|
A Blue Wall of Silence
With Geoffrey P. Alpert,
Professor of Criminal Justice and Director of Research for the College of Criminal Justice, University of South Carolina
Thursday, July 5, 2001; 11:30 a.m. EDT
Prince George's County police officers shot and killed people at rates that exceeded those of nearly any other large police force in the United States from 1990 through 2000. Almost half the people targeted by police were unarmed. Police officials declared all of the shootings justified but kept details about them secret.
Geoffrey P. Alpert researches and evaluates high-risk police activities, including the use of force, deadly force, pursuit driving and accountability systems. Alpert is a professor of criminal justice and the director of research for the College of Criminal Justice and an adjunct professor of sociology at the University of South Carolina. He is currently working on research concerning police use of force to control suspects. Alpert also assists police departments by writing and evaluating policies, training and accountability systems. He has written numerous books and monographs, including The Force Factor: Measuring Police Use of Force Relative to Suspect Resistance and Police Vehicles and Firearms: Instruments of Deadly Force.
Submit your questions and comments before or during the discussion.
Editor's Note: Washingtonpost.com moderators retain editorial control
over Live Online discussions and choose the most relevant questions for guests and hosts; guests and hosts can decline to answer questions.
To read the most recent responses, click "Get New Responses"
or select "Automatically Update Page."
|
Oxon Hill, Md.:
Mr. Alpert,
When I read the story about the Prince George's officer who shot the schizophrenic man who charged at him with two knives, I was a little confused. It seems that in a situation like that the officer would be left with no other alternatives but to shoot. Are there any training methods available that would enable officers with the ability to disarm an attacker without the use of "deadly force"?
Geoffrey P. Alpert: Police officers are trained to evaluate and remove a threat. If the schizophrenic person posed a real threat of serious injury or death to an officer (or other person) deadly force would be justified. The important question is the level of threat posed by the individual with the knives and the alternatives open to the officer. For example, if an officer could retreat or get out of harm's way, then that would be the best response. Remember, the use of deadly force often makes the officer a judge, jury and executioner...
Springfield, Va.:
Is America forgetting what policing is about? Are we forgetting that police officers are who we call on to protect us if we smell danger? How can we blame the officers' training when they are dealing with criminals each and every day. Wouldn't you agree that most people do not want to be arrested? Sure, police officers need to be trained correctly to deal with different situations, but shouldn't we be looking more closely at the actions of the criminals?
Geoffrey P. Alpert: There is no question that the actions of the criminal drive the response by the officer. Whether it is a non-deadly or deadly force situtaion, it is the offender who is "in charge" in that his or her actions and threats are to what the officer is responding. Many officers need to be better trained to evaluate the threat and determine if it is real. I am not referring to a toy gun v a real gun but if a suspect is creating a threat he or she has the means and ability to carry out. In anon-deadly force situation, the level of force used by the police is justified by the level of the suspect's resistance. I always get irritated when I see facts and figures on police use of force without knowing what the suspect did.
Santa Clara, Calif.:
Dr. Alpert,
What do you think of the trend in police policy that has the police moving from a use of force continuum to more of a "toolbox" approach (where the officer can reach into his "toolbox" and select the appropriate use of force tool)? This will allow the officer to respond however they feel is appropriate without having to go through the entire use of force continuum.
Geoffrey P. Alpert: The policies which I have written and with which I am familiar all include some form of the force continuum. While officers can "jump" a level or two depending upon what the suspect is doing, there still is a basic continuum. We devised a method to measure police use of force relative to suspect resistance that can determine whether officers "jump" a level or two or use force commensurate with the level of resistance. Clearly, an officer must be sensitive to the continuum but should be able to reach ito his toolbox and use appropriate tools. You don't want officers using "excessive" force to end a confrontation if it could be brought to a successful conclusion with less force and you don't want officers hurt becasue they use too little force. It is a tough balance but one that can be done with proper training, supervision and accountability.
