Use of deadly force by law enforcement: building public trust.

• Author: Gill, Sim

IT IS A NECESSARY CONVERSATION, not necessarily an easy one. The use of deadly force by law enforcement officers, in the course of their duties, has captured both national and local attention. It is an issue implicating a diverse set of concerns ranging from disproportionate targeting of minority populations to racial inequality, police tactics, training, militarization, criminal conduct, officer safety and the inherent dangerousness of policing. However, one common theme emerges: there is very little trust to go around from both citizens and law enforcement.

Perception is someone's reality even if it is not the whole truth. Perception also colors our thoughts, emotions and understanding. Perceptions must be addressed because often they have some influence on what people experience or believe. The perception that police cannot be trusted is detrimental to both the good police officers and their institutions and the citizens who feel alienated from them.

One solution may be to start viewing the issue as not the conduct of a particular officer but rather the failure of institutional accountability of which individual officers are a subset. Individuals of organizations behave and respond with the expectations of their institutions. A significant part of the problem may be addressed by examining the accountability and interactions of these institutions with citizens at various points of interaction.

What are the current checks and balances, the expectations and protocols in place that are making our public institutions accountable? In other words, have the institutions adopted protocols and practices that contribute to the loss of trust? If so, then what are they and what changes may be helpful at a macro level resulting in changes at the micro level of police officers?

The issues can be broken into categories of interactive contact. First, is there contact at the initial presence in the community? How are police agencies interacting with their community? Is the contact always response driven or complaint oriented, or is there a concerted interaction at the ground level of community? Do officers reach out to their community beyond the staged photo-ops for the local press? What is both the quantity and quality of interaction when the cameras are not on? Is the interaction or outreach in safe environments or within the communities that feel alienated or marginalized? This contact is at a human level of interaction as institutional public service.

...