When we think about our police force, the reassuring slogan “to protect and serve” often comes to mind. It implies a promise of safety and vigilance.
Yet, the reality of what we’re actually paying for through our taxes and what we expect from law enforcement can be quite different, often skewed by historical precedents and systemic issues.
Consider the case of Tamir Rice, a 12-year-old boy who was tragically shot by police in Cleveland. Tamir was playing with a toy gun in a park when officers, responding to a call about a “male with a gun,” arrived and immediately fired.
Despite the fact that the toy was not real, the outcome was fatal. This heartbreaking incident highlights a sobering reality: police often respond to emergencies with potentially deadly force, and their actions don’t always align with the ideal of preventing harm.
Historical context further complicates our understanding of police duties.
The origins of modern policing in the United States date back to the early 19th century.
The first organized police force, established in London by Sir Robert Peel in 1829, was designed to enforce laws and maintain order, not necessarily to provide personal protection to individuals.
The American policing system, influenced by these early models, has evolved in ways that reflect priorities more aligned with public order and law enforcement rather than guaranteed personal safety.
One key historical example is the 1960s Civil Rights Movement.
During this era, police forces were often criticized for their heavy-handed tactics and lack of protection for civil rights activists.
Incidents like the violence against peaceful protesters in Selma, Alabama, reveal that police priorities sometimes leaned more toward controlling public dissent than ensuring the safety of all citizens.
These historical events illustrate that the role of police has often been shaped by the need to maintain order and protect their own interests before focusing on broader public safety.
Another critical point is the concept of “qualified immunity,” a legal doctrine that shields police officers from personal liability in many situations.
Established by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1967 and expanded over the decades, qualified immunity protects officers from being sued for actions taken in the line of duty, unless they have violated “clearly established” law.
This legal shield underscores a historical and systemic focus on protecting law enforcement personnel rather than addressing grievances of those they are supposed to serve.
Consider the case of Breonna Taylor, whose tragic death during a no-knock raid in Louisville, Kentucky, sparked widespread outrage.
The officers involved were executing a warrant that led to a fatal shooting, and the subsequent investigation revealed systemic issues with police procedures and accountability.
This incident highlights how, historically and presently, police actions can reflect priorities and protections that do not always serve the interests of those most in need of protection.
The reality is that police are often legally and practically prioritized to protect themselves and uphold the law rather than provide absolute protection to individuals.
The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that police do not have a constitutional duty to protect individuals from harm unless there is a specific duty established, such as in the case of a special relationship or explicit mandate.
This legal precedent further complicates our understanding of police duties.
The phrase “to protect and serve” was formally adopted by the Los Angeles Police Department in 1955, and it quickly became a widely recognized slogan for many police forces across the United States.
It was intended to communicate a commitment to community service and the safeguarding of public welfare.
However, in recent years, many police departments have removed or replaced this motto from their vehicles and uniforms.
The shift away from this slogan reflects a broader critique of its effectiveness and the evolving expectations and criticisms of police roles.
The removal often symbolizes a recognition that the phrase did not fully capture the complexities and challenges faced by modern law enforcement or address the broader issues of accountability and reform.
These examples reveal a pattern where the focus of policing has often been on maintaining order and protecting law enforcement personnel rather than ensuring individual safety.
As taxpayers, it’s essential to recognize these historical and systemic issues and advocate for reforms that address these shortcomings.
To make meaningful changes, we must push for greater accountability, transparency, and community engagement.
Supporting reforms that enhance oversight and address systemic issues can help realign policing with the ideals of public service and safety that we all hope for.
Understanding the true role of police, with its historical and systemic context, is crucial for holding law enforcement accountable and ensuring that our tax dollars are used effectively to create a safer and more just society.