My mentor, Dr. W.E. Deming used to say, “Put a good person in a bad system and the system will win every time.” The latest cop fiasco with five Black men beating a young Black man to death no doubt has many people either scratching their heads or gloating. Those scratching their heads are trying to understand how it can be that so many officers would beat a helpless man to death. Those gloating are no doubt saying “See, it was Black cops beating one of ‘Their’ own to death.” Still others are saying that if it were White cops, they would not have been charged with anything. The problem with each of these perspectives is that they ignore the system. Police operate within a system. A bad system produces bad results. Let me explain further.
We need to start off by understanding what a system is. Some definitions that work for me are as follows:
1.
A set of things working together as parts of a mechanism or an interconnecting network.
“The state railroad system”
2.
A set of principles or procedures according to which something is done; an organized framework or method.
“The public school system”
3.
Deming defined a system as ‘a network of interdependent components that work together to try to accomplish the aim of the system. The aim for any system should be that everybody gains, not one part of the system at the expense of any other’
A friend of mine said that the purpose of a police system is to to protect and serve the public.
Systems can be very complex and difficult to understand. When I was doing my management consulting, I would often bring a large group of senior managers from a company together to chart or map the “system” that they worked in. This was usually a prelude to defining objectives and looking at “systemic” problems more wholistically. That is a way of saying I wanted them to see the big picture. We could do the same thing with any system. In what is a very cursory or limited analysis of a “police” system, I offer the following factors or components. These four factors make up a large portion of the system that police work in every day. I would like to explain each and give my thoughts on how they create the dysfunction that seems to be prevalent in so many law enforcement agencies. ‘
- Authoritarianism
- Exclusion
- Jeopardy
- Fascism
I do not claim that all police systems are dysfunctional. I also do not claim that cops do not have a very difficult and demanding job. There is perhaps no job in America that is more difficult than being a police officer. Nevertheless, parts of the police system while designed to protect officers have been and still are major sources of dysfunction.
- Authoritarianism
There is a saying that “Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” I speak from experience that many officers get corrupted by the power that the gun, badge and night stick welds. Growing up on a street corner society, I had my share of run in with cops. I was arrested before I was 18 for assault and battery and for felony larceny. This does not count my numerous other altercations with police for which I “escaped.” When I was young, I used to say that “The only good cop was a dead cop.” Later, my opinion changed 180 percent and I began to appreciate the need for good policing.
The problem though is that in many cases, police let the power that they are given go to their heads. This problem does not exist in isolation from the other factors that I will discuss but it is exacerbated by the tendency for police to think that they are above the law or that they do not have to answer to the public they serve. Many cops take umbrage at being questioned as they act like they have the absolute right to ask questions but not to answer them. How often have you heard in TV dramas the officer say, “I am asking the questions here.” The person who asks the question has the power and is the authority. The person answering is “powerless.” TV is not reality, but it reflects some of the attitudes that exist in law enforcement.
- Exclusion
Cops are for the most part isolated or segregated from the public. The old days of Officer O’Malley walking a beat and talking to kids and neighbors in a friendly demeanor no longer exists. Talk of “community policing” is for the most part a myth or a relic of a bygone age. We seldom see a cop unless we are in trouble, or we need something, or we are watching the 10 o’clock news.
Isolation is not a good thing. It creates an “us-them” atmosphere. We don’t see police as belonging to our neighborhood or as being “friends.” We view them with hostility and suspicion when they knock on our front doors. It does not matter whether they are Black and we are Black or whether they are White and we are White. They knock on our door and we immediately feel threatened.
- Jeopardy
A police officer is in life threatening jeopardy every single moment of every single day. Perhaps, never in history have cops been so threatened. Their lives are on the line twenty-four seven. A cop can be blown away going to a domestic dispute or merely stopping a car to give a ticket or a warning. The proliferation of weapons has made police more vulnerable. The bad guy always gets the chance to shoot first and the cop must give a warning before he/she shoots. It is easy to see why some cops go over the edge and shoot first without asking questions. I do not say that this is justified but how would you like to go out every day not knowing whether or not you would be shot dead by some crazy who had an AK 47 or a AR 15 or a Glock 17.
