PDA

View Full Version : And now this BS from PERF



Wayne Dobbs
02-04-2016, 09:12 AM
http://www.policeforum.org/assets/30%20guiding%20principles.pdf

Dump the objectively reasonable standard, dump the danger zone on edged weapons, make nice with BGs trying to kill us....prepare to scream.

voodoo_man
02-04-2016, 09:26 AM
...just some things


TRAINING AND TACTICS
16. Use Distance, Cover, and Time to replace outdated concepts such as the “21-foot
rule” and “drawing a line in the sand.”
Agencies should train their officers on the principles of using distance, cover, and
time when approaching and managing certain critical incidents. In many situations, a better
outcome can result if officers can buy more time to assess the situation and their options,
bring additional resources to the scene, and develop a plan for resolving the incident
without use of force.
Agencies should eliminate from their policies and training all references to the socalled
“21-foot rule” regarding officers who are confronted with a subject armed with an
edged weapon. Instead, officers should be trained to use distance and cover to create a
“reaction gap” between themselves and the individual, and to consider all options for
responding.

It's not "so called" it is the "reactionary gap" when someone has an edged weapon, 21 feet is the minimum safe distance.

They should replace distance, cover and time with force, space, time, it provides a better concept of what needs to be dominated in order to survive.



20. Tactical training and mental health training need to be interwoven to improve
response to critical incidents.
As noted above, strategies for dealing with people with mental health problems
should be woven into the tactical training that all officers receive, with a strong emphasis on
communications, de-escalation techniques, maintaining cover and distance, and allowing for
the time needed to resolve the incident safely for everyone. Officers who respond to scenes
involving people with mental health problems should be directed to call for assistance from
specially trained officers and/or supervisors (e.g., CIT-trained) if possible. As a best
practice, those specially trained personnel should be given the authority to manage a scene
regardless of rank. All other responding units should be directed to the on-scene manager,
briefed on the situation, and directed to follow the on-scene manager’s lead with respect to
tactics and especially any use of force.


This whole point was written by people who have no concept of these types of situations. First off, you rarely know you dealing with a EDP right away unless its clearly obvious, then they are rarely just standing there, they are almost always trying to kill/hurt you or someone else. Then they suggest we get "specially trained" personnel? LOL, yeah right. Half the time tasers don't work and when they do work an officer who has one needs to show up and be willing to use them.


TRAINING AND TACTICS
22. Provide a prompt supervisory response to critical incidents to reduce the
likelihood of unnecessary force.
Supervisors should immediately respond to any scene:
 Where a weapon (including firearm, edged weapon, rocks, or other improvised
weapon) is reported,
 Where persons with mental health problems are reported, or
 Where a dispatcher or other member of the department believes there is potential
for use of force.
Once on the scene and if circumstances permit, supervisors should attempt to
“huddle” with officers before responding to develop a plan of action that focuses on de-
escalation where possible. In the case of persons with mental health problems, supervisors
who are not specially trained

You want supervisors to respond to everything? Why? The whole concept is shortsighted. Supervisors do not need to respond to every single UOF incident, or any for that matter unless there is a discharge or an officer is hurt.


23. Training as teams can improve performance in the field.
Agencies should provide in-service training on critical decision-making, deescalation,
and use of force to teams of officers at the same time. When officers who work
together on a daily basis train together, coordination and consistency in tactics increase,
and the likelihood of undesirable outcomes during critical incidents decreases. Recognizing
that this approach may increase costs and disrupt scheduling, agencies should consider
alternative arrangements to traditional, day-long in-service training classes—for example,
by bringing in a team of officers for a few hours of training several times a year.


24. Scenario-based training should be prevalent, challenging, and realistic.
In both recruit and in-service programs, agencies should provide use-of-force
training that utilizes realistic and challenging scenarios that officers are likely to encounter
in the field. Scenarios should be based on real-life situations and utilize encounters that
officers in the agency have recently faced. Scenarios should go beyond the traditional
“shoot-don’t shoot” decision-making, instead providing for a variety of possible outcomes,
including some in which communication, de-escalation, and use of less-lethal options are
most appropriate. Scenario-based training focused on decision-making should be integrated
with officers’ regular requalification on their firearms and less-lethal equipment.


