Even As Violent Crime Falls, Killing of Officers Rises

[General Mung Beans]

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/10/us/de ... ml?_r=1&hp

Even as Violent Crime Falls, Killing of Officers Rises


By MICHAEL S. SCHMIDT and JOSEPH GOLDSTEIN
Published: April 9, 2012


WASHINGTON — As violent crime has decreased across the country, a disturbing trend has emerged: rising numbers of police officers are being killed.



New York Police Department
A gun recovered from a Brooklyn apartment after a shootout on Sunday that left four New York City police officers wounded.
According to statistics compiled by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, 72 officers were killed by perpetrators in 2011, a 25 percent increase from the previous year and a 75 percent increase from 2008.

The 2011 deaths were the first time that more officers were killed by suspects than car accidents, according to data compiled by the International Association of Chiefs of Police. The number was the highest in nearly two decades, excluding those who died in the Sept. 11 attacks in 2001 and the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995.

While a majority of officers were killed in smaller cities, 13 were killed in cities of 250,000 or more. New York City lost two officers last year. On Sunday, four were wounded by a gunman in Brooklyn, bringing to eight the number of officers shot in the city since December.

“We haven’t seen a period of this type of violence in a long time,” said Commissioner Raymond W. Kelly of the New York Police Department.

While the F.B.I. and other law enforcement officials cannot fully explain the reasons for the rise in officer homicides, they are clear about the devastating consequences.

“In this law enforcement job, when you pin this badge on and go out on calls, when you leave home, you ain’t got a promise that you will come back,” said Sheriff Ray Foster of Buchanan County, Va. Two of his deputies were killed in March 2011 and two wounded — one of them paralyzed — by a man with a high-powered rifle.

“That was 80 percent of my day shift,” he said.

After a spate of killings in early 2011, Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. asked federal authorities to work with local police departments to try to come up with solutions to the problem.

The F.B.I., which has tracked officer deaths since 1937, paid for a study conducted by John Jay College that found that in many cases the officers were trying to arrest or stop a suspect who had previously been arrested for a violent crime.

That prompted the F.B.I. to change what information it will provide to local police departments, the officials said. Starting this year, when police officers stop a car and call its license plate into the F.B.I.’s database, they will be told whether the owner of the vehicle has a violent history. Through the first three months of this year, the number of police fatalities has dropped, though it is unclear why.

Some law enforcement officials believe that techniques pioneered by the New York Police Department over the past two decades and adopted by other departments may have put officers at greater risk by encouraging them to conduct more street stops and to seek out and confront suspects who seem likely to be armed. In New York and elsewhere, police officials moved more officers into crime-ridden areas.

“This technique has become more popular across the country as smaller departments have followed the larger cities and tried to prevent crime,” said Chuck Wexler, executive director of the Police Executive Research Forum. “Unlike several decades ago, there is this expectation that police matter and that police can make a difference.”

Commissioner Kelly said, “We try to put those officers where there is the most potential for violence.” However, he pointed out that most of the officers who have been shot in New York since December were not part of a proactive police deployment but were responding to emergencies.

Some argue that the rise in violence is linked to the tough economy. With less money, some states are releasing prisoners earlier; police departments, after years of staffing increases, have been forced to make cutbacks.

“A lot of these killings aren’t happening in major urban areas,” said James W. McMahon, chief of staff for the International Association of Chiefs of Police. “One of the concerns we are looking at is that a number of officers are being laid off or furloughed or not replaced.”

The police chief in Camden, N.J., J. Scott Thomson, whose force of 400 was cut by nearly half last year because of financing issues, said that having fewer officers on the street “makes it that much more difficult to create an environment in which criminals do not feel as emboldened to assault another person, let alone a law enforcement officer.”

The murder of a veteran officer last April in Chattanooga, Tenn., was typical of many of the 2011 episodes.

Sgt. Tim Chapin, a veteran nearing retirement, rushed to provide backup to officers who had responded to reports of a robbery outside a pawnshop and were under fire. Sergeant Chapin got out of his car and chased the fleeing suspect, who had been convicted of armed robbery. During the pursuit, the sergeant was fatally shot in the head.

