a reply to: Boadicea
I think you might have read to far into my response. It does not cover police brutality in that sense and never should. If an officer has to resort
to methods that are illegal should not be wearing the uniform. What I am referring to is the manner in which law enforcement does there job. We
are not a judge nor jury an cannot determine a persons guilt or innocence. That is specifically reserved to the judge / jury.
If I stop a person for speeding and issue a citation and that persons does not agree that is fine. However trying to argue the point on the side of
the road is not the proper venue for that argument. People all to often want to challenge the actions of law enforcement, which again is perfectly
acceptable but only if done properly.
By properly I mean filing complaints with the department, with the prosecuting attorney etc. If I issue a citation for speeding it does not mean the
PA wont dismiss the charge.
The purpose behind the law in Missouri with regards to law enforcement authority is present for a reason. Its not done so much to protect law
enforcement or to silence those who don't like law enforcement action. Its present to prevent a situatio0n occurring between law e enforcement and
the citizens we serve. Its present to ensure any issues between the 2 parties is dealt with in a proper setting.
If I issue a citation and the driver gets out of the car to argue we have an issue. For starters its a safety issue, not only for me but the person
im dealing with. The moment we take an action that restricts a persons ability to move freely (detained / arrested / stopped / etc) we are
responsible for their safety.
Secondly arguing does no good as the officer made up their mind. Hence the reason it needs to go to the people who supervise the offices as well as
the PA. If I tell the person to get back in their car and they refuse, they opened the door for possible arrest. Law Enforcement is not the group you
argue right / wrong /guilt / innocence to.
The law is to prevent people from taking an action against law enforcement whose results can be an arrest or felony charges.
Brutality is a different beast al together but one must ask the question -
"What is Police Brutality?"
More often than not I come across people who think they know what the law is when in reality they don't have a clue.
As a prime example -
The 4th amendment to the US Constitution, Search and Seizure, does not apply to the individual but the government.
The 5th amendment, self incrimination, only applies if the person is in custody and being asked guilt seeking questions.
Requesting identification from an individual at a lawful stop, detention or arrest is not covered by the 4th or 5th amendment and is considered
A person can kill someone, be investigated, arrested, charged, tried and sentenced to life / death penalty without ever being read their rights.
A traffic stop is a technical temporary seizure under the 4th amendment. As such the driver and other people in the vehicle temporarily have their
freedom of movement restricted. The safety of everyone in that stopped vehicle is the responsibility of the officer making the stop.
If I arrest a person and they ask me for legal advice I am prohibited by law from giving it. Its not our area of responsibility and goes to reinforce
the purpose of the law in question. Which is there is a proper place and time to argue about officer actions and to be honest its not with the officer
himself and alone.
Don't get me wrong I understand what you are saying I just think you read a bit to far into my response.
When we use the term police brutality we must use it in its proper legal context. It cannot be used based on the opinion of the person using the term.
What one person would call brutality another would call it something else entirely. Using personal opinion instead of established legal definitions
opens the door to conflict on both sides and does no one any good.
The us verse them mentality is killing all of us. Only when there is meaningful 2 way conversation on both sides can we begin to fix the rift in
It is a 2 way street.
Hope that clarifies my statements.
I noticed an issue in one of your what if scenarios, specifically the little girl in the car accident.
The castle doctrine only applies inside your home or if a person is entering your house in a tumultuous manner (breaking in). The castle doctrine does
not cover using deadly force on a person who is beating on the front door or ringing the door bell. In those instances a person can either answer the
door, talk through the door, or call 911 and have an officer respond. You are under no obligation to answer the door.
I also have no issues with them. My department have audio / video in the cars, our interview rooms and our jail (albeit no audio for those areas). The
Tasers we are issued, once they are activated (turned on) they record audio and video. Only our evidence officers can access the camera and taser
recording systems to preserve chain of custody.
We do not use body cameras but have looked at them and will eventually be getting some in the future. Some agencies in California re teating out
cameras on their duty weapons.
The flip side is a camera does not always show the "truth" -
I will try and find the videos.. I posted them on this site before.
What they show is a police pursuit and fatal shooting of the driver from 2 different dash cams at 2 different angles. The pursuit ends in the
parking lot of a strip mall. You see in dash cam on the officer exiting his vehicle and pointing his gun at the suspect who is moving away from the
officer. The next thing you "see" is the suspect being shot in the back and killed.
Dash cam 2 shows the same situation from a different angle. You see the driver moving away from the officer. In this view you see the suspect pull a
dark item from his waste band ad starts to turn towards the officer, at which point the secondary officer shoots and kills the driver.
If only video one existed it clearly looks like the officer short and killed the suspect by shooting him in the back. Dash cam 2 placed the actions
and shooting into context. It was 2 white officers and a black suspect.
The camera does not always show the entire truth.
edit on 24-11-2014 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)