The End Of L.E. As We Knew It...the Bell Tolls

[andre3k]

Meh, it sounds similar to what we already have. Ours is based on PERF recommendations I believe. That, body cameras, use of force reporting all killed it for proactive policing on my dept. Patrol is strictly responding to calls for service and taking information. If you want to be proactive, you have to go to a specialized division and hope you don't get sued, indicted or blasted on social media for doing what you were trained to do.

The dept culture is now get the hell out of patrol as soon as you can, go somewhere where you aren't issued a camera and survive and keep your head low until you get your 20. It's sad because this used to be a really fun job.

[BK14]

Meh, it sounds similar to what we already have. Ours is based on PERF recommendations I believe. That, body cameras, use of force reporting all killed it for proactive policing on my dept. Patrol is strictly responding to calls for service and taking information. If you want to be proactive, you have to go to a specialized division and hope you don't get sued, indicted or blasted on social media for doing what you were trained to do.

The dept culture is now get the hell out of patrol as soon as you can, go somewhere where you aren't issued a camera and survive and keep your head low until you get your 20. It's sad because this used to be a really fun job.

That’s how my agency was for a bit. We still have a lot doing that. This mindset drives me up the wall. We have a job to do. Either do it within the confines of what you have to work with, or find a new place or profession (not directed at Andre).

Realistically, I have 25 years before I can actually retire. When I was on patrol, my on views didn’t drop, I just kept taking calls, and looking for on-views in my free time. Now the unit I’m on is essentially only on-views, but we have cameras. Either way, make the policies you work under work so you can still do your job, or find a new path.

[OMWAG]

[QUOTE]It would require officers to use a verbal warning before using force and use the least amount of force when interacting with pregnant women; individuals under the age of 21; elderly persons; persons with mental, behavioral, or physical disabilities or impairments; persons experiencing perceptual or cognitive impairments due to use of alcohol, narcotics, hallucinogenic, or other drugs; persons suffering from a serious medical condition; and persons with limited English proficiency.../QUOTE]

So if any of the described types point a double barrel shotgun at me I would have to first tell them to put the gun down then hope they miss. I do not think people ought to be allowed to write such legislation unless have been shot at. for those who have not, I can tell you it quite an awakening experience after which you realize the best way to stay alive is to stop the attacker. We actually pay peope to dream up such nonsense and worse yet to try to make it a law. Fantacies are dangerous.

[BehindBlueI's]

Is that not what (good) officers strive to do anyway?

Parts of it yes, parts of it no.

I don't try to use "minimum force" because that's a mind reader's game. I try to use reasonable force. Trying for "minimal force" often equates to "not quite enough force" and the problem isn't solved, grows, then more force is ultimately used. Go take a peek in the videos thread. A real good example is the guy outside the bus who eventually turns into a lethal force problem because nobody went hands on with him when he was a non-compliant problem.

I do not treat a 20 year old differently than a 21 year old.

I do not always give a verbal warning and situations often dictate it would be foolish to do so. I practice "ask, tell, make" when I can, but sometimes you have to throw the punch, perform the take-down, or pull the trigger NOW.

SCOTUS has laid out a very reasonable standard that protects both officers and the communities they police. This is just bullshit pandering or bullshit ignorance. Likely both.

[WobblyPossum]

I sent this link to my brother, an officer in a busy agency that can only be described as very large. His response: “I don’t see the issue. If he points a gun at you, just employ deescalation techniques. Tell him you’ll listen to his sound cloud.”

[Jeff22]

This proposed legislation doesn't mean anything.

It's proposed by two guys that nobody ever heard of. Lots of stupid things get introduced every year, the proposals never ever come up in committee, and then they die.

It's just a publicity stunt by a couple of obscure nobodies.

[LSP552]

This proposed legislation doesn't mean anything.

It's proposed by two guys that nobody ever heard of. Lots of stupid things get introduced every year, the proposals never ever come up in committee, and then they die.

It's just a publicity stunt by a couple of obscure nobodies.

It means that enough people voted them into office. It’s unfortunate but a pretty large segment of the population are idiots, believe in unicorns and outright haters of anything police.

[blues]

This would be one time I'd be in favor of the phrase "PEACE out!"

[Mjolnir]

Parts of it yes, parts of it no.

I don't try to use "minimum force" because that's a mind reader's game. I try to use reasonable force. Trying for "minimal force" often equates to "not quite enough force" and the problem isn't solved, grows, then more force is ultimately used. Go take a peek in the videos thread. A real good example is the guy outside the bus who eventually turns into a lethal force problem because nobody went hands on with him when he was a non-compliant problem.

I do not treat a 20 year old differently than a 21 year old.

I do not always give a verbal warning and situations often dictate it would be foolish to do so. I practice "ask, tell, make" when I can, but sometimes you have to throw the punch, perform the take-down, or pull the trigger NOW.

SCOTUS has laid out a very reasonable standard that protects both officers and the communities they police. This is just bullshit pandering or bullshit ignorance. Likely both.

I used my words a little loosely in translation but, yeah, what you stated “REASONABLE FORCE” is what I meant but did not draw fine enough a line.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[BehindBlueI's]

I used my words a little loosely in translation but, yeah, what you stated “REASONABLE FORCE” is what I meant but did not draw fine enough a line.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Reasonable force is already the law of the land. This proposal goes well beyond that.