I view this policy of administering first aid as a bit of a grandiose gesture in the sense that, in theory, it shouldn’t be necessary. My struggle comes from the concept that police shouldn’t resort to the use of their firearm unless the situation warrants shooting to kill the perpetrator. Therefore, administering first aid after the fact doesn’t necessarily cure the underlying issue. However, I do agree that a grand gesture is now needed. Especially in shooting scenarios such as this, police are heavily scrutinized for any mistakes, be it corrupt or a genuine miscalculation. The divide between the people and the police only feeds resentment and exaggerates the underlying issues, especially in the bigger cities where police behavior has been questioned before. It becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. It will take copious significant acts of service from the police to change this relationship dynamic to what it was originally intended to be: protection of the people, by the people. We have to have a stable enough police force for officers to have the time to give exemplary service to individuals, rather than basic service to many, which can cause these extreme scenarios of police having to use greater force than necessary. I am not educated enough on police misconduct and the current procedures that are allowing that behavior to continue, but a shift in police training emphasizing protecting the people rather than enforcing the law may be a step in the right direction. Although, much more will have to be done to repair the damage that an abundance of warrior mindsets have done to the relationship the police have with their communities. Gatsby456
Though I disagree and believe that police officers should carry and administer first aid, I do agree that using it as a way to win over the people is a bit over-dramatic. Reading into what Goff said, I think taking away promotions for making a large amount of stops or arrests will help transition from a warrior mindset. Enforcing that every stop would have to include giving out a card and badge number would assist too. -Gamma456
I disagree with you when it comes to police administering first aid, in my eyes that is a very important part of being a police officer of any kind, even if the offender was acting extremely irrational and dangerous. I do agree with your statement regarding that an officer only shoots when it is their last resort, but I still believe that after the shot first aid should be administered as soon as the officer can do so safely. No officer wants to be the cause of a death, so to me first aid is very important for saving lives as well as getting more information. -LW456
I think especially in today's world, police officers should be trying to save lives rather than take them. When someone is killed by police officers it always gains a great deal of attention through the media. When this happens people assume that it's police brutality before even knowing the whole story. I think saving the lives of people who pose a threat will ultimately help restore the trust in police officers. -CRJB123
I agree with you because I also said that using firearms should be a last resort. But of course If this were to happen it would be a good idea for the police officers to carry first aid equipment in their cars at all times. But this policy was made because these shootings do happen and even if they were not necessarily needed. I also agree on the part where you said that it’s going to take multiple attempts and trys to be able to change such a policy. So many things are taken into consideration when creating a policy and you have to get almost everyone on board. And then the police force will have to enforce the policy and stay true to it. -Tumble456
I found that after reading this article both ideas presented on the issue of police of focusing on being warriors and not guardians are favorable. I believe that carrying medical kits and hemostatic bandages for those wounded or taking them to a hospital, whether shot someone else or the police, is something that could critically change how police officers conduct their work. It enforces more responsibility on the officer for anyone injured because then they possess resources to prevent critical damage or death. This was suggested by Sherman; Goff, however, believes that the best route is to stop congratulating and promoting officers on making frequent stops and arrests and incorporate giving out their cards and badge numbers. This makes these officers stop and consider if stopping someone is really worth harassing innocent people for minor things and worth the hassle of giving out their identification. Unfortunately, I do agree with Sherman that officers will resist the efforts of slowing down and considering the circumstances and make forceful and aggressive decisions with the excuse that they felt threatened; however, I believe that incorporating both strategies to police department training will help to shift the warrior mindset to the guardian mindset and keep peace and justice between law enforcement and the public. -Gamma456
I'd like to hear more on your own opinion on not rewarding officers that conduct more during their shift. I don't know of any other job where they punish the employees for doing their jobs. I feel certain officers are given areas with different crime rates than an officer in a different area. A good example of this would be in Peoria where if an officer is supposed to patrol the west side of peoria he/she will obviously see more crimes than an officer that is stationed in the Dunlap area.More crimes equals more work that has to get done. In a supervisors eye that looks more like that officer that is putting in all this work should become promoted or congratulated. Arrest and traffic stops do not mean the police are bothering the public they are simply doing their job. Bikemaker123
After reading this article I can not agree with everything that Mr. Lawrence Sherman states. He talks about officers learning TCCC (Tactical Combat Casualty Care) which is taking care of traumatic injuries such as gunshot and stab wounds in the field. This isn’t full on surgery, however more for the victim to get stable for transport to a hospital where further medical procedures can be made. I would like to see every police officer to at least be on a basic EMT level, however some departments do not have the funds to send all their officers to medical training and it is not an officers job to treat patients. That would be considered to be the Fire Dept. and EMS’ job. A police officer's job is meant purely to make sure the threat is neutralized and the scene is clear. The negative side to all police becoming tccc certified is the lack of funding departments get to train their officers, yet thousands of officers each year have to spend their own money on their training. Making them decide on which courses they should pay for can often have the officer overlook any kind of medical training. Mr. Sherman also states that our police force has to decide “whether they are the first responders or the first line of defense”. In my opinion the police are both first responders and the first line of defense. The police are the only first responders that can catch a person in the act of a crime and prevent such actions from continuing. I also feel like this article made policing around the nation seem afraid to do their jobs. Not due to the possible dangers of their career but fearfulness of the repremant from their superiors for taking an overly aggressive stance on policing. By simply trying to do less and avoid people in general leading to a lowering incidents where force maybe needed. This ties the officers hands by making them not want to conduct things like traffic stops and turns them into a responsive force over an active one such as fire and EMS has become. With officers not actively looking for infractions that matter or even talking to people in the area of patrol what is the point of having an officer in the area? Bikemaker123
I had not considered the concept that a police force may lack funding for first responder training. Emergency care can be dispatched alongside police in a case where we already have injured, but the purpose of police being trained is specifically for instances in which police use force against a perpetrator. I feel like this response to excessive use of force by police does little to deter the behavior, but instead attempts to dissipate backlash. Gatsby456
I too also had not considered the lack of funding for the first aid training for the police. I hope there is some sort of way that there is more funding for that training because people need to realize that a lot of the time the police are first on scene and if those people want help then it would be good for those officers to know how to give first aid. I bet people would give the police more funding if they realized they would want the officers to know how to give first aid if it was their family members that needed the care -wags123
This article focuses on the differences and the importance of the differences of a warrior and a guardian. The article mainly talks about police shootings and why many of them are not necessary. The article explains that when a police shooting happens, the warrior mindset is in place, I agree with this completely, but I also believe that there must have been a valid reason for the warrior mindset to be used. It is a warrior mindset as soon as the officer feel danger to their own life and well-being, and with this feeling they have the obligation to react in any way to save themselves. This does not mean any officer can say during anytime that they feel endangered and use physical force, but it means when it is absolutely necessary there should be no second guessing. With the guardian mindset, the one I agree with the most, which means the officer has patience and tries wholeheartedly to deescalate the situation. The writers of the article explain that if more officers become patient and try to deescalate the situation rather than act angry or above the civilian then the number of police involved violence would decrease. I agree with this aspect of the article, I believe that patience is a key skill in any occupation, especially policing, this way officers can keep stops as civil as possible, and if something goes awry they also have the ability to switch to a warrior mindset and deescalate the situation in a physical manner. All in all, I believe the guardian mindset is above the warrior mindset in importance due to the patience, which can lead to better safety and service of civilians and officers. -LW456
Can police change their mindset from warrior to guardian? That’s a good question. Criminologist, Lawrence Sherman says that, quote, “U.S. should be addressed by “reengineering” police procedures and training in ways that encouraged them to save lives, not take them.“Little changes can cause huge impacts,” Sherman said, suggesting for example requiring all patrol cars to carry hemostatic bandages, often used by the military on the battlefield, that can prevent shooting victims from bleeding to death before they get medical help”. Meanwhile, the director of the center for police equality says, quote, “such changes needed to be incorporated into a larger “political ecosystem” that recognized the racial biases built into the history of US policing and that rewarded police for perceiving their jobs as protecting the most vulnerable members of the community, rather than just catching “bad guys.”“It’s about the difference between ‘warriors’ or ‘guardians,’” he said. “First responders or first line of defense”. So what is the warrior and guardian mindset? The warrior mindset is that police believe they are war and don’t really engage with the community. Whereas the guardian mindset engages with the community to solve problems. They can’t just turn the warrior and guardian like a light switch. So can police change their mindset from warrior to guardian? They can it’s just not easy to switch. –kahilffcj456
I agree with your comment on it being difficult for the officer to make the switch from a warrior to a guardian. I do believe it can be done though, many officers who have received training to act as a guardian typically help right after the situation has de-escalated. Like you said, a switch can not just be made, and that’s why we have a huge problem in policing with the community today because a lot of the community does not understand that it can not be easily done for the officer, especially during high adrenaline situations. -as123
In this article , the author goes into the text that the stigma that the community has against officers could possible be changed due to officers becoming live savers after shooting a suspect/subject. He then goes into talking about, you could be at the front line of defense as an officer or a first responder. He then ties that into the guardian and warrior aspect of it. I completely agree with the author at this point because as you police, at times you need to switch from warrior to guardian in a split second. When an officer has that training and mentality to do so, it can be the moment that the victim of the shooting could be saved. At the end of the day, police need to protect the community and sometimes that means shooting a threat down, but also saving the subjects life as well. The author then states that at times, the change in the community’s feelings towards policing could be changed if an officer were to shoot a threat, and from there, put the subject in their squad car and rush them to the hospital. I truly agree with this article within its direction of being a guardian and a warrior at the same time. -as123
I agree with the author that the stigma that the community has with the officers could change if they are trying to save the person that they shot. And that you have to be able to change from warrior to Guardian in seconds. The officers have to learn how to have both mindsets on at the same time. -Smiley456
After reading the article I think Steven Lawrence has very strong points. I was surprised that the Swat Team in Los Angeles is just now starting to provide immediate medical help to anyone injured during police incidents. I think that even if someone poses a threat, and the officers were forced to take them down by gun; they should still be given medical treatment in an attempt to save their life. Steven Lawrence went on to say that all patrol cars should carry hemostatic bandages, like the ones used by the military. I think this is a great idea, because these bandages can prevent people from bleeding to death before they can get help. One solution to help lower the police involved shootings rate is to try and slow things down. Allowing police officers to have a little more time to think, and make better decisions can make a big difference. This is something Sherriff Asbell has mentioned before, because being a police officer you have to make very quick decisions. The article mentions that larger cities have had a great deal of progress in reducing officer use of force incidents, and I think this is a good look for the future. On the other hand, the article mentions that in cities with a population of less than 10,000 people 18% of the homicides are caused by the police. I think when looking at the statistics this number looks bad, but you have to realize that in cities with less than 10,000 people not that many homicides occur. CRJB123
