A couple of posts back, we had a guest essay by one of our regular commentators.  Much of what I’d have said has already been posted by other commentators, so I’ll be fairly brief.11895147_10153631070746336_3650196706485858672_o

The Police Executive Research Forum (PERF) is, as others have said, seen by some as being a bit left of center. I don’t actually mind that. I am more concerned that some, myself included, see PERF as tinged by “ivory tower” syndrome.  When you perceive yourself as very high above the street, you forget that the street is where policing takes place, and it’s easy to lose sight of realities.

Speaking as a sworn officer for more of my life than not: Yes, we understand that “the voices” may have told him to attack you (or us), and it “may not be his fault.” However, it’s not your fault (or ours) either, and cop or “civilian,” your right to protect yourself against his assault and meet force with force does not change.  Neither an artificially altered state of consciousness nor an official diagnosis of insanity makes your attacker – or mine – a protected species.  Yes, it would be nice if we could bring in an intensively trained Crisis Intervention Team to talk your attacker down and get him in touch with his inner child, or perhaps, his inner juvenile delinquent.  Time is the essence in any sort of negotiation, including verbal crisis intervention. “Detached reflection” is a key ingredient.  Unfortunately, that ingredient is missing from the recipe of reality in the cases that have brought about this discussion.  It has been almost a hundred years since Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote, “Detached reflection is not demanded in the presence of an uplifted knife.” (SCOTUS, Brown v. United States, 1921.)  It remains the law, and the truth, today.

The police are actually pretty well trained in bloodshed-reducing crisis intervention already; witness the prevalence of George Thompson’s “verbal judo” concept, championed today by my old friend and master police instructor and martial artist Gary Klugiewicz.

But neither you nor I can fit a whole lot of detached reflection into a second or two when the soon-to-be “unarmed victim” is trying to stab you with his knife, or kill you with your own gun.

Unfortunately, in a time when screwing with cops in front of your iPhone so you can upload your douchebaggery instantly to YouTube is seen as something about to become a national sport, nobody has trained the public how to react to law enforcement. Police/citizen contacts ARE a two way street, after all.

51 COMMENTS

  1. This is the first time I have heard of Dr. George Thompson. I feel like I have been living under a rock. He looks like whole field of great study, which is bound to be rewarding.

    While we are retraining peace officers to gladly accept open season status as prey, I suggest that they start carrying bigger guns. If they don’t get anywhere with humoring lunatics, this intimidation measure may work better for them. It has worked for me in various situations. A combination of humoring and intimidation may also be a possibility.

    Homicidal lunatics are prone to setting self-justifying, recognizable traps.

  2. Hello sir,
    I’m a long time reader and enjoy the blog even when I disagree. That is the case here. As the professional in the relationship, cops have a duty to the public, not the other way around. Cops get the benefit of the doubt from the justice system. As a result they must be held to a high standard of behavior. The camera phone is exposing the small minority LEOs that are assholes with a badge. A group that sets itself apart will be judged as a whole. The “civilians” aren’t happy with those who pledged to protect and serve.

  3. Mas, I always enjoy your wisdom. I just read Brown v. United States in its entirety. and need to know if it has been superseded in any way, and if it only pertains to federal property. This would seem to pre-empt more restrictive or ambiguous state laws.

  4. Another informative post.

    How often do journalists reach out to you when they are covering high-profile shootings like Ferguson or Charlotte?

    Yours is a valuable perspective that rarely makes on to CNN or into the NYTimes

  5. It Sad to see a repeat of the late 1960’s when the Police were targets.

    Becareful out there Mass and have a safe and relaxing Labor Day Weekend.

  6. Poke a hornets nest with a stick and then iPhone the hornets stinging you and claim bee brutality. The video clearly shows that you were just walking by innocently when they decided to sting you for no reason.

    Then get some news organization who needs ratings more than truth to air just the nasty hornets stinging for no reason and enflame the public to start swatting at any hornet they see.

    We need to stop being mentally manipulated to react in a way to drive even higher ratings and more outrage.

    Slow down, breath, get the facts. The law prosecutes both ways. If it is proven that an officer did wrong he should face punishment. He should not have to face punishment before the proof.

    But then there wouldn’t be much to watch on the ten o’clock news would there?

  7. At the risk of offending everybody, I agree with Sheriff David Clarke wholeheartedly. Thanks Mas as ever for your words of wisdom.

  8. – The question I posed was actually this: Which way is the wind blowing? No matter how “ivory tower” these ideas may be, is the trend in society today to make them mandatory either through training or hindsight?

