• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Recognizing Police Legitimacy ~ Force Science Institute

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
8,172
Location
here nc
17 Oct 19 FS News, quote
There has been a lot of emphasis on building trust and legitimacy in policing over the years. With some arguing that the public recognizes legitimacy only when they believe the police are acting in a “procedurally just” way. And others explaining that people are more likely to obey the police when they believe that police have the legitimate authority to tell them what to do.
So, when is that? When do the police have the legitimate authority to tell people what to do?

A recently released video of a 2017 traffic-stop out of Denver, Colorado, highlights the importance of answering this question. And, if you’ve seen the video, [
] you know it is hard to watch. [added: GRAPH/LANGUAGE lol...hard to watch, perhaps in the BLUE eyes of the beholder!! this gal reams the LEs a new one as the next paragraph shows]

You’re Not the Boss of Me
When Denver police attempted to pull over a car for a traffic violation, the driver failed to stop and instead drove to her house, where her boyfriend was waiting in the driveway. It quickly became clear that neither the man nor the woman believed the police could tell them what to do.

They would stand where they wanted; get in and out of the car when they wanted; yell, scream, and curse at the officers when they wanted. They would attempt to ridicule and intimidate the officers; even going so far as to give the officers direct and repeated orders to “back up!” The amount of confidence this couple displayed was extraordinary.

Predictably, the couple was arrested. They resisted. They were forced into handcuffs. They hired a lawyer.

When the City of Denver agreed to pay $500,000 to avoid the lawsuit, the president of the Denver police union expressed concern that individuals stopped for routine traffic offenses will believe that they don’t have to comply with police orders. That’s a legitimate concern. But what about the police?

What messages have the police been getting about their own authority? Do they know what orders they can give and lawfully enforce? Do they know how to defend them?

Fortunately, the courts have been very clear about the legitimacy of police authority, and as it turns out, society has every right to expect compliance with the lawful orders of its police.

No Time to Talk
De-escalation, persuasion, and efforts to achieve a sense of procedural justice should be commended. But the often-unpredictable chaos that police are called to manage does not always lend itself to securing on-scene consensus.

And when racism, malevolence, and injustice are believed to be motivating the police, even the most routine enforcement actions can generate intense emotional responses, violence, and outrage; leaving the police little time to discern the cause of the contempt or dissuade its holder.

When time and circumstances prevent the police from safely engaging in extended conversations, they should be confident in their authority to establish and maintain control. The legitimacy of that authority is never contingent on securing agreement from suspects or witnesses. Police are not required to sacrifice safety, control, or security in order to answer questions or defend their decisions.

The Luxury of Time
Officers frequently decide to slow things down and “buy time” for active listening and crisis counseling. They exercise tactical patience as they wait for the added deterrence of additional officers.

But these efforts to generate voluntary compliance, avoid force, and save suspects from the consequences of their bad decisions depend on an officer’s ability to first establish containment and control. They are response options, not prerequisites. unquote.

The FSI article goes on to discuss the LEs legitimacy through the courts to exercise "Unquestioned command” and “all reasonable steps” define the authority that society expects its police to exercise,' aka order citizens around...

through the LE's blue tinted glasses...
 

color of law

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
4,861
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
I thumbed through their website and came across this:

Across the sample, almost one-fifth of officers reported that the perpetrator had pointed a weapon at them although the weapon had remained in the waistband of the perpetrator’s trousers throughout the critical phase of the encounter.
That is 20%. That is a big number. Proving that even police officers accounting of the events, like any other witness, must be viewed with skepticism.
 

Doug_Nightmare

Active member
Joined
Nov 21, 2018
Messages
378
See Qualified Immunity.

An officer‘s order is legitimate and lawful unless there is explicit statute law prohibiting it.

In re perception, I spent perhaps hundreds of hours all totaled in one shoot/don’t shoot trainer or another, and what one thinks was presented is often wrong. You can play too at Harvard’s ProjectImplicit.net. Guns are featured in a number of exercises. Know thyself.
 

Ghost1958

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2015
Messages
949
Location
Kentucky
See Qualified Immunity.

An officer‘s order is legitimate and lawful unless there is explicit statute law prohibiting it.

In re perception, I spent perhaps hundreds of hours all totaled in one shoot/don’t shoot trainer or another, and what one thinks was presented is often wrong. You can play too at Harvard’s ProjectImplicit.net. Guns are featured in a number of exercises. Know thyself.
Or it violates the BOR. Which LEOS generally are ignorant of.
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,111
Location
White Oak Plantation
...20%? Seems low, given that cops will routinely claim a firearm was pointed at them to justify their use of force...the proverbial stay outta jail card...see the Douglas Zerby incident...

Machit conceded Zerby was likely not committing a crime, “but the police didn’t know that. They didn’t know if he was wanted or had dead bodies upstairs.”

...many cops do not know a great many things...like the definition of observe, evaluate...honesty...
 

color of law

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
4,861
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
...20%? Seems low, given that cops will routinely claim a firearm was pointed at them to justify their use of force...the proverbial stay outta jail card...see the Douglas Zerby incident...



...many cops do not know a great many things...like the definition of observe, evaluate...honesty...
As you well know, statistics lie and liars use statistics.

½% would be a low number or should be even lower if based on gun encounters. Most gun encounters should never happen. Plain and simple, most police don't receive or get enough training on how to deal with people in general, especially when guns are involved.
 
Top