So Whats WRONG with this Picture

[Warren]

Jussi,

Hands, cars, clubs, flashlights, etc. can all be "deadly force." It's how the tool is used at the time. I like the use of the car door when it can be applied. The difference is in the application. Tasers can be deadly, even when that is not the intent of the officer utilizing it. Same with bean bags, rubber bullets, and pepper sprays. They are not reliable and I never wanted to kill or maim someone unintentionally.

Again, the actions of the person fleeing or fighting arrest always determined the level of force I used. I always preferred to use something other than fists. I disliked closing with a suspect and physically fighting them. I had to fight one handed basically. My right elbow was constantly checking the position of my side arm when grappling with a person. Granted the new style holsters provide more security for the weapon then when I was a young officer. Still, disarming techniques are taught in prisons nationwide and the secret to the new holsters is no longer a secret.

Also, as was pointed out, only the merest of information is provided by the news media. If news and TV stories told all the story we wouldn't need courts, review boards or coroner's inquests.

[Anna]

I have mixed feelings about this sort of thing. On the one hand, the cops should go after people who disobey the law because otherwise will result in law and order breakdown. But there are so many stories of abuses and use of excessive force in unwarranted situations.

This is one story close to where I live. Daughter is under the influence and starts cutting herself with a razor blade. Mom calls 911 to get help to stop daughter from killing herself. Cop shows up and orders the daughter to drop the blade (not a boxcutter, just the blade).

Here is where the story diverges. Mom says the daughter did drop the blade and started walking towards the officer as ordered by the officer. The officer claims that the daughter kept advancing towards him with the blade still in her hand and he acted on self-defense.

Drunk woman, even with a razor blade, you'd think a cop will be able to disarm her and pin her down. But no. The officer shoots her several times, and she died.

This is not an isolated incident. Another case, in another town, had a mentally unstable man with a knife. Several police officers were called to calm down the situation. Ended with the police shooting the man dead.

Being a cop entails a lot of responsibility, but killing a citizen who is not as dangerous to the cop as one might seem in hindsight sure puts a blight on the record. No-knock drug busts that went wrong (wrong house, wrong people) abound in the news lately. The most sensational is the Atlanta grandmother who thought her house was being invaded by gangbangers and tried to defend her home with a gun. She was also killed by the cops.

Wrong house. No drugs. Dead woman. Too bad.

I know it's dangerous for the cops, and it's often hard to distinguish the good citizens from the bad. But, as a citizen, it puts me in a quandary as to where my sympathy should lie. The cops are well-armed. Citizens, not so much. We shouldn't be at war with each other, the cops and the citizens, but sometimes it's hard to tell when they come crashing through your door.

[Hellrazor]

If you believe that cops are capable of excessive force, in particular the one who is after you, would YOU stand still and let him do what he wants with you? I'm not saying it's right, but given the excesses that some cops do go to, it's no wonder that people run from them.

As I stated in my original statement, fleeing from the police is a crime, therefore you are not innocent. If he didn't take off running, he wouldn't have been chased.

[Shipwreck]

I may be in the minority, but coming from a family in law enforcement I don't think having the suspects know that they can run without any regard as to what may happen is a wise decision. HALT means just that.
http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=4489683

You might be in the minority.

But I would love to see how the critics would react when when they have to chase criminals (often violent) through the projects.

Cops get nit picked to death by "legal system" and the "ACLU" about how they treat the "poor misunderstood" criminal.

I hope that the cop who got the 2 day suspension, got in a couple good rounds of golf, or enjoyed himself fishing.

[jonmulzer]

As I stated in my original statement, fleeing from the police is a crime, therefore you are not innocent. If he didn't take off running, he wouldn't have been chased.

So many people have said, "You don't know the circumstances of the situation, the cop may have had all rights to use deadly force". Well, you don't know the circumstances of the situation either. Citizens do have the right to resist unlawful arrest, even to the point of using force to defend their lives. How many people in this world know this little tidbit of information? Chances of any person making it to trial if they did though, almost zero. The "Blue wall of silence" would take care of that person before they made it to the cruiser.

[gjat]

So many people have said, "You don't know the circumstances of the situation, the cop may have had all rights to use deadly force". Well, you don't know the circumstances of the situation either. Citizens do have the right to resist unlawful arrest, even to the point of using force to defend their lives. How many people in this world know this little tidbit of information? Chances of any person making it to trial if they did though, almost zero. The "Blue wall of silence" would take care of that person before they made it to the cruiser.

