Police Accountability

[Five-0]

I kinda of figured the water would get pretty deep in here sooner or later.

[Xiphos]

I am weilding my authority in the manner in which society expects me to in order to protect them and myself.

Most of society doesn't want us to defend ourselves. I would also say most people don't think we should use force at all for anyone. Until they need us to for them.

[countybear]

[mavriktu]

OK,whose turn is it to clean out the holding cell,it hasnt been used in almost a year and surely must smell rank by now.
.
PS,uhhhh CB,that first pic you posted sure resembles a thinner,younger you.----just sayin.

[JLK]

"Almost any sane person could say that there was no way in hell the man could react to the commands in an orderly fashion."


if talking does not work what is next?

"A few moments later, there was another warning and finally he was tazed and he dropped to the floor screaming in agony."

my department unfortunately does not have tasers but we do have spray and asp. both have a longer lingering effect.

"Not only that, he later was piled on by a bunch of cops with his face scrapping against the hard concrete."


it is my experience that less damage is delt when a "bunch of cops pile on" because less force is needed to control the subject.




how do the police conduct themselves where you are from?

[Rhino]

TH14, perhaps English isn't your native language and that's the reason for the misunderstanding, but it seems to me you're not here to have an open dialogue. We've presented arguments and explanation, and then you just continue to complain about your personal anecdotal evidence that law enforcement is evil.

As a student, you should of course be aware that in the scientific method, anecdotal evidence isn't reliable.

So at this point, until I feel a compelling reason to continue this discussion, I'm bowing out. It seems to me you're just here to bash Law Enforcement, and no one's going to convince you any different.

Good luck in your travels.

[Motorwaycop]

Having just retired I am glad that I no longer have the threat of complaint about my every action and word hanging constantly over me in both private and public life.

I have met some awful officers who have not met the high standards of the vast majority. It is my experience that they do not last long.

Most developed nations have very robust internal complaints departments. far more so than any other civil service organisation. Most police officers are subject to much harsher penaties if found guilty of a crime, just because they are held to higher account.

I for one am glad that I can now call a spade a spade, openely without fear of losing my job. God forbid I should tell an idiot he is an idiot!

[warrants 1]

To "121 Traffic" I dont know your name, buttThat was by far the most accurate description and mindset of this profession I have read anywhere in a very long time. Truer words never spoken. Well said.

[TH14]

I have been asked and frankly, taunted about a few things. Let me try and and answer them.

TH14, you need to make an introduction post in the appropriate forum.

Then by all means proceed with your indictment of law enforcement.

Clearly I am new to this forum and am unaware of protocols and rules followed here. I just posted my introduction here after requested by 121Traffic.

TH14, perhaps English isn't your native language and that's the reason for the misunderstanding, but it seems to me you're not here to have an open dialogue. We've presented arguments and explanation, and then you just continue to complain about your personal anecdotal evidence that law enforcement is evil.

As a student, you should of course be aware that in the scientific method, anecdotal evidence isn't reliable.

So at this point, until I feel a compelling reason to continue this discussion, I'm bowing out. It seems to me you're just here to bash Law Enforcement, and no one's going to convince you any different.

Good luck in your travels.

This could have well been a taunt, but let me go ahead and reply anyway. Yes, English isn't my mother tongue. But rest assured my literary and oratorical skills are comparable to any native speaker of the language, and might I say better than many Americans.

Now you seem to have a misconception about what a dialogue is. Regardless of whether you agree with them or not, I have opinions about certain things. You can try and change my mind by posing what you might think is a valid argument. Now what I don't understand is, just because my opinions are not in chord with yours, why should that cause you to try and burn me at the stake?

I am well aware of the scientific method and apply to most things in my life. But there is also space for rational deduction based on sensory evidence. Especially in the case of morality, there is no harm in making subjective inferences.

Now coming to the main point, have I ever categorically said that police forces are evil? All I said was that the police are an organization presented with the authority to apply law. Hence that 'might' cause them to misuse that power. This I said, could be akin to what happens in the corporate world. I am indeed disappointed with how quick all of you are to jump the gun and misconstrue my words, in thinking that somehow I am out here to defame police forces.

[MacLean]

Clearly I am new to this forum and am unaware of protocols and rules followed here. I just posted my introduction here after requested by 121Traffic.

