17-year-old abused by police officer; suffers brain damage during traffic stop

[MercyA]

This is one of the most disturbing incidences of police brutality I've seen:

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/06/dashcam-footage-of-cop-tasing-dragging-and-dropping-teen-is-unsealed/

 

This poor kid was stopped mistakenly due to his license plate. (The warrant was actually for a woman!) He refused to exit his car, asking the officer if he was under arrest while filming the encounter with his phone. The officer responded by tasing him and dropping him face first on the pavement. He now has brain damage. Thankfully, the officer is now in prison--probably small consolation to the young man.

 

What do you teach your children about encounters with law enforcement? There was a time when I would have emphasized knowing and respectfully defending one's rights, but now for safety reasons I'm almost tempted to say, "Just do whatever they tell you." I'm sure there's a balance. 

[Valley Girl]

We've told them that in a confrontation with police, the police will win. We teach them to follow instructions... keep their hands on the wheel so they're visible... to not make any sudden movements that could lead an officer to fear for his safety (i.e. don't suddenly reach for something)... speak politely... don't argue... always explain what you're doing and ask if it's OK ("My license is in my wallet. The wallet is in my right pocket. May I get it for you?)...etc. If you're arrested, ask for your parents and your lawyer. We've also told them to get a name (read the nameplate) and description of the officer so that if something happens that shouldn't, we can promptly report it after the fact. We absolutely would make a huge issue because bad apples need to be fired and/or prosecuted. (My advice is based on having grown up in a LEO family, so I've been exposed to the viewpoint from the other side of the encounter as well.)

 

Edited for punctuation.

Edited June 10, 2016 by Reluctant Homeschooler

[OneStepAtATime]

1.  Police have a hard job and no easy way of knowing when someone they have pulled over is a danger to them or anyone else around.  They have to make rapid assessments.  Having a person cooperate and treat them politely can prevent a lot of issues and clear up any misunderstandings much more quickly and effectively than arguing and being passive aggressive or even aggressively argumentative/combative.  If you feel your rights are being violated, note the badge number, get the name and the license plate of the car if you can and file a complaint after the fact.  

 

2.  There are bad cops just like there are bad everyone else, so definitely a bad cop needs to be reported but they are there to keep society safe and following the laws of our land and put themselves in difficult, even dangerous situations on a regular basis.  They are also in a position of power and authority (and yes sometimes that is abused).  I teach my kids to listen to them and follow instructions and clearly communicate to them.  Cooperate as best they are able so that whatever the situation is, it can be dealt with effectively, without anyone getting hurt (the exception being if they genuinely feared that the person is only impersonating a police officer, in which case I would encourage them to involve a witness/call 911 if at all possible).

 

ETA:  And yes, the cop used excessive force.  What he did was wrong.  Absolutely.  At the same time, if the boy had simply rolled down his window all the way, when he was asked to, and answered the cop's questions, this might all have been avoided.  The cop had no way of knowing why the boy was refusing to cooperate.  The cop starts out being polite.  He is trying to assess the situation and communicate with the driver and the driver is refusing to roll down his window all the way.  The cop has to determine why.  Did he have drugs in the car?  Weapons? Being a cop is a dangerous job.  A little cooperation and politeness goes a long way to preventing a problem.

Edited June 10, 2016 by OneStepAtATime

[Mergath]

I tell dd that you always do what the police tell you, period. In the moment, there's nothing you can do except follow instructions. Cops are armed, so what's the alternative? Getting in a shoot-out with police? Attacking an officer? You're not going to win that fight, and you can always press charges later if they use excessive force. The majority of cops are decent human beings.

[Joker]

I struggle with this. When I was 16, I was pulled over by a trooper on a rarely traveled country road going about five miles over the speed limit. I had my little brother with me and we were on our way to school. The trooper made me get out of my car and into the passenger seat of his car. It wasn't for safety based on where I was parked as he left my brother in my car. Fortunately, he didn't do anything to me but my dad freaked when he heard and went to the police. They were quite upset with the officer and told me never to do that again.

 

So, I want my dds to follow the instructions and not make a situation worse but I've also told them about my incident and that it was wrong. Neither of mine are driving solo yet so I'm not sure exactly what we will tell them. Maybe we'll talk to local officers about it all and get advice from them. I really don't know yet.

Edited June 10, 2016 by Joker

[amy g.]

My son was repeatedly pulled over and bullied by the police for no reason. He drove an ancient Park Avenue and waited tables overnight, so he was often driving home at 3:00 am.

 

He obeyed the officers but he also would say,"I do not agree with this illegal search." He was knocked to the ground, called a YouTube lawyer, had is car searched and had the contents of his backpack dumped in the middle of the street.

 

This kid has never had so much as a parking ticket. He has never even gotten a warning ticket. There really was no reason to pull him over other than profiling.

 

When the Park Avenue was totaled, we bought him a late model Mustang and he got an office job.

 

He has never been pulled over since.

 

I tell my children to be polite and obey the police no matter how out of line they are. The risks of doing otherwise are just too great.

[Valley Girl]

My son was repeatedly pulled over and bullied by the police for no reason. He drove an ancient Park Avenue and waited tables overnight, so he was often driving home at 3:00 am.

 

He obeyed the officers but he also would say,"I do not agree with this illegal search." He was knocked to the ground, called a YouTube lawyer, had is car searched and had the contents of his backpack dumped in the middle of the street.

 

This kid has never had so much as a parking ticket. He has never even gotten a warning ticket. There really was no reason to pull him over other than profiling.

 

When the Park Avenue was totaled, we bought him a late model Mustang and he got an office job.

 

He has never been pulled over since.

 

I tell my children to be polite and obey the police no matter how out of line they are. The risks of doing otherwise are just too great.

 

Did you or your son report this behavior? Knocking him to the ground is assault.

[poppy]

1. Police have a hard job and no easy way of knowing when someone they have pulled over is a danger to them or anyone else around. They have to make rapid assessments. Having a person cooperate and treat them politely can prevent a lot of issues and clear up any misunderstandings much more quickly and effectively than arguing and being passive aggressive or even aggressively argumentative/combative. If you feel your rights are being violated, note the badge number, get the name and the license plate of the car if you can and file a complaint after the fact.

 

2. There are bad cops just like there are bad everyone else, so definitely a bad cop needs to be reported but they are there to keep society safe and following the laws of our land and put themselves in difficult, even dangerous situations on a regular basis. They are also in a position of power and authority (and yes sometimes that is abused). I teach my kids to listen to them and follow instructions and clearly communicate to them. Cooperate as best they are able so that whatever the situation is, it can be dealt with effectively, without anyone getting hurt (the exception being if they genuinely feared that the person is only impersonating a police officer, in which case I would encourage them to involve a witness/call 911 if at all possible).

 

ETA: And yes, the cop used excessive force. What he did was wrong. Absolutely. At the same time, if the boy had simply rolled down his window all the way, when he was asked to, and answered the cop's questions, this might all have been avoided. The cop had no way of knowing why the boy was refusing to cooperate. The cop starts out being polite. He is trying to assess the situation and communicate with the driver and the driver is refusing to roll down his window all the way. The cop has to determine why. Did he have drugs in the car? Weapons? Being a cop is a dangerous job. A little cooperation and politeness goes a long way to preventing a problem.

The kid was within his rights to behave as he did . You don't get to pick and choose which rights are important. If you want freedom of expression, freedom to own a firearm respected you also have to allow freedom to not roll your eyes when someone doesn't 'behave' around police either . Edited June 10, 2016 by poppy

[J-rap]

A slightly different subject, but we made sure to hammer this into the head of our ds before he left to spend a month traveling in Turkey as a 19-year-old.  He has a tendency to speak out and challenge if he feels something is unjust, and being in a foreign country, you just never know how that would play out.  (I still remember the movie Midnight Express!)  Just be polite and do what they ask.  You can always do the challenging later, when you are home safe.

 

 

[happi duck]

I hate the idea of telling my kids to mindlessly obey.

 

I don't hate cops. I have family in LE.

 

I just can't wrap my brain around: obey no matter what because they have a stressful job.

 

How is it that one can be within their rights and still be messed with?

 

Ugh.

 

Eta: I'm not saying "be combative and rude" but polite and 'obey or else' are not the same thing.

Edited June 10, 2016 by happi duck

[OneStepAtATime]

The kid was within his rights to behave as he did . You don't get to pick and choose which rights are important. If you want freedom of expression, freedom to own a firearm respected you also have to allow freedom to not roll your eyes when someone doesn't 'behave' around police either .

What are you talking about?  Who is picking and choosing which rights are important?  Are you saying we shouldn't have police officers?  Or that cooperating with police officers when they are doing their job is a bad thing?  

 

Our society exists because we have rules and laws.  Police officers are part of that system.  They have a job to do.  That job is hard and can be very dangerous.  Being polite and assisting the police officer in doing their job is not automatically giving up "freedom", which is a really inaccurate term, anyway.  It is working within our system of society to help that system function effectively.  

 

Police officers as a whole are not the enemy.  (Yes, some abuse their position and those officers need to be dealt with but police officers as a whole are NOT the enemy, they are an important part of our societal structure.).  What would you prefer?  That everyone a cop has to deal with treats them passive aggressively or combatively to show them just who is boss and make their job harder?  Why?  How does that help anyone?  At the very least it takes up more time and wastes tax payer money.  It also makes it a lot harder for the police officer to actually find the real criminals.

 

When an officer is doing their job poorly they absolutely should be held accountable.  I agree 100%.  And abuse of power should be dealt with.  Of course.  I have had relatives treated poorly by police officers and they were definitely abusing their power.  It was wrong.

 

I do not feel, however, that every encounter with a police officer should be seen as them challenging someone's "freedoms" and "rights" when they ask for cooperation in doing their job, which is what you appear to be saying.  I am grateful we have them.  Without our legal system, of which police officers are a part, we have chaos.  Without them I have no "freedoms" or "rights", just chaos.  Anyone can do anything to me and my family and I have no one in authority to turn to for help.  Our system isn't perfect.  It needs a lot of work.  Humans are imperfect beings so our structure of society has flaws...but I am grateful it exists, flaws and all.  The alternative (no rules/laws/police officers) would be far worse, IMHO.

 

I am heading out of town and won't have time for further discourse, unfortunately.  Best wishes, regardless.

[poppy]

I'm saying he is allowed to film the encounter and saying this all could have been prevented if he'd just cooperated is blaming the victim for doing something he's allowed to do and something reasonable to do. It's not how I interact with police . Or how I'll tell my kids too. But just because cops have a hard dangerous job doesn't mean everyone has to be deferential at all times. They don't have to and shouldn't have to.

[OneStepAtATime]

I hate the idea of telling my kids to mindlessly obey.

 

I don't hate cops. I have family in LE.

 

I just can't wrap my brain around: obey no matter what because they have a stressful job.

 

How is it that one can be within their rights and still be messed with?

 

Ugh.

 

Eta: I'm not saying "be combative and rude" but polite and 'obey or else' are not the same thing.

This I agree with this, and it is hard to know where the line is.  Obey mindlessly seems a bad message.  At the same time, if a police officer is politely asking me to do something like roll down my window I am going to roll down my window.  He/she is trying to do their job and that job is to protect and serve.  That frequently requires assistance from other members of our society.  I do not see that as challenging my freedoms.  I see it as asking my help in keeping our society functioning.  Telling my kids to be deliberately argumentative seems just as bad a message to send as "obey mindlessly".  

