No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 267.15.2/251 - Release Date: 2/4/2006
From Force Science Research:
(Note the comment about applicability to private citizens, from the
special agent with the Florida Department of Law Enforcement.)
Force Science News #37
February 3, 2006
=======================================
The Force Science News is provided by The Force Science Research Center,
a non-profit institution based at Minnesota State University, Mankato.
Subscriptions are free and sent via e-mail. To register for your free,
direct-delivery subscription, please visit forcesciencenews.com and
click on the registration button. For reprint clearance, please e-mail:
[email protected].
=======================================
READERS WHO'VE "BEEN THERE" SCORN PARC'S GUIDELINES FOR POST-SHOOTING
INTERVIEWS
Responses from your fellow Force Science News members to Transmission
#36 [1/20/06] were fast and emphatic.
Those who emailed us strongly took issue with the recommendations of
PARC (Police Assessment Resource Center) for how to interview officers
after a shooting.
PARC, a controversial, nonprofit "oversight" organization that is
gaining influence in LE circles, advocates treating surviving officers
essentially like suspects and subjecting them to
interrogations/interviews as quickly after a life-threatening
confrontation as possible to prevent them from colluding with others to
distort what happened.
In contrast to PARC's "philosophical" position, says Dr. Bill Lewinski,
executive director of the Force Science Research Center at Minnesota
State University-Mankato, the letter writers' views are based largely on
extensive, first-hand experience which, in his opinion, has yielded some
valid conclusions.
"Over a century of scientific research on memory directly contradicts
PARC's position," Lewinski told Force Science News. "The vast experience
of professionals who've dedicated their lives to researching the best
ways to investigate officer-involved shootings does not support the PARC
approach.
"In fact, following PARC's recommendations will result in an officer
being able only to incompletely report information on his or her
situation, which will then compromise the officer's integrity, the
department's ability to investigate the incident and accurately report
on it to the community, and the ability of both the officer and
department to later defend themselves in court.
"To cite just one example, even the most basic psychology textbooks
teach that recognition facilitates recall, and memory is better recalled
in the environment in which it was formed. This is because familiar
'prompts' that the officer encounters there will jog his accurate
recollection.
"That's why revisiting a shooting scene and 'walking through' the
experience again in a supportive, non-interrogative atmosphere is so
important in thoroughly mining the involved officer's memory.
"Yet this and many other solidly based techniques are ignored or
criticized by PARC, whose goal seems to be to skewer officers on
information they can't recall or inconsistencies between what they do
recall and other forensic or witness reports."
More light will be shed on this issue after completion of a new research
project by FSRC that will start next summer, funded by the Constables
Branch Board of the London Metropolitan Police. This study will
investigate specifically the most effective times and methods for
reliably tapping an officer's memory after a critical incident, Lewinski
says.
Meantime, here's a representative sampling of what FSN members thought
of PARC's guidelines, as they were reported in Transmission #36. Some
letters have been lightly edited for clarity and length.
EMOTIONAL FIRST RECALL OF SHOOTING LEAVES OFFICER UNCERTAIN OF ACCURACY
It is sad to see that an organization identified as a Police Assessment
Resource Center has taken this view regarding officer-involved
shootings. I have been teaching this subject for 10 years. Every
professional resource I have found reinforces my belief that officers
should have a period of mental stabilization following a critical
incident. This period is not just for the officer's well being, but to
ensure that the officer's emotional and physical turmoil does not
interfere with the truth.
Two years ago I was involved in a fatal shooting. While I (in agreement
with my attorney) gave a statement that same night, I would never have
given a statement immediately after the incident. Nor would my first
statement have been a taped interview with an investigator.
The first time I gave my statement was to my attorney in confidence. The
only way I can describe the experience is to say that it was like
throwing up; I could not have stopped myself. The physical and emotional
reactions I experienced were as devastating as my experience during the
incident. In fact they may have been even greater as I was in a safe
environment and my life did not depend on my ability to maintain control
and respond. It left me crying, shaking, and numb. I cannot recall what
I said or didn't say
during the initial interview and have no way of attesting to its
accuracy. I can testify that my statement was affected by my emotional
and physical state. I would never recommend to an officer or an
investigator that a statement be made under such conditions.
Senior Officer Richard Holt
Rapid City (SD) P.D.
PARC "LEFT-WING, MEDIA-DRIVEN" ORGANIZATION WITH AN "ODIOUS NOTION"
I was alone in my den while I read Transmission #36 and began yelling
intermittently at the computer screen, "YEEESSS!! .........ALRIGHT!!" I
am elated that someone else has questioned not only PARC's findings but
their motives. I too have, for some time, been quite dubious concerning
their off-the-wall recommendations, and it is always gratifying to have
one's inherent conclusions validated.
I teach "Conducting Police Officer Involved Shootings" for the IACP,
PATC (Public Agency Training Council) and the Taylor Group
(www.taylorgroup.net). Recently I presented my 3-day course in Portland
and Seattle. Many of those in attendance cited elements of the PARC
Portland Police Bureau report as the "proper" way to conduct POI
shooting investigations and argued with me that some of my methods were
outdated and unacceptable. I had never heard of PARC and was frankly
somewhat appalled by what was being embraced as "correct procedure."
Upon returning home I conducted some research and quickly came to the
same basic conclusions about PARC as those detailed in your article.
First, that PARC is a predominately left-wing organization, that it is
media driven, and that it is not police-friendly.
