Police Use of Force Analysis NSFW

[Deleted member 619]

high speed pursuit and a pit maneuver.

Both should be illegal.

 

[Greg the Grouper]

Second video. Okay. Cops seem fairly nonconfrontational. I don't know what the first guy did with his nightstick, but he certainly wasn't hitting the dude, and he put it away almost immediately. I'm uncertain as to their purpose? I mean from what I can tell there were four cops present - the same number in the previous video who were dealing with an armed and unresponsive subject.

I would prefer their opening fire to trying to engage in high speed pursuit, but to be honest I'm unsure as to why they would have had to really do anything to begin with. I assume they had the license plate, and if I recall the man in the car did gesture to a house saying that his mom lives right there. Did they not ask for a license?

To be honest, I see no reason why they couldn't follow that up later, rather than forcing the confrontation then. I suppose they might have worried that the guy would try to hit them with his car, which might be why they opened fire. It did seem like they had him at a dead end there, and probably could've just used cars to block his escape if they wanted to, but hey, hindsight is 20/20.

So, I dunno if I'd call it malicious? I'd certainly call it bad. I really think the cops could've done better, even if they had wanted to catch this guy right then and there. Greater context might help me understand why they were so concerned about nabbing him right there, but as is, it just seems like some dude got high and fell asleep in his car.

 

[Greg the Grouper]

Third video. God dammit of course the dog was killed.

This video is shit. I have no idea how this shit even escalated to this point. I think I heard something later on about heroin?

The guy clearly refused to comply with the police. Again, I'd prefer shots fired over a high speed pursuit. I actually don't know what they could've done differently in that scenario.

The cops made an effort to deescalate once the shooting stopped, which I thought was nice. He was a bit snippy with the dude at one point, but shit, I guess I would be too if I was coming down off some epinephrine.

I just don't know what lead them to this point. The cops seemed on edge even before the truck engine started. I would need to know why. As is, that seems like the biggest fuck up: if cops have drawn guns and seem pissed off at you, who wouldn't wanna make a run for it?

I also wonder about the driver's state of mind. The truck clearly wasn't going anywhere, and it didn't seem like he was taking much if any corrective action. Was he just scared shitless?

Seriously, what the fuck happened?

 

[BoganUSAFFLClerk]

Both should be illegal.

So if you cannot pursue and use force to make a car stop how do you affect an arrest for someone committing a crime then?

 

[BoganUSAFFLClerk]

Third video. God dammit of course the dog was killed.

This video is shit. I have no idea how this shit even escalated to this point. I think I heard something later on about heroin?

The guy clearly refused to comply with the police. Again, I'd prefer shots fired over a high speed pursuit. I actually don't know what they could've done differently in that scenario.

The cops made an effort to deescalate once the shooting stopped, which I thought was nice. He was a bit snippy with the dude at one point, but shit, I guess I would be too if I was coming down off some epinephrine.

Both of them were typical white trash drug addicts. Contaminated thinking is very common and the more dashcams or camera footage involving use of force the more you will see this where it is nonsensical the action people commit to.

I find it hilarious that the father in one of those videos says something about shooting his son to which I would have to say:
No shit.
And he didn't deserve this?
Both of you could have been dead thanks to your stupid parenting this is your fault as well as his.

I just don't know what lead them to this point. The cops seemed on edge even before the truck engine started. I would need to know why. As is, that seems like the biggest fuck up: if cops have drawn guns and seem pissed off at you, who wouldn't wanna make a run for it?

I also wonder about the driver's state of mind. The truck clearly wasn't going anywhere, and it didn't seem like he was taking much if any corrective action. Was he just scared shitless?

Seriously, what the fuck happened?

Violence is commonplace when dealing with drug users of this type. The likelihood of them having a weapon of any kind is high. Domestic and drug related arrests account for the majority of injuries and homicides sustained by police.

The lack of compliance and the prior situation before the video was even started usually goes something like this:
They may have a warrant and/or prior criminal history.
They are likely to offend in the same or similar way as previously arrested for.
Repeated attempts at peaceful arrest yet it escalates to this point commonly.

Again it is contaminated thinking of 1 you not wanting to go to jail and serve a serious sentence and 2 being on the substance that you are going to jail for much less the other associated offenses.

 

[BoganUSAFFLClerk]

I see nothing contentious here about the officers' behaviour, other than they gave the individual every opportunity to comply before shooting. If there was any fault in their actions it is that they allowed themselves to be shot before shooting.

If you wanted to discuss the US police's use-of-force, you could have posted this study. [1]

As for your "spicy" comment, as with your "Come at me bros" one, you've clearly misjudged your audience.

Well people could post things they disagree with or find suspect. The same problem between this thread and the others. People are like: Yea oi ok mate. Participating kind of but not really.

 

[Deleted member 619]

So if you cannot pursue and use force to make a car stop how do you affect an arrest for someone committing a crime then?

Police work.

 

[Greg the Grouper]

Uh, yeah. I didn't say all that creepy, dehumanizing shit about any of the suspects, for the record. And if the cops approached them with your attitude, then I highly doubt their initial attempts at arrest were all that peaceful to begin with.