As part of the F.B.I.’s efforts to prevent officer deaths, the bureau trains thousands of officers each year, highlighting shootings like the one in Chattanooga to teach officers about situations in which they are most vulnerable. Those situations are typically pursuits, traffic stops and arrests, said Michelle S. Klimt, a top F.B.I. official at its Criminal Justice Information Services Center in Clarksburg, W.Va., who oversees officer training.

“Every stop can be potentially fatal, so we are trying to make sure the officers are ready and prepared every single day they go out,” Ms. Klimt said. “We try and teach that every day you go out, you are going to be encountered with deadly force by someone trying to kill you.”

Michael S. Schmidt reported from Washington, and Joseph Goldstein from New York. John H. Cushman Jr. contributed reporting from Washington.

[weemadando]

How much of this is "ordinary decent criminals" violently resisting arrest?

How much is related to anti-government crazies engaging the minions of the big gubmint mooslim antichrist?

And how many are a result of failures of mental health and other programs which lead to dangerous situations arising which the police are rarely prepared for?

[Stark]

The attitude that the police feel they need to maintain a certain level of strength to prevent criminals becoming 'bold' enough to attack them is pretty revealing. They feel that their solidarity is the only defense against the random violent death of their barren society.

[PeZook]

The attitude that the police feel they need to maintain a certain level of strength to prevent criminals becoming 'bold' enough to attack them is pretty revealing. They feel that their solidarity is the only defense against the random violent death of their barren society.

It's interesting that barely any officers are murdered on duty in, say, the UK or Australia, but in the US dozens of cops are killed EVERY YEAR - a very, very disproportionate number even if you consider the differences in population.

[weemadando]

Some of that may be down to firearms availability and perception.

A shooting in a city in the US doesn't seem particularly unusual for the police and may only rate a few units responding, because it is relatively common.

A shooting in a city in Australia often leads to cities getting locked down and SWAT style units going street to street.

There are exceptions and it seems firearms are being used more often in Australia now, but their use still results in an overwhelming police and later judicial response.

[Alkaloid]

Some of that may be down to firearms availability and perception.

A shooting in a city in the US doesn't seem particularly unusual for the police and may only rate a few units responding, because it is relatively common.

A shooting in a city in Australia often leads to cities getting locked down and SWAT style units going street to street.

There are exceptions and it seems firearms are being used more often in Australia now, but their use still results in an overwhelming police and later judicial response.

It might be the way cops go into situations as well. I remember reading about Vic Pol in the early 90's trying to resolve their problem of shooting a bucketload of people found that most people were shot when they had taken hostages and most were also mentally ill, so they actually changed their training program to place more emphasis on talking down the hostage taker, and specifically people with a mental illness. The US on the other hand has a much stronger history of hostage situations involving militias and and cults, not necessarily more per capita, but a much stronger media focus on things like Waco, and in more recent years paranoia about terrorism has gone up as well, so you may get cops thinking "terrorist or cult planning to kill everyone, have to act now" rather than "likely mentally ill, try and talk him down, not likely to want to kill anyone." That said, Vic Pol also dropped their training program because it was too expensive, so it might not be having an effect at all.

[weemadando]

I'm sure I'd edited to talk about mental health and social issues as part of standard training for police as well as general societal feelings on these matters. 3g eh?

But you've covered it fairly well.

[Count Chocula]

The article mentions that police departments, like New York's, are moving more police into more crime-ridden areas. THAT sounds like a GOOD thing to me, they're actually putting their forces where they will have an effect instead of having unofficial "no patrol" zones. The article doesn't say, but I'm curious if many of these officer shootings happened in areas where they haven't patrolled in the past and are now.

[Edi]

Moved Broomstick's post to this thread, since there seems to have been some mixup with the threads.

[Kamakazie Sith]

It might be the way cops go into situations as well. I remember reading about Vic Pol in the early 90's trying to resolve their problem of shooting a bucketload of people found that most people were shot when they had taken hostages and most were also mentally ill, so they actually changed their training program to place more emphasis on talking down the hostage taker, and specifically people with a mental illness. The US on the other hand has a much stronger history of hostage situations involving militias and and cults, not necessarily more per capita, but a much stronger media focus on things like Waco, and in more recent years paranoia about terrorism has gone up as well, so you may get cops thinking "terrorist or cult planning to kill everyone, have to act now" rather than "likely mentally ill, try and talk him down, not likely to want to kill anyone." That said, Vic Pol also dropped their training program because it was too expensive, so it might not be having an effect at all.

