Circling the Wagons
Tim Dees
Editor-in-Chief
Officer.com
Anytime I want to expand our reader base a bit, all I need to do is write a commentary on an issue near and dear to the hearts of people outside the police community. I don’t have to promote it beyond that –the internet does it for me. Last week’s blog about the St. George, MO police sergeant who was videotaped cursing and threatening a driver who had set up the encounter for that purpose was one of these. At this writing, it’s up to 35 comments–not a record, but respectable.
This round was interesting in that it turned into a kind of dialogue between the commenters, who stopped criticizing what I had written in favor of criticizing each other. I pointed out that we have a discussion forum that works much better for that sort of thing, and the reply inferred that their perspective would not be tolerated on our forums. I submit that those of you who constantly find fault with the police are less tolerant of the police point of view than the police are of yours.
Why do the police get so defensive when an officer is accused of wrongdoing? I think it’s because just about anything the police do towards enforcing the law–especially unpopular laws, like speed limits–is immediately condemned as unfair, too heavy-handed, a violation of someone’s constitutional rights, or an overreaction. It also doesn’t take long before there is some reference to Gestapo, jackboots, storm troopers, or some other Nazi association. If an officer speaks up to defend a colleague, he is maintaining the wall of silence, or covering up, or acting in some other self-serving way.
Sometimes a reader’s personal filter will translate what they see into what they want to see. I was accused of defending the St. George sergeant’s actions in the videotaping incident. I went back and re-read the column, and couldn’t find where I had done so. His conduct was unprofessional and unacceptable by any standard. My point was that he had been baited into the encounter by someone with an agenda to put the cops on the defensive, and that it’s inevitable that someone else is going to try this. And my remedy was for everyone to behave themselves and document their own actions to the greatest extent possible. I don’t understand how this is a losing proposition for the citizen.
There is also a tendency of folks hypercritical of law enforcement to condemn any police use of force as excessive force. Earlier this week, Andrew Meyer disrupted an appearance by Senator John Kerry at the University of Florida and was forcibly removed from the auditorium by officers from the university’s police department. He actively resisted officers and got to “take the ride” with a TASER for his trouble. It’s pretty clear he knew that this was coming, as he got out some words which might make it into the Book of Memorable Things Said by Idiot Criminals: “Don’t Tase Me, Bro!” It’s already available on a t-shirt (other entries include “Can’t we all just get along?” and “I’ll never rest until I find the real killers.”).
Each person wishing to ask questions or make comments to Kerry was given a time limit, which Meyer exceeded. When he was asked to step away and let someone else have their turn, he refused. He went on for another minute or so, and his microphone was disconnected. When two officers tried to lead him away, he actively resisted (while the audience applauded, apparently glad to be getting rid of him). He could have walked out of the auditorium–or just shut up and sat down–but he chose to keep fighting the officers, who warned him that he would be TASERed if he didn’t stop resisting. And, all of this time, yelling “What are you arresting me for?” (Hey, Andy: it was pretty clear to everyone else in the room. Pay closer attention next time) Video that has surfaced since then showed Meyer apparently uninjured and not looking especially uncomfortable a few minutes later.
Like a similar incident in the library at UCLA last November, police warned Mostafa Tabatabainejad that he was not in compliance with university policy, asked him to leave the building, and then used the TASER on him when he refused. It’s also relevant to note that Meyer, Tabatabainejad, and Brent Darrow of the St. George incident have documented histories of confrontational behavior with police, apparently enjoying whatever celebrity it brings them. You can call all these folks freedom fighters or patriots or champions of civil rights if you want, but I see their agenda as something altogether different, and no one stands to benefit except them.
To brand either the UCLA or the U of F incidents as excessive uses of force is just naive. It’s very common these days for people to reach adulthood and never experience a fight. It is even rarer to find someone other than a cop or a military combat veteran who has been in a fight for their life, where losing the fight can mean losing control of their weapon and having it used against them. This is a consideration that every police officer must take into account when getting close enough to someone to lay hands on them. On television, resistive arrestees are vanquished in a few seconds, and usually by a single officer. In real life, what you saw on the videos of the UCLA and U of F incidents is far more typical. Even mythical force alternatives wouldn’t live up to their reputations. Ever notice that people stunned with a phaser or dropped with a Vulcan neck pinch never even bump their heads?
One of our discussion forum members recently summed up her use of force policy handily: “First we ask you, then we tell you, then we make you.” Good cops don’t play the force card first, but they have to be prepared to play it every time they act as cops. It’s very seldom going to be neat and pretty. People resist and fight and everyone rolls around on the ground, and the end result is usually the same. Sometimes a TASER or pepper spray or a baton–or even a gun–comes into play, and that looks even worse. Ironically, most of those things are intended to prevent injury, rather than cause it, because the longer the fight lasts, the greater the chance someone will get hurt. I haven’t “taken the ride” with a TASER, but I’ve been pepper sprayed, hit with batons, and even rendered unconscious via a “lateral vascular neck restraint” (you probably know it as a choke hold), and none of them were any fun at all. Everyone knows that these things are in the police force inventory, but they still make the cops trot them out. Why feel sorry for them?
