Stephen Mark Pilling contributes the second consecutive Comment of the Day providing perspective on the issue of police militarization, in response to the first. Here is his Comment of the Day to the post (by dragin_dragon, which you should read first if you haven’t yet), Comment of the Day on “The Perils Of Over-Regulating The Police: A Case Study”
When critics speak of the “militarization” of the police, not all are looking at it from the same viewpoint. Some are, of course, sociopathic or are conspiracy theorists. Some have swallowed the loudly flaunted concept that policemen are evil racists, corrupt ward healers in uniform or just about anything heinous, as they represent law as an absolute, not a relative.
There is a rational based distrust, however. Many of us grew up in a time where the police still walked a beat or patrolled his neighborhood in a squad car, armed with nothing more than a revolver. We’re also the product of an old tradition of law enforcement that stems from the British mold. Unlike the continental European system of paramilitary gendarmes, we adapted a system of localized lawmen, run by an elected county sheriff. The metropolitan police department is still a relatively new phenomenon, started in late 19th Century London.
To many citizens, police who are unaccountable to a directly elected chief and who sport automatic weapons strike a sour note. But recently, people have been seeing them acquiring armored vehicles, military assault training and a tendency to wearing black uniforms. They’ve also noted an increased likelihood of these tactics and weapons being utilized and the increased incidence of “no knock entries”. Likewise, citizens have been imaging police making arrogant idiots out of themselves and caused other cops to become ever more touchy about cell phones, whether they’re right or wrong.
These and other factors have been serving to create a gap between the citizens and the police. That’s never a good thing, of course, because that trust is vital in a free society. Citizen distrust only deepens when they perceive policemen in whom this sense of civil mastery is full blown. As a former military cop, as a private citizen and as a friend or relative of a lot of civilian cops, I’ve seen all this from different angles. I’ve also seen the divide deepen in recent days.
One small note. The funding of police units on all levels directly from federal sources coincides with the worry by many that state and local police units may be more or less within the pocket of federal departments. The actual militarization of once innocuous federal police units and the memory of Obama’s projected National Civilian Defense Force has resulted in fear that this is an intentional part of a program to create an instrument of oppression. For myself, I highly doubt that any street cops would lend themselves to some “martial law” based takeover of the homeland of America. What I’m not sure of, though, is how many in higher authority have not conceived of the notion and would execute it if they could.
Again; it’s vital that the bonds of trust be strengthened between the police departments and those law abiding citizens whom they “serve and protect”. They must never- ever- be heard to make disparaging remarks about “civilians”, as that only deepens the gulf. In the Army Military Police Corps, the official motto is “Of the troops and for the troops”. It’s a good motto. It should also carry over to every local police or sheriff’s department in America. “Of the citizens and for the citizens”. Policemen who embrace that attitude will seldom go wrong. Both they and the communities they serve will benefit.
Ethics Alarms 
” They’ve also noted an increased likelihood of these tactics and weapons being utilized and the increased incidence of “no knock entries””
And are alarmed when those no-knock entries occur at the wrong house.
How many of us can imagine being asleep in our beds, hearing someone bust down the door without announcing themselves and assuming that we are the victims of a home invasion? How many of us would try to protect our families? How many of us might die at the hands of a police officer for doing so?
It’s bad enough to read about policemen arbitrarily shooting family dogs during these mishaps, but when someone loses his life solely because he didn’t understand that the people busting down his door were the ones sworn to protect him, it’s easy to see why many people see the militarization of the police as a harmful thing.
Bingo!
Ruby Ridge was started by the police shooting a dog. That’s why Randy Weaver and crew were acquitted in the death of a federal agent: the cops shot first.
My take is that we are a LONG ways from over-regulating the police. But that is simply an outsider’s view.
I’ve got several local examples of the police playing with the toys without accountability. One was where a police officer was arrested for child abuse. They were rightfully concerned about taking one of their own in so the brought out an armored vehicle. The proceeded to run it through the neighbors back yard, taking the fence out and leaving ruts through the landscaping.
The police didn’t see this as excessive, nor did they compensate the neighbor. This isn’t helping from the perspective of trusting the police.
I can imagine that even if that neighbor had property insurance, there would be no payment against any claim based on some “civil disturbance” clause. Then, the “checkmate:” “You can’t fight City Hall.”
