Except in the case of a cop and a non-compliant citizen (as opposed to a DV victim) the non-compliant citizen is violating the law set down by society. There are laws and there people tasked with enforcing those laws. If everyone is free to ignore the enforcers, why even have the laws? Also, it is not the cops’ job to punish, as in your example of beating your son. Some cops do so anyway and I do not support that, in the least. They should be prosecuted if they are doling out street justice. Their job is to apprehend or, minimally, cite violators so the courts can determine guilt and punishment If the violator is going to prevent them from doing heir job (known as obstruction of justice in many places), that person is likely going to be arrested using whatever force is reasonably necessary. You told me what the cops should not do when I asked, specifically, what they should do, in the case of a non-compliant subject. I also asked “How much non-compliance is OK?” and you didn’t answer that, either. I await your answers.
And you ignore the ones given.
I agree with the vast majority of what you said. However, holding someone accountable for unlawful behavior isn’t victim blaming, its suspect blaming. If, with a legal basis, I tell you to get out of your car or stop walking away or whatever and you refuse to do so, you are not a victim unless I use unlawful force or otherwise violate your rights. I’m not sure of the correct term (false equivalence?) but this comparing violators to actual victims of crimes, is mis-leading (at best) and insulting to true victims.
So, I stop a car for running a red light and the driver refuses to roll down his window or step out. Not knowing the reason for this, I call for back up. Back up arrives and the driver still will not get out or even roll down the window. I tell the driver that, if he doesn’t roll down the window and identify himself he will be arrested. He refuses. What should I do now?
What will probably happen is that I break out the window and use force to take the driver into custody. If, during this altercation, the driver does something I reasonably perceive as a deadly threat, I may end up shooting him. What will the headline say? “Man shot after running read light.” While that’s true in a chronological sense, news accounts seem to leave out what happened after the minor violation. None of this would have happened if the driver simply rolled down his window. So yes, I am blaming him.
There is a technique known as “verbal judo”. When used properly, it gives people time to comply without the use of force. Its intended primarily for traffic stops but can be used in other situations. Very briefly the person is told 1. Why they have been stopped and what you want them to do. 2. Why they have to do what you asked/told/ordered them to do. 3. What the consequences of non-compliance will be. 4. One last request asking if there is anything you can say to gain their compliance. 5. Arrest using reasonable force. At each step they are being given the opportunity to comply. This technique is time and safety-permitting. If, between steps 1 and 2 they start reaching under the seat after being told to keep their hands on the wheel, all bets are off. I would like to see more officers using it and we train it where I work.
Here’s an example of a “routine” traffic stop and what can happen if officers allow the driver to control the situation.
Tulsa Police footage shows shooting of two officers - YouTube
As for the 13 year old - its a tragic loss of life. However, from the time the officer perceives the threat (the gun is visible in the kid’s hand in the freeze frame and I’ll make the assumption that the officer saw it. That may or may not be true) until he fires is under a second. Once you have decided to shoot and start to squeeze the trigger, it takes some amount of time to perceive that the threat no longer exists, change the decision and stop squeezing. This is not a matter of opinion. It is a fact. In this instance, perhaps this is what happened. Called to shots fired. Foot pursuit. Suspect has a gun and doesn’t drop it immediately when chased by police. Suspect begins moving in a manner consistent with the raising of the weapon. Officer fires a single shot.
Some will say the cop should have waited to see if the kid still had the gun or was intending to shoot the officer. The problem is that if the kid did intend to shoot, by the time the officer could perceive it and react he would already be shot. Action beats reaction every single time. Those same people may say “Cops get paid to take those kind of risks” No.They don’t. Where people get that idea from is beyond me.
Is the problem really trigger-happy cops or is teenagers with guns using them like its the wild west? I hear people calling for the cop’s head but not a peep about a 13 year old with a gun. Where did he learn the values he lived and died by? Is that the fault of the police, too? Everyone wants to hold the police accountable but themselves? Forget it.
DSeid.
