Too much power?

[Dravin]

And it's not my first rodeo either . . . what do you think I'm 14, give me a break.

I can only go by your behavior here.

Edited February 28, 2014 by Dravin

[pam]

Sure, "everyone" is hyperbole on my part-my bad, I should have said a significant portion, my apologies. But "giving the police the benefit of the doubt" is assuming he is belligerent as that is why the police put him on the ground.

And I said I was giving ALL the benefit of the doubt.

[mirkwood]

I'm going to . . . so I'm just a little offended at your tone . . . but that is okay :-)

No worries, I don't much care for your tone.

I've never been a police officer, but I have had training on pepper spray, crowd control, firearms, tactical driving, and I've been in a hot war zone. I have a brother who served 2 tours of duty, one in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Exactly. You have NEVER been a police officer (emphasis mine). Your training is minimal and you do lack the experience to make the judgments you have.

BTW your brother's experience is irrelevant to the discussion. That is HIS experience, not yours.

I could argue that the "military" style training I have received makes me qualified to speak about combat. But the truth is, it doesn't, I have not served in the military or combat. Nor would I ever make any assertion that I could speak knowledgeably about combat. I DON'T HAVE THE EXPERIENCE.

I do however have a lot of experience in law enforcement. I have several thousand hours of training. I have many more thousands of hours of actual experience with arrests and use of force on top of that training. Well over 30,000 hours in fact, not to mention the years working loss prevention and making arrests there as well...

So please don't talk to me like I have a "lack of knowledge and experience".

...so yes, I do assert you have a lack of knowledge and experience in this area and that is quite clear based on a number of your opinions. Again, you are entitled to opinions, but they are steeped in ignorance.

I will assume that your failure to tell me how many people you have placed handcuffs on that did not want them on means none.

[Guest]

I'll go ahead and take this opportunity to interrupt the regularly scheduled programming to give a moment of silence to the 13 Police Officers and 4 K-9's who died in the line of duty in the USA in 2014, 1 of which happened in my State of Florida - Officer Pine died when he got shot by a guy who has been breaking into cars. The guy ended up committing suicide after killing Officer Pine. Office Pine is survived by a wife and three children.

Thank you.

Carry on...

[NeuroTypical]

I dunno, yjacket, mirkwood asked what I believe to be some pretty relevant questions about your knowledge and experience. And your answers leave me with a fairly good indication that you honestly don't have much knowledge or experience in the matter or restraining people who are resisting arrest.

You have some fairly relevant worries about the direction of our country, and some fairly relevant historical background to argue your case. But I'm just not putting a lot of weight into your opinions about what cops should and should't do, how they should and shouldn't act, what they should and shouldn't have. Your opinions, based on your lack of relevant response to mirkwood's questions, seem to be based on a lack of knowledge and experience.

You're making your case, I get to agree or disagree. And I'm just not that impressed with your case.

Edited February 28, 2014 by Loudmouth_Mormon

[yjacket]

Apologize for disengaging. Busy life-selling house, work etc.

I can see that in this thread, I'm not going to win any battles or friends. No worries.

I do find it a little ridiculous that because I don't have experience in putting people in handcuffs that it automatically disqualifies me from having an educated, valid opinion. I have found in my life that in an argument when someone wants to bully or shut-down the other individual it is always an appeal to experience. "You haven't dealt with xyz", therefore because I have and you haven't your opinion is invalid.

@mirkwood. I particularly don't care for or like the tone of a public officer, who is employed by the public trying to dictate how that public should think/act/feel. You can certainly make a case for armored personal vehicle's, combat parking, military style training etc. But to claim that just because someone doesn't have experience putting people in handcuffs means that that opinion isn't valid, means you already have a holier-than-thou attitude. I have plenty of real-life experience dealing with bad situations, I've served my country, my family has served their country, but none of that matters because I haven't "put someone in handcuffs" . . . got it. So only police should make laws then and only police should police the police? Good solution.

Just remember who pays your paycheck. Because frankly, if you were in my district and if you were a sheriff, I'd be voting you out of office.

Where I wanted to go with the video was in regards to stop-and-identify laws. Where I am at locally, I've seen a whole host of crappy laws being written (stop-and-identify) laws. And that is the root cause of the mess in the video, even the cop on the video said so. Stop and identify laws are a conditioning that the police have the right to stop anyone at any time, demand identification and if that individual does not provide it they can be arrested. That is too much power.

