We cannot tolerate sexual misconduct

A few weeks ago a story hit the news about two plainclothes NYC police officers accused of raping a young female whom they had arrested on a minor narcotics charge. According to the complaint, the girl was with two male friends when stopped. The officers found an unknown number of loose Prozac and Klonopin pills in her purse. They arrested her and told the male companions to pick her up later at the precinct. Here’s where it gets bad. After loading the female up in the transport wagon, the woman says that the two officers sexually assaulted her in the wagon, enroute to the precinct. The officers denied the charge.

I’m fully aware that many complaints are wrongfully lodged against police officers every day. However, in this case, DNA from her sexual battery exam, and I presume the wagon, matches the officers. What came next is really troubling to me. You guessed it, just like virtually every defendant any one of us has ever arrested for rape, they now say the sex was consensual. They resigned from NYPD because they know sex on duty is a violation of NYPD policy. So, they eliminated their firing and are acting like every perp we’ve arrested for rape by claiming she wanted it. The cop in me says a handcuffed prisoner cannot consent. Full stop.

But this New York case gets even worse. Now, there is an allegation by the victim that no less than nine other officers questioned and tried to intimidate her at the hospital the night of the incident. If your instinct is to defend the officers or say the woman and her mother are lying, remember hospitals have cameras and large staffs as potential witnesses. Maybe those other cops thought they were trying to help their fellow brothers in blue, but leaning on a sexual battery victim isn’t helping anyone. It’s only making the situation worse.

Let’s be real. If the woman had accused her two male companions of rape, and we found handcuffs and firearms in the car or on them, we would charge them appropriately with armed sexual battery, or forcible rape, or whatever your state’s language. We would say matching DNA made the case a slam dunk and congratulate ourselves on a job well done. We do it every day. The fact that the accused are cops doesn’t change the probable cause.

The victim’s story and DNA in this case make her complaint credible. The fact that the accused are two armed police officers makes this power dynamic even more disturbing. Their professional status makes this infinitely worse. Yes, they should be held to a higher standard. We should be angry when guys like this shame our profession, not twisting ourselves into pretzels trying to defend the indefensible. No, I don’t want to hear how they’re just a couple of bad apples, or about her personal history. None of that is relevant. The police officers were in a position of authority and power. With that authority comes a responsibility to behave professionally.

What’s crazy is that there is no law in New York that prohibits on-duty, armed, police officers from having sex on duty. The sadder truth is that there is no such law in most states. I served as a police officer in Florida, and I’m glad to say that on-duty sex–even consensual–is grounds for state revocation of police certification. The loss of police certification is the least the public should expect from those we entrust with public safety.

Right now, even in states like Florida, there is no mandatory reporting of sexual misconduct if no criminal charge is filed. There is currently no national database or reporting of officer misconduct. The decertification database is voluntary and woefully incomplete. This allows departments to ignore the practice as they see fit, and it doesn’t take a genius to figure out how that might empower guys like these former NYC detectives to prey on vulnerable women. We can no longer tolerate a systemic failure to deal with sexual misconduct on duty. Law enforcement needs a professional code of conduct and mandatory standards nationwide. Our profession requires public trust to succeed. A uniform morals conduct policy with real penalties and consequence like permanent revocation of police certification is a good place to start.

“No one is required to choose the profession of a police officer. But having chosen it, everyone is obligated to perform its duties and live up to the highest standards of its requirements.” –Calvin Coolidge

 

Respect all citizens or get out

I believe the profession of law enforcement is a truly honorable calling.

A calling. Not a job. A calling is about service. Real service puts others over self.

In these contentious times, it seems to me, part what putting others first requires is to listen. What citizens are telling us is that there are problems. It’s that simple.

Instead of getting ourselves personally offended by their protests, and dismissing people’s experiences, maybe a better way is to begin to listen. Pointing fingers and laying blame are not working for us. They make us look petty and thin-skinned, not heroic. They continue to exacerbate tensions and increase fear and anger. The volatile mix gets cops and citizens hurt and killed. That is the only thing we should be working to change.

Policing in a democracy means that we answer to the public. Right now, minorities do not feel as if policing as a whole is working for them. Maybe not you or your department individually, but as a whole, there is a confidence gap, fear, anger, and lack of trust. Lack of trust is a critical problem that jeapordizes officer safety and effectiveness. So, why do we we keep lashing out at anyone who asks us to do some self-reflection and consider that policing might improve?

