Video shows Oregon officer repeatedly punching homeless man as he shouts 'I'm not resisting'

originally posted by: DexterRiley

Given the scenario you've proposed, in principle, I would say yes.

However, the reality of the situation would be quite different. If an average citizen attempted to intervene in a case where 4 cops are giving another average citizen a beat down, if he opened fire, he would almost certainly be shot, or at least arrested and prosecuted. He would likely be found guilty of capital murder, and executed in those states that still practice that form of punishment.

-dex

There's the problem, and a possible solution.

The reason law enforcement continue abusing and killing people is because they know they will get away with it. Their brothers in blue will "investigate" and clear them of any wrongdoing. Prosecutors will decline to prosecute, or in some cases help the defense as much as possible. Judges will hand out lenient sentences. That female cop that shot that handcuffed kid in the back served 8 months of a two year sentence.

Organizations like Black Lives Matter do absolutely squat. They protest, counter-protest, take a knee, and try to "raise awareness" for a problem everyone knows exists. Nothing changes.

Making a change will take action. Here's something they can try:

Spread a message. Tell anyone who will listen about jury nullification. Tell them that if they ever serve on a jury where anyone is charged with a crime against a cop, prosecutor, or judge, they should vote not guilty. No matter the charge, no matter the evidence, no matter the situation, not guilty.

Lying to the cops? Not guilty.
Resisting arrest? Not guilty.
Drug dealer shoots an undercover cop? Not guilty.
Video shows the defendant cutting up a judge with a chainsaw? Not guilty.

Convince one in ten potential jurors, we might see some changes.

a reply to: VictorVonDoom

Making a change will take action. Here's something they can try:

Spread a message. Tell anyone who will listen about jury nullification. Tell them that if they ever serve on a jury where anyone is charged with a crime against a cop, prosecutor, or judge, they should vote not guilty. No matter the charge, no matter the evidence, no matter the situation, not guilty.

Lying to the cops? Not guilty.
Resisting arrest? Not guilty.
Drug dealer shoots an undercover cop? Not guilty.
Video shows the defendant cutting up a judge with a chainsaw? Not guilty.

Convince one in ten potential jurors, we might see some changes.

That's a damn unique approach to curbing the abuse of power that we're seeing far too often in the media.


Another thing the MSM can do is show that many of these incidents are not just racially motivated. People of all colors and persuasions are suffering at the hands of some law enforcement officers.

Perhaps when the people see that it's not just African Americans affected by "overly enthused" cops, they may actually take notice. But as long as it's viewed as just those "other people" who are being harassed and assaulted, the public will at best only pay lip service to effecting real changes in law enforcement.

-dex

a reply to: jburg6

Saying there are good cops when stuff like this is rampant is like saying there are good priests.

Yeah? They rape kids like cops beat people into the pavement when not cooling down during a PR crisis. Then its back to milking and beating the cash cow public.

Fat asses.

Im sorry. There is a problem like the church has one. Too much of doing whatever the hell people want leading to gross indulgences in misconduct.

Its almost encouraged the way its protected.

I dont see good cops speaking out against bad cops like I dont see moderate Muslims speaking out against extremists, or how I dont hear Catholic priests speaking out against child predators,

or anyone else who just does whatever they want in a corrupt and self reinforced system out of anyone's actual control.

a reply to: DexterRiley

I think the MSM is part of the problem.

If they can't make a racial issue out of police brutality, they ignore it.

If the flames they have fanned start getting out of control they try to cool things off. When people start rioting and destroying property, they trot out Jessie Jackson or Al Sharpton or some other African American to cry out for peace and calm. "The police are starting a Racial Sensitivity Retraining Program, things will change!" or some other meaningless platitude.

But if you get a dozen or so people acquitted for murdering police officers, or prosecutors, or judges, I don't think the media would be able to bury that. And they certainly wouldn't want the idea to spread. We might see a change in deeds instead of words.

originally posted by: DexterRiley

One area that I've seen may be applicable to having a trained person at the scene is when officers are dispatched to handle someone who is known to be mentally ill and acting irrationally when they're at home, or some other non-public venue. We've seen a couple of cases where officers were sent out on humanitarian calls to check on, or subdue, someone who is acting irrationally because they've come off their meds; or experienced a mood change because of environmental reasons. In the cases that come to mind, there appeared to be ample time to get a trained officer on the scene before action was taken. The end result was the sick individual sustained fatal or severe injuries.

To a point, I can see that, but again, training and then always having officers on-duty or at-the-ready 24/7 can both be exceptionally expensive and logistically difficult. I'm not saying that it's not possible in many places, but not every city and every police force can afford both the specialized training and the hiring of these trained officers. They cannot force already-hired officers to undergo the special training (unless it's across the board, or maybe rank-related), not can they always ensure that incoming officers are specially trained.