Believe it or not, most cops hate police misconduct even more than the citizenry does, because it makes their lives tougher. And, yes, there often is a blue wall of silence when it comes to some of these things, because the risks of speaking up usually outweigh the risks of keeping silent. If you think this horribly wrong, ask yourself what you did the last time you saw a co-worker on company time, doing something they weren’t supposed to do. We haven’t yet been successful in building a culture of intolerance to misconduct in police work, but I can’t think of anyone that has.
Misconduct by the police should absolutely be reported and acted on. At the same time, good police work which might not look pretty and nice needs to be praised and rewarded, not vilified by people who don’t understand what they’re seeing, hearing, or reading, and are mainly taking pleasure in attacking the people who hold them to account for their own misconduct. Until the citizenry is clearly willing to support the police when they do their jobs properly, don’t be surprised by defensiveness when the occasional bad apple is identified.
Excellent post, Mr. Dees. As a writer you’ve no doubt experienced the “only time you hear them is when they’re mad” phenomenon, and the police rarely receive proper recognition for a difficult job well done. I don’t even mean such isolated incidents as the officers in Chicago who saved several people from a burning building; I mean the every-day activities of the cop on the beat. For every Meyer or Darrow incident, there are thousands if not tens of thousands of similar incidents which are handled well by officers who truly seek to serve the public and not themselves. And yet all we hear about is when one idiot on a college campus decides to fight with the police.
First, I’d like to say thank you for your accurate evaluation on your last blog. I think your tips are the right direction for law enforcement to take. I’ve seen many officers on the web with the mind of he should have confiscated/destroyed the camera.
The incident in Florida, I cannot say as the video wasn’t close up. Its hard to say, what is excessive when you aren’t the one about to get kicked in the face. The problem in that video is obviously that he wasn’t trying to hurt anybody and from the audio, he is making passive pleads to be released. Understand that its probably not a bad thing to take that element away by loudly address what you are trying to get him to do. I didn’t hear any enforcement sounds, all I hear is him so its hard to side with the police. If I would have heard, “please roll over” seen the guy not roll over, then sure…taser the crap out of him. But you can’t taser somebody who is trying to do what your are saying and from the video…that is what it could be…like i said, I can’t say.
I am a libertarian and so I write quite a few comments on these things. I will do everything in my power to help you but I find some methods completely intrusive. I’ve been where you are. I’ve been exmilitary and been spit on by demonstrators. I’ve had to restrain myself from following my knee jerk reaction of introducing the said person to the butt of my rifle.
Officers are just people. No better, no worse. There are some outstanding ones and there are some who are not mentally capable to handle the responsibility to be a servant to the public. I may give you a hard time at your next DUI checkpoint if you tell me to pop my trunk, but I’ll buy you a beer later too and tell ya thanks. Hopefully some of us “objectors” can learn to view our problems with the methods as separate than problems with police who put their pants on just like I do.
Yeah, the only real point of contention I have with the entire article is that the kid who intentionally picked a fight with the one officer was wrong to do so and does no good.
There was good done. A person who was not fit to perform their duties and compromised the security of police was removed from that post. The bad in your eyes is that he was exposed publicly which may have future relations/public view impacts. Personally, I wish you actually cared enough about the people you serve to be glad he was caught by whatever means so that he could no longer inflict this brand of justice on the future public instead of lingering on the temporary black eye that it gives of officer credibility. That is the whispering fear that the public have but officers typically not due to police not messing with each other. The fear of being wrongly accused is real. Its not until officers empathize with the public on it, that any progress would be made.
I think the point that needs the most emphasis in your post is mentioning how good police work is not praised nearly enough. It’s easy for public opinion to turn negative quickly when the status quo of public opinion have a neutral viewpoint of the police. Of course, it’s the same for all occupations, right? You’re expected to do your job, and there has to be some repercussions when you screw up. I’m not saying it’s okay to do so, it’s just the unfortunate consequence of how we live our lives.
I feel that what we might think of as “normal standards” when it comes to judgment should be extremely amplified when it comes to the police. As a computer programmer, I feel that my accomplishments or screwups are quite inconsequential to others or life in general. However, every decision a police officer makes, no matter how great or how small, has a ripple effect that can affect multiple lives, for better or for worse. We should be thrilled when a police officer “does their job”, because it’s a very tough and risky job to ensure that every other citizen can go about their daily lives. I don’t put my life on the line when I’m at my job. By the same token, we should be overly critical of behavior similar to Sgt. Kuehnlein’s. Police officers are charged with the duty to uphold the law, and with it comes the easily-abusable power to do so. It’s not impossible that Kuehnlein could have physically harmed that guy or locked him up. Sure, the guy probably would have gotten compensation for his troubles, but that’s never an ideal solution. I think anything short of terminating his job is unreasonable, because should be little room for error with that kind of power and responsibility, and he clearly demonstrated his inability to handle it.
