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

The company that owns Facebook and Instagram is heavily promoting its new AI-based software assistant called Muse, but people who are using it as it was designed are incredibly foolish. An early adopter of the software discovered that a few days ago when he advertised an item for sale on Facebook Marketplace — and he inadvertently gave Muse full authority to act on his behalf. The software agreed to a lowball offer made by another Facebook user and then gave that man the home address of the man for whom he was an agent. The software told the buyer that the seller was home and waiting for him. When the buyer showed up and waited angrily, the would-be buyer left an angry review for the man. And this angry man had the seller’s home address. It was only well after that that the software reported what it had done and admitted it had made a mistake. I won’t be putting that much power into the hands of any software. I think anyone who agrees to such terms is a fool. And the software’s user agreement says you’re responsible for purchases the software makes in your name. Nope.

Meet my new girlfriend. Her name is Meg. And she’s my little sweetheart. A couple of months ago, a neighbor across the street told me about a new stray in the neighborhood that she and I were both soon feeding. The cat had been very skittish about contact and she had a lot of scabs and parasites in her fur, but a trip to the vet last week revealed that she was otherwise in good health. The vet estimates her to be 1 to 2 years old. I named her for Meg Murry, the 13-year-old protagonist of Madeleine L’Engle’s wonderful book, “A Wrinkle in Time.” (Please read the book. Don’t watch the horrible movie.) Since we lost Lucy almost a year ago, it seems appropriate that we finally have a new little girl to join the household. She’s already captured my heart, but Alex, Oliver and Sam aren’t there quite yet.

There’s nothing socially acceptable that’s as dangerous as drinking alcohol. Most people grow up being told to “drink responsibly” — and all of us see people abusing this drug in one way or another — but the truth is that drinking alcohol is always a terrible risk. The alcohol in these drinks is toxic and the human liver has to work hard to filter the toxins out. What most people don’t realize is that alcohol is classified as a known carcinogen by the World Health Organization — because of the well-established connection between imbibing and various cancers. Many people have taken refuge behind the idea that light or moderate drinking might be safe, but a new study shows that drinking even one drink a day increases the risks of 10 types of cancer. When I was a teen-ager, I looked around and saw the negative effects that this behavior had on a lot of people and decided not to start drinking, so I’ve never even tried this poison. The evidence keeps piling up that I was lucky to have come to that conclusion early.

It turns out that the radical far left has been training “Antifa cats” to sabotage anything important to Donald Trump. Everything he did was perfect. Honest. It was all the cats’ fault. Arrest all the cats! This is the latest of my ridiculous satirical shorts. Please go watch it. Then “like” it and subscribe. Please. I’m begging you. (Too much?) Although a couple of the previous videos have had views in the hundreds, most have still been seen by fewer than 20 people. So I seem to be having trouble letting people know that page exists.

Here’s the latest of my ridiculous parody shorts. It crossed my mind Tuesday to wonder what a slick and fast-talking car dealer might do right now to try to turn the high price of gasoline to his advantage. So I conceived of a fat and lovable character who tried to sell cars that don’t use any fuel — and then I started wondering if it would be funnier if all the characters were felines. Designing the King Cashpaw character took about four hours, but the rest took only another four hours, so this was a relatively quick piece that virtually wrote itself. I know it’s almost impossible for these parody videos to find a larger audience, but at least they amuse me — and there are 19 of them on my YouTube page now. The first few were very limited, but they’re getting more complex.

Related Posts