The Portland Police Bureau is considering whether to reduce its educational requirements for police officers to help attract more people to the bureau. That's strange, isn't it, when you consider that these are middle-class jobs with great benefits?
So why are police agencies all over the nation having problems recruiting young people? Apparently, young people today aren't naive. They're not interested in putting themselves in danger for the benefit of strangers when those same strangers will demand they be fired if they perform their duties as trained but the results aren't up to the community's standards of kindness.
Case in point: Portland Mayor Tom Potter recently decided to fire a police officer for shooting and killing a car thief who was backing his car at the officer, turning the stolen vehicle into a deadly weapon. The mayor's stated reason was that the officer hadn't followed procedure, even though the district attorney's office and a grand jury both determined that the officer acted legally. The mayor's objection, of course, is a ruse. Even Police Chief Rosie Sizer refused to sign on to the canard. Potter, like city leaders before him, is responding to a liberal constituency that rises in outrage every time a citizen is injured or killed by police. But here's the dirty little secret: Police officers are trained to aggressively respond to criminals. City leaders condone this training because they're under intense pressure -- from business and neighborhood groups and the media -- to suppress crime. And suppressing crime requires the aggressive investigation of suspicious circumstances. The fact is that aggressive police behavior often causes individuals engaging in criminal acts to respond violently. And violence on the part of criminals must be met with overwhelming force, or criminals soon learn that if they escalate the violence of an encounter with police, they can escape arrest and prosecution. Unfortunately, Portland's police officers ply their trade in a city full of people who abhor violence to the extent that they believe the police should never harm anyone.
If city leaders really wanted the police to change their behavior, it would be simple to do. The mayor could simply make clear to the police chief that he wants officers to avoid deadly force at all costs. He could demand that officers be trained to approach all situations in a non-confrontational manner and to retreat when faced with potential violence.
Of course, if he did so, crime would run rampant. So instead, we sacrifice individual officers on a case-by-case basis.
In this shooting case, the police union will almost certainly be able to convince an unbiased arbitrator that the officer acted correctly -- at a cost of tens of thousands of dollars to the city. Of course, the stress on the officer and his wife will cause problems for years. His family will be embarrassed. His non-police friends will avoid him, and his children will be taunted at school. And more officers will be convinced to look the other way at criminal behavior.
How many times does this opera have to play itself out in Portland? The tragedy is that the mayor could end it. One mayor willing to explain to people what is required to suppress crime in the city. One mayor willing to explain that police work cannot be performed without occasional fatal violence.
That would take integrity and moral courage.