Police Killed in Line of Duty

 Turns out there's a wikipedia page for US police killed in line of duty. Quite a contrast with a page for UK police killed.

For anyone too lazy to click, US killings of police run about 50 or above, the UK runs about 1 a year.

The context is the culture: US view police as maintaining order against crime in the midst of an armed populace, meaning a focus on conflict and violence, while the UK has a different history. In short, there's not an arms race in the UK, there is in US.

Uvalde Perspectives

 Megan McArdle tweeted this:

I can't say exactly what happened in Uvalde, but having written a book on failure, I'd bet investigation will not reveal one bad decision, but a string of overlapping failures, most of which occurred individually before with no real incident, but collectively became disastrous

— Megan McArdle (@asymmetricinfo) May 27, 2022

Graham Factor had this.

I think both are good perspectives.  I remember Kitty Genovese from the 1960's, where the original story turned out wrong.  It's possible that multiple police forces on the scene and poor communication from the 911 system to the police were factors.  We don't know, and it's too early to say.

Changing Our First Responders

Just saw an interview on Ananpour with Danielle Allen talking about policing, etc. Wasn't paying that much attention, but caught her mentioning changing our first responders.  That seems to be a popular liberal interpretation of "defund the police"--where currently police are our first responders for 911 calls (at least that's our perception, the EMTs and fire might disagree), a "generalist" model, instead we should separate different types of problems and have "specialists" for each.  For example, social workers, social psychologists, traffic wardens, etc.  

The logic is that police, being armed, resort too often to violence where a softer, gentler approach would avoid the tragedies.

I like the idea, but my contrarian streak also offers a caution"

America is a heavily-armed society. If a jurisdiction is able to set up such a system, the likelihood is sometime they will have one of their "specialists" will be killed by someone with a gun (or knife). When that happens, there will be a popular uproar and demands to arm the specialists, or shift responsibility back towards the police.

There's always tradeoffs.  TANSTAAFL 

Policing--a Modest Suggestion

 Saw a piece on police training in the US today, somewhere.  Apparently there are several problems: with 18,000 organizations there's no uniformity (and no national database to record bad cops); training in the US is a lot shorter than in Europe; the training they get doesn't cover some of the key issues.  Another problem is lack of money--the emphasis is getting bodies on the street.

All this leads me to this suggestion:

• provide federal money to local police force
• make the money available only to expand the training and cover some of the missing areas
• record those who receive federally funded training in a database, and track their careers--do they do better than their peers/predecessors, etc. Publicize the results, presumably good, to pressure the organizations which don't take advantage of the money.

Looking Forward to Rosa Brooks

 I really liked Rosa Brooks' last book, so I pre-ordered her new one, Tangled Up in Blue, Policing the American City. Haven't started it yet, as I'm still finishing Midnight in Chernobyl.  She and Peter Moskos, who I follow on Twitter, had an interesting exchange.  Here's a quote from a Georgetown interview:

It’s incredibly hard to be a good cop. This really came home to me once I started patrolling.

By underfunding other social services we’ve created a society in which cops are all-around first responders to everything from shootings, stabbings, domestic assaults and burglaries to mentally ill people walking down the middle of the street talking to themselves. And no one really has the skills to handle all those very different kinds of situations well.

In the interview she uses my favorite phrase: "It's complicated". 

Reboot the Police

That's my position.  I don't particularly want to reduce funding for police.  History says, I think, that the public overreacts to swings in crime, cutting police excessively in low-crime periods, ignore a period of increase in crime, then over-fund police in an attempt to catch up.  In other words, we overshoot both on increases and decreases.

What I do want is more research into policing-- we have so many different strategies proposed:

• tough on crime, lots of policy,
• community policing--cops on the beat knowing the community
• broken-windows
• social services--replacing cops on the beat with social workers
• etc., etc.

Why can't we take precincts which are matched in demographics, etc. and use one strategy in one and a different one in the other.  Keep the experiment going for years and learn. 

Instead of taking money from police for the sake of taking money, raise taxes on me and you to fund needed and useful government services.

Satisfaction With 911 Calls

What's surprising in this survey is the uniformity in responses across ethnic and gender lines.  Though  that's good, what isn't the percent saying the police improved the situation.  (Might be because the situation had dissolved by the time the police got there, at least in part.)

The Police: Now and 1968

Lots of comparisons between the protests/riots of today and those of 1968. Lots of concerns about police.

IIRC in 1968 white liberals thought that integrating the police and establishing civilian review boards would solve the problems with the police.  With hindsight, civilian review boards, where established, have not done well.  The problem is likely the entrenched political power of police unions. Not only do police generally have a positive aura,but, like the NRA, they've the power of fierce unity.

And the police have been integrated, perhaps not as thoroughly and at all ranks in some places as they should be, but we know  now that police who are minorities themselves can be authoritarian and abusive.

There have been gains in 52 years.  The number of people killed now as opposed to 1968 is witness to that.  I suspect, but don't know, that the property damage has been of an order of magnitude less.  Part of that is learning from experience (though it seems we've forgotten a lot of the lessons of 1968) but much of it IMHO results from social trends.

Again, in IMHO, I think the problems we see with police today reflect continuing forces in society and economy.  It's inevitable when you ask people to risk their lives, whether military, firefighters, police, or Doctors without Borders they're likely to develop esprit de  corps, and an us versus them mentality.  It's inevitable in crisis situations police get lots of attention, much unfavorable, which further aggravates the us versus them.  When you add minorities to the mix, they'll often feel forced to do better, to go one step further in order to "prove" themselves.   It's inevitable that public attention will fade as memories fade, meaning that police unions, based on the esprit de corps, will gain leverage over the political process.  If you're willing to increase pay, you can chip away at union-enforced procedural rights.  If you aren't willing, as most publics won't be most of the time, you'll allow polices to gain job security in lieu of more money.