by Jack Lee
Being a cop isn’t as simple as some folks might think. They have a lot of hard decisions to make during a shift, even some that seem trivial might wind up being critical. Like stopping somebody for jaywalking in Ferguson. Hope you read the whole article below, I’m curious to see how you would handle this call.
The balance between being a professional police officer with an emphasis on good community relations or being cautious and expeditious is often times a blurry line and crossing it can avoid trouble or cause it. In extreme cases, it can also mean the difference between survival and not.
The following are truths about life as a cop. These truths will underscore everything they do:
1. Some police officers are more prone to err on the side of caution and be more official, whereas others tend to take a slightly less assertive role using more diplomacy.
It’s easy for an officer to become cynical and overly suspicious, taking on an [us versus them] kind of attitude and wind up being too aggressive. This is especially understandable when working in a high crime area. By the same token, its also possible for experienced officers to develop a false sense of security having [been there – done that] a 1000 times and nothing ever happened.
2. Where an officer chooses to draw the line between his/her security and diplomacy directly impacts officer safety, performance and the officer’s long term effectiveness within the community.
3. The best goal for any officer is to be effective and time efficient without unduly compromising safety for diplomacy or vice versa.
The following is an example to illustrate the two approaches. Both fall within department guidelines and the letter of the law. Yet they both could produce divergent results. In extreme cases it can also mean the difference between survival and not.
SUMMARY: Officers Mikelson and Broder are new partners and both are lateral transfers from other police departments with equal experience. They’re dispatched to a common family disturbance (415 call) in a lower income neighborhood of predominately black and Hispanic residents. Dispatch advises, a husband and wife are yelling profanities at each other. The husband has a registered 9 mm pistol. The call was reported by the mother-in-law who lives next door and hears them fighting. No further information is available at this time.
0718 hrs. Officers arrive on the scene and are met by the reporting person on the sidewalk. The husband and wife can be heard yelling at each other inside their home. The RP says this is a fairly regular occurrence, but she does not suspect any violence was involved.
Officer Mikelson knocks on the front door and a Hispanic male, aged 35, answers the door. His wife is standing about 20 feet behind him in the kitchen area. She turns and walks away back to the kitchen sink and starts putting dishes away. Her husband now stands relaxed in the doorway. Officer M initiates a fairly casual conversion about why they are there. Officer M asks the husband to step outside, just so he can hear his side of the story in privacy. He explains honestly, he’s not under arrest and he’s not in trouble he just wants to talk to him. The husband hesitates and says he prefers to stay inside his home. The husband leans against the doorway, holding a piece of toast in one hand while Officer M goes through the typical Q & A routine. Officer M determines the fight was over money, but it didn’t escalate beyond words. The yelling and the anger have clearly subsided into hurt feelings, but nothing else. The wife approaches the doorway and speaks briefly with Officer M. At this point she just wants to leave with her mother for a while. Officer M advises her to get whatever she needs and leave while the officers stand by. The event concludes without incident as the officers leave for their next call. END
Officer B is obviously not happy with his new partner and Officer M asks him what the problem is. Officer B says, “Why didn’t you search that guy for a weapon?” (1 – See Terry v Ohio)) Then he adds, “We took over 15 minutes on that call, our job is to get in and get out as fast as possible so other officers don’t have to cover our calls.”
Officer M said in his opinion this disturbance call didn’t rise to the level where it was prudent to do a pat down for a weapon. He didn’t want to offend the husband which could quickly escalate the situation. He explained millions of people own guns, just because they own one doesn’t mean we have to do a pat down every time.
He felt it was better to assess the situation by observing the husband’s demeanor, including his body language, and trust to his instinct. He also didn’t want to intrude into the man’s house without more probable cause. Officer M rationalized it’s not unusual for people in this type neighborhood to be suspicious of officers and that probably explains why the husband wanted to stay within his doorway. He felt that by cutting the husband a little slack and taking the extra time to talk to him this would help improve their image and in the long run the community relations.
Officer B strongly disagreed. He said Officer M had every right to enter the house and pat the husband down for a weapon and he should have done it for their safety! He said, “You never compromise officer safety by assuming too much.” Officer B said they took far too long on “nothing” call and they should have cleared the call in half the time. He rationalized, the next time other officers may have to take up their slack and that’s not right. Note – the department is usually very busy on all shifts and there really isn’t much time to waste, but at this hour things were a little slow.
Officer B rated Officer M’s officer safety performance low and his efficiency as too slow. Officer M rated Officer B as being too officious (badge heavy) and his method could have made matters worse, which would also affect officer’s safety.
Who is the [most] right, Officer Broder or Mikelson?
(1) Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968), was a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court which held that the Fourth Amendment prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures is not violated when a police officer stops a suspect on the street and frisks him or her without probable cause to arrest, if the police officer has a reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime and has a reasonable belief that the person “may be armed and presently dangerous.”
For their own protection, police may perform a quick surface search of the person’s outer clothing for weapons if they have reasonable suspicion that the person stopped is armed.
Re video link at the bottom,…MCJ
One wrong leads to two wrongs = all wrong and all of it unnecessary.
A call of possible domestic abuse occurring.
(Does anyone really need the data repeated here on severe injuries and even deaths as a result of domestic abuse? Or does anyone fail to remember the uproar and severe and justifiable complaints about police failures to respond appropriately to domestic dispute calls and the changes that were put into place to try to ensure (at least improve the chances that) women (mainly) did not continue to get the crap beat out of them or killed because of an inadequate police response.
