Leadership is the key. Nobody wants to be a headline, they realize that if/ when they are the agency will immediately seek to distance themselves from you.
I gave a lot of breaks, had a lot of leeway. But never for people threatening cops or assaulting cops. Whether that assault was a gunshot, a shove, or an innocuous poke to the chest. I always drew a hard line on any threats or unwanted physical contact.
I think many let a lot more slide now, fearing the encounter goes off the rails and they become a headline.
The way I see it, if I let someone poke me. Next cop they might push. If the push gets dusted off, then it becomes a punch. When there is no fear of response, the act gets amplified (but now I sound like John Wilson on broken windows).
Also, tactics are lessons purchased with blood. As experienced cops retire, and savvy ones take jobs with less liability. There is less chance to teach new cops the lessons, and younger, riskier cops learning the old lessons the hard way.
Given the nat'l exodus of police, I would expect the increase in assaults and LODDs to increase over the next 5-10 years; absent a serious effort to improve staffing & morale.
Whenever I use 'tactics are lessons purchased with blood' I will give you full credit. I agree with you about the Wilson/Kelling strategy. It has not been employed properly but by people who mistake it as 'zero tolerance.' They got consensus from the community before the first arrest for a 'minor' crime. Who is going to stand up for their officers, tell them to get out there and do their job and send the complaints to me first?
some things inherently should be zero tolerance. murder for example. others I think are built for discretion.
if I pulled someone over for a recently expired tag , come to discover they're 2 doors from home. smell alcohol, but not slurry or out of it. no criminal history. in that case I'd prob not investigate DUI, warn on the plate and let them go.
but assaults or even aggression towards a cop on-duty, should be checked immediately. I think that's a hard line.
I'm with you on listening to the community. I worked in places where shootings regularly occurred. high rates of poverty. lots of suspended drivers. if I took every one to the PA for felony driving with suspension, I think community would be outraged.
worked the opposite side of that coin. candyland where crime rarely occurred. the community expected a tougher approach on what was comparatively minor offenses.
I think cops are like 3-in-1 oil. we just address squeaks and keep the bike moving smooth. too much is as bad as too little.
but it's wild times for sure. now I just sit on the outside looking in and observe
Pretty simple math, people. Who was president during this period?
The end.
Good piece Roland!
Leadership is the key. Nobody wants to be a headline, they realize that if/ when they are the agency will immediately seek to distance themselves from you.
I gave a lot of breaks, had a lot of leeway. But never for people threatening cops or assaulting cops. Whether that assault was a gunshot, a shove, or an innocuous poke to the chest. I always drew a hard line on any threats or unwanted physical contact.
I think many let a lot more slide now, fearing the encounter goes off the rails and they become a headline.
The way I see it, if I let someone poke me. Next cop they might push. If the push gets dusted off, then it becomes a punch. When there is no fear of response, the act gets amplified (but now I sound like John Wilson on broken windows).
Also, tactics are lessons purchased with blood. As experienced cops retire, and savvy ones take jobs with less liability. There is less chance to teach new cops the lessons, and younger, riskier cops learning the old lessons the hard way.
Given the nat'l exodus of police, I would expect the increase in assaults and LODDs to increase over the next 5-10 years; absent a serious effort to improve staffing & morale.
Whenever I use 'tactics are lessons purchased with blood' I will give you full credit. I agree with you about the Wilson/Kelling strategy. It has not been employed properly but by people who mistake it as 'zero tolerance.' They got consensus from the community before the first arrest for a 'minor' crime. Who is going to stand up for their officers, tell them to get out there and do their job and send the complaints to me first?
some things inherently should be zero tolerance. murder for example. others I think are built for discretion.
if I pulled someone over for a recently expired tag , come to discover they're 2 doors from home. smell alcohol, but not slurry or out of it. no criminal history. in that case I'd prob not investigate DUI, warn on the plate and let them go.
but assaults or even aggression towards a cop on-duty, should be checked immediately. I think that's a hard line.
I'm with you on listening to the community. I worked in places where shootings regularly occurred. high rates of poverty. lots of suspended drivers. if I took every one to the PA for felony driving with suspension, I think community would be outraged.
worked the opposite side of that coin. candyland where crime rarely occurred. the community expected a tougher approach on what was comparatively minor offenses.
I think cops are like 3-in-1 oil. we just address squeaks and keep the bike moving smooth. too much is as bad as too little.
but it's wild times for sure. now I just sit on the outside looking in and observe
Great article! Thanks for the shout out!