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.
Taking the Risk out of Crime and Putting It on You
Over the last two years, much of the national conversation has focused on problems in policing. The basic assumption is that use of force is grossly excessive and frequent. It’s not: Barely one percent of officers use deadly force annually – 80 percent never do.
But the substance of the positions of police “reformers” proves they are more interested in taking the risk out of criminal acts – pushing it onto cops and society – than addressing even the few incidents of truly unjustified police violence. “Reformers” really want to decriminalize crime.
In Pasadena, the case of Kendrec McDade has been front-and-center of this conversation and illustrates exactly this agenda.
McDade was killed by Pasadena Police Officers Jeffrey Newlen and Matthew Griffin late at on the night of March 24, 2012, following his involvement in a reported armed robbery. When Newlen and Griffin spotted McDade, he ran through a parking lot and narrow alley, then up a residential street. Newlen pursued on foot while Griffin maneuvered the car to cut-off McDade’s path. When McDade suddenly turned toward Griffin, he fired, as did Newlen.
The 19-year-old McDade, who was unarmed, died at a hospital. Only after the shooting was it discovered McDade was never armed and the “armed robbery” was merely a theft. (For more on that specific element of this incident, see my previous Ricochet post here).
The case drew outrage from many anti-police activists and “reformers.” A lengthy court battle ensued for release of a report on the incident from the Office of Independent Review.
The OIR’s 70-page report is a prime example of the real “reform” agenda. Notably, OIR is a private organization with seven attorneys as principals (one of whom is departing to monitor another agency). Of them, none lists any policing experience. But three were in criminal defense. In their analysis, Newlen and Griffin erred by pursuing McDade because they thought he was armed. Instead, OIR says, they should have held back and observed him until more officers arrived. And when he ran into the narrow alley, creating a potential trap, the OIR questioned why they continued the pursuit at all – since they knew it was dangerous. That is, the cops erred by being courageous.
So, the more dangerous a criminal may be, the more the police should be inclined to let him flee. While that would be just great for robbers, rapists and thieves, it seems doubtful their victims would concur.
Nowhere in the report does the OIR place the blame for McDade’s death on his decision to resist arrest, nor on the lie of the 911 caller. Nope, it’s all the cops fault, because they tried to capture a criminal.
They are hardly alone in this juxtaposition of responsibility.
In Cincinnati, former officer Ray Tensing now stands accused of murder. Tensing stopped motorist Sam DuBose for driving without a license plate. After distracting and delaying Tensing, DuBose started his car and attempted to flee. Tensing reached in to grab the keys as DuBose drove off, then shot him as his arm grasped DuBose’ seatbelt. Analysis of a bodycam video of the incident shows Tensing was pushed backwards 20 feet in two seconds – over 13 miles per hour.
So why charge Tensing with murder? Because by trying to stop DuBose, he created the danger. According to a report by Kroll, a politically-connected private investigations firm, Tensing erred by not “allowing DuBose to drive away.”
Again: police should let suspects flee.
The report goes all-in with the political narrative, asserting that Tensing wasn’t dragged by DuBose’s car. Rather, it claims, he was launched 20 feet backwards by his pistol’s recoil, a ludicrous suggestion to anyone with shooting experience.
In Los Angeles, the Police Commission found Officer Sharlton Wampler “out of policy” for killing Ezell Ford with a back-up gun, despite DNA proof Ford tried to disarm Wampler. Stunningly, the board found Wampler’s partner in-policy for the same shooting. Wampler’s error? Getting out of his car to talk to Ford without iron-clad probable cause.
If they’re in a Constitutional gray area, reformers deny cops the right to self-defense from murder.
Recently, the same board was outraged that not one of 1,365 allegations of racist policing could be proved. Commissioner Robert Saltzman called the findings “quite troubling and disappointing.” Imagine their reaction if a cop was “troubled and disappointed” that a few dozen robbery allegations against gang members couldn’t be substantiated by evidence.
The grind of these “reforms” is having an effect. The LAPD’s own figures show arrests were down 17% in 2015 compared to 2013, while crime is rising: property crimes up 7% in that time, homicide 10%, rape 35%, and aggravated assault 55%. (You can see the details here.)
