Facebook
Fark
Digg
Reddit
Stumble
By J. Patrick Coolican (contact) 
Tuesday, Dec. 6, 2011 | 2 a.m.
J. Patrick Coolican
Sun archives
We have long suspected that Metro Police officers shoot their guns more often than police in other cities, and that our process for investigating those shootings is faulty.
Now, thanks to an investigation by the Las Vegas Review-Journal, we are closer to knowing whether that’s true.
At the risk of improperly summarizing the project, here are what I believe are the most important findings:
• Among 16 big-city police departments that provided statistics to the paper for the decade 2001 to 2010, Metro ranked third in officer-involved shootings per capita and third in shootings per violent crime. Over time, per capita officer-involved shootings in Las Vegas have increased.
• Blacks make up less than 10 percent of the population, but were targets in 30 percent of the shootings.
• From the paper’s investigation: “At least 33 times since 1990 Las Vegas police have shot at an unarmed person. Seven, including one fatality, occurred in one recent 16-month period, September 2009 to January 2011.” About half of the unarmed were black.
• After looking at each shooting since 1990, the paper concludes that police “repeatedly place themselves in harm’s way, forcing confrontations where they have no choice but to shoot. Those shootings were legally justified, but just because a shooting is legal doesn’t mean it had to happen.”
Specifically, officers engaged in risky foot chases, and, in about one in five shootings, they fired into cars. Police experts say both types of incidents are often preventable.
• Police work is dangerous: Las Vegas officers have been wounded by gunfire at least 22 times since 1990, and in at least 88 of the 310 incidents, officers said they were shot at before firing back.
(And let’s add: Aside from the sheer danger, policing is difficult, thankless work and not lucrative.)
But can we reduce the number of officer involved shootings?
The experience of other cities suggests we can.
Eugene O’Donnell is a former New York City police officer, training officer and prosecutor and now an expert in policing at the John Jay College of Criminal Justice. He told me the R-J series “raises significant questions, and it puts that department in a time lag. A lot of departments have already had that conversation” and made adjustments to reduce shootings.
As New York magazine pointed out this year, in the early 1970s New York City was a veritable war zone, with frequent gun battles leading to the deaths of a dozen officers in one year.
But according to a recently released firearms discharge report, last year, “the New York City Police Department experienced the fewest firearms discharges, and shot and killed the fewest number of people since formal recording of such data began 40 years ago in 1971.”
As the Review-Journal notes, in 2010 “Las Vegas police shot at people 25 times, killing eight. The New York City Police Department, with 13 times more officers covering a population six times larger, shot at people 34 times, killing eight.”
In recent years, Denver cut its police shootings by one-quarter, and Portland reduced its by half.
Sheriff Doug Gillespie, through a spokesman, declined to comment, and Metro declined to make anyone available to talk about the series.
Bill Sousa, a UNLV criminologist who has worked as an unpaid consultant to Metro, praised the agency’s stated willingness to change its policies if need be.
For instance, as the Review-Journal noted, Gillespie “created two new teams to investigate shootings and recently said he is reaching out to community groups for ideas on how to fix the inquest system and repair his department’s internal review procedures. He’s asked a team of researchers from California to study racial sensitivity issues, an effort now midway through a two-year process.”
Sousa also said comparing officer-involved shootings in Las Vegas with those in other cities is problematic because of factors that can’t be easily quantified: We have 40 million tourists here every year, as well as a culture of risk-taking, transience and a love of guns that could make officers feel less secure on the street.
(As for our system for investigating officer-involved shootings, I’ll be writing a future column about that issue, but suffice to say, it’s deeply flawed.)
Why does this issue matter? After all, aren’t most of the targets hardened criminals?
Aside from the potential for deadly mistakes, these shootings tend to fray the relationship between police and the public, especially in certain neighborhoods where the shootings are most concentrated.
And, frayed relationships with the law-abiding public, especially in tough neighborhoods, make solving and preventing crime that much harder. One would hope this would concern Metro.
A scarier scenario is that the shootings are just a symptom of a larger disease — a lawless cowboy policing culture, like the Los Angeles Police Department of decades past. Let’s hope that’s not the case.
I was troubled by an R-J story last year about police training, in which the training officer told the reporter, “I believe every single recruit here, when they put that badge on, they are warriors. We’re fighting a war.”
I get that there are bad people out there who wish harm on all of us, including police officers. But if law abiding citizens — Metro’s best intelligence resource — feel besieged by a militarized police force, how willing will they be to help police prevent and solve crime?
As O’Donnell told me: “Some of that is clearly not the right rhetoric when you’re talking about civilian democratic policing.”
He said there’s a proper balance, that officers must be able to go from zero to 60 when a threat arises, but also understand that policing and war-fighting are two very different skills.
