In Iraq, I raided insurgents. In Virginia, the police raided me

[Woobie]

Doug,

Accountability is a wonderful thing, ain't it.

 

[vitamink]

To Roscott,

I respectfully disagree with some of your conclusions here. Not the idea overall, but I will try to briefly explain where I see an error in your logic.

#1) This part I agree with, to a point. While it may not have been "night-and-day" it most certainly could have been a very quick, ie. over several weeks, change. That would be in the context of the entire occupation indeed be a "night-and-day" change. Sure, some soldiers probably did continue to act in a manner counterproductive to winning the hearts and minds, but with constant pressure from officers and NCO's the paradigm shift could have been fairly fast.

#2) "The author treats this reality like it can be avoided. To suggest such a thing sets up, for his readers, unrealistic expectations for law enforcement. (Or soldiers.) I have had officers grab their guns and yell at me to take my hands out of my pockets, when it turned out that I had not broken the law and wasn't a criminal. I don't fault them for it, because I understand that sometimes they must be cautious, even at the expense of my comfort. I'm sure similar events took place in Iraq, even after the de-escalation in use of force, as the author describes." You seem to imply that it cannot be avoided. I disagree. With proper training and discipline any group of people can have their conduct altered. This is not unrealistic. It is a "get on board or don't let the door hit you on your way out" understanding that comes from the top down. Why on earth would LEO be required to "grab their guns and yell at me to take my hands out of my pockets" when a simple, courteous request could accomplish the same thing?

There are 1000 reasons why. Cops don't just point guns at you for the fun of it. I promise if you walk up to a cop and say, "how ya doing" while keeping your hands in your pockets - he won't pull his gun on you. I'm sure there is more to the story. Simple and courteous requests fly out the window when the crime involved is severe. When Perry got shot, should officer two first try a simple courteous request to drop the gun? In this situation you have a burglary in progress, an open door, and a person inside. Those officers have taken that run several times before and 100% of the time its an actual burglary and not a 1 in a million guy staying in the one room they don't ever rent.


Sure, if you failed to comply escalation may(?) be required, but I certainly hope that rude, brash behavior isn't the starting point for interacting with a lawful citizen. There is nothing that says LEO cannot be cautious and respectful of your comfort. Those two concepts are not mutually exclusive.

Its situation specific.

I agree with your assessment that it appears the police reacted too aggressively.

What would you have done? Keep in mind linearity, not hindsight. Say for example your wife/GF/whatever left for florida last week and you have the house all to yourself. While at work a neighbor calls and says, "Hey Mr. 01, some dude i've never seen before just went into your house!!!" You make it home, talk to the neighbor who says he never left, and for some reason you can't dial 911. How do you handle that? Is there a gun in your hand? If your answer is anything but yes you are a fool. Later you find out that your significant other gave a key to her best friend who got evicted from his apartment and needed to crash for a couple days. Are you a bad guy for pointing a gun at him (if you did) given what you knew at the time?

I also agree that many LEO's are civil and courteous while maintaining control of situations. However, I DO disagree that the "militant mindset" is not becoming more of the norm for civil law enforcement. One only needs to be familiar with the writing of Rodney Balko who has years of experience covering law enforcement and wrote the book "Rise of the Warrior Cop" to appreciate the problem with new training and mindsets that are moving away from civil discourse and toward militant control

I read Radley's book and he's a clown...years of experience..lol. I have years of experience watching the golden girls and yet i don't claim to know the first thing about old women. Its good that he's finally found his niche. Lobbying for big tobacco wasn't helping his career much, there is much more money to be made in hate. I don't blame him. If i got a pay check from CATO everytime i said police brutality, I would do everything up to and including accusing Officer Ronald McDonald of violating the rights of the Hamburglar, while lying to get on his jury to nullify the charges against him. CATO institute....theres a non biased brain trust.

Balko: I’ll happily preach the gospel of nullification — even to the point of advocating misleading the court to get into a position to nullify –as one small way to stem the tide.

