Posted on 06/18/2020 8:22:09 AM PDT by Kaslin
If police aren’t going to have special immunities and protections as officers of the state, maybe they shouldn’t be.
On Wednesday Atlanta police officer Garrett Rolfe was formally charge with felony murder in the killing of Rayshard Brooks. While evading arrest after having assaulted Rolfe and his partner, Brooks points a Taser at Rolfe and fires. At that point, and exactly that point Rolfe takes out his gun and shoots. If this act of self-defense by a cop is felony murder, then we need to take a hard look at what the police are in today’s American society and what we wish them to be.
Traditionally the badge gives law enforcement officers wider latitude than it gives a regular citizen in using violence to prevent crime and physical harm. We offer this wider latitude because when police use violence they do so on behalf of society, not in furtherance of their own individual interests. We understand that the chaotic nature of crime will inevitably put police in untenable situations and since most of us don’t want to deal with crime ourselves, we offer legal support, as well as good pay and benefits to those willing to do the job for us.
But in the case of Rolfe, the Atlanta District Attorney Paul Howard does not appear to give the police officer any wider latitude based on his job, much the opposite in fact. The DA has almost nothing to say about the fact that Brooks resisted arrest, attacked police, stole a weapon and fired it at them. At one point Howard referred to Brooks’ behavior as “jovial.” The message is that Brooks’ actions were irrelevant to the situation. Rolfe should have been counting Taser shots and known in those split seconds that the person firing a weapon at him actually posed no threat.
If this is the new standard, if we are not going to give police wider latitude, if we are going to strip them of qualified immunity, then we are basically treating them like anyone else with a gun. That being the case it makes more sense for us to consider the privatization of the police than to pretend they are officers of the government with special protections. If we demand that police enter dangerous situations but tell them if something goes wrong its all on them, not on the society they serve, then police are in an impossible position.
Privatizing the police force would solve this problem. And for many progressives it also has the advantage of being the inevitable outcome of their goal to abolish police. Communities could simply hire private police who are subject to the same laws as anyone else. They also could not be required to enter dangerous situations so there would be no reason for them to have special legal protections.
The downside to this plan of course is that poor communities might just go un-policed, but then again that would end police brutality in those areas. But the big upside is that we could finally hold those who enforce the law fully accountable. We would no longer be forcing cops to put their lives on the line for us and therefore we would have no responsibility to grant them any legal protections.
Instead of policing being an oppressive tool of the state, it would be a matter for individuals and communities to deal with themselves. Without special rules and protections private police will be more likely to simply ignore crime than get involved in violent complicated situations that could end badly.
The system of policing we have used until now has worked, it has reduced violent crime, it has kept most of our communities safe, but inherent to that system is that police officers are a unique and protected class of individuals when violence occurs. Taking away those protections breaks an essential social contract with police. Once that contract is broken we have no right to compel them to enter dangerous situations.
The fact of the matter is that most of the plans put forward from abolishing, defunding, to reforming the police involving stripping away protections for them, and undermining their ability to be protected by their union leadership. Fine. But if being a cop is no different than being anyone else with a gun then like anyone else with a gun police should be free to decline to intervene in dangerous situations.
I don’t like the idea of armies of George Zimmermans in the employ of gated communities keeping the peace. I would prefer to keep the traditional system in which policing is a function of the state that confers on the police protections and immunities. But asking the police to do that job without such protections and immunities leaves them in a no-win position. If that is where this is going, then we are better off with private police forces that can decide for themselves when the danger is worth it.
“That said, the firing of the officer, much less the prosecution of him, is insane.”
True, but for years the police could kill someone who was handcuffed, in custody, in a police station, delete the videos, intimidate witnesses, and there was about 0.0000000001% chance anyone would get ever prosecuted.
So the pendulum has swung in the other direction, and it is swinging too far, but it was entirely predictable that this would happen.
They’re already overly revenue driven. The special protections were always a bad idea. They get all this training and equipment, they should be held to a higher standard.
