Hi folks. I'm Maru's husband. I'm sunburned to a nice shade of red after being out in the Gulf of Mexico!
She asked me to weigh in on this discussion so let me get one thing out of the way since she's given enough info to where a little bit of searching will tell you exactly where I work.
Anything stated from this point forward is my opinion and is not the official opinion of my agency and I am not an official spokesman for my agency. To that end, I am an individual participating in a conversation that could possibly be had at any other time and place.
I'm not sure if that clarifies anything, but the fact that I need to make a disclaimer should give you all an idea of how much "CYA" needs to be done, even in our personal lives. This extends to our conversations outside of work where we aren't allowed to discuss some things for fear of giving unauthorized information in regard to ongoing criminal investigations. Needless to say, this sort of compartmentalization does create a sort of detachment at times in the personal lives of many officers which can cause the kind of disconnect from the public I see mentioned.
Anyways, I see lots of commentary about how the US police interact with the mentally ill. I'm glad to see the interest in the welfare of others. Its important to understand some of the major reasons that the jails and police are constantly interacting with the mentally ill is that the US started closing facilities for the mentally ill in the 1950's. During the 1960's the US changed how those that remained functioned. In doing so, the Federal Government suddenly had to shoulder the financial burden and it was in its own interest to shut down additional facilities, thereby reducing the financial footprint. By shutting these facilities down, those who had been housed there were released into a world they were/are ill prepared to function in. When these individuals would have interactions with the "normal" populace, the immediate response was/is to call the police. The police are suddenly thrust into the role of trying to provide services to these individuals who often have a distrust of authorities and have problems communicating, further exacerbating the issue.
The mentally ill often know that the police are there to take care of a "problem" and catch the "bad guys". Imagine the surprise and dismay someone goes through when they're told they are the problem when they are doing things they consider perfectly normal. Add into that the inability to communicate thoughts or ideas.
Let's take this a hypothetical direction. An autistic individual is stopped because he's trying to talk to everyone going into a Starbucks late at night. Eventually, the police are called. The police show up and the autistic person is stopped. I don't know how much you know about autism, but for some, they are hypersensitive to stimuli. This can result in confusion. Additionally, normal social interactions are out the window. Some will refuse to look people in the eye. Some will yell will speaking will do. Some will make nervous movements. For this example, we'll say our individual is digging around in their pockets and shuffling his feet.
Let's shift gears to what the police see. Let's suggest the officer arrives alone at first. While trying to speak to this individual they've never met before, they see him fussing with his pockets. Does he have a weapon? A gun? A knife? How close are they? Generally speaking, within 21 feet a knife wielding assailant can be stabbing you before you can draw your weapon. He's shuffling his feet. Is he getting ready to rush the officer? He seems confused and won't look the officer in the eye. He keeps twitching and shying away when looking at the officer standing by the flashing lights on his car. Is he on drugs? Individuals who are high on drugs can have inhuman strength because internal stop signs (pain) don't function anymore, allowing the muscles to function beyond the point their brain would tell him to stop. This means "less lethal" options like tasers and OC Spray are useless. Why's he yelling? The officer isn't that far away. He won't respond to the officers orders and seems to be getting more agitated. The patrons see the police arrive and are watching every move the officer makes. Are they in the line of fire if things go bad? The officer doesn't want any innocent bystanders hurt, so he starts telling them to back away. The individual he was called to speak to starts getting more agitated. The officer has to turn his attention back to the individual while trying to tell the patrons to clear the area for their own safety.
All of these things run through an officers mind the moment he makes it to the scene. This is just one example of what happens when an officer is expected to come and resolve a situation because that is what the public expects him or her to do and has to do it correctly.
Let's get back to our example from the point of view of the autistic person.
Anger is often a secondary emotion to frustration and fear. This generates hostility. The officer is yelling commands at the autistic individual. The autistic person is scared and the flashing lights are confusing. The autistic person isn't understanding what is going on and becomes even further confused. Unable to communicate, he gets frustrated and starts getting angry. He knows there's a bus station on the corner nearby but he needs to get away from the all the stimuli and the only way to get to that bus stop is past the flashing lights. He starts running. He's running towards the officer who is now forced to make a decision.
What do you do? Remember, 21 feet is all it takes to determine if you go home or go out in a bodybag, and that's assuming good reflexes. Let's suggest backup arrives behind the officer. All they see is a guy with his hands in his pockets running at the initial officer. They're forced to make the same decision. Maybe they can't see everything the officer in front can and they make the decision to shoot.
