"reasonable" use of force

[Justice]

I was really furious when I read that the police officer who was videotaped punching a handcuffed teenager pleaded innocent to assault. It doesn't matter what the videotape shows, he says that he was justified in everything that he did.

The teenager has obvious developmental problems and, according to his family, does not quickly process commands. What strikes me as the most "interesting" is that although the officer said that the boy grabbed the officers private area after being handcuffed, none of the officers included this in their official reports. They also left out the officer's response.

If this did happen, why not report the whole incident? Wouldn't including that information add to their case of resisting arrest? They could have added assult on a police officer. What's even more disturbing is that the officer himself didn't report the "assult" until he was called to answer for his violence toward the teen.

I know there are a lot of REALLY great officers out there. There are men and women who risk their lives everday to keep us safe. How much more sickening is it when in the midst of all this good you have ppl like this officer who abuse their power.

[lovtophish]

Justice,

We have an arrest in Indianapolis that is now being investigated. The kid was pulled over from speeding and died as a result. The original cause of death stated in the police report was the amount of alchohol and drugs in his system. However, the coroner has reported a "blunt force trauma" to the head. The mayor of Indianapolis has asked for an investigation. It's scary to know that the men and women that are supposed to protect us can also hurt us and would do so.

Steph

[dreya]

I'm not familiar with the case you're referring to, but it is a shame that there are some officers like that doing such lousy things and reflecting badly on the police force as a whole...

[Wxcat]

Justice,

Be careful judging on a three minute video tape....

First, the officer who punched the teen did include everything in his report....a day prior to the tape being released. The officer's responses were also included. There was no attempt to hide the assault.

Second, the teen's alleged mental issues were not made public until a full week after the media broke the story. There was no feasible way that this officer could have been aware of the teens mental abilities. He was functional enough to have a driver's license and a car; there was no reason to assume he couldn't answer a few questions and cooperate with the officers. I know many mentally challenged people who don't assault anyone - this kid knew what he was doing.

That all being said...the officer did have other options other than punching the kid in the face. And there are other cases...the Indiana one sticks out, as does the Oklahoma case (video of the two officers billy-clubing a man sitting on the ground but still resisiting arrest).

I guess the only point I am trying to make is to be careful making judgement on what only the media tells you....they will make it sound in whatever fashion makes the ratings higher. Funny how this story hasn't been in the news lately....I wonder why....

[Justice]

Actually, I listened to several different reports. The officer "ammended" his statement after he was confronted with the video tape in court.

As for the fact that the youth was mentally challenged.... this is not the first time that officers have acted before having the facts. There have been cases of ppl who are having diabetic problems being denied medical care and treated like they are drunk. Also, police officers carry pepper spray to cut down on the need for additional force. I have seen it used responsibly to deal with a difficult suspect.

We may not hear anymore about the case for awhile. Since there may be a trial, there would naturally be a gag order in place to protect a jury pool. Then again, they may have reached a settlement which would also prevent details from being released. Most of all, there have been more urgent stories lately (trapped miners & kidnapped children) and there is only so much time in one newscast to cover them.

[*Lissa*]

Justice,

The recent cases of police brutality are probably just the tip of an iceberg, but because there has been video evidence, these incidents become public. I think it cannot be justified, and that a "justifiable degree of force" seems a very relative thing, indeed.

These kinds of stories give me a nasty flashback to the Rodney King incident in ninteteen-ninetyone, and I so hope the outcome of the investigations now won't be the same as then, when the policemen were acquitted of charges. (This led to the Los Angeles riots in the same year.)

Police brutality exists in all nations, and can never be condoned. We must all oppose it, and protest against it whenever it occurs!

[Wxcat]

I'm gonna continue to play devil's advocate here....just to keep the arguement fun-not to offend anyone, ok!!:grin

Was this kid wearing a med-alert bracelet? Same story for the drunk who was really in a diabetic situation. A police officer, while a specifically trained individual, has nothing to go on other than what the situation presents him and has minimal time to act accordingly to minimize injury to not only himself, but the civilian as well. Even if the person is mentally or physically incapacitated, the officer has a responsibility to protect the public at large.

Side note- I am not and will not justify this specific officers actions. He was presented a situation, and unfortunately for all of us, did not pick the best solution.

