Police Officer op-ed: 'if you don’t want to get shot...just do what I tell you.'

I've heard a similar argument that goes "rape victims should just lay back and enjoy it so they don't get hurt."

I read the article. This guy sounds like a really good cop to me.

Most of the orders that cops give are along the lines of "take your hands out of your pockets." Those that refuse to comply, or start being verbally abusive and asking "why?" are indeed asking for trouble.

Trouble includes getting shot or tazered for offering non-threatening behaviour?.

Don't think I want to visit LA

rugcat said:

I read the article. This guy sounds like a really good cop to me.

Most of the orders that cops give are along the lines of "take your hands out of your pockets." Those that refuse to comply, or start being verbally abusive and asking "why?" are indeed asking for trouble.

Click to expand...

The piece is internally inconsistent.

I know it is scary for people to be stopped by cops. I also understand the anger and frustration if people believe they have been stopped unjustly or without a reason. I am aware that corrupt and bully cops exist. When it comes to police misconduct, I side with the ACLU: Having worked as an internal affairs investigator, I know that some officers engage in unprofessional and arrogant behavior; sometimes they behave like criminals themselves.

Click to expand...

Even though it might sound harsh and impolitic, here is the bottom line: if you don’t want to get shot, tased, pepper-sprayed, struck with a baton or thrown to the ground, just do what I tell you. Don’t argue with me, don’t call me names, don’t tell me that I can’t stop you,

Click to expand...

But if you believe (or know) that the cop stopping you is violating your rights or is acting like a bully, I guarantee that the situation will not become easier if you show your anger and resentment.

Click to expand...

IOW Just lay still and let me rape you. If you complain or argue, or I'll hurt you worse and probably even kill you. And it will be your fault.

rugcat said:

I read the article. This guy sounds like a really good cop to me.

Most of the orders that cops give are along the lines of "take your hands out of your pockets." Those that refuse to comply, or start being verbally abusive and asking "why?" are indeed asking for trouble.

Click to expand...

Yeah, pretty much. It's what the cops are being asked to do that is a problem.

I agree with some of what he says, but a couple of problems to note.

1. His advice is pretty muddled in places. For example, he says you can refuse a warrantless search of your car, but then later on, says that if you're stopped you should simply submit to the officer's authority. Which is it?

2. When he says you can refuse a warrantless search of your home or car, it's misleading, because it's not always true. There was actually a Supreme court case earlier this year, expanding the powers of police to search a home without a warrant (Fernandez vs. California).

Police can also search a car without a warrant (again, in certain cases).

You also have differences in the law among different states. There was a relatively recent state court ruling in PA that allowed police to search a car if there's probable cause, regardless of whether they have a warrant.

Then again, if he's a cop, maybe I should just take his word for everything in the article instead of arguing about it.

Xelebes said:

Yeah, pretty much. It's what the cops are being asked to do that is a problem.

Click to expand...

So if a cop stops you for no reason, or say, for a "reason" you know of but also know you have a right to be doing (breastfeeding in public, for example) you're just supposed to passively comply with his out-of-bounds orders out of fear he will tase, pepper spray, billy club or shoot you?

That sounds like a police state to me.

I disobeyed a cop when I was 16. I was making out hot and heavy with my boyfriend in a parked car in an isolated area after dark. A cop knocked on the window. Now, I can give the cop some credit for checking on us, uh, I guess because who knows--maybe there was something illegal going on as far as he could tell by the steamed up windows of my boyfriends '75 Dodge Coronet, right? But when he saw it was just a couple of teenagers consensually making out under a blanket, well, I guess that piqued his prurient interest. He demanded I remove the blanket. Given that I was certainly not fully clothed under that blanket, I said no.

Miss remove that blanket.

No sir. I won't.

I knew he just wanted to see my tits, and probably would have (ridiculously) arrested me for indecent exposure at that point.

Thank god is was 1982 and not 2014, because if it was 2014 that pig would have probably shot me in the face for not complying, and would have been deemed a big risk-taking hero for doing so.

Michael Wolfe said:

I agree with some of what he says, but a couple of problems to note.

1. His advice is pretty muddled in places. For example, he says you can refuse a warrantless search of your car, but then later on, says that if you're stopped you should simply submit to the officer's authority. Which is it?