“When policing becomes an ‘us v. them’ thing, the ‘otherness’ thing, that’s the invitation to abuse. When everybody is an attacker, an assailant, a lethal threat — that’s not the right mind-set,” he said.
Sousa said that kind of language doesn’t match his experience with Metro, which he said has been progressive in its willingness to work with researchers and community groups. He said he’s worked with a lot of officers he called “community-oriented, problem-solving officers.”
For instance, the Safe Village Initiative in West Las Vegas combined police resources with intense community outreach to churches, schools, UNLV and health care providers. The effort reduced violent crime by 40 percent.
Given that kind of success, we have every reason to believe similar efforts in police-community relations — including on use of force issues — can be just as successful.
Police in our society are granted a legalized monopoly on violence and kidnapping. As such, there is no greater civic obligation than keeping a watchful eye on the officers of the law who are granted that enormous responsibility.
I commend the R-J — including for shelling out the $10,000 to Metro to get the records.
And now the hard work of reform begins.
It all starts with training, and the indoctrination of the belief among police that they are some sort of elite "warriors" spread out among a bubbling cauldron of crime and villainy.
That mindset is deeply flawed and has certainly led to citizens being executed by men with badges who allow themselves to fall into the deranged belief that they are justified executioners.
Mr. Coolican is absolutely correct in being troubled by the statement of the Metro trainer concerning the "war" the cops believe themselves to be fighting. There is no place in our society for such sentiments. Yet I'm willing to bet my paycheck for a year that the officer who made that statement remains in a position of influence in training other cops. He should be relieved and find a new career, because he fails to understand that policing is about public service, not victory over an enemy.
Each officer should be required to indemnify himself through bonding and insurance, rather than being protected by the blanket insurance against misconduct afforded them by the department. These officers have absolutely zero personal accountability for their actions, which is exactly why cops like Brian Yant, a known murderer, remains actively employed with the department.
There should be a civilian review board made up of citizens with no ties to government or the police department who determine whether an officer was justified in any use of deadly force. The incestuous relationship between the police, the D.A.'s office, and the judges on the bench clearly stacks the deck against any inquest finding fault with an officer's killing of a citizen.
Until considerable reforms are enacted we will only continue to lament those dead at the hands of Metro, and the use of unnecessary force by the increasingly militarized police agencies from across this country.
Things simply cannot stand as they are.
If you counted how many times police pulled their guns and Threatened to shoot people who were unarmed and never even committed or were charged with a crime, even after the police incident, your numbers would be greatly increased. I've been held at gunpoint in this city by police 3 times, twice at my own house on what was discounted by Metro as "understandable mistakes" with no IA action being taken whatsoever. After one instance I warned IA that Sargeant Densley would end up shooting someone, my complaint was rejected, although 5 months later he shot at the head of an unarmed black man for refusing to get out of his car. The man was lucky and the bullet deflected so it won't fall into your statistics and Densley won't lose his badge. If you want to stay alive in Las Vegas, avoid the police
Having recently moved here from a large city as a retired cop with more than 20 years on the job, I was shocked at the number of pursuits and shootings by Metro. Las Vegas citizens I have spoken with are just used to to all this, but believe me, it is extremely excessive when compared to other cities.
That does not excuse the times when deadly force is actually justified, but because the coroner's inquest is so favorable to the cops, most metro officers know they will get off with no civil or criminal penalties for a bad shoot.
That "warrior" mentality is a great teaching tool for new officers, but rookies don't know how to balance that way of thinking and react appropriately to the situation. That mentality may save your life someday but it can also cause a bad shooting.
As much as I like the Sheriff, "no comment" by Metro on this topic shows poor leadership and condones these shootings.
There definitely is a problem. But despite the RJ's investigation, the biggest question that no one has asked is where that problem specifically lies: With Metro or with the Community's Standards? As the RJ pointed out, the inquest panels are nothing more than "rubber-stamp" procedures that just validate Metro's actions. Is that because of some sort of complex conspiracy initiated by Metro, Police Unions, and others? Or is it because the community as a whole doesn't have a problem with the deaths? Aside from typical banter and trolling, examining the comments on both the RJ as well as the Sun's website here reveals that most citizens are in fact fine with the job that Metro is doing.
Take Trevon Cole for example. It is quite obvious that his death could easily have been prevented, sure. But if you examine the community's standards as seen here on the boards, to be blunt, people feel that no "innocent" lives were lost and the only person who died was a worthless drug dealer. Same thing with Erik Scott where the only loss of life perceived was that of a looser addicted to pain meds, and like almost ALL of the others was defiant of law enforcement. Now neither examples necessarily represent my own opinions, but simply what I have observed as the overwhelming opinions of people who have posted online here and on the RJ's website.
