New rules for cops necessary
Reggie Rivers
Denver Post Columnist.
Denver Post
Sep 16, 2005. pg. B.07
Denver police officers recently told a task force that low morale was among the reasons arrests and ticketing have decreased by 30 percent. The city has instituted new rules that require more thorough investigation when citizens complain of police abuse. Cops have objected to the changes, saying that criminals with long rap sheets routinely accuse officers of just about anything that will deflect attention away from their own offenses.
Taken in conjunction with the recent suspensions of Officers James Turney and Ranjan Ford, many cops feel that when they're facing down suspects, they'll have to look over their shoulders rather than focus on the threat in front of them.
'A big part of it is we're afraid,' said officer Aaron Brill. 'We're afraid we won't be supported. You can make no mistakes or you will be actively punished.'
So officers have slowed down. They say they'll still respond to emergency calls, but they're not initiating as many investigations on their own.
I have sympathy for them. I know they must feel underappreciated and over-scrutinized by the City Council, the media and the general public - none of whom really understands police work. Until recently, cops could count on their commanders for support, but now they feel that they literally have no one on their side.
But as much as I sympathize, it's hard to see a reasonable alternative to the new protocols that have been put into place. Police officers have more direct power than any other people in society. They have official cars with sirens, spotlights and loudspeakers that give them instant authority over every other vehicle on the road.
They have guns, batons, pepper spray, handcuffs and the legal authority to employ all of the above against virtually any citizen at any moment as long as the officers believe, based on their training and experience, that the situation warrants it.
Politicians, business leaders, judges and high-ranking appointees may have broader power to set policy and allocate money, but the governor can't pull you over when you're on your way to an important meeting. The president can't put handcuffs on you because he thinks you've been drinking. The mayor can't climb through your window and shoot you.
Only police officers have the authority to do these things.
Based on my friendships with various police officers and my own experiences with random traffic stops, I accept the premise that most cops are good people who choose the profession because they want to help society. I believe that most officers are hard- working, respectful of people's rights, level-headed, well-trained and responsible stewards of the great power that has been given to them.
However, my anecdotal experience has also revealed that some police officers were drawn to the profession because they craved power. I've seen guys who clearly loved having a siren, loved driving fast, loved responding to calls, loved having the authority to stop people and loved being armed.
Some of these guys are too power-hungry and too hot-headed. They endanger the public and put their fellow officers at risk. Often, we don't know who these guys are until there's a major incident.
The only way to single out problem officers is to closely examine all of the complaints that come in. The downside is that good cops facing false allegations initially will be treated the same as bad cops facing legitimate complaints.
For a good cop, that can't be a pleasant experience. It's no wonder that morale is down. But what's the alternative? We can't ignore the complaints that citizens file. We can't assume that every cop is wielding his power responsibly. We can't automatically exonerate police officers every time there's a shooting. We have to investigate and try to determine the truth, even if it hurts morale.