fbpx

2 Views On Today’s Law Enforcement Turmoil. What Do You Think?

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

There’s no shortage of media reports about the police these days, but two recently published pieces have advanced figures and opinions that warrant response by law enforcement professionals.

One calls for abandoning traffic stops as a public relations and safety move, an idea that could find fertile ground in today’s anti-cop atmosphere. The other looks at the alarming fruits of demonizing and demoralizing officers.

We’re interested in YOUR thoughts, opinions, observations. What are your reactions to these provocative points of view? Send us your feedback to editor@forcescience.org and in a future edition of Force Science News, we’ll share a representative sampling of what experienced officers have to say.

1. Law professor: Eliminate traffic stops, win friends, be safer

A California law professor has a suggestion he says would dramatically improve police-public relations and increase safety for officers. Eliminate traffic stops.

Prof. Christopher Kutz of the Jurisprudence and Social Policy Program at the University of California-Berkeley detailed his proposal recently in an op ed essay for the Chicago Tribune’s Tribune Content Agency, a syndication service for news outlets and websites. Kutz, who holds a law degree from Yale as well as a PhD, focuses his professional efforts on “moral, political, and legal philosophy” issues.

In his Tribune piece, he cites a familiar series of recent incidents in which black drivers have ended up dead during or after officers pulled them over for relatively trivial violations, including a broken tail light, a missing license plate, and an improper lane change.

These motorists, Kutz argues, “should never have been stopped by police at all. Nor should the vast majority of Americans pulled over in our national ritual of the traffic stop.”

Just like “our apparent tolerance of rampage shootings [and] our system of mass incarceration,” law enforcement’s devotion to traffic stops puts the US “out of step” with other developed nations, Kutz claims.

American drivers are stopped for traffic violations “at a rate of about 9,900 per 100,000 citizens,” Kutz writes, citing a DOJ survey. “By contrast, government reports in England and Wales show traffic stops occur at a rate of only about 2,200 per 100,000”; in France, 2,760 per 100,000; in Spain, “about 3,000 per 100,000.”

Yet according to the World Health Organization, these countries, “which have aggressive driving cultures, have 40 percent to 60 percent of the US fatal accident rate, despite traffic stops being made 20 percent to 30 percent as often.”

Minor traffic violations, Kutz asserts, “pose no significant immediate threat” to anyone on the road. “On the other hand, every stop brings a substantial danger to the law enforcement officer: Car and motorcycle accidents and being struck by vehicles are a leading cause of death in the line of duty. Stops also produce a significant risk of escalation and confrontation, with tragic outcomes…. So no legitimate concern with road safety compels us to continue with the traffic stop.”

He proposes a test. “Any municipal police chief can simply undertake a quiet, and easily reversible, experiment: Reserve the traffic stop for objectively and imminently dangerous road behaviors, and observe the effects on crime rates and traffic accidents.

“Local, state, and federal government also could encourage the use of red-light and speed cameras,” as the European countries do to enforce speed laws. These devices, automatically generating citations, “would surely issue as many or more tickets as traffic patrol officers do”–without, Kutz adds, racial bias. “No camera has ever Tased or shot an unarmed driver,” he notes.

“Any purported benefit” from stops for minor violations–“for example, the slim chance of apprehending wanted criminals”–has to be “set off against the resentment they engender, Kutz says.

With minor violations off their watch list, “police could concentrate their efforts on serious crime and immediate…genuinely dangerous driving behavior…while traffic engineers [seek] alternative ways to improve roads safety.”

Thus, he concludes, could “all citizens enjoy more freedom from overzealous and unproductive policing.”

2. Think tanker: Payoff from anti-police attitude is societal havoc

“Those who make enemies of the police,” the saying goes, “had better make friends with the criminals.”

How’s that working out for urban America these days?

Not so hot, reports journalist and commentator Heather MacDonald in an article titled “Welcome to Post-Ferguson Policing” in the online version of the conservative magazine National Review. MacDonald is a fellow at the think tank Manhattan Institute for Policy Research, a graduate of Stanford University law school, and author of the book Are Cops Racist? (No, is her conclusion).

She begins her article by recounting the notorious incident in Alabama recently where a detective was beaten unconscious during a traffic stop “because the officer did not want to be pilloried in the media as a racist for using force against a black man.” A sergeant on his department is quoted: Cops are “walking on eggshells because of how they’re scrutinized” these days.

