Perception and Insight in Difficult Times for Police

Oct. 16, 2014
Law enforcement is under heavy scrutiny lately. Our critics are angry, loud, and feeding off public skepticism and each other. Are you doing your part to not only stay above the fray but proudly represent the profession? Stay safe, and Know Thyself…

It has been just over two months since Ferguson, MO exploded onto national and international headlines.  Up through the first week of August the town of Ferguson was relatively unknown, a small northern suburb of St Louis out of the sight and mind of virtually everyone save those in, around, or from the area.  The August 9th shooting of Michael Brown, an 18 year old African-American, by white police officer Darren Wilson, and its aftereffects of protest, violence, rioting, and the response by law enforcement changed all that as Ferguson suddenly became a household name. 

Were Brown not unarmed at the time of the shooting, and the circumstances so shrouded in uncertainty with hard-and-fast facts still unknown or at least withheld from public view, the story might only have lasted a news cycle or two before being eclipsed.  Had police critics not been gripped by initial reports that Wilson had instigated the confrontation by pulling the nearly 300 pound Brown into his squad by the neck (a ridiculous assertion to any reasonable officer) or that Brown may have been trying to surrender as he was shot, and it remains a largely local story.  If there were no assumption of racial profiling, made – or capitalized upon – by so many activists, reporters, and pundits, Ferguson is never more than a footnote.  Other questions routinely asked in less high profile officer involved shootings (“Why shoot him if he was unarmed?” or “Why did the officer fire so many times?” to name just a couple) only fueled the fire.  That there are actually answers to such questions is immaterial to those asking; they are meant to be rhetorical, assumed to have no acceptable answer, and intended as an indictment of Wilson. 

This confluence of circumstances thrust Ferguson into the spotlight.  The death of Michael Brown was the impetus for demonstrations, with many turning into clashes between police and those who stepped beyond the bounds of peaceful protest to use it as excuse for violence and criminality.  Allegations of law enforcement overreach and rights violations further stoke the flames, and any trust between police and the community in Ferguson – reportedly already shaky – seemingly continues to erode weeks after the event that started it all.  And as testament to the power and symbolism of what happened on August 9th, people who had never heard of Ferguson, MO on August 8th have chosen sides in a deeply polarized and antagonistic debate over race, policing, and how law enforcement accomplishes its goals in the 21st Century.

------------------

For many officers witnessing the criticism they see directed against the local police in Missouri specifically, and the generalized reproach leveled against law enforcement as a whole, Ferguson represents a chasm between themselves and a public ready to identify with and canonize a likely criminal, unwilling to understand the dangers and challenges they face, blindly accepting reports of police malfeasance, and eager to condemn without question.  On the other side of the chasm is a populace who see an armed camp, populated by men and women with whom they have little in common, driven by racism and judgment, with attitudes and behaviors both aggressive and aloof, cavalier, and frequently deadly.  That either side might be drawing generalizations about the collective other from events or experiences with just a representative few, or the belief that relatively rare but heavily reported happenings (police shootings or use-of-force) are more common than they really are, is barely considered.  That anyone might even be wrong?  Unthinkable!

It is our nature to create and react to generalizations about people and things we deem threatening.  This evolutionary shorthand aids in recognizing danger and triggering instinctual survival responses.  Sometimes, however, our fears are overblown or outright wrong.  From an evolutionary/survival standpoint, no harm has been done even if we were wrong in our perception.  We either steered clear or challenged the threat and survived!  But in the complex “real world” where we live and work as cops, successfully navigating interactions with people who might trigger threat responses means overcoming our instincts to some extent.  Although each of us has the capacity to overcome these generalizations and interpret them in a different way, doing so is hard and requires effort to think outside comfortable boxes, empathize with people we may not trust, and constantly be open to sometimes uncomfortable insight.  Even when the danger is real we are expected to act judiciously and overcome our base instincts. 

---------------

Ferguson has highlighted two of the most common criticisms of policing in America today: 

The first is the perception that race and ethnicity heavily impact policing, specifically in the form of so-called racial profiling, how enforcement and force decisions are when dealing with persons of color relative to whites, and in post-conviction sentencing disparities.  Whether or not race or ethnicity factor into how you do your job, or the official policies and unofficial practices of any given agency, understand the perception of bias is strong. 

The second criticism du jour is that law enforcement has become increasingly militarized in both the equipment we carry and deploy and the tactics we train in and use.  Even more than alleged racial profiling, that police are becoming more and more militarized has become accepted fact among many – when something is heard repeated enough its truth is unquestioned – despite certain realities of day-to-day policing. 

