Cop to Other Cops: No Such Thing As Excessive ForceAmanda Warren No, his reason for posting a concern about police investigating themselves is much more poignant and cause for alarm. Imagine my surprise when it actually linked to an article by Duane Wolfe, a retired cop writing to other cops on Policeone.com. The article entitled 5 common use-of-force myths debunked, is just that a treatise for debunking the idea that there is such a thing as too much force during an encounter with a suspect. Unfortunately, while the term suspect is used to conjure up imagery of an escaping bank robber who might be armed in actuality, any citizen is considered suspect. Thats why his five myths could be construed as troubling to a rational mind who might ponder what causes a peace officer to brutalize or draw guns on someone theyve just pulled over. If this really is how the majority of police think, then it decimates any illusions of safety in their presence. Here are the bullet pointed myths hed like to rectify: And the kicker: He expands on the fifth note: If five officers would say the force was reasonable, it should be judged reasonable. If five officers would say it was unreasonable, it is judged unreasonable. If four officers would say it is unreasonable and one officer was to say it was reasonable, it should be ruled as reasonable. Well, that certainly is comforting Its not like the brothers in blue would ever cross a line to protect another from scrutiny. See: Watch as Investigators Protect Police Chief Lying on Film Check my previous articles or look for more they lie on reports with no repercussions after caught falsifying them. If you think the mentality of that remains with him only guess again. Seattle cops sued the city because they felt the crimps on excessive force were *cough* unconstitutional.Not to mention, Wolfe is accurate in describing that officers can fall back on a Supreme Court case: Graham v. Connor. You should read it too. If my eyes dont deceive me, it really appears there is no such thing as excessive force on behalf of police. You can read 16 other ways SCOTUS has allowed unfettered police use of forcehere. Currently and at least 20 years too late the corporate-run (mainstream) media and late night comedy/political shows are starting to point out growing problems with police corruption like indiscriminately blasting away family pets, using tasers on vulnerable people for minor infractions, literal highway robbery through civil asset forfeiture, rape, and the lack of data surrounding just how many Americans are killed by their police force each year. Meanwhile, primetime television has kept another myth burning that the men in blue are heroes who endanger their lives to keep you safe and must make quick decisions which sometimes leads to casualties of innocents. How unfortunatebut, you gotta break a few legsereggs every now and again. Police officers, like anyone else, have a right to self-defense against harm. Obviously, this is not what Im referring to here and this is not where force is applied most of the time. They should not be allowed, nor should they want to, apply Graham v. Connor to slam and taser pregnant women, shoot and kill subdued and unarmed boys because they are impatient, slam a girls head into the pavement and leave her dead in handcuffs, have five officers kick, punch and pile onto someone they wish to arrest or beat anyone subdued and in handcuffs. A person in handcuffs and on their way to jail has a right to remain unmolested in the process. In most peoples minds, this would be the worst possible time to encourage more use of force and deem that it can never be too excessive. Recently fromAmanda Warren: 