WARNING: This is LONG because it's not a simple topic.
Folks, the concerns Charles has raised are genuine.
I have watched the transition from a mindset of service and keeping the peace in a community with the support of its members to one where far too many (though by no means all) officers feel free to unnecessarily confront and even abuse citizens and their precious constitutional freedoms with impunity in some agencies. Those who have entered police work recently see it only as it is today, and the current environment is seen as normal. I have seen it change from what it was to what it is, and in too many agencies what I'm seeing is not good. There is clearly a trend at work here.
As with any organization, what takes place at the level of execution is a direct reflection of the competence, principles and integrity of the person at its head. I see an increasing politicization of police chiefs and a decreasing concern with constitutional law enforcement. This parallels the flagrant disregard of the constitution we see in our federal judicial, legislative, and executive branches, and is part of the same process. It produces a type of law enforcement that sees citizens as subjects rather than people to be served, and is most certainly a threat to personal freedom.
In my agency, anyone who strayed into this mindset got an immediate and memorable yank back on his leash and lots of supervisory attention to remind him of his mission and his role. I see less and less of that these days, and a sharp increase in outrageous abuses of police power with no consequences to the officers involved - just losses to innocent citizens.
Erik Scott's case is one of the most egregious recent ones, but it is sadly not the only one. There are far too many situations where officers step far outside the law with no repercussions at all, and a number of them have been detailed on this Forum. There will be more.
The overuse of SWAT and heavy handed warrant service tactics is indeed a concern. It is a creeping case of "if you've got a hammer in your hand, everything looks like a nail." Simpler, gentler approaches are cast aside for a military approach that endangers the innocent and severely undermines the trust and support of the community that is essential to the success of the law enforcement mission.
A tactical team is not needed for every warrant, and warrants for any but the most proven dangerous suspects don't need to be served at O Dark Thirty. Folks in my agency and many others used things like telephones and their imaginations to make warrant arrests. (You'd be surprised how many folks will show up at the police station when they get a call from a stranger who reports he found a check for $267.30 made out to them and turned it into the police, who are holding it at the front desk). One of my friends, a LT in a sheriff's department, acquired the all time one year felony arrest record for his agency this way while assigned to light duty at the front desk due to a knee injury. (He was really good on the phone
).
In my opinion, too many police leaders have lost sight of what their authority is for.
I always spent time with each of my officers to convey my expectations to him or her, find out his or her aspirations and how I could help achieve them, and answer any questions they might have. They had plenty, and it gave me a great opportunity to communicate vision and purpose to make sure we all operated from the same sheet of music.
When we got to the question part, one officer left me speechless for a few seconds, and that didn't happen often. It was a brutally honest question, and he was extremely sincere in asking it. He had grown up in the nastiest housing projects, kept himself clean, and worked extremely hard to pass the police test and had just graduated from the police academy. When we got to the question part, he said simply "What does it feel like to have all that power?"
I realized he was looking at the fact that with a command I could make very consequential things happen, and did so every day. I felt the responsibility of command to make the right decisions each and every time because lives and other very important things often hung in the balance. He saw just the raw power involved, and was awed by it.
My answer to him was that the power he spoke of wasn't mine at all. It was temporarily entrusted to me for safekeeping by the people of the city to be used in their behalf, and I was able to use it only as long as I did so in their interests. Furthermore, when I decided to retire and took off the captain's badge, that power would pass to the next person it was pinned on who would be entrusted with the same mission. He understood, and it changed the way he looked at command authority and his own dealings with the public.
This is a perspective that I see fading in many agencies, and the communities they serve suffer greatly as a result. We need to see that agency heads are appointed on their ability and commitment to keep the peace with service and adherence to the constitution in mind.
If we fail to do that, there's lots of historical precedent to show us where we're headed.