Broad Discussion of Police Use of Force

robjvargas · Jul 24, 2014

The discussion around the Eric Garner death after apparently being put in a chokehold is starting to broaden into a discussion of police use of force. I think I've made my sentiments rather clearly known in that thread.

robjvargas said:
When the decision is made to place a person in custody, or under arrest, police have not just a right but a duty to put the situation into a safe state. I, for one, give police a lot of discretion in the use of force during those moments.

But I also hold them completely responsible for the outcome of their actions. A civilian being placed into custody doesn't get to decide that a moment is over. And that's where my concern comes out.

But while we've been discussing Mr Garner's death here at AW, another incident video showed up on CNN. Here.

In that one, an officer pulls a man over for blowing through a stop sign. At some point, the officer decides to arrest the man, who is roughly twice the size of the officer. The man wrestles his way into the car and drives off with the officer still holding onto him.

Police officers need discretion to use force, sometimes deadly force. This isn't an option if we expect them to put a halt to criminal activity when they encounter it. And I do expect it of them. But that discretion has to include a *continual* awareness of when the need for force has ended, and when they need to render aid (because once someone is in custody, ANY action by other citizens can be construed as interference and obstruction). That subject in custody is now helpless, completely unable to care for themselves. After all, that's kind of the point to cuffing them, isn't it?

I'm also reminded of this video from LA County. The video, taken by a driver passing by, shows a police officer beating a woman at what appears to be a separation between a highway and a merge lane. The video doesn't show what happened, but because of where it happens, I'm inclined to believe the incident report that she was putting herself and highway drivers in danger. The incident gets weird when police later sieze her medical records (she was placed in a mental health facility for evaluation).

That video, though, shows (I think) a truism of all such citizen videos. The videos are limited to the perspective of the one taking the video. The video doesn't show the woman's actions. But the CNN video includes some interview time with the taker of the video, and his description seems wildly biased against the officer. For example, the man describes the officer initially grabbing the woman to place her in custody, and he describes her resistance as "natural." So it shows, too, that the attitude of the person taking the video matters as well.

I don't necessarily want to discuss the particulars of these incidents, nor of Eric Garner or Luis Rodriguez. Not in particular.

In a CNN video story, CNN Correspondent Susan Candiotti interviews a Reverend who received a different video of a man who didn't pay subway fare and was beat up. The reverend, whose name I didn't catch clearly even after repeated listenings, speaks out against police violence. But he also says (paraphrased), "I also think that we, that us people, need to be trained, too... the anger, the hostility, wanting to create chaos and to fight isn't going to resolve anything."

Fair point. I don't know which is driving which. Did police violence beget an attitude of resistance, or have some people become so violent that they've (in effect) "trained" police to act with only maximum force? I suspect the change has come on so gradually that the truth is somewhere in between.

I think the reverend is largely right. Police need to respond with more care toward those placed into custody. But I also think we the citizens need to stop being so ready confront an officer the moment that officer stands in the way of something we want.

I'm curious what others think of the situation in broad.

Cranky · Jul 24, 2014

I'm going to lay down my warning upfront here:

Attack the arguments, not your fellow posters.

Be specific, and clear about what you are saying.

If you have a question about what someone is saying: ask for clarification, respectfully. Don't assume, and don't put words into each others' mouths. And don't assume the worst to set up a strawman to knock down. That doesn't further a discussion.

If you can't abide by these guidelines (which are standard throughout P&CE and AW as a whole, but since no one seems to care to read the stickies, I'm gonna say it here), then step away from the thread, and go write or walk the dog or whatever floats your boat that ISN'T arguing with people on the internet.

shadowwalker · Jul 24, 2014

I think it's important to remember that one officer does not necessarily reflect the entire department or division - it's very easy for people to stereotype based on one bad egg. Until it can be shown that that type of behavior has occurred over and over or by a significant number of that department or division, I think the focus should remain on that individual. That said, how officers are trained, and how strongly they react to these problems, says a lot about the department.

I agree that many times, people aren't seeing what they assume they're seeing. They come across the scene after the action's started, and almost knee-jerk assume the officer is over-reacting. They forget that officers typically do not stop people who are not doing something wrong or suspicious.

I also agree that people nowadays seem to have this "you're not the boss of me" attitude toward everyone, including law enforcement. How many times have we also seen videos of some jerk-off being stopped for speeding, and instead of just accepting the ticket (and fighting it in court if wanted), the guy goes postal. It's like, get over yourself! There are rules, and you aren't so speshul you can ignore them.

When I lived in the city, I hated the police department. The political atmosphere there made it a haven for bully cops, and I had more than one instance with what should have been minor infractions being made into major productions. But I also met some nice people. When I moved back to Small Town America, it took me a long time to realize that this was a different atmosphere. The way the cops here deal with things may not be the most "efficient", but it's definitely better problem solving. But again, there are also a few ass-holes. It just illustrates the point that we have to look at the individual and not project onto the whole department or law enforcement in general. It's always the bad apples that get the attention, after all.

Larry M · Jul 24, 2014

We have all seen video of incidents where police gang tackle/forcibly subdue a suspect that did not immediately comply.

In many such instances, the police are ordering the suspect to relax and/or stop resisting, when in fact, the suspect may simply be trying to protect him/herself from injury, knowing he/she is going down.

