[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
If I hadn’t seen Matty posting in other threads, I’d assume he was a troll. …this still is probably him just trolling but who knows? [/quote]
I’m not trolling. I’m posting my opinion just like the rest of you, and we happen to disagree on a few items, and we’re each stating our reasons for our stance. I’m always open to other’s thoughts, opinions, and experiences, and I hope for this to be reciprocal.
[quote]sam_sneed wrote:
If you’re going to run from the police, expect to get your ass beat. It’s the ones who get their asses beat for no reason that I sympathize with.[/quote]
x2
If you act like an a-hole you get treated like an a-hole.
[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
If I hadn’t seen Matty posting in other threads, I’d assume he was a troll. …this still is probably him just trolling but who knows? [/quote]
I’m not trolling. I’m posting my opinion just like the rest of you, and we happen to disagree on a few items, and we’re each stating our reasons for our stance. I’m always open to other’s thoughts, opinions, and experiences, and I hope for this to be reciprocal.
[/quote]
Fair enough. Maybe I mis-read some of the parts where you were talking about the cop who almost was killed. I thought you seemed to be blaming the cop rather than the beast that tried to kill him. To me this sounds so absurd that my automatic assumption is trolling. 'Course, I was reading quickly, so I probably just mis-understood your intent.
[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
[quote]MickD wrote:
If those five people weren’t police officers, but just normal people in a neighborhood and some idiot had just tried to run down their friend or family member, I don’t think that a jury of their peers would have convicted them for kicking his ass, nor would I agree that they would be fired from their jobs.[/quote]
Situations are entirely different. Police are trained how to react in high-stress situations.
While I wouldn’t agree with it, I wouldn’t be surprised if they were found guilty in a criminal/civil court in the US.
I hate both sides of these situations. I don’t like that people do stupid shit like this, and I don’t like cops for beating them. And I really don’t like when people talk as if they don’t have any right because of what they’re doing.
You cannot label people as outlaws as you see fit.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outlaw[/quote]
Wow. I’m fucking stunned. I’m generally not a fan of LEO but you’re making me defend them. Guess what bud, welcome to the fucking real world. Where do you live? I grew up and around Philadelphia PA. Let me assure you that if you step out of line with Philadelphia PD, or Camden NJ PD, or Chester PA PD, you’re getting fucked up. And if you try to KILL any of the foregoing? IF you don’t get killed, you’re going to get fucked up and a one way trip to the hospital. This is reality. And you know what? I can understand it.
When you get arrested, it’s over. You comply. Period. If you try to kill someone, expect that they will try to kill you, officer or not. [/quote]
I’ve been on the wrong side of an undeserved police beating before. Perfectly cooperative, and you know what it got me? 6 elbows to the back of my neck while I’m sitting down right after being denied to speak with a lawyer and not read my Miranda rights.
I’ve had cops ask us(my white friends and I) to go away so they can harass my black friend.
I’ve experienced cops lie on the stand and smile about it.
I’ll hold them accountable everytime because I know how much they do get away with.
That’s why you can’t just shrug this shit off, and say "Oh, he deserved that beating’, because for every one that does deserve there’s another one that didn’t.
I get it too man, don’t be a moron and do stupid shit, but when someone is incapacitated or incoherent and you’re the sober one, you’re responsible for what you do, just like they’re responsible for what they did to get where they are.
Violence begets violence.
Being the one that’s sober with the upper hand puts you in the position to make the right decisions in all the wrong situations.[/quote]
Dude, I’ve been assaulted too…and I was talking shit. We all know they fucking lie. And I agree, in spirit, with everything you’ve said (this time). However, you picked the wrong video to defend. And you engaged in some creative Monday morning QB and made many assumptions.
He hit her to elicit compliance after she refused commands to remove her hands from the steering wheel (a fucking reasonable request under the circumstances). He chose to strike her instead of doing something else. Was it the WISEST course of action? Probably not. But don’t act like he dragged her from the vehicle, and THEN knocked her upside the head a few times.
I’m only mildly troubled by the video and trust me, that’s saying a lot coming from me.