But again I'm not winning any friends or battles in this area . . . just remember this thread in the next 20 years and we'll see who was right. I pray that I am the one who is wrong. I don't plan on responding to anymore of this thread, unless of course I'm asked a direct questions.

[FlaviusHambonius]

Taken from yjacket post #44:

7)" The erosion of freedoms and liberty start local and close to home. NSA, Boston, etc. this, they are all inter-related in that liberty and freedom require constant vigilence, constant questioning of whether the actions of the State or agents of the State are morally justified."

I'm not trying to argue 'gun control' but maybe this is one of the points yjacket is trying to convey along with a few others.

Or perhaps this article with a couple of short videos showing what happened during the lockdown in Watertown, Mass. after the Boston Marathon bombing.

Poor Richard's News - America, we need to talk about the Boston “lockdown” and manhunt for Dzhokhar Tsarnaev.

Remember President Bush after 9/11 telling everyone to not be afraid and get out and carry on with your lives as you normally would -- because if not -- we would be sending a message to the terrorist's (or was it the evil do'ers, I can't recall) that they had won ie. -- at least as far as making us live in constant fear.

But yet in Watertown, Mass. they shutdown at least a 20 block section of town and the Mayor pleaded for everyone even outside of that area to stay indoors while they were in search for one suspect after the other brother had been killed.

I remember of course the Rodney King story where he took a lickin and kept on tickin -- but that should in itself deter anyone from taking PCP and then trying to take on about 10 cops with Billy Clubs.

The story in the OP just on the face stinks to high heaven, but as so many people have mentioned to be fair we have to wait for the facts. I'm going to venture to say though he probably didn't have the strength of 10 men because he probably wasn't high on PCP (I know that's a lot to assume on my part until the so called facts or testimonies of the officers and eyewittnesses come out) since he was down on the ground flat faced with an officer holding his head down and 4 others pinning him down with there legs or arms into his back and ribs which certainly didn't enhance his breathing capabilities -- especially after being shot in the mouth, nose and eyes with pepper spray.

The man was motionless but yet they kept the pressure on him -- totally unbelievable at least to me, that they kept that force on him -- this was not Rodney King -- this was a 44 year old middle aged man who didn't by physical appearence seem to be buff by any means.

As soon as they turned that man over and tried to sit him up they knew it was a bad deal IMO.

If these officers are found negligent in there duties I hope the book is thrown at them and they serve time in the big house and maybe they will meet a man named Bubba holding a pair of handcuffs in his hand with a smile on his face, but perhaps Bubba will show a little more mercy and not pin them face down on the ground.

[EarlJibbs]

Where I wanted to go with the video was in regards to stop-and-identify laws. Where I am at locally, I've seen a whole host of crappy laws being written (stop-and-identify) laws. And that is the root cause of the mess in the video, even the cop on the video said so. Stop and identify laws are a conditioning that the police have the right to stop anyone at any time, demand identification and if that individual does not provide it they can be arrested. That is too much power.

But again I'm not winning any friends or battles in this area . . . just remember this thread in the next 20 years and we'll see who was right. I pray that I am the one who is wrong. I don't plan on responding to anymore of this thread, unless of course I'm asked a direct questions.

I think if you would have stated, "I am against stop and identify laws" in your original post that may have helped. I myself do not like the route the police force in general is headed... for reasons I have already stated. However, that is not the route it took due to the lack of your original post simply stating something negative about "mini-Gods" being the police force.

Now that you have narrowed your intent to a specific item, the discussions, if people still choose to engage, may be better.

[NeuroTypical]

Hi yjacket, glad you came back to the thread, and were just busy.

I do find it a little ridiculous that because I don't have experience in putting people in handcuffs that it automatically disqualifies me from having an educated, valid opinion.

It's not just the lack of experience that disqualifies you from having an educated opinion, it's the seeming lack of education about the issue that disqualifies you from having an educated opinion. It's a tautology, right? A=A? ~A=~A? If someone has no experience and no education on a subject, it is not possible to hold an educated opinion on a subject, other than by maybe stumbling blindly into one. Do you disagree?

I mean, if you have education in the issue, please share it. Tell us everything you've learned about using physical force to subdue suspects safely, and where you learned it. (I'm assuming it's more than from watching that youtube video.)

In the interests of fair play, here's where I learned stuff about restraining people:

- Attended and graduated from my local small-town cop's citizens academy.

- Volunteered for a taser demonstration.

- Some martial arts/MMA/Jiu-Jitsu training

- Talking/arguing with folks from all walks of life, for years and years, about police practices and mindset.

