Oh noes! A drone!

[DSMatticus]

Reading the sourced study, the number of suspect deaths actually went up relative to the control group (.02% to .04% for taser use relative compared to .09% to .09% for no taser use). But their sample size was only 44 suspect deaths, and the numbers are small enough that it's hard to separate correlation from noise, so this may not actually be a trend so much as a blip. In pretty much every other way, I have to admit tasers were demonstrably safer.

Though, it also shows that pepper spray is nearly across the board comparable to tasers in terms of outcomes, with the only exception being the chances of an officer requiring medical attention (but not officer hospitalization or severe injuries).

[Username17]

Yeah, Pepper Spray seems to be the better choice. Of course, I'm still not super happy with it. For every "Don't Taze me bro!" there's a story of police pepper spraying nonviolent protesters in the eyes. Excessive force does still happen on a regular basis with pepper spray and tasers. It's just that it demonstrably happens less than when the police are outfitted with just a club and a gun. Intermediate options are better - at least when the police are already given extreme options at their hip.

Anyone have studies from the UK of what happens when you give police who don't have firearms access to pepper spray and/or tasers? I'm honestly not sure what kinds of numbers to expect.

-Username17

[PoliteNewb]

Rather than argue about whether police should abuse us with guns, clubs, tasers, or chemicals, has anyone considered...trying to keep them from doing it all?

I don't give a shit if cops have anti-tank rifles or water pistols, as long as they are punished for misusing them.

I mean, it's nice that you can make the abuse numbers go down by giving them less-abusive options. But actually charging police with crimes and firing them might cause those numbers to go down even further, maybe we should try that?

tl;dr the problem with police abuse is not what they're carrying. It's a system that time and again refuses to punish police for abuse.

[Count Arioch the 28th]

http://thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.c ... ge_to_cops

Relevant link.

[RadiantPhoenix]

The only one of those that I actually consider a significant problem is #2.

[Doom]

And frankly, I don't trust mall cops with anything deadlier than a walkie-talkie, because they do shit like this.

-Username17

You...seriously believe those guys?

[PoliteNewb]

The only one of those that I actually consider a significant problem is #2.

Really? I consider most of them to be highly relevant to furthering a free society where people respect the rule of law. #6 and #7 are mostly griping, but the rest are pretty much spot on, in my experience.

#1 is a waste of manpower in most cases, and leads to the public perception of cops as bullies. Besides which, thanks to group reinforcement, it can actually contribute to cops being bullies.

#2 has already been discussed.

#3 shows a misguided set of priorities; LE departments seriously do consider speed trapping a higher priority than crime patrolling, because it pulls in big money.

#4 is not purely cops' fault; it's also the fault of lawmakers, DA's, and judges. But cops are (presumably) intelligent people, and should make discretionary calls as far as what behaviors merit a warning, a citation, or an arrest...or even what situations don't really require the intervention of a police officer for no other reason than to be a show of force (or be a douchebag).

#5 is corruption, pure and simple. It's small, but police culture really is one where the little things lead to the big things.

All of these also contribute to people fearing, resenting and distrusting law-enforcement, which leads to people losing respect for the law and those who enforce it.

Thanks for the link, Count.

[Username17]

And frankly, I don't trust mall cops with anything deadlier than a walkie-talkie, because they do shit like this.

-Username17

You...seriously believe those guys?

That they post rambling power fantasies on message boards? Yes, I have 100% proof that they do. I in no way trust those people with anything I would classify as a weapon.

-Username17

[Fuchs]

Private security firms have a long history of abuses. We recently had a few scandals where the security responsible to keep violent sports fan in check had a subgroup of men very eager "to bust some of those fans' heads" each game.

[Doom]

That they post rambling power fantasies on message boards? Yes, I have 100% proof that they do. I in no way trust those people with anything I would classify as a weapon.

-Username17

But what makes you so certain they really are mall cops? Everything else is all-but-certainly rubbish, so I'm rather hard pressed to take at face value their claimed job.

[Sir Neil]

I think some of those perceptions, while valid, are made by a lack of information.

#1 A cop can arrest one person by themselves, but someone is going to be injured, and there is no way to know how many friends the arrestee has that will jump in. The goal in outnumbering the arrestee is to disuade him from resisting, restrain him without injury (much more difficult than it sounds), and make his friends reconsider helping him. It took three cops and four firemen to restrain an 80 year old lunatic without hurting him. Another factor is garbled or incomplete 911 calls. "Disturbance at the bar" could mean a drunk dancing on a table or a full on street fight with knives. See also #3 re: bored cops.

#2 Addressing a side point, they teach us to bark orders during tasing (and pressure point manipulation) so you know what to do to make us stop hurting you.

