Gonna need a cite for that.
Foe some madly inappropriate reason the fallen Renfield in Dracula: Dead and Loving It flashed into mind.
Here. It’s second hand, though. It says “One police trainer told me a few years ago that much of the training today focuses on how to justify force after it has already been used — in other words, not how to avoid shooting people, but how to protect yourself and the department from liability once you have.”
How do you know? In the video, glass went everywhere, including the back seat.
“Zero danger”? I don’t think so. I’ve had windows break before – some pieces can definitely still cut you.
Not that this is particularly important, though. The breaking of the window was entirely unnecessary whether or not children were present.
So, do you admit then that the poor widdle childwen were not **“SHOWERED WITH GLASS”!!! **
And FYI, the pebbles of glass are not going to cut you upon being broken. And certainly not anyone in the back seat. The greater danger is having a piece hit you in the eye. And the kids in this instance had about as much chance of that happening as the car suddenly falling into a sinkhole.
Obviously my point is that your repeated whining about “showering the children with glass” is 1) untrue and 2) an attempt to argue from emotion. You know better.
Sounds like magellan is headed for cardboard tube territory.
They were probably hit by glass. So it’s maybe like a crappy shower-head that only works at about half-pressure. Not sure why you’re stuck on this point, because my larger point doesn’t require it at all. Breaking the glass was completely unnecessary.
Oh it’s definitely number 2, though that doesn’t make it false. Appealing to emotions can be a useful tool.
(Just grabbing a random word so I can quote Bricker).
Bricker, can you comment on possible criminal law defenses to…whatever crime it would be to not exit a vehicle when ordered to. Like,
Self defense: J. Jones thought the officers would use unreasonable force. They had guns drawn.
Mistake: Due to their actions, J. Jones thought they might not be (real? non-suspended? ) police officers. (It looks like for your defense to work, you have to convince a jury that your mistake was “reasonable”. ‘I thought they were T-1000’s’ probably won’t work)
Necessity: J. Jones had to stay in the car to … protect the children?
and you, being a white woman, have that ability?
I never claimed he wasn’t scared. Point a gun at me and I’ll be petrified. So scared that I’d probably do whatever I was told to do…and then hope I live long enough to get even in a court of law.
And what’s so safe about the car? If I’m in the car the cops might claim I was reaching for something and blow me away. I know it sounds far fetched given the fact that reaching for something shouldn’t alarm the cops at all (Oh wait, it actually DID cause the cops to pull their guns). I’d rather be outside the vehicle with my hands in the air so that any witnesses can see that I’m not a threat. That exposure just might keep a trigger happy cop from firing.
Staying in the car did absolutely nothing for the guy. If the cops had planned to do some harm to him when he got out they certainly could have done it after they broke the window, tazered him and then put him in cuffs.
The guy was screwed whether he complied or not. The cops had already proven that they were willing to ratchet up the violence. Not complying with their demands wasn’t going to Improve that situation. There was no safe zone so compliance appeared to be the best chance of diffusing the tension.
But since I’m not a white woman perfectly suited to make these judgement calls 'm just going to let yo guys alone and you can enjoy screaming about racially fueled police brutality.
Glass isn’t the problem here, in any case. Bullies with badges are the problem.
When I was in LE, the taser first started seeing widespread use. I was initially pretty enthusiastic about it, as batons were the most common less lethal option at the time. Baton training was often poor or non-existent and even the cops who had training seldom got any refreshers after they left the academy. It seemed like the taser would be a safer alternative for everybody involved in situations where force was required.
Alas, badge-heavy bullies seem to regard it as being more of an electric whip that is useful for punishing those who have had the poor judgement to irritate them. Sure, some of these bullies would have gone upside somebody’s head if the taser wasn’t available. I think, though, that some are more willing to inflict a punitive tasing than they would be an old fashioned nightstick beatdown on an impertinent civilian.
