Perhaps I am misreading the guidelines on what constitutes discussions that will be banned. I dont see this falling into that catagory however I hope someone spells it out for me if I am wrong.
Just because we have a process in place today does not mean that it is correct nor does it mean that it cant be changed. Its also not a universally accepted practice across the US. This is a risk mitigation strategy for the officer and the dept. Despite extensive research I have found no science that proves drawing a weapon increases the probability of a favorable outcome. Nor have I found quantitative research 'suggesting' the same. If there is I would be very interested in delving deeper into that research. Drawing a weapon should be part of a series of protocols around situational management. Not a first step in a case like this. Even if one is to believes in force +1 doctorine all the the shootings described here are well outside all of that. I am not advocating increasing personal risk to a LEO but rather that there are many interim situational management strategies that could be utilized prior to pulling a weapon.
I respectfully disagree. Its completely unfair to expect a LEO to control a situation. At best they can only manage it. There is a significant differential between the two approaches and, by definition, controling is virtually impossible and, as a result, the time frame to a more defensive posture is much shorter. Ideally officers are trained extensively on situational management rather than control. Ideally protocols around engagement with the populace are trained with the same level of dedication that firearm training is approached. Ideally the local community has input to those protocols and works in conjunction with the local LEO's. The terms we use to define ourselves and our actions have meaning as it reinforces our approach.
This flies in the face of Universal Best Practices and, one can easily argue, that this creates operational ambiguity in managing a given situation. Not only is defining terms important in this case its equally important to define the protocols to train on. Its a given that, as is the case with weapons training, that training is a foundation for excellence. While officers may view things differently their training should be sufficient enough to take significant statistical variations out of most situational management. I think most would agree that its exactly the deviation from incremental situational controls that drive significant negative outcomes that are becoming more common. When deploying process conrols through increased initial and ongoing training the feedback loop is key. I think that is what LE is seeing as more citizens start to complain about treatement. The other component to process controls is measurement of 'defects' or 'outcomes'. Ideally those closest to the process are capturing deviations to those protocols and bringing them forth in a safe environment to improve process outcomes. Negative effects for not doing this can be seen in the space shuttle disaster. Those closest to any given LE activity are the LOE's themselves so one control is something as simple as LEO's policing other LEO's. This isn't 'ratting ' a fellow LEO out. This is accepting that we are imperfect machines and process/practice reinforcement is needed.
Completely agreed. This reply is not intended to be a universal condemnation of LE but, on the contrary, one supporting constructive feedback on the trajectory of LE's actions. LEO's cant control the number of people on the street with mental disorders, they cant control the number of druggies, they cant control the violent 'peaceful' protestors. But they can manage how they deal with them. I am simply suggesting that perhaps a deep internal process review would yield more positive outcomes for all.
Stay in school: Many of the laws are incorporated into fundamental law through the Fourteenth Amendment.
we were cleared by IA and the state of any wrong doing, however we still have our critics who read the newspaper the day of our shooting and based their opinion solely on the limited amount of facts given, like many here have done with this article.
I can tell you the details are definitely mis-represented at the least in that article. The author released factual details but he failed to elaborate on details that would also help an individual make a rational decision as to why the officer made the decision to fire.
I've just been through this myself and with other officers at our agency, I don't believe the liberal media
Negligence doesn't get you there.
