Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
‘Bob, He’s Gonna Kill Me’
As America oscillates through the recent civic upheaval in its concepts of policing, it has been hard to miss that the conversation is very uninformed. While it is imperative that the citizens of a democracy set the rules by which the laws are enforced, it is equally imperative that they understand the repercussions.
Just as football fans would ignore the opinions of TV talking heads who’ve never stepped foot in a stadium (never mind never actually played the game), citizens should be extremely wary of politicians and yaktivists who condemn police tactics without understanding their underlying principles.
I’ve written about policing issues for several publications, including the Los Angeles Times. I have attended a complete law enforcement academy and spent hundreds of hours on patrol with cops as both a journalism and concerned citizen.
But, I never pinned on a badge. So, I am equally immersed in the perspective of an average citizen who has had some very disappointing encounters with the police, as recently as last month.
This varied set of experiences informs me that most people really have no understanding of the mindset of a police officer because they lack the foundational knowledge that police training imparts in law enforcement officers.
While police academies have extensive curricula covering many topics – criminal and evidentiary law, weapons handling, first aid, and so many others – the day-to-day emphasis is on creating a mindset of self-preservation that is unlike any other occupation – even more so than my experience as an Army infantryman. Understanding this “officer safety” mindset is integral to influencing the way police work is done.
The fibers of the safety mindset were woven into cops from the first moments of the academy. Most were taught with case studies. The subject of the case was dead. Always dead. And always a specific individual – by name – who lost his life in a way that budding cops need to avoid.
These lessons formed a list of 21 Rules, each directly traceable to the experience of a cop who died exemplifying it. Two decades later the specifics have faded from my mind, but the gist remains:
#1: Always keep your gun hand free. Never have anything in your gun hand (beyond a pen for note taking), because if you suddenly need your gun you’ll have no time to empty your hands. Note pads, flash lights and coffee cups were always to be grasped in the weak hand. You never know when someone will approach you in a parking lot to kill you.
Another: Always watch people’s hands. Eyes can’t punch or pull a concealed gun.
Never stand in front of a door. That’s where an ambushing suspect will shoot through.
And: Talk to people from a “bladed stance.” One shoulder forward, gun side away, weight on your back foot. You never know when someone will throw a punch. This is intimidating, unfriendly and life-saving.
These are not tactics for specific situations. Tactics like building searches are a distinct set of instruction. Rather, these lessons are about developing safe habits for a cop’s life so it can be a long life.
This is unlike any other occupation that interacts with the public. A mechanic may learn specific steps to safely lift a car. A power-line repairman may consider all lines to be live wires. But a police officer works in a world where unseen live wires are omnipresent, and constant vigilance is required to avoid them.
It is this safety-oriented perspective that many people mistake for arrogance or bullying. And, it is true, those negative traits can also be wrongly excused away as “officer safety.” Differentiating “safe” from “bullying” is impossible without understanding the threats.
It is in this knowledge that honest police reform advocates (vice cop haters) fall short. In 2007, Civil rights attorney Connie Rice issued “Rampart Reconsidered,” a report criticizing the LAPD’s “warrior culture” which she blamed on “the myth and lore of urban policing.”
Interestingly, the report was issued hours after LAPD officer was shot and paralyzed. Rice has never said if she considers Officer Kristina Rippati’s injuries to be to be “lore,” merely a “myth” — or perhaps a lesson officers should learn.
Unfortunately, dramatic fiction and the news media have given the general public a concept of policing that is one part Cliff Notes and another a hall of mirrors. Facts like the decisive factors articulated by officers in a shooting are usually buried. Thus, many people can’t understand why police shoot unarmed suspects. But, they might had they had been in my academy class as an instructor tearfully recounted his partner struggling with a man who was trying to disarm him, and then look up and cry “Bob, he’s gonna kill me.” The instructor, instead, killed the “unarmed man.” That sort of detail is rarely gets to the general public.
This situation is partially the fault of police departments who feed the media sanitized accounts for investigative necessity. But rarely does the public know if a cop shoots a suspect from seven feet away (the average distance of an engagement), 50 feet away, or while physically entangled, pinned to the ground using a back-up gun.