390 posts in and I have finally found the time to comment. There are so many things to address here I can’t keep count but, in no particular order, here goes.
Cops are trained that the number one cue that you may be assaulted is non-compliance by the person you are dealing with. It only follows that non-compliance is going to result in the cops being a little more “amped up” or aggressive. Add to that the feelings of anger that some cops get when their orders are defied and you have the recipe for disaster. We train officers that they need to keep their emotions in check (particularly, anger) when dealing with non-compliance. But its easier said than done. How many of you who are parents ever had your kid openly defy your authority over them? Its a “button pusher” if there ever was one. Is that an excuse for police over-reaction? No. But cops are human beings too and not all humans are 100% in control all of the time. Excessive force/overreaction should be dealt with through the proper channels. If you have no faith in cops policing their own, then there are the courts. Law suits are often more effective than anything else in bringing about change.
The vast majority of police use of force is preceded by some sort of non-compliance or resistance on the part of the subject. The law provides the the police may use force when encountering resistance or non-compliance. The law does not provide that citizens may refuse to comply when they disagree with what the cops are doing or why they are doing it. In fact, in my state and I believe most others, the law specifically says that it is unlawful to resist arrest even if the person knows or believes the arrest to be unlawful. The only exception is that a person may use force to resist unlawful force being used by the police in effecting the arrest. Naturally, whether the force by the police was, in fact, unlawful will be determined by a prosecutor or in court at a later time. If the police force was to be found lawful, then that defense would not apply. Its not enough that the person merely believed it to be unlawful.
So, if the the officer was within his legal rights to ask the passenger to step out of the car for whatever reason (or no reason at all) then refusing to do so, no matter what the passenger’s reasons or beliefs are, is a violation subjecting him to arrest and the officer may use force to make the arrest.
Which brings me to the next point. How much force can the officer use? Graham v. Connor is the law of the land when it comes to police use-of-force. In that case the U.S. Supreme Court said that an officer may (I am paraphrasing here) use a level of force that is reasonable under the circumstances as the officer reasonably believes them to be at the time. The officer is to be judged based upon what another officer with similar training and experience would have done under the same circumstances. Not by a talking head on CNN or some self-appointed expert or someone posting in the Pit.
The decision named three factors that must be considered when reviewing a use of force complaint. First, is the underlying crime. Many would argue that the underlying crime in this case is the seatbelt violation. “Man Tazered for Seatbelt Violation!” was a common headline. That was the reason for the stop but not for the use of force. The underlying offense here was refusal to exit the car after being ordered to do so - call it obstruction of justice or interfering with the government or whatever. Second, is the subject a threat to the officers or others? From what I have read, the officer claims that the man was reaching around inside the car or between the seats or something. In any case, the man didn’t appear to present an immediate threat. HOWEVER, in many jurisdictions the threat does not need to be immediate, only imminent. Even in the more restrictive states the standard for ordering someone out of the car is a “reasonable suspicion”, an intentionally low standard. Sure, the cops could have backed up and called SWAT or whatever but officers are under no obligation to retreat from perceived threats. The third factor is whether or not the subject is resisting or fleeing. I don’t think anyone would argue that the passenger was not resisting by way of refusal to exit the car. Note that these three factors need to be considered when judging a use of force but there is no formula or scale that can be applied. Each case is unique.
In post #381 Kimstu references a couple of tables dealing with a force continuum and some definitions. The problem with that cite is that it refers to only one department’s (Orlando PD) policy. It is not the law. These officers may or may not have violated Orlando’s policy but that has nothing to do with anything.
The question is: Was the force reasonable under the circumstances? The cops have a guy refusing a lawful order to exit the car. The order/refusal game goes on for quite a while.
Ultimately, they break the window and use a Taser on the subject. I don’t see the breaking of the window as unreasonable. That is the most common way of getting into a car where the occupant refuses to open the door. What are they supposed to do? Call a locksmith or get a “Slim Jim”? Both are easily defeated by someone inside the car. Magic sleeping gas? How about loading the car up with pepper spray? Most policies wouldn’t allow that with children in the car. There comes a point where talking isn’t cutting it and something has to be done.
