That wasn’t my point. I say it is not recommended because the chances are that the good citizen probably did something wrong and the mouthiness will make him look bad to the judge at sentencing, not that he will take an ass beating at the hands of the police.
Further, if the good citizen was completely innocent, a polite attitude on the video is better for the jury to help decide that, coupled with the idea that the citizen has no idea what the officer was told by dispatch. Could be a complete misunderstanding which physical resistance only adds to.
I said it escalates the situation. As a result, the officer is going to be a bit more on edge or guarded or fearful or however you want to put it. Yes, if someone is non-compliant, the officer needs to determine if this is due to some innocent reason I don’t count being drunk among those reasons (unless they are so bombed the can’t physically comply). You get no break for being a belligerent non-compliant drunk or whacked on meth. As a matter of fact, that likely makes you more dangerous.
In some cases, it doesn’t matter what the reason is for non-compliance. If a person presents a lethal threat to the officer or anyone else, it matters not whether they are mentally ill, drug addled or anything else.
No cop expects everyone to be 100% compliant. Still, on traffic stops, the vast majority of people are But there comes a point where non-compliance has to be addressed. If the officer tells you to get out of the car (or not move or stop running away or approaching etc) and you flat out refuse, maybe even after being told what the consequences will be, what is the officer supposed to do? Call a social worker or crisis negotiator? Let you go? The law permits the use of reasonable force to accomplish law enforcement objectives. Cleary, there are too many cases of excessive force. Police need to better control their emotions when faced with defiance but there is plenty of blame to go around. There is no constitutional right to disobey lawful orders. However, it seems to be part of the American psyche to resist authority. Except for the most egregious cases, almost all uses of force (reasonable and unreasonable) by the police are preceded by non-compliance on the part of the subject and could have been avoided with simple compliance to lawful orders.
The issue is the larger number of people who do NOT represent a lethal threat, or any threat, and who are incorrectly assessed as a threat. Because of perceived non compliance. Or race. Or class. Or other in general. And who then responded to as lethal threats with lethal force because lethal force is very handy and surest to stop the perceived threat.
Well, I guess the answer is to throw 50,000 volts through you, drag your disabled body to the ground, break or dislocate something, and charge you with resisting arrest. It’s certainly better than calling some hippie to help convince the person to get out of the car without violence.
I don’t see carrying guns as the problem; it’s the rules of engagement that’s the problem, and it’s what the departments determine to give them the discretion to engage in.
If the guy in NC, for instance, was really dealing drugs (meth, opioids, etc), I want the cops to go after that guy, but I don’t want cops shooting him as he’s fleeing. If they can take a white guy in an armed hostage situation into custody, then they can sure as hell take in the dude selling bags of street drugs. So, right target, wrong rules of engagement.
Eric Garner and George Floyd were not only examples of wrong rules of engagement but the wrong targets. They could have found out where they lived and issued a summons. I know - that’s teaching criminals that they can flaunt the law. Well, not necessarily. I think that if someone is cited and ignores a bench warrant, then yes, they’re inviting a confrontation with law enforcement, but even then, the rules of engagement can be changed. We can afford to wait to bring suspects in - alive.
I was reading in Gladwell’s Talking To Strangers about rising crime rates in Missouri. The KC force had hired two criminologists and allowed them to conduct various experiments. The first time, it led to the frustrating conclusion that it did not seem to matter much how many police were on patrol or in what location. The second time, after more frustrating attempts, the force focused specifically on guns in a very small, bad area. Using the liberal discretion allowed the police to stop and search a car, many guns were discovered - and crime rates sank substantially. This garnered a lot of attention.
Gladwell states this led to many more traffic stops, without the proviso of a very restricted location. I’m sure reality is much more complex than his description, but he then discusses a well-known tragic case which seems to emphasize the importance of calmness and communication.
The primary point I am trying to make is that compliance leads to much, much lower likelihood that force will be used. It seems no one wants to address this. Do you agree or disagree? How much non-compliance is O.K. with you? Where and how do you draw the line? When police use force on a non-compliant person, is that person free from responsibility for the results? What are your suggested options for circumstances where a driver refuses to get out of the car, identify himself etc.? Don’t say what the cops shouldn’t do, that’s not helpful. Say what they SHOULD do. Be specific.
Is this what I should tell my kid when I’m beating him with a belt?
Note, I don’t actually beat my kid with a belt, when he is not following my instructions, we talk about it and I punish him if necessary with removing privileges rather than beatings.
What the cops SHOULD do is stop using physical violence and pain to get their way. Stop assaulting people because they are not being respectful and compliant. Stop assaulting people because you don’t want to wait for them to calm down. Reserve physical violence for times when violence is needed to stop a person who is being a danger to themselves or others.
This is why, when there is an abusive spouse or parent, we don’t tell the victim to just be compliant in order to avoid being abused. Yes, being compliant will most likely cut down on the beatings, but it isn’t the answer to the problem.
