Well watch it again, he clearly stands and either tries to walk past or away from the cop.
Sigh, really didn't want to watch that again but I did. Yes, AFTER the cop escalated the situation with forceful yelling and "boy" this and "boy" that, the citizen then did stand up, turned his back on the officer, and took one step away THEN the officer proceeded to grab him by the neck with more "boy" talk.
Here is the issue I have and I don't know how else to make this point with you,. I am former military, I do have training on killing people and breaking things. I also have martial arts experience. This argument you tend to do in these situations is a binary argument. It is all about "Well, he didn't follow the order or he tried to "flee" thus the officer is correct in his use of force regardless of the magnitude of force used for the situation..."
This is just not accurate. You don't break out a sledgehammer to kill a mosquito. There is an appropriate use of force for every situation. And I feel you hide behind gotcha games and binary decision making instead of being a human being using a brain for the situation. WHen there is no difference between the way a drunk frat boy would handle a situation and a way a trained professional is supposed to handle a situation that should give you pause.
He isn't grabbed while sitting. You're wrong.
Yes, I was wrong. He stood up and in one motion over the course of 1 second he turned his back on the officer who was yelling at him and escalating the conflict. Fear makes people do all sorts of things, and one thing fear does is make you fight or flight which is what he did. Again, I feel law enforcement types and you in arguments like these discount what fear does or how human beings react. Had the officer kept his cool I would argue the citizen would not have tried to "flee" as you call it. The citizen is sitting on the ground "calmly" arguing his point and it was the OFFICER who escalated the situation because of ego and anger. "How dare you argue with me boy" type thinking.
In the military we had a phrase "Service Before Self" and I wish police embodied this more. TO be fair, a lot do. A lot understand that citizens can be panicky scared emotional animals and thus a lot of police are professional in the way a kindergarten teacher is professional and understanding with unruly children.
But then there are some cops who are not. They get angry and then they bust into violence and the law unfortunately backs bad judgement as you are doing. Essentially you argument is "Well, he handled the situation really really badly and used horrible judgement, most officers would NOT have done it this way but despite how horrifically bad he handled the situation he is still in the right..."
I disagree.
You don't have authority to enforce the law.
Yes I do. Given the right situation, I have authority to enforce the law. But I wont' contrive a hypothetical situation, that wasn't my point. I will concede that barring some extraordinary fantasy situation, I do not have the authority to take a child from someone or enforce the law.
But that wasn't my point. My point was about basic human dignity. I feel that there is a breed of cop that believes that you can't enforce the law without being a cold blooded unyielding robot.
Yes, there is a time for escalation, yes there is a time for violence, yes there is a time for use of force. My argument is that this situation was not it. At least not yet. It very well could have been but it was not quite there yet and if anything the cop forced it there way faster than it needed to be.
Well that's a easy way to get shot. Remember, a cop isn't obliged to fight fair...if you use fists, he's probably allowed to beat you with a baton. If you manage to get the baton off him, you're now holding a weapon and he can shoot you.
I want to do a bit of a deep dive here to show you why this mentality is wrong on so many levels.
How much paperwork is involved when a cop has a serious altercation with a citizen in which the citizen and or cop and or bystanders are hurt or killed? How many manhours and money is involved every time a dust up occurs. For a second, lets look beyond the cop being right or wrong, lets look at some cold hard facts and numbers.
I assume law enforcement professionals have to submit detailed reports when use of force occurs. Then I assume some review board has to look at those reports. In the case of serious injury or death I assume that the cop is then placed on leave and then has to see a shrink to be cleared while his actions are reviewed by some panel. In the case of the officer being hurt or killed (remember this is a two way street) then that is the cop being laid up in the hospital with his wife and kids sick with worry or worse, they get presented a flag at his funeral.
Then lets factor in lawsuits. Assuming the cop is innocent, how much money does the city spend defending him. Even in the case of innocence there are plenty of instances where the city will settle just to get it over with and avoid trial. Assuming the cop is guilty, you have an exponential increase in the cost.
