Author: Street Cop Training

From January 1st through May 17th, the Washington State Patrol has tallied 934 failure-to-yield incidents of drivers failing to stop for troopers who attempt to pull them over.

It’s not just the Washington State Patrol seeing this increase, though. Local departments like the Puyallup Police Department have logged 148 instances of drivers fleeing from officers from July 2021 to May 2022. In an email to NW News Network, Chief Scott Engle wrote, “I could 1,000,000% say this is completely emphatically totally unusual.”

It never ceases to amaze me when people learn that actions have consequences. Put your hand on the stove when it’s hot, and you get burned. Piss into the wind, and you will get wet. Eating a gut buster burrito warmed up in a gas station microwave at 2 AM will have explosive repercussions. These are pretty standard lessons we learn growing up and into adulthood. However, the City of Seattle is still learning this simple lesson: Defund the police, and you will have more crime. 

Back in the summer of 2020, the Seattle City Council decided to cut the law enforcement budget for the City by 50%, a decision that delighted the Ski mask-wearing and brick throwing elements of the City. And the upper classes of Yuppies believed we as humans have evolved past the need for law enforcement. So the plan was to slash the budget by half. However, the City only reached about a 17% reduction in the overall budget. So let us look over what happened after this landmark decision, cast down from on high. 

Over 400 law enforcement officers have resigned. This has set the numbers of active law enforcement in Seattle to what they were in 1990. Cops are leaving en masse for better agencies or changing careers entirely. Can you blame them? This puts faith in the saying that the grass is greener. It also shows what happens when you rail-road an entire agency just for political reasons and appear to be “more evolved.” So what happens when 400 officers walk off the job? Those who remain are overworked and overburdened, and they are well known to be unappreciated. The Seattle Police have only been able to hire seven new officers this year. Thirty-five have quit or retired so far this year, and there seems to be no end. 

Naturally, crime shot up to the stratosphere like a fentanyl-fueled rocket. The City has been set back nearly 30 years, with a 95% increase in shots fired calls and a 171% increase in people wounded by gunfire. According to FBI statistics, in the decades before the cuts, Seattle had a violent crime rate of about 500-600 per 100,000 people. Since the cuts, that has soared in just two years to about 721 per 100,000. If nothing changes, the City will see numbers of violent crimes peaking at around 900 per 100,000. That is a time-traveling achievement that will set the City back to 1995. New sexual assault and child abuse cases are not being investigated now. There are simply no detectives available. How progressive. 

The City decided to augment its police department by hiring unarmed civilians to take on some burden. The idea was to have a civilian task force assigned to duties, such as parking enforcement so that the real police could focus on updating their resumes. How has that plan panned out for Seattle? This week the City announced that they would be refunding 100,000 parking tickets and voiding another 100,000 parking tickets. So 200,000 tickets issued by civilians, removed from the police department, no longer have the authority to issue tickets. Over 10,000 vehicles were towed and impounded, and 1,700 were sold at auction. I wonder how they could have avoided that over $5,000,000 landmine?

Actions have consequences. These consequences come at a cost to the people that live in the City. All of the above has happened with a mere 17% of the budget being removed. Imagine if the City Council would have gone the full monty and had the 50% cut they voted on? Seattle would become Bartertown USA, and only Mad Max could save the day. Defunding the police has proved to be the utter failure we all knew would happen. It’s going to take more than funding to bring back officers. 

So how do we right the ship? Tell us in the comments below what should be done to fix the City. 

I would venture to say every cop who has been on the job more than a minute has heard or told an inappropriate joke. Well, 27-year department and 30-year military veteran Derek Kammerzell is no different, except his sense of humor led to a $1.5 million payout from his department.

The California Senate has approved the “Becker Bill,” which puts an end to law enforcement agencies’ ability to encrypt their radios. State Senator Josh Becker introduced Senate Bill 1000 last year as part of an effort to have law enforcement be more transparent. 

