• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should violent and or lethal force be allowed in detaining a non-violent suspect?

Should violent and or lethal force be allowed in detaining a non-violent suspect?


  • Total voters
    39

jamesrage

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2005
Messages
36,705
Reaction score
17,867
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Should violent and or lethal force be allowed in detaining a non-violent suspect?

When I say violent or lethal force I mean chocking, punching,hitting someone with a baton, slamming someone to the ground,shooting and etc. This does not include other things at might hurt like sticking handcuffs on someone,grabbing suspect by the hands arms or some other body part, or putting the suspect's hands behind their back in order to restrain and or put handcuffs on the suspect.

When I say non-violent suspect I mean someone who is not punching,jabbing,brandishing a weapon, stabbing,hitting or kicking anyone.Basically someone is not physically hurting anyone. This person may be cooperating with police or he may be walking away,trying to get someone off of him.


Yes for violent and or lethal force if the non-violent suspect is not cooperating.
Yes for violent force if the non-violent suspect is not cooperating.
No regardless if the non-violent suspect is or isn't cooperating.
Other
Maybe/I do not know.

I think most reasonable people agree that if a suspect is assaulting and or threatening the law enforcement officer's life then that officer should be allowed to use violent force or even lethal force to detain and or take down a suspect. However when it comes to non-violent suspects that might be a different story. Some people might argue that if you do not do what a police officer says then he can use what ever force he wants. While others will say no if the suspect is not trying to harm you or anyone else then you have no right to hurt that suspect. I want to lean towards no regardless of the non-violent suspect is or isn't cooperating.But there might be a circumstance that I am not aware of yet where it is necessary for a office to use violent force to detain a suspect.
 
Last edited:
Depends on how you define "violent" no as to the lethal part, though it does happen.
 
Violent and lethal are on the same slippery slope. Punching a guy can be lethal.
 
Yes, if necessary. It should be based on the situation though. Enough force to subdue the person. It is never as simple as, "well he wasn't putting up a fight, he wasn't hurting anyone". Not cooperating with the police when they are trying to arrest or even detain you requires the police act on that. Some police do apply too much force for particular situations, but the majority are not. Those police who do apply excessive force should be punished. But it has to be based on the case and based on the actual information of the case, not speculation or assumptions.

Lethal force should be applied only when there is an actual threat. However, I believe some people are wrongfully trying to attach lethal force to forces that are not normally lethal. Other circumstances are what led to the death in pretty much all those cases. That doesn't mean that police should not be mindful of those other circumstances or their potential. It means that it is wrong to claim that something is lethal force just because it contributed to or even ended in a death because of how such force was used.

Pretty much any force can be lethal, but lethal force is going to be lethal the vast majority of the time it is used, not just in rare instances.
 
Yes, if necessary. It should be based on the situation though. Enough force to subdue the person. It is never as simple as, "well he wasn't putting up a fight, he wasn't hurting anyone". Not cooperating with the police when they are trying to arrest or even detain you requires the police act on that. Some police do apply too much force for particular situations, but the majority are not. Those police who do apply excessive force should be punished. But it has to be based on the case and based on the actual information of the case, not speculation or assumptions.

Lethal force should be applied only when there is an actual threat. However, I believe some people are wrongfully trying to attach lethal force to forces that are not normally lethal. Other circumstances are what led to the death in pretty much all those cases. That doesn't mean that police should not be mindful of those other circumstances or their potential. It means that it is wrong to claim that something is lethal force just because it contributed to or even ended in a death because of how such force was used.

Pretty much any force can be lethal, but lethal force is going to be lethal the vast majority of the time it is used, not just in rare instances.
Pretty much this. Downside is that we as a society say we hold rogue cops accountable, but we actually rarely do.
 
Everyone wants to side with the police in issues like this until its them. What is it that you feel, when a cop turns on her lights behind you? Isn't it fear?

Why are we afraid of public servants? Is it because they've gotten out of hand? They beat up people for no reason? they shoot unarmed people dead instead of using their utility belt full of non-lethal gadgets??

No, not all cops are bad or misuse their misguided "authority" (NULL), but when we let even one of them get away with hurting, yes, even a criminal, then we give them permission to shoot at our kids when they disagree with the cops.
to beat up our parents when they want to know why they are being stopped/detained.
to steal money from our fellow citizens without regard to their fourth amendment rights.

Can you seriously back a police state? What about when it shows up at your door?
 
Pretty much this. Downside is that we as a society say we hold rogue cops accountable, but we actually rarely do.

