Jump to content
tanknet.org

When Defending Cops Becomes Impossible


Recommended Posts

 

I have seen an increasing desire on the part of the public to let us (the Sheriff's Office) handle things that 20 years ago, they would have handled themselves. I have seen people ask us to make their kids get up, get on the bus, do their homework, etc. The 9-1-1 calls that come in have a number which are silly in the extreme, which makes me wonder if he have a nation of adults any more?

 

There is a cure for that, or at least a way to treat the symptom. Start charging people with misuse of 911.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 1.5k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

 

 

I have seen an increasing desire on the part of the public to let us (the Sheriff's Office) handle things that 20 years ago, they would have handled themselves. I have seen people ask us to make their kids get up, get on the bus, do their homework, etc. The 9-1-1 calls that come in have a number which are silly in the extreme, which makes me wonder if he have a nation of adults any more?

 

There is a cure for that, or at least a way to treat the symptom. Start charging people with misuse of 911.

 

That's exactly what it is, a symptom of the Nanny state. I fear that things will get much much worse before they can become better.

Edited by DKTanker
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I have had guys approach me in felony situations screaming things like "Don't shoot me, I give up", and then as soon as they get within lunging distance they attack. I was told by an old veteran cop (Texas Ranger), that you use short (3-4 words) sentences, loudly, and repeat it. "Stop!" "Do Not Move" "Lay on the ground!, Show me your hands", because studies have shown that people remember, and react to short authoritative statements.

 

 

A dog trainer talking about this on another board posted this:

 

 

Is the command "BOWSER... CRAWL"

 

or is it "BOWSER, STICK YOUR PAWS UP, KEEP YOUR PAWS UP OR THIS IS GOING TO END BADLY FOR YOU, CRAWL, IF YOU PUT YOUR PAWS DOWN AGAIN I WILL SHOOT YOU, CRAWL, I SAID STOP RIGHT THERE, IF YOU MOVE YOUR PAWS AGAIN I WILL SHOOT, YOURE NOT CRAWLING AND IVE ALREADY SPECIFICALLY ASKED YOU TO CRAWL AND NOW YOUR PAWS DOWN AGAIN, WHAT DID I JUST SAY? WHAT DID I JUST SAY? NOW CRAWL GODDAMIT GET YOUR PAWS UP"

 

:D (as tragic as this is)

Link to post
Share on other sites

That is why you give very short easy to remember commands, no more than five words, less is better.

 

 

I have had guys approach me in felony situations screaming things like "Don't shoot me, I give up", and then as soon as they get within lunging distance they attack. I was told by an old veteran cop (Texas Ranger), that you use short (3-4 words) sentences, loudly, and repeat it. "Stop!" "Do Not Move" "Lay on the ground!, Show me your hands", because studies have shown that people remember, and react to short authoritative statements.

 

 

A dog trainer talking about this on another board posted this:

 

 

Is the command "BOWSER... CRAWL"

 

or is it "BOWSER, STICK YOUR PAWS UP, KEEP YOUR PAWS UP OR THIS IS GOING TO END BADLY FOR YOU, CRAWL, IF YOU PUT YOUR PAWS DOWN AGAIN I WILL SHOOT YOU, CRAWL, I SAID STOP RIGHT THERE, IF YOU MOVE YOUR PAWS AGAIN I WILL SHOOT, YOURE NOT CRAWLING AND IVE ALREADY SPECIFICALLY ASKED YOU TO CRAWL AND NOW YOUR PAWS DOWN AGAIN, WHAT DID I JUST SAY? WHAT DID I JUST SAY? NOW CRAWL GODDAMIT GET YOUR PAWS UP"

 

:D (as tragic as this is)

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I have seen an increasing desire on the part of the public to let us (the Sheriff's Office) handle things that 20 years ago, they would have handled themselves. I have seen people ask us to make their kids get up, get on the bus, do their homework, etc. The 9-1-1 calls that come in have a number which are silly in the extreme, which makes me wonder if he have a nation of adults any more?

The nanny state is a result of cultural Marxism, the next part is called Police State, Citizen.

