Another excellent article. Regarding 'use of force' and 'response to resistance', this caused a contention from an outside consultant. They were wrong, we were right. Their inconclusive report still cost a chunk of $800K set aside for reform. 'Response to resistance' assumes that the officer has ticked all the boxes on her or his mental checklist to arrest. However, if someone attacks another in your presence with the intent to harm or kill them, and the officer appropriately uses deadly force, that would not be 'response to resistance' but functional use of force. If an officer is getting attacked while arresting or detaining someone, not that such a thing would ever happen in Texas, officers would have to use force on someone who they weren't intending to arrest. It is always a smart move to arrest them too, and anyone else officers have to lay hands on. Great job again.
I also sent an email reference an offline conversation. TTYS.
Another excellent article. Regarding 'use of force' and 'response to resistance', this caused a contention from an outside consultant. They were wrong, we were right. Their inconclusive report still cost a chunk of $800K set aside for reform. 'Response to resistance' assumes that the officer has ticked all the boxes on her or his mental checklist to arrest. However, if someone attacks another in your presence with the intent to harm or kill them, and the officer appropriately uses deadly force, that would not be 'response to resistance' but functional use of force. If an officer is getting attacked while arresting or detaining someone, not that such a thing would ever happen in Texas, officers would have to use force on someone who they weren't intending to arrest. It is always a smart move to arrest them too, and anyone else officers have to lay hands on. Great job again.