86
7 votes
Jun 1, 2015

There will always be good cops and bad cops as long as human nature takes a part in law enforcement. Obviously we trust the good ones and not the bad. I think therefore that certain precautions are necessary to prevent the bad ones from exploiting their power. There have been significant advances in technology that have helped us, such as video cameras and smartphones but there is one factor that I feel is even more important. That is the right to own guns.

The second amendment was intended to protect us from an abusive government and I think that the interactions between citizens and police are the frontlines of this whole concept. Cops are less likely to harass any random stranger if there is a chance that they are carrying a gun. The mere fact that guns are fairly prevalent in society keeps cops on their toes when it comes to enforcing the law, and thus helps to hinder abuse.

The police have a difficult job of being REQUIRED to enforce the law, even when they themselves don't want to. This can put some unwanted negativity in their direction which generates some fear of the 'long arm of the law'. We need a country where the police are not afraid to enforce the law but should be afraid of stepping outside of its bounds. Increased monitoring of the police with modern technology can help us in many areas of the country but the strongest universal response is the right to bear arms.

Reply to this opinion
subscribe
::unhide-discussion::
100
main reply
3 votes,
Jun 1, 2015

A minor correction before I comment:

> The police have a difficult job of being REQUIRED to enforce the law, even when they themselves don't want to.

It is a common misconception that the police have a legal duty to enforce the law. Their only obligations are to their superiors. Obviously, not enforcing any laws is a quick way to get fired. But there is no more legal repercussion for an officer to not come to a persons aid than there is a private person.

Now, to answer your question. I once worked in a prosecutor's office, and dealt with police daily. I also have family members who are officers. I believe that people overestimate the extent to which the police are corrupt- but there is undeniably corruption. I ran into some bad apples, so I know they are there, in a great minority.

However, I don't trust the police. The reason? Well, I don't generally break laws. Therefore, good cops leave me alone; or, if a good cop doesn't, I know I goofed. Therefore, when I see a cop that I think is going to engage me (on the road, on the street, whatever,) I immediately suspect they are on a fishing expedition.

Did you ever wonder why you never hear about good, law-abiding people being pulled over by nice, professional cops, everybody realizing it was a big misunderstanding, and going about their day? Apart from the fact that it wouldn't spread like bad news does, it simply doesn't happen. Good cops leave good people alone. When good people have encounters with the police, the police are up to something. Padding numbers, gunning for a promotion, trying to get some time and a half in court, whatever. I don't care why. It sucks.

So here I am with the messed up belief that 95% of cops are the good guys, and we owe them a debt of gratitude, and I want absolutely nothing to do with them.

subscribe
::unhide-discussion::
0
0 votes,
Sep 15, 2016

Well that's an interesting way to put it. I never thought of it that way,

subscribe
::unhide-discussion::
0
User voted Yes.
0 votes,
Feb 5, 2016

Yes, cops can't be sued if they don't do their job because they had no duty to protect an individual person. But police departments get sued all the time.

subscribe
::unhide-discussion::
100
main reply
1 vote,
Jun 1, 2015

Interesting read. I never thought about this guns-cops relation, but it surely makes sense. Another good reason for the right to bear arms.

subscribe
::unhide-discussion::
100
User voted Yes.
1 vote,
Feb 5, 2016

It "makes sense" but there is no evidence for it. It could be just as likely that more arms make officers more likely to want to monitor people with guns and want to be better armed, as has very consistently happened, which leads to an arms race that the average person will not win. In fact, one could argue that the militarization of cops is a result of our gun culture! The fact that we have some of the most militarized police in the industrialized world and the most guns is a VERY strong indication of that.

Or perhaps the existence of armed citizens will tend to lead cops to either not want to go deal with a problem because the situation might escalate worse, so that they tend to not patrol certain highly armed areas, or may de-emphasize protecting areas that have high guns because they can take care of themselves. Which would, of course, lead to privatization of security and the class inequalities that result, which is one of the biggest problem with private gun ownership.

Gun rights advocates need to stop pretending these issues are a priori. They are not. They are empirical.

subscribe
::unhide-discussion::
100
main reply
1 vote,
Sep 15, 2016

That's an interesting way of putting it, but don't you also think that the lack of regulation could be the cause of some accidental shootings? Many cops/court workers I have known are paranoid people-- always eating with their backs to walls and watching their backs since they often make enemies.Granted, these people they are worried about are usually not allowed to buy guns legally, but there are many ways around it and so many unregistered firearms that the laws preventing them from owning a gun are practically useless. Knowing that Eric the Drugdealer, or Lucky the Tweaker is most likely packing heat is going to make me a little more reactive than if its very unlikely. I think stricter gun regulation on registered felons and a "war on illegal guns" would be the best in this scenario since it would reduce violent crime, which would probably reduce how worried cops are every time they step outside.

Besides, there's one of you and 20 more of them on standby. They have vests, high-caliber handguns, SMGs, tear gas, marksmen, better training than the average person, teamwork, etc. In a one-on-one quick-draw situation, an officer's gun will probably be out before yours is since their hand is probably on their gun if you're acting sketchy. Even if you DO outdraw them, you're going to jail, prison, or an early grave.