It seems obvious that if a cop or group of cops suddenly tackles someone, the natural reaction is to tense up in order to protect yourself - trying to get your hands in front of you to protect head/face when you know you're going to hit the ground hard, while at the same time, the police are vigorously trying to get hour hands behind you.

In many of these cases, it seems obvious the suspect is not deliberately resisting - simply an instinct to protect themselves from injury.

MarkEsq · Jul 24, 2014

Larry M said:
We have all seen video of incidents where police gang tackle/forcibly subdue a suspect that did not immediately comply.

In many such instances, the police are ordering the suspect to relax and/or stop resisting, when in fact, the suspect may simply be trying to protect him/herself from injury, knowing he/she is going down.

It seems obvious that if a cop or group of cops suddenly tackles someone, the natural reaction is to tense up in order to protect yourself - trying to get your hands in front of you to protect head/face when you know you're going to hit the ground hard, while at the same time, the police are vigorously trying to get hour hands behind you.

In many of these cases, it seems obvious the suspect is not deliberately resisting - simply an instinct to protect themselves from injury.

I hear what you're saying, Larry, but I think you have it backwards. Which is to say, cops generally (and this is a "cops generally..." thread) don't tackle people who comply. If a cop says, "Please turn around and put your hands behind your back," and you do that, you're not going to be taken to the ground. A cop doesn't tell you that so he can then tackle you. The tackling stage comes after the non-compliance, when someone resists.

Larry M · Jul 24, 2014

MarkEsq said:
I hear what you're saying, Larry, but I think you have it backwards. Which is to say, cops generally (and this is a "cops generally..." thread) don't tackle people who comply. If a cop says, "Please turn around and put your hands behind your back," and you do that, you're not going to be taken to the ground. A cop doesn't tell you that so he can then tackle you. The tackling stage comes after the non-compliance, when someone resists.

I understand your point too. My point is that tensing up at that moment of being physically subdued seems to me to be a natural reaction - not necessarily defiance.

By then, I guess, it's too late to be seen as anything other than non-compliance.

Still, I can see myself tensing up simply to prepare for the jolt. And the police will likely take that as resistance.

I don't have a solution - just an observation.

shadowwalker · Jul 24, 2014

I think there's a difference between tensing up and actually resisting. Cops generally understand the first - after all, the whole situation is stressful for everyone. But as long as one does as they're told, and doesn't try to 'take the case to court' right there, usually nothing untoward will happen.

robjvargas · Jul 24, 2014

MarkEsq said:
I hear what you're saying, Larry, but I think you have it backwards. Which is to say, cops generally (and this is a "cops generally..." thread) don't tackle people who comply. If a cop says, "Please turn around and put your hands behind your back," and you do that, you're not going to be taken to the ground. A cop doesn't tell you that so he can then tackle you. The tackling stage comes after the non-compliance, when someone resists.

Agreed, Mark. I think Larry was stating, though, that once the incident rises to the level of a tackle, or a takedown, there's an instinctive self-protection response that needs to be respected. When a suspect drops, he or she will put their hands in front of their face instinctively, not out of resistance.

That's what I saw in the Rodney King beating. I also remember that homeless man in Albuquerque who was shot many times. Right at the end of the video, the guy's lying face down, and his foot rolls from his toes to its side. An officer fires a shotgun at him again.

I don't mean to rehash those particular incidents. I'm instead pointing to the reactions of the perpetrator as illustration of actions that may or may not indicate resistance.

I think Larry makes an interesting point that becoming completely compliant while experiencing violence is virtually (and maybe actually) impossible. At some point, instinct takes over.

Vince524 · Jul 24, 2014

I think a few things to keep in mind are these.

Cops interact with civilians each and every day without incident, hundreds of times throughout most cities. Nobody video tapes the polite ones.

When we see the videos that look bad, we always have to keep in mind that even then we're not seeing the entire picture usually of what led up to the incident. Sometimes that makes a huge difference. Sometimes it doesn't. Sometimes the difference is marginal. The cop may still be in the wrong by the time the video was shown, but because he lost control and let it escalate. The suspect may have been fighting.

Many times, people have a very unrealalistic view of what police should or can do in situations. Remember, if a cop tells you to put your hands above your head and turn around, it's a legal order. The fact that he's putting you in cuffs and you don't feel you've done anything wrong isn't relevant. By putting you in cuffs, he's controling the situation. And then there or those lovely times where there's a police shooting and people ask, "why didn't they fire a warning shot, or shoot him in the leg or shoot the gun out of his hand."

Emilander · Jul 24, 2014

robjvargas said:
Agreed, Mark. I think Larry was stating, though, that once the incident rises to the level of a tackle, or a takedown, there's an instinctive self-protection response that needs to be respected. When a suspect drops, he or she will put their hands in front of their face instinctively, not out of resistance.

I think Larry makes an interesting point that becoming completely compliant while experiencing violence is virtually (and maybe actually) impossible. At some point, instinct takes over.

I think that's part of the reason why cops use swarm tactics when taking somebody down. People do have a natural instinctive reaction to tense up and/or flail about when moved by an outside force. That said, the fewer officers available the greater the force they need to use to subdue someone.

Broad Discussion of Police Use of Force

robjvargas

Cranky

shadowwalker

empty-nester!

Larry M

MarkEsq

Clever title pending.

Larry M

shadowwalker

empty-nester!

robjvargas

Vince524

Are you gonna finish that bacon?

Emilander