the law and police violence

[BH]

I have a question for you who know law.

When a policeman or policewoman gets violent to apprehend a suspect, when by law are they supposed to stop the violence? If I am being arrested in broad daylight and raise my hands if told to by the police and drop anything in my hands I think most here would have a problem if the police beat me anyway.

Now, lets say I do resist and then after a few hits by the cop I say I give up and raise my hands would he still have the right to keep beating me down?

I suspect a lot of beatings had a trigger event, but when does the law say the beating should stop? It seems to me a lot of it is just revenge for the trigger event. Of course the police would say they were scared there was still danger but when does that become a cover for wanting to beat someone up and therefore potentially not a legal excuse anymore?

 

[fromderinside]

Lets say you have a gun. Lets say you've heard this group tends to be violent and murderous. Here you are asked to stop illegal activity with just white christian partner like yourself. Do you really think your training will overcome the absolute fear gripping you right at that moment of confrontation? Its situations like this that makes civilized persons other than civilized.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I suspect a lot of beatings had a trigger event, but when does the law say the beating should stop? It seems to me a lot of it is just revenge for the trigger event. Of course the police would say they were scared there was still danger but when does that become a cover for wanting to beat someone up and therefore potentially not a legal excuse anymore?

Exactly. This is also why they tend not to be charged in the first place, or exonerated by juries when charged. We see the very end of the situation on the news when the guy has stopped fighting back but gets hit a few more times anyway because the cops don't instantly realize he's given up. A prime example of this in action is the Rodney King case--he was fighting and fighting, the clip shown all over the place was a small bit of the whole thing. The jury saw the whole thing and realized what was really going on and said not guilty.

The cops are expected to stop using force when resistance stops. However, they are not expected to be precognitive in determining this, nor are they expected to have a instantaneous reaction time.

 

[BH]

Lets say you have a gun. Lets say you've heard this group tends to be violent and murderous. Here you are asked to stop illegal activity with just white christian partner like yourself. Do you really think your training will overcome the absolute fear gripping you right at that moment of confrontation? Its situations like this that makes civilized persons other than civilized.

I would say wait for backup if you and your partner feel you two will not be enough to bring them in and might get outgunned if you tried. I have no problem with the police using violence to subdue criminals/suspects if the criminal/suspect will not submit to questioning or arrest. However, I am not going to accept people getting beaten down for shits and giggles when it is not neccesary either.

 

[BH]

I suspect a lot of beatings had a trigger event, but when does the law say the beating should stop? It seems to me a lot of it is just revenge for the trigger event. Of course the police would say they were scared there was still danger but when does that become a cover for wanting to beat someone up and therefore potentially not a legal excuse anymore?

Exactly. This is also why they tend not to be charged in the first place, or exonerated by juries when charged. We see the very end of the situation on the news when the guy has stopped fighting back but gets hit a few more times anyway because the cops don't instantly realize he's given up. A prime example of this in action is the Rodney King case--he was fighting and fighting, the clip shown all over the place was a small bit of the whole thing. The jury saw the whole thing and realized what was really going on and said not guilty.

The cops are expected to stop using force when resistance stops. However, they are not expected to be precognitive in determining this, nor are they expected to have a instantaneous reaction time.

Mr Pentchel,

You try to be fair and rational about things from what I have read of your posts the last twenty years. For the sake of argument if you were on a jury and a policeman was charged for abuse of some sort--beating or killing a suspect, what would be factors that would make you come to the conclusion the policeman (or policemen) were using force no longer neccessary but simply because they wanted some revenge or were just doing it for the fun of it?

 

[BH]

If Derec is here I'd like for him to share his opinion on the questions I gave Mr. Petchel since he said a long time ago he did policework or security work.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Exactly. This is also why they tend not to be charged in the first place, or exonerated by juries when charged. We see the very end of the situation on the news when the guy has stopped fighting back but gets hit a few more times anyway because the cops don't instantly realize he's given up. A prime example of this in action is the Rodney King case--he was fighting and fighting, the clip shown all over the place was a small bit of the whole thing. The jury saw the whole thing and realized what was really going on and said not guilty.

The cops are expected to stop using force when resistance stops. However, they are not expected to be precognitive in determining this, nor are they expected to have a instantaneous reaction time.

Mr Pentchel,

You try to be fair and rational about things from what I have read of your posts the last twenty years. For the sake of argument if you were on a jury and a policeman was charged for abuse of some sort--beating or killing a suspect, what would be factors that would make you come to the conclusion the policeman (or policemen) were using force no longer neccessary but simply because they wanted some revenge or were just doing it for the fun of it?

When there is a clear period of non-resistance on the part of the suspect.

Once the suspect uses force the burden is on them to show they have now given in.

 

[Coleman Smith]

FWIW department I spent a portion of a 35 year career as a casualty claims adjuster handling claims for police departments in a large metropolitan area including every thing from automobile accidents to cops having sex with prisoners. This was not all that I did but it certainly occupied a significant portion of my time.

In considering when a police officer should cease using force and when the use of force becomes excessive there are at least three areas of law which may be involved:

Statutory for both state and federal.
Precedential (case law) both state and federal.
Internal police policies of the police department that is involved in the case.

When we try to arrive at an opinion of when an officer should cease to use force all we can usually do is generalize that force is no longer needed when the suspect ceases resistance.

Jurors are generally instructed to consider what was reasonable under the circumstance.

As circumstances vayry so do what is reasonable.

Now for a little humor.

Years ago there was a chase in which the suspect was apprehended and yanked from the suspect vehicle and handcuffed.
While hand cuffed a new female officer started hitting the suspect in front of a TV camera. Another offer pulled her off, the camera dropped to a position pointing at the ground but was still live. Off camera an officer can be heard saying, "You have to wait until the T.V. people leave before we can do that."