What's new

Can someone explain how police should handle people resisting arrest?

Pretty much what I thought this thread would turn into. No one with any kind of solution to a so called problem. Think about that next time you want to complain about cops.

So let me get this straight.

You started a thread with preconceived notions and responded in a way that led to that and you pan the thread that went down the path you took it?

Not to mention this post ignores posts in this very thread that would lead to a discussion on some solutions...

Hack's gonna hack.
 
Pretty much what I thought this thread would turn into. No one with any kind of solution to a so called problem. Think about that next time you want to complain about cops.

So you start this thread yesterday at 08:54 PM and you already draw this conclusion from it. Meh, not worth my time.
 
Ya, because Im fine with how the cops handle things. Why would I need to come up with a solution?

I don't like you. And last I checked, you didn't like me.

But the cops largely do handle things acceptably. It's super easy to dig into a crap situation and find fecal matter. And evidence of how fecal matter produced this pile of feces. And for every one crap situation you dig in to, you've got to dig into 10 positive situations to counteract the memory of that one crap situation.

There's a lot of changes that need to be made. Like with homeless people and pan handlers, how the police handle them. They could be trained for years and still not be able to really help them in any manner.. that requires a multi-disciplinary agency(specialists). The seniority thing's got to go. "Cronyism" and "having your buddies back" are two different things, but hell if I understand where the line is. We need to have an alternate form of restitution in simple misdemeanor cases; fines just aren't effective everywhere. More community involvement maybe? Bench warrants for unpaid parking tickets? Seriously? The case analysis/profiling parts(whether racialist or not) need to be updated yearly.. obviously this isn't an ending list, just an evolving one. Much like the top of our government, we're not evolving as fast as the technology we have would allow us to. The same laws that made sense in 1880 might not always fit in this day and age.

To answer the question in the OP, in my opinion, a police officer should only use mortal force if you feel like your life, or someone else's life is in imminent danger. This whole pointing guns thing needs to go. Point something less lethal if you need to remind them that you will keep the peace. If it escalates, it escalates. You're trained to handle that situation. Don't just start at the furthest extreme there is.
 
https://www.joincampaignzero.org/#vision

Why do you think police should be treating non-violent people with deadly force?

Who says the police are treating non violent people with deadly force? Just because the left wants to ignore the facts surrounding the deaths of these black men killed by police, doesnt mean they werent there. We could argue til we are blue in the face about how dangerous these facts really were. Truth is, we dont really know exactly what the amount of risk was, and what happened, and what might have happened. Had the police handled it different, we might be talking about dead cops instead. Facts are facts. Sterling had a long rap sheet, had a gun, disobeyed orders, and looked to be resisiting. Those are facts. Thats a potentially dangerous situation. Could they have handled that differently? Probabaly so. They should have been able to stop him from getting the gun out and using it. But thats real easy for someone from their couch to say how the police should be reacting in a tense situation like that. Its potentially life or death. Castile had a gun. We dont know what led up to him getting shot. The story could be a lot different than what his girlfriend was saying. There is this thing called lying. People do it. Its a thing. The rest of the cases have similar doubts of police wrong doing as well. In almost all the cases there is room to be argued that the police had to do what they had to do.

Here is the thing. The law has to be forced. Otherwise the rule of law means nothing. There is chaos, and society doesnt exist, and the black lives matters protests arent even a thing. A lot of people take this fact for granted. They dont bother to think what things may be like without a strict police force.

We will slowly come up with better ways to do things, better technology, better ways to weed out the bad ones, etc.. But people saying the cops are just being too hard right now, just dont have a clue how difficult a job they. They dont understand just how crazy people can get. If you dont want to get shot by the police, just dont put up a fight. Its. pretty simple. It's called being accountable for your actions. No more excuses. If someone gets shot by the police, I just assume you probably had it coming because you are either crazy or dumb. Plenty of black men survive police encounters daily and all over the united states. Why arent they dying everytime they encounter police? Hunting black men is not a thing. Black Lives Matters would have you believe that.
 
I don't like you. And last I checked, you didn't like me.

But the cops largely do handle things acceptably. It's super easy to dig into a crap situation and find fecal matter. And evidence of how fecal matter produced this pile of feces. And for every one crap situation you dig in to, you've got to dig into 10 positive situations to counteract the memory of that one crap situation.

