Calguns.net  

Home My iTrader Join the NRA Donate to CGSSA Sponsors CGN Google Search
CA Semiauto Ban(AW)ID Flowchart CA Handgun Ban ID Flowchart CA Shotgun Ban ID Flowchart
Go Back   Calguns.net > SPECIALTY FORUMS > Calguns LEOs
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

Calguns LEOs LEOs; chat, kibitz and relax. Non-LEOs; have a questions for a cop? Ask it here, in a CIVIL manner.

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #81  
Old 05-29-2018, 9:20 PM
esy esy is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: NorCal
Posts: 731
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by glbtrottr View Post
And you’ve proven my point exactly.

It shouldn’t take a cop or a Supreme Court justice to understand proper use of force. Moreover, my issue with Graham revolves around it not being a “clean case” given the plaintiff and surrounding case. While much of the condescension sent my direction revolves around “not being a street cop,” the last thing I want is less protection on the street as I do a job. I also didn’t state it is either practical or possible to search a suspect’s background prior to Use of force; good attempt on someone taking another quote and cutting and pasting them on my mouth.

My issue with law enforcement has been the disparate standard between law enforcement and the citizen. Rather than casual criticism, I’ve made it clear I’ve done my share to carry my weight. But y’all retired folk feel free to tell me what it was like during the old days, roll your eyes and dismiss the issue- which is that bashing the face of a diabetic lad on the hood of a cruiser who was not resisting and ended up with broken bones makes for case law that you’re proud of.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
That’s rich.

You tell us not to roll our eyes at your inability to see through a sworn peace officer’s lens while you moan and groan about the several dissertations you’ve done that tell us what a horrible case law it is and how crappy of a job we’re doing.

Again, I’d be very interested to see how your perspective on Graham v Connor and use of force has changed, if at all, if and when you finish a full POST academy, get hired on to a PD, Sheriff’s Dept, etc., and have worked a year as a FT sworn peace officer.

Your sentiment is duly noted and you’re more than welcome to come back and update us all in a year’s time. Until then, keep writing dissertations on how we should be doing our jobs and maybe someone like Governor Moonbeam, Gavin Newsom, or Feinstein will listen.

Good day.
  #82  
Old 05-29-2018, 9:47 PM
glbtrottr's Avatar
glbtrottr glbtrottr is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: By the Beach, Baby!
Posts: 3,527
iTrader: 48 / 87%
Default

Again, you miss the point.

The criticism had little to do with the job of law enforcement - youre moving the goal post. Law enforcement does and admirable job...and they make mistakes.

I don’t believe you were defending the officer who injured Graham.

And I wasn’t demonizing the officer.

Much as we like “clean” plaintiffs in gun cases (can you say McDonald vs Chicago?) I would argue you would want the same in redefining how law enforcement looks to move cases to the Supreme Court. But if you want to reframe my opinion on the case as a criticism of how horrible the mean officers were to the poor innocent little plaintiff, be my guest. I’ll be your ad-hominem target since “I’m not an officer.”

Again, my point is the scenario sucked, and unfortunately, while it provides ample protection for the officer, and law enforcement loves Rehnquist’s opinion, it is not without flaws in its conclusion.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
__________________
On hold....
  #83  
Old 05-30-2018, 4:45 PM
CinnamonBear723 CinnamonBear723 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Orange County
Posts: 1,720
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by glbtrottr View Post
And you’ve proven my point exactly.

It shouldn’t take a cop or a Supreme Court justice to understand proper use of force. Moreover, my issue with Graham revolves around it not being a “clean case” given the plaintiff and surrounding case. While much of the condescension sent my direction revolves around “not being a street cop,” the last thing I want is less protection on the street as I do a job. I also didn’t state it is either practical or possible to search a suspect’s background prior to Use of force; good attempt on someone taking another quote and cutting and pasting them on my mouth.

My issue with law enforcement has been the disparate standard between law enforcement and the citizen. Rather than casual criticism, I’ve made it clear I’ve done my share to carry my weight. But y’all retired folk feel free to tell me what it was like during the old days, roll your eyes and dismiss the issue- which is that bashing the face of a diabetic lad on the hood of a cruiser who was not resisting and ended up with broken bones makes for case law that you’re proud of.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
In what way have I proven your point? It's just not reasonable to assume other people can "understand" uses of force without the same perspective. "Clean cases" don't make it to the Supreme Court. Your search for Supreme Court case law based on "clean cases" is futile. This job is not black and white and it gets messy. That's the nature of the beast. I hope for your sake you never get into a use of force and hesitate out of fear of public perception. If you have that mentality you will surely be carried by six instead of judged by 12.