- Fascism
Before exploring this facet of law enforcement, we need to define fascism. One definition from Wikipedia is as follows:
“Fascism is a far-right, authoritarian, ultra-nationalist political ideology and movement, characterized by a dictatorial leader, centralized autocracy, militarism, forcible suppression of opposition.”
Police exist to protect the status quo. There are many who mock the “Golden Rule” with, “Those who have the gold make the rules.” Cops are on the side of the system that pays the bills. They protect the government against protestors, marchers, and often peaceful gatherings of citizens who they think pose a threat to “law and order.” They also protect the government, companies and society against rioters, looters, thieves and not so peaceful protestors.
The major problem with cops is that they are on the other side of the equation when it comes to social upheaval and change. They did not see Civil Rights as a necessary antidote to racism. They did not see the suffragettes as giving women the right and dignity to vote. They often were and still are on the other side of the union-management divide during strikes and labor protests. It would seem to many people that cops work for corporate America and not the citizens of America.
I have pointed out four elements that in many cases define law enforcement to many Americans. There are many other elements that make up the law enforcement system in the USA. I have written several other blogs on this subject. The four elements that I described are the most problematic and I think help to best answer the questions that this blog started with. “How could five Black officers beat a young Black man to death.”
If you follow what I am proposing, you can understand that these five men were “just doing their job” as the system defined it. I am sure that any one of these five men would define virtues that many would call exemplary. I have no reason to think that they were “bad” men wanting to do bad things. Caught up in a bad system, you and I would more than likely have done exactly what they did. You can argue this latter point with me. But in my experiences, I have seen too many “good” people do bad things when working in an environment that fostered either negative, immoral or unethical behaviors.
PS: I watched the video today (Jan 28) of the beating that Tyre Nichols received. At first, I did not want to watch the video. I have seen too many videos of police brutality in the past. They are sickening, sad, tragic and pitiful. I did not think that I could bear to watch yet another one. However, I did. I do not feel that I have the right to comment on such cases if I do not see what has actually happened.
The one thought that I got out of this video was that it could have been YOUR SON, Your FATHER, YOUR BEST FRIEND, YOUR MOTHER, YOU or ME that was on the ground and beaten to death. Tased, Confused, Disoriented, Maced, Kicked, Punched, and Battered, would you have run? Would you have been able to comply with commands screamed at you?
In my next blog, I will offer some ideas that might help to change the system. Changing the system is the only way to change results. Dr. Deming insisted that 94 percent of variations observed in workers’ performance levels have nothing to do with the workers. Instead, most performance problems are caused by the system, of which people are but a part. “People cannot perform better than the system allows”, which he explains in his book, “The New Economics.”
For further thoughts on this subject of police violence, an excellent article that I came across is
Next, let us establish a lethality of weapons. I will put it thus: fists are not as lethal as brass knuckles. Brass knuckles are not as lethal as clubs. Clubs are not as lethal as knives. Knives are not as lethal as guns. Handguns are not as lethal as rifles. The range of lethality that I have noted is “most” often true but there are always exceptions. Thus, I will say again, the lethality of the potential weapons structure I have described is most often the case but not always.
This cycle explains quite well what happens in many cases of gun violence or other types of violent outburst. In phase two, tensions are building up. This could be from a variety of different causes. It might be strains from the work place or strains from home relationships with family and children. The strains are often cumulative particularly with people who may lack the ability or means to discharge their stress. The stress builds up until the individual finally explodes. The explosion could be in words or actions. Actions might involve throwing things, punching things, hitting things or various levels of assault against things or people using a wide range of weapons.
Phase three is the incident itself. A trigger is needed to set the individual off. Perhaps the individual gets fired or their spouse asks for a divorce. Maybe they have a fight with a neighbor, or a car cuts them off at an intersection. When the trigger occurs, the individual explodes. The explosion could involve a violent attack that might go from simple threats or curses all the way to shooting someone. The availability of weapons will play a major role in the level of violence. This is one reason why a “waiting period” for purchasing a firearm makes a lot of sense. In two recent mass shootings, there was no waiting period for the purchase of a high-powered rifle and the individuals engaged in shooting massacres within a week of buying their rifles.
Many anti-gun control people push the solution that more mental health is needed. The problem with this solution is that anger and angry outbursts are as normal in the population as mom, God, and apple pie. There is no way to treat all the people in America who might lose their temper on a given day. There is no way to tell when or where these outbursts will take place. Therapy for “normal” people is not on the radar. Make no mistake, your best friend, your neighbor, your cousin just might “lose” it tomorrow and go on some type of violent jag that results in death for someone else. It happens all the time. The papers are full of reports of people who lose it and end up killing their loved ones and themselves.
The other solution is to reduce the availability or the lethality of guns in society. This solution makes the most sense. We can somewhat reduce the availability of weapons through background checks, waiting periods, age restrictions, gun training, and reducing the ability to carry a gun in public. We must get rid of these ridiculous concealed carry laws. It should be illegal to carry a gun in public concealed or otherwise unless you have a permit with a valid reason for why you need to carry a gun.
We can reduce the lethality of guns by limiting clip capacities and by eliminating rifles that were designed for military purposes and not hunting. Why anyone would need a rifle with more than a three round capacity is beyond me. Rifles should be for hunting or target shooting and nothing else. Any game that you are hunting will be gone long before you can chamber and fire your third round. A .223 caliber was first designed for the military in Vietnam. I had to qualify on an M-16 in 1965 when they were first issued. It was like shooting a bb gun. Easy to shoot with a round that was designed to wound and not kill. They said this would take two or more people out of the war instead of just one dead body. The individual shot by a .223 would be severely wounded and would need someone to take him back to a medic or out of the war zone. Read any of the gun magazines today and it looks like they are selling guns and accessories to someone who is going to war. Helmets, bullet proof vests, high-capacity magazines, laser sights and guns more fit for killing humans than hunting are touted and readily available.
This logic is simply bizarre. It is almost beyond comprehension. A rifle based on a cartridge designed during the Vietnam War is now touted as a “perfect” defense weapon. It sounds like every home should buy one. Americans live in a country where there is no protection from crime according to the NRA and gun manufacturers. The NRA kisses the asses of manufacturers to grab more and more power as they perform like Pied Pipers for their members. “Come along, buy a gun, protect your rights, protect your family and children. Don’t let the criminals make a victim of you.” The NRA is a monster that has metastasized on the fears of Americans. Politicians court the money and votes of NRA members to get re-elected knowing fear is a great motivator. To paraphrase a comment made by the Nazi Hermann Goering:
“The more guns we have the safer we will all be,” scream the gun fanatics. I have neighbors walking around in their yards with guns strapped on their hips. I often see shoppers in some stores sporting revolvers and automatics on their belts. Walmart’s has asked that shoppers do not open carry guns. Do you know why? It is because people get nervous when they see these idiots walking around with pistols on their belts. I worry more about being shot by one of these jerks than I do by some armed robber. In the event of a store robbery, I suspect I might be more likely to be shot by the so called “good guy with a gun.”
I admit that I have always liked guns, knives, rifles, and assorted military hardware. However, I like them in their place. Rifles for hunting when hunting is a sport and not a crap shoot like so much of it is today. Baiting bears with donuts and then shooting them from a tree perch does not seem very sporting to me. I like target shooting. I enjoy shooting some black powder pistols that I own. A friend gave me an old revolutionary style musket which is fun to shoot. I do not shoot at squirrels or birds or rabbits. I use it for target practice. I am not against hunting deer, elk, and other animals for food. Many people in rural areas depend on game animals to supplement their diets in lieu of costly meats at a grocery store.
I don’t know who might kill you. I don’t know when they might kill you. I don’t know why they might kill you. Best odds are that it will be totally random, and you will never see it coming. You will never know when it will happen. The statistics show that you have a 75 percent chance that if you are murdered it will be by a gun and not by poison or a knife. (
How then have we gone from sanity to insanity? From being able to walk down a street or go to work or school and not worry about some nut case coming in and killing us? When did America go from being a country with “Law and Order” to a country where everyone needs to carry a gun to protect themselves? How have we let the politicians, NRA and gun manufacturers convince everyone that it is not safe to walk outside without a concealed carry permit and a Glock or Smith & Wesson hidden someplace beneath our bullet proof vest?
I am a military veteran. I have hunted and shot a variety of rifles, revolvers and automatic weapons. I am not against guns. As an American, I am very concerned about the amount of gun violence in our country. However, I am even more concerned because too often it seems like the “Bad” guys win and the “Good” guys lose. Over the past twenty years, I have studied and read about many of the gun battles that have taken place in history. From cowboy shootouts, to holdups, to police shootouts such as the Newhall massacre and the Miami-Dade FBI debacle, I have read these stories in an attempt to find the underlying reasons for the good guys losing and the bad guys winning. My blog this week is about the risks and rewards that might accrue from carrying a gun. As with any tool or piece of technology, there are pros and cons to its use. In the case of guns, the nexus of these factors can be best characterized as “risk.” There is a risk. Carrying a gun is a risk. Not carrying a gun is a risk. What are the risks? When do the advantages outweigh the risks? These are the questions that my blog will look at this week. Hopefully, you will be able to make an informed decision about the issue of gun carry and gun control after you read my blog. Too many people are preaching the advantages of gun carry without looking at the risks and downsides.
It is a well known fact that in the Old West gun battle speed did not always determine the outcome of the encounter. Speed without accuracy is useless. Speed without firepower may also be useless. It is often said “do not bring a knife to a gun battle.” Nevertheless, deployment of a weapon and the speed with which a weapon can be deployed is a key factor in the success of a gun battle. Numerous scenarios show a knife fighter killing a gun fighter because within a certain distance, the knife fighter with a fixed blade weapon may trump the gun fighter owing to the speed of deployment. A key problem in home invasions may be the speed with which the homeowner can access and deploy his weapons. The invader may have the advantage because they come in with a weapon in hand while the responsible gun owner may have his gun in a locked safe. The invader will probably not wait for the home owner to access his safe key, load and chamber his weapon and fire.
The first scenario we will look at involves a “lone wolf” shooter in a packed theater or hall. Whether the shooter is mentally ill or a terrorist is irrelevant to the scenario. We will assume the shooter has put on a Kevlar vest and has a Colt AR 15 .223 caliber assault rifle as well as a Glock 40 caliber side arm. He has several extra clips for both weapons. Our good guy is in the hall someplace carrying a concealed 9mm Beretta with no extra clips
A friend of mine recently sent me the following story. Very similar to a home invasion but it involved a couple in a hotel room.
I give the bad guys the + for speed since they already have their weapons deployed. The good guys have no advantage for either firepower or accuracy since they are standing face to face with the bad guys and even a 22 caliber can be deadly. Neither side has either a defensive or offensive position with a significant advantage, except to note that the bad guy already has his gun out. However, we already gave him a + for speed and firepower. In terms of nerve, we will assume that both sides have equal nerve. Thus, as the scenario stands, the bad guys have the edge 3-1. The good guys need to stand down until they can change the scales. Can they shoot the bad guys as they run or walk away? What are the repercussions should they do so? This is an interesting legal question that might be answered very differently from state to state. In most states, once you are no longer in bodily jeopardy, you cannot shoot an assailant as they are fleeing, regardless of how much of your money they have.
Aging Capriciously 