07-22-2016, 10:43 PM
(07-22-2016, 11:12 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: We had one of our campus officers who spent roughly 25 years as a city cop here talking to our office the other day and he mentioned this being the most important thing, and every cop I've ever met that was worth their salt said the same. Dialogue is the first, and the most valuable weapon in a LEO's arsenal. Most of the time, the longer an officer talks to someone in a potentially violent situation the less likely that situation will result in violence. Obviously there are outliers in this data set, but it is true for the vast majority of cases, and this is the type of stuff that is ignored.
Absolutely.
Quote:But like you said, there are people that are good at the job, and there are those that are not. The important thing to remember with officers, and this is not directed at you, just in a general statement, is that an escalated situation results in the same mental reaction that anyone has: fight, flight, or freeze. Through training you can try to get people to overcome that, but not everyone will, and you'll never know if it has truly worked until they get put into a situation where they are really tested. It may result in an unfortunate outcome, but there is really nothing you can do to guarantee it won't happen. Should bad shoots like that result in investigations and potential disciplinary actions or even charges? Absolutely, you screw up there are consequences. But you just can't guarantee a cop will be perfect in that situation no matter what you do.
It's certainly a job in which every day could end up with you having to make a decision that could end your career. Bad shoots should absolutely result in an investigation, they just shouldn't take place in a vacuum or in the armchair QB mode. You really have to put yourself in the position of the officer involved knowing what they knew at that time. I'm also a huge opponent of negative outcome bias.
(07-22-2016, 01:47 PM)RICHMONDBENGAL_07 Wrote: Thanks for the thoughtful reply. There is nothing in your post that I really disagree with. However the only thing that I would add or suggest to fixing the problem is maybe reviewing the selection process. How do we get rid of the ass hats? Also why is there a discrepancy in training regarding east vs west?
Sincerely, the selection process is extensive, there are many ways to wash out. Getting rid of someone after their probationary period is difficult by design. Peace officer positions are protected for political reasons, preventing a spurned politician from coming in and cleaning house. Please trust that guys who endanger others are reported, it's just not a quick process. I really hope some of you take this to heart, the job of an LEO carries the ability to break the laws they enforce. Speeding, using physical force against others, using deadly force on others. The fact that such otherwise illegal activities are within the remit of your standard LEO means participation in these activities have to be proven to be outside the scope of their normal duties. The burden of proof is much higher for such actions than it would be for a civilian. As far as the training discrepancy, I've generally found that the farther east you get the worse the training until you hit Ohio and then it begins to rise again. I've found that the west coast tends to have better standards in training. I have no concrete ideas as to why, possibly because they are newer organizations with a shorter history and less involvement with the old way of doing thing.
(07-22-2016, 05:43 PM)THE Bigzoman Wrote: What's the alternative, being a whistleblower against the most powerful public sector union in the country?
Seriously, there's a reason that republicans don't **** with these guys like they do with Teacher's Unions.
It's not uncommon for public service workers/politicians to throw one another under the bus when shit hits the fan. Police Unions don't because they don't have to.
Ironically, if they let the "one bad apple" take the fall, some cops that were killed would probably still be alive.
This is an point I take issue with. Why does the union protect any member accused of wrongdoing? Because that's their job. Fredtoast has had clients that he knew to be guilty, it didn't prevent him from doing his job and providing the defendant with a competent defense, for the same reason. Every member pays their dues, thus every member is entitled to defense from the union by definition.
(07-22-2016, 06:03 PM)jason Wrote: I was wondering why SSF thought that was. The discrepancy in training that is. I know the LAPD and Chief Gates took a lot of shit years ago about their tactics. I'm sure a lot of things were reevaluated after that.
Actually, and I know many of you will scoff at this, the LAPD has been a model of training for decades. High profile incidents aside the LAPD has been the template that many other departments follow. Gates also invented the SWAT team, which is now a mainstay of departments nationwide. Also, Anaheim PD is a nationally recognized PD in terms of effectiveness and training, their slavish deference to Disney notwithstanding.
I addressed your question above, but I readily admit I have no definitive answer. Budget, history, culture I'm sure they all play a part.
