But unwillingness to hold police to the same legal standards as private citizens is, of course, not just an American problem. As Paul Jay of The Real News Network reports, a similar pattern emerged after evidence of police abuse surfaced following the 2010 G20 Summit in Toronto. In this report from July 2012, Jay rightly asserts that department discipline is not the same as being held legally accountable for abuse of authority. Jay concludes:

- Forcibly denying democratic rights is a crime. Those responsible should be charged.

- The right of journalists to report on police actions must be enshrined in police policy and guidelines. It’s simple: journalists should stay out of the way, and if they do, they cannot be ordered to leave the scene.

- Assault is a crime. It should be treated as such.

I highly recommend this report to C4SS readers.

Two New York Police Department command officers will not be charged for videotaped incidents in which they appeared to use excessive force against Occupy Wall Street protesters. According to the New York Times, Erin M. Duggan of the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office stated, “The district attorney’s office has concluded, after a thorough investigation, that we cannot prove these allegations criminally beyond a reasonable doubt.”

Deputy Inspector Anthony Bologna was filmed dousing non-violent demonstrators with pepper spray. Apparently, they had the audacity to object while being corraled into pens like farm animals. Bologna faced internal department discipline, including loss of vacation days. The deputy inspector is being sued and so far, NYPD is refusing to provide him with legal assistance.

Deputy Inspector Johnny Cardonna was filmed spinning protester Felix Rivera-Pitre around and punching him in the face. Unlike Bologna, the Huffington Post reports that Cardonna will receive NYPD support for his legal defense. According to HuffPo, “other video apparently showed Rivera-Pitre with a clenched fist as though he was preparing to strike the veteran NYPD supervisor.”

The incident involving Cardonna may be more equivocal than Bologna’s cowardly use of pepper spray. But if Rivera-Pitre displayed a “clenched fist,” maybe he was provoked by NYPD’s absurd overreaction to street protest. The actions of Cardonna and Bologna were certainly not isolated incidents during Occupy protests.

Conor Friedersdorf of The Atlantic reviewed a report produced by several university law clinics, highlighting allegations which he found to be “… most credible, whether due to video footage of the incident or eyewitness testimony from a credentialed journalist, a designated legal observer, or a member of the legal team that put together the report.” Those incidents  include a videotaped police attack on a cafe employee who stepped outside to film the protest; an officer driving a scooter into the middle of a crowd, injuring a legal observer; police assaulting protesters for no apparent reason; and police intimidation of and assaults on journalists and legal observers.

With all this in mind, it seems like a good time for the NYPD to engage in some self-reflection. But many in policing see only misunderstood heroes who are entitled to blind adoration from the public when they look in the mirror.

It is no secret that there is a vanguard of sorts in policing which celebrates the fascist tendencies of the occupation. The Denver, Colorado officers who wore shirts with the slogan “we get up early to beat the crowds” after the 2008 Democratic National Convention exemplify this attitude. These officers truly believe in keeping “those people” — the poor, “uppity” minorities, “hippies,” activists, “dopers” and leftists — “in line.” And they are fully dedicated to their unstated mission: Sweeping signs of dissent under the rug, lest we frighten America’s fragile, pants-wetting, bourgeois elements.

In spite of the abuse, US protesters rarely become violent toward the police. It remains to be seen whether non-violent tactics will suffice when officers like Anthony Bologna and his porcine “brother” John Pike elude legal responsibility, even when their actions are filmed.

Here’s a training update for US law enforcement: Your impunity will breed resistance.

According to C4SS Senior Fellow Kevin Carson, “This school of libertarianism has inscribed on its banner the reactionary watchword: ‘Them pore ole bosses need all the help they can get‘.”  Carson adds, “In every case, the good guys, the sacrificial victims of the Progressive State, are the rich and powerful. The bad guys are the consumer and the worker, acting to enrich themselves from the public treasury.”