I think we should have training for how we could properly care for people who have been shot by the police. This would make it easier for people to get care that they need and so no one has to die at the hands of the police. Doing this for people could reinvigorate interest in supporting our law enforcement and to make it easier to trust the police. It won’t be easy, but it needs to be done. -OUTATIME456
I believe all Officers should be trained in the medical part and that'll give everyone the greatest chance of being saved. I feel like if the public see the officers trying to save there friend that was shot, they may not try to riot. I liked how you mentioned our local sheriff(Sheriff Asbell) and how he has talked about this topic before. -Smiley123
After reading the article “Can Police Change Their Mindset from Warriors to Guardians?” I learned a bit more on the police and shootings. I read that they give first aid to the shooting victims, I know that this is required because after the threat is taken care of then the next thing to do is to give aid to that person. With that being said, I do believe though that close to 90% or even more of police and citizen situations should be handled through a civilized manner like talking through the situation and maybe having to resort to the tazer. However, yes there are some situations that need deadly force. I hear about all these police involved shootings and I can not help but think why would they just shoot that person even though I do not know all the details a lot of those shootings should have never even happened. This goes along with the warrior and guardians of the police department. I think that the best police officers as those who have a mixture of both warrior and guardian. They use the warrior part of them when absolutely necessary. They have the guardian in them to protect and serve without deadly force but until there is a situation where deadly force is absolutely needed then that is when the warrior in them should take to light. To me if you have a force of mainly warriors then there will be a lot more problems because they are the ones who want that fight and are not as compassionate however if you have all guardians then they might be able to take charge when needed. It is good to have a mixture of both in the department or even better, a mixture of two in each officer. -wags123
I agree with you that the best police officers have both warrior and guardian. Being able to turn one off and turn the other on depending on the situation is key. I think a lot of the shootings could have been handled with just a taser but there are sometimes officers need to shoot. If they need to shoot I think that it is wise to be able to give immediate medical attention so they don't have to wait for someone. -wb123
After reading the article and seeing Lawrence's Sherman's views, I think that officers learning how to help citizens in life or death situations is important, even if it is because of the officer. On the other side it would also be very expensive for each department to send their officers through this training. There are pros and cons to both sides and I don't think it is a topic that will be heavily one sided. I think with the police brutality things happening it would be better if these police officers would be able to save these people before they die. Obviously there should not be innocent lives being shot but that's another topic. If worst comes to worst and someone gets shot I think it would be beneficial for the police to be able to perform immediate attention. I think it should be up to the officer if he or she wants to learn. I don't think the departments should make the officers do it. If I was an officer I would want to learn this and I think a lot of officers would too. -wb123
I agree that it will be very expensive to send officers through this type of training. I think that every officer should have to go through basic level lifesaving training other than what they already receive, and if they want even more advanced training that should be optional for officers to go through or a department to send someone through.-Legion123
I think the topic of training police to save lives and not take them has be preached for years, but we have never really done anything to put those words into motion. If a police officer has to shoot someone, I think they should give them first aid, that’s what I would do. The job of a police officer is to protect and serve their community but sometimes you have to use deadly force to stop someone who could be a threat. That doesn’t mean you shouldn’t help them, even if they were trying to kill you, it’s only at least nice and a way to deescalate the situation if you help them. Encouraging our nation’s police officers to protecting and helping people, rather than just dragging people off the street would help repair damaged relations with some communities and help build trust in between them and the community. This also boils down to the guardian and warrior mindsets and how they affect our policing. The article suggest that some shootings happen because police officers resort to violence to put an end to a situation. I somewhat agree with this because I can see that this does end a situation quickly, but I don’t think most officers want to kill their target. I think we should make it part of the training to help victims of shootings and what to do when someone is shot by the police. -OUTATIME456
After reading the article I think Steven Lawrence has solid focuses. I was astonished that the Swat Team in Los Angeles is now beginning to give quick medicinal assistance to anybody harmed during police episodes. I feel that regardless of whether somebody represents a risk, and the officers had to take them down; they should at present be given medicinal treatment trying to spare their life. I feel that the best cops as the individuals who have a blend of both warrior and guardian. They utilize the warrior part of them when completely essential. They have the guardian in them to secure and serve without destructive power yet until there is where dangerous power is completely required then that is the point at which the warrior in them should take to light. Empowering our country's cops to ensuring and helping individuals, as opposed to simply hauling individuals off the road would help fix harmed relations with certain networks and assist work with confiding in the middle of them and the community. On the off chance that you have a power of essentially warriors, at that point there will be significantly more issues since they are the ones who need that battle and are not as sympathetic in any case in the event that you have all guardian, at that point they may have the option to assume responsibility when required. -Smiley123
I agree with you, regardless of who is injured, officers must render aid to those who are injured. When an officer renders aid to an injured criminal, it shows the officers intentions. I believe that if an officer renders aid, they shot the criminal out of last resort. But if they do not render aid, then they shot them simply to shoot them. Illinigurl456
In the wake of perusing the article I think Steven Lawrence has strong core interests. I was astounded that the Swat Team in Los Angeles is currently starting to give snappy restorative help to anyone hurt during police scenes. I feel that whether or not someone speaks to a hazard, and the officers needed to bring them down; they ought to at present be given medical treatment attempting to save their life. I feel that the best cops as the people who have a mix of both warrior and guardian. They use the warrior part of them when totally basic. They have the guardian in them to verify and serve without ruinous force yet until there is the place hazardous force is totally required then that is where the warrior in them should take to light. Enabling our nation's cops to guarantee and helping people, instead of basically dragging people away the street would help fix hurt relations with specific systems and help work with trusting in them and the community. If you have an intensity of basic warriors, by then, there will be essentially more issues since they are the ones who need that fight and are not as thoughtful regardless if you have all guardian, by then they may have the choice to accept accountability when required. -Smiley456
When we think of police shootings, we must always investigate them to the fullest. The officers who are involved must be put on administrative leave, so that all information can be collected properly. Sherman writers that most officers would struggle to receive advise from fellow officers and community activists when dealing with difficult criminals. Many officers would simply pull their guns on people instead of having patience with difficult criminals. These officers are known as Warriors. A warrior is somebody who searches, chases, and captures. When it comes to warriors and guardians, I think that you need have both types of officers in your department. The article speaks to rendering aid to those who are injured on the scene. I do believe that all officers should be trained on how to render aid to those who are injured. If there is an investigation, the officer would be able to prove that he or she shot the offender because they had no other choice. When an officer renders aid, it shows that they did not shoot the criminal on purpose, but rather a last resort. When investigating a shooting, one must look, examine, and identify the officer’s intentions whether they shot then criminal for their own protection or shot because they wanted to. Illinigurl456
I do agree with you that the information needs to be completed ingested and we have to make sure that they are actually changing the way that they are thinking. But for most departments, it would be nearly impossible to put people on administrative leave so that they can get the information correctly. Most officers would not be willing to do that unless they were getting paid the entire time that they are not at work so that they can pay their bills.-Cookie456
I agree that officers should be trained to render aid to an individual they have just used lethal force against. It is important for an officer to remember that they are working to better our communities, even if an individual tried taking their life they need to be able to move past that and move towards being the "guardian".-Blues456
The idea of police officers shooting unarmed people is sad. People should not be getting shot especially if they are unarmed. I agree with the author and that if the people that were shot by police officers were given immediate medical attention and used those specific type of bandages that would go a long way in the public eye. Use of a firearm should be the absolute last thing an officer does when dealing with the public. Putting rules and making it more of “hassle” into place when involved in shootings should happen. Police should go through more guardian mindset training because that can help them when they are out on the streets. If they go into it with a warrior mindset, they are more likely to use their firearm when handling a situation. Police should be punished for nonlegitimate reasons for use of their firearm. As I said earlier use of their firearm should be the last thing that should cross their mind. I do support though police in the sense of them feeling threatened. Police lives do matter so if drill into their heads so much not to use firearms then it could hurt some of them, but we should have them be thinking twice before using them.-Legion123
I certainly agree with you. The thought of police officers shooting unarmed people is so sad. In today's society it's definitely happening no doubt about it. Police shootings are at an all time right now and there is nothing we can do about it. It's important that police officers stay in a warrior mindset during this tough time. And help out the community with their guardian mindset.jas456
I definitely agree with you. Police officers should not think about shooting unarmed people. That is the last thing they should grab. You are correct. Police should be punished if they did not have to use their firearms. It's ridiculous how many cops get off just because they can. It is sad for the public to see because they think that they are untouchable. We most certainly need guardian mindset training more in the industry. -Charmed123
After reading the article “Can Police Change Their Mindset from Warriors to Guardians?” and hearing from Lawrence Sherman’s point of view I think that officers can change the way that they do things like carrying bandages and training police to slow down their response will not doing anything if we do not change the way that they think there is a bias in the social climate we cannot train the police unless everyone else is changing their ideas in the social atmosphere. I think that being trained medically is great for all cops to have especially because all military people are and is something that works and is along the same lines of purpose. But training cops to think before they shoot and read the situation is most important no matter what. There are exceptions but most are just situations where a taser could have done the same thing. Or if we trained with accuracy to better teach cops were to shoot that will enable them but will no kill them. The warrior tactic does not work with any of those new ideas they work with the guardian and making sure that everyone is safe. When they are investigating a shooting or any other situation they must examine and identify the situation and decide whether the shooting is necessary for their own life or if it is for comfort. - Cookie456
I agree that officers can change the way that they do things like carrying badges and training police to slow down their responses. There are some cops that struggle with slowing down their response to a situation. I think that more training for police officers is a great thing and would benefit crime rates. -softball456
Warriors vs Guardian was a very interesting article to read. Carrying medical kits and taking people to the hospital after being shot is a lot of responsibility.what was very interesting to me was when he explained how officers had to give their badge numbers for example, “At the same time, officers were required to give their badge numbers and hand out cards to anyone they stopped and questioned on the street.Within two months of instituting the new policy, the number of stops recorded plunged from 7,000 to 26, Goff said. I think that the community always feel the need to record police because they don't feel safe. I think that sometimes police officers should turn off the warrior mindset and get intune with the guardian mindset. The guardian mind set is completely different than warrior. Guardians are people who are always willing to help and connected with the community. I think that both mindsets are extremely great to have as a police officer. Sometimes police officers get to caught up with being so stern and alert. Once in a while its okay to connect with others.-Jas456
I understand where you are coming from, but I say it's a good idea to have the best of both worlds. I, myself, police officers should not just do certain things just to please their community. Sometimes police officers have a valid reason for what they do, although not everyone is going to agree with the officer. Situations dictate tactics.
