Cop Attackers and Their Weapons..

[Blotan Hunka]

When I was a soldier, we didnt shoot all that much either. Yearly qualifications, a lot of blanks during training and deployment of course, but its not like the average soldier is out burning up a lot of rounds either. I think that this and even the tueller drill is more about intention and initiative and less about tactical/technical skill. Id bet that many of these same cops, if they were going into a situation with their guns out and knowing they were going to shoot would show the same stats in their favor vs. the same bad guy.

 

[jks9199]

I see one really, really, really bad result of this study which is pretty much inevitable. When a cop shoots an innocent person he will, not might, not could, but will skate. He will almost certainly not be indicted. If he is the case will almost never come to trial. And if it does the defense will pull out all the "thin blue line" stops. The chance of him getting convicted of anything is about the same as the tissue paper dog will of chasing the asbestos cat through Hell. His career might suffer a setback. He might lose his job quietly. But he will not see jail time unless it was a hit for the Mob or similar. That's just the way it is.

This study will be used in those few cases where a cop might be in danger of actually receiving justice. Friendly experts will cite it to show why it is important that police shoot first and don't bother to ask questions. Add it to "furtive movement" and "positional asphyxia" and "excited delerium". It won't work for you and me. It will work to make sure that Officer Friendly is never ever at risk of jail time or the needle as long as he wears a badge.

The whole "learning to kill" bit comes with a few cautions. It is certainly possible to learn to kill and not be destroyed psychologically. The complete disinhibition is more appropriate for soldiers. It is absolutely not appropriate for police officers. Their job is not to kill people. It is a possible contingency that they need to be prepared for, but it's not what they set out to do every day. They must not be trained or permitted to think of it as the default way of dealing with the public. If it is, then we will have to consider all cops, by default, to be barely socialized conditioned sociopaths and act accordingly. We're supposed to have law enforcement professionals, not Black and Tans or Tonton Macoutes.

Second, soldiers are supposed to be in battle infrequently and eventually return to the normal civilian world. As it is, they have enough trouble doing so. The poverty rate for discharged soldiers is very high. 1/4 to 1/3 - according to the latest best figures - report clinically significant mental health problems. That's the result of no more than three of four years of disinhibition and living down the rabbit hole in an environment which is supposed to support them as functional. If you do the same thing to cops with a twenty or thirty year career you will - guaranteed no doubts about it - have police forces made up of pyschotically insane rabid dogs, the shell-shocked wounded, the disocciative and functional sociopaths.

Third, we don't have a ritual structure for bringing warriors back into the world. Other cultures do. The IDF does. After WWII the long voyages home served a similar purpose. The Apache and Navajo, the Dayak and others all do. We don't. You can be on patrol in Baghdad in the morning. The next day you're in Chicago with no gear, no gun, no buddies and a bunch of random people running around.

Fourth, if you keep soldiers, cops or anyone else like this for too long they simply will not be safe to be around. Even the best can break under long-term stress. We aren't Rome which had some legions that stayed on the frontiers forever. The US Army and Marine Corps are not the Foreign Legion. If you go for optimum killers among your soldiers, let alone your police you will have thousands or tens of thousands who will never, ever be fit to have around normal people. You will create a legion of exiles and monsters. Are you sure it's a good idea to make this a job requirement for law enforcement?

You're bouncing between law enforcement and the military (which are very different), as well as multiple issues, I think, and I'm going to stick to one common theme in your post.

You seem to seriously distrust law enforcement, and assume that law enforcement officers are going to deliberately shoot an "innocent" person, and then cover it up. I'm personally pretty offended by the presumptions that you're stating. I'm a cop; I've been one for more than a few years now. I've been close to shooting people, and thankfully haven't. I know people who have. Most cops don't ever want to shoot someone. Most cops won't cover up illegal or outright wrong actions by other people with badges. I won't say it will never happen -- but it's pretty rare, in reality. I'll admit; few cops will give another officer a traffic ticket. Guess what... I've given more breaks to non-LEOs than to LEOs in my career.

