Archive for the ‘Leadership’ Category
What do police officers think about how the police department in Ferguson, MO is handling the aftermath of the Brown shooting? no comments
Answer by Tim Dees:
I think this is a classic example of what happens when a law enforcement agency isn’t trained or prepared for an unexpected or exceptionally large event.
Ferguson is a city of 21,000 people. It’s police department has 52 sworn officers. Only three are black, when about 68% of the city’s population are black. This imbalance affects the current situation tangentially, but I doubt that it’s a problem that the City of Ferguson is unaware of or that they haven’t tried to fix it. Anytime a white police officer kills or seriously injures a minority citizen in a predominately minority community, there will be an outcry. Accusations of racism follow immediately and certainly, and the precipitating conduct that led to the incident is lost in the conversation.
There is something of a litmus test one can do to evaluate whether the motive behind an action is motivated by racism: change the ethnicities of the players. So, instead of Michael Brown, we have Michael White, a 6-5, 265 lb. Caucasian, 18 years of age. He enters a convenience store in his small community and takes a package of cigars. When the clerk tries to stop him, White grabs him and tosses him around in order to leave unencumbered. A few minutes later, White and at least one companion of the same ethnicity are walking down the middle of a public street, eschewing the sidewalk provided for pedestrians.
A uniformed police officer (he can be whatever race you want him to be–I don’t think it matters) who is of inferior physical size to White sees him and asks him and his friend to move to the sidewalk. The pair refuse. The police officer may or may not know about the strongarm robbery at the convenience store; if he knows, he is unaware that White or his companion are the perpetrators. The officer stops his car and starts to get out to confront the pair. White attacks him as he tries to exit the vehicle, and attempts to disarm the officer. The officer retains control of his firearm and shoots White, who is unarmed. Would the white citizens–or, for that matter, the black, brown, or green citizens–demonstrate, hold rallies and vigils, and ultimately burn and loot the town in protest? I’m unaware of this ever happening.
Darren Wilson, the police officer who shot Brown, is described as “tall and slender” in the stories I’ve read. He looks to be about six feet tall and around 180 lbs., although this is only a gross estimate based on a few photos of him I have seen on the web. I’m a fairly big guy. When I was working the street, I was 6-2 and around 210 lbs. Had I been attacked by an 18-year-old of Brown’s size who tried to get control of my sidearm, I would probably have shot him, or tried, too.
When you’re fighting with someone who outmatches you physically and has moved in too close for a TASER or impact weapon, you don’t have many options left if you want to go home that day. Race is irrelevant, at least from the perspective of the officer. I’ve heard the argument that walking down the middle of the street, or even doing a robbery of a store, doesn’t justify the use of deadly force. No, it doesn’t. But attacking a police officer and trying to disarm him does quite possibly justify the use of deadly force. The decision to do that was solely Michael Brown’s. Had he paid for his cigars and walked on the sidewalk (not especially arduous requirements, IMHO), he would likely still be going to technical school next month, and most of us would still have never heard of Ferguson.
The Ferguson PD now has to contend with civil unrest, the likes of which they have never seen before. If they are like most PDs of that size, they have little training in public order incidents. Still, they don’t have the option of boarding up the police station and hiding inside while people are gathering in a hostile way. They responded the only way they knew how, in tactical gear that offered the best protection for their officers. The basic police uniform doesn’t provide all that much protection from threats to the wearer. Most cops wear body armor that will stop a handgun bullet, but it doesn’t help if you get hit in the roughly 70% of the body that is not protected by the armor. It will offer some very limited protection against thrown missiles like rocks and bottles, but none against Molotov cocktails. If you get hit with a rock in your head, knee, or elbow, you’re likely going down.
Tactical gear often includes knee and elbow pads, more coverage with body armor, a helmet, and possibly goggles. If I had been going out to police a hostile crowd, I’d have every piece of gear like that I could carry. Some officers–most of the ones I saw were from the county police department–were armed with rifles. One photo I’ve seen run repeatedly shows a helmeted officer with a sniper rifle on a bipod, and the officer appears to be perched on top of a tactical vehicle. People may find this offensive, but there is sound tactical doctrine for this. If someone fires a gun from inside or around a crowd, they are very difficult to identify. Pursuit, if you know who to pursue, is even more difficult, as the members of the crowd will likely be panicking and stampeding.
The sniper, with his high observation point, the protection of the tactical vehicle, a magnifying scope, and a rifle capable of placing a bullet far away with precision, can spot and eliminate such a shooter far more effectively than an officer on the ground can.
The tactical vehicles may also be off-putting, but they offer the occupants protection from bullets, thrown objects, and improvised fire bombs, all of which were a factor in this situation. If the tires are shot out or flattened by nails, they often have run-flat tires that will allow the vehicle to keep moving. A patrol car offers far less protection, and anti-police crowds seem to delight in setting fire to and overturning police cars that are vacant or abandoned. A 52-man police department isn’t going to have a lot of spare cars.