The fact that you have issues with law enforcement makes me question your motive to become a cop. If you come into this profession thinking you're gunna be the guy to turn it all around and change things, brother, you've got another thing comin'.
  #84  
Old 05-30-2018, 4:54 PM
CinnamonBear723 CinnamonBear723 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Orange County
Posts: 1,720
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

BTW, I'm not one if those "old retired folk." I'm am a current detective. Former undercover, former patrol officer. I'm also a first aid/CPR instructor, firearms instructor, honor guard member, high risk warrant team member, as well as a selected member of the staff who reviews policy and uses of force. I don't want to sound arrogant or like I'm bragging, but I know just a bit about what I'm talking about.

And don't be disrespectful to those that have done this job before us. Don't be so quick to dismiss experience. They lived and worked through these changes in law enforcement first hand. I'm not much into name calling but you are starting to sound like a millenial wanting to change law enforcement in some sort of self righteous quest.
  #85  
Old 05-30-2018, 5:20 PM
glbtrottr's Avatar
glbtrottr glbtrottr is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: By the Beach, Baby!
Posts: 3,527
iTrader: 48 / 87%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CinnamonBear723 View Post
In what way have I proven your point? It's just not reasonable to assume other people can "understand" uses of force without the same perspective. "Clean cases" don't make it to the Supreme Court. Your search for Supreme Court case law based on "clean cases" is futile. This job is not black and white and it gets messy. That's the nature of the beast. I hope for your sake you never get into a use of force and hesitate out of fear of public perception. If you have that mentality you will surely be carried by six instead of judged by 12.

The fact that you have issues with law enforcement makes me question your motive to become a cop. If you come into this profession thinking you're gunna be the guy to turn it all around and change things, brother, you've got another thing comin'.

Cinnamon Bear:

You proved my point with your belief that it takes a special citizen to know circumstances to evaluate law and law enforcement. It doesn’t and it shouldn’t. Your argument defies logic and our jurisprudence.

I’ll remind you: Paelian principles, likely in your department policy: principle 7: The police at all times should maintain a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and that the public are the police; the police are the only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen in the interest of the community welfare.” Nothing there about special citizens with special powers of comprehension.

But wait. Use of force is different, right? Kind of like the second amendment? Kind of like the militia? Or perhaps like officers get better training in shooting with 50 rounds a year? We could go round and round chasing our tails to no avail.

No, the Job is not black and white. But Supreme Court Cases with issues ideally should be. Pick some this term: I’ll grab one. Masterpiece cake: I’ll sell you a cake, but I won’t decorate it for you as a gay wedding cake. Should I be forced to bake it? Is my refusal to bake it a statement of hatred? First amendment versus equal protections. Is sexual orientation a protected class? No hatred reported or implied; Pick another. Graham was a crappy case, much like Roe vs. Wade is subjective and goofy; good intentions, but not without criticism or flaw. Dred Scott was a horrible decision. Buck versus Bell argued for sterilization -8-1 for. Are you proud of those? What about Korematsu and Japanese internment? Many Supreme Court cases simply sucked- the fact that Graham benefits law enforcement to a likeable point doesn’t make it clean law.

On public perception and criticism: let’s make a deal. I won’t paint you into a corner if you’ll grant me the same courtesy even though we don’t know one another. The same goes for hesitation. Neither have been my problem, sometimes to my detriment. Let’s not play “what if” scenarios regarding use of force and discuss how much we may regret high noon scenarios but someone has to do it, if you don’t mind.

You may not agree with this president or country at any given point in time, but I don’t expect you’d run for the hills, become a communist or a totalitarian dictator. Does every other cop represent you? I don’t believe they all do. I wont assume that you’re OK with what happened with Kelly Ferguson, the Rampart crew, or Rodney King, and I ask that you don’t assume I’m either a cavalier know-it-all about law enforcement who’s here to change the profession or hesitate when I haven’t pushed a cruiser day 1. I am not. At over 40 with a number of successful careers behind me, I’m doing this as a calling, not as an exploratory ego comparison trip with others who may disagree with my opinion.