    – And in that regard, I get it that law enforcement administration may well be disconnected from the street, but to dismiss it as “ivory tower” misses the fact that, disconnected or not, those are the folks that set the rules of engagement and the training agendas. Oliver Wendell Holmes can write, “Detached reflection is not demanded in the presence of an uplifted knife.” But that doesn’t mean diddly squat if your department has trained and ordered you to exercise that reflection (and moreover, Brown is about what your rights are _after_ you have been attacked. What we’re talking about here is what you do _before_ you’re attacked in order for you as a LEO to safeguard both your life and the life of the guy with the knife).

    – One of the things I mentioned in my original blog post is that the report and the BLM movement want to expand officer responsibility beyond just that which is covered by the laws of self-defense and justifiable force. To focus on what happens once a deadly confrontation develops misses the point of the report (and one of the primary complaints of the Black Lives Matter movement) which is to if possible avoid the confrontation and, especially, to not aggravate the situation so as to make a confrontation more likely.

  9. Dave, the winds you speak of are blowing in some different and conflicting directions.

    Dave, tell us how to avoid the confrontations without neglecting our duty to respond to calls for service. The shooting of the kid in the park in Ohio evolved from a report of a person pointing a gun at people. Police responded. The gun, which turned out to be an airsoft that any of us would have mistaken for the real thing, came up toward the officer. Should the officers have ignored the call?

    The New York City case evolved out of complaints by merchants that someone was illegally selling “loosies,” single cigarettes, outside the store in contravention of New York law. Should the police have ignored that call? When the suspect, who had been arrested multiple times before for the same offense, knew the score, and was obviously consciously violating the law now became resistant, should the police have said “ooh, sorry, you must be having a bad day. Go ahead and break the law some more, and when you feel better, have your secretary call my secretary and we’ll have lunch and discuss it?

    Dave, these things are suspect-driven, not cop-driven, for the most part. Tell us who decides which laws the cops choose to enforce or not enforce, and how they should rationalize that.

  10. While there is obviously racism at various levels in this country, the BLM people make me laugh. Statistically, black lives don’t matter…to other black people. The number of blacks shot by police in sketchy situations is exponentially smaller than the daily violence perpetrated in the nation’s ghettos by blacks on each other. It’s a lot easier to focus on whitey than admit that several generations of black folks have allowed a severely deviant subculture to flourish there, bemoaned but then merchandised and glorified by black rappers. So we’ve had affirmative action for decades now, why haven’t those educated young black people gone back to change the ghetto? Sheriff Clarke is right on.

  11. Not exactly sure why this blog article references an “uplifted knife” as an example, when in fact, all of the recent events of police using deadly force that have been criticized and protested by civilian groups or have gone through the justice system, have been in the killing of unarmed suspects. No uplifted knives, guns or baseball bats.

    That being said, there is now the interesting case, caught on two videos, of the two Texas deputies that shot at, and killed, a male domestic assault suspect that appeared stationary and to have at least one arm up, possibly both arms, in the surrender position for a few seconds prior to and at the time the shots were fired. Did he have a knife in his non visible hand, and if so, did he make a threatening move toward the deputies, and was the proximity of the suspect adequate to be of immediate jeopardy to the deputies? Awaiting the release of the second video, should be interesting.

    In the second to last paragraph of this blog’s article, you seem to be advancing the position that when any unarmed suspect approaches a LEO with anything less than friendly intentions, that LEO can always be justified in using deadly force, even at a distance before contact is made, in that the unarmed suspect may have a hidden knife or may disarm the LEO and murder him with his own weapon. I believe Departments, Prosecutors and Jurors usually do give LEO that benefit of the doubt. My question is, how much “benefit of the doubt” should a law abiding, civilian concealed weapon carrier expect if he or she should use lethal force of their legally carried firearm to stop an unarmed, yet hostile approacher?

  12. Mas, in the Tamir Rice case, Cleveland police are reported to have said the suspect pulled the replica gun from his waistband. Cuyahoga County Sheriff’s Investigators, who did the official investigation, in their report stated that the surveillance video only shows Tamir Rice reaching to his right waistband and using both hands to lift his outer garment to expose the replica pistol prior to being shot. I’m not arguing innocence or guilt of the officer, only that there is no evidence that the replica pistol ever came up toward or was pointed at either officer.

    One thing for sure, the experienced officer that drove the patrol vehicle right up to the gazebo and put the the passenger officer in that predicament, unprotected and mere feet away from a suspect with a gun, deserves at least a punch in the nose from his less experinced and unfortunate partner.

    In the “loosies” case, No, the police officers should not have looked the other way and let the lawbreaker continue his behavior. However, in my opinion, the the rear under shoulder takedown hold didn’t go as planned, due to the girth of the suspect, and I believe that takedown hold should have been released much sooner than it was. It may have taken a little longer to subdue the man, but it’s not as if this guy was on the FBI’s ten most wanted list or was going to escape arrest by outrunning the officers.