I think it is wrong that some police officers fire their firearms to avoid confrontation because they have somewhere else to be. Police officers should take their time to keep people alive and help the person committing a wrong realize what they are doing wrong and try to talk them through to stop them from whatever they are doing. If a cop fires his weapon at someone to avoid confrontation, it will make that person change his opinions on police officers. I agree with Sheram that police behavior is very critical and if a police officer has a bad behavior it will make more conflicts than there already is. In larger cities there are more of those types of police officers. I think think article really helps show that behavior is a big thing when it comes to policing. To be a good police officer you need to be concerning and also understanding. For example, if a police officer pulls someone over for speeding and they said they were speeding because their dad was in the hospital and the cops writes them a ticket, that would not be understanding. When a police officer is apprehensive it helps build a relationship with people in a community. -Softball456
I agree with what Sherman said as well because of how important it is for an officer to realize they are not doing the job for themselves as much as they are for the community. The use of lethal force has its time and place for dealing with subjects but an officer needs to be mindful of their actions when using it. -Blues123
I see the act of an officer providing first aid to someone they have injured in the line of duty as a good idea. After all, the intention of shooting an individual, in an officers case, would be to prevent any physical harm that they are about to inflict. They obviously pose no threat once they have been shot and, whether they should live or die, is not up to anyone on scene. It’s up to a jury, if capital punishment exists in the state, and even if it isn’t, a police officer is the last individual who should be able to make that call, if anyone. The point made about police misbehavior being linked to the promotion process was interesting to say the least. How Toronto promoted based on number of stops was absurd. You could almost say that they encouraged making up false crimes, or at the very least, hindering the everyday lives of the people. I think it boils down to officers being able to put their personal goals aside. Personal gain or their personal opinion of what should happen to an individual, should never influence the outcome of any interaction an officer has with a person. The outcome that results in the most mutual trust and respect between both parties while still upholding the law, is what should be the goal of officers. Things like providing first aid to those injured by police is a step in this direction. -Rocky123
I agree with the article, for the most part, I do agree first responders should be educated properly and thoroughly on how to save people after a shooting, in general. Although, when a shooting does occur, there's so much that is happening behind, that there is minimal time to do, think, and react all at the same time. Police Officers aren’t robots, they are human. Police officers need time to stand their ground, to be calm and collective after a shooting that has occurred or is occurring. Police Officers need time to dissect situational shootings because situations do dictate tactics.
I love the examples the article gives with the Tulsa shooting that occurred in September, or how the Philadelphia officer drives shot victim to the hospital. All of these are valid points and shows we do need more of this and officers to be trained on how to save people’s lives after they have been shot, especially the officers themselves. Another point, I do agree with Sherman, these small changes can make a drastic change, but sometimes it’s not always that simple.
Sherman in the article says, Police should know when to stop shooting, but then again, yes to a certain extent, but also police officers do not have superpowers to know whether the threat is eliminated during the shooting, it’s just inhumane to do that. Also, Police carry for a reason as well.
Sherman might have a valid point on better training, but there's no step by step guide on how to properly handle a situation in law enforcement. Just like traffic stops, there is no guide on how to exactly do a proper traffic stop because anything can go south within a split second.
Being a police officer is definitely not an easy job.
I agree with you with the fact that police are just human something as stressful and traumatic as shooting someone it could take a while before the mind really sets into what needs to be done. Maybe there is training that could aid in how to react after something traumatic happens and what a police officer should do when they are alone in a situation like that. sun456
I think this is a very difficult topic to really dissect in regards to what they are saying. First looking into the mindset of an officer who was just involved in a shooting has so many different things all running through his or her head that it is sometimes hard for an officer to think they should approach someone right away who had just made an attempt to take their life. I do feel however that officers should begin to seek this as a necessary role when they are involved in a shooting. A use of deadly force is used as the last resort attempt to have an individual comply. When an officer fires upon an individual it is to stop a threat, not to kill. The officer should make an attempt to help the individual they just engaged because they are protectors or "guardians" of the community. A warrior may have the same mindset of protecting a community but due to the more aggressive nature of a guardian they may see the threat in a different manner and may not be so inclined to try and render aid to the individual who may have injuries that could be corrected and save their life. -Blues123
An officer has the right to deem a suspect a threat until they are no longer. Do you feel this should change? Maybe a shot in a nonlethal area of the anatomy to detain not to destroy. The only problem foreseen in the opinion of shooting nonlethal areas is the aim of the officer who is shooting. Unless they hold competitive medals for shooting or have a consistent and near perfect accuracy record, the officer or agent cannot always be trusted to deliver that shot precisely. - HUBRIS456
After someone is shot down no matter the reason or circumstance I believe that the police should administer first aid and try to save them. There is a lot of back and forth about this policy to carry bandages in the police car but I believe it is a good policy to have. Although, civilians should not be getting shot by the police unless absolutely necessary but if that time were to come and an officer had to release fire I believe that the humanly thing to do would to administer first aid. The person shot has done something wrong but to save the now victim would give them the benefit of the doubt to presume a new life after completing their consequences. A product of being through prison is to help the criminal to live again in a safe environment where they no longer commit crimes. I also believe that once someone is shot the police should stop shooting if able. Once someone is shot down, they are down and do not need to be brutally attacked. I also have say, in the article is said that police could be embarrassed if the criminal does not do as they say. The police should expect them to not comply because they are criminals. -Tumble456
The mindset of an investigator should always lean toward a guardian when in the field and this is for good reason. This article speaks about how officers should attempt to render aid to an individual who they have just used lethal force against which I agree with. The use of the lethal force should be used to have the subject comply, as this use of force is not meant to "kill" an individual as much as have them comply. The use of lethal force should really be the last resort, but as with the job of law enforcement, that decision must be made in a split second. After the shooting the police must switch from their warrior mindset to their guardian mindset of protecting people. The officer would be the first on scene before any medical professional would get there and those seconds count when someone has been hit with a bullet. Officers taking victims themselves to the hospitals seems smart but a little difficult because the officer could not continue to render aid while driving in comparison to medical professionals who would be able to do that on the way to the hospital. -Blues456
I do agree with the article. I believe that everyone should at least learn to cover up a bleeding wound until the ambulance gets there, or at least know first aid. I know the cops are not doctors or nurses but it could be helpful in saving many lives and decrease deadly shootings or anything in that nature. But I could definitely see where sometimes the outcome may not always be what everyone wants it to be. I did enjoy hearing how in Philadelphia cops drive those who are hurt all the way to the hospitals even if they were the ones that caused the harm. That may also be a good idea to train cops to do that since they may be quicker than an ambulance. On the community side they may think that is awesome what changes they have made but for the law enforcement side it may be more difficult than it actually seems. It would be more difficult for the cops because they would have a lot going on on their plate. The Sherman’s article is a great idea that I believe we should at least carry bandages on hand in every law enforcement vehicle. In the article it mentions how cops are always in a rush to be onto something else. They’re in a rush during a big confrontation and instead they decide to end it super quickly. I do agree that cops should take more time, space, and to be calm while in a big situation, but everyone is human. Everyone deals with every situation a different way. -Charmed123
I think that there is no bad thing in the police trained in first aid. No one wants to kill or be killed and if a police officer feels that he or she is in a position were using their gun is the only option they should also be required to help. It’s apart of that guardian mindset. Going above and beyond for the community is exactly what the police should do. It’s not about what that person did it’s about being a guardian for the community. You could argue that the person shot could be this evil murderer but more often than not they are just a person. Having police also be the first responders could do a lot for the relationship between community and police. Just like the article said this solution doesn’t solve the bigger problem that’s going on. I feel like we take two steps forward and one step back and sometimes it’s a really big step. The implantation of a police officer having to hand out their cards or having officers go before a court to justify their reason for the shooting is fantastic but then we have big cases like Graham vs. Connor and we move back. I think body cams are a great step forward and also introducing first aid in every cop car is grand but there is something more that needs to be done. Although saying that something needs to be done is much easier than finding a solution to the problem. The police force is there to protect but also to serve and I feel that goes hand in hand with the guardian warrior mindset. You can’t just protect (warrior) you also have to serve (guardian) and by just putting in the simple step of first aid after someone or anyone is wounded could help so much in what the police force is having trouble with today. Sun456
In relation to your thoughts on the cards, do you believe that, although providing a sense of owning up, it also provides the sense of endangerment? Those people could hold a grudge whether serious or not that could endanger an officer if they sought out revenge. - Moon456
This article is talking about the background of how police officers need to start changing their mindsets to guardian concept rather than a warrior concept. Police with the warrior mindset seem to have more problems with being patient when it comes to situations with criminals with guns. In the article, it talks about the factors that would lead police officers to use their firearms which led to most of the shootings to be explained because officers feel like they need to resolve the conflict quickly so that they can be somewhere else where the think they are needed. In my opinion, that is not a smart way to think as a cop because you can not rush things and the officers should be more patient when it comes to situations with someone holding a weapon. Especially, if you don’t know what that person is going through because they could have a mental illness you don’t know about and being forceful on them could trigger something. Another part of the article I found interesting was when they talk about having homeostatic bandages in police officers cars. I think that is a good thing to have not only if an officer gets shot but if an officer shoots someone they can use the bandage to stop them from bleeding to death. -HL456
I agree with you that thinking mostly with the Warrior mindset when in a shooting or other stressful environment is not always the best. Patience is a good thing when in these kinds of scenarios but I always remember that all scenarios are different, so sometimes the officer might not have time to be patient if other lives are in danger, so its a hard thing to argue depending on what is unfolding.-Bears123
In the article, the author seems to blame the training of the officers for the direct misbehaviors of the police. The misbehavior of the police could come from a multitude of different scenarios; the cop had a bad day and maybe he's looking to take it out through the apprehensive functions of his career. The article provides a good history of the fluctuations in police shootings and includes court decisions that correlate with those numbers of shootings. Also, the article talks much on accountability in the first couple paragraphs. The accountability of suspects shot by officers by the officer who did the shooting is great because it teaches the officer or agent that use of force like that is going to make it a longer day for them in the end. He or she will have to spend time in the hospital with said shooting victim and have to jump through hoops and hoops of paperwork and verbal confrontation from superiors. - HUBRIS456
While reading this article I can see where the author is coming from on the basis of they are either warrior or guardian. However, I believe it plays more into the scenario in most cases. When describing the court cases of officers, those indeed were Warrior attributes but what in the case of a shootout with multiple suspects, can we be expected to maintain the guardian mindset when there are multiple threats? The Guardian vs. Warrior concept ties into our natural instincts, I believe, and while yes, some people choose to be a fulltime warrior and cause problems, certain situations call for the warrior concept. If I was an officer and was chasing a suspect and injured them and they were the only suspect I would apply medical due to the fact there is no more of a risk in the situation, but we have to look at the environment. If a cop shoots a criminal in the street and goes to apply medical, and suddenly he is surrounded by a crowd of people, couldn’t his mind form a skeptical illusion that he is danger? Could he feel as if one of these people may harm him. Not defending those who use this defence when obviously they acted out of self interest when choosing the warrior concept, but I believe the entire environment has to play a part when deciding if police can control their changing between Warrior and Guardian concept. - Moon456
I see where your coming from when because in some cases some people can't change from one mindset to another. I also think that in ways they do have control over it. In your example about shooting a criminal then the cop goes over to apply medical, the cop changed his mindset from warrior to guardian so he could help but then that could have put him in danger because there was no witness but it was his choice to change his mindset in that instance. -HL456
i agree with you alot of ways but we need to change the mindset of todays police mentallity. The problem is every cop seems to get shot up and todays state of meaning is not one i would like to be in. navy456
The main point of this article is how many police officers need to change their mindsets, and learn to be able to switch them when they are required to. This article said that some police think it should be required to carry medical supplies like they do in the military to try and save more police shooting victims, or officers themselves. I like how they stated that officers are their to protect the people, that even means the criminal. If the police do get into an altercation with a criminal they should do everything in their power to protect them as well. I like how they mentioned that people should practice not when to shoot, but when to stop shooting. Sometimes events unfold and violence is just destined to happen. When this does occur I believe officers should stop focusing on just killing the criminal if they are in a gunfight, but to try and just wound and stop them instead of killing them if it is a possibility. I know it is very hard to know when that possibility is there but if just more officers try and think about it I think it could change for the better. -Bears123
"I like how they stated that officers are their to protect the people, that even means the criminal." This sentence is all too true. It is not an "US vs. THEM" moment when it comes to a police officer trying to save, protect, and preserve life in a life-threatening situation no matter whose life is in danger.
After reading the article, my first and foremost thought is that once a person who was deemed dangerous had been shot and not deemed not as dangerous why wouldn't you proceed with first aid? To me that just makes sense. I do not believe any officer is fueled by hatred for another life when it is necessary to use lethal force. I do not believe anyone wants to make the decision to shoot so I just seems like common sense that after a dangerous situation is dealt with you take steps to fix what damage had been done. Goff's statement that when one culture feels a certain way you can not give them training in the other direction unless they are ready to accept that training made sense. No training will make you change unless you actually buy into the training. The statistic brought up in Canada, where stops went from 7,000 to 26 is insane. That is such a huge difference and I wish this article went more in depth with that to find out if it was very successful in police relations or not. This reminds me of Bloomberg's stop and frisk laws in New York that targeted young African American's. Of course one side says it stopped gun violence where the other says the opposite. It was interesting to learn that most police shootings occur in small towns under 10,000 people. I would have imagined that it would have been Chicago, New York, or L.A. This makes me believe that smaller cities do not receive either the funding, training, or both to achieve success with officer involved shootings like bigger cities. Perhaps what will happen is that the bigger cities will set a good example and others will follow. Something else that was interesting was the Philadelphia cops must drive victims to the hospital. I have never heard of this and wonder how successful it is. CP3123
I think you make a really good point! Once a person is shot, they are obviously not as dangerous as they were prior to being shot so there should be no reason for an officer not to continue with firsts aid. As someone who is supposed to protect the constitutional rights of all people, they should do everything they can to help. --coffeeplease123
first off then are goona do this? i am a verystrong supporter of police action. There has to a be a civil action betweeb law and order . intodays world i woiuldn't know if i would like to be a cop. People gettintg shot at. I know the world which not what it was 20 years ago. In my world we still had saturday moning cartoons and everybody loved everybody but that was the 1980's. navy456
If cops changed their mindset from being warriors to guardians and preformed first aid to individuals, I think it would change the way the public views police. It’s important for officers to be trained in first aid and be knowledgeable on how to help gunshot victims even if those shots came from the police themselves. Criminologist Lawrence Sherman states that police-caused homicides should be tackled and “reengineering police procedures and training in ways that encourage them to save lives, not take them.” Like the article says, little changes can have huge effects; in some places, cops carry hemostatic bandages in their patrol cars and in Philadelphia police drive gunshot victims to the emergency rooms. Those are totally guardian mindsets and I think its very important other states adopt this mindset as well. Director of the Center for Policing Equity at John Jay College, Phillip Atiba Goff says something I really agree with, “changes needed to be incorporated into a larger “political ecosystem” that recognized the racial biases built into the history of US policing and that rewarded police for perceiving their jobs as protecting the most vulnerable members of the community, rather than just catching bad guys.” --coffeeplease123
I agree with you that there needs to be more use of the guardian mindset, but also I feel officers must not lose sight of their warrior mindset either. It is important that officers need to know when to use both mindsets because using both can allow for better outcomes in a situation. --Brianna123
Officers are here to save lives, not take them. Some situations are just unpredictable and leads to bad outcomes, but how you react after that can make a difference. I like how Sherman said " little changes can cause huge impacts." This really speaks to me because, can you imagine how the world would be if we all took the time to go out of our way to help someone? Even if it's the most smallest gesture, you still went out of your way to make someone feel better. To be an officer is hard and exhausting, but it is important not to let the warrior take over, but to have a proper balance with warrior and guardian. To have the best results or outcome in any situation one must have that warrior and guardian mindset work together. I think over time the police can change their mindset to balance warrior and guardian. As long as the department makes it a part of the training and everyday the department works on their guardian mindset, then eventually they will see changes.--Brianna123
The reading talks about how making little changes could change the way people look at police. Like in shootings if a police officer is trained to perform first aid on people they had a confrontation with that would give a different look on how people look at the police is like going from a warrior mindset to deescalate a situation to being a guardian and helping the suspect they shot or harmed. Changing little things like driving a suspect to the hospital after they have been shot or helping the suspect stop the bleeding regardless of the situation that the shooting happened. I think cops should also have more psychological training in deescalating deadly situations and not just use the warrior mindset to stop a situation. That's why a lot of police homicides happen because the officers are trained from day one to have warrior mindset. There needs to be a balance between the the two mindsets. I believe that the warrior mindset needs to be used as a last resort if trying to be a guardian does not work. Checo123
This difference between a warrior and a guardian isn't much defined concretely, as the video, however, this article describes how a warrior mindset and a guardian mindset affects the decisions when it comes to using a firearm (gun). I agree, that slowing down and letting you mind make a quick decision or even a decision at a slower pace but going through the scenarios is a good thing, however, does that save your (the police officer's) life or the citizen's life? I believe if you, the police officer, goes into a life-threatening situation with both mindsets, one will always out-weigh the over, but the most important thing is that you act with complete trust in your decision to act the way you do. Meaning, know the reason as to why you responded the way you did and how. Being a warrior AND a guardian in your mind, in my opinion, is a MUST due to the aspects of a firearm being drawn out in a situation. There is always rationality involved, emotions, and most of all danger. Truffles123
I view this policy of administering first aid as a bit of a grandiose gesture in the sense that, in theory, it shouldn’t be necessary. My struggle comes from the concept that police shouldn’t resort to the use of their firearm unless the situation warrants shooting to kill the perpetrator. Therefore, administering first aid after the fact doesn’t necessarily cure the underlying issue. However, I do agree that a grand gesture is now needed. Especially in shooting scenarios such as this, police are heavily scrutinized for any mistakes, be it corrupt or a genuine miscalculation. The divide between the people and the police only feeds resentment and exaggerates the underlying issues, especially in the bigger cities where police behavior has been questioned before. It becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. It will take copious significant acts of service from the police to change this relationship dynamic to what it was originally intended to be: protection of the people, by the people. We have to have a stable enough police force for officers to have the time to give exemplary service to individuals, rather than basic service to many, which can cause these extreme scenarios of police having to use greater force than necessary. I am not educated enough on police misconduct and the current procedures that are allowing that behavior to continue, but a shift in police training emphasizing protecting the people rather than enforcing the law may be a step in the right direction. Although, much more will have to be done to repair the damage that an abundance of warrior mindsets have done to the relationship the police have with their communities. Gatsby456
ReplyDeleteThough I disagree and believe that police officers should carry and administer first aid, I do agree that using it as a way to win over the people is a bit over-dramatic. Reading into what Goff said, I think taking away promotions for making a large amount of stops or arrests will help transition from a warrior mindset. Enforcing that every stop would have to include giving out a card and badge number would assist too. -Gamma456
DeleteI disagree with you when it comes to police administering first aid, in my eyes that is a very important part of being a police officer of any kind, even if the offender was acting extremely irrational and dangerous. I do agree with your statement regarding that an officer only shoots when it is their last resort, but I still believe that after the shot first aid should be administered as soon as the officer can do so safely. No officer wants to be the cause of a death, so to me first aid is very important for saving lives as well as getting more information. -LW456
DeleteI think especially in today's world, police officers should be trying to save lives rather than take them. When someone is killed by police officers it always gains a great deal of attention through the media. When this happens people assume that it's police brutality before even knowing the whole story. I think saving the lives of people who pose a threat will ultimately help restore the trust in police officers. -CRJB123