121Traffic is an outstanding staff member. I'd trust him with my life implicitly. He actually performed my very own verification, once upon a time.

That said, we have a structure here with some ranks and responsibilities. One of mine is to make sure new users do what they are supposed to.

I don't see your introduction. I framed it as a request. Now, I'll be somewhat more direct.

Go to the forum marked "Introduce Yourself."

Post an introduction telling us about yourself.

If I don't see you do that in somewhat short order, I'm going to get all moderatorish.

Insert appropriate Bruce Banner quote here about how much you will like me when I'm angry.

Thanks much, carry on.

[TH14]

Getting a badge does not endow anyone with super-human morality and ethics. We do the best we can using background investigations to weed out candidates who are more likely to struggle and fall. That doesn't guarantee future behavior though.

The idea of a "Blue Wall of Silence" or whatever it's called is complete bullshit. We all suffer from human nature. You've never seen a bigger bunch of tattle tails when there's a promotion board open.

The media loves airing negative behavior of cops for several reason. One, they are selling advertising (all the news is doing is selling you soap and cars) and stories of police corruption is salacious and attracts eyeballs. And advertising.

The other side of that coin is a fundamental lack of understanding in most of the population of the law and case law governing our behavior and training. People don't understand how, when, and why we can use force. Therefore when they see it they are often shocked by it and call it brutality.

Most of what we do carries a great deal of civil liability for ourselves and our agencies. Uses of force are always closely reviewed and 99.9999% of the time they are completely justified, despite how horrific it may look on YouTube. If they weren't it would cost lots and lots of money.

Agencies that have begun a "Citizen Police Academy" program often find huge success and support in the community because a broader cross section of our customers understand the how, when and why of force and investigations.

Sure there are bad apples. Just like there are bad apples at every business in the world. When we find them though, we are usually quick to get rid of them. I have worked at agencies with cops who were robbing banks, dealing drugs, doing home invasions, stealing money, raping, and more. When the agency found out they were fired and prosecuted. That's the case with the vast majority of agencies in this country. Agencies that don't are in a great deal of civil peril and they know it.

You sir, are one of the few here who made your claims bereft of any ill will towards me (or so I hope). I am very glad to know about Citizen Police Academy, something that I was entirely unaware of. From the sound of it, it seems a very worthwhile venture.

1) Yes, I recognize that sometimes cops overstep their authority. I think that the best solution is prevention through training.

2) We already have higher standards of accountability, as well we should.

3) I don't mind being recorded, and I don't mind transparency. The trouble is that most people don't really have the experience to put police actions in their proper context. Most people haven't been in nearly as many fights as I have, so they don't have the same frame of reference I do when judging the reasonableness of my actions. Most people don't worry about the nuances of the law the way I do, so they aren't likely to understand where the limits of my authority actually are. What I'm opposed to is being held accountable to the ill informed judgment of well meaning people who have no clue what they are looking at.



How was the man creating a ruckus? What specifically about his behavior would made you expect that someone would have called the police? What sort of commands to you believe that this man would have been able to follow, and to what degree? How many cops "piled on" to him, and would you be able to describe what they were doing in more specific terms? Was there something that they should have done to prevent his face from scraping against the concrete while they were doing whatever they were doing? And what was he doing at the time?

I'm not being a smartass, those are all legitimate questions that I hope you will answer.

As far as your questions go, it sounds to me like the objective of the whole scenario was to gain control of a suspect who was causing a disturbance and then uncooperative during the investigation. When we approach a suspect, we usually have no way of knowing what their physical capabilities are and whether or not they are armed. When a suspect is drunk, this does not usually make them less dangerous.

Without more specific information as to what happened, I can't really say whether "so much" violence was necessary. I can say that the police response you described doesn't sound particularly violent to me. I'm sure that it was painful, but you didn't describe anything likely to cause any lasting injury, and you didn't describe anything that sounded gratuitous or excessive. It sounded like the police actions you described were all directed towards gaining control. Almost all of us don't want to "needlessly inflict suffering on the common man," but when the use of force is called for we also know better than to fuck around with ineffective measures that only prolong the encounter and increase the risk of injury.

