October 3, 2022 • 37 mins
Dr. Ajenai Clemmons is an assistant professor at the Josef Korbel School of International Studies at the University of Denver. She was formerly the director of the Office of the Independent Monitor, the civilian oversight agency for the City and Courtney of Denver Police and Sheriff departments. In this episode, Dr. Clemmons explores how conflicts with police could be reduced if police built understanding and worked to meet public expectations.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Ajenai Clemmons (00:07):
Even though there is this tendency to wanna see yourself
as the good guy chasing the bad guy,frankly, that's not so easy to determine.
And sometimes it's just not relevant.
It's not about bad guys and good guys.
It's folks struggling, andfolks who need help, and folks
who are having their worst day.
And that's not the sumtotal of who they are.
Sam Fuqua (00:27):
That's Ajenai Clemmons.
And this is Well, That Went Sideways!
A podcast that serves as aresource to help people have
healthy, respectful communication.
We present a diversity of ideas, tools,and techniques to help you transform
conflict in relationships of all kinds.
On this episode, we talk with AjenaiClemmons about conflicts with law
(00:50):
enforcement, and about how understandingand meeting public expectations can
reduce conflicts with the police.
Ajenai Clemmons is an assistant professorat the Scrivener Institute of Public
Policy at the University of Denver.
Dr.
Clemmons holds a PhD in public policy.
Prior to her work in academia, she helpedestablish and run Denver's Office of
(01:15):
the Independent Monitor, the agency thatinvestigates complaints against city
and county law enforcement officers.
She also served as policydirector for the National Black
Caucus of State Legislators.
And while working for Denver'soffice of the Independent Monitor,
Ajenai, who also goes by AJ Clemmons,sometimes worked with our co-host
(01:38):
and professional mediator, Mary Zinn.
I'm Sam Fuqua, co-host ofthe program with Mary Zinn.
Hi Mary.
Mary Zinn (01:45):
Hi Sam.
Sam Fuqua (01:46):
And we're so pleased to be joined by Dr.
Ajenai Clemmons.
Hello.
Ajenai Clemmons (01:51):
Hi Sam.
Hi Mary.
It's so great to be here.
Thank you.
Mary Zinn (01:55):
Welcome, Dr.
Clemmons.
Thank you for joining us.
Would you start by telling us alittle bit about your background
and how you became interested in thecommunity and policing, specifically?
Ajenai Clemmons (02:06):
It's been many, many years in the works and, and I
think, you know, there's certainlya personal connection there.
Not many people know this, but my owngodfather was actually, uh, killed by,
law enforcement in Connecticut, um, in asituation that, um, I think would probably
(02:31):
be handled a lot differently, uh, today.
And that was something that wasreally traumatic, uh, for my
father, who was his best friend.
And so my father became pretty intent onmaking sure that, you know, the same thing
wouldn't happen with his son, my brother.
So, um, I think in our family therewere certainly conversations, you know,
(02:53):
there was also a deep appreciationfor, for police and their work,
but certainly there were alwaysconcerns there about personal safety.
And so, um, it was somethingthat was on my radar.
And then I should, I should also saythat I grew up in different places.
I grew up in, um, in Denver, inPark Hill, and, um, then moved
(03:14):
out to southeast Denver in thetech center in Greenwood Village.
And there, um, in Greenwood Village,uh, certainly I, I had the experience of
the very friendly neighborhood officer,the officer who would give me a ride to
school if I was running late, you know.
The officer who, uh, crowned me,uh, the winner of the dare uh, uh,
(03:36):
contest, you know, where I won thevery cool teddy bear with a cowboy hat.
Um, so I had these really kind of warmand fuzzy, um, experiences with police
as well, and knew what was possible.
So there came a time, um, after workingfor, um, a, a Hispanic law firm, working
with primarily Mexican, uh, nationals,um, very vulnerable, um, workers, uh,
(04:01):
who were, who were injured on the job.
And there came a time when, um, Denverwas just on the heels of back-to-back
controversial police shootings, um, ofpeople of color, of Paul Childs, who
was a 15-year-old African American kid.
Um, and then Frank Lobato, whowas an elderly Hispanic male who
was killed, um, by Denver Police.
And, uh, there was thisopportunity to completely transform
(04:23):
civilian oversight in Denver.
The office was being set up and so,uh, I, I was hired as the community
relations ombudsman, and I, and I feltthat this was an opportunity for me to,
to bring, to help bring transparency,you know, to government, to help ease,
uh, community police relations to, um,to build community police mediation
(04:46):
program, but also to address some ofthe more structural issues in terms of
fairness, and in terms of, uh, qualityof, of government service delivery.
Mary Zinn (04:57):
AJ, what was the name of the office that you were setting
up to accomplish all of that?
Ajenai Clemmons (05:04):
Sure.
It was the Office of the IndependentMonitor, and now it has more than twice as
many employees as it did, uh, when I waspart of the original team that set it up.
The purpose of the office was to overseethe internal affairs investigations,
uh, the allegations of misconductfor both police and sheriff and fire.
And, um, and our rolewas really, uh, neutral.
(05:27):
Um, you know, we were notrepresenting any one side.
Our, our, our mission was really toensure that those investigations were
fair, thorough, quality, and timely.
Mary Zinn (05:37):
How successful were you at meeting those goals you just mentioned?
Ajenai Clemmons (05:41):
Wow, that is, that's a difficult question.
I think that, you know, we dida really good job of trying
to answer that with data.
Um, it's hard to measurein a lot of ways, right?
Because particularly when you'recomplaint based, it's hard to know
if complaints go up, if that's agood thing or a bad thing, right?
Because if complaints actuallyincrease, uh, from year to year,
(06:07):
it may be that more people actuallyhave faith in the system, right?
Because they see thatthings are getting done.
They see that, um, people care.
They see that there's responsivenesson the part of government.
Um, and so more people can actuallybelieve in the system and therefore, um,
express that agency to file a complaint.
(06:27):
On the other hand, you know, it couldbe a bad thing if, uh, if people sort
of feel that, um, no progress is beingmade, their voice doesn't matter,
and so they actually complain less.
So, you know, that's where you have togo deeper, um, to understand, uh, how
people are perceiving the situation,but also looking at some of those
(06:48):
kind of objective, um, indicators ofdo the police seem to be increasing
the quality of their investigations?
Uh, does the discipline imposedseem to be more reasonable
than it has been in the past?
Um, is it more in align,alignment with, you know, the,
um, severity of the violation?
(07:09):
Um, and so those are things thatas an office, um, you know, we were
very keenly paying attention to.
But I will say in terms of the, theCitizen Police Mediation Program
or the Community Police MediationProgram, which we did have something
like a 99 percent compliance ratewith folks filling out those forms.
And so we know because we did abaseline, uh, survey of folks who
(07:31):
had been in the complaint processbefore our agency was erected that,
um, that folks who went through the,the, the mediation, uh, process, both
on the complainant side and on thepolice side, were far more satisfied.
Um, I wanna say something like,we increased satisfaction,
something like by 80 percent, um,through the mediation process.
(07:54):
So it was, it was definitely a hugeboon to the City and County of Denver.
Sam Fuqua (07:59):
How many complaints came across your desk during your time there?
Ajenai Clemmons (08:04):
I would say in my five years, um, I personally had
not handled probably around 2000.
Um, in terms of the mediation program,I oversaw the completion of around
250 mediations, and during, during mytime there, that put us, uh, second
(08:24):
in the nation behind New York City.
Um, so I liked to say that we werenumber one if you consider per capita.
Sam Fuqua (08:32):
I, I'm curious, was there a typical complaint, or what
kinds of stories did you hear?
Ajenai Clemmons (08:39):
Oh, you know, thanks.
A lot of them tended to be about courtesy.
You know, folks feeling that theofficer was rude and they were su,
well, uh, some folks were surprised.
Folks who were raised to believethat officers were their friends
tended to be quite shocked.
Other folks were more, you know, this isthe fifteenth time and I, you know, I'm
(09:00):
sick and tired of being sick and tired.
You know, that was more thenature of that complaint.
Certainly we had, uh, complaints aboutexcessive force, about, um, about,
um, profiling and, and a few, I mean,especially if they're internally
generated by the police department, um,or by the sheriff department, tho, those
tended to be pretty serious in termsof, um, like con, conduct unbecoming.
(09:25):
So it could be something like,you know, scalping tickets or, you
know, just stealing a bottle ofbeer or DUIs or things like that.
Uh, and some of them were, werereally very tragic kinds of cases.
But I would say that, uh, from the,from the community side, discourtesy
was probably the, the largest category.
Mary Zinn (09:45):
I remember some of those mediations that the citizen would have
been stopped or contacted by the officer.
Tell me if this is typical AJ.
They might have said, he treated meor she treated me like a criminal.
And it feels like discourtesyto someone who's never been in
(10:07):
contact with the police before.
Ajenai Clemmons (10:10):
Absolutely.
That was very interesting.
On some level, you know, and thisgoes back to the, some folks being
shocked, especially white folksbeing shocked of that interaction
and just, you know, "I was raisedthat officers are your friends."
And in effect, because a lot of theinteractions that I had with community
(10:33):
members took place over the phone, andthey didn't know what to make of my
voice, they were making some assumptionsoftentimes, and so they might actually say
something like, "I mean, I can't believethe officer treated me like a criminal.
I don't even look likea criminal, you know?
I'm white.
I'm middle class.
I'm petite.
I'm blonde.
(10:53):
I mean, I'm college educated."
All kinds of things.
So that was, um, that was, thosewere some interesting lessons for me.
But, um, and then on the, on theother side, uh, going back to the
exasperation for, you know, communitieswho had experienced these kinds
of interactions more frequently,you know, it was very painful.
(11:16):
And it was this slow burn and itwas like, I'm tired of being treat,
I'm tired of being treated likea criminal, and I've had enough.
Mm-hmm.
Mary Zinn (11:24):
When I mentioned that people would say that in a mediation, the
abruptness of the officer's tone...
Ajenai Clemmons (11:32):
Mm-hmm.
Mary Zinn (11:33):
...was often what they were talking about.
Ajenai Clemmons (11:35):
Mm-hmm.
Mary Zinn (11:36):
And they weren't soft and gentle and inquiring.
Ajenai Clemmons (11:40):
Mm-hmm.
Mary Zinn (11:40):
They were making a stop that put their lives in danger.
So they were abrupt and they, theywere not as courteous as the person
who was stopped would have wished.
Ajenai Clemmons (11:51):
Absolutely.
Absolutely.
I mean, and, and there's, and there'ssome literature behind that too.
I mean, people want the opportunity tobe heard, um, and they feel like, you
know, that they're providing a service.
So, even though they know that officershave power, they still wanna have that
voice, and want, um, you know, to feellike they have a fair, they've had
(12:13):
a fair process and a fair hearing.
And so, um, proponents of proceduraljustice would say that even if the
ultimate outcome is not what, um, peoplewant, that, if the, if that, if the
process itself was fair, um, if theyfelt like the officer had their best
interest at heart, uh, that they wouldstill, um, perceive that as like a fair
(12:36):
process and a, and a reasonable outcome,and the officer was just doing their job.
Mary Zinn (12:40):
Dr.
Clemmons, would you talk alittle bit about your research?
I understand you did project thatinvolved how people do feel about
their interactions with police,and what they ultimately expect or
could expect in their community.
Ajenai Clemmons (12:59):
I did a project in which I conducted in-depth interviews of young,
black men living in the most heavilypoliced, as well as socioeconomically
distressed area of Durham, North Carolina.
And, um, and, and the community,it, it had experienced a lot of
(13:21):
poverty for a very long time.
Um, and this is not something where theyjust perceived that there's additional,
um, police enforcement, but where thepolice themselves, um, you know, are
talking about this is their target.
And in fact, they called it theBullseye Initiative, um, which was
unfortunately named, but they saturatedthe area, um, in order to affect
(13:44):
the high homicide rates and, and,um, and attempted homicide rates.
And so this was a, a situation in whichthese young men were at tremendous risk,
both from civilian homicide, and fromofficer homicide, and officer aggression.
And so I specifically wanted to hearfrom them, um, in terms of what would
help them to feel safe, and, uh, whattheir policy preferences would be.
(14:10):
And so, um, I had two, two-hour plusconversations with these 18 to 29
year old men and, uh, in person, andthis is, and, and I, and I suspended
the interviews that, COVID, but thesewere confidential conversations, and I
learned a lot of things, a lot of things.
I would say, overall, in contrast to alot of the sort of caricaturization and
(14:34):
the characterization of, um, of folksin a, particularly young folks, in just
being like f*** the police and, and havingvery superficial kinds of, superficially
presented, um, what their views are,and that they're very one dimensional.
And that's not what I found at all.
What I found was very nuanced, verycomplex feelings toward police.
(14:59):
And I'll just give you one example.
I asked a couple of questions.
How do you feel about police now?
And later in the interview, I ask, haveany of your feelings about police changed
over time or have they remained the same?
And over three-quarters of the youngmen had what I would call mixed
assessments, mixed feelings aboutpolice, where they were simultaneously
(15:22):
expressing both positive and negativeinteraction, or excuse me, positive
and negative feelings toward police.
And, a third of thosefeelings changed over time.
So they were actually dynamic,which is very interesting.
Um, three of them got worse over time.
They got, as they grew moreconcerned, but four of them actually
improved over time as they had morepositive interactions with officers.
(15:44):
And so I found that, you know, notjust fascinating but important.
So, you know, complex,nuanced feelings about police.
And what I argue is, what they're tryingto achieve is more predictability on two
fronts, you know, very strategically.
Uh, one is to, you know, if you thinkabout all the possible interactions,
(16:04):
all the possible outcomes you couldhave with officers, they're trying
to remove the most, sort of, negativepossible outcomes, those extreme negative
possible outcomes, just kind of lockthose off and take those off the table.
And the other thing that they're tryingto do is smooth out those in individual
interactions, those fluctuations that seemto be arbitrary, so that there's these
(16:25):
logical connection between what they wouldexpect officers to do, and what they do.
Or what they, what they wantto do and what they think
officers will do in return.
Um, its sort of smoothingout those interactions.
So, they're trying to mitigaterisk, and that's really, you know,
something that they believe is anormal, natural, universal, uh, desire.
(16:51):
They don't think that what they're wantingis anything that anyone else doesn't want.
And they frankly believe it'ssomething that their white
counterparts already enjoy.
So it's, it's, it's something where it'slike, they believe that, you know, they
already know what's needed to be done.
This, they're already doing it,you know, for our fellow citizens.
Um, and so this is whatwe want for ourselves.
(17:11):
We're owed this as Americansand as human beings.
And so you see these very strong themes ofAmerican citizenship and of human rights
coming out in some of their answers.
Sam Fuqua (17:22):
They're looking for police officers to be nicer?
Is that a, a overlysimplistic way to say it?
Or more polite?
Ajenai Clemmons (17:30):
So, yes, but it, but it's more than that.
So for example, if I ask them whatthey want in a police officer, right?
I ask them about their morals,their standards, you know, ethics,
uh, what behaviors they think areimportant, what, uh, traits they think
are important in police officers.
(17:51):
You kind of put all that together andthere are some themes from that that
emerge that they, they want officersthat are just, that are law abiding
themselves, that are, that care aboutprocedure, and do things the right way.
Right?
They want officers who are professional,who are not taking out things on people,
who are actually passionate about theirjobs because they actually believe that
(18:17):
it's very difficult to be an officer.
It's a hard job, andnot everyone can do it.
And so, um, they want, they wantfolks who are not just in it for a
paycheck, but who see it as a calling,and they're passionate about it.
Um, they want officers who arecommunicative because they know that
officers have to interact with allkinds of people, and so they want
them to have those communicationskills, um, which they also see them
(18:39):
as needing to resolve situationsproactively and, and in real time.
And they want officers who are investedin the community so that they actually
care not only about the people and theiroutcomes, but about the community itself.
Um, that they're able to see themselvesas a part of it, um, that they're able to
kind of roll their sleeves up and dive in.
(19:01):
So they see that officerposition as inherent leaders
because of the power they hold.
And so trying to match up thatleadership of their position with their
leadership in practice on a daily basis.
Caring for people.
They want them to be composed.
They want them to be able to managetheir own emotions, and fear.
They know it's, you know, there, there,there are real risks and it's a scary
(19:25):
job, but that they need to be able tomanage their own fear and their own
emotions, um, and so that they can providethat leadership to resolving situations
peacefully so that they are themselves notbringing an extra risk to the situation.
And they want officers whoare discerning and adaptive.
So, they recognize that officershold a lot of discretion.
(19:48):
They wield tremendous discretionand power, and they want them
to be discerning because theyknow that there's a lot of gray.
And even though there's this tendencyto wanna see yourself as the good
guy chasing the bad guy, frankly,that's not so easy to determine.
And sometimes it's just not relevant.
It's not about bad guys and good guys.
It's folks struggling, and folkswho need help, and folks who are
(20:12):
having their worst day, and that'snot the sum total of who they are.
Mary Zinn (20:16):
Would you tell us a little bit about the risk?
You were talking about thepower that police officers have.
And for people who don't interact withthem, I don't know that that sense of
risk and power balance is that play.
And how is it different for thepeople that you interviewed?
Ajenai Clemmons (20:39):
You know, when we look at how a lot of deadly force situations
happen, a lot of them start off with thesevery simple kinds of interactions, like
pulling someone over for a taillight.
And, particularly as itpertains to African Americans.
(20:59):
And so there's that concern there.
And for the young men that Iinterviewed, about 38 percent of
them had a personal relationship withsomeone who had been killed by a police
officer somewhere in the country.
So these, this is not, this isnot abstract for them, right?
So, you know, you have the, the worstpossible outcome, which is death,
(21:20):
uh, which can come about in seeminglyrandom ways, uh, from their perspective.
But you also have just more common, uh,kinds of threats like aggression, you
know, being hurt physically, having a gunpointed in your face, um, which a lot of
them shared with me had happened to them.
(21:42):
A lot of them.
And, I mean in some cases where, youknow, they weren't even the suspect.
Or, or they had witnessed a policeofficer point a gun at their grandmother,
in their grandmother's face lookingfor someone else, um, and curse their
grandmother out, or manhandle theirmother, or manhandle their sister.
So, what they're trying to achieve, youknow, in their interactions because they
(22:02):
want police to protect them, they wantpolice to protect them from criminal
threats, um, but they also want police tostop unnecessarily harming and threatening
them and the community members.
And so they're trying to, to create morepredictable scenarios so that, um, so
that they can mitigate all these differentrisks and, um, create safer outcomes
(22:24):
for themselves and those they love.
Sam Fuqua (22:27):
One hopes that in their training and their ongoing continuing
education, police officers are informedof what the community expects of
them, including these qualities notonly of courtesy, but of discernment
and, uh, trust building behavior.
(22:47):
Is that happening in, in your view?
Uh, I'm sure it varies department bydepartment, but how are we doing in
helping our police officers be betterin these ways you've just described?
Ajenai Clemmons (23:03):
Oh, well, I mean, there are some jurisdictions that likely do
it better than other jurisdictions,um, because there are, you know,
19,000 law enforcement jurisdictionsin the US, but there are definitely
ways that it, that it can be improved.
You know, I asked themseveral questions about trust.
About whether they trust police.
(23:23):
If so, why?
You know, if not, why not?
And you know, this is something thatwas kind of intended to be a yes or no
question, but was anything but a yesor no question, and actually again,
within the, in line with the nuanceand the complexity, ended up being,
um, very interesting in the responses.
So, a strong minoritydid not trust police.
(23:47):
A slight majority were willingto trust them to some extent.
And, and so the things that negativelyimpacted their trust were considerations
of this sort of structural environmentof whether they felt that the police
were connected to the community,um, or whether, like did they
express knowledge of the community?
Did they understand the community'svalues or norms or people or places?
(24:13):
Um, uh, do they have a basic, youknow, grasp of the community that
they're, that they're patrolling?
Or they doing things that kind of like,that see, that are ignorant and that
put them in harm's way even, right?
There's a, appear to be accountability.
So if there's an officer who'sconsistently doing things, and
they're complaining, and there's no,no result, that suggests that that
(24:36):
officer is not accountable to anyone,not accountable to the community.
Um, but particularly if, uh, thatofficer is not even behaving the
way that the other officers behaveand is not being corrected or is
not being removed, right, that, thatofficer is accountable to no one.
So they're considering these, these sortof structural issues of accountability
(24:56):
and how well the department is perhapscommunicating with that community as well,
you know, when complaints are happening.
The second, the secondconsideration is officer behavior.
Are officers threatening?
Are they honest?
Are they dishonest?
Are they stealing?
Are they, you know, do theyhesitate when there's, when
something happens, or do they rushin and try to, as, you know, help?
(25:19):
When I say hesitate, what I mean isdo they wait for everything to clear?
Do they allow violence tocontinue unabated or do they
actually like intervene and dotheir best to restore peace?
So those are things where they'reactually looking at office,
individual officer behavior over time.
(25:39):
And then the third piece is,are the officers actually making
the effort, uh, to gain trust?
Just because you have a badge, itdoesn't mean that you're trustworthy.
And that's something that's veryhard for some folks to hear because
where they are, there's, there's areally strong narrative of heroism.
(25:59):
And so this is a different paradigmwhere it's, it's not so much that
they are always actively distrustingpolice, but that they're not making
a special effort to trust them.
That they actually want to get to knowthat particular officer and make sure that
that particular officer is trustworthy.
And the way that that officer needsto do that is by demonstrating
(26:22):
their character, is by demonstratinghonesty, by demonstrating that they
care, by being vulnerable, right?
By, by reciprocating trust.
If the officer is acting likea robot and doesn't trust the
community, then why should thecommunity trust the officer, right?
So it's a, it's a different way ofapproaching it that I think needs to
(26:42):
be appreciated when you're where, whenyou're in a, just like kind of generally
a low trust environment and trustingthe wrong person can get you killed.
And that includes if there are officerswho, for example, are playing games,
who tell on, you know, folks andsay, oh, so and so's who, you know,
this so and so is who ratted you out.
(27:03):
Or if officers are dropping people,purposely picking them up and dropping
them off in a, in a, in, in a neighborhoodthat they know is dangerous for them.
You know, these are the things thatreally chip away at that trust.
And, um, and unfortunately, you know,a lot of negative experiences will
affect other officers who are doingwhat they're supposed to be doing.
(27:24):
But I think the hope here, the hopethat we can take away from these
interviews is that, that a lot of peopleactually make allowances for that.
That they actually do pay attentionto differences between officers, and
allow officers to gain their trust.
And I think that that's, that'sone of the most, um, important and
(27:45):
impactful, I think, findings that wecan really leverage in terms of policy.
But those departments absolutely have tobe, I, I'm not trying to problematize,
um, if, if someone doesn't feelcomfortable trusting, what I'm saying
is that, um, departments have to takethat very seriously and they need to
address it in terms of, of structure, ofpolicy, and those officers individually
(28:07):
also winning and gaining trust.
That is a gift.
It's a gift.
It's an act of intimacy and it,and it cannot be taken for granted.
Mary Zinn (28:15):
And the building of trust then, the whole department gains in
relationship to the community that ifthey're connected, as you described,
was a wish that they be connected to thecommunity, and things get better in those
communities for everyone, for the officersand for the, the community citizens.
(28:37):
That can happen.
I would appreciate youroffering some hope in this.
And I would also ask about public policy,which is your area now that you're
teaching at the University of Denver.
How can we understand the impactof public policy on these issues?
Ajenai Clemmons (28:57):
Oh, I think public policy is huge.
I mean, we have to appreciate that,um, that rules matter, that laws
matter, that incentives matter,and that disincentives matter.
For example, you know, when we, wethink we can think about some more
recent, um, reforms in policing thathave saved thousands and thousands
of lives, and that's somethinglike reducing police chases.
(29:21):
In roughly maybe a decade, a little overa decade, they were just something like
11,000 deaths, um, from police chases.
Some of the, many of thosewere innocent bystanders.
Some of those were actually otherpolice officers or the police officer
themselves doing the chase thataccidentally killed himself or herself.
(29:42):
Some of those were the suspectand some of those were people in
the suspect's car, including kids.
So, um, you know, that's, that's onepolicy change where most departments
across the country said, okay, we'regoing to pretty much stop police
chases or have very, very selectivecriteria for when chases can take place.
(30:05):
And it can't be, you know, stealingsome gas at a grocery store, so
we're gonna chase them across,you know, at 120 miles per hour.
You know, it really needs to bevery, very serious and dangerous
threats to the community.
Shooting at moving vehicles is anotherone, and, and you see it a lot even
in movies where an officer kind ofstands and shoots in a vehicle and
(30:28):
tries to get the driver to stop.
But the reality is, is that if the officeractually does manage to incapacitate
the driver, now you have a 4,000 poundmissile barreling through the streets.
So, um, that's something that hascaused a lot of suffering, frankly.
And so a, attempts to limitthat have, have seen impacts
(30:52):
across the country as well.
So, in terms of, um, you know, what wecan do more of, certainly unnecessarily
pointing guns, pointing weapons atpeople is causing a lot of trauma, and
that's something that they can reduce.
I mean, and not only the traumaticimpact of that, but also psychologically,
(31:12):
but also just the elevated risk,you know, when you're taking out
your weapons, um, when it's noteven a deadly force situation.
So, so that raises the risk of accidents.
So, that's something that could beaddressed through much stronger policies.
A lot of departments don't even considerit to be a use of force to point your
weapon at someone, which is unimaginablereally, if you were in that position.
(31:35):
So, how can that not beconsidered a use of force?
Um, and that needs to be tracked, itneeds to be monitored, it needs to be,
um, reviewed, you know, with audits.
There needs to be some policy around it.
Uh, there needs to be limitations to it.
Um, there needs to be training around it.
And then, um, you know, those auditsof body cam footage just so that the
supervisor and others, uh, outside thechain of command can, um, help that
(31:58):
officer to understand what are somebetter ways to be handling that situation.
Mary Zinn (32:03):
Thank you so much for giving us this information about the
importance of trust in relationships,and what the police department can step
up to in expectations that there's apossibility all of that could happen if
we know clearly what the expectationsare, and how that fits in with public
(32:24):
safety, how those things come together.
What would you say to each of us inour role in creating public safety?
Ajenai Clemmons (32:37):
That's a fantastic question, Mary.
I mean, an important questionand a difficult question.
It's important that we understand thatsafety is a collective thing, that we
all have a responsibility to uphold it.
But we're also responsiblefor feelings of safety.
So for example, if we feel unsafe, I thinkwe do need to interrogate why we feel
(32:59):
unsafe, and take responsibility for that.
When I was a, um, ombudsman for the Cityand County of Denver, um, heard people
who were afraid of other people becausethey were standing in line waiting to be
hired for a job that morning downtown,or because they were teenagers who were
(33:21):
gathered together on a sidewalk nearthe river with their feet outstretched.
I heard people make appeals topolice officers that were totally
unconstitutional because they feltunsafe and they wanted officers to
enforce that, and they wanted them to dosomething, do something about this, right?
I feel uncomfortable 'cause I see this.
(33:42):
We have to be, uh, have some ownershipover our own sense of safety and make
sure that, uh, we are also being goodcitizens and not, um, asking officers
to do things that are unconstitutional.
At the same time, this, these questionsof justice and, and, and equity are
very much a long road, you know, thisis the, we gotta think of the long
(34:07):
game and um, and we can't get tired.
And so it's important for us to stayconcerned, to not give up, to not
grow weary, to pace ourselves, and toremember to be, you know, empathetic.
Uh, just because something doesn't happento us doesn't mean it doesn't happen.
And so we need to remain listeningto each other and engage with
(34:28):
one another's concerns and,um, and continue that dialogue.
Just be open to that dialogue.
I think we've, we've losttoo much of that today.
Sam Fuqua (34:38):
I just wanna thank you, Dr.
Ajenai Clemmons, for sharing some ofyour research and your perspective on
these important issues of trust andhow we interact with law enforcement in
the way that, that works for everybody.
Thank you.
Ajenai Clemmons (34:55):
Oh, thank you so much, Sam.
This has just been anhonor and a pleasure.
I would like to, if I, if I could, justend with a quote that, uh, one of the
young men I interviewed shared with me.
Um, this was a heartfelt appeal thathe had for politicians and for the
public to, to be concerned aboutwhat was going on in their community.
(35:21):
And he said, I, I named him Joseph,he's actually just 20 years old when
he, when he makes this comment, "Iwould tell politicians to more so hear
the letter, not the law of what's beingsaid, and try to understand people's
feelings, not just what they're saying.
What comes out of their mouth isultimately influenced by how they feel.
(35:41):
So if you can understand howsomeone feels, then you're more
so to meet their expectations, notjust do what they tell you to do.
To say it in other words, whenyou understand how someone feels,
you're more so to not necessarilymake the same mistake again.
If they understand how we feel whenthey're reading the analysis, and not
just what we're saying, but see in whatwe are saying, like how we feel, it would
(36:05):
help them to make better decisions abouthow to accommodate what we're saying."
Sam Fuqua (36:10):
Dr.
Ajenai Clemmons is an assistant professorat the Scrivner Institute of Public
Policy at the University of Denver.
Thanks for listening toWell, That Went Sideways!
We produce new episodes twice a month.
(36:30):
You can find them whereveryou get your podcasts, and on
our website, sidewayspod.org.
We also have information on ourguests and links to more conflict
resolution resources at the website.
That's sidewayspod.org.
Our program is produced by MaryZinn, Jes Rau, Norma Johnson,
(36:51):
Alexis Miles, and me, Sam Fuqua.
Our theme music is by Mike Stewart.
And this podcast is a partnershipwith The Conflict Center, a
Denver-based nonprofit that providespractical skills and training for
addressing everyday conflicts.
Find out more at conflictcenter.org.
Even though there is this tendency to wanna see yourself
as the good guy chasing the bad guy,frankly, that's not so easy to determine.
And sometimes it's just not relevant.
It's not about bad guys and good guys.
It's folks struggling, andfolks who need help, and folks
who are having their worst day.
And that's not the sumtotal of who they are.
Sam Fuqua (00:27):
That's Ajenai Clemmons.
And this is Well, That Went Sideways!
A podcast that serves as aresource to help people have
healthy, respectful communication.
We present a diversity of ideas, tools,and techniques to help you transform
conflict in relationships of all kinds.
On this episode, we talk with AjenaiClemmons about conflicts with law
(00:50):
enforcement, and about how understandingand meeting public expectations can
reduce conflicts with the police.
Ajenai Clemmons is an assistant professorat the Scrivener Institute of Public
Policy at the University of Denver.
Dr.
Clemmons holds a PhD in public policy.
Prior to her work in academia, she helpedestablish and run Denver's Office of
(01:15):
the Independent Monitor, the agency thatinvestigates complaints against city
and county law enforcement officers.
She also served as policydirector for the National Black
Caucus of State Legislators.
And while working for Denver'soffice of the Independent Monitor,
Ajenai, who also goes by AJ Clemmons,sometimes worked with our co-host
(01:38):
and professional mediator, Mary Zinn.
I'm Sam Fuqua, co-host ofthe program with Mary Zinn.
Hi Mary.
Mary Zinn (01:45):
Hi Sam.
Sam Fuqua (01:46):
And we're so pleased to be joined by Dr.
Ajenai Clemmons.
Hello.
Ajenai Clemmons (01:51):
Hi Sam.
Hi Mary.
It's so great to be here.
Thank you.
Mary Zinn (01:55):
Welcome, Dr.
Clemmons.
Thank you for joining us.
Would you start by telling us alittle bit about your background
and how you became interested in thecommunity and policing, specifically?
Ajenai Clemmons (02:06):
It's been many, many years in the works and, and I
think, you know, there's certainlya personal connection there.
Not many people know this, but my owngodfather was actually, uh, killed by,
law enforcement in Connecticut, um, in asituation that, um, I think would probably
(02:31):
be handled a lot differently, uh, today.
And that was something that wasreally traumatic, uh, for my
father, who was his best friend.
And so my father became pretty intent onmaking sure that, you know, the same thing
wouldn't happen with his son, my brother.
So, um, I think in our family therewere certainly conversations, you know,
(02:53):
there was also a deep appreciationfor, for police and their work,
but certainly there were alwaysconcerns there about personal safety.
And so, um, it was somethingthat was on my radar.
And then I should, I should also saythat I grew up in different places.
I grew up in, um, in Denver, inPark Hill, and, um, then moved
(03:14):
out to southeast Denver in thetech center in Greenwood Village.
And there, um, in Greenwood Village,uh, certainly I, I had the experience of
the very friendly neighborhood officer,the officer who would give me a ride to
school if I was running late, you know.
The officer who, uh, crowned me,uh, the winner of the dare uh, uh,
(03:36):
contest, you know, where I won thevery cool teddy bear with a cowboy hat.
Um, so I had these really kind of warmand fuzzy, um, experiences with police
as well, and knew what was possible.
So there came a time, um, after workingfor, um, a, a Hispanic law firm, working
with primarily Mexican, uh, nationals,um, very vulnerable, um, workers, uh,
(04:01):
who were, who were injured on the job.
And there came a time when, um, Denverwas just on the heels of back-to-back
controversial police shootings, um, ofpeople of color, of Paul Childs, who
was a 15-year-old African American kid.
Um, and then Frank Lobato, whowas an elderly Hispanic male who
was killed, um, by Denver Police.
And, uh, there was thisopportunity to completely transform
(04:23):
civilian oversight in Denver.
The office was being set up and so,uh, I, I was hired as the community
relations ombudsman, and I, and I feltthat this was an opportunity for me to,
to bring, to help bring transparency,you know, to government, to help ease,
uh, community police relations to, um,to build community police mediation
(04:46):
program, but also to address some ofthe more structural issues in terms of
fairness, and in terms of, uh, qualityof, of government service delivery.
Mary Zinn (04:57):
AJ, what was the name of the office that you were setting
up to accomplish all of that?
Ajenai Clemmons (05:04):
Sure.
It was the Office of the IndependentMonitor, and now it has more than twice as
many employees as it did, uh, when I waspart of the original team that set it up.
The purpose of the office was to overseethe internal affairs investigations,
uh, the allegations of misconductfor both police and sheriff and fire.
And, um, and our rolewas really, uh, neutral.
(05:27):
Um, you know, we were notrepresenting any one side.
Our, our, our mission was really toensure that those investigations were
fair, thorough, quality, and timely.
Mary Zinn (05:37):
How successful were you at meeting those goals you just mentioned?
Ajenai Clemmons (05:41):
Wow, that is, that's a difficult question.
I think that, you know, we dida really good job of trying
to answer that with data.
Um, it's hard to measurein a lot of ways, right?
Because particularly when you'recomplaint based, it's hard to know
if complaints go up, if that's agood thing or a bad thing, right?
Because if complaints actuallyincrease, uh, from year to year,
(06:07):
it may be that more people actuallyhave faith in the system, right?
Because they see thatthings are getting done.
They see that, um, people care.
They see that there's responsivenesson the part of government.
Um, and so more people can actuallybelieve in the system and therefore, um,
express that agency to file a complaint.
(06:27):
On the other hand, you know, it couldbe a bad thing if, uh, if people sort
of feel that, um, no progress is beingmade, their voice doesn't matter,
and so they actually complain less.
So, you know, that's where you have togo deeper, um, to understand, uh, how
people are perceiving the situation,but also looking at some of those
(06:48):
kind of objective, um, indicators ofdo the police seem to be increasing
the quality of their investigations?
Uh, does the discipline imposedseem to be more reasonable
than it has been in the past?
Um, is it more in align,alignment with, you know, the,
um, severity of the violation?
(07:09):
Um, and so those are things thatas an office, um, you know, we were
very keenly paying attention to.
But I will say in terms of the, theCitizen Police Mediation Program
or the Community Police MediationProgram, which we did have something
like a 99 percent compliance ratewith folks filling out those forms.
And so we know because we did abaseline, uh, survey of folks who
(07:31):
had been in the complaint processbefore our agency was erected that,
um, that folks who went through the,the, the mediation, uh, process, both
on the complainant side and on thepolice side, were far more satisfied.
Um, I wanna say something like,we increased satisfaction,
something like by 80 percent, um,through the mediation process.
(07:54):
So it was, it was definitely a hugeboon to the City and County of Denver.
Sam Fuqua (07:59):
How many complaints came across your desk during your time there?
Ajenai Clemmons (08:04):
I would say in my five years, um, I personally had
not handled probably around 2000.
Um, in terms of the mediation program,I oversaw the completion of around
250 mediations, and during, during mytime there, that put us, uh, second
(08:24):
in the nation behind New York City.
Um, so I liked to say that we werenumber one if you consider per capita.
Sam Fuqua (08:32):
I, I'm curious, was there a typical complaint, or what
kinds of stories did you hear?
Ajenai Clemmons (08:39):
Oh, you know, thanks.
A lot of them tended to be about courtesy.
You know, folks feeling that theofficer was rude and they were su,
well, uh, some folks were surprised.
Folks who were raised to believethat officers were their friends
tended to be quite shocked.
Other folks were more, you know, this isthe fifteenth time and I, you know, I'm
(09:00):
sick and tired of being sick and tired.
You know, that was more thenature of that complaint.
Certainly we had, uh, complaints aboutexcessive force, about, um, about,
um, profiling and, and a few, I mean,especially if they're internally
generated by the police department, um,or by the sheriff department, tho, those
tended to be pretty serious in termsof, um, like con, conduct unbecoming.
(09:25):
So it could be something like,you know, scalping tickets or, you
know, just stealing a bottle ofbeer or DUIs or things like that.
Uh, and some of them were, werereally very tragic kinds of cases.
But I would say that, uh, from the,from the community side, discourtesy
was probably the, the largest category.
Mary Zinn (09:45):
I remember some of those mediations that the citizen would have
been stopped or contacted by the officer.
Tell me if this is typical AJ.
They might have said, he treated meor she treated me like a criminal.
And it feels like discourtesyto someone who's never been in
(10:07):
contact with the police before.
Ajenai Clemmons (10:10):
Absolutely.
That was very interesting.
On some level, you know, and thisgoes back to the, some folks being
shocked, especially white folksbeing shocked of that interaction
and just, you know, "I was raisedthat officers are your friends."
And in effect, because a lot of theinteractions that I had with community
(10:33):
members took place over the phone, andthey didn't know what to make of my
voice, they were making some assumptionsoftentimes, and so they might actually say
something like, "I mean, I can't believethe officer treated me like a criminal.
I don't even look likea criminal, you know?
I'm white.
I'm middle class.
I'm petite.
I'm blonde.
(10:53):
I mean, I'm college educated."
All kinds of things.
So that was, um, that was, thosewere some interesting lessons for me.
But, um, and then on the, on theother side, uh, going back to the
exasperation for, you know, communitieswho had experienced these kinds
of interactions more frequently,you know, it was very painful.
(11:16):
And it was this slow burn and itwas like, I'm tired of being treat,
I'm tired of being treated likea criminal, and I've had enough.
Mm-hmm.
Mary Zinn (11:24):
When I mentioned that people would say that in a mediation, the
abruptness of the officer's tone...
Ajenai Clemmons (11:32):
Mm-hmm.
Mary Zinn (11:33):
...was often what they were talking about.
Ajenai Clemmons (11:35):
Mm-hmm.
Mary Zinn (11:36):
And they weren't soft and gentle and inquiring.
Ajenai Clemmons (11:40):
Mm-hmm.
Mary Zinn (11:40):
They were making a stop that put their lives in danger.
So they were abrupt and they, theywere not as courteous as the person
who was stopped would have wished.
Ajenai Clemmons (11:51):
Absolutely.
Absolutely.
I mean, and, and there's, and there'ssome literature behind that too.
I mean, people want the opportunity tobe heard, um, and they feel like, you
know, that they're providing a service.
So, even though they know that officershave power, they still wanna have that
voice, and want, um, you know, to feellike they have a fair, they've had
(12:13):
a fair process and a fair hearing.
And so, um, proponents of proceduraljustice would say that even if the
ultimate outcome is not what, um, peoplewant, that, if the, if that, if the
process itself was fair, um, if theyfelt like the officer had their best
interest at heart, uh, that they wouldstill, um, perceive that as like a fair
(12:36):
process and a, and a reasonable outcome,and the officer was just doing their job.
Mary Zinn (12:40):
Dr.
Clemmons, would you talk alittle bit about your research?
I understand you did project thatinvolved how people do feel about
their interactions with police,and what they ultimately expect or
could expect in their community.
Ajenai Clemmons (12:59):
I did a project in which I conducted in-depth interviews of young,
black men living in the most heavilypoliced, as well as socioeconomically
distressed area of Durham, North Carolina.
And, um, and, and the community,it, it had experienced a lot of
(13:21):
poverty for a very long time.
Um, and this is not something where theyjust perceived that there's additional,
um, police enforcement, but where thepolice themselves, um, you know, are
talking about this is their target.
And in fact, they called it theBullseye Initiative, um, which was
unfortunately named, but they saturatedthe area, um, in order to affect
(13:44):
the high homicide rates and, and,um, and attempted homicide rates.
And so this was a, a situation in whichthese young men were at tremendous risk,
both from civilian homicide, and fromofficer homicide, and officer aggression.
And so I specifically wanted to hearfrom them, um, in terms of what would
help them to feel safe, and, uh, whattheir policy preferences would be.
(14:10):
And so, um, I had two, two-hour plusconversations with these 18 to 29
year old men and, uh, in person, andthis is, and, and I, and I suspended
the interviews that, COVID, but thesewere confidential conversations, and I
learned a lot of things, a lot of things.
I would say, overall, in contrast to alot of the sort of caricaturization and
(14:34):
the characterization of, um, of folksin a, particularly young folks, in just
being like f*** the police and, and havingvery superficial kinds of, superficially
presented, um, what their views are,and that they're very one dimensional.
And that's not what I found at all.
What I found was very nuanced, verycomplex feelings toward police.
(14:59):
And I'll just give you one example.
I asked a couple of questions.
How do you feel about police now?
And later in the interview, I ask, haveany of your feelings about police changed
over time or have they remained the same?
And over three-quarters of the youngmen had what I would call mixed
assessments, mixed feelings aboutpolice, where they were simultaneously
(15:22):
expressing both positive and negativeinteraction, or excuse me, positive
and negative feelings toward police.
And, a third of thosefeelings changed over time.
So they were actually dynamic,which is very interesting.
Um, three of them got worse over time.
They got, as they grew moreconcerned, but four of them actually
improved over time as they had morepositive interactions with officers.
(15:44):
And so I found that, you know, notjust fascinating but important.
So, you know, complex,nuanced feelings about police.
And what I argue is, what they're tryingto achieve is more predictability on two
fronts, you know, very strategically.
Uh, one is to, you know, if you thinkabout all the possible interactions,
(16:04):
all the possible outcomes you couldhave with officers, they're trying
to remove the most, sort of, negativepossible outcomes, those extreme negative
possible outcomes, just kind of lockthose off and take those off the table.
And the other thing that they're tryingto do is smooth out those in individual
interactions, those fluctuations that seemto be arbitrary, so that there's these
(16:25):
logical connection between what they wouldexpect officers to do, and what they do.
Or what they, what they wantto do and what they think
officers will do in return.
Um, its sort of smoothingout those interactions.
So, they're trying to mitigaterisk, and that's really, you know,
something that they believe is anormal, natural, universal, uh, desire.
(16:51):
They don't think that what they're wantingis anything that anyone else doesn't want.
And they frankly believe it'ssomething that their white
counterparts already enjoy.
So it's, it's, it's something where it'slike, they believe that, you know, they
already know what's needed to be done.
This, they're already doing it,you know, for our fellow citizens.
Um, and so this is whatwe want for ourselves.
(17:11):
We're owed this as Americansand as human beings.
And so you see these very strong themes ofAmerican citizenship and of human rights
coming out in some of their answers.
Sam Fuqua (17:22):
They're looking for police officers to be nicer?
Is that a, a overlysimplistic way to say it?
Or more polite?
Ajenai Clemmons (17:30):
So, yes, but it, but it's more than that.
So for example, if I ask them whatthey want in a police officer, right?
I ask them about their morals,their standards, you know, ethics,
uh, what behaviors they think areimportant, what, uh, traits they think
are important in police officers.
(17:51):
You kind of put all that together andthere are some themes from that that
emerge that they, they want officersthat are just, that are law abiding
themselves, that are, that care aboutprocedure, and do things the right way.
Right?
They want officers who are professional,who are not taking out things on people,
who are actually passionate about theirjobs because they actually believe that
(18:17):
it's very difficult to be an officer.
It's a hard job, andnot everyone can do it.
And so, um, they want, they wantfolks who are not just in it for a
paycheck, but who see it as a calling,and they're passionate about it.
Um, they want officers who arecommunicative because they know that
officers have to interact with allkinds of people, and so they want
them to have those communicationskills, um, which they also see them
(18:39):
as needing to resolve situationsproactively and, and in real time.
And they want officers who are investedin the community so that they actually
care not only about the people and theiroutcomes, but about the community itself.
Um, that they're able to see themselvesas a part of it, um, that they're able to
kind of roll their sleeves up and dive in.
(19:01):
So they see that officerposition as inherent leaders
because of the power they hold.
And so trying to match up thatleadership of their position with their
leadership in practice on a daily basis.
Caring for people.
They want them to be composed.
They want them to be able to managetheir own emotions, and fear.
They know it's, you know, there, there,there are real risks and it's a scary
(19:25):
job, but that they need to be able tomanage their own fear and their own
emotions, um, and so that they can providethat leadership to resolving situations
peacefully so that they are themselves notbringing an extra risk to the situation.
And they want officers whoare discerning and adaptive.
So, they recognize that officershold a lot of discretion.
(19:48):
They wield tremendous discretionand power, and they want them
to be discerning because theyknow that there's a lot of gray.
And even though there's this tendencyto wanna see yourself as the good
guy chasing the bad guy, frankly,that's not so easy to determine.
And sometimes it's just not relevant.
It's not about bad guys and good guys.
It's folks struggling, and folkswho need help, and folks who are
(20:12):
having their worst day, and that'snot the sum total of who they are.
Mary Zinn (20:16):
Would you tell us a little bit about the risk?
You were talking about thepower that police officers have.
And for people who don't interact withthem, I don't know that that sense of
risk and power balance is that play.
And how is it different for thepeople that you interviewed?
Ajenai Clemmons (20:39):
You know, when we look at how a lot of deadly force situations
happen, a lot of them start off with thesevery simple kinds of interactions, like
pulling someone over for a taillight.
And, particularly as itpertains to African Americans.
(20:59):
And so there's that concern there.
And for the young men that Iinterviewed, about 38 percent of
them had a personal relationship withsomeone who had been killed by a police
officer somewhere in the country.
So these, this is not, this isnot abstract for them, right?
So, you know, you have the, the worstpossible outcome, which is death,
(21:20):
uh, which can come about in seeminglyrandom ways, uh, from their perspective.
But you also have just more common, uh,kinds of threats like aggression, you
know, being hurt physically, having a gunpointed in your face, um, which a lot of
them shared with me had happened to them.
(21:42):
A lot of them.
And, I mean in some cases where, youknow, they weren't even the suspect.
Or, or they had witnessed a policeofficer point a gun at their grandmother,
in their grandmother's face lookingfor someone else, um, and curse their
grandmother out, or manhandle theirmother, or manhandle their sister.
So, what they're trying to achieve, youknow, in their interactions because they
(22:02):
want police to protect them, they wantpolice to protect them from criminal
threats, um, but they also want police tostop unnecessarily harming and threatening
them and the community members.
And so they're trying to, to create morepredictable scenarios so that, um, so
that they can mitigate all these differentrisks and, um, create safer outcomes
(22:24):
for themselves and those they love.
Sam Fuqua (22:27):
One hopes that in their training and their ongoing continuing
education, police officers are informedof what the community expects of
them, including these qualities notonly of courtesy, but of discernment
and, uh, trust building behavior.
(22:47):
Is that happening in, in your view?
Uh, I'm sure it varies department bydepartment, but how are we doing in
helping our police officers be betterin these ways you've just described?
Ajenai Clemmons (23:03):
Oh, well, I mean, there are some jurisdictions that likely do
it better than other jurisdictions,um, because there are, you know,
19,000 law enforcement jurisdictionsin the US, but there are definitely
ways that it, that it can be improved.
You know, I asked themseveral questions about trust.
About whether they trust police.
(23:23):
If so, why?
You know, if not, why not?
And you know, this is something thatwas kind of intended to be a yes or no
question, but was anything but a yesor no question, and actually again,
within the, in line with the nuanceand the complexity, ended up being,
um, very interesting in the responses.
So, a strong minoritydid not trust police.
(23:47):
A slight majority were willingto trust them to some extent.
And, and so the things that negativelyimpacted their trust were considerations
of this sort of structural environmentof whether they felt that the police
were connected to the community,um, or whether, like did they
express knowledge of the community?
Did they understand the community'svalues or norms or people or places?
(24:13):
Um, uh, do they have a basic, youknow, grasp of the community that
they're, that they're patrolling?
Or they doing things that kind of like,that see, that are ignorant and that
put them in harm's way even, right?
There's a, appear to be accountability.
So if there's an officer who'sconsistently doing things, and
they're complaining, and there's no,no result, that suggests that that
(24:36):
officer is not accountable to anyone,not accountable to the community.
Um, but particularly if, uh, thatofficer is not even behaving the
way that the other officers behaveand is not being corrected or is
not being removed, right, that, thatofficer is accountable to no one.
So they're considering these, these sortof structural issues of accountability
(24:56):
and how well the department is perhapscommunicating with that community as well,
you know, when complaints are happening.
The second, the secondconsideration is officer behavior.
Are officers threatening?
Are they honest?
Are they dishonest?
Are they stealing?
Are they, you know, do theyhesitate when there's, when
something happens, or do they rushin and try to, as, you know, help?
(25:19):
When I say hesitate, what I mean isdo they wait for everything to clear?
Do they allow violence tocontinue unabated or do they
actually like intervene and dotheir best to restore peace?
So those are things where they'reactually looking at office,
individual officer behavior over time.
(25:39):
And then the third piece is,are the officers actually making
the effort, uh, to gain trust?
Just because you have a badge, itdoesn't mean that you're trustworthy.
And that's something that's veryhard for some folks to hear because
where they are, there's, there's areally strong narrative of heroism.
(25:59):
And so this is a different paradigmwhere it's, it's not so much that
they are always actively distrustingpolice, but that they're not making
a special effort to trust them.
That they actually want to get to knowthat particular officer and make sure that
that particular officer is trustworthy.
And the way that that officer needsto do that is by demonstrating
(26:22):
their character, is by demonstratinghonesty, by demonstrating that they
care, by being vulnerable, right?
By, by reciprocating trust.
If the officer is acting likea robot and doesn't trust the
community, then why should thecommunity trust the officer, right?
So it's a, it's a different way ofapproaching it that I think needs to
(26:42):
be appreciated when you're where, whenyou're in a, just like kind of generally
a low trust environment and trustingthe wrong person can get you killed.
And that includes if there are officerswho, for example, are playing games,
who tell on, you know, folks andsay, oh, so and so's who, you know,
this so and so is who ratted you out.
(27:03):
Or if officers are dropping people,purposely picking them up and dropping
them off in a, in a, in, in a neighborhoodthat they know is dangerous for them.
You know, these are the things thatreally chip away at that trust.
And, um, and unfortunately, you know,a lot of negative experiences will
affect other officers who are doingwhat they're supposed to be doing.
(27:24):
But I think the hope here, the hopethat we can take away from these
interviews is that, that a lot of peopleactually make allowances for that.
That they actually do pay attentionto differences between officers, and
allow officers to gain their trust.
And I think that that's, that'sone of the most, um, important and
(27:45):
impactful, I think, findings that wecan really leverage in terms of policy.
But those departments absolutely have tobe, I, I'm not trying to problematize,
um, if, if someone doesn't feelcomfortable trusting, what I'm saying
is that, um, departments have to takethat very seriously and they need to
address it in terms of, of structure, ofpolicy, and those officers individually
(28:07):
also winning and gaining trust.
That is a gift.
It's a gift.
It's an act of intimacy and it,and it cannot be taken for granted.
Mary Zinn (28:15):
And the building of trust then, the whole department gains in
relationship to the community that ifthey're connected, as you described,
was a wish that they be connected to thecommunity, and things get better in those
communities for everyone, for the officersand for the, the community citizens.
(28:37):
That can happen.
I would appreciate youroffering some hope in this.
And I would also ask about public policy,which is your area now that you're
teaching at the University of Denver.
How can we understand the impactof public policy on these issues?
Ajenai Clemmons (28:57):
Oh, I think public policy is huge.
I mean, we have to appreciate that,um, that rules matter, that laws
matter, that incentives matter,and that disincentives matter.
For example, you know, when we, wethink we can think about some more
recent, um, reforms in policing thathave saved thousands and thousands
of lives, and that's somethinglike reducing police chases.
(29:21):
In roughly maybe a decade, a little overa decade, they were just something like
11,000 deaths, um, from police chases.
Some of the, many of thosewere innocent bystanders.
Some of those were actually otherpolice officers or the police officer
themselves doing the chase thataccidentally killed himself or herself.
(29:42):
Some of those were the suspectand some of those were people in
the suspect's car, including kids.
So, um, you know, that's, that's onepolicy change where most departments
across the country said, okay, we'regoing to pretty much stop police
chases or have very, very selectivecriteria for when chases can take place.
(30:05):
And it can't be, you know, stealingsome gas at a grocery store, so
we're gonna chase them across,you know, at 120 miles per hour.
You know, it really needs to bevery, very serious and dangerous
threats to the community.
Shooting at moving vehicles is anotherone, and, and you see it a lot even
in movies where an officer kind ofstands and shoots in a vehicle and
(30:28):
tries to get the driver to stop.
But the reality is, is that if the officeractually does manage to incapacitate
the driver, now you have a 4,000 poundmissile barreling through the streets.
So, um, that's something that hascaused a lot of suffering, frankly.
And so a, attempts to limitthat have, have seen impacts
(30:52):
across the country as well.
So, in terms of, um, you know, what wecan do more of, certainly unnecessarily
pointing guns, pointing weapons atpeople is causing a lot of trauma, and
that's something that they can reduce.
I mean, and not only the traumaticimpact of that, but also psychologically,
(31:12):
but also just the elevated risk,you know, when you're taking out
your weapons, um, when it's noteven a deadly force situation.
So, so that raises the risk of accidents.
So, that's something that could beaddressed through much stronger policies.
A lot of departments don't even considerit to be a use of force to point your
weapon at someone, which is unimaginablereally, if you were in that position.
(31:35):
So, how can that not beconsidered a use of force?
Um, and that needs to be tracked, itneeds to be monitored, it needs to be,
um, reviewed, you know, with audits.
There needs to be some policy around it.
Uh, there needs to be limitations to it.
Um, there needs to be training around it.
And then, um, you know, those auditsof body cam footage just so that the
supervisor and others, uh, outside thechain of command can, um, help that
(31:58):
officer to understand what are somebetter ways to be handling that situation.
Mary Zinn (32:03):
Thank you so much for giving us this information about the
importance of trust in relationships,and what the police department can step
up to in expectations that there's apossibility all of that could happen if
we know clearly what the expectationsare, and how that fits in with public
(32:24):
safety, how those things come together.
What would you say to each of us inour role in creating public safety?
Ajenai Clemmons (32:37):
That's a fantastic question, Mary.
I mean, an important questionand a difficult question.
It's important that we understand thatsafety is a collective thing, that we
all have a responsibility to uphold it.
But we're also responsiblefor feelings of safety.
So for example, if we feel unsafe, I thinkwe do need to interrogate why we feel
(32:59):
unsafe, and take responsibility for that.
When I was a, um, ombudsman for the Cityand County of Denver, um, heard people
who were afraid of other people becausethey were standing in line waiting to be
hired for a job that morning downtown,or because they were teenagers who were
(33:21):
gathered together on a sidewalk nearthe river with their feet outstretched.
I heard people make appeals topolice officers that were totally
unconstitutional because they feltunsafe and they wanted officers to
enforce that, and they wanted them to dosomething, do something about this, right?
I feel uncomfortable 'cause I see this.
(33:42):
We have to be, uh, have some ownershipover our own sense of safety and make
sure that, uh, we are also being goodcitizens and not, um, asking officers
to do things that are unconstitutional.
At the same time, this, these questionsof justice and, and, and equity are
very much a long road, you know, thisis the, we gotta think of the long
(34:07):
game and um, and we can't get tired.
And so it's important for us to stayconcerned, to not give up, to not
grow weary, to pace ourselves, and toremember to be, you know, empathetic.
Uh, just because something doesn't happento us doesn't mean it doesn't happen.
And so we need to remain listeningto each other and engage with
(34:28):
one another's concerns and,um, and continue that dialogue.
Just be open to that dialogue.
I think we've, we've losttoo much of that today.
Sam Fuqua (34:38):
I just wanna thank you, Dr.
Ajenai Clemmons, for sharing some ofyour research and your perspective on
these important issues of trust andhow we interact with law enforcement in
the way that, that works for everybody.
Thank you.
Ajenai Clemmons (34:55):
Oh, thank you so much, Sam.
This has just been anhonor and a pleasure.
I would like to, if I, if I could, justend with a quote that, uh, one of the
young men I interviewed shared with me.
Um, this was a heartfelt appeal thathe had for politicians and for the
public to, to be concerned aboutwhat was going on in their community.
(35:21):
And he said, I, I named him Joseph,he's actually just 20 years old when
he, when he makes this comment, "Iwould tell politicians to more so hear
the letter, not the law of what's beingsaid, and try to understand people's
feelings, not just what they're saying.
What comes out of their mouth isultimately influenced by how they feel.
(35:41):
So if you can understand howsomeone feels, then you're more
so to meet their expectations, notjust do what they tell you to do.
To say it in other words, whenyou understand how someone feels,
you're more so to not necessarilymake the same mistake again.
If they understand how we feel whenthey're reading the analysis, and not
just what we're saying, but see in whatwe are saying, like how we feel, it would
(36:05):
help them to make better decisions abouthow to accommodate what we're saying."
Sam Fuqua (36:10):
Dr.
Ajenai Clemmons is an assistant professorat the Scrivner Institute of Public
Policy at the University of Denver.
Thanks for listening toWell, That Went Sideways!
We produce new episodes twice a month.
(36:30):
You can find them whereveryou get your podcasts, and on
our website, sidewayspod.org.
We also have information on ourguests and links to more conflict
resolution resources at the website.
That's sidewayspod.org.
Our program is produced by MaryZinn, Jes Rau, Norma Johnson,
(36:51):
Alexis Miles, and me, Sam Fuqua.
Our theme music is by Mike Stewart.
And this podcast is a partnershipwith The Conflict Center, a
Denver-based nonprofit that providespractical skills and training for
addressing everyday conflicts.
Find out more at conflictcenter.org.
Popular Podcasts
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations.
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
The Nikki Glaser Podcast
Every week comedian and infamous roaster Nikki Glaser provides a fun, fast-paced, and brutally honest look into current pop-culture and her own personal life.