Reforming police, the Blue Wall of Silence

[Larry of the Lawn]

6 hours ago, Simon Steele said:

We've said it before here, but it is absolutely crazy that armed professional officers do not have to display even the slightest bit of self-control or restraint if they don't want to. Our culture is so terrified of everything that our police reflect us. America's red-faced, roided out police force is its out of control id consuming everything.

This is sadly so true.

 

5 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

I agree with everything I snipped, but I just wanted to address this point. Policing has changed a lot over the last 50 years, and for the worse. Police officers used to take pride in rarely or never having to fire their gun at a citizen. Nowadays, pulling out your gun seems to be the first course of action in way too many instances where a gun is never needed. I wonder what changed that? Personally I think one big factor is police departments heavily recruiting veterans. I don’t want to sound anti-veteran, but often times I believe it can be difficult to unlearn the training they received on how to behave in hostile areas.

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/05/11/us/west-virginia-officer-firing-lawsuit.html?referer=https://www.google.com

Here's a veteran / cop fired for doing the decent thing.  In this case his wartime experiences left him better prepared to remain calm in a stressful and potentially dangerous situation, but then typical American police BS happened when his co-workers showed up.

A more detailed article on the same incident: https://www.npr.org/2016/12/08/504718239/military-trained-police-may-be-slower-to-shoot-but-that-got-this-vet-fired

[TrueMetis]

5 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

I agree with everything I snipped, but I just wanted to address this point. Policing has changed a lot over the last 50 years, and for the worse. Police officers used to take pride in rarely or never having to fire their gun at a citizen. Nowadays, pulling out your gun seems to be the first course of action in way too many instances where a gun is never needed. I wonder what changed that? Personally I think one big factor is police departments heavily recruiting veterans. I don’t want to sound anti-veteran, but often times I believe it can be difficult to unlearn the training they received on how to behave in hostile areas.

Do US police departments actively recruit vets? The RCMP considers previous military experience a liability. Because they are worried about escalation.

Not that I think that's a good reason. My experience with soldiers suggests they'd be a lot more restrained than most cops (and especially US cops). Between differing roe's which may vary from "shoot everything that moves" to "don't shoot anything without explicit permission from your CO even if they shoot rockets at you" and safety being a very low concern on the totem pole the idea of a soldier acting like these nutjobs let alone getting away with it is crazy.

[Larry of the Lawn]

23 minutes ago, TrueMetis said:

Do US police departments actively recruit vets? The RCMP considers previous military experience a liability. Because they are worried about escalation.

Not that I think that's a good reason. My experience with soldiers suggests they'd be a lot more restrained than most cops (and especially US cops). Between differing roe's which may vary from "shoot everything that moves" to "don't shoot anything without explicit permission from your CO even if they shoot rockets at you" and safety being a very low concern on the totem pole the idea of a soldier acting like these nutjobs let alone getting away with it is crazy.

From the second article I linked:

Quote

Dave Wilson, chief in the Wisconsin town of Shell Lake, an Iraq War veteran himself, said the vets he has hired make for ideal cops.

 

"If anything else, they have a better understanding of rules of engagement and use of force than others might," Wilson said. "They're used to seeing people holding guns, and they take the time to assess the real danger of the situation."

Researchers are starting to look at this, too. At Washington State University, Stephen James is part of an effort to test law enforcement officers' reactions in simulators, and one of the factors they're tracking is whether the officers are veterans. The data haven't been compiled, yet, but he said other studies of how the brain operates under pressure would suggest that veterans are more "patient."

"Combat vets who've been exposed to extreme violence have a different 'threat threshold,' " James said, "which means that they're in more control of their physiology, and they're not allowing this fight-or-flight response to drive them into action."

 

[TrueMetis]

Yeah that syncs up with my understanding of vets. After being shelled with mortars a guy with a handgun doesn't look like much of a threat. And even if he does roe doesn't actually care about what the threat looks like.

[Dr. Pepper]

Has anyone come across a study that has numbers on howany police shootings veterans are involved in vs non vets?

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

23 hours ago, Liffguard said:

I don't necessarily disagree with your broader point, but the disturbing thing about so many of these US police shooting videos is that they're displaying considerably less restraint than would be expected of soldiers in similar situations (or at least of UK soldiers, where my experience lies). Occupying soldiers would be expected to understand that you need to keep the civilian population on your side. There was an operational doctrine called "courageous restraint" which was specifically about accepting a certain amount of risk to personal safety in order to increase long-term safety by getting people to trust you. It should be troubling when soldiers in a warzone display greater calmness and control than civilian police amongst their fellow citizens.

