Eight Can't Wait Comes to Milwaukee

[Guerrero]

Would like to get the P-F LEO's reaction to this:

https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/...it/3894099001/

[BehindBlueI's]

must use nonviolent means to de-escalate tense situations...whenever it is “safe and feasible.”

Devil is in the details, but no issues with the overall message.

The Milwaukee policy now includes a partial ban on “chokeholds, strangleholds, lateral vascular neck restraints, carotid restraints, or any other tactic that restricts oxygen or blood flow to the head or neck unless the (officer) is involved in a deadly force situation and has reasonably exhausted all other options and tactics.”

That's less restrictive then the "you can never ever" that we went to, although in both cases the department wasn't training people to do it and it wasn't an approved technique, it just wasn't a disallowed technique either if you learnt it elsewhere. I personally think chokeholds are valuable but the "partial ban" is better then a full ban and if you aren't training to or using them anyway it's likely more a change on paper then in practice for the vast majority of officers. Pandering so the other side feels like they won but nothing really changed.

It says officers who see force beyond what is objectively reasonable must intervene if in a position to do so and it does not jeopardize anyone’s safety.

No issue there. We now have the same language. Note that this was actually a requirement before, including the reporting of excessive force. It was just in another section of our rules and regulations. I suspect a lot of departments are doing this codifying of existing practices or adding redundant language for the same reason I mentioned in the last snippet.

It essentially forbids officers from shooting at moving vehicles unless “all other reasonable alternatives have been exhausted” and the vehicle is being used as a weapon that poses an imminent threat of substantial physical harm to anyone who does not have means to escape.

That's pretty standard.

Milwaukee’s policy also stipulates that officers cannot place themselves in the front or rear of a moving vehicle’s path

Also pretty standard, and smart. It's a good way to get yourself hurt or killed and the "self created jeopardy" is something we've been concerned will cause the courts to raise an eyebrow eventually.

Milwaukee’s policy in this area was expanded, but it largely stayed the same in that, generally, “force that is intended or likely to cause great bodily harm or death may only be used as a last resort” in order to prevent the same kind of harm to other individuals.

I think that's not only standard policy, it's the legal standard with the exception of "as a last resort". That's definitely a Devil is in the details situation, as how do you know that it's the last resort? If they mean "no safe and likely to be effective alternate was present in the officer's mind at the time" then that's one thing, if it's going back to the old and busted continuum of force it's a giant step backward.


No issue with the drawing or pointing of a firearm wording. Pepper spray...maybe, depends on how they define "peaceful". Recovery position when handcuffed, that should have been in place a long time ago, that can't be controversial these days.

It says officers should give a verbal warning, when feasible, prior to using deadly force. They are prohibited from firing warning shots.

Standard policy.

No issues with the mandatory reporting. I mean, of course you'll do a report if you hurt someone, a suspect is dog bit, etc. Surely that's not new policy.


All in all, as presented in the media account, it looks to be pretty close to what I would consider standard policies and nothing causes me any heartburn. Some of them I'd be quite surprised if they were an actual change in pre-existing practice.

[Coyotesfan97]

A lot of that is already policy at my old Department.

Some of Eight Can’t Wait wants simply aren’t feasible. Sometime you have no chance to yell a warning before shooting. A policy that requires you to use less lethal force before using deadly force isn’t feasible and it means you don’t care that Officers or innocent bystanders will be hurt or killed. A policy that completely bans firing at moving vehicles fails to recognize that vehicles can be used for mass casualties.

The thing about “ deescalation” simply ignores it’s a two way street. The suspect chooses whether it works. You can try it but you have to react to what the suspect chooses to do.

[Coyotesfan97]

BBI I chuckled at the dog bite requirement. I can’t imagine my dog biting someone and not writing a report.

[LtDave]

So you can use some variation of a “chokehold” in Milwaukee after you shoot the guy.

The policy at my old department was similar (if less verbose) almost 20 years ago. Literally you couldn't use a carotid unless shooting the miscreant didn’t work.

[Gumby]

Just glad I'm retired. "When in doubt, choke'em out" was our policy.

[Jeff22]

It’s interesting how procedures differ from agency to agency, even in the same state.

In May I’ll have forty years in the job. In quieter jurisdictions about 90 miles to the west of Milwaukee. The lateral vascular neck restraint was never really a thing in the county where I have worked at any time in my career. People weren’t trained on it, some policies prohibited it, and I have never seen the LVNR used on the street.

[BehindBlueI's]

It’s interesting how procedures differ from agency to agency, even in the same state.

In May I’ll have forty years in the job. In quieter jurisdictions about 90 miles to the west of Milwaukee. The lateral vascular neck restraint was never really a thing in the county where I have worked at any time in my career. People weren’t trained on it, some policies prohibited it, and I have never seen the LVNR used on the street.

We weren't trained on it, though I learned it elsewhere. I've used it a few times to good effect, though none were in deadly force situations. I don't recall ever putting anyone all the way out, just the application was enough to stop the resistive or assaultive behavior. Can't do it now.

Similarly, we were never trained to use flashlights as impact weapons. That was extremely common, though, as the mag light simply worked better then an expandable, you already had it on your belt, and you probably already had it out and in your hand in a lot of situations. I carried a coin sap while in plain clothes, but was never trained on it. Now you'd get in trouble for carrying an unauthorized impact weapon (before you would only get in trouble for carrying a specifically unauthorized impact weapon) and now if you whack somebody with a flashlight you have to explain what exigent circumstance lead you to use your flashlight instead of your approved impact device, the expandable baton. I don't even carry a mag light since they changed that rule recently. I'm one of the cool kids now with a tiny ultra-bright fist sized light.

[Gumby]

Got a like from jeff22, where did it go?

[paherne]

Isn't this a political thread?