In response to the Aaron Campbell shooting, the police invited reporters out last Friday, February 19, to go through a mini version of their use-of-force training. From shooting blanks in practice scenarios, going through virtual role-playing scenarios and sitting through a Powerpoint on the effects of stress, police officers are supposed to learn when to shoot in real-life situations and when to hold their fire.
I was the first reporter to go through one of the role-playing scenarios: walking into a room with a gun loaded with blanks, I saw a guy standing with his back to me, hands up, a gun in one hand. In my most authoritative police voice, I told him to drop the gun. My heart was racing, I was nervous. “I’m the property owner!” the guy yelled over his shoulder, “Don’t shoot me!” Then he turned around and shot me before I could even blink.
“Why did you have the gun aimed at the floor?” asked trainer Sergeant Don Livingston afterwards. I hadn’t realized I didn’t even have the gun raised. “I didn’t want to shoot the guy,” I replied. Officers told me later that the cop almost always dies in that practice. It’s a no-win situation.
I put together this little video of the training, which provides some insight on the police perspective of shooting incidents, as well as their attempts to shape the media response:
The premise here is flawed. The cops invite reporters on these things to show “hey! look how hard it is! you can get shot at any moment! therefore, [insert most recent shooting] is entirely justified!”
It would be like the Blazers inviting reporters down to practice today and letting them get completely schooled by the very worst player on some D-league team. “Hey! Look! Basketball is hard! Therefore, you should not criticize us for giving up that 25 point lead in the 3rd quarter last night!”
Breaking news: Police work is hard. You have to make difficult decisions. You may get shot by bad guys. We know this. That’s why you carry guns and get decent salaries and outstanding pension plans. Showing reporters–who have NO training–that it’s really tough doesn’t really prove that. It only proves that people without training make bad decisions. You have lots of training. That’s why we expect you to make better decisions.
Can Dave J just win comment of the week right now? It’s exactly the point. And while I don’t blame the police for attempting to explain their protocol and their version of the story, the fact that tax dollars went towards such a large event that explicitly attempted to shape the story to the media to lay off on the blame makes me queasy.
@ambrown Agreed.
To paraphrase: “This is why we get to shoot unarmed black men in the back.”
I’m glad you went to this, Sarah. And thank you for asking the question about the Campbell incident—which I feel the training officer was pretty shameless in speculating about, and exonerating the officers over.
Having been on the 11-week police academy I know how it feels to be in these police training scenarios: It’s hard not to change one’s perspective, and indeed, it does change one’s perspective.
But the bottom line seems to be that the press like to shoot fake guns with cops, and the cops know that they can rely on this phenomenon to change our perspective on controversial incidents.
“Do what you believe in the moment is reasonable and necessary,” said Robert King.
I’m still not sure how that justifies Officer Lewton beanbagging Aaron Campbell in the incident. He was only passively resisting. Whatever you may think about “action and reaction.”
Watching that Fox 12 reporter josh along with the Assistant Chief at the end, lobbing him softball questions, too. That was just priceless.
I’m really glad that you took video.
The police trainer should spend less time with reporters and, I don’t know, train the police?
Do police officers really completely walk into rooms when people are holding guns in their hands in the first place? It seems like they’d want some cover, you know, just stick their head around the doorway or something. While an interior wall won’t stop bullets, it does make aiming hard and it slows a handgun bullet down enough so it is more likely that the body armor will stop them. In any case, nobody is accusing the police of shooting an armed man in a random chance encounter, we are talking an hour and a half long preparation where the police set up for the guy to come out of the door. The army would have filled sandbags and set up a machine gun nest, (or four,) in that amount of time, the least the police could do is have everyone hiding behind car doors when the guy emerged. Even if he was armed and setting up an ambush for them, the most they’d have to do is get some body work done on a few police cars. Their “training” example is not at all relevant to their most recent situation.
Also, in other statistics: The profession where you are most likely to get hit with a bullet/baseball bat/etc is:
Taxi driver. At twice the fatality rate per work hour from homicides as police officers, and who knows the injury rate, (since the taxi drivers are typically contractors who don’t have to report injuries to their parent company or anyone else, so probably cover up the non-hospitalization ones,) yet none of the training, ability to shoot first, (or second even,) body armor, etc…
Talk about a dangerous job, and for very little money and no benefits.
Maybe you should be the lead instructor for the police Matthew. On second thought I’d like a police force that would actually be able to protect me. Were you actually there at the training? Was that a demonstration or actual police tactics? Please inform me since you obviously are an expert.