police (mis)conduct

[drewkitty]

I've had called to my attention (online) three separate incidents that involved police use of force. My opinions have sharply differed from the majority view.



1) Police officer shoots man who beat tot to death. (Rural road outside Turlock, CA)

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/06/17/national/main4187588.shtml

Majority view: bystanders should have done more to stop the killer.

My view: most bystanders are neither trained nor equipped nor mentally prepared to do what is necessary to stop a deadly aggressor of this type. "Shall issue" concealed carry in California might have saved this toddler's life.

2) Campus police officer arrests popular teacher for interfering with tow of her car. (San Jose, CA, SJSU)

http://media.www.thespartandaily.com/media/storage/paper852/news/2008/03/04/News/Dispute.Over.Upd.Incident-3249889.shtml

Majority view: poor teacher beaten on by the mean cop.

My view: justified use of force.

3) Custody officer beats transgender person with handcuffs, incident caught on tape. (Memphis, TN)

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25265517/

Majority view: cops should do time in jail. Custody nurse withheld aid. Discrimination against transsexuals.

My view: cops should be fired. Beatings are illegal regardless of who is the target and why. Custody nurse did her job.



Additional links will require some use of Google-fu. I read several links on each incident and feel that I have a good grasp of the details.

Any comments?

Comments

[janetmiles.livejournal.com]

Regarding item 3 -- could you expand on "Custody nurse did her job"? Granted all the links I found had pretty much the same quote, and granted I don't know the job description of the nurse, but Ms. Johnson is claiming that the nurse ignored her while she was bleeding from the assault. That seems to me to be "withheld aid", but I could be wrong.

[ihuitl.livejournal.com]

Item 1 - Why AREN'T more people mentally and physically equipped to handle aggressors? They should be.

[bradhicks.livejournal.com]

1) I probably would have tried. But then, were any of the bystanders 300 pound guys with no fear of getting hurt? No? Then I don't see any plausible way this could have come out better.

2) I'm with you. People just don't know the law. Once the car's been impounded, the police CAN NOT let you remove anything from it until the whole car's been returned to your custody; if they did so, it'd be lawsuit bait. And being an idiot, she didn't stop to listen, nor did she obey a lawful order, then she gave the impression of being about to assault someone.

3) Other than the same caveat that JanetMiles had, I agree with you about what should happen, although my cynical bet would be that no jury will convict. The defense attorney will argue that the suspect being booked knew or should have know that they were the one being instructed, and chose to decline to obey a lawful order. My gut instinct is that after some minor grumbling in the press (very minor; who cares what happens to a prostitute?) there will be a "use of force" review during which the chief will remind his officers to use their batons, not their cuffs, to beat suspects.

On Janet's and my shared caveat, it's possible that she and I have an inflated idea of the responsibilities of the custody nurse?

[rue-gingertabby.livejournal.com]

Incident #1: I agree with Aketnu...people should be more capable than they are. However, I have seen that society today has been trying to "weed out" the individualists that might have been able to stop or even prevent such a tragedy.

Incident #2: As for the hysterical teacher, most peace officers are not know for exaggerating the truth(it could mean their job). Peace officers have to report the facts as they occur(did occur) in order to have an accurate report. The teacher was probably hysterical and like most teachers under a great amount of stress. That does not give her the right to act inappropriately. The officers were doing their job.

Incident #3: The jail nurse has a moral obligation to help the injured regardless of if they have committed a crime or not.
Use of force in this episode was way beyond the law. I find it reprehensible that these officers used their authority wrongly. They, at the very least should be fired, if not criminally prosecuted.

[ihuitl.livejournal.com]

Continuing #1:

Some of it is also a society that expects the government to handle all of its problems, and employees of that government constantly imploring the public to "let the professionals handle it" or "don't be a hero".

I am a firm believer in public service...but does it have to be 'official' and paid to be valid? I say nay.

[rue-gingertabby.livejournal.com]

Very good point.

[finnkveldulfr.livejournal.com]

On #1: I gotta partially agree with the majority-- the bystanders should have done more to try and stop the killer. I don't think stopping someone like that is rocket science-- tire iron to the head would probably work, and there appears to have been enough bystanders to take him and take him out-- not like it's "go one on one with a maniac"-- they do appear to have had him outnumbered and by all accounts, the maniac in question was not himself well-armed. On the other hand-- this is the USA-- Land of those who sold their freedoms for the ILLUSION of security and Home of the gutless.
I suppose I shouldn't be surprised that NO-ONE stood up to stop him until a police officer arrived and did his job-- I also suppose I should concede your point after all, that most bystanders aren't trained/equipped/mentally-physically prepared to do what is necessary in a situation like this-- but, I believe they should be ready and able to... the fact that they aren't says that we've lost all right to claim that our country is the home of the brave and that personal freedoms don't really exist-- you can't defend your rights, you get to vainly hope that someone else will protect them for you.

