Policy should be "Yes, we will give an interview. A videographer of our choice will be present. You can use ours, or your own, but we will also be recording everything."
Policy should be "Yes, we will give an interview. A videographer of our choice will be present. You can use ours, or your own, but we will also be recording everything."
Recovering Gun Store Commando. My Blog: The Clue Meter
“It doesn’t matter what the problem is, the solution is always for us to give the government more money and power, while we eat less meat.”
Glenn Reynolds
Whose name is Kim?Originally Posted by 11B10
The LAPD Sergeant is Lim.
http://www.policemag.com/videos/chan...encounter.aspx
You can, but so what? Distribute your version via Youtube and promote it on your Facebook page? They know they have the distribution and eyeballs and that opinion is formed long before anyone knows the "real" video exists...and that few people will sit through the unedited version.
My policy will remain "no interviews".
Yes and no.
This is just the center between the marriage of common sense and logic on this topic.
If you are going to ask for the best possible opinion on "deadly force police shootings" who should you ask? Who could provide the best overall mental, physical and up to date reference point for such situations?
A shooting instructor may be able to critique the shooting aspect with greater accuracy, what was done right and wrong, but will miss the points requiring experience in the field.
A "professor" on the topic may able to articulate the philosophical, physiological and psychological, but will clearly lack the experience to back up their position and points.
A policy expert will be able to tell what mistakes were made in reference to policy and what policy needs to change in order to prevent this or allow others to overcome this type of situation. A good department will always learn from their mistakes and provide officers with training of a specific incident whenever something happens which requires such.
A "been there done that" academy instructor might be able to give a very accurate idea of the situation as long as they havn't been off the street for more than 2-3 years. There are some instructors out there who got into dozens of gun fights with revolvers and gen1 glocks who think their experience is the be all, end all. Fact is while there are some things they can bring to the table their experience is outdated on current issues and tactical/shoot problems.
A current street officer, who preferably has been involved in numerous deadly force confrontations (not just shoots), can, and will always, be the best third party point of reference for if an officer did anything right or wrong. They have the best and most current understanding and experience on the topic. They are the quintessential "experts" on the matter.
Thus I have no issue if there was a media outlet which allowed a few randomly selected out of the US, currently active street officers who have been in deadly force situations, to sit down and view these incidents and then give critiques or answer questions on them. When you get "experts" you can shop for the answer you want, LEO's who have been in the shit and continue to be in the shit know exactly how these things work and will call a bad shoot very quickly.
Can you expand on this? Specifically the "current issues and tactical/shoot problems"?
I mean, it's intuitive if the guy is cautioning you to only keep five beans in the wheel lest you drop your Peacemaker at the hitchin' post and have an ND, but a layperson like me is going to have a hard time seeing how UoF issues changed much between Gen2 and Gen3 Glocks.
Not talking about mechanics talking about time on the job...gen1 glocks were issued very early 90s.
As for teaching/instruction the person doing the teaching isn't trying to explain anything other than concepts we should be good. The moment they start "you should always shoot at moving cars..." Then we have a problem. This is the reason why policy and how it is taught is so disconnected.
Sorry, Angus - it seems MY name should be dipshit. Guess I need new lenses.
While that may be your experience, it's certainly not univeral. Here, the training staff sends a representative to every PAS, and it's generally the range LT. Those guys who've been off the street, generally for well over 2-3 years, put in a lot of time, research, testing, and work in to staying current or leading the trends from tactics, legal, and media/citizen response. They are in no way outdated and have done an excellent job of preparing us for gun fights and other deadly force encounters.
Being in a shooting, or multiple deadly force encounter, imparts no special knowledge other than how that individual deals with the aftermath of that shooting. There are officers who are introspective, who will sift through it to glean the lessons, and help pass that on. There are also guys who used horrid tactics, who set themselves up for failure, but who lucked through it and thus think it went swimmingly because it all worked out. I won't romanticize the beat cop or working detectives to the point that I'll label them experts across the board.
For my money, I'd listen to guys who've both been there/done that, who've put the work in to stay current, who are proven to have the officer's back but is also fair if they screwed the pooch without regard to career enhancement/ladder climbing.
I am split on this. In some cases, voodoo an is right. Regional issues, working within recent policy changes that are often based on the good idea fairy in the Chief and a government agency's attorney's office that have no basis in actual legal precedence, cultural and regional nuances, how to train current generation officers (this is very regional) as places have some very different ideas of what makes a good cop, and working within certain political climates (I am retired because I made tactical compromises due to political climate) as this is a huge mindset issue.
On the other side....Graham vs. Connor hasn't changed since I started. There are some very basic core principles of threat evaluation and threat assessment....we can learn quite a bit from how people have successfully used these principles. Some things are cyclical. What is a brand new problem now may have been dealt with in the past and we may learn some stuff. Raise your hand if you have been in a massive shootout with Black Panther type militants. Ron McArthy has a Medal of Valor for it. Wait till we start get police cars bombed by these folks in parking lots. It is coming....because it happened before.
There are a lot of nuances to this. I have been out of the game for eight years now. Don't know crap about body cameras and newer technology stuff. I do stay up with working guys and what they are seeing, especially folks I trained who are now senior guys to find out what is still working (and based on a recent phone call, the core stuff is very applicable, and stuff I warned about as bad is still bad). The reality is that if folks think working a couple decades exclusively in patrol division at night is now worthless...okay. I noted talking to one of the guys who heavily influenced me as a young cop (who Ron McCarthy said is the best cop who ever worked for him) that when he retired he dropped out of the training world and started collecting old gun fighting revolvers from the 20's and 30's (sound familiar). He dropped out because he found that the training world didn't seem interested in what 34 years of working the most intense, violent, tip of the spear units in law enforcement during the most violent times in modern history was unwelcome. Pretty sad, because what I learned saved my ass countless times both during the shootings, not shooting, and the inquiry when it was over.
I find it sad that today's LE culture is disinterested in any level of history. I was at a shooting competition recently for LE. Young great shooting three gunners using the most contemporary methodology in today's shooting sports. Sadly, did not know who the thee most significant gunfighter's or trainers of their own department of the last fifty years. Talked to the gray hair team and asked "WTF". They said, "different world, the kids don't give a crap about our history and traditions". This is both sad, and also makes some of vodooman's point. I am sort of headed to the "figure it out yourself" place in my head, and I ll just take three decades of obsessive learning, study, and application in the field, to the grave with me. I never thought I would be at that place, but I guess it is a phase or part of the process.
Just a Hairy Special Snowflake supply clerk with no field experience, shooting an Asymetric carbine as a Try Hard. Snarky and easily butt hurt. Favorite animal is the Cape Buffalo....likely indicative of a personality disorder.
"If I had a grandpa, he would look like Delbert Belton".
Part of the academy experience here is discussing officer LODD on the anniversary of each one. They are all along the academy wall, 1860's to now, with cause of death ranging from gun fights to electrocuted using an early call box. I assume the recruits still visit the locations of some of the more recent shootings as well. Jake Laird was in 2004, so there's still plenty of officers who were there who are on the department. I don't know you'd count that as "history" but for someone coming on in 2016 I'd suppose it is. That district roll calls there every year on the anniversary.
http://www.odmp.org/officer/17421-of...hy-jacob-laird
The more I hear officers complain about this sort of thing, the happier I am where I work.
Reply With Quote