Constructive criticism vs MMQB'ing

[PtownVAMike]

Hey all,

During the time I've been on this forum (both as a lurker and as a member), I've seen numerous posts where both civilians and LEOs discuss and analyze the actions of other officers (whether it comes from videos, articles or personal experiences).

In the case of civilians posting about the actions of LEOs, they are told that the officers here don't second-guess or MMQB the decisions of officers who are on scene (whatever the situation may be). However, when LEOs are discussing such situations among themselves, they are free to critique the on-scene officers' actions, in terms of how they could've handled the situations differently or better.

I'll probably answer my own question, but I think it's because we civilians are outside the profession and thus we don't know much about how LE is truly done. On the other hand, the officers are "on the inside" as it were, and therefore are in a much better position to critique their fellow officers (even though they weren't there).

I definitely agree with the "no MMQB" policy/stance, but just wanted to share my thoughts on it.

Thanks!

[Iowa #1603]

Ever hear the story about "I can beat on my brother but you can't beat on my brother" ?

I really don't have a problem talking about the pro's and con's of incidents with civilians. What gets my gall is when someone who watches COPS every week tries to tell me what an officer did wrong and why they should have done it differently.



Truthfully---------------police officers are hardest on their own---------------ONCE THEY HAVE INVESTIGATED THE FACTS and have what they believe is the full story.

Our profession is the only one that I am aware of that have their own paid killers (Internal Affairs officers who actively try to find "bad cops") who prey on the ranks.

[Lady Blue]

Many of us will tear apart an officers actions in an effort to learn from them and to train ourselves for the future. Most of this is done far from the public eye, and as Iowa stated, it is done with as much information as possible.

The big difference is that we do it to better ourselves and not out of malice. I cannot say that for a large number of civilians.

[BNWS]

Where officers criticism is based on a knowledge of realistic procedures and laws, civilians criticism is based on procedures they see on TV. A choreographed fight or shoot out never resembles he real thing. And just to be clear we don't mind our actions being judged by civilians , we just prefer it is done in court where they have all the information. We call those civilian critics a jury.

[Max K]

Where officers criticism is based on a knowledge of realistic procedures and laws, civilians criticism is based on procedures they see on TV. A choreographed fight or shoot out never resembles he real thing. And just to be clear we don't mind our actions being judged by civilians , we just prefer it is done in court where they have all the information. We call those civilian critics a jury.

I once read somewhere that the most thorough way to refute an error is to show the psychology that created the error in the first place. For example, the idea of "that cop could have just shot him in the leg, he didn't have to kill him" comes up regularly, in Internet comments after a shooting. How do so many people come up with this idea? TV and movies? I think that's a big part of it. But: nobody has ever heard of the real police doing that (shooting someone in the leg). So there is a conflict between what the movie police do and what the real police do. How is this conflict solved? Apparently, people consider the movie-cop procedures to be more authentic, honorable and normative than real-cop procedures. Why? Maybe there are two reasons: 1. people are more familiar with how movie cops act than real cops, and 2. it is easier to go by what you already know (or think you know) than to learn something new.

Then, there's the universal human desire to feel important: I think that might be behind some of the more arrogant posts here where a civilian lectures the police on how to do police work and what mistakes to avoid.

[Cannady]

A large majority of the civilians that try to bring things into this forum and get opinions on are based on world star hip hop videos, youtube, or short clips from recent news media. They aren't things that have been thoroughly investigated and usually the OP is trying to stir the pot. If someone really wanted to have a critique session of things that have already been investigated then we can do that, but it isn't usually something that they are interested in after the fact. I've been in classes where we dissected numerous videos including Dinkheller, Vetter, and several other horrific videos. The other difference is that we were doing so in order to try and learn from things that occurred in those incidents and not to rake people over the coals.

[Shush]

Here is the difference....

When something goes sideways and you say "he shouldn't have done that!" or "If it had been me, I would have....." -- yeah, that's MMQB'ing. Too often people think that because they are able to see it outside of the stress induced environment, that they would do so much better had it actually been them.

Then there is "Let's see exactly what went wrong, so we can learn from it." That's a critique. That's saying "you know what, I don't know if my actual action/reaction would have been any different given the situation, but lets learn and mentally train from it, so if it happens again, the results WILL be different."

Two completely different things.

[IAM Rand]

Couple of things here. Some of the civilians that post here are using a rolled up newspaper on your dogs nose thing. Either that or rubbing the dogs nose in the mess. I think most LEOs that post here will agree that we are not perfect. As much as the agencies try to screen out the "Bad ones" it is sometimes very difficult. Those that come here to post something that a cop had done wrong, whether intentional or not(the cop that is not the person posting), is not always looking to get constructive criticism on it just, but rather they are trying to put us down.

