Reforming police, the Blue Wall of Silence

[Eggegg]

5 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

That’s not what I’m saying.  I’m saying there is cost to that.  That when police value their lives above the lives of the people they exist to protect there is a loss of trust from that public which pushes police to take more steps to protect themselves.  It is a dangerous feedback loop.  

The more police act to protect themselves from the people they exist to protect the less the public trusts police.  The less the public trusts the police the more the police act to protect themselves from the public.  

If police, who hold the power to kill with the sanction of law, do not back away from that feedback loop they will, eventually, be stripped of their power.

Ok then yes, I agree with that statement. It is a very difficult thing to achieve because its not as simple as simply stepping back and hoping that nobody stabs or shoots you. We also have to accept that the situations the police are put into are often incredibly dangerous and that being fatally wounded is an often daily occurrence. We have to accept that the people they are dealing with are no angels and often do not comply with instructions or behave in ways that make the police's job easier to perform.

The feedback loop is from both sides, and it needs both sides to step back. 

The very reason I posted here was because of what I regard as dishonest reporting and emotional over reaction which only fuels the other side of the equation and does nothing to help the situation either, and its worth highlighting that counter point before the echo chamber goes into over drive. Real abuses of power and use of extreme violence need to absolutely be controlled and highlighted, but conflating every single time a police officer restrains someone with cases where people lose their lives is dangerous and very unhelpful to the discussion.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

6 minutes ago, Eggegg said:

Ok then yes, I agree with that statement. It is a very difficult thing to achieve because its not as simple as simply stepping back and hoping that nobody stabs or shoots you. We also have to accept that the situations the police are put into are often incredibly dangerous and that being fatally wounded is an often daily occurrence. We have to accept that the people they are dealing with are no angels and often do not comply with instructions or behave in ways that make the police's job easier to perform.

The feedback loop is from both sides, and it needs both sides to step back. 

The very reason I posted here was because of what I regard as dishonest reporting and emotional over reaction which only fuels the other side of the equation and does nothing to help the situation either, and its worth highlighting that counter point before the echo chamber goes into over drive. Real abuses of power and use of extreme violence need to absolutely be controlled and highlighted, but conflating every single time a police officer restrains someone with cases where people lose their lives is dangerous and very unhelpful to the discussion.

I disagree because I see the instinct to restrain everyone (including an 11 year old child) as part of why the public is so mistrustful of police and why police are so fearful of the public.

[Eggegg]

10 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

I disagree because I see the instinct to restrain everyone (including an 11 year old child) as part of why the public is so mistrustful of police and why police are so fearful of the public.

And I guess that is where we disagree. I don't have an issue with people being calmly restrained in a non violent manner, patted down and questioned for a couple of minutes and then let go. Especially if that prevents a murderer from getting away or committing other acts of violence. 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

3 minutes ago, Eggegg said:

And I guess that is where we disagree. I don't have an issue with people being calmly restrained in a non violent manner, patted down and questioned for a couple of minutes and then let go. Especially if that prevents a murderer from getting away or committing other acts of violence. 

I do see where you are coming from even if I disagree.  My concern is that Police are losing long term trust to gain short term safety.

[Eggegg]

28 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

I do see where you are coming from even if I disagree.  My concern is that Police are losing long term trust to gain short term safety.

I mean I agree with you mostly on this, its just that we seem to have a difference of opinion on what we deem reasonable.

[ants]

8 hours ago, Eggegg said:

.......We have to accept that the people they are dealing with are no angels and often do not comply with instructions or behave in ways that make the police's job easier to perform.
.....,,,

The very reason I posted here was because of what I regard as dishonest reporting and emotional over reaction which only fuels the other side of the equation and does nothing to help the situation either, and its worth highlighting that counter point before the echo chamber goes into over drive. .....,,

I think that bolded part is some of the problem. We don’t have to accept this, it’s not always true, and police seeing their job as us vs them with them being no angels is bad. 

