Use of Force Policy change–anyone ask you?
On Nov. 10, 2015, short months after his appointment to the Police Commission, Entertainment Lawyer Matthew Johnson issued his “vision and goals for the LAPD.” Of interest here is his concern over the number of uses of force that he felt had doubled in comparison to the previous year. (Actually, over a four-year period, they were slightly above average, as 2014 was a low year.) His goal was to “vastly” reduce use of force incidents through extensive training and modification of tactics.
Let me say upfront that the League supports reducing uses of force, and the more training, the better, but not at the risk of injury to officers or the public.
Johnson summed up his view of uses of force in his statement on that date. Read this carefully, especially the parts that I have italicized and underlined. It predicts your future.
“In particular, the Department’s focus on use of force de-escalation techniques and training in dealing with people suspected of being mentally ill are critical components in minimizing encounters that result in use of force. We need to ensure that this training is effective and that there is enthusiastic acceptance from the command staff through every level of the Department.The initial Stand Down training conducted over the past several months plus the new training to be launched later this month is an encouraging start. It clearly puts us at the forefront of these efforts nationwide. But, culture and habits do not change overnight. To accomplish these necessary changes, we will need continual training and reinforcement of the new expectations. We will have to reward excellence and hold accountable those who do not comply. We cannot expect to change behavior if there are not real consequences for those found to be out of policy.”
Johnson tasked the Inspector General with conducting a study, and on March 10, 2016, that report was delivered and accepted by the Police Commission. It had 12 recommendations. The Commission is now plowing full-speed ahead to implement these recommendations. Although there are now stakeholder meetings being held and the League is demanding a meet and confer, initially no one asked the City Attorney if the recommended changes would make it more difficult to defend the City (and you). No one asked the District Attorney if it would make it more difficult to prosecute those who assault and murder police officers. And, most importantly, no one asked you. Until now, that is.
The League sent out a questionnaire to the membership asking your opinion on all 12 of the recommendations and more. What follows is a summary of your responses.
The current Use of Force Policy was adopted in 2009 after four years of extensive study. The IG Report thought that the policy was hard to understand and confusing. We asked you if you understood the current Use of Force Policy. Ninety-three percent of you stated that you did.
We asked you if you agreed with the current Use of Force Policy. Eighty percent of you said that you did. The dissenters disagreed with the Hayes addition and the over-investigation of minor uses of force.
Seventy-six percent of you disagreed that the Use of Force Policy needed to be updated. One especially articulate officer stated, “The current policy is firmly based in constitutional law and SCOTUS (U.S. Supreme Court) rulings, and allows for the flexibility to address each individual use of force based on the facts and circumstances particular to that incident. It gives officers a toolbox, but allows the officer to determine which tool, in that moment, is most appropriate to use, and then allows for peers and supervisors to determine if that was a reasonable choice to make. Creating a ‘checklist’ of some kind occupies the officer’s thinking processes during the dynamic, near-instant unfolding of the incident before him/her, when the officer’s full attention should be on the facts, evidence, statements and actions occurring.”
Seventy-eight percent of you thought that you received sufficient training in the Use of Force Policy. The 15 percent who did not think there was enough training complained that more refresher training was needed and that online training was not effective.
There was some disagreement as to the fairness of the adjudication system on uses of force. Thirty percent of you felt the system was fair, 50 percent felt that it was not, and 20 percent had no opinion. Many officers thought the system was too political, while others felt that the expectations on their performance under difficult conditions was too high.
The survey then asked the officers’ opinions on each of the 12 recommendations adopted by the Police Commission. See the IG’s Report for the exact wording of each recommendation. The exact language of the IG’s recommendations in the report was used in the survey.
The recommendation to revise the Use of Force Policy to include attempts at de-escalation had an 86 percent disagreement rate. The comments overwhelmingly stated that all officers de-escalate situations whenever they can. Altering the policy will only cause second-guessing, confusion and hesitation, resulting in officers being injured.
The recommendation to revise the policy that deadly force shall only be used when reasonable alternatives have been exhausted or impracticable, and to establish that officers will redeploy when faced with a threat, received a 90 percent disapproval rate. Comments were vitriolic. “Should we buy track shoes so we can run faster while redeploying?” Another comment expressed a common concern. “I don’t exactly disagree with this idea, but the implication is that we as officers are not already doing these things. And if we don’t do it (or don’t do it enough to their liking), it seems that the Police Commission may attempt to use this new policy language to burn officers at the stake to satisfy the mobs.”
The recommendation that evaluations include written consideration on de-escalation and exhaustion of alternatives received an 85 percent disapproval rating. This comment contained typical officer concerns. “Use of force incidents are already reviewed with scrutiny. Seems like they are looking for anything to find it out of policy; thus subjecting the officer to discipline and/or charges.”
The recommendation to return the shotgun and slug policy to pre-2009 regulations received a 89 percent disapproval rating. One officer summed up many comments. “The pre-2009 policy did not work, which is why it was changed. Why are we taking steps back when we should be moving forward? If we go back to the pre-2009 policy and then we have a San Bernardino-style terrorist attack, the policy will be quickly changed back to the post-2009 policy. The problem with this is that many more people will have lost their lives because of it.”
The recommendation to train RESET before interacting with the homeless and mentally ill did better than previous recommendations. Only 40 percent disagreed with this recommendation. Many did not know what RESET did, but this feeling was common. “Impractical to suggest we (police) should be trained mental health therapists in order to do our jobs. That job should be left to the county social workers. Mental health and the homeless should be addressed by our state and federal legislators. For example, change the laws to address involuntary mental health holds and supply the actual resources needed to address homelessness rather than dump these social issues on the police.”
The recommendation to reinforce de-escalation in training and make it a part of the promotion process received a 70 percent disagreement rating. There was a general agreement that training was fine with the officers, but this was a concern. “UOFs occur because people are failing to obey commands and are dangerous to approach. A promotion will now be based on those who refuse to help those in need. Officers will work inside and promote. Every action has an equal reaction, and it’s time our leaders understand these principles.”
The recommendation that the Department survey agencies nationwide have a plan for de-escalation training in four months received a 71 percent disagreement rating. A large complaint was that the four-month requirement was impractical, and another focus was that other departments are coming to us for training. We must be doing something right.
The last five recommendations have to do with evaluation and training, and there is not enough room to evaluate them individually. Generally, over half of the responding officers disapproved of the recommendations.
Finally, the participants were invited to make comments. They weren’t pretty. The common themes were resentment and anger against the Police Commission, Inspector General and Department management for not understanding the difficult job they have as police officers and the failure to back them when they have to make split-second decisions that are sometimes imperfect. Their perception was that the recommendations were politically motivated and that their well-being was being politically sacrificed to the current anti-cop national movement.
One officer answered the request for a comment with this. “I’ll make it quick. I’m no longer planning to stay the 30 years. I’m leaving in five years and putting this mistake behind me forever. I no longer have confidence in what I do. The liberal left has destroyed this career for me. Officers have completely shut down where I work. I feel sorry for the future victims of L.A. There’s no reason to engage the bad people anymore… I’m finished!”
Many others want to get off the street and find inside jobs as soon as possible, not out of fear of criminals, but for career survival. Others stated that other departments were looking pretty good. Not one comment thought changing the Use of Force Policy was a good idea.
One last point. The survey asked this question: “I feel that the Police Commission supports me in doing my job.” Ninety-one percent of the officers disagreed. Five percent had no opinion, and 4 percent agreed. It looks like somebody else needs a policy change more than the officers.
Be legally careful out there.
