Study: 50,000 treated at ER for police-inflicted injuries every year

[Ana the Ist]

This philosophy is anathema to liberty and freedom.

You trade some aspects of liberty and freedom for security. If we lived in a state of total freedom and liberty, we'd have anarchy.

If a police officer comes up to you and says, "Give me all your money right now" is it your contention that we give that officer all of our money and then later fight it in court?

Yes.

The problem we have today in regards to citizens vs the law vs law enforcement is that the "law" is purposefully complicated to the point that everything is illegal. This enables the State to negate the liberty and freedom of the citizenry by giving State officials so-called "legal means" to oppress the citizenry.

I don't think that's really the situation.

Your claim about the system failing is not true. Australia, Britain, South Korea, and a lot of other Western and European countries have no problem with citizens asserting their rights.

You think that if you got pulled over in the U.K....and the cop came up to your window and said, "I pulled you over for speeding."....you could just say "I wasn't speeding! You're wrong!" And then drive away?

Those nations have the exact same kinds of problems we do

It is only in America where law enforcement feels that draconian measures are 100% appropriate for ANY infraction regardless of the severity of said infraction.

I think you're using the term "draconian" wrong.

Look. I'm not advocating that police officials be powerless in enforcing the law.

That's basically what you're advocating.

no. What I am advocating is a sense of proportionality and that basic human rights be respected at all times unless the citizenry puts law enforcement in harms way.

I'm tired of watching citizens being deprived of life and liberty over minor misdemeanor non-violent infractions. And the attitude that "Well, those draconian measures are necessary to have a safe society" is just flat out not true.

I'm also tired of Law Enforcement feeling no need to respect the Constitution and the whole attitude "Well, sort it out later in court" is an attitude that is anathema to freedom and liberty.

Another solution is that we basically just accept that we are not living in a free society and instead are living in a police state. That is what you advocate. If your rights and liberties "only" apply in court, then you do not live in a free society. You live in a society in which you need money to have liberty because court is prohibitively expensive for the average citizen.

Explain how it would work then...

Cop pulls over person.
Cop says "You were speeding 10 miles over the limit."
Person says "No, I wasn't. I had cruise control set to the speed limit."
Cop says "My radar shows you speeding"

How do we resolve this issue without forcing the man into court? In fact, how can we possibly prosecute any crime without forcing people into a court?

Please describe how this brilliant system of yours would ever work in reality.

 

[rambot]

I'd also like to know how many of those people were also treated for particular drugs.

Your claim about the system failing is not true. Australia, Britain, South Korea, and a lot of other Western and European countries have no problem with citizens asserting their rights. It is only in America where law enforcement feels that draconian measures are 100% appropriate for ANY infraction regardless of the severity of said infraction.

[my emphasis]. Oooooo.... this is specious. Having lived in SK, I REALLY wouldn't want to compare their policing to Western policing. Sooo much of it is totally ineffectual. As so many street police are just young men fulfilling a national requirement of service (and due to the nature of the cultural relationship between youth/young and elders), police actually take a lot of full on abuse and often "barely bother" getting involved in conflict, let alone calling older people on their law breaking when it happens.

I have no problem with citizens asserting their rights. I think it's important to not conflate being a disrespectful, ignorant jerks, with "asserting their rights". And while I'm certainly NOT saying that nobody does it respectfully, I'm not going to put all those people into the same group. If you are going to be rude and disrespectful to a police officer, you are an idiot who is openning the door to trouble and inconvinience.

Might I posit that Americans have a greater tendency to, when confronted by an authority, get their back up and cause extra conflict. Everyone blames police, and they SHOULD have de-escalation skills for sure, but I wonder about the citizenry's responsibility in acting with some measure of civility.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Given that their profession involves apprehending people who don't want to be apprehended, this number isn't unreasonable.

Also, there are a substantial number of people who fake injuries or symptoms merely because the ER is a more friendly accommodation than a night in the tank. I have a couple of friends who are police officers in Cuyahoga county...they said it's not at all uncommon for a person with minor scrapes after a scuffle with police to start making claims of dizziness, headaches, etc... because, by law, they have to be evaluated by a medical team instead of going straight to jail.