There is also plenty of evidence now that following police instructions isn’t simple, especially in high stress situations. 

I do think the original article was misleading. However, without a warrant I can’t see how what the police did wasn’t illegal. When the state starts trampling rights, it is totally justified to get hyperbolic. 

[BigFatCoward]

22 hours ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

I disagree because I see the instinct to restrain everyone (including an 11 year old child) as part of why the public is so mistrustful of police and why police are so fearful of the public.

You don't search someone who isn't restrained. Because if you find something they inevitably try to escape, meaning you, they, or both, are probaby going to get injured.  Whether they had grounds to search in this instance is a different conversation.

[Eggegg]

Just in terms of handcuffing with or without a warrant, I found this with a quick google:
 

Quote

The handcuffing of an arrestee is not based on rigid criteria. It is determined by the nature of each situation as perceived by the officer.” If an officer feels that placing a person in handcuffs is the best way to ensure his or her own safety, then a court would not likely find that the officer had violated the rights of the person being detained.

http://blogs.findlaw.com/blotter/2014/08/when-can-police-place-you-in-handcuffs.html

Which also includes a link to another similar case where a 6 year old was cuffed for her own safety:

http://blogs.findlaw.com/blotter/2012/04/cops-handcuff-girl-6-over-tantrum.html
Now I guess the question here is whether police officers are trustworthy enough to be allowed to decide on a case by case basis whether they need to cuff someone to protect themselves or not, and maybe your perspective on the issue would change how you view that question. I believe that is the correct action in some cases and giving officers this freedom makes a lot of sense. However that would only be the case if officers are properly trained and their decisions are rigorously scrutinised and not just automatically defended by superiors. 
 

8 hours ago, ants said:

I think that bolded part is some of the problem. We don’t have to accept this, it’s not always true, and police seeing their job as us vs them with them being no angels is bad. 

This works both ways though, certainly lots of people already have a 'them vs us' attitude to the police, and the police are reciprocal in that relationship by dealing with people abusively or unfairly. Its an endless feedback loop which is damaging. I do think its very difficult for police officers to not feel some level of 'them vs us' when dealing with criminals all day long and I'm sure it has some mental affect on them. 

 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

3 hours ago, BigFatCoward said:

You don't search someone who isn't restrained. Because if you find something they inevitably try to escape, meaning you, they, or both, are probaby going to get injured.  Whether they had grounds to search in this instance is a different conversation.

BFC,

Have you watched the video in the Daniel Shaver case?  I'm trying to figure out what the officer shouting orders at Shiver was thinking?  Is it that if Shiver is frightened enough he will not do anything that could endanger other officers?  I'm interested to get your take:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/09/us/police-shooting-video-arizona.html

[BigFatCoward]

58 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

BFC,

Have you watched the video in the Daniel Shaver case?  I'm trying to figure out what the officer shouting orders at Shiver was thinking?  Is it that if Shiver is frightened enough he will not do anything that could endanger other officers?  I'm interested to get your take:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/09/us/police-shooting-video-arizona.html

It's appaling, and incredibly upsetting. But I'm on my phone and it needs a considered response so I'll fully update later.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

11 minutes ago, BigFatCoward said:

It's appaling, and incredibly upsetting. But I'm on my phone and it needs a considered response so I'll fully update later.

It is appalling.  But I just can't wrap by brain around what they were thinking they were accomplishing.  The officer who killed Daniel Shaver was acquitted because he was acting within "reasonable standards for police".  I greatly appreciate you taking the time to give your thoughts.

[DanteGabriel]

4 hours ago, Eggegg said:

Just in terms of handcuffing with or without a warrant, I found this with a quick google:
 

http://blogs.findlaw.com/blotter/2014/08/when-can-police-place-you-in-handcuffs.html

Which also includes a link to another similar case where a 6 year old was cuffed for her own safety:

http://blogs.findlaw.com/blotter/2012/04/cops-handcuff-girl-6-over-tantrum.html
Now I guess the question here is whether police officers are trustworthy enough to be allowed to decide on a case by case basis whether they need to cuff someone to protect themselves or not, and maybe your perspective on the issue would change how you view that question. I believe that is the correct action in some cases and giving officers this freedom makes a lot of sense. However that would only be the case if officers are properly trained and their decisions are rigorously scrutinised and not just automatically defended by superiors. 
 

