This was a very important and enlightening discussion. The problems in policing are complex and simplistic solutions (and, indeed simplistic ideas of causation) aren't enough. Pursuing policies based on erroneous ideas waste time by leading us away from the truth. They may elevate some loud voices but delay aid and comfort to those who need it.
So many important points were raised. I'd like to amplify just a few, ranging from the specific to the broad. Hopefully, all pertain to the subject of human nature, which we all share.
Peter was a cop and obviously understands the culture as well as the realities, good and bad, of being the individual cop on the street. The way he mentioned how the cops maced each other, what mace is for and how the cops' incompetent error contributed as a trigger to their brutality towards Mr. Nichols rings with insight and truth. As do his other citations of obvious policing incompetence. These accumulated fatally for Mr. Nichols. And not because of any element of racism. "Otherism", perhaps, but not racism.
Moving back slightly, we come to Peter's comments about sergeants and the cultures which can develop in these specialized units. While valuing and respecting individuality, most human beings don't like to be complete outliers in their group. Tones are set. Approval and disapproval through immediate feedback and correction from respected elders are critically important. Nothing could be more consistent with human nature. The valuable sergeant will teach officers to get to know the people in their district, to always be fair, speak the truth, see them as individuals of value. And to show respect. You want to be thought of as on the same team, not an opponent. You want to have an ordinary citizen of the district whisper, "Hey Officer James, careful of that guy up there on the roof with a brick."
Even better when a respected lieutenant or captain teaches the same. And on to the chief. It seems the department didn't ensure a proper culture was knitted with these concepts. That's a failure everyone, right up through the command staff, are on the hook for. They probably contributed to this man's death. And while I've paused to think long and hard about saying it, the chief may be a wonderful person and terrific cop who really gets it. But if she is lacking in experience and/or her understanding of these realities, yet was appointed because of other considerations such as diversity and nothing else, then we might have some clues as to why setting the right tone and creating the right culture went neglected. Considerations of diversity, alone, aren't sufficient qualifications to become a chief of police. Either way, there was a cultural problem and responsibility for that goes all the way to the chief.
Peter is right that these units are necessary if we want to accomplish the very necessary goal of taking guns off the street, reducing homicides and dealing properly with the bad guys. It's just that it will all fall apart if the tone and culture generates a bunch of cowboys. No matter their race.
Speaking of "bad guys", that's the term cops use to characterize certain subjects as they describe events to other cops or to prosecutors ahead of giving testimony. (some cultures use "perps", an action word, at times) Cops don't focus on the race of the person so much as whether he's a bad guy. Bad guys harm people and property. Bad guys destroy neighborhoods. Cops generally became cops to be the good guys and to protect good people from the bad guys. It may sound simplistic but it's part of their identity. The reality is cops want to be a force for good. They just need to be trained by good, experienced veterans who know of the dangers of doing things the wrong way and both exemplify and teach doing things the right way.
Here's another consideration. When cops perceive they are vilified for such things as high incarceration rates of, for example, young black men, it's easy to understand how they would instantly bridle and say, "No! I didn't arrest guys because of their race; I simply arrested the bad guys! Look at what they did. Look at the lives they ruined; look at the young girl who died in the crossfire. Race had nothing to do with it." There are those, most of whom never walked the streets they write about, who will say the cop just doesn't get it and is dominated by various implicit biases and structural racism but that seems too convenient a path towards ignoring those who have indeed walked those streets.
It's easy to understand how frustration can build inside a person when their life's work and their very identity is mischaracterized by some academics and "leaders". "No! It's the bad guys! I'm not the 'Other' here..." What are the dangers of building such internal frustrations?
Certainly these frustrations are intensified by a related flavor of the month, lately championed by a brand of "progressive" prosecutors. Most seem to be former criminal defense attorneys who brought their own biases and assumptions, including those which underpin their explanations of disproportionate percentages of incarceration, to their offices while neglecting to consider factors far more pertinent. But that's another chapter.
Blaming everything on race and racism seems to be the season we are in right now. It's hard to push back against, even in areas where these concepts stray from the truth. Yet we see this square peg being forced into a round hole in Mr. Nichols' case. We see strangers to the family performing at Mr. Nichols' funeral. It seems many "leaders" have too high a stake in the racism game to reflect on whether they have it right or not. Same with perpetuating lazy assumptions about policing. That's a shame. He deserves better.