Overall, it’s not easy, right? There’s such a huge grey area when it comes to police behavior, and yet it seems so easy for the public to hear just enough to take a side. By the same token, officers shouldn’t let public opinion dictate how to properly do their jobs. Each side just seems waiting for the other to cut them some slack. while being unwilling to move first.
On the whole, when you hold a job, you represent the image of your occupation and your employer by your conduct. I’ve run into many officers (most of the time either for routine stops or just on the street) who are amazing people, and it’s unfortunate that there isn’t an easy way for me to communicate my satisfaction to their supervisors. However, I’ve also run into a couple officers who seem to be looking for a reason to run into me. I’m always respectable to them, but if I have a bad experience, I will at least have a negative opinion of the cops in that area, if not a broader view. I understand it’s tough to maintain a level-headed, “innocent-until-proven-guilty” viewpoint on every person, especially if you’re a police officer, but everybody should be allowed this right, police and non-police alike.
I think one of the biggest problems is the public’s lack of understanding of what the police are within their rights to do. They honestly think that the “Don’t tase me, bro,” kid didn’t deserve to be tased because they don’t understand the idea of the escalation of force that the police follow.
One of the best things I ever did was attend a Citizens Police Academy in a nearby town. Citizens get a behind the scenes look at what it takes to be a cop, use of force is explained, the laws are explained, what reasonable suspicion is, how RS is different than probable cause, and the best part is you get to meet the guys and gals in blue who are out there risking it to keep John and Jane Q. Public safe.
It’s also important to remember that the public might not actually understand why the police are doing what they’re doing. I think getting the public educated here is necessary - and difficult, but not impossible. When it’s a problem of perception I think education is going to be law enforcement’s best defense.
First Tim, thanks for posting such a level-headed analysis, free of the sensationalism common in the blogosphere.
With that said, the taser is officially a “less-lethal” weapon, meaning their is still a possibility of fatal injury. The taser has been involved in over 100 fatalities. Amnesty International has called for studies of Taser usage because of the increasing number of taser-related fatalities.
While I support taser usage to de-escalate a possibly lethal or violent situation, the instance in Florida was unjustifiable. While Mr. Meyer may have been extremely obnoxious and creating a disturbance, highly painful “less lethal” force put his life on the line. He was a disturbance but not a threat.
Some points with your arguments:
- “Everyone knows that these things are in the police force inventory, but they still make the cops trot them out. Why feel sorry for them?”
No one made the cops taser Mr. Meyer. Police have been doing crowd control for the past century without this dangerous technology.
-”ask yourself what you did the last time you saw a co-worker on company time, doing something they weren’t supposed to do.”
This is EXTREMELY offensive. The police are public servants in a position of power over the general population. This is not simply a job in comparison to a retail clerk or line cook. Bad police are a threat to the underlying fabric of democratic society. The risks of speaking up may be public outrage or employment problems, but this NEVER outweighs injustice.
Editor’s Note: James’ comments concerning TASER caused me to contact Steve Tuttle, Vice President of Communications for TASER International. He was able to provide a much more informed response than any I could write. Mr. Tuttle’s comments are in italics.
First Tim, thanks for posting such a level-headed analysis, free of the sensationalism common in the blogosphere.
With that said, the TASER® is officially a “less-lethal” (non-lethal, less-lethal, less-than-lethal… these terms are interchanged regardless of the technology… no non-lethals/less-lethals are risk free even by the DOD definition: U.S. Department of Defense policy defines non-lethal weapons as “weapon systems that are explicitly designed and primarily employed so as to incapacitate personnel or materiel, while minimizing fatalities, permanent injury to personnel, and undesired damage to property and the environment. . .” It is important to note that Department of Defense policy does not require or expect non-lethal weapons “to have a zero probability of producing fatalities or permanent injuries.” Rather, non-lethal weapons are intended to significantly reduce the probability of such fatalities or injuries as compared with traditional military weapons which achieve their effects through the physical destruction of targets. weapon, meaning there is still a possibility of fatal injury.