I actually agree with a lot of these two points, but they will probably never happen.


EQUIPMENT
25. Officers need access to and training in less-lethal options.
Patrol officers should be given access to, and regular training in, an appropriate
range of less-lethal weapons and equipment to support their critical decision-making and
de-escalation efforts. Personnel specially trained in mental health issues should be issued
and trained in the full range of less-lethal options offered by the agency.
EQUIPMENT
26. Agencies should consider new options for chemical spray.
Agencies should evaluate their current policies and practices on the use of chemical
spray, and consider alternatives that address officers’ concerns over cross-contamination
and flammability. One alternative that agencies can consider is PAVA spray (pelargonic acid
vanillylamide), which is now widely used in the United Kingdom. Unlike traditional CS or OC
sprays, PAVA has a more concentrated stream that minimizes cross-contamination and is
not flammable (meaning it can be used in conjunction with an electronic control weapon).
EQUIPMENT
27. An ECW deployment that is not effective does not mean that officers should
automatically move to their firearms.
Agencies should ensure that their policies, training, and procedures around the use
of electronic control weapons (ECWs) are consistent with the 53 guidelines released by
PERF and the COPS Office in 2011.1
Accounts of fatal police shootings often state that “the officer tried an ECW, it had no
effect, and so the officer then used a firearm.” This is an inappropriate way to view force
options. ECWs often do not work because the subject is wearing heavy clothing or for many
other reasons. An ECW deployment that is not effective does not mean officers should
automatically move to their firearms. Under the Critical Decision-Making Model, an
ineffective ECW deployment changes the situation and should prompt officers to re-assess
the situation and the current status of the threat, and to take appropriate, proportional
actions.
EQUIPMENT
28. Personal protection shields may support de-escalation efforts during critical
incidents, including situations involving persons with knives, baseball bats, or other
improvised weapons that are not firearms.
Agencies should acquire personal protection shields for use by patrol officers and
others in managing some critical incidents. Officers with access to personal protection
shields should be adequately trained on how to use the shields both individually and as part
of a team operation.


Agree with everything above except the last part. Every officer should have a bulletproof shield in the trunk.

LSP552
02-04-2016, 09:29 AM
http://www.policeforum.org/assets/30%20guiding%20principles.pdf

Dump the objectively reasonable standard, dump the danger zone on edged weapons, make nice with BGs trying to kill us....prepare to scream.

Wayne,

I'm headed to oral surgery in about an hour. I should have waited to read that until he drugs kicked in! The sad thing is political LE administrators will gobble that quicker than a $10 New Orleans whore.

Robinson
02-04-2016, 09:56 AM
As a non-LEO this makes me think it was written by people who have never had to work a shift in a high-risk environment or been confronted with real violence. It almost reminds me of the new trend in the UK in which soldiers are being sued for firing on enemies who were taking aim at friendly forces. The suits claim the soldiers should issue verbal warnings first.

If criminals don't want to be shot by the police they should not engage in criminal activity that poses a threat to others -- including the police.

voodoo_man
02-04-2016, 10:10 AM
As a non-LEO this makes me think it was written by people who have never had to work a shift in a high-risk environment or been confronted with real violence. It almost reminds me of the new trend in the UK in which soldiers are being sued for firing on enemies who were taking aim at friendly forces. The suits claim the soldiers should issue verbal warnings first.

If criminals don't want to be shot by the police they should not engage in criminal activity that poses a threat to others -- including the police.

This is 99% of this issue with "policy" or such recommendations for change of policy.

Intellectuals thinking that they are smarter than experienced officer's who live in this environment every single day, hopefully the people of these communities that get these BS policy changes will say something about it as it does them the worst service.

Range1
02-04-2016, 10:36 AM
Rant on. Okay, I tried to read it and could not finish it. Sanctity of ALL human life? I don't think so. I could never put the safety of a criminal over that of an innocent by stander or fellow officer. Can't do it and would not teach it. So glad I am out of it now just wish my son had gone with the fire department instead of the police. Good luck to all the active officers out there. Rant off.

