Terry Stops and Three Strikes Laws (Part IV, Self Initiated Activity or "That **** Don’t Look Right")

The final part of the series from friend and fellow American Free News Network writer Colonel (Ret) Mike Ford. One point he makes here is something I've even saying since the before the George Floyd riots in 2020. Cops are joining the fire department. Police, to be effective, must be assertive. They have to go out and get the bad guys, not just respond to calls for service. But with cops being put thrown under the bus by one mayor after another, they are simply logging on, driving to their safe space, and answering their calls for service. They may drive a bit to show the flag, but they know right now they must play it safe. They have kids to feed, mortgages to pay, etc. Right now, that means taking no risks. Women, children and minorities will be hardest hit. 

Here is Mike's article. Enjoy.  

Terry Stops and Three Strikes Laws (Part IV, Self Initiated Activity or "That **** Don’t Look Right")

March 3, 2023 by Mike Ford

This is Part IV in a series on public safety and policing. Previously, we discussed some of the more critical components/techniques of successful policing, such as the Terry Stop, Three Strikes and Broken Windows policing. What makes these successful are two things, synergy and what’s known in police circles as, “self initiated activity.”

First of all, as I mentioned in Part III, there is no single, major silver bullet for success. However, when component parts work together, something magic does happen—synergy. The whole indeed becomes greater than the sum of the parts.

Let’s take the simple example of how Terry Stops, coupled with properly structured Three Strikes laws can have a hugely positive effect. For the purposes of this discussion, we will state that a “strike” counts as any violent felony or illegal firearm possession by an adjudicated violent felon. Coupling the the very real threat of lifetime incarceration with properly directed, focused and supervised Terry Stop policing in high crime areas, what happens is that illegal gun possession goes down while at the same time, the most violent felons are taken off the street, a twofer…or perhaps a threefer if he’s put away for long enough.

For this to work however, there is another, most critical component necessary. In fact, without this component almost all policing becomes ineffective. That component is called, “Self Initiated Activity.” It’s the part of boots on the ground policing that separates the good cops from the check cashers.

I did a brief 10 year stint as a Deputy Sheriff down in South Florida. However, the best description I ever heard of this very fundamental task, comes not from my Field Training Officer, or the various and sundry Sergeants assigned to ride herd on me, but rather the crime drama, NYPD Blue. There is one scene where Detective Andy Sipowicz is passing some street smarts on to his son Andy Jr, who wants to know about being a good cop. Sipowicz says that the most important things for a beat cop to know are: People, places, the things they do and the times they do them. Here is that transcribed conversation in an article from Police One: (Note, if anyone has a legal you tube link to that scene, please post in the comments so I can embed in the article).

Read: 4 things Andy Sipowicz taught me about being a beat cop

Andy: OK. You’re eatin’ your sandwich, you’ve got company, the weather’s fine, it’s the perfect time to tune out the job.

Andy Junior: Yeah.

Andy: But you don’t want to tune it out, ‘cause there’s too much you’ve got to learn. Here’s a story about being a uniformed cop. Years ago, it’s midnight, me and my partner [are] a couple of blocks from the precinct house, when I see two big Cadillacs turn into an alley. Cadillacs, I’m thinkin’ maybe they’re mob guys. So we get out, go into the alley, see what’s goin’ on. Well the Cadillacs are gone, but I keep on walkin’ and pretty soon I see two guys come out of a back door, and one of them’s got a machine gun. So I yell to my partner, “Hey, we got a guy back here with a machine gun!” I didn’t know he could move so fast. He runs behind a telephone pole, and I’m standing in the door with my gun pointed at the guy with the machine gun.

Junior: What’s goin’ on with that?

Andy: The building was a toy factory that made toy machine guns, and one of the guys was takin’ one home to his kid. I don’t think he knew how close I come to me shootin’ him.

Junior: But you didn’t.

Andy: I could’ve, and it would’ve been off not being prepared. This was my beat, and I should’ve known about the toy factory and what kinda toys they made, and knowing that, I shoulda figured, it’s midnight, graveyard shift is just getting off. I didn’t put it all together. So I came this close to shooting that man. People, places, the things they do, the times they do them. Say that.

Junior: People, places, the things they do, the times they do them.

Andy: A beat cop knows those four things, he’s ready to do his job… You’ll be OK.

When good cops spend time out and about on their beat, they learn things. They get familiar with people, places, the things they do and the times they do them. With experience they can easily recognize when all is not quite right in their patrol sector. Good cops, based on that experience, make many a preventive stop that sometimes results in a serious arrest. Why? Because they look at a familiar location and say to themselves, “That sh** don’t look right.” That’s where the self initiated activity begins. That’s when a good cop goes over to have a closer look. That’s where he begins the investigation. That’s where often his mere presence precludes something really bad from happening. That is where the real policing happens. That’s also where he gets to know the good citizens…and they tell him things.

This is ultimately what ANTIFA, BLM and all the other leftist organizations supported by morally preening White liberal women are trying to destroy—and they are succeeding. Police officers, being hung out to dry by their Mayors, are retiring in droves. The ones that stay, are responding to dispatched calls…and nothing more. Why would an officer risk his job, his pension and even perhaps his freedom in such an environment? Why would he do anything other than respond to dispatched calls?

Zone 6, corner of Avenue D and 25th Street, Ft Pierce, FL. The usual crowd is hanging out at the Wings Hut. The zone car is piloted by a 7 year veteran Deputy Sheriff who looks over and says to himself, “That ***t don’t look right.” Then he keeps on driving. It’s not worth the risk to his career, his paycheck or the civil suit that would award his savings and future earnings set aside for his daughter’s education to some thug, to step out and see what’s going on.

This is what the leftists want. They want to seperate the community from its would be defender, the beat cop that see’s something that “don’t look quite right” and who will take the immediate action to investigate further. Of course, this leaves the streets in full control by ANTIFA, BLM or merely the local thugs—which is just what the left wants. 

A few comments on the death in police custody of Mr. Trye Nichols

Like millions of Americans, I’ve been watching the death in police custody of Mr. Trye Nichols with a great deal of interest. It’s the issue de jour at this moment, likely pushing the Biden classified documents scandal off the attention span of the American people. It fits a template of the media, police hate blacks, and even black cops are racist because policing is racist. And this incident, one of over 60 million interactions (e.g., traffic stops, calls for service) from    800 thousand police officers is, according to the usual suspects, the event that justifies disbanding/defunding police agencies across the nation. 