  14. “one of the primary complaints of the Black Lives Matter movement) which is to if possible avoid the confrontation and, especially, to not aggravate the situation” OK, Dave, so don’t break the law, don’t point a gun at a cop, when demonstrating, don’t loot and burn and when in contact with anyone, act in a respectful manner. That doesn’t seem so hard, Dave.

  15. Scott:
    “The “civilians” aren’t happy with those who pledged to protect and serve.”
    Not true. A very vocal minority that gets a lot of exposure in the media may not be happy, but the majority of civilians don’t even have LEO’s on their radar. It’s just not a concern for most of us.
    I would say that the majority of “civilians”, as you put it, if asked, would be content with law enforcement today.
    Now, the court system might be another story.

  16. William, when the ostensibly unarmed violent offender tries to take your gun, he’s not unarmed anymore: he’s a man going for a gun. True whether the good guy he’s fighting is a cop or a law-abiding citizen.

  17. Folks, I’m back. Just enjoying the discussion. Probably won’t engage until I can focus my attention long enough to make a cognizant argument. Temporary Attention Deficit is a by-product of having a machine pump and oxygenate your blood for 5-6 hours while they tinker with your non-beating heart.
    Mas, it’s amazing how folks who are pretty sure they will never be confronted by a situation that will require them to be held to these proposed super rules of engagement for police, seemingly clamor loudest for others to be further restricted. I myself, would not be terribly upset if courts required that the counsel for the losing side be carried out back and beaten with a 2×4. Well, maybe I would, since eventually I might need an attorney, only to discover there are no longer any willing to do the job.
    Good to be back.

  19. In the Eric Garner “loosies” case, a sergeant was at the scene. It was her responsibility to supervise the subordinate officers. If the takedown hold was not necessary, or if the officer maintained the hold after the suspect was no longer resisting, then the sergeant should have ordered him to release it.

    But Officer Pantaleo became the scapegoat. The sergeant was not not fired or demoted for dereliction of duty. In fact, she was granted immunity from prosecution. She looks like she could be Obama’s daughter, and therefore she does not have to accept responsibility for anything.

    The fact is, there is no way that police can do their job (i.e., enforce the law) without getting into confrontations, and, sometimes, using force. And, to the Social Justice warriors, any use of force against a criminal, under any circumstances, is excessive. (Murdering police officers and law-abiding citizens is always justified or excusable, though.)

    Further, to the SJW’s, facts and evidence don’t matter. If a grand jury declines to indict a cop, or if the cop is acquitted after a trial, it presumably means that the legal system is racist. (If a citizen is acquitted after a defensive shooting, it means that Stand Your Ground laws have given racists a license to shoot anything that moves.)

    Sheriff Clarke is right. We don’t need to fix the cops, we need to fix the ghetto.

  20. First, in regard the Tamir Rice case, I’ve not had the chance to go back and check but what William says in his September 5 posting, above, seems to click in my memory as correct.

    Second, except for what Mas says about the “winds” it seems to me that once more the rest of the post either ignores or, at best, responds with just “No” to the parts of my original post which point out:

    “Here’s some conventional thinking which is questioned by that report:
    “– ‘Never back down. Move in and take charge.’
    “– Resolve dangerous situations as quickly as possible by whatever means legally available.”

    And that response, in turn, raises — and indeed is an illustration of — another of my primary points: If the LEO rank and file and their representatives continue to simply stonewall this situation without engaging in serious dialog over it which explains and argues their position, they stand in risk of having it shoved down their throat. I don’t think that the report is perfect or necessarily correct in all it says and does. I tried in my original posting to discuss it without advocating for it or speaking approvingly of it (notwithstanding the fact that some have read that into what I did say). Some of its positions are, indeed, open for criticism and discussion. But until the events of the last few days in which the LEO community (and conservative presidential candidates) have alleged the tragic assassination of Harris County Sheriff’s Deputy Darren Goforth to be the result of the Black Lives Matter campaign and received some coverage in the press for that assertion, I would have stood by my analysis that the signs were that the cram down was under way. We’ll have to wait and see if that recent reaction gains any traction.

    Third, about the Eric Garner (loosies) case. Unlike other critics of that situation, I don’t really have much complaint about what happened until after the point that they had him restrained and on the ground. I think it was proper for them to approach him, especially (but not only) in light of the merchant complaints, and proper to use force to restrain him once he resisted. (And independent forensic reviewers have said that the “chokehold” had little or nothing to do with his death.) I do think that there were issues with what happened after that, but they have — almost — nothing to do with what we’re talking about here. I also think that there may be issues with the concept of “broken window” policing, but I’m not ready to condemn that practice outright (again a topic for a different day and discussion).

  21. What we went from a complete United States backing and supporting their police agencies and first responders following 9-11 to the opposite political correctness garbage. It all began with the President and Attorney General Holders continuing attacks that police were mistreating black and Hispanics. The immediate press conferences from the White House and launching numerous civil rights investigations against police officers mind you all have been found to be no wrong doings, contacting the criminals families i.e. Michale Brown sending Eric Holder to visit them and four representatives from the white house to his funeral which was a justifed shootings……. This false narrative put out there made up of lies and misconceptions needs to stop but it won’t because it’s energizing the democratic base right now and this dirty political games is disgusting. It’s cost many lives, it’s disgusting, it’s unherd of, it dived up the races, it’s something that for us older guys has brought back vivid memories of the racial tensions of the 60’s. All when there wasn’t even a problem to begin with. More blacks are killed by other blacks, cops kill more whites than blacks, cops 99.9% of the time kill blacks who pose threats to their lives not for no reasons. No police officer wants to come to work and shoot someone, be it white, brown or black. They know the headaches that follow a clean shoot, plus as human beings most Godly people and protectors of the communites they didn’t sign up for the career to harm innocent people, it’s just the opposite.
    It’s just amazing as we look forward to the upcoming 9-11 anniversary how quickly people forget how police were looked up to as heroes on the September 11, 2001 day when those two planes hit out buildings.

  23. Dave, you asked about:

    “– ‘Never back down. Move in and take charge.’
    “– Resolve dangerous situations as quickly as possible by whatever means legally available.”

    We obviously can’t back down from something as potentially dangerous as a “man with a gun in the park” call, and you yourself seem to admit that the police were justified in arresting Eric Garner. It’s tough to keep the peace OR enforce the law by backing down from confrontations with lawbreakers.

    Our training on dealing with emotionally disturbed people emphasizes a low profile approach, but often, the EDP’s behavior does not make that possible. There are often times when police will fall back and attempt to contain from a distance, but when that happens, communities burn.

  24. But neither do you have to rush in right on top of him and shoot as soon as he makes the first vaguely threatingly motion. The report would have recommended, I think, stopping a distance away, taking cover, and giving him a chance to comply.

    There’s a discussion over at Legal Insurrection about “Swatting” people who engage in open carry:Anti-gunners suggesting calling 911 and making a suspicious person report every time you see one, figuring that there will be a vigorous police response many times. If you’re right about Tamir Rice we may see a lot of open carriers shot who are no more guilty of doing anything wrong than was Rice. I’m not advocating or speaking approvingly of swatting, but only using it as an analogy to illustrate the issue of what happened in Rice’s case.

  25. Mas, one of your comments above touched on a subject I’ve wanted to ask about for a while.

    In your reply to “William” you stated: “ . . . when the ostensibly unarmed violent offender tries to take your gun, he’s not unarmed anymore: he’s a man going for a gun. True whether the good guy he’s fighting is a cop or a law-abiding citizen.”

    I’m aware that it is well-established that an attempted “gun grab” from a LEO is justification for the LEO to use lethal force against the perpetrator. It is common to read of American police officers making justified shootings of persons who attempted to disarm the officer. However, I’ve never read of such a situation involving a legally armed civilian (non-LEO), although I can easily imagine this sort of scenario occurring, especially for someone legally openly carrying a firearm.

    Do you know of any such cases? If you do know of any, how did the civilian shooter fare, legally-speaking, with the attempted gun grab as justification for using lethal force? Did the shooter avoid prosecution altogether, or was the shooter prosecuted, but able to successfully defend himself/herself based on the rationale of the lethal threat posed by the attempted gun grab?

    I’m curious to know this because, although I fully support open carrying of firearms, the risks associated with the “gun grab” scenario weigh heavily on my mind; this is why I haven’t practiced open carry, yet, even though it is fully legal (and apparently becoming somewhat common) in my home state (MI). Also, I’m pretty cynical about the legal system in our country these days, so I would actually expect a prosecutor to readily charge a non-LEO for actions that would never, ever warrant prosecution if done by a LEO. (IMHO, the prosecution of George Zimmerman was a perfect example of this phenomenon – had Zimmerman been a LEO, but all other established facts of the case were identical, I am sure he never would have been prosecuted.)

    I will appreciate any feedback you can provide.

  26. Max: the classic case is one you yourself mentioned. George Zimmerman said from the beginning that Trayvon Martin had spotted his gun and was reaching for it when Zimmerman batted Martin’s hand away, drew, and fired the single shot of the event. Yes, he was charged, but in the tsunami of media and public furor, he would have been charged anyway, just as you’re seeing cops charged wrongfully now IMHO.

    Dave: sometimes if you DON’T “rush in” to deal with “vaguely threatening” movements, they become more than “vaguely” threatening and now you’re behind the curve, perhaps too late to save innocent life including your own.

    In which of the current high profile cases do you feel the officers “rushed in” based on “vaguely threatening” movements?

  27. My apologies, Mas, my statement was a bit vague. I meant it to say, “rush right in on top of him, thus causing the need to shoot as soon as he makes.” I meant those to be independent clauses, but my grammar was sloppy.

  28. Mas and Dave (the liberal non-uncle one).

    Your above discussion is an illustration of the point that I made during Dave’s guest blog. It perfectly illustrates the type of arguments generated by the clash of Dave’s liberal and Mas’ (I estimate) center-right worldview (or as it is called in German weltanschauung – see this link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_view )

    The left-wing viewpoint, as illustrated by Dave’s argument, is that the evil of police shootings must ultimately be put down to some kind of societal failure. Those on the left can never blame individuals for wrong-doing since it violates their basic (and usually subconscious) assumptions about humanity. So, Dave’s worldview forces him to view the listed shooting incidents through a political lens that tells him that American Society (as represented by the official polices forces) must be doing something wrong if it cannot resolve these incidents without resorting to deadly force.

    Your worldview, on the other hand, represents a political viewpoint where people must take responsibility for their own actions. Your worldview cannot accepts Dave’s view that society is (somehow) to blame. In your eyes, these individuals provoked the police (by their criminal and/or unbalanced behavior) into using force. To use an old expression, they “made their bed and, therefore, had to lie in it”.

    To the left-wing mindset, however, it was society that made the bed and it is damned unfair to force these individuals to lie in it.

    Arguing the individual merits of specific cases will not resolve the issue. You won’t convince Dave and I doubt that Dave will convince you. It is really your worldviews that are clashing and these were formed (in yours and Dave’s minds) years ago when you both made subconscious assumptions about how people behaved and how the world works.

  29. I find the discussion between Mas, representing the law enforcement side, and LibDave, representing the legal side, quite enjoyable. While Mas has been in many courtrooms, he isn’t (to my knowledge) a bar card-carrying lawyer; LibDave, by contrast, is a lawyer and not a sworn peace officer.

    So what would happen, I wonder, if the two switched places for a day or five?

    TXCOMT

  30. Dave the Liberal: How reasonable do you think anyone is who will argue with, resist, or try to disarm, a police officer, or even a security guard? Do you realize how many perps are drug-deranged these days, let alone the folks who are confused enough without drugs? When in doubt, a peace officer must act authoritatively somehow, or it will sooner or later be too late for the officer.

    Dennis: Glad you’re back. Hope you keep feeling better. Wish you had met 2×4 Bob Truswell, before his neighbor shot him. Bob could swing a board like Ted Williams handled a Louisville Slugger. Bob didn’t believe in fair fights or advance warnings, though.

  31. Dave (the Liberal non-Uncle one) September 5th, 2015 says: … “Swatting” people who engage in open carry: Anti-gunners suggesting calling 911 and making a suspicious person report every time you see one, figuring that there will be a vigorous police response many times. If you’re right about Tamir Rice we may see a lot of open carriers shot who are no more guilty of doing anything wrong than was Rice.

    Incidents like that have happened: in 2010, Las Vegas police killed CCW holder Erik Scott in response to a panicked call from a Costco employee. All the security-camera video of the shooting magically disappeared (from three separate systems). Witness accounts are somewhat confused, but there is evidence of police abruptly confronting Scott, shouting contradictory orders at him, and then almost immediately opening fire based on “vaguely threatening movements”.

    tc September 5th, 2015 Says: We don’t need to fix the cops, we need to fix the ghetto.

    We need to fix the ghetto and the cops. Right now the BLM scammers are covering up for the ghetto by slandering the cops. That doesn’t mean unconditional support of the cops is right, either.

    In any case, the problem has no perfect solution. For the most dangerous cohort of potential offenders, aggressive and confrontational policing is almost always the best policy. Fear is all that restrains many of them. But it will occasionally lead to unnecessary violence, and it’s rarely appropriate with other people.

    There are also issues of training, competence, and attitude. “Jack Dunphy” has written that in the South Carolina shooting of a few months back, the part-time LEO committed several serious blunders. At least one of the officers in the Las Vegas incident noted above was of doubtful competence. And aggressive policing can be gratifying to a certain mentality.

    A campaign like BLM makes it much harder to address these problems; they cite any acknowledgement of fault as confirming their slanders. But flat denial damages police credibility.

