4 ms·

>I wouldn't be surprised to find out their General Orders demand decisive force once a situation escalates They demand compliance. If the officer does not have

>I wouldn't be surprised to find out their General Orders demand decisive force once a situation escalates They demand compliance. If the officer does not have compliance he is legally required to gain it by escalating up the force scale. According to the police manuals, in the event of non-violent non-compliance, non-lethal force should be used such as pepper-spray or taser until compliance is gained. The charge of assaulting an officer probably came into effect after the writer was pepper-sprayed. The police probably tried to subdue him and he struggled - struggling often counts as assaulting an officer. And people who are getting tasered and pepper-sprayed often struggle out of instinct.

mcantelon 17y ago
According to a ex-cop relative of mine, when police assault people they fairly routinely charge those they've assaulted because it covers their asses if the person files a complaint or wants to sue. If it goes to court the word of the police generally has more weight than a the average person's.
- jacquesm 17y ago
  I think you've just given me excellent reason to believe that you're already living in a police state. If that sort of thing is 'routine' you've got a real problem.
  - mcantelon 17y ago
    Agreed. This recent story says a lot about the degree to which Canadian police are above the law: http://tr.im/Hs1M http://tr.im/Hs1M
derefr 17y ago
What about a non-violent non-compliance where it's still too risky to attempt even non-lethal force? For example, what if a person gets out of their car holding a baby?
- forensic 17y ago
  Tasers and pepper spray would probably not be considered non-lethal against babies. Cops would be expected to show restraint I think. But I'm speculating.
pyre 17y ago
> According to the police manuals, in the event of non-violent non-compliance, non-lethal force should be used such as pepper-spray or taser until compliance is gained. If this is the case everywhere then it should be make public knowledge. Because there are a lot of people that feel they have the right to argue with an officer as long as they are not being physical. I have a suspicion that if that ever was released as knowledge to everyone there would be a lot of political movement to limit the extents of it.
- forensic 17y ago
  You can argue as long as you do it in the context of complying with police orders. The law has been this way for literally millennia. And it's totally publicly available information. Why are American schools so bad? Why does the media fail to teach anyone anything?
  - dan_the_welder 17y ago
    Agreed. Be polite, contrite if necessarily, to LEOs to get clear of the situation. Deal with the injustice later, unless you are ready to go all the way and do it the hard way. Schools are bad because school funding is flawed. All the metrics and standardized testing cannot fix a broken foundation. It's not the media's job to teach. It's the media's job to generate the most possible advertising income.
- dan_the_welder 17y ago
  In my experience there are plenty of police that don't even know the law. I used to carry around a copy of the the Florida statues, the same version that the police have in the trunk of their cruisers which they could refer to if they actually gave a shit and did not just want to harass cyclists because they are having a bad day. They make stuff up all the time. It's shameful. Before you get all "Oh, you must be one of those jerks!". I would like to say that by not getting pissed off you can spontaneously create a relationship with a law enforcement officer and actually get them on your side. This actually takes a tremendous amount of self control, which we are not capable of at all times, since we are all fallible humans. However in most cases law enforcement works for us, we pay their salaries to protect us (sometimes from ourselves) not to abuse us. The circumstance of being a non-citizen at the border is of course different but in a larger sense is the same. If you anger your neighbor enough times then they will seek a remedy through a higher authority. The solution is using the law. Every time government agents abuse their authority they must be sued, if there is to be law then it must be the tool we all use. If there was abuse of authority in this case then there is a legal remedy to be sought. I don't want to live in a police state. I have some personal responsibility, as does everyone else, in preventing that from happening.

mcantelon 17y ago

According to a ex-cop relative of mine, when police assault people they fairly routinely charge those they've assaulted because it covers their asses if the person files a complaint or wants to sue. If it goes to court the word of the police generally has more weight than a the average person's.

jacquesm 17y ago
I think you've just given me excellent reason to believe that you're already living in a police state. If that sort of thing is 'routine' you've got a real problem.
- mcantelon 17y ago
  Agreed. This recent story says a lot about the degree to which Canadian police are above the law: http://tr.im/Hs1M http://tr.im/Hs1M

derefr 17y ago

What about a non-violent non-compliance where it's still too risky to attempt even non-lethal force? For example, what if a person gets out of their car holding a baby?

forensic 17y ago
Tasers and pepper spray would probably not be considered non-lethal against babies. Cops would be expected to show restraint I think. But I'm speculating.

pyre 17y ago

> According to the police manuals, in the event of non-violent non-compliance, non-lethal force should be used such as pepper-spray or taser until compliance is gained. If this is the case everywhere then it should be make public knowledge. Because there are a lot of people that feel they have the right to argue with an officer as long as they are not being physical. I have a suspicion that if that ever was released as knowledge to everyone there would be a lot of political movement to limit the extents of it.

forensic 17y ago
You can argue as long as you do it in the context of complying with police orders. The law has been this way for literally millennia. And it's totally publicly available information. Why are American schools so bad? Why does the media fail to teach anyone anything?
- dan_the_welder 17y ago
  Agreed. Be polite, contrite if necessarily, to LEOs to get clear of the situation. Deal with the injustice later, unless you are ready to go all the way and do it the hard way. Schools are bad because school funding is flawed. All the metrics and standardized testing cannot fix a broken foundation. It's not the media's job to teach. It's the media's job to generate the most possible advertising income.
dan_the_welder 17y ago
In my experience there are plenty of police that don't even know the law. I used to carry around a copy of the the Florida statues, the same version that the police have in the trunk of their cruisers which they could refer to if they actually gave a shit and did not just want to harass cyclists because they are having a bad day. They make stuff up all the time. It's shameful. Before you get all "Oh, you must be one of those jerks!". I would like to say that by not getting pissed off you can spontaneously create a relationship with a law enforcement officer and actually get them on your side. This actually takes a tremendous amount of self control, which we are not capable of at all times, since we are all fallible humans. However in most cases law enforcement works for us, we pay their salaries to protect us (sometimes from ourselves) not to abuse us. The circumstance of being a non-citizen at the border is of course different but in a larger sense is the same. If you anger your neighbor enough times then they will seek a remedy through a higher authority. The solution is using the law. Every time government agents abuse their authority they must be sued, if there is to be law then it must be the tool we all use. If there was abuse of authority in this case then there is a legal remedy to be sought. I don't want to live in a police state. I have some personal responsibility, as does everyone else, in preventing that from happening.