[snipped]
...the police as an institution and policing as a practice are not fair, balanced or objective. Isn’t it time we receive the information they disseminate with the same amount of skepticism and critical thinking we apply to more violent functions of the police?
There are many reasons why police would misinterpret, exaggerate, play ignorant or outright lie.
They may be attempting to
justify an arrest or solidify the conviction of a person for whom no substantial evidence existed.
On a micro level, police may be wanting to protect themselves or other police from being disciplined because of their actions. Just look at this latest high-profile example, in which video showed police officers shoving an elderly man to the ground, where a pool of blood formed under his head. The
initial police statement was that the man “tripped.” Shortly after a video of the incident made its way around the internet and disproved the statement,
two officers were suspended.
On a more macro level, especially during protests that criticize the police, officers may be looking to justify their department’s existence or reaffirm a
narrative of victimhood — that they are subject to undue harassment and bullying. Such was the case in December 2019 when a
Kansas officer lied about receiving a coffee cup from a McDonald’s employee with an insult on it.
The early sociologist Max Weber
once wrote that the state has the monopoly on legitimate violence, meaning that in a modern nation it is only the government that is politically justified in using force. But it has also been true — to the detriment of the people — that the government, and especially police, have had the monopoly on legitimate storytelling. It’s why police press releases are treated with deference, but eye-witness testimony is scrutinized.
Our information and criminal justice ecosystems are not built to allow for an easy audit of police departments. For one thing, so much of our data on crime comes from records created and maintained by police departments themselves. Much of that information is held behind the black box of secrecy
and is inaccessible, even after dozens of Freedom of Information Act requests and lawsuits.
In many instances there exists, by design, little evidence to contradict what the police are saying. As was the case in the police killing of Laquan McDonald, in which department administrators had seen that
footage contradicted official reports but did not discipline the officer until a lawsuit made the video public.
And because of the nature of their work, what testimony does exist can be devalued by the press and an unsympathetic white audience — especially when said testimony is coming from people of color or people with even minor criminal records. There is no such thing, however, as a “perfect” witness against police. By claiming they felt threatened, police still have an easy time legally justifying their actions even if there is video. So long as the officer’s side of the story is taken as the definitive version of events, it does not matter who that person is or what they saw.