Unless, of course, you subscribe to the theory that just letting people go who refuse lawful orders is a viable option.
What about the Taser? Was that reasonable? Yes, they hurt like hell. But study after study has shown that injuries to cops AND suspects go down where Tasers are in use. Here in the Garden State use of a Taser would have been out of bounds under those circumstances but this happened in Indiana so whether its OK in Jersey or Orlando doesn’t matter a whit. In this case it got the guy out of the car and under control with nobody suffering any injuries. How is that wrong?
As to the whole race thing - lets assume (even though there is no evidence to support it) that this use of force was racially motivated. Guess what the Court said in Graham v Connor?
“An officer’s evil intentions will not make a Fourth Amendment violation out of an objectively reasonable use of force; nor will an officer’s good intentions make an objectively unreasonable use of force constitutional.” It doesn’t matter if the officer is the Grand Wazoo of the KKK if the force was objectively reasonable. Just like it wouldn’t matter if the officer was the Pope himself if the force was objectively unreasonable.
The kids in the back seat thing is a red herring. Ask Michelle Jeter who was beaten, nearly to death, on the shoulder of the road as the suspect’s 12 year old daughter stood by and begged him to stop. Or the trooper out west who was shot at by the guy who had his two kids in the car. Breaking out the window with kids in the back seat, while not the most desirable thing to do, was not really all that dangerous.
How would you feel if the exchange went something like this:
Cop: Sir, you’re making me nervous. Step out of the car
Guy: I’m not getting out. Why should I?
Cop: The law in this state says I can I have you exit the vehicle. Please step out.
Guy: No.
Cop: If you don’t step out I will place you under arrest. I will break the window out if I have to and you may get tased. You will go to jail and have to post bail. Do you really want your kids to see all that? Step out.
Guy: No.
Cop; Is there anything I can say to gain your cooperation and have you step out?
Guy: I’m not getting out.
Broken window, taser and arrest follow. Would the use of that force be any more justified?
Finally, some people of color flat out hate the police. All police. They justify their hatred on the fact that most, if not all, of their encounters with cops have been decidedly negative at best (and often much worse). And that may be true. They claim that cops are racist and that they (cops) paint all (fill in the minority) with the same brush. Yet they use the same brush to paint cops. Does anyone see the hypocrisy there? I’ve often seen or heard the statement “Well, you’re not black. You can’t understand”. We’ll, you’ve never been a cop so you can’t understand, either. There’s plenty of blame to go around on both sides.
Holy shit. It took me a long time to finish and post my last comments and in, the meantime, other posts have lead me to spout some more.
Yes, I teach officers how to write reports justifying the use force. Is there something wrong with that? Is the implication that I am telling them to lie? The fact of the matter is most officers write less than ideal reports most of the time. Most of the time the reports are good enough. But good enough isn’t good enough when it comes to documenting the use of force, particularly deadly force. These reports must be detailed, factual and as accurate as possible. That is what I teach. I tell them to use objective terminology and to paint a picture for a potential jury. I tell them to be to address the things that the courts say matter. A poorly written report opens the officer to cross examination in criminal and civil court.
I have been to Calibre Press’ training. Officers are NOT encouraged to use excessive force. That is simply ridiculous. What they are trained to do is not hesitate if deadly force is warranted. There are plenty of videos out there with cops repeatedly telling suspects to drop their guns (in one famous case 33 times!) before the suspect shot and killed the cop. A cop can’t be thinking “What if I get sued?” when facing a deadly threat.
