El Monte and Alabama excessive force incidents and End of Chase Syndrome

[Glenn E. Meyer]

I'm disturbed a bit about street justice also. A few years ago I went to a meeting of the American Society for Criminology. Lots of LEO researchers attend. A fair number of criminologists have LE backgrounds. One telling presentation was about a small but noticeable number of departments that focus on clearing cases regardless of the guilt or innocence of the 'suspect'. Their methods were, as you might imagine, not in accord with basic civil rights. It is not being soft to expect professionalism. If one burns out, despite pension and financial issues - you shouldn't be on the front line. It is true for most professions.

One argument against civilian carry was the fear of vigilante justice. If folks can make that argument - can we, in the gun world, chortle about police acting in the same manner?

Gun culture also prattles about the Constitution and basic rights. Then we find folks wanting to violate them in some aggressive hissy fit. He's a criminal, blah, blah. So which is it? Rights or it's fun to be violent in violation of basic rights, if you don't like the guy.

Last, red herrings, pseudo-vivid instances as rhetorically hogwash. What if it was a knife wielding psycho - are you supposed to be nice to him. Horse manure - that is an active on coming threat as compared to an unconscious or restrained individual.

 

[Wagonman]

TDY Temporary Duty
RPG Rocket Propelled Grenade
PDW Personal Duty Weapon
PFD Personal Floatation Device
BAR Browning Automatic Rifle
SMG Sub Machine Gun
SGM Sergeant Major
MSG Master Sergeant
HCR I dunno

 

[BlueTrain]

Personal Defense Weapon, which is dumb.
Household Cavalry Regiment (didn't think you'd know that).

I knew what some were, finally figured the others out, didn't see the one with APC, which also means all-purpose capsule.

To bring this back on track, do people think that the behavior of law enforcement officers is different in different parts of the country, or the type of agency they belong to? By the latter, I mean state police, county or city police, federal agencies, or sheriff's department, where there is one. In Fairfax County, Virginia, the Sheriff's Department has different duties from the Fairfax County Police Department but I know that in more rural counties the local sheriff's department had the regular law enforcement function.

At one time, of course, there were only sheriffs and not so many of them, plus in territories, there were US Marshals and their deputies. Law Enforcement has been a minor growth industry, you might say.

I am tempted to say that the police in larger cities, though not all, are more likely to be "not so nice" as those in other places. I have virtually no basis for making that statement, however, with only the slightest first hand encounters with the police anywhere. I am also tempted to say that once things like SWAT teams are organized and on hand, there could be a temptation to use them more if only to justify their existance but again, that is only a supposition.

 

[hogdogs]

Blue, I am 100% convinced that LEA's vary from region to region thru out the states... I am a Floridian by birth but raised thru out the USA. Aside from Louisiana at 18, all my adult years I have lived in Fla. The peninsula of florida is basically "big city" type living and even the rural areas are rife with tourists and other riff raff common to big city life.
I am no angel and have been on both sides of the "blueline" many times, that said...

In the peninsula of florida, I have never had a cop approach me on the side of the road broke down, using the phone, reading my map etc. and not turn it into a "traffic stop". Blues flashing and asking for ID and POI and registration and often asking permission to search my ride.
Up here in the panhandle, sitting on the side of the road getting cel service or whatever, I have never had one do anything but pull alongside and ask if I was okay... Down yonder, if you lip off YOU WILL AT LEAST BE TAZED... Up here I know of one guy who I personally witnessed or my son witnessed (ex bossman) get out and bow up in the face of a deputy or trooper only to be threatened with arrest if he didn't "chill out"...
I bowed up on one deputy before LTL tazers were carried down yonder but he knew he was wrong and I was right or he would have either whooped my butt or shot me... All in all up here is the most laid back LEO's I have ever encountered. They are real life not blowed up super human above the law types... They relate to their own self unlike other locales. Had the law been called to report "possible full auto firearms" claims down yonder I doubt I would have spent better than an hour on my porch explaining the .22lr pistol speed firing and requiring the deputy get a "super" involved and brining out the pistol and demonstrating the rate of fire then letting them do the same...
Brent

 

[OuTcAsT]

One argument against civilian carry was the fear of vigilante justice

And just what is vigilante justice?

