So, a Washington Post op-ed piece from, Sunil Dutta, a Professor of Homeland Security (who also served 17 years as an LAPD police officer) is causing much righteous indignation, particularly in light of the volatile situation in Ferguson, MO.
The title "I'm a cop. If you don't want to get hurt, don't challenge me" serves both the op-ed's thesis, and further evidence for why Facebook has to label links from The Onion as satire.
I can understand why folks on my side of the political fence (that would be the left, liberal side) are incensed by it.
Here's an excerpt
...here is the bottom line: if you don’t want to get shot, tased, pepper-sprayed, struck with a baton or thrown to the ground, just do what I tell you. Don’t argue with me, don’t call me names, don’t tell me that I can’t stop you, don’t say I’m a racist pig, don’t threaten that you’ll sue me and take away my badge. Don’t scream at me that you pay my salary, and don’t even think of aggressively walking towards me...Subtle...
The most overlooked problem with this op-ed is that it appears to be a very rough first draft. The whole thing, from its meta title to its blunt force trauma prose, feels like something that was typed up rapidly, spell-checked, and then submitted without further thought.
The op-ed, crude as it is, has the makings of a primer on how a civilian should act during a traffic stop. It is also, however, not terribly useful or helpful or instructive in the case of Ferguson, MO. And since the op-ed is presented as a response to Ferguson, that is a big problem. Sadly, the message is compromised by the messenger.
My personal philosophy regarding interactions with police is summed up as follows:
Let the police officer control the situation.
(I will return to this shortly. Please endeavor not to get too outraged in the interval.)
History has established... brutally... that a police officer who is not in control of a situation is a police officer who is in mortal danger.
In 1991, Texas Constable Darrell Lunsford made a traffic stop. His dashboard camera captured this event...
Police take control of situations like their lives depend on it. Because their lives do depend on it.
One of the reasons that the police in Ferguson look so agitated is because they are sincerely agitated. They don't have control of the situation. In fact, as things stand now, they are so far away from control of the situation that light from "control of the situation" won't reach the Ferguson police for 100 years.
But the central theme of Professor Dutta's piece is that the responsibility for the loss of control falls squarely on the shoulders of citizens. And that, folks, is passive-aggressive nonsense.
Let's try a fictional example of a police stop to illustrate what I mean.
This is a clip from Breaking Bad. The relevant exchange begins at about 1:30 into the clip.
The police officer tells Walter, "sir, can you turn the music down?"
Walter White instantly complies, and turns his radio down.
The officer then says, "down means off."
Walter is thrown off his center from that point on in the encounter, which ends with him handcuffed in the back seat of a squad car.
It is worth noting that the officer acted appropriately and well within the color of the law in pulling White over. Also, Walter White handled the encounter in a manner that, while ostensibly sympathetic, was completely incorrect. Raging at a cop lead Walter to an inevitable place. Handcuffed in the back of a squad car.
The thing that allows Walter to sustain the audience's sympathy is that subtle little opening dick move on the park of Officer Passive-Aggressive.
"Down means off."
This scene, as much as any other scene in the entire run of Breaking Bad, sticks in my mind. Yes, this scene sticks in my mind as much as Gus Freng's final scene.
Off means off. Down means down. And when you have the lawful authority to shoot people dead, you need to know the difference between what you say and what you mean.
Anyone who has ever been on the weak end of any asymmetrical relationship has been baited by "down means off" and its countless other insidious cousins. From "What's your dirt doing in the Warden's ditch, Luke?" to "Am I a clown to you?" And, like Walter White, we sometimes made the mistake of taking the bait even though we know better.
I don't know how many "down means off" situations have been transacted in Ferguson... but I suspect the number is a large one.
Back to my philosophy of letting the police control a situation.
It is easy for me to say this, in part because I'm white, and in part because I'm the son of a cop. It's exceptionally easy for me to place my trust in police. For those without the benefit of my personal experience, not so much.
I have no idea how the events are going to play out in Ferguson, or how long it will be before this matter is brought to a peaceful resolution. I will say that blaming civilians is not going to get anyone anywhere.
The unwritten assumptions in Professor Dutta's article needed to be written. The relationship between the police and the public, as described in the op-ed, assumed a high level of trust firmly in place.
Such a relationship is not firmly in place in Ferguson.
In my experience, if you want someone to trust you, you have to earn that trust. The police in Ferguson haven't earned it. And getting the citizens of Ferguson to trust them isn't going to be easy or quick.
I wish it were otherwise.
No comments:
Post a Comment