 | |  | |  | |  | |  | |  |
 | |  | |  | |  | |  | |  |
| Everybody's an... Expert |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| Florida Deputy Suspended for Excessive Force |
It was initially unclear when this egregious use of excessive force was
committed; although, the Internet is an amazing thing. I found a
reference to this incident in an article dated May 4, 2007 putting this
incident in November -- presumably in 2006. What's very interesting in
this article is that no excessive use of force is attributed to the deputy. It
simply states, "Stabins [the deputy] should have been more
compassionate, a board of review found, and it suspended the deputy for
five days." As the news stories of this incident proliferated, the November
date was rarely mentioned, and there was never any questions, to my
knowledge, as to why it only became newsworthy after five months.
It was posted all over the place on May 3, 2007. Coincidentally, that was
one day after the Los Angeles Police Department was accused of using
excessive force against protesters who just happened to injure no fewer
than 15 police officers. It was also the same day when Los Angeles Police
Chief William Bratton, LA's imported savior from the New York City
Police Department, announced his request for an FBI investigation into
the allegations of excessive force against his LA officers.
I'm certain if the Associated Press, who released the story regarding
Sheriff's Deputy Kevin Stabins, had a real video of excessive force, this
hapless deputy would have remained anonymous. It must be pretty bad
for the news media when it has to reach back five months to find a story
alleging police excessive force to compliment the current news cycle.
In an update of this story in The Tampa Tribune on May 3, 2007, Sherriff
David Gee is quoted, "I think (Stabins) understands that he was wrong and
could have handled it better. On both sides, really, it could have been
done better." Of course, the Sherriff's reference to "both sides" isn't
discussed, and why should it be discussed? That would only detract from
the subject of police excessive force.
On May 3, 2007, Bill O'Reilly, of the Fox News Show The O'Reilly Factor,
got in on the act. I like Bill O'Reilly, but he was way off the mark this
time. Bill was amazed that the woman who was allegedly assaulted by the
deputy wasn't suing the police department. Bill was discussing the issue
with a police expert -- an assistant commander of something or other --
who just couldn't resist sliding in a macho remark, "If it was my 23 year
old princess, [presumably his daughter] I'd be knocking on the chief's
door."
If you're truly considering a police career, you should view this video. If,
after viewing the video, you agree that the deputy used excessive force to
effect the arrest, you should consider another career path. Now, you may
initially let a whole lot of things get in your way such as the fact that the
suspect is an attractive woman. She was speeding 63 mph in 35 mph zone,
[undisputed] because her father was in the hospital for a heart attack.
Try, for just a moment, to put yourself in the deputy's place. You stop the
speeding woman. She tells you she's speeding to the hospital for the
reason stated. You should immediately believe her, because everyone
knows that nobody lies to a police officer. You say, "The stop takes place
within sight of the hospital, so it must be true." Again, everybody knows
that a person would never create such a reason when they're in such close
proximity to a hospital if it weren't true. Poor Deputy Stabins. He told
investigators that he didn't believe the woman. What a dummy, everybody
knows that every police officer has a crystal ball installed in the dash of
his police car to aid him in his mind reading capabilities.
Okay, since you've established that this complete stranger is being totally
honest with you, and you reason that since her unlawful speed hasn't
killed anyone...yet, and her distraught behavior will not impair her driving
ability, you quickly apologize for inconveniencing her and shout, "Drive
on, and good luck" as she speeds away. Sounds pretty stupid, doesn't it?
Let's return to the realm of reality. When you're stopped for speeding,
and a police officer takes your license and registration for the purpose of
issuing you a citation, you're technically under arrest. When you sign the
citation verifying your intent to either pay the fine or appear for trial,
you're released from that officer's custody. When the woman in this
incident fled from the officer, for whatever reason, she indicated her
intent not to pay the fine or appear for trial. At the instant the woman
fled from the deputy, she was subject to a lawful arrest.
None of the reporting disputes the lawfulness of the arrest. All of the
reporting does state that all charges against the woman were dropped by
the Sheriff's Department. If true, I find that very interesting since the
only entity that can drop or dismiss charges lawfully lodged by a police
officer is a court...as in judge, or through some other form of judicial
review. Oh well, when it comes to putting police in their place, you'll find
few courts that will object to having their power usurped.
When you read the articles on this incident, you'll see the words,
"yanked" and "slammed." "Yanked" from the car. "Slammed" on the
hood. Oh, no. Not pulled and pushed...yanked and slammed. On the
second stop, the woman clearly refused the deputy's order to get out of the
car, but there was no discussion on that issue. It was all about the deputy
yanking the woman from her car and slamming her on the hood. All the
articles support the slamming version by stating that she was slammed so
hard, "her feet left the ground." I'm sorry...the woman's body was
obviously rigid, and high heeled shoes aren't that great for maintaining
traction.
