Ever-increasing restrictions on police use-of-force

So as not to hijack another thread, I've started this one.

The gears in my mind were started by this comment:

Sorry but the PD doesn't have to obey the law, just the people they police.
That's why the police are allowed to buy drugs, sell drugs, pose as johns in prostitution stings, pose as prostitutes in john stings, lie to people during the course of investigations etc. etc. etc. We have allowed the police to operate outside the law in the name of the law. Now we are reaping the rewards of that folly. When the law applys to only some of the people but not all of the people society is no longer truly free.

Click to expand...

To which I wish to respond:

Ya okay. The laws you speak of, as written in Michigan, specifically exempt police personnel who violate the above laws in the course of their official duties. So they are within the law.

The police are more within the law now than ever before. PDs are constantly on their toes and they are successfully sued all the time. More than ever before individual officers are being criminally prosecuted for indescretions on the job. Criminals are ever more emboldened by the restraints on use-of-force that agencies and society places on police. It used to be that cops only had hands, a stick, and a revolver. If hands didn't work, you'd better hope for the stick. Now, many PDs have stopped carrying sticks and even metal flashlights so they don't hurt scumbags. What do you want me to do out there, anyway? I'd like to put some of these whiney people in front of some of the violent scum we have to deal with and see what their attitude is then.

What do you want, exactly? To make it illegal for the police to seize drugs because they they would be posessing them?

How is lying to a suspect illegal, anyway? That's an outstanding investigative tool.

As criminals continue to become more violent, more depraved, bolder, braver, and more defiant of the police, why do we continue to restrict appropriate uses of force? This mentality has infected some officers so badly that they have been hurt or killed because of their hesitation and reluctance to use immediate and decisive action to respond to a threat.

I'd also like to direct you to the following articles:

http://www.officer.com/article/article.jsp?siteSection=19&id=34697

http://www.officer.com/article/article.jsp?siteSection=3&id=33173

How do you tell the difference between a cititizen, a victim and a suspect?

Is it OK to lie to a victim?

Is it OK to lie to a citizen?

Are we all just suspects?

Is it OK for a citizen to lie to a cop?

Click to expand...

It's generally really easy to tell the difference between victims and suspects.

It's perfectly ethical to tell a suspect lies about the amount and quality of evidence you have, for example, to help them "sweat" and reveal the truth. Telling a baby-raper that you've recovered incriminating DNA, and they'd better fess up before we get the lab results or else they won't get any deals, for example.

It's may or may not be ethical to be evasive or deceptive with a victim or citizen, depending on the infinate number of factors that we encounter in real situations.

In many jurisdictions, providing false information to the police is an arrestable offense. In my jurisdiction, if you lie to me during the course of an investigation in order to throw me off, I'm seeking a warrant for resisting and obstructing an investigation (felony).

If for some reason I ask you where an address is, for example, and you send me the wrong way, I'll laugh and keep looking.

If somebody doesn't think it's alright to lie to a suspect, then they're obviously not a cop.

Now, could you please post the statute(s) that "specifically" allow police to, for example, sell drugs in a reverse sting?

Click to expand...

It's not "general". Each applicable law has a section that specifically exempts police personnel in the course of their official duties. Below is an example. It exempts duly appointed Law Enforcement Officers from the laws prohibiting the carrying of a concealed weapon:

MCL 750.231: (1) Except as provided in subsection (2), sections 224, 224a, 224b, 224d, 226a, 227, 227c, and 227d do not apply to any of the following:

(a) A peace officer of an authorized police agency of the United States, of this state, or of a political subdivision of this state, who is regularly employed and paid by the United States, this state, or a political subdivision of this state.

Somewhere, there is something similar to this that allows possession of controlled substances while in the course of official duties . I know I've seen it, but can't seem to find it in my law books. I'll keep looking.

Ya know, I edited my first post, to exclude discussion of "police speeding/running stoplights", thinking that astute forum members would not confuse this type of activity with things like selling drugs. Although, it might be a good data point to post the statute(s) that permit these police activities, as well.

Click to expand...

I see you want me to do more leg work. Very well:

257.2 “Authorized emergency vehicle” defined.

Sec. 2.

“Authorized emergency vehicle” means any 1 of the following:

(a) Vehicles of the fire department, police vehicles, ambulances, or privately owned motor vehicles of volunteer or paid fire fighters if authorized by the chief of an organized fire department, or privately owned motor vehicles of volunteer or paid members of a life support agency licensed by the department of consumer and industry services if authorized by the life support agency.

