1,900 people died while being arrested in 2015. Two-thirds were intentionally killed.

a reply to: luthier

Would also love to know how these bad apple defenders can explain purposely higher in low iq?

I doubt you'll like this any better than I do, but according to the St Louis County sheriff:

“We need officers who aren’t going to second-guess the orders given to them. Multiple Harvard studies have shown that individuals with higher levels of intelligence are more prone to corruption and violence towards innocent civilians. This is simply a risk we cannot afford to bring amongst our ranks. The less our officers question the experienced commands of their superiors, the safer we are all going to be as a community.”

Of course, those commanders aren't in the field when and where they need to be able to think on their feet and make those split-second decisions... so exactly what "commands" are they so worried about officers following or not following? Is this why we have the-shoot-first-ask-questions-later mentality???

And for what it's worth, I haven't been able to find any of those Harvard studies he's referencing that cops with higher IQs are more prone to corruption and violence.....

a reply to: Boadicea

Yeah no kidding you can't find them.

It would discredit the FBI, CIA, Boarder Patrol, Homeland Security, and NSA, not to mention every other chain of command structure. Be pretty funny to have generals with 85 Iq's...no not really

Maybe it's because the same lower iq folks raise up to captain and then give stupid commands.

Can you be denied by the military for IQ? National guard? Coast guard?

a reply to: luthier

Good question!

Apparently the military services give aptitude tests, but not IQ tests:

Quora

Armed Forces Requirements for Enlistments

a reply to: Boadicea

I don't think they can kick you out with these tests, I think they are more to track you towards whether your a mechanic or a paratrooper.

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: SlapMonkey
Why should training for a job be considered optional? That is total bull crap. You can't put people in public with weapons and authority that can endanger the public.

I meant extra training other than the bare minimum. Training should be available on a much more frequent basis, but that doesn't mean that every training session need be mandatory (and with the way that LEO's schedules work, that would be impossible). My point was that it should be optional to attend all training, even training outside of work (like some combative jujitsu classes, or Krav Maga, or something effective at ending a thread WITHOUT a firearm or weapon other than one's own body), and that if an officer is willing to do that in order to better themselves as an officer and be better trained for their job of interacting with the public while carrying deadly weapons, they should be compensated for that.

Conversely, those who do the bare minimum should also see that as a relatively negative point on their evaluations.

My assistant wrestling coach is a police Sgt. He thinks cops are woefully under trained. It's obvious if your obese you can't do your job, the unions protect these people even from superiors who want to get rid of them.

I wholeheartedly agree, and police unions are a major part of the problem that keeps LEOs from having incentive (other than fear of dying on any given day) to better train themselves.

We actually my assistant coach and I, take part in teaching police dept. We use stun knives and work on a lot of situations that can occur. The majority of the cops are completely unprepared for making decisions and sizing up threats. Another thing I have done for years is three gun races at my local range. I also talk with the good cops there. Trust me they know there is a problem and they don't want to work with inept cops the union protects either.

I think that we agree more on the subject of police training than we realize. No one wants a partner "in the foxhole" that they can't trust.

You don't seem to grasp the reality out there. Cops are not teamed to handle the stress properly of their job.

I grasp the reality just fine--I advocate better and more frequent training for LEOs here on ATS on a very consistent basis. I think that you're applying an ideology or an ignorance to me that I do not possess.

Cops don't get a pass for not being able to control themselves. They also don't deserve all the blame. If you puposely hire guys with low IQ's they aren't going to be great at making clutch decisions. I certainly blame hiring, unions, and politicians more than them. However they don't get a pass just because the job is hard.

I agree, and I never, EVER have said that they do. But at the same time, they shouldn't get convicted by the court of public opinion when the court members are generally massively ignorant to LEO training, the stresses of the jobs, the letter of the laws and policies, and the totality of the interaction that may have led up to a tiny portion of the event being captured on video.

The problem with the low-IQ assertion is that when the job requires acceptance of the daily possibility that you could have your life threatened or taken, coupled with less-than-stellar pay for doing so, you don't exactly get the MENSA candidates applying for the job. It often takes someone whose heart for helping their fellow citizen is larger than the amount of logic with which they see the pros and (potential) cons of the job. It's either them, or the extreme alpha male who is out to have authority over the peon civilian and nothing else. Very rarely do you find someone like my friend who is a LEO in California, where he's very intelligent and knows the dangers of the job and still opted to become a police officer out of a sense of duty for other people.

