17 yo boy shot by police because he wasn't resisting arrest.

[Dan Daly]

Look, this issue isn't rocket surgery. Any decent cop could have handled this situation short of ending up with a dead kid on his hands. Period.

 

[ChrisL]

Of course it would. Like I said, two officers can more easily restrain a suspect. If there are two officers per car, then they have immediate backup. Now, which part of that statement do you disagree with and why?

What if there are two people in the car or three or four or more!

I disagree with your conclusions that two cops will in fact prevent people from doing stupid shit, like resisting arrest. You offer up nothing to back up your statements.

I never said it would stop people from doing stupid things. I said it would more than likely decrease officer shootings and suspect shootings by officers because they would have an extra set of hands, eyes and backup. Two officers can handle a suspect more easily than one.

Now, what is it about that statement that you disagree with and why?

I hear what your saying, but where is the evidence to back it up?

Do you think a felon getting being pulled over is going to react differently because there are two cops in the patrol car instead of one?

But that is not my point. Again, my point is that two officers would be more able to control the unruly suspect without having to resort to using their weapons. Also, the officers are less vulnerable when making a traffic stop or whatever the case may be if there are two instead of just one.

If your point is that two people can better restrain one person then you are correct. But that's not the issue and not your original claim. The claim was that two cops per patrol car would reduce the amount of police/citizen shootings and would prevent idiots like this punk from making the dumbass decision to attack an armed officer.

But if you wish to move the goalpost, then go ahead, but the fact remains you have not shown your solution would solve anything other than retraining one person.

Yes, it is certainly the issue. If there had been TWO officers present, they could more easily restrain a suspect. THAT is the point.

 

[ChrisL]

I never said it would stop people from doing stupid things. I said it would more than likely decrease officer shootings and suspect shootings by officers because they would have an extra set of hands, eyes and backup. Two officers can handle a suspect more easily than one.

Now, what is it about that statement that you disagree with and why?

I hear what your saying, but where is the evidence to back it up?

Do you think a felon getting being pulled over is going to react differently because there are two cops in the patrol car instead of one?

But that is not my point. Again, my point is that two officers would be more able to control the unruly suspect without having to resort to using their weapons. Also, the officers are less vulnerable when making a traffic stop or whatever the case may be if there are two instead of just one.

You're assuming that in every police interaction there will be an unruly suspect, when the fact is that most police interactions are positive and uneventful.

Look I get it, it's a feel good thing with you, you are acting on emotions and not thinking logically. The places that are thinking about using two cops per patrol car are doing so only in certain areas and under special circumstances and not as a standard routine or rule.

I never assumed that for a minute. Why you think that, I have no clue.

I am pretty much the ONLY one on this thread who is talking logically right now, bud.

You still cannot deny the fact that two officers can handle pretty much any situation better than just one.

Using your logic we should have four LEO's per car. Isn't four better than two?

Never mind the fact that other areas will be without police services or have to endure longer response times.

Just in case one guy gets unruly we need to have two people on scene.

Forget the fact that the majority of interactions are positive and uneventful.

I think two is sufficient.

 

[ChrisL]

Look, this issue isn't rocket surgery. Any decent cop could have handled this situation short of ending up with a dead kid on his hands. Period.

Yeah, I think better training is in order as well.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

What if there are two people in the car or three or four or more!

I disagree with your conclusions that two cops will in fact prevent people from doing stupid shit, like resisting arrest. You offer up nothing to back up your statements.

I never said it would stop people from doing stupid things. I said it would more than likely decrease officer shootings and suspect shootings by officers because they would have an extra set of hands, eyes and backup. Two officers can handle a suspect more easily than one.

Now, what is it about that statement that you disagree with and why?

I hear what your saying, but where is the evidence to back it up?

Do you think a felon getting being pulled over is going to react differently because there are two cops in the patrol car instead of one?

But that is not my point. Again, my point is that two officers would be more able to control the unruly suspect without having to resort to using their weapons. Also, the officers are less vulnerable when making a traffic stop or whatever the case may be if there are two instead of just one.

If your point is that two people can better restrain one person then you are correct. But that's not the issue and not your original claim. The claim was that two cops per patrol car would reduce the amount of police/citizen shootings and would prevent idiots like this punk from making the dumbass decision to attack an armed officer.

But if you wish to move the goalpost, then go ahead, but the fact remains you have not shown your solution would solve anything other than retraining one person.

No, I never claimed that two officers would change a person's behavior. NEVER. Now, stop being dishonest. My point is that citizens and cops would be safer from shootings.

Yet you provide no evidence to back that point up.

 

[ChrisL]

I never said it would stop people from doing stupid things. I said it would more than likely decrease officer shootings and suspect shootings by officers because they would have an extra set of hands, eyes and backup. Two officers can handle a suspect more easily than one.

Now, what is it about that statement that you disagree with and why?

I hear what your saying, but where is the evidence to back it up?

Do you think a felon getting being pulled over is going to react differently because there are two cops in the patrol car instead of one?

But that is not my point. Again, my point is that two officers would be more able to control the unruly suspect without having to resort to using their weapons. Also, the officers are less vulnerable when making a traffic stop or whatever the case may be if there are two instead of just one.

