Lessons from the Wiz-Bangs from On High

I’ve made mistakes.  I’ve been caught off guard, had a bad day, was inattentive, overextended myself, and made tactical mistakes and blunders.  When I instruct new cadets or veteran officers I freely admit these things and state that the wise man learns from the mistakes of others and that they should strive to not make the same mistakes.  Throughout law enforcement history we see that mistakes and tactical failures have cost officers their lives – on a large scale from the 1934 Little Bohemia raid of the FBI attempting to arrest John Dillinger, through the infamous Miami shootout with suspects Platt and Matix, the ATF raid on the Branch Davidian compound, countless solitary officers being hurt or killed and local SWAT teams engaging in tactical folly that cost lives – we need to learn from these events.

Critical AAR’s or After Action Reviews or Debriefs of incidents can be beneficial with an eye to learning from mistakes made.

The problem is when completely lawful use of force incidents are critiqued from these “tactical wiz-bangs” with no goal in learning, only in criticizing.  The officer(s) should have:

• Taken more time
• De-escalated the situation
• Used less-lethal
• Waited for back-up
• Stayed behind cover instead of approaching

The list goes on and is endless.  These self-proclaimed tactical professors of higher thought have the benefit of hindsight and include real life professors, former and current chiefs, and others whose raison d'être is to criticize and suggest that they know better and, from the safety of their offices on Monday morning, that if the officer engaged in proper tactics the use of force or incident would not have happened.

To add insult to injury, they intimate that although the use of force may be legal i.e. objectively reasonable based on the totality of circumstances as known to the officer at the moment force was used, it is not necessary or acceptable to them.  Even though the officer met the legal standards, the wiz-bangs conclude based on their review that the force should be deemed excessive or inappropriate.  That the officer created the jeopardy which led to the use of force and that they should be disciplined because of their tactics.

Tactical Realities

Let’s say there’s hypothetical Department “A”.  Department “A” has suffered from budgetary issues and cutbacks for about eight years now.  Training for new hires and in-service personnel is a shadow of what it once was.  Training has been reduced to the bare minimums across the board.  Firearms training revolves around state qualifications and in-service around state P.O.S.T. requirements.  Far from a hypothetical or mythical situation, this is now the condition and standard for many agencies large and small throughout the U.S.  Quite simply at a time when the focus of the world is on American police use of force and the suggestion that training is the means or method to fix law enforcement agencies in this country, training has been reduced.  While instructing at the annual conference of ILEETA - International Law Enforcement Educators and Trainers Association, I asked the attendees if anyone had more money, more time and more opportunity to train their officers.  Not one trainer in attendance raised their hand.  In this current state of a training deficit, we are going to examine officer tactics under the microscope.  Cities, counties, states and agency heads created this sad state of training, and now want to throw officers under the bus for their poor tactics.

For those agencies and supervisors willing to discipline for poor tactics, I have some questions:

Do you or your agency now have?

1. In-house tactical training programs of high quality and sufficient repetition to ensure standard TTP’s – Tactics, Techniques and Procedures?
2. Trainers who research, develop and test best practice TTP’s?
3. Regular training programs to maintain officer’s tactics?
4. Adequate number of supervisors to monitor and evaluate an officer’s tactics?
5. Supervisors who are well trained in law enforcement tactics?
6. Programs in place to re-medialize officers identified as having problems?

If not, and I doubt it, then how can you even think of disciplining an officer’s tactics?  When the Supreme Court of this country acknowledged in Graham v. Connor that officers use of force must not be judged in 20/20 hindsight how are you prepared to judge them?  Just because an officer made a mistake the question is, “at the moment force was used, was the officer’s use of force objectively reasonable based on the totality of the circumstances?”

One thing is for sure.  If you’ve never had your butt out in the wind, exposed and flapping in the breeze, you’ve probably not made an error or mistake.  If all you’ve done is the bare minimum and instead took promotional exams as soon as you could to get off the street, you’ve probably never made an error.  It’s amazing that supervisors and administrators with actual street experience are a little more forgiving of mistakes and tactical faux pas made by street officers.  Maybe they are able to remember when it was them in the patrol car or on the call and how they tried to do their best despite the effects of fear, adrenalin, perceptual distortions and chaos.  It’s also sad that rational legal decisions made by the Supreme Court of this country in Graham v. Connor which require investigators examine use of force from the perspective of the officer on scene, knowing what he or she knew at the moment force was used, considering the totality of the circumstances.  SCOTUS stated that force is not to be judged from the quiet sanctuary of a judge’s chamber.  How disheartening and disingenuous that police chiefs, sheriffs, trainers and other LE personnel seek to rather judge an officer from their tactical mount and restrict an officer more than SCOTUS ruled in the Graham case.

Maybe these “tactical wiz-bangs” with little to no street experience want to reassure themselves that they would have done better.  I don’t know what their motives are but they are all subjective and based on hindsight – for they know the outcome before the test and that’s something that a street cop simply doesn’t have the luxury of knowing.

Isn’t it bad enough when Black Lives Matter and the media actively attack law enforcement, ignorant as they are of the facts and realities?  Do current and former cops need to pile on?  Here’s a thought to those who sit in judgement.  Go back to handling some radio calls.  Get back in uniform and patrol on a night shift again.  Stop some motorists and suspicious persons on foot.  Respond to a few fight calls and domestics.  Put yourself in the peril that every street cop feels when heading into a darkened alleyway looking for a man with a gun.  Don’t want to do that again?  Then at least give those men and women who do so a freaking break and judge them to the standard required by law.  Not by some notion of perfection, minimal or absolutely necessary and acceptable use of force standard.  My God, we pay them to enforce the law.  Not stand back and watch…