 

20+ years ago parents and other responsible adults were not getting sued or threaten with other litigation.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I have seen an increasing desire on the part of the public to let us (the Sheriff's Office) handle things that 20 years ago, they would have handled themselves. I have seen people ask us to make their kids get up, get on the bus, do their homework, etc. The 9-1-1 calls that come in have a number which are silly in the extreme, which makes me wonder if he have a nation of adults any more?

The nanny state is a result of cultural Marxism, the next part is called Police State, Citizen.

 

20+ years ago parents and other responsible adults were not getting sued or threaten with other litigation.

 

 

That's what you get when people grow up to be in a permanent state of childhood. Adulthood used to mean responsibility and independence. Such outdated notions...

Link to post
Share on other sites

20+ years ago parents and other responsible adults were not getting sued or threaten with other litigation.

 

Sure they were. Our litigious society isn't new at all, you might not have been aware of the civil suits, but they were happening nevertheless.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I wouldn't condemn cops as a whole as in any group of people, there are always jackasses. Wasn't there but it seems like the cop was in the wrong here.

 

One thing I think should change is police departments shouldn't get to investigate their own shootings. There should probably be a state-level agency that does it. No military unit that has an aircraft mishap investigates it themselves; outsiders come and do it to get a more objective look.

 

Also, I don't think police should use military ranks nor military rank insignia. I think in some cases that stimulates the us-versus-them mentality.

 

At any rate, the vast majority of police are normal, decent people trying to do a very difficult job while being under-resourced and under-trained (we expect them to be social workers and ombudsman too).

This is not really the case due to selection and training effects:

 

(1) people who have some bullying, sadistic etc. personality are attracted

 

(2) people who join either learn to adopt the 'culture' or leave or are fired

 

(3) people who join already have at the least some 'we can fix crime by getting the baddies' which is often hardened by being exposed to all sorts of degeneracy. Then it drifts into 'these people are all degenerates, stuff them, lets give them a beating'.

 

(4) policing is not an especially high status job, so people who are insecure are going to suffer from some sort of status anxiety.

 

As evidence for the (3) effect, look at how in areas where a particular drug or activity is being cracked down on, this leads to a new prejudice about those people, i.e once you instruct police to arrest people for being drunk, drunkenness goes from some innocuous thing to (among police at least), 'damn violent asshole drunks'. This is because now the police are picking up drunks, and once you arrest 30 people for something you are bound to get called some list of expletives and worse. You could criminalise wearing silly hats and soon enough you would have some 'bloody silly hat wearing lunatics' attitude among police. Of course violent criminals etc. are actually awful people, but a lot of policing in the US at least is cracking down on drug and petty offenses, even just being homeless etc.

 

Unlike the US, my impression of police in Japan and much of Europe is that they have an attitude of 'people are generally fine and good, there are just a few bad apples, our job is to keep people safe from these people'.

 

Edited by KV7
Link to post
Share on other sites

I also dimly recall a case where two criminal brothers (?) ambushed a police car chasing them, using an automatic weapon.

 

Found the incident; six years ago on the outskirts of Augsburg. Patrol car crew was going for a routine check of two riders of a motorcycle parked at a wooded rest area at three in the morning. Guys fled, officers took up pursuit, bike crashed on wet ground trying to escape into the woods. When the officers got out of the car and ordered the suspects to lay down, they opened fire with a pistol and two AKs at ten meters range. The male officer was brought down by three pistol rounds despite wearing body armor, trying to take cover behind some trees and firing two magazines from his P 7 himself, then was finished off with five AK rounds from close range; his female colleague took cover behind the cruiser's door and fired four shots from her handgun, but wasn't sure whether she had hit anything and was also lightly wounded. The suspects then fled on foot. Two months later DNA from the crime scene was matched to a 56-year-old who had already shot an Augsburg cop dead in 1975 and served 19 years of a life sentence for it. His 58-year-old brother was also arrested; both were sentenced to life, including security containment in the case of the younger brother, but not of the older who was suffering from Parkinson. This was the third murder of an Augsburg police officer since 1945.

 

The "ambush" part I remembered was probably another similar case from 1991 in Holzminden, Lower Saxony though; a patrol in an unmarked car was lured to a highway rest area by a call about a vehicle accident with an animal at 0230 hours, where they vanished. Traces of blood, teeth, bones and tissue were found on the scene along with 7.62 mm cases; the car of the officers was found burnt out and with numerous bullet holes by a hunter in a nearby military exercise area. Police installed a hotline with a recording of the fake call; the voice was identified by several inmates of a Bielefeld, NRW prison as that of a 29-year-old who had been released for good conduct after serving ten months shortly before. A neighbor of the suspect also recognized the voice, but didn't notify police for fear of his safety.

