| Calendar | Add A Class | College Degrees | Online Classes | DVDs & CDs | On-site Classes | Advertising | Contact Us |
 

 

 

 

Sign up for FREE
training articles &
class updates
Your Email:

 

 

cleardot.gif (807 bytes)

 

cleardot.gif (807 bytes)

line-small.gif (227 bytes)     July 2010

Important: To ensure future delivery of the Policetraining.net newsletter to your inbox (not bulk or junk folders) please add our "From" address info@policetraining.net to your address book or e-mail whitelist.

in this issue . . .

 

- Sponsored By -
 

line-small.gif (227 bytes)

 by Tony Scotti

Most of the driving public can opt out of driving in bad weather – but CEO’s didn’t get to be CEO’s because they stayed home when it snowed. So there is a part of the driving population that has no choice but to drive in weather that sane people would avoid. Part of that population is Security/Executive Drivers. When the weather goes bad consideration has to be given to what you drive and how you drive it.

HOW YOU DRIVE
Changes in the weather conditions can challenge the most experienced driver. As an example:  Driving from dry conditions to ice decreases the capability of the vehicle by 65%, driving from snow to ice decreases the vehicles capability by 49%. This decrease is the laws of physics at work.  When moving from one surface to another; you are suddenly driving a car with much less capability. And to make life more exciting this change in capability all happens in tenths of seconds. This quick change in vehicle capability would be difficult for the most experience driver to control. 

WHAT YOU DRIVE - 4WD/AWD
There are so many options to choose from that it is easy to get confused by all the different drive systems offered by the car manufactures.  There are 3 basic systems - Part-time 4WD - Full-time 4WD, and AWD. We could spend a lot time talking about the differences between them all but AWD is best for bad weather, and 4WD is close behind.
But - No 4WD or AWD system will make driving safer, especially in snow and ice. If there is less adhesion between the tire and the road, the vehicles capability is greatly diminished. The problem is that most 4WD/AWD drivers think they have a vehicle that can defy the laws of physics. However, once the vehicle is moving the laws of physics for all vehicles are equal.

Here is the issue with AWD or 4WD – they can accelerate in snow almost as quickly as on dry roads, but that does not mean they stop or corner any better than a 2WD system can, in fact 4WD and AWD do very little to help while turning,  and offer no additional braking capability on wet, snowy roads. Once moving, the physics of 2WD, 4WD, and AWD systems are pretty much the same.
Here are some of the general bits of advice.

Changes in the weather conditions can challenge the most experienced driver.

Clean your windshield, back window and side mirrors.

The problem is that most 4WD/AWD drivers think they have a vehicle that can defy the laws of physics. However, once the vehicle is moving the laws of physics for all vehicles are equal.

A 4WD vehicle will do a better job of getting the vehicle moving than a 2WD vehicle. But once the brakes are applied a 4WD is like all other vehicles, the driver is at the mercy of the tire road adhesion.

If you are on a steep hill and in packed snow 4WD is a big help, but if you are on the same hill and the driving up the same hill on ice it’s of very little help.

Only tire chains increase traction of rubber tires on snow and ice significantly.

Although this has been said many times and many ways, stopping on snow and ice may require up to 10 times the distance as stopping in normal conditions.

When you turn the steering wheel to drive around a corner or avoid a problem it makes no difference what drive system you have under you – you are at the mercy of the tire road adhesion – if it is icy and that adhesion is low you could be in for an exciting ride.

This is another one of those warnings that everyone seems to know but most everyone pays no attention to. Be careful on bridges, overpasses and infrequently traveled roads, which will freeze first.

When driving in bad weather the best advice is slow down.

Securitydriver.com

 

line-small.gif (227 bytes)

  

By John E Reid & Associates

In an ideal world, an interview or interrogation would always be conducted in a room specifically designed for that purpose. Most businesses, however, do not have a room set aside for interviewing job applicants or employees suspected of acts of wrong-doing. Consequently, interviews may be conducted in an open cubical, a business office, a conference room or even a storage facility. With a little preparation, many of these spaces can be converted into a rather satisfactory interviewing room.

