Use of Force - Fort Pierce Fla.

[RationalBiker]

This is a use of force incident that is currently under a lot of scrutiny and debate;

http://youtube.com/watch?v=oS2NY0M08zA

I've formed my opinion of it, but I'd like to hear other people think aside from the average ZOMG! youtube user thinks.

While the force may appear excessive, I'm reasonably convinced his actions fall well within the continuum of force that is taught to most police agencies. I don't know that specific department's policy of use of force, but his chief has already come out and said he did not violate their policy.

[stephenmallory]

Well, aside from the fact that any force used against someone for a curfew violation goes beyond the proper continuum of force from no force to any force whatsoever, when he used the pepper spray there was an obvious change in her arm strength - whatever the reason.

So, within the scope of what the officer is responsible for - enforcing the law - I think he acted legitimately. It's a tough one to sell because, aside from maybe one fleeting instance, it's obvious that this girl was not conciously resisting but was just in a state of emotional hysteria. If he had let her go - which he shouldn't do because, emotional hysteria or not, she's responsible for her actions - she likely would have presented no risk to the officer's safety and just fled. Any rational person should buy a defense of his actions.

[Ender]

While the force may appear excessive, I'm reasonably convinced his actions fall well within the continuum of force that is taught to most police agencies.

I agree with you. He was calm and professional, repeatedly ordered her to stop resisting, was careful not to injure her when he tried to force her hands back, and then used a very short burst of pepper spray to subdue her when that didn't work. I'm sure we'll be hearing the liberal outcry sooner or later, but I didn't see anything out of line.

[DavidOdden]

Man she is a drama queen. I think she needs a bit of coaching, to make the pitiful shrieking more realistic.

[RationalBiker]

Man she is a drama queen. I think she needs a bit of coaching, to make the pitiful shrieking more realistic.

Unfortunately she's not far from the ordinary in what we deal with relatively frequently. Lots of drama.

[Tenure]

RationalBiker - what's police procedure when dealing with someone, like that, who is very skinny, and who you could very seriously injure, very easily? Are you trained to know what is and isn't impossible when trying to restrain someone? I.e. are you shown just how far back and round arms can bend?

[RationalBiker]

RationalBiker - what's police procedure when dealing with someone, like that, who is very skinny, and who you could very seriously injure, very easily? Are you trained to know what is and isn't impossible when trying to restrain someone? I.e. are you shown just how far back and round arms can bend?

We are trained for general circumstances and to use a level of force that is reasonable to overcome the level of resistance offered by the suspect. The girl in the video offers two (technically three but I'm kinda giving her a little leeway) levels of resistance, passive at first then active. When she bit him she went into the third realm for a second from mere resistance to being combative. During the first phase of passive resistance he used precisely the techniques I have been taught; wristlocks, joint manipulations, attempting to guide her and handcuff her. When she starts flailing and trying to pull away she enters the realm of active resistance which actually then affords the officer the legal right to use the pepper spray (or greater physical force) at that point but he doesn't. Instead, he continues to try to control her at the level of a passive resister. It's not until that she bites him that he uses the techniques he could use at the active resister level. In other words, on the force continuum, he stays at her level or UNDER it for the duration of the conflict. Although the video "looks" bad, he showed commendable restraint and continued to give appropriate voice commands throughout. He told her what to do, he told her what could happen if she continued to resist and he did all this multiple times. He probably showed the restraint he did because she was such a small girl.

People think pepper spray is a bad thing, but the alternative is typically worse. Pepper spray is painful for a short duration (about an hour) but it is not typically injurious. If he hadn't pepper sprayed her and instead had tried to really muscle her arms behind her, we'd still here outcries of abuse, but she would likely have a broken or strained arm or wrist.

Joint manipulation has to be "measured" to some degree by the results that are being observed. In my case, my wrists are very flexible so typical wristlocks can be less effective on me than the next guy. In her case, it's not unreasonable for such a thin girl to have very flexible arms such that he may have almost had to take her arm up behind her head for the technique to be effective. Yes, some pain is involved, but not injury if done correctly. But generally it's the pain you are relying on to get the compliance in a resisting subject. I don't know for sure, but I doubt her arm was injured though it looked really bad on video. However, though my wrists are flexible, if you were to bend my arm up behind my head like that, I'd probably dislocate my shoulder or something. There are different thresholds for different people. One female officer in our recent Defensive Tactics class was not susceptible to pressure points. Something like 1 in 36,000 people reportedly have their nerves under their muscle layer (or something like that) so applying pressure to a pressure point does not work well, if at all, on them. We all tried a number of common pressure points on this officer and she did not experience pain from any of them.

