I spent 25 years as an infantry officer and led men in combat. I understand the importance of the warrior ethos and warrior spirit. But that ethos and spirit must be held in check to ensure that its force is only used against a legitimate enemy. When that restraint is lost, soldiers become criminals and leaders must protect both the soldiers and the innocents from that scenario.
That constraint is even more important in the civil sphere. The powers granted to the police must never be abused and their duty to protect the public must stand paramount. I have seen too much evidence that some of our law enforcement officers have forgotten this, especially in SWAT type organizations who may lack proper leadership.
That constraint is even more important in the civil sphere. The powers granted to the police must never be abused and their duty to protect the public must stand paramount. I have seen too much evidence that some of our law enforcement officers have forgotten this, especially in SWAT type organizations who may lack proper leadership.
I congratulate you for your service. You have put your thumb on the problem, and your post gave me something to think over.
The question remains, how did it get so bad? Perhaps the new breed of police are taking war metaphors to heart, and taking them literally. The trouble is, a police force that literally believes they're fighting a "War on _______" drift into acting like they're an occupying army if they stop identifying with ordinary citizenry.
Have you noticed the less shocking cases of police overagressiveness get triggered when the police officer in question feels disrepected? It's uncomfortably close to how the gang-bangers act, even if the two are quite dissimilar in other respects.
Maybe the trouble comes with letting combat veterans into the police force. A soldier saying that wise-acre or peckerwooding civilians are "spoiled and undisciplined" works well because soldiers are sworn to protect all civilians from foreign aggression. Pegging disrespectful civilians in that way saves the ears, and doesn't change the underlying fidelity of the soldiers.
The trouble is, police officers have to divide civilians into two groups: law-abiding and criminal. The demarcation line is not at all obvious, except when the police officer catches a perp red-handed. Naturally, for officer safety as well as common sense, police are inclined to peg the dubious cases as criminal types.
A soldier doesn't have to divide civilians up; all of them are entitled to protection from the foreign foe. When "spoiled and undisciplied" mutates into "spoiled-ass civilians," though, police are tempted to throw undeferential citizens into the suspected-criminal group - and thus peg them as the enemy.
I could be wrong. In the olden days, a cop who believed "I am the law" was an accident waiting to happen. He was tempted to interpret criticism or disrespect of him, even as a person, as evidence of criminality. The same temptation went with criticism of his job performance, unless the complainer called him too soft on crime. That attitude had nothing to to with veterans entering the police force, and it long predates combat veterans going in to police work.