General Curtis LeMay once said, “I always found it amazing that it was politicians who started the wars and left it to the military to fight them, but then the same damned as*holes who started the sh*t wanted to dictate how we fought them. In my lifetime, it would become worse with ever damned war we fought. I considered World War II the last “good” war, because our objectives were crystal clear, despite having several restrictions. Invade sh*t, kill sh*t and end that sh*t. Pure and simple, which was about as black and white about anything can be.” To LeMay, problems were solved with invading, bombing, and killing as means to an end. Those were his tools, which are necessary in a time of war, but such tools are not great when there is no war or when the best course of action is to prevent war.

The future of policing is headed toward fewer interactions between the police and the public – outside of emergency situations – as the efforts of reimagining public safety and advances and artificial intelligence become more widespread. These may very well save tax dollars, will probably save lives, and may improve the public’s perceptions of policing. There are also risks, however, of unintended consequences as a result of these changes. Police officers could become narrowly defined as “combat cops” – the kind of police officers the public wants when it comes to ending crises immediately – just as LeMay is the kind of general America probably wanted, and perhaps even needed, during World War II. Despite this, there is no doubt that police officers will continue to be called upon for non-emergency situations in the foreseeable future, situations in which they will bring the hardened tools of a warrior when what is needed are the softened tools of a peacekeeper.

Everyone wants a peaceful resolution to incidents the police are called to handle. And we all want police officers to treat everyone with dignity and respect. But is reducing their focus to just those roles best filled by exhibiting the “warrior” mentality the best way to achieve that goal?

Most experts believe it’s wise for police leaders and policymakers to increase the opportunities for officers to interact with people in non-stressful situations. In this way both officers and the people they protect more easily see each other as individuals worthy of their mutual respect. So, what if, in the spirit of “reimagining” policing, we reduce police involvement when mental health, homelessness or substance abuse are the context? Can we do so without also reducing the opportunities for the police to interact with people in situations where a positive outcome is likely to occur? What will the police-community relationship look like if people only see cops when they are responding to the most extreme of situations like active shooters? Will they become “combat cops?” Perhaps the real questions we should be asking are: 1) “how do we reduce the likelihood of tragic outcomes in cases where trained people other than the police could more appropriately respond (e.g., mental illness, homelessness, etc.)? And, 2) while reimagining these kinds of responses, how do we also increase the opportunities for the police and the community to interact in a positive, problem-solving context?” I truly believe that in the answers to these question is the future focus we should take to avoid the unintended consequences of reimagining the police.

About the author: Tim Hegarty is a retired captain from the Riley County Police Department in Kansas. You can read his full bio here.