Police power in the United states is often viewed as unchecked and unlimited in the eyes of civilians. This power is often thought of as the police’s greatest weapon in maintaining order and upholding justice in the community. However, what happens when this power falls into the wrong hands and is abused? As cliché as it sounds, great power does come with great responsibility and as far as the police are concerned, their responsibility in upholding the law grants them certain powers that ordinary citizens do not have. These powers allow them to exercise physical force, when necessary, to maintain peace. History has shown that police, in many cases, have misused the powers granted to them by the government. When the officers abuse their power, it is the unions that seem to protect and look out for them. This abuse, however, is avoidable. Familiarity with the community and the people can allow the police do their job and coexist with the everyday citizen without needless violence.
Today, tensions between the police and the people seem to have risen to an unimaginable level. With the amount of gun related injuries and fatalities, incidents involving officers and ordinary citizens hardly go unnoticed. In the past year alone “963 people have been shot and killed by police” (WaPo). Cases in which officers unlawfully shot and killed unarmed or unthreatening victims have been focus points around which entire movements were organized. One of the most recognizable movements today, the Black Lives Matter movement, arose after the acquittal of George Zimmerman in the killing of Trayvon Martin. However, the movement picked up speed in 2014 after the killings of Eric Garner and Michael Brown. These unfortunate deaths of two African American males sparked civil unrest across the country with people showing support through social media and protests. Over time, the resentment between protesters and police officers seemed to grow. This resentment grew many times over as more cases of police brutality came to light. The shooting of other unarmed individuals, such as Tamir Rice and Walter Scott, only added to the situation by widening the gap between police officers and citizens, and in July 2016 one individual took it upon himself to gun down five officers as retaliation against the unfair treatment by the police. In the more recent past, opposing movements such as Blue Lives Matter have risen voicing the need to protect the lives of officers in blue. Under the new presidency of Donald Trump, people are more fearful than ever over how they will be treated by their own government based on the color of their skin or any stereotypes that may pertain to them, and with a nation seemingly more divided than ever, the question arises whether the power of the police should be limited. In Robert Ferguson’s book Inferno, he explains the application of force by the police as the “quickest way” for them to instill order (Ferguson 105). It is this force that the police use, and in some cases abuse, when doing their job.
Time and again, the police have shown that they are capable of exercising unnecessary force, resulting in the death of innocent people. In the case of 12-year-old Tamir Rice, Officer Timothy Loehmann was dispatched on a call about a suspicious individual wielding a gun, “later determined to be an airsoft pellet gun,” and pointing it at people (HP, Bellware). Upon arriving at the scene, Officer Loehmann opened fire on Rice just moments after approaching him, ultimately killing him. On October 20, 2014 officer Jason Van Dyke aimed his sidearm at 17-year-old Laquan McDonald and fired his entire clip of bullets at the teenager. After being hit by 9 bullets, McDonald was pronounced dead. This incident sparked outrage in that not only did the officer draw his weapon but excessively fired it at the teenager. Later investigation showed that officer Van Dyke had “17 citizen complaints against him” prior to the death of McDonald (WaPo, Kaplan). So, the question remains over whether the police are too quick to use force. Even in cases that don’t include fatalities, police seem to show an excessive use of their powers, but when exactly does the appropriate use of force become excessive? According to Sascha Segan of ABC news, “there is no concrete definition of excessive force (ABC news). The use of force by the police is necessary in subduing suspects or maintaining obedience. In order to subdue a criminal who is displaying a large use of physical force, an equal amount of force must be displayed by the police to subdue said criminal. However, certain cases arise when police over-exert or incorrectly exert their physical power resulting in the injury of the suspect or even the officer himself. To minimize such events, limitations must be used to check the power of the police to lessen the number of negative outcomes that excessive force can cause. In a country where gun laws make it easy for untrained citizens to obtain firearms, police officers often feel the need to make use of their government issued weapons when mollifying public disturbances. Since virtually anyone can obtain a gun, officers begin to expect that any situation they encounter could potentially involve a gun owning individual. If this assumption about all suspects is made, then it is easy for officers to be quick with their guns and not think twice before firing them. Additionally, it is easy for officers to misidentify harmless objects as weapons and with only a split second to come to a decision, they can either fire or hold their fire and run the risk of the unidentified object actually being a weapon (WaPo). Compared to other countries, America seems to have one the worst problems with police related killings. According to The Huffington Post, American police are anywhere from 18 to 100 times more likely to kill than the police of any European country (HP, Hirschfield). However, the deadliness of the American police comes in part from the training that they receive, or lack thereof. Every officer is screened and trained by the department they intend to work for, especially when a new weapon, such as a stun gun is introduced; however, “Some under resourced departments may perform some of these critical tasks poorly” resulting in the improper use of new weapons or even resorting back to old, more familiar weapons (HP, Hirschfield). Often the use of force is up to the discretion of individual officers. They may use whatever amount of force they deem fit for the situation whether it be excessive or not. When the moment arises that police impulsively overexert their power over others, it is the family like construct of their departments that protects the individual officers from the public.
