Violence and the Police Force

[NikolaiK]

So, I just saw this, and after recovering from Kelly Thomas's plaintive cries for mercy, I began to rethink my position on the police. I do not think the use of violence is justified. Seriously.
Using guns to fight guns clearly leads to more gun violence. Whilst I accept that the police are needed as an institution in modern society, to protect rights and property, I think they have changed from our guardians to our controllers. As Occupy Wallstreet protests have shown, they are now being used by their leaders to supress legitimate political criticism. Note that I am not blaming the individual police officers (except in the case of the video I embedded), but the institutional mentality of the police.
The idea that the police all have to back one another up, no matter the circumstances, is leading to diminished trust in the police, and so people may resort to violence to achieve their goals.
At the moment, it is practically self defence.
Anyway, sorry for the wall of text. Any of you have ideas/opinions on this topic?

EDIT: Place where I found this [http://reason.com/blog/2012/05/08/the-da-just-released-surveillance-footag]

 

[Daystar Clarion]

I don't doubt that 99% of of police officers are hardworking men and women of integrity, it only takes a few bad apples to ruin that image.

Sensationalism will not change my opinion.

 

[NikolaiK]

Sensationalism as in showing a video of a man being beaten to death by two police officers who I explicitly stated I condemn alone, and backed up by a massive wall of text with nary an exclamation mark in sight?

 

[Daystar Clarion]

Sensationalism as in showing a video of a man being beaten to death by two police officers who I explicitly stated I condemn alone, and backed up by a massive wall of text with nary an exclamation mark in sight?

What I mean, is while your post isn't sensationalist withing itself, it's certainly a topic that often strays into that area.

The video is showing bad cops, being bad cops.

Nothing more, there's nothing significantly flawed with the system.

 

[NikolaiK]

But these 'isolated incidents' keep happening. To take things to Britain, where I understand you hail from, there was that picture on the front of The Daily Fail showing a policeman geared up like a soldier - surely violence propagates violence, and in a high stress situation there is a much higher risk of a tragic accident.
Policemen also gain an 'us and them' mentality, and this can lead to miscarriages of justice.
'Nothing significantly flawed with the system' sounds like complacency.

 

[senordesol]

What was your position on police before?

I have never considered them paragons of upstanding moral order, just regular folks doing their job just like everyone else.

Treat them with respect, defer to their instructions, but always regard them with suspicion. Those are my orders of the day when dealing with cops; and the Constitution backs me up on that. Yes, officers will always close ranks when one gets in trouble. It's called the 'thin blue line', and it's an understandable response given how whenever they take any sort of 'uncomfortable' action, it is always deconstructed and portrayed in the worst possible light.

We, of course, remember the UC Davis protesters being well-seasoned by a police officer. What is often left out of that story is that they were blocking the path and encircling the cadre of officers (escorting prisoners, no less) who went out of their way to personally request each of the protesters to move from their path and warning them of the consequences. Does that justify what they did? Doesn't matter. Because the story was portrayed as officers arbitrarily spraying down 'peaceful' protesters - which is not an accurate representation of what happened.

So with regard to police violence: not every criminal comes quietly, and not every criminal is above using a little violence of his own to get away. Sadly, some cops don't find out how far those suspects are willing to go until it's too late. Conversely: it's better for them to not have to find out at all. So if a billy club, tazer, dog, pepper spray, or bullet is what it takes to subdue a violent, belligerent suspect who poses a real and palpable threat to those around him; that's what has to be used.

Obviously, I make exceptions for people who are clearly already subdued and the officers just decide they're on vacation. I believe such officers should be reprimanded in the harshest ways possible (as the law already says they should), but that is for the courts to work out. In the mean time, when it's clear one of the parties isn't ending the night outside of a hospital; I'd just as soon wish it upon the perpetrator than the police officer.

How's that for a wall of text?

 

[Daystar Clarion]

But these 'isolated incidents' keep happening. To take things to Britain, where I understand you hail from, there was that picture on the front of The Daily Fail showing a policeman geared up like a soldier - surely violence propagates violence, and in a high stress situation there is a much higher risk of a tragic accident.
Policemen also gain an 'us and them' mentality, and this can lead to miscarriages of justice.
'Nothing significantly flawed with the system' sounds like complacency.

How else do you suggest police officers tackle people with guns?

With sticks?

It's not a matter of whether violence propagates violence, but one of being appropriately equipped to deal with a situation.

You don't bring a knife to a gun fight.

Stuff will always go wrong, it's about minimising that risk without making them completely incapable of dealing with a situation.

Cops who break the rules should be punished a hell of a lot more than they are currently, that's for damn sure.

 

[Dags90]

What I mean, is while your post isn't sensationalist withing itself, it's certainly a topic that often strays into that area.

The video is showing bad cops, being bad cops.

Nothing more, there's nothing significantly flawed with the system.

I don't know about Britland, but I think there are institutional shortcomings in the U.S. Any police officer in the U.S. can carry a taser, something I'm fine with. What I'm not fine with, is the training programs in place. A lot of the training amounts to materials provided by the manufacturer, and aren't constructed by respected legal personnel. That's very bad.

I'm really not opposed to police having access to more tools like tasers and mace. I am opposed to police being given these tools without strict rules and training. You wouldn't hand an officer a gun and a brochure published by Beretta on proper use of a pistol as his only training. That's insane, and it's insane to do the same thing with tasers. [footnote]http://digitalcommons.law.ggu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1971&context=ggulrev[/footnote]

My favorite was the guy in a diabetic coma who got tased for resisting arrest.

That's my biggest gripe. Oh, and the whole NYPD snooping around Jersey looking for terror suspects and trashing our civil liberties in the process.

Edit: This was supposed to be a general post, but specific to the posted video, the officers repeatedly shock him (which is very dangerous, and not recommended). They also shock him while he's being restrained, you can see an officer get shocked from handling him at about 19:05, which is again, dangerous and not recommended. They're also rather stupidly asking him to roll over while tasing him. So it really illustrates my point that tasers are consistently being used in ways that are dangerous, and in situations where it's inappropriate.

 

[GistoftheFist]

You forgot to blame and insult America. :x

 

[NikolaiK]

You forgot to blame and insult America. :x

Damn! How about you play this whilst watching the video.

 

[NikolaiK]

Yes, officers will always close ranks when one gets in trouble. It's called the 'thin blue line', and it's an understandable response given how whenever they take any sort of 'uncomfortable' action, it is always deconstructed and portrayed in the worst possible light.

That would be because they hold a huge amount of power in our society, and so have to be properly accountable for it. I'm not just talking about the police, I mean the whole justice system tries to portray itself as always right, even if that means ruining lives or destroying civil liberties.

 

[senordesol]

Yes, officers will always close ranks when one gets in trouble. It's called the 'thin blue line', and it's an understandable response given how whenever they take any sort of 'uncomfortable' action, it is always deconstructed and portrayed in the worst possible light.

That would be because they hold a huge amount of power in our society, and so have to be properly accountable for it. I'm not just talking about the police, I mean the whole justice system tries to portray itself as always right, even if that means ruining lives or destroying civil liberties.

Of course it does, and I'm not calling you wrong in that regard (or, rather, always wrong). What I'm saying is that your contention that 'violence is never justified' backed by the point that 'police close ranks when scrutinized' does not lend itself any relevance here.

Again, I said one should always regard the police -any police in any country- with suspicion. But the fact is: their job is dangerous, and sometimes getting a little rough is what's required to do it and, sometimes, it's difficult for the public to appreciate the reasoning behind certain action.

 

[NikolaiK]

your contention that 'violence is never justified'

No, violence can be justified, I'm just saying that if we keep ramping up the violent response to crime, the criminals will do the same.

Again, I said one should always regard the police -any police in any country- with suspicion. But the fact is: their job is dangerous, and sometimes getting a little rough is what's required to do it and, sometimes, it's difficult for the public to appreciate the reasoning behind certain action.

But while that is acceptable, lying to the public to protect their comrades is wrong, which is what happened in this case.

 

[senordesol]

your contention that 'violence is never justified'

No, violence can be justified, I'm just saying that if we keep ramping up the violent response to crime, the criminals will do the same.

Well that statement contradicts what you said in your OP: "I do not think the use of violence is justified. Seriously."

I don't know what you mean by 'ramping up' violent responses. So far as I'm aware, there has been no directive that tells police to 'beat them harder' as it were, so unless you're suggesting what's occurring the video is department policy, I'm not sure what you mean.

 

[Tuesday Night Fever]

But these 'isolated incidents' keep happening.

While I don't disagree with you necessarily, I do question the cause.

Are these "isolated incidents" actually happening with higher frequency, or is it just that they're easier to report now?

We live in a time where there are security cameras all over the place, police cruisers have dashboard cameras, and most bystanders have cellphones capable of capturing images and/or video. It's harder for a bad cop to do something like that and get away with it now than it used to be.

 

[thelonewolf266]

You don't seem to realise that the system is never going to be perfect its not possible.I think police in the UK are properly equipped in general to deal with the types of crime they are likely to encounter.The police all backing each other up is partly brought about by the fact that the only time a civilian really interacts with the police is if they are suspected of a crime or are a victim/witness, in general this is not a pleasant experience so, all most people associate the police with is bad experiences.

We also police by consent if people don't obey the rules its impossible to make them.No police force no matter how large or well equipped can stand up to an irate and united population.

 

[Dags90]

Au contraire. If he's in riot gear, how's someone going to hurt him? As a result they're far less likely to use force if someone attacks them. If someone smashes into you full speed, it's an attack. Smash into a line of riot police shields and it's just a bump, not deserving of retaliation to stop further attacks. You might get a few batons, but that's just because they can't let their line be broken.

Most police shootings in riots in my country occurs when policemen in regular gear are backed into a corner by rioters. If they use their batons they get swarmed and will end up hurt, so they have to shoot, or at least draw their weapon as a warning, fire a warning shot and whatever else the (quite rigid) instructions demand. The riot police can form a solid line and can easily slug it out with a bunch of rioters without any real risk to the policemen.

How does one fire a warning shot without putting other people at risk? Firing in the air a well known no-no, the bullets come back down. Firing at any hard surface could cause deadly ricochet.

I'm a big proponent of guns being used only for lethal force. The only time a police officer should discharge a gun is as part of lethal force. Every shot should be intended to kill someone.