I may not agree with some things that happen in law enforcement, but that doesn’t mean I don’t believe the job to be tainted or dishonorable, nor do I have illusions of coming in and changing the world. I’d appreciate you don’t take my disagreement with a crappy situation where an officer bashed a non-resisting diabetic and move the goal post by questioning my person instead. That’s way too close to “rules for radicals” for my taste, and I’m sure you didn’t mean it that way.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
__________________
On hold....
  #86  
Old 05-30-2018, 6:00 PM
CinnamonBear723 CinnamonBear723 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Orange County
Posts: 1,720
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by glbtrottr View Post
Cinnamon Bear:

You proved my point with your belief that it takes a special citizen to know circumstances to evaluate law and law enforcement. It doesn’t and it shouldn’t. Your argument defies logic and our jurisprudence.

I’ll remind you: Paelian principles, likely in your department policy: principle 7: The police at all times should maintain a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and that the public are the police; the police are the only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen in the interest of the community welfare.” Nothing there about special citizens with special powers of comprehension.

But wait. Use of force is different, right? Kind of like the second amendment? Kind of like the militia? Or perhaps like officers get better training in shooting with 50 rounds a year? We could go round and round chasing our tails to no avail.

No, the Job is not black and white. But Supreme Court Cases with issues ideally should be. Pick some this term: I’ll grab one. Masterpiece cake: I’ll sell you a cake, but I won’t decorate it for you as a gay wedding cake. Should I be forced to bake it? Is my refusal to bake it a statement of hatred? First amendment versus equal protections. Is sexual orientation a protected class? No hatred reported or implied; Pick another. Graham was a crappy case, much like Roe vs. Wade is subjective and goofy; good intentions, but not without criticism or flaw. Dred Scott was a horrible decision. Buck versus Bell argued for sterilization -8-1 for. Are you proud of those? What about Korematsu and Japanese internment? Many Supreme Court cases simply sucked- the fact that Graham benefits law enforcement to a likeable point doesn’t make it clean law.

On public perception and criticism: let’s make a deal. I won’t paint you into a corner if you’ll grant me the same courtesy even though we don’t know one another. The same goes for hesitation. Neither have been my problem, sometimes to my detriment. Let’s not play “what if” scenarios regarding use of force and discuss how much we may regret high noon scenarios but someone has to do it, if you don’t mind.

You may not agree with this president or country at any given point in time, but I don’t expect you’d run for the hills, become a communist or a totalitarian dictator. Does every other cop represent you? I don’t believe they all do. I wont assume that you’re OK with what happened with Kelly Ferguson, the Rampart crew, or Rodney King, and I ask that you don’t assume I’m either a cavalier know-it-all about law enforcement who’s here to change the profession or hesitate when I haven’t pushed a cruiser day 1. I am not. At over 40 with a number of successful careers behind me, I’m doing this as a calling, not as an exploratory ego comparison trip with others who may disagree with my opinion.

I may not agree with some things that happen in law enforcement, but that doesn’t mean I don’t believe the job to be tainted or dishonorable, nor do I have illusions of coming in and changing the world. I’d appreciate you don’t take my disagreement with a crappy situation where an officer bashed a non-resisting diabetic and move the goal post by questioning my person instead. That’s way too close to “rules for radicals” for my taste, and I’m sure you didn’t mean it that way.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
My friend you are way off the reservation. Why you felt it necessary to to bring up gay marriage or baking cakes I have no idea. This isn't a home econ class.

It has become clear to me that you just don't get it. I'm done spinning my wheels. You have clearly made up your mind. You can read all the literature in the world but you will never know until you do the job. It doesn't make us "special citizens." I wish you the best of luck but I truly think you'll never make it with that attitude.
  #87  
Old 05-30-2018, 6:14 PM
esy esy is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: NorCal
Posts: 731
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CinnamonBear723 View Post
My friend you are way off the reservation. Why you felt it necessary to to bring up gay marriage or baking cakes I have no idea. This isn't a home econ class.

It has become clear to me that you just don't get it. I'm done spinning my wheels. You have clearly made up your mind. You can read all the literature in the world but you will never know until you do the job. It doesn't make us "special citizens." I wish you the best of luck but I truly think you'll never make it with that attitude.
Yup.

