The Police News did not identify the author, but I suspect he is a street cop.
THE PUBLIC’S MISCONCEPTION
People have the ability to kill in a fraction of a second
By Scott Westerman
The Police News
January 23, 2011
After most police shootings, members of the public often criticize that the officer could have or should have handled the situation differently or better. What almost every one of these critics fails to offer, though, is a viable alternative the officers involved could have used instead.
I was recently talking with two officers about a local shooting of a violently aggressive mentally unstable woman, and that's when it dawned on me - we should be grateful that the citizens of the area feel that the officer should have handled the situation differently.
We, the officers who protect and serve our area with the utmost professionalism, should take comfort in the notion that the people we serve really don't have a true understanding of what it is like to deal with a person who is trying to kill them. I realize that this is a drastically different approach in perspective. Typically, when a person makes a comment like, "I think the officer should have done something different," or "why did the officer have to kill him/her when they could have just shot them in the leg," we dismiss them as being unfamiliar with the dark side of the world. But it is this very unfamiliarity that we should take comfort in.
They are unfamiliar with the dark side of society, in part, because of us. The general public typically doesn't have to deal first-hand with the aggressive, violent element within our community, in part, because the police are doing an outstanding job!
Consider this - The vast majority of people in this community have never had someone shoot the person standing right next to them. They have never had someone charge at them in a full run with a big knife in both hands over their head intent on plunging the knife into their heart. They don't know that a person who is mentally unbalanced can be as dangerous as a person high on methamphetamine. They have never had a person track them with a shotgun. They have likely never had someone casually walk up to them and pound on their head until they were unconscious.
They have never been the lone obstacle that stands between a criminal and his freedom or a lifetime of incarceration. They don't even know what a "tweaker" is. All of this causes me to think that we should be glad that they don't.
Most people have had very minimal experience with mentally ill people. It might be a cousin who was never "quite right," or the guy they saw on the side of the street with tin foil on his head. But even those with more experience still may not know what it is like to deal with a violent, mentally ill person, but they do still exist in our community.
Should it bother us these critics are unfamiliar with the violent part of the community around them? I know some of you are thinking, "But these are the people who are trying to influence what happens to me after a critical incident." To me, the answer is no. It shouldn't bother us that they are unfamiliar or unaware, it should give you pride that we have so successfully shielded them from a frightening part of reality. On the other hand, it does bother me a little, and it should bother them, that they are speaking publicly about something they know very little about. That is the nature of our society.
I once asked why we don't have an information unit, either through the Public Information Officer or District Attorney's office that helps educate the public about these types of things. I was given several reasons: one being money, the other being lack of interest on the public's part. The Citizen's Academy is a good start. I think it should be expanded to show those who are actively involved in our community the realities of the environment in which we work.
One of the few places the general public can learn about the situations we face every day is when they serve on a jury. The city attorney's office and district attorney's office take the time to educate the juries about procedure, policy, law, and most importantly, reality. This is done before any other testimony is presented.
The jury is placed in an unfortunate situation because they have to have their sense of reality and safety shattered in order to know what it really is like on the street. When they are in the jury box, they learn that on the street, things are different than in an office building or hospital. Things are actually quite different from what they had previously thought.
They learn that people have the ability to kill in a fraction of a second. They learn that most of the less lethal items the police are authorized to carry have absolutely no effect on a subject who is so out of their mind - be it from drugs, criminal intent, or mental impairment - that they are completely detached from reality. They learn that when an officer has to react, the officer has to react immediately and that social experimentation is not an option. They learn that if an officer chooses one of the less lethal options, and it doesn't work, the officer could end up dead. They also learn that the image of police work that movies and TV create on such issues as reaction times, placement of shots, use of alternative tactics, simply aren't realistic. In the academy and in field training, officers learn how things work in the real world of policing.
This is our reality, and unfortunately for those on the juries, it becomes theirs too and they may never feel as safe again.
So, when you hear a person commenting about how the police should have done it differently, take pride in the fact that they are unaware of the harsh realities of our community, in part, because of the work you are doing in a world they don't even know exists.
No comments:
Post a Comment