Police power and impunity, how far should it go?

Remove all ads!

In the atmosphere of terrorist threat and media histeria, we've probably all been thinking about how far police powers should go. Should they have the power to arrest you, search you, whatever means of compulsion or control. But there's another aspect of the problem: how far the legal or purely de facto impunity goes. We surely have seen some examples of people suing the police for anything imaginable and I wouldn't be surprised to hear about a serial murderer suing cops for being called a bad mother****er during arrest. We've heard about dodgy trials in which the word of a criminal has been given more credit than that of a policeman. That's not quite good to say the least. But there are times and instances when there's no problem finding evidence (e.g. a camera record isn't exactly word vs word) and the abuse is more obvious than straining an arm during handcuffing (e.g. when cops beat a handcuffed person or kick on the head a person lying on the ground).

Personally, I believe cops should be fired if they have aggression control issues and they should be dishonourably discharged for things like taking it out on helpless detainees or softening people up for interrogation. If they get special protection (assaulting a cop is a big crime in probably all legal systems), they should be held to special standards. Cops are men of the law, not just bandits who are on our side and protect us from other bandits.

Basically, I believe:

1. Cops should be fired for even a single instance of:

- beating a hand-cuffed person who is not resisting
- beating or kicking on the head if there's no desperate need or danger (it's different when they need to knock a bandit unconscious during combat and when there are several cops arresting one person)
- intentional improper search, cavity control etc
- provoking the people being fought ot detained
- frivolous charge of assault of police officer (imagine a cop arrests a tipsy young guy and tells him who his mother was, then files a police officer assault charge, or when someone returns an unwarranted blow... they have even used that against women opposing search by male cops)
- basically any kind of intentional, unwarranted humiliating treatment

2. Wonder if anyone has ever pondered the idea, but because of the goals of the special protection of cops (respect for authority, uniform, national symbols etc), cops who provoke people should be tried for inciting police officer assault. After all, it's a police officer charge, not assault of John Smith who happens to be a cop charge, right? By provoking a person being arrested, cops commit the same kind of crime as if they incited a criminal to assault any other cop.

3. Cases not related to police service shouldn't protect cops more than other citizens. I've recently heard from a cop arresting his wife for assault of police officer just because he was technically on duty when she hit him during a marital quarrel. It's also ridicules how plainclothes officers love the assault charge.

4. People should have the same exemptions and exculpations as in the case of a normal assault, to the same extent and effect. Cold blooded assault on a cop may be a bigger crime, but a provoked one should basically be treated all the same as any other provoked assault. Applies to resisting arrest charges.

What do you think?

(As a bonus, you can watch this. Basically the picture of cops in the society nowadays. )

 

Pretty much agree with you on all points...

 

Agreed. We used to have problems with police brutality, especially against Catholics/Republicans.

 

I agree. Here, most polices think whatever they do is law and they are very brutal in some situations, especially in protests against government if the protesters are leftists. But if there are many protesters (like 50.000), they can't dare it. Because if they dare, they will be beaten very hard by protesters who hate police like me.

 

I agree there should be, but where would a judiciary that would implement be found. In most cases against the police even if the evidence is overwhelming, the judiciary do not sentence Police officers, as a for instance Ledley King.

 

Most of what you listed already is on the books in the U.S. at least, with one noteworthy exception.

In the U.S. verbal provocation is not going to get you off of an assault charge, and that's true regardless of whether it's the police or a person doing the provoking. "But he said mean things to me!" is not going to be a viable defense for hitting someone. If you are verbally provoked prior to committing an assault, that may be considered a mitigating factor in terms of what type of sentence you get, but you're still likely to be found guilty. Now physical provocation is an entirely separate matter.

There is one thing that I would like to see changed however. If a police officer isn't involved there are two types of assault. There is assault and simple assault. Simple assault is for a brief scuffle in which no one is seriously hurt. It carries a lesser sentence than regular assault. In the case of a police officer being involved, it is never considered simple assault, even if there was no serious injury done to the police officer.

 

I suppose verbal provocation hasn't been total defence from assault charge since the middle ages. But it should always be a mitigating factor, especially if the assaulted person is pressing the charges (and not the public prosecutor as in some legal systems).

