Cont: The behaviour of US police officers - part 2

[Nessie]

The speed at which US cops can be sacked is surprising. It is so fast that it is hard to see how there is any due process.

 

[PitPat]

Never mind

 

[Bob001]

The speed at which US cops can be sacked is surprising. It is so fast that it is hard to see how there is any due process.

Depends on where. It's usually not easy. There are something like 18,000 independent police and sheriffs' departments the U.S., and a large majority, particularly in big cities, are covered by union contracts. In some places, cops have been fired for obvious misconduct, and after a lengthy and expensive appeals process, the union has gotten them reinstated. I would guess -- without evidence -- that union contracts in the South, which is notoriously anti-union, have fewer protections than they might in NYC or Boston.

But it's hard to imagine a place where getting charged with murder wouldn't be grounds for termination. That's not quite the same as, say, abusing sick leave.

Some background:
https://news.yahoo.com/swift-firing-police-rare-could-194109128.html
https://www.businessinsider.com/pol...n-arbitration-firing-bad-officers-2020-6?op=1

 

[Gulliver Foyle]

Depends on where. It's usually not easy. There are something like 18,000 independent police and sheriffs' departments the U.S., and a large majority, particularly in big cities, are covered by union contracts. In some places, cops have been fired for obvious misconduct, and after a lengthy and expensive appeals process, the union has gotten them reinstated. I would guess -- without evidence -- that union contracts in the South, which is notoriously anti-union, have fewer protections than they might in NYC or Boston.

But it's hard to imagine a place where getting charged with murder wouldn't be grounds for termination. That's not quite the same as, say, abusing sick leave.

Some background:
https://news.yahoo.com/swift-firing-police-rare-could-194109128.html
https://www.businessinsider.com/pol...n-arbitration-firing-bad-officers-2020-6?op=1

I'm guessing that, like in Thatcher's Britain, the police union is the only one on good terms with the government. Mainly because it's perfectly happy to see its members break other trades union.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

contradictory orders

Regarding the Tyre Nichols case, I was able to read the first line to a story: “A [New York] Times analysis found that officers gave dozens of contradictory and unachievable orders to Mr. Nichols.” I do not have a subscription to the NYT, however. This is a little reminiscent of the Daniel Shipman incident, and it also raises the question of how one is supposed to comply.

 

[Thermal]

Regarding the Tyre Nichols case, I was able to read the first line to a story: “A [New York] Times analysis found that officers gave dozens of contradictory and unachievable orders to Mr. Nichols.” I do not have a subscription to the NYT, however. This is a little reminiscent of the Daniel Shipman incident, and it also raises the question of how one is supposed to comply.

Daniel Shaver and others, too. Police don't have any kind of standard engaging procedure, which kind of makes sense, given the chaos of even a clean arrest. Just get the suspect under control however it strikes you. One guy screams "hands up!", another "on the ground!". You can't win, can't draw, but for damn sure can lose.

 

[shemp]

Regarding the Tyre Nichols case, I was able to read the first line to a story: “A [New York] Times analysis found that officers gave dozens of contradictory and unachievable orders to Mr. Nichols.” I do not have a subscription to the NYT, however. This is a little reminiscent of the Daniel Shipman incident, and it also raises the question of how one is supposed to comply.

They are not supposed to comply. They are supposed to give the cops the excuse to beat the crap out of them or shoot them.

Reminds me of this exchange:

James Bond: "You expect me to talk?"

Goldfinger: "No Mr. Bond, I expect you to die!"

 

[Suddenly]

I don't know if this were mentioned in this thread but worth repeating.

Cops raid semi-obscure rapper Afroman's house. Afroman has cameras recording the raid. Afroman clowns on the police by making several songs with videos including video from the raid.



Raid was in part for kidnapping and there has been nothing come out to support that. Which is wild because given how stupid the cops look in this raid you'd assume they'd be out there screaming about any at all credible basis for such a warrant...

