Good Cops in a Bad System

In a recent Politico op-ed, author Thomas C. Knowles, a Law Enforcement officer with decades of experience— most recently as a supervisor for the FBI— begins his article with a half-truth, “No good cop ever wants to pull his gun”. This is true in the sense that, a “good cop” knows by pulling his weapon there is a heightened chance someone may be injured or killed, and no sane person starts out their day planning to kill another human. Knowles conceals the fact that even the “good cop” will and must draw their firearm when that officer believes their life or the life of another is in danger. A good cop will invariably pull his weapon regardless of whether the officer “wants” to use force or not is put aside by the officer’s perception of the exigency in real time. Part instinct and part training, the action of a cop taking one life is to save another. It’s not as paradoxical is it seems— good cops are trained to kill, and if deadly force is used it doesn’t always equal a problem in the system. The broken system is silence on injustice.

Knowles feels the need to remind the public —police are not the enemy and in attempt to speak for the entire profession: officers know the system is broken, but platitudes fall short of a real defense to allegations of what many believe is a breakdown in the system. Furthermore, the idea police understand there exists systemic criminal justice issues should be comforting to the reader. This of course is not comforting; if police know the system is not working properly and do nothing to change it, doesn’t that make them part of the larger problem? Knowles is out of touch with the average cop possibly because of his tenure in a supervisory capacity; the vocal officers are not condemning the system when they see supporters wearing “I CAN breathe” t-shirts, they are solidifying their adversarial role against the public. Again, vocal officers do not seem bothered by the recent killing of unarmed black men; they are quite callous in supporting the notion that the recently deceased black males at the hands of police are justified and the discussion should end there.

Let’s not pretend that if  good cops believe the system is broken somehow it absolves them of any culpability as the rank and file of the criminal justice system. The narrative of the good cops protecting the citizenry despite danger to their own life and limb has the overarching premise that police should be extended the benefit of the doubt even in questionable circumstances. As if to say: because police work is inherently dangerous, we mustn’t criticize or call for more police oversight—doing so would in and of itself tacitly convince an unstable person to ambush and murder cops. The notion that holding police accountable is akin to calling for violent attacks on police is the equivalent of saying: those that redress grievances with the government support the violent overthrow of that government—both are illogical.

The injustices in the criminal justice system flow downward from court rulings and legislation, but police can impact the system on their level if they choose. Officers are given much power over the citizenry and much of an officer’s contact with the public is self-initiated by the officer themselves. The criterion that each officer uses to stop a person may vary, but are dependent on the same factors. Officers use their training and life experience as the gauge in whether to contact a citizen. Both of these methods—training and experience—can be biased against certain races or classes of people. All officers have some form of implicit bias and when they act on their bias they have crossed over into discrimination.

There is a stigma and climate of retaliation against good cops that speak out and it is because of this culture that sweeping change will not come from within police departments. Despite the current state of things, good cops can impact the bad system from within. Officers need to encourage the open dialogues on police brutality and police shootings and systemic racism, because it’s the good cops that should not want these talks to be suppressed. These good cops need to be aware of their own implicit biases and be cognizant on curbing those biases. Good officers must use their discretion on misdemeanors and use selective enforcement on victimless crimes—personally nullifying laws designed to punish the poor and target specific races. If officers are serious about making changes in the system, they first need to stop hiding behind the excuse “I’m just doing my job”.

Are Cops Racist?

The German philosopher Hannah Arendt wrote in Organized Guilt and Universal Responsibility her theories on the mob man and the relationship to the rise of Nazi Party. Arendt postulates, what makes a man do the most heinous acts and what continues to drive men who essentially act in a mob? I, through experience, have discovered the mob man is very much a part of modern policing. My intent is not to compare today’s police department to the Nazi Party however, there are many parallels between police today and the potential for absolute fascism. Is modern police the form of present day mob men as described by Arendt?

The images of jack booted members of fascist parties committing reprehensible crimes against humanity, is an all too familiar visual in the study of history. How does civilized society come to explain the evil that is unleashed by men who are capable of this barbarism in modern time? At first glance it’s reasonable to state; effective propaganda left an indelible mark on those who eventually carry out the orders. For this to hold true we want and need to believe all these men indoctrinated were motivated to be a part of a pernicious movement because they were sadists, racists, xenophobes, or the embodiment of evil. On the contrary, when on trial these men spoke the popular refrain of immunity—“I was following orders.” This defense uncovers something more frightening and sinister. These men were average, and the majorities were not motivated by hate; they thought they were just doing a job.

In a non-ideological comparison, police recruits go through an extensive para-military training program; one might call this, indoctrination into the culture of police. The hiring process unlike the aforementioned, seeks to expunge any trace of malevolence. The police academy is an initiation into violence and not for the faint of heart. Afterward, the recipient of the badge radiates with the ideology of a noble profession. The reasons for entering this occupation center around one common theme—“I’m doing this for my family.” We must understand, whether a cop states he is in the job to fight crime or they’re policing for the employment benefits, it’s all for the family.

Often times a police officer will allege, “I’m just doing my job”—an immunity statement. This is a way for the police officer to disconnect with the un-pleasantries of the job, allowing him to subconsciously focus on what’s really important—family. It would be reasonable to believe if an officer truly felt what he was doing was right, he would not need to deflect. He could proudly say, “I’m taking you to jail because you broke this law”, however, the reason to revert to excuses is simply, the officer does not believe in what he is doing. It is soon evident to the neophyte officer he is tool for the status quo and enforces draconian laws, designed to relive the poor of their limited finances. The street cop soon becomes acquainted with a very biased, and often time unjust justice system. The way to reconcile this realization is to come to grips with why he wears the badge in the first place; this reconciliation brings him full circle to family.

Often times a community will be outraged at the lack of minorities hired on their local police department. There seems to exist the idea that a black officer would treat citizens of black communities more fairly. Those in favor of this fix do not fully understand the culture of law enforcement. Regardless of the race of the officer they still have the same performance objectives, and have the same motivations as their white colleagues. I took the liberty to embed a video of two black NYPD officers using force on a black arrestee.

All police officers are trained to believe every single situation they encounter is dangerous: domestic disturbances; traffic stops; drug offences; felons and all people in general. With this heightened awareness comes the caveat: get home to your family every night no matter what. Thus, light is shed on why officers are quick to resort to violence; it’s part of the training and culture. Take for example this quote from an anonymous NYPD officer in the aftermath of the Eric Garner death:

“If ever a person wanted to know why police work is so difficult, here is a good reason. Best of luck to those guys who’s lives (and their families) have just been turned upside down for all eternity.”

Again, the family is recurring theme; the family suffers along with the officer. It is unclear how far modern police will go to protect what they hold sacred: kill, maim, falsify and omit for what they hold dear. One does not need to search for long to find the latest news of police misconduct. Unlike the subject of Arendt’s theories, police are not agents of a holocaust, but police have at their disposal all the mechanisms to be treacherous.

No, most police officers are not racist, however it is easier to cope with their actions if we label them as such. The truth, their families and the fear of not being able to support them are the proper motivation to become mob men, capable of anything under the guise of law and order.