There's a lot of changes that need to be made. Like with homeless people and pan handlers, how the police handle them. They could be trained for years and still not be able to really help them in any manner.. that requires a multi-disciplinary agency(specialists). The seniority thing's got to go. "Cronyism" and "having your buddies back" are two different things, but hell if I understand where the line is. We need to have an alternate form of restitution in simple misdemeanor cases; fines just aren't effective everywhere. More community involvement maybe? Bench warrants for unpaid parking tickets? Seriously? The case analysis/profiling parts(whether racialist or not) need to be updated yearly.. obviously this isn't an ending list, just an evolving one. Much like the top of our government, we're not evolving as fast as the technology we have would allow us to. The same laws that made sense in 1880 might not always fit in this day and age.

To answer the question in the OP, in my opinion, a police officer should only use mortal force if you feel like your life, or someone else's life is in imminent danger. This whole pointing guns thing needs to go. Point something less lethal if you need to remind them that you will keep the peace. If it escalates, it escalates. You're trained to handle that situation. Don't just start at the furthest extreme there is.

The police dont start with furthest extreme. How many times have the police pointed a gun at you when they pull you over? Dont give me that its because you are white either. They arent doing it to black people either for just being black.

The police pull their guns when they feel like the situation might need it. That could be because they just got a call and they are looking for someone violent and you match the description. Maybe the driver is acting suspicious. There are reasons to do it. If they dont, they might die. People do shoot at police. Its a thing. I know people dont want to believe it because the media doesnt sell it, but it happens. And it happens enough to make cops nervous. People being pulled over need to understand this and respect it. People have to stop acting like asses, and putting the cops on edge. If you cant do that, then you should be considered dangerous because apparently you could care less about safety.
 
This whole pointing guns thing needs to go. Point something less lethal if you need to remind them that you will keep the peace. If it escalates, it escalates. You're trained to handle that situation. Don't just start at the furthest extreme there is.

This
 
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/02/17/community-policing-police-trust_n_6607766.html

...Jordan and one of his friends were lucky enough to survive the gang shooting that took place that day; two other boys who were with them at the playground were not. Over the course of the yearlong investigation that followed, Howard (Gail Howard, his mom) — who had previously had few interactions with police — began to see local police officers as partners rather than patrolmen, forging bonds that would last far beyond the investigation and inspire her to begin fighting for the city’s kids.

“They did not stop until they figured out who shot my boy and his friends,” Howard said of the Redlands police, who eventually caught the shooters; they were convicted and sentenced to life behind bars. “I’m forever grateful to them.”

#BlackLivesMatter protests across the country have called for reforms including increased accountability surrounding police shootings and a reduction in the use of military equipment by local police departments. The shooting of two New York City police officers shortly after the announcement of the Garner verdict further intensified the national debate on policing in America.

But beyond the headlines, many police forces are working to build trust with their communities. Police experts say that improved relations can be attributed largely to common-sense approaches that build on the philosophy known as community policing.

“Ordinary, good police work is not terribly newsworthy,” said Gary Cordner, a professor of criminal justice at Kutztown University, “but lots and lots of good, ordinary police work goes on every day just about everywhere.”

In the wake of recent police killings, national leaders and local police departments are increasingly turning to the community policing model that cities like Redlands (CA) have relied on for years. People like Gail and Jordan Howard are proof that the model can deliver on its promise of helping police and communities work together.

The U.S. Department of Justice’s Community Oriented Policing Services office defines community policing as “a philosophy that promotes organizational strategies, which support the systematic use of partnerships and problem-solving techniques, to proactively address the immediate conditions that give rise to public safety issues such as crime, social disorder and fear of crime.”

Some police departments began emphasizing community policing during the 1970s, in response to the political unrest and widespread protests of the 1960s. The nation was reeling from incidents like the 1965 Watts Riots in Los Angeles, the protests that followed the assassination of Martin Luther King Jr. in 1968, the Stonewall Riots in 1969 and a number of anti-Vietnam War demonstrations that featured violent confrontations between police and civilians. The conditions were, as they are now, ripe for reform.

In practice, community policing involves forming partnerships with community organizations, prioritizing transparency, actively pursuing feedback and establishing programs that allow police to engage with residents outside of the law enforcement arena. At its best, the practice allows community members to feel heard, respected and empowered to help police control crime in their neighborhoods, rather than feeling that officers are solely there to enforce laws through aggressive stopping, questioning, arresting and incarcerating.

According to a Justice Department survey, the late 1990s saw a marked increase in the number of dedicated community policing officers specifically tasked with building relationships in their assigned neighborhoods: In 1997, 34 percent of all departments used such officers, while by 2000, the number had jumped to 66 percent. Similarly, there were 17,000 dedicated community policing officers in local departments in 1997, compared to 103,000 in 2000. But the survey found that starting in 2000, the number of community policing officers began to decline sharply, and had dropped by more than half by 2007.