It's clear from the video that the woman was not cooperating. If you do
become a police officer, you'll find that force is a relative thing. Anytime
a person resists you physically, the amount of force you apply has to be
sufficient to overcome the force being exerted against you. You'll also
learn that when a person, man or woman, of any size, passively resists you
by making his or her body rigid, force is necessary to put that person in a
position to be handcuffed.
From a standpoint of safety, this video could be used as a training aid.
Deputy Stabins, quickly and efficiently, subdued the suspect preventing a
prolonged struggle which could have resulted in injury to either the
deputy, suspect, or both. You'll notice that when it should have been
obvious to the suspect that the deputy intended to remove her from the
car, the car began drifting forward. The media stories addressed that issue
by describing how the suspect's foot slipped from the brake pedal because
of the deputy's actions. The critics would have you believe that the deputy
was trying to remove the woman from the car, before the vehicle was in
park and the engine turned off. Does anyone really believe the woman
intended to cause that to happen as instructed. The deputy was initially
attempting to put the car in park when the woman's foot accidentally --
presumably -- slipped off the brake. That's what cops do when they
attempt to remove people from vehicles under similar situations.
Remember all those dash cam videos you see where police officers are
hanging from the driver's window of vehicles as the suspects speed off?
Do you think those officers are just hitching a ride? The know it all critics
might observe, "The officer should just let go, before the car takes off."
I'd suggest those critics take it upon themselves to conduct personal
demonstrations of their escape techniques.
Okay, fine. Many in the media, and other critics, would have preferred
that the deputy had simply "yanked" the suspect from the moving
vehicle. That would have made for a much better visual story. The car
would have continued forward possibly endangering others, and the
attractive suspect may well have fallen to the ground. Better yet, she
might have been partially out of the vehicle and trapped by some
obstruction as her head and shoulders bounced along the pavement. That
didn't happen. The deputy trotted along the drifting car, endangering
himself, while repeating, "Put it in park...put it in park." At this point,
the deputy could have been criticised for not letting go of the suspect and
moving away from the car for his own safety.
Following the release of this useless and completely abused false allegation
of excessive force, I watched the news coverage closely. The word
"compassion" showed up all over the place in the context of the deputy's
lack of compassion. Everybody, and I mean nearly everybody, based
everything about this incident on contributing circumstances that had
absolutely nothing to do with the use or determination of excessive force.
When you're looking at police departments to join, you might want to
cross the Hillsborough County Sheriff's Office of your list. It's getting
pretty bad when a deputy gets a 5 day suspension without pay based on
something as subjective as compassion. It's pretty obvious that the
influence was present, and strong enough, to exact some form of
retribution against the deputy for his perceived lack of compassion.
Okay...let's talk about compassion. Here's an example about people
breaking traffic laws while en route to a hospital with similarities and
differences to the Florida incident:
Now...when you're dealing with media types and critics, you'll find that
everyone of them possess the uncanny ability to know exactly what you
should have done, or should not have done, in any situation you
encounter. Naturally, they're expressing their expert opinions after the
fact. When you think about it, it's a pretty cool gig. Unlike you, they
never have to face any consequences when they're dead wrong.
In the case of the Florida deputy, I heard numerous comments related to
the image of the woman in this case such as "she wasn't a crack whore or
a prostitute." I actually learned a lot from some of these expert opinions...
I hadn't before known that women addicted to drugs or who fall into lives
of prostitution don't have fathers who have heart attacks. Anyway...this
woman exhibited an attractive and classy image, so, to the experts, the
deputy should have believed the woman, and he should have gone to
extraordinary efforts to aid the woman.
When you become a police officer, one of the first things you'll do is stop
believing people. You'll have people lie to you far more often than they'll
be truthful with you. The lies will go from minor, and difficult to detect, to
obvious and then to outrageous. Rarely, will anyone be completely
truthful with you. On those occasions when people are being truthful,
you're still going to ask some questions.
Going back to my example where I escorted the couple to the hospital.
During the husband's statements to me, I ask where they were coming
from. When he stated they [he and his wife] worked downtown, I ask if
they worked at the same location. He immediately, and coherently,
explained that his wife had received the call from the sitter, called him,
and he then picked up his wife at her job site. I ask enough questions
relating to small details to satisfy me that he was truthfully attempting to
justify the traffic violations he had committed.
Look...we're all affected by a person's physical image. Even police officers
have to consciously remain skeptical to avoid being taken in from time to
time. You'll learn that traffic violations are unique, for when it comes to
people lying, the beautiful people can lie with the best of them. You'll find
that many people who are physically attractive, successful and who fall into
the general category of law abiding people feel immune to interaction with
you; unless, they initiate the interaction. These guys and gals can be
genuinely insulted when you interrupt their violations of traffic laws.
Remember, they've got a good reason for those violations, and you should
understand that. If they're forced to give you an explanation, you should
simply believe anything they tell you and get out of their way.
In another article from the Tampa Pirate regarding the Florida incident,
the article is very critical of the deputy...surprised? It includes a
statement made by the deputy to another deputy immediately following
the arrest. The second deputy asks Deputy Stabins if her farther is indeed
in the hospital? He replies, “I don’t know, but she drives right by the f—
ing emergency room when I stop her.” This statement, recorded on the
deputy's video system, was obviously included to show the deputy using the
"F" word. It made no mention that by passing the emergency room, the
deputy's first impression that she was lying to him was only reinforced.
However, right at the beginning of the article, far removed from the
deputy's comment, it's covered by the woman's statement that she was
searching the parking lot for her father's car. “I just had to make sure he
made it there. Otherwise he was just sitting on the side of the road
somewhere dying.”
Come on. One would think the woman would first check inside the
emergency room to ensure her father was there, so she could sound the
alarm, as soon as possible, if he was indeed incapacitated while en route to
the hospital. Since the heart attack story was true, the woman's actions
only prove that she was not acting any more rationally than she was when
she fled from the deputy.
When you become a police officer, these are exactly the type of people
you'll be encountering. You'd do well to read some of these comments and
realize that the world is full of irrational and hateful people. After all,
their existence is a primary reason for you to become a police officer, so
you need to start thinking about how you're going to deal with them.
Okay...let's look at Deputy Stabins. I'm not going to leave him off the
hook. The deputy knew he was being videotaped. He thought that, as long
as he did everything right, there wouldn't be any problem, because he
acted "lawfully," and he didn't use "excessive" force. He didn't use any
abusive language toward the woman; although, I wouldn't be surprised if
the use of the "F" word in his comment to the other deputy is what got
him the 5 day suspension...especially if it was overheard by the woman.
I'm sure that Deputy Stabins wishes he would have handled this incident
differently. For example, since they were in sight of the hospital, he could
have instructed the woman to lock her car and ride with him to the
emergency room. Once her story and her father's condition was verified,
the deputy could have transported the woman back to her car, and any
further actions regarding the traffic citation(s) could have been
completed. The positive thing about this scenario is that the woman's
refusal of such an instruction or offer would have changed the dynamic of
the incident entirely in the deputy's favor. Of course, there would be
those critics and "experts" who would say that the woman's refusal to
accept transport was probably because she feared she'd be sexually
assaulted by the deputy.
Don't laugh. Such false accusations are not uncommon. In this case, the
deputy had the capability to record audio inside his vehicle, so the fear of a
false allegation of his conduct should not have been a problem. Of course,
many critics would say, "That's ridiculous, the deputy should have escorted
the woman the rest of the way." They would conveniently forget the
deputy stopped the woman for speeding. Let's say you're the deputy. You
escort the woman the remaining distance. You stop in front of the
emergency room, and she continues on rolling around the parking lot
looking for her father's car. I think you just might feel a little frustration.
The critics really think they have the high ground when they point out
that the deputy still arrested the woman after her reasons for her actions
had been verified. You have to scratch your head on this one. Sure, it's a
simple conclusion for simple minds. They forget the fact that the arrest
occurred, before the verification of circumstances. Here's the thing about
arresting people. When you physically take a person into your custody by
applying handcuffs and restricting that person's freedom, you have --
technically -- assaulted that person. The only thing that makes that
assault legal is that you did it lawfully based upon probable cause.
Here's where the courts come into play. Once you've made a "lawful"
arrest, the determination and circumstances of that person's release from
custody is -- technically -- no longer up to you. During your career, you'll
see people released by officers after brief custody even under
circumstances where handcuffs are applied, and you'll do it your self on
occasion. However, whenever you use force to make an arrest, such as in
this Florida incident, your release of a person, even for compassionate
reasons, can put you in jeopardy for criminal prosecution. Something tells
me that had Deputy Stabins released his suspect, he would have shortly
been served with a criminal summons, or even an arrest warrant, charging
him with assault. Like the numerous police critics you'll encounter, there
are plenty of judicial officers who just love preparing charging documents
on police officers. Of course, in this instance, I could be wrong.
The only time the immediate release of a person you've arrested is
mandated is when developing information exonerates that person of the
crime for which you arrested the person. It could be as simple as
removing handcuffs. In the case where your suspect is further along in
the process, you simply move heaven and earth to secure that person's
freedom.
