Rogue Cops, Social Bias, and an Unjust System: Part 2

In Part 1 of this series, you read about the injustice of our system as it concerns our underprivileged citizens: the uneducated, disabled, mentally challenged, the poor, or any combination of these. The risk to this group of people who can least afford or handle the criminal justice system is so much higher than to other classes and groups.

Here, our focus is specifically on the rogue cop -- good cops gone bad, or just bad to begin with -- and the dangers they present.

Any group of people -- whether it be lawyers, cops, doctors, teachers, etc. -- has within it "good" and "bad" members. With our police officers, a group upon whom we need to be able to rely, trust, and turn to in times of emergency, the standard allows NO room for the "bad." Unlike teachers, for example, cops carry guns. Cops carry handcuffs. Cops carry tasers. Bad cops, unlike any other group, pose a significant risk to our welfare.

There is a pattern when it comes to police abuse of power. The following are all phrases one might hear or read in a police report that, in my opinion, raise the red flag concerning the officer's veracity:

"I smell marijuana." (In cases where no drugs are found, no drug-related charges are issued. Phrase used to give rise to probably cause for a search of vehicle or residence.)

"He was resisting arrest." (Phrase used to justify police brutality and physical violence directed at civilian. Warning: If you hiccup while being cuffed, the slight movement in your body will be perceived as resistance.)

"She proceeded to engage in disorderly conduct." (Because there is no law that prohibits you from questioning an officer, demanding your rights, or even cursing, cops will group any and every statement that ticks them off under the category of 'disorderly conduct' to justify their subsequent abusive behavior. A perfect example of this is the video, below, titled "Man Asks For Complaint Form, Ends Up in ER.")

"He fell." (This is the oft used explanation for how a civilian taken into custody ends up black, blue, bleeding, and broken. See "From simple DWI to a Pool of Blood," below.)

Video Tape Security

In a world full of video cameras, phones with cameras, and audio recorders, evidence is finally mounting to prove how abusive police have become. Do a search on YouTube, for example, and put in the keywords "police brutality" or "rogue cops" and you'll have several days worth of videos to watch, many of them seriously disturbing and some of which I've posted for you, below.

Without video or audio evidence, a victim of brutality doesn't have a chance. When it comes down to a cop's word against the victim / accused, guess who a judge is going to believe?

So what are we to do to protect ourselves?

First, the fact that this is a question we even need to consider is testament to how bad things have become. Freedom in the USA is now just a myth.

Next, to be safe, you need to carry a camera in your vehicle, and keep one near your front door. When you see an officer approaching, turn it on. Am I being overly paranoid? Perhaps. But I also know a large number of victims who deserved justice and would have had it if they'd had a way to prove the truth of their claims. They needed a video. The next best option would be an audio recorder. At the very least, a cop can't claim that you said "No!" when he told you to lie face down on the pavement before he slammed his knee into your back -- after you were cuffed, of course.

Finally, watch the videos included in Part 1 of this article to learn how to protect yourself from the police. There is sound advice to be found, and well worth whatever time it takes to watch the 3 clips.

As mentioned, cops fall back on the excuse that the alleged criminal was engaging in "disorderly conduct." By this they mean that a human being with free will and rights to which he or she should be afforded protection has in some way questioned the action being taken by an officer. Or, it could mean that a child, responding in a perfectly human way, has failed to follow to the letter any demands placed upon him by the arresting officer.

An intoxicated woman -- apparently unable to stand at attention without falling over -- begins to cry as she is manhandled by a large officer. He starts to throw her around, justifying his behavior due to her "disorderly conduct." He turns the camera off, and when it comes back on, the woman is lying in a large pool of her own blood. Her eyes and mouth are beaten so badly, she looks like she's gone 5 rounds with Mike Tyson. The officer alleges that during the period he turned off the camera, the woman "fell" and injured herself.

A teen girl kicks off her shoe after being placed in a holding cell. Disorderly conduct? Maybe. But does it justify the beating that results? Or, have the police crossed the line and entered the criminal world, becoming an abuser guilty of assault and battery?

A man fails to comply with the order given to him to stand up. He is thrown to the floor and beaten. That he was paralyzed and in a wheel-chair seems to make no difference to steroid-pumped cops.

Sometimes, the line between brutality and legitimate force is a bit fuzzy, as in the first video (right) where a 15 year old girl is clearly resisting arrest. The officer resorts to physical violence to gain control, bashing her into the car, spraying her with tear-gas, and punching her.

In all of the videos in this set, an officer's level of frustration appears to peak, and violence ensues.

The question is: When is it okay to use such drastic physical force?

When an officer truly believes he is in physical danger, common sense dictates that a physical response directly falls under the category of "self defense." But what about when the officer isn't in fear for his safety? Is it okay to become violent in an officer's attempt to "gain control"?

Should police officer's be required to learn behavioral management techniques -- much like parents of special needs children -- rather than resort to physical enforcement?

