News

Harvard Medical School Cancels Student Groups’ Pro-Palestine Vigil

News

Former FTC Chair Lina Khan Urges Democrats to Rethink Federal Agency Function at IOP Forum

News

Cyanobacteria Advisory Expected To Lift Before Head of the Charles Regatta

News

After QuOffice’s Closure, Its Staff Are No Longer Confidential Resources for Students Reporting Sexual Misconduct

News

Harvard Still On Track To Reach Fossil Fuel-Neutral Status by 2026, Sustainability Report Finds

Police Guns

NO WRITER ATTRIBUTED

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.

Tags