Why the Cops are Bad...
It occurs to me that the main difference between good cops and bad cops is the same difference between two of Hollywood’s most beloved characters.
Let me take you back to an age before red, blue, and green lights were blended in a box in your living room beaming pictures and stories: a time when people believed that Lucile Ball was a natural redhead. Step into a little fictional town on cinematic Earth named Mayberry where these two characters are probably making their appointed rounds throughout the town as I wax philosophically.
First, Andy Taylor who is famously referred to as the sheriff who doesn’t carry a gun. Andy’s typical policing method progression is: talk, investigate, reflect, action, and last is force. Second, Barney Fife is a defectively dutiful deputy who tries to follow orders, but just cannot repress his inner authoritarian. Barney’s typical policing method progression is: demand, action, force, react, and lastly, hopes Andy can rescue him.
Two scenarios:
If run to conclusion in a situation, a good officer’s policing method progression is: inform/get informed on the situation, assess the circumstances, pause to evaluate, inform on how to proceed, and if those don’t work, force. When observing a possible infraction this officer’s first step is always self-caution with a healthy dose of sensitivity for the humans in the situation and discovering the facts. After gathering the observational information, it is time to compile and assess how to enter the situation with dialog. Next, a moment of internal compilation of the gathered information. Then, return to the situation with the plan to resolve. Lastly, if the plan includes arrest do what is necessary to apprehend up to the point of inflicting permanent harm. Unfortunately, there is sometimes a “no other option” move to deadly or near deadly force. It is always a no-win situation when it goes to deadly force for everyone involved.
If run to conclusion in a situation, a bad cop’s policing method progression is: demand, intimidate, accost, react, and either have survived or not. When observing a possible infraction this cop’s first step is to approach the situation with authority and an overpowering presence. They ask for identification before informing on the reason and this is an intimidation tactic intending to show that the cop is the final authority in this situation and all should comply. Many times this officer will even refuse to give a full detailed reason after the accused requests and will try to turn up the pressure with arrest threats so they will comply. When this tactic does not work the officer decides to cuff the accused until they get the requested ID. Then, if the accused tries to resist, force is used leading up to deadly or near deadly force. In this scenario, the progression is muddled and all steps are based on a need for control of the people in the situation and not an attempt to determine and diffuse the reasons for the situation. Because of the trajectory the cop began, this conclusion is inevitable many times. Neither wants to lose at this point, so bad things happen.
In the final no-win step of both scenarios:
The accused is injured or dies.
The police officer is injured or dies.
Both are injured or die.
The officer pursues and this potentially causes harm to an innocent.
The officer ceases the chase and the accused gets away and potentially causes harm to an innocent.
If the accused was not guilty of anything before the pursuit, now they will probably be charged with any crimes that occurred during the chase. This person who had no record is now forever in the system. They will be viewed as a perpetrator for the rest of their lives.
I believe it is numbers five that makes the bad cops push the deadly force option. It is a fear of losing the fight and/or having their authoritative ego forever diminished. The very cops I am talking about are the same ones who would call another officer a “Barney Fife.” Meaning that they are over eager to go do hero cop stuff. They don’t see the irony that their “badass” stance and swagger is the essence of Barney Fife. They just see in a “Barney Fife” a silly skinny little weakling and this is the opposite of their definition for badass.
Now, I am not in any way advocating that our police patrol the street without some forceful items of lethal and non-lethal protection. What I am saying is that these items should be the last thing on the officers’ minds as an option. Too many walk with their hand appearing ready to grab the gun and gettin’ to the shootin’ just like Barney.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with liking when a police officer saves the day in a movie or on TV, but the sheer number of times we see these scenarios necessarily leads to many living in fear that these things happen everywhere on a daily basis. This is just not the case. In reality, there are usually known areas in a given city where most of these incidents occur, but that is only a symptom and crimes are not only limited to these places, so this becomes moot in the greater discussion. Our favorite Hollywood scenarios are snapshots in time for the characters we see. These heroes are basically having their best and worst days at the same time, squeezed into a 30-min to 2-hour piece of film. That gives an unrealistic view of the average day in the life of a police officer.
