General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsAre We Training Cops to Be Hyper-Aggressive ‘Warriors’?
Race dominated the coverage of the 2014 shooting of John Crawford. Crawford was a young black man gunned down by white cops in a Beaverton Creek, Ohio, Walmart as he talked to his girlfriend on the phone while absentmindedly holding a BB gun he had grabbed from a store shelf. Ohio is an open-carry state where its perfectly legal to walk around with a loaded AR-15.
What got less attention is that less than two weeks before the shooting, the officer who shot Crawford had been trained to respond to active shooter situations by shooting first and asking questions later.
According to The Guardian, officer Sean Williams and his colleagues were taught to keep in mind that the suspect wants a body count and therefore officers should immediately engage a would-be gunman with speed, surprise and aggressiveness. At that training, they were told to imagine that a crazed gunman was threatening their own relatives.
* Thanks in large part to pressure brought by Black Lives Matter activists, some police experts are calling for a complete overhaul in the way cops are trained, both as cadets and during the in-service training they receive over the course of their careers. There are no national standards for training police, and the amount and quality of their instruction varies from agency to agency. But a survey of 280 police departments conducted by the Police Executive Research Forum (PERF), a Washington, DCbased think tank, found that American cops are given extensive preparation for using violence, and very little guidance on how to avoid it. "
http://www.thenation.com/article/are-we-training-cops-to-be-hyper-aggressive-warriors/
dreamnightwind
(4,775 posts)raouldukelives
(5,178 posts)eppur_se_muova
(36,289 posts)That statement makes it clear that the "suspect" is, in fact, a CRIMINAL, who has already been tried and convicted, as far as the police procedure is concerned. Guilt is presumed; innocence must be proven -- IF the "suspect" survives.
WHY was this flawed instruction not recognized for what it is earlier ?