If your point is that two people can better restrain one person then you are correct. But that's not the issue and not your original claim. The claim was that two cops per patrol car would reduce the amount of police/citizen shootings and would prevent idiots like this punk from making the dumbass decision to attack an armed officer.

But if you wish to move the goalpost, then go ahead, but the fact remains you have not shown your solution would solve anything other than retraining one person.

No, I never claimed that two officers would change a person's behavior. NEVER. Now, stop being dishonest. My point is that citizens and cops would be safer from shootings.

Yet you provide no evidence to back that point up.

It's common sense.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

I hear what your saying, but where is the evidence to back it up?

Do you think a felon getting being pulled over is going to react differently because there are two cops in the patrol car instead of one?

But that is not my point. Again, my point is that two officers would be more able to control the unruly suspect without having to resort to using their weapons. Also, the officers are less vulnerable when making a traffic stop or whatever the case may be if there are two instead of just one.

You're assuming that in every police interaction there will be an unruly suspect, when the fact is that most police interactions are positive and uneventful.

Look I get it, it's a feel good thing with you, you are acting on emotions and not thinking logically. The places that are thinking about using two cops per patrol car are doing so only in certain areas and under special circumstances and not as a standard routine or rule.

I never assumed that for a minute. Why you think that, I have no clue.

I am pretty much the ONLY one on this thread who is talking logically right now, bud.

You still cannot deny the fact that two officers can handle pretty much any situation better than just one.

Using your logic we should have four LEO's per car. Isn't four better than two?

Never mind the fact that other areas will be without police services or have to endure longer response times.

Just in case one guy gets unruly we need to have two people on scene.

Forget the fact that the majority of interactions are positive and uneventful.

I think two is sufficient.

How long have you been in law enforcement? What is your background regarding criminal justice?

If the answer is never and none, then what you "think" is sufficient doesn't matter to anyone but yourself.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

I hear what your saying, but where is the evidence to back it up?

Do you think a felon getting being pulled over is going to react differently because there are two cops in the patrol car instead of one?

But that is not my point. Again, my point is that two officers would be more able to control the unruly suspect without having to resort to using their weapons. Also, the officers are less vulnerable when making a traffic stop or whatever the case may be if there are two instead of just one.

If your point is that two people can better restrain one person then you are correct. But that's not the issue and not your original claim. The claim was that two cops per patrol car would reduce the amount of police/citizen shootings and would prevent idiots like this punk from making the dumbass decision to attack an armed officer.

But if you wish to move the goalpost, then go ahead, but the fact remains you have not shown your solution would solve anything other than retraining one person.

No, I never claimed that two officers would change a person's behavior. NEVER. Now, stop being dishonest. My point is that citizens and cops would be safer from shootings.

Yet you provide no evidence to back that point up.

It's common sense.

Common sense is not attacking an armed cop.

 

[ChrisL]

But that is not my point. Again, my point is that two officers would be more able to control the unruly suspect without having to resort to using their weapons. Also, the officers are less vulnerable when making a traffic stop or whatever the case may be if there are two instead of just one.

You're assuming that in every police interaction there will be an unruly suspect, when the fact is that most police interactions are positive and uneventful.

Look I get it, it's a feel good thing with you, you are acting on emotions and not thinking logically. The places that are thinking about using two cops per patrol car are doing so only in certain areas and under special circumstances and not as a standard routine or rule.

I never assumed that for a minute. Why you think that, I have no clue.

I am pretty much the ONLY one on this thread who is talking logically right now, bud.

You still cannot deny the fact that two officers can handle pretty much any situation better than just one.

Using your logic we should have four LEO's per car. Isn't four better than two?

Never mind the fact that other areas will be without police services or have to endure longer response times.

Just in case one guy gets unruly we need to have two people on scene.

Forget the fact that the majority of interactions are positive and uneventful.

I think two is sufficient.

How long have you been in law enforcement? What is your background regarding criminal justice?

If the answer is never and none, then what you "think" is sufficient doesn't matter to anyone but yourself.

It's just common sense that two officers are going to be more effective in a dangerous situation than one lone cop.

 

[Dan Daly]

Look, this issue isn't rocket surgery. Any decent cop could have handled this situation short of ending up with a dead kid on his hands. Period.

Yeah, I think better training is in order as well.

It goes beyond training. Good cops start with good leaders. We don't have leaders anymore, we have politicians...in and out of uniform.

 

[ChrisL]

But that is not my point. Again, my point is that two officers would be more able to control the unruly suspect without having to resort to using their weapons. Also, the officers are less vulnerable when making a traffic stop or whatever the case may be if there are two instead of just one.

If your point is that two people can better restrain one person then you are correct. But that's not the issue and not your original claim. The claim was that two cops per patrol car would reduce the amount of police/citizen shootings and would prevent idiots like this punk from making the dumbass decision to attack an armed officer.

But if you wish to move the goalpost, then go ahead, but the fact remains you have not shown your solution would solve anything other than retraining one person.

No, I never claimed that two officers would change a person's behavior. NEVER. Now, stop being dishonest. My point is that citizens and cops would be safer from shootings.

Yet you provide no evidence to back that point up.

It's common sense.

Common sense is not attacking an armed cop.

