One of the problems with US police in general seems to be that levels and quality of training vary so wildly. You have some "world class" police training programs, while others seem to be almost akin to slapping a badge and a gun on the first person who walks in the door.<p>I have no idea if what I am about to suggest is even legal, but I'd like to see congress pass a reform bill which contains:<p>- A minimum level of training and minimum continuing education requirement for all levels of police (state, county, federal, etc). Similar to No Child Left Behind (but for cops).<p>- Civilian oversight of police complaints (akin to what other countries have). Or failing that federal oversight.<p>- Federal funding to develop better officer education programs (with goals including officer safety, de-escalation, alternatives to use of force, and ethics).<p>- Reform asset forfeiture. All funds now also have to go to local education, homeless shelters, or similar. Nothing officer benefiting can be funded. Also someone has to have actually committed and been prosecuted for a crime(!).
<i>"Like the 21-foot rule, many current police practices were adopted when officers faced violent street gangs. Crime rates soared, as did the number of officers killed. Today, crime is at historic lows and most cities are safer than they have been in generations, for residents and officers alike. This should be a moment of high confidence in the police, said Chuck Wexler, executive director of the Police Executive Research Forum, a law enforcement policy group. Instead, he said, policing is in crisis."</i><p>Seeing cops with tanks in Ferguson, Missouri has been a wake-up call for many Americans. Fortunately many on the left and the right (<a href="http://truthinmedia.com/billionaire-koch-brothers-fund-campaign-against-police-militarization/" rel="nofollow">http://truthinmedia.com/billionaire-koch-brothers-fund-campa...</a>) agree that it isn't appropriate, so hopefully we will start to see some change.
As far as I can tell, the rules that are on the books for handling dangerous situations is not at issue, it's the complete disregard for those and any other rules. It's the rampant abuse of power that's the real problem.<p>There is no longer any accountability or consequence for a police officer committing the most heinous of crimes in the United States. At worst they'll get fired, then hired back onto the force in the next town over.
Police in the US have killed 398 so far in 2015 [1]<p>German Police used only 85 bullets against people in all of 2011. [2]<p>Germany Population: 81 million USA population: 323 million (3.99x bigger)<p>So, if the USA were like Germany, Police would only use 340 bullets against people PER YEAR.<p>Not 398 deaths in 6 months, but 340 bullets used for an entire year!<p>Something is very different about the way the Police in the US approach situations.<p>[1] <a href="http://killedbypolice.net/" rel="nofollow">http://killedbypolice.net/</a><p>[2] <a href="http://www.thewire.com/global/2012/05/german-police-used-only-85-bullets-against-people-2011/52162/" rel="nofollow">http://www.thewire.com/global/2012/05/german-police-used-onl...</a>
I am very surprised the article doesn't mention the american "shoot-to-kill" policy, despite the fact it gives the perfect example of how this policy is overkill (pun intended). If a knife-yielding attacker runs toward you, police in other countries (say western Europe) will shoot at the legs to NOT kill the attacker but sufficiently harm him so that he is not a threat anymore.<p>But in America the shoot-to-kill policy is so deeply ingrained in every officer's training that they only see 2 choices --when should I kill or not kill-- as depicted by that officer's simple question at the beginning of the article ("How close can somebody get to me before I’m justified in using deadly force?").<p>I have done research in the past on why the shoot-to-kill policy became prevalent in the US but not in other countries, and I have never found an answer. This puzzles me more than it should.<p>Edit: to the replies saying "if you don't intend to kill, don't shoot", you are wrong. This is precisely why tasers and non-lethal weapons were invented: there are many situations were harming or incapacitating an assailant is needed without necessarily killing him. On this note I agree a taser would be a safer weapon than trying to cause harm with a firearm. But my general comment is meant to apply to scenarios where a police officer cannot make the choice of firing with a taser[1]: in this case shooting to harm is better than shooting to kill.<p>[1] For whatever reason: he has no taser, or a firearm is the weapon he has in his hands during the split second where he has to decide to shoot, etc.
Good manners, a soft tone and respect for other people is what most police officers are sorely missing.<p>A hostile attitude often escalates situations which could have been completely prevented or resolved differently. Unsurprisingly, treating people with complete disrespect often elicits a fight response.<p>What police departments really need more than anything else are strong "don't be a dick" policies that are rigorously enforced. Along with more "how not to be a dick" training seminars. One can be firm and even shoot someone when needed all without being one. Let the dicks go be mall cops. The guys with real guns should have above average patience and compassion. We should demand this and we should be willing to pay for it.
I hope they - both the article authors and the trainers being described - know what the 21-foot rule is supposed to mean. A person with a drawn knife 21 feet from you does not mean that it's time to shoot them, even if they haven't made a move towards you. It means that the time for a healthy person to run up to you is close enough to the time to draw and fire a holstered weapon that you're at risk, so you should address either the closing distance or draw time by backing off or behind obstacles or drawing the weapon before any attack starts.
This article is missing a critical criteria: racism. It's quite obvious that police officers (worldwide, but particularly in the United States) are more likely to shoot black suspects than white ones. This is not a training problem.