I don’t think on a societal level there is a good way to address this. People (as mentioned in this thread) have a wide variety of reasons for being noncompliant or difficult to dealt with. It doesn’t really matter if they’re good reasons or not. What matters is that the police could be much better at handling situations with the public in a way that minimizes how many people have to die or get seriously hurt, and since they work for all of us there actually are a number of ways to deal with that.
And it is a point that is 100 percent irrelevant to how we should expect police to behave, how we should train them, and how we should hold them accountable. They should be trained to expect non-compliance (sometimes) and to deal with those situations without resorting to violence. That is a matter completely different from how non-police should ideally behave. After all, if people were behaving ideally then we wouldn’t need cops.
Also, if a cop is demanding that a citizen do something that violates the citizen’s rights, then I want the citizen to have the valid option to refuse to comply without risking being assaulted or killed by the cops. Cops should be trained to respect individuals’ rights, not “tell it to the judge.”
What you are saying goes against 700 years of English common law. If an officer has probable cause to arrest someone for violation of a law, society wants to see that law enforced by taking the suspected lawbreaker in front of a judge where he has a full opportunity to present his defense. If all he has to do is resist and can get away from this presentment, then the whole system breaks down.
Maybe you think that certain things shouldn’t be crimes. I do too. But that doesn’t change the fact that our elected representatives have made these things crimes. But I don’t get to get away with something just because I fight with the police who are lawfully arresting me. Nobody wants to go to jail.
That is ludicrous and not at all what anyone was saying.
Look, is there a place for even heavily armed cops armed with assault rifles? Sure, if Bonnie and Clyde steal an armored truck and start shooting people put of it, that’s a time when the cops using overwhelming and deadly force is totally reasonable.
What is NOT reasonable is the way that the police routinely uses overwhelming and deadly force to, say, arrest someone for potentially dealing Pot, but then break into the wrong house and murder an innocent instead. Whoopsie!
In 2015, police in New York got as close as they could to going on strike - they stopped patrolling, stopped leaving their squad cars for non-emergencies, and only responded to dangerous crimes. So if you called in a murder, they still showed up, but they didn’t pull you over for a burnt out license plate light (and then search your car), etc.
And lo and behold, reports of major crime went DOWN.
How about, armed police officers stop dealing with those kinds of minor issues, focusing instead on murders and burglaries; and we create a new position focused on dealing with minor problems in a non-violent, less confrontational way.
Of course, these new officers would have the ability to call in an armed, traditional police officer if the need arises. But they don’t treat every public interaction like the shootout at the OK Corral.
As has been alluded, the first part sounds very victim-blaming. If she hadn’t dressed provocatively she wouldn’t have been raped, what were they doing out at night any way … not having money in your wallet is the best way to avoid being robbed of it …
Now as to non-compliance response. Engage verbally. Assess reason for non-compliance calmly and professionally and further respond according to that professional assessment. Is this someone who is mentally ill or otherwise impaired? Then if the responding officer does not possess the skill set to deal with such without violence or threat thereof then that officer should call for back-up that does. Is the perception of non-compliance actually a misperception, and the intent of the citizen was to comply even if not with great politeness and grace and deference of yassir? Then the officer needs to check themself and remember that they are the professional in the space of the encounter. They continue to treat the disrespectful citizen very respectfully and politely. Is there strong cause beyond profiling to believe that the person is noncompliant AND representing an imminent threat? Call for back up and stayed backed up yourself not directly engaging the individual further.
Can there be a defensive use of a taser by a traffic cop on a traffic stop? Yes but it should be a very very very rare occurrence and clearly be justified upon review by an independent body.
Using the threat of potentially lethal force should OTOH NEVER be used for simple non-compliance during a traffic or even other low level stop.
Right now it seems that many police enter interactions with POC in particular with a default state assuming potentially imminent threat until proven otherwise and engage accordingly, “seeing” guns and the citizen going for a gun when none are present, when hands are even in the air and the citizen is 13 years old. The knee jerk only response considered for their perception of non-compliance is threat of force, often potentially lethal force, and quick implementation of violent force.
ETA: it is easy to connect this to parenting and parents who beat their kids. The best way for the kid to have avoided the beating was to have done exactly what the parent said. Parents are the adults in the room and a kid swearing, acting out, tantruming even, does not justify physical force. Some parents do not know any other way to respond than a whooping though and see the belt or worse as the only option to non-compliance.
^ Adding to this post…if someone decides to run from the such an encounter with police, I maintain letting them go. If the cops have managed to stop a vehicle (and even if they refuse to stop), they already have the license plate so they can pay that person a visit later with a warrant, with the right personnel, in force, at their home, and since they ran from the police, they get an enhanced fine or penalty. The drama of an arrest is then more controlled by the police and de-escalated and not an impromptu roadside struggle or dangerous high-speed chase.
If they are not home there are other ways to find them.
