• Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?

    Go here:

    Edit Account Details and Profile

Sheep and Sheepdogs, or: That Guy at the Range

wink

VS NFO. Blue and Gold Off. Former Recruiter.
None
Super Moderator
Contributor
#46
Comparing military to police training, having done both, the military is much more attuned to the idea of "not coming home may be the price of doing business." While there was some conflict resolution-type stuff in police training, "objective reasonableness" (look it up) was treated almost as a shield for fucking up, and an excuse to escalate unnecessarily, in the name of "coming home."
My intent here is to be very considerate of you, and your experience. Because you have the T-shirt, your's is a valid observation. Please understand my respect.

I am, of course, familier with objective reasonableness. For those that are not..

In Graham v. Connor (1989), the U.S. Supreme Court answered these questions. The Supreme Court ruled that police use of force must be “objectively reasonable”—that an officer's actions were reasonable in light of the facts and circumstances confronting him, without regard to his underlying intent or motivation.

I was not only trained and retrained many times on Graham v Conner like everyone in law enforcement, I have also witnessed my wife justify officer's actions in court based on Graham for nearly 30 years. I don't quite understand your point about using it as a shield. If you invoke Graham in defense of a fuck up, where does your reasonably objective basis for using force come from? Of course you are free to make the arguement, but a jury will determine if your actions and the fear you may have felt for your life or that of another was, in fact, reasonable. It isn't a get out of jail free card. A jury will determine if you fucked up and your actions were not reasonable. And that is the way it should be. The community, in effect, determines what is reasonable for an officer's use of force, whether deadly or less lethal.

As I said, your experience is legit and I respect your take on your training and observations. But you did come from an agency that has been highly criticized for it's actions over the last several years. Maybe it isn't surprising you saw and understood what you did. I didn't have the same experience and haven't seen it play out the way you describe in the courts in my state.

 

LFCFan

*Insert nerd wings here*
#47
You would have to believe the use of force by police is a real problem in need of correction for his training to be of value to the "national discussion"
My point is that a lot of people think that the use of force by police is a real problem, and a quote like Grossman's, especially out of context, is exactly the kind of thing that would be the centerpoint of a "mother jones hit piece" - and I'm surprised that I haven't seen more about Grossman given what's going on right now.

The reason Grossman doesn't often allow press into his lectures is because information is sometimes presented by him or shared by officers that he doesn't want to be made public. Not the least of which are the personal experiences of doubt and vulnerability cops wouldn't want to end up in a Mother Jones hit piece.
I respect that the cops want a forum to speak off the record like that, as I'd certainly want that if I was in their shoes (or even in my own shoes having worked with targeting).
 

phrogdriver

More humble than you would understand
pilot
Super Moderator
#48
My intent here is to be very considerate of you, and your experience. Because you have the T-shirt, your's is a valid observation. Please understand my respect.

I am, of course, familier with objective reasonableness. For those that are not..

In Graham v. Connor (1989), the U.S. Supreme Court answered these questions. The Supreme Court ruled that police use of force must be “objectively reasonable”—that an officer's actions were reasonable in light of the facts and circumstances confronting him, without regard to his underlying intent or motivation.

I was not only trained and retrained many times on Graham v Conner like everyone in law enforcement, I have also witnessed my wife justify officer's actions in court based on Graham for nearly 30 years. I don't quite understand your point about using it as a shield. If you invoke Graham in defense of a fuck up, where does your reasonably objective basis for using force come from? Of course you are free to make the arguement, but a jury will determine if your actions and the fear you may have felt for your life or that of another was, in fact, reasonable. It isn't a get out of jail free card. A jury will determine if you fucked up and your actions were not reasonable. And that is the way it should be. The community, in effect, determines what is reasonable for an officer's use of force, whether deadly or less lethal.

As I said, your experience is legit and I respect your take on your training and observations. But you did come from an agency that has been highly criticized for it's actions over the last several years. Maybe it isn't surprising you saw and understood what you did. I didn't have the same experience and haven't seen it play out the way you describe in the courts in my state.

In a perfect world, "objective reasonableness" sounds both objective and reasonable. In my experience (and yes, I acknowledge I spent only two years in that environment) the way I saw it taught, spoken of, and to some extent applied, did not inspire confidence. Perhaps that's just my agency, but national news tells me that it wasn't a complete outlier.

Most of the people I trained alongside wouldn't have lasted in a military organization. It's not the military. I get it. But the level of mental toughness and physical courage I was used to in the military was not present in most of them. Objective reasonableness, as taught, seemed to me as an excuse to not take risks. "You thought he was going for a weapon? Was that objectively reasonable based on what you saw? Then you'll be okay."

As a Marine, I accepted the idea that suiting up didn't necessarily mean I was coming back. You do your job as best you can, and sometimes the breaks don't come your way. Among many police, "coming home" no matter what is a mentality that I thought was too frequently referred to. Vigilance is good, and they showed video after video of officers who lost quick draw contests. What they didn't pay any attention to is the cost of mistakes. Officers should be prepared to accept some risk to prevent a what I'd call a "false positive," shooting a person who isn't a threat to life or serious injury. You chose to accept a certain amount of risk.
 

wink

VS NFO. Blue and Gold Off. Former Recruiter.
None
Super Moderator
Contributor
#49
If not "objective reasonableness", what other standard? Let's take off the table any standard that requires reading minds. Otherwise, I am open to a thoughtful discussion.
 
Top