Take the Shaver incident, if he was taken as a detainee during military clearance drills he'd probably be alive. Once he was on the floor with arms out and legs crossed he'd be told not to move. One soldier would cover, the other would search him. Once cleared by a search he'd be restrained and taken to a holding area. Commands would be loud and assertive yes, but also clear, calm and simple. There would be no need at all to make him crawl, no need to shout multiple instructions. Either Sgt Langley was actively looking for a reason for he or his colleague to shoot, or he lacks the temperament to be trusted with a weapon.

Training was probably the wrong word to use, and you bring up some interesting points. My greater fear though is that they might bring the "occupying solider" mentality back home with them and view citizens in a different way then they probably should. The training probably can help a lot of veterans deescalate a situation, but the scars of war might make them less prepared (I'm not a veteran, so I can't know for sure). I have a lot of friends and family that were deployed in Iraq, and the experience affected each of them differently. I can point to my step-brother Scott, for example, and argue that his time in the military has calmed down his hot headed ways and would absolutely make him better prepared for those situations, and at the same time to my friend Ian, who was a pretty relaxed guy before he joined the Army, but now is a raging hot head who picks fights at the mildest of slights and I can absolutely see him being trigger happy as a cop. So it can cut both ways. 

 

 

[all swedes are racist]

On 12/18/2017 at 3:10 AM, Eggegg said:

Well the warrant would be for the property and if those people are leaving that property I think it would apply to them as well. 

Ok I'll discuss the Daniel Shiver shooting. I think it is murder. Flat out abuse of power. I think the cop should be sent to jail for it, but as I understand it, that won't happen, and that the jury were not even shown that video? I might be wrong on that. Anyway from what I saw that is a guy who should not be allowed a gun or a badge. There were a million better ways for him to have handled that situation and he found the worst one. I mean why didn't they just go over and cuff him while his hands were behind his head? Problem solved. 

So no, I don't think the two cases compare. 

Look, I can see that someone like Dr Pepper is chomping at the bit wanting to paint me as some right wing lunatic, but I'm not. I am as appalled as everyone else by some of these shootings, the levels of police brutality and stupidity I've witnessed has shocked me numerous times and I wholly agree that something has to be done.
However I commented because someone brought up the case of the 11 year old girl, which I think is a very different case of events and is I believe actually just police attempting to do their job in difficult circumstances. To some here, viewed through a lens where all police are 'pathetic wimps' or corrupt or violent, then those actions appear amplified and unreasonable,  In the current climate that view is understandable, but not always accurate, as not all cops are violent thugs and not all criminals are innocent victims behaving ideally. 

Why I commented was due to the dishonesty of the headline, the suggestion that cops are so stupid and so racist that they will arrest a 11 year old black girl simply because she was black, another cases of police racism and violence. But that doesn't even appear to be the case here, as they didn't mistake her for the suspect at all Its just police taking necessary precautions in a situation where a woman had been violently stabbed and they had just cause to believe that those leaving the residence could be involved. 
 

I think certainly there is a problem. If you cannot trust the police to behave in a reasonable manner then its going to cause resentment and fear and distrust. And its very important to trust in the police to do their job. The Daniel Shiver case shows a cop who appears to delight in the game of Simon Says he's playing with the victim, who is utterly trigger happy, and in my opinion is someone who shouldn't pass any sort of psych exams. The more people like him you have on the force the more problems we are going to see. Police do have a very difficult job and are risking their lives on an almost daily basis, and its understandable if you give them guns that people get shot. But that cops actions are indefensible, and that is leading to a fear of the police that is really regretful, so when the police are just doing their jobs or taking necessary precautions, it gets blown up and painted as extreme abuse, when it isn't.

the jury was absolutely 100% shown the video

[all swedes are racist]

On 12/20/2017 at 6:26 PM, Tywin et al. said:

Those are both correct statements, but it doesn't completely address the shift in mindsets. It happened before the militarization of our police forces.

gotta say s.o.d. has a point, though i think they failed to recognize/express it. not sure there is a significant shift in mindset, most likely factor to me seems to be the prevalence of personal media recording technology and social media. its not happening more often, we are just seeing or hearing about it more often. the only clear solution is to abolish, or at the very least disarm all the cops

[ants]

On 12/19/2017 at 10:09 PM, Eggegg said:

Just in terms of handcuffing with or without a warrant, I found this with a quick google:
 

http://blogs.findlaw.com/blotter/2014/08/when-can-police-place-you-in-handcuffs.html

Which also includes a link to another similar case where a 6 year old was cuffed for her own safety:

http://blogs.findlaw.com/blotter/2012/04/cops-handcuff-girl-6-over-tantrum.html
Now I guess the question here is whether police officers are trustworthy enough to be allowed to decide on a case by case basis whether they need to cuff someone to protect themselves or not, and maybe your perspective on the issue would change how you view that question. I believe that is the correct action in some cases and giving officers this freedom makes a lot of sense. However that would only be the case if officers are properly trained and their decisions are rigorously scrutinised and not just automatically defended by superiors. 
 

