Quoted from a facebook post:
My exposure to the police and crime has been limited. Personally I have not been written a citation for anything, been arrested or anything of the sort. Nor do I know police officers personally or have been in their line of work. All I know (and this is from a bystander perspective) is that the branches of law takes a lot of heat for many of the misconducts in society. The beating of Rodney King is perhaps the most infamous police incident of the 90s. There have also been countless stories of wrongful deaths, corrupt officials, evidence tampering, etc. that put them in a negative light. Nevertheless, there are still prominent issues.
-Validity of police presence: During my last couple of years in school, there were isolated incidents in other schools that garnered national attention. Two of them that come to mind were Columbine and Virginia Tech. I also can't remember the last time i went Black Friday shopping without policemen stationed in front of the stores. With the presence of law enforcement, peoples' mindsets change: if there is none, people may feel safe because there isn't a perceived need for them; if there is law enforcement, people may feel insecure because they are here. However, the reverse can be true, depending upon whether or not people put their trust in the police.
-Validity of lethality: Guns kill people, people kill people: we've all heard that statement or something similar to that effect before. I'm not sure which is true or perhaps more correct. However, I know that in weaponized warfare, the most lethal or most covert weapon usually wins by doing the most damage. Fists will do less damage than a handgun. If the element of lethality is taken away, there is less of a chance overall that someone will die. Of course, that always raises the possibility that a criminal may have a weapon too. That would be the reason police have guns, as preventative measures. However how often and how close to the line must it be before they are used, and even more so, where is the middle ground between handgun and hands?
-Individual control: When it boils down, police officers are people and as people are subject to the same weaknesses and challenges everyone else faces. Added to their list of stresses is an unstable environment, the need for a vigilant eye, danger, tedium, fatigue, and health issues. Everyone can cave and blow up given the wrong situation or a loss of control. That doesn't mean that removing weapons for police officers is a safeguard or a necessity for that matter. What I'm saying is that a certain level of intelligence, mental perseverance and vigor is expected for someone in such a position. Maintaining it consistently however is a different matter.
-Assessment of situation: Relating to the matter of individual control is being able to accurately assess a situation for the purposes of maintaining the peace. Taking appropriate measures in the face of adversity is a challenge in all professions, and even more so in ones where lives are at stake. There have been a plethora of stories in the past where a crowd or officers use excessive force, resulting in injury or death. In many of these cases, the determining factor is instinct. A rigid following of police procedures and regulations works well when situations are standard. However, what happens when they are not? How effective is the officer in question in dealing with a curve ball?
-What is a gun? : Without going too much into a philosophical diatribe, a gun is a weapon and a tool. Its prime usage is to harm individuals or to be used as a self-defense mechanism. It makes no independent judgment, and does not exert morals. Only the one who uses it conveys its purpose. Again, the abuse of guns by individuals... the stories are numerous, but those have been case situations.
Overall, I am not sure how to proceed. I recognize the fact that safety is an important priority. Oftentimes we raise it upon a pedestal to the point where paradoxically we will cause violence to secure peace. There is a scene from Iron Man, where Tony Stark tests out the Jericho Missile. The moral in that showing is that in an excessive use of force, further bloodshed can be prevented. Being able to threaten someone is often as good, if not more effective in safeguarding people. However, In the very end, it is up to the individual wielding the gun to recognize whether or not he or she should carry a sidearm with them. It takes the recognition of a clear mind, being able to asses the problems correctly and accurately, responding appropriately and while being a golem in the face of negative stimuli. How many of our law enforcement individuals fall into this category? Some, but not all.
Perhaps the greater goal we should strive for is changing the hearts and minds of those who'd want to oppress other human beings, curing the disease instead of allaying the symptoms.
No comments:
Post a Comment