FWIW, I was responding to cheesesteak. (In the following, much longer post I was replying to you. At least, at the beginning ) I did quote him and he hasn’t responded so I don’t think I ignored his answers. Unless you are referring to his non-answers in the post I quoted. He did not answer the questions I posed.
And as far as keep calling additional officers until some with the correct skillset arrives - that idea assumes that everyone can be talked into compliance. I’m here to tell you that is simply not true. Nor is it very pragmatic. How any resources do you tie up for one person who won’t roll down his window? My answer is enough to take him into custody. Why do you want hold the cops accountable but no one else? Is it because police are trained? I’d estimate that more than 90-95% of people I contacted when I was working were compliant - meaning no force was necessary. Even the ones I was arresting for very serious charges. Some were mouthy but so what? They had no special training. So, what is it with that 5%? Do they get a pass because they didn’t get training and I did? Sure, cops need to be accountable for their actions. But so do the people they deal with.
We are drifting away from the core topic, but let’s play. What should the police do with a non-compliant subject? Talking is nice. Not yelling random instructions while pointing a weapon, talking. Using the spoken word to calm down a person rather than intimidating them into fearful compliance. It can actually be done.
Or, if necessary, and reasonable from a public safety standpoint, let the person walk away and engage at a later time.
How much non-compliance is OK? I’ll refer to how the police here in NJ (at least what I recall being told by a District Atty) handle car chases. If you know who the person is, if you have a positive identification, you do not engage in a car chase, it is too dangerous. This strategy balances the risk of violent enforcement with the risk of the offender escaping justice.
But the “risk” calculus applies only to the Police and (maybe?) the Public, we choose to say that the risk to the arrestee is completely irrelevant. It’s OK to beat a guy half to death over a misdemeanor if he makes it difficult for cops to do their jobs, even if he’s well known and may be engaged safely at a later time.
I want to allude to a much larger topic that’s probably a bit of a threadjack for this one.
I would be absolutely thrilled to have a much better ‘trained’ populace. I’d be thrilled to have better public education, job opportunities, access to health care, reasonable nutrition, and housing.
The question about a 13 year-old … with a gun … out with an armed 21 year-old at 3AM is a valid question.
But my take is less about “hire more cops, give them more weapons of war, build more prisons” and more about chipping away at the upstream problems – the things that tend to be at the very heart of many of society’s ills.
We piss away billions on crime and punishment, but I think it’s largely as a result of the perverse incentive of the system as it’s currently constituted.
Thank you for sharing that. I watched it the whole way thru to the horrible ending. Here is where I am speculating could have been an alternate path…
The driver was pulled-over for a traffic violation, provided his name, address, and phone number, but did not provide registration. The LEO went back to his car and checked these things, and another LEO arrived at the scene. They then asked the driver to get out of the car. At that point, the driver refused to exit the vehicle and was given numerous warnings before it got physical - so…rather than getting physical, could they have just warned him that non-compliance with an LEO’s requests and orders would result in a multiplier for the fine he would be getting (rather than telling him he was about to be tased), and if he still refused to comply, the officers could then just break-off the engagement, hand him the ticket, and end the encounter at that point?
The officer appeared to verify his name and address, so if he refused to pay the fine they know where he lives. The business about meth and other stuff is extraneous to the traffic stop, and clearly the driver was lying when asked “is there something in there I need to know about?”. Something like this should never escalate into someone having to die.
Bluntly yes and the cops more than the citizens because they are the trained professionals in the encounter.
Again however, accountability is important but having procedures that systematically reduce risk are more important.
It is well established that officers can have the driver exit the vehicle. In my state they don’t need any reason. No reasonable suspicion or probable cause. The diver defied those orders. This is not a multiplier of a fine for a traffic violation but a criminal offense. Yes, they could have just let him go and got him later. But what makes you think that things would be any different later? If there is no consequence for not following lawful orders why ever follow them at all? It seems to me that this cop knew something was fishy. Are you suggesting that he not investigate? In my opinion, not investigating further would be a dereliction of duty. He didn’t know what was up. Did the driver just commit a robbery? Have load of drugs? Is the car stolen? Is there a kidnap victim in the trunk? To simply say “Let him go and send him a ticket” is naïve thinking. Remember Timothy Mcveigh? Can you imagine if Mcveigh was non-compliant that Trooper just a wrote a ticket and let him go?
