What Makes a Good Police Officer? The most honest and direct reply to this question is “a good person who happens to be a police officer.” The original question suggests that a police officer is something other than human. We all get caught up in labeling and assigning titles to identify people who we may not understand instead of identifying them by their individual accomplishments. By labeling an entire group, especially when we do not understand the group, it is very easy to associate bad behavior from one person in the group as a trait of every person in that group. The truth is that not everyone in any group shares the same traits. The hope is that police departments hire people with good traits that are common to good people. A good police officer is a good person who happens to be a person who seriously accepts the awesome responsibility. The few basic traits a good person possesses are compassion, honesty, integrity, truthfulness, grace, mercy, a belief in justice, --and most important of all, humility. Humility is at the top of the list because in order for one to truly be humble, they must possess all the previous mentioned traits. These are traits that cannot be taught; they are ones that come from the heart and are forged into the spirit of a person through their upbringing and life experience. Considering the Role and Responsibility of Power It is logical that one would believe the above-mentioned traits that define a good person would also define a good police officer. This may not be the case as there is one component to this equation that is unique to a police officer that the average person does not have. That component is power. All people, no matter who they are, experience a change in their perspective. A person who does not possess all the good traits may have a perspective that is not in line with what is considered good. A simple comparison is, in business and industry, the most a person with power can do is take another person’s job away. Depending on the moral fiber of that industry boss, the abuse of their power may become easy for them and they may use that as a shortcut to get out of retraining someone or dealing with a complicated situation. The quick solution phenomenon of removing a person from a company as a matter of convenience rather than cause may result in the industry boss losing their moral compass, thus losing their compassion for others. This phenomenon can also be present in persons who have enormous power, such as police officers. Police officers have the ability to take away a person’s freedom. The officer must keep their morality, humility, and compassion for others, and practice grace and mercy every day. Keeping these virtues at the forefront of their thinking demands that the officer employ a different manner of thinking and a lifestyle that upholds these virtues. They must know their job and the people they serve so well that they have the ability to know when their actions will affect someone.

1. What Makes a Good Police Officer?
The most honest and direct reply to this question is “a good
person who happens to be a police officer.” The original
question suggests that a police officer is something other than
human. We all get caught up in labeling and assigning titles to
identify people who we may not understand instead of
identifying them by their individual accomplishments. By
labeling an entire group, especially when we do not understand
the group, it is very easy to associate bad behavior from one
person in the group as a trait of every person in that group. The
truth is that not everyone in any group shares the same traits.
The hope is that police departments hire people with good traits
that are common to good people.
A good police officer is a good person who happens to be a
person who seriously accepts the awesome
responsibility. The few basic traits a good person possesses are
compassion, honesty, integrity, truthfulness, grace, mercy, a
belief in justice, --and most important of all, humility. Humility
is at the top of the list because in order for one to truly be
humble, they must possess all the previous mentioned traits.
These are traits that cannot be taught; they are ones that come
from the heart and are forged into the spirit of a person through
their upbringing and life experience.
Considering the Role and Responsibility of Power
It is logical that one would believe the above-mentioned traits
that define a good person would also define a good police
officer. This may not be the case as there is one component to
this equation that is unique to a police officer that the average
person does not have. That component is power. All people, no
matter who they are, experience a change in their perspective. A
person who does not possess all the good traits may have a
perspective that is not in line with what is considered good.
A simple comparison is, in business and industry, the most a

2. person with power can do is take another
person’s job away. Depending on the moral fiber of that
industry boss, the abuse of their power may become easy for
them and they may use that as a shortcut to get out of retraining
someone or dealing with a complicated situation. The quick
solution phenomenon of removing a person from a company as a
matter of convenience rather than cause may result in the
industry boss losing their moral compass, thus losing their
compassion for others.
This phenomenon can also be present in persons who have
enormous power, such as police officers. Police officers have
the ability to take away a person’s freedom. The officer must
keep their morality, humility, and compassion for others, and
practice grace and mercy every day. Keeping these virtues at the
forefront of their thinking demands that the officer employ a
different manner of thinking and a lifestyle that upholds these
virtues. They must know their job and the people they serve so
well that they have the ability to know when their actions will
affect someone’s future before they act, especially when there
may be an alternate solution that will not have any long-term
unforeseen effects on a person’s future. An example of this is a
case where an officer who did not have the best interest of the
people he served in mind as he responded to a family violence
call involving two young brothers. The officer, after hearing
both sides of the story, was unable to determine who the
aggressor was and decided to write both parties—yes, both
persons and that included the innocent person—a citation for
family violence. Both citations were later dismissed and this
was forgotten at the time. Both brothers went to college, earned
degrees, and were productive citizens. The only blemish on
their records was the citation.
that was dismissed. One of the brother’s degree was in science
and he applied for a very good job with the government. He was
not able to obtain a security clearance due to the citation that
should have never been written. Had the officer had the wisdom

