It’s fine to talk theory
– what would be ideal.
But while working toward that, what about practical changes that don’t require
a sea change evolution in consciousness? For example, what can be done – in
practical terms – about
law enforcement?
That there is a problem is as
obvious as Caitlyn Jenner’s Adam’s apple. The big problem – tyrannical laws based on
the tyrannical idea that it’s legitimate to order people around and abuse them
for not causing
any harm to anyone – isn’t going to be solved absent a sea-change evolution in
consciousness.
But there are some obvious fixes
that would make things a lot better right now – and it’s hard to imagine anyone
objecting:
Law enforcers should be
required to knowthe
law – and be fired when
they are caught making
up law …
If the frau at the DMV gets
it wrong, you can argue with her without fearing for your life; she isn’t armed
and the worst that she can do is not give you your stickers or whatever it is
you came to get. You are always free to go.
Law
enforcers have guns.
Citizens
who carry guns operate under extremely strict rules and are warned that they
had better not operate outside the law, even by a little bit. Repercussions for
doing so are severe.
And
so, they rarely operate outside the law.
Shouldn’t
the same standard apply to armed law enforcers? That they at least know what the law is? And
be sanctioned just as severely if they step outside the bounds of the law?
Keep
in mind that everything a law enforcer does – no matter how “friendly” he may
seem – is backed up by a gun. You know it, he knows it. This makes every
encounter between a citizen and a law enforcer inherently threatening – to the
citizen.
Which
is why it so important that law enforcers restrict their enforcement to the
actual law – and nothing beyond the
law. Put another way, no citizen should ever have to worry about law
enforcement unless he has violated a law or – as the courts style it – given
law enforcement some specific reason to suspect he has or may be about to
violate the law.
And
yet, citizens are routinely
accosted by armed law enforcement ignorant of the law – or simply contemptuous
of it. Examples are many but include belligerently confronting citizens legally
taking pictures or video in public, where there is no expectation of privacy
and the courts have repeatedly stated that no permit or permission is needed to
photograph or video record anything that is plainly visible from a sidewalk or
other public right-of-way.
This
includes law enforcement nests, courts, jail facilities and so on.
Law
enforcers often regard such photography/video-taking as an affront to their
authority – but it is not illegal,
no matter how much they are affronted. If they do not know this and accost
citizens anyhow, they are derelict in their duty. If they do know this and
accost citizens, they are simply thugs. Either should be cause for immediate
dismissal – if not a criminal prosecution – as would absolutely happen if a
mere citizen accosted someone lawfully going about his business.
Demanding
ID when there is no legal authority to do so is another example of the abuse of
law by those given authority to enforce it.
And,
of course, the use of excessive force.
Any
illegal act performed by a person given life or death power over others ought
to be treated at least as
seriously as the same action would be treated if performed by an ordinary
citizen, lacking life or death power over others.
Law
enforcement is “trained” in all kinds of things peripheral to
knowledge of the
law: e.g., how to suss out arbitrarily illegal drugs or perform a “visual
estimate” of vehicle speed, admissible as evidence in court. Why not require
that law enforcers demonstrate competent working knowledge of the law – and
weed out those who demonstrate that they do not possess it?
The
right to defend oneself against an abusive law enforcer
If
someone enters your home illegally, attempts to take something of yours or
threatens you with physical violence, you have a legal (as well as moral) right
to defendyourself.
If you get the better of your assailant – or simply get away from him – you
won’t be charged with a crime.
They will be.
Few
question the rightness of this.
Why
shouldn’t the same standard apply when a citizen is abused by law enforcement? Why
should a government-issued costume grant what amounts to a license to abuse
people by making such abuse, in effect, a legally protected act – since the
citizen isn’t permitted to defend himself against such?
Shouldn’t
a citizen be free to ignore a palpably unlawful command (e.g., to stop taking
video in public, which is absolutely legal) and walk away – without legal
repercussions? And – if legally justified – defend himself physically against
an abusive law enforcer?
