Is anyone who speaks a related foreign language automatically an interpreter? Why? Why not? Details please that reflect your understanding of the use of an interpreter (sometimes referred to as translators).
Please Summarize book attached PLEASE
Is everyone who speaks a related foreign language automatically an interpreter? Why? Why not? Details please that reflect your understanding of the use an interpreter ( sometimes referred to as translators).
Introduction to the Chapter
Herein, training is recommended to be a two-stage academy process that allows for basic orientations and exposure, and time with field training personnel, both in class and in the field. The second academy would follow the first and provide for the in-depth training in sound de-escalation skills and qualification with these skills in much the same way as qualification is required with the service weapon or less-than-lethal weapons. Each of these academy involvements might last as long as 6 months each time. Field training officers would be involved in the academy classes and directly with those with whom they will eventually train in the field.
Subsequent to this enhanced training regime, all officers would be required to requalify minimally on a
yearly basis for all de-escalation skills learned in the same way and with at least the frequency of weapons qualifications. Requalifications procedures and retraining procedures will be developed so that problem areas can be effectively addressed and corrected before the officer returns to the field.
The selection of field training officers and their training should be scrutinized as well. The attitude of
“forget what they told you in the academy and I will show you the way it’s really done” must be abandoned and all field training officers must be on board with all the skills that are imparted to officers in training. They must be willing to insist on the rookie officer’s performance in the field once the total academy experience has been completed.
Training of police officers must be considered carefully. Although, in some detail, it is recognized that
much of what is presented must be customized and improved upon to make such proposals truly effective. Our officers need to be trained and educated in such a way as to make them experts in the material taught to them and in what they absolutely need to know in today’s environment. Once this is done, we must then hold them accountable for this expertise.
Ensuring Quality Instruction
Of abiding and perhaps overriding issues that must be addressed in the proposed training is quality control and instructor accountability. The quality of the instruction should be monitored by knowledgeable and objective senior personnel. Instructors should be accountable to senior academy personnel to assure that all training and education given conforms to the highest standards possible and is consistently so.
Additionally, the issues attendant to “soft skills” or “soft subjects” versus “hard skills” must be
understood and necessary accommodations made. There is little doubt that the focus of police training is usually about the so-called hard skills. Firearms, Taser, ASP, laws, arrest procedures, and patrol skills are just a few, to make the point. There is a tendency to pay little attention to the “soft skills.” These might include handling the mentally ill, communications skills, crisis intervention, negotiations, conflict management, empathy, and the list goes on. The focus of future police training must come to recognize the importance of the softer skills along with those called the hard skills. And maybe, just maybe, these so-called soft skills are not as soft or irrelevant as we have been led to believe. They may even be the necessary components for all future police work. The proof of the pudding may be in the tasting. We have not done the jobs we need to do with our concentration being just on the traditional hard skills. The way of the future will combine what we already teach and train about with these other, and extremely important, skills about which we have been less concerned in the past. They may be at least a partial answer to the many confrontational and trust problems that exist today between the officers in police service and the communities that we serve. Training of officers to do their jobs is one of the most important functions of the police service. Training them with the skills that they will need, in actual situations, and holding them accountable through adequate supervision and regular periodic recertification and requalification is the responsibility of every department, chief of police, field training officer, and supervisor. The lives of our officers and of the citizens we serve are at stake here. The potential liability exposure, ethical issues, and civil rights violations should be sobering, to say the least. Officers not trained properly and relevantly will not perform responsibly in today’s complex world. And, they must.
The Power of Personal Finance
Police culture consists of many components. Some are easy to spot, and some are not so easy. Several factors that influence police culture that are often overlooked and seldom discussed are personal finances, gratuities, off-duty jobs, and power.
There are comments made among more tenured officers when discussing officers graduating from the
academy. They usually comment about newly purchased vehicles on the station parking lot as a sure sign that a new class graduated. With the exception of officers with prior experience or an older person changing career paths, the police job is the first job most have had that pays better than most entry-level jobs. Also, it is certainly one of the few entry-level jobs with a great deal of responsibility. Often new, young officers are reckless with their finances and can get into debt quite easily. The extra debt or over extending can lead to the officer needing to make more income to maintain their new lifestyle. Often, they seek part-time employment, also known as off-duty jobs, to fill the gap. Many of these jobs are in establishments that serve alcohol. Experience shows that bad things can happen when the bulk of income comes from serving alcohol. Why else would they need police in the business unless the potential for trouble exists? Many officers succumb to the lure of easy money that comes with these jobs. Most of the officers do not weigh the potential for trouble that exists, such as the temptation that goes along with these jobs. Many times, married officers find new romance in this environment, which leads to hardship at home. Other officers witness this mistake and do not discourage the poor judgment. The lack of mentoring to warn against this behavior leads to acceptance by the culture.
Married officers are not the only ones who exercise poor judgement in this regard. Single officers
working in this environment also find relationships that are often toxic and that provide opportunities for something to go wrong. Yet officers embrace these establishments, and many departments do nothing to discourage it.
The need for extra income often motivates the officer to work as many part-time jobs as possible. There may be times when this extra work is in violation of department rules that regulate the number of
hours an officer can work. These rules are in place to ensure that officers are rested and clear of mind when they report for their regular duty hours. Often, overworking will lead to stress, problems at home, and alcohol abuse.