The taser has been involved in over 100 fatalities. (Actually even more fatalities if you take the latest number by Amnesty International… but not that Amnesty never uses the words “caused”…. Always the word “related.” Hmm makes me think that a rooster’s crow is related to the sun coming up but without causality.) Amnesty is doing paper clipping of over the top headlines that pronounce, TASER Kills Man (even though the death occurred the night before and no autopsy was even begun… The samples of these headlines are ridiculous. It’s interesting to that Amnesty’s growing body count never decrease even when a medical examiner clears the TASER of any contribution to death… hmm must be a broken subtraction key and that decreasing body count might hurt fundraising…)
Amnesty International has called for studies of Taser usage because of the increasing number of taser-related fatalities. (See above… AND this guy can’t get any of Amnesty’s issues right. Note that Amnesty doesn’t call for more studies. They say there are “NO independent studies of TASER technology….” Hmmm. Somebody better call Dr. Chan and Dr. Vilke at San State University regarding their independent studies… and somebody better contact the United Kingdom’s Police and Scientific Development Branch regarding the years of research and the million Pounds (several million dollars) on TASER research that allowed the laws to change to allow TASER technology to be used by EVERY firearms officer in the UK with a current request to expand to non-firearms officers… but I digress. TASER International challenged Amnesty International to pick medical topics and protocols that they want to see research and TASER would split the cost with Amnesty. NO phone calls yet on that one from Amnesty … and that was three years ago – see attached press releases on how we were combating this rhetoric back in 2004).
While I support taser usage to de-escalate a possibly lethal (that’s pretty risky… it can work but the TASER isn’t a substitute for deadly force… oh and by the way, Amnesty has pleaded that TASER ECDs only be deployed in deadly force situations since most people are unarmed when hit by a TASER ECD which is correct… it’s an everyday tool for law enforcement—not a substitute for deadly force.) or violent situation, the instance in Florida was unjustifiable. While Mr. Meyer may have been extremely obnoxious and creating a disturbance, highly painful “less lethal” force put his life on the line. He was a disturbance but not a threat. I won’t comment on this but I will QUTOE Jack Dunphy at the National Review:
“Two officers then approach Meyer and grasp him by his arms, apparently at the behest of school officials. At this point the prudent man would realize he has pushed things a bit too far and retake his seat or leave the theater. But Meyer is not a prudent man, and he takes his theatrics to the next level. He carries on loudly and breaks free from the officers, two more of whom now come into the picture. One of these new officers upholsters a Taser and points it at Meyer but does not fire it. Up until this moment I believe Meyer still may have had the option of leaving without being arrested if he had simply calmed down. But, reveling in the upstaging of a U.S. senator, Meyer continues to rant. The largest of the officers then puts Meyer in a bear hug and pushes him to the back of the room.”
“And here is where Meyer gives the officers no other option. He breaks free again, shouting, “Get away from me, man!” The officers were now suddenly faced with the prospect of lunatic running loose in the theater while Senator Kerry continued to blather up on the stage. Imagine if Meyer had not been the obnoxious, self-absorbed publicity seeker we now know him to be, but rather someone bent on doing physical harm to Kerry. No police officer worthy of the title would have done anything other than what those cops did, which is put Meyer on the floor in a hurry.”
“Once on the floor, Meyer continued to resist the officers’ efforts to restrain him. They were able to put a handcuff on one of his wrists but not the other, creating a potentially dangerous situation. If Meyer had been able to get to his feet and flail his arms has he had earlier, the dangling handcuff could have caused serious injury to the officers or any of the spectators nearby. The officers can be heard on the tape warning Meyer that they would use the Taser on him if he continued resisting, but to no avail. Meyer heard the warnings and ignored them, inviting what happened next. They zapped him once, the 50,000-volt charge draining the vinegar right out of him. Meyer was then trundled off and booked for resisting an officer with violence, and for disrupting the function of an educational institution.”
I will add that during this week’s controversy in Florida… no one was hurt by the TASER ECD which was a quick drive-stun (no probes and by the way that loud arcing you hear?
Also, I will add that the sound of a TASER arcing in the air… well, the TASER is almost silent when it hits skin, so these were clearly very brief drive stuns…
As a sidebar, it’s an interesting tidbit that the questioning of TASER safety isn’t the focal point in this controversy. They are questioning the use of force policies which are keys to any successful TASER program. Steve T.
Some points with your arguments:
- “Everyone knows that these things are in the police force inventory, but they still make the cops trot them out. Why feel sorry for them?” No one made the cops taser Mr. Meyer. Police have been doing crowd control for the past century without this dangerous technology. (Yes, they have… most people my age remember the nightsticks, the batons, K-9s, beanbag rounds, OC, bean bag rounds, and off course “hands on” techniques from the 50’s, 60 and even in Seattle’s infamous riot. Perhaps we should go back to the nightstick? I think not.
Although, no use of force device is risk free including TASER technology, medical experts and recent independent comprehensive reports from the governments of Canada, United Kingdom and the U.S. have concluded that TASER systems are among the safer use-of-force alternatives to subdue violent individuals who could harm law enforcement officers, innocent citizens or themselves. When used properly, medical and law enforcement experts have concluded that TASER technology is among the most effective use-of-force interventions available to law enforcement officers to halt violent situations that pose a safety risk to an officer, suspect or innocent citizens. TASER technology isn’t a magic bullet but its 94% actual field rates are impressive and unmatched by any other law enforcement non-lethal weapon.
