Why is there a broad pattern of excessive force by police towards protestors in spite of international focus on this use of force?

Question

Right now (June 2020), sparked by the murder of George Floyd, there have been a wave of protests against police brutality towards black Americans. In these very protests, there has also been a massive outbreak of police brutality towards protests, often seemingly instigated by police towards peaceful protestors.

Given that these protests are receiving international attention, and were sparked by the murder of a helpless man by police officers, why is there not more effort by law-enforcement organizations in the US to prevent excessive force being used right now?

I am not asking why police brutality happens in general in the US. Rather, I want to know why the police are putting themselves into optically a very bad position, to the point where many organizations are cutting ties with the police, legislation is being discussed to regulate police action, and one city is actively beginning to dismantle their police department. Politically it seems that police leaders should be incentivized to act with extreme caution towards protests in order to avoid increasing the negative attention they are receiving.

On the level of individual officers, while typically in the US it is rare for law enforcement to be charged and convicted for excessive force or brutality, we have seen the officers responsible for George Floyd's death charged with murder, and several officers involved in brutality towards protestors fired, suspended, or even arrested and charged for this conduct. So while an officer might expect that typically acting in this manner carries few consequences, right now it is riskier for a police officer to use excessive force.

Here is some speculation on my part about what the answer could be:

• Police leadership can't effectively curtail excessive force, because it is too baked into the practices/culture of their department, so even if they issue directives designed to minimize it, these directives just aren't working
• The people using excessive force just don't see the cost-benefit analysis the way I've laid it out, and aren't worried about facing consequences
• The protests happened too quickly for the public pressure to translate into pressure on police not to use excessive force, but the behavior of police towards these protests may change going forward as the backlash against excessive force becomes more and more well known
• I have made some major error in my analysis

I know that the answer will be complicated, given that I am talking about a large number of distinct law enforcement agencies and departments, and clearly they are all responding in vastly different ways to these events (some police departments are joining protestors and there is no indication of any police brutality at all). Nonetheless, given the intense attention one might naively expect far less excessive force than what has actually occurred, given it seemingly is against the police's interests to act in this way.

Answer 1

One data point seems to be the 75 year old who was seriously injured when he was knocked backwards by police. When the policemen who did this were suspended the entire squad resigned from the Emergency Response Team (but not their day jobs) in protest.

John Evans, president of the local police union, told the newspaper: "Our position is these officers were simply following orders from Deputy Police Commissioner Joseph Gramaglia to clear the square.

This suggests that excessive violence is such an ingrained part of police culture that they simply cannot understand the civilian point of view. To them it is simply a part of their job and therefore not "excessive".

(Edit: those wanting to argue that this doesn't count because of provocation should see this question.)

Answer 2

Did you ever watch the TV show "Cops?" I watched a lot of it. My take-away was that even in non-high-stress situations, cops have little tolerance for anything from "perps," except "yes, officer," "no, officer," and "just tell me what you want and I'll gladly do it, officer." Anything else, and you'll likely find yourself handcuffed on the ground with a knee in your back, if not on your neck. [Perp: anyone who makes your life the least little bit difficult.]

The encounters I have had with cops over my 77 years -- none those situations were any where I was suspected of a crime, other than traffic offenses -- is that they are not the brightest, best educated people in the world. Some may be, but most real police I've observed, personally and on TV, are not. Seeing and responding properly to gray areas and fine distinctions seem not to be in their repertoire. Watching a cop prod a suspect into some kind of behavior where the cop can use physical force was very maddening for me. That happened a lot on that show.

Someone else here noted people who become cops have an ease with physical confrontation. I'd say they probably have a proclivity toward it, and maybe even a desire for it.

My point is that unless we are willing to structure the job in such a way as to attract to the field of law enforcement people with above average intelligence who have a well-rounded education, we will continue to get what we have always had in that field -- people who are comfortable getting physical with you with very little provocation, people who relish bossing you around, and people with no tolerance for hearing you voice a difference of opinion.

Yes, I know there are some very fine people in that field. I do not doubt many have a helping attitude toward their job. Still, I'm all but certain the research shows that the higher the entrance requirements in law enforcement, the better the outcomes when officers interact with the public, even "perps."

The old adage still holds true: you get what you pay for. If we were willing to invest the necessary resources, we could screen out applicants to the field like the cop who killed Mr. Floyd. If we don't we can't, as simple as that.

Answer 3

The answer to this question is more a matter of psychology than policy. There are a few psychological factors to keep in mind:

• Police officers (and protesters as well) are enmeshed in a tense situation, and often lack a proper perspective on their own behavior. It's a kind of tunnel-vision in which an officer is focused on himself and those immediately around him, and cannot separate from the immediacy of his situation. He might revert to training and habits that are inappropriate to the greater situation; he might get angry or offended and act accordingly, disregarding context. The larger the crowds, the larger the tensions, and the more likely someone will lose perspective.
• Police wear uniforms and masks, which increases the 'us vs them' mentality and the sense of personal anonymity within their ranks. This (per group polarization) tends to produce a more cynical, jaundiced view of outsiders and a tendency towards more aggressive, risky behaviors.
• Police have a hierarchical structure which can place officers in situations where they are ordered to do something that goes against their normal inclinations or conscience. Orders are sometimes given without a proper understanding of the conditions on the street; officers are sometimes obliged to carry out orders without a proper understanding the intentions behind them. This can lead to confused and inappropriate actions.

Add that in the modern age of ubiquitous video devices protests become a near-perfect panopticon. Police and protesters are concentrated into an area filled with cameras and cell phones, all recording away; any transgression by police is captured in the moment and quickly distributed. It's inevitable that police violence of some sort will be captured, because it's statistically impossible that all officers present will be capable of calm, cool, deliberate reflection.