I had a recent Facebook conversation with an old college friend who posted an article referring to police militarization as if fact.  In the article was a comment by Sen Claire McCaskill of Missouri referencing – and assumed to be factual – the militarization of police. My response to him on the matter, and how I explain generally explain it to others, was this:

“…As to the “paramilitary mentality” and “police militarization” that has so many people, activists, and politicians up in arms lately, the vast majority of us in law enforcement know the characterization is grossly overblown, although not entirely without merit, and targeting routine policing as being “militarized” has been a baffling side effect. SWAT and certain other tactical units certainly train and deploy military grade weapons and tactics USUALLY IN HIGHLY SELECT CIRCUMSTANCES (serving high risk search warrants/making high risk arrests, responding to volatile, in-progress emergencies, hostage situations, etc...). With only rare exceptions these weapons and tactics are never used for routine responses/patrol/investigations. Generally, all officers receive rudimentary training in emergency response, in the event we need to respond quickly in a life-threatening emergency, but the SWAT and other tactical officers who are most proficient are a small group of elite volunteers. They deploy only for the aforementioned select circumstances…

…The vast majority of us, even in larger cities, do the job the same way it’s been done since before you and I were even born, albeit with slightly better cars, equipment, and body armor now. The additional defensive equipment is to REDUCE the need to pound the s*** out of offenders whose resistance doesn’t rise to the level of deadly force. I carry a handgun, OC spray, collapsible baton, and have a shotgun in the car. I’m hardly of the paramilitary mindset, and I’m far more typical than the cops Sen McCaskill refers to while talking out her ass.”

--------------------------

We know many of the perceptions of what we do, especially those held by our critics, are far removed from reality.  There are a few very important things to remember, though:

1)    We cannot force a change in the perceptions others hold.  We are responsible only for what we know, our attitudes and actions, and how we present to the public we serve and protect even when we may not like them very much;

2)    There will always be a segment of society that resents authority and detests the police.  Their resentment and hate need not make sense, they simply are, and there’s little we can do to persuade the dedicated hater to reconsider it;

3)    The perceptions of a vocal few may not reflect the perceptions of others whom they seem or purport to represent.  The loudest, most passion-driven of a crowd easily drown out more reasoned and reflective voices; and

4)    Perceptions can change if evidence that challenges them is introduced in a respectful and empathic way.

While perceptions can change we must also have insight into how we appear to others, and how we can – and an unfortunate many of us do – drive public perception in the wrong way. 

1)    We do carry a heavy responsibility to ensure we never allow our words, actions, or attitudes to confirm the worst suspicions of those who distrust us.  Trust can be undermined with an intemperate comment in public, on social media, or in conversation;

2)    Our actions and attitudes must be above reproach.  Being suspicious is part of the job, and sometimes we even need to remain aloof or even highly aggressive from the onset of a public contact, but do you lead with appropriate professionalism in every interaction it’s warranted?;

3)    Are your actions really free of bias?  Are you sure?  Having insight occasionally means admitting uncomfortable truths about our nature and being willing to correct where we fall short;

4)    Have you ever, even unconsciously, allowed race, age, gender, socioeconomic status, nationality, sexual orientation, or any other factor influence how you treat someone;

5)    Have you ever been uncomfortable with how a fellow officer is treating someone but failed to intervene or said nothing? 

Law enforcement is under heavy scrutiny lately.  Our critics are angry, loud, and feeding off public skepticism and each other.  Are you doing your part to not only stay above the fray but proudly represent the profession?  Stay safe, and Know Thyself… for all our sakes.

Sponsored Recommendations

Whitepaper: A New Paradigm in Digital Investigations

July 28, 2023
Modernize your agency’s approach to get ahead of the digital evidence challenge

A New Paradigm in Digital Investigations

June 6, 2023
Modernize your agency’s approach to get ahead of the digital evidence challenge.

Listen to Real-Time Emergency 911 Calls in the Field

Feb. 8, 2023
Discover advanced technology that allows officers in the field to listen to emergency calls from their vehicles in real time and immediately identify the precise location of the...

2022 Transparency and Trust Report - Public Safety & Community Relationships

Nov. 16, 2022
Veritone releases its 2022 Law Enforcement Transparency and Trust Report delivering Five Key Findings of Community Sentiment on Policing

Voice your opinion!

To join the conversation, and become an exclusive member of Officer, create an account today!