 |
| Rural police officers have high rates of shootings, but they are also more likely to get shot. (Adobe Stock photo) |
"Rural places have high rates of shootings by law enforcement and also of law enforcement officers who get shot; that’s not new information or a new trend," Dias explains. "The writer is also correct that rural agencies frequently lack the ability to use the tools of time, distance and backup to defuse volatile situations."
The article's primary focus is that "rural sheriffs are killing more civilians," Dias adds. "The writer cites Mapping Police Violence stating that since 2013, killings by sheriff’s deputies have risen 43% while killings by police have risen by 3%. . . . First, sheriff’s offices are not all rural [and] not all rural police interactions, lethal or otherwise, are by sheriff’s offices."
Overall, MPV as a source is "profoundly troublesome. 'Police violence' is a broad, provocative term," Dias explains. "The definition from MPV is 'Any incident where a law enforcement officer (off-duty or on-duty) applies, on a civilian, lethal force resulting in the civilian being killed. . . . I found incidents like an off-duty Virginia state trooper who killed a man who was breaking into his home, an off-duty officer who killed his domestic partner and then himself, an off-duty deputy who struck a bicycle rider at night on a Florida highway notorious for wrecks. . ."
The WSJ article uses examples that aren't rural. Dias writes, "The article is about rural police killings, yet the first several quotes are from urban sheriffs about their resources, their experiences and cultural changes they made."
There was an "implicit undertone in the WSJ article’s descriptions of small towns and remote places of the incongruity of violence in those places — that somehow a rural setting made violence even less acceptable than usual," Dias writes. "I believe that underscores the writer’s lack of understanding of rural places, and also the perception of risk by officers."
What rural officers do face is populations that are "more likely to be poor, addicted to alcohol and illegal substances, and to attempt or complete suicide than their urban neighbors," Dias points out. "Rural officers are often poorly paid, and departments do struggle with recruiting, retention and churn that can result in bad hiring choices."
Rural officers need more staff, higher pay, additional training and equipment that works. "I’ll go to the wall with the WSJ writer on those points," Dias adds. "The officers themselves are not the problem. Indeed, they’re expected to be the solution to every problem that comes the way of every other resident, but that’s impossible. They’re cops, not Swiss Army knives."
Read all of Dias' opinion, including her comparison of the WSJ article to a Washington Post story here.
Overall, MPV as a source is "profoundly troublesome. 'Police violence' is a broad, provocative term," Dias explains. "The definition from MPV is 'Any incident where a law enforcement officer (off-duty or on-duty) applies, on a civilian, lethal force resulting in the civilian being killed. . . . I found incidents like an off-duty Virginia state trooper who killed a man who was breaking into his home, an off-duty officer who killed his domestic partner and then himself, an off-duty deputy who struck a bicycle rider at night on a Florida highway notorious for wrecks. . ."
The WSJ article uses examples that aren't rural. Dias writes, "The article is about rural police killings, yet the first several quotes are from urban sheriffs about their resources, their experiences and cultural changes they made."
There was an "implicit undertone in the WSJ article’s descriptions of small towns and remote places of the incongruity of violence in those places — that somehow a rural setting made violence even less acceptable than usual," Dias writes. "I believe that underscores the writer’s lack of understanding of rural places, and also the perception of risk by officers."
What rural officers do face is populations that are "more likely to be poor, addicted to alcohol and illegal substances, and to attempt or complete suicide than their urban neighbors," Dias points out. "Rural officers are often poorly paid, and departments do struggle with recruiting, retention and churn that can result in bad hiring choices."
Rural officers need more staff, higher pay, additional training and equipment that works. "I’ll go to the wall with the WSJ writer on those points," Dias adds. "The officers themselves are not the problem. Indeed, they’re expected to be the solution to every problem that comes the way of every other resident, but that’s impossible. They’re cops, not Swiss Army knives."
Read all of Dias' opinion, including her comparison of the WSJ article to a Washington Post story here.
from The Rural Blog https://ift.tt/oF2KwdB Opinion: Rural policing writer disagrees with Wall Street Journal article about rural law enforcement violence - Entrepreneur Generations
0 Response to "Opinion: Rural policing writer disagrees with Wall Street Journal article about rural law enforcement violence - Entrepreneur Generations"
Post a Comment