• Gun Buyer Background Checks and Gun Registration Are Not the Same–Not At All!

    Police and libertarian issues

    With the increase in news reports, I’ve been writing a lot about gun issues, lately. When I write about firearms/gun rights it’s under two headings: one, as a police issue. The cops will not be there to protect you. If you are ever in a position to need a gun, you will have seconds to act while the cops won’t be there for minutes. This is also a libertarian issue. Put succinctly, the Second Amendment.

    Does Bill O’Reilly support gun registration?

    Last night on FOX News’, The O’Reilly Factor, I heard Bill say people should use “common sense” when it comes to “gun registration” while he was delivering “Talking Points” about background checks. He mentioned people drive and have to register their cars, as if cars and guns are similar. Americans aren’t under the threat of liberals wishing to confiscate their cars (well, maybe SUVs).

    Registration and background check are not the same thing

    I hope Bill isn’t conflating firearms purchaser background checks with gun registration—they are very different issues. I hope he understands that, if gun dealer checks my background, I check out okay, and then I purchase my firearm, that should be the end of the transaction. That weapon then belongs to me to do with, legally, what I will. If that means giving the gun as a gift to a family member or friend, that is my business as a law-abiding American.

    Gun registration provides government the tools for confiscation

    However, if I am made to register my gun, to let the government know what guns I have, how many I have, and where I live, in the unlikely (but, still far too likely for comfort, these days) event that our government descends into further liberal lunacy, this would allow the government to have everything it needs to try to take my guns or to prosecute me if I no longer have them.

    A guard against government tyranny

    Our Founding Fathers included the Second Amendment to guard against government tyranny. If this is the case, and we know it is, who could think that registering guns with the very government guns are kept to defend against makes any sense?

     

     

  • Obama’s Second Amendment Steam-Roller Continues

    Every morning, it seems I awake to more rights violated

    There exists a great deal of angst regarding President Obama’s latest attempt to circumvent Congress. I’m among those. It’s not as if the executive order will be all that far-ranging, but it’s yet another step that affects law-abiding gun owners and not criminals. I’m tired of getting up every morning wondering what other of my rights this progressive government is trampling. Still, some of the “gun violence” measures the President is “invoking” will need congressional approval, as they require funding, in order to take effect.

    Strong support for background checks

    The increased background checks portion is an interesting one. On its face, of course, background checks are important when done within reason. Anti-gun pundits and some pro-gun folks, for that matter, have been citing strong support in the polls for background checks.

    Trends shift with more information

    But, here’s the interesting part: More often than not, after Americans become familiar with the nuances of such a law, policy, or, in this case, executive order, the trend in favor tends to shift toward the other side of the argument.

    Background check before transferring gun to close family member

    For example, once people find out that the background check mandate could apply to a father giving a gun as a birthday gift to his son—with an additional sixty or more dollars plus the time involved, people begin to see how onerous—and useless—such regulations can be. Criminals won’t comply, only the law-abiding will.

    Professor Nicholas Johnson writes it like it is in the WSJ

    Today in the Wall Street Journal, Nicholas Johnson, a law professor at Fordham University, puts the situation into perspective in his column, “A Glittery Gun-Control Distraction.” Essentially, with his executive order, President Obama is expanding the definition of “gun dealer.” Now, a person who sells a few as one gun could be mandated to obtain a federal license (government permission) or wind up in federal prison.

    This has been shown a failure in the past

    Johnson explains this was the original result of progressive gun legislation back in the 1960s–to license more gun-selling Americans. Initially, the progressives praised it as a success. However, in the end, the law was a failure (ineffective for the purpose intended) because, the progressives posited, it resulted in “too many” FFLs issued in America. In the 1990s, under President Clinton, the policy was reversed and FFLs fell by 79% between 1994 and 2007. Humorously, the progressives, now, saw this reversal as a success. What’s that definition of insanity, again?