As these videos demonstrate, the human reaction to force -- especially when a person is innocent -- is to retreat or in some way protect oneself.

• A pregnant mother who is holding a child becomes frustrated and tries to leave (She was not under arrest, by the way. She voluntarily entered the police station.)
• A frightened young girl continuously screams for help from her Mother. She tries to keep her arms in a protective stance, in front of her body (a common and expected response).
• A man tries to get a complaint form and is frustrated by the officer's failure to follow policies and procedures. His response to the officer's attitude is to ask questions; an absolutely normal, expected response.
• An old man is over-taken by a herd of large police. Imagine how frightened he must have been?

Let's look more closely at the first video of the 15 year old girl:

What if the officer began is arrest of this frightened young girl with behavioral techniques that are proven effective when dealing with people who are in a state of heightened fear or anxiety?

The officer repeatedly says "Put your arm behind your back" while physically struggling with the girl from an intimidating position (directly behind her, his body pressed against her backside as she is bent over the hood of the car). His technique is ineffective due to the girl's fear.

How might things have turned out differently if he'd first calmly, respectfully said, "I need to place handcuffs on you. I know you are frightened, but I promise you won't get hurt and everything will work itself out, so long as you cooperate. I need for you to put both of your arms behind your back, and I'm going to carefully put the cuffs on. I have to do this, I don't have a choice." His attempts to be calm and reason with the girl happen too late in the process; she is too frightened by that point because of the officer's initial approach.

The most frequent comment received in defense of officer's is, "People should know that you have to do what a cop says. It's just stupid to ignore him or try to argue. Do what he says and you'll be fine." The problem with this is 1) people DON'T always know this, and 2) the natural human response to fear is to flee and resist. When a person's fear and anxiety become so off-the-charts, he can no longer think clearly.

Knowing this to be true, don't officers have a duty to respond accordingly? Shouldn't they know that as soon as the recognize the signs of heightened fear and anxiety, it is to everyone's benefit to handle it properly?

If a parent, for example, were to use a closed fist to punch her child in the face as a response to the child biting her on the arm, how would we, as a society, react? How would the cops react? Most certainly, we'd say, "That's inappropriate! That's abuse!" If the parent responds, "But I was just trying to get my kid under control..." our level of appall would not lessen. So why do we allow our police to respond with a closed fist? Why are they not held to the same -- or a higher -- standard when dealing with situations like this?

In this final video, you'll notice that the officer's response to an intoxicated woman is akin to what one might expect from a group of drunk fraternity brother's on a Friday night.  It is unimaginable that our law enforcement officers would so blatantly take advantage of this drunk woman, right in front of the cameras (thankfully!) 

Watch closely at the behavior of the officer who meets the woman at the door.  How does her skirt end up around her waist and exactly what happened?

Punishment for Rogue Cops

Why is it that when an officer is caught in acts of abuse or "conduct unbecoming," that the law's response to clearly illegal behavior is to suspend the cop from duty?  Do civilians ever get this same lenient option?  "A man caught beating his wife was suspended today from his role of being a husband.  He can return to this role in 90 days."  Really!?

The absurdity of the wife-beating-husband example should punctuate the absurdity of the suspension-response to officers who cross the line.  In fact -- because society must be able to trust and rely on the police -- the punishment for crossing the line needs to be swift and severe.  In every case of abuse (technically, it's assault and battery), an officer MUST be subjected to the same criminal proceedings as the civilian. 

A common scenario is the situation with a Priest who is caught in acts of pedophilia.  We are outraged when the Catholic church responds to a Priest who is guilty of raping children by stripping him of his title and moving him to some unknown perish in an "undesirable" location.  Why should a Priest be immune to criminal prosecution?  Why should a cop?

The answer is indisputable:  These people in positions of authority upon whom society places so much trust MUST be held to a higher standard and punished accordingly.

The more you know, the better you'll be able to protect yourself and take a stand to help protect those who cannot protect themselves:

Rogue Cops, Social Bias, and an Unjust System - Part 1:  An analysis of the bias within our justice system where the underprivileged are at a drastically higher risk than any other member of society.

Police brutality and abuse of a scared woman on an isolated road: The craziness of cops in Arizona.

12-year old mentally challenged girl beaten by rogue cop and shot with beanbag gun: Read the story and discover the cop's justification. A real head-shaker.

A shocking -- SHOCKING -- first hand account of brutality and abuse by our officials: In the after-math of hurricane Andrew.

An example of good cop vs. bad cop, and the aftermath: Oakland, CA; a rookie officer can't stomach the rogue actions of fellow officers, and blows the whistle. Guess what happens?

An example of how rogue cops caught in the act are protected: One city mayor jumps on the bandwagon to shade the inappropriate actions of a network of rogue cops.

Beyond our Borders: Another country asks for help from US to stamp out rogue cops? Seriously?!