Hurt, Harm, Heart and Home, A Two-Pronged Police Reform
We are at a crisis in America. Our method of policing has got to be examined. Some are calling to defund the police. I think it’s an emotional idea that has serious repercussions if pursued. I’m no expert on policing or law enforcement, but I believe that the law is for the lawless and that strong leadership and collaborative teamwork is always key.
The cry for police reform is currently echoing throughout the US. I have thought about police reform since the death of Eric Garner. The recent events have made me consider it even deeper. Demands to defund the police is one reform that people have been sharing in the internet. Considering these discussions, I present a two pronged approach.
PRONG I: INTERDISCIPLINARY POLICING
It’s time for social workers, psychologists, crisis negotiators, chaplains, and other professionals to become part of the “policing” of our neighborhoods.
In the medical field each professional has their set of job/career descriptions. As a nurse I cannot make medical suggestions to patients nor can I make physical therapy assessments—and that’s just 2 of other disciplines that I cannot express my opinion. I must make referrals or call doctors or pharmacists or social workers to speak to whatever a patient may need in light of their situation. And even though as nurses we are taught aspects of these disciplines and, by experience, may even know what the doctor would prescribe given a case, it would be beyond the scope of my profession to give diagnosis or make medication suggestions. In fact if I do so, my license can be revoked if I do this and someone complains or, worst, someone gets injured.
I think we all see that our society is placing too many “hats” on police officers who, some, have only but a few years of college, if any. Handling issues beyond the scope of “protecting and serving” puts them in highly vulnerable spot to diffuse situations that require studies in human behavior and psychology. Officers are being asked to do social work, psychological assessments, domestic dispute counseling that if not done within the confines of a 911 call, they’d need 4 years of college at minimum.
I know that the disciplines I mentioned in my opening statement are already within the halls of the precinct, so what I’m talking about is making them available like respiratory therapists or occupational therapists or cardiac nurses (and so forth) in the hospital. In the hospital should a family want to talk about end of life decisions, a nurse can request a social worker to continue the conversation. I’m suggesting the same for policing.
Every time social work is needed, the officers would begin the assessment and then call up one of the five (let’s say) social workers working that they to mitigate. The officers would get back in their car and the social worker would continue the conversation. Same if it’s a person that seems to be suicidal, a psychologist or counselor would already be in a car when the call is responded to. These professionals would then lift the issue from the police load and bring in healthcare/psych professionals to the conversation.
Right now when I call 911 (for patients) I get, “Police, fire or medical?” Obviously the general population will not know enough to determine if someone with a knife yelling at the top of their lungs is in need of a psychologist, so they’ll say, “Police”. And if a quarrel between the neighbors are getting out of hand, the general population will not know enough to ask for social worker or crisis mediator. They’ll call the police. I would love to see a precinct staffed like a hospital. In the hospital the nurse doesn’t do everything (although we feel like it sometimes). Heck, in most places, we don’t even do direct patient care. I think we need to begin the training of our police to respond to harm or hurt and leave the heart and home to degreed and experienced professionals in their respective fields. Police don’t need armored cars and paramilitary equipment: they need a support system of people who may not be able to diffuse a bomb, but can diffuse a situation where life and death is on the line.
PRONG II: COMMUNITY OVERSIGHT
As I write and foster conversations on race and reconciliation, one thing remains steadfast, my support of the men and women who are policing our cities. I have not mentioned policing in any of my panels because I believe that most police are for what we are discussing: liberty and justice for all.
Having family and friends who are in the force, I know that the heart to serve their communities are at the core of their service. Unfortunate for them, like most of us, they have some coworkers that are unfit to serve alongside them—and they can’t do anything about it.
While we recoil at the murder of George Floyd, Rayshard Brooks, was just shot in the back this past Friday, June 12, 2020, in Atlanta while attempting to run from police. Rayshard was a 27-year-old African-American man who got shot and killed, after someone complained he was sleeping in his car at a Wendy's drive-thru.
A man sleeping in his car should not be deemed a danger to society no matter how belligerent they may become. Belligerent shouldn’t mean a death sentence. And strong and well community supervised police leadership should show that.
Please correct me if I’m wrong, but I’m of the notion that the higher ups and the people behind desks are as responsible for the pandemic that has been obviously in America’s police force: quick trigger policemen with bias if not racism against black Americans.
48!! That’s GBI’s (Georgia Bureau of Investigation) fatal shooting count SO FAR! If the trend keeps going, they’re liable to kill close to 100 Georgians by the end of this year. 48. Forty, stinkin’ eight! Sure it’s an issue with the men patrolling the streets, but 48 fatalities by the hands of police tell me that the higher ups are fostering if not aiding to the brutality and lethality of the force. I present that it’s lackadaisical supervisory work and easement of repercussions that allows for these types of community response.
From my study and understanding of leadership, inept leadership breeds inept people. Irresponsible leadership fosters carelessness in the ranks. When a police officer is allowed to continue doing his “job” unencumbered by citations or reprimands for excessive force (like shoving a person or hitting them with a baton) then it makes sense that their behavior with handling citizens will become more aggressive over time. I truly believe that the guys on foot are not the “real” issue. It’s the guys in suits that are.
I believe that if we’re going to dialogue about police reform, the first place of reformation needs to be from the chief of police up. Why do I mean “up”? The chief of police, captains, lieutenants, sergeant’s are foundational. They undergird the efforts of the street cop. They allow what the cop performs. Ultimately it’s a job and unless the supervisors remediate a “bad” cop, the system begin to harbor bad cops which lends to an “ACAB” sentiment and good cops have to deal and, reluctantly, defend a irresponsible and unfit colleague.
Here are my suggestions for solution:
1. I think every precinct with history of excessive force or discrepancy in arrest (based on color) should be investigated by an external committee made up of citizen leaders. So, I think that a community investigations unit should be granted the right to oversee the work of street officers. Any aggressive policing must be reported. If no evidence of reprimand is present, then that committee has the right to fire the supervisors of that cop while the cop himself is remanded to psych and sensitivity training.
2. Each police should have a sensor mechanism that triggers a notice to the community entity as well as their supervisors for every time they unholster their weapon especially if they uncage a long gun/rifle. That trigger will then cause the officer to present why he unholstered his firearm. If the case does not lead to further training, the community committee will then review the case and provide judgment. The hope is that unholstering a weapon would be discouraged for non lethal cases (like above) because the paperwork and the due process would be too much for them. (They may just leave their weapons in their car.)
3. Biannual review of the supervising officers (the guys in suits) by the community committee becomes mandatory. The committee had the right to fire supervisors. They will also have a vote in the hiring of same.
4. Police standards should be reviewed and rewritten by the same community committee with advice from retired police officers and community advocates. I’m not sure how the police code of conduct and duties are currently written, but we don’t need sympathizers to write these conduct rules, we need the community leaders to do so.
All that said, being a law enforcer is something I’d never do. I applaud the men and women who do the thankless job of policing. But I do believe that strong leadership is what’s needed in our day. A leadership that stands by the standards of conduct set forth by the community rather than the state. A leadership that is vetted by the same community outside the departments; a leadership that is for the people, by the people and of the people.
Photo Credit: LMB Productions—Used With Permission https://www.facebook.com/LMBProductionsNYC/
