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

[OuTcAsT]

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.

That is a pretty good summation. ^^

I will leave this topic on the same note I started.

When a crime is committed it should carry the same consequences for a LEO as it does for anyone else.

I think this little point-counterpoint illustrates a perfect example of the real problem;


The Public:

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.

Law Enforcement:

That's the ticket, have Cops do thier jobs taking their career in thier own hands without any kind of protection.

I would submit that you do have protection,
and that would be the same law that protects us all. If every officer did have to take his career in his own hands you would not see the type of violence that was exacted in the OP, and if you did, it would be self-correcting thru due process. Same crime/Same punishment whether dirtbag or deputy.

 

[bigger hammer]

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

Please provide a link to such a case. I'd bet that unless this person had a history of violence that it was NOT just for failure to pay tickets.

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

You'd be wise not to try and put words in my mouth. Nearly 30 years of LE work and I've never uttered such a phrase. I believe in the right to deny an officer consent to search. That does not mean that the search won't take place, just that consent has been denied.

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

And this is related to this discussion exactly how?

You don't see the problem because you have been trained to do your job a certain way. IMO the wrong way.

You have no idea how I was trained to do my job. Assuming that you do, has lead you down the wrong road and allowed you to make all sorts of assumptions that aren't true.

To solve most of the problems I see wood be to do away with color of law protections and police unions.

I don't see how.

For instance. If a raid happens on the wrong address and results in a death, it's murder plain and simple.

No, sorry but you're quite wrong. Murder in most cases (the felony murder rule is one such exception) is a specific intent crime. The act must be committed with "malice aforethought." The actor must have the "mens rea" a guilty mind in order to commit murder. In the situation you describe there was a mistake. If a death were to occur that's manslaughter, not murder. Didn't you tell us that you have 14 years LE experience? I'd have thought that would have come up sometime in your career.

Some one dropped the ball and did not do their job and confirm the correct address.

Until and unless you can show that someone made that mistakewith the intent that someone be killed, it's an error. That's not murder. One can't commit murder accidentally. I've only heard about one perfect human being and he wasn't on a SWAT team.

Anything after that mistake should not be covered by color of law protections. Period.

It's not covered by a "color of law" protection. It's covered by the specific language of the law. There was no intent to kill a person. There was an error.

And this crap of "don't like it, change it". That's what some of us are trying to do.

Not here you're not. That would happen in the legislature. This is a place to vent and rant.

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.

I don't recall "begging" you for help in passing HR 218. Can you show us some documents to support such a claim? In any case, getting such a law passed for civilians is a process, just as passing HR 218 was. Your claim that this is how it "ended up" is nonsense. It's not over.

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.

I'll be the first one to say that some cops are doing the wrong thing. I'm personally responsible for the firing of several who did. I reported wrongdoing whenever I came across it. The last thing a decent cop wants is to work alongside a crook in the same uniform. That goes for cops who violate the law or who do the wrong thing.

The fact is that a police officer will perform hundreds of thousands (perhaps millions) of stops and have various kinds of contacts in the course of his career. One reason that these incidents make headlines is because they're so rare. There are about one million police officers of various levels in the US. If we assume 5,000 "bad deeds" (and I think that's way more than actually occur) that's still only 0.5%. Can you name an industry with that low an error (or accident) rate or such a low rate of good guys gone bad? I don't think so. If you take a look at prison populations you'll find far more judges, lawyers, doctors, and plumbers there than police officers.

Now. Off to care for my father.

Godspeed.

 

[bigger hammer]

Since this has wandered so far from the original topic I'll try and steer it back. I'll make some comments to your original post that I passed by in my first post here.

I think that part of the problem is that you think you know quite a few things when the fact is that you've made many assumptions and jumped to many conclusions.

We all remember the video of the El Monte Police officer kicking a compliant suspect in the head at gunpoint.

I think that the issue of compliance is one of those assumptions. Since there's no sound we don't know if he's being complaint or not. He IS on the ground but he's also looking towards the officer. I was trained to have the suspect turn his head away from me to hinder him in preparing an assault or any resistance. How do you know that the officer was not giving commands for the suspect to do that and that he was refusing to comply? At the end of a chase wherein the suspect deliberately tried to run down a police officer with his car I think it's reasonable to assume that he might resist the actual arrest as well. The officer is alone, and in my opinion has committed a tactical error in leaving cover to approach the suspect. But now that he's there, he must get compliance.

The El Monte incident was not the only incident in recent news to attract my attention. There were 5 Alabama Officers fired after a video surfaced showing them beating an unconscious suspect after a chase. By some reports this video is over a year old and was viewed by several LE supervisors, several in the LE community and Prosecuting Attorneys. Yet not one of them thought something was wrong until the trial.

