http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/3 ... 1383132890
In a nutshell, it is an article about the Chief of Police of Salt Lake City, Utah. He has taken a different approach to dealing with crisis situations and protests, trying to get away from confrontational shows of overpowering force, and toward trying to reason with people. The libertarian in me says "right on," but the pragmatic conservative says "I'm not sold 100%." I like the idea of showing more respect to citizens, and I agree with him that officers get paid, in part, to take risks on our behalves so that we don't have to, but I'm not certain that his methods won't result in at least some increase in injury or death to officers, and I don't think that is acceptable either.In November 2011, a homeless man estimated to be in his 40s was found dead in a tent at the Occupy encampment in Salt Lake City's Pioneer Park. He died from a mix of a drug overdose and carbon monoxide poisoning from a portable heater. The incident prompted city officials to determine that it was no longer safe for the protesters to camp in the park overnight.
Salt Lake City Police Chief Chris Burbank, 46, was in charge of the eviction. But Burbank took a decidedly different approach from his counterparts in other cities who used aggressive, confrontational measures to oust their own Occupy encampments.
I am curious for any board members who are either active or former LEOs to know what you think of this guy's methods. Some of the discussions here have gotten heated over how police interact with citizens, and it seems to me that it is in the interests of police agencies to be constantly self-examining for better ways to do things. As culture changes, so should they be willing to change as necessary to meet the changing needs of the culture. . . . .so long as they can do so without surrendering good standards of police work.
Discuss.
(For the record, I don't usually read HuffPo. This article showed up on my FaceBook timeline, which is how it got my attention.)