Ferguson and the Changing Attitudes Towards Cops

American Thinker ^ | 8/17/2014 | C. Edmund Wright

[Servant of the Cross]

One of the fascinating layers of the Ferguson riot story is how this tragedy has exposed what is a rapidly changing attitudinal climate towards law enforcement officers (LEOs). What was for years a stable predicate -- conservatives being reflexively ‘law and order’ and inherently giving cops the benefit of the doubt -- while liberals with the built in ACLU type disdain for cops tending to always assume the worst of those in power – is now a vortex of confusion, cross currents,and contradictions.

It’s not a total flip-flop of the convention, but it’s moving in that direction. After all, we’ve seen Rand Paul and Eric Holder agree on this in the past week. Did I mention confusing and contradictory?

Consider: many young liberals have of course discovered a love for big government, and take to Twitter and Facebook to support cops harassing Tea Party types and Nevada ranchers just as they cheer the IRS and Lois Lerner persecuting conservative business people and political groups. Meanwhile, liberal voters in Boston cheered their ‘Boston Strong’ reaction to the Marathon bombers, which to me looked a lot like an entire city cowering from a wounded young teen -- while LEOs with Seal Team Six fantasies trampled on every liberty they could for 48 hours -- brandishing Kevlar, automatic weapons, neo-Nazi style helmets and riding around neighborhoods in hummers and kicking down doors.

The media, long willing to challenge the cops and take the victim's point of view, have been silent, or even dismissive, of recent fears by the right of militarized police departments and massive ammo buys by the Feds. Worship of Obama and support for public sector unions has trumped their former concerns apparently.

The old model of “neighborhood cops” -- who walk a beat in their blues ....

[no-to-illegals]

I do think and believe that the region in which one lives gives one an opinion of what the political and Police structure is for that given local. Know I’ve been lucky in where am living and the attitude of the Police has been above board. From your opinion, would say you have not been as lucky.

[old3030]

So you say. I am against government intrusion in the free market and in individual liberties as much as it possible. That’s why the Constitution is all about telling the government what it cannot do. In that sense, the Founders were libertarians and many of them were devout Christians.

If you embrace a big government, big brother kind of imposed adherence to biblical standards as a social conservative then, yes, you and I will have to disagree and even be at odds.

However, if you are willing to reduce the role of the FEDERAL government to Constitutional boundaries, and you want to make laws at the local level to restrict vice and encourage virtue in a given community, I have no problem with that. And it is none of the federal government’s business.

I am a Christian libertarian. I am not unicorn.

[C. Edmund Wright]

I do think and believe that the region in which one lives gives one an opinion of what the political and Police structure is for that given local

You are correct, but I think that borders on being willfully ignorant on the part of some (present company excepted of course). With the internet videos and political sites and news sites and message boards - not to mention cable, talk radio, YouTube, etc….there is little excuse to remain this isolated from reality.

[ansel12]

As usual, you go straight for the nasty and personal, and name calling.

Libertarians working to convince conservatives that they are just social conservatives that prefer the word libertarian.

We all know what it means when someone says, they are “more libertarian on some issues”, it is there that the war against social conservatism is.

[C. Edmund Wright]

So you say. I am against government intrusion in the free market and in individual liberties as much as it possible. That’s why the Constitution is all about telling the government what it cannot do. In that sense, the Founders were libertarians and many of them were devout Christians. If you embrace a big government, big brother kind of imposed adherence to biblical standards as a social conservative then, yes, you and I will have to disagree and even be at odds.

However, if you are willing to reduce the role of the FEDERAL government to Constitutional boundaries, and you want to make laws at the local level to restrict vice and encourage virtue in a given community, I have no problem with that. And it is none of the federal government’s business.

I am a Christian libertarian. I am not unicorn.

That's a well reasoned response, which of course means ansel will probably reject it. He doesn't want to get along. He wants to fight. I would say that on the issue of life, true libertarianism should include being pro life under the "right to life" doctrine, given that biology teaches us that abortion is the taking of a life. Under gay marriage, I think the libertarian approach intellectually should be that this is either a state issue, or that gays can do whatever, but they cannot change the meaning of the marriage contract for the citizens who are already in such a contract. Maybe on that you and I disagree.

but on the whole, we agree much more than we disagree (a tough concept for some around here to grasp). I would not say I am a libertarian, but a Christian conservative with a keen eye towards issues of limited government and maximum freedom.

[no-to-illegals]

(present company excepted of course)

Thank you for that comment and I'm going to hail the bartender and order up one ... Thank You! Wasn't expecting that ...

[C. Edmund Wright]

I am not being nasty. I am characterizing your reading comprehension, your assessment, and your absolutist intent to not get along. If that sounds nasty, then I am only guilty in telling the truth about you.

And again, you simply refuse to understand the word “some” or the concept of “not all” - which is infantile. It is inexcusable. It is intellectually vapid. I’m sorry, it is all of those things.

[ansel12]

If you embrace a big government, big brother kind of imposed adherence to biblical standards as a social conservative then, yes, you and I will have to disagree and even be at odds. However, if you are willing to reduce the role of the FEDERAL government to Constitutional boundaries, and you want to make laws at the local level to restrict vice and encourage virtue in a given community, I have no problem with that. And it is none of the federal government’s business.

Who said anything about federal? Libertarians are libertarians at all levels.

