[Police brutality] American injustice, yet again.

[Pattern Ghost]

When I was in the Army in the late 80's, we were still using a lot of WWII and Viet Nam era training doctrine. For instance, room clearing practices have changed a lot from my time. We were trained to chuck a grenade in the room and then enter and criss-cross the room with full auto (later, burst) fire. There was no assumption of innocent civilians, or controlling collateral damage.

 

I've commented that civilian police clear rooms a LOT differently than I used to train to do.

 

Maybe I spoke too soon.

 

 

(To be clear, the knocked-out wall and doorway were from a ram, not HE grenades. They used flash-bangs and chemical grenades. Which still trashed most of the home.)

[Old Man]

Just google "flashbang crib" for my thoughts on that one.

[Pattern Ghost]

Oh, I know about that one, and I agree. I was just clarifying that they weren't using frag grenades. The article actually just says "grenades" near the beginning, and doesn't mention flash-bang grenades until further down.

 

The ram not withstanding, even the flash bangs and the gas were excessive. It's like the hardware has replaced their balls these days. Why wrestle with someone you can tase or shoot? Why do an entry when you can just destroy the building? Sheesh.

[bigbywolfe]

Oh, I know about that one, and I agree. I was just clarifying that they weren't using frag grenades. The article actually just says "grenades" near the beginning, and doesn't mention flash-bang grenades until further down.

 

The ram not withstanding, even the flash bangs and the gas were excessive. It's like the hardware has replaced their balls these days. Why wrestle with someone you can tase or shoot? Why do an entry when you can just destroy the building? Sheesh.

While I agree about the over use of grenades and such, but implying they should wrestle people is just foolish.  If a cop has to wrestle someone things have already gone horribly wrong and they are not in control of the situation.  The can't watch for other attackers, they are more likely to get surprised from behind by another attacker or get hit with a weapon they didn't know the suspect had.  You can't secure a scene or use your radio to communicate when you have both hands full fighting for your life. 

I'm not saying cops should taser everyone who doesn't instantly comply, but saying they should intentionally close with an opponent and join in hand to hand combat when it is not necessary is crazy.

[Pattern Ghost]

 but saying they should intentionally close with an opponent and join in hand to hand combat when it is not necessary is crazy.

 

Then it's a very good thing that I didn't say that, isn't it?

 

Go read up on the use of force continuum.

 

What I'm talking about is lazy/cowardly police skipping over lower levels of force.

 

What I'm talking about is when a TASER or a BULLET is excessive force.

 

I remember one case of a 13 year old girl who was seriously harmed because she took a taser prong to the skull. I'm pretty sure that either simply letting her run away or using soft hands would have been more appropriate. The charge in that case was something very minor, like truancy.

 

Or how about the shooting of the guy with the rock in Spokane Pasco? Was that showing any level of control? Were the officers not versed enough in team tactics to take the guy to the ground and cuff him without shooting him in the back as he fled? I will guarantee you that any MP unit I was in would have had the guy on the ground without too much trouble and carted off for the mental health help he needed, with half as many people.

 

My point here is that police these days have created a culture where they escalate beyond reasonable force in the name of "officer safety" without any regard for the public they're being paid to protect. Including criminals. Including suspects and persons of interest. Including bystanders. Including property owners.

[Pattern Ghost]

I was trained and worked as a Military Police officer for a number of years. After re-reading your post, it seems you have an opinion on police work, so I'm going to go ahead and do that annoying multi-quote thing to address your comments. I'll admit I'm annoyed by both the tone of your post and what you've read into my post. That said, I'm going to try to be polite here, as I know you're an OK guy. But if some grumpiness slips through, I apologize in advance.

 

While I agree about the over use of grenades and such, but implying they should wrestle people is just foolish. 

 

"Wrestling" was used in the context of restraining an uncooperative subject. It's a key job skill.

 

 

 

If a cop has to wrestle someone things have already gone horribly wrong and they are not in control of the situation.