More importantly, why do we keep insisting there is no problem when the evidence to the contrary hits us between the eyes nearly every day?

The other day another racially-charged incident happened in this country. This time it was at a military school affiliated with the US Air Force Academy. The commander of the academy, Lieutenant General Jay Silveria stepped up to give a speech that is a leadership example for the ages. The general’s words made me realize that is the kind of leadership law enforcement really needs right now.

A couple of racist idiots painted racial slurs on the lockers of African American cadets. The general could have made a lame statement about how there are a few bad apples everywhere. He could have insisted that most men and women at the academy are not bigots and asked us to overlook this as an isolated incident. He could have blamed the prep school and disavowed any racist or other bigoted behaviors in the Air Force Academy or Air Force as a whole. He could have referred to their anti-discrimination policy in the terms we’ve all become accustomed to hearing. Instead he did what was necessary and right.

General Silveria said what I believe every law enforcement leader needs to start saying when an incident tinged with racist overtones or indefensible behavior occurs in their agency. It’s not enough to say you have a policy and people know the rules. Leaders need to step to the microphone and state their values in no uncertain terms to every cop and in earshot of every citizen in the community.

“So, just in case you’re unclear on where I stand on this topic: If you can’t treat someone with dignity and respect, then you need to get out. If you can’t treat someone from another gender with dignity and respect, then you need to get out. If you demean someone in any way, then you need to get out. And if you can’t treat someone from another race with dignity and respect, then you need to get out.” ~ General Jay Silveria

Yes. That’s right. Get out.

We’ve got to stop sugar coating. We’ve got to stop making excuses. This has nothing to do with the job being hard. Nothing to do with danger. It’s about the integrity of the badge. It’s about service and honor. We can no longer afford to have those with questionable ethics, racist views, or any moral character deficiencies that tarnish policing. There can be no room for such people in law enforcement. Period. The public and fellow cops must all know where you stand. Say it loud and often.

The one clear agreement among community members and rank and file cops is actually this: Problem cops aren’t held accountable. That is no small coincidence. We all know it, but an unwritten rule says we shouldn’t talk about it. So, publicly, we focus on “bad apples” and “mistakes” of judgement. This weak argument is transparent to the public and keeps us from truly purging those folks from police ranks.

The general spoke directly to diversity and bias by saying, “We’d be naive to say this isn’t a problem in our ranks.” Law enforcement must take this clear-eyed, direct approach. When an incident happens and one of our own is exposed for bias, character flaws or excessive force, we should speak with equal clarity. Unfortunately, law enforcement has largely been unwilling to publicly denounce such behavior and say what needs said.

So, as the general says, there’s a better idea. Real leadership. Step up and let the world know you stand firm on the values of your profession. Right now, loud and clear.

If you cannot treat all persons with respect, then you need to get out. There is no place for you in law enforcement.

The public and good cops everywhere will stand and cheer.

Zero as a goal

Zero. That’s the goal.

Law enforcement strives for zero crime. Of course we know that is unachievable, but still, we must try. This is the understood objective of our profession. Sure, we could shrug and say there will never be zero crime, and somewhere inside we know this is true. Yet, we strive for zero. We accept the challenge.

Just because we can’t get crime to zero, we don’t give up the goal. We keep changing our tactics, trying anything we can to arrive at a goal we know is unachievable. Why?

Because we know it’s a worthy goal. More than that, we know if we strive for zero, we will succeed in reduction and any reduction is success.

What if we applied that simple metric to every area of our profession?

Why isn’t our stated goal for police shootings zero?

If we had the courage to make that the goal, by the same rationale as overall crime, we would not eliminate police shootings, but reductions would inevitably be the result.

A goal to reduce shootings would not mean endangering officers. Quite the opposite, it would focus training on tactics and critical thinking that would most often slow things down and give officers time to assess and react. This would improve safety. We know many situations require split-second decisions and officers have to react. More often, officer safety and training is abandoned in critical situations, leading to officer induced danger and unnecessary escalation.

This is where we can drive down the numbers. We talk so much about the value of training and preparedness. Training should include far more prevention skills than any of us have ever gotten. I hear so many people talking about de-escalation in training, but the reality is that officers get very little training in this area.

Historically, our training is disproportionately heavy in shoot scenarios and escalation. The tragic result is that officers then resort to force when they have no alternative skill set. We teach threat/no threat. Black or white. All or nothing. In truth, reality is almost always infinite shades of grey.

