Los Angeles-police-commission-wants-cops-to-run-from-armed-suspects. Speaking as a retired cop, and proud dinosaur, we did it to ourselves, we deserve this shit from LA, Tulsa, Charlotte and any other democrat shit hole you care to name. 

It isn’t because we are racist.  We’re not trying to keep a brother down.  Hell the brothers don’t need any help from the police, they’re doing a good job of self oppression without outside assistance. So much stuff to cover, coming from all directions where to begin?

Let’s start with the reason why it’s okay for black men to kill black men and it is supposed to be egregious when everybody else wants a piece of the action. Everybody in these United States are governed by State and Federal law. Mostly state law, which is fairly easy to understand, some examples:

• When you stick a gun in a 7-11 clerk’s face and take his stuff, anybody so inclined, can shoot your ass while you are doing it.
• It is against the law to sell dope whether you think the police be there or not.
• You can act the fool, but can’t complain when somebody else takes you seriously.
• When you put on the pink, fuzzy, bunny rabbit slippers on, in order to go to the 7-11, your ass better be able to back it up.

There are some areas of state law that remain obscure and are a cause of great confusion.  These grey areas area bedrock for justifying black behavior.

• Accident is an unintended event, like when a bird shits on your ride. It is not an unintended event (on either side) when a carload of homeboys drives past a rival’s house, dumps two magazines of AK ammo into the house and kills a two year old asleep inside.
• Justifiable homicide it is not justifiable homicide to:KILL THE MOTHERFUCKER, HIS MAMA, BABY MAMA, HOMEBOYS, KIDS, AND COUSINS TO THE THIRD DEGREE BECAUSE YOU GOT DISRESPECTED. Take an inventory of your life and you may find a cockroach has got a better claim for respect.

In the 1970’s some police departments became more enlightened and they decided that police work wasn’t difficult enough so they came up with a different set of rules; they called it policy and procedure. Fortunately, there were only two police departments in the United States capable of doing the research and turning out a credible product, LAPD and NYPD.

This didn’t stop other police Chiefs.  They got their hands on a LAPD or NYPD manual, a case of whiteout, typewriter and patrol officer of no use to anybody and three months later, Chief had his very own policy manual (your name here).  The fact that this new manual referenced fifteen patrol divisions, 32 airships, and investigative units never conceived of was immaterial.  Those areas were reserved for future growth.  This policy and procedures manual was proudly displayed. At 700 plus pages it had never been read, despite the assurances in every officer’s fie that he had received, read and understood everything in the manual, covered during a fifteen minute patrol briefing.

Technology improved in the mid 1980’s the office computer was born.  Police futurists predicted advance crime fighting.  Police chiefs bemoaned the fact that solitaire was so slow. They soon found another use, the same patrol officer, without the whiteout could now enter the LAPD manual into the computer.  With this capability the Chief of Podunk nine officers, one detective four dispatchers and a records supervisor could have their very own LAPD cribbed policy without the fifteen patrol divisions, 32 airships and non existent investigative units.

The personal computer also introduced the apple into this Garden of Eden. When NYPD decided to allow patrol officers to unholster their pistols in anticipation of danger, they relied on a ten year study of a thousand NYPD officer involved shootings.  The policy change instituted was backed up by some serious research. When Alamo Heights, Texas Police officer’s shot and killed pet monkey all the Police Chief had on his desk to support the policy change was a dead monkey.

Policy does not replace state law. It does not replace training and education. It was never intended to be the final word for tactics and techniques.  Policy and procedure was intended to guide decision making and aid the officer in applying a solution consistent with state law and department rules. There will always be violations of policy, some major, some minor simply because policy can be too specific in one instance and too vague in other instances.

Here is a recent incident where the Loss Angeles Civilian Review Board recommended prosecution of the involved officers:

The key facts in this case are not in dispute. A female suspect, armed with an 8 to 9-inch knife, charged at officers, repeatedly ignored commands to stop, and was recorded yelling ‘shoot me’ as she swung her knife from side to side,” the LAPPL Board of Directors wrote in a blog post.

The armed suspect immediately closed the space between her knife and the police officers from 70 feet to no more than 5 feet in less 10 seconds. At this point, the first officer shot from his service weapon.

The second officer (Officer C) involved in the incident only had three seconds to react to the forthcoming threat. The Commission stated, “It was reasonable for Officer C to believe, in the moment when the use of force occurred, that the subject would imminently assault him with the knife.”

So why did the commission have a problem with the officers’ reaction?

Beats me! I cannot see any violation of State or Federal Law or police policy. The Commission stated it was reasonable for Officer C to believe, in the moment when the use of force occurred, that the subject would imminently assault him with the knife. I can’t tell who shot, who hit, who missed that information is not provided.  The police Commission ruled against both officers for violating the Use of Force Policy.  I have located a video of the shooting here: http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-lapd-commission-shootings-20160920-snap-story.html

I am a great believer that how an officer does the initial assessment leading to the approach is a leading indicator of success coming out the other side.  If the approach was correct everything else will follow. Watching the video I saw a female suspect walking purposely down the sidewalk. She deviated from her path to bring her closer to the officer.  My understanding is both officers were equipped with cameras.  There was no meaningful discussion or communication. The suspect had the opportunity to drop the knife but did not. The officer could have retreated, however he was under no obligation to retreat and there did not appear to be any hope of establish meaningful communications. A retreat would have not done anything to improve the tactical situation and may have made it worse. The block looked pretty isolated, what if the next one had a bus stop with twenty people waiting?

This generation of police officer is paying the bill that my generation ran up. My generation was the last of the risk takers. They intentionally put themselves at hazard sometimes out of ego, sometimes ignorance. The “Us Against Them” mentality ensured that we didn’t back down from many confrontations and maybe threw a little gasoline on other confrontations, just to make it interesting.  The new breed is risk adverse to the degree that when the calculus calls for deadly force, they use it, sometimes in situations where the older generation would have refrained.