Mountain View, Calif.:
Other professions which entail the danger of death or serious injury to the public, including surgeons and airline pilots, undergo 10 or more years of training and typically apprentice under an experienced mentor before they are allowed to exercise their own command. The training of police officers is substantially shorter than this, life-and-death decisions are made with much less time for reflection, and accountability standards are weak or non-existent (by comparison, all surgeries are supervised and all actions by a pilot are recorded). In view of this, should we be skeptical as to whether police are properly trained to make deadly force decisions on the job?
Geoffrey P. Alpert: These are comparisons that have been discussed for years - how much training is necessary, and can we pay for more and improved training. The better departments provide officers with substantial training in the use of force & deadly force which includes violence reduction & alternatives to deadly force. The better departments also provide good supervision and accoutability systems which document why force was necessary, what force was used and what resistance was met. If agencies do not have those "safeguards" for officers and civilians, then they will (and should) be criticized for inappropriate policies and procedures.
Your point about decision-making is critical. Officers need to use their heads and not always their fists. They need to be trained in both but the better ones begin by trying to outsmart the bad guys.
Maryland:
Hello. Were you a cop before? If not, did you have any real operational experiences?
Geoffrey P. Alpert: No, I was never a cop and my opinions come from years of observation, survey results,interviews and training. I cannot give you an opinion of one current or former cop, but I can give you the cumulative results from discussions and data from thousands of cops. Additionally, I have trained thousands of officers in decision making. My opinions come from information they have given to me.
Alexandria, Va.:
Some people have questioned the attitudes of police officers and how they "go into every situation expecting the worst." Shouldn't they though? Police officers are here to deal with criminals so how can we, the citizens, expect them NOT to act like they are, in fact, dealing with criminals? If officers did not remain alert in every situation they encountered, wouldn't they be endangering themselves more than they already are as well as endangering the citizens they are protecting?
Geoffrey P. Alpert: Officers must be prepared for the worst in any situation including a routine traffic stop. That is why they are trained to approach situations with tactical advantage and cover. However, their attitude and demeanor does not have to show arrogance. We all know some officers who can make a serious felony arrest and have the susopect laughing. We also know officers that have to fight every suspect. Clearly, the former is a better officer but he (or she) too must be prepared for the suspect who wants to get away.
Washington, DC:
I was deeply disturbed by the shooting of the young girl who had stated her suicidal intentions, yet I know she was threatening the officers with a gun. To what extent are officers trained to deal with people with emotional disorders or mental illness? Are they trained to approach the situation any differently? Do police departments typically have a mental health professional on staff? What kind of mental health support do officers receive from departments?
Geoffrey P. Alpert: Officers are trained to respond to threats and to remove the threat. They are (or should be) trained to deal with mentally challenged individuals but a gun is a gun and any person threatening officers with a gun can be justifiably shot. Depending upon the circumstances, officers can slow situations down and wait out a person who may have a gun but is not creating a threat. Also, some shootings are justified by avoidable!
Peoria, IL:
I'm a little unclear as to the use of deadly force against an unarmed person, given the high rate of Prince Geroge's police shootings of unarmed people. If a person is unarmed, how can they constitute a threat to the life of an officer? Isn't a nonlethal weapon such as pepper spray more appropriate in these cases? It seems like an officer with a gun vs. a suspect with nothing is a no-brainer. If these officers are that afraid for their lives, why are they police officers in the first place? Isn't some level of risk a part of the job, and shooting to kill at the first sign of trouble just a bit inappropriate?
Geoffrey P. Alpert: Shooting an unarmed person is, at face value, the worst police response. Unless the person created a real threat of serious bodily harm to an officer, there is rarely an excuse to shoot any person. Sometimes bricks, shovels and other "things" can be used as weapons. There are situations in which these weapons can cause a real threat. However, officers should be trained and have alternatives to the use of firearms.
Non-deadly weapons such as O.C. Spray, batons, and others are much better ways to deal with unarmed suspects. There are, however, situations where unarmed suspects can create a real threat - I just can;t think of one right now.
Bowie, Md.:
Do you think that more emphasis needs to be placed on the hiring process and background investigations to ensure better officers on the street?
Geoffrey P. Alpert: Since the 1960s there has been a cry to do a better job in the recruitment, selection and training of the police. We have not met the challenge. Some people want to beome officers for all the wrong reasons. It is interesting to see haow different departments recruit and select their officers. Santa Clara, California is an exemplary agency in the work they do to check out an applicant. Unfortunately, most agencies do not have the resources to do that amout of background work. However, it boils down to "pay me now, or pay me later."
Police officers and teachers need better pay. When that happens, we will see better applicants.
Glenarden, MD.:
Mr. Alpert, you seem to believe that the P.G. Police are not properly trained. Why?
Geoffrey P. Alpert: I don't know if they are not properly trained - but I do know that the numbers they generate in the area of deadly force are significantly greater than other agencies.
Fairfax, VA:
Dr. Alpert,
After reading the recent series of articles
in the Washington Post, it is clear to me
that general public is often "ignorant" (for
lack of a better word) to what constitutes a
"deadly force" reaction by a police officer.
Instead of criticizing and second
guessing, shouldn't the focus be on
educating the public about what the
police are and are not trained to do?
Geoffrey P. Alpert: I think the focus should be on training the officers to understand what they are likely to face on the street and how to respond. The public needs to understand what constitutes a threat to an officer and why an officer responds to the threat. Officers are (or should be) trained to remove threats with levels of force that are commensurate with the level of suspect resistance. While this may not be possible all the time, most situations can be ended successfully without using levels of force that greatly outweigh the level of suspect resistance.
Maryland:
As a Prince George's County Police Officer, I would like to thank you for being the only realistic guest "speaker" that the Post has had on this site. The prior "experts" were all very biased, and very idealistic. In a perfect world, the police would not have to shoot anybody, but in the real world we sometimes are left with no other alternative. This series of articles has just broken my heart, it really has. Sometimes it feels like no one understands, so thank you for being objective.
Geoffrey P. Alpert: Thank you for your comment. You are absolutly correct, "we sometimes are left with no other alternative." The point is to be prepared when a suspect puts you in that situation but be careful not to put yourself in that situation. Good luck and keep the faith!
Washington, D.C.:
Do current training programs place an unrealistic emphasis on dangers to officers, making them hyper-vigilant and overactive?
Is there a lack of training on steps officers can take to prevent putting themselves in harms way by contributing to the creation of a scenario that may require the use of force?
Are officers trained in making an accurate threat assessment?
Geoffrey P. Alpert: Yes, there is a lack of training on what we call violence reduction and other ways to get out of situations that require the use of force. Some people can handle themselves better than others and some can assess threats better than others. Police training should make all officers equal but it doesn't. This is an area of training that should be emphasized. Officers who can assess threats and know how to respond to them with the lowest level of force are the better officers. All officers have to be prepared for the suspect to lull them to a level of comfort and then attack. It is a complex environment.
Greenbelt, Md.:
Over the past few years I've had opportunity to talk with Prince George's County policemen (including some in public affairs positions) about the image of the police department. Just yesterday the reaction of one officer to the Post series was "Well, if they (The Post or the public) could walk in our shoes." This seems typical of the police department's attitude: its a jungle out there and they have to protect themselves. Their culture and training have primed them to answer threats with force, and to defend such reactions as justified.
How can this culture be changed?
