What Police Critics May Miss in Response to the DOJ Ferguson Report

A man whispers to the waiter and nods toward the gray haired man wearing the weather beaten embroidered Vietnam Veteran cap. The veteran nears the end of his meal and finds that he owes nothing. Someone paid his bill. As he leaves, he hears “thank you for your service” and feels a mix of emotions. This is the same person who left the roiling streets of protestors in America to be dropped into the jungle of a terrible conflict, ordered to take a hill then give it back. 

The same person came home and walked through the airport in uniform and hears mutters of “baby killer” as mothers pull their children close. The next two decades are filled with television shows and movies about crazed Vietnam veterans. Finally, the mood of America warms. We now celebrate the soldier. Most conclude that a politician’s unpopular war should not condemn the soldiers who served and sacrificed.

Poking the Wrong Bear

Today’s police officer is the Vietnam soldier of 1967. Today it is the police officer on patrol who is suffering the brunt of the frenzy of anti-police sentiment. This is not only wrong but unproductive. While ethics requires every individual to conform to ideals of behavior, the reality is that the line officer has only small influence over the organization for which he or she works.

The most vocal police critics are poking the wrong bear. Local political leadership (not the feds and not legislation – I mean real leadership) is the starting point for examination of the need for reform in American policing. While the Nuremburg defense (I was just following orders) only goes so far, the rules of conduct, accountability, and training lie in the hands of leaders both elected and appointed. Harassment against, violence toward, and provocation of uniformed officers is a lashing out at a visible symbol of perceived problems, not the source of them.

Sifting the Issues

The single most important issue obscuring truth in the Ferguson debate is the unfiltered conglomeration of emotion and myth over the Michael Brown shooting. The decision by Officer Wilson to use deadly force, at the moment he made that decision, is entirely unrelated to any pre-existing police culture in Ferguson. Anyone who, for the sake of emotion or agenda, denies the multiple investigative finding of the facts that conclude, universally, that Brown was leaving the scene of a strong arm robbery, invaded Wilson’s patrol vehicle and struggled for the officer’s gun after violently punching the officer, has lost credibility to speak for real reform. This was not a racist white officer who shot down an innocent black teen at high noon for jaywalking.  Clinging to the false Twitter narrative of that day is a person with an agenda of denial and anger, a non-thinker; one who would rather continue to sing the mythical song of hands up don’t shoot than question why voters perpetuated their city’s exploitative administration.

The issue is not one of police personality. Labeling police officers as power hungry, psychopathic, low intelligence, and other manner of bigoted classification is no better than any other prejudice. I was on a talk radio panel discussion that included a black attorney who prefaced his remarks with “I know a lot of good police officers…” If I had said I know a lot of good black people or a lot of good lawyers, I would have been crucified for the implied slander of the majority of either of those groups. These tired, ad hominem attacks are counterproductive to change. Disdain for police officers is the laziest of all protests. People of good will need to be quick to censure this approach in any debate about policing.

Support Change by Demanding the Best for the Troops 

What then is the issue? In Ferguson, the clearly emerging issue is one of the corrupting influence of money. Money drove police priorities. Money drove abuses of the city’s court. Money provided the camouflage smokescreen behind which police conduct was overlooked while police “productivity” was celebrated. Cash was the currency of success through the eyes of the leadership rather than integrity, compassion, fairness, or even public safety.

Fictional Sgt. Friday from the television show Dragnet said the trouble with police work is that you have to recruit from the human race. As I have led dozens, trained hundreds, and written for tens of thousands of police officers I remain proud and privileged to be surrounded by these heroes. Like soldiers, the men and women who sign up to serve in the incredibly challenging world of law enforcement will respond with their best when led by leaders with integrity. We need leaders who are true defenders of the Constitution, advocates for the weak, and enemies of the predatory criminals whose ruthlessness the average person doesn’t comprehend. Policing is a high and noble calling. As with any fine thing, it is fragile and subject to stain unless properly cared for. 

What the DOJ got right about Ferguson

Making apologies for Ferguson is getting harder and harder. After I read the Investigation of the Ferguson Police Department report and recommendations, I find little fault with its conclusions.