I understand this is a long hypothetical situation but the point is that we have the luxury of time to analyze our options. For those familiar with American Football, there's a saying called "Monday Morning Quarterbacking". Since most games are played on Sunday and people talk about the games on Monday, it's easy to sit down and analyze all the mistakes made and say what a player should or shouldn't have done.
If you'd rather, there's a 30 second officer bodycam clip that will let you visualize a similar situation to the one I just posited and I want you to consider how much time you have to react. It's a video that is shown in some of our trainings and I will give you an unfair advantage. Your reaction time starts on when you hear the squeaking of shoes. That squeaking is when the officers say the individual charged them.
https://youtu.be/-aALArJP4rw
Now understand that I don't say this to excuse shooting individuals down. I say it in an attempt to show you how quickly a situation can turn lethal. Shortly after this happened as well as a couple of other shootings, a local rights activist named Quannell X was offered a chance to go through some of the same Shoot-Don't Shoot scenarios that Law Enforcement goes through. Watch how he fared as well as how another activist and a reporter fared in Phoenix, AZ.
http://www.khou.com/news/local/a-wal...lice/148779412
https://youtu.be/yfi3Ndh3n-g
I know that in the UK, firearms are very strictly legislated. Some folks I've spoken to have said that if firearms were subject to similar restrictions in the US, there'd be less crime. I can also say after having worked as a security officer in the streets of Baltimore that a good number of the people I was interacting with were more heavily armed than I was. Luckily, I knew how to speak to them and eventually, after the initial interaction, we were usually at least amicable. I knew that many of them didn't want to carry a weapon, but I also knew that what they were exposed to gave them a high chance of being victimized and that they had no alternative method to protect themselves. Compared to other U.S. states, Maryland has some of the most draconian firearms laws in the nation but it's important to remember that criminals are already intent on breaking the law. A firearms law isn't something they really concern themselves with.
When you understand how small the city is and how high the murder rate is for a city of its size, it makes more sense. For those who have seen "The Wire", it does sensationalize some things but there are portions of it that are accurate portrayals of the area with some stories pulled straight from the headlines. Probably the funniest thing about "The Wire" is that the city of Baltimore was so unhappy with the light it was being portrayed in, they banned the producers from filming in Baltimore anymore. Not to be deterred, they moved production to Philadelphia, PA which acted as a stand-in for the city of Baltimore when needed.
In the example of Baltimore, you should also be aware that 63% of the population is black, almost 31% is white, and almost 25% of the city is considered impoverished by the Federal Government. If most of your population is of one race, it's somewhat impossible to say that one race is being targeted over another. There's simply a higher chance of encountering someone who is black rather than white in Baltimore. Obviously I can't speak for other places and won't but to suggest otherwise would be akin to being surprised to find someone of Asian descent in China. I think it's also pertinent to mention that among black males in the US, Homicide is the leading cause of death for age groups 15-24 and 25-34 per the US Center for Disease Control.
In terms of militarizing the police, what you're seeing is an evolution of weapons and tactics on both sides of the law. One could say something similar about being under the ever watchful CCTV cameras in use by the Metropolitan Police Service. The MPS utilizes CCTV for the obvious reasons that it allows them to review the footage for potential evidence where there might have been none otherwise. In the US, booby-trapped doors and things of that nature are seen in areas of high drug traffic. One man booby trapped the door to his trailer in 2013 with a "Spring Gun" (essentially a shotgun rigged to go off if the door is opened) and accidentally shot his niece who had come to give him his eviction papers. Another individual holed up in his house in Houston after already having shot two officers. It resulted in the SWAT team bringing in an armored vehicle to create an entry and the individual still firing at officers. He was taken into custody alive.
Probably one of the most enduring tactics and equipment related reasons has been the North Hollywood Bank of America shootout. Two individuals armed with illegally modified rifles to allow for fully automatic fire and body armor entered a Bank of America and robbed it. At the time, most officers only carried a 9mm pistol or a 40 cal pistol. Additionally, a 12 Gauge shotgun might have been in the trunk of an officers car. Both of pistols were incapable of penetrating the armor worn by the bank robbers. Additionally, the robbers were more able to engage officers due to them being limited to the range at which a handgun can be fired accurately versus a rifle. The officers on the scene ended up going to a nearby gun store and borrowed semi-auto rifles to give themselves a fighting chance until SWAT arrived because they were unable to stop the robbers with their standard equipment.
