not so secret police (was: re humor)

[Alex Rudd]

On Thu, 10 Aug 2000 14:45:17 -0700 Martha Sherwood said:
>For the record, has anyone on this list had an acquaintance who has died
>mysteriously in police custody in the USA, with no satisfactory
>explanation given. I have not, but people whose veracity I trust have
>reported serious injuries at the hands of police - dislocated shoulder,
>for example - in cases where no charges were subsequently filed. Dying of
>anaphylactic shock following being pepper-sprayed can't be that pleasant,
>and seems a bit of an excessive penalty for trespassing and disorderly
>conduct.
>
>In Brezhnev's Russia, what was the armament of ordinary patrolmen?

Dear SEELangers,

My apologies in advance.  Since Martha's message was distributed
to all of you, I feel compelled to reply on the list to respond
to her first paragraph above.  Since my reply has nothing to do
with anything Russian or Slavic in any way, feel free to delete
this now if you don't wish to read further.  Sorry for the
interruption.

Martha,

Inquiring into resources to research Brezhnev's police is one
thing, but I fail to see how it has anything to do with deaths
in police custody in the USA.

With regards to injuries suffered during interactions with the
police, you can believe in someone's veracity and still draw
the wrong conclusion due to having a dearth of facts.  An
example:  Officer Friendly stops a car for running a stop sign
and, while speaking with the driver, notices an odor of burnt
marijuana coming from within the car.  The odor gives Officer
Friendly probable cause to search the car and he asks the driver
to step out so he can do that.  The driver, not believing the
officer has any right to search his car (when, in fact, he does),
protests and refuses to get out of the car.  At that point the
driver has refused a lawful order from a police officer and is
interfering with the officer's duties (which in most places, by
a number of different names, is a crime all by itself).  Officer
Friendly calmly explains to the driver that he has the right to
search the car and that the driver is risking arrest by refusing
to get out of the car.  That's level one on the "use of force"
scale, verbal commands.  Verbal commands aren't working now, so
what is Officer Friendly to do?  Give up and go away?  Doesn't
work that way.  Officer Friendly asks again, and again the driver
refuses.  Officer Friendly now goes to level two on the use of
force scale, and puts his hands on the driver to remove him
physically from the car.  Officer Friendly applies a pressure
point technique or a wrist lock or a similar technique which
causes pain but no injury and pulls the driver from the car.  Is
that a justifiable use of force?  You betcha.  Now when the
driver is out of the car, he is angry that he has been physically
removed from his car and twists his body forcefully in an effort
to break free from Officer Friendly's grasp.  The result?  His
shoulder is dislocated because Officer Friendly was still applying
the wrist lock.  Is that injury Officer Friendly's fault?  No.
It's the driver's, all the way.

Another example:  A liquor store is robbed by a white male and
a white female.  Witnesses report that they fled in a blue Honda
and give police the first three numbers from the license plate.
Five minutes later and one mile away, officers observe a white
male and a white female in a blue Honda.  The first three numbers
on the license plate nearly match, with one digit an "8" instead
of a "3".  The officers may stop that car because they have
reasonable suspicion (another legal term, one notch lower than
probable cause) that the occupants were involved in the liquor
store robbery.  Since there were guns displayed in the robbery,
the officers wisely order the occupants out of the car at gunpoint.
The occupants comply with the orders and, lying facedown on the
pavement, are handcuffed behind their backs by the police.  While
handcuffing the female, one officer puts his knee across her
shoulder blade, which is part of the proper handcuffing technique
he has been taught.  He doesn't realize that the woman has a sore
back and she flinches hard when he kneels on her, causing the
officer to lose his balance and she dislocates her shoulder.
At this point the couple in the Honda are *not* under arrest.
They are being lawfully detained on reasonable suspicion and
even the fact they are handcuffed does not raise the detention
to the level of an arrest because the crime of which they are
suspected involved violence and police are permitted to take
actions that protect themselves and the general public while
they are investigating crimes.  The victim is brought to the
scene and tells the police that the man and woman are not the
ones who robbed his store.  The police let the man and woman
go (with apologies, of course) and arrange for medical
attention for the woman's shoulder.  No charges are filed, but
the police have done nothing wrong.

As far as pepper spray is concerned, you seem to have a
misconception about why and when it is used and what can
happen as a result of using it.  Police do not use pepper
spray to "penalize" anyone for anything, including
trespassing and disorderly conduct.  If it's used, it's
used to overcome unlawful resistance, usually after verbal
commands have failed.  For example, in California, a man
who has become intoxicated and lies down on a public road
to take a nap has committed the crime of disorderly
conduct.  When the police arrive and determine that they
have probable cause to believe he is guilty of that crime,
they may arrest the man.  If he resists and doesn't follow
commands to stop resisting and put his hands behind his
back, what are the police to do?  Give up and go away?
Doesn't work that way.  So what's the safest way to overcome
the man's resistance and put him in custody?  It may be to
spray him with pepper spray.  Pepper spray, as the name
implies, is really hot pepper discharged by means of a
propellant, that gets in your eyes and stings like heck.
On the majority of people, it has the effect of causing
them to stop whatever they were doing (i.e. resisting)
and passively stand or sit with eyes clenched shut.
Recovery is aided by flushing with water.  It's as simple
as that.  No one goes into anaphylactic shock after being
sprayed with pepper spray.  That's impossible.  Anaphylactic
shock is an allergic reaction that takes place upon exposure
to a specific antigen, such as wasp venom or penicillin,
following previous sensitization.  Nothing in pepper spray
is, or could be, such an antigen.

If you hold anti-police sentiments for any reason, and I'm
not saying some small number of police officers haven't
done things to merit ill will, that's all well and good.
But please don't allow yourself to fall into the trap of
allowing your ignorance of the law and police procedure to
color the glasses through which you view all police actions
and thereby form incorrect or unfair conclusions.

This is obviously not a topic for SEELANGS.  If you wish to
pick up the thread elsewhere, take it to CJUST-L, The
Criminal Justice Discussion List, also located on
LISTSERV at LISTSERV.CUNY.EDU.

Thanks.

- Alex, list owner of SEELANGS    seelangs-request at listserv.cuny.edu
....................................................................
Alex Rudd                ahrjj at cunyvm.cuny.edu            ARS KA2ZOO
{Standard Disclaimer}    http://members.home.net/lists/seelangs/

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Use your web browser to search the archives, control your subscription
  options, and more.  Visit and bookmark the SEELANGS Web Interface at:
                http://members.home.net/lists/seelangs/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------