Among other things, regular readers here know that (A) I don’t usually host guest blogs and (B) as sort of the “resident cop” in the Backwoods Home writers’ stable, I frequently visit criminal justice topics in the news as related to guns and use of force.
One of our regular commentators here – “Dave, the liberal non-uncle one” – offered the following and rather than have it run as a thread veer, I thought I’d let it stand on its own as a guest blog. I have some disagreements with it, but I’m really interested in what you reading it have to say. The following are Dave’s words, not mine:
I asked Mas if it was all right to post this as an off-topic comment to one of his blog posts and he instead graciously suggested that he post it as a guest column.
Mas has argued several times in his BHM articles, most notably in the “Understanding a misunderstanding” section of this article that police chiefs and other police administrators often support gun control because, “In the great majority of communities, municipal police chiefs are appointed by the mayor, the city manager, or the city council. If those political entities are anti-gun, you may be sure that they will either appoint an anti-gun candidate, or make it clear to the appointee that he will speak the lines he is given or he will no longer be Chief.” On the other hand, says Mas, county sheriffs are elected and are more likely to be more pro-gun.
We are recently seeing a trend in relation to the Black Lives Matter issue for employers of law enforcement officers and prosecutors (who are usually also elected) to quickly take actions against officers who have shot Black people, especially unarmed young males. It happened in the Tensing/DuBose matter in Cincinnati and in the Miller/Taylor matter in Arlington, Texas. Though not a shooting, it also happened in the Various Officers/Gray case in Baltimore.
I’ve predicted in comments here that the issues raised by the Black Lives Matter campaign aren’t going to go away and that if law enforcement officers refuse to engage in dialog and procedural revisions that they’re going to find those revisions imposed upon them. This trend toward quick action against officers could be just that, and it could be worse than what I predicted. The political will to give officers the benefit of the doubt appears to be fading.
Instead of working towards a new set of rules of engagement, the trend may be to just second guess or Monday morning quarterback those police-involved Black deaths which cannot be absolutely and unquestionably identified on the very first and most superficial examination to be a justifiable homicide. In the recent Tyrone Harris shooting in Ferguson, there are even questions being raised in the face of claims and video showing that Harris had a gun and shot at officers first.
(An aside: Traditionally legal analysis of whether or not a shooting was justified as self-defense or under other justifiable-homicide laws tends to focus on the events immediately prior to the shooting. The Black Lives Matter movement, however, wants to expand the analysis far beyond that to issues such as whether police action was “really” needed in the first place, the seriousness of an action causing a need for police action, whether confrontation could have been avoided, and the like, and then adjudging whether the death was justifiable in light of the entire circumstances, not those just immediately prior to the confrontation. For example, in both the Sandra Bland and Sam DuBose matters the question is being raised whether the deaths were justifiable because the reasons that they were stopped did not justify what happened after, thus saying in effect that they should have both been written tickets and allowed to go on their way without the interaction which led to the officers wanting them to get out of their vehicles. That analysis, supported by continued protests and public complaints, is one of the things which is gaining political weight.)
That’s a reversal of what generally happened in the past where the officer was almost always given the benefit of the doubt unless the facts clearly showed him or her to be in the wrong (which is itself a practice to which the Black Lives Matter campaign objects). If the trend continues, then every officer involved in the death or injury of a Black person had better be prepared to hire a lawyer as soon as he or she can get to a phone, had better be prepared not to file a report or make any statements without that lawyer present, and had best be prepared to be fired because he or she will not do those things. In short, killing a Black person, or perhaps any mentally disturbed person or person of color, may except in the clearest of circumstances become a career-ender for many, many cops regardless of the eventual determination of whether or not it was legally justified.
There will doubtless be counter-suits by fired officers and protests by police unions, but whether to act quickly to fire cops will likely be judged on a cost basis for the employers of LEOs: What’s the financial and political cost of fighting with one officer’s lawyers or dealing with some labor problems versus the cost of an outraged Black community and even widespread protests or riots? Which one hurts the worst and is the hardest to make go away, especially since each new shooting or injury simply fans the protests to a new, higher level and since the Black Lives Matter issues are not going to go away. If police chiefs are political animals as Mas suggests, the political will may be turning.
———————
I wrote the foregoing a couple of weeks ago after reading about the Miller/Taylor matter and was waiting to post it as a comment here until I could do so at a time that it was not too off-topic. Since that time, a new report “Re-Engineering Training On Police Use of Force” has been issued by the Police Executive Research Forum (PERF), “an independent research organization that focuses on critical issues in policing” whose membership and board of directors is made up of executives, mainly chiefs of police, from law enforcement organizations around the country. What that report says led me to contact Mas to get his consent to post this sooner than I had intended.
That report says that police training and emphasis on de-escalation of confrontations is woefully inadequate. It comes to that conclusion in part because “the rioting last summer in Ferguson was not a story that would fade away quickly” (pg. 3) and “in the immediate aftermath of the demonstrations in Ferguson, there has been a fundamental change in how the American people view the issue of police use of force. A year later, this upheaval in policing is continuing, and it is unlikely to abate any time soon. … here’s why: Over the past year, the nation has seen, with their own eyes, video recordings of a number of incidents that simply do not look right to them. In many of these cases, the officers use of force has already been deemed ‘justified,’ and prosecutors have declined to press criminal charges. But that does not mean that the uses of force are considered justified by many people in the community.” (pg. 9)
It goes on to say, “there is a growing recognition in the policing profession that a review of an officer’s use of force should not focus solely on the moment that the officer fired a gun or otherwise used force. Instead, leading police chiefs are saying that the review should cover what led up to the incident, and officers should be held accountable if they failed to de-escalate the situation in order to prevent it from ever reaching the point where the use of force was necessary. And that is the type of analysis that community members make when they watch a video of a police shooting and wonder, ‘Why did all those officers have to shoot that homeless man? Just because he was holding a knife? All those officers were there, they had him surrounded. Why couldn’t they Tase him, or pepper-spray him, or just wait him out? They didn’t have to kill him.’ Police chiefs increasingly are recognizing this perspective, and are making a distinction between ‘could’ and ‘should’ when it comes to evaluating officers’ use of force. While a use of force might be legal, that is not the end of the discussion if there were less drastic options available.” (pg. 9).
In short, a professional association of chiefs of police is basically confirming and recommending what I had written a couple of weeks ago and, indirectly, what I wrote here long ago: that the real issue in the Black Lives Matter issue is ultimately going to be whether deadly confrontation could have been avoided, not just who was legally right after that confrontation occurred. If the report by PERF accurately characterizes public sentiment and the direction that law enforcement administration is heading, then law enforcement officers are either going to have to change or put their jobs in danger.
Just to wrap up, here’s some conventional thinking which is questioned by that report:
– Officers thinking solely about their own safety, rather than a broader approach designed to protect everyone’s lives.
– “Never back down. Move in and take charge.”
– Resolve dangerous situations as quickly as possible by whatever means legally available.
– Rigid or mechanical use-of-force continuums.
– The 21-foot rule being seen as “a green light to use deadly force”.
– The right of officers to have their need to make split-second judgments in tense and uncertain situations factored into whether a use of deadly force was legally reasonable should also be the ending point on whether their use of force was professionally reasonable.
– Officers thinking of themselves as warriors rather than guardians.
And here’s a few of the training ideas from the report:
– Emphasize training in de-escalation at a greater level than combat techniques.
– Utilize a decision making process which emphasizes gathering information, threat assessment, strategizing, identification of legal and policy requirements, and identification of options before taking action and then re-assessment of all those issues as events develop; train this until it becomes second nature and can be done in an instant.
– Considering objects which can be used as cover while creating and maintaining distance and time.
– Standing back to assess situations and allow communication, rather than immediately rushing in.
– Communicating and engaging with suspects, rather than just issuing orders.
– Realization that containment does not necessarily mean in restraint and that an officer can back up and still have someone contained.