All of that goes back to what I was saying in response to your question #3 above. It looks to me like when you witnessed a use of force, you didn't really understand what you were seeing. You described it to us here, but you didn't give us the information we would need in order to fully gauge the reasonableness of what you saw. I can't blame you for that, if we were talking about aerospace engineering then I'd probably be hopelessly lost for most of the conversation. But I can and do expect you to understand that police encounters aren't usually what they seem to be to the untrained eye.

Now as I may have mentioned this before, I witnessed the incident as I was waking out of the Walmart. There was much commotion and the police had already surrounded the intoxicated man. Although I predicted that it could have been the ruckus the man made, why exactly the police were called I don't know. As for the commands, although he could have perceived the commands through his senses, he was so intoxicated that his cognitive side was probably seriously impaired. I am in no way saying that the police should pity the man for being intoxicated. But the actions of the police must be performed with the foresight that the actions of a drunken person could very well be different from a regular person.


Sure one could say that the tazer and the body pile were justified in that the police are always vary of the fact that a person could be armed. But the fact that the man's face was pressed down to the ground by the knee of cop is not one that I am willing to digest. I am entirely unaware of police protocols, and was only present for the very last part of the whole scenario. But would it not seem excessive if a police man was bearing down on a man's face to the ground with the force of his knee, even after the man was handcuffed? I have no recording of the aforementioned happening. But my intuition tells me that a few police officers could have used far less force in achieving the outcome of that day.

Anyway, I have a rather relevant happening that I wanted to bring up. I hope you all know of the recent Occupy Cal protests at the University of California at Berkeley. They are a series of protests by students against the recent rise in tuition for going to college. I am connected to the happenings of these events in that a friend of a friend was actively protesting along with here peers at Berkeley. From the accounts of my friend, I have heard a few horrific things about how students were beaten by police with batons. Students at UC Davis were sprayed with pepper spray. If you have access to such information, please read about it. So my question is, would you have handled the situation there any differently?

[121Traffic]

You sir, are one of the few here who made your claims bereft of any ill will towards me (or so I hope).

No one here has any "ill will" towards you, and you won't find much sympathy for the victim mentality here. You're grown, and you knew exactly what you were wading into when you clicked on the link to come here. In fact, I suspect that we've yet to fully reaize your intentions. It's hard to perceive you as a victim of "ill will" when you don't seem to be completely straightforward with your intentions.

You are again basing your words and assumptions on emotion rather than logic. We disagree with you. Sometimes vehemently. This is seemingly an amusing aside for you...a fishing expedition under the guise of an exercise in academic curiosity. This is our noble profession, our livelihood, and what some might refer to as our calling. Again, it's a bit dramatic to refer to our disdain for your opinions as "ill will." I also assume that as a college student, you're fluent in sarcasm, which is a dialect in and of itself that is more than prevalent on a college campus and in a collegial debate setting. Do you think that everyone in your classes that gets a bit sarcastic with you has "ill will" towards you?

As for the commands, although he could have perceived the commands through his senses, he was so intoxicated that his cognitive side was probably seriously impaired. I am in no way saying that the police should pity the man for being intoxicated. But the actions of the police must be performed with the foresight that the actions of a drunken person could very well be different from a regular person.

Bolded for emphasis. I actually completely agree with the assertion you made here, but not in the way you would think. Actions of intoxicated individuals are different than those of sober individuals. Out of all law enforcement officers assaulted in the line of duty, the number of suspects that were intoxicated at the time of the assault hovers around 60%, depending on which years stats you check. Significantly more than half. You're damn right that my actions "must be performed with the foresight that the actions of a drunken person could very well be different from a regular person." I'm much more cautious and unwilling to brook uncompliant nonsense with a drunk who is too wasted to know a stupid decision before he makes it.

You haven't addressed any of the points I made, or even acknowledged my post. I will again tell you unequivocally that we are not required to, nor will we ever, lower our requirements of compliance based on a subject's demonstrated level of intoxication. If we are giving you lawful orders, you must obey them, drunk or not. If you're too drunk to follow orders (read: too drunk to know that disobeying lawful orders is a fool's game), that matters to me not one bit. Let me preemptively differentiate between being too drunk to have control of your faculties, which is entirely different than the situation you described, and being too drunk to know that fighting with the cops is just about the stupidest decision you could make, which is exactly the situation you described.

