Officer Friendly

The reporting and presumptions of the uncertain chain of events in Ferguson, MO, have been grossly irresponsible. But, what is new considering the mostly biased press and the weaponized DOJ under Eric Holder? I know that not only have rocks and molotov cocktails been thrown at the police, but that bullets have been fired at them for several nights, as well. Yet some insist even the riot gear worn by the police contributed to the tensions.

Shooting at a police helicopter; looting businesses, many of them minority owned; and burning another to the ground is not a demonstration or a protest. It is criminal behavior. Police in Ferguson were overwhelmed by the inciting and provocation introduced to a difficult situation by outsiders and race baiters like the New Black Panthers, Al Sharpton, even Eric Holder and the President in the implications made in their subtil comments. To control the rioting, assaults—some even on reporters, and thieving, the police employed traditional uses of tear gas and rubber bullets. The highway patrol have actually been on the scene since early on—though not charged with the leadership in the situation at first. No one in local Ferguson or Missouri law enforcement wants any infringement on freedom of press, assembly, or speech. They do want the lawful exercise of those rights. Through all of this melee, only police have been injured—no civilians.

These are the facts we have seen played out before our eyes on television and then perverted in their descriptions. These scenes are not excusable or relavant to the known facts. What comes to mind is a piece of advice my old Texas Grannie gave me: “Honey, don’t believe anything you hear, and only half of what you see.” At risk of sounding trite, I would remind you, too, of the adage that there is a bad apple in every bunch. If this officer overreacted without justification, the forensics will show it. If not, my first question is, will this policeman ever get his life back? Then I wonder if he could still fall victim to the political pressure being brought to bear in this matter if the investigation proves he was justified?

With that said, several months ago, I wrote a piece on the conundrum we face in teaching our children about Officer Friendly. As we see our domestic law enforcement more increasingly used as an arm of the unconstitutional encroachment by the federal government, we conservatives face a paradox. We find ourselves caught between the concept of the policeman as the community helper to whom they can run for refuge, and the special enforcers for a lawless, intrusive government.

We all know of societies in western civilization where these kinds of police have been feared and despised. One of the favorite children’s fictions depicted such a circumstance. History and literature run the gambit from the sheriff of Nottingham to the KGB. I remember agonizing on how old my children should be before I introduced them to Robin Hood, less they learn to disrespect the police. I concluded that they needed to be old enough to think critically and analytically. They needed to be able to understand when and how to assert civil disobedience. Thereby, they could discern the difference between riot and proper action for the cause of the true and just rule of law. They have become men that are not easy to fool.

I see in Ferguson too many children in adult bodies, without exercised thinking skills, being manipulated and blindly reactive. I see their handlers using them for their own purposes of power and personal notoriety or gain, in the face of calmer heads begging for restraint and patience. Neither of those traits is overwhelmingly present in most three year olds though, are they?