Fear, Society, and the Police

Dale L. June

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2019
• Print ISBN: 9780367246099
• eBook ISBN: 9781000022353
• Topic: Politics & International Relations
• Subtopic: Social Policy
• Index: Politics & International Relations

Fear, Society, and the Police examines elements of fear and how they can be controlled and turned into an effective and proper response in an emergency situation. Readers of this book will be exposed to ways fear can become an uncontrolled emotion, often leading to unnecessary acts of violence, and will examine ways and means of using reasoning to overcome unfounded fear.

The author encourages readers to critically assess circumstances in today's society that have caused fear, unrest, and division between the enforcers of law and the people they are sworn to protect. Providing examples of how violence in society has had an impact on police–community relations, this book examines the many facets of fear from several perspectives, including historical, personal, and institutional. Security management courses concentrate on the "how and why" of security, yet to become an effective professional security specialist it is recommended the practitioner become educated in the nuances of fear. This book presents a look into the how and why of fear, and will relate to security personnel as it does to police officers.

The book brings perspectives based on reality and experience. It will be of interest not only to those who work in law enforcement, but also to students in criminal justice, management and leadership, psychology, and sociology courses. As violence in society escalates, professionalism will require more understanding of fear-based emotions.

1

FEAR, SOCIETY, AND THE POLICE

In a February 1788 letter to Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Paine discussed the difference between natural law and civil rights with a balance of security. His explanation depicted an example of 20 strangers arriving in a completely uninhabited country. Each claimed his own sovereign land where he could do as he pleased, whenever he pleased; he was his own law. Each was in complete control of his own sovereignty in his own natural rights.

Each sovereign recognized one commonality, the fear of invasion, and power from each other or of the remaining 19. To guard against invasion, a contract or compact treaty joined all together in a union. To make it work every sovereign had to surrender certain rights for the sake of security, in return the compact guarantied certain rights, defined as civil rights.¹ Those rights were included in the U.S. Constitution as the Bill of Rights, our written guarantee against the government taking away personal rights.

How much freedom and liberty must we forfeit in the name of security and “domestic tranquility”² caused by “nameless, unreasoning, unjustified fear and terror”? Cameras and monitored surveillance, complex identification systems, security alarms and 24-hours a day monitoring, private police, schools that look like prisons with high fences, walls, and armed guards, restricted movement of persons convicted of certain crimes, fortified and walled planned communities, locked down and restricted entrances to apartment buildings, metal detectors in public buildings. The list grows daily, all because of fear in society. This is far beyond what Thomas Paine declared to Thomas Jefferson. Yes, times have changed, but sacrificing liberty for security is not new.

Fear of the Unknown

“Fear of the unknown.” That statement has rung through every person’s mind at one time or another.

Someone once told me that none of us is actually afraid of the dark; we’re scared of what it conceals from us. We’re afraid of having something with the potential to hurt us standing right before our eyes and not registering it as a threat.

Lyn Burdick

Fear of the unknown is what led Man to religion, a belief in finding a way to explain the unknown or unknowable. The key word in the statement “fear of the unknown” is fear. There are many ways to combat fear and one of the ways is based on past experiences of fear. Someone who has experienced combat is less likely to be fearful of a potential attacker than someone whose life has been more sheltered. When I am afraid, I will conquer my fear.

Experience of the unknown causes fear, which then triggers an emotional response creating a feeling of a loss of security and alarm about the potential of injury or death. I will make the unknown known. We human beings have a psychological need and natural right to feel secure and free. President Franklin Roosevelt, in an address to Congress in 1941, said, “We look forward to a world founded upon four essential freedoms: First is the freedom of speech and expression, the second is freedom of every person to worship God in his own way. The third is freedom from want … The fourth is freedom from fear.”³

In Abraham Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, the need for security ranks just above the physiological needs of air, food, sleep, and sex. In a world of seven billion people and unpredictable forces of nature and activities of Man, security and safety are always temporary.

