Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
An Officer’s Lament
One of my good friends serves as a police officer here in the Pacific Northwest. Over time, he’s been frustrated. About a month ago, he expressed his frustrations thusly:
Dear Conservative Ideology — There is no easy way to say this, so I am just going to say it. I’m breaking up with you. I know what you are thinking. No I am not seeing anyone else. I am not going to remove my conservative sign and replace it with a liberal one. Right now, I’m just going to stand on my own. Ironically, the thing that has pushed you away from me is the one thing that has always kept me far away from liberal ideology … anti-police rhetoric.
He goes on:
I love being a police officer. I know that there isn’t a lot of glory in being one. I know that it’s a pretty thankless job. I’m okay with that. But every day, I love going out and getting a chance to really help. I know that sometimes all I can do is place a dirty band-aid on a gushing wound, delaying society from tearing itself apart. I know that sometimes I may use a tone of voice that is a little tough when dealing with citizens. But it is because it is a tough world, and this is a tough job. And yes, there is a lot of despair in my job, but every once in awhile, I get a chance to help people. I don’t enjoy arresting people. I don’t enjoy writing tickets. I don’t enjoy using force on people. I enjoy doing my duty and knowing that, maybe even just a little at a time, I am making the world a better place. I took an oath to uphold and protect the Constitution of the United States. The Constitution, all of it. Not your amended interpretation of it.
Which brings me to you, conservative ideology. It is true that, as a whole movement, there is not a widespread call for violence against police officers. However, there is a subtle ideology in your thinking. There is a hostile demeanor in your articles, essays, and online posts. And there is ominous silence when your masses respond to such media calling for open violence against “pigs, Fascists, Nazis, and oppressors.” There is no call for violence in your words. But there are words like “revolution, demand action, excessive force, trampled rights,” and “police state.” Often these words are used out of context, or applied to half-truths and partial facts. Your words are stirring followers to use words that advocate, encourage, and call for the deaths of police officers. I have turned a blind eye to it for far too long. But your silence towards the recent shooting of two Las Vegas Officers while they were eating lunch, and the death of a concealed carry American citizen who tried to stop the shooters, is just as hypocritical of the liberal silence over the loss of four lives in Benghazi. The shooters draped a “Don’t Tread on Me” flag on one of the officers, and a handful of swastikas on the other officer, (which, contrary to what the media told you, was meant to imply the officer was a Nazi. The swastikas were not placed on the dead officer due to white supremacist ideology.) Where do you suppose that symbolic gesture comes from? Both of these officers had families … wives and children. You always bitch about the “militarization” of American police, because we now wear body armor outside of our shirts and have armored cars? We carry rifles now because criminals carry them and wear body armor. We have armored vehicles because criminals have rifles that can shoot through cars now. You know what? We’re okay with that. We’re okay with law-abiding citizens having the option of bearing arms. But a law-abiding gun owner can go south pretty quick when he loses his job, his wife leaves him, or some other life event takes a turn for the worst. That’s fine. We’ll respond. It’s what we do. But don’t bitch at us because we want vests, armor, and rifles to deal with the problem. Especially when we, the police, as an institution, are overwhelmingly supportive of citizens’ rights to bear arms.
I’ve also heard you complain about police wearing BDUs now. You know why we’re wearing BDU’s? Because $40 slacks that you the taxpayer pay for are not comfortable for the work we do. They tear and need to be replaced due to us working in the increasingly violent world that you and your liberal ideological brother are making for us. Oh, and here’s a news flash: Bullet-resistant vests are not comfortable. Wearing them over our shirts is more comfortable and allows us to carry gear on our vest rather than our waists. Gear on the vest spreads out weight that is normally concentrated on your waist and lower back. This helps prevent back problems, which, for your information, is very common among police officers.
So we are done, conservative ideology. I thought you were different. Turns out you’re just as full of crap as your liberal opposite. I’ll stand on my own with my God, my family, my brothers and sisters in blue, and all of my countrymen.
