17 Oct 19 FS News, quote
There has been a lot of emphasis on building trust and legitimacy in policing over the years. With some arguing that the public recognizes legitimacy only when they believe the police are acting in a “procedurally just” way. And others explaining that people are more likely to obey the police when they believe that police have the legitimate authority to tell them what to do.
So, when is that? When do the police have the legitimate authority to tell people what to do?
A recently released video of a 2017 traffic-stop out of Denver, Colorado, highlights the importance of answering this question. And, if you’ve seen the video, [
] you know it is hard to watch. [added: GRAPH/LANGUAGE lol...hard to watch, perhaps in the BLUE eyes of the beholder!! this gal reams the LEs a new one as the next paragraph shows]
You’re Not the Boss of Me
When Denver police attempted to pull over a car for a traffic violation, the driver failed to stop and instead drove to her house, where her boyfriend was waiting in the driveway. It quickly became clear that neither the man nor the woman believed the police could tell them what to do.
They would stand where they wanted; get in and out of the car when they wanted; yell, scream, and curse at the officers when they wanted. They would attempt to ridicule and intimidate the officers; even going so far as to give the officers direct and repeated orders to “back up!” The amount of confidence this couple displayed was extraordinary.
Predictably, the couple was arrested. They resisted. They were forced into handcuffs. They hired a lawyer.
When the City of Denver agreed to pay $500,000 to avoid the lawsuit, the president of the Denver police union expressed concern that individuals stopped for routine traffic offenses will believe that they don’t have to comply with police orders. That’s a legitimate concern. But what about the police?
What messages have the police been getting about their own authority? Do they know what orders they can give and lawfully enforce? Do they know how to defend them?
Fortunately, the courts have been very clear about the legitimacy of police authority, and as it turns out, society has every right to expect compliance with the lawful orders of its police.
No Time to Talk
De-escalation, persuasion, and efforts to achieve a sense of procedural justice should be commended. But the often-unpredictable chaos that police are called to manage does not always lend itself to securing on-scene consensus.
And when racism, malevolence, and injustice are believed to be motivating the police, even the most routine enforcement actions can generate intense emotional responses, violence, and outrage; leaving the police little time to discern the cause of the contempt or dissuade its holder.
When time and circumstances prevent the police from safely engaging in extended conversations, they should be confident in their authority to establish and maintain control. The legitimacy of that authority is never contingent on securing agreement from suspects or witnesses. Police are not required to sacrifice safety, control, or security in order to answer questions or defend their decisions.
The Luxury of Time
Officers frequently decide to slow things down and “buy time” for active listening and crisis counseling. They exercise tactical patience as they wait for the added deterrence of additional officers.
But these efforts to generate voluntary compliance, avoid force, and save suspects from the consequences of their bad decisions depend on an officer’s ability to first establish containment and control. They are response options, not prerequisites. unquote.
The FSI article goes on to discuss the LEs legitimacy through the courts to exercise "Unquestioned command” and “all reasonable steps” define the authority that society expects its police to exercise,' aka order citizens around...
through the LE's blue tinted glasses...
There has been a lot of emphasis on building trust and legitimacy in policing over the years. With some arguing that the public recognizes legitimacy only when they believe the police are acting in a “procedurally just” way. And others explaining that people are more likely to obey the police when they believe that police have the legitimate authority to tell them what to do.
So, when is that? When do the police have the legitimate authority to tell people what to do?
A recently released video of a 2017 traffic-stop out of Denver, Colorado, highlights the importance of answering this question. And, if you’ve seen the video, [
You’re Not the Boss of Me
When Denver police attempted to pull over a car for a traffic violation, the driver failed to stop and instead drove to her house, where her boyfriend was waiting in the driveway. It quickly became clear that neither the man nor the woman believed the police could tell them what to do.
They would stand where they wanted; get in and out of the car when they wanted; yell, scream, and curse at the officers when they wanted. They would attempt to ridicule and intimidate the officers; even going so far as to give the officers direct and repeated orders to “back up!” The amount of confidence this couple displayed was extraordinary.
Predictably, the couple was arrested. They resisted. They were forced into handcuffs. They hired a lawyer.
When the City of Denver agreed to pay $500,000 to avoid the lawsuit, the president of the Denver police union expressed concern that individuals stopped for routine traffic offenses will believe that they don’t have to comply with police orders. That’s a legitimate concern. But what about the police?
What messages have the police been getting about their own authority? Do they know what orders they can give and lawfully enforce? Do they know how to defend them?
Fortunately, the courts have been very clear about the legitimacy of police authority, and as it turns out, society has every right to expect compliance with the lawful orders of its police.
No Time to Talk
De-escalation, persuasion, and efforts to achieve a sense of procedural justice should be commended. But the often-unpredictable chaos that police are called to manage does not always lend itself to securing on-scene consensus.
And when racism, malevolence, and injustice are believed to be motivating the police, even the most routine enforcement actions can generate intense emotional responses, violence, and outrage; leaving the police little time to discern the cause of the contempt or dissuade its holder.
When time and circumstances prevent the police from safely engaging in extended conversations, they should be confident in their authority to establish and maintain control. The legitimacy of that authority is never contingent on securing agreement from suspects or witnesses. Police are not required to sacrifice safety, control, or security in order to answer questions or defend their decisions.
The Luxury of Time
Officers frequently decide to slow things down and “buy time” for active listening and crisis counseling. They exercise tactical patience as they wait for the added deterrence of additional officers.
But these efforts to generate voluntary compliance, avoid force, and save suspects from the consequences of their bad decisions depend on an officer’s ability to first establish containment and control. They are response options, not prerequisites. unquote.
Recognizing Police Legitimacy - Force Science
There has been a lot of emphasis on building trust and legitimacy in policing over the years. With some arguing that the public recognizes legitimacy only when they believe the police are acting in a “procedurally just” way. And others explaining that people are more likely to obey the police...
www.forcescience.org
The FSI article goes on to discuss the LEs legitimacy through the courts to exercise "Unquestioned command” and “all reasonable steps” define the authority that society expects its police to exercise,' aka order citizens around...
through the LE's blue tinted glasses...