This works both ways though, certainly lots of people already have a 'them vs us' attitude to the police, and the police are reciprocal in that relationship by dealing with people abusively or unfairly. Its an endless feedback loop which is damaging. I do think its very difficult for police officers to not feel some level of 'them vs us' when dealing with criminals all day long and I'm sure it has some mental affect on them. 
 

I wonder why people would possibly believe the police are against them. It couldn't possibly have anything to do with well-documented racial bias in police forces or victimization of poor communities by police balancing their budgets with bullshit traffic citations.

Police created the atmosphere of fear and hate -- through bias, brutality, economic depredation, and by "good" officers failing to stand up to the abusers in their midst.

Overseer, overseer, overseer, officer.

[BigFatCoward]

@Ser Scot A Ellison So, i've watched this a few times now and my feeling is (with the caveat that i'm not and have never have been a trained firearms officer) that this cannot be justified on any policing or personal level.  

Every time i watch one of these clips (American officers doing what most right minded people would call unjustified shootings) I'm constantly amazed at how poor their ability to de-escalate incidents is, everything seems to start at 10, with no attempts to bring the situation down.   

This officer was shouting and screaming in a way that made it clear to me that he wasn't in control of himself, he wasn't given coherent instructions and was clearly psyching himself up to the point where any glitch by the alleged suspect was going to get him shot.  

Again, i've never been firearms trained, but i have worked in 2 of the shittest parts of London, and i've never even had to get out my ASP or CS spray in 17 years,  possibly because of the gun culture firearms seem to be seen as the panacea for all conflict situations, rather than a last resort. I'd be interested to know if there are any figures on the sort of people that join the police and how pro firearms they were before they joined.

If i'd been on that jury, even though we do tend to stick together to a certain extent, there is no way i'm not giving a guilty verdict.  

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

21 minutes ago, BigFatCoward said:

@Ser Scot A Ellison So, i've watched this a few times now and my feeling is (with the caveat that i'm not and have never have been a trained firearms officer) that this cannot be justified on any policing or personal level.  

Every time i watch one of these clips (American officers doing what most right minded people would call unjustified shootings) I'm constantly amazed at how poor their ability to de-escalate incidents is, everything seems to start at 10, with no attempts to bring the situation down.   

This officer was shouting and screaming in a way that made it clear to me that he wasn't in control of himself, he wasn't given coherent instructions and was clearly psyching himself up to the point where any glitch by the alleged suspect was going to get him shot.  

Again, i've never been firearms trained, but i have worked in 2 of the shittest parts of London, and i've never even had to get out my ASP or CS spray in 17 years,  possibly because of the gun culture firearms seem to be seen as the panacea for all conflict situations, rather than a last resort. I'd be interested to know if there are any figures on the sort of people that join the police and how pro firearms they were before they joined.

If i'd been on that jury, even though we do tend to stick together to a certain extent, there is no way i'm not giving a guilty verdict.  

Yeah.  The officer seemed to want Shaver to be terrified as though that would help him control the situation.  If they are trained to keep people terrified that is a huge problem with their training.  

[Centrist Simon Steele]

We've said it before here, but it is absolutely crazy that armed professional officers do not have to display even the slightest bit of self-control or restraint if they don't want to. Our culture is so terrified of everything that our police reflect us. America's red-faced, roided out police force is its out of control id consuming everything.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

8 hours ago, BigFatCoward said:

Again, i've never been firearms trained, but i have worked in 2 of the shittest parts of London, and i've never even had to get out my ASP or CS spray in 17 years,  possibly because of the gun culture firearms seem to be seen as the panacea for all conflict situations, rather than a last resort. I'd be interested to know if there are any figures on the sort of people that join the police and how pro firearms they were before they joined.

