
Police Start to Reconsider Longstanding Rules on Using Force - joshrotenberg
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/05/us/police-start-to-reconsider-longstanding-rules-on-using-force.html
======
Someone1234
One of the problems with US police in general seems to be that levels and
quality of training vary so wildly. You have some "world class" police
training programs, while others seem to be almost akin to slapping a badge and
a gun on the first person who walks in the door.

I have no idea if what I am about to suggest is even legal, but I'd like to
see congress pass a reform bill which contains:

\- A minimum level of training and minimum continuing education requirement
for all levels of police (state, county, federal, etc). Similar to No Child
Left Behind (but for cops).

\- Civilian oversight of police complaints (akin to what other countries
have). Or failing that federal oversight.

\- Federal funding to develop better officer education programs (with goals
including officer safety, de-escalation, alternatives to use of force, and
ethics).

\- Reform asset forfeiture. All funds now also have to go to local education,
homeless shelters, or similar. Nothing officer benefiting can be funded. Also
someone has to have actually committed and been prosecuted for a crime(!).

~~~
yincrash
I think the main problem with your suggestion is that different jurisdictions
have different police needs. Should a single officer department in a rural
county enact the same programs that NYC has?

~~~
peeters
You can counteract that somewhat by delegating rural policing to a larger
force, so that the overhead of some programs are shared.

Maybe it wouldn't be too popular in the States, where everyone from the Mayor
down to the city hall janitor (and including the sheriff) is elected. But it
seems to work fairly well in Canada. Jurisdictions too small to warrant their
own regional force contract the RCMP or provincial force (e.g. OPP) to serve
as the regional force.

The flip side is that it can lead to a certain detachment (no pun intended)
from the community because the officers consider it a "tour of duty" to serve
at a tiny outpost before graduating to a "real" position.

~~~
rosser
And how does that play considering study after study and program after program
showing that a successful approach in fostering harmonious police-citizen
relations and reducing crime is to have the cops "walking the beat" and
becoming known and recognized in the areas they're policing?

------
jobu
_" Like the 21-foot rule, many current police practices were adopted when
officers faced violent street gangs. Crime rates soared, as did the number of
officers killed. Today, crime is at historic lows and most cities are safer
than they have been in generations, for residents and officers alike. This
should be a moment of high confidence in the police, said Chuck Wexler,
executive director of the Police Executive Research Forum, a law enforcement
policy group. Instead, he said, policing is in crisis."_

Seeing cops with tanks in Ferguson, Missouri has been a wake-up call for many
Americans. Fortunately many on the left and the right
([http://truthinmedia.com/billionaire-koch-brothers-fund-
campa...](http://truthinmedia.com/billionaire-koch-brothers-fund-campaign-
against-police-militarization/)) agree that it isn't appropriate, so hopefully
we will start to see some change.

~~~
Zigurd
The vast majority of police should not be armed. They are simply not well
enough trained.

~~~
tomschlick
If the population is armed the police should be armed. Simple as that. Good
luck getting the population disarmed in less than a century, and thats if you
get them to pass the constitutional amendment first.

~~~
Zigurd
> _If the population is armed the police should be armed._

Interesting assertion. But there is no basis in fact. Legal gun owners, think
of them and their choices what you will, also tend to be law-abiding.

~~~
tomschlick
I know they are mostly law abiding. I am one of them. My point is that you
can't expect a police force to go unarmed when there is a 50/50 chance someone
in each call is armed. No one would want to do that job.

~~~
Zigurd
> _No one would want to do that job._

That's another assertion without any basis. Cop boards are full of statements
like that. Exactly 0.00% of cops making such statements have quit.

------
Zikes
As far as I can tell, the rules that are on the books for handling dangerous
situations is not at issue, it's the complete disregard for those and any
other rules. It's the rampant abuse of power that's the real problem.

There is no longer any accountability or consequence for a police officer
committing the most heinous of crimes in the United States. At worst they'll
get fired, then hired back onto the force in the next town over.

~~~
gluecode
Nowadays, the police looks fearsome and threatening with their high tech
automatic gear and offensive stance. They are not approachable. Why does
policing require these military style weapons?

~~~
chokolad
What's the difference between military style weapons and police style weapons?
which specific weapons do you refer to?

~~~
chokolad
> Flashbangs, fully automatic rifles, armored vehicles, tanks--those are some
> military weapons that have no place in a police force, IMO.

Not sure what the etiquette of HN in replying to deep message threads is so
I'll try it here. We'll see if it sticks

As far as I understand police officers on the streets do not routinely carry
flashbangs nor drive armored vehicles. They do have an AR-15 style rifles in
the patrol cars, but those are not fully-automatic though they do look like
military M4/M16. Flashbangs and APCs are SWAT team toys.

~~~
tomschlick
Serious question. We have guns in the US. Lots of them. Leaving the politics
of that aside. What do you expect police to use when they need to approach a
barricaded person or extract someone in the line of fire?

A Bearcat/MRAP is the perfect tool. Its big (hides officers visually),
armored, and relatively cheap to buy & maintain vs outfitting patrol cars with
armor. It has zero offensive capability unless you count sitting someone on
top of it with a rife.

I can understand (and I agree) with not wanting them to use armored vehicles
in certain situations (non-violent protests, non violent drug raids, etc) but
do you really not want them to have the capability at all?

~~~
marssaxman
There are all kinds of extreme and extremely implausible situations which
could be used to justify extreme firepower, but it is not a good idea to use a
military force as a police service. Ergo, we must accept that the right call
will sometimes be "back away and negotiate".

~~~
tomschlick
Is an active shooter a "back away and negotiate" situation? What about when
rioters are throwing 5lb chunks of concrete at firefighters/police like they
did in baltimore this past week?

I can't be in the minority here thinking that armored vehicles have a use case
and that we should dictate those use cases by policy. Removing them all
removes the ability to stop those shit hits the fan scenarios in a timely
manner.

~~~
diyorgasms
I can't possibly imagine an instance in which the police arriving in an
armored vehicle would deescalate a situation, and I believe deescalation ought
to be the aim of police showing up at disturbances. Especially at protests and
anti-police riots, like what happened in Baltimore this past week. Rolling
around with military gear is antagonistic toward the people who already
believe you exist only to oppress them. Perhaps that is not the best move to
make.

------
grecy
Police in the US have killed 398 so far in 2015 [1]

German Police used only 85 bullets against people in all of 2011. [2]

Germany Population: 81 million USA population: 323 million (3.99x bigger)

So, if the USA were like Germany, Police would only use 340 bullets against
people PER YEAR.

Not 398 deaths in 6 months, but 340 bullets used for an entire year!

Something is very different about the way the Police in the US approach
situations.

[1] [http://killedbypolice.net/](http://killedbypolice.net/)

[2] [http://www.thewire.com/global/2012/05/german-police-used-
onl...](http://www.thewire.com/global/2012/05/german-police-used-
only-85-bullets-against-people-2011/52162/)

~~~
rhino369
You can't just go by population. America is just a vastly more violent nation.
America has a 6X higher murder rate.

America has higher handgun ownership, which is a cause of many of the police
shootings.

~~~
frandroid
Fine, take Switzerland, where every home pretty much has a rifle...

~~~
vacri
A government-issued rifle kept in the home, with sealed ammunition that is
checked and can only be used in peacetime at a training event. A bit different
from handguns that can be easily concealed while walking around the streets.

Two-thirds of the US's annual homicides (about 12k total at the moment) are
committed with handguns. Homicides with longarms aren't trivial (total firearm
is around three quarters, from memory), but they're a much smaller proportion
than handgun murders.

------
mrb
I am very surprised the article doesn't mention the american "shoot-to-kill"
policy, despite the fact it gives the perfect example of how this policy is
overkill (pun intended). If a knife-yielding attacker runs toward you, police
in other countries (say western Europe) will shoot at the legs to NOT kill the
attacker but sufficiently harm him so that he is not a threat anymore.

But in America the shoot-to-kill policy is so deeply ingrained in every
officer's training that they only see 2 choices --when should I kill or not
kill-- as depicted by that officer's simple question at the beginning of the
article ("How close can somebody get to me before I’m justified in using
deadly force?").

I have done research in the past on why the shoot-to-kill policy became
prevalent in the US but not in other countries, and I have never found an
answer. This puzzles me more than it should.

Edit: to the replies saying "if you don't intend to kill, don't shoot", you
are wrong. This is precisely why tasers and non-lethal weapons were invented:
there are many situations were harming or incapacitating an assailant is
needed without necessarily killing him. On this note I agree a taser would be
a safer weapon than trying to cause harm with a firearm. But my general
comment is meant to apply to scenarios where a police officer cannot make the
choice of firing with a taser[1]: in this case shooting to harm is better than
shooting to kill.

[1] For whatever reason: he has no taser, or a firearm is the weapon he has in
his hands during the split second where he has to decide to shoot, etc.

~~~
Someone1234
> If a knife-yielding attacker runs toward you, police in other countries (say
> western Europe) will shoot at the legs to NOT kill the attacker but
> sufficiently harm him so that he is not a threat anymore.

That sounds more like a movie than "Western Europe." Nobody shoots at legs
since it is ineffective, can end their life anyway, and can risk collateral
damage (what is behind that leg? What if the bullet bounces off of the bone?).
You shoot to kill, period.

Here's what the UK police do:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vf3RZ7gi2f0](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vf3RZ7gi2f0)

Which is exceptional policing in my opinion. But no shooting at his leg.

PS - Not disagreeing with the argument that US police are too quick to kill
people, even unarmed people. Just that shooting at people's legs is a
legitimate alternative. Even when armed, other countries kill citizens much
more rarely.

PPS - Another good video showing UK police's constraint, this time armed
officers: [https://youtu.be/nVOLH_aN-zI?t=3m35s](https://youtu.be/nVOLH_aN-
zI?t=3m35s) contrast that with this:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wwYVJ4W7DPo](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wwYVJ4W7DPo)
both incidents involve a cap gun and armed police (one in the US one in the
UK).

~~~
htns
Here in Finland armed men getting shot in the leg is not that rare of an
occurrence, e.g.
[http://yle.fi/uutiset/prison_guard_arrested_after_shooting_a...](http://yle.fi/uutiset/prison_guard_arrested_after_shooting_at_police/5778062)

~~~
kevinnk
The question here is what did the police aim for not what did they hit.

------
jqm
Good manners, a soft tone and respect for other people is what most police
officers are sorely missing.

A hostile attitude often escalates situations which could have been completely
prevented or resolved differently. Unsurprisingly, treating people with
complete disrespect often elicits a fight response.

What police departments really need more than anything else are strong "don't
be a dick" policies that are rigorously enforced. Along with more "how not to
be a dick" training seminars. One can be firm and even shoot someone when
needed all without being one. Let the dicks go be mall cops. The guys with
real guns should have above average patience and compassion. We should demand
this and we should be willing to pay for it.

------
ufmace
I hope they - both the article authors and the trainers being described - know
what the 21-foot rule is supposed to mean. A person with a drawn knife 21 feet
from you does not mean that it's time to shoot them, even if they haven't made
a move towards you. It means that the time for a healthy person to run up to
you is close enough to the time to draw and fire a holstered weapon that
you're at risk, so you should address either the closing distance or draw time
by backing off or behind obstacles or drawing the weapon before any attack
starts.

------
frandroid
This article is missing a critical criteria: racism. It's quite obvious that
police officers (worldwide, but particularly in the United States) are more
likely to shoot black suspects than white ones. This is not a training
problem.

