Cops Getting Their Kicks in What's Becoming More and More Common

reply to post by Xcathdra


The point is...Police should never be allowed to use anything that the citizens of this country would not be allowed to use. Neither should our Congress Critters ever be exempt from any law they pass. We, the citizens are your damned employers and should never be considered less of a lawful citizen than the police we hire to protect any municipality. This is from someone who was once a Deputy Sheriff himself 40 years ago. Times have changed and empowering law enforcement in this manner makes it damned near impossible to get a fair deal for even the most law abiding among us!

Zindo

Originally posted by ZindoDoone
reply to post by Xcathdra

 

The point is...Police should never be allowed to use anything that the citizens of this country would not be allowed to use. Neither should our Congress Critters ever be exempt from any law they pass. We, the citizens are your damned employers and should never be considered less of a lawful citizen than the police we hire to protect any municipality. This is from someone who was once a Deputy Sheriff himself 40 years ago. Times have changed and empowering law enforcement in this manner makes it damned near impossible to get a fair deal for even the most law abiding among us!

Zindo

I understand your concerns. I too have some age on me and I am still in the business. It's a heck of a lot different than it was 40 years ago. The days of never drawing your gun are over.

Xcathdra is right. We need everything that we can get to our advantage. I'm certainly not saying these officers were right and if you read my other post you will see that. What we are talking about is a separate issue.
Seeashrink

reply to post by seeashrink


I know you were not condoning those officers actions, Didn't mean to give that impression if I did. I have the real feeling that some of the tactics being used are what contribute to officers having such a hard time with law enforcement. When people begin to think that the only way to get treated fairly is to oppose the cops in as hard a manner as possible because you have no control, other than to go bankrupt paying for court proceedings, you are going to get the 'Go For Broke' reaction you see today. Believe me, I am NOT anti- law enforcement but I am against the over use of force. It's not because we are in a society where there is an over abundance of information either and we are just seeing it in the media.. It's more prevalent that officers are over reacting. More officers are beginning to enforce punishment before a trial. This is because of the frustration of the rank and file over the courts liberal use of non-punishment or the twisting of the rule of law. I can understand it but I don't have to condone it!

Zindo

reply to post by Wildbob77


Thus the reason why some states are deeming it illegal to video tape officers actions. It would seem that the only line of defense we as the public have, would be the video cameras! Unless of course you think you can out " gun " a para-military organization like LEA's?

reply to post by Xcathdra


Though i understand your point, the item you failed to address is the fact that as officers, whom by the way, took an oath to defend this country, also have to stand by the laws enacted not only by the state, but by the people. There is no " double standard". Which in this case, using the patrol car whether by accident or by force is offensive all right, and illegal one at that. The law is clear, using a vehicle as any means is an offensive act, also it is also known as attempted vehicular manslaughter.
So let me ask you this, why is it ok for the law to work in favor of the officers, but against the citizenry that pays their paychecks? Hint: its not....the law has no double standard, case in point, these officers lost their jobs.
You make a good argument, but it doesnt hold water from where I stand, the law is the law, and they should be held accountable, for both using the car, and the beat down!

reply to post by seeashrink


How is anarchy for kids? that doesn't really make sense. anarchy is the purest state of humanity. believe it or not, there existed a time in our history before we decided that it was better to give up our rights and power to anyone who stands up and (lies) says that they will protect us. We made it through that just fine. cops don't cure crime, they punish the offenders that they can catch. that kneejerk reaction you had to the word anarchy is far more juvenile than actually proposing it. police are there to make people who don't commit crimes and don't really have crimes comitted against them feel better. anyone who wants to be a cop has a domination fetish, no matter how good they are at hiding it or ignoring it. yes, that is a fairly general statement, but the heart of the statement is that even the cops who just want to "make a difference" are still giving in to the idea that one group of people know best and should enforce their viewpoint on another group.

Originally posted by RicoMarston
reply to post by seeashrink

 

How is anarchy for kids? that doesn't really make sense. anarchy is the purest state of humanity. believe it or not, there existed a time in our history before we decided that it was better to give up our rights and power to anyone who stands up and (lies) says that they will protect us. We made it through that just fine. cops don't cure crime, they punish the offenders that they can catch. that kneejerk reaction you had to the word anarchy is far more juvenile than actually proposing it. police are there to make people who don't commit crimes and don't really have crimes comitted against them feel better. anyone who wants to be a cop has a domination fetish, no matter how good they are at hiding it or ignoring it. yes, that is a fairly general statement, but the heart of the statement is that even the cops who just want to "make a difference" are still giving in to the idea that one group of people know best and should enforce their viewpoint on another group.

