Willravel

Filtherton and Jorg both mentioned in the McCain VP thread the bad behavior by police at each of the national conventions. The discussion brought me back to MacArthur Park last May.

For those who don't know, every May there are national protests that revolve around immigration reform and things connected to that issue. Last year (May 2007), the protest organizers had city permission and the protest itself was very peaceful and a lot of fun. There were performances, floats and displays, Mexican and American flags, chanting, signs; the works. The media was taking part passively, interviewing people here and there. There were police around, but mostly they were just keeping an eye on things, to make sure there weren't any trouble-makers (and there weren't).

In the late afternoon, a lot more police showed up. They were in riot gear. My suspicion was that their official job was to clear the park because the protest was going to wind down soon, but I could be wrong. There was also a rumor that it was because the protest was blocking the street. Anyway, they moved on the park, giving the order to disperse. Everyone started moving out, and then they started advancing more aggressively. One fired a non-lethal projectile, and then others started to open fire and engage protesters who weren't lucky enough to get out of their way. Naturally, everyone freaked out and there was a massive retreat away from the police. Some that stayed to try and protest the police's actions were beaten with batons, butts of guns, and even fists.

This was, in all truth, one of those instances where the police acted rashly and without cause. While I respect the police for bravely dedicating themselves to "serve and protect", I've also seen what can happen when they use their authority irresponsibly. Many people were injured in the attack, but had no recourse on the spot to even defend themselves, which finally brings me to my point:

I believe that if you're attacked by a police officer, you do not have a legal right to defend yourself. I know all the rules about being pulled over by a cop or having a cop show up at my door, but I don't think there are a set of "well it's my right to..." if you're physically attacked. While the cop or cops may get in trouble later, during the physical attack I don't believe that you have a legal method of defense other than to flee. If you strike back in any way, you're guilty of a crime and the police officer may not be reprimanded because you were guilty of attacking him.

Am I wrong about this? If I'm right, does this seem fair?

roachboy

a friend of mine was a legal observer during the protests that accompanied the 200 rnc in philadelphia--he was assaulted by the philly cops for trying to get one of them to stop beating up someone else--the cop broke two of my friend's ribs, which required that he be taken to the hospital. because he had to be taken to the hospital, he was charged with aggrivated assault. this is routine in philadelphia, and gives a little sense of what "serve and protect" means when what is being served is the combined interests of the rnd--keeping the protests off television--and the city---keeping the rnc happy so they'll come back sometime and generate big convention cash for it.

if you interact with the police in a non-political situation, the institutional meaning of them can disappear---in a political situation, the police are the instrument of legitimate violence used by the state to protect itself against--well---you.

there's not much you can do if you are attacked except try not to get injured too seriously so you do not find yourself heading to the hospital accompanied by your new pet "assault on a police officer" charge.

i am old enough to remember the change in public attitudes toward the police from the middle 1970s to the present--the role played by those idiotic syndicated cop shows in particular--which is strange because when i was a kid there was "fbi" which tried much the same thing--something about the creation of paranoia around potential missing children enabled a change in perception to unfold across a change in the placement of collective emphasis meanwhile, as an aspect of a general reconfiguration of tactics police forces would use to deal with political protest was to make confrontation invisible to the greatest possible extent. that way, it's not political---it's just violence.

of course, we like to think the way we are told we like to think and so we think "serve and protect" and all that...who really needs to dominate in an old colonial fashion when the ideological context can do all the work for you?

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

Willravel

I actually had a conversation with a TFP member last year about ballistic vests. I plan on attending the May protests again this year, but jeans and a sweatshirt clearly are not enough to serve and protect me from the police. I plan on wearing soccer shin guards, a cup, and possibly a ballistic vest this coming year, and I'm considering bringing head gear and a double filter gas mask in a back-pack in case things get really bad. It seems a lot of work just to voice my opinion about immigration policy, but if that's what it takes to be safe I don't see myself having a choice.

RB, the tie in about the FBI is a very interesting point, and I believe you're right to reference it because the parallels are glaring.

So I guess I was right: if you're attacked by the police there's nothing you can legally do to defend yourself. As a protester, I find that most disconcerting.

roachboy

i expect that loquitor would actually know...
i just relay what i know about.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

Willravel

Yes, I hope he stops in.

inBOIL

This may be legally true, but if I were on a jury, I doubt that I'd vote to convict someone who was clearly being mistreated and acted in self-defense. Jury nullification FTW. It's unreasonable to expect someone whose life is in danger to refrain from defending himself simply because his attacker has a badge.

__________________
And you believe Bush and the liberals and divorced parents and gays and blacks and the Christian right and fossil fuels and Xbox are all to blame, meanwhile you yourselves create an ad where your kid hits you in the head with a baseball and you don't understand the message that the problem is you.

Willravel

I hope you're on my jury!

j8ear

Will,

Your ideas about vests, shin guards, and gas masks, while sound on their face will actually be used against you. They can and will be used as probable cause for conspiracies, detainment, and arrests. Additionally they can be used to charge you with additional felonies, and also as sentencing enhancements to increase the penalties you face.

-bear

__________________
It's alot easier to ask for forgiveness then it is to ask for permission.

filtherton

The best way: become a cop. If there's one kind of criminal the police will go out of their way to ignore, it is the criminal who is also a police officer.

dksuddeth

Will, you are wrong about that. Wearing a badge does not give a police officer carte blanche to use force whenever they feel like it. If you are assaulted, wrongly, that officer is out of line with his job description and is operating outside the law at that point. Texas law specifically states that deadly force can be used if you are in imminent fear of your life and does not exclude peace officers if they use more force than is necessary to enact an arrest.
Now, if one happens to find themselves using deadly force in fear for their life against law enforcement, you will find yourself arrested and charged with capital murder. As cops are fond of saying, you might beat the rap, but you will not beat the ride. This attitude is the result of decades of brainwashing and societal conditioning enforced upon us to blindly accept the power and authority of government agents, legal or not. We get the government we don't fight back against.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

ratbastid

dk, I think will's OP is more asking, what can be done RIGHT THEN to assert my rights? When pulled over for speeding, one has the right to refuse a search of the vehicle, for instance. When being beaten by a police officer, ones rights are not so clear. Fighting back WILL result in a charge of assaulting an office. Running (unsuccessfully) WILL result in a charge of evading arrest (what ACLU Rights Watch refers to as a "contempt of cop" charge).

The use of police force to "subdue" peaceful protesters is highly problematic.

ottopilot

These kinds of stories could make great Dexter episodes.

__________________
"It rubs the lotion on Buffy, Jodi and Mr. French's skin" - Uncle Bill from Buffalo

dksuddeth

I understood wills OP. the problem is one of having two choices.

1) accept the beating, and whatever injuries accompany it, and watch the courts grant qualified immunity to all officers involved unless you're lucky enough to have someone videotaping the entire incident to clearly show that law enforcement was out of line, or

2) not accept the unmitigated use of excessive force and respond appropriately.

The problem you'll face with #2 is probably being in the minority group. If you are, nobody will really care and think to themselves 'they got what they deserved for not obeying the police'. A shitty prospect at best.

At some point, we as a people are going to have to determine when we've had enough and start eliminating some of that undeserved protection of the law that the government agents enjoy.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

Willravel

LOL, you're a sick man. Maybe he can leave the cop in a cage for hella long and then accidentally get him blown up by a psycho British chick?
Actually, we got a ton of videotape from the protest I referenced as an example in the OP, including a reporter getting beaten mercilessly for literally doing nothing wrong. It helped quite a bit to have multiple angles on many beatings that day, and I suspect those videos are responsible for the punishments that were handed out.

But I did not fight back one bit. As a matter of fact, I didn't see anyone fight back one bit. People were understandably pissed, of course, and a lot of very harsh things were said after the initial attack, but considering that there were few to no police injuries whatsoever and there were so many protester injuries, it's clear that everyone there was aware that the system is set up to protect police before protesters.
I suppose that's what the thread is ultimately going to come down on: there's a paradox in this situation. While in the case of MacArthur Park self defense for the people brutally attacked would have been, imho, reasonable... a line does have to be drawn. If someone attacks a police officer and then claims self defense then the entire thing falls apart. Not every case is cut and dry.

If someone gets in a physical altercation with a police officer, there should be a burden of proof on the civilian. Still, though, should that burden be met, assaulting a police officer charges should be dropped and assault charges should be brought against the officer, not this bullshit "we'll protect our own" policy. Police officers are people, too, which means there are responsible police officers and there are irresponsible police officers. The latter should not be protected in spite of their reckless behavior.

Necrosis

Since the police will not police their own, tons of videocameras are your only defense. And by "tons," I mean enough that the cops can't confiscate and "lose" them all.

MSD

On the flip side, if a civilian is accused of assaulting an officer, a jury should still be convinced beyond a shadow of a doubt that the civilian is guilty of something and not taking appropriate measures to defend himself.