Tuccille was alarmed at a recent Gallup poll showing that just 33 percent of respondents considered wealth distribution in the US to be “fair,” while 59 percent considered it “unfair.” 52 percent of those responding favored taxing the rich to redistribute wealth. Tuccille responded to the poll results with condescension, a common tactic of vulgar libertarians:

“That’s not fair,” is the plaintive cry of every toddler ever born, though my own son quickly memorized my constant response: “Not getting your way isn’t the same as ‘unfair.'” I may need five minutes alone with the American public, however, since many of my countrymen apparently think it’s “unfair” that other people have more money than them — and they want the government to give them some of what the other guy has.

One would assume from Tuccille’s sneering tone that we live in a “free market” meritocracy (we don’t) where  government doesn’t pick winners (they do) and everyone has a shot at their little slice of “The American Dream” (a myth invented by the privileged). Did Tuccille consider that increased calls for redistribution might be a sign that more people are becoming aware that the state capitalist system is rigged?

Tuccille concludes his sermon to us unruly wage slaves with a threat straight out of Atlas Shrugged: “Then again, if the United States becomes a country that punishes success, and so drives the ambitious elsewhere, or underground, perhaps the resulting leveling downward will be perceived as more … fair.”

Damn J.D., you’re going to take your ball and run off to Galt’s Gulch because of a Gallup Poll? Who’s pouting now?

Greenwald discussed five reactions that seem to be present after events like Boston. Among these were the knee-jerk blaming of Muslims, the fear among Arabs and Muslims that the suspect will indeed be a Muslim and the ritual proclamations by pundits that we must accept the enhanced security precautions that will surely follow this attack.

I don’t want to yammer on too much about these points, because I want you to read Greenwald’s piece. So I will just close by quoting him at length:

Regardless of your views of justification and intent: whatever rage you’re feeling toward the perpetrator of this Boston attack, that’s the rage in sustained form that people across the world feel toward the US for killing innocent people in their countries. Whatever sadness you feel for yesterday’s victims, the same level of sadness is warranted for the innocent people whose lives are ended by American bombs. However profound a loss you recognize the parents and family members of these victims to have suffered, that’s the same loss experienced by victims of US violence. It’s natural that it won’t be felt as intensely when the victims are far away and mostly invisible, but applying these reactions to those acts of US aggression would go a long way toward better understanding what they are and the outcomes they generate.

Thanks Glenn, we needed that.

Gupta says that many leftists “agree with the right that the biggest threat to society is not mentally ill shooters like Adam Lanza. It’s the state.” But Gupta is “rethinking this position” and now believes “that a society awash in guns is more of a detriment to the left project of emancipation than a means to secure it.”

According to Gupta:

…the left should connect the dots by framing gun restrictions as part of the effort to limit police powers, abuses and surveillance. Unlike the right, the left does not believe the state of nature is a war of all against all. Central to the left project is demilitarizing society, and by using this as the umbrella, gun control can provide an opening to shackle the state instead of the people. But first, the left needs to rethink the role that violence plays in social change.

Gupta believes that mass shootings like Newton provide an excuse to strengthen the state. But will new gun laws reduce violence to the point that the role of the state in crime control will be diminished? I think this proposition is doubtful at best.

Gupta’s analysis is more thought-provoking than the statist drivel that usually passes for “Left” opinion on guns. Still, I cannot endorse new gun restrictions. Leftists should certainly not partake in the national infatuation with weaponry or make a fetish of violent revolution. But I suspect a new “war on guns” will primarily hurt the powerless, just as all of the state’s wars do.

Ultimately, I agree with C4SS Fellow Nathan Goodman who said, “the real point he (Gupta) should be making here isn’t that leftists should back gun control, but that leftists should organize against the school to prison pipeline and attacks on the ‘mentally ill’ that happen in response to mass shootings.”

“You’re having a dispute with your neighbour … How would you feel if your neighbour went over and bought a commercial observation drone that they can launch from their backyard. It just flies over your house all day. How would you feel about it?” Schmidt also cited the possibility that terrorists could acquire drone technology as another danger. To make sure that drones don’t fall into the wrong hands, Schmidt said, “It’s got to be regulated … It’s one thing for governments, who have some legitimacy in what they’re doing, but have other people doing it … it’s not going to happen.”