Of the 11,500 law enforcement agencies deploying TASER technology, there have been no reports of overall increasing injury rates to suspects or officers. In fact, dramatic decreases in suspect and officer injuries have occurred particularly at law enforcement agencies that deploy TASER technology to the vast majority of its patrol offices. Workers Compensation rates have accordingly shown a decrease as well. Several law enforcement agency insurance agencies/risk management groups actually reimburse law enforcement agencies with funding when TASER devices are purchased based upon the actuarial data of field results of TASER deployments.
-”ask yourself what you did the last time you saw a co-worker on company time, doing something they weren’t supposed to do.” This is EXTREMELY offensive. The police are public servants in a position of power over the general population. This is not simply a job in comparison to a retail clerk or line cook. Bad police are a threat to the underlying fabric of democratic society. The risks of speaking up may be public outrage or employment problems, but this NEVER outweighs injustice. (This is precisely why good training and good policies go hand-in-hand and when things go awry. This is also why we have Civil Rights and courts to defend them.)
——————————————————————————–
BACKGROUND DATA:
There are three key points to in custody deaths.
1. In custody deaths have been an ongoing issue well before the advent of TASER® technology. First described in British medical literature in 1650, in US medical literature in 1849, with the term “excited delirium” first appearing in US medical treatises in 1881.
2. Of the 300 in custody deaths that occur on average each year, approximately 50 of these incidents involved the use of TASER brand electronic control device (ECDs) AS WELL as other uses of force over the past few years. These in-custody deaths are not limited to the US. The excited delirium, in-custody deaths, are also recorded in the Australian, UK, Canadian, etc. medical literature.
3. Of the incidents involving TASER brand devices, the vast majority of the cases get cleared by Medical Examiners (but we often wait for extended periods of time which adds to false speculation as well as bad headlines…
a. The TASER has been listed a primary cause of death in five cases. Upon careful analysis of these cases by world-renowned specialists – all have been repudiated.
Statistics:
· The company has sold 260,000 units to 11,500+ law enforcement and U.S. military agencies, as well as law enforcement agencies in 45 countries overseas. (Of the 11,500+ law enforcement agencies deploying TASER ECDs, over 3,500 agencies deploy ECDs to all of their patrol officers.)
· Another 136,000 units designed for civilians have been shipped since 1994.
All in all, it seems that some — note: some — cops think that if the public doesn’t fawn over them, they should be able to get a new public.
Me, I agree. I know there are countries where the peons aren’t allowed to question public servants, and I’m sure some folks would be happier there. To them I’ll wish a bon voyage.
Your suggestion that good police work should be praised is, of course, spot on; I couldn’t agree more, and when I’m aware of it, I do it. (Had some nice words for the last cop who pulled me over, and with his chief, in fact. Only fair; I’d have complained as effectively as possible if he’d been a jerk. But he played nice, and by the rules, and so did I.)
I do understand the circling the wagons phenomenon, and I think it’s a problem that your community is going to have to deal with — but, all in all, quality control (which includes keeping one’s own house in order) is a bigger problem, and one that demonstrably needs addressing, in various degrees of urgency, in various departments.
All servants, public or private, deserve praise when they do good work — otherwise, they might be tempted to go work for somebody else.
We haven’t yet been successful in building a culture of intolerance to misconduct in police work, but I can’t think of anyone that has.
I dunno; I thought, for example, that General Peter Pace, the CJCS, was quite emphatic clear about what, say, any member of the armed forces should do if he observed another torture, and corrected his then-superior, the SecDef, in public, making it clear that there was an affirmative obligation that both law and honor would require a soldier, sailor, Marine, or airman to take action, and not go all Sergeant Schultz.
Seems to be working pretty well. It’s not legalism or evasion — it’s that whole Code of Honor thing, and it turns out that, by and large, the folks in the US military are remarkably honorable, and adopting that sort of code is something that folks in other professions in which they bear arms, putatively for the public good, might well want to emulate.
I enjoyed your article.. however The police initiation of conflict was a chilling disragard for the first amendment of the constition.. The guy should have been allowed to speak.. and he had some good questions.. I agree police should taser people who are a threat to others or are breaking the law.. however what he was doinc was NOT against the law.. Public universities are just that public.. and that was a public forum.. so those police were NOT upholding the law they were vilating the law.. one higher than the local law.. Fed. law. Now that bieng said, I think while the use of force may have been justified the police reaction was in volation of the law and should be resisted.. I actually believe that police that are breaking the law should be arested by informed citizenry if neccessary to possably save the life of an clearly innocent person.. I.E. someone should have told the police to leave the room or pushed them out..as they clearly were an agrivating mitigation in the situation..