There may well come a time during your career when you make an arrest;
after which, you wish you hadn't had to make the arrest, because you feel
compassion toward the suspect. Your compassion doesn't change the facts
of the incident, or the lawfulness of your arrest. So, what do you do? It's
really quite simple. You address the issue in your probable cause charging
document. After you articulate your probable cause for the arrest and any
additional charges stemming from the arrest such as resisting arrest or
any assault on you, you can show your compassionate side. You don't have
to be gushy or plead for the suspect's release. You simply state the
circumstances that created your compassion for the suspect. Your feelings
will not be lost on the reviewing judicial officer, and your suspect will, in
all probability, be released without bail. The suspect will still have to
appear in court to face the charges; however, the prosecutor will likely be
swayed toward leniency by your explanation of circumstances. I don't
know what his charging document contained, but this would have been a
good course of action for Deputy Stabins.
You're going to begin your police career facing challenges that, to put it
mildly, have been exaggerated. There was a time when doing things right
would keep you out of trouble. Compassion has always been nice and even
appreciated from time to time, but compassion -- or I should say the
constant and visual displays of compassion -- was never a requirement for
every instance of law enforcement. Of course, I can't remember, during
my lifetime, when the purveyors of irrationality have been so influential
as they are today.
There's a simple reason why people who were seldom listened to in the
past are now heard from so often. It's called the 24 hour news cycle.
There's nothing wrong with people having access to news and developing
information on a 24 hour basis. In fact, I'd describe myself as a "news
junkie." However, by the very nature of its timeliness combined with
competition, 24 hour news makes the quality of its reporting suspect. If
you're like me, you keep up on the updates, and you soon realize the trend
of the new media...constant, controlled , controversial and captivating.
When it's a slow news day, just about any piece of garbage will do as long
as it fits the trend criteria.
The media loves cops. They don't love you, because you're cuddly. They
love you, because you're controversial. When the LA allegations of
excessive force quickly fizzled due to a number of circumstances including
a lack of sensational video, the media turned to a Florida deputy to keep
the theme of excessive force rolling. Deputy Stabins got beat up pretty
badly for several days; until, an F5 Tornado and President George W. Bush
came to his rescue; the tornado flattened a town in Kansas, and President
Bush was now the bad guy for having some of the Kansas National Guard
assigned in Iraq.
committed; although, the Internet is an amazing thing. I found a
reference to this incident in an article dated May 4, 2007 putting this
incident in November -- presumably in 2006. What's very interesting in
this article is that no excessive use of force is attributed to the deputy. It
simply states, "Stabins [the deputy] should have been more
compassionate, a board of review found, and it suspended the deputy for
five days." As the news stories of this incident proliferated, the November
date was rarely mentioned, and there was never any questions, to my
knowledge, as to why it only became newsworthy after five months.
It was posted all over the place on May 3, 2007. Coincidentally, that was
one day after the Los Angeles Police Department was accused of using
excessive force against protesters who just happened to injure no fewer
than 15 police officers. It was also the same day when Los Angeles Police
Chief William Bratton, LA's imported savior from the New York City
Police Department, announced his request for an FBI investigation into
the allegations of excessive force against his LA officers.
I'm certain if the Associated Press, who released the story regarding
Sheriff's Deputy Kevin Stabins, had a real video of excessive force, this
hapless deputy would have remained anonymous. It must be pretty bad
for the news media when it has to reach back five months to find a story
alleging police excessive force to compliment the current news cycle.
In an update of this story in The Tampa Tribune on May 3, 2007, Sherriff
David Gee is quoted, "I think (Stabins) understands that he was wrong and
could have handled it better. On both sides, really, it could have been
done better." Of course, the Sherriff's reference to "both sides" isn't
discussed, and why should it be discussed? That would only detract from
the subject of police excessive force.
On May 3, 2007, Bill O'Reilly, of the Fox News Show The O'Reilly Factor,
got in on the act. I like Bill O'Reilly, but he was way off the mark this
time. Bill was amazed that the woman who was allegedly assaulted by the
deputy wasn't suing the police department. Bill was discussing the issue
with a police expert -- an assistant commander of something or other --
who just couldn't resist sliding in a macho remark, "If it was my 23 year
old princess, [presumably his daughter] I'd be knocking on the chief's
door."
If you're truly considering a police career, you should view this video. If,
after viewing the video, you agree that the deputy used excessive force to
effect the arrest, you should consider another career path. Now, you may
initially let a whole lot of things get in your way such as the fact that the
suspect is an attractive woman. She was speeding 63 mph in 35 mph zone,
[undisputed] because her father was in the hospital for a heart attack.
Try, for just a moment, to put yourself in the deputy's place. You stop the
speeding woman. She tells you she's speeding to the hospital for the
reason stated. You should immediately believe her, because everyone
knows that nobody lies to a police officer. You say, "The stop takes place
within sight of the hospital, so it must be true." Again, everybody knows
that a person would never create such a reason when they're in such close
proximity to a hospital if it weren't true. Poor Deputy Stabins. He told
investigators that he didn't believe the woman. What a dummy, everybody
knows that every police officer has a crystal ball installed in the dash of
his police car to aid him in his mind reading capabilities.
