Thread: Differences Between Police Officers & Civilians

Ok, here's an interesting piece of video I came across, and it begs a question- are you ever justified in fighting back against a police officer? Watch the video, and look past all the commentary on profiling or the editorial from the newscasters at the end, as it's all just race baiting or political fluff that can't be proven or disproven anyway.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=62bF...e_gdata_player

I certainly have tons of respect for police officers, and I know that their job is a very difficult one. However, I know of no other profession where the use of physical aggression, short of a security guard or military personnel, is considered to be a normal part off the job and allowed to be used.

I also know that a use of force is reviewed internally, so there is a check and balance system in place.

The thing is, as is demonstrated in this video, if a civilian were to ever push, even lightly, another civilian they could be arrested, charged and convicted of either assault or battery or both. The only time this would be overlooked would be in self defense. The officer in this video first demands I.D. from the two civilian brothers, which he had no legal basis to do unless he had reasonable, articulable suspicion that they had, were in process of or were going to commit a crime.

Now, the two officers involved in this claim that the brothers made some sort of snide comment in the parking lot, however the last time I checked, our first amendment right guaranteed us the ability to do so. That means that there was no reason for the officers to investigate anything, unless they thought the two brothers were going to commit a crime inside the restaurant.

If they did think so, then after asking the questions they initially did inside, there was no reason to ask for any I.D., period. Our fourth amendment right guarantees that.

At that point, one of the brothers points this out to the officers, and things escalate.

Personally, I can have a heated exchange with a person and not ever, ever put my hands on them. There should be no need to "preemptively gain control of the situation", since regardless my logic and argument should speak for themselves. So, why then did the first officer feel the need to put his hands on the first brother?

Personally, I think that as an officer, if you have no justification for physically being aggressive to me, and I know beyond a doubt that the law is on my side, I will fight back if I deem it necessary (there are usually better solutions than physical aggression, though). The fact that you wear a badge does not mean you can unjustifiabley become physically aggressive with me. If you do, you have broken the law, and I am within my legal rights to defend myself. Again, just my opinion.

So, again, at what point does a civilian become justified in fighting back against an officer? What determines where the civilian ends and the police officer begins?

You never know about the police and their motives. They are on the lookout for suspects and you might fill the description. They are human and have bad days too. Best to just givem your ID and let them play it out, esp if you are in a public place with video. Get the badge number. No-win to fight with them, IMO. It's jail if you do. I have had words with a few when I thought they were wrong, but always was smart enough to comply. Myself and a friend were handcuffed, tossed in the back of a cruiser and driven to a grocery store once where the manager cleared us! If they pick on folks for no reason at all, they will slip up sooner or later. I would not want their job, so let them do it!

O.K.,,,against my better judgment I will comment on this thread.

There is no differences between police officers & civilians, in that police officers come into their job from the civilian segment of life. Police officers are not factory produced with a "certified level of competence" in all arenas of human interaction. Yes, they receive a piece of paper "Diploma" (State Certification) stating that they completed a course of study in selected topics, from a police academy. These State Certifications are highly inadequate & the training varies from state to state. Most officers never see additional training, after the academy, that covers situations like the one that occurred. Police officers go from situation to situation, using the same few tools that they were given to them. Here's a kick in the a$$ for you, more scrutinity is put into the manufacturing of an automobile, before it leaves the assembly line; than the training given to a person who chooses the career of a police officer. A sad thing indeed.

After watching the video, I can say that I would have handled things differently,,,it's easy to be a Monday Morning Quarterback, isn't it?

The one good thing about this video, is that none of the parties could fight worth a da*n, so no one got really physically hurt.

The officers (The City) will get sued, the young men who were detained will get paid, along with their lawyers; the officers will be sent for more inadequate training & are now part of a video that will be used in academys.

Before you pass judgment on police officers in general & think you know what they "can & can't do" ; remember that 95% of them will respond to your call for help. They will arrive with different life skills, some will leave your problem better educated for the next time, some will leave on their backs.

You are correct, John! That was surely a pitiful fight!

two white officers,two black men.I have a friend who is a cardiac surgeon,african american,gets pulled over by the CHP several times a year in his high end lexus,for no reason.shows them his drivers license,proof of insurance,than he shows them his AMA card.
apologys abound,till next time.Is this racial profiling??

Oh yeah, I totally agree that there are better solutions than aggression, at least in most cases. I guess to me I just want to know why the wind seems to blow the other way in most cases when an officer uses force or aggression when they're not justified in doing so. I'm not an officer or deputy, so I can't speak firsthand nor do I have the same insight as to why officers do what they do.

I don't mean any disrespect to any officers, and I certainly don't mean to sound like I'm downplaying their job. Most officers I've met seem to be decent people and ones that will use their head and a bit of sense and wisdom while performing their duties.

I just feel like this particular case, assuming the facts are as the report and video claimed, i.e. the brothers didn't match the description of someone who had committed a crime (which would justify the officers investigation), is kinda complex. To me, it boils down to the brothers shouldn't have been charged when they didn't instigate the agression, physically or verbally. Watch what the officer does with his clipboard when the brothers turn to place their order. In the video, the brothers answer the officers questions and then try to go about their business like the whole situation was a non-issue. The officer then becomes aggressive in his demeanor, demands identification and things escalate from there. When the physical altercation happens, the civilian is not advancing on the officer, and sort of looks like he's backing away from him. The officer is clearly the first to initiate physical aggression, even if it is lightly, to which the civilian, in my opinion, is justified in his response. Maybe it wasn't the best way to handle it, but I think he was justified.

You are right that usually with anyone, not just police, that people respond in kind to how you behave. You keep it civil and pleasant and they usually do to.

Originally Posted by sharptonn

You are correct, John! That was surely a pitiful fight!

Thank God that fight didn't happen in a Duncan Donuts, there would be powered sugar all over the place.

By the way, John, I'm only speaking from my insights on the law based on research I've done. I am not a lawyer, and don't claim to be. I definitely realize that officers are usually only trained so much, some more adequately than others, and are also not legal experts either. Most that I've ever dealt with are more than willing to hear what a citizen had to say about laws they have researched, and they will do their best to verify that while on scene.

These officers, in my limited opinion, handled things way wrong, as did the brothers, who should have just stayed calm, even if they were right.

Thank you for weighing in since you have firsthand knowledge and experience... I was hoping you would, as well as some of the other law enforcement members, current or former. You guys have a heck of a rough job, and sometimes folks don't make it any easier.

Originally Posted by Hirlau

Thank God that fight didn't happen in a Duncan Donuts, there would be powered sugar all over the place.

:lmao:

First off ,your friend should ask why he is being pulled over if the officer does not ask if he knows first. Every time I get pulled over I am asked or told why. If for no reason your friend should complain. A nice call is all it takes. Complaints are kept on file and it is always a hassle for the officer. He has to answer the complaint in writing and then there is a review. And then a report. To many of these seriously affect his career.
I don't know what is going on in the video or even if the officers identified themselves as officers but either way they look out of bounds to me. Instead of pushing the step should have been a private persons arrest or handcuffs if they were on duty. Unless spit was flying the officer was an aggressor and totally wrong. Would I have fought him back ? No, I would have his job. My father was a police officer for 17 years and he used to tell all kinds of stories of the crap he had to take from people. But there is a line and if you cross it you are in for some show of force.
One thing he told me that I still live by, " Don't believe anything you hear and only half of what you see." So in all I have heard and seen here I would have to say , " I don't know" :<0)