Death by Silent Submission - Page 7

ScratchMonkey · 12-07-2007, 09:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheFeniX

This creates an aura of fear around the average citizen and affects the desire to actually call the police when they are in trouble.

Considering my interactions with county cops and the fact that I live outside city limits really puts me in a bind if I actually did have to call the police during an incident at my home.

That strikes close to home. I'm not particularly inclined to call for help. When the cops ask "who are you going to call when you need us?" my instinct is to say "uh, someone else".

With highly profitable victimless crimes, this in fact happens. You can't get justice from "the justice system" so you set up your own justice system. Organized crime is just a shadow justice system. It can't run prisons so it has to do the next best thing and use violent intimidation and death for enforcement. Legalize those crimes and the enforcement can get a lot more peaceful, just as it is in the legitimate business community.

mentholated · 12-08-2007, 05:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tarenth

First lets establish one misconception and put it to rest. The taser does not force fear or respect from people. Hell, nothing can force respect. The taser forces compliance. The taser can also invoke fear in a reasonable person because any reasonable person should be afraid of a weapon. If you are noncompliant you will be made compliant. The methods can range from a stern talk to being shot dead depending on how noncomplaint you are from arguing with the officer to shooting at the officer. You can be compliant to an officer without respect and without fear. You can also be compliant without the sterotypical 'bend over and take it up the rear with a grin'. Compliant means you listen and follow reasonable instructions. If an officer asks you for your license and registration then to be compliant would be to give the officer your license and registration. You can be cussing, questioning, and as much of an ashat as you like to the officer as long as you hand them your damn license and registration. On the flip side you can be totally polite and refuse to be compliant and you'll get a much different response as they force compliance.

Now I'm going to use an analogy. The world is a baseball diamond and everyone in it is playing men's baseball (yes even the women and children, shush its my analogy). I'm sad to say TheFenix and Mentholated aren't even in left field. Nay, they've wandered 3 miles off the diamond into the middle of the woman's softball field and are wondering why the pitcher is throwing underhand and has tits. Sure they both have a diamond, a ball, and a bat...but you're ignoring the fact that its a completely different ball game.

Lets start from the top and work down. There are a wide variety of laws designed to establish peace through fear of repraisal. In short, its the carrot and stick theory. You do good, you get good. You do bad, you get the crap beaten out of you. This is detterance through punishment just like kids were taught over their mother's knee with a switch. You drive down a street with a known officer sitting on the side who will write tickets to anyone who breaks the speed limit. Anyone and everyone who knows that officer is there will logically slow down and obey the speed limit to avoid getting a ticket. That is detterance. Your theory that punishment is not detterance is only valid if you were willing to drive 90 mph down a 45 mph street staring an officer in the face and you zip to and past him on the road. Guess what...you're getting a ticket and you're an idiot.

Everyone is always breaking laws. These laws are not always enforced so people break them. This is generally the reason why numberous traffic violations and drug/drink offenses are commited. People think they can get away with it so they do it thinking they can get away with it. Why do people get away with it? Because there are not enough officers, jails, and prisons to enforce every law on the books and so some are ignored. Did you know its against the law to use profanity in public or a public setting? Use of profanity is "use of words to incite conflict" and punishable by a fine up to jail time. Not seeing too many people dragged off to jail for that are ya? In theory if you were to go over the speed limit by 1 mph you should be ticketed, fined, and/or jailed. Its the law and you broke it. Does that happen? No, not really. If every offense on the books was caught and punished the moment you committed the crime then detterance would be a lot more scary since people would know you could not avoid it. Since you can avoid it a majority of the time, detterance is less of an issue but still a fundamental theory.

But detterance doesn't always work. TheFenix brings up murder vs drug offenses as an arguement against punishment detterance. I laughed. I laughed really hard. You need to understand circumstance leading up to crime as well. If a guy murders his wife's lover when he found out she was having an affair then odds are he's not going to reoffend. Why? Well...the guy is dead, his wife divorced him, and he has a restraining order put against him. Alright, he might kill the new ex-wife, but that goes back to the reason why he killed the guy. Other than that there is no incentive or motive to killing again. Someone else gets put in jail for selling/possessing drugs and is released. Will he reoffend? Hell yes! There's profit in drugs and enjoyment out of using, not so much in killing your wife's dead lover. Adding a third case. What if someone kills for money as a hitman or a gangmember? Will he reoffend? Again, hell yes! There's profit and incentive for the act that out weighs the detterant threat of punishment. In fact, if they're a professional they're even more likely to offend because they believe they can get away with it through experience and guile.

