Yesterday, Rutgers-Camden PhD candidate Chris Wheeler wrote about the rumors that the Camden police were crossing lines in their treatment of Camden residents. The Camden County Communications office (Dan Keashen) reached out to me to refute Chris’ take. I want to share those emails, and my analysis of the rumors surrounding police brutality.
First, here is Dan Keashen’s (from Camden County) response to yesterday’s post:
Based on your last post I wanted to address some community engagement events that were left out:
- Whitman Park meet the officers event on Chase Street two weeks ago
- North Camden meet the officers event at Coopers Poynt School last week –http://www.courierpostonline.com/story/news/local/south-jersey/2014/04/04/camden-neighborhoods-will-get-police-substations/7286209/
- Erecting substations for more direct interaction with residents
- In the schools reading to children and visiting on a regular basis
- Working with clergy through the city on a regular basis for our day of action with the department chaplain
- MALL program- the department’s first time offender intervention initiative
- Walking patrols in all 21 neighborhoods
- Bike patrols starting very soon
In fact the Chief is at a school event right now. We are having a meet the officers event at Von Neida Park this May and I’m hoping you will join us there.
The police department is not using “heavy handed tactics” on their patrols and to cite a lack of community engagement is not correct
Just wanted to bring this to your attention.
Of course, Dan is right, and the Metro Police is doing community engagement work. For what it’s worth, when I’ve seen this work (mostly at Cooper-Grant, my neighborhood association), I’ve been impressed by it. That doesn’t necessarily mean Chris is wrong. Chris points out that effective community engagement would help prevent incidents like those claimed by Clyde Cook in the post, or Robert Pratt Jones’ video. Or, at a minimum, help address the community perception that the police is using inappropriate techniques. That type of engagement is unbelievably difficult.
The bigger issue is the question of “heavy-handed” policing, and whether it is appropriate. To Dan’s credit, when I asked him about this, he took the time to reply:
In regards to the video, it was investigated and the officer made an arrest on a drug seller and buyer. The seller was being restrained from running away. You only get a selective view and timeline of the context for the total incident.
It was a good arrest.
That last sentence says it all. What is justified to make a “good arrest?”
The official story (dropping crime numbers, techniques that are justified by their success rates) is starting to diverge from the opinion of a segment of neighborhood activists who see the Metro Police as disconnected from communities, and hostile towards them. That matters, particularly because one of the original critiques of moving to a Metro Police (i.e. county police) system was that it further removed the policing system from empathy with the community.
In high crime areas like Camden, the siren song of aggressive policing techniques to help reduce crime is strong. I maintain that the point of Chris’ post was valid; he was questioning when the ends justify the means when it comes to police tactics.
Are we willing to reduce the rights of our citizens, to increase aggressive policing tactics, for increased safety in Camden? That question haunts me at night.
Share it!