Agreed on that. I understand a separate crime of assaulting a police officer, but not pretending it's more serious than it really is. Don't know... is it different state-by-state in the US? The guy I heard from arrested his wife for assaulting a police officer on duty (and his duty wasn't over because he hadn't informed the boss of coming home safely yet ).

In Poland, we have a group of crimes relating to public servants and officers. Assaulting a cop is a serious offence, so he sometimes drag you, prod you etc and when you prod back or something, you have just assaulted a police officer.

What I meant most particularly, though, is that a cop provoking an assault on himself should be tried for that. The special protection a cop gets is for a cup, not for Jack or Jamie who works at the police station, right? So when Jamie the Police Officer provokes Tom to clock one, then Jamie should be tried the same way as if he had provoked (incited) Tom to hit Frank the Police Officer. On duty, of course, because outside duty, it's still assault on Jamie or Frank, not a police officer. And we all know how some cops love provoking people to hit them.

 

Sort of. The example I gave was for my state. There are different terms, but it basically is the same principle that assaulting a police officer is always are bigger offense than assaulting someone else. For example, some states actually have a law "Assaulting a police officer" which is more serious than other types of assault.

I used to live in Pennsylvania, where the two assault charges were assault, and aggrevated assault. Assault was the minor one, and aggrevated assault was one were there was intent to cause severe physical harm. Striking a police officer was always considered aggrevated assault.

The officer who arrested his wife for assaulting a police officer while on duty has to be either the biggest jackass or pansy on the face of the earth. Clearly, this is more of a marital dispute than anything, and besides, how bad could she have possibly hit him, considering he's the one who has some type of weapon. I know not all officers carry handguns, but I imagine they all have some type of nightstick, or handcuffs, or something. I mean, as a police officer, shouldn't you be effectively able to restrain someone who is (in all likelihood) much smaller and much weaker than you are? I'd be embarassed to even admit that my wife got the best of me in such a situation, as I'd be concerned I'd lose my job for being completely incompetent.

 

The ideas are very sensible and I reckon the law in most democracies. The problem appears when it is time to decide what is warranted and not and so forth. Most of the time it is only the police and the victim/perpetrator at the scene.

 

/me resists the urge to quote Sodom's "F*** The Police" and Body Count's "Cop Killer"

As far as I'm willing to get involved in the debate, Chev makes good points, unsurprisingly.

 

I don't agree. I think Police are those who put themselves on the line to enforce law and order. Fact is they have to be powerful, nasty types that you don't want to mess with. If they're not then they wouldn't be good at their job. It's the whole "Have your cake and eat it too" idea. We expect police to show compassion and have emotions towards the people they protect and the people they arrest, yet that's the issue. You can't have only positive emotions, police are humans too, they have anger, hate, fear, jealousy as well as their positive emotions such as love and respect.

Put yourself in the policeman's shoes. You're arresting a person you _saw_ beat a helpless woman who is only just recovering from the assault. You attempt to arrest him but he fights back, after you and another officer manage to arrest him he calms down physically yet continues to hurl abuse in her direction, calling her offensive names, insulting her in any way that would be most hurtful towards the woman. Now picture that the woman is actually a person you know, a friend of yours who deserves no such abuse both physical and verbal... how can you resist NOT smacking the offender upside the head to shut him up? But apparently according to what chev is proposing, doing that would result in him losing his job?

I want the people who protect me to be tough on criminals, I want the police to fear nothing because the police are the meanest, toughest men on the streets. I've never had a bad run in with the police, I've always been polite and respectful to them, when asked a question I respond truthfully and with no hesitation.

As for provoking somebody into attacking them... why not? Sometimes to have the right to search somebody they need to have a cause for it, assault is a good enough cause. The crooks like to abuse the loopholes in the system so why can't the police use those loopholes to ensure criminals are discovered, convicted and punished?

If you know somebody is a policeman and you assault them it is assault on an officer. Plain and simple and it should warrent harsher punishments. It's not just an assault on a person, it's an assault at law enforcement. Last thing we want to do is make assault more-acceptable in any way shape or form. Police are like doctors, ambulance drivers and firemen, they 'save' lives and attacking one of those people needs to warrent higher punishment because these are people we want kept alive.

If you force police to play by even higher and higher standards of policing then the number of police will steadily decline. They are people. They have emotions.

