TheeBadOne
Member
Chief Derrick Foxworth decides to limit how much officers swear after a review says profanity is one of the public's top gripes
Next time you hear a Portland police officer tell a suspect to "drop the !@#$% gun," don't blush. They're trained to talk like that.
In an easy-going city known for its civility, the Portland Police Bureau condones the use of profanity by its officers in certain limited circumstances as a tool to de-escalate volatile encounters.
But a report released Friday by two police review groups says foul language by Portland officers is one of the public's top complaints and must be curtailed. Police Chief Derrick Foxworth agreed and has changed the department's directive regarding profanity to limit its use.
To which the union for Portland officers says: So what?
Robert King, president of the Portland Police Association, said Friday there are more pressing public safety issues than profanity by police officers.
He also said he thinks the public understands that profanity can be useful in some circumstances.
"I would think citizens would rather have them use profanity than physical or deadly force," King said.
The city's Independent Police Review Division and the Citizen Review Committee discovered, however, that Portland may be unique in using profanity as a policing tool. Of the 26 police departments across the country that responded to the groups' survey, none had policies that allowed the use of profanity by officers as a control tactic. Four had no profanity policy, and 22 explicitly banned it.
Foxworth said he thinks there are other police agencies with similar, less-restrictive policies toward profanity but did not mention any.
The Police Bureau's policy on profanity has evolved and loosened in the past 30 years, from an outright ban to current rules that encourage such language in limited cases.
According to the report, the department's directive 310.40 banned the use of profanity by officers in 1976.
But in a 1989 revision of the directive, officers were instructed that they could not use "epithets or terms that tend to denigrate" a race, gender or other groups unless they are quoting another person in a report or in testimony.
The directive was revised again in 1999, this time adding a provision to allow profanity in an effort to establish control.
By now, however, profanity appears to be the most commonly used verbal control tool on the bureau's use of force continuum, the report said. And it is used as more than just a control technique. The report found that officers use profanity when they get angry or frustrated and in some communities where they feel it might be part of the vernacular.
The report also pointed out that there is an overall lack of guidance regarding when and how profanity can be used.
Dan Handelman of Portland Copwatch said tightening the profanity policy is a good step toward eliminating foul language altogether. Police officers who use profanity around the public are "unprofessional," he said.
"We hold them to a higher standard," Handelman said. "When they're representing the city of Portland, you don't expect them to go around mouthing off to people."
The report was prompted by a "large number" of profanity complaints filed with the Independent Police Review Division and the past efforts of a now-defunct civilian oversight group to limit profanity by police.
It said that from Jan. 2, 2002, through June 11, 2003, citizens made 63 complaints with 94 allegations of profanity.
Of those, four allegations were sustained, meaning the officer was disciplined. In 11 cases, a supervisor had a formal meeting to help the officer handle similar encounters without profanity.
King said that the use of profanity is sometimes needed when other verbal control tactics have failed.
"There are a limited number of cases where it's effective and even helpful," King said.
For instance, he said, if a suspect has a gun and is not responding to oral commands, the suspect might respond to a few profanities.
Officers should not direct profanity at a suspect by calling him a name, King said. But using it as part of a command or an exclamation can be helpful, he added.
The report made three recommendations, each of which Foxworth agreed to and some of which are already in place. Foxworth added language to the bureau's directive on profanity that said such language can be used only in "exceptional" and "very limited" circumstances as a control technique if it helps avoids the use of physical or deadly force. Officers can also use profanity if they are quoting someone.
Foxworth also said officers must now report instances when they use profanity. New software will help the bureau track and monitor citizen complaints about profanity, he said.
Training now includes the new policy on profanity, and a chief's memo has been read at roll calls to reinforce the change, he added.
Foxworth agreed with King that he would rather an officer use profanity than deadly force. There are cases in which profanity has prevented a physical encounter, the chief said, but he could not recall any.
And he emphasized that profanity is a no-no for officers in most cases, unless they think it can prevent the use of force.
