Police Training Lacks Scientific Input 277
An anonymous reader writes: Police have been under a microscope over the past year for their involvement in some high-profile shootings. We've heard over and over that police need more and better training to keep these incidents from happening, but the truth is that there's no good framework within law enforcement to base their training on actual science. Officers tend to teach from their own experience, and research into techniques for dealing with unpredictable people goes widely unnoticed. "Carl Bell, a psychologist at the University of Illinois at Chicago who has done key work on de-escalation with the mentally ill, said his attempts to introduce techniques to the Chicago police never got anywhere. 'There's no systematic incorporation of research.'" Nobody expects officers to consult an academic journal when they're facing down a hostile suspect, but science needs to be part of conversation we're having.
Send then to train in Norway and the UK (Score:5, Insightful)
The cops there are a bit more civilized. They can take down people without killing them. If you want 'science', look closely at the kind of people who want to be cops. Try to find some that don't relish the power so much. The rest are just a bunch a classroom bullies. We should not be rewarding this behavior. And we need to disallow all the secrecy. We have to force open the books to ensure compliance. The cops here are problem because we treat them with excessive deference in an appeal to their authority. We need to remind them and the politicians that they are public servants.
Re: (Score:2)
As I mentioned in another post on this thread... the people who really need to become cops in the U.S. are the ones that end up becoming social workers.
Re: (Score:2)
I am becoming more convinced that the only way to possibly get good cops who will speak up is through conscription, a three year *tour of duty*, then a small severance check and a goodbye kiss on the cheek.. I mean, if we are going to militarize them, we may as well do it right.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Re: (Score:2)
...of course Slashdot picks THIS time to make sure I don't have mod points.
When designing training, think it through (Score:3)
Police Officers will react exactly as they have been trained.
Some decades ago, a police agency in the south came up with "better" firearms training. They installed moving targets. The Officer would wait until the target began moving right to left, or vice-versa, and only then were they allowed to fire. Months of this "improved" training.
An Officer responded to a armed robbery call and, per training, parked not near the door, but some distance away. As the bad guy ran out the door of the business, the Officer fired at the moving target. As the store manager ran out the door chasing the bad guy, the Officer fired at the moving target.
I'm just saying that the training must be carefully thought through because that's how officers will respond. In fast situations Police don't evaluate and respond, they react.
Re: (Score:2)
In fast situations Police don't evaluate and respond, they react.
In fast situations, humans react. It's that, or stand paralyzed with indecision while the other person's actions dictate the outcome. But describing cops - as a whole - as unthinking in the face of dangerous, quickly-evolving situations is absurd. You obviously don't know any.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
No, he's absolutely right.
The FBI firearm instruction used to always insist agents picked up their brass on the range. Until several agents got shot during actual fire fights because after unloading they stopped and bent over to pick up their brass before reloading and continuing *exactly as they had done during training*. They have since changed their training to completely ignore their expended brass--just reload and keep shooting.
A similar thing happened in the military. The US military discovered years
6 months training (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Most Police Academies in the US take 6 months or less to complete. How in earth can you expect policemen to learn to act accordingly in all circumstances and know the law as well in that short amount of time.
Generally after the academy comes at least several more months of on the job training, paired with an experienced officer to continue their training. It takes a while before a new cop is going to be out on patrol all alone.
we should copy europe (Score:4, Insightful)
europe has better training. being a police officer in europe is a much more highly professional attitude with much more rigorous training
http://www.quora.com/How-do-UK... [quora.com]
also, like europe, and i'll try not to completely derail the conversation, but no one should get a gun in the usa without rigorous training first, including testing and ongoing inspections. exactly like we do with getting a drivers license and a car. same level of responsibility, same standards, right?
without so many easy guns in he hands of idiots, cops are less jumpy
"if guns are outlawed, only outlaws..." actually, when guns are harder to get, the kind of casual hothead that causes all the mayhem with guns simply doesn't get a gun and reaches for a knife instead. *casual* hotheads are not trying hard in life, they will not try hard to get a gun, ti takes too much effort in a serious society. and a knife is far less lethal, so homicide rates drop
https://www.washingtonpost.com... [washingtonpost.com]
so the "if guns are outlawed, only outlaws..." is a propaganda lie
besides, we're not even talking about "outlawing" guns. we're talking about rigorous training which every responsible gun owner already agrees with and complies with. so what is the problem exactly? why is this country held hostage by a paranoid schizophrenic fringe on the issue of guns? most gun *owners* agree with what i am saying
yes, the criminal masterminds will still get illegal guns. and use them wisely and surgically: criminal *masterminds*. so again, no ridiculous mayhem. we're talking about the casual hothead that is thwe problem here. he should not get a gun easily, like he currently does in the usa
a responsible gun owner knows the seriousness of a gun and really has no problem insisting everyone get good training
anyway, with less easy guns getting easily in the hands of hot heads cops have less reason to be so jumpy with their own guns. the change won't be immediate, it will take awhile to drain the swamp of easy guns
as if that is somehow an argument not to drain the swamp, because the right thing is hard to do and will take time is never an argument against doing the right thing
Who's to say the science is good? (Score:2)
Given that social science studies are notoriously [nature.com] bad [nature.com], why do we think things would be any better if we used "science" in police training?
We'd probably be better off if we made some structural changes, like limiting qualified immunity and requiring all interactions with the public and accused to be videotaped.
Re: (Score:2)
Because we are a journalist for Wired. Wired is only relevant in the area of technology, mostly when it comes to strictly news, and the opinion of a journalist with an ideological bias picking stories and sources to confirm it in a non-tech domain is only relevant nowhere.
