In light of police shootings in the past couple of years and the resultant protests that have driven a gargantuan wedge between those who support police officers and those who believe police departments are inherently racist and disproportionately target minorities, I thought it would be relevant to publish this longer piece on police training.
As mentioned below, the author is a law enforcement and security expert. He understands training, stress situations, and security matters and approaches them from a realistic, educational perspective, rather than emotionalist rhetoric.
It’s something we should all consider.
Police shootings of innocent people aren’t necessarily the result of racism or a desire to kill black men. Stephen Didier presents another possibility and offers some possible solutions.
We would all do well to seriously consider his essay.
Law enforcement training and preparedness in the United States today is largely ineffective and irrelevant. This is due to its failure to adapt necessary training methodologies to address evolutionary changes both in technology and public expectations. However, there are effective solutions with accompanying practical policies that had been previously implemented on a national level, only later to be abandoned for political and fiscal ease. Such abandonment has turned out to be penny-wise and pound foolish in light of the increasing number of criminal and terrorist attacks on law enforcement and the concomitant fear such attacks create among the public at large. Before offering these solutions it is necessary to understand the complex social and human performance dynamics underlying this problem. It must also be noted that this article is not intended to be disrespectful of the courageous men and women who serve in blue. Rather, it is written to present realistic solutions to the problems they are facing both personally and professionally.
The rule of law and the peace officers entrusted with the responsibility to uphold it is the fabric of a safe and prosperous republic. Constitutional Republics like the United States, where a person’s private property rights and security supersede the wants of a government run by a communist despot or fanatical theocracy need virtuous men and women to keep the peace and uphold law and order. When selfless individuals volunteer to do so, society owes them leadership and consistent and fair rules. Moreover, it owes these officers the training, knowledge, skills, and equipment needed for the protection and betterment of society. These needs are not mutually exclusive from the needs of the people the officers serve. In fact, the better trained officers are, the less likely they are to infringe upon the rights of their fellow citizens.
The average junior high school ball player practices about four hundred (400) hours per year, and for the most part these players are mediocre: only their parents and fellow students come to watch the games. Sadly, most law enforcement agencies spend less than four (4) hours per year – after entry-level academies – training their personnel on the ethical, legal, and tactical dynamics of deadly force encounters.
The public expects officers to demonstrate professional ball player-level performance. This training-performance disconnect will not be solved by body cameras or more restrictive rules for the use of force. Rules are generally written by the tactically unknowing in response to political demands for deadly force encounters to unfold as they wish them to rather than how they truly do. This is another reason why judgment-based training is far superior to rules-based training. Rules-based training is a linear solution to a nonlinear problem.
Despite all the negative press, police officers in America have and continue to do an incredible, and often thankless job, protecting and promoting the societies and secure communities in which many of us live and work. They are the people who respond at 2:00 AM when something goes “bump in the night.” Moreover, the actual number of suspects who succumb to police officers’ use of deadly force is astoundingly low (Note: an increase in media coverage is almost certainly responsible for the perception that police shootings are at epidemic levels). Annually, in a nation of 330 million persons, police officers are assaulted at least 66,000 times. Of those assaults, at least 15,500 are committed with a dangerous and deadly weapon. (As discussed, below, this trend is getting worse). As a matter of law, if a suspect assaults a police officer with a deadly weapon, that officer can use deadly force in self-defense. Yet, despite these numbers, police officers only kill approximately 600 suspects per year nationwide: about the same number of murder victims in Chicago in that same timeframe. So, this notion – repeated time and again by woefully or willfully ignorant members of the press – that police are on a rampant killing spree is a nothing less than a lie.
Nonetheless, as communities grow and evolve, whether due to population increases, changing political and cultural norms, values, criminal activity, etc., so must the police. Since the 1960’s, there have been innumerable police reform initiatives in America, with several recent efforts driven by both political and social demand. Given the broad responsibilities of the police, and often-limited resources, police leaders continually develop policies to prioritize and focus their activities. Unfortunately for the individual police officer, most of the evolution and changes occur within the realm of administration, policing programs, enforcement initiatives, law changes and service orientations, and not in the individual officer’s physiological and psychological ability to be effective against the ensuing increase of personal attacks or terrorist threats against them or the public.
