Doctor Fate wrote:However, the Federal government has no business getting involved--and I'm confident that is the intent of the President. Mark it down: he is going to look for ways to increase Federal control of the local PDs and that's as wrong as it could be.

So if the local PDs continue to erode training and qualification standards as part of keeping costs down, who will reverse the trend? Does it come down to States overriding local authorities? And what if some States don't want to? Do you refuse to let the Federal government deal with an issue because of where it sits, even if no-one else actually will deal with is?

Mind you, the crime rates are lower than 30 years ago, too.

rickyp wrote:Fate

The sad truth is the bar needs to be higher for law enforcement. Instead, what has happened over the last 30 years is the physical, intelligence, and integrity standards have been lowered

From what i read most academy course are about a year long Fate?

I can still sing the song. "Eighteen weeks of living hell . . ."

I think they stretched it a bit since then, but it's nothing approaching a year.

And although most of the job of policing comes down to communication and dealing with the public, there doesn't seem to be that much emphasis on teaching these skills.

There is some, but you can't bring out the communicator in someone who just isn't a communicator.

In that vein... In a perfect world...
Police officers have a difficult job and deserve both longer and better training to equip them for their jobs. They also deserve far better pay in order to attract more mature, college educated prospects.
Officers get into Police academies at 21... If they got out and on the streets and full duty officers when they were 25, after 4 years of school, including "apprentice policing", they'd be better equipped to deal with some of the situations they encounter I suspect. (I'm thinking of dealing with things like domestic violence, mentally ill people, and more.. )

Emotionally, sure, that would be great. Physically, the sooner they start the better. It takes a toll.

We also have police officers doing things that should be automated... Traffic violations like speeding cameras and red light cameras would eliminate some of the dangerous traffic stops and have proven to be more effective at actually reducing the problems. (Because the cameras are pervasive.) Google is going to elimiante this in the future anyway with driverless cars...)
And I think doing away with seizure of property by police forces would improve their reputations..

.

My old department has replaced officers with civilians in as many places as possible. In fact, I would argue they went overboard.

Fate

However, the Federal government has no business getting involved

How about in setting standards and curriculum for academies and funding them so that poor areas had equally as well trained police as wealthy areas?

Federal money = Federal control. Policing is a State issue. Period.

Fate

I can still sing the song. "Eighteen weeks of living hell . . ."

18 weeks is enough training to provide people with the skills required ?



fate

There is some, but you can't bring out the communicator in someone who just isn't a communicator

Then the screening for who is accepted into police training needs to be much better. And the pool of applicants needs to be much better....
A person who doesn't have the requisite abilities shouldn't be accepted.

Fate

Emotionally, sure, that would be great. Physically, the sooner they start the better. It takes a toll.

Wouldn't you prefer that the officers be able to avoid the situations and better control the situations without a resort to violence? More mature officers will do that.
If a less violent, more professional police force is desirable then the physical nature of the job is going to be less. And the reliance on the use of muscle less.
It seems that the reliance on physical response is the problem. Not the solution.

Fate

Federal money = Federal control. Policing is a State issue. Period

Equal protection under the law is a constitutional requirement.
If a state or city can't maintain a minimum standard of training and later of enforcement, they would be in violation of the 14th amendment.
What takes precedence? "States Rights" or "Constitutional protections?"

rickyp wrote:Equal protection under the law is a constitutional requirement.

What does equal protection mean to you? I have shown how you want unequal protection for accused police and non-police. You have yet to answer to your earlier statements.

rickyp wrote:Fate

I can still sing the song. "Eighteen weeks of living hell . . ."

18 weeks is enough training to provide people with the skills required ?

Sometime later, we would go to "Patrol school" (four additional weeks).

I don't think you really understand what those 18 weeks were like. They were 12 to 15 hour days, five days a week, We also had homework, exams, ride-alongs, and occasional weekend work. The Department violated all kinds of labor laws because . . . who was going to report them?

When we graduated, we got like 100 hours of "saved" overtime. Gee, thanks.

We went to work in the free world's largest jail system for 1 1/2 to 2 years. Interacting with hundreds of convicts a day was "educational."

When we got to patrol, we would have a training officer for 6 months. So, there was quite a bit of training.

fate

There is some, but you can't bring out the communicator in someone who just isn't a communicator

Then the screening for who is accepted into police training needs to be much better. And the pool of applicants needs to be much better....
A person who doesn't have the requisite abilities shouldn't be accepted.

Really? Now, think for a moment. Try to quantify that. Someone doesn't get hired for an ill-defined intangible? Oh, there won't be a lawsuit--or a thousand--over that.

Fate

Emotionally, sure, that would be great. Physically, the sooner they start the better. It takes a toll.

Wouldn't you prefer that the officers be able to avoid the situations and better control the situations without a resort to violence? More mature officers will do that.
If a less violent, more professional police force is desirable then the physical nature of the job is going to be less. And the reliance on the use of muscle less.
It seems that the reliance on physical response is the problem. Not the solution.

Oh brother. I have presumed too much here.

When I say "physical," I don't mean the ability to wrestle one's opponent to the ground. In fact, in my couple of decades worth of work in the field, I'd say the number of "fights" I was in would be less, far less, than one a year.

The physical aspect is wearing 15-20 lbs. of gear every day. In patrol, it's doing that plus getting in/out of the vehicle 40-50 times a day, etc.

It takes a toll.

Fate

Federal money = Federal control. Policing is a State issue. Period

Equal protection under the law is a constitutional requirement.

Feel free to make the argument in case. I suspect this is one the Left won't win--or get much support. Even in liberal areas, people want their department to be their department. We have small departments in MA, even though they are not good fiscal choices (bigger departments are more efficient--to a point). Why? Because people want accountability. If the edicts for local departments are coming from DC . . . yikes. Plus, what's the difference between that and a "police state?" The answer is "it's a thin line, based mostly on the mercy and kindness of DC."

If a state or city can't maintain a minimum standard of training and later of enforcement, they would be in violation of the 14th amendment.
What takes precedence? "States Rights" or "Constitutional protections?"

The Department of Justice can and does get involved (too much) in some situations. However, when more and more funding comes from DC, so will the mandates.

And, in fact, the Feds have funded some idiotic police initiatives. I mentioned this some years ago: during the Clinton Administration, there was "COPS" money being spent to run homeless people out of a park in a rather poor area of the County. That was not the Federal directive. The Feds were interested in "community-based policing." Well, the community didn't like homeless people milling around their neighborhoods.

Congress and the President telling police departments what to do . . . not the American ideal.

bbauska

What does equal protection mean to you? I have shown how you want unequal protection for accused police and non-police. You have yet to answer to your earlier statements

I answered you. You continue to be deliberately obtuse.
Or you seem to think that equal must mean exactly the same.

A police officer can have his or her rights protected but go through a different legal process than a civilian.
It is appropriate that a police officer involved in an incident involving use of force where someone is injured or killed should go through a unique process. That process is there to ensure that the integrity of the police force is protected. And that integrity is vital if the force is to continue to have the wide spread support and confidence of the populace. Our nations, after all, are not police states.
It is very important that the populace understand that police are accountable, and accountable to a high standard. In jurisdictions I am familiar with, a separate and independent investigative force takes over the investigation of incidents in order to ensure this happens with out the difficulties of apparent conflicts of interest and self interest that happen when forces investigate themselves. Or prosecution is handled by familiar legal representatives.
In Ferguson, the police force didn't follow the regulations on reporting of incidents ... That hasn't been explained, or accounted for ... which in itself shows that the police were treated unequally but preferentially... (I suppose you noted this with your penchant for equality?)
The grand jury proceeding, besides in itself being a flawed legal procedure that every nation that evolved from English law has abandoned, was not appropriate in Ferguson. The DA abused the process by allowing perjury. He also abandoned the normal process in GJ proceedings and dumped the responsibility for a proper verdict on an unschooled jury who had neither opposing council or a judiciary there to guide them, as happens in preliminary hearings.(He also couldn't have got away with allowing perjured testimony in a preliminary hearing.) None of that has left a large portion of the populace with confidence in either the justice system or the police.

There was nothing resembling equality in the Ferguson investigation.. For that reason, the police there, and throughout the US, seem to have been dealt a blow to their credibility.

All due respect Fate, your training regimen pales when compared to most occupations.
And seems particularly threadbare when compared to the situations and problems that police are required to deal with...
All I'm saying is that there would be a helluva lot fewer incidents if the quality of officer hired and the training were much improved.

fate

Now, think for a moment. Try to quantify that. Someone doesn't get hired for an ill-defined intangible?

That you don't think that communication skills, negotiating skills, etc. can't be well defined... and measured speaks volumes.
There are many tests and evaluations that can determine whether or not someone has good quality communication skills or is adequately employing techniques and methods taught. It probably takes more time than the average police academy provides ...

Fate

The physical aspect is wearing 15-20 lbs. of gear every day. In patrol, it's doing that plus getting in/out of the vehicle 40-50 times a day, etc.

Oh boo hoo. There's plenty of occupations far more demanding physically.

Fate

Plus, what's the difference between that and a "police state?"

National standards do not mean a police state.
In fact, improved standards of accountability, training and education would help make the police conduct their roles more professionally. Eliminating many of the incidents caused by seemingly arbitrary and poor judgement. (Like rousting a mentally ill person as described in the Michigan incident.)

rickyp wrote:All due respect Fate, your training regimen pales when compared to most occupations.

With no respect whatsoever, that's an insipid statement.

This is not medicine. It's not practicing law. I used to say I was "a civil relations engineer." My job was to help people get along. That's roughly a solid year of training, with the first 20 weeks being very intense.

And seems particularly threadbare when compared to the situations and problems that police are required to deal with...
All I'm saying is that there would be a helluva lot fewer incidents if the quality of officer hired and the training were much improved.

If you want lawyers with guns, be prepared to triple the salaries

fate

Now, think for a moment. Try to quantify that. Someone doesn't get hired for an ill-defined intangible?

That you don't think that communication skills, negotiating skills, etc. can't be well defined... and measured speaks volumes.

No, you don't get it. You think such tests are going to be "color-blind?" Look at education rates. You're going to hire more whites than ever.

Plus, women would do well, but guess what? Fewer women want to be cops.

The problem is you are looking at this issue through a very small lens. There are many other factors. That you think you understand police work is reflective of your inexplicable arrogance.

Fate

The physical aspect is wearing 15-20 lbs. of gear every day. In patrol, it's doing that plus getting in/out of the vehicle 40-50 times a day, etc.

Oh boo hoo. There's plenty of occupations far more demanding physically.

Probably not as many as you think when taking into account the numbers required, then factor in criminality, education, etc.

Fate

Plus, what's the difference between that and a "police state?"

National standards do not mean a police state.

Right. Just makes it easier to transform the U.S. into one.

In any event, you have an excessively simplistic idea of what the job entails. You also don't understand the training. Actually, you don't understand much.

There's a newsflash.

Then I just plain disagree with you.

Thanks for finally explaining your definition of equality...

Maybe there is something to this body camera idea. The city of Rialto has had a one year pilot program. Instances of use of force declined from 61 to 25--that is a pretty steep decline. http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/6377626

The police chief said "when you put a camera on a police officer they tend to behave a little better, follow the rules a little better..."

As for job demands, just all that driving is fatiguing. There is also stress. I would not quibble at all with the idea that being a police officer on patrol takes a toll and younger officers can handle it better.
But I think we can exempt from that description sheriffs deputies that staff courtrooms--that's a cushy job...

freeman3 wrote:As for job demands, just all that driving is fatiguing. There is also stress. I would not quibble at all with the idea that being a police officer on patrol takes a toll and younger officers can handle it better.
But I think we can exempt from that description sheriffs deputies that staff courtrooms--that's a cushy job...

Yes it is. I tried to get to be "Rusty the Bailiff," but that didn't work out. It's a long story.

In any event, stress is definitely a job factor that doesn't quite fit into a slot. We used to say that our job was many hours of boredom interspersed with moments of sheer terror.

Not sure where to put this article (it's not directly relevant to the topic), and I make no comment, but I found it interesting .http://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/cgi ... xt=facpubs

Fate

In any event, you have an excessively simplistic idea of what the job entails. You also don't understand the training. Actually, you don't understand much

.

Upon reflection, I couldn't but help but wonder how you arrived at this statement. I've been arguing that the job is much more complex and difficult than the current training and education and screening accounts for....
I've said that the pay should be higher in order to attract the best candidates. That the training needs to be far more comprehensive and encompass far greater education in dealing with people through non-violent means. You've already said this was how you dealt with most situations...and have agreed that it is preferable. No?
Your the one who's arguing that the current training and candidate pool is good enough. Which indicates that your idea of the job complexities and difficulties is actually more simplistic. And you seem to have made the case that whatever the current pay rates, its good enough and attracting just the right kinds of candidates...
Moreover, you have said that states should forgo federal money that might be used to train officers or improve officers pay ... in order to protect the notion of states rights. How does this address the improvement in police standards? Or don't you care about that the standard of policing improving everywhere?
Just asking

Do you consider the citizen has some culpability in these situations?