But I am also annoyed at how quickly this officers actions now become "standard". Every cop must be bad. We have three or four recorded incidents, out of the hundreds of thousands of protectors of the peace who work hard every day to secure our way of life. How quickly the heroism and valor of the patrol and officers at nine-eleven vanishes...I guess cops doing good deeds doesn't sell as many papers.

Have you ever watched a "Cops" episode?? Take a good hard look at what these brave people have to deal with everyday. They go to work full well knowing their day is generally not going to be filled with happy people looking to make their job any easier.

I dunno. I guess there are bad people everywhere and it stinks when the whole lot of them are judged by the actions of a few, especially when what they do means so much to the public they serve.

[Justice]

Deb,

In my openning post I said that there are a lot of really great officers out there who risk lives everyday to protect and serve. This is just one who casts a bad light on the profession.

As for a medic alert bracelet.... mental challenges are not always considered as needing immediate medical intervention. As for the person who had diabetes, they had a medic alert card in thier wallet.

Your question raises another one....... Should everyone who has any kind of mental illness or challenge be required to wear a bracelet? Should women who have PMS be urged to wear one in case of emotional mood swings? Do you wear one for your eating disorder? It's easy to say "Wear a medic alert bracelet" but are we, as a society, willing to give up that much of our personal information?

~Jus

[Wxcat]

Justice,

Mea culpa for missing the last paragraph of your first post....

As for "advertising" that one may be mentally or physically ill, I think the answer to that is yes, if your condition has the potential to be hazardous to yourself if you were to become unaware and unable to speak for yourself (ie car accident, diabetic seizure, heart attack). A card in the wallet, unless visible, isn't very proactive. There are search and seizure limitations. If that person was unable to offer the card, the officer was unable to go searching for it. You can get bracelets that simply state "see card"...then there is no issue of either illegal search or privacy issues for sensitive individuals.

I do not wear a bracelet for my ED. I don't see that being an issue next time I get pulled over for speeding (which, given my record, should be any day now :grin). But, I do wear one for my asthma and allergy to morphine. (I read this paragraph after reading the rest of my post and realize that maybe I should add the ED...)

Which, now that I think of it....raises yet another question (this is getting fun!) Hmmmm....how do I want to phrase this. Ever have the words and just can't get the order right??

We as a society have minimal issue being recognized for our physical problems (i.e, diabetic, epileptic, etc). It is recognized that it may interfere with work, needs to be monitored and medicated. It is something that insurance companies acknowledge as an issue and pay for appropriately (or not, but that's a different issue for a different post...)

Now, we know that there is current legislation and lobbying to include benefits and acknowledgement of mental disorders (ED's, MPD, bi-polar, depression...the list is endless) by insurance companies. Our disabilites are real, they cost us work time, they interfere with our daily lifes....

Which brings around to the bracelet again...once our issues are recognized, then I say yes...we should wear something to alert others to potential problems. It's not as if we are branding our foreheads with our personal issues...but the information, however personal, needs to be available when necessary. We need to remove the stigma of mental disability. It should be no different to wear a bracelet that says "Prozac" than it should to wear one that says "Insulin". The difficulties are no different...the potential for drug interactions is no different....and the potential for public saftey officers to have the chance to respond to a situation fully informed is no different.

BTW and completely off the point...thanks for the good topic. It's hard to find an intelligent discussion on something anymore without it turning into some sort of Jerry Springer episode.:grin

[drsharky]

On this count I can speak from personal experience and with a good bit of expertise.
A card in the wallet DOES help officers, at least if they have the foresight to check for a wallet or handbag for information. I wear a Medic Alert bracelet, but link it around my bra strap. I was in VERY poor condition from severe low blood sugar (I am diabetic and have been for over thirty years). I had pulled over into an intersection and apparently was just sitting there and was totally unresponsive.
The reason why an officer was able to help me was that he looked through my car and found my wallet. When he saw that my license had medical information on it (this was a state that allows people to self-report medical conditions), he immediately called for an ambulance to come treat me. They had me up and around in about ******** minutes, from near unconsciousness to being coherent enough to carry on a conversation and phone home for a ride. Thank goodness that he thought to look in my bag, which was in plain sight on my car seat. Many officers, even with someone in a VERY poor condition (as I was) do not take the time to try to investigate and discover what the problem is. While personal safety is a major concern that officers have to consider, there are a number of situations where looking, talking, and doing some simple investigation can help defuse a potentially disastrous situation.
Why don't I wear my alert bracelet in view? First, I now wear an insulin pump-- people who can see the tube coming out know that this means I'm diabetic. Second, I have been in several situations where people don't take the time to look. I hope that if I end up in a hospital that when I am being undressed and put into a gown they will be able to see (or hear, if it is dropped) my tag. But the fact is, as much as they are there and intended to inform the general population of a general problem, my experience has been that people do not take the time to look.
And, even if they did-- as far as I know most people with mental disabilities do not have access to medic alert tags designed for them.
This is all beside the point on whether or not the police acted a bit too hastily or too extreme-- but it is my two cents on the topic of medical information.
s

