Why the Police Must be Held Accountable
Read Time:4 Minute, 7 Second
It is with some hesitancy that I write this post for I know that it will fly in the face of what some of my fellow writers believe and likely contrary to what many readers might believe, but I have thought it over and believe there are some things that just have to be said about police and accountability.
In this country there are roughly a little more than half a million police officers who work the streets of our cities, towns, counties and states. At one time I was one of them. The vast majority of those men and women are good, decent, hard working men and women doing a tough job. Make no mistake about it though, it is a job that they choose to do, and it is a job that comes with certain risks just as other jobs come with certain risks. These risks are both physical and mental in nature.
In the late 1960’s Arthur Neiderhoffer was a captain for the New York City Police Department. He was also a doctoral student at John Jay College of Criminal Justice. His doctoral dissertation was based on the development of cynicism in police officers as they progressed through their careers because of the nature of the job itself. His study has been replicated several times since then by others who wondered if his results were still valid over time. The findings have been held fairly consistent when held up to the cold light of day and examined from an objective perspective. As individuals enter police work and progress through time they tend to become more cynical toward their fellow human beings because they tend to see the worst of them.
According to most of these studies most police officers tend to settle into their jobs in a very conservative mode and do the best that they can with the hand that is dealt them. A small percentage tend to slide off into what Neiderhoffer called a delinquent form of cynicism. These officers can be found in pretty much any police department in the country and their behavior is often defended by other officers because they are part of the brother or sisterhood of police. The only time one might be called out is when that behavior is so egregious that there simply is no defense for that action, but that is a rare occasion indeed.
I am not trying to take issue with any specific current event. What I would like to do is to address the overall atmosphere that seems to surround the interaction between the police and the citizens they have sworn to protect. I read an editorial in a local paper that basically said that if a person simply did what a police officer ordered them to do, when they ordered them to do it, then they would have nothing to worry about. If I am not wrong that is pretty much what the British soldiers told the colonists prior to the Revolutionary War, “Just do what we tell you, when we tell you and you will not have to worry.” In other words, do not question us, we are the police. Yes, there are times when that applies, but lately, it seems to be anytime.
Going back to a point I made in the first paragraph, police work is a job with certain risks. Those come with the job description. One can clearly see on the side of some police cars the slogan, “Protect and Serve”. The question arises though about who they are protecting and who are they serving. As the President of the Police Officer’s Benevolent Association said on CNN officers have to be concerned about going home at the end of their shift because they have families for which they have to provide. That I understand, as does most every one else in the country, but they did not choose law enforcement as a career. I am sure that fire fighters, professional soldiers, and the high steel workers all say that same thing, and they all know the risks involved in their jobs.
Clarence Kelley, former director of the FBI and former Chief of Police of Kansas City, Missouri once said that the individual police officer is probably the third most powerful person in this country when it comes to individual liberties of citizens. They are the only individuals in government who are authorized to take an individual’s life or liberty based simply on their authority. It is an awesome power they have and it should be monitored very closely by citizens because misuse of it carries grave consequences for people. Further, if the close monitoring of this huge amount of power doesn’t suit an individual who carries such power they should not take the job. One should never have great authority without great scrutiny and accountability.
Happy
0 %
Sad
0 %
Excited
0 %
Sleepy
0 %
Angry
0 %
Surprise
0 %
0
0
Crime started to drop noticeably in 1993 and it continued its downward spiral until 2011 when violent crime started to creep up, and that was followed closely by property crimes. What most don’t understand is crime rate in linked to generational changes, in particular the teenage demographic. Every 20 years or so kids become teens and when they do, especially in impoverished areas, they commit crime. The most crime-prolific age group is 16-24. It used to be 18-24 but that has changed along with the “fortunes of time” as Mike is fond of saying.
Good point Lyndon. In any case violent crime is, by and large, a personal issue that is committed behind closed doors. Murders and rapes are in the 75 to 85 percentile range crimes committed among acquaintances. All the police in the world cannot stop these incidents, but they can help educate people on how to avoid becoming victims.
There are not only too many police for the declining crime rate, the militarization of police is not a good thing.
When I see police in masks I think, if you have to conceal your identity when you are doing something, maybe you know you should not be doing it.
I agree with you on both accounts James. When the police stop being police and become an occupying force with military style weaponry we really do have a problem.
The declining crime rate is more of a dream than reality James. While crime overall may be declining, violent crime, where officers face the greatest threats, is increasing. In point of fact, according to government reports, the violent crime rate went up 15 percent last year, and the property crime rate rose 12 percent, signs that the nation may be seeing the last of the substantial declines in crime of the past two decades. Last year marked the second year in a row for increases in the crime victimization survey, a report that is based on household interviews. A separate report recently issued by the FBI, suggests that the 20-year trend of dropping crime rates is approaching an end.
It’s true that violent crime is increasing. That doesn’t mean we need to cover the country with even more militarized police. It means we need police better trained and yes, better paid, to deal with it.
Statistics can be a guideline for planning but need to be taken in perspective with the total picture There are too many people under trained, inexperienced, and unready to face these threats.
As you know, turnover is a serious problem in the profession. Considering the stress, poor pay, limited career choices, and moral problems, that’s not a surprise.
All of those problems can be solved. Putting more people on the streets without careful entrance requirements, proper training and and carer opportunities is not the answer.
