Reading an article written by two liberals in the Washington Post just proves how dangerous and ignorant the left truly is. The article titled “Ending excessive police force starts with new rules of engagement” wins the “I sit behind a desk coward” award of the year.
Being a retired police officer, I accept there are bad cops in every department, just as there are bad professors in our higher institutions of learning.
While the incidents that have brought law enforcement to the spotlight are tragic, they also should be used as lessons in the communities they occurred in. Why is it ok for parents to teach their children to disrespect authority, or to not accept responsibility if they do wrong? A quick personal story.. I worked in a section called the South End ( Albany NY), which was predominantly black. While sitting in my patrol car in a vacant lot on the corner of Teunis St and Third Ave, one of the local mothers was walking by with 2 of her young children. The 5-year-old turned and gave a small wave at which time the mother yanked his arm, and smacked him in the head and yelled ” don’t wave at those mother f”ers”
That’s normal right? Those kids don’t stand a chance. They are taught to hate police ( and authority) right from the start.
So the article states:
“Consider what arrests are for. An arrest is not punishment: After all, there has been no conviction at that point. The purpose of an arrest is to prevent crime and to aid in prosecution by establishing identity, gathering evidence and preventing flight. The steps taken to secure arrests therefore must, at every point, be proportional to the suspected crimes that underlie the arrests.”
Wrong. Arrests are the result of a crime being committed, not crime prevention. During the course of being arrested, as the level of resistance rises ( if it does) so does the level of force. The very notion that force be categorized according to the crime degree is ludicrous. The process of placing someone under arrest, is taking ones freedom away. Sometimes for a brief period, but sometimes for life. Some resistance is a form of protest, whether the subject believes they are innocent, or just doesn’t wish to be back in the system. Other resistance can be deadly. One does not need a weapon to kill. When approaching a suspect to make an arrest the playing field isn’t equal. Criminals don’t have rules, or Standard Operating Procedures.
“The current police rules of engagement violate these basic principles at every turn. Convictions for jaywalking and selling single cigarettes — the predicate offenses in Ferguson and Staten Island, respectively — effectively never carry jail sentences, and nobody thinks that they should. Fines are the proper punishments for these minor crimes.”
Wrong, and misleading. Michael Brown wasn’t being cited for “jaywalking” He was impeding traffic and was told to move to the sidewalk. Obviously it went downhill shortly thereafter. Fines would have been appropriate had the subjects simply complied with the police. Period.
“But under current law, when the police arrest someone based on nothing more than probable cause of a minor crime, they can treat the wrongdoer more severely than the punishment that would ordinarily be imposed by a court of law, even after a full trial.”
Nothing more than probable cause? That and reasonable suspicion are the foundation for which cases are built by the criminal justice system in the United States. So now it isn’t just the police, it’s the entire system. These rules are starting to sound like a fishing exhibition.
“To fix the wrong, we should change the rules of engagement. A police officer confronting someone suspected of only a minor crime should not be permitted to arrest the suspect by force. In most cases, the police should simply issue a ticket. If the police wish to take someone into custody, they should not use force but instead issue a warning, like the Miranda warning, backed by a sanction. The text might say something like: “I am placing you under arrest. You must come with me to the station. If you don’t come, you’re committing a separate crime, for which you may be punished.” If the person complies upon hearing the warning, that ends the matter. If not, then the police can obtain a warrant from a judge and make a forcible arrest for both the old crime and the new. Similar rules of engagement should govern searches based on suspicion of petty crimes.”
This entire paragraph had to be written by a complete simpleton, and this is where professors/journalists become as dangerous as rogue cops. Arrests are rarely “simple”, and the police rarely “wish to take someone into custody”. The idiotic idea of telling a criminal they must come with you or else is clearly the mindset of two instructors that sit behind desks, with absolutely no real world experience. Clearly they also lack testosterone.
“Finally, new rules of engagement would also promote racial equality. Outraged citizens properly emphasize that police disproportionately harm and kill black men”
So the answer is to treat black criminals differently. No better. Ah, yes only black lives matter. Where are the outraged citizens when a mother smacks her 5-year-old for waving to the police? Where are the outraged citizens when innocent children are taught to hate, and to be disrespectful to figures of authority?
“If the police in Ferguson or Staten Island had employed our rules, two men who are now dead might instead have been safely placed in voluntary custody, admitted their crimes and paid a small fine. At worst, they would now face an orderly and fair judicial process for defying the law.In either event, rights would be respected, order maintained and justice served.”
Wrong again. Michael Brown is dead because he was a criminal, a thug and a bully. Both made conscience decisions to break a law, not defy it. If they were both taught respect, the incidents would never had escalated. Just a reminder, if these 2 would have “admitted their crimes” that would be called a confession. gee, don’t let defense lawyers hear your stupid idea, they will be put out of business.
Mr Ian Ayres and Daniel Markovits, for two men that are supposed to be intelligent, this article is so naïve and childish it’s farcical. Having a career in law enforcement is highly rewarding, but highly stressful. People, let alone criminals are not always predictable and your “rules” are so out of touch with reality. Have you written rules for criminals? Have you written rules for the criminals parents? Perhaps you both need to grow a pair, and do a ride along with NYPD. Maybe then you can see how stupid your rules really are.