[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
[quote]MickD wrote:
I know what he meant. But what he meant isn’t the reality of it. If those cops parked their vehicles with the cameras away from the scene, that would be conspiracy to commit murder after the beating that would be given to the unconscious man.
If that’s what they want to do, then they deserve to lose their jobs, and be charged for what they did. They are not above the law. This is exactly why your country is no longer a republic, when the rule of law only applies in certain instances to certain people you get the exact fucked up justice system that you presently have.[/quote]
You’re confused son. What I mean IS the “reality of it”. Kill a LEO down here in one of our big or smaller troubled cities and you’re rolling the dice on whether you make it to the police station or the morgue. That’s reality. Try to kill another citizen on our streets, see if they don’t try to kill you. This is reality.
I never thought I’d be saying this but it’s simple:
Don’t break the law.
If you get caught, comply with LEO.
Shut your fucking mouth and comply with LEO.
Do not run from LEO.
If you do decide to run from LEO, expect short and long term repercussions, including the possibility you may be assaulted.
Do not fight LEO, you will lose, badly.
Do not provoke LEO.
Now, there is the simple reality for you. If you comply with each of the above edicts, your chances of being assaulted by LEO are about as likely as your getting attacked by a great white shark in the middle of a cornfield in Iowa.
If you do not comply with each of the above edicts, right or wrong, the public does not have much sympathy for you. No one is going to march on city hall on your behalf. We are primarily concerned with preserving liberty for those that would not commit murder and mayhem among the innocent. We have very little sympathy for the abridgment of their rights when they do.
Right or wrong, that’s reality.
[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
If I hadn’t seen Matty posting in other threads, I’d assume he was a troll. …this still is probably him just trolling but who knows? [/quote]
I’m not trolling. I’m posting my opinion just like the rest of you, and we happen to disagree on a few items, and we’re each stating our reasons for our stance. I’m always open to other’s thoughts, opinions, and experiences, and I hope for this to be reciprocal.
[/quote]
Fair enough. Maybe I mis-read some of the parts where you were talking about the cop who almost was killed. I thought you seemed to be blaming the cop rather than the beast that tried to kill him. To me this sounds so absurd that my automatic assumption is trolling. 'Course, I was reading quickly, so I probably just mis-understood your intent. [/quote]
With regard to that, I’m saying I think it wasn’t the best timing, simply because he almost got ran over. I understand what he was trying to accomplish, but getting himself almost killed like that wouldn’t be good for anyone involved.
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
He hit her to elicit compliance after she refused commands to remove her hands from the steering wheel (a fucking reasonable request under the circumstances). He chose to strike her instead of doing something else. Was it the WISEST course of action? Probably not. But don’t act like he dragged her from the vehicle, and THEN knocked her upside the head a few times.
[/quote]
I didn’t see that written in the article, and you need to watch the video again. The guy hitting her charges in and starts punching the window and then her, he didn’t attempt communication first. Either way, he didn’t follow protocol, communicate>soft>hard.
I have a strong dislike for law enforcement in general, but this looked like a clean arrest to me.
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
You’re confused son. What I mean IS the “reality of it”. Kill a LEO down here in one of our big or smaller troubled cities and you’re rolling the dice on whether you make it to the police station or the morgue. That’s reality. Try to kill another citizen on our streets, see if they don’t try to kill you. This is reality. [/quote]
I agree that that is how it works in reality. What I’m saying is, and I think we agree on this, is that two wrongs don’t make a right when we’re talking about justice and law.
[quote]I never thought I’d be saying this but it’s simple:
Don’t break the law.
If you get caught, comply with LEO.
Shut your fucking mouth and comply with LEO.
Do not run from LEO.
If you do decide to run from LEO, expect short and long term repercussions, including the possibility you may be assaulted.
Do not fight LEO, you will lose, badly.
Do not provoke LEO.
Now, there is the simple reality for you. If you comply with each of the above edicts, your chances of being assaulted by LEO are about as likely as your getting attacked by a great white shark in the middle of a cornfield in Iowa.