Like I said, you cannot predict or control how a person is going to react. Impossible.

 

[ChrisL]

Look, this issue isn't rocket surgery. Any decent cop could have handled this situation short of ending up with a dead kid on his hands. Period.

Yeah, I think better training is in order as well.

It goes beyond training. Good cops start with good leaders. We don't have leaders anymore, we have politicians...in and out of uniform.

Hmm. That is also a good point. Something to think about.

 

[bucs90]

I hear what your saying, but where is the evidence to back it up?

Do you think a felon getting being pulled over is going to react differently because there are two cops in the patrol car instead of one?

But that is not my point. Again, my point is that two officers would be more able to control the unruly suspect without having to resort to using their weapons. Also, the officers are less vulnerable when making a traffic stop or whatever the case may be if there are two instead of just one.

If your point is that two people can better restrain one person then you are correct. But that's not the issue and not your original claim. The claim was that two cops per patrol car would reduce the amount of police/citizen shootings and would prevent idiots like this punk from making the dumbass decision to attack an armed officer.

But if you wish to move the goalpost, then go ahead, but the fact remains you have not shown your solution would solve anything other than retraining one person.

No, I never claimed that two officers would change a person's behavior. NEVER. Now, stop being dishonest. My point is that citizens and cops would be safer from shootings.

Yet you provide no evidence to back that point up.

It's common sense.

Ok tell us. You just got named director of the police academy. How will you make the training "better"?

Oh....remember....your recruits are a diverse cross section of American society.....not 100 very fit 18-22 year old male Marine recruits. It's 100 people of mixed gender and race and backgrounds, ages 21 through mid 40s....with workers comp laws in place in case they get hurt.

Oh....there's also lawyers waiting to sue, the DOJ threatening fines against you if you don't lower standards....AND the media waiting to expose "militarized" training if you get too harsh on them.

Now...please....inform us of this better training?

 

[ChrisL]

But that is not my point. Again, my point is that two officers would be more able to control the unruly suspect without having to resort to using their weapons. Also, the officers are less vulnerable when making a traffic stop or whatever the case may be if there are two instead of just one.

If your point is that two people can better restrain one person then you are correct. But that's not the issue and not your original claim. The claim was that two cops per patrol car would reduce the amount of police/citizen shootings and would prevent idiots like this punk from making the dumbass decision to attack an armed officer.

But if you wish to move the goalpost, then go ahead, but the fact remains you have not shown your solution would solve anything other than retraining one person.

No, I never claimed that two officers would change a person's behavior. NEVER. Now, stop being dishonest. My point is that citizens and cops would be safer from shootings.

Yet you provide no evidence to back that point up.

It's common sense.

Ok tell us. You just got named director of the police academy. How will you make the training "better"?

Oh....remember....your recruits are a diverse cross section of American society.....not 100 very fit 18-22 year old male Marine recruits. It's 100 people of mixed gender and race and backgrounds, ages 21 through mid 40s....with workers comp laws in place in case they get hurt.

Oh....there's also lawyers waiting to sue, the DOJ threatening fines against you if you don't lower standards....AND the media waiting to expose "militarized" training if you get too harsh on them.

Now...please....inform us of this better training?

Well, I never claimed to be an expert, but IMO 6 weeks is certainly not a very long time, and perhaps police academy training time should be extended. At one time, 6 week course may have been sufficient, but not in today's day and age. There is ALWAYS room for improvement.

Police Chief Magazine - View Article

asic police recruit training has been an unsettled topic for many years in the United States. Historically, in many states, the issue has been to provide more training for recruits. Yet, in recent times, special interest groups have made their ways into academy curricula, due to the timeliness of their advocacies. Racial profiling, cultural diversity, mental health, and domestic violence are several of these areas. As a result of these training topics and other task-oriented subjects, some recruit training programs exceed 1,000 hours. That would mean that recruits are in a classroom for about half of their first year. This extended training commitment certainly is at odds with the desire of many agencies to deploy new officers expediently. Many agencies are wondering if there is a more efficient way to get their recruits the training they need.


20th-Century Police Training Model

Ever since the U.S. Congress passed the Safe Streets Act of 1968, which provided substantial federal assistance to local law enforcement agencies for training, basic recruit peace officer training has been a significant and ongoing issue across the country. Even before the passage of that act, John Sullivan, in his book Introduction to Police Science, published in 1966, observed,

While a physician may change his diagnosis or prescription, a lawyer may amend his pleadings, and a judge may take days or weeks to render a decision, when a peace officer makes a decision, it frequently must be instantaneous. Therefore, in order to cope with the many complex emergency duties and responsibilities that confront a peace officer in his/her role, the officer cannot depend entirely upon native ability. Instead he or she must be expertly trained to function effectively as an integral part of today’s modern mechanized police force.1

Almost a decade later, former U.S. attorney general Ramsey Clark also commented on the need for increased police competence by noting, “To be truly professional, police must have high standards of education and personal competence in a wide range of subjects with continuous development and training.”2

In 1973, the National Advisory Commission on Criminal Justice Standards and Goals strongly recommended that every state should require all sworn police employees to complete a minimum of 400 hours of basic training to enable all peace officers to perform their roles effectively.

