1. Welcome to Georgia Tech Swarm! JOIN US and be a part of the SWARM! GO JACKETS! THWg!

Cops

Discussion in 'The Swarm Lounge' started by Whiskey_Clear, Sep 13, 2017.

  1. RonJohn

    RonJohn Helluva Engineer

    Messages:
    2,239
    There are a couple of more things from the video. After he was shot and talking to the officer, he states that there isn't even an alarm at the house. Maybe he isn't thinking straight, or maybe he was trying to say that they didn't trigger the alarm. (Both are possible since he was probably in shock) However, if there isn't an alarm at the house, then there was a mistake either by the alarm company or the emergency call system or police.

    The other thing is that shining the flashlight at him through the window could have caused him to raise his hands toward his face, which is a normal reaction. That would cause it to appear that he was raising the gun at the officer. Police shine flashlights at suspects to protect themselves. However, shining a flashlight at a homeowner who doesn't know who is holding the flashlight doesn't seem like a good idea. The procedure should protect the police and homeowners.
     
  2. Whiskey_Clear

    Whiskey_Clear Banned

    Messages:
    10,830
    I would hope officers would be extremely cautious on such calls. Especially where there are no signs of forced entry etc. I’d rather get shot at first and then return fire than be in this officer’s shoes.
     
  3. Whiskey_Clear

    Whiskey_Clear Banned

    Messages:
    10,830
    If there is no evidence there won’t be an arrest to begin with. Or there shouldn’t be anyway.
     
  4. Technut1990

    Technut1990 Helluva Engineer

    Messages:
    784
    Well that makes my point even more. So neither side knew what was happening. The problem is that the cop didn’t know he was the homeowner, had he been a murderer and just murdered the family in the home it would be nice to see him clearly when you engage him.
     
  5. Whiskey_Clear

    Whiskey_Clear Banned

    Messages:
    10,830
    Yeah I’m not saying he shouldn’t have been using his light. But until verified otherwise you also have to presume the subject inside belongs there and may be in fear of an intruder himself.

    Retreat back to your car and use the PA if necessary. Last thing I want to do is shoot first into a house where the nature of the trouble is undetermined. Now if they shoot first it’s a different ball of wax.
     
  6. gtpi

    gtpi Helluva Engineer

    Messages:
    1,658
    lmfao at your comment. 'buddies find you'? put down the bottle.
     
  7. RonJohn

    RonJohn Helluva Engineer

    Messages:
    2,239
    The newest incident in Fort Worth is somewhat similar. However in that case it appears that there was no alarm at any residence. According to the neighbor who called, he asked for police to conduct a welfare check at the house. According to reports, the officers, instead of checking on the welfare of the residents, went into the back yard unannounced and were looking around the property. The resident, apparently afraid of intruders, got her gun to check on the unknown intruders. She was then shot by the policeman, who on the video never identified himself as a policeman.

    I am definitely not anti-police. I do think that since policemen have authority of the government to use force when necessary, there should be good policies in place to protect BOTH the policemen and the public. Policemen should be trained on those policies before they are allowed to carry weapons on the job. They should be re-trained frequently on the policies. Police organizations should hold their employees and themselves accountable for monitoring, updating, and following those policies. If an officer fails to follow the policy, they should face some consequences even if that particular failure doesn't result in harm to anyone. If a police organization allows slip ups in policies to go uncontested, it will eventually lead to tragedy.
     
  8. bwelbo

    bwelbo Helluva Engineer

    Messages:
    10,634
    Yup, this incident sucks, because I am quite sure the cop didn't show up hoping to kill an innocent lady. The welfare check also wasn’t the reason he was given for going - the dispatcher never told him that. They told him it was a possible burglary. I still don’t know why he didn’t announce himself - I have no idea what protocol is. But the whole situation is a mess.
     
  9. Technut1990

    Technut1990 Helluva Engineer

    Messages:
    784

    I agree with everything you said. I also thought the officer would be charged with murder.

    The only issue with what you said is that most organizations do exactly what you said. Cops have to pass firearms standards at least twice a year ( that includes policy, shoot don’t shoot scenarios and less than lethal force ).
    The departments I’ve been involved with require a “use of force report” be completed by a supervisor immediately after the force is used ( be it tazing, shooting or soft hand controls). Those use of force reports go up the chain for multiple reviews and approvals. Some departments then require a use of force review board which involves the officer coming before a panel of supervisors and department heads to answer questions. Offices must go through deescalation training and bias training, training on mental health patients, training on tactical approaches. I mean the training is endless !

    The problem is that there is absolutely no way to make sure that 1) the correct info gets to the officer ( **** in **** out), 2) that the officer will react to stress like he/she is suppose to. 3) that the homeowner is going to react predictably, 4) each incidents fact patterns will fit training and policy scenarios.

