Thoughts on LEO Rules of Engagement

[TC215]

^^^^ I don't know if that's the norm these days...but I have to say the detectives I had the privilege of knowing and working alongside from the Metropolitan Police, (both stateside and in London), were not the kind to run from a fight...armed or not. Obviously a small sample size but nonetheless...

Oh, I'm sure they're mostly great guys and girls. I just posted that video to be a smartass.

Here's an example on the other end of the spectrum:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...-a7772251.html

[blues]

Oh, I'm sure they're mostly great guys and girls. I just posted that video to be a smartass.

Here's an example on the other end of the spectrum:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...-a7772251.html

I had no thought that you were impugning the service.

Speaking of the anti-terror squad...the DI who I worked with in Miami and then in London a year or two later eventually became the supervisor of the anti-terror group. In fact, he's the one that gave me the bobby helmet that you see on my late Weimaraner, "Smoky", in my avatar image.

And speaking of bravery, one very attractive lass, a detective I met over there, had worked a long term undercover infiltrating the provisional IRA. She had more "balls" than most, speaking from a modicum of undercover experience myself.

[jnc36rcpd]

GyroF-16, in my jurisdiction, that would likely be charged as a burglary unless circumstances indicated it was purely a malicious destruction of property. If bad guy were on security footage throwing rocks into various windows and made no attempt to enter, it would likely be an MDP. If he broke out a window with a crowbar and then fled when he became aware of police pursuit, we might well go for burglary. What the State's Attorney's Office would plea bargain it down to, who knows? I do not have any better information than what I get from the media.

[txdpd]

I would expect our law enforcement leadership to always be looking for better ways to do things or is that not the case?

I'm sure you've the video of the Daniel Shaver video out of Mesa, AZ. If you were in that situation, you have Mr. Shaver on the phone, and he's agreed to surrender what would you have done differently?

Obviously, nothing is guaranteed.

What we got from our command staff was a top to bottom inspection of rifles.

[jnc36rcpd]

TSH, having done it for a few short years, I'm pretty sure I know what policing entails. Despite my best efforts and those of officers half my age to train me on computers, smart phones, and fax machines, I'm really not proficient at such subtle things as emoticons or, as illustrated here, in the ability to cut and paste correctly. Perhaps this has caused some miscommunication.

I do see policing moving in the directions I have described. While it may not become as extreme as the scenarios I discussed, I suspect policing will become more like that than many may hope.

This is not an entirely new phenomenon. Many years ago, I realized some officers would avoid making traffic stops if they could see that the violator was African-American before turning on the blue party lights.

[jnc36rcpd]

txdpd, I've read several articles by Ayoob over the years that suggest you should not ask for trouble. Proving how old I am, I remember one in which he mentioned that a Colt Detective Special would raise less ire than a Colt Cobra. That said, he mentioned that if all you had was a Cobra, you should carry that rather than go unarmed. He also mentioned that these issues get thrown out in discovery hearings,

I understand that the unwise saying on the dust cover of the rifle was not admitted in evidence, I won't say it unwise for your agency to inspect rifles. More so if the armorers looked for issues with the rifles rather than just hunting down Punisher logos.

I think the issue here is the jacked up takedown procedures.Some of our protocols seem designed with fellow members of the police academy staff who have done the drill a couple of times than they do with some angry drunk who doesn't speak English and can't hear in the loud environment. Unless we can invite these people up to the academy to be role players before we stop them out on the street, I think we need simpler protocols for many of our clients.

In that unfortunate incident, I think simpler commands and taking some risks to move forward would have resulted in a better outcome.

[Erick Gelhaus]

The OP started with French’s article. Here is a response to it. Doesn’t come from a cop; instead it comes from platoon leader in the infantry battalion I went to Iraq with.
https://ricochet.com/507576/randomne...de-risk-crime/

I’m not terribly sure the actual numbers are but I’d wager a whole lot that there are not a whole bunch of cops who also ground combat veterans, in this fight or any previous one. French is neither. Yes, it does matter when evaluating his claims, perspective.

The suspect, whose actions drove this whole event, had done a fair amount more than French admits.

He disingenuously says being a cop there isn’t dangerous. A gang member was just sentenced to death for murdering deputies from both Sacramento County and Placer County not that long ago. Last year a Sac PD officer was shot & wounded on a traffic stop.

Of the events the public should be outraged about, look at commentary on the west coast officers who fired 60+ rounds at a RV. That doesn’t seem to get the attention that legitimately stopping a lethal force threat does.

In addition to the cases JLW lists out, look at Plakas v. Drinski in regard to what tool & when; Plumhoff v Rickard for claims about the number of rounds fired. Regarding Scott v Harris, if you have an interest in this area, read the Harvard Law School research study on the case.

I’ve referenced it a bunch as it was a significant foundation for my grad school work – if you want to have an intelligent conversation on this subject, please - for the love of whatever deity you believe in - read the third edition of Urey Patrick & John Hall’s book “In Defense of Self and Others.”

I’m glad to see CClaxton acknowledging the media lies & sensationalizes things. That’s a start. And then we are back to the same two cases, both of which have been adjudicated – one of which resulted in a criminal conviction. I agree that too often cops muzzle people, I’ll add that a number of people advocate & teach ready positions that lend themselves to muzzling people. However, I won’t advocate anything off to the side at some distance. DB, Dave Spaulding, & others have already addressed viable ready positions. Look for a research project on them this summer.

Looking at what others do? Sure, why not. As long as it is in context. However, as AMC mentioned, they have been looked at.

Interesting to see that several people are raising shootings that a number of cops I know have questioned. Many that have or will see the inside of a criminal court room. In some of those cases, juries heard all of the evidence, ALL, and rendered judgment based on that.

As for the proposed CA assembly bill – no one has seen it yet. I talked to a well-known L/E centric attorney Wednesday and he was asking for a copy. A big problem with that bill as discussed is how to train for the new standard. Necessary can only be determined after the fact, can’t determine it beforehand. Since Graham specifically denies the use of 20/20 hindsight, on that alone the bill chucks the USSC standard.

If one wants complete de-policing, keep advocating for things like that bill.

[LSP552]

Great article and comment Angus, thanks.

[AMC]

Great response to French. Love the clearly articulated point that all of these legislative and policy proposals seek to reduce the risk inherent in resisting arrest, and to shift the risk to law enforcement officers. A talking point we oftern hear refers to criminal actors as "members of the community" who LE are sworn to protect. Traditionally in our society, such people were referred to as "outlaws", and seen to be outside the community. No longer, I guess.

[cclaxton]

Great response to French. Love the clearly articulated point that all of these legislative and policy proposals seek to reduce the risk inherent in resisting arrest, and to shift the risk to law enforcement officers. A talking point we oftern hear refers to criminal actors as "members of the community" who LE are sworn to protect. Traditionally in our society, such people were referred to as "outlaws", and seen to be outside the community. No longer, I guess.

It's not black and white. Its complicated when you consider the mentally ill, the homeless, drug addicts, sex workers, and misdemeanor violators. Many of these people have connections to the community. That is not to say there aren't criminal actors who are clearly not a part of our legitimate community.


Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk