Quote:
Originally Posted by Broadsword2004
Just curious, but for certain orders, could it maybe help if the officer explained to the person why they need them to follow the order for officer safety, and then if the person still refuses, go from there? For example:
Officer: "Ma'am, I need you to put out your cigarette."
Woman: What a ridiculous order. Stupid officer on a power trip. "I don't want to put out my cigarette."
Officer: "Ma'am, the reason I need you to put out your cigarette is for officer safety. Officers have been burned by people with cigarettes and had them flicked at their faces. It is not me trying to make your day harder."
Then go from there...?
|
There are options. One is to approach an individual as a "law enforcement machine". The other is to approach as an equal human. Each has it's drawbacks.
The very authoritative individual (command presence, in PD terms) is statistically challenged less often as that which transpires is not "personal". That seems to work best with those who have a chip on their shoulder or who are accustomed to fighting with their equals.
The understanding human is getting down to a personal level of "let's discuss this", which in some ways is an invitation to argue, or at least seems to lead to more arguments and the citizen possibly taking the interaction as a personal affront.
And the trick is to size up the person and situation within the first few seconds.
The response to "Officers have been burned by people with cigarettes and had them flicked at their faces." could have been "Oh, I see.", and de-escalation, or "Do I look like that kind of person?", with the interaction going downhill.
The other trick is to be right every time.