“This reluctance to act,” MacDonald writes, “is affecting police departments across the country, as virtually every tool in an officer’s tool chest–from traffic stops to public-order maintenance–is vilified as racist.”

She then looses a shotgun spray of disturbing statistics showing the impact on crime and crime-fighting:

  • Following anti-police riots and indictments of cops over a black man’s death in Baltimore, arrests dropped 60 percent in one month [last May], compared with the previous year.
  • “In New York City,” she states, “criminal summonses, a powerful gauge of proactive enforcement, were down 24 percent through July….”
  • “In the LAPD’s Central Division, home to the chaotic, squalid Skid Row, arrests are down 13 percent, while violent crime is up 57 percent… [W]hen officers stay engaged, they often confront hostile, unruly crowds and resistance from suspects.” Overall, the city’s violent crime has risen by 10 percent as of early August.
  • “Milwaukee has seen a 118 percent rise in homicides; Minneapolis and St. Louis, close to 50 percent, and Baltimore 60 percent.” Other alarming spikes are reported in Dallas, Houston, and Chicago. “In 35 big US cities,” according to a survey by the Major City Chiefs Assn., “homicides are up 19 percent this year on average….”
  • “Sixty-two percent of surveyed cities reported increases in non-fatal shootings as well…. [T]he country is seeing the biggest violent-crime spike in 20 years.”

MacDonald notes: “If the Black Lives Matter movement were correct that law enforcement is a scourge on the black community, [the] unraveling of proactive policing should be an enormous benefit to black well-being.”

But the truth is, “The overwhelming majority of shooting and homicide victims have been black, as are their assailants…. [W]hen the police back off, it is residents of poor inner-city neighborhoods who pay, too often with their lives….”

MacDonald concludes: “There are signs that law and order, and the moral support for such order, are slowly breaking down. Few leaders have the courage to speak honestly about the rising violence….”

Incidents in which crowds turn on officers attempting to enforce laws get scant attention in the media, she asserts. She cites a “mini-riot [that] broke out when police arrived at the scene of a drive-by shooting in Cincinnati.”

The drive-by assailants had shot a four-year-old girl in the head, but hostile bystanders shouted profanities against the cops, who were trying to prevent a retaliatory shooting by arresting people on outstanding warrants. “The press,” MacDonald alleges, “was assiduously silent about the anti-police chaos.”

Such incidents and the alarming statistical toll of “anarchy” in the streets, she predicts, “will probably multiply as the media continue to amplify the activists’ poisonous slander against the nation’s police forces.”

Leave a Reply

GDPR

  • Privacy Policy

Privacy Policy

Effective date: January 06, 2019

Force Science Institute, Ltd. (“us”, “we”, or “our”) operates the https://www.forcescience.org/ website (hereinafter referred to as the “Service”).

This page informs you of our policies regarding the collection, use, and disclosure of personal data when you use our Service and the choices you have associated with that data. Our Privacy Policy for Force Science Institute, Ltd. is based on the Privacy Policy Template from Privacy Policies.

We use your data to provide and improve the Service. By using the Service, you agree to the collection and use of information in accordance with this policy. Unless otherwise defined in this Privacy Policy, the terms used in this Privacy Policy have the same meanings as in our Terms and Conditions, accessible from https://www.forcescience.org/

Information Collection And Use

We collect several different types of information for various purposes to provide and improve our Service to you.

Types of Data Collected

Personal Data

While using our Service, we may ask you to provide us with certain personally identifiable information that can be used to contact or identify you (“Personal Data”). Personally identifiable information may include, but is not limited to:

  • Email address
  • First name and last name
  • Phone number
  • Address, State, Province, ZIP/Postal code, City
  • Cookies and Usage Data

Usage Data

We may also collect information on how the Service is accessed and used (“Usage Data”). This Usage Data may include information such as your computer’s Internet Protocol address (e.g. IP address), browser type, browser version, the pages of our Service that you visit, the time and date of your visit, the time spent on those pages, unique device identifiers and other diagnostic data.

Tracking & Cookies Data

We use cookies and similar tracking technologies to track the activity on our Service and hold certain information.

Cookies are files with small amount of data which may include an anonymous unique identifier. Cookies are sent to your browser from a website and stored on your device. Tracking technologies also used are beacons, tags, and scripts to collect and track information and to improve and analyze our Service.