Webster defines it ;

vigilante
One entry found.

Main Entry:
vig·i·lan·te Listen to the pronunciation of vigilante
Pronunciation:
\ˌvi-jə-ˈlan-tē\
Function:
noun
Etymology:
Spanish, watchman, guard, from vigilante vigilant, from Latin vigilant-, vigilans
Date:
1856

: a member of a volunteer committee organized to suppress and punish crime summarily (as when the processes of law are viewed as inadequate) ; broadly : a self-appointed doer of justice

I would think for the purpose of this discussion, and in keeping with the current context, everyone has a similar idea of what constitutes "vigilantism".

If we look at some of the statements thus far;

The second guessing and breast beating about the excesses of Police work

But, the bright side a lot less "rights" were violated

it's not worth the aggravation to play police

You can presume him innocent all you want he is still guilty on the street.

you will get the society you deserve

It would appear that this is, at least on the surface, what LE has become. Someone said:

If our system had cops acting as judges or performing other legal responsibilities, I would agree with you,

Yet that is exactly what is happening. When someone is presumed "Street Guilty" that is a judgement plain and simple. Maybe not a legal one, but certainly one which is going to effect the manner in which a suspect is treated.

At one point in our society, justice was served up by the gun and rope. After a while people saw that there were many legally innocent people who were "collateral damage" in this sort of broadsword-type justice, and some reforms were needed to mitigate the possibility that someone might be tried, convicted, and possibly executed on the whim of the public at large. Some would argue that a return to that sort of system would reduce the violent crime we see today. The fact remains that those checks and balances were put in place to protect the innocent. There is no question that the same system also can be exploited to the criminals advantage, but that is seen more so in the courtroom than on the street.

I am not advocating that someone who has allegedly just shot, stabbed, or raped someone be "asked nicely" to come along to court. LE has to do whatever it takes, within the law to bring that person to court. But, once he is in custody, they have fulfilled their role to the public, which was to get him off the street. Afterwords their responsibility changes, they are then charged with a duty to protect that persons rights, much as LE once had to protect prisoners from lynch mobs.

Sure it is difficult for most of us to detach ourselves from the emotions we feel about the crime, and worry about the prisoner's rights, until you are the prisoner. I will postulate that each and every person who has flamed my position, would, if you are arrested, (say for an investigation into a self defense shooting) want every single one of your rights protected. You will expect to be handcuffed, ( just not too tightly ) transported safely, ( watch your head on the door )
without having your A$$ kicked, to the precinct, where you will immediately request a lawyer. Those are your rights, and you will expect LE to protect every one of them.

That is perfectly fine, since you have done nothing wrong.

But, you cannot have it both ways. That robber, rapist, murderer, also have, the same rights as you until they are convicted. We preach and posture about our rights when it serves our purpose, but can just as easily dismiss someone else their rights because we place ourselves in a position of "street judge" Perhaps some should re-read the definition I provided.

Also, I don't think an officer should be sued for civil rights violations, I think he should be held to the same standard I am. If he is outside the law he should be arrested, tried, and either convicted, or exonerated. If our legal system cannot function within it's own guidelines, then how can those of us that might get caught up in it expect to be treated fairly?

 

[ilbob]

Up here I know of one guy who I personally witnessed or my son witnessed (ex bossman) get out and bow up in the face of a deputy or trooper only to be threatened with arrest if he didn't "chill out"...

What is "bow up"?

I saw the video of the El Monte incident. I am sort of ambivalent about it, but I am inclined to give the benefit of the doubt to a law abiding person over a violent street thug every time, if there is some doubt.

