Folks with family who are in law enforcement: some questions

[Laurie4b]

I am wondering if there is a way to for citizens to address policy issues that affect law enforcement without being heard as being anti-law enforcement. 

 

I am someone who supports and appreciate law enforcement officers. I know that most go into law enforcement because they want to serve their community. Like other community servants such as teachers, fire fighters, and social workers, their pay is low, so the reward is in providing service and making a difference in people's lives. Like fire fighters, but unlike most teachers, for instance, there is a higher risk that an LEO will be exposed to a  life-threatening situation. 

 

At the same time, I am aware that there are people who go into law enforcement who shouldn't be there. Just like people go into pastoral ministry, teaching, social work, etc. to feed their desire for power and control, a minority of people go into law enforcement for the same wrong reasons and should be weeded out. I think their behavior taints the view of LEOs as a whole, just like a corrupt televangelist taints people's views of other pastors. 

 

I am also aware that training and police policies make a difference in the conduct of officers. In my opinion, it would help build trust with communities if all LEOs were trained in de-escalation tactics (I was as a mental health worker who worked with the most violent adolescents in our state; our military is also trained in de-escalation in situations in which they are not actually engaged with enemy combatants) . Additionally, I think training in recognizing and overcoming implicit racism is necessary--the kind of unconscious racism that in that split second in which an officer has to make a decision can interpret ambiguous data as hostile from a person of color and which is present in all ethnicities. 

 

How can a person argue for reform in public forums without being heard to be "anti-police?" 

 

I recently was doing a search on the pool party incident, for instance, and a talk-show host had labeled public reaction as a "War on Cops." Is that the way LEO families see the public reaction or is that just a ratings issue? 

 

What I saw in the video tapes were some LEOs appropriately handling the situation, talking respectfully and congenially with the youths and one LEO who looked out of control cussing nonstop, rushing here and there, running after a teenaged girl then throwing her to the ground, unholstering his weapon, apparently not intending to use it (or was he?) . I noticed that fellow officers were not coming to assist him with the take-down of the teenaged girl, and that when he drew his weapon, they rushed to him immediately and it looked like they were not going as back-up support but to make sure he didn't shoot. (They did not draw. They stood right next to him giving him no room to raise his firearm and shoot.)  The police chief's remarks that his actions were indefensible, that his actions weren't in line with his training and that he "arrived at the scene out of control" made me think he'd had some kind of blow up before he got there that he carried forward into his professional interactions. As someone who now works in the public schools, I have to handle disrespectful kids, too. And when I worked with the violent teenagers, there were 2 incidents when I was in potentially life-threatening situations(broken soda bottle held to my body and being choked.) I wouldn't take it as criticism of myself  or a threat to myself if there was an incident involving a public school teacher who was cussing at students, etc. and it drew community criticism and a demand for her resignation. Is that the same with LEOs or different? Do LEOs feel that the criticism of the one cop at the pool party was a "war on cops?" If so, can you explain that? Do they tend to feel that the police chief caved to public pressure or that he was appropriately coming down on someone who acted inappropriately for his profession?

 

I would think that longterm officers' lives are protected by trust built in the community by cops who interact respectfully with community members and who are trained to de-escalate situations. So I am thinking that arguing for training in de-escalation will save LEOs lives and is pro-LEO AND proactive in reducing unnecessary shootings. 

 

Can you help me understand LEO and family members' points of view on these things? Are there certain things that people like me, who want reform of certain policies, might say that inadvertently trigger a perception of being "anti-LEO?" Is it possible to want reform and not be perceived as being anti-LEO? If so, what are your suggestions? 

 

 

 

[Kimberly in IN]

The LEO I am aware of are trained in de-escalation tactics, among many other things. I think it is demonstrated in many, many ways. If the law enforcement where you live are not, it seems reasonable to question why not and lobby for it to be included. Out of curiosity, are you in a more rural area, or area that does not have a comprehensive police training opportunity? Police officers not knowing how to utilize de-escalation tactics seems somewhat alarming, both for the public and even the LEO.

[kristen18]

This gives some information about what the officer dealt with prior to the pool party call. http://www.cbsnews.com/videos/lawyer-officer-at-texas-pool-party-was-upset-after-suicide-calls/

 

 

 

[MotherOfBoys]

Thank you for asking this question. I think it's a mixer of answers. To not be seen as anti cop, I think it falls on what and how you phrase the question. Tensions are high right now so it makes it even more hard.

 

As a wife of a cop, I see problems with "Hire this number of cops will help... and they need to be this ethnicity". In my state they have raised the number of cops by hiring people that should not be hired. The applicant pool didn't have the right people that they usually hire so they filled the governor's quota by hiring people that are going to cause problems in the future. In one class half the people had to be fired shortly after investing a lot in them to train them. They have a pretty through background investigation and psych testing before they are even aloud to interview. Firing after hiring is so hard with their union, also.

 

Cops have bad days. They are human. Some people naturally are hot heads and shouldn't be hired. Some just need some help in de-escalation tactics. This needs to be a constant annual training like their cpr and shooting training.

 

New cops right out of recruit school sometimes are alittle overly excited also. They want to impress. They put added pressure on themselves to do everything right. They are proud to have completed a grueling academy. They think that deserves respect but the first few encounters  proves otherwise too quickly. They can become bitter against a people group without even meaning it just because they have to deal with them so much.

 

The main thing that comes across as anti-cop is pointing out it's a white cop and a black victim in every news story. They are making it racist when sometimes it's not.

[HSmomof2]

The LEO I am aware of are trained in de-escalation tactics, among many other things. I think it is demonstrated in many, many ways. If the law enforcement where you live are not, it seems reasonable to question why not and lobby for it to be included. Out of curiosity, are you in a more rural area, or area that does not have a comprehensive police training opportunity? Police officers not knowing how to utilize de-escalation tactics seems somewhat alarming, both for the public and even the LEO.

ITA^^^

I'm the daughter of a retired police captain from a large city. They've been receiving the training in de-escalation, racism, etc. for many years. Like in every profession/organization, there are some bad apples that should not be there and there is corruption. I think we're seeing it more now because the media is currently hyper-focused on every bad situation that occurs involving the police. They're also very biased in how things are portrayed. They'll twist stories to make their ratings better. This is nothing new. I still believe the vast majority of police officers are decent men and women who want to serve and protect people and make the best decisions they can in often very difficult and dangerous situations. For those officers we're seeing that are not, they need to be disciplined, retrained, or just let go depending on the situation.

[Laurie]

 

 

What I saw in the video tapes were some LEOs appropriately handling the situation, talking respectfully and congenially with the youths and one LEO who looked out of control cussing nonstop, rushing here and there, running after a teenaged girl then throwing her to the ground, unholstering his weapon, apparently not intending to use it (or was he?) . I noticed that fellow officers were not coming to assist him with the take-down of the teenaged girl, and that when he drew his weapon, they rushed to him immediately and it looked like they were not going as back-up support but to make sure he didn't shoot. (They did not draw. They stood right next to him giving him no room to raise his firearm and shoot.)  The police chief's remarks that his actions were indefensible, that his actions weren't in line with his training and that he "arrived at the scene out of control" made me think he'd had some kind of blow up before he got there that he carried forward into his professional interactions. 

 

I think it's only fair to point out that the policeman didn't draw his gun on the teen girl.  He drew his gun when the two teen boys rushed at him from behind.   From what I saw, the two other officers rushed in then, and only one stayed by him while the other seemed to run after the two boys. 

 

Obviously I wasn't there to witness the whole thing, but from the little I saw on tv I was very disturbed to see the girl down on the ground like that.   But I don't blame a police officer for drawing a gun if someone comes running at them in that kind of volatile situation.  

 

I think there should be training for both police officers and the public.  When I was in elementary school a LONG time ago, we had the "Officer Friendly" program at our school.  Even the mayor of New York has spoken about how he and his wife prepared their son for interacting with police.    I think it has to be a joint effort...both "sides" have made fatal mistakes.   If people express concerns or make suggestions at public meetings, etc. they shouldn't be viewed as "anti-cop".  It's the groups like some of the loud anarchists in my city who show up to shout down and prevent  any kind of civil discourse at meetings that are the problem.   And they seem to pounce on any opportunity to swear at cops and do property damage.  

 

[Laurie4b]

Thank you for asking this question. I think it's a mixer of answers. To not be seen as anti cop, I think it falls on what and how you phrase the question. Tensions are high right now so it makes it even more hard.

 

As a wife of a cop, I see problems with "Hire this number of cops will help... and they need to be this ethnicity". In my state they have raised the number of cops by hiring people that should not be hired. The applicant pool didn't have the right people that they usually hire so they filled the governor's quota by hiring people that are going to cause problems in the future. In one class half the people had to be fired shortly after investing a lot in them to train them. They have a pretty through background investigation and psych testing before they are even aloud to interview. Firing after hiring is so hard with their union, also.  I can totally see this. I do agree with hiring a police force that closely resembles the community they serve, but can see how doing it asap as opposed to with careful recruiting policies and outreach would be harmful. 

 

Cops have bad days. They are human. Q below.

Some people naturally are hot heads and shouldn't be hired. Some just need some help in de-escalation tactics. This needs to be a constant annual training like their cpr and shooting training. I totally agree. This is what I am trying to focus on with my legislators. 

 

New cops right out of recruit school sometimes are alittle overly excited also. They want to impress. They put added pressure on themselves to do everything right. They are proud to have completed a grueling academy. They think that deserves respect but the first few encounters  proves otherwise too quickly. They can become bitter against a people group without even meaning it just because they have to deal with them so much. I can see how being unseasoned could contribute. I assume they are paired with more experienced partners? 

 

The main thing that comes across as anti-cop is pointing out it's a white cop and a black victim in every news story. They are making it racist when sometimes it's not. 

 

 

The context within which my question arose was Facebook. (I know; I should know better, but sometimes I respond to something.) The person had posted something to the effect that "If you don't want to be shot by a cop, if a cop says sit, you sit. If a cop says lie on the ground, you lie on the ground.,,, I have yet to see a video of a person shot by cops who was not resisting police.) I responded that Tamir Rice and Mr. Jones (shot in SC in a convenience store parking lot after being pulled for not wearing a seatbelt. He was shot when the officer asked for his license and he reached back in his car to get it. Fortunately, he didn't die.) Anyway, I simply said that in these were two instances in which people who were not resisting were shot. All you know what broke loose and suddenly I was anti-cop, etc. I, being more used to WTM, was thinking "discussion" not "talk show talking points shout down." 

 

Race was injected into the argument by someone who said something to the effect of "As long as a disproportionate number of crimes are committed by black people, I am going to give the cops a pass."  No one had said anything about race up till that comment, so injecting race can happen on either side. We are really, really bad about talking about race in this country. 

 

I didn't respond to any of the push-back, but I will probably later. In the meantime, I didn't want to hurt anyone who might be reading who was an LEO, so I thought I would ask here. 

 

I have written to my legislators about the training offered to LEOs in our state. It is my understanding that they do not get annual training in things like de-escalation in the same way they do in CPR or target shooting. I think de-escalation, how to deal with mentally ill citizens, and implicit racism are important continuing education topics. 

 

My Q about a "bad day" for a cop would be, whether there is still a standard which cannot be crossed, even on bad days .

 

For instance, no matter how bad a day I was having when I worked with violent teenagers, I wouldn't have been allowed to cuss at them when giving them directives. Even if under attack, I had to always use self-defense which wouldn't harm the teenager. We would probably have been excused had we cussed in the middle of being under attack as a spontaneous outburst. We would have been fired on the spot for entering a situation and giving orders cussing no matter what our life situation was at the time. One could have been a bad day; the other was unprofessional. We were expected to have a level of self-control that ordinary citizens are not expected to have dealing with the same situations.  You are not saying a bad day excuses wrong-doing, correct? 

[Laurie4b]

The LEO I am aware of are trained in de-escalation tactics, among many other things. I think it is demonstrated in many, many ways. If the law enforcement where you live are not, it seems reasonable to question why not and lobby for it to be included. Out of curiosity, are you in a more rural area, or area that does not have a comprehensive police training opportunity? Police officers not knowing how to utilize de-escalation tactics seems somewhat alarming, both for the public and even the LEO.

 

I am in a highly progressive area, suburban/rural with small towns and large city within 15 min drive. 

 

In researching this, our state requires a minimum of training. The progressive small town nearby supplements this training. Other areas do not. We've had one very bad incident in our state, but not a lot of them. However, I'd rather be proactive than reactive in making sure our LEOs have the best training possible. 

 

My interest in de-escalation came from watching so many videos in which LEOs were taking actions that are known to escalate situations instead of de-escalate. (There are others where LEOs are clearly doing a superb job of  de-escalating. There was one I watched in which a middle aged "open carry advocate" had an AK47 on the street, was being utterly uncooperative and disrespectful and not complying at all with LEO directives and the LEO did a marvelous job of making a connection and talking him down. The situation was resolved without incident. ) So I know some LEOs are trained that way. Others apparently not.

 

 One of the worst of escalation was taken in Ferguson and occurred at the same time as during the Michael Brown issues (before the grand jury decision). (There wasn't a protest nearby or anything. This was just a normal-looking city street.) A clearly mentally ill man with a knife was shot less than 20 sec after LEO arrived. There was several minutes of video before they arrived, which showed citizens saying, "That guy is crazy," etc. (ie ordinary people could make a judgment that there was mental illness._ Citizens were giving the man a bit of a berth was they walked by him, but no ordinary citizens looked particularly threatened nor was he threatening anyone. The guy videotaping was young and thought it was funny.... until LEO arrived. The guy in question had stolen a soft drink which is why LEO were called. He did have a small knife. 

 

LEO zoomed their car up over the curb onto the sidewalk, and began yelling. Those actions predictably escalated the situation. There was no time taken to assess the situation first. No time trying to talk the man down. The man reacted by moving toward them saying, "Shoot me, shoot me, shoot me." Rather than moving away, talking to him, etc. they simply complied and he was dead. I was shocked. As a young woman, I have dealt with a violent teenaged offender holding a cut off coke bottle right against my body. My mental health background tells me this guy could have likely been talked down. There wasn't even an attempt. The LEOs in that video had yards between them and the man, not to mention their car, but they shot him. 

 

So my assumption was not that the officers were terrible people, but rather that they had little to no training because what human being would shoot someone if they knew there was an alternative? 

[Laurie4b]

 

dbl post

[mamaraby]

I don't know that it's always training, per se. I think culture comes into play, but it's also highly dependent on the individual. Seth Stoughton calls it the difference between the "Warrior" mindset and the "Guardian" mindset (http://talkingpointsmemo.com/cafe/two-mckinney-cops-former-police-officer-guardian-warrior).

 

Even if everyone gets the same training, not everyone has the same ability to put those tools into use. Some of my loved ones who are LEOs are particularly adept at diffusing situations, but a great deal of that comes naturally to them. One of my LEO family members is really good at getting drunk people to comply. They work in a jail and received the same training as their cowokers so it's not an issue of training there. Also, because this person works in a jail, it's a lot easier for their coworkers to call on them than say a deputy who works for the county and whose coworkers are miles instead of a few hundred feet away.

 

Also, I think how you say what you say is every bit as important as what you have to say. It's far easier for any of us to sit here after the fact and say what someone should have done. I can guarantee you that there are plenty of LEOs who can look at the same incidents you do and come to the same conclusion. That doesn't mean that you can't have input or don't have a valuable contribution to make. It's just going to be a matter of how you approach it.

[Laurie4b]

I think it's only fair to point out that the policeman didn't draw his gun on the teen girl.  He drew his gun when the two teen boys rushed at him from behind.   From what I saw, the two other officers rushed in then, and only one stayed by him while the other seemed to run after the two boys. 

 

Obviously I wasn't there to witness the whole thing, but from the little I saw on tv I was very disturbed to see the girl down on the ground like that.   But I don't blame a police officer for drawing a gun if someone comes running at them in that kind of volatile situation.  

 

I think there should be training for both police officers and the public.  When I was in elementary school a LONG time ago, we had the "Officer Friendly" program at our school.  Even the mayor of New York has spoken about how he and his wife prepared their son for interacting with police.    I think it has to be a joint effort...both "sides" have made fatal mistakes.   If people express concerns or make suggestions at public meetings, etc. they shouldn't be viewed as "anti-cop".  It's the groups like some of the loud anarchists in my city who show up to shout down and prevent  any kind of civil discourse at meetings that are the problem.   And they seem to pounce on any opportunity to swear at cops and do property damage.  

 

 

Yes, I saw the video and know when he drew. I rewound it several times to see just what had happened and whether he was being attacked when he drew. When the girl was thrown to the ground, several teens, girls and boys, rushed back to the scene. One boy bumped into the other and this made the bumped boy kind of jerk forward more toward the officer. I can see how that could "feel" like a potential threat to an officer because he was approached from behind and it was a sudden movement though it wasn't intended that way by the boys. The other two officers showed up on the video after the gun was drawn. They did follow after the boys who ran, but first, they came side-by-side to the officer who had drawn his gun. 

 

The incident with the girl started when  officer actually ran toward a crowd of teens who were walking away (though the kid taping said they were also mouthing off.)  He dragged the girl away from that group, then threw her on the ground. Friends who had been dispersing rushed back to her side and the kid videotaping walked closer as well.  

 

The boy who was initially charged (the one who was bumped) said he wanted to tell her that he was/had called her mother (She was crying for her mother.)

 

Do you see the police chief's statement that "The officer's actions were indefensible, that other officers on the scene behaved according to their training but he didn't, and that he arrived out of control and stayed out of control" as an accurate assessment or do you think he was caving to pressure? 

 

 

I agree that training both ways is an excellent idea! 

[Laurie4b]

I don't know that it's always training, per se. I think culture comes into play, but it's also highly dependent on the individual. Seth Stoughton calls it the difference between the "Warrior" mindset and the "Guardian" mindset (http://talkingpointsmemo.com/cafe/two-mckinney-cops-former-police-officer-guardian-warrior).

 

Even if everyone gets the same training, not everyone has the same ability to put those tools into use. Some of my loved ones who are LEOs are particularly adept at diffusing situations, but a great deal of that comes naturally to them. One of my LEO family members is really good at getting drunk people to comply. They work in a jail and received the same training as their cowokers so it's not an issue of training there. Also, because this person works in a jail, it's a lot easier for their coworkers to call on them than say a deputy who works for the county and whose coworkers are miles instead of a few hundred feet away.

 

Also, I think how you say what you say is every bit as important as what you have to say. It's far easier for any of us to sit here after the fact and say what someone should have done. I can guarantee you that there are plenty of LEOs who can look at the same incidents you do and come to the same conclusion. That doesn't mean that you can't have input or don't have a valuable contribution to make. It's just going to be a matter of how you approach it.

 

I can see the personality part coming in to play for sure. I know the town police department screens to screen out certain personality types. I also think people who have the opportunity to work alongside people who are good at it can learn and pick up those ways of interacting. 

 

Do you have any specific suggestions on things maybe to avoid saying that could be said by someone well-intentioned, but be interpreted a different way? ie Are there ways you routinely see people "step in it" when they may not have meant to? 

[poppy]

 

I think it's only fair to point out that the policeman didn't draw his gun on the teen girl.  He drew his gun when the two teen boys rushed at him from behind.   From what I saw, the two other officers rushed in then, and only one stayed by him while the other seemed to run after the two boys. 

 

Obviously I wasn't there to witness the whole thing, but from the little I saw on tv I was very disturbed to see the girl down on the ground like that.   But I don't blame a police officer for drawing a gun if someone comes running at them in that kind of volatile situation.

 

Laurie answered this better but I thought I'd link to the video, if that's allowed. Start at about the three minute mark.   From an adult perspective, from the protection of watching on a screen, approaching the cop who was taking down a "suspect" is unwise.  Watching that screen, though, there was only one person in that scene repeatedly escalating the problem.

[TianXiaXueXiao]

Both of my parents were in law enforcement. They also were reformers who worked to change corrections and institutions. My dad traveled around the country giving talks and training other law enforcement officials in using his alternative corrections program which was costly but effective. There are many people still trying to carry on his work. I will see what I can find out and pm you if I get some reliable names of individuals or organizations you can contact.

[mamaraby]

Laurie answered this better but I thought I'd link to the video, if that's allowed. Start at about the three minute mark. From an adult perspective, from the protection of watching on a screen, approaching the cop who was taking down a "suspect" is unwise. Watching that screen, though, there was only one person in that scene repeatedly escalating the problem.

I think his agency bears responsibility as well. If he was as negatively impacted by the calls he had worked earlier in the day as his attorney has suggested, then why didn't his agency help identify that and give him the support he needed? The answer has a lot to do with how we deal with mental health in our culture and finances. If the right answer would have been to pull him off the shift so that he could get the support he needed then the result is that another officer would probably have needed to come in and then you're talking overtime which is money which no one really wants to pay cuz taxes. If the right answer is to do nothing and pretend that this is all an issue of training or bad apples or an out of control officer or whatever else we can come up with, then you end up with what we have.

 

As a culture, we tend to minimize the psychological impact on an officer's life. We minimize what that means for an officer's family. Law enforcement agencies tend to neglect mental health in spite of the fact that officers deal with everyone else's worst day on a daily basis. And if an officer were to seek treatment (which is probably rare in our culture), then they face the accompanying stigma associated with seeking mental health treatment. http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_25991455/police-officers-struggle-ptsd-but-treatment-can-bring

 

Also, LEOs are not immune to in-grouping/out-grouping. So we add in the tendency for humans to dehumanize in order to protect one's own mental health/job stressors, etc. Then it's easier to "other" the other person and justify how you treat that person, but again, that's not unique to law enforcement, either.

 

Honestly, I think we have the law enforcement that we as a culture deserve. It's easier to blame the LEO because it's convenient and because then we can "other" it and protect any role we as a society play in creating the system that exists. I think focusing on fixing the LEO aspect of the equation ignores the role that poverty, mental health, and institutional racism/privilege play.

 

In other words, it's complicated.

 

Laurie - I'll ask the folks I know your "how to avoid stepping in it" question. If your skills are in the mental health field, then, imo your time would also be well spent working toward changing the way our culture and agencies handle LEO mental health and acknowleding the role PTSD plays in an officer's life.

[MotherOfBoys]

One way to not "step in it" is to stop only blaming the cops. As mentioned above, it's complicated.

 

Another way is to not talk in extremes, like one thing will fix most of the problem. Obviously I don't believe a bad day is an excuse for wrong doing. That's extreme but some of these instances are being handled extremely when they are not.

 

You have brought up many different situations that all have different sets of facts and should all be handled separately.

 

Edited to add: I do think it helps to give officers paid community service days so they can see people when they are not having a bad day. Days off usually are spent at home not wanting to solve peoples problems.

[Laurie4b]

Both of my parents were in law enforcement. They also were reformers who worked to change corrections and institutions. My dad traveled around the country giving talks and training other law enforcement officials in using his alternative corrections program which was costly but effective. There are many people still trying to carry on his work. I will see what I can find out and pm you if I get some reliable names of individuals or organizations you can contact.

 

Thank you. I would really appreciate that. 

[Laurie4b]

I think his agency bears responsibility as well. If he was as negatively impacted by the calls he had worked earlier in the day as his attorney has suggested, then why didn't his agency help identify that and give him the support he needed? The answer has a lot to do with how we deal with mental health in our culture and finances. If the right answer would have been to pull him off the shift so that he could get the support he needed then the result is that another officer would probably have needed to come in and then you're talking overtime which is money which no one really wants to pay cuz taxes. If the right answer is to do nothing and pretend that this is all an issue of training or bad apples or an out of control officer or whatever else we can come up with, then you end up with what we have.

 

As a culture, we tend to minimize the psychological impact on an officer's life. We minimize what that means for an officer's family. Law enforcement agencies tend to neglect mental health in spite of the fact that officers deal with everyone else's worst day on a daily basis. And if an officer were to seek treatment (which is probably rare in our culture), then they face the accompanying stigma associated with seeking mental health treatment. http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_25991455/police-officers-struggle-ptsd-but-treatment-can-bring

 

Also, LEOs are not immune to in-grouping/out-grouping. So we add in the tendency for humans to dehumanize in order to protect one's own mental health/job stressors, etc. Then it's easier to "other" the other person and justify how you treat that person, but again, that's not unique to law enforcement, either.

 

Honestly, I think we have the law enforcement that we as a culture deserve. It's easier to blame the LEO because it's convenient and because then we can "other" it and protect any role we as a society play in creating the system that exists. I think focusing on fixing the LEO aspect of the equation ignores the role that poverty, mental health, and institutional racism/privilege play.

 

In other words, it's complicated.

 

Laurie - I'll ask the folks I know your "how to avoid stepping in it" question. If your skills are in the mental health field, then, imo your time would also be well spent working toward changing the way our culture and agencies handle LEO mental health and acknowleding the role PTSD plays in an officer's life.

 

I totally agree that if what his chief called "Out of control before he arrived" related to the suicide calls he had gone to that there should also be policies in place that allow officers to have time to debrief and de-stress after an emotionally draining event. If he bounced from one to the next with no help available in between, it does make his actions more understandable. 

[Laurie4b]

One way to not "step in it" is to stop only blaming the cops. As mentioned above, it's complicated.  Do you perceive that I am? I'm not. So if you perceive that I am, could you point out what makes you think so? 

 

Another way is to not talk in extremes, like one thing will fix most of the problem. Obviously I don't believe a bad day is an excuse for wrong doing. That's extreme but some of these instances are being handled extremely when they are not. Some specific examples would help me understand what is being handled extremely that should not be. 

 

You have brought up many different situations that all have different sets of facts and should all be handled separately.

 

Edited to add: I do think it helps to give officers paid community service days so they can see people when they are not having a bad day. Days off usually are spent at home not wanting to solve peoples problems.  I think it makes total sense to take excellent care of our officers.

 

 See above in text. 

[Laurie]

 

 

Do you see the police chief's statement that "The officer's actions were indefensible, that other officers on the scene behaved according to their training but he didn't, and that he arrived out of control and stayed out of control" as an accurate assessment or do you think he was caving to pressure? 

 

 

 

 

I still defend an officer's right to draw his gun if he senses a threat, even if in this case the teen boys weren't going to attack him/go for his gun.  

 

This might sound odd, but I would've fired him, not for drawing the gun, but for what he did leading up to it.  I suppose that some people would call me old-fashioned or something, but I believe we can do our jobs, whether it's police work or any other job, without having to use foul language!  There's just no need to come into a situation and start swearing at people, no matter what's going on.   I understand that undercover police might talk a certain way to fit into their surroundings, but foul language from an officer in uniform was totally uncalled for at the pool party situation.   I would support firing him even on that behavior alone!  How are we supposed to expect civility in our communities if our civil servants aren't even expected to model it?

 

[Laurie]

I had only seen the part of the video when the young girl is forced down on the ground, and that was scary enough.  I just saw this:  http://crimeblog.dallasnews.com/2015/06/mckinney-police-officer-on-leave-after-video-shows-him-pushing-teen-to-the-ground-friday-night.html/

 

I hadn't seen the part at the beginning when the policeman is running and then does some sort of fall or roll on the ground and apparently drops his flashlight.   Thank God that the boys who found the flashlight and wanted to return it went to a different officer!  If they had approached the one who was running around and swearing at everyone and he thought that they were coming at him with a weapon they could've been shot. 

 

 

 

 

[Laurie4b]

I still defend an officer's right to draw his gun if he senses a threat, even if in this case the teen boys weren't going to attack him/go for his gun.  

 

This might sound odd, but I would've fired him, not for drawing the gun, but for what he did leading up to it.  I suppose that some people would call me old-fashioned or something, but I believe we can do our jobs, whether it's police work or any other job, without having to use foul language!  There's just no need to come into a situation and start swearing at people, no matter what's going on.   I understand that undercover police might talk a certain way to fit into their surroundings, but foul language from an officer in uniform was totally uncalled for at the pool party situation.   I would support firing him even on that behavior alone!  How are we supposed to expect civility in our communities if our civil servants aren't even expected to model it?

 

Curious as to whether you thought I was saying he didn't have a right to draw his gun... I said that I could see why he might feel a threat with the action occurring behind him. Just on analyzing it, it was not actually intentional by the boys.  My problem with the whole scene is more where yours is  and the drawing of the gun followed a series of actions which he initiated including the profanity (I'm not a prude about profanity, but it is absolutely something that will escalate things) and pursuing the girl who was walking away and throwing her on the ground. 

 

Just so it's clear: everything I saw the other officers do was absolutely professional and exemplary behavior. It was just the one guy. 

[poppy]

Wonder what might have happened if he wasn't aware he was being filmed.  I suspect the other officers who were there were glad that it was filmed; it exonerates them, and might have prevented a bigger tragedy. It seems to me to be a good argument for cameras for all officers.

 

I saw some footage of the video-taker, by the way. It was a white teen who noticed that when the officer was making everyone sit down, he skipped right over him (the white video taker) and moved on to yelling at the next kid to sit (who was not white). 

[Laurie4b]

Wonder what might have happened if he wasn't aware he was being filmed.  I suspect the other officers who were there were glad that it was filmed; it exonerates them, and might have prevented a bigger tragedy. It seems to me to be a good argument for cameras for all officers.

 

I saw some footage of the video-taker, by the way. It was a white teen who noticed that when the officer was making everyone sit down, he skipped right over him (the white video taker) and moved on to yelling at the next kid to sit (who was not white). 

 

Do you think he was aware? I heard the kid who filmed it say he felt that he was "invisible" to the police. 

 

I am so thankful for video technology though. It still needs a full context so as not to be misinterpreted, but it is better than simple witness testimony and trying to decide which side to believe. 

[poppy]

Good article by a former officer on the encounter: http://talkingpointsmemo.com/cafe/two-mckinney-cops-former-police-officer-guardian-warrior

[TracyP]

I have family and friends in LE, so I have thought about these types of questions a lot. One of my friends is a former cop from a metro area who now teaches law enforcement classes at a CC. She is extremely dedicated to making her students aware of their racial biases and working on teaching deescalation (and has been for years). She has successfully gotten new standards implemented to address some issues. After what happened in Ferguson, she is now working on something new in this vein. I guess this is just a brag. She is awesome and she is working hard to make changes from the inside.

 

With that in mind, I love talking to her about this stuff. She has been frustrated by the media treatment of a lot of these cases because she does see it from the LEO side. The biggest thing (I think) she wants from people coming to the discussion is to understand what it is like day to day. So many people play Monday morning quarterback without understanding what it is like to literally put your life on the line every day. Some of these cops are working day in and day out in neighborhoods where they are very hated. Sometimes neighborhoods where their fellow cops have been shot. Can you imagine how that feels? She was on the side of the Ferguson cop because she said she could have done the same thing. When somebody gets physically aggressive with a cop, the officer is left with very few options. (At the same time, she is using the Ferguson case as an example of a broken system, because she absolutely believes it is.)

 

She isn't comfortable with the quick jump to racism in a lot of these cases. She believes it is too easy to assume racism after the fact - and she gave me a concrete example of that in her own career. Let me be clear... this woman brought me a printout of "Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack" the second or third time we met... Hmmm, I'm trying to explain her thoughts (as she has shared them with me) without putting words in her mouth. When the conversation turns to "those racist cops", it goes nowhere. Most cops are NOT racist in the traditional sense of the word. It just makes people upset. Words like that shut down conversation. When we talk about the implicit biases that we all have, then the conversation can go somewhere. She believes very strongly in teaching about white privilege and racial biases, because she believes these issues are at the root of the problem. But she doesn't like the leap from there to: racist white cop shoots black man. KWIM?

 

The LEOs that I know do not see it as a "War on Police" when we discuss these officers who clearly did wrong. They typically have a WTH reaction along with the rest of us. However, my friend will not say much until she knows the whole story. She is hyper aware that often there is more than meets the eye. She thinks the general public is too quick to point blame and the media is often sloppy in their reporting. I think we all agree about that. I think that makes it much more wise to stick to the big picture and not individual cases (especially when we don't know all the details) when arguing for reform.

 

 

[Sneezyone]

My cousin is a LEO, a female officer of color with a masters degree. She has kids, nieces and nephews and shares many of the concerns the OP outlined even as she's frustrated that her good work goes unnoticed. I am often struck by the reality that it takes three years of education to be able to interpret the law before a judge and six months to learn how to enforce it. Something is wrong there.

[Laurie4b]

Good article by a former officer on the encounter: http://talkingpointsmemo.com/cafe/two-mckinney-cops-former-police-officer-guardian-warrior

 

Wow. Totally awesome article. I like the distinction between the mindsets of "Guardian" vs. "Warrior." 

[Laurie4b]

I have family and friends in LE, so I have thought about these types of questions a lot. One of my friends is a former cop from a metro area who now teaches law enforcement classes at a CC. She is extremely dedicated to making her students aware of their racial biases and working on teaching deescalation (and has been for years). She has successfully gotten new standards implemented to address some issues. After what happened in Ferguson, she is now working on something new in this vein. I guess this is just a brag. She is awesome and she is working hard to make changes from the inside.  :hurray:

 

With that in mind, I love talking to her about this stuff. She has been frustrated by the media treatment of a lot of these cases because she does see it from the LEO side. The biggest thing (I think) she wants from people coming to the discussion is to understand what it is like day to day. So many people play Monday morning quarterback without understanding what it is like to literally put your life on the line every day. Some of these cops are working day in and day out in neighborhoods where they are very hated. Sometimes neighborhoods where their fellow cops have been shot. Can you imagine how that feels? She was on the side of the Ferguson cop because she said she could have done the same thing. When somebody gets physically aggressive with a cop, t he officer is left with very few options. (At the same time, she is using the Ferguson case as an example of a broken system, because she absolutely believes it is.)  This seems to me to be the perfect balance. A horrific system in Ferguson set the table for what happened, but an officer who has reason to fear for his life, when the evidence is all in, should have our sympathy. 

 

She isn't comfortable with the quick jump to racism in a lot of these cases. She believes it is too easy to assume racism after the fact - and she gave me a concrete example of that in her own career. Let me be clear... this woman brought me a printout of "Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack" the second or third time we met... Hmmm, I'm trying to explain her thoughts (as she has shared them with me) without putting words in her mouth. When the conversation turns to "those racist cops", it goes nowhere. Most cops are NOT racist in the traditional sense of the word. It just makes people upset. Words like that shut down conversation. When we talk about the implicit biases that we all have, then the conversation can go somewhere. She believes very strongly in teaching about white privilege and racial biases, because she believes these issues are at the root of the problem. But she doesn't like the leap from there to: racist white cop shoots black man. KWIM?  I think the whole thing is really hard to discuss. It's like a minefield of potential misunderstandings. I wish we would differentiate our vocabulary because some people use the word "racism" to mean one thing and others another then they argue past one another. But while I am a believer that implicit bias and systems do affect overall interactions and support "Black Lives Matter" , that doesn't mean that I think any given LEO was an overt racist in any given encounter. I would have to hear a lot more about any person before I'd make that conclusion. On the other hand, my white world is different than the world that my African American loved ones deal with and while any given incident might not be personal racism or prejudice, there can be a pattern of invisible biases, very broken systems (like Ferguson's for instance), etc. and that is a valid point, too. 

 

The LEOs that I know do not see it as a "War on Police" when we discuss these officers who clearly did wrong. They typically have a WTH reaction along with the rest of us. However, my friend will not say much until she knows the whole story. She is hyper aware that often there is more than meets the eye. She thinks the general public is too quick to point blame and the media is often sloppy in their reporting. I think we all agree about that. Yep. Media reporting tends to have a polarizing effect no matter what they are reporting on. I think that makes it much more wise to stick to the big picture and not individual cases (especially when we don't know all the details) when arguing for reform.

Thank you so much for responding. Good thoughts. 

[Laurie4b]

I followed a link in the article that Poppy linked by the former LEO. If anyone is interested, I think this is worth reading. (It's an academic article.)   http://pro.sagepub.com/content/58/1/275.full.pdf+html

 

For me, as someone with a background in mental health, it is spelling out the grid that I run these interactions through in my mind but gives me a way to possibly better articulate that to others. It had also seemed to me that using these types of interactions had longterm benefits for LEOs, which this article seemed to confirm. 

[Laurie]

Curious as to whether you thought I was saying he didn't have a right to draw his gun... I said that I could see why he might feel a threat with the action occurring behind him. Just on analyzing it, it was not actually intentional by the boys.  My problem with the whole scene is more where yours is  and the drawing of the gun followed a series of actions which he initiated including the profanity (I'm not a prude about profanity, but it is absolutely something that will escalate things) and pursuing the girl who was walking away and throwing her on the ground. 

 

Just so it's clear: everything I saw the other officers do was absolutely professional and exemplary behavior. It was just the one guy. 

 

I understand,  I was thinking more of the police chief's statement that you quoted: "The officer's actions were indefensible, that other officers on the scene behaved according to their training but he didn't, and that he arrived out of control and stayed out of control".   From what I saw on the video, the only action I would defend was drawing his gun.  But thank goodness he didn't use it!

 

 

 

(You might be interested in a book written by our former police chief.   You can check out the table of contents on Amazon.  It's called Breaking Rank by Norm Stamper. )

 

 

 

[Laurie4b]

I understand,  I was thinking more of the police chief's statement that you quoted: "The officer's actions were indefensible, that other officers on the scene behaved according to their training but he didn't, and that he arrived out of control and stayed out of control".   From what I saw on the video, the only action I would defend was drawing his gun.  But thank goodness he didn't use it!

 

 

 

(You might be interested in a book written by our former police chief.   You can check out the table of contents on Amazon.  It's called Breaking Rank by Norm Stamper. )

 

 

 

 

Thanks. I will check it out. Have you read it? What did you think of him as a police chief? 

[Liz CA]

I have been critical of law enforcement in the past (not the cases referred to here but something in my hometown), however, media portrayal makes a lot of difference and keep in mind that everything can be edited.

 

I support law enforcement, work peripherally with law enforcement but it is like any other area of life - there are good ones (even excellent ones) and not so good ones - or some who still have some learning to do or some who are burnt out.

 

I principally do not make judgment calls on law enforcement situations I am not familiar with or have witnessed because there is so much twisting and misunderstanding.

To answer your initial question: some people will applaud your efforts, others will criticize you.

 

Establishing good rapport with your local department and state units may go a long way.