 

A common citizen would be tried for assault or aggravated assault for doing the same. I find it quite astonishing that a person able to pass test for the high standards of self-control police job requires would hit someone for whatever verbal. Also, cops should be protecting all citizens the same, regardless if they are friends or not. They aren't the judges of who deserves what, either.

If you're into imagining, imagine a woman having fallen on the ground at a demonstration and still being kicked and beaten by berzerking policemen for shouting the wrong words and generally being on the wrong side. Imagine a girl who happens to wind up in the way of two bored male cops who suddenly conceive the idea she might be carrying drugs with her. Think of a guy who happens to be caught on the wrong side of the border without witnesses.

The meanest, really? Do you also want them to be the most ruthless and the least scrupled guys around? And then they are supposed to target only the criminals and be honest about it? What world is that?

That's the way, but politeness should go both ways.

The crooks like to kill, rob and rape people, so why shouldn't the police do that?

Next, inciting a crime is already a crime, but in case of people inciting others to commit a crime on them, it's not normally prosecuted. However, in case of a cop it should be, because in inciting that, he isn't inciting just a mere assault on his person, but on what he stands for as a policeman, which is the reason why assaulting him is a bigger crime than assaulting someone else. "Hit me if you dare," is one thing. "I'm a cop, you mother****er. *prod* *prod* *smack* Raise a finger on me and you'll rot in jail, son of a bitch, yadda yadda," is a whole different cup of tea.

Also, to ensure that criminals are prosecuted and punished, according to you, it would be sensible to turn a blind eye to cops commiting crimes and violating the law on duty? What's the difference between cops and criminals then?

Wrong. If you know he's a cop and you assault him with some relation to his job, it should be. If it's your friggin' brother or husband or son and there's no police link in the incident, not bloody close to warranting any kind of police officer assault charge.

Does that include the kind of assault cops commit when they can't restrain themselves?

Fireman on duty maybe, with some creative interpretation, but I've never seen a law meting out special punishment for assaulting a doctor. Lifeguards save lives. Some security guards do. Counselling people. Safety inspectors. Blood donors. Legions of people in a huge variety of public or private capacities.

That doesn't justify holding them to a more lenient standard than the average citizen. Withholding any further blows when someone is already down, disarmed and immobilised is "even higher?" Or not beating people during interrogations? Police is a kind of job that requires higher moral standards, greater self control and fuller awareness of the law than that of the average citizen. That's what cops are made for and paid for. If you want just another thug who's simply on your side instead of the other... There's a reason why the authorities don't hire one gang to exterminate another and protect the people for a change, right?

 

I never said berzerking. I said "smacking upside the head" and maybe a stern "shut your mouth!" but obviously that's going as far as breaking out the bezerker rage and pummeling a protester beneath workboots?

I don't want a bunch of law enforcement agents who are fearing for losing their job every second if they use a little force to deal with people who obviously had too much or didn't get enough of it when they were young.

Provoking somebody into attacking you isn't assaulting or stealing from them. We're talking about a police officer using the words "Just try it." not pointing a gun to somebody's head and saying "If you don't attack me I will shoot you."

This would be impossible to enforce. Every criminal that assaults an officer would make it a personal matter "I didn't like his ugly face" or "He was being an ass" or even "I felt like hitting somebody." would excuse any criminal of assault on an officer. It's going to work like this, you attack an officer while he's off-duty it's not assault on an officer, he strikes you back, he loses his job for police brutality. Being a police officer is a special type of job, even when the uniform is off, you're still a policeman and you are held to the standards of a policeman.

As for people who save lives, none do it more frequently than police, hospital staff and firefighters.

I'm not suggesting that you are more lenient on policemen but that you don't place more restictions on them, their job is already hard enough.

I admit there are lines that need to be drawn, attacking somebody who is on the ground and beating them to a pulp is obvious police brutality. But a thump upside the head, once, to get somebody to just shut the hell up or stop making a horrible noise, doesn't warrent said officer being fired. Police work isn't black and white, every case is different, every suspect and victim are never the same. Police shouldn't be held to a rigid set of rules, their heads of staff and commanders should issue the punishments to suit the situation, not some laws set in stone.

A flick to the ear is the same as a baton to the face according to assault. A policeman should lose his job for one, not both.

