Police: to serve and protect, or law enforcement

Great Debates
1

In the threads concerning the recent shooting of a dog following a traffic stop in Tenn, I suggested that there may have been a shift in recent years as to the focus of police departments. I was wondering if folk would like to express their experience and opinions on that in a separate thread.

People routinely refer to police as existing to serve and protect the public. However, police are also often referred to as LEOs - law enforcement officers. It seems to me that if a police department selects one or the other of these as their mission statement, it might color the way in which they interact with people they encounter.

Consider a hypothetical domestic disturbance such as a rowdy party. Under the “serve and protect” mode, cops might see their role as eliminating any threats to safety and quieting any nuisances, and to resolve the situation as amicably as possible. As LEOs, officers might approach the situation looking to see what laws have been violated, viewing their function as arresting any wrongdoers to enable future punishment.

I don’t wish to set up a false dichotomy, suggesting that police departments must choose one or the other approach, but my impression is that the pendulum is swinging towards law enforcement. Where we once had officer friendly, we now have DARE officers. The term LEO has replaced peace officer. I also admit that the PDs themselves are not solely responsible for this shift. Police will no longer slim jim a car door, for fear that some asshole will respond to their assistance with a civil suit for a scatched paintjob. The “law and order” approach of the past couple of decades has seen an increase of penalties for arguably victimless crimes.

Do you believe one or the other approach should be the focus of police departments? Moreover, do you believe one or the other approach SHOULD be the focus of police departmets?

Over lunch, I noted that Chicago police cars say We Serve and Protect. Perhaps someone should discuss the appropriateness of that with the 4 guys who are receiving pardons today, because their confessions were the result of police torture?

2

I agree that it would be overly simplistic to view it as a dichotomy, and I agree that a tendency should be the focus. Of course enforcing the law is part and parcel of having a law!

But it is an interesting concern for me in that I also agree that apparently victimless crimes do seem to be receiving a lot of attention. Prostitution stings bother me; the manner in which drug use is approached bother me. They bother me because, as you indicate, the focus does seem to be shifting towards out-and-out enforcement rather than simply “keeping the peace”.

The problem is that, though there isn’t a strict dichotomy, keeping the peace and enforcing the law are not biconditionals. It seems to me to be the case, however, that enforcing the law is somehow supposed to address issues all by themselves—as if the only problem is that we aren’t making punishments harsh enough, or that we aren’t catching enough of the criminals, and if only we prosecuted more and imposed stricter sentences the “keeping the peace” will just fall out of it as a pleasant side-effect.

Now, I am suspicious of a claim that this is what our policy is motivated by, but I do get this impression from popular accounts.

I do think the stress should be more on “keeping the peace” rather than “enforcing the law.”

3

Well, back in the “old days” there was an “Us vs Them” attitude amoung Police Officers- but the “Us” was “police & law abiding citizens” and the “them” was “criminal scum”. Sure- some low lifes that were just associated with the real criminals got lumped in, but in general, the Polce saw themselves are part of the Citizenry.

However, to a large extent this has changed. Sure we still have the “Us vs Them”- but now the “Us” is “the law enforcement community” and the “Them” is everyone else (including most of us who post here). Note the trend of Police to call non-police citizens “civilians”. As I am sure Monty could tell us- Police are “civilians” just as much as anyone else outside the Military is. This attitude results in the “Blue Line”, where many cops won’t “rat” on their “brother Officers” even depsite seeing clear instances of Police brutality, racism, & abuse of authority.

If you- even rigourously obeying the letter of the law- get into an arguement with an Officer- chances are he will abuse his authority & either arrest or harrass you. Try it sometime. Make sure a freind has a video camera though.

I agree with Eris on “prostituion stings”. I can buy such police activities (maybe)when they have cleared all the dangerous felons off the street. But I’ll bet a nickel that every force performing such a “sting” will have a large backlog of unserved felony warrants- with the excuse they “just don’t have enough manpower”. And maybe so- but if so- then use what manpower you have to get the real crooks off the street, not the johns & prostitutes.

4

It’s a matter of numbers. From my experience, small town (non-suburb) police forces are generally more inclined towards the “Serve and Protect” method, while larger jurisdictions seems far more aimed at “Law Enforcement”. Of course, this isn’t always the case, as shown with the Tennessee dog killing incident.

5

I agree with DrDeth.

An unfortunate side effect of this attitude has been the militarization of the police.

Where 20 years ago, if some guy was stressed out and barricaded himself in his house after a domestic dispute (or something like that), a peace officer (who probably was in that community for years and years) would probably keep an eye on the situation and wait for the guy to come to his senses.

Now, we immeadiately call out the SWAT team and have the guy killed. It seems like the police are just waiting for an excuse to bring out the SWAT team so they can all play rambo - and I think it has a high cost to society.

6

That is a very interesting perspective… it certainly feels that way from this side of the badge.

7

It seems to me that the law enforcement side of the coin is there, being abused at times, to make money through fines, in turn creating jobs and whatnot. But we seem to be inching more and more toward a police state, fueled in part by the government, which is turning every average citizen into a criminal. To be 100% law-abiding nowadays is impossible, as it isn’t even feasible to keep up with the new laws on the books anymore. The government is turning us all into criminals, and the law is coming to get us; dark times are ahead.

8

Brings to mind an interesting line from the movie “Blade Runner”…

“Deckard… if you’re not one of us, you’re one of the little people.”

9

It has definitely shifted here. As a teenager, I was assisted a few times by P.D. officers who were as I expected them to be: no-nonsense, of course, but polite and helpful.

Now, in our suburb, it is apparently a crime to be a teenager. Last Friday night I witnessed a very scary shakedown of a handful of boys (13 to 18) by our P.D. here (in front of my house). It’s all about Rambo, baby.