 

[Thermal]

Broken link yo.

Here's the whole story featuring the video "Will You Help Me Repair My Door?"

Deserves it's own thread, tbh. Cops cut off his home security video.

https://www.vice.com/en/article/7k83gq/afroman-raided-by-cops-interview

 

[Chris_Halkides]

principles of engagement

Daniel Shaver and others, too. Police don't have any kind of standard engaging procedure, which kind of makes sense, given the chaos of even a clean arrest. Just get the suspect under control however it strikes you. One guy screams "hands up!", another "on the ground!". You can't win, can't draw, but for damn sure can lose.

Your point about every situation being different is well taken. However, I have to wonder whether or not police could be trained in certain principles to alleviate the problem, with the understanding that there might be exceptions.

Let me engage in a bit of thinking out loud. One such principle could be that only one officer gives commands. Another might be that the officer should order the person being taken into custody to announce what he will do next. So if two orders ("put up your hands" and "lie down") are given, the person would announce one of the two and then presumably perform it. This might minimize surprises.

 

[plague311]

Another might be that the officer should order the person being taken into custody to announce what he will do next. So if two orders ("put up your hands" and "lie down") are given, the person would announce one of the two and then presumably perform it. This might minimize surprises.

That's a lot to expect every citizen in this country to understand. This a problem with the police, not with the people being arrested. They are the ones barking commands that would be impossible, and they should have to figure it out or risk going to prison for killing someone for no reason.

The rest of the civilized world seems to do this a zillion times better than the US. Is it because the rest of the world is smarter? They're able to handle more commands? Or, realistically, is it because their police are properly trained, generally unarmed, and don't think of themselves as the end all?

 

[Thermal]

Your point about every situation being different is well taken. However, I have to wonder whether or not police could be trained in certain principles to alleviate the problem, with the understanding that there might be exceptions.

Let me engage in a bit of thinking out loud. One such principle could be that only one officer gives commands. Another might be that the officer should order the person being taken into custody to announce what he will do next. So if two orders ("put up your hands" and "lie down") are given, the person would announce one of the two and then presumably perform it. This might minimize surprises.

I think that's a great idea, and am a little surprised it's not standard protocol. Confronting a suspect, the ranking officer or first on the scene declares themselves quarterback. They do the talking, others do the acting. It would surely get complicated with multiple suspects, but we see so many with one suspect that it should be worthwhile to adopt.

 

[Thermal]

That's a lot to expect every citizen in this country to understand. This a problem with the police, not with the people being arrested. They are the ones barking commands that would be impossible, and they should have to figure it out or risk going to prison for killing someone for no reason

Fair point, but my experience is that it actually works. I've had cops who thought I was a "bad guy" shouting at me, and I have literally said in a loud voice with hands raised "I'm going to slowly lift my shirt and show no weapons...I'm going to reach in my pocket for my ID" and that kind of stuff. They kept pointing at me but calmed down fairly quick.

 

[Bob001]

Fair point, but my experience is that it actually works. I've had cops who thought I was a "bad guy" shouting at me, and I have literally said in a loud voice with hands raised "I'm going to slowly lift my shirt and show no weapons...I'm going to reach in my pocket for my ID" and that kind of stuff. They kept pointing at me but calmed down fairly quick.

That's great, if you have the presence of mind to do it, but a driver who is drunk or confused or even belligerent doesn't deserve to get stomped or killed. And if the cop responds "Shut up! Don't talk!" you're kinda screwed. And I would not be reaching for my waistband or lifting my shirt under any circumstances. Maybe shouting "What do you want me to do?" would get them to focus on one thing at a time.

