Some thoughts on unrealistic expectations:
Essentially, the Left places an inhuman burden of patience and tolerance for risk on police officers, then jumps on the inevitable failure to achieve an impossible standard as proof of police corruption and violence. They do the same thing to soldiers in combat conditions, imposing on them restrictions that defy reason and human nature, then decry alleged “abuses” as creating moral equivalence between Americans and their enemies.
…The best way to lower the temperature in a neighborhood — to decrease the chances for the kinds of encounters that result in unarmed civilians dying to police gunfire — is to continue to engage in the law-enforcement and criminal-justice practices that we know can and do dramatically lower the rate of violent crime. And that means focusing on getting violent criminals off the streets. I strongly recommend Kevin Williamson’s piece on this point. Who commits murders? People with prior, violent criminal records. And so long as violent criminals are on the streets, police on those streets — who are properly and naturally more aggressive than civilians — will make exactly the kinds of decisions in the “fog of war” that cause anti-police radicals to chant for their deaths. It’s inevitable.
It’s all part of the Left’s war on human nature.
Remember, cops are both corrupt thugs with guns and incapable of committing crimes.. If you think that might be a contradiction, you’re probably racist.
The mindset he describes reminds me of a bunch of undergrads smoking pot and speculating how great they could run things. Of course, they won’t join the military or police themselves and have to live under the impossible standards and rules of engagement they propose. That’s why I believe that before JAG lawyers can rule on ROE situations, they should spend some time on point on patrol. In theory, there’s no difference between theory and reality, but in reality, there is.
I suppose that is supposed to explain the WWII vet who was tassed to death by police for refusing meds in an elderly folks home? Or the melanin challenged individual gunned down in a gas station? Or the guy shot dead at his own house, at his own car at night? Or…. etc, etc, etc.
This isn’t a leftist thing. Police are out of control and being armed like they were part of the mlitiary. This has got to STOP. NOW.
No, it’s not meant to explain all those things.
“This isn’t a leftist thing. Police are out of control”
I agree with this part. I would also point out it isn’t a race thing. But the “left” is exclusionary. If you don’t agree with their position, you are a racist. The effect this has on me, is to think they can all go f themselves.
My advice to protesters, and maybe someone will pass this along to Democrat leadership, is to A) drop the racist attacks B) appeal to the notion that misconduct effects all races C) stop including every leftist nut job cause in the protests D) stop acting like Westboro Baptists in terms of protest tactics.
Every time I see a story about Democrat activists blocking roads and pounding on people’s cars, making little kids cry at shopping centers, shutting down other people’s cultural holidays out of racial animosity, burning down businesses, vandalizing personal property, engaging in race based insults, shouting things at cops that would drive even a Democrat to beat you, killing fellow protesters, killing cops, protesting in the most grotesque way possible at the memorial service to assassinated cops, ect ect ect I can’t help but think the tactics are intended to cause strife, to provoke a reaction, and to prevent people from coming together to solve problems.
Could you think of less persuasive tactics? What would be done differently if the goal was to put wedges between social groups?
“Police are out of control and being armed like they were part of the mlitiary.”
I have found that most of these arguments are based on what things look like. If a gun has a certain style, it is called military. Rifles are called machine guns. Armored vehicles that have been around for decades are now called tanks, despite being nothing like a tank. Things that launch tear gas are called grenade launchers. Protective gear is called suits of armour and no one seems to care why the armour is needed. Hint: it is because some protesters think stoning people to death is OK when they do it and that police should take a beating or even die as part of their job.
I do think some cops abuse their authority, that some lie in investigations, that some use force when they shouldn’t, that some cops initial interaction with a person is based on things other than whether or not the person has committed a crime, that they should knock when serving warrants, that they shouldn’t seize people’s property without cause, that they mess up all the time even when they are doing the right thing with the purest of intentions.
What I don’t think is the cause of this behavior is the color of a person’s clothes, what their guns look like, or even if their department has a mobile command center or an APC (tank). I don’t like that libertarians adopt the tactics of people who want to ban guns. Sensationalizing everything is just preaching to the choir rather than phrasing positions in a way that will appeal to people who disagree that an APC is the equivalent of a tank or that a rifle is a machine gun.
“I don’t like that libertarians adopt the tactics of people who want to ban guns.”
Radley Balko, whose book “The Rise of the Warrior Cop” has highlighted the issue, focuses on the tactics and especially the mindset as the problem. When police say (as they often do) that their first responsibility is to safeguard their partners instead of safeguarding the public, that’s a problem and emblematic of a military mindset, not what we should expect from civilian police.
Balko is one of the people I was referring to. He likes to use the word tank when it doesn’t apply and gets hung up on the color of clothing. He might have some good things to say on mindset but it is diluted by sensationalism and distortion.
And sorry Dale, I am just venting a bit. I don’t mean to associate you specifically with everything I said in my comments. I agree with most of what you said I just want to use different tactics than what are being used now to solve problems.
I view much of what is happening now with the Democrat protesters and with libertarians and how they approach the militarization of police as part of the problem. There is a real problem with policing in our society, and also some subgroups in our society, even if people disagree on exactly what the problem is or how to address it. People disagree with how Democrats or libertarians frame things but they shouldn’t claim everything is perfect with no progress to be made. I just have little faith that any comity will be achieved with the current tactics being used.