This article was recently published by Force Science Institute, which is highly respected by law enforcement and professional private trainers, and hated by the sort of people who bring unmeritorious cases against good
I’m not sure “homicidal empathy” is a term I’m going to embrace, but I understand what author Von Kliem is getting at. I took one of his classes at ILEETA, the International Law Enforcement Educators and Trainers Association where I’ve served on the advisory board since the organization was founded, and the man is simply brilliant.
Read it, and please share your thoughts here. I’ve seen a lot of what he has seen, and it ain’t good.
That was disturbing. I’m having a hard time understanding why police officers still serve, especially in urban areas. When there are no effective police, what you get is vigilantes.
As a U.S. citizen operating legally in Canada a widely notorious convicted violent felon once charged at me out of the woods, waving a pick handle, too apparently threatening serious, if not lethal, harm. At least one other grown man witnessed the event. I had no weapon in my hands at the time, and resolved to “de-escalate” the belligerent fellow, who m I was previously familiar with. My fallback strategy was to run and grab a rock or two and bombard the miscreant. Fortunately said weapon-wielder decided to stop and just roar some. A year or two later later one of his neighbors shot him dead, under legally debatable circumstances, with other adverse consequences. I wish I had reported the deceased ‘s behavior at time of the pick handle threats. I would have, Ithink, if I really thought anything would have come of it. I am sure that I should have tried. Even if you have doubts, you should report such events to the authorities. Meanwhile, carry a gun, I say.
That article made me so mad, I’m going to have to restrain my anger, and type very little. I hope someday the pendulum swings the other way, and criminals no longer receive mercy from anyone.
The only positive thing that may come out of this is that police and armed citizens are on the same side. We both have to be afraid of the legal system, which beatifies criminals, and condemns heroic action.
Actions are supposed to be judged by the standard of what a reasonable and prudent….person, would do in that situation. However, pretty much any actor who poses a potentially dangerous/violent situation isn’t reasonable. While you might manage to get them to see reason, there’s a time element involved and even so, there’s no certainty of success. Fifty odd years after the fact, I can still recall a couple of incidents with EDPs. Those only involved bumps & bruises……and someone still complained. Partner was seen in ER after one.
The quote by the jury foreman is especially troubling. there should have been jury instructions about how the officers sworn duty must be considered. You can’t leave a drunk in effective control of a vehicle.
I’ve heard/read of a number of those social workers assigned to respond to similar incidents quitting. In one case, the head of the unit quit. Wonder if there’s any firm numbers on how that’s going and the casualty/resignation rates?
Perhaps if prosecutors did ride alongs? Expect they’re too busy doing trial prep.
Very, very good article. All the points well thought out.
I have been preaching for decades that a state criminal prosecution of an LEO is not governed by federal civil 4th Amendment caselaw under 18 U.S.C. § 1983. Many “experts” think otherwise and are completely wrong. Too much inadmissible “expert” testimony is routinely allowed.
Prosecutors of LEO’s too often forget deadly force is lawful to oppose great or serious bodily harm, not just likely death. And that “likely” mean a probable result, not more likely than not. And that a honest good faith mistake about circumstances which is reasonable sustains the use of force.
The notion that an LEO can be an “aggressor” in the course of official business under state justification law is flawed. It is expected and the sworn duty of police to look for trouble and then do things which result in the use of force. See Livermore v. Lubelan, 476 F.3d 397, 406-7 (6th Cir. 2007).
Why do I think that part of the solution, at least in the short term, is for patrol cops to adopt a FIDO mentality — “F*ck It, Drive On” — for any potentially violent encounter (which would be almost all of them).
And make those CYA — “Cover Your A$$” — measures known, with the full blessing of all the police unions. (On that note, why aren’t the police unions in Deep Blue districts throwing their political clout and media reach behind primary and general election opponents? Because the opponents are Republicans? *facepalm*)
And call me cynical, but sometimes I think every patrol officer should have the home addresses of every anti-police politician memorized, and either refuse to respond to calls at those locations or respond by standing outside and shouting encouragement to the politicians. “You’re doing great! Just talk to him some more! Oooh, that looks like it hurt! But you’re not dead so it’s fine, nothing worth shooting him for! Stop screaming, that’s just getting him more amped up! Remain calm, I’m sure he’ll stop soon!” And if the politician pulls his own guns and shoots the suspect himself, arrest him for Aggravated Assault (if the suspect lives) or 2nd Degree Murder (if the suspect dies) on the spot, on the identical fact-twisting logic he would subject a cop’s actions to in the same situation. Even better if you have an outside prosecutor already lined up so the politician’s subordinates don’t have a Conflict of Interest in bringing charges.
