How do we protect innocent and still keep peace in civil society?

By David McElroy · October 29, 2013

When police in a Sacramento, Calif., suburb were searching for a violent killer Saturday, they set up roadblocks in certain areas. This picture is what innocent suburbanites faced as they drove down neighborhood streets trying to get to or from their houses.

I think it’s a perfect example of the conflicts we face between two very strongly opposing views about law enforcement and the rights of innocent people. Do you think it’s right and reasonable for this random innocent driver — who wasn’t suspected of anything — to have this weapon pointed at him at close range under this circumstance?

I don’t think it’s reasonable, but defenders of police would say that it was necessary to protect police safety. Frankly, I’m a little more worried about the safety of the vast bulk of the public — who don’t deserve to have high-powered weapons pointed at their heads when they come to roadblocks in their otherwise safe neighborhoods.

There are two prevailing narratives about police today. One is that they’re all thugs who are drunk on the power of the state and are out to violate the rights of innocent people. The other is that they’re valiant and trustworthy servants of the people who are sacrificially doing a dangerous job to keep the rest of us safe.

I think there’s some true in each extreme, although people on the two extremes generally can’t see much middle ground.

Yes, I do think that a lot of police are out of control. How many incidents do we have to see of police being caught violating people’s rights, killing innocent people and pets, and lying about inconvenient facts to know that there’s a serious problem with police culture? I grew up with a lot of respect for police, but I’ve gotten to the point that I’m afraid of most of them. The attitude that I feel from most police officers I encounter today is one of disdain for the public — the belief that I’m a threat to them, not that they’re public servants working for me.

On the other hand, it’s crazy to believe we don’t need some form of a police force. (I’ve heard a lot of anti-police partisans assert that we don’t need any.) The truth is that some percentage of the population is violent and amoral. Those people are willing to use force or fraud to take things from other people and commit physical crimes. There’s no way around that. We need some way to defend ourselves against those people. Even when done with the utmost care, it’s a dangerous job and it’s going to claim the lives of some of those doing it.

So how do we resolve those two positions?

First, let me stipulate that the really best way is to get rid of the state and let property owners decide for themselves how they want to protect where they live. If some people want to live with no protection, that’s their business, but it’s pretty safe to assume that neighborhoods would band together to hire their own security and set the rules that are appropriate for them. Private cities and communities of various kinds could hire their own police or contract with private companies for protection. There are plenty of possibilities.

But we don’t live in that world. Not yet. I think we will one day. For now, we’re stuck with police who are employees of a coercive state. So how can we have peace and order in society while also protecting the rights of innocent people?

I don’t have any solutions, but it would be a start if each side of the debate could acknowledge that the other side has some valid concerns.

Can police and their supporters admit that there are growing reasons for many of us to be suspicious of them? Can they admit that there’s misconduct of various kinds among police — lying, planting evidence, ignoring suspects’ rights, treating some people (especially minorities) unfairly in many cases? Can they admit that many police officers have absolutely no respect for the people who pay their salaries and that they’re looking to intimidate us? Can they admit that the militarization of modern police makes it appear they’re going to war against the rest of us?

Can those on the other side admit that we need someone to play the role of protecting us from criminals and thugs? Can they admit that there are many good police officers who are trying to do do the right things? Can they admit that police officers are in danger in many types of places, especially unsafe urban neighborhoods? Can they admit that the insults they hurl at all police officers aren’t necessarily deserved — and that scorn should be reserved for the ones who actually appear to be guilty of violating our rights?

The people on these two sides are very far apart, but I think there needs to be dialogue. Unless each side can acknowledge the legitimate concerns of the other, that can’t happen, but I think it’s necessary if we’re to have some sort of reasonable conclusion to the increasing resentment and anger on both sides.

I hate to be pessimistic, but I don’t see much grounds for believing that dialogue, much less changes in attitudes, can happen. Unless change happens, though, we’re going to continue down the path we’re going down now — and it’s not one that I think benefits anybody.

Of course, ending the misguided “war on (some) drugs” would also cure a lot of these problems, but that’s another issue altogether.