If you do not comply with each of the above edicts, right or wrong, the public does not have much sympathy for you. No one is going to march on city hall on your behalf. We are primarily concerned with preserving liberty for those that would not commit murder and mayhem among the innocent. We have very little sympathy for the abridgment of their rights when they do.
Right or wrong, that’s reality.[/quote]
Again, I agree with you that this is what happens IRL, but there is also enough video footage of this not being the case when people do comply. We’ve both seen and experienced injustices done by the police, as well as when they get it right. I’m on the side that thinks it critical for these instances to not take place at all.
Although I am hesitant to enter into this discussion, I feel that I need to point out what I poerceive as an error on Matty G35’s part…
Matty, the diagram you referenced, showing the Use of Force Continuum in a circle, is the most common way it is presented now. I believe you are misconstruing the point of the diagram.
In days past, Use of Force was presented in a “ladder” type format. You have been referencing that idea when you say the officer did not follow protocol (communicate, then soft control, then hard control, etc.)
That is a concept that is no longer taught, because it teaches the idea that the officer MUST take each step before moving to the next higher level of force. Obviously, that isn’t a very smart way to do it, because if an officer has a gun pointed at him, nobody expects him to communicate, try soft open hand, then hard open hand, then baton, etc, etc…the officer should go immediately to deadly force in my example.
The current teaching, using a circular (or pie) diagram, places the officer at the center, with his use of force options surrounding him. He then chooses based on the circumstances…that eliminates the idea of moving from one level of force through another, and then another to reach the desired level.
In the video that originated this thread, I submit the following regarding the use of force. Even if we go on the strictest interpretations, the officers were communicating what they wanted, by activating their overhead lights and sirens to get the driver to stop. Once the stop was finally effected (using force to do so) then the suspect still knew what was expected…and that would be compliance.
There is no requirement on the part of the officers at that point to back everything down to square one (verbal communication) and begin the whole process over again. That thinking is archaic, and is not how officers are trained anymore.
Further, your suggestion that soft open hand control should have been used (i.e, a joint lock) is both correct and incorrect. Joint locks are very difficult to apply in the confined quarters of a vehicle. Further, they are designed to work on the principle of pain compliance…basically, I cause you pain until you comply. That sort of thing works fine on sober people. They generally don’t work well on intoxicated people, because they feel less pain.
However, the use of hard open hand control is normally authorized to effect the arrest of a person who is actively non-compliant. I am of the opinion that a high-speed pursuit qualifies as active non-compliance, as are most departments.
Now, had they beaten her down, kicked her in the head, etc. AFTER she was in cuffs…then I would say it was excessive. Nothing about this arrest appeared excessive to me.
I understand that you feel the punches were unnecesary. I also understand you have an axe to grind, because you took a beating at the hands of police that you claim was unwarranted. You have tried to defend your position by quoting sources that you don’t fully understand. Use of force concepts are difficult to teach, and are difficult to learn. Honestly, it takes a lot of real life experience to get good at it.
Also, keep in mind that EVERY department is different when it comes to use of force. Referencing a diagram from the Ontario PD does not mean the rest of the world subscribes to their way of thinking.
Good post.
Thank you for explaining the ‘use of force’ diagrams.
[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
I didn’t see that written in the article, and you need to watch the video again. The guy hitting her charges in and starts punching the window and then her, he didn’t attempt communication first. Either way, he didn’t follow protocol, communicate>soft>hard.
[/quote]
LO fucking L!!!
Wow…so the several minutes spent chasing her telling her to stop was NOT communicating the desire of the police for her to stop her car?
Interesting debate on another forum about police chases.
http://www.helium.com/debates/86601-when-police-car-chases-cause-damages-to-others-who-is-to-blame/side_by_side
They keep going back and forth, each page has an argument for who is liable(criminal vs police), same thing thing on the next page.
Valid points on both sides.
Matty,
I saw that chart you posted earlier in this thread, I think I have seen space shuttle launches that are more user friendly than that thing.
