Police should be allowed to use lethal force (pro)

Police departments are historically oppressive and violent. Defunding them could reduce violence
against people of color and overall crime.

Paige Fernandez, MPP, Policing Policy Advisor for the ACLU, noted, “American policing has never been a
neutral institution. The first U.S. city police department was a slave patrol, and modern police forces
have directed oppression and violence at Black people to enforce Jim Crow, wage the War on Drugs, and
crack down on protests.” [11] Police departments are also often outfitted with surplus military
equipment, increasing police firepower and the attitude that police are at war with communities, which
can escalate situations to violence. [12]

Organizations such as mpd150, which surveyed the Minneapolis Police Department’s conduct since its
inception in 1867, argue that the police system is actually not broken–it’s working as it always has,
because “[t]he police were established to protect the interests of the wealthy and racialized violence
has always been part of the mission.” mpd150 states that the police system puts millions of people of
color in prison, which limits or deprives them of voting rights, employment, education, and access to
housing, among other privileges given automatically to white people. [13]

According to an Aug. 20, 2019 study, black American men are 2.5 times more likely to be killed by police
than white men; black women 1.4 times more likely than white women. [14] A 2018 Bureau of Justice
Statistics report shows police officers were twice as likely to use force against people of color than
against white people. [15] [16] In 2019, US police officers killed 1,098 people, 24% of whom were black
despite African Americans representing only 13% of the US population. [17]

The American Public Health Association declared police violence a public health issue in 2018, stating,
“[a]lmost 10 percent of all homicides in the US are committed by police. Even if some may be ‘lawful,’
it’s not ok that we kill 1,000-1,200 people a year by police.” [18]

Defunding the police could result in fewer crimes and less violence from police. During several weeks in
2014 and 2015, when New York City police pulled back on “broken windows” policing that focused on
actively patrolling for low-level crimes, about 2,100 fewer major crimes were reported, which represents
a 3-6% drop in a matter of weeks. If police are not actively patrolling for minor crimes and are
responding to fewer major crimes, there are fewer opportunities for violence. [19]

Police officer and police department reforms have not worked.

Mariame Kaba, a “prison industrial complex abolitionist,” states, “Enough. We can’t reform the police.
The only way to diminish police violence is to reduce contact between the public and the police. There is
not a single era in United States history in which the police were not a force of violence against black
people.” [20]

Kaba notes the first major police misconduct investigation was in 1894 in New York City, the Lexow
Committee, in which over 100 officers were collectively convicted of 56 charges of third-degree assault,
45 charges of second-degree assault, as well as multiple charges of criminal neglect, oppression, and
attempted rape. Only four officers were dismissed as a result, three because they’d assaulted other
officers. [20] [21]
Philip V. McHarris, PhD candidate at Yale University, and Thenjiwe McHarris, from Movement for Black
Lives, argue, “Look at the Minneapolis Police Department, which is held up as a model of progressive
police reform. The department offers procedural justice as well as trainings for implicit bias, mindfulness
and de-escalation. It embraces community policing and officer diversity, bans ‘warrior style’ policing,
uses body cameras, implemented an early intervention system to identify problematic officers, receives
training around mental health crisis intervention, and practices ‘reconciliation’ efforts in communities of
color.” [22]

And still George Floyd and 51 other black men, along with 15 American Indian men, and 9 Hispanic men
were killed by Minneapolis Police Department officers between Jan. 2000 and May 31, 2020. [23]
Further reforms have been recommended to the Minneapolis Police Department repeatedly to lower
use-of-force violations but none were implemented. [24]

In July 2014, Eric Garner died from a chokehold performed by a police officer after New York banned the
hold in 1993. Austin and Los Angeles police were shown firing projectiles at people’s heads, which is
prohibited in both jurisdictions. Increased diversity on police forces did little to curb unnecessary police
stops of people of color in Ferguson or Baltimore. [25]

Two 2016 Harvard University studies found that anti-bias techniques meant to fight stereotypes reduced
implicit bias for a few hours to a few days, but not longer. [26] Such training has little to no effect on
racial bias in traffic stops or marijuana arrests. [27]

Some, including Stuart Schrader, PhD, Associate Director of the Program in Racism, Immigration, and
Citizenship at Johns Hopkins University, argue that reforms are not wholly intended to change the
departments for the better, but are an excuse for the departments to maintain power and acquire a
bigger budget. Reform programs come with more money and little accountability for police
departments, continuing the historical cycle of oppression. [28]

Police are not trained and were not intended to do many of the jobs they perform. Defunding the police
allows experts to step in.

Police currently deal with calls about mental illness, homelessness, domestic disputes, barking dogs,
neighbors playing loud music, and various non-criminal activities, on top of actual violations of the law
ranging from minor shoplifting by kids to speeding to murder.

In a 2016 interview, former Dallas Police Chief David Brown stated, “We’re just asking us to do too
much. Every societal failure, we put it off for the cops to solve. That’s too much to ask. Policing was
never meant to solve all those problems.” [2]

Alicia Garza, Co-Founder of Black Lives Matter, stated, “So much of policing right now is generated and
directed towards quality-of-life issues, homelessness, drug addiction, domestic violence. What we do
need is increased funding for housing, we need increased funding for education, we need increased
funding for quality of life of communities who are over-policed and over-surveilled.” [29]

The people who respond to community issues should be those best equipped to deal with the concern,
whether that is a social worker attending a mental health crisis, an EMT arriving at a domestic dispute,
or a housing facilitator helping an unhoused person. [5]

Greg Casar, Austin, Texas, City Council Member, stated, “We should be treating homelessness not with
policing, but with housing. We should be treating addiction not with policing, but with treatment. We
have dedicated so many of our public dollars simply to policing, and that hasn’t made us actually more
safe.” [1]

Further, defunding the police allows more money to go to community programs that prevent the need
for police. Patrick Sharkey, Professor at Princeton University, notes, “When neighborhood organizations
engage young people with well-run after-school activities and summer jobs programs, those young
people are dramatically less likely to become involved in violent activities. When street outreach
workers intervene, they can be extremely effective in interrupting conflicts before they escalate. When
local organizations reclaim abandoned lots and turn them into green spaces, violence falls. When
community nonprofits proliferate across a city, that city becomes safer.” [30]

He adds, “If we ask community organizations and leaders to take over primary responsibility for creating
a safe community, they should be given equivalent resources.” [30] Defunding the police would free up
budget funds to appropriately pay community organizations.