Dear A.M. and Matthew:
I share your concerns over these events. I’m as angry as any when police overstep their authority or do arrogant, boneheaded things that endanger or actually take innocent human life. I did the job myself and such unprofessionalism reflects on all cops; civilian or military, past or present. I fully support the highest standards and training for any policeman.
[I still shudder when I remember Bill Clinton’s 100,000 cops program, deceptive as it was. That’s the way to bottom out standards!]
Good leadership, training and attitude are the keys to a good police force… or a good anything, for that matter. When this fails, someone DOES need to be held accountable.
However, let’s also remember that such events as described are still vastly the exception. It’s up to the citizens to make sure it stays rare and that their local cops remain THEIRS. At the same time, we must not forget to honor those who deserve recognition for courage and integrity in service to their communities.
Well done SMP
Thanks, Tex. I just happened on this in my back mail. When I wrote it last night, I was simultaneously slapping my head to stay awake!
A few points:
A. Way back in 1974, in the police academy I attended, we were taught that the “police idea,” as developed by Sir Robert Peel and first implemented in 1829 London, was developed as an alternative to suppression of crime and disorder by the use of military intervention and widespread use of severe legal punishments (i.e. using the death penalty to punish even minor offenses).
I was taught that “Peel’s Principles” were the philosophical core of this new” police organization, and that they were just as applicable in 1974 as in 1829. During my law enforcement career (1974 – 2014) I found no reason to believe these principles are less relevant to policing in the 21st century:
Peel’s Principles of Policing (excerpts):
1.The basic mission for which the police exist is to prevent crime and disorder.
2.The ability of the police to perform their duties is dependent upon the public approval of police actions.
3.The police must secure the willing co-operation of the public in voluntary observation of the law to be able to secure and maintain the respect of the public.
4.The degree of co-operation of the public that can be secured diminishes proportionately to the necessity of the use of physical force.
5.The Police seek and preserve public favor not by catering to public opinion, but by constantly demonstrating absolute impartial service to the law.
6.The Police use physical force to the extent necessary to secure observance of the law or to restore order only when the exercise of persuasion, advice, and warning is found to be insufficient.
7.The Police, at all times, should maintain a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and the public are the police; the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent upon every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence.
8.The Police should always direct their action strictly towards their functions, and never appear to usurp the powers of the judiciary.
9.The test of police efficiency is the absence of crime and disorder, not the visible evidence of police action in dealing with it.
-Sir Robert Peel
B. There are two dimensions that make an effective officer. One is Character and the other is Competence. Typically, police agencies hire primarily for competence, and then try to weed out those who are found to be lacking in character. It would be much better to hire people with the right character, and then train for competence.
C. On a practical, “where the rubber meets the road” level, officers need to learn (not just “be taught”) the ethics of citizen interaction and the application of effective tactical communication skills such as those embodied in the Verbal Judo training developed by Dr. George Thompson and embodying his “Five Universal Truths:
1. All people want to be treated with dignity and respect.
2. All people want to be asked rather than being told to do something.
3. All people want to be told why they are being asked to do something.
4. All people want to be given options rather than threats.
5. All people want a second chance when they make a mistake.
D. Ethical and skilled communication by police toward citizens in the majority of official interactions could mean the difference between escalating and de-escalating situations, and violent versus non-violent outcomes. Over 98% of police citizen contacts result in no force at all being used. I think we could do better.
Oh, great…now I have to have a Comment of the Day on a Comment of the Day on a Comment of the Day??????
I’ll be in favor of that, Jack! Jim just posted something I wanted to look up myself when I was writing last night. Sir Robert Peel is the father of the modern urban police department. As most of us know, I’m sure, he is why London cops are still called “Bobbies” to this very day. Those rules Sir Robert listed should be hanging on the wall of every police station in America.
BTW: When I posted my piece, I erroneously referred to the Metropolitan Police as having started in the LATE 19th Century. I stand corrected.
Note, too, that prior to Sir Robert’s innovation, cities were usually patrolled by citizen groups or other men hired by the local Chamber of Commerce- who were referred to as the City Watch. Rembrandt’s famous painting “Night Watch” recounts this time. Echoes of that era linger in Europe in the relationship between businessmen and the police. I observed this while walking on joint patrols with the Bavarian State Police in Nurnberg as an M.P. That’s another story, though!
Oh, yes! And thanks for the COD, Jack. Always very much appreciated.