Police departments face a lot of scrutiny from the public every day and such scrutiny leads officers to band together and form a type of brotherhood in which every officer looks out for one another. When officers deal with unruly citizens on a day to day basis, they “become reflections of the people they police” and soon enough the attitude of the community tends to shape their own (Ferguson p.106). Although the majority of cops tend to be law abiding officers, a small percentage can be identified as bad cops. Another small fraction will be good and the in between majority will sway in the direction of the “peer pressure” (Ferguson p.108). After witnessing the many horrors of the streets, policemen are irreversibly shaped by their environment, a fate only another officer would understand. This understanding forms the brotherhood between cops and provides refuge for cops when they require it. When a situation arises in which a law enforcement officer has unlawfully injured or killed a civilian, the family of police officers takes the officer in and shelters him, especially under the protection of police unions. Almost immediately after an officer is accused of unlawfully harming a civilian, police unions seem to go to work to clear the name of their officer by whatever means necessary. In Oakland, the police union was successful in protecting its officers by appealing and reducing punishments in “12 out of 15 cases in which officers were investigated for excessive force” (HP, Adetiba). In Chicago, the police union brought a lawsuit against the city to prevent the releasing of official complaints against officers (HP, Adetiba). In Washington D.C., the local police union threatened to “unseat” 10 D.C. council members when their re-election came around if they signed off on a resolution to reform the police force in the Capital (HP, Adetiba). The Fraternal Order of Police, or FOP, has also “lobbied against bills” that would allow for the gathering of “data on deaths while in police custody” (HP, Adetiba). In protests, activists often spend their time protesting elected officials while police unions operate, undetected in the background. Unions and precincts often work towards a similar goal to protect their own, regardless of whether their officers are guilty or not. Although police departments are often in desperate need of reform, unions often use their power to sway the politics in their favor, ultimately avoiding any attempt at reforming or limiting the power of the police. The involvement of unions in police work allow the police to abuse their power and continuously get away with it. Limitations placed not only on the police themselves, but the unions as well would help to prevent the suppression of evidence, the corruption of officers, and most of all the abuse of power. Without protection from police unions, police unions would most likely, be unable to protect themselves from the public if they overstep their limitations. However, a friendly relationship with the community could help bridge the gap between the police and the people.
An understanding between the community and the police could help create a friendly relationship between these two groups. Becoming a police officer has few prerequisites and often involves insufficient training. This combined with trigger-happy cops can result in unwanted civilian casualties. Even after becoming an officer, many police departments around the country lack “post-employment training” to update officers’ style of policing (ASC p.97). Most of policing also involves split second decision making which can often result in mistakes and even criticism from the public. On top of these factors, unfamiliarity between police and the area over which they are policing can create unwanted tension between the police and the locals that live there. According to the American Society of Criminology, or ASC, familiarizing oneself with the surroundings that he or she operates in can greatly reduce the risk of undesired interactions. Befriending local citizens allows officers to mediate a situation without the need for drawing any weapons. The public often has an unrealistic expectation of the police and are “often frustrated with the police” (ASC p.101). According to The Sentencing Project, or TSP, familiarizing an officer with the local culture and community can be valuable in that it helps the police officials to exercise “their discretion in an unfamiliar context” and can form a “public trust in the police” (TSP p. 27). By forming a bond of trust with the public, local law enforcement can be more considerate and aware of the public when making decisions on policies and practices. Involving the public in policy making decisions prevents the passing of “ill-formed” policies that may be negatively viewed by the people (TSP p.28). Taking into consideration the needs of the public can push policies to include better supervision of officer to avoid cases of police brutality or racial profiling. In San Diego and New Jersey officials now require that the ethnicity of all people stopped by the public to be recorded to monitor racial profiling (TSP p.28). Limitations like this help police the police and prevent unwanted use of force on civilians. However, some might argue that the use of force is a necessary component to police work.
The right to use a level of force legally given to ten police by the government, arguably ensures police will always be well equipped to handle situations in which they need to “secure obedience in a crisis” (Ferguson p.105). Officers are, more often than not, in environments where people hurl curses at them and aggressively display their dislike for the police. Although most cops are able to diffuse a situation without bloodshed, sometimes deadly force is the only route that is the safest. Sunil Dutta, a veteran of the LAPD, recounts the time when a man had doused his car and threatened to set it ablaze, but officer Dutta was able to calmly diffuse the situation without any bystanders getting harmed or the suspect being shot and killed (WaPo, Dutta). Dutta goes on further to say that cooperation with the police is the best option for any citizen even if their rights are being infringed upon (WaPo, Dutta). The point being that even if your rights are violated, good police work requires that police exercise force even if it is at your expense. The use of force allows for the police to maintain order and with limitations on that force, that would make the process of instilling order more difficult and time consuming. The purpose of the police is to neutralize a situation with the least amount of resistance to ensure that everything can go back to the way it was prior to any disturbance in the fastest way possible. The role of the people is to do everything within their power to cooperate with the police and make sure that the job of the police is not “more difficult than it already is” (WaPo, Dutta). Furthermore, the organizations like police unions, provide benefits for its officers that they would otherwise not have. They also have significant power in swaying politics to benefit its officers. Under the current presidency, police unions seem as if they will be more protected than ever. In 2016, the largest police union in the world, The Fraternal Order of Police, gave their endorsement for the then Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump, and now under Trump’s presidency police unions seem to have obtained protection on national level (WaPo, Jackman).
In today’s politics and under the new presidency of Donald Trump, police unions and officers seem to have gained the support from the highest office in the American government and may possibly be untouchable by reforms for the foreseeable future. If this carries on, it is possible that we may see an even bigger rise in resentment between the police and the public. This could result in more cases of excessive force and deadly force usage. Although the majority of police officers are not necessarily bad people, it is the bad decisions that bathe them in a negative light. Similarly, not all reform activists are against the police or hate the police, but is the acts of the few that affects the treatment of the many. Lack of understanding between the public and those who police it will result in animosity between these two parties. As Aung San Suu Kyi of Burma once said,
“It is not power that corrupts but fear. Fear of losing power corrupts those who wield it and fear of the scourge of power corrupts those who are subject to it.”