Another assumption on your part. I think it's far more likely that they KNEW something was wrong but chose to turn their heads away from it. I find that far more disturbing than the initial act. It appears to me that the suspect was unconscious but I don’t know that the officers saw that. Neither do you BTW. If he was, then while he was certainly not resisting but he was also not complying with their commands. In the heat of the moment they may have perceived that he was not complying and went to a use of force to gain that compliance.

I've not made any assumptions, I've just pointed out a few possibilities.

During the trial, the Prosecuting Attorney did not have his edited copy so he asked the defense to borrow their copy. The current Prosecuting Attorney had not seen the entire tape, it was a surprise. Think about that. 5 officers beating the hell out of an unconscious suspect, not a threat to anyone, maybe in need of medical attention at the time himself, not one person thought that this might be wrong.

Your perception, and it may be correct, is that the suspect was unconscious. But you do not know if the officers realized this of even if it was true! ANOTHER assumption on your part. I doubt that the prosecuting attorney was surprised, as you say, by the entire video, but again you've made this assumption.

Higher ups in several departments involved saw this video, and no one scratched their head and said, um, wait a minute. It took a year to surface. That folks is sad and alarming at the same time.

AGAIN you have no idea what those "higher up in several departments" said or even if they saw this video. Perhaps I'm wrong in this and eagerly await your proof of it. Until then it's just another assumption.

I will say that I doubt that if they saw it, that they "scratched their head and said, um wait a minute." I'm sure that if they saw it they said, "Oh sh!t. I hope this doesn’t get out!' I find THAT alarming.

In the past few days I have had the time to speak with some old friends, some retired LE some current, and all of them agree on what a “distraction blow” is. And they all agree that you never should deliver one, alone, and holding a suspect at gunpoint.

I think his error was in moving from cover toward the suspect while still alone. But once he got there, if his perception was that the suspect was not complying, a distraction blow was warranted.

Now I believe both of these instances are a result of 2 things. End of chase syndrome and the growing militant behavior/training of today’s peace officers.

I have no idea what "end of chase syndrome" is. It sounds a bit like the press' use of the term "assault weapon" when discussing an AR-15. It's meant to inflame and conceal more than to give information. Anyone who is not excited and adrenalized at the end of a chase has some pretty serious problems. But I don't think there's a "syndrome" of any wrongdoing that occurs. I've already addressed the issue of "militarization of the police" in previous posts.

The militant attitude that is all consuming in today’s LE is scary.

What's scary is that you think that it's "all consuming."

Police should not act like soldiers. Soldiers are trained to kill, period. They are trained to seek out an enemy and kill. They have that mindset instilled during basic training and advanced training.

Odd but in both situations you brought to this discussion no one was killed. So how to you jive these situations with your "killing mindset?"

 

[bigger hammer]

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!

So let me give you some clarification from another viewpoint.

A police officer knows that several rapes where the suspect was armed with a handgun have occurred in his district so he's on the lookout for the suspect. These rapes have occurred at about the same time of day that the officer is working now. This suspect drives a truck and has removed his license plate light so make it more difficult to identify him. He has been described by his victims as being unshaven and wearing raggedy clothing. He's known to keep the victim's panties as "souvenirs."

Ol' hogdog is unshaven and wearing raggedy clothes. He's in the area at the time of day that the crimes have been committed. He's driving a truck that fits the description given by the victims. Hmm says the officer, this is a possible. Knowing that he can't arrest for just the the equipment violation he follows Ol' Hogdog for a few blocks and then he drives through a red "no right turn" arrow. He stops Ol' hogdog. Ol' hogdog provides all the required paperwork. While the officer knows that he has PC to search, he asks for consent anyway. It's refused because as ol' hogdog tells him, he "is in a hurry to get to the gun range," adding to the officer's PC and to his concerns for his own safety. Rather than just use the PC to search, he arrests Ol' hogdog for the blown red arrow and searches his car because he knows that such a search, incident to the arrest, is less likely to be overturned by a judge than one based on just the PC. He locates a gun matching the rape victim's description and several pairs of worn women's underwear. Because of these discoveries, and the totality of the circumstances, he books Ol' hogdog for suspicion of rape, the victims identify him and he's convicted.

That is excellent police work at it's finest!

Just another view of similar situations.

 

[bigger hammer]

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!

I'm sorry but we DO NOT "all know" this. There's nothing unconstitutional about an officer deciding, based on his observations, including how you respond to him, from taking action on a violation or letting you walk.