Another reason we don't discuss what another officer has done right or wrong is that because we don't want to share what we do in law enforcement. Criminals already have enough time to study what we do and ways to defeat it why should we advertise how we do things and out tactics.

Lastly, it is like being a doctor. If a doctor kills a patient or a patient dies while they are in the care of a doctor they have the "Death Panels" Mortality meetings or what ever they call them. The MMQB with the other doctors. It is my understanding that what they talk about in there stays in there. My assumption for the reason it stays in there is the doctors are more likely to be open about what they did and should have done because it would not be used against them in a civil setting.

Of course we will stand around at Duncan Donuts with other cops and talk about what should have been done and what we would have done in that situation. It is away from the public eye and it is easier, I think, to talk to other cops about what should have happened with an incident including one where we were involved in it.

Don't expect to come here and have us MMQB other officers when it will not only be used against us here, but on the streets.

[JasperST]

I don't see the point in criticizing Officer actions from the civilian standpoint. What for? There are more qualified people here to judge the matter and they hear plenty enough from the peanut gallery as it is. I'm a contractor and might criticize another contractor's actions on a contractor board. It's sorta the stick with what you know philosophy, otherwise clam up and learn.

[PtownVAMike]

Thanks guys for all the informative responses. It's pretty much what I was thinking already (based on what I've learned from this board).

[Kieth M.]

Been in LE for something like 35 years.

It seems to me that it's "okay" to MMQB when we watch, read, or hear about a POSITIVE commendable copper caper, right? Because I can do that, quickly, I reserve the right to think something smells and looks like it will get someone in trouble.

I have to remember that, during those 35 years, I worked with/around guys (and GIRLS) who:

• Committed murder (four, at last count, including a girl).
• Burglarized (a couple while on duty!).
• Falsified evidence.
• Had sex with teenagers (this includes a woman).
• Committed forcible kidnap & rape on duty.
• Auto theft.
• Committed insurance fraud (mysteriously stolen/burnt car).
• Committed worker's comp fraud (caught on camera doing things their doctor said impossible).
• Used cocaine and other drugs.

And even when I jump to the conclusion that someone's automatically a hero, I have to remember a one time partner, who made an inert bomb at home, planted it on the bus of the 1984 Turkish Olympic team so he could "find it, diffuse it by pulling the red wire with just seconds left" and bask in the glory headed his way. A major investigation of all his past exploits found that most of the letters of commendation for off-duty acts of heroism, were all forged/faked.

You can criticize MMQB's all you want, it's okay, but some of them (like me) speak from the experience of having other cops disappoint them.

[hemicop]

Another site I visit has a ton of people criticizing what LE does. I guess that's fair. My only gripe is that what they post are half-truths, fabrications, lies or opinions coming from a point of unknowing. When other LEOs critque an event I have no problem as they're coming from a point of experience or at least training (I hope). The way I see it, if a LEO truly believes what he does is right, both in an incident & as a profession, he should have no problem shouldering the critiques and answering the often seemingly dumb questions.

[Kieth M.]

I have to say, too, that I worked with absolute geniuses and people dumb as a post. A couple of the geniuses went to prison, or got fired. A couple of the dumb ones did some really 'heads up' policing and caught a bad guy. I know, from personal experience that cops can and WILL make mistakes. I, myself, have been the dim bulb on more than a few occasions. I think it's pretty naïve that merely because some guy or girl has a badge, gun, uniform, and they've pushed a black & white around for a few hours, that they deserve every break, and 'no-fly' zone when it's opinion time.

Seems to me that the first thing we ask of (so-called) "moderate" Muslim leaders, is why they aren't criticizing the crazies.

We also want to know why the (so-called) reverends Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton aren't raising fuss when black people do bad things to white people.

IMO, we need to often be MORE critical of our own so we don't get accused of the 'blue wall of silence' crap.

[PtownVAMike]

Hemicop and Kieth M,

I agree with what both of you have said. I also think that the phrase "we don't second-guess, MMQB or criticize the actions of other officers" can be translated to: "We will not throw another LEO under the bus just to suit your agenda".

And like I said before, I agree with that sentiment, especially with the trolls and other assorted types that grace us with their presence from time to time...........

[Lady Blue]

I will not throw a brother or sister under the bus, yet neither will I cover for one who is wrong. There is a difference between a mistake and being a dirty cop. I HATE the ones who give us all a bad name. This is an honorable profession, and the vast majority of officers do the job with honor. Those who don't are lower than whale feces in my opinion. If you are dirty you belong in the back seat like every other piece of fecal matter. The badge does not give you a pass.