As Designed (Score:2)
This is also why social (mobile) media is so despised by the LEO crowd: it exposes their abuses to world, where in the 'good old days', well who *wouldn't* believe Officer Bob's statements that he 'had n
Re: (Score:2)
murder by cop of minorities
That's racist. Why is it wrong for a copy to kill a minority but okay for them to kill a white male? Why do we have rioting and looting when a minority hoodlum is killed, but when a white hoodlum is killed, it is not even news? This society is racist.
Oink, oink (Score:2)
Do I smell bacon?
mandatory drug testing (Score:3)
I wonder how many cops take steroids, and whether 'roid rage is a factor in shootings. Or any other drugs for that matter. Drug testing for police is woefully lacking. http://www.quora.com/How-often... [quora.com]
"Mistakes Were Made (But Not by Me)" (Score:3)
This book by Carol Tavris and Elliot Aronson has a huge chapter devoted to "mistakes" done on purpose by Police.
Policemen are typically trained that once they have a "probable cause" they push, deceive and trick people into confession, regardless if other facts may completely change the cause into improbable. They act just like in the movies where "greater good" is more important than trampling the truth, except in movies it's usually shown as fully justified, while in real life there is too many mistakes.
"He must be guilty because he was sentenced" and other cognitive issues are aplenty.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
The issue should be that it's something that police WILL to do if they are going to keep their jobs at all. We the citizens are far too submissive in our confrontations with adversarial (is there another kind?) authority. The cops will always abuse it as long as we let them. That's just the nature of things.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Ya, right (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, it goes both ways, but we are supposed to expect better from the cops. Right or wrong their example will be noted and followed. And no cop has any right to compel anything from me, nothing at all, not even ID without just cause, which better be the first words coming out of his mouth. The people who don't see the forest for the trees are those who write off their bad behavior as just an 'isolated incident'. It is not isolated, it permeates all authoritarian systems where there is limited oversight. The so-called 'good cops' who remain silent are no damn good at all. It's a tough job, but nobody forces them to take it. Maybe we should change that, start conscripting people so we can get some good ones who know how to accept authority reluctantly and use it wisely. Right now we are just rewarding bullies.
Re: (Score:2)
I was hanging out on Voat - picking at the low hanging fruit as I am wont to do. Hopefully this will not be a novella but I have to give some background and I think you will find it interesting.
So, I am hanging out on Voat and I have discovered there is a board about protecting and serving and that it is populated by cops. I do not care. I read a thread or two and move alone. It is not my place to hang out. I do not mind cops and they do not want anti-cop people there anyhow and, while I am not a hater of p
Re: (Score:3)
Not every state requires you to present an ID any time an officer asks you to. Providing it when not necessary is absolutely submissive and I'm not being an asshat for pointing that out and not doing it when asked. Police ask you all the time to do things you don't have to that put you in a worse position legally then if you hadn't. I don't blame them for that, but when I say no, I'm not being an asshat either.
Re: (Score:2)
Not every state requires you to present an ID any time an officer asks you to
What state requires that? I don't think any do, unless you are driving.
Re:Ya, right (Score:5, Insightful)
Intimidation is a purposeful and deliberate tactic to gain compliance through fear of violence.
Everything about police is intimidating: the uniform, the car, driving tactics, visible weapons, approach and demeanor.
Here [policeone.com] is an article delving into some of the psychology.
When the police approach you or pull you over there is always that fight or flight instinct that kicks in, even when you've done nothing wrong. Why? Because police are intimidating as hell and they have the power to either kill you or imprison you.
It is also contrary to the nature of the human male to submit: when you get pushed, you push back. This is why you see the backlash or attitudes from ordinary people against cops.
There is no profession without idiots; however in this profession someone is going to pay a heavy price for a mistake.
Re: (Score:3)
There is no profession without idiots; however in this profession someone is going to pay a heavy price for a mistake.
Far too often, it's not the officer who pays that price, it's the victims of their abuse. Things need to change dramatically. Dismissing or excusing the police, like the OP, is only going to make the situation worse.
Re:Ya, right (Score:5, Insightful)
As an ex-law enforcement officer myself, I would like to post two points:
First, on the "Use of Force Continuum", the mere presence of a law enforcement officer(either in uniform, or in "plain", "street" clothes, which includes essentially everything from t-shit and blue jeans, to issued polo shirt(usually with an embroidered badge, agency name, and officer's name) and approved pants(khaki, darker, or black pants or cargo pants), and including business casual(yes, polo shirts fit that definition in some working environments, but such terms are rather ambiguous) to business formal(suit and ties, and similar)) is the first level of said "Continuum". I can say, from my own experience, that many people feel intimidated by simply seeing law enforcement nearby that they have acted rather ridiculously, even when they were committing no acts that gave me authority to engage said people in an "official capacity".
I also witnessed quite a few people that, while attempting to effect a vehicle stop(after witnessing a moving violation upon a public roadway), people would attempt to "flee and elude"(part of the title of the Title 40 law(O.C.G.A 40-6-395) that covers people attempting to run from a legal stop, in the O.C.G.A., or Official Code of Georgia Annotated), "rabbit", or "run" from me, and after I finally got them stopped, or they stopped of their own desire(I am talking about people that were aware that I had been attempting to stop them, not people who didn't notice, but stopped the moment they did notice...situational awareness people!), I discovered they had no previous convictions, many times no previous citations, no warrants, etc. Said stops were for relatively minor issues, that ballooned into potentially major legal trouble(depending on the circumstances).
