A long debate over police reform has recently been put into the spotlight because of officer misconduct. However, ideas for improvement are not a new occurrence. These suggestions vary both in quality and ideology; opinions on government and policing often coincide with party lines. One of the many issues being discussed, as I did in my Problems 1 assignment, is that of police officer training. Even this focus has to be clarified because of different people advocating for firearms training, proper conduct training, mental training, etc. I decided to specify firearms training as a source of problems. Rather than look at the incredibly difficult problem of tackling how police officers discern their situations and decide to react, I advocate for a change to the firearm training policy because I think that it is a simpler problem that if solved can have an immediate positive impact.
A problem with today’s police force is that many officers cannot use their weapons properly. Whether this is due to police departments not holding officers’ weapon proficiency accountable or because some officers are not used to high stress situations where they are forced to draw their gun, it is an inexcusable problem. This neglect is displayed in every confrontation where innocent bystanders are struck, an occurrence to often happening in New York City. While handguns are difficult to accurately shoot at longer distances, police should be aware of this effective range. While this is sometimes the problem, in an incident known as the Empire State Shooting, two police officers opened fire on an armed murderer from a reported distance of only 8 feet. Although this distance should have made for a clean kill, 16 shots were fired, killing the target but also hitting 9 innocent bystanders fleeing the confrontation. For the same reason that doctors have medical degrees and bus drivers have drivers licenses, a police officer must not be put in a position where they are given a deadly instrument that they are unable to properly operate.
I propose stricter tests, not allowing officers to carry a gun without meeting these higher standards. Many officers do not fire their weapon throughout their term of duty so this is much less of an inhibiting factor than it seems. However, the ultimate goal of this reform is to return weapons to all officers as long as they are proficient in its use. These tests would require changes at the police academy to obstruct the access of guns to those not qualified as well as the retesting of current officers. As seen in the presentation from Milk Not Jails, New York City has many more police than is necessary to handle the current crime rate. By reducing the police force by even 5 percent, enough money would be saved for the cost of retraining. Additionally, assuming that underperforming police with a history of misconduct are let go, only the superior members of the police force will remain. The additional training will aim to make sure that officers can fire their weapon accurately and know when protocol dictates the use of deadly force. A higher quality of police officer is important to the wellbeing of the city, not a higher number of police.
Sources:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/25/nyregion/empire-state-building-shooting.html?pagewanted=all
https://www.aclu.org/racial-justice_prisoners-rights_drug-law-reform_immigrants-rights/fighting-police-abuse-community-ac
http://thefreethoughtproject.com/137-shots-13-cops-dead-unarmed-civilians-equals-taxpayers-hook-3-million/
It is hard to disagree with your argument that there is a need for increased firearms training in the police department. As you have highlighted, and as we discussed in class, there have been far too many mistakes made, both in when and how to use weapons. I agree that firearms training and certification should be made stricter, but as we spoke about in class, I also believe that there should be more training done without weapons. As human beings, our first instinct in a life threatening situation is to protect ourselves. Many officers do so by drawing their gun. In theory, conducting completely weaponless training, would help officers to develop instinct to use hand-combat rather than drawing a deadly weapon. The legality of owning firearms in the United States makes it difficult to completely do away with police weapons, as is the way in many European countries who have far less deaths by police. I think your approach of having only the most trained officers carry firearms, is a reasonable way to compromise in this situation. Proposing a reduction in the number of officers as an option for financing this training also shows that your idea is economically feasible.
Generally police officers do not use their handguns on a day-to-day basis and like you said, they are not experienced enough to be handling such a deadly instrument. I agree with the fact that we do need stricter testing to set a higher standard in the police force. Evidenced by many police shootings in the past, officers are simply not trained enough to be able to judge situations and handle pistols in an effective manner. Police shootings often cause widespread controversy in the media and turn the police into a villain rather than being seen as a friend to the populace. I also agree with your second point of the NYPD having too many officers for the declining crime rate. Only high quality officers with a proven track record should be kept on the job, however, the police union would obstruct this layoff of such a large amount of police officers but that is a whole different argument. Ultimately, police officers do need more training to be able to serve the public effectively and need to be well aware of protocol when handling dangerous situations that involve the use of weaponry.