Saturday, July 7, 2012

Relations With the Police

One complaint that observers have about liberty activism is that it is antagonistic toward the police. This is somewhat disturbing to me. First, because it's not true; and second, because as a Christians I'm expected to reject hate (Eph. 4:31).

The reality is that the liberty mindset is not about rejecting (and therefore, hating and antagonizing) the police; it's about rejecting intrusive government. The police force is merely the most visible face of intrusive government. This is regrettable, but it's also an undeniable fact.

Before I get into a deeper explanation of why liberty activism really isn't about hating or badmouthing cops, I'd like to take a look at some of the ways outside observers have reacted to attempts at holding the police accountable. Here is Glenn Beck going on a six-minute rant against what he calls a "police setup." If you don't want to listen to Glenn Beck going on a six-minute rant (and really, who does?), here's the TLDR version: In response to what some local blacks in Indianapolis considered a racially-motivated incident involving a cop and a mixed-race youth, a group contrives an altercation to see how the police react. It doesn't go well. Beck uses this as an excuse to launch a tirade against all people who would attempt to hold police accountable as cop-hating leftists. Thanks, Glenn Beck. If I ever feel like I'm running low on ignorance, all I need to do is look for some clips of you on Youtube.

Here is the late, great Paul Harvey praising the police, bringing out the old canard that a few bad apples don't spoil the bunch. While Paul raises legitimate points about the difficulties faced by police, he completely ignores the facts about why our police get put into such difficult situations in the first place. Mr. Harvey neglects to mention how it's our country's utterly ridiculous drug laws that put police in the line of fire between gangs fighting turf wars; or that municipalities' dependence on revenue from speeding and traffic tickets pit the police against motorists; or how using heavy-handed police tactics in the enforcement of matters that should easily be settled with a fine or a ticket, or better yet, be ignored entirely (see here) tends to put the police in a bad light.

But never mind all that. As I said at the beginning of this article, seeking liberty is not about hating the police. Let's look at some ways in which advocating for liberty tends to put our movement in opposition to the police.

1. Advocating against bad laws (and enforcement of bad laws) is not an act of hate. Look, I understand that cops are just "doing their jobs." All of us are required by our jobs to do things that we don't like. But when I view a law as bad, I view the enforcement of that law as bad. It's a fact of life. The fact is, I support the police in their enforcement of laws in which someone is victimized, and I feel quite strongly that there would be fewer victims (and fewer opportunities for police themselves to be victimized) if police weren't required to spend so much of their time policing for victimless crimes.

2. Advocating for Constitutional rights is not an act of hate. Whether they're doing it on their own, or by department policy, police across the country routinely violating Americans' Fourth Amendment rights. Stop-and-Frisk stopsDUI checkpoints, and random stops by VIPER Teams on Tennessee highways are all acts of government intrusion into our lives at the expense of the Constitution. I call for an end to all such tactics. This is not about the police themselves conducting these checkpoints; it's about the government allowing or requiring these intrusions in the first place.

3. Advocating for police accountability is not an act of hate. Consider for a moment the case of a Harlem couple branded "professional agitators" and placed on a Wanted poster. Their crime? Filming the police conducting stop-and-frisk stops. Some within the NYPD seem to have concluded that these people are deliberately antagonizing the cops; and maybe so - I have no claim to know their personal motives. But I strongly advocate for filming the police; not because I think every cop is going to do something bad if they're not being filmed. Rather, I fear that those cops who do act badly won't be held accountable by their own departments (based on a police culture that looks after its own). In this case, the internet and the court of public opinion are there to advocate as a voice for accountability.

4. Attempting to prevent acts of state-sponsored extortion is not an act of hate. Attempting to warn other motorists of upcoming speed traps is a First-Amendment right, as long as those who would warn are not impeding traffic or otherwise being a nuisance. It's not about hating the police; it's about rejecting state-sponsored attempts at extorting money from motorists.

5. Educating citizens about how to protect themselves from police harassment is not an act of hate. As a member of the liberty community, I support (and practice) the tactics taught by those at Flex Your Rights. It's not because I hate the cops, or feel that they're out to get everyone, or whatever. It's because citizens who don't know their rights tend to talk themselves into even more trouble than they would be in if they kept their mouths shut. It's because, as the Miranda Warning makes abundantly clear, anything you say can and will be used against you. It's because, most importantly of all, the Constitution, at least on paper, protects you from government tyranny in law enforcement, but if and only if you know your rights and invoke them.

As a Christian, I believe that all people deserve to be treated with respect and courtesy, whether they wear a badge or not. This means, among other things, that I'm not an advocate for violence (verbal or otherwise) against cops; I reject calling them "pigs," or initiating violence against them, or whatever. But in light of Luke 10:27, I also call for government to stay out of my life. If this means that I'm called to point out and decry police abuses, or to participate in activism that may make the police look bad, or to participate in activism they may result in fewer police powers (or fewer police, period), then so be it. It's not about the men and women in uniform themselves; it's about the presence of the uniform where it's neither wanted nor needed.

No comments:

Post a Comment