The real question that needs to be asked isn't "Will the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department reform it's policies?". No, the question that should really be presented is, "Do the Citizens of Las Vegas actually want Metro to reform themselves, or are they happy with current policies that enable them to clean up the streets with extreme prejudice, in order to dispense the true form of justice they want, yet the courts are not able to deliver?"
Without asking this second question, the RJ's investigation, while valuable in it's own right, is incomplete to the point of being almost worthless in pointing out the real issue behind all of this.
It's about time that somebody address this police culture. I remember the head of the police association telling new officers welcome to Martin Luther Coon Day. We now know why, the D.A, office will not do anything about police shooting.
"I commend the R-J -- including for shelling out the $10,000 to Metro to get the records."
Coolican -- excellent article, particularly for us meateaters tired of the usual shallow fluff pieces. This bit proves how out of reach accountability is to ordinary citizens.
I've posted here many times on the threshold point for every encounter with Metro's badged bullies -- their oaths to support, defend and protect the Constitutions. Since Nevada's Constitution is uniquely linked with its federal counterpart, let's start with the promise of the 14th Amendment -- "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall ... deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law..." Since Metro is the state's instrument to "enforce any law" in this area, and each officer's oath is essentially his promise to each of us he will respect the boundaries of the Bill of Rights between each of us and his enforcement, that's where this should begin.
Three Metro bike cops gave me a lesson last July they not only had no respect for their oaths or the limits on the authority We the people entrusted them with, they feared no consequences of ignoring those limits.
This is going to be such a lively Discussion. Thanx for providing it.
"Indifference to personal liberty is but the precursor of the State's hostility to it." -- United States v. Penn, 647 F.2d 876 (9th Circuit, 1980), Judge Kennedy dissenting
"The real question that needs to be asked isn't "Will the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department reform it's policies?"
DMCVegas -- I disagree with your reasoning about the "community standards" being Metro's primary policy concern. Since your post wasn't up when I started mine, have a look at my post about their oaths, which trump every other policy consideration every time. Their first duties are to the Rule of Law, which includes the Bill of Rights. This means it's not up to Metro at all, it goes along with the badges and guns we let them wear. Any other consideration is at best secondary. Otherwise we're back to the days when the KKK ruled by popular consensus.
To put in its proper context -- when Metro's Schreiber was at my car window last July, after the usual request for license, etc., he bluntly asked "do you have anything illegal in your vehicle?" When I reminded him that was a Fifth Amendment question that's when the REAL Metro showed its face -- backed up with three of their cars worth of them blocking off both me and the street.
Both the state and federal Constitutions expressly forbid forcing anyone to incriminate themselves. There's also their promise each of us are to be free from all unreasonable searches and seizures, something these Metro bullies blew through like mere paper barriers.
It boils down to government exists to secure our freedoms, not take them. It must clear the way for Metro to be more accountable, not put so many barriers in the way someone like me seeking redress is forced into a highly technical and byzantine shell game.
"If the exercise of constitutional rights will thwart the effectiveness of a system of law enforcement, then there is something very wrong with that system." -- Escobedo v. State of Illinois, 378 U.S. 478, 490 (1964)
The first thing to do. Do as you are told. Then everyone goes home. Make a choice, Fight, Flight, or STAY, then do as you are told. The first two, can and sometimes get you shot. Pretty simple. If an Officer is, putting their life on the line WHY can't he/she protect themselves. Police are protecting the public, they should have all the lead way needed, to go home at the end of shift. You are saying, they have to think to shoot or not to shoot, in 1/64 thousands of a sec. Pray tell me, how many thousands of a second, dose a Loser Take? Give me a break. Better yet..if an Officer give you a command. "DO IT"
The other issue that has to be addressed is the difference in how the District Attorney's office treats a shooting of a civilian by another civilian, and the shooting of a civilian by the police officer. In the citizen shooting citizen, the DA is immediately involved. In the police shooting civilian, the DA allows Metro to do the investigation without any input from the DA office and waits for the reports.
"The first thing to do. Do as you are told."
Aaronboy -- right. I stopped doing what mommy and daddy told me to do long ago. You seem to have a constant problem with those of us who question authority, and that's the antithesis of what it means to be a fully functioning citizen in this republic.
Otherwise....
"The Fuhrer is always right." -- Joachim von Ribbentrop, the 1939 Konigsberg address
I particularly enjoy the "faces of the dead" portion of this piece. The mugshots from prior incidents really add a nice touch to this thing. Funny, I don't recall seeing a piece with as much effort and detail being written about parents and the community as a whole doing a better job to raise our children and set a good example so that we can avoid these types of things. Odd.
Definitely sounds like metro has some training issues, and the inquests need to be refined.
KillerB, questioning authority is absolutely fine (and necessary), but there's a time and a place to do it. A tense situation with guns drawn is NOT the time. Otherwise you're just asking for problems. In that situation, you swallow your pride, whether or not you feel that you're right, and do what you're told. You raise hell later on.
