A Culture of Safety in the police

[Llama_Llogophile]

@Babale

If cops had the same attitude you describe in pilots, things may improve greatly (but as a counterpoint, aren’t most crashes nowadays still caused by failure or craziness on the pilot’s part?)

That’s a bit broad.

While it’s true that most incidents / accidents are the result of pilot error, this is due to two factors:

1. Humans fly airplanes
2. The regulations are written in such a way that the pilots can almost always be blamed

It’s also true, as previously noted, that the accident rate has become very, very low and it’s most definitely due to the culture change I talked about. Technology plays a role too, but flying is still a human endeavor.

Frankly, I’m a bit angered by the pushback I hear from police, here on this board and elsewhere, that the changes we’re talking about shouldn’t / can’t / won’t happen, or are unrealistic. My anger stems from my sense of professionalism.

We’ve worked hard in aviation to improve and be accountable. It’s perhaps the most highly regulated industry in existence, medicine included from what I’m told. And as a pilot I’m held to a very high standard (as it should be). So in practice, if I sneeze in the cockpit in a way that doesn’t conform to FAA regulations and company procedures it will likely have to be justified to someone. I can file that report I mentioned, but it can be escalated. In short - I’m held accountable for errors, even relatively small ones. An example:

Some months ago I was flying the jet, while my partner was working the radios. We were cleared to take off and climb to 5000’. During the climb ATC amended that to 8000, then issued a climb to 12000’ to another airplane with a similar call sign. My partner misconstrued the latter call for us, I heard it that way too, and we climbed to 12000’. The controller alerted us we had gone above our assigned altitude, gave us a turn and the flight continued normally.

Let’s take note: nothing happened. We didn’t get near another airplane, no traffic had to be moved because of the error, nobody was actually endangered. But this is considered a fairly serious error nonetheless. We had to file reports, we both had to speak to our internal safety committee, and the FAA could have chosen to investigate further (though they did not in this case).

This was all for an event that resulted in nobody getting hurt, no emergency declared. It was a procedural error, a known gotcha situation, but obviously one that COULD have resulted in danger. So the system correctly, IMHO, requires action.

Compare that to policing. From what I’ve been reading, it’s a very different story.

[Babale]

@MikeF

Explain to me again why an officer killing an active shooter should be considered a failure. A failure on the part of the officer? A failure as far as society as whole maybe, but the cop? That’s like saying a pilot who successfully lands a plane on fire should be considered a failure. Something failed but not the pilot. (Not to mention the pilot didn’t get onto the plane knowing that it was on fire.)

A failure in that the mission (capture the criminal) had failed. A vastly better outcome than the shooter escaping or continuing their rampage, but not a success. The cop doesn’t need to be punished, but the department as a whole should learn from the incident so they can do better in the future.

• searching a house or business for a possible burglar

This is INSANE – you want the cop to draw their weapon for a POSSIBLE burglar!!! How about confirming that there is a burglar before you even think about drawing a firearm, so you don’t shoot a member of the household who you weren’t aware of (something thats been in the news a lot lately…) And even if there IS a burglar, drawing a gun is a severe overreaction to an unarmed suspect and exactly the kind of attitude that led to 1004 police shootings last year.

• approaching a car where the occupants are possible felony suspects

DO NOT DRAW YOUR GUN AGAINST A “POSSIBLE” ANYTHING. And even if they’re felony suspects, why is a gun needed unless you have evidence that they are armed too?

• approaching a car where the behavior of the occupants leads the officer to believe
  criminal activity afoot

This time we at least have evidence of wrongdoing. Great – but why is a firearm needed unless there is evidence that the suspects are armed and dangerous?

• arresting a suspect believed to have committed a violent crime

Again – why does an officer need their firearm drawn while arresting someone who may have committed a violent crime unless the officer has reason to believe that the suspect is CURRENTLY armed?

• approaching anyone who the officer believes is armed

If this “anyone” is not suspected of wrongdoing why do you want a cop to draw their weapon on them? There is a right to be armed in this country. (I think thats a stupid right, and if guns were illegal I would agree)

• responding to any call for a violent crime

Why does the officer need a weapon drawn when responding to a violent crime if the crime in question doesn’t involve a weapon that could pose a threat to the officer?

• engaging in a foot pursuit

:dubious: so a cop should draw his gun when chasing a suspect he does not believe to be armed nor dangerous? Why on earth?

• when the officer believes that display of the weapon will help maintain control of a
  situation.

