I watched the documentary John McWhorter mentions after hearing him and Glenn Loury discuss it on their podcast. It's a film with powerful resonance that raises many questions and provokes much thought. Among the reactions I had was that the bodycam footage to which McWhorter refers is the best argument to be made for de-escalation training. Loud voices, abrupt orders, cursing--as I remember some of it, "Hands on the wheel! Hands on the wheel! Get your hands on the fucking wheel!"--could only have further upset an obviously confused and frightened Floyd. So yes, I agree. Perhaps things could have been different.
That said, I think there is more to be said. Several friends, both of them white, middle-aged to elderly, middle- to upper-middle class women have complained to me during the past few years about being barked at by police during a traffic stop. One said she thought the cop, a woman, was afraid. I noticed a drawn gun at the edge of the bodycam frame from which we first see Floyd in his car; once Floyd puts his hands on the steering wheel, the gun disappears, presumably holstered. A bit later, Floyd pleads, "Don't shoot me!" and a cop replies in much more normal, calmer tone, "No one's going to shoot you." I suspect the level of tension felt by the cops, the need to see both of Floyd's hands, came out in their tone and language. Given the vast array of weapons freely available in this country, how much does working on a daily basis with the possibility of violence affect police behavior towards all citizens? This is not to excuse harshness, but it is to argue that trying to imagine what it's like to do their job is important. The world in which cops work is a often a four-letter world. Emphasis on politeness and non-confrontational communication skills is in order, but it won't take the guns off the streets.
On a more positive note, I was in one of the downtown Philadelphia train stations this morning and noticed a uniformed cop, presumably there for extra security. A man went up to him, maybe to ask a question, maybe they knew each other. They talked for a while. As the man left, the cop waved and called out a friendly comment. The cop was black, the man white. It's important to encourage change, and it's important to remember that when cops meet the public, it isn't always ugly.
Thank you for this. I have seen my share of reality cop shows and videos, and they typically scream at the top of their lungs, all at once, things like “get the fuck down on the ground!” “Don’t fucking move!” It’s the “i’m the more dangerous thug than you” shock and awe approach, which hardly conveys any kind of care or professionalism.
It has always been astonishing to me, and one of the most arrant signs of the difference between our two countries divided by a common language. As a Briton grown up in England I was used to coppers being constantly extremely respectful (formally) with the public, the suspects, and the people they arrested. The unbroken rule until at least the early 2000 (I cannot swear that the atmosphere has not changed at all) was that they called every adult person they interacted with in the discharge of their duties, sir or madam.
It seems silly perhaps to those outside that bubble, but that formality makes a great difference. First because it is trained, and it is trained towards the ingrained awareness that a policeman is in service to the community. Secondly because, just try to shout at, bully, and cuss at someone while calling them "sir" -- it can be done, I am sure, but it is difficult.
On the other hand, police officers in the UK do not carry firearms either (if guns are needed, there are specially trained squads for that). So it is vastly a matter of cultural differences. The general behaviour of the police -- and of the other law enforcement officers, including border guards -- that entitlement constantly bordering on threat, the patent desire of having people cower in front of them, is the second main reason why I could not stand living in the US (and San Francisco of all places) despite having married an American.
I know it sounds dismissing and patronising on my part. But I have never managed tor wrap my mind around the reality of a society of such advanced civilisation being so irredeemably violent.
I suspect that the police reflects the society of which it is part. And so I suspect that it is unlikely that the police in America will become less violent (and aggressive and disrespectful) unless the American society as a whole becomes less violent.
But perhaps, starting with the introduction of some compulsory formality like sir/madam in the training of officers could be a step forward.
I lived for seven years in Canada, which is known for having the best police force on earth.
One of their key understandings of their job is that they are wielding force on behalf of the Crown. In other words: the Queen (until last year). Their power is her power. They shouldn't do anything with it that the Queen wouldn't do.
And HRH Lilibet would certainly have never yelled F-bombs at her loyal subjects.
Watching the RCMP (and the local cops, who are more lax, but whose culture is still deeply rooted in the national Mountie culture) bust someone is a revelation. Their language is extremely polite, even solicitous. "Please step over here, sir." "OK, now watch your head as you get into the vehicle. Thanks." "I'm going to need you to put your hands behind your back now." There is no disrespect. After all: these are still Her Majesty's citizens, and they are still presumed innocent. Their rights, and their humanity, must be respected.
This professionalism doesn't hurt their crime-busting efforts in the least. In fact: it enhances them, because they're much more trusted by the general run of citizens. That trust makes their jobs vastly easier. It also hugely reduces the amount of trauma inflicted on their arrestees -- trauma that can take years to get past, and may have everything to do with recidivism rates.
