I finally had the chance to read Tangled Up in Blue: Policing the American City, by Rosa Brooks, a professor at Georgetown University in Washington, D.C.

I enjoyed this book in large part because Professor Brooks’s experience and background are similar to mine. Like her, I have an academic background – B.A from the University of California at Santa Barbara, M.A. from California State University, San Bernardino.  Like Professor Brooks, I served in law enforcement for a time, though unlike her, I was not sworn.  I was a courthouse security guard.  Read more about that here and here.

She came to many of the same conclusions that I and others have – that there are too many laws for police to enforce, that many of society’s problems are dumped on police, and that it is incredibly difficult to carry out the multiple jobs of a police officer: enforcer, social worker, chaplain, therapist, EMT, etc.  The difference between myself and Professor Brooks is that she was better able to adapt to those multiple roles. If I ever return to law enforcement employment, it will be as a civilian. I simply do not have the endless amount of patience required for working with the public, especially during these times when it’s fashionable to hate law enforcement. 

Particularly laugh-out-loud funny was Professor Brooks’s description of mentally switching between the world of frontline law enforcement, in which opinions and suggestions for improvement are expressed in blunt, profane language, and the world of academia, which she describes as passive-aggressive.  Her description of the arrest process is also clear and blunt.  “Try hard not to get arrested,” wrote Professor Brooks dryly – good advice for all of us.  Chris Rock offered some similar advice.

I also enjoyed Professor Brooks’s description of how she developed her Police for Tomorrow initiative, which is described here and here.  Encouraging police officers to talk about what they are exposed to, what they are doing, and why they are doing it are all good things.  My only disappointment was that while Professor Brooks raised the problem of too many laws to enforce, her Police for Tomorrow initiative does not seem to include a call for any reduction of laws in general, whether municipal, state, or federal.  It’s all very well to teach law enforcement officers empathy and de-escalation and the origin of the current legal system, but if their political masters keep on creating laws, then law enforcement officers will have to enforce those laws. Surprise, surprise – giving police officers laws to enforce means that they might sometimes use force.  Giving police less work to do – that is, less laws to enforce -- means that they will have to use force less often.  If our political “leaders” – I use the term loosely -- really want to reduce officer-involved shootings and other uses of force, they can start by going through the legal codes that they and their predecessors created and revising or eliminating laws and regulations that may once have served a purpose, but no longer do.  The buck stops with the political leaders.  Oh yes, one more thing: if politicians want to jump on the #DefundThePolice bandwagon, they can start by defunding their own police protective details.  Similarly, if protesters want to be really revolutionary, they would demand that politicians start revising or eliminating laws. Tearing down statues and rioting and looting doesn’t get rid of bad or obsolete laws.  Police for Tomorrow fellows are required to complete a capstone project; I suggest that starting or assisting a campaign to reduce the number of laws on the books might be a great capstone project. 

Not every critic or student of law enforcement or law in general is going to go to the trouble of becoming a reserve law enforcement officer.  That’s understandable; not everyone is inclined to do so, and we’re all busy.  However, it would really be nice if the critics of law enforcement, whether in politics, academia, or media (regular or social) would at least try a ride-along with their local law enforcement agency, or try a simulator in which they would have to make the same split-second decisions about whether to use force that real law enforcement officers do.  It would be educational. Many of these critics like to preen about being educated and valuing education, so let them educate themselves. There’s education in the university, and education on the street. To her great credit, Professor Brooks walked in both worlds.  She learned a lot, and we can learn a lot from her book.