They All Look Alike

[Loren Pechtel]

Why does this have to be about race? The cops in this instance could probably have handled it differently. Hindsight is always 20/20. But cops are people like the rest of us and at times will screw up like the rest of us. Why isn't this just a screw up?

It very well could be. But I was referencing Will's post suggesting that many police officers in major metropolitan areas are being trained by current and former Israeli commandos. In light of the kind of backlash those tactics usually generate in Israel, the current situation should not really be surprising in that case.

Israeli tactics cause backlash?? If you're caught up in a commando assault you should hope the commandos are Israeli. Their record on civilian protection is second to none and considerably better than ours. It's just the Palestinians report all low-level combatants as "civilian" and the press plays along.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Patrick answered the officer's question. I was actually kind of proud of that. He was sitting there chilling and all of a sudden, and taken by surprise (out of the blue), there were officers coming up to him wanting to know his name. <Lights shining, cameras rolling, officers present. No flap, no lip, no running.> He answered! Good for him. I wish I saw behavior like that more often.

It's barely audible, however, and because of that, the officer didn't hear him. These officers know in the back of their mind that if the person before them is who they think he might be, that they would soon be executing a warrant, so they're a bit on edge to begin with, but Patrick doesn't know any of that. He's still clueless about why he was even approached to begin with, and he's not looking for any trouble, but despite not knowing why he is being asked his name, he meekly, almost inaudibly, answered.

Because the officer didn't hear his answer, the officer asked again, and to the officer, it seemed that the request for an answer was being met with silence and lack of cooperation. Here's the thing though, the officer didn't merely ask again but instead added the comment, "I'm not going to ask you again." Patrick knows in his mind that he did in fact answer, so he was perplexed. That explains the, "uh" and hesitation before saying his name again.

The video showed a question mark, "uh ... Patrick?" That is a mischaracterization. An understandable one but a mistake nonetheless. From the officers perspective, he's dealing with a guy who first refused to answer who only after being asked again was met with an "uh" followed by a pause which is in turn followed by a name stated with an inflection. Because of the peculiarity, they did become quite suspicious of deception. And of course, there was no deception at all--just confusion as to why he was being told that he wouldn't be asked again--the very same question he knows that he just answered.

What happened next is not what some of us might expect. Some of us might expect the officer to ask for an ID. Ordinarily, that would be reasonable, but the last thing the officer wants to do is open an avenue for this individual to reach for a gun under the guise of reaching for an ID, so with the belief the officer has possibly located the suspect coupled with what appears to be odd behavior, he decides to postpone any quest for an ID and first search him for weapons...to secure the scene outside of the vehicle before proceeding.

Up to this point, things could have been handled better. Hell, things should have been handled better. But, events unfolded as they did, and that's that.

"Turn around and put your hands on the car." That was said. Not once but twice. From there, things got ugly, but was it because of race? I think the answer to this is very tricky. Had it been a white guy, things probably wouldn't have turned out as it did. A person raised in a more authoritarian atmosphere would more likely have acquiesced with less resistance, and I think that has more to do with this than meets the eye.

Yes, Patrick could have prevented this from happening, just as the police could have prevented this from happening. That's not to say the police aren't responsible for failing to keep the situation from escalating. Hell, they could have calmly explained why they're doing what they're doing and provided reassurance that everything was going to be okay. A little friendly talk can go along way. The police could still be vigilant without increasing the risk of injury to themselves, or anyone else.

Damn right I'm saying the police could have done better, but if race is going to be offered into the mix as an explanation, I feel some latitude should be given to my comment that Patrick could have prevented this from happening--not to deflect responsibility from the police but to show that Patrick's lack of obedience may be attributable to how he was raised.

This might explain why this happens to white people too--a cultural shift due to the times where physical touch in punishment equates to an espousal by liberals and progressives as horrid abuse. If we can better teach people to listen, so much of what we see today could be avoided, and that is despite the arguments these things wouldn't happen if the police were perfect in how they handle situations.

This reminds me of a comedy routine where Williams said, "wanna know why the police are intense? It's because we're intense." If Patrick would have gotten out and put his hands on the car as instructed, he would not have gotten tased. I know it's taboo to say such a thing when the police mishandled the situation, but unlike a few others, my goal isn't to deflect responsibility from where it rightly lies.

Instead, I want to dig down and offer an explanation other than race. There is racism in this world, but to look at that video and think race is a causal factor makes me want to scream no and yes at the same time. The officers actions had nothing to do with race, but if there is a link between declining authoritarianism and race, then well, maybe, just possibly, Patrick didn't listen, not because he's black but because of how he's not taught to listen to an authority figure when he's told to.

It's not an issue of right and wrong, or who is responsible or not. That has forever been the talking points incessantly rehashed. I just think we need to do a better job of delinking race to every instance of irresponsible police behavior. Talking about who is responsible isn't getting us anywhere in calming the escalating emotions from either side.

Here's a plan. Teach children to respect those that haven't earned it. It might be a hard philosophical pill to swallow, but it sure as hell goes down quicker than the lumps in your throats that come from burying the dead.

There's so much truth here that one posting isn't enough, although I don't particularly think it's an example of police irresponsibility here. The guy spoke too softly the first time, that's not the fault of the police. As you say, once they're suspicious the next step is to ensure safety--separate him from hidden weapons and frisk him. I don't think the police telling him what they were thinking would have been a good idea, though--if he is a bad guy and armed that's putting him in a use-it-or-lose-it position. Better to separate him from any weapons first. Frisk, then explain.

Also, I disagree with "respect" here. You obey the police (and other law enforcement) unless there's a very good reason not to. That doesn't mean you have to respect them. What we have here is someone from a culture where you try to get away from the law rather than obey it--and that will sometimes end up going badly. It might be the "right" reaction when you're facing years in jail but it causes issues when they aren't actually after you.

 

[ZiprHead]

You mean the police that completely screwed up in questioning the person that doesn't look anything like the person they were looking for except that they're both black?

 

[Will Wiley]

Patrick answered the officer's question. I was actually kind of proud of that.

You were proud? that sounds weird. Why would you be proud? Are you trying to be patronising?

He was sitting there chilling and all of a sudden, and taken by surprise (out of the blue), there were officers coming up to him wanting to know his name. <Lights shining, cameras rolling, officers present. No flap, no lip, no running.> He answered! Good for him. I wish I saw behavior like that more often.

It's barely audible, however, and because of that, the officer didn't hear him.

How do you know they didn't hear him?

These officers know in the back of their mind that if the person before them is who they think he might be, that they would soon be executing a warrant, so they're a bit on edge to begin with, but Patrick doesn't know any of that. He's still clueless about why he was even approached to begin with, and he's not looking for any trouble, but despite not knowing why he is being asked his name, he meekly, almost inaudibly, answered.

Because the officer didn't hear his answer,

No the officer heard him.

the officer asked again, and to the officer, it seemed that the request for an answer was being met with silence and lack of cooperation.

You are obviously wrong. You are apologising for a bullying policeman who can't do the job.

Sack the policeman. Let him find a job he is suited to, and hire someone from the community.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peelian_principles

