I have a feeling you’re not the first guy to tell her that.
No worries. Whatever credit I gave you previously, I realize now was a mistake. You’re not here to debate, you’re here to hysterically shake your fists at the heavens, fling insults, and get your needed fix of drama. Any possible thought I had to giving a shit about what you say and how you would respond to my multiple points showing you for the idiot you are has disappeared.
You mean outside actually offering an opinion about the legitimacy of Currie’s actions, the proper amount of resistance to legal, but discourteous, treatment, and a rebuttal to my (and others) showing you that your legal opinion is garbage? Yeah, you never quite got around to actually debating those.
But you did slink away like a coward, simply create strawmen, and fling insults, so in that sense, you’re absolutely right: you likely wouldn’t respond in any way that you already haven’t.
I could tell from the dozens of posts, the inflamed rhetoric, the constant cries of being unable to comprehend how anyone could disagree with you, that this isn’t that serious for you.
(I’m just picking this part out of BigT’s post not because I disagree with him, but just because he mentions it.)
The way a person expresses himself to the police—including choice of words, tone of voice, or degree of emotion—should never be a basis for forcibly restraining that person.
It should be our absolute right to be as vulgar, profane, abusive, obscene, etc., as we wish to a police officer with zero risk of facing the use of force by the cops.
Really? How about if you say, threaten to skull fuck them while tearing off their arms and bludgeoning them to death? Words matter. Tone matters.
I think we should reach common ground by rallying around the excellent suggestions of Left Hand of Dorkness. What do you all say?
The discussion is too fast and furious for me to follow, but one point caught my eye:
We’re talking about a mall cop who used pepper spray inappropriately, right? I can understand that the behavior of a mall cop might be technically irrelevant in a discussion of real police, but aren’t they connected in the bigger picture? Especially since, apparently, a real cop stood by and condoned the spraying.
I’m sure you don’t imply that that pepper-spraying was OK because the guy was not a real cop; right, Hamlet ? Is the distinction between one type of uniformed “authority figure” and another so vast as to require language like “fucking … braille”? And if the gap is that great why should the mall cop be pepper-spraying? Are we all free to walk down the streets pepper-spraying those we find suspicious or annoying?
I know of them, I’ve used most of them and I agree that cops need to know them.
But I think you’re ignoring some particulars in the case under discussion.
One such particular is the fact that the police had to investigate the possible break-in, which involved checking and clearing the entire house, and identifying the people in it. This required them to detain, frisk and ID Mr. Currie, to go through the house checking it, and to ask questions as if Mr. Currie didn’t belong there. The cops had no choice but to do all of those things, and each of those things pissed Currie off. In addition, the cops had to split their resources as soon as Currie came down the stairs. This left one cop to deal with Mr. Currie while the others made sure the rest of the property was secure.
Now, I’m sure you’ll agree with me it’s an immediate help to a de-escalation strategy to have the subject of those efforts dealing with one authority figure instead of several at the same time. But that’s secondary to the legitimate law enforcement goals Sgt. Taylor has assumed by taking charge of Currie, which are:
[ol]
[li]to ascertain whether the subject (Mr. Currie) belongs at the residence (not yet accomplished when the youth was left with Sgt. Taylor, but Taylor reports he was unable to complete his telephone/radio request to run Currie’s DL # due to Currie’s shouting),[/li][li]to assure the safety of the property and the investigating officers while the first goal is being worked on (“sit here, Mr. Currie”) (no idea whether they said “please” but let’s say they did not; doesn’t negate the valid reason to have Currie sit),[/li][li]to assure the safety of the subject and that he remains under supervision while the investigation continues (“sit here, Mr. Currie”), and[/li][li]to attempt to gain further information from the subject that can help resolve any gaps in the information (such as whether Currie had anyone they could call to verify things. We’ll never know how far and how quickly Taylor would’ve gotten with that one, because Currie was too busy yelling abuse to offer any clarifying information)[/li][/ol]
A second particular is that attempts were made by Taylor to induce cooperation from Currie using appeals to self interest and verbal requests. Obviously Taylor was not effective at this with Currie. You say that’s because he didn’t follow a valid de-escalation process, but that’s too big a leap for me to agree with. The process is important, but that’s not the only success factor at play.