 

The suspect was arrested by an SEK along with two brothers; a scoped G 3 rifle and two Uzi SMGs were found at their house, which had been stolen in a series of break-ins into Bundeswehr barracks and from sleeping Dutch soldiers on exercise between 1986 and 1988; the duty guns of the two cops were later found buried nearby. The main suspect eventually led police to the bodies of the officers who had been killed with 13 rounds from the G 3 at less than seven meters distance immediately upon arrival to the rest area out of a general hate for cops, then buried in the exercise area where their car was also found. He was sentenced to life with a finding of particular grave guilt, a minimum of 25 years to be served, with subsequent security containment; one of his brothers was given ten year for being an accessory to murder and aggravated robbery, the other was acquitted for a lack of evidence for the murder charge, but given two years suspended for being an accessory to robbery.

 

According to the probably incomplete list on this memorial site, a little over 100 German officers have been killed in the line of duty since 1961, though this includes incidents like the three from the Kabul embassy protection detachment blown up by a bomb under their car in 2007. There are other bad days however: Three killed and one wounded in a traffic stop and the subsequent manhunt by a guy who in the end shot himself in Dortmund, 2000; two run over on purpose by a drunk Danish truck driver at a checkpoint on the Danish border, 1995; five stabbed, two of them fatally, by a Liberian checked for fare evasion, the latter shot by one of the fatally wounded officers in Stuttgart, 1989; three killed by a Yugoslavian at the police station with guns that were seized from him near Munich, 1988; nine shot, two of them fatally, during a protest against construction of a new runway at Frankfurt Airport in 1987; two shot by three fugitive prison inmates who were building an armored car and bombs in a Hannover workshop the same year; two shot through a closed door by a student who thought his father was outside in 1981; two shot by a Belgian soldier without apparent reason in Arnsberg, 1979; three killed on protection duty in the RAF kidnapping of Hanns-Martin Schleyer in 1977; three killed in a multi-hour shootout with the owner of a flat that was to be searched for weapons in 1972.

Link to post
Share on other sites

My comments in bold.

 

I wouldn't condemn cops as a whole as in any group of people, there are always jackasses. Wasn't there but it seems like the cop was in the wrong here.

 

One thing I think should change is police departments shouldn't get to investigate their own shootings. There should probably be a state-level agency that does it. No military unit that has an aircraft mishap investigates it themselves; outsiders come and do it to get a more objective look.

 

Also, I don't think police should use military ranks nor military rank insignia. I think in some cases that stimulates the us-versus-them mentality.

 

At any rate, the vast majority of police are normal, decent people trying to do a very difficult job while being under-resourced and under-trained (we expect them to be social workers and ombudsman too).

This is not really the case due to selection and training effects:

(1) people who have some bullying, sadistic etc. personality are attracted There is that, but in Texas you have to have a Psychological examination before you can get hired.

(2) people who join either learn to adopt the 'culture' or leave or are fired Agreed, we are "Tribal" in nature, and there is a distinct cop culture. Most of it is expressed through really, really dark humor, and being really cynical.

(3) people who join already have at the least some 'we can fix crime by getting the baddies' which is often hardened by being exposed to all sorts of degeneracy. Then it drifts into 'these people are all degenerates, stuff them, lets give them a beating'.Most young cops come in thinking they are the Paladin's who can make a difference, and save the world. They learn quickly, or leave. Same with most social workers at CPS. Most leave withing six months when they find out that real life is not social work school, and their good liberal attitudes, and platitudes are not real.

(4) policing is not an especially high status job, so people who are insecure are going to suffer from some sort of status anxiety.You don't get into this job to get rich. But that being said, I get paid ok.