  34. The PERF report is certainly skewed to support a predetermined conclusion. It includes interviews with UK police officials that make the UK sound like a policeman’s paradise. For example, the interviewer assumes that no firearm-related confrontations occur due to the extreme gun control laws in-place in the UK. This gives them the excuse to limit their discussion to deaths of police officers by edge weapons only. The UK police officials dismiss the question and note that they have never had one since putting their non-confrontational techniques into place in 2011. If limited to police deaths by stabbing, this may be true but the whole line of questioning makes it seem like no deaths occurred at all. The interviewer even asks: “What is the magic?”

    I can tell you the magic. It is softball questioning! I was easily able to find where more than half a dozen UK police officers had been killed since 2011. Most had been shot but one was run over. See this link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murders_of_Nicola_Hughes_and_Fiona_Bone

    In response to liberal Dave’s guest blog, Sharpshooter referenced Theodore Dalrymple’s book “Life at the Bottom”. I was intrigued so I got a copy and have just finished reading it. This book extensively discusses modern life in Great Britain from the viewpoint of a medical doctor who has worked its hospitals and prisons. All I can say is that, if only half of what Mr. Dalrymple said in this book is true, then only a fool would hold up Great Britain as a model to be emulated! He fills his book with example after example after example of where the British Government and the non-confrontational British police forces dropped the ball. The examples are enough to make one’s blood boil!

    I can do no better than quote directly from the book itself on the subject of weak policing:

    “The pretense by intellectuals – which, alas, has not been without its practical effects in the real world – that the police are but the executive arm of a hypocritical bourgeoisie determined to preserve its ill-gotten gains at the expense of the poor, is terrifyingly shallow when tested against the experience of people who suffer weak policing. The idea that a juster social order would render the police redundant is utopian nonsense. A reliable and trustworthy police force is not a denial of freedom but a precondition of its exercise.”

  35. To Z:

    I listened to Jeffrey Brown’s TED talk via the link you included. Thank you, that was very instructive.

    I doubt that it would be possible to find a more perfect illustration of the left-wing mindset. Mr. Brown blamed the violence on every type of social force that he could list (poverty, racism, drugs, a “bagful of guns”, etc.).

    Never once did he mention the human heart as a source for this evil or suggest that these children who murder children bear any responsibility for their own actions.

    Nor did I hear any definite solutions to solve the problem beyond creating some kind of vague “movement” that would “partner” with these violent youth to (presumably) free them from all these social sources of evil so that their inherent “goodness” could shine forth.

    As I said, a perfect view into the left-wing mind.

  36. Mas, when you speak off wrongfully charged police officers, I hope you are referring to cases such as the Baltimore Six, and not the case of Officer Slager in South Carolina. I will admit, in every case where charges are filed against LEOs, the Prosecutors always seem to overcharge.

    Were I a conspiracist, I might promote the idea that this consistent overcharging is a legal ploy by police friendly Prosecutors to allow the charged officers to escape conviction, especially if the presiding judge disallows lesser-included offense instructions.

  37. William, we don’t yet have the full story on why Michael Slager fired, so I’m waiting to hear more on that. It does appear that at some point, the man he killed gained control of Slager’s TASER and used it on the officer, but I’m waiting for details.

    The controversial Ferrell shooting has ended with a hung jury and the prosecutor’s announcement that he will not re-try. The public did not learn until trial that the man who was shot was trying to take the officer’s gun. I do consider that one “wrongfully charged.”

    As to the Baltimore case, I see NO indication that the prosecutor is “police-friendly” in any way.

    Finally, it would be most unusual for a judge to refuse to allow lesser included offenses to be considered by the jury. The “all or nothing” instruction, when it occurs, is usually requested by defense counsel and in defense bar circles is considered a very risky move.

  38. Douchebaggery, is that really a word?

    The only time that I have taken a picture of an officer doing his job was when I was with a friend and we were at Gunsite, many years ago. My friend was driving in the town nearby and was caught speeding in a school zone. The officer was writing my friend a ticket and I asked if he minded if I took a picture.
    Now we were both openly carrying 1911s in condition one as Col. Cooper instructed us to do. The officer became somewhat hostile and wanted to know why I wanted a picture. I explained that we were on vacation and were there for a week at Gunsite and were both carrying and that my camera was in the back seat. (This was years ago, before cell phones) The officer said something like Ya- go ahead. If I had just leaned over the seat to get my camera and my Gold Cup became visible, as Mas would say things could have gone rapidly downhill. Today, for me to get my cell phone out, find the right buttons and start recording, the incident would probably be over with. I think some people are quick on the trigger to record everything.

