Does law enforcement
jump too quickly or bend too easily with the wind of the day on issues that
we’ve faced for many years and can show successes?
I’ve taken the liberty
of editing somewhat an Email I received from an old friend, Pete Sarna. He’s one of several old sages in police work
that I value. Not just because he’s old
like I am, but because he’s spent his time in the trenches rather than in
statistical studies and grant funded projects.
“Per my Emerson Society
(a gathering of some law enforcement sages I discussed last year in one of the
my blogs) remarks (regarding making seismic policy shifts at great cost on
questionable evidence), Dr. Lawrence Sherman now reaches a contrary finding to
his earlier research in the 80’s that triggered a monstrous avalanche of policy
changes in police response to domestic violence – mandatory arrest. Much of current policy and practice---even
the law---is apparently based upon a now-discredited body of research.
Who is to say that this round is any more valid, although it's hard to argue
with blood all over the floor? If we are talking harm reduction as the
basic strategy, mandatory arrest is a "drug" that has failed clinical
trials. Maybe discretion, with some guidance and greater non-police
resources on call (in contrast to a time-bound, desk-bound service delivery
model under which other responders work), is not a bad thing, after all.
I recall a time in Oakland when we had specialized two-officer cars to handle
domestic violence calls; their choice of options included arrest, but the
ultimate decision was a matter of judgment given each set of circumstances.
Although specialists, they operated as an integral part of a patrol team and
responded to other sorts of calls as well. I still claim some form of
team policing with a territorial imperative is the optimum model. I am
not suggesting that we toss shoes into the machinery by any means, but we need
to be a bit more skeptical and sophisticated when it comes to research claims.”
I’m sure you can think
of others. I’m amazed that so many
police agencies have abandoned any form of neck restraint hold. I hear police managers and policymakers say
it has been banned by court decisions.
Nothing can be further from the truth.
For the most part, courts have steadfastly refused to declare a tool or
tactic we use as unconstitutional. That
goes for the neck restraint, as well.
Consider the thousands of times it has been used successfully. It was easy to teach and easy to remember how
to apply it properly. How many of you
use the PR24 as a come-along tool? Maybe a martial arts fan, but not the normal
street cop. The abandonment of the neck
restraint is simply another example of our knee jerk reaction when we are
challenged by well meaning, but ill-formed people.
I’ve heard of chiefs who
have put their agency’s Tasers back in the box.
I’m afraid more will make that knee jerk reaction, as well. They forget the successful outcomes including
tremendous reductions in subject injuries, officer injuries and worker’s comp
rates, and complaints of “excessive force.”
Yes, some people have died who have been involved in an incident where
the Taser was used. But, consider the
hundreds of thousands who have lived and haven’t got shot because the Taser was
properly used.
So what have you seen
that demonstrates our knee jerk reaction?
What do you think will be the next ill-founded decision by police
policymakers to throw out the good in response to ill-informed attacks?
No comments:
Post a Comment