@KillerB:
I'm not disagreeing with you at all. I too have had many run-ins with Metro over the years. Sometimes they were justified such as when I was speeding, but many others they were not. The worst of which was getting pulled over because an officer claimed that he thought I was wanting to run a stop sign. No crime was committed, and he admitted that. He said that I looked like I was going to run a stop sign, but then saw him (I didn't) and changed my mind. According to him, that was suspicion enough to pull me over. I got the same line of questions asking me if I had anything illegal in the car, and then asked if I was actually the owner of said car. He even went so far as to ask if I was sure I wasn't out joy riding in my father's car at night without him knowing it. I told him my father was deceased, the car was mine, and I was driving to the Albertson's to get some groceries since I didn't get off work until 9pm. He kept shining a flashlight through the louvers on the back of my car, and then through the rear glass on the sides trying to look around. He asked me what was back there, and I told him the engine of the car. Clearly aggravated he took my license, proof of insurance, and then shined his flashlight through the windshield onto my dash to write down the VIN, and proceeded to go to my rear license plate where he even wrote down the serial # off my registration sticker. He then detained me for another 20 minutes while he ran all of this. I know that because he told me such, as well as let me know that I was "lucky" that everything came up clean. He then warned me to watch myself because he'd be keeping an eye out for me. After that I stayed within North Las Vegas to do all of my shopping and never had a problem with NLVPD.
Getting back to the point however, you and I are in total agreement. I don't however know if the community as a whole is. Sure they'll be outcry of some sort, but will it be very loud? Most people seem to be quite happy with the job that Metro has done thus far, arguing that the people who have been shot or killed in some way deserved it for their immediate actions, or past transgressions.
@Aaronboy (Roy Keith)
Following an officer's instructions are perfectly fine as long as they are within reason. Stand still? Hands up? Sit on the Curb? Empty your pockets? Yes, those are all quite reasonable. Shooting a handcuffed subject in the back of the head without an prompting? Shooting someone flushing drugs down a toilet? Repeatedly killing suspects when there are no other witnesses around? Do those sound like reasonable requests? Do they even sound justified?
What if a cop told you wife, your child, or even you yourself to bribe them with money, or even say perform a sexual act upon them, or even told you to sit down while they sexually assaulted or straight-out raped your wife in front of you. If you got up to stop it, by your logic it would be perfectly acceptable for them to subdue YOU by way of physical violence. After all you're no longer doing as you're told.
I agree that when dealing with a police officer during a tense situation, compliance and cooperation are the best, and safest policy for all involved. However there are still certain reasonable requirements and accommodations that said officer(s) need to extend. By the same token while most cops are good, honest people, there are those few corrupt ones that do exist and abuse both their power and the public who entrust them to protect them. In such cases you absolutely should be able to protect yourself, your loved ones, and your property from them.
"Getting back to the point however, you and I are in total agreement."
DMCVegas -- nice to know.
For sure Metro won't change itself, for the most part because they don't have to -- with their typical bullies' "make me" attitude, change will have to come from us. I'm looking forward to the citing officer being under oath answering my questions at the trial next month.
"The foundation of the freedoms we enjoy as Americans is the U.S. Constitution, the longest surviving constitution of any nation in history. To be civically unaware is to diminish our freedom, but knowing our history makes us all better Americans." -- George Nethercutt Jr., former Congressman in his book "In Tune with America"
We need the Feds to come in and thoroughly investigate Metro; put the bad cops in jail for a very long time; recall Gillespie; change the way the sheriff is selected, and bring in a professional from outside Metro to run the department. Also set up an impartial oversight committee to keep a tight rein on the activities of Metro cops, plus disband the police union. All public service sector unions should be made unconstitutional in Nevada.
A citizen has the absolute right to question authority (Cops) but they have to do so in the proper venue. It must be done through the courts or a supervisor and not in an argument at the scene. The Constitution was not designed to be used as justification to allow citizens to act like idiots. One must ask, why make the situation more difficult than it has to be unless there is an ulterior motive. Common sense is not so common anymore.
Killer, "..... with those of us who question authority, and that's the antithesis of what it means to be a fully functioning citizen in this republic."
Fully functioning citizen??
Forgive me, but weren't you pulled over for not having a lawfully registered vehicle?
You may not like the laws (as evidenced from your multiple posts) but they are designed to protect us and YOU from those who would willingly break them. If your vehicle was unregistered the odds are it was also uninsured.
Your blathering about "the Republic" is not only a red herring, but the way you present it is fallacious and reeks of a person who is the first to cry foul when something doesn't fit the narrowly constructed template they exist in.
You can quote whomever you chose and tell me I have no relevance; that's cool, you have become the thing you despise the most.