 

[BoganUSAFFLClerk]

Second video. Okay. Cops seem fairly nonconfrontational. I don't know what the first guy did with his nightstick, but he certainly wasn't hitting the dude, and he put it away almost immediately. I'm uncertain as to their purpose? I mean from what I can tell there were four cops present - the same number in the previous video who were dealing with an armed and unresponsive subject.

Nightstick was used to point out something of interest to the police. Probably the weed they found in the car.

The dude was "asleep" in the car. These police are assigned to a unit that specializes in car theft. What the hell is the suspect doing asleep in his car when supposedly he is at his mom's house? Wouldn't he simply sleep in the bed presumably his mom would surely grant him? The dude was smoking weed and fell asleep.

Both instances involve a task force unit assigned to a given task. The same number of officers are due to their assigned task there is quite a bit of overlap between violent drug users and those that steal cars. How do you think drug users pay for things like Cocaine or Heroin or stuff like that? They steal things and the same type of people are involved.

This just happens to be the case where a pot user was an idiot and got himself shot and killed for stupid reasons. If he would have complied then at most it would have been light jail time and a fine. Now he is dead because he was stupid. He was a man child and died as a result because he can't think under stress.

I would prefer their opening fire to trying to engage in high speed pursuit, but to be honest I'm unsure as to why they would have had to really do anything to begin with. I assume they had the license plate, and if I recall the man in the car did gesture to a house saying that his mom lives right there. Did they not ask for a license?

He refused to be identified and took off. There is question as to if the vehicle was actually his or not. Preventing positive identification would prevent a positive identification of the vehicle being tied to X identity so they couldn't simply not pursue and still make an arrest. It could be a simply story of the guy getting high NOT at a place related to him in order to get away with smoking weed for whatever reason.

It isn't stated if it was stolen or not but judging from his actions a stolen vehicle is far worse than smoking weed in the amounts that would result in a fine. I think he ran because the car was stolen. Being convicted of stealing a car is about a 5 year sentence in most places if not more. Weed is a couple hundred dollar fine like a speeding ticket.

To be honest, I see no reason why they couldn't follow that up later, rather than forcing the confrontation then. I suppose they might have worried that the guy would try to hit them with his car, which might be why they opened fire. It did seem like they had him at a dead end there, and probably could've just used cars to block his escape if they wanted to, but hey, hindsight is 20/20.

I think that would depending on the SOP of the department those cops work for. Parking sideways leave the officers open to being shot through the vehicle instead of being protected by the A pillar or engine compartment while parking in front of a subject that is likely to be violent. In this case he wasn't violent but was being incredibly dangerous with a vehicle and him being not identified.

It is a far better position when you consider attempting to block a car AND defend against possibly gunfire not to mention being able to easily turn their vehicles around potentially to pursue instead of turning them sidewise and boxing themselves in. You don't have very much warning when dealing in a gun fight. I rather have them handle it this way considering suspects could have rifles or pistols on them and commonly they do.

So, I dunno if I'd call it malicious? I'd certainly call it bad. I really think the cops could've done better, even if they had wanted to catch this guy right then and there. Greater context might help me understand why they were so concerned about nabbing him right there, but as is, it just seems like some dude got high and fell asleep in his car.

Well again if it was just weed the dude made an absolutely retarded and fatal mistake. If it was over a stolen vehicle and perhaps other things in the car that would add more sentence it makes more sense why he but still stupid. It gives more incentive to run the longer list of charges but he should still be prosecuted or pursued because we value the rule of the law.

Ultimately we don't know for sure but as it stands I don't have problems with this use of force.

 

[BoganUSAFFLClerk]

Police work.

That doesn't actually explain anything. Suspect wasn't identified and the video doesn't show the plates even being ran. What if he flees and ditches the car that he presumably stole? That is a suspect lost and a crime just let go because you can't pursue them and even find out even according to you.

 

[BoganUSAFFLClerk]

Uh, yeah. I didn't say all that creepy, dehumanizing shit about any of the suspects, for the record. And if the cops approached them with your attitude, then I highly doubt their initial attempts at arrest were all that peaceful to begin with.

Where did I say you said creepy, dehumanizing shit about any of the suspects?

You expect an arrest to be peaceful when suspect resists?

 

[Greg the Grouper]

Where did I say you said creepy, dehumanizing shit about any of the suspects?

You expect an arrest to be peaceful when suspect resists?

The implication was that you were saying creepy, dehumanizing shit about them.

I expect police officers to try. Maybe they did in this situation, I dunno. And sure, things can go very wrong, as they did in the first video you posted.

Just, don't ever consider becoming a cop yourself, okay? Your apparent inability to think of suspects as people is liable to get innocent people killed.

 

[BoganUSAFFLClerk]

The implication was that you were saying creepy, dehumanizing shit about them.

I expect police officers to try. Maybe they did in this situation, I dunno. And sure, things can go very wrong, as they did in the first video you posted.