But aggressive policing tactics gradually became more commonplace.
Mike Scott, director and founder of the Center for Problem-Oriented Policing, says that by the turn of the millennium, a confluence of factors had contributed to a turn away from a community-oriented approach toward more aggressive policing.

These included the gradual militarization of even small local departments, which began to use SWAT team-style tactics more regularly, as well as a tougher response to political protests in light of the violent showdown between police and protesters at the 1999 World Trade Organization meeting in Seattle. Police also began to rely more on strategies associated with the war on drugs, such as stop-and-frisk. In addition, “broken windows” policing, a controversial approach in which police departments aggressively pursue low-level crime, became more common in the late 1990s. Finally, after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, federal funds previously devoted to community policing programs were redirected to fund counter-terrorism and surveillance efforts.

the increasing militarization of the Ferguson, MO PD has often been mentioned as a major factor in the situation that developed there after the shooting of Michael Brown

going back to an emphasis on Community Policing efforts is one major step that would allow the police to interact with the community in a constructive manner to help residents understand and learn appropriate behavior for instances when they may be stopped by a police officer
 
The police dont start with furthest extreme. How many times have the police pointed a gun at you when they pull you over? Dont give me that its because you are white either. They arent doing it to black people either for just being black.

The police pull their guns when they feel like the situation might need it. That could be because they just got a call and they are looking for someone violent and you match the description. Maybe the driver is acting suspicious. There are reasons to do it. If they dont, they might die. People do shoot at police. Its a thing. I know people dont want to believe it because the media doesnt sell it, but it happens. And it happens enough to make cops nervous. People being pulled over need to understand this and respect it. People have to stop acting like asses, and putting the cops on edge. If you cant do that, then you should be considered dangerous because apparently you could care less about safety.

They have never went to their gun first with me. But, A. I'm white and don't carry a gun, B. We're seeing video lately that shows this is happening. A quick reminder and policy change stating you will be brought up on assault charges if you pull your weapon without proper cause AND following through on that would be fantastic.

None of the rest of your rhetoric is contrary to the second line; Largely, they're doing a good job. The nature of their job leaves open different forms of corruption, racism, favoritism, etc. The actions we've seen recently illustrate how those come through. The best way to combat that, is through culture change within. That's not easily done, but luckily there have been books that show how to do it effectively(Dancing with Elephants)

Changing the culture and understanding of what a Policeman(or woman) is will help everyone from the Mayor down to the meter maids. Follow through with minor changes to policy, attitude, how the police investigate and manage themselves, you'll see a lot get done.
 
The police dont start with furthest extreme. How many times have the police pointed a gun at you when they pull you over? Dont give me that its because you are white either. They arent doing it to black people either for just being black.

The police pull their guns when they feel like the situation might need it. That could be because they just got a call and they are looking for someone violent and you match the description. Maybe the driver is acting suspicious. There are reasons to do it. If they dont, they might die. People do shoot at police. Its a thing. I know people dont want to believe it because the media doesnt sell it, but it happens. And it happens enough to make cops nervous. People being pulled over need to understand this and respect it. People have to stop acting like asses, and putting the cops on edge. If you cant do that, then you should be considered dangerous because apparently you could care less about safety.

This is also a great chance to plug conservative vs liberal.

Conservative; Well hell.. it's never happened to me. Must not be a problem. They must have done something wrong.
Liberal; Well hell, this happened. And there's history of this. Perhaps we should look at it from their perspective.
 
This is also a great chance to plug conservative vs liberal.

Conservative; Well hell.. it's never happened to me. Must not be a problem. They must have done something wrong.
Liberal; Well hell, this happened. And there's history of this. Perhaps we should look at it from their perspective.

Haha..

That's about like this;

Conservative: Well, I see people in this town are in need. Let's open businesses and create jobs for them and we all prosper together. Amen.

Liberal: Well, I see people in this town are in need and a golden opportunity to add more to government welfare.. buying future votes for the dems for decades using the tax dollars of those evil job creators.
 
Haha..

That's about like this;

Conservative: Well, I see people in this town are in need. Let's open businesses and create jobs for them and we all prosper together. Amen.

Liberal: Well, I see people in this town are in need and a golden opportunity to add more to government welfare.. buying future votes for the dems for decades using the tax dollars of those evil job creators.

more like:

Conservative: Well, I see people in this town are in need. Let's open businesses and create low-paying, part-time jobs for them so my investors and I can make lots of money and our employees can barely scrape by...