This is not an excuse for police violence, and in fact we should always keep in view the distinction between officers who lose their focus and officers who deliberately use excessive force to dominate citizens. The latter are far more worthy of punishment than the former. The point is that much of this boils down to how people respond in the heat of the moment, where policy is a distant and abstract ideal.

Answer 4

There are a few things that keep putting fuel on this fire.

1. The media likes to sell, and violence is exciting. There have been over 700 protests.^[1] But only around 20 have ended up in violence.^[2] Of course it can depend a lot on definitions of violence and protest. But many protests are peaceful. (That does not mean we should not do something about the ones that are not.)
2. Police in the US are held accountable on some level, but it's also clear that level may not be acceptable. However, there are arguments on both sides that say police need to be able to use force to protect the innocent. The other side says that they should be held accountable for the force they use. One thing is certain, the level of force highlighted in the media right now seems to be excessive.
3. US culture and that of say the UK is not the same. Many feel the use of "some" force is acceptable to protect innocent lives and property of others. However, where "some" stops and "way too much" starts has always been a very hard line to find. And that is ingrained in every part of US culture. The question of Reasonable vs. Excessive is just very hard to define on such a grand scale. For example "more force" may even seem acceptable in a neighborhood that is more of a warzone than a place to live. Small neighborhoods with murder rates higher than the entire rest of the state. But that can be very hard to understand even 200 miles away where there hasn't been a murder in 50 years.
4. Then we look at the news/media cycle. Now instead of a person's actions being judged by locals that might have some idea what's going on, they're being judged by everyone. This has some good and bad side effects. After all, what is a farmer in Idaho really to know about life in a crowded, high crime urban area? But that is the lens we're judging people with right now. So the police officer may not think that they are acting outside of norms, and yet they are judged in the national spotlight by many people that have no idea what life is like in that part of that town.

So all that together means first "broad pattern" and "excessive force" are probably not well defined and what you're left with is "Why is there force by police towards protesters in spite of international focus on this use of force?"

That's much easier to answer. Because policy, superiors, or fear, the police on the street to feel that the use of force is needed.

P.S. IMO if you're looking for a problem to tackle it's that. Why do police feel they need to use force. What is making them feel that way? I don't know many cops, but none of them I know start their day with "yay I am going to go hurt people". They start their day with some version of "I want to help people and stay safe doing it." SO the question becomes where have we failed, that police feel unsafe, at a protest (or in general).

P.P.S. Just to be clear, I am not trying to make an excuse for any police officer that uses excessive force. I am just trying to point out that it's very complex and that protests you are seeing in the US on the international stage do not usually reflect even a small part of those complexities.

P.P.P.S. I know that it is very hard for any European to understand just how big and diverse the US actually is.^[3][4] In a lot of ways this is a result of growing through that diversity and is a mechanism used on a large scale to address some of the issues (like inequality) that come from that diversity.

---

References:

1. USA TODAY: Tracking protests across the USA in the wake of George Floyd's death
2. NJ: These are all the cities where protests and riots have erupted over George Floyd’s death
3. Pew Research Center: In views of diversity, many Europeans are less positive than Americans
4. Washington Post: A revealing map of the world’s most and least ethnically diverse countries

Answer 5

I don't think it is a complicated answer.

Police rarely get charged with using excessive force. This is partly systemic, because in the U.S., District Attorneys need the police to testify in their cases, and they cannot risk angering the police and losing testimony, or making the police look bad, which would also complicate their cases.

If prosecuted, which is rare, juries will typically acquit. This is because juries sympathize with police saying "I feared for my life" or "It was within policy for the department." The "reasonable man" standard applies (see Graham v. Connor) and the police go free.

If convicted, which is extremely rare, punishment is minimal.

The most common result of an excessive force case is a civil settlement. Police officers are immune from civil settlements (see "qualified immunity"), so the city pays.

In short, there is no penalty for the crime, so there is no reason not to do it.

Answer 6

Defining and using an appropriate level of force in a high pressure situation is really challenging and requires good police training and organisational support. This doesn't excuse deliberate abuses of power but it does make abuse harder to distinguish from poor police practice or mistakes in the heat of the moment.

Some complicating factors:

• Complexity of the situation. It's far harder to arrest someone in a crowded demonstration than on an empty street. Bystanders can easily get pulled into violent situations in a riot without initiating violence themselves.
• The presence or suspicion of the presence of weapons. Are guns widely available? Are protesters carrying items that could be improvised into weapons? Are the police armed? This is the single biggest reason I'm glad I live in a society where guns are very restricted. It's also the strongest argument against using the military for policing.
• The organisational culture and level of training of the police. Changes to these will require a lot of time and effort.
• The trust or lack of trust between protesters and police. Protesters against police brutality are less likely to trust police they encounter during protests.

Using a level of force that all observers will deem appropriate is impossible. Some hawkish observers will support draconian levels of force if they protect property and non-protesters and will criticise policing they regard as insufficient. Others will prioritise the right to protest with minimal interference even when a minority of protesters cause property damage. Observers will also be more likely to support tolerant policing if they are sympathetic to the aims of the protest.

Answer 7

This question is loaded with several different unrelated problems. It could be answered much better if it'd be split in separate parts.

To answer this question directly, considering exactly how it is formulated: because nothing in police job description says that their behavior should change in any way because of "international focus" or any "international attention". Police works for its own citizens, not to please international community.

Of course they should improve, considering police brutality and complaints about it in USA didn't start just yesterday, but not because "international community" says so, but because their own citizens are displeased instead.