On police

See update for August 12, 2020 at end of post


I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again here: Police are the only people in our society authorized to use even lethal force against others. The fact of this authorization means that any other approaches they may apply in the course of their duties ultimately reduce to the potential of lethal force: The officer might seek to persuade you by other means, but if you don’t comply, s/he can charge you with disorderly conduct (pretty much a catch-all for not doing whatever the nice officer tells you to do[1]), and if you resist arrest for that conduct, s/he may shoot you and kill you. This is force of the most brutal sort and the threat of this force is implicit in every interaction the police have.

Further, police deploy this force principally in defense of property and of the wealthy. If you doubt this, try driving, as I have, through a wealthy community in an old, beat up car. You will—and I can guarantee this—have a black and white on your tail in very short order. The very fact you appear to be poor is, for police, sufficient cause. Because the poor are a threat to the rich.[2]

By contrast, report a crime in a poor neighborhood and see how long it takes for police to arrive. That is, if they even show up. The poor know from long and bitter experience that the police do not protect them but are rather a threat to them.

Police say that they “protect and serve.” Whom do they protect? What do they protect? The answer from the preceding paragraphs seems inescapable: They protect and serve the rich. They protect the property of the rich.

By contrast, they serve the poor when they get around to it and protect their property not at all.

Police are meant to enforce the law. But whose law? Passed by whom? Against whom? Inequities in whose (poor people’s) offenses are even treated as criminal, as opposed to whose (rich people’s) are treated as civil, even when the offenses of the wealthy harm more people and cause more property damage, and in who (the poor, especially of color) are suspected, investigated, arrested, charged, tried, convicted, and sentenced how harshly[3] clarify that the law is passed by mostly wealthy white men; it is their law, deployed overwhelmingly against others.

Finally, even if we admit the purposes which police are supposed to fulfill, how do they address the causes of crime (often economic desperation[4])? And are police the correct solution to these problems?[5]

One thing I can promise you is that the answer to all of these questions is different from what we were taught in elementary school.

Update, August 12, 2020: This post was written based largely on my own experience of interactions with police as a white man and therefore does not address racist policing. This experience has been unpleasant enough;[6] I can barely begin to imagine the experience of Blacks in their interactions with police, though, here again, what I have personally witnessed has been horrifying enough.[7] Citations have been added as I have reflected further on this post. Text has been added and refined, both within and outside of citations, for clarity, since this post was first published. The argument is unchanged.

  1. [1]Consider for example, the arrest of Henry Louis Gates, Jr., at his home in Cambridge, Massachusetts: Lowry Heussler in Ta-Nehisi Coates, “The Arrest of Henry Louis Gates,” Atlantic, August 12, 2010, https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2010/08/the-arrest-of-henry-louis-gates/61365/
  2. [2]Indeed, the minority rights that James Madison sought to protect in arguing for a republic rather than a democracy were not those of any subaltern group, but the property rights of wealthy white males, often slaveholders, from the poor: James Madison, “Federalist No. 10,” in The Federalist Papers, ed. Garry Wills (New York: Bantam, 2003), 50-58. For my analysis here, see David Benfell, “A constitutional oligarchy: Deconstructing Federalist No. 10,” Not Housebroken, June 7, 2020, https://disunitedstates.org/2020/04/22/a-constitutional-oligarchy-deconstructing-federalist-no-10/
  3. [3]Steven E. Barkan, Criminology: A Sociological Understanding, 3rd ed. (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall, 2006); Jeffrey Reiman, The Rich Get Richer and the Poor Get Prison, 7th ed. (Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 2004).
  4. [4]Steven E. Barkan, Criminology: A Sociological Understanding, 3rd ed. (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall, 2006); Jeffrey Reiman, The Rich Get Richer and the Poor Get Prison, 7th ed. (Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 2004).
  5. [5]Amanda Arnold, “What Exactly Does It Mean to Defund the Police?” Cut, June 12, 2020, https://www.thecut.com/2020/06/what-does-defund-the-police-mean-the-phrase-explained.html; Zak Cheney-Rice, “Why Police Abolition Is a Useful Framework — Even for Skeptics,” New York, June 15, 2020, https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020/06/police-abolitionist-lessons-for-america.html
  6. [6]David Benfell, “To a Pennsylvania House Minority Leader: When cops profile you, they don’t actually need an offense,” Not Housebroken, January 16, 2020, https://disunitedstates.org/2020/01/16/to-a-pennsylvania-house-minority-leader-when-cops-profile-you-they-dont-actually-need-an-offense/
  7. [7]David Benfell, “Hey cops! Do you know what year it is?” Not Housebroken, August 27, 2019, https://disunitedstates.org/2019/08/27/hey-cops-do-you-know-what-year-it-is/