A friend posed an interesting theory the other day.
Once upon a time, he theorized, police officers were not afraid to wade in and fight. As kids, they grew up in a world without bike helmets and knee pads and doting parents. They were tougher, and had to be. Schools didn't have specific no-bullying policies, and kids sometimes concluded they had to defend themselves with physical force. The answer to a bully, sometimes, was a hard punch in the nose.
That background led to some instances of police beatings.
In recent years, however, kids are protected. Schools have such zero tolerances for fighting that nobody dares to engage in them. A new generation of police officers has grown up having never been in a fight. The job of policeman has become the profession of policing, sometimes requiring a college degree. That, his theory goes, has also drawn a different kind of person to the position.
Having police officers not used to fighting has led to development of so-called non-lethal alternatives such as Tasers, but when those don't work and the answer is either fighting or drawing a gun, today's generation is more likely to go with what they're comfortable with: shooting.
And so, my friend's theory goes, in the last 20-30 years, we've replaced one kind of police brutality with another kind, one that's more lethal.
Which is better, he asks: Taking a beating or taking a bullet?
My theory is it's better to avoid both.
He wasn't arguing police forces should be packed with thugs or that schools ought to go easy on in-school fisticuffs. It was just an observation of what may be feeding some of the police-involved shootings these days.
I'm not sure I subscribe to that theory, but it's worth a thought. What else could be contributing?
The spread of guns is a favorite scapegoat. The availability of guns no doubt contributes to the level of deadly violence in our country. It certainly demands police officers recognize every situation can involve a gun. But I'm squarely in the camp of people who believe the person behind the trigger is responsible when someone gets shot.
My wife and I have followed the story of Hayward, Calif., police Sgt. Scott Lunger, 48, who died in July after he pulled a driver over for driving erratically. As he approached the driver's door, a shot came from within the truck and killed Lunger.
Lunger was the former son-in-law of a woman my wife used to work with.
The man who shot him is a 21-year-old with gang ties, according to police. The gun didn't have anything against Sgt. Lunger. The man who shot him apparently did, solely because he wore an officer's uniform. Lunger wasn't looking for a fight, but he was among the men and women in blue who will wade into dangerous situations on the public's behalf. They're doing what most of us are not willing to do and we need them out there doing it.
The folks in Ferguson, Mo., clearly faced a police department with problems that exacerbated races relations. To the extent protesters have demanded an improvement in those relations and in police treatment of black residents, I support them. But sympathy for Michael Brown, the 18-year-old shot by a police officer there last summer?
Yes, it's sad and unfortunate a young man's choices led to a fatal conflict with a police officer. Within the context of Brown's struggle with the officer through the police cruiser's window, the officer's pursuit and Brown's aggressive moves toward the officer, I cannot find fault with the officer's actions to protect himself and the public in those few seconds he had to evaluate the situation.
The incident exposed long-developing racial tensions within the community that must be dealt with. But the existence of those tensions contributes nothing to reasonably make Brown a sympathetic figure.
But our world goes topsy-turvy sometimes these days. Recently in Arlington, Texas, a 19-year-old pulled into a car dealership about 1 a.m. and started smashing windows of several cars. By the time police arrived, he had smashed his own car through the dealership's showroom windows and was inside. A police officer pursued him and ordered him to the floor, an order that was refused. The young man was shot dead. Both the shooting officer and his field training officer said the young man was coming at the officer and refused commands to stop.
And the police officer was fired.
Yes, officers sometimes shoot when the don't need to. We've had our own examples of that here in Northwest Arkansas, and those officers need to be dealt with. Police should use the least amount of force necessary, but that's a hard judgment in a split second.
The people who make the choice to engage in criminal behaviors have the most foolproof capacity to ensure deadly force is not used against them -- they could chose to avoid criminal activity.
Greg Harton is editorial page editor for the Northwest Arkansas Democrat-Gazette. Contact him by email at [email protected] or on Twitter @NWAGreg.
Commentary on 08/17/2015