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.
Highlights
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)
To develop a more informed understanding of these issues, we interviewed patrol and tactical officers from three Canadian police services to gain insight into the situations that tactical officers respond to and to examine potential consequences associated with their use (Jenkins et al, 2020b)
We thank Dr Walby for reading our article and taking the time to write his critique. To say that he did not appreciate our research seems like a significant understatement. He suggests that evidence-based policing (EBP) research is inherently biased, he criticizes our understanding of existing literature, he takes aim at our research methodology and conclusions, and he questions our academic integrity
Summary
We don’t wish to waste too much space dealing with those parts of Walby’s response that involve unfounded accusations about the project in question and our research more generally, but it is important to set the record straight given that these accusations are used by Walby to question our integrity. The idea to conduct the study was solely ours It was based on significant concerns we had with Walby’s original research (Roziere and Walby, 2017, 2018); the fact he and his colleague drew strong conclusions about the use of tactical teams in Canada by relying on a type of data (i.e., call type) that we didn’t feel provided enough context to understand when and why tactical officers are used. With respect to the operational use of tactical officers in Canada, Walby suggests that we, and our interviewees, promote the view that these officers should regularly respond to non-typical tactical calls, such as those involving domestic disturbances and mental health crises He states that, ‘For these authors, more use of the SWAT team in any city is justified, and perhaps necessary’. In addition to issues of misunderstanding, we believe that Walby makes a number of questionable comments in his response, mischaracterizes the state of existing research, and misrepresents our own views, and the views of our interviewees, on the use of tactical officers in Canada
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Similar Papers
More From: The Police Journal: Theory, Practice and Principles
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.