Yes, training budgets are sparse, and sadly, are often the first cost-cutting measures in agencies. This shortsighted thinking ignores the much higher cost of litigation and the emotional toll on officers involved. Driving down the number of shootings with a sound policy goal of zero, paired with the training to work toward this goal makes fiscal sense. It’s also good public policy.

We won’t achieve zero police shootings but zero should always be the goal.

Stay on the side of right

The news in the past few days has been filled with the pardon of former Arizona sheriff Joe Arpaio and tough guy Milwaukee Sheriff David Clarke, who is selling a new book. I’ve seen praise over the past couple of years from law enforcement officers and former colleagues for both of these men. There is this narrative that they represent tough, no-nonsense leadership that make them the quintessential cop’s cops.

Are these guys who we really want to emulate?

I know it’s easy to get caught up in the tough guy rhetoric. So, I thought it would be a good idea to take a look at the men being touted as the example for law enforcement to follow. That way we can ask again if these are our values.

As sheriff in Maricopa County, Arpaio famously bragged that his tent city jail was a concentration camp. Investigations since the mid-90’s have exposed extreme abuses in Arapaio’s jails, where even paraplegics demanding catheters in order to urinate are physically abused. People who require insulin or other medication for survival are denied and some die as a result. You can read more about the abuses at his jails here.

But let’s move on to his street law enforcement abuses. Arapaio ordered the arrest of reporters who wrote stories he didn’t like. He fabricated an assassination attempt on his life, trying to frame a convict for the non-existent crime. He said he considered the comparisons of his department to the Klan as an honor.

These shocking cases pale in comparison to Arpaio’s most far-reaching and devastating attack on the rule of law, professionalism, and integrity in law enforcement practice. In Arpaio’s county, race wasn’t one factor in a law enforcement reasonable suspicion for a stop, the way most law-abiding cops do their jobs. In Arpaio’s world, racial profiling is the only factor necessary for a stop. Officers only need to say the individual “looks like an illegal immigrant.”

These are the reasons that the Bush DOJ opened investigations to the sheriff. Arpaio has been well known as a sheriff who consistently violates constitutional rights. It might fun to wax poetic about what a great world it would be if we could ignore the pesky laws that govern police behavior and just stop anyone we want at any time. Message boards abound with posts about how working for Sheriff Joe would be great. But, no upstanding cop with integrity should be defending the actions by this thug masquerading as a lawman.

In Milwaukee, Clarke’s dubious resume isn’t quite as long, but he also has many complaints racked up, including an inmate who died of thirst after deputies turned off the water to his cell. He became furious when a man on a flight “disrespected him” and had deputies, including a K9, meet the man when he disembarked from the plane in Milwaukee. He said the man threatened him. No charges were filed.

These men attract lots of attention for their bluster and bravado, but nothing about their actions or words are helpful to law enforcement. Police departments rely on good community relationships in order to effectively solve crime, and more importantly, cops need good relationships for their personal safety day to day. Cheering civil rights violations and abusive behavior is not the path to improved community relations. If we truly believe and worry about the dangers for cops in our current national discourse, then we should reject the rhetoric of these kinds of leaders.

We need to be very careful in the way we show our commitment to our profession. Cop’s support for abusive and illegal policies should be a red flag to all who care about our future. Police have to stand on the side of the constitution, because that is the foundation of our freedom. When cops are willing to encourage civil rights abuses and thuggish behavior from so-called real lawmen in some twisted need for validation of our worth, then we need to take a hard look at ourselves. Blind loyalty in our ranks has never been the answer.

Good cops know the difference between right and wrong. Stay on the side of right.

Be safe.

Cops are dying. What are we doing about it?

If you want to prevent police shootings, then quit bitching and do something.

Last Saturday night six police officers were shot in this country. Three incidents in which two officers were shot. Police departments use after-action reports and investigations to prosecute the offender (if the offender wasn’t killed) and ostensibly to examine the events in order to learn from what occurred to hopefully improve safety. That’s the goal, right?

In Uniontown, PA, state troopers were shot while attempting to arrest an individual they believed was dealing in stolen property (Xbox taken from a recent burglary). During a struggle, the w/m suspect pulled out a .38 revolver and fired. The bullet went through one trooper’s hand and struck the second trooper in the abdomen. Troopers returned fire and killed the suspect. The suspect, a felon and registered sex offender, still had a firearm in his possession and used it to shoot officers.

In Jacksonville, FL, officers responded to a call about a suicidal subject threatening others in the home. Upon arrival, officers heard shots, and fearing for the others in the home, decided to enter. Suspect shot the officers through the door with an assault-style rifle. One officer was shot in both hands, the other officer was shot in the abdomen. Officers were able to return fire and kill the suspect. The suspect was mentally ill but still had access to an assault rifle used to shoot officers.

In Kissimmee, FL, officers were checking out a group of suspicious individuals and one suspect physically resisted. During the struggle, the suspect shot both officers with a revolver. When located later that night, the suspect was in possession of a revolver and semi-automatic handgun. Both officers died from their injuries. The suspect is a retired marine with a history of mental illness, and still had weapons.

My friends, I’ve written about mental illness, felons, and guns and law enforcement in the past. I’m angry that as a country and a profession, we refuse to speak out forcefully and loudly on these issues. I’m sick of politics getting in the way. I’m sick of hearing about Second Amendment rights.

When are we going to demand a change in policy? When are we going to take proactive steps to remove firearms from these homes? Why don’t we stand up and say this is inexcusable?

We can get angry and yell about police officers dying, but what good does it do if we don’t take real action? Felons and mentally ill persons are responsible for the majority of police killings. Mental illness is a factor in up to 50% of all police shootings. We have to honestly look at the problem in order to start solving it. Proactively removing firearms from these individuals and their homes would dramatically reduce the likelihood of police shootings.

If we could possibly prevent half of police shootings, why wouldn’t we? We know these two categories of subjects we deal with are the biggest threats. It’s time to do something real instead of wringing our hands and wiping our tears. Our refusal to keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people is a self-inflicted problem. That is the truth. Cops keep dying. We say we care.

What are we going to do about it?

Political Mental Illness and Guns

I wonder how Steve Scalise thinks his leadership is working out today?

On Feb 2^nd, the NRA gushed over the politicians who showed great leadership in removing the previous administration’s “final gun grab” by eliminating the order designed to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally ill.

Today, a sick individual shot at a group of lawmakers playing baseball in Virginia, and one of those NRA darlings was shot. The irony is thick. I don’t say that with any satisfaction. In fact, it sickens and angers me that we keep having this same discussion over and over. Trust me, I’m not blaming the gun. I’m blaming our refusal to act in managing their possession responsibly.

Fact:        Mass shootings are on the rise, mostly committed by mentally ill subjects

Fact:        Police killings are overwhelmingly at the hands of mentally ill subjects or felons

Fact:        The American public supports common sense measures like universal background checks and preventing mentally ill individuals from buying guns

Fact:        Law enforcement deaths by gunfire are up 21% so far this year according to ODMP

Yes, I know, we can’t prevent all gun violence, but saying this tragedy couldn’t have been prevented by any of those measures is like saying we shouldn’t have DUI laws because we can’t prevent every traffic crash.

I’m tired of the excuses. We all know better. We in law enforcement especially know better. You see the carnage and live the danger every day. We know that expanding background checks and keeping people on terror watch lists and mentally unstable people from buying guns are all good ideas.

A small possible delay for me in my next gun purchase is not too much to ask to try to prevent more tragedies.

Will today’s shooting of a US Senator make him or his party reconsider their subservience to the NRA? I wish I thought so.

What I do know is this: Mental illness and guns don’t mix. Law Enforcement needs to start leading on this issue. Let’s have the courage to have some honest conversations and speak up. The life it saves may be your own.

Be Safe.

 

**I was in the middle of writing another (related) commentary on the pending legislation on silencers when this shooting happened. I’ll post that very soon.

Obama Hates Cops

Across policing there is a generally accepted narrative: Former President Obama never supported cops. In fact, he hated cops. Many of my friends, even those who see the need for progressive police reform, tend to share this belief, at least to some degree. The most strident majority has even gone as far as saying that any cop who supports the former president is a traitor to the profession and have the blood of the fallen on their hands.

That kind of inflammatory rhetoric does nothing to help solve any of the issues for policing in this country. I would argue that it is equally damaging to community and officer safety as any anarchists carrying signs or chanting slogans calling for the killing of cops. These equal and opposite reactions only inflame the tensions and harm everyone.

We have to listen more and bully less because learning can never occur if we remain locked in our echo-chambers, only hearing how there’s a war on cops and anyone who questions policing or suggests reforms is the enemy. We blame the media or the former president rather than those individual officers and departments who give policing a black eye.

The Obama-hates-cops line has become so universally accepted in many policing circles, that on some police message boards or chat rooms, anyone who dares to challenge the narrative is shouted down, vilified, and even censured. So much for our belief in free thought. Truth be known, this kind of against-the-grain thinking is the reason for the title of my blog. I find myself agreeing with the objectives of safety and respect for law enforcement, but see the road to that goal differently. Many think the way to gain respect is through dominance and force; I believe it is through compassion and service.

I wanted to understand where this animosity came from against the former president. I searched extensively, truly wanting to find the source. I wanted to defend you. Surely there must be some smoking-gun statement that I could point to and say, “Aha.” What I found was only a man who, like all of us, filters life through his own experiences and tried to get us to see the world through the eyes of someone who grows up Black in America.

Did he challenge us to improve? Yes. Did he condemn violence against cops? Many times. Did he also empathize with the systemic issues that set up the conflicts between minority communities and the police? Definitely. Did he ever disrespect police officers? No. Unless you believe any suggestion of systemic problems that contribute to historical bad blood and violence defines disrespect.

Are we really so thin-skinned that we require our leaders to speak only of blind allegiance?

The more I read and searched for the answer to this hatred of the former president, and effusive enthusiasm for the current president, it struck me that we want a cheerleader, not a leader. But, leadership is what we desperately need. We need honest reflection to improve. Discussions about the hard topics. Ferguson, Chicago, and Baltimore exposed serious systemic problems that made their crime-fighting ineffective and destroyed the trust of their citizens. Policing 101 teaches us that we cannot effectively conduct our mission without the support of the citizens we serve. Without it, crime increases and cops are in more danger. All the feel-good speeches bragging about supporting cops do no good if we don’t fix the deep-seated problems exposed by each flashpoint. And the next one is surely coming.

Most of my white friends told me Barack Obama disappointed America because he had the opportunity to do so much more on race relations and he didn’t. He divided us further.

Long, careful reflection has made me conclude something entirely different.

When we complain about what our first African American president didn’t accomplish our bias is on full display.

I think we really mean we voted for a Black man expecting him to prove that racism is over in America. We expected him to wag his finger and scold Black America. We wanted him to tell them to get their shit together, because it’s their own fault if they haven’t succeeded. His great sin was asking white Americans—and policing—to confront biases that made us uncomfortable. Police wanted him to tell Black people if they would just do what their told, they wouldn’t have a problem.

Instead, he told us that he understood the frustrations of African Americans. He asked us to think about ways to stop shootings instead of escalating violence. He asked us to consider systemic racism in ways we didn’t want to. None of this is anti-police. It’s a plea to find ways to bridge the divide. Yes, part of that is acknowledging very real concerns with how some departments and individual officers conduct themselves. He tried to shine a light into the dark corners we don’t want to see.

His refusal to become the excuser in chief for the racial tensions that continue to divide is what really bothers us. As though his presidency might magically erase the legacy of two centuries of harm.

We should think about that.

Numbers started this war with citizens

I know we’ve been saying we engage with the community, but it hasn’t really been true for a while now. When I was a new cop in the 90’s our agency fully embraced the concept of community policing. The program was flexible, allowing maximum latitude for innovative approaches tailored to each neighborhood.

Many departments across the country were similarly engaged in fantastic work that fell well outside the definition of what we’d come to know as police work—arrest as the primary response. Part of community policing thinking was the much-heralded Broken Windows Theory emphasizing quality of life (QOL) crimes. Crime fell to historic lows, and correspondingly, police deaths and police shootings fell as well. It was working on paper.

Then came a new century, and in our genuine desire to improve, American policing adopted a new strategy for fighting crime—statistical based policing. The most visible example is NYPD’s COMPSTAT, but almost all of us bought into the stat theory. On the surface, it seemed like a perfect idea. Map your city’s crime and calls for service in order to identify problem areas and more effectively deploy cops. Commanders were armed with real data to attack the problems in their areas. And it worked. Crime continued to decline. We were all feeling good about ourselves. Saturation of crime-ridden neighborhoods made citizens feel safer, and the statistics gave law enforcement leaders an easy way to graph progress and see productivity in individual officers.