#3 Is one of my pet peeves. A "speed trap" is a section of road with illegally placed speed limit signs too close together to safely comply with.

Beyond that, we are usually ordered to run radar when the chief or mayor gets too many complaints from residents about speeders on their road. Usually the speeders we catch turn out to those same residents who then berate us for not catching real crooks, go figure.

However, like he says we also get bored driving around on slow days and may run radar to break the monotony.

#4 Okay. Partners even disagree about what is an appropriate enforcement action, so this isn't news. Personally, I have trouble telling humans apart and that makes it difficult to remember if I've given them a warning in the past, so I usually save myself the trouble and write at least one ticket so the computer will keep track for me.

Another factor is the danger inherent to traffic stops. You never know when you'll pull over a heavily armed right-wing maniac (Hi kettle!) who has dead hookers in the trunk. If you're stupid enough to break the law in front of a cop and make me risk my life by investigating, you should have to explain it to the judge.

Lemme tell you a secret: It isn't about the money, because I don't want them to pay the ticket. I want them to be put in jail, which is where criminals belong.

(I also think money from fines and forfeitures should be set on fire, to eliminate a profit motive from the judicial system.)

#5 Pisses me off even as it ensnares me. As part of a small department, we rely on sharing resources with surrounding agencies. If we ticket them and hurt their baby monkey feelings, they'll be slower to assist in the future. My only consolations are that I have let regular citizens off with warnings for the same violation in the past, and that maybe one or two stops a year involve another cop. It doesn't taste very good, but it lets me sleep at night while keeping our department successful at dealing with major crimes.

#6 People freak out when they see us running lights and siren, and may act in unpredictable ways. If the call isn't quite urgent enough to take that risk, but is still important for us to respond quickly, we will use the short cut he describes. Likewise if it is urgent but we need to sneak up on a location. If they do it just because they can't be arsed to wait, then we ... oh, right. I can't say "Kill them and eat them" anymore, can I?

#7 I agree with him. If we're not on official business, we can use a parking space like everyone else.


****************
The mall cop/ninja and his special forces friend would make the best movie ever. My favorite part was when he stopped the SWAT guy from disarming the bomb wrong, or maybe when he had to fight NeoNazi snipers at the Gap with his sawed-off assault rifle.

[sabs]

You're being arrested? Why the hell should the cops "make it fair" or some such bullshit. It's not a competition. It's their job to arrest you with noone, including you or them getting hurt if at all possible.

Overwhelming force is just that. Only an idiot gets into a 'fair fight'

[DSMatticus]

(I also think money from fines and forfeitures should be set on fire, to eliminate a profit motive from the judicial system.)

I'd say just use them to fund something remote and unconnected, so there's no common element that both has authority over police practices and an incentive to encourage fines. If it goes to some distant coffer that no one understands and police agencies don't see obvious returns on, that should solve the problem.

[PoliteNewb]

You're being arrested? Why the hell should the cops "make it fair" or some such bullshit. It's not a competition. It's their job to arrest you with noone, including you or them getting hurt if at all possible.

Overwhelming force is just that. Only an idiot gets into a 'fair fight'

The fact that you are being arrested does not necessarily mean you have done anything wrong. Our legal system has a presumption of innocence until you are found guilty...and a person arrested may not even be charged, much less indicted, much less convicted. You do realize people are arrested all the time for crimes they did not commit, and in some cases for things that are not crimes at all (for instance, recording police officers in place where it is allowed by law)?

So before you know if someone is actually guilty, NO, you should not be allowed to use "overwhelming force" on him.

Thanks to Sir Neil for the cop's eye view...I don't want to dislike cops. But when my experiences with them are generally negative, that tends to color one's perspective. And I am a mild-mannered middle class white dude who has never done anything worse than run a red light. Many people who are poorer or darker-skinned than I am have a lot more reasons to fear and dislike cops, and it's not necessarily because of anything they have done.

[sabs]

Actually you should. Overwhelming force is safer for /everyone/ involved.
It has nothing to do with presumed innocence or guilt.

Demanding that Police Officers risk their lives because you might not resist arrest is stupid. If Police are forced to make 1 on 1 arrests.. they are MORE likely to do so while hurting the person they are arresting.

[RobbyPants]

So before you know if someone is actually guilty, NO, you should not be allowed to use "overwhelming force" on him.

I think you two are using different definitions of overwhelming force. When Sabs says that, he means that several cops show up to arrest one person, not that several cops come in guns blazing, shooting unarmed people.

It's a show of presence, which is meant to discourage a violent reaction. Criminals might get a bit more ballsy if only one cop shows up to arrest them.

[PoliteNewb]

I think you two are using different definitions of overwhelming force. When Sabs says that, he means that several cops show up to arrest one person, not that several cops come in guns blazing, shooting unarmed people.