That chart becomes EXTREMELY oversimplified when a crazy drunk person is evading police driving recklessly in their car. That car is a weapon, PERIOD. Had she crashed into a crowd of people, people would be screaming about why the police didn’t do more. I do not care if it is a woman or a child behind the wheel, you stop that damn car before you hurt or kill innocent people.
Personally, I am mad she only got punched 3 times. Tune her ass up. People act like they live under a rock. When you see a cop with the sirens behind you, pull over. If you choose not to, you pay the price. Personal responsibility, ya know?
Call me a brute, call me a savage, I will admit to both. But I can keep it real.
Although mapwhap pointed out that it isn’t up-to-date(where he is/has been/knows of).
I think that it’s pretty simple to understand.
Starts with officer presence>perception of what is taking place>analysis of how threatening/non-threatening the people involved are or aren’t>Communication to understand what is going on more or to talk the situation down.
Of course this is just my interpretation of it, and I’m sure it can differ greatly between people.
Here, you’re implying that the chart is very difficult to understand
and then here, you’re implying that it is very easy to understand
I find these statements to be contradictory. Either it is easy to understand or it isn’t.
‘Keep it real’ all you want, right is right and wrong is wrong. That’s why it is called necessary force. Yelling at and hitting someone that is incoherent, scared and intoxicated isn’t going to bring about any sort of positive resolution in a negative situation.
As I said before, violence begets violence.
IMO, the first step should be to calm them down.
Ummmm…not quite what I said. The diagram is a fairly accurate representation of current ways of thinking. I felt that your interpretation of it was wrong.
Your very last statement…that the first step should be to calm them down…correct, but ONLY IF THE SITUATION ALLOWS IT.
I’m starting to get the impression that you live in a bubble, frankly…one where physical force is never necessary.
Unfortunately, contrary to what some folks would like to believe, sometimes violence is the answer. Sometimes, force has to be used.
Using this video as an example…the woman was a threat to public safety. She had committed a crime. She was then immediately arrested. There is no “reasoning” to be done at this point. There is no “calming down” to be done. There is simply the mechanical action of physically placing her under arrest. That’s it.
The woman had already clearly demonstrated her unwillingness to comply. The assumption she was going to continue is not a huge leap to make.
Frankly, I’m not sure why you are continuing to beat this horse. There was nothing untoward or incorrect about the methods or tactics used. We aren’t going to just surround her once the car is stopped, set a perimeter, and call SWAT and hostage negotiators to talk her out of the vehicle.
[quote]mapwhap wrote:
Ummmm…not quite what I said. The diagram is a fairly accurate representation of current ways of thinking. I felt that your interpretation of it was wrong.
Your very last statement…that the first step should be to calm them down…correct, but ONLY IF THE SITUATION ALLOWS IT.
I’m starting to get the impression that you live in a bubble, frankly…one where physical force is never necessary.
Unfortunately, contrary to what some folks would like to believe, sometimes violence is the answer. Sometimes, force has to be used.
Using this video as an example…the woman was a threat to public safety. She had committed a crime. She was then immediately arrested. There is no “reasoning” to be done at this point. There is no “calming down” to be done. There is simply the mechanical action of physically placing her under arrest. That’s it.
The woman had already clearly demonstrated her unwillingness to comply. The assumption she was going to continue is not a huge leap to make.
Frankly, I’m not sure why you are continuing to beat this horse. There was nothing untoward or incorrect about the methods or tactics used. We aren’t going to just surround her once the car is stopped, set a perimeter, and call SWAT and hostage negotiators to talk her out of the vehicle. [/quote]
I just reread your previous post, I mixed up the tenses that you used.
I’m not ‘living in a bubble’ and I don’t think that force is ‘never necessary’, but should be used with proper discretion. In this case, what if he smashed her teeth, broke her orbital, blinded her, broke his hand, or any other possibilities? Would the means justify the end then? I don’t think so, because there was a less severe way to deal with it that would have been just as effective.
The first thing I would have done when the window was smashed was pull the keys out of the ignition. Bad idea?