Unimpeded moral authority.
btw, I have lived in this Valley for many, many years and have never had a negative experience with any of the law enforcement agencies in the Valley, but then again, I happily go about my merry way and don't have point to prove or a chip on my shoulder.
Vegas need to bring in an outsider to clean up the dept.I was in vegas sitting at A traffic light and I was watching these 2 motor cops mad dogging folks in traffic never seen nothing like it.I was like vegas got problems.I grew up there and as long as a insides gets that top job nothing gonna change.Bring Bratton in he will clean it up .also the feds gonna get metro one day and that will clean it up.growing up in vegas I cashed my check one day walked out the bank and a few cops had there guns pointed right at me,my girl and kid was in the car it was summer time ,they made me lay on the ground then one cop puts a gun right to my head and told me if I moved he would kill me and they cuffed me,some lady pulls up and says thats not him. I ask for a sarg haha he came and said sorry about that,I was pulled over one day in front of the hilton I lived over there I was driving my girls car cops pulled me over(PAINT JOB WAS NEW HE SAID FOLKS STEAL CARS AND PAINT THEM) I was watching him threw the mirror and he was like playing with his gun I was scared ,heres my point I moved to tucson got pulled over ,I threw my keys out the window and stuck my hands out the car ,the cop walks up and ask me why did I do that I told her I just moved there from vegas and thats the way we do it there ,she picked my keys off the ground gave them to me and told me to have a nice day.METRO STOP THE KILLING I DONT CARE IF YOU BLACK,WHITE I DONT CARE PLEASE .Note I am a black man and I am color blind
1 other thing I know metro can shot a fleeing felon,I am all for that but most of the guys they shoot are not fleeing felons,also I read some of the comments and metro do not treat blacks and white the same not trying to be racest but I dont see no other person saying metro has put a gun to there head I know alotta black dudes metro has put guns to there heads lots,It's a problem
Since moving to Las Vegas I have to admit that the actions of the police here have absolutely stunned me. My uncle was a cop. He would describe the police here as "badge-heavy." They appear to believe that treating everyone as an adversary somehow advances the public interest. They are wrong. I personally would never, ever trust the police here to help me. If I had a problem, I'd deal with it on my own. Calling the police here could be deadly since they treat EVERYONE who isn't a cop as if they are a crook. Based on what I've seen so far, the cops here are much worse than the crooks they are paid to arrest and I worry for my family's safety as a result. It's bad enough some times that I wish we hadn't moved here.
"A tense situation with guns drawn is NOT the time."
improveLV -- almost missed you there amongst the untrusted. As one who has had a cop draw on me, it's not what I meant, of course. That's a time for "yessir nosir three bags full, sir!" The common Metro encounter is a traffic stop.
"...plus disband the police union. All public service sector unions should be made unconstitutional in Nevada.
ionfield -- why exactly? Just because individual cops violate their oaths doesn't mean as a group they lose their Constitutional rights to peaceful assembly.
"A citizen has the absolute right to question authority (Cops) but they have to do so in the proper venue."
alma -- why would there and then not be "the proper venue"? I gave Metro the chance to honor his oath and he declined. Now it's being sorted out elsewhere.
"blah-blah-blah...reeks of a person who is the first to cry foul when something doesn't fit the narrowly constructed template they exist in.....never had a negative experience with any of the law enforcement..."
Heretic -- that "narrowly constructed template" we ALL exist in is called this republic of the USA and of Nevada, and they are both "narrowly constructed" with their Constitutions. Continue in ignorance, your choice -- like not recognizing my first two quotes are cites from high court decisions concerning Constitutional rights. "btw" it would be interesting hear what you have to say when you do get that encounter. From what others have posted here my encounter was hardly unusual. Finally, go look at that quote under my post to Aaronboy.
The offal is going to be hitting the fan soon when misdemeanor cell phone arrests start happening next month.
"Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rulemaking or legislation which would abrogate them." -- Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 491 (1966)
"Stop, Police" respect the law you have no troubles. The suspects start running, why? If you are stupid and do not comply then you get shot at, I think that is a determent to a few thugs. Still alot of stupid one out there who will challenge it, and get shot. More great role models.
KillerB, primarily because the Las Vegas Police Protective Association, the police union, has too much power and influence in protecting the bad cops. They are a hindrance to true reform within Metro and they, along with Clark County commissioners, have negotiated pay and benefits packages that we can no longer afford.
Public sector unions in Clark County and the commissioners, who are all too willing to give them whatever they ask for in order to garner their support in elections, have put us into an untenable situation. Public sector employees--police, firefighters, etc.,--have received pay and benefits, in particular their pension plans, that have put county government in dire straits bringing the county to the brink of bankruptcy. We have no way to pay for their overly generous pension plans in the future without drastic increases in taxes or drastic decreases in benefits. That is why. It has nothing to do with their constitutional right to peaceful assembly.