Becker stated: “This access is critical for transparency, accountability and reporting public safety activities of all kinds, like traffic accidents, disasters, and crime to the public.” 

He went on to add: “Unfortunately, there is an alarming trend in California and the nation: that is, police fully encrypting or blocking radio communication in the name of protecting personally identifiable information.”

If passed into law, the new bill would give law enforcement agencies until January 1, 2024, to implement changes in their policies and remove encrypted radios. Part of the new demands on policy changes requires steps to ensure that personal information is protected, such as license plate numbers, driver’s license numbers, and criminal records. So in effect, law enforcement agencies will be required to come up with another means to pass on “sensitive” information, and all other radio traffic must be sent through “publicly accessible” radio frequencies. 

The California Highway Patrol currently operates under a policy similar to what is required by SB 1000. They use a hybrid system in which all personal information is transmitted via secure channels while all other radio traffic is broadcasted over open networks. 

The bill suggested that law enforcement agencies comply with the confidentiality requirements by having them send private information by other means. A few examples would be using Mobile Data Terminals (MDTs), tablets, or even cell phones. 

This bill still needs to be voted on and approved by the state assembly. After that, it will move to Governor Gavin Newsom’s desk for his pending signature to become law. 

From a law enforcement standpoint, this spells trouble for some agencies with limited budgets. In addition, encrypting radios is an expensive endeavor. Now having to go back to non-secure networks after spending all the time, effort, and money to move to secure nets is going to be problematic. 

Thinking of this from the perspective of a traffic stop (and someone corrects me if I am wrong), I will need to take extra steps to find out if the vehicle is legitimate and if the person I am dealing with is who they say they are. Instead of being able to ask dispatch to run a plate or an OLN for me, I am instead going to need to take my eyes off the vehicle I have stopped to enter the information myself? 

This is a move in the wrong direction for the state of California. Which, quite frankly, has been moving at a steady pace in that wrong direction for decades now. They want to have radio networks non-secure so people can tell what first responders are doing but still require steps to prevent transmitting sensitive information that the public can hear. 

Maybe I am off base and not seeing the benefit. Tell me in the comments below if you think this is the right choice and plan. I am all for transparency, but this seems to be about hamstringing law enforcement agencies even more in California. 

On June 16, 2022, at around 1045 AM, Deputies and Police officers responded to an active shooter on Interstate 79 near Exit – 99. The Director of Emergency Management for Upshur county called in the threat. While driving home from Clarksburg, WV, he spotted the shooter opening fire on passing motorists and called in the threat. Officers from all over the region responded to take down the shooter.  

Imagine holding a grenade in your hand. If you pull the pin of the grenade and hold the grenade while keeping a firm grip on the grenade and the safety clasp what happens?  Absolutely nothing and the pin can be placed back in the grenade. But what is very close to happening? An explosion!!!!!

The 5 pre-attack/pre-flight indicators listed below are called pin-pulls. They are called this because they often occur prior to someone fleeing or fighting but not every time. Nor is it every time they happen that you’re going to have that explosion as the pin can be placed back into the grenade. These movements of the body materialize often enough prior to someone fighting or running that they should be given great attention when they transpire. Being aware of the following 5 body movements can assist law enforcement and security professionals in knowing when to be on high alert when dealing with people.

Blading – Slight, Prominent, Enhanced 

• Slight Blade – One foot set back, shoulder on the same side and possibly some torso twisting towards that side as well.
• Prominent Blade – Person is putting the shoulder towards the person they are speaking with. The prominent blader is perpendicular or near perpendicular to a possible target.
• Enhanced Blade – Blading with one hand in the pocket, usually the pocket is located on the same side that is furthest away from a potential target. The other hand is outside of clothing and often moving around during speech.
• Non-enhanced blading when coupled with a balled fist is greater cause for concern. When a person is bladed towards you, you should be on guard for a possible attack and during the enhanced blade that attack could very likely occur with a weapon.