– In after-action investigations always consider whether the officer’s actions created the exigency.
– Strongly emphasize the sanctity of all human life.
– Put very strict limits on foot pursuits and shooting at vehicles.
– Give special training for dealing with mentally disturbed individuals and individuals attempting suicide-by-cop.
The foregoing is a summary of some of the problems and responses highlighted by the report. Before reacting strongly to any of them, I’d strongly recommend actually reading the report, especially the interviews with two law enforcement officials from Great Britain where these techniques have been successfully in use for some time.
Create distance: That”s what civilians should do, not police. Limit foot and vehicle pursuit-translated; go ahead, we won’t chase you.
How about this: OBEY VERBAL ORDERS, DON”T FIGHT THE POLICE, and LIVE!
Lack of action and “missing in action” parents, combined with a culture of filth has created this environment, and this guy wants LEO to further enable them? Crazy world!!
steve harris, an attorney with experience in self defense & officer involved shootings, has come up with a can-may-should-must paradigm for use of deadly force.
based on my understanding, he claims that while the legal aspect (may) will be dealt with objectively, there are subjective aspects (should & must) that will be open to public scrutiny.
it would make sense that the same standard applies to LEOs.
There is a second piece of advise I think we have to learn from Ferguson: governments must move themselves and their police out of an adversarial stance with their citizens. Cities that use their law enforcement system for revenue purposes will turn their citizens against the police.
Ferguson derives over 20% of its city revenue off of traffic enforcement fines and penalties, and at one time had more outstanding bench warrants than it had citizens. Poor people living on the edge can be pushed over by a single ticket, much less the multiple violations and common bench warrants happening in places like Ferguson. When every single interaction you have with the police has a high likelihood of putting you in financial distress, or arrested because you’ve failed to pay open fines because you’re broke, you’re not very likely to view the police favorably.
Right now, citizens see governments issuing fines to pay their own salary. From a poor person’s point of view, it’s nothing different than the mandatory bribes in a Mexico-style system. Mexico’s people (especially in the rural states) have stepped away from the police, and now have had to start treating them as yet another gang in the landscape.
IMHO, US police departments and the court system should get $0 from any law enforcement actions, including civil forfeiture. Yes, $0, even court costs. If the law has a fine, let that fine either get directed to some special use fund like driver safety programs (and no grants to Law Enforcement, that’s cheating). Pay for law enforcement and the court system out of general taxation as the overhead of keeping the peace, and remove this appearance that cops are ticketing and arresting to pay for their own jobs.
If the US criminal justice system and local government wants its people to see the police as allies, it had better start treating the people likewise. Otherwise, the attitude that the police are part of the problem will just spread.
One “report ” worth re-reading for anyone over 50, or reading for those under 50 (because schools don’t require it anymore) is “1984 ” by Orwell. ALL CRIMES ARE POLITICAL. If you don’t understand that then somehow you have missed the cultural coup detat that ocurred about 40 years ago. When folks who kill cops (like Joanne Chisamard) are seen as freedom fighters or an angry and jealous husband can cut the head off of his wife (like OJ) be seen as the victim then the “justice system ” no longer has anything to do with truth. It amounts to political comissars delivering decrees on political adherence and fidelity.
The author holds up UK policing as a “model.” Ugh. Yea, no. Not ever. Is that clear enough?
How’d it work out for Officer Lee Rigby who was beheaded on a city street by two fundamentalist Islamics while unarmed officers hung out with the crowd camming the event for youtube. Oh yea, men with guns came and shot at least one.
Nice tactics. RIP Lee. I remember you. As a TX CHL and MAG 20 grad, I wish I could have helped.
More broadly, blacklivesmatter use Travon Martin/Michael Brown -both justified legal use of deadly force – as their poster children for the movement. FAIL.
None of these blacklivesmatter people can legally articulate their state law on the legal use of deadly force. Nor do any of them have any training in legally scaling force – from simple to deadly. FAIL.
To have a discussion with anyone lacking the two aforementioned points is EPIC FAIL. No thanks. They have no legal or tactical foundation for basic discussion.
Discrediting the police, those charged with keeping law and order in society, is aimed at destroying our constitutionally based society. Notice that taking personal responsibility is discouraged while all responsibility and fault is assigned to the police; or as some say, agents of the imperialistic powers that rule and oppress the masses.
The whole community policing movement is an attempt to shift power from a constitutionally based society where the individual is at center, to a Marxist narrative for the “greater good.” Community policing is actually rule by mob for their greater good, and against the individual’s constitutional rights and protection.
Society’s individuals usually accept and live by exercising personal responsibility while Marxist movements work for the highly elusive greater good for all, that has yet to prove itself as a viable economic and societal model, and is against the individual as a freestanding entity.
“Hand Up Don’t Shot” is just one Trojan Horse employed by current community organizers to move our society from a constitutionally based society to a collectivized society operating for the better good.
A middle of the road approach, much as depicted on Jack Webb’s old Adam-12 TV show seems to be a reasonable start in discussing “interaction”.
Beware of the Black Lives Matter prescription-it is a poison pill.
BLN is a leftist group bent on attacking the police by policy prescription. The BLM approach of digging into circumstances way beyond the immediate situation is a method that will inhibit officers to the point of impotence. The recent disarming and beating of the officer in Birmingham, Alabama is clearly a result of ” don’t deploy your weapon until absolutely the last minute – you will be indicted or fired no matter what”. He did not use deadly force to defend himself from a potentially deadly assault because he was afraid of the legal aftermath.
This is a direct result on the right to self-defense, and the next step will be an attempt at making self-defense by private citizens much harder to justify.
Regards
GKT
One thing that I personally believe police show too much restraint is with rioting, looting mobs. Part of why we have police is to keep order. When they stand back and let looters loot, it hurts all law abiding citizens in the neighborhood.
Oops
not a direct RESULT on right to self-defense, but a direct. ASSAULT
The entire philosophy, strategy, and playbook of the Monday morning quarterback.
The archetype police officer derived from the noted requirements and strategies becomes a witness, nothing more.
The island where Britain used to be is no example. Having known a few Brits, I can tell you that they have fewer issues because the culture there is more one of compliance with the police, and the state.
People there just tend to comply by their nature, and their culture, much as used to be the case in the United States.
The warrior culture of the police here in no accident. It’s a byproduct of a catastrophic loss of civility due to the degrading influence of the welfare state and pop culture, and several groups and classes of the permanently aggrieved.
Nope, the police are not always right, but someone who refuses to comply with the police during or in the aftermath of a criminal act are always wrong. And their actions tend to lead to negative outcomes.
Brits tend to get that notion. They tend to at least recognize and comply with legal authority, even if they don’t respect it.
As usual, his wandering thoughts, and explanations, are so long, and involved, that I would nod off, or forget, what I was trying to read, and assimilate, long before I finished reading his piece.
Yawn!
This is NOT England: https://youtu.be/qgCnG8eugw4
I welcome the writer’s notions of what should have happened differently, other than total and immediate compliance from the suspect.
Perhaps if the officers had taken him to the ground immediately upon contact and the first sign mere contempt form the suspect, he might be alive.
But then again, we’d have had all sorts of cop hate being thrown about, complaints of excessive force etc.
The real problem as stated is unsolvable. The potential variations for situations police find themselves in to entirely LIMITLESS. Predictability is unreliable. The potential for hazard, ever present.
The only possible answer is to follow the police officers instructions. Then sort it all out later.
I’ve long felt that LE organizations need to put more emphasis on de-escalation. I suspect that this has diminished in proportion to the increase of the “warrior” attitude among LEOs. Sometimes it appears that some officers feel like they have to “win” every encounter, and if the individual they’re confronting doesn’t give them sufficient deference, they need to escalate until they feel like they’ve “won,” to the point of arresting them for contempt of cop, or at its extremes, shooting them.
