There's no exemption that allows innocent people to resist lawful arrest.
This is not to say that injection sounds like a great solution for everyday arrests.
> I can’t breathe. I have my ID right here. My name is Elijah McClain. That’s my house. I was just going home. I’m an introvert. I’m just different. That’s all. I’m so sorry. I have no gun. I don’t do that stuff. I don’t do any fighting. Why are you attacking me? I don’t even kill flies! I don’t eat meat! But I don’t judge people, I don’t judge people who do eat meat. Forgive me. All I was trying to do was become better. I will do it. I will do anything. Sacrifice my identity, I’ll do it. You all are phenomenal. You are beautiful and I love you. Try to forgive me. I’m a mood Gemini. I’m sorry. I’m so sorry. Ow, that really hurt. You are all very strong. Teamwork makes the dream work. Oh, I’m sorry I wasn’t trying to do that. I just can’t breathe correctly.
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/elijah-mcclains-last-words...
You can imagine the confusion that arises when plain clothes police seize people.
In some countries it's even enough that a police officer is acting (obviously) unlawfully, giving you the right to resist.[1]
There are many instances of people using weapons in self defense and then police arrive and kill the gun owner. For instance; Jemel_Roberson' a black armed security guard that subdued a shooter in a bar. Cop showed up and immediately killed the security guard then lied that he was given multiple commands to drop the weapon. Witnesses said the cop arrived and shot the guard within 5 seconds. Later police changed their story and said it was just a case of friendly fire, very sad nothing can be done. And nothing was done.
It's a bit murkier than that in the US. In some states you can't even resist unlawful arrest, but in all states you're allowed to defend yourself against _excessive_ force.
In practice that's probably a bad idea, but if you survive the retaliation from somebody who's armed and who has already proven themselves prone to excessive use of force then you might win the ensuing court case.
In the end it cost him over a grand to get his car back and to pay for drug tests required by the probation. Again, he was never actually charged with anything.
Policing in this nation is fundamentally broken. The bad cops know how to use the system to brutalize people without consequences, and the rest of the police close ranks and protect them while they do it.
Alas, when someone is or is not "resisting arrest" is not something that is particularly well-defined. It's usually "when the officer says you are resisting," regardless of the actual facts at hand.
My point, basically, is that if a cop grabs you unexpectedly, and you push them away (a reasonable, normal reaction): the next thing you hear is "stop resisting!"
The crime of "resisting arrest" needs to go away.
Interesting reading: https://bostonreview.net/race-law-justice/lisa-cacho-jodi-me...
I'd naively hope that a judge wouldn't side with a police officer here, but I think the fact that resisting arrest is inherently criminal is a pretty big flaw in the US legal system.
I live in a jurisdiction [1] where resisting arrest is not criminalised in the same sense as the US, and the idea that a police officer could unlawfully arrest you and then immediately have lawful grounds if you resisted is very alien to me.
[1] : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resisting_arrest#England_and_W...
This is a pretty good video analysing law enforcement and how it got to become the way it is through the analysis of Dirty Harry.
If I and other HN commenters are not mistaken, ketamine is commonly used for this purpose in hospitals around the world.
However, leaving the theoretical behind... Elijah McClain was murdered by police for the "crime" of acting oddly. There was no reason for them to use force against him whatsoever. He was unarmed and committed no crime.
His death hurts me because he was, broadly speaking, "one of us" - an eccentric and intelligent person.
Based on all I have read about his life, I think many HN readers would recognize aspects of themselves in Elijah.
[1] https://www.parool.nl/nieuws/ketamine-steeds-populairder-gro... (Dutch)
Putting aside that police shouldn’t be utilizing drugs period, there is zero justification for administering drugs to someone who isn’t a danger to themselves or others, as was the case for McClain. It makes more sense when you realize that the Aurora PD is eighth in the nation for police killings per capita.
Personally, I favor hitting people with billy clubs, because it leaves evidence of what happened and it requires the police to actually take physical action against another human. Giving cops needles full of magic compliance juice seems less responsible to me.
The reason people were upset about Rodney King was because it was brutal and easy to understand. Injecting ketamine is also brutal but it's less visible. I cannot imagine anyone ever getting over the fact that they were restrained by authorities and injected into a k-hole.