The PD stepped up their posture when there was arson and looting of city businesses the night after the shooting. Burning down and stealing from the businesses that serve your community does absolutely nothing to advance whatever cause of justice you’re allegedly seeking to achieve. The people who do this are thieves and hoodlums, plain and simple. They take advantage of overwhelmed law enforcement services to commit their crimes unimpeded. Some people seem to like to describe the actions of these criminals as a morally justified response to the racist genocide of their own by the ruling class. Bullshit. These are just cowardly criminals who are going to steal or destroy anything they can get their hands on because they like to steal and destroy things. If they could get away with it at any other time, they would do it, then, too.
When the Missouri governor ordered the Ferguson PD to stand down and turned over handling of the incident to the Missouri State Highway Patrol, critics of the FPD noted that the more relaxed approach was reducing the level of violence and confrontation in the wake of the more fascist tactics of the FPD. This lovefest lasted less than 24 hours, until the sun went down and the looting and arson resumed. There would have been a lot more of this, but by then many business owners were standing guard with personally-owned firearms. I don’t blame them a bit for doing this (in their situation, I would be doing the same thing), but do you think a looter or arsonist is going to get a better shake from a personally-invested businessman whose expertise is with selling hardware or cutting meat, or a trained police officer?
The arrests of journalists and people who were doing no more than recording what they saw on a public street were wrong, plain and simple. The cops should and probably do know better. I don’t excuse their behavior, but I do understand it in part. When you’re seeing the town you’re supposed to police coming down around you, you feel like you need to do something, even if the “something” is ill-advised. It’s a siege mentality brought about by stress and frustration. Better and more intensive supervision would have deterred this sort of behavior, but my guess is that FPD had every cop they could find deployed on the street, and there weren’t enough effective supervisors to keep track of them all. My friend, risk management expert and retired CHP captain Gordon Graham, likes to say that most police misconduct cases can be traced to ineffective supervision.
Once again, the FPD was overwhelmed. So, if this situation was so out of their depth, why didn’t the FPD just call for help from the start? Because tradition and standard practice say you try and handle what comes to you before you call for help. This got out of control faster than the FPD could recognize and react to it. They did have the assistance of the St. Louis County Police Department and some state troopers drawn from local stations, but wasn’t able to coordinate and control those bodies sufficiently to keep this situation from growing more serious. I don’t know if they had ever trained or planned for this kind of coordinated operation before. If they’re like most police agencies in the United States, they haven’t. There is a limited amount of time and money for training, and you tend to address the problems you already have, not the ones you might have someday.
Would this situation have taken place if the racial makeup of the FPD more closely reflected that of the community? Maybe, but that’s a difficult goal. Police departments around the country are having difficulty recruiting new officers of any race. Only about 20% of Americans ages 18-25 are eligible for military service. The rest are rejected for reasons of obesity or just poor physical conditioning, criminal records, driving history, recent drug use, or poor credit. Police service is more restrictive than the military, but someone who can’t qualify for the military isn’t likely to qualify to be a police officer, either. By age 30-34, 3.2% of white men have been in prison, where 22.4% of black men have (). In Missouri, 56% of black men graduate from high school, where 81% of white men do ( ). 27% of white Americans have poor credit records, where 48% of blacks do ( ). The reasons for this are an entirely separate debate, but it boils down to there being substantially fewer black men than white men who are qualified to be police officers. Of the black applicants who are qualified for police service, they usually have many better and more lucrative options. Many businesses and colleges actively recruit high-achieving minorities, enticing them with management training programs and full-ride scholarships. If I was a young man offered a choice of a professional career in engineering, medicine, or business or being a police officer, both with all training and education costs paid, it would be pretty tough to take the cop route.
Now and then, law enforcement agencies decide their need for minority officers or supervisors is so great that they lower the bar for minority applicants. This has had disastrous consequences in every instance of which I am aware. You need the best person you can get, not just the best [race or ethnicity] you can get, to be your cops and supervisors. To summarize: I think the Ferguson PD just got slammed with an event that was beyond their capacity to handle. The people of Ferguson could have responded to the shooting with peaceful protests and demonstrations, and I suspect most of them intended to do exactly that. But a relatively small number decided to respond with violence, and the FPD wasn’t trained or equipped to deal with it.
Roy Alston and George Reed wrote a paper on “Toxic Police Leadership” that I thought did a great job of describing one of the reasons that police departments were such a crappy place to work, even though the actual work was challenging, rewarding, and often even fun. Roy will send you a copy of the article if you ask. He can be reached through his LinkedIn page.
Below is the message I posted on a LinkedIn discussion page of the article.
Roy’s article did a great job of codifying some of the concepts I believe most of us have known existed in law enforcement for our entire careers. I have an corollary theory as to why toxic leadership is so commonplace in law enforcement. Police officers are the only group in a free society who can lawfully use force to compel people to their will. We’re trained as line officers to keep that as a last resort, but one of the requirements of success as a police officer is the ability to use the force option without hesitation when necessary.
