By Jamie Cho, Ph.D.
How many times do you have to call the police to get them to enforce a protection order? I wouldn’t know because despite multiple calls, reported violations, documented evidence, and hours of talking with police officers, none have resulted in enforcement. When a 10-year protection order is in place, the intention of the court is to protect the victim, not to subject them to further trauma by the police who question the victim as if their account of events does not carry more significant weight than their abuser.
As mentioned in a previous op-ed, Is safety only for the privileged? I, now, too clearly know the answer. Not only is safety a privilege of white women married to police officers, but it is a privilege that is upheld even when the court has found that this white woman is a racist abuser and harasser. This person has so severely targeted at least two of her neighbors that she is not allowed within 25 feet of her victims, and is prohibited from serving on the Homeowner’s Association. Her police officer husband was fired for his racist abuse. Both of these outcomes should immediately signal to a reasonable police officer that their responsibility is to protect the victim who has been repeatedly harmed by two racists with extraordinary power.
Instead, when the abuser called the police to report the non-emergency incident, the police officer responded within under 30 minutes to document that “nothing happened.” But when the victim called the police to document multiple violations of the protection order (e.g., abuser approaching the victim in victim’s car rather than staying away, abuser warning her about the protection order, being within fewer than 25 feet of the abuser, and video recording the victim), it took three hours for the police to respond. In those three hours of waiting, the victim called the police dispatch multiple times. The incongruence in response only reiterates the inefficacy and bias of police response.
To add insult to injury, the police arrived with a decision already made, that this situation represented a “she said/she said” dispute. The very nature of the protection order and severity of it should necessitate that the police officer begin by comforting the victim, and talking with the abuser about the serious ramifications of violating a protection order. Instead, they policed the victim and the community members present. As a volunteer on this case, he cautioned me “to lower my voice” and “don’t get mad” at him, rather than documenting the serious nature of the offense. We don’t need three intimidating male police officers to arrive at a victim’s home to then dictate how we express ourselves. We rightfully should feel frustrated, infuriated, and upset that the abuser continues her abuse despite the court ruling, and then that the police do not listen, judge us, and employ shaming tactics to enforce our manner of speaking.
Furthermore, this police officer claimed it was confusing for him to hear from bilingual advocates for the victim whose English was not her first language, insisting that she could have asked for an interpreter. The suggestion that the victim speak with the police without bilingual advocates who are familiar with the case present, and rely on the mercy of an interpreter supplied by the police, shows that the police have no understanding of how they use their power. Interpreters, who have no understanding of the case, may not correctly interpret the intention and meaning of words. When mentioned that interpreters have bias, particularly when they have no prior knowledge of the case, and that meaning can be lost in interpretation, this police officer brought up his own immigration status and how he had learned English, perpetuating a deficit narrative that it is the victim’s fault that she cannot be a better advocate for herself. He caused further injury to the victim by implying that the victim should learn English better, as though it is her fault she is not able to stop the abuse.
When a police officer does little to protect those who need protection and in fact cause more harm, we, as taxpayers, must call for accountability. When the police take three hours to respond and then proceed with belittling comments about how the abuser has rights too, and that the police cannot determine credibility unless they are not eyewitnesses, then we must question how tax dollars are being spent, and whether police have the skills to do their job to “protect and serve.” If police officers are not able to use logical reasoning to take actions that protect a victim when a protection order is in place, what are we paying them to do?