DeleteI agree with you because I also said that using firearms should be a last resort. But of course If this were to happen it would be a good idea for the police officers to carry first aid equipment in their cars at all times. But this policy was made because these shootings do happen and even if they were not necessarily needed. I also agree on the part where you said that it’s going to take multiple attempts and trys to be able to change such a policy. So many things are taken into consideration when creating a policy and you have to get almost everyone on board. And then the police force will have to enforce the policy and stay true to it. -Tumble456
DeleteI found that after reading this article both ideas presented on the issue of police of focusing on being warriors and not guardians are favorable. I believe that carrying medical kits and hemostatic bandages for those wounded or taking them to a hospital, whether shot someone else or the police, is something that could critically change how police officers conduct their work. It enforces more responsibility on the officer for anyone injured because then they possess resources to prevent critical damage or death. This was suggested by Sherman; Goff, however, believes that the best route is to stop congratulating and promoting officers on making frequent stops and arrests and incorporate giving out their cards and badge numbers. This makes these officers stop and consider if stopping someone is really worth harassing innocent people for minor things and worth the hassle of giving out their identification. Unfortunately, I do agree with Sherman that officers will resist the efforts of slowing down and considering the circumstances and make forceful and aggressive decisions with the excuse that they felt threatened; however, I believe that incorporating both strategies to police department training will help to shift the warrior mindset to the guardian mindset and keep peace and justice between law enforcement and the public. -Gamma456
ReplyDeleteI'd like to hear more on your own opinion on not rewarding officers that conduct more during their shift. I don't know of any other job where they punish the employees for doing their jobs. I feel certain officers are given areas with different crime rates than an officer in a different area. A good example of this would be in Peoria where if an officer is supposed to patrol the west side of peoria he/she will obviously see more crimes than an officer that is stationed in the Dunlap area.More crimes equals more work that has to get done. In a supervisors eye that looks more like that officer that is putting in all this work should become promoted or congratulated. Arrest and traffic stops do not mean the police are bothering the public they are simply doing their job.
DeleteBikemaker123
After reading this article I can not agree with everything that Mr. Lawrence Sherman states. He talks about officers learning TCCC (Tactical Combat Casualty Care) which is taking care of traumatic injuries such as gunshot and stab wounds in the field. This isn’t full on surgery, however more for the victim to get stable for transport to a hospital where further medical procedures can be made. I would like to see every police officer to at least be on a basic EMT level, however some departments do not have the funds to send all their officers to medical training and it is not an officers job to treat patients. That would be considered to be the Fire Dept. and EMS’ job. A police officer's job is meant purely to make sure the threat is neutralized and the scene is clear. The negative side to all police becoming tccc certified is the lack of funding departments get to train their officers, yet thousands of officers each year have to spend their own money on their training. Making them decide on which courses they should pay for can often have the officer overlook any kind of medical training. Mr. Sherman also states that our police force has to decide “whether they are the first responders or the first line of defense”. In my opinion the police are both first responders and the first line of defense. The police are the only first responders that can catch a person in the act of a crime and prevent such actions from continuing. I also feel like this article made policing around the nation seem afraid to do their jobs. Not due to the possible dangers of their career but fearfulness of the repremant from their superiors for taking an overly aggressive stance on policing. By simply trying to do less and avoid people in general leading to a lowering incidents where force maybe needed. This ties the officers hands by making them not want to conduct things like traffic stops and turns them into a responsive force over an active one such as fire and EMS has become. With officers not actively looking for infractions that matter or even talking to people in the area of patrol what is the point of having an officer in the area? Bikemaker123
ReplyDeleteI had not considered the concept that a police force may lack funding for first responder training. Emergency care can be dispatched alongside police in a case where we already have injured, but the purpose of police being trained is specifically for instances in which police use force against a perpetrator. I feel like this response to excessive use of force by police does little to deter the behavior, but instead attempts to dissipate backlash. Gatsby456
DeleteI too also had not considered the lack of funding for the first aid training for the police. I hope there is some sort of way that there is more funding for that training because people need to realize that a lot of the time the police are first on scene and if those people want help then it would be good for those officers to know how to give first aid. I bet people would give the police more funding if they realized they would want the officers to know how to give first aid if it was their family members that needed the care -wags123
DeleteThis article focuses on the differences and the importance of the differences of a warrior and a guardian. The article mainly talks about police shootings and why many of them are not necessary. The article explains that when a police shooting happens, the warrior mindset is in place, I agree with this completely, but I also believe that there must have been a valid reason for the warrior mindset to be used. It is a warrior mindset as soon as the officer feel danger to their own life and well-being, and with this feeling they have the obligation to react in any way to save themselves. This does not mean any officer can say during anytime that they feel endangered and use physical force, but it means when it is absolutely necessary there should be no second guessing. With the guardian mindset, the one I agree with the most, which means the officer has patience and tries wholeheartedly to deescalate the situation. The writers of the article explain that if more officers become patient and try to deescalate the situation rather than act angry or above the civilian then the number of police involved violence would decrease. I agree with this aspect of the article, I believe that patience is a key skill in any occupation, especially policing, this way officers can keep stops as civil as possible, and if something goes awry they also have the ability to switch to a warrior mindset and deescalate the situation in a physical manner. All in all, I believe the guardian mindset is above the warrior mindset in importance due to the patience, which can lead to better safety and service of civilians and officers. -LW456
ReplyDeleteCan police change their mindset from warrior to guardian? That’s a good question. Criminologist, Lawrence Sherman says that, quote, “U.S. should be addressed by “reengineering” police procedures and training in ways that encouraged them to save lives, not take them.“Little changes can cause huge impacts,” Sherman said, suggesting for example requiring all patrol cars to carry hemostatic bandages, often used by the military on the battlefield, that can prevent shooting victims from bleeding to death before they get medical help”. Meanwhile, the director of the center for police equality says, quote, “such changes needed to be incorporated into a larger “political ecosystem” that recognized the racial biases built into the history of US policing and that rewarded police for perceiving their jobs as protecting the most vulnerable members of the community, rather than just catching “bad guys.”“It’s about the difference between ‘warriors’ or ‘guardians,’” he said. “First responders or first line of defense”. So what is the warrior and guardian mindset? The warrior mindset is that police believe they are war and don’t really engage with the community. Whereas the guardian mindset engages with the community to solve problems. They can’t just turn the warrior and guardian like a light switch. So can police change their mindset from warrior to guardian? They can it’s just not easy to switch. –kahilffcj456
ReplyDeleteI agree with your comment on it being difficult for the officer to make the switch from a warrior to a guardian. I do believe it can be done though, many officers who have received training to act as a guardian typically help right after the situation has de-escalated. Like you said, a switch can not just be made, and that’s why we have a huge problem in policing with the community today because a lot of the community does not understand that it can not be easily done for the officer, especially during high adrenaline situations. -as123
DeleteIn this article , the author goes into the text that the stigma that the community has against officers could possible be changed due to officers becoming live savers after shooting a suspect/subject. He then goes into talking about, you could be at the front line of defense as an officer or a first responder. He then ties that into the guardian and warrior aspect of it. I completely agree with the author at this point because as you police, at times you need to switch from warrior to guardian in a split second. When an officer has that training and mentality to do so, it can be the moment that the victim of the shooting could be saved. At the end of the day, police need to protect the community and sometimes that means shooting a threat down, but also saving the subjects life as well. The author then states that at times, the change in the community’s feelings towards policing could be changed if an officer were to shoot a threat, and from there, put the subject in their squad car and rush them to the hospital. I truly agree with this article within its direction of being a guardian and a warrior at the same time. -as123
ReplyDeleteI agree with the author that the stigma that the community has with the officers could change if they are trying to save the person that they shot. And that you have to be able to change from warrior to Guardian in seconds. The officers have to learn how to have both mindsets on at the same time. -Smiley456
DeleteAfter reading the article I think Steven Lawrence has very strong points. I was surprised that the Swat Team in Los Angeles is just now starting to provide immediate medical help to anyone injured during police incidents. I think that even if someone poses a threat, and the officers were forced to take them down by gun; they should still be given medical treatment in an attempt to save their life. Steven Lawrence went on to say that all patrol cars should carry hemostatic bandages, like the ones used by the military. I think this is a great idea, because these bandages can prevent people from bleeding to death before they can get help. One solution to help lower the police involved shootings rate is to try and slow things down. Allowing police officers to have a little more time to think, and make better decisions can make a big difference. This is something Sherriff Asbell has mentioned before, because being a police officer you have to make very quick decisions. The article mentions that larger cities have had a great deal of progress in reducing officer use of force incidents, and I think this is a good look for the future. On the other hand, the article mentions that in cities with a population of less than 10,000 people 18% of the homicides are caused by the police. I think when looking at the statistics this number looks bad, but you have to realize that in cities with less than 10,000 people not that many homicides occur. CRJB123
ReplyDeleteI think we should have training for how we could properly care for people who have been shot by the police. This would make it easier for people to get care that they need and so no one has to die at the hands of the police. Doing this for people could reinvigorate interest in supporting our law enforcement and to make it easier to trust the police. It won’t be easy, but it needs to be done. -OUTATIME456
DeleteI believe all Officers should be trained in the medical part and that'll give everyone the greatest chance of being saved. I feel like if the public see the officers trying to save there friend that was shot, they may not try to riot. I liked how you mentioned our local sheriff(Sheriff Asbell) and how he has talked about this topic before. -Smiley123
