Agreed with your premise at its core. In implementation it is a very complex issue. For every tragic video like this, there are many that don't get amplified where a routine traffic stop etc. results in an officer quickly and unexpectedly being shot. I live in a high crime area (a few blocks from "the hood") and the relationship to policing is fraught for me. Doing a ride along with police did change my views - one cannot discern the intent or status of who is pulled over. There was an understandable groundswell of support for "softer" policing methods after the summer of 2020, and many safe control positions used routinely in wrestling and jiu jitsu (eg chest mount) were outlawed. An emphasis placed on tasers etc. I am saddened but I cannot say surprised. Many wanted social workers to intervene also but an unstable or aggressive person will not be reliably kind because the uniform is different. An honest approach to policy (ending eg qualified immunity), and the pros and cons of what force protocols are is needed. All too often unwell people wear uniforms as well and the cultural incentives prevent them from being disciplined.
Thank you very much and I agree with you wholeheartedly. My dig really is at the people who would defend the police at all cost and never ask, what could the police have done better.
That is why is also qualified my statements with when there is no credible or imminent threat to the officer or public.
I can understand how police can be antsy, but it doesn't mean they cannot be better
Certainly, and fully agreed. It is sad to see so many "conservatives" be so callous in circumstances such as these. One must wonder what cultural principles they are eager to "conserve".
J on the block, in 2020 over 60,000 individual US police officers were violently attacked. How in your view can the number of violent attacks against the police be reduced?
"there is no credible or imminent threat to the officer or public." Disagree Charles. There was a credible imminent threat to the officer and the public. Do you believe that the peace officer should have risked his life to seek a nonviolent resolution?
Many, not just Mahatma Gandhi, would say yes. Even if many tens of thousands of police officers die in trying to nonviolently reduce crime, it is worth it. Sacrifice is sweetness. Sacrifice is beautiful in and of itself. Is this your position too Charles and J on the block?
US police have started less violent methods to reduce crime. And probably because of this the number of non latino African Americans murdered in 2021 or 2022 (14 to 15 thousand a year) was about twice the number murdered in 2014.
If US police continue to employ less and less violent methods to reduce crime, the number of non latino African Americans murdered might rocket up a lot further.
Would you both still be in favor of police using less violent methods for reducing crime if 50,000 non latino african americans are murdered per year?
The gray area of what an imminent danger to the police or others is where I would push back on your article.
A disoriented person that is on cocaine and marijuana driving a vehicle seems to be a relatively imminent threat to himself and anyone around him and extremely dangerous to society. Just look at death statistics: in first world societies, cars are incredibly dangerous and a leading cause of accidental death.
Just as a thought exercise, if the police pull over a person and discover he or she is acting abnormal/disoriented/intoxicated.
They attempt to arrest the person, but he or she resists to the point of violence, so the officers desist. They allow the person to reenter their vehicle (as physical restraint would be the only way to stop this person which could lead to violence and harm, an unacceptable outcome in your article’s worldview)
The intoxicated person gets in the car and speeds off (despite the officers not immediately pursuing) and two blocks away kills several children playing baseball in the street. The person later tests positive for multiple substances.
What moral obligation did the police have and what legal recourse will the state use against them for allowing a clearly intoxicated person to Drive away? Should they be arrested? Should they be placed on leave with or without pay. Will the news media publicize all the details of this case fairly?
I’m an anesthesiologist and I have practiced in level one trauma centers for all of my career, in my experience these accidents happen all the time. This is not some far fetched impossible scenario. Traffic deaths with impaired drivers happen almost daily.
I have sympathy for your argument, I just don’t know what a police person is supposed to do without physical restraint in these types of encounters.
It seems to me to be an incredibly difficult, high stakes job, with mediocre pay that now is highly politicized and publicized. No wonder officers are quitting in droves or moving to the suburbs where they can avoid these Sophie’s choice type situations (see the recent The Free Press article on substack for a description).
The referenced article argues that this loss of police is bad for low income communities. That topic out of my expertise, but it seems losing good police would not be good for any community.
