Ethics training a waste if officers won't speak freely.

imported post

http://www.lawofficer.com/news-and-articles/columns/Van_Brocklin/ethics_training_a_waste.html

ethics survey spoken about in the article:
http://www.lawofficer.com/Images/Ethics%20Needs%20Survey_tcm22-194302.pdf

one thing that struck me from the article is this paragraph, and emphasis placed in italics are entirely mine:

The day before the ethics training, I assigned an Ethics Needs Survey as homework and said we'd be discussing it in class the next day. You can click on the survey below. I thought this was a dandy idea and would generate some really good discussion. I was clueless.

That night there was a knock on my door and three officers asked if they could come in. They said they would not be completing the survey. They were uncomfortable putting any of their answers in writing -- even anonymously. They said "someone" could analyze their handwriting. When I said I'd keep the surveys, they still expressed fear they might reach "certain people" who would use them in retaliation.

The officers told me they didn't think many, if any, other officers would complete the survey and I'd either get a wall of silence when I attempted a class discussion -- or worse. I wasn't sure what "or worse" might be, but I didn't want to find out.



end.



So how should we, the ordinary, everyday person take this article?



I have said time and again I'm not anti-leo, I just always say I am anti-abuse. In my opinion--if an officer who deals with the public on a daily basis--OC'ers as well, and that officer knows of others in their midst who are essentially criminals in uniform, or unethical individuals who should not even be trusted guarding a flock of sheep, then they should report them, expose them and help restore trust...and they wonder why we have a problem trusting them?

imported post

When departments gets desparate for people to fill positions, they'll hire anyone. It's not easy to get someone willing to do a shitty job for shitty pay.

This is probably my favorite quote about law enforcement ever (don't remember the origin):

The chief selling point for professional policing seems to be the idea that sworn government agents are more competent crime solvers than grand juries, private prosecutors, and unpaid volunteers. But this claim disintegrates when the realities of police personnel are considered. In 1998, for example, forty percent of graduating recruits of the Washington, D.C. police academy failed the comprehensive exam required for employment on the force and were described as "practically illiterate" and "borderline-retarded."

imported post

suntzu wrote:

SNIP So how should we, the ordinary, everyday person take this article?

Click to expand...

As off-topic for the forum.

While I appreciate being kept abreast of this sort of thing, its off-topic. Feel free to PM me about something like this. But I bet John and Mike would rather we stick to their rules about topics.