This works both ways though, certainly lots of people already have a 'them vs us' attitude to the police, and the police are reciprocal in that relationship by dealing with people abusively or unfairly. Its an endless feedback loop which is damaging. I do think its very difficult for police officers to not feel some level of 'them vs us' when dealing with criminals all day long and I'm sure it has some mental affect on them. 

 

Interesting link.  That pretty much gives police carte blanche to handcuff anyone, as long as they claim they felt threatened.  I did not know that. 

[Eggegg]

4 hours ago, ants said:

Interesting link.  That pretty much gives police carte blanche to handcuff anyone, as long as they claim they felt threatened.  I did not know that. 

I think that officers need that freedom to decide whether or not it is the appropriate solution to that situation. But with that they need the right training and there needs to be the right systems of recruitment and psychological testing to make sure the right people are given badges.

On that note I just saw this video on the BBC website.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/world-us-canada-40909812/us-police-officer-records-moment-he-is-shot-at-close-range

I'm not sure what the solution to that situation was other than just waiting for backup and not confronting the guy. I don't think the officer shouting 'imma gonna tazer you' is that useful, but if you are dealing with situations like that where people just randomly shoot you rather than being arrested then I think its normal to exercise high levels of caution.

And I linked to that story via this one:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/42451706/us-police-officer-s-bodycam-records-him-clinging-to-speeding-car
I mean, this is just plain stupid from the officer, who appears to think he's in Die Hard 7 or something, but at the same time, the driver clearly doesn't give a damn about killing anybody, and is willing to do that over a seemingly  minor crime.

It all seems utterly messed up to me.

 

[Larry of the Lawn]

Let's also not forget about giving all the military gear to police departments that have minimal training using it.  Your not giving this shot to a trained bunch of cool under pressure veterans.  You're giving it to a bunch of racist yokels and scared young people without much of a concept for what their role in society is other than 'use all the tools inyour toolbox to fight the bad guys'.

[Dr. Pepper]

A 6-year-old child was shot dead by police in Texas when they killed an unarmed woman and one of their bullets made its way into the child's home.  Cops had been chasing a woman who had allegedly stolen a car.  She broke into the home where the child was staying to hide.  She apparently tried to flee when cops arrived.  The police claim she said she had a gun or that they saw something that looked like a gun.  They opened fire without any regard to what was behind the woman and the child was killed.  The woman they were aiming for was unarmed and cops have been unable to find any sort of weapon on the trail where they had chased her.  

https://www.bustle.com/p/kameron-prescott-was-killed-by-police-gunfire-the-6-year-olds-family-wants-justice-7682333

http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/local/crime/article/6-year-old-boy-killed-in-Schertz-shootout-12450006.php

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/23/us/texas-boy-police-shooting.html?smid=fb-nytimes&smtyp=cur

One thing that pisses me off is that the statement from police refer to this child as a young man.  He wasn't a young man.  He was a fucking child.  It's a very common tactic to try to minimize things by calling children young adults.  

[litechick]

So two people are dead over a stolen car?  I have had my car stolen and I was very happy to recover it undamaged and very thankful to the police but no matter how difficult its loss would have been to me (I was supporting myself as a pizza delivery driver at the time)  there is no possible way that my loss would have been worth two people killed, even if one of them was guilty. 

Thinking in flow charts, I see how it happened.  The escalation, the protection of citizens' property, the protection of police lives, fear, poor aim, desperation.  But in the aftermath you have two people killed over a car.

****

It seems natural to me that we can't make generalizations about the fitness of veterans for police duty.  Besides the differences of personality, there are differences stemming from assignment--some veterans went house-to-house in a foreign country where they didn't speak the language with stipulated Rules of Engagement while other veterans served behind fences.

There is no perfect solution to training police.  We want them to be Navy Seals and social workers and mindless drones filling out tickets all at the same time.  We often use the phrase 'the best and the brightest' but we need to be realistic.  There are only so many 'best and brightest' to go around.  Mostly we have average people with average levels of intelligence, compassion, courage, and virtue.

Maybe we need to direct our attention more to the prosecutors and jurors.

[Larry of the Lawn]

We need to stop letting them fall back on the training as an excuse.  Everytime there's an indefensible shooting with an obviously innocent victim they say, as this Sheriff Salazar is saying, that all police procedures and training were followed.  Well, if your training keeps resulting in dead citizens you're doing it wrong.