As
it stands, not only does a citizen face repercussions for ignoring unlawful orders, for
defending himself against abuse of authority – the abusive law enforcer is
treated far more gently for his abusive actions than the citizen is for
defending his legal rights.
Personal liability for wrongdoing
Most of us are held personally
responsible – civilly as well as criminally – for any reckless/criminal conduct
we commit that results in harm to others or damage to their property. The
family of OJ Simpson’s victims, for instance, won’t get their damages out of
the hides of taxpayers who didn’t kill Ron and Nicole.
OJ will
pay.
Ordinary citizens – even OJ –
cannot foist the bill for the damage they cause in the course of their work
onto the backs of taxpayers, as law enforcement routinely does.
A
contractor usually has liability insurance that will pay out for any damages
arising from his actions. The fact that he must
pay the premiums and can be held personally liable above and beyond whatever
the insurance coverage provides inclines him to conduct himself responsibly
rather than recklessly.
Law
enforcing is the only job that encourages reckless – not infrequently, criminal
– action by limiting personal/civil liability for such action. This is
outrageous, an affront to the idea of equal treatment by the law – and (worse)
an incentive to act irresponsibly because the abusive enforcer knows will not
be personally bankrupted,
his house taken from him, his family dispossessed – even if he is found
criminally guilty of egregious abuse of lawful authority.
Requiring
all law enforcers to carry liability insurance – the premiums paid out of theirsalaries, just as
contractors and everyone else is forced to do – and ending the noxious policy
of immunizing them from personally having to pay their victims – would go
a long way toward curbing
their enthusiasm.
Aggressive prosecution of law enforcers who do not enforce
the law against abusive fellow enforcers –
An
ordinary citizen who fails to report a crime or helps to cover up a crime
committed by another citizen is subject to criminal prosecution for such acts.
It is called “aiding and abetting.”
Why
shouldn’t at least the
same standard be applied to law enforcement?
A
law enforcer who stands by and does nothing when a fellow enforcer violates the
law is arguably much worse than an ordinary citizen who aids and abets criminal
activity because the law enforcer’s duty is
to know and enforce the law – without exception – and because a law enforcer
has far more power than an ordinary citizen to intervene.
It
is important to note that law enforcers are considered officers of the court –
and (like lawyers and judges, who are also officers of the court) ought to be
bound by an even stricter ethical code than ordinary citizens precisely because
they are officers
of the court.
In
exactly the same way that professional journalists are held to a higher
standard when it comes to plagiarism and doctors to medical malpractice.
A law enforcement black list
The
Catholic Church used to simply transfer pedophile priests from one town to
another – which had the predictable result: More victims.
Abusive
law enforcers are treated much the same way as pedophile priests. If
fired here,
they simply relocate there –
the people of there having
no idea who is now “on duty” among them.
Until
the abuse repeats.
This
is particularly shameful for the same reason that the musical pedophile priests
thing was shameful. It’s a tragedy when a priest – or a law enforcer – abuses
someone. But it is an outrage when a known abusive
priest or law enforcer is given a “second chance,” particularly when – as is
often the case – the new victim pool has no clue about the background of the
known offender.
There
are multiple federal databases that store and correlate date about citizens
who’ve been convicted of some offense or other. These are used to prevent
convicted felons from legally buying guns and to keep convicted sex abusers
properly sequestered and known to the public.
Is
there any reason why a similar roster shouldn’t exist for known abusive law
enforcers?
Shouldn’t
abusive conduct egregious enough to result in a law enforcer being fired in one
jurisdiction automatically disqualify that individual from ever being entrusted
with state-sanctioned life or death power a second time?
Whatever else might be done,
it’d be a start.
.
. .
Got a question about cars – or anything else? Click on the “ask Eric” link and
send ’em in!
If you like what you’ve found
here, please consider
supporting EPautos.
We depend
on you to
keep the wheels turning!
If you
prefer not to use PayPal, our mailing address is:
EPautos
721 Hummingbird Lane SE
Copper Hill, VA 24079
721 Hummingbird Lane SE
Copper Hill, VA 24079
