Oh my and it only gets worse...

[Summerwind]

In this other thread, I describe an incident I had this morning with the police. Though this is related, it brings a whole new question to the forefront. Here's the original situation http://www.debatepolitics.com/law-and-order/222752-absolutely-ufb-new-post.html

I decided to call the related police department and let them know how this cop behaved, I was transferred to the watch commander. She listened and then said, "well would it matter to you what he was being questioned over?"
I said, "no, it doesn't matter, if he's not giving the police trouble then they shouldn't be overly aggressive."
She said, "so it doesn't matter to you if there was concern he was a child molester."
I repeated, "no, it doesn't matter, what matters is how he is behaving with the police who stopped him, and he was quite passive through out."
She tried again, "what if it was your kid we thought he molested."
And a third time, I repeated myself. "Absolutely doesn't matter. What matters is how he behaves with the police, if he's not giving issue, they can handcuff him without issues.

So here's the new question it brings to the fore...
How did we get to the point that the watch commander of a decent sized city somehow thinks it's okay to be unnecessarily aggressive depending on the suspected crime, even before there's any evidence a that person being questioned was involved. In the case I recorded, they let him go, so I guess he didn't have anything to do with whatever they stopped him for.
And do you think it's okay for police to be aggressive with a passive suspect, depending on the crime alleged?
Also if it were a friend or family member who was the victim, would that effect your answer?

 

[Lutherf]

You mentioned that you believed the cop was being overly aggressive. That doesn't mean that he was being overly aggressive.

If the cops got a complaint about a person fitting a particular description acting in a suspicious manner I expect them to seek out and detain that person to interview them. If, after being detained, the person of interest becomes argumentative or evasive I expect the cops to take additional steps to confirm the exact circumstances of the situation. That might seem "overly aggressive" to you but it's simply part of the necessary process.

 

[Glen Contrarian]

In this other thread, I describe an incident I had this morning with the police. Though this is related, it brings a whole new question to the forefront. Here's the original situation http://www.debatepolitics.com/law-and-order/222752-absolutely-ufb-new-post.html

I decided to call the related police department and let them know how this cop behaved, I was transferred to the watch commander. She listened and then said, "well would it matter to you what he was being questioned over?"
I said, "no, it doesn't matter, if he's not giving the police trouble then they shouldn't be overly aggressive."
She said, "so it doesn't matter to you if there was concern he was a child molester."
I repeated, "no, it doesn't matter, what matters is how he is behaving with the police who stopped him, and he was quite passive through out."
She tried again, "what if it was your kid we thought he molested."
And a third time, I repeated myself. "Absolutely doesn't matter. What matters is how he behaves with the police, if he's not giving issue, they can handcuff him without issues.

So here's the new question it brings to the fore...
How did we get to the point that the watch commander of a decent sized city somehow thinks it's okay to be unnecessarily aggressive depending on the suspected crime, even before there's any evidence a that person being questioned was involved. In the case I recorded, they let him go, so I guess he didn't have anything to do with whatever they stopped him for.
And do you think it's okay for police to be aggressive with a passive suspect, depending on the crime alleged?
Also if it were a friend or family member who was the victim, would that effect your answer?

IMO the reasons that we see police as being more aggressive is due to three factors:

- it may be that they've always been rather aggressive, but now we have video via cell phones...and we have mass media that's finally paying a little attention.

- when the police are on duty, they know that there are literally hundreds of millions of guns are out there in America, and knowing that they are truly laying their lives on the line forces them to address each situation as potentially presenting a deadly threat to themselves. This changes their psychology on a personal level, and so changes the attitude on an organizational level.

- the fact that their actions are being more publicly scrutinized - and often criticized, even pilloried by the press - forces the police to become more defensive of their actions, and they "close ranks" as a result.

The only real solutions that I can see are:

- sensible gun control, especially that which doesn't allow bad guys to legally buy guns just because gun nuts don't want to have their precious phallic symbols regulated.

- ending the drug war. It's stupid...and tragic on a grand scale.

- immigration reform.

- and forcing the police across the nation from the top down to wear body cams, use dash cams, and accept the idea that yes, they SERVE the public and they must always act with professionalism, in ways that when filmed and broadcast would never call their actions into question. Personally, the military did this a long time ago - one's conduct must be above reproach 24/7, or one's career might be over.