Shoulder dropping back rapidly – If someone’s shoulder drops back rapidly, they could be quickly reaching for their wallet or they could be reaching for the momentum to propel forward with a fist to your face. If you see this behavior and don’t put your hands up for a block or move away, there is a good chance you’ll be dining on a knuckle sandwich.

Looking over the shoulder – Most law enforcement and security professionals are aware this behavior occurs when someone is looking to flee. If you are properly observing a person’s behavior you shouldn’t have any problem missing this cue, however, fleeing is not the only issue with this behavior. Assailants will sometimes look away prior to launching an attack on another person. This deceptive behavior can catch the victim off guard because a person who is not looking at you may not appear to be an eminent threat.

Charging Stance – A person facing towards you with their ventral front who lowers their body in a charging or running stance is very likely forecasting that they are coming for you. When you see this behavior prepare yourself to have to keep balanced.

Pants Lift – The lifting or pulling up of the pants happens when someone’s pants are falling down, they are about to run, and prior to fights. The preparation for battle that occurs when pants are lifted needs to be known by all people that are looking to stay safe in a dangerous world.

Not every time these behaviors occur will the proverbial explosion come to fruition; however, one should still remain on a higher alert to stay safe and stay alive!

One Monday morning, I was working a day shift. I’m not too fond of day shifts. It is boring, and I have to wake up at an ungodly hour, and sometimes go hours without a call for service. I work in a rural area, so that comes with the territory. If I do get a call, it’s more like an adult day-care situation than it was policing. “My neighbor cut their lawn too close to mine, and it blew grass clippings into my yard!” “My neighbor’s dog got out and chased my cat. Can you give him a ticket for an animal at large but please ignore that I have 40 unlicensed cats and feeding stations throughout town.” You know, the usual. 

Well, this day would prove to be different. I was sitting in my usual spot, hoping to get in a little rural interdiction. I got my warm cup of morning delight, I got a Joe Rogan podcast episode going, and my eyes were glued to my lonely stretch of highway. It was going to be a lovely sunny morning, and I would make the best out of my situation. 

Our little town has an airport, and its most frequent fliers are patients being flown from our small regional hospital to another in a major metropolitan area. A few locals have planes there, but there is not much air traffic. So try and imagine my surprise when I was dispatched to our airport to investigate a problem. I was not given very much information other than a tail number and that they needed to speak with a deputy. 

I arrive at our little airstrip, and I see one of the hospital’s planes parked outside the taxiway. The propeller was missing. I could see what appeared to be blood caked all over the front landing gear strut. Blood spattered all over the right-wing, and up under the fuselage was what appeared to be cherry pie filling. We call that in law enforcement a clue. 

As I got closer to the plane, I noticed that clumps of fur mixed in with the red matter. Not a little bit, mind you, but stuck to what I was positive was blood, was fur—deer fur, to be exact. 

Earlier that morning, just as I came on shift, this plane was scheduled to pick up a patient and take them to another hospital. Instead, the plane landed, and Bambi was in the middle of the runway. Unfortunately, the aircraft struck the deer with the prop bringing a whole new meaning to “the pink mist” as the remains bounced off the undercarriage and left-wing root. 

I have taken many car vs. deer crash reports. I am lucky that 99% of my crash reports are just that. This would be a defining moment in my career, as it was my first and so far only airplane vs. deer crash report. As with all my car vs. deer reports, I typically document evidence that the vehicle did, in fact, hit a deer, usually in the form of a picture of said dead deer. In the case of the airplane vs. deer, I never found anything more than what was smeared on the plane. Two of us spent about an hour trying to find the remains, and there was not even remotely a sign of anything on or near the runway. I have not ruled out the possibility of Santa’s reindeer at this time. 

It has been said that being a law enforcement officer gives you front-row tickets to the greatest show on earth. In our chosen career, officers will see and experience some of the funniest situations, so outlandish that if you saw them in a movie, you would say, “That cannot be real.” It is with little doubt that something different will happen every day we go to work. 