Even a study prepared by the IACP in 1977 demonstrated that in the mid-1960s, the average police officer in the United States received less than 200 hours of formal training—whereas the 1973 National Advisory Commission reported that physicians received more than 11,000 hours; lawyers, more than 9,000 hours; teachers, more than 7,000 hours; embalmers, more than 5,000 hours; and barbers, more than 4,000 hours.

Yet, ironically, records and research clearly show that as late as 1967, police recruit basic training practices did not even exist for up to 32 percent of the law enforcement agencies within municipalities and counties with populations of greater than 10,000.3 For many agencies, recruit training was almost an afterthought.

For example, in 1975, with a degree in criminal justice administration, Gary Maddox became a police officer. Maddox, now director of the Law Enforcement Training Institute for the University of Missouri–Extension, says it never occurred to him at the time he was hired that it would be a year before he would receive any formal training for the job; then, when he did go to a training academy, it was only 320 hours—eight weeks’ worth. Yet from the time Maddox took his oath, he was expected to make informed, split-second decisions regarding such issues as use of force and constitutional law without a speck of training on which to rely.

By the early 1980s, basic training for peace officers in the United States had finally become mandated in every state. However, this training ranged from as little as 120 hours to as much as 1,000 hours or more, depending on each state’s respective statutes, police agencies, and academy directors. And much of that recruit training was seen as inadequate, because in many instances, the instruction bore little relationship to what was actually expected of peace officers. In the absence of any guidelines that truly related to an analysis of police experiences, instructors and trainers were left with only the formal definition of police authority and other vague, nebulous, and abstract concepts to communicate to peace officer trainees.4

These observations are not meant to discredit or belittle the usually well-intentioned and sincere efforts of police trainers and training administrators to provide job-relevant training at the time. It should be remembered that the role of police in contemporary society has never been clearly defined or universally adopted.

 

[bucs90]

If your point is that two people can better restrain one person then you are correct. But that's not the issue and not your original claim. The claim was that two cops per patrol car would reduce the amount of police/citizen shootings and would prevent idiots like this punk from making the dumbass decision to attack an armed officer.

But if you wish to move the goalpost, then go ahead, but the fact remains you have not shown your solution would solve anything other than retraining one person.

No, I never claimed that two officers would change a person's behavior. NEVER. Now, stop being dishonest. My point is that citizens and cops would be safer from shootings.

Yet you provide no evidence to back that point up.

It's common sense.

Ok tell us. You just got named director of the police academy. How will you make the training "better"?

Oh....remember....your recruits are a diverse cross section of American society.....not 100 very fit 18-22 year old male Marine recruits. It's 100 people of mixed gender and race and backgrounds, ages 21 through mid 40s....with workers comp laws in place in case they get hurt.

Oh....there's also lawyers waiting to sue, the DOJ threatening fines against you if you don't lower standards....AND the media waiting to expose "militarized" training if you get too harsh on them.

Now...please....inform us of this better training?

Well, I never claimed to be an expert, but IMO 6 weeks is certainly not a very long time, and perhaps police academy training time should be extended. At one time, 6 week course may have been sufficient, but not in today's day and age. There is ALWAYS room for improvement.

Police Chief Magazine - View Article

asic police recruit training has been an unsettled topic for many years in the United States. Historically, in many states, the issue has been to provide more training for recruits. Yet, in recent times, special interest groups have made their ways into academy curricula, due to the timeliness of their advocacies. Racial profiling, cultural diversity, mental health, and domestic violence are several of these areas. As a result of these training topics and other task-oriented subjects, some recruit training programs exceed 1,000 hours. That would mean that recruits are in a classroom for about half of their first year. This extended training commitment certainly is at odds with the desire of many agencies to deploy new officers expediently. Many agencies are wondering if there is a more efficient way to get their recruits the training they need.


20th-Century Police Training Model

Ever since the U.S. Congress passed the Safe Streets Act of 1968, which provided substantial federal assistance to local law enforcement agencies for training, basic recruit peace officer training has been a significant and ongoing issue across the country. Even before the passage of that act, John Sullivan, in his book Introduction to Police Science, published in 1966, observed,

While a physician may change his diagnosis or prescription, a lawyer may amend his pleadings, and a judge may take days or weeks to render a decision, when a peace officer makes a decision, it frequently must be instantaneous. Therefore, in order to cope with the many complex emergency duties and responsibilities that confront a peace officer in his/her role, the officer cannot depend entirely upon native ability. Instead he or she must be expertly trained to function effectively as an integral part of today’s modern mechanized police force.1

Almost a decade later, former U.S. attorney general Ramsey Clark also commented on the need for increased police competence by noting, “To be truly professional, police must have high standards of education and personal competence in a wide range of subjects with continuous development and training.”2

In 1973, the National Advisory Commission on Criminal Justice Standards and Goals strongly recommended that every state should require all sworn police employees to complete a minimum of 400 hours of basic training to enable all peace officers to perform their roles effectively.

Even a study prepared by the IACP in 1977 demonstrated that in the mid-1960s, the average police officer in the United States received less than 200 hours of formal training—whereas the 1973 National Advisory Commission reported that physicians received more than 11,000 hours; lawyers, more than 9,000 hours; teachers, more than 7,000 hours; embalmers, more than 5,000 hours; and barbers, more than 4,000 hours.

