It' so sad; I'm really angry

[Dr. Mike]

If you would follow this link, you will find some interesting facts.
One of the links on the page shows actual crime statistics from 1950 to 2006. Crime rates hit an all time high in San Diego around 1990, with just over 100,000 major crimes occurring in that year. In the 16 years since that, crime has dropped by about 50%, down to just over 50,000 in 2006. This is despite the fact that in that time the city grew in population by about 200,000 people. From these statistics, it would seem that, rather than warranting your disdain, the police there seem to be doing a pretty good job. Cutting crime in half is a statistic that any politician would love to tout.

[moses]

I realize that you're talking of generalities, but lets keep in mind that for this particular case in the airport, the police pretty much knew that he was unarmed since he had not gone anywhere since getting off the plane. I agree that we can't conclude what happened yet, but to me given the information available thus far, it is very troubling.

Well. I think Mike was responding to Roman's comments about shooting in SD, not talking about the airport incident, in particular.

-Mo

[Crag]

So....

How about that Hillary Clinton?

[Dr. Mike]

Well. I think Mike was responding to Roman's comments about shooting in SD, not talking about the airport incident, in particular.

-Mo

Thanks, Mo. Yeah, I was responding to the post immediately prior. I thought if I posted it quick enough, it would go right after, and would be apparent that I was responding to it. I guess I should have quoted it as well. My comment there doesn't apply as well to the airport incident, because, as somebody else pointed out, the fact that he arrived by plane and hadn't left the airport would make the idea of some kind of lethal weapon on his possession unrealistic (although not impossible). But that case is also different, because they did not draw regular guns on the man.
I can sort of understand why some people are very upset about the airport incident. It is a case where nobody intended for a person to die. It is certainly tragic. What I'm having a harder time understanding are the other more general anti-police comments. Police are by and large a force for good. They allow us to live a more civilized life. We don't all have to provide for our own specific protection thanks to police. We don't live in the wild west anymore. If anybody here is confronted by a violent criminal, I doubt they are going to refuse police aid. Because there are some bad apples, who are blown up to mythical proportions by the media and on the silver screen, you condemn the whole profession? There are some bad doctors out there too. But if my appendix is about to burst, I'm not going to shun their assistance and denounce the whole profession. There are bad teachers out there. Should we shut down all the schools (well, maybe there is something to that, actually)? An exception does not necessitate trashing the whole system. How would these people propose enforcing the law without these police they so clearly have issues with?
Ironically, I would be more than willing to bet that the same people who complain about police on here would also be the first ones to complain if crime rates were to go up, thinking the police weren't doing their job.

[Roman414]

Recent killiings I can remember included a suspected drunk driver (he was driving erratically) who was shot by an off-duty cop in civilian clothes and an unmarked car when he got out of his car in front of his home. He was unarmed but the cop claimed he was "reaching in his waistband". Another was a mentally disturbed man who became agitated when approx ten cops started shouting at him and he picked up a stick and refused to drop it. Another was a woman pulled over for a traffic stop and refused to get out of her car when ordered (probably afraid). She didn't have a waistband, evidently. She was reaching for her glove compartment (where she kept her registration and proof of insurance?)...there are far too many for me to remember all the details. And what does any of this have to do with the crime rate?

[moses]

Recent killiings I can remember included a suspected drunk driver (he was driving erratically) who was shot by an off-duty cop in civilian clothes and an unmarked car when he got out of his car in front of his home. He was unarmed but the cop claimed he was "reaching in his waistband". Another was a mentally disturbed man who became agitated when approx ten cops started shouting at him and he picked up a stick and refused to drop it. Another was a woman pulled over for a traffic stop and refused to get out of her car when ordered (probably afraid). She didn't have a waistband, evidently. She was reaching for her glove compartment (where she kept her registration and proof of insurance?)...there are far too many for me to remember all the details.

Not to say that those aren't deserving of investigation. All I know is none of what you told me establishes to me, one way or the other, whether the police in question did something wrong or not.

Interesting thought.... Had those officers had tasers, perhaps some of those lives would not have been lost.

And what does any of this have to do with the crime rate?