 

So I’ll give my observations and opinions based on my more than layman’s knowledge of the law, my quarter century in the profession, and my knowledge of the people running over themselves to get in front of a camera and speak on something they know little or nothing about (I would say make a fool out of themselves, but they were fools before this). With the exception of the first point, they are in no particular order of importance.

 

What those officers did was wrong, and wrong based on current law and likely policy of the Memphis Police. Using reasonable force to take a suspect into custody is legal and justified. This was well beyond reasonable force. It escalated to deadly force, for no defensible reason. At no point during the two incidents was Mr. Nichols a threat to the officers. I don’t’ recall him punching an officer, using a knife or firearm, or any other type of weapon.

 

A point I’m still not clear on. What were these officers pulling this man over for? I’ve heard multiple times for “reckless driving.” Fair enough, if he was unable to maintain a single lane, cutting people off, following too close behind other vehicles, that is definitely reasonable suspicion to initiate a traffic stop. 

 

But a traffic stop does not involve rushing the car and pulling a man out of the vehicle. It means 1, 2, 3 officers approach, one goes “contact,” i.e., he speaks with the driver, while the others “cover” the vehicle occupants. The contact officer explains why he was pulled over, gets the driver’s information, license, etc. When you have a “high risk” stop (also known as a “felony stop”), it’s for a reason (e.g., car comes back stolen, the license plate shows a felony warrant on it, etc.) Generally you use at least two officers, stop the vehicle, draw weapons on the driver and passenger (s) and order them to exit the vehicle one at a time. The suspects are secured (i.e., handcuffed, searched and held) until the vehicle is cleared, and the investigation can continue. 

 

No matter which this was, a traffic stop or high-risk, it was not done in any manner I’ve known or used in my career.

 

One question I would like answered is why these officers, when they first had Mr. Nichols down, did not use the force of three large men to grab his hands and get him into hand cuffs. Something that was preached to me since I was a rookie, get him into custody, secure him, and safely continue the investigation. 

 

A few years ago we had a nine-year-old Autistic boy running on a highway. I arrived just after the primary unit, and I told them, “Cuff him, put him in the back of your shop (police vehicle), and let’s get the hell out of here!” They looked a bit puzzled why I wanted a child cuffed, but they did and we met the medic at a gas station parking lot. And once they opened their car door, this kid ran past two cops and three firefighters. Fortunately he couldn’t get far with his hands secured behind him, and we were able to get him medically cleared and transported to the juvenile hall. The point? A cop takes someone into custody, for any reason, that cop is responsible for the safety of the person. Those cops failed that task. 

 

In the continuum of force, deadly force is reserved for when the officer has “reasonable fear for life or serious bodily injury for themselves or a third person.” One of the officers kicked Mr. Nichols in the head three times, which is, by definition, deadly force (blunt force above the neckline). Mr. Nichols did not have a pistol or knife. If he did, that would have justified the head strike. But there is no evidence Mr. Nichols was a deadly threat to anyone.

 

In my humble opinion, I don’t think the DA will make a murder charge stick in court. Indictment, sure, as the old saying goes, you can indict a ham sandwich. But looking at a summary of Tennessee’s homicide statue:

 

Second-Degree Murder: In these homicide cases, a person may have knowingly killed another individual, but did not premeditate their actions. This charge may also apply if a person is killed during the distribution of any Schedule I or II drug. Second-degree murder is a Class A felony, meaning those convicted of this crime can serve between 15 and 60 years behind bars.

 

I don’t think the DA will be able to show the officers knowingly meant to kill Mr. Nichols. I think he can make a case for manslaughter (i.e. “in a state of passion”) or criminal negligent homicide (“any action that results in a person’s death”). The DA can definitely show aggravated assault (“The individual recklessly or knowingly inflicted serious harm on another party.”). 

 

Finally, the race baiting poverty industry is fully deployed. The “reverend” Sharpton is scheduled to give a eulogy for the late Mr. Nichols, although he never knew the man’s name before earlier this month. The senior member of the Justice Brothers, the Baby Daddy himself Jesse Jackson, will likely be in the audience. The principle race baiting shyster Ben Crump is going in for the money, and hired a likely prostitute MD to conduct an autopsy which be “finished” in a few days. Finally the family has been invited to Joe Biden’s State of the Union circus as a guest of the Congressional Black Caucus.

 

Hell, as I was driving today in my shop I saw a black man on the sidewalk look at me and push his hands up in the, “Hands up! Don’t shoot!” act. I was tempted to respond with the “Middle fingers up! Go f%^^ yourself!” retort but held my temper.

 

Again, my observations and opinions, worth what you paid for it. I’ve heard some rumors on the officer’s actions, but I’ll  comment on what we know now. Finally, as I’ve said with other incidents like this, everyone, “Calm down. Let the process play out. Things like this take time.” We don’t know the full story, but one thing I do know, politicians will try to push an anti-law agenda, that will only make matters worse.

Covid as an excuse for aggravated assault…

I have always thought the risk of Covid is overblown, to most people. Older people, people with compromised immune systems, etc, there is a serious issue. But with a survival rate of over 99.%, it is manageable. And I thought some of the people going anal about getting a shot, getting too close, etc was a bit overblown. Then there is this: 

Security guard who shot man 3 times acted in self defense because the victim wasn’t wearing a COVID mask, lawyer says 

 

A liquor store security guard was acting in self defense when he shot a customer three times because the customer was “putting other’s lives at risk by not wearing a [COVID] mask,” the guard’s private defense attorney said during a bond court hearing Wednesday. 

The argument did not sway cook County Judge Mary Marubio. 

 “The victim fled the store, fell outside, followed by the defendant [who], according to the surveillance video, shot a second time. The defendant then paces back and forth and shot a third time,” Marubio said before ordering 42-year-old Chester Holmes held without bail. 

Holmes, who is barred from possessing a weapon because he is a four-time convicted felon and registered child sex offender, was working as an armed security guard at the store on the 6000 block of South Racine when a 28-year-old man walked in without a COVID mask around 9:53 am. Monday, according to Assistant State’s Attorney Darryl Auguste. 

Holmes and the victim argued about the mask policy and the victim eventually left. 

He then turned around and walked back in. When he did, Holmes met him with a drawn handgun and shot him, Auguste said. 

The victim fell to the ground outside the store…

Well, he had no business with a gun, so that kinda puts the icing on the lie of being scared about a dude not wearing a mask. Good riddance.

Police and Use of Force

This is my first article on the American Free News Network. Please let me know what you think. 

American Free News Network

This is an opinion column. The thoughts expressed are those of the author.