(b) For purposes of section 698(5)(c) during an emergency, a vehicle owned and operated by a federally recognized nonprofit charitable organization that is used exclusively for assistance during that emergency.

(c) For purposes of section 653a, a road service vehicle giving a visual signal by means of a flashing, rotating, or oscillating red or amber light. As used in this subdivision, “road service vehicle” means a vehicle that is clearly marked and readily recognizable as a vehicle used to assist disabled vehicles.




257.603 Applicability of chapter to government vehicles; exemption of authorized emergency vehicles; conditions; exemption of police vehicles not sounding audible signal; exemption of persons, vehicles, and equipment working on surface of highway.

Sec. 603.

(1) The provisions of this chapter applicable to the drivers of vehicles upon the highway apply to the drivers of all vehicles owned or operated by the United States, this state, or a county, city, township, village, district, or any other political subdivision of the state, subject to the specific exceptions set forth in this chapter with reference to authorized emergency vehicles.

(2) The driver of an authorized emergency vehicle when responding to an emergency call, but not while returning from an emergency call, or when pursuing or apprehending a person who has violated or is violating the law or is charged with or suspected of violating the law may exercise the privileges set forth in this section, subject to the conditions of this section.

(3) The driver of an authorized emergency vehicle may do any of the following:

(a) Park or stand, irrespective of this act.

(b) Proceed past a red or stop signal or stop sign, but only after slowing down as may be necessary for safe operation.

(c) Exceed the prima facie speed limits so long as he or she does not endanger life or property.

(d) Disregard regulations governing direction of movement or turning in a specified direction.

(4) The exemptions granted in this section to an authorized emergency vehicle apply only when the driver of the vehicle while in motion sounds an audible signal by bell, siren, air horn, or exhaust whistle as may be reasonably necessary, except as provided in subsection (5), and when the vehicle is equipped with at least 1 lighted lamp displaying a flashing, oscillating, or rotating red or blue light visible under normal atmospheric conditions from a distance of 500 feet in a 360 degree arc unless it is not advisable to equip a police vehicle operating as an authorized emergency vehicle with a flashing, oscillating or rotating light visible in a 360 degree arc. In those cases, a police vehicle shall display a flashing, oscillating, or rotating red or blue light visible under normal atmospheric conditions from a distance of 500 feet to the front of the vehicle. Only police vehicles that are publicly owned shall be equipped with a flashing, oscillating, or rotating blue light that when activated is visible under normal atmospheric conditions from a distance of 500 feet in a 360 degree arc.

(5) A police vehicle shall retain the exemptions granted in this section to an authorized emergency vehicle without sounding an audible signal if the police vehicle is engaged in an emergency run in which silence is required.

(6) The exemptions provided for by this section apply to persons, teams, motor vehicles, and other equipment while actually engaged in work upon the surface of a highway but do not apply to those persons and vehicles when traveling to or from work. The provisions of this chapter governing the size and width of vehicles do not apply to vehicles owned by public highway authorities when the vehicles are proceeding to or from work on public highways.

Today another "suspect" died in LAPD custody. Witnesses describe several police officers "piling" on him during the arrest. I think no-one here would object to necessary force in an arrest but there seems to be a subsequent element of "beat the daylights out of him" to teach a lesson or get revenge. Punishment is the job of the court, not the arresting officers.

Click to expand...

I don't know the details of this action, and neither do you. Perhaps he was abused, perhaps not.

Realize that some people are simply out of control. They are hardened street criminals who have taken thousands of punches in the course of their lives, lifted hundreds of tons of weights, and fought with the police numerous times. Sometimes it actually takes multiple cops to subdue them, and they continue to resist after being piled on and subdued. Often they are on drugs that enhance their ability to resist. What do you want us to do? What would you do if you were confronted by a muscle-bound 300lb street fighter who is coked-up and just wants to beat you down?

If we beat them into submission with a stick, people who aren't cops howl and wail from the comfort of thier ivory towers. If we spray them and beat them with our hands, the same people do the same. If we employ a Taser, the same people complain. If we shoot them, the same. If we use ten people to subdue them, the same complaining happens.

