In a recent blog entry I spoke of PERF, the Police Executive Research Forum, and its 30-point recommendation for what some have called “police reform” in regard to use of force. In the reader commentary, I was asked for more specifics, and as usual I said, let’s wait for more info.
We have that now. It’s time.
For more than the last decade I’ve chaired the Panel of Experts on Firearms and Deadly Force Training for ILEETA, the International Law Enforcement Educators and Trainers Association, where I’ve also served on the Advisory Board since the organization’s inception. Prior to that, for some years I ran a similar panel for ASLET, the American Society of Law Enforcement Trainers, where I proudly served for 19 years as chair of the firearms/deadly force training committee, and also spent several years on that organization’s ethics committee.
For perspective, I believe I’m the only staff writer on Backwoods Home who has worked in law enforcement, which has made me sort of the “resident cop” for that particular organization.
Let me make it clear now that I speak only my own personal opinions in this blog entry and the ones that will follow, and not for any of the above-named organizations, nor for the police department I currently serve, and have proudly served for more than a quarter of a century.
The “PERF 30” has had a profound impact on law enforcement training and management since it came out a short time ago. Having spent most of a week with some 800 police trainers from around the nation and the world, I’ve seen that impact. When I ran this week’s Panel of Experts at ILEETA, we began the discussion with the PERF 30, and for the first time in all these years, we never got past that first point of discussion with the Panel and its many attendees.
There was much to discuss there, obviously, and just as obviously, much to discuss here. Let me say now that I agree with about two-thirds of PERF’s recommendations, and one in particular. In coming discussions we’ll look at “The Good, The Bad, and the Ugly.” If you regularly read this blog, you know that one tenet here is the importance of having all the information from both sides before “coming to a verdict.”
Let’s start with a review of PERF’s 30 recommended policy changes.
Please review that.
Please feel free to comment here.
Back to you soon with my own commentary…which may take awhile.
Not a cop, but I see some stuff that may end up getting either officers or civilians killed. Am I reading right about waiting for a supervisor when a weapon is reported? Are we going back to Pre-Columbine times?
Interesting that they consider the “21 foot rule” to be outdated concept & to eliminate from their training any reference to the “so called 21 ft rule”. ” Instead, officers should be trained to use distance and cover to create a “reaction gap”.
I thought there was considerable study that proves otherwise? A reaction gap? What about the armed licensed citizen?
I look forward to the discussions that will occur on this subject. It’s hard for me to be very critical of them, since I’ve never been a LEO. The one point I have the most questions about are point 16, about eliminating the 21-foot rule. On one hand I see that if the LEO can retreat, using obstructions to provide difficulty for a threat to reach you as quickly, it helps buy everyone time to deescalate the situation. But OTOH, does an officer retreating send a message of weakness to the threat? Can you use a threatening tone to encourage the thread to hold up, all the while your backwards motion indicates a lack of ability to fully stop the threat?
Much of what is recommended is already being done in many departments. Of course the practical outcome of such policies will vary based on numerous factors; leader emphasis, quality of rank-and-file officers, department culture, etc.
I am curious as to how in-depth this organization considered the second and third order effects of their recommendations, that is, their unintended consequences.
On its face, it doesn’t seem too much of a stretch that PERF may soon recommend that police abandon the option of lethal force entirely, and instead rely on verbal judo and less-lethal instruments for street survival.
The PERF 30 are written using very benign language that seems to be targeted to a non-rank-and-file LEO/political audience; who would be unlikely to find much disagreement at all with the recommendations presented. Especially considering the current political climate in which it is far tidier to hold a memorial for a slain officer than it is to stand behind the tragic but justified use of lethal force.
Looking forward to reading your thoughts.
Wow, Mas, reading that just underscores what I’ve long thought: what a tough job being a LEO is. And, judging by the proposed modernizations, how complicated it can get for today’s officer. I can’t imagine having to kick around policy #3 in my head for a good answer, before placing digit to trigger with BG advancing on me.
My appreciation to you and your colleagues!
The British are coming!
Well, I read the 30 Policy Changes, and while ideal, in the right place, with enough backup Officers, and firepower readily available, in the Border situations I routinely encountered, YOU are the only officer there, with backup minimally 30 minutes, to over an hour away, and it will be totally, and solely up to the between one, and up to a half dozen, Drug smuggling, likely Drug using, mules whether you live, or die, when they take you down, to escape, and complete their Drug Smuggling Mission, unless YOU, alone, take what ever immediate Action will Tale them down instead, by the book, or not!!
Just goes to show there is always an exception to the Ideal, pie in the sky. Rule Book!
I’m very much looking forward to Mas’ analysis, but I was struck by his statement, above, that PERF 30 has had a “profound impact on law enforcement training and management”. The regulars here will remember that Mas graciously allowed me to write a guest column in which my main point was that the PERF report (which at that time had not been formulated into specific guidelines) might be an indication that the law enforcement rank and file had allowed, by not facing and at least being willing to discuss the use of force issues raised by the Black Lives Matter movement, those issues to get ahead of them and that they might be in danger of having modified rules of engagement shoved down their throats on them from on high. My column and Mas’ response, along with those of all the commentators can be found here:
https://backwoodshome.com/blogs/MassadAyoob/2015/page/8/
Of the guidelines, #2 is most central to that issue, “Departments should adopt policies that hold themselves to a higher standard than the legal requirements of Graham v. Connor.” From some reading that I’ve done, I’m going to predict that it will also be the most controversial, because it recommends that LEO’s be held to a standard higher than whether their use of force was merely lawful. Many of the following guidelines are an implementation of #2.
It will be interesting to hear what Mas has to say about the guidelines and collateral issues such as how they are being received.
This appears to be an attempt to incorporate United Kingdom policing procedures. This would NEVER work in the USA. In no time at all any officer mandated to follow these unrealistic guidelines would retreat to avoidance of addressing the situations with the results being a “hyper Ferguson effect”. God help us.
THESE ” GUIDING PRINCIPLES” ARE “PIE IN THE SKY”
Massad:
As always, thanks for sharing this!!! It’s obviously a well-thought out and considered document, trying to balance the safety of the officer versus the public.
IMHO, I think there’s some golden nuggets even us ‘non-police’ types can try to absorb (21 foot rule, de-escalation, etc). I think this would even be good to emphasize in shoot-dontshoot training for everyone…
Then again, I know I need all the training I can get …
pat
Sounds like a lot of Monday morning quarterbacking from those who have never been there. For the record, I haven’t either, but have seen and read about enough use of force incidents in Mas’s columns to know that this is a lot of pie-in-the-sky verbiage from those who don’t begin to know what police do or what they face.
Item 8 especially shows these people haven’t even been exposed to “Red Asphalt” or other such driver’s ed films, to so totally discount just how deadly a vehicle can be to others. Item 16 is even worse, given that a follow-up article in SWAT Magazine some years back indicated that 30 feet was the minimum survival distance rather than 21 feet, and I trust Dennis Tueller and the author of the latter article, but not whoever wrote this nonsense.
Finally, how long until item 18 becomes a mandate for every cop to speak 8 or more languages? Given our faulty immigration policy that wrongly accommodates immigrants rather than enforcing integration into the US culture, this is likely to cause more Cau Bich Tran incidents. In that case the responding officers (in San Jose, People’s Republik of California, not Saigon) were castigated for not being able to speak Vietnamese or to convince a known mentally ill woman (where there had been multiple LEO visits for her behavior) to drop her cleaver, routinely described by the lamestream media as a “vegetable peeler,” rather than shooting her as the correct response to her failure to comply with instructions while holding a deadly weapon.
I think you are being too generous with your words.
I see five points that would be worth considering. The other points are either muted by the writing style or do not make much sense.
There is also the issue that the paper makes assumptions that law policy and training is leading to or contributing to excessive use of force. Even accepting that first paragraph for the sake of conversation is dubious at best.
Looking forward to your comments.
Cheers.
Quite obvious that a great deal of thought and time went into this set of guidelines…It would be really nice if “prominent religious leaders” and community activist folks would come up with their own guidelines as to how their followers should behave in a civil society..Always enjoy your work Mas…..
ps…hope that the Congress does not impose these changes on the Marine Corps…we already conduct combat operations with one hand tied behind our back..much like our Law Enforcement Officers…. “Lead from the front..and kick ass”..Dick Marchinko
Wow! Reading “PERFS 30” reminded me a lot of my days in MBA School. Lots of generalization and unimpeachably constructive positive direction elegantly presented to provide a basis for expansion and development into potentially actionable scenarios. See what I mean? I wouldn’t know where to begin to critique this document and so will look forward to your assessment. Still, the implications of some these recommendations are worrisome, to be generous.
Not being a LEO, reading this gives me added appreciation to the many proposed and current “rules of the road” / aspects of daily responsibilities officers face daily.
