The war on police isn’t a new issue in the United States, though it has ramped up considerably in the last decade. Anti-police rhetoric may have its roots in the tumultuous 1960s during the anti-establishment movement; however, it has re-emerged with vigor — with racial strife and police use-of-force tactics at the heart of the crusade. With the media inundating us with story after story of alleged police misconduct, it’s no wonder why police officers have been relentlessly under attack.

The persistent barrage of criticism and scrutiny has taken its toll on our society and culture, and psychologically on the law enforcement community. The effects of the war on police have manifested in a significant reduction in recruitment and retention of police officers throughout this country. A big question arises: How do we effectively perform our difficult jobs while at the same time appeasing an anti-police culture? The answer to that question is being mulled in the minds of every law enforcement executive.

How do we effectively perform our difficult jobs while at the same time appeasing an anti-police culture?

Many years ago, I attended a law enforcement continuing education class where the instructor made a popularity comparison between police and fire departments. His contention was that fire departments have a higher level of approval in the public’s eyes due to their exceptional public relations skills. I balked at that assessment. Not to take anything from the firefighting community’s PR talents, but it actually boils down to a matter of job descriptions. Fire departments have a greater approval rating because they extinguish fires. They aren’t making arrests or conducting traffic stops. This is the essence of the issue — we make the arrests, we write the tickets and our uniforms are prominently present when things go south at family get-togethers, fatal traffic accidents or a multitude of other types of calls. While certainly a part of the equation, the problem isn’t entirely a public relations campaign issue — it’s a matter of changing hearts and minds by countering the narrative against law enforcement.

Early into President Barack Obama’s administration, in a speech he gave in 2009 after the Cambridge incident involving Sergeant James Crowley and Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates, Obama said, “I don’t know, not having been there and not seeing all the facts, what role race played in that, but I think it’s fair to say, number one, any of us would be pretty angry; number two, that the Cambridge police acted stupidly in arresting somebody when there was already proof that they were in their own home, and, number three, what I think we know separate and apart from this incident is that there’s a long history in this country of African Americans and Latinos being stopped by law enforcement disproportionately.” First of all, no more on the topic should’ve been said after the words “I don’t know, not having been there and not seeing all the facts …” However, as we all know, a lack of knowledge seldom prevents politicians from publicly voicing their opinions. Obama’s anti-police rhetoric was absorbed unchallenged by a portion of society. If Obama’s speech and its reception by the media was any kind of indicator, we could see that law enforcement was in for a rough ride — and it certainly has been ever since.

In 2014, after the shooting incident involving Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri, life markedly changed for law enforcement officers. It was during this time that Black Lives Matter (BLM) made its grand entrance onto the national stage. It emerged stridently, leading the charge against an ostensibly bigoted law enforcement community. It had to be true, right? Officer Darren Wilson was white, and Michael Brown was black. Yet, if a reasonable person analyzed the incident with the clarity of common sense, the events that day were entirely preventable by Brown — he should’ve simply complied and resisted the urge to disarm and assault a police officer who had the audacity to contact him. Wilson was ultimately cleared of any wrongdoing, and in the meantime, we were learning the extent of Brown’s criminal activities. These facts were largely overlooked by the media and were completely ignored by BLM and other social justice activists; though the specious slogan “Hands up, don’t shoot” became a marching motto for the movement. In the end, Brown was labeled a martyr, while Wilson was angrily banished by society. Wilson and his family’s lives were threatened, and he lost his chosen career. All of this was in the name of pacifying an outraged mob. Police being painted as the bad guys at the outset of any use-of-force encounter is a tough hole to climb out of as the media pounces and the protesters arrive.

But the onslaught wasn’t over. In 2020, George Floyd’s death sparked yet another nationwide uproar against police. Although opinions vary regarding Floyd’s cause of death, the optics of having a white police officer kneeling on Floyd’s neck did not earn law enforcement any sympathy or support from the public. Ignored in this incident by the media and social justice advocates were Floyd’s unlawful activities, lack of cooperation and the lethal cocktail of narcotics in his system prior to his death. As one could have logically surmised, these events ignited more waves of protests, property damage, hatred and unabashed condemnation aimed at police.

During the ensuing riots, a new slogan was hyped: “Defund the police.” Minneapolis learned two lessons during that period of time: First, when you force your police to retreat from intervening in criminal activities, crime and property damage increase exponentially; secondly, endorsing hateful messages about law enforcement and actively defunding the police comes with consequences. To this day, Minneapolis (and many other agencies) struggle to retain police officers who are fed up with the vitriol and blatant lack of respect.

As the law enforcement community collectively holds its breath waiting for the next fiery incident, police executives are wringing their hands as they attempt to come up with ideas. The solution is to somehow regain the respect and support of the public, but how do we do this? Changing the hearts and minds of the public is a complicated proposition. One can’t simply step up to a podium to demand more respect and ask for kinder treatment. It will take time and careful planning; it will require law enforcement to change its strategies without jeopardizing officer safety or reducing crime-fighting effectiveness — all of which is no easy task.

At the heart of it, we must understand there are industries making a considerable sum of money condemning and commercializing police use-of-force incidents. The media loves to cover a juicy story, and more than one so-called “news” outlet enjoys spinning tales rife with personal animosities toward law enforcement. The other industry belongs to social justice organizations and vocal activists who make a handsome income pointing out the evils of police practices and berating them as another component of so-called systemic racism. The truth is almost entirely circumvented as protesters claim victimhood and create their own storyline of the evil acts committed by the police. It’s vital that the law enforcement community realize these forces posed against them are wealthy, relentless and have a victim-centered agenda. Police organizations throughout the nation should work diligently to not give those aligned against them any ammunition and recognize that the criticism will not abate anytime soon.

Many police agencies have gone on the offensive by trying to bridge the gap of division. Creating programs to draw the police and those they serve together is a smart move but is only one small step. Involve your communities in the crime-fighting process. Step up to help develop neighborhood watches, provide no-strings-attached hotlines to report crimes and ask for assistance via social media platforms in solving crimes. Communication with the public is paramount — keep your citizens abreast of your department’s activities with press releases, even the seemingly mundane items such as crime stats, department productivity and statements from the chief or sheriff about goals being met. When people are informed, they begin to build trust and feel less like an outsider and more so like part of the solution. However, a single breach of this trust can cause a great deal of harm to any established relationship an agency might have with the citizens it protects. Being on the offensive in responding to condemnation is also a consideration. Most agencies sit back and endure the salvo of attacks launched after an attention-drawing incident. Police executives should consider striking back with the truth — press releases, photos, videos, report excerpts and other items of proof can often put law enforcement in a better position to argue against the false narratives hurled at them. This, of course, is only possible for police executives who don’t acquiesce to politicians.

Agency heads are at a perilous junction today where every decision they make will ultimately make or break public trust. By creating sound policies and procedures, doing good police work, refusing to be assailed with misconstructions and lies, and taking the initiative in providing information to the public about critical incidents, the law enforcement community can start down the long road of recovery toward public favor.