Hello readers. Welcome to the first UNP editorial. Sorry it's been a while since my last update, I'm still figuring out how to blog properly. Since I've been soul (and news) searching, there has been yet another high profile police shooting. The shooting of Walter Scott by (now former) Officer Michael Slager has re-ignited the debate about police violence. This time however, it has taken on a different tone. Let me be clear; I take great pains to examine both liberal and conservative viewpoints in my news reporting and in any conversation in which that I engage. It is my personal belief that the liberal viewpoint maximizes freedom while curtailing artificial influence on the governing bodies that guarantee and protect those freedoms.
Having politically declared myself; please dear reader, allow me to express the extreme satisfaction... and sadness that the death of Walter Scott has finally forced the issue of our police state across the aisle and has Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians and Independents and apathetic millennials sitting up and listening. What is the problem? Is there a problem?
With the shooting of Trayvon Martin by neighborhood watch desperado George Zimmerman, the public began asking the question, "What puts a person in the sights of the castle doctrine (a law; often informal; which makes it... not illegal to kill a person if they're threatening your property on your property, e.g., shooting a robber in your living room (or apparently shooting a black kid for walking in a gated community).
The death of Michael Brown began to focus the public on video and the disconnect that law enforcement (LE) seems to experience when one of their own seems to take matters into their own hands (as opposed to being arresting officers of the law). The death of Tamir Rice begged the question, "If LE are so willing to massage the truth, who is safe?"
These issues and questions are important to understand the firestorm that now surrounds Michael Slager. For too long, police have operated with an, "us versus them," mentality. When it becomes necessary for the Supreme Court to rule that police don't have to "protect" or "serve," at some point the public (who vastly outnumber the gang known as the police) begin to ask, "Why am I a suspect? Am I being detained? Am I free to go?"
To the generally law abiding citizen, these questions may seem unnecessarily standoffish and to LE, downright disrespectful. The question then is never posed, "Who is supposed to be respected?" When a child can be shot for walking in a gated community at night, a man can be choked to death for selling single cigarettes and a man can be shot for driving with a tail light out (in addition to having missed apparently a bunch of child support payments), who is safe? All of these people were supposed to be innocent until proven guilty. It's the essence of American criminal justice. They say it on every episode of, "Cops."
LE will say that the job is stressful. Everyone lies. No one knows the whole story. The fact is that, even they don't know the whole story many times. Instead of, "waiting for all the facts." LE automatically assume their brothers in blue were right. That was the narrative that LE gave the family of Walter Scott. Mr. Scott was about to TAZE Officer Slager, was the tale... then video surfaced of Officer Slager shooting Mr. Scott as he fled.
Perhaps we will reach a point in this country where protect and serve, actually equal protect and serve. Where the public can trust LE not to open fire when they're surprised to find that non-white races carry wallets. I am hopeful. The advent of body cameras is a damn good start too.
Expect a part 2 soon... this is obviously not done.
No comments:
Post a Comment