This was a very important and enlightening discussion. The problems in policing are complex and simplistic solutions (and, indeed simplistic ideas of causation) aren't enough. Pursuing policies based on erroneous ideas waste time by leading us away from the truth. They may elevate some loud voices but delay aid and comfort to those who need it.
So many important points were raised. I'd like to amplify just a few, ranging from the specific to the broad. Hopefully, all pertain to the subject of human nature, which we all share.
Peter was a cop and obviously understands the culture as well as the realities, good and bad, of being the individual cop on the street. The way he mentioned how the cops maced each other, what mace is for and how the cops' incompetent error contributed as a trigger to their brutality towards Mr. Nichols rings with insight and truth. As do his other citations of obvious policing incompetence. These accumulated fatally for Mr. Nichols. And not because of any element of racism. "Otherism", perhaps, but not racism.
Moving back slightly, we come to Peter's comments about sergeants and the cultures which can develop in these specialized units. While valuing and respecting individuality, most human beings don't like to be complete outliers in their group. Tones are set. Approval and disapproval through immediate feedback and correction from respected elders are critically important. Nothing could be more consistent with human nature. The valuable sergeant will teach officers to get to know the people in their district, to always be fair, speak the truth, see them as individuals of value. And to show respect. You want to be thought of as on the same team, not an opponent. You want to have an ordinary citizen of the district whisper, "Hey Officer James, careful of that guy up there on the roof with a brick."
Even better when a respected lieutenant or captain teaches the same. And on to the chief. It seems the department didn't ensure a proper culture was knitted with these concepts. That's a failure everyone, right up through the command staff, are on the hook for. They probably contributed to this man's death. And while I've paused to think long and hard about saying it, the chief may be a wonderful person and terrific cop who really gets it. But if she is lacking in experience and/or her understanding of these realities, yet was appointed because of other considerations such as diversity and nothing else, then we might have some clues as to why setting the right tone and creating the right culture went neglected. Considerations of diversity, alone, aren't sufficient qualifications to become a chief of police. Either way, there was a cultural problem and responsibility for that goes all the way to the chief.
Peter is right that these units are necessary if we want to accomplish the very necessary goal of taking guns off the street, reducing homicides and dealing properly with the bad guys. It's just that it will all fall apart if the tone and culture generates a bunch of cowboys. No matter their race.
Speaking of "bad guys", that's the term cops use to characterize certain subjects as they describe events to other cops or to prosecutors ahead of giving testimony. (some cultures use "perps", an action word, at times) Cops don't focus on the race of the person so much as whether he's a bad guy. Bad guys harm people and property. Bad guys destroy neighborhoods. Cops generally became cops to be the good guys and to protect good people from the bad guys. It may sound simplistic but it's part of their identity. The reality is cops want to be a force for good. They just need to be trained by good, experienced veterans who know of the dangers of doing things the wrong way and both exemplify and teach doing things the right way.
Here's another consideration. When cops perceive they are vilified for such things as high incarceration rates of, for example, young black men, it's easy to understand how they would instantly bridle and say, "No! I didn't arrest guys because of their race; I simply arrested the bad guys! Look at what they did. Look at the lives they ruined; look at the young girl who died in the crossfire. Race had nothing to do with it." There are those, most of whom never walked the streets they write about, who will say the cop just doesn't get it and is dominated by various implicit biases and structural racism but that seems too convenient a path towards ignoring those who have indeed walked those streets.
It's easy to understand how frustration can build inside a person when their life's work and their very identity is mischaracterized by some academics and "leaders". "No! It's the bad guys! I'm not the 'Other' here..." What are the dangers of building such internal frustrations?
Certainly these frustrations are intensified by a related flavor of the month, lately championed by a brand of "progressive" prosecutors. Most seem to be former criminal defense attorneys who brought their own biases and assumptions, including those which underpin their explanations of disproportionate percentages of incarceration, to their offices while neglecting to consider factors far more pertinent. But that's another chapter.
Blaming everything on race and racism seems to be the season we are in right now. It's hard to push back against, even in areas where these concepts stray from the truth. Yet we see this square peg being forced into a round hole in Mr. Nichols' case. We see strangers to the family performing at Mr. Nichols' funeral. It seems many "leaders" have too high a stake in the racism game to reflect on whether they have it right or not. Same with perpetuating lazy assumptions about policing. That's a shame. He deserves better.