Instructing most anything in this field is serious business. We have a lot of high stakes/high consequence tasks we’re expected to accomplish, be it driving, search, or seizure, you get the picture. Because of the gravity of what we do, I have four rules to guide my teaching and lesson building. 

1. Everything I say can get the student killed. This doesn’t just mean literal death. If I provide poor instruction, it could lead to someone getting torn apart on the stand, finding themselves on the wrong side of policy, or losing in the court of public opinion. I need to ensure that what I’m providing to the student can pass a sniff test. And if it is an actual life and death task, I better have put in all of the leg work I could to ensure I’m providing the student with the best practices and methods.

2. I don’t get to tell the student how they learn. I’ve dealt with far too many classes where the instructor puts it on the student to understand what is being presented. If a student asks questions because they don’t understand, the instructor will repeat what they said exactly how they just said it. And if the student doesn’t get it, they just shrug and move on. It’s like trying to slow down and speak louder when someone doesn’t understand English. That’s not going to make it better. If a student doesn’t grasp what we’re showing them, we need to adjust what we’re presenting, either by changing how we’re explaining the material or how the material is experienced. To help us do that, we need to make sure we continue learning from multiple sources on the same topic. An easy example would be getting a good sight picture with iron sights on the pistol. Not every person will understand how to use their sights from a PowerPoint slide or two. And not every instructor will demonstrate and explain that task in the same manner. Learning from other instructors to improve our presentation is one of our duties as instructors.

3. I need to teach to the student, not the curriculum. It can be easy to fall back on our class outline and just teach the class robotically. And sometimes, that’s all the more energy you’ll get from a student body. But we should be playing our course off of the students in it. If a student body already demonstrates a firm grasp on one topic, abbreviate that portion and use the time to expound upon a more difficult section, or capture that time to add material to the end of class that didn’t make the cut initially. That spare time is the opportunity to give more to the students and improve their class experience.

4. Don’t give the student an excuse not to live up to my expectations. One of the biggest disservices we can do to our students is giving them an out if they don’t meet the performance standard for a class. Our brain is our most significant barrier to self-improvement. If it can latch onto an excuse such as “well, the instructor does this every day,” our performance will reflect that attitude. So first, as instructors, we need to ensure we’re giving good instruction, and then we need to measure and maintain the standard we’re expecting. So we measure what matters and don’t give the student an excuse.

These rules aren’t set in stone. I’m always looking to add to them or improve upon them. I also want to be clear that I didn’t come up with these myself. Unfortunately, I don’t remember who, but I’ve taken them from other instructors and added them into my lexicon. The point is we need to remember to be students as well. That’s the best way for our instruction to improve. We owe it to our students.

When reading body language, we want to analyze a person’s baseline and take things into context. A person’s baseline behavior is how they are acting in a given set of circumstances before a stimulus is introduced. Your baseline behavior will be different when you are at home alone compared to being out at a restaurant with people all around you.

Verbal words can have different meanings. If you hear the word “Pitcher” what is the first thing that comes to mind? Is it the container that you would use to pour out a drink? Or maybe you think of the baseball or softball player that throws the ball attempting to strike out a batter. If you were on a baseball field and someone said they wanted to be the pitcher you wouldn’t assume they wanted to become the Kool-aid man that knocked down walls in commercials back in the day. Same if you were in a kitchen and someone asked if you knew what cabinet the pitcher was in. You wouldn’t then be thinking about a person dressed in a uniform holding a ball and glove crouched down inside a kitchen cabinet.

Verbal words need to be taken into context and non-verbal communication is the same. If someone is standing outside in a t-shit in 5-degree weather and they fold their arms in front of their chest it is most likely not a power pose, a soothing self-hug, or that they are insecure. Instead, it’s more plausible that the person is trying to keep body heat in to keep themselves warm.

