
FILE – In this June 1, 2020, file photo police begin to clear demonstrators gathered as they protest the death of George Floyd near the White House in Washington. Floyd died after being restrained by Minneapolis police officers. (AP Photo/Alex Brandon, File)
Newton City Councilor and congressional candidate Jake Auchincloss published this Op-Ed yesterday on WBUR’s Cognoscenti.
Contrary to the president’s claims, the protests of the last weeks have been overwhelmingly peaceful. Yet, we see the tools of war on our streets. Police and the National Guard patrol with the weapons and armor that I recognize from my overseas deployments in the Marines.
We must demilitarize the police. To do this, we must shift the paradigm of public safety, at home and abroad.
After September 11th, government at all levels — federal, state, local — increasingly flipped the idea of policing on its head. State and local police were given more military and intelligence capabilities, while troops overseas were tasked with policing foreign soil.
The new Department of Homeland Security became a bridge between the two. From airports to subways to street corners, our everyday experience became marked by lurking threats that required overwhelming force. We were all deputized to “say something,” if we “see something.”
Conversely, our troops are deployed as police. That includes me. As an infantry platoon commander in Helmand Province, my mission was to patrol three villages subject to Taliban influence. In tandem with the Afghan police, we tried to establish rapport with tribal elders, to root out Taliban abettors and to generally underwrite security. Marines are expeditionary — we are meant to take on unfamiliar missions. But we are not police.
Our military is policing villages that are not their own, and our police are empowered to act with military force. These twin failed initiatives must stop: get the military and intelligence services out of our public square here at home, and stop using our military as a police force overseas. As monumental as ending the forever wars would be, it is the former — the demilitarization of police — that will be the harder call to action.
Each city and town can begin by looking at dispatches and details. How often are cops being asked to control traffic? Cite noise violators? Handle substance abuse? And, how often would recourse to force have been necessary to protect public safety?
As the chair of the public safety and transportation committee on the Newton City Council, I am helping to steer that review for my hometown. I expect we’ll find that we’re asking police to not just keep us safe from violent crime, but also to handle every other assignment that has rolled downhill from law to enforcement, without due consideration for the right agent to enforce.
In some cases, it’s already obvious it’s not working. For example: Newton police are being called on landscapers whose leaf blowers are too loud. By expanding the surface area of police-citizen contact into these types of non-threatening situations, we increase the likelihood of violence — especially violence predicated on racial profiling.
Race must be at the center of this review. Collecting data on policing and racism should become a national project, but we can’t let this be a statistics discussion when Black and brown voices on the subject have been clear for centuries: our fellow Americans do not trust law enforcement. As a white man, I feel safer when cops are nearby. Many of my Black and brown constituents do not, and for good reason.
Ending the 9/11 mindset, and reviewing police functions through the lens of racial justice, will be good for both citizens and police. To be sure, we need a public safety arm that can use force to protect people — nobody wants to dial 911 during a robbery and get a ringtone. But we have taken the right of government to use force and spread it across domains where force is rarely helpful.
I’m proud that we’re starting this conversation in my hometown’s City Hall, along with cities and towns throughout the United States. To complete it, though, will take action from Washington, too. Stop militarizing the police. And stop asking the military to police other peoples. From my patrol base in Helmand to my chair at the public safety committee, I know we can do better.
If the police won’t enforce duly legislated and passed laws for non-violent offenses, who will? Is Councilor Auchincloss saying we should be free to run red lights, ignore speed limits, throw trash in the streets, blast neighbors with hideous noise and pollution, operate unregistered vehicles on public throughways, ignore pedestrian crossings, etc., etc. etc, without concern or consequence? (I know, I know, I’m being ridiculous, but that’s an obvious implication of his position!)
@Alex
Why should such minor offenses as speeding or loud leaf blowing be responded to by armed agents of the state?
95% of what the police do should be replaced by code enforcement officers and social workers.
We all agree that violent crime needs an appropriate response. But having the same people trained to respond to violent crime write citations for traffic enforcement is a misallocation of resources.
@Donald
However, under law, federal, state and local law-enforcement authorities provide civil felony and misdemeanor code enforcement.
I am proud that Auchincloss has published this article, though I am surprised it came after he voted against even <2% cuts to the NPD budget. Defund NPD has invited Jake to speak with us more to clarify his position, though he has yet to respond. I look forward to speaking with him more about it.