This is legitimately one of the scariest things I have ever read on this forum.

There are others but to create a system where cops are literally taken off the street for preparing to protect themselves is a bit much.

We have a system where cops routinely take unarmed and nondangerous suspects (and people the police mistook for a suspect) off the streets FOREVER.

[kevlaw]

@HMS_Irruncible

The problem with this approach is that it only addresses systemic problems. I believe most of the problems in policing are not systemic, but rather cultural and structural.

Certainly a culture of safety should look at cultural problems as well as systemic problems ( HINT: it’s right there in the name ).

[Babale]

@Llama_Llogophile

That’s a bit broad.

While it’s true that most incidents / accidents are the result of pilot error, this is due to two factors:

1. Humans fly airplanes
2. The regulations are written in such a way that the pilots can almost always be blamed

It’s also true, as previously noted, that the accident rate has become very, very low and it’s most definitely due to the culture change I talked about. Technology plays a role too, but flying is still a human endeavor.

Frankly, I’m a bit angered by the pushback I hear from police, here on this board and elsewhere, that the changes we’re talking about shouldn’t / can’t / won’t happen, or are unrealistic. My anger stems from my sense of professionalism.

We’ve worked hard in aviation to improve and be accountable. It’s perhaps the most highly regulated industry in existence, medicine included from what I’m told. And as a pilot I’m held to a very high standard (as it should be). So in practice, if I sneeze in the cockpit in a way that doesn’t conform to FAA regulations and company procedures it will likely have to be justified to someone. I can file that report I mentioned, but it can be escalated. In short - I’m held accountable for errors, even relatively small ones. An example:

Some months ago I was flying the jet, while my partner was working the radios. We were cleared to take off and climb to 5000’. During the climb ATC amended that to 8000, then issued a climb to 12000’ to another airplane with a similar call sign. My partner misconstrued the latter call for us, I heard it that way too, and we climbed to 12000’. The controller alerted us we had gone above our assigned altitude, gave us a turn and the flight continued normally.

Let’s take note: nothing happened. We didn’t get near another airplane, no traffic had to be moved because of the error, nobody was actually endangered. But this is considered a fairly serious error nonetheless. We had to file reports, we both had to speak to our internal safety committee, and the FAA could have chosen to investigate further (though they did not in this case).

This was all for an event that resulted in nobody getting hurt, no emergency declared. It was a procedural error, a known gotcha situation, but obviously one that COULD have resulted in danger. So the system correctly, IMHO, requires action.

Compare that to policing. From what I’ve been reading, it’s a very different story.

This is the greatest thing I’ve ever read on the Dope. Thank you.

[HMS_Irruncible]

@kevlaw

Certainly a culture of safety should look at cultural problems as well as systemic problems ( HINT: it’s right there in the name ).

HINT: “systemic problems” does not automatically imply “culture of safety”. The culture and the system are related but different things.

[bump]

@HMS_Irruncible

The problem with this approach is that it only addresses systemic problems. I believe most of the problems in policing are not systemic, but rather cultural and structural.

Not to be flip, but that’s pretty much what “systemic” means. They’re problems inherent in the system- cultural and structural ones.

I think a culture of safety would work well, as long as it wasn’t promulgated as a method to penalize mistakes or root out bad cops. That’s in large part what got us where we are today, where police forces are very insular, and view their cop colleagues as “good” and everyone who’s not a cop as either a criminal or someone looking to pass judgment on them. Combine that with an unhealthy dose of fear about how unsafe they perceive their job as being (it’s not really if you look at the killed/injured statistics), and a emphasis on the use of force to solve problems, and you end up with a situation where you have a group that feels opposed to everyone not in the group, doesn’t trust outside the group, and most importantly, doesn’t respect outside the group.

But if it was done in a way that is meant to be preventative instead of punitive, it might stand a chance, and in a way that doesn’t generate monumental amounts of extra work. That’s another thing- nobody goes for stuff like this that increases their workload, especially if it’s not what they’re being judged on for their performance evaluations.

The biggest problem, like I said above, is that cops aren’t going to feel like it’s a good thing- they’re going to look at any external auditor of that kind of thing as an interloper bent on removing their jobs and identities as cops, and any internal group is going to be under a lot of peer pressure.

I do think it would have to be fairly circumscribed- specifically to uses of force- shootings, fighting, night-sticks, etc… or specific incidents either caught on film, or from citizen complaints.

[Velocity]

AIUI, the main difference between police safety and airline safety is that with airline safety, there isn’t an “adversary”, so to speak - everyone shares the common goal of wanting airline travel to be safer and as safe as possible. Hence, if NTSB says, “This aircraft’s design resulted in a deep stall because the T-tail couldn’t respond to airflow”, everyone has incentive to take heed.

But with police, there are “adversaries” - namely, armed criminals - who could take advantage of police being more gun-shy. This doesn’t mean making the cops gun-shy is a bad idea, it’s just that that may be why cops are warier of such regulation than airline pilots heeding warnings from NTSB.

[SCAdian]

@Babale

This is INSANE – you want the cop to draw their weapon for a POSSIBLE burglar!!! How about confirming that there is a burglar before you even think about drawing a firearm, so you don’t shoot a member of the household who you weren’t aware of (something thats been in the news a lot lately…) And even if there IS a burglar, drawing a gun is a severe overreaction to an unarmed suspect and exactly the kind of attitude that led to 1004 police shootings last year.

DO NOT DRAW YOUR GUN AGAINST A “POSSIBLE” ANYTHING. And even if they’re felony suspects, why is a gun needed unless you have evidence that they are armed too?

This time we at least have evidence of wrongdoing. Great – but why is a firearm needed unless there is evidence that the suspects are armed and dangerous?

Again – why does an officer need their firearm drawn while arresting someone who may have committed a violent crime unless the officer has reason to believe that the suspect is CURRENTLY armed?
If this “anyone” is not suspected of wrongdoing why do you want a cop to draw their weapon on them? There is a right to be armed in this country. (I think thats a stupid right, and if guns were illegal I would agree)
Why does the officer need a weapon drawn when responding to a violent crime if the crime in question doesn’t involve a weapon that could pose a threat to the officer?
:dubious: so a cop should draw his gun when chasing a suspect he does not believe to be armed nor dangerous? Why on earth?

This is legitimately one of the scariest things I have ever read on this forum.
We have a system where cops routinely take unarmed and nondangerous suspects (and people the police mistook for a suspect) off the streets FOREVER.

How many cops do you think are psychic enough to know whether a suspect is armed or not? How many are fast enough to draw and shoot to defend themselves if they walk around a corner and find the suspect pointing a gun at them? As the Boy Scouts say, “Be prepared.”

[Babale]

@SCAdian

How many cops do you think are psychic enough to know whether a suspect is armed or not? How many are fast enough to draw and shoot to defend themselves if they walk around a corner and find the suspect pointing a gun at them? As the Boy Scouts say, “Be prepared.”

No, cops shouldn’t get to put their lives ahead of the lives of civilians. You have perfectly described the mindset many cops take when they interact with the community - that everyone is a potential suspect, everyone is potentially armed, and everyone is potentially out to kill them. THAT MINDSET IS NOT ACCEPTABLE FOR THE PEOPLE WHOSE JOB IS TO SERVE AND PROTECT US. I REPEAT. THAT MINDSET IS NOT ACCEPTABLE.

[Grey]

I suppose they would need to review their protocols and perhaps add some tools, like small drones that fly ahead of them to check around corners.

As for the relative number of people a police officer encounters every day - the vast majority are not suspects.

[kevlaw]

@SCAdian

How many cops do you think are psychic enough to know whether a suspect is armed or not? How many are fast enough to draw and shoot to defend themselves if they walk around a corner and find the suspect pointing a gun at them?

How do police in other countries (that do not kill 1000 of their citizens per year) manage this?

[pkbites]

@Babale

THAT MINDSET IS NOT ACCEPTABLE FOR THE PEOPLE WHOSE JOB IS TO SERVE AND PROTECT US.

Babale, you don’t know what I know. And when I tell you what I know, whoa Nelly! You a’int gonna like it!

[Babale]

@pkbites

Babale, you don’t know what I know. And when I tell you what I know, whoa Nelly! You a’int gonna like it!

:dubious: Manufacturing external threats and using them as pretext to seize power is literally the oldest trick in the strongman book. Sorry, but I’m not very impressed.

[Babale]

Somehow I missed this insane post.

@pkbites

We already have to document anytime we draw any weapon regardless if it is a handgun, long gun, taser, OC, or baton.

Good, and that should make you think long and hard before you draw. I can’t speak about any specific cops, but as a whole, they DON’T think nearly hard enough before escalating to weapons. Your own post contains many examples of this. This is a problem that needs to be addressed.

By your standard when I am approaching a vehicle with tinted windows with my sidearm drawn but down along the back of my strong side leg (this is a trained and permissible maneuver) and never aim it at anyone, after the stop you would have me yanked off the road.

Unless you have reason to believe that the occupants of the vehicle are armed and dangerous, then fuck no you shouldn’t have your gun out.

While searching for a burglary or robbery suspect in a neighborhood at night of course the 2, 3, or more officers are going to have their weapons drawn while measuring around corners. You’re going to yank every one of them off the street?

If there was no evidence the suspect was armed, then FUCK YES, before they murder some innocent black kid who fits their suspect’s description because he’s 4’8"-6’4" and dark.

During what is considered a high risk traffic stop at least one officer is going to have a weapon drawn. Your idea would have departments depleted before the end of the night shift.

If the stop is “high risk” because the suspect is known to be armed, then that’s a valid reason to draw. Otherwise, hell no.

[Velocity]

While I support the idea of cops toning things down, I am highly wary of this “-splaining” where cops, who are actually in the line of fire, are supposed to abide by rules of engagement typed up by people in their living rooms who have never been a cop for a day in their life. That would be like me, sitting in my comfortable living room here, lecturing American soldiers what they ought to do when they encounter a suspected IED in Afghanistan or a suspicious civilian wearing something bulky under their clothing approaches them.

[Dr.Strangelove]

@HMS_Irruncible

The problem with this approach is that it only addresses systemic problems. I believe most of the problems in policing are not systemic, but rather cultural and structural.

Those *are *systemic problems. Reread post #10 by Llama Llogophile. The entire purpose of Crew Resource Management was to solve a cultural problem in aviation, where junior crew members were unwilling to question the authority of senior crew. Many people died because of stupid errors that were either not communicated (“I can’t question my superior”) or not reacted to (“How dare that punk tell me what to do?”).

CRM was developed by the NTSB after identifying these cultural problems during their investigations. It’s been an unambiguous good.

George Floyd might be alive if Thomas Lane had been more assertive in questioning Chauvin, or Chauvin had been more receptive to advice, etc. There were many failures that led to the event but an equivalent to CRM for police might have prevented the death.

[Llama_Llogophile]

@Velocity

While I support the idea of cops toning things down, I am highly wary of this “-splaining” where cops, who are actually in the line of fire, are supposed to abide by rules of engagement typed up by people in their living rooms who have never been a cop for a day in their life. That would be like me, sitting in my comfortable living room here, lecturing American soldiers what they ought to do when they encounter a suspected IED in Afghanistan or a suspicious civilian wearing something bulky under their clothing approaches them.

Again, speaking as a pilot whose actions are overseen by FAA people who are definitely not in the airplane with me when I’m reacting to something in real time: Cry me a river.

Oversight. Accountability. Professionalism. It’s demanded of me by the public, and rightly so. I have no problem demanding that from law enforcement.

[Babale]

@Velocity

While I support the idea of cops toning things down, I am highly wary of this “-splaining” where cops, who are actually in the line of fire, are supposed to abide by rules of engagement typed up by people in their living rooms who have never been a cop for a day in their life. That would be like me, sitting in my comfortable living room here, lecturing American soldiers what they ought to do when they encounter a suspected IED in Afghanistan or a suspicious civilian wearing something bulky under their clothing approaches them.

If cops are thinking about American civilians the same way that soldiers occupying a hostile country think about the populace, then we are well and truly fucked.

[pkbites]

Babale, you know what I have done for a living for the past 4 decades. Can you tell us what you do, what your age is, where you live, what your education is? It would help your credibility in your arguments.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

The problem of police culture, with its sheep/sheepdog/wolf metaphor, and its contempt for civilian oversight, and its blue line of protection for fellow cops, is pretty well exemplified by your demand that Babale explain their police credentials.

If Babale’s interest in the matter is nothing more than being a civilian living in a society with a police force suspected of an overuse of violence, that’s absolutely all the credentials they need.

As for your own credibility, it’d help if you’d tell us about the times you’ve reported fellow officers for their misbehavior and how you’ve followed through to ensure that violent cops (say, the type that would display a firearm to someone in a parking lot in order to frighten them off) are off the streets, and how you’ve worked inside your department to demilitarize it, and what specific successes you’ve had in these endeavors.

If you’re going to put your expertise out there, it needs to be expertise in changing a violent police culture, not in perpetuating it.