John Garvey
When a nation goes to war, it is a common practice to dehumanize the enemy. When I was a young man and World War II was still a recent memory, I spent time in Paris and Normandy. I remember the vehemence with which French people my parents’ age spoke about “les Boches,” a disparaging term for Germans.
Americans held similar attitudes during that war. The U.S. Army produced crude posters about how to identify “Japs,” and even encouraged recycling with phrases like “Give scrap to kill a Jap.”
Perhaps this kind of ethnic reductionism serves a purpose. When we ask people to make great sacrifices, as we do in wars, it helps to eliminate moral ambiguity. Wartime propaganda shows our side as good and the enemy as evil.
[hotblock]
Sometimes, though, I wonder whether we aren’t making the mistake of importing martial attitudes into the morally more complex work of policing. I don’t just mean the use of military-style equipment, but the very idea of police work as a version of war.
President Lyndon Johnson declared a “war on crime” in 1966. President Richard Nixon declared a “war on drugs” in 1971. President George W. Bush declared a “war on terror” after 9/11. And as President Barack Obama winds down an overseas war, something the Department of Defense calls the “1033 program” is delivering billions in surplus military equipment to local police departments.
The thing is, the people of Ferguson, Missouri; Staten Island, New York; and Cleveland are not the enemy. A few are bad actors who belong in jail, but even they are not the enemy. They are citizens of the same community as the police. They don’t wear uniforms that mark them as lawful combatants. Even when caught red-handed, they are entitled to due process of law.
This is why I worry about crime fighters becoming war fighters. It’s also why I think African-Americans see more significance in the recent shootings than most whites do. Warriors take a different view of the people they are fighting. If we tell our police they are fighting a war, they are likely to act as soldiers generally do. They will design quick and dirty ways of identifying and dealing with the enemy.
I’m not sure the recent police killings exhibit racism of the old-fashioned kind — a belief in the inferiority of other people based on their ancestry. But in a world where we treat policing as war, race combined with youth and social class, maybe dress and attitude, can be the way police identify the enemy in certain neighborhoods. And because combatants in war are fair game, the cops will be just a bit quicker to draw and fire.
We can help the police by changing their way of thinking about the job. Policing is not war. It is harder, because it entails a similar risk of death but demands more deliberation and prudence.
On the battlefield, there are only two kinds of soldiers — the quick and the dead. On our city streets, we ask the men and women who keep us safe to pause over the trigger and make judgments one person at a time because the people they meet there, even the ones they suspect of crime, are not the enemy.
Garvey is the president of The Catholic University of America in Washington.
The tone and words used by Mr. Guckin is exactly the issue at hand. The repeated use of the word “war” ‘defense of society’, “front lines”. How can you identify the enemy on the street so quickly? Is there never any ambiguity? I’m certainly glad there are people who put their lives on the line to protect but there’s a code of conduct that needs to be followed. Garner, in NY was selling loose cigs and he died. In Philly last week, a guy shot at police who were already investigating a crime at a bar but he was “apprehended” There’s rules to be followed or you find another line of work.
Deacon Guckin analyzed this article very well.
The problems lie at the feet of those who failed to instill the Ten Commandments into the heads of the young and with the apologists for those committing anti-social behavior (read Al Sharpton et al).
Mr. Garvey is right. Mr. Guckin a deacon and a former policeman would naturally have a soldiers view on that issue. We are not at war.
Absolutely spot on!
As a person who spent over 26 years on the Philadelphia Police Department, I must strongly disagree with some of Mr. Garvey’s remarks. Let’s remember that our nation entered WW2 only after the Japanese attacked our country. The fact is, there was no moral ambiguity. Our side WAS good and the enemy WAS evil.
The same situation exists today within our country. There are criminal elements in our society that have declared war on the law-abiding members of our communities. These criminals have waged their war, using such tactics as murder, rape, robbery, assault and illegal drugs. They have openly subjected their poor, hard-working neighbors to acts of violence. In many cases, against the most vulnerable members of society, children and the elderly. If these are not acts of war, I’m at a loss for what to call them.
Mr. Garvey writes, “I’m not sure the recent police killings exhibit racism of the old-fashioned kind.” Well, the facts speak for themselves. These events were a direct result of the criminal actions of the offenders and had nothing to do with anyone’s race.
Mr. Garvey wants police officers to “pause over the trigger” when making split second decisions. This would only ensure more police officer deaths. Police officers in this country are already the best trained and disciplined professionals in the world. The way to help police is NOT to change “their way of thinking about the job.” The way to help police is to foster more cooperation and support for the law enforcement community.
I’m sorry, Mr. Garvey, but criminals ARE the enemy of society and police officers are on the “front lines” combating their tactics as best as they can. The answer is to change an environment that allows crime to flourish in our communities and empowers an assassin to gun down our police officers in the bold light of day.
As sad as it is to admit, we are at war, and police officers are putting their lives on the line everyday in defense of society. May God continue to bless and protect them as they protect us.
I was about to post my comment, but Deacon Steve Guckin said it all. His message was inspired. John Garvey needs to “walk” a day in some police officer’s shoes patrolling a precinct in North Philadelphia at night.Then, like Saul, he might have a light flash around him and be struck to the ground (Acts 9, 3-4); a bullet can do that.
I agree with Mr Garvey. Additionally the mindset of the police seems to be them versus us and their loyalty is only to each other though the blue wall of silence. While I fully understand how they evolve to this point after seeing the truly evil and heinous acts that people commit against other people that is not an excuse to use excessive force.
Race aside, I adamantly disagree that anyone who resists arrest, no matter whether they committed a crime or not deserves whatever happens to them including death and the police are never at fault. Each incident is different and I am sure lethal force is more than justified sometimes but not always and in every instance. There is something wrong with that. Especially regarding the accidental death in Staten Island where NYPD policy states the choke hold was not to be used.
Additionally the Japanese soldiers of WW-II were the enemy but to say they were evil…no. Perhaps the leaders in Japan who hatched this plan were evil but the foot soldiers were fighting for their country just like us and they believed in what they were doing and were willing to die for their cause. I’m sure we were depicted as the evil doers to them.
That’s the nature of war. Each side thinks they are the good guys.