My one friend was telling me that it's actually not all that uncommon to start making those claims even without a physical confrontation... he's had one or two people start spouting off symptoms after getting arrested for a DUI merely so they can go to a hospital instead of a jail cell.

 

[dgiharris]

Explain how it would work then...

Cop pulls over person.
Cop says "You were speeding 10 miles over the limit."
Person says "No, I wasn't. I had cruise control set to the speed limit."
Cop says "My radar shows you speeding"

How do we resolve this issue without forcing the man into court? In fact, how can we possibly prosecute any crime without forcing people into a court?

Please describe how this brilliant system of yours would ever work in reality.

I originally wrote a long example, but I think the differences between our arguments are the following.

We have some common ground, I believe that court should be used to resolve any problems we have with law enforcement. I absolutely agree with that.

However, what you are truly arguing is that a citizen ONLY has rights in court. That the courts are the only place where his or her Constitutional rights apply and that at any time a police officer can violate a citizens' rights and that a citizen must 100% comply with ANY request an officer makes regardless if that request is legal or not.

Your argument is firmly rooted in this belief that the "only" way we can have a peaceful and secure society is if law enforcement has 100% power to do anything they want regardless of right and wrong or Constitutionality and that the only place to oppose said officer is in court. An extension of your argument is that police must be granted license to use extreme force to enforce "ANY" law regardless of how trivial that law is because if not then society descends into anarchy.

I disagree. I believe that our society has an innate sense of fairness and proportionality. I believe that we as a society are inherently peaceful and secure 98% of the time and that police officers are only needed 2% of the time or less. This is supported by math (think of how many interactions you have per with other citizens without police present or the number of times in your life you needed police officers).
Now, since we live in a land that is suppose to care about liberty and freedom, it is my argument that a citizen should NEVER be deprived of either for trivial non-violent offenses and that an officer has no right or justification to hurt or kill citizens over trivial non-violent offenses. This is what court if for, to sort out that difference.

The difference between our arguments are: You believe court is the only place where your rights apply and I do not. I believe our rights should apply everywhere including court and that only in specialized circumstances can/should an officer have the authority to deprive you of your rights, especially your right to life and liberty (i.e. officer should not beat you over trivial misdemeanor offenses).

I have to be honest. I can't believe I actually have to argue this point.

I just went to the store to buy soda. The reason I didn't shoot the clerk and take the soda is not because I fear police, but because I'm a decent human being. Your view that our society needs the iron fist of the law to keep us all in line is a logical fallacy. Sure, we are not all perfect and sure crimes happen, but no where near the extent that we need to live under the iron fist of law enforcement and must do what they say no matter what.

Yes, we must sacrifice some liberty for security, but it is my argument that we are no where near the point of that to warrant the way Citizens in this country are treated by police or how the police is protected by the system...

 

[Ana the Ist]

I originally wrote a long example, but I think the differences between our arguments are the following.

We have some common ground, I believe that court should be used to resolve any problems we have with law enforcement. I absolutely agree with that.

However, what you are truly arguing is that a citizen ONLY has rights in court. That the courts are the only place where his or her Constitutional rights apply and that at any time a police officer can violate a citizens' rights and that a citizen must 100% comply with ANY request an officer makes regardless if that request is legal or not.

Your argument is firmly rooted in this belief that the "only" way we can have a peaceful and secure society is if law enforcement has 100% power to do anything they want regardless of right and wrong or Constitutionality and that the only place to oppose said officer is in court. An extension of your argument is that police must be granted license to use extreme force to enforce "ANY" law regardless of how trivial that law is because if not then society descends into anarchy.

That's not the difference between our arguments...I'm sure you think it is, but it isn't. Please pay very close attention to my next sentence...

The difference between our arguments is that yours doesn't work in reality.

I believe people do and should have rights everywhere...not just in court. What I am saying, is that if they've been deprived of their rights in some way...they should only be allowed to settle it in court. There are a few exceptions which depend upon immediacy...like being assaulted or attacked or robbed...I believe that people have the right to defend themselves.