Greg G was serious. He admits it’s a bad idea, and he’s right. But it’s better than never-ending race riots for every 1-in-a-million mistake.
Rural Metro Fire, founded in 1948, is an American private fire department that provides fire protection and emergency medical services to individual homeowners and commercial businesses in unincorporated locations throughout the United States, primarily under a subscription-based model. Municipalities and fire districts also contract Rural Metro to provide fire protection, prevention and emergency medical services.
This sounds like a great business model for private police departments. There are hundreds of unincorporated villages and towns too poor, or caught up in litigation, to have their own police department. For the most part they have been relying on *minimal* help from their counties.
Contracting with a private police department would save them a ton of money, and might even get them all three services: police, fire, rescue and ambulance. Paid for with taxes, by subscription, or a combination of both, or by billing for services after the fact.
The class issue has been at work here before this issue.
The good spec op vets and most of the good street cops are now employed by the elites as private protection services.
In less than a year, any good cops will be working for the elites or as special protection units for high end home developments for the elites with good lawyers when needed.
The libertarian answer to everything — privatize it.
That’s often right, BTW, but not always.
You know those speed cameras? That’s what you get if you privatize policing.
It sounds like the officer did not follow his training. The taser was disabled and the cops knew it, they knew Brooks was otherwise unarmed because they had searched him, they knew he was not a threat to public safety, he was running away so he was no threat to the cops themselves, they had his ID so could have picked him up later, and they endangered bystanders when they fired, even hitting another car in the parking lot.
Let’s just go with anarchy and Might is Right. It’s all we got anyway.
Will the city lower taxes since we won’t be protected anymore? Will open carry be permitted for citizens?
It’s going to be the old west again.
Unions firstly protect police from malicious prosecution, which they obviously need. None of us would enjoy being summarily fired on a crank charge of wrongdoing. As for “bad” cops, they’re are already civilian review boards who look into these cases. My question is what are they doing about bad cops? What, more importantly, is the civilian government of these PD’s NOT doing that allows these cops to stay on the payroll?
Who is driving the “revenue” part of policing, the Police or the the government?
The police. They’re the ones that lobby for the forfeiture laws. And have those big press conferences for big drug busts. And setup speed traps.
I’ll take your word for it, but who passes the laws?
Who’s willing to lose the police union vote?
That’s what I’m saying, the politicians protect these bad cops as well as some PD’s themselves. As most of these cops come from demonrat run cities, I know who’s to blame.
This is obviously a non-serious (sarcastic) article.
However, there is no reason why police is entirely public. Yes, they can be privatized or at least mostly privatized.
Fact is, police do not need to respond to a threat situation and there are many such examples (Virginia Tech. etc). Much of what is written here as if this would not work is actually already the case, even with a police that is public. This article tries to create BS issues like poor communities not being policed, but of course this isn’t the case. You would have a contract and private security firms would bid on this contract. All the neighborhoods would still be getting policed, just who is doing it would change...
Interestingly, the federal government uses armed private security firms to protect their own facilities including their law enforcement. Why? Far-far more cost effective. Many of the rich and even political leaders rely heavily on private security firms: https://www.politico.com/story/2016/12/donald-trump-security-force-232797
So while this article is actually meant to sarcastically put down this idea of privatization, it’s actually a valid idea that should be explored if for no other reason to maximize the tax payers dollar (i.e. biggest bang for the buck).
Politicians don’t protect the cops. Politicians go with whatever they think the masses want. They read what the public sentiment is, what direction it’s heading in, and then throw themselves out front screaming loudest and proclaiming to be a leader.
That said, they will be for the Iraq war and against it. Support the cops and then not. Call soldiers heroes and then baby killers.
Kerry is a perfect example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yixdveuf0GQ
Now with the public sentiment as it stands (going the other direction), the politicians (including most chiefs of police) are very quick to throw a cop under the bus.
Politicians always want to be on the popular side of an issue.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.