In recent years, thanks (in this author’s opinion) to careful manipulation of videos and events, there has been somewhat of an outcry for “law enforcement reform.” Many law enforcement professionals take umbrage at this push because, from their perspective, very little is being done incorrectly and, all too often, the “reform” is simply prohibiting enforcement of the law at all. The push seemingly is to let criminals get away with crimes and further restrict officers from any attempt to arrest them and charge them with a crime. Several states now have made it easy for those arrested and charged to get out of jail almost immediately with no incentive to appear in court when the time comes. Is it any wonder that morale is low in so many agencies? Or that recruiting and retention is challenged?
In response to the call for more “reform,” several professional organizations that support law enforcement have examined what could be done differently, and if anything is/was being done wrong i the first place. Without exception, every one of those organizations admit that officers make mistakes. Understand that while the mistakes can be quite minor, circumstances can force situations to accelerate and snowball, creating major incidents out of minor mistakes. Those same organizations will sometimes challenge society to find another profession wherein those doing the work are held to the same standard of perfection. No other profession, however, has as many legal restrictions on HOW the work can be done.
Every law enforcement professional in our country operates under the restrictions and guidance of Constitutional Law. In addition to the Constitution, the officers are controlled by state law, county law, municipal law and departmental general orders as well as special orders, standard operating procedures and policies issued, sometimes, on a daily basis. Lawyers make mistakes and those they represent pay additional cost to get those mistakes fixed. It might, however, temporarily cost them their freedom. Doctors make mistakes and the patients can end up suffering, but unless it’s severe and a very uncommon or obvious mistake, there’s little damage or penalty to the doctor.
A police officer has to fight a suspect into handcuffs, scratches the skin on the suspect’s wrist with the handcuffs and gets sued for unnecessary or excessive force. Because of the “permanent scar,” the law suit is $1,000,000 and the insurance company settles out of court for $200,000… and that officer has to defend against administrative charges - and now criminal charges in some places - for assault, plus there’s the entry in his personnel file that prohibits him from promotion for at least a year even if he was in the process and due.
Keeping all that in mind, the discussion of reform often doesn’t go anywhere. How do you improve upon something that is already so strict? Less than 1/10th of one percent of all officers ever tarnish the badge, but every officer is considered a criminal if just one officer is found to be imperfect. Newsflash: officers are human and NO human is perfect. But… does that mean there is no reform that can be made? Is there no reform that would beneficial?
“Reform” as defined by dictionary.com means, “to change to a better state, form, etc.; improve by alteration, substitution, abolition, etc.; to cause (a person) to abandon wrong or evil ways of life or conduct; to put an end to (abuses, disorders, etc.).
Anyone reading that could think that it’s a good idea to make sure all of the law enforcement community is forced to “abandon wrong or evil ways of life or conduct,” and they wouldn’t be wrong. But again, such reform isn’t necessary profession-wide, but only with a very few select individuals who tarnish the badge. How about “to change to a better state?” All officers would be in favor of that but how to do that and what a “better state” actually is can be hard to define. Why? Because our nation is vast and there are differences in values from region to region, state to state, county to county and even within districts of a given county in some instances. What the Deep South considers too lenient might be considered far too harsh in New England (not saying it is, just an example). For that reason, it’s necessary to allow agencies at least some level of autonomy in how any reform can occur. Keep in mind that every agency still has to operate within all of the legal restrictions and laws listed previously.
Then another question is asked: Why isn’t reform done without a public outcry? Without national demand? Well… it is. Nationwide, every agency at every level of government is forced to reform. This occurs due to judicial decisions (case law), changes in state laws, changes in county laws, mandates from insurance companies, mandates from state training bureaucracies, and - sadly - sometimes simply to make some member of the governing council happy. While those changes can occur across a span of time, most agencies see some type of change either forced on them or embraced by them annually. Add in the changes in operating procedure that happens when a new technology is brought in or when new policies are created to address specific problems in a given jurisdiction, and “reform” can be seen in a given agency on an on-going basis; literally week to week sometimes.
As a result of that reality, the push for reform becomes a question of, “What reform needs to be made that isn’t already being made so frequently? What does the public want doe differently?”
Let’s look at two examples of law enforcement behavior and how the outcry for change is a demand for almost opposite behavior on the part of the police.
In response to the mass shooting in Uvalde, Texas, there was a public outcry for law enforcement to have neutralized the shooter before he ever started his attack. Understand this: there was complaint that the police didn’t fatally shoot him before he ever started the attack; before he committed a crime. In response to the shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri, AS HE WAS COMMITTING A VIOLENT CRIME, there was a huge public outcry that unnecessary force was used.
The law - at any governmental level - doesn’t permit officers to use force that is unnecessary. That’s why there are investigations, grand juries, trials and more. That said, no law allows a police officer to shoot a person based on that person’s thoughts or intent unless that person is actively presenting a potentially grave threat through their actions. Law enforcement professionals, no matter how good they are, can’t see into a person’s heart and read their thoughts. Even if we could, we can’t execute them for their hatred, or their evil. We have to wait for them to commit a crime before we can try to arrest them or use any level of force.
Where does that leave us? It leaves us with the need to control the message. We have to educate the communities we serve about the fact that we constantly reform; that we constantly evolve; that we constantly grow in response to societal evolution. Our voice isn’t as loud as that of mainstream media so we have to leverage our local media and supportive community organizations to help us educate the public we serve in how we’re growing.
