I had a conversation yesterday concerning the death of two black men at the hands of the police. But before I go further, I want to first state that these two men’s names should not be forgotten: Alton Sterling and Philando Castile. Too often, the names of people are glossed over to help us “forget”. Can you name the four Americans who died in Benghazi?
The point of the conversation was whether we should resist when we are being placed under arrest or being “detained”. A conversation with a former Georgia state police officer defined resisting arrest as anything the officer wants it to be. Whether you resist on not, the officer may use that term. Unless a camera is filming the incident.
I will resist arrest if it means submission. But submission for me is probably different than what most people consider it to be.
If you “resist” arrest, does that justify the police shooting you? In the case of Mr. Castile, there was no resistance. I have to wonder why so many police were necessary for a traffic stop. Maybe more information will come out in the future.
So what is the interesting question? It actually is two questions:
- Under what conditions will you “resist” arrest?
- Under what conditions does resisting arrest allow the police to shoot you?
David DeGerolamo
The government has created a mindset among police that they are not peace officers but rather warriors sent out to subdue the combatants. From equipment to training it isn’t about keeping the peace but about compliance and “officer safety.” Such an environment will eventually turn into a self fulfilling prophecy and the latest shooting in Dallas stands as an example of where we are heading.
I have always found it strange that some police don’t get the fact they are greatly outnumbered, live among those they serve and it is in their best interest to treat people they way they want to be treated. The prolific nature of cameras has made this fact more relevant than ever. I don’t expect police to be perfect but I do expect them to follow their oath and when there are officers who step over the line they need to be held to a higher standard, removed from the payroll, and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.
You forgot that we elevate LEO when they are people that fail to uphold their oath. A vast majority are liars and criminals.
Looks like they broke the law too. Using a bomb to get him was straight out of Isis. Smh
Sadly, we have nearly no ‘Peace Officers’ left in this country. The term itself has been universally abandoned, in favor of the acronym “LEO” for ‘Law Enforcement Officer’. Their policies and procedures are now nearly indistinguishable from those of the military, as employed in combat zones far outside our civil society. The consequences are obvious.
As a child growing up, we all knew the name of the *one* police officer who had ever been killed in the line of duty in our town -- our town’s High School was named after him. *No criminal* had ever been killed by a police officer in our town, upon my graduation from high school in the early 80s. Coming home from the Army a decade later, neither of these statements was still true.
I have had conversations with many men of my generation, and this is one of the most widely held and profoundly troubling things we see about our society -- the growing wave of violence, and the mass acceptance of violence as part of modern society.
I will offer an axiom of logic, which I believe Einstein first put forward -- No problem has ever been solved at the same Order which created it.” In this case “order” is mean as a level of thought and/or insight. Applied, what he would say in this instance is that ‘violence cannot be solved by the application of violence’. Isaac Asimov, in his Foundation Series of books, created an iconic leader (a Mayor of Terminus -- a planetary Executive with vast power and authority) who had the following framed and hung on the wall of his office -- “Violence is the last refuge of incompetence.” In 99% of cases, I find myself agreeing with that sentiment; but as a society we are slowly denouncing it, accepting more and more the premise of indirect violence done on behalf of one group, against another.
But if violence only begets more violence -- what, then, can be applied to actually solve the problem. If your soul adheres to the Truth, then you know the ultimate answer… but that does not reprove the fact that we are being systematically pressed into that 1% of circumstances where violence *is* justified (or at least appears necessary), and we ought to pay close attention to who is doing the pushing, and what their ultimate intents are. Because, as George Orwell warned, there are those who love violence, not only for the sake of control, but for it’s own sake as an expression of evil -- “If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face—forever.”
WE HAVE BEEN WARNED
There is great danger in assuming that all cops are bad or all cops are good. There is also great danger in cops that decide all the people they deal with are good… or bad. Dangerous assumptions can also be made concerning race or the area in which an incident occurs. When we are over prejudicial (in either direction) we put ourselves and/or the other party in danger.