I’ve had people in my academy and partners now that no one wanted to be partnered with because of their obvious hesitation to split second decisions.
  #88  
Old 05-30-2018, 7:14 PM
glbtrottr's Avatar
glbtrottr glbtrottr is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: By the Beach, Baby!
Posts: 3,527
iTrader: 48 / 87%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CinnamonBear723 View Post
My friend you are way off the reservation. Why you felt it necessary to to bring up gay marriage or baking cakes I have no idea. This isn't a home econ class.



It has become clear to me that you just don't get it. I'm done spinning my wheels. You have clearly made up your mind. You can read all the literature in the world but you will never know until you do the job. It doesn't make us "special citizens." I wish you the best of luck but I truly think you'll never make it with that attitude.


Precisely. I brought up a case about free speech versus equal protection and discrimination, and you read gay marriage.

I see what you mean by “I’ll never make it”...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
__________________
On hold....
  #89  
Old 05-30-2018, 7:18 PM
CinnamonBear723 CinnamonBear723 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Orange County
Posts: 1,720
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by glbtrottr View Post
Precisely. I brought up a case about free speech versus equal protection and discrimination, and you read gay marriage.

I see what you mean by “I’ll never make it”...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
That's because I didn't take the time to read it all. Once you started getting that far off topic I just starting skimming because I stopped caring. I wish you were a little more open minded to those of us that have a vast amount of experience, but like everyone else who isn't a cop, you know more about our job, and how to do it, than we do.
  #90  
Old 05-30-2018, 7:40 PM
SVT-40's Avatar
SVT-40 SVT-40 is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Az
Posts: 9,020
iTrader: 25 / 100%
Default

That's why when deciding whether the force used by a Officer was reasonable the standard is what a "reasonable Officer" would do or have done. NOT what a reasonable NON LEO would do or have done.

Training education AND experience matters. You can be trained and be educated. However without actual experience you simply cannot legally judge whether the force used by a LEO was reasonable.

Try and get up on the witness stand and try and qualify as a "expert" without actual experience. You will get laughed off the stand.

Everyone can have an opinion. However without training, education and most importantly experience your opinion will be judged as sub standard.
__________________
Poke'm with a stick!


Quote:
Originally Posted by fiddletown View Post
What you believe and what is true in real life in the real world aren't necessarily the same thing. And what you believe doesn't change what is true in real life in the real world.
  #91  
Old 05-30-2018, 7:42 PM
CinnamonBear723 CinnamonBear723 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Orange County
Posts: 1,720
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SVT-40 View Post
That's why when deciding whether the force used by a Officer was reasonable the standard is what a "reasonable Officer" would do or have done. NOT what a reasonable NON LEO would do or have done.

Training education AND experience matters. You can be trained and be educated. However without actual experience you simply cannot legally judge whether the force used by a LEO was reasonable.

Try and get up on the witness stand and try and qualify as a "expert" without actual experience. You will get laughed off the stand.

Everyone can have an opinion. However without training, education and most importantly experience your opinion will be judged as sub standard.
There you go talking like one of those "special citizens."
  #92  
Old 05-30-2018, 7:43 PM
glbtrottr's Avatar
glbtrottr glbtrottr is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: By the Beach, Baby!
Posts: 3,527
iTrader: 48 / 87%
Default

The point I think you’re missing is that I am open minded - we wouldn’t be having this discussion. I wouldn’t be starting the academy. If you wrote something I take the time to read it. I’ve never stated or implied I know better than you being on the job, nor did I miss the value of experience. I’m not the same pilot at 50 hours than I was at 400 or 4000. I’m not the same manager I was with my first direct report than 5, 50 or 300. I don’t expect law enforcement to be different, and your experience is respected.

My argument is...lots of knuckleheads May deserve use of force and even fatal (Michael Ferguson, DOJ report)- My argument remains it shouldn’t take a badge to know that the Kelly Ferguson case was a cluster, and the Graham case isn’t clean either. “I’m not a cop,” “I’m against gays being married,” and a number of other irrelevant or inaccurate statements aren’t germane- we are people with opinions, and mine is that the badge undoubtedly colors the opinions of others on cases that stretch reason or judgement.

