"Tactical De-escalation" and how its going to get people killed.

[voodoo_man]

http://www.vdmsr.com/2016/02/tactical-de-escalation-and-how-it-is.html

On my phone do doing html/bbcode aint gana work for...to copy past links....also shilling...

[voodoo_man]

155 reads and not a single post.

If it sucks please say so.

[UNK]

I'm not a cop but if they don't comply shoot them. Problem solved.

eta... no it doesn't suck


155 reads and not a single post.

If it sucks please say so.

[scw2]

I'm not a cop but if they don't comply shoot them. Problem solved.

If I were an officer and a community didn't want to see any officers using force but expect them to go beyond a reasonable point in putting their well being on the line, I'd find it hard not to use words from a distance, then back off and let the guy go when they do not comply, and give the community the policing they asked for and deserve.

[LSP552]

It doesn't suck.

A major contributing factor when officers get hurt is failing to use enough force to gain control of the situation, as opposed to letting the situation spin out of control and having to react.

With the current political climate, this is just going to get worse. The public, and political leadership, no longer accept that some people should be shot fast, accurately, and repeatedly.

[Robert Mitchum]

155 reads and not a single post.

If it sucks please say so.

"Tactical De-escalation" SUCKS !!
I was sued 3 times over a 25 year career in the DOC .... De-escalation was not in my vocabulary when I though things could go bad for me.
Current political climate.... The masses are asses so watch your back stay safe to all in law enforcement.

[pablo]

The basis for Tactical de-esecalation is that suspect resistance is a byproduct of unprovoked police aggression or violence.

It's all the policeman's fault for picking on people for no reason.

[BobM]

Good piece


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[DacoRoman]

Very educational post. Thank you for taking the time to do it. Politicians and the general public need to see it.

[voodoo_man]

Thanks for reading it.

This is the first out of a series I want to do.

Though this one isnt directly geared towards ccw folks, you can make the connection that is obvious, you need to know what you are going to do and being behind the clock is never acceptable.

[DacoRoman]

Thanks for reading it.

This is the first out of a series I want to do.

Though this one isnt directly geared towards ccw folks, you can make the connection that is obvious, you need to know what you are going to do and being behind the clock is never acceptable.

I guess for the ccw holder knowing what to do boils down to having a good understanding of the Ability Oportunity Jeopardy equation to know when deadly force is justified, and a good mindset and well regulated OODA loop!? :)

[AMC]

I think the issue is that "Tactical De-Escalation" is being applied across the board in totally inappropriate circumstances. This is politically driven, not motivated by actual need. Part of the problem is that political types (and this includes most LE executives) are very attached to "cool" new terminology. It becomes a "thing", even if it's not. The language becomes reality. Hence "racial profiling", "Memphis Model", etc. If it has a cool new term associated with it....the Pols can't resist it. It becomes "The Answer", even if the question doesn't really exist. In the case of "Tactical De-Escalation", this is also being driven by a political movement who very clearly want to "disarm" American LE both literally and figuratively. I personally believe that the racial division, de-policing of major cities, the resultant rise in crime and disorder, and the fear and despair felt by the law-abiding, are all the intended goals of this political movement....not unintended consequences. Thomas Sowell identified this pattern is his work "The Vision of The Annointed". First, you create the "crisis"....then you offer the people your "solution". Which is often worse than the original problem.

[voodoo_man]

I think the issue is that "Tactical De-Escalation" is being applied across the board in totally inappropriate circumstances. This is politically driven, not motivated by actual need. Part of the problem is that political types (and this includes most LE executives) are very attached to "cool" new terminology. It becomes a "thing", even if it's not. The language becomes reality. Hence "racial profiling", "Memphis Model", etc. If it has a cool new term associated with it....the Pols can't resist it. It becomes "The Answer", even if the question doesn't really exist. In the case of "Tactical De-Escalation", this is also being driven by a political movement who very clearly want to "disarm" American LE both literally and figuratively. I personally believe that the racial division, de-policing of major cities, the resultant rise in crime and disorder, and the fear and despair felt by the law-abiding, are all the intended goals of this political movement....not unintended consequences. Thomas Sowell identified this pattern is his work "The Vision of The Annointed". First, you create the "crisis"....then you offer the people your "solution". Which is often worse than the original problem.

Good book, I read it in HS. Really paints the picture of political gaming to generate "results" and answer a question that no one asked and doesn't even require asking.