Importance of privacy: Any person who is motivated to withhold information should be interviewed in private. This group includes job applicants, victims, witnesses and employees suspected of wrongdoing. Privacy is necessary because people almost always share sensitive information with only one person at a time. Therefore, the most critical aspect to assure a sense of privacy is to conduct interviews one on one. That is, there should only be two people in the room, the interviewer and the subject. If this is not feasible, the interviewer should sit about 4ð - 5 feet in front of the subject, while the 2nd party (another investigator) should sit off to the side.

It is important that the interview room have a door that can be closed so the subject will not be concerned about someone outside of the room overhearing what is being discussed. For much the same reason, it is important to keep electronic recording devices, such as a tape recorder or camcorder, inconspicuous. This is not to suggest that all electronic recording must be surreptitious. In fact, many states require two-party consent to electronically record a conversation. However, it is a pivotal misunderstanding of human behavior to believe that a subject would candidly make admissions against self interest while staring at a camcorder or looking down at a tape recorder placed in plain view on top of a desk. Therefore, a camcorder should be placed off to the side of the subject and a tape recorder on the floor or other place which is concealed from the subject's constant view.

Distractions: Controlling auditory distractions is more important than visual distractions within a temporary interview room. If a subject can hear outside voices behind a closed door, he or she may be concerned that those on the outside may also be able to overhear the interview. Even in the most basic interview environment, internal auditory distractions can easily be eliminated. This simply requires disconnecting a desk phone, turning off a beeper or cell phone.

Size considerations: If an interview room is too small (6' x 7') it is likely to cause unwanted apprehension, and perhaps even a feeling of claustrophobia. This is undesirable both from a psychological and legal perspective (coercion). Conversely, interviewing in a room that is too large (20' x 15') creates a different problem in that it is difficult to achieve a one-on-one relationship with another person in such a vast space. This can usually be remedied by arranging the furniture in such a way that the interview takes place in a corner of the room, creating the psychological impression of an 10' x 10' space. Generally, this arrangement is achieved by putting the interviewer's chair near a back wall and the subject's chair about 5 feet in front of the subject's chair. A conference table or desk positioned off to the subject's side completes the effect.

Eliminate barriers: A barrier is any physical object placed between the interviewer and subject. In many office environments this will represent a desk or table. Barriers are undesirable for a number of reasons, but primarily they offer a psychological shield behind which a deceptive subject will hide. A person is much more likely to tell the truth if their entire body is exposed to the interviewer. Consequently, the room should be arranged in such a way that the chairs in which the interviewer and subject sit are placed to the side of, or away from a desk or table. For example, if a vice-president of operations calls an employee into his office to be interviewed concerning possible fraudulent activities, two chairs could be positioned facing each other to the side or in front of the vice-president's desk. The vice-president can politely ask the employee to have a seat in one of the chairs while he sits directly in front of the employee in the other. During an interview, the distance between the chairs should be about 4 ð - 5 feet apart. This represents a natural distance in which two people feel comfortable interacting. If the distance is shortened, say to three feet, the interviewer will be perceived as authoritative and condescending. This is obviously not desirable if the goal is to allow the person being interviewed to feel comfortable telling the truth.

Location: Suppose an employee embezzled $15,000 and could choose between confessing at her place of employment or in our office located in down-town Chicago? Ten out of ten guilty suspects, if given the choice, would choose to confess in our office. The reason is simple. No employee wants to confess guilt only to leave the room to face co-workers and supervisors who are undoubtedly aware of the investigation and who will express resentment for the problems the employee has caused. This common sense lesson teaches the following important rule: interview or interrogate suspected employees away from co-workers and supervisors. A guideline we follow is that if the guilty employee cannot leave the interview room without being seen by co-workers, it is not a proper room in which to conduct the interview. Frequently, under this circumstance, we will arrange to conduct interviews/interrogations at a nearby hotel. Most hotels have small meeting rooms which afford privacy and the furniture can be arranged in such a way as to create a desirable interviewing environment.