Schmidt’s assumption that drone deployment by governments has “some legitimacy” is debatable given the available evidence. For instance, a report from McClatchy raises serious questions about whom the US Government targets with its drones. The Obama administration claims that drone strikes “are authorized only against ‘specific senior operational leaders of al Qaida and associated forces’ involved in the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks who are plotting ‘imminent’ violent attacks on Americans.” But according to McClatchy reporter Jonathan S. Landay,

Copies of the top-secret U.S. intelligence reports … show that drone strikes in Pakistan over a four-year period didn’t adhere to those standards.

The intelligence reports list killings of alleged Afghan insurgents whose organization wasn’t on the U.S. list of terrorist groups at the time of the 9/11 strikes; of suspected members of a Pakistani extremist group that didn’t exist at the time of 9/11; and of unidentified individuals described as “other militants” and “foreign fighters.”

These revelations led Guardian columnist Glenn Greenwald to state bluntly, “The Obama Administration often has no idea who they are killing.” So why would Eric Schmidt be so unconcerned about the drones deployed by the US government?

Maybe it has something to do with Schmidt’s cozy relationship with President Obama. The administration reportedly offered Schmidt a cabinet post after the president’s 2012 re-election. According to  the Telegraph, Schmidt oversaw “Google’s $700,000 donation” to the Obama campaign and has been close to the president since the 2008 presidential campaign.

Or perhaps Schmidt is just a bourgeois liberal who thinks more highly of state and corporate officials than he does of “the rabble.” Schmidt also said, “I’m not going to pass judgment on whether armies should exist, but I would prefer to not spread and democratise the ability to fight war to every single human being.” This statement displays a frustrating, but common, naivete about the nature of governments. If Schmidt was truly aware of the state’s capacity for mass killing and organized violence, he might become less wary of the local yokels. Schmidt’s error is similar to those who demand further restrictions on private firearm ownership even as US government at all levels becomes more militarized.

But what about Schmidt’s neighborhood squabble scenario?

If my neighbor had his drone buzzing over my residence, I suspect that I — probably accompanied by sympathetic and irritated neighbors — would pay Mr. Drone Fetish a visit. I would ask him to behave in a more neighborly fashion if he ever wanted to see his drone again. If he persisted, the best shot in the neighborhood might just blow his precious drone out of the sky. Emerging anti-drone technology and community pressure might also be used to harsh his UAV mellow.

Come to think of it, since domestic law enforcement is now in the drone game, drone shooting may become a hot new sport for freedom-loving US rifle owners. After all, clay pigeons pose no threat to you or your civil liberties. The same cannot be said of government drones, no matter what Eric Schmidt thinks.

I recently read a scathing commentary written by an employee of Whole Foods in response to CEO John Mackey’s remarks in January comparing  Obamacare to “fascism.”

This Whole Foods “team member” (Whole Foods-speak for employee) criticized Mackey’s choice of words, elaborating on a claim Mackey made in the Huffington Post. Mackey wrote, “While I’m speaking as someone who works hard to offer health care benefits to more than 73,000 team members, who actually vote on their overall benefits packages, I am very concerned about the uninsured and those with preexisting conditions.”

Mackey’s “team member” responded, “It’s true: Whole Foods employees ‘voted’ on our benefits package this year. What Mackey doesn’t (emphasis in original) tell you is this: On the health care portion of our benefits vote, we were presented with three choices that we had no voice in drafting, and all of them resulted in significant cuts in benefits and increases in out-of-pocket employee costs.” After votes were cast,  “… they handed us ‘I voted!’ stickers and thanked us for participating in ‘workplace democracy.'”

Workplace democracy? Really? Pick the least odious option and get a cheesy sticker? Well, it doesn’t get any more American than that!

To be fair, Whole Foods probably does allow “team members” more say than the average employer. And even Mackey’s dissatisfied “team member” concedes that  “… the working conditions at Whole Foods are better than they are at many other nonunion grocery stores, or at many big box retailers Wal-Mart (sic).” If workers lower their expectations enough, Whole Foods comes out looking pretty good.

Mackey sees himself as a visionary for treating employees less badly than Wal-Mart. In fact, Mackey is so sure of his benevolence that one of Whole Foods’ goals, according to documents obtained by Mother Jones, is to stay “100% union-free.” He’s convinced that his adoring “team members” don’t need or want unions. The guru of conscious capitalism knows what’s best for the team, after all.

Mackey’s well-to-do, left-leaning customer base may be charmed by the alternative feel of Whole Foods, but “team member” discontent isn’t new. In one classic example, Gawker posted a resignation letter from a Toronto  employee who referred to Whole Foods as ” a faux hippy Wal-Mart.” His concluding remarks to his co-workers were interesting: “Also, Whole Foods will try to make you feel like they are doing you a huge favour by employing you. It’s really a mutual agreement or transaction. Don’t fall for the guilt trips.”

Now this gets to the heart of the matter. Employers do act like hiring us is a supreme act of charity. But, if you think about it, who needs who? This employee’s conclusion is actually too moderate. Calling employment a “mutual agreement” ignores the power imbalance inherent in employment contracts. This blind spot gives rise to the “nobody put a gun to your head”  tautologies of right-wing economics. The alleged “voluntary” nature of wage labor may be the silliest myth of capitalist folklore. But what if workers understood their true power?

Labor’s focus must move beyond catching a few more crumbs from the CEO’s table. Economist Richard Wolff argues that, “A new strategy would not leave in place a corporate adversary with both the incentive and resources to first oppose and then undo what labor and the left can win. A new strategy would be micro-focused, aimed at transforming the internal structure of enterprises from capitalist to workers self-directed (WSDE).” Wolff’s Democracy At Work website is an excellent resource for those who wish to learn more about WSDE’s.

Even if Whole Foods is more generous than other employers, this “team member” and “workplace democracy” talk is just a PR gimmick designed to soothe the liberal consumer’s conscience. Authentic workplace democracy cannot flourish in hierarchical, publicly-traded corporations like Whole Foods. As Richard Wolff and other radicals suggest, real workplace democracy happens when you work for yourself or you work cooperatively with people, not for them.

In “Three Key Lessons From The Obama Administration’s Drone Lies,” Greenwald acknowledges the fact that “establishment sources” have finally begun to call out the Obama Administration for not telling the truth about who is being targeted for death-by-drone. Indeed, the word “lies” is now being employed. Greenwald cites a recent report by McClatchy as well as an article by Micah Zenko in Foreign Policy as evidence of this trend.

Greenwald believes that three lessons can be gleaned from these reports:

(1) The Obama administration often has no idea who they are killing.

(2) Whistleblowers are vital for transparency and accountability, which is precisely why the Obama administration is waging a war on them.

(3) Secrecy ensures both government lies and abuses of power.

With these lessons in mind, Greenwald closes with some strong words for the media:

In light of this evidence, any journalists that continue to rely on US government statements about its killing program are revealing themselves to be eager propagandists, willing to be lied to and help amplify those lies (the same was true of journalists who continued to rely on government statements about “militants” being killed even after they knew how Obama officials had broadened that term to the point of meaninglessness). How many times do we have to learn these same lessons before recognizing their universality?

Aside from being fraudulent, the theory that there is a “war on cops” in the US encourages further militarization of the police and makes it harder to hold officers accountable, according to Balko. Perhaps most dangerous, is the effect the idea has on police mindset. Balko explains:

But there’s a more pernicious effect of exaggerating the threat to police officers. In researching my forthcoming book, I interviewed lots of police officers, police administrators, criminologists and others connected to the field of law enforcement. There was a consensus among these people that constantly telling cops how dangerous their jobs are is affecting their mindset. It reinforces the soldier mentality already relentlessly drummed into cops’ heads by politicians’ habit of declaring “war” on things. Browse the online bulletin boards at sites like PoliceOne (where users must be credentialed law enforcement to comment), and you’ll see a lot of hostility toward everyone who isn’t in law enforcement, as well as various versions of the sentiment “I’ll do whatever I need to get home safe at night.” That’s a mantra that speaks more to self-preservation than public service.

Radley Balko is doing more than his share to enlighten people on this issue. He is also one of the foremost experts on police militarization in the US.  His book, Rise of the Warrior Cop: The Militarization of America’s Police Forces, is due out in July.

