Turning the NYPD into NYPh.D.?

What could go wrong?

Via NY Post.

NYPD cops are about to become street shrinks, under new rules that require them to use calming phrases when they have to subdue dangerous disturbed people, The Post has learned.

The touchy-feely mandate is part of a broad series of changes to the “use of force” guidelines that Commissioner Bill Bratton announced in October — following the mistaken takedown and false arrest of tennis star James Blake and the chokehold death of Eric Garner.

“I am [name] and I’m here to help,” officers should tell an emotionally disturbed person on the street, according to the 16-page pamphlet’s directives….

The cops also are told to listen closely and “Identify what the subject wants so you can determine solutions that incorporate the concerns of the subject.”

The instructions include “Emotional labeling” — by saying to the person, “You seem [insert appropriate emotion].”

….A supervisor also will be required to investigate anytime someone is injured or there’s an allegation of brutality….

Cops blasted the mandatory investigation of all low-level violence and brutality complaints as stacking the deck against them.

“They want the supervisor — probably a lieutenant — to interview the perp and ask him, ‘Do you think the officer did anything wrong?’” a source said….


This section is for comments from tammybruce.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Tammy agrees with or endorses any particular comment just because she lets it stand.
2 Comments | Leave a comment
  1. Maynard says:

    Perhaps the NYPD could hire Shifra to give advice on psychological techniques to de-escalate tense situations. Then she could tell the officers, “My professional advice is to kick that man in the ‘nads.” Who can argue with an expert?

  2. Maynard says:

    But seriously, like all bureaucratic regulations, the guidelines do seem to make some sense in an ivory tower theoretical kind of way. The point is, as quoted, these rules refer to “mentally disturbed persons”, which is presumably something other than a violent or threatening thug. This is only common sense, and any New Yorker grows up knowing the difference between the two. Leave it to a bureaucrat to try to turn common sense into a micromanaged flow chart/decision tree.

You must be logged in to post a comment.