As I turned each page of the report I was ready to be Holder’s critic and see his biased hand in every conclusion. As a researcher I was ready to question assumptions and statistics. As a staunch defender of police officers I was ready to point out unrealistic expectations and civilian ignorance.  In the end, the facts leading to the conclusion that there is a pattern of citizen mistreatment, quite deliberately encouraged by Ferguson’s city governance, are sound.

By way of critique, I see some argument in some of the anecdotal accounts, but the damning constellation of facts collected leads to some clear patterns. I also see little in the following public comment about accountability of the citizenry for allowing these abuses to continue. However, I don’t want to be among those who blithely write off “a pervasive lack of ‘personal responsibility’ among ‘certain segment’ of the community”, even though closer examination of that premise is an important part of whatever healing may come. But that was not the DOJ mandate.

As a Missouri native with St. Louis connections I grew up very aware of the prevalent racism in the city. My small town had no African-American subculture that I could tell from the few black families I knew. But even within my lifetime there were many towns posted with “sundown” warnings that no blacks were allowed inside the city limits after dark.  My generation watched the evening news as Dr. King marched, cities burned, and police dogs attacked.  As a boy I remember an elderly black man stepped off the sidewalk to let me pass in a conditioned deference to a white boy, just before I was going to step aside out of respect for his age. My dad had to explain that. It is no surprise that these American experiences cast a shadow over race relations a half century later. I also later learned that race hate was not a one way street.

What struck me most about the report was not that there was a deliberate attack on black residents, but a deliberate fleecing of citizens to fill city coffers. Given the power differential, the fact that black residents were disproportionately affected as a byproduct of the city’s greed is a natural consequence, creating a near indentured servitude. Indeed, laws were made to be enforced and we use armed government agents for that enforcement be it robbery or jaywalking. But the structure of due process must be designed with justice in mind, not the clinking of silver. Fines for offenses and warrants for no shows are for the public good, not for capturing citizens in a web of extortion.

My hope is that citizens will stop the tedious demonstrations and start voting, that all sides can get past the noise and review the fundamental principles of government, and that the officers of Ferguson PD can get the leadership needed to allow them to do the fine work I am confident they truly want to do

Ferguson Protestors' Rules for Police Inspiring New Era of Negotiation

The “Don’t Shoot Coalition” in St. Louis, Missouri has presented a package of requests to police officials on how to handle protests that will occur after the announcement of the grand jury’s decision on Officer Darren Wilson, investigated for the shooting of Ferguson resident Michael Brown.



Among the requests are no armored vehicles, no rubber bullets, no rifles, no tear gas, a safe house of refuge, advance notice of the grand jury decision, community-friendly policing, no mass arrests, hands off media representatives, allowing longer and more massive occupation of spaces than normally allowed, more tolerance of minor lawbreaking (such as throwing water bottles at police), no excessive force, and a few other details.



This is a great opportunity for others who anticipate criminal activity to jump on the rules of engagement bandwagon. Narcotics peddlers can begin requesting a no SWAT response to search warrants. Bank robbers should be allowed to get an ETA on responding officers to provide a reasonable lead time for their get away. Fraudulent check writers can negotiate for no prosecution unless they write a really bad check. As implied by the Don’t Shoot Coalition, all offenders should be allowed to throw things at police officers if they are sort of small things that probably won’t really hurt that much.



Sex offenders should negotiate being allowed one false identity to avoid the harassment associated with registering all the time. Arsonists, of course, would have to hold separate talks with the fire department officials to promise low water pressure on smaller fires.  Car thieves clearly would need to be assured a full tank of gas and insurance in case they crash when pursued. Unless, of course, pursuits are negotiated out of existence.



The real beauty of this expanding plan is that eventually police officers will be allowed to negotiate on some of these terms. For example, law enforcement could ask for a label on the thrown water bottles to assure that they aren’t filled with acid, urine, chlorine, or made of glass. Or we could just go with the honor system and hope the throwers stick to their principles of assaulting officers with relatively soft things.  The advance notice concept would be very helpful on all criminal activities. Even five minutes would be nice.



As for protective equipment, perhaps a provision that if one officer or more is killed or injured by that rare antagonistic, rule-breaking criminal, then a time out is called and officers can get into their gas masks or armored vehicles as deemed necessary by a standing committee.



Snarkasm aside, protests invite police attention, to be sure. But there is no reason to believe that law enforcement would interfere unless chaos and significant lawlessness break out, as happened during the initial riots. The coalition’s verbiage heavily implies that law breaking is anticipated and planned (but just a little bit). We used to call planning criminal activity “conspiracy”, not “negotiation”.

Brown, Wilson, and the History of Cop Hate

The collective pronoun "they" may be the most dangerous predictor of a tumble from impatience to harshness to hatred. "They always do that." "They need to get their act together." "They should be shot". The beginning of bigotry's hate is the convenience of category.

Comes now Ferguson, Missouri police officer Wilson in the matter of the death of one Michael Brown. Facts and physics be damned, Wilson is carrying the weight of "they" on his shoulders. From the long dead lawmen who gathered up escaped slaves to the ones who let loose the dogs and billy clubs on the Edmund Pettus bridge, Wilson shares a badge tarnished by suspicion and cynicism.

Wilson's decisions are not allowed to stand alone in the court of public opinion. He stands with the "they" of the hatred of cops by some and the love and respect of cops by others. 

Questions of why the prisons are full of young black men stand on Wilson's shoulders. Suspicion of an ever increasing Big Brother government stands there, too. A generation of self-centered, sheltered Americans leap on him. Those who never vote but readily protest and opine climb aboard. Those who fear oppression and those who fear lawlessness comprise his stand.

Darren Wilson was not every officer any more than Michael Brown was every black teenager. The ghost of all of history may hover over every "they", but when two men make individual decisions, the judgment must be framed by those individual moments.

The law is quite settled on these matters. If activists want to change the law that is another debate, but the law as it stands is clear, should anyone care to look:

"The "reasonableness" of a particular use of force must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, rather than with the 20/20 vision of hindsight. The calculus of reasonableness must embody allowance for the fact that police officers are often forced to make split-second judgments - in circumstances that are tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving - about the amount of force that is necessary in a particular situation." [Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989)]

Popular opinion fails in precisely the way that the lawmaker's predicted when courts and juries and the calm, rational systems of jurisprudence were designed. The law does not have a chip on its shoulder because a cousin was treated badly by the police. Jurors must not make any correlation between some SWAT team's error somewhere and Wilson's trigger. Those who really want justice wait for truth to be distilled from the chaos of public opinion.

They are few. 

A Cause Turned Stupid

Jim Croce's ballad gave a good definition of wasted effort: You don't tug on Superman's cape, you don't spit into the wind, and you don't try to make intelligent commentary about the St. Louis area rioting. And yet, here I go.

There was a time, despite the distortions of the Michael Brown shooting, that the opportunity to really talk about justice and race in America was an open door. Although the premise that Officer Wilson shot Brown because of their respective pigmentation remains unsubstantiated, sympathetic minds saw the pent up frustration of a segment of Americans burdened by a legacy of discrimination. Prisons full of black Americans and reports of profiling are compelling.

Then it turned stupid, and thinking citizens are increasingly rightfully embarrassed by the whole affair.

Please take note that when I use the word "stupid", I am only borrowing from our President who has used the word in reference to the police. His endorsement of the word makes it clear that it is not a racist term and that it is appropriate among bright thinkers in discourse of sober matters.

The turning point for most observers was rioting after a black male attempted to kill a St. Louis police officer who shot the man after dodging three bullets. To think that Officer Wilson assassinated Brown at high noon on a Saturday for jaywalking was implausible to begin with, then the subsequent wild anger overshadowed any attention to potential facts. The latest rioting because an officer defended himself from a murder attempt is stupid in the first degree.

The important dialogue was lost early when leaders failed to lead. The discussion was framed by Missouri's Governor acting stupidly by sharpening the pitchforks of the mob and urging swift prosecution of Officer Wilson. Missouri Highway Patrol Captain Johnson acted stupidly when he inflamed the crowd by apologizing for wearing the uniform. Al Sharpton acted just as expected, so I can't say he acted stupidly. But he did fail to act wisely when there are bridges that need to be built and not burned.

And every citizen, regardless of color, who has failed to vote in his or her own back yard has no claim on the shape and color of their local government. Complaining about white rule when 77% of the voting population is black sounds more like consent than rebellion. We are still a democracy and one that was fought for at great, tragic price in the civil rights era by courageous black men and women, and allies of every stripe who should be the heroes whose voices are heard today. One vote is more powerful than any brick thrown through a window.