 

[Summerwind]

IMO the reasons that we see police as being more aggressive is due to three factors:

- it may be that they've always been rather aggressive, but now we have video via cell phones...and we have mass media that's finally paying a little attention.

- when the police are on duty, they know that there are literally hundreds of millions of guns are out there in America, and knowing that they are truly laying their lives on the line forces them to address each situation as potentially presenting a deadly threat to themselves. This changes their psychology on a personal level, and so changes the attitude on an organizational level.

- the fact that their actions are being more publicly scrutinized - and often criticized, even pilloried by the press - forces the police to become more defensive of their actions, and they "close ranks" as a result.

The only real solutions that I can see are:

- sensible gun control, especially that which doesn't allow bad guys to legally buy guns just because gun nuts don't want to have their precious phallic symbols regulated.

- ending the drug war. It's stupid...and tragic on a grand scale.

- immigration reform.

- and forcing the police across the nation from the top down to wear body cams, use dash cams, and accept the idea that yes, they SERVE the public and they must always act with professionalism, in ways that when filmed and broadcast would never call their actions into question. Personally, the military did this a long time ago - one's conduct must be above reproach 24/7, or one's career might be over.

I appreciate your opinion on the related topic of police aggression, but you didn't address the question in the OP at all.

 

[Skeptic Bob]

If we are going to let police meet out punishment then let's just get rid of judges, juries, prosecutors, and defense attorneys altogether.

 

[Fletch]

IMO the reasons that we see police as being more aggressive is due to three factors:

- it may be that they've always been rather aggressive, but now we have video via cell phones...and we have mass media that's finally paying a little attention.

- when the police are on duty, they know that there are literally hundreds of millions of guns are out there in America, and knowing that they are truly laying their lives on the line forces them to address each situation as potentially presenting a deadly threat to themselves. This changes their psychology on a personal level, and so changes the attitude on an organizational level.

- the fact that their actions are being more publicly scrutinized - and often criticized, even pilloried by the press - forces the police to become more defensive of their actions, and they "close ranks" as a result.

The only real solutions that I can see are:

- sensible gun control, especially that which doesn't allow bad guys to legally buy guns just because gun nuts don't want to have their precious phallic symbols regulated.

- ending the drug war. It's stupid...and tragic on a grand scale.

- immigration reform.

- and forcing the police across the nation from the top down to wear body cams, use dash cams, and accept the idea that yes, they SERVE the public and they must always act with professionalism, in ways that when filmed and broadcast would never call their actions into question. Personally, the military did this a long time ago - one's conduct must be above reproach 24/7, or one's career might be over.

There a fourth possibility that you seem to have overlooked:

That the criminal element is becoming more brazen and more likely to ignore legitimate requests, resist arrest or even initiate an assault on police officers. I know this doesn't occur to liberals too often, but it just might be that the bad guys are leaving police little alternatives. But don't let that little fact get in the way of you pushing your leftist agenda.

 

[Glen Contrarian]

I appreciate your opinion on the related topic of police aggression, but you didn't address the question in the OP at all.

I agree wholeheartedly with you - the aggressiveness of the police must be governed by what the person of interest is doing...and if he or she is in no way presenting a threat, then there's no reason at all for the police to be aggressive.

 

[Summerwind]

You mentioned that you believed the cop was being overly aggressive. That doesn't mean that he was being overly aggressive.

If the cops got a complaint about a person fitting a particular description acting in a suspicious manner I expect them to seek out and detain that person to interview them. If, after being detained, the person of interest becomes argumentative or evasive I expect the cops to take additional steps to confirm the exact circumstances of the situation. That might seem "overly aggressive" to you but it's simply part of the necessary process.

I believed the aggressive cop was showing potential to misbehave and recorded, but in the end he didn't. Was that because he was being recorded, who knows....
Now is it possible anyone is actually going to answer the questions? Is it not clear? Should the level of police aggression be based on the alleged crime or the suspect's behavior while being confronted by the cops? If the suspect is completely passive throughout being stopped and, if appropriate, while being cuffed and put in the vehicle and while in custody, is it alright for them to be overly aggressive?