I’ve been delaying sharing here for a while, but George Savage’s recent article about our militarized interior compelled me to cease my delays. I can see a problem. While I believe there is genuine concern about the increased militarization of federal bureaucracies (I’m not sure why the EPA requires SWAT teams, for example), it’s becoming more necessary for the police officers who serve to gear up and protect themselves. It seems that, as of late, more officers have been victims of shootings not in the line of duty, but doing nothing more than enjoying a bit of down time. If it’s not more common, we’re at least becoming more aware of it.
Here’s the thing: many of these officers are our allies. They love freedom and liberty as much as we do, but they understand that everyone’s liberty comes at a cost. Those of us who enjoy what liberties we have do so because there are officers like my friend defending them. That takes them to dangerous places. And yes, those places can be inside the borders of this country. One needs only look at Chicago’s murder statistics to realize just how dangerous life can be right here at home. That we don’t experience it every day is thanks to the work of men and women like my friend who go there for us.
The last thing we should be doing is treating them with suspicion or contempt. The questions are: How do we support them? How do we reconcile with them? How do I behave towards my fellow man?
Published in General
Cool story, bro. Except I don’t believe it. This is Alinskyite concern trolling, and it’s not particularly well-done. The slop and obfuscation in the “letter” are reaching too far, straining too hard.
Better luck next time.
The problem is that the very job of a police officer is, at it’s core, assuming extra risk so that the rest of us don’t have to. Instead, officers are using no-knock warrants and shooting and throwing flash bangs first, and asking questions later. The rules end up being changed so that the citizen who encounters the officers is assuming the extra risk.
It is completely backwards, and I’ll stop criticizing modern law enforcement when swat teams only exist in major cities which actually need them.
Dear Mr Ball Diamond Ball,
C.U. Douglas has earned a decent reputation over the years here at Ricochet. Your approach of attacking the messenger would be out of place on that score alone, but it’s also generally out of place on Ricochet where we address each other’s points of view in substantive conversation rather than buzz words and snark. If you wonder whether this was a real letter or merely an artistic method of making a point, then ask the OP and I’m sure he’ll be upfront with you about which it is.
If no-knock warrants are never warranted (I disagree with that, btw), then why are they being issued? Who is issuing them?
except… I’m not quite sure which right wing he is talking about. Has he been on Ricochet, and interacted with Jack Dumphy and Doug Watt? I’ve never heard a conservative advocate violence toward police, and I’m fairly certain the right wing calls for revolution are a myth… your friend seems to conflate right and left, and while he may be trying to divorce himself from something, it isn’t conservative ideology, as he doesn’t seem to know quite what that is.
as far as cops go, in my work as a criminal defense attorney, I’ve seen my share of corruption. yes, conservatives are wary of power, and there are officers who I really like, but nobody gets a free pass. those in power are rightly held to a much higher standard.
Ryan, even some Ricochet threads on police have nibbled at that edge; though, I believe you are correct that no calls for violence have actually been made.
I didn’t say they are never justified. They are rarely justified. And considering the number of wrong address SWAT raids, I’m convinced that we could do away with them entirely and it would be a net positive.
There is a mentality these days that the police shouldn’t have to assume nearly any risk when that risk can be shifted to the civilians they are encountering. So rather than knock and show the warrant if you are looking for drugs, cops would rather go in as if Tony Montana is waiting inside.
Ok, but what proportion of warrants are no-knock warrants? Of those, what proportion are not justified based on the available evidence?
Part of the trouble is when we want to make a case for a broad trend of abuse or risk-shifting. On closer inspection, many of the individual cases used to support that broad case turn out to be based on incomplete, inconclusive, one-sided, or disputed facts.
It’s been a while since I’ve seen the numbers, but years ago when I last saw it the number of swat raids was 40,000 a year. About 75% of SWAT incidents are for simply serving warrants, as opposed to the traditional idea of a hostage situation.
There are specific counties where 50% of SWAT operations are carried out for non-serious felonies or misdemeanors.
The point is that the relationship with law enforcement is inverting. Rather than officers knocking on a door to serve a warrant, and knowing that they signed on to assume the small risk that those inside will respond with violence, they are conducting night time raids and shooting family dogs, burning children with flash bangs, and causing unnecessary deaths by invading homes in such a way that any ordinary citizen could easily confuse for a home invasion by criminals, and grab their gun to defend themselves.