Answer this for me: would you have been the cop that “smashed” (as reported) Graham’s face on the hood, or contributed to his injuries while he did not resist? Was it justifiable to you? I’ve read the case (not just the decision or the opinion), and I’m guessing you have as well...right?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
__________________
On hold....
  #93  
Old 05-30-2018, 7:52 PM
CinnamonBear723 CinnamonBear723 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Orange County
Posts: 1,720
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by glbtrottr View Post
The point I think you’re missing is that I am open minded - we wouldn’t be having this discussion. I wouldn’t be starting the academy. If you wrote something I take the time to read it. I’ve never stated or implied I know better than you being on the job, nor did I miss the value of experience. I’m not the same pilot at 50 hours than I was at 400 or 4000. I’m not the same manager I was with my first direct report than 5, 50 or 300. I don’t expect law enforcement to be different, and your experience is respected.

My argument is...lots of knuckleheads May deserve use of force and even fatal (Michael Ferguson, DOJ report)- My argument remains it shouldn’t take a badge to know that the Kelly Ferguson case was a cluster, and the Graham case isn’t clean either. “I’m not a cop,” “I’m against gays being married,” and a number of other irrelevant or inaccurate statements aren’t germane- we are people with opinions, and mine is that the badge undoubtedly colors the opinions of others on cases that stretch reason or judgement.

Answer this for me: would you have been the cop that “smashed” (as reported) Graham’s face on the hood, or contributed to his injuries while he did not resist? Was it justifiable to you? I’ve read the case (not just the decision or the opinion), and I’m guessing you have as well...right?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I'm not sure you understand Graham v. Connor as well as you think. The justices called it good police work. Does it suck that an otherwise innocent guy got twisted up, sure, but ultimately the court defended the officers actions.

The case also established that officers can only be judged by a reasonable officer standard. You call it crappy case law, I called good case law covering good police work.
  #94  
Old 05-30-2018, 8:30 PM
glbtrottr's Avatar
glbtrottr glbtrottr is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: By the Beach, Baby!
Posts: 3,527
iTrader: 48 / 87%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CinnamonBear723 View Post
I'm not sure you understand Graham v. Connor as well as you think. The justices called it good police work. Does it suck that an otherwise innocent guy got twisted up, sure, but ultimately the court defended the officers actions.



The case also established that officers can only be judged by a reasonable officer standard. You call it crappy case law, I called good case law covering good police work.


So we are making progress - we both agree an innocent guy got twisted up. He filed for a 1983 case, and I won’t go into how that was handled because it doesn’t matter to either of our arguments.

We disagree where you call it “good Police work” particularly since an innocent guy got jammed up. The essence of the case was Rehnquist’s choice to not apply the Glick test and specifically to look at Graham’s case under the fourth amendment - not as malicious or sadistic but rather did the officers act reasonably based on what they knew-

I’ve already copied several links to the various views on Graham from the law enforcement side. You question whether I understand it, I see your Jack and I’ll raise you:


“glick:

1] the need for the application of force, [2] the relationship between the need and the amount of force that was used, [3] the extent of injury inflicted, and [4] whether force was applied in a good faith effort to maintain or restore discipline or maliciously and sadistically for the very purpose of causing harm.”

The appellate went down this path.

Rehnquist and others thought....
Not so fast- instead of agreeing with the appellate that the officers acted to maintain and restore order, the Supremes went down the path of what you now know as the reasonability standard based purely on 4th amendment grounds. To call the core argument made by Rehnquist including his opinions on not using hindsight to judge an officer is a far reach to Graham having been “good police work,” as you state, specially where you already stated an innocent guy got it.

The 1983 case may have been poorly composed or argued, but Graham’s innocence is not in question, and neither is the nature of his injuries. I also didn’t say it was “bad law” - I said it was a crappy case. I believe it will be challenged precisely for those reasons - the case was only decided in 1989, so it isn’t as though this is some sort of foundational pillar of evergreen justice that will go unchallenged. Much as the interpretation for Roe versus Wade is subjective and the interpretation of viability of a fetus is way too broad, so is the definition as to what a “reasonable” officer would do.

Not long ago a chief Of Police Im lucky enough to call a friend and I were discussing CCW. He brought up the various documents that Chiefs are given as the organizational opinions. I shared with him a survey hat included 11,000 officers. His argument changed from one side to the next, and ended with “well, officers in California know better because they’re far better educated.” Just as Rehnquist’s idea of what “reasonable” may be, you can drive a 747 between this argument as to how much more or less educated California officers are and why it’s OK for citizens not to be allowed to CCw in LA county.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
__________________
On hold....
  #95  
Old 05-30-2018, 9:13 PM
eta34's Avatar
eta34 eta34 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,036
iTrader: 24 / 100%
Default

So, what do you propose as the proper standard by which to judge a use of force incident?
  #96  
Old 05-30-2018, 9:31 PM
randomBytes's Avatar
randomBytes randomBytes is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: SF Bay Area
Posts: 1,239
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Solution is obvious - don't try to arrest anyone
  #97  
Old 05-31-2018, 7:24 AM
hmvan's Avatar
hmvan hmvan is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 174
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by randomBytes View Post
Solution is obvious - don't try to arrest anyone


Hugs, for everyone.

Seriously though, all the research and eloquent word smithing will not and cannot amount to the insight and understanding that years of experience bring, in any field. The “special Citizen” argument is not applicable because this discussion isn’t about separating LEO’s for some privilege. Graham v. Connor is a crappy situation and that’s exactly why it went to SCOTUS. But the end result is favorable for LEO’s so that we don’t end up getting prosecuted if any other officer would have acted the same way.

It is unlikely that reasonable person (not a LEO) would ever have the same perspective simply because of the lack of the same kind of experience, much like someone with no experience as a pilot could fairly judge a pilots decision making after a crash or other unfortunate incident.

Monday morning quarterbacking is hard enough when it comes from the people with understanding, much more difficult when those with no understanding chime in.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
  #98  
Old 05-31-2018, 7:39 AM
CinnamonBear723 CinnamonBear723 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Orange County
Posts: 1,720
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by glbtrottr View Post
So we are making progress - we both agree an innocent guy got twisted up. He filed for a 1983 case, and I won’t go into how that was handled because it doesn’t matter to either of our arguments.

We disagree where you call it “good Police work” particularly since an innocent guy got jammed up. The essence of the case was Rehnquist’s choice to not apply the Glick test and specifically to look at Graham’s case under the fourth amendment - not as malicious or sadistic but rather did the officers act reasonably based on what they knew-

I’ve already copied several links to the various views on Graham from the law enforcement side. You question whether I understand it, I see your Jack and I’ll raise you:


“glick:

1] the need for the application of force, [2] the relationship between the need and the amount of force that was used, [3] the extent of injury inflicted, and [4] whether force was applied in a good faith effort to maintain or restore discipline or maliciously and sadistically for the very purpose of causing harm.”

The appellate went down this path.

Rehnquist and others thought....
Not so fast- instead of agreeing with the appellate that the officers acted to maintain and restore order, the Supremes went down the path of what you now know as the reasonability standard based purely on 4th amendment grounds. To call the core argument made by Rehnquist including his opinions on not using hindsight to judge an officer is a far reach to Graham having been “good police work,” as you state, specially where you already stated an innocent guy got it.

The 1983 case may have been poorly composed or argued, but Graham’s innocence is not in question, and neither is the nature of his injuries. I also didn’t say it was “bad law” - I said it was a crappy case. I believe it will be challenged precisely for those reasons - the case was only decided in 1989, so it isn’t as though this is some sort of foundational pillar of evergreen justice that will go unchallenged. Much as the interpretation for Roe versus Wade is subjective and the interpretation of viability of a fetus is way too broad, so is the definition as to what a “reasonable” officer would do.

Not long ago a chief Of Police Im lucky enough to call a friend and I were discussing CCW. He brought up the various documents that Chiefs are given as the organizational opinions. I shared with him a survey hat included 11,000 officers. His argument changed from one side to the next, and ended with “well, officers in California know better because they’re far better educated.” Just as Rehnquist’s idea of what “reasonable” may be, you can drive a 747 between this argument as to how much more or less educated California officers are and why it’s OK for citizens not to be allowed to CCw in LA county.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Well, seems like you got it all figured out. Time to go 10-8 and show us all how it's done. Go forth and use your glick tests and peelian theories on the huddled masses and bring forth the light to the darkness of law enforcement.
  #99  
Old 05-31-2018, 7:46 AM
fawndog's Avatar
fawndog fawndog is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 647
iTrader: 16 / 100%
Default

It's becoming more hug-a-thug everyday.
"Just do your job when necessary, and I get to determine that after the fact."
  #100  
Old 05-31-2018, 8:31 AM
glbtrottr's Avatar
glbtrottr glbtrottr is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: By the Beach, Baby!
Posts: 3,527
iTrader: 48 / 87%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hmvan View Post

Seriously though, all the research and eloquent word smithing will not and cannot amount to the insight and understanding that years of experience bring, in any field. The “special Citizen” argument is not applicable because this discussion isn’t about separating LEO’s for some privilege. Graham v. Connor is a crappy situation and that’s exactly why it went to SCOTUS. But the end result is favorable for LEO’s so that we don’t end up getting prosecuted if any other officer would have acted the same way.