That's about it though...if a cop says you broke a law and gives you a ticket to appear in court...then you appear in court. You don't get to decide for yourself whether or not he's right...and this is the really important part...because he's human and he might be wrong! Who would've thought that? Human beings might make mistakes!

I understand that court is costly, that defending yourself can go wrong, that the poor have it tougher...I get all that. Let's keep things in perspective though...it could be, and is, far far worse for most people of this world. I'm not saying that we can't do better...but I can't even imagine a workable system where people get to decide for themselves whether or not they broke the law. It hasn't ever worked...and conceivably won't ever work. That means that even if the cop is in the wrong...and you haven't broken a law...the time to fight it isn't in the street with the cop. I've seen plenty of judges dismiss charges that were "technically correct" but just plain stupid....and fighting a cop isn't going to win you any points with them.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I disagree. I believe that our society has an innate sense of fairness and proportionality. I believe that we as a society are inherently peaceful and secure 98% of the time and that police officers are only needed 2% of the time or less. This is supported by math (think of how many interactions you have per with other citizens without police present or the number of times in your life you needed police officers).

This is utterly bizarre. It's an almost magically optimistic view of reality. You need only to look at places and times in history where law enforcement was weak and ineffectual and it's nightmarish what people do to each other. Even if you only looked at the beginnings of almost every major crime organization...you'll see a common pattern. No...humanity is only as kind and helpful as it's required to be.

Now, since we live in a land that is suppose to care about liberty and freedom, it is my argument that a citizen should NEVER be deprived of either for trivial non-violent offenses and that an officer has no right or justification to hurt or kill citizens over trivial non-violent offenses. This is what court if for, to sort out that difference.

And if a citizen refuses to appear in court for a minor offense? What then? Shall we drag them off in chains....or just let it slide?

The difference between our arguments are: You believe court is the only place where your rights apply and I do not. I believe our rights should apply everywhere including court and that only in specialized circumstances can/should an officer have the authority to deprive you of your rights, especially your right to life and liberty (i.e. officer should not beat you over trivial misdemeanor offenses).

See above.

I have to be honest. I can't believe I actually have to argue this point.

I just went to the store to buy soda. The reason I didn't shoot the clerk and take the soda is not because I fear police, but because I'm a decent human being. Your view that our society needs the iron fist of the law to keep us all in line is a logical fallacy. Sure, we are not all perfect and sure crimes happen, but no where near the extent that we need to live under the iron fist of law enforcement and must do what they say no matter what.

There never has been...to my knowledge...a society that existed without any kind of law enforcement.

Yes, we must sacrifice some liberty for security, but it is my argument that we are no where near the point of that to warrant the way Citizens in this country are treated by police or how the police is protected by the system...

Ever watch that "Live PD" show? Give it about five hours and you might change your mind. It's a non-stop parade of the scum that infests our society. I remember seeing in just one hour...

Half a house burning down because of a homeless man who started a fire to keep warm.
A woman driving without a license, on meth, on probation for meth, with five kids.
A man, masturbating in his vehicle while waiting for a crackhead prostitute to arrive (his words...the prostitute never showed).
About five relatively young adults arrested for various vehicle theft charges.

In none of these examples was any force really used (I mean any...guns were drawn on the car thieves, and they were extracted carefully, but not one person even "roughed up") and this was a relatively mild hour for the show. I haven't really watched much of it...but it gives a much clearer picture of police work than any YouTube video or news article. If your view of police is that they're "excessive" and we live in a "police state" you may need to change the media you're consuming.

 

[rambot]

I originally wrote a long example, but I think the differences between our arguments are the following.

We have some common ground, I believe that court should be used to resolve any problems we have with law enforcement. I absolutely agree with that.

However, what you are truly arguing is that a citizen ONLY has rights in court. That the courts are the only place where his or her Constitutional rights apply and that at any time a police officer can violate a citizens' rights and that a citizen must 100% comply with ANY request an officer makes regardless if that request is legal or not.

Your argument is firmly rooted in this belief that the "only" way we can have a peaceful and secure society is if law enforcement has 100% power to do anything they want regardless of right and wrong or Constitutionality and that the only place to oppose said officer is in court. An extension of your argument is that police must be granted license to use extreme force to enforce "ANY" law regardless of how trivial that law is because if not then society descends into anarchy..

