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

[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.