In my opinion, the pepper spray was the appropriate option. Excessive or not, I don't think it can be argued that the pepper spray took the fight out of her real quick, most likely preventing any further possible injury to herself or the officer.

Our department is about to go to TASERS as well. We are still trying to fine tune where TASERS fit in on the force continuum, but generally they are accepted to be right there with pepper spray. However, if he had TASERed that girl I think the outcry would be tenfold.

[K-Mac]

I found it interesting that the officer was so calm. I would have smacked her silly, thrown her on the ground, put my knee in her back and forcibly handcuffed her long before the attempted bite. I guess I'm just impatient and intolerant when it comes to stupid drama queens. (I was a 15 year-old girl once and never would have behaved like that had a uniformed police officer been trying to arrest me.) You know you're not going to talk or cry your way out of it, so just shut up and go quietly.

I also found it interesting that the officer made sure he was in front of his camera at all times. It clearly shows he knew this girl was going to be trouble before and after her arrest (lawsuits) and he wanted what he was doing to be documented. It looks like he was doing everything by the book.

Now as for the curfew laws, I think they're pretty ridiculous, but when an officer has decided to arrest you, you have to do what you're told, be it wrong or right. She should have complied peacefully and fought it later in court.

[Inspector]

Although the video "looks" bad, he showed commendable restraint and continued to give appropriate voice commands throughout.

Honestly, it doesn't look bad to me at all. It doesn't look excessive in the least. I mean, I comprehend that there are people out there who would think so, but I honestly can't see it, myself. He was calm, restrained, and gave her what seemed like 6000 warnings and said exactly what he was going to do. At no point did he use excessive amounts of force or pressure.

[softwareNerd]

Honestly, it doesn't look bad to me at all. It doesn't look excessive in the least.

That's what I thought too. The incident looked rather mild. Also, it was obvious that the cop was aware of the dashboard camera, and it appeared that he positioned the girl there in the first place, so that the whole thing would be filmed clearly.

[RationalBiker]

That's what I thought too. The incident looked rather mild. Also, it was obvious that the cop was aware of the dashboard camera, and it appeared that he positioned the girl there in the first place, so that the whole thing would be filmed clearly.

Not only that, but if you notice at the very beginning the officer is turning on the transmitter so we get the audio of what's going on. He quite intentionally documented the incident with his camera system.

The appearance problem is that people only see BIG white cop and small black child. I've read comment after comment where people specifically refer to her as a child as an emotional appeal as to how she should be dealt with.

[Inspector]

The appearance problem is that people only see BIG white cop and small black child.

If that's the deepest that one examines the issue, blanking out everything else, then...

No, I still don't see it.

[RationalBiker]

If that's the deepest that one examines the issue, blanking out everything else, then...

No, I still don't see it.

But that's exactly what makes it an "appearance" problem.... a very superficial examination of what happened. You don't see it because you examine the video with an objective and more informed thought process. The city government and the police department have to deal with people who don't do that.

[DavidOdden]

We are trained for general circumstances and to use a level of force that is reasonable to overcome the level of resistance offered by the suspect.

(remainder of post snipped for brevity)

I've always assumed that the use of force in law enforcement was governed by a kind of subjective judgment where you do what your guts tell you is necessary to get the job done and not get hurt. But the way you explain the levels of force reveals a degree of rule-governed objectivity to police conduct that I was completely unaware of, and I bet most people had no reason to suspect existed.

[RationalBiker]

I've always assumed that the use of force in law enforcement was governed by a kind of subjective judgment ...

It was not too long ago when you would have been generally right. For as long as I have been a police officer, 22 years, the principle has been "the minimum amount of force necessary to affect the arrest or stop the threat". Within that guideline there was a degree of subjectivity as to which particular techniques were acceptable in response to a suspect's behavior. More recently, within the last few years for our department, we broke that down into bite-sized pieces to make it clearer what types of force were appropriate for what levels of resistance. I think that was a good thing. So yes, there are some more objective guidelines than there used to be when employing force.

The pepper spray issue came up in one Supreme Court case when a bunch of protesters did a "lock-in" and police used cotton swabs to apply pepper spray to each individuals eyes. The court found problems in at least two areas (that I'm aware of); 1) the protesters were "passively" resisting arrest, they were not fighting or struggling against the arrest but merely not complying so the force was deemed excessive. 2) The force used was not nor could have been successful in forcing the subjects to comply. The subjects had handcuffed themselves together and inside of steel cylinders so they could not uncuff themselves even if they had wanted to. This may have been one of the catalysts for determining the difference between active and passive resistance. After active resistance you have combative behavior (where the suspect is now trying to actively cause harm to the officer) and finally deadly force.