---

Police and Use of Force

Mike Thiac 5/4/2021 5:29 AM

TITLE: Police and Force

 

With the Derek Chauvin trial completed in Minneapolis, the usual suspects are screaming for police “reform.” Among the issues these “activists” and “leaders” want changed is civil liability law, response to persons in mental health crisis, and police use of force. While I’ll go into more detail on specific “reform” issues later, I think it would be useful to simply look at the use of force overall. What the National Institute of Justice has entitled The Use-of-Force Continuum, from lowest to highest.

 

1. Officer Presence, or Command Presence, if you will. What happens when you are driving and you see a police car? For most people, even if you are not speeding, you slow down. It’s a simple reaction to having a police authority nearby who can take action you may not like, such as giving you a ticket. But there are also other examples where just the presence of a peace officer gives you more civil environment. Countless cops work side jobs at bars, restaurants, or other places where alcohol is sold. When a group of friends go out, seeing a cop there may calm their drinking down, or if one of the friends has had enough, they mention, “Hey man, we don’t want the cop coming over…” Perhaps they just don’t want someone going to jail for public intoxication. Or it may be because one has some marijuana or other narcotic on them, and they don’t want to go to jail for that. Either way, a cop being there brings order to the area.

 

2. Verbal Orders. Just like it sounds, the cop sees an issue, instructs people, and they comply. Years ago, I worked an extra job at a bar, and after the place shutdown people would flood onto the streets. I would instruct them to get back on the sidewalk, and generally people had no issue with this. When asked why, I explained, “The drunk morons driving may take a turn onto this street and run you down. And I hate doing DOA accidents, pain in the ass, tons of paperwork…” One young lady got the point when an idiot driver turned onto our street and then almost hit her. Again, not trying to be a party pooper, just trying to keep people from getting hurt. Or another example, I have a suspect I need to get into custody. And he is not inclined to go. Insuring he can see, and hear it, I get on my radio, and ask for backup. I’ve had to explain to more than one suspect, “You may take me, but two other officers are coming now. Can you take three? And I say two words on this radio, I’ll have fifteen to twenty officers running hot. You won’t win.” They get the point.

 

3. Bodily force. Now things are getting “Physical.” It can be soft force on the suspect’s part, such as refusing to put his hands together, and preventing you from cuffing him. In that case, an officer can use a joint lock or hold technique to force his wrist closer so you can cuff him. Or if the suspect is on the ground, you can place a knee on the shoulder and twist the upper arm, pinning him to the ground. Or if things get more dynamic, it’s hands on fighting, i.e. punch, kick, or other physical force to protect yourself and take the suspect into custody. And when you get to this level, good chance you will go to the next level.

 

4. Intermediate force, sometimes known as less-lethal force. Police have used batons for ages, from the London bobby to the one of New York’s Finest walking the beat. Over the years, intermediate weapons have expanded to chemical spray (e.g. Mace) or Conductive Energy Devices (CEDs, often known as TASERs). Two things to keep in mind about intermediate weapons:

 

1. First, they give the officer a range of options to use in a dynamic situation. If a baton strike brings the suspect under control, great, But if he has a longer weapon, such as a bat, or crutch, Mace, a bean bag shotgun, or a CED will give you more range, and hopefully disable a suspect to remove any intermediate weapons.

 

2. Second, remember, each of these intermediate weapons can be deadly force, depending on how they are applied. Baton strikes above the shoulder are considered deadly force, as they can cause permanent serious injury. A suspect with asthma may have a severe allergic reaction to chemical spray. CEDs can cause serious or permanent injuries if a dart hits a critical area (e.g. an eye or sexual organ).

 

5. Deadly Force. To borrow the definition, “An amount of force that is likely to cause either serious bodily injury or death to another person.” Some examples are obvious, such as use of a firearm at any part of the body. It may be use of an intermediate weapon in a deadly manner. One of my training officers used a baton on a man’s head, and it was justified use of deadly force. Or another unique use of deadly force was Dallas Police using a robot to kill sniper Micah Johnson. A comment I hear occasionally from ignorant people, e.g. the current occupant of the White House, saying of LEOs, “Instead of standing there and teaching a cop, when there’s an unarmed person coming at them with a knife or something, you shoot them in the leg instead of in the heart is a very different thing.” Ah, hate to tell you Joe, a knife is a deadly weapon, so the man is armed. And if I shoot someone in the leg, and I hit the femoral artery, the man will likely bleed out in minutes.

 

Now that we got the basics, more to come. 

 

Michael A. Thiac is a retired Army intelligence officer, with over 23 years experience, including serving in the Republic of Korea, Japan, and the Middle East. He is also a retired police patrol sergeant, with over 22 years service, and over ten years experience in field training of newly assigned officers. He has been published at The American Thinker, PoliceOne.com, and on his personal blog, A Cop’s Watch. 

 

Opinions expressed are his alone and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of current or former employers.

 

 

Read, read, read...and read some more.

When I think of reading and professional development, two great quotes from Otto von Bismarck put it well:

“Only a fool learns from his own mistakes. The wise man learns from the mistakes of others.” 

“Fools learn from experience. I prefer to learn from the experience of others.” 

One of the great podcast I enjoy is Policing Matters, a great source of law enforcement issues. And this linked podcast reminded me, again, to listen to a man's full statement before I pass judgement. In this episode, Jim Dudley speaks with retired Los Angeles Sheriff's Office Commander Sid Heal. He discussed options for "non-lethal" force, AKA "intermediate force," for cops on the street. 

My wife is one me about binge buying books quickly. Well, I immediately ordered Concepts of Non-lethal Force, and put it on my "to read" shelf. Actually, fully stocked five level book shelf. And by Sunday I'll be reading this. 

Have a great weekend. 

This is not an initiation for an elite unit...

It's a felony.

Most elite groups (military, police, university or high school sports) have formal and informal entry requirements. An American soldier must pass the Special Forces Qualification Course and earn the Green Beret. He will then be assigned to a Special Forces Group, but his fellow soldiers in the group will have "other" qualifications for him.

Frat house hazing is good fun. However, if this is true, it's no joke. It's murder.

Australia reveals slaughter of helpless Afghans

MELBOURNE, Australia — They were the elite of the elite among this nation’s soldiers, with the confidence and competitiveness to match. But on the battlefields of Afghanistan, their win-at-all-costs attitude devolved into a “self-centered warrior culture” that encouraged killing helpless Afghans and covering it up.

Commanders ordered junior soldiers to execute prisoners so they could record their first “kill.” Adolescents, farmers and other noncombatants were shot dead in circumstances clearly outside the heat of battle.

Superior officers created such a godlike aura around themselves that troops dared not question them, even as 39 Afghans were unlawfully killed.

