The behaviour of US police officers

Status
Not open for further replies.
Captain_Swoop said:
That's exactly it.
You get an offer of a fixed penalty through the post.
If you decline it goes to court where it will be more expensive as the fine could be higher and costs are added.
Click to expand...

In this instance maybe the alternative of attending a Sandwich Awareness Course should have been on offer too.

Dave
 
SuburbanTurkey said:
Internal investigation started after cell phone videos shows officer tackling and pinning a 15 year old quadruple amputee to the ground.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2019/11/15/pima-county-sheriffs-office-year-old-video-quadruple-amputee/
Click to expand...

Please don't link to the Washington Post. They have an idiotic JavaScript paywall that consistently labels my Firefox browser as being in private mode when it's not. Until they stop doing this I don't want to give them the clicks.

ETA: It works in Chromium, so I can use that to read links to the Washington Post, and I've alerted the WP to the issue with Firefox and Linux.
 
Last edited:
Blue Mountain said:
Please don't link to the Washington Post. They have an idiotic JavaScript paywall that consistently labels my Firefox browser as being in private mode when it's not. Until they stop doing this I don't want to give them the clicks.

ETA: It works in Chromium, so I can use that to read links to the Washington Post, and I've alerted the WP to the issue with Firefox and Linux.
Click to expand...

Off topic, but interesting. I always open WaPo in Chrome incognito mode because they can't tell how many times I've visited. They seem to have given up wanting me to turn off an adblocker.
 
Internal investigation started after cell phone videos shows officer tackling and pinning a 15 year old quadruple amputee to the ground.
Click to expand...

I should no longer be surprised by the number of things that actually keep happening in real life that would be laughed out of an argument as a hyperbolic strawman if you made them in one, even jokingly.

Like... this is kind of thing you'd make up as a joke in argument about police overreaction.
 
Trebuchet said:
Off topic, but interesting. I always open WaPo in Chrome incognito mode because they can't tell how many times I've visited. They seem to have given up wanting me to turn off an adblocker.
Click to expand...
I think that they can, or something like that. Numerous times I have received that dreaded pop-up, "You have exceeded your monthly allowance of free articles...", when I was attempting to read an article using Chrome Incognito.

It's always been accurate too. The notice came when I had exceeded the limit. It seemed to not matter that I was using Chrome Incognito.
 
erlando said:
"You're under arrest .... for resisting arrest". That's not an escalation?
Click to expand...


no, If one is caught breaking the law, the non escalating thing to do is to stop breaking the law.

swearing and insulting the officer is escalating.
 
Captain_Swoop said:
That's exactly it.
You get an offer of a fixed penalty through the post.
If you decline it goes to court where it will be more expensive as the fine could be higher and costs are added.
Click to expand...

So it's basically the same as a citation in the US, but different terminology. Although in the US (at least in some jurisdictions), the fine if you choose to mail it in is often listed on the citation.
 
William Parcher said:
I think that they can, or something like that. Numerous times I have received that dreaded pop-up, "You have exceeded your monthly allowance of free articles...", when I was attempting to read an article using Chrome Incognito.

It's always been accurate too. The notice came when I had exceeded the limit. It seemed to not matter that I was using Chrome Incognito.
Click to expand...

I haven't tried Incognito mode for news sites, but I have found that if I get the "You have exceeded your monthly allowance of free articles..." popup on WaPo, NY Times and most other news sites, clearing cookies and refreshing makes it go away.
 
Shadowdweller said:
No, those are not remotely the same. There are insurmountable differences between fulfilling an universal and constant human need (eating) that many people lack sufficient time for on their way to work and shooting someone.

Beyond that: I am personally unfamiliar with BART. But according to the female narrator there are NO signs saying that eating is against the law. According the article writer, eating and drinking in spite of said laws is commonplace. And then there are shops selling food in the transit station...
Click to expand...

Eating is universal and constant?

The shop selling food is outside of BART and you can eat before you enter the BART system.

Just because lots of people break the law is no excuse to break the law in front of an officer.
 