[Duelist]

That is a very interesting and well-written article.

[John Hearne]

Every time I hear these discussions I think about this incident:
http://www.odmp.org/officer/17455-patrolman-angel-andrew-barcena

He did exactly what the de-escalation proponents would have you do and he ended up dead.

[DacoRoman]

Every time I hear these discussions I think about this incident:
http://www.odmp.org/officer/17455-patrolman-angel-andrew-barcena

He did exactly what the de-escalation proponents would have you do and he ended up dead.

So sad. In that case do you think it was official training and doctrine that compelled that officer to deploy a taser against a lethal threat, or just poor judgement?

[11B10]

155 reads and not a single post.

If it sucks please say so.

Well, I just read it and it is lacking only one thing: EXPOSURE! That link needs to be read by ANY and EVERY one who carries a firearm - for ANY reason. I keep saying "thanks" to you for many reasons and for this, it's pretty weak - but that's all I've got right now.

Please keep up the good work!

[jnc36rcpd]

DacoRoman, I doubt i was El Paso Police policy to discharge a taser against a suspect armed with a firearm. I seem to recall some debate regarding whether the officer drew his Taser when confronted by the suspect or if he had been searching the garage with his Taser drawn. If it was the latter case, I understand why he might discharge the Taser that was already in hand. Regardless of which way it happened, however, the incident suggests that not shooting the suspect seemed a higher priority than officer safety.
http://www.odmp.org/officer/6501-corporal-charles-william-hill
I'd also suggest this case as an example of de-escalation gone wrong. While not mentioned on either the ODMP nor the Alexandria Police website, Hill and his partners placed their weapons on the ground as the suspect approached in an effort to de-escalate. Two officers lives were sacrificed to avoid the use of appropriate deadly force.

[Coyotesfan97]

I've had to yell at people to put their Tasers away and clear with their pistols during a building search. This included a guy who was "covering" down a hallway/primary threat with his Taser. Their bad tactics put my life at risk. Not a happy camper when that happens.

[Chuck Haggard]

I think you don't hit the issues with UK style unarmed policing and US style policing nearly hard enough, or from the right angle.

The anti cop folks also tend to be anti gun in my observation, they want US cops unarmed and unable to shoot. Saying it's different isn't nearly good enough. What needs to be pointed out is how fucking stupid the idea is, and how untenable, and how often UK cops have to wait for the armed cops to show up.

The first responders on the scene of the murder of Lee Rigby had to wait around for the armed cops to arrive and end the confrontation;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Lee_Rigby

Just one glaring example.

Good effort though.

[scw2]

The anti cop folks also tend to be anti gun in my observation, they want US cops unarmed and unable to shoot.

I was reading responses to an article describing an officer using force, and I think it's not always anti-gun, but rather anti-use-of-force. They are not okay with use of force until a suspect is in the act of committing deadly or grievous harm to police officers or the public, in their minds escalating or using force is never appropriate. Basically they want officers to be behind the curve, because justice. In the case I was reading, an officer kicked the suspect because he paused when given a command to surrender, and the suspect even admitted afterwards that he was deciding whether he should fight or run. But people ignore the facts and scream "police escalate use of force against unarmed and complaint man," despite the former being irrelevant and the latter being blatantly false.

I wonder how many people would feel the same way if they they saw the Dinkheller video and then had to go tell officers and their families that they're aware of the risk officers take but want them to defend themselves until the other guy starts getting stabby or shooty.

It also doesn't help that people think you can shoot guns out of a suspect's hands or that OC/tasers will magically end a fight with no risk.

[voodoo_man]

I think you don't hit the issues with UK style unarmed policing and US style policing nearly hard enough, or from the right angle.

The anti cop folks also tend to be anti gun in my observation, they want US cops unarmed and unable to shoot. Saying it's different isn't nearly good enough. What needs to be pointed out is how fucking stupid the idea is, and how untenable, and how often UK cops have to wait for the armed cops to show up.

The first responders on the scene of the murder of Lee Rigby had to wait around for the armed cops to arrive and end the confrontation;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Lee_Rigby

Just one glaring example.

Good effort though.

The article was less about how much the UK sucks, more about how the entire practice and concept of "de-escalation" when action is required. Even at that its just a primer on the topic, too much info to cover on one article.

[Chuck Haggard]

The article was less about how much the UK sucks, more about how the entire practice and concept of "de-escalation" when action is required. Even at that its just a primer on the topic, too much info to cover on one article.

