When I first saw the Police Executive Research Forum’s “30 Guiding Principles” in their “Use of Force: Taking Policing to a Higher Standard,” I showed it to my significant other. She’s not LE herself, but hangs out with enough law enforcement personnel to have a good idea how things work. After reading it, she shook her head sadly and said, “Who PERF-etrated this?”
The answer, according to PERF itself, is “Approximately 200 police chiefs and other police officials from various ranks, along with federal officials, academics, and mental health experts.” How significant that one category is missing from that mix: police instructors in the law and practice of judicious use of force. IALEFI, the International Association of Law Enforcement Firearms Instructors and ILEETA, the International Law Enforcement Educators and Trainers Association, would undoubtedly have been happy to help research and explain things, Unfortunately, it doesn’t appear that either was contacted.
I thought the single most egregious of their 30 points was Policy 3: “Police use of force must meet the test of proportionality.” (Emphasis PERF’s.) That sounds reasonable enough until you read the fine print: “In assessing whether a response is proportional, officers must ask themselves, ‘How would the general public view the action we took? Would they think it was appropriate to the entire situation and to the severity of the threat posed to me or to the public?’”
What? What? Should life or death decision guidelines be made by people with hashtag agendas who can’t seem to distinguish murder from justifiable homicide? The sort of people who create “hands up, don’t shoot” memes when hands weren’t up and “don’t shoot” wasn’t uttered? People who expect cops to risk fatal stab wounds (to themselves, and to others) because someone who doesn’t understand weapons doesn’t realize that within its range a knife can be as or more deadly than a police duty gun? We don’t let cultists and faith healers determine medical treatment protocols. We shouldn’t let people who replace scientifically-determined reality with fantasized memes be the arbiters of justifiable protective use of force.
IACP (the International Association of Chiefs of Police, i.e., “management”) and FOP (the Fraternal Order of Police, i.e., “labor”) have taken the unprecedented step of joining together to refute and challenge the PERF guidelines. There is a clue, there.
An organization that calls itself a “research forum” should, one would think, put forth some research. The PERF 30 document under discussion contains exactly one footnote…citing another PERF paper. Instead, the report speaks glowingly of Scottish police training to deal with knife-wielders without deploying firearms, ignoring the facts that (A) the desperate constables have to do it that way because the vast majority are not allowed to carry firearms, and (B) their training explains to them at the outset that they can expect to be slashed or stabbed while trying to subdue blade-wielders without using guns.
Instead of letting the misperceptions of the uninformed (or agenda-motivated) elements of the public become the landmark for guidelines, PERF might have found room for one more recommended policy: Educating that public on the realities of police use of force. Sadly, that much needed element appears to be totally lacking from their recommendations.
As I close, let me state again that all the opinions I have expressed on this topic are my personal opinions, not necessarily those of any agency or organization which I serve.
For firearms-less tactics vs. blade-wielders, see the Scots-related films “Rob Roy,” “Braveheart,” and “Brave.” The winners/survivors generally made use of every advantage available. I like George C.Scott in “The New Centurions,” too, demonstrating the efficacy of overwhelming force vs. conscienceless criminal aggression. Only an armchair authority would mandate being PC-conscious in lethal situations.
This PERF stuff makes for useful learning, though. Thanks again, Mas. Where else can you find more good lessons than this site?
Couldn’t agree more on educating the public. The way it is now, the only “education” they have is Hollywood.
Policy 3: “Police use of force must meet the test of proportionality. “In assessing whether a response is proportional, officers must ask themselves, ‘How would the general public view the action we took? Would they think it was appropriate to the entire situation and to the severity of the threat posed to me or to the public?’”
I’m just going to quote Chief Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, who wrote in Brown v. United States (1921): “Detached reflection cannot be demanded in the presence of an uplifted knife. Therefore, in this Court at least, it is not a condition of immunity that one in that situation should pause to consider whether a reasonable man might not think it possible to fly with safety or to disable his assailant, rather than to kill him.”
Immediate, imminent danger requires immediate response, not detached wondering whether the low-information public would approve of this response or that res*BANG!* “Officer down!”
Recently an Arkansas State Trooper very clearly explained to me that when they draw their Glock 21they are instructed to shoot 12 rounds in 2 seconds, reload, then reassess the situation. Scary?
I was also told my two who have shot with him that he cannot hit a man sized target at 20 feet when speaying ammo.
Double scary.
I am not an Arkansas State Trooper. I do train and qualify with them to keep up my LEOSA certification (I retired from law enforcement in another state). There is no training or instruction to “shoot 12 rounds in 2 seconds, reload, then reassess the situation” in their training. Further more, if one “cannot hit a man sized target at 20 feet” , they will not meet requirements to pass this course of fire, as at least half of the course of fire is at greater distances. If you can’t pass this qualification, you will not be an Arkansas State Trooper. Draw your own conclusions.
This is tantamount to a force directive stating: “The force required shall always be least amount necessary.” Sometimes, the least force is not enough to preserve life and safety of either officers or the public.
It sounds to me like these are not firearms people, that created this policy. Not to be able to hit the criminal, at a distance of 20 feet? Like you said is dangerous.
I tell people at work not to unload a magazine into an intruder. That to myself is considered excessive. Not to mention, your expending all your ammunition.
I feel bad for police officers. Times are crazy and they seem to be getting worse.
David S. above to saying that he tells people not to unload a magazine is indicative of a society not understanding the physiological impacts of Sympathetic Nervous System Activation during survival stress situations. Numerous accounts have taken place where officers empty magazines under fire and not being able to give an accurate account as to how many shots they fired. Because they were in a spontaneous survival mode and were firing to stop the bad thing from happening. Secondly, people don’t always fall down like in the movies. Subjects routinely withstand numerous hits and keep fighting. Do what you have to until the threat stops. “Why did you fire 16 rounds?” “Because 15 wasn’t enough and 17 was too many.” If “Firearms” people don’t get it, we are in deep trouble.
Not LE but like your SO, I have hung around with them and trained with them quite a bit. Once doing a Range 3000 training event, I was rushed by a man brandishing a rolling pin. I shot him, sort of a tricky shot as he was holding a baby with the other arm. The officer running the machine then put on his Internal Affairs hat and asked me why I shot the guy. I said the rolling pin was deadly force and he was closing on me with the apparent intent of using it. He was satisfied with my answer. I think though in real life, I would have used the baton which I was certified on. Pretty sure that it would have demolished the rolling pin, his mobility was restricted by the baby and I really didn’t like having to shoot around the baby. Would have been riskier to me for sure though.
More on the shield & contact weapon: one of the staple matches in the Roman Games was a man in full armor vs a naked guy with a net and trident. If you watched the movie Gladiator, such a match was in the background of the first arena scene. The (very) few times the armored guy won, they were freed.
The lesson is obvious.
This crap is right up there with the 2 bullet San Francisco thing!
Mas, your second WHAT ^^^ is not big enough! It is patently obvious the goal of these people is no guns – all the time.
Two gun Steve – if you like what goes on here, may I direct you to pistol.forum, where like-minded souls (just like Mas – albeit not as well known) contribute all they have done and have learned in a totally selfless manner. In my experience, it just doesn’t get any better than this site and p-f. The same humor, the same dedication, knowledge – all of it.
Comments are closed.