[Wxcat]

Dr. Sharky,

I'm glad that everything worked out well for you...that officer did a good thing.

I know at my pharmacy here (KS) that you can get a med-alert that states "see card" or you can have the company engrave specifics for you. The only ones they sell already engraved are for common conditions (gee...that may not be the right word, but I think you know what I mean) So they have them for diabetes, heart problems and asthma, but anything else you can personalize, even with a Dr. name and phone #.

It is unfortunate that people haven't taken the time to notice the med-alert tags...almost defeats the purpose. Which does sort of round us back to part of the original arguement...if not the bracelets, then what may be a good way to alert law enforcement (or medical personnel) of a potential problem? There may not be a way, so unfortunate situations like the diabetic who was mistaken for drunk may continue to happen.

[drsharky]

Deb--
My tag also says all of those things, and I carry a card in my wallet on top of all the other stuff.
My point was much simpler though-- the officer who took time to check for my wallet was the exception and not the rule. I don't want to belabor the point, but most officers (and others, like school administrators, security, flight attendants, and so on) do not take the time to look for information that might help them get answers as to why people behave so strangely (or aggressively) sometimes. My partner, who works in a campus police department, can confirm this about campus security and about the city police where we live; she has helped a number of diabetic people in time to "save" them from officers who were about to cuff them and take them away for a DUI.
As well, relative to the original point of this post, it really does not get at the bigger question (provoking further discussion here)... to me, it seems like some people believe the young man, or his parents, should have been responsible about informing the public of his condition. And others are worried that this indicates an invasion of privacy and that it does not focus on what's really at hand-- the issue of police brutality.
Thoughts?
s

[Justice]

Sarah,

My point exactly. Police have a responsibility to protect and serve. That's the motto on the cars in Maryland, anyway. I'm grateful for the job that most police officers do but this particular officer overstepped the boundaries.

I was thinking about the medic alert bracelets as I was thinking about this situation. So.. let's look at another situation: A teacher has a student who is out of control. Even if the student threatens the teacher, the teacher is forbidden from laying a hand on the student. Teachers have minimal training but seem to be able to diffuse the situation without force.

I would think that police officers go thru some sort of training that would direct them in a reasonable use of force. I would expect that these same officers who carry weapons and who are given the authority to uphold the law would be psychologically screened before they are given a badge and then continuously throughout their career.

Whether someone has a medic alert bracelet or not, they should still be treated as the officer would like to be treated.

~Jus

[Wxcat]

Kudos to your friend on the campus deparment, Dr. Sharky. Alot of this boils down to an education process, and it is good that she is taking initiative with her fellow officers.

I think the issue with the teachers is different. That's a liability issue, not an ability to control issue. I've unfortunately been on the end of this with my child being the violently unruly one. The instructors don't physically leave a child alone because they have any sort of training...they do it to avoid being sued.

Officers go through a lot of training. I have another six months of classes before even being considered for Academy. I think we are placing too much on the officer. S/he is only human...mistakes can and will be made. There is not a whole lot of time for an officer to react to a situation that is presented. They may merely have minutes to assess the entire environment. Bear in mind as well, just because someone is cuffed and removed at a scene does not mean they are charged with anything. It is done for safety to all involved....They can get down to the station where further investigation in a non-combative environment may reveal more information about a situation and explain a particular behavior. I don't think it's reasonable to assume that an officer, even with extensive training, can run through every possible scenario of why someone is acting the way they are at the scene. I have personally seen this happen on the ride-alongs that I do.

There will always be someone somewhere who when given power, abuses it, whether an officer of the peace, a teacher, a priest....I feel for the officers who have to work daily with a public who holds all of them accountable for the actions of a bare few.