by Robert M. Traxler
A police officer while on duty murders a person of color. People protest, and protests turn into riots.
The apologists for the rioters say dumb things like, I do not approve of riots, looting, killing police officers, arson and destruction, BUT I understand why they do it. It is tacit approval of the criminal activity disguised as being big hearted, open and accepting. The point is always made that police officers have a special position of trust, I will not deny that. So let us look at people with special trust in our society and ask why they do not cause people to riot.
Nurses murdering patients, in many cases mass murders. This has and is happening; why do folks not riot when people of color are murdered?
Doctors prescribing drugs that kill folks, oxycontin and others that killed thousands. A very large number are people of color. Riots?
Firemen setting fires that kill, it happens so often it has a name, “Firefighter Arson.” People of color die in these fires. Psychiatrists who take advantage of the trust given them.
Scoutmasters, both boy and girl, who abuse their charges. Priests who rape young boys, some of whom committed suicide. Teachers raping students; some died at their own hands after being raped, many people of color.
All of the examples above are of people who have a place of special trust in our society, such as police officers. We were told during the unrest in the 1960s and ’70s that all we have to do is set quotas for more minority police officers and things will change.
OK, the New York City Police Department is now 53% minority officers. Atlanta 58% African American, D.C. 64% minority, so how does that work? Simple; the race baiters and police haters seamlessly move into the position that minority officers are not black or brown or women, they are blue. After 60 years of this stuff I am coming to believe nothing will ever be good enough.
The major cities on fire are for the most part run by Democrats. And they have been, in the case of Boston for three generations, Atlanta two generations, most others for a very long time, even for generations. We are told we have “systemic” racism in the cities; OK, if the left and Democrats have run the cities for generations, just how does that work?
Who cares? They hate the police and blame them, not the people in charge, as it is politically correct to give the mayors a pass; wrong but politically correct. Folks, you can’t make this stuff up.
The socialist media have no problem with blaming the individual police officer or the entire department, minorities included, for an action, but not the leadership of the city? How does that work? Easy, the media just points at the police department and not the city government. Fair? Who cares, it fits the preconceived narrative.
Mayors who have been in charge for up to 12 years suddenly discover a problem with the police? And the media plays along, as long as it helps a city government they approve of.
Mayors who tacitly approve of riots and violence are never asked how the police department became a problem all of a sudden. Where were they for the last up to 12 years? My favorite is the media blaming the President and not the city leadership for unrest, or in their minds, bad local police. Correct? Fair? Just? No, but it works for the left, so the media joins in.
Time to ask the socialist, left, Democratic leadership of the major cities on fire how this happened and why they did not do anything to prevent it before it happened. Will the media ask them? Not a chance in hell. Liberal mayors will throw the police under the bus to help them stay in power and the media will help them.
How you blame the President and not the mayors for bad local policing baffles me; it is asinine but very politically correct. The police need to be held accountable but not the city government who hired them, trains them, pays them, funds the department, directs them and controls them? Hold the President responsible for the Minneapolis Police Department but not the mayor? Passes the common sense test for the left and media, monolithic thinking
Army Bob
Another excellent article. I am no expert on the subject, but here is my opinion.
Since the last few years of political correctness, ROE (rules of engagement) for law enforcement and the huge target they carry on and off duty.
How do police departments recruit capable officers? If the truth be known, many departments are undermanned. Who today wants to put their life on the line every day whether working or not for at least 25 years before retirement? Who wants to work under a microscope that one wrong move ends their career? Law enforcement officers are humans. How many reading this could stand there and take the abuse a LEO takes under orders to protect people and property?
Yes, questionable people are hired, but investigation just might prove the person or persons were under pressure to increase the department from higher up.
Finding good people to have in law enforcement is not easy. Yes,colleges and academies turn out criminal justice majors. There is a large percentage who can not pass the psychological testing.
Who is to blame? Everyone who cries and complains for getting a citation when they clearly violated a law.
Those who raised children who could do no wrong. Many with an agenda most would not approve of… those will physically fight with law enforcement. The list could go on.
The percentage of “bad law enforcement officers” is much lower that the percentage of bad people in this world.
We should be intelligent enough to know we do not condone either one, but we do not riot, loot and destroy property to solve the problem.
How many have come to be prejudiced and discriminatory toward law enforcement because of anecdotal evidence?
Burning and looting does not guarantee the justice system will rule in your favor. Let justice be administered correctly under the rules of evidence.
Mr. Smit,
Harry,
Very well said. You made the point better than I in a lot fewer words.
Thanks.
AB, is your genuine concern that not enough of the system is being held accountable for systemic racism in policing? I truly want to make sure I’m understanding your point correctly, which seems to be that the problem is bigger than just the police officers themselves.
Regardless, to point out that what people called for in the 60s and 70s – more diverse police forces – is still not good enough for “race baiters” and “police haters” is to miss the real point: has the problem been solved? Americans in the 60s wanted effective medicine for sleeplessness and, later, morning sickness. They got thalidomide, and children with severe birth defects. Are you upset that pregnant women today won’t take thalidomide and that they act like it’s still not good enough? After all, it seemed like a good idea 60 years ago.
Another thing you might be careful about is your working definition of “apologist”, lest you be forced to consider yourself an apologist for police officers that, in your own words, “[murder] a person of color”.
HighSchoolGrad,
Thanks for the comment.
You have to be kidding, linking the police to a drug that killed and maimed babies? I was simply pointing out that we have been working on the problem since the 60s. Police officers save thousands of lives per year, but all you want to do is link them to a deadly drug killing children? When you have an emergency who do you call, Antifa? When you need help, do you call a protester? If someone breaks into your home do you call a social worker? You may, but most, thank God,call the police who come and help.
With 686,665 police officers in the country, odds dictate that a few will be bad. However, remember Ferguson Missouri? It was happening August 10th 2014, not the 1960s and 70s. The majority of public opinion said that the officer was guilty; a free and fair trial ruled he was not. The left wing media called for his death even before the trial; they printed that he was guilty and no trial would be needed. Perhaps the left needs to “be careful”.
Thank you for the comment.
Just to clarify a couple of your points, Mr. Traxler.
1. When you need help, you don’t call a protester, you don’t call Antifa, AND you don’t call a white supremacist, correct?
2. Perhaps the left needs to be careful, BUT we all have to be careful when we report information or call for justice without all the correct information, right?
Thanks for you comments.
Ms. Mandaville,
As Charles Colton stated “imitation is the sincerest form of flattery” Thanks for the comment.
The point was and is Antifa and many protesters are calling for disbanding the police. After they get what they (leftists) wish for, no police, who do you call?
Please keep in mind with the absence of police history tells us “Vigilance Committees”, they came to be refereed to as vigilantes, the forerunner of the police departments enforced the law as they interpreted it. If I was still teaching a Criminal Justice introduction course introduction course I would invite you to attend.
Perhaps the American left should not wish for something they do not understand the consequence of, with 393,000,000 firearms in the US and 12 Trillion rounds of ammo, the absence of police could get bad very quickly. History tells us if the police are absent or ineffective people ban together for protection, always have always will. The main reason we have governments is to protect people and property, the police are a large portion of that.
To my leftists friends beware of what you wish for as you may get it. The Thin Blue Line stands between you and anarchy.
Thank you kindly for the comment.
Mr. Traxler,
Once again you lump the “defund the police” issue as a leftist one. I’m not sure that’s true, yet.
I’ve been giving a lot of thought to this new wrinkle in law enforcement, and my biggest fear is that it has emerged without clear definition as to what it means. I’m still trying to figure it out. So until I understand it I have no opinion about it.
I may be misinterpreting your view, but it seems you are of the understanding that defund the police means get rid of police forces wholesale. If that’s the true definition of “defund…” I would be opposed, because you’re right about vigilante justice becoming the new way of bringing some sort of order to society. But that kind of order is disjointed and inconsistent. And bad. I don’t wish for it.
If you were teaching Introduction to Criminal Justice, and I lived close enough, I would be very much interested in the course. Any opportunity to learn something is to be valued.
Anyway, you sell your leftist friends short if you believe that they, as a group, seek anarchy. It behooves both you and me to understand what this new “defund the police” really entails. My gut feeling is that it is quite nuanced, and difficult for the average citizen to understand because of its approach to providing services vs. locking people up. I have a lot to learn, and, with respect, maybe you do, too.
