Deescalate
They make their judgement based on very limited information and knowledge and slothfully imagine they are correct in their determination of the power and limitations of the legal system.
Because police work is often very difficult and dangerous he is given legal power to deal with contentious and sometimes dangerous people. But with that power comes responcibility. Failure to educate ourselves on the full story, the whole truth, is a major issue in America today.
Do the people know the law, the limitations of the legal system, and the legal context of the statutes within the law?
Will they take the time to listen to the opinions of the panel of professional law enforcement officers who clearly did not think this was properly done even without seeing the full video?
Do they take the time to study the Oklahoma government Operational Manual used to train and prepare employed officers for just such situation.
Do they even take the time to watch the whole video?
It should be clear Officer Charles Missinne did not exercise proper training and abused his position of authority.
It was the officer that escalated a simple stop for a functioning taillight missing some red plastic from a warning for a first stop to a ticket and fine. But also instead of informing the citizen they could be arrested if they did "refuse" to sign for the receipt of the ticket, which is only an police option not a requirement, Officer Charles Missinne chose to immediately escalate the situation to an arrest, evidently 'to teach her a lesson'. This was the point of escalation in the full video which ended up costing the taxpayers tens of thousands of dollars and wasting the time of the court and was a violation of rights under the constitution.
I personnally recommend that police training courses which have used my paper on the right to bear arms also use the "full video' of this stop as an excellent demonstration to train officers on what not to do.
: http://preparingyou.com/wiki/Deescalate
Taillight granny
On July 16, 2019, Debra Hamil was pulled over by a Cashion police officer for defective equipment, a traffic violation that usually results in a "warning" or if ticketed would end in an $80 fine paid to the court.
Proverbs 18:12 "Before destruction the heart of man is haughty, and before honour is humility. 13 He that answereth a matter before he heareth it, it is folly and shame unto him."
There was more to the incident than is visible on the short video but the full video. Shows us that she was very cooperative, her family was known to the deputy an most of all the light actually worked but was only missing some of the red plastic and her whole family was looking to get a new box for the truck that was only used in their tiny community. There were other issues that escalated the emotion of both Debra Hamil and Officer Charles Missinne.
But the essential moment of change in the stop was when Officer Charles Missinne chose to escalate the situation to an arrest for not signing the ticket. As an officer he did not need her signature.
He can even write on the ticket “Refused To Sign”.
If she does not show up in court the judged can issue bench warrant.
But was there any reason to involve the court's time.
She was not a threat to the community. The light actually worked. It was missing some red plastic but she said she would tape it up.
It is the professional responsibility of officers to "de-escalate" situations.
Instead Officer Charles Missinne chose to immediately escalate the situation to an arrest.
Why?
He made no attempt to explain signing was not an admission of guilt or she could be arrested if she did not sign.
She did eventually agree to sign but he wanted to arrest her anyway. This is what is called a "vanity arrest". This was not "protect and serve" action.
A warning would have likely fixed the taillight that week. He says he knew the truck box was damaged for months and issued no warning.
He chooses to make it court matter and elevates that to an arrest. Again why? The officer isn't paying all that cost to the city and the courts.
Then there is lost time to the officers who will be involved in booking, bail, etc. Trip to the hospital to have an old lady checked out after tasing her (twice). Is the community served and safer now old ladies will be more polite to Officer Charles Missinne?
If they did not dismiss, reduce and defer charges, the final cost to the taxpayers likely went over a hundred thousand dollars.
Officer Charles Missinne even stated, “You may not like the laws but we are here to enforce them. You guys are going to learn the hard way that we aren’t going to put up with it.”
Enforcing laws is not the same as teaching people "the hard way that we aren’t going to put up with it.” Officer Charles Missinne
Proverbs 22:4 "By humility and the fear of the LORD are riches, and honour, and life."
Escalate vs De-escalate
Officer Charles Missinne chose not to issue a warning but cited Debra Hamil giving her a ticket which was his right as an officer. But escalating the situation and it was an abrupt choice of Officer Charles Missinne.
Debra clearly did not understanding the full process and felt it was unfair. That is her right.
Debra began to explain to the officer that she did not think that she should have to pay an $80 fine if she can fix it and will get it fixed.
Stating that to the officer is her right under the constitution. She did so civilly and with continued respect. The courts have stated that is a part of our right of free speech and the right to engage with the officer in her personal "redress of grievances"[1]
Every good and competent police officer would simply inform her that if she gets it fixed before the court date, she may plead her case before the judge who may choose to reduce the fine or even wave it.
But instead the officer insists she sign the ticket.
Normally an officer who is following the deescaltion policies laid out in the manual would inform a citizen hesitating to sign that their signature is not an admission of guilt but simply is a record that they were actually given a ticket by the officer.