I suspect a Canadian cop caught swearing at a citizen would face serious repercussions. This is not how professional law enforcement ever behaves toward the people it serves.
While I agree in principle with Prof McWhorter's suggestion, I'm wondering how this would go in the high-stress situations that are more common in the USA than here in Australia (barring the ambush in Queensland) or, I presume, in Canada. If officers are approaching suspects with histories of armed violence and perhaps drug use, they will be scared (admitted or not) and will want to surprise and shock their targets to disorient them to give themselves an edge.
I don't know how e.g. SWAT teams are trained but special forces are highly (and expensively) trained and equipped to execute these sorts of surprise and shock tactics when tasked with the apprehension of armed opponents.
My point here is that a high degree of procedural training and practice seems necessary to develop the emotional control and skills in execution that are displayed by special forces. They are also at the top of rigorous selection processes.
In the USA it seems that a "simple" traffic stop can present officers with a believable threat of armed reaction. I know that when I've needed to act while existentially afraid, that energy has reliably produced violent language. It seems to me that moving US police forces to a level of skills that reliably suppresses profanity in potentially life-threatening situations will require much training and perhaps unrealistic levels of selection and ongoing training.
Thank you for this nuanced view of this issue John. There is a difference between a swear word used in frustration when you are woking alone, one used among friends having a lively conversation, and one used in a way that is threatening or demeaning. The person who uses any of these forms almost always knows what they are doing, and in their professional role I believe police officers have a responsibility to do the right thing in potentially dangerous situations.
We seem to have lost the incentive and our ability to distinguish between what is sacred and what is profane. Policing involves a sacred duty, to serve and protect, ipso facto, police officers should avoid the use of profanity when carrying out their responsibilities. Furthermore, the use of profanity has become so commonplace in our everyday lives that it has lost much of its impact.
To me the most surprising feature in the increasing frequency of the f...word in everyday speech is its use as a superlative. “F..ing great” conveys greatness greater than really great, greatness raised to another magnitude. The f at the start of the word flings the sound into the air the way flicking your index finger against the back of your thumb can propel a cough drop across a table to someone in need of it. And the k-sound breaks off the word with a full glottal stop. This superlative packs punch.
I watched the documentary John McWhorter mentions after hearing him and Glenn Loury discuss it on their podcast. It's a film with powerful resonance that raises many questions and provokes much thought. Among the reactions I had was that the bodycam footage to which McWhorter refers is the best argument to be made for de-escalation training. Loud voices, abrupt orders, cursing--as I remember some of it, "Hands on the wheel! Hands on the wheel! Get your hands on the fucking wheel!"--could only have further upset an obviously confused and frightened Floyd. So yes, I agree. Perhaps things could have been different.
That said, I think there is more to be said. Several friends, both of them white, middle-aged to elderly, middle- to upper-middle class women have complained to me during the past few years about being barked at by police during a traffic stop. One said she thought the cop, a woman, was afraid. I noticed a drawn gun at the edge of the bodycam frame from which we first see Floyd in his car; once Floyd puts his hands on the steering wheel, the gun disappears, presumably holstered. A bit later, Floyd pleads, "Don't shoot me!" and a cop replies in much more normal, calmer tone, "No one's going to shoot you." I suspect the level of tension felt by the cops, the need to see both of Floyd's hands, came out in their tone and language. Given the vast array of weapons freely available in this country, how much does working on a daily basis with the possibility of violence affect police behavior towards all citizens? This is not to excuse harshness, but it is to argue that trying to imagine what it's like to do their job is important. The world in which cops work is a often a four-letter world. Emphasis on politeness and non-confrontational communication skills is in order, but it won't take the guns off the streets.
On a more positive note, I was in one of the downtown Philadelphia train stations this morning and noticed a uniformed cop, presumably there for extra security. A man went up to him, maybe to ask a question, maybe they knew each other. They talked for a while. As the man left, the cop waved and called out a friendly comment. The cop was black, the man white. It's important to encourage change, and it's important to remember that when cops meet the public, it isn't always ugly.
Thank you for this. I have seen my share of reality cop shows and videos, and they typically scream at the top of their lungs, all at once, things like “get the fuck down on the ground!” “Don’t fucking move!” It’s the “i’m the more dangerous thug than you” shock and awe approach, which hardly conveys any kind of care or professionalism.