Chuck Haggard
02-04-2016, 10:54 AM
PAVA, yeah, about that, it's the one spray I wouldn't use. It's the only spray I know of with incidents of actual permanent eye damage associated with it.

LSP552
02-04-2016, 10:59 AM
Might as well ditch the hierarchy of life thing as well. After all, the life of a hostage taker has the same value as his victim.

voodoo_man
02-04-2016, 11:16 AM
Might as well ditch the hierarchy of life thing as well. After all, the life of a hostage taker has the same value as his victim.

I bet if we really wanted to we could find contradictions to many of the suggestions and opinions they make in this list.

BobM
02-04-2016, 11:23 AM
I'm very glad I'm at the tail end of my career. I think I'm going to have to work harder to steer my nephew away from an LE career too

Gadfly
02-04-2016, 11:38 AM
"Agencies should ensure that their policies, training, and procedures around the use of electronic control weapons (ECWs) are consistent with the 53 guidelines released by PERF and the COPS Office in 2011.1"

Lets see, I have actually had an EDP (off his meds) charging me with a bat. I guess if I had a TASER I should have stopped, and pulled a laminated card from my pocket, and reviewed all 53 (FIFTY-Kittening-THREE) guidelines before responding. I would not want to hurt the guy.

People who write that stuff are virgins trying to teach the Karma Sutra. They have see plenty of pictures, but have no clue how the parts fit together in real life.

Hambo
02-04-2016, 12:22 PM
As a non-LEO

You should be wondering how long it will take this kind of bullshit to run downhill to civilian use of force laws.

About the document. I threw up lunch somewhere around page 3-4 because:

8. Shooting at vehicles must be strictly prohibited. Chuck Haggard referenced how his agency's strict prohibition bit a boss in the ass when the Secret Service came to town.

9. Prohibit use of deadly force against individuals who pose a danger only to themselves. I was taught that suicidal people are, by definition, homicidal.

10. Document use-of-force incidents, and review your data and enforcement practices to ensure that they are fair and non-discriminatory. How is this supposed to work? I can hear the sergeant now, "We've shot too many males this month. You'll have to shoot women only until we get the numbers right."

There's layers of retardation most people don't even know about.

11B10
02-04-2016, 01:13 PM
Speaking from the very heart of this non-leo, I cannot fathom what you guys must be feeling these days. I could never say I know what you're going through, but by reading what you post here, I am beginning to understand and appreciate what really happens when you head out. It seems that a supreme effort is being made to distract and disorient you while ratcheting down your enthusiasm. While I feel you guys and gals should be supported, encouraged and built up every day, the opposite is taking place. I just don't get it. Please know there are many more that feel just as I do - try to stay safe, folks!

PD Sgt.
02-04-2016, 01:20 PM
My agency is talking about having these asshats come in for some kind of "best practices evaluation" in the next few months. Never mind that we are already CALEA accredited multiple times over. I will probably have to time upcoming vacation to these visits.

It is my understanding that these guys are a private group that is regularly contracted by the DOJ when they are attempting to install consent decrees and the like. They also offer their services as a means of saying, "Look, PERF approved us so we must be doing everything we should be." In other words they are a private company that makes their money (and a lot of it from what I understand) by catering their opinions on enforcement to the liberal government and then pushing their services on local governments and agencies as a means of showing how progressive and ahead of the curve they are.

After all, it is not PERF's people who will bleed in the streets.

Robinson
02-04-2016, 02:34 PM
You should be wondering how long it will take this kind of bullshit to run downhill to civilian use of force laws.

Yes, that thought did occur to me.

FNFAN
02-04-2016, 02:45 PM
Looking at their website and the biography for the director, it appears he has awards for participation in UK policing policy and most of the executive staff are from the big lib cities. The group appears to be pushing for stop-gap measures until the U.S. 'comes to its senses' regarding firearms.

pablo
02-04-2016, 03:39 PM
We drink a lot of this kool aid. One thing the command staff has never been able to comprehend with this stuff (and just like CALEA) is that when their magic policies don't work, no one from an accrediting organization will appear in court to defend the agency's policies.