Protesters who wear shirts that say "Don't shoot me because I'm black" make a mockery of black murder victims where all but 200 of the 2,648 black homicide victims (2012) were killed by one of their own race. And nobody wants to hear that over 40% of officers murdered were killed by black offenders.

The blindness of the whole mess is in the implicit claim that racial disparity in the land is singularly because of the police. If black Americans get relatively poorer prenatal care, have less stable family structures, get lower quality education, worse nutrition, less quality health care, more inadequate housing, less mental health support, fewer opportunities for banking, and all of the host of seen and unseen differentiation in our society why is it that an encounter with a police officer is blamed for our prison population? Let the police be accountable for what is traceable to their discretion. Fixing the police - if indeed they are broken - will not fix the systemic problem that the protesters ostensibly decry.

The fixing that needs to happen will begin with real dialog, real data, and finding out who the real heroes are.

Obama's Hypocrisy on Mistrust of the Police

I try to be honest enough with myself to admit when I agree with something said by somebody with whom I usually disagree . When I saw the headline about President Obama's remarks on mistrust of the police I began my deep breathing exercises in anticipation of another blood pressure spike. To my surprise and delight, the President made several statements with which I agree during a speech to the Congressional Black Caucus.

Mr. Obama spent a significant amount of time on the issue of justice, giving the topic highlighted attention among other sobering topics of war, disease, and the economy. The President, although entertaining applause for the parents of Michael Brown, declined to be accusatory and avoided referring to Brown as being "murdered". Obama accurately said that "the anger and the emotion that followed his death awakened our nation" to the "gulf of mistrust exists between local residents and law enforcement" rather than saying the shooting was a direct result of racism as is declared by many.

Obama observed that "many young men of color feel targeted by law enforcement", using restraint to acknowledge that the problem is one of perception that may or may not be sustained by reality. The President also made references to the perception of inequality in the criminal justice system as a whole rather than going for the easy applause of blaming the police only.

The President also acknowledged that government can't raise America's children, and called for more collaboration with private groups to meet the challenges young people face.

Most interesting is Mr. Obama's use of the phrase "strong policing". In declaring that mistrust harms "the communities that need law enforcement the most" and need "strong policing", this President, for the first time I can recall, acknowledged the value of police officers.

This from the man who famously referred to Cambridge, Massachusetts police officers investigating a reported break-in as "acting stupidly". The facts of the case are that the officers responded to a citizen report of a man attempting to break down the front door. The officers confronted an unknown person whom they asked for identification. The person was a friend of Obama, and is a prominent black scholar who was the homeowner. According to the police report, the man immediately started yelling "THIS IS WHAT HAPPENS TO BLACK MEN IN AMERICA!"

Obama refused to back down from his "stupidly" comment, to which he had added an angry polemic about racial profiling, but did make a sideways apology for adding to the "media frenzy" over an issue that is "still very sensitive". The President stated two days after the remark that his words had "I think, I unfortunately, I think gave an impression that I was maligning the Cambridge police department or Sgt. Crowley". The closest to an apology that I can infer is that, as the President said, "I could have calibrated those words differently", which was perhaps an apology for not finding an acceptable replacement word for "stupid" to refer to the police.

Befitting the low status of a police officer, the President, Joe Biden, the professor, and Sgt. Crowley were invited to talk over peanuts and beer in the Rose Garden of the White House. There was reportedly no apology that arose from that condescending photo op.

While I have yet to forgive the President's harmful remarks in favor of his professor friend, I liked Obama's remarks to the Congressional Black Caucus last week. With a small hope that the inflammatory anti-police sentiment might be turned down a notch by the White House, I'm still waiting for a full statement that America's law enforcement officers, and therefore the public whom they serve, have been put at greater risk by the frenzy of criticism from spineless politicians patronizing black citizens for headlines and votes.

Mr. President, at the time of this writing, seventeen police officers have died in the line of duty since Michael Brown was shot. Seven of those were murdered. Did any Department of Justice representatives attend their funerals, or are words of condolence and support reserved for anyone else but those in blue?