    Moving furniture…

    Now, here goes President Obama, as Johnson writes, “…moving the furniture around again.” This is a perfect demonstration of the “do-something” disease meant to politically placate the easily placated. People on the left who just want to hear pretty words designed to pacify but that will accomplish nothing in reality except to burden honest American gun owners.

    Finally, the President shows emotion

    The President, now, famously, came to tears over this issue. I won’t question his sincerity. A madman shooting little schoolchildren should make all of us shudder to our cores. However, when I think of his emotionless speeches regarding so many other issues, also highly emotional for Americans, such as about people whose lives have been snatched away by Islamist terrorists, by the most brutal methods imaginable, it just leaves me baffled.

     

     

     

  • A Chief of Police or a Chief of Mayor?

    Does a chasm exists between cops and their chiefs?

    Could a problem in policing today be the gaping chasm that seems to exist between many American police chiefs and their rank and file cops. The position is known as Chief of Police. However, it seems a mayor appointing a person to the office, instead, expects him or her to be the Chief of Mayor. Sheriffs, who are directly elected, may have similar problems depending on the politics of the electorate, but at least they run their own departments.

     

    Alchemy in achievement.

    Police chiefs rise through the ranks either within their departments or are appointed by mayors of other departments to serve as their top cop. These chiefs are usually good people, but many are also, evidently, politically malleable (i.e., the ladder seems to lean to the left as they climb it). Could the philosophical and political separation between cops and their chief come from the alchemy that occurs within some people who rise through the ranks? Sadly, many succumb to the adage: go along to get along. There may be a necessary professional distance that exists between employees and their bosses, generally. However, law enforcement, being a risk-laden, paramilitary organization, poses additional considerations, and trust and loyalty in both directions is crucial.

     

    Conservative cops vs. Liberal leaders.

    It’s no secret that the vast majority of street cops tend to be politically conservative. It is also no mystery that the people running cities such as Seattle are liberal, have oodles of leftist-sanctioned diversity, but scant political diversity. So, what happens when it’s time for the liberal city leadership to choose a chief of police to “lead” its police officers?

     

    The selection process.

    We cops used to parody Seattle’s police chief selection process. We could imagine the mayor meeting the police chief candidates at SeaTac Airport and requesting the candidate hand over his or her ______ (balls for men and, for women, the female equivalent) before then being pre-qualified to be invited to city hall for the formal interview. The city employs a ruse that the rank and file has a “vote” because the Police Officers Guild interviews the candidates and makes recommendations. However, in reality, the guild leadership essentially has to choose among candidates who range from politically left to, far left to, have left the building.

     

    Chief of the cops?

    There hasn’t been Chief of “Police” in Seattle for a long time—probably since Patrick Fitzsimons (the chief who hired me). Coming from the NYPD, many officers may have had legitimate issues with Chief Fitzsimons, but there was no doubt he was the Chief. I often saw Fitzsimons visit the precinct–and pound his knuckles on officer’s chests to make sure they were wearing their ballistic vests. To the contrary, even if I were missing three fingers, I could count on one hand how many times I saw Chiefs Stamper, Kerlikowske or Diaz in a precinct roll call during either of their tenures. How should patrol officers feel knowing they will never work for a chief they can trust—someone they could follow with confidence. The truth is, the mayor and city council will never appoint a chief who the rank and file approves of, because city leaders have never seemed very interested in the cops’ perspective (just shut up and be good little socialists, as a certain officer once put it).

     

    Chief of Police or Chief of Mayor?

    Does this mean the rank and file won’t give a new police chief the benefit of the doubt? Of course not. We gave it to Chief Norm Stamper, R. Gil Kerlikowske, John Diaz (in whom we had the most hope, because he came from us) and most recently, to Kathleen O’Toole. Still, while all of these chiefs, from a patrol officer’s perspective, made good and bad moves, officers were mostly disappointed after these chiefs seem to have been (or are a) puppet(s) of the municipal handlers, more concerned with following political protocols than with truly leading police officers. While a chief, ostensibly, has authority over his or her officers, should we have to wonder who actually runs the police department in Seattle? Shouldn’t it be an apolitical (as much as possible) chief of police? If Seattle weren’t lead by its liberal elite, its police department might not have become the petri dish for liberal, social justice experimentation that it is today. And it would have a Chief of Police, not a Chief of Mayor.