Every officer is given power to act which is defined by the codes and his superiors and employers. But all that power and responsibility exists within the Constitutions of the state and the Constitution of the United States.
Those Constitutions exist within Natural Law where rights originate and from which they are endowed by a Creator.
Proverbs 18:9 "He also that is slothful in his work is brother to him that is a great waster. 10 The name of the LORD is a strong tower: the righteous runneth into it, and is safe. 11 The rich man's wealth is his strong city, and as an high wall in his own conceit. 12 Before destruction the heart of man is haughty, and before honour is humility. 13 He that answereth a matter before he heareth it, it is folly and shame unto him."
Refusing to sign a ticket can allow the officer to arrest the driver but wisdom and common sense would dictate the protocols for de-escalation should take precident.
It was the responsibility of the paid professional to inform the citizen of this information that signing the ticket, you are only providing an acknowledgement of receipt of the ticket a “notice to appear”.
Further if you refuse to sign a traffic ticket it is at the discretion of the ticketing officer to arrest or not arrest.
The term "discretion" does not mean at the "whim" of the officer. An officer has numerous aspects and elements to the performance of his duties.
If she continued to resist signing the ticket he should have simply properly informed her of that fact.
Most people do not understand that and it is part of the duty of an officer to inform people of the due process in a manner to de-escalate the emotions of those involved. Proper training and officer discipline was not evident in the video.
An officer is not a ruler but a public servant. He must obey his superiors with humility and due diligence.
According to Oklahoma government Operational Manual:
- "De-escalation tactics shall be used whenever possible, and when such delay will not compromise the safety of the officer or a citizen, and when it is not immediately necessary for an officer to take action to prevent the officer or a citizen from being assaulted or injured."
The Operational Manual warns that if "the subject is affected by conditions such as:
- A. Medical issues;
- B. Mental impairment or mental health crisis;
- C. Developmental disability;
- D. Physical limitation;
- E. Communication barrier;
- F. Alcohol and/or drug use; and/or
- G. Behavioral/emotional crisis.
The Operational Manual continued with, "When time and circumstances allow for de-escalation, an officer's awareness of the above conditions shall be balanced against the totality of the circumstances when determining which de-escalation option(s) are the most appropriate to attempt to bring the situation to a safe resolution."
Numerous professional police practices were not done and policies were ignored by Officer Charles Missinne which led to an escalation of emotions and would now involve the time of the courts:
- Inform the citizen that the signature is not an admission of guilt/
- The officers job is just to warn or cite the driver.
- The ticket is the citation.
- If she does not sign it the officer has the right to arrest her and take her into custody.
- He should inform her that he does not want to arrest her.
- He could then ask her to please sign the ticket and that will take the option of arresting her off the table.
- If she still refuses to sign he can then inform her that he can write on the ticket that she "Refused to sign", explaining that he did not want to do that because the judge would see she was not complying with the codes.
- Then he would inform her that if she does not fix the light and appear in court or pay the fine, a bench warrant will be issued any police officer will be able to stop and arrest her.
Instead ignoring these simple interactions that normally de-escalates these stops he chose to arrest her and put her in cuffs and in order to do that he felt the need to tase her.
Professional opinions
A 65 year old grandmother known to a small community of 800 people and was given a ticket for a functioning taillight with broken red plastic by the officer.
She did not want to sign the ticket. The officer could have informed that signing the ticket was not an admission of guilt and she could get it fixed and explain that to the judge and he may dismiss the fine.
He could have written in that she "refused to sign". He failed to implement Oklahoma de-escalation tactics.
According to a panel of professional law enforcement officers and according to the Oklahoma government Operational Manual Officer Charles Missinne did not exercise proper training.
This was bad police work. Officer Charles Missinne chose to escalate the situation to an arrest for a defective taillight she said she would fix. She even eventually agreed to sign it but pride and vanity of both the citizen and the supposedly professional officer got in the way.
Here are several professionals shacked at the police choices made here. https://youtu.be/FXZw72Z_M4w
Difficult arrest
I include the video of an actual difficult stop and arrest to show the contrast.
Mississippi Department of Public Safety Commissioner Sean Tindell says the situation couldn’t have been handled any better.
On August 5, Trooper Hayden Falvey pulled over Eugene Lewis for speeding on a rural road. Falvey was by himself. After Lewis admitted to using marijuana, Lewis was handcuffed and told he was under arrest. As Falvey tried to get Lewis into the cruiser, things quickly escalated.
Lewis’ brothers arrived on the scene and refused to leave as ordered by Falvey as the men recorded the activity.
The Highway Patrol video does show during the struggle to get Lewis properly seated in the car, Falvey puts his hands -- and at one point, elbow -- against the suspect’s neck.
