Protesters derive the the right to disrupt the functioning of major industries from…? I think some people confuse speech with mayhem. Their stated purpose for being there was illegal, strike one,
That’s all the cops needed to start arresting people.
OTOH, excessive force is another issue. Just because the police had cause to disperse the crowd or arrest people does not justify any level of violence to accomplish those ends.
Errata said…quote:
Rodney King didn’t get killed either. Let’s see some clear guidelines on force here so that I can avoid bringing extreme examples like this.
Are you serious? Comparing this incident with Rodney King??
Sadly, I can only assume you are, so I’ll give you some of the guidelines as they pertain to the use of force continuum that I have laying around from a training presentation…
From the Florida State Constitution
2.1
The sworn members of the Division of Law Enforcement are granted authority to employ control techniques, including the utilization of force likely to cause death or great bodily harm, in the performance of their official duties in accordance with the provisions of chapter 776, Florida Statutes.
2.2
Chapter 776, Florida Statutes, has set forth the following laws governing the use of such control:
2.2.1
Section 776.05, Florida Statutes, “Law enforcement officers; use of force in making an arrest.” - A law enforcement officer, or any person whom he has summoned or directed to assist him, need not retreat or desist from efforts to make a lawful arrest because of resistance or threatened resistance to the arrest. He is justified in the use of any force:
2.2.1.1
Which he reasonably believes to be necessary to defend himself or another from bodily harm while making the arrest;
2.2.1.2
When necessarily committed in arresting felons who have escaped; or
2.2.1.3
When necessarily committed in arresting felons fleeing from justice. However, this subsection shall not constitute a defense in any civil action for damages brought for the wrongful use of deadly force unless the use of deadly force was necessary to prevent the arrest from being defeated by such flight and, when feasible, some warning had been given, and:
2.2.1.3.1
The sworn member reasonably believes that the fleeing felon poses a threat of death or serious physical harm to the officer or others; or
2.2.1.3.2
The sworn member reasonably believes that the fleeing felon has committed a crime involving the infliction or threatened infliction of serious physical harm to another person.
3
POLICY
It is the policy of the Division of Law Enforcement to comply with the provisions of law concerning the use of control to effect an arrest, to prevent escape, to apprehend a fugitive or to prevent injury/death to its sworn members and to the public. Sworn members may resort to the use of control, including the use of force likely to cause death or great bodily harm, only when authorized by law.
4
DEFINITIONS
4.1
DEADLY FORCE: As defined in section 776.06, Florida Statutes, is that force that is likely to cause death or great bodily harm and includes, but is not limited to:
4.1.1
Firing a firearm in the direction of the person to be arrested, even though no intent exists to kill or inflict great bodily harm; and
4.1.2
Firing a firearm at a vehicle or vessel in which the person to be arrested is riding.
4.1.3
The term “deadly force” does not include the discharge of a firearm by a law enforcement officer during and within the scope of their official duties which is loaded with a less-lethal munition. As used in this subsection the term “less-lethal munition” means a projectile that is designed to stun, temporarily incapacitate, or cause temporary discomfort to a person without penetrating the person’s body.
4.2
FORCE: An officer’s response to a subject’s resistance that requires the officer to use touch or any response higher on the Florida Department of Law Enforcement - Use of Force/Levels of Resistance Matrix.
4.3
GREAT BODILY HARM: A bodily injury that creates a substantial risk of death or causes serious permanent disfigurement.
5
OBJECTIVES
5.1
To ensure that sworn members of the Division employ the amount of force that is necessary and reasonable to prevent escape, overcome resistance and effect arrests during the performance of their official duties.
5.2
To ensure that sworn members receive training and demonstrate proficiency in the use of all weapons authorized by the Division before being allowed to carry or use them.
5.3
To implement measures which will enhance the integrity of law enforcement operations and contribute to the safety and security of the sworn members of the Division.
6
RESPONSIBILITIES
The Division’s Training Section shall exercise responsibility for the administration of defensive tactics and firearms training programs. Academy staff shall evaluate the content of such programs periodically in order to ensure compliance with current Florida Statutes, developments in case law and tactical considerations related to officer safety. All sworn personnel shall successfully complete the appropriate minimum state certification program, be issued copies of and instructed in the deadly force policy/fleeing felon policy before they are authorized to carry a firearm or placed into a position where they may use deadly force or affect an arrest.
7
PROCEDURES
7.1
Sworn members of the Division shall in every instance seek to only employ the necessary amount of control required to successfully overcome physical resistance, prevent escapes and effect arrests. However, that objective must be tempered by the need to preserve the safety of the Division’s officers. Consequently, sworn members need not wait for injury to occur to themselves or to another before taking appropriate action to prevent it. The decision to employ control must be based upon the totality of circumstances known or reasonably believed by the sworn member at the time such control is used. When danger threatens or when resistance is encountered, sworn members should initiate action which is reasonable and necessary.