No one that I know of is teaching anything other than “Fire until the threat is stopped”. Not one shot, not double tap. Keep shooting until the threat is stopped. This is what leads to suspects being shot (or shot at) ten or more times. It ain’t TV boys and girls. One round will rarely instantly stop someone trying to kill you. I can get off at least three rounds a second. In two seconds I can shoot you six times and you then begin to fall it takes another second or more before I perceive that you are no longer a threat and stop pulling the trigger. That’s three or more shots. Is nine shots overkill? Not necessarily.
The officer needs to place his safety above that of the suspect. Better he goes to the morgue than me. Officers are not trained to put their safety above all others. When it comes to suspects, its not even close.
Officers are encouraged to engage in mental “What if?” thinking. What if that lady were to start shooting at me when I approach her?" “What if I walk in on an armed hold up at the local coffee shop?” “What if I get called to a shooter at the school?”. These mental rehearsals encourage tactical thinking and speed reaction time when the “what if?” actually happens.
Again, learning to write a correct report isn’t something sinister and I resent Katie Rucke or anyone else implying that it is.
Ahem.
Now THAT is some funny shit right there.
So, tell me, Shayniqua, what gives white you the special ability to judge the fear of a black man, while other whites are incapable of it? Is the secret to this power concealed tightly in rows of blonde dreadlocks? Something else? Please, do share. Why should you be the only white to be able to feel the pain of blacks pain and empathize? Come on now, spill it girl.
This isn’t true. While auto glass is designed to break into small pieces, it’s still going to present significant chance for injury should you be struck by it in a collision. It’s just that many small cuts are better than one giant one. Whether or not the glass was propelled with sufficient force to do such damage I don’t know, but anytime broken glass is flying about it’s a risk.
SCOTUS has stated that police may order passengers from a vehicle during a traffic stop in Maryland v. Wilson (linked upthread in post #66). Basically - any circumstances they wish.
Another article linked by Marley mentioned 13 minutes.
As an aside, for anyone who thinks breaking the window of a person refusing to exit a vehicle never happens and this is some rarity - it’s not. Here’s a similar event with a stun gun. Here is a district court case in Texas. and discussion of that casefrom the police point of view. Here is a Georgia court of appeals case.
All involve breaking windows from people refusing to exit a vehicle and forcibly removing them. If a police officer orders you to exit a vehicle during a traffic stop - you will comply or be forced to comply.
Let’s suppose that after, say, the second time the cops asked the passenger to get out of the car (which, as far as I can tell from the discussions in this thread, they had the LEGAL RIGHT to do), he had in fact gotten out of the car. Do you think the whole situation would have ended up better or worse for the family than what actually happened?
My contention is that:
(a) it almost certainly would have ended up better
and
(b) the way that it ended was the predictable result once he made the choice to continue to stay in the car.
Therefore I think his choice was foolish. Arguably some other word would be a better choice than “foolish”, one that more properly recognizes the stressful nature of the situation, the understandable distrust of cops due to the history of racial incidents, yada yada yada. But I definitely think it was a BAD decision.
??? Seriously? I have nothing against this family, who as I said ended up in a very shitty situation that they didn’t really deserve. But I don’t see any evidence at all that they made their choices based on a principled stand for civil rights, as opposed to just freezing and panicking while under stress, having a “ok I’m safe if I stay in here oh my goodness I will just not leave my safe zone” reaction.
Levar Jones got out of his car and the officer shot him anyway. Maybe this guy thought his chances would be better if he stayed inside?
Agreed, and you will not that I am in no way either questioning Levar Jones’s actions nor defending the cop in that situation
Do you think they were better? Do you think the reasonable belief given the information available to him at the time is that they were better?
This didn’t work well for Levar Jones. For all we know this guy was afraid HE was the next Levar Jones, except of course not all cops are as bad shots as the one who tried to kill Jones.
Rather than start a new thread, I’ll post it to this one. An NYPD officer is on video blatantly taking money out of a “suspect’s” pocket.
Perhaps they will claim civil forfeiture, which John Oliver just did a piece on Last Week Tonight. It’s shocking and unbelievable that such a thing is legal.