1.To prevent crime and disorder, as an alternative to their repression by military force and severity of legal punishment.
2.To recognise always that the power of the police to fulfil their functions and duties is dependent on public approval of their existence, actions and behaviour, and on their ability to secure and maintain public respect.
3.To recognise always that to secure and maintain the respect and approval of the public means also the securing of the willing co-operation of the public in the task of securing observance of laws.
4.To recognise always that the extent to which the co-operation of the public can be secured diminishes proportionately the necessity of the use of physical force and compulsion for achieving police objectives.
5.To seek and preserve public favour, not by pandering to public opinion, but by constantly demonstrating absolutely impartial service to law, in complete independence of policy, and without regard to the justice or injustice of the substance of individual laws, by ready offering of individual service and friendship to all members of the public without regard to their wealth or social standing, by ready exercise of courtesy and friendly good humour, and by ready offering of individual sacrifice in protecting and preserving life.
6.To use physical force only when the exercise of persuasion, advice and warning is found to be insufficient to obtain public co-operation to an extent necessary to secure observance of law or to restore order, and to use only the minimum degree of physical force which is necessary on any particular occasion for achieving a police objective.
7.To maintain at all times a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and that the public are the police, the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence.
8.To recognise always the need for strict adherence to police-executive functions, and to refrain from even seeming to usurp the powers of the judiciary of avenging individuals or the State, and of authoritatively judging guilt and punishing the guilty.
9.To recognise always that the test of police efficiency is the absence of crime and disorder, and not the visible evidence of police action in dealing with them.

 

[Will Wiley]

What we have here is someone from a culture where you try to get away from the law rather than obey it-

What culture is that?

 

[fast]

You were proud? that sounds weird. Why would you be proud? Are you trying to be patronising?

No. I was not trying to be patronizing. Perhaps "refreshing" is a better word choice. I'll tell you what I wasn't proud of though: the way Patrick acted after being instructed to put his hands on the car. Sadly, as the bar of expectations are continually lowered by persistent wide-spread disobedience, I did not find his later behavior and actions refreshing-not one bit.

How do you know they didn't hear him?

I know they didn't hear him because all the evidence points to that fact. That's what makes my claim justified and helps set it apart from a mere belief. There was more than one officer. It was noisy. He responded meekly. He was asked the same question more than once. I even explained a good reason for why he said, "uh." Also, there was no good reason to think the officer didn't hear him. A general distrust of the police is too general to stand good as countervailing evidence.

That it might be possible he was not heard only shows that we cannot guarantee that I'm right, but the evidence supporting my claim is sufficient enough to stand good as justification for believing what I do.

You are obviously wrong. You are apologising for a bullying policeman who can't do the job.

Sack the policeman. Let him find a job he is suited to, and hire someone from the community.

I doubt I'm wrong, but even if I am, it's certainly not obvious. But no, I am not apologizing for the officer.

Let me try it a different way (which is probably a mistake because only a focused few will get it) THAT HAS NO semblance to this particular incident but might nevertheless help with the issue at hand.

If you were to intentionally antagonize an officer, and if you so happen to be black, then there will be instances where an officer will misbehave. An officer's misbehavior is not the fault of your antagonization. The misbehavior is independent of the antagonization, but there is a link. Less antagonization will yield a more positive result, just as less police misbehavior will be a more positive result.

In this hypothetical antagonization case, it's more reasonable to think race was not a factor inciting police misbehavior, but what I'm pointing out is the reasonable possibility that there is also something other than race that could be a causal factor in cases such as in the OP where there was no presence of initial antagonization-the decline in the acceptance of and instillment of authoritarianism.

Either way, I'm not giving justification for police misbehavior. I'm just saying that if there is prevalent police misbehavior skewed towards blacks, then there might be something else going on other than racist tendencies that isn't readily or easily identifiable.

I happen to think that moderate racists (those not extreme in their views like many from days of old) would actually have a tendency to repress a sudden urge to act on them. Police misbehavior towards blacks are doubtfully so wide-spread that their desire to be professional is over come by racial reasons. What likely causes misbahavior is an inability to cope with an increasing, intense, and persistent level of disobedience.

People need to start behaving. They need to listen and do what they are told to do. EVEN WHEN THEY HAVE DONE NOTHING WRONG. It needs to be a hell of an exception otherwise with outstanding reason. We might be inconvenienced, but the potential for a good outcome so far outweighs the bad that it's asinine to bulk authority on any and every principle you can muster simply to avoid listening.

Yes, training officers not to screw up will make for less police misbehavior, but how about we reduce the need for so damn many police that have to stay on edge with people who can't even fathom the idea (without question) of putting his fucking hands on the damn car!

