To Serve and Protect?

Just what does it mean to be a law enforcement professional in these times? One indication is the oath that most, if not all, policemen and women take when they decide to put on that shield. The oath "To Protect and Serve" has been around for ages and whether implied or acknowledged, it is the standard that citizens apply to law enforcement professionals. The oath is a promise as well as an expectation of excellence that secures every aspect of our culture and society from the local to the national level. The previous sentence is the understatement of the millennium.

When you really think about it, the concept of stable and civil society has been rooted in some form of protective structuring since the dawn of history. Plato's The Republic made a thought provoking discussion of the role of "Auxiliaries," an entire class division consisting of police soldiers and civil servants. Plato provided that the police and military were to be the guardians of the state. While many different variants to the concept of societal protective structures have been discussed and practiced throughout the ages, I've found American police to be closest to Plato's ideals in expectation. Plato believed that the police in his state needed to be well educated, well trained, and held in a position of high regard amongst the citizens. The police required, in turn, modest compensation by way of non corruptible public funds and access to vast and special public services including housing. In essence it was socialism.

The American version of police completely decimated Plato’s concept of compensation. It is an established fact that more police officers in the US qualify as poverty level income than most highly regarded Congressmen and Senators would care to admit. Their services from the public often don't even include complete health care for them or their families. Considering the demands and risks of modern law enforcement, the compensation model for America's "guardians" is widely accepted an insufficient. Without suggesting that socialism is the only preferable solution, it is interesting to note that compensation is historically regarded as a critical component of effective police structure. Despite the acknowledged disparities faced by police, the public expectation is that they will "Protect and Serve" faithfully. The public expectation of modern police is ripped from the pages of The Republic.

Enter: Jan 29th High Speed Auto Chase Resulting in a Wounded US Airman...

Most of us read about it and saw the video. Many of us shook our heads in disgust. It was impossible to imagine that one of our protectors, who had made the vow of public service, would be capable of what appeared, on video, to be obvious baiting of an unarmed civilian. The purpose of this bait was perceived, by many, to be intended to simulate an attack by the civilian thus legitimizing the use of deadly force. If these actions were taken by anyone other than this law enforcer, the term to describe it would be "conspiracy, and attempted murder." The video was truly a horrific scene of darkness that deeply disturbed me as I replayed it in my mind. It's like that "gotcha scene' in the ironic horror film where you realize that on some level you're related to the humanity that is capable of such evils. The chills down your spine, the introspection... the guilt.

The alleged crime was bad enough, but what happened afterwards was a blatant and troubling public display of governmental and societal hypocrisy: The officer was placed on paid leave for over a month during a slow and bizarre investigation process. Imagine, if you will, that your cousin or neighbor, while carrying a legal concealed weapons permit, was captured on a nationally publicized video engaged in a shooting incident with a registered weapon where he/she had claimed self defense. Imagine the expectation and response from law enforcement and society when the video clearly showed the claim of self defense to be erroneous. Law enforcement officials weren't asleep at the wheel regarding this incident like some civil rights commentators proclaimed. They were methodically following a biased and hypocritical process where law enforcement officers are treated as a class of citizens that are protected and given more than reasonable rights.

What happened to the age-old saying "No man is above the law?" The month plus in paid leave, the slow and 'methodical' investigation, the hesitancy to act on behalf of a reasonably defined victim were a monumental lapse and an embarrassment for the judicial system. What happened to the American tradition of equality as defined in our founding texts? There was clearly probable cause to suspect a crime had taken place with the combinations of witnesses and video. The officer even had a previous misconduct case brought against him involving a hispanic. Why wasn't this citizen placed in custody? He was above the law with paid vacation.

I turned on the news late today and learned that the morally bankrupt dirtbag was finally being brought to justice. My mystification on matters of American societal illness was momentarily dissipated. "Attempted voluntary manslaughter" huh? So that's what "conspiracy and attempted murder" translates to if you work for the man? Noted. I tried to be less cynical and reasoned to myself that perhaps considering the nature of the judicial system, this outcome was really not such a disappointment. The charges weren't watered down, but they were reflective of the difficulty of the situation and it's implications as explained by the various talking heads on the tube. Maybe it had something to do with the fact that other than for a few days, this story hadn't reached but "blip" status on the public radar. It must've been the news cycle; it was buried under larger national stories.

Something brought me back to Plato's The Republic and guilt. I was the reason this happened this way. I explained to myself that it was ok to accept the watered down charges. I made up excuses not to be furious. I accepted the outcome that didn't serve justice. I continued to live quietly, knowing that this slimy individual's actions don't represent the majority of hardworking underpaid police. I agreed, in my silence, to support the idea that American police should be under compensated for risking their lives to serve, with minimal equipment, and often with minimal educational opportunities. I supported imposing unrealistically high expectations of police that are and should be treated as average citizens. I disregarded the idea that police should be treated fairly if we are to expect consistency and faithfulness to the oath that they take. I had allowed myself to take ill with the great American societal illness. I became apathetic, and then I wrote this.

PittBull Gestapo!

DENVER - The city of Denver has decided that a "20 year history" of data, revealing that attacks attributed to pittbulls are amongst the most damaging and fatal reported, is justification for the Gestapo tactics attributed to a new harsh ban on the breed altogether (n3wz st0ry linkz). The new ban coupled with strict totalitarian enforcement has led responsible owners of pittbulls to a lifestyle of hiding, and undeserved fear. Aside from the constitutional concerns involved with the invasive search and seizure tactics used by Denver, in that they are actually busting down doors and taking family pets that have no history or complaints for behavior, the policy also denies what is most likely a clear majority of responsible pittbull breed owners representation on the matter. The breed specific ban and enforcement policy also fails to address the matter of punishing and holding accountable persons that are not responsible and ethical in their treatment of these excellent companions. The most disturbing fact in this Associated Press story is that PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) creators of such zany movements as http://kentuckyfriedcruelty.com ,are in actually in full support of this unreasonable, unethical, and unjustly executed policy. I called PETA and asked them how, in light of their proclaimed efforts to teach and encourage responsible and ethical treatment of animals, they could support such a policy. The response: generalizations about pittbulls and misinformed nonsense.

Go back, if you will to the "20 year history" of data on pittbull attacks. Exactly what data does this history include? Does it have a criminal history of the owner? Does it contain a detail of living conditions of the canine? Does the list have a category for known interactions or interventions prior to the attack? Does the list have a breeding history for the canine in question? The questions and ambiguities of this data seem to be limitless. Denver has public officials creating bad policy that affects hundreds perhaps thousands of constituents without addressing the justifications for such policy in a scientific, academic, and honest manner. Even the 'experts' disagree with this bone headed policy. “If anyone says one dog is more likely to kill — unless there’s a study out there that I haven’t seen — that’s not based on scientific data," said Julie Gilchrist, a doctor at the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention who researches dog bites. (Associated Press Link)

What in the hell is the justification for the genocide of a breed of dogs that are equally as capable of living as perfectly good companions to humans as most others? What in the hell does PETA think they are accomplishing with their public approval of this nonsense, aside from further showing the hypocrisy and ignorance that often makes that organization the target of humor columnists worldwide. If you're a responsible pittbull owner like me, I encourage you to do your part by calling the dishonest cowardly weasels of PETA and letting them know how you feel. I've posted PETA info under LINKZ.

n3utr0nRU