Now lets back up and look at the situation from two perspectives:
Situation A) You have a calm, cool, and professional officer who handles the citizen in the manner befitting a Kindergarten teacher dealing with an unruly student-- as long as the situation does not turn violent. This cop's attitude is that "everyone" goes home tonight safe as long as the situation doesn't escalate. He is focused on preventing escalation but if the situation does escalate he will use violence if necessary. Applying it to this case, he takes an extra 2 minutes to calmly answer the citizens questions in the manner that I outlined in the other post with my hypothetical script. Because of his handling of the situation the citizen does not feel the "flight or fight" response, does not feel compelled to get up and flee, gets his ID and hands it to the officer. All this took was 2 minutes.
Situation B) You have a ego maniac "do what I say or else" cop. He gives an order, the citizen refuses, he starts yelling and fills the air with violence, the citizen "reacts" to his escalation by doing what scared people do, the cop then grabs him by the throat while the citizen is holding a baby (yes I saw it again, when he grabbed the guy he still was holding the baby). Now the situation is in the local news and youtube. Now the citizenry is upset at the abhorrent action of this cop (regardless if legal or not). Now there are review boards and paper work and the "threat" of legal action being taken, the city looking bad, the negativity of this incident affecting how the local populace regards "all" cops. And for what? Because he didn't want to take 2 minutes to be a professional.
The math does not support your argument. If you do a reasonable account from two perspectives, yours loses. Now, I'm not saying cops should sit on their hands and do nothing. No. I'm saying cops should be professionals and I'm saying that you need to stop with all the Binary "all or nothing" arguments as if the "only" way cops can enforce the law is with their fingers on the trigger and their hands wrapped around a baton ready to bash some skulls if they aren't instantly obeyed. In that case, what is the difference between a trained professional and a drunk frat boy with a chip on his shoulder?
Also, probably worth pointing out that should you start winning the fight and he's exhausted or in danger of being knocked out....he can kill you for that too.
It's also worth point out that there are many of us citizens with martial arts training that can kill a cop if we are within arms reach. I'm not trying to be an internet tough guy, you have made the point many times that a lot of cops have no martial arts training beyond a few weeks of "Grab my arm" training at the Academy they hand when they joined years ago...
If I am in arms reach of an officer, I give my odds of overpowering him and taking his gun about 80%. If I am armed with a concealed weapon, I give my odds of outdrawing the officer 80% (simply because I have the initiative and advantage-- that is, the officer doesn't know I'm armed and I can pretend to be friendly and use a distraction THEN draw). If the officer has a partner than I cut my odds in the first scenario to 10% to 40% (depending on the partner's position) and the second scenario to 40%
Now, from a math standpoint, the above are horrible odds and should dissuade cops from "needless" escalation. I will readily admit, there are situations in which escalation is called for.
But I know you've seen body cam videos of cops overpowered. I've seen them and a lot of cops have this super hero mentality that the badge and gun makes them invincible. It does not. And it is in the cops best interest to be professional.
Professionalism also serves another function, professionalism leads to more accurate and better threat assessment. If you are professional and are calmly interacting with the citizen then you will be more accurate when/if the citizen tends towards a violent response.
However, if you are some angry yelling screaming frat boy of a cop, then you have no idea if the citizen is reacting to your escalation or if the citizen has earnest ill intent.
Cops aren't there to ask you nicely and give you options to choose from. They are the first step in enforcing laws. They can't do that without authority to tell you what to do.
You seem to equate authority with using violence the instant you don't get obedience.
No.
You can enforce the law without being a hair trigger of violence.
2 minutes of calm cool and professional behavior should beat dozen of man hours of paperwork and/or defense from a lawsuit. Not to mention that it costs $500 a day of tax payer money to house a prisoner in county (when you include all the overhead)?
How is the cop supposed to be able to figure out who....if anyone...is committing a crime if everyone can just walk away from them whenever they feel like it?
that is not my argument., It is never my argument no matter how much you want it to be.