To repeat, the police I saw weren't "overly" aggressive, I simply saw a potential for it. These questions that arose due to the conversation with the watch commander are indicating "overly aggressive" because she seemed to think and suggest that had the alleged crime been child molestation, then it wouldn't matter if the suspect was passive, the cops should be able to harm him, and she expected me to okay with that.

 

[Summerwind]

There a fourth possibility that you seem to have overlooked:

That the criminal element is becoming more brazen and more likely to ignore legitimate requests, resist arrest or even initiate an assault on police officers. I know this doesn't occur to liberals too often, but it just might be that the bad guys are leaving police little alternatives. But don't let that little fact get in the way of you pushing your leftist agenda.

That's not the question. Please answer the question.

 

[Fletch]

That's not the question. Please answer the question.

Was he being aggressive? Perhaps. Were you being a disrespectful punk by walking away from an officer who called you over? Absolutely.

 

[Glen Contrarian]

There a fourth possibility that you seem to have overlooked:

That the criminal element is becoming more brazen and more likely to ignore legitimate requests, resist arrest or even initiate an assault on police officers. I know this doesn't occur to liberals too often, but it just might be that the bad guys are leaving police little alternatives. But don't let that little fact get in the way of you pushing your leftist agenda.

If there's one thing I learned over the years, it's that people are people are people. Cultures and traditions may vary wildly, but the basic range wants and needs within families remain much the same all over the world.

And your possibility is flat wrong. Why? Because compared to most of American history, our crime rate is quite low - our national homicide rate has fallen by about half since 1990. Your proposal that "the criminal element is becoming more brazen" is shown to be wrong by the easily available hard data at hand.

 

[Lovebug]

The cops and the watch commander know a lot more than any bystander. I..e, if the man had witnessed the abduction of a child, but calmly refuses to describe the vehicle or the abductor, the cops have every right to interrogate.
Of course no one should be hassled over nothing, and cops shouldn't be overly aggressive unless absolutely necessary, but unless you know all the details, don't judge them on mere appearance.
Let me add this.
What if you have video taped an undercover cop?

 

[Summerwind]

Was he being aggressive? Perhaps. Were you being a disrespectful punk by walking away from an officer who called you over? Absolutely.

No, the question here is a broad, genral one. And I don't have to stop and be hassled when I've done nothing to be stopped for. I did ask first if he had a reason, I didn't walk away until he answered in the negative.

Should the alleged crime determine how the police treat an entirely passive person of interest?

 

[Summerwind]

The cops and the watch commander know a lot more than any bystander. I..e, if the man had witnessed the abduction of a child, but calmly refuses to describe the vehicle or the abductor, the cops have every right to interrogate.
Of course no one should be hassled over nothing, and cops shouldn't be overly aggressive unless absolutely necessary, but unless you know all the details, don't judge them on mere appearance.
Let me add this.
What if you have video taped an undercover cop?

So is that a yes or a no? Should the aggressiveness of the police be based on the alleged crime or the behavior of the person of interest?

 

[Lovebug]

So is that a yes or a no? Should the aggressiveness of the police be based on the alleged crime or the behavior of the person of interest?

Unless we know the circumstance, we don't know if the cops were overly aggressive. You are alleging they were. But is that so?

 

[Summerwind]

Unless we know the circumstance, we don't know if the cops were overly aggressive. You are alleging they were. But is that so?

No, in this thread I'm trying to determine if most people feel as the watch commander expected me to feel, as though aggression/brutality might be justified simply because of the alleged crime and not the behavior of the suspect.

 

[Goshin]

Was he being aggressive? Perhaps. Were you being a disrespectful punk by walking away from an officer who called you over? Absolutely.

He had no reason to call her over, and she had every right to decline to accompany him unless she was being detained.


Rude? Maybe... I don't "c'mere" for every goofball that says "c'mere" either.

 

[ARealConservative]

it just might be that the bad guys are leaving police little alternatives. But don't let that little fact get in the way of you pushing your leftist agenda.

concern with abuse of power is now a leftist agenda?

wow. once upon a time, it was a pretty big libertarian agenda too. when did you stop caring about that?