Personally, I never have problems with cops, partly because I don’t do anything to grab their attention, and partly because I’m a middle-aged, middle-class white guy who tends to be respectful when dealing with anyone, cops included. But there are plenty of encounters where LEOs go overboard, sometimes a little, sometimes a lot. Their employers need to work on eliminating that.
My father was a career police officer serving a large metro area from 1952 until his death (cancer, not LOD) in 1975. As a kid all I wanted to do is be a police officer too, so everyday I expected a detailed after-action-report from him on his daily activities. And I clearly recall that his approach to his work was very much in keeping with what was outlined above. My dad never had to fire his weapon in the line of duty and while I know he came close to doing so more than a few times he was always overly thankful that he never had to. I often asked him why, because I knew that he delt with some very bad people. He would always tell me that it was his duty to find a better way to solve the problem. It was the same when it came to other aspects of public safety. Never engage in actions that may present greater danger to the public at large. Knowing many of the people with whom he served, I believe most of them saw their job in the same light. If my dad were alive today, I have no doubt that he would disagree with the current state of LE in the US, even in the department for which he worked.
And in the best of all possible worlds, no one breaks the law. No one has evil intent. And everyone does exactly what a LEO says.
A lot of the suggestions in here make sense. The late George Doc Thompson’s Verbal Judo should be a part of every officer’s training (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=btBw70HAys4). And the response to edged weapons could use some updating. As long as it’s taught in a way that addresses incidents like the 2014 Queens Hatchet Attack and not just mentally ill people with edged weapons, it should be fine.
My main concern is that the general public is shielded from the harsh reality of life or death situations, particularly just how fast a situation can go from normal, to life threatening, to over. Footage of real officer-involved shootings are censored from network TV; you have to go to YouTube, LiveLeak, etc., and find them yourself. The view counts on such videos are a tiny fraction of TV viewership. Meanwhile dramatized shootouts in crime dramas and action movies are mass-distributed to the public, who then form expectations based on fiction rather than reality…oftentimes poorly-researched fiction, at that.
The Eugene, Oregon PD has a video addressing this (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-G1ApUEXcbo). In Phoenix, activist Jarred Maupin was shown police use of force situations firsthand and changed his view as a result (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yfi3Ndh3n-g). If current censorship policies didn’t coddle the US mainstream so much, perhaps there wouldn’t be so many outspoken critics of police procedures.
It’s clear that policies and procedures could use some updating, particularly with how to handle the seconds or even minutes that precede a life-threatening situation. But we should take care that we’re making changes based on empirical evidence and not fiction.
My background: Never been a cop; Never been in serious trouble with the law; Caucasian Male; Living in Seattle, WA; Gun owner & regularly CC; Have trained alongside/by LEO/military (including Massad Ayoob).
Before reading any Internet document that appears to have some level of authority to it, I try to research what the source is, and what their biases are. That’s also why I list a little of my background for your info too. PERF appears to be a legitimate long-standing group of LE professionals. But I have two questions about that group. Why is it a group of individuals who manage cops; not beat cops themselves? And secondly, while PERF has had some good success with rioting technics from back in the late 60’s; I question if the types of individuals who are in need of police attention have changed, as the basic moral fiber of the individuals in our communities have eroded? Back then, was looting, or violence just because you could get away with it even on people’s radar?
As to the recommendations from the report go, my questions have more to do with manpower issues: I believe a cop has a hard, stressful job, which is only going to get worse the more restrictions you put on how they keep themselves safe. The more you micromanage your cops, which ones will leave the force and which ones will stay? Will you end up with not enough officers to do the job? And will the ones you are able to get and keep have problems that will make the job of managing them even harder? Unintended consequences?
And lets talk about the elephant in the room here (I’ll try to make it PC): If a disproportionate amount of the violence that’s happening on our streets, is happening in areas that have much higher amounts of certain ethnic populations in them. then how can a police force effectively protect it’s citizens without spending a much larger amount of their time looking at individuals from that race? And how as an officer, can you do your job day-in and day-out, without becoming more suspicious about anyone who falls into that ethnic group? And if you don’t become more suspicious, will you end up being a statistic, leaving behind a widow?
Keep the comments coming, folks. However, there has been one comment already that won’t see the light of day.
Reminder: attack the argument, not the fellow commentator. Dave, like everyone else, is a guest here.
Thanks,
Mas
Law enforcement; the act of enforcing, ensuring observance of or obedience to laws.
How did that definition get spun, parsed, masticated and spit out as Law enforcement; the process of making an instantaneous determination (while weighing the potential outcome of possible litigation) of whether to shoot, Taser, baton, restrain, cajole, reason with, back away from or ignore someone breaking a law.
It used to be, make the wrong decision with a bad guy and a LEO or an innocent gets hurt or dead; make the wrong decision with a good guy and a LEO gets fired, sued and recurring nightmares. That line has been blurred to the point where the LEO can’t win except in the most egregious of circumstances or crystal clear scenarios. The only way to avoid the decision is if everyone who is not a threat is compliant. Noncompliance moves one towards the category of being a danger to LEOs and others, and MUST be met with appropriate force.
I believe that (usually) nothing bad happens when you completely obey a directive from a LEO. Whether you are in the right or wrong is not material at that moment. Comply and sort it out afterwards. The job of a LEO is tough enough without attitude, resistance or flight.
Some observations, in no particular order of importance.
I notice that the OP, Dave, constantly capitalizes the word, “Black” in his contribution. As if that were some specific attribution worthy of note.
It has come to light that one of the leaders of the black lives matter is actually a white guy, probably a liberal, consumed by white liberal guilt and pretending to be black. We have seen this phenomenon before with the white NAACP lady from Spokane who also, despite proof of both her parents being white, insists that she is black. Both, despite their fair complexion, style their hair in an attempt to reinforce this absurdity.
Liberalism truly is a mental disorder.
One may legitimately ask if Dave also suffers from this malady.
Lately, officers involved in shootings seem to immediately profess that, “I was in fear of my life.” Perhaps sort of a preemptive strike on advice of legal advice from police union lawyers?
I am strongly in favor of body cameras being made mandatory for all LEOs. This will create an atmosphere of respect and civility when officers know every action is being recorded, AND it will quickly put to rest absurd claims of brutality etc. In the mean time, all LEOs should be made aware (this shouldn’t be necessary, but continuing events show that it is) that EVERY time they step out of their vehicle or interact with the public in ANY way, their actions are being recorded by multiple observers.
I also question why, many times, an officer’s first reaction is to draw his duty pistol and open fire. And keep pulling the trigger until the slide locks back. Then, again, claim he was in fear for his life. The three cop A-holes in New York who assassinated Amadu Diallo ( I KNOW I spelled that wrong) with 41 rounds of ammo from their duty pistols as he cowered in a doorway trying to show them his ID is a good example of cops being afraid of the public and overreacting. One cop maybe, but THREE of them confronting a skinny Somalian?
Please…
As I recall from reading his columns, Mr. Ayoob found cause to sympathize (I originally wrote, “Absolve them of any wrong doing.” That would not be correct) with them. This opinion did not set well with me.
“When your only tool is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.”
While I believe Mike Brown got exactly what he was asking for, I am willing to give anyone, no matter how big they are, a chance to charge at me while I am armed with nothing except a baton and pepper spray. I’m not a cop or any sort of martial arts expert. But I bet I can have most attackers face down, weeping and begging for me to stop before they can lay a hand on me. But it’s easier to pull the pistol and open fire. Maybe especially easy after some big, strong black punk almost got your gun away from you and you are questioning your bruised machismo.
Now, rewind back to the incident that took place when Brown initially attacked the officer as he was seated in his vehicle. None of us were there, but if the officer could have gained control of his weapon and put five or six rounds into Brown’s chest and head during the CQB inside the vehicle, no problem there for me. His problem came from exiting his vehicle and pursuing. Do they not teach new cops to ALWAYS call and wait for backup? Was the officer just (somewhat justifiably) pissed off and wanting to deal with this punk personally? I will bet that the training that results from this incident will stress exactly that. Call and wait for backup.
