May 04, 2004

The Problem With 'Action-Reaction' Training

Further Aspects Of Police Training That Need To Be Examined

Returning again to the inquest, the central theme of the testimony of Dr. William Lewinski was the so-called "action-reaction" principle. To over-simplify, this principle states that in any given deadly-force situation, an officer simply does not have enough time to draw and fire his weapons (or, conceivably, even to fire his weapon if already drawn) when faced with an armed subject who himself is ready to fire.

We don't argue directly with the research which maps out reaction times based upon the bio-mechanics and brain functions of such situations. But we're fixtaed at the moment upon something that we found via a KGW report on a previous incident involving Officer Jason Sery in which he nearly shot someone.

That story is built out of various documents KGW obtained through a public records request and includes this interview transcript between Sery and police detectives in which they discuss that earlier incident.

(Not so incidentally, the interview establishes early on that detectives had previously asked Sery about any other deadly-force incidents in which he was involved and he indicated to them that there weren't any. Oops.)

Near the end of the interview, Sery is asked by the interviewing detective about his training and how it might have played into his perception of a threat in the Perez incident.

Courtney: And then I think finally we want to cover, uh, and expound on any training that you've had in relation to responding to perceived threat such as in the PEREZ case, if you can expound on any training that you've had.

Sery: Um, you know just in the academy and, uh, it's porbably been an in-service too, I can't think of exactly the, the dates but, um, definitely the action reaction, I know that's, that's definitely pounded in our head, um.

Courtney: And what is that, tell, tell me what this is.

Sery: Uh, just showing that a person's action, they can do something much quicker than you can react to it, even if you're prepared and know exactly what they're going to do, in the case, you know, I shared with Mr. Matasar was exactly that where, um, the scenario where we had, I was in the academy, Portland's Academy and, um, one of the training officers had a, a pistol with blanks to his head and he wasn't even saying I'm suicidal, they, they went through it, he said okay this is a scenario, um, I have it to my head, and I'm not going to shoot myself, he goes I'm going to shoot you and as soon as you see the pistol leave my head, uh, fire, and I, he had at least one maybe two rounds off before I was able to return fire and my weapon was drawn and aimed and, and just seeing how quickly that happens and how my reaction is so much slower to someone's action when they know what they're going to do.

Now, as we said, we don't dispute the science behind this mis-match between action and reaction. But does anyone else read the above and get at least a slight sense that perhaps they drill this "action-reaction" thing into officers' heads so strongly that some of these officers might overcompensate and, if not get outright trigger happy at least get twitchy with their weapons?

Our question would be: How well does officer training balance out an understanding of the action-reaction principles -- which, if the above is any indication, might be drilled into them rather severely -- with the accumulation of skills which would develop in them a wider understanding of how to keep situations from even getting that far?

Posted at 10:10 PM | PermalinkComments (4) | TrackBacks (0)
More In Law Enforcement & Legal Issues

« Previous Next »