 

[Lutherf]

I believed the aggressive cop was showing potential to misbehave and recorded, but in the end he didn't. Was that because he was being recorded, who knows....
Now is it possible anyone is actually going to answer the questions? Is it not clear? Should the level of police aggression be based on the alleged crime or the suspect's behavior while being confronted by the cops? If the suspect is completely passive throughout being stopped and, if appropriate, while being cuffed and put in the vehicle and while in custody, is it alright for them to be overly aggressive?

To repeat, the police I saw weren't "overly" aggressive, I simply saw a potential for it. These questions that arose due to the conversation with the watch commander are indicating "overly aggressive" because she seemed to think and suggest that had the alleged crime been child molestation, then it wouldn't matter if the suspect was passive, the cops should be able to harm him, and she expected me to okay with that.

The person of interest (not a "suspect" at this point) can be passive while obstructing the investigation. You asked whether their behavior should dictate the police response and I answered your question. Being argumentative or evasive are both behaviors and either of those behaviors (as well as some others) can and should dictate how the cops handle the situation.

On another note, I would suggest that perhaps YOU were the one being overly aggressive in this situation. It seems that you assumed that the cops would use or were using inappropriate behavior so you took it upon yourself to get involved (yes, taping the interaction is involvement).

 

[reinoe]

(yes, taping the interaction is involvement).

No it is not.

 

[Lutherf]

No it is not.

Yeah, actually it is. See, we have a group of folks down here in Tucson that like to have "suspicious" vehicles drive around certain parts of town with drivers that don't speak English and don't have identification. When the cops stop the vehicle (as was the desired result) one or more "concerned citizens" magically appear to capture the interaction on video. Their sole purpose is to catch a cop or CBP agent making a stop in violation of racial profiling protocols. We've also seen a number of "concerned citizens" taping cops who stop open carry activists. It's the same principle I mentioned before.

Since this kind of thing is going on and because these manufactured "incidents" draw law enforcement resources away from actual police availability to legitimate emergency response the "concerned citizens" are DEFINITELY involved either directly or inadvertently.

 

[ARealConservative]

Yeah, actually it is. See, we have a group of folks down here in Tucson that like to have "suspicious" vehicles drive around certain parts of town with drivers that don't speak English and don't have identification. When the cops stop the vehicle (as was the desired result) one or more "concerned citizens" magically appear to capture the interaction on video. Their sole purpose is to catch a cop or CBP agent making a stop in violation of racial profiling protocols. We've also seen a number of "concerned citizens" taping cops who stop open carry activists. It's the same principle I mentioned before.

Since this kind of thing is going on and because these manufactured "incidents" draw law enforcement resources away from actual police availability to legitimate emergency response the "concerned citizens" are DEFINITELY involved either directly or inadvertently.

current events have shown that citizens need to police the police far more.

if police can setup checkpoints, citizens can stage events to test police actions as well.

 

[Lutherf]

current events have shown that citizens need to police the police far more.

if police can setup checkpoints, citizens can stage events to test police actions as well.

Actually, citizens staging events to test the police is a public safety concern. What happens if, while one of these staged events is happening, another group is out snatching 5 year olds off the street? While the cops are busy dealing with some bull**** for your amusement they aren't taking care of actual stuff that needs taking care of.

 

[ARealConservative]

Actually, citizens staging events to test the police is a public safety concern. What happens if, while one of these staged events is happening, another group is out snatching 5 year olds off the street? While the cops are busy dealing with some bull**** for your amusement they aren't taking care of actual stuff that needs taking care of.

police road blocks are also a public safety concern.

 

[Excon]

I decided to call the related police department and let them know how this cop behaved, I was transferred to the watch commander. She listened and then said, "well would it matter to you what he was being questioned over?"
I said, "no, it doesn't matter, if he's not giving the police trouble then they shouldn't be overly aggressive."
She said, "so it doesn't matter to you if there was concern he was a child molester."
I repeated, "no, it doesn't matter, what matters is how he is behaving with the police who stopped him, and he was quite passive through out."
She tried again, "what if it was your kid we thought he molested."
And a third time, I repeated myself. "Absolutely doesn't matter. What matters is how he behaves with the police, if he's not giving issue, they can handcuff him without issues.

If you feel strongly about the issue, press it.
Call back to see if something was done, and then just continue up the food chain. Or better yet, start at the top and let **** roll down hill.
The Officer did cause you to be docked, so you have a legitimate grievance.