Worse, TV drama depictions of well-rehearsed marksmanship lead to statements like “I don’t understand why the cops didn’t just shoot him in the leg,” This prima facie admission of ignorance and demand for ballistic improbabilities make cops who are interested in going home after work dismiss the discussion.
If Americans want (as they should) to dictate the way policing is done, they must understand not just that policing deserves lip service about danger, but that cops die when they give suspects the benefit of the doubt. They can be killed by “unarmed” suspects. They can die when everything seems calm. They can be shot in a fraction of a second. That even a handcuffed suspect is not safe. And that they can be beaten to death.
Because while the yaktivists will parade their signs with names like Michael Brown, Eric Garner and John Crawford, cops carry names in their hearts and in the back of their minds: Ken Wrede. Daniel Fraembs. Bruce K. Lee. Elizabeth Butler. Evan Bell. David Smith. And innumerable more. None of whom did anything to get themselves killed, except try to keep their communities safe.
Without this foundation of understanding, police reformers will be taken no more seriously than an NFL coach perceives a Monday morning quarterback who’s never set foot in a stadium.
And the cop has a lot more to lose than a Super Bowl ring.
Published in General
“But for” causation is too blunt an instrument to use to analyze this kind of case. But for a thousand previous events Garner would be alive today. That doesn’t mean that any of those events deserves an iota of moral blame for his death.
His resisting arrest is the most crucial factor because it substantially raised the probability of a negative outcome. Additionally, that resistance is in itself a crime, justifying (morally and legally) escalating force. This factor was also completely in his control, and precipitated the “but for” factor of the force used by the officers, and is therefore the cause of that factor.
I reject the suggestion made or implied in some of the comments that our choice is that either police must walk away from minor criminals or we will live in a police state in which police are free to persecute innocent civilians. How about we insist that policemen always follow the laws or face punishment, and that criminals better know that resisting arrest will incur a heavy price.
I am not a lawyer or a police officer – everything I know about police procedure I learned on “Law & Order” and “Cops”. But unless I’m misunderstanding your usage of the term “with impunity”, that’s pretty profoundly untrue. Police cannot arrest on a whim, they must have probable cause. Any cop who repeatedly makes arrests without probable cause isn’t going to remain a cop very long.
Plus, as I mentioned, I have a brother who’s a retired cop. And I have friends who are cops. Police HATE making arrests for trivial offenses. Arrests mean paperwork.
What I mean is that should a cop get it in his head to violate your rights and should you choose to stand up for them you will most likely be arrested. cdor’s example was a perfect specimin of what I am talking about. He was perfectly within his rights to refuse a voluntary search of his briefcase, but would the cops have stopped seeking to find some evidence of a crime? Should he have refused to cooperate with the fishing expedition based solely on the fact that he stopped momentarily in a particular neighborhood things could have easily escalated to “probable cause” to arrest him based solely on him being uncooperative. We have every right to be uncooperative with their searching for evidence of a crime without a warrant. These stops that lead into asking for voluntary searches are exactly the kind of behavior we should guard against. If there is enough evidence of a crime to warrant a search then present it to a judge and get the paper.
So, the speed limit there should be raised to 45 and enforced strictly? 55 and strictly? Or just not enforced? How many kids live in the 35 MPH zone? How many accidents have there been previously? Why was the limit set at 35 and not 45 or 25?
We disagree. You are seeing only what you want to see.
As I said, we could argue all day about the relative contributions of the various causes, but I credit you for more nuance and understanding the MFM. You put a heavy thumb on the scale though by emphasizing what criminals should know. What about non-criminals?
Agreed. I found cdor’s story pretty disturbing. I’m surprised he doesn’t.
It’s not a secret. Be courteous, and follow lawful instructions. And I’m not a criminal. Somehow the Michael Browns and Eric Garners of the world haven’t figured it out.
No harm, no foul Cato Rand. Now that I think about it, this is exactly what I am talking about when I asked “What is the citizens responsibility in interaction with police?”. They aren’t perfect, nor am I. Understand this fact and do not exacerbate the situation. Live to fight again another day on your own terms, not theirs. Everyone is better off. If what they did was egregious enough, I could have dealt with it without spending any time in jail. I understand they were attempting to do more than merely inconvenience or embarrass me. Their objective was to rid the neighborhood of a drug house that threatened everyone. There was a bigger picture.
