Everything is impossibly complicated

Posts tagged ‘police’

Democratic Posturing on Gun Control

What are we to make of the current Democratic furor over gun control?

First of all, I think it’s clear from this past Democratic primary that the Democrats are oligarchs who think that elites should pick an elite to rule us. Additionally, their approach to this current gun control thing seems really confusing, if your model for their motivations is that they want to make Americans safer. Do they want to ban literally everyone from having assault weapons? Even the police? Even the military? If not, then there are exceptions. Who should be exempt from the ban? Do we expect they’d exempt security guards, perhaps those who had a background check from the FBI first? The shooter in Orlando was both those things, and he was trying to become a police officer. So it’s not clear that any of their restrictions would have actually prevented Orlando. In that case, what’s the point? Unless as elites who want to choose other elites to rule us, they would like to make a class distinction between who should have these powerful weapons and who shouldn’t…

Further, they rejected several Republican proposals to increase gun control: a proposal to ban people on terror watch lists, but only after a court review, a proposal to only ban those on the no-fly list (which is about 1400 people), and a proposal to increase funding for background checks, which is one of the current shortfalls of the system: background checks are required, but there’s no funding for anyone to do them. Why did they reject them? Unless they’re more concerned about making a good show in an election year than actually doing anything.

Additionally, the Orlando police have admitted that a number of the casualties that night were due to the police fire. There were four or five officers who opened up at the shooter with their fully automatic weapons when he came outside, but unfortunately they weren’t very good shots. They killed several people when their bullets went through the concrete wall. Why did the police need automatic weapons? Wouldn’t a sniper have done a much better job? If the argument against assault weapons is that they only point of them is to kill a lot of people, since there was only one shooter, there’s no reason the police should have had assault weapons.

Even the military falls under this argument. We don’t fight wars against battle lines where you’re trying to kill as many of the enemy as possible. The wars we’re fighting now are against guerrillas, where we want to target one person out of many. What’s the point of assault weapons? If all they’re good for is killing a lot of people, no one should be using them any more.

So using the logic that many are trying to use against civilians having assault weapons, I don’t think the police or the military should have them either. If we want to ban them, let’s really ban them, but don’t turn a blind eye to police and military violence and then pretend you care about people.

Advertisements

Ferguson and the Police

I feel like there’s more to the uproar around Michael Brown’s shooting in Ferguson than just the shooting itself. First off, there’s the problem with institutional racism that’s been widely raised: even if Darren Wilson was completely within legal bounds in killing Michael, there’s certainly a lot of suggestive evidence that laws are being selectively enforced against blacks, effectively making them subject to a stricter law than the rest of the population (take stop-and-frisk in New York, for example).

But further, I feel like there’s a widespread, increasing experience among the entire population of being mistreated by the police. I have a friend in a small town who was pulled over five times in three months for minor things (like crossing the double-yellow line as she got into a turn line, or not stopping satisfactorily long at a stop sign), which then caused her insurance rates to rise since she became classified as a “high-risk driver”. Adding to that the explicit, increased militarization of the police (like an armored car used to serve warrants for debt collection), and you start to get a general unease about the proportionality of the power bring used to “keep the peace.”

I think that Michael’s killing served as a focal point for the population who’s becoming increasingly concerned about all of these things, which is why it has exploded into a national issue.

On the other hand, conservatives, who seem to be dying to have a police state where everyone will be forced to live a conservative lifestyle at the barrel of a policeman’s pistol, appear to think that the failure of the grand jury to find any fault in Darren worth prosecuting should diffuse all the uproar, since that issue is what sparked the uproar. But even if everyone felt that the justice system had worked fairly in exonerating Darren (which is far from the case), I still don’t think the uproar would quickly fade, because all the other problems with the police still remain.

Failing to understand the complexities of the issue makes it hard for us to talk to each other. One side feels that there’s continuing injustice that’s not going addressed, and so wants to continue to protest. The other side thinks they’re just being boneheaded by refusing to accept the “objective” grand jury decision. I don’t think the focus on this single issue will ever get anywhere. We need to talk about the bigger issues of what we want our police to look like. Given that police are people with biases who makes mistakes and even abuse their power, how much power should they have, and what kind of checks and balances should there be on their power?

Fascism in Fergueson

The response I hear from many conservatives to the events in Fergueson bothers me. Not necessarily the fact that conservatives want to support law enforcement, since that’s a standard conservative position, but how far they’re taking their support for law enforcement, and the way they seem to be making this another partisan issue.

The conservative position on law enforcement makes sense based on their principles of respecting law and order. So I won’t fault them for that at the moment. But surely there’s a possibility of the police going too far–going beyond upholding the law to forcing their own will on others? In fact, conservatives frequently seem to assume that that’s the case for federal law enforcement. Why does local law enforcement get a pass?

I mean, if the police started confiscating guns from concealed carry permit holders in the area of the protests, wouldn’t conservatives go berserk? So why don’t they care about violations of the First or Fifth Amendments, guaranteeing free speech, freedom of the press, and that no person will be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process? Why aren’t they troubled about journalists getting (reportedly) harassed and threatened by the police? Why aren’t they concerned about the (reportedly) massively disproportionate force shown by the police against protestors and people who violate curfew? Why aren’t they upset at the police for (reportedly) failing to protect businesses from looting while harassing and threatening people engaged in lawful protest?

It’s not only liberals who suffer from an overly aggressive and excessively armed police force–a fact that conservatives understand at some level, because of their suspicion of federal law enforcement. By making this a partisan issue and showing lock-step support for the police in Fergueson, conservatives are hurting themselves as well. Conservatives and liberals should be able to stand together on issues of common interest, and a police state is, in principle, something that neither one of them is interested in.

Tag Cloud

%d bloggers like this: