Unfortunately, a number of your fellow police officers are making this hard to believe.
You know, because racism.
Well, racism’s part of it, but not the whole.
Do you recognize that some of your colleagues, lacking your power of self-control, may appear to be?
Do you understand why that might not always be clear? Why fear of you might be real, and founded on real experience?
You may well be one of the good guys, one of the non-Authoritah ones, one of the non-racists, one of the non-gun-brandishers, one of the non-threateners. If so, good for you. But you do have colleagues who are not, don’t you?
You know, your talking points can be flipped. Threatening, violent cops are a real possibility. But the flip side is that there exists violent people who will try to appear confused scared etc while looking for an opportunity to harm the cop. So a stalemate occurs until somebody makes a move.
Note to thread to clear up confusion in cas there is any. Actual me is not a police officer. I was speaking to the hypothetical, as if I were the officer who pulled him over.
And, purely by coincidence, one of them happened to be sitting quietly in the back seat of a car, next to a kid, after the driver was pulled over for a seat belt violation. Amazing luck, that?
Got an example of such a person you can cite for us? Somebody who suddenly became belligerent and violent *before *the cop did? It would be fascinating.
Oh fuck. Just go ahead and believe whatever you want. Silly me for not believing that no cop has ever been shot while his gun was holstered.
Sorry I attempted to distort your reality.
I forgot that the universal bad guy code is to never travel with kids, never be with people who might get a traffic violation and to always announce that you are violent and armed whenever you meet a cop.
That’s exactly what you’re doing, right? You could provide us with an actual example or two of the thing you claim is real, but you just can’t be bothered, right? 
John van Allen shot at the cops when he had his kids in the car. Orianna Ferrell engaged the police in a high speed chase with her kids in the car after she was pulled over. Dominique Lewis drove a car at a cop during a traffic stop with kids in the car.
And none of them was “trying to appear confused scared etc while looking for an opportunity to harm the cop”. Ferrell’s case is quite pointedly the *opposite *of what you’re claiming it is - the cops shot first, at a minivan they already knew was full of kids. There also was no one else in the car with Lewis.
Keep trying, though. BubbaDog’s assertion is fascinating.
Four people were in the c ar…Lewis, two other adults, and a child. And in Ferrill’s case, she drove away from the stop twice and her son attacked an officer.
When first stopped. Not when he panicked.
Cite already given.
Keep looking, maybe you’ll find something.
I guess we have very different views of what actually ended up happening. I’m basing my opinion on what was posted in the OP of this thread: “the cops smash the window (with children in the car) and tase the male passenger and drag him out and cuff him.”
At no point in there is there any mention of the savage beating that they then inflicted on him. Did I miss it?
Not to downplay tasing, but it seems to me that the clear and obvious explanation for the tasing was not “ooh, I want to tase me a darkie”, but “this guy continues to refuse to comply with a lawful order, so I will tase him so that he complies”. Granted, there’s a legitimate debate about how necessary the order was in the first place and many other factors, but I don’t see any evidence (other than “hey, there are other white cops who have done terrible things to black people”) that this cop was inevitably going to engage in abuse or mistreatment from the moment the encounter began.
Even if we are super-cynical about it and just assume that 95% of all the cops are power-hungry racist assholes, there are still a LOT more stories about cops shooting black people for refusing to cooperate than there are stories about cops shooting black people who did cooperate.
From what I understand about being tased, it’s pretty much equivalent.
Maybe you missed the part about smashing the window and tasing a guy who was just sitting there.
Your point, please? If it’s that giving them something they can use as an excuse to assault you makes it more likely that they will, that’s not very profound.
That would be the cite that supports my statement, right?
It seems like you regard as irrelevant the fact that one of these cops has a history of two previous instances of excessive force resulting in settlements. To me, that lends a hell of a lot of credence to the power hungry asshole theory.
Also, have you noticed how much you say things like “not to downplay tasing”, “not to look like I’m defending these cops’ actions…” With all these things you’re not doing, I am starting to wonder what you are doing.
Read it and find out.
Or, try to do a more fully-assed job of supporting the claim. Up to you.
To quote myself from earlier in the thread:
People whose motivations I generally support and appreciate are going way overboard in this and similar threads, making crazily hyperbolic overgeneralizations, and it bugs me, so I’m responding to it. Which inevitably means that it seems like I’m arguing FOR police brutality, etc, which is certainly not my intent, and I believe wouldn’t be the case at all in most non-SDMB contexts.
Let me try to clear something up regarding “after action” reports and how they are written. The “simple truth” is a myth, at least as it pertains to to deadly force encounters. I, and others, train officers to be as accurate and detailed as possible. Not to falsify information or obfuscate what happened.
Here are some of the things we tell them:
-
Use objective terminology. Don’t say “He was resisting”. Say, “He refused repeated orders to get on the ground. I then attempted a leg sweep and he punched me on the right side of my head”.
-
Be sure to list a) the situation (how call was dispatched and what you observed on arrival) b) the actions you took c) the subjects response to those actions. In detail.
-
Be sure to document, in detail, the suspect’s, ability, opportunity and display of intent to harm you.
-
Document the nature of the offense, the danger to you or others and/or the nature of the resistance or flight. In detail.
Notice a trend here regarding detail?
If you have never testified in court you really have no idea how an attorney can twist your words around. A good, tight, ACCURATE report is one way to minimize this potential. There are no “obscure” or “code words” used. As a matter of fact, cops are specifically trained to stay away from cop jargon or legalese. In the end, they will be talking to a jury and we want them to be clear and easily understood. I can guarantee you that most cops involved in shootings would love to have a video from their perspective. (Body cameras, while valuable, have their limitations and are no simple cure).
I fail to see what is wrong with training officers on how to write a good report. The courts have said that certain factors must be present for deadly force to be employed. We train the officers to be certain they cover these points when documenting what happened. This training is not some secret that is un-monitored by superiors or anyone else.
Nobody is training officers to assume that deadly force is warranted. I’m not even sure what that means. Warranted when? What we do train is that, if it IS warranted, don’t be afraid to pull the trigger. And keep pulling until the threat has stopped. You claim that this leads to a “shoot first mentality”. Are you suggesting that cops wait until the bad guy fires the first shot just to be sure he is really a threat? In fact, most cops who are in gunfights do not fire the first shot. It an old training axiom that “The first sign you are in a gunfight is that you have already been shot or shot at.” Are you suggesting that cops DON’T place their own safety over that of suspects?
We DO train them that deadly force is warranted ONLY if there is an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury to them or someone else. I wish I could provide a cite but there was a recent study that showed that around 80% off all officers felt that, at some point in their career, they had the legal justification to use deadly force and didn’t. The average was four times. So much for trigger happy cops.
We also do not train cops to view every single person they see as a threat. We train that before they walk up to that car on the road or knock on the door of that house, have a look around. Where are you going to go if the shit hits the fan? What are you going to do if that driver leans out and starts shooting? Or one of the people involved in a domestic produces a knife and comes at you? It is tactical awareness. It is officer safety.
The society I would like to live in would have no need for cops at all. But that isn’t reality. reality is that there is a need for someone to enforce the laws. The reality is some people choose not to obey the laws and will confront, with violence, the enforcers. Society has given the enforcers the legal right to use force and even take a life when warranted. If you don’t like the laws as written then do something about changing them.