Police reform - ideas that lack merit
by Sean Van Leeuwen
"Hand ups, don't shoot!"  This is not a new protest group chant, but what law enforcement officers might be required to do, backing away with their hands up when confronting a violent situation, if recently released policy recommendations from the Police Executive Research Forum (PERF) are adopted as nationwide policing standards.
 
In the past year, the critical examination of police use of force has garnered some suggestions from various groups as to how and when the use of force should be allowed.  PERF is a Washington DC organization headed by Chuck Wexler, which sells consultation services to police departments and municipalities around the nation.  As detailed in a story by Associated Press reporter Tami Abdollah , PERF proposed 30 new standards of police work that rightfully received strong pushback from International Association of Chiefs of Police and Fraternal Order of Police.
 
One "PERF standard" calls for law enforcement to adopt a use of force standard more restrictive than the "objective reasonableness" standard outlined by the United States  Supreme Court in Graham v. Connor .  Of course, such a standard would serve to allow discipline of deputies and officers whose use of force complied with Supreme Court law. 
 
Wexler explained the rationale for this standard:  "We aspire to have a higher standard in terms of preventing these unfortunate situations from happening at all. That's what this is about," Wexler said. "This is about the difference between legal versus moral." (Emphasis added)  Really?   The legal standard set by the United States Supreme Court allows the use of deadly force when a suspect poses an immediate threat to their life or the life of others.  Apparently, Wexler finds this Supreme Court standard "immoral", given his differentiation between his proposal and Supreme Court law.
 
Another troubling "PERF standard" states an officer about to engage in a use of force "must ask themselves 'How would the general public view the action we took?"  What a ridiculous piece of claptrap!  Use of force should be judged on "how it looks," not what is necessary and appropriate to resolve a situation? This is a completely amorphous, "standardless" standard, certainly not capable of delineating a standard of conduct, but instead creating an endless opportunity for second guessing of use of force by a police agency or the public.  This "view from the grandstands standard" is as absurd as the use of force standard be whatever a deputy personally believes is appropriate in a situation.
 
Further, relying on "how it looks" is fraught with problems.  NYPD Commissioner and former LAPD Chief Bill Bratton said something that should never be forgotten, " Police work is not always pretty .  Putting aside the fact that a use of force is never pretty, especially to a general public that doesn't personally witness physical violence very often: how is the officer to judge the "general public view" of a particular use of force?  Is there a public survey to consult to determine how that week's use of force might play on the news?  What if the circle of persons surveyed only represents a "portion" of the public, not the "general" view"?   We know a very vocal segment of the public is opposed to any use of force, no matter how righteous it might be. In Oakland, for example, in 2009 protesters marched to protest the police killing of a suspect who had just murdered four police officers.  
 
Also , the PERF proposals continue to focus all responsibility for the use of force, including deadly force, on the deputy or officer and absolve of any responsibility the suspect whose actions necessitated the use of force.  In virtually every single instance of the use of force, had the suspect simply complied with the commands of law enforcement, use of force would not have been necessary. 
 
It is alarming when one learns of the material that impressed PERF, and heavily influenced the use of force proposal.  As the New York Times disclosed, PERF traveled to Scotland "to observe Scottish officers, who are nearly all unarmed, back away from suspects with their hands up, for example, to defuse situations without violence."  Yep, this is the critical world experience that apparently helped generate the "moral" proposal from PERF. 
 
Executive Director Jim Pasco of the Fraternal Order of Police rightfully called PERF to task, stating; "We don't believe that we should just move headlong based on PERF having taken a trip to Scotland, that we should just turn policing in a country, God knows how many times bigger than Scotland, totally on its head.   We're not going to stand by and let police officers be sacrificed on the altar of political correctness."
 
We welcome any review of the use of force policy and procedures, so long as they are grounded in reality, do not place at risk the life and well-being of deputies, and acknowledge suspects bear as much responsibility for the de-escalation of force as law enforcement.  Oh, and we also favor policies that comply with the Supreme Court law on use of force, not some person's musings on what is "moral" police work and what is not.
 
Sean Van Leeuwen is Vice President of Association for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs. ALADS is the collective bargaining agent and represents more than 8,200 deputy sheriffs and district attorney investigators working in Los Angeles County.  Sean can be at [email protected].

# # # 
 If you have friends who would like to receive ALADS Email Blasts click here.
ALADS Facility: 2 Cupania Circle, Monterey Park, CA  91755
www.alads.org
See what's happening on our social sites!