What Tools Can Officers Use to Address Street Level Violent Crime?
Are policy level decisions contributing to the violence, and what are some of the tools Law Enforcement can responsibly use to bring this number down?
Note: I started writing this article about a month ago. Based off of all of the available data, I think what happened to Tyre Nichols in Memphis is a total failure on multiple levels and is a tragedy. I will write on this in the future.
When events like that happen, it is even more crucial to be grounded in the data, and not forget what kind of violence certain communities are facing in this country. Let’s concentrate on how we find the right people for the job to implement the solutions that work in this ever evolving landscape.
Is the graph above depicting a murder rate in a major American city? You could think that based off the current rise in violent crime in some cities. However, per Statista, this is actually depicting the number of deaths caused by Al-Shabaab in Somalia from 2017-2021. These deaths occurred during an open conflict (including bombings) with a terrorist organization and the Somali government. The population of Chicago has around 3 million people while Somalia has around 15 million, yet Chicago had about 200 more murders this past year. This isn’t a perfect comparison, but the violence in Somalia rightfully garnered U.S. and international attention. Where is the same level angst for the murders happening in this country?
Right now in multiple major American cities violent crime is disproportionately impacting certain groups, and it’s unusually elevated. Tragically, we can point to the bodies in the streets. We can point to how they were killed, where they were killed, and when they were killed. Why don’t we revisit what tools worked to control this violence, and refine their shortcomings? This current crime wave is a statistically backed social justice issue. Why is the whole country not stopping to think about it?
I wrote a previous article about pretextual stops. Pretextual stops are nothing more than an officer seeing something indicating criminal behavior, and using a legal reason (headlight out on car, pedestrian violation, etc) to stop a person to conduct an investigation. This practice, along with other proactive policing tools, are being discouraged through various policy changes in some major metropolitan areas. These changes are all being implemented despite the crime wave similar to the early 1990s. What are the potential downstream effects of these policy changes, and again, who is being impacted?
Many say that proactive policing has generally declined since 2014, starting mainly after the unrest in Ferguson, MO. Regardless of how you feel about these incidents, some research shows evidence of de-policing in major American cities after these high profile events. As proactive stops decreased, violent crime increased to levels we are seeing today. That is just the data. I understand correlation does not always equal causation. However, as someone with a combined almost decade and a half of law enforcement and military experience, I believe it does and will make this argument.
According to the Center for Disease Control the data for 2020 shows firearm homicides in the U.S. are the highest they have been since 1994, with an increase of 35% from 2019-2020. African Americans were most impacted, with a 39% increase during this time period.
The data from CDC study above is staggering. The increase in violence is tangible, and the disparate impact is in the numbers. New York Times recently covered this topic, focusing it’s impact on children:
(Even with the increase in gun violence it should be noted since this article was written it has been debated as to whether or not gun violence is actually the leading cause of death.)
Regardless of politics and what you think is causing this phenomenon...I think most will agree it is horrific. We may disagree on how to solve this, but it should have the attention of every well meaning citizen. What are we doing to deal with this?
How does proactive police work fit into this? Pretextual stops, driven by information on suspected offenders, are a Constitutional way of doing this. How could a pretextual stop lead to the seizure of illegal weapons?
A veteran Cleveland detective, on Halloween in 1963, saw two men each walk back and forth in front of a store window five or six times. He watched them take turns looking in the store, returning after each trip to meet up and converse with another. A third man joined them, spoke for a moment and then left. The three men later reconvened a couple blocks away. Detective Bason, on his long experience and his knowledge of the area, believed these individuals were planning a robbery.
The detective approached the men, identified himself as a Police Officer, and asked them their names. When they appeared to be concealing their identity he immediately spun one of them around and patted down his outer clothing for weapons, his concern being these individuals may be armed due to the nature of robberies. The detective felt a pistol in the coat of the first person. He later repeated a pat down of the other individuals, retrieving another gun. This was later challenged in court, the defense argued the firearms were found from an illegal search, citing the pat-down violated the would-be robbers’ fourth amendment rights.
An 8-1 decision in 1968 (Terry v. Ohio.), the U.S. Supreme Court held it is lawful under the Fourth Amendment for an officer to stop a person if they have reasonable suspicion the person has committed a crime or is about to commit a crime, and may conduct a quick surface search of the person’s outer clothing if the officer has reasonable suspicion they may be armed and dangerous. These are also known as “terry frisks.”
Along with other practices, this was used in the early nineties in New York City. In 1990 there were 2,245 murders in NYC (New Yorker 2012), numbers on par with some failed nation states. By November of 2012 there was a day in NYC where there wasn’t a single murder, stabbing, or shooting.
The practice NYPD used was, “stop, question, and frisk.” Later this became “stop and frisk.” This practice has certainly gotten a bad reputation in some circles as it did not come without flaw.
The reality is some officers abused this practice. Searches/frisks occurred in high crime areas without properly establishing reasonable suspicion. If I was a law-abiding citizen just walking to the store and was aggressively stopped, possibly put on the ground, and searched I’d be pissed too. A friend of mine described this happening to him multiple times while as a student at a private school on an athletic scholarship. He wasn’t stopped in wealthy neighborhoods, but was stopped constantly in high-crime areas. That was a failure that needed to be corrected.
Even if “stop, question, and frisk” was what was needed at the time to bring down the murder rate, once violent crime was somewhat controlled the practice should have evolved to be more focused. In the military, you wouldn’t use the same tactics during the invasion after the fighting stopped. In business, if one practice brought high profits it doesn’t mean you can just keep going forever doing the same thing.
Unfortunately, partially because we have pivoted so far away from any proactive work, violent crime has increased dramatically. One example of this is that Chicago now treats foot pursuits with an added layer bureaucracy, requiring officers to obtain supervisor approval before continuing a foot chase. This was put in place during 2022, a year Chicago ended with almost 700 murders.
The reason why Terry v. Ohio is so significant is because this is another foundational court ruling that goes hand and hand with proactive work. It was also a great example of stopping an event that may have ended in blood shed.
From the New York Times:
“Last year was particularly violent: 3,597 children died by gunfire. And while the statistics for this year are incomplete, it is clear that the carnage has not receded. In 2021, nearly two-thirds of gun deaths involving children were homicides, up 73% since 2018. And while no group of American children has been spared, Black and Hispanic children are more likely to be killed.”
I am a simple person. Maybe the only thing you agree with in this article...but if proactive stops are down, that means less police contacts, leading to less frisks for weapons, leading to more illegal guns in circulation. Guns possessed by people that shouldn’t have them.
The data above speaks for itself. What we are doing now doesn’t appear to be working. Let’s act.
Comments Below:
For custom individual/group programming or facility design, please see below:
