Slashdot Mirror
Police Training Lacks Scientific Input
An anonymous reader writes: Police have been under a microscope over the past year for their involvement in some high-profile shootings. We've heard over and over that police need more and better training to keep these incidents from happening, but the truth is that there's no good framework within law enforcement to base their training on actual science. Officers tend to teach from their own experience, and research into techniques for dealing with unpredictable people goes widely unnoticed. "Carl Bell, a psychologist at the University of Illinois at Chicago who has done key work on de-escalation with the mentally ill, said his attempts to introduce techniques to the Chicago police never got anywhere. 'There's no systematic incorporation of research.'" Nobody expects officers to consult an academic journal when they're facing down a hostile suspect, but science needs to be part of conversation we're having.
>> training costs more than the taxpayers are willing to be taxed
I doubt it. In fact, many local universities and other institutions are happy to donate this training. Furthermore, grants from our current federal justice department exist for exactly this kind of thing (under "community policing" etc.)
However, many of the tactics used to "deescalate" situations or reduce the amount of force police use also put police officers at higher risk for harm. (e.g., pausing to wait for the suspect to do something may allow them to draw or use a weapon, wrestling with a suspect instead of using a taser gives the suspect a chance to bite, stab, punch at close contact, etc.) These measures aren't popular with unions concerned first and foremost with their members' health and well-being.
e.g., http://www.policeforum.org/ass...
The cops there are a bit more civilized. They can take down people without killing them. If you want 'science', look closely at the kind of people who want to be cops. Try to find some that don't relish the power so much. The rest are just a bunch a classroom bullies. We should not be rewarding this behavior. And we need to disallow all the secrecy. We have to force open the books to ensure compliance. The cops here are problem because we treat them with excessive deference in an appeal to their authority. We need to remind them and the politicians that they are public servants.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
It isn't about the Cops reading the papers, it is about the training staff to be reading the papers, and taking measurements.
The issue I feel, most of the training is more about the physical use of force, on how to make you more powerful than the badguy. However less training on figuring out who is the bad guy and the good guy in a bad situation.
Many incidents happen because the cops threaten someone, they get in Fight or Flight mode... So chances are they will fight (and get hurt/killed by the police) or Run (and get hurt/killed by the police).
Police work isn't safe, however if someone feels like there is an army against them, they may not react rationally.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
That's an assumption that'll get you killed.
Lots of cops playing army without as much danger of being actually shot at. Lots of forces operating as for-profit gangs that do whatever they want. They'll shout "stop resisting" as they de-escalate the situation with violence.
I'm not saying that there aren't any, or not even that most cops aren't good. But it doesn't take very many to poison a whole department, only a few in the higher ranks to run out the good cops.
My blog. Good stuff (when I remember to update it). Read it.
I think part of the problem is that police forces hire "criminal justice" majors. These are folks who were attracted to police work BEFORE they went to college. I think they tend to be those to whom authority over others is attractive. They don't necessarily like people but they do like power over people. And they think that a badge will guarantee them respect. The low salary should be a clue that this is not true. But they demand respect from citizens they interact with. Look at the Sandra Bland cop who decided to arrest her because she would not put out her cigarette in her own car. Something she was under no obligation to do. But he did not like her "tone" because she was not respecting him.
So instead, hire cops from among graduates in sociology and anthropology. These are folks who want to understand behavior. And that's the most important training there is for a cop. Training in "law enforcement" and weapons can happen after they are hired. First get the right people in the job.
The best cop is a sociologist who knows the law and how to use a gun. Not a gun slinger who may or may not understand people and the law.
"He took a duck in the face at 250 knots." -- William Gibson, Pattern Recognition
europe has better training. being a police officer in europe is a much more highly professional attitude with much more rigorous training
http://www.quora.com/How-do-UK...
also, like europe, and i'll try not to completely derail the conversation, but no one should get a gun in the usa without rigorous training first, including testing and ongoing inspections. exactly like we do with getting a drivers license and a car. same level of responsibility, same standards, right?
without so many easy guns in he hands of idiots, cops are less jumpy
"if guns are outlawed, only outlaws..." actually, when guns are harder to get, the kind of casual hothead that causes all the mayhem with guns simply doesn't get a gun and reaches for a knife instead. *casual* hotheads are not trying hard in life, they will not try hard to get a gun, ti takes too much effort in a serious society. and a knife is far less lethal, so homicide rates drop
https://www.washingtonpost.com...
so the "if guns are outlawed, only outlaws..." is a propaganda lie
besides, we're not even talking about "outlawing" guns. we're talking about rigorous training which every responsible gun owner already agrees with and complies with. so what is the problem exactly? why is this country held hostage by a paranoid schizophrenic fringe on the issue of guns? most gun *owners* agree with what i am saying
yes, the criminal masterminds will still get illegal guns. and use them wisely and surgically: criminal *masterminds*. so again, no ridiculous mayhem. we're talking about the casual hothead that is thwe problem here. he should not get a gun easily, like he currently does in the usa
a responsible gun owner knows the seriousness of a gun and really has no problem insisting everyone get good training
anyway, with less easy guns getting easily in the hands of hot heads cops have less reason to be so jumpy with their own guns. the change won't be immediate, it will take awhile to drain the swamp of easy guns
as if that is somehow an argument not to drain the swamp, because the right thing is hard to do and will take time is never an argument against doing the right thing
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Except 99% of the time it's not the cop that starts off being confrontational, it's some idiot wailing about their right to speed, or don't you have a "real" criminal to catch, or don't you know I pay your salary?!?! Complying when asked for your ID is not being "submissive." I'm not saying there aren't idiot cops who go on power trips, but if you're willing to see the forest for the trees, I'd like you to name a single occupation with millions of employees who must confront the public on a daily basis that doesn't have a idiots.