Because of a third particular, which is that DeShawn Currie, from a LEO perspective and just from a normal social perspective, was not behaving in a manner that was consistent with a foster child who belonged at the house, but in an antagonistic manner consistent with an interrupted criminal.
Now, it’s pretty clear the police did give credence to Currie’s quite plausible claim to live in the house; they did not cuff him and they left him unrestrained and with only one officer to stay with him. But when left with Currie, Taylor encounters a bit of a dilemma, because he can’t proceed under that plausible assumption until Currie calms down enough to help him -or at least allow him- to get some clear corroboration.
And frankly, it’s expecting an awful lot for any approach, whether it’s our preferred empathetic, empowering and nonconfrontational approach or Taylor’s approach (however you want to describe it), to achieve results in such circumstances during the very brief period in which Taylor was left with Currie. Because, and I hope this doesn’t offend any delicate psyches, Currie seems to have some emotional issues.
I don’t know if you deal in your job with any troubled or special needs kids, but let me tell you, the normal rules of persuasion do not work for a lot of these kids. Sometimes you have to wait them out.
Which leads to the fourth particular: there was very little time between the initial entry into the home (about 3:25pm) and the escalation which prompted Sgt. Taylor to try and restrain Currie and to ultimately spray him. The time of the use of the spray is not reported by any of the officers, but it occurred while the other two were still checking the upstairs of the house, which is not a long duration task. Things happened quickly. The spraying had occurred, Currie had been successfully restrained and brought outside, EMT’s had been called and had arrived by 4:00pm
The idea that we know enough about Currie’s state of mind to be able to judge him to have even been amenable to de-escalation at all, or to judge the police response as incompetent due to their failure to calm Currie down is bullshit.
Can’t we have both reactions?
(a) the cops should have, as LhoD has been pointing out, done more de-escalation. They weren’t legally required to, their failure to do so wasn’t in and of itself corruption or abuse of power, but it was bad policing. And it’s very likely that they would have treated a white person differently (although not certain)
(b) at the same time, Currie’s actions were also far less than ideal, and were not, at least to me, a bold stand for civil rights, but were just someone (justifiably) pissed off acting immaturely, and he ended up facing the consequences of his actions.
While this doesn’t prove you’re incompetent to judge, it’s emblematic of your incompetence. Of course I deal with troubled/special needs kids in my job, every day. And here’s the newsflash for you: de-escalation strategies aren’t necessary when you’re not dealing with someone with emotional issues. Through this conversation I’m assuming that Currie has some kind of PTSD related to his foster care, and I’m suggesting the cops use strategies desigend to de-escalate someone who’s already pretty fucking escalated.
The rest of your post is just hand-wavey. We both read the words the cops said to him (according to their own report). They did not speak to him using polite, gentle, de-escalating language. You mention that they couldn’t run his DL because he was shouting? Thing is, running a driver’s license on someone instead of asking him for his side of the story is an escalation, not a de-escalation.
And yes, they needed to establish his bona fides, of course. There was no urgency to do that. Once they established that the house was clear, they could have taken an hour to establish his bona fides, they could have given him all the time he needed. The two tasks were totally separate.
You’re really bending over backward here to defend indefensible behavior.
Edit: incidentally, I don’t agree that it’s always helpful for de-escalation to be dealing with one person rather than several. In this instance, if we’re to believe the cops, it was clearly a mistake, since according to their own reports Currie got much more agitated when left alone with one cop instead of several.
While I don’t think Currie behaved in the best possible way, I’m very uncomfortable with saying he “faced the consequences of his actions.” Those consequences were unjust and unnecessary.
(post shortened)
You can express yourself anyway you wish but you must realize that the person you’re addressing might object to your vulgar, profane, abusive, obscenities and kick your ass. just sayin’
Both parties could chose to speak to each other in a civil manner until the confusion is cleared up. Or not. Especially if one of them is authorized by the state, county, or city to put someone in handcuffs for the safety of everyone involved. Or to use pepper spray. Pssst. Pssssst. Pssssssssssst.
Hamlet et al, for all the time you spend castigating ywtf, it seems like doorhinge could come in for a bit of your attention. Of everyone in this thread, surely we can agree that he’s the most reprehensible turd in the game.
Because only one of these things matters in the grand scheme of things. They aren’t equal offenses. Feeling the need to cast blame on people when they act like people rather than souless automatons is both dehumanizing and stupid.
If I stomp on someone’s bare foot either intentionally or on accident, then the natural consequence of my actions will be a person who is reacting as though they are in pain. Their pain may lead them to yowl and if they are extra sensitive, they may even get angry or sad. If I did that shit intentionally and they know it, I should expect them to yell at me and maybe get in my face. If I stomp on their foot again, then I should expect even more anger, not less. It would be weird, in fact, if they responded to my foot stomping calmly and stoically. This would suggest that they either can’t feel pain or/and lack the spine to react.
Cuffie reacted like a person in pain. By faulting him for his reaction, you’re essentially saying that when someone’s foot is needlessly stomped on multiple times, they are obligated to suppress their pain because their pain is wrong–not the actions that have caused them pain. When the public denies their fellow men the right to human emotion in the face of harrassment and abuse–and even justify heaping more abuse on them because they fail to act like automatons–the public loses. Not only do we permit cops to hurt us, but we allow them to expect we’ll make it easy for them to hurt us. They won’t even have to put up with our powerless little curse words as they stomp and stomp.
Hamlet blew a gasket a few posts ago just because I took too long to respond to his last post to me. He felt ignored and disrespected by my inattentiveness (and my name-calling). Oooh boy. Now, am I really supposed to believe a cop jacking him up against the wall, treating him like a common thug in his own home, peppering him with mean-spirited questions that threaten his sense of belonging, would cause him to react with calm solemnity? Am I really supposed to believe he would cheerfully just do whatever the cops told him to do in his own living room, while not even knowing why they invaded his home in the first place? Judging by his own conduct in this thread, I have no reason to think he’d be calm and compliant in the face of that. I’m sure he’d have plenty of choice words to hurl at a cop who disrespected him like Currie was disrespected.
And you know what? That’s okay. Hamlet is entitled to get loud and pissy at cops that stomp on his feet. He’s not deserving of pepper-spray for that. Because he’s human and cops should be trained to manage human emotions without resorting to violence.
Nope. What matters is whether the person presents a credible imminent threat. Words by themselves do not present a threat to armed law enforcement officers.
The following might indicate an actual physical threat:
— Does he have the physical build that would give him the ability to harm an armed police officer?
— Is he armed with a bludgeon or other weapon?
— Has he made a motion that can reasonably be interpreted as an indication of an attempt to cause harm? (Slapping an arm away in attempt to avoid handcuffing is not such a motion)
In your example, each component is literally impossible for a person in this situation: skull-fucking, tearing another person’s arms off, and bludgeoning him to death (without being armed with a bludgeon).
Doing all three at the same time is triply impossible.
So, the words present no credible threat.
Incompetent? Backatcha, Sunshine. We can call each other names or consider each other’s posts with some sort of respect. While you decide how to de-escalate your discussion with me, allow me to continue.
The strategies you’re talking about are used pretty extensively in conflict resolution situations. They work best when the emotionally agitated people involved have “normal” reactions to stimuli, but yes, they’ll work with those, such as anyone afflicted with PTSD, whose emotional reactions aren’t so “normal” or expected. The same techniques take more time though, are less likely to work immediately or across the board, and often one particular variation or emphasis in approach is much more successful for a specific individual. It takes time and knowledge of the individual to find those approaches.