We learned a hard lesson with CALEA. We forked over a small mountain of cash and when we got sued, CALEA flat out refused to send any expert witness to defend our CALEA accredited policy. PERF can make all the recommendations they want. At the end of the day any agency that adopts PERF policy, better have there own expert witnesses to defend the policy in court.

JustOneGun
02-04-2016, 06:19 PM
The irony of this PC list is that besides making it less safe for Officers, it also makes it less safe for the bad guy and citizens alike. Nothing like an inappropriate start to the use of force to allow it to escalate to a point where some serious damage must be done to the bad guy later on. My personal pet peeve is the prohibit lethal force on the mentally ill. It only works to allow the dangerously mentally ill to escape, use deadly force against officers and of course my all time favorite, shoot at officers but miss and then just see where all them bullets go. Now that's protecting the public at it's worst.

Well it is 5 o'clock somewhere. In honor of this PERF list I intend to pour a wee bit of single malt and forget I read it.

El Cid
02-04-2016, 07:30 PM
...just some things



It's not "so called" it is the "reactionary gap" when someone has an edged weapon, 21 feet is the minimum safe distance.


I'm sorry but it bugs me when I see statements like this. The Tueller drill was done merely to demonstrate an average adult can cover 21 feet in about 1.5 seconds. It was not intended to be a safety zone or decision making distance. We are not safe from an aggressive attacker with a knife, impact weapon, or even empty handed at 21+ feet.

BehindBlueI's
02-04-2016, 07:32 PM
Well, I'm probably going to step on some toes but the 21' rule is not a rule and like the old "+1 level of force" training is wrong, not supported by case law, and is dangerous for officers to rely on. Your decision to use lethal force must be based on the totality of the circumstances. What if there is a significant barricade between you? What if the person is waving the knife but is seated? What if, what if, what if. The attempt to regulate a very gray world in a black and white set of rules leads to the temptation to oversimplify.

http://www.policemag.com/channel/weapons/articles/2014/09/revisiting-the-21-foot-rule.aspx


Tueller has said in video interviews that he never designed nor presented his firearms training drill as an organized, outlined, and implemented research project involving the applied sciences of psychophysiology, physics, and related human factors. No forensic testing, examination, reconciliation of data, or scientific oversight of a research model was ever conducted.

This is a DRILL designed to show the importance of a reactionary gap. It is not a RULE based on some average reaction time vs human speed. Note it's also versus a holstered gun, does not include the suspect's ability to continue to fight after shot, perhaps even fatally, etc.

Dagga Boy
02-04-2016, 07:42 PM
And my comments after the color will reflect what is likely to occur.


You should be wondering how long it will take this kind of bullshit to run downhill to civilian use of force laws.

About the document. I threw up lunch somewhere around page 3-4 because:

8. Shooting at vehicles must be strictly prohibited. Chuck Haggard referenced how his agency's strict prohibition bit a boss in the ass when the Secret Service came to town.

Cops learn to stay away from pursuits,chases and anything dangerous involving cars. Cops tend to be very smart in how to figure out "office survival".

9. Prohibit use of deadly force against individuals who pose a danger only to themselves. I was taught that suicidal people are, by definition, homicidal.

Find something else to do. Kiss these off to others. Waste a ton of time requesting mental health folks to do deal with these and ....SWAT! Essentially, crazy folks are no longer "your" problem if you can't protect yourself from them and are expected to be assaulted by them with no response. Also, cops are very good at being "unable to locate" lots of things they want to avoid.

10. Document use-of-force incidents, and review your data and enforcement practices to ensure that they are fair and non-discriminatory. How is this supposed to work? I can hear the sergeant now, "We've shot too many males this month. You'll have to shoot women only until we get the numbers right."

Easy.....when you use the proven means of promotion of spending lots of time generating agency and city income through writing lots of tickets to white people or better yet....tons of parking tickets or ticketing unoccupied vehicles for registration violations. See....when you make yourself so busy that you are unavailable....yet when the bean counters look at productivity you look busy on things like revenue generation, in the eyes of the same pogue assholes who think this crap up in meetings....you are awesome.