Our training for hostage situations is containment and communication. We only go in if people are being killed or negotiations aren't working.

[Alkaloid]

I'm not suggesting that you are trained to only kick in doors and shoot people, it's more, the average American policeman, raised in America in a 'standard' for want of a better word, American culture, may well prove to be a very different type of police officer to a 'standard' Australian or Brit or German or whatever.

For example, I can't think off the top of my head of a single highly publicised cult or militia siege or successful terrorist act in Australia. I know the names of a number in America without living in the country or having spent any more time there than 2 hours in LAX and 3 in Fort Worth waiting for a connection. On that basis, why would any Australian police officer in a siege assume that there is more to it than an unwell man who got desperate/panicked, because it appears, even if it's not actually the case, that these sorts of things just don't happen here. An American cop in the same situation will probably have, in the back of his mind the whole time just as a result of growing up where and when he did, words like Waco and Oklahoma City or Fort Hood and he knows that one day he may have to deal with a situation like that, maybe this one right now, and it could inform his actions and lead to him attempting to end the siege, or a different interpretation of what negotiations not working means that leads to an increased likely hood of shootings, an increased fear of being shot by police and a higher or more widespread cultural willingness to shoot police officers.

It also may not relate at all, I'm just speculating really.

[General Mung Beans]

The attitude that the police feel they need to maintain a certain level of strength to prevent criminals becoming 'bold' enough to attack them is pretty revealing. They feel that their solidarity is the only defense against the random violent death of their barren society.

What do you mean by "barren society"?

[weemadando]

It might be the way cops go into situations as well. I remember reading about Vic Pol in the early 90's trying to resolve their problem of shooting a bucketload of people found that most people were shot when they had taken hostages and most were also mentally ill, so they actually changed their training program to place more emphasis on talking down the hostage taker, and specifically people with a mental illness. The US on the other hand has a much stronger history of hostage situations involving militias and and cults, not necessarily more per capita, but a much stronger media focus on things like Waco, and in more recent years paranoia about terrorism has gone up as well, so you may get cops thinking "terrorist or cult planning to kill everyone, have to act now" rather than "likely mentally ill, try and talk him down, not likely to want to kill anyone." That said, Vic Pol also dropped their training program because it was too expensive, so it might not be having an effect at all.

Our training for hostage situations is containment and communication. We only go in if people are being killed or negotiations aren't working.

In Australia it's been a big focus over the past decades on changing the attitudes and approaches in all situations - not just in the siege/barricade situation. It has been about making sure that the police weren't escalating situations simply by acting like typical police. So, intervening when there's an schizophrenic who's been becoming increasingly agitated on the street is less about "WE'RE THE POLICE! STOP RIGHT NOW!" and then beating the shit out of/shooting them when the person doesn't respond rationally to orders from an authority figure and more about carefully handling the person who can be de-escalated safely and mitigating any risk to the public.

[The Yosemite Bear]

When I was living in Sacramento thefrequent CoD for local police was frequent high speed chases, including one of my high school friend's daughter in his inlaw's front lawn. But Sacramento went to great lengths on retraining thier police for better defensive driving skills.

[Lord Relvenous]

“We try and teach that every day you go out, you are going to be encountered with deadly force by someone trying to kill you.”

I know what she's trying to say here, but it seems to me like this type of attitude is at the core of the situations where police shoot an unarmed or nonthreatening suspect due to fear of a gun. If people are telling you repeatedly that you will face deadly force every day, that would surely factor into the split second decisions made in such situations.

[Kamakazie Sith]

In Australia it's been a big focus over the past decades on changing the attitudes and approaches in all situations - not just in the siege/barricade situation. It has been about making sure that the police weren't escalating situations simply by acting like typical police. So, intervening when there's an schizophrenic who's been becoming increasingly agitated on the street is less about "WE'RE THE POLICE! STOP RIGHT NOW!" and then beating the shit out of/shooting them when the person doesn't respond rationally to orders from an authority figure and more about carefully handling the person who can be de-escalated safely and mitigating any risk to the public.

