12 ms·

Police Use of Force: An Examination of Modern Policing Practices [pdf]

115 points by tboyd47 8y ago

ncr100 8y ago
They need help with data collection on which minority group is subject to which type of policing / force. Copy/paste finding statement from executive summary: == Accurate and comprehensive data regarding police uses of force is generally not available to police departments or the American public. No comprehensive national database exists that captures rates of police use of force. The best available evidence reflects high rates of use of force nationally, and increased likelihood of police use of force against people of color, people with disabilities, LGBT people, people with mental health concerns, people with low incomes, and those at the intersections of these groups. Lack of training and lack of funding for training leave officers and the public at risk. Critical training areas include tactical training, de-escalation techniques, understanding cultural differences and anti-bias mechanisms, as well as strategies for encounters with individuals with physical and mental disabilities. Repeated and highly publicized incidents of police use of force against persons of color and people with disabilities, combined with a lack of accurate data, lack of transparency about policies and practices in place governing use of force, and lack of accountability for noncompliance foster a perception that police use of force in communities of color and the disability community is unchecked, unlawful, and unsafe. ==
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
siruncledrew 8y ago
Anecdotally, most people I know don't go out of their way to interact with police, so when police come into the picture it's usually not for something good. Further, because it's not for something good, that makes the situation more tense and incongruous between parties involved. People try to actively avoid police and not deal with them. If most interactions are negative, this makes conflict resolution difficult if the sentiment towards one party is inherently distasteful. This might be a bad metaphor, but it's kinda like how people don't use customer service when they don't have a problem. If police want to be guardians of a community, it requires putting in time to listen to and understand the community, and it also requires the community be cognizant of their interactions with police. Like with customer service for any party involved, being shitty usually doesn't make things go smoother. With that being said, I think police could do a better job of being helpful and approachable. In the times police are actually needed, such as a car accident or something being stolen, adding a bit more effort would go towards establishing a better impression among the public. Further, changing the structure of police incentives could also help, where they should be rewarded and recognized for the positive outcomes created in the community, and not the number of tickets written to bring $X dollars into the station.
- rhcom2 8y ago
  I believe that this is the idea behind community policing. That the police officers should live and work in the same neighborhood because they will grow trust and be able to do their jobs better.
- huhjjhdd 8y ago
  I specifically avoid interaction with police unless absolutely forced to because they can essentially kill me at any time fpr any reason without any repercussions (beyond a paid vacation). Cops have repeatedly proven themselves to be state thugs without a modicum of human decency. There are no good cops.
  - donkey-hotei 8y ago
    1312
- mikepurvis 8y ago
  These are anecdotes from Waterloo in Canada, but my two recent voluntary interactions with law enforcement were both neutral-to-negative: First was stopping to ask a cop idling in a parking lot if they'd considered more enforcement of the new yield-to-pedestrians law at a nearby intersection/roundabout. Cars consistently run through the pedestrian crosswalks while people are in them (I have many videos of this), which is supposed to be a $1000 fine, but I've never seen any enforcement of it, or heard of anyone getting such a ticket. She basically said that they don't have time for that and would need more funding to be able to do proactive enforcement. Although she was polite and took the time to speak to me, I was disappointed at the lack of interest in something I see as a critical issue impacting safety and walkability in the community. Second was a case where I'd witnessed what looked like a bike theft in progress at the side of the road, and then a moment later realised there was a police car half a block behind me. I pulled over and waved vigorously to flag him down, but I believe he was looking at his console (it's not clear in the video due to windshield glare) and cruised by without stopping. Either that or he saw and ignored me, which is probably worse. Obviously both were fine in the sense that I wasn't yelled at or shot, but neither experience gave me warm fuzzies either.
pstuart 8y ago
A key problem is that police forces have effectively no incentive to avoid negligent use of force, in that any resulting lawsuits are paid for by the taxpayers. I propose that police forces must be self-insured, with their pension fund backing the policy.
- gardnr 8y ago
  How about department or squad insurance? If one member is negligent, the entire team pays higher premiums. Put that blue line to work.
  - darpa_escapee 8y ago
    There's already a huge problem with police protecting their own when a cop injures, rapes or kills an innocent person. This just gives everyone involved further incentive to ensure that negligence or malfeasance get covered up.
    - TheSpiceIsLife 8y ago
      Or the department / team concerned could, upon identifying an issue, immediately report it thereby reducing the costs associated with someone later blowing the whistle. One can dream.
- loeg 8y ago
  The problems are (1) that they get a special definition of "negligent" and "force" than the rest of us, and (2) that they and prosecutors cover up malfeasance (the blue line); not that the stakes aren't high enough if they are found guilty. Raising the stakes for a group that already protects its own just increases its incentive to cover up malfeasance.
  - pstuart 8y ago
    I recognize that my suggestion is easier said than done, but the coverup mentality seems to be a full effect anyway so it would be shame to not explore this for that worry alone.
MFogleman 8y ago