Secondly, law enforcement, at least in the United States, has no extra power to "kill or imprison" others compared to each individual citizen. One of the very few differences is that law enforcement can arrest on, and execute warrants(arrest and/or search), and, at least in the State of Georgia, and many other states, can act on traffic violations(up to and including arrests, depending), where citizen's witnessing traffic violations doesn't give law enforcement authority to initiate a traffic stop, or effect an arrest, unless a violation occurs in the presence of a certified and sworn(i.e. employed) law enforcement officer. Law enforcement officers are allowed to use deadly force to defend themselves or a third-party from greatly bodily harm and/or death(imminent death isn't necessary for deadly force, which it shouldn't be), or to stop a "forcible felony"(rape, armed robbery, kidnapping, murder, etc), and to also to stop an escaping, or escaped inmate that has been charged, tried, and convicted(though, reasonably, if lesser force will cease an escapee, or attempted escapee, that force should be used); a fleeing felon(not-yet-convicted, mind you) that doesn't pose a real and obvious danger to another people doesn't provide authority to use "deadly force". Nevertheless, law enforcement, regardless of the public view(which is wrong), doesn't actually have a "monopoly on violence". Citizens have the right to use force to defend themselves and others, where a law enforcement officer takes his or her right to use said force, as just another citizen, and applies to in the course of his or her official duties.
Remember, citizens are the only ones that have rights(...and rights aren't given by government, right are inherent; though, some explicit rights are protect, not created, by certain documents, such as the US Constitution, and/or the various state constitutions, and in through other avenues). Governments, the representatives of said governments, and the employees of said governments, only have limited authority to act in certain circumstances(in their official capacity; as fellow citizens, they have the rights that the rest of the citizen of the United States, and the various states, possess). The citizenry(I am talking about the Unit
Re:Ya, right (Score:5, Informative)
I am willing to agree that what you say about LEOs having no extra power should be the law every but it is not. No state has a problem issuing LEOs with very effective tools for inflicting deadly force. Only 32 of those states are willing to allow all non-felons to exercise that same right. Two of them (including DC) are unwilling to allow any non-LEO the ability to lawfully exercise that right. So, no, in practice, there is a huge divide between LEO and non-LEO in regards to the use of deadly force.
3 months vs. 3 years education (Score:5, Interesting)
Except 99% of the time it's not the cop that starts off being confrontational, it's some idiot wailing about their right to speed...
I'm sure you're right about that, but officers are supposed to keep their cool and de-escalate the situation.
Here is something to think about: US police officers typically have 3-4 months training, police officers in Norway and Denmark have ~3 years training.
Sure, crime rates and access to guns have a major effect on police shootings, but training is a major part of what enables officers to remain calm and polite in the midst of a struggle.
Here is a video of off-duty Swedish police officers breaking up a fight on the NY subway: https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
I didn't see anybody breaking up a fight in that video. When the video starts, the fight is already over. All I saw were two handcuffed black men and a couple of off-duty cops waiting until the NYPD got there.
Okay, fair enough it doesn't show the breaking up...
But do notice how they ask the detainee if he is alright, if he is hurt... and so on...
Notice that they don't sit on the guy, they hold him, yes, they apply force, but they do so respect and dignity (as trains professionals).
Here is another normal day in the US: http://www.theguardian.com/us-... [theguardian.com]
Notice how police officers sit on a guy with a prosthetic leg... And how when more arrive they seem to stand around more concern about covering for the video.
Hire cops with the right education (Score:5, Insightful)
I think part of the problem is that police forces hire "criminal justice" majors. These are folks who were attracted to police work BEFORE they went to college. I think they tend to be those to whom authority over others is attractive. They don't necessarily like people but they do like power over people. And they think that a badge will guarantee them respect. The low salary should be a clue that this is not true. But they demand respect from citizens they interact with. Look at the Sandra Bland cop who decided to arrest her because she would not put out her cigarette in her own car. Something she was under no obligation to do. But he did not like her "tone" because she was not respecting him.
So instead, hire cops from among graduates in sociology and anthropology. These are folks who want to understand behavior. And that's the most important training there is for a cop. Training in "law enforcement" and weapons can happen after they are hired. First get the right people in the job.
The best cop is a sociologist who knows the law and how to use a gun. Not a gun slinger who may or may not understand people and the law.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, criminal justice majors should not be parole or probation officers either. :) For the same reasons. My point is that we need police officers better trained in human behavior. And that is not going to happen inside a police station. Get folks who understand and care about people. Then worry about job specific training. That job specific training is better done at the local level anyway because of differences in the law in different jurisdictions. And I think a college education is a good idea fo
Re: (Score:3)
Police work does not attract those that should be doing it, much like politicians. The people you least want to do the job are the majority of those that do it.
Thus all are laws etc should stem from that basic premise coupled with they volunteered to put their life on the line. They need to have the least amount of privileges and the most amount of oversight compared to an average person. In broad strokes they should be required to be go to a grand jury when they kill someone, they should not be able to
Re: (Score:2)
I believe all cops must get a justice degree in my state. I know that they are allowed to work on the force AND carry a firearm while they are getting that degree but only after a certain amount of hours training as a ride-along. They all go off to a fairly long police academy which should, by rights, be good enough and generally is in my state but we really don't have much crime here.
Alaska is pretty tough for State Troopers. They go to two years of school and are as much forest and wildlife rangers as the
Re: (Score:3)
Why assume that government and science aren't orthogonal? Go to free market solutions if you want people competing for the best position based on the available evidence (comparative advantage favors reality). If you want a bunch of idiots with guns insisting on their bigoted way, then you want a one-size-fits-all monopoly, which is what the modern police state looks like.
Heck, the Supreme Court just ruled that K9 alerts are "probable cause" even if they're only as accurate as a coin toss. Because, they s
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
but in practice I think the process would be so corrupt that it would not work well.