There's layers of retardation most people don't even know about.

When all is said and done....cops know how to survive in their environment and provide just enough services to remain employed. The fact that the public gets screwed becomes somebody else's problem,because the "public" is getting exactly what the people they empower want.

BehindBlueI's
02-04-2016, 08:03 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4o86euHlHWE

No one was in any hurry, less lethal was attempted as appropriate, attempts to de-escalate the situation were made, but in the end they had to shoot to protect themselves. The department not only backed the officers but praised the response. There's a lot more to this than in/out of a 21' range.

Erick Gelhaus
02-04-2016, 09:03 PM
This was posted over on LF ...

PERF’s recent offering, titled 30 Guiding Principles, has generated significant discussion since it began circulating. While there are statements in it many working street cops and their supervisors would not argue against, there are others that have led to those same officers and supervisors scratching their heads and wondering what planet the contributors live on. In addition to IACP, CalibrePress and PoliceOne along with respected L/E attorney Missy O’Linn have all come out against a significant number of the proposed guidelines.

Think tanks such as PERF are understood by those in academia (I’m within days of being done with my masters and you all have no idea how much of this stuff I’ve read over the past few years). As a profession we need to understand the impact academia is going to have, regardless of their lack of experience, on what comes from political bodies and activists. We need to get our people through some of these hurdles and gates in order to let experience have a voice.

These are my thoughts on each of the guidelines from the perspective of a field training officer and use of force instructor.

#1 – I have yet to see an agency policy that does not direct officers to consider the value of human life. Value is a synonym for sanctity. We already discuss this just with different words. Unfortunately, some have had issues with that during depositions and the like.
I will say I am utterly stunned that the priority of life was included in the document. There needs to be a greater empohasis in the discussion on the lives and well-being of the victims / un-involved and the officers. Consider the Mario Woods shooting in San Fran, he has already tried to kill one victim, is refusing to comply with the officers even after less likely to be lethal tools have been tried. Now, he is trying to get past one officer and heading towards a bus stop and a bus full of un-involved people. Does the community want him to continue that act without stopping him? What happens when he boards the bus, in spite of de-escalation efforts, and he hurts or kills someone?
While PERF and others seem to forget this, were it not for the actions, decisions and non-compliance of those involved none of these events would have happened.

#2 – The US Supreme Court has been adamant that the standard from Graham v. Connor (1989) addressing the objective reasonable of the officer’s actions based on the totality of what was known about the tense and rapidly evolving circumstances of the event, at the time, is what is to be considered – not through a 20/20 hindsight review. Other cases have repeated that view and the Courts have been directed not to substitute their foundationless beliefs for the officers’ experiences.
In order to have consistency agencies have to look to the courts for guidance, this recommendation runs counter to that.

#3 – No, the use of force must be reasonable. Period. Proportional is like minimal, it is extremely difficult to describe in advance and that makes training to the standard impossible.
In regards to basing our tactics and techniques on what the public thinks would be appropriate, they are spectacularly unqualified to have an opinion. The use of physical force on another human being never looks good. Given two generations of zero tolerance in the schools we have far too many who have no concept of what a fight actually looks like never mind their inability to comprehend that the other guy always gets to vote.
A captain from Long Beach PD, through AELE, wrote a solid piece on this back in 2007.

#4 – Again, the suspect gets to vote in this. This recommendation makes no differentiation between a violent felon who is consciously choosing not to comply and a mentally ill subject who cannot comply.
Some non-compliance issues can allow time for this idea to be brought into play. However, when dealing with assaults on officers or others or flight by those who are violent, then there must be decisive action.

#5 – If one has time to pre-plan, to slow the event down something along the lines of this – after significant research involving simulations and scenario training along with limited testing across the spectrum of agencies – may be viable. Unfortunately, when one looks at even the Washington Post numbers, how does management even consider advocating for this given the number of individuals who assault officers? If seventy percent plus of the individuals killed by officers were attacking us, how is this a viable idea?

#6 – I cannot disagree with this. Good beat partners should know their co-workers triggers; we all have them, and step in before things go down hill.