What a winner. If promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth doesn't mean **** to Balko, then it doesn't surprise me that his book is full of misleading figures, 10% truth stories leaving out all the mitigating factors, and flat out bull****. Radley is the Jesse Jackson of his issue and just as relevant. Have you seen his Cop or Military segment where he shows pictures of people and you have to guess where they work? They should call it, Cop, Military, or INGO open carry event....aaaaaahhhhh the militarization of the internet.


Is it everywhere? NO. Is it spreading? Yes, indeed. Also, we all base our opinions upon firsthand experiences. We should avoid doing so, yet it is unreasonable to presume that we dismiss them entirely. The author is fully justified to have the opinion that he does. His is only an anecdotal story that further supports Mr. Balkos larger reaching conclusions of many law enforcement organizations. Link: Rise of the Warrior Cop - WSJ

How does his story support Radley's conclusions? The cops had boots on...I wore boots in the military...therefore, MILITARIZATION!!! Are you suggesting that 50 years ago that run would have been handled differently?

I would again remind the readers of Sir Robert Peel who created nine (9) simple rules regarding the nature and use of law enforcement power. Link: https://www.durham.police.uk/About-Us/Documents/Peels_Principles_Of_Law_Enforcement.pdf

I will only observe that I believe Sir Peel's rule #4 is being broken on a larger scale, and with the results that Sir Peel warned against.

#4) "The degree of cooperation of the public that can be secured diminishes, proportionately, to the necessity of the use of physical force and compulsion in achieving police objectives." In other words, the more the police push people around, the less over time the people will be willing to cooperate. Once cooperation is lost, civil order will be in greater peril.

Law enforcement officers are people, both good and bad. I don't just mean in ethics or morals, but also in temperament. I am certain that there are many LEO's who carry out the technical side of their job with great efficiency, but whose personality and temperament undermine the public trust. At the same time there are probably many officers who may be a bit lacking in technical knowledge but are most excellent at deescalating a tense situation or a person who is angry.

The problem is, as Mr. Balko notes, that the training AND focus of new recruits may be counterproductive to promoting such temperaments within their force.

You are very correct in your assessment of officers, as each is unique.
The problem is Balko. Balko gets a pay check every time he writes a story about police racism/brutality/etc. And in EVERY SINGLE CASE he leaves out pertinent information. Most people who follow him won't bother to check his work and blindly ingest whatever he says. I will say this, he is a good writer. I hope one day i can get paid to hate something too. Thank god for rule number 4. That should show cooperation at an all time high! Remember, in the 50's police served warrants with tommy guns. In the 70s police could shoot you in the face for shoplifting a candy bar. In the 80s police could drink on duty. Today they get suspended for harsh language.
..
Regards,

Doug

VK

 

[roscott]

To Roscott,

I respectfully disagree with some of your conclusions here. Not the idea overall, but I will try to briefly explain where I see an error in your logic.

#1) "First, he treats the changed military mindset toward the people of Iraq like it was a complete night-and-day change. While I certainly agree that a gentle approach can often achieve much more than aggression can, ("a soft answer turns away wrath") I'm sure it was not a complete change from one tactic to another. Without a doubt, innocent Iraqis were still cuffed, soldiers still pointed weapons, and people were yelled at. It is simply the nature of the beast. A soldier, (or police officer) can do everything to be a kind and understanding individual, and sometimes innocent people will still be inconvenienced." This part I agree with, to a point. While it may not have been "night-and-day" it most certainly could have been a very quick, ie. over several weeks, change. That would be in the context of the entire occupation indeed be a "night-and-day" change. Sure, some soldiers probably did continue to act in a manner counterproductive to winning the hearts and minds, but with constant pressure from officers and NCO's the paradigm shift could have been fairly fast.
I certainly agree that the shift could be swift(ish. It is a government agency, after all.) I suppose when I meant night-and-day transition I meant that it could not be COMPLETE. Even if the soldiers are trying to win the hearts and minds, sometimes they still did things that were both offensive and necessary.

