Thread by @sabrinamkarim

Why did the (U.S. Capitol) Police fail to contain yesterday's insurrection? My thoughts on strategic and tactical police restraint and racism (a thread) (1/20)

The media, policymakers and the police are attributing the failure of the police to a lack of preparedness. But, there are multiple layers to explore.

First, the National Guard and Federal law enforcement agencies are not trained in crowd control. The tactical units responsible for crown control in the streets of DC include the DC Washington D.C. Metro Police Special Operations Division.

When protests happen on Federal property, it is the responsibility of the Park Police or the Capitol Police.

But, Federal agencies and the National Guard can be called upon. President Trump called upon them during the summer. Trump ordered the heavy-handed approach.

nytimes.com/2020/07/20/us/…

The Defense Department, and law enforcement agencies did not want a repeat of the negative backlash they received after the summer. To preserve their self-image, they wanted the Federal security forces to keep a low profile so as not to draw more criticism from the public.

washingtonpost.com/national-secur…

Authorities clearly calculated wrongly. The strategic decision to not call in adequate back up before the rally (strategic restraint at the leadership level) was made to appease the public, but it backfired completely

Second, Capitol Police were not armed in riot gear, as law enforcement on crowd control duty have been at almost every large protest against police brutality in D.C.

This is a failure of the leadership of the Capitol Police, who did not perceive a white mob as a major threat despite strong evidence of white nationalist terrorism growing and a permit for 30,000 protesters granted (csis.org/analysis/escal…
)

Third, despite there being 33 law enforcement agencies in the capitol, they were slow and late to respond. Their oversight by the executive, divided loyalty to President Trump, as well as consciousness of public opinion could have played a role.

None of these explanations, however, get at why we saw pictures and videos on showing that the police opened up the barricades and took selfies with the insurrectionists. And, it does not explain the absence of arrests when they cleared the building.

Some police officers were likely complicit because they did not perceive the insurrectionists as a threat. Decades of institutional racism make police officers fear black and brown bodies but not necessarily white ones even when white men (and women) perpetrated the violence

Other police officers were likely complicit because they support the cause of the insurrectionists and are themselves supporters of Trump. Law enforcement agency ideology leans conservative, and many are white supremacists themselves.

Some police officers likely engaged in tactical restraint because they did not want to arrest their own supporters. A large majority of the insurrectionists support “blue lives,” and police officers are loath to arrest their own allies.

And, some police officers were complicit because they were likely afraid of the mob, but also the repercussions of standing their ground. They saw they were outnumbered and ran the other direction.

But, the countless shootings of black and brown people show that the police do not always run away when threatened. They run away when they know they will face repercussions for shooting.

The irony here is that the insurrection showed that the police can de-escalate and be restrained in their actions not just at the individual level, but at the leadership level. This means that police (leadership) choose to use a heavy hand against some protesters and not others.

If we don’t want the police to ever use excessive force, the question should not be why excessive force was not used against the insurrectionists, but rather why excessive force is used particularly against certain (black and brown) protesters

There is variation in police use of force and the restraint not just in the US, but all over the world. I am working on a book manuscript to explain this variation.