Gay marriage and abortion for instance comes into play at the city government level, county, state, and federal. Never elect a libertarian at any level of government, and never promote their left wing social liberalism at any level.

[old3030]

To some extent. My local county cops are great guys, and I think, generally, I can trust them to be on the right side. But I live in a rural area in the Republican heart of Missouri, where we used to vote for Durward G. Hall when he was the only Republican in the Missouri Congressional delegation. However, I know what is happening elsewhere and the direction law enforcement is taking. I find the militarization of law enforcement disturbing.

[C. Edmund Wright]

ole Ansel is something, ain’t he? HELL BENT on not finding even a shred of common ground, and convinced his narrow view of the world is enlightened.

[ansel12]

Yeah, actually nasty name calling and your personal attacks and insults are being nasty.

You are wrong, we know what someone means when they tell us they are “more libertarian on some issues”, or “lean libertarian on gay marriage” etc., we know why they oppose conservatism and are not themselves conservative.

[old3030]

I agree about being pro-life, and marriage has long been a state issue. For example, some states allow cousins to marry, some don’t. The federal government should accept the state definition just as it should for voting requirements.

Abortion is always wrong, in my opinion, but Roe v. Wade was a bad decision because it overstepped the limitations of the Constitution and took away the right of the local community/state to decide how to handle abortion.

If Roe v. Wade were overturned tomorrow, as I pray that it will be some day, abortion would not automatically become illegal across the nation. New York, California, Oregon, Washington, and Illinois and other states with death-worshiping politicians in control would legalize it. Then it would be up to the citizens of those states to decide if they were for the slaughter of innocents.

[no-to-illegals]

To me it depends local to local on necessity. Might not be being implemented upon necessity but necessity places certain restrictions and responsibilities on LE. Being human, people and LE do make mistakes. The problem is when mistakes are taken out of context and shooting begins. History follows a pattern and America is at war whether we desire that war or not. The war is here and it has come to our home soil. I hate that fact that war has come to our home soil but as far as militarization is concerned can understand we need the equipment on standby and at the ready ... just in case. Might not make any difference even if we are ready. But I’d rather run than walk or be ready to run if the time comes and regrettably that time to be ready may be upon us. Hope the good guys can hold onto the equipment this time if the time does come ... cause I don’t want the criminals to have the firepower being placed out for this militarization.

[vette6387]

“If you’re a conservative and can’t see this coming, you’re just deluding yourself.”

You took the words out of my mouth. All I have to go on to gauge the methods of our police is my personal interactions with them. I have never been arrested, and it’s been twenty years or more since I was even stopped for a traffic violation. That said, the few times I have interacted with our local police (including filing a legitimate complaint against one of our cops for a clear violation of several traffic laws) I have found that it is indeed an “us vs them” mentality, coupled with a “we cover our a$$ policy” when it comes to clear violations of the very laws they are sworn to uphold. And I have had that conversation directly with our police chief when I had to go to our Town Council to force him to deal with my complaint. They are not your friends. Then don’t care about you. They are not there to “serve you.” If you don’t get that, I feel sorry for you. Usually, their arrival does not work to your advantage.

[Oberon]

...for that I’m called a cop hater on FR.

To that I would reply with this:

If the cop in question is the kind who wears a balaclava, kicks in doors, supresses media reporting, threatens and arrests those who record him on audio or video, shoots dogs unnecessarily, will not identify himself during police operations, and does not follow due process, then yes.

Under those conditions, absolutely I am a cop hater.

[brent13a]

A “driveby”? Sure, I guess so.
My patience is also exhausted with the driveby (and cavalier) attitude so many people (liberaltarians) have and they’re accusations of police.

When the liberaltarians quit throwing their red herring insults & judgments about police I’ll quit doing my thread “driveby’s”.

[C. Edmund Wright]

You are very small minded to lump this new conservative dynamic in with the rabid anti cop libertarianism of the past. That’s still there, but this is new. Open your mind. Open your eyes. See Mark Steyn’s column in fact.

[C. Edmund Wright]

Okay, now you’re just pretending to be that stupid.

I mean, this is what, your fifth or sixth post on a point that we don’t disagree on?
I mean, this is what, your fifth or sixth post on a point that we don’t disagree on?
I mean, this is what, your fifth or sixth post on a point that we don’t disagree on?
I mean, this is what, your fifth or sixth post on a point that we don’t disagree on?

I mean, this is what, your fifth or sixth post on a point that we don’t disagree on?
I mean, this is what, your fifth or sixth post on a point that we don’t disagree on?
I mean, this is what, your fifth or sixth post on a point that we don’t disagree on?
I mean, this is what, your fifth or sixth post on a point that we don’t disagree on?

And yet, you strut around like a pigeon trying to pretend he understands chess….crapping the board, knocking pieces on the floor, and pretending he scored some points.

As long as your argument is so weak that you have to keep bringing up stuff that isn’t even up for debate, I suppose you can rescue your self esteem.

[ansel12]

Personal attacks and you didn’t even ping me, your temper and nasty disposition is something to behold.

When you are on a conservative site, you should not react with such overwhelming hostility and nasty personal attacks at conservative views and challenges to libertarianism and your attempts to massage us to the left.

[C. Edmund Wright]

The only absolutists on this and other threads are those throwing around the word cop hater. They are just plain ignorant. They put up straw arguments. They refuse to see what is around them.