I've only taken a brief glance at this report, so I apologize if my issue I'm about to bring up is already addressed within. It seems that this report is falling into the common trap of 'Officer deaths are down, the job must be safer'. Officer training has increased in the last 20 years, as has protective equipment, and life saving measures. Page 38 states "Further, the data presented on Chart 5 (which includes the average number of police fatalities due to shootings, stabbings, assaults, bombings, and vehicular assaults) suggest that intentional attacks against law enforcement are at historically low levels.200" The FBI's statistics[1] report that in 2017, 60,000 officer were 'assaulted'. 2677 were assaulted by firearm, and over 267 of them were injured.[2] Quite simply, the most thorough and definitive source of attacks against law enforcement officers is not used to measure attacks against law enforcement officers, instead we are simply measuring deaths. Safety is a difficult thing to measure. If a pilot with 5,000 hours of flight time has crashed 4 small charter air planes with 0 deaths, is he safer than the pilot who has 2,000 hours of flight time with 0 crashes? What we can measure is things like 'Felonious assaults' and 'Injuries per weapon type'. Which we have measured, but people keep ignoring in reports like this. Reports and reviews such as this usccr report are important, but we need to look at the situation at hand accurately if we want to address it properly [1]https://ucr.fbi.gov/leoka/2017 https://ucr.fbi.gov/leoka/2017 [2]https://ucr.fbi.gov/leoka/2017/tables/table-85.xls https://ucr.fbi.gov/leoka/2017/tables/table-85.xls
- alistairSH 8y ago
  While I don't disagree with your broader point, in several states, all assaults on law enforcement officers are felonious.[1], so felonious assault isn't a meaningful statistic (or, at least not separate from lesser assault). So, police stop you in the street for whatever reason, you brush by them, and bang, you're charged with felony assault. 1 - https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/title18.2/chapter4/section18.2-57/ https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/title18.2/chapter4/secti...
Someone1234 8y ago
Their point about police training seems quite valid (page 5). While there is federal assistance for police departments to buy military surplus equipment, there's very little assistance (outside of anti-terrorist funding) for improved and lengthened general training (e.g. de-escalation of force, averting the need for force, etc). This results in some states and cities having well trained professional police, whereas others receive minimum training and are then expected to learn "on the job." For example California police officers are now receiving better training on handling the mentally ill, something a rural police officer in another state is unlikely to receive. This is both unfair to the public and police officers alike. Unfortunately getting people to pay for things can be challenging.
- x220 8y ago
  Yes, and it becomes even more politically difficult to request more funding for police departments when activists paint all police with the same brush and sometimes want to literally abolish the police.
  - Someone1234 8y ago
    I don't see how? Both police and police activists want better training, police to keep themselves safe, and activists to reduce the prevalence of incidents. It is a win/win politically. Now getting people to pay higher taxes to fund it? That's the real challenge.
    - x220 8y ago
      I think that most activists want those things. Some activists are like the person in this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vjIEZf8Skx4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vjIEZf8Skx4
      - Someone1234 8y ago
        It isn't reasonable to define an entire group by their biggest extremists. I've read some pretty outlandish things by upset police officers too, but just like this, I don't think it is a reflection of the majority's opinion on the topic.
teumesios 8y ago
Police serve themselves and the state, putting their lives well above those they are supposed to serve and protect. I don't think the public's opinion is likely to change until there's some radical reform. https://www.cnn.com/videos/us/2016/07/07/graphic-video-minnesota-police-shooting-philando-castile-ryan-young-pkg-nd.cnn/video/playlists/philando-castile-shot-in-minnesota/ https://www.cnn.com/videos/us/2016/07/07/graphic-video-minne... This officer shot into a car seven times with a little girl on board, murdering a man who was cooperating. And then he gets off without charge, despite there being video evidence. Where is the justice in that? People aren't that dumb, they aren't being treated fairly and they know it. According to this study, less than 30% of people believe that police behave lawfully.
- x220 8y ago
  >less than 30% of people believe that police behave lawfully If you ask someone if they think a large collection of individuals behaves lawfully, the answer should always be "no" because with a large enough group there will always be criminals in that group. If you're instead thinking about whether police break the law in an organized and collectively deliberate fashion, that's an entirely different question.
  - teumesios 8y ago
    Uhm, what? Even if someone commits a crime, that does not make them any less able to recognize that the police break laws.
    - x220 8y ago
      Yes, the police break laws. Republicans break laws. Democrats, Muslims, Trump supporters, and Python programmers break laws. Any large group of people contains law-breakers. It's not a useful statement.
      - crooked-v 8y ago
        The difference between police officers and the rest of those groups is that all of them but police officers are self-selected and unenforced. It is entirely feasible to have a police force that break laws only negligibly by enforcing the removal of individual police who break laws.
romed 8y ago
There should be some kind of cooling-off period between when these can hit the front page and when the comments begin, proportional to the length of the document. This one is 200 pages, so the first useful comment on this report will appear tomorrow at the earliest. The only conclusion we can draw right now is that some software company has an exclusive contract to provide the government with PDF export applications that do not generate hyperlinked tables of contents, and that publishing such a document is in fact a crime against the people.
golergka 8y ago
The core of this report is intellectually the hardest pill to swallow to both sides: there's not enough data. Unfortunately, human beings are highly uncomfortable acknowledging that they don't know something, our thinking is not used to this. So, instead, both sides will continue to quote selective statistics and anecdotes that prove that they're right and the others are wrong, and will ignore all the evidence to the contrary.
dmos62 8y ago
I think many posts in this thread provide valuable commentary and mine won't add as much value, but I'd like to share a viewpoint about how it's interesting that in many countries it's considered quite normal that the police/state are antagonistic to citizens, but in U.S., while the same tension exists, there's a sense of Americans being continually surprised by that fact, as if some sense of idealism partly counteracts the media and acts as a sort of mild denial. I don't mean to be critical; I'm quite sympathetic. I grew up in a post-Soviet Bloc country, and while things have definitely changed a lot since 1980s, the mistrust in police and state was still something you could sense. However, that sense of mistrust was dramatically different, because there was no conflicting sense of "it shouldn't be like that". There was a sense of acceptance. Maybe you could call that Soviet defeatism. The only lesson I can draw from that is that it's easier to look at what's happening in U.S. if you don't presume that the state is your friend.