Simply put, the police need equipment to ensure they safely make through each day. As threats grow more numerous in size, style, and scope, the amount and types of gear needed to respond to each threat increases. As the Scout saying goes, "Always be prepared". SWAT stands for Special Weapons And Tactics. This means that they are by definition going to be extensively equipped compared to your standard officer on the street. Agencies also have their own take on SWAT. HROU (High Risk Operations Unit) for example is inherently dangerous as the name implies and are also extensively equipped.
Finally, on the brutality of the police, I think it's a fairly obvious comment that a regular old traffic stop that results in a ticket for speeding isn't going to make headlines or stoke outrage. The public won't seize upon things like that. It's inherently boring and pedestrian and that's the point. You won't see stories about that sort of thing. It's not newsworthy. Even this story about Deputies who stopped and played basketball with some local kids got a quick little blurb and then was forgotten in the local news and wasn't ever picked up by the national media.
http://abc13.com/news/video-deputies...-kids/1172984/
In regard to US media, Maru is pretty much spot on with her analysis of US news. I listen to the BBC sometimes because it is one of the only places I can get news about the US without it having a political spin attached to it. Basically, they don't seem to pull any shenanigans because they don't usually have anything to gain from doing so. Any time you read US news, one has to ask if there's a bias. There are websites that have sprung up purely to fact check the US media and are doing exceptionally well during the new election cycle. The priority is sensational news to get people to tune in and increase their ratings. I'm sure many of you have clicked on a link with an outrageous title only to have it be bogus or an exaggeration. There are many times that those outrageous titles are simply a cover for an agenda, often times using shreds of truth to try and tie together the narrative they want you to believe.
Personally, I feel inclined to let you folks know that we have patrol units with a civilian clinician working alongside a specially trained deputy. I also feel you should know that we are seen as a model for other agencies around the country that others are starting to mimic. Our unit has had a few documentaries come through as well. We also have a jail-based unit that, in addition to the standard required training, also has approximately 120 hours of additional coursework based completely in Mental Health related issues and tactics for deescalating situations. We also work hand-in-hand with the jailhouse SWAT team and act as negotiators in an attempt to gain compliance before that team is deployed. We also interact and speak with inmates who make claims of being actively suicidal or having thoughts of suicide. While not clinicians or doctors, we play a valuable role in gaining information from the inmates so that the doctor has some idea of the individuals issues, history, etc. It should be noted that we screen every single inmate who comes to our jail for both physical and mental health issues. It slows down our processing but in the long run is beneficial to our inmates. This is all in addition to managing the care, custody, and control of our own mentally ill inmates that are housed within our unit. On a personal note, I would say that the population can be broken down into thirds. 1/3 have legitimate psychological issues. Whether that's the result of drug use or just how they are doesn't matter to us. Another 1/3 have issues that can be controlled with medication and as long as they are compliant with their medications, we see a marked difference in their behavior. The final 1/3 are malingerers. I've been told by individuals there that they made the claim to try and beat their case. They also said they did it to get prescription medications to use as currency for favors. There have also been statements made that they did it so that when they leave the jail they can claim to have mental issues and be given a free disability check. Finally, there are constant reports that the malingerers routinely make claims so that they are assigned to the mental health housing areas because the mentally ill are easy prey when it comes to taking things which do not belong to them.
I started to talk about some of the things I've personally done and experienced, but I don't want to pat myself on the back. What I will say is that officers often appear distant because they spend their day looking for deception, knowing that one mistake can cost their lives. It can make folks cynical. I think it's important though to leave you with one last bit of something for thought. A few days ago, an inmate approached me and asked if we (the officers) see them (the inmates) as just a herd of people to be controlled or if we see them as individuals. I told him yes on both counts and explained that while there are certain precautions that I and other officers take when dealing with inmates as a general rule for our safety,
I much prefer to speak to people on an individual level and that being respectful on both sides of the spectrum works much better for everyone involved. It's much easier to hear someone's problems out when they aren't cursing you and everyone you've ever known.
Lastly, I'm happy people want to be a part of change, however I also think talk is just that, talk. Until they participate in being part of the changes, nothing will change. I've said it before and continue to say it when people ask about change in Law Enforcement. "Be the change you want to see!"
I do hope some of this has been insightful and is somewhat explanatory. There are other topics I've seen mentioned here that I wanted to address from my perspective, but my time is limited, so have a good night!
P.S. - GET A LIFE! BIN THAT KNIFE!