You can instruct your browser to refuse all cookies or to indicate when a cookie is being sent. However, if you do not accept cookies, you may not be able to use some portions of our Service. You can learn more how to manage cookies in the Browser Cookies Guide.

Examples of Cookies we use:

  • Session Cookies. We use Session Cookies to operate our Service.
  • Preference Cookies. We use Preference Cookies to remember your preferences and various settings.
  • Security Cookies. We use Security Cookies for security purposes.

Use of Data

Force Science Institute, Ltd. uses the collected data for various purposes:

  • To provide and maintain the Service
  • To notify you about changes to our Service
  • To allow you to participate in interactive features of our Service when you choose to do so
  • To provide customer care and support
  • To provide analysis or valuable information so that we can improve the Service
  • To monitor the usage of the Service
  • To detect, prevent and address technical issues

Transfer Of Data

Your information, including Personal Data, may be transferred to — and maintained on — computers located outside of your state, province, country or other governmental jurisdiction where the data protection laws may differ than those from your jurisdiction.

If you are located outside United States and choose to provide information to us, please note that we transfer the data, including Personal Data, to United States and process it there.

Your consent to this Privacy Policy followed by your submission of such information represents your agreement to that transfer.

Force Science Institute, Ltd. will take all steps reasonably necessary to ensure that your data is treated securely and in accordance with this Privacy Policy and no transfer of your Personal Data will take place to an organization or a country unless there are adequate controls in place including the security of your data and other personal information.

Disclosure Of Data

Legal Requirements

Force Science Institute, Ltd. may disclose your Personal Data in the good faith belief that such action is necessary to:

  • To comply with a legal obligation
  • To protect and defend the rights or property of Force Science Institute, Ltd.
  • To prevent or investigate possible wrongdoing in connection with the Service
  • To protect the personal safety of users of the Service or the public
  • To protect against legal liability

Security Of Data

The security of your data is important to us, but remember that no method of transmission over the Internet, or method of electronic storage is 100% secure. While we strive to use commercially acceptable means to protect your Personal Data, we cannot guarantee its absolute security.

Service Providers

We may employ third party companies and individuals to facilitate our Service (“Service Providers”), to provide the Service on our behalf, to perform Service-related services or to assist us in analyzing how our Service is used.

These third parties have access to your Personal Data only to perform these tasks on our behalf and are obligated not to disclose or use it for any other purpose.

Analytics

We may use third-party Service Providers to monitor and analyze the use of our Service.

  • Google AnalyticsGoogle Analytics is a web analytics service offered by Google that tracks and reports website traffic. Google uses the data collected to track and monitor the use of our Service. This data is shared with other Google services. Google may use the collected data to contextualize and personalize the ads of its own advertising network.You can opt-out of having made your activity on the Service available to Google Analytics by installing the Google Analytics opt-out browser add-on. The add-on prevents the Google Analytics JavaScript (ga.js, analytics.js, and dc.js) from sharing information with Google Analytics about visits activity.For more information on the privacy practices of Google, please visit the Google Privacy & Terms web page: https://policies.google.com/privacy?hl=en

Links To Other Sites

Our Service may contain links to other sites that are not operated by us. If you click on a third party link, you will be directed to that third party’s site. We strongly advise you to review the Privacy Policy of every site you visit.

We have no control over and assume no responsibility for the content, privacy policies or practices of any third party sites or services.

Children’s Privacy

Our Service does not address anyone under the age of 18 (“Children”).

We do not knowingly collect personally identifiable information from anyone under the age of 18. If you are a parent or guardian and you are aware that your Children has provided us with Personal Data, please contact us. If we become aware that we have collected Personal Data from children without verification of parental consent, we take steps to remove that information from our servers.

Changes To This Privacy Policy

We may update our Privacy Policy from time to time. We will notify you of any changes by posting the new Privacy Policy on this page.

We will let you know via email and/or a prominent notice on our Service, prior to the change becoming effective and update the “effective date” at the top of this Privacy Policy.

You are advised to review this Privacy Policy periodically for any changes. Changes to this Privacy Policy are effective when they are posted on this page.

Contact Us

If you have any questions about this Privacy Policy, please contact us:

  • By email: support@forcescience.org
  • By visiting this page on our website: https://www.forcescience.org/contact
  • By phone number: 866-683-1944
  • By mail: Force Science Institute, Ltd.