The Government Needs to Crackdown on Police Brutality [POLL]

As a weapons instructor (military), I'd like to point out that whoever decreed the taser a 'non-lethal' weapon should be shot in the nuts with it.

The official classification is LESS THAN LETHAL. The same used for rubber bullets, beanbags, airfoils, and the like. Even the PR-24 baton is considered a less than lethal device.

A buddy of mine who was a cop told me that being a police officer is 99% pure boredom. The same routine day in and day out. But that 1% that's not is the scariest, yet most exhilerating experience anyone could ever experience. He said 'it's like being a conductor on a train with the bridge out up ahead and you're not sure if the brakes will stop you in time. Even while you've accepted the fact that you're not in control, you have to appear as if you were.' After I spent almost 2 years in Iraq patrolling streets, I understood what he meant.

I say that to say this - we over-glamorize that 1 % too much. We give parades, awards, medals, make movies, and have repeatedly advanced and promoted people for their 'valor'. So then the equation becomes 'If I get in a shootout, I'll finally get promoted.' that leads to 'if I don't get into a shootout, I'll never get promoted." much the same as it was for us in 2006 - even though a combat fitrep wasn't a requirement, so many of your competitors had them that it actually became one.

Maybe instead we should glamorize the police who treat civilians as their equals, who remember that once upon a time they were the one sitting in the seat, sweating while they held out their drivers license and registration. Let's give a parade to an officer who makes the difficult moral decision to help someone in need. Let's put surveys on citations, and promote officers based on how the PUBLIC thinks they conduct themselves.

The same logic applies - if the officer who the public likes is the one who gets promoted, then if the public doesn't like you - you won't get promoted.

Fantastic topic. I absolutely agree that police are getting more and more out of hand with the brutality. Watch the way cops behave when they have a suspect, or when they are issuing a traffic ticket to someone and watch the way most of them seem like they are provoking the suspect or traffic violator. Too many of them act like they are itching to use their tasers or beat someone and that is NOT how police are supposed to behave. Police are supposed to resolve situations by making arrests or by issuing tickets. They are not supposed to agitate or escalate situations to where they become violent. I am also disgusted at how lately, riot police are called out when there are protests. We have the right to assemble and protest in this country and as long as the protestors have a permit, or are peaceful, there's no need to have riot police forcing people to leave a protest by shooting at them with rubber bullets, tasering them, or beating them with batons. Any law enforcement agents that turn the gun on, or beat their own fellow Americans for protesting are TRAITORS .

Now MY perspective is probably NOT going to be what you are looking for.

I HAVE had the police do the "billy club ballet" on my head in the past.

I FREELY admit that I DESERVED it!!!!!

I just got fed up with these chumps that start acting all big and bad AFTER they put the cuffs on.

Up until that point I had "played the game" the way you are supposed to, all "Yes Sir," and "No Sir". Then when they put the cuffs on they decided that suddenly they were bad-azzes and started making out of live comments.

So I gave back several cutting comments to them. Comments along the lines of "Did any of your mothers OTHER children actually survive?", and questions about their mental capacity and manhood.

YES, I PROVOKED them. Not a good idea while in cuffs!!!!

But it is what it is, I hold nothing against them, I just consider them(the ones involved) to be less than men.

Saw it before in N. Georgia when I was in the military, they beat the snot our of a buddy that had been arrested. In that case IMO it was THEIR fault that it happened, after all if they had done a good search of him before throwing him in the cell they would have found the firecrackers that he pissed them off by throwing at them from his cell.

Now what really pissed myself and the others in my unit off, is NOT that they beat him(he deserved it) but that they left all the marks on him that they did.

After all he WAS "asking for it".

I'm kind of on the fence with this. I have family in law enforcement from the local to federal level. I, myself, in my misbegotten youth was on the other side. Do they have the right to butalize someone? Of course not. But lets take a look at the criminals you have today.

1984, a find of mine, stopped a car for speeding. He was highway patrol. Walked up to the car and was shot in the throat. The man stood over him and shot him five more times.