2. When he says you can refuse a warrantless search of your home or car, it's misleading, because it's not always true. There was actually a Supreme court case earlier this year, expanding the powers of police to search a home without a warrant (Fernandez vs. California).

Police can also search a car without a warrant (again, in certain cases).

You also have differences in the law among different states. There was a relatively recent state court ruling in PA that allowed police to search a car if there's probable cause, regardless of whether they have a warrant.

Then again, if he's a cop, maybe I should just take his word for everything in the article instead of arguing about it.

Click to expand...

Yeah, you should probably consider yourself virtually pepper-sprayed and shot now.

What is there to say? You, sir, don't get to lecture us on our rights.

"Papers, please!"

rugcat said:

I read the article. This guy sounds like a really good cop to me.

Most of the orders that cops give are along the lines of "take your hands out of your pockets." Those that refuse to comply, or start being verbally abusive and asking "why?" are indeed asking for trouble.

Click to expand...

As are, apparently, those who are deaf or who don't understand plain English.

Michael Wolfe said:

I agree with some of what he says, but a couple of problems to note.

1. His advice is pretty muddled in places. For example, he says you can refuse a warrantless search of your car, but then later on, says that if you're stopped you should simply submit to the officer's authority. Which is it?

Click to expand...

I should read the article, but I wonder if he might be speaking "theoretically" in the first instance and "practically" in the second.

benbradley said:

I should read the article, but I wonder if he might be speaking "theoretically" in the first instance and "practically" in the second.

Click to expand...

Maybe, but it's still problematic, imo. If refusal to consent to a search might be met with physical force, then I don't see the wisdom in telling people they have some "theoretical" right to refuse. Sort of like, if I were writing a piece on, say, scuba diving safety, I'd probably refrain from noting that you have a theoretical right to dive without oxygen.

Michael Wolfe said:

Maybe, but it's still problematic, imo. If refusal to consent to a search might be met with physical force, then I don't see the wisdom in telling people they have some "theoretical" right to refuse. Sort of like, if I were writing a piece on, say, scuba diving safety, I'd probably refrain from noting that you have a theoretical right to dive without oxygen.

Click to expand...

Physical force, and don't forget they'll detain you until a dog gives them "probable cause" they didn't have to detain you in the first place.

rugcat said:

I read the article. This guy sounds like a really good cop to me.

Most of the orders that cops give are along the lines of "take your hands out of your pockets." Those that refuse to comply, or start being verbally abusive and asking "why?" are indeed asking for trouble.

Click to expand...

What if you aren't being verbally abusive to a cop, but still go ahead and ask "why"?

I read the article. The guy sounds like the worst kind of cop: a bully with a badge.

Don’t argue with me, don’t call me names, don’t tell me that I can’t stop you, don’t say I’m a racist pig, don’t threaten that you’ll sue me and take away my badge. Don’t scream at me that you pay my salary, and don’t even think of aggressively walking towards me.

If you're unjustly accusing me of doing something I didn't do, and calling me names and stopping me without telling me why, and threatening to shoot me and that your badge gives you the right to treat me like dirt and you're screaming at me, I'm not going to just think of aggressively walking toward you, I'm going to walk right up to you and say, "I want your name and your badge number."

Because I don't care how many war stories you tell about what you've seen as a cop, how many donuts you've pounded or blowjobs you've had from hookers in the back seat of your car. I don't care how exclusive the club you belong to where nobody understands you but guys just like you and I don't care if you have seen too many Hollywood movies and your nickname is Dirty Harry John McClane Martin Riggs.

You are a police officer, not Jesus on the cross or a stormtrooper on the streets. You enforce the law, not make up your own when you feel like it. Neither your gun nor your badge or the ego trip you're on gives you the right to arrest who you want, threaten who you want, beat up who you want or shoot who you want.

I’m a cop. If you don’t want to get hurt, don’t challenge me.

You're a cop. You're not God and if you don't want to get hurt don't fool yourself a cheap little badge means bullets bounce off your chest either.

When did "protect and serve" turn into "confront and intimidate?"

If being a public servant is too heavy a lift for arrogant assholes like the author, he should quit and go be a mercenary or hitman and kill with impunity.