#7 – Yes, as soon as the threat has ended we should be rendering aid. However, the recommendation must remember that Fire/EMS will not enter a scene until it is secure. We should EMS immediately but the suspect will have to be secured before they will enter and begin working on him.

#8 – There is no legal foundation for this. Training and education will be far more effective than policy – as position strongly espoused by Nyeti. Given concerns about terrorist attacks and previous domestic events, suspects have used the car as a weapon against citizens on foot and there are VBIED hazards as well. This policy would prevent L/E from stopping these threats. Also, how many officers need to be run down before they can stop a suspect’s deadly behavior?

#9 – Concur, right up to the point where suicidal behavior becomes homicidal action. Here is where the concepts of cover and distance make sense.

#10 – Document? Absolutely! Who is not doing that currently? B) These events need to be evaluated individually for their objective reasonableness. If one insists on interjecting race into this, then they need to review all other relevant UCR data, such as who is committing crime and assaulting officers.

#11 – Report Use of Force and all crime data. Again, race does not need to be part of this in a stand-alone fashion. However, if it is to be shown, then include all data with it.

#12 – Concur, strongly! Rather than inexperienced administrators with little street time or oversight/review bodies that have never had to confront a resistive or violent suspect, uses of force need to be evaluated by experienced street cops who are also use of force instructors. Training should include Force Encounters Analysis from California Training Institute, Force Science Analyst certification from FSI, or similar courses.

#13 – Concur, strongly! Must be done by the Chief, the Sheriff or in their absence the #2 and in uniform.

#14 – Not possible. At least 85% of departments could not even consider staffing their own academy. Regional academies will encounter significant divergence of opinion that would lead to nothing being accomplished.
Agencies with ten officers or less are 50% of America’s departments; 85% have less than 24 officers. Consider that when discussing full time CIT efforts and supervisor response to calls.

#15 – Politely, this is not viable and runs counter to reality. What is needed is far more training time involving both scenario and simulator time. As one military trainer noted on a pistol training centric board, training must be recent, relevant, and repeatable. We can look to airline pilot community for a minimum frequency of scenario and simulator work.

#16 – There needs to be better instructor development efforts. Tueller’s work was the effort to relationship between human reaction time and distance. What he started has been foundational for other L/E focused work. It was not, as has been claimed, permission to shoot anyone with a knife within that distance. It is my recollection, based on conversations and local efforts, that with current holsters the distance can actually be a lot farther. All of that lends weight to making better use of cover and distance – with the understanding that if we are going to interact with the public we have to get close to them at some point.

#17 – We are already de-escalating. This shows an indescribable misunderstanding of two key issues – a) as already mentioned, those we deal with have a significant impact on the eventually outcome of any event; b) by every data set I looked at when preparing my master’s thesis project (FBI/Virginia, LAPD, NIJ/Long Beach, Brian Willis, and my own agency) we are already very restrained in using any force, let alone lethal force, and we are restrained in doing so to a detriment to our own safety.
How many felonious, or just plain armed, assaults are there on officers every year? 50,000 or a bit higher? And yet, last year, there were not even one thousand deaths from the responses to those assaults on L/E officers.
The math on this should be understandable. For those who are do not or will not acknowledge it, the question becomes are you mistaken or is this an intentional misrepresentation, better known as lying, of the facts,?

#18 – I will not argue against more, better (!) training on inter-personnel communications, as long as it is competently prepared and presented. Just realize that all of this suggested training comes at a cost of manpower and money.

#19 – Good idea as I am a graduate of a 40-hour CIT course who has used it successfully in the field. The concepts in this guideline are impractical in many places given the size of most agencies (see #14). The training is valuable but my instructors noted some of this would not apply until there is compliance and the scene is secure.
How does a 12-officer agency staff a car with mental health 24 hours a day, seven days a week just for those issues?
The community as a whole has truly dumped the mental health problem and initial response to mental health crisis onto law enforcement. They did this with a terribly unrealistic expectation we could fix their failures. It is past time, long past, to return to mental health hospitals and hospitalization. There needs to be discussions about and decisions made on forcibly medicating patients, or consumers of mental health services, for their own well being. Too many are not taking Rx meds but are self-medicating daily with non-rx substances (i.e.: controlled substances) or alcohol to the detriment of all around them and themselves.

