Policing: Responsibility for Change

#3 of a 3-Part Series

Astrid Riecken/Washington Post/Getty Images

A 180-Degree Change

In the past two posts, we have discussed some basic objectives of policing and the problem with a society that assumes the major objective is punishment. Now we look at how to change this objective to our real need to protect the public.

For this post, I’m going to draw on my years of experience as a teacher. And before you say, “Oh, that doesn’t apply to policing,” think again. I don’t know how many times I’ve said to a police officer, “From my hands to yours.” I have been known to wade into a mob of a hundred students outside a high school dance to break up a drunken fight, so I’ve been there and I know how one of these situations feels and how to deal with it.

Society’s Attitude is Changing

About 1985 I was teaching in Prince George, and a district specialist was coming to give a workshop on the latest discipline techniques, and I offered my group of troublesome grade fives as a reasonable challenge. She accepted.

During her lesson, one of the boys — let’s call him Alfie — took offence at her  brusque manner and decided to challenge her authority. She took him through the steps she was demonstrating. Nothing worked. The final step had to be, “leave the room.” He refused to go. We all looked at her. What should she do now? She picked Alfie up and carried him out of the room.

There you have it. In 1985, it was considered appropriate for a teacher to protect the class by physically removing a dangerous student from the room, disregarding personal safety.

I am struck by the similarity to today’s policing. Arrest, restrain and remove to protect the public, even if it puts the officer in harm’s way.

That was Then; This is Now

Nowadays, if a teacher is confronted by a student who refuses to leave when asked, the required action is to pack up the rest of the class and remove them from the danger.

This technique has two major advantages. A student causes that much disturbance for two sets of reasons: first, fear or anger, second, attention or power. If you remove the teacher and the students, you are removing both threat and audience and keeping everyone safe as well. And if the problem is something else, it’s easier to figure it out in a simpler situation with fewer stimuli. For example, autistic children often become panicky when they have too much stimulation for their emotions to handle. A peaceful and quiet environment is the solution.

The Police

Now, I’m not suggesting police officers can always remove the public from the scene, but the approach is valuable in its focus on de-escalation. If we make the police responsible for controlling the individual, it induces them to move forward, to escalate, to use violence. If their primary objective is to defuse to protect the public, they are more likely to move the public away and separate the problem person. This actually applies even more to police officers than to teachers, because of the added elements of mental health, drugs, and alcohol. Police moving closer makes all scenarios worse. Police moving away  makes them better

And now, assuming that this sort of change is what we want, there are two main arguments that must be dealt with: should police change, and can they be influenced to?

Responsibility

The main reason for looking at the police to change the dynamic of a confrontation is one of responsibility. If the police are in charge of a given situation, then they are also responsible for changing the outcome. Too many people seem to end up dead or injured when their original offence was minor: Driving Under the Influence, intoxication in a public place, Walking While Black… the list goes on. Who is in charge? Well, who has the power to affect the outcome? When one or more armed officers approach one unarmed suspect, they have a lot of options. Arrest, release, escalate, de-escalate, call for backup, etc. The potential victim has little choice, but the main objective we can assume is to get out of the situation. Of course, it is not possible to allow this objective immediately, but if the officers assume that it exists, then their first line of approach is to be sure the suspect knows what needs to happen in order to achieve the objective. One of the patterns taught in de-escalation is, “What do you want right now, what are you doing to get it, and how is that working?” When the answer to the last question is, “It isn’t,” then there is an opening for dialogue.

Can They Change?

Our problem right now is that those who want change are falling into the same old traps as earlier generations did. The punitive nature of our society is now being turned against the police. “Defund the Police,” “Remove the Police,” “Punish the Offenders.” And on and on. You can’t have it both ways. If punishment of those who misbehave doesn’t work on criminals, it doesn’t work on the police either.  Let’s get this down in boldface. You will never, ever, force the police to change. Evidence? The levels of government responsible have instructed the heads of these forces to fix the problem. The heads have all bought into the program. But as far as most of us can see, little has changed. Why not? Because orders from above do not filter down through the ranks to change behavior that is being perpetrated up from society. It is fair to infer that cutting funding will have the same effect, with the added disadvantage of antagonizing all the good officers who will see their caseloads go up. If you don’t read all of the article referenced below, at least look at the part on “Siege Mentality.” Offering better training and additional personnel in the form of medical specialists for “health checks” would be a far more acceptable solution for all concerned.

Grassroots Change

The only way we’re going to get real change in the police is through their cooperation. There are many officers who see the need for change. If the changes include new, achievable goals and objectives that make it easier for officers to do the job of keeping the public safe, we’re going to get a whole lot more buy-in.

 

PS

A Facebook friend drew to my attention to this article yesterday when I had almost finished this post.

While this article will be seen by anti-police fanatics as “excusing” police violence and racism, it gives us scientific backup for discussion of what needs to be changed and how to go about it. I also like it because it backs up and sometimes directly states a lot of what I have been saying. I know it’s about the United States, but even in the kinder, gentler society of Canada, the same problems exist.

 

 

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.