- zzzcpan 8y ago
  Well, most post-Soviet countries are also not police countries. People there are not used seeing police act much and police using weapons would be a massive news worthy story.
  - coolspot 8y ago
    Maybe western ones are not, but most coming to my mind are non-free police states - Belarus[1], Tajikistan[2], Kazakhstan[3], Azerbaijan[4], Kyrgyzstan[5], Uzbekistan[6] and so on. [1] - https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-world/2018/belarus https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-world/2018/belarus [2] - https://freedomhouse.org/country/tajikistan https://freedomhouse.org/country/tajikistan [3] - https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-world/2018/kazakhstan https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-world/2018/kazakhsta... [4] - https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-world/2018/azerbaijan https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-world/2018/azerbaija... [5] - https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-world/2018/kyrgyzstan https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-world/2018/kyrgyzsta... [6] - https://freedomhouse.org/country/uzbekistan https://freedomhouse.org/country/uzbekistan
    - 8y ago
x220 8y ago
We need a different department in each state tasked with investigating and prosecuting law enforcement officers and prosecutors suspected of crime, a department that is completely separate from the rest of the normal law enforcement departments. It's a founding principle of the United States that institutions will not keep themselves in check, they instead require another institution to keep them in check (checks and balances). It's time to start applying that to law enforcement misconduct investigations and prosecution. This means that police officers won't have to go easy on their coworkers suspected of crime (so that their other coworkers won't ostracize them) and prosecutors won't have to turn a blind eye towards police misconduct (for fear of poisoning the relationship with a police department) since it won't be their job anymore. Edit: if you disagree, say why.
- PavlovsCat 8y ago
  I think that's a fantastic idea. It doesn't even have to be so super adversarial maybe? Like companies sometimes get consultants not just because of their knowledge, but because they have a fresh perspective and might see things where veterans have a blind spot, or might even call a naked emperor out because they're not the subject of said emperor. I'm dreaming here, but ideally, the incentive wouldn't be "nail cops for things they done wrong", but simply professionality. That department, with the same justification IMO, could also be responsible for praising officers or departments for very good conduct. And ideally, the communities would also be involved in that -- as a partner, rather than just a potential subject of police misconduct and a source of complaints.
- frankydp 8y ago
  You are most likely getting down voted because your suggestion is already policy and law in most(if not all) states. Applied in different ways and at different levels. For example local police(city/county) critical incidents are investigated by the state level agency, and a state agency CI would be investigated by either the FBI or neighboring state agency.
  - x220 8y ago
    Thanks for the info!
qaq 8y ago
Better tech could solve some issues having some Boston dynamics based "partner" would prob solve issue of police officers overreacting in what they perceive as dangerous situations.
- afarrell 8y ago
  Developing the technology to automatically police an area seems like a dramatically bad idea. It would make it far easier for a wealthy elite to control territory without the accountability of needing to prevent their police/soldiers from joining the side of protestors. I’d rather live in a world where the rulers need the begrudging consent of a large number of people, for the reasons explained in The Dictator’s Handbook or in this CGP Grey video https://youtu.be/rStL7niR7gs https://youtu.be/rStL7niR7gs
  - qaq 8y ago
    I am not suggesting the autonomous AI robot version more like approach stopped vehicle and take transmit info remotely to the officer at a safe distance.
- mixmastamyk 8y ago
  An enforcement droid eh? Maybe we could call it “ed-209” for fun. I’d buy that for a dollar.
clarkmoody 8y ago
A very nice anecdote from the article concerning community policing: A retired police officer described to me his actions when patrolling a neighborhood. After muster, he would drive his unit to an urban park in his district and start picking up trash. The residents got to know him from this and other actions. He would when time permitted play a game of horse with the kids on the basketball court or engage a dad who was at the park with his kids who might be having a beer. Interestingly, under “broken windows” theory of policing the dad would be cited for open container or taken to jail. However, this officer thought it was a good thing the dad was with the kids spending time in the park and not creating a problem. He also engaged the basketball kids. Over time he interacted this way with many citizens in his patrol area. As a result, he not only gained trust and respect from the citizens, he also gained great sources of information. However, there was no department consistency in this policy. The next officer on duty may have cited the dad or ignored the kids and merely patrolled in his/her prowler. Such a different conception of policing than most are used to.
- Someone1234 8y ago
  It would be nice if the US adopted the Peelian principles/Nine principles of policing[0] written by Sir Robert Peel in 1829: 1) To deter crime and disorder, as an alternative to their repression by military force and severity of legal punishment. 2) To recognise always that the power of the police to fulfil their functions and duties is dependent on public approval of their existence, actions and behaviour, and on their ability to secure and maintain public respect. 3) To recognise always that to secure and maintain the respect and approval of the public means also the securing of the willing co-operation of the public in the task of securing observance of laws. 4) To recognise always that the extent to which the co-operation of the public can be secured diminishes proportionately the necessity of the use of physical force and compulsion for achieving police objectives. 5) To seek and preserve public favour, not by pandering to public opinion, but by constantly demonstrating absolutely impartial service to law, in complete independence of policy, and without regard to the justice or injustice of the substance of individual laws, by ready offering of individual service and friendship to all members of the public without regard to their wealth or social standing, by ready exercise of courtesy and friendly good humour, and by ready offering of individual sacrifice in protecting and preserving life. 6) To use physical force only when the exercise of persuasion, advice and warning is found to be insufficient to obtain public co-operation to an extent necessary to secure observance of law or to restore order, and to use only the minimum degree of physical force which is necessary on any particular occasion for achieving a police objective. 