As I was scanning my news feed this morning, I read that there was an active shooter incident at Ohio State University. Knowing that initial reports are nearly always wrong, I waited to find out what really happened on the sprawling campus. I was right to do so. The only person who was shot was a “Somali refugee” who plowed his vehicle into a crowd of Ohio State Students, and proceeded to go on a stabbing rampage, injuring at least nine before a police officer ventilated the bastard.
A police officer was on the scene within a minute and killed the assailant. “He engaged the suspect and eliminated the threat,” OSU Police Chief Craig Stone said.
The motive was unknown, but officials said the attack was clearly deliberate and may have been planned in advance.
“This was done on purpose,” Stone said.
While I and a number of news outlets that actually try to be responsible journalists waited for the details to come out, gun grabbing, sniveling fucktards such as Shannon Watts and Sheila Jackson Lee wasted no time calling for more gun control.
The school forbids guns on its campus, so the only recourse for students was to cower and barricade their classrooms.
But that didn’t stop these overly-excited, froth-flecked opponents of your rights from signalling their “concern” for the safety of all involved by screeching about our “lax” gun laws. I suppose if you call completely banning guns on campus “lax,” Shannon the Idiot Bloomberg Fellator Watts™ is right. Most of us with half a functioning brain, however, understand there’s nothing “lax” about a total ban on effective tools of self defense on campus.
It certainly didn’t stop the stabber, identified as 20-year-old Abdul Razak Ali Artan, from using a vehicle and a knife to attack his fellow students.
Note: Unlike other
news clickbait sites, I will refrain from calling this a terrorist attack quite yet until I get more facts, although it does bear the marks. After all, both ISIS and al-Qaida have publicly called for supporters to use vehicles as weapons. (See: Terrorist attack in Nice, France)
The initial reports about the dead slime bag have already been shown to have been wrong. Initially, he was identified as Ali Muhammad. Gateway Pundit immediately jumped in with a helpful photo of the alleged perp, gotten from some guy on Twitter, who ostensibly got the profile picture from Facebook. There are still Internet rumors out there that the car is registered to Muhammad, which would mean Artan either stole it, or Muhammad was an accomplice, which makes me think “terrorist plot” rather than “odd crime of passion” or “mental illness.”
We do know he was in the country legally and lived in Pakistan for a while before coming to the United States. We know he was a student at OSU, that he was in his third year there studying logistics management, and that he was pretty religious, per his own words.
And reports vary as to the type of blade used to slash the victims. One media outlet said Artan wielded a machete.
However, if you want to see world’s stupidest headline, I’ve got the screen cap from the link above, which has since been changed to reflect less stupid.
Are we seriously so desperate to blame guns, that we are willing to publish this fuckery?
To their credit, they did remove the idiot headline shortly after I captured it, but really… What the hell?
In any case, the investigation is ongoing, and updates are rolling in, as more and more details emerge.
How much longer before we hear rumblings of “He was traumatized by Trump’s election and thought he would be deported, prompting him to attack his fellow students”?
But for now, my thoughts are with the victims. Here’s hoping everyone recovers.
UPDATE: It’s interesting to note my prediction of Trump Derangement Syndrome above. I was close. The Daily Beast didn’t disappoint with its “poor, scared Muslim” narrative.
Artan described himself as a pious and scared Muslim in an interview with the Ohio State student newspaper in August.
“I wanted to pray in the open, but I was scared with everything going on in the media,” he told The Lantern after transfering from Columbus State Community College. “I’m a Muslim, it’s not what the media portrays me to be. If people look at me, a Muslim praying, I don’t know what they’re going to think, what’s going to happen. But, I don’t blame them. It’s the media that put that picture in their heads so they’re going to just have it and it, it’s going to make them feel uncomfortable. I was kind of scared right now. But I just did it. I relied on God. I went over to the corner and just prayed.”
NBC News’s Pete Williams reported on-air that Artan made a Facebook post lamenting the treatment of Muslims worldwide just before the attack on Monday morning.
Poor, scared, sad, cupcake! He was scared to be a Muslim! It wasn’t his fault, you see. He was just all traumatized because RACISM!
Stand by. The Trump Derangement Syndrome may be coming as a defense yet!
UPDATE 2: Welp… it sure smells like terrorism.
Authorities are investigating an anti-U.S. rant posted on Facebook just minutes before the Ohio State University attack today that is believed to be linked to suspect Abdul Razak Ali Artan, sources told ABC News.
Appearing three minutes before the beginning of the rampage that left 11 people injured, the post reads: “I can’t take it anymore. America! Stop interfering with other countries, especially the Muslim Ummah. We are not weak. We are not weak, remember that.”
The post also invokes the name Anwar Al-Awlaki, a radical American-born al-Qaeda cleric, describing him as a “hero.” Al-Awlaki was killed in 2011 but his propaganda has been linked to several domestic terrorist attacks in the years after his death.
“If you want us Muslims to stop carrying lone wolf attacks, then make peace,” the post reads. “We will not let you sleep unless you give peace to the Muslims.”
Say hello to the 11-year-old daughter of Ronald and Andrea Souto. This little girl brought a peach to school, and when her friend asked her for a piece, she was nice enough to cut the peach in half and give it to her pal at lunch.
This child cut a peach? Oh, no! Did she bring a dangerous switchblade or butterfly knife to cut said fruit?
“This is a set of a spoon, fork and knife for toddlers — one year old,” Andrea Souto said. “It is made for children to learn how to eat properly. She’s used it since she was baby.”
According to the school district, the girl violated the county’s weapon policy when she used her butter knife in the cafeteria to cut the peach.
And for this “awful transgression” that endangered the lives of her schoolmates, this honor roll student has not only been suspended for six days, but could now be facing criminal charges, because the Pembroke Pines Police Department said it has turned the investigation to the State Attorney’s Office. It’s not clear if charges will be filed, but it’s a possibility.
School officials are, of course, defending their course of action by claiming they were just following the district’s policy regarding weapons. Because why use common sense when these rabid, hysterical, mentally unhinged, half-witted, imbecilic fuck badgers can simply suspend a good kid and be done with it? Thinking is goddamn hard, apparently!
Meanwhile, this complete lack of common sense has destroyed this child’s confidence in her school and her teachers.
Nice job, shit gits. Nice job.
The Labor government is now talking of a zero-tolerance policy for anyone caught carrying a knife, a stance with which the opposition Conservatives agree. But that has not stopped the issue from becoming a political blame game featuring accusations of lying and replays of a popular public debate over whether British society is “broken.”What’s next? A strongly worded letter to violators?
Last week the Conservatives released statistics that they say show a record number of fatal stabbings in England and Wales last year — five a week, on average, or a 30% increase since Labor came to power in 1997.
I’d say, “Yes.” British society is broken. They have allowed those in power to disarm them. They have allowed the nanny state to control their lives. And they’ve accepted regular victimizations by armed thugs as just part of living in their polite, disarmed society.
Good luck, Britain! You’ll need it.
With our claustrophobic little homes it’s no wonder people get drunk and stab each other on the streets
No kidding! But guns are banned, so Britain should have been a quiet, peaceful utopia by now, right?
I guess the lesson to be learned here that people will be people. Generally they can’t stand one another, and living so close to each other is probably making them a little crazy… Sartre was right when he wrote in Huis Clos that hell is other people. And if you take a nation where housing construction has people in tiny homes (that are conveniently less expensive to build) living so close to one another, that you can smell your next door neighbor’s foul morning breath through the window when you get up, chances are they’ll use whatever implement is available (even if guns are banned) to eliminate one another.
But knowing the Brits and their obnoxiously silly bureaucracy, their obvious answer will be to ban sharp implements. And when people start using rocks and sticks and maybe their own teeth to victimize one another, the obvious answer will be to outlaw them as well… of course, given the lack of dental hygiene of most in that foul pit of a nation, that won’t be any big loss.