[FeatherFall]

Nobody mentioned the punch around 1:34, just after the bite. It still seems to me that the cop acted appropriately.

[Inspector]

But that's exactly what makes it an "appearance" problem.... a very superficial examination of what happened. You don't see it because you examine the video with an objective and more informed thought process. The city government and the police department have to deal with people who don't do that.

I think "superficial" is almost too generous. It's not even a matter of being informed - it is a matter of even asking the question "why?" I.e. asking and looking for evidence on each action to determine why each person is doing or saying what they are doing or saying. It's if anything, below superficial - going right down to simply projecting unreality onto something based on the "big white man little black girl" sub-caveman thought process.

I do sympathize with departments having to deal with this kind of crap. It breeds and encourages its opposite - true abuse of police authority, such as this.

I stated, again, that my carry permit was valid, and TN State law permitted handgun carry open or concealed, and that I usually carry concealed. He said that my permit had “better say just that, handgun carry,” but even if it did, he’d just “find some other reason to take me in, disorderly conduct, or inciting a panic. I’ll make some reason.” I was shocked to hear him openly state that he would manufacture probable cause to falsely arrest me, in the hearing of my girlfriend, standing no less than 5 feet away, the Wal-Mart employee he had been speaking with, and the small crowd of bystanders watching.

(bold mine)

Any officer who threatens to manufacture evidence like that should be not only fired, but blacklisted from ever working in any law enforcement job again. Things like that go by the wayside, while emotionalist crap like the above video provoke outrage - that's just the kind of society we live in.

[RationalBiker]

Any officer who threatens to manufacture evidence like that should be not only fired, but blacklisted from ever working in any law enforcement job again. Things like that go by the wayside, while emotionalist crap like the above video provoke outrage - that's just the kind of society we live in.

I concur. Along the same lines of real abuse of authority refer to this web page. Watch the video (or more like listen) to have your stomach turn.

However the question in my mind is why is this guy video taping while he's driving around and pulling into a commuter parking lot in the middle of the night? Something seems fishy about that.

[Inspector]

I concur. Along the same lines of real abuse of authority refer to this web page. Watch the video (or more like listen) to have your stomach turn.

Ugh, you're right about that.

[stephenmallory]

However the question in my mind is why is this guy video taping while he's driving around and pulling into a commuter parking lot in the middle of the night? Something seems fishy about that.

Yes, there's definitely something fishy about it, but that wasn't the officer's chief reason for suspicion. He was more suspicious of the kid's alleged swervy driving and turn signal failure. And of course his "lip" and "attitude".

Also, if you look around that website some more, you'll find at least one other video from within this kid's car documenting encounters with the police. He has a history of using video camers inside his car. It also discusses the kid's dropped assault charge when he was attacked by a drunken off-duty cop. Of course, the officer in the commuter parking lot couldn't have known these things at the time, but they should allay your "fishy feeling."

[softwareNerd]

However the question in my mind is why is this guy video taping while he's driving around and pulling into a commuter parking lot in the middle of the night?

He was clearly trying to get a cop to stop him, so that he could document the encounter. He's probably also got video of other attempts to snare a cop, where nothing happened. Basically, he's running a "sting" operation to catch "bad cops".

I didn't see the video, just read the transcript; but, from that, it appears he was successful in finding the "right" cop in this particular sting operation.

[K-Mac]

He was more suspicious of the kid's alleged swervy driving and turn signal failure.

Which I found interesting since you could clearly see the use of the turn signal in the beginning of the video. (Unless the officer was referring to it's non-use at some point before what we are able to view.)

I watched the other video about the DUI checkpoint and found that disturbing as well. This young man does have weird motives and I wonder what they truly are, but perhaps its that the police in his area are frequently violating citizens' civil rights and he's attempting to be a "watch dog?"

I was stopped at a DUI checkpoint a few months back. Aside from seeing them on the news, this was the first time I had ever seen one in person or been stopped at one. Although the officer I interacted with was extremely polite and friendly, I couldn't help but feel violated. Here I am on an open, country highway and I was forced to stop at the county line and declare my whereabouts and what I was doing. Do I not have the right to travel freely within this country's borders? Or does the fact that "driving is a privilege and not a right" supercede my individual rights?

Edited October 9, 2007 by K-Mac