The topic of resisting arrest is familiar territory for Grigg. He regularly explores the legal evolution of resisting, as well as the reasons people may feel inclined to resist or evade arrest. According to Grigg, English common law held that citizens had the right to resist unlawful arrests. But US courts moved away from this interpretation during the 20th century. Today, resisting arrest is effectively illegal.

What led to this change? According to Grigg, “Courts that seek to criminalize resistance have generally made the pragmatic argument that resistance is more dangerous than submission.” But Grigg challenges this assumption by discussing what really happens on the street and in the jails.

Grigg pays particular attention to the case of Stephen Slevin, who languished for two years in solitary confinement in a New Mexico jail without ever seeing a courtroom. Slevin, originally arrested in 2005 on suspicion of DWI and vehicle theft (he actually borrowed the car from a friend), won a $15.5 million lawsuit against Dona Ana County in March. Of course, none of Slevin’s jailers faced repercussions for confining and torturing him for two years without trial. Habeas whatas?

Surely cases like Slevin’s are rare, right? Slevin’s case is extreme, but rampant abuse in local jails is not. For example, the FBI is currently investigating the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department due to allegations of jail violence. According to the Los Angeles Times, “So far, federal authorities have secured a bribery conviction against one deputy, but the probe continues. Sources with knowledge of the federal investigation say it recently has expanded to include two new cases in which deputies allegedly took part in unprovoked beatings.”

Due to the state of the US criminal justice system, Grigg argues forcefully that people should not forfeit their right to resist an illegal arrest. His is a minority opinion, even among those who fight police abuse. For example, the ACLU advises, “Do not resist arrest (emphasis in original), even if you believe the arrest is unfair.” And if you consult any criminal defense attorney, you will likely be told that resisting is out of the question.

So should citizens have the right to resist? Absolutely. Is it wise to resist an unlawful arrest? Probably not.

Resisting arrest may indeed help you to avoid jail, at least temporarily. But, it may also be your ticket to the trauma room or the morgue. Thus, the decision to resist must be well informed, not impulsive. I would like to offer some tips that I hope will help you to stay free and alive.

Avoidance

In The Art of War, Sun Tzu said, “The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting.” This is an excellent concept to keep in mind where law enforcement is concerned.

Avoidance is better than confrontation when it comes to interacting with the police.  Do not engage in actions that are likely to elicit calls to the police. Respect your neighbors and your neighborhood. If you use illegal substances, don’t advertise your habit. If you sell drugs, consider taking business indoors. Open-air drug markets disturb the community and are easy targets for cops. Those involved in drug sales should develop non-violent ways to settle disputes, because only kingpins and the state win when low-level drug dealers use their guns.

When you are out, avoid areas with heavy police presence if possible. When that is not an option, blend in. Don’t try to be cute, provocative or loud around police, especially in the middle of a tense situation like a bar brawl. If cops are agitated, you may get grabbed in the confusion. And keep in mind that numbers-oriented police love to pluck low hanging fruit (read: stupid drunks, street dealers).

People should also be very selective about the reasons they call for police assistance. Even those who call for help can become victims of police excesses. Police agencies thrive on our dependence and succeed only with our cooperation. Therefore, withdrawing cooperation can give people more power over the police that claim to serve them.

Getting stopped

Anytime you are stopped by police, be assertive about your rights. Assertiveness is your first line of defense and is preferable to running or fighting.

During a traffic stop, provide the officer with your driver’s license, then let her do the talking. Do not incriminate yourself by speculating about the reason for the stop. Keep your hands on the steering wheel and don’t make any unnecessary movements. Never consent to a search of your vehicle. If the officer asks you to exit the vehicle, ask if you are being detained or if you may leave. Unless you are facing extraordinary circumstances, never drive away until the officer says you may leave.

If you are stopped by police while you are on foot, keep in mind that police, like private citizens, can approach and talk to anyone. Don’t get agitated, just remember that you are under no obligation to speak to police or answer their questions. So, just keep walking if you wish.