I think police agencies all over the country are going to have to rethink the way they operate to more closely align what they do with public perceptions of what they should be doing. Video is pervasive and won't go away. And many cases where video is produced there is a rush to get it in the public domain.

Much of the way policing was done in the past was done in the shadows, without much public knowledge of what was going on. Maybe a good analogy is how hot dogs are made. We liked to think that the way police work and how police officers were portrayed on Adam12 and Dragnet was real. We are now starting to get snippets of what it really is like sometimes, especially in some of the urban hell holes.

What we are seeing does not comport well with what we as a society would like to believe is the way things should be. Some of it is the view that cops should never make a mistake, or have any human failings while performing their jobs. Being as cops are human, that is not an especially realistic expectation, and no amount of training or policies is going to change that. We are going to have to find a way for the system to accept those human failings, yet provide protection from those failings to the people at large. Probably not an easy task.

 

[OuTcAsT]

What is "bow up"?

Brent can correct me if I'm wrong, pretty sure the definition is the same here in TN, But to "Bow Up" would be to "Aggressively assert your point of view" Usually this type of display is sprinkled liberally with colorful metaphors, and comments concerning one's family lineage, their "close" relationship to their Mother, etc. You get the Idea.

 

[ilbob]

Brent can correct me if I'm wrong, pretty sure the definition is the same here in TN, But to "Bow Up" would be to "Aggressively assert your point of view" Usually this type of display is sprinkled liberally with colorful metaphors, and comments concerning one's family lineage, their "close" relationship to their Mother, etc. You get the Idea.

That would seem to be a fairly poor way of dealing with people, especially those whose training, experience, and temperament leads them to need to be in control of the encounter.

 

[hogdogs]

In my definition... To "bow up" is to aggressively posture physically. No physical contact, just to posture intent or threat of such. It may or may not include verbal content... In fact, the inclusion of verbal content such as family lineage and possible profession of one's momma usually shows less true intent of physical force compared to a silent show of posturing ie:bowing up...
And I wasn't referring to the LEO as bowing up although I have seen that too many times as well...

Bob, yes it is a risky move to posture up on a LEO... In the instance I did it I was 100% in the right and he was in the wrong and I was willing to go to the next level to defend my position of being wronged by an over zealous officer. it was one of those traffic stops performed after a running of a tag and him trying to come up with a justified reason for a stop. His excuse was "The tag comes back to a woman so I thought you may have stolen the car..." My wife was with me (tag in her name) and the car was 15 years old and not custom (no reason to expect the car to be worth more than $500-$800 bucks!)

Brent

 

[Wagonman]

"Street Guilty" that is a judgement plain and simple. Maybe not a legal one, but certainly one which is going to effect the manner in which a suspect is treated.

No his actions are going to dictate how he is treated. "street guilty" is a temporary judgement which is nothing more than Probable Cause to arrest or legal justification for use of force.

I am a judge, I decide who is going to jail. However, I have checks and balances. My Watch Commander has to approve the arrest, The SA has to approve felony charges, an actual judge and or jury has to find said offender guilty or innocent. So this arguement collapses under it's own weight.

 

[Wagonman]

In the instance I did it I was 100% in the right and he was in the wrong and I was willing to go to the next level to defend my position of being wronged by an over zealous officer. it was one of those traffic stops performed after a running of a tag and him trying to come up with a justified reason for a stop. His excuse was "The tag comes back to a woman so I thought you may have stolen the car..."

Sounds like a legal stop to me, well within the confines of Terry. How were you "wronged" other than being delayed?

Apropos of nothing I looked at older cars a little harder when I did police work, just something else that is out of the ordinary. Were you in a area you don't frequent? Were older cars the norm or not.

I grow weary of people B^%$ing about being pulled over by the Police. Try a little introspection, why was I pulled over?

 

[BlueTrain]

Here is another very general comment, which may have nothing to do with the original topic, not being familiar with the incident.

I think the relationship the police have with the citizenry, the pubic, is critical to their success in fulfilling their basic function of enforcing the laws and ensuring public safety. That may sound like something everyone should understand but in places where the relationship is a little sour, the police have trouble catching the bad guys, to put it simply. Now, most places the police are much better at their job than they get credit for and one reason is the police usually enjoy public support. Some people may expect a little too much from the police but that's a different issue. Those are usually the same people who don't like strangers driving on the public street in front of their house.

It would be interesting to know if the size of the community made any difference in this relationship. One in which more people knew one another's names (I mean between the police and the public). One would hope it would but it couldn't hurt.

 

[zxcvbob]

Try a little introspection, why was I pulled over?

Out of state tags?

 

[hogdogs]

I was on a street I was on every single morning... had to drive it to drop off the children at the sitter before work and pick them up after work.
I am as sick of sorry excuses for stops with no law broken as you are of people BI@@@###((( about it...
I broke no law and saw the officer at a stop sign and in the rearview saw him key the mic as his eyes were glued to my rear bumper... The point I am after is traffic stops should only be done with a law having been broken... Otherwise it is harassment! NEVER should a car be pulled or a home owner approached without a complaint of a violation of law or an officer witnessing it... In my case my car was a 1980 Olds 4 door with no window tint or flash... tan on creme color and stock hub caps in around 1995. Man driving with female passenger and tag registered to a 30+ year old woman with no criminal history and listed as "MARRIED" with a male driver does not probable cause make!
I maneuvered around a flooded spot in the road after he had gotten behind me using my signal to indicate I was crossing a yellow stripe and he didn't even mention this in the stop.
Don't even try to convince me that cops need the power to just pull over cars with little reason to "CHECK 'EM OUT"... It is no more true than cops thinking they can come to my door and say they think I am a criminal because the lease/deed is in a females name! Also cops do not have the leeway in Florida to pull over a car to ask if they have proof of insurance. Nor can they pull over a biker without a helmet to ask if he has the required health insurance... Thus I doubt the stop I SUFFERED do to male driver/female passenger in a vehicle registered to a married woman was legal and as it turned out neither did his superiors when I reported and filed complaint for this...
Cops need to only respond or stop for violations of law... otherwise it is a BS contact with civilian!
Brent

 

[Dust Monkey]

You are not a judge. You are a police officer charged with arresting people who have appeared to violate a law. Period. The law guides you, you are not a judge. You are a citizen who applied for a job to wear a badge. If you want to be a judge, get your law degree and make yourself known as a good lawyer. Then maybe you will get the chance to be a real judge.

Also. It does no matter on bit if video cameras are around or not. It does not matter is some one sees you beat a suspect or not. You should conduct yourself as a professional and obey the very same law you wanted to protect. If you can't do that, quit and sell vaccum cleaners door to door.

We all know that there is a bad element in society that must be dealt with. We just don't want the cops to be worse than the bad element.

Just think. Those officers I references in my first post. Every case, every arrest, evert trial the testified at is in jeopardy. Any lawyer worth his salt will ask for a new trial. That is but one result of rogue LEO's. The other result has not happened yet, but I see it coming. It will be a major backlash by the citizens. Just like the tea parties, people will wake up and realize that they can control the purse strings. That they can make a difference and change the way police do their jobs.

 

[OuTcAsT]

this arguement collapses under it's own weight.

Does it indeed ?

I believe my statement was ;

"Street Guilty" that is a judgment plain and simple.

Your exact words are ;

I am a judge,

and;

"street guilty" is a temporary judgement

That would appear to be , by your own definition , a "Judgment" in the same context I was using it.

I said;

certainly one which is going to effect the manner in which a suspect is treated.

So your own judgment is not going to have an effect on what happens next ? or the "manner in which a suspect is treated" ?

I never said that the suspects actions were not going to play a part. Certainly I would think someone resisting or being violent would have it's own consequences.

I decide who is going to jail.

