Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 26 of 26
  1. #21
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Third Coast
    Posts
    4,205
    Quote Originally Posted by mike135 View Post
    I have an analytical mind. When I see stuff I analyze it because I want to understand it. I have broad interests, which include the deepening conflict in our society between law enforcement and the civilian world. When I see something that doesn't make sense to me, I want to know what I'm missing so that I can make it make sense.

    This story just came out because the civil case is getting started and the video was just released. Across the Internet people are freaking out about it and it's almost universally being perceived as another piece of evidence of how cops are power-hungry thugs who are out of control, this guy should be thrown in prison for his behavior, etc. etc. I wanted to hear "the other side of the story", and I knew that this was a good place to find it, hence my post.

    Coastal, thanks for your thoughts. I hadn't considered the possibility that the pulling down of the shorts was inadvertent--the narrative that "he tased him in the balls" probably was put out by the defense, and it was in the click-bait headline that first led me to this story.

    My concern is more about the overall way this officer handled it. I don't see "resistance" so much as reaction to the pain induced by the officer, and I don't see them processing the fact that the guy is wrapped up in the seat belt and not able to move. I see what appears to be way too liberal use of the taser and then taking the reaction to being tased/painful joint manipulations as being "resistance" that justifies escalation of force. I understand the concept of jumping ahead of the bad guy's OODA loop, but this just looks like the cop went from 0 to 100 immediately. I don't know what that department's policy might be regarding the use of the taser, but what this guy was doing sure looked excessive to me.
    Followup on this regarding Taser use. Agency policies vary, but remember that a policy violation is not a law violation. Here are two examples

    Agency one: Policy is that taser shall be used in accordance with UOF policy and not deployed prior to hands on compliance and takedown techniques.

    This policy is the "vacation" policy for that agency. Anytime you use a Taser you are going to get two days off, really, thats how they operate.

    Agency two: Taser policy is that at any level of noncompliance the officer may use in his best judgement the level of force needed to contain the situation.

    This policy goes from "sir, step out of the car" to doing the 60hz boogie if you fail to exit the vehicle.

    Both positions are lawful. A couple of takeaways on Taser and perception.

    A flexible Taser policy in my agency (for the last 8 years or so) has resulted in exactly ZERO shoulders and knees we have had to work on/replace in both officer AND suspects. Prior to that we were going through a couple a year due to the "compliance" techniques tearing up shoulders elbows and knees. Or blowing out knees chasing people in 30+ lbs of kit. Tasers when used, reduce injuries....not pain, but injuries on both sides of the fence.

    Perception, the largest indicator in the public perception of force being excessive is NOT the actual force used, it IS the duration that force is used. Give the public two videos, in one at the onset or resistance the officer gives a great brachial strike, the guy drops to his knees and the cuffs go on. Total time 10 seconds.

    In video Two the officer has a similar situation and goes hands one with "soft" compliance techniques, there is much screaming, pushing, pulling and finally the officer get the guy on the ground and cuffs him. Total time over a minute.

    While video "two" actually had a much lower level of applied force "Soft" compliance vice the "Hard" stunning strikes in video one, the public with overwhelmingly say the fight that went on for over a minute was the more excessive one. But remember NEITHER situation was actually excessive, and only one appeared so.

    There are lots of things that look horrible but are appropriate to the situation
    NEVER CONFUSE GETTING LUCKY WITH GOOD TACTICS (unless you are at the bar)

    I'm not in the business of Losing

    A stab to the taint beats most of the mystical bullshit, most of the time

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Southeast Florida
    Posts
    1,725
    Quote Originally Posted by Greg Nichols View Post
    I remember you had many of the same issues in the unknown subject thread during an active shooter. You're not asking the right questions me thinks.
    If it helps, just look at me as a representative of the perspective from people on the outside who don't understand the perspective of the people on the inside. I seem to find it much easier than most people to see and understand both sides of something without getting emotionally invested in either side. It probably has something to do with my sociopathic tendencies...