Well, honestly, not a lot, that I can see. Except that a decreasing crime rate show that the police are doing a good in meeting their primary overall goal.

-Mo

[Suzuki]

These are questions that definitely need to be answered along with:
Why did they used the taser so soon after arriving?
Why did the cops not use their CPR training?
Why did they did it take 11 minutes for the emt to show up, when there was help 2 minutes away?

I guess we'll have to wait to find out.

BTW, another man who was tased the same day in Quebec just died soon after. Clearly something has to be done

While I completely disagree with your comments regarding police and the sort of individual who wants to be a police officer, I agree that the questions you listed do need to be answered.

Basically the two main questions are (i) did the police follow SOP in this incident and (ii) is the SOP appropriate.

Where I live, San Diego, hardly a month goes by without cops shooting someone, more often than not unarmed. The shootings are ALWAYS ruled justified and within department guidelines. And almost always the excuse was "he appeared to be reaching in his waistband." Why would all those unarmed people be reaching in their waistbands? As I said, there is one officer who, to date, has killed five people. Just what am I supposed to think? Yeah, those cops certainly "made a difference" in the lives of a lot of families. And another point: there are usually fifteen or twenty shots fired by the police for every hit. It would seem to be fairly difficult to hit someone with a handgun. Would it be that risky to wait and see if the object the person reached for is his wallet with his identification or actually a gun? Why so quick to shoot?

The fact that there are police shootings does not mean that the police are doing anything wrong or that the SDPD is more/less trigger happy than any other PD. You would need to do a comparson between the SDPD and other PDs who police similar urban areas to be able to make an assessment of whether the SDPD has a greater propensity to use force or shoot suspects than other PDs.

Attempting to draw a conclusion that, since its hard to hit someone with a handgun, police should wait longer to see if someone is reaching for a wallet or a gun makes no sense. There is no logical connection between the issue of handgun accuracy and waiting to see if someone is a threat.

Its so easy to put ourselves in the position of the "victim" - try to put yourself in the position of the police officer - its dark, you're alone, you tell someone to put their hands in the air or give them some other similar command and instead, they do something that is as consistent with pulling a gun as it is getting a wallet/ID.

Do you wait to see if they're getting a gun or do you assume that, since they are obviously not complying with your instructions they are a threat. I'm not going to answer this one, but its not an easy decision to make - and you only have seconds to make it. Its easy to say that police need to be 100% sure (and in an ideal world they would be - but we don't live in an ideal world) before using force - especally when you're never going to be in that type of situation. I for one do not want police officers to have to wait so long that they jeopardize their safety - at the same time, I don't want them to use weapons (or force generally) unless required.

I realize that you're talking of generalities, but lets keep in mind that for this particular case in the airport, the police pretty much knew that he was unarmed since he had not gone anywhere since getting off the plane. I agree that we can't conclude what happened yet, but to me given the information available thus far, it is very troubling.

I believe there are reports that he had a stapler in his hand - while not a gun, anything in a suspect's hand can be viewed as a weapon.

Recent killiings I can remember included a suspected drunk driver (he was driving erratically) who was shot by an off-duty cop in civilian clothes and an unmarked car when he got out of his car in front of his home. He was unarmed but the cop claimed he was "reaching in his waistband". Another was a mentally disturbed man who became agitated when approx ten cops started shouting at him and he picked up a stick and refused to drop it. Another was a woman pulled over for a traffic stop and refused to get out of her car when ordered (probably afraid). She didn't have a waistband, evidently. She was reaching for her glove compartment (where she kept her registration and proof of insurance?)...there are far too many for me to remember all the details. And what does any of this have to do with the crime rate?

Actually what does it have to do with anything - police are often confronted with situations that none of us ever will be. They don't have the benefit of hindsight or the information subsequently provided about the person shot or tazed.

As I mentioned above, put yourself in the shoes of the police officers involved in these situations and think about what you would do when you tell someone ignores your command and does something potentially threatening - do you wait to let them shoot first or do you assume bad things are going to happen given the refusal to follow a command and a threatening actoin. Do this and then perhaps you won't be so quick to pass judgement on police officers.

