On the
anniversary of Gorge Floyd’s death people are asking questions about the
competence of police departments in their hiring and supervision of officers.
I spent two
years in military police and I was a voluntary diver for the Clay County
Sheriff Department in Florida.
It is my perception that the best and the brightest are not necessarily attracted to a career in policing. Policing, to a large extent, attracts people who are enamored with the authority of the badge and a gun – and in some cases, people insecure in their own identity.
Notice the lead-lined sap gloves the officer is wearing while confronting the public, his right hand grasping his firearm.
There is an
intrinsic problem with authority that has never been addressed with police
policy and training:
In 1973 the
psychology department of Sanford University conducted and experiment concerning
prison guards and prisoners. Random
volunteers were taken from the University student body. To ensure randomness, the assignment of
prisoner or guard were alternately picked: prisoner-guard-prisoner-guard… Prisoners were placed in confinement and guards
were given free rein to control the prisoners.
The experiment was scheduled to last two weeks, but had to be terminated
after six days because of the aggression of the guards.
This same
domineering authority syndrome identified in the Sanford study permeates police
departments. Police, to a large extent,
do not act to assist civilians, but to dominate them. They feel a power to intimidate, and they
become aggressive when their authority is questioned. Being authorized to wield deadly force inflates
the ego of many officers; and when multiple officers back-up a call there is a
tendency for individual officers to become more aggressive.
The structure
of police departments is at fault.
Instead of armed authority, it should be public safety and assistance. It is an attitudinal change that is needed; a
change from ‘policing’ to service.
I am not anti-police. I have worked and associated with many policemen and they are basically good people; but their attitude toward the public-in-general is uniformly negative, and they carry a feeling of empowerment and authority. Many do not have the temperament to be trusted with weapons of deadly force when dealing with volatile situations, and their demeanor escalates the problem rather than subduing it.
We should
set the record straight. Supporters of
the status-quo of policing seem to feel that criticizing the police is
tantamount blasphemy. They always remind us of how dangerous the
job is. I have heard the comment, “when
a cop leaves his house in the morning his wife doesn’t know if he will come back
safely.” There is a misconception about
the danger of policing.
A study of
the most dangerous jobs in America, places police twenty-second:
JOB RELATED
DEATHS CORRELATED FROM 2018:
1. Loggers
2. Aircraft pilots and flight engineers
3. Derrick operators in oil and gas and
mining
4. Roofers
5. Garbage collectors
6. Iron workers
7. Delivery drivers
8. Farmers
9. Fire fighters
10.
Power
linemen
11.
Agriculture
workers
12.
Crossing
guards
13.
Crane
operators
14.
Construction
helpers
15.
Landscape
supervisors
16.
Highway
maintenance workers
17.
Cement
masons
18.
Small
engine mechanics
19.
Supervisors
of mechanics
20.
Heavy
vehicle maintenance
21.
Ground
maintenance workers
22.
Police
officers
23.
Maintenance
workers
24.
Construction
workers
25.
Mining
machine operators
There are numerous restrictions and requirements in the
Policing Bill now in Congress aimed at holding police officers and police departments
more accountable; but this bill will not bring about a culture change in police
departments.
The answer seems simple to me:
THE OL’BUZZARD’S POLICE REFORM RECOMMENDATION
ONE:
Increase the educational qualification for police applicants. It should require beyond a high-school
education, and an intense psychological evaluation.
TWO: Do not
defund the police – de-arm the police.
Police on duty and off duty should be unarmed. Weapons can be kept locked but available in
the patrol cars, and permission from the watch commander needed to access a
firearm. Ninety-nine-plus percent of
police interaction with the community doesn’t require carrying a firearm. Unarmed officers would deal less aggressively
with civilians, and in the heat of a confrontation the first instinct would not
be to shoot to kill.
THREE AND
FINALLY: Any officer killing another human
being in the line of duty, regardless of the circumstances, should be removed
from public policing and be placed in a support position of equal pay, but never
authorized to carry a firearm again.
I support police, and the job they do; but there are psychological
pressures and tendencies associated with the job that need to be addressed in selection, training and supervision of officers.
The culture of policing should be reformed – but this will never
happen in today’s social and political climate.
the Ol’Buzzard