That is why a modicum of intelligence and reasonableness is required by citizens to have a functioning society. Either it's anarchy, or imperfect order. Reasonable people will choose the 'most likely outcome' when given the task of predicting the consequence of action. It isn't a matter of 'what's possible', it's what's more likely to happen. Is it more reasonable to think that you are going to be falsely imprisoned if a policeman wants to talk to you, or more likely that you have some opportunity within the legal system for fairness? Is it more reasonable to think that running and eluding the police would contribute any benifit to being treated fairly or obtaining justice within the legal system if you really are innocent?

The policeman, who is probably possessing a modicum of intelligence and reason, is faced with discerning an answer to the same question. It's not likely innocent people would run because the lack of benefit in tht course of action. But it's more likely that someone who is running is anticipating substantial benifit in avoiding contact with the legal system that makes it worth the added risk and probable increase in negative effects as a result of chosing that course of action.

We humans do not live merely as a conglomeration of individuals. It is our nature to live in a society that has to balance individual rights and freedoms within a system that has to limit the stronger and protect the weaker to avoid complete anarchy. There will never be a perfect society.

[jonmulzer]

Innocent people run all the time. But that is beside the point. Does merely resisting arrest give the police officer the authority to use deadly force? I don't think so. I also don't care what he has been accused of or why he is running from the law. Whatever the facts of the situation are, he has right to face this at trial and not end up wadded up under the police car. There is nothing to justify this.

And has been stated before, what happens if he is paralyzed? Then a few million in property taxes that could have went to schools and such ends up paid out to him. No matter what you say or how anyone tries to defend this there are a million ways this could go wrong and one way that it could go "correctly". I don't bet against those kinds of odds. The officer should have gotten out of the cruiser and went after him. Especially in the apartment complex.

Defend it however you wish. Might does not make right. Police officers are wrong at times and they should be held accountable just the same as, or to a higher standard than, common citizens.

[jonmulzer]

You might be in the minority.

But I would love to see how the critics would react when when they have to chase criminals (often violent) through the projects.

Cops get nit picked to death by "legal system" and the "ACLU" about how they treat the "poor misunderstood" criminal.

I hope that the cop who got the 2 day suspension, got in a couple good rounds of golf, or enjoyed himself fishing.

The person driving that car did not have to chase criminals through projects either. This is not Russia under Stalin......yet. He chose to become a police officer and when he made that choice I have no doubt that he wanted to help people, enforce the law and maintain citizens rights. Well, the person who was hit by that car has a right to be considered innocent until proven guilty. He has a right to stand trial for the alleged crime. Rights do not end when you are accused or suspected of a crime. The police car is deadly force and when good cops start to believe that they can be judge, jury and executioner, they are no longer good cops.

Why do people try to demonize the ACLU? They are out there standing up for our civil rights. They take on controversial cases sometimes, yes. But the fact of the matter is, you cannot decide who has civil rights and who needs legal representation based on personal opinion. They do a lot of good work and help a lot of people who need help and are out there putting themselves the spotlight and subjecting themselves to ridicule to defend our rights as a whole. Tragically, the only cases you hear much about with them are the controversial ones. I really don't like some of the cases they have taken on, but I am glad they are there and doing it. You have to stand up for our rights or before long we will not have any. That is what they do, no matter the person.

[gjat]

The person driving that car did not have to chase criminals through projects either. This is not Russia under Stalin......yet. He chose to become a police officer and when he made that choice I have no doubt that he wanted to help people, enforce the law and maintain citizens rights. Well, the person who was hit by that car has a right to be considered innocent until proven guilty. He has a right to stand trial for the alleged crime. Rights do not end when you are accused or suspected of a crime. The police car is deadly force and when good cops start to believe that they can be judge, jury and executioner, they are no longer good cops.

Why do people try to demonize the ACLU? They are out there standing up for our civil rights. They take on controversial cases sometimes, yes. But the fact of the matter is, you cannot decide who has civil rights and who needs legal representation based on personal opinion. They do a lot of good work and help a lot of people who need help and are out there putting themselves the spotlight and subjecting themselves to ridicule to defend our rights as a whole. Tragically, the only cases you hear much about with them are the controversial ones. I really don't like some of the cases they have taken on, but I am glad they are there and doing it. You have to stand up for our rights or before long we will not have any. That is what they do, no matter the person.

Last post before we get too political, but what I highlighted IS the point. Society is always trying to balance rights. At what point is the right of the people who live in the complex to not have criminal activity occurring around their homes and want police to be able to question or apprehend individuals? Should people just be allowed to run from the police and thwart their efforts to enforce the laws and maintain order? From the get go, I questioned the officer driving the car through the complex, but I also know the endemic fear of living in 'bad' areas where thugs and punks harrass neighbors and sell crack. Personally, I think the risk of being hit by a police car is much less than being mugged or shot by some gang-banger operating in my apartment complex.