First of all, let’s start this newsletter with an homage to all of those good, brave, honorable, kind, generous police officers that we know are out there and do not always get the recognition that they deserve. We thank you, every one.
We Are Not Saints
The people of this planet are not saints. They run a spectrum in personality from horrible, antisocial, “evil” (as defined by local society) people to fantastic, friendly, “saintly” people. (“good” people are somewhere in the center as both “evil” and “saintly” are extremes.) This is independent of whether one is male, female, rich, poor, pigmented, non-pigmented, of religion X or religion Y, or whatever.
And it applies to police officers. Anyone who believes that all police officers are saints is not being honest to themselves or others. The same is true of those who have never experienced a healthy interaction with police officers — good police officers do exist. Some problems occur out of policy. More occur from inappropriate training. A few exist because the recruiting of police officers does not sufficiently filter out those people who fit firmly on the negative end of the spectrum of “goodness”.
The History of the U.S. Police Service May be Different from What You have Imagined
The general view of the U.S. police service will vary a lot from personal, familial, and cultural experience. As children, some are taught to rely on them as friends. Some are taught to be very cautious from a potential of abuse. There is no unique, singular, self-description of the police officer within the U.S. The mottos range from “On Guard for All” to “Justice and Peace, Hand in Hand” to “Hope, Honor, and Healing’.
The beginnings of the U.S. police service were associated with municipalities. With more people, there were more crimes. In addition, cities grew and, with insufficiently regulated capitalism, wealthy segments developed. In the South (and areas of the North at some periods of history), Slave Patrols were created. Boston created a Night Watch and other cities such as New York City, Salt Lake City, and Philadelphia. In all regions (but adapted to local situations), it was largely a matter of protecting the wealthy (or relatively wealthy) from the poor. Unions, and Union organizers, were considered to be a particular danger to the status quo. (In the South, it was a more formal separation due to ethnic history and skin color.) Although the Slave Patrols officially disappeared with the ending of the U.S. Civil War, unofficially they continued within the structure and “duties” of the Ku Klux Klan (KKK).
The dominant authors of the times also were well acquainted with the structure and focus of the police forces of their countries. “Les Miserables” is often read, made into movies, and acted out in plays but the primary conflict is between the poor (who stole bread to survive) and the rich (who might not have even been aware of where the kitchen was). As the years unfolded, police forces were created, and made part of municipal areas, in order to protect people with a strong inclination of protecting the wealthy from the less wealthy.
In the 1800s, police units (in the North, still the Slave Patrols in the South) were integrated into their neighborhoods. This had a lot of advantages in that people knew the police officers of their areas. However, the police departments were also directly tied into the local political structures so, in effect, they often acted as political (and sometimes financial) enforcers of the community.
The 1900s brought technology to the systems. Police officers could talk with each other and with a central dispatcher. With patrol cars, officers started living away from the neighborhoods for which they were involved. This split off political enforcement but also gave them less knowledge of the communities and people. They became strangers to the communities in which they served but were used less as political and cultural enforcers.
A more recent development has made use of local police departments, often without public knowledge or approval, being “dump sites” for military equipment which is in excess, or redundant (military budgets are almost never audited). This has worked to tilt police departments even further away from the stated desires of serving the public.
Corporate Media Controls the Language Used about Differences
As discussed in a different newsletter, corporate media has long had a leaning towards making the publication profitable and to please the owners of the media. Of late, this leaning has become more blatant and with many fewer journalistic standards applied.
This drift away from accuracy affects many aspects without direct lies. The most obvious, “time honored”, item is titles of articles. How many times have you plunged into an article only to find that the article truly had nothing to do with the headline? The same drift from veracity occurs when reporting about something and giving it a name. “The Boston Strangler” only came to life when a paper gave them that title. Something similar has occurred with the idea of defunding the police. The concept primarily dates back to abolitionist days to eliminate the Slave Patrols. But, beyond the Southern Slave Patrols, the term has been used for a spectrum of definitions and interpretations. Just as a misleading title will guide a reader down a path that may not be indicated by the contents of the article, overuse of a word, or using it without context, can eliminate the wide underlying meanings of the concept. This has happened with applying the word “defund” to the police departments.
There do exist people, and groups, that argue for the elimination of the police service, but these people are not in the majority. The primary problem in a large percentage of situations is that the modern police forces are not able to effectively meet the needs of the community. Personally, I think that the word RETRAIN is much better used in this situation. If you give a list of legitimate purposes for a police officer such as preventing and catching murderers, rapists, assaulters, and thieves then most people will say that there needs to be some such person (of whatever title) to do such.
Typical Daily Duties of a Police Officer
So, what does a police officer typically do during a work day?
A lot of the time is spent with paperwork/reporting and another large chunk is spent moving around, including responding to requests for help. Along with administrative duties, this amounts to around 60% of a police officer’s time.
