Police Use of Force

Friends, when the Virginia Tech tragedy occurred, I remember a lot of people trying to second-guess the school, the government, the police, and anybody else in sight. I also remember the incident highlighted in this article, as well as the hue and cry.

Now, most of you know I wear a badge. I don’t usually make a big deal out of it, since I’m not on this forum as a cop, but as a researcher. However, I got this professional e-mail tonight and realized that I should share it.

There is a severe disconnect between the public’s perception of police (Not just in the U.S., I’d wager!), and the realities that officers deal with on a daily basis. Most people get their understandings from the entertainment media, and all us historian types now how dangerous that is! So, in the interests of furthering understanding, I thought I’d post this.

 

Several years ago in the small city I worked for a patrolman injured his back wrestling with a drunk 20 year old. The kid thought he was Superman like all drunks do. Norman was around 40 and had been a policeman about 10 years. Anyway, they fell into a ditch along the side of the road and Norman ended up on the bottom with a twisted back.

Shortly after that he had to quit on disability and at his age doesn't hardly pay enough to live on.

Tasers were not around then and they only had one other patrolman on duty that night.

In the end, the kid was charged and convicted of DUI and resisiting and Norman got a permanent disability. Not very fair is it?

 

the uk police are rolling out tasers to a lot of officers and I am very much for them,

they provide a valuable middle ground for officers between physical restraint and firearms maximum force.

Often when faced with a very large agresive perp sometimes armed with a hand weapon officers are forced to get involved in very dangerous situations because the use of a firearm is too excesive.

FNG

 

Great post, Tom.

Unjust complaints of police violence certainly isn't limited to the US. As you may know, there has been several comflicts between anarchists and the police.

The root of the conflict is, that the anarchists want to have a clubhouse for free. The Municipality of Copenhagen has agreed to this, but on the condition that they are allowed to supervise the property, to ensure that it is not used for criminal activities (drug use and storage of illegal weapons). The anarchists does not agree with this, and as a result, they have been consistently squatting unoccupied buildings (but which still has an owner, since all property in Denmark has an owner).

As a result, the police has been using tear gas to get them out and to arrest them (using tasers would be futile, as there are usually close to 500 people at a time), which is considered police violence by the protesters (and increasingly by the media).

Interestingly, earlier this year, one of the Danish communist parties' spokesmen (who is largely in the same political territory as the anarchists) openly said, that she saw no problem in killing police officers and other state officials as a mean to further their politics.

I'm frankly a bit tired of the seemingly inherent idea, that the police is the opponent or even enemy, of the private citizen. The whole idea seems to stem from an excessive facination with books and movies such as 1984. Whenever I see '1984' or 'Orwellian' in the debate column or in an essay, I know that I will disagree with everything the author writes.

 

When the police acts to protect property rather than people, it is easy for people who don't own much property to regard them as the protectors of the upper crust of the population only, and therefore the enemy of the poor. Certainly this is a skewed view, but it might be possible to understand the "1984" parallel in this way.

In a situation where no one ends up getting hurt, because of timely police action, that police action will easily be seen as excessive and unnecessary. This is because the process of cause and effect remains difficult to grasp, apparently.

 

Tom:
There have been discussions and rethinking of policy considering armed police-officers on college campuses after the Virginia Tech shootings--where the univeristy officers were NOT armed. Universities with an un-armed police-force are revisiting this decision and deciding to arm their campus police-forces.
A little common-sense in the academic university environment is hard to find these days, but this seems to me a step in the right--not not politically correct--direction.

Tim

 

unless the armed v tech cop was in plainclothes and actually imbedded among the students in the building when the gunman started shooting there is little chance the results would have beem much different ..if outside ,they would seal the exits and slowly and carfully try to approach the sound of gunfire and puzzle out who was doing what to whom while waiting 30 minutes for swat guys to arrive ..the swat guys would then eventually kill or capture the gunman but most of the same victims would already be dead anyway .

 

There was an inquest here in Ireland last week into a police shooting. Now if you believed to the families, these two guys were murdered by the police. The fact that they were trying to rob a post office with guns, was merely a fussy detail. Fortunately most people seem to be taking the more realisic view, that they were a couple of scumbags who did Irish society a favour by removing themselves from it.