#20 – Concur with the premise. Again, we are addressing outcomes driven by the suspects, patients, or consumers.
More competent discussion of case law issues relating to the mentally ill would be beneficial. There are two SFPD cases that are very much on point. Sheehan v. CCSF (2015) is the most recent but there is also an older one involving a tactical team entry and shooting.

#21 – Concur. In my experience, during the limited hours they work in my area they are beneficial.

#22 – Concur; however, agency staffing and the jurisdiction’s actual size will be an issue. Not every one works in a six square mile city. At night we have one supervisor to cover 1600+ sq. mi and up to 23 deputies.

#23 – Concur;

#24 – Strongly concur. See #15.

#25 – Officers are overloaded and under trained with less likely to be lethal options. I have three on my belt – ECW, impact weapon, & OC. We have lost beanbag shotguns but supervisors, tactical team, and SWAT have 40mm in their cars … when they are available, see #22.

#26 – If there are better products on the market that actually work on those under the influence, recreationally or through self-medication, those with mental health concerns, or those with mind set and drive … bring them to us NOW!
All of L/E would be well served with a concepts & capabilities integration program. It should be akin to what AWG has and be a patrol specific version of TSWG.

#27 – This depends on the suspect’s actions and behaviors. As court rulings continue to insist on a higher level of resistance when employing an ECW, these will be used only in higher risk situations. That alone may lead to escalation when they fail.
The court rulings are mandating a return to hands-on and ruthlessly efficient impact weapon employment.

#28 – IF an agency chooses shields then they need significant training. I will ask what shield tactics have been developed and vetted that will defeat the described weapons and threats?

#29 – Strongly concur.

#30 – Again, I concur.

This is just my thoughts on the document from a perspective of being a practitioner, a student, and a trainer. It took me a few days to put them together. We all need to understand we will see more of this. We need articulate our opposition - to the failures of these proposals as well as the ignorance of those who present them - in coherent, rational ways.

11B10
02-04-2016, 09:06 PM
Well, I'm probably going to step on some toes but the 21' rule is not a rule and like the old "+1 level of force" training is wrong, not supported by case law, and is dangerous for officers to rely on. Your decision to use lethal force must be based on the totality of the circumstances. What if there is a significant barricade between you? What if the person is waving the knife but is seated? What if, what if, what if. The attempt to regulate a very gray world in a black and white set of rules leads to the temptation to oversimplify.

http://www.policemag.com/channel/weapons/articles/2014/09/revisiting-the-21-foot-rule.aspx



This is a DRILL designed to show the importance of a reactionary gap. It is not a RULE based on some average reaction time vs human speed. Note it's also versus a holstered gun, does not include the suspect's ability to continue to fight after shot, perhaps even fatally, etc.



This ^^^^^ is chapter and verse, people.

Dagga Boy
02-04-2016, 10:15 PM
A couple big issues...

#6....I agree in principle; however, I have had rookies who miss things veteran officers pick up and the last thing you want is an officer fitting a crook, and another officer. Equally, depending on where folks are, time of arrival, and a host of other reasons one officers perceptions can be very different from another. There is a massive difference between a perceived "unnecessary" (perception, and very subjective), excessive (not always clear) and criminal (usual pretty clear cut) uses of force. I am against criminal use of force. I have a major issue with someone thinking something is unnecessary and intervening in an arrest that may be totally out of line. Also....what do we do with the other major issue this will spawn.....not using enough force when necessary? How do we address this....especially when I have seen far more injuries of both criminals and officers from not using enough force when it should have been than too much.

#8 is pretty simple.....any firing on or from a vehicle should be a simple question of justified use of lethal force. This should always consider and weigh the risk to the community when that decision is made. To outright ban the use of lethal force in a vehicle oriented society because either LE or the felon is vehicle bound is insanely stupid and unrealistic. Apparently these executives have not seen what happens when vehicles hit things at high speed. Sometimes....you need to shoot a felon in a vehicle to prevent them from killing or maiming officers or the public. Improper use of lethal force involving vehicles is a pure training issue.....period.