The irony is that some neighborhoods in the US have gone to private contractors to escape their own corrupt governments. Their tax dollars vanish into burgeoning public worker retirement systems and the bloated salaries of 220k/year bureaucrats and their streets go unpatrolled, so they hire private cops to cover their neighborhoods. This is happening across the US, typically in `enclave' neighborhoods; areas that aren't desperately poor, but are governed by failed municipalities and counties that have al
Re:Ya, right (Score:4, Insightful)
It isn't about the Cops reading the papers, it is about the training staff to be reading the papers, and taking measurements.
The issue I feel, most of the training is more about the physical use of force, on how to make you more powerful than the badguy. However less training on figuring out who is the bad guy and the good guy in a bad situation.
Many incidents happen because the cops threaten someone, they get in Fight or Flight mode... So chances are they will fight (and get hurt/killed by the police) or Run (and get hurt/killed by the police).
Police work isn't safe, however if someone feels like there is an army against them, they may not react rationally.
Re:Ya, right (Score:5, Interesting)
You would also need good cops running the training program, and you are more likely to get the opposite. The men and women I have known in law enforcement who are good people either get out of the field within a handful of years, or change post to constable / sheriff work because they get ostracized in municipal police forces for calling out bad cops.
Re: (Score:2)
Most cops have a highschool education
All federal law enforcement agencies, and most state police departments, require at least an associates degree. Many local police departments also require at least an associates degree, and even those departments that don't require it, will give preference to those that have it.
Re: (Score:2)
Add in the enormous number of 'legacy' police, that federal law enforcement is a tiny percentage of the total, and generally considered a higher status posting.
I can easily see it being that *most* police officers entering the force today have at least an associate's, but *most* police officers IN the force only have a high school diploma, perhaps with a non-degree police academy certificate.
That being said, you can have the same problem with police officers as you can with social workers. As odd as it may
Re:Ya, right (Score:5, Insightful)
That's an assumption that'll get you killed.
Lots of cops playing army without as much danger of being actually shot at. Lots of forces operating as for-profit gangs that do whatever they want. They'll shout "stop resisting" as they de-escalate the situation with violence.
I'm not saying that there aren't any, or not even that most cops aren't good. But it doesn't take very many to poison a whole department, only a few in the higher ranks to run out the good cops.
Re:Ya, right (Score:5, Interesting)
They'll shout "stop resisting" as they de-escalate the situation with violence.
Indeed. They've been caught, on video, tasering a non-responsive person in a diabetic coma for 'resisting', yelling all the while. Note, it's not just about 'resistance' today, it's about 'compliance'. IE you not only have to avoid resisting an officer, you have to be following their orders, sometimes beyond the best of your ability.
Another officer, female in this case, tasered a person into being a corpse, then shocked the corpse over a hundred times by the estimate of the coroner. When her training was examined, it was discovered that she had ZERO deescalation techniques, and no techniques OTHER than the taser to seek 'compliance'.
She was on video - "Put your hands behind your back" - Pause - SHOCK - "Put your hands behind your back".
Keep in mind that after about the third shock he wasn't resisting, he was non-responsive. He wasn't capable of complying.
Re: (Score:3)
your*
Oh, the irony. ;-)
Cops often are the ones escalating the situation (Score:2)
Huh? I think it's pretty safe to assume EVERY police officer, average or not, is ALWAYS interested in de-escalating a dangerous situation.
You're not a minority are you? There are PLENTY of police who are the ones doing the escalating. One merely has to examine the data on excessive use of force by police and you will quickly understand that cops are NOT always interested in de-escalation.
It's a union thing (Score:5, Insightful)
>> training costs more than the taxpayers are willing to be taxed
I doubt it. In fact, many local universities and other institutions are happy to donate this training. Furthermore, grants from our current federal justice department exist for exactly this kind of thing (under "community policing" etc.)
However, many of the tactics used to "deescalate" situations or reduce the amount of force police use also put police officers at higher risk for harm. (e.g., pausing to wait for the suspect to do something may allow them to draw or use a weapon, wrestling with a suspect instead of using a taser gives the suspect a chance to bite, stab, punch at close contact, etc.) These measures aren't popular with unions concerned first and foremost with their members' health and well-being.
e.g., http://www.policeforum.org/ass... [policeforum.org]
Re:It's a union thing (Score:5, Insightful)
>> training costs more than the taxpayers are willing to be taxed
I doubt it. In fact, many local universities and other institutions are happy to donate this training. Furthermore, grants from our current federal justice department exist for exactly this kind of thing (under "community policing" etc.)
However, many of the tactics used to "deescalate" situations or reduce the amount of force police use also put police officers at higher risk for harm. (e.g., pausing to wait for the suspect to do something may allow them to draw or use a weapon, wrestling with a suspect instead of using a taser gives the suspect a chance to bite, stab, punch at close contact, etc.) These measures aren't popular with unions concerned first and foremost with their members' health and well-being.
e.g., http://www.policeforum.org/ass... [policeforum.org]
I always get concerned whenever a police captains/spokemen/union reps says something to the effect of "our first priority is going home safely at night". Police's first priority should always making sure members of the public go home safely at the end of the day. There is a problem when soldiers on patrol in an active combat zone have more restrictive rules of engagement than police officers cruising down a city street. Stop being law enforcement officers. GO back to being peace officers.
Re:It's a union thing (Score:4, Insightful)
I always get concerned whenever a police captains/spokemen/union reps says something to the effect of "our first priority is going home safely at night". Police's first priority should always making sure members of the public go home safely at the end of the day.
I don't think this is realistic. You really can't blame people for wanting to protect their own lives. People who choose to sacrifice themselves for others are lauded because what they've done is extraordinary, heroic, above and beyond what can reasonably be expected. You're saying that we should expect extraordinary heroism. That's not just unreasonable and unrealistic, it's unsustainable. Heroes die. If you demand that police de-prioritize their own safety, they won't last long because their job does regularly place them in dangerous situations. I'm not making that fatuous old claim that being a police officer is an extraordinarily dangerous job -- but the only reason it isn't extraordinarily dangerous is because officers are allowed to put their own safety first.