When the feeling of security or the freedom from fear is threatened, we will do anything to get it back. Unfortunately, these actions can have unfavorable consequences. Fear can make us do many things that we would not normally do. Fear is a type of stimulation; for example, to strike out in unreasonable force and rage. Police work requires an assertive personality nearly by definition. Yet fear, if not controlled, can quickly escalate assertiveness into aggression when an officer claims to be “afraid for my life.” In these instances, an officer may respond with unreasonable and unnecessary force to take away a person’s freedom or life. An increase in aggression has had a great impact on the public and the police; with the police being widely reported as using unnecessary force, including the use of lethal violence. Naturally this has led to much distrust and public aggression against the police and departmental policies.

A long time ago when I was a young police officer in Redding, California, for some reason, long forgotten, a patrol officer attempted to stop a “suspicious” car at about 2:00 a.m. (probably drunk?). The driver didn’t stop and a pursuit began. North of town to the South, East to West, and back again, side streets, main street; several cars in the chase, sirens screaming, red lights flashing. This continued for about half an hour until the driver finally stopped. When asked at the police station why he didn’t stop, he replied, “I was afraid to, some people were chasing me.”

The interesting fact is that no guns were drawn, the man wasn’t thrown to the ground and handcuffed spread-eagled on the pavement. He didn’t “move his hand toward his waist” and no officer was “afraid for my life.” Times have indeed changed. In today’s world, the same scenario probably would have played out with the eluding driver being forced to lie face down on the gravelly pavement, spread-eagled and handcuffed with both hands behind his back while being approached by several officers with guns drawn. Any slight movement other than compliance to the officers’ commands to “get down and keep your hands where we can see them,” could easily place his life in danger.

Instances of police violence and shootings often come from insecurity and feelings of fear by the police officer; fear often generated by the perspective of dealing with a person of color. It may not be racism as often recognized, but fear caused by ignorance and suspicion of the “Other race.” A common theme in most police shootings is, “I was in fear for my life” and “He made a movement toward his waistband.” Granted, police work is, by definition, dangerous and any incident may and can suddenly erupt into violence and death. Danger lurks in every contact police have, but fear must reside way in the back of their minds and not overtly control their reactions and responses. “Violence is not power or righteous, it is merely the sign of a limited mind” (Mark James, President of Panther Protection).

Perhaps police are “over-sensitized” to danger in their training. Officer training results in a form of mental conditioning leading to a belief that officer safety is paramount in any engagement with the public. Spending hours and days on a shooting range, the trainer’s emphasis of the dangers an officer is bound to face, and simulated scenarios involving guns and other deadly weapons, can cause subtle changes in the thinking and mindset of officers regardless of whether they are newly graduated from the academy or seasoned veterans.

We have to learn to separate fear from actual danger; simply, because an officer is fearful, it doesn’t mean another person has to die. If an officer or a member of the public is in immediate danger of severe bodily harm or death, it may warrant a deadly force response by the officer. But fear in the absence of real danger (action versus anxiety) is too low a threshold for the application of deadly force.

During any encounter with the police it seems more people are there to record the incident rather than using a helping hand to get the situation under control. One type of incident that always garners attention is the encounter when the police must use force to effect an arrest. There are a several questions that lead up to the arrest before force is used in most cases. Why is the officer detaining or attempting to detain that person? Why is the officer using force? Why is that person resisting arrest? Was the force that the officer used reasonable and necessary under the totality of the circumstances?

Training

Training must include defenses against bladed weapons and firearms complete with de-escalation and submission methods such as calm voice control, assurance of no one getting hurt, humor, throwing a blanket over or wrapping the person holding the knife and other non-lethal methods. It is an accepted fact that a person with a gun and/or knife presents a dangerous situation and places the officer in a life or death circumstance. It is a highly tense and emotional moment. In those instances, officers must control their fear and show none. Even though they have been trained to use lethal force when necessary, other tactics should be a progression until they employ the last resort of using deadly means.

A common misconception between the public and law enforcement is that all officers are trained fighters. The officers receive hours of combative tactics in the course of their academic training, but not always sufficient to counter someone bigger, stronger, faster, and perhaps better trained. It has been proven over and over again that a fully trained martial artist can be defeated by a street-tough thug. A police officer, though highly trained, may meet that same street-tough thug.