It's a show of presence, which is meant to discourage a violent reaction. Criminals might get a bit more ballsy if only one cop shows up to arrest them.

This was indeed a difference of definitions; upon rereading, I'll take the blame for misreading what sabs wrote.

That said...I'm still not convinced that massive police presence is the best response in all situations. Absolutely, if you are dealing with a situation where violence seems likely, a larger presence could help defuse it. But that should not be all situations where violence is at all possible, because that is all situations.

And from what I've read...a lot of police brutality situations stem from having a lot of cops piling on one dude. I understand what Neil said earlier about sometimes needing a lot of guys, but I've seen and read about some pretty brutal shit, and a lot of it came down to "everybody else was doing it". You pretty much ARE more likely to go over the line if you are in a group situation and those you associate as "your side" are already crossing it.

I understand wanting to try to discourage violence through a fear and intimidation method; but that should not be the default method cops use. Because that has some pretty hefty ramifications in how people view cops, and how cops view themselves.

I admit I don't have any figures in front of me...are stats available on how likely injuries are to result during arrest, based on how many officers involved? Does having a bunch of cops dogpile a guy actually result in less injury to cops, or arrestees?

Re: officer safety...I don't believe in putting it above the safety of arrestees or bystanders, or at the expense of civil rights. Police are public servants, whose role is to enforce the law...the mindset where they are treated as soldiers fighting in some kind of nebulous "war on crime" is dangerous. And all too prevalent in recent years.

[DSMatticus]

RobbyPants ninja'd me, but I'll say it anyway. Having 10 police show up to arrest one dude is overwhelming, but if it increases the chances of non-violent, violent-lite, or non-injurious resolution it's better. Having 10 police show up to elbow-slam dogpile one dude is also overwhelming, and that's just stupid and bad. Sabs means something like the former; PoliteNewb means something like the latter. We all agree the latter is bad, and we should all agree the former is good (less chance anyone gets hurt).

My primary concern is that removing the risk from physical conflict for the arresting officers might make them more likely to skip to the physical conflict part. You can't go for the gun; it doesn't subdue people, it kills them. Trying to forcibly push a suspect to the ground has real risks to the arresting officer, so you're probably going to exhaust the alternatives before you resort to that. But a taser? There's much less risk to the officer there, so the threshold for pulling out the taser is probably lower than any of the officer's other options.

If risk of injury is just being shifted from cases of violent suspects (who are tased, putting an end to the danger before it even begins) onto cases of non-compliant but also non-violent suspects (who never would have escalated to violence anyway, but are tased to get them to comply), I'm not convinced that's actually a good thing. But that's pretty much impossible to measure and quantify.

[Fuchs]

People should not resist arrests, period. It's a crime over here.

[Sir Neil]

Negative experiences with cops are comletely natural. If we're around, either you've broken the law or someone has broken it against you. In the latter case, consider that to the victim, a horrible trauma has occurred and must be made right. To us, it means we have to work overtime on a project that just got dumped in our lap.

The trick is hiding that reaction from the victim, lest you introduce or reinforce negative perceptions. Faking sincerity is key. Real sincerity is nice, too, but you can't let it run away with you or you'll get emotionally burnt-out. I know I've gone home, unstrapped my literal and figurative armor and cried about a case before.

I understand wanting to try to discourage violence through a fear and intimidation method; but that should not be the default method cops use.

We have a saying around the department, "Be as nice as they'll let you be." It's easier to start out with persuasion and escalate in force than the reverse. Unfortunately, there's always one motherfvcker trying to ice skate uphill....

Re: officer safety...I don't believe in putting it above the safety of arrestees....

You the people have lent me your authority to use enough force to ensure that all persons submit to the law. Why would you put a rebel's safety above the servants working in your name?

I'd say just use them to fund something remote and unconnected, so there's no common element that both has authority over police practices and an incentive to encourage fines.

It seems like being more remote would be an improvement, but as long as the funds were under the umbrella of "the government", it could still influence practices and fines. *shrug* I don't have a good policy solution, so I just try and ignore the monetary effects of enforcement.

[DSMatticus]

People should not resist arrests, period. It's a crime over here.

It's a crime everywhere, but resisting doesn't always mean punching a cop in the face and running for it. The students at Berkeley were refusing police orders, but they weren't actually posing any danger of violence. The response used against them was obviously excessive and inappropriate. The same goes for pretty much all of these other recent protests where the police have started breaking them up.

But protests are a bit of a special case, I'll admit. The point is that you can refuse to immediately comply without being dangerous. Police response to this sort of non-compliance needs to be measured and appropriate. The way you handle someone who is unarmed and standing there (but refusing to get down on the ground) is obviously different than the way you handle someone who is armed, or unarmed but fighting, or attempting to flee. The answer is not "tase everyone, everytime" because that'll kill people who weren't a danger to anyone, at all.