As evidence for the (3) effect, look at how in areas where a particular drug or activity is being cracked down on, this leads to a new prejudice about those people, i.e once you instruct police to arrest people for being drunk, drunkenness goes from some innocuous thing to (among police at least), 'damn violent asshole drunks'. This is because now the police are picking up drunks, and once you arrest 30 people for something you are bound to get called some list of expletives and worse. You could criminalise wearing silly hats and soon enough you would have some 'bloody silly hat wearing lunatics' attitude among police. Of course violent criminals etc. are actually awful people, but a lot of policing in the US at least is cracking down on drug and petty offenses, even just being homeless etc. After you have dealt with the same drunk over and over, you get acclimitized to it. You also see the horrific effects of drugs close at hand. But back to drunks, one guy I started arresting for Public Intoxication at the beginning of my career, is still at it. He has close to 400 arrests for PI at this point. And there were probably 400 plus times we took him home. But when he is urinating in public, fighting us, fighting someone else, or doing something else you just shake your head at, he goes to jail. We used to be able to take drunks home, but MADD, and other groups have frightened the Administrations via lawsuits enough that it became zero tolerance, go to jail. I used to either take more drunks home or get them a ride than I arrested. But after MADD got involved, to jail they went.

Unlike the US, my impression of police in Japan and much of Europe is that they have an attitude of 'people are generally fine and good, there are just a few bad apples, our job is to keep people safe from these people'.I can't address that, but I know here, we worry if we don't do something will we get sued for "failure to act", or some similar lawsuit. 90% of what happens is in reaction to getting sued, or threatened with lawsuits. After being sued twice in Federal court for patently false allegations by a guy who makes his living suing people, I don't talk to any citizen unless I am recording the interaction. After a while there is a definite "Us vs Them" mentality since most citizens don't go to dead bodies, family disturbances where the "victim" suddenly turns on you when she sees the breadwinner going to jail, holding a 15 year old girl while she bleeds to death because you can't stop the bleeding, and the ambulance is 20 minutes away, and trying to get to you, but just is not going to make it.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I wouldn't condemn cops as a whole as in any group of people, there are always jackasses. Wasn't there but it seems like the cop was in the wrong here.

 

One thing I think should change is police departments shouldn't get to investigate their own shootings. There should probably be a state-level agency that does it. No military unit that has an aircraft mishap investigates it themselves; outsiders come and do it to get a more objective look.

 

Also, I don't think police should use military ranks nor military rank insignia. I think in some cases that stimulates the us-versus-them mentality.

 

At any rate, the vast majority of police are normal, decent people trying to do a very difficult job while being under-resourced and under-trained (we expect them to be social workers and ombudsman too).

My one counter argument to the most of the police are good people theme is that when it comes to reporting or disciplining other police, most cops will be dishonest. Which is somewhat understandable considering the pressure they are under. But it has to be realized that while there is a minority of bad apples in most departments, the behavior of the department in general down to the partner level often allows loose cannons to continue to work, even when they haven't numerous civilian complaints against them. In some departments the civil lawsuits cost millions yet the officers involved never are fired.

 

I agree some other agency at the state level should be involved in investigations.

Edited by Josh
Link to post
Share on other sites

Police should required, every year, to identify the five fellow officers in their department they believe are the most likely to act with inappropriate aggression. Compile the lists, see who gets the most votes. I'd be willing to bet over half of the firecrackers could be weaned out by that measure alone.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I know a couple of Met police officers.

 

They speak of people who aren't police officers as "civvies", which both identifies with a military-ish and a tribal mindset.

 

Whilst they are both intelligent chaps, their almost continuous exposure to the dregs of society, where they can talk to someone as a victim one day and as a suspect the next, leads them to see almost everyone they meet in a work context as a criminal.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

My comments in bold.

(4) policing is not an especially high status job, so people who are insecure are going to suffer from some sort of status anxiety.You don't get into this job to get rich. But that being said, I get paid ok.

 

 

In regards to both points.

 

First, while becoming a LEO in the US certainly doesn't make one rich it does make one financially set. Across the country on average a police officer makes ~20% more than their fellow Americans. Given how that curve is laid out (fat on the low side and thin on the high) that puts them well above most Americans. Rich? No, but pretty well off. On top of that government employees tend to have great benefits and a pension. The latter has all but disappeared from civilian life. In short - if you become a police officer on average in this country you are far better off than your fellow Americans financially.

 

Second, as far as the status of the job my observations have been it depends where one falls on the socioeconomic spectrum. The lower you are or if you grew up on the low end you tend to view cops negatively. If you're on the high end or grew up in an area in the high end you tend to view cops favorably.