This guy can seriously go fuck himself.

Don said:

Reason reports on an opinion piece at the Washington Post by a "public servant" who should know better. He's an LAPD officer with 17 years on the job. I think it's time he retired.

But wait, there's more.

The lack of logic in the op-ed is shocking, IMO.

The Op-Ed is linked below with the actual title.

I’m a cop. If you don’t want to get hurt, don’t challenge me.

J.D. Tucille's summation is mine as well.

Cops with this attitude need a new job... picking up checks at the unemployment office.

Click to expand...

I'd probably agree with you and say that you were 100% right.

Except for the fact that you're completely wrong.

The officer makes a very valid point. He is invested with an authority to do certain things.

What are you suggesting? When a cop gets a description of an armed assault that just took place three blocks away and he approaches someone who meets that description, he should ask pretty please take your hands out of your pockets?

He's not saying the cop gets to trample all over your rights. He says if you don't want to submit to a search, don't. But if the officer is telling you to keep your hands where he can see them and does a pat down, you should let it and not fight. That is going to end badly.

I'm sure you believe in freedom of speech, but you also know that if you're standing in court and decide to tell the Judge he can take his gavel and shove it up his robe you're gonna be held in contempt.

If you start getting verbally aggressive with a cop, that doesn't give him a right to use physical force. But it is going to put him on edge.

Most of what he says seems like common sense.

If you're driving and you see a cop put their lights on signalling you to pull over, you pull over. You don't say,"Fuck it, I know I didn't run that stop sign, I'm not stopping." Maybe that's not the reason he's pulling you over. Maybe it is. He gives you a ticket and you get to fight it out in court. You don't lead him on a high speed chase.

What exactly do you think you should do when a cop is giving you a direction?

You know, I've read the op-ed twice and I don't really see why there's such a vitriolic reaction. Okay, I take it back, I do see why.

The article certainly isn't the most brilliant thing ever written, but neither is it tragically horrible. The central thesis--if you're stopped by a cop, follow his or her instructions--is good advice. The writer isn't saying "a cop can tell you to do anything and you damn well better do it!" Nor is he saying "if you don't do what a cop says, the cop can and will taser/beat/shoot you!"

The attempt to frame it as the writings of a bully, of someone with a police state mentality, etc. is the kind of nonsense that leads to escalation of conflicts. Those preaching it seem--imo--to live in a world where cops are not actual people at all, as a matter of course.

I'd be more inclined to be favorable to his op-ed if we didn't live in a country where (black) people are regularly shot for the crime of wearing hoodies and buying BB guns.

robeiae said:

You know, I've read the op-ed twice and I don't really see why there's such a vitriolic reaction. Okay, I take it back, I do see why.

The article certainly isn't the most brilliant thing ever written, but neither is it tragically horrible. The central thesis--if you're stopped by a cop, follow his or her instructions--is good advice. The writer isn't saying "a cop can tell you do anything and you damn well better do it!" Nor is he saying "if you don't do what a cop says, the cop can and will taser/beat/shoot you!"

Click to expand...

It's a pretty piss-poor writer who doesn't know how to say indirectly what would be considered provocative and goading if he said it directly.

You're reading the lines and stopping there. I'm reading between them and I see a swaggering bully spoiling for a fight.

robeiae said:

The attempt to frame it as the writings of a bully, of someone with a police state mentality, etc. is the kind of nonsense that leads to escalation of conflicts. Those preaching it seem--imo--to live in a world where cops are not actual people at all, as a matter of course.

Click to expand...

I call bullshit.

I don't need to "frame" jack and it isn't "nonsense" It's a trend. Black people are killed by the cops nearly twice a week.

WASHINGTON — Nearly two times a week in the United States, a white police officer killed a black person during a seven-year period ending in 2012, according to the most recent accounts of justifiable homicide reported to the FBI.

On average, there were 96 such incidents among at least 400 police killings each year that were reported to the FBI by local police. The numbers appear to show that the shooting of a black teenager in Ferguson, Mo., last Saturday was not an isolated event in American policing.

The reports show that 18% of the blacks killed during those seven years were under age 21, compared to 8.7% of whites. The victim in Ferguson was 18-year-old Michael Brown. Police have yet to identify the officer who shot him; witnesses have said the officer was white.

