TexasCHLforum.com

Dallas police officers involved in shootings must wait at least 72 hours before making a statement to investigators under new guidelines following the firing of an officer who shot a mentally ill man last month. The intention of the new department policy, introduced by Police Chief David Brown, is to allow an officer to rest before recounting a traumatic event.

Officers previously gave statements within hours of a shooting. Brown says a premature statement can be clouded by the emotion that comes either with an officer firing on another person or witnessing such an episode. The policy change also will give officers time to review video or other material relating to a shooting.

http://www.brownsvilleherald.com/news/t ... e75ea.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

WildBill wrote:Dallas police officers involved in shootings must wait at least 72 hours before making a statement to investigators under new guidelines following the firing of an officer who shot a mentally ill man last month. The intention of the new department policy, introduced by Police Chief David Brown, is to allow an officer to rest before recounting a traumatic event.

Officers previously gave statements within hours of a shooting. Brown says a premature statement can be clouded by the emotion that comes either with an officer firing on another person or witnessing such an episode. The policy change also will give officers time to review video or other material relating to a shooting.

http://www.brownsvilleherald.com/news/t ... e75ea.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

So then DPD will allow civilians 72 hours before talking to them?

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.

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.

But if I am involved in an adrenalin dump shooting, they would still want to interview me right away. Just saying...

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.

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.

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.

That gives them a chance to not tell a lie, as was done in a recent OIS in Dallas where the man was supposedly moving towards the officers when a neighbors home video showed that to be to the contrary.

I can see where this has good intentions to allow good officers time and materials that will ensure they are fully prepared for the statement they are required to make. However, I cannot believe the DPD doesn't see the potential abuse by "questionable" officers.

Almost no one here believes every single officer in uniform is pure of heart and intention, there are bad apples in every walk of life including law enforcement and the DPD. This policy gives them cover in the case of their bad actions catching up to them allowing full review of evidence with council to spin it how they can to arrive at the best possible defense.

I do not wish to see good cops railroaded when they do not deserve it. I do not wish to see bad cops get away with unacceptable behavior when they act criminally. Police already have their brothers in blue backing them up after a shoot - advising them to speak "not a word" and whisking them away from the scene to consult with council before making a statement. We don't need them to review all evidence and have three days to plan a defense, if it is a good shoot there would not be a problem with the way the system currently works. I believe this will only protect the ones that do not deserve the protection.

To the less learned such as I, this sounds like it gives the officer ample time to come up with a good story to match the video or other evidence. I trust all citizens will be afforded such an opportunity. In my opinion, there needs to be record of what the office thought he saw and thought happened as close to the incident as possible along with whatever story he comes up with once his mind clears of the adrenaline dump.

This just seems like bad policy to me.

When under life threatening stress your mind blocks some of the really bad details. I "did" things while under fire in Vietnam that are impossible. But, to this day when those events come to mind my memories are of what I perceived, not necessarily what happened.

Yes, give the officer time for the adrenaline to drop to normal, but 72 hours and a chance to review the happenings is enough time to concoct a lie. Or, to be coached as to the "official" version of the event.

It would seem to me that a Just Government would want to purge itself of criminals as quickly as possible. So when a DPD servant violates the Law, we need to change the rules so the Law can't possibly be violated again.

Pine Tar and Chickens Dallas People. This is the most insane thing I have ever read.

PhillRoath wrote:

WildBill wrote:Dallas police officers involved in shootings must wait at least 72 hours before making a statement to investigators under new guidelines following the firing of an officer who shot a mentally ill man last month. The intention of the new department policy, introduced by Police Chief David Brown, is to allow an officer to rest before recounting a traumatic event.

Officers previously gave statements within hours of a shooting. Brown says a premature statement can be clouded by the emotion that comes either with an officer firing on another person or witnessing such an episode. The policy change also will give officers time to review video or other material relating to a shooting.

http://www.brownsvilleherald.com/news/t ... e75ea.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

So then DPD will allow civilians 72 hours before talking to them?

The Chief had better institute the same policy for non-LEOs, or he'll justifiably face accusations of cover-up. By that I mean a DPD policy prohibiting any officer from questioning a non-LEO involved in a shooting. The rationale behind the Chief's new policy is valid, but it is just as valid when dealing with non-LEO shootings.

Chas.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

PhillRoath wrote:

WildBill wrote:Dallas police officers involved in shootings must wait at least 72 hours before making a statement to investigators under new guidelines following the firing of an officer who shot a mentally ill man last month. The intention of the new department policy, introduced by Police Chief David Brown, is to allow an officer to rest before recounting a traumatic event.

Officers previously gave statements within hours of a shooting. Brown says a premature statement can be clouded by the emotion that comes either with an officer firing on another person or witnessing such an episode. The policy change also will give officers time to review video or other material relating to a shooting.

http://www.brownsvilleherald.com/news/t ... e75ea.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

So then DPD will allow civilians 72 hours before talking to them?

The Chief had better institute the same policy for non-LEOs, or he'll justifiably face accusations of cover-up. By that I mean a DPD policy prohibiting any officer from questioning a non-LEO involved in a shooting. The rationale behind the Chief's new policy is valid, but it is just as valid when dealing with non-LEO shootings.

Chas.

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

Charles L. Cotton wrote:
The Chief had better institute the same policy for non-LEOs, or he'll justifiably face accusations of cover-up. By that I mean a DPD policy prohibiting any officer from questioning a non-LEO involved in a shooting. The rationale behind the Chief's new policy is valid, but it is just as valid when dealing with non-LEO shootings.

Chas.

+1

I think the stated reason for waiting for an interview is reasonable, but 72 hours seems long. I have seen this policy - for lesser periods IIRC -- in police union contracts as well.

But as Charles says, if it makes sense for an LEO involved in a shooting, I don't see ANY reason why is it not just as reasonable for any citizen involved in a shooting (or any other highly violent event, e.g. stabbing, beating...).

This kind of policy has been touted by Massad Ayoub and others for years, and as I said been in place in other large PDs for quite some time. Therefore I am surprised that the criminal defense community has not pushed this for criminal defendants as well, to invalidate as evidence whatever unhelpful things their clients said in the immediate aftermath (especially confessions). Maybe they have and i haven't seen it, but this is kind of big. I could see this eventually acquiring the legal weight of Miranda warnings.