When the economy tanked a whole host of societal issues got worse. Budgets were slashed and cops were now asked to handle a lot of non-police related calls. Homelessness, poverty, and mental illness became problems society expected our police to handle. We ignored the many complicated solutions necessary to actually solve these problems. It was far easier to pass vagrancy laws and dial 911 when those people made us uncomfortable in our public spaces. It seemed to line up with the broken windows philosophy, but police handled the problem as we always had: Arrests. That was good because arrests fed the statistical beast. We taught a whole new generation of officers they would be judged on their numbers, not whether crime went down in their zone. Not quotas mind you—quotas are illegal. Nevertheless, cops now knew what was expected of them.

Everything was going great until we got addicted to the numbers.

Politicians, including elected sheriffs and appointed chiefs realized that touting big arrest and ticket numbers made them look tough on crime. Numbers became the go-to answer for accountability. In short, we incentivized punitive actions. In my former agency, this was the formula for officer performance:

Tickets written + Arrests made ÷Hours worked =Performance ratio

The problem with making numbers the engine of policing is two truths:

1. Crime will never be driven to zero.
2. Numbers and statistics can be manipulated to support whatever you want.

Given these realities, it was inevitable that leaders who continued to press for better numbers—lower reported crimes and higher officer activity—would eventually chafe against both the street cops and the citizens they serve.

We’d already sold everyone on numbers as the answer to everything, so we ignored those tensions and doubled down. This created a systemic problem of “numbers worship” that tells cops that it’s not about humanity, only numbers tallied on the page. That puts cops in conflict with the communities they serve because in a numbers-only system, the criminal traffic “arrest” or the quality of life misdemeanors are the same as an assault or theft arrest that actually clears a crime. The results have been documented in many studies and articles, but it doesn’t take much imagination to see how easily these arrests can be concentrated in poor neighborhoods. It’s called low-hanging fruit, the easiest way for an otherwise well-meaning officer to stay in management’s good graces.

When officers need numbers, the easiest place is in the poor, higher crime neighborhoods. I want to be clear, most cops do this out of a desire to do a good job. I would argue they honestly believe that if they stop people in the higher crime neighborhood, they achieve two objectives: increase their productivity and address crime. What’s actually true, however, is simply increasing numbers as productivity doesn’t work. The officer’s activity must be problem solving activity. We cannot send a mixed message. Law enforcement leaders must be clear that the goal is crime reduction and community relations, by rewarding the absence of crime as benchmarks of success. If we say we value crime reduction, and then continue to reward number tallies regardless of effectiveness, credibility is lost with both officers and citizens. Officers have to know the values of the department and how that translates into how they do their job.

Here’s what happens without solid values leadership: Look again at the formula above. Officers get the message that numbers of tickets and arrests are all that matter. So, they know that somewhere in their busy day, along with taking radio calls for everything under the sun, they must build in time to ticket and arrest. That is the officer’s problem to solve, and human nature is to solve problems in the easiest way. Back to the high-crime (usually minority) neighborhood, where the officer knows she can find a quick stat. With everyone fishing in the same pond, and a young black male gets stopped for his bike light five times in one night, he’s pissed off. That officer, even if he’s polite, becomes the enemy. The police become oppressors.

This antagonism builds, adding to other natural conflicts between law enforcement over arrests that are perfectly legitimate. Too often, police take the position that they don’t have to explain anything; another missed opportunity to engage citizens. Without open communication, anger simmers and festers, increasing the likelihood of tensions and danger to the next officer who responds to that neighborhood. When everyone is on edge and amped up, no one is safe. Our rigid, arrest-driven approach had serious unintended consequences. Angering the citizens we serve.

When that anger boils up in communities who have historically experienced the worst in biased and brutal policing, it’s not hard to see why violence and resistance result. Statistics also show that these communities are over-policed in small crimes and traffic offenses, while under served in violent crimes. Frustration and mistrust are the direct result. Without trust between communities and their police, we know the results are devastating for citizens and officers.

As Dallas Police Chief Brown so eloquently stated, “We are asking too much of cops.” We must come to the realization that policing is one of the most critical components of our democracy. No other profession has as much authority at their discretion. A cop can take your freedom or your life in a second. Likewise, the officer can lose their life when a call goes bad. It’s too important to our safety to ignore what’s going on. We no longer have the luxury of pretending that voting down the one-cent tax increase doesn’t have real consequences. Shrinking budgets force police leaders to eliminate training and adopt policies like those discussed here in an honest, but misguided effort to improve efficiency.