In the “heat of the moment” times when officers find themselves in a physical fight with an aggressive person they must react instantly and efficiently to subdue their attacker before the fight escalates to a level requiring the use of lethal weapons. Officers must rely on their own training and strength. In a crisis situation or when under stress, people will instinctively revert to the way they were trained, but will operate at a high percentage below their “training” efficiency. “Unarmed defensive tactics” are a required talent that officers must be able to call forth under emotional circumstances often driven by fear. Law enforcement officers need a basic combative method that is easy to master and use under stressful circumstances. They must be trained to learn efficient methods of turning a difficult situation to their advantage. They must gain the mental and physical confidence that they can conquer their fear as well as their emotions, and therefore their opponent.

Typically, officers receive approximately 40 hours of training in the subject of defensive tactics. This training is spread over a period of approximately 26 weeks. Training topics covered and performed are searching techniques, hand-cuffing techniques, punching and kicking, less lethal options, weapon retention, and ground fighting. An officer fresh out of the academy does not have significant real life experience when it comes to defending himself or herself. Most often the new, freshly graduated, officer has never been in a serious fight, never taken a blow to the face and surely has never faced an opponent with a real weapon. It is some officers’ opinion that too much time is spent on learning penal codes rather than doing practical exercises or scenario-based training. Often citizens and officers refer to the material on their duty belt as “tools.” These “tools” are merely pieces of equipment if the officer is not proficient in how and when to use them.

When it comes to use of force, the police are trained to attempt to deescalate the situation first. This is accomplished simply by talking someone down, utilizing good interpersonal skills. This is the common theme when it comes to police interaction with a subject who is less than cooperative. By statutory law, when an officer has probable cause to believe that the person to be arrested has committed a public offense, he or she may use reasonable force to effect the arrest. Reasonable in whose eyes? This is where the public generally gets it wrong. Reasonable is typically based on the “reasonable officer standard”; weighing the totality of the circumstances and opinion from an officer with training and experience.

Many times when officers have to use force it is because of the lack of control over the person they are attempting to arrest. The lack of control comes from an officer uncertain or doubtful in his or her abilities. Officers are taught to use a “command voice,” meaning

the voice must have carrying power, but excessive exertion is unnecessary and harmful. A typical result of trying too hard is the almost unconscious tightening of the neck muscles to force sound out. This produces strain, hoarseness, sore throat, and worst of all, indistinct and jumbled sounds instead of clear commands. Ease is achieved through good posture, proper breathing, correct adjustment of throat and mouth muscles, and confidence.⁴

When in a stressful circumstance, such as facing a non-compliant individual (perhaps wielding a weapon), the officer’s voice might rise to a shrill, high, piercing level, displaying a general lack of confidence, uncertainty, and fear. Naturally, this raises the level of fear, confusion, or indecision on the part of the non-complying party. This creates a tense situation that could easily devolve into a violent exchange.

What it boils down to is a ticking time bomb when a seasoned criminal comes in contact with a hesitant officer. Any person that doesn’t want to be arrested or contacted will exploit every possible avenue they can to evade, escape, or resist.

An officer must make a quick decision, based on the totality of the circumstances whether or not he or she will use force to effect an arrest. To overcome fear and doubt, an officer may react in an overly aggressive manner, resulting in inappropriate force. The force that is used generally will be broken down into three categories to determine if the force used is reasonable. The seriousness of the offense, the threat to the public, and the threat to the officer.

In the public’s eyes, they only see a small glimpse of what is or has taken place. If the public sees an officer using force on...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Dedication
• Table of Contents
• About the Author
• Acknowledgments
• Foreword
• Introduction
• 1. Fear, Society, and the Police
• 2. Introduction to Fear
• 3. Antecedents of Fear
• 4. Handling Fear
• 5. Fearful Societies of the Past
• 6. Fear in Contemporary Society
• 7. Living in a World of Fear
• 8. Terror and Fear of the Unknown
• 9. Modern Society and the Police
• 10. Victims and Fear of Violent Crime
• 11. Fear and the News Media
• 12. Mean Streets and Shootings
• 13. Anger and Fear
• 14. Police Subculture and Personality
• 15. Racism or Fear?
• 16. Reality and the Brain
• 17. PTSD in Law Enforcement and Counter Viewpoints of Policing
• 18. Final Concluding Thoughts of Social Psychology and Fear
• Index