Police Brutality: I Do Not Think That Means What You Think It Means!

It is probably safe to say that most, if not all of us, have heard the term “Police Brutality” used at one point or another.  Usually, this term is accompanied by a great deal of negative media coverage coupled with public outrage and community scrutiny, and in some cases, rightfully so.  The term “police brutality” was coined by the New York Times in 1893 during a period when industrialists used private police forces to subdue labor uprisings. Of course, this was well before the concept of “excessive force” and the “Objective Reasonableness” standard was adopted.  The term has been used by the media ever since to describe and often sensationalize police use of force incidents.  As a result, there is a large consensus that police brutality must not be allowed to occur, must never be tolerated and that those involved must be held to account for their bad actions.  Therefore, if posed with the question ” Is police brutality ever acceptable in law enforcement?” the prevalent response from the community, law enforcement, and government officials, as well as private oversight organizations, would most likely be “no.” This is not surprising and actually makes a great deal of sense, or does it?

Unfortunately, nothing is ever that simple, meaning we must be willing to view things through the lens of unbiased, critical analysis.  This approach not only engages our intellect but also stimulates our curiosity.  As a result, we should be asking questions such as “Is what we think is an issue really an Issue?  Are we really addressing the real issue(s)?  Do we actually understand what the real issue is?  With this in mind, I would proffer that through the lens of unbiased, critical analysis, “Police Brutality” is “an” issue, but not “the” issue related to the national outcry for police reform.  In fact, I do not believe many really understand what the real issue is or why.

To help everyone understand what the issue is, I will first identify and explain what the issue is not.  However, before I do, we need to realize that some conversations are difficult and are, therefore, avoided more often than not.  But I think we can all agree that having difficult conversations is crucial if we want to make meaningful and effective change.  Therefore, I invite you, the reader, to engage in a difficult conversation that will require us all to open our minds, remove any pre-existing biases, at least for now, and view the information through a fair and critical analysis lens.  If, after all the information in the article has been presented, you are not convinced, I welcome your response and will, of course, extend the same courtesy to you of opening my mind, removing my own pre-existing biases, and viewing your thoughts through a fair and critical analysis lens.  This is how we all learn, grow, and, believe it or not, find solutions.  No matter what, everyone on each side will learn something new and see something differently than they did, and from that, progress is possible and solutions attainable.  However, solutions will likely be found somewhere within the middle ground where reasonable people live.  

Having explained the desire for fair and critical analysis, I present to you what the issue is not.  The issue is not “police brutality,” though we have been led to believe that it is.  We have all seen the headlines about “Police Brutality” and have probably heard that “Police Brutality” is occurring all over the nation in every city and town by every police officer and that it is the main issue driving unrest.  Well, this is correct, but there is more to the story that needs to be understood.  Headlines have made an issue about “police brutality” and that it is occurring all over the nation every day, and even that there has been unrest because of the perception of what people have been led to believe “Police Brutality” is.  However, let’s consider for a moment the possibility that we are looking at the wrong issue and have been misled and need to change our focus.   Consider, if you will, that “brutality” is defined as “A brutal act or course of action” (Merriam-Webster) or, in other words, an “act of violence” (Merriam-Webster).  Unfortunately,  violence in law enforcement is, at times, a necessary element of enforcing laws and protecting citizens.  Violence is also, by its very nature and definition, “brutal.” Therefore, one must logically conclude that “Brutality” in law enforcement must also be acceptable when any use of force resulting in violence is objectively reasonable.  Unfortunately, society’s perception of the term “police brutality” has been shaped since 1893 through numerous events in our history, many of which occurred during the 1960s, 1970s, 1990s, and 2000s, all of which resulted in social unrest.

This is not to say that “Police Brutality” is a good thing because it is not; it is a necessary evil.  Ideally, law enforcement would never have to use violence because our society would respect each other, never commit violence against each other, and when violating laws, comply with arrests and accept the consequences.  However, this is not and will never be a reality, and therefore, violence will always be a part of law enforcement, and as a result, brutality will naturally exist. Therefore, we need to avoid the rhetoric created by the media.