These are among the findings of battlefield misconduct released Thursday in a public accounting by the Australian military in a rare admission of abuses that often remain hidden on the battlefield...

...The inspector general’s inquiry, which examined the period from 2005 to 2016, stopped short of calling the killings war crimes. But the highly redacted report singles out “possibly the most disgraceful episode in Australia’s military history” and calls for the criminal investigation of 19 soldiers.

The country’s military chief, Gen. Angus Campbell, said he accepted the findings and would eliminate an elite unit at the center of the investigation. The report also recommends that the Australian government compensate the families of the Afghan victims...

...The investigation was initiated in 2015 by Jeff Sengelman, the commander of the special operations forces at the time, who commissioned a confidential “cultural review...”

..Disturbing revelations of unlawful killings, “competition killing” and “blood lust” prompted the army chief in 2016 to request that the inspector general conduct a formal inquiry..."

Again, if there is probable cause, present these men to a court martial and upon conviction, punish them. In my years, I’ve learned to not accept what’s in a paper at face value. But if true, this is bad. A disgrace to the men who have served in those units, and Australia in general.

Good news on use of force from the federal courts...

As a cop, and as a field trainer in particular, I need to keep an eye on legal updates. And as as cop, I've always like the Monday morning quarterbacking, or opinions of the Youtube experts, on police use of force. Thankfully Graham vs O'Connor states specifically the use of force must be judged from the point of view of the officer, needing to make decisions in the heat of the moment.

With that as a background, here we go.

Eighth Circuit ruling: Multiple TASER use justified to stop violently resisting suspect

After a man who viciously attacked his girlfriend died following a violent struggle with three officers, an excessive force lawsuit is brought against the officers

The Objectively Reasonable Officer

with Mike Callahan

On the night of September 22, 2013, Worth County Sheriff’s Deputy Isaac Short responded to a domestic disturbance call at a home in Northwood, Iowa.

Upon arrival, Short entered the home and heard screams coming from a second-floor bedroom. He kicked in the locked door of the bedroom and discovered Michael Zubrod engaged in a brutal attack on his girlfriend, Rhonda Schukei. Deputy Short saw Zubrod strike Schukei in the face with a hammer and heard him say, “Die bitch, you’re gonna die...”

You Tube experts, I'll type slowly so you can follow. The suspect has hit the woman in the face with a hammer. A blunt object like that, striking above the chest, is "deadly force," and at that moment the deputy had "reasonable fear for the life or serious bodily injury of himself or a third person," and the use of "deadly force" (e.g. shooting him) is justified.

..Deputy Short radioed for back-up, drew his firearm and commanded Zubrod to step back from the victim. Zubrod initially complied by stepping back and dropping the hammer. Deputy Short holstered his gun and took out his TASER. Zubrod responded by saying something about finding a gun and began to reach down under the bed. He came up empty-handed, grabbed a nearby pair of scissors and immediately stabbed Schukei in the neck while she was lying on the floor.

YouTube experts, see my comments above.

...The case highlights the high degree of danger in every domestic violence call and the extreme difficulty facing officers, even with superior numbers, in subduing violently resisting suspects. (Photo/PoliceOne)

Deputy Short fired his TASER but it was not effective in incapacitating Zubrod. [1] Zubrod grabbed a pair of pliers from a dresser and attacked the deputy. The fight moved from the bedroom into the hallway and into another bedroom. Deputy Short was eventually able to partially control Zubrod and place one handcuff upon his wrist. Zubrod continued to resist and Short could not secure the second handcuff to his other wrist. This only caused the situation to worsen because when handcuffs are fastened to only one wrist of a resisting suspect they can be used as a weapon by the offender.

Deputy Short was able to hold Zubrod’s wrists together for about eight minutes until Deputy Hoch arrived to assist. Zubrod continued to resist, broke free and got to his feet. Deputy Hoch deployed his TASER but it was again ineffective. The battle to control Zubrod continued as a third deputy arrived to assist.

Deputy Hoch ordered the third officer, Deputy Smith, to use his TASER on Zubrod. Both Deputy Hoch and Short released their grip on Zubrod so Deputy Smith could deploy his TASER. The TASER malfunctioned and the fight continued. Deputy Hoch attempted to use his TASER again on Zubrod and though the barbs connected with Zubrod’s thigh, neuromuscular incapacitation did not occur.

The three deputies continued to wrestle with Zubrod; Deputy Hoch deployed his TASER on Zubrod in the drive-stun mode 10 times in a period of just over three minutes. Zubrod was finally brought under control and properly handcuffed, but during the entire episode he was never neuromuscularly incapacitated.

After the protracted battle ended, the deputies observed Zubrod had stopped breathing. Paramedics were on the scene and commenced life-saving measures but to no avail. The medical examiner determined the cause of death to be “cardiac arrhythmia following altercation with police in the setting of acute methamphetamine intoxication.” The medical examiner concluded that the role of the TASER use upon Zubrod was “unknown.” Methamphetamine was discovered in Zubrod’s blood. He was a methamphetamine user and had increased his use of the drug in the days leading up to his attack on Schukei...

Excessive force lawsuit

Zubrod’s estate sued the involved deputies pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and alleged that Deputy Hoch’s use of his TASER involved excessive force and that Zubrod was subjected to TASER use after he was restrained by handcuffs. Moreover, Deputies Smith and Short were alleged to have violated Zubrod’s Fourth Amendment rights by failing to intervene and stop Hoch from improperly using his TASER against Zubrod. The Federal District Court Judge dismissed the lawsuit, holding that the deputies were entitled to qualified immunity and that the use of the TASER under these circumstances was reasonable. Zubrod’s estate filed an appeal.

Why the Eighth Circuit dismissed the lawsuit

The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of the lawsuit for the following reasons:

•The court ruled that Zubrod’s estate failed to produce sufficient evidence that Zubrod was subjected to TASER use after he was completely handcuffed and subdued.

•The court stated that Zubrod “had already severely injured his victim [Schukei] and demonstrated hostility and violence toward the deputies. The deputies faced an individual who was dangerous, acting abnormally, strong, threatening, and noncompliant, and each time they eased up to allow him to submit, he resumed his violent behavior.”

•The court viewed Deputy Hoch’s body-worn camera video and stated, “We conclude that it shows a violent suspect who failed to comply with reasonable orders to turn around and resisted after multiple [ten] tasings.”