I had to put on my retard cap and think of where the "yeah, but..."s would come from if someone read your article.

[Chuck Haggard]

I was reading responses to an article describing an officer using force, and I think it's not always anti-gun, but rather anti-use-of-force. They are not okay with use of force until a suspect is in the act of committing deadly or grievous harm to police officers or the public, in their minds escalating or using force is never appropriate. Basically they want officers to be behind the curve, because justice. In the case I was reading, an officer kicked the suspect because he paused when given a command to surrender, and the suspect even admitted afterwards that he was deciding whether he should fight or run. But people ignore the facts and scream "police escalate use of force against unarmed and complaint man," despite the former being irrelevant and the latter being blatantly false.

I wonder how many people would feel the same way if they they saw the Dinkheller video and then had to go tell officers and their families that they're aware of the risk officers take but want them to defend themselves until the other guy starts getting stabby or shooty.

It also doesn't help that people think you can shoot guns out of a suspect's hands or that OC/tasers will magically end a fight with no risk.

It's beyond even that. Many of those folks would rather there be a dead cop than any risk of a dead suspect.

[AMC]

Most of our problems with "community relations" and the public misperception of the use-of-force have to do with total ignorance of the law, training, or the realities of violent conflict in most of our population. I know this has always been true to a degree, but generations of "zero tolerance" snowflakes and media conditioning have unmistakably worsened the situation. My question, that I've been asking peers and others for the last year, is how do we educate the public about the realities we face when the media and our own leaders act as gatekeepers of information, and clearly have a vested interest in NOT letting the public see the truth? And I would go further with the title of the article....inappropriate de-escalation has already resulted in cops getting killed. Several this year. In the other thread where we're discussing the new SFPD policies and training for firearms, we haven't really discussed the Mario Woods shooting that triggered the insanity, but a week and a half ago we had an almost identical situation. Building security calls the police about a mentally ill subject with a knife kneeling in their doorway, sharpening the knife. Seven officers and a sergeant respond. Suspect was non-compliant with verbal commands, then stood and began walking towards the one (one!) officer who deployed a supersock loaded 870. The officer allowed him to approach within 5 feet before dacking the guy! The suspect stopped, but wouldn't drop the knife. The sergeant then closed to 7 feet (?!?) and pepper sprayed the subject. Still no effect. The suspect decided he wanted to leave, so he started walking down the street. The officers "got together and formulated a plan", apparently deciding that since the one supersock didn't cause the guy to crumple in tears and scream uncle....they were useless. SOOOOOOOOO......they tackeled the significantly larger mentally ill suspect armed with a knife from behind. They are alive only because the suspect didn't try to hurt them...he just tried to get away. Unfortunately, the Chief is holding them up as an example of how to properly handle subjects armed with knives. See, knives aren't dangerous! You don't have to shoot people! Too many cops are more afraid of being on youtube than they are of dying.....because in their heart of hearts, too many cops believe nothing bad will ever really happen to them.

[AMC]

Chuck, I would note that many of those people are elected politicians or even LE executives. When cops get killed, their families don't riot or show up at the mayor's and the chief's houses at 6 AM with bullhorns. "Hey, sorry guys, them's the breaks. You knew the risks when you signed on! Better a few dead blue-suiters than my sleep get disturbed, or (gasp!) I lose re-election!"

[HCM]

It's beyond even that. Many of those folks would rather there be a dead cop than any risk of a dead suspect.

Not just "rather". These are the same folks who believe getting hurt or killed is "part of your job" and "what you signed up for".

[voodoo_man]

I had to put on my retard cap and think of where the "yeah, but..."s would come from if someone read your article.


The people who are going to bring up those questions are not the people who the article was written for. Anyone can "yeah, but..." anything to death and back, where does that get us though? I rather train action than talk about inaction.



Not just "rather". These are the same folks who believe getting hurt or killed is "part of your job" and "what you signed up for".

While I know it has happened, its just a matter of time until a mainstream example of "de-escalation" causes an innocent person to be killed, not by the police, but the POS who should have been shot upon contact. Then the politicians will eagerly try to point the finger at the police while the police will show that they did everything correctly and "de-escalated" the situation but the POS still killed someone.

[TGS]

It's beyond even that. Many of those folks would rather there be a dead cop than any risk of a dead suspect.

