to SERVE and protect
Recent events and trends caused me to consider the debate about what American law enforcement is and what it should be. Are we warriors, guardians, or something else? This debate has been going on for the past few years and no one really has had a good argument for any one title or theory. I recently heard a law enforcement “expert” say the truth is that law enforcement is both depending on the situation. That was the best description I had heard to date. To define what law enforcement is so narrowly ignores the vast amount of duties now expected of law enforcement and how complicated those duties can get. In fact, the term law enforcement is too narrow as well. Police do so much more than the enforcement of laws.
After contemplating the phrase “to protect and serve,” I believe the words are in the wrong order. I know it does not look like a monumental change; simply reversing two words from “protect and serve” to “serve and protect.” However, the main job of police officers are to service crime victims, the community, their supervisors, each other, the organization, and the profession. Service must be the identifying characteristic of every police officer.
Protection is part of service. To serve someone you can protect them, guard them, and be a warrior for them as well. All while serving them. It is why the military uses the term service when referring to soldiers. That is why people are asked, what branch did you “SERVE” in? Soldiers serve our country and that service involves being a guardian, a warrior, and a protector. All depending on what their duty is at that time. Maybe we should just remove “protect” from the phrase.
When I started in law enforcement, I worked for an affluent community as a dispatcher. A lady called the police because the power was out, she could not get out of her garage, and had an important appointment to get to. I told her about the cord connected to the garage door opener that when pulled would allow her to open the garage door manually. Her response was that is what I called you for, send the police. I spoke to my supervisor. An officer responded, pulled the cord, and lifted the garage door so this lady could get to her appointment. When I joined the “big city” agency I thought I can be the “real” police. After many years and a couple promotions, I realized the level of service I left in the small community was what is now expected.
I have learned leadership principles like servant leadership where the focus is the serving of others. Now, I miss the service part of policing that I had so eagerly left in my early years. The community members expected that level of service and the officers provided it. While listening to the warrior/guardian debate I realized that they are only considering the symptom of the problem and not the problem itself. Much like a doctor treating the symptoms of an illness, but failing to cure the illness.
As police agencies evolved over the past few decades, the focus shifted from general service to simply the enforcement of laws. The number of arrests, citations, or assignments handled (quantity) became more important than solving the underlying problems (quality). The focus of law enforcement shifted to protection over service. Those that decide the staffing of police agencies need to realize that if officers are continually handling assignments then they cannot effectively serve the community beyond enforcing the law. This is not the fault of the individual officers, but the administrators that decided the bottom line was more important than providing service to the community. The administrators told the community that this is the level of service you deserve, and the community accepted it.
Now society is expecting service from officers that are provided a budget to only provide protection. The administrators need to provide enough officers in the field that service can be effectively provided. The community must expect this from their politicians and police leaders. The politicians, political appointees, administrators, and supervisors need to serve the officer and when they fail to serve the officer the failure manifests itself in the officers’ inability to efficiently and effectively serve the community. The politician serves the police chief, the police chief serves the police supervisors, police supervisors serve the police officers, and the police officers serves the community. The opposite appears to be truer now. The officers serving supervisors, who serve the chief, who serves the politicians, and the community is left out.
Service is the primary job of any police officer and service involves so much more than can be taught in an academy. WE must serve our community, our organization, our supervisors, the victims, the offenders, our family, and our fellow officers; in no particular order. Here comes the complication; service should go both ways, but we can only control how we serve others. We cannot control how others serve or fail to serve us. We cannot allow someone’s lack of service to us affect how we serve others. We must ask ourselves daily, who have I served today?