 

I'm always amazed by that sort of thing -

"The Police brutally and unnecessarily restrained my poor little darling, who wouldn't hurt a fly"

"The suspect was discovered beating up a little old lady to steal her pension money, and was restrained"

 

For the first statement-how does the guy saying it know anything about police work?

For the second statement: how is it special?

 

the anti gun crowd in the usa has stats for the numbers of children killed by firearms in america each year ...most are tragic accidents or kids handleing the loaded guns of their ganbanger kinfolk .....but the anti gunners also count as children 17 year old felons who die in gun battles with the police while holding up 7 elevens ect ...poor little rasheed would be alive today if it werent for guns ....AND COPS ...lol

 

Sorry, I was unclear - they were intended to be two statements about the same event, one from the mother, one from the Police, following the theme of the post before mine.

 

Now that makes sense.

 

The commander of my Civil War reenacting unit is a lieutenant with the Thomasville Police Department. He injured his knee several years ago wrestling with a suspect, and it looks like he's going to need more surgery for it. The cops do not get paid enough for all the garbage they have to put up with, and not just from the criminals. In Cincinnati, Ohio several years ago, a list was circulated by the city's black leaders of fifteen so-called "martyrs" killed by the Cincinnati PD. Just to show you how screwed up these people are, one of those on this list was a man who decapitated his 15 year old daughter with an ax, then fired on the police when they arrived to arrest him. Not surprisingly, they shot back and killed him. How in the world can anyone call such a man a "martyr"? :roll:

 

I think some people just crave victimhood. Around the time the smoking ban in the UK came in I saw someone on another forum basically claim that this put smokers in England on the same level as jews in Nazi Germany. :-?

 

Incredible.What is the point of having a police force that isn't armed?Surely this was a political decision as opposed to a common sense decision.

 

Well, it's not that surprising, given that most universities nowadays tend to be very left-wing in their outlooks.

 

In many cases, it comes down to a basic conflict between state law... and university "policy."
Some years back, there was a "gun-related incident" at the large state-run university where I work. IIRC, a disgruntled student took a "pot-shot" at one of his professors on the university-campus.
No-one was injured, but in response, they decided to ban staff and students from carrying a gun onto campus... whether they had a legal state permit to carry or not. It was also decided at that time that faculty would "exclusively" be allowed to carry. The rationale being that they had a need to defend themselves.
After an uproar, this was rescinded and the policy was rewritten to state that NO person would be allowed to carry a gun on their person or in their vehicle on university grounds.
I'm a legal gun-owner and a hunter. IF I were to decide to go hunting after work, and had my shotgun in the truck... it is grounds for immediate termination. This flys in the face of current state-law.
Virginia Tech decided to take this mandate one step farther. They opted to ban their entire campus police force from carrying side-arms. My understanding is that if law enforcement personnel were on-campus for a class, their sidearm must be left at at the gate. They would be in violation if they were in class... and armed.
Yes, the liberal bastions of academia ain't got the common-sense God gave a goose.

Tim

 

Personally I can see some logic. For one thing it is a single definate rule, there is no room for misunderstanding or claims of 'I thought it didn't apply to me'. I can see the point in relation to off duty police, since an off duty policeman and an armed lunatic look pretty much the same until the lunatic starts shooting. When I don't see the point is not allowing campus police to carry, since in the case of a shooting incident they'ed be basically useless.

 

Ebar:
Sorry, I disagree and your rationale eludes me.
A police officer is a police officer... on duty or not. They "carry" where-ever they go. The fact they are not in "uniform" is irrelevant.
Is a doctor... not a doctor outside the operating room? Of course not.

All I can say is if YOU can't tell the difference between a lunatic and an off-duty police officer til the lunatic starts shooting... you'll still thank your lucky-stars the off-duty officer was there and armed when bullets start flying.

I watched television footage from the carnage of the Virgina Tech shootings. What I remember most was the police hiding behind trees and their squad-cars with their guns drawn. I didn't see that first officer actually make an attempt to enter the building in question. What in blazes were they waiting for? The SOB to run out of bullets so they could offer him counseling? Too many people died that day because of a lack of common sense and quick, timely response with deadly force.

Tim