And then there's the periodic recertification that would come along with it, because it would definitely not be a skill that would be readily deployed by an individual without recurring training on the topic (because this is probably a relatively rare occurrence in most PD jurisdictions, where an encounter with a mentally questionable individual escalates to serious injury or death). That recertification and re-training isn't free.

In another case I remember that an officer was harassing a mentally ill homeless man who turned on him. He dumped a whole magazine in the guy to stop him. In a recording of the call from the officer to dispatch after the incident, he sounded like he had just done battle with Lucifer himself. LOL. Maybe with a little training that officer might have behaved a little differently. At the very least, if he had some backup he could have save a dozen or so rounds of ammo.

Now you're playing in questionable territory, because it is absolutely impossible to prove the veracity of your hypotheticals, so we can make up anything that might have occurred and base arguments off of that, but I try to avoid that, as it's a logically fallacious way to discuss an issue, and IMO, doesn't result in anything positive

In any event, like you say, we can agree to disagree to a point--I can see having trained people in large departments who can afford both the cost and the manpower, but as a whole, I don't think that it would be very feasible in the average department.

I certainly would be interested to see a few test cases done, though.

Best regards.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

Thanks for the reply. It's always good for civilians like me to get the perspective of people who have been in the trenches, so to speak.

To a point, I can see that, but again, training and then always having officers on-duty or at-the-ready 24/7 can both be exceptionally expensive and logistically difficult. I'm not saying that it's not possible in many places, but not every city and every police force can afford both the specialized training and the hiring of these trained officers. They cannot force already-hired officers to undergo the special training (unless it's across the board, or maybe rank-related), not can they always ensure that incoming officers are specially trained.

And then there's the periodic recertification that would come along with it, because it would definitely not be a skill that would be readily deployed by an individual without recurring training on the topic (because this is probably a relatively rare occurrence in most PD jurisdictions, where an encounter with a mentally questionable individual escalates to serious injury or death). That recertification and re-training isn't free.

In reading this, I notice that my definition of training has been somewhat inadequate in our discussions.

It didn't occur to me that training for people in law enforcement is somewhat more complicated than it is with civilian business training, for instance. A civilian business training course might teach the student the best way to configure a protocol routing system. If that person later makes an error and breaks an important application for their employer, the corporation may lose some revenue, or at worst suffer a serious public embarrassment by exposing confidential client data. And that's bad enough.

On the other hand, when law enforcement officers receive training and certification in techniques relating to their profession, failure to act within those training guidelines could result in the death of a human being. Whether it was the officer's fault or not, someone is going to attempt to make the case that the officer acted improperly because he or she was trained to handle the situation. So this type of training has to be more detailed, and periodic refresher courses and advanced training has to be provided.

As you indicate, this type of training and the availability of specialists at a moment's notice is more likely to be standard practice in larger police departments. Larger departments with bigger budgets, as well as a greater likelihood of needing this kind of specialist, probably already have this in place. However, in those areas with smaller police departments they usually have access to superior forces, like the state police. Shouldn't the state police agencies have the resources necessary to provide this kind of specialization? I would think that events with longer lead times could sometimes make use of that expertise. However, I do recognize your point that these individuals may not always be available in time to assist in every case.

I'm also curious about how officers are trained to handle people who are about to commit suicide. We are led to believe that the officers attempt to talk the person out of killing themselves. They use all of the standard techniques of attempting to create a rapport with the person, and give them reasons to continue living, etc. Are there officers with special training that handle these situations? Or are all police officers given some training in this area?

Perhaps another option is a paramedic or other first responder can be trained in this area. They wouldn't have to be directly involved in the encounter, but they could offer some advice to the ones who are. An advantage here is that these types of specialists could be more readily available, with more of them trained. Perhaps because their training is already more medically oriented, the training classes would not be as intense.

Getting back to an area of continuing and specialized training that I familiar with, in business these classes are often sought out by employees. It's a few days off from "real" work. And the certification they receive usually carves another notch in the old resume. I know that I've personally parlayed that extra training into better paid positions in the same company as well as other companies seeking out that experience. So, for those police departments that are able to afford it, wouldn't these same incentives apply?

I've gotten a bit too wordy, so I'll have to continue in another post.

-dex

a reply to: SlapMonkey

Now you're playing in questionable territory, because it is absolutely impossible to prove the veracity of your hypotheticals, so we can make up anything that might have occurred and base arguments off of that, but I try to avoid that, as it's a logically fallacious way to discuss an issue, and IMO, doesn't result in anything positive

Perhaps I was a bit flippant in describing the situation. This was a story that has stuck in my head for several years, and I may not have all the facts straight. However, I believe the points that I was trying to make are valid:

1. According to my memory this particular officer was known to be somewhat of a bully. I think we can agree that bullies of one sort or another exist in every facet of life. We have seen a number of videos and other reports that prove that some police departments are infected with these parasites.