I agree with everything I snipped, but I just wanted to address this point. Policing has changed a lot over the last 50 years, and for the worse. Police officers used to take pride in rarely or never having to fire their gun at a citizen. Nowadays, pulling out your gun seems to be the first course of action in way too many instances where a gun is never needed. I wonder what changed that? Personally I think one big factor is police departments heavily recruiting veterans. I don’t want to sound anti-veteran, but often times I believe it can be difficult to unlearn the training they received on how to behave in hostile areas.

[Bonnot OG]

13 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

I agree with everything I snipped, but I just wanted to address this point. Policing has changed a lot over the last 50 years, and for the worse. Police officers used to take pride in rarely or never having to fire their gun at a citizen. Nowadays, pulling out your gun seems to be the first course of action in way too many instances where a gun is never needed. I wonder what changed that? Personally I think one big factor is police departments heavily recruiting veterans. I don’t want to sound anti-veteran, but often times I believe it can be difficult to unlearn the training they received on how to behave in hostile areas.

Policing has been the same for people of color, it's just exposed more now. The only difference between then and now is the cops have been militarized. 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

24 minutes ago, Sword of Doom said:

Policing has been the same for people of color, it's just exposed more now. The only difference between then and now is the cops have been militarized. 

Those are both correct statements, but it doesn't completely address the shift in mindsets. It happened before the militarization of our police forces.

[Liffguard]

58 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

 I don’t want to sound anti-veteran, but often times I believe it can be difficult to unlearn the training they received on how to behave in hostile areas.

I don't necessarily disagree with your broader point, but the disturbing thing about so many of these US police shooting videos is that they're displaying considerably less restraint than would be expected of soldiers in similar situations (or at least of UK soldiers, where my experience lies). Occupying soldiers would be expected to understand that you need to keep the civilian population on your side. There was an operational doctrine called "courageous restraint" which was specifically about accepting a certain amount of risk to personal safety in order to increase long-term safety by getting people to trust you. It should be troubling when soldiers in a warzone display greater calmness and control than civilian police amongst their fellow citizens.

Take the Shaver incident, if he was taken as a detainee during military clearance drills he'd probably be alive. Once he was on the floor with arms out and legs crossed he'd be told not to move. One soldier would cover, the other would search him. Once cleared by a search he'd be restrained and taken to a holding area. Commands would be loud and assertive yes, but also clear, calm and simple. There would be no need at all to make him crawl, no need to shout multiple instructions. Either Sgt Langley was actively looking for a reason for he or his colleague to shoot, or he lacks the temperament to be trusted with a weapon.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

48 minutes ago, Liffguard said:

I don't necessarily disagree with your broader point, but the disturbing thing about so many of these US police shooting videos is that they're displaying considerably less restraint than would be expected of soldiers in similar situations (or at least of UK soldiers, where my experience lies). Occupying soldiers would be expected to understand that you need to keep the civilian population on your side. There was an operational doctrine called "courageous restraint" which was specifically about accepting a certain amount of risk to personal safety in order to increase long-term safety by getting people to trust you. It should be troubling when soldiers in a warzone display greater calmness and control than civilian police amongst their fellow citizens.

Take the Shaver incident, if he was taken as a detainee during military clearance drills he'd probably be alive. Once he was on the floor with arms out and legs crossed he'd be told not to move. One soldier would cover, the other would search him. Once cleared by a search he'd be restrained and taken to a holding area. Commands would be loud and assertive yes, but also clear, calm and simple. There would be no need at all to make him crawl, no need to shout multiple instructions. Either Sgt Langley was actively looking for a reason for he or his colleague to shoot, or he lacks the temperament to be trusted with a weapon.

Exactly.  I’ve seen a fair number of veterans criticize police saying they are doing things soldiers would be court martialed for.