Yet, ironically, records and research clearly show that as late as 1967, police recruit basic training practices did not even exist for up to 32 percent of the law enforcement agencies within municipalities and counties with populations of greater than 10,000.3 For many agencies, recruit training was almost an afterthought.

For example, in 1975, with a degree in criminal justice administration, Gary Maddox became a police officer. Maddox, now director of the Law Enforcement Training Institute for the University of Missouri–Extension, says it never occurred to him at the time he was hired that it would be a year before he would receive any formal training for the job; then, when he did go to a training academy, it was only 320 hours—eight weeks’ worth. Yet from the time Maddox took his oath, he was expected to make informed, split-second decisions regarding such issues as use of force and constitutional law without a speck of training on which to rely.

By the early 1980s, basic training for peace officers in the United States had finally become mandated in every state. However, this training ranged from as little as 120 hours to as much as 1,000 hours or more, depending on each state’s respective statutes, police agencies, and academy directors. And much of that recruit training was seen as inadequate, because in many instances, the instruction bore little relationship to what was actually expected of peace officers. In the absence of any guidelines that truly related to an analysis of police experiences, instructors and trainers were left with only the formal definition of police authority and other vague, nebulous, and abstract concepts to communicate to peace officer trainees.4

These observations are not meant to discredit or belittle the usually well-intentioned and sincere efforts of police trainers and training administrators to provide job-relevant training at the time. It should be remembered that the role of police in contemporary society has never been clearly defined or universally adopted.

So you say they need better training....but have absolutely no clue what it should be. Got it.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

No, I never claimed that two officers would change a person's behavior. NEVER. Now, stop being dishonest. My point is that citizens and cops would be safer from shootings.

Yet you provide no evidence to back that point up.

It's common sense.

Ok tell us. You just got named director of the police academy. How will you make the training "better"?

Oh....remember....your recruits are a diverse cross section of American society.....not 100 very fit 18-22 year old male Marine recruits. It's 100 people of mixed gender and race and backgrounds, ages 21 through mid 40s....with workers comp laws in place in case they get hurt.

Oh....there's also lawyers waiting to sue, the DOJ threatening fines against you if you don't lower standards....AND the media waiting to expose "militarized" training if you get too harsh on them.

Now...please....inform us of this better training?

Well, I never claimed to be an expert, but IMO 6 weeks is certainly not a very long time, and perhaps police academy training time should be extended. At one time, 6 week course may have been sufficient, but not in today's day and age. There is ALWAYS room for improvement.

Police Chief Magazine - View Article

asic police recruit training has been an unsettled topic for many years in the United States. Historically, in many states, the issue has been to provide more training for recruits. Yet, in recent times, special interest groups have made their ways into academy curricula, due to the timeliness of their advocacies. Racial profiling, cultural diversity, mental health, and domestic violence are several of these areas. As a result of these training topics and other task-oriented subjects, some recruit training programs exceed 1,000 hours. That would mean that recruits are in a classroom for about half of their first year. This extended training commitment certainly is at odds with the desire of many agencies to deploy new officers expediently. Many agencies are wondering if there is a more efficient way to get their recruits the training they need.


20th-Century Police Training Model

Ever since the U.S. Congress passed the Safe Streets Act of 1968, which provided substantial federal assistance to local law enforcement agencies for training, basic recruit peace officer training has been a significant and ongoing issue across the country. Even before the passage of that act, John Sullivan, in his book Introduction to Police Science, published in 1966, observed,

While a physician may change his diagnosis or prescription, a lawyer may amend his pleadings, and a judge may take days or weeks to render a decision, when a peace officer makes a decision, it frequently must be instantaneous. Therefore, in order to cope with the many complex emergency duties and responsibilities that confront a peace officer in his/her role, the officer cannot depend entirely upon native ability. Instead he or she must be expertly trained to function effectively as an integral part of today’s modern mechanized police force.1

Almost a decade later, former U.S. attorney general Ramsey Clark also commented on the need for increased police competence by noting, “To be truly professional, police must have high standards of education and personal competence in a wide range of subjects with continuous development and training.”2

In 1973, the National Advisory Commission on Criminal Justice Standards and Goals strongly recommended that every state should require all sworn police employees to complete a minimum of 400 hours of basic training to enable all peace officers to perform their roles effectively.

Even a study prepared by the IACP in 1977 demonstrated that in the mid-1960s, the average police officer in the United States received less than 200 hours of formal training—whereas the 1973 National Advisory Commission reported that physicians received more than 11,000 hours; lawyers, more than 9,000 hours; teachers, more than 7,000 hours; embalmers, more than 5,000 hours; and barbers, more than 4,000 hours.

Yet, ironically, records and research clearly show that as late as 1967, police recruit basic training practices did not even exist for up to 32 percent of the law enforcement agencies within municipalities and counties with populations of greater than 10,000.3 For many agencies, recruit training was almost an afterthought.