Okay, since you've established that this complete stranger is being totally
honest with you, and you reason that since her unlawful speed hasn't
killed anyone...yet, and her distraught behavior will not impair her driving
ability, you quickly apologize for inconveniencing her and shout, "Drive
on, and good luck" as she speeds away. Sounds pretty stupid, doesn't it?
Let's return to the realm of reality. When you're stopped for speeding,
and a police officer takes your license and registration for the purpose of
issuing you a citation, you're technically under arrest. When you sign the
citation verifying your intent to either pay the fine or appear for trial,
you're released from that officer's custody. When the woman in this
incident fled from the officer, for whatever reason, she indicated her
intent not to pay the fine or appear for trial. At the instant the woman
fled from the deputy, she was subject to a lawful arrest.
None of the reporting disputes the lawfulness of the arrest. All of the
reporting does state that all charges against the woman were dropped by
the Sheriff's Department. If true, I find that very interesting since the
only entity that can drop or dismiss charges lawfully lodged by a police
officer is a court...as in judge, or through some other form of judicial
review. Oh well, when it comes to putting police in their place, you'll find
few courts that will object to having their power usurped.
When you read the articles on this incident, you'll see the words,
"yanked" and "slammed." "Yanked" from the car. "Slammed" on the
hood. Oh, no. Not pulled and pushed...yanked and slammed. On the
second stop, the woman clearly refused the deputy's order to get out of the
car, but there was no discussion on that issue. It was all about the deputy
yanking the woman from her car and slamming her on the hood. All the
articles support the slamming version by stating that she was slammed so
hard, "her feet left the ground." I'm sorry...the woman's body was
obviously rigid, and high heeled shoes aren't that great for maintaining
traction.
It's clear from the video that the woman was not cooperating. If you do
become a police officer, you'll find that force is a relative thing. Anytime
a person resists you physically, the amount of force you apply has to be
sufficient to overcome the force being exerted against you. You'll also
learn that when a person, man or woman, of any size, passively resists you
by making his or her body rigid, force is necessary to put that person in a
position to be handcuffed.
From a standpoint of safety, this video could be used as a training aid.
Deputy Stabins, quickly and efficiently, subdued the suspect preventing a
prolonged struggle which could have resulted in injury to either the
deputy, suspect, or both. You'll notice that when it should have been
obvious to the suspect that the deputy intended to remove her from the
car, the car began drifting forward. The media stories addressed that issue
by describing how the suspect's foot slipped from the brake pedal because
of the deputy's actions. The critics would have you believe that the deputy
was trying to remove the woman from the car, before the vehicle was in
park and the engine turned off. Does anyone really believe the woman
intended to cause that to happen as instructed. The deputy was initially
attempting to put the car in park when the woman's foot accidentally --
presumably -- slipped off the brake. That's what cops do when they
attempt to remove people from vehicles under similar situations.
Remember all those dash cam videos you see where police officers are
hanging from the driver's window of vehicles as the suspects speed off?
Do you think those officers are just hitching a ride? The know it all critics
might observe, "The officer should just let go, before the car takes off."
I'd suggest those critics take it upon themselves to conduct personal
demonstrations of their escape techniques.
Okay, fine. Many in the media, and other critics, would have preferred
that the deputy had simply "yanked" the suspect from the moving
vehicle. That would have made for a much better visual story. The car
would have continued forward possibly endangering others, and the
attractive suspect may well have fallen to the ground. Better yet, she
might have been partially out of the vehicle and trapped by some
obstruction as her head and shoulders bounced along the pavement. That
didn't happen. The deputy trotted along the drifting car, endangering
himself, while repeating, "Put it in park...put it in park." At this point,
the deputy could have been criticised for not letting go of the suspect and
moving away from the car for his own safety.
Following the release of this useless and completely abused false allegation
of excessive force, I watched the news coverage closely. The word
"compassion" showed up all over the place in the context of the deputy's
lack of compassion. Everybody, and I mean nearly everybody, based
everything about this incident on contributing circumstances that had
absolutely nothing to do with the use or determination of excessive force.
When you're looking at police departments to join, you might want to
cross the Hillsborough County Sheriff's Office of your list. It's getting
pretty bad when a deputy gets a 5 day suspension without pay based on
something as subjective as compassion. It's pretty obvious that the
influence was present, and strong enough, to exact some form of
retribution against the deputy for his perceived lack of compassion.
