Some police officers' behavior is abhorrent, and these videos will lead to some positive societal/policy change (body cameras, etc.)
There's an unfortunate side effect though. Society is experiencing a systemic loss of trust in our police forces.
Why? Even though most police officers are honest and good, and they're making the world a safer place, our brains aren't great at separating what we see from broader patterns.
The news/internet is surfacing the most extreme examples, and if your brain is comparing the 5 awful things you saw cops do with the occasional "normal" interaction, you're going to start lowering your perception of police.
Many people are a bit nervous when a plane takes off or lands because airplane crashes are scary, and even though the rational part of our brain might know the stats (planes are incredibly safe, much safer than cars) we can't let go of it.
The cop that pulls you over for a ticket is probably not going to shoot you, but because of seeing these videos it seems we're all more anxious, rational or not.
> ...but because of seeing these videos it seems we're all more anxious, rational or not.
It is perfectly rational to be anxious around anybody who can legally kidnap you. I'm not worried about being shot, I'm worried about the old saying "You can beat the wrap, but you can't beat the ride." I've heard police officers complain about this very natural reaction, and the effects it has on their personal relationships (they generally only have other cops for friends).
The solution is incredibly simple, reduce the amount of power left to the discretionary use of the police officer. A positive first step would be obliteration of the concepts of resisting arrest / obstruction of <insert contempt of cop excuse>. The next step would be establishing a restricted set of circumstances where an officer is authorized to arrest vs ticket. This would prevent the all too common case of an interaction, initially beginning with a burnt out tail light, escalating to the point where somebody is dead.
Once police officers are restricted to hallway monitor status in 99% of the interactions, and Hollywood action-hero status for situations that actually call for it, they'll find the public much more trusting.
African American here. Many of us have not trusted the police for a very long time. We've known that these things happen since forever, but it's the advent of the cell phone and body camera that let's the rest of the country see it. I think that the loss of trust in police forces is a good thing, however. It's the first step in the country at large realizing that there is a real problem there, and that something needs to be done about it.
The threat of force as the default way to get compliance is counterproductive. The only reason a police officer should be able to lawfully use force should be the same as it already is for everyone else. This requires both (in AZ[1] at least):
* Breaking the law.
* Immediate serious bodily harm to a person (attempted, threatened or witnessed (see law)).
Or:
* Warrent issued by a judge.
If the suspect wants to drive away, or not comply with an order, in the vast majority of cases (civil, petty crime etc), that's fine. Let them. It's counterproductive to chase someone and it's not worth shooting anyone over. Police officers and the people they serve would be safer. If a criminal warrant is issued by a judge, then the threat of force may be necessary, but it shouldn't be the first (no-knock raid for non-violent crime) reaction. Part of the problem (in addition to people who like to oppress and/or apply their racism) is that police are expected to force people to comply. Some will say "but the lawlessness!", to that I think two responses are appropriate:
Most of the laws that normal people break don't rise to the level necessary (see above) to be enforced with force.
The change in culture would have the opposite effect. There would be less crime.
I wonder what would happen if we not only elected the Sheriff, but the police too. Sheriff must have final hire/fire power, but the candidates should be required to get community support. And they should live in the community they serve. A great first step is to end the "war on drugs". Either we own ourselves or we don't.
5 comments
[ 4.3 ms ] story [ 17.6 ms ] threadThere's an unfortunate side effect though. Society is experiencing a systemic loss of trust in our police forces.
Why? Even though most police officers are honest and good, and they're making the world a safer place, our brains aren't great at separating what we see from broader patterns.
The news/internet is surfacing the most extreme examples, and if your brain is comparing the 5 awful things you saw cops do with the occasional "normal" interaction, you're going to start lowering your perception of police.
Many people are a bit nervous when a plane takes off or lands because airplane crashes are scary, and even though the rational part of our brain might know the stats (planes are incredibly safe, much safer than cars) we can't let go of it.
The cop that pulls you over for a ticket is probably not going to shoot you, but because of seeing these videos it seems we're all more anxious, rational or not.
It is perfectly rational to be anxious around anybody who can legally kidnap you. I'm not worried about being shot, I'm worried about the old saying "You can beat the wrap, but you can't beat the ride." I've heard police officers complain about this very natural reaction, and the effects it has on their personal relationships (they generally only have other cops for friends).
The solution is incredibly simple, reduce the amount of power left to the discretionary use of the police officer. A positive first step would be obliteration of the concepts of resisting arrest / obstruction of <insert contempt of cop excuse>. The next step would be establishing a restricted set of circumstances where an officer is authorized to arrest vs ticket. This would prevent the all too common case of an interaction, initially beginning with a burnt out tail light, escalating to the point where somebody is dead.
Once police officers are restricted to hallway monitor status in 99% of the interactions, and Hollywood action-hero status for situations that actually call for it, they'll find the public much more trusting.
* Breaking the law.
* Immediate serious bodily harm to a person (attempted, threatened or witnessed (see law)).
Or:
* Warrent issued by a judge.
If the suspect wants to drive away, or not comply with an order, in the vast majority of cases (civil, petty crime etc), that's fine. Let them. It's counterproductive to chase someone and it's not worth shooting anyone over. Police officers and the people they serve would be safer. If a criminal warrant is issued by a judge, then the threat of force may be necessary, but it shouldn't be the first (no-knock raid for non-violent crime) reaction. Part of the problem (in addition to people who like to oppress and/or apply their racism) is that police are expected to force people to comply. Some will say "but the lawlessness!", to that I think two responses are appropriate:
Most of the laws that normal people break don't rise to the level necessary (see above) to be enforced with force.
The change in culture would have the opposite effect. There would be less crime.
I wonder what would happen if we not only elected the Sheriff, but the police too. Sheriff must have final hire/fire power, but the candidates should be required to get community support. And they should live in the community they serve. A great first step is to end the "war on drugs". Either we own ourselves or we don't.
[1] http://www.azleg.state.az.us/ars/13/00411.htm