And if the PC or RS exists then it's ALSO not a violation of your rights if the officer searches despite your refusal to consent.

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...

That may well be the case. If he lies and says this, it's not unconstitutional. If he tells the truth and says this, that's not unconstitutional either.

 

[bigger hammer]

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.

Probably not a coincidence. More than likely you just moved into an area with a less aggressive outlook of how to do law enforcement. I want my cops to be aggressive in their enforcement of the law. As a result of aggressive policing the crime rate where I used to work was significantly less than that of the immediate surrounding area. This was in a large metropolitan area with no clear boundary in jurisdictions. Highly populated areas of various cities were right against one another. Yet when the violent crime rate of the large city that surrounded us dropped 18%, ours dropped 47%.

The difference was that we made PC arrests and they did not. They just filled out Field Interview cards and let their detectives follow up. If you moved from my city to the neighboring city you'd find a similar drop in your contacts with police.

 

[bigger hammer]

I would submit that you do have protection, and that would be the same law that protects us all. If every officer did have to take his career in his own hands you would not see the type of violence that was exacted in the OP, and if you did, it would be self-correcting thru due process. Same crime/Same punishment whether dirtbag or deputy.

I have no problem with this. What I DO have a problem with is that you've already convicted the officers in both of these situations. YOU are insisting on the standard of "innocent until proven guilty in a court of law" EXCEPT for the officers in these two incidents. You've assumed that they are guilty and that has yet to be proven.

 

[hogdogs]

In my state I have the right to carry the weapon concealed anywhere in my car without a CCP so long as it is not on my person. It can be in any state of readiness I choose. So my statement of going to the range should not increase PC. Since I would not rape nor store panties in my truck, I would not be able to go along with your scenario... So I am arrested for the red arrow? Truck impounded, I now have an arrest record, a towing bill and a bond on me? And all you found was my legal pistol? sucks be in my shoes now doesn't it? All because to exercise my forth amendment rights afforded me as a law abiding citizen of these United states?
Bugger!
Brent

 

[hogdogs]

More than likely you just moved into an area with a less aggressive outlook of how to do law enforcement.

BINGO!!!!
Point of note is this area has very incredibly LOW crime rate and where the more aggressive "police work" style is conducted on the law abiding and criminals equally is rife with crime!
I want the police to aggressively pursue crime reports... Not to aggressively pull folks over for stupid reasons and randomly search!

The case of the elderly woman who was pulled over and the search of her car found tens of thousands of dollars (possibly 50K IIRC) that she was transporting to put a down payment on her retirement dream home... The money was seized for quite some time putting her thru heck to get it back...
Brent

 

[nitetrane98]

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.

That's not what I'm saying. Sure, they say they want you to be able to defend yourself but they are not so sure about the method. I was never particularly interested in a fair fight with a BG. Where most LEO's run afoul is in the administering of "punishment" for the BG taking a swing at them. Most of the real "a##whoopings" occur as part subduing and part punishing. Generally speaking, these are counterproductive as the BG never seems to remember the part where he kicks and hits the LEO only the idea that he got his a## whooped for no reason at all and never seems to put the two together. But the injured LEO feels better about the whole thing until the video hits the 10PM news and Chief calls him in.
The "post chase syndrome" or whatever it's called is real. Our department instituted a policy that the pursuing officer have as little contact with the BG as possible after the stop if there were other officers available. They were not to be the arresting officer.

 

[orangello]

Nitetrane, that policy sounds like a wise step to protecting the officer & the suspect, imo.

"

Probably not a coincidence. More than likely you just moved into an area with a less aggressive outlook of how to do law enforcement. I want my cops to be aggressive in their enforcement of the law. As a result of aggressive policing the crime rate where I used to work was significantly less than that of the immediate surrounding area. This was in a large metropolitan area with no clear boundary in jurisdictions. Highly populated areas of various cities were right against one another. Yet when the violent crime rate of the large city that surrounded us dropped 18%, ours dropped 47%.

The difference was that we made PC arrests and they did not. They just filled out Field Interview cards and let their detectives follow up. If you moved from my city to the neighboring city you'd find a similar drop in your contacts with police."

quote from BiggerHammer

I wonder, if a survey were taken of different communities, where on the continuum between untimately aggressive law enforcement (pretty much a police state, as in a state of emergency) and ultimately non-aggressive law enforcement (basically call the police if you need them, otherwise they stay at the station or in their patrolcars) would the most customer/community satisfaction lie? Maybe communities should advertise the level of "aggresiveness" in their local law enforcement plan to increase the satisfaction of those living in said communities and PAYING FOR said law enforcement.