Philosophic concepts to consider
These next thoughts will probably not sit well with many who might read this editorial, but there is a lot of value in studying other cultures and incorporating the things that fit our world view to continue to grow in wisdom. Not as a means to destroy what was, but only to build onto the strong parts of your own personal foundation.
There are two Chinese texts that you could call the Yin and Yang of dealing with issues in life, but the complexity of these two paths means that it will be difficult to see what is good and what is bad. In fact Yin and Yang do not equate to good and bad, nor do they have opposing meanings, they are just different approaches.
One is The Art of War by Sun Tzu (5th Century BC). This text explains the recommended methods when engaging in a war and strategies to win. Many people have read this text and apply the tactics to their everyday life and business. What I see as the issue with this is that when using this method it is a requirement to think of the other person/people as enemies. That is effective in war, but very damaging in interpersonal relationships.
The other is Dao De Jing (The Book of the Way) by Lao Tzu (4th Century BC). This text explains a path towards enlightenment and a true understanding of what it is to be human and what methods should be employed to interact with others. It does address war, but only as a thing that should be avoided until there is no other option. The general tone of the text is very helpful in interpersonal relationships, but when war has reached the unavoidable point, this approach will likely be disastrous.
Judeau-Christian Biblical principals also reflect this pairing with phrases such as "Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot." (Exodus 21:24) and "Everyone should be quick to listen, slow to speak and slow to become angry." (James 1:19) These seem to contradict each other, but are only showing that there can be different approaches to problems used at different times.
Conclusions?
MAKE NO MISTAKE, I am not blaming Hollywood for all of the world’s ills. They are only selling us that which we are willing to buy. The onus is on us. We are the ones who rush to see the latest drama, true crime, action, “reality,” and action-comedy movies and programs. We seek the drama, the conflict, the explosions, the fake celebrity blowups, and love to laugh while seeing intense violence. It is no surprise that we take some of the fictional morals and try to amend our character with what we see as the positive features of the character that we most admire.
The “Badass Barney Cop” wants to be the hero using intimidation and force, then is surprised when a video is released on “the socials” depicting them in a very negative light. The “Peace Officer Andy Cop” does their job daily and rarely gets a blink of an eye from anyone, but goes home feeling accomplished with no need for the ego boost from public accolades.
I realize that it is not possible to have the perfect police officer who always does the right thing simply because of the nature of humanity. We default to self-desires and self-preservation when the situational and figurative walls start closing in on us. It is hard not to get complacent just going out and “making the donuts,” or fabricating the “widgets” before heading home for some TV, steak, and beverage of choice. We all get this way in our daily lives from time to time, but for most of us when we make a mistake it is not likely to lead directly to injury or death. This means that the people who take these kinds of positions have to be more diligent than the rest of us.
We as a society like to praise these people who are “on the line” daily and maybe we shouldn’t do that as much as we do. In this editorial, the bad cops take this praise as an endorsement of their tactics, add their own belief system, and they feel their actions are socially acceptable. The good officers generally hear or see the praise and take the stance of “just doing my job” and many are almost embarrassed by the attention. The lack of arrogance and the existence of humility are the ideals that should be praised.
Basically, I feel the main issue is the absence of acknowledgement that we are all people and deserve the same level of respect as anyone else. There are definitely predominantly good and predominantly bad people in the world, but if we approach someone with an assumption of their “badness” or “goodness” before knowing anything about them we have already set the tone of the interaction. This almost guarantees that we will mold our opinions as such to prove ourselves right. If they say the one key word or phrase that we were expecting, we have been proven right about our assumptions.
Regarding trying to control the people rather than diffusing the situation: individuals do not want to be controlled. (In a larger discussion, we could get into how groups will follow the herd, but that is not what I am referring to here.) An officer should approach any situation with an understanding that the people involved (innocents, victims, and accused) are human beings and deserve a level of respect to that fact. A murderer is still a human and is supposed to be considered innocent until proven guilty and the officer on site is only there to address and calm the situation. It is the court and a jury who has the duty to determine guilt or not.
In one sentence:
We decide the direction of an interaction by choosing our initial attitude and that is on both parties, but in this case, the police need to be more in control of their attitude than trying to control the people.
Comments