Once compliance is gained, however, the kid gloves do admittedly go back on for drunks. We won't interview them, etc., because the argument can be made that they aren't of sound mind presently to waive their constitutional rights.

Sure one could say that the tazer and the body pile were justified in that the police are always vary of the fact that a person could be armed. But the fact that the man's face was pressed down to the ground by the knee of cop is not one that I am willing to digest. I AM ENTIRELY UNAWARE OF POLICE PROTOCOLS, and was only present for the very last part of the whole scenario. But would it not seem excessive if a police man was bearing down on a man's face to the ground with the force of his knee, even after the man was handcuffed? I have no recording of the aforementioned happening. But my intuition tells me that a few police officers could have used far less force in achieving the outcome of that day.

I have highlighted for emphasis, and have replaced text with CAPS for double emphasis. You are, by your own admission, completely unaware of our protocol, but you see fit to judge the actions of those officers with an untrained eye? Your intuition tells you so? Surely you must see the fallacy of your logic here. Without going into too much detail or specifics, the best way to control a combative or uncooperative is control of the head. Control the head, and the body follows. Anyone involved in any sort of wrestling or martial art will agree. I will tell you that in many types of arrest control systems, a knee resting on the neck/head area is an entirely acceptable way to keep someone from doing The Worm and flopping around like a fish while they're cuffed. He wasn't having his face "ground into the concrete." He was uncooperative, and demonstrated this throughout the incident, and from everything you've said, it sounds as if he was most likely being dealt with appropriately.

Again, you admit you have no knowledge of protocol, but your "intuition" tells you that this was the wrong way to handle stuff. By contrast, I have some formal education in aerospece engineering. I still wouldn't dare to tell you that my "intuition" tells me that your design of a particular airframe is terrible and won't generate enough lift to clear a runway. I would sound completely foolish. You say you have no idea about the protocols I adhere to while working, yet you'd like to judge other officers doing their job and think you could give them some advice on what to do better. It is my opinion that you sound foolish here when you juxtapose those facts.

That isn't "ill will", that's me making a judgment of you based only on the information you've given me. As you so succinctly put it, that's my opinion, and you're more than welcome to try and change my mind. I will admit that my mind is pretty much made up, and there isn't much that you can tell me now to change it. I suspect the same is true for you, no matter how much you contend that you're trying to be objective and really want to be conviced otherwise. The difference between you and me is that you came here. I didn't go looking for you and your agenda on Google.

Anyway, I have a rather relevant happening that I wanted to bring up. I hope you all know of the recent Occupy Cal protests at the University of California at Berkeley. They are a series of protests by students against the recent rise in tuition for going to college. I am connected to the happenings of these events in that a friend of a friend was actively protesting along with here peers at Berkeley. From the accounts of my friend, I have heard a few horrific things about how students were beaten by police with batons. Students at UC Davis were sprayed with pepper spray. If you have access to such information, please read about it. So my question is, would you have handled the situation there any differently?

Ahhh, and here it is. The fall of the other shoe is a deafening thing some times.

I have not heard of any "horrific beatings" with batons. I avoid pesky, emotive language like that when I'm trying to portray myself as objective and reasonable. I have heard of incidents of force being used upon combative subjects, yes.

I have, however, seen lots and lots of footage of the pepper spray incident. In fact, thanks to protestors' cameras catching the action, we should be entitled to all that "transparency" you're idealizing, right? Problem there, son. Only edited clips showing the actual spraying are being intentionally realeased by those seeming to be on your side of the agenda. None of the lead in, build up, or repeated commands to move out of the way and warnings that force will be used are being kept in those cheeky YouTube clips. So much for "transparency", which is a tenet the Occupy movement is quick to rest its laurels upon. So rather than ask me what I would have done differently, I would ask you whether these "peaceful protestors" could have acted differently?

[countybear]

[lewisipso]

why exactly the police were called I don't know.

I am entirely unaware of police protocols

From the accounts of my friend, I have heard

(this is rumor by the way)

Regarding law enforcement, I am rather un-informed

I don't know how many officers you deal with daily but we deal with opinionated people with the above knowledge almost daily. We are accused of being abusive by people who know nothing of what, why or how we do things. You get thick skin in this job.
You are correct in that you do not know what you are talking about. If you do not pin on a badge and walk our walk and talk our talk you never will no matter how many discussions you have with an officer. Since you appear to have a different career choice it is not likely you will ever understand the nature of what we do. That brings me to this.

