Activist Rethinks His Position After Undertaking Use of Force Scenarios

[Adrift]

So this is interesting.

http://www.fox10phoenix.com/story/27...orce-scenarios

[Cow Poke]

Eggzackly

[Adrift]

I probably should have added a bit more detail to this. Here's the summary of the video,

We've seen protests all across the country after police officers have been accused of shooting people who aren't armed.

But what would happen if one of those protesters looked at what it's like to wear a badge, and be put in a life or death situation.

Jarrett Maupin has been very vocal during the recent protests, leading marches on the Phoenix Police headquarters after officers shot an unarmed man who reportedly fought with them.

He agreed to go through a force on force training with the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office and went through three scenarios where you have to decide to shoot, or not to shoot.

I thought this was relevant in light of some of the views about police procedures by some posters here.

[Adrift]

Eggzackly

I thought it was incredibly humble, and open of him to not only partake in the course, but to admit that it had him looking at things a bit differently. I imagine a lot of people would either refuse, or dig in and complain about the plausibility of the scenarios or something silly like that.

[Cow Poke]

I thought it was incredibly humble, and open of him to not only partake in the course, but to admit that it had him looking at things a bit differently. I imagine a lot of people would either refuse, or dig in and complain about the plausibility of the scenarios or something silly like that.

We have a "Citizens Police Academy" where citizens are invited to take some classes from the Police Department, one of which is "use of force". It's actually been quite popular since all this has been going on, cause people usually just say "well, why couldn't you just taze him" or -- one of Sparko's favorites -- "shoot the gun out of his hand", or stuff like that.

It's a whole lot different when you experience it.

One of the episodes of Blue Bloods - a woman was trying to force the Commissioner into terminating an officer who had used deadly force, so he asked her to go through the "shoot don't shoot" scenario. She was amazed how badly she did.

[Sparko]

We have a "Citizens Police Academy" where citizens are invited to take some classes from the Police Department, one of which is "use of force". It's actually been quite popular since all this has been going on, cause people usually just say "well, why couldn't you just taze him" or -- one of Sparko's favorites -- "shoot the gun out of his hand", or stuff like that.

It's a whole lot different when you experience it.

One of the episodes of Blue Bloods - a woman was trying to force the Commissioner into terminating an officer who had used deadly force, so he asked her to go through the "shoot don't shoot" scenario. She was amazed how badly she did.

Can't wait for Square_Peg to comment. Probably something like "well these guys weren't trained for the situations, they were civilians, cops are supposed to be trained for them"

another favorite was why didn't the officer do this or that when the guy rushed him. It happens really fast.

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v...84&pnref=story

[Cow Poke]

One of a cop's worst nightmares is facing a "shooting board" that may take 3 weeks to a month after making a split second decision.

[Christianbookworm]

Apparently all cops are supposed to be Batman. Or Superman, Batman can do excess force. Of course fictional characters don't have the concerns that real cops do. Outfit them with full cover Bat style body armor and maybe they wouldn't be in as much danger. Too bad that costs too much.

[fm93]

I thought it was incredibly humble, and open of him to not only partake in the course, but to admit that it had him looking at things a bit differently. I imagine a lot of people would either refuse, or dig in and complain about the plausibility of the scenarios or something silly like that.

Hmm...honestly, this just has me wondering who you've been reading. Please don't take that as a putdown; I'm just genuinely a bit puzzled by your reaction. I'd like to think that most people understand that police officers have an extraordinarily stressful and difficult job, and may face circumstances in which most people would probably lose their composure and panic. I freely admit that I might've shot the suspect-actor as soon as he took a step towards me, or ran away and hid. But sometimes "I see it from your point of view, and I would've done the same thing" doesn't justify actually doing that thing. I'm just not sure how this man's experiences and reaction change anything or are particularly noteworthy. Did you believe that people who shared his original stance believed they're more competent than the police, or were completely disrespecting them?

We have a "Citizens Police Academy" where citizens are invited to take some classes from the Police Department, one of which is "use of force". It's actually been quite popular since all this has been going on, cause people usually just say "well, why couldn't you just taze him"

Hey CP.

This is all fine and dandy, but...you didn't actually provide an answer. So, I can't help but ask, why indeed couldn't an officer resort to tasing? In the second scenario, when he had to break up a fight and one of the men started moving towards him, I noticed that the man didn't seem to be approaching the officer particularly quickly (at the very least, he certainly wasn't sprinting at him), and that the officer walked rather close to the fight. I've been trying to come up with possible alternatives on my own, but so far it seems that it would be common sense to give yourself some space when approaching someone who's potentially violent. Wouldn't this officer-for-a-day have erred by walking too close? If he'd given himself more space, and then a man started walking towards him, what exactly would've prevented a taser from sufficing? It'd be one thing if the man was crazed out of his mind on drugs and was running so quickly that he could possibly go right through the taser, or that the taser would miss, but he wasn't moving that quickly.

As for the first scenario, I'm not really sure what the relevance is, honestly. The controversy is over police shooting unarmed suspects, but the fact that the suspect-actor grabbed a gun means that he was NOT unarmed, which therefore changes everything. I've never seen anyone argue that the police shouldn't be allowed to shoot armed suspects. This, to me, seems like a case of comparing apples and cannonballs.

Besides, I thought that officers were supposed to follow suspects and always keep their hands in sight, whereas the cop-for-a-day simply stood back and allowed the man to duck behind the car. Wouldn't this be more of an instance of bad individual police work than anything else? And on that note, what exactly is the strict procedure for dealing with cases such as these? Surely it can't be "shoot anyone who might possibly duck behind a car?"

Lest there be any misunderstanding, let me clarify that this isn't an attack, and I have great respect for the men and women who take up what they believe is their duty to defend and protect our society. I simply have some questions to which I'd generally like a response.

Probably something like "well these guys weren't trained for the situations, they were civilians, cops are supposed to be trained for them"

Would a mature, reasonable person care to provide a reasonable answer to why such a reply would supposedly be flawed?

[pancreasman]

Time for my regular completely unwarranted generalisation: You Americans seem to be stuck in black or white thinking. Cops are either saintly heroes doing an tough job or evil fascists. Surely the real truth is that just like everybody else, there are 'good' cops and 'bad' cops and every shade in between. Your history is chock full of examples of corrupt and violent cops as well as heroic public servants.

I suspect any 2 cops might handle any given situation differently. I think we should avoid lionising cops in all situations because it leaves no room for 'he did what he thought was right, but he probably could have handled it better.'

I believe I am qualified as an expert in these matters since I have watched many episodes of 'Law and Order'.

[KingsGambit]

Indeed, it may seem obvious to gun experts why tasers can't suffice in situations like the one described where nothing was occurring rapidly, but this isn't obvious to me, either.

[Raphael]

In New Zealand, our police officers generally are unarmed. Some have access to a firearm that is kept in a lockbox in the patrol car, a few are armed with tazers, and they have to be called in if a tazer is required, and if more serious weapons are needed, the Armed Offenders Squad is called in.

That being said what I don't understand is why they don't equip our officers with Tippmann TiPX pistols, and have pepperballs in them.

It's non-lethal, less controversial than a Tazer (although the tazer does have the added advantage of having a built-in camera every time it's fired)

[Raphael]

Time for my regular completely unwarranted generalisation: You Americans seem to be stuck in black or white thinking. Cops are either saintly heroes doing an tough job or evil fascists. Surely the real truth is that just like everybody else, there are 'good' cops and 'bad' cops and every shade in between. Your history is chock full of examples of corrupt and violent cops as well as heroic public servants.

I suspect any 2 cops might handle any given situation differently. I think we should avoid lionising cops in all situations because it leaves no room for 'he did what he thought was right, but he probably could have handled it better.'

I believe I am qualified as an expert in these matters since I have watched many episodes of 'Law and Order'.

Of course the Aussies also have the problem of occasionally setting people on fire with using a tazer (but then trying to attack the cops by throwing petrol at them to set them alight is stupid)
http://www.news.com.au/national/rona...-1225752482311

[Zymologist]

This is all fine and dandy, but...you didn't actually provide an answer. So, I can't help but ask, why indeed couldn't an officer resort to tasing? In the second scenario, when he had to break up a fight and one of the men started moving towards him, I noticed that the man didn't seem to be approaching the officer particularly quickly (at the very least, he certainly wasn't sprinting at him), and that the officer walked rather close to the fight. I've been trying to come up with possible alternatives on my own, but so far it seems that it would be common sense to give yourself some space when approaching someone who's potentially violent. Wouldn't this officer-for-a-day have erred by walking too close? If he'd given himself more space, and then a man started walking towards him, what exactly would've prevented a taser from sufficing? It'd be one thing if the man was crazed out of his mind on drugs and was running so quickly that he could possibly go right through the taser, or that the taser would miss, but he wasn't moving that quickly.

If we're thinking of the same thread, I remember multiple reasons given for why tasing may not be a viable option.

[KingsGambit]

If we're thinking of the same thread, I remember multiple reasons given for why tasing may not be a viable option.

But would these be applicable to a relatively calm situation such as the one described?