Pearson 1

Trace Pearson
Professor Bown
English 2010.
6 April 2015
Use of Force Commentary
The television clicks on, the news is talking about the recent events of
police using force. The screen shows the same people repeating the same
ideas, or is it different people repeating the same themes. The repetition
blurs my memory, the issue is pretty clear from my perspective. I wonder to
myself if this time will be different. As a whole the public has a short memory
they cry out about an issue but shortly after the movement runs out of
steam, the media finds something new to talk about and the issue fades
quietly in to history.
Before any problem can be solved tough questions have to be asked to
identify root causes. Will this time be the one that questions the accepted
ideas or is there even a problem with police using force at all?
To clarify something, I do not want to say that every police officer is
without sin. Of course there are bad cops just like there are bad people
everywhere. The issue is exacerbated by the differential of power between
law enforcement and citizens. Officers can leverage that authority to
influence others, it is a known theme throughout human history. For the most

Pearson 2

part I feel comfortable saying that most cops are not in this career to control
you or to give you tickets. When they willingly put on a uniform that will
make them targets for middle fingers, dirty looks, bodily fluids, and violence
they are most likely doing it for a higher purpose.
Weak link
The biggest weakness I see in the anti-police group is that they lack
any experience or training to point out how police should do their jobs.
Looking through their comments they completely lack the authority to have
any influence on what goes on.
I had a root canal that did not go well. Does that allow me to tell the
dentist what he did wrong and how he should have done it? The dentist has
years of schooling behind him and all I have is sadness that the operation did
not go as planned.
The hardest issue to debate is that of race. It is not an easily discussed
topic, emotions run high and there is not much in the way of facts to go off
of. If a white criminal got in an altercation with a white cop would the officer
feel less threatened or would he be more concerned with controlling the
situation and stopping the behavior? The action they deal with is far more
important than ancestry.
Multipliers

Pearson 3

Media has a big influence on how we are exposed this issue. They love
to report on stories that follow the general theme of a white officer harming
a black victim. If this equation is followed a reaction from the public is
assured. No one asks what caused the altercation they just jump to
conclusions that it was racially motivated. It is understandable though,
people are programmed to define things into neat categories. A white on
black incident is an easy thing to define. In a Centers for Disease Control
report of violent death there is no increase in legal intervention that shows
any suspicious motives of law enforcement. What has changed is the amount
of events that the media has reported.
Training
The difficulty with demanding a change in training is that in the real
world you are dealing with two humans that cannot be predicted by class
time and textbooks. An event does not happen on a linear track its dynamic
nature promises a sloppy outcome regardless of the experience of those
involved. Current police actions are protected by a 1989 supreme court case
Graham v Connor that allows to act as long as the perceive a threat.
Instead of wanting to change law enforcement behaviors we should
change our perception of police. The actions of the criminal should be
questioned rather than those that wear the blue uniform. It is also fair to hold
officers up to a standard that holds them accountable for their actions. The

Pearson 4

only increase that has happened with lethal force is the coverage that media
is willing to do