DO AS YOU'RE TOLD

The video of a Dorset Police officer arresting a driver in Bournemouth on the 30^th October 2020 raises serious questions about Police Officers in general. The officer threatens to smash the windows of the vehicle and to give the driver a ‘ticket for something’. During the course of the exchange the officer claims the driver is the one making the incident more inflamed. That is clearly not the case. The officer makes a remark about the vehicle being a Mercedes and the driver corrects him stating that the car is not a Mercedes. There also seems to be some issue about the colour of the vehicle. The officer insists the driver get out of the vehicle with his baton raised. The officer goes on to remark, how do I know you won’t run me down, have drugs or a weapon in your car. The officer does not let up until the driver does get out and he arrests him for no reason other than not doing as you’re told. That is not a reason for arrest. The officer is completely out of order and abusing his authority making baseless claims. The driver is eventually released after having been detained in the officer’s patrol car. The Dorset Police have since stated that the officer will be subject to management action. Just what is management action? The behaviour and attitude of the officer and his comments “how do I know you won’t drive over me?” appears to reflect a fear engendered by the recent incident involving a police officer who was dragged to his death by kids in a stolen vehicle. Indeed, one can hear the nervousness and uncertainty in the officer’s voice. The fact that the driver is subsequently released gives me cause to believe that the officer must have realised he had gone too far.

I am projecting here, and law enforcement can be difficult. It is an extremely difficult job and one that requires very serious training. By training I do not mean physical fitness, although that does come into it, but serious instruction as to the laws officers are meant to monitor and if necessary enforce, and even more serious instructions in social skills As to the Law, the scope is pretty narrow. It concerns the three main things people do: violence, theft and road traffic.

As to violence, it’s everything from a threat to hit someone, or something, to seriously hurting someone or damaging something. As to theft, everything from pick pocket to very serious fraud.  The average officer on the beat will probably be limited to encountering pickpockets, shoplifting, burglary and robbery which overlaps with violence as in street mugging. These events vary in seriousness, but the effect on the victims can be traumatic, and therefore must be dealt with very seriously and professionally.  As to traffic, on the whole people know when they have broken road traffic regulations, or are reasonably quick to admit a mistake when it is pointed out to them. In any event, the traffic camera has replaced a lot of on the beat policing.

What I am getting at is that every encounter made by police officers involves serious social skills, professionalism and understanding of human behaviour. They have to temper their role as law enforcers with a public that may view them with suspicion. They have to get across the idea that they are there to help and safeguard, rather than telling people to “Do as you’re told”.

Admittedly not an easy thing to do, but if law enforcement continues to promote the image of us and them, then the general public will continue to see officers as ‘them’, and behave accordingly. 

The Current College of Policing Curriculum

 

Being a police officer in a reasonably civilised country requires a great deal of education. Sadly, a lot of officers are not educated enough and the perception of law enforcement by the general population suffers as a result. On the other hand, the public are given to expect their police to do impossible things. The police cannot stop crime. They cannot stop the violence. They cannot stop dishonesty. They cannot stop bad or inconsiderate driving. They can only deal with the aftermath of events. In certain situations, such as demonstrations, they can anticipate a need to be present and on guard, but they still cannot prevent incidents from occurring. Their mere presence might on occasion prevent certain incidents, but the conduct of a demonstration depends on the demonstrators and not the police, who are of course by their presence, participants as well.
 

The police can only do so much. They too are subject to the law, and they too are citizens who occasionally break the law, and because of their position of trust, they are held to a higher standard, as is anyone in a position of trust. Even some law makers break the law. Witness police corruption scandals and those MP’s exposed by the Parliamentary expenses fiasco.

 

The simple fact is that laws do not prevent criminal and antisocial activity. Laws prohibiting certain types of human behaviour have been around since before the 10 commandments. If the law prevented bad behaviour then we would not have had any bad behaviour for at least 5000 years. The law merely codifies how we are expected to live together within our various communities. If you do certain things, then there will be certain consequences. What those consequences are depends on how much the society we live in, is offended by the transgression made by the offender. As a society, we are appalled in various degrees by some behaviours more than others, and outraged in different degrees by the same behaviour depending on when and where that behaviour occurs. At one time shooting the king’s deer was a hanging offence. We have since moved on. Flogging is no longer practiced in Britain, but there are still societies in the world where that can happen. So, consequences are a moveable feast.

Obeying the law and doing as you’re told is dependent on the citizens who choose to live by the rule of law. People follow rules out of necessity, in order to survive, but the rules should not be so onerous as to create a situation whereby citizens have to break the law in order to survive. If a person does break the law out of necessity and in order to survive, then that must be reflected in the consequences. Victor Hugo’s Les Miserable is an epic based on that very premise. The inciting incident of the saga being the theft of a loaf of bread by a poor man.

 

I have always held the view that a contract is only as good as the parties to the contract can be. They are made to get things done. They contain clauses as to what will happened if the contract is not fulfilled. They are not made to be broken. The parties to a contract start out with the intention of completing some task. Contracts are made to perform, but, in the absence of performance, there are consequences for failure to perform. So, the citizen’s vote is a contract between the citizen and his elected representative, that the representative will look after her/his interests. There is quite a high degree of trust involved, between the elector and the elected.  

 

The elected take on the responsibility of creating a situation whereby the electors can carry on their lives in the pursuit of happiness knowing that their health and safety is being cared for by the elected. It is known as public service. The elected in performing that service appoint a number of individuals to carry out the practicalities of providing health and safety. One branch of that number of individuals is the police department. They are, by their presence, intended to keep us from harm. Not an easy thing to do, given that no one has a crystal ball. There is an attempt then, to gather as much information, or intelligence, as can be obtained about certain situations in order to anticipate an unacceptable, harmful event. That can involve a degree of interference into the lives of the citizen, and the life of the citizen is precious, and the citizen has rights. Those rights, too, are codified and are a part of the contract between the elected and the elector. So if the citizen is to allow such interference in their lives, an even higher degree of trust is wanted, and in order to warrant that trust, an even higher degree of morality and honour is required of those individuals appointed to safeguard our health and safety. 

Given the size of the citizenry in our society, and the amount of interaction between the different societies in the world, the gathering of such information and intelligence to protect our health and safety becomes more difficult. It is made difficult by the very size of the problem, the complexities of individual relationships and the various means of contact and communications between individuals. The elected then feel the need to have more specialised departments to deal with these matters, and so the citizen elector’s trust is extended even more. Just how far that trust can be stretched is a very delicate question. Once it breaks, anything can happen.

Still, after all that, terrible incidents occur, despite the presence, information and intelligence gathering. There is only so much that can be done. There is no  clairvoyance , just an educated guess. So, the police on the ground should be supported to do the best they can, but in order to have that support, they must show the highest respect to the citizens who have given them such a high degree of trust. The police must understand they are not the authority. The citizen is the authority. If the individual officer wants respect, the officer must show respect, and that mutual respect is not assisted by false arrest and “Do as you’re told”

 

And so we come to justice, doing the right thing, doing what is just, a word that conveys a moment of time and simplicity as well as honour and morality. More of this anon.