One general characteristic of bullies is that they tend to pick on those whom they believe they can easily torment, or those whom they have determined need to be tormented. A mentally ill homeless man seems to be easy pickings for anyone with that mindset.

But one thing to keep in mind is that with some mental illnesses, but by no means all, one precipitating factor in the emergence of the illness is rough and degrading treatment by their peers over the course of a long period of time. In other words, a lifetime of bullying is a strong contributing factor. Couple that with self-abuse like cutting, and you have a ticking time-bomb on your hands; especially if they are not receiving appropriate therapy. Perhaps it would have been worthwhile for the officer to have been able to spot the tell-tale signs of a pending melt-down.

Now, from my perspective, I have to say that some people like this homeless man, who have reached such a low point and are not responding to treatment, or have abandoned treatment altogether, may be better off not having to deal with the situation any more. So, I really don't feel any sorrow for him. I see it as one of my own who went out in a blaze of glory. A fitting and honorable end to a life full of pain.

On the other hand, the LEO has to deal with the memory of this situation for the rest of his life. If I understand it correctly, most police officers who have had to use their service weapon in the line of duty, especially in those cases that lead to a fatal outcome, are profoundly affected. If that's the case here, the officer could potentially have saved himself some pain.

2. Some people who are profoundly mentally ill can be completely unpredictable. Some may cooperate, some may cower in fear, some may become extremely belligerent. They can exhibit behaviors that are nothing short of astounding. Unexpected levels of physical strength and agility, as well as complete disregard for physical pain are not that unusual. I have described it myself as unmitigated rage where all self-preservation mechanisms have been suspended. Perhaps in this case, having some backup may have been indicated.

3. Whenever we reexamine a real life event, or prepare to address a possible future situation, all we have are suppositions as to the specific circumstances. So, just like a strategy game, we have to determine the best course of action to address the position, and predict how those proposed actions will affect the outcome, given past experience.

In making that detailed analysis, we may have to rely on an unusually contrived scenario that boarders on fallacy. Sort of "thinking outside of the box." One thing that helps to limit the pursuit of obvious fictitious scenarios is employing domain experts like yourself. While I might consider a certain situation to be a reasonable area for analysis, a domain expert might know beforehand that such a setting is so highly unlikely that to expend resources studying it is counter productive.

In any event, like you say, we can agree to disagree to a point--I can see having trained people in large departments who can afford both the cost and the manpower, but as a whole, I don't think that it would be very feasible in the average department.

I certainly would be interested to see a few test cases done, though.

I have enjoyed having this discussion with you and others in this thread. I have learned a great deal and now I feel that I can make a more informed argument in the future regarding how additional training in this area could be implemented, and in which cases it may be beneficial. As well as a better understanding of how the split second decisions made by law enforcement officers have to take into consideration their own safety as well as the safety of other bystanders before other extenuating factors come into play; such as the potential for a mentally ill perpetrator.

Respectfully,

-dex

a reply to: DexterRiley

Sorry for the late response--I don't have much time, but felt I should respond since you put a lot of thought into your comments.

I am not law enforcement, but I am former military, I do work in th criminal investigation division of the [insert alphabet agency here], I work directly with special agents and assistant U.S. attorneys, was a paralegal for 4 years, and take an active interest in self-defense training along with police training. I'm no expert and cannot answer all of your stated questions, but I know enough to be slightly educated and even less dangerous on the topic.

I think that you're giving me too much credit when you refer to me as a "domain expert," as I'm no expert in anything. Even the martial arts of which I am a practitioner and apprentice instructor, I am not an expert. Like I noted, I know enough to have a logical and informed debate, but there are still too many holes in my understanding to be able to have all of the answers, or even really any. I can, though, note when I think that ideas have their own holes and discuss that accordingly.

The only things of which I am sure are two thing:

1. An officer will eventually find themself in a dangerous situation in the course of their career, and

2. Every situation will have its own minute differences that will always call for a different informed response.

All that we can do is try our best to train officers to respond intelligently to changing environments at a moment's notice, and that is cultivated through good training, which departments often do not provide consistently enough. But I also believe that much of the onus lies with the officer to seek out extra-departmental training as well, because something that can sometimes get lost in the shuffle of the everyday is we are dealing with multiple lives here--the officers, innocent civilians, and those committing criminal acts--and we must remember that all lives are precious and deserve to be treated as such.

Yes, sometimes officers are left with no choice but to use deadly or physical force, but I just wish that our officers, on the whole, were over-trained in non-lethal offensive and defensive techniques first and foremost, and then not abuse those skills as the bully officer did in the instance in the OP.

I have also enjoyed this discussion.

Best regards.