SurvivingInfidelity.com^®

Great post Bigger, thanks.

What is unique for the US IMHO is the prevalence and how common it is that this level of force is required.

Yes and this is at the root of my initial question. Are there really that many people in the US who wish to end it all at the hands of a police officer(s) by forcing them to use lethal force?

Violence begets violence. Force begets force.

Sadly this is so true. I perceive US society becoming more violent and communities much more polarised. Combine that with all the firepower freely available and it's no wonder it often seems to outsiders like the modern 'Wild West' over there.

Bigger, great post and I certainly respect your experience and opinion.

But ...

I have to disagree with you about qualified immunity. Too much has happened, too many unjustified shootings, too many deaths, just TOO much. I feel if officers have to think twice -- or three times -- about shooting an unarmed person (especially in the back as it's been happening) .... that they might lose their freedom, their homes and life savings .. it might help. NO person, even a person wearing a badge should be above the law.

The family of George Floyd received $27 million and they deserved every penny. The defendant in that case, now convicted, made sure to file for what is probably a 'fake divorce' and gave his now ex-wife over $700,000 dollars in the settlement. Probably to keep the Floyd family from taking it. He retained over $300,000 for himself, probably for his defense. Of course my thoughts were ... where did a LEO accumulate that kind of cash?

We MUST have police and I do NOT support any type of defunding of police. But they have to be trained better and the selection process must improve.

Police get bogged down in menial paperwork over simple calls like a cat stuck in a tree or kids playing basketball after curfew. Delegating those calls and that paperwork to other departments would leave the police to do the work that's most important to us- protecting us from and preventing violent crime.

Broken tail lights, speeding tickets, etc. could be handled with cameras and having a department that sends out the tickets and does that paperwork.

Some of the school officials in New York City have put forth the opinion that they'd rather have school officers who are trained in de-escalation tactics, how to calm an upset 5 yr. old with words, not a gun, etc. 2 girls having a fight and can't break them up? There are sprays that can be used, etc. Again, why waste highly trained, brave men and women doing these things? Chastising naughty children? Let the schools hire and train their own security personnel. And maybe those people will also have firearms training and be carrying a concealed weapon but it doesn't have to be front and center and in the kids faces all day everyday.

I think the idea of defunding the police deserves a good, hard look. And perhaps if we didn't need as many armed police, we'd only hire the cream of the crop for those jobs. That alone would solve a whole lot of the problems.

So another question! Would it be fair to say that different TV networks have their own agendas when it comes to police shootings, particularly when they involve members of the black community? One of the main differences between TV news networks here in the UK and those in the US is that (in my opinion) UK TV news channels try to give an unbiased factual account of an incident whereas in the US it seems to me (again just my opinion) that you have TV stations who can give a very different slant on the same incident depending on their audience's personal and political leanings?

Once upon a time, there used to be a thing called journalism. And the news programs and newspapers had this noble idea of reporting the news with facts and neutral terminology. But at some point, companies were bought and sold and some merged and we ended up with just a few corporations owning every news source in this country. And those few corporations realize they can only stay in business if they make money. And they make money by giving their customers what they want. Including pretty people to read it all to us.

It seems a crazy question to ask but is this something that's taught in schools in the US as part of the curriculum? What to do and what NOT to do when stopped by police.

I don't think so. Although it might be part of driver's training.

But it wouldn't matter anyway. Those lessons wouldn't come to mind for those who are drunk or high on drugs. Or those with mental illness or autism or dementia. And people who have suffered trauma or abuse are likely to act out of a habit of fear rather than logic.

I've only been stopped twice in my 55 yrs. of having a license. Ironically, both stops occurred in my early 60's within about a year of each other and both in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan (I had Ohio license plates on my car). I was scared to death, I was really, really frightened because there was a man standing next to my car with his hand on a gun and I knew if I didn't do what he said, I could end up dead. I'm sorry, but that's how I felt. I was shaking like a leaf and didn't know what to do so I just sat there. But after he wrote my ticket (I was in a group of cars going 62 in a 55 but I was the only one with out of state plates) that little twerp stuck his face through my window and smiled at me and said "Drive careful, Ma'am" with that smug baby face, round and smooth like a baby's bottom and I was so angry then, angry that he was such a jerk and angry that I was so afraid of him. I could have smacked him one. And I've never smacked anyone in my life. The 2nd time wasn't as bad cuz I was close to a town and I didn't think he'd pull anything where there was a good chance of being seen. I wasn't speeding that time but I had that dreaded out of state license plate. But yeah, I can understand how some people over react and get all emotional and irrational. Being stopped by police is terrifying in and of itself and if I'd been guilty of anything, it would've been even scarier.

It's a bit of a conundrum, no? If I call the police for help, I expect to get a good guy. But if I'm randomly selected by the police, I don't know what to expect. And that's why I wish there was a way to weed out the bad ones.

I was once stopped while driving through the southern part of Arkansas (and I'm not dissing Arkansas, it's a beautiful state!) ... and I couldn't figure out WHY I had been stopped. So I asked him and he said .."I've never seen a car like this and I wanted to see it and find out what it is."