CORed said:
I have found that if I get the "You have exceeded your monthly allowance of free articles..." popup on WaPo, NY Times and most other news sites, clearing cookies and refreshing makes it go away.
Click to expand...
It doesn't work for me. They somehow still "know".


CORed said:
I haven't tried Incognito mode for news sites
Click to expand...
There are some major American news sites that cannot be read at all using Chrome Incognito. Or more specifically, I should say that you can look at all their article headlines but you can't open and read any article. They know that you are browsing incognito and won't allow you to read unless you subscribe. It states that only paid subscribers can read articles while using an incognito browser.

For example. With your Chrome Incognito go to Los Angeles Times and try to open an article.
 
Blue Mountain said:
Please don't link to the Washington Post. They have an idiotic JavaScript paywall that consistently labels my Firefox browser as being in private mode when it's not. Until they stop doing this I don't want to give them the clicks.

ETA: It works in Chromium, so I can use that to read links to the Washington Post, and I've alerted the WP to the issue with Firefox and Linux.
Click to expand...

From the Gruniad: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/nov/15/arizona-quadruple-amputee-police-video-teenager
 
bobdroege7 said:
Eating is universal and constant?
Click to expand...
For those individuals healthy enough not to be on parenteral nutrition or have G-tubes and the like, YES, it is. On average something like 5 times per day here in the US.

bobdroege7 said:
The shop selling food is outside of BART and you can eat before you enter the BART system.

Just because lots of people break the law is no excuse to break the law in front of an officer.
Click to expand...
Even if the shop is not actually inside the transit terminal, it is a common occurrence here in the real world to find customers within a short vicinity of stores that sell food to be eating food. It is NOT reasonable to expect people to know that food is forbidden on the platform if there is no widely available mechanism by which the law might be communicated to the population - by signs, for example; particularly when the law is rarely/inconsistently enforced and people are seen performing the forbidden act (eating on the platform) every day.
 
Shadowdweller said:
For those individuals healthy enough not to be on parenteral nutrition or have G-tubes and the like, YES, it is. On average something like 5 times per day here in the US.

Even if the shop is not actually inside the transit terminal, it is a common occurrence here in the real world to find customers within a short vicinity of stores that sell food to be eating food. It is NOT reasonable to expect people to know that food is forbidden on the platform if there is no widely available mechanism by which the law might be communicated to the population - by signs, for example; particularly when the law is rarely/inconsistently enforced and people are seen performing the forbidden act (eating on the platform) every day.
Click to expand...

Yeah people gotta eat.

BART publishes the rules.

You say there is no widely available mechanism by which the law might be communicated to the population.

How about google?

https://www.bart.gov/sites/default/files/docs/08-08-13 Customer CofC.pdf
 
The Norseman said:
Using that logic, we're wasting huge amounts of money putting up speed limit signs all over the place because those speeds are available on line.
Click to expand...

Yeah but there are speed limits even where the speed limit isn't posted.

Just because a stretch of road doesn't have a sign telling you the speed limit doesn't mean you can't get a ticket if you go too fast.

And by the way, nuts to the notion there are no signs

"Eating in the paid area is banned and there are multiple signs inside every station saying as much. As a transportation system our concern with eating is related to the cleanliness of our stations and system."

Says the BART General Manager

And lastly ignorance of the law is no excuse.
 
erlando said:
Another "resource officer" that shouldn't have been allowed anywhere near children..:

https://wsvn.com/news/local/broward-sheriff-deputy-arrested-after-slamming-teen-on-ground/

Full surveillance video:



At 0:39 the student can be seen lightly tapping (not kicking) the officer on the back of his leg. Some time passes before the officer grabs the student in a choke hold and throws her to the floor before planting a knee in her back and cuffing her. After pulling her up by the cuffs the officer pushes her into a wall.

Reportedly Cross Creek School is a school for children with emotional or behavioral disabilities.

Again the concept of "resource officer" must be brought into question. Who thought this was a good idea?
Click to expand...

I think you misunderstand what the euphemism 'resource officer' means. They are there to kill children. They are constantly on edge prepared to bring down the child who is packing. Unlike other LEO ( I guess) when they go into the kill room they don't avoid shooting the child figure that pops up they have to bring it down without hesitation. He should be recognised for his restraint in not putting three rounds to her centre of mass.

Personally I am glad that my child will not have to go to a school where an armed guard is constantly scrutinising the children ready to shoot them. But I know this is a price US citizens are willing to pay to defend the constitution; indeed it is an object lesson for the pupils in the importance of carrying a weapon and being prepared to kill.
 
SuburbanTurkey said:
Internal investigation started after cell phone videos shows officer tackling and pinning a 15 year old quadruple amputee to the ground.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2019/11/15/pima-county-sheriffs-office-year-old-video-quadruple-amputee/
Click to expand...


This quote is very telling.

"The Pima County Sheriff’s Department told KOLD that they hadn’t previously been aware of the video and would launch an investigation."​


It tells us that under normal circumstances they wouldn't have had any issues at all with a cop tackling a fifteen year old with no arms or legs, but since there was video of the incident they had no choice but to act like they cared.
 
bobdroege7 said:
Yeah but there are speed limits even where the speed limit isn't posted.

Just because a stretch of road doesn't have a sign telling you the speed limit doesn't mean you can't get a ticket if you go too fast.
Click to expand...
Irrelevant to my point.


And by the way, nuts to the notion there are no signs

"Eating in the paid area is banned and there are multiple signs inside every station saying as much. As a transportation system our concern with eating is related to the cleanliness of our stations and system."

Says the BART General Manager
Click to expand...
Alright. So if the place was posted that's how it should be. Still doesn't excuse the actions of the 'cop.'



And lastly ignorance of the law is no excuse.
Click to expand...
lol yeah, unless you're a cop.
 
bobdroege7 said:
no, If one is caught breaking the law, the non escalating thing to do is to stop breaking the law.

swearing and insulting the officer is escalating.
Click to expand...

If only there was some useful phrase LEOs could memorize during training. Maybe a reminder that being assaulted with clubs or pelted by rocks may indeed cause contusions and fractures, but verbal outbursts, however belligerent, are incapable of causing bodily harm.

Nah, that’s way too difficult to teach adults.
 
The Norseman said:
Irrelevant to my point.



Alright. So if the place was posted that's how it should be. Still doesn't excuse the actions of the 'cop.'




lol yeah, unless you're a cop.
Click to expand...

What actions of the cop do you have a problem with?

He seems pretty calm in the video, didn't beat the muffin eater up. I don't think he did anything wrong, unless you think enforcing the law is doing something wrong.

And he gave the muffin eater a chance to comply, which he didn't take advantage of.

The video shows the second interaction, not the first one, where he told the muffin eater not to eat on the platform.

And what laws do you see the cop breaking?
 
autumn1971 said:
If only there was some useful phrase LEOs could memorize during training. Maybe a reminder that being assaulted with clubs or pelted by rocks may indeed cause contusions and fractures, but verbal outbursts, however belligerent, are incapable of causing bodily harm.

Nah, that’s way too difficult to teach adults.
Click to expand...

Looks to me like the LEO was taking the abuse from the muffin eater very well.

Looks like he was the adult in the "room" and the muffin eater acting like a spoiled brat.
 
bobdroege7 said:
no, If one is caught breaking the law, the non escalating thing to do is to stop breaking the law.



swearing and insulting the officer is escalating.
Click to expand...
In England the police were using the fact that someone swore when speaking to them as a reason to arrest and the prosecution service to prosecute the person, magistrates then found people guilty. Thankfully our courts overturned that nonsense https://shar.es/a3fnwI Perhaps it time for the USA to do the same?
 
Darat said:
In England the police were using the fact that someone swore when speaking to them as a reason to arrest and the prosecution service to prosecute the person, magistrates then found people guilty. Thankfully our courts overturned that nonsense https://shar.es/a3fnwI Perhaps it time for the USA to do the same?
Click to expand...

Let's not get too high and mighty here, they overturned that specific case on the specific grounds that the swear words were not uttered at the officers but as a part of normal speech, speech which "robust" police officers should not find harassing, alarming or upsetting.

