Okay and then what happens when a methhead doesn’t simply comply and gets physical, going after your weapon, you knowing, if they get ahold of your weapon, you and your partner might very well be dead, the adrenaline rushing like it’s never run, the poise quickly fading and fear taking over, wondering what to do because this is something you’ve never trained for and even if you had, that training was years ago and never put into practice?
You're posting exactly what I think the protocols would provide... Clarity. There would be a way the officers are expected to act (predictability) and a way the civilian is expected to respond (predictability). When either party deviates from the "dance routine" it provides clarity when assessing what led to the encounter going awry.
I could write a mini book on this, and maybe I'll get into more detail, but these are issues I have devoted a lot of thought to since my adolescence. I have always advocated for the police having classifications for the level of encounter they are initiating (they sort of already do, but the standards are blurry, but they have "felony warrant" ect. that determines how they act in the beginning of an encounter) which determines their set of protocols. The public needs to be educated in what is required of them by law when involved with the police. Are they the "subject" of the encounter, a "bystander," an "associate," a "witness," a "victim," ect.. This partially determines how they will be treated by the police and what their obligations are. The "level" of the encounter can change, a speeding ticket, jaywalking, the police should be casual and respectful. If the subject does not cooperate the police very clearly verbalize to the subject that the situation is now at an elevated level. This should have a clear meaning to the subject since the public should be educated on this. But through all this the police should be using de-escalation techniques. If the subject does not respond positively to de-escalation the police should inform them that they are entering a "control of hostility" phase. That doesn't mean they get physical or use force. It means they are requesting additional support and they actually back off a little. Once the police are fully able to "control hostility" by cutting off the subjects ability to act violently in a way that would be threatening then the police need to be patient. The penalties and repercussions of forcing these actions by the police should be mounting at this point. If the subject ever acts overtly violent and threatens injury the police should be prepared to use non-lethal or less than lethal means to subdue them. If that is not an option and the person is posing a real and present danger, in fact, to anyone else, the police should use potentially lethal force to immediately stop the threat.
This would not be some hazy man I don't remember my training 19 months ago type of thing. This should be the way our police force is constructed and operated 24/7.
Next up we can talk about a phrase I came up with as a teen that others in this thread have mentioned using different words. But I have long thought that "selective law enforcement" is an extremely significant problem. Police should only be enforcing laws when necessary. But it starts way before the police. There should only be laws that are necessary to be enforced ALWAYS. If a law is violated it should require enforcement. Not a negotiation with a police officer. Police should not have to use any judgement at all in enforcing the law. That starts by eliminating the vast majority of petty infractions that give law enforcement an excuse to interfere in your activities, which they can later decide to charge you with or not based on how much they like you or your story.
Anyway, I don't want to spend all night on this.
