, I don't bother with any msm sources, but I do listen to fox news radio for the humor factor. Look, I am fairly right wing in alot of my politics, but I can't get behind the mess that is the republican party, and libertarianism. Just so you don't get the wrong impression when I say i laugh at fox news. What are my other assumptions? I'd like to know what you perceive them to be.

Swedish, I was never talking about what goes on in prison. I don't want the conversation to go there right now. If you need to talk about prison, i'm willing, but first let's slog through current events. Yes, I agree, if someone is refusing to drop a weapon, I am willing to give the cop the benefit of the doubt. That's not what I'm asking about here. The problem is, that line, "i feared for my life" is the go to line for police these days, regardless of the situation. And it seems to apply to everything from pill bottles, to sandwiches, to wallets. I don't know of any other place where incompetence like that is excused. Yes, mistaking a threat is incompetence. Sorry, the word stings, and I wish I didn't have to call it out like that. If the police have to make "split second decisions" and they fail, that is a lack of competence. Also, why are police unions so against civilian review boards? They seem to forget they work for the people, and should therefore be held accountable to them, not themselves.

Stomper, the grown ups are talking now. Run along.

 

[Riot]

Will & Swedish...thanks for stepping in and replying to michaels on that second take...I wouldn't have shown as much composure.

 

[michaels]

So Riot, where would your composure be lacking?

What did I say that was so outrageous?

I'm curious.

 

[Stomper]

So Riot, where would your composure be lacking?

What did I say that was so outrageous?

I'm curious.

LOL... You're so... "French".

 

[michaels]

I'm not French. I'm a sad, sad man with no friends. But I do have a computer.

We could do this forever stomper.

But there'd be no point.

Bye

 

[Swedish K]

Thanks for the replies.

Swedish, I was never talking about what goes on in prison. I don't want the conversation to go there right now. If you need to talk about prison, i'm willing, but first let's slog through current events. Yes, I agree, if someone is refusing to drop a weapon, I am willing to give the cop the benefit of the doubt. That's not what I'm asking about here. The problem is, that line, "i feared for my life" is the go to line for police these days, regardless of the situation. And it seems to apply to everything from pill bottles, to sandwiches, to wallets. I don't know of any other place where incompetence like that is excused. Yes, mistaking a threat is incompetence. Sorry, the word stings, and I wish I didn't have to call it out like that. If the police have to make "split second decisions" and they fail, that is a lack of competence. Also, why are police unions so against civilian review boards? They seem to forget they work for the people, and should therefore be held accountable to them, not themselves.
.

OK - I'll start with this... Let's say, for the sake of argument, that you are in a lousy part of town, it's mid day - nice clear bright out - and you see a guy who is all decked out head to toe in red, blue, whatever color is the local gang identifier, and you see him eyeballing you as you walk down "his" street - you are armed and he suddenly reaches to is waist and pulls a ... cell phone out.... fairly quick movement but because of LIGHT Conditions - you can tell what it is before making a mistake. Same situation but it's near sunset - now your odds of clearly identifying the cell phone is reduced by at least 1/2 - and if the sun is behind him / in your eyes make it maybe 20% of normal mid day visibility at best. Late at night with maybe a street light half way down the block and a partial moon - still closer to the 20% than any other time of day. In all honesty the cop in MO impressed me to say the least - his hit numbers were a good 15% above the average everyday cop for a full daylight shoot. He hit 75% of his shots fired. Depending on where you are and the department's training, etc. it could be more than 25% better than the average cop. When it comes to LE shootings the hit probability drops significantly not only for lighting conditions, but also with the number of officers involved in the shooting event. 1 officer in broad daylight ranges from about 50% to 62% on average, 2 officers make it a 30% hit rate, 3 and it drops further, 4 or more and hit rates on average drop below 15%... Throw in the change in lighting conditions and don't be surprised to see less than 5% hit rate with a group of cops - all at a range under 20 yards.
I'm not saying that all cops deserve a free pass for every shooting they get involved in but if you do some research and look at the data its easy to see how much lighting comes into play. I don't know about you, but I don't care if they are paying me $200K a year - it's not enough to wait until I have been shot at by the unidentified object he quickly pulled from his waitband before returning fire.

As for the guy in NY who was selling "loosies" - read single cigarettes most likely smuggled in to town without paying the tax - do I think he deserved to die over tax evasion? No, but that's not why he died. he died because he was in poor health and made the decision to resist arrest. The take down may not be "text book" approved and the officer definitely should receive additional training before being back out on the street. I've heard people say they should have hit him with pepper spray or a taser, etc. The bottom line is he most likely would have died from that as well. It really is a simple thing - once you have been told you are being placed under arrest don't resist - it can only end badly for you - if not from use of force then from additional charges that land you in jail even if the original charges are unfounded. Lets face it - most judges frown upon those who resist arrest and most juries (like it or not) will take resisting as a sign of guilt.