"KillerB, primarily because the Las Vegas Police Protective Association, the police union, has too much power and influence in protecting the bad cops."
ionfield -- thanx for your answer. I appreciate your concerns, but you should recognize the problem is the same as it is with Metro -- it's not about police departments being inherently evil and should be banned, it's how the organization has strayed so far from the purpose it was formed for it has now become predatory. Banning the union serves no purpose but to provoke another lawsuit against the county and guess who ends up paying for that. The union has no influence if those representing us on the county commission know they're watched and cannot be influenced away from the trust their constituents elected them to.
If that doesn't make much sense I need a nap.
"After the coffee things ain't so bad." -- Henry Herbert Knibbs, cowboy poet, d. 1945
dipstick - "the doofus in costco was carrying TWO guns!"
So what! Law Enforcement along with many other law abiding citizens carry a back up weapon, you would need to be a real dipstick to let someone get your weapon and use it against you and not have a 2nd gun. Based on your comment you know nothing about carry practices or the case involving Mr. Scott.
Unfortunately Vegas isn't like every other city. The worst of the worse seem to be drawn here. That's why we have such a large felony apprehension team that spends all day everyday arresting violent felons from other jurisdictions. So even trying to have a relation between say Denver or Portland and Las Vegas makes absolutely no sense. As for throwing in the old race card the study did...it says black people are involved in 30% of the police shootings but are less than 10% of the population. If you say that then you must also notate what percentage of violent crimes are committed by black people in Las Vegas? Does it meet their less than 10% demographic? If so, then that does need to be looked into. If not, then it shouldn't even be mentioned. My opinion but I think it's pretty much common sense, which people seem to have lost the past 30 years.
As a retired peace officer, taking into consideration the issues herein as being how to reduce police shootings, and how to reform the Corner's Inquest system, I will submit the following which I see to be problem areas, and the solutions thereof:
Undeniably, Metro has a superb team of negotiators. Statistics prove when Metro negotiators are on scene a peaceful ending will be the most likely result. When Metro negotiators are not on scene, the results are a high frequency of violent endings to tense situations. Negotiators need time to respond to the scene when called in by street officers. In a good many situations that have ended in violence, the emergency situation did not allow for this response time of the negotiators. Therefore, it should be proposed that all street officers be trained to some degree equal to special negotiators. Also, that their training be refreshed by continued formal training on a semi-annual basis.
Police officers should also be trained in depth in these three principles: (1) a cooling off period during the situation, between the suspect(s) and the officers in a given tense situation. But only if the situation is contained, and the safety of the community is not at risk, or, (2) to request of and recommend the suspect(s) to take a positive path, thereby hopefully ending the tense situation peacefully, and or, (3) to allow the suspect(s) to "save face", meaning, don't make the suspect(s) feel backed into a corner where they feel there is no other alternative than to use violence." These principles in the performance of a peace officer's duty is not only necessary, it is essential.
The law enforcement agency which employed me certified me as a training instructor for the academy and for the regularly scheduled refresher courses. My words were clear; "You have each chosen a very difficult and dangerous career field. As peace officers each of you must at all times have respect for life, temperance in order to defuse dangerous situations, and balance in your personal life." Unquestionably, without these traits, officers shall become a liability to the badge that they wear, and the terms of the sworn oath they have taken. The solution is, there needs to be an extremely proactive team of psychologists employed by Metro to keep an appropriate level of surveillance on the duties being carried out by Metro police officers who work the streets on a daily basis. <continued on next entry>
<continued from previous entry> Without doubt, the Coroner's Inquest system is in dire need of reform. In determining through this hearing whether an officer's use of deadly force is justified or not, the process needs to be simplified. The parameters of questioning and decision making on the use of deadly force should be restricted to the absolute definition of the law that governs that use of deadly force. Bear in mind, there are no exceptions. In a nutshell, "the use of deadly force shall not be employed unless there is imminent danger to the officer and/or that of the community. In ascertaining imminent danger, there must be a clear and decisive vision of a weapon, and or absolute awareness that a human life is about to be taken. If any officer in this situation is not 110% sure that these requirements have been met, the use of deadly force shall not be employed."
I offer each reader the following real situation that I once faced. In the midst of a very dangerous situation, as an officer, I saw another officer responding by running to the fracas on foot. I saw an individual dressed akin to other suspects on the scene chasing after this officer. He appeared to me to have a weapon, and I determined the suspect was putting the officer's life in imminent danger. I immediately chambered a round and sighted the suspect in. I prepared to fire, but did not. My fellow officers were outraged with me when I said I did not fire because I was only 99.95 percent sure that the officer's life was in imminent danger. The anger from my comrades diminished when they discovered this individual was actually assisting the officer, attempting to protect him in the situation and in attempting to bring forth a peaceful ending to the incident.
