by Terry Mitchell

Created on: March 10, 2009

Every time I watch a TV show like NBC's To Catch a Predator, I get so mad that I swear steam probably emanates from my ears. Why is it that four or more screaming cops, with guns drawn, have to shove an unresisting, nonviolent, terrified (and sometimes crying) suspect to the ground and put handcuffs on him? In a physical confrontation, most of these offenders would be no match for any one of the officers even a female.

They could be just as easily apprehended by one officer with a simple, "Come with me." This use of handcuffs and all the roughhouse tactics no doubt result in some of those guys enduring Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) for many years afterward.
I can appreciate the need for police officers to err on the side of caution and protect themselves as much as reasonably possible. They have a very dangerous job and I understand that. But the use of strong-arm tactics on obviously submissive suspects seems excessive to me. A private citizen would not be allowed such disproportionate use of force.

For example, if someone much smaller than I slapped me in the face, I could not legally respond by pointing a loaded gun at him and getting three of my friends to help me force him to the ground. Of course, such action would almost certainly guarantee my safety during the confrontation and would virtually ensure that I come out victorious. However, a court of law would very likely find that response unlawfully extreme, not to mention cowardly.

Don't get me wrong, my beef is not with individual cops. My problem is with the policies and procedures their departments dictate that they follow. The rules should be changed to prohibit this kind of activity by police departments, even if it requires a constitutional amendment. Cops should not be required, directed, or allowed to handcuff, draw their guns on, or otherwise roughly handle someone unless that person meets one or more of the following criteria: He or she (1) has been convicted of a violent crime in the past, (2) has been known to use violence in the past, (3) has been convicted of weapons violations in the past, (4) is currently suspected of a violence crime, (5) is currently suspected of a weapons violation, (5) is acting in a belligerent manner, (6) has produced a weapon or reasonably appears to be reaching for or carrying one, or (7) is attempting to actively and physically resist.
Some people will now undoubtedly conclude that I'm one of those liberals who is tough on police and soft on suspects? But that's not the case at all. Many suspects are fearless, menacing, and/or intimidating. Those are the kinds of people that are the real threat to the police. They should always be approached with the greatest of caution. And when doing so, I believe police are justified in using whatever means they feel are necessary to emerge unharmed.

Learn more about this author, Terry Mitchell.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.