If first amendment rights are hinderd. We should utilize the second. The founding fathers new that our own government could get out of controll.. not that it has compleatly.. I have officer friends, most are great and have hard choices on a daily basis.. but some are on a power trip.. Oh well hope you have not taken offence.. just let your fellow officers know when they are restraining speach the are not good citizens..
Tim:
Good column….
(I don’t have a Taser, but next time you’re around I’ll bring a stun gun….)
IMHO the FL issue may never have made the papers if the speaker was a Conservative politician….
This kid earned it, sorry….
There’s a current case in Warren OH where the Officer’s dashcam clearly shows a woman getting zapped. It looks like he got a little carried away, but it’s also clear that she earned most of it.
The Taser (and similar stun gun devices) are designed to provide a less-lethal means of compliance. Your trusty nightstick, sap, flashlight, or gun, are much more likely to produce more rapid compliance, but also will generally result in a visit to the ER, or worse…. What does John Q. really want here?
Regards,
Stu.
This individual’s First Amendment Rights were not violated due to the fact that he was a participant in an event that he knew the rules as instructed, and openly dis-obeyed them. He agreed to follow the rules when he stepped up to the microphone, and only after his time was up did he decide he didn’t want to play by the rules anymore. It makes me ill that this has been sensationalized. It’s not as if he was in the court yard with other protestors with a permit, he was at an educational function in which he disrupted by not following the rules, and disobeying a lawful order by a Law Enforcement Officer.
This must be the end of the world, a sign of the Apocalypse. I had just written my last entry for the last blog before I read this one, and our thoughts are the same.
Mr. Dees you are pretty much absolutely correct. There, I’ve said it.
The Florida incident was a fine example of use of force, the officers worked their way up the use of force continuum with an active, fighting subject. Every time he was loosing the confrontation he threw up his arms (like that made everything all right) and the force was lessened. He then used that pause to flee and resume his antics. When the officers resumed taking him into custody, he actively fought more, while mugging cute lines to the camera. He had every opportunity to simply leave the auditorium, or when it was beyond that, submit to custody. He chose his path.
I have seen our friends in the press trying to stir this up as an excessive force issue, but it has no legs. This was almost a textbook event. Oh, the word TASER is a scary, scary word for some. I see already someone has used this for a “tasers kill” thread. Off topic. Mr. Dees, thanks for contacting taser and cutting that off.
There is no free speech issue. When you put on a gathering, it is your gathering. Here’s an illustration: At your graduation from a public university, must you yield the microphone to anyone who demands it, to say whatever they want? At a live concert, could I take the stage and stop the music to take the musicians to task for not playing more Bach? Hey, free speech, right!
Wrong. Of course not. You can’t yell fire in a crowded theater, either. Mr. Chiacchira, your interpretation of the first amendment is at odds with the courts and the document itself. Your indication that the police should have been told to leave or been pushed out for making the situation worse is preposterous.
This guy was not shown the door because he was saying something outrageous. His time was up. He refused to play by the rules set up. Free speech is the right not to be prosecuted or restricted for what you want to say. It is not a free pass to make this statement anywhere, anytime, and at the expense of the rights of others.
Great follow-up blog.
Well said!!! This knucklehead deserved to get lit up because he refused to comply with the officer’s orders. Of course, I expect to be ridiculed because I think the police did their job. I also agree with Mr. Krupak, there is no such thing as free speech,just freedom of expression. Good writing Mr. Dees, you tell it like it is.
My father was a cop. One day, three other cops were over at our house playing a card game called “Setback.” One of them, our former next-door-neighbor, called me over and showed me his flashlight. There was hair and what I thought was mud under a metal lip next to the cracked glass (this was some years ago). The “bell” of the flashlight was dented.
“You see that?” he asked me. “That’s how hard a nigger’s head it. You cain’t hurt a nigger by hittin’ him on the head. If he sasses you, you gotta hit him in the nuts or some other place that’ll really hurt him.”
Do I trust cops? Uh-uh. I knew too many of them and heard them talking about too many incidents like this one. Are all cops bad people? Of course not. But, in my experience, almost all cops will cover for the bad people.
Look, if you want the public to trust you, it’s pretty simple. Report criminal behavior by other cops. If you don’t, I and others like me are just going to assume that you’re bad people, too. We’re going to assume that police work attracts men and women who like wearing a badge and a gun and lording it over other people.
It’s simple. Don’t tolerate bad cops.
Well said Tim!
I love the discussion, particularly the Taser Company info. The editor’s blog is a great way to get things out on the table and sometimes becomes even better reading than the actual blog. Keep up the good work Tim!
I think that it’s less than startling when one hears from a spokesman for the Taser company about how good and safe Tasers are. Self-serving statements are not, of course, inherently false, but they are inherently suspect.
On the other hand, when somebody makes a statement contrary to interest — say, most of what issues from Sergeant Garrett, who seems to be unable to write a syllable that doesn’t shame himself — it comes across as far more credible.
