It’s been many years since I took high-school Spanish, I don’t remember much of it. Sure, living in the Panhandle gave me an opportunity to speak Spanish, but I didn’t—most of the Hispanics I met spoke English far better than I spoke Spanish. Consequently, when I’m in a Mexican restaurant, I hope the server speaks English.
So, while I am really fuzzy about verb conjugations, I do remember a few lessons, like this about two nouns: “el policía” and “la policía.” Simply, the former refers to the police officer; the latter, to the police department. I wonder if these distinctions might be useful in the discussions going on in the nation right now.
No one can watch Officer Chauvin pressing his knee into Floyd George’s neck until George could no longer gasp, “I can’t breathe” and approve. Nor can anyone be proud of Chauvin’s fellow-officers standing-by and doing nothing. But does this mean the Minneapolis police department, indeed all police departments across the nation, should be disbanded? Should we assume, as some apparently do, that every police officer is either a bully or a racist? Should we conveniently forget the many officers—men and women, of all races—who have given their lives serving and protecting their communities?
If the images of George’s murder (I think the term appropriate) don’t stir our emotions, we’ve become callous. Those emotions may send us to the streets to protest. But it is dangerous to allow emotion to rule in these matters. Officer Chauvin and his colleagues deserve to be prosecuted; the thousands of other police officers across the nation who play by the rules don’t deserve to be slandered.
Most of us, having grown up with the sight of police cars and the sound of sirens, not to mention hundreds of “cop shows” on television, easily forget the modern police force is relatively new. British Home Secretary Robert Peel revolutionized policing in Britain and is counted as the founder of London’s Metropolitan Police (Scotland Yard). The nine principles of policing, attributed to Peel—though not without controversy—are worth reviewing in toto; but I’ll cite only four:
--“The ability of the police to perform their duties is dependent upon public approval of police actions.”
--“The degree of cooperation of the public that can be secured diminished proportionately to the necessity of the use of force.”
--“The degree of cooperation of the public that can be secured diminished proportionately to the necessity of the use of force.”
--“Police use physical force to the extent necessary to secure observance of the law or to restore order only when the exercise of persuasion, advice and warning is found to be insufficient.”
--“Police, at all times, should maintain a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and the public are the police; the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence.” (“Sir Robert Peel’s Nine Principles of Policing, https://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/16/nyregion/sir-robert-peels-nine-principles-of-policing.html. Accessed 11 June 2020.)
Of course, Peel’s principles were suffused with optimism. Reality sometimes took a different shape. By the mid-1850s, London police were sometimes called “The Truncheonists,” a reference to their tendency to use their cudgels or nightsticks. Some of the police were violent in response to violence. And, doubtless, some of the police were violent because they were violent men (“WPCs,” women police constables, didn’t appear until later). Police department have always been forced to weed out the bullies and sadists.
Yet, in time, the attitude toward police began to mellow. True, the Brits are always ready to jibe about “Constable Plod,” but the value of the police was recognized. One British police icon has been the blue lamp outside police stations since about 1861. The lamp became a symbol of British policing, and simple reminder to the community that someone was there to protect them.
This brings us back to the distinction between “el policiá” and “la policiá.” Individual officers may be good or bad. Departments may be poorly run, indifferent to the safety of the community; or efficient, trying to be faithful to their mandate to protect and serve. There may be good officers in bad departments and bad officers in good departments. There are good white officers, good black officers, good Asian officers, good Hispanic officers. And bad ones in each group.
The weeding process, going on since the days of Sir Robert Peel, must continue. Old-boys’ networks must be broken up. The stranglehold of police unions must be challenged. Indeed, the unions may have to revisit their agenda, their ultimate values.
What happened in Minneapolis is a turning point in the quest for equality. Floyd George’s death will be remembered. Our response will be remembered too. We need change, the right change.