Just, don't ever consider becoming a cop yourself, okay? Your apparent inability to think of suspects as people is liable to get innocent people killed.

Yes I was saying they are garbage not you. Where is the inference that you said it? I don't consider the people presented in these videos to be smart or good people.

When people resist arrest cops are authorized to use increasing levels of FORCE in order to effect an arrest. If I use FORCE against you am I being violent or non violent?

Me saying they are stupid garbage for committing a crime, lying about it or hiding or running from police or attempting to hit police with cars is going to get innocent people killed? How? Isn't that accurate information? People that commit crimes steal, murder, use violence against non suspects are good or bad people?

 

[Greg the Grouper]

@BoganUSAFFLClerk

So what if I told you that there's no such thing as a good or bad person? That a person simply is, and the things they do are defined largely by the environment they're forced to engage with?

 

[BoganUSAFFLClerk]

So what if I told you that there's no such thing as a good or bad person? That a person simply is, and the things they do are defined largely by the environment they're forced to engage with?

False premise who forced the guy to go smoke weed and fall asleep in his car?

 

[Greg the Grouper]

False premise who forced the guy to go smoke weed and fall asleep in his car?

Not quite what was meant by the sentiment, bud.

We'll try and take this environment bit real slow and simple, but it's important you know: the implication that one is forced to engage in their environment is not the same as the implication that a person is incapable of making their own decisions. In fact, it presumes the opposite: that they are making decisions of their own. It just assumes that those decisions are largely informed by, and in response to, their environment.

First, why don't we talk about limitations on how one can engage with their environment? Would you say, for example, that a child has the same control over their environment that an adult might?

 

[BoganUSAFFLClerk]

We'll try and take this environment bit real slow and simple, but it's important you know: the implication that one is forced to engage in their environment is not the same as the implication that a person is incapable of making their own decisions. In fact, it presumes the opposite: that they are making decisions of their own. It just assumes that those decisions are largely informed by, and in response to, their environment.

Let's assume I just grant this. What does this do with enforcement on an individual? Because the "environment" grants incentive to commit X crime what changes? Nothing you still prosecute you still enforce the law correct? They still fucked up right? That black dude that fell asleep and ran would still be shot and killed. Nothing changes.

First, why don't we talk about limitations on how one can engage with their environment? Would you say, for example, that a child has the same control over their environment that an adult might?

No they don't depending on the age children don't have the motor skills and advantages such as height or strength. How is this relevant to people being prosecuted? What does it change?

 

[Greg the Grouper]

Let's assume I just grant this. What does this do with enforcement on an individual? Because the "environment" grants incentive to commit X crime what changes? Nothing you still prosecute you still enforce the law correct? They still fucked up right? That black dude that fell asleep and ran would still be shot and killed. Nothing changes.

Yes and no, Bogan, yes and no. There's nothing to be done in that moment: the die's been cast, as it were.

However, that need not always be the case, and this is where the idea we're discussing comes into play. Why would we choose to be entirely reactive, as far as crime is concerned, if we have the capacity to be proactive?

Understanding how environments promote certain behaviors gives us the ability to be proactive, Bogan. If food deserts promote criminal activity, and you invest in infrastructure in ways that put an end to food deserts, what happens?

No they don't depending on the age children don't have the motor skills and advantages such as height or strength. How is this relevant to people being prosecuted? What does it change?

Nothing in and of itself: it was simply to illustrate that people have a limited capacity to affect their environment depending on their station.

We can work our way there, though. If a child grows up in a community with excessive heroin use, what meaningful action might that child take to mitigate that influence?

 

[BoganUSAFFLClerk]

Yes and no, Bogan, yes and no. There's nothing to be done in that moment: the die's been cast, as it were.

However, that need not always be the case, and this is where the idea we're discussing comes into play. Why would we choose to be entirely reactive, as far as crime is concerned, if we have the capacity to be proactive?

Understanding how environments promote certain behaviors gives us the ability to be proactive, Bogan. If food deserts promote criminal activity, and you invest in infrastructure in ways that put an end to food deserts, what happens?

Nothing in and of itself: it was simply to illustrate that people have a limited capacity to affect their environment depending on their station.

We can work our way there, though. If a child grows up in a community with excessive heroin use, what meaningful action might that child take to mitigate that influence?

Government is corrupt. Government is incompetent. Constituent funds are going to arbitrary nonsense. Processes don't work as intended. We can propose limitless things but one has to articulate logistics in order to accomplish things. Keep in mind this is a country that doesn't routinely replace infrastructure in terms of even public roads. Take a ride on international highways and notice the decay and neglect even though states are supported almost entirely by Truck routes that depend on those roads. We haven't got to the point of how you fund something like this when you are essentially adding government assistance on the scale of something like the U.S. 330m+ people.

 

[Greg the Grouper]

I mean, yeah. Republicans have blocked meaningful infrastructure change for decades, and Democrats at best want to make people a little happier so they can get away with doing less. The country's in a pretty fucked spot.

Fund something like what? Improving infrastructure? We could tax the wealthy, or even better, slash military spending like no one's business.