Like it or hate it, I have certain opinions. So we shall agree in certain aspects, argue about a few others; or if not finally choose to respectfully disagree.

I certainly hope that respectfully is the key word here. You don't know what you are talking about and most likely won't but you have already have opinions. Well sir, so do I.

[berserk]

Now as I may have mentioned this before, I witnessed the incident as I was waking out of the Walmart. There was much commotion and the police had already surrounded the intoxicated man. Although I predicted that it could have been the ruckus the man made, why exactly the police were called I don't know. As for the commands, although he could have perceived the commands through his senses, he was so intoxicated that his cognitive side was probably seriously impaired. I am in no way saying that the police should pity the man for being intoxicated. But the actions of the police must be performed with the foresight that the actions of a drunken person could very well be different from a regular person.

Okay, so you came into the picture when the confrontation was already well underway. Given that you have no idea what happened before you showed up, do you think it's possible that something happened which would make the use of force you witnessed seem reasonable?

As for the impaired cognitive ability, I see where you're going. The actions of a drunken person are very likely to be different than the actions of a sober person, and their response to orders and other stimuli may be slower than normal. If they're really drunk, then they may have trouble comprehending orders at all (let alone following them). And we do need to take that into account, if not in the way that I think you mean.

The police objective when contacting a drunken suspect is pretty similar to our objective when contacting a sober suspect: take control. We need to gain control of the situation so that we can safely conduct our investigation. With a cooperative, coherent suspect we can usually accomplish this just by giving orders. With a violent suspect, we will have to resort to violence. With an uncooperative suspect, some lesser degree of physical force is going to be necessary. Whether the suspect is uncooperative because he chooses to be or because he is too drunk to follow orders doesn't matter. The result for us is the same.

Sure one could say that the tazer and the body pile were justified in that the police are always vary of the fact that a person could be armed. But the fact that the man's face was pressed down to the ground by the knee of cop is not one that I am willing to digest. I am entirely unaware of police protocols, and was only present for the very last part of the whole scenario. But would it not seem excessive if a police man was bearing down on a man's face to the ground with the force of his knee, even after the man was handcuffed? I have no recording of the aforementioned happening. But my intuition tells me that a few police officers could have used far less force in achieving the outcome of that day.

Actually, the knee in the middle of the back is probably the one part of that story that I have the least problem with. When we cuff someone against their will, we usually do that by forcing them into a prone position because that gives them fewer options for attacking us. Many techniques for controlling a prone suspect (both before and after cuffing) involve kneeling near their upper body. Any pressure from the officer's knee is generally incidental (in that situation, my knee would be on the suspect's back but the control wouldn't come from my knee. The control would come from what I would be doing to the suspect's arms).

I doubt that the officer was grinding the suspect's face into the pavement, although if the suspect continued to resist from a prone position it could certainly look that way.

Anyway, I have a rather relevant happening that I wanted to bring up. I hope you all know of the recent Occupy Cal protests at the University of California at Berkeley. They are a series of protests by students against the recent rise in tuition for going to college. I am connected to the happenings of these events in that a friend of a friend was actively protesting along with here peers at Berkeley. From the accounts of my friend, I have heard a few horrific things about how students were beaten by police with batons. Students at UC Davis were sprayed with pepper spray. If you have access to such information, please read about it. So my question is, would you have handled the situation there any differently?

What situation? The protesters? I'm not going to go dig up examples for you, if you have questions about a particular incident then give us details so we can all discuss the same thing. Or did you mean the guy at the store? In that case, yes, I would have handled it differently. But that doesn't mean that what the officers did was inappropriate; we all have different skill sets and experiences; the important question isn't whether or not we'd do the same thing. The important question is whether or not our actions are reasonable.