3. to think carefully about how their action, even though they
could legally take the action they did, could affect the life of
these brothers, they would not have taken the easy way out as
their power permitted them to do. The officer took a shortcut
instead of finding a better solution. That shortcut cost a man a
great career.
The Right Tools at the Right Time
Unfortunately, maintaining the high standards mentioned is
difficult and may cause an officer to take shortcuts or lose their
compassion in order to expedite a solution, which will allow
them to proceed to the next crisis. Another factor not yet
mentioned in the equation is time. Father Time will raise his
head and change an officer’s attitude toward their mission and
before they realize it, they allow time limits to play a huge role
in their decisions. Most officers are aware when this
phenomenon influences their decisions. They are confused about
this because the older, more experienced officers have accepted
this fact, causing the confused officer to believe that allowing
time to control their decisions is acceptable and expected. When
this happens, they are no longer confused or conflicted. Instead
of bucking the system and risking falling out of favor with
supervisors, they bow down to Father Time and allow him to
take over their ability to think long term before executing their
decisions.
Conclusion
This is a book of thoughts and observations designed to promote
thinking at all levels of police work within the greater law
enforcement community. The observations are simple ones and
probably not new to many who will read them. However, the
state of police services today and the growing need to become
more and more effective in the ways we interact with our
communities make it necessary to rethink some of our ideas and
to emphasize some and perhaps to de-emphasize others. Most of
what is presented here has been around for a long time in the
thoughts and minds of both administrators and basic-level
officers. Certainly, mid-level management and supervisors have

4. wrestled with some of the suggestions made. Also, there may
have been times when disconnects seem to exist between all of
these personnel areas. It is time to rethink and then to rethink
again. Skills are taught to all officers. Some are emphasized and
others are less emphasized. The latter are often seen as “soft”
subjects. Once these are taught, reinforcement is rarely seen and
accountability is a nonissue. This must change. This attempts to
suggest tools, techniques, ideas, thoughts, accountabilities, and
a recognition that if we are to accomplish more on the street, or
wherever we operate, we must harden the “soft” subjects and
take them very seriously at all levels of police work and within
police administration. The good news is that we really do not
have to reinvent the wheel. What we need is, for the most part,
already there and available. These have been there all along in
the modern police world and just need to be strengthened and
utilized in a most serious and determined way. This is not a call
for lessening officer safety. This is a call to “put more arrows in
the quiver” of the officer so that they can deliver what is needed
and at the time it is needed and with the same reliance on these
skills as they would have on those “hard” skills that have also
been learned.
Post 1)
1) Here is my Data:
Christopher Vigliotti
Employee has run a computer security scan in the past 60 days.
Employee has NOT run a computer security scan in the past 60
days.
Total
Employee has installed the latest patches to the operating
system on their computer.
86

5. 45
131
Employee has NOT installed the latest patches to the operating
system on their computer.
355
14
369
Total
441
59
500
2) P (Has NOT run security scan) = 59/500 = 0.118 = 11.8%
P (Has NOT installed the latest patches) = 369/500 = 0.738
= 73.8%
P (Has NOT installed the latest patches but has run security
scan) = 355/500 = 0.71 = 71%
P (Has installed the latest patches but has NOT run security
scan) = 45/500 = 0.09 = 9%
3) Based on the analysis of this sample of employees, i would
say that the likelihood of a computer breach is high. Almost
75% of the employees have not installed the latest patches to
their systems. Coming from my cybersecurity classes, this is
one of the #1 contributors to security incidents such as data
breaches. The latest patches include security fixes for issues
found in the time since the last patches have been released.
Another thing that can be interpreted from the data is that they
company and employees are very good about running security
scans. This will help the security situation, but without the
proper patches to fix the security holes, our company is ripe for
a data breach.

6. Post 2)
1. Here is my data:
Employee has run a computer security scan in the past 60 days.
Employee has NOT run a computer security scan in the past 60
days.
Total
Employee has installed the latest patches to the operating
system on their computer.
33
382
415
Employee has NOT installed the latest patches to the operating
system on their computer.
18
67
85
Total
51
449
500
2. P (has NOT run security scan) = 449/500 = 0.898 = 89.8%
P (has NOT installed latest patches) = 85/500 = 0.17 = 17%
P (has NOT installed the latest patches but has run security
scan) = 18/500 = 0.036 = 3.6%
P (has installed the latest patches but has NOT run security
scan) = 382/500 = 0.764 = 76.4%
Based on an analysis of my sample of 500 employees, I would
say that the likelihood of a computer breach is moderate going
into high. You can see that over 75% of the employees have
NOT run a security scan. The number one method to prevent
security breaches is to regularly perform security scans, which
makes those numbers concerning. Furthermore, you can see that
only less than 20% of the employees HAVEN’T installed the
latest patches of the operating system, which means that more

7. than 75% HAVE installed the latest patches to the operating
system. This too contributes greatly towards a security breach
and action should be taken to fix this.