For example, in 1975, with a degree in criminal justice administration, Gary Maddox became a police officer. Maddox, now director of the Law Enforcement Training Institute for the University of Missouri–Extension, says it never occurred to him at the time he was hired that it would be a year before he would receive any formal training for the job; then, when he did go to a training academy, it was only 320 hours—eight weeks’ worth. Yet from the time Maddox took his oath, he was expected to make informed, split-second decisions regarding such issues as use of force and constitutional law without a speck of training on which to rely.

By the early 1980s, basic training for peace officers in the United States had finally become mandated in every state. However, this training ranged from as little as 120 hours to as much as 1,000 hours or more, depending on each state’s respective statutes, police agencies, and academy directors. And much of that recruit training was seen as inadequate, because in many instances, the instruction bore little relationship to what was actually expected of peace officers. In the absence of any guidelines that truly related to an analysis of police experiences, instructors and trainers were left with only the formal definition of police authority and other vague, nebulous, and abstract concepts to communicate to peace officer trainees.4

These observations are not meant to discredit or belittle the usually well-intentioned and sincere efforts of police trainers and training administrators to provide job-relevant training at the time. It should be remembered that the role of police in contemporary society has never been clearly defined or universally adopted.

So you say they need better training....but have absolutely no clue what it should be. Got it.

She goes with a 20th century model in a 21st century world. This isn't 1967 or 1975. We're living in a completely different world now than we did back then.

 

[ChrisL]

No, I never claimed that two officers would change a person's behavior. NEVER. Now, stop being dishonest. My point is that citizens and cops would be safer from shootings.

Yet you provide no evidence to back that point up.

It's common sense.

Ok tell us. You just got named director of the police academy. How will you make the training "better"?

Oh....remember....your recruits are a diverse cross section of American society.....not 100 very fit 18-22 year old male Marine recruits. It's 100 people of mixed gender and race and backgrounds, ages 21 through mid 40s....with workers comp laws in place in case they get hurt.

Oh....there's also lawyers waiting to sue, the DOJ threatening fines against you if you don't lower standards....AND the media waiting to expose "militarized" training if you get too harsh on them.

Now...please....inform us of this better training?

Well, I never claimed to be an expert, but IMO 6 weeks is certainly not a very long time, and perhaps police academy training time should be extended. At one time, 6 week course may have been sufficient, but not in today's day and age. There is ALWAYS room for improvement.

Police Chief Magazine - View Article

asic police recruit training has been an unsettled topic for many years in the United States. Historically, in many states, the issue has been to provide more training for recruits. Yet, in recent times, special interest groups have made their ways into academy curricula, due to the timeliness of their advocacies. Racial profiling, cultural diversity, mental health, and domestic violence are several of these areas. As a result of these training topics and other task-oriented subjects, some recruit training programs exceed 1,000 hours. That would mean that recruits are in a classroom for about half of their first year. This extended training commitment certainly is at odds with the desire of many agencies to deploy new officers expediently. Many agencies are wondering if there is a more efficient way to get their recruits the training they need.


20th-Century Police Training Model

Ever since the U.S. Congress passed the Safe Streets Act of 1968, which provided substantial federal assistance to local law enforcement agencies for training, basic recruit peace officer training has been a significant and ongoing issue across the country. Even before the passage of that act, John Sullivan, in his book Introduction to Police Science, published in 1966, observed,

While a physician may change his diagnosis or prescription, a lawyer may amend his pleadings, and a judge may take days or weeks to render a decision, when a peace officer makes a decision, it frequently must be instantaneous. Therefore, in order to cope with the many complex emergency duties and responsibilities that confront a peace officer in his/her role, the officer cannot depend entirely upon native ability. Instead he or she must be expertly trained to function effectively as an integral part of today’s modern mechanized police force.1

Almost a decade later, former U.S. attorney general Ramsey Clark also commented on the need for increased police competence by noting, “To be truly professional, police must have high standards of education and personal competence in a wide range of subjects with continuous development and training.”2

In 1973, the National Advisory Commission on Criminal Justice Standards and Goals strongly recommended that every state should require all sworn police employees to complete a minimum of 400 hours of basic training to enable all peace officers to perform their roles effectively.

Even a study prepared by the IACP in 1977 demonstrated that in the mid-1960s, the average police officer in the United States received less than 200 hours of formal training—whereas the 1973 National Advisory Commission reported that physicians received more than 11,000 hours; lawyers, more than 9,000 hours; teachers, more than 7,000 hours; embalmers, more than 5,000 hours; and barbers, more than 4,000 hours.

Yet, ironically, records and research clearly show that as late as 1967, police recruit basic training practices did not even exist for up to 32 percent of the law enforcement agencies within municipalities and counties with populations of greater than 10,000.3 For many agencies, recruit training was almost an afterthought.

For example, in 1975, with a degree in criminal justice administration, Gary Maddox became a police officer. Maddox, now director of the Law Enforcement Training Institute for the University of Missouri–Extension, says it never occurred to him at the time he was hired that it would be a year before he would receive any formal training for the job; then, when he did go to a training academy, it was only 320 hours—eight weeks’ worth. Yet from the time Maddox took his oath, he was expected to make informed, split-second decisions regarding such issues as use of force and constitutional law without a speck of training on which to rely.

