Fairfax County Ad Hoc Police Commission

[LSP552]

I have a philosophical aversion to procedure orders so detailed that they institute definitive steps for every action. Staff folks on the other hand like to specify how many sheets of toilet paper is authorized to wipe your ass with. Naturally, these staff folks never pointed a gun at anyone and probably can't remember where their handcuff key is.

I would not want to see a use of force report every time someone uses a firearm to gain control of situation. Naturally, these use of force reports will be used to second guess an officer's split second decision by people who have no flipping clue about what is appropriate or not.

Writing when I SHALL issue commands, specifying exactly what my ready position shall be is just micromanagement at a level that will frustrate good working cops. What will happen when witnesses say the officer's pistol was raised a bit higher? Is that now deadly force since they SAY it is pointed center mass? Officers who violate a policy can be abandoned by the agency in a civil proceeding. Of course, no agency would do that wth today's political climate (insert massive sarcasm).

There is a running joke among the worker in my old agency that on any given day a trooper is violating at least 3 policies if they are working. This should be considered not a good thing, IMO

[jnc36rcpd]

If I understand this correctly, an officer confronting a suspect in a low ready position, even if the weapon is not muzzling the suspect, will be required to write a report while an officer whose gun is pointed downward by his or hrt leg will not. I think I can predict that many suspects will be confronted by officers with dangling guns. This is especially true if the department has a formal or informal early warning system.

While the dangle has been used by some officers for decades car stops and other unknown risk activities, I generally avoid it. If you have to shoot, you're behind the power curve and presenting from a position you've probably never practiced. If the suspect poses a non-lethal threat, you now have to holster before using your dominant hand.

That said, if this policy were foisted upon me, I guess I'd be stuck with it. As a firearms instructor, I start emphasizing two things. One is presentation with the hand on the holstered pistol. This simplifies training as many courses and drills start with a holstered pistol, but hands off. It also eliminates the need to holster before going hands on or presenting a less-lethal. Secondly, since many officers will opt for the dangle, I'd start training from that ready (or non-ready) position. If we don't do that, we'll have officers slamming hands together in mid-air as they move to a two-handed shooting position, increasing the risk of missed shots and unintentional discharges,

LSP552, I agree completely on the micromanagement of when officers may challenge suspects. While it seems to favor officer safety, I could picture such weirdness as officers not challenging when the don't have a firearm drawn because, you know, the new general order.

[Chuck Haggard]

That is literally the stupidest shit I have heard of in a very long time, and you might recall I was OK with my old agency having muzzling a suspect being a UOF report. The only thing worse would be if the mandated reporting if the gun left the holster.

[Dagga Boy]

For those interested, I posted some thoughts here.

https://pistol-forum.com/showthread....890#post402890

Hopefully, folks like Chuck, the LSP guys, SLG, Dr. No, voodooman, and several others will chime in as well.

Folks will note that I threw things like "ready positions" over to the department training documentation rather than in a specific policy. I have found things go better in court when you can point to specific training, training documentation, and how an individual was trained than simply a policy with no specifics on how that policy is applied.

[cclaxton]

I have a philosophical aversion to procedure orders so detailed that they institute definitive steps for every action. Staff folks on the other hand like to specify how many sheets of toilet paper is authorized to wipe your ass with. Naturally, these staff folks never pointed a gun at anyone and probably can't remember where their handcuff key is.

I would not want to see a use of force report every time someone uses a firearm to gain control of situation. Naturally, these use of force reports will be used to second guess an officer's split second decision by people who have no flipping clue about what is appropriate or not.

Writing when I SHALL issue commands, specifying exactly what my ready position shall be is just micromanagement at a level that will frustrate good working cops. What will happen when witnesses say the officer's pistol was raised a bit higher? Is that now deadly force since they SAY it is pointed center mass? Officers who violate a policy can be abandoned by the agency in a civil proceeding. Of course, no agency would do that wth today's political climate (insert massive sarcasm).

There is a running joke among the worker in my old agency that on any given day a trooper is violating at least 3 policies if they are working. This should be considered not a good thing, IMO

For the record: When I attended the meetings and was allowed to speak I supported improved training over policy-making as long as the net effect of the training was to train officers to exercise better muzzle control. But there were a number of victims families that were pushing for the policies. Just so you understand what happened...at least from what I could see. There were some closed-door meetings with the Chief and the Board of Supervisors where some of this was discussed.

Cody

[Hambo]

I skimmed the PDF and while not all recommendations are bad, there is a solid yard of kumbaya bullshit.

[Dagga Boy]

There are far more "victims families" of officer's killed and injured in criminal act shootings than there are from those negligently or criminally shot by LE. Guess those don't matter. Reality is this.....it sounds like a bunch of folks making policy who have not a fricking clue what they are doing, no experience in proper lethal force training and basing policy on emotion instead of facts, or a successful model.

Prediction....the public will get heavily decreased law enforcement services. The public will get LE less likely to engage criminals. Officers who do engage in higher risk police operations and strictly adhere to policy will likely end up injured, killed, or in a bad shooting.....causing further liability to the agency and a greater burden on the taxpayers. Doesn't smell like success to me.

[Hambo]

Prediction....the public will get heavily decreased law enforcement services. The public will get LE less likely to engage criminals. Officers who do engage in higher risk police operations and strictly adhere to policy will likely end up injured, killed, or in a bad shooting.....causing further liability to the agency and a greater burden on the taxpayers.

That is a sure bet. Because I don't live there, it will be fun to watch the crime rate change over the next few years.

[LSP552]

For the record: When I attended the meetings and was allowed to speak I supported improved training over policy-making as long as the net effect of the training was to train officers to exercise better muzzle control. But there were a number of victims families that were pushing for the policies. Just so you understand what happened...at least from what I could see. There were some closed-door meetings with the Chief and the Board of Supervisors where some of this was discussed.

Cody

Cody,

It was readily apparent that the policy, as written, was intended to be used as a "got ya" tool and a means to appease certain folks in the community. Use of force guidelines are well established by the courts. More restrictive policies are generally implemented to protect the Department from perceived liability but law enforcement actions can be so broad that it's impossible to write all of the possible scenarios, options, actions and reactions like a recipe.

Many agencies have decided that chasing vehicles is bad, leads to potential liability, and is therefore prohibited. Guess what? I'm aware of chases and vehicle stops with a kidnapping victim in the back seat. Would it really be better to serve the diver with a citation later in the week instead of stopping? You also have agencies that prohibit shooting from or at a moving vehicle. Guess what? I'm aware of circumstances where it was needed and done successfully. There is a big difference between prohibited and discouraged.

Overly restrictive policies instead of quality training will never serve the public good. Quality training combined with accountability is in everyone's best interest.

[Coyotesfan97]

My head hurts from reading that PDF. The studies the studies...

There's depolicing coming to Fairfax County.