Should Police Officers Be Mandatory Trauma Training?
Before reading this article I had no idea that memory, stress, and trauma had close relations to one another, and the affect they have on an officers’ working ability on a day to day basis. Being placed in a real life situation and a reenactment would most likely have two different results. Yes the officers would have some sort of traumatic experience while being involved in the reenactment and training process; but real life situations would cause a more traumatic impact on one’s life. Police departments could take a lot away from this study. Being that many police officers go through different stages of trauma, all departments should have a mandatory trauma training before any officer is sworn in. Even though the training might not give them
…show more content…
“The trauma caused by an OIS likely will impact the memories and perceptions of the officers involved” (pg. 3), There is an unclear argument that raise the question as to when should officers be interviewed concerning their observations, actions and reactions after an OIS (pg. 3). This argument is very interesting because one would think that it is best to interview someone right away because there might be possibilities where such person would not be able to recall the incident. However, most agencies follow the intuition that exhausted, injured, or otherwise impaired officers should not be questioned immediately after a traumatic event (pg. 3). This would prevent investigations from being sabotage. It is stated in the article that an analysis of officers involved in a traumatic event provide better accounts after a waiting period, so why are witnesses and suspects interviewed as soon as possible after the incident? (pg. 3). This question really opened my eyes and a few more questions came to mind. What makes a witness and suspects traumatic experiences different from a police officer’s? Why should the officers get more time to recollect and gather themselves and thoughts but witnesses and suspects are not granted those same opportunities? The same impact that police officers received would most likely be the same as the witness and the
“The trauma caused by an OIS likely will impact the memories and perceptions of the officers involved” (pg. 3), There is an unclear argument that raise the question as to when should officers be interviewed concerning their observations, actions and reactions after an OIS (pg. 3). This argument is very interesting because one would think that it is best to interview someone right away because there might be possibilities where such person would not be able to recall the incident. However, most agencies follow the intuition that exhausted, injured, or otherwise impaired officers should not be questioned immediately after a traumatic event (pg. 3). This would prevent investigations from being sabotage. It is stated in the article that an analysis of officers involved in a traumatic event provide better accounts after a waiting period, so why are witnesses and suspects interviewed as soon as possible after the incident? (pg. 3). This question really opened my eyes and a few more questions came to mind. What makes a witness and suspects traumatic experiences different from a police officer’s? Why should the officers get more time to recollect and gather themselves and thoughts but witnesses and suspects are not granted those same opportunities? The same impact that police officers received would most likely be the same as the witness and the