Three or four cops rush out of a van and man-handle a 12 year old black girl after they have been told that their suspects are three grown white women who are suspected of prostitution. All of the cops were out of uniform, and it happened at night. After calling for her father, one of the cops tried to silence her by putting his hand over her mouth and she ended up going to the hospital with several injuries when it was all said and done that night. A few weeks later, the father and daughter are arrested for resisting arrest.
There is an attitude common among conservatives viz-a-vis civil liberties that the police should be given the benefit of the doubt when they violate our civil rights without malice. That's the theory behind the resisting arrest statutes that provide no latitude for anything but the most incomprehensibly bizarre scenarios. Somehow, the father should have known that these men weren't a pack of rapists looking to kidnap his daughter and possibly haul her over the border into Mexico for a life of prostitution. The daughter, likewise should have known that they were really super-secret cops, not pimps or kidnappers looking to make her turn tricks.
Cases like this are a good example of why there is little justification for the "no malice" defense of violation of civil liberties and basic decency by law enforcement. Even if we pretend that the police involved were so stupid and incompetent that they could not imagine how this scenario would be inexcusably unprofessional and dangerous, the outcome is what really matters. The natural conservative tendency is to judge the private citizen based primarily on the outcome, not the intent, of his or her actions. The police should generally be judged even more harshly here because they possess the training to act better than most private citizens, and they generally have the advantage of being the ones who make the first move when situations like this or other raids occur.
Law and order demand that private citizens never fear for their liberty in situations like this. The only conservative and libertarian answer to this situation is to permit law-abiding citizens to use forces--even deadly force--against the police when they behave like this. The alternative is to create a public that is trapped between police who can behave any way they choose without fear of legal reprisal, and a criminal element that will be able to play on the fear that the public has of the police to its advantage. If internal affairs and the courts really worked, we might not need these laws, but the facts on the ground show that internal affairs and the courts almost never have the power and will to protect the public.
Update: In a similar case, one cop killed another cop by ramming into his cruiser at over 100mph in a 45mph zone on his way to a shoplifting report. What separates this one from the case above is that the police department is actually going to charge the cop who killed his colleague with manslaughter once he gets out of the hospital. A good, responsible way of handling it on the part of the brass. However, the rank and file are unhappy with that decision. They think he should just lose his job. Well, consider what probably would have happened if a "civilian" had been driving 100mph in a 45mph zone and killed a cop on their way to pick up an extremely sick child from school. They would probably get manslaughter too, but I daresay few people inside the police department would be as understanding here, as they are toward one of their colleagues who killed one of their own in an accident that was caused by an equivalent level of bad judgment.
There is an attitude common among conservatives viz-a-vis civil liberties that the police should be given the benefit of the doubt when they violate our civil rights without malice. That's the theory behind the resisting arrest statutes that provide no latitude for anything but the most incomprehensibly bizarre scenarios. Somehow, the father should have known that these men weren't a pack of rapists looking to kidnap his daughter and possibly haul her over the border into Mexico for a life of prostitution. The daughter, likewise should have known that they were really super-secret cops, not pimps or kidnappers looking to make her turn tricks.
Cases like this are a good example of why there is little justification for the "no malice" defense of violation of civil liberties and basic decency by law enforcement. Even if we pretend that the police involved were so stupid and incompetent that they could not imagine how this scenario would be inexcusably unprofessional and dangerous, the outcome is what really matters. The natural conservative tendency is to judge the private citizen based primarily on the outcome, not the intent, of his or her actions. The police should generally be judged even more harshly here because they possess the training to act better than most private citizens, and they generally have the advantage of being the ones who make the first move when situations like this or other raids occur.
Law and order demand that private citizens never fear for their liberty in situations like this. The only conservative and libertarian answer to this situation is to permit law-abiding citizens to use forces--even deadly force--against the police when they behave like this. The alternative is to create a public that is trapped between police who can behave any way they choose without fear of legal reprisal, and a criminal element that will be able to play on the fear that the public has of the police to its advantage. If internal affairs and the courts really worked, we might not need these laws, but the facts on the ground show that internal affairs and the courts almost never have the power and will to protect the public.
Update: In a similar case, one cop killed another cop by ramming into his cruiser at over 100mph in a 45mph zone on his way to a shoplifting report. What separates this one from the case above is that the police department is actually going to charge the cop who killed his colleague with manslaughter once he gets out of the hospital. A good, responsible way of handling it on the part of the brass. However, the rank and file are unhappy with that decision. They think he should just lose his job. Well, consider what probably would have happened if a "civilian" had been driving 100mph in a 45mph zone and killed a cop on their way to pick up an extremely sick child from school. They would probably get manslaughter too, but I daresay few people inside the police department would be as understanding here, as they are toward one of their colleagues who killed one of their own in an accident that was caused by an equivalent level of bad judgment.
Could anybody in total honesty deny that the situation would have been different if it were a 12 year old white girl and her doctor was a prominent doctor or lawyer? It gets harder and harder to convince my children that the police are the good guys most of the time.
If we can homeschool our kids, I plan on avoiding most of these lessons altogether by teaching my kids to rely on themselves for protection. That'll be especially true if we have daughters. I don't what my daughter's first reaction to be to call the police if she's threatened. I want to be to get a weapon, retreat if necessary and then call the police as needed.
"The only conservative and libertarian answer to this situation is to permit law-abiding citizens to use forces--even deadly force--against the police when they behave like this."
One of these days, someone is going to ventilate themselves some cops who either (a) fail to announce themselves appropriately, or (b) whose tactics differ little from actual criminals. And I hope I'm on that jury, because the reasonable person from my standpoint is more than permitted to use deadly force in return.
Crap like this just gets my dander up. There's a part of me that wishes I was there with a gun just to make my point. And the ironic part about all of this is that I'm probably the best friend a cop has (and the person he has to worry about the least)...a law abiding sheepdog who carries nearly all the time. But if I see three guys come piling out of a van on some teenage girl, that's three dudes with 9mm holes in them.
"I want to be to get a weapon..."
I'd rather she had a weapon on her in the first place...
There was a policeman killed in Canada during a no-knock raid. The guy was a drug dealer, but the procedure the police followed was deemed illegal (and pretty f'ing stupid) and the case got thrown out.
If I remember correctly the police kicked in his door, in plain clothes, shot his teen age son and tried to shoot his wife. He opened fire on them and killed one.
This is a solid, well-reasoned post, Mike.
Well-done.