Sometimes people are non-compliant just because that’s their nature “You’re not going to tell me what to do!” Sometimes, they know compliance is going to lead to their arrest (warrants, contraband etc). What they don’t seem to get is that non-compliance is going to lead to their arrest anyway unless they take the route of this killer. Non-compliant people rarely submit to arrest once the magic words are spoken. Cops know this and the stakes are high once things get to this point. Or, maybe the cop just lets them go with a threat to catch up with them later thereby passing the problem on to someone else. Is that really a viable alternative? The cop on the street doesn’t know what motivates someone to behave that way and, in the end, it doesn’t matter (barring mental illness or other disabilities). Ongoing non-compliance is going to result in an arrest and probably a use of force. The onus is on the driver to comply, not on the cops to throw up their hands and walk away. Is that REALLY what we want the police to do?
Fair enough. I don’t disagree with what you are saying. My point is that those officers followed their training which seems to tell them to enforce and get compliance at all costs and never back down (comply or die), and it led in this example to tragedy. Is there some place in the sequence of events where this situation became too unhinged that the officers could have backed-down for their own safety, as well as that of the driver?
The cop “thought” something was fishy, but the video never indicates if something “was” fishy. My point is why should a simple traffic stop ever lead to someone dying (cop or otherwise)?
Yes, part of the idea here is whether this is a good idea or not. Should random traffic stops for making a left turn into the far lane instead of the near lane be escalated to the point that weapons are deployed?
The man made a technically illegal but not remotely unusual left turn, had an expired registration and no insurance. At that point you can tell him to get someone to drive the car legally home, someone who has a driver’s licence and insurance. Here are your three tickets, we’ll wait for your ride.
I agree with everything you have said in this thread, but this nails it. This proposal would allow the very most dangerous criminals to go free while allowing me to get a ticket for a burned out bulb. If I see red and blue lights in the mirror, I pull over, ask what happened, am told that my license plate bulb is out, and accept my warning, my fix it ticket, or fine. I might call the officer an asshole on the way home. But I do what is required of every citizen: stop and submit to the authority, not of a dictator, but the representatives of the people I participated in an election for to enforce our laws that I also participated in to enact.
Assuming the car was not stolen, Or borrowed from a friend of a friend. Or the license plate was stolen. And assuming the person is actually living at the address tied to their license plate… If the person is fleeing and eluding from police I’d say it’s not safe to assume that this person will be at the address associated with his license plate when you stop by after breakfast tomorrow. And let’s hope s/he doesn’t commit any more crimes (or have a kidnapping victim in the trunk) until you can find him or her.
I hear that ~75% of traffic stops involve a kidnapping victim in the trunk, the other ~25% involve air fresheners blocking the windshield . . . which I hear shouldn’t even be a reason to pull people over.
Call your legislator. I hear we live in a country where the people vote. If that is a law in your state, then change it; ask you legislator why he keeps it on the books. It not the police departments fault for using that law as an enforcement technique. The Supreme Court said they can do it.
But, I’m in favor of people not being allowed to block their view out of their windshields.
The chief of the Dallas police department, David Brown, would agree with you. Last summer during the BLM protests at a press conference he said “We’re asking cops to do too much in this country.” He pointed out that we tend to have the police deal with every societal failure including drug addiction, mental health issues, and I think he mentioned chasing down stray dogs as well and I think he has a valid point. We do expect the police to do a lot of things they shouldn’t be doing.
I didn’t really give much thought to it until John Oliver pointed out how much of the annual budget for most cities is eaten up by their police departments. I couldn’t find an absolute answer for Little Rock, but it looks to me like almost 50% of the city’s personnel budget is for police. Maybe we could put some of that budget to better use towards programs and personnel who are trained to deal with situations that aren’t criminal in nature and let the police get back to policing?