News
Garber Announces Advisory Committee for Harvard Law School Dean Search
News
First Harvard Prize Book in Kosovo Established by Harvard Alumni
News
Ryan Murdock ’25 Remembered as Dedicated Advocate and Caring Friend
News
Harvard Faculty Appeal Temporary Suspensions From Widener Library
News
Man Who Managed Clients for High-End Cambridge Brothel Network Pleads Guilty
THE HARVARD community took a second look at its University Police last week after an officer shot and wounded an escaping thief. Over-night, the benign guardians of the sign-in book became lethal protectors of law and order, and not surprisingly, the incident left the University wondering whether those cops on the corner should really be fooling with guns. While violence is always regrettable, the doubts should not go too far. Weapons are clearly essential to the effectiveness of the University Police.
Campus officers may seem little more than glorified caretakers, but a 1965 vote of the Massachusetts legislature made them full policemen on University property. The distinction is more than semantic. Campus police have the power of arrest, and in the case of crime on the Harvard campus, they're expected to use it. The arrest process is dangerous for any officer, and the University Police deserve personal protection no less than their Cambridge counterparts.
It is true that, until last week, the University force had not fired a shot for at least six years; but that statistic doesn't prove they don't need weapons. Some professional law enforcers go through whole careers without discharging their weapons--while the same guns save the lives of their buddies. Most professionals also insist that arms have a crucial preventive effect. Trouble-makers are less likely to challenge an armed officer even in dark and remote surroundings.
The details of last week's shooting are admittedly peculiar. The use of the pistol was clearly legal, since the thief threatened the officer's life by driving the stolen bike at him. But the policeman apparently fired the shot only after the bike had passed, hitting the bike's driver in the back--which could raise some question about the officer's judgment in resorting to his pistol.
But one slip in judgment--if it could be established--would not justify depriving the University Police of a tool essential to their safety and efficiency. Forcing pacifism on the police would be counter-productive.
Want to keep up with breaking news? Subscribe to our email newsletter.