While the racial analysis is striking, the database it's based on has been long considered flawed and largely incomplete. The killings are self-reported by law enforcement and not all police departments participate so the database undercounts the actual number of deaths. Plus, the numbers are not audited after they are submitted to the FBI and the statistics on "justifiable" homicides have conflicted with independent measures of fatalities at the hands of police.

Click to expand...

The "nonsense" is that this is all nothing but baseless paranoia fanned by race hustlers and a careless media. The "nonsense" is there aren't cops who go out of their way to fuck with Blacks. The "nonsense" is the ridiculous charge because I believe the author of the WaPo article is a ruthless bully hiding behind a badge it follows I also believe "cops are not actual people at all."

Which is a total load, by the way.

Cops are actual people, but they aren't special people and they aren't the Lord and Master of all the jungle. Respecting the cops and the job they have to do doesn't mean fearing them.

It's the sneering swagger and derisive disdain of bad cops like the author and his kowtowing cheerleaders that breed distrust, resentment, and even hatred of the police like a hothouse flower.

If cops have no respect for the communities they patrol, they can't demand to get any back.

Certainly there are bad cops, but that won't be solved by not following directions right then, either. That problem has to be solved after you are away from the offending cop, likely locked up. That's not right, but it's not practical at all to think you can fight it right then.

As far as good cops giving orders, I go with it. I got special treatment (handcuffs in the front) for being so polite Then, at the station, I got to sit with the cops while my bail was being written up because the tough female cop said I'd hate lock-up. I got to pee in handcuffs in the cops' bathroom. They said I was the most polite person they'd ever arrested.

I kept thinking what I've heard all my life: Tell it to the judge. Seriously, I just kept saying that to myself the whole time. The judge dismissed the charges, and it was not a big deal at all.

I know I'm a nice white girl, and that that totally matters in practice in being arrested. It did start out with really tough-sounding commands, and I was scared, and I could have disobeyed out of fear, but there was just no reason to. Tell it to the judge. The cops can't try you. And they can certainly bring you in, so that's just the way it goes! You'll get your bail back. Don't freak out, imho.

Plot Device said:

What if you aren't being verbally abusive to a cop, but still go ahead and ask "why"?

Click to expand...

Because social perception is that "why?" is a challenge. I've dealt with it in the workplace as a student/intern. You ask someone "why?" hoping to get some reasoning and justification for decisionmaking out of them so that you can learn and understand their process, but what you get is bristling defensivness. I've had both a prof and a supervisor tell me it's disconcerting and appears challenging.

jennontheisland said:

Because social perception is that "why?" is a challenge. I've dealt with it in the workplace as a student/intern. You ask someone "why?" hoping to get some reasoning and justification for decisionmaking out of them so that you can learn and understand their process, but what you get is bristling defensivness. I've had both a prof and a supervisor tell me it's disconcerting and appears challenging.

Click to expand...

So if a cop says to me: "Show me your ID."

And I ask "Why?"

Is he then allowed to "bristle" and allowed to get "disconcerted" and allowed to whip out his taser and subdue me with a few zaps of 100+ volts and then say "She resisted arrest!"

How come he's allowed to "bristle" but I'm not allowed to ask a simple --and understandable-- question?

Also ...

If I was sitting on a park bench in a public park on a sunny afternoon, and then a total stranger --not a cop, just a civilian stranger-- came out and ordered me to get off the bench, I would ask "Why?"

I'd do the same with a cop in the exact same scenario. I'd ask why. Every time without hesitation.

Is that worthy of a tasering?

Suggested future WaPo columns following "If You Don't Want To Get Shot...Just Do What I Tell You."

If You Don't Want Me to Fuck You Up...Gimme Your Damn Wallet.

If You Don't Want Me to Be Corrupt...You Should Have Voted For the Other Guy.

If You Don't Want Me to Break In Your House and Steal Your Stuff...Don't Buy Stuff I Want To Steal.

If You Don't Want to Breathe Poisoned Air or Drink Poisoned Water...Stop Breathing and Drinking.

If You Don't Want to Get Raped...Too Damn Bad. I'm Gonna Rape You Anyway.

If You Don't Want to Get Shot...Don't Be Black.