Where's that video of the Boston Police supervisor(?) asking, "Did you miss the part where I said the suspect shot the officer in the head?" in response to upstanding citizens yelling, "Thatsa 'ancuff sitchuation!"

[voodoo_man]

Where's that video of the Boston Police supervisor(?) asking, "Did you miss the part where I said the suspect shot the officer in the head?" in response to upstanding citizens yelling, "Thatsa 'ancuff sitchuation!"

There is a subset of people, a very small part of the community at large, that believe police officer's lives are expendable and their cousin's life, who is dealin on the corner after having 8 kids with different baby mama's, is worth more than an entire police department's.

What the most interesting part of this occurrence is that you can show this and prove it over and over, without fail, but the general public does not buy it. I had an older man in my AO tell me I'm a racist after arresting "his nephew" for selling crack on the corner. He went on to tell me that "you people do nuffin for my community." That's interesting and funny. I told him that every police officer he sees has done more for "his community" than he or the drug peddling criminal I arrested will ever do in ten lifetimes. He laughed and told me I don't know what I'm talking about. He might be right, since his definition of "doing something" is most definitely something different than what we all seem to think it is.

[Erick Gelhaus]

Most of our problems with "community relations" and the public misperception of the use-of-force have to do with total ignorance of the law, training, or the realities of violent conflict in most of our population. I know this has always been true to a degree, but generations of "zero tolerance" snowflakes and media conditioning have unmistakably worsened the situation. My question, that I've been asking peers and others for the last year, is how do we educate the public about the realities we face when the media and our own leaders act as gatekeepers of information, and clearly have a vested interest in NOT letting the public see the truth?

You oughtta read my Masters' thesis because it was exactly on this subject. In no small part because I got to experience it first hand.

Run any of the cases discussed in this thread, and more, past the average command staff member and they cannot tell you they mean, let alone what they say. It is telling when a federal magistrate mentions a case and the only person present who knows it is a street cop - not the administrator or any of the attorneys present.

As for the rest of your post, which does not surprise me in the slightest, my perspective is that some cops are scared of being abandoned, of having to go into hiding, of threats to their families, and losing their livelihoods in the aftemath of doing the right thing. Having seen these examples happen to cops locally and across the country they don't want to be the next one. Those concerns and internal pressure from above will drive some truly & spectacularly stupid responses to the actions of non-compliant suspects who appear armed.

I had no idea how far the appointed head of your agency (he is no longer worthy of Chief) had fallen until a lengthy conversation with another poster happened today. I hope you and your co-workers (along with the rest of the profession) can survive what is happening.

[Erick Gelhaus]

Also, employee associations are going to have get involved in doing at least of the educating. This is as much a working conditions issues as pay, benefits, hours, and assignments.

Print and radio ads, community meetings, presentations, face to face with politicians showing the real numbers and laws ... your POA's showing at the OCC meeting was quite solid.

[Jeff22]

"A major contributing factor when officers get hurt is failing to use enough force to gain control of the situation, as opposed to letting the situation spin out of control and having to react"

That is often true. And another contributing factor is poor tactics and coppers rushing in when they don't have to, and not waiting for backup when it would be appropriate.

If you visualize the use of force continuum as a lineal thing, then you need to be able to move up and down as circumstances dictate, with maintaining your safety and the safety of the public as your major consideration.

[peterb]

Most of our problems with "community relations" and the public misperception of the use-of-force have to do with total ignorance of the law, training, or the realities of violent conflict in most of our population. I know this has always been true to a degree, but generations of "zero tolerance" snowflakes and media conditioning have unmistakably worsened the situation.

The fact that violent conflict is uncommon among the general population is not a bad thing, but it does cause perception problems.

I could easily be a prime example. I've spent my whole life in small towns or middle-class neighborhoods, living an uneventful whitebread life. The last fight I saw not on a screen was in high school. Any use of force looks......violent.

If it wasn't for what I learned doing my volunteer EMT work, and the discussions here, I'd probably agree with the folks pointing fingers at "over-aggresssive" police tactics. If violence isn't part of your world it's hard to grasp the differences.

[voodoo_man]

The fact that violent conflict is uncommon among the general population is not a bad thing, but it does cause perception problems.

I could easily be a prime example. I've spent my whole life in small towns or middle-class neighborhoods, living an uneventful whitebread life. The last fight I saw not on a screen was in high school. Any use of force looks......violent.

If it wasn't for what I learned doing my volunteer EMT work, and the discussions here, I'd probably agree with the folks pointing fingers at "over-aggresssive" police tactics. If violence isn't part of your world it's hard to grasp the differences.

Does that make the average persons perceptions correct? Should the average persons perceptions be applied to those of a person who has more experience dealing with violence?

Of course not, hence why the "reasonable officer standard" exists.

I threw a lot of concepts into this article and I will expound on a bunch of them in a few follow up articles, the point was to get people thinking.

[peterb]

An average person's perception of violence may not agree with a street cop's reality, but the same can be true in reverse. A street cop's view of the world probably does not match the day-to-day reality of the average person.

Both views are valid in the appropriate context.

[voodoo_man]

An average person's perception of violence may not agree with a street cop's reality, but the same can be true in reverse. A street cop's view of the world probably does not match the day-to-day reality of the average person.

Both views are valid in the appropriate context.

I understand the point you are putting out, it is a fallacy however.

We all live in the same world, given that premise, the street officers's reality is the average person's reality. While the perceptions may not match, the context is irrelevant as reality does not change based on a persons perception, it exists in and of itself. If the average person does not perceive violence while the street officer does, then the average person is not recognizing the fact it exists, as there are no two separate realities there is only one.

If you were referring to violent confrontations with other people, then that is not a perception, that is also a reality for many people. I would argue that a hardened criminals perception of violence may be different from a street officers perception of violence, but whoever sees it more often or whoever is more exposed to it is the one closest to the reality of that particular situation, everyone else is either not recognizing it or lacks exposure to it, but it exists none-the-less.

[peterb]

Agree. I guess I was trying to say that the average citizen's "incorrect" perception of reasonable use of force is not because they're stupid or brainwashed. It's because they have nothing in their daily lives that gives them context for understanding it.

Of course they don't understand. How could they?

There were some good stories last year of reporters being invited to police training and having their views changed when confronted with shoot/no shoot situations. I suspect that more of that kind of education will become the norm for departments trying to maintain good public relations.

[11B10]

I understand the point you are putting out, it is a fallacy however.

We all live in the same world, given that premise, the street officers's reality is the average person's reality. While the perceptions may not match, the context is irrelevant as reality does not change based on a persons perception, it exists in and of itself. If the average person does not perceive violence while the street officer does, then the average person is not recognizing the fact it exists, as there are no two separate realities there is only one.



If you were referring to violent confrontations with other people, then that is not a perception, that is also a reality for many people. I would argue that a hardened criminals perception of violence may be different from a street officers perception of violence, but whoever sees it more often or whoever is more exposed to it is the one closest to the reality of that particular situation, everyone else is either not recognizing it or lacks exposure to it, but it exists none-the-less.


Thanks, vdm - you literally took the words out of my fingers here. It seems I had the exact same life experiences peterb had, but mine were forever altered by subsequent events. IMHO, they made me a more aware, better, albeit completely different - person. Rest assured that your goal of getting people thinking has been met - and overcome. Give us more.

[voodoo_man]

Agree. I guess I was trying to say that the average citizen's "incorrect" perception of reasonable use of force is not because they're stupid or brainwashed. It's because they have nothing in their daily lives that gives them context for understanding it.

Of course they don't understand. How could they?

There were some good stories last year of reporters being invited to police training and having their views changed when confronted with shoot/no shoot situations. I suspect that more of that kind of education will become the norm for departments trying to maintain good public relations.

We can only hope.

We should be constantly attempting to change our perceptions.

[AMC]

For peterb....this is exactly the problem I'm referring to. What we do and experience as police officers is so outside the experience of our fellow citizens, it is as if we inhabit different realities. It's this gap that we have to bridge...not only for us in Law Enforcement, but for everyone's well being. It is extremely unhealthy for a free society to have such divergent viewpoints between it's protectors and the protected. Unlike in a "sheep" and "sheepdog" paradigm.....our sheep can vote to have the sheepdogs teeth removed....or have him kenneled away from them....or fire him completely. Of course, the "wolf" is still out there....regardless of whether or not the sheep can see him in the dark. This is the problem I always had with that model.....people aren't sheep. They make decisions....and those have consequences.