I don't tase people. I don't like the tool, I strongly prefer to use control holds. I'm very good at them, so it's much more camera friendly and I'm also able to escalate and deescalate my own level of violence more quickly and precisely than an officer with a taser could. With that having been said, if a suspect does resist then the techniques I use are far more likely to cause lasting harm to the suspect than a taser would be. So everything has its disadvantages. Use of force is a big grey area, and everyone is different. But even when force is used with the best and most noble intentions, violence is ugly. If a guy is justifiably thrown to the ground, it doesn't look any different than when a guy is unjustifiably thrown to the ground. Without understanding what you're looking at, and without knowing the rest of the story, it's easy to get distracted by the ugliness of the violence or by what your intuition tells you could have happened instead. But there's no value to that sort of analysis. It only leads to flawed conclusions.

[Rhino]

This could have well been a taunt, but let me go ahead and reply anyway. Yes, English isn't my mother tongue. But rest assured my literary and oratorical skills are comparable to any native speaker of the language, and might I say better than many Americans.

No, I wasn't trying to taunt you. As far as your grasp of the English language versus many Americans, you'll get no argument from me.

The reason I said it, as I asked, I had trouble understanding your first initial question. Again, could you elaborate or re-phrase it?

Now you seem to have a misconception about what a dialogue is.

Maybe. But I, as well as others, address your questions and ask you questions in return (as above, for example) and you have yet to answer those questions. Instead, you seemingly ignore most other people's points regarding your question and proceed to talk about how much you're being persecuted on this forum.

One thing you need to understand about our little family: We are very blunt and direct. Speaking only for myself, this comes from a career of having to answer calls and quickly going to the next. If my candor or being curt has somehow offended you, then I apologize.

Also, when someone comes into our forum- as in the past- and starts making a pointed case about police brutality, we automatically get our hackles up and assume you're just here to enrage us or somehow justify your anti-law enforcement opinion. If that's not the case, then you have been misjudged by me and again I apologize. But I just want you to understand where some of us are coming from.

I am well aware of the scientific method and apply to most things in my life. But there is also space for rational deduction based on sensory evidence. Especially in the case of morality, there is no harm in making subjective inferences.

If you want to play it that way, fine. However, I respectfully request that if you're going to use personal experience, you give as much information as possible so that we also can make as an informed decision and cater our response accordingly.

Now coming to the main point, have I ever categorically said that police forces are evil? All I said was that the police are an organization presented with the authority to apply law. Hence that 'might' cause them to misuse that power. This I said, could be akin to what happens in the corporate world. I am indeed disappointed with how quick all of you are to jump the gun and misconstrue my words, in thinking that somehow I am out here to defame police forces.

I've explained to you how others have typically acted in the past towards this forum, particularly newcomers. So maybe you have a little insight into why we are being so defensive. I hope this exchange helps us understand one another and we can re-open an informative dialogue. If you have specific questions, please feel free to ask them.

[countybear]

You sir, are one of the few here who made your claims bereft of any ill will towards me (or so I hope)...

[TH14]

Many of you have pointed out that I have not replied to the many questions asked of me. With a singular person having to defend views against so many, I would require many posts before I can address every point.

Anyway, I have come to realize just as many of you have, that these arguments aren't leading to anything constructive. So my replies would just be futile if anything. I will rest my case and hopefully bring this post to an end. I started out with the belief that in some cases, excessive use of force by the police is a relevant truth. I will stick to that viewpoint and will even go on to say that it might even be a occupational tendency. Many tactics used by police are based around intimidation and repression. So it is not in the least illogical to assume that it might escalate to violence rarely. And there is much evidence for the same.

As I mentioned before, I don't prescribe to mainstream media often. But this opinion that at times police action can be excessive, is a rather an equivocal one. Bloggers, mainstream and independent journalists all seem to have the same opinion. Some of you said that it is just a smear campaign. I would say that there is a little more truth to it than that. No one is questioning the conduct of your individual departments. It is also not illogical to say that by engaging in online discussion, you possibly don't even represent the mindset of an average LEO. Your moral standards might be of a higher degree.

As I come from a developing nation, I can see that when there is no tangible consequence for police brutality, it becomes all the more common. This is not to say that police brutality is in anyway a COMMON-HOOD in America. But at the same time it is not to be idealistic and say that it doesn't exist in any form.

You shan't hear from me any more in the forum. I hope to not have irked the emotions of any of you. And if I have, please realize that they originated from the points that I made and not from the intention of spreading any hate.

