Critics quickly voiced frustration that these performative acts sidestep meaningful change, displaying support for the same communities that are over-policed and underprotected. But this critique overlooks how most police reforms functionto PR, targeting the general public, policymakers who control their budgets and perceived criminals. While the specific objectives of their PR projects shift with each audience, the overall message has been consistent across the history of U.S.
Departments also quickly realized that they could use police vehicles to communicate other messages to the public. While early vehicles had few distinguishing markings, in the 1930s officials began painting their cars some “conspicuous color” arguing that this “greatly increases their moral effect.
In 1950, Ford began selling police packages, automobiles with features specifically designed for law enforcement. Followed quickly by General Motors, both marketed “lightning responsiveness,” comfort and engines that, as one Chevy advertisement put it, sounded like the “Voice of Authority.” By this point, community members were more likely to encounter an officer behind the wheel than walking a beat, except in the densest urban areas.
This reform’s aim was not to change policing, but rather to frame a particular police technology — the patrol car — in a way that explained a past problem and presented a future solution that reasserted police legitimacy. The whole narrative, however, relied on a romanticized vision of what foot patrol looked like before police cars, along with an overly deterministic explanation of how the cars had corrupted an institution with flaws that ran far deeper than any one technology.
Flashing lights & sirens aren't just for looks.
Cars are racist now. I don't make the rules.
DemocRATs don’t care about Americans
Amen