I support your right to freedom of speech, and assume that you sincerely believe what you are…
Al Black
21

I, of course, completely support your right to freedom of speech as well, and I’m equally sure that you’re sincere.

While I’m sure that to a certain extent you are correct that my attitude — which asserts that they’ve not only usurped their authorized powers, but are grandly unwilling to take responsibility for their misdeeds — does indeed feed their paranoia, the part where we’re not communicating-well is where it is my responsibility to volunteer my unpaid time to soothe their angst and ennui at having to cope with having their bad behavior interpreted as bad behavior.

If I hire a servant, and find him partying in my living room, beating my pets, and drinking my food and liquor, many people would find it a little inexplicable if someone suggested that the *real* problem was that I wasn’t being supportive enough of my servant’s actions, and that he needed reassurance that he really ought to be seen as a good person whom everyone liked.

Here’s a thought: If we can both agree that the correct justification for the existence of the police is to: A) Serve the public; and B) Protect the public; then whose responsibility is it to ACT IN THAT MANNER toward each and every member of the public whom they come into contact with? Could it be…the Police? And if they fail to do so, on whose shoulders does that fall? Could it be…the Police?

If we authorize them to, on occasion, use extraordinary force in society, and to carry guns to do so, if they decide to take them out of their holsters and point them at people constantly, and shoot their dogs, constantly explaining that this is for “everybody’s” protection when that’s a blatant lie and their actions are dangerous — just because they can get away with it and it “makes them feel safer” — whose hands took the guns out of their holsters? Could it be…the Police’s hands? And whose mouths told the lies that when they endanger the public with deadly weapons they get to tell the public that the public is endangered for its own protection? Could it be…the Police’s mouths?

We expect the military, on pain of court martial and significant imprisonment, not to EVER point deadly weapons at people whom they do not imminently intend to shoot, and not to EVER shoot unless they are fired upon. Tell me why I need to console the police because they do the exact opposite and are quite rightly not respected for it.

Don’t bullshit me with “Somalia or Yemen” rhetoric: that’s a false dichotomy of, “the existing unionized, overblown, aggrandized, out-of-control police force is the only police force, else we can have none,” argument. Nope.

I’m perfectly fine with firing them all and hiring new servants who can stay inside the boundaries of their jobs and lawful authority, if that’s too hard for the current ones.

When I graduated from Law School, we were reminded that we too were in “Law Enforcement” — except that our jobs were to make sure that the police stayed firmly within their lawful authority. Sorry, I’m more of a, “firm boundaries” sort of person, not an “awwww, I’m sorry, does the dangerous bully feel unhappy that the people noticed that he’s a danger to them? Poor thing, you’re just misunderstood,” sort of person.

It’s not hard for the police to get my support: They have it as long as they act to deserve it (which unfortunately includes them actually holding themselves genuinely accountable for their actions.)

Show your support

Clapping shows how much you appreciated user_unknown’s story.