And it is making policing more dangerous. A great illustration of this came in late December when a Ventura County Sheriff’s Deputy confronted a suspect armed with a knife on a busy street in daylight, with citizens nearby. Instead of stopping the armed man, the deputy retreated backward more than 50 feet, ultimately tripping onto his back. Only after exposing himself (and the nearby citizens) to grave danger did the deputy fire as the man lunged at him from inches away, according to a bystander’s video.
Whatever the reason, that deputy reduced the risk to a criminal by transferring it to himself and the people of Camarillo.
Cops make mistakes and there are undoubtedly violent racists who don’t belong in their ranks. But if error and courage are deemed unacceptable in our cops, the risk of their jobs — and the crooks’ — will be passed along to you.
This post is an expansion of an article that ran in Sunday’s Pasadena Star News, and adds additional details, examples and supporting links.
Published in Policing
All this said, I’m going to continue my donations to the Institute for Justice, libertarian lawyers who are doing noble and necessary work on behalf of freedom.
And I agree with much of the libertarian critique of certain conservatives, most notably during the GWB era, who erred in supporting rather than reducing the administrative state.
There’s definitely a strain of that within libertarianism and it’s not one I’m a fan of and I wouldn’t want to conflate it with libertarianism itself. If you missed it, Sal Padula and I did a podcast on the matter that — we hoped — would do a little work toward clarifying the matter.
I agree the Manhattan Institute (and Heather Mac Donald in particular) have done a lot of great work this way and that it deserves attention and respect. But I’d also say that the Manhattan Institute (and Heather Mac Donald in particular), have a tendency to over-support police, much in the way that libertarians over-criticize it.
Long live the fusionist/conservatarian alliance!
Tom –
I’m talking only about the police, not the federal enforcement agencies, just to be clear. (I think you know it; I’m just making sure.)
I take your larger point about limiting the power of government to its legitimate purposes, security being first among them. For that reason, I am particularly concerned by the hostile libertarian attitude toward the police, who are there to provide security. I see the appreciation you have expressed aboce to the police, but this isn’t what I see from libertarian writers and think-tanks. And I think they are not really capable of it, given their libertarian principles. The lack of respect for the police and the lack of proposals for stopping crime are indicative of a fundamental difference with conservatism. It’s not a problem of libertarians simply saying thanks more.
Yes, indeed: long may the alliance live.
Pardon the imposition, Tom, but I can’t quickly find that podcast. Do you have the link? I’ll listen – and then disagree (heh).
Sorry, my bad! Here you go, and look forward to your response (seriously). There were a number of threads created in response, including Rachel’s here.
Sal and I are late in doing a Part II, which will cover a sort of taxonomy of libertarianism.
Thanks. I look forward to listening to both.
Thanks again. I listened. You did a nice job asking a range of questions. I think he relied too much on the “correlation is not causation” idea; for example, libertarian support for same-sex marriage is not accidental but comes straight from the highly individualistic libertarian view (and the exceptions, like George Gilder, prove the rule). Also, he left unexplained how libertarianism is the current form of classical liberalism (which accepted or endorsed quite a number and variety of laws that libertarians would reject out of hand as not only wrong-headed but illegitimate and oppressive).
I appreciate the effort to improve understanding. When do you expect the sequel?
Thank you!
Well, Sal and I were both in on that, but I’ll also defend it. On this particular issue, two points:
For what it’s worth my (unpopular) opinion is that marriage probably works best if its contracts are enforced/registered through the states, but that it’s also a good deal that it be open to gays because marriage is a good social institution that makes people better.
Several months ago. ;)
Thanks for the response. It sounds like you agree that it is not accidental that almost all libertarians favor SSM, but that it follows directly from libertarian principles (albeit more than a single principle). I’m not trying to debate the soundness of the reasoning within libertarianism, nor the merits of the position itself, but to offer this as an example of how he went too far with the “correlation is not causation” argument. In other words, I think he was trimming libertarianism too thin.
Anyway, I’ll look for the next installment. Thanks much.