Thank you very much for your well thought out response. It is a legitimate critique of my article. A few things though, the driver was no longer in a vehicle, so the threat of him hitting someone else wasn't there anymore. Perhaps this case may not be strongest in passing my points across. My point really is, what could the police have done better? How could they have handled the situation for a more palatable outcome.
Going back to a situation like George Floyd or even Tony Timpa, we could see that even after they had been restrained, the police continued to apply force till they were still.
I think that multiple officers can subdue one man and put a handcuff on him without having to use a weapon as in this case of Anderson.
Overall, my critique is a call for better policing tactic, because, like it or not, people will for one reason or another continue to resist arrest and there should be a way for multiple officers to contain the situation without drawing a weapon.
To my detriment: I was not well informed on the details of this case. I should have read some of the reporting before responding. I did read your article in its entirety, but I did not explore the details of the example you used and that’s on me.
I agree with all that you write in this response and I genuinely thank you for taking the time to engage.
I would definitely be interested in learning more about best practices for de-escalation and I am also open to the idea that American police may be uniquely under-trained or not encouraged to appropriately de-escalate due to a militaristic culture or for some other reason.
I have heard Jocko Willink and several MMA types comment that martial arts training for police would be highly useful in giving the police confidence to subdue a suspect without weapons and with minimal violence.
Again, this is far outside of my expertise, but it seems like a functional solution that I don’t see advocated much.
Do you have an opinion here? I would be interested in you and your audiences perspective on whether this would be seen as helpful are harmful.
Do you support the Gandhian method of policing? Where all police are disarmed and a police person doesn't use violence to stop a crime in process, but uses his or her example to inspire the criminal to stop committing the crime? And if a police person is not able to stop the crime, then his or her spiritual practice is to observe and bear witness to the crime and endure the suffering of not being able to stop it?
Does this article flow from a love, respect and reverence of Gandhian policing?
Gandhi's appeal to Britons on the eve of the Battle of Britain and Nazi invasion:
"Fight Nazism without arms. Invite Herr Hitler to take possession of your island. If he refuses to give a free passage out, allow yourself man, woman and child, to be slaughtered." [Herman; Gandhi, Selected Writings, 1972]
Gandhi's views on the Holocaust and what the Jews should have done:
"Disarm Hitler by praying to him. Jews should have offered themselves to the butcher's knife; thrown themselves into the sea from cliffs. As it is they succumbed anyway in their millions." [Louis Fischer, 1946]
Here is what Mahatma Gandhi's said after the Moplah massacre of 1921 where tens of thousands of nonmuslims were systematically killed by takfiri extreme jihadi islamists on religious grounds, and the non muslim population was ethnically cleansed and driven out of a vast area:
"Forcible conversions are horrible things, but Moplah [takfiri extreme jihadi islamist] bravery must command admiration. These Malabaris [takfiri extreme jihadi islamists] are not fighting for the love of it. They are fighting for what they consider is their Religion and in the manner they consider is religious. . . . If Hindus apply this rule to the Moplah affair, they will not, even when they see the error of the Moplahs, accuse the Muslims.
I see nothing impossible in asking the Hindus to develop courage and strength to die before accepting forced conversion. I was delighted to be told that there were Hindus who did prefer the Moplah hatchet to forced conversion.
Unity is like marriage. It is more necessary for a husband to draw closer to his wife when she is about to fall. Even so it is more necessary for a Hindu to love the Moplah and the Muslim more, when the latter is likely to injure him or has already injured him.
Why should a single Hindu have run away on account of the Moplahs' atrocities?"
Decades later, while preaching to those affected by the pre-partition Hindu-Muslim violence, Gandhi said:
"Hindus should not harbour anger in their hearts against Muslims even if the latter wanted to destroy them. Even if the Muslims want to kill us all we should face death bravely. If they established their rule after killing Hindus we would be ushering in a new world by sacrificing our lives. None should fear death. Birth and death are inevitable for every human being. Why should we then rejoice or grieve? If we die with a smile we shall enter into a new life, we shall be ushering in a new India."