Policing will always be at once revered and reviled. It is the nature of the business. There is much work to do, but the answer is not to sow seeds of discontent and division. Stoking the fires of anger and fear in the name of supporting law enforcement is unfortunate and anti-productive. We need calm, focused leadership unafraid to partner with any citizen who wants to work for solutions. We are the professionals. What’s needed is a culture change that values life and measures crime reduction as performance.

Radical action is needed and police must take the first steps. Numbers put us at war with the citizens we serve and it’s time to end it. Acknowledge our faults and be willing to listen, even if we disagree with the speaker. Change our outlook from the us-versus-them mentality to real outreach and respect for the community. Cops and citizens know the stakes have never been higher. Right now, in the midst of the horrific violence and confusion and mistrust and fear, one thing is certain: We cannot shout or shoot our way out of this problem.

Peace.

Law Enforcement and Guns

The total number of law enforcement deaths by gunfire for 2016 came in at a very grim total of 63. More than 200 other officers were shot, but thankfully survived. A toddler shoots themselves or another sibling on average of once a week in the last two years. Road rage shootings are on the rise, and an average of 40,000 gun-related suicides occur each year. An armed society is a polite society? This doesn’t feel polite to me.

Why doesn’t law enforcement have more to say about this issue? Can’t we, for the sake of non-political, reasonable discussion, resist the temptation to fall into the traps of political theater and really talk about what we can do.

We’ve all been to too many police funerals and lost too many friends to remain silent. Our tears alone will not help if we do not also acknowledge the many flaws in our system that allow criminals and mentally ill individuals access to guns. Not to mention the folly of ignoring the proliferation of guns in our society, coupled with the levels of incivility, anger and intolerance in our country right now. Everyone is frustrated, short-tempered and armed. Somehow, we must acknowledge this combustible mix that is taking a toll on us all in too many bloody tragedies.

Forget the war on terror, we’re terrorizing each other in this country every day.

This is not about Constitutional rights. Cops know there are practical ways to impact gun violence. We just have to agree not to allow our thinking to immediately jump into a defensive posture or all-or-nothing scenarios about 2^nd Amendment rights. Let’s start by agreeing we don’t want to take guns from law-abiding citizens. Let’s also reject the defeatist premise that says there are so many guns that there’s nothing we can do. Cops solve problems.

So, let’s talk reality and common sense from a police perspective. For me, it’s not about the debates raging about whether we need more laws or more guns, etc. It’s about ignoring the noise and getting down to what can help us do our jobs better and improve our safety on the street.

Of those 200 cops shot on the job in 2016, tragically, 63 were murdered by gunfire. The vast majority of those murders were committed by criminals (mostly felons) and mentally ill subjects. Many factors dealing with these subjects have little to do with the cop on the beat, but ignoring them increases the danger for every man and woman wearing a badge.

Investigations: Once the crime is solved, we should be tracing guns more thoroughly, all the way to the source, really examining their paths. NYPD recently traced firearms used in multiple police shootings of officers to the same gun shop in Georgia. Some agencies are becoming more proactive but this needs to become the norm. If we consistently investigate deeper, patterns will develop in criminal activity and more crimes will be solved. More guns off the street. Less danger for cops. Safer communities.

You say funding? Cops ought to be angry that the very federal agency tasked with helping our firearms investigation has deliberately been underfunded for decades. There is no excuse for hamstringing the ATF. Local law enforcement needs greater federal assistance in order to solve more gun crimes.

Mental illness? We express outrage and shock when an unstable person shoots an officer or civilian, whether mass incidents or not. We decry the ability of these folks to get their hands on guns, yet stand idly by while politicians fail to take more aggressive action to prevent it.

Terrorist watch list? I’m told that law abiding citizens might erroneously get put on a list. I’d respond that law enforcement routinely relies on databases for arrests or other action on virtually every aspect of our job. Do some people get detained or even arrested by mistake due to clerical error? Yes. Do we say we should shut down every NCIC, State or DL database? Of course not. Then why would we not use this same technology to keep guns away from individuals flagged as terrorists or mentally ill?

Domestic abusers? Violent felons? Same thing. Are we doing enough to proactively ensure they no longer have guns in their possession? Laws prohibit offenders from having guns. We need proactive strategies to use those laws to remove guns before the tragedy happens. Are we going to their homes and removing them before the next crises?