And another vote that agrees with my original statement, which was that Graham got a crap sandwich on this case. I didn’t say Graham was bad law-I said it is overbroad. It is. Can you objectively state what a “reasonable” police officer is?

No second guessing here; a legit 1983 case pinned against a landmark use of force case is lame.

Quote:
Originally Posted by randomBytes View Post
Solution is obvious - don't try to arrest anyone

My father was tortured and murdered by 4 men. The fresh crime scene wasn’t fun to see, let alone hearing the description of the crime by a witness/victim. My mother also died fairly brutally.

Hug a thug I’m not, but nice try...

Quote:
Originally Posted by eta34 View Post
So, what do you propose as the proper standard by which to judge a use of force incident?


Never in my life would I sign up for answering that question at this point. Nice trap, but no- I’ll avoid the PERF and Lexipol second guessing. Again, far more schooled minds than I suggested that the standard is overbroad. And far wiser minds than I should make the standard less broad.


Quote:
Originally Posted by CinnamonBear723 View Post
Well, seems like you got it all figured out. Time to go 10-8 and show us all how it's done. Go forth and use your glick tests and peelian theories on the huddled masses and bring forth the light to the darkness of law enforcement.

I didn’t propose the Glick test. I merely countered your assertion that I didn’t read or understand the case. Again, moving the goal post and putting words in my mouth. I’d hate to be a suspect interviewed by you! As for Paelian “theories”, they’re not / they’re principles by one of those people that founded Law Enforcement, republished Im far too many departmental policies to count. Either you’re a person of integrity and live by them when you take the job, or you make excuses for how hard the job is and mock them as ineffective theories. slippery slope...This is why people struggle with those in the profession. Many in LE believe they’re either special or subject to a higher threshold. Arrest powers make one neither judge, jury, or less accountable. But hey - demonize Peel all you want-it simply says more about your beliefs on following principles you may have signed up for than it does about me.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
__________________
On hold....
  #101  
Old 05-31-2018, 10:08 AM
eta34's Avatar
eta34 eta34 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,036
iTrader: 24 / 100%
Default

Gentlemen, please stop engaging this guy. It is pointless. He is happy to tell us all about the problems with OUR profession, but when asked to provide some of his grand wisdom, he backs away.
  #102  
Old 05-31-2018, 10:11 AM
esy esy is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: NorCal
Posts: 731
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by eta34 View Post
Gentlemen, please stop engaging this guy. It is pointless. He is happy to tell us all about the problems with OUR profession, but when asked to provide some of his grand wisdom, he backs away.
I was just going to say the same thing.

Just another troll. If we let it go, he’ll disappear like the rest.
  #103  
Old 05-31-2018, 12:28 PM
CinnamonBear723 CinnamonBear723 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Orange County
Posts: 1,720
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by glbtrottr View Post

I didn’t propose the Glick test. I merely countered your assertion that I didn’t read or understand the case. Again, moving the goal post and putting words in my mouth. I’d hate to be a suspect interviewed by you! As for Paelian “theories”, they’re not / they’re principles by one of those people that founded Law Enforcement, republished Im far too many departmental policies to count. Either you’re a person of integrity and live by them when you take the job, or you make excuses for how hard the job is and mock them as ineffective theories. slippery slope...This is why people struggle with those in the profession. Many in LE believe they’re either special or subject to a higher threshold. Arrest powers make one neither judge, jury, or less accountable. But hey - demonize Peel all you want-it simply says more about your beliefs on following principles you may have signed up for than it does about me.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I never demonized Sir Robert Peel, nor will I. I was merely pointing out that there is a lot more to this profession than the principles he instituted. As for my beliefs, well I certainly don't have to answer to you. I have a good standing at my agency, so much so they trust me with policy and use of force review from a line level. My morals are in tact. Good luck with your potential career in law enforcement.
  #104  
Old 05-31-2018, 12:28 PM
CinnamonBear723 CinnamonBear723 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Orange County
Posts: 1,720
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by eta34 View Post
Gentlemen, please stop engaging this guy. It is pointless. He is happy to tell us all about the problems with OUR profession, but when asked to provide some of his grand wisdom, he backs away.
Yeah yeah ok. Can we get a MOD to close this thing since it is clearly going no where?
  #105  
Old 05-31-2018, 12:53 PM
Samuelx's Avatar
Samuelx Samuelx is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Los Angeles County
Posts: 1,402
iTrader: 33 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hmvan View Post
Monday morning quarterbacking is hard enough when it comes from the people with understanding, much more difficult when those with no understanding chime in.
THIS ^ times a Zillion!!!