Now, let me present what I believe the real issue actually is: police use of “Excessive” and, thus, unreasonable and unlawful force.  Brutal force should not be confused with excessive force, and here is why.  Brutal force is ugly; that is just the reality; it is ugly and difficult to see or watch.  It does not matter if the brutal force is from a police officer, an offender, a soldier, or a victim defending themselves; it will always be ugly.  But being ugly does not make it unlawful, nor does it make it unreasonable.  For example, if a suspect and a police officer engage in a physical fight, and the suspect hits the officer in the face, the head, or wherever, it is brutal; the same applies when the officer defends himself and hits the suspect in the same manner, it is brutal, and both are extremely ugly.  However, one is unlawful, and one is not, but again, both are ugly.  If a victim of a violent crime defends themselves from a violent encounter and hits an offender in the head with perhaps a hammer, this is no doubt ugly, and it is absolutely brutal.  But is it reasonable and lawful, given the circumstances, or excessive and unlawful?  That is the distinction: while both scenarios involve brutality, one involves unlawful force.

The use of excessive force, which is always unreasonable and unacceptable, is the actual issue.  Force that is brutal and, as a result, ugly and hard to watch does not mean excessive or unlawful; it just means it is ugly and hard to watch.  Excessive force is the real issue.  It is also ugly and hard to watch, but it is not that it is ugly or hard to watch that makes it an issue.  What makes excessive force an issue is that it is objectively unreasonable under the objective reasonableness standard and thus unlawful.  Reasonableness is determined by using the “Objective reasonableness” standard as outlined in the U.S. Supreme Court case Graham v. Conner (1989), and excessive force is defined as the application of force beyond what is reasonably believed to be necessary to gain compliance from a subject in any given incident. 

Thus, when we interchange the misunderstood term “police brutality” with “excessive force,” everything that is perceived as ugly and hard to watch becomes a battle cry of police abuse, and this perception is not only flawed, it is unfair to law enforcement and does them a dis-service.  However, the more significant concern is that it takes the focus off of the particular issue of excessive force and allows it to hide within a larger social focus on high-profile incidents that are ugly but not necessarily wrong.  For example, applying unnecessary pain compliance to a passive subject out of anger or contempt for their prior acts or statements is unreasonable and excessive but oftentimes subtle and not ugly.  Intentionally applying handcuffs that are too tight for the purpose of punishment is unreasonable and excessive; applying a joint lock for the purpose of punishment instead of out of a need to control is unreasonable and excessive.  However, when society and agencies tend to focus on the optics of an incident to determine if it was right or wrong and whether or not those involved should be prosecuted, it creates a slippery slope.

Take, for example, the unreasonable and excessive use of force by ex-officer Derek Chauvin.  It was, for the most part, not the typical in-your-face violence that jumps out when you see it.  It was subtle, though still hard to watch.  But ask yourself, had it not resulted in the death of George Floyd, would it have drawn the attention of the world?  It was still unreasonable and excessive, but the optics were not as ugly and hard to watch as officers engaged in a fight for their lives.  So, the optics make a huge difference, but they are often misleading.  Subtle malicious acts tend to go unnoticed more often than not, though they are unreasonable and excessive.  When hiding in the shadows of the violent, ugly use of force that is necessary and objectively reasonable, it is the often justified, reasonable but ugly uses of force that dominate the media and public attention. 

So when the media shows an ugly, hard-to-watch video and proclaims “police brutality,” we need to say yes, yes it was,” and then ask, but was it unreasonable or excessive?  If the answer is no, despite how ugly and hard to watch it might be, we as a society need to support those whose lives and careers are at risk of being ruined for doing the right things.  We also need to avoid supporting officers who commit the more subtle, less ugly, and hard-to-watch unreasonable and excessive uses of force, often ignored due to the “no harm, no foul” mindset.  We need to educate the public about what is and is not objectively reasonable or excessive and focus on that when calling for accountability and change.  We need to stop judging officers based on the optics and by what is and is not worthy of sensationalism by the media.  We will all be better off in the long run.

Be safe, everyone!