I notice that, for the state patrol around here anyway, the shaved head look seems to be popular. Is that projecting the best image of law enforcement? Wouldn’t a short, neatly trimmed haircut be better at giving folks the idea that the officer was a highly trained, calm, competent professional? Is the storm trooper look intimidating to people? Or is that the intent?
I was in Arkansas once a while back and had some legitimate, non confrontational dealings with a trooper there. No arrests were made, no strong language was exchanged, it was all quite civilized and normal. Yet I noticed the officer was dressed in a definite military style. Pants bloused into jump boots, the whole nine yards. Why? There was no need for that, it wasn’t any sort of a tactical situation, just a routine inspection of a commercial vehicle. Frankly it looked rather silly, and if he was trying to project the image of a tough guy, he failed miserably. I can only imagine the mirth of someone who actually was what this trooper was trying to look like. There are some places where an ordinary “Leg” can get in a world of hurt by tucking his pants into his boot tops.
Someone once told me, in reference to cops in general, “Half of them are Andy, half are Barney.”
That seems to sum it up perfectly.
There is so much wrong with the ideas expressed in this guest blog that it is difficult to even know where to begin to address them.
First of all, the concept of looking at the “totality” of the incident is deeply flawed. With the benefit of 20/20 hindsight, it is always possible to go back in time and find points where events could have been different. We saw this kind of thinking in the Zimmerman case. If only George has not gone out of his home on that dark rainy evening. If only he had not called the police when he saw a person that he thought was suspicious. If only he had not got out of his car. If only he had obeyed the instructions of the 911 operator. There are a hundred cases of “if only” in any such incident. None of them mean a thing. The only thing that matters is whether one is in danger of death or grave bodily harm at the moment when deadly force is employed. If the answer is YES then the use of deadly force was justified and no concept of “if only” has any application at all.
The “totality of circumstances” is a slippery slope that leads, ultimately, to the conclusion that deadly force is never justified. There will always be an “if only” available to make it unnecessary. Therefore, any use of deadly force becomes a failure on the part of the officer and he stands condemned and automatically guilt any time he employees deadly force.
This, of course, is the basic left-wing philosophy. Those on the left believe in the “blank slate”. They believe that “nurture is everything”. Their value system is based upon the concept that humans are inherently good and that all (every bit of it) evil comes from environmental and social forces. Given this belief that all humans “want to be good” and have a built-in “bias” toward goodness, it is reasonable to believe that every situation can be defused by “talking it out” and “de-escalating”. However, all of this is based upon this underlying left-wing utopian belief in mankind’s goodness. If this belief is not true (and of course, it is not universally true or even general true when dealing with criminals) and one encounters a truly evil human that is not interested in “de-escalation”, then the concept utterly fails.
The blog praises the “successful” use of these techniques in the UK. I cannot agree. The people of Great Britain are largely disarmed and helpless. If they are attacked by a criminal, they must meekly submit. If they dare raise a hand in self-defense, then the State may well victimize them again and charge them with criminal assault against their attacker! It is true that, in a disarmed society, the number of gun murders and shootings is low (by both civilians and the police) but the overall crime rate is high since the criminals in the UK know that their victims are all disarmed and that the left-wing State (in effect) subsidies their criminal activity.
While no one supports police wrongdoing, making each police officer fearful of even pulling his or her gun is just going to get a lot of good officers killed. It is not the solution. It is just another step down the left-wing path toward perdition. This blog seems to argue that this path is inevitable and that the police should be trained to deal with it as best they can. This is like arguing that, when an ocean liner is headed for an iceberg, the crew should regard the sinking as inevitable and make no attempt to alter course. No, the only solution is to have a good evacuation plan!
This is an important topic to discuss today. The comments have been excellent!!! I have never served in law enforcement, but I’ll put my two cents in anyway.
The police are being asked to change their tactics. I see three possible responses;
1) STAND FIRM! Don’t give in to pressure groups who want to de-stabilize this country. The current system of giving cops the benefit of the doubt saves their lives, enables them to perform their duty, and has kept most of the public safe. There are bad cops, and sometimes they get away with behaving badly, but that is no reason to change a system which works well most of the time. The perfect is the enemy of the good.
2) Stop policing high crime areas. Mayor of NYC David Dinkins allowed three days of rioting before police got involved in the Crown Heights riots back in the 1990s. Forty or fifty citizens were killed, but the cops were not accused of police brutality. In Baltimore the police were told to stand still and let the looters loot. Businesses were destroyed, but the cops were not accused of any wrongdoing, and I didn’t hear about any deaths.
3) Have black LEOs police black neighborhoods.
Let’s see. If cops have lots of complicated rules to follow, during split-second, dangerous, emotional encounters in low light conditions, and career criminals get to sit in comfortable prisons, without working for food, medical care, educational opportunities, conjugal visits and endless appeals, then maybe we have reached the point where crime really DOES pay. (Which is worse, living in an American prison, or being free in a backward country?)
No agreement on writer’s thoughts. The premise of “totality” is not relevant. It’s not part of the real equation of law enforcement work. Any experienced LEO knows the real score, survive the encounter based on training and experience. LEO’s who go with the “totality” theory will get themselves or some other officer hurt!
Mas, you have struck a nerve with this one. Britain’s problems aside, along with the precentages of some deficient LEOs …, I fully expect the ranks to avoid engaging or even “seeing” blatant issues rather than risking their careers or entering that gray area of race. I hear from friends in the business, from Sheriffs, deputies, PDs …
The many comments above address the subject quite well. My one issue with referring to “then” vs. now is relevance? We have fostered the breakdown we now face, with racial tensions today reminiscent of those of the 60’s & 70’s. Ironic, given it appears policy. Yet the “programs” keep coming and failing, including education.
We’ll pay the price.
Let us have a basic understanding of the dynamics of politics. Anti-gun politics create a power vacuum, that promotes graft! You want police protection? well… You have to play ball with the machine… The bigger the town, the bigger the graft potenial.
I must say that I think the article has some good points. I have also read the comments to date, and while I find many with good points also, I am a bit disturbed by the repeated notion that, as a populace, we should be immediate and unquestioning in our complete deference and compliance with police authority; else we are, as one poster put it, “always wrong”. I think this is wrong-headed, and it, I believe, is part of the issue we are seeing boiling over.
For whatever reason, rightly or wrongly, there is a perception problem with law enforcement. Law enforcement have morphed from “the good guy” that regular folks can approach for help to some form of paramilitary force. The militaristic/tactical/BDU look, the acquisition of military equipment (rifles, vehicles, etc.), the perception that the police view citizens with distrust… these all contribute. Whether you like it or not. And people respond to that perception.
I, personally, do not commit crimes. I have never been arrested, and never been to court, except for a traffic ticket or two. My involvement with police has been, getting a speeding ticket notwithstanding, positive, respectful, and professional. Every single encounter. However, I am still intimidated. Why? And why should I be?
I think I am intimidated because that is the perception that is out there. Police are to be feared and respected – if you do not comply, immediately, fully, and without question, to any order that they give you, at any time, for any reason, then you could be attacked and possibly killed. Why? Because they took a job that is stressful and dangerous? Is that sufficient reason why every cop needs to be outfitted as a special forces operator? Is that why the populace is expected to be docile and compliant, whether the cop is right or not?
I don’t think so. Granted, we ask a lot of our LEOs. We ask that they put their lives on the line, daily, to investigate the worst behaviors and situations that life can throw at us. We ask them to pursue the most evil among us. We ask them to do this, and we compensate them poorly for it. We ask them to do this, knowing that we will second-guess their decisions from the safety of a living room or even a court room. Granted, we ask a lot from them; and they get precious little in return.
