By Anthony Gangi, C1 Columnist
Missed last Friday’s scenario? Read it here before checking out the responses below.
The scenario posted last week presents quite a dilemma that stemmed from two different perspectives, highlighting the need to act on one hand and potential liability on the other. The statement presented below from one of our readers truly states the conflict and why that conflict exists.
“I can see both sides of the coin. On one hand, yes a very serious violation of security procedure has occurred. However, If I was satisfied that the officer’s actions were motivated only by saving his coworker, I wouldn’t write [him] up; but I would make it clear the seriousness of the issue, and that the only reason that I would not write [him] up is because of the circumstances,” C1 user Arcadiaredneck said.
This statement reminds us of the need for discipline, but also reminds us that there is an internal need to act.
“The second officer did what he thought was necessary at that time. As a supervisor, because it was a security breach and against policy, I would probably do a counseling form just to cover both of us. It wasn’t something that was planned by either of the officers.
“And I must say, if I was placed in that situation, I would most probably do the same thing. I couldn’t, in good conscious, watch one of my officers get hurt while I stood idly by. Was it the right choice to bust in there and leave the door unsecured? Maybe not, but hindsight is always 20/20. It was his instinctual decision when he saw what was going on. All we have is each other, and we are always outnumbered. He did what I hope any of us would do to protect the family,” C1 user Rdnkco said.
But what about if that internal need to react jeopardizes the safety of the institution and the response team?
“It is completely possible for such a situation to be manufactured by the prisoners just to draw the second officer, and his keys, into the dorm. Remember the god awful mess at New Mexico many years ago started just like this” C1 user Robertrwalsh posted. “The officer’s failure to follow security procedures should at minimum be documented. Whether any discipline beyond that is necessary would be, and should be, decided further up the food chain than the first level supervisor anyway. The security precaution was in place for a reason, and a pretty good reason at that.”
This statement highlights a possible ploy: If security had been compromised, would the second officer then be disciplined more severely? If so, where is the consistency? Do we only make our determination of the level of discipline based on the outcome of the violation?
I want to close with a few quotes from our readers that really highlight the conflict presented in the scenario. The first quote highlights the multiple perspectives that will be looking down on the choice made by the second officer, and the second quote highlights a possible solution that begins with communication at a ground level.
“This is one of those scenarios where the perceived right and wrong depends upon what level the staff member operates at, because that influences perspective. Officers back officers; most would look down on an officer not responding. Sergeant backs officers, and might use a verbal reprimand to say the matter was addressed if old school or solid, while a careful or promotion-minded sergeant will burn that officer,” MICC Dawg unit writes. “Or any sergeant may have to slap on some paperwork as he knows that this needs to be on paper if the officer has a pattern of doing things wrong, picking and choosing policies.
“Higher levels are aware of the other concerns, but also must protect the facility and the department, and they’re aware of how it appears if an officer violates policy, responds to a use of force inappropriately and the legal concerns that brings up. They are also aware that some officers springboard off of one decent act that’s questionable to justify all sorts of wrong stuff.”
Dhitter writes: “When an institution’s policies require such strict adherence that any deviation risks a serious breach, the easy thing is to blame line staff. The real point of consideration in my opinion is how could the policies have been better written to give staff more options? To sacrifice a staff member for the integrity of the institution’s security is hardly a smorgasbord of choices or options. Let’s face it, most facilities do not want to provide either the necessary manpower, training, equipment or design features necessary to a safe working environment.
“In my opinion, such a choice is but a false dichotomy. It remains incumbent upon administration to design policies with enough built-in redundancy that they can withstand alternative actions or deviations from policy in ways that give staff a more flexible framework to operate from within.”
Again, this article was built to inform and hopefully provides the readers with a sense of how complicated our profession can be. These are real life scenarios that occur within seconds. The second officer had to make a choice with little time to think it through. Thus instinct became the only policy he knew to follow. Those in the higher positions that are paid to evaluate the decisions of those on the front line must remember one thing; the person going through this stressful situation is limited on time.
When we are limited on time and logic can no longer be seen clearly, we act on instinct. It is instinct that has helped in our evolution and survival. Policy cannot encompass everything, but has been put in place to secure the safety of everyone. We took this job knowing that our life may matter less when it comes to the safety and security of, not just the institution, but the public as a whole. That is the sacrifice we make every day and law enforcement professionals.
This scenario is real life and, for those who read this, this is the first of many scenarios that will present to you just a glimpse of what it is like to be in the shadows of law enforcement.