TexasCHLforum.com

suthdj wrote:I would suspect this policy is more to protect the DPD then any LEO that works for them.

I can see the "canned" DPD Press releases now: "We don't have a clue what happened and we will ask those officers involved in 3 days for their final story. We are seeking the publics help with eyewitness accounts and video's. If anybody saw or recorded anything please contact the Dallas Public Affairs Office immediately so we can get to the bottom of this tragic incident"

What this really means: We will "sniff the wind" for 3 days and see what information surfaces before we commit to anything written on paper that is legally binding.

Sounds like something straight out of the Dukes of Hazard. Boss Hogg for Chief of the DPD!!

The mentally ill shooting wasn't DPD video, so they wouldn't have had that to review before making an errant statement. Now that the public knows, just hold the video until after the 72hrs & the report is filed.

Help me out here. Why do we need the PD to have the same policy for non-LEOs? Do we have to give them our side immediately? I thought we did not and were perfectly within our rights to tell them that we would be glad to cooperate, but would like a few days to calm down and then would be glad to talk with them with our lawyer. It may not work exactly like that, but I'm too far off, right?

rbwhatever1 wrote:What this really means: We will "sniff the wind" for 3 days and see what information surfaces before we commit to anything written on paper that is legally binding.

That's exactly how I read it.

Adaline dumps leave you shaky for quite awhile I fell in a sink hole and barely got out of it by the skin of my teeth
It took me a week to get over the incident

C-dub wrote:Help me out here. Why do we need the PD to have the same policy for non-LEOs? Do we have to give them our side immediately? I thought we did not and were perfectly within our rights to tell them that we would be glad to cooperate, but would like a few days to calm down and then would be glad to talk with them with our lawyer. It may not work exactly like that, but I'm too far off, right?

Here's why it matters, C-dub. imagine you're headed home from an outing at Elm Fork when, unfortunately, you have to use your weapon when you're stopped at a light, and Joe Dallas tries to car-jack you. You successfully save your life, and then the cops ask you to relate to them what happened. Your heart is still going 45 miles per hour, but you have the presence of mind to say "i'd like to hold off on that for a few days, guys, if you don't mind, till after I talk with my attorney."

Where do you think you're going to spend those 3 days?

And while you're sitting in the custody of Dallas PD (maybe not in a jail cell, but certainly in an interview room) can you imagine the detective walking in and saying "Look, we know you wanna get home to Mrs C-dub... Just tell us what we need to know, and you can be on your way."

n5wd wrote:

C-dub wrote:Help me out here. Why do we need the PD to have the same policy for non-LEOs? Do we have to give them our side immediately? I thought we did not and were perfectly within our rights to tell them that we would be glad to cooperate, but would like a few days to calm down and then would be glad to talk with them with our lawyer. It may not work exactly like that, but I'm too far off, right?

Here's why it matters, C-dub. imagine you're headed home from an outing at Elm Fork when, unfortunately, you have to use your weapon when you're stopped at a light, and Joe Dallas tries to car-jack you. You successfully save your life, and then the cops ask you to relate to them what happened. Your heart is still going 45 miles per hour, but you have the presence of mind to say "i'd like to hold off on that for a few days, guys, if you don't mind, till after I talk with my attorney."

Where do you think you're going to spend those 3 days?

And while you're sitting in the custody of Dallas PD (maybe not in a jail cell, but certainly in an interview room) can you imagine the detective walking in and saying "Look, we know you wanna get home to Mrs C-dub... Just tell us what we need to know, and you can be on your way."

My thoughts exactly.

I hate to think poorly of police officers but I have to agree that this is one of the dumbest policies I have ever heard of, if the actual policy is how it was reported. In the case of a real officer involved shooting, the adrenaline is dumped well before he gets downtown to make a statement (well, in my experience it was). After all, it is not going to be straight from pulling the trigger to downtown. There will be some time at the scene still securing the prisoner/body, evidence, getting back up, etc.

At SAPD, when an officer is involved in a shooting, he talks to the union attorney and a psychologist before making a statement. In fact, I never did talk to the detectives, just to the lawyer. He took my statement and then went over to the detectives to see what questions they had. He came back and we went over the questions. This process was repeated until the statement met all of the detectives needs for the time. It was probably about two hours between me actually pulling the trigger and the detectives getting my first statement.

Thinking back, I talked with the psychologist first while my partner talked with the attorney. Then those two swapped places, so my partner might not have had quite as long and did not talk with the psychologist before making the statement. But the detective also never talked directly to him.

If I were Dallas' chief, I would probably make the policy something along these lines. If i were the union president, I would definitely be screaming for something along these lines. Waiting three days is going to look like a coverup, IMO.

Maybe it's a well intended policy, but it sure gives officers time to think about how to make the story match the situation.. And likely figure out exactly what evidence there is (other camera footage).

Chas has a great idea - the policy should be across the board for everyone involved in a shooting.. I mean if the goal is accuracy vs adrenaline, why apply the policy to just the PD?

TxRVer wrote:

WildBill wrote:The policy change also will give officers time to review video or other material relating to a shooting.

In the future DPD won't be embarrassed by statements that don't match the video.

ding...ding...ding! It allows time for any witnesses to make a statement, or videos to be made public, before the officer gives his explanation for his actions...an obvious attempt to protect both the officers and the department.

When talking to people I have been amazed at the lack of understanding/apathy regarding this policy. When I asked if non-LEO should be afforded the same consideration if involved in a shooting, I was actually told by one person if I wanted to shoot people so badly I needed to become a cop. The police officer standing next to me at the time the statement was made looked at me, shook his head and walked off in disgust.

K.Mooneyham wrote:

Jumping Frog wrote:Interviewing an officer immediately after a shooting has been proven to yield inaccurate results while the officer is still recovering from a full-blown adrenalin dump.

Not sure 72 hours is necessary however, seems like 24 or 48 would be more reasonable. Also, testimony should not be tainted by exposure to video or other evidence.

I was thinking just the same thing before I got down to your comment. I agree it isn't fair to the officer to hem them up immediately after the shooting, but 24 hours does seem like a much more appropriate amount of time. After 3 days, it would seem that the details might get a bit fuzzy.

I can't cite the source, but from what I remember, 3 days is based on studies of memory after such events, so it's not a number they just pulled out of the air.

Here's an interesting read on the subject. I think 72 hours is too long to wait.

http://www.traumaregister.co.uk/Article ... mnesia.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

VMI77 wrote:

K.Mooneyham wrote:

Jumping Frog wrote:Interviewing an officer immediately after a shooting has been proven to yield inaccurate results while the officer is still recovering from a full-blown adrenalin dump.

Not sure 72 hours is necessary however, seems like 24 or 48 would be more reasonable. Also, testimony should not be tainted by exposure to video or other evidence.

I was thinking just the same thing before I got down to your comment. I agree it isn't fair to the officer to hem them up immediately after the shooting, but 24 hours does seem like a much more appropriate amount of time. After 3 days, it would seem that the details might get a bit fuzzy.

I can't cite the source, but from what I remember, 3 days is based on studies of memory after such events, so it's not a number they just pulled out of the air.

You are correct. I have read that else where over the years and having been through it, it makes sense. Lets not forget this is a criminal investigation. The simplest solution will be for all LEO's to just take the 5th, which is what the attorneys want anyhow, and then there won't be any issue about when the statement was made