They won't be visibly harmed in any way, but that will absolutely mess someone up for life.
You make a decent argument.
Personally, I favor hitting people with billy clubs,
because it leaves evidence of what happened and it
requires the police to actually take physical action
against another human
But those police batons break bones. Also, there's evidence of ketamine sedation: they need to summon paramedics to perform the injection, etc.
So, I don't know. I'm sure we at least agree that the answer is to avoid letting things escalate to that point so frequently.
"Most states and agencies say ketamine may be administered when someone exhibits “excited delirium” or agitation, which is typically associated with chronic drug abuse, mental illness or both."
In that scenario, the police would be beating the culprit into compliance and we would all be looking at videos on youtube shaking our heads. I'm not saying cops should be carrying hypodermics in their utility belt, but how many non-lethal options do you remove before you have to accept more lethal outcomes?
It would help to be more specific about which other countries and when. There are a lot of reasons why things happen in one place and not another.
(From people that seem to know a bit about restraint techniques Joe Rogan and Jocko Willink discussed the use of choke holds on Joe's podacst. They both agreed that it was far better than a smack with a baton. https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=8&v=iUhdc1GAddk&...).
One gains a lot of respect by showing wisdom and courage.
Most scenarios are essentially communication problems to be solved. Not defaulting to the most violent means of "cooperation" is and should be an option for any police force in a 21st century democracy.
Look to the best in the past and in other countries.
Successful policing actually needs skin in the game.
I haven't always agreed with them, but they have always cooled things down nicely without resorting to violence or even arrests.
Training varies widely by locale, but I believe de-escalation is indeed a nearly universal part of their training. It must also be noted that de-escalation certainly is much easier for the police officers themselves: less hassle, less danger, less paperwork, less repercussions. These people generally just want to get through their shift and get home.
They are certainly capable of de-escalation and, in most instances, are trained and motivated to de-escalate.
So, it's very telling when (nearly always white) officers leap to unnecessarily violent tactics on (nearly always Black) victims.
Specifically, every one of these is subject to selection bias:
"nearly always white"
"unnecessarily violent tactics"
"nearly always Black"
A different sort of bias comes into play with word choice, using "victims" to refer to people who typically are violent criminals being apprehended. The word ought to be "perpetrators", "suspects", or simply "criminals".
"The media" also exalts policemen and soldiers as heroes, with countless reminders to thank our "heroes" and millions of hours of Hollywood entertainment devoted to showcasing heroic soldiers and cops. Much of the media denounces the protests as well.
A different sort of bias comes into play with
word choice, using "victims" to refer to people
who typically are violent criminals being
apprehended. The word ought to be "perpetrators",
"suspects", or simply "criminals".
In all of the incidents that sparked outcry, police were shown on video using vastly asymmetrical force against victims who were nonviolent or who had already been subdued. One, Breona Taylor, was in bed when police knocked down the wrong door when serving a no-knock warrant. Elijah, the teen injected with ketamine, was nonviolent and had no history of violence or crime.
There are a lot of incidents of police violence in which the suspect is behaving violently and, in these cases, I have not seen public outcry.
Statistics paint a different picture. Given that there is a police response to crime, a white criminal is more likely to be shot by the police.
I have seen plenty of public outcry over police violence when the suspect was behaving violently. The riots in Ferguson are the obvious example. Evidence of powder burns and of DNA in the car show that the BLM story was clearly false. The evidence is consistent with the story given by the cop. It's been like that for every case that I've researched, so at this point I'm done with research. It's always the same, more or less.
Do you think there are no black cops abusing
their power, or that there are no white victims?
You got that distorted perspective from the media bias.
It's just not that way. Some statistics even point the other way.
So, it's very telling when (nearly always white)
officers leap to unnecessarily violent tactics
on (nearly always Black) victims.
Nonetheless, while the overall reality of police killings in America is less dramatic than "nearly always", but it worrisomely lopsided. Black Americans are killed by police at a per-capita rate of roughly 2:1 compared to white Americans.
https://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2020-06-03/data-show-de...
That is... not good. How do you explain that?
