Training, Supervision, and Tragedy: Lessons for Our Profession

Every tragedy has its lessons. The real question is whether we’ll learn them before the next one happens.

By: Chief Scott Hughes

In Stamford, Connecticut, the family of Rev. Tommie Jackson has filed a lawsuit alleging that the officer involved in the fatal crash was “poorly trained, improperly supervised, and unfit for duty.” According to a recent report in the Stamford Advocate, the complaint highlights concerns raised during his field training, including dangerous driving and poor decision-making, which allegedly went unaddressed until tragedy struck (Stamford Advocate).

The facts of this case will be resolved in court, not on a blog. However, the underlying themes of training, supervision, and emergency driving are not unique to Stamford. They are challenges every agency must confront honestly.

Training: More Than Hours Logged

Law enforcement often equates training with hours completed—24 hours of driving instruction, 40 hours of legal updates. But completing hours doesn’t always mean readiness under pressure.

Force Science research consistently shows that stress degrades judgment, cognitive function, and motor skills. Officers who perform well in calm environments may falter when adrenaline and unpredictability take over. The only antidote is repetitive, scenario-based training that mimics the real world. (www.forcescience.org) 

One example is Lexipol’s Daily Training Bulletins (DTBs) (www.lexipol.com). These short, scenario-based refreshers are designed to keep critical policies front of mind and help officers translate policy into practice. Whether an agency uses Lexipol or another system, the principle holds true: policy should be reinforced daily, not just filed away.

The Field Training Gap

Field Training Officers (FTOs) are the gatekeepers of a department’s culture. Done well, field training builds judgment, resilience, and competence. Done poorly, it produces officers who survive probation but carry bad habits into the field.

The Stamford lawsuit highlights concerns during field training, including dangerous driving, questionable decisions, and a lack of corrective action. Whether those allegations prove true or not, they raise questions every agency should ask:

Are FTOs selected for skill and judgment, or simply assigned out of necessity?

Are evaluation standards consistent and objective, or left to personal interpretation?

Are supervisors reviewing progress and addressing red flags—or is the process treated as a formality?

Habits formed in field training tend to stick. Which is why it’s critical that field training be deliberate, standardized, and supported by policy and leadership.

Emergency Driving: A High-Stakes Blind Spot

Few tasks in policing carry more immediate risk than emergency driving. Yet in many agencies, it’s treated as a one-time academy module rather than a perishable, high-liability skill.

The International Association of Chiefs of Police's pursuit model emphasizes supervisory oversight, limiting the number of units involved, and balancing urgency with public safety (IACP, 2019). Some modern policy frameworks, including Lexipol’s, go further by requiring agencies to document pursuit decision-making, mandate supervisory notification, and conduct post-incident reviews. When applied consistently, these steps help ensure accountability not only for why a pursuit was initiated, but also for how it was carried out.

When agencies fail to reinforce emergency driving standards with regular training and supervisory accountability, tragedy is often only a matter of time.

Supervision: More Than Management

“Poorly supervised” appears in nearly every lawsuit filed against law enforcement. But instead of dismissing it as legal jargon, we should ask: what does good supervision look like?

Supervisors who know their officers’ strengths and weaknesses.

Leaders who prioritize field presence over desk work.

A culture that encourages early intervention: “Is this officer truly ready?”

Well-written policies can embed supervisory expectations directly into daily operations, from requiring after-action reviews of pursuits to documenting red-flag behaviors. When supervisors are given both the structure and the authority to intervene early, they can truly lead rather than just manage.

Supervision isn’t about catching mistakes after the fact. It’s about preventing them before they cost lives, careers, and community trust.

Where Do We Go From Here?

Whether or not the Stamford allegations are proven, the larger lessons for policing are clear:

1. Invest in Stress-Informed Training
   Prepare officers for real-world pressure, not just classroom scenarios.

2. Fortify Field Training Programs
   Select FTOs deliberately, use consistent standards, and intervene early.

3. Revisit Emergency Driving Policies and Training
   Treat emergency vehicle operations with the same seriousness as use-of-force.

4. Empower Supervisors to Lead
   Equip them with clear policy expectations, time, and authority to mentor.

5. Engage the Community Transparently
   When failures occur, acknowledge them and demonstrate concrete steps forward.

Final Thought

The Stamford case is about one officer in one city. However, the themes it raises, training, supervision, and emergency driving, are universal.

As chiefs, trainers, and supervisors, it’s our responsibility to prepare officers for reality, not theory. That means better training, stronger supervision, and policies that don’t just sit on a shelf but actively shape behavior in the field.

Lives depend on it. Trust depends on it. And the legitimacy of our profession depends on it.