I believe the average, sane human being should have the right to carry a firearm to protect themselves if they deem it necessary, but lets not delude ourselves-- firearms are really only good at protecting us from other citizens. The whole "protecting ourselves from our government" clause was kind of thrown out the window with the advent of tanks and the .50 cal machine gun. Now all we have is Mutually Assured Destruction. If we're going down, they're going with us. It somewhat keeps things in check, but precariously. If the 2nd amendment wasn't there, who knows what would happen, but we have our guesses. (Nazi Germany, for instance.)

We need to find a way to get firearms away from those who should not have access to them.

subscribe
::unhide-discussion::
50
User voted No.
main reply
2 votes,
Jun 1, 2015

Hate to break this too you, but the police are NOT required to enforce the law. In fact the SCOTUS (Supreme Court of the United States) has ruled that the police are not required to enforce the law nor are they required to answered your call for help. The police can sit back and watch a person being raped, murdered, robbed, even if said person is screaming for the police.

You can go to youtube and see it for yourself, you can watch CNN, FOX, NBC etc and see that, during the LA riots the police drove by people who were clearly breaking the law. The police can and have sat back and watch crimes being committed, and in some cases even encourage said crime, with hope (if they are honest) of catching bigger fish, letting a drug dealer continue to deal even after they have evidence to arrest the person with the hope of finding users and other dealers. Or selling drugs themselves in hopes of catching users.

At one time I used to trust the police but no longer, I have told my son that if he's ever arrested the only two things he is to say is "I want a lawyer, and I'm invoking my right to remain silent." The second part is because the SCOTUS has ruled that in order remain silent, you must tell them you are going to remain silent.

subscribe
::unhide-discussion::
0
User voted Yes.
0 votes,
Feb 5, 2016

...Please cite your court cases. Even off-duty officers actually have substantial duties to stop crimes in progress.

Warren v. District of Columbia, for example, ruled that a police officer has no duty to provide services to specific individuals. Similarly, Castle Rock v. Gonzales and Deshaney v. Winnebago County limit liability and 14th Amendment obligations. This is a matter of LIABILITY for police, NOT a matter of what their job is to do. They can't be sued if they don't stop a drug dealer, but if they don't do their job, they can be fired or dealt with in other ways. And that doesn't count the special relationship and state-created danger exceptions.

Another rub is that there is no FEDERAL requirement, due to Erie Railroad Co. Vs. Tompkins, but states can sure as heck make a mandate for police to do something! This is a state's rights issue that is being misunderstood.

subscribe
::unhide-discussion::
0
User voted No.
0 votes,
Feb 5, 2016

Hartzler v. City of San Jose for one, I can find others if you wish, but you've already pointed out that the worst that can happen is they lose their job, and generally that doesn't happen as the union will step in to prevent it. While they may have a moral duty to enforce the law they have no legal duty to do so, so a call for help even if it's within sight of the officer can go unanswered and the police can sit by and do nothing.

Ask yourself if the police who drove by while businesses were being looted, faced any repercussions for their non-action.

subscribe
::unhide-discussion::
0
User voted Yes.
0 votes,
Feb 5, 2016

Ask yourself what the alternative would be. If a police officer who chose to serve the community could be sued if he didn't hear someone being abused in a private apartment, who would serve?

If we want the police to be more responsive, which I agree they should be, we need to stop having a country with so many trial lawyers.

subscribe
::unhide-discussion::
0
User voted No.
0 votes,
Feb 5, 2016

There is a difference between a call for help 911, or the police driving by a crime clearly in progress, and someone screaming from a private apartment. In the case of 911 you know for sure there was a call for help, in the case of a crime committed in public in the line of sight of the police, they could see the crime in progress, but as the law is written now they don't have to answer those calls for help.

The big argument from the anti-gun people is that you can just call the police, but if they no legal duty to help you, what good does that do?

And too many trial lawyers? I'm betting if you were arrested one of first things you'd ask for is a trial lawyer.

subscribe
load further replies (2)
::unhide-discussion::
0
User voted Yes.
main reply
0 votes,
Feb 5, 2016

If I am a police officer who knows that I have the entire police department behind me, and have access to bulletproof vests and military-grade weapons if necessary, as well as the choice of when to be aggressive, I am going to be just fine harassing people. Cops harass gang members all the time who extremely well armed. I have never seen a single indicator that the degree of armament of the average citizen correlates well with reduced police corruption or reduced corruption of any kind. These ideas are just asserted with no evidence because of corporate needs (both to make money off of gun sales and to privatize and individualize security, which is what promoting individual gun ownership actually does).

Arming the average citizen is empirically just not a great deterrent to the authorities. But it does tend to increase the number of militias and the risk of regime instability. Remember: One man's heroic fight against corrupt police is another person's racist crusade by some psychopath. If you can't trust your government to at least some degree, then being armed is rarely a great solution, and if you can trust your government, then it becomes very scary to have other people walking around arms. Somalia is a great example where lots of people are armed who are not the cops.

And I'd like to see police be able to "step outside of [the] bounds" of the law... in the sense that I'd like them to do community outreach, positive work, etc. that shouldn't be mandated by legislative fiat but should be part of the organizational culture. If all you count on is for cops to do what some legislature or bureaucrat says, your cops are going to be terrible at their job.

subscribe
Challenge someone to answer this opinion:
Invite an OpiWiki user:
OR
Invite your friend via email:
OR
Share it: