Police are the good guys; they put their lives on the line to protect the rest of us from people who commit violence or seek to deprive us of property we've worked hard to accumulate. But as officers sworn to uphold the laws and entrusted to carry weapons, they also have a responsibility to use force sparingly and only when absolutely necessary.
Too often lately we have seen cases in which use of deadly force has been questioned - Michael Brown in Ferguson, Mo.; 12-year-old Tamir Rice in Cleveland; the chokehold death of Eric Garner in Staten Island, N.Y.; and a number of local cases.
The Justice Department has faulted the Cleveland police for a 'pattern' of excessive force and has other investigations open. In some of these cases the public is deeply divided, often along racial lines.
Each case is different, but we as a society should strive to reduce these deaths, which threaten to drive a deeper wedge between us along racial and ideological lines and to cast our justice system as one that metes out inequal justice.
President Obama has called for increased use of body cameras by police, as has the StarNews. But he backed off calls to reduce the free flow of high-power weapons and assault vehicles from the military to local police departments. Some observers note an anecdotal link between the militarization of police departments and the apparent comfort with using deadly force. Do civilian law enforcement agencies really need to be equipped as though they were invading Iraq?
Police say they need military-grade vehicles, armor and weapons because some criminals are carrying high-power weapons. Departments that have this equipment tend to use it, and there is a danger that this type of response will become the norm rather than the exception that it should be.
Moreover, police are not military personnel. They are public safety officers who have an obligation to protect the lives of the people they seek to arrest as well as their own lives and the lives of others. The goal should always be to seek a peaceful resolution to confrontations. That is not always possible, and in cases in which confrontations become violent, officers are entitled to presumption that they responded appropriately until proven otherwise.
Yet it is also in police departments' best interest to forge a bond of trust with the residents they serve, and that is doubly important in impoverished minority neighborhoods where contact with police is often negative rather than positive. Wilmington Police Chief Ralph Evangelous has lamented that residents of high-crime neighborhoods are reluctant even to use anonymous tip lines to help police solve crimes. Some of that is fear, but part of it is distrust of the police. The department is working on it, as are others across the nation, but building trust should be a priority rather than a secondary mission.
Residents need to put forth an effort, too, but police operate from a position of power and authority, which can be intimidating. Some suggestions for helping build trust:
- Body cameras. While some observers say the Garner case calls into question the benefits of cameras, some cities report a marked drop in deadly force incidents with their use. And a video record leaves little doubt as to what transpired, unlike notoriously unreliable eyewitness testimony. Wilmington police and the Brunswick County Sheriff's Office are among agencies making more use of these devices; their use should become universal.
- Require public reporting of deadly force incidents, and analyze the numbers. There is not a consistent system to compare use of deadly force by police. There should be. Statistics tell a powerful story and can identify departments that use force more often than the norm.
- Continually train officers in the underrated art of defusing a tense situation. It is possible to prevent a violent end to many, if not most, confrontations between individuals and police, but officers must be well trained in how to 'talk down' a suspect.
No, none of these suggestions will magically eliminate tragic deaths or bridge the deep trust gap that exists, especially between police and residents of impoverished, high-crime communities. But they can be a starting point for a dialogue that currently sounds more like two disparate and accusatory monologues.
Editorial - Support police, but demand accountability, too
<p>Police are the good guys; they put their lives on the line to protect the rest of us from people who commit violence or seek to deprive us of property we've worked hard to accumulate. But as officers sworn to uphold the laws and entrusted to carry weapons, they also have a responsibility to use force sparingly and only when absolutely necessary.</p><p>Too often lately we have seen cases in which use of deadly force has been questioned - Michael Brown in Ferguson, Mo.; 12-year-old Tamir Rice in Cleveland; the chokehold death of Eric Garner in Staten Island, N.Y.; and a number of local cases.</p><p>The Justice Department has faulted the Cleveland police for a 'pattern' of excessive force and has other investigations open. In some of these cases the public is deeply divided, often along racial lines.</p><p>Each case is different, but we as a society should strive to reduce these deaths, which threaten to drive a deeper wedge between us along racial and ideological lines and to cast our justice system as one that metes out inequal justice.</p><p>President Obama has called for increased use of body cameras by police, as has the StarNews. But he backed off calls to reduce the free flow of high-power weapons and assault vehicles from the military to local police departments. Some observers note an anecdotal link between the militarization of police departments and the apparent comfort with using deadly force. Do civilian law enforcement agencies really need to be equipped as though they were invading Iraq?</p><p>Police say they need military-grade vehicles, armor and weapons because some criminals are carrying high-power weapons. Departments that have this equipment tend to use it, and there is a danger that this type of response will become the norm rather than the exception that it should be.</p><p>Moreover, police are not military personnel. They are public safety officers who have an obligation to protect the lives of the people they seek to arrest as well as their own lives and the lives of others. The goal should always be to seek a peaceful resolution to confrontations. That is not always possible, and in cases in which confrontations become violent, officers are entitled to presumption that they responded appropriately until proven otherwise.</p><p>Yet it is also in police departments' best interest to forge a bond of trust with the residents they serve, and that is doubly important in impoverished minority neighborhoods where contact with police is often negative rather than positive. Wilmington Police Chief <a href='http://ift.tt/1wSc1Ks'><b>Ralph Evangelous</b></a> has lamented that residents of high-crime neighborhoods are reluctant even to use anonymous tip lines to help police solve crimes. Some of that is fear, but part of it is distrust of the police. The department is working on it, as are others across the nation, but building trust should be a priority rather than a secondary mission.</p><p>Residents need to put forth an effort, too, but police operate from a position of power and authority, which can be intimidating. Some suggestions for helping build trust:</p><p>- Body cameras. While some observers say the Garner case calls into question the benefits of cameras, some cities report a marked drop in deadly force incidents with their use. And a video record leaves little doubt as to what transpired, unlike notoriously unreliable eyewitness testimony. Wilmington police and the Brunswick County Sheriff's Office are among agencies making more use of these devices; their use should become universal.</p><p>- Require public reporting of deadly force incidents, and analyze the numbers. There is not a consistent system to compare use of deadly force by police. There should be. Statistics tell a powerful story and can identify departments that use force more often than the norm.</p><p>- Continually train officers in the underrated art of defusing a tense situation. It is possible to prevent a violent end to many, if not most, confrontations between individuals and police, but officers must be well trained in how to 'talk down' a suspect.</p><p>No, none of these suggestions will magically eliminate tragic deaths or bridge the deep trust gap that exists, especially between police and residents of impoverished, high-crime communities. But they can be a starting point for a dialogue that currently sounds more like two disparate and accusatory monologues.</p>
Copyright 2014 StarNewsOnline.com - All rights reserved. Restricted use only.
Posted by Unknown on Monday, December 8, 2014 - Rating: 4.5
0 comments "Editorial"
Post a Comment