Mike, as you know the violent crime rate is based largely on murders and take, and aggravated assaults. The vast majorities cannot be pendents by police and in fact police arrive long after the prep has left the scene in most cases. Those where he hasn’t he usually is waiting to give himself up. Murders and take are 70%, acquaintance crimes.
I was ready to press my “debate” button when I read the title and saw who wrote it, but no. Shockingly I agree with you, but I think there are a lot more cops than “a little more than half a million.”
Tim I was shocked when I read it. My friend Bill must be getting more reasonable in his old age, because I expected cop bashing, 🙂 not a reasonable, well thought out piece like this and I agree as well. As to the cops in the US there are now approximately 850K. Times they are a’changin’.
Mike, I am not saying anything different than I have always said. If it were up to me police would be making a lot more money and would be held to a much higher standard than they are now. Case in point. In the Garner case that they are currently raising hell about, I or anyone else with a minimum amount of training in jujitsu could have taken him to the ground with a simple joint twist. It does not matter how large the man is if he is not fighting, like Garner was, simply bending his thumb joint inward (Inside Hyper-extension of the first joint) creates such excruciating pain that he would have dropped to his knees instantly. It is so painful that the person cannot even think about breaking loose. It just takes training and awareness.
It is my hope that they will take the Michael Brown case and develop a less than lethal strategy for that type of incident. I am sure that somewhere there has been, or will be a similar incident.
Great point. Lack of adequate training is a huge problem. Working with the police here is much different than what I did in AZ. There, it was more on how to defend themselves against someone with martial arts training. I had personally trained perhaps thousands of people. I don’t think for a moment all of them were angels.
Multiply that by all the schools in the area and the chance of an officer encountering someone with better training than there was fairly good.
Here, the training is often so minimal, officer had to first be convinced they even needed that. For one thing, police are generally hale din more respect here. But someone that wants to resist and knows something about how to do it may have a great advantage unless the officer immediately escalates to lethal (firearms) force.
After being knocked on their ass by someone over 60, the quickly decided to either learn better techniques or to always shoot first and hope no one will object.
Police recruits in medium-larger, more progressive jurisdictions in the U.S. receive anywhere from 80-160 hours of DT instruction in the academy. The problem is they rarely need to use these tactics, and the retraining is marginal, so they are forgotten.
That’s exactly the problem. First, that amount of training s hardly enough for someone that is far more likely than most to need it. A lot of my students were police officers and I have an across the board discount to any LEO.
You’re also correct in that follow-on training or even opportunities to practice are, to put it mildly, minimal.
A less than lethal strategy Bill? Sorry man. There is only one strategy that is effective in such situations, and that’s to shoot to “stop” the threat before it has time to harm the officer or the members of the community. Michael Brown was a felon who had just committed a violent crime, and then tried to disarm a police officer. I am with Darren Wilson on this one, as well as with the grand jury and the prosecutors who reviewed this case. I would have done exactly the same as Wilson.
I totally agree with yu in this situation. You have a large person that has just committed a violent felony coming at you and disregarding commands to stop, even in the presence of an armed officer, what else can yu do?
For all the officer knew he could have been under the influence of drugs, mentally unbalanced, or simply ready to “kill a cop.”
Like you, I would have done exactly the same. Warning, commands, then stop him with some center of mass rounds.
Unfortunately my friend he never got a center of mass shot. Brown “bulled” him, charging with head down and body bent. Couple that with fire under stress and you have a lot of missed shots and a lot of “almost” shots as in the case of Brown.
That type of charge would raise the threat level, wouldn’t it? It would leave no doubt as to intentions or technique.
There would be zero opportunity for a non-lethal wounding (which often gets you killed) or to issue further challenges.
When I taught combat handgun classes, The first lesson was, never point your weapon at anything you are not willing to see destroyed. That includes people.
When you pull your weapon, you must be ready to kill that person without hesitation. If you are not, you don’t belong there.
As with any martial art, you have to decide long before a situation arises what you are willing to do and how you are going to do it. When you are being charged like that, there’s no time to make that decision.
That type of charge absolutely requires the officer to stop the threat by all means at his disposal. In this case it was his weapon, and you are right about non-lethal means James, e.g. tasers. They don’t always work, and you may miss, in either case if the threat closes the reactionary gap you could well be fucked and not in a good way.
Mike, I never mentioned the Michael Brown case. I referred to the Garner case in New York. You not I were in Ferguson, although I know you have the inside scoop, but even those with the inside scoop were not in that officer’s shoes. I do not know what Wilson said to the kids involved or how he said it and you know as well as I do that makes a difference. But that case is done.
I will still contend that the police need more oversight and more accountability no matter how many blue lines you draw. No one with that much power and authority should wine when they are scrutinized by the public when a citizen is killed by their actions. These men and women can take a life and/or liberty simply on their say so. Not even the president had that privilege. The problem is that when that scrutiny arrived police and former police act like it is an affront to their personal integrity. It isn’t
It is simply a better, More close review of their use of force. That my friend got with the territory. It always has. As I have told people in this profession before, “if you cannot live with these rules get out of the business.
This is simply an a discussion and an argument for more oversight and accountability.
Trust me Timmy, I chose my words carefully for I did not want to be responsible for you having a stroke. Please understand though, I am advocating for greater scrutiny and accountability for police. I don’t know if you remember it or not but I remember when Serpico came out against corruption in the NYPD and it was police officers that tried to kill him. Everyone in blue is not our friends, and everything they do in the line of duty is not righteous.