As most of y'all are aware, I was once a police officer. Between military police (where I found my passion for law enforcement), part-time, narcotics and full time patrol, I had 17 years of policing experience, specializing in community policing and domestic violence/sexual assault. I also have a Bachelor of Science in Criminal Justice and a Master of Science in Criminal Justice Administration. So, while I have been out of the policing business for almost 8 years now, I think I still have a tad bit of credibility when speaking on matters of the subject.
What makes me point out all of the above, you ask? Well, the continual police bashing that has become almost epidemic in proportion to what occurred in Ferguson, Missouri.
I, as a rule generally, do not second guess or armchair quarterback what an officer did in the field. I wasn't there, I didn't witness what he or she saw, heard, perceived and therefore can't offer why they did what they did. I would only tell you what I may have most likely done given the facts that have been made known to me (which are almost always only one side of a 20 sided die).
First, let us discuss the initial encounter. Until such time as the autopsies (yes as in more than one) are completed and analysis made of bullet trajectories, I will use what little FACTS we have. An officer is on patrol. He observes a nuisance crime, what would be considered a civil infraction or a very low class misdemeanor depending upon how your state classifies it's laws. He stops to conduct a field contact with two young males. There is a racial difference, which is further exacerbated by the fact that the department itself is skewed from the population it serves. A physical altercation ensues and shots are fired. One of the youth in the street dies from wounds sustained.
Eye (and ear) witness testimony varies on pretty much everything. And sadly the department had not yet installed audio and video recording devices in its patrol cars or on its officers.
Due to this tragic encounter, citizens begin protesting. Local police respond in what has been described by civilians, professional reporters (not sure how many objectively and mostly unbiased journalists exist, if any) and even other police personnel as heavy handed, inciting more chaos which in turn cycles into an even more draconian response from local officials.
So. As to the initial encounter, we know an officer tried to do his job. Beyond that, whether he was an ass from the outset which was the match that set off this conflagration or if it was some other cause has yet to be determined. That something so benign as asking two people to move to the sidewalk from the middle of the road for their safety and to ensure traffic could flow smoothly just boggles my mind.
That what should have been just a police presence to help ensure an orderly and peaceful but rather expected demonstration, became a full-on riot response is also boggling. Even assuming that there was no permit from city hall for the gathering, it should have been left alone so long as more serious issues were not occurring. That the chief went "full retard" in his response is indicative of poor training from top to bottom in crowd control and riot response.
Another issue that seems to be popping up in the badge/shield bashing of late is of their acquiring of former military equipment or military style equipment. First, let me say that a police department IS a paramilitary organization. This in part devolves from the fact that once upon a time city guards were soldiers. But times they did change, and Sir Robert Peel with his Metropolitan Police force (aka the London Bobby) brought about a whole new breed of city guard. And from that beginning modern policing began. Initially, officers were little more than brutes, Sergeants were brutes who could do a little bit of thinking and had some skill at leading, while brighter individuals became the detectives of their locality. But, one of the interesting things about that time was that these "brutes" were locals. They knew the people and places they patrolled pretty well, because they most likely grew up there. And they interacted with citizens, good and not so good, face to face on a near daily basis.
Well, as we all know, power corrupts. And cops had a lot of power. So along came the professionalization movement (which dove-tailed along with the addition of scientific methods for solving crimes), which removed officers from this everyday contact by putting them in cars, giving them radios, and arming them with whatever equipment and technology that came along to counter the misuse and abuse of technology by scofflaws and criminals (i.e. Development of traffic radar <a military technology> to thwart speeding drivers of the increasing number of automobiles, various fire arms to counter the more advanced weaponry that criminals were now carrying).
Today depending upon jurisdiction and mission, as well as the types of crimes that an agency or task force of multiple agencies may encounter, they obtain equipment, much of it surplus military gear which allows them to perform their job as safely and effectively as possible with as little cause injury or death as possible. Remember, use of force is responsive to the threat of force. Not always ideal for the police, and dependent upon numerous factors, they may respond above a level necessary due to their perceptions. Obviously not ideal in many ways. Not for the officer because they misperceived something that was not threatening as such and now face multiple levels of action against them which could include termination and civil or criminal charges. And not for the public as they become wary and alienated from those who are really only trying to make te community a safe and enjoyable place to live and work.
As I pointed out to someone earlier. If your four person police department has an armored vehicle and automatic weapons, be concerned. But if you have teams and task forces that perform jobs with high risk, some of that equipment might mean the difference between a rather "routine" search/arrest and the next North Hollywood bank robbery shootout.
Now, before I went off tangentially, what I was attempting to point out is, that in the push to professionalize policing (and hopefully reduce corruption) there walls (some figurative some almost literal) were placed between the general public and the police who served them. This alienated the citizens from those whom they needed to know if they were going to trust their safety and security to them, while creating an us v them mentality all up and down the ranks of police officers. A divide that is painfully obvious and is entirely detrimental to one of the most fundamental of policing principles...that the police are the public and the public are to an extent, the police. Without a working partnership between the populace and it's force of peacekeepers, the system will fail to work properly and only as post crime reactive entity, not one that is proactive and vigilant.
And finally, (I know I know, about damn time you rambling fool) as a friend of mine who is not a police officer but is rather pro police, said, "Don't judge what happens in a physical altercation as police brutality without taking in the totality of the circumstances. (This was prior to Ferguson). He basically challenged anyone to "affect" an arrest on him, while he resisted. No punching, no kicking, but actively not allowing himself to be restrained/subdued. His point was that sometimes certain positions and tactics end up happening and injury may occur. And even if there is no injury, the current level of a persons health, any medical conditions and or the use of any substances (legal or illegal) may cause emergency medical conditions and or death. This doesn't automatically absolve the officer(s) of any blame or allow them to escape scrutiny and disciplinary action if warranted, but it also should not lead to immediate cries of brutality and civil rights violations either.
