National Protest and 'disband the cops' discussion (please review page 1)

Locksteady said:
The obvious question for me was why didn't either officer on site even attempt using any non-lethal incapacitating tools like Tasers first in the lead-up to his charge while the cars still occluded his path?
Click to expand...

Why is that an obvious question? Have you ever attempted to disarm a knife-wielding attacker using non-lethal means?

By the way, the Taser issue is a red herring.
 
policemedic said:
Why is that an obvious question?
Click to expand...
Do you mean, why is that an obvious question for me? If so, that is because I would expect non-lethal incapacitating measures to be sought out and applied in lieu of applying lethal measures, when possible and feasible.
policemedic said:
Have you ever attempted to disarm a knife-wielding attacker using non-lethal means?
Click to expand...
Yes.
policemedic said:
By the way, the Taser issue is a red herring.
Click to expand...
It's not evident the Philadelphia Police Department feels the same.
 
Locksteady said:
Do you mean, why is that an obvious question for me? If so, that is because I would expect non-lethal incapacitating measures to be sought out and applied in lieu of applying lethal measures, when possible and feasible.

Yes.

It's not evident the Philadelphia Police Department feels the same.
Click to expand...

I agree that less-lethal should be used when appropriate. This was not one of those instances.

If you’ve been attacked with a knife—for real, not training–and successfully disarmed the bad guy without getting cut yourself, you’re among very few who have done so. I’ve trained in Filipino martial arts since I was 13, and the take away from knife defense is expect to get cut. I am not paid enough to get cut. Police officers are not expected to take unreasonable risks, and I would never advise one of my officers to attempt a disarm except in extremis.

I will say it again for clarity. The Taser issue is a red herring, and any responses on Tasers from PPD brass that indicate otherwise are geared towards public relations.
 
Thanks for your experienced feedback and response.
policemedic said:
I agree that less-lethal should be used when appropriate. This was not one of those instances.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure if that is a consensus conclusion, nor that at no point prior to the last-minute rush that a Taser would have been inappropriate while Wallace was repeatedly ignoring their orders to drop the knife.

Since no attempt occurred, the 'obvious' question for me as a non-LEO instead of assuming anything was to ask, "Why didn't they attempt non-lethal force first?"

I haven't heard anything from the officers involved, but the request from the Philadelphia Police Department for funding for Tasers and training doesn't suggest to me that they are committed to the idea that there was no point where non-lethal tools like Tasers were appropriate in that scenario.
policemedic said:
If you’ve been attacked with a knife—for real, not training–and successfully disarmed the bad guy without getting cut yourself, you’re among very few who have done so.
Click to expand...
At no point was I successful in disarming the knife.
policemedic said:
I’ve trained in Filipino martial arts since I was 13, and the take away from knife defense is expect to get cut.
Click to expand...
Ah, so they probably started you on weapons early aside from the more traditional route. Yes, ideally on the outer limbs as an expected 'take' in the process of disarming or disabling them. Rarely works as smoothly 'off-set'.
policemedic said:
I am not paid enough to get cut. Police officers are not expected to take unreasonable risks, and I would never advise one of my officers to attempt a disarm except in extremis.
Click to expand...
I have nothing but agreement here.
policemedic said:
I will say it again for clarity. The Taser issue is a red herring, and any responses on Tasers from PPD brass that indicate otherwise are geared towards public relations.
Click to expand...
I see, and that makes sense that it could be the case.

However, the fact that they've been working on trying to fill the Department with Tasers and training for non-lethal intervention methods for at least a decade would indicate that this is less of a reactive red herring PR tactic and more like the crescendo of a several-years-long effort to resolve an ongoing problem that now is actually being taken seriously and corrected with funding thanks to the media magnitude of the shooting.

There is no reason that 2/3 of a responding police force should remain unequipped with non-lethal alternatives of incapacitation, and I see only positives from procuring funding for the Philadelphia PD to outfit its force with non-lethal response options.
 
Last edited:
Locksteady said:
There is no reason that 2/3 of a responding police force should remain unequipped with non-lethal alternatives of incapacitation, and I see only positives from procuring funding for the Philadelphia PD to outfit its force with non-lethal response options.
Click to expand...
....and that brings the argument full circle.

No reason, except the department doesn't have the funding or support from elected officials to make these purchases.

These purchases require significant cash outlays. Which is more important, body cam or taser? How about officer training programs, where is that in the mix? Then of course, there's the actual manpower needs. These decisions make the issue very political. It also puts culpability at the feet of the officials, but they'll never take ownership of it.

On a separate note, I don't live in Philadelphia but maybe those that do, like @policemedic, are willing to opine on this:
I read somewhere, maybe here or elsewhere, that the police commissioner is relatively new and recently from Portland PD. I haven't been impressed, to say the least, by the police response in Portland. When I hear about things like only 1/3rd of the force has tasers, Red Herring or not, it makes me wonder: what level of support do rank and file really have from the leaders in this department?
 
