Steve, Steve, Steve,
Just as you point out disagreements with what I have written, I can take exception with some of your responses. Trained social workers are capable of handling mentally ill individuals even if they are belligerent. Yet there are times when the mentally ill become violent, hence my comment about deference when possible.
As to the "us" versus "them" attitude; this is a well known and researched phenomenon. All of us are prone to similar behavior when we are part of a group that has power over another. The group in power isolates itself, creates its own norms of behavior, and becomes increasingly antagonistic to those who do not belong to the group. We see it in many institutions such as prisons, politics, fire departments, military forces and police forces for example. Thus we need to be careful as to how we structure institutions that we ask to protect us so as to minimize the effects.
Additionally, what is a "lawful arrest?" How many arrests can you have on your record before the bank, or an employer, or the government itself starts to treat you as a criminal despite being never charged, or charged, tried and found innocent? Then too, what is a lawful command? Even the US Supreme Court refuses to define what that means despite the issue coming before it multiple times. The easy and pat answer is "anything the officer tells you," and if you think you have been wronged, go to court. Some recourse for the average citizen who can't afford to take three days off from work much less hire representation and spend the next year or two attending legal proceedings. What happens to an officer who makes an illegal arrest? Does their record get published in the paper of record? Do they face life long consequences for their actions? How about the use of excessive force? Can you say with integrity that that the "brotherhood" does not protect those officers who may or have crossed the line?
And the police serve all of us, not just law abiding citizens as you state. Even if an unlawful act is witnessed, the police cannot determine guilt or innocence. That is the role of the court. By our Constitution, we are presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. That you even make that statement reinforces my point about when police act as juries and judges. Though, I am not nieve. Asking anyone to make quick decisions with little evidence available when under duress will lead to unintended judgements, mistaken intentions and actions likely to be combative..
As to overwhelming force: this is likely the most difficult aspect of being a peace officer. Every officer has the right to protect him or her self from injury. However, a judgement must be made as to whether the probable cause leading to the interaction in the first place is sufficiently grave to warrant unlimited force to insure compliance. We have all seen car chases wherein one or more officers pursue someone trying to escape. The carnage left in the wake of the chase may be greater than the value to society of the arrest in the first place. We have many means of following up at a different time and under different circumstances that may be safer for all involved. Cameras in squad cars, body cameras, traffic control cameras, cell phone GPS, surveillance cameras, along with social media allow police officers to ascertain where any individual is located and then apprehend them when the danger to all is potentially lessened.
My comments were made to raise awareness that we should review the role of police; review how departments are structured and how that structure impacts those individuals functioning within it; and then their broader impacts on society. I acknowledge that the vast majority of individuals serving as peace officers are good and honorable individuals with a sincere desire to serve others. However, the consequences of those few who aren't, or where and when systemic failures occur, the consequences to the individual caught in the exchange can be deadly..
Just as you point out disagreements with what I have written, I can take exception with some of your responses. Trained social workers are capable of handling mentally ill individuals even if they are belligerent. Yet there are times when the mentally ill become violent, hence my comment about deference when possible.
As to the "us" versus "them" attitude; this is a well known and researched phenomenon. All of us are prone to similar behavior when we are part of a group that has power over another. The group in power isolates itself, creates its own norms of behavior, and becomes increasingly antagonistic to those who do not belong to the group. We see it in many institutions such as prisons, politics, fire departments, military forces and police forces for example. Thus we need to be careful as to how we structure institutions that we ask to protect us so as to minimize the effects.
Additionally, what is a "lawful arrest?" How many arrests can you have on your record before the bank, or an employer, or the government itself starts to treat you as a criminal despite being never charged, or charged, tried and found innocent? Then too, what is a lawful command? Even the US Supreme Court refuses to define what that means despite the issue coming before it multiple times. The easy and pat answer is "anything the officer tells you," and if you think you have been wronged, go to court. Some recourse for the average citizen who can't afford to take three days off from work much less hire representation and spend the next year or two attending legal proceedings. What happens to an officer who makes an illegal arrest? Does their record get published in the paper of record? Do they face life long consequences for their actions? How about the use of excessive force? Can you say with integrity that that the "brotherhood" does not protect those officers who may or have crossed the line?
And the police serve all of us, not just law abiding citizens as you state. Even if an unlawful act is witnessed, the police cannot determine guilt or innocence. That is the role of the court. By our Constitution, we are presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. That you even make that statement reinforces my point about when police act as juries and judges. Though, I am not nieve. Asking anyone to make quick decisions with little evidence available when under duress will lead to unintended judgements, mistaken intentions and actions likely to be combative..
As to overwhelming force: this is likely the most difficult aspect of being a peace officer. Every officer has the right to protect him or her self from injury. However, a judgement must be made as to whether the probable cause leading to the interaction in the first place is sufficiently grave to warrant unlimited force to insure compliance. We have all seen car chases wherein one or more officers pursue someone trying to escape. The carnage left in the wake of the chase may be greater than the value to society of the arrest in the first place. We have many means of following up at a different time and under different circumstances that may be safer for all involved. Cameras in squad cars, body cameras, traffic control cameras, cell phone GPS, surveillance cameras, along with social media allow police officers to ascertain where any individual is located and then apprehend them when the danger to all is potentially lessened.
My comments were made to raise awareness that we should review the role of police; review how departments are structured and how that structure impacts those individuals functioning within it; and then their broader impacts on society. I acknowledge that the vast majority of individuals serving as peace officers are good and honorable individuals with a sincere desire to serve others. However, the consequences of those few who aren't, or where and when systemic failures occur, the consequences to the individual caught in the exchange can be deadly..
Comment