    A few years later, on a Sunday, I went to the range that our club rented, to rebuild our target stands. I had tools, lumber etc. plus 2 handguns, in case I found time to do any shooting, also a styrofoam cooler with some sandwiches and a few sodas. It also looked like rain so I stopped off, where I worked and switched vehicles to one that was more enclosed. After a long day, it was now dark, (90 minutes to get home) I had switched vehicles back again and just “threw” my stuff onto the front seat. It was only 3 miles left to the barn. Well, in that 3 miles I got tagged for speeding (45 in a 35). I had my driver’s license out when the officer approached, but he asked to see the gun case on top of the cooler that was in plain view. When I turned to get the case I saw that the officer had a partner on the sidewalk that was in his best “Have Gun Will Travel” crouch with his hand on his gun. I handed the case to the officer, he unzipped it, took a look (Remington XP-100 with 4 power scope) and wanted to know what I was doing out at night with the gun. I explained the circumstances, he zipped the case back up, never checked to see if it was loaded, probably the first time he had ever seen one, and handed it back and wrote up my ticket and I was on my way. When I got home and was unloading my vehicle when I found my Gold Cup on the seat between me and the cooler. (Condition one) I had forgotten all about it. Remember, I said that I just “threw everything into the front”. Back then it would have been a Class A misdemeanor. It was later changed to a Class 4 felony, today with our ccw, no problem.

    I guess what I have been saying is that it has been my experience that when dealing with the police, do as you are told, don’t argue and don’t make any sudden moves. You can always go to court later to resolve any problems. Yes, I have gone to court, defended myself, and won my case. Six months later the officer in question was arrested by the state police for stealing bond money.
    Just a random thought:
    With today’s P.C. perhaps people are being hired as an LEO that are politically connected or don’t have the physical characteristics needed to physically handle a nogoodnick without resorting to lethal force. I know when I tried out I couldn’t get my butt over a solid 6 foot barricade within 20 seconds and I didn’t make the grade. (This test was to weed out us shorties.) Mas, I believe, is of slight build but has the training in the martial arts to handle himself. However, I believe that he has said that twice he had to draw his mohansker, (Great word mohansker, check out the movie “The Untouchables”). I assume he was in uniform at the time. Not everyone is so trained. I don’t know the size of or training Darren Wilson has had and the Gentle Giant was simply too much for the officer to handle without drawing and firing his weapon.

  39. I agree, Baltimore Prosecutor Mosby does does not appear to be in any way friendly to the six charged officers, but I will point out that she has many generations of law enforcement officers in her family, including her father, mother and grandfather.

    Actually, in the Ferrell trial, Judge Ervin absolutely did rule out the lesser involuntary manslaughter charge and only instructed the jury on voluntary manslaughter.
    Four Jurors voted to convict on that voluntary manslaughter charge so I would hardly call this one a frivolous or unwarranted prosecution.

    I can appreciate your holding of opinion in the Slager case until we can see more of the evidence, I must report that the only places I have seen it reported or speculated that Scott used the taser on Slager have been amateurish right-wing blogs that I read occasionally when I need a chuckle for the day.

    Although you and I are rarely in agreement in these recent use of deadly force cases, I am forever in awe of your firearms knowledge, expertise and communication ability. I continue to look forward each and every new blog article that you post.

  40. Um, TN_MAN…they got results. “How we cut youth violence in Boston by 79 percent” was the video title. He didn’t get into details because of the nature of TED talks but it’s trivially easy to find more info on the Boston Miracle online.

    If you want to dispute his results, go right on ahead and present some evidence. Until then, just for the sake of dogma you just decried a method that apparently worked. That’s no better than anti-gun politicians and constituents that keep pushing their agenda now matter how ineffective it is in reducing violence in our communities.

  41. William, there are sources I respect which show photos appearing to be TASER wires trailing from the officer’s body.

    In the Ferrell trial, the judge may have dumped involuntary manslaughter simply because it’s an improper charge for what is stipulated to be an intentional shooting. The prosecutor, in declining to bring the case again, was quoted as saying there was no reason to believe another trial would yield a different result. Sounds to me like recognition of a weak prosecution case.

  42. To Z,

    My comments regarding Jeffrey Brown’s TED talk should not be seen as a dispute of the method. I was simply pointing out that (a) Mr. Brown clearly is dominated by a left-wing worldview and (b) his talk lacked specifics. I stand behind both points.

    I don’t know a lot about the specifics employed to perform this “miracle” however, from what I can gather, it is based upon a tight focus on the small minority of gang members who are committing the majority of the violent crimes.

    It is interesting that the left has “discovered” this approach. Many on the right have long focused on getting the most violent offenders off the street.

    However, I am neither left-wing or right-wing in my worldview. As a moderate, I view extreme drifts to the right with just as much skepticism as extreme drifts to the left. Indeed, if Mr. Brown had been an extreme right-winger and had used his “Ted Talk” to call for widespread capitol punishment of this small minority of offenders (which, by the way, might have been even more effective at reducing violence if the executions were swiftly and publically delivered), then I would have been just as critical.

