Use-of-force debate misses the real issue

[steven lloyd]

Use-of-force debate misses the real issue
• posted Apr 26, 2014 at 11:00 AM

When it comes to police use of force, the armchair experts come out in full force.

Such is the case in the aftermath of last Wednesday’s incident involving the Abbotsford Police Department and a report of a distraught homeless man waving a knife and yelling outside the Abbotsford Food Bank.

Employees inside the facility made the call, and then followed protocol by locking the building, and waiting for police.

Clearly, they had reason for concern.

The man was in the parking lot, and would not follow repeated police commands to lie down. Ultimately, officers shot him several times with non-lethal rounds – rubber bullets and beanbags.

The man was arrested and taken to hospital for examination of minor injuries, and to undergo a mental health assessment.
At the scene, on the pavement beside the man’s backpack, was a large knife.

Roy Roberts, 57, has been charged with possessing a weapon for a dangerous purpose and has been in custody since his release from hospital.

A potentially dangerous situation effectively defused by the cops, with no serious injuries. All good, right?

Not according to a local homeless advocate, and some viewers of a citizen’s YouTube video taken during part of the takedown.

Based on that, and a hefty application of after-the-partial-facts analysis, the police used excessive force, allege the critics.

The man didn’t have a knife in his hands when he was taken down. Ipso facto, he was not a threat, and the excessive force allegation is proven, case closed – save for condemnation and righteous indignation.

There isn’t video of the entire episode from start to finish. That means we don’t know what the people at the food bank saw. But their report was of a man waving a knife.

I’m not a cop, but I’ll make a wild guess that 911 call automatically sets police response to a high level of caution and protocol of action. Upon arrival, officers are potentially dealing with an armed individual. They act accordingly, which is to contain the situation, take control, and in the process, protect all concerned, including – as much as circumstances allow – the suspect.

In this case, there clearly was no compliance with police orders.

Call in the couch critics at this point, who handily freeze-frame the action. They call in an instantly available mental health worker. They have a friendly chat with the fellow. They bring him a French vanilla coffee (that was a real suggestion). They determine the knife was just a little one, that he never held anyway. And besides, everybody knows this guy is really harmless. No threat here, folks.

And if there really was a big knife, then it was in his backpack where officers found it.

(Wouldn’t that still make it a big knife?)

This scenario had so much potential to go real bad, real fast. The guy grabs his knife and runs off. He encounters a citizen who is in the wrong place at the wrong time, and who gets fatally stabbed.

Whose fault? The police, of course. Why didn’t they do something?

The man picks up the knife and lunges at officers. Now he’s a deadly threat, and real bullets are used. Police kill a confused homeless man. Public outrage follows.

I’ll suggest what is really outrageous here, and that is the dismal failure of our social support system to deal with the mentally ill – particularly those on the street.

They don’t fall through the cracks – they live in them.

And when their afflictions put them in conflict with the law, they encounter the police, who are expected to be mind-readers, mental health professionals and social workers – in often extremely tense situations.

The subjects are arrested, maybe charged, and then are rotated by the system back onto the street with little or no long-term treatment.

The real injustice to Roy Roberts is what is going to happen next – or more accurately, what won’t.

http://www.bclocalnews.com/opinion/256755281.html

[Captain Awesome]

Call in the couch critics at this point, who handily freeze-frame the action. They call in an instantly available mental health worker. They have a friendly chat with the fellow. They bring him a French vanilla coffee (that was a real suggestion). They determine the knife was just a little one, that he never held anyway. And besides, everybody knows this guy is really harmless. No threat here, folks.

And if there really was a big knife, then it was in his backpack where officers found it.

(Wouldn’t that still make it a big knife?)

French Vanilla coffee! The new non-lethal police tactic!

[A_Britishcolumbian]

as stated in the op, this man is unarmed. i certainly think this man could have been treated better.

[A_Britishcolumbian]

ok steven lloyd, i'll bite. what is the 'point' you feel i missed?

the writer of the article seems a bit vague on the point. is the point that it is ok for police to dehumanize people if they feel there maybe a weapon on their person? if that is the point you are reffering to, then i disagree with that point.

[Daspoot]

as stated in the op, this man is unarmed.

Even a man with no arms can do great damage with his feet.

Seriously, join the force and show everyone how you're going to handle all of those situations better, we're all a-twitter with the anticipation of your vastly superior methods.

[A_Britishcolumbian]

for the first couple of minutes they almost exclusively yell at him to stay on the ground, which he does. he was compliant. how long did they want him to stay there? they don't seem to be trying to dialogue at all, just yell commands to do exactly what he is doing. that seems very confusing to me, i imagine the man on the ground was confused as well.

he was at a food bank, i would think they might be asking if he was hungry.

the bean bag rounds seem to be used to antagonize him.

[grammafreddy]

I think the cops did just fine. But that revolving door is a real pain in the tush. How frustrating for the cops.