In every society there is a balance of rights and responsibilities.

For some reason though, nobody EVER talks and drones on about responsibilities (even in this thread, EVERYONE is talking about rights).

So if I can ask: What responsibilities do private citizens have in regards to how they interact with the police? If the private citizen does not fulfil their responsibilities what are the cops able to do?

Are there (or should their be) underwritten rules about social interactions as well that could be considered responsibilities?

 

[dgiharris]

That's not the difference between our arguments...I'm sure you think it is, but it isn't. Please pay very close attention to my next sentence...

The difference between our arguments is that yours doesn't work in reality.

I believe people do and should have rights everywhere...not just in court. What I am saying, is that if they've been deprived of their rights in some way...they should only be allowed to settle it in court. There are a few exceptions which depend upon immediacy...like being assaulted or attacked or robbed...I believe that people have the right to defend themselves.

That's about it though...if a cop says you broke a law and gives you a ticket to appear in court...then you appear in court. You don't get to decide for yourself whether or not he's right...and this is the really important part...because he's human and he might be wrong! Who would've thought that? Human beings might make mistakes!

I understand that court is costly, that defending yourself can go wrong, that the poor have it tougher...I get all that. Let's keep things in perspective though...it could be, and is, far far worse for most people of this world. I'm not saying that we can't do better...but I can't even imagine a workable system where people get to decide for themselves whether or not they broke the law. It hasn't ever worked...and conceivably won't ever work. That means that even if the cop is in the wrong...and you haven't broken a law...the time to fight it isn't in the street with the cop. I've seen plenty of judges dismiss charges that were "technically correct" but just plain stupid....and fighting a cop isn't going to win you any points with them.

I more or less agree with this post. I have a dispute with a cop for a minor infraction, I think I'm right, the cop thinks he's right. He should absolutely write me a ticket and we should absolutely fight it out in court.

100% agreement there.

Where I disagree are instances where INSTEAD of writing the ticket, the cop decides to physically arrest you and then "if" you resist in even the slightest (i.e. you pull your arm back and say, "Wait what are you doing") said cop then beats you to within an inch of your life and arrests you for "obstruction of justice" or "resisting arrest" or whatever other trumped up charge they fling at you which in no way shape or form resembles the initial argument you had with the cop about "whatever".

So my argument works well in reality as demonstrated all the time by cops that respect their oath of office and care about the Constitution. 95% of cops are reasonable human beings.

THe problem is that 2% or so of cops that are garbage and abuse their power and then the other so-called good cops sit back and allow it or worse "protect" that garbage cop and stand behind them.

So to be clear, I agree with everything you wrote in the post I'm quoting.

Hopefully you better understand my argument.

 

[dgiharris]

This is utterly bizarre. It's an almost magically optimistic view of reality. You need only to look at places and times in history where law enforcement was weak and ineffectual and it's nightmarish what people do to each other. Even if you only looked at the beginnings of almost every major crime organization...you'll see a common pattern. No...humanity is only as kind and helpful as it's required to be..

I believe we have a disconnect here. I'm not arguing for anarchy. I am also not arguing for powerless law enforcement. I keep trying to be clear in my language. I keep repeating "non violent trivial misdemeanors..." and you keep interpreting that to mean "No law enforcement whatsoever".

In the context of any violent or felony crime, I more or less side with the way current police procedures work. I'm not sure if you will read that sentence and it will stick in your head. I am not arguing for powerless police, no I'm arguing for proportionality.

And if a citizen refuses to appear in court for a minor offense? What then? Shall we drag them off in chains....or just let it slide?.

We already have existing means and remedies for when this happens. If you fail to appear in court, then you lose the case. Then, the court can put a lien against your bank account or property etc. You face a $500 fine, you fail to appear in court, then you get served a penalty and another court date. You fail to appear the next time, then you lose the case, and you pay the $500 plus whatever penalty (lets say court costs so another $500). Then, your bank account is docked or your pay is docked or "whatever" means the state needs to use to recoup costs.

This is reasonable and non violent. No need to hurt or kill the citizenry with physical violence. Notice my theme yet?

