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
I’m saying that risk-shifting isn’t the only possibility. Risk can be diminished for cops without necessarily increasing risk to the other side of the equation. I don’t have evidence one way or the other, but I’m not the one making assertions that risk shifting is occurring or that it’s occurring unjustifiably or that it’s occurring by unreasonably causing more harm than it prevents.
That’s a mighty far stretch from “Dear Conservative Ideology:”
I’m all for transparency, getting that evidence, and accountability. However, the lack of data means that any assertions can only be tentative. Maybe it’s reasonable to have concern or wonder, but the claims can tend to go well beyond that and approach a level of certainty and then righteous indignation that just isn’t justified.
What made him a “conservative” before and does this break up change that? People think it is fake or he isn’t conservative because they think of their own “issues” they strongly believe in. Very little would change those deeply held beliefs. If he was a social conservative, does he no longer care about pro-life issues, a fiscal conservative who no longer cares about budgets? I could go on but you get it.Will this break up affect his voting? If not then what is the point, that he no longer wants to be called conservative while holding conservative beliefs?
His argument is some people say things I don’t like about my job so I no longer have my “deeply” held beliefs. Then he throws in some insults about conservatives just for good measure.
No, you should not change your deeply held personal and political beliefs because some people (mostly anonymously) say mean things on the internet.
“sub-currents in popular conservative thought” are arguments being made by Salon.com and the ACLU on the over militarization of the police force?
This is absolutely true. The Knock and Announce Rule (not no knock), according to the Supreme Court, exists to prevent accidental injury to officers and occupants. Thus diminishing the risk to both sides.
The no-knock warrant led to a injury to a toddler not long ago. Today it led to police shooting family dogs feet from the children while making no arrests and finding nothing illegal. http://www.twincities.com/localnews/ci_26127041/swat-unit-kills-st-paul-familys-2-dogs
Did the young children pose a risk to the police? The police posed a risk to the children only by use of the no-knock warrant. This is not data but Google is full of these examples which lead people to form strong opinions without great data. The burden should actually be on the police to prove that these are good and useful policies, not hiding behind “non-profit” status.
Yes it’s a BAE Caiman. 14 tons. The difference between that and a Bearcat (which apparently is not representative of the “militarization of the police) is about 1 extra axle.
Oh, and unlike a Bearcat, it’s free, cause it’s excess military equipment, whereas the Bearcat needs to be bought with police funds.
I’ll be done just as soon as you can provide some…evidence…of this supposed militarization. And evidence of supposed police being out of control, or diminishing your freedoms and liberties.
Until then, this entire thing is theatrics, since it is entirely based on sensationalism based on made-up facts.
PS: Saying that specialized police units have armored vehicles designed to…protect…cops, isn’t evidence of “militarization”. I’m not sure exactly why I, a citizen, should feel threatened that cops are trying to protect themselves from modern weaponry. Unless, I had plans on using those weaponry on the cops.
Yes the burden is on police to prove reasonable cause when they’re seeking the warrant which they are required to do or they don’t get the warrant. For any of the examples you give, what were the known circumstances before the warrant was issued? Was issuing the warrant reasonable? Was authorizing extraordinary methods reasonable at the time?
The success rate (whether it was warranted considering the results of the search rather than what was known or suspected before the search) of issued warrants is a separate matter.
Is it truly completely separate? Wouldn’t a “low” success rate of issued warrants suggest a need to re-examine the criteria used to justify issuing those warrants?
Not that I know what should be considered a low success rate – but reasonable questions, deserving answers, don’t you think?
CU, do you believe your friend was correct in calling “conservative ideology” just as full of carp as the leftists?
Sure, but you expect ignorant judgmentalism from Salon and the ACLU. Besides, an insult from a friend cuts deeper than one from an enemy.
Anyway, I didn’t read the letter as being about changing any personal beliefs (he seems pretty adamant that he’s not becoming a liberal), but rather about rejecting and disassociating himself from a movement. About no longer self-identifying as a conservative.
It’s not that he doesn’t still believe in God; it’s just that he’s not going to church, and he’s definitely not coughing up for the collection plate.
Yes they can, and in fact they have.
Another instance: in 2006 Officers Matthew Seitz and David Sturma of the Milwaukee PD were ambushed and pinned down near their vehicle by a hidden assailant with a rifle. The MPD’s BearCat armored vehicle was used to move in and evacuate them safely.
Other uses the MPD found for their BearCat:
-Moving up to a house that a barricaded suspect was actively firing from, in order to get a negotiator close enough to the house to negotiate a surrender.
-Getting close to another barricade situation in order to safely get a throw phone into the house, which helps resolve the situation without violence.
-Allowing a tactical team to approach a hijacked bus with an armed robbery suspect in it.
These illustrate one of the principal purposes of an armored SWAT vehicle – providing a mobile cover point so officers can move through a dangerous area, while minimizing the chances of a firefight with a suspect.
Yes. But they’re questions – not assertions.
“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.”
CU’s friend like all police officers was deeply affected by the death of two police officers that were murdered in Las Vegas. Police officers regardless of their respective agencies have a common bond in the shared experiences of day to day police work. Police officers also know but for the grace of God it could have been them that day. They start thinking about the times they have stopped for a meal or coffee and the “what if” thoughts begin. The sad truth is that fate is the hunter and all you can do as a police officer is to minimize your risk of injury or death through training and mental preparedness every time you begin your shift.
There are those regardless of ideology that only recognize their own authority and there are those that resent specific laws that police officers are called upon to enforce. Police officers do not write the laws.
Quit shooting beloved family pets on your damned “no knock warrants”. Stop locking down whole cities and warrantlessly searching homes to find a teenage terrorist. Maybe small towns could give back the APC s. Stop acting like servants of a police state and you’ll never hear me call a pig a pig again.
Also, if you want to talk dangerous jobs, talk the building trades. Our annual death toll makes police work look like a Sunday stroll. And we provide shelter. That’s even higher up the list of essentials than security. Alas, no accolades for us.
So by your thinking, as long as a law is on the books, breaking it makes me the bad guy? Have you even seen the book “Three Felonies a Day”? If laws at this easy to break, no one is law abiding.
Your second half is funny coming from someone complaining about sensationalism.
MRAPs for police departments is:
Prepositioning of military assets for use by law enforcement, which
Contributes to the militarization of the police and the erosion of the principle that the U.S. military does not operate against U.S. Citizens on U.S. soil.
Creates the need for federal dollars to maintain the equipment and train in its use, which erodes local control of law enforcement and tends to federalize it.
Couple that with unionized public safety officers and asset forfeiture laws and C.U. Douglas’ friend is ignoring a large elephant in the room.
Another smashing of the heartstrings by an overwrought propaganda artist. Wow
During my googling, I emailed a salesman of one of the armored car manufacturers I came across. He was polite enough to email back (and gave me permission to print his answer here):
His outer-range — i.e., the biggest he has — is comparable in size to what George Savage’s town procured. Perhaps I’m missing something, but why does a yuppyish middle class town of 80,000 people need something that big?
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1610392116/ref=as_li_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=1610392116&linkCode=as2&tag=advicegoddess-20&linkId=IHDN6QZV5BCWDLC5
A totally sensantionalist book, I guess. That notorious rag the Economist has this to say about it:
“Mr Balko manages to avoid the clichés of both right and left, and provokes genuine outrage at the misuse of state power in its most brutal and unaccountable form: heavily armed police raiding the homes of unarmed, non-violent suspects on the flimsiest of pretexts, and behaving more like an occupying army in hostile territory than guardians of public safety. “Rise of the Warrior Cop”, Mr Balko’s interesting first book, explains what policies led to the militarisation of America’s police. To his credit, he focuses his outrage not on the police themselves, but on politicians and the phoney, wasteful drug war they created.”
I’m VERY late to the thread, but I will say that on another political discussion forum that I frequent, there is a great deal of animosity towards police and excessive use of force. There are a few people that appear to create a new thread every single there is an article alleging excessive use of force. One recent thread discussing an officer that was cleared after an investigation even went so far as to post the officer’s home address and phone number.
So, from my perspective, I think there is a growing trend among SOME conservatives towards distrusting police.
I also think this is part of a larger trend of a growing lack of respect for authority in this country. I think it’s fair to say that some of the people in authority share some of the blame for this. I also think this is a reaction towards the overreach of the legal structure in our country. When we pass laws that people break everyday, it lessens respect for the rule of law.
I also tend to give police the benefit of the doubt. They are in a dangerous job and deserve the right to defend themselves.