CLE police consent agreement

[Ohiogal]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Cleveland Ohio

So here we go with either the best or worst headline regarding police:
Cleveland Police to stop hitting people on heads with guns as part of Justice Department Agreement....

Apparently, that was a thing. Now it is not going to be a thing anymore due to an agreement with the US Justice Department.
Story here:
http://www.cleveland.com/metro/index.ssf/2015/05/cleveland_police_to_stop_hitti.html

Sometimes there are no words for people. Just, no.

 

[Ladyback1]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Cleveland Ohio

So here we go with either the best or worst headline regarding police:
Cleveland Police to stop hitting people on heads with guns as part of Justice Department Agreement....

Apparently, that was a thing. Now it is not going to be a thing anymore due to an agreement with the US Justice Department.
Story here:
http://www.cleveland.com/metro/index.ssf/2015/05/cleveland_police_to_stop_hitti.html

Sometimes there are no words for people. Just, no.

And this is an example of why they have to label BLEACH "should not be taken internally"! I mean seriously? That sort of thing had to be written down and mandated?

 

[CdwJava]

Federal consent decrees tend to appear to be written by people that have no friggin' idea of what it is to be a cop!

Here's a line from the news story that is going to result in dead cops, if it is enacted as this phrase implies: "The agreement prohibits officers from displaying their firearms unless they believe lethal force is necessary."

If this thought is promulgated and drilled in - as it was some years ago at the San Diego Regional Academy - you will get cops afraid to touch their guns and can and will result in more officer deaths. We had a crop of recruits coming out of the academy that wouldn't even touch their flippin' weapons because, in the academy, if they touched it and the situation did not call for the likely application of deadly force, they had to write a "153" (a memo) on the reason they pulled their firearm and why it is prohibited in that situation. So, when they hit the streets they'd be reluctant to draw a weapon even on a felony stop!!!! They'd wait, instead, until they saw a weapon or heard a threat! We had to drill it out of them through constant training and reinforcement - for their safety, and ours!

There are a host of reasons why an officer might have to - and damn well SHOULD - display his firearm even if the use of deadly force is not imminent!

Cleveland may have problems. And, maybe, officers thumping people with pistols is one of them ... though, I find that difficult to believe, but I don't have the records or reports that I presume the panel had that prepared the report. In any event, these consent decrees tend to do at least as much harm as they might do good, and they very often create rules and processes that are detrimental to morale, the enforcement of the law, and even to public safety. Essentially prohibiting officers from drawing their firearm unless there exists some immediate need of deadly force is a policy that will be fatal for cops.

 

[dave33]

Federal consent decrees tend to appear to be written by people that have no friggin' idea of what it is to be a cop!

Here's a line from the news story that is going to result in dead cops, if it is enacted as this phrase implies: "The agreement prohibits officers from displaying their firearms unless they believe lethal force is necessary."

If this thought is promulgated and drilled in - as it was some years ago at the San Diego Regional Academy - you will get cops afraid to touch their guns and can and will result in more officer deaths. We had a crop of recruits coming out of the academy that wouldn't even touch their flippin' weapons because, in the academy, if they touched it and the situation did not call for the likely application of deadly force, they had to write a "153" (a memo) on the reason they pulled their firearm and why it is prohibited in that situation. So, when they hit the streets they'd be reluctant to draw a weapon even on a felony stop!!!! They'd wait, instead, until they saw a weapon or heard a threat! We had to drill it out of them through constant training and reinforcement - for their safety, and ours!

There are a host of reasons why an officer might have to - and damn well SHOULD - display his firearm even if the use of deadly force is not imminent!

Cleveland may have problems. And, maybe, officers thumping people with pistols is one of them ... though, I find that difficult to believe, but I don't have the records or reports that I presume the panel had that prepared the report. In any event, these consent decrees tend to do at least as much harm as they might do good, and they very often create rules and processes that are detrimental to morale, the enforcement of the law, and even to public safety. Essentially prohibiting officers from drawing their firearm unless there exists some immediate need of deadly force is a policy that will be fatal for cops.

