Recently I was at a cross-training for law enforcement officers and mental health professionals where one of the session leaders said–as an aside–”did you know your uniforms were designed to intimidate?”
His source was a superior at his own organization, who used that to justify not allowing uniformed police officers to be seen “hanging around” their mental health facility in order to give clients rides home.
With policing in the spotlight these past few years, uniforms are indeed one of the things that have generated discussion. You may remember this being in the spotlight in Ferguson, Missouri in 2014, during the unrest following the shooting of Michael Brown. Local police were criticized for wearing riot gear, while the Missouri State Highway Patrol was praised for sporting a more traditional look. Last year, President Obama brought attention to this issue again when he advocated “softer looking” uniforms for police officers. Shortly thereafter, Travis Yates wrote a response on Law Officer, called “Why the Soft Uniform is Dangerous.”
That article floated across my desk (smartphone?) again recently, and drove me into a rabbit hole of police uniform thought and research. I came across this article on PoliceOne, discussing the psychology of police uniforms. Don’t worry, I’ll tell you what you need to know for the purposes of reading this blog entry.
A big part of the article is about the color of the uniforms–blue was basically chosen as the color for the first British police uniforms to distinguish them from the red-wearing military personnel. As for the rest? I don’t have a source on this, but I’d say the pseudo-military look is designed to convey authority.
Authority. Intimidation. I’m not going to argue that the difference can be in the eye of the beholder, especially when the beholder is someone who has cause to be intimidated by authority. So yes, those mental health higher-ups may have been right about the chilling effect uniformed police can have in some places. They may have been right in their call to discourage such presence. But using the phrase designed to intimidate misses the mark a little bit, and really just feeds into bad police press. It’s a semantic difference that matters at a time when educating people about who we are, what we do, and why we do it has never been more important.
But wait, there’s more. See, I’ll give them that police uniforms may have been designed to convey a certain authoritative air. (For a defense of the benefits of that, see that article I linked a couple paragraphs back.) But I’m really only conceding that when it comes to the older style “Class A” uniforms. Wool uniforms with shiny buttons, eight-pointed hats, and ties. Basically what “Officer Friendly” wears. Those are the very uniforms being advocated in this “soft look” talk!
Many/most officers these days, when working the road, are wearing “Class B” uniforms. They’ll be similar in color and will strive for a professional look, but the material is ripstop, the buttons are both muted and superficial (with hidden velcro and zippers doing the real work), there are a lot more pockets, and the ties are nowhere to be seen. Some might even be wearing BDUs (which abandon the fake buttons and creases) or simple polo shirts. And more and more departments are issuing, or at least allowing, exterior vest carriers, which can be more comfortable, cooler (temperature), and can allow the weight of equipment to be carried by the shoulders instead of the belt (preventing back injuries). Yes, this creates a “tactical” look–I once showed up at a traffic accident only to have one of the involved parties protest that he didn’t call for the army.
Thing is, if you look at all the differences between a “soft look” uniform and a more practical Class B or BDU setup, not one of them is made for cosmetic reasons. Being more intimidating may be a side effect, but it’s about comfort, health, and practicality.
Police officers wade through swamps. We get in fights. We run into burning buildings. We crawl under, and lean into, filth cars. We go out in the rain. We chase people. This can be an active, dirty job. It’s not a job that you wear an expensive, uncomfortable, fragile uniform for just because it looks good. Marines have nice dressy outfits, too, but you don’t see them wearing them on deployment. Nor do you see your plumber, electrician, or other carpenter showing up at your house in a tie.
So the next time you find yourself dragged into a debate about police uniforms, just think of it this way: it’s not about tactical. It’s about practical.