I blame the community, schools, and parents for allowing the cultural shift sway so far left that we cannot even grasp the idea that listening when spoken to, especially by authority figures (wrong as they might sometimes be) to be a good thing.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

"Look hard enough?" We've ALREADY FOUND the solutions to this problem. Police departments all over the country have long since figured out that if you treat everyone with dignity and respect, if you practice effective communication, de-escalation tactics and encourage officers to value the rights, safety and LIVES of everyone they come into contact with, they STOP KILLING PEOPLE, and the community becomes less combative, less anxious, less nervous, and FAR less dangerous.
.

Where was that discovered? I have heard of some instances but can't recall exactly where? Thanks

Nashville being the biggest example that comes to mind, though I am aware of some VERY productive steps in Birmingham. Dallas too, ironically, made alot of steps to retain its officers in conflict resolution and de-escalation in the years leading up to the recent sniper attacks. And even their RESPONSE to those attacks has been relatively good compared to the paranoia and nail-chewing militarism we've started to see in departments that haven't even had that problem.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

"Look hard enough?" We've ALREADY FOUND the solutions to this problem. Police departments all over the country have long since figured out that if you treat everyone with dignity and respect, if you practice effective communication, de-escalation tactics and encourage officers to value the rights, safety and LIVES of everyone they come into contact with, they STOP KILLING PEOPLE, and the community becomes less combative, less anxious, less nervous, and FAR less dangerous.

In other words, you ACTUALLY live in a fantasy world where there are no solutions and we should just accept the way things are because this is as good as it's gonna get. And that is 100% BULLSHIT. Aside from your usual knee-jerk opposition to CHANGING ANYTHING AT ALL, it is also demonstrably false, and your opposition to even ATTEMPTING to change things is a drastically immoral proposition.

This really needs some evidence

It worked in Dallas. It worked in Nahsville. It's worked in the suburban towns bordering Chicago where communications and conflict resolution course time was moved from 9 hours to 20 hours in the past ten years (at the expense of firearms training, since those departments finally remembered that beat cops are NOT part of the SWAT team and don't need to moonlight as commandos).

Police have said as much themselves: The easiest way to avoid shooting innocent people is to train your officers not to treat every minor act of noncompliance as an excuse to pick a fight.

For example:

“Police work is very individualistic,” said Ben Kelly, 44, a 10-year veteran. “There’s 1,000 ways to do things, and you have to find a style that meshes with your personality.”

Among those interviewed was an officer whose "personality" prompted this:

“Last week, there was a guy in a car who wouldn’t show me his hands,” the officer said. “I pulled my gun out and stuck it right in his nose, and I go, ‘Show me your hands now!’ That’s de-escalation.”

There are, in other words, police officers who can't tell the difference between "de-escalation" and "thuggery." There are officers who think "conflict resolution" means "I beat you with a stick until you obey me. Conflict resolved!" These are the types of officers who are causing these problems. Other officers in the same situation manage to handle themselves WITHOUT abusing their suspects, WITHOUT violating people's rights or basic dignity, and WITHOUT behaving like a gaggle of half-cocked cowboys.

de-escalation tactics only work when you have time to use them.

Which, in this case, they had PLENTY of time. In fact, the vast majority of excessive force complaints are generated when officers HAVE the time but resort to the use of force anyway. A significant number of shootings have the exact feature, most notably Michael Brown, which escalated to violence because Daren Wilson couldn't be bothered to call for backup and instead tried to strong-arm Michael in a one-on-one confrontation he was physically and psychologically unequipped to handle.

Not every suspect on the street is a terrorist who is destined to blow up an entire mini-mall if he isn't stopped immediately. ALOT of these shootings are happening because the police use violence to control their suspects instead of actually communicating with them in any meaningful way.

Most police shootings go down very quickly

And where's your evidence for THAT? "Ambush attacks" against police are EXTRAORDINARILY rare; for that matter, even shootings of police officers are incredibly rare.

And when you actually look at the facts most of the controversial shootings turn out to be totally justified in my imagination

Fixed it for you.