Come on Carl, the officer only has to "believe" lethal force is necessary. That's it, that leaves a huge gap for more abuses to take place. I want to see the one report, just one where the officer says he drew or displayed his weapon and did NOT believe lethal force is necessary. Also, there can be a huge difference between necessary and imminent.
We can solve all these problems with body cameras. I wonder why officers are so against the camera. This is of course sarcasm, I think the answer to that is well known.

Now, I am usually not much of a survey or statistic guy, just because of how many ways there are to swing the survey to support your logic. But, all the surveys that I have seen that survey the most dangerous jobs, the police officer is never in the top 10.

You may feel the consent decree can do as much harm as good, but something must be done. Let's not lose sight of the original article and why these decrees are being sought and hopefully passed.

 

[CdwJava]

I never said that police work is THE most dangerous job out there, so we can move past that. But, it IS the only job where the members of that job are asked to confront violent and unusual situations on a daily basis. The reason it is NOT the most deadly job is the training that we tend to get. However, when that training makes you flippin' afraid to touch your weapon, THAT is scary and WILL result in dead and injured officers if not modified.

And, like you, I have not read the whole order. However, if that newspaper article is correct, and I hope it's making an overbroad statement as you seem to imply, it will have deadly consequences. It says they are not to draw their weapon unless deadly force is authorized. I am here to tell you that we do NOT wait until it is necessary to utilize deadly force before we draw a firearm and point it at someone. Deadly force is not authorized when i confront someone in a dark building ... not authorized simply because they are in a stolen car ... not authorized simply because they are fleeing and have a knife in their pocket, etc. But, it IS a prudent precautionary measure, and an officer will and should draw his weapon in these and other situations. And, yes, I am aware of agencies that have required officers to write reports and even submit CRIME reports listing themselves as suspects in a brandishing case when they drew their firearms. These polices can and do have a deterrent effect on drawing a firearm and, subsequently, to officer safety. If an officer keeps his weapon holstered in a tactical situation because he's afraid of an internal investigation or criminal prosecution, that is a poor and dangerous policy. I hope that this is not how the policy will eventually pan out. But, I have seen these policies before, so I am not as confident as you are that it will be so benign.

 

[dave33]

I never said that police work is THE most dangerous job out there, so we can move past that. But, it IS the only job where the members of that job are asked to confront violent and unusual situations on a daily basis. The reason it is NOT the most important job is the training that we tend to get. However, when that training makes you flippin' afraid to touch your weapon, THAT is scary and WILL result in dead and injured officers if not modified.

And, like you, I have not read the whole order. However, if that newspaper article is correct, and I hope it's making an overbroad statement as you seem to imply, it will have deadly consequences. It says they are not to draw their weapon unless deadly force is authorized. I am here to tell you that we do NOT wait until it is necessary to utilize deadly force before we draw a firearm and point it at someone. Deadly force is not authorized when i confront someone in a dark building ... not authorized simply because they are in a stolen car ... not authorized simply because they are fleeing and have a knife in their pocket, etc. But, it IS a prudent precautionary measure, and an officer will and should draw his weapon in these and other situations. And, yes, I am aware of agencies that have required officers to write reports and even submit CRIME reports listing themselves as suspects in a brandishing case when they drew their firearms. These polices can and do have a deterrent effect on drawing a firearm and, subsequently, to officer safety. If an officer keeps his weapon holstered in a tactical situation because he's afraid of an internal investigation or criminal prosecution, that is a poor and dangerous policy. I hope that this is not how the policy will eventually pan out. But, I have seen these policies before, so I am not as confident as you are that it will be so benign.

Well Carl, whatever happens I guess all we can do for now is hope that whatever changes happen they will be positive and result in a better day for all those involved.

 

[quincy]

... And, like you, I have not read the whole order. ...