I'm in no way demeaning the low-IQ officer, because even those with a low IQ can be very adept and intelligent within their chosen skill, but when it comes to high-stress problem solving, low IQs and a gun in hand is often a bad mix, as are the mega-alpha males with a gun in the same situation.

Again, I think that you and I agree more than we're allowing each other to see, and we're making assumptions before knowledge concerning each other's stances, for the most part.

originally posted by: luthier
You have a very dangerous point of view if you believe a police officer should taser a 72 year old lady "resisting arrest". Like I said the laws themselves are usually the problem and police training tactics reflect those.

And like I said, there was no good way for this to end--it's a LEO up against an adamantly defiant senior citizen. If he used physical force to restrain and arrest her, there are a LOT of things that could have gone wrong and he would be getting screamed at for that.

If he just let her go because she was old, he'd get screamed at for that.

Obviously, he didn't need to shoot her, but if he had, he'd be in jail.

He used non-lethal force to subdue her after multiple--MULTIPLE--verbal communications of the consequences of not listening to the officer. Hell, she even dared him to taze her at the start of the video (which doesn't show the lead-up to the event, so I have no idea how long they were talking before it escalated to this point...do you?)...so, in your infinite understanding and 20/20 hindsight, please give me the best option to arrest someone so blatantly willing to be non-compliant.

Within the social contract if you believe authority should have that kind of power without limit or reason your dangerous to liberty.

There is no way a cop should be able to use a weapon against somebody they can handle with submissions or a fine.

Give me a break with the hyperbole, here. I'm not dangerous to liberty--the cognitive dissonance in that statement is astounding. The LEO gave her ample instruction that she chose to not just ignore, and he made the consequences known, AND this is exactly what most people prefer--a non-lethal end to confrontation with a belligerent, non-compliant civilian.

You're acting like I claim that it was okay that he tied her to a tree and let loose a gattling gun on her because she didn't use a blinker when changing lanes. Stop with the asininity, please, and let's discuss this logically/rationally, or not at all.

A cop should be required to de escalate situations. They were never designed to be an ultimate authority figure until recently.

That's amazing that you think that all officers have such control over belligerent citizenry determined to ignore an officer at every turn. I'm guessing that you don't have children if you believe that an individual can control the actions of another without fail.

LEOs should be TRAINED to de-escalate situations, but there is never a single guarantee that the de-escalation will happen because of the human variable of every LEO-citizen interaction. Plus, tell me how tazing and arresting someone who has tried twice to get back in their vehicle (to do who knows what) isn't a de-escalation of a situation.

Just because you don't like the tactic used doesn't me that it was an escalation of the stop.

originally posted by: Boadicea
a reply to: SlapMonkey
The officer had no reason to believe she was a threat to anyone -- including himself.

Wrong. The fact that she was attempting twice to get back to her vehicle is absolutely a reason for the officer to consider her a potential threat to himself and others on the highway.

Do you think that LEOs should just let anyone that they stop and have exit a vehicle (which in and of itself is abnormal, so she must have been doing something to warrant having her get out in the first place) who is acting belligerent and non-compliant to just get back to their vehicle?

Further, she was not violating anyone's inalienable rights, and therefore there was no just cause to violate her inalienable rights. Any law whose enforcement violates a person's inalienable rights for any reason other than violating another person's rights is a bad law. Including any law that makes resisting arrest or failure to comply the sole crime committed....

Really, trying to argue "inalienable rights" here? When you are suspected of or caught in the act of committing a felony (or breaking any law, for that matter), you give up your "inalienable right" to liberty, be it detainment or, after a trial, incarceration. But what you don't do is get to basically raise your middle finger to an officer in the process of arresting you and think that you can just walk to your truck and leave.

You can dislike that reality all that you want to, but your reality is incongruous with the actual reality. And to be fair, I have no reason why this lady was pulled over in the first place--do you? If so, are you willing to share with the class? I appear to have missed that lecture.

I agree with the premise of your argument, but without knowing the "why" behind her being pulled over and extracted from her vehicle prior to the start of this video, I can't back your claims in this particular instance. Plus, like I said, current reality differs from the ideology of libertarianism at the moment, and since it does, I choose to live in reality until things change--if they ever will.

a reply to: Boadicea


I'm betting most of these are people running from law enforcement. We had just yesterday a car running from the police had 3 people inside and apparently the driver thought it was a good idea to exit the interstate doing 80. Needless to say they rolled killing all three passengers. So I'm pretty sure those three will be in the statistics for next year.