•The court stated that as Zubrod “fought first one, then two, then three deputies who were unable to obtain his compliance without the use of TASERs. Under the aforementioned ‘tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving’
circumstances, this does not present a constitutional violation.” [2]

•The court concluded that “We hold that the district court properly [dismissed] … Zubrod’s excessive force claims. In addition, because a failure-to-intervene claim may not prevail in the absence of a showing of excessive force, we also hold that the district court properly [dismissed that claim as well].”

Lessons for LE

In this matter, the Eighth Circuit Federal Court of Appeals issued a well-reasoned and logical opinion that validated the extraordinarily difficult efforts by law enforcement officers to bring a violent and extremely dangerous suspect under control.

The case highlights the high degree of danger in every domestic violence call and the extreme difficulty facing officers, even with superior numbers, in subduing violently resisting suspects, especially when they are under the influence of methamphetamine. The decision also validates the continued use of a TASER in the “drive-stun mode” upon a continually violently resisting suspect...

The open hostility of local politicians and some federal officials have made law enforcement hesitant on the use of force. Thankfully these deputies handled this before the Obama War on Cops and it was handled by judges without a hatred for law enforcement.

The latest disaster from the PDRK...

The People’s Democratic Republic of Kalifornia.

I’ve often said when you think stupidity has reached rock bottom, wait. Someone will pick out a pick ax, or in this case, a jack hammer, and reach greater depths.

Jury Awards Payday To Family Of Man Shot While Actively Stabbing Officer

Sacramento, CA – A jury has awarded $2.75 million to the family of a man who was fatally shot by a Los Banos police officer as he was actively stabbing the officer with a pair of scissors.

According to the jury, the officer used “unreasonable force” by shooting one too many times, the Merced Sun-Star reported.

The incident took place at approximately 3 p.m. on Sep. 2, 2013, when 80-year-old Tan Lam called police to report that he had been assaulted by his 43-year-old son, Sonny Lam...

...He said he was worried about Sonny’s mental health, and said Sonny had threatened to kill him.

Los Banos Police Officer Jairo Acosta responded to the Lams’ shared residence, but was not made aware of Sonny’s purported mental health issues, the Merced Sun-Star reported.

Tan escorted Officer Acosta into a room, where the officer attempted to convince Sonny to come outside.

Sonny refused, then grabbed a pair of scissors, police said.

“[He] attacked Officer Acosta, stabbing him in his left arm,” the Los Banos Police Department said in a press release on Friday. “The Officer drew his firearm and a struggle ensued between the Officer and the suspect over the firearm.”

“Fearing for his safety, the Officer discharged his weapon twice, striking the suspect in the left leg and the chest,” the department said.

Sonny was rushed to a local hospital, but died of his injuries during surgery.

On Aug. 15, a Sacramento jury ruled that Sonny stabbed Officer Acosta with the scissors before the officer shot him in the leg, the Merced Sun-Star reported.

“But the jury was unclear as to whether the Officer was under immediate threat when he fired the second round…the round that caused the suspect’s death,” the police department said in the press release.

Because Sonny did not have ahold Officer Acosta’s gun, the jurors ruled that Officer Acosta was negligent in shooting Sonny the second time...

...They held Sonny comparatively at fault, thereby reducing the final verdict amount by 30 percent, the department said.

I recall the Melendez trials, brothers Joseph “Lyle”, and Erik Menéndez, chaired with the murder of their parents. After an initial hung jury, the brothers were convicted, and I’m still astonished at the fact a LA county jury did it. One of the female members of the jury said afterwards, “We felt sorry for them...they lost their parents.” No s$%^ woman, they murdered them!

Now we have a jury saying a man, being stabbed by a suspect, flies twice instead of once, while the suspect is trying to grab his weapon, and he used unreasonable force! Good God, I’m surprised these morons didn’t indict the cop for not de-escalating the situation.

I’ve also said, but a fork into California, it’s done.

Why am I not surprised...the DOJ wants to emasculate a police force.

And women, children, and minorities will be hardest hit.

One of the great results of the end of the Obama regime is the war on cops has been slowed. But it's not over yet. The bureaucracy is still going hard and fast against local police, the premice of what they are concerned over is a lie (Hands Up! Don't Shoot!), and if others get hurt in the process, they are still going for the goal. Federalization of local and state police. And we see another example of the DOJ needing a purging:

ACLU, Black Lives Matter say plans to reform the Chicago police don't go far enough

Chicago police officers would be encouraged to avoid arresting people over minor offenses and would need permission from supervisors to make arrests related to certain infractions under a proposal by activist groups involved in the litigation over potential reforms to the troubled Police Department.

On Tuesday morning, the groups — which include the American Civil Liberties Union of Illinois and Black Lives Matter Chicago — released their first organized responses to the proposed court agreement Mayor Rahm Emanuel and Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan introduced last month.

The criticisms are an attempt to influence the draft of the consent decree before it is submitted to a federal judge, which is expected to happen by early September. The activist organizations, the Emanuel administration and Madigan’s office are still wrangling over details of a potential court order that would eventually serve as a judicially enforceable mandate governing how officers use force and how they will be held accountable, among other issues...

...The groups proposed that the department be required to create a policy that encourages officers to use the “least intrusive response appropriate under the circumstances as reasonably understood by the officer at the time” in dealing with minor offenses. The suggested policy would encourage police to give warnings or divert people to “mediation or public health program(s)” rather than citing or locking them up. For a number of offenses, a supervisor would need to approve the arrest “unless not practicable under the circumstances.” Those crimes range from gambling and prostitution offenses to obstructing, resisting or assaulting a police officer

The activist groups also want the department to be forced to enact a policy on foot pursuits, which have often led to shootings and other uses of force. The consent decree proposed by Emanuel and Madigan leaves room for the creation of a policy but does not mandate it.

And the groups want officers to report every incident in which they point a Taser or a gun at a person, or even draw their firearms. The question of whether the department will have to report instances in which cops aim guns at people has been a sticking point between Madigan’s office and the Emanuel administration. Madigan’s office wants the incidents reported, and city officials apparently do not.

The potential consent decree would be one of the most substantive consequences of the scandal sparked in late 2015 by the release of video of Officer Jason Van Dyke, who is white, shooting black teenager Laquan McDonald 16 times. Van Dyke is scheduled to stand trial on murder charges next month.

The video touched off heated protests and led to an investigation of the police force by the U.S. Department of Justice. That inquiry led to a January 2017 report that described a broken Police Department in which badly trained police officers have engaged in brutality and misconduct with little fear of consequences...

OK, you give cops fear of consequences, such as being assertive and going out to prevent crime, there will be a reaction. Cops will simply log on at the beginning of the shift, answer their calls for service, go home at the end of the shift, and not care if they pass by a man getting assaulted or a woman getting her purse grabbed.