1987, an off duty police officer, walked into a grocery store...shot point blank in the chest with a shot gun. He was medically retired...he's also my cousin.

Think back to Rodney King. We seen four cops just wailing on him. But how many know that King was just released from prison and high on PCP?

The problem we have, IMO, is that we have a criminal element in this country that just don't care who they hurt. And they have the fire power to back it up. Take any state in the union, research what your gang population is, and then figure in the total number of police officers you have.

How many times do they lay their life on the line for us? Sure they should be held respondsible for their actions, but my belief is...we need to be in their shoes before we judge them.

Way to many people want to judge. Most everyone in my family is in Law Enforcement or the Military. I have gone out on many ride alongs with my family and friends. I have never once seen with my eyes any officer that i have been with or other officers i was around cross the line. I am not saying it does not happen because we all know it does. What upsets me is so many people want to " Judge " all officers because a few and i mean few bad apples. Like i said there are bad apples but they a far and few between on most cases. I would like to see others that are so fast to Judge walk in their shoes or at least do a ride along. Then just maybe they would see what the job is really like.

I don't know if instances of 'police brutality' and misconduct have become more commonplace, or if we are just more aware of them because more civilians have access to portable video equipment. In either case, it is obviously a serious problem that needs to be addressed.

If a subject is violent in any way, a cop has the right to subdue and restrain that subject; however, in one of these videos I saw a police officer refusing to answer a civilian's seemingly reasonable question, then dragging her from her vehicle after ordering her to get back in, using a taser to force her to the ground when she was obviously scared, confused and attempting to be compliant. No police officer has the right to treat a citizen in this manner.

After going back and reading some responses, I'd like to add a little more to this mix. I grew up in and around New Orleans (50's and 60's). Were they brutal? Sure they were. But I think we need to remember something. Normally all we see is what is on the news, so unless we are there from start to finish, there's only one side to it.

But for the meat of my comment:

Part I
The Taser must be banned from Police usage: My first question would be, what do you suggest they use instead? You take this away, and right off the bat it's either the baton or the gun.

Part II
Police may never use force that can result in bodily harm against Civilians unless the civilian is fleeing from capture or is attempting to assault the officer(s).

This looks good on paper, but in most cases the perp has already hurt someone else, an innocent, or has made up his/her mind they are not going easy. And most of the time this is when a cop will get jammed up.

Part III
The police may NEVER inflict bodily harm against a peaceful suspect that is restrained, in police custody or not under arrest.

IMO, if there was a case of a "peaceful" suspect, I don't think we'd be having this discussion. I'm seen them smash their faces in the hood of the squad car, fighting so bad it takes four or five officers to put them in, in the first place. As for those NOT under arrest, the only time I've seen or heard of them getting hurt, is when they don't like the fact that the cops are arresting their friends. Mardi Gras in New Orleans is a real good example.

Part IV
Lethal force would not be allowed unless the suspect shot was armed and/or a threat to the public.

Surprisingly enough, taking a life isn't as easy as most people would like to think. It's easy to pull the trigger, the problem is living with what you've done. Maybe that's the difference between the good guys and the bad guys. In all fairness, I'd love to know what the total number of police officers who've actually had to fire their weapons, and the circumstances behind it.

Part V
ALL instances of force that results in bodily harm or death must be reported to the federal government for review and an investigation into the legality of the force used; noncompliance will result in criminal actions and illegal force will be grounds for immediate termination.

My question would be this. Who would comprise the review board? Those in law enforcement, lawyers, ACLU, minority groups...? The only ones, IMO, who could (or should) have the right would be those that are in law enforcement.

Part VI
Police officers must give appropriate help to suspects in police custody if requested; denial of medial treatment will result in termination of the officers involved and possible criminal actions.