Professionalism is developed in your life and is the way you act and present yourself. However, people develop this to a varing degree which is why there are people who come across as more professional and less professional. Money and wages aren't really a service-> rewards system. Its a reward->service system. Unless you really love what you do you are going to want to make the most money for your time and effort. So you will seek the highest wages possible for what you do.

A tech in some poodunk office makes 50k a year while the beat officer makes 25k. Which is the more attractive employment option? The tech pays more and you run the risk of boredom, while the beat officer makes half as much and runs the risk of serious injury and death. Okay what about if they both offered 50k a year? How about if you're paid 75k a year as an officer and only 50k as the tech? The job as an officer seems a lot more appealing now doesn't it? Higher pay attracts better people. There's a county down in New Mexico heralded as the most professional and diverse police district in the nation. They have the highest number of minorities and women employed as police officers. They also have a base pay 15% higher than the national average and require a college education. You want professional people you have to be willing to pay professional wages. If the most you can afford is some redneck who loves his gun then you better not be surprised that you get a redneck who loves his gun as the professionals seek employment with better pay.

High moral and social values can take you only so far. Unfortunately they won't take you through the check out line with groceries and staples if you aren't getting paid enough.

Force compliance only works if you are faced with an individual who doesn't expect to be forced to comply if your instructions are not followed. If you were faced with an armed individual without knowing it and were able to approach said individual and confront him for whatever reason, should he already expect you to attempt to force him to comply, the likelyhood of an officer being able to ensure compliance steadily drops the longer the officer neglects physically restraining said individual. Said individual may already be aware of the fact that the SOP of an officer is to elevate from verbal requests to commands, and ultimately to use of force, and thereby conclude that the most opportune time to stage a preemptive counterattack would be while said officer is already professing verbal commands. Should said individual be able to quickly and effectively render said officer incapable of self defense, force compliance on the part of said officer would be rendered irrelevant, as the officer would already be in a position of only being able to either defend her/his self or make a hasty retreat and summon reinforcements to reengage suspect fleeing, should said officer not already be incapacitated.

**CingularDuality** · 12-09-2007, 04:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mentholated

Now I understand why things are the way they are.

No, after your reply, I'm absolutely positive that you do not.

**Tarenth** · 12-10-2007, 12:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CingularDuality

No, after your reply, I'm absolutely positive that you do not.

Agreed. Forced compliance works when you force compliance. Period. End of line. Its the expression of authority in such a manner that requires a specific action on your part. Your boss threatens you to come in to work on Saturday or you're fired. You have two options, you can either come in to work on Saturday or you're fired. She might've asked nicely before she reached that point or asked for volunteers, but at the point when she threatened your termination she was forcing your compliance. She has the authority to terminate your employment and so she flexes that authority in order to force you to do what she wants when you are being noncomplient and other avenues of approach have failed. Police Officers have the authority to use neccesary force up to deadly force. That's how much authority they have to force compliance.

mentholated · 12-10-2007, 12:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tarenth

Agreed. Forced compliance works when you force compliance. Period. End of line. Its the expression of authority in such a manner that requires a specific action on your part. Your boss threatens you to come in to work on Saturday or you're fired. You have two options, you can either come in to work on Saturday or you're fired. She might've asked nicely before she reached that point or asked for volunteers, but at the point when she threatened your termination she was forcing your compliance. She has the authority to terminate your employment and so she flexes that authority in order to force you to do what she wants when you are being noncomplient and other avenues of approach have failed. Police Officers have the authority to use neccesary force up to deadly force. That's how much authority they have to force compliance.

No, you're still wrong. Force compliance works when you're the one whos applying force first.

**Tarenth** · 12-10-2007, 01:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mentholated

No, you're still wrong. Force compliance works when you're the one whos applying force first.