When it is blatant, we do. But in many cases it becomes a double edged sword. It leads to cops questioning their level of force to an extent that puts them and possibly the public at risk when someone isn't subdued that should have been because the officer is more worried about how much force is "proper" and not going to potentially get them brought up on charges of murder because someone died due to a combination of circumstances that included their use of force.
 
Everyone wants to side with the police in issues like this until its them. What is it that you feel, when a cop turns on her lights behind you? Isn't it fear?

Why are we afraid of public servants? Is it because they've gotten out of hand? They beat up people for no reason? they shoot unarmed people dead instead of using their utility belt full of non-lethal gadgets??

No, not all cops are bad or misuse their misguided "authority" (NULL), but when we let even one of them get away with hurting, yes, even a criminal, then we give them permission to shoot at our kids when they disagree with the cops.
to beat up our parents when they want to know why they are being stopped/detained.
to steal money from our fellow citizens without regard to their fourth amendment rights.

Can you seriously back a police state? What about when it shows up at your door?

Hyperbole much?

The reason many people feel fear when they see lights behind them is because they have done something wrong. The punishment is what they fear. The vast majority fears the ticket the cop is about to give them, which is going to cost them money or being arrested because that is going to cost them money.

Plus, many people don't side with the cops. And cops aren't like the BatFamily. They don't actually have this utility belt full of non-lethal gadgets to subdue people, nor did the vast majority train for about a decade or more, picking up more training along the way, to learn how not to kill people but still capture them. Life isn't a comic book.
 
When it is blatant, we do. But in many cases it becomes a double edged sword. It leads to cops questioning their level of force to an extent that puts them and possibly the public at risk when someone isn't subdued that should have been because the officer is more worried about how much force is "proper" and not going to potentially get them brought up on charges of murder because someone died due to a combination of circumstances that included their use of force.

So, rather than putting an assailant down non-lethally using the many different training methods and technologies available to you, you're saying we can't "limit the cops judgement" and should all just agree that firing your gun with deadly force, or choking people to death are acceptable methods of taking out a potentially hostile CITIZEN???

you do realize that this is not a war zone and cops are our equals? we are not enemy combatants.

its easy to look at something on tv and side with the police, but what happens when its you? or even better... when its someone you love?

what happens when mom gets pulled over, asks the cop why its happening, and then gets yanked out of the car and beaten for resisting?
 
Hyperbole much?

The reason many people feel fear when they see lights behind them is because they have done something wrong. The punishment is what they fear. The vast majority fears the ticket the cop is about to give them, which is going to cost them money or being arrested because that is going to cost them money.

Plus, many people don't side with the cops. And cops aren't like the BatFamily. They don't actually have this utility belt full of non-lethal gadgets to subdue people, nor did the vast majority train for about a decade or more, picking up more training along the way, to learn how not to kill people but still capture them. Life isn't a comic book.

So you're saying that cops are not given proper training to deal with alleged criminals? So thats your argument for why we should allow them to shoot down our fellow citizens? Its a systemic problems and if cops don't receive that kind of training they shouldn't be on the streets pointing guns at their fellow Human
 
Well this is tough.


See on the Force Continuum (back to my LE days here), there was "soft hands" (restraining techniques, attempting to move subject via pulling/pushing or pain compliance methods) and "hard hands" (striking the subject unarmed).


Simple non-cooperation (referred to as "passive resistance") typically warranted 'soft hands' on the force continuum. If you couldn't move a guy alone, you got someone to help you.


Choke holds were once considered a soft-hands restraining technique... then it was determined that choke holds could be fatal and they were reclassified as hard, then most departments banned them.

"Active resistance" is when the subject pushes officers away, etc, but isn't actually trying to hurt anyone. In my day, this was the borderline between soft hands and hard hands techniques, or possibly OC spray.


"Fighting" is when the subject is trying to hurt you to resist arrest. Now this was when you could beat his ass, spray him, maybe even use the baton on him.... but still focusing on LTL (less than lethal) methods.



Now at first I figured the Tazer was for dealing with fighters, but apparently it was quickly applied to Active Resistance as well, and in some cases just Passive Resisters. The latter surprises me, since Tasering is fatal once in a while.


PD's love their Tasers. On the whole it cuts down on officer injuries and perp injuries, reducing liability and insurance and lost-time and so on. (Mostly economic see).

I think they're getting a little too Taser happy when they use them on Passive Resisters tho.