Geoffrey P. Alpert: There is a "blue curtain" that will wrap itself around any agency that is under attack. PG County is no different and time will tell how the officers, management and public responds to the series. Hopefully, the officers will not feel attacked because the vast majority are trying to do what is best. It really is up to the management to respond properly to the criticism and open the doors to the department and show that they have nothing to hide. Chief Farrell must build confidence in his office and must support his officers. In the same light, he must discipline those who violate policy and the public trust. A good method is to develop management tools that work. Unless these steps (or similar ones) are taken, the deprtmant may regress, pull the covers over their eyes and allow the culture (as reported by the Post) to continue.
Silver Spring:
Upon moving here from Chicago in 1979, I looked at PG County because it was the least expensive living but after finding out some fact on the police I choose Montgomery County, I was a single parent with a male son to raise.
With cell phones and pager that could be misread as a threat by police when approaching a suspect, why is it always shoot to kill? What about a foot, knee or some place non critical?
Geoffrey P. Alpert: There have been several questions today about shooting to wound or shooting suspects in the hands, legs, etc. If an officer is justified in shooting a suspect - the suspect has created a real threat to the officer - then the officer is trained to remove the threat. Officers are trained to shoot to remove the threat and that often means shooting at center mass. Most shots fired at suspects miss the intended targets and if an officer were to aim at an arm, leg or other specific place, he or she would probably miss and would give a suspect the opportunity to fire at the officer (again).
Silver Spring, Md.:
Why are not the "good cops" outraged that the bad ones in their ranks are at least if not publicly but privately reprimanded?
If I were a cop, I would be very upset to know that there were the violent cowboy types that ruin the image of the police in the eye of the public. Or are the cops themselves afraid of these guys?
Geoffrey P. Alpert: That is a very good point and one that deserves comment. Most cops are good cops but "whistle blowers" can be placed in real danger. Agencies should have ways to blow the whistle on bad actions but too often there are leaks in security and many feel it is not worth risking their jobs, careers or lives.
Upper Marlboro, Md.:
Coming from your professional point of view, do you believe that it is concievable that 120 some odd shootings, with 47 I believe resulting in death, could all be ruled a justified.
Geoffrey P. Alpert: It seems a bit odd that all shootings were justified. However, most agencies have all "justified" shootings. I have never seen a report where an officer has stated, "I used excessive force." Many of these situations have no witnesses. However, in shooting situations, there should be witnesses and those observations should be taken very seriously by agency investigtators. I have read too many depositions and trial transcripts that show things differently from the way the officer first reported it. In all fairness, a shooting is a stressful event and there may be more than one appropriate way to explain the actions of the officer and suspect.
Lanham, Md.:
Recently there was a study done and published by the FBI in reference to the high crime rate in Prince George's County compared to all counties in the United States. There study showed that Prince George's County has the second highest rate of violent crime per capita next to Miami-Dade County in Florida. Already, just in the month of June 2001, there were 103 robberies throughout the county and homicides are up 50 percent since this time last year.
Do you feel that with these numbers occurring annually that it is unusual for a police department to be involved in 10-20 shootings per year?
Geoffrey P. Alpert: As the last question, I take the tough one...
The fact that PG county has a high rate of violent crime could have an impact on the number of shootings - but not the rate. Most criminals are not caught in the process of commiting a crime. However, these criminals do not want to be caputured. Another interesting fact is that most officers never fire their weapons at a person in the line of duty.
The 10-20 shootings per year is not offensive but if a closer look shows that many suspects were not posing a serious threat then those shootings are not justified.
washingtonpost.com:
That was our last question today. Thanks to everyone who joined the
discussion.
Stay tuned to Live Online:
Got
Plans at 1 p.m. EDT
Prince
George's County Shootings at 1 p.m. EDT
Author
Candace Bushnell at 2 p.m. EDT
Dirda
on Books at 2 p.m. EDT
Keep up with the latest in news, sports, politics and entertainment with
washingtonpost.com
e-mail newsletters.
NEW! Personalize your Post with mywashingtonpost.com.
Get customized news, traffic, weather and more.
|
|
© Copyright 2001 The Washington Post Company | 