(No, I’d never really advocate for this, but I do think it sometimes, especially after reading articles like the one Mas linked.)
The anti-police policies will not stop until the costs to the people who push them become personal. Ideally, they get voted out and that’s the end of it, and the new guy/gal does better. But in Deep Blue municipalities that might never happen, so the costs must be shifted other ways.
I do not see enough Democrat voters learning from their mistakes. Some Democrats, like Bill Maher and James Carville, are able to view reality. Too many Democrats are blind, and hang on to their “religion.”
This makes me wonder if an expert witness, if there was one, could readily articulate to a jury just how dangerous a knife can be. A slash across the neck or even a leg can exsanguinate the victim in two minutes. Perhaps challenging a volunteer to respond to a simulated knife attack with a Sharpie.
The problem with jurors is that the less background they have about similar incidents, the more likely they will be selected. An unethical prosecutor is another hazard. A New York and a Georgia prosecutor leap to mind.
I watched video of anti-gun activists run through live action police training scenarios and ended up shooting an actor holding a cell phone they mistook for a weapon who quickly entered the scene. Quite the eye opener for them.
I once suggested to the local police firearms training establishment that the live action training be offered to judges. I was informed that the offer had been made but refused.
But who would want the prosecutor to ride along … and find fault with the cops every action and THEN bring charges for every event on the ride-along.
There are so many things that seem pertinent to say about this article, but a grand instructor says “to leave no trace.”
“The risk is that jurors will translate those sentiments to `just because it is legal, doesn’t mean we can’t convict you.'”
This is the basis of quite a few prosecutions of private citizens for individual self-defense, Kyle Rittenhouse being one of the most publicized example. It’s the other side of jury nullification (refusal to convict despite guilt, versus prosecution and conviction despite obvious innocence).
I don’t know whether there is any solution other than for cities to let voters see their politics destroy their cities, as happened long ago in Detroit, and recently in Portland and San Francisco. Not while revolutionaries control the educational system.
For years the defacto belief in every courtroom was, and still is, police officers never do anything wrong and it’s near impossible for a bad police officer to be charged with his/her crime because every one of his/her partners will cover for them, as will the prosecutors and judges. This type of tyrannical, group think I experienced on the NYPD after Abner Louima was brutally raped with a broom stick in a precinct bathroom by former PO Justin Volpe and 3 other POs…within earshot of the desk Sergeant, desk POs, the COs/XOs offices and at least one PA. We were told at very muster that Louima was a liar and “we are always going to be blamed”, “we are never respected” etc. And the longer the truth was hidden by the bosses the worse the threats from the bossed to us became if they thought we were questioning the official narrative or God forbid we were seen speaking to any of army of “journalists” trying to get anyone of us to just say something. Of course Volpe admitted to raping Louima and he went to prison, and was just recently released, and the bosses all disappeared back into their ratholes. However at least a dozen POs who were present in the precinct were never charged for stopping the rape/torture/false imprisonment neither were the 3 other POs that held Louima down so Volpe could torture/rape him…..and the sheeple are shocked citizens don’t like or trust the police? You either have a serious case of Stockholm Syndrome or are just willingly ignorant to the fact that crimes like this have been happening across this nation at an alarmingly high rate…and the apologists reliably come out from their rat holes to defend these bad practices. When I was on the job we didn’t have all the equipment these new guys have nor were we indoctrinated with college educated BS…we had a nightstick, blackjack, pistol, radio, handcuffs and a solid ability to think and talk our way into or out of any situation! We had to keep a level head and stay calm and not overreact while keeping peace with the community, even with those that hated us. On one occasion on my foot post I knew everyone both good and bad and treated everyone with respect and always had conversations with them all, new guys would look down on us for talking, respectfully, with drug dealers, prostitutes, small goods, regular people, business owners etc yet when I was making a collar/arrest on my one man foot post one evening I and the perp started fighting I couldn’t get to my radio and as I’m struggling on the ground I hear an alert come over the radio for a “police officer getting jumped” at my location and knew it was me. After backup arrived I realized it was the local drug dealer who was watching everything go down who called from a payphone. That’s the difference between old cops and the new, scared PC cops who don’t belong on the street but are worshipped as being heros just because they wear a blue uniform. Politicians have always been our enemies and today it’s even worse however the pendulum has swung far away from us and we deserve some of the blame, but not all. There needs to be more of an emphasis on the natural inalienable rights of the citizens while also doing our jobs….stupid virtue signaling videos of cops mowing lawns,dancing in the streets and other stupid antics are dumb and not helping anyone buy the ignorant who get all their knowledge from afar and never walking a day on the beat. Can this ship be turned around from the radicals? Probably not without going back to the old days of harsh but fair policing but that’s just feeding into the leftists narrative and until we stop caring about what they think it will only get worse. My spouse is still serving with a very large agency and it’s disgusting how perps are treated with kid gloves and are begged into cooperating, which rarely works and usually ends up on the ground, instead of the old way..