No kidding.

I think the idea of defunding the police deserves a good, hard look

^^^Just no. I live in three states and the police are an integral part of each of the communities we reside in.

Ok please explain.

Defunding the police. Arent they paid with public taxes? Is defunding them just taking away funds for payrolls, equipment, training etc? Or is there some other meaning?

I want the police, like the fire department and ambulance services to all have what they need to do their jobs.

Is defunding them just taking away funds for payrolls, equipment, training etc?

It is my understanding that defunding is about reallocating money; how it is done, has an answer for every person you ask, including extremes on either side, and some in the middle.

Jeaniegirl

I have a strong feeling that if we were to sit down over a cup of coffee or tea and discuss this matter we would realize we are both on a comparable wave-length. We both want accountability and that the LEO faces consequences if he acts outside of the accepted scope. I have no problems whatsoever of an officer facing criminal charges if he breaks the law.

I would endorse regular evaluations of officers and dismissals or demotions (and promotions!) based on those evaluation. It then becomes a question how you evaluate the LEO. Number of arrests? Speeding tickets? Complaints? (Best way to avoid complaints is do nothing…)

I have issues with this text:

I feel if officers have to think twice -- or three times -- about shooting an unarmed person (especially in the back as it's been happening) .... that they might lose their freedom, their homes and life savings .. it might help. NO person, even a person wearing a badge should be above the law.

The sentence is loaded: it implies that officers shoot unarmed people when the issue isn’t really armed or not armed, but rather is the officer threatened to the extent the use of potentially lethal force is justified.

My view is that LEO’s need to accept there is a certain risk and demand for physicality in their job. If an unarmed person goes for you then your training should enable you to keep them at bay or in check until your partner steps in, and that 2 officers should be able to restrain most attackers. This does however require we don’t use single-cop units.

Unarmed people can be lethal. When an officer grapples the goal is clear: Restrain the person. When an unarmed person jumps an officer… what’s the goal? They hardly expect the officer to tap out and go home to lick his wounds? The only way the perpetrator gets away is if he incapacitates the officer in such a way to allow escape. The threat is potentially lethal or likely to cause serious physical damage to the officer. To me the issue is whether the officer had time and opportunity to use less lethal methods or overreacted.

Shoot in the back? I heard a lot of variations on that back in the days… We were constantly asked why we needed to be 3-4 when we arrested someone. Why not be manly and honorable as if this was a bar-fight mano-el-mano. If there is a justifiable reason to use deadly force then there is no requirement that the shots enter the frontal torso. It again boils down to justifiable.

I will acknowledge (and talked about it in my earlier post) that I do think LEOs need to evaluate when a threat is life-threatening. Driving away from a traffic stop is IMHO not life-threatening, running away from a summons is not life-threatening.

Think twice or three times… The person that DECIDES to escalate is usually the person being stopped by the police. When that happens you don’t have the time to think twice and if you think thrice that might well be your last thought in life. It always boils down to this: Is the officer justified in a) thinking his life is in danger b) thinking the lives of others is in danger. I am perfectly fine for the officer and the department having to justify both to the correct channels – for example a court.

I shared this on the recent thread here on the George Floyd murder:

I remember stopping a guy for DUI. Big muscular guy high on speed and steroids. He jumped me when I asked him to do a sobriety test and we ended up grappling by the side of the road. I was petrified for my life and the fight was simply one of survival. Eventually I got a choke-hold and applied pressure until he passed out. I cuffed him and revived only for him to continue resisting despite the cuffs. I managed to call for backup and had him in a judo-lock when help arrived. The fight left me battered and bruised with finger marks around my neck and a bloodshot eye.

In NY police are explicitly banned from using choke-holds and can be charged if they do. This was passed after Eric Garner died in a choke-hold. Seeing recordings of that event there was IMHO no need for the hold since there were enough officers there to detain Garner without it. In my instance… well… my only other option might have been to try to escape, get a couple of yards and shoot him.

What I didn’t share then was that a couple of days later the department got a letter from that man’s attorney accusing me of excessive violence. In addition to the marks I mentioned I had a big bruise in the groin-area, bruises in my hairline from when he pulled at my hair, bruises on my forehead where he head-butted me and a strained shoulder.

The charge was dismissed, but only after an IA investigation – as should be.

This guy had plenty of cash – if he had sued me directly I would have had to use my own personal funds (not excessive at 23 years of age!). Instead the department evaluated my actions and accepted that I had used the level of force required. If IA had deemed me to have gone further than I was allowed I would have had to accept a reprimand and possible termination. If the DA had evaluated I used excessive force I would have faced a criminal charge for assault. If I had been convicted by the court the man could seek compensation from my department and would have grounds to personally sue me. IMHO that is the way it should be.

The head-but? That was after I cuffed him. Had we been three officers (as is the ideal number in an arrest) then while resisting we would have placed him on his stomach, one officer restrained his feet, one the torso and one… knelt with his knee on the HEAD (not neck). That is done for two reasons: head-buts and head-slamming to get self-inflicted wounds to show excessive force.