Do you want evidence of this? I posted on this in American Thinker last year. A point I made in that article was cops are, by their nature, not trusting. You screw them over and over, and then make correction, it will take time before they believe it.

Rahm Emanuel, the fish have been delivered to your door. But don't worry, the city will still elect you again and again. You have the magical "D" behind your name, and I don't see them ready for their own Rudy Giuliani. Yet.

God help the people of Chicago.

Use of force. On a woman.

I recall trying to take a man in a wheelchair into custody. My partner and I were at it for almost five minutes and damned I was exhausted.

Notice this officer is much larger than the woman he is trying to take into custody and it still takes over 4 minutes and the assistance of another officer to get her under control. And the driver could have gotten into the fight, where it might have elevated from there.

Good work on this and I'm glad you're ok:

Thankfully the officers were not harmed....

And the K9 didn't get an infection....

K9s and helicopters are bi-polar, if you will. I find 9 time out of 10, by the time they get to the scene, the situation is handled, or they are disregarded for the same reason. But when they are on the scene, they are a godsend. Like here.

I've had to handle suspects on PCP and other narcotics and this dude is showing signs of being on them. I say that because he is naked and refusing orders of multiple officers. Suspects on PCP often take their cloths off because they are hot as hell. One suspect we took down had a fever of 106 by the time the medics got him in the ambulance. They are not to be played with.

That as background I found this article interesting.
  

Cops Allow Police Dog to Bite Naked, Unarmed Man

Video raises questions about excessive force.

The NBC4 I-Team has obtained police body cam video — never before seen publicly — that shows cops allowing a K-9 to bite a naked, unarmed man, including for over 40 seconds after officers had him pinned to the ground.

Attorneys who've seen the video say it amounts to excessive force, and raises questions for all police departments about how they use K-9s...

True, that's their job, to sue for money. Counselor, how much did you make on this?

The initial police call came out around 8:30 in the morning on a Saturday in August 2015. Patrol officers with the San Diego Police Department were asked to check on the welfare of a naked man screaming and running through a canyon in University City, a San Diego suburb near La Jolla, according to police reports obtained by the NBC4 I-Team.

It took some time for the officers to locate the man hiding in a rustic canyon area surrounded by homes and a high school. Officers believed the man was under the influence of a controlled substance, which the man later admitted to NBC4 was true.

I am shocked, shocked I tell you.

In the police video, you see officers asking the naked man to walk up the hillside toward them. He complies with their commands until he gets to the top of the canyon.

You hear the officers ordering the man to "turn around, turn around." He says "no" several times in a defiant voice.

Just two seconds later, and without warning, the K-9 officer gives his police dog the command to bite the subject...

Per the article, warming is suggested but not required by the SDPD. And decisions like this must be made close to instantly. One thing I'll point out is if the man starts to fight (which is what I'm getting from his actions) he or the officers could go rolling down that canyon side and get injured even more.

The dog takes down the man immediately. Then four officers pinned the man to the ground, but allowed the dog to violently bite the man’s leg for 44 more seconds. Other San Diego Police Officers hold the subject down and cuff him.

"It wasn’t necessary to use the dog to begin with and it sure as hell wasn’t necessary or needed or appropriate to let the dog continue to bite," said noted civil rights attorney Donald W. Cook.

The NBC4 I-Team watched the video with Cook, who has represented hundreds of people bitten by police dogs over a 30-year career. He does not represent the man in the police video.

"It’s barbaric," he said.

No, it's intermediate force. If you listen to everyone they are screaming "put your hands in the back!" and "stop resisting!" Getting through the drug caused haze is a major problem.

...The man, a 25-year-old businessman in San Diego for a convention, told NBC4 he ended up naked in that canyon after a night of hard partying.

"I take some responsibility because I was under the influence," said the man, who asked not to be named. "But nothing justifies the cops used of such force," he said.

Added attorney Cook, "It's not just a San Diego problem. It's a problem in any department where they’re letting a dog attack and bite non-dangerous suspect..."

Mr Cook, you are wrong. Your client was not a "non-dangerous suspect," he was non-compliant, he was taking an aggressive stance and if there was a fight on that edge a lot more people would have been injured. Now if your client had simply put his hands behind his back, the problem is solved. But he more than indicated he would not. So intermediate force was used.

Again I go back to the issue of the narcotics. One time in Ben Taub Hospital we had a woman on PCP and it took eightmen to get to strapped down to the gurney. And after the nurse administered the drug cocktail (9 injections, really good s^&*) the patient normally is zoned out in less than 10 minutes. This woman was still pulling at her restrains 20 minutes later and was only starting to slow down after 30. It's superhuman strength and a serious threat to cops.

Next time Mr. "asked not to be named," try staying off the PCP or wet. Good work SDPD.

A new look at Use of Force and Training.

Since the justified shooting of Mike Brown was used by the Obama Justice Department and the idiot who currently occupies the White House (no, this is not objective, not lying about it) used it to inflame people and led to riots and unjustified legal action against police, the usual suspects have said we need to relook at Use of Force. I'm the first to say doctrine and training should adjust as time goes on. In my lifetime an officer could fire a warning shot at a fleeing suspect and that was stopped. Gotta say that was right, the bullet will end up somewhere.

That as context for my comments, here is an article on a recent think tank forum on the issue.

A Revolution in Use-of-Force Policy and Training?

A battle is brewing among law enforcement leadership organizations about whether and how to change police use-of-force policy and training to be kinder and gentler. As the public, the media, and law enforcement professionals grapple with the persistent post-Ferguson issues, you on the street are surely scratching your heads.

In January, the Police Executive Research Forum (PERF), a Washington, D.C.-based think tank, weighed in with "30 Guiding Principles" at its meeting titled, "Use of Force: Taking Policing to a Higher Standard." These guidelines for use of force and use-of-force training sparked a lot of conversation among officers and those who believe officers have a tendency to use too much force.

"There is a real mismatch between what community standards are, what the community expects, what they think the law should be, versus what the training and the law allows for," Vanita Gupta, the Department of Justice's assistant attorney general for civil rights, told the Washington Post. Gupta said a national conversation about police objective reasonableness was potentially "revolutionary."