Okay...let's talk about compassion. Here's an example about people
breaking traffic laws while en route to a hospital with similarities and
differences to the Florida incident:
Now...when you're dealing with media types and critics, you'll find that
everyone of them possess the uncanny ability to know exactly what you
should have done, or should not have done, in any situation you
encounter. Naturally, they're expressing their expert opinions after the
fact. When you think about it, it's a pretty cool gig. Unlike you, they
never have to face any consequences when they're dead wrong.
In the case of the Florida deputy, I heard numerous comments related to
the image of the woman in this case such as "she wasn't a crack whore or
a prostitute." I actually learned a lot from some of these expert opinions...
I hadn't before known that women addicted to drugs or who fall into lives
of prostitution don't have fathers who have heart attacks. Anyway...this
woman exhibited an attractive and classy image, so, to the experts, the
deputy should have believed the woman, and he should have gone to
extraordinary efforts to aid the woman.
When you become a police officer, one of the first things you'll do is stop
believing people. You'll have people lie to you far more often than they'll
be truthful with you. The lies will go from minor, and difficult to detect, to
obvious and then to outrageous. Rarely, will anyone be completely
truthful with you. On those occasions when people are being truthful,
you're still going to ask some questions.
Going back to my example where I escorted the couple to the hospital.
During the husband's statements to me, I ask where they were coming
from. When he stated they [he and his wife] worked downtown, I ask if
they worked at the same location. He immediately, and coherently,
explained that his wife had received the call from the sitter, called him,
and he then picked up his wife at her job site. I ask enough questions
relating to small details to satisfy me that he was truthfully attempting to
justify the traffic violations he had committed.
Look...we're all affected by a person's physical image. Even police officers
have to consciously remain skeptical to avoid being taken in from time to
time. You'll learn that traffic violations are unique, for when it comes to
people lying, the beautiful people can lie with the best of them. You'll find
that many people who are physically attractive, successful and who fall into
the general category of law abiding people feel immune to interaction with
you; unless, they initiate the interaction. These guys and gals can be
genuinely insulted when you interrupt their violations of traffic laws.
Remember, they've got a good reason for those violations, and you should
understand that. If they're forced to give you an explanation, you should
simply believe anything they tell you and get out of their way.
In another article from the Tampa Pirate regarding the Florida incident,
the article is very critical of the deputy...surprised? It includes a
statement made by the deputy to another deputy immediately following
the arrest. The second deputy asks Deputy Stabins if her farther is indeed
in the hospital? He replies, “I don’t know, but she drives right by the f—
ing emergency room when I stop her.” This statement, recorded on the
deputy's video system, was obviously included to show the deputy using the
"F" word. It made no mention that by passing the emergency room, the
deputy's first impression that she was lying to him was only reinforced.
However, right at the beginning of the article, far removed from the
deputy's comment, it's covered by the woman's statement that she was
searching the parking lot for her father's car. “I just had to make sure he
made it there. Otherwise he was just sitting on the side of the road
somewhere dying.”
Come on. One would think the woman would first check inside the
emergency room to ensure her father was there, so she could sound the
alarm, as soon as possible, if he was indeed incapacitated while en route to
the hospital. Since the heart attack story was true, the woman's actions
only prove that she was not acting any more rationally than she was when
she fled from the deputy.
When you become a police officer, these are exactly the type of people
you'll be encountering. You'd do well to read some of these comments and
realize that the world is full of irrational and hateful people. After all,
their existence is a primary reason for you to become a police officer, so
you need to start thinking about how you're going to deal with them.
Okay...let's look at Deputy Stabins. I'm not going to leave him off the
hook. The deputy knew he was being videotaped. He thought that, as long
as he did everything right, there wouldn't be any problem, because he
acted "lawfully," and he didn't use "excessive" force. He didn't use any
abusive language toward the woman; although, I wouldn't be surprised if
the use of the "F" word in his comment to the other deputy is what got
him the 5 day suspension...especially if it was overheard by the woman.
I'm sure that Deputy Stabins wishes he would have handled this incident
differently. For example, since they were in sight of the hospital, he could
have instructed the woman to lock her car and ride with him to the
emergency room. Once her story and her father's condition was verified,
the deputy could have transported the woman back to her car, and any
further actions regarding the traffic citation(s) could have been
completed. The positive thing about this scenario is that the woman's
refusal of such an instruction or offer would have changed the dynamic of
the incident entirely in the deputy's favor. Of course, there would be
those critics and "experts" who would say that the woman's refusal to
accept transport was probably because she feared she'd be sexually
assaulted by the deputy.
Don't laugh. Such false accusations are not uncommon. In this case, the
deputy had the capability to record audio inside his vehicle, so the fear of a
false allegation of his conduct should not have been a problem. Of course,
many critics would say, "That's ridiculous, the deputy should have escorted
the woman the rest of the way." They would conveniently forget the
deputy stopped the woman for speeding. Let's say you're the deputy. You
escort the woman the remaining distance. You stop in front of the
emergency room, and she continues on rolling around the parking lot
looking for her father's car. I think you just might feel a little frustration.
