“Public Perceptions of Police: The Uniform"

 

“Public Perceptions of Police: The Uniform

       In my article on Constructive Force, I maintained that the mere presence of police officers can affect the behavior of those around them. It was my intent to demonstrate that high visibility police presence during patrol has an overall positive effect on the community, especially when an officer displays a professional and helpful attitude.

This past week, an ice cream vendor in Detroit publicly set a store policy that officers wearing body armor would not be served in his establishment. He believes that the presence of an officer clad in what he describes as “heavy duty tactical gear” is unsettling, and alters the family friendly atmosphere he was promoting for his customers.

https://www.fox2detroit.com/news/ice-cream-store-promises-to-deny-service-to-detroit-police-officers-for-wearing-body-armor

I have noticed that officers wearing this type of uniform and equipment hold a different body stance and demeanor. It is more aggressive, less open, and overall places the officer in an otherwise adversarial posture. This runs counter to the concept of constructive force that along with discouraging the lawbreaker, the officer welcomes and is ready to assist the public.

The owner of the establishment published the following statement:

 "There are times when police units come through and are outfitted in heavy-duty tactical gear, it is disturbing and unsettling for some of the families in our space. In the last 24 hours, it has come to my attention that the City of Detroit outfits EMS and FIRE (sic) with armor, and this is not my concern. It’s the heavy-duty military dress that I’m hoping the city can find a way to minimize in our public spaces." Tim Mahoney

       Here is Mr. Mahoney’s post:

 

The inset caption reads “We will tolerate the parking however you please, but we will not serve anyone wearing body armor.”

In a statement, Detroit Police Department Chief James White criticized Mr. Mahoney, calling his post “shameful and apparently unprovoked”.

The only thing I see shameful is an illegally parked police vehicle.

Chief White also stated “Law enforcement is a dangerous profession. Body armor provides our officers protection and is an essential part of the police uniform. It is the desire of each and every member of the Detroit Police Department to fulfill their duties as a law enforcement officer and at the end of their shift return home to their loved ones.”

Yes, Chief, we all want to go home, including the officers in Texas responding to school shootings, but I digress.

       Mr. Mahoney never insinuated that officers should not wear protective equipment such as body armor. He was pointing out that the public reaction to it was affecting his business and he was taking steps to protect his customers. Chief White took a position that Mr. Mahoney was willing to sacrifice officer safety in favor of the comfort of his customers. This was never stated.

Clearly, there is a public reaction right in Detroit that verifies the findings of various studies that the wearing of such heavy-duty tactical gear, which Mr. Mahoney identified as ”Body Armor”, constitutes a negative constructive force. And Mr. Mahoney is expressing the opinion that the City of Detroit should find a way to minimize the negative effect he sees in his customers that prompted him to act. In the meantime, he is protecting his customers and his business from that force.

       For the record, I stand behind Mr. Mahoney and agree that a less aggressive uniform format must be found without sacrificing officer safety.

At my suggestion, Mr. Mahoney posted the following meme to illustrate his position on his business Facebook page. (Please note, this is a slightly different version of the meme than the one seen on Facebook. As they are essentially the same, it was of no real consequence).

        Overall, the reaction on Facebook was positive (208 likes, 115 Hearts, 8 Hugs, 2 Wows and 2 Tears and the time of this publication)

Several people however, after finding out I was the source of the meme, promptly forgot the real subject at hand and came after me instead. Several accused me of being “anti-police”, and one went so far as to be thankful I’m not a cop anymore. They criticized the accuracy of the drawing, as the officers aren’t wearing semi-automatic weapons on their backs. (School shooters are, but that’s not the point)

The fact remains. A clear indication that as members of the public Mr. Mahoney’s customers are being negatively affected by the overt military appearance and demeanor of the officers. As such, this verifies research that has been conducted.

https://www.fastcompany.com/90512090/the-twisted-psychology-of-militarized-police-uniforms

In the article, what has been recognized as a “dehumanizing” effect the uniform style has on those wearing it is noted. An officer in typical patrol uniform is clearly identifiable by a name tag, a metal badge with an identification number, and a less than confrontational stance leading the public to see them as a support system and not a threat. Seeing officers dressed for what appears to be a war that can break out any minute is going to have an unsettling effect on the public, because the uniform itself supports the idea in the wearer.

Fact: There has been an increase in the use of military style equipment and clothing by law enforcement. In 1990, Congress launched the “1033 Program” authorizing the use of surplus military equipment by law enforcement on state and local levels.

Since the 1033 program was enacted, the use of such equipment has filtered down to everyday uniform style. After police and public confrontations in Ferguson, Missouri in 2013, former President Barack Obama signed an executive order requiring police agencies to submit justification for the transfer and use of military surplus. Clearly, President Obama recognized a trend toward a more military stature and presence in police officers, and made an attempt to address it.

It may come as no surprise that former president Trump rolled back those regulations. Further, he posted on Twitter instructions for police to use “overwhelming force” and “domination” against protestors. He was referring to Black Lives Matter protestors, not the ones that attacked the Capitol, but it is not my intention to introduce politics to this issue.

Several individuals on Facebook seem to think that there is no alternative to the type of equipment officers must carry or the need for the external vest to carry it.

        My research and experience says otherwise.

According to sources at the New Jersey State Police, Troopers in normal patrol mode do not carry electronic weapons of any sort. They do wear body cameras. They patrol areas ranging from Interstates and the New Jersey Turnpike, to rural and unincorporated areas that do not have police agencies. And as required they wear body armor under their uniform shirts.

Here are members of the New Jersey State Police wearing the summer uniform: I should note this is the same uniform style the NJSP has used since before I graduated the NJSP academy in 1984.

This is the winter uniform:

 

       Clearly there is an alternative. The Detroit Police administration needs to recognize that the uniform policy may very well be contributing to their civil violence issue. The possibility that the officers have adapted an “us against them” attitude as a result must be examined and corrected if true. Clearly, it is the responsibility of any police agency to determine what causes civil unrest, no matter what it is, and take corrective action. If a change in uniform style without sacrificing officer safety can result in a lessening of tensions between the police and the public in Detroit, it is incumbent on the DPD to make any such change.