DeleteAfter reading the article “Can Police Change Their Mindset from Warriors to Guardians?” I learned a bit more on the police and shootings. I read that they give first aid to the shooting victims, I know that this is required because after the threat is taken care of then the next thing to do is to give aid to that person. With that being said, I do believe though that close to 90% or even more of police and citizen situations should be handled through a civilized manner like talking through the situation and maybe having to resort to the tazer. However, yes there are some situations that need deadly force. I hear about all these police involved shootings and I can not help but think why would they just shoot that person even though I do not know all the details a lot of those shootings should have never even happened. This goes along with the warrior and guardians of the police department. I think that the best police officers as those who have a mixture of both warrior and guardian. They use the warrior part of them when absolutely necessary. They have the guardian in them to protect and serve without deadly force but until there is a situation where deadly force is absolutely needed then that is when the warrior in them should take to light. To me if you have a force of mainly warriors then there will be a lot more problems because they are the ones who want that fight and are not as compassionate however if you have all guardians then they might be able to take charge when needed. It is good to have a mixture of both in the department or even better, a mixture of two in each officer. -wags123
ReplyDeleteI agree with you that the best police officers have both warrior and guardian. Being able to turn one off and turn the other on depending on the situation is key. I think a lot of the shootings could have been handled with just a taser but there are sometimes officers need to shoot. If they need to shoot I think that it is wise to be able to give immediate medical attention so they don't have to wait for someone. -wb123
DeleteAfter reading the article and seeing Lawrence's Sherman's views, I think that officers learning how to help citizens in life or death situations is important, even if it is because of the officer. On the other side it would also be very expensive for each department to send their officers through this training. There are pros and cons to both sides and I don't think it is a topic that will be heavily one sided. I think with the police brutality things happening it would be better if these police officers would be able to save these people before they die. Obviously there should not be innocent lives being shot but that's another topic. If worst comes to worst and someone gets shot I think it would be beneficial for the police to be able to perform immediate attention. I think it should be up to the officer if he or she wants to learn. I don't think the departments should make the officers do it. If I was an officer I would want to learn this and I think a lot of officers would too. -wb123
ReplyDeleteI agree that it will be very expensive to send officers through this type of training. I think that every officer should have to go through basic level lifesaving training other than what they already receive, and if they want even more advanced training that should be optional for officers to go through or a department to send someone through.-Legion123
DeleteI think the topic of training police to save lives and not take them has be preached for years, but we have never really done anything to put those words into motion. If a police officer has to shoot someone, I think they should give them first aid, that’s what I would do. The job of a police officer is to protect and serve their community but sometimes you have to use deadly force to stop someone who could be a threat. That doesn’t mean you shouldn’t help them, even if they were trying to kill you, it’s only at least nice and a way to deescalate the situation if you help them. Encouraging our nation’s police officers to protecting and helping people, rather than just dragging people off the street would help repair damaged relations with some communities and help build trust in between them and the community. This also boils down to the guardian and warrior mindsets and how they affect our policing. The article suggest that some shootings happen because police officers resort to violence to put an end to a situation. I somewhat agree with this because I can see that this does end a situation quickly, but I don’t think most officers want to kill their target. I think we should make it part of the training to help victims of shootings and what to do when someone is shot by the police. -OUTATIME456
ReplyDeleteAfter reading the article I think Steven Lawrence has solid focuses. I was astonished that the Swat Team in Los Angeles is now beginning to give quick medicinal assistance to anybody harmed during police episodes. I feel that regardless of whether somebody represents a risk, and the officers had to take them down; they should at present be given medicinal treatment trying to spare their life. I feel that the best cops as the individuals who have a blend of both warrior and guardian. They utilize the warrior part of them when completely essential. They have the guardian in them to secure and serve without destructive power yet until there is where dangerous power is completely required then that is the point at which the warrior in them should take to light. Empowering our country's cops to ensuring and helping individuals, as opposed to simply hauling individuals off the road would help fix harmed relations with certain networks and assist work with confiding in the middle of them and the community. On the off chance that you have a power of essentially warriors, at that point there will be significantly more issues since they are the ones who need that battle and are not as sympathetic in any case in the event that you have all guardian, at that point they may have the option to assume responsibility when required. -Smiley123
ReplyDeleteI agree with you, regardless of who is injured, officers must render aid to those who are injured. When an officer renders aid to an injured criminal, it shows the officers intentions. I believe that if an officer renders aid, they shot the criminal out of last resort. But if they do not render aid, then they shot them simply to shoot them. Illinigurl456
DeleteIn the wake of perusing the article I think Steven Lawrence has strong core interests. I was astounded that the Swat Team in Los Angeles is currently starting to give snappy restorative help to anyone hurt during police scenes. I feel that whether or not someone speaks to a hazard, and the officers needed to bring them down; they ought to at present be given medical treatment attempting to save their life. I feel that the best cops as the people who have a mix of both warrior and guardian. They use the warrior part of them when totally basic. They have the guardian in them to verify and serve without ruinous force yet until there is the place hazardous force is totally required then that is where the warrior in them should take to light. Enabling our nation's cops to guarantee and helping people, instead of basically dragging people away the street would help fix hurt relations with specific systems and help work with trusting in them and the community. If you have an intensity of basic warriors, by then, there will be essentially more issues since they are the ones who need that fight and are not as thoughtful regardless if you have all guardian, by then they may have the choice to accept accountability when required. -Smiley456
ReplyDeleteWhen we think of police shootings, we must always investigate them to the fullest. The officers who are involved must be put on administrative leave, so that all information can be collected properly. Sherman writers that most officers would struggle to receive advise from fellow officers and community activists when dealing with difficult criminals. Many officers would simply pull their guns on people instead of having patience with difficult criminals. These officers are known as Warriors. A warrior is somebody who searches, chases, and captures. When it comes to warriors and guardians, I think that you need have both types of officers in your department. The article speaks to rendering aid to those who are injured on the scene. I do believe that all officers should be trained on how to render aid to those who are injured. If there is an investigation, the officer would be able to prove that he or she shot the offender because they had no other choice. When an officer renders aid, it shows that they did not shoot the criminal on purpose, but rather a last resort. When investigating a shooting, one must look, examine, and identify the officer’s intentions whether they shot then criminal for their own protection or shot because they wanted to. Illinigurl456
ReplyDeleteI do agree with you that the information needs to be completed ingested and we have to make sure that they are actually changing the way that they are thinking. But for most departments, it would be nearly impossible to put people on administrative leave so that they can get the information correctly. Most officers would not be willing to do that unless they were getting paid the entire time that they are not at work so that they can pay their bills.-Cookie456
DeleteI agree that officers should be trained to render aid to an individual they have just used lethal force against. It is important for an officer to remember that they are working to better our communities, even if an individual tried taking their life they need to be able to move past that and move towards being the "guardian".-Blues456
DeleteThe idea of police officers shooting unarmed people is sad. People should not be getting shot especially if they are unarmed. I agree with the author and that if the people that were shot by police officers were given immediate medical attention and used those specific type of bandages that would go a long way in the public eye. Use of a firearm should be the absolute last thing an officer does when dealing with the public. Putting rules and making it more of “hassle” into place when involved in shootings should happen. Police should go through more guardian mindset training because that can help them when they are out on the streets. If they go into it with a warrior mindset, they are more likely to use their firearm when handling a situation. Police should be punished for nonlegitimate reasons for use of their firearm. As I said earlier use of their firearm should be the last thing that should cross their mind. I do support though police in the sense of them feeling threatened. Police lives do matter so if drill into their heads so much not to use firearms then it could hurt some of them, but we should have them be thinking twice before using them.-Legion123
ReplyDeleteI certainly agree with you. The thought of police officers shooting unarmed people is so sad. In today's society it's definitely happening no doubt about it. Police shootings are at an all time right now and there is nothing we can do about it. It's important that police officers stay in a warrior mindset during this tough time. And help out the community with their guardian mindset.jas456
DeleteI definitely agree with you. Police officers should not think about shooting unarmed people. That is the last thing they should grab. You are correct. Police should be punished if they did not have to use their firearms. It's ridiculous how many cops get off just because they can. It is sad for the public to see because they think that they are untouchable. We most certainly need guardian mindset training more in the industry. -Charmed123
DeleteAfter reading the article “Can Police Change Their Mindset from Warriors to Guardians?” and hearing from Lawrence Sherman’s point of view I think that officers can change the way that they do things like carrying bandages and training police to slow down their response will not doing anything if we do not change the way that they think there is a bias in the social climate we cannot train the police unless everyone else is changing their ideas in the social atmosphere. I think that being trained medically is great for all cops to have especially because all military people are and is something that works and is along the same lines of purpose. But training cops to think before they shoot and read the situation is most important no matter what. There are exceptions but most are just situations where a taser could have done the same thing. Or if we trained with accuracy to better teach cops were to shoot that will enable them but will no kill them. The warrior tactic does not work with any of those new ideas they work with the guardian and making sure that everyone is safe. When they are investigating a shooting or any other situation they must examine and identify the situation and decide whether the shooting is necessary for their own life or if it is for comfort. - Cookie456
ReplyDeleteI agree that officers can change the way that they do things like carrying badges and training police to slow down their responses. There are some cops that struggle with slowing down their response to a situation. I think that more training for police officers is a great thing and would benefit crime rates. -softball456
DeleteWarriors vs Guardian was a very interesting article to read. Carrying medical kits and taking people to the hospital after being shot is a lot of responsibility.what was very interesting to me was when he explained how officers had to give their badge numbers for example, “At the same time, officers were required to give their badge numbers and hand out cards to anyone they stopped and questioned on the street.Within two months of instituting the new policy, the number of stops recorded plunged from 7,000 to 26, Goff said. I think that the community always feel the need to record police because they don't feel safe. I think that sometimes police officers should turn off the warrior mindset and get intune with the guardian mindset. The guardian mind set is completely different than warrior. Guardians are people who are always willing to help and connected with the community. I think that both mindsets are extremely great to have as a police officer. Sometimes police officers get to caught up with being so stern and alert. Once in a while its okay to connect with others.-Jas456
ReplyDeleteI understand where you are coming from, but I say it's a good idea to have the best of both worlds. I, myself, police officers should not just do certain things just to please their community. Sometimes police officers have a valid reason for what they do, although not everyone is going to agree with the officer. Situations dictate tactics.
