Mark Draughn over at the Windy Pundit blog just pointed out something that was remarkably insightful.
If the “Broken Windows” concept works on society to reduce a culture of lawlessness, then why don’t the police use it in their disciplinary process? Why do we tolerate petty misconduct from police, where it inures our senses to gross misconduct?
This is not a revolutionary concept. The late Jack Maples, part of NY Police Commissioner Bill Bratton’s staff during his first tour had the right ideas about this issue. Maples wrote that:
The [police] leader must back the cops when they’re right, train them when they make mistakes despite good intentions, and hang them when they betray the public’s trust.
Jack Maples & Chris Mitchell, The Crime Fighter: How You Can Make Your Community Crime Free 244 (2000).
Maples was a firm believer that you had to take corrective action against the police, as well as criminals if you wanted to make an impact. He also understood that while officer safety was important, it was not the most important part of police work. He said:
At the end of the day, the public’s safety is paramount. Strike that. At any time of the day, the public’s safety is paramount.
Id., at 239.
Mark, at the end of his self-named rant (I would disagree that it is a rant), says:
If “broken windows” works, they should try it on cops. Maybe if they prosecuted the crap out of these cops and hit them with truly pants-shitting prison sentences, it would discourage the NYPD’s culture of lawlessness.
This post was picked up by Scott Greenfield (Simple Justice), who expanded on the theme. Scott correctly notes that it is Bratton’s job to make sure that the police treat the public with respect, not to lecture the public on what they need to do in order to make things better for the police. Scott points out that if Bratton really believes in the Broken Windows theory, then he should apply it first to his own department, not to the public.
Scott is completely right on this, but I sincerely doubt that Bratton will see it this way. He’ll look at it just like the San Antonio Police Chief, William McManus, looks at it. It’s OK to beat an innocent man because he fell on his hands. He’s firmly bought into the first rule of policing and has completely disregarded that the safety of the public should come first.
I suppose I’m lucky that I wasn’t the one taking pictures, as I probably would have been killed in the encounter. Let me explain. A plainclothes officer comes charging at me with an angry look on his face and something in his hand? I’m drawing my Kimber. It’s what I’ve been conditioned to do after twenty years as a police officer, and what many others are likely to do in the same situation. The two SWAT officers show up shortly behind the plainclothes officer, and I would probably be shot. But for the sake of argument, lets say that did not happen, but that I shot the first officer and surrendered to the uniformed officers.
Would McManus have the same viewpoint, that he did not see anything wrong here? It’s still a case of mistaken identity, it is just that his officer suffered the brunt of the encounter.
Fortunately, McManus is leaving the job, to take a retirement security director gig and to take care of his new kittens.
The problem is that police administrators do not see the disconnect, can not see it. It takes an innovator, someone like Jack Maples, someone who is willing to shake up the system, to address this issue. It means teaching new officers that yes, it is vitally important for them to go home at the end of the shift, but it is even more important to protect the public, to make sure that that they go home safely.
Belial
Jul 30, 2014 @ 13:38:37
I think using non-compliance to justify escalating the amount of force being used is a similar case. Non-compliance with a lawful order may be illegal and the officer may be entitled to use any reasonable amount of force to gain complains.
However, in my state (and I believe several others), it is legal to use a reasonable amount of force to resist illegal detention or arrest by an officer. However, I doubt this use of defensive force would be seen as a justified response.
We must be a nation of laws, not of men.
ExCop-LawStudent
Jul 30, 2014 @ 14:50:54
In the police use of force continuum, non-compliance is considered a level of resistance. Escalation of force to overcome that resistance is then used.
In some states it is not an offense to resist an unlawful arrest, but in the vast majority it is a crime to resistance any arrest. You still have the right of self-defense against excessive or unlawful force, but the burden will be on you to prove it.
The problem here is not if we are a nation of laws, but if we have created a class of people to whom the law does not apply. If the police do not discipline themselves for violations, then the precinct house has the broken windows…
Belial
Jul 30, 2014 @ 16:08:49
The class of people to whom the law does not apply would be the “nation of men” [that are not subject to the law] that stands in contrast to a nation of laws. At least, that’s what I’ve always understood that quote to mean.
I am concerned that officers are being taught solely or first to take control of a situation and not to de-escalate. I think seeing non-compliance as resistance or officer presence as the first step of the force continuum is a part of the problem.
Neither of those things are actually the use of force and training that says they are would seem to de-emphasize the importance of the decision to use force.
Tom G
Jul 30, 2014 @ 19:37:31
It is hard for me to accept McManus as “our” police chief. He even smiles at the first part of the KENS 5 interview about the beating. His inaction, attitude, and the contempt he displayed, were all at Roger Carlos’s expense. This will undoubtably turn into an unfunded expense picked up by San Antonio taxpayers.
It’s pretty bad when SAPD actions and McManus’s excuses end up reported by Radly Balko in the Washington Post. Stand tall Chief !!!
Too bad we can’t run him out of town for good like that shitty streetcar project.
Empty0Set
Jul 30, 2014 @ 22:24:05
The official Broken Windows Theory is wrong, and the one suggested is correct. The way to get tough on crime is not to get tough on criminals, but to get tough on police officers. Everywhere around the world, the more civilized a country the more respectful the police are generally towards the civilians; I don’t feel that is a coincidence.
Consider better yet what happens in Third World countries. Most in fact have quite draconian laws, and police that can do whatever they want. They’ll take property or bust people up, even if they have done nothing wrong, and the people don’t complain. No one dares do something illegal in front of a cop, unless of course they first paid him off.
That of course is my point. Corrupt police allows organized crime to operate, which is a major source of crime. More generally, police are the first representatives of the law. So when cops are tuning people up for nothing, the general public loses respect for them. This causes the people to be unwilling to work with them, unwilling to report crimes. This allows criminals to more freely operate, because then they will be sure that “no one is watching.” The “no one” in the studies purportedly supporting the Broken Windows Theory in fact should refer to the general public. It is when the general public does not care that more crime occurs.
Windypundit
Jul 31, 2014 @ 21:20:24
Thanks for the kind words.
I hadn’t thought of it at the time, but you raise an interesting point about what would have happened if you had been the one taking pictures. What if it had been another plainclothes cop? Or an off-duty cop? It seems like this sort of behavior will increase the likelihood of blue-on-blue casualties.
Windypundit
Jul 31, 2014 @ 21:21:23
Er, that was supposed to be a reply to the main post, not to Empty0Set.
ExCop-LawStudent
Aug 01, 2014 @ 07:06:35
You are correct, and it has caused the death of plainclothes or off-duty officers at the hands of other officers.