Force Decisions at the Top

"In essence they delay any decision to go tactical. There is a ‘damned if you do, damned if you don’t’ attitude. The latter option is preferred by many. Less to explain."

                                                                                    Don Healy, Baltimore PD (ret)

Charlottesville, VA: Fox News reporter Doug McKelway, “When I got out of my car yesterday in Charlottesville about 10:30 in the morning you knew this was a bad scene and bad things were going to be happening because people were congregating at Lee Park and Emancipation Park wearing helmets, body armor, carrying big heavy sticks. Nobody was intent on peace here from either side. People were intent on causing havoc and causing damage. And even as wounded were being brought out of the park police were sitting idly by. I was standing off a cordoned off area where the police had set up as a staging area, the state police, and they said you can come in here this is a safe area. But when the tear gas started to fly, thrown by protesters, the police themselves began to evacuate then. I asked the guy who was in charge, “Where you going?” He said, “We’re leaving. It’s too dangerous.” They had a chance to nip this thing in the bud and they chose not to.”

After various malcontents engaged in mob actions in North Carolina, the local sheriff and his deputies stood by as a public property was defaced.  Sheriff Mike Andrews stated, “Before the protest, my staff met with our community partners to discuss how to safely and appropriately respond to the protest. County leaders were aware of the risk of damage to the Confederate statute, as well as, the potential risk of injury to the public and officers should deputies attempt to control the crowd. Collectively, we decided that restraint and public safety would be our priority. As the Sheriff, I am not blind to the offensive conduct of some demonstrators nor will I ignore their criminal conduct.”

From Berkley to North Carolina, police administrators are literally ordering their men to stand by and watch and certainly not engage in riot control or any type of proactive policing.  Whether it is members of the public (and let’s be sure, sometimes repugnant members of the public) are being assaulted, property being damaged, fires being started, even officers being assaulted and these chiefs and sheriffs order their men to stand down or standby.  They even forbid their officers and deputies from wearing protective helmets or carry riot shields.  Why?

Let’s Not Appear too Aggressive

That’s right, it’s all about appearance.  We don’t want to answer to the images of our officers properly outfitted for riot control.  It’s too militaristic.  In the race to appease political correctness, they have sacrificed officer safety.  The pictures of a bleeding officer from a thrown rock play better than a bleeding protestor or rioter.

Think I’m overreacting?  In the Baltimore city riots of 2015 the Fraternal Order of Police state:

“According to officers’ accounts, they were told “the Baltimore Police Department would not respond until they [the protestors] burned, looted, and destroyed the city so that it would show that the rioters were forcing our hand.” The officers were told their primary job was to deescalate any situation with no response rather than to escalate with action. This was confirmed by officers from other jurisdictions who attended that roll call.

“The predominant characterizations of Baltimore Police Department leadership during the riots by officers surveyed were that they seemed unprepared, politically motivated, uncaring and confused.

“Orders not to engage any protestor, not to wear protective equipment so as not to look intimidating, and orders not to arrest without permission from the legal advisors made officers question the motives of Baltimore Police Department command.

“The morale of the men and women of the Baltimore Police Department has suffered greatly. In addition to physical injury, officers feel a lack of support from the Department and report feeling “humiliated” and “dejected” as a result of what occurred and what they experienced during the riots. A significant percentage reported that they are considering resigning or retiring within the next one to two years.”

According to the Baltimore F.O.P., more than 200 officers were injured in the riots.

Let’s examine this and so many more cases where police administrators, with all the time in the world, elect to have their officers withdraw, pull back, standby or otherwise not take action in light of the political fall-out. 

In a day and age when officer’s use of force decisions are being micromanaged and second guessed at every level, command staff would rather take a “not on my watch” approach to public violence.

Some basic questions:

·        Do you let violence continue because of the political fall-out?

·         Do we allow a citizen’s civil liberties to be infringed upon because we are afraid of that fall-out?

·         Do we drive away from potential confrontation to avoid escalation?

·         Do we stand by and watch as criminal suspects commit felonious assaults in our presence?

·         Is this what law enforcement has become as directed from those political chiefs more interested in protecting their careers than in doing what is right?

·         Are we unconcerned with the increase in violent crime?

·         What are these chiefs and sheriffs telling their troops by these actions?

·         Is proactive policing gone?

·         Is standing by and watching violence occur acceptable?

·         How will these actions impact retention and recruitment which is already reeling?

Conclusion

From the Baltimore F.O.P. After Action Review:  

“Many felt as though the Baltimore Police Department command was frightened to make decisions because they were preoccupied with the Agency’s liability. Most survey respondents who were injured felt that their injuries resulted from the lack of planning and the lack of leadership during the crisis. The majority of the officers realized rather quickly that they needed to look out for one another’s safety because it appeared that no one in leadership was able to do so. Many stated they knew they must take care of themselves and each other. The perception of weakness and/or conflicting interests at the top shook officers’ confidence in their abilities to successfully perform their duties.”

Standing by didn’t work in Baltimore, Berkley, Charlottesville or Durham.  It only emboldens the perpetrators and appears, rightly, as if law enforcement agencies leadership are feckless and their command staff’s lack the ability to make decisions.

They wouldn’t stand for this if it was done by a street officer.  Maybe this chief and her decisions should be emulated by her male counterparts nationwide?

Things have changed, and not for the better.  In a police world of, “damned if you do, damned if you don’t’ attitude. The latter option is preferred by many. Less to explain,” I’ll take a Chief Jeri Williams any day.