Yea but my point is you’re presuming that the police officer’s interference with you is justified and that his demands are “lawful.” I asked about the non-criminals. In cdor’s case, if his story is to be believed, your presumptions don’t apply. The claim of the Michael Brown supporters is that that’s commonplace in some communities. I don’t know if it is or it isn’t, but the law of large numbers tells me it’s certainly not unheard of. Yes, a little courtesy still goes a long ways — always. But that goes both ways and as free citizens, we need a recourse other than simply blindly and always deferring to the police because their job is dangerous. Because they’re not always going to do it right and occasionally they’re not even going to do it in good faith. They’re human too.
The problem is what you think is lawful and what a police officer does can legitimately be different things. If a man who looks like you robs a bank and the police stop you, arguing and refusing to be detained are not going to help your cause, and will only heighten the officer’s concern. If the bank teller says you are the suspect (mistakenly or nefariously), refusing to be arrested because you are innocent will only get you on the receiving end of legitimate force.
Cops and witnesses aren’t perfect. Mistakes are going to happen in the system, which is why we have trials and appeals. I hold no pretense that it is fun or acceptable. I was once the subject of a very false citizens arrest. But saying “no I won’t go like Garner did is a recipe for… Well, exactly what happened.
Robert, you’re still missing the point which is, simply: what are the rules that will minimize the unjust outcomes in the aggregate? Both unjust harm to cops, and unjust interference with or harm to civilians, count in that calculus. You might be right that it’s always prudent, in the individual interaction, to submit to the cops. But that’s only because they’ve always got force on their side, not because they’ve always got right on their side.
Yes, submission is always prudent, but my chief complaint is that the frequency of such occurrences, and the demeanor from both sides of the equation, is going the wrong direction. This idea that they are the authority and we are the submissive subjects at the slightest of their inclinations to initiate contact seems exceptionally un-American to me. Henry did not cry out “give me the right to cow obediently to the most minor of suspicions from the most minor of government functionaries or give me death.”
Cato: I’m not missing anything. I addressed it directly: “That is why we have trials and appeals.”
Otherwise criminals get to decide their guilt. That seems a bit ineffective, no?
KP: When, exactly, should someone be cooperative with law enforcement? And when should police allow them to walk/drive off without interference?
I would submit that the only way to measure that aggregate harm is to, from time to time, relax the rules (e.g., ending stop and frisk) and from time to time tightening the rules. Then see what happens to the total harm. I think we’ll see the results in New York soon enough.
No. It’s mission first, men always.
It’s also why we have probable cause requirements, 1983 actions, grand juries, and police review boards. Being found innocent on appeal after you’re bankrupted and imprisoned, and have had your life ruined, is pretty cold comfort.
We should always be cooperative, but there should be almost no occurrences where our cooperation is required. Beyond the tip of a hat or a courteous greeting law enforcement should have near zero interaction of an official nature with the vast majority of the citizenry. When we meet in line at Starbucks I should not wonder at or fear the way a law officer is looking at me, and he certainly should not be scanning the place for potential petty violations of our overly burdensome criminal/civil code.
I’m really starting to sound like a libertarian on this, but that is not my aim. I envision and long for a truly civil society where the us is comprised of most citizens and law enforcement against them, the criminals. As it stands now, whether perceived or real, the us is the citizenry, both law abiding and otherwise, vs them, the police. The methods and mannerisms of law enforcement is exacerbating the divide between the people of the United States and their government. I understand the cause and concern for officer safety that drives it all, but that does not make it either optimal or desirable. We are becoming what leftist political policies will inevitably make us to be.
I think this picture sums it up pretty well:
This. Times 1000. The process is the punishment.
Just out of curiosity, how many times a year do you deal with the police as anything but a victim or reporting party?
So, because the process is punishment (and I don’t necessarily disagree), people who (think they) are innocent of any crime should be allowed to actively resist arrest? And what are the cops to do?
With the way I drive and the programs required for my job, never. I have, however, had a recent, very negative experience with the legal system.
As the infractions multiply, nearly every encounter with the police can lead to citation or charge of one manner or another. People should almost never have to experience the process. This, of course, goes for the vast majority of our civil society, not for those who make the choice to live outside of civil society. We want and need a vigorous enforcement mechanism in place, but there seems to be a great deal of difficulty separating the sheep from the goats, and with the proliferation of statutes we’ll soon all be goats.