What makes me point out all of the above, you ask? Well, the continual police bashing that has become almost epidemic in proportion to what occurred in Ferguson, Missouri.
I, as a rule generally, do not second guess or armchair quarterback what an officer did in the field. I wasn't there, I didn't witness what he or she saw, heard, perceived and therefore can't offer why they did what they did. I would only tell you what I may have most likely done given the facts that have been made known to me (which are almost always only one side of a 20 sided die).
First, let us discuss the initial encounter. Until such time as the autopsies (yes as in more than one) are completed and analysis made of bullet trajectories, I will use what little FACTS we have. An officer is on patrol. He observes a nuisance crime, what would be considered a civil infraction or a very low class misdemeanor depending upon how your state classifies it's laws. He stops to conduct a field contact with two young males. There is a racial difference, which is further exacerbated by the fact that the department itself is skewed from the population it serves. A physical altercation ensues and shots are fired. One of the youth in the street dies from wounds sustained.
Eye (and ear) witness testimony varies on pretty much everything. And sadly the department had not yet installed audio and video recording devices in its patrol cars or on its officers.
Due to this tragic encounter, citizens begin protesting. Local police respond in what has been described by civilians, professional reporters (not sure how many objectively and mostly unbiased journalists exist, if any) and even other police personnel as heavy handed, inciting more chaos which in turn cycles into an even more draconian response from local officials.
So. As to the initial encounter, we know an officer tried to do his job. Beyond that, whether he was an ass from the outset which was the match that set off this conflagration or if it was some other cause has yet to be determined. That something so benign as asking two people to move to the sidewalk from the middle of the road for their safety and to ensure traffic could flow smoothly just boggles my mind.
That what should have been just a police presence to help ensure an orderly and peaceful but rather expected demonstration, became a full-on riot response is also boggling. Even assuming that there was no permit from city hall for the gathering, it should have been left alone so long as more serious issues were not occurring. That the chief went "full retard" in his response is indicative of poor training from top to bottom in crowd control and riot response.
Another issue that seems to be popping up in the badge/shield bashing of late is of their acquiring of former military equipment or military style equipment. First, let me say that a police department IS a paramilitary organization. This in part devolves from the fact that once upon a time city guards were soldiers. But times they did change, and Sir Robert Peel with his Metropolitan Police force (aka the London Bobby) brought about a whole new breed of city guard. And from that beginning modern policing began. Initially, officers were little more than brutes, Sergeants were brutes who could do a little bit of thinking and had some skill at leading, while brighter individuals became the detectives of their locality. But, one of the interesting things about that time was that these "brutes" were locals. They knew the people and places they patrolled pretty well, because they most likely grew up there. And they interacted with citizens, good and not so good, face to face on a near daily basis.
Well, as we all know, power corrupts. And cops had a lot of power. So along came the professionalization movement (which dove-tailed along with the addition of scientific methods for solving crimes), which removed officers from this everyday contact by putting them in cars, giving them radios, and arming them with whatever equipment and technology that came along to counter the misuse and abuse of technology by scofflaws and criminals (i.e. Development of traffic radar <a military technology> to thwart speeding drivers of the increasing number of automobiles, various fire arms to counter the more advanced weaponry that criminals were now carrying).
Today depending upon jurisdiction and mission, as well as the types of crimes that an agency or task force of multiple agencies may encounter, they obtain equipment, much of it surplus military gear which allows them to perform their job as safely and effectively as possible with as little cause injury or death as possible. Remember, use of force is responsive to the threat of force. Not always ideal for the police, and dependent upon numerous factors, they may respond above a level necessary due to their perceptions. Obviously not ideal in many ways. Not for the officer because they misperceived something that was not threatening as such and now face multiple levels of action against them which could include termination and civil or criminal charges. And not for the public as they become wary and alienated from those who are really only trying to make te community a safe and enjoyable place to live and work.
As I pointed out to someone earlier. If your four person police department has an armored vehicle and automatic weapons, be concerned. But if you have teams and task forces that perform jobs with high risk, some of that equipment might mean the difference between a rather "routine" search/arrest and the next North Hollywood bank robbery shootout.
Now, before I went off tangentially, what I was attempting to point out is, that in the push to professionalize policing (and hopefully reduce corruption) there walls (some figurative some almost literal) were placed between the general public and the police who served them. This alienated the citizens from those whom they needed to know if they were going to trust their safety and security to them, while creating an us v them mentality all up and down the ranks of police officers. A divide that is painfully obvious and is entirely detrimental to one of the most fundamental of policing principles...that the police are the public and the public are to an extent, the police. Without a working partnership between the populace and it's force of peacekeepers, the system will fail to work properly and only as post crime reactive entity, not one that is proactive and vigilant.
And finally, (I know I know, about damn time you rambling fool) as a friend of mine who is not a police officer but is rather pro police, said, "Don't judge what happens in a physical altercation as police brutality without taking in the totality of the circumstances. (This was prior to Ferguson). He basically challenged anyone to "affect" an arrest on him, while he resisted. No punching, no kicking, but actively not allowing himself to be restrained/subdued. His point was that sometimes certain positions and tactics end up happening and injury may occur. And even if there is no injury, the current level of a persons health, any medical conditions and or the use of any substances (legal or illegal) may cause emergency medical conditions and or death. This doesn't automatically absolve the officer(s) of any blame or allow them to escape scrutiny and disciplinary action if warranted, but it also should not lead to immediate cries of brutality and civil rights violations either.