#2: Doesn't seem like there was even much of a 'use of force', and yeah, looks to me like the 'use of force' that was involved was justified. I tend to take a darker view of police motives and actions than many folks do-- there ARE police officers who get their egotrip and their power-play instincts with their badge, and there's a LOT of cops who will lie to protect a 'brother officer'-- but at the same time, there are a lot of decent cops out there and they do have a tough job. In this case, I'm inclined to agree with the officer that he was doing his job.

#3: Cops should be charged, tried, and if facing an honest jury, will be convicted for a few charges (assault under color of authority sounds about right-- something like that)-- I don't think firing the guy who thought beating the hell out of someone with handcuffs was the right thing to do is enough of a penalty. Discrimination against transsexuals-- on the part of the assaulting officer, yes.
As far as the custody nurse goes-- at first glance, it does look like she was refusing to treat an injured person, but I'm not clear on how/when/why she should or should not be providing treatment. So-- why was it NOT her job to treat the injured transsexual? (you've got the experience, so I'm not saying you're wrong-- I'd just like clarification here... :) )

[drewkitty.livejournal.com]

In haste re: the custody nurse. The nurse had been paged to respond to an officer injured. When she arrived, she saw two officers with minor injuries and our victim (a prisoner) sitting on the floor under the effects of pepper spray. The victim stated that she felt that the nurse ignored her to go to the aid of the officers.

Being sprayed with pepper really sucks. It feels like it's going to kill you, but you are in fact almost perfectly safe. (All instructors MUST be sprayed, most police and all military students ARE sprayed.)

What the custody nurse did was to glance at the victim, see that she was not in life-threatening danger (having seen lots of people exposed to pepper spray), and then go to the officers. The nurse's job among other things is to carefully document any injuries reported for later use in court.

It is not uncommon -- in fact, it is just about the only legal defense left -- for peace officers who have engaged in excessive use of force to overstate their injuries. (What justifies hitting a handcuffed prisoner in the face, captured on video? Why, he must have grabbed and twisted my testicles just before the video recorded!) There's also the temporal order to consider: was the officer injured before, during, or after?

The nurse is a medical professional whose first duty is to care for the injured. Otherwise she should turn in her nurse's license and become a custody officer. If injuries are not life-threatening, the other part of her job comes into play -- custody nurse, where she is performing her duties in a custodial environment. Officers are treated before prisoners; this is the kind of rule that emphasizes the unfairness and control necessary to keep human beings in custody. Not only would she NOT be doing her job to reverse the order, but it would endanger her (and that of other nurses) future access to prisoners.

Only if the victim's injuries were life-threatening could the nurse justify reversing the order; but then the nurse would have to activate emergency protocols including additional officers, paramedics who are based off site (and therefore outside the custodial rules, and therefore need additional escort etc.)

It's an important part of the nurse's job to make this kind of decision, even if the officers would prefer that she did not. This keeps people from dying in custody of untreated injuries.

It is very difficult to go into a correctional environment and keep the faith with the rules of another profession. I think this speaks poorly of the correctional environment, which needs some major changes. But there's a difference between individual misconduct and what I would almost call "system misconduct."

[finnkveldulfr.livejournal.com]

Got it. :)
Thanks for the explanation/clarification-- so, the nurse was indeed doing her job as the situation required her to do.

[andybeals.livejournal.com]

I'm guessing that you would have ended up arrested for assault, and a record to go with it. Guy would have continued beating his kid later. (Some people just need killin')

[bradhicks.livejournal.com]

Nah, there were enough witnesses that the assault charge wouldn't stick. Oh, sure, I'd end up having to go down to the station, and I'm sure the guy would swear out an assault complaint against me. Wouldn't be the first time it ever happened; davidkevin did the same thing when I swore out an assault complaint on him. But the one and only one circumstance under which any private citizen is legally authorized to use the minimum necessary and reasonable force against another private citizen is to protect themself or a third party from imminent danger of death or grievous bodily injury; that I was intervening in an attempt to stop him from killing a kid would put an end to any assault charges against me in a matter of hours.

And I'm even less afraid, with my life experience, of spending a couple of hours explaining things to the cops than I am of J. Random Psycho. Same reason: familiarity, and confidence borne of experience that I can deal with it.

[bradhicks.livejournal.com]

Would the accused's injuries have to be life-threatening to take priority over the officers, given that the accused also had (I'm assuming?) highly visible facial damage from being beaten with a metal object, and the officers had no visible injuries? Under ordinary triage rules, what justifies her ignoring someone who's visibly injured and in distress? And even if your interpretation of her duties is that she has to take the officers' word for it that they're injured even worse and it just doesn't show, how does she justify not seeing to the accused's injuries at all once she's done with the officers? Isn't that at least one visibly injured patient in her care, under her responsibility, that's she's neglecting?