Partners

When comparing to other occupations, police partnerships are a unique characteristic of the job and an important aspect of doing police work. It would be rare to find another job where workers spend 10 hour days in a relatively small work environment such as the patrol car (as compared to a cubicle, office or ordinary workplace). Having a good partnership can make the job fun and exciting, but can create stress and difficulty should there be a personality or work-ethic conflict. From an administrator’s point of view, partnerships are crafted to ensure a balance in temperaments, such as a ‘laid back’ cop paired with a ‘hyperactive’ one (to the coppers out there, I’m sure you know of a few partnerships where you have two ‘hyperactive’ cops are put in the same car — it usually becomes a complaint-prone two-person wrecking crew).

In good partnerships and because of the amount of time together, officers come to ‘know’ what the other is thinking at a call, most specifically when your partner getting ready to move into action. This is an important part of a partnership and police work, as you don’t have the chance to discuss what you’re going to do next in front of the bad guy and you just have to rely on your partner knowing you well enough to react accordingly. Eventually, you have little ‘hints’ or ‘giveaways’ that only partners know and telegraph the next move.

Beyond the tactical stuff, what two officers experience on the job becomes exclusive to that partnership. In two years with my partner, we’ve been in situations that made us laugh, shake our heads in disgust, sit in quiet reflection or high-five, such as after a good arrest. In all of these situations, a bond between partners is built upon and we usually end up referring to these ‘memorable’ moments when reminded of them in the run of any given workday. Often, partners spend more time with each other during a work week than you do with your spouse during that same week. As a result, the shared time develops an interesting and unique connection between colleagues.

Before becoming a police officer and during my stress and policing research work, police ’solidarity’ was a subject that I often talked about as a method of coping ‘culturally’ with stress. However, what I’m realizing now after being on the job, is that the partnership bond is significantly more valuable to an officer than relationships with other colleagues. With their work partners, officers talk about personal matters, workplace difficulties, usually anything and everything. Also, eventually your workplace social identity is closely tied to your partnership as other co-workers refer to you as “Dan’n'Pete” almost as a singular person. Of course, I would have never been able to fully experience this as an outsider researcher.

What is unfortunate is that long-standing partnerships are rare nowadays, as police forces are hiring more and more recruits thus requiring new staff to be trained and mentored. As a result, partnerships are split up, putting senior officers with junior members in order to guide the new officer. This new partnership usually is short lived, as both officers gain more experience, move to other positions or begin the training cycle yet again.

Another media misrepresentation

I’m actually getting tired of talking about these stories, but I feel I should. Too often do we see the media jump to conclusions quickly, talk about subjects they don’t understand and use a short video clip to justify a full sensationalized news story. This is the case yet again with a video from Victoria of an incident that occurred three years ago.

The video is of a detention cell and a youth who was held in cells after being arrested while intoxicated and drunk at party. The video shows the youth having her legs restrained (with a hobble, not a leash as the reporter called it). I haven’t used my leg restraint yet, but would during instances which its necessary, including aggressive arrestees, regardless of their age.  Also, why does the reporter seem that by taking parts of your clothing off is so offensive?  Anything could be used against officers or the subject themselves, such as shoe laces, bra straps, belts, elastic waist bands, ad nauseum.  To the reporter, Kathy Tomlinson: perhaps you should learn about regular police procedures and terminology first before attempting to sensationalize the incident.  Also, why did you only include a short clip from the officer and then have a long story from the girl’s family?

After watching and reading about the story, I can’t help but wonder a few questions: Who released this video? Was it the plantiff in the civil case? For what reason? Due to the timing, it seems the reasoning behind the video release is not for ‘public awareness’ of what occurred, but to benefit somehow the civil suit which begins next week in court. Why did it take 3 years for this story to be released?

There is more to this story than we are lead to believe.

Ban Handguns, now.

With the recent shootings in Toronto, the mayor David Miller has repeated his appeal to the federal government to ban all handguns in Canada. I would support such a ban and I’d like to think that many others would as well.

Handguns have no other purpose than for shooting other people. Despite those that must possess a handgun for workplace use, such as police or military, I can see no reason why anyone must own a personal use handgun. Handguns lack any social purpose other than nefarious ones — unless of course you’re from the States — where they appear as their own living, breathing ‘entity’. We must resist falling into the influence from the US culture and the outrageous arguments from gun lobbyists about self-defence and rights under their constitution. The bottom line is that we aren’t the US, nor do we want to be.