See, when a sworn officer is threatened, or percieves the threat of another, he or she is obliged to use the next level of force above that with which he or she is met. In other words, if an officer is met with fists, he employs hand to hand techniques if possible, but is authorized to use chemical spray. If an officer is met with sticks or other weapons, those equal spray and batons. Knives and other dangerous items equal lethal use of force, period…
Errata, the point here is that even by the standards of another state, these officers were within their rights, you may not like it, but it’s just they way it is.
I should have said less-lethal, i’m a bit old school. It’s hardly vague, it means LESS LETHAL than standard firearm ammunition. Meaning the ammunition has a less hit-to-kill ratio then a standard hollowpoint round.
The King case, the Diallo case, the Louima case…ALL excessive force, for which the cops ought STILL be in jail, they’re a damn disgrace.
“Peace” officer during a time of peace or “national guard soldier” during martial law, you choose your protection, me, i’ll stick with the peace officer.
You make a good point, in that the longshoremen are the most likely of the people present to be objective. However, that objectivity doesn’t make them omniscient. It’s quite possible that some members of the crowd were throwing projectiles, while others were being (comparitively) peaceful, and that the longshoremen didn’t happen to notice the few who were a physical threat to the officers.
I also have issues with your claim that the cops are equally likely to be dishonest as the protesters. Cops, from what I have seen, are more likely to be cautious, as they’re very much in the public eye, and are subject to high levels of scrutiny. They can tend to have a CYA philosophy when it comes to the use of force, and thus may be hesitant to use force unless absolutely necessary. With such a abuse-wary public, a cop can get royally screwed if they go overboard. So when a cop says that there was physical danger involved, I tend to believe him, unless there’s a good reason not to. And when it’s just the cop’s word against those breaking the law, I’ll side with the cop every time.
So assuming the cops’ story is legit (and I see no reason to doubt it at this point), I’m going to side with them on this one.
Jeff
for those of you who say that rubber bullets are not dangerous as real bullets, there are 17 families of dead children in Northern Ireland who will disagree with you.
And they would be wrong.
Rubber bullets ARE less dangerous than real bullets. Anyone with a grasp of basic physics can see this. This does not mean that they are absolutely safe, but they are certainly less dangerous than lead-jacketed projectiles of death.
Nope, just pointing out the need for specifics. Thankfully, you provided some.
Unless you want to invoke rock throwing, this clearly wasn’t what the officers were doing. To date, I what I’ve seen so far makes the rock throwing allegations insubstantial.
But you put forth your argument based soley on blocking the port, which by the guidelines you presented, their actions hardly seem warranted.
Errata said…
But you put forth your argument based soley on blocking the port, which by the guidelines you presented, their actions hardly seem warranted.
See, there’s the issue. Indeed the actions were warranted, since as someone so correctly pointed out (and I’m not sure who, sorry) a mob of people who are politically motivated enough to protest, probably aren’t going to listen to reason, especially from an agent of the very group they protest. So once the order is issued, they either left, or were made to leave. Yes, it’s true, the innocent bystanders are indeed collateral damage by definition, this doesn’t make it wrong, or against policy. To borrow a phrase, the collateral damage created in the making of eggs, is the breaking of the shells. Now if you ask the shells, they’d rather not be broken, and if you asked the eggs, i’m sure they’d say THEY would rather the shells not be broken, because of their own survival, still, the shells are broken, and still the yolks run into the pan, because that is the nature of the beast. You may not like it, but that’s the way it is…
Fighting the war in Iraq is going to do nothing to secure American freedom, nor is it going to do much for Iraqi freedom. It may be of economic benefit to the U.S., however.
Since this is GD, can I ask for a cite for this?
Nonsense- the average Iraqi, especially in Bagdad, now has a lot more freedom of speech (esp. concerning badmouthing Saddam and his regime)compared to only a few days ago. I’m willing to bet that at the next elections it won’t be 100% for a single candidate.
Considering the estimates for the cost of this war that have been tossed around, I’m also willing to bet that the war will not be of “econmic benefit”.
—With such a abuse-wary public, a cop can get royally screwed if they go overboard.—
First of all, really? I seem to see story after story of officers getting far lighter sentances than normal people, or getting off entirely. While they may have been justified in those cases, I certainly don’t see many cops getting “royally screwed.”
But if there was, then that speaks AGAINST your point, not for it: it’s all the more reason to lie. The Blue Wall stands big and tall.
Lead-jacketed ?!