[Five-0]

Allow me to translate. My position and argument to back up said position got destroyed by logic, fact, and even complete youtube videos of events that you tried to use as examples of police misconduct.

You were not the first and you will not be the last to wander on to this site looking for a bunch of dumb cops. I recieved many PMs when you first posted about you being a troll. I replied to each to give you a fair shot. Not because I thought your intentions were on the level, but because I knew you would get your I know everything college attitude handed to you. Don't feel too bad, I was in college once and knew it all too. I centainly hope that you are better at your choosen academic discipline than you are logically debating people on an open forum. Having said that,

[Five-0]

Since I see you are modifying your posts now allow me to document a few things:

Not all of your ORIGINAL points, but enough.

-------------------------------------

I could have chosen a better word, but yield can also mean to supply. Anyway, setting the rhetoric aside, I will put my position in context first as asked. I am a student of Aerospace Engineering at the University of Illinois. As an international student in the United States, I have no benefits of a citizen. But in terms of the jurisdictions of the state of Illinois and the country, I am held to the same standard against law. As an foreigner who has been in the United States for around 3 1/2 years, and also given my practical approach to things, I am hoping that my views are largely bereft of bias. The issues important to me are civil liberties such as equality, freedom of speech, freedom of religion and right to due process. I hope to give a fresh perspective on certain things and also hope to gain from the viewpoints of the other side.

I am fairly responsible to say the least, and my only altercation with the law so far in the 21 years of my life has been being the passenger of a car which was filled beyond capacity (which is a common hood in almost any campus). I greatly respect the police forces in America, as in comparison, the police forces in India are lax, corrupt and ineffective to say the least. America is a land of many freedoms, but much of it is an illusion. The sheer amounts of laws prevent people from exercising true freedom, and almost everything is laced with a hint of political correctness.

I am surprised to know that many of you here seem not to care about the issue video recording. I have read many a time about how police agencies are increasingly misconstruing wiretap laws and using it to their advantage.

I can point out from that instance when my friend's car was pulled over. The car was definitely filled beyond capacity, as my friend was dropping off my music band after a recital. But the tone with which the traffic policeman spoke to us, was condescending and harsh to say the very least. And he fined us for not wearing seat belts in the backseat. I checked up local laws and back then, there was law in Illinois requiring backseat passengers to wear the seat belt. The conduct of this particular traffic policeman was very questionable. It seemed as though he was searching for ways to punish us, like he was on a power trip. My friend didn't bother trying to fight the fine as he would have to go to local court to put in an appeal and didn't want to go through the whole process.

This incident might seem a one off. But, I am also a student usher at our football stadium. And the crowds get a little unruly at almost any game. I see countless campus and city policemen in the stadium needlessly harassing people all the time. And I wonder, is it the kind of work that policemen are part of that might turn many into inconsiderate people? It is not illogical to assume that if one had a lot of power, that some might chose to satisfy their sadistic tendencies by using excessive authority.

----------------------------

Also this other time, I was shopping outside of a Walmart. As I was walking outside, I noticed some commotion in the parking lot. There was a man who could barely stand, intoxicated out of his mind. He was creating a ruckus and I suspect someone called the police. I found the way in which the police handled the situation to be appalling. They repeatedly kept asking the man to fall to the ground with his hands to the back, as though he would do that. As I mentioned he was drunk out of his mind. Almost any sane person could say that there was no way in hell the man could react to the commands in an orderly fashion. A few moments later, there was another warning and finally he was tazed and he dropped to the floor screaming in agony. Not only that, he later was piled on by a bunch of cops with his face scrapping against the hard concrete.

What was the objective of the whole scenario? Was so much violence and pain necessary to bring the situation to control? Yes, police have to face high tension scenarios all the time, but they cannot use that as an excuse to needlessly inflict suffering on the common man.

Again, this is only a personal experience of mine. The equivocal opinion I get from almost all my friends is that people of the police force are inconsiderate. I can say with confidence that most, if not all my friends, are rational people. Why is there this disdain towards the police forces. People on your side are saying that it is simply because people don't like enforcers of authority. Yet when I dig deeper, a seemingly genuine reason always seems to surface.

------------------------------

I have been asked and frankly, taunted about a few things. Let me try and and answer them.



Clearly I am new to this forum and am unaware of protocols and rules followed here. I just posted my introduction here after requested by 121Traffic.