If I may, let me just change one thing - 'MMQ is hard enough when it comes from people who SHOULD know better (e.g. should have understanding)...' and primarily I'm referring to upper management in LE - more specifically those who spent more time climbing ladders than doing real police work and/or those who forgot where they came from!

I've met too many upper management people who aren't LE use of force subject matter experts (although every single one of them Should be). I've worked with quite a few line personnel who weren't as SME as they should be either (and yes, I was one of them once too). The problem is that so many of the upper management people I've seen or dealt with who don't know much, think they do and are no longer in learning mode - and they're the ones coming to ignorant snap conclusions, knee jerk reacting, setting or making changes to policies, refusing to consult and/or listen to real SMEs, and refusing to admit they were wrong, ETC ad nauseam!

That being said, all else being equal, even the relatively clueless in our ranks still know more about LE use of force than the vast majority of non-LEOs, even ones who are well-educated otherwise. On the flip side, I find it both humorous and pathetically sad when I talk to a non-LEO about a LE upper management decision or opinion on a use of force or a LE upper management penned policy regarding using force and the non-LEO basically says WTF were they (upper management) thinking?

Last edited by Samuelx; 05-31-2018 at 12:58 PM..
  #106  
Old 05-31-2018, 5:49 PM
Rover60's Avatar
Rover60 Rover60 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: OC
Posts: 95
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Most upper management folks are all desk jockeys pushing papers all day and subject themselves to their superiors. When they’re pressed for change by their superiors they’re not worried about line guys. They’re worried about keeping their jobs.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
  #107  
Old 05-31-2018, 6:32 PM
yzernie's Avatar
yzernie yzernie is online now
Vendor/Retailer
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Oak Hills/Hesperia, Ca.
Posts: 5,496
iTrader: 566 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Samuelx View Post
THIS ^ times a Zillion!!!

If I may, let me just change one thing - 'MMQ is hard enough when it comes from people who SHOULD know better (e.g. should have understanding)...' and primarily I'm referring to upper management in LE - more specifically those who spent more time climbing ladders than doing real police work and/or those who forgot where they came from!

I've met too many upper management people who aren't LE use of force subject matter experts (although every single one of them Should be). I've worked with quite a few line personnel who weren't as SME as they should be either (and yes, I was one of them once too). The problem is that so many of the upper management people I've seen or dealt with who don't know much, think they do and are no longer in learning mode - and they're the ones coming to ignorant snap conclusions, knee jerk reacting, setting or making changes to policies, refusing to consult and/or listen to real SMEs, and refusing to admit they were wrong, ETC ad nauseam!

That being said, all else being equal, even the relatively clueless in our ranks still know more about LE use of force than the vast majority of non-LEOs, even ones who are well-educated otherwise. On the flip side, I find it both humorous and pathetically sad when I talk to a non-LEO about a LE upper management decision or opinion on a use of force or a LE upper management penned policy regarding using force and the non-LEO basically says WTF were they (upper management) thinking?
I went toe to toe with more than one upper management folk. They didn't take kindly to defeat and as such I knew I would never elevate any further than a Patrol Sgt and I was OK with that because I didn't want to become 'One of them'.
__________________
My Commercial Sales Ad >>> http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...d.php?t=257865

TinStarSupply@aol.com

The satisfaction of a job well done is to be the one who has done it

Quote:
Originally Posted by RazoE
I don't feel a thing when some cop gets ghosted.
Closed Thread

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 4:31 PM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Proudly hosted by GeoVario the Premier 2A host.
Calguns.net, the 'Calguns' name and all associated variants and logos are ® Trademark and © Copyright 2002-2018, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.
Calguns.net and The Calguns Foundation have no affiliation and are in no way related to each other.
All opinions, statements and remarks made by Calguns.net on this web site and elsewhere are solely attributable to Calguns.net.