Stupid sexy Flanders.
Yes, it goes both ways, but we are supposed to expect better from the cops. Right or wrong their example will be noted and followed. And no cop has any right to compel anything from me, nothing at all, not even ID without just cause, which better be the first words coming out of his mouth. The people who don't see the forest for the trees are those who write off their bad behavior as just an 'isolated incident'. It is not isolated, it permeates all authoritarian systems where there is limited oversight. The so-called 'good cops' who remain silent are no damn good at all. It's a tough job, but nobody forces them to take it. Maybe we should change that, start conscripting people so we can get some good ones who know how to accept authority reluctantly and use it wisely. Right now we are just rewarding bullies.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Intimidation is a purposeful and deliberate tactic to gain compliance through fear of violence.
Everything about police is intimidating: the uniform, the car, driving tactics, visible weapons, approach and demeanor.
Here is an article delving into some of the psychology.
When the police approach you or pull you over there is always that fight or flight instinct that kicks in, even when you've done nothing wrong. Why? Because police are intimidating as hell and they have the power to either kill you or imprison you.
It is also contrary to the nature of the human male to submit: when you get pushed, you push back. This is why you see the backlash or attitudes from ordinary people against cops.
There is no profession without idiots; however in this profession someone is going to pay a heavy price for a mistake.
As an ex-law enforcement officer myself, I would like to post two points:
First, on the "Use of Force Continuum", the mere presence of a law enforcement officer(either in uniform, or in "plain", "street" clothes, which includes essentially everything from t-shit and blue jeans, to issued polo shirt(usually with an embroidered badge, agency name, and officer's name) and approved pants(khaki, darker, or black pants or cargo pants), and including business casual(yes, polo shirts fit that definition in some working environments, but such terms are rather ambiguous) to business formal(suit and ties, and similar)) is the first level of said "Continuum". I can say, from my own experience, that many people feel intimidated by simply seeing law enforcement nearby that they have acted rather ridiculously, even when they were committing no acts that gave me authority to engage said people in an "official capacity".
I also witnessed quite a few people that, while attempting to effect a vehicle stop(after witnessing a moving violation upon a public roadway), people would attempt to "flee and elude"(part of the title of the Title 40 law(O.C.G.A 40-6-395) that covers people attempting to run from a legal stop, in the O.C.G.A., or Official Code of Georgia Annotated), "rabbit", or "run" from me, and after I finally got them stopped, or they stopped of their own desire(I am talking about people that were aware that I had been attempting to stop them, not people who didn't notice, but stopped the moment they did notice...situational awareness people!), I discovered they had no previous convictions, many times no previous citations, no warrants, etc. Said stops were for relatively minor issues, that ballooned into potentially major legal trouble(depending on the circumstances).
Secondly, law enforcement, at least in the United States, has no extra power to "kill or imprison" others compared to each individual citizen. One of the very few differences is that law enforcement can arrest on, and execute warrants(arrest and/or search), and, at least in the State of Georgia, and many other states, can act on traffic violations(up to and including arrests, depending), where citizen's witnessing traffic violations doesn't give law enforcement authority to initiate a traffic stop, or effect an arrest, unless a violation occurs in the presence of a certified and sworn(i.e. employed) law enforcement officer. Law enforcement officers are allowed to use deadly force to defend themselves or a third-party from greatly bodily harm and/or death(imminent death isn't necessary for deadly force, which it shouldn't be), or to stop a "forcible felony"(rape, armed robbery, kidnapping, murder, etc), and to also to stop an escaping, or escaped inmate that has been charged, tried, and convicted(though, reasonably, if lesser force will cease an escapee, or attempted escapee, that force should be used); a fleeing felon(not-yet-convicted, mind you) that doesn't pose a real and obvious danger to another people doesn't provide authority to use "deadly force". Nevertheless, law enforcement, regardless of the public view(which is wrong), doesn't actually have a "monopoly on violence". Citizens have the right to use force to defend themselves and others, where a law enforcement officer takes his or her right to use said force, as just another citizen, and applies to in the course of his or her official duties.
Remember, citizens are the only ones that have rights(...and rights aren't given by government, right are inherent; though, some explicit rights are protect, not created, by certain documents, such as the US Constitution, and/or the various state constitutions, and in through other avenues). Governments, the representatives of said governments, and the employees of said governments, only have limited authority to act in certain circumstances(in their official capacity; as fellow citizens, they have the rights that the rest of the citizen of the United States, and the various states, possess). The citizenry(I am talking about the Unit