But my point isn’t that the cops didn’t have time to try the techniques or that they weren’t worth employing. It’s that that’s not what they were there to accomplish. They weren’t there to manage Currie, and they weren’t aware before the fact that he would need to be dealt with outside of their normal procedural practices. They were there to investigate a reported break-in. That they needed to calm Currie down in order to do that and that he wasn’t reacting as they expected based on previous experiences wouldn’t have become clear until he actually failed to react as expected (that’s how this space-time thing works). Once Taylor knew he had to deal with Currie’s rage on an exceptional basis, there were fewer options available to him.
That the police spoke with Currie brusquely while giving him lawful orders is not the giant fuckup you’re making it out to be; a normal 18 year old lawful resident would’ve fumed and talked back, but wouldn’t have threatened and ramped up the way Currie did.
I’m tempted to turn that around and mention your defense of Currie’s behavior, but that’s kind of cheap and unfair. I will note that you seem to be trying hard here to impugn my motivations.
Make it clear for me: what specific behaviors of any of the police officers involved were indefensible? It appears to me that the whole department performed professionally, but maybe I’m missing something. So far, you’ve expended a lot of words to describe a resolution process that you haven’t demonstrated would’ve had any effect on the situation at all. You’ve also not demonstrated why that should’ve been the immediate approach of the officers when confronted with an individual who’d been previously (and erroneously, but they could not know this at the time) identified as an intruder into the home, rather than following their established procedures in the usual manner.
LHOD, I sincerely believe you’re good at your job. I also bet you’ve been second-guessed in various situations involving kids you don’t know well (or maybe even a few you do), in which parents or interested observers, also expert at their job, disappointedly explained to you how wrong your considered approach was, and how a different approach you didn’t even try would’ve been much better in that situation.
If that has happened, and again, I’m betting it has because it happens to all professionals, it was unfair, and it pissed you off.
Your questions were never answered by the douche nozzles that jumped down my shit for linking to the mall cop thing. I have to assume too much cognitive dissonance results when you try to square the supposed pipsqueak status of this mall cop with the rather non-pipsqueak actions he took, all in full view of a do-nothing cop.
That’s an oddly familiar argument*, but here, if it’ll make you happy:
doorhinge, you’re not helping the thread and I wish you’d stop being a shit.
On that subject, I wish ywtf would stop creating those straw arguments and burning them down. All that smoke is occluding any light anyone else is trying to shed.
*see: Bricker (12/99-present day), every liberal hypocrisy post
Not even close. I got upset because you didn’t respond, but took the time to talk shit (which you continue to do), fling insults, and play the drama queen without engaging in an actual debate.
If you’re going to talk the talk, you should walk the walk. You’re just flinging shit without the guts nor the brains, to back up your talk. It’s cowardly, and pathetic. Like continuing to insult me in other posts you make instead of addressing them to me or responding like a grownup and debating the issue.
That you got upset at all makes everything you say about staying calm in the face of jerk cops a massive joke. This is a message board. Get. A. Grip.
You’d think someone wired like you would be the first to empathize with a person in Currie’s situation.
You’re right. Why I let a cowardly, intellectually limited, troll like yourself get me upset is beyond me. I think it’s because I actually thought better of you for awhile, so I actually engaged you like you were worth my time and able to debate.
I was completely wrong. I shouldn’t have given you any credit whatsoever. I never should have wasted my time explaining how you were wrong about the legalities. I never should have stooped to your level. I never should have let you get me upset. I thought you were capable of debate, honest, straightward. I was wrong. You’re a cowardly pissant who takes joy in pissing off your intellectual superiors and would rather fling insults than deal with the issues. You’re a sad, pathetic troll, and I let you get me upset. My bad.
We have invited Academy Award winning actress Meryl Streep to dramatize the last post.