 

Stuff happens. I'll say this though: Many cops push things to this point by ignoring the first level of force, i.e., running their mouths off instead of using their interpersonal communication skills to diffuse a tense situation.

 

Case in point: One time I had a guy I was arresting tell me I couldn't put him in cuffs if he didn't let me. I told him, "You're probably right. But that's OK, because my partner over here hasn't shot anyone all day, so I'll just step back and let him handle things if you want to go that route." The delivery was humorous, the guy laughed and we proceeded with the arrest. (Had he come off the car, he'd have found my knee in his sacrum, but I didn't need to tell him that. And didn't need to deliver said knee.)

 

Another case in point: Domestic disturbances. A huge percent of the time, you're going to hear something like "Get out my house, this is none of your business." Watch a few episodes of COPS and you'll see how that one usually gets handled. Typically straight to issuing orders to the guy to shut up and sit down. The key thing is to separate the people involved and interview them. This is both for their safety and officer safety. (Beaten wives have been known to stick cops with kitchen knives when hauling off their hubby.) My response to the "go away" was along the lines of "I don't want to be here either. Why don't we sit down and talk about what's going on so we can all get back to the rest of our evening?"

 

I always got the couple separated with no fuss, and no resistance.

 

 

  The can't watch for other attackers, they are more likely to get surprised from behind by another attacker or get hit with a weapon they didn't know the suspect had.  You can't secure a scene or use your radio to communicate when you have both hands full fighting for your life.

 

This is true if the officer is working alone. Officers without partners who get attacked are completely justified in ending the attack as quickly as possible, with any means of force. (And yes, I am saying it's OK for a cop to shoot an unarmed person attacking him or her. I'm perfectly fine with that, provided it was a legit defensive shooting.) I'm not talking about those cases. I mean, the case that I linked was an entire SWAT team destroying someone's house. Nearly every case on this thread involved MANY cops, and they still went to excessive force. THAT'S what I'm talking about.

 

 

I'm not saying cops should taser everyone who doesn't instantly comply, but saying they should intentionally close with an opponent and join in hand to hand combat when it is not necessary is crazy.

 

Already covered this one.

[bigbywolfe]

My brother is a deputy sheriff and I have many friends and family in with law enforcement history, I know most of what you said already.  I was specifically responding to your statement of "why wrestle when you can taser or shoot them".  A lot of idiots actual expect cops to know "karate".  I know someone who was literally been asked why they pepper sprayed someone instead of fighting them.  That's how your comment came off.  Thanks for clarifying, but I didn't need a lecture.

[Pattern Ghost]

 A lot of idiots actual expect cops to know "karate". 

 

So, you were saying I'm an idiot who expects cops to know "karate"? Nice.

 

 

 

Thanks for clarifying, but I didn't need a lecture.

 

Neither did I. But you somehow thought you were qualified to give me one, even though you haven't actually done the job. A bit of the pot calling the kettle black here.

[Old Man]

The tone here seems oddly hostile since I'm not sure you guys really disagree much, if at all.

 

I'm curious as to the frequency of the incidents we're seeing.  On the one hand, we have clear instances of institutionalized abuse against the population in places like Detroit and Ferguson.  And I'm pretty sure we still only hear about a small fraction of police abuses.  On the other hand, there must be many thousands of arrests and police interactions with citizens daily.  Are incidents like the recent violent crackdown on a Texas pool party one data point in a huge plague?  Or are they an outlying .00001% of police calls? 

[bigbywolfe]

So, you were saying I'm an idiot who expects cops to know "karate"? Nice.

No, but that's how that one comment I was responding to came across.  I've seen comments just like it on "CopBlock" and "F* the PoPo" type pages.

You said cops' attitudes are why wrestle when you can tase or shoot.  There was no context about deescalating or using personal skills like you mention in your later explanation.  Sorry for taking your statement at face value and daring to comment on police when I'm not one (I guess most of the people in this thread shouldn't be posting).  It sounds like if someone else made the same comment you might have corrected them yourself.  I feel like I'm getting scolded by a former cop, for defending cops.