Stop being law enforcement officers. GO back to being peace officers.
This I agree with, though in some cases that means not enforcing some of the laws -- which means the laws are wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
People who choose to sacrifice themselves for others are lauded because what they've done is extraordinary, heroic, above and beyond what can reasonably be expected.
See: the military.
If you're not prepared to die in the course of your job, don't join the force. Other people will.
Re: (Score:2)
"No bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country."
Attributed to General George Patton Jr
Re:It's a union thing (Score:5, Insightful)
I always get concerned whenever a police captains/spokemen/union reps says something to the effect of "our first priority is going home safely at night". Police's first priority should always making sure members of the public go home safely at the end of the day.
I don't think this is realistic. You really can't blame people for wanting to protect their own lives. People who choose to sacrifice themselves for others are lauded because what they've done is extraordinary, heroic, above and beyond what can reasonably be expected. You're saying that we should expect extraordinary heroism. That's not just unreasonable and unrealistic, it's unsustainable. Heroes die. If you demand that police de-prioritize their own safety, they won't last long because their job does regularly place them in dangerous situations. I'm not making that fatuous old claim that being a police officer is an extraordinarily dangerous job -- but the only reason it isn't extraordinarily dangerous is because officers are allowed to put their own safety first.
“Citizenship is an attitude, a state of mind, an emotional conviction that the whole is greater than the part...and that the part should be humbly proud to sacrifice itself that the whole may live.”
If you value your life to the point where your safety comes above those you are trying to protect, then you have not fully committed yourself to your duty. You are correct, we shouldn't expect extraordinary heroism from everyone. We should expect ordinary heroism. The fireman that runs into a burning building to save a child, the police officer who covers a civilian with his body when facing a shooter, the soldier who braves gunfire to drag a wounded comrade to safety: these are all things that get people lauded as heroes, but they are things that anyone who has chosen to put themselves in that position should do. That is why being a soldier, or a cop, or a firefighter has always commanded respect: because they have chosen to do things that many people cannot do or aren't expected to do. It doesn't lessen the heroism of their sacrifice, they are heroes everyday because they have chosen to risk everything to protect those that cannot protect themselves. Every day a police officer puts on a badge, he should be asking himself if he is willing to die to make sure that an innocent person does not die. If the answer is "no", he should not be wearing that badge. And there is nothing wrong with admitting you are unwilling to do that, it takes a certain kind of person.
Going back to old terminology: it's civil service and that's exactly what it should be. Service. It denotes a measure of sacrifice and devotion to a greater cause than oneself. If you are just a cop because you were a bully in high school (or got bullied in high school and want revenge), or just in it for a paycheck, you are in it for the wrong reasons. If you are in it to protect others and make your community safer, then you should be willing to risk bodily harm or death in the pursuit of that goal. It doesn't mean you go blindly to your death, smiling all the while. But it does mean that, if death does come knocking, you can meet it knowing that your death, and more importantly your life, had meaning because it means that someone else who would have been going to the morgue now gets to go home. And anyone who is willing to do that is already a hero.
Protect and serve (Score:3)
I don't think this is realistic. You really can't blame people for wanting to protect their own lives.
Sure I can. They signed up voluntarily for the duty. "Protect and serve". That means it is their job to get in harms way when necessary to protect the community and enforce the laws. I'm not saying they have to be stupid about it but their job should be to protect others first.
People who choose to sacrifice themselves for others are lauded because what they've done is extraordinary, heroic, above and beyond what can reasonably be expected. You're saying that we should expect extraordinary heroism.
No. What we should expect police to not behave like they are in a war zone. What we should expect is for them to actually try to save the lives of others. We expect them to behave like they belong in civilized society and not b
Re: (Score:2)
I always get concerned whenever a police captains/spokemen/union reps says something to the effect of "our first priority is going home safely at night". Police's first priority should always making sure members of the public go home safely at the end of the day.
I don't think this is realistic. You really can't blame people for wanting to protect their own lives. People who choose to sacrifice themselves for others are lauded because what they've done is extraordinary, heroic, above and beyond what can reasonably be expected. You're saying that we should expect extraordinary heroism. That's not just unreasonable and unrealistic, it's unsustainable. Heroes die.
What if you had a fireman who said, "I'm not going into that building. I could get killed."
Or if you had a soldier who said, "I'm not going to fight at the front. I could get killed."
Cops voluntarily join the force. They know that there are going to be risks. We pay them a lot of money to take those risks. That's the job. They can't just shoot anybody who might be a danger (or might be an innocent person making a call on his cell phone). If you're not willing to take that risk, don't take the job. The unemp
Re: (Score:2)
I always get concerned whenever a police captains/spokemen/union reps says something to the effect of "our first priority is going home safely at night". Police's first priority should always making sure members of the public go home safely at the end of the day. There is a problem when soldiers on patrol in an active combat zone have more restrictive rules of engagement than police officers cruising down a city street. Stop being law enforcement officers. GO back to being peace officers.
Many years ago, I took an advanced first aid course. Eight hours training. Q. You are driving along a road. You see a car wrapped around a tree and a person outside of that car heavily bleeding. What is the first thing you do? A. The first thing you do is to take the warning triangle out of the boot of your car, open it up, and put it up 100 meters away from the accident, clearly visible, to avoid some idiot killing you while you give first aid. The bleeding victim doesn't come first. The safety of the help
Re: (Score:2)
Many years ago, I took an advanced first aid course. Eight hours training. Q. You are driving along a road. You see a car wrapped around a tree and a person outside of that car heavily bleeding. What is the first thing you do? A. The first thing you do is to take the warning triangle out of the boot of your car, open it up, and put it up 100 meters away from the accident, clearly visible, to avoid some idiot killing you while you give first aid. The bleeding victim doesn't come first. The safety of the helper comes first. Safety of police officers must come first, or you run out of police officers rather quickly.