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: Boadicea
Can you be denied by the military for IQ? National guard? Coast guard?

Well, since IQ tests are basically subjective and evolve and change over time, the measure of an intelligence quotient is really a non-issue in life.

That said, the military has the ASVAB test (or, at least it did when I joined back in 1998). It's very similar to an SAT or ACT test, where it just tests your ability in certain areas of study.

For what it's worth, I missed four questions in total when I took it. That doesn't really mean anything except that I was able to pick from a broad range of Military Occupational Skills--until I came up being color-deficient to reds and greens...anything that has to do with wires was suddenly a no-no. I guess that they didn't want me on the bomb disposal team

But, yes, I do believe that you can be denied entry into the military if you score low enough on the test, although I'm willing to bet that the bar is set pretty low, and that it raises and falls dependent upon the demand for recruits.

When a little old lady resists arrest, tazing is overkill.

If the officer had physically subdued her, with proper training he would have been able to control the amount of force he used, and to limit it so as not to cause physical harm. With a perp who is vastly underpowered, this should not be an issue.

Sometimes I have to force my young sons (5 and 3) to do things they don't want to do, including the ever-relevant "get in the car right now."

First, you try to reason/negotiate. If that fails, sometimes you have to pick them up and strap them into their seats. Not once have I ever hurt one of my children doing this.

Admittedly, an old woman has more mass than a child, but the average 70+ year old woman should not be a challenge for a properly trained LEO. If she is, perhaps he should find another job.

If he couldn't physically subdue that old lady, I have a hard time believing he'd be able to get my three year old in the car. He's huge for his age (99 percentile) and is scrappy as hell.

Would he taze a three year old?

originally posted by: Boadicea
her inalienable rights. Any law whose enforcement violates a person's inalienable rights

Care to detail these "inalienable rights"?

a reply to: SlapMonkey

The fact that she was attempting twice to get back to her vehicle is absolutely a reason for the officer to consider her a potential threat to himself and others on the highway.

No, attempting to leave is not a threat. One can imagine whatever one likes; but it doesn't make it true.

Do you think that LEOs should just let anyone that they stop and have exit a vehicle (which in and of itself is abnormal, so she must have been doing something to warrant having her get out in the first place)...

Abnormal? I don't know about that. I have been asked to get out of my vehicle twice by officers when pulled over -- once when I was driving, once when my husband was driving. I have no idea why they asked us to exit the vehicle; but neither time were we doing anything "suspicious" beyond traffic violations. Both times, we had all our paperwork in order and readily accessible. Both times we were given warnings, but no citation.

...who is acting belligerent and non-compliant to just get back to their vehicle?

Anyone? No. This woman? Yes. It's not illegal -- nor should it be -- to act belligerently. As for her walking away, he had all her information and there are other and better ways to enforce the law.

Really, trying to argue "inalienable rights" here?

Damn right I am. Those inalienable rights are borne of Natural Law -- thee law of the land -- and all status and penal codes must conform to that standard.

When you are suspected of or caught in the act of committing a felony (or breaking any law, for that matter), you give up your "inalienable right" to liberty, be it detainment or, after a trial, incarceration.

Not just "no" but HELL NO!

adjective 1. not alienable; not transferable to another or capable of being repudiated: inalienable rights.

Dictionary.com

But what you don't do is get to basically raise your middle finger to an officer in the process of arresting you and think that you can just walk to your truck and leave.

Obviously not as long as there are people who have no respect for inalienable rights and the Constitution who want cops to be judge/jury/executioner on the side of the road....

You can dislike that reality all that you want to...

And I will.

...but your reality is incongruous with the actual reality.

I understand very well that what should be is not what is.

And to be fair, I have no reason why this lady was pulled over in the first place--do you? If so, are you willing to share with the class? I appear to have missed that lecture.

Lecture? I missed it too I guess. I just read an article I found with Google... She was doing 60 mph in a temporary 45 mph construction zone on a highway.

I agree with the premise of your argument, but without knowing the "why" behind her being pulled over and extracted from her vehicle prior to the start of this video, I can't back your claims in this particular instance.

Fair enough; which is why I did my own due diligence before forming any opinions.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

So, "ridiculous" numbers...really? I think that things are working out pretty well, overall, in a nation where the ignorant narrative is that we are full of blood-thirsty LEOs who disregard the wellbeing of citizens and just fire at will whenever it suits them. 