[Pattern Ghost]

No, but that's how that one comment I was responding to came across. 

You said cops' attitudes are why wrestle when you can tase or shoot.  There was no context about deescalating or using personal skills like you mention in your later explanation.  Sorry for taking your statement at face value and daring to comment on police when I'm not one.

 

You read too much into the statement. Don't lecture someone then tell them you don't need a lecture if they respond to you. That's just silly.

 

Look, we probably don't disagree much here. If you haven't read the whole thread, then you don't have a good context for all of my statements. If you go through my replies here, you'll get a better picture of my opinions on specific cases.

[bigbywolfe]

Don't hold up your lack of reading comprehension as an excuse for your tone. Seriously.

Don't hold up your poor communication as an excuse for yours when I was defending the cops I'm apparently not supposed to comment on.

 

If I put this on an anticop page I would be praised.  That's how it came across.

Oh, I know about that one, and I agree. I was just clarifying that they weren't using frag grenades. The article actually just says "grenades" near the beginning, and doesn't mention flash-bang grenades until further down.

 

The ram not withstanding, even the flash bangs and the gas were excessive. It's like the hardware has replaced their balls these days. Why wrestle with someone you can tase or shoot? Why do an entry when you can just destroy the building? Sheesh.

EDIT:

You read too much into the statement. Don't lecture someone then tell them you don't need a lecture if they respond to you. That's just silly.

 

Look, we probably don't disagree much here. If you haven't read the whole thread, then you don't have a good context for all of my statements. If you go through my replies here, you'll get a better picture of my opinions on specific cases.

Your posted 2 responses to my comment. The first explained what you actually meant and showed that we were in agreement. The second post deconstructed my post and condescendingly informed me of things like restraining people being a "key job skill" , that and is what I took umbrage with and referred to as being lectured. Despite not being a police officer I am fully aware of the risks of dealing with domestic violence cases and most of the other stuff that had nothing to do with my post.

[Pattern Ghost]

I edited that reply you quoted while you were posting. I'm in a foul mood today, and taking it out on you for what should only be a minor annoyance at best. For that, I apologize.

 

Let's bury the hatchet and move on.

[gewing]

A quick look at Inkster Michigan on Wikipedia reveals is a poor, majority African-American community.  They are already required to pay the salaries of their occupying force, and this is not the first time they have been levied additional taxes to pay the settlement cost (plus unexplained inflation of the bill) when one of their occupiers got in trouble with the law.  So while I don't know how police appointments are handled in the great state of Michigan, I don't think the local taxpayers and voters have too much influence in the process. 

you are imo using VERY incendiary language.   I don't think this is particularly helpful.   

[bigbywolfe]

Fine, sorry.

[gewing]

When I was in the Army in the late 80's, we were still using a lot of WWII and Viet Nam era training doctrine. For instance, room clearing practices have changed a lot from my time. We were trained to chuck a grenade in the room and then enter and criss-cross the room with full auto (later, burst) fire. There was no assumption of innocent civilians, or controlling collateral damage.

 

I've commented that civilian police clear rooms a LOT differently than I used to train to do.

 

Maybe I spoke too soon.

 

 

(To be clear, the knocked-out wall and doorway were from a ram, not HE grenades. They used flash-bangs and chemical grenades. Which still trashed most of the home.)

somehow I believe the homeowner more than the city about communications and acceptance of liability.  

[gewing]

While I agree about the over use of grenades and such, but implying they should wrestle people is just foolish.  If a cop has to wrestle someone things have already gone horribly wrong and they are not in control of the situation.  The can't watch for other attackers, they are more likely to get surprised from behind by another attacker or get hit with a weapon they didn't know the suspect had.  You can't secure a scene or use your radio to communicate when you have both hands full fighting for your life. 

I'm not saying cops should taser everyone who doesn't instantly comply, but saying they should intentionally close with an opponent and join in hand to hand combat when it is not necessary is crazy.

Not to mention that in the case under discussion, the subject was apparently shooting at the police as they closed with him.   I am surprised he was not shot to death. 

[Pattern Ghost]

If I put this on an anticop page I would be praised.  That's how it came across.

 

I understand that generalizations can be offensive. Clearly, not every department and not every cop handles things as poorly as the cases discussed here. I've called people out for over generalizing.

 

However, that remark points to a disturbing trend that does seem to be pervasive enough to comment on. Personal communication skills have gone by the wayside in many, many organizations. Perhaps the newer, harsher methods work better. I see a lot of cases where they do more harm than good, though.

[gewing]

Then it's a very good thing that I didn't say that, isn't it?

 

Go read up on the use of force continuum.

 

What I'm talking about is lazy/cowardly police skipping over lower levels of force.

 

What I'm talking about is when a TASER or a BULLET is excessive force.

 

I remember one case of a 13 year old girl who was seriously harmed because she took a taser prong to the skull. I'm pretty sure that either simply letting her run away or using soft hands would have been more appropriate. The charge in that case was something very minor, like truancy.

 

Or how about the shooting of the guy with the rock in Spokane? Was that showing any level of control? Were the officers not versed enough in team tactics to take the guy to the ground and cuff him without shooting him in the back as he fled? I will guarantee you that any MP unit I was in would have had the guy on the ground without too much trouble and carted off for the mental health help he needed, with half as many people.

 

My point here is that police these days have created a culture where they escalate beyond reasonable force in the name of "officer safety" without any regard for the public they're being paid to protect. Including criminals. Including suspects and persons of interest. Including bystanders. Including property owners.

I think that was PASCO, not spokane.  

[Pattern Ghost]

Not to mention that in the case under discussion, the subject was apparently shooting at the police as they closed with him.   I am surprised he was not shot to death. 

 

If he was still able to shoot when approached, then the destruction of the home was an utter failure. They could have waited him out, used a sniper, or made an entry in full gear and taken him out without all of the collateral damage.

[Pattern Ghost]

I think that was PASCO, not spokane.  

 

You're right, my bad. I'll fix that up, thanks.  I'm sure someone will get shot in Spokane soon enough, though.

[gewing]

You're right, my bad. I'll fix that up, thanks.  I'm sure someone will get shot in Spokane soon enough, though.

well, the officer that I knew of who had SERIOUS issues is apparently retired and facing Fed.  Charges, 

 

but the Otto Zehm case certainly did not cover the city in anything but SHIT.  

[薔薇語]

you are imo using VERY incendiary language.   I don't think this is particularly helpful.   

 

 

Huh? Just to be clear, are you being honest or sarcastic? That is to say, did you think the post you quoted was being incendiary OR were you making a joking comment because you thought it was by no means incendiary? 

 

La Rose.

[gewing]

Huh? Just to be clear, are you being honest or sarcastic? That is to say, did you think the post you quoted was being incendiary OR were you making a joking comment because you thought it was by no means incendiary? 

 

La Rose.

No sarcasm about "occupying force"

[薔薇語]

No sarcasm about "occupying force"

I see. Well, you and I will have to fundamentally disagree on the "incendiary" nature of that comment. And we will have to disagree not because I would personally call them "occupiers" but because it is not a far out there comment given the situation in which we live. We have a group of individuals invested with legal power who are NOT representative of the communities they operate in, who have access to not only rather standard police equipment but high tech, high threat MILITARY weaponry and equipment, who regularly comment about the divide and disassociate between them and the communities they watch, who have a proven track record of disproportionate violence and brutality towards the locals, and who maintain a force solidarity that clouds them from communal feelings and compassion for those in their charge. To me, those are strong parallels to the ideas of an occupying force. And while there are differences, they similarities are far too strong to blatantly ignore. So, while I may not quite agree, I can easily see the references and understand why it inspires such beliefs. And calling out those who make the comparison which is all too obvious as being incendiary is to not understand the position the person is taking and shuts down debate. The original post is far tamer than a great deal of posts that I, The Rose, have posted on this thread for heaven's sake. I just avoided saying "occupying". 

 

La Rose.