Part three of the Register‘s police series: “Going Beyond the Bad Guys.”
In many respects, this is the hoped for result of all policing: going beyond the bad guys. A community benefits most from a close relationship between its officers and its residents. I have posted concerns and suggestions about police leadership (especially, the goal of adopting the guidelines from Principles for Promoting Police Integrity).
Yet, for it all, I have never doubted the work of patrol officers. To suggest otherwise is to misunderstand what I have written – willfully so.
(One contrast to community policing is the idea of the police officer as warrior – a concept that predates community policing theory. The warrior model is a poor one, as it risks pitting the officer against not merely alleged criminals and but the community he serves. Many of my remarks in a December post entitled, “The Force We Need,” were directed at the how destructive the idea of the officer-as-warrior model can be.)
Almost everyone who was heard of police work has heard of community policing. I am not sure if one can hear or consider how officers should conduct themselves and not have heard of it. This is an important point – ordinary people of all types should think about how policing should be conducted. How is a community to organize itself, and protect itself, against crime? That’s not just a position for a few people, but something about which an entire community can offer an opinion.
That’s what’s missing in the third and final part of the Register series – there’s just not a lot of interviewing going on. Let’s assume – however odd the assumption may be – that a reporter doesn’t ordinarily have time to interview sources.
If that’s true ordinarily, then shouldn’t there be an exception for a multi-part series? When I read this third installment, I could not tell if Carrie Dampier was quoting from a live interview with Chief Coan, or from his words in a report. Perhaps it’s both. Nonetheless, a written report should be a springboard to further inquiry and questions, not an end-in-itself.
A few interviews with people who were part of a police academy, or had experiences (of any kind worth recounting) would have made the story different and better.
It’s one of the most disappointing aspects of the Register: it’s just not a curious, inquisitive paper.
I believe that a curious paper on any other part of the political spectrum would be better than a dull one that shared one’s views. There are others in town, apparently, who would disagree.