Policing is dangerous. No matter how well trained or equipped officers are, there is a risk of injury and death with every encounter. Each officer must find a way to psychologically manage the ever-present threat in order to do their job.
A very effective way of doing that has been to adopt the identity of a noble warrior. This identity perfectly meets the need for a tough and resilient mindset to face danger and survive a deadly encounter. While every person a cop encounters on the street represents a potential threat—their fellow officers represent safety. Belonging to the exclusive brotherhood of warriors, whose members have each other’s back no matter what, is equally important—especially in the current social environment where cops feel under attack, not just on the street, but every time they turn on the news.
I think the concept of the “warrior” has been promoted in training and embraced by so many cops because it meets a legitimate need. So why then do we need the nauseating, politically correct term “guardian?”
Guardian & Warrior
The term “warrior” has a very honorable meaning to nearly everyone I know in law enforcement—its nobility is understood at a visceral level. Unfortunately, however, the public does not share that understanding. And here lies the crux of the problem. They don’t know what it’s like to do a job with the constant threat of injury and death hanging over their head. In fact, many in the public see the image of a “warrior” as an antagonistic bully.
Feeding this misperception are those in the media who constantly seek images of conflict to exploit in pursuit of ratings and “clicks” in the polarizing world of social media. This image of the warrior cop—dressed for battle, obscuring any glimpse of the human being inside the protective gear—has intensified the perception of a battle of “us against them,” and you have to pick a side.
We must acknowledge that some in our ranks have themselves bought into and perpetuate the antagonistic image of the warrior. Some trainers have over-emphasized the “us-against-them” dimension of warrior culture, thinking they are making new recruits safer. Ironically, as veteran cops know through experience, an antagonistic “us-against-them” attitude sets new officers up for greater resistance and therefore greater risk of injury. In a training environment, the “us-against-them” culture (drill sergeant vs. grunt) gets in the way of effectively learning complex skills and decision making.
For many of these reasons I began using the term “guardian” in our police training in Washington State, trying to make a distinction between the ROLE of police and their SKILLS. It helped our trainers better demonstrate the balance required in the multi-dimensional role of police—toughness and resiliency while serving and protecting.
We don’t present it to our recruits as having choose between being a warrior OR a guardian. We present it as two dimensions of a complete police officer. In fact, we ratcheted up defensive tactics and firearms training to increase the skills and confidence of recruits so they didn’t feel the need to use intimidation as a substitute for skills.
Unfortunately, I did not effectively communicate this distinction to cops outside the academy, the training officers on the front line. A huge mistake on my part. As you would expect, when word got around, a lot of cops interpreted the term guardian to be a kinder, gentler, more politically correct version of a warrior. To make matters worse, about a year after we implemented this approach, Ferguson happened. This just fed the misperception that the guardian concept was nothing more than a knee-jerk reaction of political correctness to the inflammatory media hype.
Here’s the irony. Decent, constructive community members and leaders who support cops and “law and order,” love the term guardian because they interpret it the way most cops interpret the term warrior! And they interpret the term warrior as antagonistic and “us against them.” The community that supports us wants to be protected by strong, decisive, fair cops. Simply put, they just want you to fight crime and not be an ass#$%@! I would have made this our academy motto if I thought I could get it past my commission.
Conclusion
In this day and age we need the support of the public and policymakers that decide what resources should be dedicated to public safety and how our actions should be scrutinized. If we are secure enough in our toughness and nobility to use words that the public understands and supports, we might someday find the kind of support that the guys in the shiny red trucks get, between video games and cooking the next meal.
Did Dmitri write that headline?
No I did not! But thanks for thinking of me. I am tickled pink. May be, I am making a difference. Probably not.
Good advice!
As seen in a lot of urban, left leaning, democrat controlled cities the problem lies more with the constituency being served, the cop-hating media and their agenda, and the command staff willing to throw officers under the bus at the first hint of controversy. If you asked most cops, they couldn’t care less about labels, they just want to get through the day without having to do anything involving a use of force, and simply go from call to call, and do nothing in the way of pro-active police work, nobody wants to be the next Ferguson cop. The public are the ones that need the educating, using force on someone is never pretty, but when it happens officers need an administration to quickly back them up publicly in the media, which rarely happens in those liberal environs. Warrior, guardian, who cares what label is used, veteran cops see right through that BS, how supportive are the top brass and politicians when the chips are down and outcries from the media and special interest groups with racial agendas are raining down on them. Do they come out and vigorously defend the cops when they did the right thing? I’ve yet to see that in any democrat controlled city, which is why the de-policing movement is as strong as ever. Here’s a label that works: Survivor.