It would be wonderful to live in a crime-free environment, but not if it was a virtual prison with big brother watching from every street corner and occasionally doing a bed check. At least, that is my perception, but some older people or more frightened people might appreciate a community that borders on a police state for their own good. I guess i'd want a community with a less "aggressive" enforcement system for myself. It occurs to me that this might be why i wasn't bothered by the ghetto neighborhoods i lived in while living in Memphis.

 

[nitetrane98]

Nitetrane, that policy sounds like a wise step to protecting the officer & the suspect, imo.

LOL, it had nothing whatsoever to do with protecting an officer or the suspect. It was all about protecting the agency from being included in any litigation. They could say the officer violated policy. Fair enough, I suppose.
A lot like many pursuit policies, but that's another story.

Their view was always, "If you're 100% right we'll back you up all the way."

 

[OuTcAsT]

I have no problem with this. What I DO have a problem with is that you've already convicted the officers in both of these situations. YOU are insisting on the standard of "innocent until proven guilty in a court of law" EXCEPT for the officers in these two incidents. You've assumed that they are guilty and that has yet to be proven.

Yes, you are correct for the most part except for one thing, It was not I who pronounced innocence or guilt, If you can find one sentence in any post I made which expresses anything which was not provided in direct evidence on the OP videotapes please point it out. When you do, I will apologize and stand corrected. The only presumption of guilt was received through the court of public opinion and the media coverage. As a smart fellow once said " It would not be wise for you to put words in my mouth" I have made several statements in this thread advocating equal treatment for crimes committed from either side of the badge, and that would also include equal protection under the law. It was one of your contemporaries, I believe, that brought the term "Street Guilty" into the conversation. While I reused the term sarcastically, (if you did not "get it" ) I in no way advocate such a premise.

 

[Dr. Strangelove]

Getting back to the orginal post....

The militant attitude that is all consuming in today’s LE is scary. Police should not act like soldiers. Soldiers are trained to kill, period. They are trained to seek out an enemy and kill.

I'm glad to see others are seeing the same things I do, I'm tired of seeing the police "playing army". Black combat boots, fatigue pants, AR-15's and MP-5's? Come on now, quit playing special forces. There is no place in civilian police work for military weaponry, particularly not carried by individual officers on a daily basis. Then they wonder why they get no respect? Don't go around looking like some sort of death squad member.

Seems every little town has to have it's own "Swat" team, or whatever they want to call them. Is this really a good use of our tax dollars? I think the police need to lay off the "Die Hard" movies and focus on real police work rather than playing with their toys at the gun range. Bradenton, FL, has a "Marine Response Unit", or some such nonsense. It's fun to watch them practice their "Navy Seal" rolls out of a souped up Zodiak raft into Tampa Bay. But what do they plan to do? Assault the beach? Commando attack? Looks like just another excuse to play with big boys' toys at taxpayer expense.

Anyway, yes, I too am appalled by the recent changes in police appearance and tactics. I believe it encourages a similar ramp-up in weapons and violence by criminals. We're slowly losing or rights as citizens and becoming more of a police state every day...

 

[ilbob]

I'm glad to see others are seeing the same things I do, I'm tired of seeing the police "playing army". Black combat boots, fatigue pants, AR-15's and MP-5's? Come on now, quit playing special forces. There is no place in civilian police work for military weaponry, particularly not carried by individual officers on a daily basis.

I don't really object to combat boots. They can be quite comfortable and give nice ankle support. Its about the whole package. I think cops should wear uniforms that scream "police" and look "right". I can't tell you how to look "right" but I can give you an example of something that I thought just looked silly. I went to a funeral last year and the driver of the escort car was wearing shorts, boots, an external vest, and a black baseball cap.

I don't really have much of an issue with the weapons they are issued either, with a few caveats. Most of the time long guns are locked up in the squad car where they will not frighten anyone unless they are needed, and then a little fright is probably a good idea. I am not sure a long gun is an appropriate choice for a bicycle cop though, or a guy on a foot beat.

 

[nitetrane98]

Seems every little town has to have it's own "Swat" team, or whatever they want to call them. Is this really a good use of our tax dollars?

You may have a point there. 99% of these units are funded with federal grant money, or at least the equipment is. The desire to get to that money trough has little to do with the needs of a community. Try getting the city council to pony up for a dozen ARs/Mp5s w/Eotech's, a couple high dollar sniper rifles, night scopes, BDU's, ammo, a raid wagon/command post etc etc etc. Slim chance, BUT, if they can say "It won't cost us a thing!!!" Suddenly the the council can make the argument for improved officer safety and once a year necessity. It's hard to fault a LEA chief for doing it.