- Wife sharing real-life stories from her fun teen years, on both sides of a cop doing their job.

Do you have education in the issue? Please share. In the absence of you sharing your education on the issue, it honestly looks like you're just having an opinion based on idealism and ignorance. And I don't find it ridiculous at all to discount such opinions.

I have found in my life that in an argument when someone wants to bully or shut-down the other individual it is always an appeal to experience.

Huh. Appeals to experience, calls for sources, requests to know where you learned something/why you believe as you do - these are all very common ways the human race evaluates opinions and reaches conclusions about them.

Strongly arguing and criticizing a lack of experience, looks like bullying and shutting things down to you? Huh.

"You haven't dealt with xyz", therefore because I have and you haven't your opinion is invalid.

Please note, I'm not saying it's invalid, I'm saying I don't find it persuasive.

So only police should make laws then and only police should police the police? Good solution.

Mirkwood can speak for himself, but from where I'm standing, people uneducated and inexperienced in policework, shouldn't be surprised when their judgments are discounted.

Where I wanted to go with the video was in regards to stop-and-identify laws. Where I am at locally, I've seen a whole host of crappy laws being written (stop-and-identify) laws. And that is the root cause of the mess in the video, even the cop on the video said so. Stop and identify laws are a conditioning that the police have the right to stop anyone at any time, demand identification and if that individual does not provide it they can be arrested. That is too much power.

I'm not sure what you mean by 'conditioning', but I'm as much against bad laws as the next guy. Your points 9 and 10 below, I believe, hold some weight. If you'd like to have a conversation about bad legislation, and how law enforcement's following the rules have led to bad things happening, I'm thinking you'll probably find some folks agreeing with you. I may be one of them.

[prisonchaplain]

I'm uncomfortable with the demanding of credentials from posters. Granted, some on this site have uber-relevant experience, and we do well to listen especially hard to them. However, to say that posters are not qualified to express themselves because they lack certain experiences is unfair. Commentators make their livings speaking about things they have no direct experience with. Reporters report about matters they usually have no specialized training in. Opinions should be weighed for what they contain more than for their author's resume.

That said, I recall the recent "Stop & Identify" law in NYC. I was initially in favor of it, and still lean in that direction. On the other hand, who was it that said, "Those who give up their freedom for security deserve neither?"

[Windseeker]

Some of the opinions in this thread surprise me. Especially with most of us being LDS and having being warned from the Creator himself about what tendencies occur when people attain a bit of power (As the OP quoted).

We are seeing this with "Public Servants" whether they be the Commander and Chief or the Lifeguards at the local beach.

I think people need to keep in mind "Public Servants" are given their authority by the people they should be serving and need to weld it mindfully and respectfully.

I have a very close friend who is 'the' Canine Officer for Redmond and we have discussed this from time to time. Like any work place there are those who are burned out, saturated with cynicism and need to move onto something else. People acting like 'mini-gods' can occur in all occupations, but especially those that have added weight of authority.

[prisonchaplain]

who was it that said, "Those who give up their freedom for security deserve neither?"

Found it:

Benjamin Franklin, July 17, 1775:

They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.

[Windseeker]

UVU Arrest: RAW Censored Video - YouTube

Could this have been handled differently?

[Traveler]

One of the things we have learned about combat in the military is that if a person is subjected to a highly stressful circumstance for a prolonged period of time – they will become violent. This is a part of the fight or flight instincts of our species. Since our police are trained to stay on the job and protect citizens you can be sure that anyone that runs from trouble will likely not be policemen. That means that they will become violent if they are under a continuous highly stressful situation for more than a half hour.

Yes my friends and neighbors we are all likely to snap and kill someone, regardless of training, if we do not have a way to calm down in continuous highly stressful situations. This is why in our homes we should never argue for more than a few minutes and if a situation is getting worse we need to back off and calm down – perhaps bring in someone to mediate. But it does no good to have a “time out” to calm down if the stress remains.

But for the police, the problem is twofold because the criminal elements are also subjected to stress and are also likely to respond defiantly or violently which only escalates the problem and makes violence more likely. I am not saying that the police should get off – we need to hold them to account but what I am saying is that we also need to hold those to account that resist arrest. At least we should realize that resisting is likely to get someone killed – I personally think that the greater responsibility generally (maybe not always) should be with those resisting. One thing for sure – when we are thinking of resisting or encouraging or enabling resistance – we need to share in the responsibility of the results.

The Traveler