Kill everyone? Can you at least try to be vaguely serious, please. I haven’t advocated moving the line of acceptable use of force in the officer’s favor. I’m arguing that it is where it is for very substantive, deliberated reasons, and anyone who wants to move it out of the officer’s favor needs to understand the substance and deliberation of those reasons.
There is a balance now. 53 officers murdered last year, a small number of complete but careless innocents killed (e.g. John Crawford), a number of non-threatening but misperceived suspects killed, and a much greater number of truly resistant, and violent ones killed.
The question comes down to a very simple one: How many cops are you willing to see die in order to ensure there are no more John Crawfords? How many to ensure there are no more unarmed but resistant felons killed?
Studies show that human reaction time to a stimulus is in the .5-1.5 second time frame, with an officer requiring more time to draw his weapon, aim and pull the trigger. The more you move the line away from the officer, the greater his evaluation time becomes before he reacts, the more the suspect gets off the first (or more) shot(s).
I did some research on this topic for a thread on Popehat.com (before I was banned because Ken White is such a free speech advocate). There are 500-1000 police killings per year. I looked at a random month of a random year from this list (June of 2012) to be precise, and came up with 61 people killed by police, 55 of whom had clearly committed crimes. One was completely innocent, and the victim of a false report of car jacking by a jilted lover.
The details broke down thusly:
– 11 of them shot at police officers, killing one and wounding two.
– 10 of them pointed guns at officers
– 4 were killed while holding hostages (including a family and an emergency room staff)
– 9 Had knives, scissors or machetes they attacked or threatened the officer with
– 6 were in physical fights with officers, including one who was attempting to disarm the officer.
– 3 had blunt force objects they made threats with
– 2 dropped guns during altercations with cops
– 5 tried to run a police officer over with a car (or, in one case, a semi truck)
– 1 had a toy gun
– 4 were killed in hostage rescues or at the end of a standoff for another crime
That’s 55 out of the 61 who did something violent or threatened it.
The other six largely consisted of the mentally ill or suicidal.
So how many cops are you willing to see die in order to save how many of these people?
If you go back to my first comment, you’ll see that I stated that I don’t have enough information to know precisely how to draw the line. I’ll leave that to those who’ve studied the matter closely, and as someone else said, expect the line to move over time with experience. For present purposes, I’m satisfied that we both agree that the answer is not “none” and that there are innocent victims of police who’s interests must also be considered in formulating the rules. How many John Crawfords are there? I’d guess more than one.
Your situation was certainly very challenging, in every way. I do not envy you.
I’ve long noted the great injustice that the State has infinite resources while the defense does not. Of course, the State is supposed to (supposed to) work towards justice, while the defense’s goal is acquittal, just or not.
Of course, a large part of the problem with the system relates to the 90% of your companions in jail for whom it is a way of life. I have had many cops tell me that they get “lied to for a living.”
All that said, it is also largely irrelevant to the matter at hand. The question of what laws are unnecessary, intrusive, etc are not the purview of street cops. Their job is to evaluate whether or not a suspect is likely guilty of a crime, and secure them for the judicial system. Some people would rather kill a cop than go through it.
Your experience seems to have led you to believe that this is in some way acceptable.
Not at all. As I’ve said repeatedly, we need a vigorous system to deal with those who choose to live outside of civil society. The problem is that it seems police are becoming less capable of distinguishing between those they serve and those requiring the service they provide.
This is where our legislative bodies have multiplied the problem. The cop on the beat doesn’t have the latitude to not enforce the law, and his duty is to enforce it with whatever force (including deadly force) required to achieve that end. The matter is very binary. Either something is against the law and must be enforced up to and including using deadly force to do so, or the behavior is within our liberty. Because the power of the state (and the enforcement officers who are the first line representation of that power) must include deadly force or be non-existent, then it behooves us to weigh very carefully which things are to be brought under that power. We have not done a very good job with that for a very, very long time. The animosity between citizens and the state which we see now is the natural, logical, and only possible outcome.
Must watch!
Civil rights activist has a peek at the other side. Good thing it was only a peek:
That was quite something. And kudos to the police for offering it and to the Reverend for being willing to learn about the other side’s perspective and experience.