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. 

Use of Force Contuum

I have written that the Use of Force Continuum (UOFC) must be replaced in police policy with something more utilitarian. The UOFC might be a good theoretical teaching tool but is not a good guide for field use in determining the reasonableness of force. At the very least, those who continue to use the unwieldy UOFC need to truncate the lower tier of the model by removing "officer presence" as a part of the force model.

For those who are not familiar with the UOFC the premise is that a) police need to use the least amount of force possible and b) that police officers use one level higher than the person they are arresting and escalate according to the resisting party's use of force and c) police officers must de-escalate as soon as possible and in concordance with the resisting party's own use of force in resisting.

Traditional models look like stair steps and place different control techniques on different tiers according to their potential for injury to the suspect. The lower tier is typically labelled "officer presence" and refers to the officer's "command presence" in which, theoretically, the stalwart, confident police officer intimidates the citizen into compliance. The higher tiers move through joint locks, night sticks, electronic control devices, guns, tear gas, etc. There is often a description of suspect action that corresponds to the allowable officer action.

The problem with the UOFC is that people who resist arrest don't use it. They don't start out using minimal resistance and gradually use more severe force in the order that the police academy charts indicate. Another problem is that the minimally necessary force may not be the most effective force. If the force applied is not effective then the resistance of the suspect could lead to a rapid escalation of force and an even worse outcome. Part of the reason for this is that if the officer fails to gain control of the suspect immediately, the suspect's adrenaline is kicking in while the officer's is beginning to wane, resulting in a longer, more dangerous encounter for both the officer and the suspect.

Another issue with the UOFC is that it is not what the courts require. The Supreme Court has consistently used "reasonableness" as its standard for determining if a police officer used excessive force or not. This is consistent with the US Constitution's fourth amendment that governs how persons can be seized.

Now that we've had a quick lesson in the UOFC, I'll make my main point of today's commentary: Citing "officer presence" as a "use of force" is not accurate or helpful. Officers who merely show up are not engaged in a use of force. Although a suspect or other citizen might consider the officer's mere presence menacing and intimidating, that's their perception in view of the context of the contact and not something entirely within the control of the police officer. Labeling a police officer's existence at a certain time and place as force creates an implication that police officers are all about force, that force is at their essence, that brutality sulks in the britches of every uniform just waiting to pounce. This perception is part of the undercurrent of suspicion and hatred of the police so prevalent in police encounters in recent days when focus should be on the person in non-compliance with the law.

What the officer's presence indicates is that the suspect must be mindful of the law. The law requires a person to submit to the police officer's lawful commands and requests, and submit to a lawful detention or arrest. In fact, while some state laws allow a citizen to resist an unlawful arrest, most state laws do not; and a citizen resists at their peril because the subjective knowledge of the police officer is the guide for the reasonableness of the contact based on facts that officer knows. If I happen to look just like the guy that just robbed the bank down the block I can't resist the officer's arrest since from his perspective that arrest is perfectly reasonable and the courts will quickly agree.

Therefore, if a policy insists on using the out of date UOFC , that policy should reflect that the first tier of the continuum is the citizen's knowledge that he or she must submit to the officer according to the law.

The whole paradigm of police use of force in this ordered democracy under the rule of law must change to focus on the citizens' responsibility to lawfully submit to the police.

http://www.joelshults.com/

The Whole Country is Suffering from Stockholm Syndrome

After viewing a sample of cellphone and amateur videos of arrests by police officers, including the horrific BART shooting, I am noting that nowhere is there any public commentary on the hostility of bystanders and their sympathy with persons resisting the police. The kinds of hate speech and abuse to which officers are subjected is astonishing. It appears that the universal assumption of bystanders during an arrest is that the officers involved a) have no right to arrest the person and b) have no right to use force against the person.

Police work is sometimes brutal. It looks rough and harsh and mean. The average citizen does not comprehend the violence police officers meet when a person resists. The citizen does not know what it takes to subdue a human being who does not want to be subdued. A non-police citizen cannot bear to know what police officers know about the capacity for others to be wicked.

The average citizen also does not know that data show that force is used in a small fraction of encounters and force other than handcuffing is used in a small fraction of arrests. Bystanders forget that officers are injected into an already violent or tense situation not of the officers' making, and that the legal obligation of citizens is to peacefully submit to an arrest. Except in those exceedingly rare cases of officer misuse of force, the singular prevention strategy for police use of force is for citizens in contact with police to obey the lawful commands of police officers. Period.

What has become to be known as the Stockholm Syndrome is a victim's identification, empathy, and positive regard for captors that is manifested in a lack of cooperation or disdain for their rescuers. In the videos where crowds are gathered to video police use of force, one might wonder why there are not cheers for the officers who are bravely stepping into disorder to capture those suspected of criminal activity. Instead it appears that they identify with the "bad guy" to the extent that they materially interfere with the officers' attempts to contain and control a criminal event.

It will be left to the sociologists and psychologists to examine this phenomenon for possible answers, but in the interim, police officers must constantly watch their backs for attacks from bystanders.

Here is an article I have written for review for publication:

Public Hostility and the Police
By Dr. Joel F. Shults

Fight in progress. The police arrive. The crowd gathers. A BART transit police officer is caught on video sending a bullet into a man in police custody. A storm of protest begins. There are two chilling aspects to video captured at the scene of this terrible event: one is the sound of gunfire; the other is the frightful sound of mocking and hate-filled voices of the crowd toward the police officers before the shooting. We can’t do or say anything about the shot fired but do we understand the significance of the crowd’s anger?