There are other stand outs as well, but what chaps my hide...is the reporting issues and documentation. Simply......fuck these people. LE documents the crap out of force stuff. Want to know what isn't happening....crooks held accountable for assaults on officers. Want to know what is commonly hidden, swept under the carpet, disguised, dismissed, and covered up regularly....assaults on LE. FAR more deception and lack of accountability has occurred with both Law Enforcement executives and Judicial prosecutors and attorney's is in the area of how assaults on LE is handled. How about FACTUAL documentation of assaults on officers. Unedited and clean reporting of crimes, race and gender, age, prior records, etc of those who assault police. Full documentation of injuries, both short and long term of officers. Also how about discrimination in how officers are treated as victims?

John Hearne
02-04-2016, 10:29 PM
Need I say more?

http://www.cbs46.com/story/30910058/neighbor-swat-officers-sobbed-when-they-couldnt-save-gwinnett-co-toddler#ixzz3waLRPQYB

voodoo_man
02-04-2016, 10:48 PM
Need I say more?

http://www.cbs46.com/story/30910058/neighbor-swat-officers-sobbed-when-they-couldnt-save-gwinnett-co-toddler#ixzz3waLRPQYB

Shhhh you arent supposed to talk about what really happens.

11B10
02-05-2016, 10:08 AM
Need I say more?

http://www.cbs46.com/story/30910058/neighbor-swat-officers-sobbed-when-they-couldnt-save-gwinnett-co-toddler#ixzz3waLRPQYB



No, you don't

KPD
02-14-2016, 01:14 AM
A couple big issues...

#6....I agree in principle; however, I have had rookies who miss things veteran officers pick up and the last thing you want is an officer fitting a crook, and another officer. Equally, depending on where folks are, time of arrival, and a host of other reasons one officers perceptions can be very different from another. There is a massive difference between a perceived "unnecessary" (perception, and very subjective), excessive (not always clear) and criminal (usual pretty clear cut) uses of force. I am against criminal use of force. I have a major issue with someone thinking something is unnecessary and intervening in an arrest that may be totally out of line. Also....what do we do with the other major issue this will spawn.....not using enough force when necessary? How do we address this....especially when I have seen far more injuries of both criminals and officers from not using enough force when it should have been than too much.

#8 is pretty simple.....any firing on or from a vehicle should be a simple question of justified use of lethal force. This should always consider and weigh the risk to the community when that decision is made. To outright ban the use of lethal force in a vehicle oriented society because either LE or the felon is vehicle bound is insanely stupid and unrealistic. Apparently these executives have not seen what happens when vehicles hit things at high speed. Sometimes....you need to shoot a felon in a vehicle to prevent them from killing or maiming officers or the public. Improper use of lethal force involving vehicles is a pure training issue.....period.

There are other stand outs as well, but what chaps my hide...is the reporting issues and documentation. Simply......fuck these people. LE documents the crap out of force stuff. Want to know what isn't happening....crooks held accountable for assaults on officers. Want to know what is commonly hidden, swept under the carpet, disguised, dismissed, and covered up regularly....assaults on LE. FAR more deception and lack of accountability has occurred with both Law Enforcement executives and Judicial prosecutors and attorney's is in the area of how assaults on LE is handled. How about FACTUAL documentation of assaults on officers. Unedited and clean reporting of crimes, race and gender, age, prior records, etc of those who assault police. Full documentation of injuries, both short and long term of officers. Also how about discrimination in how officers are treated as victims?

We had a Deputy get into a fight with a very large woman. The fight wound up in the floorboard of a minivan. Deputy on the bottom and offender on top. Offender says "I've got you now bitch" after she gets the Deputy's gun from her holster. One shot fired in the struggle without anyone being hit. A third party/citizen came to the Deputy's aid and managed to get the offender off the Deputy and ended the fight.

When it went to trial there was a last minute settlement reached. Offender got 7 years..........probation.