6.9.20: Local law enforcement
Plus personal interactions, verbal warnings and neck restraints
June 9, 2020.
Good Tuesday Morning. As states continue to reopen, we’re going to start revisiting some of our earlier conversations about the quarantine and your level of comfort resuming some normal activities.
But today, we’re going to continue our conversations about the protests and law enforcement. Click on the Let’s Talk button to get started.
Share Tina
We’re continuing to reach out to different organizations that can help us expand the reach of Tina, and you’ll start to see some more Tina presence on social media, but if you’ve got people in your life who’d like to be heard, we’d love to have them join us.
One user also provided some additional thoughts on James Mattis:
A day late to comment on Jim Mattis: As an Air Force Officer of ten years I likely have a unique perspective within the Tina community and would like to share. Most military generals are what I would consider extreme professionals, Mattis is no exception. He is known as the “Warrior Monk” because of his reputation for being extremely well read and a true warrior. I hold him in very high regard... In response to the comment today about his hawkish tendencies, I would argue he is who everyone should want in the positions that he has held - a man who recognizes that “war is the continuation of politics by other means” and is someone willing to fight if necessary, but also someone who (like most military personnel) craves peace.
Results from June 8, 2020
Question 1: On a scale of 1 (very poor) to 5 (very good), how would you describe the relationship between law enforcement and the community where you live?
This is an average of 3.6, which is consistent with other data on the subject. Even as a growing segment of Americans believe there are issues of systemic racism in law enforcement agencies, a majority of Americans of all races tend to be satisfied with their local law enforcement agency.
But here’s a dispatch from one of our users in Minneapolis:
Currently living in Minneapolis so I would say that the relationship is at an all-time low. I think that the efforts to defund are the right idea - reform has been tried ad nauseam and clearly has had little to no impact. Even questions like "Do you think a verbal warning should be given before using deadly force" show just how low the bar has dropped.
Question 2: How would you describe most of your personal interactions with law enforcement officers?
I’m conflicted by your question of us rating our personal experiences with police. As discovered in your recent poll, Tina users are majority white. I don’t know that the responses you will get to that question will really cover the perceptions of some of your audience. While I may have not had the same type of experiences with police, I don’t think that is particularly helpful right now. I believe and support radical reforms and police abolition because it doesn’t need to personally affect me for me to believe and understand there is a problem.
Many users shared this conflicted feeling.
Question 3: Would you support a ban on law enforcement officers using chokeholds, strangleholds or other neck restraints?
Questions 3 and 4 are over-broad and framed to garner a certain result. Posed as they are, they're no-brainers, of course. There sometimes arises dire circumstances, however, in which officers need to apply chokeholds or to shoot without verbal warning. The answers would change if the question was "If ambushed by deadly force, should officers be required to make verbal contact before defending themselves?"
I think we live in a very dangerous world and have to be careful in broad reaching absolutes. The use of force by police should be calibrated against the threat imposed by the suspect.
Question 4: Would you support a requirement that law enforcement officers must give a verbal warning in all situations before using deadly force?
I don’t support use of blanket requirements in most situations because a one-size-fits-all solution does not work. I would support a requirement that states, “all situations where it is safe and practical to do so, an officer must give warning prior to the use of deadly force.”
On the use of force-I think its tough because I would like to say absolutely there should be warning before the use of deadly force, and in routine cases, that is definitely feasible. However, there are the rare cases like where police are responding to an active scene and have to decide to act immediately. But when you add verbiage into a law as a caveat, it becomes problematic. For ex, if you were to say ….unless the officer deems that deadly force is necessary to protect the life of herself or others, then it likely becomes a debate after the fact on that judgment - as is often the case now with existing laws.
… It is very difficult to craft limitations that are all encompassing and when you develop too many, that can create a culture of risk aversion that makes the individuals and institution ineffective. But how do you reconcile those issues given the lack of trust currently? I don't have an answer.
Make it all the way through but forget to answer today’s questions?
Click on the Let’s Talk button below to get started.