Criminal justice systems and practices

Them vs. Us

There has probably always been some tension between the average worker and the "higher-ups" (administration) in factories, offices, stores, institutions and other workplace environments. And the same goes for the tension and angst between the "men in blue" - the police on the street, also known as "line officers" or "beat patrol" police - and the top brass in a police department. This paper will focus on that tension, that clash, that ongoing stressful relationship between the men in squad cars patrolling the mean streets of a city - and the officers who walk the beat - and their supervisors, the administration. This paper will also delve into the issues between the police on the beat and in the cruisers and the public they serve.

The cop on the street tends to get the brunt of the criticism when it comes to police-citizen stressors, and gaps in protective services that cause public protest. But there are often administrative and political disputes and pressures behind those issues that don't come into public view in a timely way. Indeed, retired police officer Cas Gadomski - who worked on the streets of Marietta, Ohio - has written an essay called "The 'Us vs. Them' Syndrome." In his essay Gadomski asserts that early on in his career as a beat cop he realized that there was an "us vs. them" attitude toward the public, and also he claims the "brass" in his police department "...could be more of a threat than the dirt bag on the street" (Gadomski, 2001). How can that be so?

Gadomski asserts that during his time on the beat he witnessed "...a disturbing event...an increasing militarization of police...and also an increase in the 'us vs. them' attitude of police." Gadomski believes that the federal law enforcement agencies have had too much authority over local police, and that has created an "us vs. them" attitude between local police and federal law enforcement agencies like the BATF (Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco & Firearms). He calls BATF "a federal agency of black clad ninjas with covered faces...who make war on citizens, burn children, stomp cats...trash homes and engage in conduct that rivals that of the KGB...and Nazi Gestapo."

While Gadomski's assertions may seem a little extreme, as he creates an "us vs. them" scenario between cops and their brass, cops and citizens, and local cops vs. federal agents, there is evidence that those "us vs. them" issues are very real in America. For example, Sgt. Betsy Brantner Smith, who writes in the law enforcement Web site called Police Link (www.policelink.com) asa "Law Enforcement Career Expert," insists that after a short time a fresh new cop cares "...less about 'them' and more about 'us'."

Smith says officers tend to separate themselves from "the rest of society, even from our family and friends" (Smith, 2008). The problem in terms of this "us vs. them" attitude begins in the policy academy, says Smith, a 28-year veteran of the Naperville Illinois Police Department. The emergence of the "us vs. them" belief is due to the "elitist feeling" that cops develop during training, Smith continues. Also, because cops see more "human tragedy in the first three years" of service than most people witness in a lifetime, they become "skeptical, paranoid, and hyper-vigilant" and view the world as "...a violent place full of idiots, con artists, and liars" (Smith, 2008).

On another page on the Police Link site ("Leadership vs. Management") police officers post comments vis-a-vis the "us vs. them" conundrum. One person posting ("brooks125") asks why "Natural 'leaders' seem to get pigeon-holed at Sgt. Or other front line supervisory positions, and 'managers' tend to climb right up the ranks to the top?" Saying he just wants to "do my job, and have brass that backs me up," this post claims that "so much gets hampered by the bean-counting Managers up front," that the guys on the streets can't do their jobs properly. A post from "bikekop" states: "A manager (lieutenant and above) is one who does things right. A leader (Sergeant or peer leader) is one who does the right thing. Any agency needs them both..." (www.policelink.com).

Police morale in some departments - due to clashes between rank and file and management - is in need of improvement, according to the Rutland Herald, in Rutland Vermont. To wit, newspaper journalist Brent Curtis writes about a pair of morale surveys that were given to Rutland police officers over the past three years. Results of the surveys was not made public by police department officials until "formal public records requests" by the Rutland Herald demanded to see them under the Freedom of Information Act. The surveys show that "trust" is "nonexistent" between leadership and rank and file officers (Curtis, 2009). The police department is "factionalized" according to the report, which was written by psychologist and law enforcement consultant Kenneth Kelly; he also wrote, "the negatives clearly outnumbered the positives" (Curtis, 2009).

Management is regarded as devaluing input that does not agree with the position of some key individuals with the management team," the report continued. Worse yet, police management is seen by a majority of the 39 officer participants as "arbitrary, capricious, inconsistent, and at times, self-serving" (Curtis, 2009). Basically the issue came down to trust for some respondents; sixteen police officers said they trusted the chief of police, whole eighteen officers said they did not trust the chief.

As to the important matter of trust, an article in the International Journal of Police Science & Management (Gilmour, 2006) shows that "Trust is continually problematic" and yet trust is necessary when it comes to "defining the principles...of a more democratically responsive police service" (Gilmour, p. 52). The public must trust the police, Gilmour explains, "...as the sole vessel of coercive force within the nation"; and paradoxically, the public must spend time "trussing" the police "ability to deploy such power." People will trust authority so long as they believe it to be "legitimate," Gilmour writes on page 54. "Institutional trust" - the trust in the law and in government to provide quality law enforcement - is important not just for the safety of the public, but in order to gain consent "for the democratic political process" (Gilmour, p. 54).

Speaking of trust, a group of Chicago young people clearly did not trust the Chicago Police Department to arm the department's street cops with M4 carbine assault rifles (Sachs, 2008). The article in the Chi-Town Daily News point out that M4 carbine assault rifles are dangerous and normally used in battle by the army and marines. Firearms experts say "...bullets from the M4 can travel nearly twice as far as those from a handgun, posing risks for bystanders" (Sachs, 2008). "It's almost like putting military might into the neighborhoods," Lily Blackwood, age 20, was quoted as saying.

Nineteen-year-old David Stout told the reporter that having officers on the Chicago police force armed with M4 assault rifles "...would generate such an atmosphere of fear that safety would be unattainable in the city" (Sachs, 2008). Instead of arming police - whom young African-Americans in Chicago clearly don't trust - with assault rifles, the money should be spend putting more community centers in rough neighborhoods, the group insisted.

Meantime, a citizens group in New Haven, Connecticut recently demanded at a public hearing that the law enforcement agencies need to beef up community policing strategies. The group claims that a cop or two on a bicycle would be welcomed in Cedar Hill, "an isolated, eight-street enclave tucked between East Rock Park and Interstate 91" that is being "overrun by drug dealers" (Bailey, 2006). "My cousins cannot come out the house because there are all these guys out there on the street" selling drugs, said a seventeen-year-old girl. Calls to police headquarters are worthless, the citizens insisted, because police "don't respond in time."