"The way we train cops to use lethal force is broken."

"Rusty Vandura - www.tinyurl.com/keepoppo" (rustyvandura) 07/13/2016 at 07:04 • Filed to: None

3

13

!!! UNKNOWN CONTENT TYPE !!!

LongbowMkII > Rusty Vandura - www.tinyurl.com/keepoppo 07/13/2016 at 07:41

7

I can’t see another federal certification board being passed, but it would be nice if cops who were fired from one department for negligence, criminality or being a public threat couldn’t be hired at another station.

I think there needs to be a cultural shift within police departments to get rid of the “us vs them” mentality that a vocal minority of cops and departments have. I put the impetus on them because they have the legal right to kill and they’re a smaller group than the public at large.

Svend > Rusty Vandura - www.tinyurl.com/keepoppo 07/13/2016 at 08:10

2

The first thing an officer should use are their eyes and ears to access the environment then talk at an acceptable level to the individual, if they raise their tone then the officer should do like wise if it warrants it. Many situations can be brought to a satisfactory conclusion just by talking and understanding each other as to why the individual is being approached by the police officer. Should the situation break down then force is required but a gun should be only if your life or another is put at imminent risk up to that point merely stepping back (putting a little distance between each other), then the baton, the taser, etc... even a set of rigid handcuffs attached to the individual on one wrist and then using the rest of the handcuff to manipulate the individual into peaceful submission.

Slant6 > Rusty Vandura - www.tinyurl.com/keepoppo 07/13/2016 at 08:34

2

Here’s how I think we can raise the bar for police departments nationwide.

First have the DOJ make new standards for federal LEOs, (USPIS, US Marshals, FBI, ATF, ICE, Amtrak Police, etc). This is easily implemented because these are some of the most trained and devoted LEOs out there. The standards should include things like when to use force, intreacting with the community in the 21st century, and other things that I can’t think of.

Then with this Federal standard established, offer it as an optional certification that departments can go through. This would include federal material and cirriculum added to existing police academies. Departments that fully adopt the federal standards will be allowed to display a special patch on all of their uniforms and rolling stock. This, with some good PR will allow them to stand out, as cops held to higher standards. The DOJ would audit these departments every few years to make sure they stay in compliance. It would start with large departments, Chicago, New York, Los Angeles, State Highway Patrols, and with any luck these will influence smaller departments to enrol as well. Maybe even some additional Federal funding for the compliant departments.

This makes a national standard without making a national police force, which is a bit Orwellian.

luvMeSome142 & some Lincoln! > Rusty Vandura - www.tinyurl.com/keepoppo 07/13/2016 at 08:55

1

Thanks for sharing this.

TheRealBicycleBuck > Slant6 07/13/2016 at 08:58

0

Although you may not want a national police force, what you are proposing will force small local police forces to consolidate into regional forces just so they can afford the training and compliance procedures.

Slant6 > TheRealBicycleBuck 07/13/2016 at 09:04

0

That’s still not a national police force. While not ideal for all small department’s I’m sure some could benifit from some consolidation. If town A has 13 sworn officers and 6 cars and town B 10 miles away has 50 and 30 it would be the best for both towns to consolidate and have a more effective bigger force.

And of course it wouldn’t cost the department that much outside of what they all pay for academy anyway. I know a few NY departments use the NYPD academy and if they’re already equipped to certify the NYPD then the smaller departments benifit.

Rusty Vandura - www.tinyurl.com/keepoppo > luvMeSome142 & some Lincoln! 07/13/2016 at 09:51

0

You're welcome. The matter concerns me greatly and I think we are in deep trouble.

TheRealBicycleBuck > Slant6 07/13/2016 at 09:55

0

Have you ever lived in a rural area? Small police forces work on shoestring budgets. While consolidation may seem like a good solution, it often is not. The end result is concentration of services and longer wait times for those who are further away.

It really isn’t an issue with the cost of training. It’s the cost of compliance. The cost of compliance doesn’t scale well. To put this into perspective, take a look at the U.S. Small Business Administration report on the impact of federal regulation on small businesses . The same principles that drive the cost of federal regulation on small businesses also affect small government agencies. From the report:

“Small businesses, defined as firms employing fewer than 20 employees, bear the largest burden of federal regulations. As of 2008, small businesses face an annual regulatory cost of $10,585 per employee, which is 36 percent higher than the regulatory cost facing large firms (defined as firms with 500 or more employees).”

The same disparities exist when small agencies are required to comply with federal mandates without federal funding to support said mandates. We see this all the time when it comes to dealing with engineering and construction services and small/rural locations. Just the cost of an environmental impact statement (required by federal law) can price a project out of the reach of many communities. There are federal programs which can help defray those costs, but the local agency has to have the time, money, and expertise to chase those dollars.

I attended a conference presentation about how to do cost/benefit analyses in regards to hazard mitigation (think flooding, wildfires, etc.). Someone asked how much a cost/benefit analysis costs. “About $30,000 for a small one,” was the answer. Someone else quipped, “have you done the cost/benefit analysis of doing a cost/benefit analysis?”

That really is the point. When it comes to police shootings, nobody collects the data consistently (even though there’s a federal program for that ) so we don’t really know where these things happen below the state level. My gut feeling is that police shootings happen much more frequently in urban areas than rural areas.

While I agree that there should be some standardization in training, we must keep in mind that too much federal oversight will result in the consolidation of departments which cannot afford the costs. The end result will be fewer services for our more rural populace.

Slant6 > TheRealBicycleBuck 07/13/2016 at 12:27

0

I never really suggested consolidation in my original proposal. You’re right on all the points you made. Heck, you’re right on everything. Although it should be noted police departments vary from businesses significantly.

Really all I’m going for is better training, and some established nationwide rules about how police work is done. Laws vary from place to place, but how the laws are enforced should be standardized.

I also feel like urban police shootings and rural ones are closer than a lot of people think, it’s easier to cover them up in rural towns and more likely to be covered up. Not all these small departments are crooked, but a lot of them are. Small town politics are tricky business.

luvMeSome142 & some Lincoln! > Rusty Vandura - www.tinyurl.com/keepoppo 07/13/2016 at 13:26

0

Me too. I used to read articles by Will Grigg about police misconduct (there’s a euphemism for you). I would get so outraged I had to stop reading his column. Since then I’ve tempered my anti-police bias, but it is obvious that there are some real problems with police departments in the US.

Stamper has some interesting ideas. Some of them seem a little pie-in-the-sky, though. I doubt nationwide reform happens before more individual police departments make big changes though.

I was happy that he touched on drug prohibition as well.

TheRealBicycleBuck > Slant6 07/13/2016 at 14:35

0

Better training would be a good thing. Even standardized training would be a good thing. As before, however, standardization requires oversight which costs money. You aren’t the first to point out the problem or call standardization:

http://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewconten…

http://discoverpolicing.org/what_does_take…

It seems like you are mighty suspicious of the good ole boys. Having grown up around them, I don’t think it’s nearly as bad as you think.

Slant6 > TheRealBicycleBuck 07/13/2016 at 14:59

0

It’s case by case. Some are good, some are bad. Across the board this is true.

Rusty Vandura - www.tinyurl.com/keepoppo > luvMeSome142 & some Lincoln! 07/13/2016 at 15:01

0

I’m not anti-police at all, but police are the poster children — at least, many of them are — for all that is inherently wrong, and has been for more than 200 years, with American society. And it’s not entirely their fault. They’re hired young, before their sense of conscience is fully formed, and they’re inappropriately inculcated.