Activist Rethinks His Position After Undertaking Use of Force Scenarios

[Cow Poke]

What's really tough about these "take down" scenarios is that the actual event never happens in a vacuum. It's not just a matter of stepping into the scenario and responding -- it often follows a high speed chase, or a foot chase, and in either a screaming mob, or a dark alley, or any number of other variables.

A friend of mine, a DPS officer, was charged once with excessive force in the apprehension of a criminal. He didn't have a dash cam, but another responding vehicle did, and the video was quite incriminating. Even I thought he had acted excessively. But that was without the "history".

After hearing the 911 calls, the radio traffic between him and the station, and a number of other factors, it was quite easily "no billed" by the grand jury.

But ONLY watching the dash cam, they would have indicted him.

[myth]

A co-worker showed me this at work today, and I thought it was great. I've noticed a few people asked questions (about tazer use, and the 'point' of some of the exercises), so I thought I'd try to answer them. You should keep in mind that when the police go through similar training scenarios, there's not always a 'right' way to complete the scenario and still be 'alive' at the end. It's about learning how to make quick decisions, and helping prepare officers to make similar decisions in real life by making them stop and analyze the scenario in training -- so they can make better decisions in real life.

Scenario 1:
The officer is pretty much ambushed when the suspect 'casing' cars in the parking lot pulls a gun. Someone asked what the takeaway from this one was.

First, it demonstrated action vs. reaction. How is this helpful? Because in the future you might bear that in mind and decide to draw your weapon and have it at a 'low-ready' (not pointed at someone) because you know it will reduce the time it takes you to respond to quick-draw situation. You'd probably still get shot, but you might get shot less and stand a better chance and stopping the suspect. It also impresses upon the officer the importance of preventing the suspect's action to begin with (when possible) and paying attention to the hands.

Second, it demonstrated the need to gain and maintain control (if indeed an investigative detention is legally justified, but that's beside the point as we don't know all the details given for the scenario). The way I see it, there were two viable options to try to survive the officer could have used. He could have placed himself closer to the suspect so that as soon as the sudden reach started he could go hands-on (a.k.a. push him over, grab his hands, taze him, etc). The justification of the preemptive use of force is not certain (depending on what happened and what the officer is able to articulate, it might be a 'good use of force', or it might not). The other option would be to stay a few feet further back until you've decided to go hands-on or leave. In the case of sudden movement, one of the two vehicles' engine blocks can be used for cover.

Third, it demonstrates why officers HATE sudden movement, and why we sometimes take actions that the uninformed think are too drastic (tazing, pepper spraying, and yes..even shooting). We know sudden movement can kill us, and we (should be) constantly aware of that. This is why any time I've encountered an off-duty officer I didn't know, every single one has kept their hands visible and moved slowly (or not at all). It's our way of not stressing each other out unnecessarily...and making sure we both walk away at the end of the encounter.

Again, nothing the officer could possibly do would guarantee survival in this scenario. The point is to teach the officer to consider tactical options efficiently and to apply the same principles in similar scenarios.

Scenario 2:
The officer wasn't supposed to shoot the suspect. The situation is not the same as Ferguson (I can explain later if need be), so I'd say the correct response would have been to tazer, pepper spray, or just physically restrain the suspect (which, given the body language from the suspect in this scenario means having a good ole fashioned fight). Tazing and pepper spraying are better options than physically fighting because the officer has a second suspect to be wary of. But, the way it's presented on the video – shooting is a bad idea. It's very telling to me that both the reporter and the activist went that route, despite what's been in the media lately.

Also, the activist did a terrible job giving verbal commands, and drew his weapon to handle a fist fight. These are rookie mistakes.It is laughably ironic that the activist here, says, “I shot because he was within that zone. I felt there was an imminent threat...” I wonder, before this, what all he's had to say about Ferguson? Either way, it's interesting to watch.

Scenario 3:
They don't show much of the scenario, so it's hard to say what the point was. As far as the detention technique...he's doing what he can, but I'll say its easier to fight a man if you put the pistol back in the holster (and definitely keep your finger out of the trigger guard while it's in a man's back). He's doing good by having the suspect face down and (trying to) maintain control of the strong hand.

I do have to say I applaud the activist for the humility and courage it took to agree to this. I can only hope that, as he continues trying to better his community, his new found perspective will positively influence the police-community relationship.

[Mountain Man]

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?

And what "special training" do the police that have that would have compelled to deal with each of those situations differently?

As for tazers, we've been over this before: no cop starts his shift saying, "Gee, I hope I get to fatally shoot somebody today!" and if tazers were really as effective and foolproof as the critics say then they would already be the go-to solution for every hairy situation a cop finds himself in. They are, in fact, a special case tool with a fairly limited range of uses.

[Mountain Man]

Time for my regular completely unwarranted generalisation...

And time for me to ignore you because your argument is nothing but a completely unwarranted generalization.

[Mountain Man]

What's really tough about these "take down" scenarios is that the actual event never happens in a vacuum. It's not just a matter of stepping into the scenario and responding -- it often follows a high speed chase, or a foot chase, and in either a screaming mob, or a dark alley, or any number of other variables.

A friend of mine, a DPS officer, was charged once with excessive force in the apprehension of a criminal. He didn't have a dash cam, but another responding vehicle did, and the video was quite incriminating. Even I thought he had acted excessively. But that was without the "history".

After hearing the 911 calls, the radio traffic between him and the station, and a number of other factors, it was quite easily "no billed" by the grand jury.

But ONLY watching the dash cam, they would have indicted him.

Which is precisely why "body cams" are not the answer. All they are is a tool that will allow the uninformed public, from the comfort of their own home, to second guess every single split-second decision made by a police officer.

[fm93]

And what "special training" do the police that have that would have compelled to deal with each of those situations differently?

I asked for a mature, reasonable person to respond.

But while I'm waiting, might as well address this. As "myth," who is an officer and acknowledged in the post literally right above yours, the correct thing to do in the second scenario would, in fact, have been to use non-lethal force--and he even specifically mentioned a taser as a viable option.

Scenario 2:
The officer wasn't supposed to shoot the suspect. The situation is not the same as Ferguson (I can explain later if need be), so I'd say the correct response would have been to tazer, pepper spray, or just physically restrain the suspect (which, given the body language from the suspect in this scenario means having a good ole fashioned fight). Tazing and pepper spraying are better options than physically fighting because the officer has a second suspect to be wary of. But, the way it's presented on the video – shooting is a bad idea. It's very telling to me that both the reporter and the activist went that route, despite what's been in the media lately.

Also, the activist did a terrible job giving verbal commands, and drew his weapon to handle a fist fight. These are rookie mistakes.

As we see from the last sentence in that quoted bit, no properly trained officer would've given those specific verbal commands or drawn a weapon when the suspect was unarmed and could only use his fists. It's clear that the activist-made-officer panicked and took a poor approach due to not knowing protocol and (probably) never having had to practice thinking quickly in stressful situations. It's not an uncommon response, as plenty of civilians probably would've done the same thing, but officers are trained to know what to do in situations like these and to not lose their composure as soon as someone starts approaching them. You can't have an officer who voids his bowels and goes trigger-happy at every sign of possible danger.

As for tazers, we've been over this before: no cop starts his shift saying, "Gee, I hope I get to fatally shoot somebody today!" and if tazers were really as effective and foolproof as the critics say then they would already be the go-to solution for every hairy situation a cop finds himself in. They are, in fact, a special case tool with a fairly limited range of uses.

Made no claim that tasers would be effective in every solution, but rather, merely wondered if they would've been effective in this particular situation, and myth expressly believes that yes, they would've been.

Hopefully that trains you to not resort to gratuitous name-calling, especially when it turns out that you're the one who's completely wrong.

[fm93]

A co-worker showed me this at work today, and I thought it was great. I've noticed a few people asked questions (about tazer use, and the 'point' of some of the exercises), so I thought I'd try to answer them. You should keep in mind that when the police go through similar training scenarios, there's not always a 'right' way to complete the scenario and still be 'alive' at the end. It's about learning how to make quick decisions, and helping prepare officers to make similar decisions in real life by making them stop and analyze the scenario in training -- so they can make better decisions in real life.

Scenario 1:
The officer is pretty much ambushed when the suspect 'casing' cars in the parking lot pulls a gun. Someone asked what the takeaway from this one was.

First, it demonstrated action vs. reaction. How is this helpful? Because in the future you might bear that in mind and decide to draw your weapon and have it at a 'low-ready' (not pointed at someone) because you know it will reduce the time it takes you to respond to quick-draw situation. You'd probably still get shot, but you might get shot less and stand a better chance and stopping the suspect. It also impresses upon the officer the importance of preventing the suspect's action to begin with (when possible) and paying attention to the hands.

Second, it demonstrated the need to gain and maintain control (if indeed an investigative detention is legally justified, but that's beside the point as we don't know all the details given for the scenario). The way I see it, there were two viable options to try to survive the officer could have used. He could have placed himself closer to the suspect so that as soon as the sudden reach started he could go hands-on (a.k.a. push him over, grab his hands, taze him, etc). The justification of the preemptive use of force is not certain (depending on what happened and what the officer is able to articulate, it might be a 'good use of force', or it might not). The other option would be to stay a few feet further back until you've decided to go hands-on or leave. In the case of sudden movement, one of the two vehicles' engine blocks can be used for cover.

Third, it demonstrates why officers HATE sudden movement, and why we sometimes take actions that the uninformed think are too drastic (tazing, pepper spraying, and yes..even shooting). We know sudden movement can kill us, and we (should be) constantly aware of that. This is why any time I've encountered an off-duty officer I didn't know, every single one has kept their hands visible and moved slowly (or not at all). It's our way of not stressing each other out unnecessarily...and making sure we both walk away at the end of the encounter.

Again, nothing the officer could possibly do would guarantee survival in this scenario. The point is to teach the officer to consider tactical options efficiently and to apply the same principles in similar scenarios.

Scenario 2:
The officer wasn't supposed to shoot the suspect. The situation is not the same as Ferguson (I can explain later if need be), so I'd say the correct response would have been to tazer, pepper spray, or just physically restrain the suspect (which, given the body language from the suspect in this scenario means having a good ole fashioned fight). Tazing and pepper spraying are better options than physically fighting because the officer has a second suspect to be wary of. But, the way it's presented on the video – shooting is a bad idea. It's very telling to me that both the reporter and the activist went that route, despite what's been in the media lately.

Also, the activist did a terrible job giving verbal commands, and drew his weapon to handle a fist fight. These are rookie mistakes.It is laughably ironic that the activist here, says, “I shot because he was within that zone. I felt there was an imminent threat...” I wonder, before this, what all he's had to say about Ferguson? Either way, it's interesting to watch.

Scenario 3:
They don't show much of the scenario, so it's hard to say what the point was. As far as the detention technique...he's doing what he can, but I'll say its easier to fight a man if you put the pistol back in the holster (and definitely keep your finger out of the trigger guard while it's in a man's back). He's doing good by having the suspect face down and (trying to) maintain control of the strong hand.

I do have to say I applaud the activist for the humility and courage it took to agree to this. I can only hope that, as he continues trying to better his community, his new found perspective will positively influence the police-community relationship.

Thank you for this analysis and perspective.

[Sparko]

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'.

I totally agree. There are good cops and bad cops. And I too have watched many episodes of Law and Order, and other crime shows

[Mountain Man]

I asked for a mature, reasonable person to respond.

But while I'm waiting, might as well address this. As "myth," who is an officer and acknowledged in the post literally right above yours, the correct thing to do in the second scenario would, in fact, have been to use non-lethal force--and he even specifically mentioned a taser as a viable option.


As we see from the last sentence in that quoted bit, no properly trained officer would've given those specific verbal commands or drawn a weapon when the suspect was unarmed and could only use his fists. It's clear that the activist-made-officer panicked and took a poor approach due to not knowing protocol and (probably) never having had to practice thinking quickly in stressful situations. It's not an uncommon response, as plenty of civilians probably would've done the same thing, but officers are trained to know what to do in situations like these and to not lose their composure as soon as someone starts approaching them. You can't have an officer who voids his bowels and goes trigger-happy at every sign of possible danger.


Made no claim that tasers would be effective in every solution, but rather, merely wondered if they would've been effective in this particular situation, and myth expressly believes that yes, they would've been.

Hopefully that trains you to not resort to gratuitous name-calling, especially when it turns out that you're the one who's completely wrong.

How was I wrong? I simply asked a question about what training an officer has that might compel him to respond to these situations differently. I expressed no opinion one way or the other about that particular matter. Secondly, I'm 100% correct when I say that tasers are "a special case tool with a fairly limited range of uses". Same with pepper spray. Any cop will back me up on that.

So instead of getting hysterical that I called you "square_pinhead" (come on, you gotta admit it's funny), you might want to take the time to actually read, and more importantly understand, what I've written.

And talk about missing the obvious (it's a liberal trait), whether the activist was right or wrong to use deadly force in situation #2 is really beside the point. The take away is that, first of all, a cop's job is not easy, and he often has to make split-second life-or-death decisions under less than ideal conditions; and secondly, compliance on the part of the suspect is the #1 way to prevent an encounter with the police from escalating to the point where an officer feels that deadly force is warranted. Bottom line: a suspect who quietly surrenders is significantly less likely to get shot than one who tries to fight it out.

Do you get it now, pinhead?

[Christianbookworm]

How much would it cost to give every cop a batsuit and battraining?

[KingsGambit]

How much would it cost to give every cop a batsuit and battraining?

I'm sure Wayne Industries has enough money to foot the bill.

[Mountain Man]

I'm sure Wayne Industries has enough money to foot the bill.

I saw an infographic once about the cost of being Batman -- it ran into the hundreds of millions of dollars -- and it basically boiled down to Bruce Wayne was literally the only man in Gotham City who was rich enough and well-connected enough to be Batman.

[Cow Poke]

Which is precisely why "body cams" are not the answer. All they are is a tool that will allow the uninformed public, from the comfort of their own home, to second guess every single split-second decision made by a police officer.

I have mixed feelings about this. I'm no longer "in the business", but YEARS ago, I remember the VCR setup we had in our squad room, where we interviewed subjects, and that tape saved my bacon a number of times against charges of sexual misconduct or aggressive force or whatever.

In a case where an officer had to fire in a dark alley as somebody was turning around with a wallet in their hand, but it looked like a gun, the body cam might give a better perspective on this than somebody shooting iphone footage from the side.

The absolute best thing would be for the subject just to comply with the officer --- hands in the air, turn around slowly....

[Cow Poke]

When I was Security Forces in Germany the order was "Halt..."

I remember one of the old Combat episodes where some GI's were standing a post, and they heard some noise in the bushes.... one of them took out a grenade, pulled the pin, then tossed it AS he was yelling "Halt - who goes there">...

combat.jpg

(his buddy corrected him on the proper sequence and timing)

[fm93]

How was I wrong? I simply asked a question about what training an officer has that might compel him to respond to these situations differently. I expressed no opinion one way or the other about that particular matter. Secondly, I'm 100% correct when I say that tasers are "a special case tool with a fairly limited range of uses". Same with pepper spray. Any cop will back me up on that.

Generally, when people do lame, stupid stuff like making crude parodies of usernames, it's an indication of disagreement. The reasonable assumption to be made was that you disagreed with what I wrote and thought it idiotic--that is, you didn't believe that cops were trained to handle things differently than civilians, or that tasers might've worked in that specific situation--and that your question was a rhetorical challenge.

So instead of getting hysterical

Your judgment is honestly quite poor if you interpreted annoyance as hysteria.

that I called you "square_pinhead" (come on, you gotta admit it's funny)

It's about as funny as "Moron Man," which is to say, not at all.

you might want to take the time to actually read, and more importantly understand, what I've written.

Might want to take your own advice.

whether the activist was right or wrong to use deadly force in situation #2 is really beside the point. The take away is that, first of all, a cop's job is not easy, and he often has to make split-second life-or-death decisions under less than ideal conditions; and secondly, compliance on the part of the suspect is the #1 way to prevent an encounter with the police from escalating to the point where an officer feels that deadly force is warranted. Bottom line: a suspect who quietly surrenders is significantly less likely to get shot than one who tries to fight it out.

Uh...yeah. Neither I nor anyone I've ever known would disagree with this. I'm pretty sure no one thinks an officer's job is actually easy, or that it's perfectly okay to not comply with officers and to physically attack them. But whether one would be justified in using deadly force in situation #2 was precisely the point that I wanted to discuss, which makes it bizarre that you'd ignore this point and say it's beside the point.