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

[Wagonman]

You are just a cop not a citizen! You type the words of the over zealous police tactics that most of us law abiding americans rightfully deem UNCONSTITUTIONAL

I beg to differ, there is no such thing as just a Cop.

What unconstitutional tactic did I advocate? You might not like a particular 'tactic" that does not make it unconstitutional. Only the SCOTUS can judge something unconstitutional with finality. Thanks Marbury.

 

[bigger hammer]

Well, if so. Why the 2 incidents that are at the root of this thread. The El Monte Officer is, IMO, from the video guilty of assault and violation of civil rights. So explain to me why we have way to many incidents like this, yet more civil rights training being taught, are happening. The 2 dont mesh.

Based on your complete avoidance of my question,

Wondering if you have any evidence to support the emboldened statement? I've been to many "police schools" across the US and have never seen such a "mindset" being taught.

It's probably safe to assume that you've made this statement in the complete absence of any evidence for it. That's as I thought.

It would also appear that in spite of quite a bit of discussion about "innocent until proven guilty" in this thread that you've managed to somehow convict the El Monte officer without a trial or even any evidence being gathered other than watching a few seconds of video. Aren't you climbing all over LEO's who you think have done this? Just seems a bit hypocritical to me.

It appears that you equate more curriculum on this topic with an absence of violations of civil rights. I think that's just silly. I’m not guessing, I'm stating facts. Would that you'd do the same instead of trying to pass off your opinion as fact.

Do you have any evidence (sounds familiar does it not?) that there are more incidents occurring these days than did in the past. Or are you suffering from cumulative information overload? Is it possible that just as many, if not more of these incidents occurred in days of old but that they didn't make the news the way they do today? I think it's not only possible, but that it's probable.

 

[bigger hammer]

Earlier I wrote,

Wondering if you have any evidence to support the emboldened statement?

Given the incontrovertible evidence that is available from direct observation of law enforcement tactics in the form of SRT teams, No knock paramilitary operations, the adaptation by many officers of variations of BDU's as standard uniforms,

I'm reminded of a comment from a new hire who was just released from the US Army. I was giving him a tour of the station, introducing him to everyone and the topic of "room clearing" came up with another experienced officer. We were discussing various aspects of it and I noticed a wry look on his face. He had been trained that "room clearing" meant "toss in a grenade, enter and kill everyone that wasn't already dead." Police are hardly doing that so I really wonder what is meant by the phrase "the militarization of the police." Do you think that because some police have adopted BDU's that somehow they've been "militarized?" When I was a K-9 handler we wore BDU's because they were washable and the regular unis had to be dry–cleaned. It had nothing to do with "militarization." SWAT wears them because like the K-9 handlers they go to much "dirtier places" than does the average street cop and there's an intimidation factor that's desirable with the crooks that they deal with. But still no "militarization" there either.

SWAT teams are relatively new on the police scene, having been created to handle special circumstances. Among reasons for their existence were changes that were occurring in society that were beyond the capability of the street police officer. Among them were threatened guerilla tactics (including sniper activity) adopted by several militant groups and occurrences like the Watts Riots. Police are merely responsive to what society does.

Like SWAT, no–knock warrants came about as a result of changes in society. Mostly the disposable nature of narcotics. Such entries were authorized by judges to prevent the destruction of such evidence. No militarization there either.

are you suggesting that the officers are taking it upon themselves to become more "militarized" ?

Nope. I'm denying that this "militarization" is happening at all. The instances under discussion, the El Monte "kick" and the Alabama end-of-pursuit beating have nothing to do with the military at all.

Or that this mindset is not a part of the curriculum at all ? If not, please enlighten us as to where the adversarial mindset starts to be adapted into an officers thought process , from an expert point of view.

I don't think that there's an adversarial relationship between LEO's and honest, decent citizens. There certainly is between LEO's and crooks though. And I think that's existed since both groups have existed, thousands of years. Nothing new there either.

 

[bigger hammer]

Wagonman, I am regretful to state that you have lost my respect as a fellow citizen... You are just a cop not a citizen!

Wagonman is BOTH a cop and a citizen!

You type the words of the over zealous police tactics that most of us law abiding americans rightfully deem UNCONSTITUTIONAL and against the people you claim to protect.

Your opinion of what is constitutional and what is unconstitutional means nothing. The SCOTUS makes those decisions, not you.

Ask to search my ride or home and you will be met with a slammed door in your face! If you ain't got enuff on me to arrest me and thus get free reighn to search than you obviously are grabbing at straws and fishing in a bathtub!

That is your right as it's our right to ask. Per SCOTUS.

As a child I was told the cops were out to protect me... as a teen they lied to me and my parents and my pop apologized to me for wrongly teaching me this.