I grew up in a small town in Eastern Tennessee, not far from here. The vast majority of Police officers , at that time, were good guys. However, as a young man, I was home on leave from the Navy when I was pulled over for no reason (that was apparent to me). I had a couple of friends in the car and we were just riding around peacefully. The officer the pointed a riot gun at my head and told us to get out. We did. With my hands on top of the car as commanded, I asked why he was doing this (thinking to my self that my car must math that of someone who had committed some crime) but he again recklessly pointed the shotgun at my head and told me to shut up or he would blow my head off. For the next few minutes he seemed to get more and more agitated as he looked for and demanded the whereabouts of my gun. I had no gun. As he got more agitated, he got closer to me with the shotgun and placed it against my face. I noticed his finger was on the trigger. Ironically, I had just received training in the past few weeks as how to take a gun away from someone who was stupid enough to get that close to you. In my own mind I started to believe that this guy is going to shoot me… and the only hope I have is to disarm him. I determined that I would do just that the next time he stuck that shotgun in my face… i also realized that I would have to shoot him if he went for his still holstered duty pistol. I prayed with everything in me for God to intervene. Just then another Police car pulled in to the parking lot where we were… I hoped this guy would be calmer. I breathed a sigh of relief when i saw that the other officer, who was the duty Sargent, was a personal friend of my family. He talked the other cop down and sent him on his way. I told him what had happened and he was visibly shaken by report. He apologized and sent us on our way. The next day the Sargent called my dad and told him that we needed to come down to the department and file a complaint… when we did, we found out that this was not the first time this officer had overstepped his authority. It would be, assured the hearing officer, his last. He was fired from the force and he left town in shame.
I told that story to make clear that I am fully aware that there are bad cops and even, possibly, bad police forces. I am NOT however ready to assume that all cops are bad. I know some local cops that are on the force for that right reasons and I know some local sheriffs that do their best to recruit that kind of people. As far as the two questions above, 1) I would resist arrest when I believed that doing so would provide the best chance of my survival. 2) I don’t really care what the circumstances are where they are allowed to shoot me… I am much more concerned about the circumstances under which they are likely to shoot me. i would break those down into two categories: 1) a bad cop like one i encountered or 2) a cop who believes that his own life is in serious jeopardy. Since I (legally) carry concealed, I know that I MUST set any approaching officer at ease by keeping my hands in plain sight and away from my weapon (or anywhere a weapon might be) telling him that I have a legal weapon and disclosing it’s location on my body, telling him where my documents are (when he asks for them and asking if it OK for me to retrieve them.
As far as the Alton Sterling and Philando Castile cases, neither of these are the slam dunk cases they seemed to be to everyone (including me) at first glance . Alton Sterling was, as I understand, a convicted felon and was in possession of an illegal concealed firearm. The officers did not just shoot him while he was standing which might have been the safest course of action for them but chose to physically engage him. That may not have been the smartest thing to do but once the two officers were unable to restrain him in his attempts to access his firearm (if that’s what happened) it became a shoot or be shot problem. If this is accurate, I would fault the judgement of these officers in getting into that predicament but not in their decision to use deadly force once they were in it. To me, the Philand Castile case seemed much more cut and dry… a nervous cop who pulled the trigger without proper indication (although the girlfriends demeanor didn’t seem right). in the last day or so, however, more information has come out. 1) it has been reported that Mr. Castile may not have actually had a legal Concealed carry permit. The info that he had one came from his girlfriend. 2)The officer was pulling the deceased over because he matched the description of a recent robbery suspect (and the match was much closer that being black). My understanding is that it not been determined whether he was the actual perpetrator. 3) examination of the girlfriends video seems to show a firearm in Mr Castile’s lap after he was shot. Now, I’m not sure that these shootings were justified… but, unlike some of you, i am not sure they were not. Making a cop a bad guy just because he is a cop is just as prejudicial as making a guy a bad guy just because he is black. Neither is founded in fact!
I am not so sure a man who does not fulfill his oath is a good man. I am not sure there is an LOE that does not break his oath at least on a monthly basis. Take the 4th Amendment for example and look at DUI checkpoints and K9 searches.