Calif. Change from Reasonable to Nessecary Force

[esy]

Oh! I guess that was aimed my way.

CSMR Military Police.
Got picked up by Probation but as someone else pointed out, waiting for the academy which hasn't been scheduled for months and months.

Decided to go to Rio Hondo instead.

Does that make the information I provided less valid?

I hope not. It would be a shame to perpetuate the stereotype that only LEO's understand the issue at hand.

Yes, it does. Until you’ve worked even a year as a peace officer, you don’t see it through the same lens.

While I can appreciate your several dissertations, that does not mean you completely grasp the ideas, concepts, or mindset of a peace officer. If you finish the academy, get a FT job with a PD, Sheriff’s Department, etc., I’d be interested to see what and how your perspective on use of force has changed. I’d bet that it will have changed drastically.

[Samuelx]

In GvC, SCOTUS was wise enough to recognize that judging LE actions is based on a reasonable OFFICER standard and NOT reasonable Person - huge difference!

[Tree Cutter]

Oh! I guess that was aimed my way.

CSMR Military Police.
Got picked up by Probation but as someone else pointed out, waiting for the academy which hasn't been scheduled for months and months.

Decided to go to Rio Hondo instead.

Does that make the information I provided less valid?

I hope not. It would be a shame to perpetuate the stereotype that only LEO's understand the issue at hand.

Military Police and civilian law enforcement are two different animals, especially when it comes to use of force. I don't believe MPs use the standards set forth by Graham vs. Conner, but I could be wrong since its been almost 2 decades since i've served.

[CinnamonBear723]

Ugh. Graham vs. Connor was a *horrible* case I've had to write multiple dissertations about at this point. The case illustrates the very worst of what can go wrong in officer perception versus suspect behavior. Worse, Graham was literally battered by law enforcement.

"Graham, still suffering from an insulin reaction, exited the car and ran around it twice. Berry (his driver) and Officer Connor stopped Graham, and he sat down on the curb. He soon passed out; when he revived he was handcuffed and lying face down on the sidewalk. Several more police officers were present by this time. The officers picked up Graham, still handcuffed, and placed him over the hood of Berry’s car. Graham attempted to reach for his wallet to show his diabetic identification, and an officer shoved his head down into the hood and told him to shut up. The police then struggled to place Graham in the squad car over Graham’s vigorous resistance."

https://www.oyez.org/cases/1988/87-6571

It would be great if case law had been decided on a case where law enforcement behaved with a different level of decorum. The California intended law is crap, but Graham vs. Connor is really not the best our Supreme Court has to offer, even if it was a unanimous decision based on the context of the case.

"A friend of Graham's brought some orange juice to the car, but the officers refused to let him have it."

"At some point during his encounter with the police, Graham sustained a broken foot, cuts on his wrists, a bruised forehead, and an injured shoulder; he also claims to have developed a loud ringing in his right ear that continues to this day."

So from this event, we get a unanimous decision where Rehnquist writes for the majority. Here are the gems that support LE action - everyone on this subforum knows them, by definition:

http://www.policemag.com/channel/patrol/articles/2014/10/understanding-graham-v-connor.aspx

"Any use of force by law enforcement officers needs to take into account "severity of the crime at issue, whether the suspect poses an immediate threat to the safety of the officers or others, and whether he is actively resisting arrest or attempting to evade arrest by flight."

"The 'reasonableness' of a particular use of force must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, rather than with the 20/20 vision of hindsight."

"The calculus of reasonableness must embody allowance for the fact that police officers are often forced to make split-second judgments—in circumstances that are tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving—about the amount of force that is necessary in a particular situation."

In what universe is an officer going to disagree with the actions of fellow officers given the calculus at hand involving reprimand, suspension or termination?

The more important clause, though far less paid attention is paid to it, is:

“Because the test of reasonableness under the Fourth Amendment is not capable of precise definition or mechanical application, however, its proper application requires careful attention to the facts and circumstances of each particular case, including the severity of the crime at issue, whether the suspect poses an immediate threat to the safety of the officers or others, and whether he is actively resisting arrest or attempting to evade arrest by flight.”

Consider this list from a different article on the reasons around deploying a K9 and the "4th prong" - described in the article as "decision making process if known in advance" but also called (articulatable) facts (in other words, how to write it up)...

Prior criminal history that may include violent offenses
Prior actions or know violence by the suspect(s) that may include physical resistance to arrest or attempts to do so
Parole or probation status, and its relation to any violent crimes
Potential for “third strike candidate” if applicable
Pre-assault indicators
Size, age, and physical condition of the officer and suspect(s)
Known violent gang membership or affiliation
Known or perceived physical abilities of the suspect (e.g., karate, judo, MMA)
Previous violent or mental history known to the officer at the time
Perception of the use of alcohol or drugs by the subject
Perception of the suspect’s mental or psychiatric history based on specific actions
The availability and proximity to weapons, and any prior history related to weapon possession and/or use
Environmental factors
The number of suspects compared to the officers involved and availability of back-up
Injury to the officer or prolonged duration of the incident
Officer on the ground or other unfavorable position
Characteristics or perceptions of suspect being armed and not previously searched


Then...ask yourself the question: How many of these did Officer Connor know prior to the use of Force on Mr. Graham?

I agree that California laws tend to not be ideal - and yes, Graham vs. Connor offers a titanium fig leaf that protects officers in the event of use of force, but...geezus, what a crappy case to decide on. A man in diabetic shock who isn't listened to by the officers pending investigation who ends up with a broken foot and other injuries at the hands of officers, though he was not reported as resisting?

Oh boy how I love a good tale about how we should be interpreting the law and how we should be using force. Especially coming from someone who is not a street cop.

On the contrary, Graham v. Conner is excellent case law and saves cops from being victims of the pitch and fork when ignorant ppl decide what's best instead of giving the cop a fair shake.

More often then not, it is not reasonable to collect a lot of information about someone before using force on them. That takes an investigation. The priority during an investigation is safety and control. Uses of force most often occur right up front, hense the unreasonableness for the officers to do an indepth medical and psych evaluation prior to using force.

I too agree that if you make it out on your own as a street cop, your views will take a 180 degree turn.

[glbtrottr]

Oh boy how I love a good tale about how we should be interpreting the law and how we should be using force. Especially coming from someone who is not a street cop.

On the contrary, Graham v. Conner is excellent case law and saves cops from being victims of the pitch and fork when ignorant ppl decide what's best instead of giving the cop a fair shake.

More often then not, it is not reasonable to collect a lot of information about someone before using force on them. That takes an investigation. The priority during an investigation is safety and control. Uses of force most often occur right up front, hense the unreasonableness for the officers to do an indepth medical and psych evaluation prior to using force.

I too agree that if you make it out on your own as a street cop, your views will take a 180 degree turn.

[esy]

[glbtrottr]

[CinnamonBear723]

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'.

[CinnamonBear723]

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.

[glbtrottr]

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'.

[CinnamonBear723]

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.

[esy]

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.

[glbtrottr]

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.

[CinnamonBear723]

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.

[SVT-40]

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.