We undergo what is called Crisis Intervention Training for training on recognition and de-escalation techniques involving the mentally ill and other disorders that make someone appear like they aren't responding to orders. Though someone being agitated on the streets is maybe enough for a talking to but as long as that person doesn't demonstrate either verbally or physically that they are a danger to themselves or others then they should be left alone because being mentally ill in public isn't a crime.

[weemadando]

I've had similar training (Critical Incident Response) from State & Federal Police negotiators as part of my job.

And it's a mighty fine bit of training, but even in the offices I cover I see people who have also been trained failing to follow the simplest parts of it. It's a similar problem with police officers I expect. People have an off day (or even an off minute) for whatever reason or misread the situation and escalate unintentionally.

However, we don't have an option to use force to get compliance as a fallback.

In your opinion, do you think that the knowledge that they could use their firearm or taser if needed act as a crutch at all in police dealings? So that some may always have the view that compliance can be forced of they fail, or cannot be bothered trying other techniques?

[Kamakazie Sith]

I've had similar training (Critical Incident Response) from State & Federal Police negotiators as part of my job.

And it's a mighty fine bit of training, but even in the offices I cover I see people who have also been trained failing to follow the simplest parts of it. It's a similar problem with police officers I expect. People have an off day (or even an off minute) for whatever reason or misread the situation and escalate unintentionally.

Yes, it is. The causes range from misreading of a situation, failing to identify a mentally ill subject, and like you said just have an off day which can mean anything from being distracted due to personal issues at home to being angry at something that happened.

However, we don't have an option to use force to get compliance as a fallback.

If I use your agitated man on the street example then I can tell you force likely wouldn't be an option in that case either. Being agitated isn't a crime and it is not something that police can place someone under involuntary commitment.

What if one of your subjects attacked you or tried to attack you. Are you not allowed to use force to defend yourself?

In your opinion, do you think that the knowledge that they could use their firearm or taser if needed act as a crutch at all in police dealings? So that some may always have the view that compliance can be forced of they fail, or cannot be bothered trying other techniques?

Any weapon can be abused. Could some look at these weapons as a crutch? Probably. I know several departments conducted a study and found that out of shape officers were more likely to escalate the use of force. However, determining that this escalation of force was unreasonable is a complicated question that would have different results depending on who you asked.

Hopefully I answered your question. If I didn't please excuse me. I have been literally falling asleep as I typed this. It was kind of amusing because I had to go back and erase subjects that I typed but realized I was typing from my dream.

[weemadando]

Good ol' dream typing.

As for "use of force", we can use reasonable force to protect ourselves or others from immediate harm. Still has to be in line with general legal principles, we have no special powers or protections.

To give a bit of clarification, I work in welfare and we frequently have incidents where our customers are often agitated by the wait times, people around them or the situation that they're in and can become aggressive towards each other or members or staff. This can be due to many issues, but a common factor to many of them is mental health (and drugs, and homelessness, you know the rest).

And yeah, I seem to recall that same study. The "mission creep" for use of tasers and irritating agents would also seem to indicate that there is an increased reliance on tools over talk in some parts. I'd like to see if it's a generalised thing across all forces who have these tools available or if you could identify certain departments who's training or values clearly were serving better than others.

[bobalot]

In Australia it's been a big focus over the past decades on changing the attitudes and approaches in all situations - not just in the siege/barricade situation. It has been about making sure that the police weren't escalating situations simply by acting like typical police.

The catalyst for that in New South Wales was the Wood Royal Commission into corruption. It weeded out a generation of corrupt officers and helped destroy the culture of inertia and resistance to change in the police force.

The "old boys" club was broken and the NSW Police force started reviewing their tactics and training, etc. I get the feeling in many police departments (see Queensland), there is great resistance to change about anything (including training). I suspect many departments in the US have a similar problem.

[JointStrikeFighter]

Actually Queensland is pretty good on that regard after the Fitzgerald enquiry pretty much disassembled and result to organization from ground up.

[Kamakazie Sith]

Good ol' dream typing.

As for "use of force", we can use reasonable force to protect ourselves or others from immediate harm. Still has to be in line with general legal principles, we have no special powers or protections.

To give a bit of clarification, I work in welfare and we frequently have incidents where our customers are often agitated by the wait times, people around them or the situation that they're in and can become aggressive towards each other or members or staff. This can be due to many issues, but a common factor to many of them is mental health (and drugs, and homelessness, you know the rest).