Not to bash your friend, but I’m not sure what he’s been reading or listening to. Maybe he’s being influenced by some fellow officers. The calls I hear for “revolution” and fighting back against “trampled rights” are directed towards the federal government and the current occupants in D.C. I don’t see the comparison to the crazies that killed the police officers in Vegas. Why do we always have to own the nut jobs but the left doesn’t have to own theirs? Does your friend not remember the Occupy Wall Street crowd and the things they said and did to the cops trying to keep the peace? I have several friends and a family member in some form of police work. I couldn’t do their job. I’m glad they are there. But I have to agree with Frank on this one.
Part of our dispute here is that you are looking for abuse rates of the system, while I am claiming the entire system of SWAT raids for serving warrants is flawed.
But how do you conclude that the relationship with law enforcement is inverting if you don’t have the numbers showing the proportion of unjustifiable precautions to justified precautions (considering the circumstances known at the time of the warrant or raid)?
How is it flawed? How do you arrive at that judgement?
Kindly don’t lecture me about propriety. This letter is a kick in the teeth. My teeth.
People who know about the oaths, and take these things seriously, can separate concern about an overbearing state from the anarchist howl. This letter is written by a provocateur, perhaps a Paulist, but certainly not a conservative *or anybody who ever was*, and is a ham-fisted attempt to paint fascism and anti-fascism as the same thing. Ask yourself: who does that?
Figure it out or pay the price. And I don’t feel like paying the price for those who cannot think quickly.
“If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.”
― Samuel Adams
“It does not take a majority to prevail … but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men.”
― Samuel Adams
“Irate” should not be a dirty word. It’s the beginning of victory.
“…for the police officers who serve, it’s becoming more necessary to gear up and protect themselves.”
As crime rates continue to fall? What makes this necessary? The last time crime rates were at this level was the 1960s, and the notion of cops walking around every day in body armor would have been considered ridiculous at that time. Or evidence of fascism.
Much of that post is straw-man arguments. I find much of the corrupt behavior that seems to be more common in our police departments to be very disturbing, but I’ve never encountered any “call to violence” against police as a generic statement on the Right. On the Left, yes, but not on the Right.
This bit, in particular, “And there is ominous silence when your masses respond to such media calling for open violence against “pigs, Fascists, Nazis, and oppressors.””
“No results found for police “pigs, Fascists, Nazis, and oppressors.”.
I have a bit of trouble taking this rant seriously…
I know this will sound painfully detached… but cops, in my opinion, fall into a similar category as firemen. With some of them, there is a heroic element in that they are willfully doing something dangerous. But only some. Let’s not forget that we pay them a ridiculous amount of money to do this – and full retirement… the communities in my neighborhood where the police live are generally the nicest parts of town. So it isn’t as if they’re not being well compensated for the assumption of risk. On top of that, we give them a huge amount of power – so yes, I’m in agreement with Frank that risk should not be balanced, we should go far out of our way to protect citizens at the expense of officers.
Oh, I’ll let you know about propriety alright. You still apparently aren’t interested in conversation; you have your assumptions and anyone who assails them is apparently a Paulist or an Alinskyite or some other “ist” or “ite”. That’s not conversation or conservatism. It’s certainly not Ricochet. We have a good thing going at Ricochet and I’m interested in keeping it going. C. U. Douglas is a member in good standing and I kindly ask that you address his points and not his motives.
I also had an issue with this part. If there are examples, I’d like to see them. I cannot imagine conservatives not having a reaction to such extreme statements, but then, I cannot recall ever hearing those sorts of statements at all. The last time I can remember any sort of open violence against police officers was during the OWS stuff, where protesters were sometimes shut down by the police. Of course, I don’t think there was anyone on the right defending the Occupy crowd. As I said, I don’t know which “conservatism” the OP is talking about, but it isn’t any conservatism I’m familiar with.