@Alex,
Perhaps it would help to separate criminal laws which are within the jurisdiction of local law enforcement from civil violations. (For purposes of discussion, it is probably best to leave out reference to State Police and Federal law enforcement agencies such as the FBI, DEA and ATF that may or may not work in conjunction with our local police dept. since those agencies do not enforce any local ordinances.) To state the obvious, the leaf blower ordinance is a local regulation. We do have Code Enforcement Officers respond to complaints from construction sites – why would they not be a reasonable type of resource for responding to “nuisance” complaints? Loud noise, leaf blowers, trash – all fall within the realm of issues which create a nuisance to others, but do not rise to the level of criminal activity. Wouldn’t this satisfy the need for enforcement without involving the police?
@Lisap
I think what you say makes a lot of sense. But, i guess i just don’t understand whether local codes are actually laws or something other than laws. If local incorporated communities’ duly legislated codes are laws, it seems to me that both local communities’ Code Enforcement Officers and Police Officers would be authorized to enforce, and responsible for enforcing, local code violations. But this isn’t my area of expertise, and i don’t have the answer.
@Alex,
No worries. There are a lot of things that don’t make sense to me. ;)
So, I’ll try to give you a quick, broad answer. In essence, the city does have authority to enact local laws (ordinances) which include non-criminal penalties. The local laws have teeth because the City is authorized to impose fines, and if necessary to enforce the law the City may bring the violator to court to answer for a civil misdemeanor for which the penalty is a fine. So – using the leaf blower example – the City Inspectional Services Dept. has the legal authority to respond to a complaint and to issue a fine to someone who has violated that local ordinance. The local police also have the authority to enforce it as well, but the question becomes I think — does it make more sense to have the local police department respond to a civil complaint, or is there another branch of government that can be equally effective? Put another way – does it require the training and experience of a police officer in this situation, or would this be better left to someone in inspectional services? (As an aside, I have dealt with folks from the inspectional services department and in my experience they are extremely effective and know their stuff!)
I hope that helps a little.
@Lisap,
I think everyone agrees that the police should not be handling leaf blower complaints. The problem with these types of complaints is who is going to respond at 630 in the morning or 630 at night….or on a weekend/holiday. Enforcement Officers don’t work 24/7…Police do!
The residents of Newton have very high expectations when it comes to quality of life issues. I can not imagine someone being satisfied if they call the police and are told it’s “after hours” for the folks responsible for enforcing these violations.
@Lisap,
Yes. Thank you very much! It helps a lot and I think I now understand.
@ The Whole Truth
Yes, I hadn’t thought of the after-hours issue. For example, landscapers across the street here at about 5:00 to 6:00 PM tonight used a rather noisy, but legal, gas hedge trimmer and then used a fan rake to clean the trimmings up, so they were within Code. But, when other landscapers were working near here yesterday and earlier in the week, they used a very loud gas leaf blower while folks, including young children, were walking by them. I wanted to report it at the time, but was at a loss about who to call, so just filed a report on the City’s web form.
@The Whole Truth,
You raise some excellent points there (as usual), and yes – I agree that there is a level of expectation in this City that would not be satisfied. Perhaps that is one of the trade-offs that must be made if we are to allow the police to focus on criminal law enforcement? I don’t know this for certain but I suspect that our law enforcement officers really do not want to be involved in these nuisance complaints/have better use for their time and training and skills.
Where I live, the biggest violator of the noise ordinance is the City – they are permitted to arrive earlier than landscapers and while the equipment used on my neighbors’ properties never bothers me (and I have bad tinnitus), the City’s equipment is very loud so I close my windows and deal with it.
That said, I tend to take a different approach to when I see commercial vehicles violating driving laws. There have been a few times when I’ve seen a commercial vehicles – including school buses and special needs transportation vehicles -violating the law. I take down the plate number, note the time and location, and the number of the company and instead of calling law enforcement, I call the company. I get on the phone with the most senior company manager that I can and take the attitude that I’m sure that this is not representative of their company, I don’t want someone to lose their job but this should be addressed. (It helps to know that most commercial vehicles are now equipped with tracking data.) Every time I have done that I have received a follow up call back from a manager to let me know how the company has handled the issue. A saying used by a police lieutenant friend of mine years ago was “you can be part of the problem, or part of the solution”. That’s my way of being “part of the solution”. Not the solution in every instance for sure, but I’ve found it pretty effective.
It surprises me how unwilling or unable people are to consider paradigm shifts.
“Code enforcement officers don’t work 24/7”
OK, is there a law that says they can’t?
“Where will we find money for that?”
Um, from the Police budget, which is already burdened with the staffing requirements of handling these calls, and doing so with highly trained, highly paid, and highly armed officers.