    Anyway, just like with that other conversation, it's a Pyrrhic victory. Law enforcement may win the battle but they'll lose the war. They have not been able to impart their perspective to the public which they supposedly serve, and therefore they are steadily losing the support of that public. I guarantee you 90+% of the people who watch that video will think "that cop was out of control and should never wear a badge again". Those are the same people who will be in the jury at the civil trial, voting for the sheriff and the guys who hire/fire police chiefs, etc. You'll never convince a jury that this officer's actions were justified.

    This guy will keep his job, the taxpayers will pay a big civil settlement/judgement, and the relationship between law enforcement and the public will continue to deteriorate (and accelerate because of how easily videos like this go viral on social media). Along the way, some nutcase will watch this video or another one like it, decide that it's time to do something about this problem, and somebody will get ambushed and die.

    My biggest concern is that it's increasingly likely that person could come from the right. It used to be the leftist commie types who was predictably anti-LE, but in recent years I have seen growing sentiment on the right, especially among the gun world, against LE. I have watched people I know personally go from being pro-LE to asking the question "when is it justified to shoot a cop?" and be very serious about their answer to the question. I myself used to be be 100% pro-cop to the point that I dreamed of a career in law enforcement. Today? I'm more and more inclined to say "sorry officer, I'm sure you're a good guy and you're just trying to do your job but my attorney told me the best approach is to not answer questions from law enforcement. I do not consent to a search--am I being detained? Am I free to go?" Etc.

    I understand the perspective of the individual--"I want to go home tonight, I care more about controlling the threat than anybody's feelings, my mission is to get the bad guy not make somebody happy, I have to act based on my experience and knowledge and not what somebody thinks watching a video, etc." The problem is that when you put a bunch of people who only care about their personal perspective together into a big group, nobody is looking out for the interests of the group as a whole. The interests of the group are not protected unless every individual does their part.

    Gabe, I'm sure you have better things to do but if you were to go spend some time reading the comment section on gun-related blogs and right-wing news sites when these stories come out it might change your perspective on this stuff. And you are right--if everybody's phone had a video camera and the Internet in its current form was around when you were on the job your tenure would have been very short!

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Southeast Florida
    Posts
    1,725
    Quote Originally Posted by coastalcop View Post
    Followup on this regarding Taser use. Agency policies vary, but remember that a policy violation is not a law violation. Here are two examples

    Agency one: Policy is that taser shall be used in accordance with UOF policy and not deployed prior to hands on compliance and takedown techniques.

    This policy is the "vacation" policy for that agency. Anytime you use a Taser you are going to get two days off, really, thats how they operate.

    Agency two: Taser policy is that at any level of noncompliance the officer may use in his best judgement the level of force needed to contain the situation.

    This policy goes from "sir, step out of the car" to doing the 60hz boogie if you fail to exit the vehicle.

    Both positions are lawful. A couple of takeaways on Taser and perception.

    A flexible Taser policy in my agency (for the last 8 years or so) has resulted in exactly ZERO shoulders and knees we have had to work on/replace in both officer AND suspects. Prior to that we were going through a couple a year due to the "compliance" techniques tearing up shoulders elbows and knees. Or blowing out knees chasing people in 30+ lbs of kit. Tasers when used, reduce injuries....not pain, but injuries on both sides of the fence.

    Perception, the largest indicator in the public perception of force being excessive is NOT the actual force used, it IS the duration that force is used. Give the public two videos, in one at the onset or resistance the officer gives a great brachial strike, the guy drops to his knees and the cuffs go on. Total time 10 seconds.

    In video Two the officer has a similar situation and goes hands one with "soft" compliance techniques, there is much screaming, pushing, pulling and finally the officer get the guy on the ground and cuffs him. Total time over a minute.

    While video "two" actually had a much lower level of applied force "Soft" compliance vice the "Hard" stunning strikes in video one, the public with overwhelmingly say the fight that went on for over a minute was the more excessive one. But remember NEITHER situation was actually excessive, and only one appeared so.

    There are lots of things that look horrible but are appropriate to the situation
    Excellent points as always. In another life I'd like to come work for you.

    I won't belabor this, but I think perhaps the best way to make my point is that I highly doubt you or Papa or any of the other experienced LE guys around here would handle this situation in the same way.