[ScottS]

All this just goes to show you that something as simple as a traffic stop can turn dangerous very quickly, and should always be taken seriously. Follow the officer's instructions as best as you can. When pulled over (and this happens more than I like it to!), I immediately roll down my window, place my hands on the wheel, and leave them there until told to do otherwise. When asked for my license and registration, I tell the officer they're in my wallet, tell him which pocket the wallet is is, and ask if its OK to get it. When asked for my insurance card, I tell the officer its in my glove compartment, and usually they tell me not to bother with it. I suspect they can see the info when they call up the plate, anyway, and they prefer not to have me rooting around the glove compartment.

Partially, this is to keep me safe, but I think of it as common courtesy. Pulling over strangers is an unknown risk, and anything I can do to alleviate the officer's concern is OK. I find they appreciate the courtesy, and give warnings, or shave a few miles per hour off to bring me to the lower fine bracket.

[Dr. Mike]

Recent killiings I can remember included a suspected drunk driver (he was driving erratically) who was shot by an off-duty cop in civilian clothes and an unmarked car when he got out of his car in front of his home. He was unarmed but the cop claimed he was "reaching in his waistband". Another was a mentally disturbed man who became agitated when approx ten cops started shouting at him and he picked up a stick and refused to drop it. Another was a woman pulled over for a traffic stop and refused to get out of her car when ordered (probably afraid). She didn't have a waistband, evidently. She was reaching for her glove compartment (where she kept her registration and proof of insurance?)...there are far too many for me to remember all the details. And what does any of this have to do with the crime rate?

I found this article about police shootings in San Diego. Granted, it is from 2003, but it is still relevant.
According to the article, police in San Diego respond to about 1.5 million calls per year. So out of 1.5 million calls, you mention less than 10 police shootings? According to that article, in the previous year, there were 15 police shootings, with 6 being fatal. Based on those numbers, that means that in the police state of San Diego, you have a 0.001% chance of being shot by a police officer when confronted by one. That means that you would be shot, on average, once every 100,000 times you are confronted by a police officer. You have a 0.0004% chance of being killed by a police officer. Now, granted, you probably stand a better chance of being shot by a cop than winning the lottery, but I think most rational people would consider 0.001% about as close to zero as you are going to get. Consider that the following year, 2004, about 300 people died from traffic accidents. You are 50 times more likely to die in a traffic accident in San Diego than from a cop shooting you. And at that time, San Diego had the sixth lowest crime rate of all cities with 500,000 or more citizens. Yeah, it sounds like they are just running out of control and above the law down there. I would even go so far as to predict that if you factor out the shootings that were irrefutably justified, the rate of police shootings would drop to an even more insignificant number. And according to the article, San Diego has one of the highest rates of police shootings in the nation! I'm surprised we have as large a population as we do with all of these trigger happy cops out there!
And I think it is also disingenuous to imply that the cops get off scott free. According to the article, there are 5 separate inquiries following each and every officer-related shooting. First the homicide unit investigates, then the internal affairs division, then the department's shooting review board. After all of those inquiries within the police department, it is then investigated by the District Attorney's office and the citizen's review board. I'd say they are some of the most scrutinized people out there, when you also factor in the news media supplying unfounded innuendo to sensationalize the story and boost ratings, and private citizens looking for some juicy footage to make them instantly famous on YouTube.

[BarryR]

Thanks, Mo. Yeah, I was responding to the post immediately prior. I thought if I posted it quick enough, it would go right after, and would be apparent that I was responding to it. I guess I should have quoted it as well. My comment there doesn't apply as well to the airport incident...

I sort of realized that, but this whole thread was in response to the airport incident. Nevertheless, my comment was probably 'misplaced' coming after that post.

While I completely disagree with your comments regarding police and the sort of individual who wants to be a police officer......

I hope and assume that the great majority of police officers are not bullies and thugs. I do agree with some other posters that some are in it exactly because of their personality defects. Unfortunately, I think the culture in the police force has been one of protecting ones colleagues rather than seeking the truth and this perpetuates the distrust. A similar problem has existed in medicine and is slowly changing.

Part of the solution in medicine is exactly to recognize that people make mistakes and to look at process improvement and a culture that encourages and rewards error and near-miss reporting.