If we run into a guy on PCP breaking into a building, and it takes four cops, two cans of OC spray, and two Tasers to force the still-raging suspect into the back of a car, and two cops go to the hospital for stitches because of the incident, why is it our fault when the PCP makes the guys heart explode from all of the over-exertion???? Should we let him be, to exert his rage on the public so that we don't hurt him????

Just yesterday in the County in which I work, an accused murderer went before a judge for a hearing. This person had murder charges pending, and lived over one hour away from the jurisdiction in which he was charged. The police report details threats made by this individual towards a witness. His exact words were "I'm gonna kill that bitch". The prosecution asked for a $10,000 bond. The judge granted the individual a personal recognizance bond and released him, free and clear :O.
So now if this guy goes back to where he lives, and kills the witness, and then is shot in the back and killed by a LEO while attempting to flee the scene after fighting with and injuring several police, whose fault is that? No doubt the public will blame the police.

Stand back and let us work. We really do fully expect that those among us who go way too far and are involved in gross misconduct and / or illegal activites to be held accountable. I wish we didn't have to expect public, civil, and / or legal backlash from taking necessary on-the-job action, however.

So, following our long established maxims of innocent till proven guilty, what happens when it turns out that the "suspect" has the wrong DNA?

Do you just continue with the lie? Telling him that the DNA came back and he better "fess up" before the gets the chair?

I couldn't make up any worse indictment than that which you just propounded.

Shame.

Click to expand...

I was saying that you can lie to a suspect and tell him DNA evidence is pending when it is not. If he fesses up, sweet!! You have a confession (which does have to be backed up by evidence, by the way). If he stays quiet, fine. That's his right.

Nothing is wrong with asking a suspect "So, if you didn't rape her, why would we would find your DNA at the scene???". Now he has to start making excuses, and might admit that he was there. Then you can keep going, making him "dance" until he trips up so bad he has to confess.

If you really do have DNA and it comes back a negative match, the guy walks because he obviously didn't do it.

If we decieve a suspect and he confesses, giving us further details of the crime which only the perpetrator could know, and eventually enters a guilty plea, what's the problem? The bad guy went away.

Non-cops usually never get it. What would you have us do?

When does a citizen have the right to prevent the illegal actions of a police officer?

Click to expand...

Always. Generally (didn't say "always") that occurs in court, though. Illegal activity is never acceptable.

We see police using their position of authority to discourage people from doing things that are perfectly legal. "Officer Safety" is used as an excuse to embarrass, humiliate, and sometimes injure people who had shown zero propensity for violence and had no criminal record (the recent Utah incident where a war veteran was accosted by the police on the word of a coward).

Click to expand...

I do see your point, and agree to an extent. Officer safety can't be used to justify anything we want to do. I see the problems you allude to above as issues of deficient training and discipline. I don't see the solution to be, whether by law or by de-facto means, restricting the application of force where it is needed to protect from injury, life, or to effect arrest.

This thread has quickly digressed from the original topic of giving the police the proper leeway to deal with violent, aggressive, and sometimes armed offenders.

I'm not talking about "street justice", nor am I trying to take away anybody's rights. I'm not trying to frame anybody, either.

I certainly become much less of a fan of having the police use all kinds of force to do what they want

Click to expand...

I'm opposed to letting us use "all kinds" of force to do whatever we want, too. I am in favor, though, of allowing police to use the necessary amount of force to do what is legally and ethically required without the threat of legal or civil action as a result of that application of necessary force.

There are some people I wish I could put in front of a PCP-addicted, meth-tweaking, and coked-up Butterbean and then charge them with the task of arresting said individual without hurting him or getting hurt themselves.

FWIW, seems like the "lying" tactic would go against pretty much what the "Common Sense Rule" dictates in regard to the 5th Amendment right of non-self incrimination...

Click to expand...

I dunno. Suspect deception has been, and is, used all the time. I don't know if it has been challenged in court. My guess would be that it has. There are a number of very restrictive court decisions that restrict police conduct and restrict any sort of promise or coercion during interrogation. We have to be very careful of what we say, or statements of inadmissable.

EDIT: The lying, probably better referred to as "deception", has gone to court. In People v. Hicks, 185 Mich. App. 107 (1990), the court ruled that the fact that the police misrepresented to the defendant that his fingerprints were discovered on an article retrieved from the crime scene is insufficient, by itself, to render the statement involuntary.