There is a difference between necessary caution and an overabundance. To take your example: it is perfectly reasonable to take the time to set out a reflective triangle: this provides a certain amount of safety to both you and the victim in a reasonable amount of time. But these days, it seems cops are doing the equivalent of waiting until spotlights arrive to light up the road for half a mile: sure, people will be able to see you so you won't get hit, but meanwhile the accident victim bled out an hour ag
Re: (Score:2)
Many years ago, I took an advanced first aid course. Eight hours training. Q. You are driving along a road. You see a car wrapped around a tree and a person outside of that car heavily bleeding. What is the first thing you do? A. The first thing you do is to take the warning triangle out of the boot of your car, open it up, and put it up 100 meters away from the accident, clearly visible, to avoid some idiot killing you while you give first aid. The bleeding victim doesn't come first. The safety of the helper comes first.
In that case, you set up the warning triangle to protect not only yourself but the bleeding person. That's not the kind of situation we're talking about -- where a cop kills an unarmed person because, the cop claims later, he thought his life was in danger, and when you look at the facts, it's bullshit.
(There were a couple of recent cases in which a black driver was in an auto accident, went looking for help, and was shot and killed by the cops.)
Besides, you're describing the situation of a volunteer, not a professional. I read a case of a doctor who was treating an infant who suddenly stopped breathing. She gave the infant mouth-to-mouth respiration, but the infant died. It turned out that the infant had hepatitis C, the doctor got infected with hepatitis C too, and also died. There were many situations like that during the AIDS crisis, and in Canada and China during the SARS epidemic. It happened again during the Ebola epidemic. The Lancet had a whole section of African doctors and nurses who died while staying at their post and caring for their patients. If you want to go to medical school, those are the risks you accept.
I don't know a good reason why cops can't accept the same risks.
Re: (Score:2)
I always get concerned whenever a police captains/spokemen/union reps says something to the effect of "our first priority is going home safely at night". Police's first priority should always making sure members of the public go home safely at the end of the day.
Except police have no legal duty to protect the general public. [wikipedia.org] The only time they must provide protection is if a person is in their custody, or they create the dangerous situation.
Re: (Score:2)
I always get concerned whenever a police captains/spokemen/union reps says something to the effect of "our first priority is going home safely at night". Police's first priority should always making sure members of the public go home safely at the end of the day.
Except police have no legal duty to protect the general public. [wikipedia.org] The only time they must provide protection is if a person is in their custody, or they create the dangerous situation.
That's a different situation. We're talking about the criminal law that says that a cop can't kill someone unless he has a reasonable fear that the cop's life is at risk.
The problem is that cops can give some bullshit excuse about how their life was in danger, and the (white) juries pretend to believe it. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08... [nytimes.com] Training Officers to Shoot First, and He Will Answer Questions Later. When police officers shoot people under questionable circumstances, William J. Lewinski often appears
Re: (Score:2)
I always get concerned whenever a police captains/spokemen/union reps says something to the effect of "our first priority is going home safely at night". Police's first priority should always making sure members of the public go home safely at the end of the day. There is a problem when soldiers on patrol in an active combat zone have more restrictive rules of engagement than police officers cruising down a city street. Stop being law enforcement officers. GO back to being peace officers.
This is The Lifesaver's Dilemma.
How many people can a dead cop protect?
ZERO.
A police officer's FIRST duty is to keep themselves alive so they can uphold the law and protect as many people as feasible.
Police HAVE to accept some risk (Score:2)
How many people can a dead cop protect?
I don't think anyone's asking them to jump in front of a bullet. Though they are generally wearing body armor so they are better equipped than you or me. But their right to personal safety is not without bounds and they cannot do their job without accepting some risk. They signed up for the job and they knew it was risky. They don't have to be stupid about it but if someone is in danger I absolutely expect them to make reasonable efforts to help even if that involves some amount of risk to themselves.
Re: (Score:2)
How many people can a dead cop protect?
I don't think anyone's asking them to jump in front of a bullet.
That's just the thing though, that's EXACTLY what's being asked here.
Hell, your quip about them being in body armor shows that there's that expectation there.
You ever been SHOT? Hurts like a motherfucker!
You ever been shot in body armor? It hurts LESS, but isn't like you simply iron-man through getting shot. It still hurts like fuck and you can still be injured by it.
Can they manage risk? SURE!
But when bad shit goes down, their FIRST priority is to keep THEMSELVES alive.
If they think they can save other
Re: (Score:2)
Stop being law enforcement officers. GO back to being peace officers.
I think the major change for this would be ending the war on drugs. Seriously, it's the number one reason for officers to be sticking their noses into people's business, because it's the biggest category of 'consensual crime', where all parties involved are consenting, and thus unlikely to report that a crime is in progress to the police. Thus, in order to enforce said laws, they have to intrude on people's lives, into our privacy.
After that you have prostitution and gambling.
Get rid of consensual crime(a
Re: (Score:2)
I always get concerned whenever a police captains/spokemen/union reps says something to the effect of "our first priority is going home safely at night".
No, you should be concerned about how few police would ever be hired to do that dangerous work if the city/county/state's official policy was their safety wasn't a priority. You won't have cops willing to "make sure members of the public go home safely" if they are told to back off on their own self defense even more than they are now. A cop got nearly beaten to death just the other day because, in the interests of not appearing willing and able to defend himself as he dealt with a dangerous situation, he
Re: (Score:2)
No, you should be concerned about how few police would ever be hired to do that dangerous work if the city/county/state's official policy was their safety wasn't a priority.