#2) "The author treats this reality like it can be avoided. To suggest such a thing sets up, for his readers, unrealistic expectations for law enforcement. (Or soldiers.) I have had officers grab their guns and yell at me to take my hands out of my pockets, when it turned out that I had not broken the law and wasn't a criminal. I don't fault them for it, because I understand that sometimes they must be cautious, even at the expense of my comfort. I'm sure similar events took place in Iraq, even after the de-escalation in use of force, as the author describes." You seem to imply that it cannot be avoided. I disagree. With proper training and discipline any group of people can have their conduct altered. This is not unrealistic. It is a "get on board or don't let the door hit you on your way out" understanding that comes from the top down. Why on earth would LEO be required to "grab their guns and yell at me to take my hands out of my pockets" when a simple, courteous request could accomplish the same thing??? Sure, if you failed to comply escalation may(?) be required, but I certainly hope that rude, brash behavior isn't the starting point for interacting with a lawful citizen. There is nothing that says LEO cannot be cautious and respectful of your comfort. Those two concepts are not mutually exclusive.
I agree entirely. They can (and should go hand in hand.) Perhaps our society's definition of "respect" from police are two different things. If my vehicle matches the same description and direction of travel of one that was just used in an armed robbery, and the officers perform a felony stop (guns drawn) but discover that I am not the suspect and are curteous afterward, I do not consider them disrespectful. They are doing their job, and there are necessary discomforts occaisionally encountered by citizens as a result. The goal for law enforcement is certainly to keep these occurrances to a minimum, but they will still happen.

#3) "From the details given in the article, it certainly seems that the Fairfax County police reacted too aggressively. However, I hate to pass judgement with just those facts, and I'm saddened that the author has chosen to pass judgement on all police simply from this interaction. I have had the opportunity to interact with lots of law enforcement, in numerous circumstances, and I am willing to say that on the whole, our police departments DO adhere to the gentler approach that the author describes used in the later years in Iraq. For the overwhelming majority of citizens, they will never be the subject of police brutality. It is an incredibly small percentage of police that behave in such a manner, and while it is absolutely serious, it is nowhere near the pervasive levels that our media would like to suggest.

The author makes the connection between the raids he served in Iraq and the police raid on his temporary apartment. While the similarity is understandable, he goes one step further in making the connection between what happened to him and all police departments. That is not reasonable, and only serves to broaden the rift between our police force and our citizens, which does nothing but worsen things." I agree with your assessment that it appears the police reacted too aggressively. I also agree that many LEO's are civil and courteous while maintaining control of situations. However, I DO disagree that the "militant mindset" is not becoming more of the norm for civil law enforcement. One only needs to be familiar with the writing of Rodney Balko who has years of experience covering law enforcement and wrote the book "Rise of the Warrior Cop" to appreciate the problem with new training and mindsets that are moving away from civil discourse and toward militant control. Is it everywhere? NO. Is it spreading? Yes, indeed. Also, we all base our opinions upon firsthand experiences. We should avoid doing so, yet it is unreasonable to presume that we dismiss them entirely. The author is fully justified to have the opinion that he does. His is only an anecdotal story that further supports Mr. Balkos larger reaching conclusions of many law enforcement organizations. Link: Rise of the Warrior Cop - WSJ

I would again remind the readers of Sir Robert Peel who created nine (9) simple rules regarding the nature and use of law enforcement power. Link: https://www.durham.police.uk/About-Us/Documents/Peels_Principles_Of_Law_Enforcement.pdf

I will only observe that I believe Sir Peel's rule #4 is being broken on a larger scale, and with the results that Sir Peel warned against.