 

Mostly with Chev, but I also agree with Abom's points that it isn't always clear cut.
I certainly wouldn't class some of the examples in the video as Police Brutality - particularly the line of Policemen behind a barrier fighting back when they get charged by yobs. There are also a number of clips which show the police restraining people - no beatings.
However, most will agree that there are some instances there where the policeman involved should be put away.

 

I'm with Chev on this one. While it may make the technical definition of assault on a police officer, this didn't occur in the actual line of duty, but during a marital dispute. Despite the fact that he wasn't off duty yet, a marital dispute is certainly not a public matter. And I still say the guy is the biggest pansy cop I've ever heard of if he went crying back to the police station that his big, bad, mean wife beat him up.

You must have interpreted Chev's comments very differently that I did. By "personal" I think Chev was referring specifically to "familial" matters. The police officer can't immediately become anyone's father, brother, husband or son. So it wouldn't be a personal matter unless it fit that criteria. Police officers shouldn't even be acting in the capacity of an officer when family members are involved. He should have some other member of the force handle those calls. It's a clear conflict of interest, and no police officer is ever expected to go arrest a member of his own family.

All of these factors lead me to believe when you're talking aobut a familial dispute, regardless of whether the officer is in uniform or not, on duty or off, the fact that he is John the police officer is trumped by him being John the husband, John the son, or John the brother.

 

If you head someone on the head, it's more dangerous than just a slap on the arm. Even if you think you aren't putting too much strength in it. Striking in anger is not something a wielder of, let's say, public force, should do. The woman herself should have enough self-control to resist smacking him "upside the head", let alone a by-stander. A policeman is not a vigilante. He serves public justice in his capacity to prevent crime and bring criminals to the court. No kind of punishment is included in his duties unless it's specifically noted in the law, such as traffic fines or remonstration for petty misconduct

They obviously shouldn't fear to use guns or sticks in the sense of either incurring punishment from their superiors or getting beaten by criminals. But they should indeed fear to use overwhelming and unnecessary force in the sense of not being trigger happy and giving some thought to the injury they might cause.

Also, shooting or hitting back is different from hitting an already incapacitated person or one who is not resisting. If a cop hits a person who is not resisting, the cop should be fired along with court summons to answer for assault.

"If you don't attack me I will shoot you," is compelling, not provoking. If a cop really did that, the person who indeed attacked him would obviously have to be acquitted. In case of provocation, the provoked person still commits a crime, but the provoker answers for provoking. A cop provoking someone to strike him, so that he could then charge the person with assault of police officer, should answer for inciting an attack on police officer.

Same way, if you spit on the flag or hit a soldier in the national uniform, it tends to be a crime in most countries. Same way, if such a soldier were to provoke people into attacking him, he wouldn't be provoking them only to attack John or Francois or Hans the Soldier, but he would be provoking them to attack a soldier in the national uniform. The nature of the special protection cops receive is the same. Therefore a cop getting out of his skin to make people clock him one, such a cop should be tried for inciting the crime of assaulting a police officer.

Now you use the special standards of a policeman to justify his special protections under law. But you oppose my invoking those protections to justify the special standards. That's quite messed up.

Besides, a marital or sibling fight is so obviously not an assault on police officer it should go without saying.

And indeed, a cop should lose his job for wife beating or child abuse of any form, including "only" physical violence without sexual undertones. A person brutalising his family is 1) unable to fulfil the duties of a policeman, being a person unable to control himself, 2) unworthy of the dignity of uniformed service. It would be a ****ing joke if a wife beater were to serve as a minion of the law. He would arrest other people for beating their wives and then go back to his house to do the same? That's how you see it?

At least lifeguards do it more often than at least firefighters.

It's not a restriction if you make them answer for what they do. The standard is that a citizen who commits assault or battery, answers for assault or battery. Cops are either legally exempted or allowed to get away with way too much by their superiors or courts. And imagine how cops will love you if you file a complaint. Especially if they have already been beating you.

Including a student shouting, "Save the whales! Save the whales?"

I'm not talking about losing the job as a cop as punishment. I'm talking about the ability to serve as a policeman. Folks with aggression control issues or sadistic inclinations are not. A police stick is not a way of shutting someone up and neither is hitting him on the head. Police weapons are for defence, for attack when needed, but not for disciplining.

