I certainly don't accept all arguments judging cops, esp those that saying cops should be 100% effective in making split second decisions in dealing with someone attacking them with deadly force.
But I reject the reasoning of this article. The cops took him through contrived examples of their choosing. They tell them the way to deal with these rare cases is to interact with all citizens as if they could be the worse criminals. Accepting the premise, the article concludes with the line "People need to comply for their own sake."
I agree with this partly, but I also think policing is a risky job. Just as citizens have some responsibility not to make threatening moves toward officers, officers have a responsibility to interact with citizens in a normal, helpful way, so citizens feel inclined to work with them if they see a possible crime. It may be safer for the police to be on constant hair trigger alert to shot someone, but that's not how to get the job done. Part of doing the job right, i.e. working with citizens to get rid of crime, involves the police officers taking some risk.
The examples they chose were the same examples that they received criticism over. If by "contrived" you mean they were practice exercises, well, of course they were. But are you seriously trying to claim that they also have to go through examples of every other situation a cop could get put in before someone could appreciate the gravity of those decisions? Might as well tell everyone they have to become a cop then. But it seemed like from this gentleman's standpoint, he didn't feel it was contrived at all, and HE was the one who initially was complaining.
"Part of doing the job right, i.e. working with citizens to get rid of crime, involves the police officers taking some risk."
Why? The whole reason you train is so that you don't have to take the time to stop and analyze the situation when there is no time to do such. It's one thing to play armchair quarterback, and something entirely different to BE the quarterback faced with a blitzing 250-lb linebacker. That was the whole point of this exercise: to demonstrate that in these situations there is no time to think. You don't have hours or days afterward to think about what you should have done, all you can do is act in that split second.
It's the same reason the recommended following distance in a car is 10 ft for every 10 mph - your brain has to have time to recognize and process the situation and then act. If there is already a pattern of action, that process takes only a split second. If not, the brain has to develop an action plan to follow. And we all know that when the adrenaline hits your system, the thinking part of your brain shuts down and the survival instinct takes over. The reality is that there is no way anyone can plan for every conceivable situation or outcome. That was the point of this exercise: to demonstrate just how difficult it is to think and act in a high-pressure situation.
I strongly agree with everything you said in the last two paragraphs.
I think there is a problem in policing though. Policing involves living in the area, knowing the people, and interacting. It's safer to wear a Darth Vader outfit and ride in an armored car. Much of our policing is closer to the Darth Vader side of the spectrum.
I would tender the following question then: if policing should be like Andy Griffith in Mayberry, don't you have to start with decent people in the first place: people who obey the rule of law?
I would postulate that the reason the police have become so militant is as as simple response to the prevalence and types of criminal they now have to deal with. But militarization isn't the solution either - a return to common decency and values is. If we want to change police departments, we have to start with the homes and neighborhoods first.
But I reject the reasoning of this article. The cops took him through contrived examples of their choosing. They tell them the way to deal with these rare cases is to interact with all citizens as if they could be the worse criminals. Accepting the premise, the article concludes with the line "People need to comply for their own sake."
I agree with this partly, but I also think policing is a risky job. Just as citizens have some responsibility not to make threatening moves toward officers, officers have a responsibility to interact with citizens in a normal, helpful way, so citizens feel inclined to work with them if they see a possible crime. It may be safer for the police to be on constant hair trigger alert to shot someone, but that's not how to get the job done. Part of doing the job right, i.e. working with citizens to get rid of crime, involves the police officers taking some risk.
"Part of doing the job right, i.e. working with citizens to get rid of crime, involves the police officers taking some risk."
Why? The whole reason you train is so that you don't have to take the time to stop and analyze the situation when there is no time to do such. It's one thing to play armchair quarterback, and something entirely different to BE the quarterback faced with a blitzing 250-lb linebacker. That was the whole point of this exercise: to demonstrate that in these situations there is no time to think. You don't have hours or days afterward to think about what you should have done, all you can do is act in that split second.
It's the same reason the recommended following distance in a car is 10 ft for every 10 mph - your brain has to have time to recognize and process the situation and then act. If there is already a pattern of action, that process takes only a split second. If not, the brain has to develop an action plan to follow. And we all know that when the adrenaline hits your system, the thinking part of your brain shuts down and the survival instinct takes over. The reality is that there is no way anyone can plan for every conceivable situation or outcome. That was the point of this exercise: to demonstrate just how difficult it is to think and act in a high-pressure situation.
Good training is your bulwark when you don't have TIME to process.
I think there is a problem in policing though. Policing involves living in the area, knowing the people, and interacting. It's safer to wear a Darth Vader outfit and ride in an armored car. Much of our policing is closer to the Darth Vader side of the spectrum.
I would postulate that the reason the police have become so militant is as as simple response to the prevalence and types of criminal they now have to deal with. But militarization isn't the solution either - a return to common decency and values is. If we want to change police departments, we have to start with the homes and neighborhoods first.