LEOs in the United States on the whole are doing an increasingly difficult and dangerous job, with decreasing public support for their role as a culture of moral relativism and different rules for different people seems to be taking hold. We had a few glory days following 9/11, and we get others in the wake of tragedies... but we're still the guys & gals who have to ruin the party and tell everyone to behave. People don't like us. Not a problem; if we wanted to be loved, we'd have been firefighters (aka foundation savers). Meanwhile, we're surrounded by a public and press that jumps on every failure (what other profession gets headlines like "Former police officer convicted of ..." without a clear disclaimer along the way that the "former" part was more than a decade ago, and had no relation to the offense?) and seeks to create new ones. Even people who should know better apply 20/20 hindsight to a decision that an officer has to make under incredible stress in a split second; I've heard martial artists wonder why we can't just "restrain" people or why we have to use the levels of force we do based on the resistance we encounter. And that's not even more than hinting at the whole "shoot to wound" crap.

Now, let's return to the original study...

Police officers encounter violence and violent situations much more often than most people -- but the people we find committing or creating those situations encounter them even more than the cops, from a much earlier age. And they're much more willing to use force, up to and including deadly force, than even the cops. (Wanna hear something really scary? We have documented cases of gang members joining the military with the express purpose of learning military combat tactics and bring them back to the streets here. Some get themselves discharged after receiving the training; others take their banging with them in the service -- and return to it on discharge.) But what's more frightening to me in this study (I've read it several times; and I'm very familiar with the Force Science Institute and its work, though the study was done by the FBI. It's even possible that Dr. Lewinski is a member of MT; he's a godan in Goju Kai Karate.) is that in a very large percentage of the cases -- the officers failed to notice cues that preceded the attack. The bottom line, to me, of the study is simple. The people that are trying to kill cops are practicing to be able to do so. They're coming from backgrounds and environments that have enabled them to act more decisively than the officers trying to defend themselves, and they're more willing to do so. And too many cops, for many reasons, aren't being prepared to deal with this; instead, we get more classes on "cultural sensitivity" and "defusing conflict" and being investigated if they use force to often, even if the force was clearly justified. Did you know that the profile of the "average" officer killed hasn't changed much for many years? They're several years into their career; they've got a reputation for being "nice" or avoiding force. And this study reinforces that.

Then we get people who turn around and want to use a study about the people who attack cops as "proof" that cops are going to cover up when someone is wrong, rather than simply mistaken.

 

[tellner]

Well, there were several issues here. To clarify:

1) The study will be used to to give police even more carte blanche when they shoot people. Yes, the job can be dangerous, although not nearly as dangerous as construction work. But when they screw up, they skate, and they do it on grounds that would not fly for anyone else. This will simply add to the constellation of excuses.

2) The second part was addressing the "On Killing" aspects. There are consequences, bad ones, for being disinhibited to killing. The longer it goes on the worse they are. It's bad enough for a soldier who isn't likely to be fighting for more than a couple years. If you extend the mindset and the pathological aspects to civilian law enforcement it will be a disaster on several levels.

 

[Blotan Hunka]

Well, there were several issues here. To clarify:

1) The study will be used to to give police even more carte blanche when they shoot people. Yes, the job can be dangerous, although not nearly as dangerous as construction work. But when they screw up, they skate, and they do it on grounds that would not fly for anyone else. This will simply add to the constellation of excuses.

Whenever some internet windbag starts making proclamations with so many "WILLS" in it I call:

:bs1:


All the signs of a cop hater. Broad brushing, assuming the worst of them, the characteristic "construction workers have a more dangerous job" shot (yeah but theres a difference in risking your life in public service from risking your life as a 7-11 clerk, fisherman ec.).