And yeah, I seem to recall that same study. The "mission creep" for use of tasers and irritating agents would also seem to indicate that there is an increased reliance on tools over talk in some parts. I'd like to see if it's a generalised thing across all forces who have these tools available or if you could identify certain departments who's training or values clearly were serving better than others.

US Law Enforcement officers that aren't federal are certified through their respective state POST. However, the state POST does not dictate use of force policy. For example, when I was first hired on the taser policy for my department stated that a suspect must be dangerous and resisting or fleeing from arrest while the taser policy of other departments was it could be used to effect an arrest if the suspect did not comply willingly. I think this has changed by now but policies like that are how incidents like below take place.



In the above video the driver has refused to sign a speeding ticket. Under UHP policy the trooper is now required to book the driver into jail. Obviously, the trooper made some other mistakes but this is certainly an example of how a poor policy can cause over reliance on a tool versus simple communication which would have probably been effective had he not jumped into "I'm going to tase you bro mode".

[aieeegrunt]

“We try and teach that every day you go out, you are going to be encountered with deadly force by someone trying to kill you.”

I know what she's trying to say here, but it seems to me like this type of attitude is at the core of the situations where police shoot an unarmed or nonthreatening suspect due to fear of a gun. If people are telling you repeatedly that you will face deadly force every day, that would surely factor into the split second decisions made in such situations.

I think this attitude could lead to a vicious feedback cycle where cops get told they could be gunned down at any moment, makes them paranoid and far more likely to escalate to lethal force. This leads to more incidents of cops shooting people, which now makes the general public mistrustful of police and criminals far far more likely to try and shoot their way out of situations since they think the cops are going to execute them anyways, which justifies the cop's fears and makes them more trigger happy.

Lather, rinse, repeat and you get to situations that sound completely crazy on paper like an old man being shot by cops because he accidently set off his medical alert bracelet. The old man is refusing to let the cops in his apartment because he figures he'll get shot for being black, the cops are on a hair trigger because they think confrontational old man might snap and hose us down with the AK-47 he brought back from Nam.

[irishmick79]

Throw in budget cuts to police departments and dangerously thin coverage in some areas (Chicago jumps to mind), you have police officers who are working tons of hours often with little rest. Not exactly a shock that communications skills are amongst the first things to suffer for fatigued officers. Big cities are hypersensitive to perceptions of racism and exessive use of force, and often second guess their officers who are working in some incredibly dangerous areas. Not to say it isn't justified in some cases, but it can have a paralyzing effect on a police force when it's too commonplace.

I know of a Detroit cop who is an Afghanistan combat vet. He quit the force and re-signed with the military after three years. He told me that he had an easier time being in Afghanistan because there you could shoot at people who were shooting at you, and not worry about getting sued or placed on leave and investigated by your superiors.

[Broomstick]

I'm not suggesting that you are trained to only kick in doors and shoot people, it's more, the average American policeman, raised in America in a 'standard' for want of a better word, American culture, may well prove to be a very different type of police officer to a 'standard' Australian or Brit or German or whatever.

For example, I can't think off the top of my head of a single highly publicised cult or militia siege or successful terrorist act in Australia. I know the names of a number in America without living in the country or having spent any more time there than 2 hours in LAX and 3 in Fort Worth waiting for a connection. On that basis, why would any Australian police officer in a siege assume that there is more to it than an unwell man who got desperate/panicked, because it appears, even if it's not actually the case, that these sorts of things just don't happen here. An American cop in the same situation will probably have, in the back of his mind the whole time just as a result of growing up where and when he did, words like Waco and Oklahoma City or Fort Hood and he knows that one day he may have to deal with a situation like that, maybe this one right now, and it could inform his actions and lead to him attempting to end the siege, or a different interpretation of what negotiations not working means that leads to an increased likely hood of shootings, an increased fear of being shot by police and a higher or more widespread cultural willingness to shoot police officers.

It also may not relate at all, I'm just speculating really.

It's an interesting speculation, however, I strongly suspect that the average US cop will never deal with a militia/cult situation. What gets in the news is the unusual, not the commonplace.