I don’t like the word defunding…

Defunding is what created the single-cop unit, lowers pay thereby lowering the bar that can be set, prevents good simulation training, retraining and all that. What I do like is the word reallocating… Maybe larger areas could have dedicated EMR’s for mentally unstable people, community officers for bickering neighbors and such… maybe we shouldn’t see the police as a combination of handy-man and garbage disposal for society.

I would endorse regular evaluations of officers and dismissals or demotions (and promotions!) based on those evaluation. It then becomes a question how you evaluate the LEO. Number of arrests? Speeding tickets? Complaints? (Best way to avoid complaints is do nothing…)

Having the right metrics is always an issue, in a lot industries. But I'd say none of those having any actual bearing on an LEO's performance.

The sentence is loaded: it implies that officers shoot unarmed people when the issue isn’t really armed or not armed, but rather is the officer threatened to the extent the use of potentially lethal force is justified.

It's not really loaded in my mind. You need to be able to process and react. The problem is all they do is react and there is no processing. Fix that, and we probably have less of things that turn communities against LEOs.

What I didn’t share then was that a couple of days later the department got a letter from that man’s attorney accusing me of excessive violence. In addition to the marks I mentioned I had a big bruise in the groin-area, bruises in my hairline from when he pulled at my hair, bruises on my forehead where he head-butted me and a strained shoulder.

The charge was dismissed, but only after an IA investigation – as should be.

Where does IA hire from? Its rarely from outside the LEO community right? Why should anyone trust those investigations ( not saying it was wrong or done incorrectly). You are essentially investigating yourself. That needs to change, as any semblance of objectivity was sent to the waste basket when that was implemented.

Why does this country have a history of LEO abuse that goes back to the very founding of law enforcement in the U.S. ? Most of what we are seeing now, has always been there. It's not a new phenomena, or something that was introduced recently. It is just seeing the light of day more often. Mostly because it cannot be stopped, and its hard to intimidate all of the people recording the interaction and sending that interaction immediately where everyone can see it.

This guy had plenty of cash. If he had sued me directly I would have had to use my own personal funds (not excessive at 23 years of age!).

That's what malpractice insurance is for. It is also a likely way to hold LEOs accountable, too many negative interactions and the price of that gets to a point where its not a good idea to stay in that profession.

The problem with all of this, is that LEO's were rarely held accountable for their actions. But now they cant hide behind a wall of blue silence, if there are witnesses. And there often are.

Bigger, the first thing we'd have to agree on is it would be okay for me to forego the coffee and tea and have my Dr. Pepper.

I agree with so many of your points and appreciate where you are coming from. I guess what I'm saying is in extreme cases - like the one trial we just watched, the LEO should absolutely be personally responsible for his actions financially, not entirely the city he/she works for. With the Floyd case. the family was awarded 27 million dollars, a debt that will burden the tax payers. Not him. Qualified immunity - too many times -- keeps the bad LEO from being charged criminally or held financially responsible.

I KNOW there are a lot of big, bad people out there..... Mean people that must be dealt with and LEOs put their lives on the line every day. There is a right way and a wrong way. There are mistakes made but they ARE mistakes, not intentional acts and there lies the difference.

I don’t like the word defunding…

Defunding is what created the single-cop unit, lowers pay thereby lowering the bar that can be set, prevents good simulation training, retraining and all that.

Allocation of funds is political. One aspect of that is that people don't like to pay taxes. Most of us are pretty safe; we don't notice when services are cut.

I live in a nice area. My street is one apartment building after another, but one street South and one street North of my street the price of entry is pretty high. I can't remember the last violence reported in my precinct. I don't see police vehicles around here.

The evidence I actually see in my day-to-day life is that the police department has enough funding. When real newspapers were still in existence, I could read about criminal events in other areas of my small city (maybe 9 square miles, 3 X 3), so I had evidence in front of my eyes that I needed to pay police. Now, not so much....

Even here, though, I can read about police responding to complaints with totally unnecessary force, like using force to arrest a black man opening the door of his own car, based on a neighbor's 911 call. And we're a city that discriminates primarily based on income spent on housing, not on race.

I am with you totally on the term. In fact, I wonder if the slogan 'defund the police' came from an anti-USA source....

[This message edited by sisoon at 11:45 AM, May 9th (Sunday)]

One more thing --

Seeing lots of thoughts on 'real journalism' on this thread.

The REAL journalist are the by-standers with cell phones; the Real journalist are the cameras attached to every building. People cannot get by with bad things as often because they are being filmed in real time. The police could manipulate their dash cams in cars previously if they didn't want their actions to be filmed. Now everyone has cell phones with cams. The 9 minute and 29 second cell phone video convicted the killer of George Floyd.

We are all journalist.

Interesting article in the Washington Post today about police accountability in our country. They say one of the reasons it's so difficult is that most police departments here are smaller, so it's hard to institute changes in policies, and restructuring than in those departments in big cities.

Bigger, none of us know each other IRL (with exceptions of a few posters) but I would bet my life you were NEVER the type of LEO to hold your knee on someone's neck while they begged for their deceased Mama to save them, then they died.