Seeing It Through The Cops' Eyes, Part 2

In an effort to appreciate the "new professionalism" that guides our police, as noted by Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia whenever he explains why the old sanctions to prevent cops from beating people are no longer needed, it's critical that we keep on top of new law enforcement tactics.  From Packratt at his new blog, Injustice Everywhere, I learned of a new one:  Distraction.

Richard Rodriguez fled in a car from El Monte police, who followed in high speed pursuit.  He abandoned the car and ran, and they continued to follow.  Eventually, the chase came to an end, with Rodriguez giving up by lying supine on the ground, spread eagle.  He was very wrong to flee as he did.  And apparently quite unfamiliar with the tactics of new professionalism.

Officer George Fierro was the first to run up to Rodriguez and, in mid stride, kicked him square in the face while he laid prone waiting to be arrested. A lawyer for the police union in El Monte claims that this kick is a “Distraction Technique” that all officers are trained to perform and are justified to use by departmental policy… apparently so is the tactic of repeatedly hitting a prone suspect in the back with a flashlight and instructing one’s K9 unit to bite his legs as two other officers proceeded to do when they arrived shortly after Fierro.

While the description is fine, the "impact" of the "impact" is better made visually.  To save you some time, the first 5:25 is video of the high speed chase.  If you're a fan of chases, enjoy, but otherwise jump ahead.



As the high fives and back pats suggest, the El Monte police officers were quite pleased with themselves.  They caught the guy, and this time it was the guy they were trying to catch.  It's fair cause for celebration, as it happens so infrequently.  But more to the point, they have effectively employed the "new professionalism" tactic of the "Distraction Technique."

In an interview shortly after video of the arrest made the rounds in the media, the El Monte police chief appeared to agree with this assessment by saying that a spread-eagle suspected is a threat worthy of this “distraction technique” if that suspect moves his head to see where the footsteps rapidly approaching him are headed… which was right towards his face.

From the cop's perspective, Rodriguez (who by all accounts is about as unsympathetic a fellow as you will find) could have been "playing possum," lying there awaiting the officers' approach, and then attacking.  When this was posted at Carols Miller's Photography is Not a Crime, a commenter, LEO (that's an abbreviation for Law Enforcement Officer, for those who might confuse it with an astrological adherent), explained:
It’s called “playing dead” folks. Jason is 100% correct. It may appear to an untrained civilian that this man surrendered, but he can easily turn on the officers. Every officer knows this and many have personally witnessed “surrendered” suspects who turn out to have done anything but. This was a clean bust and what the officer did was both right and necessary.

This isn’t Snow White here the officers captured. This is a vicious criminal who already demonstrated his callous disregard for human life in his dangerous pursuit. That told the officers this man is highly dangerous.
Another commenter, 10-18 (police code for an urgent assignment), offered this explanation:

This is a terrific example of civilians who don’t understand lawful, necessary police tactics commenting on something they don’t understand.

Once the suspect was cuffed, he walked to the police cruiser on his own two feet. He has no head injuries. A dangerous suspect must be subdued as soon as possible. You don’t wait around to make things all warm and cuddly for violent felons. You move as fast as you can, just like if you found a cobra in your baby’s crib. LEO is absolutely right.

The kick was completely justified.
The gist of our new professionals is clear.  We, meaning those of us who do not put our life on the line everyday to protect people from the forces of evil,  don't get it.  They do.  As with Part 1, I don't doubt the sincerity of the cops' belief that this was an appropriate, perhaps even necessary, use force.  Rather, it is the disconnect between what us "civilians" see and what cops see.

To the extent that we chose to believe that we are all on the same page in our understanding of what is happening on the streets with those to whom we entrust a shield and gun, the evidence is otherwise.  We do not see the same thing.  We do not share a common sense of where the line is drawn between legitimate use of police force and excess.  We do not see the same images and see the same thing.

It's one thing for criminals, those who we condemn for the harm they do to others, to deserve our moral condemnation for their actions.  It's another when those actions are performed by our police.  Criminals are not the measure of legitimacy, and yet our police believe with all their heart that we, who they call "civilians", are the ones who don't get it.  If this reflects the social compact, then we do not have a meeting of the minds.

Posted by SHG at 5/24/2009 6:52 AM
Categories: uncategorized
 
Trackbacks
Trackback specific URL for this post
  • No trackbacks exist for this post.
Comments
Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)

  • 5/24/2009 2:02 PM John Kindley wrote:
    Bet this video doesn't make it on to an episode of "World's Scariest High-Speed Police Chases" on Spike TV. We've got shows like these and "World's Dumbest Criminals," with a clear editorial view of who the good/professional guys and who the bad/stupid guys are. We need a TV show called "World's Most Brutal Cops" or "Cops Gone Wild" to bring this other side of the story to the masses. There would be no shortage of material, judging by how regularly this stuff pops up. Won't happen though, except on the internet.
    Reply to this
    1. 5/24/2009 7:31 PM SHG wrote:
      If they had a show called "Cops Gone Wild," would anybody watch?
      Reply to this
      1. 5/25/2009 11:19 AM Jdog wrote:
        Yes. What am I, chopped liver?
        Reply to this
        1. 5/25/2009 11:50 AM SHG wrote:
          If you have to ask . . .
          Reply to this
          1. 5/25/2009 11:53 AM Chopped liver wrote:
            . . . you may as well be served with some onions on the side.
            Reply to this
  • 5/25/2009 11:27 AM Jdog wrote:
    I disagree. I think that when somebody engages in a high speed evasion, endangering the public, authorities should be able to administer appropriate physical punishment -- say, a kick to the head with a boot, followed by several blows to the kidneys with a "baton," and do so on the spot.

    'Course, I think that before that happens, we really need to change the laws a lot, to allow the badged enforcers of law and justice to do so, with the check on misbehavior on such things coming from, say, the Crown; the king should be simply be able to have the head of one of his servants mounted upon a pole, if he decides that the kick was inappropriate. It would tend to restrain the impetuous.

    I should be the king, of course. Bet I could meet a lot of chicks that way.
    Reply to this
    1. 5/25/2009 11:50 AM SHG wrote:
      I gather you didn't notice the dog bites.
      Reply to this
      1. 5/25/2009 11:52 AM Jdog wrote:
        I was so disgusted, actually, that I didn't. My fault.

        Calming down . . . I have a lot of sympathy for the cops' feelings, in that sort of situation. That's why I think it's so important that punitive thumping be so consistently punished, rather than so consistently condoned.
        Reply to this
        1. 5/25/2009 12:00 PM SHG wrote:
          Forget about the cops' feelings (which will be assuaged with lengthy and expensive therapy), but what of the dogs?  They could catch something.
          Reply to this
          1. 5/26/2009 1:25 PM Steve wrote:
            why are police dogs taught to bite in the vicious, ferocious manner that they do? A dog can bite without flailing so that the person cannot move that limb, does the ripping of flesh gain police anything?
            Reply to this
  • 5/28/2009 8:54 AM J.C. Johnson wrote:
    As a former LEO and instructor for the US Navy VBSS Teams, I cannot see any reason for a solo officer to have physically engaged this suspect. The officer should have held the suspect at gunpoint until back up arrived. The El Monte Police Chief's assertion that this was a "distraction technique" is ridiculous. This suspect will make more money via the 1983 complaint than he reasonably could in his vocational lifetime.
    Reply to this
    1. 5/28/2009 9:59 AM SHG wrote:
      It seems to me that the reason for the kick (and what followed) is obvious: The suspect clipped a cop during the pursuit and the fellow officers administered a good tuning up.  You don't hurt a cop and walk away untouched.  While totally wrong, it's completely understandable.  The whole "distraction technique" thing is just a, well, "distraction technique."
      Reply to this
Leave a comment

All comments are subject to editing or deletion if I deem them inappropriate for any reason or no reason. Hyperlinks are not permitted in comments and will be deleted. References to Nazis/Hitler will not be tolerated. I allow anonymous comments, but will not tolerate attacks unless you use your real name. If you use ALL CAPS for emphasis, I will assume you wear a tin foil hat and treat you accordingly. I expect civility from you, but that does not mean I will respond in kind. This is my home and I make the rules. If you don't like my rules, then don't comment. Spam is absolutely prohibited, and you will be permanently banned.

Submitted comments are subject to moderation before being displayed.

 Name (required)

 Email (will not be published) (required)

 Website

Your comment is 0 characters limited to 3000 characters.