 

I agree with your distinction: "polite" (or even cooperative) and "obey or else" are not the same thing.  

[StephanieZ]

I teach my kids to comply, safely, respectfully and quietly. I would not encourage anyone to argue or "assert their rights" unless they are in immediate physical danger (i.e., an officer attempting to assault or coerce them, in which case, I'm a "fight till you die" advocate, personally")

 

My white son had a very scary interaction with a gaggle of 4-5 policemen a year ago. We had just finished the memorial service for my mother in a wealthy (but diverse) community in northern VA. He was riding the 3 hours back to our home in WV with my brother (in a rental car, not from the area) . . . So, anyway, after our family meal at a nice restaurant in an upscale shopping area, my son had changed into casual clothes for the ride with my brother back home. So, he was supposed to meet my brother in the parking garage. My son was there, looking for my brother, and my brother had gotten confused and driven in the wrong area, so my son ended up "wandering around in the garage" for 10 min or so looking for my brother. Meanwhile, someone had called 911 to report a "suspicious teen" wandering the garage. 4-5 police ultimately arrived in a group, wearing bullet proof vests, and, asked my son what he was doing and for ID, made him empty his pockets, answer repeated and extensive questions, etc. My son answered honestly and provided his ID. Most of the police left soon thereafter, but one waited a few yards away, several more minutes, watching my son until my brother arrived (still in funeral wear and in a nice car) and then my son left. 

 

My son was very frightened, but thankfully, he followed my repeated lifelong instructions to suck up to police, and he was not injured or arrested. I shudder to think how badly that situation could have gone if my son had put on his "sassy teen" persona and "stuck up for his rights" or if he had been black or latino . . . 

 

My perspective is that some risks are not worth taking. A one-on-one interaction with police is NOT the time to assert your dignity, privacy rights, etc. Just suck it up and comply. Later, feel free to file a complaint or advocate for better policing . . . But not while you are vulnerable and your "opponent" has a gun and taser and the "thin blue line" protecting his ability to injure or kill you . . .

Edited June 10, 2016 by StephanieZ

[Miss Peregrine]

I teach my kids to comply, safely, respectfully and quietly. I would not encourage anyone to argue or "assert their rights" unless they are in immediate physical danger (i.e., an officer attempting to assault or coerce them, in which case, I'm a "fight till you die" advocate, personally")

 

My white son had a very scary interaction with a gaggle of 4-5 policemen a year ago. We had just finished the memorial service for my mother in a wealthy (but diverse) community in northern VA. He was riding the 3 hours back to our home in WV with my brother (in a rental car, not from the area) . . . So, anyway, after our family meal at a nice restaurant in an upscale shopping area, my son had changed into casual clothes for the ride with my brother back home. So, he was supposed to meet my brother in the parking garage. My son was there, looking for my brother, and my brother had gotten confused and driven in the wrong area, so my son ended up "wandering around in the garage" for 10 min or so looking for my brother. Meanwhile, someone had called 911 to report a "suspicious teen" wandering the garage. 4-5 police ultimately arrived in a group, wearing bullet proof vests, and, asked my son what he was doing and for ID, made him empty his pockets, answer repeated and extensive questions, etc. My son answered honestly and provided his ID. Most of the police left soon thereafter, but one waited a few yards away, several more minutes, watching my son until my brother arrived (still in funeral wear and in a nice car) and then my son left.

 

My son was very frightened, but thankfully, he followed my repeated lifelong instructions to suck up to police, and he was not injured or arrested. I shudder to think how badly that situation could have gone if my son had put on his "sassy teen" persona and "stuck up for his rights" or if he had been black or latino . . .

 

My perspective is that some risks are not worth taking. A one-on-one interaction with police is NOT the time to assert your dignity, privacy rights, etc. Just suck it up and comply. Later, feel free to file a complaint or advocate for better policing . . . But not while you are vulnerable and your "opponent" has a gun and taser and the "thin blue line" protecting his ability to injure or kill you . . .

Bullet-proof vests are required uniform pieces.

[Bluegoat]

I've not really told my kids anything about this - they are younger and tend to think of police officers as people they should trust.

 

I think the kid's behavior in this incident was really not good - I don't think it matters that they guy had made some sort of error - they happen.  Rolling down a window or opening the door, and being helpful are just normal ways of dealing with people who are doing their job, be it the police or any other public official. 

 

The officer was over the top and bizarre in his response, and I am not surprised he went to jail.  But more generally, when dealing with police, I think it is worthwhile to remember that they are potentially dealing with dangerous situations, you likely don't have all the information on what they are thinking, and humans do make mistakes in judgement, even in good faith.  No one I think wants to be the recipient of an erroneous judgment where the officer misunderstands the situation, and being rude or unnecessarily difficult only makes that more likely.

[HomeAgain]

We keep a camera in the car.  I used to think that you just comply, yes sir, no sir, etc.  Now, my first teaching to my children is to start recording.  Be respectful, know your rights, and don't be intimidated.  But, heaven forbid something goes wrong, you will need that memory card on your side.  Too many times police brutality is swept under or pooh-poohed until the footage comes to light.  Only then will the victim be taken seriously.

[Farrar]

ETA:  And yes, the cop used excessive force.  What he did was wrong.  Absolutely.  At the same time, if the boy had simply rolled down his window all the way, when he was asked to, and answered the cop's questions, this might all have been avoided.  The cop had no way of knowing why the boy was refusing to cooperate.  The cop starts out being polite.  He is trying to assess the situation and communicate with the driver and the driver is refusing to roll down his window all the way.  The cop has to determine why.  Did he have drugs in the car?  Weapons? Being a cop is a dangerous job.  A little cooperation and politeness goes a long way to preventing a problem.

 

This reads to me like blaming the victim. The cop shouldn't have done what he did. End stop. He obviously knew that because he lied in his report and omitted several key facts.

 

Cops do have hard jobs. I think we need to train them differently in dealing with situations where people don't immediate capitulate to their authority. It's a systemic problem with lack of training and a whole paradigm of thinking. I don't think most cops are bad cops - I think most cops have the potential to do bad things, in large part because they get a ton of training about how to use deadly force and almost no training about how to de-escalate simple situations.

[JumpyTheFrog]

It is very disturbing (but not surprising) that the local police chose not to investigate this abusive cop.

[thessa516]

The boy's dad is a police officer. His Dad had instructed him to ask WHY he was stopped. He was following the advice of his police officer father. 

[SparklyUnicorn]

I always hope there is more to these stories.  This is pretty crappy.

 

 

[JumpyTheFrog]

Is there any data on what percent of cops are former soldiers that recently came back from combat? I can't imagine that being in combat and the psychological changes that it may cause would result in cops that are calm and good at deescalating situations.

[Miss Peregrine]

Is there any data on what percent of cops are former soldiers that recently came back from combat? I can't imagine that being in combat and the psychological changes that it may cause would result in cops that are calm and good at deescalating situations.

I actually believe most cops have some degree of PTSD.

[Miss Peregrine]

This reads to me like blaming the victim. The cop shouldn't have done what he did. End stop. He obviously knew that because he lied in his report and omitted several key facts.

 

Cops do have hard jobs. I think we need to train them differently in dealing with situations where people don't immediate capitulate to their authority. It's a systemic problem with lack of training and a whole paradigm of thinking. I don't think most cops are bad cops - I think most cops have the potential to do bad things, in large part because they get a ton of training about how to use deadly force and almost no training about how to de-escalate simple situations.

Almost no training? Link?

[StephanieZ]

Bullet-proof vests are required uniform pieces.

 

Well, these ones were more than what you usually see, as they were on top of their clothes, so fully visible and obvious, not the ones hidden under their uniforms. Maybe flak jacket is more appropriate term. I don't know. It was more like what I've seen when the DC-Metro area was on virtual lockdown during the sniper shooting era and also the days around 9-11. (This is an area of NoVA with a *lot* of federal installations.) Not what you usually see in local police wear. There happened to be a large sporting event -- seemed like it was related to law enforcement somehow -- with some international attendees at the same (large) shopping area that day; that's the only logical explanation I can guess at why they'd be dressed that way. 

[Miss Peregrine]

Well, these ones were more than what you usually see, as they were on top of their clothes, so fully visible and obvious, not the ones hidden under their uniforms. Maybe flak jacket is more appropriate term. I don't know. It was more like what I've seen when the DC-Metro area was on virtual lockdown during the sniper shooting era and also the days around 9-11. (This is an area of NoVA with a *lot* of federal installations.) Not what you usually see in local police wear. There happened to be a large sporting event -- seemed like it was related to law enforcement somehow -- with some international attendees at the same (large) shopping area that day; that's the only logical explanation I can guess at why they'd be dressed that way.

Gotcha. They were probably just the closest to the call and responded. That doesn't make it any less scary for your son, though. I'm sorry.

[thessa516]

I always hope there is more to these stories.  This is pretty crappy.

 

I think this piece did a pretty good job telling the story. (It also includes the cell phone footage and pictures of Bryce in the hospital.) The police knew who Bryce was. He'd been in trouble with the same officer regarding marijuana and an illegal search, but none of it changes the fact that the police officer was so incredibly abusive. The officer didn't just taze Bryce and that was it. No, he held the trigger down for 23 seconds. Go ahead, count out 23 seconds and imagine you're holding the trigger to a tazer. It's an unbelievably long time.

[StephanieZ]

Not aiming this at anyone in particular, but I think we have to re-think the urge to dismiss proactive self-protection steps as "victim blaming"

 

Yes, I see that abusive spouses, rapist-dates, rabid police officers, etc are each 100% responsible for their actions. They are human beings, and they are culpable for their acts.

 

Nonetheless, there are things that the rest of us can and should do to protect ourselves from harm.

 

If it is thunder and lightning out, we don't go for a walk on a golf course with a metal umbrella. That'd be stupid.

 

If there are petty thieves known to frequent a foreign city we are visiting, we don't flash (or even bring) our expensive electronics, and we keep our cash and cards secured in a "money belt" if we have to carry them at all.

 

If there are bears in the woods, we don't sleep with steak in our sleeping bags.

 

If there are rapists at a party on the prowl for drunken women, we don't get drunk without a dependable safe-person there with us to keep us safe.

 

If we know that when someone abusively hits or otherwise abuses someone they love, there is a very high likelihood of escalation and continued violence, thus we should get away from the hitter at the first sign of abuse, not after years of being progressively destroyed.

 

If there are rapists waiting to slip a drug into an unaware female's drink, then we don't leave our open cups vulnerable to him.

 

Now, sometimes a lightning storm suddenly erupts when someone is in the middle of a large field and they get struck by lightning. Sometimes, abusive behavior is so stealthy and the victim so unprepared that the victim is "trapped" for a long time. Sometimes, a rapist is someone you had no reason to distrust and no reasonable way to know to be on guard against. Sometimes the worst happens.

 

It's fine and well and good to make clear that the aggressors/criminals are 100% responsible for their acts. That does NOT mean that intelligent, caring, compassionate people won't rightfully encourage good people to make choices that can reduce their chances of being victimized. 

 

Wearing a money belt when we travel in high crime areas doesn't make the thieves less responsible when they manage to steal somebody's purse (or money belt). Avoiding late night walking alone in a sketchy part of town doesn't make the criminals less responsible for their bad acts. Etc. But these sorts of sensible precautions can, indeed, reduce the likelihood of a particular person being eaten by a bear or victimized by a criminal. 

[thessa516]

Not aiming this at anyone in particular, but I think we have to re-think the urge to dismiss proactive self-protection steps as "victim blaming"

 

Yes, I see that abusive spouses, rapist-dates, rabid police officers, etc are each 100% responsible for their actions. They are human beings, and they are culpable for their acts.

 

Nonetheless, there are things that the rest of us can and should do to protect ourselves from harm.

 

If it is thunder and lightning out, we don't go for a walk on a golf course with a metal umbrella. That'd be stupid.

 

If there are petty thieves known to frequent a foreign city we are visiting, we don't flash (or even bring) our expensive electronics, and we keep our cash and cards secured in a "money belt" if we have to carry them at all.

 

If there are bears in the woods, we don't sleep with steak in our sleeping bags.

 

If there are rapists at a party on the prowl for drunken women, we don't get drunk without a dependable safe-person there with us to keep us safe.

 

If we know that when someone abusively hits or otherwise abuses someone they love, there is a very high likelihood of escalation and continued violence, thus we should get away from the hitter at the first sign of abuse, not after years of being progressively destroyed.

 

If there are rapists waiting to slip a drug into an unaware female's drink, then we don't leave our open cups vulnerable to him.

 

Now, sometimes a lightning storm suddenly erupts when someone is in the middle of a large field and they get struck by lightning. Sometimes, abusive behavior is so stealthy and the victim so unprepared that the victim is "trapped" for a long time. Sometimes, a rapist is someone you had no reason to distrust and no reasonable way to know to be on guard against. Sometimes the worst happens.

 

It's fine and well and good to make clear that the aggressors/criminals are 100% responsible for their acts. That does NOT mean that intelligent, caring, compassionate people won't rightfully encourage good people to make choices that can reduce their chances of being victimized. 

 

Wearing a money belt when we travel in high crime areas doesn't make the thieves less responsible when they manage to steal somebody's purse (or money belt). Avoiding late night walking alone in a sketchy part of town doesn't make the criminals less responsible for their bad acts. Etc. But these sorts of sensible precautions can, indeed, reduce the likelihood of a particular person being eaten by a bear or victimized by a criminal. 

 

And you do realize he was following the exact advice his police officer father gave him for if/when he had an interaction with that police officer again, right?

[Farrar]

Almost no training? Link?

 

An article I read awhile ago talked about dozens (maybe it was more than a hundred even - I remember the gap was astounding to me) of hours of training in weapons, sometimes really specific, aim to kill stuff, and just a couple of hours in tactics to diffuse a situation. I'll look for it, but I can't at the moment...

[hornblower]

"But for all of its risks, policing is safer now than it has ever been. Violent attacks on officers, particularly those that involve a serious physical threat, are few and far between"

http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2014/12/police-gun-shooting-training-ferguson/383681/

 

[Miss Peregrine]

An article I read awhile ago talked about dozens (maybe it was more than a hundred even - I remember the gap was astounding to me) of hours of training in weapons, sometimes really specific, aim to kill stuff, and just a couple of hours in tactics to diffuse a situation. I'll look for it, but I can't at the moment...

I do find 'a couple of hours' hard to believe. I'm actually really proud of my husband's agency. They have ongoing training every month on less-than-lethal tactics, deescalation(is that a word, lol) and encounters with the mentally ill.

 

Some agencies are addressing these issues.

[hornblower]

I think the media has made it seem like there is more police brutality out there than there really is. 

 

"The Justice Department releases statistics on this and related issues, although these datasets are only periodically updated: It found that in 2008, among people who had contact with police, “an estimated 1.4% had force used or threatened against them during their most recent contact, which was not statistically different from the percentages in 2002 (1.5%) and 2005 (1.6%).â€

 

http://journalistsresource.org/studies/government/criminal-justice/police-reasonable-force-brutality-race-research-review-statistics

[StephanieZ]

And you do realize he was following the exact advice his police officer father gave him for if/when he had an interaction with that police officer again, right?

 

Indeed, I do. I would have given different advice, but that does not change the fact that the violent police officer committed a terrible crime against the boy. The boy did nothing wrong. The police officer is totally in the wrong. But the boy has to deal with a lifetime of recovery from brain injury. Not his fault, but his suffering. 

 

Some police officers will react aggressively to respectful and legal resistance to their unlawful demands. Some police officers are bears. I don't poke bears. Even if the poke is legal and right and justified, I might get eaten by the bear. 

[Farrar]

I do find 'a couple of hours' hard to believe. I'm actually really proud of my husband's agency. They have ongoing training every month on less-than-lethal tactics, deescalation(is that a word, lol) and encounters with the mentally ill.

 

Some agencies are addressing these issues.

 

I can't find the article I read - I think it was a specific police department (somewhere that had just had a use of fatal force incident), but I remember it was a stark difference. I remember I was floored by it. It was literally just a couple of hours in training. But obviously, some departments are trying to do better. I'm glad your dh's is. And the conversation has shifted, which is great. Hopefully that supports officers in doing better across the board.

 

This is a table that shows nationwide averages. It's still the case that firearms and defense training heavily outweigh the hours on policies about force or how to de-escalate:

http://fusion.net/story/186239/police-training-guns-chart/

[hornblower]

That Atlantic article (written by a former police officer)  I linked above made the same point: they shoot because that's what they're trained to do. 

 

 

http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2014/12/police-gun-shooting-training-ferguson/383681/

" There are countless variations, but the lessons are the same: Hesitation can be fatal. So officers are trained to shoot before a threat is fully realized, to not wait until the last minute because the last minute may be too late.

 

But what about the consequences of a mistake? After all, that dark object in the suspect’s hands could be a wallet, not a gun. The occasional training scenario may even make that point. But officers are taught that the risks of mistake are less—far less—than the risks of hesitation. A common phrase among cops pretty much sums it up: “Better to be judged by twelve than carried by six.â€

[TechWife]

This reads to me like blaming the victim. The cop shouldn't have done what he did. End stop. He obviously knew that because he lied in his report and omitted several key facts.

 

Cops do have hard jobs. I think we need to train them differently in dealing with situations where people don't immediate capitulate to their authority. It's a systemic problem with lack of training and a whole paradigm of thinking. I don't think most cops are bad cops - I think most cops have the potential to do bad things, in large part because they get a ton of training about how to use deadly force and almost no training about how to de-escalate simple situations.

This 1000 times!

[Miss Peregrine]

I can't find the article I read - I think it was a specific police department (somewhere that had just had a use of fatal force incident), but I remember it was a stark difference. I remember I was floored by it. It was literally just a couple of hours in training. But obviously, some departments are trying to do better. I'm glad your dh's is. And the conversation has shifted, which is great. Hopefully that supports officers in doing better across the board.

 

This is a table that shows nationwide averages. It's still the case that firearms and defense training heavily outweigh the hours on policies about force or how to de-escalate:

http://fusion.net/story/186239/police-training-guns-chart/

The link above talks about recruits. It says nothing of ongoing training. I would like to see that those numbers even out a little, though.

 

I'm actally surprised you would make a sweeping statement about police from reading one article on one specific department.

[SparklyUnicorn]

Oh I hear you and agree.  Seems to me this cop was mad and wanted to get even and there wouldn't have been anything that kid could have done right.  So to me that's a major abuse of power.  It's certainly puts a different spin on things.  Not that the cop never saw this kid before and was acting like this to a random person.  But, again, abuse of power.  And what in heck, everything is on camera these days.  What was that cop thinking?!  He probably was not thinking. 

 

 

Not aiming this at anyone in particular, but I think we have to re-think the urge to dismiss proactive self-protection steps as "victim blaming"

 

Yes, I see that abusive spouses, rapist-dates, rabid police officers, etc are each 100% responsible for their actions. They are human beings, and they are culpable for their acts.

 

Nonetheless, there are things that the rest of us can and should do to protect ourselves from harm.

 

If it is thunder and lightning out, we don't go for a walk on a golf course with a metal umbrella. That'd be stupid.

 

If there are petty thieves known to frequent a foreign city we are visiting, we don't flash (or even bring) our expensive electronics, and we keep our cash and cards secured in a "money belt" if we have to carry them at all.

 

If there are bears in the woods, we don't sleep with steak in our sleeping bags.

 

If there are rapists at a party on the prowl for drunken women, we don't get drunk without a dependable safe-person there with us to keep us safe.

 

If we know that when someone abusively hits or otherwise abuses someone they love, there is a very high likelihood of escalation and continued violence, thus we should get away from the hitter at the first sign of abuse, not after years of being progressively destroyed.

 

If there are rapists waiting to slip a drug into an unaware female's drink, then we don't leave our open cups vulnerable to him.

 

Now, sometimes a lightning storm suddenly erupts when someone is in the middle of a large field and they get struck by lightning. Sometimes, abusive behavior is so stealthy and the victim so unprepared that the victim is "trapped" for a long time. Sometimes, a rapist is someone you had no reason to distrust and no reasonable way to know to be on guard against. Sometimes the worst happens.

 

It's fine and well and good to make clear that the aggressors/criminals are 100% responsible for their acts. That does NOT mean that intelligent, caring, compassionate people won't rightfully encourage good people to make choices that can reduce their chances of being victimized. 

 

Wearing a money belt when we travel in high crime areas doesn't make the thieves less responsible when they manage to steal somebody's purse (or money belt). Avoiding late night walking alone in a sketchy part of town doesn't make the criminals less responsible for their bad acts. Etc. But these sorts of sensible precautions can, indeed, reduce the likelihood of a particular person being eaten by a bear or victimized by a criminal. 

 

[poppy]

Not aiming this at anyone in particular, but I think we have to re-think the urge to dismiss proactive self-protection steps as "victim blaming"

 

Yes, I see that abusive spouses, rapist-dates, rabid police officers, etc are each 100% responsible for their actions. They are human beings, and they are culpable for their acts.

 

Nonetheless, there are things that the rest of us can and should do to protect ourselves from harm.

 

If it is thunder and lightning out, we don't go for a walk on a golf course with a metal umbrella. That'd be stupid.

 

If there are petty thieves known to frequent a foreign city we are visiting, we don't flash (or even bring) our expensive electronics, and we keep our cash and cards secured in a "money belt" if we have to carry them at all.

 

If there are bears in the woods, we don't sleep with steak in our sleeping bags.

 

If there are rapists at a party on the prowl for drunken women, we don't get drunk without a dependable safe-person there with us to keep us safe.

 

If we know that when someone abusively hits or otherwise abuses someone they love, there is a very high likelihood of escalation and continued violence, thus we should get away from the hitter at the first sign of abuse, not after years of being progressively destroyed.

 

If there are rapists waiting to slip a drug into an unaware female's drink, then we don't leave our open cups vulnerable to him.

 

Now, sometimes a lightning storm suddenly erupts when someone is in the middle of a large field and they get struck by lightning. Sometimes, abusive behavior is so stealthy and the victim so unprepared that the victim is "trapped" for a long time. Sometimes, a rapist is someone you had no reason to distrust and no reasonable way to know to be on guard against. Sometimes the worst happens.

 

It's fine and well and good to make clear that the aggressors/criminals are 100% responsible for their acts. That does NOT mean that intelligent, caring, compassionate people won't rightfully encourage good people to make choices that can reduce their chances of being victimized.

 

Wearing a money belt when we travel in high crime areas doesn't make the thieves less responsible when they manage to steal somebody's purse (or money belt). Avoiding late night walking alone in a sketchy part of town doesn't make the criminals less responsible for their bad acts. Etc. But these sorts of sensible precautions can, indeed, reduce the likelihood of a particular person being eaten by a bear or victimized by a criminal.

Don't you think we should hold police to higher standards than rapists and wife beaters?

 

Yes I teach my kids to have a fear / high caution response to any police interaction . I know most people do. But if a person doesn't - like say Sandra Bland didn't - that *shouldn't* mean anything. Other than annoy the officers. When it does result in an over the top police response , I think we need to hold those officers 100% accountable for their failure to manage and de-escalate the situation.

[SparklyUnicorn]

Don't you think we should hold police to higher standards than rapists and wife beaters?

 

Yes I teach my kids to have a fear / high caution response to any police interaction . I know most people do. But if a person doesn't - like say Sandra Bland didn't - that *shouldn't* mean anything. Other than annoy the officers. When it does result in an over the top police response , I think we need to hold those officers 100% accountable for their failure to manage and de-escalate the situation.

 

Hell yeah.

[City Mouse]

I want to start out by saying that I do not think that that office was correct in his actions in any way, and I am glad that he was convicted. If he falsified his report, that tells me that he knew what he did was wrong, but I do want to address one issue that the boy "did nothing wrong".

That will depend on the state or local laws there. In many states, people are required by law to comply with a legal request from a police officer. In some states (but not all) that means the boy was at fault for not rolling down the window when requested or getting out of the car when requested. In some states that means that people are required to show Id to police office when asked even if they do not know why the officer is asking for it. Again, that varies by state and some states do require that officers have cause before requiring ID or detaining someone.

 

That boy could have been perfectly within his rights to respond the way he did, but I would much rather that my son be polite and respectful to a police officer who is overstepping his bounds than end up with permanent brain damage or worse. There are no good answers. If the boy had complied and later filed a complaint against the officer, the officer probably would not have gotten more that a reprimand as opposed to a prison sentence. On the other had, the boy would not be facing a lifetime of brain damage either. I don't know what the perfect solution is.

 

I will add that last year I was traveling through Texas with my 12yr old son in a car with out of state plates. after noticing many police cars around this one small town, I was pulled over and three police cars quickly arrived. Instead of arguing with the officer, I answered his questions and complied with his requests. It turned out that they were looking for the same kind of car that had recently been seen at a robbery, not a middle aged women with a kid. If I had stared out combative, even if it was within my rights, the situation could have been much worse than a 10 minute delay.

Edited June 10, 2016 by City Mouse

[Caroline]

I want to start out by saying that I do not think that that office was correct in his actions in any way, and I am glad that he was convicted. If he falsified his report, that tells me that he knew what he did was wrong, but I do want to address one issue that the boy "did nothing wrong".

That will depend on the state or local laws there. In many states, people are required by law to comply with a legal request from a police officer. In some states (but not all) that means the boy was at fault for not rolling down the window when requested or getting out of the car when requested. In some states that means that people are required to show Id to police office when asked even if they do not know why the officer is asking for it. Again, that varies by state and some states do require that officers have cause before requiring ID or detaining someone.

 

That boy could have been perfectly within his rights to respond the way he did, but I would much rather that my son be polite and respectful to a police officer who is overstepping his bounds than end up with permanent brain damage or worse. There are no good answers. If the boy had complied and later filed a complaint against the officer, the officer probably would not have gotten more that a reprimand as opposed to a prison sentence. On the other had, the boy would not be facing a lifetime of brain damage either. I don't know what the perfect solution is.

I don't think you can say if the young man had complied with the officer's request to get out of the car that he wouldn't have been tased.

[StephanieZ]

Don't you think we should hold police to higher standards than rapists and wife beaters?

 

Yes I teach my kids to have a fear / high caution response to any police interaction . I know most people do. But if a person doesn't - like say Sandra Bland didn't - that *shouldn't* mean anything. Other than annoy the officers. When it does result in an over the top police response , I think we need to hold those officers 100% accountable for their failure to manage and de-escalate the situation.

 

Of course. But, then again, there are more than a few police officers who are also rapists and wife beaters.

 

I hold all human beings to a high standard. I just know that many fail to meet my standards, even the most basic ones, and so I am in favor of all human beings doing what we reasonably can to protect ourselves from lightning, bears, police officers, teachers, rapists, and frat boys. My standards have no impact whatsoever on predatory and criminal behaviors of others. 

 

So, my daughter gets pepper spray and rape whistles to take to college. My kids all get lectures about safe behaviors. When we hike in the Rockies, we carry bear spray. When I run in areas where I know bad guys and/or loose dogs might travel, I carry pepper spray. When we were in Costa Rica, we left our iPhones at home and we carried our cash and ID in money belts under our shirts. And we didn't go on the beach after dark.

 

We do what we can to improve our odds against bears, dogs, rapists, thieves, abusive partners, and rogue cops. etc. 

[Caroline]

This young man had been illegally searched by the police before. After being arrested after an illegal search, I imagine it would make you not want to comply the next time.

 

Yes but....

 

It does mean something. It means that person doesn't have respect for a law enforcement officer. And if a person doesn't respect a law enforcement officer, how likely is it that the person respects the law? I am NOT in any way saying that all people who are disrespectful to an officer are criminals. What I am saying is that a police officer has to use all the information at his disposal to evaluate the situation and if a person won't so much as roll down a window or get out their ID, I don't think it's unreasonable for the officer to wonder if that means they are hiding something. Is he not rolling down his window because he's trying to keep me from smelling the alcohol on his breath? Is he refusing to put out his cigarette because hes trying to cover the smell of pot? Is he not getting out his ID because his license is suspended?

 

Also...officers are people too. If you are working as a cashier at McDonalds and someone comes up to the counter and starts cussing you out, it's not an unreasonable reaction to get angry. Officers deal with that every day. It's not unreasonable for them to get angry. It's all well and good to say they should always be able to deescalate the situation...but sometimes, they screw up, just like any other person. NOW...when they DO screw up, they should ABSOLUTELY be held accountable for that...OF COURSE this officer should be in jail.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

I imagine that it would. That doesn't change the fact that not complying with an officers reasonable requests can make the officer wonder what you are trying to hide.

And it doesn't change the fact that the police should only be pulling someone over with legitimate probable cause and that someone refusing to give up their rights should not be used as evidence for a fishing expedition.

[poppy]

Of course. But, then again, there are more than a few police officers who are also rapists and wife beaters.

 

I hold all human beings to a high standard. I just know that many fail to meet my standards, even the most basic ones, and so I am in favor of all human beings doing what we reasonably can to protect ourselves from lightning, bears, police officers, teachers, rapists, and frat boys. My standards have no impact whatsoever on predatory and criminal behaviors of others.

 

So, my daughter gets pepper spray and rape whistles to take to college. My kids all get lectures about safe behaviors. When we hike in the Rockies, we carry bear spray. When I run in areas where I know bad guys and/or loose dogs might travel, I carry pepper spray. When we were in Costa Rica, we left our iPhones at home and we carried our cash and ID in money belts under our shirts. And we didn't go on the beach after dark.

 

We do what we can to improve our odds against bears, dogs, rapists, thieves, abusive partners, and rogue cops. etc.

Wouldn't filming the interaction be seen as protecting yourself from a rogue cop?

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Being asked to roll your window down or put out your cigarette aren't violations of your rights. I am not saying that people should give up their RIGHTS....I am saying that when a person is combative, argumentative, refuses to comply with very simple and reasonable requests...it's absolutely reasonable for an officer to get suspicious.

 

Yes, officers should pull people over only when they have legit probable cause, I would never say otherwise. What I am saying is that if an officer pulls you over, comply with their reasonable requests without throwing a fit.

Whether it is a violation or not depends on the cause for a stop. We have reached the point where the police are using their "reasonable" requests in a ways that can and do impact our rights. If the officer does not have a legal right to detain you, then those are not reasonable lawful requests.

[StephanieZ]

Wouldn't filming the interaction be seen as protecting yourself from a rogue cop?

 

I don't know whether filming is more helpful (discourage bad behavior) or harmful (antagonize an out of control aggressor). I've seen enough film clips of abuse being filmed openly that I am not sure it discourages bad behavior. Perhaps those behaving badly feel entitled and above any negative consequences for their actions and are just not dissuaded by being filmed.

 

I'd imagine that the act of filming could go either way -- de-escalating or further escalating conflict.

 

Did the police officer even realize the kid was filming? I watched the boy's video and began watching the 20 min dash cam video (link in the story above), but I had to stop when I heard that poor boy's head crack on the road. I have to think that the police officer who assaulted and maimed that child felt entitled to act as he was acting. The filming of most of his worst actions were on his own vehicle's dash cam, for goodness sake. Seems to me that in this case, that police officer was out of control and malicious in his intent to harm. I didn't notice anything that showed me that the officer realized the boy was filming, but I could have missed it, as I was reading the article at the same time and simply overwhelmed by the violence and tragedy of it all. 

 

I don't know that anything this particular boy could have done could have changed the outcome. Even if it had, chances are good that this police officer would have harmed other civilians and/or family members even if this particular child had escaped unscathed because that police officer was obviously really screwed up and/or evil and/or mentally unhinged. Normal people don't do things like this. 

 

I wonder how often dash cam (and similar wearable) videos are reviewed internally for police re-training/etc to catch the presumably vast majority of incidents that are not reported by the victims. Agencies need to take responsibility for supervising and controlling their employees to prevent harm, IMHO. 

 

I'm just so sad for the victim and his family. What a terrible, horrible thing happened to them.

[Audrey]

This is one of the most disturbing incidences of police brutality I've seen:

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/06/dashcam-footage-of-cop-tasing-dragging-and-dropping-teen-is-unsealed/

 

This poor kid was stopped mistakenly due to his license plate. (The warrant was actually for a woman!) He refused to exit his car, asking the officer if he was under arrest while filming the encounter with his phone. The officer responded by tasing him and dropping him face first on the pavement. He now has brain damage. Thankfully, the officer is now in prison--probably small consolation to the young man.

 

What do you teach your children about encounters with law enforcement? There was a time when I would have emphasized knowing and respectfully defending one's rights, but now for safety reasons I'm almost tempted to say, "Just do whatever they tell you." I'm sure there's a balance. 

 

 

We've told him never trust law enforcement.  Treat them like you would a bear.  Don't run. Don't make sudden movements.  Make sure you keep eye contact if possible.  In addition to that, definitely do what they tell you and say 'yes ma'am and yes sir.'   Never argue with them.  If possible, remember their name.  If they ever draw a gun on you, hands up and starting begging for your life. 

 

They're not much better up here as down there, IMO.  The last LEO I'd ever want to f*ck with is a Mountie, that's for sure.  They take no shit whatsoever.