The Department of Justice agreement with the city of Cleveland is accessible and available for download through the following WKYC link, if anyone cares to read it in full:

http://www.wkyc.com/story/news/local/2015/05/26/leaders-consent-decree/27954671/

 

[CdwJava]

Reading the document, it is clear that new policy can go either way. It may very well be flexible enough to permit proper discretion and tactical decision making, or, it may be draconian and so restricting that it will create a culture of fear for the display of the firearm. I am also concerned by a number of rules that seem to be absolutes, such as the apparent prohibition against the use of warning shots or using a firearm as an impact weapon. While I agree that these should be discouraged and should never be remotely a common practice, there are times that these actions may be prudent. A blanket prohibition is never a good idea because (a) it may remove an otherwise effective and even necessary tactical option, and, (b) it could subject to the agency to a civil suit even if the use of force was lawful, but the policy was violated.

I worked with an officer that once was off duty and confronted with an armed juvenile suspect. The agency at the time had a series of absolutes in their policies. The officer managed to get his firearm out first, smacked the kid with it and dropped him, then took him into custody. He was given unpaid leave for knocking the kid down and not shooting him. Had he killed the kid by shooting him, he would have been okay ... a 16 year old would be dead, but, by gum, he'd have been in policy! Likewise, a female officer with the same agency struck an armed suspect with her metal flashlight, disconcerting him long enough for her trainee and a second deputy to get their firearms out to engage the armed and firing suspect. The suspect was killed in the exchange. Because she struck him with an unapproved and prohibited impact weapon, she was threatened with 30 days off. It was not until the union threatened an illegal and wildcat strike if the agency followed through with the punishment that they relented ... and then replaced the flashlights with smaller plastic ones.

Since those days, agencies throughout the country and have moved away from policy absolutes. There are few "thou shalt not" rules on the books (with regards to tactical options), for valid reasons. The rules may rightly state that the practice is discouraged or generally forbidden, but they tend to place the burden on the officer to justify the use of the tactic rather than outright prohibiting it. A GOOD policy will have no absolute, blanket prohibitions when it comes to tactical options.

Whether this agreement will result in bad policy or good policy is something we cannot know. But, if past experience is an indicator, I'm going to vote for "bad" policy as a result. But, we shall see ...

 

[TigerD]

Quite by surprise, I have to agree with cdw.

Policies like this tend to be written for the outliers. But the bad cops won't adhere to it and the good cops may well incur an unacceptable level of additional risk.

I don't know what the solution is to handle bad cops. But I have seen true evil on the streets and in court and I would rather have even a "bad cop" between me them.

TD

 

[CdwJava]

There are ways to deal with "bad cops" but tying the hands and limiting the tactical (safety) options of officers is not one of them. These rules effect ALL cops in an effort to reign in the few that might cause problems. I can't speak to the problems with Cleveland PD as I am not aware of the situation there. I was confused to hear about the fact that they intend to start doing backgrounds on applicants, a statement that concerned me as it is already both a mandate and common practice throughout the US to conduct a background investigation of police applicants which also includes a psych exam. I'm not sure what was lacking in these backgrounds, but, from what I read it seems they were not performing even rudimentary inquiries into applicants. If so, there's the number one way to address a problem with officers.

A proper background will tend to weed out the bad apples at the outset. Proper and ongoing training coupled with effective supervision and evaluation can also serve to reign in potential problems, or identify problem officers.

But, telling officers that they must essentially wait for a threat to manifest itself before they draw their weapon is a recipe for disaster. When you tell an officer that he must write a report on something that can be a common occurrence - daily, even - in some areas of some cities, in particular, is a quick way to either discourage the prohibited act altogether, or to encourage defiance of the policy and the potential to lose officers as a result. Too many edicts result in unintended consequences. I recall some years back when edicts went down to gather racial data on people contacted on the street or in vehicles after a car stop if the driver was NOT cited. Since the paperwork in most cities (in particular San Jose and San Diego) was at least the same as a citation, or in two cities more voluminous, it resulted in more citations rather than a collection of stop and release data. When you burden officers with more paperwork you will discourage a particular activity much as the government does when it raises taxes on a particular activity.

I am leery of federal intervention in local law enforcement to begin with. I am more disturbed at the prospect that new policies may be crafted by politicians or people with NO law enforcement experience, or without any practical street experience for a decade or more. Theories are great, but the concepts in theory and actual safe practice can and often do differ.