Evidently we have different definitions of anarchy. Anarchy implies lawlessness. He who has the bigger mob, gun, etc. wins. Again with the general statements. There is no "all" in referring to people related to any group.There will always be laws and rules and someone to enforce them, they will just have different titles, even in a state of anarchy. To believe anything else is juvenile and the results of watching too many movies or visiting too many conspiracy web sites.
Seeashrink

Originally posted by Whereweheaded
Though i understand your point, the item you failed to address is the fact that as officers, whom by the way, took an oath to defend this country, also have to stand by the laws enacted not only by the state, but by the people.

We take an oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the State we are in, as well as the Federal Constitution. In addition to Law Enforcement being subject to the same laws as everyone else, we are also subjected to laws that do not apply to civilians. A civilian cannot violate anothers persons civil rights since they are not acting under color of law.

Originally posted by Whereweheaded
There is no " double standard".

There is actually...

Originally posted by Whereweheaded
Which in this case, using the patrol car whether by accident or by force is offensive all right, and illegal one at that. The law is clear, using a vehicle as any means is an offensive act, also it is also known as attempted vehicular manslaughter.

If a civilian were to do what you saw in the video, you would be correct as it would be an assault without any exigent circumstances to justify their action. In this case Law Enforcement has an advantage since we are empowered to enforce the laws, which allows law enforcement to take offensive action in an effort to comply with Supreme Court rulings.

We are required to do everything in our power to resolve all situations in the least amount of time possible given the circumstances if those actions will temporarily deprive a person of their constitutional rights (Freedom of movement). We are required to use the least amount of force possible to end an encounter. We are required to descalate a situation as quickly as possible to preserve the peace and limit the danger to the suspect, public and officers.

I certainly understand your argument, and I am not trying to say Cops are better than anyone else. In this case your analysis of the actions is incorrect. Your mindset is that of a civlian looking at a situation and not being familiar with the laws that govern law enforcement, or court rulings that refine those laws, or Federal requirements that we are required to abide by.

Law Enforcement, unlike civilians in most states, do not have a duty to retreat. The person violating the law has that requirement, and must cease and desist in their actions. As far as the actions involving the vehicle the determination in that instant is to end the encounter. It was not known if this person was armed or not, and he already demonstrated a lack of concern for the people he placed in danger by fleeing in the first place.

When he wrecked out and decided to run, the question at that moment becomes is this person an immediate danger / threat to the community? Tennessee vs. Garner is the guilding ruling in that instance, and was employed in that video when the patrol vehicle maneuvered to block his escape.

I can point out many instances where civlians have gotten involved in situations like that, which are technical law violations, however in the end the exigent circumstances present weighed in their favor, and no charges were filed against them. The reason its so strict in that regard is civilians are not empowered to enforce laws, and any looser criteria could result in vigilante justice. We saw an example of that by the actions of the officers at the end which is bad enough.

Originally posted by Whereweheaded
So let me ask you this, why is it ok for the law to work in favor of the officers, but against the citizenry that pays their paychecks? Hint: its not....

Hint - I pay taxes which means I pay my own salary. If you dont see it that way, then can I have a raise please

Secondly why shouldnt it? Your argument here, at least to me, looks like you are comparing the unfairness of our advantage to law abiding citizens. In that comparison, I will agree with you that the laws are the same for both of us, and protects you as much as it allows me to do my job. Only when we get a law violator that goes way over the line, do the laws that govern our actions give us an advantage.

Our Use of Force (Subject resistance control) guidelines start out with uniform presence, moving to verbal commands, directed escort, soft compliance, hard compliance, deadyl force etc. If I arrive on scene and a person pulls a gun on me, I am not required to start at the bottom of our guideline and work my way up. I can enter that contiuum at a level to meet and deal with the threat coming at me.

Criminals are going to cheat, and we know this because they dont play by the rules. If we are required to when dealing with those types, we wont be going home at the end of the night.

The officers were not the ones who decided to violate the law (except in the end). Why should they be the ones punished for doing their jobs, while the person who actually broke the law and placed others in danger by fleeing gets a walk? Why should the criminals rights outweight the rights of law abiding citizens? Why is it ok for criminals to violate the laws, but not ok for the law to give an advantage to law enforcement when dealing with those people?

I am not advocating the actions at the very end of the video either, and have already stated my opinions on their actions.

The answer you are looking for by the way is called totality of circumstances. Its a guideing force in the way we do our jobs on a daily basis. While I respect your viewpoint, the courts, including the US Supreme Court, disgaree with your interpretation of Law Enforcement and having an advantage over criminals.

It only becomes problematic when Officers decide to ignore their oaths and fail to protect and serve.

Originally posted by Whereweheaded
the law has no double standard, case in point, these officers lost their jobs.

I think upwards of 9 officers lost their jobs, with all of them getting their jobs back with the exception of the 4 officers who were charged. Again, the law does have a double standard.. All laws do.