1. What race has the biggest number being killed by cops? (answer: white)
2. What race has the most per-capita being killed by cops? (answer: black)
3. What race is most likely to be killed by cops if they get in a police confrontation? (answer: white)
The obvious solution for non-equality with #2 is to fix the culture so that conflict with the cops is less likely. Don't do crime. If you are stopped by cops, be fully compliant and don't look like a threat. When stopped by the cops, don't even think of reaching for something they can't see. You just wait, and then you'll be able to sort things out in court.
Eh, we also should fix the non-equality with #3. It shouldn't be more excusable to shoot white people.
"Not injecting people with a drug without their consent" is not the equivalent of "let criminals run amok."
I have trouble reconciling the notion that after someone has been restrained to the point where it is considered safe to inject them with a drug, they find it necessary to inject a drug for the purpose of restraint.
It's a bit like placing your knee on the back of someone's neck who is already handcuffed and crying for his mother. Unnecessary, cruel, and dangerous.
I imagine your comment is probably symptomatic of the major societal issues within the US; it certainly worsens the image of the US to those fortunate enough to live in a Western nation which isn't actively regressing.
I live in a country where we don't inject people with
ketamine on the street, nor do "criminals run amok".
We also don't have armed gangs imposing "their own idea
of a justice system", and we have fewer police killings
in 25 years than the US has in 25 days.
I would like to point out the America, one's treatment by police varies greatly.
I'm a white man in my 40s have never witnessed police brutality firsthand. In all my interactions with police, they have acted properly and de-escalated things nicely, even when perhaps I didn't agree with them.
This is the experience shared by many (most?) Americans who, once again, have trouble imagining experiences other than their own. They imagine that nearly all police are just, and therefore victims of police brutality must have done something to deserve the violence.
Essentially, it is the "just world" fallacy writ large. People like to think that the world is just, and therefore like to think that those who experience misfortune have done something to deserve it. It is more pleasant than realizing we live in a country where the police sometimes act in shockingly violent and inappropriate ways.
I do know many people who have experienced awful treatment by police. And of course in recent years much light has been shone upon this misconduct.
nit: They haven't been to a place where there is low crime, low police brutality, and high population density. To most observers, most of the US is low crime and low police brutality. From this perspective, violent police are a city problem where things are so out of control that the police have no choice but to act that way.
(I don't why this is getting downvoted. I'm certainly not condoning the state of affairs, just trying to elaborate on the perspective that keeps supporting the uniformed criminals)
The UK has a population of almost 70MM. The factor of ~5 needed to account for population pales in comparison to the two orders of magnitude difference between 25 days and 25 years.
a) gunning them down in the streets
b) beating the shit out of them
c) injecting them with hilarious overdoses of drugs and crossing our fingers
then why would we pay for police?
If that's ok, we might as well go back to old west times and just have everyone carry revolvers, possibly calling the town apothecary with his bottle of ether if we think we need it. It'll be way cheaper than maintaining a standing police department.
The whole point is that police are supposed to be trained and equipped to handle disturbances without harming the person being detained. There are options for this, including that so rarely used tactic, defusal.
Like, we pay police overtime. Cordon the person off, give them space but don't let them leave, wait until they get hungry even if it takes 12 hours, and then bribe them with pizza to come quietly. Build rapport with them over the entire incident. How often do we see that strategy deployed before we fall back to injecting ketamine?
I agree there is always room to consider other ways of handling outlying incidents. Injecting drugs into people violates so many principles of freedom it seems hard to justify it.
The pizza idea could work in some cases but I think we also have to realize that some people being taken into custody are irrational either from mental illness, and/or drug use, could be armed and/or violent, and cordoning them off may work or it may not. And then a potentially armed, violent, and irrational person is a threat to innocent people. The police have many objectives and one of those is to take suspects into custody safely so they can have just administrated. However, the safety of the public might be of higher priority and if asked to make a choice between hurting a suspect that appears irrational and violent so as to not risk the liberties of the public or respecting their liberties but putting the liberties of the public at risk, they’ll choose to optimize for the former.
Policing will never be perfect and there is a reasonable amount of error we should tolerate. And there should be accountability. I do agree that it would appear, at least from the stories that tend to make the news, that diffusion could be employed more.