I keep seeing headlines around the web detailing occurrences involving civilians trying to kill cops, and writers attributing these incidents to a “war on police.” Other articles pull statistics showing that assaults on cops as well as gun-related police deaths have risen over the past year.
All these headlines started after Ferguson happened, and Eric Garner only fanned the flames.
What I don’t get is that the “conservative” media had largely been silent for years about stories involving brute cops killing unarmed and innocent civilians. In the few cases where commentators would react to such stories, they’d say something along these lines:
“Look, these guys put their lives on the line for us. We should give them a little leeway.” Or:
“Yeah, he may have been a little heavy-handed, but police work isn’t pretty. It’s a dirty, thankless job.”
“The fact that people are bringing up this case just shows how much they hate all cops on account of a few bad apples.”
Regarding incidents where police SWAT teams would raid the wrong house and kill innocent residents, people would find a way to justify their actions as well:
“It’s unfortunate that this resident had to die, but police work is difficult. Mistakes happen. And one thing is for sure. If you don’t want to die, then maybe you shouldn’t point your gun at a cop just because he’s breaking into your house in the middle of the night. I mean, if a SWAT team breaks down your door, they’re obviously doing it for a really good reason. You shouldn’t point your gun at the people who work day and night to protect you.”
Over the past year or so, here are only a few headlines detailing some of the very few “bad apple” cops out there:
Okay, so those headlines were from the past few months. A year’s worth would have taken up way too much room. But, you get the point.
Are we really supposed to believe that there’s a “war on police” on account of a “few bad apples,” namely blacks protesting recent non-indictments? After all, that’s what people say when cops are criticized for using their badges to break the law. The same law that they swore to uphold and which they claim to enforce on all civilians. They say, “You can’t criticize the police’s actions just because there are a few bad apples.”
Just compare percentages. Of all the civilians in the U.S., what percentage have unlawfully used force against a cop – and yes, it’s possible to lawfully use force against a cop (no-knock, middle-of-the-night raids where police break in unannounced come to mind)? Likewise, out of all the 500,000 or so cops in the U.S., what percentage would be considered “bad apples?”
I would say as a percentage of each group, there probably isn’t much difference. (I would actually say that the “bad apple” percentage is far greater in the police force than the civilian population, but I’m willing to give them the benefit of the doubt for the sake of argument.) Which means that if we’re not allowed to criticize the police on account of a few bad apples, then we can’t claim there’s a national anti-cop movement or a “war on police” on account of a few bad apple civilians either.
People will accuse me of being on the side of the Ferguson protesters and the cop-killers. I don’t take their side at all. If all they’re doing is protesting, then fine. But if there’s a case of murder, it doesn’t matter what color the skin is of the person who committed the murder, and it doesn’t matter whether the victim was a cop or a civilian. That murderer should be executed. If the cop or civilian being attacked is able to “neutralize” the murderous attacker, then that would be self-defense.
The whole racial element here that protesters claim to be so angry about is a total distraction. Do you see what’s happening here, all because the media choose to nationalize certain stories and completely ignore all the others?
I think there are many cases of excessive force and wrongful death committed by police in this country (that go largely unnoticed), and those numbers are only growing. The case in Ferguson was one of the worst cases to use as a springboard to “raise awareness” of systemic racism and excessive force in law enforcement. The media fixate on a case like Ferguson to “prove” that all white cops are racist and want to kill all black civilians, when there are countless (and largely unnoticed) cases of cops of all colors violating the Constitutional rights of, using excessive force toward, or killing civilians of all colors. (Statistically, there are more whites killed by police than blacks.) The effect is that this becomes a “liberal” versus “conservative” issue and a black versus white issue, when it should be a right versus wrong issue.
Naturally, most blacks are going to side with Michael Brown and Eric Garner and are going to think (without giving it much thought) that all white cops need to be eliminated. And it just so happens that most blacks are liberal who vote Democrat. This is the media’s and the political establishment’s way of stirring up trouble and dividing people.
What’s the net effect? Now, any criticism at all of police, or highlighting a news story of one of those “very few” bad apple cops is seen as “liberal” and “anti-cop.”
It’s the same as saying that criticizing the President is “racist.” Or highlighting government corruption or political hypocrisy is “anti-government.”
There’s as much of a “war on police” by civilians as there is a “war on civilians” by police. Just as we’re able to raise awareness of political hypocrisy in both political parties in order to provide balance to the whitewashed stories in the mainstream media, we should be just as able to raise awareness of indiscriminate excessive police force without being labeled “cop-hater,” “cop-killer sympathizer” or “anti-cop” or being accused of fighting a “war on police.”