Give cops some credit

Dear editor:

Police are taught that there are three categories of people: "Yes people," "No people," and "Maybe people." These distinctions suggest the obvious -- that officers cannot talk everyone into handcuffs.

"Yes people" are compliant to a uniformed police presence. "No people" are fighters, runners or both. "Maybe people" can go either way. It is the last category where there are the most variables effecting the direction of a police contact.

Certainly the conduct and abilities of the officer are among the many variables. Yes, they all go through the same standardized basic training, but competence and character differ from officer to officer.

Some have athletic prowess and played contact sports growing up. Some come to the ranks with a frame of reference for physical confrontation limited to wedgies suffered during childhood. All however, take the same oath. They must respond to 911 calls with different tools in the toolbox -- outcomes will vary. A fit, 6'3", 220 pound officer might use a control hold and instantly subdue a "no person." Given the same circumstance a 5'3", 135 pound, soft officer might necessarily use a Taser or deadly force.

In light of the controversy in Ferguson, Mo., here are three facts to consider: First, every fight an officer is in involves at least one gun; the one he/she is wearing and must defend. Second, most 18-year-old males can outlast and ultimately overpower the average 30-year-old man; this is in part why eighteen-year-old males are subject to the draft. Lastly, the premise launched by the media of an open season on young, black males by white police officers is outrageous. This myth is dispelled by DOJ reports on law enforcement officers killed and attacked (LEOKA studies), combined with year-to-year violent offender demographic data.

Public trust is a fragile treasure. Officers know that any use of force places their safety, career and agency's reputation in jeopardy. Still, unnecessary escalation does happen. With that said, it is the least frequent of the variables in play leading to police use of force. Police walk a tightrope of laws, policies and moreover, public opinion.

Despite earnest recruiting efforts to increase diversity in the ranks over the last four decades, 86 percent of America's peace officers are white; most are male. Conversely, despite racial preferences and generational economic and educational assistance from taxpayers in the trillions of dollars earmarked for non-Asian minorities -- the fact remains: the overwhelming amount of violent crime in America year after year is committed by young black and Latino males between the ages of 15 and 24 (Sources: yearly DOJ uniform crime reporting and The Color of Crime; Race, Crime and Justice in America: Second, Expanded Edition, New Century Foundation).

The reality of who makes up the majority of police and who makes up the majority of violent offenders is used by the incredulous media to argue a false conclusion -- that modern law enforcement is nothing more than the Klan in blue. Notwithstanding the small number of bad apple exceptions in the ranks, this is irresponsible. It is an insult to a noble profession. In 2014 the issue is no longer white vs. black, but police vs. criminal.

Certainly, there are cases of police brutality on minorities -- just as there are on whites. In the interest of public trust, all of these incidents should come to light. Excessive use of force under the color of authority (perceived or real) always gets traction in the media when the victim is non-white; not so when the roles are reversed: On August 11, 2014 (just two days after the death of Michael Brown) a black Salt Lake City police officer shot and killed an unarmed twenty-year-old, white man, Dillon Taylor. There was no media blitz and to-date the DOJ has not descended on Salt Lake.

The agenda-driven media divide the population along racial lines with their selective outrage. They convict police in the court of public opinion -- before the facts are in. Thomas Sowell recently opined on why we spend so much money funding a criminal justice system if we are holding court in the media with the mob as jury.

Cameras are wielded like swords pushing police administrators back on their heels. An intimidated police administration creates timid cops. Timid cops make communities less safe; this is particularly so in black and Latino neighborhoods. Police learn that being reactive pays the same with half the risk to limb and livelihood. Rather than be proactive and work to prevent violent crime, some browbeaten officers become RODS (retired on duty). They drive in circles with blinders on and show up after the fact to draw a chalk line around another tragic victim of black-on-black crime.

Today police are under a microscope like no other time in American history. This is not altogether undeserved or an entirely bad thing. After all, there is police misconduct. Someone needs to police the police. A responsible media could help, but they -- like the DOJ -- have lost all objectivity.

In this walk-on-eggshell climate an officer's worry of job loss and civil or criminal federal charges, retard reaction time. While the suspect is deciding between fight-or-flight, the officer may be under-reacting due to analysis-paralysis.

When it comes to making an arrest or a detention the bottom line is this: the suspect has an obligation to submit, and the officer has a duty to apprehend.

There is no nice way to take a "no person" into custody. Even a peaceful protester using only passive resistance in the form of dead weight requires some level of force to arrest.

All of this begs the question: What kind of police culture do you want? Do you want a double-minded police administration that reins in the effective cops preferring armed report takers who never get a citizen's complaint, look the part, but can't deliver?

I imagine that you want a culture of professional, competent, courageous and constitutional-minded officers.

I imagine that you want officers whose actions are motivated by a sense of duty balanced by the golden rule.

I imagine that you want officers armed with discretion, grace and mercy selected on meaningful criteria that hold the line on our quality of life.

I imagine that you want officers who seek out real criminals as opposed to criminalizing harmless behavior by being overzealous with no thought given to the spirit of the law, only the letter.

I imagine that you want officers whose performance is not graded by the number of tickets they write.

I imagine that you want officers with a sense of duty so strong that their oath trumps their prejudices.

I imagine that you want officers who although they know not all people contribute the same value to society, treat every human being as an equally precious life.

How is that kind of culture made? Not by sheriffs and chiefs genuflecting to external forces and allowing their oath to be reshaped by the hammer of political correctness over the anvil of ignorance.

It comes from bold, articulate leadership rooted in reality. It comes from coaching a culture. It comes from hiring officers with a servant's heart. It comes from holding cops and criminals accountable without regard to political forces undermining truth and the Rule of Law. And, it comes from holding on jealously to local control.

I have many concerns about the changing police culture in America; including the line between local and federal being blurred.

Irrespective of my concerns, local police -- in their traditional role -- deserve the benefit of doubt when they meet physical resistance doing a job most citizens would not entertain the thought of doing.

The public should beware of media spin, hasty conclusions and false witnesses. They should suspend judgment until all of the facts are in.

These brave men and women deserve that much consideration.

-- Doug Traubel