It's not a tragic accident, it's a predictably terrible outcome of your official policy and procedures.

[Dr. Pepper]

5 hours ago, litechick said:

So two people are dead over a stolen car? 

Yup.  Apparently property theft can result in the death penalty.

The story is also so fishy, with their training clearly failing.  The woman that was killed seems to have allegedly brandished a gun right in their face when they had her cornered in a closet in another house and they didn't think to shoot her then when they could see the gun plain as day (a gun they still can't seem to find and that wasn't captured on any bodycam or the camera of the helicopter overhead even though they all claim to have seen it).  Yet when they saw no weapon in a populated area, they thought it fine to shoot.

1 hour ago, larrytheimp said:

We need to stop letting them fall back on the training as an excuse.  Everytime there's an indefensible shooting with an obviously innocent victim they say, as this Sheriff Salazar is saying, that all police procedures and training were followed.  Well, if your training keeps resulting in dead citizens you're doing it wrong.

It's not a tragic accident, it's a predictably terrible outcome of your official policy and procedures.

Yes!  Change the gods damned training.

[Erik of Hazelfield]

As someone who works in the manufacturing industry, I can only agree. If a process fails repeatedly, don’t blame the operator, blame the process itself. Better yet, make an effort to find the root cause of why the process keeps failing and then do something about that. It could be poor training, it could be poor tools, it could be insufficient maintenance of the machine, or it could be a number of other causes. “The operators are idiots” is rarely true and that conclusion never results in a better process.

In this case it might be a good idea to compare shooting rates between socially similar districts and try to learn something from the police departments that have the best statistics. What are effective policies to reduce the number of suspects shot by police officers? Does a policy of “shoot first” actually create a safer work environment for the officers or could more be gained by training them in de-escalation techniques? 

I haven’t followed this debate very closely. Does anyone know if these topics are actively being discussed on a political level?

[Centrist Simon Steele]

On 12/20/2017 at 9:23 PM, TrueMetis said:

Yeah that syncs up with my understanding of vets. After being shelled with mortars a guy with a handgun doesn't look like much of a threat. And even if he does roe doesn't actually care about what the threat looks like.

But despite almost two decades of sustained conflict, you'd be surprised at how many vets have seen conflict. Vets often are people deployed and don't see much of anything happen--so they never get this supposed real world training. I'd say most of the guys (guys mostly, women typically haven't been liars in my experience) who tell you they've been in COMBAT (not deployed) are likely bullshitting for cred. But this bullshitting has allowed a new wave of inexperienced assholes to take the mantle of "experienced" and use it to their advantage.

Edit: And I should add, I get why the pressure is there. I deployed for a year, and people (who never served, never deployed, etc.) treat you differently when you tell them you deployed and saw no combat. I don't let it deter me from being honest, but I definitely get the whole, "oh, you didn't really deploy" inferences.

[Dr. Pepper]

A man in Witchita was murdered by police for opening his door.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/29/us/wichita-shooting-swatting.html

Quote

The call to the police sounded dire: a violent dispute at a house in Wichita, Kan., a person shot to death, an armed man holding hostages and threatening to burn the place down.

Officers raced to the scene and surrounded the house. A man emerged and the police commanded him to put his hands up. Moments later, an officer fired a deadly shot.

The whole encounter on Thursday night had been based on a hoax: There had been no shooting before the police arrived, no hostages, no threat of arson. Instead, it was a fatal incarnation of “swatting,” in which people report fake crimes in hopes of getting a SWAT team to raid a rival’s house.

The local police are blaming the entire event on pranksters rather than on the one had pulled the trigger within moments of a man walking out his front door.  Obviously swatting is a problem and should be dealt with according.  Trigger happy cops should, too.  

[ants]

11 minutes ago, Dr. Pepper said:

A man in Witchita was murdered by police for opening his door.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/29/us/wichita-shooting-swatting.html

The local police are blaming the entire event on pranksters rather than on the one had pulled the trigger within moments of a man walking out his front door.  Obviously swatting is a problem and should be dealt with according.  Trigger happy cops should, too.  

Its becoming very clear - well, actually bloody obvious - that the instructions police give and the assumptions they make are not realistic, possible to be followed reasonably at all times, and designed more for excuses than to achieve a good outcome. 

[Dr. Pepper]

But, ya know, they followed their training and nothing is wrong with that training.  People shouldn't prank and people shouldn't walk outside their door when police show up unexpectedly.  Although, they can easily get shot on their own homes, too, even when they call the police for assistance.  It's just police training, all the civilians fault.