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.

Comments

Re:Ya, right

[king neckbeard]

The issue is that it's something that police NEED to do if they are going to do their job well.

It's a union thing

[xxxJonBoyxxx]

>> 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...

Re:It's a union thing

[Nidi62]

>> 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...

I always get concerned whenever a police captains/spokemen/union reps says something to the effect of "our first priority is going home safely at night". Police's first priority should always making sure members of the public go home safely at the end of the day. There is a problem when soldiers on patrol in an active combat zone have more restrictive rules of engagement than police officers cruising down a city street. Stop being law enforcement officers. GO back to being peace officers.

Re:It's a union thing

[swillden]

I always get concerned whenever a police captains/spokemen/union reps says something to the effect of "our first priority is going home safely at night". Police's first priority should always making sure members of the public go home safely at the end of the day.

I don't think this is realistic. You really can't blame people for wanting to protect their own lives. People who choose to sacrifice themselves for others are lauded because what they've done is extraordinary, heroic, above and beyond what can reasonably be expected. You're saying that we should expect extraordinary heroism. That's not just unreasonable and unrealistic, it's unsustainable. Heroes die. If you demand that police de-prioritize their own safety, they won't last long because their job does regularly place them in dangerous situations. I'm not making that fatuous old claim that being a police officer is an extraordinarily dangerous job -- but the only reason it isn't extraordinarily dangerous is because officers are allowed to put their own safety first.

Stop being law enforcement officers. GO back to being peace officers.

This I agree with, though in some cases that means not enforcing some of the laws -- which means the laws are wrong.

Re:It's a union thing

[Nidi62]

I always get concerned whenever a police captains/spokemen/union reps says something to the effect of "our first priority is going home safely at night". Police's first priority should always making sure members of the public go home safely at the end of the day.

I don't think this is realistic. You really can't blame people for wanting to protect their own lives. People who choose to sacrifice themselves for others are lauded because what they've done is extraordinary, heroic, above and beyond what can reasonably be expected. You're saying that we should expect extraordinary heroism. That's not just unreasonable and unrealistic, it's unsustainable. Heroes die. If you demand that police de-prioritize their own safety, they won't last long because their job does regularly place them in dangerous situations. I'm not making that fatuous old claim that being a police officer is an extraordinarily dangerous job -- but the only reason it isn't extraordinarily dangerous is because officers are allowed to put their own safety first.

“Citizenship is an attitude, a state of mind, an emotional conviction that the whole is greater than the part...and that the part should be humbly proud to sacrifice itself that the whole may live.”

If you value your life to the point where your safety comes above those you are trying to protect, then you have not fully committed yourself to your duty. You are correct, we shouldn't expect extraordinary heroism from everyone. We should expect ordinary heroism. The fireman that runs into a burning building to save a child, the police officer who covers a civilian with his body when facing a shooter, the soldier who braves gunfire to drag a wounded comrade to safety: these are all things that get people lauded as heroes, but they are things that anyone who has chosen to put themselves in that position should do. That is why being a soldier, or a cop, or a firefighter has always commanded respect: because they have chosen to do things that many people cannot do or aren't expected to do. It doesn't lessen the heroism of their sacrifice, they are heroes everyday because they have chosen to risk everything to protect those that cannot protect themselves. Every day a police officer puts on a badge, he should be asking himself if he is willing to die to make sure that an innocent person does not die. If the answer is "no", he should not be wearing that badge. And there is nothing wrong with admitting you are unwilling to do that, it takes a certain kind of person.

Going back to old terminology: it's civil service and that's exactly what it should be. Service. It denotes a measure of sacrifice and devotion to a greater cause than oneself. If you are just a cop because you were a bully in high school (or got bullied in high school and want revenge), or just in it for a paycheck, you are in it for the wrong reasons. If you are in it to protect others and make your community safer, then you should be willing to risk bodily harm or death in the pursuit of that goal. It doesn't mean you go blindly to your death, smiling all the while. But it does mean that, if death does come knocking, you can meet it knowing that your death, and more importantly your life, had meaning because it means that someone else who would have been going to the morgue now gets to go home. And anyone who is willing to do that is already a hero.

Re:It's a union thing

[gweihir]

If you are not willing to run a certain risk in order to protect those you are sworn to protect (and yes, that includes violent citizens), then you are unfit to work as a police officer and should seek other employment. There are quite a few jobs that require certain character traits of those doing them, this is one.

Send then to train in Norway and the UK

[fustakrakich]

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.

Re:Send then to train in Norway and the UK

[fustakrakich]

I am becoming more convinced that the only way to possibly get good cops who will speak up is through conscription, a three year *tour of duty*, then a small severance check and a goodbye kiss on the cheek.. I mean, if we are going to militarize them, we may as well do it right.

Re:Ya, right

[bill_mcgonigle]

Why assume that government and science aren't orthogonal? Go to free market solutions if you want people competing for the best position based on the available evidence (comparative advantage favors reality). If you want a bunch of idiots with guns insisting on their bigoted way, then you want a one-size-fits-all monopoly, which is what the modern police state looks like.

Heck, the Supreme Court just ruled that K9 alerts are "probable cause" even if they're only as accurate as a coin toss. Because, they say so (and "fuck you and your science if you say otherwise").

Re:Ya, right

[jellomizer]

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.

When designing training, think it through

[willoughby]

Police Officers will react exactly as they have been trained.

Some decades ago, a police agency in the south came up with "better" firearms training. They installed moving targets. The Officer would wait until the target began moving right to left, or vice-versa, and only then were they allowed to fire. Months of this "improved" training.

An Officer responded to a armed robbery call and, per training, parked not near the door, but some distance away. As the bad guy ran out the door of the business, the Officer fired at the moving target. As the store manager ran out the door chasing the bad guy, the Officer fired at the moving target.

I'm just saying that the training must be carefully thought through because that's how officers will respond. In fast situations Police don't evaluate and respond, they react.

Re:When designing training, think it through

[Anonymous Coward]

No, he's absolutely right.

The FBI firearm instruction used to always insist agents picked up their brass on the range. Until several agents got shot during actual fire fights because after unloading they stopped and bent over to pick up their brass before reloading and continuing *exactly as they had done during training*. They have since changed their training to completely ignore their expended brass--just reload and keep shooting.

A similar thing happened in the military. The US military discovered years ago (by counting enemy casualties and ammo expended) that soldiers weren't firing at enemies--because they had trained to shoot at bullseye targets. After changing to train to shoot against silhouettes both their engagement and accuracy during combat increased. This was simply a psychological aspect to their training that needed to be adjusted.

When adrenaline hits, higher thought processes shut down and the only thing left is motor memory. This is why training is so important to not only do a *lot*, but to also do *right*. When in such situations you only do what you've trained to do--and if you haven't trained at all, the only thing left is either flight or freeze, fail, and lose which may mean death.

Re:Ya, right

[PitaBred]

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.

Re:Ya, right

[fustakrakich]

The issue should be that it's something that police WILL to do if they are going to keep their jobs at all. We the citizens are far too submissive in our confrontations with adversarial (is there another kind?) authority. The cops will always abuse it as long as we let them. That's just the nature of things.

Re:Ya, right

[aaronb1138]

Years back there was a spat of hidden cam whistle blowers going through the police academies. There is a huge emphasis on how to escalate a situation. The rationale is that too many perps get off on technicalities and such, but stuff like assaulting / threatening an officer and resisting arrest charges stick and make the DA reluctant to work out plea deals.

You would also need good cops running the training program, and you are more likely to get the opposite. The men and women I have known in law enforcement who are good people either get out of the field within a handful of years, or change post to constable / sheriff work because they get ostracized in municipal police forces for calling out bad cops.

Hire cops with the right education

[duckintheface]

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.

Re:Hire cops with the right education

[KGIII]

I believe all cops must get a justice degree in my state. I know that they are allowed to work on the force AND carry a firearm while they are getting that degree but only after a certain amount of hours training as a ride-along. They all go off to a fairly long police academy which should, by rights, be good enough and generally is in my state but we really don't have much crime here.