But suppose an officer says, “do me a favor and step back over here.” Police often ask for “favors” when they are on shaky legal ground. Your response should be, “am I being detained?” If he says no or does not respond, you may walk away unless you are ordered to stop.

If the officer says that you are being detained, then he is asserting that he has reasonable suspicion to briefly stop you for investigatory purposes. This is often referred to as a “Terry Stop” and may also involve a pat down for weapons (and only weapons!).

Being Detained

If you are being detained, invoke your right to remain silent and request counsel. Then, start making mental notes: What are the officers saying? What are you being accused of? Are their witnesses in the vicinity? Is anyone at the scene filming or taking photographs? Are the police bringing a witness to the scene for a “show-up” (a field identification)? Do you see any surveillance cameras in the area?

Anytime you are detained, rapidly assess the damage. Are you going to be facing a traffic citation or an ordinance ticket? Is there a chance you might receive a notice to appear (NTA) in lieu of a trip to jail? Officers have the option of issuing NTA’s in many misdemeanor cases. In his helpful book Arrest-Proof Yourself (2007), former police officer and FBI Agent Dale Carson recommends that people “Ask for a notice to appear, or penal citation, especially if the problem is a small amount of drugs or something that’s relatively minor” (p. 248).

If your case is likely to be handled without a custodial arrest, resistance at the scene will only exacerbate your problems. You will be able to leave the scene with your piece of paper and you will have a chance to plan your defense from the comfort of your own home.

But what if you are being falsely accused of a more serious crime? Start to retrace your steps. Who have you interacted with today? Where have you been since the alleged incident? Have you stopped at any businesses along the way? If so, great! More than likely you were on camera and spoke to employees. If you made a purchase with a credit or debit card, the transaction is traceable. If you have a receipt, you have already started your paper trail. At this point, you are in better shape than many defendants. Thus, the risk of resistance probably outweighs the potential benefits.

To resist, or not to resist; that is a loaded question

So far, I’ve discussed situations in which I don’t recommend flight or physical resistance. But, here are some more equivocal scenarios:

• The encounter starts off with a physical assault. Maybe you don’t even know your assailant is a police officer. In this scenario, do what you need to do to protect yourself. Argue self-defense later. This is one of the few affirmative defenses against resisting arrest charges. If the police did not identify themselves (or were not in uniform), that will also help your case.
• The police invade your home with little or no warning. Again, you may not know this is a law enforcement operation. Defend yourself, your family and your pets. It is your home, after all.
• Police offer no explanation for why they have stopped you and respond to inquiries with threats or verbal abuse. These are red flags indicative of an illegal detention. Sadly, the courts are unlikely to back you if you resist. Running might be an option in order to avoid battery to a police officer charges. Otherwise, look for witnesses and hope that the incident is being recorded.
• During a protest, demonstrators are being attacked for no reason or for peaceful non-compliance. Seriously, how much longer are people going to stand by while citizens engaged in non-violent civil disobedience are being sprayed, beaten and tased? As Jim Morrison sang, “They got the guns – But we got the numbers.” Activists who use the tactic of “unarresting” seem to be getting the message.
• You witness police beating a person that is not resisting, unconscious or possibly having a medical problem. Filming these incidents is important, but intervening may save a life. Unfortunately, it is too late for Kelly Thomas.
• Police attempt to physically stop you from filming them or taking photographs in a public area. Laws against filming police are on the way out. This is true even in states like Illinois that have used severe eavesdropping laws to punish people for filming police. No matter what the law says in your state, officers who attempt to take your camera by force should be treated like the criminals they are.

The reality of resisting

Resisting arrest should not be about showing off or teaching the police a lesson. This is not a bar fight or an MMA match. If I may borrow some military nomenclature, your priorities should be survival, evasion, resistance and escape, with strong emphasis on evasion and escape.

If you decide to resist, you are already out of good options. There is a high probability that you will be injured and sent to jail no matter what you do. If this is the result, hope for video footage, community support and a sympathetic jury. With all this in mind, I’ll leave you with some general observations.

