Society operates on a rather simple premise: I won't harm you if you don't harm me. Since we moved away from the 'I'm bigger and stronger than you and therefore I can take everything I want from you with no repercussions' worldview, we have collectively decided to be governed by ethics and an agreed upon framing of what should be. From this foundation we get laws. We get morality. We have a contract. An agreed upon existence. As a contributing member of the collective society you are agreeing to adhere to these laws and code of morals. Agreeing to this premise of not interfering with someone else's world. We have even created a career path for people we have entrusted to ensure we maintain this credo:
Police officers. As a police officer you are held to a higher standard as the practitioner of what is right and what is just. Are you expected to be perfect? No, of course not, you're a human being. But at a minimum, you are expected to care about the community you serve beyond this being a job. Especially considering that the work being done is often times a thankless task and you know the whole potential of losing your life in the line of duty bit. On that note consider this: we ask police officers to diffuse tense, sometimes dangerous situations. The skill in which we seek is more artistic, more of a people person; a person that can soothe and reason with someone. Besides the authority we prescribe to the position (cough what some people say about the Presidency cough), what proves your effectiveness is your impact. This is felt not given. It can also be assumed that--as civilians would be as well--police officers are just as afraid and fearful of their safety entering into some of these dangerous situations. Despite being equipped with bulletproof vests, a baton stick and/or taser, handcuffs and--what is the true game-changer--a gun; this is not enough to guarantee excessive force is not used in the diffusing of tension. While it may appear like a lot to ask for police officers to enter these unknowns 'completely blind', no one stated this was an easy job or responsibility. When a police officer is called to a scene it is never to serve as a hitman. It is never to serve as an assassin. It is to diffuse. When a police officer pulls a car over it is in the name of safety. Someone is driving too fast, or too recklessly and poses a danger to the rest of society in that moment in time. The police officer's job in this instance is to stop this person's action and reinforce safety. This is done by pulling the vehicle over, observing the person's current status and either issuing a citation or letting them off with a warning. Even in a hypothetical where a person is less cooperative and maybe has a weapon threatening the lives of innocent bystanders, a police officer's duty here is to calm and diffuse. If the weapon wielder is not listening to commands to cease their behavior that person is to be removed from the situation. Not have their life taken from them but have the weapon separated from the person. Apprehend the person and take them to a place away from society where they can await an opportunity to be dealt a consequence for the social contract they breached. A police officer is not judge, jury or executioner. A police officer is the middle man. Bringing the person alive to a court of their peers to answer to the disturbance that person initiated. The end. This is all common sense. Enough is enough. If there are no measures for police to answer to the 'fear' that causes them to shoot first and ask questions later than I simply ask this: why have guns? If we cannot identify the subconscious blind spots where an officer sees a person and becomes more inclined to shoot and kill out of fear, then we should proactively take the ability to end a life with the pulling of a trigger from that authority figure. Is that how you would describe what happened here? Or how about here? So in the case of a Starbucks barista asking a group of police officers in Tempe, AZ to either leave the premises or relocate away from a customer, maybe the customer is not wrong for being fearful. We are asked to understand when police officers armed with the ability to shoot without punishment are afraid. Given the current temperature, that first video being in Tempe, that Starbucks customer has every right to feel threatened. I'd say when a group of people reports being afraid of the force that is supposed to keep them safe, we may have a broken system on our hands. I know nothing of the type of city that Tempe is. But with the relationship many people in our most vulnerable cities feel about police, something needs to be fixed. It is interesting that the ones most at risk of being victims of crime seem to be the people who need the police most. Yet these are also the people that seem most distrustful of police. These incidents aren't even the biggest issue we have with guns. I haven't mentioned Parkland or Sandy Hook or Vegas yet. I haven't mentioned Charleston yet. In a country seemingly obsessed with guns, there is a lengthy discussion to be had in changing our association with these weapons of mass destruction. I do not have an answer for ridding America of mass shootings. However, a starting place is our police force. Instead of viewing this as a move that makes police officers susceptible to violence perpetrated against them, view this as a sense of calm to the people these officers serve. Think of this as a pledge to, I don't know, protect them. A soothing voice to say 'I want to help make sure you and everyone around you is safe' compared to the 'scared and react' voice likely heard as a police officer has just fired numerous bullets into someone who ultimately posed no danger at all. As Independence Day has just passed, we often hear people proudly boast about America. I'd also make a correlation that these same people feel a comfort and pride in its institutions. That a segment of the population does not feel that, and openly clamors for it, should be telling. With the comical history that is the great gun debate, making a small concession to restore faith in the Blue Lives that matter so much seems like the social contract we really should be agreeing to. Comments are closed.
|
Details
Ty FosterQuestion everything. WQHC Archives
June 2020
Categories |