Last week, congress voted to remove a procedure to “flag” folks identified as having mental disability. The bill didn’t automatically call for taking their guns, merely to notify the FBI database of status. Opponents say it is wrong to flag people who have mental illness, dementia, or other issues. Consequently, a whole class of people who are possibly erratic and maybe dangerous can now keep their guns because we don’t have the courage to act.

How many cops will this place in danger on the next call to a home about a family member who’s become violent?

My brothers and sisters in blue, it’s time for us to speak up in the plain and simple language of a street cop. The ones in the line of fire. The first responders to every horrific crime scene, whether a suicide, murder, or the accidental shooting of a child. You carry this burden. You know that slogans and politics are never going to fix this. It’s time to weigh in on how to reasonably put a dent in the issue of criminals, mental illness, and guns. Law enforcement must speak out for good laws, but even more important, advocate for smart, proactive enforcement. Aggressive prevention that we know will save lives. Maybe even your own.

Be safe.

What the nobility of policing requires

“We are rightly critical of journalists and members of the public who misrepresent what we do as police officers. Do we not, therefore, owe it to ourselves to be equally critical of fellow police officers, whose actions misrepresent the work we do?”

~Paul Grattan, Jr. One Police Project

This quote is very important in the context of our ongoing national struggle over police and public relationships. We do a lot of talking about how we feel under appreciated or maligned, but what are we doing about cleaning up our own house? I think we owe it to ourselves to do some serious soul-searching about this.

I realize that when we look at policing through our personal lens, we see only a few egregious cases of misconduct splashed across the headlines in any given period of time. We are right that the misconduct numbers are a small number of the thousands of calls handled each and every day. The problem comes when you look at the bigger picture.

Step back and look at the numbers nationally and the instances of misconduct start looking more widespread. They are not the norm, but trust me they are too numerous to ignore. We do so at our own peril because every instance that gives the profession a black eye affects your safety. Yet, we refuse to meet this internal challenge head on.

I know there are many checks on officer conduct and Internal investigators do a good job at identifying the worst cases. What I’m talking about is a culture of minimizing bad conduct. We cannot be okay with that.

Whether it’s a willful blind eye or an increasing tendency to conjure up some false equivalency in our collective hearts, we have created a situation where bad behavior lives within our ranks. There will always be criminals and criminals behave in deceitful, treacherous ways, but that can never be an excuse for any law enforcement professional to violate any code of ethics or standard of conduct. We are the professionals.

Let me give you a current example. The Pennsylvania State Police are currently dealing with a scandal regarding cheating at their academy. According to the final report, there was an ongoing practice of instructors giving exam answers to cadets. It had gone on for years. Dozens of cadets from the current class either resigned or were fired. The real problem is that not one instructor or full-time trooper was disciplined, let alone fired.

As a trainer and later supervisor, I personally experienced a number of cases in which I detailed misconduct of either recruits or tenured officers and those individuals were not fired. In two cases, the officers I had identified as being character-deficient, they ended up doing far worse things and embarrassing the agency. One is now in prison. So, why are we so ready to keep these folks in uniform? They are cancers in the community and cancers to internal morale. Purge them.

And before you tell me these are isolated incidents, explain why only four states in this country require decertification for misconduct. How many cases do you know where the officer was allowed to resign in lieu of firing? A little digging into a few of the high-profile cases of the past couple of years will show you that many of those officers had troubled histories prior to the one that made national headlines.

These are the dirty little secrets we don’t want to talk about in mixed company. I know. But we must find the courage to address this. I don’t say this to air dirty laundry. I say this because I care about policing. I care about the tens of thousands of you who are honest and out there doing a great job. Every single bad cop allowed to stay does damage that makes you unsafe. It’s that simple.

I’m calling on police leadership, unions, and everyday cops to insist we do better. Stop saying it’s all about the media or BLM or whoever. Those groups would have nothing to say if we eliminated those who do not embody the ethical code we swore an oath to uphold. If we stood up and publicly said we will not tolerate less than the highest standards, then we would gain so much more trust in the public eye. Some chiefs and sheriffs are exemplifying this approach and their departments enjoy above average public support.

These law enforcement leaders prove we can do this. We must. We owe it to the community we serve. We owe it to ourselves. We owe it to every kid who looks at our shiny badge and dreams of being a hero one day. The nobility of policing requires it.