When I was younger, we lived in a country which had a ban on personal ownership of all guns. Even as a young kid, I felt safe walking around on my own, taking the train to school — it was a society that we generally felt secure. The only persons who could legally possess guns were the police, but I imagine there was an illegal trade as well. We’re not going to prevent all handguns from entering the country by illegal means and the criminals would find their own ways to get handguns. However, at least they wouldn’t be able to steal guns from private citizens, borrow from a legitimate owner or order them through the States.

A perfect example of a successful ban on guns is the automatic weapon prohibition. Occasionally, an automatic rifle shows up on the radar during a police seizure, but it is a rare event. Using this as an example to a handgun ban, we could surely reduce the prevalence of handgun crimes to a rareity. Its a long term proposal, but definately worth it to save lives.

This isn’t candid camera

I’ve been busy at work lately, and as a result, haven’t had much time for posting. The little hiatus though has given me a chance to think of some things to talk about. One topic has been nagging me ever since New Year’s Eve.

I worked New Year’s Eve voluntarily this year. (I know, crazy eh?) The service was offering to anyone interested for a call-out shift to bolster the usual numbers for New Years. Seeing that I’m a junkie for call-out, I accepted and we went around putting ‘fires’ out and passing ‘band-aids’ out all night as per usual on such a busy evening.  At one of our many house party calls, we attended to backup another car who had an arrest. The officers had asked us to watch their prisoner while they were inside dealing with the incident and I stood outside watching the guy who was sitting in the back of their car. A few minutes later, one of the party-goers began video recording me with their cell phone. I stood there for a while, then realized that someone was video taping me while standing around near the porch area. I approached him, told him to stop and he tried to lie about what he was doing. He put down the phone and left after I confronted him about it. A few minutes later, the arrest began doing something stupid in the back of the car. Needless to say, the arrest was taken out of the back of the car and sorted out. While we were doing this, the citizen began recording again from just outside the house. I didn’t notice as I was dealing with the arrest, but my partner confronted him a second time and he eventually was led back into the house.

The irony in this story is incredible. In my previous job, I was a researcher and organized research studies on police, private security and the like. I never video taped officers, but I audio taped them with their permission. I did however read many studies on the proliferation of video recording devices and how they are reversing the stereotypical Big Brother analogy from state-derived surveillance to civilian surveillance. Now, more than ever, anyone can have access to video or photo technology and without much effort, post it to a world-wide audience. The prevalence of this type of technology has changed our notions of surveillance and social control greatly. Not only are citizens observed more easily, they observe the observers just as well (or better!).

While I would be the first to defend civil rights and the Charter Rights of the individual, I’m starting to feel that for many civilian amateur videographers, its not about ‘being a voice’ for the people, human rights or whatever. Sadly, these videographers are only out for one thing, fortune (and with that, maybe a little fame too). Recent publicized video recordings such as the Vancouver Airport video, the downtown Calgary video, and others have garnered sensational media attention. In some cases, these videos have ‘earned’ a significant windfall of cash for the camera person. (In the Vancouver case, it was several thousand dollars from each tv station).

Another problem arises with these videos: they are still only a snapshot of the incident. They do not show the circumstances that lead up to the video being started, the TOTALITY of the incident (ie. what lead to the arrest, the dealings with the arrestee, what was said, etc). Usually what occurs is the video is misunderstood and it becomes a media event.

In the end, with all that said, I don’t like being video recorded without my knowledge. Too often it seems there are those out to make a quick buck from a short video taken out of context. There are those that say, “Well, if you’re not doing anything wrong…you have nothing to worry about.” I don’t need someone else to tell me, because I know I do the right things at work. However, I would never want to be the scapegoat of a media circus, bent on making stories sensational in order to sell their product.

Why don’t YOU bring that taser to a gun fight…

Today, the RCMP public complaints commission released an interim report on the use of tasers in the RCMP. The report seemed to be a knee jerk reaction to highly publicized recent in-custody deaths and gives several recommendations when the taser should be used in police practice. One recommendation that Paul Kennedy makes is that officers should use the taser only in instances where the subject has entered the “death or grievous bodily harm” category (in other words, the subject may inflict death or grievous harm to someone). This recommendation is flat-out ridiculous and devoid of common sense. If an officer in one of these situations, they will most certainly use their firearm — the weapon designed for the situation (or another type if in the event that it is unavailable). To suggest that the taser should be used in a lethal force scenario puts officers and the public at risk and is completely against training and indoctrination. Who would trust a taser for saving someone’s life, including the officer? Come on people, stop making rash decisions from a locked room with only news articles as sources…

Speaking for Valour

This Hour Has 22 Minutes, normally a comedy show in Canada, had a moment of seriousness for an important statement to be made on the show.

I applaud them for their candor, it is sorrily needed more often in our society.

