“nearly a million.” An estimated 991,930 people experienced some level of force (including threats); more than half—55 percent, or 546,000 people—were subject to physical force.55 That latter group, if we got them all together, would make for a fair-sized city, larger than Portland, Oregon (population 537,081).56 And when you orient yourself to the fact that this city could be reproduced every year, you start to get some picture of how common police violence really is.
Also in 2005, there were 57,546 officers assaulted in the course of their work, the equivalent of 11.9 assaults per hundred officers. Most involved unarmed assailants (80 percent) and resulted in no injuries (77 percent).57 Comparing the numbers, we find that the police use violence (546,000 times in 2005) nine times as often as they face it (57,546 times that year).
There is a similar imbalance when it comes to fatalities. A study covering the years 2003–2005 found that 380 police died on duty during that time. Only 159 of these deaths were homicides, and 221 were the result of accidents. During the same period, 1,095 people were killed by police and other officials in the process of arrest. That averages 365 each year, or one a day.58 If we do the math, we see that the police kill almost seven times as often as they are killed. The fact is, the police produce far more casualties than they suffer.
The available studies tell us very little about the prevalence of excessive force, but they do indicate that the police use violence more often, at higher levels, and with deadlier effects, than they encounter it. This disparity should not be surprising, considering the nature of policing—the imperative to maintain control at all times, in every situation (hardly a realistic goal), the training to use escalating levels of force to gain compliance, and authority unhindered by genuine oversight. Policing, as I said earlier, is inherently violent; this violence, generally speaking, seems to be of an offensive—rather than defensive—character.
Explaining Away the Abuse
In Uprooting Racism, Paul Kivel makes a useful comparison between the rhetoric abusive men employ to justify beating up their girlfriends, wives, or children and the publicly traded justifications for widespread racism. He writes:
During the first few years that I worked with men who are violent I was continually perplexed by their inability to see the effects of their actions and their ability to deny the violence they had done to their partners or children. I only slowly became aware of the complex set of tactics that men use to make violence against women invisible and to avoid taking responsibility for their actions. These tactics are listed below in the rough order that men employ them.…
(1) Denial: “I didn’t hit her.”
(2) Minimization: “It was only a slap.”
(3) Blame: “She asked for it.”
(4) Redefinition: “It was mutual combat.”
(5) Unintentionality: “Things got out of hand.”
(6) It’s over now: “I’ll never do it again.”
(7) It’s only a few men: “Most men wouldn’t hurt a woman.”
(8) Counterattack: “She controls everything.”
(9) Competing victimization: “Everybody is against men.”59
Kivel goes on to detail the ways these nine tactics are used to excuse (or deny) institutionalized racism. Each of these tactics also has its police analogy, both as applied to individual cases and in regard to the general issue of police brutality.60
Here are a few examples:
(1) Denial.
“The professionalism and restraint … was nothing short of outstanding.”61
“America does not have a human-rights problem.”62
(2) Minimization.
Injuries were “of a minor nature.”63
“Police use force infrequently.”64
(3) Blame.
“This guy isn’t Mr. Innocent Citizen, either. Not by a long shot.”65
“They died because they were criminals.”66
(4) Redefinition.
It was “mutual combat.”67
“Resisting arrest.”68
“The use of force is necessary to protect yourself.”69
(5) Unintentionality.
“[O]fficers have no choice but to use deadly force against an assailant who is deliberately trying to kill them.…”70
(6) It’s over now.
“We’re making changes.”71
“We will change our training; we will do everything in our power to make sure it never happens again.”72
(7) It’s only a few men.
“A small proportion of officers are disproportionately involved in use-of-force incidents.”73
“Even if we determine that the officers were out of line … it is an aberration.”74
(8) Counterattack.
“The only thing they understand is physical force and pain.”75
“People make complaints to get out of trouble.”76
(9) Competing victimization.
The police are “in constant danger.”77
“[L]iberals are prejudiced against police, much as many white police are biased against Negroes.”78
The police are “the most downtrodden, oppressed, dislocated minority in America.”79
Another commonly invoked rationale for justifying police violence is:
(10) The Hero Defense.
“These guys are heroes.”80
“The police routinely do what the rest of us don’t: They risk their lives to keep the peace. For that selfless bravery, they deserve glory, laud and honor.”81
“[W]ithout the police … anarchy would be rife in this country, and the civilization now existing on this hemisphere would perish.”82
“[T]hey alone stand guard at the upstairs door of Hell.”83
This list is by no means exhaustive, but it should convey something of the tone that these excuses can take. Many of these approaches overlap, and often several are used in conjunction. For example, LAPD sergeant Stacey Koon offers this explanation for the beating of Rodney King:
From our view, and based on what he had already done, Rodney King was trying to assault an officer, maybe grab a gun. And when he was not moving, he seemed to be looking for an opportunity to hurt somebody, his eyes darting this way and that.…
So we’d had to use
