Changes in Public Attitudes Have Altered Police Policies
September 1, 2005

by Joseph P. Tartaro
Executive Editor

Like many other publications, Gun Week often carries quite a few stories about modern police and policing. One of the most common themes in our Weekly Bullet column involves those reports that highlight some failing of an officer of the law somewhere, filed under the “Only cops should have guns” category. Of course this is primarily a counterpoint to anti-gun claims that only the police should have guns.

However, we also run stories about police officers or administrators involved in noteworthy criminal acts, including cases of police drug dealing, gun trafficking and even instances of cops hiring out as hit men. In addition, we have devoted a lot of space over the years to the major breakdowns in federal policing, whether by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) or any of the many other armed federal law enforcement agencies. In fact, the Second Amendment Foundation, which publishes Gun Week, has been a major player in national coalitions demanding congressional action to correct the mistakes of agents at Waco, Ruby Ridge and other notorious cases.

As a result, while many of our readers like the ironic Weekly Bullet stories that highlight the failings of individual police officers or administrators, many others get the impression that Gun Week and gunowners are anti-police. Nothing could be further from the truth; law-abiding gunowners tend to be pro-police, and Gun Week and its readers have been supportive of common sense law-enforcement as well as understanding of the difficult environment in which today’s police officers work.

We have some understanding of the tools they use, the training they get, the difficult schedules that many endure, and the risks they always face. On the other hand, we have been critical of many police policies and the rules of engagement handed down by politically governed law enforcement administrators.

Tough Job
As Gilbert and Sullivan said at the end of the 19th century, “A policeman’s lot is not a happy one.”

They carry about 30 pounds of gear around their waists throughout their shifts, usually eat on the fly, consuming lots of coffee and junk food, and make a lot of swift decisions, even in minor low-risk calls. They know their vests are not “bullet proof.” The police profession has a higher than average rate of suicide and divorce, and they are constantly required to make decisions that can be second-guessed and criticized by their bosses, the media and the general public, who weren’t on the scene when a deadly situation developed.

Over the years of my experience, policing and police personnel have changed a lot. So, too, have public attitudes toward the police and the laws they are paid to enforce.

Before the 1950s and ’60s, police were most often physically big men who expected and usually received respect from most adults. They often patrolled alone on foot, walking beats in hot weather or cold, in rain, snow and sun. They were largely known and respected by the residents, storekeepers and other businessmen in their areas.

Most importantly, because they were respected as individuals and were big enough and competent enough to be feared by small-time criminals, they didn’t get a lot of resistance except from hardened and dangerous felons.

In those day, when a policeman stopped to ask what teenagers loitering on a street corner late at night where up to, he got a civil answer. And when the cop urged the youths to head for home, the teenagers moved. Nowadays, they get an argument, bad language, and the lack of respect and resistance to a reasonable request that is today labeled as “attitude.”

The times have certainly changed. The police personnel profile has changed. The rules that guide them have changed. The criminal justice system has changed. What was once easily accepted is now politically incorrect. And because of those changes, the modern community policing concept as promoted by former President Bill Clinton and his cabinet has not and will not work.

In former times, residents and businessmen were more willing to help police, either with information or by their own physical assistance, whether armed or unarmed. Today, people watch a crime in progress, but are seldom willing to be a witness. They are more afraid of the neighborhood drug peddler and gang bangers than the police and the courts.

Known Quantities
Neighborhood people know when a man in his late teens has already been busted eight or nine times for illegal possession of stolen guns and drug peddling without ever being in jail more than overnight, that he is likely to continue to climb the ladder of criminality. That’s why they are not surprised when the same youth shoots and kills a policeman chasing him through backyards and alleys.

At one time, policemen often made simple and quick decisions based on their own experience and judgment. When called to a shoplifting complaint involving a youth, they might decide to send the kid home with a stern warning after an interview. Ditto for the teenagers crawling across neighborhood garage roofs, or even firing a BB gun where and when they shouldn’t. Maybe many police, particularly in small towns, still do that, but things have changed in the larger cities.

And politics, especially local politics, has changed as well. Forty or 50 years ago, a patrolman who was a registered and working Democrat would rise in his department when his party was in power and return to walking a beat when the Republicans won the mayor’s office. The chief of police, though, would usually come from within the ranks of the department.

I once knew a big old Irish cop who had been promoted to chief of detectives in one city administration but was sent back to uniform patrol when a different administration took office. He was a tough and experienced policeman and at least one of his sons went into the same department, retiring as a detective.

As recently as 25 years ago, I knew of other officers who were taken off patrol and buried in the auto department for periods of six months or a year simply because they had performed their sworn duties. In one case, it was because of filing DWI charges against a major contributor to the mayor’s political campaigns. In another case, it was because in cleaning out the teenage gangs who gathered and drank beer underage in local schoolyards, they had apparently offended the parents who were well connected politically.

Fitting a Mold
It doesn’t matter how many drug dealers and armed robbers or burglars a policeman has taken down nowadays; it is how he fits the new mold. The chiefs of police in major cities are usually hired from among those strangers at somewhat smaller cities who have the right political connections. In at least a couple of such examples I recall, the chiefs climbed because they were frequent spokesmen for, and participated in, Clinton’s Rose Garden anti-gun news conferences.

Nowadays, the police come in all sizes, genders and ethnic origins. They are hired to fit personnel profiles that sound good to the politicians and the media because they are inclusive. At one time, top scores on civil service exams assured entry to the police force and promotion regardless of race, gender, politics or physical size. That isn’t always so today in spite of claims that we have overcome discrimination practices.

Police forces today are different and operate differently from their predecessors, not because the police are so different, but because public attitudes regarding authority have changed. As one tough small town chief, a Korean War veteran, said once: the difference is a lack of respect by the public, not just for the police, but for other people.
Return to Archive Index