PERF Executive Director Chuck Wexler wrote in an e-mail to all PERF members: "In short, PERF's members are telling us that we need to take use-of-force policies and training to a higher standard than what is currently required by the court system. The Supreme Court's landmark ruling from 1989 in Graham v. Connor provides guidance on when police officers are allowed to use deadly force, but it doesn't provide guidance on how to avoid use of deadly force. In certain types of situations that occur thousands of times a year, police are confronted with persons wielding knives, rocks, or other weapons—not guns. In these cases, we are asking police departments to begin rethinking strategies and equipping officers with the appropriate training and tactics to defuse these potentially volatile encounters, in a way that ensures that both the officers and those they are dealing with may survive the encounter."...

First, the issue in Graham v. Connor was not use of options other than deadly force, but if force was reasonable and justified in the case of Mr. Graham being detained for investigation. Well anyone with some knowledge of the law and SCOTUS knows that the court generally goes to get pains to limit the ruling to issues raised by the complainant.

Some of the research that was used as the foundation of the PERF guidelines resulted from a trip to Scotland by several U.S. law enforcement leaders, to see how business is done over there. Scotland doesn't have a gun-crime problem, but they confront a lot of knives.

As if on cue, within 24 hours two police officers (one with the New York Police Department and one with the California Highway Patrol) were attacked and wounded by knife-wielding suspects.

The Wrong Track

No doubt some (perhaps many) PERF members agree with the organization's 30 Guiding Principles. But not everyone agrees with all of them. As a longtime PERF member and also a longtime member of the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP), I and quite a few other PERF and IACP members I've spoken with do not necessarily think PERF is on the right track with some of its specific recommendations.

Here are a few comments I received in early February from police chiefs, trainers, and use-of-force experts:

"Why should my safety not be more important than anyone else's?"

"A smart cop reading through this bulls--- will salute smartly, smile, promise compliance, and then go out and do nothing, or as close to nothing as he can do without being fired or ruining his career."

"I agree with the stated concern of how to 'raise the standard' and still have a consistent standard that officers can understand… But I don't know how you change the standard for fast-moving situations where the officer is faced with a quick, threatening movement, even when the perceived threat turns out not to be a threat."

"I was sorry to see PERF not address training in basic skills."

"Much of the material is good, but it lacks that practical side that only comes from spirited, well-rounded, and educated debate."

Dissenting Views

The IACP quickly responded to PERF in an e-mail to its membership: "[T]he IACP is extremely concerned about calls to require law enforcement agencies to unilaterally, and haphazardly, establish use-of-force guidelines that exceed the "objectively reasonable" standard set forth by the U.S. Supreme Court nearly 30 years ago (Graham v. Connor). The creation of a multitude of differing policies and use-of-force standards throughout the United States would, undoubtedly, lead to both confusion and hesitation on behalf of law enforcement officers, which in turn would threaten both their safety and that of the citizens they are sworn to protect… As we move forward in examining law enforcement's policies and training procedures regarding use of force it is imperative that any reforms be carefully researched and evidence-based."

The next day, the Police Foundation released an infographic titled, "When Can the Police Use Force—and What Happens When They Do?" And in related remarks, the Police Foundation wrote: "Use of force is governed by laws at the federal and local levels, and its justification is dependent on the reasonable perspective of the involved officers at the very moment force was used—not on thoughtful, retrospective examination and questioning. Articulating and explaining this information to the public is critical because these incidents bring challenging and complex considerations that are often not apparent to the public. With this infographic, the public can be better informed about when the police can use force and how police are held accountable for use-of-force situations."

The Association of Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs (ALADS) weighed in a few days later: "'Hands up, don't shoot!' This is not a new protest group chant, but what law enforcement officers might be required to do, backing away with their hands up when confronting a violent situation… [T]he PERF proposals continue to focus all responsibility for the use of force, including deadly force, on the deputy or officer and absolve of any responsibility the suspect whose actions necessitated the use of force. In virtually every single instance of the use of force, had the suspect simply complied with the commands of law enforcement, use of force would not have been necessary."

The ALADS statement also quoted Executive Director Jim Pasco of the Fraternal Order of Police: "We don't believe that we should just move headlong based on PERF having taken a trip to Scotland, that we should just turn policing in a country, God knows how many times bigger than Scotland, totally on its head. We're not going to stand by and let police officers be sacrificed on the altar of political correctness."

Steps Too Far

There is much that is easy to support in the PERF principles. De-escalation training, slowing down incidents where circumstances allow it, intervening when another officer is over the line with use of force, thorough incident investigation and review processes, training that reflects agency values, improved training on handling the mentally ill… These are examples of items that I believe most law enforcement professionals support.

But misstatements by PERF about the so-called "21-foot rule" and misstatements about officer-involved shootings following failed TASER attempts in imminent deadly force situations make one wonder if anybody who has actually faced deadly threats was involved in the drafting of the document. Further, the 21-foot rule isn't a "rule," it's just a poor label for a reaction time experiment, and it most certainly does not mean that you always shoot a knife-holding suspect that is less than 21 feet from you.

Then there's the baffling PERF suggestion that, "If an encounter requires a use of force, officers should start at the lowest level of force that is possible and safe. Officers should never do anything to escalate a situation themselves."

Pardon me. Use of force that is safe? Established law says no use of force is "safe." In Garrett v. Athens Clarke County, 378 F.3d 1274, 1280, n.12 (11th Cir. 2004), the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled: "Almost every use of force, however minute, poses some risk of death."

And officers should never escalate? Folks, when verbalization fails, you escalate. When soft-hands-on tactics fail, you escalate. And you don't fight to a draw, you fight to win, quickly, which necessarily means using more force than is being used against you.

Getting Past the Noise

All of this rancor among police organizations over use-of-force policy and guidelines comes about in a tumultuous time of increased second-guessing of officers, rising violent crime rates, prolific videos, Black Lives Matter activism, fired officers and police chiefs, criminal prosecution of officers, controversy about "de-policing," and even politicized Super Bowl half-time entertainment.

Much of the current noise surrounds the question of whether law enforcement officers should be "warriors" or "guardians." People seem to have different definitions of these terms, so we talk past each other. Someone must bridge the Warrior-Guardian definitional divide between police leaders and the police on the street. We can't have a good discussion until we are on the same definitional page.

According to the Random House Dictionary, the term "warrior" has two meanings. The first applies to the military at war. The second is applicable to policing: "The term 'warrior' is often associated with images of power, confidence, accomplishment, integrity, chivalry, honor and integrity… They are disciplined… They develop mental focus… They develop an attitude of persistence… They train."

Guardians adopt a service mindset over a crime-fighting mindset, using patience and restraint while maintaining the capability to use force when appropriate....

Greg Meyer is a retired Los Angeles Police Department captain who consults nationwide on police procedures and tactics. He is a longtime member of the POLICE advisory board.

I've been off the net the last year as I've finished my masters and I'm reading up on this issue. Coming from most of my life on the streets, I look with jaundice eye at people sitting in a hotel conference room judging the actions of officers as they make instant lie and death decisions as their life is concerned. That being said, it is good to constantly re-evalutate training, doctrine, etc. But with the current administration and the polarized/politized Justice Department, guidance coming out now is not to be trusted.

Copblock shows how worthless it its...

I saw this from PoliceOne.com yesterday and looked up the referenced video. Here it is with the article and my comments.

Video of state police drug arrest in Frederick raises question about use of force

By Jeremy Arias

The three-minute, 47-second video was posted to YouTube on Thursday by a group opposing police injustice. The silent clip shows a uniformed state trooper chase a man into the lobby of a business on Carroll Creek Way, then throw him to the floor. When more troopers arrive, one of them strikes the man repeatedly in the face with a closed fist before the man is placed in handcuffs. While the second trooper punches the man, the first trooper has the man pinned on the floor and is trying to restrain his arms....

No Mr. Arias, CopBlock.Org is not "opposing police injustice." They oppose police, period.

...The troopers involved in the arrest were cleared of any wrongdoing and their actions were deemed justified by the state police Internal Affairs Unit and use-of-force experts from the agency’s training division, according to a state police statement released Friday in response to The Frederick News-Post’s questions.

“It was determined that the troopers used reasonable force against a suspect who continued to resist arrest and made movements indicative of someone trying to reach a gun in his pocket or waistband,” the police statement says. “The force was only used in an effort to take the non-compliant suspect into custody and prevent him from reaching his pocket or waistband during the struggle. When custody was obtained, all use of force ceased.”...

...The man, 31-year-old Bradley S. Martin, was driving a 1995 Ford Explorer west on I-70 near Mussetter Road at about 3 p.m. Aug. 17 when a state trooper tried to pull him over for going 76 mph in a 65 mph zone, according to a statement state police issued Friday.

The SUV kept going, leading troopers onto Md. 144 and into the city, running several stoplights along the way, according to state police. As more troopers joined the pursuit, they learned that the license plate on the SUV was not the one registered to the vehicle, according to the statement...

In case you don't catch the point, when you have a stolen/false license plate on a vehicle, the assumption the cop has to make is the vehicle is stolen.

...Troopers continued to chase Martin on foot when he jumped out of the SUV and ran into the business, where the camera recorded the arrest, Shipley said.

“[The trooper] finds [Martin] in this small lobby area, giving him commands to surrender, to get on the ground, and there is an immediate struggle,” Shipley said. “This video has no sound, but there is that struggle going on. This guy is not surrendering. He is struggling.”

The state police statement says Trooper 1st Class Hood ordered Martin multiple times to stop and chased him into the building, where the trooper pulled him to the floor.

“The trooper saw and felt the suspect repeatedly try to get one or both hands into the pockets or waistband of his pants,” the statement said. “The trooper was trying to gain control of the suspect’s hands as the struggle continued.”

The statement says Trooper 1st Class Whorton arrived as backup and heard from Hood that the suspect “may have a gun in his pants.” Whorton used “closed hand strikes to the suspect’s face” to try to subdue him, the statement says. When a third trooper arrived to help and the struggle continued, “TFC Whorton used additional hand strikes and the suspect submitted and was able to be handcuffed,” police said.

Martin was taken to Meritus Medical Center near Hagerstown for treatment of facial injuries, and was then taken to R Adams Cowley Shock Trauma Center in Baltimore.

And if you had noticed he had a bag of a white power like substance (0:57 of the video). I think it's called heroin.

David Rocah, the senior staff attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union of Maryland, had a different perspective of what was shown in the video. In Rocah’s view, the trooper was either exacting street justice or, at best, trying to force Martin to comply by inflicting pain on him.

“That is not and should not be a lawful use of force,” Rocah said. “And the fact that the Maryland State Police thinks that it is, I think, perfectly demonstrates why so many people think that the police cannot police themselves, and it shows why they are right.”

Mr. Rocah, if it's "lawful use of force" is something to be judge by an investigator, the department and possibly a grand jury or jury. Now seeing you're an attorney and that limits your knowledge of the law ( ;<) ) let me explain this to you. If you are trying to resist arrest, a peace officer may use reasonable force to secure you. If you are likely going for a weapon, that gets elevated (see 1:05 to 1:15. The punk was going to his waist and that is where turds like to keep weapons, like guns and knifes. At that moment the trooper has fear for his life or serious bodily injury and can legally use deadly force. So you know it, punching him in the face with a fist is not deadly force. But as soon as the het him under control, the punching stops (1:15 5o 1:25). That's what we call justified use of force.

...That the second trooper immediately assaulted Martin instead of helping to restrain his arms indicates the second trooper was more concerned with hurting Martin than preventing him from reaching for a weapon, Rocah said.

“This mantra, that he might have had a gun, is what police always say, and it is not and should not be a blanket statement to any crazy actions that police take,” Rocah said. “By that rationale, the police would have been justified in executing [the man].”...

No Mr. Rocah, the trooper would have been justified in using deadly force (e.g. a pistol or baton strike to the head). BTY, the crazy actions of Mr. Martin, evading at high speeds, running red lights, etc endangered countless civilians. If he had simply pulled over, use of force would have not been necessary.

...After Martin was handcuffed, police found that he had a folded knife and 14.9 grams of heroin, with an estimated street value of $3,750 to $7,500, according to the statement...

Martin initially gave police a false name, but he was eventually identified and charged via a grand jury indictment Dec. 19 that was served at a correctional facility in West Virginia, the statement reads. The charges included possession with intent to distribute heroin, possession of heroin, reckless endangerment, resisting arrest and second-degree assault...

...According to the ACLU, Martin’s arrest was the latest in an ongoing pattern of troubling actions and justifications by police that undermine the public’s trust in law enforcement. Ultimately, independent reviews of such cases will likely be needed to restore the public’s trust in police, Rocah said.

“I’m not saying [police] can’t use force. I’m not saying that it’s an easy job,” Rocah said. “Police enforcing the law is sometimes inherently a violent job ... [But] the difference between intent and perception can be vast, and if all that matters is police perception, then none of us are safe, because none of us can control police perception.”

You mean he's not in college and on the dean's list. Sorry ACLU and COPBLOCK.ORG, you picked another "entrepreneur" to make a fight over. He is a felon (to be accurate, he is accused), in possession of heroin and evading in a vehicle. Law abiding citizens will likely look at that video and say "Looks like a turd, acts like a turn,that's a turd."

Great work troopers!