See it here for yourself: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rGi7Ns3fMhw

Also: http://www.petitiononline.com/05142004/petition.html

Taser, Taser, Taser

When I’m at work and I hear ‘taser, taser, taser’, it has a couple meanings for me. In the first instance, it means that I’m about to deploy the ‘less-than-lethal’ weapon at a subject that is assaultive and I need to gain their control. In the other, another officer is deploying the taser and I and anyone else better get out of the way as the prongs and charge are coming toute suite. However, a new meaning is also emerging in the public, one that seems to be synonymous with ‘taser’: media attention.

Since the highly publicized and video recorded tasering of a Polish man at the Vancouver Airport, it seems the media has reporting on any use of the taser where someone is injured or dies after the arrest. As a result of their reporting, more often than not the media and general public immediately draw a causal line between the taser and the arrested subjects’ death. Whether or not the taser contributed to the person’s death, one should not rush to judge the situation or officers involved. Of course, there are always the possibility of taser abuses by police, just as there are incidents with other weapons, including firearms, batons, pepper spray, the list goes on. However, as I hope to show — there is more to these taser stories than the general public tends to see. We’ve all seen the videos, but what exactly is going on? What some have already argued is that it’s not the use of force option (ie. baton, taser) that kills the subjects, it’s the common factor of their behavior.

While on the job, I have used my taser only once and pointed it several times with intent to use it should the situation worsen. Thankfully, in my experience, the laser cross-hair when illuminated on someone’s body tends to have a certain calming effect. Unfortunately, these exceptions are not always possible. In my own taser deployment and the other ‘close calls’, I was dealing with a person suffering from ‘excited delirium‘. Sadly, ‘excited delirium’ has become a bit of a buzz-word lately, which seems to take away from the seriousness of the situation and affected person.

What is it really? Excited delirium is still rare, but can be found in people who have an adverse reaction to illegal drugs and/or suffer from mental illness. The onset of this is also sudden. In one of my own instances, it was a sudden trigger of an acute mental illness that caused the behavior. Those that suffer from an onset of excited delirium exhibit very tell-tale signs: incredible strength, incoherent speech, profuse sweating, attraction to glass and/or mirrors, paranoia, hallucinations, illogical thoughts, indifference to pain, violent aggression, nudity, bizarre behavior.

What does excited delirium look like for a cop? Picture this: You attend a disturbance call. There are reports of a man running around naked in a business area, acting strangely. When you attend, you see the man who is in fact naked and running, stopping between cars in the parking lot. As you approach him, you see that he has smashed windows in vehicles with his bare hands. You are told that witnesses saw him jump through a plate glass window at a nearby business. No one seems to know who he is. As you look at him, you see that he is covered in blood from head to toe, with cuts and gashes all over him. You also see his body is hot, steaming like a whistling kettle. His eyes are widened and stares at everything and nothing, while making incoherent statements about wanting to join God and his lovely dog who left him. As bystanders gather to watch, you try to keep their distance from him as you wait for backup to arrive. You try talking to the man, but realize its futile, as he isn’t comprehending what your saying. While waiting for backup, you contemplate how you are going to apprehend this man. After seeing the damage he caused to property, you realize it is going to take quite a few officers to control him. When your backup arrives, the man starts to charge at citizen bystanders. You must act to protect them and yourself.

In these situations, where you are dealing with a crazed person, the taser is one of your better options. Getting into a physical confrontation with excited delirium persons is dangerous, as many exhibit incredible strength. In my own experience, myself and my partner were no match for the person, as he dragged us around the apartment without effort. The bottom line is that these people and situations are unpredictable, volatile and potentially violent — requiring a use of force that will be effective in controlling the person with the least amount of injury. Over the past few days, I was looking for a particular video that would be a perfect example of an excited delirium arrest, and how dangerous they can be without a taser. It was of a few US police attempting to gain control of a crazed naked man in a barbershop. The fight lasted for a long time, with police equipment and police officers being thrown about this barbershop. Finally after eight officers arrived, the subject was taken under control. At the end of the video, one officer hands another his gun back. It is a very eye opening video, which I’d encourage anyone to find and watch.

For the public, have another look at the Vancouver airport video. As we do in court — you must take in the totality of the incident from before the time the video began until after the man is cuffed. Do you see the characteristics excited delirium? If you look closely in the video, you will see clearly the man’s state. Notice how he is bouncing four officers off of him when they are trying to cuff him? Itself is not the most extreme case, but definitely a characteristic one.