  43. I’m from the Northeast Ohio area. The Tamir Rice video was frequently played in the Cleveland media for a few days and I saw it many time. It showed Rice pulling the pistol from his pants waist band as the Cleveland officer opened his patrol car door.

    It’s conjecture, of course, but what do you want to bet, that if Rice had raised empty hands over his head, he wouldn’t have been shot.

  44. Dennis – I have missed you, Sir! Without getting into your “business,” I hope (and continue to pray) for your return to health.

    Great to have ya back!

  45. William @ September 7th, 2015 says:
    I agree, Baltimore Prosecutor Mosby does does not appear to be in any way friendly to the six charged officers, but I will point out that she has many generations of law enforcement officers in her family, including her father, mother and grandfather.

    And her mother, father, and uncle were all kicked off the Boston PD for various offenses.

    Randy–Republic of Illinois @ September 7th, 2015 says:With today’s P.C. perhaps people are being hired as an LEO that are politically connected…

    Political hires of LEOs have been going on for decades, and they make some of the worst cops. Anthony Abbate, the Chicago officer caught on video beating up a lady bartender, was reviled by other cops as a political hire whose connections had protected him for previous wrongdoing.

  46. Rich R, thank you for that info, made for some interesting reading.
    It seems to me that all of Mosby’s relative’s grievances, real or imagined, would have been directed towards upper echelon Commanders, Chiefs, and possibly Cities. Undecided how these cases might have influenced Mosby’s charging and treatment of the five rank and file officers and the lieutenant.

  47. On Mas’s last point, ‘no one has trained the public on how to react to law enforcement,’ there is a short film (40 min) called, 10 Rules for Dealing with Police, that I recommend. Fyi, available for free on youtube.

    Check it out: http://yhoo.it/1EOWKzi
    If you think it worthwhile, forward to friends & relatives.

  48. @Tim Lynch: There are, in fact, quite a few different guides out there about dealing with the police and there have been at least a few school districts inviting folks in to teach them. The real problem is this: What law enforcement officers want you to be taught about dealing with the police is often extremely different than what a lawyer or civil rights organization would want you to be taught. Compare this guide by a police association (which is fairly liberal for a guide coming from police):

    http://www.blackpolice.org/education/whattodowhenstoppedbythepolice81814.pdf

    or this one from the Lansing MI police department:

    “3. What should I do if I am stopped on the street?

    “We recommend that you do not run from the officer. Be calm. Listen to what the officer wants. Do not assume that you know the reason you were stopped. Provide identification when you are asked. Be as cooperative as possible. When asked questions, answer truthfully. Being untruthful will only make matters worse and you may end up causing further problems for yourself. You have the right to ask questions of the officer. But this should be done in a calm manner. Yelling and threatening an officer will only make a situation more difficult”

    http://www.lansingmi.gov/frequently_asked_questions

    with the one that you linked or this one by the ACLU (both of which are typical of those which are produced by lawyers):

    https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/field_document/bustcard_eng_20100630.pdf

    A longer and more thorough version of the ACLU brochure:

    https://www.aclu.org/files/kyr/kyr_english.pdf

    The LEO version on “training the public on how to react to law enforcement” is this, in short: Utterly comply and totally and truthfully cooperate. The lawyer/civil libertarian/ACLU version is: Don’t answer any questions, don’t consent to searches, ask if you can leave, do follow physical instructions, don’t resist detention, arrest, or illegal searches, don’t do anything that will give them an excuse to do more than they can legally do.

    Those couldn’t be much further apart.

    @Mas: What did you have in mind for training the public on how to react to law enforcement?

  49. Dave, when you write:

    “The lawyer/civil libertarian/ACLU version is: Don’t answer any questions, don’t consent to searches, ask if you can leave, do follow physical instructions, don’t resist detention, arrest, or illegal searches, don’t do anything that will give them an excuse to do more than they can legally do,” I for one would be just thrilled if every citizen complied with that.

  50. Mas: I don’t mean to be snarky or rhetorical about this at all, it’s a totally genuine and sincere question. If a LEO stops someone on the street or while driving and all they can get out of them is, “I choose to exercise my right to remain silent. I do not consent to any searches. Am I free to leave?” in response to any and every question asked, while complying in every other way (i.e. producing their DL, insurance, and registration, exiting the vehicle if asked, etc.), is it likely to aggravate the situation?

    It certainly prevents the citizen from giving up anything which will help the officer make a case against him, but will it increase the likelihood of negative action when the LEO might otherwise consider cutting the citizen a break? If it depends on the officer, I’d appreciate your approximation of officers, such as maybe 40% would do X and 20% Y and 20% Z.

Newer Comments »

Comments are closed.