'Law Enforcement's 'Warrior' Problem' by Seth Stoughton

Former police officer turned University of South Carolina Law School Professor, Seth Stoughton, argues that the traditional “warrior” policing paradigm, which treats civilians as potential threats and emphasizes survival rather than service makes police work unnecessarily contentious and as a result dangerous. His alternative is the “guardian” mindset which emphasizes collaboration, restraint and mutual respect. Stoughton argues for two primary tools for cultivating a guardian police culture: mandatory non-enforcement contact (proactive civilian relationship-building) and tactical restraint (being more flexible, less control freakish), both of which are already practiced to some degree, yet not enough.

The Warrior Mindset:
* To deal with the threat of violent criminals, police are conditioned from the academy and throughout their careers to be “hypervigilant” – to view all civilians as potential threats – not just lawbreakers, but police attackers. To control this perceived constant danger, police are taught to dominate encounters through assertiveness and control, to avoid friendliness, and to generally alienate and objectify the people they’re entrusted to protect and serve. The resulting attitude of suspicion, caution, resentment, fear, condescension and manipulation precludes mutual respect and, in some cases, unnecessarily escalates and even causes violence. Stoughton calls this paradigm the Warrior mindset.
“Either through formal training or informal example, officers learn to both verbally and physically control the space they operate in. It is essential to set the proper tone for an encounter, and the tone that best preserves officer safety is widely thought to be one of ‘unquestioned command’” (229).
Stoughton quotes a 2010 article on “Command Presence,” which advises [possibly jokingly?]: “Remain humble and compassionate; be professional and courteous – and have a plan to kill everyone you meet” (228). Stoughton explains, “That plan is necessary, officers are told, because everyone they meet may have a plan to kill them” (228).
This mindset “creates a substantial, if invisible, barrier to true community policing” (228).
As former sheriff Sue Rahr puts it, “We do our recruits no favor if we train them to approach every situation as a war. To do so sets them up to create unnecessary resistance and risk of injury” (230).
Unnecessarily escalating encounters not only makes that specific instance more dangerous, but future encounters, too. Stoughton points out how half of the most destructive riots in US history were responses to perceived police overreach. “An aggressive approach in individual interactions can exacerbate underlying social tensions in a way that fuels a dangerous fire. This is not a new observation. The Wickersham Commission, which investigated the failures of Prohibition enforcement, made exactly this point in its 1931 report" (230).

The Guardian Mindset:
Stoughton’s alternative is the “guardian” mindset.
“Put simply, the guardian mindset prioritizes service over crimefighting, and it values the dynamics of short-term encounters as a way to create long-term relationships. As a result, it instructs officers that their interactions with community members must be more than legally justified, they must also be empowering, fair, respectful, and considerate. The guardian mindset emphasizes communication over commands, cooperation over compliance, and legitimacy over authority. And in the use-of-force context, the Guardian emphasizes patience and restraint over control, stability over action” (231).
2 Guardian Practices:
1) Mandatory Non-enforcement Contact: Police voluntarily approaching community members to build relationships, both substantially as rookies to grow communications skill, and also recurring throughout their careers to maintain and expand mutual police/community trust.
2) Tactical Restraint: Stoughton argues that police should prefer and actively seek out solutions and approaches to situations that avoid and deescalate violence. Sometimes force (even deadly force) is necessary. “But when violence is avoidable and when avoiding it doesn’t sacrifice the police mission, officers should be required to use tactical restraint even when that means holding their position or temporarily withdrawing” (232). Stoughton argues that Tactical Restraint is actually consistent with the existing practices waiting for backup, arresting vandals away from protest crowds, etc. “What all of those approaches have in common is a commitment to not rushing in recklessly when officers can use a safer option to accomplish the mission. That’s tactical restraint… It encourages officers to work smarter, not harder, by relying more on good tactics and communication than on violence” (234).

[manderse]

As always, thank you Matt for a thought-provoking video. Our minds are in similar places during this season of unrest, as you will see from the email I sent you earlier this afternoon. I'm excited to link this to our Philosophy Club's page where we just discussed this week the topic of "The Ethics of Police Brutality & Systemic Racism." It will be fine complement to our other resources.

I'm thinking too that something along these lines would be a good Ethics Bowl case. Let me know if you're keen on writing up something together for the next NHSEB regional or national case sets. Cheers. Peace.