[MikeD]

While we're in another police dogpile...

Apparently, medical school now includes a unit on telepathically gleaning the past based on injuries presented to the doctor and a unit on the use-of-force continuum for law enforcement. Exactly how does anyone after the fact know if the force used in restraining an individual was excessive...? Or if it was appropriate, for that matter??

Medical exams can tell us that someone was hurt or their circulation was cut off because cuffs were tight. It doesn't tell us what led to the circumstances causing the injury.

----

Police use excessive force, ER docs say

ETNEW YORK (Reuters Health) – In a survey of a random sample of U.S. emergency physicians, virtually all said they believed that law enforcement officers use excessive force to arrest and detain suspects.

The sample included 315 respondents. While 99.8 percent believed excessive force is used, almost as many (97.8 percent) reported that they had managed cases that they suspected or that the patient stated had involved excessive use of force by law enforcement officers.

Nearly two thirds (65.3 percent) estimated that they had treated two or more cases of suspected excessive use of force per year among their patients, according to a report of the survey published in the January 2009 issue of the Emergency Medicine Journal.

Dr. Jared Strote of the University of Washington, Seattle, and a multicenter team also found that emergency physicians at public teaching hospitals were roughly four times more likely to report managing cases of suspected use of excessive force than those at university or community teaching emergency departments.

Blunt trauma inflicted by fists or feet was the most common type of injury cited in cases of suspected use of excessive force, followed by "overly tight" handcuffs.

Most emergency physicians (71.2 percent) admitted that they did not report cases of suspected use of excessive force by law enforcement officers.

A large majority (96.5 percent) reported that they had no departmental policies on reporting their suspicions or they did not know of a policy to guide their actions, and 93.7 percent said they had received no education or training in dealing with these situations.

However, most emergency physicians (69.5 percent) felt that it was within their scope of practice to refer cases of suspected use of excessive force for investigation and almost half (47.9 percent) felt that emergency physicians should be legally required to report cases of suspected use of excessive force by law enforcement officers.

These findings, Strote and colleagues conclude, "suggest that national emergency medicine organizations in the USA should become involved, jointly developing and advocating for guidelines to manage this complex issue."

SOURCE: Emergency Medicine Journal, January 2009.

 

[johnbryanpeters]

The problem in applied practical judgment would not seem to be much different than that of determining probable child abuse.

Let's ask these questions to those with actual experience with police operations:

1) In what percentage of arrests or detainments is the use of physical force actually necessary?

2) Have you worked with officers who depend too much on force? If so, what percentage of the law enforcement community do you think they constitute?

3) Do some departments have a culture of force?

4) A pair of related questions dear to me: Do we overtrain officers in the use of force? Do we undertrain them in person-to-person community relations?

5) Does history of use of force affect reviews, promotions and salary adjustments?

Please discuss.

 

[MikeD]

The problem in applied practical judgment would not seem to be much different than that of determining probable child abuse.

SRSLY?

Your child-care experiences would seem to be different than mine. And there are very few cases where beating a child with a steel baton would be appropriate...there are many, many cases where this is appropriate or even a show of restraing during an arrest.

Doctors can indeed tell that someone has been beaten and possibly how. They can't tell what the conduct/fact pattern was that led to the injuries, which is the claim they're making here. They see massive brusing? Well, maybe that massive bruising was the result of a cop using restraint and going hands-on or using an impact weapon instead of simply shooting a knife-wielding subject in the face.

With childcare, I think the circumstances are quite different, in that abused children generally don't reperesent a physical menace to their abusers, nor are their abusers charged by the public with restraining the kids while in the commission of crimes.

If you want to talk about detecting whether someone was abused after being placed in restraints, I'd think a doctor/forensic expert could possibly tell us a lot based on the location of injuries, their type and severity, and their consistency with the narratives given about where those injuries came from.

The "handcuffs too tight" makes me laugh, too. An uncooperative subject doesn't give you much opportunity to take his comfort or circulation into account...and once you've wrestled them on, it's the subject who won't give you the opportunity to safely adjust it all to the most comfortable level and double-lock them there...if it's the choice between being spat at or mule-kicked or even just spending another 5 minutes rolling on the ground while fiddling with them on a struggling subject doused in pepper spray, well, that's the subject's issue. If a subject is cooperative during cuffing, it happens quickly, neatly, and generally as comfortably as possible.

 

[MikeD]

1) In what percentage of arrests or detainments is the use of physical force actually necessary?

In my own, almost none. But I was an investigator for fraud, which isn't violent crime, although the type of fraud was sometimes perpetuated by [very] violent criminals. My job was not to respond to incidents of crime or violence, and nearly all my subjects confessed during a voluntary interview prior to me cuffing them. And when we served a warrant on an unsuspecting subject, we generally did it in a show of force which made resistance seem unwise or just let the local cops bag him for us.

