"It would, of course, be ideal if suspects engaged in dangerous activities simply surrendered. That’s not reality." Absolutely - but facing dangerous subjects is part and parcel of what LEOs do - at all levels. That has not changed. I like to think of it in the same terms as the NFL and concussions. If the nature of the mission is such that potential danger is inherent to its accomplishment, then attempts to mitigate that risk will always fall short. Football will not be football if we change the rules so as to eliminate large bodies running very quickly into each other. The same kind of issue affects the emergence of paramilitary LE operators; changing the nature of the game has not solved the problems, simply created substitutes. The increase in a siege mentality, the adoption of the "war" analogy, has lead to a widespread acceptance of non-combatant casualties.
There are two competing contingencies here that must be resolved; there is a mission to protect and serve and then there is a mission to enforce. To protect and serve entails danger; it is inherent in such a mission and system. The traditional role of LEOs puts them between "polite" society and those who would harm it (although we have to remember that the police have no legal responsibility to defend/protect any individual - that is our responsibility). That is to "protect and serve" and there is no way to do the job without some potential for violence - when one tries to change that mission in a way that eliminates the danger, then it is no longer the same mission.
The core nature of that new mission - in this case to wage war - becomes defined by an us against the world mentality. This becomes "preemptive enforcement" and the reality is that more and more "civilians" (a term that is used as a pejorative and further highlights the "us v. them" distinction that has evolved in LEO circles) are being killed by those who would use violence to mitigate the inherent risk in their profession.
"They hold the line between order and chaos, security and peril". If this does not define certain LE units as paramilitary, then I do not know what would. That sounds like a description of our military. I would suggest that they do this to protect themselves, not those they traditionally served. They do this because they come under fire, not because we do. So this leads me to ponder how many errors have been made by these defenders of order, how many innocents have been killed so that their own risk is mitigated, and decide whether we want them thinking they take on this role.
We also have to ask the Sheriff "Who defines that order, chaos, security and peril"? Order, chaos, security and peril sound like Homeland Security concerns. They sound like codewords for those who might see the role of LE differently, those who my not agree with certain directions and decisions, those who might not wish to lose fundamental rights, those who insist on the RKBA. they sounds like things we might read about in the SPLC literature. Whose order? Whose security? The sheriff sees himself and his minions as defenders of some faith to which they and some select others are privy, are defining.
Tell me Sheriff - does this not give you pause to reflect on the attitude of your LEOs? Does this not suggest a "shoot first, ask questions later" mentality? A callousness?
No comments:
Post a Comment