7) To maintain at all times a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and that the public are the police, the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence. 8) To recognise always the need for strict adherence to police-executive functions, and to refrain from even seeming to usurp the powers of the judiciary, of avenging individuals or the State, and of authoritatively judging guilt and punishing the guilty. 9) To recognise always that the test of police efficiency is the absence of crime and disorder, and not the visible evidence of police action in dealing with them. Seems like US policing as a culture is slowly learning that these aren't optional, but required to effectively police a large diverse set of peoples. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peelian_principles https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peelian_principles
wonderwonder 8y ago
Even if police get extra training on deescalation, they have no incentive to apply it as there are virtually no repercussions for using force to resolve every situation. You can be arrested for no other crime than resisting arrest, police have almost godlike powers in the states and are actively protected by those meant to regulate them such as their fellow officers, prosecutors, courts and leadership. If they are caught egregiously violating civil rights, the taxpayers have to pay a fine for the officers who then return to work none the worse. Legally police officers don't even have to know the laws they are enforcing with courts having ruled that if an officer arrests you for something even if you weren't breaking the law their wrong assumption of the law trumps your 4th amendment rights. A police officer can shoot an unarmed innocent civilian in a swoop and swat and receive zero repercussions essentially turning swat teams into assassination teams on call. In my personal opinion, every accusation of police misconduct should be fully investigated by the FBI and if laws are found to have been broken then federal charges are brought and if found guilty, the officers right to be a police officer is permanently removed in much the same way people with felony's are not allowed to serve in the FBI or own a weapon. If an officer kills someone who was "reaching for their waistband" and that person is found to not have been armed, instant manslaughter charges. If officers are found to have known about a violation and protected their fellow officer even if just through their silence, they should be charged with obstruction of justice or a similar crime. Until police officers are held at the very least to the standards of their fellow citizens, things will never improve. I have seen officers off duty that are wasted pile into civilian cars and speed off then throw zoom past on duty officers who laugh and let them continue on their way. Luckily no one was killed. All of those officers should have had their badges trashed, especially those on active duty. I respect the police, they have to deal with the worst humanity has to offer and they charge into places everyone else is running from. Many of them are good people. They cannot be given carte blanche to rough people up, or kill them. They also cannot be allowed to essentially run state sanctioned gangs.
blattimwind 8y ago
If this document tries to extract "modern policing practices" from American policing practices, I doubt there is anything to learn.
qrbLPHiKpiux 8y ago
> Police officers are vitally important to the co mmunities they serve. I thought their job was "to enforce the law?"
toomanybeersies 8y ago
It's interesting seeing the difference between American police and Australian police and how they deal with violent situations. A couple of weeks ago, we had a terror incident in Melbourne, where a man set his car on fire and started trying to stab people (killing one). The police arrived on scene within seconds, and attempted to stop the attacker using non lethal methods, it was only when it was clear that he wasn't going to be stopped that one of the officers drew their firearm and shot the attacker (apparently only once too, unlike in the USA where they empty their magazine). You can view footage of the incident here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cnk4su6HSHk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cnk4su6HSHk The officer only used lethal force when it was clear that there was no other option. I don't want to speculate, but I feel like if this was the USA, both officers would've immediately unloaded their magazines into the attacker, possibly hitting bystanders (it's happened plenty of times before). Compare that to the USA, where an unarmed Australian woman who rang the police to report a possible assault was shot by the police from inside their car: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Justine_Damond https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Justine_Damond
- loveyourmother 8y ago
  "shot the attacker (apparently only once too, unlike in the USA where they empty their magazine)." I am not sure if you have ever dealt with someone who is a lethal threat to you but it isn't like the movies. A wounded person can still shoot and kill you or stab you. You can put multiple bullets into a target and they can still kill you. Do police over react sometimes? Of course. If you have reached the point of actually firing a weapon at an individual you don't pause in between each individual shot to wait and see if you have done enough. Each shooting is different. If you think cops are leaving their houses with the intent or hopes of shooting and killing someone then you must not know any cops. They just want to make it home at the end of their shift.
  - mixmastamyk 8y ago
    Surrounding a suspect who brought a knife to a gun fight does not put one in substantial lethal danger. And there is a pattern that other countries don’t feel obliged to repeat.
solidsnack9000 8y ago
The “black-on-black” crime narrative as an explanation for police excessive use of force disregards the structural and historical issues that formed these neighborhoods, as well as the social and economic factors that currently sustain them. Paul Butler explains that the violence in black communities is a symptom of historic discrimination, brutal policing practices, and mass incarceration. Thus, if we want to decrease “black-on-black crime” we first need to address the systemic issues that maintain it. This passage starts by discussing an explanation for police excessive use of force and ends by discussing an explanation for crime within the black community. It seems like the authors are saying that we can’t use crime within the black community to explain police brutality until (unless? because?) we use systemic issues to explain this crime. This seems fuzzy. It’s likely that black-on-black crime is a symptom of something; but that doesn’t prevent it from having symptoms, too.

115 points by tboyd47 8y ago

They need help with data collection on which minority group is subject to which type of policing / force. Copy/paste finding statement from executive summary: == Accurate and comprehensive data regarding police uses of force is generally not available to police departments or the American public. No comprehensive national database exists that captures rates of police use of force. The best available evidence reflects high rates of use of force nationally, and increased likelihood of police use of force against people of color, people with disabilities, LGBT people, people with mental health concerns, people with low incomes, and those at the intersections of these groups. Lack of training and lack of funding for training leave officers and the public at risk. Critical training areas include tactical training, de-escalation techniques, understanding cultural differences and anti-bias mechanisms, as well as strategies for encounters with individuals with physical and mental disabilities. Repeated and highly publicized incidents of police use of force against persons of color and people with disabilities, combined with a lack of accurate data, lack of transparency about policies and practices in place governing use of force, and lack of accountability for noncompliance foster a perception that police use of force in communities of color and the disability community is unchecked, unlawful, and unsafe. ==

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

siruncledrew 8y ago

Anecdotally, most people I know don't go out of their way to interact with police, so when police come into the picture it's usually not for something good. Further, because it's not for something good, that makes the situation more tense and incongruous between parties involved. People try to actively avoid police and not deal with them. If most interactions are negative, this makes conflict resolution difficult if the sentiment towards one party is inherently distasteful. This might be a bad metaphor, but it's kinda like how people don't use customer service when they don't have a problem. If police want to be guardians of a community, it requires putting in time to listen to and understand the community, and it also requires the community be cognizant of their interactions with police. Like with customer service for any party involved, being shitty usually doesn't make things go smoother. With that being said, I think police could do a better job of being helpful and approachable. In the times police are actually needed, such as a car accident or something being stolen, adding a bit more effort would go towards establishing a better impression among the public. Further, changing the structure of police incentives could also help, where they should be rewarded and recognized for the positive outcomes created in the community, and not the number of tickets written to bring $X dollars into the station.

rhcom2 8y ago
I believe that this is the idea behind community policing. That the police officers should live and work in the same neighborhood because they will grow trust and be able to do their jobs better.
huhjjhdd 8y ago
I specifically avoid interaction with police unless absolutely forced to because they can essentially kill me at any time fpr any reason without any repercussions (beyond a paid vacation). Cops have repeatedly proven themselves to be state thugs without a modicum of human decency. There are no good cops.
- donkey-hotei 8y ago
  1312
mikepurvis 8y ago
These are anecdotes from Waterloo in Canada, but my two recent voluntary interactions with law enforcement were both neutral-to-negative: First was stopping to ask a cop idling in a parking lot if they'd considered more enforcement of the new yield-to-pedestrians law at a nearby intersection/roundabout. Cars consistently run through the pedestrian crosswalks while people are in them (I have many videos of this), which is supposed to be a $1000 fine, but I've never seen any enforcement of it, or heard of anyone getting such a ticket. She basically said that they don't have time for that and would need more funding to be able to do proactive enforcement. Although she was polite and took the time to speak to me, I was disappointed at the lack of interest in something I see as a critical issue impacting safety and walkability in the community. Second was a case where I'd witnessed what looked like a bike theft in progress at the side of the road, and then a moment later realised there was a police car half a block behind me. I pulled over and waved vigorously to flag him down, but I believe he was looking at his console (it's not clear in the video due to windshield glare) and cruised by without stopping. Either that or he saw and ignored me, which is probably worse. Obviously both were fine in the sense that I wasn't yelled at or shot, but neither experience gave me warm fuzzies either.

pstuart 8y ago

A key problem is that police forces have effectively no incentive to avoid negligent use of force, in that any resulting lawsuits are paid for by the taxpayers. I propose that police forces must be self-insured, with their pension fund backing the policy.

gardnr 8y ago
How about department or squad insurance? If one member is negligent, the entire team pays higher premiums. Put that blue line to work.
- darpa_escapee 8y ago
  There's already a huge problem with police protecting their own when a cop injures, rapes or kills an innocent person. This just gives everyone involved further incentive to ensure that negligence or malfeasance get covered up.
  - TheSpiceIsLife 8y ago
    Or the department / team concerned could, upon identifying an issue, immediately report it thereby reducing the costs associated with someone later blowing the whistle. One can dream.
loeg 8y ago
The problems are (1) that they get a special definition of "negligent" and "force" than the rest of us, and (2) that they and prosecutors cover up malfeasance (the blue line); not that the stakes aren't high enough if they are found guilty. Raising the stakes for a group that already protects its own just increases its incentive to cover up malfeasance.
- pstuart 8y ago
  I recognize that my suggestion is easier said than done, but the coverup mentality seems to be a full effect anyway so it would be shame to not explore this for that worry alone.

MFogleman 8y ago

I've only taken a brief glance at this report, so I apologize if my issue I'm about to bring up is already addressed within. It seems that this report is falling into the common trap of 'Officer deaths are down, the job must be safer'. Officer training has increased in the last 20 years, as has protective equipment, and life saving measures. Page 38 states "Further, the data presented on Chart 5 (which includes the average number of police fatalities due to shootings, stabbings, assaults, bombings, and vehicular assaults) suggest that intentional attacks against law enforcement are at historically low levels.200" The FBI's statistics[1] report that in 2017, 60,000 officer were 'assaulted'. 2677 were assaulted by firearm, and over 267 of them were injured.[2] Quite simply, the most thorough and definitive source of attacks against law enforcement officers is not used to measure attacks against law enforcement officers, instead we are simply measuring deaths. Safety is a difficult thing to measure. If a pilot with 5,000 hours of flight time has crashed 4 small charter air planes with 0 deaths, is he safer than the pilot who has 2,000 hours of flight time with 0 crashes? What we can measure is things like 'Felonious assaults' and 'Injuries per weapon type'. Which we have measured, but people keep ignoring in reports like this. Reports and reviews such as this usccr report are important, but we need to look at the situation at hand accurately if we want to address it properly [1]https://ucr.fbi.gov/leoka/2017 https://ucr.fbi.gov/leoka/2017 [2]https://ucr.fbi.gov/leoka/2017/tables/table-85.xls https://ucr.fbi.gov/leoka/2017/tables/table-85.xls

alistairSH 8y ago
While I don't disagree with your broader point, in several states, all assaults on law enforcement officers are felonious.[1], so felonious assault isn't a meaningful statistic (or, at least not separate from lesser assault). So, police stop you in the street for whatever reason, you brush by them, and bang, you're charged with felony assault. 1 - https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/title18.2/chapter4/section18.2-57/ https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/title18.2/chapter4/secti...

Someone1234 8y ago

Their point about police training seems quite valid (page 5). While there is federal assistance for police departments to buy military surplus equipment, there's very little assistance (outside of anti-terrorist funding) for improved and lengthened general training (e.g. de-escalation of force, averting the need for force, etc). This results in some states and cities having well trained professional police, whereas others receive minimum training and are then expected to learn "on the job." For example California police officers are now receiving better training on handling the mentally ill, something a rural police officer in another state is unlikely to receive. This is both unfair to the public and police officers alike. Unfortunately getting people to pay for things can be challenging.

x220 8y ago
Yes, and it becomes even more politically difficult to request more funding for police departments when activists paint all police with the same brush and sometimes want to literally abolish the police.
- Someone1234 8y ago
  I don't see how? Both police and police activists want better training, police to keep themselves safe, and activists to reduce the prevalence of incidents. It is a win/win politically. Now getting people to pay higher taxes to fund it? That's the real challenge.
  - x220 8y ago
    I think that most activists want those things. Some activists are like the person in this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vjIEZf8Skx4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vjIEZf8Skx4
    - Someone1234 8y ago
      It isn't reasonable to define an entire group by their biggest extremists. I've read some pretty outlandish things by upset police officers too, but just like this, I don't think it is a reflection of the majority's opinion on the topic.

teumesios 8y ago

Police serve themselves and the state, putting their lives well above those they are supposed to serve and protect. I don't think the public's opinion is likely to change until there's some radical reform. https://www.cnn.com/videos/us/2016/07/07/graphic-video-minnesota-police-shooting-philando-castile-ryan-young-pkg-nd.cnn/video/playlists/philando-castile-shot-in-minnesota/ https://www.cnn.com/videos/us/2016/07/07/graphic-video-minne... This officer shot into a car seven times with a little girl on board, murdering a man who was cooperating. And then he gets off without charge, despite there being video evidence. Where is the justice in that? People aren't that dumb, they aren't being treated fairly and they know it. According to this study, less than 30% of people believe that police behave lawfully.

x220 8y ago
>less than 30% of people believe that police behave lawfully If you ask someone if they think a large collection of individuals behaves lawfully, the answer should always be "no" because with a large enough group there will always be criminals in that group. If you're instead thinking about whether police break the law in an organized and collectively deliberate fashion, that's an entirely different question.
- teumesios 8y ago
  Uhm, what? Even if someone commits a crime, that does not make them any less able to recognize that the police break laws.
  - x220 8y ago
    Yes, the police break laws. Republicans break laws. Democrats, Muslims, Trump supporters, and Python programmers break laws. Any large group of people contains law-breakers. It's not a useful statement.
    - crooked-v 8y ago
      The difference between police officers and the rest of those groups is that all of them but police officers are self-selected and unenforced. It is entirely feasible to have a police force that break laws only negligibly by enforcing the removal of individual police who break laws.

romed 8y ago

There should be some kind of cooling-off period between when these can hit the front page and when the comments begin, proportional to the length of the document. This one is 200 pages, so the first useful comment on this report will appear tomorrow at the earliest. The only conclusion we can draw right now is that some software company has an exclusive contract to provide the government with PDF export applications that do not generate hyperlinked tables of contents, and that publishing such a document is in fact a crime against the people.

golergka 8y ago

The core of this report is intellectually the hardest pill to swallow to both sides: there's not enough data. Unfortunately, human beings are highly uncomfortable acknowledging that they don't know something, our thinking is not used to this. So, instead, both sides will continue to quote selective statistics and anecdotes that prove that they're right and the others are wrong, and will ignore all the evidence to the contrary.

dmos62 8y ago

I think many posts in this thread provide valuable commentary and mine won't add as much value, but I'd like to share a viewpoint about how it's interesting that in many countries it's considered quite normal that the police/state are antagonistic to citizens, but in U.S., while the same tension exists, there's a sense of Americans being continually surprised by that fact, as if some sense of idealism partly counteracts the media and acts as a sort of mild denial. I don't mean to be critical; I'm quite sympathetic. I grew up in a post-Soviet Bloc country, and while things have definitely changed a lot since 1980s, the mistrust in police and state was still something you could sense. However, that sense of mistrust was dramatically different, because there was no conflicting sense of "it shouldn't be like that". There was a sense of acceptance. Maybe you could call that Soviet defeatism. The only lesson I can draw from that is that it's easier to look at what's happening in U.S. if you don't presume that the state is your friend.

zzzcpan 8y ago
Well, most post-Soviet countries are also not police countries. People there are not used seeing police act much and police using weapons would be a massive news worthy story.
- coolspot 8y ago
  Maybe western ones are not, but most coming to my mind are non-free police states - Belarus[1], Tajikistan[2], Kazakhstan[3], Azerbaijan[4], Kyrgyzstan[5], Uzbekistan[6] and so on. [1] - https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-world/2018/belarus https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-world/2018/belarus [2] - https://freedomhouse.org/country/tajikistan https://freedomhouse.org/country/tajikistan [3] - https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-world/2018/kazakhstan https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-world/2018/kazakhsta... [4] - https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-world/2018/azerbaijan https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-world/2018/azerbaija... [5] - https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-world/2018/kyrgyzstan https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-world/2018/kyrgyzsta... [6] - https://freedomhouse.org/country/uzbekistan https://freedomhouse.org/country/uzbekistan
  - 8y ago

x220 8y ago

We need a different department in each state tasked with investigating and prosecuting law enforcement officers and prosecutors suspected of crime, a department that is completely separate from the rest of the normal law enforcement departments. It's a founding principle of the United States that institutions will not keep themselves in check, they instead require another institution to keep them in check (checks and balances). It's time to start applying that to law enforcement misconduct investigations and prosecution. This means that police officers won't have to go easy on their coworkers suspected of crime (so that their other coworkers won't ostracize them) and prosecutors won't have to turn a blind eye towards police misconduct (for fear of poisoning the relationship with a police department) since it won't be their job anymore. Edit: if you disagree, say why.

PavlovsCat 8y ago
I think that's a fantastic idea. It doesn't even have to be so super adversarial maybe? Like companies sometimes get consultants not just because of their knowledge, but because they have a fresh perspective and might see things where veterans have a blind spot, or might even call a naked emperor out because they're not the subject of said emperor. I'm dreaming here, but ideally, the incentive wouldn't be "nail cops for things they done wrong", but simply professionality. That department, with the same justification IMO, could also be responsible for praising officers or departments for very good conduct. And ideally, the communities would also be involved in that -- as a partner, rather than just a potential subject of police misconduct and a source of complaints.
frankydp 8y ago
You are most likely getting down voted because your suggestion is already policy and law in most(if not all) states. Applied in different ways and at different levels. For example local police(city/county) critical incidents are investigated by the state level agency, and a state agency CI would be investigated by either the FBI or neighboring state agency.
- x220 8y ago
  Thanks for the info!

qaq 8y ago

Better tech could solve some issues having some Boston dynamics based "partner" would prob solve issue of police officers overreacting in what they perceive as dangerous situations.

afarrell 8y ago
Developing the technology to automatically police an area seems like a dramatically bad idea. It would make it far easier for a wealthy elite to control territory without the accountability of needing to prevent their police/soldiers from joining the side of protestors. I’d rather live in a world where the rulers need the begrudging consent of a large number of people, for the reasons explained in The Dictator’s Handbook or in this CGP Grey video https://youtu.be/rStL7niR7gs https://youtu.be/rStL7niR7gs
- qaq 8y ago
  I am not suggesting the autonomous AI robot version more like approach stopped vehicle and take transmit info remotely to the officer at a safe distance.
mixmastamyk 8y ago
An enforcement droid eh? Maybe we could call it “ed-209” for fun. I’d buy that for a dollar.

clarkmoody 8y ago

A very nice anecdote from the article concerning community policing: A retired police officer described to me his actions when patrolling a neighborhood. After muster, he would drive his unit to an urban park in his district and start picking up trash. The residents got to know him from this and other actions. He would when time permitted play a game of horse with the kids on the basketball court or engage a dad who was at the park with his kids who might be having a beer. Interestingly, under “broken windows” theory of policing the dad would be cited for open container or taken to jail. However, this officer thought it was a good thing the dad was with the kids spending time in the park and not creating a problem. He also engaged the basketball kids. Over time he interacted this way with many citizens in his patrol area. As a result, he not only gained trust and respect from the citizens, he also gained great sources of information. However, there was no department consistency in this policy. The next officer on duty may have cited the dad or ignored the kids and merely patrolled in his/her prowler. Such a different conception of policing than most are used to.

Someone1234 8y ago
It would be nice if the US adopted the Peelian principles/Nine principles of policing[0] written by Sir Robert Peel in 1829: 1) To deter crime and disorder, as an alternative to their repression by military force and severity of legal punishment. 2) To recognise always that the power of the police to fulfil their functions and duties is dependent on public approval of their existence, actions and behaviour, and on their ability to secure and maintain public respect. 3) To recognise always that to secure and maintain the respect and approval of the public means also the securing of the willing co-operation of the public in the task of securing observance of laws. 4) To recognise always that the extent to which the co-operation of the public can be secured diminishes proportionately the necessity of the use of physical force and compulsion for achieving police objectives. 5) To seek and preserve public favour, not by pandering to public opinion, but by constantly demonstrating absolutely impartial service to law, in complete independence of policy, and without regard to the justice or injustice of the substance of individual laws, by ready offering of individual service and friendship to all members of the public without regard to their wealth or social standing, by ready exercise of courtesy and friendly good humour, and by ready offering of individual sacrifice in protecting and preserving life. 6) To use physical force only when the exercise of persuasion, advice and warning is found to be insufficient to obtain public co-operation to an extent necessary to secure observance of law or to restore order, and to use only the minimum degree of physical force which is necessary on any particular occasion for achieving a police objective. 7) To maintain at all times a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and that the public are the police, the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence. 8) To recognise always the need for strict adherence to police-executive functions, and to refrain from even seeming to usurp the powers of the judiciary, of avenging individuals or the State, and of authoritatively judging guilt and punishing the guilty. 9) To recognise always that the test of police efficiency is the absence of crime and disorder, and not the visible evidence of police action in dealing with them. Seems like US policing as a culture is slowly learning that these aren't optional, but required to effectively police a large diverse set of peoples. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peelian_principles https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peelian_principles

wonderwonder 8y ago

Even if police get extra training on deescalation, they have no incentive to apply it as there are virtually no repercussions for using force to resolve every situation. You can be arrested for no other crime than resisting arrest, police have almost godlike powers in the states and are actively protected by those meant to regulate them such as their fellow officers, prosecutors, courts and leadership. If they are caught egregiously violating civil rights, the taxpayers have to pay a fine for the officers who then return to work none the worse. Legally police officers don't even have to know the laws they are enforcing with courts having ruled that if an officer arrests you for something even if you weren't breaking the law their wrong assumption of the law trumps your 4th amendment rights. A police officer can shoot an unarmed innocent civilian in a swoop and swat and receive zero repercussions essentially turning swat teams into assassination teams on call. In my personal opinion, every accusation of police misconduct should be fully investigated by the FBI and if laws are found to have been broken then federal charges are brought and if found guilty, the officers right to be a police officer is permanently removed in much the same way people with felony's are not allowed to serve in the FBI or own a weapon. If an officer kills someone who was "reaching for their waistband" and that person is found to not have been armed, instant manslaughter charges. If officers are found to have known about a violation and protected their fellow officer even if just through their silence, they should be charged with obstruction of justice or a similar crime. Until police officers are held at the very least to the standards of their fellow citizens, things will never improve. I have seen officers off duty that are wasted pile into civilian cars and speed off then throw zoom past on duty officers who laugh and let them continue on their way. Luckily no one was killed. All of those officers should have had their badges trashed, especially those on active duty. I respect the police, they have to deal with the worst humanity has to offer and they charge into places everyone else is running from. Many of them are good people. They cannot be given carte blanche to rough people up, or kill them. They also cannot be allowed to essentially run state sanctioned gangs.

blattimwind 8y ago

If this document tries to extract "modern policing practices" from American policing practices, I doubt there is anything to learn.

qrbLPHiKpiux 8y ago

> Police officers are vitally important to the co mmunities they serve. I thought their job was "to enforce the law?"

toomanybeersies 8y ago

It's interesting seeing the difference between American police and Australian police and how they deal with violent situations. A couple of weeks ago, we had a terror incident in Melbourne, where a man set his car on fire and started trying to stab people (killing one). The police arrived on scene within seconds, and attempted to stop the attacker using non lethal methods, it was only when it was clear that he wasn't going to be stopped that one of the officers drew their firearm and shot the attacker (apparently only once too, unlike in the USA where they empty their magazine). You can view footage of the incident here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cnk4su6HSHk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cnk4su6HSHk The officer only used lethal force when it was clear that there was no other option. I don't want to speculate, but I feel like if this was the USA, both officers would've immediately unloaded their magazines into the attacker, possibly hitting bystanders (it's happened plenty of times before). Compare that to the USA, where an unarmed Australian woman who rang the police to report a possible assault was shot by the police from inside their car: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Justine_Damond https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Justine_Damond

loveyourmother 8y ago
"shot the attacker (apparently only once too, unlike in the USA where they empty their magazine)." I am not sure if you have ever dealt with someone who is a lethal threat to you but it isn't like the movies. A wounded person can still shoot and kill you or stab you. You can put multiple bullets into a target and they can still kill you. Do police over react sometimes? Of course. If you have reached the point of actually firing a weapon at an individual you don't pause in between each individual shot to wait and see if you have done enough. Each shooting is different. If you think cops are leaving their houses with the intent or hopes of shooting and killing someone then you must not know any cops. They just want to make it home at the end of their shift.
- mixmastamyk 8y ago
  Surrounding a suspect who brought a knife to a gun fight does not put one in substantial lethal danger. And there is a pattern that other countries don’t feel obliged to repeat.

solidsnack9000 8y ago

The “black-on-black” crime narrative as an explanation for police excessive use of force disregards the structural and historical issues that formed these neighborhoods, as well as the social and economic factors that currently sustain them. Paul Butler explains that the violence in black communities is a symptom of historic discrimination, brutal policing practices, and mass incarceration. Thus, if we want to decrease “black-on-black crime” we first need to address the systemic issues that maintain it. This passage starts by discussing an explanation for police excessive use of force and ends by discussing an explanation for crime within the black community. It seems like the authors are saying that we can’t use crime within the black community to explain police brutality until (unless? because?) we use systemic issues to explain this crime. This seems fuzzy. It’s likely that black-on-black crime is a symptom of something; but that doesn’t prevent it from having symptoms, too.