The professionalization of our protector classes has created a sense of safety in modern industrialized western societies that has never existed before in human history, Unfortunately, humans are subject to the "normalcy bias"....and take for granted that current conditions have always been and always will be. We can tinker with society and law however we want and things will only get better because...well, because! In my city, we are about to undertake changes so radical as to constitute not just a "re-engineering of use of force", but a re-imagining of the profession of law enforcement into something more like "law encouragement". The effect, due to public apathy and ignorance, is that the citizens will be without police protection as they have come to understand it. Good luck with that. Maybe unicorns really exist in SF....and cars CAN be powered by rainbows and smiles.

[Tabasco]

The "Rainbow and Unicorn" types don't wan't to know about the dirty side of life. It's inconvenient to their world view. I just re-watched "Bullitt", great San Francisco film if you ask me. The scene where Jacqueline Bissette stumbles on a murder scene in Franks investigation (he had to borrow her Porsche and she drove him there). On the way back to the City, they pull over and she berates him for forcing her to deal with a rougher side to life than she is used to. I never really understood her reaction, but thinking about it now I do. Some people just can't handle reality, and the San Francisco Bay Area seems to attract them like flies on ....

[Jeff22]

Peterb nailed it: "I guess I was trying to say that the average citizen's "incorrect" perception of reasonable use of force is not because they're stupid or brainwashed. It's because they have nothing in their daily lives that gives them context for understanding it.

Of course they don't understand. How could they?"

Dumb people over generalize on the basis of limited personal experience, and so their conclusions are wrong. Dumb people base their evaluations of the world on emotion rather than research and logic. They can't think in a straight line because there is something fundamentally wrong with their through process. Smart people know what they don't know. Dumb people often think they know everything, and don't want their lives interrupted with information.

That being said, Law Enforcement often does a poor job of explaining what they do and why they do it. Some people can't be reached because they're dumber than a rock or because they choose to be one of the perpetually offended, but other people of good will can possibly be educated to have a better understanding about some of the realities of confrontation.

[peterb]

That being said, Law Enforcement often does a poor job of explaining what they do and why they do it. Some people can't be reached because they're dumber than a rock or because they choose to be one of the perpetually offended, but other people of good will can possibly be educated to have a better understanding about some of the realities of confrontation.

As violence becomes less a part of normal everyday life for most folks, police will have to educate the public about how and when force is appropriate if they want public support for their actions.

The increased use of video has made it much easier to see use of force incidents but does nothing to improve understanding. We've seen how whoever yells the loudest establishes the narrative. Good departments should be building their side of the story long before a controversial video hits the screens.

[voodoo_man]

As violence becomes less a part of normal everyday life for most folks, police will have to educate the public about how and when force is appropriate if they want public support for their actions.

The increased use of video has made it much easier to see use of force incidents but does nothing to improve understanding. We've seen how whoever yells the loudest establishes the narrative. Good departments should be building their side of the story long before a controversial video hits the screens.

As was stated, dumb people do not want knowledge or education. So even if there is case law even if there is precedent, even if its clear as day that the officers were forced to take action, there will always be people who throw their hands up and scream foul.

I have been told by defendants and others in the community I patrol that they do not care about "white laws" or "white justice" and when I ask why I get some off the wall crazy answer that they believe is completely true, nothing Ill ever do will ever change that persons mind. So education failed and knowledge is disregard, how is law enforcement supposed to deal with people like that? That is the same subset of people that riot in Ferguson, that kill each other in cold blood and deal the vast majority of narcotics. These are all facts and yet....we are the racists that kill them in the street?

[John Hearne]

A big part of the problem is tv and movies. When people don't know anything, they'll fill the void with the first bit of information that comes along. If you compare the presentation of violence and police use of force in tv/movies with reality, you see the same gap that we're discussing.

[LSP552]

As violence becomes less a part of normal everyday life for most folks, police will have to educate the public about how and when force is appropriate if they want public support for their actions.

The increased use of video has made it much easier to see use of force incidents but does nothing to improve understanding. We've seen how whoever yells the loudest establishes the narrative. Good departments should be building their side of the story long before a controversial video hits the screens.

We have raised an entire generation of kids who have never been in a fight, thrown a punch or been hit because of zero tolerance school policies. I personally find it amazing that kids can't protect themselves without being expelled. The discomfort and lack of knowledge about violence and use of force isn't getting better anytime soon.

Completely agree that LE needs to get in front of explaining things. The problem is a political administrator's explanation and understanding will probably be different than most working cops.

[voodoo_man]

We have raised an entire generation of kids who have never been in a fight, thrown a punch or been hit because of zero tolerance school policies. I personally find it amazing that kids can't protect themselves without being expelled. The discomfort and lack of knowledge about violence and use of force isn't getting better anytime soon.

Completely agree that LE needs to get in front of explaining things. The problem is a political administrator's explanation and understanding will probably be different than most working cops.

One generation, two completely different upbringings.

Contrast the schooling experience of your typical suburban teen going through a "zero tolerance" school with that of your inner city teen that goes to a school where there are shootings and in my case an actual, no bullshit, court room inside the school.

No wonder we have such a disconnect.

[Trooper224]

and in my case an actual, no bullshit, court room inside the school.

That's actually a fascinating social paradigm, please elaborate.

[voodoo_man]

That's actually a fascinating social paradigm, please elaborate.

We have a highschool with a room where a judge sits, court staff, sheriffs and cells exist. They start it up every few years and shut it down when public opinion starts the favor one side or the other.

One of the main school recently closed which had a full time court room but its going to start up again.

[BobM]

Completely agree that LE needs to get in front of explaining things. The problem is a political administrator's explanation and understanding will probably be different than most working cops.

Another problem is that a good part of the population isn't willing to listen to reason.

[AMC]

I think that a certain segment of the public is not willing to listen to reason because of political/racial agendas, but much of the public is simply no longer capable of reason. People are no longer taught critical thinking and empirically based reasoning skills in school. I once saw a high school teacher promoting "new math" by decrying the "tyranny of numbers and facts". When people are raised in that kind of surreal, Orwellian atmosphere....appeals to reason are literally falling on deaf ears. Now, how much of the population is so affected is open for debate. But those people vote, and influence their elected officials. They tend to make decisions on the basis of emotions, and emotional people are loud. And some of them even get elected. I totally agree that LE agencies and the profession as a whole need to do a better job of educating the public, because no one else is gonna do it. A of of this is going to have to fall on LE unions, unfortunately, because LE Administrators are frankly part of the problem. I remember when I first became a cop and I looked up to the guys running things, thinking "We're in good hands. These guys have been around, they know what they're doing." Of course, I now know that LE management is largely clueless and is just making it up as they go along...hoping no one realizes what frauds they are. Chiefs are usually the least knowledgeable when it comes to use of force training and law, but they're the only ones doing the talking....if they're not silent for political reasons. But the public also tends not to trust anything coming from government employee unions. So back to square one. I've been trying to figure this out for a while, but so far haven't figured out the answer.

[Trooper224]

We have a highschool with a room where a judge sits, court staff, sheriffs and cells exist. They start it up every few years and shut it down when public opinion starts the favor one side or the other.

One of the main school recently closed which had a full time court room but its going to start up again.

Wow. That's an indicator of failure on so many levels.

[jnc36rcpd]

I just watched "Demolition Man" on cable. I couldn't help noticing that the San Angeles Police Captain lectured John Spartan on the sanctity of human life and that the strategy for capturing Simon Phoenix was not aggressive policing, but to wait for his next murder-death-kill so they know where he is. Police do not carry firearms, but a glow stick that renders suspect unconscious. When Spartan asks about their effectiveness, he is told, rather dubiously, "It's what we got." The movie is set in 2020 something, but PERF seems to have advanced the future/

Who says Stallone movies aren't realistic?

[voodoo_man]

Wow. That's an indicator of failure on so many levels.

And then some, I dont even understand why they would do that but its an intended failure in my opinion.

[voodoo_man]

found a video and did a quick write-up

http://www.vdmsr.com/2016/03/tactical-de-escalation-at-work.html

[Shellback]

found a video and did a quick write-up

http://www.vdmsr.com/2016/03/tactical-de-escalation-at-work.html

I say outfuckingstanding job by the citizen coming to the aid of the officer. The officer is very lucky the man kept a cool head and made the decision to come to his aid.

At Thursday night's Ludlow City Council meeting, Police Chief Scott Smith thanked Megerle for coming to the aid of Hodge. Megerle was presented with a plaque for his heroism.

"I knew what I had to do and I just jumped in there and did it," Megerle said. He was simply at the grocery for a quick food run when he witnessed the shootout between Reynolds and Hodge. His background in the Army helped him in knowing what to do in the situation, he said. "I knew (Hodge) was in shock and I knew he was bleeding bad. Actually, I thought I may have to grab his gun and shoot (Reynolds).

Here's a longer version of the video: http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=3df_1457759868