  • Teach Victimhood, gets Victims; Teach Responsibility, get…

    What’s going on today on America’s college campuses? Students are shouting (I’m talking, screaming invective-laden screeds that would make a banshee blush) down professors who dare to express something other than radical, liberal orthodoxy. A professor—of media studies, no less—soliciting “muscle” to help her eject a reporter attempting to cover a race relations gathering on public property (she must have missed the free speech day in grad school). These liberal bastions (did you think I was going to use another word?) are now reaping what they have sown. It would be humorous, if it weren’t so sad. Check out the U.K. Daily Mail article.

    If our colleges and university professors teach young, impressionable students that they are victims of a fundamentally “bad” nation, students will look for what’s wrong with America, and then discover how best to express their victimhood. Hmmmm, who could have ever seen this coming?

    What would happen if, instead, professors taught students that they are not victims and encouraged them to take responsibility for their own success?

    Well, since teaching victimhood creates victims, perhaps, teaching responsibility might create responsible people. Hmmmm, just a thought.

  • Border Patrol Pauses to Reflect on Police Body Cameras

    Is it time to pause and reflect about police video?

    It appears the U.S. Border Patrol has provided American law enforcement legitimate cause to pause and reflect on the use of police video, particularly, body cameras. I mentioned in a previous blog that a barista berated a friend of mine, still an active duty cop, for daring to answer another barista’s question about police body cameras by telling her the truth regarding arguments for and against police body cameras. During the rude barista’s tirade, she said, “I’d rather be filmed naked than let you cops get away with what you do.” I don’t think we have to decipher her open-mindedness on the issue. What happens when officers enter an innocent residence in error or while chasing a suspect on foot? (Yes, this happens) What happens when those people are caught on camera in legal, but compromising, situations? That footage is still open to public disclosure. Would you also rather be filmed naked, and then viewed by strangers–perhaps, a lot of them?

    U.S. Customs and Border Patrol

    Despite the barista’s neurotic fears, and acknowledging the pros, there are also legitimate cons regarding law enforcement officers wearing body cameras. Recently, on www.PoliceOne.com, an Associated Press article written by Elliot Spagat reported that the U.S. Border Patrol and Customs and Border Protection is recommending against the use of body cameras (US border agency staff rejects body cameras). The reasons cited were refreshingly “old school,” as the reasons reflect the concerns of cops as human beings. And, I’m saying this despite numerous officers being exonerated of wrongdoing due to vehicle and body camera footage. Still, the objections are valid and should be considered.

    A distraction and morale suffers.

    According to the article, “The yearlong review cited cost and a host of other reasons to hold off, according to two people familiar with the findings who spoke on condition of anonymity because the findings have not been made public. It found operating cameras may distract agents while they’re performing their jobs, may hurt employee morale….” They also cited difficulties with the hot, dry weather conditions for agents stationed on the southwest border experience.

    Training

    The training many officers initially received on dash cam videos demonstrated that many officers concerns are valid. I remember attending in-car video training several years ago. One of the issues of concern instructors attempted to dispel immediately was that administrators and supervisors would proactively cull videos for use in disciplining or even retaliating against officers. Our instructor assured us videos would never be used in “fishing” expeditions against officers. Every officer in the class snickered with skepticism. Talk to any officer today, and you’ll find evidence that vindicates the skeptics.

