An interesting take on police shootings

[Thomas II]

Training vs no training

 

[Crazy Eddie]

http://www.activeresponsetraining.net/a-crazy-woman-with-a-baseball-bat

We want police that aren't intimidating--which means police that are more likely to have to resort to the gun when things go wrong.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

http://www.activeresponsetraining.net/a-crazy-woman-with-a-baseball-bat

We want police that aren't intimidating--which means police that are more likely to have to resort to the gun when things go wrong.

It's not playing but it doesn't really matter--it says it's a message for bad cops. That doesn't address the fundamental issue that I was pointing out.

 

[Valjean]

Serpico redux?
http://www.democracynow.org/2016/10/21/chicago_cops_who_broke_code_of

 

[scombrid]

Cop in the opening post argued that if all the cops were big strong tough guys like him that there'd be less shootings.

That may be, but there'd still be bad cops. I used to lift weights with a couple of cops that were in the >200lb gym strong and trained to fight camp and I came to find that they were douchebags that were always spoiling for a fight. Rather than use their size and fighting skill to subdue violent suspects with minimal damage they would look for and excuse to lay a beat down on people. Maybe they would've avoided killing the crazy lady in the opening post but they would beat an unruly drunk half to death just for the fun of it.

If that officer is anything like the average, he can’t physically fight his way out of a wet paper bag. He probably isn’t a brawny weight lifting stud because those folks are “too intimidating” to be hired.

I think that is bullshit, at least around here. Officer buzz-cut is the preferred type.

That means hiring officers who are physically capable of winning a street fight and then training them up to a high level of proficiency in both empty hand combatives and weapons usage.

Just training police to be fighters is insufficient. Just gives them another tool to exact street justice unless they are properly trained in other matters.

 

[Will Wiley]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peelian_principles

To prevent crime and disorder, as an alternative to their repression by military force and severity of legal punishment.
To recognise always that the power of the police to fulfil their functions and duties is dependent on public approval of their existence, actions and behaviour, and on their ability to secure and maintain public respect.
To recognise always that to secure and maintain the respect and approval of the public means also the securing of the willing co-operation of the public in the task of securing observance of laws.
To recognise always that the extent to which the co-operation of the public can be secured diminishes proportionately the necessity of the use of physical force and compulsion for achieving police objectives.
To seek and preserve public favour, not by pandering to public opinion, but by constantly demonstrating absolutely impartial service to law, in complete independence of policy, and without regard to the justice or injustice of the substance of individual laws, by ready offering of individual service and friendship to all members of the public without regard to their wealth or social standing, by ready exercise of courtesy and friendly good humour, and by ready offering of individual sacrifice in protecting and preserving life.
To use physical force only when the exercise of persuasion, advice and warning is found to be insufficient to obtain public co-operation to an extent necessary to secure observance of law or to restore order, and to use only the minimum degree of physical force which is necessary on any particular occasion for achieving a police objective.
To maintain at all times a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and that the public are the police, the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence.
To recognise always the need for strict adherence to police-executive functions, and to refrain from even seeming to usurp the powers of the judiciary, of avenging individuals or the State, and of authoritatively judging guilt and punishing the guilty.
To recognise always that the test of police efficiency is the absence of crime and disorder, and not the visible evidence of police action in dealing with them.

Where did it all go wrong?

 

[Crazy Eddie]

It's not playing but it doesn't really matter--it says it's a message for bad cops. That doesn't address the fundamental issue that I was pointing out.

It does, directly.

Good cops don't rely on threats, intimidation and violence. Good cops begin by showing respect and courtesy and communicating with you, telling you what the problem is, and what you need to do to solve the problem.

A man who relies on intimidation IS a man who will go to the gun faster. Because he is already confrontational and looking to put others beneath him, into positions of subservience or inferiority. That is a personality trait of a deeply insecure person who does not think he can really handle himself if the people he's trying to intimidate fail to be impressed.

 

[Malintent]

http://www.activeresponsetraining.net/a-crazy-woman-with-a-baseball-bat

We want police that aren't intimidating--which means police that are more likely to have to resort to the gun when things go wrong.

That's actually a good point. What we seem to want are combination university psych professors/martial arts/Marksmanship Champions. Obviously not a realistic expectation. So we get some martial arts and firearms instructors who don't know how to defuse a situation - and people get shot. And we get some half-trained psychologists with minimal hand-to-hand and firearms skills who have to resort to their guns when things get heated - and people get shot. Until being a cop becomes a highly sought after, highly competitive $200k job, that's what we're going to live - or die - with.

"when things get heated"

Can you give an example of a "heated" situation that should or should not have ended in a police shooting?

I am hearing a lot of when people "step out of line" or in "heated" situations, police shouldn't shoot....etc...

I'm wondering who is doing that characterization of these incidents.

When a person on meth hurls themselves at a police officer screeming, "I AM GOING TO KILL YOU ALL!!!!!".. would that be a "heated" situation where this guy has "steppe dout of line"? Or, would maybe you characteraize that a bit more precisely... like, "quick, shoot that piece of shit"... hmmm?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

It's not playing but it doesn't really matter--it says it's a message for bad cops. That doesn't address the fundamental issue that I was pointing out.

It does, directly.

Good cops don't rely on threats, intimidation and violence. Good cops begin by showing respect and courtesy and communicating with you, telling you what the problem is, and what you need to do to solve the problem.

A man who relies on intimidation IS a man who will go to the gun faster. Because he is already confrontational and looking to put others beneath him, into positions of subservience or inferiority. That is a personality trait of a deeply insecure person who does not think he can really handle himself if the people he's trying to intimidate fail to be impressed.

This is assuming the person can be reasoned with.

Sometimes they're too far out of it on drugs.

Sometimes they're simply crazy.

And you missed the point anyway--it didn't talk about relying on intimidation. Rather, it talked about the fact that the cop who can handle the attack without the gun is going to look intimidating.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

It does, directly.

Good cops don't rely on threats, intimidation and violence. Good cops begin by showing respect and courtesy and communicating with you, telling you what the problem is, and what you need to do to solve the problem.

A man who relies on intimidation IS a man who will go to the gun faster. Because he is already confrontational and looking to put others beneath him, into positions of subservience or inferiority. That is a personality trait of a deeply insecure person who does not think he can really handle himself if the people he's trying to intimidate fail to be impressed.

This is assuming the person can be reasoned with.

Which should ALWAYS be the first assumption of a police officer when engaging with the public. If the person in question cannot be reasoned with, it will soon become apparent if, having approached the person in a calm and respectful way, the person begins to behave in a very irrational or hostile way and will not listen to reason.

Sometimes they're too far out of it on drugs...

Which will soon become apparent if, having approached the person in a calm and respectful way, the person begins to behave in a very irrational or unpredictable way consistent with being mentally impaired either through drugs or alcohol.

Sometimes they're simply crazy.

Which will soon become apparent if, having approached the person in a calm and respectful way, the person begins to behave in a very irrational or unpredictable way consistent with some recognizable mental illness.

Pop quiz time.

Complete the following sentence. Good police officers will always try to approach unknown persons with:
A) Guns drawn and/or the readiness to neutralize a potential threat
B) Clear and direct commands spoken in a loud, authoritative tone of voice
C) Calm and respectful tone of voice and body language with clear, courteous explanations of their purpose
D) A reasonable suspicion that the person they are approaching may be a criminal and/or potential cop killer

Choose one and explain your answer.

And you missed the point anyway--it didn't talk about relying on intimidation.

You did.

Rather, it talked about the fact that the cop who can handle the attack without the gun is going to look intimidating.

Which is basically irrelevant outside of the juvenile fantasy so popular among Americans in general and politicians in particular that scare the other guy so badly that he surrenders without fighting "is even a thing." Intimidation works as a way to WIN fights, not prevent fights; you could look like the baddest motherfucker in America in or out if uniform, but if you back somebody into a corner, their options are reduced to "fight, flight or freeze." With current police procedures, a person who does ANY of those three is likely to be killed.

The solution, then, is to avoid backing people into a corner where they feel forced to act without knowing how. Police can afford -- indeed have a DUTY -- to be rational even when the general public isn't.