Police need to be policed
The proverbial question “who will police the police” has been answered. Apparently, not our local officials. Not the chief of police, not the mayor and not the county prosecuting attorney. Federal officials had to intervene to prosecute and convict a policeman who instead of verbally confronting Otto Zehm, a “suspect,” began immediately assaulting him by beating and shocking him, after which he was hog-tied, had a mask placed over his face without the oxygen supply that was supposed to be provided, and he later died. What a shame!
It is difficult to police people in a free society. They don’t want to be policed, as everyone knows by looking at those who still drive while talking on the phone and texting even though it is unlawful. However, no one can be allowed to be above the law or we will not have a free society. It is unfortunate that the Karl Thompson verdict will adversely affect all police officers, even those dedicated to truly protecting and serving us. We must demand that the police change by providing not “better training” but “different training.” Policing can be, of course, a dangerous job and, if a person does not want to undertake the risk that situations s/he confronts might result in harm, he or she should look elsewhere for employment. A professional football player could not get away with asking for a guarantee that no one hurt him in a game.
The change in the way the police dealt with the public began when police training adopted an “us” against “them” mentality. Having that mentality caused the police to believe they were the “us” and we all were “them.” Therefore, they thought there was no need to ask anyone to explain themselves and give them a chance to respond before taking action to “control” them and the situation. It led to the SWAT teams with their masks so we could not identify them, and their armored vehicles to show their power. The police and some other members of the public have become convinced that everything is a “war,” and that by attacking it in a military way the enemy can be defeated. Sometimes, however, the “enemy” is you or me when, for example, innocent behavior is misapprehended by the police and leads to a tragic situation. Why, for example, does someone confronted by an officer who has his weapon drawn have to get down on the ground when that person is trying to determine why the officer is on his property?
As an example of the military effect on our police, one only has to consider the justification for a “pre-emptive strike,” a military term, in order to control someone who the officer has decided will assault him or her. If you were in a heated argument with someone at a gathering and noticed their face getting red, their neck veins starting to bulge, could you “pre-emptively” strike them and have the police not arrest you for assault? I think not. It should not be any different for the police. They should have to meet the elements of self-defense in the same way you have to satisfy them. The law has to apply to everyone equally or the consequence is lawlessness.
We always hear the term “closure” used to cause us to believe that the matter is now over and we should “move on.” Until the police train themselves differently to do a better of job of confronting “suspects,” in order to differentiate between situations so they respond to them appropriately, we should not and cannot have closure, and we should not, and cannot, move on. We must demand that elected officials who have protected Karl Thompson and covered up for him, and those others involved in the cover-up and lying, be immediately terminated and a thorough investigation conducted to determine if any of them should be subject to prosecution.