Oddly enough I still teach my kids this. lol. Oddly enough they've never had a police officer lie to them.

I raised my son and daughter to avoid police contact at all cost!

Not bad advice, unless one needs help, directions or becomes a crime victim.

In fact they have seen me try to provide cases for them to persue only to have them fumble the ball so now they, as I, realize if it was major enuff of a crime to dial 911it is best to handle it yourself and make sure justice is dealt!

Feel free to never dial 911 again. LOL.

sad day when folks are willing to tell a cop they have little respect for them as they were trained!

Not really. Police have been told this since there were police. Nothing new there either.

 

[Dust Monkey]

SWAT is not new. Using SWAT to serve failure to pay tickets is


Not ignoring you or running from the discussion. I am gathering facts and figures to put up. From my initial findings, I am sure you won't like it and fnd some way to explain that it's crucial to your job and that if folks are not guilty they have nothing to hide

And FWIW, SWAT is a very good example of mission creep. Using SWAT just to justify a budget is common in many departments.

You don't see the problem because you have been trained to do your job a certain way. IMO the wrong way. To solve most of the problems I see wood be to do away with color of law protections and police unions. For instance. If a raid happens on the wrong address and results in a death, it's murder plain and simple. Some one dropped the ball and did not do their job and confirm the correct address. Anything after that mistake should not be covered by color of law protections. Period. And this crap of "don't like it, change it". That's what some of us are trying to do. And guess who wants to oppose us, oppose change in the civil rights area? Cops that's who. The sw cops who begged us for help getting nation wide carry for them with the promise they would help us get nationwide carry. And we all know how that ended up.

So. I will have some stats. Alarming as they may be. Just try not put your coptalk hat on. Those guys over there are scary. Now. Off to care for my father. Will get those stats up as soon as I can.

 

[Al Norris]

Those who watch TV news, see more and more "gun crimes." Newspapers carry more and more crime stories.

We "hear" about more assaults with long guns, most commonly being referred to as "assault weapons."

Therefore, "common wisdom" would conclude that violent crimes are on the upswing.

Yet, at the end of the day, the actual reports are collated and we find that crimes, of all kinds, are on the downward slide. We also should note that usage of so-called assault weapons has remained at between 1% and 2% of all firearms related crimes.

"Common wisdom," isn't!

The same thing is happening with respect to police brutality stories. More and more are being reported, yet statistically, these incidents have either remained stable or are dropping... Depends upon whose stats we are reading. They are most certainly not on the rise.

Perception is the appearance of something happening that may not be the actual reality of the thing perceived.

We have gotten off topic. End of Chase syndrome is real. but we are not discussing this aspect of police work now, are we?

What happens with almost any subject dealing with the police, is a general slide into general police bashing. I would ask you all to go back and re-read this thread, with the specific intent of watching the slide.

It's there, and I can point to (if I have to) where it started.

I'm off to work now. If this thread hasn't gotten back on track when I get home, it will be closed.

 

[Wagonman]

To solve most of the problems I see wood be to do away with color of law protections and police unions. For instance. If a raid happens on the wrong address and results in a death, it's murder plain and simple.

That's the ticket, have Cops do thier jobs taking their career in thier own hands without any kind of protection. I guarantee job-preservation will become the coin of the realm. They tried that in Cincy a few years ago and the Police made their point handily.

I find it more than a little ironic that you are railing against SWAT teams on a forum maintained by SWAT magazine.

 

[maestro pistolero]

I don't bluff which is why I put bluff in quotation marks. If I have enough PC which is the traffic violation that engendered the stop I am able to make a physical arrest for said traffic violation and impound said car and inventory the contents.

I do not engage in the practice of making false arrests, and would not tolerate the practice by any LEO I work with. But, I will use every tool at my disposal to do my job.

Thanks for that answer. Just to clarify, are you saying that you can or would arrest someone for a minor traffic violation, and that would be sufficient cause for a complete search? Unless I am misreading, then any minor traffic violation invalidates fourth amendment rights.? Thanks for bearing with me.

 

[Wagonman]

EOCS does happen, it shouldn't, we are professsionals and should act that way.

However, the rub as I see it is the level of punishment different people want to mete out on said LEO. The "Cops are the problem" crowd wants said officer to be drawn quartered, jailed for the rest of his Civil Rights abusing career, then a civil suit judgement to really punish this bad guy who in the heat of attempting to arrest under suspicious circumstances a honor student on his way to bible study.

The reasonable punishment crowd realizes that in the heat of the moment excrement happens and punishment should fit the crime. first offense some UOF retraining and maybe a couple of days on the bench. subsequent infractions should have more severe punishment.

