Rise of the Warrior Cop

[PSM]

Originally Posted by blacksmoke

I believe the officer was wrong in this case. The woman was sitting in her car, not a threat, and smoking the entire time. It isn't until he paused because he became upset that the cigarette became an issue. A cigarette in a bar fight and a woman at a traffic stop can in no way be compared. She was obviously not a threat. If she was the whole story would be different. That was a cowardly act in my opinion.

I'd hate to be on a jury with you. You are one of those people that attach like a barnacle to an opinion and will not be moved regardless of the evidence or law.

Pat

[blacksmoke]

I specifically put the conversation verbatim in the thread between the officer and Ms. Bland. Having spent a few years in an MP unit and knowing the attitude that some police have "I'll find a reason to arrest if I want" I feel strongly that her arrest was unwarranted, even illegal. John Stossel also had a special about police arresting citizens for no good reason, having to release them sometimes days later, and there being NO LEGAL RECOURSE against the offending officer.

[plato]

Originally Posted by blacksmoke

She was obviously not a threat. If she was the whole story would be different. That was a cowardly act in my opinion.

She was willing to die to "get her point across". But, she wouldn't have burned someone's hand?

Simply handing her a traffic citation required being physically close. It's his duty to do that. Bar, car, or whatever location, there's no reason NOT to put something aside that can cause injury.

I'll not argue further with your viewpoint, though I worked with about 80 other officers who would have issued similar instructions to the driver.

[mugwump]

Originally Posted by plato

I'll not argue further with your viewpoint, though I worked with about 80 other officers who would have issued similar instructions to the driver.

Then there are about 80 officers who should quit and find new jobs.

I was recently in a situation where a 24 yo young man in our upper middle class neighborhood, a diagnosed schizophrenic off his meds, was acting in a way that frightened his parents. We all gatherered around from the commotion and when his mom said "I can't handle him, I think I should call the police!", one neighbor blurted out "No! They'll shoot him!"

You make take solace that your co-workers think the way you do, but you've lost the trust of your constituency. When it's "us against them" and the "them" includes right-wing conservatives, maybe you should reconsider your approach.

[plato]

Originally Posted by Broadsword2004

Just curious, but for certain orders, could it maybe help if the officer explained to the person why they need them to follow the order for officer safety, and then if the person still refuses, go from there? For example:

Officer: "Ma'am, I need you to put out your cigarette."

Woman: What a ridiculous order. Stupid officer on a power trip. "I don't want to put out my cigarette."

Officer: "Ma'am, the reason I need you to put out your cigarette is for officer safety. Officers have been burned by people with cigarettes and had them flicked at their faces. It is not me trying to make your day harder."

Then go from there...?

There are options. One is to approach an individual as a "law enforcement machine". The other is to approach as an equal human. Each has it's drawbacks.

The very authoritative individual (command presence, in PD terms) is statistically challenged less often as that which transpires is not "personal". That seems to work best with those who have a chip on their shoulder or who are accustomed to fighting with their equals.
The understanding human is getting down to a personal level of "let's discuss this", which in some ways is an invitation to argue, or at least seems to lead to more arguments and the citizen possibly taking the interaction as a personal affront.

And the trick is to size up the person and situation within the first few seconds.

The response to "Officers have been burned by people with cigarettes and had them flicked at their faces." could have been "Oh, I see.", and de-escalation, or "Do I look like that kind of person?", with the interaction going downhill.

The other trick is to be right every time.

[plato]

Originally Posted by mugwump

Then there are about 80 officers who should quit and find new jobs.

You make take solace that your co-workers think the way you do, but you've lost the trust of your constituency. When it's "us against them" and the "them" includes right-wing conservatives, maybe you should reconsider your approach.

Perhaps a rather sweeping assertion.

LEOs are seldom called to pay someone a compliment. Usually there's a conflict between persons or an illegal act. If you see "put down the cigarette, scissors, knitting needle" as an atrocity, so be it.

And, yes, if someone is acting in an aggressive and frightening way, then your local PD is likely to have officers whose response includes preserving their own lives. Dangerous people aren't part of the PD's "constituency". The idea of sacrificing your life if the aggressor is "really a nice boy", isn't part of the deal.

And, it would make recruiting for the job a real B*tch.

[GratefulCitizen]

Militarization of the police is a symptom.
What are the causes?

IMO, chief among them is that the scale/scope of their mission is far too large.

Not every problem requires a law/regulation as a solution.
Not every violation of law/regulation requires police enforcement as a solution.

Big government is big government, even at the local level.

[blacksmoke]

Anyone upset about a traffic ticket while holding a cigarette is a dangerous individual....Any time an officer has the authority to arrest someone they're in the right. We all witnessed this confrontation, the woman wasn't a threat. Trying to argue and reason otherwise is part of the reason we have this thread. He arrested her out of spite, but then again, he is a police officer, they can do that. Also I should add, a state of affairs where you feel comfortable telling a large group of adults that it is dangerous to hand a ticket to a person with a cigarette, for the officer involved, and they can arrest you if they feel threatened, knowing we all witnessed the exact encounter is very telling about the mentality police have toward the citizenry.

Tell me its probable that the officer was in danger, and I'll be convinced that the woman should have been arrested. Telling us "she was willing to die for her cause" is rediculous, without evidence she was an insurgent operative, not just some troubled woman who was looking for a better life.

[Bleed Green]

Call it the way that I was brought up combined with watching this over the course of the last 30 years. Just because you think it is illegal, unfair, biased or whatever it is just a cold hard fact that you running your mouth is more than likely going to lead to somebody laying hands on you followed by cuffs and there is a more than probable chance that you will be headed to the nearest jail cell. If you insist on being a road side Clarence Darrow, the chances of you getting arrested increase exponentially as you are not the one who is driving the bus that you, by your illegal actions, put yourself on in the first place.

[Pete]

Originally Posted by Bleed Green

... it is just a cold hard fact that you running your mouth is more than likely going to lead to somebody laying hands on you followed by cuffs and there is a more than probable chance that you will be headed to the nearest jail cell. If you insist on being a road side Clarence Darrow, the chances of you getting arrested increase exponentially as you are not the one who is driving the bus that you, by your illegal actions, put yourself on in the first place.

Who would have thought running your mouth is illegal these days.

Kneel and kiss the ring you peasants.

[RCummings]

Interesting take on the story, from TPM,

As the video of Sandra Bland’s arrest makes its way into homes and offices around the country, people are aghast that the failure to use a turn signal led to a woman’s arrest and, ultimately, her death by what officials have identified as suicide. People want to know if the officer’s actions—asking that Bland put out her cigarette and demanding that she step out of her car—were legal. But that’s the wrong question. Instead, we should be asking whether it was good policing.

As a former police officer, and now as a legal scholar who studies policing, I know the law is not a moral compass. An officer’s actions can be entirely lawful, and yet fail to meet the high standards that we should expect from our law enforcement professionals, our community guardians. When we focus on whether the police acted lawfully, we are missing the chance to ask whether they acted appropriately. As I watch the dash camera video of the traffic stop, I can’t help but think of the distinction between lawful policing and rightful policing.

Here’s what we see in the video: After issuing a warning ticket in an earlier traffic stop, Trooper Brian Encinia is driving through an intersection to within several car lengths of a vehicle in front of him, Sandra Bland’s car. Seconds later, Bland changes from the left lane to the right lane, but she does so without signaling. Within ten seconds, Encinia pulls behind her and activates his overhead lights (this is when the audio recording comes online, which happens automatically when the lights are activated). About 20 seconds after the lane change, Bland has pulled over.

The initial portion of the traffic stop is entirely unremarkable. Encinia walks up to the passenger-side window—not an unusual approach—and identifies the reason for the stop before asking for Bland’s driver’s license and insurance. He asks her a few questions—how long she has been in Texas (“Got here yesterday”) and where she’s headed (“Work”). He asks Bland for her driver’s license a second time. Although neither Encinia nor Bland sound happy, both are polite. He calls her “ma’am.” She answers his questions and apologizes for not providing her driver’s license, which she thought she had already handed him. He says, “Give me a few minutes, alright?” before walking back to his car.

Almost five minutes later, Encinia walks up to the driver’s side of Bland’s car carrying a ticket book. Almost immediately, he sees something that makes him ask, “You okay?” When Bland tells him that she’s waiting on him, he replies, “You seem very irritated.” She is, and she explains why: She switched lanes because she saw him accelerating behind her and wanted to let him pass. “So, yeah, I am a little irritated,” she says. “But that doesn’t stop you from giving me a ticket.”

It is right here that Encinia has an opportunity to alleviate some of the tension of the encounter. He could, for example, thank her for moving out of the way, but explain how important signaling is, especially near an intersection. He could let her know that he has written her a warning, not a ticket (a fact that does not become clear until much later in the encounter). He could try to connect with her on a personal level, perhaps by telling her that he’d hate to welcome her to Texas with a traffic ticket.

In short, he has a chance to engage with Bland in a way that reduces antagonism and builds goodwill. It isn’t hard, and can be summed up in three words: Receive, respect, respond. Receive what someone is telling you, respect their position, and respond appropriately.

But he doesn’t. Instead, Encinia is silent. A couple of seconds pass. Then he says, “Are you done?” Those three short words send a powerful signal: “What you said does not matter.” This is the first failure in this encounter. It is not a legal failure—there is no law that requires officers to meaningfully engage with people—but it is a failure nonetheless. It is a missed opportunity for good policing.

Encinia next asks Bland to put out her cigarette. Notice that I use the word “asks.” There is a difference between a command and a request. A command is an order that the officer has legal authority to enforce. Failing to comply with a command can result in arrest or, if necessary, the use of physical force to overcome resistance. A request is altogether different; a preference that the officer would like someone to voluntarily accede to, but lacks the legal authority to require. Asking Bland to put out the cigarette she was smoking while sitting in her own car was a request, and one that she was well within her rights to decline.

When Bland refuses to put out her cigarette, Encinia orders her out of her car, saying, “Well, you can step on out now.” This was a command. In a 1977 case, Pennsylvania v. Mimms, the Supreme Court held that officers can, at their discretion, order a driver to exit the vehicle during a traffic stop (a later case expanded the rule to other vehicle occupants). That rule was justified, the Mimms Court said, because the importance of officer safety outweighs what the Court saw as the “mere inconvenience” of having to exit one’s vehicle. Although the rule is grounded in safety, officers do not need to articulate any safety concerns or any other reason in each case; they have carte blanche to require someone to exit a vehicle during the course of a traffic stop. Encinia had the authority to order Bland to exit her vehicle.

But even though it was lawful, it was not good policing. If Encinia was exercising his authority because Bland had refused to comply with his request to put out her cigarette, he was doing so to demonstrate his control over both her and the encounter itself. That is pure ego, and ego has no place in modern policing.

To be fair, I don’t know Encinia’s reasons for having Bland step out of the car. Perhaps he would have done so regardless, even if she hadn’t been smoking, although the video suggests otherwise (he did not have the driver step out during the previous stop, and he did not put his pen away and his ticket pad down until after Bland refused to put out her cigarette, indicating that he was originally planning on talking over the warning ticket while she sat in her car). Regardless, it is problematic when officers focus on compliance—expecting people they interact with to be entirely deferential—to such an extent that they neglect cooperation, which must be earned.

Imagine the potential change in the tone of the encounter if Encinia had said, “You’re right, you don’t have to, and I’m sorry to ask, but cigarette smoke sets off my asthma. Would you mind putting it out or in the ashtray, please, just while I’m talking to you?” Or if, upon hearing her refusal, he had simply acknowledged it and turned to the warning ticket. Either way, he would have been signaling to Bland that he respected her control over at least some aspects of the encounter, rather than demanding she recognize his dominance.

This is a particularly important point to keep in mind given the potential for race, gender and class dynamics to affect police encounters. We all—officer and civilian, black and white—have implicit and unconscious biases that affect the way we perceive the world and how we set our expectations. For example, officers may expect more deference from a black woman driving an older car than they do from a white attorney in an expensive D.C. neighborhood. And as a result, they may react to a lack of deference very differently.

When Encinia ordered Bland to exit her vehicle, she refused. “I don’t have to step out of my car.” Rather than handling the remainder of the stop with her sitting in the car, or explaining why he wanted her to step out of the car, or attempting to obtain her cooperation, or calmly explaining the law, Encinia simply invoked his legal authority, shouting at one point, “I gave you a lawful order.” He was right. It was lawful. And when Bland did not obey, she was refusing a lawful order, a crime under Texas law. Her arrest, like the confrontations that led up to it, may have been lawful, but it was entirely avoidable had Encinia chosen a different approach.

We all deserve more than legal policing. We deserve good policing.

Seth Stoughton is a law professor at the University of South Carolina, where he is affiliated with the Rule of Law Collaborative. He served as a police officer and investigator for more than seven years. Follow him on Twitter @PoliceLawProf.

[plato]

Originally Posted by blacksmoke

Anyone upset about a traffic ticket while holding a cigarette is a dangerous individual.... Also I should add, a state of affairs where you feel comfortable telling a large group of adults that it is dangerous to hand a ticket to a person with a cigarette, for the officer involved, and they can arrest you if they feel threatened, knowing we all witnessed the exact encounter is very telling about the mentality police have toward the citizenry.

I'll simplify that for you. "Anyone is a dangerous individual". Easier?

I have a liberal nephew (where did we go wrong? ) We had a disagreement over an officer who shot a man approaching him with a knife.
His argument was that 9 times out of 10, a man with a knife can be safely disarmed by someone well trained. (possibly right, his assertion, not mine).

His sister married a police officer, and hubby's question to him was "So, if I face that situation 50 times in my years on the force, how is that going to work out for me?"

You have some "great solutions" for police work. Do you have a good answer for hubby-cop's question?

I pop the circuit breakers downstairs, and then treat the outlet as if it's live. I take my grandkids to a park, and watch every nearby adult as if they're a potential predator. I haven't had a flat tire in years, and air up my spare regularly.

And, during 364 days in the jungle, nobody shot me. That "other" day was a B*tch.

So, if you can identify which day, which person, which relaxed approach is going to be "the one" that puts you in the hospital, you'd make a great cop.

Otherwise, after a few years and sharing the experiences of the "old-timers", you'd be a lot like the rest of the guys on the force, I'd wager.

[Bleed Green]

Originally Posted by Pete

Who would have thought running your mouth is illegal these days.

Kneel and kiss the ring you peasants.

I would not have thought it was illegal last time I heard a hammer pulled back as I was told one more word and my head was going to be blown off. That was the Disney version mind you all for 57 in a 55 and me trying to get out of the car since I had weapons carried legally in plain view. That was my lesson in releasing things my dad had taught me. The Clarence Darrow act played much better with the Lt. That was in 88 and I haven't forgot it again...

[blacksmoke]

Originally Posted by plato

I'll simplify that for you. "Anyone is a dangerous individual". Easier?

I have a liberal nephew (where did we go wrong? ) We had a disagreement over an officer who shot a man approaching him with a knife.
His argument was that 9 times out of 10, a man with a knife can be safely disarmed by someone well trained. (possibly right, his assertion, not mine).

His sister married a police officer, and hubby's question to him was "So, if I face that situation 50 times in my years on the force, how is that going to work out for me?"

You have some "great solutions" for police work. Do you have a good answer for hubby-cop's question?

I pop the circuit breakers downstairs, and then treat the outlet as if it's live. I take my grandkids to a park, and watch every nearby adult as if they're a potential predator. I haven't had a flat tire in years, and air up my spare regularly.

And, during 364 days in the jungle, nobody shot me. That "other" day was a B*tch.

So, if you can identify which day, which person, which relaxed approach is going to be "the one" that puts you in the hospital, you'd make a great cop.

Otherwise, after a few years and sharing the experiences of the "old-timers", you'd be a lot like the rest of the guys on the force, I'd wager.

My argument stems from the fact that she already had been smoking, must have been because he doesn't say "don't light that up", and decided to have her step out after she gives him some lip. She seems distraught, she doesn't have a knife. she is sitting in her car. I don't see evidence she's going to pull a Jim West move on the cop. And another question to ask. If she simply stepped out, and got detained/searched/arrested, what what have been the reason? What defense against unlawful search and siezure does she have? Oh I pulled her out becasue she was smoking...

[PSM]

Originally Posted by blacksmoke

My argument stems from the fact that she already had been smoking, must have been because he doesn't say "don't light that up", and decided to have her step out after she gives him some lip. She seems distraught, she doesn't have a knife. she is sitting in her car. I don't see evidence she's going to pull a Jim West move on the cop. And another question to ask. If she simply stepped out, and got detained/searched/arrested, what what have been the reason? What defense against unlawful search and siezure does she have? Oh I pulled her out becasue she was smoking...

You are starting to read like a troll. Some here have posted their arguments supporting the officer asking her to put out her cigarette, others have countered, and the rebuttals have been presented. It should end at that since no minds will be changed.

Yet, you have not addressed her comments about moving to Texas to "stop all of the injustices in the South". (Lofty goal for one young lady, wouldn't you think?) And the fact that she stated that she had attempted suicide in the past and that her arms had marks possibly supporting that claim.

How about this tweet on 8 April:

Sandra Bland
‏@a_sandybeach AT FIRST THEY USED A NOOSE, NOW ALL THEY DO IS SHOOT #BlackLivesMatter #SandySpeaks https://instagram.com/p/1N70zQgwZp/

Pat