Edited by Skywalkre
Link to post
Share on other sites

Police should required, every year, to identify the five fellow officers in their department they believe are the most likely to act with inappropriate aggression. Compile the lists, see who gets the most votes. I'd be willing to bet over half of the firecrackers could be weaned out by that measure alone.

That leads to witch hunts if there's a presumption that of course there are at least 5 that need to be reported.

 

That's the same sort of nonsensical reporting metrics that you get from ticket counts as proof that cops are doing their jobs NOT of clearing actual cases or reductions in crime or what not.

 

From my interaction (first hand, in the courts and through political advocacy) with good and bad departments, the KEY factor I've been able to determine for how well a department is run is how does the leadership deal with problems and how much of a good or bad example to they themselves set. This extends to the rules and policies placed by Mayors and City Councilmen (or equivalents) as well as police chiefs and such.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Police should required, every year, to identify the five fellow officers in their department they believe are the most likely to act with inappropriate aggression. Compile the lists, see who gets the most votes. I'd be willing to bet over half of the firecrackers could be weaned out by that measure alone.

That leads to witch hunts if there's a presumption that of course there are at least 5 that need to be reported.

 

That's the same sort of nonsensical reporting metrics that you get from ticket counts as proof that cops are doing their jobs NOT of clearing actual cases or reductions in crime or what not.

 

From my interaction (first hand, in the courts and through political advocacy) with good and bad departments, the KEY factor I've been able to determine for how well a department is run is how does the leadership deal with problems and how much of a good or bad example to they themselves set. This extends to the rules and policies placed by Mayors and City Councilmen (or equivalents) as well as police chiefs and such.

 

And we gotta be careful 'bout that cuz you can never tell when the Mayor or the Chiefie or the DA has an agenda or an axe to grind.

Link to post
Share on other sites

And who are they going to grind that axe upon?

Look at what we get out of Baltimore. Police, schools, government in general.

Edited by rmgill
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

My comments in bold.

(4) policing is not an especially high status job, so people who are insecure are going to suffer from some sort of status anxiety.You don't get into this job to get rich. But that being said, I get paid ok.

 

 

In regards to both points.

 

First, while becoming a LEO in the US certainly doesn't make one rich it does make one financially set. Across the country on average a police officer makes ~20% more than their fellow Americans. Given how that curve is laid out (fat on the low side and thin on the high) that puts them well above most Americans. Rich? No, but pretty well off. On top of that government employees tend to have great benefits and a pension. The latter has all but disappeared from civilian life. In short - if you become a police officer on average in this country you are far better off than your fellow Americans financially.

 

Second, as far as the status of the job my observations have been it depends where one falls on the socioeconomic spectrum. The lower you are or if you grew up on the low end you tend to view cops negatively. If you're on the high end or grew up in an area in the high end you tend to view cops favorably.

 

My beef with police retirement/pensions is we are told that they need to retire on gold plated benefits because the job is so stressful that they are burned out after 20 years, but most then go on to another department or aspect of LE and do another 10-20 years and double dip. If it's so damned horrible, why do they jump right back in for another go? If you want the goodies after 20 years because you're fried on LE then you shouldn't be able to jump right back in for a two-fer. Get a job delivering meals on wheels or selling cars or some such.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

My comments in bold.

(4) policing is not an especially high status job, so people who are insecure are going to suffer from some sort of status anxiety.You don't get into this job to get rich. But that being said, I get paid ok.

 

 

In regards to both points.

 

First, while becoming a LEO in the US certainly doesn't make one rich it does make one financially set. Across the country on average a police officer makes ~20% more than their fellow Americans. Given how that curve is laid out (fat on the low side and thin on the high) that puts them well above most Americans. Rich? No, but pretty well off. On top of that government employees tend to have great benefits and a pension. The latter has all but disappeared from civilian life. In short - if you become a police officer on average in this country you are far better off than your fellow Americans financially.

 

Second, as far as the status of the job my observations have been it depends where one falls on the socioeconomic spectrum. The lower you are or if you grew up on the low end you tend to view cops negatively. If you're on the high end or grew up in an area in the high end you tend to view cops favorably.