Gather intelligence and evidence

• If the encounter looks like it is going to go sideways, nonchalantly size up the officer. He will be doing the same to you. What is his physical condition? Can you outrun him? Do you have any avenues of escape or are they blocked? Are more officers arriving?
• Look for badge numbers and name plates on the officers’ chests. At a minimum, try to memorize badge numbers. Scan the area for witnesses and surveillance cameras, especially cameras on private property that the police have less control over. The squad car should have a dash camera, so try to stand near the vehicle’s front bumper and speak clearly.
• Assess the officer’s behavior. Is he speaking calmly or losing verbal control? Is he whispering insults to provoke you? If so, don’t take the bait. Is he trying to get closer to you or behind you? Where are his hands in relation to the tools on his belt, especially his taser?

Stay calm and get the crowd on your side

• Do not get into anything resembling a fighting stance. This will allow officers to rationalize an enthusiastic beat down if they are so inclined. If you feel the need to run or fight, the element of surprise will be necessary. Tell officers that you don’t want any trouble and make sure you can be heard by people in the area. Keep your hands in sight and slightly above your waist (unless they ask you to raise your hands). Keep your palms facing towards the officers to make it clear to them and to witnesses that you are not concealing a weapon. Never reach into your waist band or pockets.
• Talk to any bystanders. Tell them why you believe the police are out of line. Ask the officers to call for a supervisor and make sure witnesses hear your request. Ask witnesses to film the incident. If you are fortunate, pressure from bystanders may encourage officers to take a less aggressive approach.

Regarding the taser

• Tasers are the popular toy of the moment in law enforcement. Too often, they are used on people who are, at most, passively resisting commands. If an officer successfully deploys his taser, you will be immobilized and at his mercy. He may try to get in close to perform a “drive stun” or he may fire the barbs at you from a distance. Bear in mind that police taser models may be successfully deployed from a distance of up to thirty feet. And yes, police will tase you if you walk or run away. If officers display tasers, I do not recommend resisting.

Evasion and escape

• If the police converge on you, getting aggressive is generally a mistake. If you feel you cannot comply, evasion would be a better tactic. If possible, wait for officers to be distracted by something. Maybe officers will be responding to comments from your sympathetic crowd and they will look away from you. Take advantage of such opportunities and keep physical contact with officers to a minimum.
• If you get away, run towards commercial areas with lots of people and surveillance cameras if possible. You will probably be caught and you want as many witnesses as possible when this occurs. Avoid running through people’s yards, as this will lead to people calling police and providing them with your direction of travel.
• If the police are no longer in sight, stop running and blend in to the environment. Calm down, catch your breath and think of a safe place to go. Do not go to your residence, because the police will be en-route there. Consider discarding an item or two of clothing to alter your appearance a bit. The police have probably set up a perimeter, so moving indoors for awhile may be a good idea. Consider ducking into a fast food restaurant or retail establishment for awhile. This will give you time to collect your thoughts and contact family, friends, an attorney and possibly a media source.

Survival

• If there is nowhere to go and an attack is imminent, now is the time to raise your hands. Put your forearms in front of your face with your elbows facing out in case they try to rain blows onto your head, face or neck. Also, remember that compression of the trachea (windpipe) or carotid arteries will result in rapid loss of consciousness and possibly death. For this reason, treat any attempt to choke you as attempted murder and act accordingly.
• In a confrontation with police, you will almost certainly be facing multiple armed attackers. This is the primary reason why physically resisting when you are alone is a bad idea.
• If you are taken to the ground and police pile on top of you, they may shout “stop resisting” repeatedly, even if you are complying. This tactic seems to be employed for the benefit of witnesses and may be used to justify excessive force later. Respond with “I am not resisting” every time they say it.
• If police decide to punish you instead of properly handcuffing you, follow this emergency advice from Dale Carson (2007): “curl up into a fetal ball and protect your head with your arms (emphasis in original). If you are already handcuffed with your hands behind you, try to wiggle your head under the police cruiser for protection” (Arrest-Proof Yourself, p. 200).

Going home

When police officers justify a use of force, they often say that they feared for their lives and were just trying to get home safely to their families. You also have the right to go home safely. This should be your primary goal anytime you are detained by the police. Survival takes precedence over pride and politics.

Stay safe out there!