But what do you do? Government and law are Force. When someone refuses a law and is told they are under arrest and won't go, you MUST make them go. That's the job.



Personally I think the best answer is.... don't have so many stupid-ass laws. Recognize that ANY law, when faced with citizen non-compliance, may result in violence and perhaps death... and then be a little more restrained when it comes to MAKING law.


That, and maybe we need a better system in place, something more independent of the justice system as it stands, for determining when an officer has exceeded his mandate in force.
 
Well this is tough.


See on the Force Continuum (back to my LE days here), there was "soft hands" (restraining techniques, attempting to move subject via pulling/pushing or pain compliance methods) and "hard hands" (striking the subject unarmed).


Simple non-cooperation (referred to as "passive resistance") typically warranted 'soft hands' on the force continuum. If you couldn't move a guy alone, you got someone to help you.


Choke holds were once considered a soft-hands restraining technique... then it was determined that choke holds could be fatal and they were reclassified as hard, then most departments banned them.

"Active resistance" is when the subject pushes officers away, etc, but isn't actually trying to hurt anyone. In my day, this was the borderline between soft hands and hard hands techniques, or possibly OC spray.


"Fighting" is when the subject is trying to hurt you to resist arrest. Now this was when you could beat his ass, spray him, maybe even use the baton on him.... but still focusing on LTL (less than lethal) methods.



Now at first I figured the Tazer was for dealing with fighters, but apparently it was quickly applied to Active Resistance as well, and in some cases just Passive Resisters. The latter surprises me, since Tasering is fatal once in a while.


PD's love their Tasers. On the whole it cuts down on officer injuries and perp injuries, reducing liability and insurance and lost-time and so on. (Mostly economic see).

I think they're getting a little too Taser happy when they use them on Passive Resisters tho.



But what do you do? Government and law are Force. When someone refuses a law and is told they are under arrest and won't go, you MUST make them go. That's the job.



Personally I think the best answer is.... don't have so many stupid-ass laws. Recognize that ANY law, when faced with citizen non-compliance, may result in violence and perhaps death... and then be a little more restrained when it comes to MAKING law.


That, and maybe we need a better system in place, something more independent of the justice system as it stands, for determining when an officer has exceeded his mandate in force.

What happens when an over enthusiastic cop beats the crap out of you?

If you hit him back, trying to defend yourself, is that when the guns come out?
 
So, rather than putting an assailant down non-lethally using the many different training methods and technologies available to you, you're saying we can't "limit the cops judgement" and should all just agree that firing your gun with deadly force, or choking people to death are acceptable methods of taking out a potentially hostile CITIZEN???

you do realize that this is not a war zone and cops are our equals? we are not enemy combatants.

its easy to look at something on tv and side with the police, but what happens when its you? or even better... when its someone you love?

what happens when mom gets pulled over, asks the cop why its happening, and then gets yanked out of the car and beaten for resisting?

None of that is what I said, at all. Again, using ridiculous arguments. I'm saying that it should be based off of the circumstances.

My family has been stopped by the cops before for something they didn't do. My father's truck looked like one they claimed was involved in a robbery while my parents were in the store. My father had a very unique looking truck, because it had doors from a different colored truck and dents in the side, along with a camper shell that didn't really match the color either. They handled it calmly and cooperated. That isn't what we have been seeing in many of the situations lately. The people involved have been uncooperative with the police.

But no, we don't hear about what happens when people are cooperative with the police, and simply tell them the truth. Because that isn't news worthy. That doesn't create problems between the public and police.
 
So you're saying that cops are not given proper training to deal with alleged criminals? So thats your argument for why we should allow them to shoot down our fellow citizens? Its a systemic problems and if cops don't receive that kind of training they shouldn't be on the streets pointing guns at their fellow Human

It is absolutely unrealistic for cops to go through Batman like training to deal with criminals. Batman deals with lethal force against him with nonlethal force because he can do so since he is made up as are those he goes against.
 
Everyone wants to side with the police in issues like this until its them. What is it that you feel, when a cop turns on her lights behind you? Isn't it fear?

Why are we afraid of public servants? Is it because they've gotten out of hand? They beat up people for no reason? they shoot unarmed people dead instead of using their utility belt full of non-lethal gadgets??

No, not all cops are bad or misuse their misguided "authority" (NULL), but when we let even one of them get away with hurting, yes, even a criminal, then we give them permission to shoot at our kids when they disagree with the cops.
to beat up our parents when they want to know why they are being stopped/detained.
to steal money from our fellow citizens without regard to their fourth amendment rights.