[KL3-Something]

as stated in the op, this man is unarmed. i certainly think this man could have been treated better.

Um. No. He isn't "unarmed". After that call comes in he is "armed" until it is proven that he is "unarmed". In order to do that he has to be arrested, restrained (i.e. handcuffed) and searched.

To not do so before declaring him "unarmed" is fool-hardy and is what gets police officers and/or citizens hurt or killed.

[A_Britishcolumbian]

i can appreciate that logic.

can you explain the strategy behind screaming at him to do as he is doing? or for that matter yelling at all.

i would think establishing a dialog, in a calm fashion would be more appropriate.

the yelling, and the shots from the bean bag gun would make me try to flee the torment, i can't imagine how that was meant to prevent a violent act by roberts. it would seem to more likely incite violence.

[Daspoot]

can you explain the strategy behind screaming at him to do as he is doing? or for that matter yelling at all.

Nope, because trying to judge from a tiny video that doesn't show the whole story, and not being there, or knowing police protocol, is idiotic.

Which is the whole point.

[A_Britishcolumbian]

i am confident that kl3-something is familiar with 'police protocol', and we can see from the news story and the video that it would seem that police have data on roberts, know a bit about his history and past behaviour. as well from the video i believe it is reasonable to assume that prior to the video police had been no closer to roberts than the are in the video.

the yelling at roberts to do as he is doing is 'tactical communication' according to the guide.

Officer Response Options

Cooperative Behaviour
Officer Presence
Tactical Communication
Perception & Tactical
Considerations are Key Factors to Every Response Option
* Distance to the threat
* Subjects perceived ability & Intent
* Ratio of officers to subjects
* Environmental factors
* Age size and skill differences between the officer & subject
* Ability to tactically withdraw
* Situational immediacy vs. containability
* Special knowledge of subject’s prior history
* Other factors

Officer Response Options

Passive Resistant Behaviour
Presence & Tactical Communication
Empty Hand Physical
Control Techniques
Pressure Points
Joint Locks
Pain Compliance
Response Options Pose Minimal Risk of Injury

http://www.braidwoodinquiry.ca/presenta ... lligan.pdf

[Daspoot]

That's cute, when you've walked a mile in the shoes of those in the video, let me know, until then it's just armchair quarter-backing of the worst sort.

[steven lloyd]

That's cute, when you've walked a mile in the shoes of those in the video, let me know, until then it's just armchair quarter-backing of the worst sort.

Exactly one of the points predicted to be missed in the OP. The police are damned if they do and damned if they don’t. Could you imagine the criticism if the fellow had stabbed and critically hurt or killed someone? Only the most sheltered, biased or naive would suggest that never happens. I think the police did an exemplary job in controlling and containing this situation with non-lethal force. The other even more significant point still being missed (although grammy alluded to it) is the lack of resources available to support the mentally ill. Far too often these people find their way into contact with police and/or the criminal justice system and in addition to the futility of trying to treat mental illness with criminal sanction this costs society far much more than earlier intervention ever would have (over and above consideration of any harm to innocent victims). Our reactive approaches to dealing with social issues (crime, poverty, mental illness, etc.) are not only far less effective than proactive approaches, but are far more costly and most often come after the damage is done.

[A_Britishcolumbian]

according to the 'national guide' i provided, the protocol they should be following, the yelling at the man to do as he was doing, which i cannot make sense of, is called 'tactical communication'.

the lack of resources is confusing, and troubling. they had 8 to 10 persons attending, was not one of them a trained in interacting with a person with mr roberts ailments? the vpd would likely have had a mental health person on hand, according to testimony i heard. but we know the city and the cops in abbotsford have done some grievous injustices upon the homeless in recent history. abbostford cops seem to think the homeless, and society at large to be an annoyance more than persons in their protection.

as far as i know all police are tasked with treating all people with respect and dignity, not just the buffoons in suits they pose with in photos, specific mental health training or not.

recall, the tactical communication did not seem to be of the nature of investigating whether or not mr roberts was armed or not, the 'guilty until proven innocent' approach kl3-something spoke of seemed to be used, and to the physical harm of mr roberts.

[Daspoot]

I think you're living in a candyland of readily available resources for every possible situation.

For those responding there that was probably the 30th call that day, domestic disputes, mental health problems, telling loved ones their Father/Mother/Daughter/Son/Wife/Husband are dead, MVA's, assaults, rapes, OD's etc. ad nauseum.

Get out from behind your keyboard and go help, they can use all the help they can get, but remember, you'll have to be 100% qualified, trained, on duty, available and willing each and every time that phone goes off. Anything less than that and legally you can't help or you open the door to all sorts of legal ramifications.

After all that you can come on here and read some uninformed twit telling you how you should have done it differently/better/friendlier/safer/quicker/slower/with more love/and generally stroked the hand differently.

Are there cops who occasionally do things less than perfect? Absolutely, it's just the good responses don't generally get much air-time.