An outline of the responsibilities and authority of policing in a democracy as well as some of the guidelines and limitations. Also a discussion of many of the current issues in modern policing.

::::::::

The Oath

Although the phrase "protect and serve" is not the official logo for the police in this country, I think that most people have that basic expectation for any police force to provide some version of that for the public. I am confident that many, if not most, of the police officers in the US are good people who are diligent about doing their duty.

There is also a generally applicable police officers' oath:

On my honor, I will never betray my integrity, my character, or the public trust.

I will treat all individuals with dignity and respect and ensure that my actions are dedicated to ensuring the safety of my community and the preservation of human life.

I will always have the courage to hold myself and others accountable for our actions.

I will always maintain the highest ethical standards and uphold the values of my community, and the agency I serve.

The concepts contained within this oath, provide criteria by which police behavior can be measured in any particular situation: Have the police followed these criteria and, if not, where have they fallen short?

Authority and Responsibility

Perhaps the issues that arise within the society are about the responsibilities that go with the authority connected with the position of being a police officer. That authority comes with the assumption of leadership in situations of conflict, allowing them to take charge with the expectation that their directives are followed. This is a powerful authority that allows the use of force, when necessary, in tense situations. And then there is the powerful authority to carry and use weapons in the prosecution of their duties.

The responsibilities to the community and to the individuals who come in contact with police are where the conflict can occur. Most interactions between the police and the public are relatively normal, although that often may not be the case for the less affluent, racial or ethnic groups and even some religious groups. This is part of the problem since those guides for police-actions are not applied equally.

When it comes to the other part of authority; the processes of taking charge; giving orders and, at times, using force to detain, or in extreme cases, using deadly force, sometimes results in real issues. This is where the adherence to the precepts of policing are crucial. This is where the utmost professionalism is required to override personal emotions and remember that, although some governmental agency has conferred authority upon them, that oath provides the only sustainable reason they have their authority and must be most scrupulously followed. Only within this framework can that kind of authority make any real sense for all elements of the community.

Limitations

There are, of course, limitations to policing, especially in regard to expertise in a range of social and personal issues. Police are not trained or equipped to deal effectively with issues of mental health or an entire range of social issues and therefore should welcome the help that professionals in those areas can provide in accompaniment with police-officers.

Community Relationships

A major priority for any police agency must be to mend community fences to develop trusting relationships. The more such a trust-based relationship can be built, the less the "us-against-them" mentality will prevail. Without that trusting relationship, things can too easily devolve into an "us-against-them" mentality. And the more the police tend to retreat into such a defensive shell, the community response is likely to mirror the same approach. That kind of standoff undoes any sense of a professional police force which will abide by its oath, and too easily turns into a willingness to accept warlike conditions as a norm. That approach is ultimately a dead end, and often, a deadly end. We must remember that the police are the professionals in this situation and therefore they must take the lead in finding resolution to these issues. In the process of finding workable solutions there is no room for politics or prejudice, and such solutions are, almost never, simply more police officers and/or more force.

Police Unions

And then there is the older concepts of a brotherhood of police (even that term is outdated, not to be replaced by a sisterhood, but perhaps by family). But that has a defensiveness implied, to protect their family against outside threats. That is, to a large extent, what a union is for; to be that family to be sure that its members are treated fairly and afforded due process. If the union is to be really effective and provide a real service to the profession, an important part of its role must be to monitor the actions of its membership and hold those who break the community or professional code accountable; to insist on remedial training or to counsel them out of policing. In certain cases, they must allow their members to be brought to trial while protecting their rights to due process. To the degree that the union becomes merely defensive, protecting its members regardless of the merits of the case, the union defeats its entire purpose as a professional organization within the society.

Protect and Serve

Another issue that arises is: Who do those police officers, their departments and their unions really protect and serve? The politics of policing within this society have historically tilted the police toward the socioeconomic elite and the political groups in power at the time. That bias was clear to most people who were not in those groups, who therefore looked at the police with some degree of wariness. As time went on and as the police became more professional, more and more of the elements of neutrality began to emerge within police forces. However, the politically powerful and the socioeconomic elite have never lost all of their influence, nor are they likely to.

A police officers' priority cannot be to solely protect and serve themselves or their unions or their departments, or their political ends. Their priority cannot be to serve only certain elements of society. Their priority must be to service all elements of the community and the nation equally and justly, in order for the entire process to work as it should and their access to authority really be justified.

Worldview and Attitude

Perhaps the greatest hurtle at this time is the sense of serving some version of what has been put forward as the true American; basically, being a white, Christian, male dominated society. This is also deeply connected to the capitalist economic mantra even though the current version of that mantra no longer much supports ordinary people. It is also a view of the world that supports a brand of militarism as a paramount principle. This also includes a version of American history and culture that is heavily edited to fit the prescriptions of that worldview.

All of these elements, or any of them, cause social friction within the society and especially incommunities who see the world differently and experience a very different version of America on a daily basis.

Conclusions

In conclusion police forces should not exist to support any particular group, worldview, ideology or agenda. They must exist within some zone of neutrality in which the professional police officers can accomplish their duties and responsibilities as the police oath prescribes. To the degree any of them stray from that path their protection and service become suspect and counterproductive.

An oath is a sacred pledge to the society and must be kept for community life to have a sense of coherence, unity, and security: to become a civil society once again.

Authors Website: http://substack.com/@bobpassi

Authors Bio:

I have been a lifelong observer of American democracy and a passionate advocate for civic engagement and social responsibility. Born at the start of World War II, I grew up witnessing the high points of the New Deal, the promise of postwar democracy, and the slow erosion of those ideals in the decades since. I am a retired educator, consultant, and social commentator, and I am able to bring decades of reflection and historical perspective to my work.
My new book is Saving Democracy: From the Warnings of 2016 to the Urgency of 2025, an updated and expanded edition of his original 2016 book that examines how the United States arrived at its current political crossroads-- and how citizen action can help reclaim the democratic promise.
I writes regularly at www.perspectives-bobpassi.org and on Substack at bobpassi.substack.com, where I write about democracy, personal empowerment, and the deeper cultural narratives shaping our time.