Stop Picking on the Police
Dear news media: please stop picking on the police. It’s not right when you point out when we fuck up.
That’s a paraphrased version of an editorial published today in The Oregonian written by a detective sergeant in the Portland Police Bureau. He feels that the cause for the negative public perception of the police has more to do with the media than the fact that the police keep screwing up in very public ways. I’d love to address a few of his specific comments:
“[the police are] viewed as brutal, under-trained knuckle-draggers who engage in racial profiling as a matter of routine.” - perhaps the perception of a lack of training comes as a result of the mayor and police chief citing a lack of training as a reason why James Chasse died in custody. Racial profiling? Wouldn’t it be great to have some actual facts on racial profiling? If the police are innocent, this should clear things right up, wouldn’t it? Of course it would, except for the fact that the police union is against collecting any sort of statistics on the matter.
“Crime in Portland is down 20 percent to 30 percent from two years ago… This reduction in crime has come at a time of incredible economic and population growth… police staffing levels have not kept pace with this growth. “ - correlation does not mean causation. Yes, crime is down, and so are police staffing numbers. This may, or may not, mean that the police are doing a better job. That depends if you consider the police force to be the sole deterrent of crime.
“The average police officer has been asked to do more with less in this city for a decade.” - that’s a good point. The same thing could be said in many industries. But that isn’t an excuse for people dying as a result of reckless behavior or a complete lack of oversight for job performance.
“we have been faced with a constant negative background noise from the media. “ - I wish he’d provide some examples. If he could find an example where there’s been negative media coverage that hasn’t been as a result of police incompetence or arrogance it really would help his argument.
I say these things as someone who usually supports the police but realizes that things have gone wrong with the Portland Police Bureau. From the top levels of management downward there is a lack of credibility and accountability which is affecting the officers’ ability to do their jobs. I don’t doubt that a majority of the officers are good people, doing good things and working hard. Unfortunately the irresponsible actions of some are “news” whereas everyday productivity is not.
The best way for the Portland Police Bureau to fix its public image is to eliminate those who propagate problems, open up the management and accountability of the department to more public scrutiny, and actively promote successes within the department. I’m going to say it again: the department needs to blog. They can put a personable public face on their activities, engage in a dialog with the public, build some credibility, and toot their own horn when they do good. Editorials saying “stop picking on us” won’t help one bit.
Not to pile on, but he mentions “community policing” a few times and never once cites any sort of efforts the PPB makes to reach out to the community.
I’m also confused by the “we don’t like the media” stance he takes and then says the fight against meth was helped by extensive media coverage. Pick one!
Even if I totally disagreed with him I’d respect his opinion a lot more if he’d back it up with facts or at least set up a consistent and logical argument.
Time to play devil’s advocate.
1) While lack of training certainly is an issue, the fact that the mayor and the police chief acknowledge it does not justify a public perception that police are ignorant knuckle-draggers. Members of the public who pay attention know that police are poorly trained to work as mental health workers (which isn’t their job) and the training sought by the mayor and police chief are to bolster officers’ abilities to deal with mentally challenged subjects. To clarify my last statement, the job of police is to help maintain order, which brings them into contact with a lot of people with mental health issues, thanks to how our society basically marginalizes and fails to support these people. While police do their best, we can only expect so much from them.
2) Speaking from some personal info-gathering, police track certain information every time they make a stop. Their in-car computer pops-up a screen after each stop has ended, and some of the info they enter includes race and gender of person they contacted, reason for contact (traffic, crime, etc) and final outcome (warning, citation, no action taken). So this information is being gathered, whether the union wants it to or not. Also from personal experience, at least as far as traffic stops go, police focus on a variety of things when out trolling for stops. Out-of-date registration stickers on plates, speeding, running lights, and equipment violations commonly result in police making a stop. In many cases, police have no idea who’s inside the car until they’ve walked up to it. But some officers will tell you that while these sorts of violations may tend to correlate to certain segments of the community, the violations tend to also correlate to people who don’t tend to care about the law, and therefore tend to be engaging in more than just traffic violations.
3) I can’t argue with the “correlation does not equal causation” argument. I would note, however, that dropping crime in a city that is growing in population, with a police force that is shrinking in its officer-to-citizen ratio, is a strong indicator that, among many factors that may be leading to the reduction of crime, the police are probably doing a better job with the resources they have.
4) While it isn’t an excuse for people ending up dead that police are being forced to do more with less, is it any surprise? If we as citizens are interested in making sure our police are better-trained and resourced-enough to reduce the incidence of deaths in police custody, we need to stop complaining and push the City to make needed changes, including increasing funding for police training, putting more officers on the streets, etc. Sure, many industries are expected to do more with less, but policing is not an industry. It is a vital community safety component.
5) I agree that the police bureau has problems top to bottom, and they need to take decisive action to eliminate those problems. In the end, they have been responsible for much of the negative press raised against them.
6) The police need to blog? Really? Do we really want to pay police officers to blog when it is a better use of their time to be on the street? I mean, I’m all for blogging, but I don’t see it as a panacea, and I tend to roll my eyes when I see bloggers trying to propogate blogging into institutions. Blogging has proven a useful tool for politicians, but at the same time blogging is a two-edged sword. People put things on blogs thinking that everyone will understand what has been written, and yet people read things wrong and end up using their faulty understanding against the writer. I prefer the current method, where there is personal contact between the bureau and the media and all sides have a chance to discuss exactly what’s being said. Besides, much of what police do doesn’t translate as well into blogging as it does into press releases. My opinion.
Anyway, thanks for calling attention to the editorial. I think, in the final analysis, the people of Portland need to start dialoging on fixing the problem, instead of complaining about it, and I do think that’s a place where bloggers can play a big part…
“I think, in the final analysis, the people of Portland need to start dialoging on fixing the problem, instead of complaining about it…”
Which is a problem when the head of the police union distorts the facts, distracts attention, and denounces discussion.
The rest of us ARE dialoging. WHen do THEY start?