Speaking of circling the wagons, I did take Tim up on his public offer to sign up on the officer.com forum a scant ten days ago, and have yet to be flagged to be allowed to post there.
Fair enough; officer.com’s forum; officer.com’s rules. Also fair enough, I think, to make the obvious inferences.
Editor’s Note: The obvious inferences, in this case, would be incorrect. There is a huge backlog (well into four figures) of applications for forum access in the moderation queue. Each one is individually reviewed, mainly to filter spammers and people claiming sworn police officer status. Send an e-mail to officer@officer.com, and we will try to expedite your application. Note what I said above concerning personal filters.
I felt compelled to comment on this post. This has to be one of the best written, well-thought out posts I have ever witnessed on the internet. As long as we still have unbiased thinkers like you, Mr. Dees, law enforcement professionals doing their jobs should never be in any real trouble.
There is no shame in anything I do or say, except that people like you exist. You will never attain the amount of respect or credibility that I enjoy.
Dear lord. I thought this would be a short discussion.
Mr. OBrien, what, and I repeat, WHAT does your trip several decades down memory lane have to do with what is being discussed? Thanks for your only lucid input: “don’t tolerate bad cops”. We know that, thanks again.
But, if you just want to make inflammatory remarks towards the police profession, please go back to the last blog entry, where I left the other cop bashers happily shouting their hate to each other. Frankly, your whole story pegged my BS meter so hard it bent the needle.
And Mr. Rosenberg, we meet again. Imagine how shocked, shocked I am that you reject TASER’s facts out of hand. You have probably done your own extensive published research that you will share later.
Now you want to post in the forums. After ten days of waiting, you complain that you have not yet been approved, OK…
“Fair enough; officer.com’s forum; officer.com’s rules.”
Yeah. We agree.
“Also fair enough, I think, to make the obvious inferences.”
What the…? (Sound of you skidding off the runway)
So to get your way, you decided to write something to imply … some dark — something.
What exactly are those inferences? Sorry to flirt with calling you a name here, but if you really believe that a conspiracy exists to keep you out, then you sound a bit like you are one trip to Wal-Mart short of a tinfoil hat. The profession is not afraid of you, we just disagree.
But you got the desired results: Mr. Dees is a nice guy and he’s willing to bump you up. I’d let you wait your turn, because we don’t want anyone to think they are better than anyone else, right? I mean. if cops are not better than civilians, then civilians are not better than cops, right?
There is no possible way this rosenberg guy is a police officer.
Tim, as always, great blog.
Mr. Chiacchira, I welcome you to try and push a police officer out of a room as you say should have been done. Feel free to get back with me and let me know how it works out for you.
Fair enough; I’ll take your word that multi-week delays are standard at officer.com.
Now, perhaps you’d care to explain this. Seems that not only have the wagons long been circled, but the drivers of the wagons have become so accustomed to their “right” to be treated as better than the common ruck that they’re incensed when they’re subject to the same rules as the rest of us peons.
Mr. Rosenberg: regarding your last post, I say: No explanation necessary. Unless you think Mr. Dees is responsible for that site. This is Mr. Dees’ blog. The column was about how we wish people would see the good we do. And how we get sad and defensive when bad cops cause people like yourself to feel empowered to condemn our profession wholesale. You are way off topic, and your demand for an ‘explanation’ is just rude and meant to troll. No takers.
Feel free to start your own site, and fill it with your fringe philosophies and your loathing of the law. Here, we are mostly cops. We will never hate ourselves like you hate us. Nor should we.
Yes, you are attempting to make us feel guilty about who we are. If you put us on the defensive, you shout: Look! I see cops supporting criminals! If we are not defensive, you shout: Look! They’re arrogant, those cops don’t know their place!
Oh, you (or one of your sock puppets) might say you support the good cops, but you are blinded by your obsession to find fault both in law enforcement and our pride in service. When you find no wrongs you make thinly veiled and frankly paranoid accusations of evil.
Forget it. I’ve had my vacation trip for this year, I won’t be sent on a guilt trip for being the police.
Your self-righteous attitude about something you do not understand — and never will hear us out about — grows ever tedious. Now, backed into a corner, you throw this unrelated site out. You sound like a 5 year old losing an argument shouting through his tears: ‘… oh, yeah…well…ah…you stink.”
Obviously, you have nothing left to say on the topic, and have become irrelevant. Enjoy the rest of your visit.
To my brothers and sisters here I say: don’t let this guy or others like him get under your skin. He wants you to call him a name or get pissed off and say something so he can quote out of context, or just make stuff up. Then he becomes a hero in his little clique. Sad.