"We're not saying it's OK to use profanity outside of that setting. In any other setting, it's inappropriate."
http://www.oregonlive.com/news/oregonian/index.ssf?/base/front_page/10719255808450.xml
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Next time you hear a Portland police officer tell a suspect to "drop the !@#$% gun," don't blush. They're trained to talk like that.
In an easy-going city known for its civility, the Portland Police Bureau condones the use of profanity by its officers in certain limited circumstances as a tool to de-escalate volatile encounters.
But a report released Friday by two police review groups says foul language by Portland officers is one of the public's top complaints and must be curtailed. Police Chief Derrick Foxworth agreed and has changed the department's directive regarding profanity to limit its use.
To which the union for Portland officers says: So what?
Robert King, president of the Portland Police Association, said Friday there are more pressing public safety issues than profanity by police officers.
He also said he thinks the public understands that profanity can be useful in some circumstances.
"I would think citizens would rather have them use profanity than physical or deadly force," King said.
The city's Independent Police Review Division and the Citizen Review Committee discovered, however, that Portland may be unique in using profanity as a policing tool. Of the 26 police departments across the country that responded to the groups' survey, none had policies that allowed the use of profanity by officers as a control tactic. Four had no profanity policy, and 22 explicitly banned it.
Foxworth said he thinks there are other police agencies with similar, less-restrictive policies toward profanity but did not mention any.
The Police Bureau's policy on profanity has evolved and loosened in the past 30 years, from an outright ban to current rules that encourage such language in limited cases.
According to the report, the department's directive 310.40 banned the use of profanity by officers in 1976.
But in a 1989 revision of the directive, officers were instructed that they could not use "epithets or terms that tend to denigrate" a race, gender or other groups unless they are quoting another person in a report or in testimony.
The directive was revised again in 1999, this time adding a provision to allow profanity in an effort to establish control.
By now, however, profanity appears to be the most commonly used verbal control tool on the bureau's use of force continuum, the report said. And it is used as more than just a control technique. The report found that officers use profanity when they get angry or frustrated and in some communities where they feel it might be part of the vernacular.
The report also pointed out that there is an overall lack of guidance regarding when and how profanity can be used.
Dan Handelman of Portland Copwatch said tightening the profanity policy is a good step toward eliminating foul language altogether. Police officers who use profanity around the public are "unprofessional," he said.
"We hold them to a higher standard," Handelman said. "When they're representing the city of Portland, you don't expect them to go around mouthing off to people."
The report was prompted by a "large number" of profanity complaints filed with the Independent Police Review Division and the past efforts of a now-defunct civilian oversight group to limit profanity by police.
It said that from Jan. 2, 2002, through June 11, 2003, citizens made 63 complaints with 94 allegations of profanity.
Of those, four allegations were sustained, meaning the officer was disciplined. In 11 cases, a supervisor had a formal meeting to help the officer handle similar encounters without profanity.
King said that the use of profanity is sometimes needed when other verbal control tactics have failed.
"There are a limited number of cases where it's effective and even helpful," King said.
For instance, he said, if a suspect has a gun and is not responding to oral commands, the suspect might respond to a few profanities.
Officers should not direct profanity at a suspect by calling him a name, King said. But using it as part of a command or an exclamation can be helpful, he added.
The report made three recommendations, each of which Foxworth agreed to and some of which are already in place. Foxworth added language to the bureau's directive on profanity that said such language can be used only in "exceptional" and "very limited" circumstances as a control technique if it helps avoids the use of physical or deadly force. Officers can also use profanity if they are quoting someone.
Foxworth also said officers must now report instances when they use profanity. New software will help the bureau track and monitor citizen complaints about profanity, he said.
Training now includes the new policy on profanity, and a chief's memo has been read at roll calls to reinforce the change, he added.
Foxworth agreed with King that he would rather an officer use profanity than deadly force. There are cases in which profanity has prevented a physical encounter, the chief said, but he could not recall any.
And he emphasized that profanity is a no-no for officers in most cases, unless they think it can prevent the use of force.
"We're not saying it's OK to use profanity outside of that setting. In any other setting, it's inappropriate."
http://www.oregonlive.com/news/oregonian/index.ssf?/base/front_page/10719255808450.xml
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Sounds like they have real serious problems in Portland...
