On one hand we can assume the leadership is not competent. I do not believe that is the case. They do not want officers that agree with what you are saying. They want a force that will do what they say without question.
This is no different than what we are seeing at a Federal level when they skipped hiring people with military, police experience in favour of Ivy League law degrees fresh out of schoo. The only way to get to their ideal officer is to get rid of as many as possible and then hire in the type they want. It may take a few years but I believe that is what is going on at this point all over the country. Seattle PD has been gutted as well and they just filled the ranks of all of the other local departments with experienced officers and leaders.
Part of the problem is our policy is largely drafted by the police commission. They are a civilian board that is made up of political appointees. Some members of the commission are actively hostile toward the police. I’m not saying they may not have valid points, at times, but it makes a working relationship or bettering the policy very difficult.
In addition, a lot of valid points are brought up by our union when it comes to how the policy will affect operations and those comments are usually dismissed as being “obstructionist” or “against reform,” when it’s usually to help make these policies actually workable.
Yes that is absolutely occurring right now. We are losing many experienced cops, but have no new people to backfill their losses. We’re also starting to lose homegrown cops, people who grew up in the city or still live here. I find that much more concerning.
"Part of the problem is our policy is largely drafted by the police commission". That is not a problem. That is by design and with purpose. A feature and not a bug. Do you believe they are stupid or have no idea what they are doing? They are willing to suffer through the short term issues to arrive at paradise they will suffer through and build. Its just around the corner so they ask us to suck it up. Just ask them. The police commission believes in what they are doing and are not shy about it.
It is not important if you or other officers believe in what they are doing. What is important is you understand they do not care what you think or do. They believe If you do not understand what they are building then you should leave.
I don’t understand… as you wrote, “ These incidents would include a building alarm where cops conduct a building search and find no one inside. ” Then, who was the force used on? This does not fit the definition of “use.”
Yeah I tried to clear that up but figured it may need more explanation.
We have reportable uses of force and then incidents that shall be reported.
Using any physical force that overcomes any resistance is now a reportable use of force (regardless of if any injury or pain is caused). Other reportable uses of force include things like: Personal Body Weapons, OC Spray, Baton Strikes, and Pointing of a Firearm.
Those must be reported to a Sgt, and incident report generated. The Sgt must evaluate the use of force, including watching substantive video.
The other category which covers drawing or exhibiting a firearm is now a reportable incident. So if you do a building search with a firearm out, it is now reportable to the sgt who must then complete the form for drawing and exhibiting, as well as review substantive video.
So it’s not a reportable use of force, but it must be reported, and do a substantially similar process to evaluate its reasonableness.
Here’s the policy, I will link it in the article as well.
Rich, Thanks for reporting this. What was JFK's first book? While England Slept......maybe you could author, While City Hall Slept.
Haha. That’s a great title. Not a terrible idea.
If I got Thanos-snapped and came back between the time I left and now, I don't think I'd recognize the place...
I haven’t gotten Thanos snapped...been here the whole time and barely recognize the place haha.
On one hand we can assume the leadership is not competent. I do not believe that is the case. They do not want officers that agree with what you are saying. They want a force that will do what they say without question.
This is no different than what we are seeing at a Federal level when they skipped hiring people with military, police experience in favour of Ivy League law degrees fresh out of schoo. The only way to get to their ideal officer is to get rid of as many as possible and then hire in the type they want. It may take a few years but I believe that is what is going on at this point all over the country. Seattle PD has been gutted as well and they just filled the ranks of all of the other local departments with experienced officers and leaders.
Part of the problem is our policy is largely drafted by the police commission. They are a civilian board that is made up of political appointees. Some members of the commission are actively hostile toward the police. I’m not saying they may not have valid points, at times, but it makes a working relationship or bettering the policy very difficult.
In addition, a lot of valid points are brought up by our union when it comes to how the policy will affect operations and those comments are usually dismissed as being “obstructionist” or “against reform,” when it’s usually to help make these policies actually workable.
Yes that is absolutely occurring right now. We are losing many experienced cops, but have no new people to backfill their losses. We’re also starting to lose homegrown cops, people who grew up in the city or still live here. I find that much more concerning.
"Part of the problem is our policy is largely drafted by the police commission". That is not a problem. That is by design and with purpose. A feature and not a bug. Do you believe they are stupid or have no idea what they are doing? They are willing to suffer through the short term issues to arrive at paradise they will suffer through and build. Its just around the corner so they ask us to suck it up. Just ask them. The police commission believes in what they are doing and are not shy about it.
It is not important if you or other officers believe in what they are doing. What is important is you understand they do not care what you think or do. They believe If you do not understand what they are building then you should leave.
I don’t understand… as you wrote, “ These incidents would include a building alarm where cops conduct a building search and find no one inside. ” Then, who was the force used on? This does not fit the definition of “use.”
Yeah I tried to clear that up but figured it may need more explanation.
We have reportable uses of force and then incidents that shall be reported.
Using any physical force that overcomes any resistance is now a reportable use of force (regardless of if any injury or pain is caused). Other reportable uses of force include things like: Personal Body Weapons, OC Spray, Baton Strikes, and Pointing of a Firearm.
Those must be reported to a Sgt, and incident report generated. The Sgt must evaluate the use of force, including watching substantive video.
The other category which covers drawing or exhibiting a firearm is now a reportable incident. So if you do a building search with a firearm out, it is now reportable to the sgt who must then complete the form for drawing and exhibiting, as well as review substantive video.
So it’s not a reportable use of force, but it must be reported, and do a substantially similar process to evaluate its reasonableness.
Here’s the policy, I will link it in the article as well.
https://www.sanfranciscopolice.org/sites/default/files/2022-03/SFPDNotice22-025-20220301.pdf
Clear as mud? Haha
Still a waste of time… I will review thanks