Share on Social Networks

We are ruled by the dumbest and most incompetent people among us — and we have a system which allows stupid and irresponsible people to force the costs of their idiocy onto smarter and wiser people. Can we get away with that? Yes, for quite some time. But we eventually reach a point at which the dumbest of the dumb — who are habitual liars and mentally ill fools — lead us to the disasters and destruction that some of us have seen coming for years. We are approaching that point. And yet most of the idiots around us still wave their rhetorical banners of support for the evil people who are leading us to ruin — and all of them point their fingers at someone else, never noticing that their own enthusiastic support of evil is to blame. When things finally fall apart, blame yourself for your blindness to the evil, not whoever happens to be in power when it happens.

I’ve been making some changes to the site lately and there are more changes coming in the days ahead, so don’t be surprised if you some small differences. This is not a wholesale redesign, but rather the addition of some features. Since they’re smarter than I am, I’ve put Oliver and Alex in charge of the technical work, which you can see in this action photo from the control room of our media complex. I recently added a series of landing pages for readers who randomly discover the site from an Internet search. I’ve also changed the YouTube link at the top of the page to go to the new YouTube channel for video essays that reflect things I’ve already published here. (Here’s a little bit about both of the YouTube channels I’m working on.) In addition, I’m trying to move away from using Instagram, so I’m experimenting with photo plug-ins that will eventually allow me to host the pictures — cats, dogs, sunsets, whatever — that I often take. So don’t be surprised to see more changes. Thanks for your patience. Let’s hope Alex and Oliver know what they’re doing.

I have no use for the theocratic and repressive government of Iran. The people who run the country are cruel at best and evil at worst. The Iranian people deserve freedom. But I have no personal quarrel with anybody in Iran. While I’m not thrilled about a future Iranian government having nuclear weapons, I’m just as concerned about nukes in the hands of politicians in Israel, Pakistan, India, China and Russia. I’m not even thrilled with the U.S., Britain and France having them, either, because I don’t trust any politicians to be responsible with such terrible weapons. All I can say with certainty is that American taxpayers have no business attacking Iran, especially since we’re being forced to pay for this attack in order to benefit the politicians of Israel — and nobody else. If Middle Eastern countries want to fight among themselves, that’s none of my business. It’s not the business of the U.S. government, either. I have no quarrel with anybody in Iran — and having the government which claims to represent me launch an unprovoked attack against a sovereign country will only make all Americans less safe in the near future. This attack is poorly conceived and morally unjustified. Remember that when the Iranians launch attacks that we will then condemn as “terrorism.” What the U.S. is doing right now looks like terrorism to me. And let’s not forget that the attack is the latest in a long line of unconstitutional wars by various U.S. presidents — who have no legal power to declare war on their own, according to the U.S. Constitution.

A child having a tantrum understands only one thing: Did I get my way or not? He doesn’t understand the issues involved. He doesn’t understand the reasons that went into a decision. He doesn’t understand any of the things that mature and reasonable adults have to understand in order to live healthy lives. By his reaction to the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling to strike down his disastrous tariff scheme, Donald Trump shows himself to be — once more — a screaming child having a tantrum. Outside the world of mob bosses who expect to get their way every time, normal adults don’t act this way, but Trump isn’t normal. He’s an angry and vengeful man who has narcissistic personality disorder. And we are in danger as a result. Trump doesn’t understand the legal issues involved in this ruling. He doesn’t understand economics. He doesn’t understand rule of law. He doesn’t understand that he can ever be wrong. All he understands is that he didn’t get his way. And he is now a narcissistic and raging little boy who also happens to hold life-and-death power over most humans on this planet. He’s dangerous — and the system which gives him that power is even more dangerous.

Is it an attempt to blur the gender line between men and women? Or is it some weird tribute to the traditional Scottish kilt? It’s hard to say, but fashion designers keep pushing for men to wear skirts in the last few years. Both men and women in modern fashion seem oddly androgynous, as though it would be offensive for a man to look manly or for a woman to look feminine. A CNN article about the latest fashions from Paris caught my attention Monday and left me wondering about the ugly clothes the designers are hawking. If a man wants to wear a skirt — or a kilt — that’s OK with me, but I’ll stick with a traditional dark suit with a white shirt and tie. (Well, when I’m not wearing t-shirts and sweats, of course.) I always wonder who actually buys the outlandish garb from fashion designers anyway. I would be humiliated to be seen in any of this stuff, but I obviously have no sense of high fashion.

Related Posts