[unit 900]

This one is a 70 YO lady in Baltimore. A frequent flier with over 20 calls to her home in the past year for various mental issues. Several officers on scene with a Social Worker as well. She had a kitchen knife. She was tased and shook it off., though the cameras seemed to show her temporarily slowed down. When she advanced on the officers, she was fatally shot. I'm not assessing the deadly force use, though there were the usual cries about shooting her in the arm/leg/shoulder from the community. My point (finally) is that back in the day, a somewhat frail 70 year old woman would likely have been handled with a baton or other impact weapon. A body bunker or riot shield may have been brought to the scene to pin her to a wall so the knife could be taken. I was at a scene with another officer where a young teenage girl duplicated the above story (well before Tasers). We picked up a couch cushion, pinned her to the wall and a wristlock took care of the knife. We KNEW we were putting ourselves in jeopardy, but made that choice based on our experience and the on scene circumstances.

I guess my bottom line (after a longish ramble) is that it seems that waaaay back when, officers were more likely to take a risk to avoid deadly force use. Maybe it was mindset, or a desire to help rather than harm in certain circumstances. A mature knife wielding man in similar circumstances would likely have been ventilated. An old woman or young teenager seemed worth the personal risk to take into custody rather than use deadly force. Rant done, so glad I'm long retired.

 

[Leo Y]

It could be mindset, but more likely policies, procedures, and training established because of use of force complaints and lawsuits and oversight by the Federal DOJ. Baltimore has been under a Federal DOJ Consent Decree since 2017 due to the 2015 Freddie Gray death.

It sounds like you (OP) were a generation before me, I'm more recently retired (from a dept under a DOJ Consent Decree/Settlement Agreement). I see officers going through a mental check list of the resources they need, resources they have even before approaching a call like this. The seasoned officers (especially if a sgt is enroute or onscene) doing cost-benefit analysis on these types of calls.

Because of policies and procedures, some options are eliminated.
There's always some that will take action outside the box (policy/procedure) and if it works out where no one is hurt, you're a hero.
If it doesn't work out, you're thrown under the bus.

Just my 2cents.

Thank you for serving sir. I am also glad I'm retired.

 

[steveksux]

Sounds like a reliance on tools and reluctance to use hands across the board lately. Kids don't fight like they used to growing up, a few defensive tactics classes don't instill a lot of real world experience.

Randy

 

[warbow150]

I see officers going through a mental check list of the resources they need, resources they have even before approaching a call like this. The seasoned officers (especially if a sgt is enroute or onscene) doing cost-benefit analysis on these types of calls.

Good.

 

[Dragoon44]

I guess my bottom line (after a longish ramble) is that it seems that waaaay back when, officers were more likely to take a risk to avoid deadly force use.

way back when officers were hired for their ability to handle physical aggression. That required officers that had experience in getting into fights growing up. Now days that is precisely the kind of officer that many depts. do not want.

many today lack confidence in their ability to effectively handle physical confrontations unfortunately that all to often results in the officer panicking and employing deadly force As a first resort. Unlike older generations for whom deadly force was a last resort.

 

[fastbolt]

... I see officers going through a mental check list of the resources they need, resources they have even before approaching a call like this. The seasoned officers (especially if a sgt is enroute or onscene) doing cost-benefit analysis on these types of calls.

Because of policies and procedures, some options are eliminated.
...

These are the times in which we live, and it helps to remember that the executive, administrative and command staff making these policies are likely people who entered LE in the 90's. Those of us who were working under 70's & 80's doctrines, policies, procedures and equipment? We came from a 'dissimilar time of police work'.

We often went the extra mile to avoid having to use deadly force, even if it meant putting ourselves at significantly greater risk.

I also remember having it explained to me that the applicants they were looking to hire in those earlier years were those who had some 'life experience'. Not Boy Scouts. Not choir boys. Or, as a former Lt at my agency loudly exclaimed during my oral board, when I was trying to 'soften' some edges to an answer I was being asked about the willingness to use force, "We want tigers on the street, damn it! Tigers!"

I suspect that times have changed in the last 15-20 years. I remember listening to new-hires and candidates in an oral board, in the 2000's, and wondering to myself if most of them had ever even experienced a slap fight in school. I remember in the 90's, when I was working with one of our recent new-hires, and he asked me if I'd ever had to overcome resistance to an arrest. ??? He wanted to know if I'd ever had to put my hands on someone who didn't want to be arrested, and wanted to know what it was like.

I suspect that some long-in-the-tooth cops still working, and many (most?) retired cops, suspect that a lot of the younger and less experienced cops may be 'going to guns' in situations that earlier generations of cops might've resolved (or attempted to resolve) without using deadly force. Fear? Maybe so.

 

[Leo Y]

These are the times in which we live, and it helps to remember that the executive, administrative and command staff making these policies are likely people who entered LE in the 90's. Those of us who were working under 70's & 80's doctrines, policies, procedures and equipment? We came from a 'dissimilar time of police work'.

We often went the extra mile to avoid having to use deadly force, even if it meant putting ourselves at significantly greater risk.

I also remember having it explained to me that the applicants they were looking to hire in those earlier years were those who had some 'life experience'. Not Boy Scouts. Not choir boys. Or, as a former Lt at my agency loudly exclaimed during my oral board, when I was trying to 'soften' some edges to an answer I was being asked about the willingness to use force, "We want tigers on the street, damn it! Tigers!"

I suspect that times have changed in the last 15-20 years. I remember listening to new-hires and candidates in an oral board, in the 2000's, and wondering to myself if most of them had ever even experienced a slap fight in school. I remember in the 90's, when I was working with one of our recent new-hires, and he asked me if I'd ever had to overcome resistance to an arrest. ??? He wanted to know if I'd ever had to put my hands on someone who didn't want to be arrested, and wanted to know what it was like.

I suspect that some long-in-the-tooth cops still working, and many (most?) retired cops, suspect that a lot of the younger and less experienced cops may be 'going to guns' in situations that earlier generations of cops might've resolved (or attempted to resolve) without using deadly force. Fear? Maybe so.

I agree with what you said.

I started a couple years after Rodney King.
Lot of Vietnam vets still working in the 90s.
But even the old timers and mid career guys told me “we can’t thump people like we used to”.

In the 90s we still did a lot if “old school” policing.
Was taught by a lot of the old school guys.
But because of lawsuits, court decisions, etc, policing is what it is now.

Not being disrespectful to the old guard here on this forum who tend to say “we used to do it this way…”. Well, I find it ironic that what the generation before me did is what resulted in the court decisions and policies that my generation had to work against. And what my generation did probably caused additional policy and court decisions that the current generation of cops have to deal with.

And it goes on and evolves continuously.

 

[fastbolt]

...

And it goes on and evolves continuously.

Oh yeah.

The 60's policing methods caused some changes for the 70's new cops.

The 70's policing methods caused some changes to how cops who came on in the 80's could work.

The 80's methods caused some changes for the cops coming on in the 90's.

And so on, and so on.

I guess my point is that while there were some needed changes to use-of-force tactics and policies, it's the mindset and 'quality of life experience' that may have been one of the disadvantageous factors in how cops hired in the late 20-teens and early 2020's have been mentally ill-equipped to meet force in serious social interactions.

Sure, I was told by cops who had come on in the 60's & 70's how they'd done some things differently, and my group was called "The New Centurions" (and not in a good way by the older guys), but some of those things that were being changed (especially by the courts) had needed to be changed.

Once the cops of my generation who were vets of SE Asia started to taper off, we started to see college graduates with no life experience outside dorm and class rooms. I'm hoping that the influx of vets from our recent military experiences might do the same thing for LE that the Vietnam vets did for my generation. Otherwise, it seems that most colleges and universities aren't exactly churning out folks equipped with an advantageous mindset for LE.

I'm retired, though, so I'm just another spectator on the sidelines watching the parade floats go by. Just like all the earlier generations of cops.

 

[Leo Y]

Oh yeah.

The 60's policing methods caused some changes for the 70's new cops.

The 70's policing methods caused some changes to how cops who came on in the 80's could work.

The 80's methods caused some changes for the cops coming on in the 90's.

And so on, and so on.

I guess my point is that while there were some needed changes to use-of-force tactics and policies, it's the mindset and 'quality of life experience' that may have been one of the disadvantageous factors in how cops hired in the late 20-teens and early 2020's have been mentally ill-equipped to meet force in serious social interactions.

Sure, I was told by cops who had come on in the 60's & 70's how they'd done some things differently, and my group was called "The New Centurions" (and not in a good way by the older guys), but some of those things that were being changed (especially by the courts) had needed to be changed.

Once the cops of my generation who were vets of SE Asia started to taper off, we started to see college graduates with no life experience outside dorm and class rooms. I'm hoping that the influx of vets from our recent military experiences might do the same thing for LE that the Vietnam vets did for my generation. Otherwise, it seems that most colleges and universities aren't exactly churning out folks equipped with an advantageous mindset for LE.

I'm retired, though, so I'm just another spectator on the sidelines watching the parade floats go by. Just like all the earlier generations of cops.

I think in the early/mid 90s, my agency was still hiring "warrior" types (personality profile), but that shifted for a variety of reasons throughout my career. I think society shifted in the type of young people's mindset from the 2000s up to now. This is my west coast experience and perspective.

I think from the early 2000s, the progressive mindset of young people started to be predominate. So the applicant pool reflected that. From the 2000s through the 2010, the dept shifted from a "warrior" profile to one that leaned more toward a "social worker" profile in the hiring process. But it was a mix. We hired a lot of military vets too. But yes, we had a lot who had never been in a physical confrontation as well.

Those newbies who were less experienced in going hands on benefited being assigned to a seasoned FTO who had that experience to pass on. I think our training division and the FTOs did a good good for the most part. But my last third of my career, we were under DOJ Consent Decree/Settlement agreement. The new officers hired and trained during that era didn't get quality field experience (my opinion) unless they had a good FTO. Those ofcs trained during the DOJ era are now FTOs and supervisors, which propagates that "social worker" mindset. At the same time, I think what the old timers here criticize of the new crop of cops not being able to take care of business by going hands on is a result of policies, court decisions, and training as a result of such.

 

[Jarhead Al]

Why can't we have intelligent warriors. Warriors who are capable of taking care of business and intelligent enough to understand where the legal line is for taking care of business. Intelligent enough to understand when an unconventional approach will handle an unconventional situation. LE doesn't need rabid gorillas, nor does LE need overthinking educated weaklings.

 

[Dragoon44]

The type of individual you are talking about,(warriors) being a cop is not what they do, it is what they are.

 

[exfed2001]

Now days that is precisely the kind of officer that many depts. do not want.

Beyond what others have said, those types of actions today would get you labeled
as an overly aggressive officer in the PDRNJ.

Some years ago, a retired friend of mine was doing some scenario training at a local academy. He was playing the role of a guy who was seen looking into the windows of a jewelry store at night in a high crime area. Male/female trainee team "showed up" and asked what he was doing. His job was to be obnoxious and verbally aggressive. And he was really good at that (in real life).

So as he's yelling about being harassed, he hears the click, click, click of a training weapon. One of the trainees shot him three times........

 

[k9medic]

It's about liability.

I'm one of the dinosours at the agency. Started in 1998.

During a recent detac class the scenario was a pregnant lady who had a warrant. She refused to let go of the chair she was sitting in (passive resistance.) After telling her she was under arrest and to stand up I then walked behind her and applied a pressure point tactic to get her to stand. I then put her in handcuffs.

In the AAR, I was asked why I did not pepper sprayor taser her first as the optics are a lot better because if the lady fell and injured the fetus we would have to show that we used all of our tools before going hands on. I reminded the folk that all I carry is a baton and a gun.

 

[Dragoon44]

So as he's yelling about being harassed, he hears the click, click, click of a training weapon. One of the trainees shot him three times........

let me guess, that trainee is now the Chief.

😎

 

[steveksux]

Beyond what others have said, those types of actions today would get you labeled
as an overly aggressive officer in the PDRNJ.

Some years ago, a retired friend of mine was doing some scenario training at a local academy. He was playing the role of a guy who was seen looking into the windows of a jewelry store at night in a high crime area. Male/female trainee team "showed up" and asked what he was doing. His job was to be obnoxious and verbally aggressive. And he was really good at that (in real life).

So as he's yelling about being harassed, he hears the click, click, click of a training weapon. One of the trainees shot him three times........

"Because they didn't issue me 4 simunition rounds."

Randy

 

[rayzer007]

What is an "EDP"?

 

[Leo Y]

What is an "EDP"?

EDP = emotionally disturbed person

 

[fastbolt]

It's about liability.

I'm one of the dinosours at the agency. Started in 1998.

During a recent detac class the scenario was a pregnant lady who had a warrant. She refused to let go of the chair she was sitting in (passive resistance.) After telling her she was under arrest and to stand up I then walked behind her and applied a pressure point tactic to get her to stand. I then put her in handcuffs.

In the AAR, I was asked why I did not pepper sprayor taser her first as the optics are a lot better because if the lady fell and injured the fetus we would have to show that we used all of our tools before going hands on. I reminded the folk that all I carry is a baton and a gun.

Who wants to use a taser or OC on a pregnant passive-resisting subject while taking them into custody?

Of course, the real question - in real life - would be what was the warrant for, and was it worth serving on a pregnant subject at that time?

 

[rayzer007]

EDP = emotionally disturbed person

Thank you. Many years ago we knew them as "MOs" - mental observations

 

[warbow150]

Who wants to use a taser or OC on a pregnant passive-resisting subject while taking them into custody?

Of course, the real question - in real life - would be what was the warrant for, and was it worth serving on a pregnant subject at that time?

Yep. It’s gotta make sense. Discovery of a warrant doesn’t cause the world to stop spinning.