Can you seriously back a police state? What about when it shows up at your door?


no...i dont feel fear when a cop turns his lights on

why should i?

i want to live in a society where laws matter

you break the law, you need to be arrested

if you resist, then the officer has a DUTY to subdue you, and take you into custody

you dont like certain laws....get them changed......there is a process for that
 
What happens when an over enthusiastic cop beats the crap out of you?

If you hit him back, trying to defend yourself, is that when the guns come out?



If you resist arrest successfully, then the level of force being used will increase, yes.

Normally speaking if you are unarmed, lethal force is not warranted except in the most extreme cases (ie you're beating someone's head against concrete, or you're Monster Man on a PCP flipout).

These days they'd probably Tazer you if they had one handy. We didn't have those in my day.


Now if you try to get an officer's gun, or say you're going to, or put an officer in fear of being beaten to death (ie Ferguson, monster man vs smallish cop), you might get shot yes.


Government and law are Force. Even if it is over unpaid traffic tickets, non-compliance is eventually met with some degree of force; the longer the subject successfully resists, the more likely it is that higher levels of force will be used.


It ain't pretty but that's how it is.



Now, as to an overenthusiastic cop just up and beating the crap out of you "for no reason".... well that would be rare but I'm not going to say Never.

If you want to live and not go to prison, the smartest thing to do is cover your head with your arms, curl up in a ball, and don't fight. Afterward, contact your lawyer and file charges for police brutality and sue the PD. I know that isn't a very satisfactory answer but it is the truth... fighting the police generally isn't going to lead to any outcome you are going to enjoy.


I quit LE about fifteen years ago. In the years since, I've had a couple of encounters with cops that could be characterized as 'bad'.

One case, on rural road I pulled out just as a cop came flying around the corner speeding without his lights on. He ran onto the shoulder avoiding me, then hit his blue lights and pulled me over.


Now reallio trulio, it was his fault. He was going too fast w/out lights or siren... probably on his way home.

But it didn't matter. He was scared and pissed off and determined to take it out on me. He was visibly angry, verbally hostile, and I could tell he was looking for an excuse to slam me across the hood and put the cuffs on. He searched my truck without asking permission and did his best to verbally provoke me into doing something rash.


I stayed calm, complied with all lawful orders, and was very careful to keep my hands in view and not do anything that could be construed as provocative.


In the end he let me go without a ticket... probably because he knew he'd get slammed when the recorder in his cruiser revealed he was speeding without lights or siren. He gave me a bad ten minutes by the roadside though.


I wasn't happy about it. It was stressful and nerve wracking and it wasn't fair.


But I'm still here. I'm not shot dead or in prison.

If I'd reacted to his provocation in any way that gave him half an excuse, that might not be so.



Like I tell my son.... if the cops are in the wrong, don't fight it on the side of the road, fight it in COURT. Be smart. Don't give them an excuse to beat your ass or kill you.
 
So, rather than putting an assailant down non-lethally using the many different training methods and technologies available to you, you're saying we can't "limit the cops judgement" and should all just agree that firing your gun with deadly force, or choking people to death are acceptable methods of taking out a potentially hostile CITIZEN???

you do realize that this is not a war zone and cops are our equals? we are not enemy combatants.

its easy to look at something on tv and side with the police, but what happens when its you? or even better... when its someone you love?

what happens when mom gets pulled over, asks the cop why its happening, and then gets yanked out of the car and beaten for resisting?


my parent taught me to COOPERATE with all officers of the law

not to resist.....but also not to say anything

i taught my kids the same things

dont argue with them.....dont yell at them......be courteous, even if you think they are wrong

have had a number of tickets thrown out of court over the years....paid a few others

they are just doing their job.....you give them a reason, and yes they can make your life more difficult

if you are courteous to them, they usually return the kindness

or as my grandmother taught me....treat people the way YOU want to be treated
 
If you resist arrest successfully, then the level of force being used will increase, yes.

Normally speaking if you are unarmed, lethal force is not warranted except in the most extreme cases (ie you're beating someone's head against concrete, or you're Monster Man on a PCP flipout).

These days they'd probably Tazer you if they had one handy. We didn't have those in my day.


Now if you try to get an officer's gun, or say you're going to, or put an officer in fear of being beaten to death (ie Ferguson, monster man vs smallish cop), you might get shot yes.