I believe it encourages a similar ramp-up in weapons and violence by criminals.

I disagree. The majority of the weapons type escalation comes from rival gangs trying to stay ahead of one another not LE. I've never heard of one gang banger say, "The popo had Model 97's and .38's so we had to get AKs, UZI's and hi cap 9's." Sounds a lot like some politicians we know who believe unilateral dis-armament will make the world a safer place.

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Lots of the Soviet style guns were cheap. SKS rifles for $89 to 99 were quite attractive to gang members.

 

[bigger hammer]

In my state I have the right to carry the weapon concealed anywhere in my car without a CCP so long as it is not on my person. It can be in any state of readiness I choose. So my statement of going to the range should not increase PC.

I'm sorry but I'm having a hard time believing your comment that you were a police officer. In the situation that I gave OF COURSE, having a gun increases the officer's PC. The suspect used a gun in his crimes and you too have a gun. It makes not the slightest bit of difference that it's legal for you to carry it or not. You were not arrested for possession of the gun but for the rape. This is police work 101.

Since I would not rape nor store panties in my truck, I would not be able to go along with your scenario...

The situation I gave is a bit like a math problem. There are certain facts "given." You don't get to argue with the "given" that "the train left Chicago at 4:00 pm traveling at 35 mph." Neither do you get to argue with the "given" that there were panties in your car or that the rape victims ID'd you.

So I am arrested for the red arrow?

Are you purposefully being obtuse now or do you really lack understanding of the situation that I gave?

Truck impounded, I now have an arrest record, a towing bill and a bond on me? And all you found was my legal pistol?

Didja miss the part where the victims ID'd you?

sucks be in my shoes now doesn't it?

Rapists should expect that there's some chance at least that they'll be caught.

All because to exercise my forth amendment rights afforded me as a law abiding citizen of these United states?

ROFL. Cute game, but silly. Of course this is not to sully your good name just to provide another side of the coin to the one you keep presenting.

 

[bigger hammer]

Earlier I wrote,

More than likely you just moved into an area with a less aggressive outlook of how to do law enforcement.

BINGO!!!!
Point of note is this area has very incredibly LOW crime rate and where the more aggressive "police work" style is conducted on the law abiding and criminals equally is rife with crime!

Yes and? Aggressive police work is how police officers drive crime rates down. You're looking at a moment in time. It doesn’t happen overnight, it takes years for the word to get out. We'll never eliminate crime, I liken it to a handful of peanut butter. Squeeze it and it does not disappear, it just moves elsewhere. When we drove crooks out of my city they moved to our neighbors. When they applied pressure they moved elsewhere still.

I want the police to aggressively pursue crime reports...

"To actively pursue crime reports?" I think you mean to "aggressively pursue criminals. lol

Not to aggressively pull folks over for stupid reasons and randomly search!

ROFLMAO. AGAIN I have to wonder where you learned to do police work since you claim 14 years of it. A street police officer finds and arrests criminals in large part by making traffic stops. Those are usually based on minor traffic violations. You like to call them "stupid reasons" but the fact is that's how MOST arrests start. It's very rare to catch a burglar or bank robber in the act of committing his crime, that only lasts for a few moments at most. But the act of driving to and from (equipped with the tools of the trade) lasts much longer and has much more exposure to street police officers. And since many, if not most crimes are committed by people under the influence of drugs and/or alcohol that gives us another "in" to the car.

The case of the elderly woman who was pulled over and the search of her car found tens of thousands of dollars (possibly 50K IIRC) that she was transporting to put a down payment on her retirement dream home... The money was seized for quite some time putting her thru heck to get it back...

Got a link Brent? I have no idea what you're referring to. And BTW what has this to do with the reason that this thread was started? Do you recall the promise from the moderator to shut it down if this turned into, as it has, another cop bashing thread? Do you even care?

 

[bigger hammer]

I wonder, if a survey were taken of different communities, where on the continuum between untimately aggressive law enforcement (pretty much a police state, as in a state of emergency) and ultimately non-aggressive law enforcement (basically call the police if you need them, otherwise they stay at the station or in their patrolcars) would the most customer/community satisfaction lie?

If you were to apply this to a ten scale, with ten being the ultimate police state, we'd have been about a seven. The other city I referred to would be a 3. The city I worked in had property values that were two to three times that of the surrounding neighborhoods. When asked why they lived there the residents answered the same way, "for the police services." I heard it hundreds of times during the years that I worked there.

It would be wonderful to live in a crime-free environment, but not if it was a virtual prison with big brother watching from every street corner and occasionally doing a bed check.

Agreed.