Police Must Manage Their Professional Image

Recent events throughout the country related to the “Occupy Wall Street” demonstrations have pitted the police against citizens. While the focus and intent of the protests is still murky at best, it does seem clear that there is growing resentment, among a segment of society, based upon issues of economic class and wealth distribution in America. For the police, it does not matter what the message is or the nature of the protest. As on-the-ground agents of the government, the police must deal with these often volatile protests and balance the First Amendment rights of the protestors with issues related to the maintenance of order and citizen safety.

Videotape from recent clashes between Occupy Wall Street protestors and the police are reminiscent of the 1960s and 1970s when Civil Rights and Vietnam protestors stood against the government, and the police were called to intervene. In reflecting upon that era, two things seem clear. First, numerous government-initiated studies in the aftermath of those riots and conflicts cited the police for being unprepared. Second, one would hope that the police have learned from lessons of the past and, as a result, are better prepared to respond to (largely peaceful) “Occupy Wall Street” protests and similar citizen demonstrations. The evidence is not clear regarding the second assumption, however.

Police in America face a difficult task in responding to citizen protests. Most often, the police serve as scapegoats and face the emotional (and sometimes physical) wrath of citizen dissatisfaction, which, in reality, represents citizen resentment and a feeling of powerlessness toward the government or other institutions. That being said, the police cannot relinquish their duty to maintain order in society while concurrently protecting constitutional guarantees. This juxtaposition is part and parcel to the police role in a democratic society. So, where do the police turn? The answer is for the police to understand their role, to properly plan and train to meet such challenges, to approach such situations with caution and forethought, to thoroughly assess situations as they unfold, and to employ reasoned and intelligent tactical responses.

At the outset, police should always strive to promote their professional image by simply “doing what is fair and right.” This statement may strike some as simplistic and trite. However, if police always strove to do what is right, they would do themselves a favor and would receive less criticism. If this is not enough incentive for the police to be thoughtful and intelligent in handling volatile encounters, let’s consider another incentive—YouTube. Today, policing takes place in a YouTube society. Police must be forever aware that their every action may be sent worldwide in a matter of minutes. And, unlike our system of American justice, guilt is established by video evidence captured on a one- or two-minute broadcast to millions. The damage is done. The profession suffers. We cannot take it back. This editorial is advocating for professional, intelligent policing.

In November 2011, the University of California (UC) at Davis received worldwide attention, when campus police officers were videotaped pepper-spraying students at a sit-in protest on a campus roadway. The students sat quietly in protest and were asked by the police to disassemble; when they did not, officers began to pepper-spray them in the face at close range. Welcome to YouTube. For those who do not support the police and for many who do, the evidence of police overreaction was palpable—and the professional image of all police was further tarnished by this single incident.

It should be noted that an outside investigative report of the UC Davis incident has been initiated by the Chancellor, and it is not the intent of this editorial to fully evaluate the intricacies of what occurred or how it occurred. The point is that it did occur. So, in the remainder of this piece, I will provide some personal perspective on the contextual surrounding of the incident—the “bigger picture” view.

Monday morning quarterbacks are a dime a dozen. However, indulge my thoughts for a moment. First, this was a situation in which students were exercising their First Amendment rights. The nature of the protest aligned with the “Occupy Wall Street” protests but was focused on recent tuition rate increases at the university. So, the students had a focus and they had something to say. As a professor, I applaud the students for “getting involved.” I find it refreshing that students are at long last taking a stand and getting involved in wider issues in society. And, what is a better environment to exercise the freedom of speech than on a university campus? Second, contrary to early reports by university officials, the students were not combative and did not pose an immediate threat to the officers or others.

While peacefully demonstrating on a campus roadway may be cause for police intervention and the removal of the students, there is room for compromise and discretion. Could there have been a better way of handling this situation? Of course, the answer is yes. I am reminded of the old saying, “You may win the battle, but lose the war.” How might the police have handled this situation differently? How about some type of accommodation?

In the fall, on college campuses throughout the nation, hundreds of thousands of people flock to football stadiums to tailgate before the big game and to later cheer their teams on to victory. University administrators do everything possible to market tickets, resulting in millions of dollars of revenue for the university. University administrators also do what needs to be done to accommodate the football crowds. This involves hiring extra security, blocking off roads, arranging for parking, and planning for easy ingress and egress—accommodation.

In the scheme of things, is college football more important than allowing a few socially conscientious students to demonstrate in a peaceful manner? Shouldn’t universities seek to promote or retrain divergent opinion, thought, and expression? Why not just redirect traffic, accommodate the students, and let the demonstration run its course? Ironically, the manner by which this protest was handled by the university may provide validation for a central issue in the “Take Back Wall Street” movement—money as a driving force in American society.

Returning to the title of this editorial, police must intelligently manage their professional image. The formidable challenges police face are often driven by outside forces, but police administrators and officers cannot allow outside forces to influence who they are. They must ultimately operate and survive based upon their own actions; and all the while, they must manage their professional image.

Thomas J. Jurkanin, PhD
Senior Editor

Note: As a 37-year veteran in policing, I have always been the most formidable advocate for the police. However, as a veteran of a noble profession, I cannot excuse or tolerate inappropriate police actions. I have always advocated for the police to perform better and more professionally than they have in the past. My editorial comments are not intended to be critical of police actions but simply to encourage police to embrace the ethos of professionalism and to be cognizant of the intended and unintended consequences of their actions and decisions.