My argument is for PROPORTIONAL use of force. My argument is ALWAYS FOR PROPORTIONAL USE OF FORCE. I'm very consistent on this argument but you keep trying to make my argument something it is not.
I'm on record supporting plenty of police shootings and police use of force when it was warranted. And I'm sorry, grabbing a man who is holding a baby by the throat is not the correct application of force. Grab him by the arm not holding the baby. Simple, easy, humane, decent, understandable.
If you really want to throw a cop off, be polite, respectful, and do as they ask.
You have two people in this scenario.
One is supposed to be a trained professional
One is not.
Why do you keep putting the burden on the untrained person?
Yes, citizens should be professional, yes citizens should be helpful. But fear, anger, frustration, etc can make untrained people do stupid things. And I submit, as the trained professional who supposedly took an oath to support and defend the Constitution and protect and serve the citizenry that the burden of making this a safe confrontation falls on you.
Here is the problem I have with your argument. There are legitimate reasons for why a citizen does not comply with a cop's legal order, take Diabetic Coma. A man was slumped over in his truck, and in a drunken slur. He posed no threat to law enforcement whatsoever. They ordered him out of the car, he was non-compliant and slurring. He was 100% not combative and no threat whatsoever. But he had the "audacity" to not obey a legal order. So they broke his window, drug him out of the car, beat him to within an inch of his life.
At no time was he combative... turns out he was in a diabetic coma. And the cops have your attitude of "Well, he didn't obey instruction so what else could we do?" Really? Seriously?
Break his window, drag him out, that is fine... but then when he is NOT combative, stop. Notice, "hey, this guy hasn't lifted one finger the entire altercation, he is no threat to us, so lets just cuff him..."
This is what I mean by escalation. Sometimes escalation is needed, ok, fine. But that does not mean you go all the way and turn off your powers of observation. All escalations should be in phases and they should stop the instant no more escalation is required.
And if the guy yanks his arm away or swings his arm at the cop's? What then?
FINALLY, yes we are getting somewhere. To answer your question, THEN YOU ESCALATE.
Cross that bridge when you come to it. He is NO THREAT to the officer, he has a baby in one hand, empty hand in the other, and his demeanor is clearly non threatening. Grab him by the arm, then reassess. If he yanks his arm away, THEN grab him again. If you are unable to stop him from fleeing with these actions THEN escalate but in a manner that protects the innocent baby in his arms-- you know, because an innocent citizen is worth more than your ego.
Again, I don't oppose escalation I oppose NEEDLESS ESCALATION. Especially when there are better ways to handle a situation.
What part of the Constitution says you get to disobey cops?
1st amendment Freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly, and petition.
4th amendment Freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures.
5th amendment Right to due process of law, freedom from self-incrimination, double jeopardy.
depending on circumstances.
I understand that your upbringing may have influenced your opinion on this....I totally understand that. Do you think it's unique to you? Or do you think it's more typical of those who grew up in your situation?
I feel my upbringing gives me the correct perspective on this. I understand both sides whether you think I do or not. As former military, I understand tactics and combat and being in dangerous situations. I also understand a commitment to the Constitution and Oath of Office. I understand the responsibilities of being in a situation where I have near unlimited power and being given the authority by the State to kill people and break things (following Rules of Engagement of course).
Police need to be the bigger person in these sorts of conflicts. They need to leave their ego at the door and understand they are dealing with scared, angry, confused, and emotional citizens. Police need to understand that a wrong decision by them can seriously damage the life and well being of the citizen they are interacting with. Yes, police have their lives on the line, but that is no excuse to disregard your Oath of Office or the Constitution or to deal with situations with contempt and disrespect for the citizenry. Tax paying law abiding citizens need to be viewed as assets and not liabilities. Every time a police officer locks up a tax paying citizen it hurts the country. The default of police officers should be to avoid this at all reasonable costs. And being "reasonable" should include taking a whole 2 minutes out of your day to explain a situation to a scared, angry, emotional, citizen instead of having the attitude "Do what I say or else!"
If things need to escalate, fine. But that escalation should be a last resort and it should be taken one step at a time.
