ICE didn't use rational tactics with Renee Good

Horrified, I watched the ICE behavior in Minneapolis and the inevitable tragic results. My mind immediately conjured up the founder of modern policing, Robert Peel. He started the London Metropolitan Police in 1829, the first modern constabulary, upon which most Western policing continues to be modeled.

Crime was out of control in the United Kingdom back then due to the Industrial Revolution and migration from rural areas to cities. Law previously had been enforced by the military and private security hired by the wealthy. The idea of civilian cops was controversial. There was plenty of pushback, but Peel forced it through as the U.K.'s home secretary. Crime was cut and within a decade legislation mandated all English cities establish police forces. America's first police force, the NYPD, was created in 1845, in large part following the "Peelian Principles."

The first principle states the mission of police is: "To prevent crime and disorder, as an alternative to their repression by military force and severity of legal punishment." The concepts of "crime prevention" and "order maintenance" were new, a 180-degree change from the focus on punishment and retribution.

Peel had other requirements, including the need for police officers to openly display identification so they could be held accountable for their actions. He also insisted that police be members of the community, not outsiders, and that strategies should be crafted following consultation. It seems Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem has decided none of those components are needed.

After Renee Good was shot and killed, Noem did not respond to protest from all sectors of Minneapolis society by consulting with local leaders, but by unilaterally deciding to deploy more officers whose tactics rely on terrifying shows of force. They have been given license to insult and curse citizens, to bully their way down peaceful streets in search of unnamed prey, clamping down on people who dare question their authority.

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement is part of the Department of Homeland Security, whose training curricula requires its agents "to employ tactics and techniques that effectively bring an incident under control while promoting" safety. It says agents should "avoid intentionally and unreasonably placing themselves in positions in which they have no alternative to using deadly force." The shooting was justified by authorities claiming the ICE agent feared getting run over. He came from behind Good's vehicle and stepped in front of it, drawing his pistol.

Nowhere in the written training manuals is cursing out civilians encouraged, but screaming has emerged as standard procedure for ICE. Starting a confrontation with a civilian by dropping an F-bomb, as happened in Minneapolis, sets the tension level so high that bad outcomes become inevitable. 

NYPD cops are prohibited from using the F-word. (Exceptions are made for high trauma.) But ICE agents now seem to love it as a tool to terrorize, shock and awe a person into compliance.

Two more lessons from Peel that Noem ignores. Principle 2 said law enforcement should "recognize that the power of the police to fill their functions and duties is dependent on public approval." Peel expands the concept in Principle 4 by saying the extent to which the public's cooperation can be secured diminishes proportionately with the use of physical force.

In other words, good cops know it is easier to get compliance with a request than with a threat. It seems the concepts that best protect the population with rational tactics have no audience at DHS.

This guest essay reflects the views of James Mulvaney, an adjunct professor at John Jay College of Criminal Justice and a former police reporter and foreign correspondent at Newsday.