By the early 1980s, basic training for peace officers in the United States had finally become mandated in every state. However, this training ranged from as little as 120 hours to as much as 1,000 hours or more, depending on each state’s respective statutes, police agencies, and academy directors. And much of that recruit training was seen as inadequate, because in many instances, the instruction bore little relationship to what was actually expected of peace officers. In the absence of any guidelines that truly related to an analysis of police experiences, instructors and trainers were left with only the formal definition of police authority and other vague, nebulous, and abstract concepts to communicate to peace officer trainees.4

These observations are not meant to discredit or belittle the usually well-intentioned and sincere efforts of police trainers and training administrators to provide job-relevant training at the time. It should be remembered that the role of police in contemporary society has never been clearly defined or universally adopted.

So you say they need better training....but have absolutely no clue what it should be. Got it.

Well, so does the report I just showed you. Did you read it?

 

[ChrisL]

Yet you provide no evidence to back that point up.

It's common sense.

Ok tell us. You just got named director of the police academy. How will you make the training "better"?

Oh....remember....your recruits are a diverse cross section of American society.....not 100 very fit 18-22 year old male Marine recruits. It's 100 people of mixed gender and race and backgrounds, ages 21 through mid 40s....with workers comp laws in place in case they get hurt.

Oh....there's also lawyers waiting to sue, the DOJ threatening fines against you if you don't lower standards....AND the media waiting to expose "militarized" training if you get too harsh on them.

Now...please....inform us of this better training?

Well, I never claimed to be an expert, but IMO 6 weeks is certainly not a very long time, and perhaps police academy training time should be extended. At one time, 6 week course may have been sufficient, but not in today's day and age. There is ALWAYS room for improvement.

Police Chief Magazine - View Article

asic police recruit training has been an unsettled topic for many years in the United States. Historically, in many states, the issue has been to provide more training for recruits. Yet, in recent times, special interest groups have made their ways into academy curricula, due to the timeliness of their advocacies. Racial profiling, cultural diversity, mental health, and domestic violence are several of these areas. As a result of these training topics and other task-oriented subjects, some recruit training programs exceed 1,000 hours. That would mean that recruits are in a classroom for about half of their first year. This extended training commitment certainly is at odds with the desire of many agencies to deploy new officers expediently. Many agencies are wondering if there is a more efficient way to get their recruits the training they need.


20th-Century Police Training Model

Ever since the U.S. Congress passed the Safe Streets Act of 1968, which provided substantial federal assistance to local law enforcement agencies for training, basic recruit peace officer training has been a significant and ongoing issue across the country. Even before the passage of that act, John Sullivan, in his book Introduction to Police Science, published in 1966, observed,

While a physician may change his diagnosis or prescription, a lawyer may amend his pleadings, and a judge may take days or weeks to render a decision, when a peace officer makes a decision, it frequently must be instantaneous. Therefore, in order to cope with the many complex emergency duties and responsibilities that confront a peace officer in his/her role, the officer cannot depend entirely upon native ability. Instead he or she must be expertly trained to function effectively as an integral part of today’s modern mechanized police force.1

Almost a decade later, former U.S. attorney general Ramsey Clark also commented on the need for increased police competence by noting, “To be truly professional, police must have high standards of education and personal competence in a wide range of subjects with continuous development and training.”2

In 1973, the National Advisory Commission on Criminal Justice Standards and Goals strongly recommended that every state should require all sworn police employees to complete a minimum of 400 hours of basic training to enable all peace officers to perform their roles effectively.

Even a study prepared by the IACP in 1977 demonstrated that in the mid-1960s, the average police officer in the United States received less than 200 hours of formal training—whereas the 1973 National Advisory Commission reported that physicians received more than 11,000 hours; lawyers, more than 9,000 hours; teachers, more than 7,000 hours; embalmers, more than 5,000 hours; and barbers, more than 4,000 hours.

Yet, ironically, records and research clearly show that as late as 1967, police recruit basic training practices did not even exist for up to 32 percent of the law enforcement agencies within municipalities and counties with populations of greater than 10,000.3 For many agencies, recruit training was almost an afterthought.

For example, in 1975, with a degree in criminal justice administration, Gary Maddox became a police officer. Maddox, now director of the Law Enforcement Training Institute for the University of Missouri–Extension, says it never occurred to him at the time he was hired that it would be a year before he would receive any formal training for the job; then, when he did go to a training academy, it was only 320 hours—eight weeks’ worth. Yet from the time Maddox took his oath, he was expected to make informed, split-second decisions regarding such issues as use of force and constitutional law without a speck of training on which to rely.

By the early 1980s, basic training for peace officers in the United States had finally become mandated in every state. However, this training ranged from as little as 120 hours to as much as 1,000 hours or more, depending on each state’s respective statutes, police agencies, and academy directors. And much of that recruit training was seen as inadequate, because in many instances, the instruction bore little relationship to what was actually expected of peace officers. In the absence of any guidelines that truly related to an analysis of police experiences, instructors and trainers were left with only the formal definition of police authority and other vague, nebulous, and abstract concepts to communicate to peace officer trainees.4

These observations are not meant to discredit or belittle the usually well-intentioned and sincere efforts of police trainers and training administrators to provide job-relevant training at the time. It should be remembered that the role of police in contemporary society has never been clearly defined or universally adopted.

So you say they need better training....but have absolutely no clue what it should be. Got it.

