Security, Police Training, and perceptions...

[jks9199]

Rather than let a thread drift, I'm bringing the discussion to a new thread. In that thread, the topics of police training, police use of force, and public perceptions came up. I'll link more of the original posts shortly and address the last post.

 

[TieXiongJi]

Thanks for going in depth with this discussion. I hope it is fruitful.

 

[jks9199]

First of all, thank you replying thoughtfully.

Military training claim: I am not a veteran. I live in San Diego, CA and I personally know multiple current and ex-military members. Each and everyone of the ones I respect are very peaceful people. They do everything in their power to prevent use of violence in every facet of their lives. Their weapons and tactics training does encourage quick, violent resolutions, but the communication training leans towards de-escalation as a large portion of field encounters occur with civilians, not militants. Over conversations with these gentlemen, we have analyzed multiple police-citizen interactions, confrontations, crowd control tactics and shootings. We tend to agree on the peaceful resolutions and multiple steps between talking and killing.
There are many veteran public figures speaking about US policing which I could highlight if you care.
The police officers I have met personally seem to side with the police in many of those same interactions and we disagree on using de-escalation techniques instead of absolute control (employing violence to de-escalate).
I have watched multiple documentaries about US policing, policy, training... I am not an officer and couldn't join their group. You know they try not to hire smart people?
When I compare the US police killing statistics to similar nations, I almost weep.

So, you're basing your assessment on what some military folks and you think, based on news coverage and social media videos. You seem to have more limited social interaction with cops; not really surprising, a lot of cops kind of keep to themselves off the clock, for lots of reasons.

Let me start with a story... I was assigned to a regional task force for several years. One of the advantages and cool parts of that was the opportunity to go to some cool training. One of those courses was hosted at a military base, and one of the the things we did there was some simulator training. I don't recall all the scenarios, but two stuck in my mind, because every cop responded to them the same way -- and "failed" by the military standards. The first was a checkpoint, where we were slow to shoot per Army expectations. But -- we weren't guided by the rules of engagement in some sandy overseas locale; we were guided by the laws and court decisions interpreting the 4th amendment and the use of force. (Yep, use of force is a seizure; most of it's covered under the 4th amendment.) Under those rules, we didn't have grounds to shoot until a later point than the Army would have. The other was a suicidal soldier, who had a pistol on a table. Every cop shot the guy much faster than soldiers would... Why? Because, as soon as we are presented an imminent threat of deadly force, we can respond -- under those same rules I mentioned earlier. My point -- military assessment of police use of force isn't always going to be accurate. (And it goes the other way -- cops shouldn't spend a lot of time tearing down how a military unit did something, either.)

You've watched documentaries... how many of them had an agenda? Most that I've seen were clearly intended to support particular points of view -- often anti-law enforcement. Honestly, I haven't seen a lot of true documentaries -- mostly interest pieces on a particular class in an academy, a few tv shows (COPS is not particularly accurate; to a half hour of interesting tv, they usually follow 6 to 8 - or more - officers for an entire shift...), and so on. And how interesting is it to watch a verbal de-escalation, for most people?

I'm going to recommend one book, Force Decisions by Rory Milller, because Rory wrote it particularly to address a lot of these sorts of issues. (And a very insightful person wrote a very short opening piece to one of the chapters... ) and I'm also going to strongly encourage you to look into attending a Citizens Police Academy. The purpose of these programs isn't to make you a cop -- but to give the public a chance to see what police training and police work is really like, rather than what is portrayed in TV and movies. There are also programs like the one shown in this news clip:

which give you a taste of what it's like to walk up to a car as a cop...

As to the number of people killed... No cop that I've ever met goes to work wanting to kill someone. And if they do... I want them gone, yesterday. That said -- we also all have families, friends, and loved ones -- and we will go home to them. Our job is to go towards the guns, not away. In the US -- we strictly limit what the military can do on our shores. (Look up posse comitatus.) It's not the same way in other countries, so some of the situations we send cops into are handled by the military in other countries. That's one way the numbers change. Another is that we have a much, many times much, more diverse population than many other countries -- which is often much more likely to react less compliantly to the police. And we have a whole lot more guns (which I don't have a problem with; I strongly support the 2nd amendment) out there... Unfortunately, lots of them are in the wrong hands (which I do have a problem with...). So that's another factor in the numbers... and another reason it's hard to compare some things about policing across different borders.

Oh, and as to hiring smart people... Every agency I know certainly wants to hire smart people. The job of a cop today demands a whole lot of intelligence, coupled with life experience and judgement, and plenty of street smarts and common sense. You can't read and apply the regulations, the laws, the court decisions, and everything else if you're dumb. It's kind of like suggesting that an infantryman or Marine is too dumb to do something else...