Conclusion: Many of the investigations conducted by staff members of John E. Reid and Associates occur outside of our office. Furthermore, we are often successful in resolving those cases with a confession. A contributing factor to our success is establishing the correct environment in which to conduct the interview/interrogation. Once we visit a client's location we survey the premises looking for a suitable room in which to conduct the interviews. If one is found we will modify that room to suit our needs. If none is found, rather than hoping that we might be successful in solving the case with the interviewing space that is available, we will suggest that the interviews be conduced at a nearby hotel. By conducting interviews/interrogations within a hotel conference or meeting room, our staff has obtained countless confessions that otherwise may never have been obtained on the client's premises. Credit and Permission Statement: This Investigator Tip was developed by John E. Reid and Associates Inc. Permission is hereby granted to those who wish to share or copy the article. For additional 'tips' visit
www.reid.com; select 'Educational Information' and 'Investigator Tip'. Inquiries regarding Investigator Tips should be directed to Janet Finnerty johnreid@htc.net. For more information regarding Reid seminars and training products, contact John E. Reid and Associates, Inc. at 800-255-5747 or www.reid.com. 

line-small.gif (227 bytes)


By Harvey Hedden

 ILEETA

 One of the most common complaints of trainers within criminal justice agencies is that when budgets are cut, training is usually the first casualty. Cutting training is terribly easy from a bureaucratic standpoint. It requires no re-scheduling, no cuts in public services and there are fewer complaints except for those zealots who work in the training bureau. We need to look at defending funding for training as just another teaching assignment. We must inform and persuade administrators and public officials of the importance and advantages of training.

When agency budgets are cut we never expect that the agency will cut back on its services to the public but rather that it will work more efficiently with fewer resources. But how likely is it this will occur without training? Training is a force multiplier making for more effective and efficient work, boosting morale, reestablishing agency priorities and improving teamwork. When we train our staff during the toughest of times we are telling them we are in this together, that we value their work and their professionalism. Conversely when we drop training we send a quite different message down the line which will impact agency performance.

If we learned that our surgeon or airline pilot had not received training updates due to budget cutbacks, would we feel confident about their work? We expect them to be well trained because their work product can be the difference between life and death. Law enforcement officers are often tasked to make critical decisions alone and under pressure that can also have grave consequences. When we tell our officers they don‟t need training aren't we telling them that their performance and/or their safety really doesn't matter?

Even in a bad economy the courts are still open. Decreasing training can make the agency a more appealing target of litigation. A single lawsuit could cost and agency much more than its annual training budget.

Training not only reduces the frequency of workplace errors but protects the agency from deliberate indifference claims when an error is made. Plaintiff‟s counsel would much rather attack the agency for allowing an unskilled or rogue officer to have made the error without concern for the public.

It is important realize that the budget shortfall isn‟t going to just go away. Be prepared to offer suggestions of other ways to reduce the budget. Before we point the red pen at other parts of the agency, find ways to reduce training costs such as roll call or other self-directed on-duty training. Maximize every minute of real training time and offer examples of how this training can reduce other operating costs as well as keep our officers safer and reduce civil litigation.

Does the agency have non-mandated services we can curtail or charge user fees? Can some services be reassigned to non-law enforcement resources? Can we reduce fleet operating costs through better driving (training)? Can we find ways to reduce overtime? Does every report have to be completed before the officer goes home? Our officers and first line supervisors are often in the best position to help our administration find cost savings.

We can hardly expect to have great training without also investing in our instructors. Keeping the trainer up to date in an ever more complex world is critical to our success. Without effective training we cannot keep pace with change and we cannot effectively protect our officers, agency and community. Training is much like insurance, if you don‟t pay now, you almost certainly will later. y

line-small.gif (227 bytes)

< < jump to the policetraining.net home page