Delete- Canelo123
I think it is wrong that some police officers fire their firearms to avoid confrontation because they have somewhere else to be. Police officers should take their time to keep people alive and help the person committing a wrong realize what they are doing wrong and try to talk them through to stop them from whatever they are doing. If a cop fires his weapon at someone to avoid confrontation, it will make that person change his opinions on police officers. I agree with Sheram that police behavior is very critical and if a police officer has a bad behavior it will make more conflicts than there already is. In larger cities there are more of those types of police officers. I think think article really helps show that behavior is a big thing when it comes to policing. To be a good police officer you need to be concerning and also understanding. For example, if a police officer pulls someone over for speeding and they said they were speeding because their dad was in the hospital and the cops writes them a ticket, that would not be understanding. When a police officer is apprehensive it helps build a relationship with people in a community.
ReplyDelete-Softball456
I agree with what Sherman said as well because of how important it is for an officer to realize they are not doing the job for themselves as much as they are for the community. The use of lethal force has its time and place for dealing with subjects but an officer needs to be mindful of their actions when using it. -Blues123
DeleteI see the act of an officer providing first aid to someone they have injured in the line of duty as a good idea. After all, the intention of shooting an individual, in an officers case, would be to prevent any physical harm that they are about to inflict. They obviously pose no threat once they have been shot and, whether they should live or die, is not up to anyone on scene.
ReplyDeleteIt’s up to a jury, if capital punishment exists in the state, and even if it isn’t, a police officer is the last individual who should be able to make that call, if anyone. The point made about police misbehavior being linked to the promotion process was interesting to say the least. How Toronto promoted based on number of stops was absurd. You could almost say that they encouraged making up false crimes, or at the very least, hindering the everyday lives of the people. I think it boils down to officers being able to put their personal goals aside. Personal gain or their personal opinion of what should happen to an individual, should never influence the outcome of any interaction an officer has with a person. The outcome that results in the most mutual trust and respect between both parties while still upholding the law, is what should be the goal of officers. Things like providing first aid to those injured by police is a step in this direction.
-Rocky123
I agree with the article, for the most part, I do agree first responders should be educated properly and thoroughly on how to save people after a shooting, in general. Although, when a shooting does occur, there's so much that is happening behind, that there is minimal time to do, think, and react all at the same time. Police Officers aren’t robots, they are human. Police officers need time to stand their ground, to be calm and collective after a shooting that has occurred or is occurring. Police Officers need time to dissect situational shootings because situations do dictate tactics.
ReplyDeleteI love the examples the article gives with the Tulsa shooting that occurred in September, or how the Philadelphia officer drives shot victim to the hospital. All of these are valid points and shows we do need more of this and officers to be trained on how to save people’s lives after they have been shot, especially the officers themselves. Another point, I do agree with Sherman, these small changes can make a drastic change, but sometimes it’s not always that simple.
Sherman in the article says, Police should know when to stop shooting, but then again, yes to a certain extent, but also police officers do not have superpowers to know whether the threat is eliminated during the shooting, it’s just inhumane to do that. Also, Police carry for a reason as well.
Sherman might have a valid point on better training, but there's no step by step guide on how to properly handle a situation in law enforcement. Just like traffic stops, there is no guide on how to exactly do a proper traffic stop because anything can go south within a split second.
Being a police officer is definitely not an easy job.
- Canelo123
I agree with you with the fact that police are just human something as stressful and traumatic as shooting someone it could take a while before the mind really sets into what needs to be done. Maybe there is training that could aid in how to react after something traumatic happens and what a police officer should do when they are alone in a situation like that. sun456
DeleteI think this is a very difficult topic to really dissect in regards to what they are saying. First looking into the mindset of an officer who was just involved in a shooting has so many different things all running through his or her head that it is sometimes hard for an officer to think they should approach someone right away who had just made an attempt to take their life. I do feel however that officers should begin to seek this as a necessary role when they are involved in a shooting. A use of deadly force is used as the last resort attempt to have an individual comply. When an officer fires upon an individual it is to stop a threat, not to kill. The officer should make an attempt to help the individual they just engaged because they are protectors or "guardians" of the community. A warrior may have the same mindset of protecting a community but due to the more aggressive nature of a guardian they may see the threat in a different manner and may not be so inclined to try and render aid to the individual who may have injuries that could be corrected and save their life. -Blues123
ReplyDeleteAn officer has the right to deem a suspect a threat until they are no longer. Do you feel this should change? Maybe a shot in a nonlethal area of the anatomy to detain not to destroy. The only problem foreseen in the opinion of shooting nonlethal areas is the aim of the officer who is shooting. Unless they hold competitive medals for shooting or have a consistent and near perfect accuracy record, the officer or agent cannot always be trusted to deliver that shot precisely. - HUBRIS456
DeleteAfter someone is shot down no matter the reason or circumstance I believe that the police should administer first aid and try to save them. There is a lot of back and forth about this policy to carry bandages in the police car but I believe it is a good policy to have. Although, civilians should not be getting shot by the police unless absolutely necessary but if that time were to come and an officer had to release fire I believe that the humanly thing to do would to administer first aid. The person shot has done something wrong but to save the now victim would give them the benefit of the doubt to presume a new life after completing their consequences. A product of being through prison is to help the criminal to live again in a safe environment where they no longer commit crimes. I also believe that once someone is shot the police should stop shooting if able. Once someone is shot down, they are down and do not need to be brutally attacked. I also have say, in the article is said that police could be embarrassed if the criminal does not do as they say. The police should expect them to not comply because they are criminals. -Tumble456
ReplyDeleteThe mindset of an investigator should always lean toward a guardian when in the field and this is for good reason. This article speaks about how officers should attempt to render aid to an individual who they have just used lethal force against which I agree with. The use of the lethal force should be used to have the subject comply, as this use of force is not meant to "kill" an individual as much as have them comply. The use of lethal force should really be the last resort, but as with the job of law enforcement, that decision must be made in a split second. After the shooting the police must switch from their warrior mindset to their guardian mindset of protecting people. The officer would be the first on scene before any medical professional would get there and those seconds count when someone has been hit with a bullet. Officers taking victims themselves to the hospitals seems smart but a little difficult because the officer could not continue to render aid while driving in comparison to medical professionals who would be able to do that on the way to the hospital. -Blues456
ReplyDeleteI do agree with the article. I believe that everyone should at least learn to cover up a bleeding wound until the ambulance gets there, or at least know first aid. I know the cops are not doctors or nurses but it could be helpful in saving many lives and decrease deadly shootings or anything in that nature. But I could definitely see where sometimes the outcome may not always be what everyone wants it to be. I did enjoy hearing how in Philadelphia cops drive those who are hurt all the way to the hospitals even if they were the ones that caused the harm. That may also be a good idea to train cops to do that since they may be quicker than an ambulance. On the community side they may think that is awesome what changes they have made but for the law enforcement side it may be more difficult than it actually seems. It would be more difficult for the cops because they would have a lot going on on their plate. The Sherman’s article is a great idea that I believe we should at least carry bandages on hand in every law enforcement vehicle. In the article it mentions how cops are always in a rush to be onto something else. They’re in a rush during a big confrontation and instead they decide to end it super quickly. I do agree that cops should take more time, space, and to be calm while in a big situation, but everyone is human. Everyone deals with every situation a different way. -Charmed123
ReplyDeleteI think that there is no bad thing in the police trained in first aid. No one wants to kill or be killed and if a police officer feels that he or she is in a position were using their gun is the only option they should also be required to help. It’s apart of that guardian mindset. Going above and beyond for the community is exactly what the police should do. It’s not about what that person did it’s about being a guardian for the community. You could argue that the person shot could be this evil murderer but more often than not they are just a person. Having police also be the first responders could do a lot for the relationship between community and police.
ReplyDeleteJust like the article said this solution doesn’t solve the bigger problem that’s going on. I feel like we take two steps forward and one step back and sometimes it’s a really big step. The implantation of a police officer having to hand out their cards or having officers go before a court to justify their reason for the shooting is fantastic but then we have big cases like Graham vs. Connor and we move back. I think body cams are a great step forward and also introducing first aid in every cop car is grand but there is something more that needs to be done. Although saying that something needs to be done is much easier than finding a solution to the problem.