 

[TieXiongJi]

So, you're basing your assessment on what some military folks and you think, based on news coverage and social media videos. You seem to have more limited social interaction with cops; not really surprising, a lot of cops kind of keep to themselves off the clock, for lots of reasons.

Let me start with a story... I was assigned to a regional task force for several years. One of the advantages and cool parts of that was the opportunity to go to some cool training. One of those courses was hosted at a military base, and one of the the things we did there was some simulator training. I don't recall all the scenarios, but two stuck in my mind, because every cop responded to them the same way -- and "failed" by the military standards. The first was a checkpoint, where we were slow to shoot per Army expectations. But -- we weren't guided by the rules of engagement in some sandy overseas locale; we were guided by the laws and court decisions interpreting the 4th amendment and the use of force. (Yep, use of force is a seizure; most of it's covered under the 4th amendment.) Under those rules, we didn't have grounds to shoot until a later point than the Army would have. The other was a suicidal soldier, who had a pistol on a table. Every cop shot the guy much faster than soldiers would... Why? Because, as soon as we are presented an imminent threat of deadly force, we can respond -- under those same rules I mentioned earlier. My point -- military assessment of police use of force isn't always going to be accurate. (And it goes the other way -- cops shouldn't spend a lot of time tearing down how a military unit did something, either.)

You've watched documentaries... how many of them had an agenda? Most that I've seen were clearly intended to support particular points of view -- often anti-law enforcement. Honestly, I haven't seen a lot of true documentaries -- mostly interest pieces on a particular class in an academy, a few tv shows (COPS is not particularly accurate; to a half hour of interesting tv, they usually follow 6 to 8 - or more - officers for an entire shift...), and so on. And how interesting is it to watch a verbal de-escalation, for most people?

I'm going to recommend one book, Force Decisions by Rory Milller, because Rory wrote it particularly to address a lot of these sorts of issues. (And a very insightful person wrote a very short opening piece to one of the chapters... ) and I'm also going to strongly encourage you to look into attending a Citizens Police Academy. The purpose of these programs isn't to make you a cop -- but to give the public a chance to see what police training and police work is really like, rather than what is portrayed in TV and movies. There are also programs like the one shown in this news clip:

which give you a taste of what it's like to walk up to a car as a cop...

As to the number of people killed... No cop that I've ever met goes to work wanting to kill someone. And if they do... I want them gone, yesterday. That said -- we also all have families, friends, and loved ones -- and we will go home to them. Our job is to go towards the guns, not away. In the US -- we strictly limit what the military can do on our shores. (Look up posse comitatus.) It's not the same way in other countries, so some of the situations we send cops into are handled by the military in other countries. That's one way the numbers change. Another is that we have a much, many times much, more diverse population than many other countries -- which is often much more likely to react less compliantly to the police. And we have a whole lot more guns (which I don't have a problem with; I strongly support the 2nd amendment) out there... Unfortunately, lots of them are in the wrong hands (which I do have a problem with...). So that's another factor in the numbers... and another reason it's hard to compare some things about policing across different borders.

Oh, and as to hiring smart people... Every agency I know certainly wants to hire smart people. The job of a cop today demands a whole lot of intelligence, coupled with life experience and judgement, and plenty of street smarts and common sense. You can't read and apply the regulations, the laws, the court decisions, and everything else if you're dumb. It's kind of like suggesting that an infantryman or Marine is too dumb to do something else...

Thank you so much for that. I will check out the book and I already emailed the Academy.

YT Video: Instantly there are serious problems with this quick assessment. The cops give an untrained individual a gun, no partner, no preparation. We in the self defense community understand the 21 foot rule as should all gun wielding public servants. I have only had one encounter where an officer did not have a partner. I have seen other videos regarding police training, but that video is not a good representation of police training.
This is a similar video of the Use of Force training from AJ+:

I have serious concerns that cops pull the gun before the mace or taser. These videos didn't help that fear.
My current strategy for police is completely avoid contact or completely comply so they don't shoot me. I consciously know that I will most likely not be targeted or harassed, but the fear is always up in front. I no longer fear death, but I don't want to die before it is the only option.

On Hiring Smart People: That info came from a slew of articles similar to this.
Police Officially Refuse To Hire Applicants With High IQ Scores

 

[jks9199]

Regarding the class for the reporter -- they give them some training and orientation before the scenarios. The extent depends on the program. One I'm more familiar with spends about 4 hours on orientation and preparation before doing scenarios. Partners... Well, when they show up and arrive on scene, I might have one -- but I patrol solo most of the day, and handle most encounters solo.