Ask, tell, make! Until we get qualified, not DEI/Affirmative Action hires out, and real hard training back in this will only get worse. Demand better training and police officers with better character, hire street smart cops and dump the useless college educated empty suits and grow a pair and only then will POs gain that respect back and the public will follow but one thing is for sure nobody respects weak people and they definitely respect even less Police Officers who are supposed to be strong. Oh yeah and start punishing the command staff who love to hang good cops out to dry for doing their jobs correctly.
Even 60 Minutes concluded that only one officer attacked Louima and that his partner specifically, who was convicted too, was outside in their police car.
George Soros and other globalist billionaires have spent millions of dollars installing their versions of District Attorneys and Prosecutors throughout this country. Not only do these individuals openly hate law enforcement, they openly espouse their desire to destroy the very system they are supposed to represent. The resultant poor police response and lawlessness should surprise no one who voted for these people. Good veteran police officers have seen the writing on the wall and have left in droves and good young people who at one time would have chosen the profession opt not to. The politicians don’t care as they spend hundreds of thousands of your dollars on private security while doing their damnedest to disarm you. If you’re lucky you live in a red state that still supports a modicum of law and order. If you live in a blue state you are, frankly, screwed. Unfortunately, things are likely to get much worse before they get better.
Our jury pools are becoming infested with changelings from Bizzaro World. That being said, I am summoned to jury duty next month. I may not fit in, if this is the typical juror’s mindset.
Another huge issue in our “injustice” system is there is no longer a right to a jury of our peers. The prosecutor will do everything in his power to weed out any juror who might exhibit any modicum of intelligence or independent thought. When was the last time a LEO was ever empaneled on a jury hearing a case of a police shooting? It’s the same for other types of trials, criminal or civil. Prosecutors do not want anyone who might understand the issue, they want the most malleable people available who will believe their theatrical performances, peers be damned.
Another scary thing is that people who are reasonable and understand what police officers deal with on a daily basis are going to be screened out of any jury in a use of force case by the prosecuting attorney. I remember a relative of mine howling online about two officers in Texas who shot and killed a mentally disturbed man who was armed with a screwdriver and how they could have done this or that differently to affect a better outcome. The man’s mother had called the police to help deal with him and upon arrival, her son exited the house with the screwdriver in hand and he refused to drop it despite repeated demands by both officers to do so. Backed up against a car in the driveway and at broom closet distance, they fired several shots and the man immediately fell, fatally wounded. From the initial verbal command to the last shot being fired was maybe about six seconds. No time at all to really think, but a dozen people who weren’t there would have plenty of time to relax in a nice, comfortable chair and swap ideas between themselves about what the cops “should” have done differently.
Is there a way for the defense lawyer to make a formal request that the jury be informed that the standards for use of force are what they should be, so that if the prosecutor suggests otherwise the defense lawyer can call him on it in court? And so that if the judge refuses to do so, the defense lawyer will have this as a basis of an appeal?
The idea is to force the hostile court to make the new standards explicit. Then police will have a firm basis for doing all they can to leave service, and will have a firm answer to those who say, “Apparently, lots of police are refusing to serve unless racist murder is allowed.” Police and their defenders will be able to cite the new rules and say, “No, it really is about the increased danger to themselves that society is now demanding that they accept.”
Comments are closed.