Proposed public-safety project

A systems-thinking approach to the growing chasm between civilians and law-enforcement officers

BACKGROUND

There are myriad online videos available on TikTok and YouTube Shorts, two categories of which feature encounters between law-enforcement officers and civilians during traffic stops, street stops, arrests, etc.:

• Officers exhibiting rudeness, intimidation, provocation, ignorance of law, violation of civil rights, even excessive force and assault – appearing to care more about personal power/ego than public safety and peace
• Civilians exhibiting recalcitrance, defiance, confrontation, provocation, baiting, noncompliance, even resisting lawful orders and arrest – appearing to feel justified, entitled, even obligated to challenge, resist, and attack officers

Such videos tend to exacerbate the general public perception of untrustworthiness of officers and others within “the system”, which then feeds a particularly vicious circle/cycle/spiral:

• Civilians, anticipating toxic interactions (and possible life-safety threats) with officers, while idolizing other civilians who fight against such perceived injustice, are progressively more confrontational with officers during encounters.
• Officers, anticipating confrontation (and possible life-safety threats) with civilians, are progressively more on guard and perhaps on edge during encounters, which shapes their behavior and demeanor.
• With both sides expecting something to go awry:
  • Perceptions, interpretations, and responses are skewed, such that even reasonable behaviors can easily be mischaracterized – and unreasonable behaviors can escalate into tragedy.
  • Whether actual or perceptual, any issues that arise from one encounter tend to reinforce previously held assumptions/concerns (confirmation bias), thereby further poisoning subsequent encounters.

Unhappily, there are some factual justifications – as well as personal, political, or philosophical agendas – that feed concerns on both sides.  However, much of the conflict is fed by the lack of “shared mental models”: common understandings of prescribed procedures and respective roles, rights, and responsibilities in various situations.  The vast majority of civilians get their (mis)information on these matters from entertainment (television, movies, and Internet); but even trained officers can find it difficult to properly prioritize, integrate, and apply constitutional and case law regarding the rights of civilians, against the ongoing, often urgent, and sometimes dangerous duties of investigation and apprehension.

OBJECTIVES

The proposed project undertakes to accomplish three primary objectives:

• (DIRECT) Develop, document, publish, and disseminate a shared mental model, common both to officers and to civilians, that is commonly accepted as authoritative, inclusive, and even-handed
• (INDIRECT) Thereby, facilitate smoother, less confrontational, and less dangerous encounters between officers and civilians in the most common scenarios
• (INDIRECT) Thereby, cultivate more positive public perception and greater public cooperation towards law enforcement officers

APPROACH

The cost-to-benefit ratio is probably optimal for a project at the state level: the resources and relevant audience for a county (perhaps except for the most populous) would be insufficient; and the complexity of a national undertaking would be daunting. Therefore, the initial scope would be for the State of Indiana.

Proposed generalized steps:

1. Form a small core group to craft a charter (vision, mission, objectives, values/culture, structure, processes, resources) for the project.
2. Identify a credible, authoritative organization to sponsor the project, then an individual to manage it overall, its constituent meetings, and its work products.
3. Invite a wide variety of organizations to send representatives to discuss and contribute, such as (but not restricted to):
   1. Indiana Sheriffs Association
   2. Indiana Chiefs of Police Association
   3. Indiana State Bar Association
   4. Indiana Prosecuting Attorneys Council
   5. Indiana Supreme Court
   6. Indiana Attorney General
   7. Indiana Civil Rights Commission
   8. American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana
4. Identify between 3 and 7 of the most common (and most commonly problematic) scenarios of encounters between officers and civilians (e.g., traffic stops, street stops, house calls, “auditing” and other audiovisual recording, etc.).
5. Develop and document consensus on prescribed procedures and respective roles, rights, responsibilities, and reasonable expectations in each of those scenarios.
6. Obtain formal endorsement of that documented consensus from a wide variety of organizations.
7. Identify (or launch) a responsible, authoritative, and persistent website on which to create a webpage that documents that consensus, its history, its contributors, and its endorsers.
8. (Optional/future steps) Undertake or commission the creation and uploading of one or more short videos that summarize that consensus and that directs viewers to the documenting webpage.