There never has been...to my knowledge...a society that existed without any kind of law enforcement..

Please stop turning my argument into what it is not.

I guess in your mind, law enforcement is just synonymous with physical force. The idea of enforcing the law without violence I guess just isn't possible in your brain.

For the billionth time. Law enforcement can and should use force to enforce the law whenever the following conditions are met: Citizenry (public) is in danger, police are in danger, suspect is using violence, felony crime is in progress, violence will protect the suspect and or public better than non-violence, etc.

So I'm fine with law enforcement using violence when it is warranted. What I am NOT fine with is using violence for trivial non-violent misdemeanors. That is what tickets are for.

Ever watch that "Live PD" show? Give it about five hours and you might change your mind. It's a non-stop parade of the scum that infests our society. I remember seeing in just one hour...

Half a house burning down because of a homeless man who started a fire to keep warm.
A woman driving without a license, on meth, on probation for meth, with five kids.
A man, masturbating in his vehicle while waiting for a crackhead prostitute to arrive (his words...the prostitute never showed).
About five relatively young adults arrested for various vehicle theft charges.

In none of these examples was any force really used (I mean any...guns were drawn on the car thieves, and they were extracted carefully, but not one person even "roughed up") and this was a relatively mild hour for the show. I haven't really watched much of it...but it gives a much clearer picture of police work than any YouTube video or news article. If your view of police is that they're "excessive" and we live in a "police state" you may need to change the media you're consuming.

In all of your examples, I'm fine with police using violence if warranted because none of those examples were trivial non-violent misdemeanors...

I really don't know how many times I have to type "trivial non-violent misdemeanors". Similarly, I am not against law enforcement... Basically, you just don't understand my argument in the least and you keep interpreting my argument to mean I don't want any law enforcement whatsoever.

 

[dgiharris]

In every society there is a balance of rights and responsibilities.

For some reason though, nobody EVER talks and drones on about responsibilities (even in this thread, EVERYONE is talking about rights).

So if I can ask: What responsibilities do private citizens have in regards to how they interact with the police? If the private citizen does not fulfil their responsibilities what are the cops able to do?

Are there (or should their be) underwritten rules about social interactions as well that could be considered responsibilities?

I would argue that in a Western Society, the populace as a whole considers themselves moral and enlightened. ANd thus we demand that our State and Government (to include government officials) likewise be moral and enlightened.

Similarly, the "State" has power over the citizenry and I argue that with that power comes responsibility and burden. THe amount of burden and responsibility of a citizen is NOT equal to the amount of burden that the State has in meeting its obligation to the citizenry.

So back to your question. What responsibility does a citizen have in dealing with Government or police officials? My answer? Very little. The citizen's responsibility is in direct relation to the power he abdicates to the government or police. Since we live in a society in which police have near unlimited power to commit violence against the citizenry, then from a mathematical and logical perspective this means the State and police must also take on a corresponding amount of Burden.

If I could use an analogy? When you see a doctor are you required to have as much medical knowledge as him? He went to school and residency for 12 years for medicine and you did not...

I'd argue a similar thing with government and police officials. As a citizen, I should not have to be a lawyer with years of legal experience in order for my rights to apply to me. I should not even have to be a nice person. All I have to be is a non-violent tax paying citizen whose actions are not causing imminent danger to the police or public. Period. that is a citizen's responsibility. Be a non-violent tax paying citizen.

now, if we allow the citizenry the power to commit violence against the police in the same manner that police can commit violence against the citizenry, then that burden and hence responsibility becomes equal. But we do not and thus it is not.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I more or less agree with this post. I have a dispute with a cop for a minor infraction, I think I'm right, the cop thinks he's right. He should absolutely write me a ticket and we should absolutely fight it out in court.

100% agreement there.

Where I disagree are instances where INSTEAD of writing the ticket, the cop decides to physically arrest you and then "if" you resist in even the slightest (i.e. you pull your arm back and say, "Wait what are you doing") said cop then beats you to within an inch of your life and arrests you for "obstruction of justice" or "resisting arrest" or whatever other trumped up charge they fling at you which in no way shape or form resembles the initial argument you had with the cop about "whatever".