Alaska is pretty tough for State Troopers. They go to two years of school and are as much forest and wildlife rangers as they are cops. They take their animals seriously and they take their jobs as Troopers seriously. They seem to be, for the most part, very adept and reasonable from an outsider's view. They are similar to what the RCMP was a decade ago. The RCMP has, in my experience, become a haughty and uninformed prick.

Anyhow, they go to the Justice Academy and I think they may even need to get two years of additional education but that may be for sheriffs only or for the State Police? I have a few police officers that are welcome in my home (which often smells like weed and has any one of a number of drugs hanging around in it historically) and can ask for more details but I doubt I will see any of them before the thread is gone from memory.

I live in Maine so the information may be online? It may just be my county and the local forces around me. I believe some were grandfathered and I am pretty sure you can have enough experience to transfer in. I mean, yeah, Maine. I chose to retire here for a reason. Water/energy, crime, taxes, price of land, and my ability to fit in with the natives were my primary concerns - in that order.

Re:Hire cops with the right education

[silas_moeckel]

Police work does not attract those that should be doing it, much like politicians. The people you least want to do the job are the majority of those that do it.

Thus all are laws etc should stem from that basic premise coupled with they volunteered to put their life on the line. They need to have the least amount of privileges and the most amount of oversight compared to an average person. In broad strokes they should be required to be go to a grand jury when they kill someone, they should not be able to bring into evidence that they are a police officer and the DA's office needs to be barred from the farce of playing the prosecutor.

we should copy europe

[circletimessquare]

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...

Tim Dees, Retired cop and criminal justice professor, Reno Police Department, Reno Muni...

Upvoted by Quora User, I live in the UK. Graeme Shimmin, I am British. Marc Bodnick, 15 years transactions experience

Tim has 12 endorsements in Police and Law Enforcement.

Speaking from the perspective of a U.S. cop, there are several areas with significant differences. I should point out that I've never been to the UK, but have read a lot about this issue and discussed it with cops and non-cops in the UK.

I believe the most critical difference is the amount of training required of UK police. New hires attend a "police college" course of several months before going into the field to work for another few months under close supervision (sorry, I don't have the precise durations here, but it's considerably more training than most U.S. police receive). They then return to the police college for several more weeks until they are assigned to their duty stations. From here, on-the-job training is similar to that in the U.S., where the new constable works with a senior partner for several months before he is given a solo assignment. He is still closely supervised and his performance reviewed frequently for his first year to two years of service.

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

Re:Ya, right

[Calydor]

your*

Oh, the irony. ;-)

Re:Ya, right

[Firethorn]

They'll shout "stop resisting" as they de-escalate the situation with violence.

Indeed. They've been caught, on video, tasering a non-responsive person in a diabetic coma for 'resisting', yelling all the while. Note, it's not just about 'resistance' today, it's about 'compliance'. IE you not only have to avoid resisting an officer, you have to be following their orders, sometimes beyond the best of your ability.

Another officer, female in this case, tasered a person into being a corpse, then shocked the corpse over a hundred times by the estimate of the coroner. When her training was examined, it was discovered that she had ZERO deescalation techniques, and no techniques OTHER than the taser to seek 'compliance'.

She was on video - "Put your hands behind your back" - Pause - SHOCK - "Put your hands behind your back".

Keep in mind that after about the third shock he wasn't resisting, he was non-responsive. He wasn't capable of complying.

Re:Ya, right

[gfxguy]

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.

Protect and serve

[sjbe]

I don't think this is realistic. You really can't blame people for wanting to protect their own lives.

Sure I can. They signed up voluntarily for the duty. "Protect and serve". That means it is their job to get in harms way when necessary to protect the community and enforce the laws. I'm not saying they have to be stupid about it but their job should be to protect others first.

People who choose to sacrifice themselves for others are lauded because what they've done is extraordinary, heroic, above and beyond what can reasonably be expected. You're saying that we should expect extraordinary heroism.