    Video “fishing expeditions”

    Prior to the Department of Justice (DOJ) arriving in Seattle and presenting their bogus investigation findings, Office of Professional Accountability (OPA) investigations were relatively infrequent with some officers having gone without receiving a white envelope with a red stamp in their department mailboxes for years. I went nineteen years, all on the streets in patrol, without being a “suspect” officer in an investigation before the DOJ consent decree debacle. Following DOJ’s arrival I was investigated several times, mostly from internal, department initiated charges. Today, it is rare to find any officer who hasn’t been under investigation for some alleged violation. And video is often the weapon used to find these allegations.

    Now, even examples of police excellence are often questioned

    An example: Before I retired I was involved in what would normally be viewed as an exceptional example of great police work. Several units responded to a report of a knife-wielding suspect threatening a gas station owner. On arrival we determined that not only had the suspect threatened the store owner  with a knife, he’d also punched her. We arrested him, recovered a knife as well as items that indicated the suspect may have been posing as a police officer (though not during this incident).

    After receiving information from the primary investigating officer, we arrested the suspect. After the arrest, while waiting for the primary officer to gain additional information from the victims, one of the officers determined the suspect’s vehicle would be impounded, as it was blocking access to the gas pump island. Prior to a tow truck arriving to hook the car, officers routinely inspect the car’s interior and trunk to be sure there is nothing hazardous in the vehicle. In fact, policies and procedures at the time dictated officers do this. One officer did this.

    From my location, I could see a cardboard box, a piece of rope and maybe some other innocuous items within the trunk—essentially nothing of note. So innocuous, later, I barely recalled that portion of the incident. Subsequent to the inspection, the suspect’s sister arrived at the scene. The suspect requested his sister take possession of the car rather than it being impounded. The officer who’d inspected the trunk cancelled the tow truck and allowed the sister to take the car.

    Recap: We’d arrived in time to stop any further assault against the victim and arrested the armed suspect, confiscating a knife from him. Great police work, right? Commendations all around, right? Not post-DOJ. Resulting from this investigation, every officer present was investigated for alleged wrongdoing.

    The suspect–yeah, the guy who’d assaulted a poor business owner, punched her and threatened her with a knife–filed a complaint contending the officers had conducted an unlawful search of his car’s trunk. Due to the fact that the suspect’s sister was allowed to take the car—by officers at the scene, it was no longer an “impound” therefore investigators determined that the inspection of the trunk was illegal. OPA investigated we three officers for an “illegal” search. Despite only one officer having physically inspected the trunk, they also investigated the other two officers: the primary officer, who was inside the store interviewing the victim and witnesses, and me, standing by with the prisoner in the parking lot. Apparently, they investigated us simply for being on the property at the time the vehicle inspection occurred.

    The officer who inspected the trunk was sanctioned for conducting an “illegal” search, and the primary officer and I were eventually “cleared” but were referred to our supervisors for further “training.” Training in what? How to stand inside a store or in a parking lot while another officer peeks into the trunk of a car?

    Cameras

    This is where the camera issue comes back into play. In training, we were all taught some basic protocols. One was that sometimes the vehicle camera direction simply wouldn’t be pointed at where the “action” is occurring. After all, Steven Spielberg isn’t on scene directing this stuff. On arrival at an incident where a suspect has assaulted a victim and is armed with a knife, officers are not concerned with where their cameras are aimed, only their guns. Another protocol taught was if there is no audio to go with the video, there is no video. On arrival, my car happened to be pointed toward the west exterior wall of the store. The incident was taking place in the parking lot on the north side and the suspect’s car was at the west fueling island. When I arrived, I parked, jumped out of my car and ran to assist the other officer in taking the armed suspect into custody.

    Due to the parking lot configuration, the other officers’ vehicles were also facing directions not where the arrest was taking place (suspects and victims rarely stand still). In this instance, because the audio was not married to the video, officers were taught video was not required.

    Still, each one of us was investigated for not activating our video cameras during the incident. Having done great police work, protected a victim and arrested an armed suspect, my two fellow officers were officially sanctioned for not having their cameras activated during the incident. I only ducked the same fate because, during my transport of the prisoner to the precinct, I had activated my camera, videotaping the suspect in my backseat. Therefore, I actually had video of at least a portion of the incident recorded–a technicality. How I actually remembered to turn the camera on at all is a mystery to me. We were all still getting used to something very new to us.