It has always been astonishing to me, and one of the most arrant signs of the difference between our two countries divided by a common language. As a Briton grown up in England I was used to coppers being constantly extremely respectful (formally) with the public, the suspects, and the people they arrested. The unbroken rule until at least the early 2000 (I cannot swear that the atmosphere has not changed at all) was that they called every adult person they interacted with in the discharge of their duties, sir or madam.
It seems silly perhaps to those outside that bubble, but that formality makes a great difference. First because it is trained, and it is trained towards the ingrained awareness that a policeman is in service to the community. Secondly because, just try to shout at, bully, and cuss at someone while calling them "sir" -- it can be done, I am sure, but it is difficult.
On the other hand, police officers in the UK do not carry firearms either (if guns are needed, there are specially trained squads for that). So it is vastly a matter of cultural differences. The general behaviour of the police -- and of the other law enforcement officers, including border guards -- that entitlement constantly bordering on threat, the patent desire of having people cower in front of them, is the second main reason why I could not stand living in the US (and San Francisco of all places) despite having married an American.
I know it sounds dismissing and patronising on my part. But I have never managed tor wrap my mind around the reality of a society of such advanced civilisation being so irredeemably violent.
I suspect that the police reflects the society of which it is part. And so I suspect that it is unlikely that the police in America will become less violent (and aggressive and disrespectful) unless the American society as a whole becomes less violent.
But perhaps, starting with the introduction of some compulsory formality like sir/madam in the training of officers could be a step forward.
I lived for seven years in Canada, which is known for having the best police force on earth.
One of their key understandings of their job is that they are wielding force on behalf of the Crown. In other words: the Queen (until last year). Their power is her power. They shouldn't do anything with it that the Queen wouldn't do.
And HRH Lilibet would certainly have never yelled F-bombs at her loyal subjects.
Watching the RCMP (and the local cops, who are more lax, but whose culture is still deeply rooted in the national Mountie culture) bust someone is a revelation. Their language is extremely polite, even solicitous. "Please step over here, sir." "OK, now watch your head as you get into the vehicle. Thanks." "I'm going to need you to put your hands behind your back now." There is no disrespect. After all: these are still Her Majesty's citizens, and they are still presumed innocent. Their rights, and their humanity, must be respected.
This professionalism doesn't hurt their crime-busting efforts in the least. In fact: it enhances them, because they're much more trusted by the general run of citizens. That trust makes their jobs vastly easier. It also hugely reduces the amount of trauma inflicted on their arrestees -- trauma that can take years to get past, and may have everything to do with recidivism rates.
I suspect a Canadian cop caught swearing at a citizen would face serious repercussions. This is not how professional law enforcement ever behaves toward the people it serves.
While I agree in principle with Prof McWhorter's suggestion, I'm wondering how this would go in the high-stress situations that are more common in the USA than here in Australia (barring the ambush in Queensland) or, I presume, in Canada. If officers are approaching suspects with histories of armed violence and perhaps drug use, they will be scared (admitted or not) and will want to surprise and shock their targets to disorient them to give themselves an edge.
I don't know how e.g. SWAT teams are trained but special forces are highly (and expensively) trained and equipped to execute these sorts of surprise and shock tactics when tasked with the apprehension of armed opponents.
My point here is that a high degree of procedural training and practice seems necessary to develop the emotional control and skills in execution that are displayed by special forces. They are also at the top of rigorous selection processes.
In the USA it seems that a "simple" traffic stop can present officers with a believable threat of armed reaction. I know that when I've needed to act while existentially afraid, that energy has reliably produced violent language. It seems to me that moving US police forces to a level of skills that reliably suppresses profanity in potentially life-threatening situations will require much training and perhaps unrealistic levels of selection and ongoing training.
Thank you for this nuanced view of this issue John. There is a difference between a swear word used in frustration when you are woking alone, one used among friends having a lively conversation, and one used in a way that is threatening or demeaning. The person who uses any of these forms almost always knows what they are doing, and in their professional role I believe police officers have a responsibility to do the right thing in potentially dangerous situations.
We seem to have lost the incentive and our ability to distinguish between what is sacred and what is profane. Policing involves a sacred duty, to serve and protect, ipso facto, police officers should avoid the use of profanity when carrying out their responsibilities. Furthermore, the use of profanity has become so commonplace in our everyday lives that it has lost much of its impact.
To me the most surprising feature in the increasing frequency of the f...word in everyday speech is its use as a superlative. “F..ing great” conveys greatness greater than really great, greatness raised to another magnitude. The f at the start of the word flings the sound into the air the way flicking your index finger against the back of your thumb can propel a cough drop across a table to someone in need of it. And the k-sound breaks off the word with a full glottal stop. This superlative packs punch.