More than a dozen local activists concerned about police use of force gathered at the Rochester Police Locust Club on Monday to protest plans to have officers participate in a controversial training program.
The Locust Club is paying for training by the Force Science Institute. At Monday’s protest, activist Jazper Titus said training should instead be focused on deescalating volatile encounters with civilians. Turning to FSI for training shows a lack of empathy toward people of color, Titus said.
FSI was founded by psychologist Bill Lewinski, who says officers are always at risk if they don’t act with force quickly when confronted by an uncooperative person. His ardent defense of police officers has made him popular with defense attorneys representing officers accused of using excessive force. He is frequently called to provide expert testimony in trials.
In those cases, a New York Times article said, Lewinski’s conclusions are consistent: “The officer acted appropriately, even when shooting an unarmed person. Even when shooting someone in the back. Even when witness testimony, forensic evidence, or video footage contradicts the officer’s story.”
The Locust Club defends the training, arguing in a written statement that it helps officers “better understand the human factors of force encounters that may affect an officer’s perception, decision-making, and response.”
The city had first planned to provide $15,000 to help pay for FSI training, but it has withdrawn that funding. The Locust Club will train officers next week at its own expense, which is permitted under the union contract.
Related Stories
A matter of trust
This article appears in Sep 20-26, 2017.
Tim-In your article you quote from the NYT “The officer acted appropriately, even when shooting an unarmed person, even when shooting someone in the back, even when forensic evidence, witness testimony, or video footage contradicted the officer’s story” Was this a jury trial? Then it was the jurors you need to fault. Mr. Lewinski didn’t vote during deliberations. Also, I see you mentioned nothing of the fact that a tipster who was drinking with Mr. Stanley at the bar called the police and said he may be carrying a sawed off shotgun in the blue bag. That’s when the two officers were sent to investigate. Should they not be prepared for what the tipster suggested? Nice job being balanced. I hope you follow up and write an article of how we should look up to police officers who are there to help when we call, knowing that any day they could lose their life helping others. No wonder your paper is free….
I’d love to see one of these “don’t escalate” people go out and try to handle a situation where someone is resisting arrest. Guaranteed they’ll be eating their teeth at the hands of a violent felon.
Or maybe you’d like to see an officer from the SLCPD go out and handle such a situation. You just might learn a thing or two. http://fox13now.com/2017/05/16/deadly-forc…
Again, an issue of simple physics. For every action, there is a reaction. The reaction to force is usually an attempt to show even more force. If no attempts are made to de-escalating a situation, we won’t know if a better outcome is possible.
If the city wants its officers to be trained better in de-escalation, which seems on the face of it to be a good idea, isn’t it their responsibility today for such training. It is the union that is paying for this training, and based on my brother in law’s experiences as a cop, the training the union is paying for seems like a good idea.
The de-escalation people think that,someone charging you with a knife is not armed, and therefore should be handled with kid gloves. It does not matter whether the criminal is a would be murderermor a very,sick puppy, it is the cop’s life that is at risk, and they are under no obligation to allow themselves to become victims.
Tom Janowski you seem to paint with a broad brush. You think every police situation is merely simple physics, as you say. Here’s a clue: There is frequently no chance for an officer to de-escalate a quickly unfolding threat to his/her safety. Things happen at lightning-fast speed where there is often no time for thought process to occur. You sound ridiculously naive. How do YOU know that in police matters “the reaction to force is usually an attempt to show even more force”. Are you there monitoring the police in most circumstances?
Of course de-escalation is preferred by the police but every situation is different and dynamic. Officers must be trained how to utilize force if it becomes necessary which it sometimes does. Get real.
Mark, funny you should mention Salt Lake City PD. Maybe you should google the name Dillon Taylor and get back to me….
You probably don’t recognize the name. He was unarmed when killed, but he was white, so you probably never heard about the case. You know, the case where the cop that killed him wasn’t charged with anything and still has a job. Remember the riots that followed? Yeah, neither do I….
Funny you should mention Dillon Taylor. It was his officer-involved shooting that led the SLCPD to change their procedures to emphasize de-escalation.
Hey Mark, I see the City staff deleted my last comment to you, so here’s a new one, enjoy!
https://www.themaven.net/bluelivesmatter/n…
Guess that deescalation training didn’t work too well huh?
By all accounts the officers did a fantastic job of attempting to stop the situation, incrementally increasing their use of force only when unavoidable. Good job SLCPD!
Whatever you need to tell yourself Mark. lol. Ended up exactly as I said deescalation training would. A busted up cop (and a dead suspect). Suspect was shot in the back btw. Aren’t you hippie types against people being shot from behind?