Disregarding the rules on off-duty employment is often accepted in the culture and often ignored or not
monitored by supervision. Disregarding rules, even simple rules such as those for off-duty jobs, is the beginning of a larger problem for new officers. Depending on the personality and ethics of the officer, and on how supervision reacts to disregarding rules, the officer may achieve a sense that they only need to follow the rules that they agree with or may deem that only certain rules are important. This may lead to rationalizing of their behavior when they are violating more serious rules.
It is interesting that in some departments, (as compared to the overall training), very little time is spent
on the subject of integrity, especially acceptance of gratuities, no matter how small. One of the first things a new officer learns is which businesses give free coffee, soda, or half-price food. No matter how you look at it, accepting anything free is accepting a gratuity. Failure of a rookie to
question this practice could be problematic for them. The practice of accepting free food and drinks has been a part of police culture for decades. Well-meaning merchants wishing to show their support contribute to a culture that comes to expect handouts. Soon that may turn into a culture that believes the business owes them free food or drink. This is mixed with the fourth dynamic, which is power.
This combination can be very volatile. The Power of Responsibility
Most new officers lack the life experience and maturity to understand the awesome responsibility they have accepted and are unaware of the culture into which they are born. They are part of a culture of people who have absolute power over a citizen’s freedom. That culture should not be corrupted with gratuities and a sense of entitlement. Training officers who teach these habits to their rookies either by example or by word are doing these new officers a disservice. Most of these trainers have never considered the big picture, because this practice is deemed okay and passed down through generations of officers. This acceptance and belief that this practice is normal business gives them no reason to believe a cultural change is necessary. In other words, they are teaching what they were taught, as it was deemed acceptable by those who trained them. When this happens, you may have a problematic culture that is not willing to change because they do not believe that anything is wrong. Free food and drink are only one example.
This practice can cause officers to apply the same logic and principals to other areas such as use of force and justifying the excessive use of force, especially if they are trained as described. In his article in Th e Pol i c e Ch i e f magazine, attorney and professor Thomas J. Martinelli (2015a,
2015b) addresses the issues of unconstitutional policing and the failure to train as a compensable liability. Here is part of what he had to say:
The noble cause of policing demands that all U.S. law enforcement personnel have a philosophical
appreciation of the limited authority placed on them pursuant to the U.S. Bill of Rights. Officers need to master the art of balancing constitutional limitations, due process laws, and their
survival mentality with their moral commitment to rid the streets of dangerous predators.
.S. Supreme Court case law simply demands that police procedures and practices be as fair, equitable,
and honest as possible, while implicitly acknowledging the need for all officers to maintain that mental edge of preparedness.
As problematic as this may sound, without training in that mental edge of preparedness, one’s name
could be chiseled on the wall in Washington, DC. Public servant case law recognizes the distinct difference between officer mistakes and intentional acts
of malice or omissions in “failure to train” causes of action. Unconstitutional policing is the result of poor training, poor policy implementation, and poor supervision.
There is a bright line of demarcation in failure-to-train case law between good faith mistakes and the intentional malpractice acts of unconstitutional policing. Failure to Train
Inferior training or an absence of training is considered by the courts to be organizational negligence and deliberate indifference. The cause of action for deliberate indifference requires a high standard of proof and includes, but is not limited to, agency failures to thoroughly train personnel in the current constitutional and ethical standards of care within the profession.
For over a quarter century, case law has illustrated that inadequate police training may be a violation of
federal civil rights if (a) such deliberate omissions to the training curriculum could be seen as municipal policy or custom, (b) the inadequate training was the moving force behind the constitutional rights violations, and (c) such deficient or nonexistent training was closely related to the ultimate injury alleged to be compensable.
As a law enforcement community, there is a lot of rethinking to do. And, it needs to be done quickly,
often, and well. The types of adjustments and skills mentioned here must be analyzed and tailored to meet the needs of our respective communities. But the skills must be understood in the light of their high-level importance to the overall outcome of the efforts to police more effectively. This cannot be done hit-and-miss. It must be incorporated at all levels in much the same way as is firearms training and vehicle operations. A-lick-and-a-promise will doom the process. Failure is not an option. The acceptance and trust of police as a community body is at stake. Perhaps it is at stake today as it has never been before.
Less Management, More Leadership
Management and leadership are two subjects often considered to be the same. The two concepts, however, are unique. Leadership is about directing others and owning decisions. It is also about learning from the poor decisions and sharing the lessons learned. Management is about directing others to find solutions to an array of problems in order to execute an overall plan.
In police work, supervisors are considered as managers with different degrees of authority depending
on their rank and assignment. A manager is a person who manages personnel by allowing them to find solutions without direct intervention by the manager. A leader is a person who, by use of their training and experience, takes charge strategically, directs assets, and takes part in finding the solution.
To understand leadership in policing, it is important to understand the standard definition of a leader.
The dictionary defines a leader as a person who directs a group or individuals. The history and common use of the word leader gives the person to whom we attach the term automatic credibility. It does not take into account that there are persons appointed as leaders, persons who are natural leaders, and persons who earn the title of leader through experience, hard work, and training. The definition of leader does not take into account those who do not live up to the definition. There are good leaders and there are others with the title of leader who may not deserve the recognition
Order an Essay Now & Get These Features For Free:
Turnitin Report
Formatting
Title Page
Citation
Outline