We’re not talking about eliminating law enforcement. We’re talking about quite literally dis-arming law enforcement EXCEPT for in response to calls that REQUIRE that escalation in force.
FWIW – this is important but isn’t enough. Yes, police shouldn’t have military equipment, obviously.
But we can’t say that without acknowledging that most of the incidents of police violence against people of color has been through tasers, guns, chokeholds, batons, etc. We have to acknowledge that there are problems with the core of police training in much of the country, including an us vs them mentality, systemic racism, “warrior” training, and more.
Where demilitarization will make an important contribution worth acknowledging is in our response to protests, which so far have been completely disproportionate and confrontational compared to the threat level.
Newton has been recognized as the safest city in the nation several times. Do you really
think that you need to mess with a police force which has been doing all the right things
for decades?
Laura
Newton PD have been doing a wonderful as confirmed by Newton being recognized as one of the safest cities in the nation (several times)
There are some who have never ridden alongside Newton PD during duty who believe they are qualified to restructure the PD. Will it work? Who knows, Newton residents will have to experience their ‘social experiment ‘ to find out…
Having said that, there are easy low hanging items that are obvious for change. Ie an armed police officier should not be responding to a leaf blower complaint.
.. on the flip, do i need an armed officier looking for an eldery person who may have wandered off? NO, but at the same time YES, because i want them to be found ASAP (so i want ‘any’ officier involved in the search)…
Its not cut and dry… i dont want newton become a crime target (affluent city with large senior population) because its been announced that the police have been neutered
@Bryan wrote: “We have to acknowledge that there are problems with the core of police training in much of the country, including an us vs them mentality, systemic racism, “warrior” training, and more.
I only wish I could find the link to the article I read earlier this morning concerning the training of 2 of the 4 officers in the death of George Floyd. According to that article, the two rookie officers – one on his third shift as a patrol officer and the other on his 4th, both received “guardian” training and not “warrior” training. Despite that training, once on the street they were under the command of Chauvin, a superior officer who they are expected to look up to. And in this case, their CO on the street was, in my opinion, unfit for service.
To me, it is self-evidence that new officers should have the supervision, guidance and oversight of seasoned officers. This is universally true with every profession I can think of. Like so many other jobs, it is what happens after their training once they are out in the field that will determine how they execute their duties.
From a quick web-search, it looks like Newton has a Housing Code Enforcement Officer, but not an overall code enforcement officer.
From a quick web-search, it looks like Newton has an Housing Code Enforcement Officer, but, at present, not an overall code enforcement office or officers, other than the NPD, of course.
@all: There are a lot of great points on this string and certainly things to think about in a police study. The police are operating now as we (residents) have asked them to operate, and changing the game is a process though something that can be done. A few comments:
1. Leaf Blowers: The police absolutely did not want this, nor the snow removal fines put on their plates. The rational as noted was response time from the call and who’s out there.
2. Police Department Use: Easy to task as they work 24/7 and generally not revenue producing, so should they be overwhelmed with essentially administrative calls? Auto accidents, leaf blowers, wellness checks, etc.
3. Inspectional Services Department: This is actually a revenue generating department as their actions bring in fees, and increases to the property tax base. Tasking them with leaf blowers, snow removal, noise ordinances would be OK, but as mentioned by one contributor, this means adding non-revenue producing inspectors with longer hours.
4. Police as 1st responders: This is a safety capability that ensures that for whatever event a trained person arrives immediately, and this could be fire or police. The unneeded units are sent back. A number of auto accidents may have an underlying cause such as impaired driving, or a criminal activity so we have to be careful on this one.
5. Schools: Important to note that the City budget now covers a significant amount of costs for the schools. Items such as building maintenance, snow removal, crossing guards, traffic control, etc, were added to other departmental budgets to enable the schools to focus more on education. In this regard the police should be out of the Crossing Guard business, and School Resources business. The city needs to transfer these items back to the school department.
6. Response time: The dispatcher can determine the level of an event in dispatching a police officer, as they are out on patrol for flexibility reasons. The response time is the time it takes the patrol officer to receive the call and arrive on the scene. Leaf blower complaints, etc do not delay response time as they get downgraded. Response time is based on the size of the patrol area, the traffic at certain times of day, so cutting staff may delay response time.
7. Social Worker: The city does employ a social worker to accompany police on calls that need this level of expertise. I cannot imagine how you could send the lone social worker to a domestic, or mental health issues call without a police officer?
This is all a good discussion and one that should be held periodically to ensure that city departments do what works best.
Excited to hear that you believe police should not be in schools as school resource officers, I hope many of those on school committee will heed this good advice.