Baseline and context are the foundation of reading body language especially when using it to assist in detecting deception. Notice I use the word “assist.” This is because there is no A + B = C when it comes to detecting deception. At the end of the day, you’re looking for verifiable facts and confessions. Body language is a tool that can be used the same as statement analysis and interviewing themes. You are looking for changes in baseline that don’t make sense. You bring up someone’s name and they grasp their neck each time it is brought up, or you ask a question and someone rapidly inhales from their nose before answering. Neither movement means someone is lying, however, it is a possible red flag and I want to ask more questions about the subject.

I’m often asked “What are some movements that mean someone is lying?” The short answer is that there are no specific movements. There are no reliable body language clues to deceit. It can’t be said that a person lied when they shrugged their shoulders when they said they enjoyed spending time with you. The shoulder shrug, often representing uncertainty, could have occurred because they are unsure why you asked them if they enjoyed spending time with you. Or maybe they were thinking about something else when the movement occurred. It could also be that the shoulders were raised in excitement because they are that enthusiastic about your time spent together.

Nothing in body language is 100% and the idea that there are certain movements that specifically reveal a lie is shenanigans. Observing body language is a tool you can use to assist in finding the truth – the verifiable facts or confessions. Unfortunately, there are no behaviors only specific to lying, as all body language movements can occur for different reasons. You need to take note of a person’s baseline, take context into account, and look for changes in baseline to know when to ask more questions and search for more verifiable facts. Body language is an excellent tool to assist in detecting deception but it is not a cure-all. 

No, that title is not a joke; your eyes are not playing tricks on you. Maine U.S. Senator Susan Collins called local police to investigate a “pro-abortion rights” message written in chalk in front of her home.

Senator Collins called officers last Saturday evening to file a complaint about an anonymous message which asked her to support pro-abortion legislation. The message was written in chalk on the sidewalk, in front of her Bangor, Maine home. The chalk drawing, which was described by police as “intricate” and “non-threatening” read, “Susie, please, Mainers want WHPA—vote yes, clean up your mess.” WHPA is referring to the Women’s Health Protection Act, which if passed, would protect abortion rights in the state.

The police noted nothing suspicious around the senator’s home and concluded that the message did not meet the standards of a crime being committed. The message writer has not been identified at the time of this publication. A Bangor Public Works Department employee responded to the residence later that day to wash the chalk message off the sidewalk.

Senator Collins provided a statement to Bangor Daily News saying, “We are grateful to the Bangor police officers and the city public works employee who responded to the defacement of public property in front of our home.”

Senator Collins has recently come under fire for her opposition and efforts to block WHPA back in February due to the leaked draft opinion by the United States Supreme Court, which suggested the court might be poised to overturn the 1973 Roe v Wade case– a landmark case on the legality of abortion.

The Senate is poised to vote on the WHPA again on Wednesday May 11, 2022. Senator Collins has again indicated her intention to oppose the bill, which would need 60 votes in order to advance, a number most think the bill will not achieve. Senator Collins along with Alaska Senator Lisa Murkowski have instead introduced a different bill which would codify abortion rights while simultaneously allowing individual states to roll back protections.

What do you think? Obviously, the message was politically motivated, but is it a crime to write to your elected representative? Albeit in a very unorthodox manner. Let us know what you think in the comments below.

It goes without saying that neck restraints in law enforcement are frowned upon greatly. Given the wake of recent events, it will be a hard sell to convince the masses of these particular techniques. I am not an expert in unarmed self-defense, but I do not know what I have been trained on, and I know what I have seen work in the field. Law Enforcement agencies need to take a long hard look at their neck restraint and hold policy. 

Most agencies have banned any sort of restraint that involves using the neck. Anything remotely resembling a chokehold has been removed from virtually all agencies. I know that there isn’t even a handful that allows neck restraints in my state, and most of the ones cite a need for deadly force to be authorized. 

There are situations where a neck restraint, such as the shoulder pin restraint, could be deployed to subdue a combative subject in seconds without causing any injuries or the possibility of death. However, policies do not allow this because it “looks bad.” A severe reform needs to happen, and agencies must adjust policies accordingly. 