    Let reason, not emotion,inform policy

    The Border Patrol’s findings give us a valid reason to pause and take a hard look at both the benefits and liabilities of these developing technologies and how best to deploy them without neglecting the humanity of those required to wear them. I wonder: would the politicians so interested in cops wearing body cameras be interested in wearing them too. After all, they are public servants.

     

  • Workers Need the Rich to Buy Limos, Yachts and Mansions

    Anti-capitalism seems all the rage. Malcontents in many cities throughout the world recently held demonstrations, including here in Seattle. Amusingly, in the Jet City, the police tasked with escorting the protesters outnumbered them, as they attempted to express their First Amendment “rights” by blocking Seattleites pursuits of happiness. For the left it was business as usual; it seems nothing is more important than what they believe.

    It’s nearly impossible to imagine what, besides time and experience, could get through those granite noggins. The fact—yes, fact—that free market capitalism has made the world a much better place than the one it found on its arrival in the arsenal of American Exceptionalism, is undeniable. However, it’s also no mystery that these perennial protesters deny the undeniable. Logic seems to play a small role, if any, in their thinking and actions.

    The anarchists, the socialists, the communists and the ignorant whine about the so-called “One Percent.” They ask derisively, how many jets, houses or yachts a rich person should have? I have two answers to that. One: as many as they want and can afford—it’s their money! Two: Hopefully, as many as possible. The second answer comes from all the aviation, marine and housing laborers who are responsible for putting food on their tables and keeping roofs over their heads.

    The white-collar one-percent don’t physically build the cars; their blue-collar employees do. For every limousine, private jet or mansion built, companies need skilled and unskilled laborers to build them. Try making a list tracking all the hands involved in the manufacture of these products. General contractors, subcontractors, and designers; mechanics, carpenters, and bricklayers; stone masons, electricians, and plumbers; painters, landscapers, and gardeners; pilots, drivers, captains and crews; architects, accountants, and insurance agents and on and on. And this is just off the top of my head and not nearly a complete list. It doesn’t include the myriad ancillary businesses supported by the dollars these companies spend on materials, hardware, and parts, not to mention what their laborers pour into the economy.

    No issue is as black and white as the social justice agitators would like to have us believe. Then again, critical thinking has never been one of the left’s strong suits.

     

  • Liberals Give Their Own–IRS–a Pass

    I’ve been thinking about Watergate. Why? Because Democrats give their own a pass no matter how egregious the offense. I wonder what today’s Dems would have thought if Nixon and company had gotten a pass on their corruption and crimes. Or, is it always worse if a Republican does it? What would the Dems have said about and thought of a government that would ignore wrongdoing and protect a high official simply because he or she was on “their” side?

    I think we all know what that would have looked like. They would have been incensed and outraged by such a travesty that would let someone get away with such offenses because of who they are or who they know. Isn’t that a significant part of what is supposed to make our country different from others. Are we a nation of laws or not? Shouldn’t Democrats be concerned about such corruption?

    Of course, they should, but they’re not–unless a Republican does it. It seems liberals are willing to overlook all sorts of corruption as long as their ideology advances. The ends justify the means. We have two preeminent cases (out of many other examples of corruption that have been overlooked—can you say fast and furious?), Benghazi and the IRS’s targeting of conservative groups. Anyone have any doubt whatsoever that had the secretary of state or head of the IRS been Republican in these cases that the media and Department of Justice would have been all over them like stink on… well, you know.

    What are those of us who hold justice in high esteem supposed to do with a government where, if you’re a high official and your timing is right, you can avoid liability and sanctions for policy and law violations just as long as those responsible for investigating you are also Democrats? And these Democrats constantly scream that the police do not enforce the law equitably.