According to Mississippi Public Safety Commissioner Sean Tindell, Falvey’s actions were appropriate under the circumstances.
https://www.wdam.com/2022/08/12/dps-no-evidence-criminal-behavior-trooper-viral-mccomb-traffic-stop/
Local reaction
https://kfor.com/news/cashion-citizens-question-police-tactics-after-woman-tased-during-arrest/amp/
Cost accrued
This was poor policework and bad judgement by someone who is paid to "protect and serve". He failed in the full scope of his duties.
This was not "protect and serve" action.
It was poor police skills and bad judgement to use an arrest as your best option.
An average cost to the taxpayer for an arrest in 2015 could be $13,607. Normal misdemeanor arrest are from $1,000 to $2,000 cost to the government.
A warning would have likely fixed the taillight that week. He says he knew the truck box was damaged for months and issued no warning.
He chooses to make it court matter and elevates that to an arrest with no attempt to settle peaceably despite many options recommended by proper training. Again why? The officer isn't paying all that cost to the city and the courts.
This is abuse of office, harassment and dereliction of his primary duty and poor police work which most commentors do not understand.
Minimum billing for arrest alone was itemized at a cost of $1576.72 but total actual cost to the taxpayer will run easily over $100,000. All for a taillight she was going to fix and would have fixed with a warning.
https://www1.odcr.com/detail?court=037-&casekey=037-CF++1900067
I am amazed at the people who pass judgment without much research and poor perspective. 90 years of socialism in America has taken it's toll.More abuse by officer
DE-ESCALATION Tactics
Being a law enforcement officer includes the use of power and position. That power requires the exercise of great responcibility. The officer is not judge and jury nor an agent of compliance and punishment.
Power can be easily abused.
Here is another poor performance of an officer who is on a power trip ...
ALTERNATIVE TACTICS – DE-ESCALATION When circumstances reasonably permit, officers should use non-violent strategies and techniques to decrease the intensity of a situation, improve decision-making, improve communication, reduce the need for force, and increase voluntary compliance (e.g., summoning additional resources, formulating a plan, attempting verbal persuasion).
I recommend Force Science Institute’s “Realistic De-Escalation” course and the Police Executive Research Forum’s “Integrating Communications, Assessment and Tactics” (ICAT) training, which deals heavily with decision-making, particularly while dealing with people in crisis.
https://www.lexipol.com/resources/blog/de-escalation-a-commonsense-approach/
- 1: Ensure your citizen contact procedures are legitimate and based on respect.
- 2: Ensure your officers know their legal limitations prior to engaging the public.
- See example cases, Masked introvert who died. Deaf loner mistaken for prowler shot.
Remember that in the absence of reasonable suspicion, people do not have to stop and speak with officers.
- 3: Appreciate that to influence a person, you need to understand their perspective and purpose. This is a concept Dr. Lewinski emphasizes.
- 4: Do not presume what makes sense to you makes sense to others. Following some use of force incidents, we sometimes hear statements from officers such as, “If he didn’t do anything wrong, why did he run?” or “He didn’t have a weapon; why didn’t he just put his hands up and comply?”
- See example cases, 13-year-old autistic son is experiencing medical episode.
See more Forbidden Definitions
Law
Law | Natural Law | Legal title | Common Law |
Fiction of law | Stare decisis | Jury | Voir dire |
Consent | Contract | Parental contract | Government |
Civil law | Civil Rights | Civil Government | Governments |
No Kings | Canon law | Cities of refuge | Levites |
Citizen | Equity | The Ten Laws | Law of the Maat |
Bastiat's The Law and Two Trees | Trees |
The Occupy Refuge Movement | Clive Bundy | Hammond |
Barcroft | Benefactors | Gods | Jury | Sanhedrin |
Protection | Weightier matters | Social contract | Community Law |
Perfect law of liberty | Power to change | Covet | Rights |
Anarchist | Agorism | Live as if the state does not exist |Newsletter | Dear Network | Network Notes | The Kingdom Newsletter |
Thought for the day | Events List | Free speech | ConversationFootnotes
- ↑ "He was, however, speaking to a representative of government, the police. And it is to government that one goes 'for a redress of grievances,' to use an almost forgotten phrase of the First Amendment. But it is said that the purpose was 'to cause inconvenience and annoyance.' Since when have we Americans been expected to bow submissively to authority and speak with awe and reverence to those who represent us? The constitutional theory is that we the people are the sovereigns, the state and federal officials only our agents. We who have the final word can speak softly or angrily. We can seek to challenge and annoy, as we need not stay docile and quiet." William O Douglas. Dissenting, Colten v. Kentucky, 407 U.S. 104 (1972)
- ↑ Nihil iniquius quam æquitatem nimis intendere.