Challenging The Moral Authority of The Police

credit Vox

First off, I can’t believe what I have learned in the ensuing Vox article about the circumstances for which police officers can use deadly force.

Credit Vox
credit Vox

If the conduct of police officers are judged based on actions that are “objectively reasonable” by the standards of fellow officers and not the constitutionally reasonable standards of the communities they serve, then this is not sound logic and would certainly encourage complicity in misconduct. Also the wide legal latitude afforded to what is basically at the police officer’s discretion in any given instance is very troubling to say the least and does induce fellow officers to assume the “blue wall of silence” or to dissemble police activity that is counterproductive of law enforcement credibility.

These standards seem to reflexively vindicate police recklessness that is biased and unaccountably discriminatory. The authoritarian activity that is threatening, harmful, or murderous is specifically targeted , it is being seen as arbitrarily favorable by police. When and if reported, and or when an episode such as the recent killing or police homicide of Jordan Edwards causes a public outcry for answers, does police activity warrant any scrutiny. This leaves little desire to properly train police officers for unbiased and effective “objectively reasonable” policing. It also presumes there are no plausible preventive measures to reduce or eliminate crime and offers only limited solutions to dealing with crime, even when there is no instance of a crime — you just need to have an “objectively reasonable” (insensitive) belief of a crime. Instead it provides them with their own brand of moral authority which serves the tyranny of the majority. This predictably contributes to the preponderance of crime (both directly and inadvertently) in select areas or high-crime areas as described.

If critics have demonstrably argued that these very same legal standards — that essentially give police officers the license to kill innocent or unarmed people — does ensure their own safety, then this has overtly been for quite some time a slippery slope, and indeed a fallacious argument. It actually can and does give rise to that very same danger of their safety and jeopardizes their credibility. In fact it can put good mindful police officers who serve our communities with the care and due diligence of effective policing in quite a bit of danger. I worry about this because I have family members who are police officers.

Furthermore these laws are written based on a “just-world hypothesis” which would attribute any and every police homicide as justifiable without question — simply because they are police officers. It truly encourages the law to be ignorant of due diligence, facts, or evidence, and perpetuates bad judgement or imbues the impression of an unjust society, which so happens to have a historical legacy of unlawful policing. This ultimately makes these institutions incredulously flawed.

In other words this makes no sense.

Just look at what was reported given that most police departments do not even report these statistics.


I am just spent and done.