    When this involves non-violent “white collar” violations, that’s bad enough. But the Benghazi catastrophe involved the horrible deaths of four human beings.

    Lois Lerner spat in Americans’ faces and has gotten away with her corruption. However, as repugnant as her violations were, they didn’t involve anyone’s death. Now we have to ask, will Hillary Clinton also get a similar pass on Benghazi and the email scandal?

    The scary thing is we know four Americans died. We know there were some six hundred requests for increased security at the embassy. We know the video cited by Clinton and others in the Obama administration well after they had known the truth did not cause the attack on Benghazi. How do we know? Secretary Clinton’s congressional hearing testimony confirmed it.

    We know the above items occurred for certain. To continue to support Clinton, you have to “accept” that these things happened and decide that it is somehow okay that she did them. Would these Democrats be okay with the government had it given Nixon a pass? Is it okay with them that Nixon’s supporters chose to overlook his corruption–his crimes? Again, I think we know the answer.   

  • Reasons for Poor Police-Community Relations

    As I see it, there are three primary reasons for the current anti-police sentiment felt across America. (Officers who actually commit crimes also contribute to this, but I feel that is another discussion–not to mention, obvious). Lately, this acrimony has been expressed by some restaurant employees refusing to serve police officers or writing disparaging messages on their coffee cups such as, “FTP” (F**k the Police).

    The first reason is simple: a combination of ignorance and antipathy. There are people who simply do not want to know the truth about police cases where officers are cleared of wrongdoing. They prefer to remain ignorant and angry. They do not like the police, they do not want to like the police, and they do not want anyone else to like the police.

    They buy into myths such as, “Hands Up Don’t Shoot,” which, according to former Attorney General Eric Holder, who had contributed to trying to paint the officer guilty, never happened. While some police critics may come around as they mature and gain life experience, as a group these people are simply cop-haters—enemies of the police.

    The second reason is when governments pass unnecessary and redundant laws, which are often politically motivated. Most of these types of laws do not address legitimate public safety issues. Whenever government passes a law that doesn’t protect Peter from Paul but protects Peter from his own decisions, a collision course between cops and ordinary citizens has been assured.

    The third reason is caused by police officers themselves. Many, perhaps even most, people can recall a negative contact with a police officer at some time in their lives. Just like most folks can cite a negative experience with an employee at the post office, a restaurant or movie theater. However, negative experiences with police officers tend to remain long after the contact than with other “service providers.” The petty tyrants among police officers can cause a lot of problems for people but also for their fellow cops.

    When dealing with people, I always tried to keep in mind that our interaction set them up for their next meeting with a police officer. If I were rude or unprofessional, people might expect that behavior from the next officer as well.

    I’m not saying that professionally acting officers ignore when people disrespect them. People should be treated in a manner befitting what their behavior has earned them. This third reason results from when officers are rude or unprofessional with people who are being cooperative. Think about it. Do you have a negative story about interacting with the police? I do—a couple of them.

    Of course, having been a cop for so long, I have many more positive contacts that mitigate the few petty tyrants. Unfortunately, the average citizen does not have this advantage. They might have one, two or a handful, at most, contacts with the police, and probably for something relatively minor. This can affect how they think about cops, generally.

    In these instances, the contact can have a significant impact on people’s views on law enforcement. Cops should not join the cop-haters and politicians by helping to create this negative environment. The first two groups do it out of ignorance, hate or for political gain. Let’s not add insult to injury by aiding our own destruction.

  • DOJ: Lets its Friends Drive Home Drunk.

    This morning I heard Dave Bose, on his KTTH AM 770 radio program, describe our present reality in America, in light of the U.S. Supreme Court’s Obamacare rewrite rescue, as having walked through the “Looking Glass.” How perfect! Living in Bizarro World, as I’ve put it, provides a similar context, but Alice’ looking glass lends the entire mess a poetic patina. Seems, somehow, to soften the blow—or blows—that keep coming, it appears, day-after-day.