Waco was actually handled by the Feds, not the local cops (remember, in the US there are several levels of the police). The increase number of cops killed is not at the Fed level, it's lower down. If the Oklahoma City event you're referring to is the one with Timothy McVeigh no one was involved prior to blast, and afterwards it was handled largely at the Federal level (local level law enforcement were, of course, informed of who to look for). The Fort Hood Shooting involved someone who wasn't taking hostages so much as gunning people down so I'm not sure the "willingness to shoot" in that particular case was misplaced. We're talking about someone who killed 13 and wounded 30, I'm not what other response to that would be appropriate.

So, essentially, the high profile cases you mention weren't the scenarios that are playing out in the US that are leading to "killing of officers rises" mentioned in the thread title.

Most hostage situations I can recall in the past few years in my (very broadly) region in my state and the surrounding ones involved fleeing criminals or derranged family members. The "fleeing criminals" ones tended to be handled by attempting to talk to/negotiate with the hostage takers. The derranged family members - as an example, adult male in family threatening to kill himself and the rest of the family - is more a symptom of mental distress/illness/breakdown.

I wondering if some of the officers getting shot are being shot under these circumstances, and that "three strikes" laws and prison conditions aren't leading to increasing desperate criminals determined not to go to jail (leading to suicide by cop scenarios, which can well lead to dead cops as well as dead criminals), and the Great Recession is leading to more middle-class men "snapping" and taking out themselves and their families.

However, we're having another problem I'm not sure those outside the US are aware of, as it doesn't seem to be getting much play even in the US media. We are experiencing an appalling increase in violence in the poor areas of cities. These areas are not necessarily the worst slums, but rather the neighborhoods of poor and near-poor working people. We have more people shooting each other than before for a variety of reasons, and for shootings the police get called, and thus the police are more exposed to these situations. I realize that statement is at odds with "violent crime falls" but it's not. We might be having fewer armed bank robberies, for example, but a rise in some other form of violence. Just last Thursday Chicago had 3 children shot overnight. There was one week last year when something like 50 people were shot in Chicago in a variety of different instances. Thanks to modern medicine not all of them died. Where this is occurring, though, are particular areas and the cops are expected to go in and find the shooters. Yes, you send people into a situation like that some of them are going to get hurt. This isn't a matter of a raid gone wrong (though I'm sure that occurs) or a hostage situation mishandled (though I'm sure that occurs) it's because there are parts of the US where there are as many bullets flying as in a war zone. Sure, if we simply stopped sending the cops in we wouldn't have as many dead cops, but I don't think we should simply tolerate such situations. I don't think quite that situation is occurring in the UK or New Zealand.

Take a random, average cop and take me - the cop is FAR more likely to get shot because if I hear gunfire I either hit the floor or run like hell away from it. The cop is required, as part of his/her job, to go in and deal with whoever is shooting, so they are more likely to get shot. Due to a variety of factors in the US - guns, historical oppression, current bullshit of various sorts - the average cop in the US is more likely to be shot and/or killed than a cop elsewhere. You can't just attribute it to mishandling of the mentally ill, as quite a few of the people involved aren't mentally ill as that term is generally understood. You can't just attribute it to hostage situations, or anti-government militias, because there are a significant number of unrelated incidents taking out one or two cops at a time here and there all over.

And yes, it absolutely has something to do with the availability of firearms in the US. If the bad guys don't have guns they can't shoot anybody, civilian or cop (though Oklahoma City shows you don't need guns or sophisticated explosives to kill a lot of people). It's not just guns, though, because the rise in shootings is spotty. Rural areas are heavily armed, but I don't see anything to indicate cop shootings are increasing in farm country. There are plenty of wealthy people in cities and suburbs walking around carrying guns but the wealthy areas don't seem to have a sudden increase in dead police.

It's a combination of guns, poverty, and desperation, either perceived or real. "Get tough on crime" is also a factor - if you're going to go into the areas where crime like drug-running is happening the cops are more likely to get shot than if they stick to the "nice" part of town. There are significant segments of society here that regard the police as The Enemy, whether it's poor people in gangs, organized crime, or anti-government types. All of them are able to obtain weapons. The police are expected to deal with all of them. The risk isn't just in staging a formal raid, we've had quite a few officers killed while making routine traffic stops for someone speeding or some such and the person pulls out a gun instead of their license and registration. I don't doubt there are some elements of this in other countries but in the US there seems to be greater quantity of these folks and more intense feeling.