She goes with a 20th century model in a 21st century world. This isn't 1967 or 1975. We're living in a completely different world now than we did back then.

Huh? I wasn't even alive then. Lol.

 

[ChrisL]

Yet you provide no evidence to back that point up.

It's common sense.

Ok tell us. You just got named director of the police academy. How will you make the training "better"?

Oh....remember....your recruits are a diverse cross section of American society.....not 100 very fit 18-22 year old male Marine recruits. It's 100 people of mixed gender and race and backgrounds, ages 21 through mid 40s....with workers comp laws in place in case they get hurt.

Oh....there's also lawyers waiting to sue, the DOJ threatening fines against you if you don't lower standards....AND the media waiting to expose "militarized" training if you get too harsh on them.

Now...please....inform us of this better training?

Well, I never claimed to be an expert, but IMO 6 weeks is certainly not a very long time, and perhaps police academy training time should be extended. At one time, 6 week course may have been sufficient, but not in today's day and age. There is ALWAYS room for improvement.

Police Chief Magazine - View Article

asic police recruit training has been an unsettled topic for many years in the United States. Historically, in many states, the issue has been to provide more training for recruits. Yet, in recent times, special interest groups have made their ways into academy curricula, due to the timeliness of their advocacies. Racial profiling, cultural diversity, mental health, and domestic violence are several of these areas. As a result of these training topics and other task-oriented subjects, some recruit training programs exceed 1,000 hours. That would mean that recruits are in a classroom for about half of their first year. This extended training commitment certainly is at odds with the desire of many agencies to deploy new officers expediently. Many agencies are wondering if there is a more efficient way to get their recruits the training they need.


20th-Century Police Training Model

Ever since the U.S. Congress passed the Safe Streets Act of 1968, which provided substantial federal assistance to local law enforcement agencies for training, basic recruit peace officer training has been a significant and ongoing issue across the country. Even before the passage of that act, John Sullivan, in his book Introduction to Police Science, published in 1966, observed,

While a physician may change his diagnosis or prescription, a lawyer may amend his pleadings, and a judge may take days or weeks to render a decision, when a peace officer makes a decision, it frequently must be instantaneous. Therefore, in order to cope with the many complex emergency duties and responsibilities that confront a peace officer in his/her role, the officer cannot depend entirely upon native ability. Instead he or she must be expertly trained to function effectively as an integral part of today’s modern mechanized police force.1

Almost a decade later, former U.S. attorney general Ramsey Clark also commented on the need for increased police competence by noting, “To be truly professional, police must have high standards of education and personal competence in a wide range of subjects with continuous development and training.”2

In 1973, the National Advisory Commission on Criminal Justice Standards and Goals strongly recommended that every state should require all sworn police employees to complete a minimum of 400 hours of basic training to enable all peace officers to perform their roles effectively.

Even a study prepared by the IACP in 1977 demonstrated that in the mid-1960s, the average police officer in the United States received less than 200 hours of formal training—whereas the 1973 National Advisory Commission reported that physicians received more than 11,000 hours; lawyers, more than 9,000 hours; teachers, more than 7,000 hours; embalmers, more than 5,000 hours; and barbers, more than 4,000 hours.

Yet, ironically, records and research clearly show that as late as 1967, police recruit basic training practices did not even exist for up to 32 percent of the law enforcement agencies within municipalities and counties with populations of greater than 10,000.3 For many agencies, recruit training was almost an afterthought.

For example, in 1975, with a degree in criminal justice administration, Gary Maddox became a police officer. Maddox, now director of the Law Enforcement Training Institute for the University of Missouri–Extension, says it never occurred to him at the time he was hired that it would be a year before he would receive any formal training for the job; then, when he did go to a training academy, it was only 320 hours—eight weeks’ worth. Yet from the time Maddox took his oath, he was expected to make informed, split-second decisions regarding such issues as use of force and constitutional law without a speck of training on which to rely.

By the early 1980s, basic training for peace officers in the United States had finally become mandated in every state. However, this training ranged from as little as 120 hours to as much as 1,000 hours or more, depending on each state’s respective statutes, police agencies, and academy directors. And much of that recruit training was seen as inadequate, because in many instances, the instruction bore little relationship to what was actually expected of peace officers. In the absence of any guidelines that truly related to an analysis of police experiences, instructors and trainers were left with only the formal definition of police authority and other vague, nebulous, and abstract concepts to communicate to peace officer trainees.4

These observations are not meant to discredit or belittle the usually well-intentioned and sincere efforts of police trainers and training administrators to provide job-relevant training at the time. It should be remembered that the role of police in contemporary society has never been clearly defined or universally adopted.

So you say they need better training....but have absolutely no clue what it should be. Got it.

She goes with a 20th century model in a 21st century world. This isn't 1967 or 1975. We're living in a completely different world now than we did back then.

Lol. Those weren't my words. I copied them from the link I provided you. It's from Police Chief Magazine.

 

[jc456]

As you can see by my links above, SOME communities are actually considering the "2 officers per car" idea. So suck it!

so I still don't know how that addresses this scenario. Please explain, because if it isn't for all patrol cars, then the probabilities still exist to run into this type of altercation. So, it would become a failed effort.