lysis – structural, political/ideological, cultural, institutional/organization, contextual, situational, and interactional – to explain why some disorderly incidents ignite. Even if this framework was not considered by the author, it would have been helpful to provide an in-depth and expansive discussion regarding the underlying historical, social, economic, and political conditions that “trigger” an event that prompts race riots across the nation. One of the strengths of the book is that Rahtz takes the lessons drawn from the history of racial conflict coupled with his first-hand experience as a practitioner to offer practical solutions to bridge the racial divide between the police and the African American community. He makes the case for establishing transparent policing that builds a strong police legitimacy to mediate racial strife. Several concrete strategies are recommended by the author (e.g., a more diverse police force, greater transparency of civilian oversight group, collaboration between police and community members to effectively prevent and manage riots, state oversight of local police). To improve police legitimacy in order to improve safety and a trusting relationship with the African American community, Rahtz underscores the necessity of officers engaging civilians in a procedurally just manner. That is, civilians are more likely to perceive a process as fair if they (1) are given the opportunity to have their voices heard, (2) are treated with respect, (3) believe that authority can be trusted to act in an ethical manner and (4) believe the authority is impartial in making decisions. No doubt, procedurally just behavior can pay huge dividends in promoting trust in the police. Not only would this help to reduce tension between police and the public, but also officers who show respect towards residents may be more likely to be perceived as legitimate authorities. However, it is important to caution that police legitimacy projects can turn into compliance programs. That is, police legitimacy projects can seek to create a docile population that—if treated with respect—will accept inconsistent and obtrusive, albeit polite, forms of policing, which may still lead to disparities in adjudication and sentencing. Nevertheless, Race, Riots, and the Police has immediate relevance for students, police officers, trainees, and government officials. Rahtz imagines that an alternative method to policing is possible. He challenges law enforcement to act with compassion and fairness, engage the community, and work with neighborhood residents to erode the mistrust that divides them from the African American community.

中文翻译：

---

执法领导的新闻媒体关系（第二版）

裂解——结构、政治/意识形态、文化、制度/组织、背景、情境和互动——来解释为什么一些无序事件会被点燃。即使作者没有考虑这个框架，对“触发”引发全国种族骚乱的事件的潜在历史、社会、经济和政治条件进行深入和广泛的讨论也会有所帮助. 这本书的一个优点是，拉赫兹从种族冲突的历史中汲取了教训，结合他作为从业者的第一手经验，提供了切实可行的解决方案，以弥合警察与非裔美国人社区之间的种族鸿沟。他提出了建立透明警务的理由，以建立强大的警察合法性来调解种族冲突。作者推荐了几种具体的策略（例如，更多样化的警察部队、提高文职监督小组的透明度、警察和社区成员之间合作以有效预防和管理骚乱、国家对地方警察的监督）。为了提高警察的合法性，以改善安全以及与非裔美国人社区的信任关系，拉赫兹强调了警察以程序公正的方式与平民接触的必要性。也就是说，如果平民 (1) 有机会表达自己的意见，(2) 受到尊重，(3) 相信可以信任权威以符合道德的方式行事，那么他们更有可能认为一个过程是公平的。 (4) 相信当局在作出决定时是公正的。毫无疑问，程序公正的行为可以为促进对警察的信任带来巨大的好处。这不仅有助于缓解警察与公众之间的紧张关系，而且对居民表示尊重的警官更有可能被视为合法当局。但是，重要的是要注意警察合法性项目可能会变成合规计划。也就是说，警察合法性项目可以寻求创造一个温顺的人群——如果受到尊重——他们将接受不一致和突兀但礼貌的警务形式，这可能仍会导致裁决和量刑的差异。尽管如此，种族、暴乱和警察与学生、警察、实习生和政府官员有着直接的相关性。Rahtz 设想一种替代警务的方法是可能的。