While I am rarely at a loss for words, I don’t know what to say about the recent rash of murders of police. How can I adequately express my anger, frustration and fear? I think of economist (and New York Times contributor) Thomas Friedman, who more than a decade ago warned of the dire necessity of enacting reasonable gun control laws to combat our insane epidemic of firearm murders. As protesters chanted back in the sixties and seventies, “the world is watching.”
I go online and am greeted by commenters from many nations shaking their heads about the violence that is coming to define the United States. If you’re not murdered by a family member or in a home invasion or carjacking or mugging, you may be the victim of a drive-by shooting or you may be shot dead just for being in the wrong place at the wrong time. My wife likes to watch “The First 48,” a homicide investigation television show, in the background while she is working. I try to drown out the sound with music over headphones, but the images of death and devastation on the screen are difficult to ignore. It’s a stark reminder of what I’d like to wish away because it’s just too horrible and heartbreaking to bear. John Williams’ soaring orchestrations only go so far. Eventually, one must return to reality.
I hold little hope that either of the major presidential candidates will achieve improvements in this area. Clinton is, despite her rhetoric, mired in the status quo. She will get nowhere fast with the Republicans in Congress, particularly considering the apparent effectiveness of the Tea Party and other right wingers. As for Trump, well, he brags about having a concealed carry permit. Money is the only thing he loves more than the Second Amendment. So, looks like we’re plumb out of luck.
Wow, this is sure turning out to be a depressing post.
To return to my subject of the murder of police, at face value it seems like a blatant disregard for authority, laced with a liberal dose of anger and blind lashing out. Clearly, such conduct cannot be tolerated in a nation of laws. The question, however, is how to prevent this disaster from occurring time and time again.
Some focus on swift and severe punishment, both to ensure that the offenders are unable to repeat their violent acts and to assuage justifiable public outrage. Donning my sociologist’s hat for a moment, I happen to believe that attacking law enforcement is a symptom of Émile Durkheim’s anomie, a moral vacuum that perverts the social contract and may even encourage anarchy. I have to assume that murderers take no regard of the effect their actions will have on the families (their own and those of their victims), never mind on the rest of us. I still haven’t gotten over the murder of two of our local sheriff’s deputies by a married couple back in October, 2014. Time is supposed to heal all wounds. Life goes on, right? (Not for their families, I am sure.) But then it happens again and again and again. Let’s rip open that wound, shall we?
Back in law school, decades ago, my fellow criminal law students would frequently have the “bad or mad” debate. My view is on the “mad” side. Not “mad” as in “angry” (although that is certainly in play these days as well), but in the British sense of “mad” as “crazy.” I believe that those who do not care about the effects of their actions on others, and on society as a whole, are suffering from some form of mental illness. Case in point: The cop killer in Dallas was taken out by police after they got nowhere in negotiating his surrender. Police say the murderer was laughing and singing. You can’t tell me this guy wasn’t crazy.
Nevertheless, more than a few of my contacts in the legal profession believe that I myself am “mad” to think this way. I am told that those who have the ability to abide by the law, but choose not to do so, are willful, disobedient “bad” children who need to be taken out behind the woodshed (or incarcerated for life because no one took them out behind the woodshed when they were young).
I find it interesting that, nowadays, this debate seems to have subsided. That’s because it doesn’t really matter anymore. In the case of the murder of police (as well as for multiple murders of civilians), it has largely become a nonissue because the offenders generally kill themselves or are killed by police at the scene. The issue now is how to protect those who are sworn to protect us.
There is an argument that the most dangerous person is he who believes he has nothing to lose. Those who do not value their own lives cannot reasonably be expected to value the lives of others. Unfortunately, our officers of the law often become targets because, in the demented minds of criminals, they serve as a reminder of their own shortcomings and stand as a symbol of every disappointment they have ever suffered and, indeed, of everything that is wrong with their lives. They may well be willing to go out in a blaze of “glory.” Too often, their only concern is how many they can take out with them.
Some say that we have now reached the lowest common denominator, that now that police are constantly in danger, there will be an increased appreciation of the fear that the rest of us have experienced for so long. I cannot believe that it has come to this. In my line own line of work, we are always fretting over who will train the trainers. Well, who will protect the protectors?
It is my hope that the devastating events of the past few months will fuel a robust return of the gun control debate and will spur Congress to enact some sane laws on the subject. The recent Democrat-led sit-in demonstration by members of Congress (“no bill, no break”), minimized by many as an ill-advised publicity stunt, is a step in the right direction. While more symbolic than anything else, it shows that at least some in Congress are as frustrated as the rest of us and believe it’s high time that we found a way to stop the madness.
Yes, blue lives do matter. We need a diplomat to engineer a cease fire right here in our own country. We need an expert in détente, a brilliant negotiator to encourage all parties to put away their guns. The public must stop killing police and police must stop killing members of the public. As the clergy will be quick to point out, the only answer is love. If we cannot love one another, then I fear that all is lost.
News stories tell me that there has been an uptick in firearm purchases recently. I fear for the utter breakdown of society that could develop in a world in which everyone feels the need to carry a gun for protection and the final arbiter of any slight, however minor, will be who is quicker on the draw.
Please, Congress. I don’t want to reside in the OK Corral. And I know you don’t, either.