But you see, Progressives have to lump everything into one box- gender, race, ethnicity, religion. Every mass shooting is a White supremacist male (until later it turns out the shooter is Asian, Hispanic or some other race or ethnicity), and every police killing is racially motivated, a young, promising Person of Color killed by radical fascist police. Yet deconstruction of these incidents reveals each case is different, and the fact that the victim is indeed a criminal resisting arrest, or out of his mind on drugs is irrelevant. But it also blurs the larger picture of unwarranted police brutality and how do we approach that as a society.
There have been several problems with policing that contribute to use of excessive force. Most complaints by the public are about a small percentage of officers with multiple complaints against them. Officers with histories of use of excessive force have sometimes been retained by police agencies when they should not have been. In big cities, the police unions have been involved in protecting officers from being fired. Excessively aggressive officers have also gotten away with their behavior because other officers have been reluctant, for various reasons, to report them.
There are no doubt other things going on that result in aggressive officers remaining employed after receiving a certain number of excessive force complaints. I haven't dug deeply into that data pile.
My understanding is that there is a more common problem with some officers escalating confrontations with suspects when there were opportunities to try de-escalation strategies instead. (There are many more situations in which suspects continue to escalate despite consistent efforts on the part of officers to calm everybody down). Some officers have more de-escalation skills than do others. Officers who are younger and those who have less overall job experience may be less skilled at de-escalation than those who are veterans. Training can help address skill deficits, but there is also the reality that people who want to do police work aren't necessarily similar to counselors in their basic personalities.
Apparently there are incentives and disincentives within police agencies that support retention of some officers who have histories of use of excessive force. These systemic factors must operate among police departments and other city officials and departments. So far, citizens' oversight committees and police departments' internal affairs offices have been insufficient to eliminate incidences of use of excessive force by some officers. Police departments are city bureaucracies and police chiefs are political operators, and in my opinion those facts might explain why big city police departments continue to have problems with police brutality.
But you see, Progressives have to lump everything into one box- gender, race, ethnicity, religion. Every mass shooting is a White supremacist male (until later it turns out the shooter is Asian, Hispanic or some other race or ethnicity), and every police killing is racially motivated, a young, promising Person of Color killed by radical fascist police. Yet deconstruction of these incidents reveals each case is different, and the fact that the victim is indeed a criminal resisting arrest, or out of his mind on drugs is irrelevant. But it also blurs the larger picture of unwarranted police brutality and how do we approach that as a society.
There have been several problems with policing that contribute to use of excessive force. Most complaints by the public are about a small percentage of officers with multiple complaints against them. Officers with histories of use of excessive force have sometimes been retained by police agencies when they should not have been. In big cities, the police unions have been involved in protecting officers from being fired. Excessively aggressive officers have also gotten away with their behavior because other officers have been reluctant, for various reasons, to report them.
There are no doubt other things going on that result in aggressive officers remaining employed after receiving a certain number of excessive force complaints. I haven't dug deeply into that data pile.
My understanding is that there is a more common problem with some officers escalating confrontations with suspects when there were opportunities to try de-escalation strategies instead. (There are many more situations in which suspects continue to escalate despite consistent efforts on the part of officers to calm everybody down). Some officers have more de-escalation skills than do others. Officers who are younger and those who have less overall job experience may be less skilled at de-escalation than those who are veterans. Training can help address skill deficits, but there is also the reality that people who want to do police work aren't necessarily similar to counselors in their basic personalities.
Apparently there are incentives and disincentives within police agencies that support retention of some officers who have histories of use of excessive force. These systemic factors must operate among police departments and other city officials and departments. So far, citizens' oversight committees and police departments' internal affairs offices have been insufficient to eliminate incidences of use of excessive force by some officers. Police departments are city bureaucracies and police chiefs are political operators, and in my opinion those facts might explain why big city police departments continue to have problems with police brutality.