    To the typical observer, this officer was allowing his emotions to control him and it got personal. I have seen maaaaaany videos of interactions where the suspect was much more violent and obviously resisting and the officers never behaved that way.

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    7,795
    What you should do bro is try to get a job in custody or go be a reserve officer if you want to help or if you don’t understand. Like nobody says be a part of the solution and not the problem. Taking those steps will give you first hand knowledge on why police do the things they do. I for one do care about people, but there are two ways to handle a police stop. One is you comply and get the person out of your life, or two, you escalate the situation forcing the officer to not be the “nice” guy everyone thinks he is supposed to be. I thought the officer did a pretty good job.... You never know what you may find under a seat or in a backpack in a car....

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Phoenix, Arizona
    Posts
    9,226
    Quote Originally Posted by mike135 View Post
    Excellent points as always. In another life I'd like to come work for you.

    I won't belabor this, but I think perhaps the best way to make my point is that I highly doubt you or Papa or any of the other experienced LE guys around here would handle this situation in the same way.

    To the typical observer, this officer was allowing his emotions to control him and it got personal. I have seen maaaaaany videos of interactions where the suspect was much more violent and obviously resisting and the officers never behaved that way.
    Quote Originally Posted by mike135 View Post
    If it helps, just look at me as a representative of the perspective from people on the outside who don't understand the perspective of the people on the inside. I seem to find it much easier than most people to see and understand both sides of something without getting emotionally invested in either side. It probably has something to do with my sociopathic tendencies...

    Anyway, just like with that other conversation, it's a Pyrrhic victory. Law enforcement may win the battle but they'll lose the war. They have not been able to impart their perspective to the public which they supposedly serve, and therefore they are steadily losing the support of that public. I guarantee you 90+% of the people who watch that video will think "that cop was out of control and should never wear a badge again". Those are the same people who will be in the jury at the civil trial, voting for the sheriff and the guys who hire/fire police chiefs, etc. You'll never convince a jury that this officer's actions were justified.

    This guy will keep his job, the taxpayers will pay a big civil settlement/judgement, and the relationship between law enforcement and the public will continue to deteriorate (and accelerate because of how easily videos like this go viral on social media). Along the way, some nutcase will watch this video or another one like it, decide that it's time to do something about this problem, and somebody will get ambushed and die.

    My biggest concern is that it's increasingly likely that person could come from the right. It used to be the leftist commie types who was predictably anti-LE, but in recent years I have seen growing sentiment on the right, especially among the gun world, against LE. I have watched people I know personally go from being pro-LE to asking the question "when is it justified to shoot a cop?" and be very serious about their answer to the question. I myself used to be be 100% pro-cop to the point that I dreamed of a career in law enforcement. Today? I'm more and more inclined to say "sorry officer, I'm sure you're a good guy and you're just trying to do your job but my attorney told me the best approach is to not answer questions from law enforcement. I do not consent to a search--am I being detained? Am I free to go?" Etc.

    I understand the perspective of the individual--"I want to go home tonight, I care more about controlling the threat than anybody's feelings, my mission is to get the bad guy not make somebody happy, I have to act based on my experience and knowledge and not what somebody thinks watching a video, etc." The problem is that when you put a bunch of people who only care about their personal perspective together into a big group, nobody is looking out for the interests of the group as a whole. The interests of the group are not protected unless every individual does their part.

    Gabe, I'm sure you have better things to do but if you were to go spend some time reading the comment section on gun-related blogs and right-wing news sites when these stories come out it might change your perspective on this stuff. And you are right--if everybody's phone had a video camera and the Internet in its current form was around when you were on the job your tenure would have been very short!
    ya, huge wall of text that still says "I'm wrong but won't accept it" and "but muh rights" dude what sort of shady shit are you involved in that you expect this kind of responses? Why do you identify with shitbags instead of normal people?