Hiring... Yep, there are some departments that won't hire someone with too high an IQ, and a court says they can, so long as they are consistent in their application. The departments that do that are a minority. I know officers who have JDs and have passed the bar (and they still hit the streets... Maybe they do need some psychological help!) as well as PhDs. Many with Master's or advanced certificates. Lots with a bachelor's. You're trying to use a minority of agencies to set a rule... doesn't work that way.

21 foot "rule" -- more accurately, the Tueller Drill. The point of it is to show how rapidly a person can cover 21 feet versus the ability to draw and place an aimed shot on target, not set up some magic distance rule for encounters. It's been greatly misunderstood and misapplied, especially within the self-defense community.

Use of less than lethal... If the person is posing a lethal threat, lethal force is the answer. A knife is lethal force. A big honking stick is lethal force. Lethal force is force likely to cause serious bodily harm or death -- and a big honking stick is likely to cause serious bodily harm. So... there's a time and place for less lethal, but it's not the answer when the question is lethal force. You don't hear about most of the times cops use force on someone, but it's not lethal force; it seldom makes the press. And, for the record, I am a firearms, control tactics, and Taser instructor, so I kind of know whereof I speak.

 

[drop bear]

So, you're basing your assessment on what some military folks and you think, based on news coverage and social media videos. You seem to have more limited social interaction with cops; not really surprising, a lot of cops kind of keep to themselves off the clock, for lots of reasons.

Let me start with a story... I was assigned to a regional task force for several years. One of the advantages and cool parts of that was the opportunity to go to some cool training. One of those courses was hosted at a military base, and one of the the things we did there was some simulator training. I don't recall all the scenarios, but two stuck in my mind, because every cop responded to them the same way -- and "failed" by the military standards. The first was a checkpoint, where we were slow to shoot per Army expectations. But -- we weren't guided by the rules of engagement in some sandy overseas locale; we were guided by the laws and court decisions interpreting the 4th amendment and the use of force. (Yep, use of force is a seizure; most of it's covered under the 4th amendment.) Under those rules, we didn't have grounds to shoot until a later point than the Army would have. The other was a suicidal soldier, who had a pistol on a table. Every cop shot the guy much faster than soldiers would... Why? Because, as soon as we are presented an imminent threat of deadly force, we can respond -- under those same rules I mentioned earlier. My point -- military assessment of police use of force isn't always going to be accurate. (And it goes the other way -- cops shouldn't spend a lot of time tearing down how a military unit did something, either.)

You've watched documentaries... how many of them had an agenda? Most that I've seen were clearly intended to support particular points of view -- often anti-law enforcement. Honestly, I haven't seen a lot of true documentaries -- mostly interest pieces on a particular class in an academy, a few tv shows (COPS is not particularly accurate; to a half hour of interesting tv, they usually follow 6 to 8 - or more - officers for an entire shift...), and so on. And how interesting is it to watch a verbal de-escalation, for most people?

I'm going to recommend one book, Force Decisions by Rory Milller, because Rory wrote it particularly to address a lot of these sorts of issues. (And a very insightful person wrote a very short opening piece to one of the chapters... ) and I'm also going to strongly encourage you to look into attending a Citizens Police Academy. The purpose of these programs isn't to make you a cop -- but to give the public a chance to see what police training and police work is really like, rather than what is portrayed in TV and movies. There are also programs like the one shown in this news clip:

which give you a taste of what it's like to walk up to a car as a cop...

As to the number of people killed... No cop that I've ever met goes to work wanting to kill someone. And if they do... I want them gone, yesterday. That said -- we also all have families, friends, and loved ones -- and we will go home to them. Our job is to go towards the guns, not away. In the US -- we strictly limit what the military can do on our shores. (Look up posse comitatus.) It's not the same way in other countries, so some of the situations we send cops into are handled by the military in other countries. That's one way the numbers change. Another is that we have a much, many times much, more diverse population than many other countries -- which is often much more likely to react less compliantly to the police. And we have a whole lot more guns (which I don't have a problem with; I strongly support the 2nd amendment) out there... Unfortunately, lots of them are in the wrong hands (which I do have a problem with...). So that's another factor in the numbers... and another reason it's hard to compare some things about policing across different borders.

Oh, and as to hiring smart people... Every agency I know certainly wants to hire smart people. The job of a cop today demands a whole lot of intelligence, coupled with life experience and judgement, and plenty of street smarts and common sense. You can't read and apply the regulations, the laws, the court decisions, and everything else if you're dumb. It's kind of like suggesting that an infantryman or Marine is too dumb to do something else...

