quote:

Originally posted by c1steve:
City and county bean counters appear to think they can save money buy paying and getting low qualified officers. This works so-so until the city shells out 6 million from time to time.

This is true in any business, cutting corners always comes back. Note that even in screwed up San Francisco they pay officers a fairly high amount, there is lots of overtime, and they provide excellent equipment. Officers starting salary is $83,000 a year and they are issued P226 pistols. One of the few things done right in that weird city.

I'll grant that wages tend to dictate the class of applicant, but I'd say the pressure to hire minorities is maybe as much an issue. I guess I need to make the disclaimer that doesn't mean minorities are inherently unsuitable, but to make quotas, some are hired that shouldn't be.

quote:

If you want an officer at your front door that won't shoot you when you say hello, you have to pay for an officer who won't shoot you when you answer the door.

I've shot exactly zero people, and nobody has paid me not to shoot.

I don't believe police work has been considered a high paying profession at any point in history. The "it's coming right at us" phenomenon is a relatively new development.

quote:

Originally posted by bryan11:
Here are a few popular comments:

"What bothers me about these situations is just the entire idea of "SWAT" as practiced. You are a cop with 5+ other cops. You all pull your guns. Someone comes to the door, groggy in the middle of the night. They may or may not understand you are police. They may or may not believe you are the police. They are definitely confused/frightened/angry by your presence. We now begin the dice rolling process. Since every police officer with a gun drawn is now a DECIDER they get a dice roll. Every single millisecond, all these dice are rolled simultaneously for the entire arrest process as the "suspect" is ordered around like they haven't been since grade school gym class. This process is designed to have a weapon be discharged."

Bothers me too.

quote:

Originally posted by bryan11:
"It is a sad state of affairs when you can get someone killed by calling the police on them."

We forget that the swatting call is supposed to be a prank of sorts, not a possible death sentence for the completely innocent receiver of the prank.

quote:

Originally posted by a1abdj:

I don't believe police work has been considered a high paying profession at any point in history. The "it's coming right at us" phenomenon is a relatively new development.

Cops used to shoot people with little concern, and whacked people in the head with lead saps with much less provocation. In general, force of all kinds is rarely used compared to the history of policing in the US.

There are issues here, but an increase of uses of force is not one.

As far as hiring and pay...there are not enough quality applicants. It’s bad. And once they get on they get promoted, too.

quote:

Originally posted by sigfreund:
Saying that factual details matter when discussing an incident like this is an insult?

I humbly apologize, and so as to not upset you further, I will never refer to one of your comments again.

“I realize that not everyone holds themselves to that standard of veracity, but I don’t know who the ones are who just make stuff up—or who pass off guesses as hard facts—unless I ask.”

I took this as passive aggressive implication that I was someone who passes off guesses as hard facts. The joys of the written word...
If it indeed was not intended that way, then I must apologize as well.

I’m good if you’re good.

quote:

Cops used to shoot people (Who needed shooting) with little concern, and whacked people in the head with lead saps (Who needed lead sapping) with much less provocation. In general, force of all kinds is rarely used compared to the history of policing in the US.

I have zero empathy for otherwise sane people who bring on their being shot or getting a beat down. I'm of the don't start none won't be none school.

You think back in the 1950's police were shooting people who moved funny or didn't follow their commands who were otherwise unarmed? I bet in the 1950's a police officer would have walked up and knocked on that door instead of sitting behind a rifle a half block away.

I know a gentleman who used to be a St. Louis City officer, on a foot beat, in the housing projects. He's long retired now. He told me he never drew his firearm once in his career despite being in one of the most dangerous circumstances one could have been in at those times. He did say his partner did draw his a total of once to defend him during a physical altercation. Despite telling his partner to shoot the assaulter, he didn't.

Perhaps that's the difference. Back in the good old days the old timers actually put themselves out there. Was "officer safety" a thing back then?

quote:

We forget that the swatting call is supposed to be a prank of sorts, not a possible death sentence for the completely innocent receiver of the prank.

[/QUOTE]

Sending a dozen pizzas is a prank.

The minute your objective is sending armed men and women rushing into the home of an individual because of a threat it ceased being a "prank" and became attempted murder.

quote:

Originally posted by a1abdj:

quote:

Cops used to shoot people (Who needed shooting) with little concern, and whacked people in the head with lead saps (Who needed lead sapping) with much less provocation. In general, force of all kinds is rarely used compared to the history of policing in the US.

I have zero empathy for otherwise sane people who bring on their being shot or getting a beat down. I'm of the don't start none won't be none school.

You think back in the 1950's police were shooting people who moved funny or didn't follow their commands who were otherwise unarmed? I bet in the 1950's a police officer would have walked up and knocked on that door instead of sitting behind a rifle a half block away.

I know a gentleman who used to be a St. Louis City officer, on a foot beat, in the housing projects. He's long retired now. He told me he never drew his firearm once in his career despite being in one of the most dangerous circumstances one could have been in at those times. He did say his partner did draw his a total of once to defend him during a physical altercation. Despite telling his partner to shoot the assaulter, he didn't.

Perhaps that's the difference. Back in the good old days the old timers actually put themselves out there. Was "officer safety" a thing back then?

Ahhh... the “good old days”.

We should remember that police could, and frequently did, shoot and kill unarmed people running from them suspected of committing a felony as standard practice until 1985.

During those years there were also much, much fewer police in the USA, yet they were getting killed at twice the raw numbers as today.

Having worked a walking beat as a public housing officer, my experience was different than your friend’s. Perhaps before the days of crack, high heroin sales, and gang activity, public housing was different. But the old timers I knew that had worked my projects had been in multiple shootings, and/or had been shot themselves. Police officers had been in gunfights in every one of our larger projects in my previous agency, two officers being shot in projects during the time I was there.

That’s not really relevant to our situation at hand, though. But “the good old day” argument simply cannot be allowed without challenge. It’s completely bullshit

As someone who has been associated with law enforcement for almost 50 years, some observations:

The overall professionalism of the average American LEO has improved during that time to an almost incredible degree. I first noticed the effects on law enforcement operations due to the Supreme Court decision in Miranda v. Arizona that was decided in 1966 and required that suspects in custody be advised of their various rights, including the right not to talk to the police. That was the first of many decisions handed down over the years that put significant constraints on police activities.

Although decisions like Miranda may seem to those outside of law enforcement to be cut and dried, in fact they placed a much greater burden on individual LEOs to learn, understand, and apply. Their requirements were often subject to fine nuances, and the common complaint in the early days was that lawyers and judges had days and weeks to think about, research, and debate issues that the LEO had to decide on the spot, and usually instantaneously. Because the LEO didn’t (and still doesn’t) have the luxury of researching and obtaining guidance on many complex legal issues, it served to separate those who could understand and apply them properly from those who couldn’t. That doesn’t mean that no LEO ever makes any mistakes, but what it does mean is that natural selection strongly favors those who don’t make mistakes and don’t get their cases dismissed. It also means that many LEOs (such as myself) understood certain aspects of criminal law better than actual attorneys.

And the legal aspects of dealing with suspects are just a small part of what the modern LEO must understand and do right. As just one of countless examples, recall the issue of how prisoners were to be secured in the incident in which one died in the back of a transport van in Baltimore. As I’ve told new officers, graduating from the academy was just the first of countless steps in their never-ending education. Laws, policies, and procedural guidance affecting their jobs change continuously, and it’s mandatory that they keep up with them; failing once to do so can result in termination, being ruined financially, or even going to jail.

As for the issue of use of force, the same is true: laws and policies change constantly, and very seldom do the rules become less stringent. Anyone who believes that the police were kinder and gentler 50+ years ago is profoundly ignorant, and I recommend reviewing the photos of how civil rights demonstrators were treated in the South in the 1950s and ’60s. They should also ask themselves why Federal laws were passed or court decisions were handed down during that era and thereafter for the specific purpose of preventing law enforcement abuses. The history of 42 USC § 1983 is just one example; its scope was broadened significantly in 1961.

But there is the specific issue of why police kill more suspects now than in the distant past.
At one time the hot issue in gun rights abridgment efforts was the “Saturday night special.” The SNS was a small, cheap, easily-concealed handgun that was (supposedly) readily available on any urban street corner. The gun control advocates argued that they did not serve the legitimate purposes of hunting or target shooting (really the only two “approved” reasons to own guns at one time) because they were inaccurate, unreliable, and supposedly as much a danger to the user as to their targets. That led to restrictions on the importation of many guns that exist to this day. So, what was the result? Criminals stopped using inaccurate, unreliable, and dangerous-to-themselves cheap guns, and moved to guns that were accurate, reliable, and were safe for them to use in exterminating each other.

Even further back, the hot weapons of choice among many criminals were the fearsome ( ) switchblade knives and homemade “zip” guns. And my point? The pure fact is that the police regularly encounter better and more heavily-armed criminals today than in the good ol’ days distant past. Cultural changes have also conditioned far more members of certain societal groups to resist the police with deadly force—and partly because they know they won’t be beaten to an inch of their lives back at the station house after they’re arrested.

Another factor circles back to the fact that police today are far more professional and better equipped and trained to deal with dangerous situations. Very few these days will do stupid things like walk up and knock on the door of a house where a murderer is holding hostages that he intends to kill. Starting in the late 1970s a series of “Street Survival” books was published that had a major impact on how situations like that were handled. That doesn’t mean, of course, that there aren’t still old-time cops on the street who believe that face to face confrontations are the best way to deal with deadly threats. There probably aren’t too many left alive in large departments where the threats are common and real, but I can attest that they exist in some agencies, and such officers are still alive due more to good luck than anything else.

How many law enforcement agencies 50 or even 30 years ago routinely required applicants to undergo polygraph exams or psychological evaluations? Even though I consider the former to be no better than examining sheep guts, even a blind hog finds an acorn once in a while. How many agencies required candidates to be college graduates? I was a good and effective detective during my LE career, but if I were 50 years younger and had no more paper qualifications that I possess today, few of the prestigious agencies with good salaries and pensions would give me the time of day.

Law enforcement officers are human beings and therefore they make mistakes. And when people are engaged in dangerous activities their mistakes can have tragic consequences for themselves and others. The average LEO of today, however, is nevertheless far more highly trained, regulated, and supervised than their half-century-ago predecessors.

I will touch on something that Chongo said.
Its about a difference between the generations of cops and a difference in the quality of recruits.
I came on in the late 70s. I was "brought along" by cops who had served during the 60s and 70s, when there was a lot of anti cop sentiment. Similar to today. Certain things were instilled in me:
That police work was a calling and profession similar in nature to a religious calling.
That it entailed risk and danger on a daily basis.
That you were never truly "off duty".
That true justice was a rarity.
That you must endure and prevail over that danger and do so with integrity and honesty.
That you stand for something worth taking that risk for, even when others in "the system" would not support you.
That your actions and words would be judged and examined on a daily basis and for years in the future.
That the many and varied evils you saw vividly every day should not cloud your judgment or cause you to treat the public with disdain or abuse.
That the public you serve should treated with courtesy and respect.
However, once courtesy and respect fails, you are expected to prevail.
That courage is expected, and demanded.
The most shameful thing you could do was fail to come to aid a fellow officer in need.
The next most shameful thing would to show cowardice or indifference to citizen who needed your help.
That you will never be paid what you are worth and that hollow praise was cheaper than monetary raise.
That your family will feel the burden of your service.
That the decision you make in the blink of an eye, will be judged and reviewed by many others who have never been tasked with that decision and are incapable of making it.
During the latter part of my career I noticed a change in the hires we were bringing in. Quite a few did not make it through Academy. Others did but quit during probation. I asked a number of newer cops why they took the job. They said it was because the job had a pension and was usually not subject to downsizing or layoff. In short, it was a paycheck, not a dedication to service. I heard lots of whining from these cops about the hours, the slow pace of promotion and raises, the pay and the equipment.
I noticed that they needed lots of supervision and often consulted with a Sergeant before taking a needed action.
All in all, I felt the overall quality of cops was in decline. And I think that may be even more prevalent now. And I think we may be seeing that decline now.
Am I saying that all cops now serving are less dedicated and less motivated than in years past? Not at all! We see examples of courageous and selfless service routinely. But I think many who take the job now would be better off in other professions and so would their communities. And I think that lots of experienced cops can see what I mean. And perhaps its not police service that has changed for the worse, but that our society has now placed an unattainable standard on police. Perfect cops with perfect equipment, skills and perfect decisions. To resolve the imperfections of society.

Very well said Yooper and absolutely true.

Absolutely on target, Yooper. In that last 2 years, in my little agency we have had 3 quit during probation and got out of law enforcement completely due to it "not being what they thought it going to be like." Two other new hires went back to their previous much more quiet department. Both officers they told me that actually having to deal with criminals scared them, that they were more use to being community liaisons, I am not kidding.

One other thing, ask some of those "old time cops" who say they never drew their pistol, ask them how many times they used a slapper or blackjack. The reason they didn't have to draw a pistol is because they had already knocked everyone at a scene or incident out with a slapper or blackjack. Different eras, different rules.

Plus, back in the day, everyone knew that if you ever resisted or even gave the officer lip, you'd get your ass beat. Beatings/clubbings were the SOP for effecting an arrest. "Hospital or jail; either way, you're coming with me."

Beatings were also a regular means of conducting an interrogation.

But yeah, the "good old days" were all puppies and rainbows, Mayberry-style.

With some people it has to be all or nothing. Nobody is saying that we need to go back to the 1950's with every single policy. You're right. More people were likely physically assaulted. How many were shot for no reason? I don't know about you, but I'd rather a cop whack me with his baton because he thought my hands weren't where he wanted them to be than getting shot for the same today.

We're simply asking that people who don't need to be killed aren't being killed. I know it's a lot to ask for.

Every time I hire I am amazed at how many LEO apply for the job, and even more amazing is how little they are currently being paid. Not a shot in hell I would do what they do for that kind of money.

quote:

Originally posted by sigfreund:
The distance between the officer who fired and the victim who was shot is extremely important for even beginning to understand what happened and why. If someone is 200 yards from a suspect and claims he fired because he thought that the suspect was going for a gun in his waistband, that’s a far different situation than if they’re five yards apart. The shorter the distance, the more someone will be justified in feeling threatened, and the clearer and less ambiguous the suspect’s actions will probably be.

I am not a police officer and don’t know whether this is true of most officers, but I have been told by multiple officers that an officer will fire “quicker” to defend another officer than than to defend himself. If this is true, then the distance from the victim to the shooter may be less important than the distance from the victim to other nearby officers. It is possible that the officer who was estimated to be ~30 yards away was firing in defense of the other officers who were estimated to be ~35 feet away.

The whole thing was a poop sandwich. I continue to hope for a full, complete and transparent investigation. I hope that the results of that investigation can be used to impact training and selection to reduce the likelihood of something like this happening again.

I wonder what the shooter is thinking about this. Is it "based on my training I had a legit concern for my life/lives of those around me". Or might it be "boy, did I screw up, and I will likely get hit hard".

quote:

Originally posted by Scoutmaster:
I wonder what the shooter is thinking about this. Is it "based on my training I had a legit concern for my life/lives of those around me". Or might it be "boy, did I screw up, and I will likely get hit hard".

Or is it "What have I done?"

quote:

Originally posted by slosig:....The whole thing was a poop sandwich. I continue to hope for a full, complete and transparent investigation. I hope that the results of that investigation can be used to impact training and selection to reduce the likelihood of something like this happening again.

That makes a lot of sense. I guess I have diminishing confidence the investigation will be competent and transparent, too much politics involved. And in our society today, had the now dead person been a minority, it seems to me the investigation and related backlash would likely be quite different.

OK, are we just about through with this?