Yeah, I agree cops shouldn't be doing that either. I'm not really worried about it though, or convinced it's a significant problem.

So my argument works well in reality as demonstrated all the time by cops that respect their oath of office and care about the Constitution. 95% of cops are reasonable human beings.

THe problem is that 2% or so of cops that are garbage and abuse their power and then the other so-called good cops sit back and allow it or worse "protect" that garbage cop and stand behind them.

You were in the armed services, right? Or maybe I'm thinking of RD Kirk....

So to be clear, I agree with everything you wrote in the post I'm quoting.

Hopefully you better understand my argument.

I think we've done this enough times for me to understand your argument.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I believe we have a disconnect here. I'm not arguing for anarchy. I am also not arguing for powerless law enforcement. I keep trying to be clear in my language. I keep repeating "non violent trivial misdemeanors..." and you keep interpreting that to mean "No law enforcement whatsoever".

In the context of any violent or felony crime, I more or less side with the way current police procedures work. I'm not sure if you will read that sentence and it will stick in your head. I am not arguing for powerless police, no I'm arguing for proportionality.



We already have existing means and remedies for when this happens. If you fail to appear in court, then you lose the case. Then, the court can put a lien against your bank account or property etc. You face a $500 fine, you fail to appear in court, then you get served a penalty and another court date. You fail to appear the next time, then you lose the case, and you pay the $500 plus whatever penalty (lets say court costs so another $500). Then, your bank account is docked or your pay is docked or "whatever" means the state needs to use to recoup costs.

This is reasonable and non violent. No need to hurt or kill the citizenry with physical violence. Notice my theme yet?


Please stop turning my argument into what it is not.

I guess in your mind, law enforcement is just synonymous with physical force. The idea of enforcing the law without violence I guess just isn't possible in your brain.

For the billionth time. Law enforcement can and should use force to enforce the law whenever the following conditions are met: Citizenry (public) is in danger, police are in danger, suspect is using violence, felony crime is in progress, violence will protect the suspect and or public better than non-violence, etc.

So I'm fine with law enforcement using violence when it is warranted. What I am NOT fine with is using violence for trivial non-violent misdemeanors. That is what tickets are for.



In all of your examples, I'm fine with police using violence if warranted because none of those examples were trivial non-violent misdemeanors...

I really don't know how many times I have to type "trivial non-violent misdemeanors". Similarly, I am not against law enforcement... Basically, you just don't understand my argument in the least and you keep interpreting my argument to mean I don't want any law enforcement whatsoever.

Let's run with your example of the 500$ ticket...what do we do for those without the money to pay 500$? And please don't start with "everyone has 500$" many of the people out there committing crimes don't have 500$...in fact they might not even have 10$ cuz they're 50$ overdrawn.

What should we as a society do for them?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Raw number like this, don't really tell us a lot, without the detail behind each situation. There is no question the police use excessive force at times. The question is; what is the percentage of excessive force vs when the situation called for using excessive force.

Agreed. Statistics are not too useful when seeking truth.

 

[dgiharris]

Let's run with your example of the 500$ ticket...what do we do for those without the money to pay 500$? And please don't start with "everyone has 500$" many of the people out there committing crimes don't have 500$...in fact they might not even have 10$ cuz they're 50$ overdrawn.

What should we as a society do for them?

I'm not sure where you are going with this? If they don't have the $500 then they should beaten and incarcerated?

My understanding is that fines can often be paid off by community service for those without money or that payment plans and liens on salary/bank accounts are also legal remedies.

I think we need to take even more steps back in this argument and start at a foundation.

What is the purpose of punitive measures by the law? Is it to curb behavior, prevent reoccurrence, exact vengeance, punish???

Someone litters, they are fined $500, they can't afford $500 so now what? Well, community service seems like an appropriate punishment. If they refuse community service, then liens against property. If they have no property then to be quite honest it becomes a simple math problem.

It costs $30k to $50k per year per prisoner. Are you arguing that locking up citizens that commit trivial misdemeanors benefits society as a whole? Especially when that misdemeanor is simply angering a power hungry government official / cop?

I guess we are descending into a rabbit hole so I will just stop here...