Last edited:
Blizzard said:
....and that brings the argument full circle.

No reason, except the department doesn't have the funding or support from elected officials to make these purchases.
Click to expand...
Support which comes when elected officials are shown the results of what happens absent their support for funding these and other initiatives.
Blizzard said:
How about officer training programs, where is that in the mix? Then of course, there's the actual manpower needs. These decisions make the issue very political. It also puts culpability at the feet of the officials, but they'll never take ownership of it.
Click to expand...
Of course - and as mentioned before, prioritization for something rises in the midst of a crisis or public outcry.
Blizzard said:
When I hear about things like only 1/3rd of the force has tasers, Red Herring or not, it makes me wonder: what level of support do rank and file really have from the leaders in this department?
Click to expand...
Why exactly would the Department - much less a Commissioner who just got there in 2020 - suddenly have the culpability that you just assigned to elected officials for failing for more than a decade to support the Department's repeated requests for more funding to arm and train the whole force with these tools?
 
Locksteady said:
However, the fact that they've been working on trying to fill the Department with Tasers and training for non-lethal intervention methods for at least a decade would indicate that this is less of a reactive red herring PR tactic and more like the crescendo of a several-years-long effort to resolve an ongoing problem that now is actually being taken seriously and corrected with funding thanks to the media magnitude of the shooting.

There is no reason that 2/3 of a responding police force should remain unequipped with non-lethal alternatives of incapacitation, and I see only positives from procuring funding for the Philadelphia PD to outfit its force with non-lethal response options.
Click to expand...

Let me preface this by saying I’ve been certified as a Taser instructor, carry one, and have been known to use it. I’ve seen it work spectacularly and marginally. To me, its main utility is in how quickly it deescalates a situation once someone is painted by the targeting lasers. I do believe a Taser should be available to every officer, but the truth is police services can and are provided without them.

However, failure to issue Tasers cannot be conflated with a lack of less-lethal options. PPD line officers have OC spray and batons. Other units have a more robust selection of options (well, until CIty Council makes them illegal and takes them away from us).

I can tell you without equivocation there has not been any urgency within the PPD leadership to issue Tasers, not now and not in previous administrations. PC Outlaw cannot be held responsible for this. They were used as a carrot to motivate officers to volunteer for an unpopular program. Tasers have been available to select personnel for more than a decade, but they have not widely distributed. Even the recent announcement of a $900K line item in the municipal budget for Tasers is a sop; even with discounts applied, that is roughly 600 Tasers or less once you account for the devices, cartridges, holsters, training, and backfill expenses. For context, there are some 6500 sworn officers within the PPD.

Having a Taser should not have changed the outcome of this incident. That is a segue for my next post....
 
Blizzard said:
On a separate note, I don't live in Philadelphia but maybe those that do, like @policemedic, are willing to opine on this:
I read somewhere, maybe here or elsewhere, that the police commissioner is relatively new and recently from Portland PD. I haven't been impressed, to say the least, by the police response in Portland. When I hear about things like only 1/3rd of the force has tasers, Red Herring or not, it makes me wonder: what level of support do rank and file really have from the leaders in this department?
Click to expand...

Let’s just say the rank and file do not have confidence in the PC. It is felt she has proven she cannot be trusted, is a weak leader, and is frankly out of her depth.

An example is her unwillingness to stand behind these officers. She could have explained that there are certain instances where, regrettably, the police must exercise their lawful authority to use lethal force. She could have done this in a way that didn’t taint the investigation, but she chose not to.

I do agree that she inherited the Taser problem (and others) and she shouldn’t be viewed as culpable for those. Those issues can be fixed, but will require time, funding, and training.
 
GOTWA said:
You need to be more gender neutral so you can't say boy. Maybe, holy smokes. No, too religious. Gee golly might work.
Click to expand...
It's only a matter of time before they realize those, too, are just euphemisms for the Christian God.

There is no escape!
 

Similar threads

Board and Seize
Rationality and Erisology
2
Replies
29
Views
6K
Gunz
Gunz
Marauder06
Full Spectrum Ops in the Homeland- a "Vision for the Future?"
Replies
2
Views
2K
Red-Dot
Red-Dot
Ravage
SOF LEADER: A Salute to Special Operators, with Concern for Fraying of the Forces
Replies
0
Views
4K
Ravage
Ravage
Ravage
NIGHT STALKER LEAD: From the Air, Delivering, Protecting and Extracting SOF Warriors
Replies
0
Views
8K
Ravage
Ravage
B
Counterinsurgency Redux
Replies
4
Views
4K
CQB
CQB
Back
Top