This one is close to my heart, July 15, 1983. Cops were chasing a carload of teens, when they flew through an intersection...T-boned a lady and her three kids. The cops rushed to make sure the woman and her kids were ok. In the process one of the teens died from injuries, and the parents tried to sue. Oh, yeah, the lady lost two of her children. IMO, those teens could have all died, that could have my wife, my kds or grand kids. I think that a long hard look, not only at those the perp puts in danger with their running.

Part VII
Police officers can not force citizens out of their vehicles unless they do not possess a driver's license or are violating laws related to alcohol intoxication. No exceptions and the officer must go to court to prove that the citizen was legally forced to exit his/her vehicle.

I think the main reason for this...no surprises...for the officer. You've got two or three or more in a car, you want the officer to beat his life their isn't a gun somewhere? But if they have nothing to hide, what's the problem? It's been done to me, a number of times. Once with a 12 gauge in the back seat, of course I was smart enough to have the shells in the truck. But the point is, common sense tells you...you doing nothing wrong, go with the flow.

Part VIII
Any failure of an officer to legally determine that force was needed against a citizen with accordance with Parts (I-V and VII) would result in a dismissal of all charges against the civilian(s) involved in court.

And we are talking....what...two, maybe three seconds...maybe? IMO, a lot of this needs to go back to where it belongs...on the perp. Again, the officer is doing his job to protect me and you, from the crazies out there. Do you think that those that break the law, really care who they hurt?

Part IX
All civilian reports of Police Brutality must be investigated and taken seriously by the federal government with no exceptions.

I totally agree with this, but on the same token, those that file the charges...and if these charges are found to be without warrent...then that person goes to jail...period. This can only work if ilt's a level playing field.

Sorry this is so long but thought this was something we should also look at.

When the time comes and Obama unleashes his Gestapo force on Americans, what then? You remember him saying: "We’ve got to have a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded."

What will we be writing/chatting about then? Heck there might not even be a press then; except for what might be passed off as a close resemblance to Pravda.

If only this Country would take care of its Citizenry and borders the way other Countries do, we might not be having this discussion. Back in the day, it was plenty politically correct to open a can of whoop-ass if necessary! We need to get back to that mind-set and get ourselves back on the track to respectability. Thanks, Polka14

When our kids were growing up we(wife and I) were quickly told about child abuse. This was our answers:

1. A closed fist to the face....child abuse. An open hand to their butts...learning experience.

2. All they had to do was call the police and have us arrested for child abuse: a. What makes you think you'll make it to the phone. b. The whipping starts when you hang up, and stop when they get here.

They got alot of the open hand....never pushed their luck with the second.

I can no more accept that ALL police are out there with nothing more on their minds, than to break heads. No more than I can accept that everyone is out to break as many laws as they can get away with.

I find it interesting that your quoted "sources" are organizations that LOOK for police brutality...Do they also keep track of good cops? Do they provide numbers of "brutal" officers per total number of officers? These are important facts which I am afraid might shoot down your THEORY of rampant police brutality.

The (my guess would be) >1% of officers who commit brutality are the ONLY officers to make the news....think about it.

I believe that many (not all) "peace" officers let their privileged authority go to their head and they forget that they themselves are citizens of equal but not more value to those they police. Who pays the fortunate "peace" officers good salaries and benefits? That would be all of us working folk who get treated like piss ants by "peace" officers. "Peace" officers need to remember that it is a privilege and not an entitlement to serve "peace". If "peace" officers have a problem with treating the public as their equal, then they should resign immediatly. These type of "peace" officers are not desired by the public who are responsible for all "peace" officers' highly competitive wealth and benefits. Compared to working folk salaries, "peace" officers are living the afluent good life. The peace officer that acknowledges his/her authority to serve the public is indeed a privilidge should educate the "peace" officers that think they are entitled. Maybe many of the undesirable attitudes held by many "peace" officers will dissipate when the true peace officers are rewarded with positions of authority within the police department. Meaning those in charge should have a complete awareness of this privilege and their obligation as public servants of peace and not the awareness of a "peace" officer with gun, power and entitlements.