Agreed with your premise at its core. In implementation it is a very complex issue. For every tragic video like this, there are many that don't get amplified where a routine traffic stop etc. results in an officer quickly and unexpectedly being shot. I live in a high crime area (a few blocks from "the hood") and the relationship to policing is fraught for me. Doing a ride along with police did change my views - one cannot discern the intent or status of who is pulled over. There was an understandable groundswell of support for "softer" policing methods after the summer of 2020, and many safe control positions used routinely in wrestling and jiu jitsu (eg chest mount) were outlawed. An emphasis placed on tasers etc. I am saddened but I cannot say surprised. Many wanted social workers to intervene also but an unstable or aggressive person will not be reliably kind because the uniform is different. An honest approach to policy (ending eg qualified immunity), and the pros and cons of what force protocols are is needed. All too often unwell people wear uniforms as well and the cultural incentives prevent them from being disciplined.
Thank you very much and I agree with you wholeheartedly. My dig really is at the people who would defend the police at all cost and never ask, what could the police have done better.
That is why is also qualified my statements with when there is no credible or imminent threat to the officer or public.
I can understand how police can be antsy, but it doesn't mean they cannot be better
Certainly, and fully agreed. It is sad to see so many "conservatives" be so callous in circumstances such as these. One must wonder what cultural principles they are eager to "conserve".
Very well said
J on the block, in 2020 over 60,000 individual US police officers were violently attacked. How in your view can the number of violent attacks against the police be reduced?
"there is no credible or imminent threat to the officer or public." Disagree Charles. There was a credible imminent threat to the officer and the public. Do you believe that the peace officer should have risked his life to seek a nonviolent resolution?
Many, not just Mahatma Gandhi, would say yes. Even if many tens of thousands of police officers die in trying to nonviolently reduce crime, it is worth it. Sacrifice is sweetness. Sacrifice is beautiful in and of itself. Is this your position too Charles and J on the block?
US police have started less violent methods to reduce crime. And probably because of this the number of non latino African Americans murdered in 2021 or 2022 (14 to 15 thousand a year) was about twice the number murdered in 2014.
If US police continue to employ less and less violent methods to reduce crime, the number of non latino African Americans murdered might rocket up a lot further.
Would you both still be in favor of police using less violent methods for reducing crime if 50,000 non latino african americans are murdered per year?
The gray area of what an imminent danger to the police or others is where I would push back on your article.
A disoriented person that is on cocaine and marijuana driving a vehicle seems to be a relatively imminent threat to himself and anyone around him and extremely dangerous to society. Just look at death statistics: in first world societies, cars are incredibly dangerous and a leading cause of accidental death.
Just as a thought exercise, if the police pull over a person and discover he or she is acting abnormal/disoriented/intoxicated.
They attempt to arrest the person, but he or she resists to the point of violence, so the officers desist. They allow the person to reenter their vehicle (as physical restraint would be the only way to stop this person which could lead to violence and harm, an unacceptable outcome in your article’s worldview)
The intoxicated person gets in the car and speeds off (despite the officers not immediately pursuing) and two blocks away kills several children playing baseball in the street. The person later tests positive for multiple substances.
What moral obligation did the police have and what legal recourse will the state use against them for allowing a clearly intoxicated person to Drive away? Should they be arrested? Should they be placed on leave with or without pay. Will the news media publicize all the details of this case fairly?
I’m an anesthesiologist and I have practiced in level one trauma centers for all of my career, in my experience these accidents happen all the time. This is not some far fetched impossible scenario. Traffic deaths with impaired drivers happen almost daily.
I have sympathy for your argument, I just don’t know what a police person is supposed to do without physical restraint in these types of encounters.
It seems to me to be an incredibly difficult, high stakes job, with mediocre pay that now is highly politicized and publicized. No wonder officers are quitting in droves or moving to the suburbs where they can avoid these Sophie’s choice type situations (see the recent The Free Press article on substack for a description).
The referenced article argues that this loss of police is bad for low income communities. That topic out of my expertise, but it seems losing good police would not be good for any community.