Um. No.

Forcing Compliance is when you act to force compliance. The use of force is not a requirement. I can threaten to shoot you without actually shooting you in order to force you to do something. Just because I haven't shot you doesn't mean I'm not forcing you.

Officer tells you to surrender. You refuse.
Officer draws a taser and orders you to surrender. You refuse.
Officer shoots you with the taser causing you to fall down and temporarily stop fighting. You just surrendered.

Each act in the above senario was an attempt to force you to stop resisting. Verbal confrontation with authority, authoritative command with visual threat of a weapon, and actual use of weapon. All three are ways to force you to comply with a wish that is not your own. The use of force is present in only the third attempt and uneccessary if compliance was achieved with the other two.

**Sirusblk** · 12-10-2007, 03:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tarenth

Um. No.

Forcing Compliance is when you act to force compliance. The use of force is not a requirement. I can threaten to shoot you without actually shooting you in order to force you to do something. Just because I haven't shot you doesn't mean I'm not forcing you.

Officer tells you to surrender. You refuse.
Officer draws a taser and orders you to surrender. You refuse.
Officer shoots you with the taser causing you to fall down and temporarily stop fighting. You just surrendered.

Each act in the above senario was an attempt to force you to stop resisting. Verbal confrontation with authority, authoritative command with visual threat of a weapon, and actual use of weapon. All three are ways to force you to comply with a wish that is not your own. The use of force is present in only the third attempt and uneccessary if compliance was achieved with the other two.

We could argue semantics all day, thing is though there's still room for abuse.

Lets look at your example with something extra:
You have done nothing wrong
Officer tells you to surrender. You refuse.
Officer draws a taser and orders you to surrender. You refuse.
Officer shoots you with the taser causing you to fall down and temporarily stop fighting. You just surrendered.

That is where abuse steps in. And when I say you've done nothing wrong I'm not saying from your viewpoint, I'm saying you honestly haven't done anything wrong.

Look at Fenix's post, that officer was having a bad day and let it affect his job. Hey when you get angry at your job hopefully it doesn't injure someone else, but if it does then you should take some training to keep under control. Anger management classes aren't necessarily a bad thing. Maybe more cops should take them before hand because their anger usually comes at someone else's expense.

mentholated · 12-10-2007, 03:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sirusblk

We could argue semantics all day, thing is though there's still room for abuse.

Lets look at your example with something extra:
You have done nothing wrong
Officer tells you to surrender. You refuse.
Officer draws a taser and orders you to surrender. You refuse.
Officer shoots you with the taser causing you to fall down and temporarily stop fighting. You just surrendered.

That is where abuse steps in. And when I say you've done nothing wrong I'm not saying from your viewpoint, I'm saying you honestly haven't done anything wrong.

Look at Fenix's post, that officer was having a bad day and let it affect his job. Hey when you get angry at your job hopefully it doesn't injure someone else, but if it does then you should take some training to keep under control. Anger management classes aren't necessarily a bad thing. Maybe more cops should take them before hand because their anger usually comes at someone else's expense.

Watch out: I can already hear the "you cannot resist arrest" prepared reply coming.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tarenth

Um. No.

Forcing Compliance is when you act to force compliance. The use of force is not a requirement. I can threaten to shoot you without actually shooting you in order to force you to do something. Just because I haven't shot you doesn't mean I'm not forcing you.

Officer tells you to surrender. You refuse.
Officer draws a taser and orders you to surrender. You refuse.
Officer shoots you with the taser causing you to fall down and temporarily stop fighting. You just surrendered.

Each act in the above senario was an attempt to force you to stop resisting. Verbal confrontation with authority, authoritative command with visual threat of a weapon, and actual use of weapon. All three are ways to force you to comply with a wish that is not your own. The use of force is present in only the third attempt and uneccessary if compliance was achieved with the other two.

Well then you're agreeing with me. I'm saying force compliance is the act of forcing someone to comply. You're saying its threatening to use force if they don't comply. I think thats where you got confused.

**Tarenth** · 12-10-2007, 04:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sirusblk

We could argue semantics all day, thing is though there's still room for abuse.

