Interesting piece in the New York Times today, interviewing cops around the country on what to do when a citizen gets irate with a police officer. Naturally, several points are view are presented, but this is the one that makes the most sense to me:
A mounted police officer who has been with the Los Angeles Police Department for 25 years said that taking verbal abuse was a regular part of his job.
"We don’t get to tell people what they want to hear," said the Los Angeles officer, who, like others interviewed for this article, spoke on the condition of anonymity to avoid being quoted on duty. "Whether we’re giving them a ticket or responding to some conflict between a husband and wife, we’re not dealing with people at their best, and if you don’t have a tough skin, then you shouldn’t be a cop."
More on the flip...
Now, not every cop interviewed in the piece agrees with the perspective of that anonymous LA officer. You've got plenty of tough guy cops who feel public disrespect of an officer merits automatic arrest. For example, a macho Brooklyn cop:
"We say, ‘Back down,’ " he said. "If they don’t back down and start making direct threats, that’s an offense. They don’t get a free pass."
The article, typical "he said, she said" reporting, makes no effort to determine which approach is better in a democracy, nor which one is more common among police officers nationwide. Ask me, and the first is the appropriate way to do it but the second is the way cops actually tend to behave. Most of the noise about the Gates arrest has been about the racial component of it, but this conflict between actual cop behavior and democratic norms has also been a fundamental factor driving the Gates controversy.
NY State Senator Eric Adams, a retired black police captain, lays out nicely both what a cop should do in a democracy and how racial divisions help structure actual cop behavior:
"If it’s their house, they’re allowed to call you all sorts of names," Mr. Adams said. "A man’s house is his castle. If they’re in the street, and they don’t listen to the officer’s warning, ‘Sir, you’re being disorderly,’ you can lock them up at this time."
Not that the officer necessarily should, he said.
"Let’s say I do a stop," Mr. Adams said. "I question, and it’s nothing. ‘Sir, I’m sorry, I apologize.’ What’s the reason for staying, if the anger’s directed at me? If it’s directed at a third party, a storekeeper, I stay."
But if the officer himself is the provocation, the officer should leave, he said, and added that Sergeant Crowley did not use such common sense....
Senator Adams said black men were more likely to be locked up for what in police parlance is called getting "lippy."
"The ‘uppity Negro,’ " he said. "You may not have committed a crime, but you know what? You’ve got a big mouth."
Max Weber famously defined the state as that entity which has a monopoly on the legitimate use of force; in a democracy, theoretically a society in which the people rule, we confer that legitimate use of force on a select group of men and women -- the police. The question, though, is always who rules whom. Do the cops govern society, or are they the citizens' agents?
This question lies right at the heart of the Gates incident. Yes, Crowley had every right to be in Gates's home investigating a possible burglary. Yes, Gates was fully obligated to demonstrate to Crowley's satisfaction his identity as the lawful resident of the home.
Once Gates did demonstrate his identity -- and Crowley in his report clearly recognizes that he did -- the incident should be over. As officer Robert Anderson, a five-year veteran of the Denver police force put it, cops should:
"let people vent" if they grew irate. "People usually aren’t happy to see the police," he said. "They’d rather see a fireman."
And, to repeat State Senator Adams's wise words:
if the officer himself is the provocation, the officer should leave,
Crowley was the provocation. No crime had ever been committed and no altercation would have occurred if Crowley had not entered Gates's home. Crowley, as the professional, as the people's representative to use force to protect us, has the moral responsibility to allow citizens to live in peace.
When police unions around the country stand in defense of his arrogant abuse of authority, our democratic society itself is at threat.
The issues at stake here are real. We need to take them seriously.
UPDATE 9:14 EDT I don't often update my diaries, but Scarce helpfully posted the Smoking Gun link to Crowley's original police report. I think that's a useful resource for people participating in this discussion.