04-15-2021, 10:47 AM
(04-15-2021, 08:16 AM)Au165 Wrote: Ironically enough the idea of "risk vs threat" came up in the Floyd trial the other day and I'll use a portion of the discussion around the standards. There is a vast difference between the risk of violence and the threat of violence, the risk of violence NEVER constitutes the use of force, or escalating response, only the real threat of violence does. Police work is inherently risky and so using the perceived risk of a sketchy stop to automatically escalate situations is inappropriate and against standard training. Officers who can't de-escalate a tense or risky situation have no business being an officer.
I stated earlier, they NEVER indicated any sort of threat via radio communication to them or the public before the stop occurred. Any such threat SHOULD have been relayed over the radio before the stop occurred. The officer did however determine it was a "high-risk stop" without identifying what factors would make it such. Simply put, they decided a potential "eluding" charge that never was filed made it "high risk". That isn't acceptable, the use of force was found to be unacceptable as a whole by IA, the escalation of the situation via the verbal conduct by one of the officers was unacceptable. You can keep talking about all the info we don't know, but those who do know have not defended any of the actions by the officers. Hell, one of the officers involved even defended the guy for not pulling over right away.
You put a lot of definitive statements into something that is inherently subjective. The Monday morning QB mentality of large swathes of our populace leads to a lot of "should of's" from people who have no functional understanding of the job. I've already stated that discipline has become highly politicized, so I'm sorry if I don't use the IA findings as definitive proof. Regardless, all of this ignores one simple fact, if the Lt. had actually complied with lawful instructions none of the following would have occurred. Maybe they were wrong to initiate a high risk stop initially, but once the Lt. decided he knew the law and what he could and could not do, erroneously I might add, he justified their position. Is it a chicken or egg scenario, maybe? Like much of police work it's not an exact science, as much as many people want to pretend that it is.
(04-15-2021, 10:34 AM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: Why is it the untrained citizen's job to de-escalate a situation where their life is in danger?
It's not his job, it's just intelligent. But, if by de-escalate you mean actually follow instructions, then yes, that is his "job" under the law. The interesting thing about this scenario is that the Lt. is objectively wrong under the law. The two LEO's are subjectively wrong based on your opinion of the facts. So, for the sake of argument, let's say all parties are in the wrong. Why do the LEO's get the sole blame for the whole scenario from those inclined to fault them?
I suppose we can also fault the media for fomenting the insane fiction that LEO's are constantly on the prowl looking to kill "people of color". Never mind that unjustified shootings make up around 1%, if that, of the around 1,200 LEO fatal shooting per year. But I suppose highlighting the ones that do occur, endlessly, instead of honestly reporting on how rare they are does breed a climate of anger, fear and distrust. Here we see the partial fruits of that.
