Bryce Jenkins, Tori Semple, C. Bennell, Laura Huey
{"title":"误解、错误描述和恶意指责:对沃尔比(2021)《SWAT Everywhere》的回应?","authors":"Bryce Jenkins, Tori Semple, C. Bennell, Laura Huey","doi":"10.1177/0032258X211008950","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"To develop a more informed understanding of why tactical officers are used in Canada, we interviewed patrol and tactical officers from three Canadian police services (Jenkins et al., 2020). Interviewees indicated that tactical officers tend to be used on calls that go beyond the capabilities of patrol officers, including high-risk calls and calls unfolding in special environments, and that their use results in reduced threat to police and public safety. In response, Walby (2021) has argued that evidence-based policing (EBP) research of the sort we conducted is inherently biased. He also criticized our understanding of existing literature, took aim at our research methodology and conclusions, and questioned our academic integrity by claiming that we were paid by the participating police services to conduct the research. While Walby makes some valid criticisms of our research, his response is riddled with misunderstandings, mischaracterizations, and malicious (unfounded) accusations. After setting the record straight with respect to allegations regarding our nefarious motives to conduct the research, we argue that Walby completely misrepresents EBP research when he argues that it aims to support harmful police practices in exchange for financial support. We then correct numerous instances where Walby either mischaracterizes existing research or misrepresents our views (and those of our interviewees) when it comes to the use of tactical officers. We conclude by calling for more inclusive conversations to take place to address the issue of police militarization. These conversations must include community members, but they must also include the police.","PeriodicalId":22939,"journal":{"name":"The Police Journal: Theory, Practice and Principles","volume":"4 1","pages":"411 - 420"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-04-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Misunderstandings, mischaracterizations, and malicious accusations: A reply to Walby’s (2021) SWAT Everywhere?\",\"authors\":\"Bryce Jenkins, Tori Semple, C. Bennell, Laura Huey\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/0032258X211008950\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"To develop a more informed understanding of why tactical officers are used in Canada, we interviewed patrol and tactical officers from three Canadian police services (Jenkins et al., 2020). Interviewees indicated that tactical officers tend to be used on calls that go beyond the capabilities of patrol officers, including high-risk calls and calls unfolding in special environments, and that their use results in reduced threat to police and public safety. In response, Walby (2021) has argued that evidence-based policing (EBP) research of the sort we conducted is inherently biased. He also criticized our understanding of existing literature, took aim at our research methodology and conclusions, and questioned our academic integrity by claiming that we were paid by the participating police services to conduct the research. While Walby makes some valid criticisms of our research, his response is riddled with misunderstandings, mischaracterizations, and malicious (unfounded) accusations. After setting the record straight with respect to allegations regarding our nefarious motives to conduct the research, we argue that Walby completely misrepresents EBP research when he argues that it aims to support harmful police practices in exchange for financial support. We then correct numerous instances where Walby either mischaracterizes existing research or misrepresents our views (and those of our interviewees) when it comes to the use of tactical officers. We conclude by calling for more inclusive conversations to take place to address the issue of police militarization. These conversations must include community members, but they must also include the police.\",\"PeriodicalId\":22939,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"The Police Journal: Theory, Practice and Principles\",\"volume\":\"4 1\",\"pages\":\"411 - 420\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-04-15\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"The Police Journal: Theory, Practice and Principles\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/0032258X211008950\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Police Journal: Theory, Practice and Principles","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/0032258X211008950","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1
摘要
为了更深入地了解为什么在加拿大使用战术军官,我们采访了来自三个加拿大警察部门的巡逻和战术军官(Jenkins et al., 2020)。受访者指出,战术人员往往被用于超出巡逻人员能力范围的呼叫,包括高风险呼叫和在特殊环境中展开的呼叫,并且他们的使用减少了对警察和公共安全的威胁。作为回应,Walby(2021)认为,我们进行的那种基于证据的警务(EBP)研究本质上是有偏见的。他还批评我们对现有文献的理解,瞄准我们的研究方法和结论,并质疑我们的学术诚信,声称我们接受了参与调查的警察部门的报酬来进行研究。虽然沃尔比对我们的研究提出了一些有效的批评,但他的回应充满了误解、错误描述和恶意(毫无根据的)指责。在澄清了有关我们进行研究的邪恶动机的指控之后,我们认为沃尔比完全歪曲了EBP的研究,他认为EBP的研究旨在支持有害的警察做法以换取财政支持。然后,我们纠正了许多沃尔比错误描述现有研究或歪曲我们(以及我们的受访者)的观点的例子,当涉及到战术官员的使用时。最后,我们呼吁进行更具包容性的对话,以解决警察军事化问题。这些对话必须包括社区成员,但也必须包括警察。
Misunderstandings, mischaracterizations, and malicious accusations: A reply to Walby’s (2021) SWAT Everywhere?
To develop a more informed understanding of why tactical officers are used in Canada, we interviewed patrol and tactical officers from three Canadian police services (Jenkins et al., 2020). Interviewees indicated that tactical officers tend to be used on calls that go beyond the capabilities of patrol officers, including high-risk calls and calls unfolding in special environments, and that their use results in reduced threat to police and public safety. In response, Walby (2021) has argued that evidence-based policing (EBP) research of the sort we conducted is inherently biased. He also criticized our understanding of existing literature, took aim at our research methodology and conclusions, and questioned our academic integrity by claiming that we were paid by the participating police services to conduct the research. While Walby makes some valid criticisms of our research, his response is riddled with misunderstandings, mischaracterizations, and malicious (unfounded) accusations. After setting the record straight with respect to allegations regarding our nefarious motives to conduct the research, we argue that Walby completely misrepresents EBP research when he argues that it aims to support harmful police practices in exchange for financial support. We then correct numerous instances where Walby either mischaracterizes existing research or misrepresents our views (and those of our interviewees) when it comes to the use of tactical officers. We conclude by calling for more inclusive conversations to take place to address the issue of police militarization. These conversations must include community members, but they must also include the police.