In defense… CU didn’t write the bulk of the post. I don’t think anyone is attacking the fine Mr. Douglas. It would be wonderful if CU could convince his friend to come onto Ricochet to defend his statements. I think if he spent some time here before posting, he would likely find it necessary to scale back his rhetoric or at least back up some of his more outlandish statements. I would also hope that we could respond charitably and respectfully, even if he did not decide to tone it down.
Also, CU lives in Portland, yes? His friend may be an acquaintance of our own Mr. Watt. I’d like to see Doug weigh in on this post. I’ll send him a PM just in case he’s missed it.
Many people who become police officers are good people, with sincere intentions to serve & protect their community. But as we all ought to know, good intentions don’t make people immune to incentives. Or immune to bureaucratic insanity.
What can change the fact that it’s easier – & more lucrative – for police to fine essentially law-abiding people for minor infractions than it is for them to risk tackling dangerous criminals? It takes laudable physical courage and self-sacrifice to choose the less-easy way, & many officers do. But not all. Officers are human like everyone else.
The night we were burgled, I couldn’t even get an officer on the phone, so I walked over to my local police station. They turned me away, said I had to call a number & leave a message. I don’t blame the officers on duty for following whatever silly protocol it is they have to follow to keep their job, but, as a civilian, I sure found it confusing. Getting hold of an actual police detective took a week. Yet on our street, minor parking violations are ticketed within two hours. It’s healthy for citizens to find discrepancies like these weird & irritating.
Don’t we go out of our way to protect citizens? Warrants, probable cause, Miranda warnings, records open to public inspection, prosecutions. What else should we do to shift the balance appropriately? How does risk to officers translate to protection of citizens?
The two people who gunned down the police officers in cold blood in Las Vegas were former Occupy Wall Street types in Lafayette Indiana–manifestly not conservatives or TEA Party types. Your friend is either unaware of this or conveniently lumping them in with the Right to make his point. Since those were the only specifics he offered, I’d suggest he find better examples to prove his point.
Well, I’m not a huge fan of Miranda warnings, honestly… but what we could do is require officers to actually follow the law. They are often coached by zealous prosecutors on how to avoid requirements rather than follow them. Sometimes, their methods are beyond disgusting. Listen, though; I’m on the other end of it, and you think I’m any less disgusted by the criminals? It’s a complex situation, and I think our treatment of criminals compounds the problem and is the fault of liberals – as does our welfare state. But the fact remains. Officers have a huge amount of power and often see themselves as above the law. A few bad seeds really do ruin it for everyone. I’m not entirely sure what more we can do – but my statements are merely that the checks we have are necessary.
I wish our Followed Conversations from 1.0 had come over to 2.0. While I don’t recall outright calls for violence, the rhetoric has gotten a bit hysterical from time to time. And that’s on civil Ricochet.
I have no interest in reconciling with or supporting someone who writes or believes such malicious nonsense.
The obvious example, is a night time swat raid for a drug violation. The alternative is to knock on the door, and handle it the old fashioned way. We don’t do this, because it is deemed safer for officers to go in while everyone is asleep, hurl flash bangs, and shoot anything that gives the slightest inkling of being a threat.
The very existence of 40,000+ SWAT invasions a year shows how the balance has shifted.
With a 200 word limit, you may have to do some of your own thinking. I am addressing the premise of the “argument” such as it is, not the individual points, which others are capably taking on. I’m not the only one who sees it.
And I take issue with the letter itself. Mr. Douglas takes no particular position. My contention is that the author *of the letter* is not or was not recently a conservative. This is internet concern trolling 101.
I always say that there are undoubtedly stories of abuse, incompetence, and outrageousness. It’s just difficult to translate that into evidence of a broad trend of abuse or blaming police rather than politicians. Sometimes the problem is with individual officers, sometimes individual units, sometimes with the people in charge of a political jurisdiction that set the rules of operation. Regardless, it most certainly is healthy for citizens to identify discrepancies and seek redress for them either legally or politically.
You’ve been a member for about two weeks, so I’ll cut you a little slack, but this isn’t how Ricochet works. I don’t entirely agree with his point here, but C.U. Douglas has more than established his conservative bona fides. Your imputation of ulterior motives to him is both cheap and ignorant.