Lets look at your example with something extra:
You have done nothing wrong
Officer tells you to surrender. You refuse.
Officer draws a taser and orders you to surrender. You refuse.
Officer shoots you with the taser causing you to fall down and temporarily stop fighting. You just surrendered.

That is where abuse steps in. And when I say you've done nothing wrong I'm not saying from your viewpoint, I'm saying you honestly haven't done anything wrong.

I give up with mentholated. It hurts to think like him, so I'll move on to this. You left out the other half of the line so I'll tag it in for you.

Quote:

You think you have done nothing wrong, but the Officer thinks you have

There will never be a legitimate stop where the officer believes, as you do, that you have done nothing wrong. If you have done nothing wrong then he wouldn't want to go through the time, trouble, and paperwork of stopping you. If there is a case where you are stopped wrongfully then it could be abuse, or it could be a mistake that can be cleared up later without any drama. Its funny, but the widely heralded acts of abuse are actually the ones that skirt the line between duty and abuse and is just as much, if not more, the fault of the 'victim' than it is the officer. If it was clear abuse then you'd hear newsbites of an invesigation, crack down, or some other cleaning of house that is quickly dismissed.

The hotly contested cases in this thread are the tasering of the guy who argues with the officer on the road, the handcuffed combative woman in the station, the old man acting irrationally in the airport, and the struggling "don't tase me bro" incident. The clear case of abuse was stated in a newsbite that stated he was punished, under investigation, numberous apologies were sent to the offended parties, and measures were being taken to prevent a repeat.

When an officer approaches a situation, automatically their life is at risk. Unless they know you personally then that traffic violation they stopped could be a wanted serial murder in 3 states with a gun in their lap or the man they are trying to subdue could be a 7th level black belt (yes I pulled that rank out of the air) who could break them in half without a sweat and looks as thin as a twig. They don't know you and they don't know what you can do. Logically most inexperienced, and even some veterns, will approach these situations with the worst case in mind. Its nothing personal against you, they're just trying to stay alive in a dangerous occupation. They're shown horror stories and told there's a specific way to approach to provide the maximum safeguards and they should always take these methods or it could mean they end up bleeding on the side of the road.

I don't worry too much about police abuse. I know a few officers, have seen how the system works, and can think outside the box to understand how to move with the flow without problem. I'm more worried about making an officer nervous or scared. You know the old joke about never running from a fat police officer because he's the one more likely to shoot you instead of chase you? Never make a new officer or distracted officer nervous or surprised. They will want to take control of the situation before it gets 'out of hand' and that usually means they over react to something that gets blown out of porportion in their mind. If a green traffic officer make routine stops and tickets all day then that one argumentative and rude person who comes down the road that refuses to follow procedure may just make them think that this is 'the one' that they've been trained to take percaution against.

Its sad, but at times the officer is more afraid of what you can do to them than you are of being abused. What can you do? More training? Already in place. More experience? How do you get experience if you can't experience it to get the experience for it? Police officers are human and prone to human problems like fear and mistakes. Do their mistakes have an impact on the public at large? If its an honest mistake, its usually easily fixed if you take things through calmly and clearly in the proper channels. If its a mistake on their part, it may be their last since it causes a problem too big to fix so they will no longer be put in a position to make those mistakes again, or they end up dead.

**CingularDuality** · 12-10-2007, 01:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sirusblk

We could argue semantics all day, thing is though there's still room for abuse.

Lets look at your example with something extra:
You have done nothing wrong
Officer tells you to surrender. You refuse.
Officer draws a taser and orders you to surrender. You refuse.
Officer shoots you with the taser causing you to fall down and temporarily stop fighting. You just surrendered.

That is where abuse steps in. And when I say you've done nothing wrong I'm not saying from your viewpoint, I'm saying you honestly haven't done anything wrong.

You are wrong. What if you are the subject of an investigation? What if you match the description of a serial rapist that just attacked a woman and killed her two blocks away? Just because you've done nothing wrong doesn't mean you can ignore the police. I can give you dozens of reasons why you wouldn't want that to be the case, either.

