After 35 years as a soldier, I admit to what I consider a mild conservative bias. I lamented the “disrespect” of players kneeling during the national anthem and swore to never watch that sport again … unless my favorite team was playing.
I condoned the shouting of “all lives matter” and even “blue lives matter.” I am not sure if I thought the police killing of unarmed Black men was somehow justified (ashamedly I thought, “Don’t resist and you won’t get shot”) or a random lawlessness by a few who were sworn to uphold the law.
But then unarmed Black men kept getting killed by police officers. Justifying finally became indefensible on my part and I am ashamed that it took me so long. I remain convinced that the vast majority of our police officers are both law-enforcing and law-abiding. But then:
George Floyd.
Jacob Blake.
I sit here in tragic awe that this could continue. I am amazed that law enforcement officers would continue to kill unarmed Black men in an environment of national focus and local cellphone cameras. I don’t understand how someone sworn to uphold the law could carry out unlawful executions in the law’s name.
Because being a soldier is all I did professionally for my adult life, I tried to think how our Army would have handled something like this. Informed by that experience, I’d like to make the following recommendations:
Provide no immunity to individuals for their actions while on duty. I served 24 months in Iraq and Afghanistan with two weapons on my person at all times. I was often in the company of an enemy that did not wish me well. In all situations, I would have been held personally responsible for my actions if I violated the Geneva Conventions or the Law of Armed Conflict. Why should it be any different for police officers? Please don’t lecture me on life and death situations.
Mandate psychological testing of police officers, both new and currently serving, which would determine who might be predisposed to killing an unarmed person. I could even suggest the first question: How many bullets in the back are sufficient to disable an unarmed Black man? Multiple choice answer options are seven and zero. Second question: When is it appropriate to shoot an unarmed Black man when within taser range and outnumbering him six to one? Make that one an essay.
Hold leaders responsible. In the Army, the leader is held responsible for all his unit “does or fails to do.” It is not uncommon for an entire chain of command to be relieved for the actions of one of their soldiers. When a rogue police officer acts like a criminal, bring him or her to justice and then hold the chain of command responsible. If appropriate, fire them all. When that becomes the norm, leaders will be much more interested in selecting officers of character and training them appropriately.
Provide escalation-of-force training. I have heard too many times that police officers are trained to shoot to kill — no warning shots, no “shoot to disable” options. A policeman recently said “we are trained to continue shooting until the threat is neutralized.” Total BS. Every single soldier is provided escalation-of-force training prior to a combat deployment. They are trained to take multiple, reasonable actions prior to shooting to kill and also trained to stop shooting when killing is no longer necessary. If 18-year-old privates can be trusted to do this, why not police officers who are generally older and more mature?
Will any of this work? I don’t know, but we have to do something and I guarantee it won’t hurt. I have seen these solutions help our imperfect Army face many of the same challenges that our police officers face. Let’s give it a try.
Richard Longo
Richard Longo is a retired Army major general living in the Park City area.