#4) "The degree of cooperation of the public that can be secured diminishes, proportionately, to the necessity of the use of physical force and compulsion in achieving police objectives." In other words, the more the police push people around, the less over time the people will be willing to cooperate. Once cooperation is lost, civil order will be in greater peril.
I don't know much about Sir Peel, but I agree with this rule wholeheartedly. Here is the crux of my argument: If you agree with Sir Peel, then what we need to avoid is the use of physical force and compulsion as much as possible. However, the media, and even the original author writing about his negative police experience, are creating the illusion that there is vastly more physical force and aggression from police than actually occurrs. In response, people are less willing to cooperate, just as you said. If you took a survey of the average person's perception of how many traffic stops, (for example) turn into physical confrontations between the police and the citizen, I am wholeheartedly convinced that their expectation would MASSIVELY exceed reality. This is the result of constant bombardment of negative police news, (some very real, some fantasy). Say, for example, that the public expectation is that 1 in 10 traffic stops result is use-of-force. And say that the actual number is 1 in 1000. Then 99% of your "peril to civil order" is being created by the media, and individuals like the original author, crying out against the aggressive law enforcement in America.

Law enforcement officers are people, both good and bad. I don't just mean in ethics or morals, but also in temperament. I am certain that there are many LEO's who carry out the technical side of their job with great efficiency, but whose personality and temperament undermine the public trust. At the same time there are probably many officers who may be a bit lacking in technical knowledge but are most excellent at deescalating a tense situation or a person who is angry.

The problem is, as Mr. Balko notes, that the training AND focus of new recruits may be counterproductive to promoting such temperaments within their force.

Yes, there are bad officers out there. But on the whole, our police departments in America have already adopted the hearts-and-minds approach to police work. They genuinely want to make positive impacts in our community, and improve relationships. The problem is, for every positive encounter an officer has, that civilian will read and view HUNDREDS of media reports recounting negative police interactions. Thus, it gives rise to what has become a fairly common viewpoint "I know some good officers, but on the whole our police are way too aggressive."

It's this mentality that has to change. With a rare few exceptions, our officers are trying to make positive changes. But they will never win the war of public perception with the odds against them, such as they are. And as you said yourself, "Once cooperation is lost, civil order will be in greater peril."


Regards,

Doug

RS

 

[WestSider]

I read this article after a friend posted it on Facebook and while this guys experience is unfortunate if he is telling it correctly, I don't find it to be an any way an accurate portrayal of how the police are trained based on my experience so far in law enforcement.

His rant would have you believe that all police in America are trained from the start to be gun pointing brutes who use intimidation to subdue the masses. First of all, he is talking about ERT/SWAT tactics and equating this to ALL police training, which the vast majority of police officers are assigned to uniform patrol (not ERT/SWAT), where they spend much more time talking to people than busting in doors and arresting people. I was not trained to point guns at people at every given opportunity; I WAS, however trained that I need to control the scene/situation for not only the safety of myself and fellow officers, but the safety of other people there. I don't know where these "stats" are coming from, but I have spent much more time learning about how to handle situations without violating people's civil rights and following correct procedures than defensive and gun tactics. Maybe my experience is unique but I somehow doubt it...

I find the article to be deliberately slanted and in some cases, just completely inaccurate. This is just my opinion. You are fee to disagree.

 

[indiucky]

While I don't know if the current situation between law enforcement and the citizenry is a result of a plan on the part of those who hate our "American Way of Life" and wish to tear it down, or a natural outgrowth of the bureaucratic behemoth that has become our federal, state, and local governments, or just the decreasing respect for life and societal mores that has devolved over the past 40 years since Rowe V. Wade.

Well said....Rep incoming....

PM me when you find the answer...Possibly a cocktail of all three...What's interesting is the three things you posted cover Christian Rights thoughts, Libertarian thoughts, blue dog Democrats thoughts, liberal Democrat thoughts...etc....

GFGT,mrjarrell,rambone,gp17,steveh,kut,kirk,hough,me etc....All of us can find a bit of truth in what you said...Maybe when we all realize it's a toxic combo of all of these things we may quit our infighting and try to save what's left of our freedom and morality....

To paraphrase Nathaniel Hale, Skull and Bones member and American Patriot/Spy...

"I regret that I have but one rep to give to this man who so loves his Nation.."