The shoulder pin restraint is a neck restraint that is easy to learn, easy to deploy, and it is not possible to cause death to a subject. I will not detail how to deploy this tactic since I am not an instructor, nor do I want to hear about how my article ended up getting someone hurt in a locker room from some knucklehead. So find a defensive tactics instructor that knows what they are doing and get them to educate you on this technique. I have seen this work used by the most petite officer I have ever witnessed in the field, taking down someone 3 to 4 times their size. The officer got to go home to their family, and the suspect got to spend some time at Club Fed. 

I am sure other restraints can produce a similar outcome. I can only speak intelligently on the one I have learned and seen used. Find what works and what your agency will allow. The bottom line is that force looks bad. Force is ugly. Dead people are more unappealing. Explaining why you shot someone while unarmed because they are beating an officer is ugly. Having everyone come out alive isn’t ugly. 

I am pleading with agencies to look into this to give your officers another tool to keep them safe and control subjects. Think of it like this. You have an officer about 5′ 4″ and weighs about 135 pounds soaking wet. Despite this, they have an excellent command presence and have learned the tools needed to be and stay safe. They are dealing with a 6′ 1″ 275-pound felon with outstanding warrants. Now the officer is in a struggle to gain control. They are losing the fight due to sheer power. The officer has a choice, use deadly force, or die. Wouldn’t it look better if the officer could deploy a shoulder pin restraint that leaves both officer and suspect unharmed and alive? 

What looks worse, a dead person or an alive person in handcuffs? Go to your agency’s policies on neck restraints and holds. Find out their limitations and compare them to the shoulder pin restraint. Speak with defensive tactics professionals and learn this technique. Make it part of the approved policy. Keep your officers safe and give them a better fighting chance. 

I think at one point or another, nearly every law enforcement agency in the United States had “Protect and Serve” was boldly placed on their patrol vehicles. Many agencies still include it as a part of their vehicle’s livery. The tagline sums up what I believe the broad intent is of peace officers in this nation, but it’s a platitude. To get a peek at a particular agency’s actual purpose, I find their mission statement to be much more revealing. So let’s talk about mission statements, how they should be structured, what their purpose is, and what the individual action guy can do with their agency’s mission statement.

A mission statement should answer the question, “what is your purpose?” It should be straightforward and actionable for those inside the agency, and it should align with the needs of the community the agency serves. It’s the opening to the agency’s elevator speech. I would offer up the mission of the Marine Corps rifle squad as an example. “To locate, close with, and destroy the enemy by fire and maneuver, and to repel the enemy’s assault by fire and close combat.” Now, for posterity’s sake, I’m not suggesting anyone should adopt an adversarial mission statement. But the mission is clear, and if offered no other directive, a Marine need only refer to the mission to guide their following action.

As a guide to action, the mission statement should be able to be plugged into our orientation to act as a lens through which we can process situations. We should be able to take a decision we’re going to make and compare it to our mission statement. We should be able to align our decision-making process with our mission statement. We have the black and white laws that we enforce, but the mission statement should help us balance that officer discretion side of our Profession. 

The actual crafting of a mission statement likely falls to administrators in your agency. Perhaps that can cause some distancing between the individual road cops and the lofty ideals of some desk jockey (just some light ribbing there, admin). But if you haven’t become too salty and jaded yet, I would challenge you to take your agency’s mission statement and consider it from the community you serve. Then, go out on a shift and consciously ask yourself, “are my actions on patrol supporting my agency’s mission?”

I don’t have enough years under my belt to assert that the campaign we see against our profession is new or unique. But it doesn’t take a seasoned veteran to know that we’re facing difficult times in policing. Many work in areas with people who are inarguably hostile to people wearing a badge. It is critical that we stay true to our mission and not get distracted by those that hate those of us in uniform. The opposition is loud, but I think the voting cycle in Minneapolis demonstrated that the majority of the people we serve still appreciate what we do every day. Those that appreciate what we do still make up the majority. Be excellent for those individuals.