    It’s just impossible to predict human actions with certainty. I believe there are something like 680,000 cops in this country with over 1 million citizen interactions a day. I’m really not trying to minimize this but I’m surprised we don’t see more of these type incidents, for that matter I’m surprised we don’t have more police shooting incidents than we do.
     
    Last edited: Oct 18, 2019
  10. RonJohn

    RonJohn Helluva Engineer

    Messages:
    2,239
    Use of force reports are too late for what I am proposing:
    1) 911 operators constantly receive calls and provide information to police officers. Emergency services organizations should not wait until after a shooting to review their operators to see if they are following policy.
    2) Officers respond to stressful situations frequently. They aren't frequently involved in shootings, or even in fights. However, they are in potential burglaries, car crashes, domestic disturbances, etc. Police organizations should not wait until after a shooting, tasing, or choking to review the reactions of police officers and whether they are following policy or not.
    3) There are three issues (at least) involved in police reactions to situations: Safety of officers, Safety of the public, and apprehending criminals. If safety of the officers and public are considered more important than apprehension of criminals, then what would be the point of these officers lurking in the back yard? If there were burglars in the house and officers rang the doorbell, they would more likely run out of the back than shoot at the officers. In general, policies should stress safety over apprehension and reviews from number 2) should ensure that those policies are being followed. (There are situations such as active shooters in which allowing a suspect to escape is more dangerous than risky actions)
    4) There will be situations not covered by policy. There will also be situations in which the command structure gives orders that defy policy and/or create very dangerous situations. However if: The policies stress safety, the organizations stress the policies, the officers follow the policies and are monitored on following the policies: then the officers are more likely to respond to new situations in similar manners. (akin to muscle memory training)

    No disrespect intended towards police officers or organizations. I am basically saying that police organizations and emergency services organizations shouldn't wait until use of force has been used to monitor whether policies are being followed or not. In industrial environments OSHA monitors machine and workplace safety. If organizations wait until someone is seriously injured before checking to see if the workplace is safe, they are hit hard with fines. If they are found to have intentionally ignored serious safety issues they can be referred to prosecutors for criminal actions. Workers at industrial facilities can see and might be able to understand that their workplace isn't safe. Police officers can endanger the public by driving fast, engaging criminals, and shooting bullets.(Sometimes necessary and appropriate) A member of the general public could be injured or killed by police action almost anywhere not just isolated to a workplace.(Hit by a police car walking down the sidewalk, shot in your own home, etc) Why should the public expect more safety monitoring and control at a manufacturing facility than by the police?
     
  11. Sidewalking

    Sidewalking Banned

    Messages:
    113
    Maybe a good example of why police shouldn't even do welfare checks at all? Let a family member or neighbor check on their welfare. Then call 911 if they need to.
     
  12. Technut1990

    Technut1990 Helluva Engineer

    Messages:
    784
    Again I agree.

    Not disputing your “online management” theory at all when I say this but when cops approach any situation they are trained to assess first, when possible. This shooting was wrong but it doesn’t negate the more likely scenarios such as the homeowner could be a hostage ( or turn into one if the police knock on the door as a perp is inside with the homeowner), assessing gives the officer the ability to listen for what’s going on as well. Another scenario could be that the burglar is actually inside alone, knocking on the door allows him to run true but it also allows him to lie in wait. If the door or windows were open knocking could indicate to a crook that “the house is surrounded”. The fight or flight syndrome kicks in and they don’t always run. He can hide or lay in wait for officers to come inside and find him, another safety issue if he’s armed.

    Two story’s ;

    I responded to a harassing phone calls complaint one night. Simple call for service in which a mother called because her son was being harassed by schoolmates over the phone. We knew who was calling so mom just wanted me to ask them to stop or she would press charges. I drove about 3 blocks down the street ( around 8pm in the winter ) and walked up to the house. Before I knocked I stood there and listened. I heard a bunch of loud talking, sounded like arguing but I could understand it because it was in Spanish. I knocked on the door and loudly said “police department”. There was no response but more talking from inside. What I did hear was the slide of a handgun being activated ( very unique sound ). When I heard that I left the front porch pulled my gun and cornered the side of the house, meaning I stayed on the front corner but could see down the side where a door was. Sure enough an adult male came out the door with a gun in his hand. Since I listened I had the advantage, had I not someone, him or I, would have gotten shot. I had him at gunpoint before he could raise his arm. I gave commands and he dropped the gun. This was,t even a high priority call but being silent and listening saved one of our lives.

    One more, this one much like the Texas call.

    One night dispatch sent an adjoining beat officer to a possible burglary call. He got there and found an open window. He yelled inside the house “police” and then went to the front door and knocked ( it was shut but unlocked. He didn’t open the door but backed away and called for his back up to hurry up. By the time we had enough officers on scene the adult homeowner showed up and told us her son was upstairs suppose to be asleep. She figured it was him that set off the alarm. She gave us the house key but asked us to go inside with her, just to be safe. We insisted she stay outside and we went to the back door, because we didn’t feel everything was right ( just a feeling you get after doing it awhile).

    We were as silent as possible as we entered, with guns drawn, we creep through the house until we came to the hallway which leads to the front door. Once there we were shocked to find that a full grown man had pulled the sofa into the hallway, flipped it on its back and was crouched behind it with a 30-30 rifle aimed at the front door.

    We again had the surprise element so he did as told and was arrested. The kid was found hiding under his bed.

    The guy wasn’t a jerk and freely talked. He recognized the first officer in scene. He told him that he was burglarizing the house because he didn’t think anyone was home. When he set off the alarm he was afraid to leave the house because he thought neighbors would be looking. By the time he decided to leave he saw the cop pull up. He thought there would be more cops soon so he decided he would wait to see what happened. See if we would just leave. He said he decided to flip the sofa when he saw the officer checking the perimeter of the house. He also said that he was behind the sofa because had the officer came in through the front door he was going to kill him and leave. No doubt he would have since he was calm and collected as he told us that story.

    So the simply going to the door and knocking isn’t itself a safety issues but it can be. It’s best to evaluate, assess and then knock. The problem is that when evaluation is taking place the officer has to understand why he is doing it. It isn’t to confront anyone it’s to gain info.

    The officer in Texas should have stepped away from the window and radioed that there was someone inside the house. Officers could have had dispatch call inside or they could have brought a marked car up and turned the emergency lights on, the homeowner would have then known it was the police and the police would have known it was the homeowner.

    Procedure was ruined by the individual officers over reaction.

    One more point, your method of monitoring is good, like I said but it lacks one more thing - the supervisors. I would encourage you to get a scanner and listen to a police frequency, if you can. There are either two things going on. You will hear dispatch constantly calling a supervisor to tell him/her that they don’t have anyone in service ( meaning every car is on a call and they have more calls ). Or you will hear a supervisor telling dispatch that he will handle the low priority calls so the beat office s can handle the high priority call. It’s impossible for a supervisor to actively evaluate officers AS they work. The only way to accomplish this is to have more supervisors, which means more officers, or to reorganize manpower allocation. When we say this we get into politics. Politicians not only promise more cops on the streets, which limits promotions of supervisors but they promise community interaction. To accomplish this departments are dedicating more and more to community interaction and less and less to actual beat officers. I know of one local department that had 12 officers on shift with 2 supervisors but 22 officers in the community affairs unit.

    The result is relatively unsupervised beat officers
     
    Last edited: Oct 18, 2019
    slugboy and Sidewalking like this.
  13. Technut1990

    Technut1990 Helluva Engineer

    Messages:
    784
    No politician would allow it. It would take one family member to get denied and then get shot and killed by a real burglar.
     
  14. Sidewalking

    Sidewalking Banned

    Messages:
    113
    I'm not certain of the particulars in the Texas incident. But a welfare check as I'm familiar isn't a burglary in progress or suspicious activity call. It's a request to check the actual welfare of a person that hasn't been heard from as usual and there is concern of a health issue etc.

    It's the whole darned if you do darned if you don't. Society wants police to handle everything until something goes wrong. Then it's all the fault of the police. Why would anyone nowadays even consider beginning a career in law enforcement?
     
  15. Technut1990

    Technut1990 Helluva Engineer

    Messages:
    784

    Yeah you are right, being truthful I heard the story on the radio and to me it was a fact that the officer would be charged. I did t get anymore details because while tragic I knew the officer was either scared and overreacted or was stupid ( neither being acceptable ).

    When I heard the story the report said the neighbor became concerned due to windows and doors being open so he called police. My guess is that it was dispatched as a crime in progress ( hearing the entire 911 call and dispatch would clear that up). Police don’t normally park out of sight for a simple welfare check and walk to the house. On welfare checks you evaluate as you approach from a more visible area. My guess is that some lights were on inside, they could have heard talking etc.... had the one officer not shot.

    As a cop I just can’t imagine shooting someone inside. I would have no idea who that person was.

    A point to note, cops are also trained to retreat when possible, this would be one of those situations.