But, does the fact that we ask this of them mean that we must capitulate, every time an order is barked at us? Does it mean we must tolerate home invasions by SWAT teams with flashbang grenades, automatic rifles, and shouted commands in the early morning hours when people are sleeping? Must we tolerate that, as well, when the home invaded is the wrong house, and the family has no recourse?
There must be a middle ground. The answer cannot simply be: comply and sort it out later, every time. Why? Because, sometimes, there is no “later”.
…. and this doesn’t even address the notion that what is self-defense for a LEO is murder for a non-LEO. If someone is attacking you, then you have the right to self-defense. LEO or not. Either your have AOJ or you do not. This notion also give people the perception that police “can get away with murder”…. because they can. And oftentimes, the only consequence is a lost job or a reprimand. And they have a union and other personnel working to help them. Non-LEOs do not – unless they pay for it. Most do not have that option. Most LEOs wouldn’t have that option if they had to come out of pocket for it.
I guess, bottom-line: LEOs are supposed to work for the citizens of their country, state, city, etc. Not against them. And the perceptions abound that the relationship between LEOs and non-LEOs is an adversarial one.
I think that is the thrust of the guest blog, and I agree with many of his points. After all, I don’t think the point of law enforcement is merely to attack every lawbreaker, even the stupid ones lacking in the self-preservation instincts that tell us to not confront the men dressed in black BDUs carrying automatic weapons.
I am seeing very obvious tactical mistakes occuring by numerous officers which have resulted in officer shootings. Such as pulling right up within feet to a man with a gun call and getting out no use of cover opening fire within a few seconds due to fear of being shot from lack of cover and placing yourself in such close proximity to the perp less 15 feet or less. Using cover while issuing your very commands allows the indiduals to comply with your command, provides the officer opportunity to access the situation such as noticing this is ten year old and if I yell enough command they will certainly listen, or this suspect is wearing his ear plugs listening to loud music holding his Walkman not a gun before being shot by officer, also the father back you are DISTANCE the less likelyhood you are of being hit by the perps bullets if they shoot at you so stay back.
Theres been several officer involved shooting involving individuals holding a knife at a great distance than 21 feet, just standing there not advancing just not complying. However use of munition fired from a non lethal weapon could have prevented the use of live ammo and saved a human life and this is the preferable outcome in many cases.
I belive Federal funding is needed for better training especially tactical. Better equipment is most certainly needed such as non lethal weapons. Body cameras is the least of importance to stop this stuff.
When those who uphold the law are restrained from doing so, those who would uphold the law refrain.
See Brown v. City of New York, Second Circuit, August 19th. The legal paradigm for LEO immunity for use of force has already begun to change.
As for the comment above on my use of deadly force paradigm — there are considerations for the sworn not applicable to the nonsworn. The MAY, SHOULD, and MUST are often different. Many states have specific use of force statutes applicable only to LEOs. LEOs are obligated to protect others, nonsworn rarely are.
My comment is the old adage: “Walk a Mile in their Shoes” before you heap criticism on the police. In general there are a great many who make an outstanding effort to do their jobs right. Until you have experienced some of the things that officers are faced with and that all important split second decision you are still in the dark. I remember going through the Wyoming Law Enforcement Academy’s shoot, don’t shoot exercise. I was wet with seat and totally drained emotionally after that one. It was done in half light which was not very much and we couldn’t use a flashlight. I am not sticking up for all officers, just telling what I experienced. I am retired now and very glad to be.
This has gone very political with name calling of differing political beliefs and that is not what the problem is.
In this case, the PERCEPTION is becoming the reality. Whether police are brutal or racist or just do not care about the lives of poor people (not all poor are black, just like not all whites are rich) is not as important as what people are think or perceive them to be.
In my experience, THEIR ARE LEO’S WHO SHOULD NOT BE COPS! I have been in law enforcement for 25 years and these people do exist, but they are a VERY SMALL MINORITY.
Most officers want to be officers because it is interesting and in many cases, they just wanted a job.
It is a job that offers a lot of challenges, but also a lot of stress.
My agency just decided to cut back on training again. We will now qualify twice a year, when I started, it was four times a year.
Non lethal force training of batons and pepper spray is ONCE a year.
No hand to hand or martial arts training comes after you leave the academy.
Why is this important. Because the more you practice, the better you become and the safer you will feel. That allows you to try de-escalation. It also allows the mindset of de-escalation to develop.
One of the innovations of 20th century policing was putting cops in patrol cars. It was hailed as a method of separating police from the public and reducing corruption by reducing familiarity.
Well it worked, but it also had separated the officers from their patrol area community.
Ask LEO’S if they live in the area they police and many will tell you no. Some will say, “HELL NO”!
Many years ago, DADE County, FLORIDA (often called MIAMI-DADE County because the city of MIAMI is located there) actually passed a law requiring employees to live in the county if they wanted to work there. The cops had become notorious for moving up to the next county.
I remember an African American woman I worked, with got into a domestic with her husband. She told me she was shocked when the police showed up. The two officers, one black, one white took statements and then the black officer wanted to arrest her. The white officer, she said was more sympathetic.
I think the idea of having only black police officers patrol black neighborhoods is absurd.
Do you really think anyone would join a department where the color of their skin determines what assignments they get? Really? I think this was already tried and it was called APARTHIED!
Two many of the managers (they rarely qualify as leaders) of law enforcement agencies and their politician bosses will try to solve this problem by buying new technology like COP CAMS or by demanding more money for training.
When they do not get enough money for the extra training, then they will cut something else or eliminate it entirely, like shooting qualifications or legal training, just so they can say they are giving their offices the new training they need.
Last year, I received video training ON HOW YOU SHOULD NOT USE YOUR GUN OR TAZER IN A CONFRONTATIONAL SITUATION or you could get into serious trouble.
A couple of weeks later, I went to qualification where we had simulator training where we were told to SHOOT AS SOON AS POSSIBLE (this was after a mass shooting).
How do you decide? Get killed, jailed or fired. Your choice!
I think part of the solution would be for the politicians and police management to come out and emphasis ALL LIVES MATTER and mean it.
The police in many areas are being divorced from the communities they serve. Part of the blame belongs to those very same communities. Invite the cops to participate. Have them explain what they are dealing with. Ask what they can do to help work with the community. The communities should also ask what they can do to work with the police. It will be the interaction and communication of the police and the communities they police that will reduce some of these confrontations.
If mouthing off to a cop who pulls you over is frowned upon by the community at large, it will happen less. If police walk through some of the neighborhoods and get to know the public they will no longer appear to be an occupying force and the police will gain an information asset.
Sorry is this sounds like a rant, but I have seen too many lost opportunities and too many wrong paths taken in my career to think that everyone, on all sides will stop for a moment and think about the other point of view.
Jim
Well stated, TN_MAN. I am personally having a problem connecting with the assumptions presented in the “Re-engineering Training…” report. I am not convinced that police procedures are so arcane and in need revision as much as I believe that the criminal element has been emboldened by a permissive society and its leadership. What has not changed is the reality of what constitutes a lethal threat and the necessity to deal with that threat in a way that minimizes the risk to the responder and bystanders. Changing the rules of engagement to a kinder and more gentle approach while the actual threat risk is increasing is a disastrous recipe. As seen lately, the police will tend to (or be ordered to) simply back away rather than becoming involved in a potentially legal, political and lethal situation. A large part of the problem is that those who will never be confronted with life threatening situations are making the rules defining the proper protocol to be followed as if reaction time was unconstrained.
Mas, while I understand the “attack the argument” comment, I must say this: I come here to read you, not someone with “liberal” in their handle.
To be honest, I just have no desire to completely read Dave’s discourse because I’m truly not interested. Yes, I caught your intro to this post, but what content I did read seems to veer too far from what I believe is your blog’s mission.
If Dave wants to discuss administrative issues and approaches in modern-day law enforcement, perhaps he should start his own blog.
BTW, as a word of advice from a professional writer, he may want to use the period and the return keys a little more often. His post seems like it was cut out of a textbook.
TXCOMT
First, I’d like to thank everyone who has posted comments so far, from all points of view.
Second, I have to say that I’m a bit surprised that more people have not commented upon the basic point made here: That even if the PERF report had not come out there were signs that departments were going to hold officers accountable for not avoiding confrontation when that was possible and that the PERF report, if it is actually representative of an increasing feeling among law enforcement administration (which I cannot vouch for: I can only see how PERF is composed and what the report says; perhaps PERF is widely discounted in the LEO community as the organization for liberal police chiefs), seems to confirm that position. If that is going to become the prevailing trend, then I would suggest that the Black Lives Matter campaign, whatever you think of it, may already have won the day. Whether that is going to put police lives at risk — and Mas can confirm that I have very clearly said here that I believe that both Police Lives Matter and Black Lives Matter — depends on whether the report is accurate that de-escalation techniques save both police and civilian lives.
Third, I’ll refrain from responding to those who have, at least so far, made personal representations about me, put words in my mouth, or attributed stances to me that I’ve not taken, but I will reply to the comment about my capitalization of the word “Black.” That’s simple English usage. In that context, when referring to Black people, Black is not an adjective, it’s a proper noun and proper nouns are capitalized. It’s also a proper noun when referring to the title of something, like the Black Lives Matter campaign.
Fourth, and this is at this point just a teaser, I think the single most interesting observation in the PERF report is the question: Did the officer cause the exigency? While that may first have some legs in the question of professional responsibility, I have to wonder (as did Greg Tag, above) if that principle becomes accepted for law enforcement purposes if it might not eventually might not bleed over into the general law of self-defense. There’s already an element of self-defense that says that you lose the defense if you do something intended to provoke the attack so as to allow you to use self-defense. It’s only a hair’s breadth from there to losing the defense if you did something negligently or recklessly which provoked an attack, at least if you’re a LEO and ought to know better and/or there were other alternatives available.
Because of my age, I have had the advantage of observing policing from a citizen’s standpoint since the 1950’s. Back in 2004, I stated seeing a distinct change in how police started to interact with the average citizen in things like traffic stops based on feedback from news reports, internet blogs, and newspapers. What I saw was a rising intolerance on the part of police for any questioning of their authority or actions. This made me think “police state” before the main stream citizen has recognized that we are there today.
No one uses the term “peace officer” or “police officer” any more. Check the comments in this column. Everyone now refers to them as LEOs – “Law Enforcement Officers”. That implies that today’s officer primary responsibility is not “ensuring the peace” or “policing for the good of the community” – it implies that the only responsibility is to “enforce the laws” – and the devil take the hindmost. What I see today is all laws (major and minor) enforced equally with zero tolerance with little or no regard at what the best solution is for the circumstance as David in Nashville noted concerning his father’s approach to policing. The police force today talk like warriors, dress like warriors, and carry the weapons of warriors. Is it any surprise that they think of themselves as warriors and act accordingly instead of seeing themselves as street wise mediators in the community?
I agree with Boyd in that many of today’s officers feel like they need to “win” each encounter otherwise the citizen will “disrespect them” – or worse yet, their brothers in blue will disrespect them as being too soft. Too many officers today are too insecure with their authority which leads to escalation all out of proportion to the initial reason for interaction. How many minor warrants are today served by small community SWAT teams with forced entry because “if you got ‘em, use ‘em”? How many times have folks been tasered for “violations” that the officer would have let ride because it wasn’t important enough to roll around on the ground to apprehend them?
There are many excellent police officers in that vocation today, but the reason this is now an issue is because (1) there may be more poorly skilled officers in the profession than before and/or (2) you now have more media coverage of small events in other communities around the country due to the internet. I don’t know which, but I am concerned. There is less respect and trust for the police by the mainstream citizen today and that has to be bad overall for the community. You may not think that is true by the comments in this forum, but we are all “law and order” folks here that believe in accountability and responsibility for one’s self. Not everyone thinks like us.
There are 67 elected county sheriffs in my state. All 67 are pro-second amendment. There are hundreds of appointed police chiefs. The vast majority are anti- second amendment. Politics has no business being involved in law enforcement.
Do black lives matter? All lives matter including the LEO. When faced with a threat, an officer should not have to worry about law suits. He should only think of what is right or wrong.
On retraining the police. Lets train the public on how to behave with an officer. As a former firefighter, I saw many people involved in minor traffic accidents act stupid (verbally & physically) and wind up getting cuffed because they disagreed with getting a ticket.
All LEOs are not perfect, but lets not crucify all for the acts of a few.
FWIW, my 1970s era ‘line division’, ‘legal officer’ assessment is that this administration has been satanic in it’s effects on the black community. An Alinskyite community organizer in the White House. Instead of forcing a revision on black inner-city breeding into coherent families Obama has brought us this. Good men, the same men who were effective police in our communities now second guessing and dealing with the same sort of ROE BS that’s killed many of our young troops overseas.
Three things come to mind!
1) I wonder if Dave has ever been even a security guard? I’m sure the people he quotes never were (candyassed officials don’t count). A few hundred more trips around the block is in order….in sleazy neighborhoods, not the comfy, INSULATED suburbs.
2) It’s evident (at least to me) that BLM is just one of he latest temper tantrums from the perpetually infantile.
3) As for the British and their methods, I suggest a reading of Theodore Dalrymple’s “Life at the Bottom” to see what a cesspool Great Britain has become, and how it’s becoming more of a sewer with each passing week, to see what Dave’s techniques produce.
Note: Was the title intended to mimic Monty Python? 🙂
I wonder if there is a way the author can use these techniques in the field himself and test them live.
Just him tho. Not the cops protecting his rear. To see when these work, when they fail, and the level of corporeal harm that occurs.
I wonder if he/those that espouse are willing to put their ass on the line for their strong beliefs. Or if they’d rather let others deal with how it works out?
Regarding the author’s comment about “instigation” or “provocation” of the attack, please reference the legal articulation and use of force differences between the duties of sworn citizen police and regular citizens. One man’s instigation is another’s quit resisting. Maybe Mas can weigh in on this?
The author’s suggestion list of changes is extensive.
Has the author done extensive simunitions, airsoft, and less lethal tool force on force training? If so when and how much? Please list your basic self defense (simple to deadly force) training and legal articulation training as well. I’d like to know your citizen self defense training.
More broadly, Blacklivesmatter use Travon Martin/Michael Brown -both justified legal use of deadly force – as their poster children for the movement. FAIL.
None (Big Word) of these Blacklivesmatter people can legally articulate their state law on the legal use of deadly force. Nor do any of them have any training in legally scaling self defense force – from simple to deadly. Yet, they are the impetus narrative to change force law.
Will the author state why they remain willfully ignorant of their State’s force law?
Will the author state why they rally around fully justified use of deadly force cases?
And will the author explain why I should take them/him/these ideas seriously regarding changing force law? ((BTW: I do take them very seriously with my CHL carry loadout and training with two extra doublestacks – thanx Mas for opening my eyes in MAG 20))
A correction and a couple of comments:
– The correction: In my discussion of my capitalization of the word “Black” in my last comment, above, I said it was a proper noun, not an adjective — but then immediately used it as an adjective: “Black people.” What I meant to say is that it is a proper noun used as an adjective, i.e. a proper adjective, see:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proper_adjective
– The comments, both to TXCOMT: First, I use the byline with “(the liberal, non-Uncle one)” because there is another regular commenter here who is conservative and goes by the byline Uncle Dave. I adopted my byline simply to make a clear distinction between us and avoid the possibility that Uncle Dave had suddenly gone liberal — which, according to Michael JT, above, is the equivalent of going insane. (Which, apropos of nothing, reminds me of a line from the song “Gee, Officer Krupke” from West Side Story. Which, come to think of it, also amusingly addresses both sides of the idea advanced by TN_MAN that left wingers believe that people are intrinsically good but warped by nurture vs the right winger view that some people are intrinsically evil by nature. [Where, by the way, do y’all _get_ these things?] See and hear the song at https://youtu.be/j7TT4jnnWys .) Second, like you TXCOMT, I am a professional writer, though of a different sort: As a lawyer I’ve spent over three decades writing legal documents which I fear has permanently corrupted my general writing style while, at the same time, making me quite capable of being a mob boss’s lawyer: I can make you an offer that you can’t understand. All kidding aside I do have a tendency to run-on sentences (with many parenthetical asides), which I constantly but most unsuccessfully fight.
In the early days of the old west justice was often unjustly carried out at the hands of lynch mobs and vigilantes. These lynch mobs and vigilantes now go after the law enforcement officer instead of the suspect, often before the facts of the incident are known and then after the action has been shown as justified and in many cases necessary.
Black lives matter. To whom? Apparently not to BlackLivesMatter who has spent the past two years protesting the death on a single black man while making the lives of the living black community in that area harder by doing so. They have viciously attacked the black officers on that force simply because they wore the uniform. All of the black officers have since left that police force because of it. Apparently their lives don’t matter.
Hundreds of people of color are murdered every year in the city of Chicago. Average is 1.5 people of color every single day. These black lives don’t seem to matter to BlackLivesMatter. They have not had one single demonstration, public protest or, or prayer vigil for these black lives. Why? Because they are not being killed at the hands of a white law enforcement officer. There is no press to be had there. There is no public outrage that can be garnered when one black man kills another. There is not fifteen minutes of fame that can be claimed.
If black lives mattered to BlackLivesMatter they would mount a very public campaign to end the murders happening in Chicago.
When guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns.
When the police are restricted from policing criminals cannot be stopped and crime increases.
When justice is delivered at the hands of politically motivated lynch mobs justice quickly becomes unjust revenge on the innocent.
All lives matter – white LEO, black suspect, innocent bystander.
Patellar reflex
Better known as the knee-jerk reaction.
The 10:00PM news runs a story of an innocent black teenager (19) being gunned down by a white cop when he was doing nothing more than walking down the street. The story leaves out the fact the man was coming from a crime and had just lunged into the police car, hitting the officer and trying to take his weapon.
The news story sparks a protest, the protest a riot, the riot leads to people on both sides of the line getting hurt.
Over the next year we hear similar news stories with similar results.
That is the strike to the patellar ligament.
The following knee-jerk comes as law enforcement agencies all over the country react by changing their rules of engagement to restrict their officers, greatly impacting their ability to do their job. Common sense and logical ROE are necessary and welcome. Restrictive, feel good measures created by someone who never walks a beat are dangerous and often idiotic.
When my company issued us laptops they put a policy in effect that said we could not leave said laptop in our hotel room or locked in our car but had to remain on our person at all times. I questioned the policy and was told it was not an option and that I had to follow it to the letter.
So, when I was working at our office in Australia I strapped it to my back when I went diving on the Great Barrier Reef. After all, it was not an option and I was told to follow it to the letter.
Ok, I am not that stupid. But it does demonstrate what happens when well intentioned people who don’t have a clue try to fashion policy for those who do. The knee-jerk reaction by law enforcement agencies nonsensically restricting the law enforcement officers’ escalation of force will only result in hurt and dead cops, as well as, hurt and dead innocent bystanders when the criminals they will be required to let flee hurt the innocent after the pursuit.
There is no law enforcement agency since the late Mayor Richard J. Daley that issues “shoot to kill” orders to their officers. Every officer in this country is trained in the escalation of force and the use of deadly force. All of us are human and there are bad apples in every bunch. To punish millions and get thousands hurt or dead because of the actions of a handful is idiotic at best.
Knee-jerk polices hurt whenever and wherever they are tried. But they sure make people feel good about themselves.
This all reminds me of the reverse discrimination that occurred in the late sixties and seventies.
Amerika is a country which has always been full of white racists. The white racists slaughtered the First Americans, and at the same time, they enslaved black Africans. When the slaves were set free in 1863 or thereabouts, some returned to Africa, but most of them stayed right here. In fact, many former slaves who were adults, continued to work for their racist white masters. The newly freed blacks, endured another one hundred years of Jim Crow oppression. When they finally achieved legal equality in 1965, they didn’t return to Africa, they stayed right here.
White women have always been oppressed by white men. So, in the 1970s, they rebelled. One would think the women of Saudi Arabia, who still cannot drive cars, would be the ones for “Women’s Lib.” But no, it was the white woman, who was the only wife of her husband, and had all the labor saving devices created in the XXth century, and who could drive cars, and go to restaurants, and hire maids, and watch TV, and vote, and get many jobs, who rebelled against the white racist male oppressors.
People only cross the southern border of racist Amerika traveling one direction, they go from south to north. They may go from north to south to visit, but they go from south to north to live and work for the racist white gringos.
In short, almost everyone in the world wants to live in racist Amerika. Amerika reminds me of Disney World in Orlando, FL. Disney World was built in a swamp. Well, Amerika is like Disney World, and the other nations of the world, are like the swamp.
Everyone condemns white, racist Amerika with their mouths, but their feet want to be firmly planted here. Everyone wants to live and work with “Mighty Whitey.”
To Dave (The Liberal, Non-Uncle One):
“….addresses both sides of the idea advanced by TN_MAN that left wingers believe that people are intrinsically good but warped by nurture vs the right winger view that some people are intrinsically evil by nature. [Where, by the way, do y’all _get_ these things?]”
Since you ask the question, I will be happy to explain the concept in more detail.
Politics is social engineering by means of adjustment of the laws, rules and regulations of a society. Like any form of engineering, the properties of the applicable building materials must be known. In this case, the basic materials are human beings and human behavior. The function of any proposed law or regulation obviously depends heavily upon having a predictive model of human behavior.
Unfortunately, human behavior is complex. It is dependent upon the interaction of both “nature and nurture” and ranges a broad scale from saintly good to sadistically evil. The human mind is “hardwired” to try to see patterns in even the most random of structures. It seeks to find order in chaos. For example, a human looks at the stars in the night sky and sees constellations. This process is so hardwired into the human psyche that it often occurs subconsciously. So, to bring order to the chaos of human behavior, most humans subconsciously make simplifying assumptions about the goodness of mankind as a whole. These assumptions have a profound effect upon the worldview and political orientation of the individual making the assumption.
There are three (3) possible simplifying assumptions that can be made. These can be characterized as positive, neutral or negative. The positive assumption is that all humans are inherently good. This leads to the worldview that human can do evil only if they are nurtured in evil. It generates a political viewpoint that all the evils of the world spring from environmental or social forces. The result is the classic, left-wing (aka liberal) political viewpoint. The political motivation of the left is to (a) identify a social source of evil, (b) develop a plan of action to attack or mitigate it, (c) form a “movement” to implement the plan of action then (d) use the movement to press for government action for “change”. The “Black Lives Matter” Movement is a prime example of a left-wing movement. It has identified a social source of evil (racism leading to police brutality). It has organized a movement and (in classic, left-wing fashion) is calling for the government to make “changes” in the way the police are organized and trained to mitigate this perceived social source of evil.
The neutral assumption is the “blank slate”. That humans are born “innocent” and are shaped, for good or ill, by how they are nurtured. Although the base assumption is different, the result is identical with the above positive assumption. A worldview is created whereby “nurture is everything” and all the evils of the world spring from mankind’s social environment. It leads to an identical “left-wing” political viewpoint.
The negative assumption leads to a wildly different political theory compared with the positive or neutral assumptions. The negative assumption is that all humans have a “dark side” that is an inherent part of human nature. This leads to a worldview whereby evil springs from the human heart rather than from external social forces. It gives rise to the classic, right-wing theory of politics.
The gun control debate is a perfect illustration of these differences. Those on the left cannot blame humans for violence lest their basic assumption (i.e. people are inherently good) about humanity be violated. They need a social force to blame. So, they blame the availability of firearms for violence. One can see this in their slogan of “Gun Violence”. This is, in effect, saying “Guns cause Violence”. Therefore, the classic left-wing playbook is put into action. The evil social force has been identified (guns and their easy availability). A left-wing movement (the gun control movement) is formed. It presses for government action (ban the guns). It is all so entirely predictable to one who understands the underlying driving assumptions.
On the right, they like to say: “Guns don’t kill people, people kill people”. This is classic right-wing thinking. The fault is not a social force (Guns). No, it is the badness that springs from the heart of evil people.
Despite your effort to “poke fun” at the concept, the idea seems sound enough to me. It goes a long way toward explaining the constant “warfare” that exists between left-wing and right-wing political groups. Both sides are absolutely sure of their values without even realizing the subconscious assumptions that underlie both political theories. Furthermore, since human behavior is indeed a range rather than an absolute, both political theories are often wrong. Indeed, the more ardently one follows either the left-wing or right-wing model, the more surely it will lead you astray from the truth. For this reason, I regard myself as a moderate.
Pardon me if I am missing something. I only read the first 33 pages of the report cited in the article. The general tone of the article seems to be that officer training needs to be better and more up to date. I see that as only being beneficial. (My bias here is that my son is a police officer and is paying out of pocket for additional training.) Addressing a few of their talking points: I only remember the concept of “suicide by cop” for about 10 or 15 years and mental health issues have changed dramatically. Also, the Tueller principle, if taught (or suggested) as an absolute on when to shoot, is a gross misuse of a valuable principle. I particularly found the “shoot/don’t shoot at cars” section interesting. Being a police officer is certainly a difficult job but good, frequent, and up-to-date training that is directed toward difficult situations should lead to better officers and less job stress. As an aside, I saw one comment above I wanted to address concerning the use of the term LEO’s. The acronym is probably over used but in my area we have city police, campus police, city marshals, county constables, the county sheriff’s department, game wardens, the Dept. of Public Safety/Highway Patrol, and various corrections officers. LEO or peace officer, if you choose, seems to be appropriate terminology as neither is derogatory or militaristic.
Sorry, but one more thing. @ Illinois Bob. If I understood what I read concerning the Ferguson incident, it would have been better not to have approached Brown so closely in a car. The same goes for officers positioning of their cars during traffic stops. If Officer Wilson had done this (or maybe been aware of it), we might not be having this conversation. That being said, Officer Wilson’s error was certainly not criminal where as Mr. Brown’s was criminal, IMO.
The first political solution is to prohibit “chiefs” of police. It should be required by law to elect a constitutional sheriff.
Connecticut is widely regarded as a corrupt political state. That is why it is called Corrupticut. Agreed? That’s right, they banned all sheriffs!
Kentucky Packrat is 100% correct. The abuse of “civil asset forfeiture” is where secondary reform efforts should take place.
The issues in the guest article are symptoms of a much larger, insidious and diabolical scheme. One can see it coming from miles away…
It is problem-action-solution. “Agents” foment racial division, blame local police departments, and federalize police power in the entire country.
Forget the phoney ‘blm’ movement. If this does not work they will change names just like the bloomberg gun-bigot attack machine. Take local action. Ensuring you have a constitutional sheriff is the first step.
Here is a movie that explains the big picture. Like the intro says, YOU are in it. Watch it all:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=74Jcpsk7QSI
I feel that most domestic police forces are getting increasingly militarized in their equipment and tactics. The result can be antagonistic interactions with the citizenry instead of more friendly contacts, the way it is in Europe (having lived there, I’d however say that the cops are weaker, not nicer, over there). While I do resent this, I’m afraid that addressing the matter BEFORE fixing society itself first is not viable.
Police are part of society, neither above nor beyond it, and policing problems are symptoms of how volatile our society has become, not of how evil or untrained cops are. The way officers respond is based on how suspects are known to behave in a given area. So the ‘fix’ proposed (kinder and gentler cops) is nothing but your typical liberal game of blaming the messenger and scapegoating the good guys. It’s also criminal-coddling at its best. I wouldn’t be surprised if the next step pushed was disarmament. As though weakening the troops by forcing affirmative action quotas down their throats had not done enough damage – I remember thinking that for the first time when the LAPD shot homeless and mentally ill Margaret Mitchell in ’99. She was NOT dispatched by two big and burly white Vietnam vets, what most LAPD officers typically were before liberals started castrating the department, but by fearful officers that were poster children for ‘enlightened’ policies (one Asian male and one Hispanic female).
It ain’t that easy being a cop. And hey, surprise, surprise, but this guy seems to have had an epiphany: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yfi3Ndh3n-g
Anyone claiming to have ideas about how cops should do their jobs should go through this type of training.
Now let’s be honest about the whole BLM mess. IF society was as racist as we are told repeatedly, IF LEOs were so prejudiced and quick to shoot, media reports about shootings like the Michael Brown one would NOT have to twisted and fudged to manipulate public opinion and future jurors. The same applies to this non-LE shooting we’ve discussed at length here, the Trayvon Martin case. Examples would abound where cops would be handing liberals and lawyers the rope to hang them, right? The simple fact that some of the most publicized and controversial shootings were justified proves my point: we are being taken for a ride.
Lemme take the kid gloves off now: we may have won the Cold War, but the Left has been rotting American society for a very long time. McCarthy was right. This slow-moving cancer has infiltrated then taken over the media, the entertainment business and the education system decades ago to implement the agenda of reshaping the minds of future generations. The net result and resounding success is the election of a radical muslim sympathizer as president.
The Left has also systematically courted minorities, especially blacks, convincing them to turn on our ‘evil, white, male-dominated’ nation that has done them so much wrong. That communism and socialism are prevalent among blacks is no accident. Blacks are being victimized and kept down by the Left through incentives to stay dependent on big government. As welfare recipients instead of contributing and upwardly mobile members of society, they are nothing but a subsidized voting block used and pandered to (about racism) for the sole purpose of solidifying a power that can’t be won fair and square via white voters. The same thing is going on with the massive import and legalization of Latinos. They are pawns.
Part of me was relieved that a black president was elected in ’08. I figured naively at the time that this could finally heal old wounds and show minorities, especially blacks, that the system worked and that the anger they felt all their lives was not entirely justified.
But what we have is a president who, instead of uniting and appeasing, has been fanning the flames of a brewing race war. He has distorted facts as shamelessly as a Sharpton script writer and his White House has influenced LE and justice system officials in local matters.
Unrest is being instigated while LE is being muzzled. What are the Left and its Great Black Hope trying to achieve, if not what communism tried as early as in the years after the soviet revolution, to destabilize and eventually destroy the US?
We DO need some change and we need it fast. But the last thing we need on top of the nanny state is the nanny police. Call me a pessimist, but I’m afraid that the gangrene is too severe and that much of the public has been irreversibly brainwashed to accept its sheep status in a 1984-style communist utopia. I’m sorry, but I’m hoping for a societal reset beyond what politicians can or are willing to accomplish and a return to the roots of this once great nation. It’s a long shot. Too many people are working against us and proposing feel-good fixes that are anything but.
Fair enough, Dave, and thanks for the backstory on the handle! As an aside, I’m always fascinated about the handles folks use, so I appreciate hearing your explanation. BTW, mine consists of the postal abbreviations of the states I’ve lived in so far.
As for the writing, I totally understand; every profession does it a different way. LEOs write reports in a way only other LEOs (or cop beat writers) can understand, as do lawyers, doctors, etc. And I’m serious about starting your own blog…I’m thinking there’d be several readers who’d check it out just to add their counterpoints in the comments section!
TXCOMT
Comments are closed.