Thank you very much for your well thought out response. It is a legitimate critique of my article. A few things though, the driver was no longer in a vehicle, so the threat of him hitting someone else wasn't there anymore. Perhaps this case may not be strongest in passing my points across. My point really is, what could the police have done better? How could they have handled the situation for a more palatable outcome.
Going back to a situation like George Floyd or even Tony Timpa, we could see that even after they had been restrained, the police continued to apply force till they were still.
I think that multiple officers can subdue one man and put a handcuff on him without having to use a weapon as in this case of Anderson.
Overall, my critique is a call for better policing tactic, because, like it or not, people will for one reason or another continue to resist arrest and there should be a way for multiple officers to contain the situation without drawing a weapon.
To my detriment: I was not well informed on the details of this case. I should have read some of the reporting before responding. I did read your article in its entirety, but I did not explore the details of the example you used and that’s on me.
I agree with all that you write in this response and I genuinely thank you for taking the time to engage.
I would definitely be interested in learning more about best practices for de-escalation and I am also open to the idea that American police may be uniquely under-trained or not encouraged to appropriately de-escalate due to a militaristic culture or for some other reason.
I have heard Jocko Willink and several MMA types comment that martial arts training for police would be highly useful in giving the police confidence to subdue a suspect without weapons and with minimal violence.
Again, this is far outside of my expertise, but it seems like a functional solution that I don’t see advocated much.
Do you have an opinion here? I would be interested in you and your audiences perspective on whether this would be seen as helpful are harmful.
Do you support the Gandhian method of policing? Where all police are disarmed and a police person doesn't use violence to stop a crime in process, but uses his or her example to inspire the criminal to stop committing the crime? And if a police person is not able to stop the crime, then his or her spiritual practice is to observe and bear witness to the crime and endure the suffering of not being able to stop it?
Does this article flow from a love, respect and reverence of Gandhian policing?
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Here are some beautiful inspiration Gandhi quotes on how to nonviolently deal with suffering and violence which will melt every heart:
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/984770168571289600.html
Gandhi's appeal to Britons on the eve of the Battle of Britain and Nazi invasion:
"Fight Nazism without arms. Invite Herr Hitler to take possession of your island. If he refuses to give a free passage out, allow yourself man, woman and child, to be slaughtered." [Herman; Gandhi, Selected Writings, 1972]
Gandhi's views on the Holocaust and what the Jews should have done:
"Disarm Hitler by praying to him. Jews should have offered themselves to the butcher's knife; thrown themselves into the sea from cliffs. As it is they succumbed anyway in their millions." [Louis Fischer, 1946]
Here is what Mahatma Gandhi's said after the Moplah massacre of 1921 where tens of thousands of nonmuslims were systematically killed by takfiri extreme jihadi islamists on religious grounds, and the non muslim population was ethnically cleansed and driven out of a vast area:
"Forcible conversions are horrible things, but Moplah [takfiri extreme jihadi islamist] bravery must command admiration. These Malabaris [takfiri extreme jihadi islamists] are not fighting for the love of it. They are fighting for what they consider is their Religion and in the manner they consider is religious. . . . If Hindus apply this rule to the Moplah affair, they will not, even when they see the error of the Moplahs, accuse the Muslims.
I see nothing impossible in asking the Hindus to develop courage and strength to die before accepting forced conversion. I was delighted to be told that there were Hindus who did prefer the Moplah hatchet to forced conversion.
Unity is like marriage. It is more necessary for a husband to draw closer to his wife when she is about to fall. Even so it is more necessary for a Hindu to love the Moplah and the Muslim more, when the latter is likely to injure him or has already injured him.
Why should a single Hindu have run away on account of the Moplahs' atrocities?"
Decades later, while preaching to those affected by the pre-partition Hindu-Muslim violence, Gandhi said:
"Hindus should not harbour anger in their hearts against Muslims even if the latter wanted to destroy them. Even if the Muslims want to kill us all we should face death bravely. If they established their rule after killing Hindus we would be ushering in a new world by sacrificing our lives. None should fear death. Birth and death are inevitable for every human being. Why should we then rejoice or grieve? If we die with a smile we shall enter into a new life, we shall be ushering in a new India."