 

My beef with police retirement/pensions is we are told that they need to retire on gold plated benefits because the job is so stressful that they are burned out after 20 years, but most then go on to another department or aspect of LE and do another 10-20 years and double dip. If it's so damned horrible, why do they jump right back in for another go? If you want the goodies after 20 years because you're fried on LE then you shouldn't be able to jump right back in for a two-fer. Get a job delivering meals on wheels or selling cars or some such.

 

There are lots of issues with those pensions.

 

Here locally for a few years we had an ongoing issue with government/police pensions. It was described that the police union effectively negotiated with themselves when writing the contract. As such some of the rules were easily abused such as officers saving up their vacation, getting it paid out right before retirement, and then their lifetime pension would be based off that final, gamed paycheck.

 

In some places in the country the pensions are unsustainable but protected by state constitutions. Any effort to get that protection stripped or the pensions renegotiated is met with the usual "but our job is so dangerous and stressful/why are you soft on crime/etc." propaganda. The issue is serious enough in the eyes of some economists that they feel it could have a significant negative impact on local economies if not addressed. Shock, surprise, if your government has unrealistic obligations to retirees that trumps basic services... yeah, that would be bad.

 

Honestly at this point I don't even see why they should get a pension (and this goes for all government employees). They're already making more than the majority of people they serve. Renegotiate the contracts so taxpayers pay out less for a matching 401(k) like the rest of us get, if we're lucky, and have these folks manage their own retirement. They still come out on top compared to us whereas currently they come out leagues ahead of the rest of us. Would also eliminate the issue you brought up.

Edited by Skywalkre
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm glad we're talking about pensions, because I get the impression a lot of officers in the generation X age bracket don't understand is largely unique to government service, and that their particular job is the most pensioned of all. Basically the majority of the people I know have no retirement plan at all, except for the professionals I know in tech who have 401Ks. No one I know, not a single individual, has or will receive a pension except perhaps for a Combat Engineer that I think is about to finish his active service.

Link to post
Share on other sites

My retirement plan is the county plan and it really is not that great. It is ok, but at 20 you don't get enough to live on, at 25 you can live, but not well, you need 30+ years to live close to where you were when you were working. I re-watched the video again, and that Sgt should be demoted his commands sucked, and did they have Tasers?

Link to post
Share on other sites

My retirement plan is the county plan and it really is not that great. It is ok, but at 20 you don't get enough to live on, at 25 you can live, but not well, you need 30+ years to live close to where you were when you were working. I re-watched the video again, and that Sgt should be demoted his commands sucked, and did they have Tasers?

Welcome to the world the rest of us live in. Being able to do 20 years and retire is a ridiculous concept. Most people are lucky to retire at full retirement age of 67 after 45 or 50 years of working. Being able to do it at even 30 is pretty darn nice. One could easily retire at 55 and never look back. That's not sustainable. Our state tried to pass a law that said any health issue for first responders, blood pressure, cancer, cardiac would be assumed to be work related. It was close to passing when the towns finally made it clear that that would bankrupt them. It was a sop to the unions for votes. I used to work out of the local DOT building when I was in state government. Even the workers who fancied themselves conservatives(few and far between) became rabid if the discussion trended towards their ability to retire in their mid fifties and how the private sector had nothing remotely like that.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Rmgill From my interaction (first hand, in the courts and through political advocacy) with good and bad departments, the KEY factor I've been able to determine for how well a department is run is how does the leadership deal with problems and how much of a good or bad example to they themselves set.

 

 

I think you’re right for most situations, but what I’m seeing on a big slice of these police killing videos is the officer that inappropriately goes from conversation to lethal force, sometimes in seconds. That’s not a management or leadership issue. It’s a basic mental unfitness for the job issue. Weed these guys out from the front line with better testing. Robotic AI is needed too. In this case if the team had a robot that could have advanced and cuffed the man, the shooting would not have occurred. Robotic AI is also useful in that the cowboys need that one guy on the team that they cannot reach, intimidate, influence or corrupt in any manner.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a training issue for most officers, but not all. There is a minority of individuals that no level of training will ever be enough to reliably influence their behavior. These individuals need to be identified by testing and removed from front line service. The testing would need to identify individuals who gets too hysterical, afraid, or angry, too quickly. Train the 95%, weed out the 5%.

Edited by glenn239
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...