Being a cop doesn't give you the right even to the flick to the ear. There is only one situation to justify a policeman hitting someone: combat. Personally, I believe all criminals who fight policemen should answer for assault, battery, even an added charge of attempted homicide if applicable. A cop should be protected for what he does in combat unless I don't know... he shoots in the head a runaway pickpocket. Or slaps across the face with a rubber stick some aged drunkard he could easily trip and handcuff. But when combat is over, it's different. Also, I wouldn't have a problem with some 1000 protesters facing a normal trial for shouting obscenities at the police and each getting to sweep the streets for a month for that or a suspended sentence. But that still doesn't give police officers the right to take justice in their own hands.

Yeah, the video is one-sided. The most curious thing in it is not actual police brutality but rather the image of the police in the society. Fighting back is what cops should always do, even just to show the bullying smartasses that there will be resistance. This includes overwhelming force and even deadly force if the cop's life is threatened. I, for one, don't believe a cop should risk his life just so he could catch a violent, resisting criminal alive, and shooting an armed opponent in the legs or hand should never get a cop in trouble unless he has a gas pistol or can get away with just using a paralyser (and he should get the benefit of doubt). And I'd rather cops risked the life of 10 hostage takers than a single hostage or policeman, actually. But when cops start beating incapacitated people or women or old people, or having fun with dogs, that's something completely different. Violent criminals should be down and disarmed ASAP and I wouldn't sweat a couple of strained limbs or bruises or even actual wounds or broken bones in case of combat (and it's not like I'm going to complain if a gun-waving idiot gets shot down), but when combat has come to an end, there's no place for blows. Dragging or throwing people around isn't really needed, either.

Yeah. Maybe if the cop actually caught a family member red-handed, committing a real crime or destroying evidence, and was assaulted as a result, I would probably see it still as assaulting a police officer, but he would have to be acting in the official capacity. Means he would have to approach the family member practically the same as a normal criminal, including the badge, arrest formula and whatnot. Let's say you're a cop, even off duty and in civil clothes, you come into your barn and you see your one brother beating your other brother with a crowbar, so you order the bastard to drop it and tell him he's arrested, then he swings you one. That would be assault of police officer, contrary to when you just say, "Put it away, bro'". But a wife chasing you with a frying pan and you hiding behind your uniform? Not ever.

[ August 15, 2006, 15:07: Message edited by: chevalier ]

 

Actually, now that you bring up the charge of assault and battery, I have to ask if this is still a law on the books in many places?

Most states in the U.S. got rid of assault and battery. The reason for this is the punishment should be the same if you attempt to injure someone, regardless whether or not you succeed. For example, when assault and battery was still a crime, if you threw a rock at someone and missed, it was assault. If you threw a rock at someone and hit him in the head, it was assault and battery. So you were kind of rewarding the criminal with a lesser charge for having poor aim. So now, the only distinction is what level of harm you could have caused the person, regardless of whether or not your attack was successful or not.

The general standard is if you were using a weapon or not, and the extent of what you did. Generally speaking a regular fight with no weapons involved is going to be the lesser assault charge, unless it gets to the point where one of the fighters goes down, unable to defend himself, and the beating continues. If one of the people have a weapon, it's always the more serious charge and depending on the type of weapon you may even get charged with attempted murder. Heck, in Maryland even THREATENING someone with a weapon automatically gets you charged of the more serious assault.

Back on topic, I do believe that the police officer should be given the benefit of the doubt in most cases. He never should have to risk his own life or the life of citizens to take a violent criminal alive. And I even give the benefit of the doubt if the police officer shoots the violent criminal in the head, even if he could have shot him in the leg. The reason here is obvious: If the criminal has a gun, and you shoot him in the leg, he can still shoot at you.

All I'm saying is that most reasonable people should be capable of differentiating between when a police officer is acting in an official capacity and when he is acting as a father, son, brother, husband, whatever. When it comes to problems in personal relationships the occupations of the people involved is irrelevant. In fact, in the example of the woman being charged for assaulting an officer, when the officer involved happened to be her husband during a marital dispute casts the officer in an especially poor light. When one considers that the officer has probably been involved in situations where he had to calm people down in an arguement, and when one considers that the officer has been trained to restrain people without causing serious harm, it is extremely troubling that he would not use those other means at his disposal rather than involving the police force in an issue that was none of their business.