EDITOR'S NOTE: The following Opinion first appeared in the LA Daily News on February 21, 2005. The direct link to the newspaper's online article appears at the bottom of this page.

OPINION

Police need means to restrain suspects
Controversies about force come from only small number of cases

by Bob Baker
Bob Baker is president of the Los Angeles Police Protective League.

February 21, 2005

Los Angeles Police Chief Bratton once said, "Policing isn't pretty, I'm sorry. If people would just give up, throw their hands up, it would be great. But they run, they shoot us, they fight us, bite us and it's not pretty."

When police officers go out on patrol, they must have the means and the training to safely restrain violent and resisting suspects. That is the least that every Los Angeles Police Department officer expects, and what all residents of Los Angeles deserve from their police officers.

Only a small proportion of arrests -- situations in which force has to be used -- are the basis of the majority of controversies regarding police work. But in those situations, split-second life-or-death decisions get dissected under a microscope as though those decisions took minutes.

Dozens of pieces of police equipment and countless ways to physically restrain a suspect have come and gone over the past few decades. Unfortunately, a trend has emerged: If a maneuver or piece of equipment causes controversy, the Los Angeles Police Department gives in to outside pressures and stops using it, often without a backup plan in place.

Most recently, shooting at vehicles driven by suspects intent on causing harm to police officers has led to a clamor to outlaw shooting at vehicles. We are gratified that the L.A. Police Commission, at the urging of Commissioner Alan Skobin, acknowledged our concerns about its proposed blanket prohibition against shooting at moving vehicles by amending the language to allow for factoring in situations in which "the officer's life or the lives of others were in immediate peril and there was no reasonable or apparent means of escape."

In the wake of this controversy, I have heard from numerous officers, arguing that every year it becomes more difficult to perform their duties due to the "politically correct" changes that are made to LAPD policies. It's clear that this latest change has caused a great deal of concern amongst the rank and file.

At the same time, a disturbing criminal trend has increasingly become a threat to the LAPD over the past year: unprovoked attacks on police officers.

With an occurrence unparalleled in LAPD history, officers have been repeatedly attacked while on routine patrol this year, although there has been little media attention or community activism on this issue. LAPD officers have been fired upon without warning in coldblooded attempts to murder unsuspecting officers. Whatever the motivation for these attacks, their frequency and brazenness should be cause for major concern.

Despite the increasing danger to officers, the LAPD keeps trying to find a less than lethal weapon. Items such as Tasers and beanbag guns have been rushed into service. Yet even those items have become a source of controversy. For example, news reports of deaths of people shot with Tasers have led so-called "civil liberties" groups to call for their ban. Suspects have sued because while they were resisting, the beanbag hit them in a place it wasn't supposed to and caused permanent injury.

The LAPD needs to take a comprehensive look at all the equipment and tactics available to subdue violent and resisting subjects. For example, other large metropolitan police departments, such as San Diego's, employ martial arts nunchaku developed by a police officer, in addition to a baton. Many departments have increased their use of canines, allowing dogs instead of police officers to subdue suspects.

In addition, the LAPD needs to provide the training and support necessary to prepare officers for the dangerous situations they may face. Each station used to have a training officer on site, but no longer does. Officers also need to receive updated training in tactics and procedures -- training that hasn't been offered in three years!

While it is important to examine uses of force and tactics to learn from each incident, it is also important to look at the big picture. Considering the number of incidents involving force, I think it's safe to say that in these times, the majority of officers are extremely cautious, controlled and vigilant in their use of force.

Law-abiding residents want criminals taken into custody, and that sometimes requires the use of physical force. The LAPD also has to make the public understand that people who resist the police will likely get injured due to their resistance. It should not be forgotten, and must be repeatedly emphasized, that it is the criminals who cause the reaction. If they do as they are told, and surrender peaceably, nothing will happen to them.

Suspects who resist need to know that there will be consequences to their resistance, and officers need to be given as many options as possible to subdue criminals.

It is up to the LAPD to ensure that all officers are properly equipped and trained so that "end of watch" means we are going home safe.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

EDITOR'S NOTE: The following is the direct link to the February 21, 2005, LA Daily News OPINION page:

"Police need means to restrain suspects; Controversies about force come from only small number of cases"
-- by LA PPL President Bon Baker:
http://www.dailynews.com/Stories/0,1413,200~24781~2722933,00.html

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

For more information on the LA Police Protective League, the union representing the LAPD rank and file officers. Please check the LA PPL's official website often:
www.LAPD.com

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~