Picture this scenario. You’re the chief of police in a city that’s exceptionally hostile towards law enforcement.
A vocal contingent of police critics regularly call for your department’s abolishment. You’re barraged with unfair criticism, are hounded in public, and even receive death threats. Ninety percent of the common council resent what you stand for or won’t publicly support you for fear of political fallout. Your relationship with a mayor who believes in police reform is strained.
Between lenient judges and a district attorney’s office that can’t always be counted on to prosecute, your cops (who are already working overtime to fill the gaps caused by a staffing shortage) are exhausted – and calls to city government for more funding for hiring fall on deaf ears.
Plus, with the exception of a few citizen supporters and a couple of local news outlets, nobody has your back. At least not publicly or when it counts. The local police union’s response is often, at best, tepid.
Now I have a question: Given the environment I just described, a police officer under your watch has been involved in a high-profile incident. It’s generated even more hostility towards you and your department, and your critics are, in part, calling for policy changes that could potentially put your officers in unnecessary danger. What would you do?
a) Grovel, apologize for the officer (without the benefit of due process), your department and profession, and promise to do better next time
b) Actually submit to their changes or a version of it
c) Or be like Chief Mike Koval (now retired), who replies publicly and unequivocally: “I won’t submit to those changes because they would puts my cops in unnecessary harm’s way.”
In other words, despite being overpowered by an array of negative voices and political pressure, this former chief opted to stand with his conscience. Not once, but all the time.