Advanced interaction with Law Enforcement
- Thread starter Gridley
- Start date
- Status
RickD427
Member
On this point, I fully agree. The first actions of the responding officers will be to secure the scene, and to identify the parties. The victim's status as such remains to be determined. The scene securing phase happens rater quickly, generally in minutes. It's important to note that treatment of the parties during this time does not suggest criminality on the part of anyone. I have to add my name to those recommending "Comply", to do otherwise greatly increases the risk of a "Blue on Blue" shooting occurring.
OP
OP
Gridley
Member
No. I'm trying to find out about training that might save a life by letting me communicate with someone who isn't inclined to communicate. I am asking about that kind of training because I was in a situation in which a decision I was ethically uncomfortable with was made and I like to expand my range of options. I did what I did and I have to live with that, whether it was the right thing to do or not.
If "COMPLY!" is all there is, may I suggest that "Advice on interaction after a defensive incident," be removed from the description of this sub-forum?
What part of IT DOESN’T EXIST are you having problems understanding?
Responding officers are trained to secure the scene and take control of the situation when they arrive. They are not going to discuss things until the scene is secure and safe. I gather that you work in EMS, if so then you know that the officers will establish control of the scene and not let anyone, even EMS in until it’s secure.
They are not going to discuss how best to take control of the scene and secure it.
There is much more, but it starts with complying with the instructions of the responding officers.
OP
OP
Gridley
Member
Again, fully accept that. OTOH if I was only concerned about my own safety I'd have quit being a medic after the first time I was assaulted if not much sooner.
Also, might as well start putting this in every post, I agree that complying is the right thing to do 99% of the time. ESPECIALLY after a shooting.
Most of the medics at my service started carrying handcuff keys after a patient died in restraints (no, I wasn't on that call, nor was I the one passing out keys). I'm sure all the "COMPLY!" screamers are duly horrified. Would uncuffing someone have been a risk? Yup. Did I ever do it? Nope. Would I have if I was convinced it was necessary? Yup. That's the oath I took when I slapped the patch with the orange lettering on my sleeve. Would the others who were carrying keys? If they didn't acknowledge the possibility, why were they carrying the key? Were they all wrong?
Did we need cops to keep us safe? Oh heck yes. They saved my butt more than once. That doesn't mean they're ALWAYS right. On the, stipulated as rare, occasions when they're wrong and a life is at risk because they're wrong there HAS to be a way to communicate to them what they need to know. Are only cops allowed to tell other cops they're wrong?
Then tell me the "much more" or where to find it. If "COMPLY!" is all there is, there can't be "much more". The existence of, for example, hostage negotiators argues that there ARE ways to communicate with people who don't want to communicate. If that's what the "much more" is and there's nothing short of it, fine. I'm not going to take the time to become a hostage negotiator.
If there's NO WAY for a civilian to communicate important information to a cop that they don't have in a critical situation then there is something very wrong with cops, and I don't believe that. If it is possible to communicate at all then there are better and worse ways to do it.
Maybe it is impossible for ME to do it. Maybe it is impossible in many situations to do it. That doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
Old Dog
Member
OP, do you remember this situation from a couple years back at the Tumwater Wal-Mart? Citizen (later lauded as a hero) shoots bad guy in front of the store after bad guy has committed car-jacking and shot another citizen...
https://www.king5.com/article/news/...in-shooting-at-tumwater-walmart/281-565164739
That one turned out well (and fortunately, there was lots of video). But if you read the news stories, and the pastor's account, you'll get some good insight on how to act after a defensive shooting.
I certainly cannot add anything to what Jeff's already said, other than we all have to keep in mind that law enforcement officers, like all humans, all have differing styles, mindsets, levels of critical thinking skills, moods, personalities and process events and interactions in vastly dissimilar ways. In your OP, you encountered a guy may not have had a lot of experience responding solo to a serious accident, maybe a tad rigid with some control issues, but that doesn't make him wrong. There's also issues of liability -- he didn't know your qualifications, who you were or your intentions (although, he likely could have slowed things down a bit, observed a few seconds more and asked a question or two) or even what your real involvement in the situation was. My point is, there are guys out on the street who believe that they must take immediate action and gain control as quickly as possible, but I suspect (especially up here where we do have a lot of great cops) that next time, you might have a seasoned officer responding whose approach would be a 180 difference from the guy you encountered.
https://www.king5.com/article/news/...in-shooting-at-tumwater-walmart/281-565164739
That one turned out well (and fortunately, there was lots of video). But if you read the news stories, and the pastor's account, you'll get some good insight on how to act after a defensive shooting.
I certainly cannot add anything to what Jeff's already said, other than we all have to keep in mind that law enforcement officers, like all humans, all have differing styles, mindsets, levels of critical thinking skills, moods, personalities and process events and interactions in vastly dissimilar ways. In your OP, you encountered a guy may not have had a lot of experience responding solo to a serious accident, maybe a tad rigid with some control issues, but that doesn't make him wrong. There's also issues of liability -- he didn't know your qualifications, who you were or your intentions (although, he likely could have slowed things down a bit, observed a few seconds more and asked a question or two) or even what your real involvement in the situation was. My point is, there are guys out on the street who believe that they must take immediate action and gain control as quickly as possible, but I suspect (especially up here where we do have a lot of great cops) that next time, you might have a seasoned officer responding whose approach would be a 180 difference from the guy you encountered.
If you find out, please let us know, seriously.
OP
OP
Gridley
Member
(sigh) If I had the answer, I wouldn't have asked the question.
I get that the LEOs here want to beat the drum of "always obey the LEO". (I've been known to complain that medics don't get enough respect.) I get that its the "smart" thing to do from a self-preservation perspective. I get the lawyers saying "always obey the law (which includes complying with the orders of cops)." I get that the entirety of BASIC "Interaction with law enforcement" has been admirably summarized here (and, sure, 99% of that is "comply"). But please go look at the first word of the thread title. ADVANCED.
In training EMT-Basics are told "NEVER give low-flow O2 through a face mask". Well, 99%+ of the time that's correct. Basic training for EMT's. Some senior medic may take the paramedic students aside in the later part of the class and say "Yeah, but there's this one thing...". But that's advanced.
Go look up the flow rate on the emergency oxygen masks in an airplane (the passenger ones - flight crew have fancier ones). It may take you a bit to find the numbers. There's more than one reason the standard spiel includes "the bag may not inflate" even though, again, EMT's are trained that's a giant red flag that you haven't done it right.
The answer to why its OK is complicated. Its... advanced. And maybe only a paramedic who stumbled across the flow rate of an airplane emergency mask and said "that can't be right" would bother finding out WHY its OK (yeah, the engineers who calculate how long the chemical dispensers last/how much O2 reserve the airplane needs to carry care too... and they're also the ones who decide WHICH system the airplane gets... ADVANCED). And the general flying public, heck the general flying CREW don't need to worry about it. EMT's don't need to worry about it, even if they fly. Paramedics don't need to worry about it... for anything nasty the cabin crew should haul out the portable emergency tanks (you knew those existed, right? No? Advanced.)
Advanced doesn't mean the information doesn't exist.
Old Dog
Member
It's not just communicating with cops. I'm becoming convinced it's a generational thing -- I have folk working for me who cannot communicate civilly in person with other -- even those they are partnered with. Their desired mode of communication seems restricted to Facebook and texting.
This is circling the drain.
Closed for staff review.
Closed for staff review.
- Status
Similar threads