It seems the police did have a reasonable suspicion (responding to a call like they would of say a bank robbery or hostage situation or a fight) and a corresponding duty to investigate. And when they arrived at the home they had a duty to investigate to see if domestic abuse had occurred or was occurring which include being able to view clearly and closely both of the parties to look for signs of assault (injury). From where they were outside the house it seems they reasonable they could not really do this nor could they assess the situation with any degree of confidence.
The people in the house clearly acted in a way that impeded the police officers’ ability to investigate and therefore obstructed the officers in the lawful performance of their duty.
I believe it was correct for the officers to force entry when they were refused voluntary entry.
I believe it was correct and lawful for the officers to take control of the situation in the house involving securing all parties to ensure not only their own safety, but also the safety of either possible victim, man and woman.
Who has not seen the “cops” type videos of further assault/injury being inflicted on a victim by the aggressor even while the police were there because both had not been “neutralized,” preferable by being handcuffed and separated while the police conducted their investigation.
All that notwithstanding, it does seem from the video shown that it is not clear why the two had to be tased rather than cuffed. It is possible they were tased simply for yapping like couple of a**holes and a refusal to shut the f**k up which rather than for behavior and a refusal to comply with a lawful police order which, absent actual threatening behavior is wrong.
Although loud persistent yapping at the officers at close range might actually impede the officers in performing their lawful duty to investigate.
That’s where cuffing, inspection for injuries, and questioning separately would probably be the next appropriate step.
Followed by arrest for obstruction if one or both continued to impede the on-scene investigation.
The tasing seemed to be wrong based on the video, but not the rest of it.
What should have happened is that the couple really should have opened the door, allowed the officers to view them clearly, respond to reasonable questions aimed at determining if anyone was being subjected to domestic violence, in other words that everyone was safe, and they would have resolved the situation reasonably, honorably and safely.
Too bad.
I’m with the police on this, except, based at least on what I cold see, the tase.
It sure seems like we live in times when most people show little respect for or trust in the police. I believe this lack of respect, lack of cooperation, open defiance, and attitude adds to (unnecessary) escalation in many of these cases.
We don’t live in a police state but we do live in a nation of laws and the police are the agreed upon authority figures in our communities. As citizens we have a responsibility to cooperate with them and respond to them with respect. We have an obligation to teach our kids to do the same.
I don’t think people even know how to do that any more…kids surely don’t.
TV shows, movies, music and games aren’t instructive in fact quite often, just the opposite. Adults/parents don’t always act as good examples much less providing instruction.
As for your post. In the first case I thought (naively?) that Mikelson acted appropriately. He could see the wife and she didn’t appear to be harmed or frightened. The mother-in-law didn’t indicate there were children in the home.
The video is another story. Like you, I think the tasings seem excessive, although the video doesn’t provide much information. What else may have been going on that prompted this action? The guy had no reason to refuse to open the door unless he had something to hide.
I feel for police officers today. They have a very difficult and dangerous job and they work in a chaotic realm filled with people with attitude. I have to say I side with the cops overall.
I agree about the tasing too, however that wasn’t me, it was from a commenter on this news story, that I thought was relevant.
Ref post #2 comment:
We don’t live in a police state but we do live in a nation of laws and the police are the agreed upon authority figures in our communities.
Yes we do,or did, and when those with the thinnest venire of civility apply the model of what is happening in DC with this administration, they mimic that missing moral compass. Then what’s left to guide them?
They figure they can act out their frustrations and anger and assume, much like those in DC there will be no consequences for their actions.
I have a headache and couldn’t read the entire story but I got the gist of it. I think overall cops do a fine job, a job most people wouldn’t want or be able to do.
Everyone is focused on the actions of the police. Lets shift that focus to the actions of the people and local, state and federal governments. It boils down to two simple things, respect and personal responsibility. Those two commodities are in short supply these days but if they were practiced and used, a majority of our problems would be history. Who is really at fault here? Do you really think the cop woke up that morning and said “I am going to shot a kid today?” No, he woke up and went to work to protect people from bad people. You know, people who rob and steal and assault people. Had the dead kid practiced respect and personal responsibility, he wouldn’t be dead, he wouldn’t even be in the news. It is tragic that he was unwilling or unable to practice those two basic aspects of civilization.
I for one, want a well armed but also well trained police force. I don’t think cops like going into beast mode but when need be, I am glad they have the ability to do so.
It’s also tragic that those rioters and riots have been allowed to continue. What other than optics is the point of calling out the national guard if you are going to place them blocks away?
What is the point of being a tax paying business owner if your local and state government cant keep the thugs from destroying your business?
The cops should utilize rubber bullets, water cannons and ultrasonic equipment. They should round up any people involved who are from out of state and hammer them with every bit of the law.
I know it’s wishful thinking.
Toby, hope your headache is gone, but chances are he won’t go away until he’s forced out of office. C’mon 2016! 😉 There is no doubt in my mind this deal in Ferguson could spread if they don’t get a handle on it right away. We’re just one shooting away in Oakland, LA, or anywhere from another riot/looting situation.
This is my old school approach and I stand by it: I would not frisk, period.
I don’t give a rip if the guy owns a gun, since when it owning a gun probable cause to immediately do a pat down? Sure, the husband and wife were having a verbal argument, like that’s uncommon?
How would you feel if you standing in your own house and the cop wants to barge in and put his hands on you? You wouldn’t like it, it would be offensive and humiliating.
There’s risk in everything a cop does, but you take calculated chances and in this case the most right answer is cut the citizen some slack, do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
Too many cops treat community policing with all the care of a bull in a China Shop. Just because the man was Hispanic or poor doesn’t mean he’s anymore of a threat than your town mayor, would you pat down the mayor? Probably not. Deal with him man to man and show genuine concern and the same for the wife, treat them both with respect. If the time allows it, take a few extra minutes with them, in the long run this will do you more good than you could imagine.