In comparison to the UK, a country that has about 1/5 to 1/6 of the population of the USA. The numbers are still dreadful. Why can't you see that.

Do you want to know how many deaths in custody or related to arrests here in the same year? 34

Yes, 34.

Deaths in custody, UK

Granted, the US is a different nation. A nation with a much bigger number of armed citizens, criminal or not.

Regardless, go compare those stats you have with any nation... Even South Africa, you'll find that the US may have a problem with policing.

In terms of "risk assessment" it would appear that US LEOs are fairly more dangerous than police officers anywhere else in the Western world, quite possibly a good portion of the whole world.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

I am 40. I have three kids. I teach kids wrestling. Teenagers to be exact.

I think you need to think through this 72 year old situation?

Can a police office tell you to do anything? In that video what did the woman do? Is she forced to sign a ticket? So now you are restraining a woman for not taking a ticket that goes into the system regardless? The whole scenario is to assert that officers authority. When you start punishing people with force for not "respecting your authority" and nothing else your treading into tyranny.

If the woman struck the officer while he tried to restrain her for actually doing something wrong not ignoring the officer, he has every right to restrain her even if she breaks a hip, if the guy pushes the situation because his feelings are hurt and escalates the situation it's his fault. He should be fired.

And a taser is pretty much chance deadly force on an ederly person.

As far as training goes they need it not to be volunteer. For their safety and for ours. You don't just let soldiers not do pt. If you need to change shift rotations so be it. How about divert the effort to people harming society to begin with.


Police were not meant to use their authority whenever they feel disrespected which is exactly what the court saw in that case.

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: Boadicea
her inalienable rights. Any law whose enforcement violates a person's inalienable rights

Care to detail these "inalienable rights"?

The right to not be tased by a guy who had his feelings hurt when an old lady yelled at him.

Unfortunately, too many officers are drawn to the career because it allows them to assert dominance over others. That's one reason why the job hosts a disproportionately large percentage of sociopaths, along with doctors and politicians.


However, off all the careers sporting high percentages of sociopathic personalities, LEO is the one that brings them into routine contact with people who are likely to challenge their authority, and whom they are authorized to use physical force on.

It's not a good combination.

originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: Boadicea

I'm betting most of these are people running from law enforcement.

I hadn't thought of that, but you're probably right. If not most, then still a significant proportion. I was watching a TV show called "First 48 hours" or something like that, and I was just floored by how stupid some of those perps were.

We had just yesterday a car running from the police had 3 people inside and apparently the driver thought it was a good idea to exit the interstate doing 80. Needless to say they rolled killing all three passengers. So I'm pretty sure those three will be in the statistics for next year.

Oh Lordy... that's sad... and pathetic.

a reply to: hellobruce

Care to detail these "inalienable rights"?

Think "from nature and Nature's God," not from mankind... and "self-evident," if you can do it for yourself by yourself, then it is your right. And, conversely, if one must use force against another to impose one's own will, it is a violation of those rights.

originally posted by: Boadicea
a reply to: hellobruce

Care to detail these "inalienable rights"?

Think "from nature and Nature's God," not from mankind... and "self-evident," if you can do it for yourself by yourself, then it is your right. And, conversely, if one must use force against another to impose one's own will, it is a violation of those rights.

So as expected you cannot actually detail these "inalienable rights" of hers that were supposedly violated....

a reply to: hellobruce

So as expected you cannot actually detail these "inalienable rights" of hers that were supposedly violated....

Awwww... my apologies. Apparently you cannot actually apply general principles to this specific incident. I guess I presumed too much when I spoke to the principles involved, instead of spelling it out for you.

Let's start here: When she chose to walk away from the cop, she did so of herself and by herself and for herself, without needing anything of anyone -- including that cop. That was her self-evident INALIENABLE right to do so.

When that cop used physical force to stop her from walking away, he violated her INALIENABLE rights to do for herself and by herself.

He did not use that force to protect himself or anyone else. She was not a threat to him or anyone else. He used that force to impose his will and the will of the "state" on that woman in a brutal and potentially lethal manner. That was a gross violation of her INALIENABLE rights.

And now, having said all this, I don't believe for a minute that you did not know this, but for whatever reason, you chose to play deaf, dumb and blind. Okay. That's your choice. And I will simply appreciate the opportunity to explain this for those who do not know.

Thank you.