For example, it is possible that the RCMPs made a terrible mistake but that they're good officers. Perhaps the policy around Taser use, etc., needs to be revised. It's also possible, as has been pointed out previously, that there is information we're missing and that the use of force was justified (though as I've mentioned this seems less likely to me).

...I believe there are reports that he had a stapler in his hand - while not a gun, anything in a suspect's hand can be viewed as a weapon.

That would seem to me to be an overly broad definition of weapon, unless he was using it (or seemed about to use it) to smash someone's head.

I also think part of the problem is the level of fear that we're living with (in my partisan opinion in part as a political ploy) which adds to the hair-trigger response in airports. Remember the MIT woman who almost got machine-gunned because of lights and electric circuits on her sweatshirt?

It sort of reminds me of movies or twilight zone episodes in which people fearing some evil start suspecting each other and killing each other, creating the evil that they thought they were fighting.

[Roman414]

One last incident then I will shut up, I promise. A friend of mine was walking to his car late one night after working late. He passed an alley with a police car in it, and saw what looked like two figures struggling in it. Thinking an officer might need help or something, he walked up to the car. There were two cops in it, a male and a female, having sex. My friend tapped on the window, said, "Is this what I pay taxes for?" and continued on his way. He had reached his car and opened the door when the police car pulled up. They dragged him roughly from his car, slammed him up against it, and handcuffed him. He spent the night in the detox tank, and when they released him (with no charges) the next day, his car had been towed! He had to call me to come pick him up. We figured they had arrested him as a preventive measure, so if he reported them He had no intention to) he would have no credibility. I guess they could have just as easily shot him and claimed he was "reaching in his waistband." To me, that is the San Diego police force. I am sure they are not all a--holes. but the ones who are not tolerate the ones who are, don't they? They share the same image voluntarily.

[liege]

Every police officer that I have ever had contact with has been very professional, super-nice, and helpful. Based on some of the logic that has been proffered on this thread that must mean they are all like that, right?

[Dr. Mike]

One last incident then I will shut up, I promise. A friend of mine was walking to his car late one night after working late. He passed an alley with a police car in it, and saw what looked like two figures struggling in it. Thinking an officer might need help or something, he walked up to the car. There were two cops in it, a male and a female, having sex. My friend tapped on the window, said, "Is this what I pay taxes for?" and continued on his way. He had reached his car and opened the door when the police car pulled up. They dragged him roughly from his car, slammed him up against it, and handcuffed him. He spent the night in the detox tank, and when they released him (with no charges) the next day, his car had been towed! He had to call me to come pick him up. We figured they had arrested him as a preventive measure, so if he reported them He had no intention to) he would have no credibility. I guess they could have just as easily shot him and claimed he was "reaching in his waistband." To me, that is the San Diego police force. I am sure they are not all a--holes. but the ones who are not tolerate the ones who are, don't they? They share the same image voluntarily.

I can't comment on your friends experience here, but if it went as you said, it is very problematic. First of all, they could not have tossed him into detox overnight if he was not intoxicated. He could have requested any number of sobriety tests, and would have had to be released from detox immediately if he registered sober. As for not reporting it, well, I'm afraid then that, if the incident is true, your friend is as much at fault as these other officers that you claim "tolerate" bad cops. He could have very easily reported it and filed charges against them for wrongful incarceration, or something similar. I would think that, if the cops would be unable to establish that your friend was intoxicated, they would be in a very shaky situation.
But even assuming that all of the above is true, it still falls way below the other accusations you have been leveling against the police in general, and the SDPD in particular. You make the passing comment that maybe they could have just shot him. But they didn't. By your account, unless you left that tidbit out, they didn't even draw their weapons. Certainly it would be a case of police misconduct, but not on the level of the unwarranted killings that you lay at their feet.
Again, I'm not saying that all cops are honest and model citizens. But I am saying that these guys risk their lives so that law-abiding citizens can live in peace and security. Cut them some slack and give them the benefit of the doubt, or at the very least, presume their innocence until somebody can prove them guilty. As I mentioned in my last post, after all of the peer investigations of police shootings, you know, the ones where they would be looking out for one another and covering for each other, every shooting then gets reviewed by both the District Attorney's office, and a citizens review board. 5 total investigations. If there is a wrongdoing on the part of the police officer, one of them is going to catch it.