We’re the police, and we should have pride in it. If you don’t have this pride, seek other employment. You should — no, must go to work everyday knowing you are doing noble work. without enforcement, there is no order. The bond formed by our common calling is nothing to be ashamed of. The public and the bashers among them will never see what we see, even if they watch the boxed set of “COPS”. Or they know a cop. Or were a police reporter. Or have a degree in social psychology. Or…you get the picture. We are willing to see and experience these things that bond us so they don’t have to.
And we do root out our own when they disgrace us. We just don’t take the joy in it that the bashers do. Our sadness in having to do this they take as evidence of evil, and the cycle repeats.
In my career I’ve seen bashers come and go. They get the attention they so desperately crave, and when that fades, they do too.
Be strong, be right, and maintain; my friends.
I’ll get off my soapbox now. I’ve said all I need.
Most of all, Be safe.
Krupak: I hate to have to point out the blazingly obvious, but I guess I will. No, I wasn’t suggesting that Tim is responsible for what happens on another site; I am, quite clearly (read it again) suggesting that this “circling the wagons” problem comes from, at least in large part, arrogance and a sense of entitlement, rather than occasional criticism from non-cops that has some badged folks panties in a perpetual twist.
And, just to add on: you’re the one who is hiding behind a sock puppet, “Krupak.” I use my name, email address and website on my postings. I can understand why you’d want anonymity, given what you post; me, I’m comfortable with what I write.
james: No, I’m not. I do training for police officers — including CLE for Lorman — and others, upon occasion, but I’m not now, never have been, and never have claimed to be a police officer. Hope that clear that up for you; I’m a hopeful sort of guy.
Sigh. My last words on this.
Circling the wagons? Well, it is the result of many things, as you would have seen from Mr. Dees’ column, had your read it instead of scanning it for talking points. We are proud and with good reason. We also would like to be appreciated occasionally, just like anyone else. To you its “…arrogance and a sense of entitlement…” See what you want, you will anyway.
You don’t know the definition of an Internet sock puppet, either. Never mind.
Yes, I post under a pen name. No, I’m not afraid that you and your followers (if any) will all pile into the red Pinto station wagon to come TP my house. Naw. After all, (chuckle) I’ve been threatened by real experts over the years. The idea that I’m cowering just silly. No, you see, unlike you, my message is in my words. Who I am is unimportant, because its not about me. I made up a word (like kodak) so I could get my post up.
I have not gone to your website (since I see now you have a link), nor will I. Let others give you the attention you want. None of the hits will be from me.
I’ve said everything I want. Nothing will change your mind, and your feeble attempts at stirring the pot are not even amusing any longer.
You may keep posting, but your empty words will just be echoing back to you off of bare walls. I’ve advised the other cops to not feed your trolls, I shall now take my own advice.
Good day, sir.
To my brothers and sisters: stay safe.
[quote]Mr. OBrien, what, and I repeat, WHAT does your trip several decades down memory lane have to do with what is being discussed? Thanks for your only lucid input: “don’t tolerate bad cops”. We know that, thanks again.[/quote]
I’ve been at a funeral all week and unable to respond. I hope you’re still monitoring this thread.
Fair enough. If you know it, why do you still do it?
Just curious.
Mr. Rosenberg, I know how we can settle this debate…We will have a chess match, and we can prove who is more intelligent. We will take a polygraph exam and expose all our wrongs (I have taken several, Have you?). Then we will go 3 rounds in the squared circle (don’t worry it probably won’t go past the first minute) and I’ll show you why could never be the police. I am willing to travel anywhere anytime to complete these tasks. Please let me know if these conditions are acceptable to you.
There’s the thug for you: I’m so much more intelligent than you that I can beat you up.
MY CONCERN AS A REGULAR CITIZEN IS THE ATTITUDE MOST POLICE OFFICERS HAVE NOWDAYS, THIS SAME ST GEORGE OFFICER DID A SIMULAR THING TO ME IN NORTH COUNTY WITH A DIFFERENT DEPARTMENT BUT WAS HONEST ENOUGH TO TELL THE CHIEF AND MAYOR THE SAME STORY I DID. IT SEEMS NO MATTER WHAT THE SITUATION IS, THERE IS NEVER A “HELLO SIR, I OBSERVED YOU, OR CAN I OFFER ASSISTANCE. AN EXAMPLE IS MY NEW TRUCK BROKE DOWN ON THE SIDE OF THE ROAD, CLOSE TO THE LINE AND WAS NOT MOVEABLE. THE FIRST THING THE OFFICER SAID WAS “WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU DOING HERE? TRYING TO GET YOURSELF KILLED?” IN AN ARROGANT VOICE. I SAID POLIETLY, IT BROKE DOWN AND WONT MOVE, IF IT WOULD I WOULD’NT BE HERE IN TRAFFIC. I WAS CALLED A SMART ASS AND WARNED. I SEE THAT BEHAVIOR MORE AND MORE. THEY WANT US TO BE NICE SO THEY SHOULD BE ALSO.