This could have well been a taunt, but let me go ahead and reply anyway. Yes, English isn't my mother tongue. But rest assured my literary and oratorical skills are comparable to any native speaker of the language, and might I say better than many Americans.

Now you seem to have a misconception about what a dialogue is. Regardless of whether you agree with them or not, I have opinions about certain things. You can try and change my mind by posing what you might think is a valid argument. Now what I don't understand is, just because my opinions are not in chord with yours, why should that cause you to try and burn me at the stake?

I am well aware of the scientific method and apply to most things in my life. But there is also space for rational deduction based on sensory evidence. Especially in the case of morality, there is no harm in making subjective inferences.

Now coming to the main point, have I ever categorically said that police forces are evil? All I said was that the police are an organization presented with the authority to apply law. Hence that 'might' cause them to misuse that power. This I said, could be akin to what happens in the corporate world. I am indeed disappointed with how quick all of you are to jump the gun and misconstrue my words, in thinking that somehow I am out here to defame police forces.

------------------------------

You sir, are one of the few here who made your claims bereft of any ill will towards me (or so I hope). I am very glad to know about Citizen Police Academy, something that I was entirely unaware of. From the sound of it, it seems a very worthwhile venture.



Now as I may have mentioned this before, I witnessed the incident as I was waking out of the Walmart. There was much commotion and the police had already surrounded the intoxicated man. Although I predicted that it could have been the ruckus the man made, why exactly the police were called I don't know. As for the commands, although he could have perceived the commands through his senses, he was so intoxicated that his cognitive side was probably seriously impaired. I am in no way saying that the police should pity the man for being intoxicated. But the actions of the police must be performed with the foresight that the actions of a drunken person could very well be different from a regular person.


Sure one could say that the tazer and the body pile were justified in that the police are always vary of the fact that a person could be armed. But the fact that the man's face was pressed down to the ground by the knee of cop is not one that I am willing to digest. I am entirely unaware of police protocols, and was only present for the very last part of the whole scenario. But would it not seem excessive if a police man was bearing down on a man's face to the ground with the force of his knee, even after the man was handcuffed? I have no recording of the aforementioned happening. But my intuition tells me that a few police officers could have used far less force in achieving the outcome of that day.

Anyway, I have a rather relevant happening that I wanted to bring up. I hope you all know of the recent Occupy Cal protests at the University of California at Berkeley. They are a series of protests by students against the recent rise in tuition for going to college. I am connected to the happenings of these events in that a friend of a friend was actively protesting along with here peers at Berkeley. From the accounts of my friend, I have heard a few horrific things about how students were beaten by police with batons. Students at UC Davis were sprayed with pepper spray. If you have access to such information, please read about it. So my question is, would you have handled the situation there any differently?

------------------------------

Many of you have pointed out that I have not replied to the many questions asked of me. With a singular person having to defend views against so many, I would require many posts before I can address every point.

Anyway, I have come to realize just as many of you have, that these arguments aren't leading to anything constructive. So my replies would just be futile if anything. I will rest my case and hopefully bring this post to an end. I started out with the belief that in some cases, excessive use of force by the police is a relevant truth. I will stick to that viewpoint and will even go on to say that it might even be a occupational tendency. Many tactics used by police are based around intimidation and repression. So it is not in the least illogical to assume that it might escalate to violence rarely. And there is much evidence for the same.

As I mentioned before, I don't prescribe to mainstream media often. But this opinion that at times police action can be excessive, is a rather an equivocal one. Bloggers, mainstream and independent journalists all seem to have the same opinion. Some of you said that it is just a smear campaign. I would say that there is a little more truth to it than that. No one is questioning the conduct of your individual departments. It is also not illogical to say that by engaging in online discussion, you possibly don't even represent the mindset of an average LEO. Your moral standards might be of a higher degree.

As I come from a developing nation, I can see that when there is no tangible consequence for police brutality, it becomes all the more common. This is not to say that police brutality is in anyway a COMMON-HOOD in America. But at the same time it is not to be idealistic and say that it doesn't exist in any form.

You shan't hear from me any more in the forum. I hope to not have irked the emotions of any of you. And if I have, please realize that they originated from the points that I made and not from the intention of spreading any hate.