So how do these people die as a result? I’m not a doctor, but as we’ve been taught, excited delirium hits the body like a freight train. The body is firing all cylinders, faster than it ever has before — for an extended period of time. Then when the arrest is made, they suddenly stop. Their heart arrests, their breathing arrests and death can result if medical help isn’t close by. Imagine how you feel when you run flat out, sweating, blood pumping, then suddenly stop yourself. The pressure on the heart is tremendous — especially in these cases. Officers must be able to recognize this and have the training to act in the safety of everyone, including the distressed person.

A few tips for the cops out there. Remember, excited delirium is a medical emergency. If you get one of these calls and the immediate safety of anyone is not in jeopardy, try and contain the person while you call for paramedics. Wait as long as possible before attempting to apprehend the person and only do so if possible when paramedics arrive on scene. If using the taser to effect hand-cuffing, do it as quickly as possible and turn the person on their side when control is obtained. Never leave the person on their stomach or have weight on their back. Have the paramedics aware of the situation and prepared to administer their calming drugs and ensure a quick trip to the hospital. In most in custody death cases, immediately after cuffing is the danger zone where cardiac arrest can occur.

As police, we see the whole range of these incidents and how dangerous they can become. I only hope that citizens who judge officers involved in these incidents first learn a bit about the situation before they automatically condemn those involved.

And to the video taker in Vancouver — its amazing how grateful you were on your own video that officers attended and protected the safety of those in the airport. How things must change when you’re offered bundles of money for your video by the media. Perhaps you should take action yourself next time and help out these officers rather than praising them on video, then condemning them after being offered money. Pick up the torch man, pick up the torch.

The cost of back-up

Another Mountie was shot in Canada’s North this past week. With the recent events, some argue that the last two shootings could have been prevented if the officer had a partner or timely backup. On the heels of these recent tragic events, the RCMP management is claiming a new backup policy will address the issue.

A policy for mandatory backup is a positive step — but it still doesn’t address the problem, particularly when it focuses on only ‘dangerous’ calls. If a person refers to the last RCMP shooting, the officer attended an impaired driving call. This wasn’t the stereotypical ‘dangerous’ calls such as violent domestics, shooting calls, stabbings, warrants, etc. The truth is, all police calls can be dangerous. Simply being a police officer has its dangers. Further, police officers must think that every call could be a gun call or one that involves firearms (especially when you carry one). However, I feel in the midst of classifying the job’s dangers, the actual problem is lost or being glossed over.

The problem is staffing. There simply isn’t enough RCMP out there policing Canada’s rural areas. Should there be a policy on having backup at certain calls? Yes. However, the policy and practice should go further and say that officers have backup or a partner at every call. To accomplish this is a significant undertaking — and it will take a lot of hiring before it can be accomplished. But, it can work, even before more people hit the street. For instance, if its only a two person detachment — have both officers working at the same time as partners for their hours per week, then use call-out for the rest. Call-out is inevitable, but why not have both at the same time?

I’d like to believe that cost has nothing to do with how we staff our rural detachments, but it does. The government gives money for development to other countries — its time to save a few for our own areas that need help. Double our police, you’ll see a safer street for everyone.

Imported policing

I saw today that one of the more popular UK police bloggers has moved to Canada to join a Canadian Police service in Alberta. I’m sure it’ll generate some neat comparisons between UK and Canadian police practices and experiences.

Its also a reflection of a definite trend. Over the past couple of years, there has been a big influx of European (mostly British) police immigrating to Canada and joining Canadian police departments. In my department, the number has easily risen to a 100 — and it is surely evident with the abundance of the tell-tale accents when listening to the police radio. Although many have to undergo re-training in Canada, their addition to our forces is quite valuable. When we hire a British copper, we also hire their experience — which we wouldn’t get from a brand-new Canadian recruit. In some cases, the Brits are also bringing fresh ideas to their departments, and we’ll probably see the resulting changes as they move up through the ranks.

From talking to them, many have moved for a variety of reasons, but more often than not it’s for a change in lifestyle. Ex-bobbies tell me that Canada presents an exciting opportunity for them, with the opportunity for more land, cheaper (or mortgage free) housing and a safer community for their kids to grow up in. Departments are also making it easier for them to start work, including overseas recruitment drives, testing and assistance with entry into Canada.

Overall though, one thing I’ve discovered is that you can always count on them for a good brew after work.

Memorial lessons

I came across this page today.  Its quite somber of course, but incredibly informative.  Listing American and Canadian line-of-duty deaths, it provides quite a bit of statistics on how officers have died, cause of death, years of service and other information.  What is  immediately surprising in the American statistics is that traffic accidents are almost equal with gunfire.

This site would certainly be useful for any analyses of police deaths and their circumstances, particularly for training and learning from these incidents.