AB,
I was neither kidding nor linking thalidomide to police. The example was of good intentions/advice becoming outdated or discarded when we collectively learn more about a problem. When you have a spare moment, why not take the time to read up on what a logical fallacy is – I’d say you have a natural talent that is getting in your way.
HighSchoolGrad,
Looked up logical fallacy/deductive fallacy/ formal fallacy, such an argument is always considered to be wrong, so just what is wrong? Please cite facts and errors in reasoning that invalidate the argument.
An old axiom is if you can’t argue the facts, attack the person stating them, also if you can’t argue the facts, pound the table.
You asked “AB, is your genuine concern that not enough of the system is being held accountable for systemic racism in policing? Please give us some examples or rules, laws, procedures or systems that are systemic racism in policing? Please keep the examples to policing not society in general.
Thanks for the comment.
AB,
Employing a logical fallacy is problematic for the approach, but doesn’t inherently invalidate the point one is arguing for. And the axiom to which you refer describes one particular logical fallacy: ad hominem. But my suggestion that your argument employs logical fallacies is NOT an ad hominem attack because I’m specifically referring to your construction of your argument, not your character. An ad hominem attack would be something like derisively dismissing another’s argument because one assumes that person is leftist rather than because the argument itself is flawed. I think everyone benefits from logically-built arguments; it makes my point clearer for you to understand, and vice versa, regardless of whether we agree.
As to my question that you quote, I was looking to confirm your position in the original piece – a “yes”, you think there’s a bigger problem than just the police, or “no”, I misunderstood your position. No examples necessary. But if you want food for thought, consider the potential discriminatory ramifications of McCleskey v. Kemp or Illinois v. Wardlow.
Policy, procedures, rules, that are systemic in law enforcement please. If systemic racism is in police departments what are the racist policies in the system?
Thanks.
Again, to be clear, that’s what I’ve been asking you: do you think there’s systemic racism in policing AND beyond (which motivated your original comments about the lack of focus/blame on mayors, etc.), OR is the attention in policing problematic because you think there’s NOT systemic racism in policing (but perhaps elsewhere, like local governments, etc.)? Or maybe neither captures your opinion, which is why I’ve been asking.
You’ve assigned me a position I haven’t taken and are looking to refute it. That’s a logical fallacy. I haven’t taken a position on systemic racism in policing here, but, rather, have been trying to understand yours – see below. If only there were a fitting proverb about assuming.
“AB, is your genuine concern that not enough of the system is being held accountable for systemic racism in policing? I truly want to make sure I’m understanding your point correctly, which seems to be that the problem is bigger than just the police officers themselves.”
“As to my question that you quote, I was looking to confirm your position in the original piece – a ‘yes’, you think there’s a bigger problem than just the police, or ‘no’, I misunderstood your position.”
Army Bob, excellent article and precise reasoning. Too bad the lefties in the audience cannot fathom your thinking. Right there is the problem. They cannot abide attacking or questioning the Democrats in charge. It’s always Trump, Trump, Trump and the dastardly Republicans. They need to realize they are the problem by never holding their poor and ineffectual leadership to task.
DTOM,
Thanks for the comment.
Have you noticed how the liberals and media are back peddling on the defunding the police plan? A poll came out saying over 68% of the people do not approve of defunding/disbanding and nearly 18% do not have an opinion. The plan now is to shift to lets ban chock holds, dam near all police agency already do.
Thanks again.
To my brother Bob, and the Socialist Sycophants;
There was a time when moral fear governed the general population’s reverence for authority, this church-minded culture kept the immoral undercover, in the closet, and essentially quiet, the light kept the “roaches” under the kitchen stove. Now that moral depravity is becoming a source of public entertainment, and the butt of every other joke, there seems to have become a more accepting level of tolerance of things, and a spirit of “judge not, lest you be judged” came about as a result of self-guilt for (secretly or otherwise) participating in the new tolerance, as a result these “roaches” are crawling out from their hiding places and we are finding them in every level of our lives, the city governments, our schools, department of justice’s, our law enforcement’s. Money has always been a magnifying glass to the heart, and where you find great wealth and power, you will always find one of these “roaches” who speak out of both sides of their mouths to the destruction of their followers.