You dont think the scenarios force a reaction? I mean at the end of the day they are just like the movies. In that it is staged. Being part of it doesn't really make it reality.

 

[TieXiongJi]

Regarding the class for the reporter -- they give them some training and orientation before the scenarios. The extent depends on the program. One I'm more familiar with spends about 4 hours on orientation and preparation before doing scenarios. Partners... Well, when they show up and arrive on scene, I might have one -- but I patrol solo most of the day, and handle most encounters solo.

Hiring... Yep, there are some departments that won't hire someone with too high an IQ, and a court says they can, so long as they are consistent in their application. The departments that do that are a minority. I know officers who have JDs and have passed the bar (and they still hit the streets... Maybe they do need some psychological help!) as well as PhDs. Many with Master's or advanced certificates. Lots with a bachelor's. You're trying to use a minority of agencies to set a rule... doesn't work that way.

21 foot "rule" -- more accurately, the Tueller Drill. The point of it is to show how rapidly a person can cover 21 feet versus the ability to draw and place an aimed shot on target, not set up some magic distance rule for encounters. It's been greatly misunderstood and misapplied, especially within the self-defense community.

Use of less than lethal... If the person is posing a lethal threat, lethal force is the answer. A knife is lethal force. A big honking stick is lethal force. Lethal force is force likely to cause serious bodily harm or death -- and a big honking stick is likely to cause serious bodily harm. So... there's a time and place for less lethal, but it's not the answer when the question is lethal force. You don't hear about most of the times cops use force on someone, but it's not lethal force; it seldom makes the press. And, for the record, I am a firearms, control tactics, and Taser instructor, so I kind of know whereof I speak.

We are both on the same page, brother.
There are problems in every system and we must all work towards solutions instead of pointing fingers.

Only disagreement is on Use of Force. It should always be proportional. A knife is a serious threat up close, but maintaining distance nearly guarantees safety. A 'big honking stick' is a threat while I wear a tshirt and shorts, but becomes as scary as a pencil when I am inside a Tank. Every threat is situational and every situation has an ideal outcome; the ideal is the goal. Let's aim for that!

 

[jks9199]

Use of force is required to be reasonable and proportional, and assessed in the light of the legal goal of the use of force; that last part is what's different for a police officer versus a private citizen. An officer has the duty and requirement to detain a suspect; they're allowed to initiate force, and to use force slightly differently than a private citizen because of this. Most agencies have moved beyond "stair step" use of force rules to models kind of like this one: The (Original) Use of Force Model. Notice that it balances the use of force by an officer against the actions of the suspect, and the likelihood of the officer to achieve control of the subject versus the likelihood of injuring the suspect. Suspect actions are divided into three broad categories: Cooperative, Resistant, and Assailant. Officer actions are sorted by how likely they are to cause injury.

 

[Tgace]

When I compare the US police killing statistics to similar nations, I almost weep.

So all of those killings were "unnecessary"?

Why so many of our citizens decide to act in manners that require the use of deadly force against them makes ME weep.....

 

[TieXiongJi]

When I compare the US police killing statistics to similar nations, I almost weep.

So all of those killings were "unnecessary"?

Why so many of our citizens decide to act in manners that require the use of deadly force against them makes ME weep.....

Sorry. I have to show the Tamir Rice video. This isn't an isolated event...

 

[Buka]

We are both on the same page, brother.
There are problems in every system and we must all work towards solutions instead of pointing fingers.

Only disagreement is on Use of Force. It should always be proportional. A knife is a serious threat up close, but maintaining distance nearly guarantees safety. A 'big honking stick' is a threat while I wear a tshirt and shorts, but becomes as scary as a pencil when I am inside a Tank. Every threat is situational and every situation has an ideal outcome; the ideal is the goal. Let's aim for that!

Today is my day off. Over the last five days I've worked fifty hours as an Airport Police Officer. In those five days, 46,207 people arrived at the airport by plane, approximately 50,000 flew out. There are over a thousand employees at the airport. Thousands more people dropped passengers off or picked them up. By mainland airport standards, it's a relatively small airport, the numbers make for thick crowds.

If someone brandishes a knife in this crowd....lets examine the statement - "A knife is a serious threat up close, but maintaining distance nearly guarantees safety." My safety, sure. But not the safety of innocent people near the person who's suddenly wielding a knife. They are all I care about. If your family was right near this knife, would you want me to keep my distance so I could be safe?

 

[Tgace]

Sorry. I have to show the Tamir Rice video. This isn't an isolated event...

Statistically.. it actually is.

Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk

 

[jks9199]

What is your point? What are you trying to show? What do you know about the incident? What did the responding officers know? What information were they given?

There are absolutely things that could and maybe should have been done differently. But hindsight is 20/20, and the US Supreme Court has said we cannot use that benefit to judge an officer's actions.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

 

[Juany118]

Sorry. I have to show the Tamir Rice video. This isn't an isolated event...

And you have to look at that video in full context. The police were told by 911 that an adult male was brandishing a gun inna threatening manner. Was that everything 911 was told? Nope, but that is all the responding officers were told.

The juvenile was the size of an adult male.

The area is known for gun violence

Perhaps most importantly the officer who pulled the trigger was brand new and still in field training.

Don't get me wrong, out of the gate I saw tactical issues with that encounter, however...

Mistakes happen irl. When guns are involved said mistakes can be fatal. What you also need to look at is this way. There are approximately 800000 law enforcement officers in the US. Yes we have more cops than most Nations have in their Armies. Now look at the number of "questionable" deaths at the hands of police officers in the US vs the total number of officers. That tells a more accurate tale, namely that they are isolated events and when they happen they usually happen due to a cascade of events by multiple people involved, dispatchers, the cops and believe it or not, usually the person shot.

As for the use of force, in a LE encounter being proportional, that is actually impossible. What you would be telling police officers is "you need to be shot at or they need to actually try and stab you, etc., before you can use deadly force. So you propose that Police Officers should be suicide troops?

Use of force, according to the Supreme Court of the US is to be objectively reasonable based on the facts known at the time without 20/20 hindsight. The reason for this is even stated in the case law. Namely, if it is proportional or if 20/20 hindsight is used you are, in essence telling officers "well just hope they hit you in the vest because you can't shoot until you hear the bang.". That would make the officer's job all but impossible.

This isn't just me talking for myself btw, my wife is a LEO as well. Maybe you need to experience violence upon yourself to understand. Right now I have a healing "dueling scar" on my face from a conflict on Friday. Worse, gotten the call that your wife was in hospital because her backup was a little slow when she got out with the guy high on "wet". She still "won" but got a concussion for her trouble. Get that phone call, understand the law and, most importantly, understand the real life dynamics of a violent encounter, then maybe you can comment on how UoF should work. Documentaries and military personnel who use completely different rules of engagement aren't really that helpful. The former almost always is working from a particular ideological point of view and is myopic because of it. The later doesn't know the rules LE operates under.

 

[Juany118]

Here is another example on how UoF works btw.

 

[drop bear]

When I compare the US police killing statistics to similar nations, I almost weep.

So all of those killings were "unnecessary"?

Why so many of our citizens decide to act in manners that require the use of deadly force against them makes ME weep.....

Yeah i don't think the same actions in other countries lead to the same amount of deadly force though.

I wonder how many unarmed guys have been shot by cops in Australia?

Couldn't be many.

England?

Any other first world country?

 

[Juany118]

Yeah i don't think the same actions in other countries lead to the same amount of deadly force though.

If you look at the levels of violence, sadly, they mesh. As an example 3 Nations beat the US in firearms related Homicides; Afghanistan, Iraq and the Democratic Republic of Congo. The US is a schizophrenic Nation.

But as an example of unarmed people being shot. Brown. Did you know that the Feds not only said in their 80 page report that not only was there no Civil Rights violation but they affirmed the Grand Jury decision. They found multiple witnesses, who live in the neighborhood, who hid from the State, one barricaded their doors to avoid a grand jury subpoena. You try to take a cops gun then turn and charge the cop... Well trying to a take a gun is grounds for lethal force, charge after you failed the first time... Yeah.

Also size is a factor. If someone 250 lbs is pounding on my 170 lbs skinny butt, I can justify shooting them if the circumstances line up. There are so many variables and with the US having the highest rates of violence in the Western world, there will be more officer related shootings as a consequence.

 

[Tgace]

Yeah i don't think the same actions in other countries lead to the same amount of deadly force though.

I wonder how many unarmed guys have been shot by cops in Australia?

Couldn't be many.

England?

Any other first world country?

Same volume of incidents? Same levels of violence/crime in urban centers?

Wyoming (Cheyenne) is as different a world from Illinois (Chicago) as England is from the US....

Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk

 

[Tgace]

The slaughter of citizen on citizen in some of our urban centers Far surpasses any unlawful police shooting numbers you could attempt to use.

Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk

 

[drop bear]

Same volume of incidents? Same levels of violence/crime in urban centers?

Wyoming (Cheyenne) is as different a world from Illinois (Chicago) as England is from the US....

Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk

Shooting unarmed people.

it is kind of weird from an international perspective.