I never said it shouldn't be a priority, I said it shouldn't be their first priority. And we have plenty of people willing to be soldiers who have done precisely this, for worse pay, worse working conditions, and worse living conditions than police have. People are concerned both about the quality(too poor) and quantity(too many) of police these days, and a move back to this mentality would fix that. There are plenty of people out there who believe it is the right thing to do, or want to give back to the
Re: (Score:2)
Stop being law enforcement officers. GO back to being peace officers.
I would agree if it weren't for the many scifi stories in which the term "peace officer" is pretty much synonymous with "CIA smarts and KGB thuggery combined."
Re: (Score:2)
However, many of the tactics used to "deescalate" situations or reduce the amount of force police use also put police officers at higher risk for harm. (e.g., pausing to wait for the suspect to do something may allow them to draw or use a weapon, wrestling with a suspect instead of using a taser gives the suspect a chance to bite, stab, punch at close contact, etc.) These measures aren't popular with unions concerned first and foremost with their members' health and well-being.
e.g., http://www.policeforum.org/ass... [policeforum.org]
Some techniques for sure but I'm not sure that's generally true. A proper de-escalation technique is going to reduce the risk of a suspect turning hostile and thus protect the officer. Rather I think it's just a mixture of organizational inertia and pride, they don't want to change because that's how things have always been done, and even if they would change they won't do it on the advice of a University researcher who's never done a patrol.
Re: (Score:2)
We do need unions to give employees a voice and some degree of influence. If deescalation creates more injuries and deaths, obviously the "cop unions" should be concerned. Perhaps they need more hazard pay if they take on more risk. It's a dangerous job, and making it yet more dangerous seems to trigger the fair question of compensation for risk.
How much training? (Score:2)
>> training costs more than the taxpayers are willing to be taxed
I doubt it. In fact, many local universities and other institutions are happy to donate this training.
Donated training probably won't work at that scale... Police officers in Norway and Denmark (just to mention two places) have ~ 3 years training.
How much does US police officers have? (I read that it's typically 3-4 months various places online).
To get proper police training you probably need a police academy dedicated to the job, not a bunch of ad-hoc training sessions donated...
Also de-escalation is often just about remaining calm, acting in a calm and orderly fashion while a crazy suspects yell at y
Re:It's a union thing (Score:4, Insightful)
If you are not willing to run a certain risk in order to protect those you are sworn to protect (and yes, that includes violent citizens), then you are unfit to work as a police officer and should seek other employment. There are quite a few jobs that require certain character traits of those doing them, this is one.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah. But most of their threatening crazies aren't packing heat either.
Re: (Score:2)
they're more willing to pay huge lawsuits?
A telling factor... (Score:2)
they're more willing to pay huge lawsuits?
You know, this reminds me that there are police departments with, at any given time, a dozen or so improper use of force lawsuits against them, tens of millions in payouts a year, the department essentially treating said lawsuits like a cost of doing business(costs the city money, not them, not even their budget). Then there are neighboring cities/precincts that actually do their job correctly, DON'T kill a half a dozen or so people improperly every year, where ONE such lawsuit would be unusual.
We don't so
Re: (Score:2)
well said
training (including weeding out people who try to become cops for the wrong reasons) and effective management are 1/10th-1/1,000th the price of the status quo and the lawsuits
Re: (Score:2)
See Sheriff Arpaio.
See also, the Atlanta Police Department. "De-escalation" is obviously not in their vocabulary, and they frequently pull shit while in plain clothes and not identifying themselves as police officers.
Re: (Score:2)
I was about to moderate this discussion, but saw your post and decided to reply instead. Could you cite some examples of this? I live in Atlanta and have some activist acquaintances who would be interested in such things.
Re: (Score:2)
I was about to moderate this discussion, but saw your post and decided to reply instead. Could you cite some examples of this? I live in Atlanta and have some activist acquaintances who would be interested in such things.
Just stuff I remember from years ago. I (thankfully!) haven't lived in Atlanta in a couple of decades, but I would be surprised if it changed. There was an off-duty cop on a bike who pointed a gun at a friend and shouted "FREEZE!" even though it's not certain what he was doing that was illegal. Then, there was the time I went through a red light that hadn't changed in about 10 minutes at 5 am (I assume it was broken). A police officer in his own car chased me down while flashing his high-beams at me. I
Unmarked police cars (Score:2)
But, this was after the officer said I "must have enemies" and that was why I was scared of some random car flashing lights at me, and that even in other states, I should have known that car had a police officer in it.
Just as a note, I've lived in 7 states. In NONE of them would I assume that a somebody flashing their high beams at me while following like police officers like to do is a cop or has good intentions.
Re: (Score:2)
So knowing how you compare to the rest of the country is bad? Why not learn from other State's experiences and data? Is being independent so important that you accept being independently stupid? I'd call that War on Civilization. Cavemen were quite free; no regulations; but died young.
Re: (Score:2)
Everything is a "War on" something now, right?
Sometimes it seems like the problem people have with No Child Left Behind is that a Republican suggested it.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know anyone that says that.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Not as many people are executed as most people think, though (35 last year.)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know anyone that says that.
You do now, at least one AC has said it. I've seen it on a number of other threads.
Of course, I'm not saying they're correct, but a lot of people also mix up self defense and punishment.
Still, when we've had unarmed people killed by officers for things like:
Mentally ill, deaf(shot in back for not stopping walking away), wearing headphones(couldn't hear officer), diabetic shock*/coma, following police directives(show me your wallet!), putting their hands down, threatening to kill themselves with a knife**,
Re: (Score:2)
You can add "being in your house" to that list because of botched "no knock" warrants.
And standing on the sidewalk. And of course just being upset.
The glib conservative meme that says "don't break the law" doesn't quite cut it.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't forget "Don't happen to live on the route of a crooked UPS/USPS/Fedex driver" - fortunately only the dogs were killed in this one. But the raided Maryland Mayor [cnn.com] is still rather pissed.
Storyline - package full of drugs found addressed to Mayor's house. They 'allowed it to be delivered*'. Mayor, seeing package addressed to wife on stoop, brings it inside and sticks it on the kitchen table for her. SWAT subsequently busts in and kills their dogs.
Turns out that it was the package delivery service driv
Re: (Score:2)
It's no secret the police are a bunch of idiots that are barely able to write a sentence by themselves.
I think that's overly harsh. Sure, they're not rocket scientists, but honestly that's not what the job requires. Mostly they're a group of blue & white collar guys with good intentions that get put in some pretty terrible situations. Yes, there are a couple of groups within the force that cause issues to be worse (corrupt cops, racists, power mongers, etc.) but that's going to be true of any large organization. The police became over-militarized in response to the chaos of the 1990s and now the need
Re: (Score:2)
A certain psychological profile are drawn to law enforcement. I don't think that needs to be enumerated as its common sense. Unfortunately this is the exact group that should be weeded out during the hiring process.
Of course in the US we're seeing that the person that should have been weeded out are making it up to the top of departments, and are managing to bring in a lot of people just like them. Digital cameras aren't showing a rise in police brutality, they are simply making it clear what has been th
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Most police departments won't hire people with IQ's above the range of their "safe zone". They don't want intelligent, think about what you're being asked to do types in the department. It is legal for them to do this because they argue the high turnover rate of intelligent policeman makes training too expensive to waste. All in all I wouldn't expect high levels of scrutiny or complex thought to be put off by this measure. that's already in on the institutional level.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. If you've taken food because you're hungry you should not go to jail.
I would tend to agree with this, but we would have to think of how to financially support the businesses as they would be the ones having to pay for the service of feeding the hungry. However, the vast, vast majority of people who steal things are not doing it because they are hungry. They are doing it because they want stuff, or they need stuff to pawn so they can get drugs.
Re: (Score:2)
Cops aren't going to be psychic, obviously, but what we see in the U.S. right now goes beyond basic mistakes into the areas of arrogance and bad training.
Take the case of Eric Garner. I am still confused how anyone could take his actions as "resisting arrest" enough to warrant any type of force, let alone potentially deadly force. The talking heads on TV saw that as "resisting" when I, a reasonable person (I think), saw it as totally unjustified. That seems to be a training deficiency.
What about the rece
Re: (Score:2)
flagrant disregard for life with current operational procedure
This statement and others like it on the internet and news media are irresponsible and meant to incite further violence and hatred towards the epeople who protect us from harm on a daily basis. .002%.
Each year, in the United States, there are over 50 million citations, arrests and other interactions with law enforcement, and fewer than 1,000 of those involve the death of a suspect. This is less than
Meanwhile, over 14,000 people are murdered every year by criminals, and over 1.4 million violent crimes ar
Re: (Score:2)
This is such a non-issue. Basic de-escalation techniques are well known and easy to teach, and more importantly, easy to use. It doesn't take rocket-science to know that profiling, loud order barking and throwing people down and asking questions later ISN'T the way to go. The real problem seems to be that the hiring process is letting people with personalities who shouldn't be cops become cops. This isn't a profession that should except muscles over brains people who's ego will be built upon the power of the position. We don't need muscle-bourd Eric Cartman-types yelling RESPECT MY AUTHORITY.
De-escalation techniques don't work in the face of media frenzies which encourage people to actively disrespect authority figures, to riot and rampage, and to see everything as a race issue.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Personally, I've never interacted with a cop who wasn't a lazy, cowardly, meat-headed bully scumbag with little concern for the law and open contempt for his fellow citizens. Villains and thugs every last one.
Have you really had such radically different experiences? I'm a big nerd, totally non-violent. The kind of person who when I was younger and stupider thought the pigs were obviously on my side. Then I lived in nasty filthy violent American big cities for a while, and saw what contemptible gangsters
Re: (Score:2)
Funny how all of the police officers that all of the Anonymous Cowards know are all mean bullies that won't listen to nobody nohow. Sounds like the Anonymous Cowards needs to get some better friends. All of the Police Officers I know or have interacted with have been courteous, kindly and understanding.
Where I live now, I would agree with you. Atlanta cops on the other hand (as well as a few other cities) are the scum of the earth.
Re: (Score:2)
A simple example is how officers currently wear their guns canted forwards. Have you ever asked why? It makes drawing the gun much, *much* slower requiring difficult mechanics in the shoulder. The answer is simple--they want to be able to also draw their gun while seated in their car. So, for the off chance that they may need to draw from seated in their car, say a 0.5% chance of need, they severely weaken their 99.5% need to draw quickly in any other scenario. To handle the seated case, they could just use a cross draw or have a weapon mounted for easy reach on their dash or console.
Clearly we don't have the best minds at work here.
Pretty sure they are canted forward to make it difficult to sneak up behind a cop and draw their weapon.
Re: (Score:2)
the constant barrage of Cop shows that depict "loose cannon above the law shoot through the red tape good guy cop not afraid to violate some civil liberties and pass death sentences to save us all"
Hey, we have learned some very important lessons from these shows. Such as always let a guy who's about to retire take a month of vacation beforehand, because if they are on duty they will always day right before retirement.
Re: (Score:2)
Literally, fuck science. Cops need to trust their instincts, not some beaker pusher or head shrink.
Another quality member of the Atlanta Police. Seriously. At least this one can write in complete sentences.