    This guy would have received either hickory or 6D cell shampoo from me or Gabe. Stop being a shitbag advocate and work on being the person that this doesn't happen to.
    Greg "Hyena" Nichols
    Instagram: tacfit_az
    Facebook: SI Instructor Greg Nichols

    #thinkinginviolence
    #tactisexual

    Always entertaining, mildly offensive
    IANative: Indeed, when you grab Brent (or he grabs you), it feels like liquid unobtanium wrapped in rawhide... whereas Greg is just solid muscle wrapped in hate, seasoned w/ snuff and a little lead.

    http://www.warriortalk.com/showthrea...he-Obscenities

  6. #26
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    Beyond The Wall
    Posts
    44,322
    Mike...this is not the first time you come out in essence against Law Enforcement when some sort of video surfaces, depicting something you have never participated in

    Quote Originally Posted by mike135 View Post
    If it helps, just look at me as a representative of the perspective from people on the outside who don't understand the perspective of the people on the inside. I seem to find it much easier than most people to see and understand both sides of something without getting emotionally invested in either side. It probably has something to do with my sociopathic tendencies...

    Well...whatever. Its not the job of the police to win a popularity contest. Not that I give a shit either way. Each region gets the cops they want.


    Anyway, just like with that other conversation, it's a Pyrrhic victory. Law enforcement may win the battle but they'll lose the war.

    Oh please...what war. This shit has been going on since 1986 when I started. People call complaining that thugs are loitering. Police are dispatched to tell thugs to move on. Thugs get disrespectful (we used to knock people out...asleep...for being disrespectful) and things get physical. Same people complain that the cops got physical. Result...cops will ignore thugs the next time...thug will break in and sodomize the family of the guy that took their side against the police. Oh well. Next year...same thing. The only loser is the asshole that complained about the police who will get no response in the future. Police will still do what they have done since the beginning


    They have not been able to impart their perspective to the public which they supposedly serve

    Now THAT right there is what you have wrong. The function of the police is not to serve anyone. It is to Enforce the law and Protect Life and Property. Nowhere in my job description was "serve" ever written.

    , and therefore they are steadily losing the support of that public. I guarantee you 90+% of the people who watch that video will think "that cop was out of control and should never wear a badge again". Those are the same people who will be in the jury at the civil trial, voting for the sheriff and the guys who hire/fire police chiefs, etc. You'll never convince a jury that this officer's actions were justified.

    Hmmm. Apparently not here. Show it to bunch of snowflake antifa types, and maybe. Show it to business owners, and parents and those "normal people" I mentioned earlier and I bet you get a different response.

    This guy will keep his job, the taxpayers will pay a big civil settlement/judgement, and the relationship between law enforcement and the public will continue to deteriorate (and accelerate because of how easily videos like this go viral on social media). Along the way, some nutcase will watch this video or another one like it, decide that it's time to do something about this problem, and somebody will get ambushed and die.

    My biggest concern is that it's increasingly likely that person could come from the right. It used to be the leftist commie types who was predictably anti-LE, but in recent years I have seen growing sentiment on the right, especially among the gun world, against LE. I have watched people I know personally go from being pro-LE to asking the question "when is it justified to shoot a cop?" and be very serious about their answer to the question.

    Yes...I think I banned one of those guys.

    I myself used to be be 100% pro-cop to the point that I dreamed of a career in law enforcement. Today? I'm more and more inclined to say "sorry officer, I'm sure you're a good guy and you're just trying to do your job but my attorney told me the best approach is to not answer questions from law enforcement. I do not consent to a search--am I being detained? Am I free to go?" Etc.

    Wonderful....sorry for wasting your time Mike.

    Gabe, I'm sure you have better things to do but if you were to go spend some time reading the comment section on gun-related blogs and right-wing news sites when these stories come out it might change your perspective on this stuff. And you are right--if everybody's phone had a video camera and the Internet in its current form was around when you were on the job your tenure would have been very short!

    Mike...let me be totally clear. I have zero in common with gun-related blogs, and certainly not with any right wing news sites. ZERO. I will make a suggestion to you as my patience is over. If you have subsequent anti-police rhetoric, take it to one of those "gun-related blogs" or one of those "right wing news sites", any subsequent posts from you on such matters will not be well received.
    Gabriel Suarez

    Turning Lambs into Lions Since 1995

    Suarez International USA Headquarters

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •