This is a Cop. He controls black people.
 

YouTube Video

The advent of tasers and other less-than-lethal weaponry have given the police carte blanche to commit tremendous acts of thuggery on American citizens.

How can we deal with an increasingly brutal colonial police force?

How can you say it's carte blanche when there's a furor every time a taser is used?

Blue Wall of Silence

Sounds like you agree that the technology isn't the problem, then.

The technology is a part of the problem, because tasers don't leave distinguishing marks like bruising from a nightstick.

First, I'm not all that well versed on tasers, and I don't know how pregnant the woman was, but tasing a PREGNANT woman?

At any rate, if there is some truth to this, those officers are screwed. Unless they do some really cruddy scheme and somehow brain wash those children or whatnot, once those children start re-accounting what happened (and it looks like there we several of them), those officers are done. Not only will they lose their jobs, but given all the complications they invited through this, they are going to have a slew of other matters too.

I had a discussion on the advent of tasers with my sister's girlfriend who's trying to get into the police force. I argued that taser's ease of use was their downfall since I get the impression a lot of cops are using tasers instead of using traditional hand to hand techniques to get people down...I feel that a lot of times when someone is UNARMED there's no reason why a cop can't just tackle the guy or find some other way to take him down than tasering him. That's if they even need to get someone down. A lot of the cases that have been publicized (and obviously, probably not representative of the majority) are cases where the cops have had their tasers out before even needing to make an arrest, which is just outrageous.

It think the thought process I arrived to was that just because they are a non-lethal weapon, police forget they're still weapons, and drawing a weapon on someone shouldn't happen until arrests are being made or serious resistance is being put up.

Allegedly, and I'm not sure if this is just for the area I'm in (midwest) but from what I hear, officers around here need to complete two things before they are able to become law enforcement officers aside from the actual standard training and classes they need to take.

They need to get tasered themselves, and also pepper sprayed. I believe it had something to do with the fact that the cops can't have claims brought against them that they don't know what it's like to experience it. Though with that being said, there are still going to be cops out there that want to throw around how much 'power' they think they have over someone and tase them just for the hell of it, hoping that just because they were tased/pepper sprayed, that will save them from any repercussions.

So, in all actuality, cops know how dangerous their tools are, but some go around ENJOYING how dangerous it is and use it whenever the slightest opportunity could arise for it.

That's true here in Colorado as well, but I don't think that's working in declining their use.

To be fair, I think the law of diminishing returns probably applies in the use of tasers. Getting tased by one guy probably hurts less than getting tased by three guys, but you probably can't really tell the difference at the moment.

Maybe the police officers thought he was high on PCP while hosting his grandchildrens' baptism party. Who knows.

When we've had gun control debates here before, people have said that they want to own a gun to defend themselves from criminals. If your country is so dangerous that everyone needs to be tooled up to avoid becoming a crime statistic, if I was a cop I'd take no chances either and wouldn't even make eye contact with someone until they were safely restrained and the quickest way to do that is clearly for me and my cop buddies to electrocute the shit out them. The cops don't know who's packing heat so it makes sense to me for them to safely cripple people before attempting to engage them in conversation. It's essentially an arms race, more people get guns so the police become more scared of getting shot. Sure they could stick to beating people up with truncheons but you've got to get really close to someone to do that and in the time it takes to close the distance they could have whipped out their assault rifle and gunned down half the people in the street.

The police need adequate protection from what they're likely to be faced with, that's only fair both for their safety and to do their jobs. Over here they're faced with loud mouthed chavs with knives, so they wear stab vests and carry those flick out baton things and pepper spray. Over there everyone is armed to the teeth so using close combat simply isn't an option. They need to pre-emptively pacify the subject for their own safety and that of the public. The ideas of an armed populace and a peaceful police force simply aren't reconcilable.

I'm sorry but this is ridiculous. When police face a suspect they believe to be possibly dangerous they call on backup, and at least one officer is ready to draw and fire a weapon during a confrontation. I was picked up for a public intox and faced the same kind of procedure.

Best case scenario they'll be suspended with pay.

When cops get sprayed or tasered it resembles frat hazing much more so than any kind of sensitivity training. Getting zapped with two guys on hand to catch you and offer words of reassurance and hoops and hollers isn't the same as being tased by some fat cracker who electrocutes you at the first sign of trouble.

If I was getting arrested, I'd probably rather the first cop tazered me than the second cop shot me. Lesser of two evils and all that. Also, what's to stop me unleashing 50 rounds from my AK while you're waiting for your backup to turn up?

Well if you're a BART cop you could "accidentally" shoot a man on the ground when you meant to reach for your taser.

That assumes everyone who's arrested is packing heat. The issue comes into play when there is CLEARLY not a need for force like said party up in the first post. And with statistics in most towns (i.e. not New York, LA, big cities) being something like only 1% of police officers even drawing their guns while on duty, I think the picture you're painting is grossly exaggerated. Surely if cops don't even need to draw guns during most of their career, the need to draw any other weapon shouldn't be as high either.

To be fair though, I don't know what the percentage of coppers who pull out tazers is...so I could be off base here.

I think it's cute that foreigners assume Americans are all armed 24/7.

Checking statistics, I looked at:

Portland Force Report Pg 26.

San Jose Year End Report Pg 43

New York City Allegations Statistics Appendices Pg 3

Generally, it looks like correcting for crime rate in a city, taser use is on the rise, with percentages of use varying quite a bit. In Portland, for example, it was the only form of force to stay relatively level in numbers, while arrest calls overall declined (23% of force use). In New York, the trend was less pronounced (falls under non-lethal restraint devices), but it still rose at a faster pace than the overall crime rate, and showed statistically significant increase compared to all other forms of force use (1% of total force use). San Jose had such a small population, it was difficult to call their results significant, although taser use did rise faster once again (7% of total force use). These numbers are also schewed by what various departments consider "force", with some not counting handcuffs, or other forms of non-marking restraint.

From this thread on Officer.com, it sounds like there's about as much disagreement on the proper and reasonable application of taser use among cops as there is among non-cops. As well as some decent discussion of the pros/cons of requiring it among those who use it.

Well, there's some basis for that.

Brazen assault weapon shoot-out in Dorchester chills police - The Boston Globe

Arms race, AK-47s to the gangs and M16s to the cops.

Honestly I just hope it stays contained where it is and doesn't spread up to my neighborhood. =(

I'm pretty sure it's standard procedure for a policeman to call for backup if he so much as sees a cockroach crossing the street.

I think the problem is just the attitudes of the cops. Cops don't smile anymore. They don't greet you. They assume everybody is dog shit beneath their shoes. Even when you're the victim, they can't be bothered to have a little warmth or sympathy.

They do everything by the book because they're more concerned with their employment than they are with actually helping people. If that weren't the case, they probably could've use common sense to handle the situation instead of focusing solely on escalation of force.

This isn't a problem exclusive to cops, and its also a rather large generalization. I've lived in a number of large towns where the cops are relatively nice folks, as long as you're cooperative and remain calm. I've also lived in towns where there are a lot of douchebags. As with most things, there's quite a bit of variance.

There are some who view everyone as shit, but I'd bet the large majority just view everyone as dangerous. Particularly drunk people hanging out in groups, as they've got face to save and embaressment to throw back in the officers face. There's also mob worry. I question the news interpretation of the top article, as everyone's going to tell their story as if they were the eye of calm in the storm, even if they were belligerent and seeing two of every cop. Naturally, the cops were probably also jumpy and overreacted. Sounds a lot like the Gates arrest mess in Cambridge.

On the by the book mentality, of course they're going to value their job over going the extra mile to help. By the book helps avoid lawsuits, paperwork, reprimands, and bullshit reorientation seminars. In the case of calling for backup, it's also a good precaution for the officer. Sure, its kind of dumb when you've got two squad cars giving one dude in a Geo Metro a ticket, but there's also a mentality where they consider every one of those guys could be out of his gourd.

A number of professions have also succumbed to the problem of weighing their employment vs going the extra mile. Doctors are a prime example where many's lives have become a game of balancing malpractice, school debt, and employment vs helping the sick.

Look down the street.

Do you see a black?

Then it is already too late...

I am working purely off of the evidence presented in this very forum last time we discussed gun control. The predominant argument put about by people in favour of gun ownership (And there were a few) was that they needed to adequately defend themselves. I don't believe it is such a leap to assume that if God fearing, law abiding citizens think they need a hand gun in each room in the house and an assault rifle in the umbrella stand in order to stop criminals from raping their family and stealing their burgers, then the overwhelming majority of people in the US who are actually breaking the law will be armed.

I have also seen people here suggest that gun control is ineffective because look at the UK, all the criminals have guns there and they have gun control. If all our criminals have guns then all your definitely have guns and half the people in the street will be carrying guns because they're scared of all the criminals with guns.

The point I was trying to make was that if you put forward self defence as an argument for allowing gun ownership amongst the populace, then you must live with an aggressive and well armed police force. The police always need to stay ahead of the criminals in terms of fire power to remain an effective deterrent to crime but in response to a better armed police force, criminals will either buy even bigger guns or use the element of surprise to take out cops, i.e. shoot before they're shot at.

Now of course I don't think three cops using tasers on an old man is a good idea but I think the overall feeling of paranoia that seems so inherent in your culture, at least as far as crime and criminals goes means that the police will inevitably resort to excessive force for their own protection.

If there are members of the public who are so scared of becoming a victim of crime that they feel the need to buy a gun to defend themselves, one can perhaps understand how a policeman, thinking that he's faced with a real criminal and believing as so many of you do here that every criminal in the US is packing heat might well er on the side of caution and use what is widely described as non-lethal weaponry to take the guy to the ground.

Obviously in the cases you highlighted, these are just a few bully-boy cops and those exist all around the world. Imagine though how many times a day across the US a policeman is faced with a potential suspect. It must be thousands and it's surely better that their innate American fear of crims with guns is manifesting itself in a few sketchy taser decisions rather than a few sketchy gun decisions, no?

Also, I would have thought that standard procedure there was the same as here and cops always keep their taser holstered on their on-side and their gun on their off-side, so if they do pull a weapon without thinking about it, it's the taser that comes out.

But to me, it seems these people who are actually going through the system to acquire a gun probably wont be pulling it on a police officer anytime soon. I have a feeling there is still some humanity left in people where even if they were carrying a gun, they wouldn't feel the need to shoot someone because they got pulled over for speeding.

So while that argument has some valid points, I don't feel you can throw out the human equation in all of this. Does increased levels of gun ownership lead to more gun-related violence? Absolutely. Does it lead to everyone owning a gun to start a shootout with the cops because they have the ability to? No. And at the end of the day, getting back to the argument at hand, I doubt tasers are being used in situations where the risk of guns would even be relevant. I believe if a cop had any worry that a man they're arresting might have a gun, they'd pull their gun out, not their taser. Don't know, just thinking aloud really.

Are there any statistics on tasers becoming more available to police officers?

Ordinary people aren't going to pull a gun on the cops, not even drug mules are that stupid. Otherising the criminal element is also childish and short-sighted because practically everybody has broken the law and is a criminal. The rampant paranoia present in the American police force is not justified, it's an occupier's mentality.

Police forces have become increasingly militarized not as a response to how well armed the populace is, but because the nature of the drug war has put them on a constant wartime footing. It also doesn't help that cops are scum who like to spend relief money on APCs.

if any pigs try to taze me imma pull out my gat

usa usa usa

I didn't find any good sources showing the rate of availability for tasers, compared to the rise in taser use, or for taser availability by itself. Admittedly, that's also not what I was looking for at the time.

The Largest Street Gang in America hint: It's cops

Preview: The first case on this video is about a sixteen year old boy who was walking on an overpass, fell over, and then was tased by officers on the ground below 11 times.

There's not much justification for the cops' actions in the first half of that video, but the principle behind the second part doesn't strike me as blue wall of silence so much as sound reasoning (even if some of those officers are way too edgy for their own good). I fully expect people would take a form home with them and fill it out with falsified info just to put pressure on police or to try to leverage money from the dept.

Fuck you. Nobody is obligated to identify themselves to a police officer for access to internal affairs. The idea that cops can ever be justified in intimidating citizens is wrong thinking.

No, but coming into a station with only the vaguest details (read: none) and outright refusing to identify oneself to an officer is what it is. Suspicious.

If I had a complaint with an officer and I didn't want to give them my identification, I would say "I'm not comfortable giving you that info." Which tells the officer a lot more than "Nah, that's cool" and trying quickly to walk away.

I can understand the reasoning behind not wanting to get into the details of a complaint against an officer, and I can see a law-abiding citizen not wanting to do so. I really can. But without anything to go on, why should the opposite be true of Police and subvert the public trust by allowing everyone to get the form and make up details/injuries later?

ok I'm going to roleplay a cop for a second


I'm going to need to see your ID. If you're going to file a complaint I need to see some identification.

WHAT ARE YOU DOING COMING HERE INTO MY POLICE STATION AND REFUSING TO IDENTIFY YOURSELF? DO YOU KNOW I CAN ARREST YOU FOR REFUSING TO COMPLY? IDENTIFY YOURSELF OR GET OUT OF MY POLICE STATION.

"You haven't arrested me, officer, and I haven't committed an offense. I don't have to comply to anything yet. But if you don't want to give me the form I know you have, then I'm going to leave peaceably."

At no point do you want to give them ammunition for "resisting arrest" or "disorderly conduct." Unfortunately a lot of the people in the second chapter do.

Of course, this is Texas penal code, so some states may have it tougher than others.

My point is that there's a way to avoid a confrontation, and if an officer tells you to leave, then staying there and persisting with the same question he's refused to answer is really just stupid. Don't poke the bear. Accept the reality that's right in front of you and go through a different channel.

Okay, except the testers weren't dressed or behaving like a pleasant white guy, Skexis. The whole point of the test is to demonstrate how police departments disenfranchise people, and the people they disenfranchise are going to be poor minorities, with poor communication skills. Or did you not pick up on the fact that the testers were ex-cops and knew exactly how they could handle police if they really wanted a form?

"After we're done having this peaceful and not stressful conversation, would you like to join me for a spot of tea at the local parlor? Perhaps we can discuss monocle-polishing techniques, hmmmm"

It kind of bothers me that you think that there is a specific sequence of words that, once repeated, will grant the speaker immunity from cop dickishness. I find it equally disturbing that you feel a need for such a script to be recited, that by simply saying "no" the civilian somehow deserves to be treated like that.

To be quite honest Skex, most officers are going to pretty much cut you off right there and start pressuring you back. Don't ever say you don't have to comply with what a cop says, because they'll more often then not find a way to MAKE you comply.

It kind of bothers me that people think cop dickishness is universal and unavoidable.

I don't think there is a goddamn abracadabra phrase, I think there's a way to appeal to someone's sense of right and wrong without being foolish. You're whitewashing the whole thing, though. Parts of the video were worse than others, and suggesting I approve of strip searching an assault victim without cause serves your own ego better than any point you wanted to make.

The bottom line is that if cops didn't practice preventative measures (i.e. detaining suspicious people) then everyone would be up in arms about how many murderers, drug dealers and rapists were simply walking the streets. The fact that cops have a great deal of flexibility in how and why they detain people is what you're angry at. Not the fact that anyone can't walk in and get a form without at least the scarcest of details.

And if you could not treat me like a five year old, that would be just peachy too.

Brady, the point of the video I saw (in plain writing, no less) was that the cops pressure anyone and everyone regardless of color or creed into doing what they say just because they're all power-hungry. Which is not true.

Attitudes Towards armed officers
 

As much as i wish i could argue that (im english) i think this clip speaks volumes about English attitudes to this subject:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mwDZjS2BT08

really because I was only talking about the film in question so...

I whole-heartedly believe that your "just say this" statement is false and grounded in naivete. You don't have to give them ammunition for disorderly conduct, they can find it themselves.

Also if you can explain to me how preventative measures come in when asking for complaint forms plz

It's true, you don't have to have done something wrong to be detained. You do to be arrested. This film makes no distinction between the two and I'd be curious which cases were treated as one or the other. It's one of the reasons alarm bells are ringing in my head.

I am resistant to what amounts to a propaganda video. Yes, some officers can and will abuse their power, because the nature of the job is such that it will attract power-hungry people. But my original post was discussing the principle behind why the officers would not want to give the form out and not the actions of the officers.

Brady wanted to play make-believe, so I played along. I said what I would have said to an officer of the law. If you don't like how I said it, that's another thing. There's also nothing stopping someone from playing nice with the guy or using a joke to break the ice, but I prefer to be straightforward and speak without guile, so if the example officer decided to detain me for whatever reason, I have no legal recourse. I may not enjoy time spent in a cell for nothing, and I may go to internal affairs to suggest cooler heads need to prevail over in precinct 32, but my outrage would be proportionate to whatever they had done to me. The race issue is another can of worms, but I'll just say if I was a black man I'd probably be considerably more pissed depending on how I was treated.

The 'ammunition' thing was the wrong way to say what I wanted. Aside from arresting people who are clearly guilty due to evidence in hand, officers have a duty to keep crimes from being committed, and part of that is detaining people who may have or may be intending to commit a crime.

Asking for a form, obviously is not a crime, since I've already granted that a person should have a right to get a complaint form, but if your behavior is such that you are fidgety and/or avoid direct questioning, that is suspicious, and makes a cop wonder what you have to hide. Maybe it's nothing. But it's within their power to detain a person (not arrest them) for something like that. I don't have to agree with it to know it's true when I walk into a station and ask for a form. Which is why I phrased the response like I did, straightforwardly, addressing their concerns if not their questions.

Fuck principles. They are public servants, and it is their duty to serve requested forms.

So long as police unions keep using their dues to fight prosecutions of officers under investigation for abuses of power to murder, all police are culpable for those crimes.

Excusing their behavior is the source of the problem. Americans have this bizarre infatuation with power and a deference to authority that should not exist in a free society. Who gives a shit if somebody is acting suspicious? Acting suspicious is not a crime.

You'll notice there's no video of a precinct that served the forms. Because it's not inflammatory and doesn't serve an anti-police agenda.

Which is why no one can arrest such a person. Don't mistake my comments here as some kind of misguided patriotism. I just recognize the need for peace officers to be able to use their own judgment in capturing criminals. I may not agree with the degree or the circumstances in which they use it, but by necessity you cannot have a police force that always serves the will of individual community members. Talking about a free society is kind of moot in this case unless you advocate shotgun justice.

It shouldn't. You're trying to make my argument out to be something it's not. I'm more concerned that everyone seems ready to gloss over the police point of view and that it isn't simply spite guiding these officers to say what they're saying. I prefer to grey the lines when I see stuff like this because frankly it bothers me when the first thing everyone grabs is the pitchforks.

A few days ago, reading this thread, tighter taser procedures struck me as a very good idea. It still does. But I can think that, and still simultaneously understand the hesitation an officer would feel at giving out a form to someone clearly agitated and trying at all costs to avoid police contact of any kind (not simply with the officer they're accusing.)

Don't make me out to be a bad guy simply because I'm not calling for blood in 100% of cases shown here.

100% of the cases shown here are clear abuses of police power. If you aren't calling for blood then you are in fact the bad guy.

Looking at things from the police perspective is irrelevant. If we did, though, we'd have to arrive at the realization that the police are belligerent to any attack or complaint against officers or departments because the police are in effect a class of their own. Police unions are uniquely evil in that the nature of police work means that abuses of power are an inevitability, either by accident or intent. It's in the interest of every cop to cover each other's ass lest they end up finding themselves being buttfucked by some liberal prosecutor as well. That is the brotherhood of police, that is the blue wall of silence.

If there was one precinct that served the form, would that invalidate all the rage against the precincts that did not?

With neither of us being in the police and having first hand experience, I don't think there's much more to say except "I believe differently." I acknowledge the blue wall of silence exists, and I acknowledge the need for watchdog groups, but I don't say it's universal.

Maybe it is naivete. I'm certainly no stranger to it. But this whole form scenario strikes me less as clear cut abuse and more as social norms colliding. (i.e. duty as an officer vs. duty to community)

It would make the police seem less like a collective, abusive entity. There might have been not just one, but 18! or 50%! But the fact that we don't know (and the video makes no attempt to convince us otherwise) gives me pause. I think it's great that the site the video links has not just a wall of shame, but a section for praiseworthy officers and precincts.

I don't really care what the police seem to be. All I care about is getting a complaint form without being harassed, when I need it, where I need it.

So here's your choices. Reality time. You have to accept that there will be some people who don't want to give it to you. That means you can either A) run your head against a brick wall, or you can B) take advantage of watchdog groups and alternative channels to achieve the same ends. This is what I said from the beginning.

Is it sad that you can't simply get the form from anywhere and anyone you like? Yeah. Unfortunately that's kind of the way the world works. It just so happens personal grievances against police officers isn't high on a lot of congresspeople's priority lists right now.

This coming from the guy who would just calmly and rationally discuss why he is not going to provide identification to a pissed-off cop?

Yeah, I'm buying your reality check.

Like I said. Brady wanted to do a theoretical. If I was really in a position where I wanted to file a complaint, the first words out of my mouth would be
"I"m Jackson Awesomeface, and you need to give me a complaint form. What about? How about Officer Tweedledee that punched me in the face for a traffic stop on August 18. You need my license? Here."

But I couldn't do that for obvious reasons because we're talking about people who are scared of the police and refuse to give out their info.

I wonder why some people are afraid of the police and Skexis isn't?

I don't remember ever saying that race isn't an issue. Maybe because I didn't ever say that.

But continue by all means. I'm sure you'll fill the thread with pages of things I haven't said.

And for the record, for people who claim to dislike abusive people/cops, you two throw an awful lot of contempt around in your posts.

It's because Skexis has half the Texas constabulary in his pocket. You don't get to shift the sort of weight he does without crossing a few palms with silver.