older case, police misconduct, is the training the problem?

Post Reply New Topic

Yes, I think focusing on non-lethal cases is worthwhile.

There is a problem with the training. These fatal shootings that happen are not just anomalies. They are a logical extension of the entire approach that police are trained to take in these type of situations. When 9 out of 10 officers support a police shooting but 50% of the population or more are saying it was unjustified, we need to look at why. Cops love to think they know best and these "amateour spectators" are commenting on things they know nothing about. Their arrogance is not fooling me. Training is f****d up. Police procedure is f****d up.

and in this case, when they know that this guy is not a criminal, they break in his door and do a hard takedown. ** and seem to think it's okay ? ? ? ** It's the most 'secure' for the police in a fashion, but that's not the only goal they're trying to achieve. They're also trying to be of service to the community.

and it's a domestic violence case next door. Clearly, the way to be in those cases is to be a steady eddie influence. Yes, the abused person is likely to go back to the abuser, that's baseline, that's the way it usually works out. Maybe if a female police officer respectfully talks with the woman. But you don't lambast her and make it harder for her to call for help the next time. You keep the door open.

Police training????

The main tenet of police force/brutality/etc./"training" is:

1. Whatever you do, you must come home to your family every night. THIS IS THE OVERRIDING RULE.

2. All citizens are potential criminals in that they may have a gun and are capable of killing you. In addition being slower on the draw and shooting will get you killed.

3. Without total and instant respect from citizens and immediate domination of a situation by the officer a situation may turn deadly. All citizens must comply immediately with any commands from a police officer, or be forced to do so by any means available to the officer. Disrespect must be dealt with harshly.

4. Protect the safety and reputation of all brother officers.

(It's too bad Fnord isn't around to participate in this.)

I believe sincerely these are the rules cops live by.

Yes, I think you have largely described the problem accurately. But even with this unpromising beginning, we might be able to improve things. I mean, we as citizens in a (quasi-) democracy, and even quasi- may end up being good enough!

And we as people on the Aspergers-Autism Spectrum definitely have things to contribute to the public discussion. For example, a police officer bellows an order and expects instant compliance. Someone whose voice we're unfamiliar with, talking rapidly? Some of us here with just an medium amount of sensory issues may not immediately understand what the officer is saying.

And the major part of the discussion that's just like a football game with two sides yelling and talking pass each other, well, we may help to take people off script. Oh, autistic persons may have trouble with the police, too. And this may help to get people to reconsider.

US police training measures up poorly against police training from comparable countries, before you even get to the issues with police culture the US has compared to those same countries where the police truly do seem to strive to protect and serve the public first and foremost. Incidents that would be national scandals in those countries are regular occurances in the US.

One aspect of Police Training: "keep shooting until the threat is neutralized"
We rarely hear about cops in the US just shooting someone a little bit, once or twice. The Idea is that since any gunshot wound is potentially lethal, there is no point to just shooting somebody once and waiting to see what happens.
So we get situations where people get shot five or more times, when they would probably fall to the ground screaming if they were hit only once.
One particularly ugly side of this is that if the police shoot someone once by accident, they may find it more expedient to finish them off, as they have a better chance of being protected in a case of lethal force being applied than they do in a case of injury caused by negligence.

Potential radical reform 1:

As an example, even medicine could potentially be de-professionalized. Think how much useful stuff an army medic could learn in three months. And also think how helpful it would be if you could stop by an *affordable* clinic on the way to work, and your case could be referred on if necessary.

Potentially, the profession of policing could be de-professionalized, too. All this bunch of training leads to the idea that civilians are a bunch of idiots who can't possibly understand. And also, if a person kind of discovers that policing is not for them, the fact that they're invested all this time, effort and money makes it harder for them to move lateral and do another job.

easy and sensible reform:

Don't high-low police officers on the schedule. If you need to move their schedule, roll it forward, not backward.

As someone who has worked retail, an amorphous schedule which migrates all over the place makes for a lot of extra stress as well as sleep deprivation.