No. What we should expect police to not behave like they are in a war zone. What we should expect is for them to actually try to save the lives of others. We expect them to behave like they belong in civilized society and not brutalize the people they are supposed to protect.

If you demand that police de-prioritize their own safety, they won't last long because their job does regularly place them in dangerous situations

Police work is demonstrably not as dangerous as many other professions. Jobs that are more dangerous incude: Truck driver, farming, construction worker, airline pilot, taxicab drivers, timber cutters, roofers, fishermen, structural metal workers and electricians. All of those professions have higher fatality rates than police officers. Injuries? Cops don't even make the list. While nobody would argue that police work doesn't have risk, the risks are overblown and in many cases caused by the very actions of the police themselves.

I'm not making that fatuous old claim that being a police officer is an extraordinarily dangerous job -- but the only reason it isn't extraordinarily dangerous is because officers are allowed to put their own safety first.

It's only extraordinarily dangerous if they are stupid about it. Gearing up like they are going to war is tantamount to picking a fight with their community. Their own actions are provocative and puts them in greater danger. Nobody is asking them to jump in front of a bullet. Use of force by police in the US is WAY higher than in other parts of the world. They use force because they can, not because they have to.

Re:Ya, right

[fustakrakich]

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.

Re:Ya, right

[crbowman]

Not every state requires you to present an ID any time an officer asks you to. Providing it when not necessary is absolutely submissive and I'm not being an asshat for pointing that out and not doing it when asked. Police ask you all the time to do things you don't have to that put you in a worse position legally then if you hadn't. I don't blame them for that, but when I say no, I'm not being an asshat either.

Re:Ya, right

[digitalPhant0m]

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.

Re:Ya, right

[narcc]

There is no profession without idiots; however in this profession someone is going to pay a heavy price for a mistake.

Far too often, it's not the officer who pays that price, it's the victims of their abuse. Things need to change dramatically. Dismissing or excusing the police, like the OP, is only going to make the situation worse.

3 months vs. 3 years education

[jopsen]

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...

I'm sure you're right about that, but officers are supposed to keep their cool and de-escalate the situation.

Here is something to think about: US police officers typically have 3-4 months training, police officers in Norway and Denmark have ~3 years training.

Sure, crime rates and access to guns have a major effect on police shootings, but training is a major part of what enables officers to remain calm and polite in the midst of a struggle.
Here is a video of off-duty Swedish police officers breaking up a fight on the NY subway: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Re:3 months vs. 3 years education

[reboot246]

I didn't see anybody breaking up a fight in that video. When the video starts, the fight is already over. All I saw were two handcuffed black men and a couple of off-duty cops waiting until the NYPD got there.

Re:3 months vs. 3 years education

[jopsen]

I didn't see anybody breaking up a fight in that video. When the video starts, the fight is already over. All I saw were two handcuffed black men and a couple of off-duty cops waiting until the NYPD got there.

Okay, fair enough it doesn't show the breaking up...
But do notice how they ask the detainee if he is alright, if he is hurt... and so on...
Notice that they don't sit on the guy, they hold him, yes, they apply force, but they do so respect and dignity (as trains professionals).

Here is another normal day in the US: http://www.theguardian.com/us-...
Notice how police officers sit on a guy with a prosthetic leg... And how when more arrive they seem to stand around more concern about covering for the video.

I particularly note that when they start talking to him it's "I bet you have a gram of dope in your pocket". Rather than asking if the guy is hurt they escalate the conflict further.
It doesn't matter if he has dope in his pocket, the officer can discover and resolve that later when you are sitting down at the station... But instead they try to intimidate him with at this stage unfounded and unnecessary accusations.

Re:Ya, right

[KGIII]

I was hanging out on Voat - picking at the low hanging fruit as I am wont to do. Hopefully this will not be a novella but I have to give some background and I think you will find it interesting.

So, I am hanging out on Voat and I have discovered there is a board about protecting and serving and that it is populated by cops. I do not care. I read a thread or two and move alone. It is not my place to hang out. I do not mind cops and they do not want anti-cop people there anyhow and, while I am not a hater of police I am also not a boot licking suck up and have dealt with the cops way too often to have any respect for them as a group - they're people, judge them on their merits.

Anyhow, so later that same day there rises a new thread. This thread was about a police officer in Mississippi (I think? Alabama maybe?) who was shot and the perpetrator was still on the run. I believe the officer had killed.

At this point I think it prudent to remind the audience that I am, indeed, an asshole. I own it.

So, primed and ready with my witty reposte (I have yet to find one single decent international keyboard layout in any Linux distro), I enter the fray. I seek my target - I know exactly what I am going to type and the type of reply that I am aiming to thread it under. I find a gem... Carefully I lay my mine. "So, given the past few weeks and all of the negative police interactions, I am willing to give this alleged cop killer the benefit of the doubt - it may have been self defense."

This is, of course, an instant success with the howler monkeys that visit the site. It also is the truth.

Now, I do not leave mines unattended. That would be irresponsible of me. You could say I was trolling and I would disagree - entirely. I knew what was coming but I did not expect quite this level of perfection. Also, note, these are not exact quotes. They are probably pretty close.

So in pops a user who says, "The filthy violent perp killed a cop." I recognize the username - it is one of the mods and a police officer (ostensibly) in a large metropolitan area.

I reply with, "Isn't a cop supposed to do that whole innocent until proven guilty thing???" I felt the line tighten and it was reeling out fast.

"It doesn't matter. He killed a cop. Can't you see the difference?" He replied... He liked ellipsis too, or he did in my head.

"Is it not still innocent until proven guilty?" I asked again. "Could you show me where the law makes this any different?"

"You just don't kill cops. This guy is a scum sucking low life." He quipped.

"Do you not see how you, personally, are to blame for the reaction that caused this officer to die? You, your attitude, has an impact and that impact spreads. You should be ashamed of yourself!" I slapped my drag lock off and pulled back with a good, hard, and steady force.

He went ape shit. It was absolutely beautiful. I would not call it trolling but, well, if it is to be defined as trolling then let's say it was at least artful and productive. Much karma was had (and lost). Sadly, I do not think anything in the above is biased or misrepresents what happened. I tried to recall it as best as I could and I am far too lazy to look for it and then type it all out again.

As an aside, I was watching a video of a Southern gentleman refusing to allow the police access to his home because they did not have a warrant. They said he looked nervous and he replied with the greatest YouTube line ever. "Y'all got a whole toolbelt designed to kill me, of course's I'm scared!" (Said in a drawl.)

TL;DR: The cops are the problem. Their whole attitude. I could go on for hours about the difference between cops today and yesterday AND I grew up in the Civil Rights Era. I am not saying fuck cops. I am saying fuck THAT cop.

mandatory drug testing

[Dr. Tom]

I wonder how many cops take steroids, and whether 'roid rage is a factor in shootings. Or any other drugs for that matter. Drug testing for police is woefully lacking. http://www.quora.com/How-often...

Re:Ya, right

[Montezumaa]

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

Re:Ya, right

[kwbauer]

I am willing to agree that what you say about LEOs having no extra power should be the law every but it is not. No state has a problem issuing LEOs with very effective tools for inflicting deadly force. Only 32 of those states are willing to allow all non-felons to exercise that same right. Two of them (including DC) are unwilling to allow any non-LEO the ability to lawfully exercise that right. So, no, in practice, there is a huge divide between LEO and non-LEO in regards to the use of deadly force.

"Mistakes Were Made (But Not by Me)"

[Moskit]

This book by Carol Tavris and Elliot Aronson has a huge chapter devoted to "mistakes" done on purpose by Police.

Policemen are typically trained that once they have a "probable cause" they push, deceive and trick people into confession, regardless if other facts may completely change the cause into improbable. They act just like in the movies where "greater good" is more important than trampling the truth, except in movies it's usually shown as fully justified, while in real life there is too many mistakes.

"He must be guilty because he was sentenced" and other cognitive issues are aplenty.