Government and law are Force. Even if it is over unpaid traffic tickets, non-compliance is eventually met with some degree of force; the longer the subject successfully resists, the more likely it is that higher levels of force will be used.


It ain't pretty but that's how it is.



Now, as to an overenthusiastic cop just up and beating the crap out of you "for no reason".... well that would be rare but I'm not going to say Never.

If you want to live and not go to prison, the smartest thing to do is cover your head with your arms, curl up in a ball, and don't fight. Afterward, contact your lawyer and file charges for police brutality and sue the PD. I know that isn't a very satisfactory answer but it is the truth... fighting the police generally isn't going to lead to any outcome you are going to enjoy.


I quit LE about fifteen years ago. In the years since, I've had a couple of encounters with cops that could be characterized as 'bad'.

One case, on rural road I pulled out just as a cop came flying around the corner speeding without his lights on. He ran onto the shoulder avoiding me, then hit his blue lights and pulled me over.


Now reallio trulio, it was his fault. He was going too fast w/out lights or siren... probably on his way home.

But it didn't matter. He was scared and pissed off and determined to take it out on me. He was visibly angry, verbally hostile, and I could tell he was looking for an excuse to slam me across the hood and put the cuffs on. He searched my truck without asking permission and did his best to verbally provoke me into doing something rash.


I stayed calm, complied with all lawful orders, and was very careful to keep my hands in view and not do anything that could be construed as provocative.


In the end he let me go without a ticket... probably because he knew he'd get slammed when the recorder in his cruiser revealed he was speeding without lights or siren. He gave me a bad ten minutes by the roadside though.


I wasn't happy about it. It was stressful and nerve wracking and it wasn't fair.


But I'm still here. I'm not shot dead or in prison.

If I'd reacted to his provocation in any way that gave him half an excuse, that might not be so.



Like I tell my son.... if the cops are in the wrong, don't fight it on the side of the road, fight it in COURT. Be smart. Don't give them an excuse to beat your ass or kill you.

At the end of the day...does a courtroom ever take the defendants side..Is not a cop's word ''bible''
 
At the end of the day...does a courtroom ever take the defendants side..Is not a cop's word ''bible''



Actually yeah, the courts do sometimes take the citizen's side, if he has a good case and some evidence to present. I know of a few cases where this happened.


Granted, it is an uphill battle. The court is typically disposed to believe the officer, absent evidence or credible witnesses to the contrary.


But it isn't nearly as much of an uphill battle as fighting the police with your fists on the street. That almost never ends well for the cit, and resisting arrest damages your credibility in court if you want to claim the police acted wrongfully.
 
When it is blatant, we do. But in many cases it becomes a double edged sword. It leads to cops questioning their level of force to an extent that puts them and possibly the public at risk when someone isn't subdued that should have been because the officer is more worried about how much force is "proper" and not going to potentially get them brought up on charges of murder because someone died due to a combination of circumstances that included their use of force.
I don't think we do. Often enough, at least, and usually to nowhere near the same level if the crime were committed by an average citizen. Too often, if anything happens, they're simply fired with no charges whatsoever.

This article has several examples where even when we try to hold police accountable, our efforts are thwarted: How Police Unions and Arbitrators Keep Abusive Cops on the Street - The Atlantic
 
At the end of the day...does a courtroom ever take the defendants side..Is not a cop's word ''bible''

Yes, you can win in a courtroom against a cop if you didn't do what you are accused of. It isn't guaranteed but you have better odds in the courtroom than on the curb.
 
I don't think we do. Often enough, at least, and usually to nowhere near the same level if the crime were committed by an average citizen. Too often, if anything happens, they're simply fired with no charges whatsoever.

This article has several examples where even when we try to hold police accountable, our efforts are thwarted: How Police Unions and Arbitrators Keep Abusive Cops on the Street - The Atlantic

Check the three cops in sc that are facing charges. It isn't going to be as often as civilians when their actions were done in the line of duty but it does happen when the event was obviously them doing something wrong and there was little to no action from the victim against them
 
Police should not use violent or lethal force on a non-violent suspect under most circumstances. I include in that things like tazers.
 
While the terms are not well defined, you never know if a "non-violent" suspect will turn violent and the best move for all involved is to get them under control before anything bad might happen. Therefore, while I'm not saying to shoot him in the head, if it takes violence to subdue him, then do what it takes to subdue him. That ends up being safest for all involved. If the suspect doesn't want to get punched, they should simply stop fighting. It's all up to them.
 
Back
Top Bottom