 

[FlyingRon]

Consent decrees only come down after pretty significant court action. You are right, they're not the best action but when you are dealing with an agency that won't clean itself up, there's often little choice. Using guns to pistol whip subjects is just rephrensible both from a public safety and a civil rights standpoint. Firearms are used when you need to apply lethal force. If lethal force isn't called for, it should remain holstered. Since most departments require substantial paperwork (and more) on any weapons discharge and cops still shoot, I don't think that the perfunctory paperwork here is going to make a real impact on cops deciding when to appropriately draw their weapons. They might go back to carrying nightsticks again though

 

[Ohiogal]

Well Cleveland has had MANY issues. Just recently Michael Brelo was on trial and 22 officers fired 132 shots at two unarmed people during a car chase. Another Cleveland officer shot Tamir Rice (watch the video and you will see the CHILD was not given any time to react and put down his TOY gun before being murdered). There have also been various police brutality issues in Cleveland over the last few years with several lawsuits.

I posted this thread for discussion but also mainly for the idea that REALLY? It was a thing to beat people over the head with guns? That was proper? Oh and sometimes the guns would discharge during the hitting people over the heads with them. Whaaaaa? It just seemed a bit keystone-kopish.

 

[CdwJava]

Consent decrees only come down after pretty significant court action.

Yes and no. They are often the way that a city surrenders to avoid further bad press and lawsuits, and tries to mitigate the damage already done. Unfortunately, it seems that little thought is put into the specific policies that come about as a result of these often knee-jerk reactions to malfeasance.

You are right, they're not the best action but when you are dealing with an agency that won't clean itself up, there's often little choice. Using guns to pistol whip subjects is just rephrensible both from a public safety and a civil rights standpoint. Firearms are used when you need to apply lethal force. If lethal force isn't called for, it should remain holstered. Since most departments require substantial paperwork (and more) on any weapons discharge and cops still shoot, I don't think that the perfunctory paperwork here is going to make a real impact on cops deciding when to appropriately draw their weapons. They might go back to carrying nightsticks again though

There are ways to address abuses without removing tactical options. How about actually enforcing the rules on use of force? I suspect that most of those incidents violated other policies on the use of force. Telling officers that a threat must be imminent or nearly so can and has resulted in officers fearing to draw their weapons or use them when the situation requires it.

Lethal force is not called for on a felony stop. But! We are rightly trained to draw our weapons and take control of the suspect most often at gunpoint. Why? because it is safer for all involved. If we remove this tactical option, the bad guys will get the drop on the cops, or, the cops will simply avoid getting into confrontations where they have to choose between safety or violating policy.

 

[CdwJava]

Well Cleveland has had MANY issues. Just recently Michael Brelo was on trial and 22 officers fired 132 shots at two unarmed people during a car chase. Another Cleveland officer shot Tamir Rice (watch the video and you will see the CHILD was not given any time to react and put down his TOY gun before being murdered). There have also been various police brutality issues in Cleveland over the last few years with several lawsuits.

I posted this thread for discussion but also mainly for the idea that REALLY? It was a thing to beat people over the head with guns? That was proper? Oh and sometimes the guns would discharge during the hitting people over the heads with them. Whaaaaa? It just seemed a bit keystone-kopish.

I don't doubt that Cleveland has issues. And if there is a pattern of pistol-whipping people, that's a problem to be certain. But, federal intervention often has a negative impact on both policing and public safety. It's possible that the policies that will come out of the consent decree will be reasonable and sensible. But, history has shown us that more often than not, the policies that result from these decrees are anything but reasonable and are crafted by those with political agendas and little or no police experience - they operate on theory and not reality. Only time will tell which direction things will go in Cleveland.

I am not here to defend any particular policy or practice of Cleveland PD. In fact, much of what I have read in recent works concerns me and is evidence that there is a problem - a systemic one. But, a consent decree is not necessarily the panacea that some might think it to be.

 

[Alex1176]

I'm forty years old, never had any issues with the law, but still I cannot carry concealed in my state (California). Even when I drove a cab (one of the most dangerous jobs) and carried some times a lot of cash I could not have a loaded gun in the cab for my protection. Now the liberals starting to hit on the police. Maybe it will cause the police to join the regular citizens to fight for our gun rights.