Spirit of the Law / Letter of the Law / Exigent Circumstances / Totality of Circumstances

If we subsrcibed to your very strict interpetation of law, every single person in the United States would be in jail.

Originally posted by Whereweheaded
You make a good argument, but it doesnt hold water from where I stand, the law is the law, and they should be held accountable, for both using the car, and the beat down!

Dont get me wrong, I understand what you are saying and I respect that viewpoint. My argument though is the law is not as black and white as people wished it were. Law Enforcement actually has more restrictions on our actions than any other profession, including the military.

Our job by is very nature is dangerous. The courts recognize that, as well as the viewpoint that unlike other professions, ours requires snap judgment. If I respond to a call of a suspicous person, and make contact with that person, and he pulls a gun from his waisteband, I dont get to yell timeout and take my time to determine:

* - Does the guy know im a cop
* - Did he just get done killing someone and is trying to flee
* - Is the gun real
* - Is the gun loaded
* - Is it a gun at all
* - Is the guy mental
* - Is he off his meds
* - Is he suicidal
* - Is he wanting to do suicide by cop
* - Is the person emotionally distressed
* - Does the person even know he has a weapon in his hand
* - Does the person speak English
* - Is the person Deaf

I can add probably about 30 more questions to this mental checklist. As you can see, it will not work. By the time I get to the 4th mental question, I could be dead.

The framework to review the actions of an officer (use of force) was set by the Supreme Court.

That framework is:

What did the Officer perceive at the exact moment force was used.

Hinsight 20/20 cannot be used because it does not give a fair representation of the actions. A perfect exmaple of that is the video we just watched. We pretty much got the full story of what occured, from the moment the suspect broke the law, to contact with law enforcement, to the pursuit and subsequent crash, to the foot pursuit, the patrol vehicle blocking his escape, his surrender and the over reaction of the officers who took him into custody.

The thing people dont think about is the Cops did not have that play by play because they were involved. As I said before I am not condoning their actions at the end in the slightest. What I am saying is people are quick to judge our actions based on their perceptions, and those perceptions are created by media accounts and officer reports.

if science created a time machine, you used it and traveled back in time to the day after the stock market collapse and the start of the great depression. The thought process would be how could you guys let this happen.. You ignored all the warning signs of people borrowing money to buy stocks that were loosing value.

The benefiet of hindsight creates an unrealistic view because of prior knowledge that was not available to the people making the decisions in the first place.

We are not perfect, and we operate in a bubble that is unique and unlike any other profession. We are going to make mistakes - its inevitable. Whether or not we learn from those mistakes is what makes or breaks us. Our authority to do our jobs is granted by the citizens we serve, and for the most part all cops take that seriously, being its a sacred trust and honor.

All I am asking is for people to take the time to know the law and its application before judging our actions and accusing us of law violations. I know for a fact that citizens want that exact same courtesy from us.

reply to post by ZindoDoone


The last part of your argument, which I see people bring up the most, is the most perplexing to me. A Law abiding citizen does not have law enforcement contact. You ahve been doing this a whole lot longer than I have, so I am not trying to challenge your perspective or anything.

Originally posted by Whereweheaded
reply to post by Wildbob77

 

Thus the reason why some states are deeming it illegal to video tape officers actions. It would seem that the only line of defense we as the public have, would be the video cameras! Unless of course you think you can out " gun " a para-military organization like LEA's?

Illinois is going to be the last holdout on that. Maryland and a few others had their laws challeneged in court, and charges were thrown out since their wiretap laws were never intended to be used when there is no expectation of privacy in public.

The other thing I want to point out are the few 3rd party people who have been arrested for supposedly videotaping the police were not arrested for videotaping. They were arrested for either placing themselves into a position that interfered with the Police and their actions, or placed others in danger (traffic issues - El Paso Texas incident).

Again, The Democratic Peoples Republic of Illinois is an exception to this for reasons beyond understanding.

reply to post by RicoMarston


Did you have law enforcement contact growing up out of curiosity?

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by ZindoDoone

 

The last part of your argument, which I see people bring up the most, is the most perplexing to me. A Law abiding citizen does not have law enforcement contact. You ahve been doing this a whole lot longer than I have, so I am not trying to challenge your perspective or anything.

edit on 9-2-2011 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)

My problems stem from to very valid outlooks of our present day law enforcement!

1: The misnomer of 'To Protect and Serve!' First of all, officers have no affirmative mandate to protect the public in any manner. When i see that one the sides of cruisers I cringe that most of the citizenry have no idea it's only their to make them 'Feel Safe' when in reality it means NOTHING! It's there only to placate the public. It's a LIE! The cops are there to protect the LAWS and the PROPERTY of the city/state that employs them and that's there only affirmative duty!

