Dirty Dancing: The Tactical Nae Nae & Police Accountability
Two separate police encounters with belligerent teenagers on October 26th went viral. In each case, an officer responded to calls from citizens to help resolve conflict. A South Carolina (S.C.) sheriff’s deputy was fired after manhandling a disruptive student who refused to leave a classroom. In Washington, D.C., a police officer responded to a crowd of fighting teenagers that refused to disperse and defused the situation by doing the “Nae Nae.” Both incidents were allegedly resolved without physical harm, although the S.C. student now claims arm, neck, and back injuries.
In less than four days, the S.C. sheriff’s deputy was fired, excoriated in the media and public sentiment, and is the target of a federal civil rights investigation. Overlooked in the deluge of public scorn, dozens of students at the school participated in a civil protest supporting the deputy and demanding his return to duty. In firing the deputy, his sheriff explained the deputy “did not follow proper training, proper procedure when he threw the student” to the floor. The sheriff says the deputy was trained to gain compliance with verbal directives but “was not trained to throw the student.” Instead, the sheriff said the deputy should have used “pain compliance techniques such as pressure points.”
In contrast, the D.C. officer was publicly praised for her creative problem solving. Indeed, the officer’s community engagement is commendable. Comparisons of the two incidents quickly coalesced into a narrative of “dancing cop vs. abusive cop.” President Obama lauded the D.C. officer’s actions as a great example of “having fun while keeping us safe.”
This can be misleading; having fun and protecting the public are often incompatible. In the world of social media, a firestorm of public opinion often supersedes a careful examination of facts or legal standards. Officers who are having too much fun or too aggressive may be viewed negatively. Many officers fear their actions are being judged by public sentiment rather than legal standards. Officers are trained their conduct will be viewed from the perspective of a “reasonable officer.”
Are we to believe that the deputy was not trained to take active resistors to the ground? This tactic is commonplace in law enforcement training curriculums. The sheriff suggested the deputy should instead have used “pain” to gain compliance from the student. Would citizens not be equally outraged had the deputy caused the teenager to scream in pain? In any case, use of force investigations taking less than 48 hours to complete are unlikely to be sufficiently thorough and may expose the agency to unnecessary liability.
Law enforcement is accountable to the community and derives its authority solely from the behest of citizens. When the message is “We want more dancing cops,” police departments are likely to act accordingly. But is that really what we want from law enforcement?
The inconvenient truth is communities hire police officers to complete unsavory tasks. This does not diminish the value of outreach programs, citizen-police partnerships, or community policing efforts. But keeping peace is grinding and gritty work. Police officers would rarely be called if verbal directives or dancing resolved disputes.
Being a peacekeeper requires more than verbal judo. If a dance-off fixes the problem, kudos to the officer for spontaneous and creative thinking. But we must admit that police officers are not trained to resolve conflict via the electric slide, barn dancing, or the “Nae Nae.” They have been trained to use reasonable force while responding to disruptions of community standards. Officers understandably expect to be judged accordingly.
Police should be held to high standards and held accountable for failures, but often find themselves in a lose-lose situation. It is naïve and unrealistic to expect law enforcement to resolve dynamic situations in a manner pleasing to the eye. Gaining compliance is an unpleasant process for which survival is the only reward. The police job description- law enforcement- demands officers take action on our behalf. When communities have a different expectation, perhaps they should hire dance choreographers instead…
After dedicating careers to a system of justice, officers instead feel subjected to mob rule without due process. Police use of force should be analyzed and training standards developed using the U.S. Supreme Court’s “reasonableness standard.” When a child resists a police officer and is thrown to the ground, we understandably wish it were not so. But the actions should be judged on their reasonableness. Using this well-established precedent to examine the two viral videos, there are at least four possible outcomes:
1. The video evidence is insufficient to make a determination as to reasonableness.
2. One officer’s conduct was reasonable. The other officer’s conduct was not.
3. The conduct of both officers was reasonable.
4. The conduct of both officers was unreasonable.
Which option do you think best describes the two incidents, and why? What is…or isn’t…working in police-community relations?
Indy_317_ is a 15-year law enforcement veteran and contributor to The White Hat Syndicate. You can follow Indy_317_ on Twitter: @Indy_317_
Indy_317_ is part of The White Hat Syndicate, a Medium account launched on October 26 that aims to publish thought-provoking articles about cutting-edge homeland security topics. The six authors come from a diverse array of professional and personal backgrounds: legal, fire, environmental health, federal transportation security, and law enforcement.
The Syndicate invites you to engage us in conversation, either here on Medium or via twitter. We look forward to the discussion.
The ideas expressed in this story do not reflect the opinion of, or endorsement by, any public or private agency.