[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
[quote]mapwhap wrote:
Ummmm…not quite what I said. The diagram is a fairly accurate representation of current ways of thinking. I felt that your interpretation of it was wrong.
Your very last statement…that the first step should be to calm them down…correct, but ONLY IF THE SITUATION ALLOWS IT.
I’m starting to get the impression that you live in a bubble, frankly…one where physical force is never necessary.
Unfortunately, contrary to what some folks would like to believe, sometimes violence is the answer. Sometimes, force has to be used.
Using this video as an example…the woman was a threat to public safety. She had committed a crime. She was then immediately arrested. There is no “reasoning” to be done at this point. There is no “calming down” to be done. There is simply the mechanical action of physically placing her under arrest. That’s it.
The woman had already clearly demonstrated her unwillingness to comply. The assumption she was going to continue is not a huge leap to make.
Frankly, I’m not sure why you are continuing to beat this horse. There was nothing untoward or incorrect about the methods or tactics used. We aren’t going to just surround her once the car is stopped, set a perimeter, and call SWAT and hostage negotiators to talk her out of the vehicle. [/quote]
The first thing I would have done when the window was smashed was pull the keys out of the ignition. Bad idea?[/quote]
Yes. I agree. He should have reached down and depressed the brake pedal with his left hand while reaching up and shifting the car into Park with his right hand simultaneously. Once he did that, he could have easily turned the car off and removed the keys…or he should have reached across her lap and put the car into neutral, pulled the parking brake, and then removed the keys. Seems simple enough, especially since the lady wasn’t fleeing from the police or being combative in any manner.
[quote]theOUTLAW wrote:
[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
[quote]mapwhap wrote:
Ummmm…not quite what I said. The diagram is a fairly accurate representation of current ways of thinking. I felt that your interpretation of it was wrong.
Your very last statement…that the first step should be to calm them down…correct, but ONLY IF THE SITUATION ALLOWS IT.
I’m starting to get the impression that you live in a bubble, frankly…one where physical force is never necessary.
Unfortunately, contrary to what some folks would like to believe, sometimes violence is the answer. Sometimes, force has to be used.
Using this video as an example…the woman was a threat to public safety. She had committed a crime. She was then immediately arrested. There is no “reasoning” to be done at this point. There is no “calming down” to be done. There is simply the mechanical action of physically placing her under arrest. That’s it.
The woman had already clearly demonstrated her unwillingness to comply. The assumption she was going to continue is not a huge leap to make.
Frankly, I’m not sure why you are continuing to beat this horse. There was nothing untoward or incorrect about the methods or tactics used. We aren’t going to just surround her once the car is stopped, set a perimeter, and call SWAT and hostage negotiators to talk her out of the vehicle. [/quote]
The first thing I would have done when the window was smashed was pull the keys out of the ignition. Bad idea?[/quote]
Yes. I agree. He should have reached down and depressed the brake pedal with his left hand while reaching up and shifting the car into Park with his right hand simultaneously. Once he did that, he could have easily turned the car off and removed the keys…or he should have reached across her lap and put the car into neutral, pulled the parking brake, and then removed the keys. Seems simple enough, especially since the lady wasn’t fleeing from the police or being combative in any manner.[/quote]
Ah fuck. I’m an idiot. You got me there. I’m out of here and will shut-up on this, I’m way too short-sighted with my posts. Lesson learned.
Later.
How about we wash the car while we’re at it ? A little vacuuming maybe ?
[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
In this case, what if he smashed her teeth, broke her orbital, blinded her, broke his hand, or any other possibilities? Would the means justify the end then? I don’t think so, because there was a less severe way to deal with it that would have been just as effective.
The first thing I would have done when the window was smashed was pull the keys out of the ignition. Bad idea?[/quote]
What if when the officer reached in she would have slammed the accelerator ran over a cop, into a gathering crowd of onlookers, and then into a light pole and killed herself. If we are going to play the what if game might as well play both sides. It’s easy to Monday morning quarterback these guys when you aren’t the one risking your life while full of adrenaline. The officer reacted with a reasonable use of force. If he would have walked up and shot her three times, well, then things would be a little different.