Liberal: Well, I see people in this town are in need and a golden opportunity to make an investment that will add jobs that provide decent pay and benefits...


back to the topic:
As I mentioned above, the Federal government provided funds for local PD's to buy bigger, more military-style weapons. This encouraged those PD's that acquired these weapons to adopt more aggressive policing strategies and to cut back on their efforts with community policing. The effectiveness of community policing strategies has been well-documented, as has the abandonment of these efforts in some areas to adopt more aggressive strategies.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/02/17/community-policing-police-trust_n_6607766.html
 
If you ask the liberals they will say ask them pretty pretty please an if they say no they are obviously innocent an you are being a racist.
 
I'm on my phone so I can't be as precise as I'd like to be, but I've posted a pretty simple solution dozens of times.

I think both police and citizens need to be trained in a specific protocol for traffic stops and on the street interactions. Both sides know how they are supposed to act so that everyone is safe. If someone deviates from the standard protocol it will be clear on video footage. It will be a clear sign that someone is not following the rules. At that point the police will follow a ladder force that is in place.

It will remove much of the current grey area

Probably the smartest thing I've heard proposed.
 
The citizens arent out there to confront potentially bad, people and uphold the laws. Comparing the two is dumb. Your regular citizen doesnt pull people over and engage in tense situations. No citizen is ID'ing a suspect.

You mean to tell me I'm the only who's been making Citizen's Arrests like it's my job for the last 20 years?
 
I cant see law breakers taking a police protocol training seriously. Its worth trying, but I dont think it would effect the outcomes. Might just give cops more of an out to use force too. Is that gangbanger who dropped out of school going to suddenly take police protocol training seriously? Could also put otherwise law abiding citizens in dangerous situations too if they forgot the protocol.

Now that we live in times with cameras, that should help the situation, but sometimes you have to wonder if they even helps. People often watches videos and derive what they want out of them. There are often many different opinions even when everyone is watching the same thing. In the case of Alton Sterling, its not clear whether or not he was going for the gun in his pocket. Its not clear how close he was to getting it. If he even was close. It appears he is resisting too, but its not clear just how much. So even with video, its still not clear. But we still have people from blacklivesmatters who only want to see it how they want to. The cops are already guilty in there eyes.

I envision protocol training being part of driver's education. I also see it being part of any juvenile detention or any situation where a juvenile is involved with the juvenile justice system.

It would be fairly basic. When pulled over you do X until the officer asks for A, then you do Y to provide the officer with their request.

I think it is very important to train officers to make clear what is an optional request and what is a legal order. The blurring of that line leads to unnecessary escalation.

I find it very telling how you refer to people as "lawbreakers." As if there is a segment of our society that can be defined so simply. Almost all of us break some laws some of the time, and even a person who has an extensive criminal history isn't always breaking the law.

As a juvenile I broke the law quite a bit. I even put myself in situations where I could have potentially been legally killed. But my life and my existence, even at that time, couldn't so easily be defined using the term "lawbreaker." People, even those who have broken the law, are just more complex than that. Human life is more than that.

The fact that you see things in such binary terms makes me think reality is just too complicated for you to understand so you have to simplify it into some fantasy of cowboys and indians or cops and robbers.
 
Who says the police are treating non violent people with deadly force?

Have you been living under a ****ing rock the last three or so years or do you have a PhD in Ignorance?

[video=youtube_share;9LNO_y9Dge4]https://youtu.be/9LNO_y9Dge4?t=12

If you need more examples of how ******* cops have killed "non-violent" blacks in the last few years, let me know. I'm sure I myself or others can provide you with a few.
 
more like:

Conservative: Well, I see people in this town are in need. Let's open businesses and create low-paying, part-time jobs for them so my investors and I can make lots of money and our employees can barely scrape by...

Liberal: Well, I see people in this town are in need and a golden opportunity to make an investment that will add jobs that provide decent pay and benefits...


back to the topic:
As I mentioned above, the Federal government provided funds for local PD's to buy bigger, more military-style weapons. This encouraged those PD's that acquired these weapons to adopt more aggressive policing strategies and to cut back on their efforts with community policing. The effectiveness of community policing strategies has been well-documented, as has the abandonment of these efforts in some areas to adopt more aggressive strategies.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/02/17/community-policing-police-trust_n_6607766.html

An the low wage critics are wrong. Typical of liberals.

https://www.forbes.com/2008/01/09/walmart-retail-economy-biz-commerce-cx_tvr_0110walmart.html
 
Back
Top