    As far as doing it, my son applied to do it, I called internal affairs and told them he was a hothead. I will never allow him to do it, right or wrong I will sabotage him. I told him to be a fireman
     
    Whiskey_Clear and Sidewalking like this.
  16. RonJohn

    RonJohn Helluva Engineer

    Messages:
    2,239
    I heard the head of the police department say that the officer violated protocol, but I haven't heard what the protocol was or what violation he committed. If the only violation was pulling the trigger, then my comments don't apply. However, I think it is probably more than that. I also think that it is highly likely that this officer had probably engaged in situations before that didn't follow the protocols. If it had been found through audits that he and/or his partner weren't following the correct procedures for approaching/announcing/scouting/etc then it might have been possible to correct his behavior before something bad happened. Not only would the resident possibly be alive now, but the officer would be in much better condition also.

    I think too often people think about work quality audits or evaluations as solely a punitive action. I look at them more as something like athletes watching film with coaches. The goal for the employer is to improve the quality of the employees. The goal of the employee should be to get better at their job. I appreciate feedback on my work, although at this point in my career I am doing more coaching than being coached. I think most police officers would learn from such audits. If an officer were to consistently ignore protocols and not respond to feedback, then I think it would be in the best interest of the public for that person to not be a police officer. However, I don't think that would be but a small minority of police officers.

    If there is a lack of supervision, then that should definitely be addressed. Another comparison I would make is to airline mechanics. The public would be outraged if an airline didn't: properly train, properly test, properly supervise, or properly audit: airline mechanics because their work if not properly accomplished puts lives in danger. Police officers need the same level of support: training, testing, supervision, and auditing: because they have authority and responsibility be in, respond to, and engage in dangerous situations.
     
  17. RonJohn

    RonJohn Helluva Engineer

    Messages:
    2,239
    I haven't heard the phone call from the neighbor. It was supposedly to a non-emergency number instead of 911, so I don't know if it was recorded. The neighbor claims that he asked for a welfare check because her door had been open for a long time. For the neighbor, sometimes what you think you say doesn't match the words that come out of your mouth. For the operator, sometimes what you think you heard doesn't match the words that came to your ears. It is entirely possible that the neighbor believed he was expressing a concern about the welfare of his neighbor while at the same time the operator heard a frantic rant about the neighbors door being open when nobody was supposed to be in the house.

    It is also possible that the door being open is an automatic "breech" situation in the police policy. I have no idea, just stating it is a possibility.

    My posts might come across as blaming the police, but that isn't my intent. I think there are some systematic issues with police organizations that need to be addressed: Lack of oversight(as I have addressed in these recent posts), Civil forfeiture practices, and over-use of no-knock warrants would be some of the big ones. I don't see those as issues with individual officers or organizations, although you might find individual officers or organizations that have greater issues with some of those. I see those as issues that appear to be general problems.
     
  18. Technut1990

    Technut1990 Helluva Engineer

    Messages:
    784

    I don’t see your post as blaming the police, I see very legitimate points and concerns. I have been a training officer for 28 or so years, on the road and in the homicide unit. The standard is to explain ( as many times as needed), demonstrate ( as many times as needed) and then have them perform the task until the trainer is satisfied ( as many times as needed.

    The typical time a rookie spent with me was 3 months, once I gave him/her a clearance to be solo we employed a shadow technique of monitoring. Meaning we were in separate cars but I monitored where they went what they were doing and how they did it. I was there if they had questions and I was there to correct anything I saw. The shadow period lasted about 2 weeks, after that I had no say so over them anymore. Responsibility fell on supervisors.

    The answer to the issue is training, regular mental evaluations, practical exercises involving role play, varying assignments to prevent apathy and the creation of a secondary level of road supervision. The secondary level would be dedicated to active analysis of on duty officers. They would correct, monitor and if needed refer for remedial training. This level should not be expected to act as administrative supervisors who take citizen zen complaints on officers, monitor call volume and dispatch or handle use of force issues. Their sole purpose would be to watch the performance of active officers.

    When I was out there they used supervisors to run admin errands such as escorting commissioners, transporting admin paperwork to the courts and filling in for desk officers when they had court. No way could they really know what or how we were doing things on the road, call to call.
     
  19. Technut1990

    Technut1990 Helluva Engineer

    Messages:
    784
    I believe I heard the officer that shot had been hired in April. If true and he had no other experience I believe he panicked, not an excuse but an evaluation. If he was suppose to still be in a training environment then his training officer may have failed everyone. If he was out of training and acting solo he hadn’t been for long.
     
  20. Peacone36

    Peacone36 ACCBasketballReport.com Contributing Writer

    Messages:
    9,197
    nooooo no no no. I was in Greensboro working when my uncle had a sort of psychotic break. He basically went into the woods for 2 days and disappeared. When he emerged, the first person he called was my mother who went to gather him. Luckily, my cousin is a sheriff and went with her. But in those instances the last thing you want is someone who emotionally invested in the person who may possibly be suffering from a sudden onset of mental illness as the person doing the checking could easily (and most likely) be the one who ends up being harmed.
     
    slugboy likes this.

Share This Page