Introduction
For the most part, police officers have approached me with respect. However, since embracing the life of a truck driver, I’ve observed a shift in the initial tone of these encounters which raises some concerns. In exploring the dynamics of these interactions, it becomes evident that our response as truck drivers plays a crucial role in diffusing tension and avoiding citations.
Ignore Initial Questioning to Establish a Courteous Tone
As I reflect on my interactions with law enforcement, I estimate that in the majority of instances, officers have approached me in a respectful manner. However, since becoming a truck driver, I have noticed an increase in the number of interactions where the officer’s initial approach is harsher, bordering on combative. I am ultra peaceful and unflappable so without fail, after a while, the conversation settles into something more cordial and friendly.
But the way some officers choose to approach me is unsettling. This combative approach is at best a lack of emotional intelligence, but at its worst appears to be provocative. Basic emotional intelligence suggests that the type of energy you give out when communicating with someone is what you can expect to receive back from them. Most people are mirrors in that way. Therefore, if a police officer is starting interactions with an aggressive, accusatory tone then are they not creating a self-fulfilling situation where they increase the likelihood of receiving confrontational responses?
So how can we truck drivers respond to officers who approach us with hostility if we want to diffuse the situation and leave without a citation? There are two methods I employ that seem to work every time: Ignore and Apologize.
Now when I say ignore, I don’t mean in like a cold shoulder kind of way, actually just the opposite. If they approach me in a less than respectful manner, I first ignore their tone and whatever their request is and respond with a calm quiet voice saying ‘Hello officer how are you today? I’m at your service. How can I help you?’ This key phrase always changes the dynamic of the conversation because it gives them a pause, a chance to see you as a person, and reminds them of the courtesy that they just failed to extend to you. Whatever they say,
- Didn’t you see that sign!?
- License and registration please?
- You think you can just park here!?
- Do you know how fast you were going?
- Etc…
Just ignore, and in a calm and friendly way utter the introduction phrase I mentioned.
Do You Want To Be Right Or Do You Want the Officer Not To Start Writing?
The next step is to apologize. When an officer questions why you did something, the first instinct is to defend oneself. You badly want to tell your side of the story. But to defend is often to disagree, and any type of disagreeing or arguing, no matter how calmly you can manage it, is what we want to avoid. A conversation I had with a former female officer explains why this is the case. During a very lengthy and informative conversation, she stated that many of those drawn to law enforcement are the type of people who like to be in control. Armed with this nugget, I further surmised that If someone’s primary objective is to exert control over you then arguing with them, no matter how intelligent and peaceful you’re able to do it, will only further antagonize them. This is because even if you’re right and win the argument, this is undermining the officers desire for control. The power imbalance during the interaction intensifies the complexity of the situation. You may have just effectively proved them wrong but now their goal to control is still unmet and possibly even intensified so they will just continue to search until they find something wrong with your truck.
Apologize Contritely and Continuously
To avoid this conundrum, employ the continuous apology. Officers will ask you a question and because of the aforementioned power dynamic, any answer you give is only throwing fuel on the fire of this interaction. For example, an officer heatedly asked me, ‘Didn’t you see the no parking sign?’ I didn’t want to say, yes, I saw it but parked here anyway and I also did not want to lie and say I didn’t see it. So I apologized. But he kept asking the same question, getting seemingly more worked up each time, almost as if he didn’t want the apology but wanted to evoke a different response. But I kept apologizing. And finally, as if turning off a light switch, he stops asking and says in a calm and nice tone, “Well, let me help you get safely back into traffic.’
The former female officer also confided something else to me. The officer, who is white, frankly told me that officers may be harshly approaching me because I am black. I was a little surprised at her honesty but this information is not relevant to me or any other people of color as you employ my ignore and apologize strategy. I never assume anyone is racist towards me. It’s not that I’m too naive to think that racism doesn’t exist, however, I don’t think that assuming someone is racist is the most useful assumption for facilitating connection and effective, productive communication. When dealing with police officers the most effective assumption for a citation-free experience is that they want control. And the best way to give them that is through a contrite and continuous apology.
Conclusion
Understanding the innate desire for control in many officers, it becomes clear that defending oneself might be counterproductive. Apologizing becomes a strategic move to navigate this power dynamic. By continuously expressing regret or apologizing, drivers can avoid further antagonizing the officer and, in turn, foster a more cooperative and amicable interaction. Through the strategic use of continuous apologies, truck drivers can navigate these encounters with finesse, ensuring a smoother, ticket-free journey on the road.