    On the other side of the “reality” mirror, one of the warped elements we find is Obama’s DOJ and what substitutes for impartiality in America today. As we all know, the DOJ has refused, time after time, to prosecute people with whom it agrees while it has earned a reputation for zealously prosecuting political opponents.

    Having just retired from the police department last year, I have to ask: How is that any different from me, as a police officer letting someone “off” after catching him or her committing a felony because he or she is a conservative or libertarian . Or, letting someone drive home drunk, after giving them a break on a DUI, because he or she is on my side of the political aisle. Or, to the contrary, actively seeking to “catch” and cite or arrest someone because I disagree with him or her politically? I think I may have sprained my brain attempting to resolve the difference.

    The context may be different, but the socio-legal argument is the same—playing favorites—special treatment—inequity. This goes way beyond prosecutorial discretion. And I’m not talking about a cop letting a family member or friend slide for a simple infraction, for which some officers have been sanctioned to the delight of many on the left, but about serious transgressions such as Lois Lerner, allegedly, committed while heading the Exempt Organizations Unit at the IRS in actively targeting the current administration’s political opponents. In a free democratic republic such as ours, isn’t that among the most egregious crimes against not only the Americans targeted but against the entire idea of American liberty?

    Lately, I’ve been advising my friends who have concluded the American sky is falling, and we have no recourse, to put things in perspective. For example, it’s not as bad as the civil war era, which threatened to destroy the American experiment of a government of the people. Nevertheless, I understand, and commiserate with, their perspective. With a senate that initially ran on Harry Reid’s wormy rules changes to pass major, single-party legislation and now is run in large part by presidential edict, including altering laws at will and on whim, it’s getting much more difficult to shed a positive light on America’s present sociopolitical condition. Still, I am maintaining hope for our nation—at least until I wake up one day in November, 2016 and discover, to my abject horror, that our new president has a D next to her name.

  • So, You Think You Can Do Police Work Better Than a Cop?

    While every organization can improve, law enforcement agencies included, to essentially use it as an excuse to federalize local law enforcement is contrary to our federal system. What happens when the feds interfere is that society is no longer looking at what is right for law enforcement, generally, but rather what is right for, in this case, liberal Democrat ideology. There is a sage old adage that proffers: If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. Another adage also comes to mind: A society/community will get the police force it deserves.

    I’ll ask you, regarding the McKinney, Texas police officer at the out-of-control pool party (and, without assuming the officer’s actions were right or wrong): What would you have done in the officer’s place? Now, while your busy fabricating a solution while sitting in the safety of your computer, tablet or smart phone, keep this little tidbit in mind: assume the girl refuses to comply with any lawful command YOU give her. Often times, in people’s minds they substitute what actually happened to the cop with what they feel certainly would have happened if they were to handle the situation instead. Amazing how much goes right in your head. Often, people feel as though they would have the “magic” words that would have made the suspect/subject comply. Cops wish.

    This is why I asked you, while you’re building your own mental scenario, to assume she never complies. If you need this person to cooperate, after a demonstrable history of refusing to do so after many police commands, you are left with few options, none of them pretty. You can let her leave (although, I don’t know why she would, when she hasn’t up to now), which diminishes police authority and respectability. Her behavior has determined that physical force is the only practical and reasonable alternative left to the cops.

    Civilized society simply cannot allow her, or anyone, to interfere with law enforcement with impunity. People simply cannot pick and choose the police commands they will obey. Think about this for a moment. Cops don’t have time to debate or discuss police actions with everyone. Police officers are taught to be aware of their 360 (360 degrees around them) for potential attack. This is why a cop needs to get a situation under control as soon as possible. This reduces the chance of officer and citizen injury. Add this to your scenario. What is happening out of your field of view, behind your back? Are you willing to bet your wellbeing or life that there is no threat there? Many injured and dead officers have done just that… to their peril and tragedy. I’d be most interested in hearing any (reasonable, please) alternatives.