This was a prime example of following the 110% rule in employing the use of deadly force. The Coroner's Inquest system needs to take notice, simply, of the laws governing the use of deadly force.
I hope these posts have helped people to understand where improvements and reforms need to be made in our policing practices.
@BChap..were you off duty? If not, why didn't you have a round in the chamber already if this was your sidearm? Glad you didn't shoot an innocent person. Just curious why you weren't already chambered. That's pretty dangerous.
Taken from "Brian_D" in the "All Comments" section. Good question Brian, I should have explained above. The weapon was not my sidearm, it was a department issued rifle that I decided to take possession of in this situation.
(And let's add: Aside from the sheer danger, policing is difficult, thankless work and not lucrative.)
Not lucrative? Metro salaries allow for a rookie officer out of the academy to start at the national average salary. To get to the national average most citizen taxpayers have worked a good portion of their careers. That's to say nothing of the multiple officers being paid six-figure salaries , or the overly generous, unaffordable retirement packages available to Metro in half the time citizen taxpayers must put in before retirement eligibility. Not lucrative? By whose definition? Not the citizen taxpayers who pay those salaries.
"By the same token while most cops are good, honest people, there are those few corrupt ones that do exist and abuse both their power and the public who entrust them to protect them."
That was my opinion for a long time, too. Then it became clear that most "bad" cops get away with being bad cops because the people in the best position to stop them, the "good, honest" cops, don't honor their oaths and turn a blind eye in honor of the blue wall of silence.
Why did the RJ get this story out and not the Sun? Shame!!!!
Thanks for the info BChap. That makes a lot more sense to me. Glad you chose to make the decision you made. Also, thanks for checking the "all comments" section. Some of us would rather stay anonymous but still give our opinions to a good debate.
In reply to "Brian_D" from the "All Comments" section. You are quite welcome. In the situation above that I described, it was not a choice I made not to fire my weapon in that extremely tense situation. Brian, it was a rule of law. That law, as I described, is clear as to when deadly force may be deployed. A good officer always utilizes his instincts. However, when use of force comes into the picture, instincts are supposed to go out the window, and rule of law should become the deciding factor in an officer's actions.
By dipsh*t (dennis williams)
Dec. 6, 2011
6:46 a.m.
Flag gun laws for citizens are different in new york versus nevada. knowing that every tom dick and harry can legally carry a gun in nevada probably makes the cops more prone to be trigger happy. the doofus in costco was carrying TWO guns!
????????????????????????????????????????????????
So guess the guy who is stopped for DUI that owns two cars is more of a danger and therefore more guilty.
situation.
By Cognastics
Dec. 6, 2011
7:46 p.m.
(And let's add: Aside from the sheer danger, policing is difficult, thankless work and not lucrative.)
Not lucrative? Metro salaries allow for a rookie officer out of the academy to start at the national average salary. To get to the national average most citizen taxpayers have worked a good portion of their careers. That's to say nothing of the multiple officers being paid six-figure salaries , or the overly generous, unaffordable retirement packages available to Metro in half the time citizen taxpayers must put in before retirement eligibility. Not lucrative? By whose definition? Not the citizen taxpayers who pay those salaries.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
When Metro was hiring,there were thousands of applicants for the few jobs available. The average salery is needed to attract the best possible recruites. They reduce the two thousand applicants down to about 20 for each academy. If you want to see what lower paying police salaries would get, go look at the security guards working around Vegas.
BChap..It was a choice. As you stated it sounded like many who you worked side by side with would of fired and all had the same training and knew the "rule of law". If you were wrong and that would of been a perp and that would of been a weapon then what? Damned if you do, damned if you don't I guess.
"I stopped doing what mommy and daddy told me to do long ago. You seem to have a constant problem with those of us who question authority, and that's the antithesis of what it means to be a fully functioning citizen in this republic."
Wonderful. Question authority all you want...once things are calm. When the officers' guard is up, and they are trying to make sure things are under control and safe is NOT the time.
While you might be ready for some academic, philosophical discussion of the issues at that point, they are more concerned that your reluctance to follow orders is a bit more nefarious. This misunderstanding of police priorities isn't gonna go well for you. But in the end, I'm sure you will chalk up YOUR stupidity (or that of a similar fella) to the cops having a "thug mentality". That is always easier than accepting responsibility for your own unwise decisions.
Here's a little statistical analysis that the RJ retards left out. Their little comparision of OISs and suspects killed by LVMPD vs NYPD. There is a real trade-off for officers NOT resorting to deadly force when they should...it's called dead cops.
Let's take a quick look at some numbers the RJ skipped. In LVMPD history, they have had 18 officers killed in the line of duty since 1933. In the history of NYPD they have had 768 officers killed in the line of duty since 1806. Let me spell that out SEVEN HUNDRED SIXTY-EIGHT dead cops.
To equal that number of dead officers, it would take Metro over 3200 years at their current rate. And at the NYPD rate of officers killed, in the same time frame for Metro's 18 officers, they would have lost 284.
I'm not willing to have more of our cops killed to quiet those who want less bad guys killed. Denver, Portland, and NYC might be cool with that, but cops are more important to me than criminals. Call me crazy.
Great posts DtSd...although you didn't take into account the size of the NYPD compared to LVMPD. Please take into account "per capita" totals. Should of compared a comparable sized city and police force. Just sayin.
I only made those comparisons to NYPD because the RJ compared them first in an effort to paint LVMPD as trigger-happy.
I know it's near-impossible to make such comparisons because of all the variables, but that didn't stop the RJ from cherrypicking their numbers to suit their agenda.
And let me just say...NYPD has WAAAAYYYYY too many cops per capita. Having trained officers from many departments around the country I can say with full confidence that, in my opinion, they are about the most poorly-trained and poorly-skilled of all large metropolitan U.S. police agencies. Sorry to offend any New Yorkers.
Thanks DtSd. Can you compare the LVMPD with the Denver Police? Not sure where you get the numbers but am curious to see the difference. I have a feeling we come out on top...even with all the losers that live in Vegas.
In reply to "Brian_D" from the "All Comments" section. In your words referring to the tense situation that I was faced with, "It sounded like many who you worked side by side with would of fired and all had the same training and knew the "rule of law". If you were wrong and that would of been a weapon, then what? Damned if you do, damned if you don't I guess."
Respectfully Brian, not exactly true. If, in fact, the officers life had been in imminent danger in this particular situation,, I could have still lived with myself, since, I would have followed the rule of law that would not have authorized me to legally deploy the use of deadly force in this situation.
However, you are right on this aspect. Most, if not all of my fellow officers would have employed the use of deadly force if they had been in my situation. I cannot dispute this. Now, this is precisely why as a training instructor, I taught the following. "It is best as an officer, that you lose your life in the line of duty rather than risk the elements of taking the life of an innocent person." This was met with stiff resistance by the officers I was instructing in a classroom environment. The complaints mounted against my teachings to where I was censored, and quietly transferred from the department's training division.
These same officers, that would have illegally deployed the use of deadly force in my situation, know that if faced with a Coroner's Inquest, they are pretty much guaranteed that their actions would be found, "justifiable".
A now retired peace officer, I sit on the sidelines and watch as the numbers grow in huge amounts of Las Vegans who are becoming outraged with the methodology of its law enforcement officers and the Coroner's Inquest system. Although I was not employed under Metro's jurisdiction, it is still pertinent for me to say, on the record, in this forum, to every law enforcement agency head in the state of Nevada, "I told you so".
This entire city is managed like a third world country. The individuals in the LVMPD are talented yet mismanaged. Now that the story and data is available to everyone, we can all sit back and do nothing.
Thanks for the investigation and numbers. The problem of our local cops shooting innocents has gotten wildly out of hand and now with your data we can address the problem. The NYC data is an amazing contrast that shows 'reform' is not only possible but doable.
I would add that the abuse of steroids contributes significantly to poor judgement calls and unnecessary shootings.
This is a great step in the right direction. Thanks Las Vegas Sun.
I recognize that adequate training is a necessary component of an efficient, community oriented police force. I also realize that in a large force there will be a few bad apples. Given that, it falls on management and city officials to use studies such as the one described above to provide adequate oversight that ensures the safety of the general public.
Now that I've said all of the politically correct things, let me remind everyone that our police officers are "the tip of the spear" in the ever increasing atmosphere of violence and crime that is spreading throughout the nation. It's a tough and dangerous job.
Police departments have two choices in my opinion:
1. Protect law-abiding, tax-paying citizens by dealing with the criminal element in a manner that puts themselves in a superior position.
or
2. Do like is often done in California. Focus on peaceful, law-abiding citizens whose "crime" is jaywalking, etc. Having lived in northern California, I've seen countless situations where the police refused to patrol high crime areas on a routine basis...focusing instead on parking violations in the Walmart (et al) parking lots.
I, for one, recognize that a gun-toting drug-dealing, wanted felon who is looking to hijack a car at the traffic light is a bit more of a threat to society than someone who inadvertently parks too close to a fire hydrant.
As mentioned above, when the police yell "Stop Police" at a person who is fleeing, the correct move is to stop. Innocent people don't flee when they see a police officer. Innocent people don't carry a concealed, unregistered firearm around. Criminals do.
I contend that studies that depict possible issues need to be examined and corrections need to be employed. However, to expect our police to avoid confrontations or (worse yet) fail to use deadly force without going through a check-list before acting is downright insane.