Secondly, that they have successfully bamboozled government officials
and police department brass into believing that adherence to their
principles will provide protection for their cities and agencies from
litigation and scrutiny.
Particularly odious is the notion that officers must be constantly
prevented from conspiring to lie about the shooting...the implication
being that, if allowed, they will fabricate everything. Not only that,
PARC implies that safeguards must be put in place to ensure that the
homicide investigator does not participate in the deception.
I have investigated dozens and dozens of police shootings and agree
wholeheartedly with your assessments. Police officers are reluctant
protagonists in any shooting incident. No officer gets up in the morning
as says, "I think I'll kill someone today...that would be exciting."
Officers who shoot and kill are not murderers. They are quiet heroes who
do exactly what society expects them to do in exceedingly trying situations.
Thank you for recognizing the difficulties and complexities of police work.
Sgt. Tony Monheim (ret.)
Miami-Dade P. D., Homicide Bureau
PARC'S "BEST PRACTICES" NOTHING MORE THAN "UNSUBSTANTIATED HUNCHES"
I have investigated over 300 police shooting incidents during the last 7
years and agree whole-heartedly with the position advocated by the Force
Science Research Center as to when, and the manner in which, an officer
should be interviewed following a shooting.
The PARC group is clearly out of touch with the dynamics involved.
Unfortunately, too many police monitors/watchdog groups refer to PARC's
so-called "best practices" recommendations as the gospel truth, when in
fact they are nothing more than unsubstantiated hunches.
Lt. Steve Nolan
Philadelphia P.D., I.A.D. Shooting Team
RECOMMENDATION WOULD "SIGNIFICANTLY INCREASE ANGER & FRUSTRATION"
I strongly disagree with PARC's bizarre recommendation that officers
involved in shootings (especially where a death occurred) should be
interrogated immediately. If officers anticipate such utterly
uncompassionate treatment, they may very well avoid precisely the
situations we most need for them to be involved in.
I have been involved in law enforcement psychology for over 50 years and
have been a member of the Psychological Services Section of IACP for
about 20 years. I have personally seen at least 100 officers involved in
shootings.
The engine often driving the development of Post-Traumatic Stress
Disorder in such officers is commonly powered by unrecognized anger
which has no appropriate outlet or forum for exploration. The PARC
recommendation would, in my view, significantly increase that underlying
anger and frustration to the severe detriment of the officers involved.
The PARC recommendation sounds exactly like what it probably is: a
shoring up of a platform for later litigation against officers and their
departments, with little or no concern about the welfare of the officers
who, in my experience, hardly ever anticipated their role in a shooting
incident.
In some cases I recall, departments which dealt with officers in OIS
incidents with the PARC style of cynicism, lack of support and suspicion
frequently ended up losing those officers to early job-related
disability retirements.
Even a 48-hour delay in interrogation will help officers, especially if
some appropriate support is provided. It is true that the officers may
have time to "get their stories straight." But in my experience, the
stories are "straighter" because details are recalled, not because of
collusion.
Self-anointed "monitors" and "experts" should not be allowed to
undermine the years of effort and expertise which have been devoted to
lessening the impact upon police officers of life-threatening (or, if
necessary, life-taking) episodes.
Irving B. Guller, Ph.D.
Director, The Institute for Forensic Psychology
Oakland, NJ
CIVILIANS IN JUSTIFIED SHOOTINGS MAY SUFFER SAME EFFECTS AS OFFICERS
Garrity issues certainly come into play [after an officer-involved
shooting] and, for the most part, any LE agency that pressures an
officer to give a statement is likely to be left with nothing, even to
the point of possibly tainting the entire investigation.
Beyond that, there's the issue of interviews of a shooter (or even a
witness, possibly) in certain civilian shootings. There very well may be
homicides where the shooter is not a "bad guy." A person who shoots
someone (say in self defense) may very well be justified in that
shooting, or less culpable than what their initial words may indicate. A
non-officer who commits a justifiable homicide may be in much the same
[emotional] situation as the shooting officer. The need for veracity of
the interview/investigation is the same.
If the person is suffering from memory effects from doing the shooting
or possibly observing it or being a victim of it, then the interview may
be affected based on memory lapses, alterations, etc.
Special Agent Robert Hall
FL Dept. of Law Enforcement
PARC APPROACH VIOLATES "BASIC INVESTIGATION 101"
PARC doesn't recognize the reality of an investigation. Let's say the
officer is the only survivor. However, there are witnesses to process,
the crime scene to contain and investigate, and evidence to examine and
compare. If the officer is the only involved person to question, he/she
should be the last to be interviewed. If the officer is one of 20, the
officer should still be the last to be interviewed. This is Basic
Investigation 101--question the person of interest last, after you know
or have a sense of what happened.
PARC is simply showing its politics with its statements/suggestions.
George T. Williams
Director of Training
Cutting Edge Training, LLC
Bellingham, WA
[NOTE: Our thanks to Dr. Jonathon Page, a member of the Psychology Dept.
faculty at Minnesota State University-Mankato and a member of FSRC's
Technical Advisory Board, for his assistance and consultation.]
================
(c) 2006: Force Science Research Center, www.forcescience.org. Reprints
allowed by request. For reprint clearance, please e-mail:
[email protected]. FORCE SCIENCE is a registered trademark of
The Force Science Research Center, a non-profit organization based at
Minnesota State University, Mankato.
================
--
Stephen P. Wenger
Firearm safety - It's a matter
for education, not legislation.
http://www.spw-duf.info