 

[Blackhawk2001]

Well said....Rep incoming.... PM me when you find the answer...Possibly a cocktail of all three...What's interesting is the three things you posted cover Christian Rights thoughts, Libertarian thoughts, blue dog Democrats thoughts, liberal Democrat thoughts...etc.... GFGT,mrjarrell,rambone,gp17,steveh,kut,kirk,hough,me etc....All of us can find a bit of truth in what you said...Maybe when we all realize it's a toxic combo of all of these things we may quit our infighting and try to save what's left of our freedom and morality.... To paraphrase Nathaniel Hale, Skull and Bones member and American Patriot/Spy... "I regret that I have but one rep to give to this man who so loves his Nation.."

Historians may be able to agree on "the answer" when all the shouting's over and with 50 years' standoff for perspective. For MY part, it appears obvious that our current national leadership is moving to alienate the law enforcement community from the populace, and various local leaders are throwing their law enforcement officers under the bus for their own purposes. The national news media seems to relish "rogue cop" stories almost as much as they love "mass" shootings, and we rarely see any type of even-handed fact-finding from them anymore, whether the subject is Global Warming or self-defense shootings. My dozen years interacting with law enforcement in Marion County, and my 5 or so years as a Sheriff's Special Deputy exposed me to how dangerous it can be to be a law enforcement officer - watching dash-cam videos of officers being ambushed and murders will drive the point home nicely - and the fact that criminals have become increasingly willing to kill cops when they can would probably make for an interesting study in criminal psychology and sociology. As I've said elsewhere, in my reading about terrorism and subversion, one goal of the terrorist is to create division between "the Authorities" (represented by law enforcement) and the general populace, usually by creating chaos which the government appears helpless to counter. Another tactic is to bait the local gendarmerie into overreacting to deliberate provocations (worked remarkably well in Northern Ireland and Israel), thus creating animosity between law enforcement and the general populace. We appear to have that going on in America right now, although it was more evident during the various anti-War protests of the 60s and 70s - police learned from them. But our currently inadequately patrolled borders, which have allowed drug gangs to freely enter the country and set up shop, bringing their total disregard for life along with them, are a very good example of how national policies are contributing to the divide between law enforcement and the population; whether this is out of malice against America, avarice and disregard of the consequences of lobbying for "cheap foreign labor," or simple political cupidity will have to be determined at some later date. From my perspective, though, it sure looks like the Communists are trying the same tactics that worked in Venezuela and Bolivia, and looking for the same sort of result.

 

[WestSider]

Historians may be able to agree on "the answer" when all the shouting's over and with 50 years' standoff for perspective. For MY part, it appears obvious that our current national leadership is moving to alienate the law enforcement community from the populace, and various local leaders are throwing their law enforcement officers under the bus for their own purposes. The national news media seems to relish "rogue cop" stories almost as much as they love "mass" shootings, and we rarely see any type of even-handed fact-finding from them anymore, whether the subject is Global Warming or self-defense shootings. My dozen years interacting with law enforcement in Marion County, and my 5 or so years as a Sheriff's Special Deputy exposed me to how dangerous it can be to be a law enforcement officer - watching dash-cam videos of officers being ambushed and murders will drive the point home nicely - and the fact that criminals have become increasingly willing to kill cops when they can would probably make for an interesting study in criminal psychology and sociology. As I've said elsewhere, in my reading about terrorism and subversion, one goal of the terrorist is to create division between "the Authorities" (represented by law enforcement) and the general populace, usually by creating chaos which the government appears helpless to counter. Another tactic is to bait the local gendarmerie into overreacting to deliberate provocations (worked remarkably well in Northern Ireland and Israel), thus creating animosity between law enforcement and the general populace. We appear to have that going on in America right now, although it was more evident during the various anti-War protests of the 60s and 70s - police learned from them. But our currently inadequately patrolled borders, which have allowed drug gangs to freely enter the country and set up shop, bringing their total disregard for life along with them, are a very good example of how national policies are contributing to the divide between law enforcement and the population; whether this is out of malice against America, avarice and disregard of the consequences of lobbying for "cheap foreign labor," or simple political cupidity will have to be determined at some later date. From my perspective, though, it sure looks like the Communists are trying the same tactics that worked in Venezuela and Bolivia, and looking for the same sort of result.

Very good points!