Read more of Mark's work at his blog D.A. Confidential.
This falls under the heading of "storm in a teacup" — or I hope it does.
On June 1 the New York Post reported that a bill has been proposed in the New York State Assembly requiring cops to shoot to stop, not shoot to kill, and police officers and their backers have said stuff like. . . . Well, they can say it better than me:
"It's moronic and would create two sets of rules in the streets if there is a gunfight. This legislation would require officers to literally shoot the gun out of someone's hand or shoot to wound them in the leg or arm. I don't know of any criminal who doesn't shoot to kill. They are not bound by any restrictions."
Here's a sample of the language from the bill, Section of Assembly Bill A02952:
“A police officer or peace officer . . . uses such force with the intent to stop, rather than kill . . . and uses only the minimal amount of force necessary to effect such stop.”
I can't seriously think that this will be made law. According to the story, even Joe Biden scoffed at it, calling it the "John Wayne Bill" because it "demands sharp-shooting skills of the kind only seen in movies."
What's interesting is that the legislation was proposed at all. It shows a remarkably poor understanding of the real-life situations cops face sometimes, as well as a disturbing lack of concern for the lives of the officers. Not to mention the bystanders shot when the cop aims for a perp's gun-hand and misses.
If there's a problem with cops shooting to kill too much (which I did not see reported in the story) then surely the solution is threefold: 1. Clear, simple policies and procedures for officers to follow in gun-fight situations; 2. Intensive training consistent with those policies and procedures, and 3. Accountability should an officer intentionally not follow them.
And may I suggest a week long ride-along for the well-intentioned folks who proposed the original legislation?
Read full entry »I noticed with pride that over 20,000 peace officers from all over the world attended the recent police officer funerals in the Tacoma, Washington area. It reminded me of one of my four steadfast guidelines for law enforcement professionals. Number 3: “Attend all law enforcement funerals when practical.”
I assure you I am not this macabre in general, and I don’t even like funerals much at all. But there is a bigger mission here. I attend these funerals for two very specific and calculated reasons. First, I want the officers’ families, and the public, to see that their death means something to all of us cops. Not just something – it means morethan other deaths. Second, I want to help make the funeral a bigger story.
Given the focus of the Crime Report, I thought I would discuss my second rationale. If it sounds like a superiority complex or some sort of gallows ego, so be it. I believe that the news needs to show thousands of cops mourning together. I believe that the motorcade should be so long that it snarls rush hour traffic and closes thruways all over the state. I believe the service should be as large and inconvenient for the general public as possible.
Because that makes it news.
Here is my bigger philosophical point: Much like the death of a soldier or Marine, the local paper generally gets intimately involved in an officer dying in the line of duty. But only one county away the death is usually a page-two short.
The media outlets are not alone, however. Good folks everywhere hear about a cop dying and say, “what a shame…” as they move swiftly from Starbucks to Target and back home for dinner. Most cannot even tell you the name of the fallen officer. Worse yet are our elected leaders. Again, if it was their police officer they might come to the funeral (wearing the obligatory American flag pin). But ask them the name of that officer two weeks later and see what they say. I know I sound cynical, but elected leaders should really be as involved in these events as the law enforcement folks they manage.
So out of respect for their loved ones and friends – and yes, to make the funeral a bigger story – I implore all of us to attend all the law enforcement funerals we can.
Read more Philosophical Cop at his blog.
Read full entry »It might be a good time to think about Tasers and the agencies you cover. New
studies will fuel the debate over the widely-used “conducted electrical
weapons.” If the agencies you cover aren’t using them, you might want to ask around to see
if either the rank-or-file or the commanders want to change that.
Most of what the public knows about Tasers is, to say the least, anecdotal.
“Don’t tase me, bro!” might be the catchphrase to sum up a host of viral
videos in which the “conducted electrical weapon” is the star.
Far less exciting is the scientific work going on to find out what happens
when Tasers are used over and over in the workaday world of law enforcement.
In recent weeks, two medical journals have published articles on Tasers. And
Amnesty International issued a thick report of its own.
Journal articles usually aren’t available free online, but authors often will
share them and some journal publishers will email an article to a working
journalist.
You can immediately read an Orlando Sentinel story on a medical study of
1,201 Taser cases in six agencies at
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/orl-taser1509jan15,0,5189520.story]
The authors of the Annals of Emergency Medicine article attributed
only three serious injuries to Tasers, although they excluded the deaths of
two suspects who did not suffer immediate effects but collapsed later. The
authors say there is no evidence that an electrical shock could cause such
delayed effects. They attributed no heart problems to Tasers but called for
more study.
An Amnesty International report issued in December:
http://www.amnesty.org/en/news-and-updates/report/tasers-potentially-lethal-and-easy-abuse-20081216
reflects the doubts of Taser critics about those cases in which suspects died
minutes or hours after being stunned. The organization lists 334 deaths
after Taser use from 2001 to August 2008.
And, most recently, the San Francisco Chronicle reported on a 50-agency study
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/01/24/BARC15G532.DTL
finding in-custody deaths jumped sharply in the first year Tasers were used.
The deaths returned to normal levels subsequently, according to the article
in the American Journal of Cardiology. The Chronicle quotes a researcher as
speculating that inexperienced officers may be administering repeated shocks.
I cover an agency that shelved Tasers in 2005 but now is seeking
to buy more than 1,000 to put one in the hands of every field officer and
sergeant. When I post a story on Tasers, the comments from readers make it
clear that the biggest question about Tasers is how they really are used.
Does the weapon help subdue a suspect who might otherwise be shot and killed?
Or is it wielded indiscriminately to intimidate rowdy – but not dangerous –
civilians?
Examples of the latter are of course available on YouTube. The classic case
of the former is when multiple officers are confronted by someone with a
knife. You might want to find out how often that scenario has played out
locally – and what happened.