10

Since several posters have mentioned prostitution stings, let me point out that its not so much the sex-for-money that they’re going after, but the visibility of it. There is de-facto legal prostitution in many towns across America in the form of escort services. However, street-based prostitution is a nuisance crime. When a prostitution sting takes place, its to get these people off the street (and smack those who encourage them by patronizing them), make the neighborhood look nicer, keep peripheral crime down, etc.

Street prostitution makes a neighborhood look crime-ridden. It’s more or less the old “broken window” theory in action.

11

That actually does make a lot of sense, occ.

12

The role of the police is to enforce the law. They are not lawmakers or judges.

Other than what they see on TV, the only interaction with the cops most people have is when they get a speeding ticket or their high school party gets busted by the cops.

Probably the stupidest advice ever. Why don’t you try being polite instead of antagonizing the cop? Even better, check out Chris Rocks advice on not getting your ass kicked by the Police.

13

I grew up in a small town in West Virginia in the 60s and 70s. I had long hair and rode a bicycle everywhere (I didn’t get a driver’s license until I was 22).

I was subjected to some pretty nasty, uncecessary treatment by cops, for which I can’t find a justification on either side of this dichotomy (protect and serve / law enforcement). Unless there were laws against looking counter-cultural (LCC), or bicycling while long-haired and alone (BWLHA).

That said, I am willing to admit that criminals have gotten nastier in the last 30 years. Which may have contributed to the Rambo factor described above.

Since I now have short hair, and money in the bank, I say, officers, do whatever you have to, to protect us from these hoodlums.

And if they voted Republican, remind them that it’s for their own good.

14

Obligatory “Supreme Court says the duty of the Police is to enforce the law, not to protect citizens” post.

As Demise said here, the US Supreme Court ruled in Bowers v. DeVito and South v. Maryland that the police have no obligation to protect or serve any interest but the State’s. A cop who stands by and watches a woman being raped hasn’t committed any crime, violated any law, or committed any dereliction of duty.

The job of the police is to enforce the law, and to investigate crimes. Nothing more, and certainly not to provide protection.

15

This goes too far. While I believe that the police can’t be sued by the victim in such a case , that doesn’t mean it wouldn’t be a dereliction of duty. I’m not even a police officer, only a peace officer, and I cannot stand by and watch a felony being committed without taking any action. What action I have to take depends on the circumstances, but at an absolute minimum , I have to get on the radio. Unless I don’t want to keep my job.

16

When people make statements such as “Police are to enforce the law - they are not judges or lawmakers” I believe they may not adequately acknowledge selective enforcement. Police do not - and cannot - enforce EVERY law ALL OF THE TIME. They do not arrest every litterer, jaywalker, or speeder. But they can use any of those violations as a pretext for a stop. And they often have the option of issuing a warning instead of a citation. I suspect that, if you think about it, most of us desire cops to exercise this type of judgment.

As someone else suggested, with the increase in all types of laws and regulations, I suspect many of us regularly commit numerous violations without intent or awareness. Yet we are legitimately interested in how we are dealt with should such violations come to official notice.

My experience is somewhat akin to NinetyWt’s. I grew up in Chicago. IMO, there was quite a bit of intentional crime being committed, both large and small. Tho my neighborhood was not particularly violent, there were a couple of murders, rapes, robberies, and such in my immediate are during my childhood/teens. And in my experience, the cops were pretty reasonable in how they handled the situations I was involved in. There was an attitude of “Don’t sweat the small stuff.” And you could easily avoid police attention by keeping a low profile and minding your own business.

Nowadays, it doesn’t seem as tho as much qualifies as “small stuff.” I now live in a small, upper middle class suburb, where there is essentially NO violent crime, and seemingly little theft and such. Kids leave toys and bikes out in front of their houses unlocked, in a manner that would have been unthinkable in my Chicago neighborhood in the 60s and 70s. The “gangs” don’t have regular rumbles. The most prevalennt violence seems to be family violence, where a family member goes nuts and kills their spouse and/or kids. But no random street violence.

Yet, we have a very obvious police force with cars, motorcycles, and jeeps. K-9 squads, some mobile crime investigation vehicle, etc. etc. Imposing automatic weapons on their belts. And worst of all - what I perceive as an attitude towards the citizens who pay their salaries.

If I think of asking a cop a simple question, I hesitate first, because I suspect the possibility that the response will be hostile. And if I suggest a neighborhood issue, the police will only address the situation if it is “escalated” through “official” channels, such as swearing out a complaint.

IMO, creates a less pleasant community.

Strikes me as odd, that as a relatively well-off professional, pretty law-abiding father and taxpayer, I have a less benign opinion of cops that I did as a kid, when I regularly - um - shall we leave it at - did things I knew were not - um - we’ll leave it at that.

17

Then I should not be expected to follow them.

18

Well- let’s look at it this way. You are driving along, miding your own business, not violating any laws on purpose or that you know of. You have no warrants you know of, etc. The area is not a very good one. A Police car starts following you. Do you:
A. Feel relieved, as you now know you’re safe in that bad neighborhood
B. get nervous, and wonder why he’s following you?

I’ll bet it’s B. So- those here with badges (and those without)- WHY IS THIS? Why should a “law abiding citizen” be bervous & worried when he sees you in his rear-view mirror?

19

That’s fine, eris.

Just do so with an awareness of and willingness to pay the possible consequences. Costs vs. benefits.

20

Well, my point is this: if we say that officers are expected to uphold the law (and not serve and protect) then they should be able to do so. If they are not able to do so, then there is either a problem with our laws, or there is a problem with expecting me to follow all of them.

What is the benefit of making a system of laws such that those whose only purpose is to enforce it cannot? Sounds to me like a legal version of Original Sin.