A number of cities, including St. Petersburg and Sarasota, have police review boards comprised of private citizens who independently assess and review issues and problems that inevitably arise between police officers and residents. It’s part of a national trend that’s been fueled by the number of high-profile reports of police officers abusing or brutalizing certain members of the public.
The operative dynamic is racial. Unaddressed, flammable incidents can spark the next Ferguson, the next Baltimore.
Tampa is hardly immune.
Not everyone, to be sure, is in favor of such boards. The ACLU and citizen activists, for example, are more comfortable with the concept than some police officials. A lot of it has to do with the real-world charge of such boards. If “oversight” is merely a euphemism for “interference” and knee-jerk criticism, it will accomplish nothing but increased frustration, mistrust and enmity.
For such a board to be successful, says Lendel Bright, who coordinates the one in St. Pete, you need “cooperation between the community and law enforcement. We are not telling the department what to do.”
In short, it needs to be a partnership. Everyone’s lives are impacted. Everyone, in effect, is a stakeholder.
Professional law enforcement doesn’t have all the answers. Communities are societal hybrids with their own inimitable dynamics, from socio-economic issues to drug usage. As for those communities, per se, seeing the police as the enemy and friend of “snitches” is hardly helpful.
Regardless of where they live, police officers have to be perceived as part of the community. That’s why the “Park, Walk and Talk” initiative instituted by St. Pete Police Chief Tony Holloway has been receiving positive feedback. Residents must feel they’re being protected–not occupied by those who seemingly can’t distinguish between pro-active and profiling. It helps if residents can encounter officers outside the context of criminal investigation.
In turn, community members also must acknowledge that serious policing can be a thankless, life-risking job too often characterized by a profusion of victims and perps and an absence of witnesses and every-day nice folks. It’s in their community’s self-interest if they’re not part of the problem.
Maybe the bottom line is this. No one is always right. No one is always culpable. And no one is above scrutiny.
Be open to a bigger picture–and drop the ‘tude. Otherwise, review becomes a sham, matters are made worse and Baltimore may still loom.