Justice Bean said in his summing up (to make sure the delicate officers had firmer ground going forward) "This is not to say that such words are incapable of causing police officers to experience alarm, distress or harassment." He did not add, "so crack on lads and bear that in mind in future"

You can rest assured that police officers are, nowadays, much more savvy and when hearing such epithets make sure to feign upset and alarm and claim they were being harassed right off the bat. They will cheerfully manufacture the devastating effect such course language has on their Victorian sensibilities as well as act on behalf of anybody else in the vicinity, whether they've complained or not (or not being the usual case). Add in a skewing of the intention of the person swearing to maliciously create an offence and..... "yer nicked". The beauty of the old section 5 public order offence and it's malleability.

The only time you can most definitely verbally abuse a police officer is at a police station whilst in a custody suite as there is no sec. 5 offence one can commit whilst in there. I would advise in advance, should you be considering letting loose at some future point, whilst a guest of the constabulary, that such behaviour is almost guaranteed to attract a vigorous condemnation from any and all offices present for being "verbally uncooperative".
 
bobdroege7 said:
no, If one is caught breaking the law, the non escalating thing to do is to stop breaking the law.

swearing and insulting the officer is escalating.
Click to expand...

When inside the about 30 seconds it took for the officer to perceive "resistance" was he insulting the officer?

Again "resisting arrest" is the go-to "**** you" card used by american police.
 
bobdroege7 said:
Eating is universal and constant?

The shop selling food is outside of BART and you can eat before you enter the BART system.

Just because lots of people break the law is no excuse to break the law in front of an officer.
Click to expand...

Did you miss the witnesses saying that the police officer walked right past other people eating and drinking coffee on the platform?
 
bluesjnr said:
Let's not get too high and mighty here, they overturned that specific case on the specific grounds that the swear words were not uttered at the officers but as a part of normal speech, speech which "robust" police officers should not find harassing, alarming or upsetting.



Justice Bean said in his summing up (to make sure the delicate officers had firmer ground going forward) "This is not to say that such words are incapable of causing police officers to experience alarm, distress or harassment." He did not add, "so crack on lads and bear that in mind in future"



You can rest assured that police officers are, nowadays, much more savvy and when hearing such epithets make sure to feign upset and alarm and claim they were being harassed right off the bat. They will cheerfully manufacture the devastating effect such course language has on their Victorian sensibilities as well as act on behalf of anybody else in the vicinity, whether they've complained or not (or not being the usual case). Add in a skewing of the intention of the person swearing to maliciously create an offence and..... "yer nicked". The beauty of the old section 5 public order offence and it's malleability.



The only time you can most definitely verbally abuse a police officer is at a police station whilst in a custody suite as there is no sec. 5 offence one can commit whilst in there. I would advise in advance, should you be considering letting loose at some future point, whilst a guest of the constabulary, that such behaviour is almost guaranteed to attract a vigorous condemnation from any and all offices present for being "verbally uncooperative".
Click to expand...

Nope that doesn't sum the case up. In effect the judge said "you must think I was born ******* yesterday if you ******* think I ******* believe you lot don't ******* f and blind all the time." Police can't now use their own offence as grounds.
 
Darat said:
Nope that doesn't sum the case up. In effect the judge said "you must think I was born ******* yesterday if you ******* think I ******* believe you lot don't ******* f and blind all the time." Police can't now use their own offence as grounds.
Click to expand...

That summation was a word for word copy uttered by the deciding judge. You should note that I never once suggested that a police officer being offended was grounds. Police officers no longer get offended, they are alarmed, distressed and harassed these days.

It is an offence to cause alarm, distress or harassment to anybody, including a police officer, and using foul language is one route to doing so.
 
Last edited:
autumn1971 said:
If only there was some useful phrase LEOs could memorize during training. Maybe a reminder that being assaulted with clubs or pelted by rocks may indeed cause contusions and fractures, but verbal outbursts, however belligerent, are incapable of causing bodily harm.

Nah, that’s way too difficult to teach adults.
Click to expand...


Old YouTube video of the calmest cop ever:

 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom