• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

The gap between Cops and "Civilians" widens

skidmark

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 15, 2007
Messages
10,444
Location
Valhalla
blood pressure/duct tape alert. Please do not take this as cop bashing, as it certainly is not meant to be. If anything, I am envious of the cops for getting their administrations to understand that the below is good practice, and wish it would be applied to and "civilian" involved in a shooting incident.
##########
Compare/contrast how cops want to be dealt with after a shooting incident to how they treat us mere "civilians".

I'm seriously thinking about printing this off, putting it in my wallet and telling the cops that I want them to follow these guidelines.

I really wonder how a judge would react should they face a petition to enforce/ensure this protocol were followed.

Now, I really do think that Force Science Institute has done a tremendous amount of good in the study of the use of force, and especially in answering those pesky questions of how someone could have "X" bad thing happen if the police used "Approved Technique Y" exactly as they were trained to. That and the whole thing about explaining why someone the cop was shooting at ended up getting shot in the back. I'm not against anything FSI does, and so far everything they have published as a recommended practice has made tremendous sense. I have absolutely no misgivings about these recommendations - only a complaint that they are not being applied to "civilians" as well.

stay safe.
###########################################

From Force Science News Transmission #199 ( www.forcescience.org )

I. Police attorney offers "best practices" tips to civil rights overseers
Last November, the Civil Rights Division of the US DOJ sent a 9-page "technical assistance" document to the mayor of Seattle, emphatically recommending certain changes in how the city's police department investigates officer-involved shootings. This communique is part of an ongoing federal scrutiny of the PD, underway for nearly a year, to "ensure compliance with constitutional rights."
The recommendations deal primarily with whether involved officers should automatically be given Garrity protection after any major use of force, particularly shootings. Automatic Garrity warnings that result in a statement being considered "compelled" are not appropriate or justified in most force investigations, the DOJ feels, in light of case law it cites in the document. Instead officers with rare exception should be encouraged to give strictly voluntary statements, which can then be entered without restriction into the investigative record.
Recently veteran police attorney John Hoag, a Force Science certification instructor whose law firm represents law enforcement unions throughout the Pacific Northwest, drafted a response to the DOJ directive, which he has circulated among his clients and their agencies. The issues he discusses may be useful to officers elsewhere who are trying to move their own departments, through persuasion or collective bargaining, toward more progressive practices in OIS investigations.
You can read the exchange in full online. Go to [url]www.snyderandhoagllc.com[/URL] and click on "Year 2012 Special Edition" in the left-hand column.
Essentially Hoag agrees with the DOJ's position on Garrity. He generally favors voluntary rather than compelled OIS statements because they permit the officer and his attorney much more leeway in controlling the investigative interview.
Only twice in more than 40 OIS incidents he has been involved in has Garrity been a contention, Hoag says, and both those cases were unintentional discharges and not intentional uses of force.
His point in writing to civil rights officials was "not to challenge their interpretation of Garrity but hopefully to expand their recommendations," he told Force Science News. "They need to understand that there are other critically important aspects to an OIS statement besides voluntariness that they should be supporting and advocating in the interests of a fair, impartial, and factual investigation."
Among other things, Hoag in his letter to DOJ explained what he considers "best practices" in the following areas, based on his personal experiences with officers he has represented and on Force Science research:
TAPE RECORDING. "We will never allow for an officer's voluntary interview to be tape recorded," Hoag wrote. "It is not uncommon for an officer to break down and cry" during an interview or to "express raw anger" that a suspect forced him to use lethal force. "In many states as soon as the investigation is complete it becomes a public record. In Oregon a videotape of an officer crying during an OIS interview got posted on YouTube.
"No officer who has been through an OIS and then relives it during an interview should have to have [his] emotions recorded for the world to view. The officer's family should not be subject to that as it is not uncommon for an officer's children to be...taunted about their parent being a killer.
"A skilled investigator can prepare a detailed report of what the officer said during the interview, and the officer can review and approve it. We owe officers who have been through an OIS the right to keep their emotions private."
WALK-THROUGH. Hoag favors a "walk-through with the [involved] officer, preferably under the lighting conditions that existed at the time the OIS occurred," he said. But "investigators do not accompany us" because "it is very common for an officer to have perceptual auditory, visual, or memory distortions after an OIS." Consequently, "we would not want the officer to be giving a statement before, during, or right after the walk-through." Aided by the walk-through as a stimulus, the officer should have time to "reflect on what occurred" without investigative pressure and questioning.
RECOVERY TIME. As to when an interview should be conducted, Hoag pointed out that "right after an OIS the officer is 'pumped up' for a period of time. The officer's mind is racing. It is hard to slow the officer down to get a fully detailed statement. Then at some point the adrenalin rush wears off and the officer feels like he or she has been run over by a steamroller. All that officer wants to do is to go home, and that can cause the officer's answers to questions to be shorter than they might otherwise be.
"[A] 'cognitive interview,' which we believe produces the best [statement], takes a lot of time and requires the officer's full cooperation and exhaustive participation. It should not be undertaken without the officer being well rested.... [W]aiting to conduct the interview for 48 hours seems to be a reasonable and prudent practice.... n one case, based on [the] officer's condition, an agency [was persuaded] to wait 2 weeks to conduct its interview."
MEDICAL CHECK. "We suggest that an officer be given a medical exam with documentation of the officer's vital signs," Hoag wrote. "Many times they are highly or even dangerously elevated."
PEER SUPPORT. Unless conversation with a peer support officer is protected by a confidentiality statute, statements made by an officer in that context "would be admissible in court," Hoag pointed out. With that in mind, "officers should be instructed not to discuss the incident with peer support officers until the investigations and any civil litigation are over."
DEBRIEFING. In addition to a mandated, confidential visit with a police psychologist to debrief the incident and receive information about potential PTSD symptoms, Hoag recommended that OIS survivors be required to "go to the range and qualify before going back out on the street." He explained: "I want the officers to be able to say to themselves that they are ready to use deadly force again, if necessary."
CONFERRING. In a section of his letter sure to raise the hackles of police critics, Hoag wrote favorably of allowing officers to confer among themselves in preparing statements about OISs that involved multiple officers. "In the United Kingdom officers regularly confer before they give statements" and this is duly noted, he stated. He cited a Force Science study that found that conferring resulted in "better interviews afterwards with more details and fewer mistakes."
In addressing these and other recommendations to Jonathan Smith, chief of the Civil Rights Division's Special Litigation Section, and Jenny Durkan, US Attorney for the Western District of Washington State, who signed the directive to Seattle, Hoag said he hoped his suggestions would be "of some assistance" and offered to discuss them in greater detail. At this writing, he is awaiting a response. Hoag can be reached by email at: jhoag@snyderandhoagllc.com
 

Beretta92FSLady

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
5,264
Location
In My Coffee
That type of civilian policy would be much less stressful, that's for sure.

Unlike, for instance, being handcuffed and thrown into isolation for three days; just you and your thoughts, not knowing if your family is ok, not knowing if the perp is dead or alive.

Maybe we should all take a copy of this and put it in our wallet.

I always say: You're going to be emotional, you're going to be pissed, and you're more than likely going to be arrested and can be held for up to 72 hours. Oh, and they are definitely going to want to get your side of the story without a mention of an attorney, and are going to want definitive statements--wait for your attorney.
 
Last edited:

gunns

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 27, 2011
Messages
270
Location
Minnesota
That type of civilian policy would be much less stressful, that's for sure.

Unlike, for instance, being handcuffed and thrown into isolation for three days; just you and your thoughts, not knowing if your family is ok, not knowing if the perp is dead or alive.

Maybe we should all take a copy of this and put it in our wallet.

I always say: You're going to be emotional, you're going to be pissed, and you're more than likely going to be arrested and can be held for up to 72 hours. Oh, and they are definitely going to want to get your side of the story without a mention of an attorney, and are going to want definitive statements--wait for your attorney.

I agree, the best thing is just not speak at all to them. Tell them you want your lawyer.
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
Read a few more news letter articles over on their site.

skid is right.

My take on Force Science.

When there is a citizen's union, the ability of a citizen review (be apart of the evidence gathering) of all the evidence gathered before trial, and taxpayer funded lawyers for citizens then the 'gap' will start to close. When citizens get qualified immunity or get to toss the 'citizen's safety' card, before a trial. When we get to evaluate LE and the DA/PA actions, intentions, and motivations then the gap will be close to non-existent.

A recurring theme in these newsletters is the failure to mention a cop unlawfully infringing upon a citizen's rights under the color of law and how this aspect of 'LE' plays into the OIS/LEO use of force.

The focus is on the use of force, I get that. Now, they could have some stuff on how to address, proactively, thug cops, but they don't. I went back through 2010 news letters.

The prevalence, or lack thereof, of OIS's compared to thug cops abusing citizens rights would seem to indicate, to me anyway, that the 'problems' with LE are not OIS's, or even the use of any level of force by a cop, but cops following the law to begin with.

Some insight on how LE 'circles the wagons' to justify cop behavior after he pulls the trigger is good, because cops do not go to work looking to shoot anyone. Cops need to know how to investigate cops since we citizens do not have/are not permitted access to those cops prior to a trial, if it even gets that far.

No cop deserves to get railroaded, especially in light of the enhanced legal protections and exemptions they enjoy as a result of they being a cop.
 
Top