 

[Wagonman]

Thanks for that answer. Just to clarify, are you saying that you can or would arrest someone for a minor traffic violation, and that would be sufficient cause for a complete search? Unless I am misreading, then any minor traffic violation invalidates fourth amendment rights.? Thanks for bearing with me.

When I am searching a vehicle that is impounded subsequent to arrest it is not a investigatory search it is an administrative search. I have control of said vehicle and I cannot be held responsible unless I know what I am being held responsible for. However, any contraband is fair game. It is akin to being searched when you hit the lock up. You don't lose your rights against USS but your safety and the safety of the lockup keepers take precedence.

Just to be clear, physical arrests for traffic are rare, they usually happen to people who fail the hello test.

 

[hogdogs]

So lemme get clarification...
Wagonman pulls over the ol'hogdogs pickup truck for the heinous crime of "No Tag Light". I provide required ID and paperwork as asked. While in his patrolcar wagonman decides that my unshaven face and raggedy clothing makes look "suspicious" and comes up to ask to search my truck, I reply I am rather in a hurry to get to the gun range and nothing in my truck for you to worry about... I will then be arrested for failing a test I did not know I had to take (I thought I had the right to be friendly to whom I choose) on the charge of my broken tag light, My truck then fully searched while I locate a bondsman?
That is shady police work at it's finest!
Brent

 

[maestro pistolero]

Just to be clear, physical arrests for traffic are rare, they usually happen to people who fail the hello test.

1. So if there is no arrest impending, you would be OK with my politely refusing a search? (in the absence of PC or RS, of course)

2. Pardon my ignorance, but what's the 'hello test', and since you say it's a reason to be arrested, is there a legal basis for it, or is it entirely discretionary?

Thanks for your answers.

 

[hogdogs]

Maestro, I am pretty sure their "hello test" is not published material as we would expect. But every citizen has a "Hello Test" to some degree or other... Part of my test involves LEO's who ask to search my ride when I have never been seen coming or going from known locations of illicit activity. No smell of weed, no bed full of tools possibly going to the pawn shop to support a crack habit stolen from homes... Just a tow strap, spare tire, gas can and some trash...
One of the funniest search situations I was involved in occurred when a deputy pulled me over for no claimed reason... just checkin' me out. It was my last day in Daytona Beach as I was moving out that night. I had to pick up my truck from the transmission shop so I had removed all items of value to prevent theft. I had a very dear friend with me so I could have more time to have our last personal conversation. He was off duty Juvenile probation officer and tasked with wearing a county deputy badge on his belt. He was always very neatly dressed and groomed. The cop asks for my papers and I comply, He then asks to search, I asked what for but since I wasn't wanting to involve my buddy in making a scene denying the consent to search I allowed. This old truck takes only seconds to search as it has no headliner or floor mats, no ashtray nor radio... just shine a light in the holes...
He then gets to the seat and he cannot figure out how to tip the back forward... I explained that it didn't flip. He tells me has never seen one that didn't, I informed him that you can learn something new each day. I then explained that the front seat in a crew cab or suburban did not flip, my seat musta come from one of them... Absolutely nothin' to be found and after 30 minutes I could have used loading my truck for the move, I was finally on my way...
Brent

 

[Wagonman]

1. So if there is no arrest impending, you would be OK with my politely refusing a search? (in the absence of PC or RS, of course)

2. Pardon my ignorance, but what's the 'hello test', and since you say it's a reason to be arrested, is there a legal basis for it, or is it entirely discretionary?

1, yes of course.

2, The hello test is indeed entirely discretionary. However, it is not a reason to be arrested on it's own, just something else to to base RS on.

The hello test is simply "you act like "one" you will be treated like "one" Passing the hello test is very simple hence the name

You say hello like a civilized person and you pass.

A good example of the hello test is in the infamous and decidely obscene Chris Rock "how not to run afoul of the police" video. You can youtube it, I am hesitant to link because it is a family forum.

Wagonman pulls over the ol'hogdogs pickup truck for the heinous crime of "No Tag Light".

I can only arrest for moving violations not compliance violations.

I will then be arrested for failing a test I did not know I had to take

No, but acting suspicious will raise my reasonable suspicion. Say what you will but being adversarial with the Police is indeed lawful and your constitutionally protected right but not a good idea in ther real world.

One of the funniest search situations I was involved in

How many times have you been searched incident to a traffic stop? The fog is starting to clear.

 

[nitetrane98]

Wagonman, you're doing a fine job defending yourself and other LEOS here and I'm kind of late on the particular point about being a judge.

I'm retired LE and I can remember the day a judge dismissed about half the charges I had written a guy up on, (mainly for failing the attitude test). They were all honest charges. Anyway, after the court session the judge took me aside and said, "Don't take it personally, you do my job every day. You dismiss charges on the street sometimes for your reasons and I dismiss some for my reasons." I came away with different point of view. Other than an arrest on a warrant (which I knew nothing about the particulars) I never arrested an innocent man.

My career spanned 1980-2000 with a sheriff department in East Texas. As I look back with this thread in mind I can see the gradual shifting toward what the OP calls militant LE training. Back in the day, an assault on a peace officer was handled quite differently than today. There was a price to pay for a BG assaulting a PO, and they knew it. We won all of those fights, no matter how many men it took. Today the public expects a LEO to take those kicks in the balls, head butts, etc when they are in cuffs or not and simply gently subdue the actor ad file the appropriate charges. Somehow those charges always seem to get plea bargained away. It's disheartening to know that he went to prison for 5 years for burglary but walked on assaulting you.
This same guy will expect the Officer Friendly treatment when he gets out.

It seems that many here want a completely emotionless LEO when dealing with BGs and a smiling compassionate, empathetic, LEO when dealing with them. They want you to find the BG that broke in and stole your Xbox but don't want you stopping anybody in a ragged, beat up old car at 3:00AM in your neighborhood unless he commits a traffic or equipment offense.

Godspeed, wagonman, retirement is good.

I'd better go now.

 

[hogdogs]

No, but acting suspicious will raise my reasonable suspicion. Say what you will but being adversarial with the Police is indeed lawful and your constitutionally protected but not a good idea in ther real world

Thus the crux of the problem! We all know that exercising my civil rights can and does lead to them being violated in the end in the name of PC or RS!

1. So if there is no arrest impending, you would be OK with my politely refusing a search? (in the absence of PC or RS, of course)

1, yes of course.

Then the officer informs you that they now have PC or RS and you may be informed that they will just get a warrant to search the vehicle which may take several hours as they detain you waiting for the judge signed warrant to arrive...
How about this... "The reason I do not consent to the search of my vehicle is I am not a criminal involved in any criminal activity and your time would be better spent pulling over cars and suvs typically driven by the thug life crowd and searching them." If I am seen leaving an area of criminal activity I can expect a stop but not violating any traffic laws 'tween my house and the properties I do hog removal on isn't the time to stop and ask to search my truck! My appearance isn't thug, goth, punk, or radical in any way... just a typical redneck guy who chooses to only shave ever so often to save money as razor refills are outrageous and my attire is only to keep me warm and cover my privates. I do not see that as reason to stop my old truck and ask me to search it...
Brent

 

[hogdogs]

In my 24 years of driving cars and trucks or riding motorcycles I have been approached for permission to search in excess of 15 times... possibly closer to 20 or more.
In a few of cases I admit I intentionally was less than friendly. I haven't been asked to consent to search since leaving the peninsula of florida 3+ years ago...
Coincidence? I think not... I have changed none of my looks or MO of day to day routine.
Brent

 

[orangello]

This has been a very enlightening thread. Wagonman, thank you for your candor in your responses, seriously. It is better to know what the officers I may encounter could be thinking.

I still see no good reason for the militarization of the law enforcement agencies in this country. Leadership comes from above, and i can only assume that this militarization trend will be ended when the right people are elected to the offices that can influence that trend. In the mean time, i will continue to look at LEO's as unfortunate plauge victims & avoid them as such.

On the original part of the topic of the syndrome associated with police pursuits, maybe it would work out better for the police & for those pursued if all registered vehicles were equipped with a law enforcement operable "kill switch" to cut power in the pursued vehicle as safely as possible when the vehicle is being pursued by an authorized police vehicle. Obviously, this would fall prey to the same types of failures as emissions controls have (removal with annual reinstallation for official inspection & such). I'm not sure i'd want to participate in such a system, but that would make for safer pursuits and would eliminate any type of "syndrome" as an excuse for police brutality.

The irony of a thread critical of the militarization of police forces (partially) on a forum with a "SWAT" section is not lost on me.

 

[ilbob]

Back in the day, an assault on a peace officer was handled quite differently than today. There was a price to pay for a BG assaulting a PO, and they knew it. We won all of those fights, no matter how many men it took. Today the public expects a LEO to take those kicks in the balls, head butts, etc when they are in cuffs or not and simply gently subdue the actor ad file the appropriate charges. Somehow those charges always seem to get plea bargained away. It's disheartening to know that he went to prison for 5 years for burglary but walked on assaulting you.

I don't know what public you are refering to but I don't know of too many people who think LEOs are expected to allow the BGs to beat on them without the LEO taking action to defend himself.

Some of the crap you guys are getting is because of what appears to be a double standard where police think street justice is Ok for them when they are attacked, but not OK for Joe citizen.

 

[fbrown333@suddenlink]

hog dogs

I agree I also could not be law enforcement as I believe in 3 things there is right, wrong, and then there is the law, and they are not always the same.