The critics really think they have the high ground when they point out
that the deputy still arrested the woman after her reasons for her actions
had been verified. You have to scratch your head on this one. Sure, it's a
simple conclusion for simple minds. They forget the fact that the arrest
occurred, before the verification of circumstances. Here's the thing about
arresting people. When you physically take a person into your custody by
applying handcuffs and restricting that person's freedom, you have --
technically -- assaulted that person. The only thing that makes that
assault legal is that you did it lawfully based upon probable cause.
Here's where the courts come into play. Once you've made a "lawful"
arrest, the determination and circumstances of that person's release from
custody is -- technically -- no longer up to you. During your career, you'll
see people released by officers after brief custody even under
circumstances where handcuffs are applied, and you'll do it your self on
occasion. However, whenever you use force to make an arrest, such as in
this Florida incident, your release of a person, even for compassionate
reasons, can put you in jeopardy for criminal prosecution. Something tells
me that had Deputy Stabins released his suspect, he would have shortly
been served with a criminal summons, or even an arrest warrant, charging
him with assault. Like the numerous police critics you'll encounter, there
are plenty of judicial officers who just love preparing charging documents
on police officers. Of course, in this instance, I could be wrong.
The only time the immediate release of a person you've arrested is
mandated is when developing information exonerates that person of the
crime for which you arrested the person. It could be as simple as
removing handcuffs. In the case where your suspect is further along in
the process, you simply move heaven and earth to secure that person's
freedom.
There may well come a time during your career when you make an arrest;
after which, you wish you hadn't had to make the arrest, because you feel
compassion toward the suspect. Your compassion doesn't change the facts
of the incident, or the lawfulness of your arrest. So, what do you do? It's
really quite simple. You address the issue in your probable cause charging
document. After you articulate your probable cause for the arrest and any
additional charges stemming from the arrest such as resisting arrest or
any assault on you, you can show your compassionate side. You don't have
to be gushy or plead for the suspect's release. You simply state the
circumstances that created your compassion for the suspect. Your feelings
will not be lost on the reviewing judicial officer, and your suspect will, in
all probability, be released without bail. The suspect will still have to
appear in court to face the charges; however, the prosecutor will likely be
swayed toward leniency by your explanation of circumstances. I don't
know what his charging document contained, but this would have been a
good course of action for Deputy Stabins.
You're going to begin your police career facing challenges that, to put it
mildly, have been exaggerated. There was a time when doing things right
would keep you out of trouble. Compassion has always been nice and even
appreciated from time to time, but compassion -- or I should say the
constant and visual displays of compassion -- was never a requirement for
every instance of law enforcement. Of course, I can't remember, during
my lifetime, when the purveyors of irrationality have been so influential
as they are today.
There's a simple reason why people who were seldom listened to in the
past are now heard from so often. It's called the 24 hour news cycle.
There's nothing wrong with people having access to news and developing
information on a 24 hour basis. In fact, I'd describe myself as a "news
junkie." However, by the very nature of its timeliness combined with
competition, 24 hour news makes the quality of its reporting suspect. If
you're like me, you keep up on the updates, and you soon realize the trend
of the new media...constant, controlled , controversial and captivating.
When it's a slow news day, just about any piece of garbage will do as long
as it fits the trend criteria.
The media loves cops. They don't love you, because you're cuddly. They
love you, because you're controversial. When the LA allegations of
excessive force quickly fizzled due to a number of circumstances including
a lack of sensational video, the media turned to a Florida deputy to keep
the theme of excessive force rolling. Deputy Stabins got beat up pretty
badly for several days; until, an F5 Tornado and President George W. Bush
came to his rescue; the tornado flattened a town in Kansas, and President
Bush was now the bad guy for having some of the Kansas National Guard
assigned in Iraq.
I had just left Criminal Court in downtown Baltimore. As I sat at a
traffic light, I noticed a Volvo stationwagon pass me on the right.
The car eased up to the intersection to the right of the traffic in
front of me. The Volvo stopped, and then it proceeded through the
intersection against the red light. Once through the intersection,
the car accelerated at a rate of speed indicating that this guy was in
a hurry.
When my light changed, and I got up to speed, I could see the
Volvo do exactly the same thing at the next intersection. On went
the lights and siren, and I caught up to the Volvo just before it had
a chance to bust the third red light.
The Volvo was occupied by a man and woman. Both were dressed
in business attire. Unlike the Florida woman, the man immediately
apologized for running the red lights. He quickly got to the point,
without any embellishment, explaining that he and his wife, who
both worked downtown, received a call from their 11 year old son's
sitter. The young boy had been taken to the hospital by
ambulance. The only thing they knew at that time was that the
sitter found the child unconcious.
First of all, did I believe the man's story? As he talked, his wife
stood beside him with what I could only describe as a pleading look
on her face. As distraught as this couple must have been, they
both knew that they had to deal with me despite the urgency they
surely felt to reach their child.
I had quickly made up my mind. First, I believed the man.
Second, unlike the Florida incident where the woman's presence at
the hospital was not a medical necessity, the case of a child is
different. Doctors often want the presence of parents for
informational and legal purposes. In this incident, if the child was
indeed unconscious, the emergency room doctors would definitely
want to speak with the parents as soon as possible.
It wasn't a simple matter of putting the couple in my car and
heading for the hospital. We were in downtown Baltimore and
finding a parking space for the Volvo would have consumed too
much time. I didn't want to split the pair trusting one to drive
their car safely to the hospital. The hospital was located in North
Baltimore at a considerable distance. Once I was assured the
husband knew the route to the hospital, I laid down the rules. I
would drive directly behind him with lights and siren activated; he
was not to exceed the posted speed limit; at red light or stop sign
intersections, he was to come to a complete stop and proceed only
when all the opposing traffic had stopped.
It worked like a charm. The man followed my directions to the
letter. Here's a tip. While I don't recommend escorting vehicles
with your lights and siren, if you do have occasion to do it, never
have the other vehicle follow you. When you go through an
intersection with lights and siren, other drivers are only looking at
you. Once you're through, it's back to driving as usual and here
comes your guy in front of those accelerating motorists. In this
case, we drove at a normal speed giving motorists time to hear my
siren and yield the right of way. In no time at all that man was
looking back at me waving his hand as he and his wife rushed into
the emergency room. The wife was not looking back and waving
since she obviously had more important things on her mind.
traffic light, I noticed a Volvo stationwagon pass me on the right.
The car eased up to the intersection to the right of the traffic in
front of me. The Volvo stopped, and then it proceeded through the
intersection against the red light. Once through the intersection,
the car accelerated at a rate of speed indicating that this guy was in
a hurry.
When my light changed, and I got up to speed, I could see the
Volvo do exactly the same thing at the next intersection. On went
the lights and siren, and I caught up to the Volvo just before it had
a chance to bust the third red light.
The Volvo was occupied by a man and woman. Both were dressed
in business attire. Unlike the Florida woman, the man immediately
apologized for running the red lights. He quickly got to the point,
without any embellishment, explaining that he and his wife, who
both worked downtown, received a call from their 11 year old son's
sitter. The young boy had been taken to the hospital by
ambulance. The only thing they knew at that time was that the
sitter found the child unconcious.
First of all, did I believe the man's story? As he talked, his wife
stood beside him with what I could only describe as a pleading look
on her face. As distraught as this couple must have been, they
both knew that they had to deal with me despite the urgency they
surely felt to reach their child.
I had quickly made up my mind. First, I believed the man.
Second, unlike the Florida incident where the woman's presence at
the hospital was not a medical necessity, the case of a child is
different. Doctors often want the presence of parents for
informational and legal purposes. In this incident, if the child was
indeed unconscious, the emergency room doctors would definitely
want to speak with the parents as soon as possible.
It wasn't a simple matter of putting the couple in my car and
heading for the hospital. We were in downtown Baltimore and
finding a parking space for the Volvo would have consumed too
much time. I didn't want to split the pair trusting one to drive
their car safely to the hospital. The hospital was located in North
Baltimore at a considerable distance. Once I was assured the
husband knew the route to the hospital, I laid down the rules. I
would drive directly behind him with lights and siren activated; he
was not to exceed the posted speed limit; at red light or stop sign
intersections, he was to come to a complete stop and proceed only
when all the opposing traffic had stopped.
It worked like a charm. The man followed my directions to the
letter. Here's a tip. While I don't recommend escorting vehicles
with your lights and siren, if you do have occasion to do it, never
have the other vehicle follow you. When you go through an
intersection with lights and siren, other drivers are only looking at
you. Once you're through, it's back to driving as usual and here
comes your guy in front of those accelerating motorists. In this
case, we drove at a normal speed giving motorists time to hear my
siren and yield the right of way. In no time at all that man was
looking back at me waving his hand as he and his wife rushed into
the emergency room. The wife was not looking back and waving
since she obviously had more important things on her mind.
| Copyright © 2006 - 2011 - Barry M. Baker - CareerPoliceOfficer.com |
| Disclaimer |
| CareerPoliceOfficer.com is not responsible for the contents of any linked site or any link contained in a linked site, or any changes or updates to such sites. Links are provided only as a convenience, and the inclusion of any link does not imply endorsement by this site. |