Community vs. military policing

When Jerry Neal became chief of the Amarillo Police Department in 1981, he introduced a concept that was still fairly new in departments across the nation.

It is called “community policing.” It puts officers in close contact with residents. It encourages more person-to-person contact, seeking to make cops more like best pals rather than intimidating forces to be feared.

If given a choice between community police strategies and a military-style presence in our streets, I’ll stick with the former rather than the latter.

Now we hear that Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel has the authority to cease giving surplus military equipment to police departments. Mr. Secretary, stop the practice at least until the nation gets a clear and full understanding of what has gone so terribly wrong in Ferguson, Mo.

http://thehill.com/policy/defense/215527-pentagon-hagel-has-authority-to-suspend-program-for-arming-cops

“The secretary has the authority to rescind and take back equipment that is transferred to local law enforcement agencies if he deems fit. He has that authority,” said Pentagon Rear Adm. John Kirby.

I believe Hagel should “deem fit” a suspension of the policy that provides police agencies the surplus equipment.

Police militarization has become one of the focal points of the Ferguson upheaval, after a young black man was shot to death by a white police officer in the suburb of St. Louis. The cops responded initially with officers donning body armor and weaponry befitting a Green Beret platoon or SEAL team. Let’s just say it didn’t play well in the community.

Emotions will have to settle down considerably in Ferguson for any meaningful change to take hold.

When it’s all over, I’d settle gladly for more community policing efforts in all departments.

Maybe someone ought to call Jerry Neal, who’s now retired, and ask him for some sage advice on how this principle works.