Oh FFS. This is such a brain dead word salad I lost IQ points as if I were listening to Billy Madison. While I must say I am glad you acknowledge your error in the way you presented/sold the nomenclature change, there is a MUCH larger problem. LE “leadership” (which most are not; darned few are even competent managers) have completely failed in their duty to contribute intelligently to the discourse about LE authority and the legitimacy of imposing control on those who need it; refuting the crazies like Wexler and Balko; and explaining the actual Constitutional and statutory standards. There is very little actual discussion of the actual standards of the law; of the types of risks offenders present that justify the use of force, especially the highest levels of use of force; the reality that force just looks ugly if done correctly, but that does not make the force wrong; the nature of the offender population and how they differ from the experiences and conduct of decent people; the rarity of actual uses of force, again, especially the highest levels. You have not been part of the solution, but part of the problem. A serving officer of any rank who has done what you did should be fired with alacrity, because they are well past derelict. They are to leadership what Syrup of Ipecac is to a good meal.
This is typical of the majority of the I-5 corridor from Blaine to San Diego. Although not restricted to there, it makes a great example. We have the completely asinine and unjustified consent decree in Seattle; the general fabrications of DOJ about that and many other events, compounded by the ignorant comments from the AG (Ferguson, like all of his predecessors in office regardless of party during my time in WA, is a buffoon who does not know what he does not know); the unrefuted bogus claims from plaintiff’s counsel in cases like the skateboard event in Olympia and the shooting in Pasco and many others across the country; there is a war on society’s legitimate interest in policing and other means of control of bad people who do bad things. Seattle is becoming even more of an unlivable hellhole as a result of this.
Recruits are coming out of the academy completely unprepared mentally for what they will do and face. I’ve been told that by both recruits and FTOs – they have been so damaged that many cannot be remediated. While I am not a fan of the military style BS, there are skills needed to prepare recruits mentally and physically that are not negotiable.
To piggyback on some of the comments, below, I would add the following:
1. Police “leadership” is too often more concerned about checking all the specious boxes such as CALEA certification rather than spending the time and money to teach Peace Officers how to make better decisions under stress. Effective situational training exercises with non-lethal training aids (E.g., Sims or UTM) take time and money. Moreover, the skills learned are perishable; they need to be relearned with persistent, effective training;
2. Police “leadership” seemingly would rather attend a State funeral for a slain officer than confront the lies spread by BLM;
3. Police “leadership” needs to become Virtuous Leaders (Competent, Courageous, Self-Controlled and Just) who have the wisdom and moral fortitude to stand by their officers when the BLM storm blows into town. A good example of such leadership is former FBI Director Louis Freeh. The first substantive thing he did when he became Director was to amend their Use of Force policy to firmly stand behind Graham v. Connor (not just parrot it as many policies do). Cops see through political animals. Police leaders need to forget about their precious positions and stand by good cops who make errors not out of malice and only punish those who willfully and knowingly abuse their authority.
Sue Rahr, if you are reading this, I want you to know that you alone are responsible for all the negative feedback that you have received these past couple of years. Nobody misunderstood you or misread your previous statements. We got you right the first time. Your hug a thug and leftist philosophies are seen by us real cops as the nonsense that they are. But of greater concern is the fact that your philosophies are only going to empower the criminals and get rookie officers hurt or killed.
I would tell you that you should be ashamed of yourself, but I doubt your ego allows you the capacity for that.
I must say Ms. Rahr, that I read your article twice. I come away with this: I screwed up and I am being legitimately criticized for it and I am writing this to show you officers and deputies out there I do know what I am talking about. I am affiliated with a para-military style academy that is one of the longest in California and one of the most highly regarded academies in this state, if not the nation. 6 months long, physically demanding, but the level of academic, practical and scenario based training is without equal. The recruits are introduced to stress the first day but gee! It gets easier day after day and all of the running, testing and practice turns out rookies with strong foundational skills in both officer safety AND interpersonal skills that every cop needs. They do it without fanfare and they do it without experimentation or following the latest politically correct trends, they do it with fact-based adult learning techniques, assessments of results and changing curriculum to fit those assessments and changes in law and policies. In other words, they change because facts, not feelings, drive the change. I have been a cop then an educator teaching future cops going on 40 years now. I’ve seen many changes over those years and few, if any, are around for the long term. I have read your articles and interviews and I have had misgivings after seeing others talk about the results of your training. Cops aren’t warriors, true. Cops are also not guardians either. They are law enforcement professionals and first responders. De-escalation training? It happens, in real life, everyday. All you are doing is making new officers second guess themselves where it matters, the street.
Asking a cop NOT be an a-hole or a d-bag, while on duty, is like asking a fish to breathe air. It is part of the job as it is trained.
Here is an example.
“Pull out , and hand me your ID, insurance, and registration, AND KEEP YOUR HANDS IN OPEN VIEW!” Clearly an idiotic command, given by an -hole d-bag cop, in such a manner , as to make compliance, impossible, without raising danger to the motorist.
Cars are not made out of glass, and neither are people. So how does one comply with officer command(not a request) that is inherently non-compliable without giving officer plausible, reasonable, legally speaking, cause to shoot.
This is a real life actual situation.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gJNe5A7-k8c