The Good Idea Fairy is alive, well, and looking to hurt LEO’s. :/
So where is the 30 recommendations for citizens on how to interact with police. I am not in LE but I remember the days of a polite yes sir and no sir goes a long way. I learned that from my father growing up.
I’m retired from the job and I truly enjoyed the part where you helped people. Encountering bad guys not so much, but also part of the job.
I have discouraged my children from pursuing law enforcement as a career as a result of the changes I witnessed through the years.
This set of recommendations seems to codify the “Ferguson effect” into policy.
An armed citizen should be creating distance and de-escalating since his goal is to remain unharmed. It’s OK to run away in other words.
A policeman is expected to control the situation as well as keep citizens safe. He may not run away and let the actor endanger others.
The emphasis here on positive outcomes for the bad guys at the expense of increased potential negative outcomes for the citizens is a one dimensional over reaction of the apparently inexperienced authors of this framework.
Hi Mas – I enjoy your blog. I regards to PERF item 8, Do I read this correctly that police are not to shoot at a moving vehicle even if it is trying to run them over? Item 16 seems far fetched as well when it calls the “21 foot rule” obsolete. Also item 22 if followed would suggest more supervisors will be needed …
Regards.
Al
Wow. I like the whole “de-escalation” analysis flow chart. This had to be written by someone who has never experienced violent criminal behavior. Let’s plug in one of my experiences: “You respond to a B&E call. Upon entering the building, you are hit across the chest with a two by four. What part of the flow chart applies to you??”
I stopped at number 8. WTH is that? Somebody is attempting to run you over and you can’t shoot unless they are also using some secondary means to try to kill you as well? Did I read that correctly?
“8. Shooting at vehicles must be strictly prohibited. Agencies should adopt a strict prohibition against shooting at or from a moving vehicle unless someone in the vehicle is using or threatening deadly force by means other than the vehicle itself.”
This is absurd. If the vehicle is being used as a deadly force, shooting the driver is a legitimate way of stopping that force. Of course such a shot should not be taken if it increases the danger to the officer or the public.
Here is John Farnam’s take on PERF; http://defense-training.com/2016/perf/
I am not an LEO, but I believe those thirty guidelines were written by enemies of law enforcement. They are weakening the long arm of the law, and strengthening the criminals. This at a time when LEOs have to deal with both crime and terrorism. This is “common core” for law enforcement.
It is time to ignore liberals and their preaching.
About the “21 foot RULE”. It’s never been a RULE but a guideline. It’s about the minimum distance you have to draw and fire your weapon. Chances are very good the perps momentum will ram him into you and stick a knife into your chest. It was first done with middle aged LEO. Force Sciences Institute reran the drill a few years ago and used a lean quick 19 year old more representative of street low life. He was able to consistently cover 31 ft. Distance is your friend.
All 30 likely make perfect sense when viewed from behind a desk in Admin or IA.
Assuming the Officer survives the incident alive, it will become his/her job to say as little about the incident, as possible, until they can have a GOOD Lawyer by their side to advise them. making sure their statements, or Testimony, words are consistent as possible with all physical evidence, as possible, while making it appear that the Officer performed in accordance with all the Agency’s Laws, Rules, Regulations, Policies, and Written Guidelines.
A job that only a GOOD Lawyer will be able to tell the Officer how to Accomplish properly, in the face of the Agency, or IA’s Negative, Hostile, questioning!!
I didn’t see anything in the PERF document that addresses the large number of deadly events that have happened when SWAT teams serve no knock warrants and the innocent people that have been killed or injured when warrants are served due to bad information or wrong address.
I assume all such warrants are approved at the administrative level. Don’t they assume some of the responsibility? Should not vetting for such warrants be performed better? Should not the offenses that justify a SWAT raid be limited in some way to exclude minor offenses? Shouldn’t there be a more creative and less dangerous way to serve some of these warrants?
“POLICY
8. Shooting at vehicles must be strictly prohibited. Agencies should adopt a strict prohibition against shooting at or from a moving vehicle unless someone in the vehicle is using or threatening deadly force by means other than the vehicle itself.”
Are they frickin’ NUTS?!?! We have all been taught that a vehicle can be a far superior weapon to a relatively weak handgun. So, these MORONS think a cop shouldn’t shoot at the driver of a vehicle if that driver is (just) using the vehicle to run over people?!?! I’ve read all I need to read of that lame report.
Comments are closed.