**tHa_KhAn** · 12-10-2007, 01:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CingularDuality

You are wrong. What if you are the subject of an investigation? What if you match the description of a serial rapist that just attacked a woman and killed her two blocks away? Just because you've done nothing wrong doesn't mean you can ignore the police. I can give you dozens of reasons why you wouldn't want that to be the case, either.

I think that is where people get hung up in these discussions. They make the assumption the police know they are innocent. If the officer in question believes you have done something wrong, there is nothing you can do but cooperate and provide evidence if any to the contrary. Just stating that you are innocent or ignoring the police because you know you are innocent is stupid because guilty people believe they are innocent too.

**TheFeniX** · 12-11-2007, 11:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CingularDuality

You are wrong. What if you are the subject of an investigation? What if you match the description of a serial rapist that just attacked a woman and killed her two blocks away? Just because you've done nothing wrong doesn't mean you can ignore the police. I can give you dozens of reasons why you wouldn't want that to be the case, either.

This goes back to the officer not doing a good job of explaining the situation to the citizen. Your average Joe or Jane is not a lawyer, and some officers don't seem to realize this.

When the officer at Jack in the Box questioned me about where I had been, he pre-faced it by explaining to me that a robbery had been committed in a vehicle matching my truck's description (hilariously unlikely, but whatever). Now, just asking me where I've been probably would have garnered an "around somewhere" response. But the officer was cordial and explained to me why he was bothering me and the situation was resolved without fuss.

If an officer has any reason to detain or arrest you, he needs to do his job of making that clear. Ordering a person around the instant they act in a manner he doesn't like does a piss-poor job of resolving any perceived conflict.

Just as a child who plays passive aggressive without explaining exactly why he is mad generally accomplishes nothing with his parents and only serves to prolong the conflict the child sees (either real or non-existent), an officer who goes from a routine stop, to an arrest without perceived reasoning is going to encounter resistance. Now, this may be intelligent resistance or confused resistance, but it's just a good way for the conflict to go.

The only real difference in our argument is that you feel the burden is on the average citizen to know this. I don't believe the average citizen should have to carry this burden. The officer makes public safety his concern when he signs up and puts on his uniform. It's HIS job to work out a mutual understanding on why the situation is deteriorating. You can't leave this up the the imagination in a situation where people can get hurt and/or killed.

In my experience, officers suffer from the same problem that you think citizens do: they think people can read their intent without a verbal explanation. The problem is: cops are trained in conflict resolution. The average citizen is most likely not unless they've taken time out of their day to go that extra step.

If the officer explains the situation and informs the citizen that it is a lawful detaining/arrest and he still encounters resistance, then the officer has a clear line of causality when pressing the arrest.

**CingularDuality** · 12-11-2007, 12:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheFeniX

This goes back to the officer not doing a good job of explaining the situation to the citizen. Your average Joe or Jane is not a lawyer, and some officers don't seem to realize this.

If I think I have a serial rapist in front of me, I'm not going to explain jack to him, I'm going to tell him what to do and if he doesn't do it, he's probably not going to like the hard way of getting things done. That's the way it should be.

Quote:

The problem is: cops are trained in conflict resolution. The average citizen is most likely not unless they've taken time out of their day to go that extra step.

If only that were the case... I think you, like most, have serious misconceptions about the training that police get.

Quote:

If the officer explains the situation and informs the citizen that it is a lawful detaining/arrest and he still encounters resistance, then the officer has a clear line of causality when pressing the arrest.

The officer needn't explain anything, and may, in fact, jeopardize a prosecution by doing so.

mentholated · 12-11-2007, 12:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CingularDuality

If I think I have a serial rapist in front of me, I'm not going to explain jack to him, I'm going to tell him what to do and if he doesn't do it, he's probably not going to like the hard way of getting things done. That's the way it should be.
If only that were the case... I think you, like most, have serious misconceptions about the training that police get.

The officer needn't explain anything, and may, in fact, jeopardize a prosecution by doing so.

I have a question.

What usually happens when a cop encounters an ex cop on the other side of the law, and doesn't know that person was a cop or had any sort of military training?

Which one of them wins? The one with the better training? Or the one who hit his target?

Sponsored links

Sponsored links

Sponsored links