Police officers take calamity as their norm. We forget what our encounters with disorder look like to civilians who expect their world, including their transit platforms, to be orderly. In my world police officers don’t randomly grab people and make them sit shackled on the concrete or face down on the pavement. That only happens when somebody calls 911 and reports that people are doing bad things. I only go where I’m invited or needed. In my world I don’t fight anybody that doesn’t ask to be fought. In my world I represent and enforce the law and the law says that others have to peaceably obey my lawful order. I can’t choose to allow someone to refuse to comply; if I do the orderly world in which my citizens live will begin to unravel into chaos.

Therefore it is difficult for me to view the world through the perspective of those who are quick to digitally capture police encounters, hoping to be the next famous viral video, who leap to conclude that police officers are acting illegally and brutally? Is it the psychological distress of witnessing a fight that creates an onlooker’s identification with the suspect and revulsion toward the officer? Has the hateful rhetoric of music and race-baiting activism found a permanent place in the psyche of our population? Has our profession failed to reach out and educate the public to help them rationally asses these events?

Regardless of the cause it appears that the police in the U.S. are dealing with a chronic national case of Stockholm Syndrome, where victims identify with the bad guys and resist their rescuers. How can police officers and administrators deal with anti-police bias? Here are five things to consider:

Assume YouTube: You will be on film whether it’s your own car or mic cam or one of the 3 zillion cell phone vids. The video is as likely to be interpreted in a way that harms your case as it is to vindicate. If you accept that you’re being digitally documented then it won’t freak you out when you turn and see all the cell phones flipped open and pointed at you. Consider filming back: have an officer at the scene who can start panning the crowd with his or her own cell phone cam. Suddenly the crowd may not feel so anonymous.

Go Zen: Focus on your objective. While you assess the danger of a hostile crowd you don’t try to make your case arguing with them, make meaningless threats, or grab their cameras because they offend you by questioning your authority. Find some inner peace about what you’re doing.

Lawyer up: It is essential that every police officer have an advocate of their own. It is possible that nobody is going to be on your side unless you’re paying them to be. Find that person or organization now, before the crisis. Surviving until an objective fact-finding proceeding can sort through the smoke and mirrors may depend on it.

Be proactive: Are you helping to educate the political powers about the realities of police work? Are you documenting how rarely physical force is used? Is your department winning friends and influencing people with community outreach and collaboration? Does your use of force policy still use the unwieldy and unrealistic use of force continuum and insist on the minimum force possible to meet non-compliance? Does your Chief or public information officer apologize every time somebody is offended instead of laying out facts and calling for objectivity?

Gather Intel: Check the internet video, social networking, and blog sites for anti-police rhetoric toward your agency or the police in general from persons or cases in your area. Once you tap into the sordid web of anarchist rants, disaffected malcontents, and anti-police activists your paranoia will ratchet up a few notches. I use a variety of search terms that include my agency and organization name along with any kind of malevolent threat or language I can imagine to see who’s talking about me. Hint: turn off the family friendly search engine filter! You might even find groups to which you can reach out and repair misinformation.

As a profession we must assertively confront the issues of hostility against our most dedicated front line public servants to preserve our personal safety as well as the larger social order. Unquestionably we must purge the rude and brutal from our ranks, but we must also play an active role in understanding and molding public opinion.

http://www.joelshults.com

ER Docs Surveyed Claim Excessive Force by Police

A recent article (http://www.reuters.com/article/healthNews/idUSTRE4BN39F20081224?feedType=RSS&feedName=healthNews ) shows that a huge majority of emergency room physicians report that patients who had been treated after being subject to use of force by police officers were subjected to excessive force. Within the same article is discussion about whether ER docs should begin mandatory reporting of suspected excessive force by police. I cannot describe adequately how much damage this report will cause to the police profession, nor can I adequately express how utterly worthless the research is to the issue of police use of force.

The opinion of anyone - regardless of whether they are a well educated, well respected professional -about an event which they have not witnessed and about which they have no objective information is worthless and irrelevant. They may be experts in assessing injury but they are not experts in assessing whether that injury was justifiably and legally incurred. It would be no surprise to find that patients who were the subject of such force would almost universally claim that the force was excessive. "Thanks for using the Taser on me Officer I sure had that coming" is not a phrase you're going to hear very often.

There is no comparison between a domestic violence victim or child abuse victim and the person who has been injured by the police. A law or policy requiring medical personnel to report suspected excessive force by police is entirely out of place. No family violence victim chooses to be the subject of an assault. Persons who disregard their statutorily mandated duty to submit to an arrest and obey police commands do make that choice. No abuser of a spouse or child has the right to commit an act of violence against their prey (other than lawful corporal punishment of a minor for disciplinary purposes). A police officer is specifically trained, equipped, and lawfully mandated to be the aggressor in contacting persons suspected of criminal behavior. They are given Constitutional guidelines, certain levels of immunity, and statutory authority to act on behalf of the people in the use of necessary means to gain compliance. Victims of relationship violence have few resources and weak recourse against their attackers. Citizens who claim excessive force have advocates waiting in the wings to help them file grievances, imperil an officer's job, sue the officer and his or her employing agency, or commence a state or federal civil rights investigation. There is no conceptual correlation between a victim of relationship violence for which there are mandatory reporting and protection laws, and the subject of a police use of force.

I urge people in the medical, research, and law enforcement professions to speak out at every opportunity when this research is cited as evidence of police misconduct.