POLICE, COMMUNITY SERVANTS?

by Ruth A. Sheets

I just read a piece from the organization “Win Without War” that claims the police of the District of Columbia and other police departments are stockpiling weapons of war, probably for use against the citizens of the United States.  I don’t know personally if this stockpiling of more advanced weapons is real, but I do know they already have an armory of various types of tear gas canisters, rubber bullets, pepper sprays, and all kinds of “riot gear.”  We saw it in use back in June when Donald Trump needed a photo op at a church across from the white house.  Trump ordered the protesters driven away and the police obliged with tear gas, rubber bullets, pepper spray (used up close and personal) against the peaceful protesters.  Mr. Trump crossed the street and held up a Bible and smiled for the cameras, then walked back across the street. 

I wonder if Mr. Trump even noticed the smell of the tear gas and pepper spray lingering in the air.  Or, did he revel in it’s scent, believing it was righteously used against folks who don’t like him very much, and thus were worthy of whatever was used to get them out of the way?

We have come to the place where police departments can stockpile and use weapons of war, weapons that are supposedly not permitted on battlefields,  against American citizens.  It is outrageous.  I suspect this weaponization is the product of the “wars” on crime, drugs, and immigrants that politicians of the '80s and ''90s were fooled into believing were necessary and so made real.  Sadly, the victims of these “wars” were predominantly people of color,  and our democracy. 

Over the years, police departments became ever more powerful, usurping people’s rights for supposed safety.  Who were the police making more safe?  Predominantly white middle and upper class people.  Due to a range of factors, often set up by governmental and financial actions, communities of color became more segregated and poorer in relation to white communities.  Throw in drugs and lack of economic opportunity, and a disaster was created.  It wasn’t that those disadvantaged communities were using drugs more but that they were perceived to be using them more and more violence was arising from such use.  The job of the police, stop the drug use and violence and arrest as many as possible and “put them away.”  Three strikes and you’re out!   

 Even caring people and politicians were convinced that the crime rate was beyond impossible and something drastic had to be done.  I find it fascinating that correcting the wrongs of segregation, lack of resources, poorly resourced schools, and many other induced factors were rarely taken into account.  The myth of laziness and criminality grew in popularity.  Police were given all kinds of permission to step on people’s rights, mostly people of color, of course.  Police powers grew and police officers and many conservative  officials convinced themselves that this police intrusion into people’s rights caused the massive drop in crime of the 1990s.  They had no evidence for this, but it sounded good.  It fit with their political message that poor mostly people of color deserved their poverty because they had no ambition and didn’t take advantage of opportunities offered to them.  They were just takers and the white people in charge were the givers, constantly sacrificing for the takers.  (Remember Mitt Romney’s comments in 2012?) 

 This was, of course, a lie, but when many in the media bought into it, it became difficult to oppose.  From fear and frustration, people in the poor communities reluctantly agreed too, sealing the fate of millions of Americans who could easily be blamed for their circumstances AND INCARCERATED.  And, police just kept increasing their power and presence, not as community workers hired to protect and serve, but as  enforcers on behalf of the white and more wealthy members of society. 

 It was determined that if police were “scared for their lives” they could kill someone with impunity (qualified immunity).  The police got away with this for a long time because it was their word against the dead victim or “unreliable” witnesses.  Cell phones and police cams changed the playing field and police were being caught killing, beating, harassing, and otherwise intimidating citizens, but still not held accountable. 

 Calls for reform have brought about little positive change in many communities because police still believe and claim they are the righteous preservers of the American way, at least for the “givers.” (Who cares about the “takers?”)

 We saw this in relation to the protesters of police violence this past spring and summer.  People stand against the police killing of Black people.  The police respond in riot gear firing off rubber bullets at close range, releasing tear gas (in a pandemic with a disease that primarily attacks the lungs), clubbing people to the ground, arresting peaceful protesters while ignoring the white instigators of violence, and more.  That is police out of control. 

 Without major intervention, I do not see that any positive changes will happen.  Police programs everywhere in this nation need to be reworked from the bottom up and the top down, from the uniforms they wear or don't wear to the training, to the weapons they are permitted to use, to the actions they are allowed to take, to the ways they can patrol and whom they can stop, and on and on.  What we call them needs to change too.  The word “police” has such negative feelings correctly attached to it. Republicans are posting scare ads in this election season that white women won’t have police protection if Black people get their way and defund police.  That’s utter nonsense, but those who have never been the victim of police targeting can’t imagine why anyone would have problems with what the police  are doing.   

 Fraternal Order of Police “unions” make demands for more power and money and communities feel unable to resist.  Police "unions" need to decide whether they are unions or fraternal organizations.  They can't be both and should never have been allowed to be both.  If they are unions, they can negotiate with communities in good faith.  As fraternal organizations they can't negotiate anything beyond where they will have their fraternity house. 

 New Community service organizations must have a range of talented, skilled, caring people to respond to the variety of emergencies occurring on a daily basis. Each city, town, and other entity will have to investigate to understand what is needed, then design its program to address those needs.  Community members must have a say in what the program will look like at all levels of planning and implementation.  Training will also be more extensive and fully financed for those accepted into the service program.  Perhaps, most important of all, community servants will be held accountable for their actions and will be supported in their interactions with the community.      

 OK, I know it’s currently a fantasy, but it is doable if we have the will.  It's time.  We deserve better than what we have been dealt.  If we all stand together, we can get better so we can do better.