Police officers who move into management roles take with them that acclimation to the force option. While a sergeant is not empowered to use force against a subordinate in order to achieve compliance, it doesn’t mean they don’t consider it in some context, even if the force option doesn’t take on the form of a baton strike or a wristlock. Instead, the toxic manager relies on fear and intimidation to compel his will.
Rookie officers often have problems with the use of force, using too much or not enough for the situation. With time, successful officers learn where the “sweet spot” lies and become adept at achieving compliance without having to use force. Law enforcement officers who progress rapidly up the ranks don’t spend a lot of time in the basic job of patrol officer or deputy. Instead, they gravitate quickly to assignments that are often administrative in nature, and spend minimal time on the street. Once they get that first promotion, they may never again take their handcuffs out of their case. They learn just enough about the force option to use it inappropriately and unwisely.
The military is probably the closest model we have to a law enforcement organization, but the military is not so plagued with toxic leaders (although they too have their share). I believe there are several reasons for this. One, the military is more likely to require a minimum “time in grade” before a member is eligible for promotion. Law enforcement does this, too, but the calendar is much more abbreviated. Some agencies allow officers to take the test for sergeant after only two years of service, and a sergeant may supervise as many as ten officers. It would take typically five years, and probably longer, for an enlisted man in the military to promote to a level (E-5 or E-6) where he would oversee that many people.
The military does use officers who may have never been enlisted personnel, but only after a rigorous training and vetting program with significant emphasis on leadership skills. Law enforcement training programs for supervisors and executives emphasize management, rather than leadership. You can manage things, like vehicles, uniforms and firearms, but you have to lead people.
Finally, the military requires that even its top leadership maintain competency in basic skills. It isn’t likely that the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff will ever again go toe-to-toe with an enemy soldier, but he must still pass an annual physical fitness test, qualify with a sidearm and possibly a rifle, and demonstrate competency in other fundamental tasks of his service. I have forgotten the source of this quote and don’t have it verbatim, but some years back a newly-appointed commandant of the U.S. Marine Corps was interviewed by a reporter. The reporter asked what the commandant’s job entailed. The reply was something like, “I am an infantry rifleman, presently assigned as the Commandant of the United States Marine Corps.” He wanted everyone to understand that he believed in the Marine Corps’ legacy that every marine was first a rifleman, then whatever his or her military occupation was. I wonder how many chiefs of police would characterize themselves as uniformed patrol officers with an assignment as the chief of police, or who would be able or willing to put on the war suit and get into a car to chase the radio for a shift? I believe a requirement that every member of a law enforcement agency spend a few days a year performing and demonstrating competency at the basic mission would reduce the number of toxic leaders in our profession.
A story carried on PoliceOne.com and elsewhere describes what some people are calling a “quota system” at the Las Cruces, NM Police Department. Officers there are required to accumulate 90 “activity points” per month, or face disciplinary action. Activity points come from completing field interview cards, citizen contacts, and traffic citations, among other tasks.
Comments on the article are numerous, and as near as I can tell, negative. The Las Cruces chief, who came to them from the New Mexico State Police (NMSP), seems to be the only one who thinks this is a good idea.
A traffic enforcement-oriented agency like the NMSP lends itself a little better to a points system like this, because the range of activities its officers engage in is somewhat more limited. Traffic officers assist stranded motorists, write traffic citations, arrest drivers who are drunk or driving with suspended licenses, and investigate accidents. To a lesser degree, they recover stolen vehicles, perform interdiction of narcotics and human trafficking, and arrest fugitives. Nearly all of those activities begin with either a traffic stop or being dispatched to the scene of an incident, and those incidents are easy to track.
A patrol officer performs all of the tasks of a traffic officer, and many, many more. A good patrol officer is the primary broker of community services that can be brought to bear on a problem. He makes use of chaplains, counseling services, rehabilitation agencies, battered women’s shelters, and yes, jails. A points system ignores the quality component of an officer’s work. How many problems did he solve this month? How has the quality of life improved or suffered in his patrol area? How creative was he in invoking community resources other than fines and imprisonment to bear on the problems he encountered?
A points system serves the lazy supervisor. A sergeant or lieutenant who wants to play the role of The Eternal Flame (“he never goes out”) can sit in the office and add up points from his officers’ computer-generated activity histories, and never bother to see what is actually going on in the real world. He can rejoice in the blissful ignorance of officers who are filling out field interview cards from cemetery headstones and writing tickets for 6 miles an hour over the speed limit. They rack up their points quickly and can then retire to the diner or fire station, where they watch TV and read the newspaper the rest of the month.
Good police work is never easy. Because the landscape changes with each passing day, the tactics change as well. You can put on the greatest show since Achilles slew Hector today, and tomorrow there will be a fresh steaming pile in the middle of your beat, waiting for you to clean it up. It is not for the faint of heart, or the easily discouraged. Meaningful changes come slowly and require constant nurturing if they are to endure.
This chief needs to get his head out of his ass and his ass out of his chair. Get out into the community and see what problems there are. Make your supervisors into mentors, rather than managers. It won’t be easy, but good police work never is.