Originally posted by Deafseeingeyedog
reply to post by Xcathdra
Very intelligent feedback and much appreciated!
My hypothetical situation i had in mind, to be specific, would be something along the lines of where there's a 6 foot tall 200 pound cop, thrashing
with excessive force, a 110 lb female in the middle of a protest. With witness's, would there be any legal way for a group of citizens to detain a cop
in order to halt the beatings and at the same time, get the attention of the authorities who would be able to take real action?
Yes, i am an idealist, please don't shoot.
** sorry for long response and grammer. Its been a long day)*
Actually im glad people ask these questions and look for feedback. I do not live in New York, so my responses are based on my state and Supreme Court
rulings (which do affect all states in the same manner).
Something to keep in mind when an officer uses force.
The review of that force is what did the officer perceive the exact moment they used the force (Supreme Court ruling standard).
What you describe is a whole bunch of people protesting, watching an officer manhandle the female in the middle. What is not being taken into account
is what the officer sees.
He is not only dealing with that female, but the crowd as well. Whether it occurs or not, the crowd is a consideration and the actions / tone of the
crowd can be used to justify the officers actions (based on the hypotheticla mind you).
People have this uncanny ability to underestimate women. I would glady square off with a 6'3 240 male who is solid muscle than a 110 pound female.
Females do not fight fair and with society today the general principle is a male should never punhc / hit / strike a female. Its a foreign concept for
a male to engage a female in a fight, and we have a tendancy to use less force than normal solely because we are dealing with a female.
What could be perceived as an over reaction by the crowd is easily seen as a potentially violent escalation of the use of force. In that instance the
goal (as well as Supreme court ruling) is to end the encounter as fast as possible using the least amount of force neccisaary.
In the officers mind, surrounded by the crowd, the minddset is easily end the encounter because of the crowd, which can justify the officers use of
I bring this up because people ignore that fact when they suggest trying to arrest an officer. An officer who is arresting a female is using force -
less than lethal. If another person becomes involved, that person just escalted the situation to a 2 on one situation now. If the person arrested is
already in handcuffs, the officer is responsible for that persons safety.
Why does that matter? Because almiost every single state in the Union allows and individual to use deadly force to protect themselves and others. A
person does not have to be armed to force an officer to use deadly force (contrary to peoples opinions and TV). A 2 on one encounter can be
articulated as a deadly force encounter.
The other thing people dont take into account is our duty belts and whats on it. We are trained in weapons retention, however its never 2/3/4 people
on one officer. Any object that could be used to incapacitate an officer can be taken as a deadly weapon.
Reason being it would allow a perosn access to our pepper cpray / OC / Taser / Duty Weapon / Backup duty weapon / knife / handcuffs / etc etc etc (if
you are asking about the handcuffs, and unsecured handcuff can be swug with such force it can penetrate your skull).
This topic is not aa black and white as people think it is. I urger very strongsly for people to learn the laws and how they work before even
attmepting to go down this road.
In the end, being a good witnesses can often do more good than taking action where the end result could be your death.
Other food for thought - Supreme Court ruling states a person cannot resist an unlawful arrest. An incident occured in Missouri where a perosn was
stopped, and by the time it was overwith they had to forcibly remove the lady from her car to make the arrest. She argued she did not violate any laws
In the end, the origional charge (reason for the stop) was found to be invalid. However, she was found guilty of resisting an arrest.
The Police do not file the charges - The PA did. Its the PAs repsonibility to decide if the elements are present for the law to be violated. Just
because they state there is not enough, doesnt mean the actions by law enforcement were illegal.
Depending on state, a person can be arrested and booked into jail anywhere from 24-72 hours. During that time a PC statment must be submitted to the
PA, who then decides if they will prosecute. If they decline, or it goes beyond the time frame, the perosn is released.
edit on 3-10-2011 by
Xcathdra because: (no reason given)