[Sir Neil]

The point is that you can refuse to immediately comply without being dangerous.

No, you really can't.

We don't read minds, and have no way to know how far they'll take their resistance. Are they just a little ornery, or are they about to fight to the death? The court understands we have almost no time to determine which, so you have granted us leeway in our escalation of force.

Non-compliance is dangerous for everyone.

[PoliteNewb]

If we're around, either you've broken the law or someone has broken it against you.

I wish this were true, but it's not. Even in situations where I was doing nothing wrong and had not had a crime committed against me, my interactions with police have been tinged with fear/nervousness on my part and threat on the officer's part.

Besides which, saying "well, if you don't want a negative experience don't break the law" overlooks the fact that it is virtually impossible to get through life these days without breaking laws. Anyone who hasn't gone over the speed limit in the past 24 hours, please raise your hand.

It also ignores the fact that police sometimes hassle people and even arrest them for things which are not against the law...publicly recording police, for example, or saying something the officer finds personally offensive (but which is protected under the First Amendment).

You the people have lent me your authority to use enough force to ensure that all persons submit to the law. Why would you put a rebel's safety above the servants working in your name?

Because I have no proof that the person is a rebel? Or that the police are working in my name, and not in their own best interests? Or are you claiming that every arrest is valid and justified, and officers never abuse their authority?

I personally have no power to hire or fire any police officer; they are not elected, and they are not answerable to me except by civil suit. Even when they break rules (or even laws), they are often reviewed and punished (or cleared, which is more common) by other police, behind closed doors, not by common citizens in open court.

I agree that we need police, and they need to be granted certain authority...but because of this, they need to held carefully accountable, and they need to take care how they use that authority in the service of the public.

I am also not saying to put "a rebel's" safety above an officer's...just that we should not put officer's safety above the safety of common citizens, even if they are under arrest, nor should we place it above a citizen's rights. If there must be an unknown risk to someone, why not the one who is wearing armor, carrying weaponry, and volunteered to take that risk?

The point is that you can refuse to immediately comply without being dangerous.

No, you really can't.

We don't read minds, and have no way to know how far they'll take their resistance. Are they just a little ornery, or are they about to fight to the death? The court understands we have almost no time to determine which, so you have granted us leeway in our escalation of force.

Non-compliance is dangerous for everyone.

That attitude leads to situations like this. I do not consider this acceptable in the name of officer safety.

This sounds like a husband saying "why you gotta make me hit you?".

[DSMatticus]

overlooks the fact that it is virtually impossible to get through life these days without breaking laws. Anyone who hasn't gone over the speed limit in the past 24 hours, please raise your hand.

Hand is up! Haven't driven in the past 24 hours. But it would be true if I had driven in the past 24 hours. I generally never got speeding, just on a purely mathematical basis. The time saved is simply not significant unless the speeding is significant, at which point statistically speaking you are a danger and I don't care if you get pulled over or not. I'm more patient than most, I suppose. Speeding was just a really, really shitty example.

I agree with most of the other things you've said. There are obvious examples of non-violent non-compliance, and there are some scary anecdotes where the force applied in those cases was excessive. Those are usually protest examples, though, which are a bit of a special case. But I also understand those are not the norm, and there are also cases where non-violent non-compliance is an iffy thing. Police can't read minds.

A belligerent drunk may not be violently resisting, but he might at some point. Now in the specific example of a bunch of sitting, protesting students... Yeah, that was exactly the sort of example I was talking about that makes me nervous: that's an obvious case where the escalation to violence happened because of the police, instead of them preventing it. If anyone walked away from that incident hurt, it was because the police chose to apply force, not because the protesters were a danger to anyone's safety.

So, was it necessary to forcefully disperse those students? Were there better options that opening up with pepper spray? Etc, etc.

[Sir Neil]

Besides which, saying "well, if you don't want a negative experience don't break the law" overlooks the fact that it is virtually impossible to get through life these days without breaking laws.

Sorry I was unclear. I meant people will almost never have a positive experience with police, period, even if they aren't doing something wrong.

Or are you claiming that every arrest is valid and justified, and officers never abuse their authority?

I'm explaining that the laws that give officer safety precedence over a criminal's safety are written assuming that the arrest is valid, and the officer isn't abusing their authority. Self-defense laws also give precedence to law abiding citizens over those acting unlawfully.

**********

Pepper spraying peaceful protesters isn't an officer safety issue, but we aren't limited to using force just to protect ourselves. If someone disobeys our lawful commands, you gave us the authority to use force to make them. It's right there in the title: "Law Enforcement".