I would think the law plays some part in that determination? Ah yes, I see it does;

My Watch Commander has to approve the arrest, The SA has to approve felony charges, an actual judge and or jury has to find said offender guilty or innocent.

So it would seem the law decides who goes to jail, as it should be.

The whole premise of this discussion is not about trying to limit the ability of a police officer to do his job, and is not an attack on the street cop's ability to make an arrest as necessary, or even use force as necessary The problem lies in what happens when the officer does his job by "other than legal" means. If you "judge" someone to be "street guilty" of an offense that warrants an arrest, that is fine, If he lays down and gives up and then you kick him in the head, that is a crime. If you have been issued a warrant to serve and you kick down the wrong door, that is a crime. If someone pulls a gun to defend himself from this invasion and you shoot him, that is a crime, is it a mistake?
Possibly, but a crime none the less. If I kick someone in the head it is a crime, if I walk into the wrong house and the owner pulls a gun and I shoot him I will likely be charged with a crime. Why should the "color of law" be able to protect someone from being held to the same standard ? And how would doing so make a police officer less effective in doing his job? You don't have to be perfect, just equally culpable when you go beyond the law. If the handful of cops out there no longer had the blue shield to hide behind, I suspect that responsible officers such as yourself, might actually have a better rapport with the public at large.

 

[OuTcAsT]

The other result has not happened yet, but I see it coming. It will be a major backlash by the citizens.

Exactly, You just might see an increase in the number of folks
getting "Bowed Up" because they are weary of listening to police officers whine about "not being able to do their jobs because the law is in the way"

Try a little introspection; "Why doesn't the public respect me"?

 

[ilbob]

"The tag comes back to a woman so I thought you may have stolen the car..."

Sounds like a legal stop to me, well within the confines of Terry. How were you "wronged" other than being delayed?

Thats a pretty bizarre argument.

I don't want to put words in your mouth but it appears your contention is that it is PC to stop a car merely because the person driving it may not be the owner?

If that is truly the case, we are far worse off than I had imagined.

And being stopped for no legitimate reason is indeed a wrong.

 

[B. Lahey]

So it would seem the law decides who goes to jail, as it should be.

Street cops have a great deal of discretion in deciding who will be arrested, and these discretionary decisions have been upheld in various courts time and again. Cops are "street judges", and always have been.

I think the main issue in this thread is the disconnect between legal nerdism and the world of street cops. They are two sides of the same coin, but nobody understands both.

When Wagonman says "street guilty", it's very hard for people to overlook that word "guilty" and not react to its traditional legal meaning, but that's not how it is being used in this context. He's just using the term as regular-dude shorthand for "a temporary judgement which is nothing more than Probable Cause to arrest or legal justification for use of force" (as he described it later, after everyone had alread jumped to their own conclusions). The same goes for the word "judge" when it is being used without the usual technical legal meaning.

Is Wagonman bringing it on himself by using these words with legal strings attached? Yep. But I think you guys could do a bit better in trying to understand what he means.

 

[hogdogs]

Mr.Lahey, It would also behoove many TFL folks (I realize the board owners are owners of SWAT magazine) to recognize that the LEA's are after more and more power to "conduct" investigations and raids with less recourse if they err. I have heard from many friends and customers who are LEO "If you have nothing to hide, why worry about allowing a search of self, car or home...?" For this I call POO-POO On their shoe... If I have not committed an obvious violation of a fairly heinous law they won't barge in without a warrant (I realize no warrant is required for an officer staying in eye contact with a perp of some crimes) and for any other suspected crime I may have committed, I will require a warrant. This is for self, car or home as in "F" Off Buddy lemme know when you got paper! Slam the door in their face etc! As you have read I have great respect for the law and those who fairly do the job they are simply employees to do. Not sodiers, warriors or ninjas... just cops, no more important of a job than a garbage man...
Now if you want to go peeking on private lives trying to "find" evidence of a crime not reported than you likely are not a fan of my posts nor a defender of the COTUS!
Brent