According to a New York Times analysis on time spent in actual activities (New York Times, Jeff Asher & Ben Horwitz, “How Do the Police Actually Spend Their Time?”, June 19, 2020), the remaining 40% of a police officer’s time is spent
Serious violent crime (homicide, robbery, rape, assault, ..) about 4%
Incidents with guns around 0.5%
Traffic work, general complaints & non-criminal interactions give us about 1/3 of the officer’s time
Non-violent domestic disturbances (perhaps the most dangerous because the scene is difficult to anticipate and prepare for) around 7%
The rest is spent with patrol, traffic enforcement, checking neighborhoods and so forth.
This doesn’t add up to a tidy 100% (although that cheater “the rest” is there to fill in the gaps). Some of that 60% overhead probably merges into “the rest”.
This gives us a general picture, however. A police officer has a lot of paperwork and other overhead. Around 5% may involve guns (appropriately used or not). And then the rest is “serving the public”.
Training for a Police Officer
Training for municipal police officers is determined, and coordinated, by the various states — so the specific courses, and hours required, vary a lot. These numbers are approximated from Bureau of Justice Statistics data (2022 Census of Law Enforcement Training Academies). Some primary sources include:
As stated above, these are for municipal police officers. County, state, and federal officers may have different numbers associated with their training. Hours (within the police academy, more hours continue after graduation) vary from 400 hours of study to more than 900 hours of study).
The greatest amount of time (about 20%) is spent with firearms skills. About 1/3 of the hours (includes firearms) is for firearms and defensive tactics, Around a quarter of the time is spent studying the laws (traffic, juvenile, criminal, constitutional). A good chunk (17% or so) is spent getting the officer-in-training into good enough physical condition. A final quarter of the time is knowing how (operations) and practicing.
Training versus Day-to-Day Usage
A big thing that jumps out is all of the paperwork/administration. It seems that day-to-day life seems oriented towards producing frustrated bureaucrats. And the mindset of the average police officer on duty is an important matter. The next is that almost all of the rest of the time is dealing with traffic incidents (and, sometimes, directing), domestic situations (particularly potentially dangerous within the US), and neighborhood checks and watches. Very little time is spent in situations where firearms are appropriate and potentially useful.
So, How Could We Ideally Retrain Police Officers?
First, give police stations more administrative staff. Reduce paperwork for police officers (though it is unlikely they can be isolated from it). Reduce frustration and, speaking of frustration, have a solid counseling crew for backup with the stresses and tensions of police work. Second, rather than spending so much time on usage of firearms, devote much of the time training in conflict resolution techniques. Prevent violent situations rather than create endpoint situations. Finally, similar to the United Kingdom, don’t have armed officers for typical deployment. Have special, specifically trained, people (call them SWAT if you want) who are well trained in how to use and WHEN TO NOT USE weapons. In this manner, you retrain to a department whose primary purpose is to serve the public and help to enforce laws that have been determined by the community.
Indefensible Behaviors
I can, with great effort, think of AN instance where a person shot in the back might be defensible. A convicted mass murderer running away with every likelihood of continuing their spree of killing. That’s about it. Killing someone, in a non-defensive situation, is giving the police officer the power of judge and jury with a death penalty outcome.
Sell some loose cigarettes illegally? Definitely deserves the death penalty, doesn’t it? Just run away when the officer asks them to halt and answer some questions? I would say that being murdered by being shot in the back justifies their fears and their running away. As I said in the above paragraph, I can imagine a potential justification for shooting someone in the back. Perhaps that might occur in one out of 100,000 times. Otherwise, shooting someone in the back is second-degree murder, in my opinion. Giving a death penalty verdict for potential crimes, or actions, that deserve nothing even close to the death penalty. Choking, battering, and other potentially deadly uses of force are close to as clear-cut.
I have heard that some drug users, and some with particular psychotic behaviors, may require use of force that, for most, would be excessive. So be it. But, in such situations, they are not running away and, once subdued, the behavior by the officer that might have been justified becomes fully non-justifiable.
Police officers need much more training in conflict resolution. They need ready, non-judgemental, access to counselors to maintain a proper, productive, work attitude. They need special training for persons they may encounter on the street. This includes mental illnesses as well as the socially maladroit. They need training in martial arts and non-deadly (not necessarily not potentially deadly) methods of restraint and control. They typically don’t need guns, of which the easy access may exacerbate the situation.
A police officer deserves, and needs, extra judicial and legislative protection for their safety, and actions, when performing, or as a result of performing, their lawful duties. But, if they are the ones breaking the laws, then there should be no judicial or legislative protection. I remember a situation in Denver about 40 years ago when a police officer entered the courtroom to murder his wife’s lawyer during a contentious divorce. According to the wording on some protective laws, they would be immune to prosecution.
Conclusion (or invitation to continue contemplating)
“Defund the police”. No, in most cases there are reasons for someone to be there with the responsibility of serving and protecting the public. But retraining is likely to be necessary. Supporting the police with counselors, decent pay and benefits, and required duties that are in sync with their training is a great thing. Active support for their lawful actions performing their lawful duties. But holding them to a standard that is a positive example to the community is also necessary.