When I have done official personal protection missions, I've had to go hands-on more. (again, though, rarely, and we foist lots of hands-on type stuff off on locals like Manimal...) More violence (yet appropriate within the use of force continuum) earlier means ultimately less, is what I've learned. You take control of the situation, unquestioningly, and don't go tit-for-tat trying to minimize it.

2) Have you worked with officers who depend too much on force? If so, what percentage of the law enforcement community do you think they constitute?

No, but see #1

3) Do some departments have a culture of force?

Possibly. Some probably have a culture of not enough force. Some probably have a culture of force out of necessity because they work within cultures of force.

4) A pair of related questions dear to me: Do we overtrain officers in the use of force? Do we undertrain them in person-to-person community relations?

I don't think most LEOs are actually that well-trained in the use of force, especially people long out of basic training. I don't think more training in either area is a bad thing, and frankly, use of force is a technical skill that needs more practice than personality. Also, the better trained on the use of force you are, the more likely you are to use an appropriate level. You're less scared, more fit, and more capable. You have more options to deal competently with a situation. Untrained police in the third world shoot, beat, kick, and club anyone, as I see often over here, and I think less-un-trained but still not well-trained police in the US aren't as likely to respond appropriately.

5) Does history of use of force affect reviews, promotions and salary adjustments?

Not with us; can't say about elsewhere. I mean, good decisions whether to use force or not were part of your overall effectiveness, proficiency, and reputation and affected you that way, but "use of force" isn't a criteria on any evaluation in the organization I worked in.

 

[$tinkle]

The lion cannot protect himself from traps, and the fox cannot defend himself from wolves. One must therefore be a fox to recognize traps, and a lion to frighten wolves.

— Niccolo Machiavelli

 

[MikeD]

Corollary: ER doctors treating suspects in custody see a 100% injury rate on everyone who's had contact with the police. (Otherwise, why would they be in the ER??)

-Mike D

 

[Westy]

Exactly how does anyone after the fact know if the force used in restraining an individual was excessive...? Or if it was appropriate, for that matter??

When the plunger has no signs of lubrication.

 

[$tinkle]

i'm so naming my junk "the plunger"

 

[Westy]

i'm so naming my junk "the plunger"

I always thought it strange when people name their cars.


Oh you mean that junk.

 

[johnbryanpeters]

Corollary: ER doctors treating suspects in custody see a 100% injury rate on everyone who's had contact with the police. (Otherwise, why would they be in the ER??)

-Mike D

OK, let's take it out of that context.

Are there statistics available on injuries per arrest?

 

[ohio]

I will assume that, thanks to professional courtesy, an arrest that is only witnessed by police officers will only very very rarely be investigated. It takes a third party raising a flag (whether that's a witness, or a suspect with moxie).

Is it so unreasonable that hospitals have a formal policy to raise that flag? It just means someone reviews the police report. If they have a formal policy, they will also have some guidelines and explanation of what constitutes excessive and when, rather than just forming gut opinions per the survey above.

Is it also unreasonable to have police departments do education and training sessions with hospitals to explain use of force?

 

[Defenestrated]

Why should police actions go un-scrutinized?

 

[manimal]

Why should police actions go un-scrutinized?

only those who have successfully apprehended a cracked out 200lb knife wielding man without any injury to either party should be allowed to scrutinize use of force applications.

society wants the bad guys to go away but they don't want to realize that it sometimes requires violence to defeat violence. there comes a point where diplomacy and verbal judo just aren't enough. i have yet to meet someone who is critical of police use of force that is willing to do the job themselves. if you think you can do it better without force..be my guest or STFU.

 

[Samirol]

if you think you can do it better without force..be my guest or STFU.

That isn't really a fair statement, because I can have a problem with the way Israel does diplomacy with Palestine, yet that is a bit like saying "If you don't like the way Israel does diplomacy, why don't YOU do it"

 

[Defenestrated]

all I'm sayin is sometimes the police are the "bad guys"

 

[blue]

only those with college degrees

blahblahpoliceblahblah.

 

[Serial Midget]

Rodney King!!!

Seriously though... how many times have you watched COPS and asked yourself "why was that necessary?"

 

[ohio]

only those who have successfully apprehended a cracked out 200lb knife wielding man without any injury to either party should be allowed to scrutinize use of force applications.

Does that give them a free pass to apprehend a 95lb 16yo with a bag of weed by breaking his face?

No one on this forum is saying that force is never necessary.

 

[syadasti]

Did someone say Doctors and the Police?

http://www.app.com/article/20090108/NEWS/90108081