Annie Lowrey, staff writer for The Atlantic, explains, “A more radical option … would mean ending mass
incarceration, cash bail, fines-and-fees policing, the war on drugs, and police militarization, as well as
getting cops out of schools. It would also mean funding housing-first programs, creating subsidized jobs
for the formerly incarcerated, and expanding initiatives to have mental-health professionals and social
workers respond to emergency calls.” [3]

For a World without Police, an abolitionist group, states, “Police violence stems not just from bad apples
or bad attitudes, but from what police must be and do in America. The only way to stop the violence is
to abolish the police, and transform the conditions that gave rise to them.”[57]

In the New York Daily News on Aug. 23, 2014, John Paolucci, a retired detective sergeant from the New
York Police Department, wrote a commentary defending the use of police force. In the article, Paolucci
emphasized a point that many civilians tend to overlook: street cops constantly find themselves in
positions where they are fighting for their lives.

With the recent events that have taken place in Ferguson, as well as the recurring use of the banned
choke hold in New York, the use of police force has come into question. Is it alright for police officers to
use force against civilians in a society that values “innocence until proven guilty?” For many, the answer
is no.

However, the voices shouting no to police force are the voices of the people that have likely never
fought for their lives. The voices screaming out about the injustice of police force are unaware of the
near constant danger that police officers face.

If these police officers are attacked, are they supposed to give in? Are they not allowed to fight for their
lives? Or what if a suspect begins to flee from the scene? Should the police officer let the suspect run, or
should the officer prevent the suspect from escaping?

In his article, Paolucci detailed an event where, upon a suspect resisting arrest, he fought the suspect
and ended up having him face down on the concrete.. The suspect said he couldn’t breathe, and so
Paolucci released the pressure on the suspect’s back. As a result, the suspect escaped Paolucci’s hold
and not only cracked Paolucci’s jaw but also began to flee the scene, getting a head start on Paolucci.

While this incident did result in the successful arrest of the suspect, it is essential to emphasize that the
suspect attacked and injured Paolucci. This isn’t the only time Paolucci was injured by a resisting suspect
– during another arrest, he sustained three herniated cervical discs and, to this day, suffers pain from
the injury.

Police officers use force because they feel they have to, not because they want to. Although police
departments are not infallible, with the occasional unjustified use of force or violence, it is almost cruel
to expect police officers to not use force when their lives are in danger.

A suspect does not need to be armed to be dangerous. If a police officer were to lose a fight against a
suspect, the suspect would then be in possession of not only the police officer’s weapon, but also the
officer’s police car – this puts not only the life of the police officer in danger but also puts the safety of
the entire community at risk. Police officers work to keep civilians safe – without the use of police force,
there is a heightened chance that police officers will lose the confrontations they face. The voices of the
people calling out for an end to police force are putting not only the lives of police officers at stake,but
also their own lives.

Police work is a dangerous field, and prohibiting officers from using force simply makes it more
dangerous. The only way to ensure a successful arrest and the safety of the officers is to permit police
officers to use force in times when they feel as if they have no other option.

Criminals Resisting Arrest Are Focused on Just One Thing, Getting Away

Criminals resisting arrest are focused on just one thing, getting away; How they do it is of no concern to
them. Resisting often begins with pushing, punching, and kicking. However, when that fails, most
criminals will increase their resistance any way they can to escape. They might even choose to choke the
arresting officer.

Conversely, the police officer is limited to a few pain compliance holds and, if necessary, whatever tools
are on the officer’s belt. Officers are trained to use only the minimum force necessary to make the
arrest. Going beyond the least amount of force could be defined as excessive.

Try to picture yourself as a police officer arresting someone for an illegal act. As you attempt to handcuff
the violator, he twists away, punches you, and runs off. You chase him down, and a wrestling match
ensues. During the scuffle, your pepper spray falls from your belt and the suspect retrieves it. You must
prevent the suspect from using the pepper spray. If not, he will temporarily blind you and leave you
gasping for breath. That will enable the suspect to escape, or worse, take your gun and shoot you. All
you have are your Taser and sidearm to avoid becoming incapacitated. You have only a split second to
decide which weapon to grab. What would you do?

It is decisions like this that officers make daily. But if the suspect is seriously injured or killed, your
decision and tactics will be scrutinized by the media, your department, and everyone else who sees the
video or hears about it on social media. Lying on your back with the suspect leaning over you with
pepper spray in his hand is not the time to weigh the pros and cons of your actions. Most anyone would
defend themselves using any means necessary, and police must be afforded the same opportunity.

Department policies limiting police action in high-risk or dangerous situations are not new. For instance,
our department had a policy banning firing on a moving vehicle. Pursuits are commonly limited in
several respects: first in the number of police vehicles involved, and second, disengaging or terminating
the pursuit when the risk to the public outweighs the seriousness of the offense.
Also, if other methods of pursing and apprehending the suspect are available, the vehicle pursuit may be
terminated as when the police air unit can follow and identify where the suspect vehicle’s stops. Finally,
a supervisor must be made aware of the situation and can also terminate the pursuit at any time.