Yesterday in a Facebook post or comment my buddy Rich referred to a suggestion that when there are police shootings, that they be investigated using a methodology like the one used by the NTSB to investigate aviation accidents. I've long held the belief that this should be the case. I'm not sure what the threshold should be to trigger (no pun intended) these investigations. Whether it's the 'controversial' ones, shootings where the victim was unarmed, all shootings, or what. But for shootings like the George Floyd, Breonna Taylor, and Jacob Blake, I would think this method could and should be applied.
If you don't know much about how the NTSB goes about an investigation, for a high level overview, 1) the investigative team would include various stakeholders: the NTSB itself, the FAA, the aircraft manufacturer, the airline, the airline's pilot union, etc. The investigation looks into 2) the crewmembers involved, the airline's training and procedures, manuals, equipment, dispatch, ground operations, cabin operations, support functions, air trafic control, and anything and everything that touches or affects a flight. They'll talk to airline people, airport people, the crewmember's trainers, ground personnel, inflight managers, ATC people, the local FAA office, weather people, you name it. And then they issue a report that 3) details every contributing factor, no matter how minute, human factors (yes, the pilot's and cabin crew's attitude, behavior, reputation for adherence to SOPs, etc). And fiinally, the 4) make recommendations on how to operate more safely,
One important aspect of this that would have to be addressed is
liability. If in the course of the events under investigation crimes
were committed, this would NOT be a get out of jail free deal. But to
the extent possible, in order to have the kind of cooperative, open
dialogue needed to identify all the contributing factors, some kind of
protection from liability would have to be established.
1) In a police shooting, the investigative team might/should be led by a US Dept. of Justice entity, potentially falling under the Office of Inspector General. The team should include community advocates, behavioral experts to analyze situational behavior issues (with the cop AND the person who was shot, as well as ALL other involved parties), the police union, someone from the city or local government, probably a DA and a public defender, and possible another major stakeholder I'm not thinking of as I type. The investigative team members HAVE to be willing to work in
a spirit of cooperation and teamwork with the other members of the
team. While having all the stakeholders would allow a thorough
examination of all aspects, those members of the team itself simply
can't be agenda driven activists. They have to be investigators with
enough knowledge and expertise to contribute to the investigation,
participate knowledgeably in interviews, help come up with findings of
fact as they pertain to causal factors, and lastly, to make reasonable
and realistic recommendations. If a stakeholder is found to be more
interested in protecting the area they represent, the head of the team
from DOJ should correct it, and if it can't be corrected, find a
replacement for that activist advocate on the team. Let the activists and
advocates lobby the city government for changes once they have a 360ยบ
view report in hand, not to actively shape the report to suit their
selfish interests.
2) The team should interview any eyewitnesses, community representatives to evaluate the community's hostility or good relations with the police in depth, the Police Chief, Mayor, Precinct Captain, partner of and the cop who did the shooting him or herself. Nothing is sacred. If the community is hostile and assaults or physically, verbally, or in other ways creates an extreme adversarial climate toward the police that hinders peaceful accomplishment of duties, it should be addressed. The police's attitude toward the community, the cop's training, local police and civilian culture toward the police, everything on the table. The victim: was he or she a criminal, in the act of committing a crime, armed, resisting, cooperating, threatening? What was known to the cop(s) who responded, "little old lady needs help crossing the street", or "armed man, extremely dangerous, history of violent crime and attempted murder."
3) They will issue a report that lists ALL the contributing factors, from the cop, the training, equipment, the community, the victim's behavior and history, nothing sacred. The report should be thorough and extremely comprehensive.
4) And finally, they should make recommendations: to the municipality or local entity, to the mayor, police chief, police dept, to the union, etc. The recommendations might be about hiring, training, equipment, procedures, policy, staffing, you name it. And to future 'customers' of the police, whether the person who called the cops, the person whose behavior or actions prompted that call, etc.
And then people need to take it to heart. Everybody.
Never happen? Probably not. Nothing wrong with a little wishful thinking now and then.
No comments:
Post a Comment