On Friday, 5 October, 2018, Chicago police officer, Jason Van Dyke, was found guilty of second degree murder in his 2014 shooting of 17 year old Laquan McDonald. The decision probably prevented a major riot. Instead, there was joy among the black community. For the first time in a long time, they felt that justice was served.
The black community has long been serving notice through protests and riots that they do not trust the police forces serving their cities. Whenever there’s shooting, the black community’s response is predictable: the violence was unneeded at best and was another example of racial prejudice at worst. Tamir Rice of Cleveland, Ohio; George V. King of Baltimore, Maryland; and Michael Brown of Ferguson, Missouri are only three names that have generated the animosity Blacks have for their police forces. Such does not indicate a belief in the motto of all police forces: to serve and to protect.
Since shooting violence is the common thread of these attitudes, a question arises: should police officers be armed? The ready objection is that police officers need weapons to enforce the law. Without access to deadly force, it is assumed that communities will descend into lawless violence and chaos. Is that really true? Perhaps a look at the history of the famed London Bobbies might offer light on this question.
Prior to the 1820’s, English cities were patrolled by local constables who were responsible to their local governments. Sir Robert Peel, Home Secretary, thought a better way was possible for preserving the peace and ensuring freedom from violence. His solution was the creation of a well-trained 1,000-man force that would protect London. Specifically, they were to detect and prevent crimes. Along the way, they were also used to detect fires and light gas lights. They were directed by a two-man commission. Note, none of these peace officers was armed with a firearm. These men were armed with truncheons, handcuffs and whistles. This tradition has endured to this day.[1]
The problem with carrying a firearm is that eventually, one might feel compelled to use it. I learned this lesson from my son-in-law who is a lifelong resident of Naples, Italy where violence is a common element of life. When I asked him why he didn’t carry a weapon, his answer was that he would one day be obliged to use it. So, to avoid that situation, he remains unarmed.
For the sake of argument, let us assume that every officer who has shot someone did so in good faith. That is, he or she believed that human life was in danger and no alternative existed but to use deadly force. Choices must be made in a fraction of second, and despite long training about this situation, the consequences of these decisions are forever. Furthermore, perceptions after the fact lead to second-guessing and mistrust. All this is under the best of circumstances. Given the history of Jim Crow law that has typified our nation for the past century, Black suspicion about the motives of police officers runs strong. Riots occur even in the aftermath of all shooting events.
Therefore, following the advice of my son-in-law, it seems evident that a fundamental change in the policies of our city fathers is needed. If armed force leads to riots, then why not eliminate the cause of riots? Why not disarm city police forces and follow the example of London Bobbies? To carry this idea out further, access to firearms by police forces would only be permitted after a judicial review. Furthermore, if non-violent wiretapping requires a warrant as a means of preserving liberty, why shouldn’t access to deadly force require a warrant as a means of preserving liberty? Being dead certainly obviates any possibility of liberty.
Clearly, there would be those who will decry these ideas. They foresee chaos and violence running rampant in their communities. Actually, that’s always a possibility. But, whose communities? If one is worried about violence in affluent suburbs, that doesn’t seem likely. Violence and riots are not being recorded there. Rather, the riots are occurring in the inner cities and only after police actions. Therefore, if the police cannot kill people, then any issues of any violence that occurs after police are disarmed become highlighted as to their real origins. Police officers could not be seen as perpetrators of violence, but hopefully as facilitators of community efforts to prevent and detect crime.
The choice of my words, prevent and detect, was deliberate. In fact, prevention cannot be done by police forces. Criminal actions are done by perpetrators who think they can evade retribution. Law enforcement agents, even the best of them, can only detect crimes after the fact and prosecute them. This means that communities wanting peaceful streets must accept a certain amount of responsibility for them. They know who lives in them, and presumably would have more direct influence over individual residents. This effect could be amplified by a daily contact with unarmed policemen who patrol their beats on foot. This interaction could possibly lead to a feeling of mutual partnership that is aimed at reducing violence. If so, then the possibility of civic intervention might exist to deter any specific act of violence. In sum, armed police forces don’t seem able to curb gun-related gun violence. Perhaps increased civil-police cooperation might help.
This possibility in not impossible. When I lived in Europe, police forces in some nations knew their neighborhoods so well that if a youngster was late in coming home, the parents were given a visit by a neighborhood officer wanting to know if all was well. Consequently, families felt secure in the midst of their neighborhoods. So, what the heck? Why not try for it here in America by using the English Bobbies as a model?
,
[1] Bauer, Patricia. “Bobby, British Police Officer.” Encyclopedia Britannica. https://www.britannica.com/topic/bobby. 10/6/18.