A white woman calls police and expects protection - and generally receives it. A Black man in the same situation hesitates before calling, weighing whether his need for help outweighs the risk that officers might see him as threat, and his hesitation is not paranoia but calculation based on experience and evidence. A transgender woman needs assistance and worries whether officers will respect her identity, whether calling will bring harassment along with help, whether safety from one threat will bring danger from responders. An undocumented immigrant witnesses crime and does not report it because contact with police might mean contact with immigration enforcement, and silence becomes rational even when cooperation would be preferred. A person with mental illness needs crisis support and fears that calling will lead to jail or violence rather than treatment. Trust in police is not universal or unconditional - it is shaped by identity, and identities that have been historically policed experience policing differently.
The Case for Understanding Conditional Trust
Advocates argue that differential trust is rational response to differential treatment, that identity-based disparities in policing are well documented, and that building trust requires addressing the conditions that justify distrust.
Differential trust reflects differential treatment. Studies consistently show that Black, Indigenous, Latino, and other racialized people face more stops, more force, more arrests, and more negative outcomes from police contact. Distrust based on these patterns is rational, not irrational.
Identity shapes police encounters. How officers perceive and respond to people varies by identity. Implicit bias, explicit prejudice, and institutional patterns produce different policing for different people. Same behaviour, different response based on who you are.
Building trust requires change. Telling communities to trust police while providing no reason for trust perpetuates mistrust. Trust must be earned through changed behaviour, not demanded through messaging. Addressing the reasons for distrust is prerequisite for building trust.
From this perspective, addressing conditional trust requires: acknowledging that distrust has causes; documenting and addressing differential treatment; building police practices that are trustworthy for everyone; and not expecting trust without earning it.
The Case for Building Universal Trust
Others argue that perception gaps can exceed reality gaps, that negative expectations can become self-fulfilling, and that building trust requires effort from both sides.
Perception may exceed reality. While differential treatment exists, fear of police may sometimes exceed actual risk. Media coverage of negative incidents may create impression of danger greater than statistical reality. Calibrating fear to actual risk matters.
Negative expectations can spiral. When community members expect bad encounters, they may behave in ways that create bad encounters. Officers who feel distrusted may become less effective. Breaking cycles requires someone to move first.
Police cannot control all perceptions. Officers can behave professionally and still be distrusted. Building trust requires community willingness to engage, not just police willingness to change. Partnership requires both parties.
From this perspective, building trust requires: police commitment to equitable treatment; community willingness to engage positively; recognition that both sides have agency; and not treating distrust as permanent or unchangeable.
The Racial Identity Question
How does race shape trust in police?
From one view, the history of policing racialized communities - from slave patrols to civil rights suppression to mass incarceration - creates rational basis for distrust. Contemporary data showing racial disparities in stops, force, and deaths confirms that distrust is warranted. Race fundamentally shapes police experience.
From another view, emphasizing racial distrust may deepen division. Progress has been made. Focusing on positive relationships and incremental improvement may be more constructive than emphasizing historical harm.
How racial history shapes current trust affects possibilities for change.
The LGBTQ+ Question
How does LGBTQ+ identity shape trust in police?
From one perspective, LGBTQ+ communities have been historically criminalized and continue to face discrimination from some officers. Transgender individuals particularly face harassment and violence during police encounters. Police may not be safe for LGBTQ+ people.
From another perspective, many departments have made genuine efforts at LGBTQ+ inclusion - liaison programs, training, policy protections. Trust can be rebuilt where genuine commitment to change exists.
How LGBTQ+ people experience police shapes whether police are resource or threat.
The Immigration Status Question
How does immigration status shape trust in police?
From one view, when local police cooperate with immigration enforcement, undocumented immigrants cannot safely interact with police. Victims and witnesses do not report. Sanctuary policies that separate local policing from immigration make police safer to contact.
From another view, law enforcement cooperation serves legitimate purposes. Immigration enforcement is valid government function. Limiting cooperation may hamper public safety goals.
How immigration enforcement intersects with local policing shapes trust in immigrant communities.
The Question
When safety depends on who you are, what kind of safety is that? When some can trust and others cannot, what has trust become? If calling police is safe for some identities and dangerous for others, is everyone equally protected? When distrust is rational response to experience, what is the problem - the distrust or the experience? What would policing that everyone could trust look like? And when we ask why some communities distrust police, are we willing to hear the answer and act on it?