No duty to protexct

More of the same

2: Police can lie with impunity to a suspect and that fact cannot be used as a defense in a court of law by the defendant in any manner. Most judges won't allow even the mention of this process before the jury!

Are police allowed to lie?


Yes. Police can, will, and often do lie; especially if it helps them make arrests. One obvious example of this is when undercover officers claim not to be police. The rules regarding entrapment usually tip in favor of law-enforcement, so police won't hesitate to trick you into incriminating yourself or others. This is particularly common during interrogations in which officers might tell you that "your friend already gave you up, so you might as well come clean."

The best defense against these manipulative tactics is to avoid saying anything to police without first speaking

Police can lie legally

Officers that have a bad day or hear the wrong words can ruin you for no other reason than they can if they 'feel like it'! It happens every day through out our country!That's what I meant by law abiding citizens being abused by officers. They are innocent until proven guilty and no amount of lieing by either party should preclude this concept. The slippery slope of officers having more sway to a jury or to courts in general needs to be reigned in.

Zindo

reply to post by ZindoDoone


Hi Zindo,
You are correct in a lot of what you are saying, not so much in others, or I should say I disagree with some of your statements. I wanted to address the area of entrapment. Most people have a mistaken definition of this and I would like to correct it for you and the others that have made reference to it in this thread and others.

Entrapment is when you cause someone to do something that they would not normally do. For example: If you are trying to catch someone soliciting prostittution and a guy checks into a hotel room while you have a woman naked and spead eagle on his bed and she says for $10 you can have it....thats entrapment. On the other hand, if you haver a policewoman walking a well known prostitution area dressed as a prostitute and she is approched by a john for sex, this is totally legal. That may be a poor example, but I think you see my point.
This is why speed traps, drug buys by undercover narcs, etc are not entrapment. The drug user is going to buy drugs regardless, it was already his intent. Hope that makes sense.
Seeashrink

reply to post by seeashrink


OK, here's the scenario for you that I am intimately familiar! I'm walking down a street in my town. At the time 20,000 residents, fairly small town. It's 1969 and I'm headed home from a visit with my then girlfriend. The local narcs have a house staked out and are watching all activity in the area. I get surrounded by 4 cruisers and thrown bodily into the back of after being slammed against said cruiser and cuffed. No explanation just told to shut up if i knew what was good for me. I did. After an hour in the back of the cruiser stuffed in along with me are 5 other individuals stacked like cord wood, we are driven to the station and promptly dragged and THROWN INTO A CELL WITH 25 OTHERS in the same predicament. I had no idea what was happening. I was 19 years old then. Some of the others in the cell were Juvies the youngest being 13.

One by one they take us to interrogation and finally it's my turn. No one that had ben interrogated already was put back in any cell we had contact with. When I get into the room, I'm told that since i am one of the oldest 'DRUG USERS AND SELLERS' I am up for a 20 year sentence and I had better cooperate. Right then I knew my fathers advice was sound. I kept my mouth shut and continually called for my lawyer! They ignored me and kept up with the questions and statement as to my full guilt! Statements like, We know your the major dealer in the area and we're gonna put you under the jail and al the rest of the 'Bubba Threats' that come along with the good cop bad cop crap.

Now I didn't have a clue exactly what they thought they had but I knew I wasn't playing the game with them. I got roughed up a bit in the process also. They showed me photos of my walking past this house many times (I went to my girl friends at least 3 times a week for dinner) and kept trying to get me to tell them who my supplier was. I had no damned supplier. I didn't do drugs nor sold them. I also didn't get to call anyone like my parents or a lawyer.

It took my father almost 36 hours to find out I was in jail and 30,000 bucks to clear my name. Turns out it was a lousy, dirty Sgt. of Detectives looking for an out for some wrong doing he was almost aught for and some face time on TV for rounding up a drug den in town. We didn't find out about how dirty he really was till 6 years later though. Alibi's didn't matter. I was guilty because I had been walking down a city street and happened into their net. They tried the 'Well your buddies ratted you out and we have signed statements to that fact!' trick and nearly every other I learned in the academy 4 years later! I didn't know one single person that they arrested that night. See, it does happen and more and more we see it taking place. Innocents used for political reasons to further political careers!

Zindo

reply to post by ZindoDoone


Man, that story sucks. You definitly got involved with some dirty cops and I'm very sorry for your experience.
If it's any consulation, I've been involved in a case the last couple of days where the cops made some mistakes and it may not cost them the whole case but it is certainly going to have great bearing on the outcome, and then again, it could cost them the case.
Defense attornies get paid to find screw ups in the state's case, which is normally done by the cops, and it does make matters different. Having said that, this in no way justifies the action of the cop on the street and I maintain that a hard look needs to be taken at the training they are receiving.
Seeashrink