 

[tellner]

I wish it were BS, but take a look at the facts. Cops simply do not get charged when they shoot "civilians" accidentally. Looking at the three largest cities around here - Portland, Seattle and Spokane - the records show that not one police officer or sheriff's deputy has even been indicted for shooting anyone in the last twenty years. None. Nada. Zip. Zero. These are progressive cities with strong community policing policies and supposedly strong oversight.

It's close enough to true that it's not hyperbole. The Boys in Blue protect their own. The prosecutors don't tend to prosecute. Juries won't convict. It's down to a routine.

 

[jks9199]

I wish it were BS, but take a look at the facts. Cops simply do not get charged when they shoot "civilians" accidentally. Looking at the three largest cities around here - Portland, Seattle and Spokane - the records show that not one police officer or sheriff's deputy has even been indicted for shooting anyone in the last twenty years. None. Nada. Zip. Zero. These are progressive cities with strong community policing policies and supposedly strong oversight.

It's close enough to true that it's not hyperbole. The Boys in Blue protect their own. The prosecutors don't tend to prosecute. Juries won't convict. It's down to a routine.

It couldn't possibly be that there hasn't been a bad shooting, right? Not one recognized through the wonders of 20/20 hindsight to have been bad -- but one where the subjective situation wouldn't and shouldn't have led an officer to decide to shoot. There are tons of police shootings that are not perfect; I can think of several in the last few years alone. But there are very few where the circumstances are so bad that they rise to supportable criminal charges. That's a different situation... Often, in the cases that don't rise to criminal charges -- the officer or officers involved receive significant departmental sanctions. For example, http://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/police/pdf/community-report-salvatore-culosi.pdf should (if all works correctly) link you to a report describing the events that led to a shooting in Fairfax County, VA. You can also find extensive press coverage of an off-duty shooting in Alexandria, VA last year. In both cases, the officers's conduct was determined not to rise to criminal action -- but did result in serious internal or departmental discipline. The outcome of civil cases in both incidents has yet to be determined.

In other cases, no matter what the press or activists may think, the police did nothing wrong. They acted to defend themselves against an attack that was likely to cause themselves or someone else serious bodily harm or death. Activists and reporters are quick to jump on issues like "he only had a knife/stick" or "it was a toy gun"; in the split second of the officer's decision to shoot, that toy was real. You don't want a cop to shoot you -- don't point things that look like guns at people. (I trust that the fallacy of the "only a knife/baseball bat/stick" need not be addressed in this forum.)

They're also quick to throw up the "blue wall of silence" line -- even though they seem to conveniently overlook the simple fact that most cases of police corruption are discovered when they are reported by other officers. Few law enforcement officers will countenance a criminal having a badge willingly...

Let me issue a simple challenge to you that may serve to enlighten you. I checked Portland's Police Department website. It appears that they may run a "Citizen's Academy"; so do many other police departments. These programs are designed to show the public how the police department works; they frequently include tours of facilities, and often an opportunity to "try your hand" in a firearms simulator. (There are also private facilities with the same sorts of simulators available, at a cost to you. Most Citizen's Academies are free.) Give it a shot; attend the academy. See if just maybe a chance to try one of those simulators helps you understand where an officer is coming from. If nothing else... You'll acquire more information to support your views of law enforcement.

 

[Drac]

Let me issue a simple challenge to you that may serve to enlighten you. I checked Portland's Police Department website. It appears that they may run a "Citizen's Academy"; so do many other police departments. These programs are designed to show the public how the police department works; they frequently include tours of facilities, and often an opportunity to "try your hand" in a firearms simulator. (There are also private facilities with the same sorts of simulators available, at a cost to you. Most Citizen's Academies are free.) Give it a shot; attend the academy. See if just maybe a chance to try one of those simulators helps you understand where an officer is coming from. If nothing else... You'll acquire more information to support your views of law enforcement.

Yes,absolutely..Preferably one with the Shoot Don't Shoot system..