Or maybe not. Example no. 1: Daniel Shaver was just trying to keep his shorts up.
https://www.cnn.com/2017/12/11/opinions/daniel-shaver-shooting-opinion-gagliano/index.html

 

[Thermal]

That's great, if you have the presence of mind to do it, but a driver who is drunk or confused or even belligerent doesn't deserve to get stomped or killed. And if the cop responds "Shut up! Don't talk!" you're kinda screwed. And I would not be reaching for my waistband or lifting my shirt under any circumstances. Maybe shouting "What do you want me to do?" would get them to focus on one thing at a time.

Or maybe not. Example no. 1: Daniel Shaver was just trying to keep his shorts up.
https://www.cnn.com/2017/12/11/opinions/daniel-shaver-shooting-opinion-gagliano/index.html

Yeah, the burden shouldn't always be on the suspect to take control. Sometimes it will work, sometimes not. It may have worked for me in the instance I am thinking of because I was bigger and older than the cops (who kind of thought I was going to shoot them) and I used my loud and clear commanding "dad voice". One cop giving the suspect orders and other cops shutting up should really be SOP though.

 

[Distracted1]

Your point about every situation being different is well taken. However, I have to wonder whether or not police could be trained in certain principles to alleviate the problem, with the understanding that there might be exceptions.

Let me engage in a bit of thinking out loud. One such principle could be that only one officer gives commands. Another might be that the officer should order the person being taken into custody to announce what he will do next. So if two orders ("put up your hands" and "lie down") are given, the person would announce one of the two and then presumably perform it. This might minimize surprises.

The idea of having only one cop giving the instructions seems pretty good. The second idea seems weaker and more prone to creating problems.

It seems so self evident that your first point makes sense that one wonders how a group of police would not behave that way organically. Why would I tell a suspect to put up his hands if I just heard another officer telling the same suspect to put his hands behind his back, or somesuch?.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

clear and concise

"The difficulty in assessing intent is not limited to cases of concealed weapons. After shooting an armed suspect who had recently shot at the police, officers held the severely injured suspect at gunpoint. With the gun still visible in the suspect’s hand, one officer ordered the suspect not to move, while a second officer ordered the suspect to “show me your hands!” When the suspect moved his hand (still holding the gun), the second officer shot at him." Force Science

Specifically with respect to Mr. Nichols the police gave 71 commands in 13 minutes. A private training company, Lexipol, advised, "Commands should be clear and concise. And commands should be given by one officer only."

 

[Darat]

Senior officials ordered destruction of Vallejo police shooting evidence

....“Per City Attorney this case has been approved for disposal,” she wrote in the file’s evidence log at 2:31 p.m. “Final disposition: Destroyed.”

Over the next several days, Encarnacion would empty box after box of evidence of police shootings into a large city dumpster.

In January 2021, officials for the city of Vallejo intentionally — and with approval from a senior attorney for the city — destroyed key evidence in multiple police killings and one non-fatal shooting, documents obtained in a public records lawsuit filed by Open Vallejo show. The city destroyed the records although many were set to be disclosed under California transparency laws — a potential crime, according to a motion filed by this newsroom last month. ....​

It is endemic.


ETA: And to top it all:

...Among the items to have been spared from the purge were a few hundred dollars kept for “departmental use” from the victims, including $132.30 that belonged to Romero....​

 

[gnome]

The idea of having only one cop giving the instructions seems pretty good. The second idea seems weaker and more prone to creating problems.

It seems so self evident that your first point makes sense that one wonders how a group of police would not behave that way organically. Why would I tell a suspect to put up his hands if I just heard another officer telling the same suspect to put his hands behind his back, or somesuch?.

Well, because then you can say they were non-compliant no matter what they do. It's like yelling "Stop resisting!" whether they are or not.

The trouble with pointing out the confusion and contradiction, is that these are features for police, not flaws.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Yeah, the burden shouldn't always be on the suspect to take control.

It's kind of horrifying that you're able to state it that weakly. The police should always assume the burden of taking control, and do it appropriately. Many, if not all, of these utterly unjustifiable killings stem from the incompetence to do so of the officers on the scene. They then use lethal force to resolve a situation they themselves have created.

Dave