[Badger Dog]

I'd just like to take this opportunity to thank all the LE types out there. For the most part it is a thankless job; but I don't think they're in it to receive accolades or praise. I'm in a related field. I'm a soldier, and I think most soldiers, like most cops do it to make a difference and a sense of duty to a country, state, or city they love. Very rewarding.

I don't expect everyone to understand this, and I really don't care if they do. There will always be some who think the worst of people, ie. all scout leaders are pedophiles or all cops want to brutalize the populace, etc. I imagine all soldiers are psychopathic killers to them. I'll defend his right to think and talk that way, and I'm sure the cops will be there for him in his time of need as well.

BTW Iron Maiden, I've probably paid for a couple of your Tazers over the years on the Ohio Turnpike. I used to have a heavy right foot and a strong throttle hand when on my bike.

Tom

[Groundhog]

One last incident then I will shut up, I promise. A friend of mine was walking to his car late one night after working late. He passed an alley with a police car in it, and saw what looked like two figures struggling in it. Thinking an officer might need help or something, he walked up to the car. There were two cops in it, a male and a female, having sex. My friend tapped on the window, said, "Is this what I pay taxes for?" and continued on his way. He had reached his car and opened the door when the police car pulled up. They dragged him roughly from his car, slammed him up against it, and handcuffed him. He spent the night in the detox tank, and when they released him (with no charges) the next day, his car had been towed! He had to call me to come pick him up. We figured they had arrested him as a preventive measure, so if he reported them He had no intention to) he would have no credibility. I guess they could have just as easily shot him and claimed he was "reaching in his waistband." To me, that is the San Diego police force. I am sure they are not all a--holes. but the ones who are not tolerate the ones who are, don't they? They share the same image voluntarily.

OK man, we get it. Seems like you and everybody you know has had numerous encounters with crooked cops, and your hometown PD is a bunch of incompetent & corrupt buffoons. You've obviously got a problem with cops for whatever reason. Thanks for sharing.

[Roman414]

"For whatever reason?" I have given my reasons.

[Dr. Mike]

"For whatever reason?" I have given my reasons.

Granted, but what I think he means is that a 0.001% rate of cops shooting people and one particular instance involving your friend and only 2 police officers just doesn't seem to add up to your general disdain for them. I understand, you think that any death caused by a cop is abysmal. But if you were to hear of, say, a mailman running over a couple of people, would you likewise denounce the U.S. Postal Service?
For as much as you have complained about the police, and the SDPD specifically, it seems like you would have some more instances of grievances, both general and specific to you, that's all.

[Groundhog]

Granted, but what I think he means is that a 0.001% rate of cops shooting people and one particular instance involving your friend and only 2 police officers just doesn't seem to add up to your general disdain for them. I understand, you think that any death caused by a cop is abysmal. But if you were to hear of, say, a mailman running over a couple of people, would you likewise denounce the U.S. Postal Service?
For as much as you have complained about the police, and the SDPD specifically, it seems like you would have some more instances of grievances, both general and specific to you, that's all.

Thanks for the assist Mike.....that's exactly what I meant..........doesn't add up at all.

[moses]

Thanks for the assist Mike.....that's exactly what I meant..........doesn't add up at all.

Agreed. If he were an African American man in L.A. in the 70s, that would be one thing, but given the circumstances, I just don't get the general dislike.

-Mo

[Rolo]

I understand, you think that any death caused by a cop is abysmal. But if you were to hear of, say, a mailman running over a couple of people, would you likewise denounce the U.S. Postal Service?.

This really isn't a fair comparison at all. The Postal Service are just here to deliver the mail, that's all. The better analogy would be if some of the local mailmen have a history of losing packages and the Post Office protects them by blaming the homeowners because no one was home or blaming the the neighbor's dog.
The Police are here to "Protect and Serve". When they get that badge and gun we put a huge amount of trust on them. If even one breaks that trust by abusing his/her authority and not "Protecting" and gets away with it, then yes, that department gets a bad name. The police have an "us" vs "them"(civilians) mentality and they tend to protect their own.