The police force is there to protect but also to serve and I feel that goes hand in hand with the guardian warrior mindset. You can’t just protect (warrior) you also have to serve (guardian) and by just putting in the simple step of first aid after someone or anyone is wounded could help so much in what the police force is having trouble with today. Sun456
In relation to your thoughts on the cards, do you believe that, although providing a sense of owning up, it also provides the sense of endangerment? Those people could hold a grudge whether serious or not that could endanger an officer if they sought out revenge. - Moon456
DeleteThis article is talking about the background of how police officers need to start changing their mindsets to guardian concept rather than a warrior concept. Police with the warrior mindset seem to have more problems with being patient when it comes to situations with criminals with guns. In the article, it talks about the factors that would lead police officers to use their firearms which led to most of the shootings to be explained because officers feel like they need to resolve the conflict quickly so that they can be somewhere else where the think they are needed. In my opinion, that is not a smart way to think as a cop because you can not rush things and the officers should be more patient when it comes to situations with someone holding a weapon. Especially, if you don’t know what that person is going through because they could have a mental illness you don’t know about and being forceful on them could trigger something. Another part of the article I found interesting was when they talk about having homeostatic bandages in police officers cars. I think that is a good thing to have not only if an officer gets shot but if an officer shoots someone they can use the bandage to stop them from bleeding to death. -HL456
ReplyDeleteI agree with you that thinking mostly with the Warrior mindset when in a shooting or other stressful environment is not always the best. Patience is a good thing when in these kinds of scenarios but I always remember that all scenarios are different, so sometimes the officer might not have time to be patient if other lives are in danger, so its a hard thing to argue depending on what is unfolding.-Bears123
DeleteIn the article, the author seems to blame the training of the officers for the direct misbehaviors of the police. The misbehavior of the police could come from a multitude of different scenarios; the cop had a bad day and maybe he's looking to take it out through the apprehensive functions of his career. The article provides a good history of the fluctuations in police shootings and includes court decisions that correlate with those numbers of shootings. Also, the article talks much on accountability in the first couple paragraphs. The accountability of suspects shot by officers by the officer who did the shooting is great because it teaches the officer or agent that use of force like that is going to make it a longer day for them in the end. He or she will have to spend time in the hospital with said shooting victim and have to jump through hoops and hoops of paperwork and verbal confrontation from superiors. - HUBRIS456
ReplyDeleteWhile reading this article I can see where the author is coming from on the basis of they are either warrior or guardian. However, I believe it plays more into the scenario in most cases. When describing the court cases of officers, those indeed were Warrior attributes but what in the case of a shootout with multiple suspects, can we be expected to maintain the guardian mindset when there are multiple threats? The Guardian vs. Warrior concept ties into our natural instincts, I believe, and while yes, some people choose to be a fulltime warrior and cause problems, certain situations call for the warrior concept. If I was an officer and was chasing a suspect and injured them and they were the only suspect I would apply medical due to the fact there is no more of a risk in the situation, but we have to look at the environment. If a cop shoots a criminal in the street and goes to apply medical, and suddenly he is surrounded by a crowd of people, couldn’t his mind form a skeptical illusion that he is danger? Could he feel as if one of these people may harm him. Not defending those who use this defence when obviously they acted out of self interest when choosing the warrior concept, but I believe the entire environment has to play a part when deciding if police can control their changing between Warrior and Guardian concept. - Moon456
ReplyDeleteI see where your coming from when because in some cases some people can't change from one mindset to another. I also think that in ways they do have control over it. In your example about shooting a criminal then the cop goes over to apply medical, the cop changed his mindset from warrior to guardian so he could help but then that could have put him in danger because there was no witness but it was his choice to change his mindset in that instance. -HL456
ReplyDeletei agree with you alot of ways but we need to change the mindset of todays police mentallity. The problem is every cop seems to get shot up and todays state of meaning is not one i would like to be in. navy456
DeleteThe main point of this article is how many police officers need to change their mindsets, and learn to be able to switch them when they are required to. This article said that some police think it should be required to carry medical supplies like they do in the military to try and save more police shooting victims, or officers themselves. I like how they stated that officers are their to protect the people, that even means the criminal. If the police do get into an altercation with a criminal they should do everything in their power to protect them as well. I like how they mentioned that people should practice not when to shoot, but when to stop shooting. Sometimes events unfold and violence is just destined to happen. When this does occur I believe officers should stop focusing on just killing the criminal if they are in a gunfight, but to try and just wound and stop them instead of killing them if it is a possibility. I know it is very hard to know when that possibility is there but if just more officers try and think about it I think it could change for the better. -Bears123
ReplyDelete"I like how they stated that officers are their to protect the people, that even means the criminal." This sentence is all too true. It is not an "US vs. THEM" moment when it comes to a police officer trying to save, protect, and preserve life in a life-threatening situation no matter whose life is in danger.
DeleteAfter reading the article, my first and foremost thought is that once a person who was deemed dangerous had been shot and not deemed not as dangerous why wouldn't you proceed with first aid? To me that just makes sense. I do not believe any officer is fueled by hatred for another life when it is necessary to use lethal force. I do not believe anyone wants to make the decision to shoot so I just seems like common sense that after a dangerous situation is dealt with you take steps to fix what damage had been done. Goff's statement that when one culture feels a certain way you can not give them training in the other direction unless they are ready to accept that training made sense. No training will make you change unless you actually buy into the training. The statistic brought up in Canada, where stops went from 7,000 to 26 is insane. That is such a huge difference and I wish this article went more in depth with that to find out if it was very successful in police relations or not. This reminds me of Bloomberg's stop and frisk laws in New York that targeted young African American's. Of course one side says it stopped gun violence where the other says the opposite. It was interesting to learn that most police shootings occur in small towns under 10,000 people. I would have imagined that it would have been Chicago, New York, or L.A. This makes me believe that smaller cities do not receive either the funding, training, or both to achieve success with officer involved shootings like bigger cities. Perhaps what will happen is that the bigger cities will set a good example and others will follow. Something else that was interesting was the Philadelphia cops must drive victims to the hospital. I have never heard of this and wonder how successful it is. CP3123
ReplyDeleteI think you make a really good point! Once a person is shot, they are obviously not as dangerous as they were prior to being shot so there should be no reason for an officer not to continue with firsts aid. As someone who is supposed to protect the constitutional rights of all people, they should do everything they can to help.
Delete--coffeeplease123
first off then are goona do this? i am a verystrong supporter of police action. There has to a be a civil action betweeb law and order . intodays world i woiuldn't know if i would like to be a cop. People gettintg shot at. I know the world which not what it was 20 years ago. In my world we still had saturday moning cartoons and everybody loved everybody but that was the 1980's. navy456
ReplyDeleteIf cops changed their mindset from being warriors to guardians and preformed first aid to individuals, I think it would change the way the public views police. It’s important for officers to be trained in first aid and be knowledgeable on how to help gunshot victims even if those shots came from the police themselves. Criminologist Lawrence Sherman states that police-caused homicides should be tackled and “reengineering police procedures and training in ways that encourage them to save lives, not take them.” Like the article says, little changes can have huge effects; in some places, cops carry hemostatic bandages in their patrol cars and in Philadelphia police drive gunshot victims to the emergency rooms. Those are totally guardian mindsets and I think its very important other states adopt this mindset as well. Director of the Center for Policing Equity at John Jay College, Phillip Atiba Goff says something I really agree with, “changes needed to be incorporated into a larger “political ecosystem” that recognized the racial biases built into the history of US policing and that rewarded police for perceiving their jobs as protecting the most vulnerable members of the community, rather than just catching bad guys.”
ReplyDelete--coffeeplease123
I agree with you that there needs to be more use of the guardian mindset, but also I feel officers must not lose sight of their warrior mindset either. It is important that officers need to know when to use both mindsets because using both can allow for better outcomes in a situation. --Brianna123
DeleteOfficers are here to save lives, not take them. Some situations are just unpredictable and leads to bad outcomes, but how you react after that can make a difference. I like how Sherman said " little changes can cause huge impacts." This really speaks to me because, can you imagine how the world would be if we all took the time to go out of our way to help someone? Even if it's the most smallest gesture, you still went out of your way to make someone feel better. To be an officer is hard and exhausting, but it is important not to let the warrior take over, but to have a proper balance with warrior and guardian. To have the best results or outcome in any situation one must have that warrior and guardian mindset work together. I think over time the police can change their mindset to balance warrior and guardian. As long as the department makes it a part of the training and everyday the department works on their guardian mindset, then eventually they will see changes.--Brianna123
ReplyDeleteThe reading talks about how making little changes could change the way people look at police. Like in shootings if a police officer is trained to perform first aid on people they had a confrontation with that would give a different look on how people look at the police is like going from a warrior mindset to deescalate a situation to being a guardian and helping the suspect they shot or harmed. Changing little things like driving a suspect to the hospital after they have been shot or helping the suspect stop the bleeding regardless of the situation that the shooting happened. I think cops should also have more psychological training in deescalating deadly situations and not just use the warrior mindset to stop a situation. That's why a lot of police homicides happen because the officers are trained from day one to have warrior mindset. There needs to be a balance between the the two mindsets. I believe that the warrior mindset needs to be used as a last resort if trying to be a guardian does not work. Checo123
ReplyDeleteThis difference between a warrior and a guardian isn't much defined concretely, as the video, however, this article describes how a warrior mindset and a guardian mindset affects the decisions when it comes to using a firearm (gun). I agree, that slowing down and letting you mind make a quick decision or even a decision at a slower pace but going through the scenarios is a good thing, however, does that save your (the police officer's) life or the citizen's life? I believe if you, the police officer, goes into a life-threatening situation with both mindsets, one will always out-weigh the over, but the most important thing is that you act with complete trust in your decision to act the way you do. Meaning, know the reason as to why you responded the way you did and how. Being a warrior AND a guardian in your mind, in my opinion, is a MUST due to the aspects of a firearm being drawn out in a situation. There is always rationality involved, emotions, and most of all danger.
ReplyDeleteTruffles123